As UN Security Council Meets on Terrorism' Victims, Inner City Press Asks of Wisdom of Banning Coverage, "Twitter Imperialists"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 21 -- After a UN Security Council closed-door meeting about the victims of terrorism, Inner City Press asked two minister from Spain and victims' representatives from Spain and of Yazidis about media coverage of terrorism, specifically about threats to censor such coverage for example in Turkey.

  Pari Ibrahim of the Free Yezidi Foundation said that in fact media coverage was helpful in letting people know about the outrage or genocide that began on August 3, 2014.

   ETA victim Mari Mar Blanco praised the conviction under Spanish law of a person who tweets apologies for terrorism. But how is that defined?

    Spain's Interior Minister Jorge Fernández Díaz said the country's laws, directed at ETA, needed to be updated for Jihadists.

  Spain's Foreign Minister José Manuel García-Margallo said ISIS is challenging the Sykes Picot Line, is holding territory and using the West's tools to recruit. At least three of the four, maybe more, seems directed at getting Twitter, Facebook and YouTube to censor social media posts deemed helpful to ISIS. But how will that be defined? Are for some states, is that really the motive?  We'll have more on this.

   Pari Ibrahim of the Free Yezidi Foundation (pictured above) also spoke of a filing with the International Criminal Court, to go after ISIS members who are nationals of states who have joined the ICC. Spain's Margallo spoke of a second International Criminal Court, just for terrorists. But wouldn't that also require that states join, or a referral from the Security Council? We aim to have more on this too.
   

After Libya Bombing in Qubbah, Sanctions Threat Fails In UN Security Council, Leaving Only Generic Anti-Terror Press Statement

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 21, more here -- The UN, after ousting Tarek Mitri as envoy in favor of Bernardino Leon, has been promoting its good works in Geneva and in the country. 

 And so on February 20, after the bombing in al-Qubbah claimed by an ISIS affiliate, Leon's UNSMIL mission issued a condemnation.

 Things were not so simple, however, in the UN Security Council. The UK proposed a Press Statement which the members of the Security Council would have reaffirmed their readiness to consider sanctions under resolution 2174 (2014) against those who seek to impede this process and undermine Libya’s democratic transition.

 But this was NOT adopted. It seemed to treat the GNC in Tripoli as the Security Council recently treated or addressed the Houthis in Yemen.

 Instead, past 11 pm in New York, a generic statement of the that the Security Council uses against any terrorist attack was agreed to an issued. Most would simply report it. But there was something NOT adopted, that is significant.

Often except in cases where the drafter wants to complain of blocking such moves go unreported or even covered-up. This may happen in the ongoing process to replace Valerie Amos at OCHA; on Jan Kubis replacing Nickolay Mladenov for the UN in Iraq, Inner City Press exclusively reported it on February 18 and asked at the day's noon briefing; others echoed without credit days later. This is the UN.

Earlier on February 20 Inner City Press asked UK Permanent Representative Mark Lyall Grant of the US and it seems Russia opposing lifting the arms embargo. Lyall Grant replied diplomatically that it was all being negocatiated. But there are solid positions, aren't there?

  On February 18, speaking before the foreign ministers of Libya (Tobruk) and Egypt, Leon again cited his own work, see below.

 After the meeting at a stakeout by the foreign ministers of Libya and Egypt, Inner City Press asked if they wanted other countries' military help. Some video here.

 Egyptian Foreign Minister Shoukry replied that they want "solidarity," and "consistency" with the approach against ISIS taken in Iraq and Syria. (Those are two different approaches, of course.)

 The lifting of the arms embargo imposed on the Libyan government in 2011 is being proposed. Qatar may be against that - but what about Security Council member(s)? We'll have more on this.

In the meeting, Leon said: "given the sense of urgency, I have called for the next meeting of the political dialogue to finalize discussions initiated in Geneva on the formation of government of national unity and security arrangements to pave the way for a formal and comprehensive cessation of hostilities.”

  At the Security Council stakeout before the Jordan-requested meeting began, UK Ambassador Lyall Grant said the meeting would provide a chance to hear from Libya and Egypt; he said he hadn't yet seen the draft resolution. (Another non-Arab Permanent Representative said they HAD seen the draft.)

