Friday, October 30, 2015

Inner City Press Asks *NSR Christof Heyns About Lankans Killed in Sri Lanka & Saudi, Stop Killer Robots Talks, US and UK



By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 30 -- When the UN's Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions Christof Heyns held a press conference on October 30, his topics were foreign nationals facing the death penalty and best practices in investigations. Inner City Press asked Heyns about Sri Lankans and others executed in Saudi Arabia, and the shrinking of the promised investigation into killings in Sri Lanka in 2009. Video here.

  Heyns said he had a case or cases about Sri Lankans in Saudi Arabia; he was generally upbeat about the process in Sri Lanka, saying there will be Commonwealth judges. Inner City Press might ask, what about Shavendra Silva? What about the UN's own role in the White Flag killings? Secretary General Ban Ki-moon almost reflexively calls for investigations. But what does the UN actually do?

   Inner City Press also asked Heyns about the (Stop) Killer Robots issues, specifically about the US and UK only agreeing to talk about “emerging” - that is, future - technologies, and not “existing” ones.Video here. (From Minute 4:36.) Heyns said yes that is the issue. We'll have more on this.

On October 22 when UN Rapporteur of Freedom of Expression David Kaye held a press conference before his appearance before the UN's Third Committee, his topic was whistleblower protection, on which the UN itself is particularly weak.

 When called on, Inner City Press asked Kaye about retaliation against UN official Anders Kompass for blowing the whistle on alleged child rapes by French troops in the Central African Republic. Video here and embedded below.

  Kaye said he would avoid speaking about individuals cases, but said that the UN suffers from a lack of transparency. He should know that while UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous is listed in the Kompass ruling(s) of the UN Dispute Tribunal as trying to get Kompass fired, Ladsous has refused to answer on his role, other than a terse “I deny that.” 

 Likewise, Ladsous has claimed the right to refuse to respond to ANY Press questions, in which the UN Spokesperson's Office has taken to backing him up. (When Ladsous did speak, he linked the peacekeepers' rapes to “R&R,” here.)

  Earlier this month, Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access asked if UN Peacekeeping's MONUSCU mission had any comment or action on Burundian journalist Egide Mwemero being silenced then arrested in Eastern Congo. So far, none. These are cases Kaye could work on.

  Free speech ironies at the UN were on display right in Kaye's press conference. The representative of the UN Correspondents Association, which among other things took funds from now-indicted David Ng's South South News and then give it an award, and gave Ng a photo op with Ban Ki-moon at Cipriani, demanded to ask the first question, even claiming that the UN Department of Public Information has granted this “right” in writing. Where?

  In fact, UNCA leaders tried to get the Press thrown out of the UN, with missives to DPI, one of which (from Voice of America) was released under the US Freedom of Information Act, another of which Reuters' bureau chief has gotten Banned from Google on the claim that his anti-Press complaint was copyrighted. Is this is whistleblower? UNCA has become the UN's Censorship Alliance. We and the new Free UN Coalition for Access will have more on this, and on free speech issues through the UN system. 
Posted by at

Inner City Press Comments on Goldman Sachs, Will on Key Bank - First Niagara and NY Community Bank


By Matthew R. Lee
NEW YORK, October 30 -- The lack of seriousness in US bank regulation grows from the relatively smaller to the largest banks, with Goldman Sachs the most recent example. 
Goldman 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 show, is inappropriately bent on helping, including by closing its comment period.  At the other end of the spectrum, after Fair Finance Watch advocacy, Community Bank System Inc is expanding its Community Reinvestment Act assessment area, here.
 In between, and going forward, KeyCorp is trying to buy First Niagara in the same area as CBSI, 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 a 2012 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).
  Now the Federal Reserve has belatedly 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 October 20, the Federal Reserve asked Goldman Sachs five questions, but not on the predatory lending issues raised:
"October 20, 2015  This letter relates to the proposal by Goldman Sachs Bank USA (“GS Bank”), New York, New York, to assume certain deposits and acquire certain assets of GE Capital Bank (“GE Bank”), Holladay, Utah, pursuant to section 18(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. Based on staff’s review of the current record, the following additional information is requested. Please provide responses to all of the following questions, including those in the confidential annex. Please provide relevant supporting documentation as appropriate. Further information may be required as staff continues its review of the proposal. 
1. Explain how the proposed acquisition of GE Bank’s retail deposit platform is consistent with GS Bank’s 2015-2016 Strategic Plan (“Strategic Plan”) and specifically which parts of the Strategic Plan the proposed acquisition would facilitate. Also, explain the aforementioned in the context to GS Bank’s ongoing business plans. Provide a copy of the Strategic Plan. 
2. Discuss how GS Bank’s level and composition of assets and funding would change over the next three years. Provide a table that depicts the asset and funding types and respective amounts for years ending in 2016, 2017, and 2018. In addition, provide annual balance sheet and income statement projections for 2016, 2017, and 2018. 
3. Discuss how GS Bank’s customer base would change over the next three years. 
4. Provide a description of the general backgrounds, and roles and responsibilities of the GE Bank employees to be hired by GS Bank. 
5. Indicate the approximate number of retail accounts to be acquired from GE Bank and a general description of the types of accounts. Provide an estimated number of retail accounts that GS Bank expects to have by year-end 2016, 2017, and 2018."
  Inner City Press still had its pending Freedom of Information Act request; Fair Finance Watch and others, including NCRC, asked the Fed to extend its comment period, which has now been done, until October 30, with the Fed's FOIA response to Inner City Press due on October 16. But as of October 17, no response from the Fed, despite this letter:
"Re:       Freedom of Information Act Request No. F-2015-0336

Dear Mr. Lee,

On September 2, 2015, the Board of Governors (“Board”) received your electronic message dated September 2, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, for the entirely of the “Application by Goldman Sachs Bank USA for the Acquisition by Purchase and Assumption of Certain Deposit Liabilities and Certain Very Limited Non-Financial Assets of GE Capital Bank,” and for all records reflecting FRS communications with Goldman Sachs for the past twelve (12) months. On September 3 and September 9, the Board provided you with the public portions of the application.

