Tuesday, February 3, 2015

On Thailand, IMF Refers to Military Rule As “Political UNcertainty," Full Statement Here


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 3 -- How does the International Monetary Fund describe and respond to a military coup? Just out of embargo is the IMF's Article IV report on Thailand, with this line:

"private investment is being hampered by low capacity utilization, weak external demand, and concerns over political uncertainty.”

Yeah, political uncertainty. Inner City Press, which puts questions every fortnight to the IMF, asked the UN about Thailand in 2014 and more recently.


 In fairness, here is the complete IMF paragraph:

At the conclusion of the visit, Mr. Breuer issued the following statement:
“Staff estimates that real GDP expanded by around 0.5 percent in 2014. A modest recovery is expected to continue in 2015 with growth projected at 3.5 percent on account of some recovery in consumption, including from lower fuel prices, and in private investment as backlogs of project approvals have been largely cleared by various government agencies. Accommodative monetary policy will also support the recovery. Nonetheless, private investment is being hampered by low capacity utilization, weak external demand, and concerns over political uncertainty. Private consumption is also weakened by high household debt and tighter credit conditions. At the same time, global demand for Thailand’s exports is weak. The expansion of public investment has proven more difficult than expected, including the implementation of the stimulus package approved in October.”

 And here now is the full IMF press release. More recently, when the IMF held an embargoed press briefing on January 22, after the Houthi rebels in Yemen have held the Presidential palace for days, Inner City Press asked about the impact on the IMF's program with Yemen.

  IMF Deputy Spokesperson William Murray said that recent events are "not positive from an economic standpoint," but that the IMF's first review of its program will not be until the Spring.
  Where will the Houthis be then? And Hadi? And Saleh?
   Inner City Press also submitted questions on Sri Lanka and on Ebola and debt relief. On the latter, Murray spoke of an exceptional assistance program as with Haiti, but wouldn't specify debt relief. We'll have more on this.
 On Yemen, Murray referred back to the January 21 report and briefing by Masood Ahmed -- to which Inner City Press also submitted the question. In that briefing, Ahmed said:
"we are worried about the continued difficulties in Yemen, really because Yemen is already a country with a fragile economic recovery, with a large number of people living in poverty, and with already trying to cope with different shocks that the economy has undergone, and so this makes the uncertainty, makes it both harder to deal with those shocks and also it affects confidence, so that some of the private sector activity is affected. 
"Of course we as an interactive institution don't have a view on the political developments in any country, but we can look at the economic consequences, which is what I was referring to. In terms of the implications for this on the price of oil, you know the price of oil, the markets build in both up side and down side risks into that price. So there's a risk of supply disruptions. That is one of the sources that can push up oil prices with the risk premium, not just from Yemen but also people have been concerned about supply disruptions in other oil producing countries, but there's also the risk that the world economy may turn out to be slower in terms of growth or there's a risk that in fact oil production may turn out to be higher in some countries than expected. If you remember, earlier on in 2014, people were expecting oil production in Libya to be relatively low for the year. As it happened, oil production actually increased at one point to 900, 1000 barrels a day and so that was unexpected. And some people say that was one of the reasons that was helping people to reestablish equilibrium in terms of their expectations. So I think that the market is always looking at both up side and down side risks and prices."

The IMF's Middle East and Central Asia Department Regional Economic Outlook Update as released on January 21, says “Yemen is at high risk because its banks are highly exposed to government debt against the backdrop of a weak fiscal position and limited financing options.”
    Referring to the demands for fuel subsidy cuts, the IMF report says “Yemen “is planning to increase non-oil revenue collection, contain the government wage bill, and continue fuel subsidy reform.” Is that still the case? How could the IMF know?
  