 After Leon, Libya's foreign minister said he is not requesting an international intervention, only wants Egypt's help.

 Egypt's Foreign Minister Shoukry, citing the killing of the US Ambassador in Benghazi, said that too little was done after the parliament was chased to Tobruk. He said he is counting on Jordan to distribute the draft resolution. Some of the Council say they have a different line of thinking. Watch this site.

At the UN Security Council's meeting on February 15 -- about Yemen -- nothing was said about ehte Egyptians in Libya. But hours later a Senior US State Department Official issued this:

"Secretary Kerry called Egyptian Foreign Minister Shoukry today in the aftermath of the horrific video showing the murder of twenty-one Egyptians. The Secretary offered his condolences on behalf of the American people and strongly condemned the despicable act of terror.  Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Shoukry agreed to keep in close touch as Egyptians deliberated on a response."

 Bernardino Leon, as Inner City Press exclusively reported, was installed as head of UNSMIL after then-head Tarek Mitri declined to make the UN mission a mere appendage of European / UK diplomacy. Is it working?

  UNSMIL's former deputy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed of Mauritania has been moved to head UNMEER, the UN's Ebola mission. Sources in Yemen say Ould Cheikh Ahmed was the UN's “designated security official” when a UNICEF staffer was taken hostage while traveling to the Sana'a airport without the required (and needed) security detail. Some say Ould Cheikh Ahmed was distracted, in Yemen and later in Libya, by side business interests. 

  But a check of Ban Ki-moon's Public Disclosure website, where his officials are supposed to make rudimentary disclosure of the finances and outside business interests, does not even list Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed (while numerous other Deputy SRSGs are listed). His is not in the most recent database, for 2013 - and may escape any disclosure by become an Under Secretary General with a mere nine month stint at UNMEER. Then what? We'll stay on this.

  When the UN Security Council met about Mali on January 6, it was Malian Foreign Minister Abdoulaye Diop, and not UN Peacekeeping official Herve Ladsous, who distributed his speech and came to take Press questions. (Ladsous has a policy against it, here and here.)

  Inner City Press asked Diop about the Mali talks in Algiers, and about the impact of Libya. On the latter, Diop said that “in 2012 the Mali crisis started when the war started in Libya and many Malian elements who were part of the Libyan army decided to come back home with the arms and ammunition. This started the destabilization of Mali.”

   Diop added, "In the southern part of Libya there is a group that has declared allegiance to the Islamic State.” (When asked to name the group he could not or would not.)

    A Greek ship near Derna was bombed -- Inner City Press on January 5 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric by whom; he said the UN does not know.  The Free UN Coalition for Access has asked UN Peacekeeping why the speeches of Ladsous, unlike other UN officials, are not made available.

 Back on November 4 when the UN Security Council met about Libya behind closed doors, the Press outside at the stakeout was repeatedly told that Leon would come and take questions at the stakeout.

 This is what the replaced Tarek Mitri did, each time he briefed the Security Council. With Leon being criticized inside Libya it would seem he'd have all the more reason to speak.

  But he did not. When he came out he barely broke stride -- Inner City Press took a photograph, blurred -- while saying the new Security Council Gary Quinlan of Australia would speak later. When Quinlan did, it was a bland "Press Elements."

  Still the scribes churned it. At 8:15 pm Agence France Presse bragged that it had "obtained" a French-drafted request to put Ansar al-Sharia, Benghazi and Derna, on the Al Qaeda sanctions list. 

"A copy of the French-led request to the Al-Qaeda sanctions committee was obtained by AFP." Wonder how...

   Reuters issued a breathless report with unnamed diplomats at 8:19 pm. Both have tried to get smaller investigative Press thrown out of the UN - see documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, here andhere - and this request by Reuters to censor one of its complaints to the UN from Google's Search.

  Back on August 27 amid airstrikes in Libya, when outgoing UN envoy Tarek Mitri briefed the UN Security Council, the airstrikes weren't even mentioned in his more than six page prepared text distributed by the UN.

