UN Admits Currency Losses in Myanmar, Won't Say How Much Lost or Why It Was Denied

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un13myanmar072408.html

UNITED NATIONS, July 24, updated July 25 -- The UN on Thursday acknowledged serious "exchange losses" to the government of Myanmar's requirement that each dollar of aid be converted into a Foreign Exchange Certificate and only then to local currency, Kyat. Four weeks after Inner City Press first exclusively reported on the issue, and one week after UN Under Secretary General John Holmes told Inner City Press he would look into the issue during this trip this week to Myanmar, Holmes in Yangon said "this is an extraordinary exchange loss, and where that gain goes I'm not sure."

In New York, Inner City Press asked Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Michele Montas to confirm Holmes' quote, and to state just how much money the UN has converted and lost. Ms. Montas replied that "the Under Secretary General acknowledged losses, saying that donors are concerned, because the losses mean that less services can be purchased. She said Holmes has raised the issue to the government, which said it will "find a way to resolve" but that there is "no further information given by the government at this time." Video here, from Minute 14:19.

The Germany press agency DPA, which correctly cited Inner City Press for the story (but incorrectly called it "Inter" City Press), noted that despite the formation by the UN, the Myanmar government and the Association of South-East Asian Nations, ASEAN, of a tri-partite mechanism which most recently put amount needed for post Cyclone Nargis reconstruction at $1 billion, "the exchange problem was not revealed." Worse, the UN's humanitarian coordinator Daniel B. Baker, when asked on-camera by Inner City Press on July 10 if the Un was losing money on currency exchange, said "we buy kyats at the market rate using dollars" and that "the government has not benefited." Video here, from Minute 46:20.

But now that the dollars that the UN has been exchanging for Foreign Exchange Certificates with the Myanmar Foreign Trade Bank are worth 1180 kyats, while the Foreign Exchange Certificates yield only 880, it is clear that the hard currency dollars the Myanmar government is received are worth 25% more than what the UN can buy with the FECs the UN receives in return.

While Holmes said "where that gain goes I'm not sure," it seems clear that the gain goes to the government, through the dollars they receive in exchange for lesser-valued kyat. It is also hard to accept that the UN cannot state how much it has converted in Myanmar in this way since the cyclone. Ms. Montas told Inner City Press to "ask Mr. Holmes on Monday when he will be back" at UN Headquarters.

Footnotes: Inner City Press asked the Ambassadors to the UN of both the U.S. and Vietnam, because they were the two Ambassadors to address the media at the Security Council stakeout on Thursday afternoon, to comment on the UN's currency exchange losses in Myanmar. Le Luong Minh, the Ambassador of Vietnam which is also an ASEAN member, said that only those "on the ground" could answer about this. Video here. He talked over Inner City Press' questions about the on-the-ground UN Development Program, which weeks ago told Inner City Press that

"UNDP Funds are remitted into the UNDP US dollar account at Myanmar Foreign Trade Bank. UNDP Myanmar exchanges US dollars for Foreign Exchange Certificates at the Bank, and then converts these into local currency."

Despite promises of further answers about how much value is lost comparing the kyat value of dollars to the FECs the government gives to UNDP, no further answer has been received from UNDP. Its spokesman went on leave, it's true, but no other UNDP staffer, as was promised, has provided any information. If this is not stonewalling, what is it? In light of John Holmes acknowledgement of losses, UNDP should be required to provide the value of its conversions and how much was lost.

With U.S. Amb. Khalilzad at the stakeout at five o'clock, video here --

Inner City Press: On Myanmar, John Holmes the Humanitarian Coordinator today has acknowledged that the UN in exchanging funds, money, dollars, with the Myanmar government was losing, he called it a serious amount of funds and it turns out to be about 25% in terms of currency exchange that went straight to the government. One, what does the US think about this use of funds and two, is that one of the things that the US government or others would ask the government to waive during a time of humanitarian crisis?

Ambassador Khalilzad: Well we want obviously for the government in any of these circumstances, you've heard us speak about Zimbabwe earlier, to do nothing that depletes the supply of humanitarian assistance whether it is a natural or man made humanitarian crisis. So that will be my generic response. But with regard to your specific reference to what Mr. Holmes has said, I have not seen he has said and I will have get back to you on that.

Five hours earlier at the UN's noon briefing, the following from the transcript --

Inner City Press: Michele, you gave this readout of John Holmes from Myanmar. But he’s given, apparently, an interview there -- the German News Agency DPA quotes John Holmes as acknowledging losses of millions of dollars on foreign exchange to the Myanmar Government and saying this is an "extraordinary loss and where that gain goes, I am not sure." Since it's an interview in another media, that one, to get confirmation that that's what he said, and two, to find out how much, now that he has acknowledged this, how much money since Cyclone Nargis did the UN convert through foreign exchange certificates in Myanmar and how much is all this, acknowledging the loss, worth?

Spokesperson Montas: I don't have the exact number, but the Under Secretary General acknowledged that this is a serious issue. There are losses which are implicit in the gap between the street rate and the official foreign exchange certificate rate. Aid agencies and donors alike are concerned about this issue, because fewer services then can be purchased. The issue was raised by Mr. Holmes at a meeting with the Government. They understood the problem and they will find a way to resolve it, though no further details have been given by the Government at this time. So this is what I have in terms of the foreign exchange rate. As you know, any international agency has to abide by the foreign exchange rules that exist in a specific country.

Inner City Press: I think you were here when Dan Baker was here and they did the flash appeal. At that time they said they were unaware of any losses and that they thought it fluctuated, they would not even be losing anything. So, I am wondering, maybe it’s clearly a question for Mr. Baker, but if this has been going on since the cyclone, how could they either not know or not acknowledge then that they knew? See what I mean?

Spokesperson Montas: Actually, you will get a chance to ask Mr. Holmes when he comes in. He will be in on Monday.

Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un13myanmar072408.html

In Myanmar, UN Loses 25% of Aid in Currency Exchange, Up from 15% Pre-Cyclone

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un11myanmar072208.html

UNITED NATIONS, July 22 -- The UN has directed hundred of millions of dollars into Myanmar since Cyclone Nargis hit, and on July 10 asked for $300 million more. But it has now emerged that the UN has lost some twenty percent of the money it has exchanged in Myanmar, by acquiescing to a government-required exchange of dollars for Foreign Exchange Certificates.

Not only does an internal UN memo reviewed by Inner City Press refer to a "serious loss of 20%" -- now, sources in Yangon describe the applicable exchange rates accepted by the UN between FECs and Kyats as 25% lower than the dollars the UN changes into FECs. Before the cyclone, the loss was 15%. The extra ten percent loss, applied to the millions of dollars exchanged by the UN system, could have helped the cyclone's victims. What will be done remains to be seen. The UN's top humanitarian John Holmes has pledged to get to the bottom of the issue during his current three day trip to Myanmar.

The UN Development Program is central to the UN system's operations, and states that "funds are remitted into the UNDP US dollar account at Myanmar Foreign Trade Bank. UNDP Myanmar exchanges US dollars for Foreign Exchange Certificates (FECs) at the Bank, and then converts these into local currency, Kyat."

