In Libya, UN Urges IDPs Not To Return, No Protection of Civilians, Chad's Borders

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 18 -- The UN talks a lot, in Libya and elsewhere, about protecting civilians, and about the right to return of internally displaced people.

  But when in Libya the Tawerghans set June 25, a week from now, as the date on which they aim to return to their homes, the UN through envoy Tarek Mitri urged against it, calling it " a move fraught with risks."

Inner City Press on June 18 asked Mitri what the UN is planning to do for the next seven days, to try to protect the Tawerghans from the blood bath the UN is predicting.

  Mitri said the UN can't protect the Tawerghans; he said the government can't either. The UN is trying to convince the government to offer some guarantees -- he mentioned "compensation" -- to convince the Tawerghans not to return for now.

  This seems like a strange form of protection of civilians, a Ladsous-ian one to use a phrase coined yesterday referring to UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous who wants to use in Mali an army that's on the UN list of child soldier recruiters, and who continues to partner with units of the Congolese Army implicated in 135 rapes in Minova. Video stonewall here and here.

  Mitri to his credit at least answers questions. He said that Libya has no intelligence service, and needs cooperation to secure its borders.

  Inner City Press asked June's Security Council president Mark Lyall Grant about the claim by Chad's president Idriss Deby that Islamists dislodged by France from northern Mali have gone into southern Libya. 

  Lyall Grant said that hadn't come up as such in consultations, but that border security had, particularly between Libya and Chad, Niger and Algeria.

  Isn't this the type of Sahel issue that Romano Prodi has been getting paid since October to work on, or at least develop a report on? Watch this site.

As UN Orders One Journalist Out of Turkish Lounge, Lets Reuters Sprawl Out: Taksim Square Echo?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 18 -- Even while the UN Security Council met Tuesday morning about Libya, the UN's reduction of media access for most, double standards and favoritism for its UN Censorship Alliance known as UNCA was on display.

  There was still no media worktable as existed before the Council's relocation. But into the Turkish Lounge area, from which a journalist who has signed a Free UN Coalition for Access petition was told to leave on Monday by the UN Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit, an UNCA Executive Committee member sprawled out talking on a cell phone.

Some journalists are allowed by the UN in the Turkish Lounge, and some are not. A wag mused that it is like Taksim Square of late.

  There are two standards, you see. The UN is moving to Ban even a sign for the Free UN Coalition for Access, which has been pushing back against the reduction in access and media workspace. But the UN says there can continue to be at least two big signs up for UNCA, which sign on to the access reduction (and sign elimination) rule. Photos here.

  Who was the UNCA Executive Committee member sprawled out in the Turkish Lounge? First Vice President Louis Charbonneau of Reuters, who has repeatedly written to the UN's Stephane Dujarric, first at his UN address and then more stealthly to a personal account, seeking to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN. UN Censorship Alliance, indeed. But this double standard is one step too far. Watch this site.

Footnote: Also Tuesday morning, a UN staff member -- NOT from the Department of Public Information, MALU's parent - told Inner City Press that some benches for journalists are to be installed in the next few days. 

  This is some reaction to FUNCA's advocacy, but not enough. And MALU's and Dujarric's response is to try to Ban the signs of FUNCA, and create a double standard in Taksim Square -- sorry, the Turkish Lounge.

After UN Staff Vote "No Confidence" In Ban Ki-moon, & Talks Break Down in Mexico City, Ban Blames General Assembly

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 18 -- Blame for the breakdown in UN labor relations is being passed to the General Assembly by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. But is the GA the reason why the Staff Union voted "no confidence" in Ban earlier this year?

  On June 17, Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Eduardo Del Buey about a story it had exclusively published the day previous: the abrupt termination of the UN Staff Management Committee meeting in Mexico City on June 14.

  The Staff Union said that Ban's Secretariat gave a proposal late that sought to abrogate their negotiating rights. But Del Buey on June 17 blamed it all on the General Assembly, and said the proposal had been given four weeks in advance. From the UN's transcript:

Inner City Press: there was this meeting in Mexico City of the Staff Management Committee and the staff union has said that, basically, the Secretariat tried to abrogate their negotiating rights and ended the meeting several days early, including wasting resources of people that flew down there. Is there some response from the Secretariat to the claim by their union that they are not negotiating in good faith and wasted resources?