  Inside the Council chamber, improvising but only a little bit, Mitri mentioned the strikes, but not who did them. Back on August 19 and once again since, Inner City Press asked the UN if it knew anything about who was behind them:

Inner City Press: Who did the air strikes?  General Haftar?  What's the UN, either Mr. León or Mr. Mitri or whoever is currently in charge, what's their sense of who's doing air strikes in Tripoli?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I don't… I think we reported back with the Mission yesterday, if there's anything more I'll share it with you.

  But in the days since, the UN has said nothing. Now the Libyan Dawn group  has taken over the Tripoli airport despite the airstrikes and alleged that the strikes have the involvement of Haftar's (or Hiftar's) supporters, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. What does the UN -- or now Bernardino Leon -- know and say about that? Watch this site.

On Leon: To try to counter Libya's lawless power struggle, the UN engaged in one of its own. 

  And unlike most of the member states that make up the UN, and most other inter-governmental organizations, this UN does not answer questions, at least not directly.

  After Inner City Press repeated asked about it, including at the UN's noon briefings on August 11 and 13, on August 14 the UN said Bernardino Leon will take over as its Libya envoy on September 1.

  When Inner City Press asked if that is really Leon's starting day, given that he's said he'll go to Tripoli as early as next week representing the UN, Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq said Leon is merely "familiarizing" himself with the work he will be, and Mitri remains in place until September 1. Really?

  Ignoring the previous questions and the power-play, wire services likeReuters merely retyped ("reported") the UN's August 14 announcement that Leon will start September 1. And now?

 Back on August 1, Inner City Press exclusively reported that UN envoy to Libya Tarek Mitri was being "pushed out" of the post, including by UK envoy to Libya Jonathan Powell, and cited his brother Lord Powell's extensive business in Libya through Magna Holdings.

  The UK mission, usually responsive, did not provide comment on written Press questions on this; at UN Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant's August 4 press conference Inner City Press asked about Powell's and Mitri's relationship, without direct answer, see here.

  Then the UK's Ambassador to Libya Michael Aron has announced, on Twitter no less,  that Mitri is out and Ban Ki-moon has installed a new UN envoy, former Zapatero diplomat Bernardino Leon Gross.

  The UN, at least at its August 8 noon briefing and in emails since, has not announce anything about replacing Mitri, much less by whom.

  Ban Ki-moon's office said that for August 9 and 10, "Spokesperson on call:  Mr. Farhan Haq." So Inner City Press wrote to Farhan Haq, as well as to lead spokesman Stephane Dujarric:

Hello. Now that the UK Ambassador to Libya, and others, have announced that Ban Ki-moon has appointed Bernardino Leon to replace Tarek Mitri as Ban's representative to Libya, head of UNSMIL, this is a request on deadline - today - that your Office confirm that this appointment or nomination has been made.

Has the letter been sent to the Security Council?

Is Leon already confirmed?

If not, how it is appropriate that P5 countries are saying he already has the job?On deadline, today.

Given many of the ongoing Afghanistan leaks are about UN DSS and UNAMA, not UNDP, there will be further questions. But the above is on deadline for today. Thank you in advance.

  But more than four hours later, by "close of business" in New York, the "spokesperson on duty" had not answered, had not even acknowledged receipt of the question.

  What does it mean to be the UN's "spokesperson on duty"?

   Isn't it for Ban Ki-moon to make this announcement? In fact, in 2011 when France had already gotten its Jerome Bonnafont in place to replace its Alain Le Roy atop UN Peacekeeping, Bonnafont's bragging about it in India, where he was French Ambassador, led to Ban rescinding the "offer."

  France countered with three time loser Herve Ladsous, Inner City Press reported each step -- including Bonnafont in July 2011 being tapped for the post, and even congratulation cards to Bonnafont, here, and threats from AFP then the UN Correspondents Association -- and the rest is, well, a type of history (coverage in UK New Statesman, here).

  Ladsous refuses all Inner City Press questions, video compilation here; Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq on August 8, alluding to Ladsous and now UNDP, said it is because of "people skills." Or reporting?

  So Ban has accepted or done nothing to stop this P3 power grab to oust Mitri. But can "his" successor be pre-announced and Ban accept that too? 