But in the second half of July, the exchange rated was a mere 880 Kyats for each Foreign Exchange Certificate, compared to 1180 for each dollar the UN converted one-to-one into a FEC. That's a loss of more than 25%. Before Nargis hit, the Kyat to FEC rate fluctuated between 960 to 980 per FEC, compared to 960 to 980 per dollar, a loss of 15%.

The recent Post-Nargis Joint Assessment Final Report, issued by the UN along with ASEAN and, notably, the Than Shwe government of Myanmar, acknowledges in Box 2 that

"Myanmar has a multiple exchange-rate system. The official exchange rate applies to the transactions undertaken by the government and state-owned enterprises and is used primarily for accounting purposes. Foreign Exchange Certificates (FECs) are also issued by the government, exchangeable at a market-determined rate. A large parallel market also exists that exchanges US dollars with Kyats at a small premium over the rate for FECs. This report utilizes the exchange rate used by the Government of Myanmar in its presentation of damages immediately following Cyclone Nargis at the ASEAN-UN International Pledging Conference in Yangon on 25 May 2008 (K 1,100/USD), which was consistent with the prevailing rate on the parallel market at the time of the assessment.*

* FEC and USD rates are fluctuating at present and should be kept under close review during the initial stages of the relief and recovery program: the upcoming Article IV consultations would be a good opportunity for review."

This is a diplomatic way to refer to the black market, and to dodge the question of how much the UN loses by accepting the requirement to change dollars into FECs on a one-to-one basis. Consider the above quotes, annotated:

Foreign Exchange Certificates (FECs) are also issued by the government, exchangeable at a market-determined rate." - The only rate is the black market rate, which currently is 880 Kyats per FEC. So when they say "market determined" they're referring to the black market, as they are in the sentence that follow -- "A large parallel market also exists that exchanges US dollars with Kyats at a small premium over the rate for FECs."

"This report utilizes the exchange rate used by the Government of Myanmar in its presentation of damages immediately following Cyclone Nargis at the ASEAN-UN International Pledging Conference in Yangon on 25 May 2008 (K 1,100/USD), which was consistent with the prevailing rate on the parallel market at the time of the assessment." - it appears that Myanmar government actually used the "black market" rate for this, that surprises me quite honestly. If you read the State Media here they're always very careful to quote US$ and Ks figures separately so as not to acknowledge the "real" black market value. The claim that the rate was Ks 1,100 on the 25th May is questionable, records show that it was slightly higher at Ks1,1700, with FEC was trading at Ks975 at that time. But all of that raises two questions;

1) If the Myanmar Govt. is using an exchange rate of Ks1,100 to the US$ and it was the "prevailing rate" at that time, why did the UN not get that rate? The answer to that is of course obvious, the Myanmar Government shafted the UN and the UN damned well knows it!

2) Who in Myanmar can change that sort of money? The only people who have that amount of cash here are the Generals and their allies.

Not only the UN's Sir John Holmes is in Myanmar -- the UN Development Program's new regional director for Asia and the Pacific, Ajay Chhibber is there as well. Both should know personally about the exchange rate scam. Also according to a source, if one stays in an "International" hotel like Traders or Sedona -- both used by the UN, with Ban Ki Moon staying at Sedona and a apparently at least one whole floor occupied by the UN at Traders -- one will pay in FEC/US dollars as a foreigner, around US$/FEC 55 per night. If you're a Myanmar citizen you will pay Ks 40,000.

In some cases it's even more extreme, for example a hotel in Mandalay charging US$/FEC 25 per night, with Myanmar nationals paying Ks 6,000 for the same room and service. So did Ban Ki-moon and his entourage notice this while they were in Myanmar?

On Tuesday at UN headquarters, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Michele Montas about the seeming wind-down of parts of the UN's Nargis response:

Inner City Press: it's been said that the UN is going to stop its flights from Thailand and its helicopter flights inside Myanmar on 10 August and various humanitarian groups have questioned the decision and said that it’s going to make it more difficult to deliver aid. What’s the reasoning behind stopping those flights? Is it the problem is over?

Spokesperson Montas: Well, this is because it is being taken over by maritime transportation and other considerations. It really happens quite often in relief operations; that after the emergency phase is over, that they take other means besides transportation by air.

Inner City Press: Maybe the groups just didn't understand?

Spokesperson: No, it’s not going to stop the flow of aid in any way. It’s going to be simply, right now they are getting into the phase of reconstruction.

And what will the exchange rate loss be during that recovery phase? The Post-Nargis Joint Assessment Final Report asks for $1 billion, while stating in Box 2 said the exchange rate should be reviewed also during the recovery phase. Our point here is that the pressure that countries such as France brought to bear, to get their own humanitarian workers into Myanmar, might have been better exercised in getting the Than Shwe government to back off requiring foreign exchange losses to it, at least in the cyclone's wake.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un11myanmar072208.html

Nepal Rift Shows India's Place in the UN, Who Decides the Mission's Mandate and When to Leave

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un2nepal072208.html

UNITED NATIONS, July 22 -- The UN Security Council canceled its meeting on Nepal on Tuesday morning. There's a dispute, it has emerged, about whether the mandate of the UN mission there will remain the same as before -- as proposed by, among others, the UK and UN envoy Ian Martin, sources say -- or whether it will be more limited, as the now-Maoist government of Nepal, and India, favor.

This dispute surfaced last week, when India's Ambassador Sen criticized Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for ask Nepal to clarify what it wants from the UN. Click here for Inner City Press' story. Further inquiry finds that India has sought various posts from Ban's UN -- as simply one example, the top post at UNIFEM -- and has been denied. In the UNIFEM case, the post went to Spain because of its larger financial contributions. But in other cases, India has been told that since Vijay Nambiar is already Ban's chief of staff, they are already represented. There is also reference to the chief of staff post within the UN Mission in Iraq.

Close observers of the UN note that Germany, for example, even while pining for a permanent post of the Security Council, is given interim access, as part of the EU 3 on Iran, and on Georgia as head of the Group of Friends. So what powers is India, with its over one billion people, given? Is it too much to ask that they get their way -- or Nepal's way, as they put it -- on the pending resolution?

One view has it that Nepal is one of the UN's success stories, but that for some reason the UN is fouling it up at the end. If the host country which invited the UN in wants to scale down the mandate, why not go along? Ian Martin is said to want offer UN expertise on constitutions and related matters. But if the host country says scale back, scale back. Perhaps it is time, some say, for Ian Martin's next job. Since Ms. Pillay still has not been named, and since Martin was previously with Amnesty International, some joke that would be the solution. Or that the Thailand - Cambodia tension needs, at least for now, a skilled and patient mediator. You just have to know when to leave...

