WHO Denies Delaying COVID Info For Xi But UN Lied 6 Years On Taking Cholera To Haiti

By Matthew Russell Lee, PatreonBBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - CJR - PFT

UN GATE / SDNY COURT, Jan 4 – The World Health Organization has issued a denial, which Inner City Press published minutes after issuance, that China's Xi Jinping "personally asked WHO to hold back information about human to human transmission and delayed the global response for four to six weeks" at the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, sourced to German intelligence by Der Spiegel.

   Inner City Press published WHO's denial first, noting that other questions about the current UNMISS Mission in South Sudan spreading COVID-19 with its admittedly lax practices (on which it and UNSG Antonio Guterres have refused Press questions) and WHO giving Cameroon's Paul Biya 14 luxury vehicles remain unanswered.

   But there a more fundamental problem or context to UN system denials, particularly on questions of deadly diseases.

    The UN lied for SIX YEAR about having brought cholera to Haiti. In the UN briefing room in New York, Inner City Press in person asked Guterres' spokesman Stephane Dujarric more than a dozen times about it, and Dujarric each time denied it, on UN video that he and Melissa Fleming now refuse to give to the Press. 

  Tellingly, even when denial became untenable, no one in the UN was ever disciplined for all the lies. Dujarric is still Guterres spokesman, now lying about COVID-19 and the UN system's role this time on Zoom since the UN has closed its headquarters other than allow Guterres' guard to continue to collectively use their gym there.

  And while for weeks now Inner City Press has sought answers from WHO, by email and raising its Zoom hand, nothing (except Tedros' lawyer about Taiwan.)

   So this UN system has no credibility, and continue to censor to try to hide its tracks. We'll have more on this.

***

Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Past & future at UN: Room S-303, UN, NY 10017 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

After UN Security Council Meets on North Korean Launch, South Korea Talks Missile Defense, Power on Xi

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 7 --  North Korea launched a rocket and satellite, a month after the Security Council tersely condemned the last test, and just before US football's Super Bowl.

  As the UN Security Council's 11 am Sunday meeting began, French Ambassador Francois Delattre stood on the entrance steps making points in French and English. China's Ambassdor Liu Jieyi squeezed by the stairs and, when almost into the Council, turned and said, "We are greatly concerned, we are working with the Council." Video here.

After UN (formerly US) official Jeffrey Feltman briefed the Security Council behind closed doors, the Council agreed on a Press Statement, read out at the stakeout by Rafael Ramirez of Venezuela, President for February. Inner City Press tweeted a photo of the Press Statement, here; it says “the Security Council will adopt expeditiously a new Security Council resolution.”

  But on his way out, Russia's Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said, “We haven't seen a text at all.” He said Russia would like to see a re-start of the Six Party Talks abut that “currently the atmosphere is such that the resumption of those talks is unlikely.”

   In a three way stakeout (complete with one question each from US, Japanese and Korean media), US Ambassador Power cited Presidents Obama and Xi Jinping's phone conversation, saying “they agreed on the importance of  a strong and united international response to North Korea’s illegal actions, including through an impactful UN Security Council resolution.”

   South Korea's Ambassador Oh Joon said, “about the missile defense, as you know the Republic of Korea and United States announced yesterday an alliance decision to improve the existing missile defense system. As the terminology first, this is missile defense system, which is defensive in nature. And it shouldn’t worry anyone else because this is focused on North Korea’s provocations and predicated on North Korea’s provocations.”

Before the meeting Japan's Ambassador Yoshikawa said it is time to use the pressure, as fast transcribed by InnerCityPro.com:

Yoshikawa: Good morning. Thank you for coming on Sunday morning. We were very shocked at the DPRK has launched themissile despite the warning coming from many corners of the world. And thisis a clear violation of the past Security Council resolutions,  whether you call it a satellite or what. Using their missile technology is a clear violation of the UN security council resolutions, and it came after, four weeks after the nuclear test. So we hope that today the Council will make ourselves very clear that we cannot condone the acts, the violation of the Security Council resolutions by DORK. And it went over Japan, it landed near the Philippines. This is a clear threat to the lives of many people.

Q: You must be frustrated with China.

A: China was for more dialogue, I think. What we need is no longer the dialogue, but using the pressure to make understood the DPRK.

Q: What do you expect today?
A: We will be asking for expeditious, adoption of the robust Security Council resolution.

  Inner City Press has put the DPRK position online on Scribd, here.

 On Saturday night some members of the Security Council announced they had requested an emergency meeting for 11 am, on holding of which the Council's President for February confirmed to Inner City Press: "Is confirmed the emergency meeting of the Security Council tomorrow at 11 am on North Korea."