Deputy Spokesperson Del Buey: As a matter of fact there is.

Inner City Press: Great. Let’s do it.

Deputy Spokesperson Del Buey: The Staff-Management Committee meeting in Mexico City (SMC-II) ended prematurely on Friday, as you have well noted. The impasse arose related to the role of the Committee itself which, since 2011, has been governed by the Secretary-General’s bulletin (ST/SGB/2011/6), which provides that issues be resolved by consensus. The General Assembly, in its resolution 67/255, requested that the bulletin be revised in line with existing staff regulations. A draft revised bulletin was shared with members of the Staff-Management Committee, which removed the requirement for agreement by consensus.

Staff representatives disagreed with the General Assembly. While we recognize the importance of this issue to staff representatives, the position of the Member States is clear and the administration cannot revisit the issue with the General Assembly, as suggested by staff representatives.

Management demonstrated flexibility and encouraged the staff representatives at the SMC-II on several occasions to provide constructive suggestions that could be incorporated into the draft revision of the said resolution. Regrettably, staff representatives at SMC-II were not prepared to stick to the program of work that had been agreed upon and discussed the many other important agenda items. It was, therefore, not possible to continue this meeting.

Inner City Press: Can I just ask, because I have seen the president of the union’s e-mail saying that management’s presentation of this issue was done after the document submission deadline, at the eleventh hour, so if it was so clear, why didn’t the Secretariat tell them in advance? Probably you could have figured it out it was going to break down in Mexico. Is it the case that this was turned into, to the other side too late?

Deputy Spokesperson: I don’t believe it was; I believe it was sent about four weeks prior to the meeting.

  We'll have more on this. But it is clear that the Staff Union's "no confidence" in Ban Ki-moon resolution, overwhelmingly adopted earlier this year, cannot be blamed on the General Assembly. Watch this site.

Pro-UN Posters Allowed But Dissent To Be Torn Down, Banning Free Speech as Trend: Photos

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 18 -- The UN's lack of respect for free speech is not a static fact: it is becoming worse.

  Earlier this year, just after the formation of the Free UN Coalition for Access was announced on fliers that the UN and members of its UN Censorship Alliance or UNCA repeatedly tore down, the UN e-mailed out a compromise.

  Isabelle Broyer of the UN Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit wrote on January 28, 2013, "As a follow-up to last week information about flyers, members of the press have several ways to communicate with their colleagues, if they would like to share information... paste it onto your own office door."

  But now the same Isabelle Broyer is ordering the removal even of a simple Free UN Coalition Access sign from Inner City Press' office door -- while saying that two UNCA signs can remain up.

  Click here to view the Free UN Coalition for Access sign on Inner City Press' office door, photo by FUNCA member Luiz Rampelotto:

Click here to view the UNCA signs, in front of a large space custom-built and given free to the United Nations Correspondents Association for private events they don't even inform non-UNCA members of. 

  Meanwhile, an UNCA executive committee member given a private office next to Inner City Press' shared office has pro-UN propaganda festooned on his door. Photo here. 

  That is not coming down. The UN targets specific messages, and seeks to ban one dissenting group while propping up another.

  This is true not only of signs. Broyer's supervisor Stephane Dujarric, formerly the spokesperson for the UN Development Program's Helen Clark and before that Kofi Annan, has not only tried to tell Inner City Press how to cover Ban Ki-moon.

   This year, he asked that Inner City Press call him "urgently" about a single tweet which mentioned World War Two, the UN's founding event.

  (It was the victors or not losers in World War Two which got Permanent seats and veto power on the UN Security Council, which France converted under Kofi Annan into ownership of the top job in UN Peacekeeping, now held byHerve Ladsous, mentioned in the tweet, the fourth Frenchman in a row to run DPKO.)

  Meanwhile when an UNCA Executive Committee member tweets for example that Syria's Assad is like Hitler, no call from Dujarric. Likewise that he should end like Gaddafi. 

  Dujarric is only endeavoring to micro-manage some correspondents. He likes UNCA and its (Gulf and Western) leadership; he tries to ban the new Free UN Coalition for Access for them, and for others in the UN. We will have more on this. Watch this site.