Footnote: Inner City Press is exclusively informed that UNSMIL deputy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed also has business, literally: fisshing business. Ban and those in control of this play accept that too? Watch this site.

Background: Inner City Press on August 1 asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric what UN envoy Tarek Mitri is doing; Dujarric said he was not aware but would check.

  Inner City Press had reported that Mitri, unlike the other UN international staff who relocated to Tunis, went back to his native Lebanon. Sources in the region exclusively told Inner City Press that Mitri had been hoping for a government post in Lebanon, describing him as less than committed to remaining with the UN.

   Now we can report more. These knowledgeable sources say that Mitri is being "pushed out," mostly they say by the UK's envoy to Libya, former Tony Blair aide Jonathan Powell.

  "Mitri was expected to take on a mostly support function," one source told Inner City Press. "He stood up and said no, headquarters didn't back him up and now he's being pushed out." We'll have more on this.

  It was nine days after Libya's foreign minister Mohamed Abdel Aziz at the UN Security Council stakeout told the Press his country wanted international help to protect oil fields and ports, including airports, that the US announced it had relocated its Tripoli embassy staff out of the country to Tunisia.

  Inner City Press asked, where is UN envoy to Libya Tarek Mitri? He briefed the Security Council from Beirut -- sources tell Inner City Press he has been on vacation there, and this deputy, too, was out of the country.

  Back on July 17 when Libya's foreign minister Mohamed Abdel Aziz emerged from the UN Security Council to take questions from the media, Inner City Press asked him to be more specific about what type of “support” force he is asking for.

  Mohamed Abdel Aziz replied that the request is not for a “military” force -- but then went on to say say the force should protect oil fields and ports. If that's not military, what is it?

  Inner City Press also asked Mohamed Abdel Aziz for Libya's current position on the US arresting Abu Khatallah. Compared to the complaints of others, Mohamed Abdel Aziz said that even though under international law it is unacceptable, since Libya can't protect witnesses, maybe it is okay.

  Given the current state of affairs, what is “Libya's” position?

  Meanwhile on July 17 the UN's envoy to Libya Tarek Mitri told the Security Council -- by video from his native Lebanon, while other UN international staff are in Tunisia -- that the fighting has “cast a shadow over the election on 25 June of the 200 member Council of Representatives.” Ya don't say.

 Mitri said that barely forty percent of the 1.5 million registered Libyans went to the polls. He said 12 seats will remain vacant; 41 candidates were disqualified under the post-Gaddafi Law on Political and Administrative Isolation. Final results are supposed to be announced on July 20. Watch this site.

   

UN Says France Chose Scribes As Ban Ki-moon Said He Is "Relieved Terrorists Have Been Killed" - "A Word in French?"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 9 -- Shortly after police raids in Paris in connection with the attack on the publication Charlie Hebdo, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said, “I am relieved that these terrorists have been killed by the authorities of the French government.”

  This was transcribed by the UN as a Press Encounter at France's Mission to the UN, though the UN did not provide notice to journalist who cover the UN through its UN Media Alert.

Now the UN has told Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access that it allowed the French Mission to choose which journalists could be there. Notably, these journalists after Ban's statement asked only for "a word in French?" See transcript below.

  Here is what UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq replied to Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access:

"As I think my colleague Vannina explained, we do not handle the press arrangements for the French Mission. We do not as a practice list in the Media Alerts when the SG signs condolence books.  Those are normally a courtesy at which he does not speak. This was an exceptional circumstance in which he decided to make some remarks to media who were there, which we quickly transcribed and put out."

   Is it appropriate for the UN Secretariat to defer entirely to a country as to who can ask the Secretary General questions, a couple of blocks from the UN? Would this Secretariat similarly to defer to other member states?

  Concretely, which media happened to be in the French mission? Amid so much talk about freedom of the press, even or especially the controversial press, how was it decided which press could be there? 

  Back on September 23, the Press was ordered out of the UN Briefing Room for an encounter by President Francois Hollande, video here. The UN Spokesman played a role, and later told Inner City Press and FUNCA that other countries got this service -- but never named them.

