Tuesday, March 1, 2016

Federal Reserve Gives Inner City Press Memo of BNC Bank Merger Meeting, from January 28, Faux Ex Parte


By Matthew R. Lee
NEW YORK, March 1 -- The lack of seriousness in US bank regulation expends from the relatively smaller of mid-sized to the largest banks, with Goldman Sachs the most recent example. 
  A mid-sized bank Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch is scrutinizing, based on its records, is BNC Bancorp, currently seeking to acquire Southcoast Financial in South Carolina and, after that, High Point Bank & Trust.
 On March 1 the Federal Reserve e-mailed Inner City Press a memo about a meeting it had with BNC Bank's highest executives, under the Fed's rules on Ex Parte contacts, avoiding the fair lending and Community Reinvestment Act issues which Inner City Press has raised. We are publishing the Federal Reserve memo online here.
  But as Inner City Press immediately replied, including to the Fed's Office of the Secretary, why did the Fed wait until March 1 to send a memo of a January 28, 2016 meeting -- more than a month? Does that comply with any meaningful rule on Ex Parte communications? We'll have more on this.
  There's a problem with this acquisitiveness: BNC is subject to to Compliance Order with the FDIC, which is rare, based on its fair lending record. But after Fair Finance Watch protested the deal, and the Fed told BNC to send it a copy of the bank's response, the response was provided six days later with with the entirety of the Community Reinvestment Act response withheld. See here.
Inner City Press has immediately filed a Freedom of Information Act request, and a second comment with the Fed.
 Separately, Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch has filed the second of two comments to the St Louis Fed:
"This is a timely first comment opposing and requesting an extension of the FRS's public comment period on the Application by Bank of the Ozarks to acquire Community & Southern.

This proposed transaction raises troubling Community Reinvestment Act issues. Bank of the Ozarks has a disparate lending record, including in the Atlanta MSA where it proposes to acquire C&S (which itself just acquired branches from CertusBank while leaving behind others to be closed, evading any review).

In the Atlanta MSA in 2014 for home purchase loans, Bank of the Ozarks made 25 such loans to whites and NONE to African Americans -- it had a 100% denial rate for African Americans.

For refinance loans, it made 17 loans to whites and NONE to African Americans -- it had a 100% denial rate for African Americans.

There is more to be said, but this is outrageous, and in the MSA in which Bank of the Ozark proposes to make this acquisition.

In the Little Rock MSA in 2014 for home purchase loans, Bank of the Ozarks made 332 such loans to whites and only 13 to African Americans -- it denied the applications of African Americans 4.3 times more frequently than those of whites.

This is outrageous, and systematic. Bank of the Ozarks has also had consumer compliance issues."
On BNC, Fair Finance Watch has raised to the Federal Reserve: 
In the Charleston MSA in 2014 for conventional home purchase loans, BNC made 173 such loans to whites and only SIX to African Americans, and none to Latinos. For refinance loans, it made 68 loans to whites and only ONE to an African American, while denying the applications of African Americans 3.94 times more frequently than those of whites.
  Southcoast in the Charleston MSA in 2014 for conventional home purchase loans made 136 such loans to whites and NONE to African Americans. For refinance loans, Southcase made 35 loans to whites and only TWO to African Americans. To combine these two banks would make them worse.
  In the Greenville MSA in 2013 for home purchase loans, BNC made 117 such loans to whites and only SIX to African Americans, and only seven to Latinos.  For refinance loans, it made 31 loans to whites and only one to an African Americans and none to Latinos.
  BNC admits, as it must, that it is below-market in lending to African Americans, but paradoxically tries to use that the fact that it is subject to a compliance order as its defense to the Fed. 
 To Fair Finance Watch, too. FFW asked to see, in writing, what are BNC's CRA plans going forward. BNC replied that it is "unable to share this with you. It is an internal document that is only shared with our Board of Directors and the FDIC (under the Order)."  FFW has requested a copy of the High Point application.
  Now the Federal Reserve has asked BNC for, among other things, for information about its Community Reinvestment Act compliance, and consumer compliance more generally. Inner City Press is putting the Fed's December 2 Additional Information letter online, here.