Pursuant to section (a)(6)(B)(i) of the FOIA, we are extending the period for our response until October 16, 2015, in order to consult with two or more components of the Board having a substantial interest in the determination of the request.

If a determination can be made before October 16, 2015, we will respond to you promptly.  It is our policy to process FOIA requests as quickly as possible while ensuring that we disclose the requested information to the fullest extent of the law.

Very truly yours,

/signed/

Jeanne M. McLaughlin
Manager, Freedom of Information Office"
 But even by October 16, no response from the Fed. Only this from Goldman Sachs, only snail-mailed by its counsel:

 On October 13 Inner City Press published the Federal Reserve's communications with the CIT Group's outside counsel, which shows how the release of public documents is allowed by the Fed to be delayed. CIT made disingenuous requests for confidential treatment of information that could not be withheld, without any repercussion. They were rewarded with FOIA appeal denials by Fed Governor Jay Powell; now Goldman is trying to withhold information that should be public. Will there be any repercussion or accountability? Watch this site.

 After requests from Fair Finance Watch, NCRC and other NCRC members, the Federal Reserve belatedly responded:
 Comments regarding this application must be received..  on or before October 30, 2015."
  Just last week, the Fed told Inner City Press a comment it submitted on Goldman Sachs, with new Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data, was "untimely" --

"Dear Mr. Matthew Lee, Executive Director Inner City Press/Fair Finance Watch

We acknowledge receipt on September 22, 2015 of your email dated September 22, 2015  ("Comment Letter"), commenting on the application filed by Goldman Sachs Bank USA... The public comment period for this application ended on September 19, 2015. Since your Comment Letter was received after the end of the public comment period, it will not be made a part of the record of this application unless the Board in its sole discretion determines to consider your late comments. However, you previously submitted timely comments that have been made part of the application record that the Board will consider."
 Now it must be. Inner City Press made a similar request to the New York State Department of Financial Services and on September 25, some information was released -- not enough -- and the NYS comment period was extended for 30 days. 
 NYSDFS Senior Attorney George Bogdan wrote:
"Dear Mr. Matthew Lee: Your FOIL request has been granted in part. My response letter and 2 Goldman Sachs documents are attached to this e mail. Also note that the comment period for the Goldman Sachs application has been extended by 30 days. An official notice for the extension will be posted online in the DFS Weekly Bulletin for the week ending September 25, 2015."
  While Inner City Press prepares a FOIL appeal, why hasn't the Federal Reserve even ruled on its FOIA request, and extended the comment period like its state counterpart? We'll have more on this.
  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 put Goldman 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."
  Inner City Press will be covering this wider National (Community Reinvestment Coalition) protest, in which it joins; it has also submitted more comments to the New York State regulator, in a proceeding currently slated to come to a head on September 28, the first day of the UN General Assembly debate.

 As Inner City Press exposed last month, Royal Bank of Canada jumped the gun and began doing business with City National Bank without any Federal Reserve approval (see Los Angeles Times, here.)
 Now, even as New York regulators says their comment period on Goldman Sachs' GE Capital proposal extends at least through September 28, Goldman has published fine print notices in the New York Post and a newspaper in Utah saying the Federal Reserve will stop listening on September 19.
  Really? After the Fed made Goldman Sachs a bank holding company with no public comment period at all, so Goldman could get a bail-out? After the Fed's coziness with Goldman Sachs was again demonstrated, by the audio taped by then-Fed examiner Carmen Segarra?
  Inner City Press immediately submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for all of Goldman Sachs' GE Capital application and related records. The Federal Reserve has provided a heavily redacted copy, on which Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch has commented to the FRB in Washington:
"Among many other things, Goldman Sachs believes it can withhold the volume of deposits it seeks to acquire from GE Capital Bank, WHAT is seeks to acquire (and what not to acquire) from GE Capital Bank, its number of employees in Utah, the contact people on its application, the number of non profit organizations it tells the FRB it serves on the board of -- presumptively public -- and even the NAMES of the exhibits it seeks to withhold entirely. This is abusive and unprecedented and the FRB must, in response, have the comment period begin again. Otherwise, applicants only benefit by making absurd and abusive requests for confidential treatment. There is much more to be said, including at the public hearings ICP is requesting, but it is imperative that the Board act on this as quickly as possible."
  
  When Goldman Sachs became a bank holding company literally overnight in 2008, Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch and others including NCRC asked the Fed how this was done with no public comment period at all. 
  The answer, it seems, is to be found in the audio leaked by Carmen Segarra of the Federal Reserve, showing further Fed favors for Goldman Sachs.
 With this history, and Goldman's history in predatory lending with Litton Servicing and as an underwriter, see Occupy Wall Street video here, and UN / migration connection here, it seems clear that the Fed must hold public hearings on Goldman Sachs' GE Capital application, when it is filed. 
  But with the Federal Reserve, you can never be too sure, or too careful.
  When Community Bank System of upstate New York filed with the Fed nine answers to questions asked after Inner City Press' challenge, it tried to withhold fully eight of the nine responses. More here.
  Inner City Press immediately filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the whole submission - and even the Federal Reserve saw through Community Bank System's absurdly -- and tellingly -- overbroad withholding, releasing all but one part of one of the eight withheld responses. But since then, all the Fed has done is seek a mere antitrust control commitment.
  Here's is the Federal Reserve's letter to Inner City Press granting most of its FOIA request:


We'll have more on this.
Posted by at

On Burundi, Obama Excluding It From AGOA, Inner City Press Asked UN Of Nkurunziza's Threat



By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 30 -- As killings in Burundi increase, on October 23 Inner City Press asked UN Ambassador Matthew Rycroft about the status of the draft Presidential Statement in the UN Security Council. He said there are differing views, but the UK is concerned about the "threat of genocide." Video here.