  Looking wider, the IMF report says that “conflicts, terrorism, and related security disruptions continue to be a prevailing concern in the region. Although airstrikes have slowed the advance of the so-called Islamic State (ISIS), conflicts in Iraq and Syria persist, creating significant economic and political spillovers for neighboring countries (especially Jordan and Lebanon). The security situations in Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, and Yemen also remain challenging. Conflicts cast a shadow over the economic outlook for the MENAP region, not only because they disrupt economic activity; they also reduce political space for the much-needed reforms and delay the return of confidence to the MENAP region.”   
 On January 19-20, the IMF's Olivier Blanchard answered Inner City Press' question about the impact of falling oil prices on Africa by saying "Nigeria will have to adjust. I do not know at this stage whether they can adjust on their own or they might need a program from the Fund. If they did any member is welcome to come at this stage I have no information about it.”
    A Yemen-like program?
   To the IMF's World Economic Outlook Update press conference, Inner City Press had submitted this question: “Please summarize what the decline in oil prices may mean for countries in Africa, and what the IMF is prepared to do about those countries negatively impacted.”
    As the second online question taken, this question was put to Blanchard, who responded:
“Most African countries are importers and so are helped. Some countries are not and the main example is Nigeria. Nigeria will have to adjust. I do not know at this stage whether they can adjust on their own or they might need a program from the Fund. If they did any member is welcome to come at this stage I have no information about it.”
  Earlier on January 19, the UN Security Council issued a Presidential Statement about, but not funding, the fight against Boko Haram. Security Council sources leaving the meeting told Inner City Press that for funding, those in the region -- i.e. Nigeria -- should be looked to first.
  But if Nigeria may even need to apply for an IMF program, is it reasonable for the powers in the UN and it Permanent Five members of the Security Council to expect it to be entire responsible for fighting Boko Haram?
  We'll have more on this.
Footnote: while Blanchard's "main example" was Nigeria, what about Angola? What about Equatorial Guinea? To the north, what about Libya? Questions, questions... 

 
  

As China Heads UNSC, Inner City Press Asks Liu Jieyi Asks of Boko Haram and Burundi, FUNCA Asks For Q&A Stakeouts


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 3 -- With China taking over the UN Security Council presidency for February, Chinese Permanent Representative Liu Jieyi on February 3 fielded questions from the media. Video here and embedded below.

  Inner City Press, after requesting that he hold question and answer stakeouts after Council consultations, asked Ambassador Liu about the regional fight against Boko Haram, and about Burundi being in the footnotes of the Program of Work for the month.

   Ambassador Liu said that China supports African countries' "rising up" against terrorism and Boko Haram and stands ready to support any such request, saying that other countries should "rally around" it. Inner City Press has previously reported on Chad's request for a resolution. How much longer?



  On Burundi, Ambassador Liu explained that items are put in the footnotes at the request of a Council member, and expressed a desire that Burundi progress with reconciliation, economic and social development (the elections are upcoming.) Other items in the footnotes for this month are Ukraine, Mali and the Central African Republic.


   Ambassador Liu said that no Council member has yet expressed an intention to table a resolution about Palestine in February. He was asked if the debate scheduled for February 23 is targeted at any country and said no. He answered a final question about poverty reduction by referring to the post-2015 development goals, noting however that these are beyond the mandate of the Security Council.
   Yemen will be considered on February 11 -- who will be in charge them? The son of Ali Saleh? The Houthis? Iraq will be considered on February 17; current UN envoy Mladenov is, as Inner City Press first reported on January 30, slated to move to replace Robert Serry as UN Special Coordinator on the Middle East. So who will replace Mladenov in Iraq? Watch this site.
Footnote: The request that Security Council presidents give a summary of closed-door consultations, and take questions on that topic, is one that the Free UN Coalition for Access had made and will continue to make to each incoming Security Council president. Countries' willingness to explain the Security Council's working so that the public, particularly the impacted public, can understanding is not always what knee-jerk coverage of the Council would have one believe. Watch this site.

 
  

In UN NGO Committee, CCR Cites FOIA, UN Doesn't Have But FUNCA Presses For, Sudan on ICC



By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, February 3 -- In the UN's Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on February 3, longtime US civil rights law firm Center for Constitutional Rights spoke in favor of its application for consultative status with the UN.
   CCR's representative, Maria Lahood, described legal work in the South, more recently about Guantanamo, and mentioned the International Criminal Court. 
  Predictably, the representative of Sudan asked for the floor to seek more specifics about this work with the ICC, which has indicted Sudanese president Omar al Bashir for genocide.
   Lahood replied that CCR has filed an amicus brief about gender based violence. Sudan wanted more information, and continued to asked even as the Committee's chair said, no more questions, the floor is closed to you. Apparently answers will be given in writing, a run-around cited my many applicants as akin to extended delay or constructive denial.

