Only After ICC Joins Darfur Rebels' Call for Probe of Ladsous & His (Mis) Reports, UN Joins - While Misreporting on MONUSCO Flying FDLR

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 2, 2014 -- After whistleblower Aicha Elbasri further exposed UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous as covering up attacks in Darfur, on June 17 several Security Council members joined International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda in calling for an investigation.

  Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq if an independent investigation of Ladsous' UN Peacekeeping will be done, and if not, why not? Video here.

  Haq claimed that UN Peacekeeping is already acting on Elbasri's complaints, and that it had been telling the press about it. Inner City Press asked, where have these updates been provided.

 
  Haq cited a read-out given in March, largely 

generic; then he said the requests made on June 17 would be studied.

 Now on July 2, Ban's spokesman Dujarric - in the midst of a controversy about a non-factual response on June 27, not corrected when asked June 30 and July 1, about Ladsous' mission in the DRC flying sanctioned FDLR leaders around, released this:

"The Secretary-General is concerned about the recent serious allegations against the African Union-United Nations Mission in Darfur (UNAMID). These allegations cover a wide range of issues, including inaccurate reporting of the facts on the ground in Darfur, specific instances of failure to protect civilians and accusations of mismanagement of UNAMID.

"UNAMID has undergone several investigations and reviews over the last two years, which have sought to address both strategic issues and specific incidents related to the Mission's performance. The Secretary-General’s Special Report of 25 February 2014 provides an overview of the strategic and managerial challenges faced by the Mission and the work being done at United Nations Headquarters and in UNAMID to address them.

"The Secretary-General remains committed to improving UNAMID's performance and is determined to take all necessary steps to correct any wrongdoing. He has instructed the Secretariat to review the reports of all investigations and inquiries undertaken since mid-2012 to ensure that their recommendations have been implemented and that any relevant issues have been fully addressed. This review, to be completed within one month, will enable the Secretary-General to determine what has already been done and, if recommendations are outstanding, what corrective action needs to be taken."

 On DRC, Dujarric said "you can pick up the phone" - after siting next to Ladsous while he refused to answer Press questions on DRC.

  As recently as May 29, Ladsous refused Press questions,video here, compilation here.

   Back on April 24 when Darfur as such was the topic of the UN Security Council, three major Darfur rebel groups wrote to the Council to investigate "all reports of the Peace Keeping Mission, including reports presented to the UNSC by [Under] Secretary General for Peace Keeping Mr. Ladous and the reliability of the sources he had relied on."

   But unlike his abortive stakeout on the evening of April 23 about South Sudan, video here, Ladsous did not come out to answer any questions. And at the April 24 UN noon briefing, when Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq for a response to the request for an investigation of Ladsous and his reports, there was none: not one modified or corrected report was cited.

  Instead, from the "holy seat" of the UN Correspondents Association a long time scribe followed up to say that it is not all Ladsous' fault, and to cast blame on the government. (This same dynamic was repeated at the June 17 noon briefing.) This reflexively shifting of blame from the UN to the government, whose new Permanent Representative spoke in the Council on April 24, is in this case particularly absurd: how can the government be responsible for the UN's own reports being inaccurate?

  Those requesting this investigation of DPKO and Ladsous are not the government of Omar al Bashir, which whom Ladsous met in July 2013 without any readout, but rebels Abdel Wahid Mohamed Ahmed Nur, Chairperson, Sudan Liberation Army/Movement (SLA/M-A/Wahid), Gibriel Ibrahim Mohamed, Chairperson of Justice & Equality Movement Sudan (JEM) and Minni Arko Minnawi, Chairperson Sudan Liberation Army/Movement (SLA/M-MM).

  Pending UN answers, again we ask: how can one write about the corruption of a UN Peacekeeping mission, at length, without naming the person in charge? Why would one airbrush that person, in this case Herve Ladsous the UN Under Secretary for Peacekeeping Operations, out?

   The former spokesperson of the UNAMID mission in Darfur quit, spoke out and finally leaked documents. Radio Dabanga as well as Foreign Policy began publishing them on April 7 (FP did not mention Dabanga, and called its back to back  Ladsous-less pieces an exclusive investigation). 

