As Somaliland Says UNSOM Can't Function There, UN in Denial, On Facebook

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 13 -- After Somaliland through its foreign minister told UN envoy to Somalia Nicholas Kay that his UNSOM mission is not welcome in Somaliland, Inner City Press asked UK ambassador (and UN Security Council President for June) Mark Lyall Grant about it.

Lyall Grant said "I think the situation is not 100 percent clear, yet." But it is: Inner City Press has obtained and is putting online the Somaliland letter. It says the UN

"ignores the reality of Somaliland's existence and functioning as an independent state since 1991 and the self-determination rights of our people. Since the purpose of such an office is to extend the remit of the federal government to Somaliland, my government is of the view that a UNSOM'S presences in Hargeisa will not be in the best interest of our country. Therefore, we can not allow UNSOM'S political office to function in Somaliland."

  The UN should not be surprised, though some perhaps are: as Inner City Press reported in April, Somaliland's letter to the Security Council was never distributed to the Council members. Then the UN system gave Somaliland's airspace to Somalia, triggering a ban on UN flights.

  Now UNSOM has put on its Facebook page -- Digital Diplomacy again -- that Nicholas Kay:

"after his meeting with Somaliland Government in Hargeisa and concerns expressed over UNSOM mandate: 'I take very seriously the Somaliland government's concerns as expressed today. This is a complex and sensitive issue and I believe the mandate of the UN Assistance Mission in Somalia, UNSOM, can bring considerable benefits to Somaliland across a range of issues, while fully respecting its particular circumstances. I look forward to continuing the dialogue.'"

Good luck. A joke outside the Security Council on Thursday was that someday soon, quite soon, Nicholas Kay will be called by a Freudian-slipping ambassador Nicholas Cage. Things are getting weird. Watch this site.

UN Mission Off the Record, Respected by ICP, Ignored by UNCA Prez Pamela Falk of CBSNews.com

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 13 -- UN World is a strange place. Some countries' mission want journalists to cover their events, even their receptions, and others don't. And so you try to ask for and follow the rules.

  The US Mission has been described by some as quite controlling; most recently, they made clear that the farewell for their departing Ambassador -- you see we are not naming her -- was off the record and not to be mentioned, even the date of the event. Inner City Press agreed, and then respected it.

  But when the event occurred, there in the front row was the 2013 president of the old UN Correspondents' Association, Pamela Falk. Audio here and here.

  She whipped out her phone and took photographs. Inner City Press, also there as noted by the speaker from Djibouti, assumed these were only for Falk's personal file. Off the record means off the record for all, right?

  But no! After the event, which many enjoyed without tweeting, Pamela Falk of CBSNews.com tweeted her photo of the event, here. Why? To show that she was there? There was no analysis, no context.

  Ironically, Pamela Falk also took photographs while Inner City Press' office was subject to a non-consensual raised by the UN on March 18, 2013. 

  But when this fact was reported, she responded with a legal threat from her CBSNews.com e-mail address, to cease and desist even asking in writing the question of why she took photographs of a raid on a journalist's office.

  Photographs of that raid, of Inner City Press' desk and bookshelf, were leaked anonymously to BuzzFeed immediately after BuzzFeed asked the UN Spokesperson's office about the raid on Inner City Press.

  Falk meanwhile tweeted her photograph of the event which USUN said was off the record. In the lobby -- location undisclosed by Inner City Press -- afterward, UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous was seen outside with an UNCA Executive Committee member solicitously holding an umbrella for him. 

  Can you say, lapdogs? The new Free UN Coalition for Access can. And we remain waiting for answers.

   Meanwhile UNCA under Falk is trying to ban even substantive flyers on journalists' office doors, and to banmedia workspace in front of the Security Council, presidency of which the US through Ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo will take over on July 1. Watch this site.

UN Washes Its Hands of A/V Workers, Allows Commercial Use of Its Name by TeamPeople

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 13 -- How different is the UN from sneaker or clothing chains which say they are not responsible for how their contractors treat workers, in Bangladesh for example?

This month the UN transferred the contract for the audio - visual technicians who work in the UN, some for more than a decade, to a company called TeamPeople, which immediately put the jobs up for bid on CraigsList. Workers say it is to break the union.

