Reports of Nepotism for UN's Ban Ki-moon Removed From Internet After Legal Threats by Ban's Son in Law

By Matthew Russell Lee, News Analysis
www.innercitypress.com/unsys2nepotism082209.html

UNITED NATIONS, August 22 -- The son in law of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Siddarth Chatterjee, had used threats of legal action to force the removal from the Internet of comments that he may have gotten his promotion with the UN Office of Project Services in Copenhagen due to nepotism, Inner City Press has learned.

In preparing its exclusive August 14 article on nepotism at the UN and Ban's position on and in it, Inner City Press ran across an article in the Indian Star online, which cited Inner City Press' previous piece on Chatterjee's promotion with the UN in Iraq. Recently, that Indian Star article and comments were taken off the Internet -- following a threat from Chatterjee and then by his India-based lawyer. Click here for the now-empty page.

Free press advocates express concern at the threats, noting that in such matters "the cover-up is always worse that the crime," and demanding that Ban Ki-moon rebuke and renounce them. But will it happen?

Here for the record, and as requested by free press advocates in several continents, are comments which were on the Indian Star page which Ban's son in law, not stopped and presumably encouraged by Ban, got removed from the Internet by legal intimidation:

(Replied: Saturday, May 02, 2009, 06:05 am EST)

Interesting indeed. Some of us have, until very recently, had the misfortune of being exposed to this man, in a professional sense, in Iraq. Spineless is a very appropriate term to use in describing this individual. There are more, but few are fit for publication. He is, indeed, a discredit to India, the Indian Army, and now the UN (where, incidentally, he has recently moved on significant promotion - despite already being totally over-promoted in the opinion of all that know, and have to work with, him). The recent recruitment of this man to the United Nations Office of Project Services in Copenhagen is yet another example of the ineptitude, nepotism and corruption which is so prevalent within the UN system, even at the highest levels (in this case, within UNOPS). But those in Baghdad are delighted that UNOPS has taken him away from Iraq all the same.

It is a shame. And it would appear people are still being fooled.

and Posted: Saturday, February 28, 2009, 06:34 am EST

SANDHAYA AGARWAL (India)

Siddharth Chatterjee is a spineless man .He could not even pass the staff exams in Indian Army ... IT IS A SHAME THAT United Nations... GET FOOLED

After the Indian Star article and its comments went offline, they still remained available in the cache of Google and other search engines. Ban's son in law's lawyers made more legal threats -- "this is round two of the Bans and Google," said one observer of plans by the UN to get Inner City Press removed from Google News, click here for the most recent -- to get it out of cache.

Now even that censorship of questions of nepotism within Ban's UN has been accomplished -- click here for the now empty cache page.

Siddarth Chatterjee a public figure, and thus his legal threats are spurious, even an abuse of process. He is the son in law of the UN Secretary General, he was awarded a job at the UN's D-2 level (see below. Now, after refusing to answer Inner City Press' repeated questions referred by Ban's Spokesperson's Office if Chatterjee is a D-2 or a D-1, UNOPS tells other journalists that he is a D-1, in order to forestall other media coverage. Will it work?

Most recently, UNOPS in Copenhagen has told a Nordic newspaper what Chatterjee is a D-1, without explaining that the post was described by UNOPS' deputy director, in writing, as a D-2 post:

From: Vitaly VANSHELBOIM
Sent: 03 March 2009 11:09
To: UNOPS - EMO
Subject: Welcome to the new mailgroup

As you know, yesterday EUO and MEO formally merged into a new regional office called EMO (Europe and the Middle East) based in Copenhagen...I will be acting Regional Director of EMO until we have recruited a “permanent” replacement. In response to our advertisement for the D-2 regional director job, we received some 130 applications. Five candidates were short-listed for interviews: four were interviewed last Friday and the last interview is scheduled for Thursday this week. We’d like to make a decision by mid-March.

So even assuming that, as in Iraq, the UN decided even if only belatedly to keep Mr. Chatterjee a level below the grade of the post they awarded him, that is only being done to discourage press coverage of nepotism.

Even this raises questions of whether Ban, who came into the UN system promising reform and to run things cleanly, is due to his relatives' promotions so paranoia and angry about questions of nepotism that he has a conflict of interest in dealing with charges of nepotism against others in the UN, for example his own envoy to the Congo Alan Doss -- click here for that.