  The last piece focused on the US role, all to the good, but not only doesn't mention that the UN's Ladsous met with International Criminal Court indictee Omar al Bashir in July, without providing any read-out, but also omits France's hosting of Darfur rebels, for example.

 

 Back on March 25, 2013, Inner City Press asked the UN Spokesperson about how the UN Peacekeeping in Darfur could have let a group of Internally Displaced People be kidnapped while they were ostensibly protected:

Inner City Press: there is this incident where IDPs were taken hostage or kidnapped by people that were in Government army uniforms, and somehow UNAMID is saying that they opposed it and they denounced the kidnapping, but some people are wondering how armed UN peacekeepers could have IDPs under their care and they could all be kidnapped. Can you clarify how it took place and how it is consistent with protection of civilians?

Spokesperson: Well, I have asked the Mission for more details on that, and I think if you were listening carefully you will have heard me read out precisely what you just said to me.

Inner City Press: But what I am asking about specifically about how it could take place?

Spokesperson: I heard what you said, and I’ve said that I’ll see if I can find out more, which is what I have already asked the Mission and Peacekeeping Operations.

  Now Radio Dabanga has published a memo by UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, from April 10, 2013, still saying he didn't know how it happened. 

  What is Ladsous doing? Then, and apparently now, he refuses Press questions about topics ranging from Sudan -- why did he meet with International Criminal Court indictee Omar al Bashir in July 2013? -- to rapes in the DR Congo by UN Peacekeeping's partners in the Congolese Army.

  Dabanga to its credit says it is reporting the memos along with FP. The FP story, at least the first one, does not mention Dabanga, nor Ladsous' meeting with Bashir. Previously an explanation was provided for not reporting on Ladsous' extraordinary and public "non-answering," noted from the UK by the New Statesman, here.

  We'll be following this. Watch this site.

   

After UN Peacekeeping Cuts Defended by Ladsous, G77 Meets Ban Ki-moon: Too Little, Too Late?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 2 -- Two days after UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous told Troop Contributing Countries of plans to cut $200 million including in Darfur, where his mission is accused of covering up killings, now Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has belatedly gotten involved.

   On July 2, African sources tell Inner City Press, those pushing for compliance with Ban's own Senior Advisory Group's peacekeeper pay figures met with Ban, followed by the "partners," who have the sources say threatened to simply not pay, even if a pay increase is voted through in the General Assembly.

  On June 30, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric:

Inner City Press: the Secretary-General had a Senior Advisory Group on Peacekeeping Operations, which suggest… which proposed that peacekeepers get $1,700 a month.  There was a survey done.  And now, it seems like it’s come down to a deadline, in which rather than $1,700, the donor countries are offering $1,250.  And I wanted to know, since it was the Secretary-General’s own Senior Advisory Group on Peacekeeping, did he think that Group is credible?  Did he think the $1,700 number is a reasonable one?  And does he think that $1,250 is sufficient for peacekeepers?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I think, you know, those numbers… the work of the Senior Advisory Group came up with what it came up with.  These discussions now are deep in the heart of the Fifth Committee, being discussed amongst Member States, and I think that’s where I will leave it for the time being.

  Well, that is over: it's time to lead or not. Watch this site.

  For now, defending this dissing of peacekeepers is none other than UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row atop DPKO. He spun about cutting costs in Darfur, where he's accused of covering-up, and inHaiti where he previously supported the ouster of Aristide.

  This is the probably with ceding UN Peacekeeping to France, a "partner" which wants to underpay peacekeepers: the official who is supposed to advocate for peacekeepers actually sells them out.
 
  But much to the group of the Group of 77, there is a fight back afoot. Inner City Press is told by sources that based on a proposal by Brazil and Cuba, strongly supported by Nigeria and South Africa, the low-ball numbers are not being accepted. We are following this.

 On the evening on June 30 UN Peacekeeping's Herve Ladsous, who refuses to answer Press questions, dissembled behind closed doors to the Fifth Committee, as several representatives told Inner City Press.

  Ladsous pontificated about his visit to Haiti - and said he would further cut back the mission in Darfur, where his UN Peacekeeping is already accused of covering up killings.  "He's gotta go," one representative said, and some others agreed. But this is the UN.