  BNC is supposed to send a copy of its response, with this information it already declined to provide, to ICP / FFW. But will it try to withhold it? That seems to be the trend at and encouraged by the Federal Reserve.
Goldman Sachs is trying to speed through Federal Reserve approval to buy $16 billion in insured deposits from GE Capital, and the Fed, documents  released to Inner City Press under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) show, is inappropriately bent on helping, including by closing its comment period. 
 On December 2, Goldman Sachs has sent Inner City Press a heavily redacted copy of its submission to the Federal Reserve. Inner City Press has put it online, here, and immediately submitted a FOIA request.
 On November 19, Goldman Sachs submitted a purported reply to the Federal Reserve, stating among other things that "Certain Comment Letters express concern with the contact between GS Bank and Board staff prior to GS Bank submitting the Application. GS Bank respectfully submits that the contact was both appropriate and ordinary in the context of the Board’s own guidance on pre-filing communications.11 Additionally, the allegations of contact are not germane to the scope of the statutory factors set forth for Board consideration under the Bank Merger Act."
  The 2012 Fed letter Goldman Sachs cites was meant to benefit smaller banks - and did not envision Additional Information letters before the public was even notified of the proposal. The misuse of small bank "regulatory relief" by the likes of Goldman Sachs casts new light of legislative riders being considered for the US spending bill due December 11.
 Going forward, KeyCorp is trying to buy First Niagara, and NY Community Bank wants to buy Astoria; there will be opposition. 
  As to Goldman Sachs, Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch filed a supplement comment on October 30 including Goldman's new and troubling settlement with the NYS Department of Financial Services regarding a former Federal Reserve employee impermissibly using Fed information for them. Public hearings and an extension of the comment period are needed.
 As detailed below, the Federal Reserve's General Counsel Scott Alvarez solicitiously agreed to weekend phone calls with Goldman's outside council Rodgin "Rodge" Cohen at Sullivan & Cromwell, and the Fed submitted its "Additional Information" request to Goldman in July, a full month before any application was submitted or the deal publicly announced.
  Thus there was no way for the public to be involved in the Fed's review, which is required by the Bank Merger Act (and the Administrative Procedures Act). The Fed began trying to essentially pre-approve some applications with a2012 letter to banks, here - but it said no major issues could be addressed this way, and the interchanged would be subject to FOIA.
  In this case, though, where Inner City Press submitted its FOIA request as soon as it became aware of Goldman's GE proposal and application, none of the information would have been available until after the comment period was set to close on September. It has been extended to October 30, due to requests from ICP and other NCRC members, but the Fed is still withholding portions of its communication with Goldman in the face of the FOIA Appeal Inner City Press immediately filed. (ICP has also submitted a timely additional comment on these issues.)
  Inner City Press has previously litigated FOIA requests with the Fed and won, at least in part, for example in obtaining subprime lending information the Fed wanted to withhold, here.  But this should not be necessary in order for the public to have this basic information, during the comment period. Will members of Congress and other chime in? Watch this site.
  This process began by overbroad withholding of basic parts of Goldman's application, click here to view, whichGoldman in an October 14 submission to the Fed, here, says has been cured (it has not been).
 The Federal Reserve responded to Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch's September 2 FOIA request, with some of its internal documents, many heavily redacted. FOIA letter here; FOIA documents released to ICP here, and embedded below.
 While Inner City Press is appealing, even as released the documents show that Goldman Sachs through its law firm Sullivan & Cromwell reached out to Fed General Counsel Scott Alvarez in May 2015 about the transaction, and was largely able to vet it with the Fed's staff by July, even receiving an "additional information" request before any application was filed.
  Since the public cannot comment or ask questions before a transaction is announced, this "pre-review" by the Fed in essence cuts public review and transparency out of the process. The Fed's rules against ex-parte communications can't be triggered before there is an application. But should Fed review be held, and apparently completed, before there is any public notice?
  The documents Inner City Press has obtained under FOIA show that on May 14 and May 18, Goldman Sachs and its outside counsel Rodgin "Rodge" Cohen of Sullivan & Cromwell told the Fed and its General Counsel Scott Alvarez of their plans for GE Capital Bank.
 On May 28, the Fed met with Goldman which presented a "deck" of information about "Project Apple," much of it still redacted as provided to Inner City Press (which is appealing under FOIA).
  As precedents, Goldman Sachs cited Capital One - ING and RBC - City National (see below). 
 This was followed by a May 29, 2015 letter from "Rodge" to the Fed's Scott Alvarez, asking for confidential treatment of everything including the letter, and including from any Governmental inquiry. (Page 28 of FOIA response to ICP.) A similar letter was submitted by Cohen on June 16, attaching a letter the Fed has redacted in full from Goldman Sachs' Esta E. Stecher.
  Scott Alvarez took the conversation onto the telephone, not subject to FOIA, on June 16. His accompanying e-mails, as redacted, only say "Thanks! Scott."
 On June 26, the Fed' Alison Thro wrote that "Rodgin Cohen was in today briefly to discuss, among other things, GS’s plans to acquire the deposits of GE’s ILC. He asked what the next steps might be." What were those "other things"?
 On July 13, the Fed sent Cohen a "request for additional information concerning the proposal by GS Bank to purchase certain assets and assume the deposit liabilities of GE Capital Bank."
  A request for additional information is usually what the Fed sends a bank or bank holding company after it has submitted an application; a commenter would get a copy. Here, the Fed was pre-reviewing Goldman Sachs' proposal, entirely outside of any public scrutiny. (The later public questions are as if by rote: the fix was already in.)
  On Friday, July 17 the Fed's Thomas Baxter wrote to Scott Alvarez that the transaction would be public announced the next Monday -- AFTER the Fed's "additional information request" -- based on a long voicemail from Harvey Schwartz of Goldman Sachs. (Page 59 of FOIA response to ICP). Alvarez was on the phone with "Esta of GA and Rodge Cohen."
  Alvarez said he was willing to talk with Goldman Sachs on Sunday, July 19. Cohen had written to Alvarez:
"In view of the various communications on Friday and the intended announcement of the deposit assumption transaction on Monday, GS believes that it must decide over this weekend whether it can proceed as scheduled and, as a matter of fairness and transparency, what it can tell GE. As we have discussed, this transaction appears to be a centerpiece of the GE restructuring. We would therefore most appreciate the opportunity to have a conference call as soon as possible over the weekend to obtain as much clarity as possible as to timing and other relevant matters.
We apologize for intruding into your weekend and thank you your consideration of this request." (Page 65 of FOIA response.)
   The reference to "fairness and transparency" was apparently without irony. But Goldman stood the Fed up. 
  But this announcement was postponed. Alvarez wrote on July 20 that "Rodge just sent a note that GS wants to postpone signing the deal with GE and the announcement for 2 to 3 weeks." More review continued, outside of public scrutiny. Alvarez made himself available on Sunday, July 26. But to no avail. 
 The deal was publicly announced on August 13 and Goldman Sachs on August 18 submitted the apparently pre-approved application. Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch submitted a comment and FOIA request (delayed until now); the end of the FOIA response has a redacted reaction to the "public comment." Now others have commented and a campaign has begun. But has the Fed already made up its mind?

  On September 22, 2015, the Federal Reserve belatedly released the 2014 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data. A quick review of the lending of Goldman Sachs Bank USA in the New York City Metropolitan Statistical Area shows the Goldman Sachs focus which should require publish hearings in this case. 
  Fair Finance Watch, hours after the data was released, has commented to the Federal Reserve at the highest level that "in the New York City MSA in 2014, for conventional home purchase loans (Table 4-2), Goldman Sachs Bank USA made 45 such loans to whites, only two to African Americans and only one to a Latino. For refinance loans (Table 4-3), Goldman Sachs Bank USA made 16 loans to whites and NONE to African American or Latinos. This is inconsistent with the demographics of the New York City MSA and with other lenders' records; it further militate for the timely requested public hearings."
  Goldman Sachs has purported to respond to the comments of Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch by releasing a small amount of the withheld information, and arguing that what the wider Goldman Sachs does cannot or will no be considered by the Federal Reserve on this Bank Merger Act application by Goldman Sachs Bank. We've putGoldman Sachs' response online, here. It says:
“FFW states that the audio released by examiner Ms. Carmen Segara requires an extension of the comment period and a public hearing... GS Bank believes the issue is outside the scope of the statutory factors for Board consideration under the Bank Merger Act... Goldman Sachs Bank USA ('GS Bank') hereby submits its response to the three comment letters, submitted on September 2, September 3 and September 9, 2015 (the 'Comment Letters'), by the Inner City Press's Fair Finance Watch ('FFW')....
"FFW makes accusations of 'predatory practices' in the 'mortgage field' and 'municipal finance,' and states that there are a number of compliance settlements that must be reviewed in connection with the Application. FFW references several articles related to lawsuits, settlements and other events, all but one of which involve Goldman Sachs but not GS Bank. GS Bank respectfully submits that such comments are not substantiated by specific arguments or facts. GS Bank notes that none of the articles relate to GS Bank itself, and believes these issues are outside the scope of the statutory factors for Board consideration under the Bank Merger Act.”
  Goldman Sachs is arguing that the acts of a parent company cannot be considered when its bank applies to buy ($16 billion) in insured deposits, an absurd argument. FFW has submitted another comment to the Fed, including that 
"ICP has received by mail from Goldman Sachs' counsel a purported response which claims that issues ranging from conflict of interest and under-regulation by the FRB (evidenced for example by the audio leaked by whistleblower Carmen Segarra) is not cognizable under the Bank Merger Act - an absurd argument. The FRB would be the decision maker, therefore such issues must be addressed.

 "Goldman Sachs cavalierly states that since it withdrew some of its indefensible requests for confidential treatment of its application, that issues is resolved. It is not - too much is still being withheld. Significantly, Goldman Sachs has offered no explanation of the specious requests for confidential treatment it made, denying commenters access to information during the comment period. As others now argue, the comment period would be extended and hearing held."
Posted by at

UN Ouster of Inner City Press Slammed in Sri Lanka, Where Ban Ki-moon Hid Crimes As in Yemen, Burundi, Elsewhere



By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 1 -- On February 19, Inner City Press was thrown out of the UN, on two hours notice, after having put critical questions to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric.

