As Ban Ki-moon Thanks Qatar for Golan Kidnapping's End, AFP Doesn't Ask Why, Just Channels #Ladsous2013

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 11 -- When the release of UN Peacekeepers by the Yarmouk Martys Brigade was credited to Qatar by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the obvious question raised was and is:

what are Qatar's relations with the kidnappers and kidnapping?

  It is not surprising that UN's in-house UN News Service would leave this questions unasked, and instead flash back to a rare press availability -- back in March -- by UN Peacekeeping's reclusive chief Herve Ladsous.

 (This is become a cult of personality: for this kidnapping, it was UN Peacekeeping's Edmond Mulet, not the missing in action, air brushed in, Ladsous who briefed the Security Council.)

  On Qatar, Ban, the ultimate boss of UN News Service, named the petro-state's former ambassador to head his "Alliance of Civilizations," and Qatar is bidding big money to acquire the headquarters of the UN system's International Civilian Aviation Organization as well as UN Women.

But tellingly, when ostensibly independent Agence France Presse got around to typing up Ban's thanks to Qatar, it did not ask the obvious question either. Instead, with a UN dateline, and as is typical using anonymous diplomatic -- read, French -- sources, AFP reported

  "'This time the rebels felt under pressure and took more convincing to free the soldiers,' said a UN diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. 'Qatar's role was important.'"

  What was Qatar's role IN the kidnapping? AFP doesn't ask. 

UNDOF, by UN Photo / Wolfgang Grebien; Ladsous not seen
 Instead AFP runs a quote from a spokesperson for Ladsous, on whose behalf AFP's Tim Witcher has filed complaints against Inner City Press, first within the UN Correspondents Association (which Inner City Press left, once it began the UN's Censorship Alliance, and co-founded the Free UN Coalition for Access), then on March 8, 2013 with the UN.

  Witcher claimed that by asking a question, Inner City Press "abused" Ladsous, who is the fourth Frenchman in a row to head UN Peacekeeping. 

 Once this and Ladsous' role in the Rwanda genocide as France Deputy Permanent Representative at the UN arguing for the escape of the genocidaires into Eastern Congo were noted, Ladsous began refusing to answer any Inner City Press questions, video here.

  Now when peacekeepers are killed, as in the past week in Abyei and Congo, Ladsous does not even like his predecessor Alain Le Roy hold any question and answer stakeout. His spokespeople issue selective information, here, to AFP. And AFP does not ask even the most basic questions.

AFP's Tim "Faceless No More" Witcher, photo by UNTV

Footnote: Since the campaign involving AFP's UN reporter and UNCA Executive Committee member Tim Witcher has evolved into ever more frequest use of anonymity, it's worth noting that Witcher's byline rarely appears. That call it the resentment of the faceless.

As UN's Ban Ki-moon Welcomes Myanmar Ceasefire, Firing Continues, Don't Rely on UN News?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 21 -- The UN through Secretary General Ban Ki-moon praised a Myanmar ceasefire that was never implemented. On January 21 Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman:

Inner City Press: a UN News Service piece yesterday, in which the Secretary-General, welcomed the ceasefire in Kachin State by Myanmar, it seems like there were reports that in fact fighting continues. Is that, I’m sorry, I see you’re looking puzzled, maybe I am asking it wrong --

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: The simple… Well, finish your question.

Inner City Press: I understand a ceasefire could be announced and not fully implemented, but what does the UN say of reports that fighting and death continues? Is it as some say that the Government wants there to be a ceasefire and hasn’t reached its troops somehow, or is the UN troubled by the public announcement and the continuing fighting?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, a couple of things: I don’t think you need to look for a statement by the Secretary-General on the News Centre, a fine place though that maybe. The statement was issued last night and you should have received it. If you didn’t, let me know, and we will check to make sure that you do receive the statements in the future.

I would draw your attention to the first sentence of that statement, which says: The Secretary-General welcomed the announcement by the Government of Myanmar on Friday of a ceasefire in Kachin and has been following the various reports from the ground on its implementation. And then it does say: He calls upon both sides to make serious effort to create conditions for sustained peace in Kachin through enhanced confidence-building measures and political dialogue. So, also there is the question of access to civilian populations, and we continue to call for that.