Inner City Press broke the story about Alan Doss asking the UN Development Program for "leeway," to bend hiring rules and give his daughter Rebecca Doss a job in UNDP's Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific leading to a "man bite man" incident which was the focus of other media's follow up coverage. After Inner City Press' story about Ban and nepotism early on August 14, Ban's Deputy Spokesperson wrote to Inner City Press that:

From: okabe@un.org
To: matthew.lee@innercitypress.com
Sent: 8/14/2009 7:57:02 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: your latest entry

What I said was that queries on the biting incident should be directed to the NY County DA Office.

On the allegations, we take the matter very seriously.

"The Secretary-General is aware of the situation. He has been assured that a thorough independent investigation is underway, He takes this matter very seriously, and expects to see a report upon his return to NY."

Ban Ki-Moon returned to New York from his South Korea vacation and delivered prepared remarks at a World Humanitarian Day event in the UN's visitors' lobby on August 19. He took no questions. On August 21, after waiting two days, Inner City Press asked Ms. Okabe if Ban had as he expected now received the report on nepotism, and what would he do about it?

Ms. Okabe answered that although Ban had returned to New York, he had gone on leave again. So finally, what will he do?

Footnotes: in the course of legally threatening the Indian newspaper -- but not U.S. based Inner City Press -- it was argued that the Indian Star report which triggered the two comments Chatterjee and Ban did not like was "based only on a blog." The response was that Inner City Press is better read, at least online, than the Indian newspaper they threatened.

On that, Reuters of August 21 reported that "U.N. officials also complain bitterly about the indefatigable blogger Matthew Lee, whose website Inner City Press regularly accuses Ban and other U.N. officials of hypocrisy and failing to keep their promises to reform the United Nations and root out corruption." Later, a telling second phrase was added: "(Some U.N. officials accuse Lee of not always getting his facts right, but his blog has become unofficial required reading for U.N. staffers around the world.)"

Ironically, on August 20 a UN under secretary general approached Inner City Press about the anti-Ban memo by Norwegian deputy permanent representative Mona Juul, having "just read it on your blog." For all of Ms. Juul's criticism of Ban, from Myanmar to Sri Lanka to climate change, Juul missed the nepotism and family connection angle. Her husband Terje Roed Larsen works for Ban, as another of his Under Secretaries General who has refused to make any disclosure of his finance or to answer Inner City Press' questions about them.

This is run for the proposition that as well as being a nepotism cover up scandal, this is a story about new media. Ban and his son in law have lawyers threaten ill-read newspapers for daring to carry a report based on what they call the "blog" Inner City Press and two resulting comments. They urge what they view as "real" or mainstream media not to cover stories which are broken by Inner City Press -- which, for example, had the world exclusive, acknowledged on Associated Press and in Japan media amog others, of the final draft of the Security Council's North Korea sanctions.

Inner City Press, which writes more about Myanmar than other UN based correspondents, was never even told of the opportunity, given to others, to accompany and report on Ban's ultimately failed trip there. Some say that in all this, Ban is being ill-advised by those around him. The question remains: is this anachronistic media strategy of cover up, deployed by Team Ban, working? Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/unsys2nepotism082209.html

On Call for Vote at UN on Libyan Al Megrahi, Amid UN Scandals, Will Obama and Susan Rice Act?

By Matthew Russell Lee, News Analysis
www.innercitypress.com/usun1libyaban082209.html

UNITED NATIONS, August 22 -- Ten days after U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice touted the Obama Administration's quiet diplomacy from within the UN, "getting things done," New York State Senator Chuck Schumer called on Ms. Rice to introduce a resolution condemning Libya's hero's welcome for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, released after conviction for the Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland.

Libya has a seat on the UN Security Council with Rice, and a Libyan diplomat is slated to take over the presidency of the UN General Assembly next month. Comment was sought from the US Mission to the UN, but four hours later, none had been received.

Schumer's call may put Obama and Ms. Rice in an uncomfortable position. As al Megrahi was being released, Obama urged Libya not to celebrate his release, tied to his terminal cancer, but rather to confine him to house arrest. But the celebrations were televised around the world.

Obama, who has yet to visit the UN in his seven months in office, is slated to be present for three days next month, on nuclear disarmament, climate change and for the General Assembly, now to be presided over by Libya.

In a speech at New York University on August 12, Ms. Rice intoned that "Today, as we steer a new course at the United Nations, our guiding principles are clear...We work for change from within rather than criticizing from the sidelines. We stand strong in defense of America’s interests and values, but we don’t dissent just to be contrary. We listen to states great and small. We build coalitions."