 On October 30, US President Barack Obama issued this:

"TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:

In accordance with section 506A(a)(3)(B) of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, as amended (AGOA) (19 U.S.C. 2466a(a)(3)(B)), I am providing notification of my intent to terminate the designation of the Republic of Burundi (Burundi) as a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country under AGOA.

I am taking this step because I have determined that the Government of Burundi has not established or is not making continual progress toward establishing the rule of law and political pluralism, as required by the AGOA eligibility requirements outlined in section 104 of the AGOA (19 U.S.C. 3703). In particular, the continuing crackdown on opposition members, which has included assassinations, extra-judicial killings, arbitrary arrests, and torture, have worsened significantly during the election campaign that returned President Nkurunziza to power earlier this year. In addition, the Government of Burundi has blocked opposing parties from holding organizational meetings and campaigning throughout the electoral process. Police and armed youth militias with links to the ruling party have intimidated the opposition, contributing to nearly 200,000 refugees fleeing the country since April 2015. Accordingly, I intend to terminate the designation of Burundi as a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country under AGOA as of January 1, 2016."

 On October 28, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric about another threat. From the UN transcript:

Inner City Press: this is a tweet from the official account of Pierre Nkurunziza, President of Burundi:  "No one living abroad should consider himself superior to those who stayed in Burundi since most of them have left their families here."  So people see this as an open-source threat to retaliate against the families of those who have fled the country.  And I'm wondering…

Spokesman:  I haven't seen the tweet.  I shall look at it.

 Inner City Press showed it to him on his way out. Earlier on October 28, Burundi got 162 votes for the UN Human Rights Council, less than the other also unopposed candidates, but still enough to get on the Council. The UN Security Council had just issued a Presidential Statement, here, which gave weight to the Museveni "mediation," and which the US later "welcomed." Usually it's the penholder (France) which speaks. But not here, not on Burundi (see Ladsous, below).

 On October 27, the UN said Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called the AU (below); Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric is any closer to naming the envoy he called "immanent" months ago. Dujarric said he should have used another word.

 Inner City Press asked Dujarric of reports that Burundian police in the UN's MINUSCA mission in Bangui have not received benefits in months, and of a letter sent to Ban and Herve Ladsous about the Burundian troops. Dujarric said he would check on both. Here is the full text of the UN's read-out:

"Today, the Secretary-General called H.E. Dr. Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma, Chairperson of the African Union Commission, to discuss the situation in Burundi.

The Secretary-General welcomed the decision made by the African Union’s Peace and Security Council on 17 October to address the political impasse and deteriorating security situation in Burundi. He noted that such comprehensive and resolute action could offer Burundi the opportunity to put an end to the continuing violence and find a consensual political solution on the way forward.

The Secretary-General assured the Chairperson of the African Union Commission that the United Nations stands ready to provide any support necessary to advance the implementation of the measures agreed upon by the members of the African Union Peace and Security Council. " 

  On October 28 Burundi is poised for election to the UN Human Rights Council, as one of five African Group candidates for five seats. Meanwhile on October 26, the European Union adopted the letter to President Pierre Nkurunziza that Inner City Press asked the UN about last week, here.

  Can EU members on October 28 not vote against Burundi's "Human Rights" Council candidacy at this time? And other Western NGOs coming to the UN early this week to set forth their positions, will they just phone it in with regard to Burundi? Watch this site.

 Also on October 23, Inner City Press asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask on Burundi, just this morning the UK Ambassador said that the UK is concerned of a threat of genocide, is the word that he used, so I'm wondering under Rights Up Front what are your thoughts about Burundi and what the UN or the Secretariat can do.

SG Ban: "On this genocide issues, I hope there should be some creative investigations by the relevant experts and there should be, first of all, a clear understanding and investigations.  And if the conclusion is that there were such kind of genocide issues, then there should be accountability, justice must prevail and perpetrators must be brought to justice."

  But what is the UN Secretariat DOING about it?

 On October 22, Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Haq:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask you a question about Burundi.  The EU is preparing a letter to invite the Burundian parties to Brussels to have a discussion about diffusing the situation.  And I wanted to know, not just what does the UN think about it, but is there any UN role in this?  And, if not, what does it say about the UN sort of action on Burundi?  It's one thing to defer maybe to the AU but this is the UE.  What is the UN doing about this?

Deputy Spokesman:  We are following up with all the various initiatives by regional parties including the African Union and the European Union and, of course, our Envoy dealing with the Great Lakes Region has been appraised of this so we are continuing to follow-up.

ICP:  But, I mean, is the EU really, can you… it is a regional organization but is it a regional organization with respect to Burundi?

Deputy Spokesman:  That is question for the European Union, not for me.

ICP:  Have you been contacted I guess is my question?

Deputy Spokesman:  But regarding this, we have been in touch with a variety of regional bodies including through the office of the Special Envoy for the Great Lakes Region but also through our Department of Political Affairs and will keep appraised of all the various actors in this.