At the June 13 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Martin Nesirky the following:

Inner City Press: This is a labor question. The contract for the audio-visual services was recently awarded, and the company that got it is [inaudible]. [ICP note: it's TeamPeople.] They put out a press release, you know, saying how, saying a number of things. They’ve also started recruiting even on Craigslist. So, I wanted to know two things. One, I’m told that there is some kind of UN rules against using UN names in a corporate press release. I wonder ifthis violates the rule or if there was some waiver. Two, how this impacts the people currently working at the stakeout. They’ve been told to reapply for their jobs. Are they in the same position as anyone, you know, applying over Craigslist? Or there is some provision for people that have worked here for decades to have a leg-up in continuing to work?

Spokesperson Nesirky: I think I will be able to provide you something on that a little bit later, Matthew.

And sure enough, after close of business the following came in:

From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:55 PM
Subject: Your questions on the new audiovisual contrac
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] innercitypress.com

Regarding the press release issued by TeamPeople: As a general rule, the use of the UN name is reserved for official purposes and is not authorized for commercial purposes. This general prohibition is included in our general conditions of contract and forms part of every contract we conclude with vendors. However, this prohibition does not extend to the provision of purely factual information.

As for the audiovisual contract and its impact on current employees: The new contractor has sole responsibility for supplying the technicians, i.e. sound engineers, camera operators and studio technicians. The UN's contract is with the contractor only and the UN is not involved in the contractor's hiring processes.

  So the "purely factual" loophole eats up the prohibition on commercial use of the UN's name, at least under Ban Ki-moon. Worse, the second paragraph could come write out of the past playbook of Nike or Kathy Lee Gifford.

   Even with regard to the cafeteria workers of UN contractor Aramark, which is delaying opening the Delegates' Lounge and Dining Room while renting them out for big money on weekends, the UN said it had some concern. But on A/V? Watch this site.

On Syria, OHCHR Didn't See Any Reason to Ask Who Paid for Study Ascribed To It & UN by Reuters

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 13 -- So who paid for the Syria death toll study released by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on June 13?

  Both the authors of the report at the Human Rights Data Analysis Group and OHCHR spokesperson Rupert Colville have told Inner City Press that HRDAG worked "pro bono."

  HRDAG's Patrick Ball went further, telling Inner City Press, "We did the work pro bono because doing analysis of this kind is the mission for which we receive support from our donors."

  But who are the donors? There is an "anonymous US-based private foundation." Ball declined to disclose who it is, so Inner City Press asked Colville if the UN even knows. He replied:

"Donors have a right to remain anonymous if they want to. If we felt there was something going wrong with the way statistical analysis is being handled, we might ask questions on that -- but we don't any reason to."

  How could that be -- especially since Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Martin Nesirky at noon said that OHCHR reported there had been 93,000 deaths, how could OHCHR say it didn't see any reason to ask who paid for the study? There are other questions outstanding.

  For now, consider that the HRDAG report concludes that "the content of this analysis does not necessary reflect the opinion on OHCHR" -- but Reuters headline was "U.N. says 93,000 killed in Syrian conflict" and they called it a "UN report."

  That is -- a UN report that the UN , when asked, doesn't even know who paid for. Watch this site.

In Somaliland,Kay's UNSOM Not Welcome, Sources Tell ICP, No Shotgun Marriage

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 13 -- At the UN noon briefing on June 13, it was proudly announced that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's new British envoy to Somalia, Nicholas Kay, was making his first visit to Somaliland, which he called an "island of relative peace."

Hours later, sources in Hargeisa called Inner City Press saying Kay was told that his UNSOM mission cannot operate in Somaliland -- its mandate is for Somalia, of which Somaliland says it is not a part.

The sources told Inner City Press that Kay declined to speak to the media in Hargeisa and instead "flew off to Nairobi."

As Inner City Press reported in April, Somaliland's letter to the Security Council was never distributed to the Council members. Then the UN system gave Somaliland's airspace to Somalia, triggering a ban on UN flights.

The UN's idea seems to be if they just pretend everything's ok, and bandy about the compliment that there is much to be learned for Somaliland, the problem (from the perspective of the UN and Mogadishu) will go away, and a "shotgun marriage" can be effectuated. Watch this site.