Will the U.S. build a coalition at the UN concerning Libya? Some contrasted Ms. Rice's speech to notable watering down of the statement on Myanmar's imposition of 18 more months of house arrest on democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, to which China added sections deferring to Myanmar's sovereignty and even the mercy it showed. Now that Scotland and Libya have shown mercy and respect for al Megrahi, what sort of statement will issue from the U.N.? Will Ms. Rice introduce the resolution Schumer and others have called for?

Perhaps the strategy will be to have UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon release a statement, which would not require any vote in the Security Council or General Assembly. In her August 12 NYU speech, Ms. Rice referred to Ban Ki-moon only once, saying that "our priorities are greater transparency and accountability, stronger ethics and oversight mechanisms, and buttressing Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s initiatives to overhaul the UN’s procurement and human resources practices."

At the time, Inner City Press questioned Rice's seeming failure to meaningfully raise or push for reform at the UN, where simply in the field of human resources a number of nepotism scandals were erupting. Ban Ki-moon's envoy to the Congo, Alan Doss, was exposed by Inner City Press as asking the UN Development Program to show him "leeway" -- that is, to bend the rules -- to get his daughter Rebecca a job.

Even Ban Ki-moon, through his Deputy Spokesperson, called the allegations "series" and said he expected to receive a report upon his return to New York, which took place on August 18. The US Mission has yet to comment on l'affaire Doss; a response has now been sought.

Ban himself is seen by some as conflicted in responding to nepotism, given his administration's paranoia and lack of transparency about the hiring of his son in law Siddarth Chatterjee first by the UN in Iraq, and now by the UN Office of Project Services in Copenhagen. Most recently, Ban's son in law has made legal threats to get stories about his hiring and qualifications removed from the Internet. The US, sometimes described as the home of the free press, has yet to speak on the appropriateness of the UN Secretary General's son in law seeking to censor media coverage of questions of UN nepotism.

Other countries' Missions to the UN, meanwhile, have been more vocal in calling for improvements at the UN. From within Norway's Mission to the UN, that country's deputy ambassador to the UN Mona Juul wrote a memo criticizing Ban's performance on such issues as Myanmar and Sri Lanka, and even climate change. The memo speculated that the UK's John Holmes might take over the UN's Department of Political Affairs from Lynn Pascoe, a Bush appointee.

So what is the U.S. doing at and about the UN? Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/usun1libyaban082209.html

At UN, Ripert's USG Post is France's Fourth, US has Six USGs, the UK Four or Five While Russia Two and China Only One

By Matthew Russell Lee, News Analysis
www.innercitypress.com/unusg1posts082409.html

UNITED NATIONS, August 24 -- As France on Monday was given yet another Under Secretary General job at the UN, bringing its total to four, China's main USG is Sha Zukang of the Department of Social and Economic Affairs, and Russia's two are Sergei Ordzhonikidze, head of the UN in Geneva and Genady Tarasov on Iraq - Kuwait. By contrast, the United States has six USGs, the United Kingdom has four or five. It's surprising that these disparities among the Permanent Five members of the Security Council are so little talked about, at least publicly.

At the UN Security Council's monthly closed door luncheon Monday with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, UK Ambassador John Sawers joked that a final toast to outgoing French Ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert wasn't possible, as Jean Maurice had already had to run off on his new job for the UN. Earlier on Monday it was UN made up and dole out a job for Ripert, pushed out as Ambassador by Quai D'Orsai: Ripert will be Special Representative in Pakistan. Inner City Press asked if Ripert's post would be at the Under Secretary General level. Yes, Ban's Spokesperson Michele Montas said. Video here, from Minute 19:12.

Inner City Press asked if that now made three French USGs, with current peacekeeping USG Alain Le Roy and his predecessor Jean-Marie Guehenno, now a USG for Regional Cooperation although he had admitted that he has been assigned no work. I'll look into that, Ms. Montas said.

Afterwards, a French journalist approached Inner City Press to argue that "you Americans" have more USGs. So Inner City Press decided to check.

The French have at least four USGs, including Philippe Douste-Blazy, "Special Advisor on Innovative Financing for Development." There's also Jean Arnault, already in Pakistan, who appears to be an Assistant Secretary General.

But it is true that the United States, including their own share of do-nothing USGs like Guehenno, has fully six USGs. There's B. Lynn Pascoe at the Department of Political Affairs. There's new Department of Safety and Security chief Gregory Starr, who Inner City Press recently wrote about in connection with Starr having extended the US State Department contracts of private military contractor Blackwater.

