NEW YORK, October 31 -- The lack of seriousness in US bank regulation grows from the relatively smaller to the largest banks like Goldman Sachs - down to People's United Bank now trying to buy Suffolk County National Bank while barely lending to people of color in New York. Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch on August 13 challenged this application and People's United, as it did Bancorp South in 2014, which led to redlining charges by the Department of Justice and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Now the Federal Reserve, as released to Inner City Press on October 31, has asked People's United a series of questions, including for Community Reinvestment Act information from 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 year to date, it's (lack of) lending to African Americans and small businesses, its claims about RBS Citizens Bank branches and restrictions imposed in connection with the still only proposed - and opposed - merger. We'll have more on this.
Inner City Press submitted its review of the just-released 2015 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data. Inner City Press has now commented to the Federal Reserve:
"in 2015 in the New York City MSA, People's United made 110 home purchase loans to whites and only ONE to an African American and only four to Latinos... In 2015, for refinance loans in the New York City MSA, People's United made 103 loans to whites, only five to African Americans and only two to Hispanics.
People's United record is scarcely better on Long Island, where it snapped up Bank of Smithtown and Citizen's Bank as it now proposes to do to Suffolk County National Bank. In 2015 for home purchase loans on Long Island People's United made 49 home purchase loans to whites, only four to African Americans and only four to Latinos. For refinance loans it mad 70 loans to whties, only one to an African American and only four to Latinos. Again, this is systematic redlining; this proposed acquisition could not legitimately be approved and People's United should be referred for prosecution for redlining by the Department of Justice and CFPB."
Responding to ICP and NCRC, People's claims that acquiring another suburban bank would improve this disparate record in New York City. How?
On September 7, the General Counsel of People's United Robert E. Trautmann filed a response, which as to the analysis of New York City redlining submitted by Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch argues that the disparities are OK because People's supposedly only recently entered the market.
But it entered in 2010. How long can it call this recent? And why should it be permitted to build itself up on Long Island while this redlining of New York City's lower income communities of color persists?
Tellingly, People's United Bank's purported response to Inner City Press' redlining analysis calls New York Times the “Lower Hudson Valley region.”
Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch filed with the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency:
"a timely first comment opposing and requesting an extension of the OCC's public comment period on the Application by People's United to buy The Suffolk County National Bank of Riverhead, NY. The newspaper notice says the comment period runs at least through August 16; this comment is timely.
People's United proposes to buy Suffolk County National Bank and its 27 branches in New York. But in the the New York City MSA in 2014, the most recent year for which Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data is publicly available, People's United made 82 home purchase loans to whites and NONE to African Americans or Latinos. This is redlining; this proposed acquisition could not legitimately be approved and People's United should be referred for prosecution for redlining by the Department of Justice and CFPB.
For refinance loans in the New York City MSA in 2013, People's United made 24 loans to whites, 1 to an African American and four to Hispanics. For home improvement loans in the New York City MSA in 2013, People's United made eight loans to whites, and NONE to African Americans or Latinos.
People's United record is scarcely better on Long Island, where it snapped up Bank of Smithtown and Citizen's Bank as it now proposes to do to Suffolk County National Bank. In the Nassau-Suffolk MSA in 2014, People's United made 48 home purchase loans to whites and NONE to African Americans. For home improvement loans it made 16 loans to whites and NONE to African American or Latinos.
In this context, the comment period should be extended so that public evidentiary hearings can be held, and the application should be denied."
In April 2014, Inner City Press submitted a protest to the Federal Reserve of the "Applications of BancorpSouth to merge with Ouachita Bancshares Corporation and thereby indirectly acquire Ouachita Independent Bank, and with Central Community Corporation, and thereby indirectly acquire First State Bank Central Texas, Austin, Texas - Round Two."
Fair Finance Watch's analysis to the Fed showed that "in the Jackson MS MSA for conventional home purchase loans, BancorpSouth made 258 loans to whites, only 17 to African Americans and five to Latinos. BancorpSouth's denial rate for whites was 7.4% while for African Americans it was 25.8% -- 3.49 times higher. This was troubling.
NOW, more troubling: in 2013 for conventional home purchase loans in the Jackson MS, BancorpSouth's denial rate for whites was 4.5% while for African Americans it was 26.4% -- now 5.87 times higher.
In 2012 in the Baton Rouge LA MSA for conventional home purchase loans in 2012, BancorpSouth made 60 such loans to whites; only three to African Americans and one to a Latino. NOW, more troubling: in 2013 for conventional home purchase loans in the Baton Rouge MSA, BancorpSouth was up to 72 loans to whites - but NONE to African Americans."
BancorpSouth was then changed by the government with "redlining by placing its branches in the Memphis area outside of minority neighborhoods and directing nearly all its marketing away from such neighborhoods." That should happen here.
There's also those in the middle, seeking to become a Systemically Important Financial Institution like New York Community Bancorp is, applying to buy Astoria Bank.
After Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch filed a timely protest, the Federal Reserve On January 8 asked NYCB 14 questions. Inner City Press has put the Additional Information letter online here, including a request to know which branches NYCB would close, how it would try to sell of Astoria's loans, etc. Inner City Press said, there should now be more fair lending questions, and the comment period should be extended.
On January 21, the Federal Reserve informed Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch that the Fed is re-opening and extending its comment period on NYCB - Astoria until Tuesday, February 16. We'll have more on this (see here).
Back on January 15, after Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch also filed comments with the FDIC, that agency has written to NYCB's Joseph Ficalora asking for a response, and stating that
"We are writing in reference to the enclosed e-mail that we received from Executive Director Matthew Lee, of Inner City Press/Fair Finance Watch concerning your institution's application to acquire Astoria Bank. We reviewed the subject e-mail in accordance with the guidelines of 12 C.F.R. Section 303, and deemed it a Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) protest for the purpose of your application. The subject e-mail raises issues regarding your institution's record of lending to African American and Latino persons. The anticipated time and research required to investigate these issues has contributed to the removal of your institution's application from expedited processing."
NYCB's home mortgage lending is extremely disparate; its multi-family lending, some to slumlords, is no defense. Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch has filed this with the Fed:
“On behalf of Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch, this is a timely first comment opposing and requesting a complete copy of an and an extension of the FRB's public comment period on the Application by New York Community Bancorp ('NYCB') to acquire 100% of the voting shares of Astoria Financial Corp and indirectly acquire Astoria Bank.
The applicant NYCB in the New York City MSA in 2014 made 109 home purchase loans to whites -- and only THREE to African Americans. For refinance loans, NYBC in the the NYC MSA in 2014 made 27 loans to whites and only ONE to an African American.
While NYCB may attempt to minimize these severe disparities by pointing to multi-family loans, there are significant complaints about that lending; note also this account of the CFPB which lists the ostensibly mostly multi-family NYCB with more complaints against it than banks that are both larger and more “retail."
