In Haiti, as Montas Sues Duvalier While Paid by UN, Stonewall by UN on Whether Lawsuit Vetted Under UN Rules, & by Whom

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 20 -- The criminal complaint in Haiti against Baby Doc Duvalier was filed by Michele Montas, who is currently being paid by the UN as a Special Adviser.

After long refusing to answer whether and how much the UN is paying Ms. Montas, the UN finally confirmed to Inner City Press that "Ms Montas was engaged by the mission's senior leadership as the D-1 Special Advisor to the Head of Mission. Her contract will terminate on 30 June 2011."

Under applicable UN Rules prohibiting people paid by the UN from “any action and, in particular, any kind of public pronouncement that may adversely reflect on their status, or on the integrity, independence and impartiality,” Ms. Montas must or should have checked with the UN before filing her lawsuit, and certainly before making her statements on CNN and elsewhere.

If permission was granted, then the UN's attempts to distance itself from the suit, and to say it has nothing to do with it, ring false.

Even when the UN does or allows the right thing, it doesn't have the courage to say so, and remains mired in lawless double standards.

Inner City Press on January 20 asked UN spokesman Martin Nesirky what rules apply to the statements and action of people paid by the UN. Video here from Minute 17 and 21:20.

Nesirky said that Ms. Montas was operating in her personal capacity. Inner City Press asked, repeatedly, if she had requested and gotten approval for her statements and lawsuits, which Inner City Press went out of its way to say are laudable.

Nesirky said, “It's besides the point if you are in favor of it or not.. it's in her personal capacity which she has every right to do." He added that “I'm not talking about rules."

But there is a UN rule, specifically UN “Regulation 1.2, Basic rights and obligations of staff --

“While staff members’ personal views and convictions, including their political and religious convictions, remain inviolable, staff members shall ensure that those views and convictions do not adversely affect their official duties or the interests of the United Nations. They shall conduct themselves at all times in a manner befitting their status as international civil servants and shall not engage in any activity that is incompatible with the proper discharge of their duties with the United Nations. They shall avoid any action and, in particular, any kind of public pronouncement that may adversely reflect on their status, or on the integrity, independence and impartiality that are required by that status;

(h) Staff members may exercise the right to vote but shall ensure that their participation in any political activity is consistent with, and does not reflect adversely upon, the independence and impartiality required by their status as international civil servants.”

Inner City Press has been approached by UN staff members who have been prohibited, under this rule, from even attended events critical of the UN or particular political developments or leaders.

It seems clear that Ms. Montas' statements on CNN, for example, raise questions under the above quoted prohibition on “public pronouncement that may adversely reflect on their status, or on the integrity, independence and impartiality that are required by that status.”

So it would seem clear that Ms. Montas must or should have checked with the UN, Mr. Mulet, Legal Department or higher, before making the statements.

Nesirky, after being Pressed, said that "you can be sure that Ms. Montas will have been speaking with her colleagues before she spoke."

Inner City Press said, under the Rule, that must mean the statements and lawsuit were vetted and approved.

Nesirky insisted he had described what happened, but would not specify to whom Ms. Montas spoke, nor what they said. He claimed you cannot extrapolate. But doesn't or shouldn't the UN have rules that apply equally to all?

Nesirky backtracked, sought not to provide factual answers and tried to stop Inner City Press from questioning. Video here, from Minute 21:20. But it is a simple factual question: did Ms. Montas check with the UN, and did they sign off?

If so, while it is not a UN lawsuit, it can in some sense be attributed to the UN, in that the UN somehow found it -- because Duvalier was a dictator -- as not impacting Ms. Montas “ independence and impartiality.”

Nesirky refused to specify who Ms. Montas had asked, or even what rule applied.

Minutes later in front of the Security Council, Inner City Press on camera asked top UN Peacekeeper (and Mr. Mulet's “boss”) Alain Le Roy about Duvalier and Ms. Montas. Le Roy said he was aware of Montas' action. Video here.

Afterward off camera, Le Roy told Inner City Press that “so far the UN is silent” on Ms Montas' suit, and that he would try to “get something from OLA,” the UN Office of Legal Affairs. That would seem to be Nesirky's job, as spokesman. Watch this site.