UN Takes Sides on Syria and Sri Lanka, Rwanda & Free Speech, Bans FUNCA Signs of Dissent with Censorship Alliance: CBS, Reuters, AFP

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 17 -- On issues ranging from Sri Lanka to Syria, Rwanda to reform, France to freedom of speech, the UN openly favors one point of view and tries to marginalize the other.

  Moving in that order, after Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was accused of being too quiet as 40,000 Tamils were killed in Sri Lanka in 2009, his UN Censorship Alliance, still known by some as the UN Correspondents Association or UNCA, arranged to screen inside the UN a government film denying war crimes.

  When Inner City Press, at that time an elected UNCA board member, wrote about how the film screening came about, the powers within UNCA asked that the article be taken off the Internet, and ultimately tried through Voice of America, which said it had the support of Reuters and AFP, to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN. (Instead, Inner City Press quit UNCA and co-founded the Free UN Coalition for Access).

  On Syria, by the UN giving UNCA's president Pamela Falk of CBS the first question, on June 14 one of only two questions to Ban Ki-moon, the position of some in the West that a no fly zone should be established over Syria was promoted. 

  That same day, Ban's Department of Public Information demanded that a mere sign for FUNCA be taken down off Inner City Press' door, while UNCA would be left with two signs at the entrance to the UN press floor.

  On Rwanda, the UN's new consensus seems to be to blame the country that it abandoned to a genocide of one million people for the UN's own failings in the Eastern Congo. 

  There are moves to marginalize or stonewall any one that questions against that narrative, like Inner City Press asking why France's Herve Ladsous should now head UN Peacekeeping despite having for France argued for the escape of the genocidaires in 1994.

  So here is a first initial take on who runs UNCA, and their politics. The president for 2013 is Pamela Falk of CBS News, present most recently on June 17 pressing to see what it would take to get Ban Ki-moon, through deputy spokesperson Eduardo Del Buey, to agree to a no fly zone over Syria that she characterized as "limited" and "only twenty five miles in." Video here.

  UNCA's first vice president is Louis Charbonneau of Reuters, seemingly a pass through for the UK mission on many positions and documents, rabidly anti-Iran to the point of festooning Reuters' office door with documents mocking Iran. These would apparently be permitted by the Department of Public Information rules agreed with UNCA, setting off a witch hunt against even signs of FUNCA.

  Much of the rest of the Executive Committee is either rabidly or reflexively anti-Assad; Agence France Presse's Tim Witcher goes beyond that to be so pro-Ladsous that he even filed a complaint with the UN on March 8, 2013 leading with how Inner City Press asked a question to Ladsous.

  In this context, for the UN to be trying to outlaw even a sign of the Free UN Coalition for Access, while leaving up two big UNCA signs is a total violation of the principle of free speech, freedom of association, and multi-party systems. And those on UNCA's board who, having been listed as supporting the rule, stand by as it is applied to ban free speech? Watch this site.

UN Official Ordering Censorship of FUNCA Sign Led March Raid, Shared Photos Which Leaked to BuzzFeed

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 17 -- That Ban Ki-moon's United Nations has no respect for the privacy guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution was made clear on March 18, 2013, when his Department of Public Information (DPI) conducted a non-consensual raid on the office of Inner City Press, rifled through papers and took photographs including of Inner City Press' desk and bookshelf.

(What DPI did with the photographs it took will be addressed, after three months review and restraint, below in this article.)

  Now DPI in June DPI is making clear it has no respect for free speech or free association -- principles protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. 

  DPI is trying to ban even a sign for the new Free UN Coalition for Access. The person ordering the FUNCA sign down is the same one who led the March 18, and shared photos of it.

  In a rule DPI agreed to with its UN Correspondents Association, the UN now says:

"Signs posted on doors are limited to entry restrictions – for example, 'do not disturb' or 'on air.' DPI will provide a name-plate for each accredited media organization."

  But, tellingly, the UN proposes to allow two big signs by its favored UNCA -- now known as the UN Censorship Alliance, which also colludes in restricting smaller media's access to the Security Council and in 2012 devoted most of its meetings to trying to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN.

  DPI on Friday June 14 wrote, "the posting of notices policy does apply to the FUNCA sign... I am afraid you will have to take the sign down." The e-mail came from Broyer but she'd said she would check above her. 