In the Nassau Suffolk (Long Island) MSA in 2014 NYCB made 107 home purchase loans to whites -- and only ONE to an African American, while denying African Americans 4.7 times more frequently than whites. For refinance loans, NYBC in the the Long Island MSA in 2014 made 52 loans to whites and only three to African Americans and only TWO to Latinos, while denying Latinos 2.32 times more frequently than whites.
In the Cleveland, Ohio MSA (where NYCB bought Ohio Savings), NYCB in 2014 made 17 refinance loans to whites in 2014 and only one to an African American, while denying African Americans, while denying African Americans three times more frequently than whites. Similar disparities exist for NYCB in New Jersey, Arizona and Florida -- ICP is requesting public hearings on this ill-conceived proposed merger.
As the Federal Reserve surely knows, this proposal was driving by activist investor pressure on Astoria (by Basswood Capital Management LLC); both institutions' securities fell significantly in price when it was announced. The price to consumers would include the closure of branches, disclosure of which should be demanded during the extended comment period and at the requested public hearing(s).
The comment period should be extended; evidentiary hearings should be held; and on the current record, the application should not be approved.”
Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch, which also opposes NYCB's requests for approvals from the FDIC, New York and other regulators, has prepared this comparison of NYCB to other lenders:
“In the Nassau Suffolk (Long Island) MSA in 2014 NYCB made 107 home purchase loans to whites -- and only ONE to an African American, while denying African Americans 4.7 times more frequently than whites.”
While NYCB made 107 home purchase loans to whites for one to an African Americans (ratio of 107-to-1), the aggregated in 2014 for home purchase loans on Long Island had a ratio of 13.41 loans to whites for every loan to an African American (15,081 loans to whites, 1125 loans to African Americans). NYCB is eight times more disparate than other lenders.
Also on Long Island, compared to NYCB's 4.7 denial rate disparity between African Americans and whites, the aggregate denied African Americans 1.66 times more frequently than whites. NYCB is 2.83 times more disparate than other lenders.
NYCB in the New York City MSA in 2014 made 109 home purchase loans to whites -- and only THREE to African Americans.
While NYCB made 109 home purchase loans to whites and three to African Americans in NYC (ratio of 36.3-to-1), the aggregated in 2014 for home purchase loans in the New York City MSA had a ratio of 11.39 loans to whites for every loan to an African American (47,166 loans to whites, 4,140 loans to African Americans). NYCB is 3.19 times more disparate than other lenders in the New York City MSA.
Meanwhile 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... 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 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... 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.
UNITED NATIONS, October 31 -- After Bahrain adjourned its prosecution of Nabeel Rajab until mid December, on October 31 US State Department spokesman John Kirby said “At today's hearing it became clear that the government lacks evidence to support the case and so we reject the charges against Rajab.” Inner City Press put it on Soundcloud, here.
The UN under outgoing Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, meanwhile, had nothing to say. This has been a trend.
Amid attacks on journalists and freedom of expression in countries all over the world, the United Nations under Banhas been no sanctuary, nor champion, the Free UN Coalition for Access has found.
On January 20, 2015, Inner City Press on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric about Bahrain sentencing Nabeel Rajab to six months in jail for a single tweet. Video here.
Spokesman Dujarric said he expected a statement on that later in the day -- three hours later there was none -- then cited the right of expression, generally.
The day before on January 19, Inner City Press on behalf of FUNCA asked Dujarric's deputy Farhan Haq about Turkey having ordered Twitter, Google and Facebook to remove content by BirGun about alleged Erdogan government support to Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria, and threatening to ban Twitter entirely for not taking down the BirGun feed.
Haq replied vaguely about the right to circulate information but said he would not speculate about the future of Twitter in Turkey. Video here.
On September 27, Inner City Press directly asked Chatterjee about it, on Periscope. here.Vine here.Chatterjee hardly answered the long-standing questions; nor did Ban's spokesman. Neither set up the requested interview. Questions about Ban letting the Saudi led Coalition off the Children and Armed Conflict annex for Yemen remain unanswered, along with others.
The goal of Ban's head of Communications Cristina Gallach's no due process letters ousting and then evicting Inner City Press, now for eight months confining it to minders, seems to have been to prevent or hinder coverage of irregularities and corruption. This we cannot and will not accept.
Here's another example from the late Ban Ki-moon UN: recruitment fraud occurring in OICT at the direction of Ms Atefeh Riazi (the Chief Information Technology Office or CITO) without anyone from the Office of Human Rights Management and the Department of Management Executive Office even trying to stop her.
Mike Moran, who the CITO brought in on a temporary contract in 2014 at the P-5 level, was subsequently "regularized" through a doctored recruitment exercise and appointed to a fixed term contract in 2015.
Then in 2016 there was an attempt to get him installed at the D-2 level, (skipping the D-1 level) when Job Opening (JO) 54326 was initially advertised on January 28 through to March 28 2016.
Mike Moran was a P-5. He applied for the D-2 position. Because staff on regular appointments are not eligible to apply for positions more than one level above their appointed grade, his application was screened out. When he and Riazi discovered that he was not eligible for the position the day after the JO closed (after seeing the released applicants) on March 29, Moran resigned his P-5 position with an effective date of 6 April. On 31 March 2016, Ms Riazi imposed upon OHRM to extend the JO by an extra month until April 29.
Riazi is an American, who has often been praised by US Mission to the UN or at least its current ambassador for "Management and Reform," making a mockery of both terms.
OHRM should not have extended the duration of the JO under any circumstances pursuant to their own Hiring Manual:
5.11 Understanding the Cancellation and Re-advertisement of the Job Opening 1. The Hiring Manager shall make every effort to accurately reflect the requirements of the job opening in the posting information and evaluation criteria, before posting the opening. 2. Changes to a “draft” or “pending approval” job opening are allowed while the approval process is still in progress. The approving parties may return or ‘push back’ the case to each other, as appropriate, for additional review and changes, before posting by the Recruiter. 3. Changes to a published job opening are not allowed. This prohibition includes any extension of the posting period, excepting instances of a technical upgrade to the system which would render inspira unavailable over 24 hours. However, should changes be requested to a published job opening, the Hiring Manager must provide a detailed written justification explaining the reasons for changes to the Senior Recruiter. The Senior Recruiter will cancel the job opening and if applicable, the Hiring Manager will create a new job opening with the necessary changes. The Recruiter will inform all applicants who have applied of the cancellation of the job opening and, if applicable, re-advertisement. 4. When the request to fill a position is withdrawn during the approval process of the job opening, the job opening can be cancelled (denied) by the Recruiter or Senior Recruiter, at the request of the Hiring Manager or the Staffing Table Manager. 5. When the position becomes no longer available after the job opening has been published, the Hiring Manager must provide a detailed written clarification for the reasons of cancellation to the Senior Recruiter. The Senior Recruiter will cancel the job opening and the Recruiter will inform all applicants who have applied of the cancellation.