  Before the microphone was shut off on Sudan, CCR's Lahood mentioned the Center's cases under the Freedom of Information Act. 
  As Inner City Press, which in full disclosure has worked with CCR on Community Reinvestment Act and FOIA cases, for example  Inner City Press v. Bd. of Governors of Federal Reserve Sys., 463 F.3d 239 (see Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press about the case, here) and the new Free UN Coalition for Access which it co-founded have pointed out, the UN itself has NO Freedom of Information Act, but should have one. Perhaps a new project.
  The next time Sudan was given the floor, its representative lodged a formal complaint against the chair, to be recorded in the minutes. We'll see.
  Back on January 29, again by Sudan, questions were directed at NGOs like Shi'a Rights Watch and the International Association of Independent Journalists. Inner City Press as before covered the Committee's back and forth, here and here.
The United States spoke up on the former, not the latter. At 6 pm the meeting abruptly ended, with the scheduling of a closed door session for 9:30 am on January 30 about the Committee's “work methods.”
  After that, US Ambassador Samantha Power, speaking by Twitter, said “very concerning initiative in NGO Committee to prevent UN from publicly reporting what member states say about NGO's seeking accreditation.... In an era of global crackdown on civil society, the UN's NGO Committee must set the example for openness & transparency. RT if you agree.”
  Among the re-tweeters was the UN Correspondents Association, a group that decided does not support the rights in independent journalists, having tried for example to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN, seehere and here and here (UK Guardian here).  The need for content neutral rules at the UN... another project?
 The feed of UNCA, more properly known as the UN's Censorship Alliance, is in fact run by censors, here. They didn't even cover the NGO Committee, only playing sycophant to Power after the fact. And so it goes at the UN. Watch this site.
Footnote: the day before in the UN's NGO Committee the proposal was made to proceed, in meetings making up for those cancelled by snow, without interpretation. Cuba and Nicaragua objected, as others were sure to. We'll see.

UN Human Rights Chief Prince Zeid In US To Meet Only Government Officials and Legislators, Issues Like Police Brutality and Predatory Lending Ignored?


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 3 -- The official visit to the US of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid features today a meeting with Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken. According to Zeid's Office, he will

“hold meetings with State Department and other U.S. Government officials, including National Security Adviser Susan Rice, to discuss a wide range of overseas and domestic issues. He will also meet with around eight senior members of the House of Representatives and the Senate.”

   One is left wondering: what kind of human rights visit is it, not meeting with civil society representatives but only the government?

  Zeid's announcement emphasizes that his is "the first official visit by a UN Human Rights Chief to Washington D.C. to meet senior  U.S administration officials and Members of Congress since 2007, when former High Commissioner Louise Arbour made a similar visit."

  The Commissioner in between, of course, was Navi Pillay, to whom US Secretary General Ban Ki-moon only gave half of a second term. But Pillay on her visits met with civil society. How should this lack on Zeid's official visit be viewed? 

  What about, just for example, the issues of police brutality as raised in the UN Committee on Torture andpredatory and discriminatory lending, raised for example in the UN Committee on the Eradication of Racial Discrimination? What of human rights issues like tortureand spying? There are non-governmental experts -- and victims -- a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights should meet with, and elsewhere would, if the past is any guide. We'll have more on this.