Footnote: Inner City Press asked Lynn Pascoe, Under Secretary General for Political Affairs, if the UN Secretariat will get involved on Cambodia - Thailand and their UNESCO World Heritage temple dispute. If there is space for us, he said. Two letters are pending before the Security Council -- a migraine about the temple, as one way (this one) put it. There is a regional aversion to ceding jurisdiction to the Council. And, in its way, the resistance to granting Nepal's scale-down request is one of the reasons.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un2nepal072208.html

Gambari Says He Has Quit Niger Delta Post For Lack of Time, Gordon Brown's Comments May "Create Problems"

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un1gambari072108.html

UNITED NATIONS, July 21, updated July 22 -- Ibrahim Gambari, the UN Under Secretary General dealing with both Myanmar and Iraq, took a leave of absence to also deal with the Niger Delta conflict in his native Nigeria. On July 10, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesperson Michele Montas to confirm that Gambari had quit the Niger Delta position. Ms. Montas responded that Gambari's "role in the Niger Delta peace talks is a role that he's undertaking on his own." Inner City Press asked if Gambari would tell the UN if he quit the role -- yes, Ms. Montas said -- and if he had by July 10 so informed the UN. "Not that I know of," Ms. Montas replied. Transcript here.

On July 21, Gambari told Inner City Press, "I've decided to step down at chairman of the steering group of the National Summit," because it takes "too much time. Ban Ki-moon agreed only as long as it did not negative affect my work here. Of course, as a Nigerian I'm available to help in any way I can. But full time, I can't do it."

Other reasons for Gambari's stepping-down have been set forth. But this is what Gambari approached Inner City Press to say, and we report it here. Inner City Press asked if anyone would replace Gambari. "The sad thing is, no one wants it," Gambari said.

Inner City Press joked that Gordon Brown apparently wants to get involved, referring to Brown's statement that the UK would back up Nigeria's government militarily in the Delta. "That's going to create problems," Gambari said.

The counter-position, expressed to Inner City Press since this piece was first published, is that Brown's comments were misconstrued as an open-ended offer to back the government in, or against, the Niger Delta. We'll see.

Inner City Press also asked Gambari about the UN's loss of value when it converts to the local currency, Kyat, through Foreign Exchange Certificates, as required and valuated by the government of Than Shwe. We will have more on that issue, as the UN's John Holmes as committed to looking into it during his current visit to Myanmar.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un1gambari072108.html

ICC's Ocampo's Cape Town Times As Darfur Was Sent His Way Is Shown by Rejected Complaint

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/icc1ocampo071808.html

UNITED NATIONS, July 18, updated July 21 -- As the UN Security Council voted in the Spring of 2005 to refer the situation in Darfur to International Criminal Court prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo, he was in Cape Town, South Africa telling a female journalist she had to come to his hotel room and have sex with him in order to get her car keys back, according to a rejected complaint filed by then-close Ocampo aide Christian Palme. Mr. Palme attached to his complaint transcripts of recordings surreptitiously made by him and, he claims, Ocampo's then-spokesman Yves Sorokobi, who is now with the Office of the Spokesperson for United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in New York.

At a July 17 press conference at UN Headquarters, Ocampo was asked about the complaint, and a July 9 International Labor Organization ruling award back pay and "moral damages" to Palme, for the way he was fired. Ocampo called it a "human resources" matter and Sorokobi, who was moderating the press conference, told the questioner to desist and called on the next media organization in line, Inner City Press.

Normally, a rejected complaint would not appear on this site. But Palme's complaint, and its twelve annexes, paint a picture of Ocampo and his tenure at the ICC that is at odds with the public picture, including in films Ocampo devotes time to appearing in. Inner City Press exclusively obtained the complaint on July 18, and asked Sorokobi to respond to it. Sorokobi emphasizes that he did not collaborate with Palme. That is borne out by the complaint, which states in Paragraph 6 and 9 that

"neither Yves Sorokobi nor [NAME] have assisted me in writing this complaint... Yves Sorokobi, now an associate spokesman of the UN Secretariat in New York, fears that his personal career would be damaged by a complaint against Moreno-Ocampo... it was only with the two meetings with Yves Sorokobi on 30 November 2005 and on hearing the recording of Sorokobi's conversation with [NAME] on 30 March 2005 that I became aware of the full extent of the incident on 28 March 2005."

On that day, while the Security Council debated a resolution to refer to Ocampo the situation in Darfur for investigation, Ocampo himself was in Cape Town, South Africa.

In summary as the complaint relates events, Ocampo following an interview with a female reporter from a South African newspaper took the woman's

"car keys and proceed[ed] to go to his hotel suite... He refuses to return the keys unless she consents to have sexual intercourse with him. In order to have her car keys returned to her, [NAME] consents to have sexual intercourse with Moreno-Ocampo... [NAME] leave the hotel suite and immediately calls Sorokobi.. She says 'something horrible happened.'"

Attached to the complaint as Annex 3 is an email Sorokobi purportedly sent to Palme on March 29, 2005, that recounts "some disturbing (LMO behavior) stuff from [redacted] the [redacted] reporter who interviewed him yesterday. Darryl has been quite busy with lines on the possible Darfur referral."

Contemporaneous notes taken and submitted by Palme recounts "working on the press release and the Q&A, as usual without any support from Luis. We are almost done with the Q&A, but Luis refuses to approve it even for circulation within the OTP. It seems he is trying to pretend as if nothing is going on and he doesn't understand that when the decision comes we will have numerous calls with questions from media and NGOs."

While readers will make their own assessment of the credibility of different parts of the complaint, which Inner City Press is putting online here, let us assume that Palme was "gunning for" Ocampo well before the Cape Town incident. Let us assume resentment; let us assume, as Palme's detractors assert, mental issues. Let us note that Palme used Yves Sorokobi in the complaint without Sorokobi's consent, and that as Ocampo's then-spokesman, looking into claims against Ocampo would have been one of Sorokobi's jobs. It seems incontroverted that he took the woman's car keys and thus made her come to his hotel room, and that his then-spokesman tape recorded the woman, at best with an eye toward defending his boss from possible rape charges. Is this the behavior people expect and that State Parties think they are getting from the ICC prosecutor? To be continued.

For now, click here to view the "whistleblower" decision, which Inner City Press obtained and is putting online.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/icc1ocampo071808.html

As India Criticizes UN's Ban on Nepal, Will He Counter-Attack as on Zimbabwe?

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un1nepal071808.html

UNITED NATIONS, July 18 -- Nepal has been one of the UN's recent success stories, if seen in context, at least for now. But even on this, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has managed to get publicly criticized. Nepal recently requested a six-month extension of the UN Mission in Nepal, UNMIN. Ban responded with a report asking for more clarification from Nepal, and stating that "should this matter remain unresolved by the time the Council considers the present report, I would recommend a one-month extension."

In the July 18 Security Council session about Nepal, the Ambassador of India Nirupam Sen said "it is difficult to accept parts of the Secretary-General's latest report... It seems inappropriate for [Ban] to advise this Council to extend the mandate for one month unless Nepal's request is 'clarified.' In other words, unless Nepal's request is in line with what UNMIN want it to say, the request is not good enough."

Minutes later at the UN's regular noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban's Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe to respond to India's critique. She noted that Ban's Special Representative Ian Martin had, in his comments that morning to the Council, recommended at six-month rather than one-month extension. But Martin's statement was made before the Indian Ambassador spoke; India went forward and criticized Ban anyway, criticized him for even asking for the clarification.