    

IMF's Lagarde Lauds Janet Yellen, After Urging US Federal Reserve to Communicate More, FOIA Questions

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 2 -- When the International Monetary Fund's Christine Lagarde introduced Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen to give the first Michel Camdessus Central Banking Lecture on July 2, she did not repeated whatshe said only two weeks earlier, that the Fed should communicate more frequently. 

  In laying out lessons learned from the subprime financial meltdown of 2008, Lagarde did not question the role of the Federal Reserve in failing to take action on the predatory lending by the Big Four banks, or the pooling and pitching by investment banks of predatory mortgages by Ameriquest, New Century, et al.

  So what, really, was learned?

 On July 2, Lagarde compared central bankers to mountaineers, and told Yellen, "Janet, you may not be surprised to know that when you give your press conferences a group of passionate staff here at the IMF get together to watch you live on screen. I am told they even bring pop corn to the meetings!"

  Back on June 16 the IMF assessment was that

"Enhancing the Fed’s communication toolkit would be a natural evolution that could help temper the likelihood of market volatility along the exit path. This could include scheduling press conferences by the Fed Chair after each FOMC meeting (to provide a more frequent, structured environment to explain the committee’s evolving thinking). It could also involve publishing a quarterly monetary policy report, that is endorsed by the FOMC and which conveys more detail about the majority view of the FOMC on the outlook, policies, and the nature of uncertainties around the baseline. Such a report may also convey dissenting views on the FOMC as well as broader information on how the FOMC thinks about policy reactions in plausible, non-baseline scenarios. Finally, the FOMC could provide greater clarity about how financial stability considerations figure into its monetary policy calculus."

  She might have added: the Fed can and should do better under the Freedom of Information Act, on which in full disclosure Inner City Press has litigated with the Fed. Then again, at least the Fed accepts that it is covered by FOIA - the United Nations doesn't (see below).

  While the IMF is more frequently taking Press questions online, we note for example that a repeatedly asked question about whether the IMF includes Western Sahara in Morocco's data has been stonewalled, including the days Lagarde was in Rabat.

  Lagarde was asked who she favors in the World Cup and said she was "delighted to see French team did as it did." Well, that's some transparency.

The UN also has a position on the US Federal Reserve, it emerged on May 21, at least a position favoring new Fed chair Janet Yellen over her predecessor Ben Bernanke.

  Inner City Press asked Pingfan Hong of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs about DESA's mid-year update of the UN World Economic Situation and Prospects, which called on the Fed to communicate more clearly as it tapers away from quantitative easing -- does the UN favor an audit of the Fed, and what of the impact on tapering QE on emerging markets? Video here.

  Pingfan Hong recounted that an IMFC meeting he attended, Yellen admitted to negative impacts on emerging markets, which he said Bernanke obfuscated by claiming positive impacts too. (Bernanke now is speaking at $250,000 dinners, so criticism from DESA may not concern him.)

  Inner City Press also asked Pingfan Hong about the WESP's call for the implementation of IMF quota reform -- was this really related to the IMF's ability to lend to Ukraine, and what are its economic impacts?

  Pingfan Hong replied that it is more of a “long term” issue, but that countries should follow through on what they commit to. What about democracy, though? And what about democratizing the Federal Reserve? We'll have more on that. Watch this site.

   

On UN Flying FDLR Leader in DR Congo, Kobler Admits - So UN Spokesman Mis-spoke on June 27, Withheld on June 20 & July 1?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 2 -- Six days ago, Inner City Press reported Rwanda complained to the UN Security Council that UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous and his MONUSCO mission flew the  FDLR's sanctioned leader on UN aircraft even as Ladsous' travel waiver request was denied.

  This was a simple question about how public moneys were used by the UN - a yes or no question. But Martin Kobler did not answer the submitted Press question.

 And UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric refused to answer it when asked at the noon briefings on June 27, June 30 and July 1.

  It now seems clear that Dujarric and the UN in New York, UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous, had the information but simply refused to do it.

  Because when Kobler finally spoke on or spun the incident, to RFI radio, Kobler said Yes, he flew the FDLR leader inside the DRC, arguing that that didn't violate UN sanctions rules.