In a letter that gave Inner City Press only two hours, Ban's Under Secretary General for Public Information Cristina Gallach told Inner City Press to surrender the key to its long-time shared office.

  That evening eight UN Security guards under Deputy Chief Michael McNulty physically threw Inner City Press and its laptop out onto First Avenue in below freezing weather, without a coat. Audio here; video as UN Security turns off Inner City Press' Periscope livestream, here.

   On February 22, UN Security official Matthew Sullivan told Inner City Press it could not even be signed into UN headquarters as a guest, it was Banned from all UN premises. Audio here.

  Since then Nobel Peace Prize laureate Jose Ramos-Horta urged Gallach to reverse her decision, taken without one speaking to Inner City Press concerning its January 29 attempt to cover, to pursue its series on UN corruption under Ban, an event the UN Correspondents Association held in the UN Press Brief Room. Video of that event - used against Inner City Press with no opportunity to be heard.

  Business Insider was told, by an unnamed Gallach spokesperson, that it was fine to throw out a 10-year journalist at the UN without any opportunity to be heard,article here, and on Yahoo Finance.

A petition to restore Inner City Press to access to the UN, and to its office under its long-time but stripped Resident Correspondent accreditation, is here, with 675 signatures as February 29 and comments.

The DC-based Government Accountability Project, which defends UN and other whistleblowers, has written that the ouster of Inner City Press is “retaliatory in response to independent, critical journalism.” (Dujarric, who previously “lent” the UN Press Briefing Room to his native France's President Francois Hollande, said he disagrees with GAP.)

  Ban Ki-moon, whose “victory tour” of blood-soaked northern Sri Lanka Inner City Press covered and was never forgiven for by Ban's UN, was the target of a demonstration in Jaffa for the ouster of Inner City Press.

Handwritten signs at the Jaffna protest cited back to questions about Ban accepting a Sri Lanka war crimes suspect Shavendra Silva as one of his Senior Advisers on Peacekeeping, and another suspect Palitha Kohona's involvements with the UN including the White Flag Killings with Ban's chief of staff Vijay Nambiar.

  Inner City Press reported how Kohona got UNCA under current president Giampaoli Pioli to screen a war crimes denial film in the UN; Pioli has been Kohona's landlord but did not recuse himself or consult other UNCA member members including, at that time, Inner City Press (which quit and co-founded the Free UN Coalition for Access.)

  Here are photos from the demonstration outside the UN compound in Jaffna, Sri Lanka. But what does Ban care? He is, as usual, out of New York, on a trip in Spain where neither the King nor President is meeting with him. Ban will not even visit the headquarters of "his" MINURSO mission in El Aaiun since Morocco's King won't be there or let him.

  Beyond Ban's troubling ambivalence about war crimes, most recently for example in Yemen (which he has a pro-Saudi envoy) and Burundi (where his Peacekeeping chiefHerve Ladsous is embroiled with the military, as it commits child rape as part of the UN mission in Central African Republic), a corruption scandal which Inner City Press is pursuing threatened to undermine Ban's plan to run for President of South Korea.

   Macao-based business man Ng Lap Seng, now under house arrest, bought a photo op with Ban, giving tens of thousands of dollars to the UN Correspondents Association, though South South News. (This is why Inner City Press sought to cover the January 29 event in the UN Press Briefing Room, openly Periscoping an event that was nowhere listed as Closed.)

Indicted Frank Lorenzo got South South News into the UNTV archives. Spokesman Dujarric has twice refused to explain this, despite being in charge of UNTV at the time.

   The UN's response has been to order an audit by its own Office of Internal Oversight Services into all UN deals with Ng's Sun Kian Ip Foundation and also-indicted Sheri Yan's Global Sustainability Foundation.

 Inner City Press has shown: Ban's wife and his adviser Vijay Nambiar, of Sri Lanka “fame,” were at the FOUNDING of this corrupt Global Sustainability Foundation. And Inner City Press after reporting this is thrown out of the UN?

   Even with Ban's UN, through Gallach's no due process decision, hindering its reporting, Inner City Press will have more on all this. 
Posted by at

Inner City Pres First Reported South Africa Troops Leaving Darfur For "Tactical" Violation, Was It SANDF's Bashir Encircle?



By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive Series

UNITED NATIONS, March 1 -- UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous was willing to use Congolese troops in Central African Republic who ended up engaging in child rape and other abuses. Then they were given ample time to repatriate or leave the country; some twenty are still there.

  But there are other inconsistencies in Ladsous' peacekeeping, for example in Darfur. There, Ladsous more forcefully demanded the repatriation of South Africa's troops -- not for sexual abuse, but for “tactical” issues. Inner City Press exclusively learned of this and how last week, just before the UN threw Inner City Press out on February 19, and declared it Banned from all UN premises on February 22. Petition here.

  Here, exclusively, is the outrage. Unlike with “his” Congolese rapists in CAR, Ladsous very much wanted the South African troops to leave Darfur. Inner City Press' sources, on the last day it was able to move freely and without Ban Ki-moon's minders around the UN's second floor, was told the UN accused the South African contingent of a "tactical" violation.

But what could it be? In another seemingly scripted Q&A colloquy, Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric lavished praise on South Africa's battalion - even as DPKO threw them out.

  Now here's the possibility: the South Africans in Darfur allowed themselves to be surrounded by the Sudanese Army SANDF when it seemed Omar al Bashir might belatedly be arrested in South Africa on his ICC genocide warrant. See here; h/t.

Ladsous, as Inner City Press has reported, has no problems with war crimes -- see his favors for Burundi's military -- nor even with Bashir, with whom he met without giving any read-out. But with this exposed, and Ladsous unable to open his mouth without, for example, linking rapes to R&R, the answer was to throw the South Africans out for making it clear how weak and craven to Bashir's Sudan Ladsous' DPKO is.

We'll have more on this -- even with the restricted access to which Ban Ki-moon, protested in Sri Lanka today, has confined Inner City Press.

  This is the lack of oversight of UN Peacekeeping, that money can be used this way. Is is the same lack of oversight which allows Ladsous to cover up rapes, from Darfur to CAR, then to openly refuse to answer Inner City Press questions about the cover ups. But this one involves money, public money

  On February 25 after filing a legal letter with the UN to not touch its office and papers, Inner City Press entered and asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, UN transcript:

Inner City Press: In Darfur, the… South Africa has said that it's re… you know, pulling its entire force back, 1 April, and what I wanted to ask is whether… I've heard and published that it's due to something called a tactical violation by the South African battalion.  And I've also heard that DFS [Department of Field Support] is, unlike in other repatriation cases, stands to pay for the entire repatriation to South Africa.  Can you, one, state why they're being repatriated, and two, why DFS would pay for it?

Spokesman:  I do confirm that they are being repatriated.  I will get you some… I have some detail… I thought I had some details here, but we'll see what I can get you right after the briefing.

Inner City Press:  I guess my question is, given this… although this doesn't appear to be a case of sexual abuse repatriation, does Ban Ki-moon's stated commitment to transparency and repatriations cover repatriations like this?  And I want to insist to know who's paying, and if the UN is paying, why it's paying.

Spokesman:  I will get some… I will get more detail…

  We'll stay on this.