One week ago, when Zimbabwe's Ambassador said that "the Secretariat" could not be viewed as impartial, because the UN Department of Political Affairs' reports on Zimbabwe only criticized the government and never the opposition, Ban's Spokesperson responded with a statement on Saturday expressing "deep concern" at the "highly inappropriate" comments of the Zimbabwean Ambassador. This stood in contrast to this Spokesperson's declining to criticize or respond to comments by Russia's Ambassador, about law-breaking in connection with Ban's reconfiguration of the UN Mission in Kosovo. The theory was that since Russia is a Permanent Five member of the Security Council, and could veto any second term by Ban, his office did not express concern when criticized by Russia. On July 15, Inner City Press asked Deputy Spokesperson Okabe

Inner City Press: Over the weekend, your Office put out a statement calling a statement by the Zimbabwe Ambassador highly inappropriate and unacceptable, for having said that, in his opinion, DPA reports were one-sided. How are his comments different from ones like those of Russian Ambassador Churkin, who said the Secretariat was breaking the law with EULEX, and then I was told it was just his right to have that opinion? What’s the basis for calling an Ambassador’s commentary highly inappropriate?

Deputy Spokesperson Okabe: It's evident that the Secretary-General felt strongly about the Ambassador's remarks, because, as you know, the Secretary-General has been discussing the situation in Zimbabwe and how to bring a resolution to that situation with parties in the region. He's been talking with SADC, with his partners, all regional parties and this is an area where he’s been working very closely. And, as you know, he had dispatched an envoy to the region and I think that he did not find such comments helpful to the efforts that he was exerting.

Inner City Press: I think that's something people don't understand, like on Kosovo. He's making a lot of efforts, but he’s been subject to criticism. So what's the difference? Is it that Russia’s one of the P-5?

Deputy Spokesperson Okabe: I'm not going to engage in comparing the situations. That's the way he felt about this situation and I gave you the reason why.

But did Ban change his proposal from one month to six months entirely because he was satisfied with Nepal's clarification? Or because India, a country certainly larger than Zimbabwe and that wants a permanent seat on the Security Council, let it be known, even before Friday morning's meeting, of its dissatisfaction with him even asking for clarification?

Why did India go forward with its public critique even after Ian Martin announced Ban's new position? Since the critique is that by demanding the clarification, Ban made Nepal say what he wanted to hear, recommending a six month extension after receiving the requested clarification does not answer the critique. After making his statement, Ambassador Sen said he will only offer further explanation after the Security Council votes on the Nepal mission extension, currently slated for Tuesday, July 22. Ian Martin will speak at that time, as well, hopefully to offer an update on the deadly UNMIN helicopter crash among other topics.

It's worth noting that the same Department of Political Affairs which Zimbabwe's Ambassador criticized oversees Martin's UNMIN mission, and is in this cas being criticized by India.

For now, given Ban's response a week ago to Zimbabwe's criticism, will his Office respond to India's similar critique?

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un1nepal071808.html

UN Mulls Reducing Press Space and Raising Costs, Reducing Access

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/dm1press071708.html

UNITED NATIONS, July 17 -- As the scheduled emptying and multi-year fix-up of the UN headquarters building draws closer, top officials in the UN's Department of Management are actively brainstorming on how to make the UN less attractive to the press. Previously, reporters based at the UN had been told they would be relocated to comparable offices in what is now the UN's library, and would then return to similar space where they are now, on the third and fourth floors of the UN.

But in a July 15 memo, "Principal Officer" Lena Dissin says that "Angela" Kane, the new Under Secretary General for Management, "has asked us to quickly get some benchmarks from other organizations to see what facilities if any they may make available to the press," and on what basis. Inner City Press is informed by multiple sources that consideration is being given not only to less space for journalists, but also charging enough money for it to drive some of the press out. Reporters at the UN have been shown blueprints of planned new offices, and have been briefed about the comparable "swing" space in the library.

At the UN's noon briefing on July 17, Inner City Press asked Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe

Inner City Press: One more thing, an in-house kind of thing. We're told there's a move afoot by the Department of Management, both Ms. [Angela] Kane and Lena Dissin, to look at comparable space to see how other institutions provide space for the press. The press here have been told that things will stay the same after the Capital Master Plan but there's now a letter in which the Department of Management is seeking to see whether other places provide space at all. Can you ask the Department of Management to state whether there's any change in policy?

Deputy Spokesperson Okabe: Sure, but as you know, the United Nations Correspondents Association (UNCA), I think, has been in close contact with the Capital Master Plan people on the planning. So I think you are directly involved as an officer.

Inner City Press: That's why this letter was so surprising.

Deputy Spokesperson: And you also have a functional role that you can take this up outside this briefing.

Inner City Press: Okay, but since Ms. Kane has been the head of the department for a while, maybe she can give us a briefing..

Deputy Spokesperson Okabe: That's a good idea. I'll ask her.

Later in the day, the Spokesperson's office told Inner City Press that "the Secretariat is looking at all space issues, and that it is always interesting to see how other organizations handle these issues." What's not said is that the inquiry involves reducing the number of spaces for journalists, and raising costs to drive some out.

About the Capital Master Plan more generally, at a town hall meeting on July 16, Ms. Kane called this a "historic" moment. Trying to limit press access would certainly lead to stories. CMP head Michael Adlerstein, when asked about contractor Skanska having triggered methane gas by its drilling by the UN's foundation, as exclusively reported by Inner City Press, responded that he knows about all pipes under the UN. But why then did he call the Con Edison utility when the methane smell arose? Questions, questions. As noted, it's time for a briefing by Management honcho Kane.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/dm1press071708.html

ICC's Ocampo Defends His Africa-Only Focus, His Strategy In Question

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/icc1africa071708.html

UNITED NATIONS, July 17 -- International Criminal Court prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo told the Press on Thursday, "Because I respect African leaders, I invite them to refer to me the case, and they did it." While dodging questions about his request for an arrest warrant against Sudan's president Omar Al-Bashir, Ocampo responded to Inner City Press' question about why all of his prosecutions so far have been in Africa, and not for example in Colombia, Myanmar or North Korea. He responded that he visited Colombia last November, and will again "next month," to monitor national proceedings. Those proceedings have offered a form of immunity to government-backed paramilitary forces, but apparently Ocampo is satisfied with that. Perhaps, then, Sudan should have put its two indictees Ahmad Harun and Ali Kushayb on trial, then offered then a slap on the wrist. Behind the scenes, Ocampo has been telling Ambassadors of Permanent Five members of the Security Council, and some of these have off the record been telling the press, that if Al-Bashir now turns over the two indictees, the prosecution against him might go away or be put on hold. Ocampo's prosecutorial strategy -- reversing the normal approach of trying to turn underlings against their boss -- and his performance are both subject to question. But on Thursday few answers were provided.

Inner City Press asked Ocampo about both the Thomas Lubanga case, which has been suspended due to his office's failure to show its evidence to the defense lawyers, and about the unacted-on arrest warrant against Joseph Kony of Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army. Video here, from Minute 25:52. On Lubanga, Ocampo said "the problem was how to disclose some documents." First, providing discovery material to the defense is a basic principle of fair prosecution. Second, Inner City Press is told by sources inside the UN Secretariat and its Congo peacekeeping mission, MONUC, that they never expected Ocampo to base his prosecution on the hearsay material they provided him, but he did. Now that material must be disclosed, and they are unhappy. Neither they nor the Western members of the Permanent Five, however, will criticize Ocampo in public. That would be politically incorrect.