The US' other USGs include Jeffrey Sachs, Joseph Reed -- recently feted as a "good friend of the Chinese people" -- Ray Chambers on malaria and Matthew Nimetz on the intractable "name issue" involving Greece and what's called the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or FYROM.

The UK clocks in with four or five USGs, depending on whether Ian Martin, still seen buzzing around the UN long after his Nepal stint and Gaza report roles are over -- is still a USG.

Two way street: Ripert gives credentials (2007), UN's Ban gives job (2009)

There's OCHA's John Holmes, Michael Williams on the Middle East, and in the Congo, Alan Doss, embroiled in a nepotism scandal on which Ms. Montas on Montas said Ban has still not received the expected report, despite being back in New York for five days.

Then there's Kieran Prendergast, still listed on the Cameroon - Nigeria Mixed Commission.

Compared to Russia and China, Norway even after Mona Juul's anti-Ban memo has four USGs: Kai Eide in Afghanistan, Juul's husband Terje Roed Larsen in New York, Jan Egeland in Oslo and everywhere, at least sometimes, and Gro Harlem Brundtland, a special envoy on climate change. India has three USGs, Messrs. Atul Khare, Nitin Desai and Vijay Nambiar (whose job, like Lynn Pascoe's, the UK's John Holmes is said to covet, in the Mona Juul memo). Italy as two USGs, Zannier in Kosovo and Costa on drugs in Vienna.

As noted above the contrast, China's main USG is Sha Zukang of DESA, and Russia's two are Sergei Ordzhonikidze, head of the UN in Geneva and Gennady Tarasov on Iraq - Kuwait. It's surprising that these disparities among the Permanent Five members of the Security Council are so little talked about, at least publicly. Russia is known to want more posts. How can they feel about France's Ripert getting one so quickly? Watch this site.

Update -- it's been pointed out that if one expands the scope to include UN system funds, programs and specialized agencies, the U.S. dispararity grows even larger, sending the USG tally to eight with the World Food Program's Josette Sheeran and UNICEF's Ann Veneman. China rises to two, with the World Health Organization's Margaret Chan...

One could go further and include American Bob Zoellick at the World Bank-- but consider Inner City Press' exclusive piece on the poker game in which in 2012 the U.S. would renounce the World Bank to China (and, some say, UNICEF before that), and the European Union would give up the IMF in order to gain the post of UN Secretary General - click here for that.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/unusg1posts082409.html

At UN, Norway's Trashing of Ban Stirs Rumors of Endgame: Full Text of Mona Juul Memo

By Matthew Russell Lee, News Analysis
www.innercitypress.com/ban2norway082009.html

UNITED NATIONS, August 20 -- The indictment of the administration of the UN by Ban Ki-moon signed by Norway's deputy ambassador Mona Juul [full text below] gathered strength and supporters on Thursday. Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Marie Okabe on August 19 for Ban's view of Juul's memo and "how does it impact his planned trip to Norway at the end of this month?"

Ms. Okabe answered that "We do not know the veracity of the reports to which you refer... we have not announced the Secretary-General’s next travel plans." Transcript here.

Thursday it emerged that the plan had been to announced Ban's Norway trip on August 19, but that the announcement was pulled back in the face of news of and questions about the Juul memo. Inner City Press has interviewed two senior Ban administration officials, both of whom acknowledge that Juul's critique is devastating, even debilitating.

Norway is a big donor, one of them said, noting that Sudan, on the other end of the spectrum, has also protested Ban. "Who will stand up for him?" the other official asked rhetorically. Of the reheated rumors in the memo, including that top humanitarian John Holmes might replace Vijay Nambiar as Ban's chief of staff, as Inner City Press has previously predicted, the official said that Holmes might do a better job. But India, then, would need another post.

The Ban administration officials both said that a new communications strategy is needed. They speculated who will takeover as spokesperson in November. While one has been predicting another outsider from Newsweek, the better placed official now predicts a French speaker from within the Outreach Division of the Department of Public Information. It's been a disaster, both conceded, of recent and reduced UN noon briefings.

Things are actually worse that Juul presents them, in that her memo does not touch on the brewing nepotism and corruption scandals at the UN.

Several under-reported aspect of Juul's memo are eye catching: her description of Deputy Secretary General Migiro's limited scope of responsibility, her diplomatic dismissal of Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann as a "rather special President of the General Assembly." She hits Ban even on his signature issue, climate change. Juul describes "a culture of decision-making which is marked by information both up and down the system being filtered by the omnipresent assistant chief of cabinet Kim" Won-soo.