  Back on November 21, Inner City Press which has previously praised Zeid for example on Sri Lanka and other issues reported that, protesting layoffs and lack of transparency, staff at the UN Office of the High Commission for Human Rights were petitioning then-new High Commissioner Prince Zeid for due process and accountability. Inner City Press obtained the petition andexclusively put it online here.
In it, the OHCHR staff call for “transparent and comprehensive information on prospective cuts and restructuring, detailing their impact on savings and OHCHR’s overall financial situation... tangible accountability measures by attributing responsibility for the present crisis and taking the requisite action to prevent another financial crisis of this magnitude in the future and a meaningful dialogue and truly consultative decision-making on ongoing financial including putting decisions on hold.”
The staff complain to Zeid that “the lack of transparency, consultation and information on who, where or how, not to mention why, some of us are affected is deplorable and unacceptable.”
The lack of transparency in the current OHCHR extends from Geneva to New York, where the Office anonymously spun its Ukraine report to hand-picked scribes then refused when asked to explain the basis. 
 Inner City Press on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access asked at the November 20 UN noon briefing that the New York representative of Prince Zeid hold a press availability about the report, including incongruities in report on labor issues such as the cut-off of pensions, click here for that.
  On accountability, the staff complain that the “senior management level evidently bears much more responsibility. Yet, it is other individuals at lower levels who are paying the price for this mismanagement.”
Also on accountability at the OHCHR, as Inner City Press has twice reported, document leaks from inside the UN have identified improper service of Morocco, on the question of Western Sahara, by a current staffer at the OHCHR, Anders Kompass, and by another who has recently left.
 Prince Zeid still not publicly addressed this scandal, though Inner City Press understands that no only is their an investigation by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services, but also inquiry from member states such as Sweden. Inquiry on them was not permitted at Zeid's one press availability that week in New York. Zeid's spokesman has indicated there will be no comment at all until OIOS' "investigation is completed." Since the OIOS process is far from transparent -- it has become even less so -- this is the way the UN system tries to make issues go away, but it is even less appropriate at the UN's human rights office.
   Zeid should address this scandal - and his Office's staff. Watch this site.

 
  

Monday, February 2, 2015

On DR Congo, UN Won't Tell Inner City Press Whom It Supports on FDLR, If Minova Rape Units Involved


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, February 2 -- The UN has been dissembling about its role in the Congolese Army's stated attempt to "neutralize" the FDLR.  Inner City Press on January 30 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:
Inner City Press: Since it's UN Social Media Day, MONUSCO 46 minutes ago said that — I'll say it in French: Les operations militaires contre les #FDLR, lancées hier jeudi, seront dirigées et planifiées conjointement par la #MONUSCO et les FARDC.  So unless I'm misunderstanding this, they're claiming that it's a joint operation, “conjointement”, on their Twitter feed.  I wanted to know, why would they be doing that, given what you've just said?

Spokesman:  I think without going into a deep analysis of French and English, which you obviously are able to do and I couldn't try to keep up with you, I think it is a different characterization maybe, a different use of words, but I think the point is that it's an FARDC-led operation with the support of the UN.
   On February 2, Inner City Press asked Dujarric more specifically,video here, 

Inner City Press: On the DRC, I wanted to ask you about the action against the FDLR [Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda], if you can be a little more specific on what the UN's MONUSCO [United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo] and its Force Intervention Brigade's role are.  Have they fired any shots?  And is the human rights due diligence policy in place?  And how does it relate to support being given to the units of the FARDC [Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo] who are firing?  And do these units include the 391st and 41st battalions that were engaged in the rapes in Minova?

Spokesman Dujarric:  The operational questions as to what operations are taking place, I think if they're answered, will be answered by MONUSCO.  If they're ongoing military operations, they will make the decision of what is announced and what is not announced.  In terms of MONUSCO, its support will be in strict compliance with the UN's human rights due diligence policy, and as you know, the policy requires that the UN ensures that its support to non-UN security forces will not contribute to grave human rights violations.  The policy is being implemented by MONUSCO in close collaboration, obviously, with the national authorities.  And you know, if… I will find out on the specific units, but if problems do arise because of past issues, either related to the records of units or commanders, there are substantial grounds to believe that, you know, either the commanders or units, there are risks of human rights violations — support to those units is withheld unless adequate mitigating measures can be put in place.

Inner City Press:  And is Bruno Mandevu, he's been named as a commander.  Is that a problem for the UN?