  This presumably was with Stephane Dujarric, a DPI official who not only received but in essence encouraged Big Media requests to kick Inner City Press out, including to a non-UN email address he maintains for such "extra-curricular" activity. (There is a movie title that comes to mind, but Inner City Press has been asked not to use it.)

  When the obvious discrepancy with UNCA's two signs was pointed out to the head of DPI on June 14, he said Okay, I will talk to them on Monday. 

  But on Monday morning as Inner City Press tried to cover the Security Council meeting on Children and Armed Conflict, now without a media table which existed for years before UNCA agreed to rules banning it, DPI's Isabelle Broyer insisted, "We are trying to apply the posting of signs policy to all... UNCA has its sign outside the space that has been assigned to that organization."

  Why the UN gives a big space for private meetings by a group that tries to get other media thrown out of the UN is a question that needs answering. But by 5 pm on June 17, other DPI staff were outside Inner City Press' door asking, "are they allowed to hang anything on their door?"

  And Broyer wrote again: "I would like to ask you again to removed the FUNCA sign on your door. As discussed with you before, we only allow signs containing the name of the company which is assigned to that room. You can have Inner City Press on your door, if you want."

   Oh, thank you. How can the UN so openly favor one group over another, and try to ban even the signs of the newer group, even from a media's office door?

   Broyer, as it happens, was on-site at the March 18, 2013 raid. She took photographs, and later that day emailed them to a number of non-DPI parties, as well as to Dujarric. These are EXACTLY the photographs that were then leaked to BuzzFeed on March 21, right after that publication contacted Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Martin Nesirky to inquiry about the raid.

  We will have more, much more, on all of this. Watch this site.

As on Syria UNCA President Pushes for No Fly Zone, UN Tries to Ban FUNCA, Other Views

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 17 -- Whether a US no fly zone over Syria, or arming of rebels there, are good ideas gives rise to a range of answers around the world. 

  But that range is decidedly narrower in the UN, in what press questions are taken and which groups of journalists the UN valorizes.

  When UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had a "press encounter" on Friday June 14, his spokesperson said there would be only two questions and named both questioners in advance. The first was Pamela Falk of CBS News, the president of the UN Correspondents Association, who asked about "the US decision to send military aid to Syria."

  On Monday, June 17 Falk again asked about Syria, asking twice what it would take for Ban Ki-moon to support a "limited" no fly zone over Syria, "only twenty five miles in." Video here. and embedded below.

 To some it smacked of lobbying for the UN to support a no fly zone, by the president of UNCA with which the UN's Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit partners on rules that purport to govern all journalists, including those who choose not to have any part in UNCA

  (Inner City Press, which quit UNCA in 2012 and co-founded the newFree UN Coalition for Access, at the June 17 briefing questioned the UN about accepting post-coup peacekeepers for its Golan observer mission,video here.)

  Both on June 14 and June 17, Falk's questions were followed up by UNCA executive committee members pushing the same perspective on the UN. The other view -- not only of journalists for example from Russia or Iran, but even Western journalists skeptical of another US dalliance or slippery slope like Iraq -- was not allowed a question to Ban Ki-moon, and is pushed to the margins.

  Tellingly, on both June 14 and June 17, the UN's Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit told Inner City Press that a new rule it had agreed with UNCA would require the removal of a Free UN Coalition for Access sign from behind the glass on Inner City Press' office door. Inner City Press has appealed this higher, showing that even the UNCA-agreed rule would ban UNCA's signs too, if equally applied:

"Signs posted on doors are limited to entry restrictions – for example, 'do not disturb' or 'on air.' DPI will provide a name-plate for each accredited media organization."

Beyond this argument based on the rule itself, it is unsavory for the UN to valorize a particular perspective, a single decaying organization associated with a particular view, and try to censor and even ban the signs of another organization, another view. Watch this site.

UN Spins Corporation TeamPeople's Use of its Name, But S-G Ban Ki-moon's Consent Was Required: Selling Out & Union Busting?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 17 -- The UN is not only engaged in union busting, in connection with the audio visual technicians who staff UN Television: it has also allowed its new contractor TeamPeople to violate UN rules and New York law.