  Leaving that aside -- for the moment -- when did Dujarric know this answer? And why / under whose ordered did he simply refuse to give the information that he had, about the UN's use of public resources? 

  On June 27 Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric a simple factual question: did MONUSCO fly Rumuli around inside the DRC before any Security Council decision on Ladsous' request?

 On July 1, after covering the UN's Fifth (Budget) Committee negotiations in which Ladsous told Group of 77 members about $200 million in cuts including in Darfur, where his peacekeeping mission stands accused of under-reporting murders and attack, Inner City Press asked Dujarric again: did MONUSCO use UN resources to fly Rumuli around?  

  Dujarric again did not answer; he said, "If I have something on that, I will share it." Video here, from Minute 15:10. 

  Defenders of Ladsous -- amazingly, they exist, usually for reasons that have nothing to do with Ladsous -- have emerged saying that if the request for a travel ban exception came from a group of special envoys whose precise line-up has yet to be disclosed, Ladsous is blameless.

  This ignores not only his 1994 role, but since he become UN Peacekeeping chief, his extraordinary refusal to answer Press questions. Video compilation here. Defenses of Ladsous from (some) in the Great Lakes and Belgium of his refusal to answer questions at the UN in New York are comical.

For now: it is undoubtedly newsworthy that the UN, or really France, chose to put at the helm of UN Peacekeeping in the Great Lakes a person who in 1994, in the Security Council, argued for the escape of genocidiares from Rwanda into Eastern Congo. Inner City Press story here; sample 1994 memo by Ladsous here.

  Ladsous' history has caused needless problems; when asked about it, rather than answering Ladsous has adopted a policy of refusing that and any related question.  Video compilation here.

  Now in the Congo Martin Kobler, who works for Ladsous, has not answered the simple question of flying Rumuli inside the DRC; instead MONUSCO tweets photos of Kobler singing in a choir in Kinshasa. Ladsous has turned the UN into a joke -- and it keeps getting worse.

  That the French government is in denial about its role in 1994 in the Rwanda genocide is one thing. But why aren't they told they have to appoint a chief of DPKO - a position they claim to own - without this pernicious baggage?

   A bare minimum: shouldn't this official at least have to answer questions?

   

On Free Syrian Army Child Soldiers, ICP Asks UN's Zerroughui Who Says She Raised It in DC: US Child Soldier Prevention Act Waiver?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 1 -- The UN's envoy on Children and Armed Conflict Leila Zerroughui on July 1 took questions about her most recent report, on which Inner City Press reported on May 14, including the ten paragraphs over three pages about Syria.

 

  Since then, the US Obama Administration has announced a plan for $500 million to the "vetted" Syrian opposition: presumably, the "Free Syrian Army."

  As to this Free Syrian Army the UN report states that "most children associated with the FSA-affiliated group, as young as 14 years, indicated that they had received weapons training and 4,000 to 8,000 Syrian pounds pay per month. 

   Examples are given: "a 17 year-old boy who joined the al-Murabiteen battalion of the Falloujat Houran FSA brigade in Bosra al-Sham, Dara'a Governate, reportedly received a fifteen-day weapons training in al-Lajat valley close to Bosra al-Sham."

  Also, "In June 2013, two brothers, aged 16 and 17, joined the FSA-affiliated Majd al-Islam brigade in Dara'a, where they cleaned weapons and performed security duties."

 So on July 1, Inner City Press asked Zerroughui about the FSA. She said “we put 'FSA and affilaited groups,' because some groups at not entirely under the control of the FSA, but they are not distancing themselves from the FSA.”

 Inner City Press asked Zerroughui is she'd raised this to the US. “Yes, I did with the US, I visiting Washington and raised the issue, the Child Act was discussed.” 

That's the US 2008 Child Soldiers Prevention Act, which provides for example:

It is the sense of Congress that— 

 (1) the United States Government should condemn the conscription, forced recruitment, or use of children by governments, paramilitaries, or other organizations; 

 (2) the United States Government should support and, to the extent practicable, lead efforts to establish and uphold international standards designed to end the abuse of human rights described in paragraph (1); 

  There are prohibitions on funding which can only be overridden for formal, public findings in a waiver by the President. Would or will that be used in this case? Watch this site.