Ocampo, however, drapes himself in the role of the last of the just, an objective man, a slave to justice. Asked why all his prosecutions have been in Africa, he said, "I cannot respect geographical balance, I cannot respect gender balance." Video here, from Minute 25:52. But how can it be that a court set up to try genocide and child soldier recruitment, among other high crimes, is focused only on Africa? Ocampo, and later in his defense the foreign minister of Costa Rica Bruno Stagno Ugarte, claim this is because the presidents of Uganda and Democratic Republic of Congo have referred cases to Ocampo. First, Ocampo admitted that he invited them to make specific referrals, to make a showing of his respect for African leaders. Second, this has created a conflict of interest or bias, in which he has not for example investigated or at least prosecuted crimes of the Ugandan army, only the LRA. Ocampo never answered the question about Joseph Kony, who meets opening with UN officials like Joachim Chissano. Perhaps there was not enough media interest to keep Ocampo focused on the LRA case, or actually succeeding in the case of Lubanga.

In Kinshasa last month, Security Council Ambassadors emphasized to Inner City Press that Congolese president Joseph Kabila had praised them and the ICC for the prospection of Lubanga and especially Jean-Pierre Bemba. But Bemba was Kabila's main opponent in the last elections. Even in Congo, the ICC is arguably being used politically. These questions should be answered and not dodged.

Footnote: Inner City Press asked Ruth Wijdenbosch, President of the Foreign Affairs and National Defense Committee of Suriname, which just joined the ICC, about reports that the U.S. in 2007 had sought anti-ICC "non-surrender" agreements from Suriname. Video here, at end. She acknowledged the U.S. attempts and said they have stopped -- not as some argue because the U.S. agrees, or agreed, with Ocampo's Darfur prosecutions, but because by arrogantly demanding the agreements the U.S. was "losing friends" in Latin America, presumably to Hugo Chavez. So Hugo Chavez, under this theory, has helped the ICC.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/icc1africa071708.html

In Darfur, Lockheed is Late and Poor Performer, UN Admits of No-Bid Contract

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un4lockheed071608.html

UNITED NATIONS, July 16 -- Lockheed Martin in Darfur is "far behind schedule and has not performed as expected," the UN's Ban Ki-moon admitted in a report released this week. This comes eight months after Ban awarded Lockheed's PAE subsidiary a no-bid $250 million contract to build peacekeeper bases for the hybrid UN African Union Mission in Darfur, known as UNAMID. Faced with questions about why competition rules were waived and the aura of corruption, Ban insisted to Inner City Press that PAE was the only company that could do the job, as did the United States' special envoy for Sudan, Richard Williamson. Now Ban's July 7 report, released to the public this week, states

"37. A major support issue that will have a significantly negative impact on UNAMID deployment relates to the commercial contractor which is constructing accommodations and other critical infrastructure for the Operation. The contractor is far behind schedule and has not performed as expected. In order for it to meet its obligations and complete critical preparations for deployment, a major acceleration of its work will be required. Otherwise, there will be serious negative consequences for our deployment efforts, including a reduction in the Operation's capacity to absorb new military and police units, as well as civilian staff."

Lockheed's "poor performance" in "constructing accommodations" was noted in another recent review of conditions for those deployed along with UNAMID. Inner City Press' visit to UNAMID's El Fasher base last month found rows of trailers, Internet barely working, complaints everywhere.

PAE's failure to deliver value for the money the UN has paid it could have been and was predicted. PAE previously overcharged the UN for airfield services in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and for breakfasts in Darfur, click here for that.

Both UN Peacekeeping and its Procurement Division, as well as Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, have been under fire since October 2007, when the no-bid contact with Lockheed was announced. At first, the UN Spokesperson said that Lockheed had been selected through a competitive process, then retracted the claim. It was said that the contract would be made public, but that has still not taken place.

Inner City Press obtained and published letters from Jane Holl Lute, whose husband is U.S. President George W. Bush's war czar for Iraq and Afghanistan, pushing for Lockheed to be given a no-bid contract each before the Security Council approved the Darfur mission in July 2007. Further back, there were inquiries about the contract from Condoleezza Rice, click here for that. These revelations were cited in the General Assembly's budget committee in December when it called for greater use of local vendors and formally demanded an investigation of the Lockheed contract, which the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services has still not completed. The report of poor performance on the no-bid contract sure can't help.

Footnote: On another Darfur issue, the suspension of deployment of peacekeepers, Inner City Press asked the UN Spokesperson's Office on July 11 and July 15 to confirm what Australian defense minister Joel Fitzgibbon told Inner City Press and a few other reporters on July 11, that nine military officers would not be going to Darfur, pursuant to UN policy. On July 11, associate spokesperson Farhan Haq told Inner City Press he would prefer not to answer, since the head of Peacekeeping Jean-Marie Guehenno who be takin questions at the stakeout. But Guehenno's appearance was subsequently cancelled, as Inner City Press reported.

On July 15, Inner City Press asked deputy spokesperson Marie Okabe to confirm the suspension of deployment. "If DPKO is listening, they should answer you," she said. Apparently they weren't listening. Inner City Press re-asked, but hours later was told to keep on waiting. Now another reporter who interviewed Fitzgibbon has reported it. And on July 16, again Guehenno's press availability was cancelled, for another farewell lunch. It's said he will take questions before he leaves and Alain Le Roy arrives. We'll be here.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un4lockheed071608.html

Myanmar Exchange Rate Is "Difficult," UN's Holmes Will Review in Yangon, Council July 24

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un10myanmar071608.html

UNITED NATIONS, July 16 -- In Myanmar in the wake of Cyclone Nargis, the UN system had "serious losses of 20%" exchanging currency with the military government, as well as making inflated purchases from state-owned petroleum enterprises, record seen by Inner City Press show. A week after asking head UN humanitarian John Holmes to describe how currency is converted in Myanmar, on Wednesday he said he will be in Yangon next week and will check on the issue.

Holmes re-launched a Consolidated Appeal for funding on Wednesday, alongside Rudy Von Bernuth of the International Save the Children Alliance, who said that Save the Children following Nargis has received $29 million from the UN for its Myanmar work. Afterwards, Inner City Press asked Von Bernuth how and at what rate Save the Children exchanges money in Myanmar. "You have to ask our London office," he answered. We have, but the answer is strange, from International Save the Children Alliance just after a statement at the UN about receiving $29 million from the UN.

Another humanitarian who passed through the UN on Wednesday was Eric Laroche, now at the World Health Organization, previously humanitarian coordinator in Somalia, and further back with UNICEF in Myanmar. While he has committed now to explain how WHO exchanges money in Myanmar, when Inner City Press asked if he thinks it legitimate to accept a low exchange rate from a government in order to have access, he stayed silent for a full eight seconds before saying, "It's a very difficult question, and a more difficult answer. It has to do with principles." Video here, from Minute 51:46. He said that when he was in the country with UNICEF, auditors were told about the exchange rate arrangements with the government.

Pending Sir John Holmes' report-back from Myanmar, it can also be reported that internal UN documents show that much of the rice purchases by the UN after the cyclone was bought from Myanmar itself. Later a shift was made to imports, attributable to "government image and not availability" of rice, according to the records.

