In Saudi Leaks, FUNCA Asks UN of $100,000 for a Human Rights Council Seat, Saudi Memo on Inviting UNCA to Cover Kingdom

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 22 -- Among the documents released in the first batch of Saudi cables by Wikileaks is one allocating $100,000 for Saudi Arabia's run for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, here.

 On June 22, Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about this allocation -- he said to "ask the General Assembly" -- and about SaudiLeaks more generally (he declined to comment). Video here.

  Inner City Press asked Dujarric about another document about Saudi Arabia "seconding" officials to the UN.  Dujarric insisted that all who work for the UN are paid by the UN. We'll have more on this.

    One also wonders, how much then was the UN Security Council seat that Saudi Arabia “won,” then relinquished, worth? (Click here for Inner City Press story on the relinquishment.)

   Many of the documents are mundane: the scheduling of trips to the Kingdom by then-Yemen envoy Jamal Benomar, for example, and byTerje Roed-Larsen. There is a receipt for a contribution to the UN Mission in Burundi, and back and forth on the secondment of Al-Sadoon.

  On the financial front there is a “To Whom It May Concern” memo by the UN Federal Credit Union recounting how UNFCA made a loan to a Sudanese national, through a Saudi bank, to build a house in Sudan, then a mention of applicable US sanctions.

  Incongruously, there is a newsletter about the French forces in Gabon, here.

  At least in the first batch, a search for "blogger" or "Badawi" results in a single document: an email from Swedish classical guitarist Celia Lindeurging that he not be flogged.

  On the purchased media front, there is now to begin with a memo about the UN Correspondents Association, how its members can be invited to cover conferences in the Kingdom. We'll have more on this.
  

IAEA Praises Sudan Nuclear Path, Then Amano Takes No Q on It or Africa, Censorship Alliance

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 27 -- Amid talk that the next UN Secretary General, and heads of UN system agencies, should not be picked by and beholden to only the most powerful countries, when International Atomic Energy Agency head Yukio Amano held a UN press conference on April 27 one expected such a question, even a simple one based of a Wikileaks released cable about how he got the job.

  But the first question was set aside for UNCA, now the UN's Censorship Alliance, this time in the person of its Number One outright censor, blocking access to an anti-Press complaint he made tot he UN from Google's Search, here.

  It's ironic, because by this logic Iran could censor the number reported about it that are leaked, including at the IAEA. But the IAEA press conference stumbled on, Iran top heavy with nary a question about India, much less African.

 In fact, the IAEA's Africa Regional Officr Jin Kwang Lee was quoted this month that "Kenya and Uganda join their sub-Saharan Africa counter-parts, Ghana, Nigeria, Sudan and Niger while in North Africa - Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and Libya have taken notable steps."

  Sudan? Nuclear? But the IAEA took no questions on this. Among other censorship-related reasons, which is why the new Free UN Coalition for Access opposes any set aside of first questions, particularly for an organization like UNCA whose Board members have tried to get independent Press thrown out of the UN. It's time to cast a skeptical and reforming eye more widely in the UN system. Watch this site.

How should the next UN Secretary General be selected, to improve the Organization? That was the question on April 27, first in a 10 am press conference by the campaign called "1 for 7 Billion: Find the Best UN Leader."

  Inner City Press asked the panel if, as happened last time, increase trade and aid funding by a candidates' country should at least be disclosed, if not prohibited. William Pace of WFM replied not only about countries spending hundreds of million of Euros, but also about the heads of international agencies using their posts to campaign.

  Since UNDP's Helen Clark is known to have told associates and underlings she would like to be the next SG, Inner City Press asked the panel for comment. They were diplomatic, including on the UK, said to be a reformer on the SG post, having insisted it retain the Emergency Relief Coordinator positioon, albeit in the person of Stephen O'Brien and not Cameron's first nominee (and National Health Service destroyer) Andrew Lansley.