  Back on October 20, Ban's deputy spokesperson Haq cited back to a written statement by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon more than a week ago; he said generally that MONUSCO like all UN mission affirms the right of freedom of the press. Really?

  Later on October 20 after Inner City Press asked UN rapporteur on torture Juan Mendez about Guantanamo and US prisons, in the hall after waiting through a number of questions in Spanish Inner City Press asked him if he'd received complaints about, or acted on, Burundi. No, he said, not yet. Really?

Update: later on October 20 it was announced that the UN's Jeff Feltman will briefing the Security Council behind closed doors on October 21. But what outcome with the Council's penholder, France, even ask for?

  On October 16 Inner City Press asked Haq if the UN thinks the government can investigate itself. This was based on UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's October 15 statement that

"The Secretary-General condemns the killing of nine civilians and two police officers in Bujumbura on 13 October... He urges Burundian authorities to undertake a rigorous and prompt investigation into the circumstances and motives behind these despicable crimes in order to ensure that their perpetrators are brought to justice."

  So can the Nkurunziza government investigate itself (as the UN purports to be investigating or "auditing" itself in the wake of corruption revelation about former Presidnet of the General Assembly John Ashe among others)? Inner City Press asked this question (video here) as well as following up on this, from October 13:

Inner City Press: the Burundi question is one that maybe you can check with DPKO [Department of Peacekeeping Operations].  Burundian human rights activists say that an officer, Jerome Ntibogora, N-t-i-b-o-g-o-r-a, who was accused of being involved in killing people in a… in a hospital after they fled from the Government, has now been deployed to MINUSMA [United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission] in Mali.  So I wanted to…

Spokesman Dujarric:  Let's see what we can find out.

  Dujarric did not come back with an answer, by this deputy when Inner City Pres asked again on October 16 said he, Ntibogora is not being deployed. We'll see - watch this site.

Amid crackdowns in Burundi by security forces, and allegations of sexual abuse by Burundian peacekeepers serving under the UN flag, UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous on October 1 held a meeting with Burundian Vice President Joseph Butore.

  Inner City Press has already tweeted a photograph of the meeting, but has now received the complete UN read-out, which raises more questions about Ladsous.

   On the crackdown, Ladsous assured Butore that he has a “pragmatic approach” and is of no mind to question what happens in any country, does not involve himself in "domestic affairs."

   On the sexual abuse allegations, Ladsous spoke only in platitudes, without requiring or even inquiring into any actions taken by the Burundians on the alleged abuse.

   Even though Burundi was already given a “grace period” to bring appropriate equipment into the Central African Republic for the MINUSCA mission, they have not done so. In the meeting, according to the read-out, Butore "acknowledged" the substandard equipment.

   Butore requested, and Ladsous for now granted, yet another extension to bring the requirement equipment -- until March 2016 for light equipment, and to June 2016 for heavy equipment.



  Is this safe - even for the Burundian soldiers at issue? While speaking through press releases, Ladsous' spokespeople, far from answering questions, go so far as to direct UNTV boom microphone operators to avoid Inner City Press, even preventing the Press from asking any questions to Mali's Foreign Minister Abdulaye Diop last week. We'll have more on all this.
Posted by at

In UN Scandal, David Ng's Dominica Passport Is Echoed by FAO, Italy & Interpol, A Fax to Qatar, Neo-Nazi in Ireland



By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, October 30 -- At his bail hearing on charges of paying bribes at the UN, through President of the General Assembly John Ashe, Dominican Republic Deputy Permanent Representative Frank Lorenzo and others, Macau businessman Ng Lap Seng was said to have five (5) passports.

   That is a lot of passports for a single individual, but four of them made near immediate sense: China, Portugal (Macao was a former Portuguese colony), Lorenzo's Dominican Republic and Ashe's Antigua and Barbuda.

   But what about the fifth one, Dominica?

  This is part of a wider story. Dominica's Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit was photographed at Ng's and UNDP's “South South” conference in Macau in late August 2015, ostensibly signing an agreement including Ng and UNDP's Teresa Liu for “Technology Transfer" center in Dominica. Earlier, Skerrit reportedly negotiated with Ng about investing in a hotel and even casino project and had other financial dealings.

   As Inner City Press reported earlier this week, Dominica under Skerrit has a history of giving out diplomatic passports and positions to non-nationals; the first example Inner City Press gave was one Paulo Zampolli. Inner City Press reported on his real estate and modeling businesses in New York; he is still listed in the UN's Blue Book at Dominica's (lone) Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN.

 Inner City Press asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric what scrutiny the UN gives before accrediting non-nationals as a country's Permanent or Deputy Permanent Representative. Dujarric replied that it entirely up to member states, similar to his responses on Ban's Secretariat's responsibility for changing documents for Ng, and accepting funds and invitations and giving photo ops, including through the UN Correspondents Association, to Ng and Sheri Yan, also indicted.

   But there are more, not without controversy - and while the UN gives a blind eye, some others don't. Under Skerrit, Dominica tried to name as its ambassador to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization one Francesco “Corallo, a gaming magnate on Interpol’s most wanted list on suspicion of “organized crime, transnational crime and fraud.”  (It seems the publications of UNCA's president, who gave Ng the photo op with Ban Ki-moon, have not reported on this assignment to a UN agency.UNCA's Vice President was present at Ng's Macau conference where Skerrit signed with UNDP's Liu.)

  Then there was the neo-Nazi. 

  In 2004 Dominica's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Marketing wrote to Ireland, requesting “agrément” for the appointment of one Serge Roger De Thibault De Boesinghe as Dominica's Ambassador to Ireland. UNcovered: “It turns out that in the 70s, De Boesinghe became a member of an international neo-Nazi organization, the new European order, and was active in the Belgian branch of the movement. De Boesinghe was also a close friend and confidant of Leone Degrelle the former head of the Walloon Division of Hitler’s dreaded Waffen SS, which were front-line troops in the fight against the Soviet Union.”

