Amid Sudan Deaths, Bashir Victory Declaration, Silence at UN, Disdain for Rebels

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/sudan3progov042610.html

UNITED NATIONS, April 26 -- With Sudan's Omar al Bashir declaring victory in Sudan amid deadly clashes and kidnapped UN peacekeepers, in New York the UN Security Council, which had been scheduled to meet about Sudan, was silent Monday morning.

The Council's schedule provided for a meeting about UNMIS, the UN Mission in South Sudan. Inner City Press was told that UNMIS chief Haile Menkerios would be present and take questions. But at this key moment, in the UN's basement, the Council sat empty.

Over in the UN's three story North Lawn building, an Assistant Secretary General told Inner City Press that Bashir's 68% of the vote made him look more legitimate than "those countries where the leader claims ninety-eight percent."

Is this why the UN is implicitly blessing the election? "This way we avoid violence," said the ASG. And the UN gets to stay in the country. But at what cost to its credibility?

Moments later, a South African diplomat told Inner City Press his country's peacekeepers had been released. Just as Al Bashir said it would be: once the results -- and his winning -- were announced. As they say in legal Latin, res ipsa loquitur: the things speaks for itself.

On Friday, before al Bashir declared victory, Inner City Press asked the UN about violence:

Inner City Press: There are these reports of 50 civilians killed in South Darfur that I am sure, I believe, the UN has probably seen. There are also, it’s reported that Mr. [Djibril] Bassole was told by JEM [Justice and Equality Movement] that they believe the Government is about to begin another military assault in Darfur. What’s the UN doing, just as an update? Has it gone to Jebel Marra? Is it trying to investigate the death of civilians? And can you confirm JEM’s concerns?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: Well, it’s not for us to confirm JEM’s concerns, of course. On the second part, UNAMID [African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur] has also received an unconfirmed report, but the mission has not received any reports that confirm signs of an imminent attack by the Government, or indeed the presence of the JEM in east and North Darfur. So, that’s the first bit, that we’ve heard these unconfirmed reports. We cannot, we have not received any reports that would confirm signs of an imminent attack.

And as for the violence in South Darfur that you are referring to, according to UNAMID, and you may wish to ask them for more details, but from what I understand, this was an incident on 20 April, and it involved inter-tribal violence, the details of which are a little sketchy, I would say. But its result, from what we know, according to UNAMID [is] 15 people killed, 24 injured. This also included Sudan border guard police, who were, according to UNAMID, ambushed in the course of this inter-tribal violence that I referred to. That’s pretty much what I have for you there. As I said, it may well be that UNAMID could provide you with more details.

UNAMID chief Ibrahim Gambari was meeting one on one with al Bashir, who telling promised to get the kidnapped UN peacekeepers from South Africa released. Reporting by Inner City Press indicates that the kidnappers are affiliated or aligned with Bashir's government. The UN has said nothing.

Insiders tell Inner City Press that Gambari would like Bassole to step down, so he could take over the Doha portfolio as well. Gambari was pushed out of his role in Iraq by UNAMI chief Ad Melkert. On Sudan he wants to consolidate his position. In New York he had told Ban, I can help with with GA President Ali Treki. He told Treki the same. Thus are careers made and preserved in the UN. But what about Darfur? What to make of the UN's and Council's silence?

Footnote: In front of the empty Security Council Monday morning were ambassadors of several developing countries, waiting for a meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement next door. The NAM recently told UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon he has no jurisdiction over war crimes, should not follow through on his promise to name a panel on Sri Lanka. And Ban has not moved forward, reverting to meeting with the Sri Lankan attorney general and hoping, like Sudan's scam elections, that the issue fades away.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/sudan3progov042610.html

As UN Preps Benign Friendly Fire Story, Kabul Death Questions in DC and to UN's Banbury

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/unleak7afgh042310.html

UNITED NATIONS, April 23 -- As the UN prepared to serve up on Monday its benign version of the murder of its staff member Louis Maxwell by Afghan National forces last October, Mr. Maxwell's death was raised Friday at the U.S. State Department briefing. The Department's spokesman Assistant Secretary Philip J. Crowley replied that "there’s an investigation that is still ongoing by the United Nations and the FBI, that the investigation is not completed, so I would defer judgment until the investigation is done."