Moran left the UN on April 6. His out of office said he was "out of the office until 31/8/2016," which indicates the intent for him to return to the UN. Mr Moran was allowed to apply again (irregularly) as an external applicant and was interviewed for the D-2 position in the week of 23 May.
Not only was this done for this applicant, but also for another applicant Mr Touitou from WHO who had originally submitted an application which did not contain the required years of experience. After seeing that his application had not been released, the CITO Riazi pressured OHRM to allow him to illegally submit another application also after the JO had originally closed. The application process clearly states to applicants that their application will be considered based on what they ORIGINALLY submit. To allow an applicant known and desired by the CITO to submit a second application is completely inappropriate, such an opportunity is not available to others she didn't care about.
"When you apply to a job opening, the last version of your application appears. The application can be updated as well as any draft applications that have been created and saved but not submitted to a particular job opening. Once an application has been submitted to a job opening, it can no longer be updated. It is recommended that you update your application for every job opening you apply to so that it is targeted to the position.
There are many more examples; we aim to have more on this.
Again, Riazi is an American, who has often been praised by US Mission to the UN or at least its current ambassador for "Management and Reform," making a mockery of both terms.
On October 12, Inner City Press exclusively reported how Rebecca Ralston, a friend of the UN's (American) Chief Information Technology Officer Atefeh (Atti) Riazi, from the New York City Housing Authority, was hired as a consultant in OICT and paid $110.00 per hour for 40 hours per week for the last 2 years or so, until she was let go the week before.
Ralston was one of many close NYCHA acquaintances Riazi brought into OICT and paid generously. Ralston was hired ostensibly to do an inventory of web sites as part of the implementation of the UN ICT strategy but did, by all accounts, a decidedly unremarkable job. Ralston who is also the CEO of Agile Impact Group, an online brand management company based in Seattle that offers digital brand management services for monitoring, analyzing, and managing clients’ digital presence, was actually (real job) using her company services, pushing content onto the Web, to influence (diminish) negative press on Ban Ki-moon and improve his "brand."
Ban Ki-moon is widely seen as already running for president of South Korea.
As of October 12, Ralston was not in the UN database.
These same sources say Ban, who has converted long time aide Eun Ha (Isabelle) Kim from General Service to Professional UN staff in a way not available to other staff members, let Malcorra do the same. Watch this site.
On October 6, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Farhan Haq again about Ban's nephew's fraud conviction, and a surreal email Ban sent to UN staff about... fraud. Many staff called it hypocrisy.Beyond the Vine video here, second half. From the UN transcript:
Inner City Press: I wanted to ask you about an email that the Secretary-General sent, I think, to all staff about fraud yesterday. It was a blast e-mail, a UNHQ (United Nations Headquarters) broadcast. And it was sort of instructed staff to… that fraud is a serious matter. There's something called the 2017 Leadership Dialogue. And I guess, what triggered the e-mail. In having read it and published it, it's not clear. Is this something that's being newly announced? Why was this anti-fraud e-mail sent yesterday?
Deputy Spokesman: There are a number of internal e-mails that go out from time to time. This is simply another one of those, and it's on a topic that the Secretary-General feels is important.
ICP Question: And I guess… because I'd asked you this before, and I keep… I go… you had said that… to somehow to ask Colliers if the individual who's listed in the newspaper as the nephew of the Secretary-General as working for them at the time that the fraud that he was just convicted of occurred. But I'm asking you… I want to, I guess, just reiterate. As the UN, doesn't the UN have a duty, if it has existing contractors… and I just went by 45th Street today. The sign is still up, so the UN is doing business with Colliers. If a newspaper, widely circulated, says an employee of their company was convicted of fraud, isn't there some follow up totally outside of the familial relationship of the Secretary-General?
Deputy Spokesman: We do not determine the staffing of Colliers. You would have to ask them that. Have a good afternoon.
On October 5, just hours after Ban's replacement was selected and his deputy spokesman told Inner City Press Ban will no longer hand out top posts (as he did, for example, to his own son in law on August 26), Ban sent his first post-Guterres email to UN staff, shamelessly about... fraud:
Date: 5 October 2016 at 2:01:33 PM GMT-4 Subject: Message from the Secretary-General to Staff on Fraud and Corruption
Dear colleagues,
Anyone who works for the United Nations has a fundamental responsibility to act with honesty and integrity at all times. The vast majority of staff take pride in honouring this responsibility. But we operate in uniquely high-risk environments that expose our activities to significant risks. Fraud and corruption not only betray the trust placed in us by Member States; they damage our operations, our authority and our credibility, making it more difficult for all of us to do our work.
The comprehensive Anti-Fraud and Anti-Corruption Framework, issued through Information Circular ST/IC/2016/25 on 9 September 2016, is designed to help staff promote and maintain a culture of integrity and honesty across the range of our operations and activities. It details how our Organization acts to prevent, detect, deter, respond to and report on fraud and corruption. The United Nations has a zero-tolerance approach to fraud and corruption. This means that the administration will actively pursue all allegations, and will take all necessary disciplinary and contractual measures when wrongdoing is established.
The 2017 Leadership Dialogue – the discussion that all managers should have every year with staff who report to them – will focus on this Framework. I hope it will stimulate discussions between staff and managers at all levels on how the Framework can be applied.
Together, we must make every effort to promote the highest ethical standards for our United Nations, as we serve the world’s people.
Warm regards,
The Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon"
On October 2, Ban's deputy spokesman Farhan Haq replied that Ban has had "no contact" with his own nephew.
So on October 4, Inner City Press asked about Ban's nephew's connection with UNDP's property manager, UN transcript here:
Inner City Press: I understand that you'd said the Secretary-General has had no contact with his nephew Bahn Joo-hyun, but given that the article says that the acts that he engaged in were while he was an employee of Colliers International, which, if you remember this, there was back-and-forth. Their plaque is still up on the FF Building on 45th Street. I wanted to know, this is a UN question as opposed to a Secretary-General, if he doesn't speak to him. Is this individual, a nephew of the Secretary-General, still employed by Colliers? If so, does this finding by a court trigger any review of the UN's contracts with Colliers?
Deputy Spokesman: You would have to check with Colliers whether he's an employee. I wouldn't comment on someone who is not UN personnel.
Amid all this - and while refusing to answer basic questions - Ban Ki-moon has found a group to praise and flatter him, with photographs no less. This was sent to Inner City Press this afternoon by an amazed recipient, we publish it here:
"Dear colleagues, UNCA is pleased to inform you that a Photo Exhibition presenting the 10 years of United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, will take place at the end of November. Submissions are now open to all UN photographers to send their photos of Ban Ki-moon in action during his tenure. There will be a total of 25 photos selected to be exhibited at the opening of the event with the attendance of the Secretary-General.
Cia Pak, Scannews, will coordinate the submissions. Please see the instructions below on how to submit your work.
Best regards,
Giampaolo Pioli UNCA President"
We'll have more on this.