Amid a litany of rape charges against UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous, Inner City Press exclusively obtained and on February 12 published UN emails showing another round of sexual abuse of minors in Ouaka prefecture in the Central African Republic by UN Peacekeepers from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Click here to view.

 While the story continues, we note that Reuters UN bureau first triest to undermine the story, then stole it without credit - and on February 18 tried to undermine Inner City Press live-streaming Periscope video from the UN Security Council stakeout. Welcome to the UN Censorship Alliance.

  After Inner City Press on February 15 asked about the email its had published - and Reuters' UN bureau chief Louis Charbonneau, notably,tried to dismiss and then stole the story - on February 16 UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq in the noon briefing read out a statement confirming nearly all of the email Inner City Press had published: that there were four new victims, minors, troops from DR Congo.

 But Haq did not say that two of the victims had children from the statutory rape. So Inner City Press asked Haq to confirm that, and asked who would pay: the UN or the DRC soldiers? Haq said there are meetings in Ban's office to respond to just such issues, after December's Deschamps report. Video here.

 And then Reuters, even while its editor Dan Grebler said the first theft was being looked into, just retyped and stole it again, this time by its UN correspondent Michelle Nichols, here.

  It was this same Nichols who, at the UN Security Council stakeout on February 18 while Inner City Press was live-streaming after asking about a draft statement on Palestine, cut in loudly with "I see you Periscoping!"  And? So what? UN missions and the UN itself are broadcasting inside the UN on Periscope. Why would one media try to censor others?

  On February 15, Reuters first tried to claim these were "old" rapes, here -- then when shown otherwise, simply stole the story with no credit.This is apparently policy.

  So Inner City Press raised the issue of theft of exclusives (and lack of objectivity, at least at the UN) to Reuters itself. For now, we've received this, cc-ed also not only to the (repeat) offender but also to Reuters' genial seeming Brian Moss and Clive McKeef:

"Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. The appropriate Reuters staff will look into it and get back to you as soon as feasible.

Regards,
Dan Grebler
Desk Editor, Americas Desk"

  But but February 18, still no response. It's not that complicated.  Or was the Reuters correspondent's "intervention" the response? We'll have more on this too.

 The underlying emails, dated February 11, 2016, describe at least four underage victims, two of whom were impregnated by the rapist UN peacekeepers -- "in the locality Ngakobo in the Ouaka prefecture."

  On February 15, after emailing questions for two days to UN spokespeople in CAR and New York, Inner City Press at the UN's noon briefing asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq about the rapes, and the email it published on February 12. Haq answered, dodging on part of the email but not denying it. Video here.

 Then Associated Press asked, what about these new allegations? Video here. Haq answered - and from that, AP wrote its own derivative and belated story -- without credit, and without any mention of the critique of the UN in the emails. This is how it works, or doesn't.

 This too - Reuters UN "bureau chief" on Monday evening first reflexively came to the UN's defense saying that "Alleged Central African Republic rapes UN spox talked about today are same ones UN CAR said Feb 4 it was probing," citing (what else) a Reuters story of February 4 -- about a Human Rights Watch report about rapes in Bambari. But read the February 11 emails Inner City Press exclusively published, here:

“Herewith sharing with you a report I have just received from UNICEF indicating four minor girls aged between 16 and 17 years were victims of sexual exploitation and abuse allegedly committed by members of the DRC battalion in the locality Ngakobo in the Ouaka prefecture.”

  Up the email chain, Mercedes Gervilla in UN headquarters writes that “it would seem that many among the troops concerned, including Commanding officers were well aware of the abuse to which these children were being subjected. I also regret to inform you that in addition to these new 4 cases, there will likely be two more...”.  [We'll have more on this.]

  This is called... spinning for the UN. This is a trend at Reuters, even last week, here.



And there is a history: this same Reuters UN Bureau Chief Lou Charbonneau, when challenged, wrote to Stephane Dujarric, UN Spokesman, trying to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN, here.

  When this was exposed, Charbonneau cited Reuters to get his email to the UN taken out of Google's search, saying he never meant for it to be public and it was somehow copyrighted. (See his filing here, made public by EFF's ChillingEffects.org). That's censorship... by Reuters.

  This this case, after being shown this reflexive defense of the UN was wrong, Reuters simply re-wrote the story and stole it, with no credit.

 And now we must go back: Charbonneau announced a policy of not crediting Inner City Press, see here.

 This was raised at the time to Reuters, including to Stephen J. Adler. What kind of company is this?

  (Inner City Press previously asked the decaying UN Correspondents Association, while it tried to censor Press coverage of its boss, to promulgate a best practice for media at the UN to credit others' exclusives; it never happened. AP at the UN speaks for this UNCA, and apparently it for AP.)

  

 


Having been told by sources of more rapes by peacekeepers in the Central African Republic, Inner City Press on January 26 reported them and on January 27 asked the UN's spokesperson Stephane Dujarric to confirm them - but he wouldn't. UN transcript here. Video here.




  So what is the protocol of UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous, who linked the rapes to "R&R," here? How many more do they know about?

The UN report on rapes in the Central African Republic, released on December 17, found that UN Peacekeeping's Under Secretary General Herve Ladsous “illustrate[s] the UN's failure to respond to allegations of serious human rights violations in the meaningful way.”

 Ladsous has yet to take any questions about the report...

  When the Panel's three members held their December press conference, Inner City Press asked about Ladsous' failure to vet and his linking of rapes to “R&R.” Video here.  Marie Deschamps said pointedly she wouldn't comment on Ladsous' remarks; Yasmin Sooka said these are crimes for punishment, not recreation.

  As the last question, Inner City Press asked what it had wanted to ask Ban, and tried to ask Dujarric: what does this say about Ban's management? Video of Q&A here. Didn't Ban's chief of staff Malcorra, criticized in the report, do it for Ban? Didn't the “senior official” who ostensibly let the rape information die on the vine in the 38th floor work in an atmosphere created by Ban's nine years? We will pursue this.

  In December 2015, Ban allowed those who cover him, at least the UN Correspondents Association, to sell seats with him for $6,000. And it is these same who have airbrushed out Ladsous and others. We'll have more on this.
Posted by at

After UN's Department of Public Information Ousts Inner City Press, Spox Tells ICP Ask DPI About Corruption, Disses GAP



By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 29 -- After Inner City Press was summarily ejected from the UN, which it has covered for 10 years, on February 19, the ostensibly deciding official Cristina Gallach told no less than Nobel Peace Prize laureate Jose Ramos Horta that Inner City Press would still be able to cover the UN.

What she didn't say was that Inner City Press' ability to cover the unfolding UN corruption scandal in which she has played a role would be curtailed under the proposed arrangement - by design.

  On February 26 the Government Accountability Project, which defends whistleblowers, wrote to the US Mission to the UN, Ambassador of Management and Reform Isobel Coleman, to ask the US to ensure Inner City Press gets back its office and Resident Correspondent's pass. GAP letter here.

  GAP's Beatrice Edwards cited the UN's lack of due process and of rules, and the seeming retaliation against Inner City Press for its reporting. (There's also the physical ouster of Inner City Press, audio here.) Other missions have openly taken action: what will the US Mission do?