On June 13, Inner City Press asked

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.. I’m told that there is some kind of UN rules against using UN names in a corporate press release. I wonder if this violates the rule or if there was some waiver.

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 contract
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.

This response ignores not only the UN rule -- there is no "purely factual information" exception -- but also New York law.

The use of the UN name "for commercial purposes" has been prohibited by the General Assembly since 1946, and is only allowable if authorized by the Secretary General. See this:

Although the UN flag may be freely displayed to demonstrate support for the UN and its work, use of the UN emblem, name or initials for commercial purposes is restricted by General Assembly resolution 92(I), which was adopted in 1946. The resolution states that the UN emblem and seal could not be used without the authorization of the Secretary-General in order to prevent its misuse.

And see this:

L. Use of the United Nations Organization Names or Emblems

The Supplier shall not use the name, emblem or official seal of any UN Organizations, for any purpose.

M. Prohibition on Advertising

The Supplier shall not advertise or otherwise make public that it is furnishing goods or services to UN Organizations without specific permission of the UN Organization in each instance.

And see this:

"Commercial use" of the name and emblem should be distinguished from "use by a commercial entity"(see general principle (c)). The former "implies use in connection with or for furtherance of a profit-making enterprise."

And New York law:

N.Y. GBS. LAW § 141 : NY Code - Section 141: Unlawful use of the name United Nations

No person, firm or corporation shall, without express authority from the secretary general of the United Nations, assume, adopt or use as, or as a part of a corporate, assumed or trade name, for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, or for any other purpose, the name United Nations, or abbreviation thereof; or any official emblem or other official insignia thereof; nor shall any person, firm or corporation, with intent to deceive or mislead the public, for any of such purposes, assume, adopt or use any name, designation or style, or simulation thereof, or designation or style, or simulation thereof, which may deceive or mislead the public as to the true identity of such person, firm or corporation or as to the official connection of such person, firm or corporation with the United Nations. A violation of this section shall be a misdemeanor.

  By this, whether it's a crime turns on whether Ban Ki-moon authorized the corporate use of the UN's name in this instance. Watch this site.

For Child Soldier Recruiter Chad, 5 Steps in 4 Months In Mali, Ladsous' Rules Like on Rape, No Zero Tolerance

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 17 -- Children and Armed Conflict was the topic in the UN Security Council on Monday, with more than two dozen countries saying there should be zero tolerance for the recruitment of child soldiers. But is the UN implementing such zero tolerance?

The elephant in the room, or Council Chamber, was the case of Chad and the UN's mission in Mali set to begin on July 1. Chad is on the UN's list of child soldier recruiters, but is itself being recruited to join the UN mission by Department of Peacekeeping Operations chief Herve Ladsous. Inner City Press first reported on this issue on June 3, here.

Ladsous has spoken of a four month "grace period." Only in the UN could such a grace period, like Ladsous's three strikes and maybe you're out policy on rape, be considered zero tolerance.

The Security Council members spoke first. France's Gerard Araud praised Chad for steps it is said to be taking. But what of the negative precedent of accepting a country currently listed on the child soldier recruitment list as a Troop Contributing County? Nothing on this.

The UK Mission to the UN, when asked last week by Inner City Press, replied through its spokesperson Iona Thomas:

"The UK takes the listing of the Chadian Army in the Secretary General’s report on Children and Armed Conflict very seriously. We understand there are ongoing discussions between the Chadian government, DPKO and the SRSG on Children and Armed Conflict to address Chad’s obligations on the CAAC agenda. It is important that Chad fulfils these obligations as soon as possible and we are monitoring this closely."

  After Monday's Security Council session, Inner City Pressagain asked the SRSG on Children and Armed Conflict Leila Zerrougui about Chad and the Mali mission, MINUSMA. 

   She said that there are five short term items Chad must comply with. When? She said, during the "grace period" -- that is, Ladsous' four months.

Even if that could be described as zero tolerance -- it can't -- it must be recalled that even after Ladsous belatedly threatened to withdraw support from two Congolese Army units implicated in the mass rapes at Minova in November 2012, Ladsous never in fact suspended support, despite only three people being arrested. 

  Three perpetrators for 135 rapes? It is not only on the zero in zero tolerance that Ladsous can apparently not do the math.