  While Parisians -- at least according to France 24 - are "relieved," isn't it news- and noteworthy that the Secretary General of the UN, which says it has a position against the death penalty, expresses "relief" that these two brother were killed by the authorities?

  Earlier, about that lack of notice, or selective notice, and the substance of Ban Ki-moon's quote, Inner City Press went as part of a Free UN Coalition for Access delegation to the UN Spokesperson's Office to ask. But the lead spokesman was said to be on his way to India with Ban Ki-moon; the deputy was out to lunch. So this was sent to these two UN spokespeople:

"Please explain why when the Secretary General held a “Press Encounter” at the French Mission it was not listed in the day's UN Media Alert or any update thereto. I asked in MALU and was told it had been only UNTV and UN Photo. But there are two questions, presumably from two correspondents, in the read-out.

"Given the similar omission earlier this week, please explain how the correspondents permitted to accompany the SG and ask the two questions were selected.

"On substance, on the SG's line that “I am relieved that these terrorists have been killed by the authorities of the French government” please state the SG's understanding at the time he said it of how the decedents died and were killed, and the consistency of this statement with UN positions on the death penalty, human rights while combating terrorism and extra-judicial executions."

  Apparently, none of the scribes who were invited asked a follow up about Ban Ki-moon's relief, the next question was simply to repeat it in French.

  How many governments, like that of the just voted-out Mahinda Rajapaksa in Sri Lanka, will like and use what Ban said, that it is a relief to kill terrorists? What will the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid, Special Repporteurs like Ben Emmerson and those on extra-judicial executions, have to say? We'll follow this.  UN sent this out:

PRESS ENCOUNTER AT THE SIGNING OF THE CONDOLENCES BOOK AT THE PERMANENT MISSION OF FRANCE TO THE UNITED NATIONS

New York, 9 January 2015

Q: Mr. Secretary-General, could you tell us what you wrote and what your feelings are now that there have been reports that the perpetrators have been killed?

SG: I have expressed on behalf of the United Nations my most sincere condolences to the families of the victims and to the people and Government of France on this unacceptable terrorist attack against the magazine Charlie Hebdo. Yesterday, I telephoned President Hollande and conveyed my messages again, expressing our condolences and also encouraging him to show courage in overcoming this tragedy and difficult situation. As you may remember yesterday when I had the press stakeout, I emphasized that this is not a country, a war against religion or between religions – it is not anything on religion or belief by somebody or some country. This is a purely unacceptable terrorist attack – criminality. This kind of criminality must be brought to justice, in the name of humanity. I am relieved that these terrorists have been killed by the authorities of the French government.

  How and to whom is news doled out at the UN, when something big, and bad in the case of today's Charlie Hebdo murders in France, happens in the wider world? 

  And why does the UN dole out Ban Ki-moon's quotes this way? Inner City Press asked, video here.

  On January 7 the UN did not announce even to all journalists inside the UN, much less to reporters in New York and around the world, or to the public, that Ban Ki-moon would read a statement about Charlie Hebdo. It was not put live on UNTV. Only those who paid money were notified in writing of Ban's "remarks," and after they were read out, they rushed to file this news.

  Some filed only one or two lines, like the Kuwait News Agency. (Ironic, because Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access had asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric just the day before about Kuwait imposing a year and eight months sentence for insulting the Emir). But KUNA in its short piece included the venue Ban had gift his remarks to, the UN Correspondents Association, now the UN's Censorship Alliance.

  That's the larger irony or absurdity: that Ban would make remarks against censorship in the clubhouse of a group whose board tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN, whose then and now president demanded that an article about him and a financial link to Sri Lanka's ambassador be taken off the Internet. Ils ne sont pas Charlie.Or, #IlsNeSontPasCharlie

  Mostly, Ban's line or two were worked into larger stories, without any analysis much less critique of the UN -- that's the deal. Voice of America (see here and here), Agence France Presse (see here and here), Reuters (see here, hereand straight up censorship, here).

  A photographic wire service sold a shot of Ban and UNCA's president Giampaolo Pioli looking like he was asleep - this while Pioli has said no one could be a member of UNCA and of the new Free UN Coalition for Access, thereby excluding FUNCA's hard-working photographic media. This is how it works.