Spokesman Dujarric:  Obviously, if there are commanders that are… where we have issues then we are in discussions with the DRC authorities to see how… you know, how they can address the concerns that we have.  But overall, the operation is being done within the framework of our human rights due diligence policy.
  That's called NOT answering a question, about whom the UN is supporting.
"The U.N. peacekeeping mission in Congo threatened in 2013 to withdraw support for two Congolese battalions accused of involvement in the mass rape. The mission decided to keep working with the battalions after 12 senior officers, including the commanders and deputy commanders, were suspended and about a dozen soldiers were charged over the rapes in Minova."
  This is propaganda -- only two lower ranking soldiers were convicted. The Reuters implication is that Ladsous' DPKO is tough on human rights: false.

  On January 22  Ladsous made a speech about freedom of the press in the Democratic Republic of the Congo Thursday to the US Security Council, and made excuses for not acting to “neutralize” the Hutu FDLR rebels as the UN did the largely Tutsi M23. 
Then Ladsous came to the Security Council stakeout, ostensibly to take questions.
  Inner City Press asked, “On the neutralization of the FDLR, what is the hold up?”
  Ladsous said "I don't respond to your questions, Mister." Video hereand embedded below.
   Then Ladsous turned and gave the question to Reuters, the same trolling correspondent. When that back and forth was over, Inner City Press asked if any of the countries in the UN's Force Intervention Brigade are well than willing to attack the FDLR, as senior diplomats at the UN have told Inner City Press.
   Ladsous refused to answer this question, and gestured that Ban Ki-moon's envoy to the DRC Martin Kobler, standing behind Ladsous at the stakeout, shouldn't answer it either. Reuters took or was given another question, distancing the FDLR from genocide.

   Finally Inner City Press asked both men what if anything UN Peacekeeping has done as the Kabila government has frozen the accounts of the Panzi hospital for rape victims.  Ladsous waved this off -- for months he waved off Press questions about mass rape in Minova by his partners in the Congolese Army, video here -- and walked away with this spokesman. 
 (One can only imagine the advise this “communications professional” is giving Ladsous. Perhaps he can help Ladsous address his history with Hutu groups as evidence in this memo. These are Press questions.)
   Kobler to his credit told Inner City Press he would come back and answer, and he did, albeit only some, and off camera. That will be another story. Because the story here is, how can a person in charge of UN Peacekeeping be allowed to refuse particular media's questions in this way? While, in classic UN fashion, giving a speech about freedom of the press, elsewhere? The weakness of current UN leadership comes to mind.
  But as many ask, WHY does Ladsous refuse to answer Inner City Press? While he has refused to answer that, too, it began when Inner City Press reported that Ladsous was not even France's first choice for the position - Jerome Bonnafont was.
   Tellingly, an Agence France Presse member of the Executive Committee of the so-called UN Correspondents Association complainedabout this Inner City Press story, and soon the Executive Committee of UNCA, under then and now president Giampaolo Pioli, made more complaint about that story, and another about Sri Lanka, demanding it be removed from the Internet.
   Inner City Press quit UNCA and co-founded the Free UN Coalition for Access, which demands that all UN Under Secretaries General answer questions. UNCA, for course, has said nothing about Ladsous' refusal. It is the UN's Censorship Alliance. More on this -- including video -- to follow.


 
  

Three Days After Inner City Press Reports Mladenov to Replace Serry for UN on Middle East,, UN Won't Confirm



By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive follow up

UNITED NATIONS, February 2 -- The UN's new Middle East coordinator will be Nickolay Mladenov, Inner City Press was able to report exclusively on January 30, with sourcing from Permanent Representatives that the letter, which Inner City Press saw, had gone to the Security Council.
  Of this exclusive report, at least 11 hours before any other mention, Inner City Press on February 2 directly asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, including though what process and timing Mladenov is to be replaced in Iraq.
    Dujarric declined to confirm, despite the Secretary General's letter.Video here.
    Earlier, Inner City Press reported that Mladenov was leaving his post as UN envoy to Iraq; before that, Inner City Press asked Robert Serry how he was remaining in the Middle East post past Ban Ki-moon's stated five year rule, and despite PNG (persona non grata) threats from Israel. Now, the switch is being made.

  The hint, as to Iraq, was as Inner City Press exclusively reported, the UK's attempt to pick Mladenov's successor. That was opposed, and rejected. Now, after a “rude” call from UK Prime Minister Cameron to Ban Ki-moon, sources say rather than Cameron's first pick Andrew Lansley, UK candidate Caroline Spelman is in the lead.