Jubaland Reaches UNSC But Not Somalia Kenya Rift in Kismayo, UK Hot & Cold on Syria

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 13 -- Jubaland made it into the UN Security Council on Thursday, when UN Assistant Secretary General Taye-Brook Zerihoun gave a closed door briefing. Afterward UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant, Security Council president for June, came out and announced that his delegation has circulated a draft press statement expressing concern about tensions there.

  Inner City Press asked Lyall Grant if Kenya would be mentioned in his press statement, given Somalia's complaints including at the recent African Union summit how its parliamentarians were "blocked by Kenya" from entering Kismayo. Video here from Minute 2:38.

  Lyall Grant replied that he didn't think Kenya would be named, but AMISOM would be and Kenya is part of AMISOM. He acknowledged "incidents" in Kismayo and said there should not be distractions from the fight against Al Shabaab.

While Lyall Grant, when reached at the stakeout, is responsive, as is his spokesperson, this stands in contrast still to the UN Mission in Geneva.

  After two days of questions and complaints about the Human Rights Council resolution they tweeted that they had tabled, on Thursday morning when tw-asked for a copy of the resolution, they said it was on the HRC's website. 

  But hours later, after signing in to the "extra-net," the draft resolution wasn't there. And it has still not be received. Ah,Digital Diplomacy. Watch this site.

UN Projects Short Lives in Sierra Leone, DRC & Guinea-Bissau in 2095, No Word on Myanmar's Proposed Two Child Policy for Muslims

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 13 -- A UN report projecting Sierra Leone, the Congo and Guinea Bissau to continue to have the lowest life expectancies at birth as far out as 2095 was released on Thursday.

Inner City Press asked John Wilmoth, Director of the Population Division of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs how the UN could be so sure these countries, each with a UN mission in it, would still be at the bottom 80Wilmoth years from now. Video here, from Minute 34:45. Inner City Press also asked for comment on the two child policy for Muslims in part of Myanmar.

Wilmoth replied that he hadn't heard of that issue in Myanmar -- it sure SEEMS like population news -- and that he wouldn't want to comment on any policy choice a government would make to manage its population. (That seems to be how the UN operates in Sudan and, say, Sri Lanka.)

On the troubling projections for Africa, Wilmoth told Inner City Press "I would encourage you to focus on the present and next few decades." Then why did the UN include this projections and rankings until 2095 in the report it handed out on Thursday? Can't journalists choose what to focus on from what the UN itself chooses to put in a report?

Footnote: The briefing began with a question on behalf of the UN Correspondents Association, which on June 12 signed off on UN Media Access Guidelines banning media workspace in front of the UN Security Council, and trying to limit the free speech rights of any entity other than UNCA.

  Inner City Press for the new Free UN Coalition for Accessthanked Wilmoth for this briefing -- and asserts again, independent journalists can focus on what they choose, and type and work wherever makes most sense. Watch this site.

On Syria Death Toll Study OHCHR Explains Sole Source Selection of HRDAG: No Contract, Anonymous Funder UNknown?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 13 -- For the Syria death toll study released today, how did the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights select the San Francisco-based Human Rights Data Analysis Group, which receives its grants through a fiscal conduit, does not list a phone number on its website and is funded by an "anonymous US-based private foundation"?

  Inner City Press asked OHCHR, including in light of itsanswers in January about the first study by Benetech which listed the US National Endowment for Democracy among its funders. Quickly quickly, OHCHR spokesperson Rupert Colville has responded, comparing HRDAG to Benetech:

From: Rupert Colville [at] ohchr.org
Date: Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: Hi, Press Q on HRDAG, how selected, etc,
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] innercitypress.com

They are now a separate non-profit organization, and they very kindly agreed to do it pro bono this time round. Why we chose them is very simple and very obvious: they are one of the leading groups of experts in a very small, highly specialized, field. Some of their key people have more than 20 years' experience in doing this type of analysis of casualties in conflicts, and other human rights related data. They are also well known to the UN, having worked on several important projects in the past. They have also done work for truth and reconciliation commissions, and international and domestic criminal tribunals, among others.