   According to the same account in or around 2006, “the United Arab Emirates also refused a request to have Dominica open a consulate in that country.” Inner City Press has obtained, and is today publishing here a fax to Qatar's Mohammed Abdullah Mutib Al Rumaihi at Qatar's Mission to the UN in New York, wit the support of Roosevelt Skerrit, from a Dominica official name Timothy Cornwall. We'll have more on this.

   For now, the question arises: where is the UN's host country, the US, on all of this? In the past, it is reported that “the US ignored the diplomatic status of ambassador Rudolph King after he was arrested on fraud charges. Two years earlier, in 2007, the US denied a visa to Barbadian Leroy Paris, after questioning why a non-national was named Dominica’s goodwill ambassador.” Now what will the US State Department and Mission, so far quiet on l'affaires Ashe, Lorenzo and Skerrit, do as the scandal UNfolds? Watch this site.

Background: While the UN has been extensively corrupted by Ng Lap Seng and his Sun Kian Ip Foundation and South South News and South South Awards, his proposed Macau convention center and the South South event held in Macau in late August 2015 provide a snapshot which the UN still has yet to explain.

  On October 26 we began to focus on an actual snapshot from the Macau event, included John Ashe, Frank Lorenzo and the Prime Minister of Dominica, Roosevelt Skerrit, on UNDP's website. After putting questions in writing to UNDP, on October 29 Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric more about it, video here,transcript here:

Inner City Press: you may again say this is subject to an inquiry, but I think it's a... various documents were signed at that Macau South-South event in August, and at least as to Dominica, the document was signed by a UN official as well.  It was a tripartite signing for some technology centre.  So the question is, are these documents that the UN signed with a Government, a now-indicted essentially Foundation and the UN, can those... are those documents available?

Spokesman:  You know what?  I can't answer that, because I don't know exactly what documents you're talking about.

Inner City Press:  It's called a tripartite agreement for technology transfer center in Dominica.

[Cross talk]

Spokesman:  Let me take a look at it.

Inner City Press:  And did the UN staff... UNDP still hasn't given a list of its people that were there, but since there were Secretariat staff there, I wanted... I've asked you this before...

Spokesman:  I think the list has... I mean, I'll check...

Inner City Press:  There is a list, but it has no UNDP people on it...

[Cross talk]

... if you see what I'm saying.

Spokesman:  I'll see what...

Inner City Press:  I've seen that list.  I've seen that list, and as to the people from the Global Compact and DFS, I've asked you before, who paid for their travel?  Were their hotel or local expenses paid by Mr. Ng?  And did they get DSA at the same time?

Spokesman:  As I said, I think all of these things are being looked at at the audit.

It is reported that

"Skerrit showed up in Macau and on August 26, 2015 signed a Letter of Commitment with Lap Seng under which the Sun Kian IP Group Foundation would fund the establishment of a Technology Transfer Facility on Dominica to serve the Caribbean and Latin America. The Letter of Commitment was also signed by Ms. Teresa Liu, Division Chief at the UN Office on South-South Cooperation."

  That office, in UNDP, has refused multiple Inner City Press requests publicly answer questions. What is the document that UNDP co-signed? Who paid UNDP (and UN) staff members costs in Macau?

As to Dominica: Why didn't Skerrit say he was going to Macau? Does he have an armored Mercedes Benz and if so, who paid for it? Have the prosecutors in the US asked to speak with him? Yet? We'll have more on this - and on Dominica's granting of diplomatic passports, and immunity, to non-nationals - includign Ng Lap Seng, as emerged in his bail hearing.

  Last week deputy UN spokesperson Farhan Haq told Inner City Press UNDP would answer about UN Secretariat staff's travel to Macau, but that hasn't happened.

  Inner City Press has reported some on the UN Correspondents Association's vice president's presence at Ng's Macau event, and that this UNCA took money from Ng's South South News then gave it an UNCA award and got Ng photos with Ban Ki-moon at Cipriani 42 Street, perhaps to be repeated this year tellingly at Cipriani Wall Street. Should Ban Ki-moon go to this?

  Murky dealing in Ban's UN have stretch back some time. Beyond Frank Liu and his sponsorship of UN Peacekeeping day, for example, there was Paulo Zampolli, reported on here by Inner City Press using a UN-like logo. Tying these together, Zampolli went out to receive a diplomatic position, and immunity, from Dominica. Yet Ban's UN says it knows nothing of this, that the only problem is with the Office of the President of the General Assembly. We'll have more on this.

On October 23, Inner City Press asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about it and he said he has set up a "small task force" under his chief of staff Susana Malcorra. Video here; transcript below.

  But the most cursory research finds that Malcorra accepted one of Ng's South South Awards in 2014 for Ban Ki-moon. Video here.


With all due respect, how can she be in charge of reviewing how Ng penetrated the UN?  Inner City Press put this question to Ban's spokesman Stephen Dujarric on October 26. Transcript here.

Where are Ng's iPads? We'll have more on this.

From the UN's October 23 transcript:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask about what has been called the John Ashe case -- what do you conclude from what has come out so far on how it penetrated the UN and what type of reforms do you think are needed?  Thank you.