  Picking Mladenov's successor in Iraq is in its final stages, and we will have more on that soon. Watch this site.

 
  

US Budget Proposal Mixes UN Missions in Afghanistan & Libya, On Ebola, Inner City Press Asked State Department Why


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 2 --When the US proposed budget for its State Department was released on February 2, it included a $10 million increase in proposed funding for the UN regular budget. Under this, three UN missions -- for Afghanistan, Libya and Ebola response -- were combined together for a request of $42 million. Documenthere, at Page 43.

    On a background call, Inner City Press asked about this, including if the estimate for the UN Support Mission in Libya is impacted by that Mission hardly being present on the ground in the country anymore.

   A Senior State Department Official replied, focusing on Afghanistan, telling Inner City Press that, “we believe that the funding level is probably doing to stay constant over the FY 2016 period. The funding levels that we've got for the political missions are for six months assessment for Afghanistan. We believe that that funding level then will catch up the the second six money will catch up. So that you'll be seeing a lag on the overall payment there.”

   UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has made a range of claims about his budgets, the consistency with the US request we are still evaluating. For now, here is the State Department transcript:

OPERATOR: Thank you. That’s Matthew Russell Lee from Inner City Press. Please go ahead.

INNER CITY PRESS: Sure, thanks a lot. I was looking at the UN section of it – I think it’s around page 43 – and I just – I noticed that for the mission – special political missions in Afghanistan and Libya and also the mission on Ebola, they’re all kind of lumped together at $42 million. I mean, it may have something to do with the way the UN has funded them, but can you – is there any breakout of that, and particularly this – given that the UN mission in Libya is actually no longer present on the ground in the country, is that – do you expect that number to go up or go down?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: So we believe that that funding level is probably going to stay constant over the FY 2016 period. The funding levels that we’ve got for the political missions are for a six-month assessment for Afghanistan. And we believe that that funding level then will catch up the second six months, so you’ll be seeing a lag on the overall payment there.

  Other questioners on the embargoed call asked about the Green Climate Fund, Moldova and Georgia, migration and the so-called Cromnibus or Continuing Resolution / Omnibus, which has provisions impacting funding to the UN based on protecting whistleblowers (dubious) andcombating sexual exploitation and abuse (same), as well as on funding to the Palestinian Authority. We are digging into each of these. Watch this site.

    

As UNSG Ban Ki-moon Speaks on Peter Greste Extradition from Egypt, Silence on Zone 9 Bloggers in Ethiopia: UN Double Standards?


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 2 -- Amid news that Egypt has released journalist Peter Greste, statements are churning out from all corners. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has churned one out, here.  Now Ban should explain his silence this week while in Ethiopia about the terrorism trial of that country's Zone 9 Bloggers.

  The Free UN Coalition for Access, has been asking Ban's UN, and those who pass through it, about #FreeZone9Bloggers, as it asked about Greste and his colleagues, for example here.

  (While Mohammed Fahmy may be renouncing his Egyptian co-citizenship follow Greste, the situation of Mohammed Baher must also be resolved, and the journalist released - like others.)

  When the UN held a “Social Media Summit” on January 30, it concluded with a panel about trends, from mobile to analytics to video and Facebook's acquisition of Snapchat. 