  Ban Ki-moon's online public schedule for January 7 listed, and still at 2:45 pm only lists, two appointments: “12:00 p.m. Meeting with Mr. Mehdi Jomaa, Prime Minister of Tunisia and 3:30 p.m. Meeting with Mr. Jack Rosen, Chief Executive, Rosen Partners, LLC.”

    But UN correspondents who had paid money to UNCA,now the UN's Censorship Alliance, had been sent an e-mail that Ban would make remarks in the clubhouse the UN gives them, sometime after 10:15 am.

   There at 10 am, UN Television was putting cameras in -- but still, nothing in the UN Media Alert or even UNTV Pool report. It became clear, while standing in front of the UN Censorship Alliance's clubhouse, that Ban would be using this private event to make his remarks on Charlie Hebdo, and predictable take no questions.

   What is the relationship between Ban's UN and UNCA? Journalists accredited to cover the UN are told, if they ask, that they are not required to join UNCA - and Inner City Press is not a member, having quit the group after being elected to its Executive Committee for 2011-12 and before, and then co-founded the new Free UN Coalition for Access. 

   At noon on January 7, Inner City Press for FUNCA asked Ban's spokesman Dujarric why it was not in the Media Alert. Click here for video of that Q&A, and one on Sri Lanka, and from outside the private event, here.

   But the UN was using UNCA as a proxy for the whole press corps - trying, as more than one correspondent put it, to make them join UNCA to not “miss news” such as this.

  The past and returned president of UNCA, Giampaolo Pioli, has said that no correspondent who is a member of the Free UN Coalition for Access can be a member of UNCA. And the notification of and invitation to Ban's “remarks” was sent only to UNCA members, who pay dues money to UNCA.

  Is this appropriate?

  Inner City Press, after doing its best to cover Ban's short - and yes, questionless - remarks from the space outside the UN Censorship Alliance's clubhouse, Tweeted photo here,audio from source here, went to the day's UN noon briefing and asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric why Ban's prepared remarks on the Charlie Hebdo killings had not been in the Media Alert.

  Dujarric replied that it was too short notice and said that it had been “squawked” -- only to in-house journalists who were inside the UN building -- at 9:45 am.  But that left a full hour to e-mail a Media Alert update to the wider list of journalists accredited to cover the UN. It wasn't done: it's the UN's Censorship Alliance.

  Inner City Press for FUNCA asked Dujarric why it wasn't listed on Ban's public schedule, while Rosen Partners was (Inner City Press asked what that meeting was about but was not told.)

  Dujarric replied that speaking to UNCA -- ostensibly wishing happy New Year to the journalists covering the UN, in an event publicized only to the subset which pays money to UNCA -- was an in-house event. Correspondents can, it seems, become too embedded.

  When asked why he would hold a Ban Ki-moon news event without making sure it was in the Media Alert, Pioli said “we have nothing to do with the Media Alert.” And that is one of the problems, or reality: UNCA is not ABOUT wider access to news at the UN.

  In fact, UNCA board members including Pioli tried to get Inner City Press thrown out in 2012, after demanding thatarticles and even photographs be taken down. #WeAreCharlie, as they say.

  At the end of the day's UN noon briefing, in which another journalist reminded Dujarric that not all UN correspondents are members of UNCA and the UNCA only sends notices to its dues paying members, Dujarric said he would look into that. That is not enough.

  Tellingly, from the Twitter feed of UNCA, which Dujarric claims can be relied on as a middleman to reach the UN press corps, Inner City Press is blocked. Any particular media could do it - but with UNCA doing it, the UN must cease using UNCA as a middle-man, as its Censorship Alliance.

 Notices should be sent to all UN accredited media. There is no reason to use UNCA as a middle-man. That Ban should not partner in this way with censors is another question. Prepared remarks should be in the Media Alert.  This is basic - and the Free UN Coalition for Access will remain on the case.

   

On UN's Ban Ki-moon "Relieved Terrorists Have Been Killed," UNanswered Questions from Free UN Coalition for Access

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 9 -- Shortly after police raids in Paris in connection with the attack on the publication Charlie Hebdo, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said, “I am relieved that these terrorists have been killed by the authorities of the French government.”