SG Ban Ki-moon: "About this former PGA (President of the General Assembly) John Ashe's case, I was really shocked and very concerned to learn of this serious allegation against John Ashe, which goes to the heart of the work of the United Nations and its Member States.  I have made it quite clear all the times that the United Nation's staff or leadership should work with the highest level of integrity and ethical standard.  That is why I have made this one of the top priorities, and I have asked OIOS (Office of Internal Oversight Services) to have a thorough investigation and I have established a small task force led by my Chief of Staff, Susana Malcorra, to draw out some means and measures -- how we can make more transparent and accountable measures, particularly on the case of President of General Assembly, Office of the President of General Assembly.  We have all of the discussion of this matter with President [Mogens] Lykketoft, the current PGA.  He fully supports what I'm going to do, with all this investigation by OIOS and with our own internal discussions to draw up some measures to improve the conduct of the Office of the PGA.  And if necessary, I'm going to recommend to the General Assembly to take some legislation, so that the United Nations, whether it is the Member States’ side or the staff, Secretariat side, we all have a responsibility and duty to conduct our duties [in] a transparent and accountable [way], with the highest integrity and ethics."

Alongside this, Ban Ki-moon's UN Secretariat is again referring questions about itself to UNDP.

  On October 22 Inner City Press published the invitation letter to the Macau conference, here, which notably said that “all local expenses will be covered by the host.” Attendees tell Inner City Press that those present were given iPads with the name of Ng's company emblazoned on them: where have these gone?

   While there were many attendees, over 170, those from Ban Ki-moon's Secretariat, some of them mis-described, standout. So too does the UN Correspondents Association's Vice President, the same correspondent who took the first set-aside question to Hillary Clintonduring her “email-gate” stakeout in front of the UN Security Council, and asks if questions about the private server were only being pursued because she's a woman. (Ng's previous interaction with the Clintons is well-documented.)

  Given that UNCA's Presideng Giampaolo Pioli accepted funds from Ng's South South News, which was then given an UNCA award while Ng got a photo op with Ban Ki-moon at UNCA's Award Dinner at Cipiani on 42nd Street, the question arises: what was UNCA's Vice President doing on the attendee list at Ng's Macau confab in August 2015? We'll have more on this.

 On October 22, Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq about the UN Secretariat staff who traveled to Macau - and was told, paradoxically, that (only) UNDP could or would answer. UN transcript here.


As the scandal unveiled in the corruption charges against former UN General Assembly President John Ashe, Ng Lap Seng, Francis Lorenzo of South South News and others continues to expand, the compromised position of the UN Correspondents Association has come to the fore.

 In 2011 until now, Inner City Press has exposed UNCA for taking funds from Ng Lap Seng vehicles, to which it gave awards, and arranging Ng Lap Seng photo op(s) with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. UNCA has not provided any explanation; the UN through Ban's spokesman has said for example that many people get photographs with Ban. But people like Ng previously found in US Senate reports to have made irregular campaign contributions, and co-owning hotels links to prostitution?

 On October 20, Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq about Ng, and about how much money the Global Sustainability Foundation gave for the UN's “Ark of Return” (anti) slavery memorial. Haq wouldn't give the dollar figure - it's at least $60,000 -- and seemed to says it doesn't matter where the UN takes money from, only how the UN uses it. Video here.

Inner City Press:  Okay.  I want to ask you another question.  Mr. Ng Lap Seng, who's now out on $50 million bail, it seemed he sort of penetrated the UN system, including several photo ops with Ban Ki-moon against a blue background in Cipriani's, I wanted to ask you, a major financial newspaper, just on cursory research, said he's a co-owner of the Fortuna Hotel, which has… quote, this is all from their promotional material, table dancing by strippers, boasted attractive and attentive hostesses from China, Singapore and Korea, and erotic girls from Europe and Russia.  And I wanted to know, given, given everything that's said from this podium about UN Women and the need to take these issues seriously, how is it possible… how is it possible that this, an individual engaged in these activities, came… came to such a position of prominence and, and, and closeness to the Secretary-General?

Deputy Spokesman:  Matthew, we do not speak for David Ng Lap Seng or his group or his business holdings.  Any questions on that have to go to his organizations.  The United Nations does not deal with any of the, of the entities, with entities like the ones that you've described.

Inner City Press:  The money from it was donated to various UN causes.  That’s why I'm asking you to respond to this pending, this unending audit, what do you think of this?

Deputy Spokesman:  The nature of corporations is that any corporation can have many, many different holdings.  I'm not going to comment on all of the holdings of different groups, depending upon what they do with the UN.  What we're trying to monitor is how the funds from these groups affected the UN and the dealings with the two entities that we've been talking about.  That's being audited, and we'll follow up on that.  But the group's activities as a whole, that's an issue for other authorities.  It's not…

It's not an issue for the United Nations…

Inner City Press:  I understand what the audit is…

Deputy Spokesman:  It has nothing, it actually has no actual relevance to the work we've done.

Question:  It's just how the money is spent by the UN, not where the money came from?

Deputy Spokesman:  The audit is designed to follow up on what effect, what impact, the activities the groups and of the monies that they spent have and that's what we're following up on... 

Inner City Press: Is it, are you, is the Secretariat yet viewing the… Secretariat viewing the charges of the Southern District of New York as mostly or entirely related to the PGA [President of the General Assembly]?  I guess I'm asking this because things like South-South News...  Yesterday, I'd asked Stéphane at the founding of the Global Sustainability Foundation, there was Mr. Nambiar.  There was the spouse of the Secretary-General.  There was not Mr. Ashe anywhere to be seen.  So I just want to be clear.  Is this an audit about two… merely two entities, but as relates to the UN Secretariat or just to the PGA's office?

Deputy Spokesman:  No, no, it's as we have, it's as we described in the statement before.  It's about the UN as a whole.