At UN, Long Dormant Council Issues Kept Barely Alive as Leverage, Seizure List Leaked with February 28 Deadline

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, January 19 -- Items on the UN Security Council's agenda face deletion in a backroom process, as illuminated in a 2011 document exclusively obtained by Inner City Press.

Of the 86 matters on the Council's agenda, 28 have not been taken up in a formal meeting in the last three years and therefore face deletion unless a member state speaks up before February 28. This currently pending so called “Seizure List” is attached, here.

Meanwhile, Security Council members have been asked if they want to delete any of the more recent 58 items, even if they have been the subject of meetings in the last three years.

One could imagine Russia asking to remove Item Number 10, “The situation in Georgia,” first raised in 1992 but last considered on June 15, 2009, when Russia blocked continuation of the Mission and even discussion in the Council for the past year and a half.

Now that the UN Mission in Nepal has unceremoniously left that country, will it remain on the Council's agenda? Or might India make a request to take it off?

“The situation between Eritrea and Ethiopia,” Item Number 21, has not been discussed since July 30, 2008, when the UNMEE Mission left with the border dispute unacted on.

The “Situation in Myanmar,” Item Number 46, has not been the subject of any formal Security Council session since July 13, 2009. Ban Ki-moon has yet to act on the widespread request, in the last informal meeting, that he name a full time envoy to Myanmar to replace Vijay Nambiar.

Countries fight hard to keep matters off the agenda of the Security Council, which can impose sanctions and authorize the use of force. Thus, even as tens of thousands of civilians were killed in Sri Lanka in 2009, Russia, China and others fought to keep it off the agenda.

Some matters are on the agenda, but have not been discussed in years. Facing deletion from the Seizure List, unless as usual a member state speaks up, are for example

“The Hyderabad question” (Item 61, raised in September 1948 and last discussed in 1949);

“Complaint by Ukraine regarding the decree of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation concerning Sevastapol” (Item 79, first raised AND last discussed on July 20, 1993);

“The situation between Iran and Iraq” (Item 72, raised in September 1980 and last discussed in 1991);

the “Kimberly Process Certification scheme” (Item 82, only discussed once, in 2003);

numerous letters and complaints from Cuba (Items 63, 64, 67);

“Letter dated 19 April 1988 from the Permanent Representative of Tunisia to the UN” (item 76, first raised on April 21, 1988 and last discussed four days after that on April 25, 1988).

With the current turmoil in Tunisia, one wag suggested, perhaps this last obscure item could be revived.

Inner City Press asked a well placed non-Permanent Security Council member about the lists, which he said may later be consolidated. He pointed out that at least some items do get deleted, mentioning Angola and Libya.

The debate now, he said, is whether and how these lists should be publicized to the wider UN membership. Some countries, knowing the process, have form letters ready to keep “their” items alive on the agenda. But the others?

At an on the record briefing on January 18, Portugal's Ambassador acknowledged to Inner City Press that while Bosnia beat his country out to head the Working Group on Working Methods for this year, Portugal has been promised the chairmanship next year.

These seizure lists, and how they are disseminated to the wider UN membership, are the type of procedural issue that Portugal says it has worked and wants to work on. We'll see.

At UN, Ban on Transparency Leaves Deng Conflict in Sudan in Shadows

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 19 -- Transparency and financial disclosure, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said to the Press last Friday, are the hallmarks of his administration. He said that 99% of his officials make online, public descriptions of their finances.

In fact, numerous officials file a form saying their decline to make any public disclosure. Even for those who do file, the disclosures are so vague as to be useless.

Take for example UN official Francis Deng, Ban Ki-moon's Special Adviser on Genocide. He gets UN assistance to write sections of books about Sudan, while on his financial disclosure he mentions “property in Sudan” and “House in Sudan.”

On January 19, Inner City Press asked Deng to disclose if any of his property in Sudan would be impacted by the referenda or slated popular consultations. Video here, from Minute 29:05.

Deng called the questions too “personal.” Ultimately, he said that he has a large family, and there might be “some huts” that could be construed as owned by his family. But I do not, he said, own a house in Abyei.