Self- (or Norway-) servingly, Juul wrote that "Ban has consistently chosen special representatives and leaders in the Secretariat who don’t distinguish themselves, except for the case of Afghanistan" -- the SRSG is Norwegian, Kai Eide. One wonders why Juul didn't in the memo praise her husband, USG Terje Roed Larsen.

Also ill-informed was Juul's quip that "As a woman from that part of the world, [UNDP's Helen ] Clark could quickly become a competitor for Ban’s second period." New Zealand may geographically be in Asia, but politically at the UN it is part of the WEOG (Western European and Other Group). More likely is the scenario first laid out by Inner City Press, that China in exchange for getting to head the World Bank in 2012 allows another group -- possible WEOG or an Eastern European -- to take over the UN Secretary General's post. Click here for that Inner City Press exclusive; see below for full text of Juul. Watch this site.

The Juul memo, translated by the "Group of Friend on Inner City Press," is below:

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moons fruitless visit to Burma at the beginning of July was emblematic of a Secretary-General and an organization that is struggling to show leadership. At a time where the UN and the need for multilateral solutions to global crises is more necessary than ever, Ban and the UN are conspicuous by their absence. In the last half-year, follow-up to the many crises that dominated last fall’s General Assembly should have brought the Secretary-General and the UN fully into the fray, but the opposite seems to have occurred.

In relation to the financial crisis, neither the Secretary-General nor the General Assembly – despite the major meeting on the financial crisis at the end of June – have distinguished themselves as the most important arena for discussion, and the vacuum has been filled by the G-20 and other actors. Ban's voice on behalf of the G-192 and the poor has hardly [there’s a misspelling in the original; “kapt” is not a word but “knapt” means “hardly”] registered. An at times invisible Secretary-General in combination with a rather special President of the General Assembly has gone far to sideline the UN, and the organization hasn’t realized its limits. On the environment/energy area the UN is also struggling to be relevant, despite the planned high-level meeting on climate change at the opening of the General Assembly this fall. Even though the Secretary-General to the point of boredom repeats that Copenhagen is supposed to “seal the deal,” there is widespread worry that the UN-high-level meeting won’t contribute notably to the process leading up to Copenhagen.

In the many political/security crises around the world, the Secretary-General’s leadership and ability to deliver on behalf of the UN is still being sought. Burma is a shining example of this. There was no lack of warning that the Secretary-General shouldn’t go at this time. The Americans were among the most doubtful to his trip, but the British thought he should go. Special Representative Gambari was initially also doubtful, but Ban insisted. Gambari pointed to the fact that recent negative press coverage (headlines like “Whereabouts unknown in The Times and “Nowwhere Man [sic]” in Foreign Policy) had made Ban even more set on visiting Burma. After an apparently fruitless visit by the Secretary-General, the UN’s “good offices” will become even more problematic. Special Representative Gambari will have big problems continuing after “the top man” has failed and the generals in Yangoon [sic] no longer want to meet him.

Another example of weak handling from the Secretary-General’s side is the war in Sri Lanka. The Secretary-General was a powerless observer to civilians in their thousands losing their lives and being driven from their homes. The authorities in Colombo refused to receive the Secretary-General while the war was going on, but he was an honored guest -- and he accepted the invitation -- once the war had been “won.” Even though the UN’s humanitarian effort had been active and honorable enough, the Secretary-General’s moral voice and authority have been absent.

Also in other “crisis areas,” for example Darfur, Somalia, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and not least Congo, the Secretary-General’s passive and not very committed appeals seem to fall on deaf ears. Many would also claim that the handling of the inquiry commission after the war in Gaza ended up with an unsteady and too-careful follow-up.

More surprisingly, and therefore more disappointingly, Ban Ki-moon has been almost absent on the disarmament and non-proliferation area. This was a field he himself presented as one of his priority areas before he started his post. The reorganization of the department of disarmament to an office directly answerable to the Secretary-General, led by a High Representative indicated a big stake in this area, also given the Secretary-General’s own background on the Korean peninsula. With a new nonproliferation treaty review in 2010 and an American administration which has put the team much higher on the agenda, it’s cause for concern that the Secretary-General isn’t more committed.