Background: Ng Lap Seng was found to have brought the same bags of cash later deployed at the UN into the US earlier, in the late 90s, when his Fortuna hotel was linked to organized crime and even human trafficking.  From the WSJ:

“Who is Ng Lap Seng, and what did he want? According to several well-informed sources in Hong Kong and Macau, Mr. Ng is a mysterious figure with extensive business in China, where he also held a minor post as a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference in his hometown of Nan Hai in Guangdong province. In Macau, his most visible interest is his ownership of the Fortuna Hotel, a garish high-rise in the gambling district, featuring a 20,000-square-foot nightclub with 'table dancing' by strippers, as well as a massage parlor and, according to its brochure, 'over 30 independent karaoke rooms, all luxuriously decorated with the most advanced sound system for any one interested in performing his favorite songs.' The brochure also boasts 'attractive and attentive hostesses from China, Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia and Burma together with erotic girls from Europe and Russia, certainly offer you an exciting and unforgettable evening with friends or business associates.'”

So what does UN Women, which has still to comment on UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous linking rapes to “R&R,” same about Ban's UN (through UNCA) accepting “pimp and trafficker” Ng Lap Seng into the UN, and into UNCA's Cipriani ball for photos with Ban and his spouse? We'll have more on this.

 Just as UNCA "leaders" from Voice of America and Reuters(censorship bid here) tried to use the UN to get the investigative Press out, now the UN responds to questions about UNCA selling Secretary General Ban Ki-moon photo ops to Ng Lap Seng by suggesting that the questioner, because present, "condoned" the sale.

  Now, with UNCA still silent on its links with South South News and other Ng Lap Seng vehicles, here is video Inner City Press published in December 2011 of UNCA's murky photo ops for Ban at Cipriani, which UNCA seeks to reproduce this coming December.

  
  Even then in December 2011, Inner City Press' accompanying story reported that it

"filmed what it could of the photo op -- those arranging it kept telling the Press it had to leave -- and afterward several in Ban's circle said they had no idea who the businessmen had been. There was dark talk about one David Ng, a businessman who has bankrolled 'vanity' media projects given awards that night -- people funded by Ng used the word "vanity," so we use it here."

 Inner City Press published that in December 2011 about Ng and South South News; it quit UNCA and with another Executive Committee member who quit in disgust co-founded FUNCA, the Free UN Coalition for Access. UNCA continued taking funds from South South News. We'll have more on this.

While UNCA does not represent all journalists accredited to cover the UN -- Inner City Press for example quit the group in 2012 with another Executive Committee member and co-founded the new Free UN Coalition for Access -- the UN gives it a privileged position, a large clubhouse on the third floor of the UN and, automatically, the first question at press conferences.

  But is that appropriate, given that UNCA received money from South South News, “NGO 1” in the filing against Ashe? Not only did UNCA receive money from South South News: it gave the group an “UNCA award” at a ceremony at the high-ceilinged Cipriani's restaurant on December 15, 2011.

  Inner City Press, which did not quit UNCA in fully ripened disgust in 2012, was present in December 2011 and witnessed, when Secretary General Ban Ki-moon came into Cipriani's, him being shepherded into a side room for photographs with Asian men in business suits who Inner City Press did not then recognize -- but now does.

 UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, when Inner City Press asked on October 13 about what it had seen, said perhaps Inner City Press had "condoned" it. Video here. But Inner City Press quit UNCA afterfinding conflicts of interest in it, and being "ordered" to not report on this.  From the October 13 transcript:

Inner City Press: I want to ask inevitably about the revelations about Mr. [John] Ashe and Frank Lorenzo and others.  And just as you… as the lead Spokesman, a person that travels around with the Secretary-General, how… what would you say to the photos that exist of the Secretary-General with David Ng, who was since indicted, and Frank Lorenzo and, particularly, in instances where it appears that groups that receive contributions from the two and then put them in a room to have photographs with the Secretary-General?  Is this something that… how does the Secretary-General view this in retrospect, and what's going to be done in the future?

Spokesman:  First of all, a photo of the Secretary-General with any individual should in no way be interpreted as a sponsorship or agreement.  It's just a photo.  The Secretary-General is very much a public figure, attends a lot of public events where there are a lot of people.  Sometimes people come up to him and ask to have their photo taken.  And it's done within the… within, obviously, the security constraints that need to be had.  I think whether it's the Secretary-General of the United Nations or anyone in leadership position, you will find when you travel with them that a lot of people want to have their photo taken with them.  Inasmuch as that is… we try to control that, sometimes it's difficult to do so.  I think the Secretary-General is as shocked as anyone in this building at the charges that were levelled at these two individuals.  And he's very disappointed at the accusations towards the United Nations.

Inner City Press:  obviously, to business interests having an actual kind of formal handshaking one, I guess I'll just say that that is worth something to them.  That's why they…

Spokesman:  I'm not… I'm not debating that point… [cross talk]  I'm just saying that having a picture of the Secretary-General with any individual should in no way be seen as a sponsorship, approval, making them BFF's or anything.

Inner City Press:  I guess I just want to be more specific.  If an event… and there's one that actually, as it turns out, I witnessed in Cipriani.  If the Secretary-General enters a large space and is then taken to a smaller space for such photographs, what's the basis for that, as opposed to people with selfies?  I mean, I understand what you're saying…

Spokesman:  I think, you know, if you were there, then maybe you condoned the event as well.  The issue is the Secretary-General attends a lot of events.  Sometimes there is a VIP reception.  None of it should be construed as anything as the Secretary-General having his picture taken with anyone.