Meanwhile, "court has ruled a nephew of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon pay $590,000 in damages to a South Korean construction firm that was at the center of a major lobbying scandal last year. The Seoul Northern District Court recently handed down the sentence to Ban Joo-hyun, son of the U.N. chief's younger brother Ban Ki-sang, on charges of fabricating documents that allegedly expressed the Qatari government's intention to buy a high-rise building belonging to the firm, Keangnam Enterprises Inc.
"Ban Joo-hyun, who was an executive of a U.S. real estate investment company at the time, is accused of receiving the money from Keangnam Enterprises in 2014 in exchange for arranging the sale of the skyscraper in Vietnam to the Qatari government. In the process, he reportedly told Keangnam that he could use the influence of his uncle to directly contact the Qatari king."
Ban's deputy spokesman Farhan Haq on October 3, when Inner City Press asked, declined comment except to say that Ban has "no contact" with his nephew. His brother's son? We'll have more on this.
Inner City Press was informed by whistleblowing UN staff that Ban is now attempting, contrary even to a new feather-bedding rule his issued to place his staff wherever they want in the UN system, to place his longtime personal / appointments secretary Eun Ha (Isabelle) Kim as a P-3 Professional in the UN Office of Protocol.
Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric on September 29 said he has "no idea" about such a position, while accusing Inner City Press of dragging people -- Kim? Or Mr Ban?" - through the mud. Video here.
On September 28 Inner City Press published more, from even more complaining staff. They tell Inner City Press that Ban ALREADY broke the rules, promoting Isabelle Kim from General Service to a P-2 professional position, and now ordering the Office of Protocol to create a P-3 post for Ms. Kim. Staff are angry that the rules Ban applies to them do not apply to those close to Ban.
On September 28, Dujarric told Inner City Press vaguely that there are many many to move from G to P, General to Professional. (Inner City Press previously asked Ban's deputy about UN Staff Rule 4.16 (ii) which states the following:
"Recruitment to the Professional category of staff from the General Service and related categories in the United Nations Secretariat: recruitment to the Professional category at the United Nations Secretariat of staff from the General Service and related categories having successfully passed the appropriate competitive examinations shall be made within the limits established by the General Assembly. Such recruitment shall be made exclusively through competitive examination."
So did Ms. Kim take and pass this required competitive exam? Dujarric didn't answer, in fact ran off the podium to avoid Inner City Press' follow up question, to confirm or deny Ms. Kim is Mrs Ban's niece.Video here. From the UN transcript:
Inner City Press: I've asked Farhan [Haq] about this kind of indirectly, but I wanted to ask you directly to get a confirmation or denial. We've received sort of complaints from a variety of staff members that a longtime aide of the Secretary-General Eun-ha Kim, or Isabelle Kim, may be in line for a P3 position in Protocol. The reason I'm asking you this is because it's not… it's more than one person that said this would be wrong. Their question is, how does a person go from general staff to professional staff? Is it through a competitive exam, and if it's not, what is the loophole…?
Spokesman: I'm not going to… I mean, you know, you may want to drag…
Inner City Press: It's not dragging.
Spokesman: …drag people through the mud.
Inner City Press: So you say.
Spokesman: And I'm not going to go into the details of individual staff members' cases, because I don't think it's fair for anyone who works in this organization. But all the rules are being followed, and this case does not involve the Secretary-General.
ICP Question: You say dragging through the mud, but my question is, I'm saying staff members at var… a variety of levels have said, since this G to P wall, which they think is wrong, applies to them and you have people with PhDs that can't do it, they're extremely interested to know how somebody close to the Secretary-General could do it?
Spokesman: There are various ways of people to go from G to P in this organization.
ICP Question: I read Farhan a rule that…
Spokesman: And I've seen it, and I'm telling that you all the rules are being followed.
ICP Question: Is there currently a P-3 post in protocol that exists?
Spokesman: I have no clue. Thank you
Ms. Kim, we note, was with Ban (and Han Seung-soo and others) up to fifteen years ago, when Han was President of the General Assembly and Ban, his chief of staff.
Also on that dream team: current South Korean ambassador to the UN and Ban promoted Oh Joon, former Ban promotee Yoon Yeocheol, Kim Bong-hyun who previously told Inner City Press to cover Ban more positively, and others - click here for the list, still online for now.
Inner City Press also asked Ban Ki-moon's in law if he had been present at and played a role in the Jaffna Hospital massacre in Sri Lanka. He did not deny this -- rather, he said it was not "pertinent." He said he would answer at an "opportune time."
Inner City Press: the Secretary-General's son-in-law, Siddharth Chatterjee. I know I'd asked you in writing, maybe ten days ago to be able to ask him the questions that your office hadn't answered. And I did find him in the lobby yesterday, and he said to me, "Oh, we'll find an opportune time." So it wasn't clear to me… and he also said, as to some of the questions, "They're not pertinent." I don't know if that referred to whether who the selection panel was or who the other candidates were. But it led me to want to ask you, did your office, in fact, ask him ten days when I asked you whether he would answer the questions? Because it seemed like he was unaware of the request. That's how he came off.
Spokesman: I think everyone is aware of your interest in speaking to Mr. Chatterjee, and it's not… you're welcome to contact whomever you want and request an interview. Whether or not they grant you one is really up to them.
ICP Question:relatedly, because there's now… I've seen this controversy around the resident coordinator for Syria. And some people are saying it's Mr. Ali Al-Za’tari to replace Mr. [TYacoub El] Hillo. And I just wanted to know, was the same process used? Can you say a little bit more about the inter-agency panel, DOCO…?
Spokesman: The inter-agency panel… every resident coordinator goes through the same process with the inter-agency panel. A recommendation is then sent to the Secretary-General, whether it's Mr. Za’tari or any of the other ones. I told you many-a-times on his… on Mr. Chatterjee that the Secretary-General stayed away from that process. We do expect the new humanitarian coordinator, resident coordinator, to arrive in Damascus very early next month and to take up his position. There is an acting… somebody acting in that stead until his arrival.
ICP Question: But in the same way that I asked you whether UNDPA (Department of Political Affairs) and the Secretariat was… played a role in the Kenya resident coordinator, because it seems that it's clear that they did in Syria… so did they in Kenya?
Spokesman: I will not go into any further detail than I already have.
Further? Ban's spokesman Dujarric has refused to provide basic information about the promotion, and about Chatterjee's military activities in Sri Lanka. Nor has he responded to Inner City Press' written request for information or to interview Chatterjee, a UN official who blocks Inner City Press on Twitter.
But Ban Ki-moon's son in law has hung around New York for more than a week, meeting with bankers and set on September 27 to meet Ban's deputy Eliasson. Ban didn't recuse himself from promoting his son in law, but does this side-step. Inner City Press at noon on September 27 asked Ban's deputy spokesman if Chatterjee, as resident coordinator, will answer questions on the way up or down. “We'll certainly convey your request.” Vine here.