The common thread in all these cases is that an unclear Secretary-General with a lack of charisma is not compensated for by high-profile and visible colleagues. Ban has consistently chosen special representatives and leaders in the Secretariat who don’t distinguish themselves, except for the case of Afghanistan. Furthermore, he seems to prefer to be in the center himself, without competition from his colleagues, and lets it shine through pretty clearly that commenting to the media is a privilege belonging to himself. The result is that the UN becomes a less visible and relevant player in areas where it would have been natural and necessary for an active UN-engagement. A notable exception is the selection of Helen Clark as the new leader for UNDP. She has in her short time on the job shown promise. It will be interesting to follow if she is given room to distinguish the UN’s development side. As a woman from that part of the world, Clark could quickly become a competitor for Ban’s second period.

It was common knowledge that it was a conscious choice [NB! The Norwegian word “bevist” which is written here means “proven,” but in this context it appears to be a misspelling of the word “bevisst” meaning “conscious.”] from the then-current American administration that an activist Secretary-General was not wanted. The new American administration hasn’t yet signaled any change in their attitude to Ban, even though there are rumors that some people in Washington are now referring to Ban as “a one-term SG”. It’s said that the people around both Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton are very negative to Ban, but the two are yet to speak on the matter. China is probably pretty happy with him and it’s primarily China which holds the key to whether Ban will be renewed for a second term. Russia has for a long time been dissatisfied with the Secretary-General both in terms of his handling of Kosovo and Georgia, but also because of a lack of recruitment of Russians to important positions. At the same time, Russia is well served by a Secretary-General who isn’t too interventionist.

Among the remainder of the member states one notices that the perception of Ban at the midway point is growing steadily more negative. Among the many who thought he should be given some more time, that everything would get better once he warmed up, and that the comparison to his predecessor’s charisma was unfair, the tune is now that the beginner’s goodwill [direct translation: “learning potential”] appears to be spent and that a lack of charisma is actually a problem. The Secretary-General seems to function well enough when he sticks to the script, and shows up to a lot of meetings and other events. The problem arises when he’s “on his own” where he can’t manage to set the agenda, create enthusiasm and show leadership – not internally either. Ban’s lack of engagement and lack of interest in mastering the issues means that he doesn’t become an effective player or negotiator in the many conflict situations he is expected to handle.

The mood at “the house” is still characterized as not very motivated, with a culture of decision-making which is marked by information both up and down the system being filtered by the omnipresent assistant chief of cabinet Kim. After recent negative media stories about the Secretary-General, the mood on the 38th floor is said to be pretty tense. Ban has constant temper tantrums [direct translation: outbreaks of rage] which even levelheaded [the Norwegian word “sindig” is untranslatable and describes a quality of being capable and calm as well as having common sense] and experienced colleagues have trouble handling. The relationship with next-in-command Migiro is as strained and her sphere of action appears to have shrunk even further. There are constant rumors of replacements and switch-overs. In addition to rumors that Migiro is on her way out, it’s rumored that OCHA-boss Holms [sic], who is roundly praised, is taking over as Chef de Cabinet, and that Nambiar is quitting. The same is said about the head of the political department, Pascoe, and that Holms [sic] is also a candidate to taking over his job. The British are probably still very concerned about getting that post back. These are, however, only rumors and most probably, Ban will continue with the same crew – at least ‘till the end of this year. If that’s good enough for a second term only time will tell.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/ban2norway082009.html

On Iran and Vendex, Sudan to No Bid Contracts, NYC Comptroller Candidates Square Off

By Matthew R. Lee, News Analysis
www.innercitypress.com/nyc1comptroller082009.html

NEW YORK, August 19 -- Veering from issues of no bid contracts and corporate background checks, four candidates New York City Comptroller were asked by Inner City Press on Thursday morning if in investing City funds they would bar or penalize companies engaged in predatory lending, or which do business in Sudan, Sri Lanka, Burma or Iran. This being NYC, and all four candidates Democratic members of the City Council, the answers ranged from "yes" to "of course," with a few differences.

Melinda Katz said that seven years ago, she proposed such a ban on companies "having anything to do with Hamas or Hezbollah." She added that when current Comptrollers Thompson and DiNapoli proposed divestment regarding Sudan and Iran, she applauded them. All four which she named are Islamic, unlike Burma and Sri Lanka were which asked about but ignored.

John Liu also avoided mentioning the two Asian countries, along he answered generically about human rights violators. He expanded the question to companies with abusive human resources practices, and those which took Federal bailout funds and still pay huge bonuses to their executives.

David Weprin said he was an early proponent of divestment in Sudan and Iran, based on genocide and terrorism respectively. He cited the precedent of the campaign against apartheid. He also reminded the audience that under Mario Cuomo he was a deputy superintendent of banks for New York State, and required in-state checks to clear in three days.