The purpose of financial disclosures is to determine when a conflict of interest exists or might appear to exist. With this level of (non) disclosure, it is impossible to make such determinations.

Admittedly, the fault is not only Deng's. Ban Ki-moon brags about financial disclosure, but does not require his officials to make it public. Even when they do, it is vague.

Meanwhile Ban's Spokesman Martin Nesirky cut off Inner City Press from any second round of questions, which he granted to other media. Forgot transparency - a Ban on retaliation would be rare progress in this UN.

Deng insisted that he did not write books on UN time, but his previous defense acknowledges that he wrote the introduction to his most recent book on Sudan while on UN time, with UN help. He says that chief of staff Vijay Nambiar approved it. Click here.

Meanwhile Inner City Press sought to ask, before Deng's and Ed Luck's briefing, a question about the government in Sudan shooting students in El Fasher. Nesirky refused to take the question, although it was only 12:15, barely into the announced noon press briefing.

Later Nesirky refused genocide related questions for the panel. Deng's and Luck's briefing was about Cote d'Ivoire, but Nesirky failed to take in the brieing, or answer when e-mailed, a questions about Cote d'Ivoire.

With many questions unanswered by his office, Inner City Press later submitted only a handful of new question, about Sudan and Cote d'Ivoire, along with a request that top UN lawyer Patricia O'Brien come and give a briefing.

At close of business Wednesday after 6 pm, not a single question had been answered -- not even an acknowledgment of reeipt of the questions by Nesirky and his deputy Farhan Haq. Oh, transparency....Watch this site.

On Sri Lanka White Flag Murders, Nambiar Raised by Magazine, Dodged by UN

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 19 -- The role of the “UN's special envoy to Sri Lanka” Vijay Nambiar was described in a detailed article in The New Yorker magazine published nine days ago.

On January 19, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Martin Nesirky to respond to the article, in particular the description of Mr. Nambiar as one of only two negotiators who urged surrendering fighters to come out with white flags -- after which they were shot to death.

The other of the two negotiators, Marie Colvin, is quoted as saying that these murders were “not the chaos of battle. It was a negotiated surrender. Promises were made and they were broken.”

Inner City Press asked Nesirky for the UN's, and Mr. Nambiar's, position on the murders. Video here, from Minute 12:40.

Nesirky claimed that “Mr. Nambiar has addressed this before,” apparently referring to a single Al Jazeera interview, most of the footage of which never aired, in which Nambiar speculated that the surrenderees were “killed by the Tamil Tigers.”

Nambiar also said that he had spoken at that time with Palitha Kohona, something which Kohona -- who is reportedly now to be removed from Sri Lanka position in New York and moved to London -- immediately disputed to Inner City Press.

So if this constituted Nambiar “addressing the issue,” one of this two statements has been disputed by the person concerned. Now the person who negotiated alongside him blames the government. What does Mr. Nambiar and the UN say?

Nesirky admonished to “be careful how you characterize the roles” of Mr. Nambiar and Ms. Colvin. He then cut off Inner City Press from asking another question, using the appearance at 12:15 of the UN's Special Advisors on Genocide and Responsibility to Protect as the excuse. Video here, from 16:27.

Later, when Inner City Press sought to ask the latter whether the Offices of Genocide or R2P had any involvement in, or comment on, Ban Ki-moon's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka.

But despite allowing others a second round of questions, Nesirky refused to allow Inner City Press to put this question on camera to Ban Ki-moon's Special Advisor on the Responsibility to Protect. Video here, from Minute 47:50.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa, whose "flexibility" Ban Ki-moon praised only last month, is named by the New Yorker as having personally approved the Nambiar negotiated surrenders which ended in death.

Mahinda Rajapaksa is now on a surprise visit to the United States, according to former Deputy Permanent Representative Bandula Jayasekara -- watch this site.

Questions on Sri Lanka that Inner City Press asked UN on January 17, still without any answers:

when did Ms. Bragg apply for a visa to Sri Lanka, when was it granted and are there any conditions on the visa, regarding where to travel, whom to speak with, etc?

What does OCHA say to the protests in east Batticaloa about allegedly inequitable distribution of aid?