 On February 29, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric another question about UN - this time DPI - seeming corruption, and about GAP's letter, Video here, UN transcript here:

Inner City Press: I'd asked you previously about South-South News, which is pretty much in… is in this indictment of Mr. [Francis] Lorenzo and Mr. Ng Lap Seng as a conduit for funds for the alleged bribery at the UN, why its… its footage and a number of its pieces are included in UNTV in an archive, and I checked today.  They're still there.

I wanted to know, since there's no other med… non-UN media that I can find that has its material inside that archive, why is that, and why does it remain to be the case, given the fact that it's named as a vehicle for bribery?

Spokesman Dujarric:  Obviously, I think that's a question you can address to my colleagues in DPI.

Inner City Press:  Okay.  They're not communicating too well.

Spokesman:  [Calls on another.]

Inner City Press: Again, I'll keep it very short, but I wanted to ask you, the Government Accountability Project, which you know, which represented Mr. [Anders] Kompass and other UN whistle-blowers, has issued a letter on Friday in which they say… they call for… I guess I'll put it in personal terms… for my resident correspondent pass to be returned and my office.  And they say the action was retaliatory in response to independent critical journalism.  I'd like to know what your response to this respected group reaching that conclusion is.

Spokesman:  My simple response would be no, and I'm sure they will get a response from whoever they addressed the letter to.

 We'll see.

 Meanwhile in defense of Ban and Gallach, anonymous troll account has taken to tweeting, now at Spanish journalists, that Gallach is fine and didn't throw Inner City Press out of the UN on two hours notice without once speaking to it. But those are the fact. Among the new troll account's followers are Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric and four UNCA board members, plus Reuters bureau chief Louis Charbonneau, who has a history with this, see here.

  Because as a working journalist it needed access to cover the February 25 UN Security Council meeting about North Korea, and only in connection with filing a lawyer's letter telling Gallach and the UN not to touch Inner City Press' office or files, Inner City Press late morning entered the UN with a so-called "Green P" non-resident correspondents pass.

  At the day's noon briefing, after asking of Burundi, Western Sahara, Darfur and the UN corruption scandals, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric two simple question, to which he said #AskGallach. From the UN transcript:

Inner City Press: I'd like this to go smoothly, so I'll do it really quickly.  I noticed that on Monday, when I was not able to attend the briefing, that you had a little Q&A about my accreditation status.  So, I just want to state one thing very briefly.  A legal letter has been received by DPI [Department of Public Information] to not touch my office, not touch any of the files, but I need to cover the meeting this afternoon.  I'm just stating that, because I thought it was inappropriate.  But, my question is as follows:  Is it common UN practice to… to tell a journalist to leave the building and give up Resident Correspondent status without ever once speaking to them?  Is that considered an investigation?  What is the lowest standard that the UN can go to to have something to be considered a review of the facts?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I would encourage you to direct all those questions to Ms. [Cristina] Gallach and to DPI.

Inner City Press:  I have one more question.  What are the rules for the use of physical force by UN security?  Because on Friday evening, I was pushed down the escalator and into the street, and my laptop was thrown on the street, and I… and I was offering absolutely zero physical… physical… so I wanted to know what is the recourse for someone to whom this happens?  That's my question.

Spokesman:  I would encourage you to raise all these issues having to do with your accreditation, your treatment, and so forth to Ms. Gallach.

Question:  What are the rights of people not to be pushed by UN security?

Spokesman:  That's… that was my answer to your question.  Thank you.

  Wait - so the UN has no protocols on the use of force? Or DPI's Gallach is in charge of the use of force, and ordered it? How can the UN and USG Gallach be so contemptuous to the most basic forms of due process?

Inner City Press is opposing all this.

  And so now are a range of people from around the world, who have signed a petition to immediately restore Inner City Press to the UN Resident Correspondent accreditation it had for nine years until, without any due process, the UN pass was physically torn from its chest as UN Security throw its laptop onto the sidewalk in front of the UN (also owned by the UN and immunity from US law including the First Amendment).

Here are just some of the comments of those signing the petition directed to Ban Ki-moon:

UN cover-up artists are taking advantage of the dying months of Ban Ki-moon's tenure to remove a thorn in their side, because they are worried the new SG won't want to start out with a fight. -James Bone, Shelter Island Heights, NY

ICP has been the only voice for the oppressed in #Burundi, #Haiti & #Yemen at #UN. -Eloge Tinya, Lagos, Nigeria

Innercitypress is the voice of many oppressed Burundians and many Africans under dictatorship. I have decided to stand with the oppressed and not the oppressor, UN needs to practice what it preaches by setting free innercitypress to do his work! -Lievin Manisha, Pineville, LA

ICP asked questions that will bring clarity on the agreement the Prime Minister of Dominica signed in Macau on August 25, 2015 together with Ng Lap Seng and a UN official. -Hon. Hector John, Salisbury, Dominica

I am signing for UN to restore Matthew Lee Inner City Press right to access to the UN as a Resident Correspondent to question authorities because it is the fundamental of free speech as the UN preaches to other countries it must first practice itself to set example. -Smret Kibrom, San Gallo, Switzerland

Freedom of press. -Prem Kumar, India

innercitypress defends the human rights of Burundians and help to avoid genocide, please free innercitypress! - MICHAEL Tim, London, United Kingdom

I'm signing because the barring of access to Mr. Lee appears to be at worst motivated by a reluctance to engage with and continue to receive the probing questions he asks, and at best the result of a petty personal vendetta based on unprofessional antipathy towards Mr. Lee by the 'respectable' wing of the United Nations press corps. -Marlon Ettinger, Hastings-on-Hudson, NY

I am signing this petition for Matthew Russell Lee and Inner City Press be restored to the shared UN office and Resident Correspondent accreditation they have had for eight years prior to this pretextual incident. It also requests, as does the Free UN Coalition for Access that Matthew co-founded, that an investigation be launched into how all of this occurred. Moreover to call for aggressive investigative journalism at the UN and to tell the leaders of the UN that the UN, too, must live up to the principles of due process and freedom of the press. -Martha Fassil, New York, NY

Comment l'onu peut agir de sorte alors qu'ils sont comme meilleur modèle de la démocratie, je garde espoir qu'on aura un jour un vrai dirigeants de l'onu pour tous. -Steve Ndacasaba, Montréal, Canada

I'm signing cause, want a real journalist who tells it like it is. No agenda but the truth. I am supporting him for standing up for UN bully. -Paulos Welday, Cambridge, United Kingdom

Han er en journalist som forteller sannheten til verden.
Mussie Tesfay, Oslo, Norway

UN should walk the talk. Practice what you preach - rule of law, democracy, freedom of expression, of press. Reinstate ICP Mathew Russell Lee to full resident reporter. -Seble Ephrem, London, United Kingdom

we need a voice for africa
redae medhane, Kitchener, Canada

Incredible. This banning is the exact opposite of the transparency and accountability that the UN should be defending for all institutions. This must be reversed.
Denis Rancourt, Ottawa, Canada

ICP is the most reliable source of information at the UN. The other corporate media are controlled by the special interest groups. Thus their journalistic integrity is always suspect. ICP is voice of the voiceless - of course unlike the UN and its sponsors and financiers. -tsehaie mahary, edmonton, Canada

I express my solidarity with Mathew, God bless you friend
Mohamed MAYARA, El Aaiun, Western Sahara