  Inner City Press has spoken several times with Chad's Permanent Representative Ahmad Allam-mi, who has also expressed frustration with the UN. If it's that the UN should re-inspect more quickly, then do it. 

 But to claim that accepting a country still on the child soldier recruitment list as a troop contributing country is not a precedent against the claimed zero tolerance -- is laughable. Or Ladsous-ian, to coin another phrase. There will be more.

Footnote: In Monday's open debate, contrary to reform requests by the Small Five and now ACT, UK Ambassador Lyall Grant put the Presidential Statement up for decision before non-Council members spoke. The meeting was difficult to cover, again due to the lack of previously existing media workspace at the Council stakeout. Time is ticking on all this. Watch this site.

In Golan, UN Set To Accept Peacekeepers from Post-Coup Fiji Contrary to Its Past Policy, Murky Ladsous

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 17 -- After the coup in Fiji, the UN said it would not use Fijian peacekeepers, post-coup. Later when Inner City Press inquired how Fijians were reportedly traveling to the UNAMI mission in Iraq, UN Associate Spokesperson Farhan Haq told Inner City Press that was not a new deployment, only a "rotation."

  Now the UN has recruited peacekeepers from Fiji, still under Josaia Bainimarama, for its decaying mission in Golan, UNDOF. On June 17 Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Deputy Spokesperson Eduardo Del Buey if Ban had changed the policy, or determined (contrary to, for example, the Commonwealth) that democracy has been restored in Fiji.

Del Buey replied that he thought the policy was only that Fijian peacekeepers would be vetted. (That was not the policy, see "rotation" comments here.)

  Inner City Press asked if these 170 Fijian have been vetted. Del Buey said to "ask DPKO" - the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. But DPKO chief Herve Ladsous has repeatedly on camera refused to answer Inner City Press questions, including about the 135 rapes in Minova by his partners in the Congolese Army, and his spokesman Kieran Dwyer has justified it, video here.

  Most recently, Dwyer and DPKO (and Reuters) co-blamed South Sudan for yet another peacekeeper death, in Kadugli in Sudan -- then still without explanation substituted the SPLM-North rebels for South Sudan. So on the question of the UN accepting Golan peacekeepers post-coup, we'll have to seek a more credible answer. Watch this site.

On Sri Lanka at UN, Mid-June But No Word of Eliasson's Report to Ban Ki-moon, While Shavendra Silva in UNGA

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 17 -- After standing by as 40,000 civilians were killed in Sri Lanka in May 2009, what has the UN done?

  On May 9, 2013, Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliassontold Inner City Press that a review of "lessons learnt" that he has been heading would conclude by mid June. (We've heard nothing of it yet). He said he'd spoken the very day with UN past experts like Jan Egeland - who's since moved from Human Rights Watch, wary under Ken Roth to criticize Ban Ki-moon's UN, to the NRC. But where is the UN report?

  And where is Ban Ki-moon's follow through on the commitments he says he got from Mahinda Rajapaksa, about accountability -- none -- and reconciliation? 

  Ban's UN Secretariat told Inner City Press that the screening or non-screening in UN premises of films documenting or denying war crimes is entirely up to member states, as was the assignment as a UN adviser of Shavendra Silva, depicted in Ban's own report engaged in war crimes.

  When Inner City Press tried to cover the UN Senior Advisory Group on Peacekeeping meeting which included Shavendra Silva, the response of Ban's Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit was to try to block coverage, to say it was only possible with an escort (or "minder") they declined to provide, or with approval of parties they wouldn't name. Their partner meanwhile screened Rajapaksa government propaganda in space that the UN gave them, free, then after Inner City Press reported on the screening and its background,moved through the Voice of America (which said it had thesupport of Reuters and AFP) tried to throw Inner City Press out of the UN.

  Jump-cut to June 14, 2013 in the UN General Assembly, where speaking for the Asia Pacific Group in praise of the next President of the General Assembly John Ashe was none other than Shavendra Silva. This is the UN.

  Another former ambassador to the UN, Hardeep Singh Puri of India, is now rumored to be a candidate to become his country's envoy on devolution in Sri Lanka. He wrote an op-ed about accountability. But Indian diplomats in New York, when directly asked by Inner City Press, have flinched at the suggestion of his possible new role. But we'll see. Watch this site.