While less than an hour before Chatterjee's visit to his father in law's 38th floor there was no answer, Chatterjee appeared in a staged Facebook Live, where he said “the Secretary General” without disclosing that Ban is his father in law. Vine here.
So Inner City Press went to ask Chatterjee about it. First, it told the UN Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit (MALU), to avoid any pretextual action as in February of this year by Ban's head of communications Cristina Gallach. Then it set up in the lobby. After getting other quotes or responses from Ambassadors and a foreign minister, Chatterjee and other man came down.
Inner City Press asked, Who were the other candidates? Who was on the panel? No answer. Inner City Press asked about the Jaffna Hospital. Chatterjee turned back and said he would set up a time to talk - strange, Inner City Press has been requesting that for some time - but to “turn that off,” meaning the authorized Periscope. Vine here.
Inner City Press remained to ask more questions. At a certain point the minder(s), officers and elevator man left - and then the cars left. It was over.
But Ban's increasing lawlessness is not limited to his son in law, nor to his mentor Han Seung-soo, who despite MOONlighting as a UN official and board member of Standard Chartered Bank and Doosan, this week dodged Inner City Press' questions unlike Jacob Zuma and Sheikh Hasina, here.
Exposing or even inquiring into the ever increase irregularities in the Ban Ki-moon administration give rise, as Inner City Press found earlier this year and during this General Assembly debate week, to retaliation.
Ban and Gallach are giving Inner City Press' long time work space to an Egyptian state media, Akhbar Al Yom, whose representative Sanaa Youssef rarely comes to the UN -- contrary to the stated requirement for resident correspondent accreditation, which has been stripped from Inner City Press -- and never asks any questions.
During UNGA debate week, Inner City Press could only cover a meeting on Yemen if accompanied by a minder(Gallach was asked about this, on camera) who asked who Inner City Press wanted to interview; it was locked out of the media "bullpen" then urged, mid-edit, to leave the small "focus booth" it's been reduced to using. Team Ban has been informed of all of this, responding that "time" will somehow solve it. How?
On September 23 Ban's and France's head of peacekeeping Herve Ladsous said openly, "I never answer your questions, Mister" when asked about rapes; Ladsous' UN spokesman got Ban's UNTV to keep the microphone away from Inner City Press. Video here.
After being told that Ban's son in law is in New York, Inner City Press has asked Ban's spokespeople, fully four of them:
"This is a request to interview the UN's Resident Coordinator in Kenya Siddarth Chatterjee, appointed to the job by his father in law Ban Ki-moon, in light of [him saying / Tweeting to another of his father in law's officials,] “Look forward to seeing you at UNGA." It seems he has appeared at the Princeton Club in NY.
"Since the OSSG has declined to answer several questions about Resident Coordinator Chatterjee, this is a request for the interview. Please advise asap."
So far, nothing. Chatterjee, as we've noted, blocks Inner City Press on Twitter - strange, for a UN Resident Coordinator.
Instead of answering the earlier questions, Team Ban arranged for Chatterjee's military commander Dalvir Singh to slam in Huffington Post Inner City Press' “accusations of human rights violations against Chatterjee. Major Chatterjee was a star member of my battalion, the 10th Para Special Forces, and at no time was my battalion or any member of my unit ever involved in any form of human rights violation.”
"Ban last month, his son-in-law sit da-Kenya resident coordinator of the United Nations whether the chatter in the decision to appoint. The United Nations Office of the resident coordinator as the national diplomatic missions to individual countries hit greets. Chapman, Mr. ban's youngest daughter, popping Hyun-Hee's husband. Hyun-hee and Chae was elected Secretary General of the UN ban popping were married in 2006. Hyun-Hee Mr. currently UNICEF Kenya Office is known to be being worked on.
This has never been a textbook case of ' human resources ' Office, saying the issue would be raised by the professional journalist Matthew Lee of inner city press, the media. Lee shunned the press ban this personnel (recusal) not to apply points to criticize. He said, "would call into question the qualities of chatter, nor at the UN for a long time, one of those who deny that. But he is considering ban evasion law that might have the application lies, "he said.
India is a special forces work on the chatter when the matter was a Huffington Post Moon vir Singh retired warden contributed from popping "always was a priority public than himself," and Office personnel are raised allegations of the accused journalists. He was working as a journalist for the "qualification (credential)-RI, suspicious and ethics awareness as the UN's bloggers" and not "evil?" is appealed
Not on the basis of the human rights abuses of false attacks ". Lee, the reporter himself the last few years, a series of critical reports about the ban were taken with them, and because of this, the UN resident journalists deprived of his or her eligibility status.”
On September 17, as Inner City Press covered the UN Security Council meeting on Syria, under Ban's eviction order it was first locked out of the UNSC stakeout, then told to leave the UN by a UN Security officer. This is Ban's UN. We'll have more on this.
On September 15, Inner City Press again asked Ban's spokesman about Chatterjee's record in Sri Lanka -- no answer - and the panel that "recommended" him to Ban. Vine here,UN transcript here, with the UN using many more "inaudibles" than on other questions:
Inner City Press: the last you answered about promotion of the Secretary-General’s son-in-law into the top post in Kenya was that you hoped that at least the agencies or some information about this inter-agency panel could be provided, and I think it should be. So I wanted to know do you have now any information on that…? [inaudible]
Spokesman: I don’t have an update, but if I have something, I will share it with you.
ICP Question: And I’d asked you in writing about… it goes back some time but about the son-in-law’s activities in Sri Lanka as part of the Indian peacekeeping force. And since he’s gotten his commander to write an op-ed saying that questions about this are unreasonable… [inaudible]
Spokesman: Whatever words I’ve had to say about… on this issue, I have used. I really have nothing else to add… [inaudible]
ICP Question: Right, but you said… the last thing you said was you would look into the inter-agency panel… [inaudible]
Spokesman: I have nothing… [inaudible] Yes, that I said. On the rest, I have nothing else to add.
Meanwhile Ban's son in law is using the first place his military commander dumped his piece to run propaganda interviews linking himself to the SDGs.
Singh's / Team Ban's piece from its first version to its second picked up links to Team Ban's raid on Inner City Press' office, and material from the UN Censorship Alliance. These suggestions came from within Ban's UNHQ.
Dalvir Singh wrote “To attack the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon who happens to be Chatterjee’s father-in-law, using his service in Sri Lanka is not only absurd but deserves to be condemned in the strongest possible terms.” And then the threats began. This is a new low.
In Ban's cases, these "familial dealing" include not only the son in law promoted without recusal or transparency, now lashing out at the Press by proxy, but also the nephew, "Dennis Bahn," with a company managing UN real estate, during the name of the UN and his uncle to drum up more business, see below.
Now there is a scandal and conviction in South Korea with Ban's - and his nephew Bahn's -- fingerprints all over it. "South Gyeongsang Governor Hong Joon-pyo was found guilty Thursday of taking money from the late businessman and politician Sung Wan-jong and sentenced to 18 months in prison, ending his presidential ambitions. Hong, 62, stood trial on charges that he accepted 100 million won ($91,601) from the late Sung, former chairman of the Keangnam Enterprises."