Matthew Lee has been a lone voice asking the difficult questions in the UN press gallery. -Martin Field, Geneva, Switzerland

I have seen Matthew only defending the truth. He is a journalist with a genuine journalist ethics. He is also the one of the most intelligent and courageous journalist. He is a model how other journalist should be. He should be given a noble prize for what he does not get banned from the UN. -Yacob Woldehiwot, London, United Kingdom

The UN cannot be dismissive of new media as people get their news from new media.The UN cannot pick and choose media persons according to their whims and fancies. -soraya patel, India

Shame on UN. -ibrahim alhaifi, Sanaa, Yemen

I believe this is censorship of the press. Shameful. -Douglas Smith, New York, NY

I believe this is censorship of the press. Shameful. -Douglas Smith, New York, NY
I'm signing because I believe in ICP to bring balance to the reporting of UN activities around the globe. I also believe in the ability of Lee to investigate, without fear or favour, to keep the UN reputation intact. -Saare Tsehaye, London, United Kingdom

Because this is censorship on free press. Inner City stands for Truth, Justice & Peace !!! -Aman Kubrom, Frankfurt, Germany

How can the UN be so ridiculous?
Feridun Akpinar, Turku, Finland

For Truth & Transparency, there must always be those who Question more. -Auet Melache, Bolton, United Kingdom

I am signing because UN is being unfair and need to take some responsibility. -Lynda Charles, Boynton Beach, FL

He's credible and follows the ethics of journalism to the fullest. -Amanuel Tseggai, Stone Mountain, GA

We need the alternative,independent and investigative media to be present everywhere. -Marja Konttila, Solna, Sweden

I demand the U.N. unconditionaly and ASAP to restore access to Inner City Press`Matthew Russell Lee to the U.N. as a Resident Correspondent. -johannes abraham, Germany

I believe in press giving independant views on ignored issues
Cyrilla Bwakira, Johannesburg, South Africa

Ban is a tool. -Michael Klett, San Francisco, CA

InnerCity Press has been very professional and a life saver. His reports on different issues around the world helped uncover certain hidden truths. If Ban was in #Burundi 2 days ago, I can say it is mainly because of his persistence of bringing Burundi to light from the repression of de facto president
Manirambona Juma, Kirundo, Burundi

Matt spells out the truth and exposes the games protecting the outdated system for what it currently is.Matt actually supports the principle of the UN, those within it, support themselves. -Andy Wren, Littlestone, United Kingdom

Weil ich sihe das innercity einsige unabhengige median vetretete vor
Stimmenloss. -Iassu nugusse, Germany

Matthew Russell Lee, founder of the Inner City Press, is a veteran investigative journalist I have relied upon on UN news for the past six years. He is truthful, and pursues truth in reporting tenaciously and with integrity. We need more journalists like him at the UN to keep us informed. He and his Inner City Press must be reinstated as a fully accredited resident journalist to the UN. -Elias Amare, San Rafael, CA

We need unbiased and impartial reporting from the UN. -David Macilwain, Australia

Does the UN have something to hide? The UN is also obligated by the same principles and norms it preaches. I demand the UN to reinstate Matthew Russell Lee to his desk so he can do what he does best- pure journalism. He is the only honest journalist at the UN compound and being the voice of the voiceless. -Daniel Berhe, Seattle, WA

I am signed because ICP thrown out on the street by the decorator of UN media Personnel with out his belongings Shame UN. -Yakob Tesfaye, Edmonton, Canada

I am signing this because I want to learn about the corrupt UN security council.
TEKLU BAHTA, NORTH CHICAGO,

I respectively ask UNSG and Mr Ban ki-moon to reture Matt to his post us a dedicated reporter in the UN. I have a huge respect for the guy. It would be a travesty of justice if a reporter like matt is out the office of the biggest office in the world when we need a reporter of such kind. -Kibrom tekeste, berkeley, CA

I'am signing because I believe in freedom of speach and Free Press Reporters/Journalists. -Ndayizeye APOLLINAIRE, Gatineau (Hull), Canada

The UN repeatedly acts like human rights protections apply to everyone but themselves. -Betsey Chace, Cambridge, MA

Matthew is the only bona fide journalist reporting on UN. He alone is rectifying the defects created by system of diplomatic immunity. Why makes his job harder? Do you have something to hide from him? He makes UN a more acceptable organization and indeed, by genuinely reporting he makes this world a better place. -T Chan, London, United Kingdom

I am signing for UN to restore Matthew Lee Inner City Press right to access to the UN as a Resident Correspondent to question authorities because it is the fundamental of free speech as the UN preaches to other countries it must first practice itself to set example.
Sara Haile, Alexandria, VA

Matthew Lee is, far and away, the hardest-working and most dogged of any journalist at the United Nations. His arbitrary expulsion is both outrageous and a reflection of the fact that things are not as they should be at the United Nations, and certainly not what YOU would expect. - alberto martin, New York, NY

He is the best one, for the world in the UN which tells us the truth. So if he is out of his work then the UN only remains with out the truth.
ghebreyohanis michiel, bachenbülach, Switzerland

Burundi medias burned by violent/genocidaire regime;our genuine source of information from UN was ICP:fair,not sided.Pls,Reestablish ICP in its rights!
Ange Nganji, Bujumbura, Burundi

I'm signing because I believe in the freedom of the press. I often reads Matthew Lee's work which reports on difficult topics and events that need covering and exposure. He should be reinstated at your earliest convenience.
Rebecca Myles, New York, NY

I'm signing because I'm an advocate for real, independent journalism and condemn the UN's decision to remove Inner City Press's access based on a nonsensical pretext! -Hermon Gebrai, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom

I appreciate Inner City Press' persistent and prepared journalism at the United Nations. -Brian Concannon Jr., Marshfield, MA

Freedom of the press. -Luiz Rampelotto, New York, NY
18 hours ago

The UN needs to be held to standards of openess, transparency and freedom of the press. -Samuel Horton, Silsden, United Kingdom

Lee should not have been expelled, it's a disgrace to the UN. -Richard Johnson, Potomac, MD

It's unfair to throw someone out like that with out hearing from his side of history. -Hermon Tsegay, Slough, United Kingdom

Such a crck down on media in an organization promoting freedom of speech and information is really awkward and clearly disgraceful and unacceptable. -Florent Nduwayo, Kibungo, Rwanda

This is another in a long line of incidents conclusively evidencing the UN's complete and utter disrespect for the laws of its HOST country, the US, in particular the 1st amendment!! UN IMMUNITY = IMPUNITY--END IT NOW!! Journalists are the ultimate whistleblowers, and I am well aware of how UN whistleblowers like Mr Lee are persecuted and suffer grievous harm at the hands of rogue UN officials. The treatment of Mr. Lee is an outrage.

How ironic this has happened just as the US House Committe on Foreign Relations is today, on 24 Feb, holding a hearing about the gross mistreatment of whistleblowers at the UN and WIPO. Congress must act now to cut off 15% of US appropriations to the UN this year on account of its failure to protect and encourage UN whistleblowers like Mr Lee, as provided for in US law, as it already did to WIPO!! -ted beacher, Geneva, Switzerland

ICP is doing a great job. UN should support,respect and promote free speech. -Kalu Thapa, Kathmandu, Nepal

There are more...