   

On UN Flying FDLR Leader Rumuli in DR Congo, Kobler & Dujarric Like Ladsous Still Won't Answer

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 1 -- Five days ago, Inner City Press reported Rwanda complained to the UN Security Council that UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous and his MONUSCO mission flew FDLR leader Gaston Iyamuremye / Rumuli Michel on UN aircraft even as Ladsous' travel waiver request was denied.

  This is a simple question about how public moneys were used by the UN - it is a yes or no question. But still it has not been answered.

  On June 27 Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric a simple factual question: did MONUSCO fly Rumuli around inside the DRC before any Security Council decision on Ladsous' request?

  This is a yes or no question, about the use of UN resources and money. But Dujarric did not answer it on June 27, and MONUSCO chief Martin Kobler did not answer it on June 28 or June 29.

  So on June 30 Inner City Press asked Dujarric again. He said, as he increasingly does, if he gets something on that, he'll pass it along. But that is UNacceptable. Did he even ASK Ladsous' UN Peacekeeping?

 On July 1, after covering the UN's Fifth (Budget) Committee negotiations in which Ladsous told Group of 77 members about $200 million in cuts including in Darfur, where his peacekeeping mission stands accused of under-reporting murders and attack, Inner City Press asked Dujarric again: did MONUSCO use UN resources to fly Rumuli around?  

  Dujarric again did not answer; he said, "If I have something on that, I will share it." Video here, from Minute 15:10. Has Dujarric even ASKED Ladsous' DPKO, to "have something" -- that is, an answer? 

 These are public resources: the question will have to be answered.

  Defenders of Ladsous -- amazingly, they exist, usually for reasons that have nothing to do with Ladsous -- have emerged saying that if the request for a travel ban exception came from a group of special envoys whose precise line-up has yet to be disclosed, Ladsous is blameless.

  This ignores not only his 1994 role, but since he become UN Peacekeeping chief, his extraordinary refusal to answer Press questions. Video compilation here. Defenses of Ladsous from (some) in the Great Lakes and Belgium of his refusal to answer questions at the UN in New York are comical.

For now: it is undoubtedly newsworthy that the UN, or really France, chose to put at the helm of UN Peacekeeping in the Great Lakes a person who in 1994, in the Security Council, argued for the escape of genocidiares from Rwanda into Eastern Congo. Inner City Press story here; sample 1994 memo by Ladsous here.

  Ladsous' history has caused needless problems; when asked about it, rather than answering Ladsous has adopted a policy of refusing that and any related question.  Video compilation here.

  Now in the Congo Martin Kobler, who works for Ladsous, has not answered the simple question of flying Rumuli inside the DRC; instead MONUSCO tweets photos of Kobler singing in a choir in Kinshasa. Ladsous has turned the UN into a joke -- and it keeps getting worse.

  That the French government is in denial about its role in 1994 in the Rwanda genocide is one thing. But why aren't they told they have to appoint a chief of DPKO - a position they claim to own - without this pernicious baggage?

   A bare minimum: shouldn't this official at least have to answer questions?

   

After Faux Press Encounter, Ban Ki-moon Does Interview on Corporate LinkedIn, Softball with Scribes

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 1 -- When is a “press encounter” not a real press encounter? When is an interview essentially a fake?

  Two days after the UN claimed that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon held a "press encounter" but the press corps which covers the UN was not informed and was not present, Ban has done an "interview" -- on LinkedIn.  Why was this done?

   Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric on July 1 said that Ban, after the press-less press encounter, did an interview - on his LinkedIn page. This essentially promotes that for-profit company, as it can only be seen if one joins.

  Those ostensibly speaking for the UN press corps make no complaints, instead bragging about Ban kicking a (soft) ball with them. Despite previous issues with UNCA presidential financial links with Sri Lanka's ambassador - and attempts to censor reporting on these - and reversal on donated TV,UNCA's president is bragging about new jerseys: branding everything.

   This is UN decay, and what the Free UN Coalition for Access is challenging.

  On Sunday, June 29 Ban's spokesperson's office sent out a transcript of what it called Ban's “Remarks at Press Encounter with H.E. Mr. Shimon Peres, President of Israel.” What was sent out did not say when it had occurred, nor where, other than “New York.”