  Natalie Samarasinghe of UNA-UK said the campaign around (well, against) Lansley was a positive step forward; she said that social media makes secret processes less possible. (But see the replacement at Yemen envoy of Jamal Benomar by a Mauritanian official who has not made public financial disclosure).

  Yvonne Terlingen, now Senior Policy Adviser at WFM,  also cited the OCHA process or campaign. WFM's Pace seemed to conflate the entire UN press corps with the UN Correspondents Association, a group that for example tried to censor Press coverage of how Under Secretary General Herve Ladsous got the job, then tried to get the Press thrown out.

  The new Free UN Coalition for Access seeks to open the UN and these processes - watch this site. 

  Back on April 24 across the street from the UN at the International Peace Institution there was a panel about #NextSecGen moderated by former Indian Ambassador to the UN, and former Security Council member, Hardeep Singh Puri.

   The post is said to be slated for the Eastern European Group, and the question and answer (or comment) portion was top-heavy with the Permanent Representatives of Croatia and Slovakia (also the chair of the Budget Committee) and the Deputy Permanent Representative of Estonia laying out of the positions of the ACT group, echoed by Costa Rica.

   Inner City Press asked what about improving the transparency and place of merit in the selection of Under Secretaries General? Recently UK Prime Minister David Cameron's attempt to put Andrew Lansley of National Health Service infany atop the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs was defeated as reported in detail by Inner City Press, see credits in the Telegraph and UK Channel 4.

  But, the position has stayed with the UK in the person of Stephen O'Brien (deemed better than the initial candidate by panelist Edward Mortimer).  Should USG positions be “owned” by P3 countries, like France has owned UN Peacekeeping four times in a row (following a horse-trade for Kofi Annan becoming Secretary General) and the US has held Political Affairs twice in a row?

   While Political Affairs USG Jeffrey Feltman came directly from the US State Department with the baggage that may carry, particularly in the Middle East, the most extreme example is Herve Ladsous of UN Peacekeeping,video here, Vine here.

  When asked by Inner City Press about his history and qualification adopted the position of refusing all questions from Inner City Press and having his spokespeople, at least one of whom was present at IPI on April 24, go so far as to grab the UNTV microphone to avoid questions.  Ladsous went so far as to say "I don't answer you Mister" at IPI itself, video here.

  On the overall USG question Jean Krasno of the City College of New York favored “selecting candidates for these positions on merit rather than geographical. We want the highest quality people, serving in an impartial matter.”
Natalie Samarasinghe of the UN Association of the UK said, On the USG issue, we want an SG who has the freedom to make merit based appoints. At the moment as you have seen it is very unevenly applied. We need to condemn it. That pressure is very positive.”

  Mortimer said he was among those who wrote to Ban Ki-moon (selected by the US and China, more than one attendee said, some citing John Bolton's book) about Cameron's first nominee for OCHA. He said that Press oversight is important.  Puri said a good SG would pick good USGs. We'll have more on all this.

Background: When Ban Ki-moon was selected as UN Secretary General in 2006 it was an untransparent process, with secret ballots in the Security Council.  

   On February 7, 2015, both processes were criticized by "The Elders." Appearing at the Munich Munich Security Conference, four Elders including Ban's predecessor Kofi Annan along with Gro Harlem Brundtland, Martti Ahtisaari and Graça Machel unveiled a UN reform plan.

  Beyond Security Council reform, they specifically criticized Secretary General selection process for lack of transparency and choice, and suggested a single seven year term to avoid simply trying to get re-elected.

  To replace Ban, the Elders say "we call on the General Assembly to insist that the Security Council recommend more than one candidate for appointment as the Secretary-General of the United Nations, after a timely, equitable and transparent search for the best qualified candidates, irrespective of gender or regional origin. We suggest that the next Secretary-General be appointed for a single, non-renewable term of seven years, in order to strengthen his or her independence and avoid the perception that he or she is guided by electoral concerns."

 Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access, fighting for transparency including a Freedom of Information Act at the UN, agree and believe the Elders should have gone one level down, more timely, and criticized the ownership of Under Secretary General positions by P3 Security Council members like Peacekeeping and France's Herve Ladsous, and the process to replace Valerie Amos as OCHA, here (and above).

  Even further down, the under-performance of Team Ban, including for example UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, has been enabled and concealed by what has become the UN's Censorship Alliance, formally the United Nations Correspondents Association. These forms of decay are not UNrelated.

  On November 14, 2014 this organization in decline formally announced a slate of six officers -- all without any competition at all. It was a pure rubber stamp, "yes," with the only question being turn-out. The top post was handed (back) to Giampaolo Pioli, who engaged in outright censorship while last using the position. 

  Pioli, who had rented one of his Manhattan apartments to Palitha Kohona, Sri Lanka's ambassador, unilaterally granted Kohona's request to use UNCA to screen inside the UN a government film denying war crimes.

  Then Pioli demanded that reporting of these facts must be removed from the Internet (compilation of audio here) or he would use UNCA to try to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN.  

 Voice of America, then on the UNCA Executive Board, wrote a letter to the UN asking that Inner City Press' accreditation be reviewed; a Freedom of Information Act request showed that VOA said it had the support ofAgence France Presse and Reuters (which they tried tocensor its anti-Press complaint to the UN by claiming it is copyrighted, here.)

  Now in 2015 Pioli has returned. Reuters has on the board its current correspondent as well as its retired UN bureau chief. Agence France Presse, which had been off the UNCA Executive Committee after having used it to complain about Press reporting on Herve Ladsous, wanted to return but did not make it; it was handed a seat on another board announced by UNCA.

 Only News Agency of Nigeria, which ran in 2013, did not run this time: its UN office space was taken away in 2014, ostensibly due to scarcity when UNCA is given a big room that sits empty and locked most of the time, then opens for events that could and should have occurred in the UN's Press Briefing Room, open and on UNTV. This is the UN's Censorship Alliance.

 As to the Secretary General's race, an earlier reform letter's signatories included Avaaz, Amnesty International, CIVICUS, Equality Now, FEMNET, Forum-Asia, Global Policy Forum, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, Social Watch, Third World Network, Women’s Environment and Development Organization, the World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy and the World Federation of United Nations Associations.

The new Free UN Coalition for Access, formed in response to the decline in media access and transparency generally under Ban Ki-moon, heartily agrees with the need to reform and improve the Secretary General selection process. 

 Candidates so far including Helen Clark of UNDP, who virtually never takes press questions while in New York, the headquarters of UNDP, amid untransparent layoffs, and Irina Bokova, the Director General of UNESCO, an agency which on November 3 led an event about journalists at which not a single question from a journalist was taken. There's also among others, in this SG race we will closely cover, a Latina trio, Kristalina Georgieva, Miroslav Lajcak, Kevin Rudd, Dalia Grybauskaite, Vuk Jeremic, Danilo Turk, Jan Kubis - that is, unlike the UN's Censorship Alliance, at least there is some competition. We'll have more on this.

  Ban Ki-moon, meanwhile, is appearing in polls as running for president of his native South Korea in 2017. Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson about it, who said Ban is “currently” focused on his current job. This has been repeated in South Korea, here. The UN is being used; the UN is in further decline; but there are moves afoot to stem the tide of decay. Watch this site.

   

As UN Controller Job Goes to US' Bettina Bartsiotas, Inner City Press Scoop, Joint Inspection Unit Connection

By Matthew Russell Lee, Follow Up to Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, October 30 -- After the position on UN Controller was left empty for months, on October 28 Inner City Press exclusively reported that internally the UN has selected a new one, joint US - Uruguayan citizen Bettina Bartsiotas.

  Inner City Press noted a US cable published by Wikileaks showing the US pushing to get Bartsiotas a similar financial job at the International Atomic Energy Agency.

 On October 29, Inner City Press asked the UN to confirm:

Inner City Press:  I wanted to ask the about the Comptroller position here in the UN... Some months ago, the former Comptroller moved to UNDP as Associate Administrator.