David Yassky, who began the morning's debate by touting his endorsement by Felix Rohatyn, said he sponsored a ban on Sudan, and co-sponsored one on Iran. He said that the City should invest in companies whose profitability came from such places. As such, at least he admitted all moral decisions cannot be defended as economically best as well. Similarly, to an audience of human services professionals, he said that he is against member items in which Council members direct funds to specific groups.

The event, held in the auditorium of PricewaterhouseCoopers on Madison Avenue, was co-sponsored by the United Way and the Human Services Council, and the other questions were focused on how slow the City is to disburse contract awards to non-profits and how burdensome the City's VENDEX background check is. John Liu joked that the audience seemed tired because they'll stayed up the night before filling out VENDEX forms. There was polite laughter and then the event was over.

Footnote: back in December 2007, Inner City Press put a similar question to Adolf Carrion, who had just announced he would run not for Mayor but Comptroller. Carrion said he would "also take into consideration the return for pensioners" -- click here for that story.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/nyc1comptroller082009.html

As UK Questioned on Arms Exports to Sri Lanka, No Action at UN on Flooded Camps

By Matthew Russell Lee, News Analysis
www.innercitypress.com/ukarms1srilanka081909.html

UNITED NATIONS, August 19 -- As in London a House of Commons report zeroed in and requested answers on UK licensed arms sales to Sri Lanka in the run-up to this year's bloodbath on the beach, at the UN in New York UK Ambassador John Sawers emphasized that he would only take questions, including on Sri Lanka, in his capacity as the president of the Security Council for this month.

Inner City Press asked Ambassador Sawers, since the Council earlier this year held meetings about Sri Lanka without putting it on the Council's formal agenda, about the flooding on the UN funded internment camps and the call by various human rights groups that those locked up in the camps be allowed to leave. Video here, from Minute 3:29.

"There is no request for a meeting on Sri Lanka in any format," Sawers said adding that Sri Lanka is of concern "to a number of Council member" and will be kept "under review." But how? The lack of action by the UN at any level, even as the government in Colombo blames it for the breakdown in sewage systems in the camps, highlights the effect of the UK not having called a procedural vote to put Sri Lanka on the Council's agenda.

If the situation in Manik Farms camps were to be happening in the camps in Darfur, the Council it seems clear would consider and speak on it. But since the UK, by Sawers' own account, chose Council unanimity over a split but winning vote to put Sri Lanka on the agenda, now ongoing abuses there are not being considered.

It appears that Council members, even those who expressed concern earlier this year, are not even staying informed on the situation. Inner City Press asked Mexico's Ambassador Claude Heller about the flooding and he said he was not aware of it, but would look into it. While that's to be commended, is it any surprise then that Sawers replied that no request for a meeting on Sri Lanka has been made?

After Sawers' answer, Inner City Press asked a spokesperson for the UK Mission to the UN about the House of Commons report, Scrutiny of Arms Export Controls (2009). Sawers had emphasized he would only answer as Council president, and so this troubling but UK specific report could not be asked about.

Later on Wednesday the UK mission responded to Inner City Press that there is a review of the licenses for exports to Sri Lanka ongoing, that some licenses might be revoked. The spokesperson noted that some licenses were rejected, for example for weapons or ammunition, and said that those grants were mostly for "humanitarian or dual" use.

Inner City Press asked how the UK could verify how the items were used, if its personnel along with all independent media were excluded from the northern part of Sri Lanka as now from the camps. The spokesperson said that the UK wouldn't reply on the media for verification anyway. But how then is the verification done?

The spokesperson said that there has not been any discussion within the UK Mission to the UN about the situation in the camps, that such discussion might take place in London, mostly because of the Tamil diaspora there. But given the UK Mission's publicly stated decision not to call what they say would have been a victorious but split vote to put Sri Lanka on the Council's agenda, some expect a more robust response from the UK when the internment camps it is is part funding, including through the UN, become threatened by epidemics and the people not allowed to leave. We'll see.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/ukarms1srilanka081909.html

At WFP, Ethics Missing Amid Waste and Garage Scandals as Josette Travels the World, Food Program Whistleblowers Say

By Matthew Russell Lee, News Analysis
www.innercitypress.com/wfp1questions081609.html

UNITED NATIONS, August 15 -- In the wake of the World Food Program's controversial shut down of its Rome headquarters for a "simulated food distribution" display for the spouses of G-8 leaders, reported on by Inner City Press and skipped by both Michelle Obama and Carla Bruni, more and more whistleblowers from within WFP have approached Inner City Press with their complaints.