 But the UN Correspondents Association, at least its 15 Executive Committee members, issued a February 22 statement in context fully supporting the throwing of Inner City Press into the street, the seizure of passport, the Banning, all of it. We wonder if these scribes' employers know about this.

  For now we reiterate the obvious: the UN Press Briefing Room is presumptively open to all press. If Spokesman Dujarric, or DPI's Gallach, wants to lend it to their friends, at least provide a notice so journalists hungry for news don't get excluded and get nothing.
Posted by at

On Burundi, Inner Cty Press Asks UN Spokesman Dujarric of Rapes in Police Custody, He Cites Experts



By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 29 -- After UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on New Year's Eve issued a statement surreally praising the Burundi “talks” held in Entebbe, Uganda, multiple sources told Inner City Press these not really talks but rather a photo op. The January 6 session announced for Arusha did not happen.  Inner City Press requested to cover the UNSC's trip to Burundi, but was UNtransparently rejected.

Ban Ki-moon took no press with him to Burundi - and then praised Pierre Nkurunziza's decision on the media, after having decided, through his Under Secretary General Cristina Gallach and Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, to throw Inner City Press out of the UN. Petition here.

 On February 29, Inner City Press asked Spokesman Dujarric, UN transcript here:

Inner City Press: Radio Publique Africaine in Burundi has reported in detail in a case, a rape case took place in Burundi in December in the… the jurisdiction of the national police in which they say that people that didn't speak the language of the country, they believe FDLR members brought in from elsewhere mass raped a girl and demanded to know where the rebels were. This was right before the 12/12, you know, mass killings in Bujumbura.

So I'm wondering, this is a media that, from this podium, Ban Ki-moon has said shouldn't have been closed, should be reopened.  They have a very detailed report.  What exactly is the UN going to… to do about this?

Spokesman:  You know, I think, as you may have seen, there are a number of human rights investigators who are on their way and should be arriving in Burundi, and these are exactly the kind of cases they should be looking into it.

On February 29, the UN in Geneva announced:

"Three United Nations independent experts appointed to investigate human rights violations in Burundi are scheduled to conduct their first country visit from 1 to 8 March...

Mr. Christof Heyns (South Africa), the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, is working with Ms. Maya Sahli-Fadel (Algeria), the African Union Special Rapporteur on Refugees, Asylum Seekers, Migrants and Internally Displaced Persons, and Mr. Pablo de Greiff (Colombia), the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Guarantees of Non-Recurrence...

On 21 March 2016, one of the three experts will update the Human Rights Council on its initial findings and conclusions. In September 2016, the experts will issue their final report to the Council. "

  On the other end of the human rights spectrum, Ban made much of Nkurunziza's ostensible commitment to release political prisoners and meet with "the opposition." But which opposition? And which prisoner? Inner City Press while ousted from the UN published what Nkurunziza signed, here and here, and on February 25, filing a lawyer's letter directing the UN to not touch its office or files, entered and asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric these questions, UN transcript:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask you about Burundi first.  I saw the statement by the Secretary-General praising the reopening of some radio stations and the release of prisoners.  And I wanted to ask you two questions about that.  One is, is he aware, and what do you say that two… two of five radio stations have opened and they've been forced to sign pledges to not undermine the country's security?  Is that… does he think that that type of pledge is legitimate?  And on the prisoners, most people are saying that the… this document signed by President [Pierre] Nkurunziza doesn't involve the release of any political opponents, FNL [National Liberation Front] members or anything else.  It's sort of a… it's one of those fake releases where these are people that have nothing to do with the unrest.

Spokesman:  I think what the Secretary-General did yesterday was to welcome these as initial steps and said that it was not enough and he would want to see more.  I don't have any particular reports on pledges that were signed.  Obviously, as a matter of the principle, radio stations in Burundi should be able to broadcast freely and fairly any news that they want.  And, as for the detainees, I don't have the details of who they were.  Obviously, there are different reports.  But as I said, we would want to see more people released.

Inner City Press:  Well, the document that the President signed, it's been published and it's clear that it doesn't cover the people that are part of the opposition.

Spokesman:  I think it's… as I said, we welcome this as an initial step, and we'd like to see more.

Inner City Press:  And will there be follow-up?  What follow-up is the UN going to give having…?

Spokesman:  Mr. [Jamal] Benomar has an expanded team there.  They are in constant contact with the Government.

  Compare Dujarric's canned answers to this critique from ICP's sources on the ground:

Article 1 mentioned categories of those who are supposed to be realized. The common fact is that those mentioned in the article do not have any relation with the Ongoing political unrest. Actually, we were excepting the realise of FNL, MSD, and all political prisoners such as insurgents, and the above mentioned opponents to the regime. But none of them would fall under the categories evoked by the article.

 On Ban Ki-moon's meeting with Nkurunziza: Is the dialogue going inclusive. We shall be able to see it if Nkurunziza says that is going to meet key opposition figures and the civil society leaders, including Nyangoma (CNARED), Sinduhije (Red Tabara), Nininahazwe Pacifique, etc. When? And where? Remember Nkurunziza said that he'll never seat on same table with co-plotters, protest and insurgent leaders as well. So, what is the guarantee that he changed is mind? We'll have more on this.

In Bujumbura on February 23, Ban said:

"I welcome the decision by His Excellency President Nkurunziza to withdrawal some media bans, cancel the arrest warrants and release detainees as good will gestures. President Nkurunziza told me this morning that he will release a list of twelve hundred detainees and take other measures. I have asked him, while I welcome these generous support and measures but I would expect that additional measures should be taken. This is an encouraging step. I hope again additional measures will be taken."

  On February 19, Ban's guards and DPI threw Inner City Press out of the UN, physically, and have yet to restore its Resident Correspondents pass.

But even from the park in front of the UN on 43rd Street in Manhattan, Inner City Press interviewed Security Council ambassadors about Ban's trip, which despite his typical lack of transparency has in fact begun on February 22.

Inner City Press tweeted a photo, here, and reports from sources that already, five men have been killed in Bujumbura and Gisozi while Ban was in the country.

Echoing again  Ban's "victory tour" of Sri Lanka in 2009 . That one, Inner City Press covered - and things have proceeded.

At the February 5 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban's Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq about Burundi, video here, transcript here.  

  Handpicked to go and memorialize the trip was Reuters, which barely reported what happened. There is a history, of Reuters UN bureau hereand here; on February 3, Reuters correspondent Michelle Nichols went so far as to cut off Inner City Press' questions to the UN, Vine here.

  On February 3 Reuters' UN bureau chief Lou Charbonneau, a censor,  channeled a UN (DRC) report -- note not only the former Reuters official turned Eritrea sanctions “experts” exposed by Inner City Presshere, but also that this same now discredited Reuters / UN individual was previously ON the DR Congo panel. Typically, Reuters did not actually put the report online.

  Inner City Press in the spirit of transparency is publishing the (update) report, dated January 15, 2016, signed by Coordinator Gaston Gramajo, and its two paragraphs about 18 Burundian combatants, here. 


Readers can draw their own conclusions, including about the mandate and motivation, and if these 18 is really the way it would go.
 On January 28, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric about a meeting held but not televised on January 27, at which it was urged that mass grave sites in Burundi be preserved as evidence,video here, transcript here.