Spokesman:  It's not a matter, it's a fact.  It was announced.

Inner City Press:  Who's been running it since then?  And can you confirm that Bettina Bartsiotas is going to be named the new Comptroller this week?

Spokesman:  There has been an acting Comptroller, and senior appointments are official once — if I may be so bold — once I announce them from this podium.  So we can play around with the name game for quite some time.

Inner City Press:  But given this number of months without a Comptroller…

Spokesman:  There's an acting Comptroller, so I think that the finances treasury of the UN remains in safe hands under the supervision of Mr. Takasu as is the Head of the Department of Management.   

   Well, on October 30 the UN did confirm. Inner City Press asked Spokesman Dujarric about the Wikileaked memo, and if the US played any role in the selection at the UN. Dujarric said the selection was complete.

  What about George Barsiotas being on the UN's Joint Inspection Unit? Click here. Any issues? The UN issues statements and moves on.

Trying to follow the money at the UN is not easy, often intentionally so. Press questions for example about Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's travel, posed to the head of the Department of Management Yukio Takasu were answered with reference to unnamed Trust Funds which report on a two year lag. A follow up question to Ban's Office of the Spokesperson did not garner any better response.

  The Assistant Secretary General position of UN Controller, then, under the supervision of former Japanese Ambassador to the UN Takasu is not unimportant. Back in May 2014 then-Controller Maria Eugenia Casar was picked to become Associate Administrator of the United Nations Development Program.

  Now Inner City Press is exclusively informed by well-placed sources that a new Controller has been picked but not yet announced. Amid complaints by some delegations that the US already has too many top positions, from the Department of Political Affairs of Jeffrey Feltman to Ebola logistics czar Tony Banbury and Capital Master Plan master-builder Michael Adlerstein, the sources tell Inner City Press the new UN Controller will be joint US - Uruguay citizen Bettina Bartsiotas.

  Bettina Bartsiotas, Inner City Press' research finds, is an active American, for example making $1000 in public campaign contributions and even showing up in aclassified US cable obtained and released by Wikileaks, regarding the International Atomic Energy Agency:

“This position should be pursued aggressively when it opens up in the future. Dual Uruguay/U.S. national Bettina Bartsiotas, currently a Section Head in this office, has a good relationship with the Mission and may seek this position in the future.”

  So the US was pushing Bartsiotas for a financial position in the IAEA then, and presumably now, for the UN Controller position. While the UN refuses to make public its “short lists” for such recruitments, the sources exclusively tell Inner City Press of the current UN Treasurer, from Mexico, as well as a Belgian official being interviewed. But, they say, “American Bettina Bartsiotas came out on top.”

  As Inner City Press previously reported back in September, another American pick by Ban Ki-moon, Carol Boykin for the investment chief in the UN pension fund, drew significant push-back due to Boykin's past record and litigation in Maryland. And this one? Then, the new Free UN Coalition for Access renewed the press for a Freedom of Information Act at the UN. Will this push things closer? Watch this site.

   

UN Controller Job Slated for American Bettina Bartsiotas, Sources Exclusively Tell Inner City Press, Of IAEA & Wikileaks

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, October 28 -- Trying to follow the money at the UN is not easy, often intentionally so. Press questions for example about Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's travel, posed to the head of the Department of Management Yukio Takasu were answered with reference to unnamed Trust Funds which report on a two year lag. A follow up question to Ban's Office of the Spokesperson did not garner any better response.

  The Assistant Secretary General position of UN Controller, then, under the supervision of former Japanese Ambassador to the UN Takasu is not unimportant. Back in May 2014 then-Controller Maria Eugenia Casar was picked to become Associate Administrator of the United Nations Development Program.