This came as the French mission told Reuters it wasn't yet confirmed, giving rise to a question related to Reuters spin of the DR Congo Grou p of Experts report's two paragraphs on Rwanda and Burundi. French PR Delattre, despite the urging on FranceDiplo, is still not on Twitter, walked away (politely) from Press questions on Burundi and the Syrian Kurds (Vine here). The French UN spokesman who threw Inner City Press out of the Press Briefing Room, as for the past five days, didn't answer. Watch this site.

  What about UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon? Last time he met with his senior advisers -- all male -- then issued a statement. Then on February 5 he told a UNA-UK audience in London how important gender empowerment has been to him.

  If Ban is in fact running for President in South Korea, how will this help him? And any shadow over the US Super Bowl? Any (early) question in the GOP debate? We'll be following this.

Back on January 6 after North Korea announced it had tested a hydrogen bomb, at the UN a Security Council meeting was called for 11 am. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon read a statement at the UNSC stakeout at 10:30 am, taking no question as usual.

 After 1 pm, Security Council President for January Elbio Rosselli of Uruguay emerged and read out a Press Statement below. Japan's Ambassador Motohide Yoshikawa spoke, and Inner City Press asked him of Ban's moves to visit DPRK. He replied that if such a trip emphasized UN resolutions including on human rights, it could be useful. Video here. But what WAS Ban's trip going to be about?

   Earlier, UNTV fed out B-roll of Ban meeting with his advisers -- Kim Won-soo and Jeff Feltman formerly of the US State Department, Vine here -- and Ban canceled a previously scheduled (also “no questions”) appearance that Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Accesscritiqued here.

Back on November 17, 2015 when Ri Hung Sik, Ambassador at-large of the Democratic People's Republic of Korean, held a press conference at the North Korean mission, he said that he had heard nothing, nothing at all, about UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon visiting North Korea, which Yonhap ascribed to a senior UN source.

Even when asked a leading question about a hypothetical Ban trip, Ri Hung Sik said Ban's UN would have to improve its relations with DPRK. Inner City Press is putting the audio online here, and embedded below.

 Inner City Press ran back to the UN and asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric, transcript here:

Inner City Press: here was just a press conference at the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) mission, and there their minister, Ri Hung Sik, asked about the Secretary-General's possible reported trip, said he's heard nothing about it at all and that there are many rumours on the internet.  He also said that this South Korean national security law that makes it illegal for South Korean citizens to speak positively of the DPRK… that's how he described it… should be looked at by the UN.  So I wanted to know, what is the Secretary-General's view of that law?  And if that's an accurate description, is he bound by it?

Spokesman:  I'm not aware of the law.  As far as Ban Ki-moon, he is the Secretary-General of the United Nations and is doing his duty as such.

   But why did Team Ban play it so coy on Yonhap's report? Now late on November 17, the UN has issued this more specific denial:

"In response to questions asked about a report from Xinhua and the Korean Central News Agency stating that the Secretary-General would be travelling to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea next week, the Spokesman had the following to say: The Secretary-General will not be travelling to the DPRK next week. He will be in New York most of the week and then travel to Malta for the Commonwealth Summit. From there, he will go to directly to Paris to attend CoP21. The Secretary-General has repeatedly said that he is willing to play any constructive role, including traveling to the DPRK, in an effort to work for peace, stability and dialogue on the Korean Peninsula."

  Before Inner City Press left the DPRK mission on November 17, it asked Ri Hung Sik for his view of UN Special Rapporteur Marzuki Darusman and when or if UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid will visit North Korea.

  Of Darusman, Ri Hung Sik said he met him only once, and that it seems Darusman does not speak his own words, or think his own thoughts. Of Zeid, he said the discussion is of technical cooperation, but no date was given. Video here.

   During the press conference, there was no question, as at a prior DPRK press conference, about Donald Trump...

On SDGs, Cuba's Raul Castro on Embargo, Chinese President Xi's $2 Billion Pledge Praised by Evo, Sudan's Bashir Absent

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 26 -- Among the Sustainable Development Goals speeches in the UN General Assembly Hall on September 26, China's Xi Jinping grabbed headlines with a $2 billion pledge for a South - South development fund.

 This was praised, less than an hour later, by Bolivia's Evo Morales in a press conference elsewhere in the UN; Inner City Press asked Morales about sovereign debt restructuring, which new GA President Mogens Lykketoft on September 25 told Inner City Press will NOT be dealt with in the UN's walls, a position contrary to the views and votes of the Group of 77.

  Raul Castro said the US embargo is holding back Cuba's development; Iran's Hassan Rouhani said the nuclear deal will be good for the environment. Lebanon raised the problem of being classified as a middle income country, which Inner City Press has asked UN officials from Sigrid Kaag to outgoing UNHCR chief Antonio Guterres about (who will take the post from Guterres, and their view and action on this, is the subject of an ongoing Inner City Press series, also involving Lykketoft and his fellow Dane, former Prime Minister Thorning-Schmidt.