  This was transcribed by the UN as a Press Encounter at France's Mission to the UN, though the UN did not provide notice to journalist who cover the UN through its UN Media Alert.

  About that lack of notice, or selective notice, and the substance of Ban Ki-moon's quote, Inner City Press went as part of a Free UN Coalition for Access delegation to the UN Spokesperson's Office to ask. But the lead spokesman is said to be on his way to India with Ban Ki-moon; the deputy was out to lunch. So this was sent to these two UN spokespeople:

"Please explain why when the Secretary General held a “Press Encounter” at the French Mission it was not listed in the day's UN Media Alert or any update thereto. I asked in MALU and was told it had been only UNTV and UN Photo. But there are two questions, presumably from two correspondents, in the read-out.

"Given the similar omission earlier this week, please explain how the correspondents permitted to accompany the SG and ask the two questions were selected.

"On substance, on the SG's line that “I am relieved that these terrorists have been killed by the authorities of the French government” please state the SG's understanding at the time he said it of how the decedents died and were killed, and the consistency of this statement with UN positions on the death penalty, human rights while combating terrorism and extra-judicial executions."

  There has been no answer. It is said that the UN let the French Mission choose which journalists could be there "the Secretary General's Press Encounter." Would this be done for other countries?

  Apparently, none of the scribes who were invited asked a follow up about Ban Ki-moon's relief, the next question was simply to repeat it in French.

  How many governments, like that of the just voted-out Mahinda Rajapaksa in Sri Lanka, will like and use what Ban said, that it is a relief to kill terrorists? What will the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid, Special Repporteurs like Ben Emmerson and those on extra-judicial executions, have to say? We'll follow this.  UN sent this out:

PRESS ENCOUNTER AT THE SIGNING OF THE CONDOLENCES BOOK AT THE PERMANENT MISSION OF FRANCE TO THE UNITED NATIONS

New York, 9 January 2015

Q: Mr. Secretary-General, could you tell us what you wrote and what your feelings are now that there have been reports that the perpetrators have been killed?

SG: I have expressed on behalf of the United Nations my most sincere condolences to the families of the victims and to the people and Government of France on this unacceptable terrorist attack against the magazine Charlie Hebdo. Yesterday, I telephoned President Hollande and conveyed my messages again, expressing our condolences and also encouraging him to show courage in overcoming this tragedy and difficult situation. As you may remember yesterday when I had the press stakeout, I emphasized that this is not a country, a war against religion or between religions – it is not anything on religion or belief by somebody or some country. This is a purely unacceptable terrorist attack – criminality. This kind of criminality must be brought to justice, in the name of humanity. I am relieved that these terrorists have been killed by the authorities of the French government.

  How and to whom is news doled out at the UN, when something big, and bad in the case of today's Charlie Hebdo murders in France, happens in the wider world? 

  And why does the UN dole out Ban Ki-moon's quotes this way? Inner City Press asked, video here.

  On January 7 the UN did not announce even to all journalists inside the UN, much less to reporters in New York and around the world, or to the public, that Ban Ki-moon would read a statement about Charlie Hebdo. It was not put live on UNTV. Only those who paid money were notified in writing of Ban's "remarks," and after they were read out, they rushed to file this news.

  Some filed only one or two lines, like the Kuwait News Agency. (Ironic, because Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access had asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric just the day before about Kuwait imposing a year and eight months sentence for insulting the Emir). But KUNA in its short piece included the venue Ban had gift his remarks to, the UN Correspondents Association, now the UN's Censorship Alliance.

  That's the larger irony or absurdity: that Ban would make remarks against censorship in the clubhouse of a group whose board tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN, whose then and now president demanded that an article about him and a financial link to Sri Lanka's ambassador be taken off the Internet. Ils ne sont pas Charlie.Or, #IlsNeSontPasCharlie

  Mostly, Ban's line or two were worked into larger stories, without any analysis much less critique of the UN -- that's the deal. Voice of America (see here and here), Agence France Presse (see here and here), Reuters (see here, hereand straight up censorship, here).