  Now Inner City Press is exclusively informed by well-placed sources that a new Controller has been picked but not yet announced. Amid complaints by some delegations that the US already has too many top positions, from the Department of Political Affairs of Jeffrey Feltman to Ebola logistics czar Tony Banbury and Capital Master Plan master-builder Michael Adlerstein, the sources tell Inner City Press the new UN Controller will be joint US - Uruguay citizen Bettina Bartsiotas.

  Bettina Bartsiotas, Inner City Press' research finds, is an active American, for example making $1000 in public campaign contributions and even showing up in aclassified US cable obtained and released by Wikileaks, regarding the International Atomic Energy Agency:

“This position should be pursued aggressively when it opens up in the future. Dual Uruguay/U.S. national Bettina Bartsiotas, currently a Section Head in this office, has a good relationship with the Mission and may seek this position in the future.”

  So the US was pushing Bartsiotas for a financial position in the IAEA then, and presumably now, for the UN Controller position. While the UN refuses to make public its “short lists” for such recruitments, the sources exclusively tell Inner City Press of the current UN Treasurer, from Mexico, as well as a Belgian official being interviewed. But, they say, “American Bettina Bartsiotas came out on top.”

  As Inner City Press previously reported back in September, another American pick by Ban Ki-moon, Carol Boykin for the investment chief in the UN pension fund, drew significant push-back due to Boykin's past record and litigation in Maryland. And this one? Watch this site.

   

Ecuador FM Patino Raised Assange & Corporations to Ban, Dropped from Read-Out

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 24 -- After Ecuador's Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino met with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, he came down and held a press conference. He ran though issues from the litigation against Chevron for polluting Lagio Agrio, in the context of previous UN work on transnational corporations, to the asylum case of Julian Assange.

Inner City Press, after thanking Patino on behalf for theFree UN Coalition for Access for holding a briefing right after meeting Ban, proceeded to ask Patino what issues he raised to Ban, and what Ban said.

Patino said he had raised transnational corporation, and that Ban had “taken note” of what he said about Assange's case, for which Patino criticized both the UK and Sweden while saying he'd like to meet with the UK's new Foreign Secretary, most probably in London.

But when, later during Patino's press conference, Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson's office sent out the UN's read-out of the meeting it mentioned climate change and Ebola, but not a word about corporations or Assange or Wikileaks.

To some, this is like when Ban went to Nicaragua and Daniel Ortega spoke at length about Gaza but Ban's spokesperson's office did not mention Gaza in the read-out. Is it that Ban doesn't hear what he doesn't want to hear? Or that his spokesperson's office leaves out what Ban doesn't want known?

Inner City Press also asked Patino about Ecuador opening embassies in Algeria, Angola and Nigeria. He confirmed it, and said there is a need for better relations between blocs or regional groups, Latin America and Africa. We'll have more on this.

   

At UN, Ban Ki-moon's Issues Do Not Include Ukraine, Only 4 Questions, Pre-Selected, Softballs on Gaza

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 12 -- When the UN said that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon would hold a “press encounter” at noon on August 12, this ensured that there would be no other question and answer briefing for the day.

  But when Ban arrived, his spokesman Stephane Dujarric said Ban would take only four questions. The first one was pre-selected; to the next, on Ukraine, Ban read a one sentence answer off a note card. This is today's UN.

  On Gaza Ban was not asked in the four questions if he will set up a Board of Inquiry -- Inner City Press said the phrase several times at the end but Ban waved, or waived: he did not answer.

  Ban's three topics did not include the stand-off in Ukraine, including about aid access, an issue on which one might think the UN could play a mediating role. But not this UN.

  Ban began with Iraq, saying nearly exactly the same things as US President Barack Obama. Ban said that “Prime Minister-designate Haider al-Abbadi now has the important task of forming a broad-based government acceptable to all components of Iraqi society,” and said “it is imperative that the security forces refrain from intervening in the political process.”

  But Obama and his vice president Joe Biden both spoke with Abbadi, or Abadi as they spell it. Did Ban?

  Of Mount Sinjar, Ban said that “air drops of food and water are reaching some of the trapped people.” 