Also, previously asked to Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary General:

Does the UN have any comment on Sri Lanka's government ordering the International Committee of the Red Cross out of Northern Sri Lanka? http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportID=91160

Or, as previously requested, on the new rules requiring NGOs and INGOs to register with the Department of Defense, etc?

Watch this site.

At UN, Deal with Russia on Cote d'Ivoire Resolution Has Bamba Staying Silent, Speaks Afterward to Inner City Press

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, January 19 -- As the UN Security Council on Wednesday morning belatedly adopted a resolution increasing UN forces and focus in Cote d'Ivoire, the new Alassane Ouattara appointed Ambassador Yousoufou Bamba sat at the Council table but did not speak.

On Tuesday, when the UN troops four week period ran out and the resolution was supposed to be adopted, arguments in the Council's closed door consultations focused on the procedural question of whether Ouattara's Ambassador Bamba could sit at the Council's horseshoe table, and if he could speak.

Russia opposed this, as well as demanding that the phrase “without prejudice to the freedom of expression” be added before a call to halt Radiodiffusion Television Ivoirienne (RFI) from “incit[ing] hatred and violence, including against the UN and particularly UNOCI.”

After Bamba sat in the meeting for the vote approving the amended resolution but did not speak, Inner City Press sent Bamba a text message asking for his reasons. He emerged from the Council and told Inner City Press, “I voluntarily chose not to speak, with the support of the African members, not to create a breach in the unity of the Council.”

Later it was explained to Inner City Press by the Permanent Representative of an African country not currently on the Council that it was mostly South Africa which implored Bamba not to speak, in order they said that the world not see that the Council is not, in fact, united.

UN's Ban and Bamba at swear-in, (c) MRLee

Inner City Press asked Bamba about Russia's demand that “without prejudice to the freedom of expression” be added to the resolution. Bamba said that's “not to silence their side” -- seeming to say that the Gbagbo “side” is Russia's side.

After a pause, Bamba came back to tell Inner City Press that “on behalf of the Ouattara administration,” he appreciates the increase in UNOCI's “defensive force” - he pointed at the phrase about “three armed helicopters with crews from UNMIL” as he said this -- and the RTI paragraph and “especially,” he said “the lifting of the blockage of the Golf Hotel without delay.” We'll see.

UN & Africa Judged Unimportant by Panel at CFR on Fiscal Crisis, Citigrouper Rubin in the House

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 18 -- Previewing President Barack Obama's upcoming State of the Union speech, two former Treasury Secretaries, a TV personality and a mad professor spoke Tuesday at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

Johns Hopkins professor Michael Mandelbaum urged that the US reduce its spending in Afghanistan, which he called only the fourth most important country to the US in its region, after Pakistan, Iraq and Iran.

Inner City Press asked Mandelbaum if he would put Somalia, Sudan or any African country even in his Top Ten list for US policy.

“No, it's not in the top fifty, or even in the top one hundred,” Mandelbaum replied. “With all due respect to our friends in Turtle Bay, far more important to global stability” is US defense spending, not anything the UN does.

This is at odds with studies, such as one by RAND, a participant at the CFR event, praising the UN as “peacekeeping on the cheap” when compared to how much the US has spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. That the results are also cheap looking is seen in Haiti, and in the failure to protect civilians in from Darfur to Ivory Coast.

The President of CFR Richard Haass, in answer to Inner City Press' question about US participation in the UN and its peacekeeping missions said that he sees a “vulnerability in the US budget for non-defense spending in the international arena.”

Panelist George Stephanopoulos disagreed, saying that such foreign assistance has been relatively unscathed in the last few years, even after the financial meltdown.

The meltdown was the subtext of the panel's talk, with former Treasury Secretary Roger Altman calling it a “civilization threatening event.” Also in the audience was Robert Rubin, who after being Bill Clinton's Treasury Secretary cashed in at Citigroup as it got more and more involved in subprime and predatory lending.

Inner City Press previously asked Rubin to justify Citigroup's lending, adjudged as predatory even by the Federal Reserve, in connection with Citigroup's acquisition of the high cost financial company branches of Washington Mutual. “That's not under my aegis,” Rubin answered then.

Tuesday he was nattily dressed, asking about Pakistan, where another Citibanker has served as finance minister. Who is responsible for these “civilization threatening” events? The answer was not spoken, but could partially be found, at CFR on Park Avenue on Tuesday night.