Inner City Press: it's been a number of days now; I'm assuming that, if not you, OLA [Office of Legal Affairs], someone has read through this long FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] affidavit.  And I want to just ask you again, because in it, it says that, after the… the… the official UN document about the Macau centre was procured, there was a separate payment to Mr. Ashe, separate communications with a UN official number one, who reissued the document as a… amended… revised for technical reasons, with the name of the company in it.  And it seems to me, even before you waiting for an OIOS [Office of Internal Oversight Services] investigation, the scope of which wouldn't touch that, who in the UN is actually… how does it work, first of all?  Who… which part of the UN amends documents after they're released?  Is it DGACM [Department for General Assembly and Conference Management]…?

Spokesman:  Listen, I'm not going to talk about the specifics of the case.  But it is clear that if the President of one of the legislative bodies in this Organization which controls the agenda, or a sponsoring country for resolution, asks the Secretary-General to amend a text, we serve as the Secretariat.  It's not… it's… it doesn't entail sponsoring of what's inside that text. 

  While Inner City Press' answer to the spokesman's "if you were there, then maybe you condoned the event as well," is that Inner City Press quit UNCA
 after finding conflicts of interest in it, and being "ordered" to not report on this, we'll have more on this.


On October 13, Inner City Press asked this follow up:

Inner City Press: I just want to directly ask you about the idea that it's sort of people struggling to get photos with the UN officials.  There was a… there was a peacekeeping day concert that was… for which solicitation of… you know, sponsorship was sought by a group called World Harmony Alliance, and it had nothing… the group has nothing to do with peacekeeping, but they paid for day.  They… they… in fact, the funder complained that he didn't get the promised photograph with Ban Ki-moon, but I wonder, what was… what's the UN's understanding when they take outside financial sponsorship for such a day?  I mean, former UN official [Ibrahim] Gambari was seen with the same group taking photographs on the fourth floor in the Millennium Hotel.  What's it all about?  What’s happening?

Spokesman:  What former officials do in hotels is really not of my purview.

Inner City Press:  Sure.  What about UN peacekeeping?

Spokesman:  I would take a look at that actual programme, but I would expect every part of the UN to do due diligence when it partners with an outside organization.  And just…  I'll leave it at that.

   On October 12, Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq, video here, transcript here:

Inner City Press: in light of these charges against John Ashe, Frank Lorenzo, and others, it's emerging that the Secretary-General, if not met, had staged photo opportunities with a number of the individuals charged.  And I wanted to know, in looking at this, do you have some kind of a comment on how these occurred, particularly in instances where they may have been arranged by a third party, been arranged by an organization that invited Ban Ki-moon and then received funds from South-South News or others and then put the two together on photograph?  Was that appropriate?  And what would be your response to… to OIOS [Office of Internal Oversight Services] looking at that or otherwise?

Deputy Spokesman:  Well, regarding that, as you're aware, the Office of Internal Oversight Services will do an audit.  They've been requested to do that, and so we'll be able to see whether there was any effect from either the relationship with these various groups, these two groups, the Sun Kian Ip Group and the Global Sustainability Foundation, and any of the monies received.  So, we'll await what they have to say about any of this.

Inner City Press:  But, given that Mr. Frank Lorenzo has been charged and he's now out on $2 million bail, he was head of South-South News, which spread $12 million, according to the documents, throughout the UN system.  So, what was, how, what was the criteria used to choose these two NGOs and not either South-South News or International Organization for South-South Cooperation or South South Steering Committee on Sustainable Development?  It seems like it's a very limited inquiry and…

Deputy Spokesman:  It's not really an inquiry.  It's an audit, and this is initial step.  If OIOS feels like there is something… there's a direction which they need to go as a result of these initial results, they're certainly free to do that, but we needed to get the ball rolling and have an initial step forward so that we can look into what exactly is the impact of the monies and the relationship with these groups.


John Ashe at UNCA with former president, after and before Pioli
click photo for source / credit

  Back in December 2011, shepherding Ban for this (compensated) photo op with dubious businessmen was Giampaolo Pioli, then as now the president of UNCA. South South News interviewed Pioli that night, bragging of the UNCA award it got / paid for, screenshot from video here.

    (For context it must be noted too that Pioli rented one of his Manhattan apartments to Palitha Kohona then granted Kohona's request as Sri Lanka's Ambassador to screen his government's war crimes denial film “Lies Agreed To” in the UN's Dag Hammarskjold Library Auditorium: this precipitated Inner City Press quitting UNCA, in full disclosure.)

   How can UNCA be given first questions to ask about a scandal involving South South News, from which UNCA took more then to which it gave an award? And what are the other implications?

  (In terms of Mr. Ng's desire for photo ops, Inner City Press is informed that he separately wanted a photo with US President Obama, and paid six figures to a middleman - who disappeared with the money. UNCA on the other hand, one wag noted, delivered Ban Ki-moon for photos at Cipriani's.)

  UNCA, it should be noted, has been and is open to business interested beyond Mr. Ng and South South News. Another UNCA awards ceremony was sponsored by a company called “Acoona;” the Italian oil company ENI pays the group money.

But UNCA's South South News connection, given what has been disclosed and charged this week, should at a minimum and as a first step disqualify UNCA from first questions from the UN, and from the continuation of its role.

 Consider: if it gave rise to criminal charges that South South News paid Ashe to get a GA document for Ng to show off in Macau, who about South South News paying UNCA, and UNCA delivering Ban for a photo op with Ng, that Ng could use for related purposes? We'll have more on this.

Wider, and going forward in this series, limiting UN investigation to OIOS - whose director of investigations Stefanovic has resigned, Inner City Press hereby exclusively reported on October 9 - looking at only two NGOs is laughable. The scandal is expanding: there is a pattern here, pattern and practice. Watch this site.
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)