   But what coordinating role, if any, is the UN playing in these airdrops by the US and UK, as well as in air strikes? No one asked. The first question was set aside for the UN Correspondents Association, proud to play softball soccer with Ban.

  On Gaza Ban made sure to say ““Israel’s duty to protect its citizens from rocket attacks by Hamas and other threats is beyond question.” He added that “I expect accountability for the innocent lives lost and the damage incurred” -- but did not say, and in the pre-selected questions was not asked, if he will set up a Board of Inquiry. 

  When he did in 2009, as revealed in a cable published by Wikileaks, Ban put in his cover letter -- first published by Inner City Press -- exactly what he was told from across First Avenue.

  Ban's third topic, to the surprise of many, was not Ukraine. It was ebola, and named his previous bird flu guru David Nabarro -- a fine man -- the UN's coordinator on ebola. 

 That's a good appointment - but what about Ban's spokespeople refusing to confirm what the UK has announced, that Bernardino Leon is replacing the ousted Tarek Mitri as “Ban's” envoy on Libya?

The UN's non-answering, and selectivity and set-asides, are now opposed by the new Free UN Coalition for Access, which asked Dujarric why there would be no regular briefing (for example on topics like South Sudan). Dujarric called this normal, deference to a four question "encounter." We'll have more on this.

 What about allowing Ban's adviser Ray Chambers to serve on a commission for Chris Christie the governor of New Jersey? What about unanswered irregularities by UNDP and Ban's UNAMA mission and UN Department of Safety and Security? Dujarric said he'd get back with any answers. We are waiting. Watch this site.

   

On Gaza, UN Won't Tell Inner City Press If or When a Ban Ki-moon Board of Inquiry, Let Himself Be Lobbied in 2009

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 6, more here -- In the UN General Assembly meeting about Gaza on August 6, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said "attacks against UN premises, along with other suspected breaches of international law, must be swiftly investigated."

 But by whom? At the August 6 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq if Ban would at least set up a Board of Inquiry as was done in 2009. (Inner City Press first published the cover-letter, here.)

  Haq wouldn't say if a Board of Inquiry would be set up; he called the decision an internal one. Video here and embedded below. But Wikileaks released documents showing that Ban allowed himself to be lobbied about the 2009 Board of Inquiry report by Ian Martin, including on what should go in "his" cover letter. And this time?

 Update: UN staff have written to Ban, the GA President and this month's Security Council president, Mark Lyall Grant of the UK, asking for accountability. The letter is here. We hope to have more on this.

   In the August 6 UNGA meeting on Gaza, the UN's coordinator on the Middle East Peace Process Robert Serry this process “may also need action by the Membership, including the Security Council, at the appropriate time.”

  As the meeting began, a Permanent Representative who has previously complained of General Assembly inaction on Gaza now noted that no outcome was even proposed to the GA meeting, "just talk."

  An hour before the belated General Assembly meeting began, a closed-door consultation was called on the Jordan-drafted proposed Security Council resolution, at the level (mostly) of Permanent Representative. The day before on August 5 it was said that this draft is already "in blue" -- strange, if it is still being negotiated.

  But in front of the General Assembly on August 6, an African diplomat told Inner City Press that the resolution was put "in blue" precisely in order to block any General Assembly action. When the Security Council is seized of a matter, he said, the General Assembly cannot act.

  So what is going on in this ping-pong between UN Security Council and UN General Assembly, while UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has still not corrected his August 1 statement that an Israeli Defense Forces solider was "captive" of Hamas, now that the IDF said he was killed in action? Watch this site.

At 10 pm on August 4 in New York, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement on the Gaza ceasefire set to begin three hours later. But he had yet to correct his August 1 statement on the previous ceasefire. Here is the new statement:

"The Secretary-General welcomes the efforts leading to a new ceasefire as announced today.  He commends the parties for committing to this ceasefire of 72 hours, to begin Tuesday, 5 August, at 8 a.m. local time, and calls on them to abide by it.  Until the start of the ceasefire, the parties must exercise the utmost restraint.