The 4 panelists at CFR Jan 18, causes of meltdown off camera, (c) MRLee

The listed participants included representatives from JPMorgan Chase, Credit Suisse, Mitsui & Co, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Barclays, Moody's, UBS and Warburg Pincus, which just bought a 16% stake in National Penn Bancshares. And so it goes.

Footnotes: Mandelbaum, who was praised by a former student of his now at Fox News, bragged that he is writing a book with Tom Friedman of the New York Times. He told his friendly questioner KT McFarland, “It's always good to see a former student gainfully employed.”

The event ended with a joke about it preparing Stephanopoulos for a session the next day with Joan Rivers. “She's great on the Euro,” Stephanopoulous said. He also praised Republican budget maven Paul Ryan, on “everything but taxes.” We'll see.

At UN on Sudan, No Comment on Torture or Undercutting ICC, Turabi Arrest

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 18 -- As the UN and its Security Council heaped praise on the government of Omar al Bashir for the Southern Sudan referendum, the UN had no comment on Bashir officials' torture of Darfur activists and detention of (Islamist) opposition figure Hassan al-Turabi.

Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Martin Nesirky about the reported torture of the editor of Al Sahafa newspaper, and Turabi's arrest. On the torture, Nesirky said he would have to check, presumably with Ibrahim Gambari. On the latter, Nesirky said “I think we'll be able to say something a little later.”

Running to the Security Council stake out, Inner City Press asked Sudan's Ambassador Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman about Turabi's arrest. “Let me ask you a question,” Sudan's Ambassador replied, blaming the arrest on a call for Tunisia like demonstrations.

Inner City Press asked him why his government had not flown International Criminal Court indictee Ahmed Haroun to Abyei rather than having the UN do it.

He first claimed not to know of Haroun's trip. Then to an Inner City Press follow up he said, the UN is not an off shoot of the ICC.

When UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant took questions some days ago, Inner City Press asked him about the UN Mission in Sudan under Haile Menkerios using a UN aircraft to transport ICC indictee Haroun.

I am not going to second guess the UN, Lyall Grant said. So much for overseeing the UN's compliance not only with human rights standards but even the Council's mandates.

Inner City Press asked this month's Council president, Bosnia's Ambassador Barbalic, about the UN flying Haroun around, even the Council's Press Statement's reference to holding accountable those responsible for crimes in Darfur. That was not discussed today, he answered and said, I do not have the information.

After the Council meeting, Inner City Press asked top UN peacekeeper Alain Le Roy about the UN flying ICC indictee Haroun into Abyei. Le Roy at least acknowledged being aware of the criticism, but said that getting Haroun there to speak with normadic tribes was the focus.

But Sudan has its own airforce, which uses to bomb. That Haroun set up a TV interview for the airport at which he landed in the UN plane does not appear to be a coincidence. The UN was used to undercut the war crimes indictments. And the UN says nothing about it. Watch this site.

In Cote d'Ivoire, Choi Denies US or French Pressure or Blockage from Abobo

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 18 -- With the prospect of military intervention in Cote d'Ivoire looking less likely at least for now, UN envoy Choi Young-jin on Tuesday told the Press of other ways to get Laurent Gbagbo out of power, including cutting off pay to the country's 140,000 civil servants.

Inner City Press asked Choi about his involvement in such planning, and whether he was pressured or influenced by particular Security Council members. Video here, from Minute 16:45.

No, Choi insisted, planning funds cut-offs is not his mandate, and only the Ouattara camp pressured him, to let the initial announcement of Ouattara as the election's winner be announced at the UN. Choi says he refused, and requested more questions on the topic.

Numerous Security Council sources have described to Inner City Press a video briefing by Choi to the Council in its closed door consultations in which US Ambassador Susan Rice and French Ambassador Gerard Araud told Choi to go ahead and certify Ouattara as the winner, even before the Constitutional Council issued its ruling.

Choi twice denied that this happened. He also denied that he had been blocked from visiting the Abobo neighborhood where civilians were being killed. But even top UN peacekeeper Alain Le Roy acknowledges that Choi's convoy was stopped. It later proceeded. But describing things accurately is important.