Ban's brother Ban Ki-sang was a consultant to Keangnam for seven years; Ban's nephew Dennis "Bahn Joo-hyun said to a contact at Keangnam that he would invite his high-profile uncle to a social gathering, where members of the Qatar Investment Authority would be present."
For alleged violation of of the ICSC Standards, UN system whistleblowers such as Moncef Kateb of WIPO have been fired. But Ban does it openly: something about a fish and from the head, see also below.
The response to Inner City Press' questioning has been, as happened in 2012, threats. To this has the UN descended under Ban.
After Inner City Press asked about the textbook case of nepotism of Ban and his son in law, video here, Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric replied that an inter-agency advisory panel had been involved, before Ban signed the letter appointing his own son in law to the post. But Dujarric has refused to say who was on the panel, or who the other candidates were. Nor has he provided any information about Chatterjee's activities in Sri Lanka.
This is a new low for Ban Ki-moon's UN, widely viewed as having failed in Sri Lanka in 2009, and on Yemen and Burundi and elsewhere in 2016.
In terms of answering basic questions, when Inner City Press last year asked about the questionable real estate dealings of Ban's nephew Joo-hyun “Dennis” Bahn, with a company managing the 45th Street building of UNDP and who used the name of Ban and the UN to do dubious business, Ban's Spokespeople said they would not answer questions about Ban relatives who are not UN staff. (Then Ban and his USG Gallach evicted Inner City Press, NYT here, petition here.)
Now they won't answer basic questions about Ban relatives who ARE officials of the UN, promoted by Ban without recusal.
Now we note that a New York underwriter has put out an alert about “Joohyun Dennis Bahn” --
“Bulletin: NYSA000340 To:All New York State Agents, Office Counsel, and Managers
RE:Louis Cho, Joohyun Dennis Bahn, Dennis Bahn
Effective immediately, all policy-issuing offices are instructed not to accept any orders or close any transactions involving the people listed below without prior written approval of Stewart Title Insurance Company Agency Legal Services.
Louis Cho Joohyun Dennis Bahn Dennis Bahn
In the event you have an open order on the people listed above please email,” etc. It's all in the family. So is the sense of entitlement: in the midst of this, only last month Ban's nephew posted this, about buying his (seemingly many) Mercedes:
"I have been purchasing my Mercedes from Benzel-Busch for many years especially with Giovanni Barbaro. This dealership provides great service and Giovanni is there to work with you all the time. Once he lent his own company car as a loaner when there wasn't one available. Great overall experience and I would highly recommend this dealership as well as Giovanni."
Ironically, Ban appointed a UN Special Envpy on Road Safety, Jean Todt, who is on the board of directors of a company which runs cars and even online poker. A fish rots from the head.
When Inner City Press first reported on Ban accepting Sri Lankan military figure Shavendra Silva as an adviser, and the background to the screening of the Sri Lankan government's war crimes denial film "Lies Agreed To" inside the UN, the results included death threats and attempts to get Inner City Press out of the UN -- repeated, more disgustingly, in 2016.
In September 2016 an ally of Ban's son in law Chatterjee, Dalvir Singh, has called this series of articles, despite Ban's spokesman's stonewalling and refusal to answer, unfair -- "scurrilous, unfounded and mendacious accusations" by a "blogger."
Dalvir Singh wrote that Inner City Press, “a blogger of questionable credentials.... has hurled scurrilous, unfounded and mendacious accusations of human rights violations against Chatterjee. Major Chatterjee was a star member of my battalion, the 10th Para Special Forces, and at no time was my battalion or any member of my unit ever involved in any form of human rights violation.”
Thou dost protest too much. Beyond the Jaffna University heli-drop on October 11, 1987, there was the Jaffna hospital massacre ten days later on October 21, 1987. Here is the Wiki-time line (some say this may explain Ban's willingness to let the Saudi led Coalition off the UN's Children and Armed Conflict annex for attacks on health and other civilian facilities in Yemen)
"October 21, 1987 - 11h – The hospital environment came under cannon fire from the vicinity of Jaffna Dutch Fort and from overhead helicopters.
11h30 – A shell fell on the Outpatients Department (O.P.D) building. 13h – The chief consultant on duty was informed that Indian troops had been sighted at nearby Shanti Theatre Lane.
13h30 – A shell fell on Ward 8, killing seven persons. The chief consultant who went out with another doctor to survey the situation spotted some empty cartridges, suggesting that persons had been firing from inside the hospital premises. 14h – The chief consultant's attention was drawn to the presence of some armed LTTE fighters inside the hospital. The chief consultant went with Dr. Ganesharatnam and asked the group to leave the premises. The leader of the group agreed and they left.
14h5 – The chief consultant was informed that another group of LTTE men had come inside. Dr. Ganesharatnam requested that the chief consultant go with another doctor to speak to the LTTE group and ask them to leave. It is not clear if the LTTE men ever left the hospital.
14h, 16h – A few staff members left the hospital for lunch through the back door.
16h – Staff heard shooting for 15-20 minutes from the vicinity of the gasoline station on Hospital Road. No retaliatory fire from the hospital was heard.
16h20 and onward – According to an eyewitness, the IPKF entered the hospital grounds through the front gate, came up along the corridor and warned everybody inside the hospital. The IPKF fired into the Overseer's office and other offices. The eyewitness saw many of his fellow workers killed, including the overseer and an ambulance driver. The eyewitness also saw a soldier throw a grenade at a man, killing several people.
According to another eyewitness, the IPKF came into the Radiology room, which was filled with people including the patients evacuated from Ward 8, and fired indiscriminately. Those who pretended to be dead by lying on the floor escaped the attack.
Throughout the night a few bursts of fire and grenade explosions were heard.
October 22, 1987 - 8h30 – Dr. Sivapathasundaram was seen walking out of the hospital with three nurses. They were walking with their hands up shouting, "We surrender, we are innocent doctors and nurses."[3] Shots were fired; Dr. Sivapathasundaram was killed and the nurses injured.
11h – An Indian Army officer turned up at one of the wards and was confronted by a doctor. The doctor explained the situation to the officer and later, with help of the officer, she called out to her colleagues and those who were injured to come out with their hands up. About 10 staff members who were alive were escorted out. They found their colleague Dr. Ganesharatnam dead. Later in the day all the dead bodies in the hospital were collected and burned."
Amnesty International's 1988 annual report cites reports of the Indian Peace Keeping Force's rapes of Tamil women and extra-judicial executions. Was it from his son in law that Ban took his advice on Sri Lanka, before sending Vijay Nambiar, brother of general Satish Nambiar, for the “finish” in 2009?
More to the point, what is the relationship between Dalvir Singh's screed and Ban Ki-moon? Ban's son in law has grateful re-tweeted Dalvir Singh's article; beyond the continued stonewalling and eviction of Inner City Press, the Guardian wrote that the only time Ban got upset in their interview was in defense of his son in law Siddharth Chatterjee. So Ban Ki-moon is responsible... We'll have more on this.