Footnote: This month's Vietnamese president of the Security Council stated on Wednesday that an agreement has been reached for the Council to have a briefing on Myanmar before the end of the month. Inner City Press is told it will be on July 24...

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un10myanmar071608.html

As UN Charges Indian Peacekeeper of Consorting With Congo Rebels, Discipline Is Questioned

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un1bosco071608.html

UNITED NATIONS, July 16, updated July 17 -- In the eastern Congo, a UN peacekeeper from India has been caught on tape praising and bonding with rebel fighters led by Tutsi general Laurent Nkunda and Jean Bosco Ntaganda, charged for war crimes by the International Criminal Court. The peacekeeper, identified as Colonel Chand Saroha, was told by Nkunda, "You have helped us a great deal." He in turn gushed, "Officially we are not allowed to meet you. But your good conduct... made us feel we were associated with proud people. We are like brothers."

When faced with evidence that other peacekeepers, also from India, had given weapons to Congolese rebels in exchange for gold, the UN denied and, according to the UN auditor initially on the case, whitewashed the evidence. But since the taped talk with Nkunda is harder to controvert, the UN Mission in the Congo has briefed the government in Kinshasa. MONUC Spokesman Kemal Saiki, slated to shift to perhaps an even more difficult job in Darfur, stated "We have launched an investigation. If confirmed ... this would be personal conduct unbecoming a peacekeeper and is a dereliction of duty."

In the other cases of peacekeeper misconduct, all the UN has done is turn over its evidence to the troop contributing country and hope. In many cases, no discipline has been administered. In this case, the UN or Mr. Saiki seem to be implying that the UN has more power, to declare an act unbecoming and a dereliction of duty, a term of arm associated with courts martial.

On July 15 at UN Headquarters, Inner City Press asked Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Marie Okabe

Inner City Press: In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, there's a story of this Indian colonel who met with the rebel leader General Nkunda, and he was videotaped saying I support you, you're my brother. It seems that the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) has been quoted as saying that, if this is true, it would be personal conduct unbecoming a peacekeeper and a dereliction of duty. Does that mean that MONUC itself would remove the peacekeeper or would all they would do be to turn over this tape to the Indian Government?

Deputy Spokesperson Okabe: I’m not familiar with the report you're referring to, so I'll have to look into it after the briefing.

Video here, from Minute 15:49. Some hours later, Inner City Press was told that

"It is a clear violation of the UN's principle of impartiality. The mission contacted the national authorities to reassure them that the remarks made by the peacekeeper in no way represent an official posture. MONUC has asked OIOS to open and investigation and if the facts are proven, the peacekeeper will be sanctioned in accordance with established procedure."

But what is the "established procedure"? Even in the upheld case of peacekeepers from India illegally trading in gold in the Congo, all the UN did was refer the charges to the Indian government, and all they did was issue a warning, no discipline. So what will happen in this case?

Footnote: UNESCO is often seen of the lighter side of the UN, its liberal arts, issue statements about freedom of the press and putting monuments on the list of World Heritage Sites. UNESCO is not supposed to encourage or cause conflict between states. But UNESCO's recent approval of an application by Cambodia alone to grant the World Heritage designation to a temple on the border Cambodia shares with Thailand has caused friction. Thais note that their territory is most often crossed in order to reach the temple; Thailand has reportedly sent hundreds of troops in to Cambodia.

On Wednesday Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's Deputy Spokesperson to confirm the incursion, and why UNESCO didn't require a joint application or otherwise try to avoid foreseeable conflict. "We'll have to ask UNESCO," the spokesperson said. But twelve hours later, there is no response at all. For now we note that UNESCO blithely listed the Preah Vihear Temple at the top of their July 8 press release announcing "new cultural sites inscribed... on UNESCO's World Heritage List."

Update: 23 hours after the question was asked, this from UNESCO --

"UNESCO is not the body that took the decision to inscribe the Preah Vihear site on the World Heritage List. The decision was taken by the World Heritage Committee, an intergovernmental body composed of twenty one members representing as many countries, elected by the General Assembly of all the States that have ratified the World Heritage Convention. UNESCO, and its World Heritage Centre, only serves as the Secretariat to this Committee. The role of the World Heritage Centre during the nomination process has been to try and assist the Cambodian authorities in the technical aspects -- limited to the scientific, archeological, management, and protection issues -- of their nomination proposal."

And, "the U.N. does not monitor the border between these two countries." What was that the UN Secretariat was talking and asking for money for, "preventive diplomacy"?

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un1bosco071608.html

At UN, Indictment of Bashir Denounced by S. Africa, France Says "It's Not Too Late"

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/icc1bashir071608.html

UNITED NATIONS, July 16 -- The indictment of Sudan's president for genocide dominated discussion outside the Security Council Wednesday morning, when the peacekeeping mission in Darfur, UNAMID, was on the agenda. South Africa's Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo said "we're concerned by the indictment," especially while "rebels run free without measures against them."

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's own report on UNAMID notes "child soldiers among the Justice and Equality Movement combatants in Omdurman" and claimed that "my office is pressing for the release of the children detained by the Government." The children have been held for more than two months, and it is UNICEF, if anyone, which is trying to get them released. In response to Inner City Press' last request, UNICEF provided an update about volleyballs for the child soldiers.

Ambassador Kumalo was asked, "What about Article sixteen" of the International Criminal Court's Rome Statute, which provides that the Council can by vote request a one year suspension of ICC proceedings. "I'm not that educated," Kumalo joked. He pointed to Sudan's Ambassador, who had emerged from the Security Council, and suggested that he be asked the question.

"Article sixteen itself is not enough," he said. He spoke cryptically about stopping the ICC proceeding, which he said has made Omar Al-Bashir more popular in Sudan, "by the Rome Stature or out of the books." How else could it be stopped? He said he had just finished discussions with China's Ambassador Wang, who on July 11 told Inner City Press that the move by ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo to indict Al-Bashir is not helpful.

But any resolution to suspend ICC proceeding would require the vote, or at least abstention, of the U.S., France and UK. While on July 15 U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad declined to comment on the issue, French Ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert said of Al-Bashir, "it is not too late" to cooperate with the ICC, by turning over previous indictees Ali Kushayb and Ahmad Harun. Ocampo's charges against Bashir are not limited to non-cooperation. Is the implicit offer to suspend substantive charges of war crimes in exchange for turning in two underlings? This would turn prosecutorial strategy on its head. The assumption was that Ocampo indicted Harun to see if he would flip on Bashir. Is Bashir now being offered a suspension of proceedings against him if he'll only turn in Harun?

And see, www.innercitypress.com/icc1bashir071608.html

"Johnny Mad Dog" Triggers Child Soldier Debate, Treatment of Africa in Question

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/film1jmd071508.html

UNITED NATIONS, July 15 -- A gang of child soldiers, one dressed in butterfly wings and another carrying a stolen pig on his back, approach a pair of blue helmeted UN peacekeepers and threaten to shoot them, in a scene from Jean-Stephane Sauvaire's film "Johnny Mad Dog." Set and filmed in Liberia, where the UN still maintains a shrinking peacekeeping mission, the movie was screened at the UN before a standing room only crowd on July 15. Sauvaire explained how he spent a full year in Monrovia choosing his cast, and another year living with them while they shot the movie. The UN, he said, helped with the production. But the UN's appearance in the film, outgunned peacekeepers guarding a hospital while civilians are slaughtered all around them, is hardly flattering.