When it comes to Syria, they now have very specialized capabilities indeed, given the large amount of input from a Syrian language expert into the technical efforts and computer programming designed to ensure there is no double counting, mistaking of names etc.

So the criteria for choosing HRDAG were experience, expertise and credibility -- and, of course, availability. The individuals working with HRDAG have considerable experience and expertise in this type of work. Re funding: we do not have concerns about the fact that HRDAG has other sources of funding -- as you must be aware by now, that is totally normal for most non-profit organizations and NGOs with whom we, and many other UN organizations, work on a regular basis.

  But what about the anonymous US-based private foundation? And how does OHCHR memorialize any of this selection process if there is "no contract"? Is there at least a letter of some kind and can it be disclosed?

  Since without a contract or documented selection process etc the HRDAG report was put on the OHCHR's web site and is being described as a UN report, would you put up a study submitted by another (non-US-based) NGO? What would the process be? Does OHCHR know who the anonymous US-based donor paying for this work is? If so, will OHCHR disclose the identity? If not, why not? OHCHR has been asked. Watch this site.

Exclusive: For UN's Syria Death Toll Report, There "Was No Contract," Funding From Anonymous US-Based Donor

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, June 13 -- With media worldwide reporting that "the UN" today reported 93,000 killed in Syria, Inner City Press has inquired further into the authorship of the new report.

  Not only is it not a UN report -- the UN didn't even pay for it. 

  The California-based Human Rights Data Analysis Group tells Inner City Press there was no contract... we did the work pro bono because doing analysis of this kind is the mission for which we receive support from our donors."

  So HRDAG's donors paid for the report. But who are they? Inner City Press asked, and Patrick Ball of HRDAG, previously (January 2013) of Benetech, replied that "Regarding our anonymous donor: I cannot tell you who they are. I can tell you that they're US-based."

  Well that's re-assuring. An anonymous US-based donor paid for HRDAG's report on the Syria death toll, which the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights released and many media called a "UN report."

From Patrick Ball's response:

From: Patrick Ball
Subject: your queries
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] innercitypress.com
Date: Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 7:41 AM

dear Matthew,

-- HRDAG was not paid for this report. There was no contract, no RFP. We did the work pro bono because doing analysis of this kind is the mission for which we receive support from our donors.

-- In terms of spinning off from Benetech, here are the announcements: https://hrdag.org/welcome/

http://benetech.blogspot.com/2013/02/benetechs-human-rights-spin-off.html

(I'm not sure why the date on Benetech's announcement is 15 Feb, I think we posted it on 18 Jan, but it might have been edited in Feb)

-- Regarding our anonymous donor: I cannot tell you who they are. I can tell you that they're US-based

If there was "no contract," can say a Russia-based or funded NGO hand in its report to Navi Pillay and get it released on the OHCHR's website? Who decided to do it this way? We have asked the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and will publishing their response upon receipt. 

  The last report issued in January 2013 by the OHCHR used San Francisco based Benetech. Inner City Press looked into it and found Benetech was funded in part by the US National Endowment for Democracy.

  Ball is one of the four authors of the new report, along with Megan Price, Jeff Klingner and Anas Qtiesh. (The last of these was not listed on the January 2013 report; we have asked.)

Watch this site.

UN's New Syria Fatality Report Is By SF-Based HRDAG, Spun Out of Benetech, Still with Anonymous US-based Funder

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 13 -- Amid the slaughter in Syria, how does the UN count the dead? 

  Today's announcement of at least 93,000 dead, ascribed tothe Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva but compiled by an California-based outside contractor (re) named the Human Rights Data Analysis Group, is worth looking at in terms of authorship.

  The last report issued in January 2013 by the OHCHR used San Francisco based Benetech. Inner City Press looked into it and found Benetech was funded in part by the US National Endowment for Democracy.

  A Patrick Ball of Benetech told Inner City Press there had been a Request for Proposals: that is, competition. But soon it emerged that there was no RFP"as such." Two other organizations were approached, but OHCHR would not name them. A strange procurement, to say the least.