On January 29, Inner City Press asked Dujarric again, transcript here. 

  So it's all on Zeid, nothing from Ban Ki-moon, who appears to be playing this like he did Sri Lanka...

 At the UN Security Council stakeout, Inner City Press waited -- including through two North Korea questions, and softballs -- then asked if this UN use of Burundian troops makes sense. There has yet to be an answer, although there are indications one might be forthcoming. (More than 24 hours later, no).  Here for now is about the US training Burundian troops. Watch this site.

Inner City Press asked Ban's spokespeople about the trip on January 20, 21 and 22 - including asking why the UN was not providing a video or at least audio stream of the January 22 press encounters, says it has a  "UN Information Center" in Bujumbura, which produced a smiling photo of the French deputy ambassador Alexis Lamek on the tarmac. The UN said it couldn't.

  Local media in Burundi put online a video in which Lamek spoke at length; afterward a pro-government Burundian media quoted Lamek that "we" take seriously the question of interference by Rwanda to destabilize Burundi and will be working on it.

  But the four scribes handpicked to accompany the Security Council trip, inlcuding Agence France Presse, it seems, for some reasons didn't cover it. Why? We'll have more on this. Instead, AFP, Reuters andVoice of America (which saw "Liberians" then cited auto-correct) filed near-identical stories with no quotes from opposition figures or attacked journalists. None of the three even tweeted on January 23, other than Reuters as a robot: talk about Old Media.

  How could "Agence France Presse," handpicked to publicize the UNSC trip co-led by France, not even cover the controversy?

  We note that the French Mission to the UN said that Lamek was being misrepresented (the same French Mission has tried to shield Lamek from critical Press questions, which here on Vine Lamek has refused to answer even when entirely audible). Later an AFP quote emerged of Lamek saying that any AU force, even the 100 human rights observers, should significantly focus on the Rwandan border.

  On the evening of January 23 the UN has put up select clips including a mere 16 seconds of French deputy ambassador Lamek, much less than the local Burundian media present at the same press encountered had.  If the UN filmed the press encounters, why did it so selectively edit them?

  More specifically, now, who decided on the edits?

Inner City Press, which is the media which on January 22 asked for the live-stream, has asked the UN, publicly on Twitter, here, and in more detail by e-mail to three top UN spokespeople:

"having just seen that your Office put online edited video from Burundi, must ask: why did UN edit the footage it has, with no Burundi government speaker, and only 16 seconds of France, penholder in the UNSC on Burundi? Please provide the full footage, in response to this request and, separately, online. Would also still like answers to questions below" on Burundi.

 And still no answers at all, the next day. Watch this site.

  The UN spokespeople refused to say, but beyond the pro-government "religious leaders" that they cited, the Council also met with at least some of the concerned members of civil society, and some journalists who inevitably raised the issue of attacks and censorship. This was not mentioned by the UN.

  We're told that Ambassador Albert Shingiro, who blocks the Press on Twitter, told the scribes that US Power said she would send “a strong message to the government of Rwanda." Again, Shingiro blocks the Press on Twitter: some diplomat.

  One of the four handpicked pass-throughs opined that "the fact that Council members presented Nkurunziza with a largely unified message on the different issues was seen as a positive sign that they had come closer to a common position." So they traveled to Burundi to work on their own issues? We'll have more on this - and on the Council's junket-ending meetings in Addis, if not on Oromo protests, than this we've asked about. Watch this site.

   On January 22, Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq for the UN's response to Pierre Nkurunziza denying the existence of his party's youth militia, and why there was no video or even audio stream of the Security Council's - and Nkurunziza's -- press statements. Video here.

  Haq replied that "the facilities are difficult," that the UN Spokesperson's Office had reached out to the traveling party for information but hadn't gotten any. The Free UN Coalition for Accesscalls this a failure.

 On January 21 Inner City Press in New York learned both of Pierre Nkurunziza plans to parade "community work" for the Security Council members on January 22 and has been provided with a letter promoting same, here.

  On January 22, even after the Council's meeting with Nkurunziza was over, when Inner City Press asked the UN for a read-out there was none, nor any good explanation of why the UN with its country team could not arrange at least an audio stream of the Council's (and Nkurunziza's) press statements.

 Tellingly, IWACU reports that bike taxi and motorcycle taxi drivers offered money to protest in favor of Nkurunziza weren't, after the fact, paid: here.

On January 19 at the UN, Inner City Press asked Uruguay's Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs Jose Luis Cancela, chairing the Security Council debate on Protection of Civilians, about Burundi and the Council's trip. Video here.

  On January 21, Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Accessasked UK Permanent Representative Matthew Rycroft about his stop-over on Addis Ababa, "will you as UK meet with AU before heading to Burundi? About AU's proposed deployment?"

   Rycroft replied, "Yes! Looking forward to meeting @AU_Chergui today. Will also return to Addis with whole UNSC after Burundi."

  In Addis, Chergui had filed the Concept of Operation for the MAPROBU peacekeeping mission. We'll have more on this.

  Burundian civil society has written to Ban seeking the repatriation of the country's peacekeepers. Inner City Press has put the letter from Vital Nshimirimana to Ban online here, and will be asking the UN about it. Watch this site.

  On December 30 Nkurunziza threatened to have his forces attack peacekeepers proposed for the country.


Obtained by Inner City Press

Ladsous' lack of vetting was criticized in the recently released report into the cover up of peacekeepers' rapes in the Central African Republic. Earlier, Inner City Press exclusive reported on Ladsous in his October 1, 2015 meeting with Burundi's vice president saying that he is "pragmatic" on human rights.

 On December 16 Inner City Press was banned from questions to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, but learned from the mission MINUSCA that Baratuza was already in Entebbe. Inner City Press asked several Security Council members, then Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric on December17.

Dujarric told Inner City Press Baratuza's deployment is suspended and he is being repatriated: "based on the information we've received regarding the Lieutenant Colonel, his deployment has been suspended, and he will be repatriated back to Burundi." Video here. Dujarric told Inner City Press this shows the UN system working - on a day when a report on rapes was issued showing UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous not sufficiently vetting for human rights. We'll have more on this.



 Amid the escalating killings in Burundi, summary executions in neighborhoods opposed to Pierre Nkurunziza's third term stand out. But Burundi Army spokesman Gaspard Baratuza was quoted on December 12 blaming all of the deaths on attempts to steal weapons to free prisoners.

   Inner City Press heard that Mr. Baratuza was already in the process of being deployed to the UN Peacekeeping mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA) even when he was giving these quotes, issuing statements and speaking to state-owned radio, and so asked MINUSCA's acting spokesperson, “Is Gaspard Baratuza of Burundi's army getting a MINUSCA job?” Ultimately, after the questioning, he didn't.
 
   But the UN should have to say more. Inner City Press has repeatedly asked the UN how its Department of Peacekeeping Operations under Herve Ladsous vets those who deploy to UN missions; Inner City Pressexclusively reported on an October 1, 2015 meeting in which Ladsous told Burundi's Vice President Joseph Butare that he is “pragmatic” on human rights.



 Ban Ki-moon and his spokesman declined to take Inner City Press' questions on December 16, as they did on December 14. Vine here.  Watch this site.
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)