  But what about the UN defending or at least speaking up for freedom of expression on the Internet?
  Earlier on January 30, Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric why Ban while in Ethiopia for the African Union summit had not raised the terrorism charges brought against the Zone 9 Bloggers.Video here.
   Dujarric said Ban has spoken elsewhere about freedom of expression in Africa, and that the (other) contents of his AU speech were interesting. 
   So Inner City Press went to the #SocialUN final panel and asked, does the UN do enough to speak up for freedom in social media? One of the panelists had just finished praising high tech in Qatar. What about arrests for insulting the leader? What about Nabeel Rajab in Bahrain? Video here.
  Panelist Hayes Brown of BuzzFeed, who advised and practices Be a Person on Twitter, including baking and (good) jokes, said it is hard for the UN, since it has member states that pay its bills. He said he agreed about bloggers in Ethiopia but wasn't sure what the UN could do, beyond speaking up.
  Well, as to the Zone 9 Bloggers, the UN has yet to speak up. That would be a start.
  Panelist Liz Borod Wight, who moderator Sree Sreenivasan marveled is paid to do Instagram for the BBC, cites those who tweeted #JeSuisCharlie and said those who have freedom of expression should use it.
  Panelist Adam Glenn from CUNY Journalism School said, hoping not to offend the hosts the UN, that the UN should ensure that all of its staff have training and can tweet.
  Inner City Press and FUNCA note, for example, that a UN staffer in South Sudan abruptly stopped tweeting after she tweeted this: "#breaking Lou Nuer youth are mobilising in big numbers leaving #Akobo town empty heading towards Dengjok #Southsudan."
   As Inner City Press reported at the time, after Mathilde Kaalund-Jørgensen raised this alarm, the tweet and her Twitter account profile both disappeared. So much for Rights Up Front.
  At the end of the panel a UN staffer took the floor to acknowledge that UN staff cannot tweet what they think. But can't Ban Ki-moon say what he thinks? Or doesn't he think it? We'll have more on this.
    

Sunday, February 1, 2015

Amid Good News of Peter Greste Extradition from Egypt, Of Silence at UN on Ethiopia's Zone 9 Bloggers and Others, Selective Views


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, February 1 -- Amid news that Egypt is extraditing journalist Peter Greste, statements are churning out from all corners. If UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon chimes in, however, he should explain his silence this week while in Ethiopia about the terrorism trial of that country's Zone 9 Bloggers.

  The Free UN Coalition for Access has been asking Ban's UN, and those who pass through it, about #FreeZone9Bloggers, as it asked about Greste and his colleagues, for example here.

  (While Mohammed Fahmy may be renouncing his Egyptian co-citizenship to follow Greste, the situation of Mohammed Baher must also be resolved, and the journalist released - like others.)
  When the UN held a “Social Media Summit” on January 30, it concluded with a panel about trends, from mobile to analytics to video and Facebook's acquisition of Snapchat. 
  But what about the UN defending or at least speaking up for freedom of expression on the Internet?
  Earlier on January 30, Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric why Ban while in Ethiopia for the African Union summit had not raised the terrorism charges brought against the Zone 9 Bloggers.Video here.
   Dujarric said Ban has spoken elsewhere about freedom of expression in Africa, and that the (other) contents of his AU speech were interesting. 
   So Inner City Press went to the #SocialUN final panel and asked, does the UN do enough to speak up for freedom in social media? One of the panelists had just finished praising high tech in Qatar. What about arrests for insulting the leader? What about Nabeel Rajab in Bahrain? Video here.
  Panelist Hayes Brown of BuzzFeed, who advised and practices Be a Person on Twitter, including baking and (good) jokes, said it is hard for the UN, since it has member states that pay its bills. He said he agreed about bloggers in Ethiopia but wasn't sure what the UN could do, beyond speaking up.
  Well, as to the Zone 9 Bloggers, the UN has yet to speak up. That would be a start.
  Panelist Liz Borod Wight, who moderator Sree Sreenivasan marveled is paid to do Instagram for the BBC, cites those who tweeted #JeSuisCharlie and said those who have freedom of expression should use it.
  Panelist Adam Glenn from CUNY Journalism School said, hoping not to offend the hosts the UN, that the UN should ensure that all of its staff have training and can tweet.
  Inner City Press and FUNCA note, for example, that a UN staffer in South Sudan abruptly stopped tweeting after she tweeted this: "#breaking Lou Nuer youth are mobilising in big numbers leaving #Akobo town empty heading towards Dengjok #Southsudan."
   As Inner City Press reported at the time, after Mathilde Kaalund-Jørgensen raised this alarm, the tweet and her Twitter account profile both disappeared. So much for Rights Up Front.
  At the end of the panel a UN staffer took the floor to acknowledge that UN staff cannot tweet what they think. But can't Ban Ki-moon say what he thinks? Or doesn't he think it? We'll have more on this.