  Now, the day before the vote at the Human Rights Council on a Syria resolution sponsored by the US, UK, Qatar, Kuwait and Turkey, OHCHR released a new report -- this time, not "formally" by Benetech.

  But even a cursory check based off the first page of the new report finds that the same Patrick Ball who replied to Inner City Press in January for Benetech is the executive director of the "new" contractor Human Rights Data Analysis Group or HRDAG. He is one of the four authors of the new report, along with Megan Price, Jeff Klingner and Anas Qtiesh.

  At the bottom of the report is the new disclosure: "Formally, HRDAG is a fiscally sponsored project of Community Partners."

  It's a generic name, Community Partners -- but a quick visits finds it to be a sort of conduit which lends its non-profit status to start up. HRDAG is not so much a start up as a spin off -- it is being spun off from Benetech. 

  The report says "In February 2013, HRDAG became an independent organization." Is that because of the exposure of Benetech's funding by the US National Endowment for Democracy? But what has changed?

  HRDAG has as one of three advisers an official from Human Rights Watch. Under Funding it portrays Western government's funding to Benetech as a thing of the past. But even in its present re-incarnation, HRDAG lists as a funder an "anonymous U.S.-based private foundation."

   On Community Partners' board of directors are people from Ameriprise Financial, Mattel and NBC, among others. So did the renamed HRDAG, spun out of US-funded Benetech, get another essentially sole source contract? Why is the UN so sloppy? Why can it not issue its own reports, given its budget? Watch this site.

For Abuse in DR Congo, South Africa Charges 93 Troops, UN Says Nothing: Zero Truthfulness

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 12 -- With the UN in the midst of deploying a controversial "intervention brigade" in the Eastern Congo, South African Defense Minister Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula has announced that 94 of its troops in the Congo have been charged with improprieties and that four have been "discharged" for sexual exploitation or abuse.

While any discipline is better than none, Inner City Press on June 12 asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesman Eduardo Del Buey, "If someone is found guilty of sexual exploitation or abuse while on a UN peacekeeping mission, is it enough to discharge them from the army, or is some type of punishment expected, and how does this impact their service in the Intervention Brigade?"

Del Buey replied, "Well, Matthew, I will suggest you ask the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. We’ve received the reports and DPKO is looking into this right now. So, I suggest you ask DPKO a bit later on this afternoon."

DPKO chief Herve Ladsous has already repeatedly refused to answer Press questions about sexual abuse in the Congo, including 135 rapes in Minova by his partners in the Congolese Army. See compilation video here, and most recent (May 29) here. Forget the claimed "zero tolerance" -- it appears to be, "zero truthfulness."

  Since May 29, DPKO has not provided the requested update on actions taken on the 135 Minova rapes. DPKO's spokesman was bopping around the UN cafeteria mid-afternoon on June 12; still, no answer has been provided, on Minova or the new South African MONUSCO announcement, which Del Buey said DPKO is "looking into right now." Looking into what? Watch this site.

From DRC to UNSC Stakeout & UNTV, UN Won't Practice What It Preaches, Free Speech Banned, Worker Re-Apply for Jobs?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 12 -- Around the world, increasingly the UN does not even pretend to practice what it preaches. In Haiti it dismisses legal claims that it brought cholera to the island; so much for accountability and the rule of law.

   In the Congo the UN continues working with Army units which engaged in mass rape in Minova, and then won't answer about it, video here. So much for zero tolerance.

  But this trend can be found right inside UN headquarters. We'll have more to say about the "Media Access Guidelines" the UN Department of Public Information and its partner finalized on June 12, banning free speech and hindering media coverage of the Security Council which DPI is supposed to facilitate. 

  We'll start with the audio / visual technicians who work in the UN.

  This week the contract they work under was transferred to a new company, "TeamPeople." Some have worked for decades in the UN -- but this week they were unceremoniously told to re-apply for their jobs. TeamPeople sent a Human Resources person into the UN to hand out applications.

  Meanwhile TeamPeople started advertising for new and presumably cheaper workers, on CraigList. They broke a rule against using the UN name, in a corporate press release.

  Other workers in the UN, in the cafeteria, have faced layoffs because the UN allows the contractor Aramark to cut the hours, to not re-open the Delegates Lounge and Dining Room on which the UN spent so much renovating.