In an early scene, a young boy is recruited by making him shoot his father. Chicken blood is smeared on him. Later he walked through a fire fight carrying only a toy wooden gun, and gets shot. An obscene funeral dirge is sung for him in the dripping lobby of a bombed out Monrovia building. A mourner stares out at the undulating Atlantic -- in today's Liberia, there are attempt to draw surfers to these waves.

The child soldiers help overthrow the president, then mistake a recorded speech of Martin Luther King as being by the president they think they have installed. They are unceremoniously demobilized without getting paid, offered only jobs beating back refugees who surge forward desperately for bags of rice. The details come from the underlying novel, by Emmanuel Dongola, who has attended and gracefully hawked books at the UN screening.

The head of the UN's Children and Armed Conflict Office, Radhika Coomaraswamy, moderated the event, fielding questions ranging from France's colonial history throughout Africa to how the film will be distributed. The latter was easier to address: it will be screened in two weeks in Australia, then in Los Angeles, then Paris. The representative of the French mission to the UN who answered, Ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert having left just as the film began, did not address colonialism, but rather his government's work on small arms and in creating Ms. Coomaraswamy's office.

Inner City Press followed up on the Africa question, specifically asking Coomaraswamy as well as the International Justice representative of the Open Society Institute, listed as the sponsor of the screening, about why all child soldier recruitment cases, and all of the International Criminal Court's cases so far, have been in Africa. Ms. Coomaraswamy, for example, has named Myanmar as a major governmental recruiter of child soldiers. Apparently answering for both, she noted that most countries in Asia are not members of the ICC. But as is prominently in the news these days, neither has Sudan joined the ICC. Prosecutions there are based on Security Council referrals. So the Council could make referrals on child soldiers and other cases outside of Africa, but hasn't.

Emmanuel Jal, hip hop musician from South Sudan who showed a trailer for his own child soldiering film featuring an endorsement by Andrew Natsios, praised Johnny Mad Dog as you-are-there realism. Charles Rapp, the prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, said there is growing interest in pursuing the suppliers of small arms to such conflicts. The Ambassador of Sierra Leone recounted recent UK and U.S. intelligence about a plane flying into Freetown, without permission, full of guns and drugs. The Ambassador of Liberia called small arms "the real weapons of mass destruction," given how many people they have killed.

A disturbing subject like child soldiers lends itself to shocking treatment, as Sauvaire gives it, and do the Patrick Robert war photographs that accompany the credits. There were some in the UN auditorium uncomfortable with a sensational presentation of Africans killing Africans. But perhaps situations such as that in Myanmar are not as easy to present, because governmental control is so great that child soldiers and the killing of civilians can't easily by filmed. One thinks, not a sarcastically as might be expected, of Sylvester Stallone's most recent Rocky film, set in Myanmar, but filmed in Thailand. The government in Bangkok, however, would probably not approve such a film meant to expose Laos. Most of Africa, it's clear, can be filmed with or without its consent. In this case, it's worth it.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/film1jmd071508.html

UN's Ban Slams Zim on Bias, But Lets Slide Russia's Kosovo Critique and N. Korea's Lack of Voting and Human Rights

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/ban1zim071308.html

UNITED NATIONS, July 13 -- Minutes after the UN Security Council's draft resolution to impose sanctions on the Robert Mugabe government failed on July 11, subject to a rare double veto by both Russia and China, Zimbabwe's Ambassador to the UN Boniface Chidyausiku told the Press that the office of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has shown it cannot "be an impartial arbiter of the situation in Zimbabwe." Inner City Press asked him why the resolution's proponents had insisted on calling a vote, even once they knew that there would be not only an abstention by Indonesia and five votes against, from South Africa, Viet Nam, Libya and Russia and China with their vetoes. It was "the arrogance of the Americans," Chidyausiku said. Video here, from Minute 2:37.

On the evening of Saturday, July 12, the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General, Michele Montas, issued a statement that "we strongly regret the highly inappropriate and unacceptable comments by the Permanent Representative of Zimbabwe questioning the Secretary-General's impartiality toward events in Zimbabwe." The response was at odds with the usual position, that the Secretary-General defers to and does not comment on the Security Council or member states.

On July 9, about other Council member comments critical of Ban Ki-moon, Inner City Press asked Ms. Montas

Inner City Press: Yesterday at the stakeout, Russian Ambassador Churkin said the Secretary-General had overstepped his bounds in the reconfiguration in Kosovo, and he specifically took issue with this idea that the EULEX force would not be reporting either to UNMIK or to the UN in New York. Is there any response to what Churkin said?

Spokesperson Montas: This is the position, of course, of the Russian Ambassador and he expressed his opinion and that's all I can say.

But when Zimbabwe's Ambassador similarly questioned the Secretariat's actions, this same Spokesperson did not let it go as one Ambassador's opinion and "that's all I can say." Rather, the Zimbabwean's comments were strongly criticized as "highly inappropriate and unacceptable."

The question arises: what's the difference?

Is it, as some close observers opine, that while the U.S. and to a lesser extent UK / European Union shape Ban Ki-moon's policies both on Zimbabwe and Kosovo, it was considered to have less political cost to lash back at Zimbabwe than at Russia? Is it that Russia is a Permanent Five member of the Security Council, with veto power not only over resolutions but over a possible second term for Ban Ki-moon?

Until the vetoes were cast, South Africa's Mbeki was viewed as Mugabe's main supporter, and the U.S. has signalled that with Jacob Zuma waiting in the wings, critique of Mbeki, and in this case of Zimbabwe, can be ratcheted up.

Others contrast Ban Ki-moon's approach to Zimbabwe with, for example, his approach to North Korea, another government which widely violates human rights, and which doesn't even purport to have elections. In the past week, Inner City Press conducted an informal but wide-spread poll in the UN, whether people would rather live in Zimbabwe or North Korea. The results were similar to those in Equatorial Guinea, which Ban Ki-moon has not criticized -- an over 90% win, in this this case for Zimbabwe as a comparatively better place to live than North Korea. But compare the UN's statements.

Here is what Zimbabwe's Ambassador said on July 11:

"We believe that the office of the Secretary-General is good offices for the resolution of any political situation in the world. He must have the perception that, that office is impartial. What we have witnessed in Zimbabwe, all the reports that have come from the Department of Political Affairs, are pro-opposition and they never say anything positive about the government of Zimbabwe. We believe they are partisan and with that type of an approach, there's no way they can be impartial arbiter in the resolution of the situation in Zimbabwe."

The critique is of the Department of Political Affairs and "they," that is, Team Ban. When the Secretariat has been making statements in recent weeks about Zimbabwe, a question was muttered, who is writing this stuff? Some pointed at the nationality of the head of the Department of Political Affairs, Lynn Pascoe, a former U.S. State Department official. Mr. Pascoe was slated, along with fellow American Robert Orr, to appear with Ban Ki-moon at his July 10 press conference.