  No notice was sent out by the UN's Media Liaison and Accreditation Unit, nor by Spokesman Stephane Dujarric. When Dujarric was in charge of MALU, FUNCA formally asked him to begin providing notice of Ban events even if held outside of the UN headquarters.

  On June 30, Inner City Press for FUNCA asked, where did the "press encounter" take place and why were the press not told? Dujarric said it was the Israeli mission which made the arrangements -- if true, that is abnormal, as the UN is supposed to announce to the media it accredits when Ban will be taking questions on UN relevant issues.

  Dujarric bragged when he gave notice of Ban meeting New York City Mayor De Blasio - but gave no notice of the "press availability" regarding Israel's Peres. FUNCA says this is UNacceptable.

  The old UN Correspondents Association on the other hand, whose head Pamela Falk was present on June 30 if only to take the first set-aside question to Hilde Johnson on South Sudan, made no complaint.

  Instead, they are bragging about a "journalists and diplomats" game of football or soccer this week, even that Ban Ki-moon may be present at the kick-off.  Virtually? Softballs, indeed.

   

In Ukraine, As Petro Poroshenko Resumes War on "Parasites," UN Dodges on the Rwanda Language Echo

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 1 -- After Ukraine's Petro Poroshenko renewed artillery and air strikes and said, "we are fighting to free our land from dirt and parasites," Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric about it.

  Given the echo of Rwanda and the term "cockroaches" (inyenzi), wouldn't the UN condemn Poroshenko's reference to parasites?

  Apparently for this UN it's different. Dujarric said he'd have a statement soon. Inner City Press asked, on the use of the word parasites?

  No. When Dujarric read about the statement, taking no questions on it, it went like this:

“The Secretary General is following with grave concern reports of renewed fighting in Eastern Ukraine. He is extremely disappointed that the unilateral ceasefire declared by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko never achieved the momentum needed to end the violence. He renews his call on all sides in Ukraine not to give up the idea of a function ceasefire and work toward a definitive cessation of violation through a continued political and diplomatic process. The Secretary General reiterates that a continuation of hostilities can only exacerbate an already precarious situation.

"He strongly condemns the persistence unlawful violence at hands of armed militia groups and enjoins them to lay down their weapons and express their grievances peacefully and in accordance with international law.”

  What about parasites? What about killed journalists?

When Ukraine's Ambassador Yuriy Sergeyev held a UN press conference on June 20, Inner City Press asked him about the killing and alleged beating of journalists, among other topics. Video here

   Later on June 20, Inner City Press asked Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin about Sergeyev's answers. UN Video here, from Minute 26:18. 

   Now on June 23, Ukraine's Mission to the UN has responded, as to the journalists with this:

"Lie: Russian 'Zvezda' correspondents were bitten and injured before they confessed to the TV cameras and apologized for being regularly lying on the real situation in Eastern Ukraine
Truth: 90% of all Russian so-called journalists working in Ukraine are instructed by their Kremlin patrons to produce anti-Ukrainian fake TV pictures only for internal Russian consumption. No physical or moral violence was used against two 'Zvezvda' correspondents."

  Beyond the dispute about the journalists being beaten -- or "bitten" as the response has it -- there is a problem with this logic, combated by the Free UN Coalition for Access.  This is the same type of accusation that Egypt is using against the Al Jazeera journalists: that they are agents.

  It is the same logic that outgoing French Ambassador Gerard Araud used on April 15, 2014, when he told a Lebanese reporter, "You are not a journalist, you are an agent." In that case, the UN's in-house United Nations Correspondents Association Executive Committee continues to "drag its feet" in offering a defense for its dues-paying member from Lebanon. We will have more on this.

   

On Ukraine & Russia, IMF Recounts Sanctions & Counter-Sanctions But Its Own Not Austerity Conditions

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 1 -- In the International Monetary Fund's Article IV report on Russia, just out from under embargo on July 1, the IMF recounts sanctions and counter-sanctions but not its own role in Ukraine including austerity conditions imposed.