Choi worked for the UN a decade ago in a peacekeeping logistical role. He is known to have complained that he was marginalized and not given enough power. Later, as South Korea's Permanent Representative to the UN, he helped engineer Ban Ki-moon's win at Secretary General.

Choi has been mentioned as coming back to New York to mastermind the race for a second Ban term, or perhaps being named to replace Vijay Nambiar as the UN's envoy to Myanmar. (His new posture as democracy advocate will probably not help.)

The Ban Ki-moon administration is “all in” on the campaign to replace Gbagbo. Some say they may have lost their way, forgetting that to talk about cutting off the salaries to 140,000 civil servants is hardly a UN thing to do, and that the UN is supposed to mediate, not to itself need a mediator.

But having gone down this road, will Team Ban now advocate for democracy in Tunisia, North Korea, Myanmar and elsewhere? We'll see.

While UN's Sri Lanka Panel May Not Go, Bragg Won't Convey IDPs Tales

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 18 -- While the trip to Sri Lanka by the UN's panel on accountability is in limbo or, sources tell Inner City Press, about to be canceled, UN humanitarian deputy Catherine Bragg will now travel to Northern Sri Lanka to speak with civil war returnees -- but only about flooding, the UN says.

Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Martin Nesirky for the second day in a row about Catherine Bragg's trip. On January 17 Nesirky told Inner City Press to “ask OCHA,” the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Inner City Press submitted questions to OCHA, which were acknowledged as received, but by the next day's noon briefing no answers had been given.

So when Nesirky on January 18 said Bragg would “advocate on behalf... of returnees,” Inner City Press asked if she will advocate with respect to the alleged war crimes which made them displaced.

No, Nesirky said, Bragg's trip has nothing to do with the Panel of Experts, which UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced on December 17 would visit Sri Lanka. Video here, from Minute 45:23.

Insiders late on January 17 told Inner City Press that despite Ban's statement, his Panel will now probably NOT visit the Island. Despite Ban's December 17 announcement praising President Mahinda Rajapaksa's “flexibility,” since then Rajapaksa's government has written to the UN to say not only that the Panel should not come, but that neither the government nor its Lessons Learnt & Reconciliation Panel will speak with the UN Panel of Experts.

It is expected now that representatives of the Rajapaksa government will, in New York only, speak with Ban Ki-moon's Office, not his Panel.

So did Ban Ki-moon misspeak, some now wonder, on December 17, or in what he told the Press on January 14?

Inner City Press is told that Ban's Panel has written three letters seeking visas. At first the Panel was told that it could make “submissions” to the LLRC. Ban's Panel said that it cannot provide testimony, but rather take it, not only from the LLRC but from any and all who are involved in the accountability process.

Later Ban's Panel made further concessions, saying they wouldn't care what it was called, submission or representation, they'd just like to go. Then the sources say the Rajapaksa government still said no.

The current state of play, the insiders say, is that the Panel will probably NOT go to Sri Lanka.

Ms. Bragg will go, but will not pass along anything that displacees say about WHY and BY WHOM they were displaced and worse. Some Organization.

Questions on Sri Lanka that Inner City Press asked UN OCHA on January 17:

when did Ms. Bragg apply for a visa to Sri Lanka, when was it granted and are there any conditions on the visa, regarding where to travel, whom to speak with, etc?

What does OCHA say to the protests in east Batticaloa about allegedly inequitable distribution of aid?

Also, previously asked to Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary General:

Does the UN have any comment on Sri Lanka's government ordering the International Committee of the Red Cross out of Northern Sri Lanka? http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportID=91160

Or, as previously requested, on the new rules requiring NGOs and INGOs to register with the Department of Defense, etc?

Watch this site.

UN Denies Role In Haiti Detaining Duvalier, Pays Montas Calling For It, Kouchner?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 18 -- With Baby Doc Duvalier apprehended in Haiti, the UN in New York insisted Tuesday at noon that it had nothing to do with the arrest.

But the UN has acknowledged to Inner City Press that it is still paying Michele Montas, through June 2011 -- and Ms. Montas' public statement on CNN about filing a criminal complaint is reportedly related to the arrest.