Perhaps concerned with how it would look, to finally appear for a sit-down press conference flanked by two senior advisers both from the same country, Ban ended up appearing accompanied on the rostrum only by his Spokesperson, who once again controlled the question-asking in such a way that none of these issues, including Kosovo and objectivity, were inquired into or addressed.

Relatedly, in a small but telling detail, the Spokesperson's daily summaries of press converage of the UN and Ban Ki-moon systemically omit certain critical and investigative coverage. In light of an interesting report of Ban reading in the Mugabe-controlled Herald of Harare of Chidyausiku's critique, and laughingly commenting, I guess he doesn't like me much, the shrill Saturday slap-down is all the more surprising.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/ban1zim071308.html

China Opposes Any Sudan Indictments, Would Support Suspending, Darfur Threat Level Raised

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/unsc1iccdarfur071108.html

UNITED NATIONS, July 11 -- With the prospect of Sudan's president being indicted for war crimes as early as July 14, Inner City Press on Friday asked Chinese Ambassador to the UN Wang Guangya if China thinks such an indictment would be helpful to people in Darfur. "I don't think so," Ambassador Wang said. Impunity is part of the problem in Sudan, he said, but "there are more important problems" such as political negotiations, humanitarian access and "peacekeeping modalities." Video here, from Minute 1:43.

This last is a reference to already delayed deployment of peacekeepers in Darfur, which was at least partially suspended on Friday by the UN, as confirmed to Inner City Press by Australia's Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon. Sudan's Ambassador to the UN told Inner City Press that the UN has raised its threat level for Darfur to the highest category, Four, and raised the level for Khartoum to Three. He had just met with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, telling him "we hold you responsible if our President is indicted." Mr. Ban, he said, remained impassive. The idea of asking the Security Council to suspend any International Criminal Court proceeding against President Omar al Bashir has been broached.

Inner City Press asked Amb. Wang for China's view on this. "There are elements in the [Rome] statute," he said. "It depends on the Council... the Council members have to take up this responsibility." Video here, from Minute 1:43. This last is taken to mean that China supports putting a stop on the ICC and prospector Luis Moreno Ocampo. People were racing around Friday at the UN trying to determine when such a suspension resolution would have to be passed: before Ocampo asks the judges to indict or between the request and the indictment? Or, as Ugandan indictee Joseph Kony of the Lord's Resistance Army has demanded, in exchange for any peace, after the indictment?

Inner City Press ask this month's Vietnamese Security Council president Le Luong Minh if any request had been made to discuss ICC suspension. "Not in the Security Council framework," he replied. Video here.

But, looking forward, would the U.S., France and / or the UK veto any draft resolution to suspend ICC proceedings? Inner City Press asked U.S. Ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad, but he said, "I don't want to answer that today." In fairness, the U.S. sponsored Zimbabwe sanctions resolution had just be vetoed by both China and Russia, and Amb. Khalilizad wanted to speak about their votes, and that of South Africa, which he called "disturbing" as well as longing for Jacob Zuma to take over, click here for that.

After the Zimbabwe sanctions resolution was voted down on Friday afternoon, French Ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert, when asked if the proponents miscalculated by calling the vote, pointed out that there were 9 votes for -- including, notably, Burkina-Faso -- and that the EU can continue with its own moves against Zimbabwe.

Inner City Press asked about South Africa's statement that Bernard Kouchner's statement that only a government led by the MDC would be legitimate worked against passage of the resolution. Ripert bristled, saying he was only answering so Inner City Press wouldn't call him unresponsive, and pointing to a July 4 statement referring to the March vote in Zimbabwe. Then he left. Video here, at end.

But the Kouchner quote, by Agence France Presse, was that "the government is illegitimate if it isn't led by opposition leader Mr Tsvangirai."

Would France veto a resolution to suspend an ICC indictment? We will ask the question. Watch this site.

Footnote: Of Burkina-Faso vote in favor of Zimbabwe sanctions, Sudan's Ambassador pointed to the appointment of that countries former former minister Bassole as Darfur mediator and said, "everything must be paid for." He said he no loner favors expansion of the Security Council to include more developing countries, after Burkina-Faso's vote, he prefers to stick with the Permanent Five and their vetoes. "It is better to deal with the Devil than the disciplines," he said.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/unsc1iccdarfur071108.html

UN Admits Losses to Myanmar Junta Through Currency Exchange, NGOs Skirt Through Informal Hawala Money Transfers

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un9myanmar071108.html

UNITED NATIONS, July 11 -- The question is not "if" but "how much" money Myanmar's military government has taken from the UN aid that has come into the country since Cyclone Nargis hit, it emerged Friday at the UN. John Holmes, the UN Humanitarian Coordinator, told Inner City Press that some level of loss would be acceptable in exchanging dollars for government-issued Foreign Exchange Certificates, which are in turn converted into the local currency, Kyat. "One percent would probably be okay," he said. Video here, from Minute 37:50.

But Inner City Press is informed by multiple sources, both UN personnel and from non-governmental organizations which try to avoid siphoning or "seigniorage" by the military junta, that at least 20% of aid money is lost in converting into Foreign Exchange Certificates. Holmes acknowledged that while the FECs are supposed to be one-to-one with the U.S. dollar, they are often lower. He declined to say how much lower, but sources on the ground but it at 20% or more, with further losses in the FEC to kyat conversion process.

To work around this, some NGOs have taken to using the informal money transfer system known as hawala. While this traditional system, in which money is deposited in one country and paid out in local currency in another with no paper trail, was attacked by the U.S. government after its supposed use to fund the September 11, 2001 plane bombings of the World Trade Towers in New York, in this case it is being used to deny "seigniorage" by a military government the United States condemns.

Inner City Press first reported on June 26 that its "sources say UNDP paid dollars to Myanmar's government, and got local currency back at an artificially low official exchange rate." The spokesman for UNDP said he would look into it, but then provided no information for two weeks. Finally, after Inner City Press published its next article on the topic, UNDP acknowledged it converts dollars into FEC:

"UNDP Funds are remitted into the UNDP US dollar account at Myanmar Foreign Trade Bank. UNDP Myanmar exchanges US dollars for Foreign Exchange Certificates at the Bank, and then converts these into local currency (Kyat). The exchange rate is based on the prevailing [most competitive] rate in the market, which can fluctuate."

NGOs active in Myanmar to whom Inner City Press showed this statement called it ludicrous, the implication that the exchanges are made at "competitive" rates. "The government is the one which creates and determines the value of the FECs," one said. "The UN and UNDP are gettin ripped off by the government, they've known about it but just stayed quiet."

Inner City Press is informed that the UN is now belatedly pushing for some changes to how business has been being done in Myanmar. But future, present and past practices by the UN and UNDP should all now be disclosed. John Holmes said one percent would be OK. His July 10 Revised Appeal for Myanmar states that "$313,704,035 in total has been committed for Myanmar relief operations as of 9 July." One percent of that is over three million dollars, pure profit to the Myanmar military government. A twenty percent loss would amount to over $62 million. The UN should be required now to disclose what exchange rates it has been accepting, and how much has been lost. Future, present and past currency exchange practices by the UN and UNDP should all now be disclosed, and not only in Myanmar.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un9myanmar071108.html