"The Secretary-General urges the parties to commence, as soon as possible, talks in Cairo on a durable ceasefire and the underlying issues. In this regard, he welcomes the proactive engagement of the Palestinian delegation under the leadership of President Abbas.  Such talks are the only way to sustainably stop the violence, which has cost far too many lives, and to change the untenable and tragic status quo in Gaza.  The United Nations stands ready to lend its full support to these efforts."

On August 1 at noon in New York, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon through his spokesman said that an Israeli Defense Forces soldier had been taken captive and that this called "into question the credibility of Hamas' assurances to the United Nations. The Secretary-General demands the immediate and unconditional release of the captured soldier."

  Later on August 1, a range of UN officials described to Inner City Press the pressure put on Ban to rule that Hamas broke the ceasefire and held captive an IDF soldier.  "How does he know?" one UN official demanded.

   On August 2, the IDF said that the soldier, Hadar Goldin, "was killed in action."  

  So on August 4, with no correction issued by the UN, Inner City Press asked Ban's associate spokesperson Vannina Maestracci if there would be any correction, since Ban's statement was used --

  Maestracci cut off the question, "let me stop you right there," and said that the UN tried to get things right with fast moving events. Video here, and embedded below.

  Fine - but when as here the UN was wrong, aren't they supposed to correct it? Maestracci's colleagues have repeatedly said that they correct the record when necessary. Is that the case? What about this case? Watch this site.

At 5:30 pm on July 31 the UN announced its spokesman Stephane Dujarric would read out a statement, "for the cameras," in its briefing room. Inner City Press ran there but arrived just as Dujarric finished reading the ceasefire statement.

   But the first line said, "the UN Representative in Jerusalem, Special Coordinator Robert Serry, has received assurances that all parties have agreed to an unconditional humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza."  With the ceasefire in shambles, that is dubious.

 Now Haaretz has reported that Serry "spoke with Hamas leadership in Gaza."

  So on August 1 Inner City Press put two questions to UN Department of Political Affairs chief Jeffrey Feltman. First, would he confirm that Serry spoke with Hamas in Gaza?

   And second, as a former - and future? - US officials, does Feltman think the UN should at least disclose when Ban Ki-moon accepts "in kind" / gifts such as the Qatari-funded private jet he flew on to Doha, to mediate on Gaza.

  Dujarric cut off this question to Feltman, saying that it was already answered. But there is no routine disclosure by the UN. And the impact on the UN's political role is obvious, for example considering that this was the ONLY question asked of Ban Ki-moon in Jerusalem (the UN censored it), and it's been asked at the UN Security Council stakeout.

  Dujarric did not answer when asked, shouldn't there be disclosure. He called it "in kind" - but is it subtracted from what Qatar owes or pays the UN in dues?

  Then Feltman refused to say if Serry spoke with Hamas, saying that he wasn't with Serry. So Feltman doesn't know? Or won't say?

 It's one thing for a diplomat from a country to say, that's secret. But since the UN ostensibly represents, works for and is accountable at least to all 193 states, if not to "we the peoples," on what logic are these things secret? We'll have more on this.

   Earlier on July 31 outside the UN Security Council, Israel's Ambassador Ron Prosor and then the State of Palestine's Permanent Observer Riyad Mansour took questions from the Press.

  Inner City Press asked Prosor about Krahenbuhl's call to end the blockade of Gaza. Prosor replied that Israel has no interest in being in Gaza -- what, is there oil there, he asked rhetorically -- but cited and showed charts of Hamas rocket fire, and tunnels (which he said are funded by Qatar).

  Inner City Press asked Mansour about the US Department of Defense' confirmation of new ammunition transfers to Israel (see below).

  Mansour said that more weapons are not needed; he said that the killing of entire families would make peace much more difficult to achieve but that it should be strived for, an independent state of Palestine.