“Michele Montas, a Haitian journalist and a former spokeswoman for the United Nations secretary-general, said Monday night that she plans to file a criminal complaint against Duvalier. 'We have enough proof. There are enough people who can testify. And what I will do is go to a public prosecutor and there is a public prosecutor that could actually accommodate our complaints,' she told CNN's 'Parker Spitzer.'”

Ms. Montas' successor as Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Martin Nesirky disclaimed any UN involvement in Duvalier's detention. He did however call him a “dictator” who was chased out of his country by his own people.

Minutes later, asked about Tunisia's Ban Ali, Nesirky would not use the same words or call for accountability.

Earlier, UN envoy to Cote d'Ivoire Choi Young-jin spoke of denying Laurent Gbagbo funds to pay “his” 140,000 civil servants. Is Gbagbo less legitimate than Myanmar Than Shwe or North Korea's Kim Jong-Il? Is the UN trying to deny their civil servants their pay?

Meanwhile, the French press is reporting that Bernard Kouchner's “courtesy” visit with Ban Ki-moon was about replacing Edmond Mulet as top UN envoy to Haiti. Nesirky on January 17 said he refused to comment on rumors.

Inner City Press asked top UN peacekeeper Alain Le Roy, what about Kouchner to Haiti? It is up to the Secretary General, he said, and no decision is needed until March. But what would then happen with Peacekeeping's Number Two, Atul Khare, if Mulet returns to this post? Especially with major troop contributor India now on the Security Council?

For weeks, Inner City Press has asked the UN how much former UN Spokesperson Michele Montas has been paid. At first, Martin Nesirky said he “would not comment.” Then he suggested to “ask MINUSTAH.” Finally this arrived:

Subject: Re: Your question regarding Special Advisor in Haiti
From: UN
Date: Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 2:52 PM
To: Inner City Press

In response to your querry with the Spokesperson of the Secretary General regarding Ms Montas's appointment to MINUSTAH, please find the answer below.

"Following the devastating earthquake of January 2010, which had a severe impact on the substantive sections of MINUSTAH, Ms Montas was engaged by the mission's senior leadership as the D-1 Special Advisor to the Head of Mission. Her contract will terminate on 30 June 2011, when the post itself will be eliminated, as part of the mission's post-surge readjustment."

Watch this site.

At UN on Tunisia, Pillay Considers Visit But Ban Does Not, Double Standard Alleged

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 17 -- While in Tunisia Ben Ali's foreign minister Kamel Morjane, who served for years as deputy to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, still remains in his post, in New York on Monday Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky if there is any discussion of sending a UN team to Tunis.

“Not to my knowledge,” Mr. Nesirky said. Video here, from Minute 19:48.

Sources tell Inner City Press that the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights contacted Ban Ki-moon's office to say that it is considering sending a mission to Tunisia and wanted to know if Ban's Secretariat is also making such plans, in order to coordinate.

Ban's Office according to sources within it subsequently answered no, no plans for a mission to Tunisia.

The sources describe a background memo to Ban about Tunisia, urging that he support efforts to override a two month Constitutional period to form a new government, granting six months so that "Communists and Islamists" don't have an advantage over "moderate forces."

At Monday's noon briefing Nesirky was asked why Ban has been so weak in his response to Tunisia. While Nesirky contested this, some compare the response to that in Cote d'Ivoire, where Ban urged the UN General Assembly's credentials committee to remove recognition for Laurent Gbagbo's UN ambassador.

Inner City Press asked President of the General Assembly Joseph Deiss if any similar move is afoot in the GA's credentials committee regarding Tunisia. “Not so far,” Deiss answered, explaining that the Ambassador appointed under Ben Ali had yet to be contested. Video here, from Minute 19:57.

Last month Inner City Press questioned Tunisia's Ambassador in press conference at the UN after he bragged about human solidarity and banking in his country. Inner City Press asked about the youth conference Tunisia had said that it would hold. The Ambassador blamed other states for not coming through on financial pledges.

In New York over the weekend, while there was rally in Union Square, Tunisia's elegant Mission just north of the UN was not targeted. Watch this site.