   Sudan's Foreign Minister conveyed the greeting of Omar al-Bashir, of whom wire(s) reported, probably knowing even at the time it was false, that he would visit New York despite his indictment for genocide by the International Criminal Court. There is a lot of made-up news around the UN, especially now. And we're on the look out for it.

 These Sustainable Development Goals, to which a session of the UN General Assembly is devoted, are being promoted in videos, flags, projections on the UN buildings.

  Inner City Press on September 4 asked film-maker Richard Curtis and Amina Mohammed, Special Advisor to the Secretary-General on Post-2015 Development Planning about this campaign, and if it will raise the issue of who will PAY for implementation of the goals -- including if the corporate partners of the campaign are in fact paying or avoiding their taxes.

  To Amina Mohammed and DPI's Cristina Gallach, Inner City Press on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access asked when the UN will have a Freedom of Information Act. Video here.

Earlier on September 3 when the International Monetary Fund resumed its biweekly embargoed media briefings, Inner City Press submitted four questions. Inner City Press asked:

"Who from the IMF is coming to the UN General Assembly (and SDGs, etc) week in late September, and what is their program? What meeting will they participate in? What do they hope to accomplish?"

IMF Deputy Spokesperson William Murray answered, as fast transcribed by InnerCityPro:

“Matthew, and others, the Managing Director is scheduled to attend the UNGA particularly the SDGs segment in late September. There was a previous meeting in Addis Ababa we participated in at a high level that dealt with the SDGs... The IMF's Executive Board recently endorsed a 50% increase in access to all the funds concessional lending facilities and to maintain a 0% rate for low income countries that struggle with disasters and conflict. The Executive Board of the Fund has endorsed IMF's engagement in sustainable inclusive growth, on which we'll be elaborating in the weeks and months to come.”

  One focus should be financial inclusion, on which we'll have more during UNGA week.

 In the meanwhile, Murray also said Managing Director Christine Lagarde is about to arrive in Ukraine for "opportunistic" meetings with the authorities, and an IMF mission team will go there on September 22.

  On September 3, Inner City Press also submitted questions about Nepal and Grenada, as well as this:

"In Indonesia the Vice Speaker of the House of Representatives Taufik Kurniawan recently said, 'We do not ask for IMF support in crisis;' at the UN in NY on Sept 2, the Vice Chairman of the House of Representatives of Indonesia H. Fadli Zon told Inner City Press much the same thing. What is the IMF's response to these criticisms or resistance to the IMF, from elected representatives of the country where the IMF now plans its 2018 Annual Meetings?"

  We hope to receive answers.

  Back on July 8 when the International Monetary Fund released reviews and papers about the United States, complete with support of the Dodd Frank Act and mentions of anti money laundering protection Inner City Press asked about the proposal to raise the definition of Systemically Important Financial Institution from $50 billion up to $500 billion and if tight AML strictures are to blame for cutting off remittances to Somalia.

  Aditya Narain, IMF mission chief for the Financial Sector Assessment Program and deputy director, Monetary and Capital Markets department, told Inner City Press that the IMF believes such definition should give predictability, but should be based on risk and not necessarily only asset size.

  Narain told Inner City Press, "On the first one, our general belief is that supervisory approaches should be risk based, and therefore the materiality and proportionality of institutions should be taken into account for to develop supervisory frameworks. At the same time, we also recognize that it’s important to have some clear rules, regarding a unit, in this case size of institutions, because not only does it set a baseline of expectations, but it also provides a useful framework for people to anchor their expectations on. So that’s why, in a sense we would agree that it’s important to make these approaches risk based and therefore not dependent on size alone. I should add also, that our only political ideology is financial stability, for the purpose of this exercise.

  But will this be used FOR the Senator Richard Shelby draft bill?

  On remittances, Aditya Narain said it is an important question but one that the IMF is dealing with in other venues; it apparently wasn't raised to the US during this process. Why not?

 Narain told Inner City Press, "On the regulatory question, this is an issue which is being discussed in several forums where the IMF has been participating, and this is an issue not just for the US, although it has been most discussed in the context of the US, but the effects of the AML on remittances and the result, the stringent adherence to standards has led to a concern more globally that might be affecting the flow of remittances to those jurisdictions... where such remittances and the channels through which they flow are more important. We have not discussed this... there is work ongoing in the Fund, including in collaboration with other institutions like the World Bank... and we expect to be able to have more information on this in a few months time."

   In the embargoed media conference call, two questions in a row went to the Financial Times, which opined that the IMF report takes the side of the Democratic Party. The IMF disagreed. The IMF said, in writing, “As the epicenter of the global financial crisis that began in 2008, the United States passed a major law in 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act, to reform its financial system. Officials need to complete the rulemaking under the law, while parts of reform agenda face legislative proposals to water them down.”

   Central Banking asked two questions and Reuters one, on federal insurance regulation.  Watch this site.