Most center around what they call the excessive travel and waste of Executive Director Josette Sheeran, the cover-up of scandals by weak ethical controls and discipline by promotion out to the field, and use of WFP for political purposes, fancy junkets and receptions and a make-up post for UN insider Staffan de Mistura. Inner City Press has asked WFP about these, and has received some answers.

Here is a sample complaint received from within WFP, anonymous due to fear of retaliation, then some WFP responses:

Matthew, Your reporting on the "Disneyland" school feeding show for the G-8 spouses was excellent. And many, many people in WFP agreed with you and had real doubts about it. The tents have come down but there's been no word on whether the contributions have increased to pay for it, and to feed more hungry poor. You should however, be aware that many WFP workers did attend work that day, even though parking was very difficult and WFP is not well connected by public transport to the areas in Rome where most staffers live. There are WFP staff who do have principles.

At 8:20, those not involved with the event were told through the PA system to remain at their workstations until the event was over and coffee, tea and water was placed on tables by the elevators on each floor. In other words, the staff were not welcome. Maybe that's why they were "encouraged" to "work from home".

Many dedicated long-term WFP staff see the current regime as a joke. Around the time of the G-8 event, Josette was also slated to attend the Non-Aligned Movement First Ladies Group in exotic Sharm El Sheikh. Clearly she's into Wives Clubs, which is not where she should be. However, perhaps because of the embarrassment of the G-8 wives event, she canceled.

We interrupt this whistleblowing for WFP's response:

"Greg Barrow is on leave. Please find the following responses to your questions. Ms. Sheeran was invited to the event but due other commitments, did not attend. She was represented by Ms. Sheila Sisulu, WFP's Deputy Executive Director for Hunger Solutions, who delivered a keynote speech and met with the host of the NAM First Ladies conference, Mrs. Mubarak to discuss school feeding and nutrition."

The whistleblower continued:

Word is that in the second half of 2009, she will spend perhaps no more than three weeks in Rome. A lot of her time is in Washington and elsewhere in the US (are we feeding Americans now, or is she doing something else there?). And there is a trip to places like Australia (over a weekend, of course). So who is actually running the organization? How can she justify, even with annual leave, spending less than one eighth of her time at her desk? Money which could and should be spent on feeding people or on properly staffing key departments or systems is being blown on business class airfares for her and her accompanying delegations and on school-feeding conferences near the north Italian lakes when somewhere within driving distance from Rome would have done, to name a few.

There are stories of parties being held costing more than 100 Euro per head at fancy Roman villas, paid for by WFP and/or FAO for people who never even worked for either organization. 100 Euro can buy about 300kg of wheat. Instead of feeding/entertaining one fat cat for a night, that's a lot of children who could be served.

Again, WFP had a different spin:

Ms. Sheeran's schedule for the rest of this year is still being finalized and will be adjusted as the year progresses depending on the most pressing needs and priorities. As the schedule stands today, she will be in Rome for a number of weeks. The role of a WFP Executive Director involves travel demands, which can often be sudden, such as a trip to Myanmar after the cyclone when WFP has an emergency response, or to donor countries to meet high level representatives. This fall, Ms. Sheeran's will make her first donor trip to Australia as part of a wider travel plan which includes WFP field operation visits. We believe you are referring to an official event co-hosted by WFP and FAO in honor of the departing President of IFAD, our sister UN agency in Rome.

But how much did it cost? At least on the Simulated Food Distribution Display for G-8 Spouses, WFP has finally given its own figure as to cost: 219,000 Euros. Click here for Inner City Press' counter calculations.

Inner City Press has asked, twice, about the new but we're told absent held of ethics, Joe Scalice, and whether notice was given of the vacancy externally or even internally. The post because open when Shuresh Sharma was moved to WFP's oversight office. From there, Inner City Press is told, an official was caught in a scandal in WFP's garage, then quickly exiled to the Sri Lanka IDP crisis. Inner City Press has asked:

What notice was given to internal candidates that they could apply? How many applied? Also, please comment on fraud case in Johannesburg starting next month and a whistleblower's statement that the individual "who headed it previously was very quickly sent out to the field when he was caught by the security guards in the underground executive car park in his car with a young lady, and they weren't discussing audit matters. So they may have had to fill it very quickly. I think it was done internally. Also, there has been an exodus from audit in the past year." Steffan de Mistura's post, did anyone previously hold it? or was it a new / made up post? Was the Executive Board consulted?

When the requested answers are received, they will be published on this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/wfp1questions081609.html