Mr. Nambiar was, as you saw just last week, in the region, and indeed not just in Myanmar, but in Kachin. And he did put out a statement on his return that was quite detailed, I think.

   But the reality on the ground was quite different. As recounted to Inner City Press by an informed observer:

It's pretty clear that the government's ceasefire announcement was a public relations move aimed to please the international community and perhaps Ban Ki Moon himself  While the army has scaled down its attacks on Laja Yang, a key area less than 6 miles from Laiza (KIO capital) that had been the focus of a lot of fighting over the past three weeks, heavy fighting continued not very far away over the weekend and on Monday.

For the last 72 hours since the 'ceasefire' announcement the army continued to hit KIO position in other areas very close to Laiza, to the north and to the west.  The army has also continued to hit areas near Mai Ja Yang, the KIO's second largest town, where the UN teams delivered relief supplies to IDP camps from April until June when the government stopped them from doing this.

Why Ban Ki Moon's office chose to release a statement on Jan 20 heralding the ceasefire announcement when its pretty obvious there is no ceasefire raises a number of questions. 
It would be interesting to see what on earth Nambiar is doing about this whole thing.  As you know he did little if anything to bring about a peaceful solution in Sri Lanka and facilitated the dreadful white flag incident.  Nambiar's statement released last week following his trip to Burma was pretty bland and didn't mention him meeting with anybody other than government officials. The press release did say he met with the President's chief negotiator Aung Min, whom the KIO have repeatedly and very publicly said they that no longer trust.

  But the questions raised... will not be covered in UN News Service. Inner City Press is informed that they and UN Radio can only rely on the UN's own statements, facts on the ground be damned. We will seek answers, including for correspodents not physically present in the UN Headquarters, from Nambiar and beyond. Watch this site.

At UN, Mystery of the Disappearing Myanmar Visit Story Remains Unresolved

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un1newsmyanmar051908.html

UNITED NATIONS, May 19 -- As the death toll mounts in Myanmar, clamor grew for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to visit the country. On May 18 at 6 p.m., the UN News Service put online and e-mailed out a story that Ban's spokesperson Michele Montas "announced today that Mr. Ban is scheduled to arrive in Myanmar on Wednesday for a three-day visit" and quoting Ms. Montas, with a question mark, that "the whole purpose of the trip? is to accelerate the pace of disaster relief." This story was later taken down from the UN's web site. Sources tell Inner City Press that the Spokesperson's office complained to its affiliated UN News Service around 8:30 p.m. on Sunday night about the story. But did the UN News Service make up the quote it used? That seems unlikely.

At Monday's noon briefing, a hybrid journalist / blogger asked Ms. Montas why the story was taken down. "There was some uncertainty yesterday afternoon," she replied. "That's why they took the story down." Video here, from Minute 14:30. Montas added that the story was put back up on Monday because things are going as scheduled. The blogger, taking names in journalistic best practice, quoted a staffer in the Spokesperson's Office "that the UN took down the story because they were 'not in a position' to confirm whether the Secretary-General would be traveling to Myanmar."

The on-off-and-on again publication raises a number of questions, three of which follow. First, as above, if UN News Service published a story with Ms. Montas' unequivocal quote about the trip Sunday at 6 p.m., did the uncertainties arise between 6 and 8:30 p.m.?

Second, is it appropriate for the UN Secretariat to give exclusives -- in this case, a dubious exclusive -- to its own in-house News Service?

Third, is it within the bounds of journalistic, or even public relations, best practice to simply "take down" a story that has already been posted? Journalistic ethics aside, not only was it cached, other websites picked up and continued to run the UN News quote, with the question mark inside it, even after the UN took it down -- click here for Google search of the quote. Rather than uncerimoniously try to "take down" an already-posted article, most outlets would run a correction, and ideally explain the correction as well.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un1newsmyanmar051908.html