  In the UN Security Council, the Gaza issue has essentially been delegated to the US. In the UN Security Council on July 30, Nigeria criticized the Council's delay in issuing even a Presidential Statement; Chad called the Council "impotent."

  At the end of Rwandan presidency reception later on July 30, Inner City Press was told by more than one Council member that it is all up to the US. But, one might ask, how can a party transferring ammunition be considering an honest broker? 

  Couldn't this transfer had been at least delayed? But that too would have been a story, bigger than this one, which Inner City Press was notified was broken by CNN, leading to this statement:

"The Department of Defense received a letter of request from the Israeli Ministry of Defense on July 20 for a normal Foreign Military Sales delivery of ammunition.  The appropriate DoD activities processed the request through normal inter-agency processes, resulting in a signed Letter of Offer and Acceptance on July 23.

"Two of the requested munitions were available in the War Reserve Stockpile Ammunition-Israel (WRSA-I), on the ground in Israel, and were therefore delivered to the Israeli Defense Force from this stockpile. Both munitions had been in WRSA-I stock for a few years, well before the current crisis.  All stocks in WRSA-I, as required by law, are "in excess to U.S. requirements." Issuing munitions from the WRSA-I stockpile was strictly a sourcing decision and White House approval was not required.

 "The United States is committed to the security of Israel, and it is vital to U.S. national interests to assist Israel to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability. This defense sale is consistent with those objectives."

  Thus spake the US Pentagon, or at least its spokesperson Kirby. But what will UN Security Council members say, at their July 31 session? Watch this site.

 Back on July 27-28, the Security Council convened to adopted a Presidential Statement, below.

 Afterward, Inner City Press asked Jordan's Deputy Permanent Representative why no vote had been called the draft resolution, if there was one or more vetoes or abstaining votes that would block it.

  He said things haven't reached that stage; rather it was a matter of seeing when the members of the Council thought a resolution would be useful to support of ceasefire. 

  Some ask: so is that the UN Security Council's only function?

  Inner City Press asked Israel's Ron Prosor about the different drafts leaked to Haaretz and Al Jazeera (which Inner City Press noted, here). Prosor went wider scope with his answer. A ceasefire did not sound closer.

  Prosor was also asked about Ban Ki-moon flying around in a Qatar-funded private jet - a question on which Inner City Press first reported eight days ago, and on which Ban himself should answer.

 Palestine's Riyad Mansour cited as a precedent a 1994 Security Council resolution providing protecting in Hebron, by Norwegians in white shirts, he said. He said he wished the Presidential Statement had called for Israel to pull out of Gaza, and that he wished for a resolution. We will continue on this.

  Inner City Press immediately inquired and was informed it was to adopt a Presidential Statement; the version below was provided. But why not a resolution? Why proceeding so cautiously, compared most recently with the July 21 resolution on MH17 in Ukraine?  

  Earlier, with even the “humanitarian pause” over in Gaza, the draft "framework" agreement rejected by the Israeli cabinet on July 25 was leaked from both sides. 

   But the versions leaked by each side were different.

  On Al Jazeera a one-page document was waved around, which had Qatar in the first paragraph as one of the signatories making commitments, which provided for the opening of “border and non-border” crossings and specified fishing rights up to 12 nautical miles, and a $47 million commitment by the US.

  In the “5 pm Confidential Draft” published by Ha'aretz, Qatar is the last paragraph (without Egypt), fishing rights and the $47 million from the US are not specified, nor are “non-border” crossing being opened.

  At least, the two sides leaked different stages or versions of the draft. Or is there more to this, in the spin war that this stage of the Gaza war has become?

  (The drafts are different; Al Jazeera is saying Ha'aretz stole its scoop. There may be more to this.)

  Meanwhile, silence at the UN with the draft Security Council resolution of Jordan and the Arab League not scheduled for a vote, and canned statements from Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who after taking a Qatar-funded private jet from New York to Doha refused through his spokespeople to answer Inner City Press' follow-up questions on who paid for the rest of his travel. Watch this site.