Dalvir Singh says of Inner City Press "I have noted that he seems to be obsessed with Major Chatterjee since 2007 when his father-in-law Ban became the UN Secretary-General."
If true - that is, if not ghost written by Chatterjee, or his father in law's handlers, note the citation to the UN Censorship Alliance - why would this Indian military figure be "noting" Inner City Press' coverage since 2007? And doesn't this just indicate that Ban Ki-moon's ouster and eviction of Inner City Press in 2016, through Ban's USG Cristina Gallach, is blatant retaliation for coverage? This is censorship.
This is Team Ban's response to questions and stories about the John Ashe and Ng Lap Seng case, DPI Gallach's failure to do due diligence, all leading to ouster and eviction.
Dujarric refused to say who was on the inter-agency panel; he told Inner City Press to "ask UNDP," which in term told Inner City Press to ask something called the "DOCO" which doesn't have a spokesperson and has not answered questions submitted three days ago.
Dujarric didn't answer any of Inner City Press' questions submitted on Friday September 2 at noon, then rejected in-person questions calling them "ridiculous accusations." Dujarric canceled his briefing again on September 9. Meanwhile Ban's son in law Chatterjee's response is to block Inner City Press on Twitter, photo here.
This is Team Ban's response to questions and stories about the John Ashe and Ng Lap Seng case, DPI Gallach's failure to do due diligence, all leading to ouster and eviction.
Turns out Chatterjee, to get previous stories buried, as offered goodies only his father in law can dole out - we'll have more on this. And on these places in Sri Lanka during the time frame:
Velvettiturai; Kokuvil; Jaffna Hospital; Manippai; Sandilippai; Chunnakam, Mallakam, Uduvil, Manipay, Maruthanamadam and Inuvil; tellingly, journalists of “Eezha Murasu” and “Murasoli.” We'll have more on these. Meanwhile, while blocking Inner City Press, Sid Chatterjee's followers show / tell Inner City Press Sid is re-tweeting US Power, and photos of his father in law, here.
Inner City Press asked Dujarric who was on the panel that proposed Ban's son in law to him -- through DPA, it now appears -- to assess if they were independent from Ban, and who the other candidates, at least on the short list, were.
Dujarric has refused to provide this information, and has refused all other Inner City Press questions about Ban's son in law, including about his activities in Sri Lanka as part of the Indian Peace Keeping Force.
As Ban's spokesman knows, Ban was in Sri Lanka; the story can't wait. So Inner City Press reported that it has been told of Siddarth Chatterjee posing with dead and disfigured Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam; this has been described as a war crime.
Inner City Press twice this week asked Dujarric to describe and comment on Ban Ki-moon's son in law's activities in Sri Lanka; it is all the more pressing given the most recent UN promotion without recusal. Inner City Press also asked what forms and rules apply, a question also ignored by Dujarric with respect to a fundraiser held in the UN with Ban's past envoy to Sri Lanka, Vijay Nambiar. Inner City Press asked Dujarric to comment in this context on this, authored by Ban's son in law Sid Chatterjee: no answers.
And so in common journalistic practice, to assist reader in deciding whether to believe or not believe these reports of Chatterjee posing with dead and disfigured combatants in violation of the Geneva Conventions, we disclose that one of the sources clearly has an interest: Chatterjee's ex-wife Shirpa Sen.
She is a medical doctor; she has said Chatterjee threatened her to stop providing any information to Inner City Press and an Indian journalist whose publication Chatterjee got to remove a report about one of his promotions under Ban from the Internet. (Censorship seems to run in the family.)
The allegation is that Chatterjee dropped her and then saw his career path advance under his new father in law, Ban Ki-moon; he made threats to make the issues of the past go away.
We disclose this because readers have a right to know of the interest or animus of the source of information. Here is another online report; here on a court website is the decision on the divorce appeal. And here is an earlier report of Inner City Press asking Ban's spokespeople about Chatterjee's military record, in Sri Lanka Ban's 2009 visit to which Inner City Press covered in-person (Inner City Press has since been BANned, restricted.)
A direct comment of any kind from Ban Ki-moon's spokesman, requested all week, would have been preferable.
But Ban and his Under Secretary General for Public Information Cristina Gallach should not be able to censor by throwing the Press into the street, New York Times here,audio here.
Likewise Ban's spokesman cannot be allowed to prevent a timely article by simply refusing to even acknowledge questions submitted in writing, especially after he began the week telling Inner City Press (and the Free UN Coalition for Access which asked for in-person briefings) that he would be answering questions all week.
Ban Ki-moon's Spokesman did not answer these questions, nor on September 2 even acknowledge receipt of them. Whatever comes in, belatedly, we will publish.
Update: late on September 2, from UNDP to which Ban's spokesman Dujarric referred questions then refused to answer any, came this - not naming the panel or other candidates, but immediately published in full:
From: Anjali Kwatra [at] undp.org Date: Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:36 PM Subject: RE: Press Qs on Resident Coordinator selection process for SG's son in law in Kenya: who on inter-agency advisory panel, who were the candidates, given nepotism issues raised by lack of recusal, referred by OSSG, thank you in advance, -Matthew To: Matthew.Lee [at] InnerCityPress.com
Dear Matthew,
Siddharth Chatterjee was chosen, in line with established selection process, by the Inter-Agency Advisory Panel of the United Nations. Mr Chatterjee is highly qualified for this role and was previously the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) Representative to Kenya. He has also worked in senior roles with the International Federation of the Red Cross & Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), UN Peace Keeping, UNICEF and UNOPS.
I would need to come back to you on your other questions.
Best, Anjali Kwatra Chief, Media and Advocacy United Nations Development Programme
Wait - was Siddharth Chatterhee ever with UN Peacekeeping? Inner City Press asked: "Thanks for this, but as I asked UN Spox this week, and UNDP earlier today, this is a request, given that the SG signed the letter appointing his son in law Mr. Chatterjee UN Resident Coordinator in Kenya, for the disclosure of
who was on the inter-agency advisory panel
and who the other candidates, at least on the short list, were
also - please state when and in what capacity Mr. Chatterjee was, as you say, in a senior role in UN Peace Keeping."
This gave rise to this curt answer: "All your questions need to be directed to DOCO. "
So Ban's Dujarric referred the questions about Ban's son in law to UNDP, which refers then on to DOCO. When one Googles DOCO, one gets "DOCO The Donut & Coffee Company."
Amid these UN scandals, corruption and nepotism, Ban Ki-moon is now on a two week tour seemingly meant to preview how he could be as South Korean president, visiting Singapore, Myanmar, now Sri Lanka, China and Laos.
For Ban Ki-moon's visit to Sri Lanka, which is seen as one of the (many) major failures of his UN tenure, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric, "On the SG's son in law Siddharth Chatterjee, please describe in activities in Sri Lanka including with the IPKF -- locations, and if available confirmed kills -- including in light of this piece he authored."