  A photographic wire service sold a shot of Ban and UNCA's president Giampaolo Pioli looking like he was asleep - this while Pioli has said no one could be a member of UNCA and of the new Free UN Coalition for Access, thereby excluding FUNCA's hard-working photographic media. This is how it works.

  Ban Ki-moon's online public schedule for January 7 listed, and still at 2:45 pm only lists, two appointments: “12:00 p.m. Meeting with Mr. Mehdi Jomaa, Prime Minister of Tunisia and 3:30 p.m. Meeting with Mr. Jack Rosen, Chief Executive, Rosen Partners, LLC.”

    But UN correspondents who had paid money to UNCA,now the UN's Censorship Alliance, had been sent an e-mail that Ban would make remarks in the clubhouse the UN gives them, sometime after 10:15 am.

   There at 10 am, UN Television was putting cameras in -- but still, nothing in the UN Media Alert or even UNTV Pool report. It became clear, while standing in front of the UN Censorship Alliance's clubhouse, that Ban would be using this private event to make his remarks on Charlie Hebdo, and predictable take no questions.

   What is the relationship between Ban's UN and UNCA? Journalists accredited to cover the UN are told, if they ask, that they are not required to join UNCA - and Inner City Press is not a member, having quit the group after being elected to its Executive Committee for 2011-12 and before, and then co-founded the new Free UN Coalition for Access. 

   At noon on January 7, Inner City Press for FUNCA asked Ban's spokesman Dujarric why it was not in the Media Alert. Click here for video of that Q&A, and one on Sri Lanka, and from outside the private event, here.

   But the UN was using UNCA as a proxy for the whole press corps - trying, as more than one correspondent put it, to make them join UNCA to not “miss news” such as this.

  The past and returned president of UNCA, Giampaolo Pioli, has said that no correspondent who is a member of the Free UN Coalition for Access can be a member of UNCA. And the notification of and invitation to Ban's “remarks” was sent only to UNCA members, who pay dues money to UNCA.

  Is this appropriate?

  Inner City Press, after doing its best to cover Ban's short - and yes, questionless - remarks from the space outside the UN Censorship Alliance's clubhouse, Tweeted photo here,audio from source here, went to the day's UN noon briefing and asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric why Ban's prepared remarks on the Charlie Hebdo killings had not been in the Media Alert.

  Dujarric replied that it was too short notice and said that it had been “squawked” -- only to in-house journalists who were inside the UN building -- at 9:45 am.  But that left a full hour to e-mail a Media Alert update to the wider list of journalists accredited to cover the UN. It wasn't done: it's the UN's Censorship Alliance.

  Inner City Press for FUNCA asked Dujarric why it wasn't listed on Ban's public schedule, while Rosen Partners was (Inner City Press asked what that meeting was about but was not told.)

  Dujarric replied that speaking to UNCA -- ostensibly wishing happy New Year to the journalists covering the UN, in an event publicized only to the subset which pays money to UNCA -- was an in-house event. Correspondents can, it seems, become too embedded.

  When asked why he would hold a Ban Ki-moon news event without making sure it was in the Media Alert, Pioli said “we have nothing to do with the Media Alert.” And that is one of the problems, or reality: UNCA is not ABOUT wider access to news at the UN.

  In fact, UNCA board members including Pioli tried to get Inner City Press thrown out in 2012, after demanding thatarticles and even photographs be taken down. #WeAreCharlie, as they say.

  At the end of the day's UN noon briefing, in which another journalist reminded Dujarric that not all UN correspondents are members of UNCA and the UNCA only sends notices to its dues paying members, Dujarric said he would look into that. That is not enough.

  Tellingly, from the Twitter feed of UNCA, which Dujarric claims can be relied on as a middleman to reach the UN press corps, Inner City Press is blocked. Any particular media could do it - but with UNCA doing it, the UN must cease using UNCA as a middle-man, as its Censorship Alliance.

 Notices should be sent to all UN accredited media. There is no reason to use UNCA as a middle-man. That Ban should not partner in this way with censors is another question. Prepared remarks should be in the Media Alert.  This is basic - and the Free UN Coalition for Access will remain on the case.