   The IMF recites how the US, EU, Japan, Switzerland, and other countries “have adopted sanctions against Ukrainian and Russian individuals and entities in response to the unfolding situation in Ukraine, as well as the suspension of bilateral negotiations on a variety of topics.”

   Then, the IMF continues, “on March 20 and March 24, Russia imposed retaliatory sanctions on U.S. and Canadian government officials. Russia also passed a bill to create a national payment system insulated from foreign companies’ influence, and is considering the creation of a national rating agency.” 

  So is that a good thing? The IMF doesn't say.

   When the IMF released its Article IV review of the United States, it held a press conference with Christine Lagarde (at which, to her credit, she called for the US Federal Reserve to communicate better). 

  On Russia, there was not press conference, just the embargoed publication of the report. The IMF will hold a July 2 press conference about Bangladesh, in Dhaka - but it is not clear it will be webcast. If even street protests are live-streamed, why not this? Watch this site.

Footnote: these Press questions remain unanswered by the IMF:

On Slovakia, what is IMF's response to Finance Minister Peter Kazimir insisting the government will base its decision-making on Slovak legislation stating that the VAT rate should be reduced automatically when the public-finance deficit falls below three percent of GDP?

On Morocco, can you confirm what central bank governor Abdellatif Jouahri has said, that a new two-year line of credit is being finalized and will “be less than $6.2 billion granted by the fund in 2012-2014”? And again, is Western Sahara included in the IMF's Morocco data? (As submitted)

In Yemen, in light of attacks on power plants and pipelines, what is the status of the IMF's $550 program and its conditions? Is there a concern the cuts to subsidies could lead to further unrest?

In Myanmar, does IMF believe the country is ready for the opening of foreign financial institution, while governance of the Central Bank of Myanmar continue to fall under Myanmar's outgoing central banking law, dating to 1990?

   

After UN Spins Faux “Press" Encounter, Its Censoring Scribes Buy Jerseys, After Questions of Corruption on Sri Lanka PR Rent

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 30 -- When is a “press encounter” not a real press encounter? When the UN claims that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon held one, but the press corps which covers the UN is not informed and is not present. Why was this done?

  Those ostensibly speaking for the UN press corps, the old UN Correspondents Association, make no complaint, instead bragging about Ban kicking a (soft) ball with them. They have even, in the wake of trying to censor reporting on their president's financial relationship with Sri Lanka's Ambassador and (canceled?) television favors, spending money on their own jerseys, here.

   This is UN decay, and what the Free UN Coalition for Access is challenging.

  On Sunday, June 29 Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric sent out a transcript of what it called Ban's “Remarks at Press Encounter with H.E. Mr. Shimon Peres, President of Israel.” What was sent out did not say when it had occurred, nor where, other than “New York.”

  No notice was sent out by the UN's Media Liaison and Accreditation Unit, nor by Ban's Office of the Spokesperson. When Ban's current spokesman Dujarric was in charge of MALU, FUNCA formally asked him to begin providing notice of Ban events even if held outside of the UN headquarters.

  On June 30, Inner City Press for FUNCA asked, where did the "press encounter" take place and why were the press not told? From the UN's transcript:

Inner City Press: On this Sunday press encounter, I saw this from the readout of the press encounter, but I didn’t see any pre-announcement of it. Can you give a little, like, once it was sent out, was it known that he would speak? Who did he speak to? Other than UN News Centre?

Spokesman Dujarric: This was an invitation by President Peres to attend a working brunch, and the Israeli Mission made the arrangements. Thank you.

Inner City Press: UN News Centre was there, so how did they get there?

  That last was not answered. While Dujarric said it was the Israeli mission which made the arrangements, if true, that is abnormal, as the UN is supposed to announce to the media it accredits when Ban will be taking questions on UN relevant issues.

  Dujarric bragged when he gave notice of Ban meeting New York City Mayor De Blasio - but gave no notice of the "press availability" regarding Israel's Peres. FUNCA says this is UNacceptable.

  The old UN Correspondents Association on the other hand, whose head Pamela Falk was present on June 30 if only to take the first set-aside question to Hilde Johnson on South Sudan, made no complaint.

  Instead, they are bragging about a "journalists and diplomats" game of football or soccer this week, even that Ban Ki-moon will be present at the kick-off.  Softballs, indeed.