Ban Ki-moon's Dujarric replied, six hours later: "It's not for me to comment on a staff member's writings on an activity that preceded employment with the UN."
This seems a strange position for an Organization ostensibly concerned with human rights. Could Shavendra Silva work for the UN? Well, he WAS an adviser to Ban.
In fact, some UN officials are required to sign pledges regarding their human rights records. So on September 2 at noon, Inner City Press asked Dujarric:
"On the Secretary General's son in law Siddharth Chatterjee's activities in Sri Lanka, you have not answered on what he DID, stating only that “It's not for me to comment on a staff members writings on an activity that preceded employment with the UN.”
In this light, please confirm or deny that there is a place a policy under which UN officials including USGs and ASGs (please specify what level the Secretary General's son in law is at, as Resident Coordinator in Kenya) must certify compliance with human rights, and state whether this covers time before UN employment." Inner City Press has also asked Dujarric: "This is a request that your Office confirm or deny that the Secretary General did not specifically mention the UNHRC resolution during his meeting with Sri Lanka President Sirisena, in light of a public report that “The President told us that Ban did not mention the UNHRC resolution even in the 10 minute one-to-one meeting he had with him. In fact Ban expressed satisfaction about the way the Sri Lankan government is handling the issue of reconciliation,” a reliable source in the President’s Office" said.
Five hours later, no answer. This is Ban Ki-moon's UN.
Including in light of the recent non-recusal, we linked to and quote this Sri Lanka piece by Ban's son in law Siddarth Chatterjee:
“The Sri Lankan Army deserves all our respect, gratitude and admiration. These are men who have proved worthy of their calling, and I pray that their fortunes reverse and they are able to inflict on the Tamil Terrorists(not Tigers, as tigers have honour too), a final decisive blow, that puts the LTTE in the dust bin of history. It is a period that calls for strong nerves, single-mindedness (of purpose) and intuitive convictions that success can still be yours after these reverses. They are men of sterling character, and I hope they overcome and demolish the LTTE, this organization of pathological tyrants and killers.”
Among these Sri Lankan Army heroes are several who would be put on trial for war crimes by any legitimate / international investigation, an issue which Ban is skirting. We'll have more on this.
In advance of Ban's latest junket, he or his propaganda team granted selected interviews to prepare the ground -- “interview” conducted in writing, without disclosure of who wrote the answers. Pro-Ban editorials by out of date diplomats were arranged (for example here, see comments). But how can blatant nepotism be explained away?
Inner City Press on August 26 asked Ban's spokesman which of Ban's aides it was who spun the Korea Times on Ban's chances to become South Korea's president in 2017, video here.
Under Ban the UN has become so lawless that Ban's son-in-law Siddharth Chatterjee was just named UN Resident Representative in Kenya without Ban recusing himself. Inner City Press reported and asked about this on August 25. On August 26, Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric confirmed that Ban had not recused himself, had in fact signed the letter giving his own son in law the job, see below.
It was repeatedly reported that Ban would be in Kenya today for the 6th Tokyo International Conference on African Development Summit, TICADIV or TICAD6. Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Dujarric if Ban would go there and was told to wait with bated anticipation. Now Ban is NOT there - right after his promotion of his own son in law there was exposed.
How is this acceptable in an international organization? Or this: Ban's mentor Han Seung-soo is a UN official allowed to be on the boards of directors of Standard Chartered, which has UN banking contracts, and Doosan which makes sales to countries Han gives “UN” speeches to.
On August 25, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric if Ban had recused himself from any role in his son-in-law's promotion, video here.
Inner City Press: Mr. Chatterjee was named the UN representative in Kenya. So I wanted to know, what’s the process for the naming of a resident representative? And given this he’s the son-in-law of the Secretary-General, was there any recusal made? I’m not saying he’s not qualified. I’m not saying he’s not a long-time official. I’m just wondering what is the process…[inaudible]… for someone being named…
Spokesman: The regular process was used. The fact that he is, indeed, the son-in-law of the Secretary-General, I think, does not take away anything from his very strong service over the years…
Inner City Press: I’m asking about the process.
Spokesman: Thank you.
Dujarric's only response is that Chatterjee is qualified. That was not the question. After Inner City Press highlighted this, Ban's spokesman Dujarric returned on August 26 with a "supplemental" statement, which still confirmed that Ban had not recused himself, had in fact signed the approval of his own son in law for the promotion. Video here.From the UN Transcript:
Spokesman Dujarric: I also just wanted to give you a little bit more details on the issue you had raised yesterday with Mr. Chatterjee and expand on what I'd said. Mr. Chatterjee was chosen through the regular process which is basically that the candidates are chosen by an interagency advisory panel which… which does not… and especially in this case… did not involve the Secretary-General. I think he has been fully aware of the situation and has kept well away from the selection process. For RCs, the candidates are chosen and recommended by the interagency panel. The name of the recommended candidate is then given to the Secretary-General to sign off on. He does not involve himself… and as I said, especially in this case… involve himself in the selection… in the selection process. And I would just, again, reiterate Mr. Chatterjee's, I think, very strong qualifications in his career with ICRC and the UN over the years.
Inner City Press: I looked into it, too. It seemed like they sent it to the UNDG Chair and the Secretary-General. That's why I was asking yesterday.
Spokesman: No, I understand. The Secretary-General… the Secretary-General is very aware of the sensitivities of this case and has stayed well away from it. The final signature… because the way this works is the Resident Coordinator represents the UN, and it needs the agreement of the host country. So, the letter of appointment, in a sense, has to be signed by the Secretary-General. But, his name is given to him by the interagency panel.
Nor have the questions about Han Seung-soo, who refuses Ban's supposed call for public financial disclosure, been answered.
Instead, Inner City Press which has asked about each of Chatterjee's promotions though the UN system under Ban (for example to and from UNOPSincluding censorship by the son in law, like Ban) and in the past ten months about Ban's and his head of communications Cristina Gallach's links with the John Ashe / Ng Lap Seng UN bribery scandal, was ousted from the UN in February 2016 (audio here) and had its investigative files evicted onto First Avenue in April (video here). NYT here.
Since then Inner City Press has been BANned from covering UN events on the second floor unless it has a minder which stays with it all the time; sometime Inner City Press is told there are not enough minders, and coverage is entirely prohibited. This is censorship under Ban Ki-moon.
Gallach's DPI is giving Inner City Press' long time shared office to an Egypt state media, Akhbar Al Yom, whose UN representative Sanaa Youssef rarely comes to the UN, and never asks questions - Dujarric refused to confirm this obvious fact, saying he "does not take attendance" -- but who is a former president of the Ban-friendly UN Correspondents Association.
Inner City Press put the question of recusal to Ban's spokesman Dujarric entirely civilly, without (there) calling into question Chatterjee's qualification or history (including in Sri Lanka, to w