UN Gets Sri Lanka Visa for Fundraising, Not War Crimes Panel, Doormat for Despots

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 17 -- A month after visits to Sri Lanka were announced by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for his Panel of Experts on Accountability, a UN official from New York is finally going to Colombo.

It is not, however, about accountability. Rather, deputy chief of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Catherine Bragg is going to issue an appeal for money.

At the UN's January 17 noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky to comment on protests about aid non delivery in Batticaloa, and why his Office never responded to these two questions formally submitted to him six weeks ago on December 5, 2010:

Does the UN have any comment on Sri Lanka's government ordering the International Committee of the Red Cross out of Northern Sri Lanka?

Or, as previously requested, on the new rules requiring NGOs and INGOs to register with the Department of Defense, etc?

The latter question was pending unanswered for much longer. The UN's OCHA, whose previously chief John Holmes spoke of the very “bloodbath on the beach” which Ban's Panel appears to be skirting around without investigating, has not commented on the expulsions of and restrictions on humanitarian NGOs and even INGOs.

Nevertheless on January 17 Nesirky, who had not announced Bragg's visit among the press releases he read at the beginning of the noon briefing, would not even confirm or explain Bragg's visit. He twice told Inner City Press to “ask OCHA,” the UN arm which has refused to comment on restrictions on humanitarian NGOs in the country they will now ask for money for.

Inner City Press asked Nesirky to state when and under what conditions Ban's Panel will or will not go to Sri Lanka, now in light of UN official Ms. Bragg's fundraising trip.

Nesirky insisted that the "Secretary General has answered your questions," apparently referring to Ban's January 14 comment, after a press conference in which Nesirky refused to take a Sri Lanka question, that the members of his panel “are now working very seriously on finalizing the dates of visiting Sri Lanka.”

Inner City Press then asked about “the government has said they can only talk to the LLRC [Lessons Learnt & Reconciliation Commission], that they can't investigate anything.”

Ban Ki-moon replied, “They will be able to... They are now discussing that.”

Many find it strange that a month after Ban announced his Panel would go, and specifically praised the “flexibility” of President Rahinda Rajapaksa, he now says his Panel is having to (re) discuss the ability to have conversations inside Sri Lanka, to which Ms. Bragg is dispatched to raise funds.

In a conversation with one of the groups excluded from Northern Sri Lanka, the UN was referred to a a “doormat for despots. To this has this UN sunk. Watch this site.

UN's Landgren Spoke of Withholding from Nepal Equipment that India Gave

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 14 -- After UN envoy Karin Landgren told the UN Security Council earlier this month that the “monitoring equipment” could not be left in Nepal without an agreement, Inner City Press repeatedly asked the UN for clarification. None came.

Now it emerges that the equipment was given by India, and that India has told Nepal it can keep it. The UN has nothing to say, contrary to Landgren's speech to the Security Council, which has been widely criticized in Nepal.

Inner City Press also repeatedly asked the UN why Secretary General Ban Ki-moon jumped the gun and named Landgren as his next envoy to Burundi on December 31, while the parties in Nepal still had two weeks in which they might have made a joint request for the UN Mission in Nepal to stay.

While the UN answered that Landgren would not begin in Burundi as Charles Petrie's replacement until January 15, that did not answer the question. Why did Ban jump the gun and telegraph the UN's unwillingness to stay in Nepal, even if both parties asked?

A Security Council sources tells Inner City Press that the UN was just “sick of Nepal,” that the parties weren't negotiating and solving things. But other say this is also true to some extent in Cyprus, the Former Yuguslav Republic of Macedonia, the Middle East and elsewere from which the UN doesn't leave. The UN has been asked to leave Cote d'Ivoire, and hasn't.

So why the flight from and flubs in Nepal? Watch this site.

From the UN's January 13 transcript

Inner City Press: since there’s no noon briefing tomorrow, I just wanted to ask — one is Nepal, and the pullout of the UNMIN [United Nations Mission in Nepal] mission. There had been some discussion of leaving behind the monitoring equipment — either on a loan basis, or — what’s going to actually happen with the equipment on the 15th, given that that’s the deadline?

Spokesperson: I’ll check on both of them for you, Matthew.

But at close of business the next day January 14, no answer had been provided. Watch this site.