  Speaking of spending, the UN gives a big room or "clubhouse" to the so-called UN Correspondents Association, which not only doesn't represent all UN correspondents but which has tried to get some correspondents thrown out. (Here is Voice of America's request to DPI, which VOA said Reuters and AFP supported.) Maybe that's WHY UNCA gets the big space: they are the UN's Censorship Alliance.

  But now the UN and UNCA have issued Media Access Guidelines which try to make UNCA the only group which can speak. 

  There are UNCA signs on and above the door of its UN provided clubhouse; now a rule seeks to tell non-UNCA journalists they cannot put even on the door to their office the sign or name of the new Free UN Coalition for Access. This is like, some say, North Korea - and it is not acceptable.

  At the same Security Council stakeout where the audio - visual workers have had to mark their turf with yellow duct tape and run extension chords after the $2 billion renovation, journalists under the UN - UNCA rules are forced to sit on the ground, not allowed chairs or a table to type on.

More Security Council members on Wednesday told Inner City Press they had nothing to do with this rule. As Inner City Press noted at the June 12 noon briefing, even one UNCA Executive Committee member claimed he hadn't agreed:

Inner City Press: on this question of the General Assembly, I’ve asked that, and DPI has said there will not be any, other than photo booths, way to cover the GA. So, I wanted to ask you, earlier today, something purporting to be the media access guidelines was finalized. It says that it’s in agreement with UNCA [United Nations Correspondents Association]; it says that it can be no permanent workspace for the media in front of the Security Council, no flyers are allowed. I spoke to one UNCA executive committee member who said he didn’t agree to it, so I wanted to know, since the UN put it out, who’s behind the rule? Is there going to be the GA limitation? Has this been agreed to by UNCA, as well? And how does this square with DPI telling the Free UN Coalition for Access that they are still considering installing benches and tables? Why was this rule finalized at this time with your name of your office on it?

Deputy Spokesperson Eduardo Del Buey: Matthew, you’re going to have to check with DPI on that. I think we’ve gone into this on several occasions with you. We’ve said everything we have to say from this podium. Speak with DPI. They are the ones that…

Inner City Press: Well, we’re having a lot of frustration. For example, the GA, they said there was no change.

Deputy Spokesperson Del Buey: Well, you have to deal with that. I know they reply to your emails. I know they reply to your questions. Sometimes, of course, the answers aren’t what you want to hear, but they do reply to your questions.

Inner City Press: Sometimes, the answers aren’t accurate. That’s why I’m asking here.

Deputy Spokesperson: Well, they do reply to your questions.

Watch this site.

On Sudan, UN Stonewalls Then Spins Suffering & Empty Blue Nile Glass as Being Half Full, No Push for Cross-Border Aid Like For Syria

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 12 -- For more than a week, Inner City Press has been asking the UN if there is humanitarian access to Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan states in Sudan. On June 4 an answer was promised. On June 12, still with no answer, Inner City Press asked it again, this time citing an Amnesty International report on Blue Nile issued on June 10.

The report (online here) details horrendous conditions in Blue Nile, and concludes by recommending to the UNMISS mission and other UN agencies that they monitor violations of humanitarian law and report them to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

After the second request to Ban's Spokesperson's Office, that Office sent this:

Subject: Your question at the noon briefing
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.or
Date: Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:42 PM
To: Matthew.Le [at] innercitypress.com

UN access to Government-controlled parts of Blue Nile has improved significantly since this time last year. In late May, WFP reached 84,000 people with food assistance and UNHCR delivered emergency shelter and non-food items to 5,000 people. UN staff had meetings with the authorities and NGO partners in the state capital, Ad-Damazin, last week.

The UN still does not have access to areas of Blue Nile controlled by the SPLM-N, however. The UN continues to call for a cessation of hostilities so that a polio vaccination campaign can be carried out in these areas from within Sudan and for the parties to return to the negotiating table so that all civilians affected by the conflict can be reached with humanitarian assistance.

  The rosy picture of relations with the Sudanese authorities is at odds, to say the least, with the Amnesty International report. There is no mention of the type of cross-border the aid that the same Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs is demanding in Syria. Why not? Watch this site.