While perhaps only another mirage, to some the outstanding FBI investigation represents a final chance for review that is not clouded by the UN's own conflicts of interest in the matter. Since arguing with Hamid Karzai right at the time of Maxwell's death about electoral fraud, the UN has tried to get closer to Karzai, most recently accepting his de-internationalizing of an electoral review body.

The U.S. government, of course, is also trying to stay close to Karzai even as he insults them. But since at least portions of FBI reports can legally become public, there is more accountability than in the UN system, in which reports by these in-house Boards of Inquiry are withheld in full.

At the UN on Friday, Inner City Press asked spokesman Martin Nesirky who made the decision not to release any portion of the Maxwell report. Nesirky pointed back to a previous answer, that witnesses must be protected. But, for example, the UN panel headed by Heraldo Munoz which released a report on April 15 on the murder of Benazir Bhutto released its report in full.

Inner City Press also asked, in light of yet another pre-release interview by the UN's Tony Banbury, whether his word "murder" is now the UN's view of what happened to Maxwell. When Inner City Press used the legal term earlier this week, Nesirky admonished to "watch what you say." Nesirky declined to answer, saying all questions would have to wait for Monday. Video here, from Minute 5:35.

The one question he would have answered, he didn't. Inner City Press asked about a General Assembly report, quantifying 150 Board of Inquiry reports in 2007, and 160 in 2008. In Inner City Press' experience, very few of these are even disclosed publicly, that a review took place. So that might have been the fate of this one, except for the questions asked.

Before Friday's noon briefing, Inner City Press put a series of questions to Nesirky, Banbury and Susana Malcorra, Under Secretary General at the UN Department of Field Support:

These are questions for the OSSG, the "you" in the questions, since the cc-ed Mr. Banbury apparently only speaks to select media like NBC, but won't answer any of the questions previously sent to him. There are, once again, on deadline for next story in this series:

1. Can you confirm and does the UN stand by Mr. Banbury's quotes to [MS]NBC News that Louis Maxwell was "quote" murdered? If you cannot confirm this, what is your justification?

2. Did your office arrange or was your office aware of Mr Banbury's availability to NBC News? Did the EOSG arrange or was the EOSG aware of Mr Banbury's availability to NBC News?

3. Can you confirm and does the UN stand by Mr. Banbury's quotes that Andrew Hughes is the head of the probe? If you cannot confirm this, what is your justification?

3a. what day did Mr. Hughes cease his UN position? Thereafter, was he compensated or reimbursed in any way for his work on the Board of Inquiry?

3b. Who were the other members of the board of inquiry?

4. I'm going to ask again, because you have refused to address the factual question: does the UN have in its possession the UN-issued weapon that Louis Maxwell was issued?

5. Whose decision was it that the full text of this report will not be released?

6. Will the report be made available to member states upon request, or will it be withheld from Member States (besides Afghanistan) ?

And what about the other outstanding questions, including to USG Malcorra?

Watch this site.

From U.S. State Department transcript April 23:

Question: in October last year, a U.S. national working as a UN security guard was killed in Kabul during a Taliban attack on the UN building. And then soon thereafter, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said that the U.S. national was killed by the Taliban. But now there’s a UN report coming out with the – saying same that it was basically Afghan armed forces which killed the U.S. national. So what’s the factual position?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, there’s an investigation that is still ongoing by the United Nations and the FBI, that the investigation is not completed, so I would defer judgment until the investigation is done

And see, www.innercitypress.com/unleak7afgh042310.html

And see, http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/27667?in=00:26&out=16:57

Avatar Shown to UN Forum by Cameron, White Messiah Alleged, "We're All Indigenous"

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/film1avatar042410.html

UNITED NATIONS, April 24 -- Avatar was screened by its director James Cameron for the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues on Saturday night in Manhattan. Afterwards Cameron was asked why the hero had to be a white male, in the tradition of Dances with Wolves and before that Little Big Man.

Cameron replied that he was trying to "wake up Caucasians." He said both that "we are all indigenous" and that he wants "everyone to be a white Messiah." While unclear it was heartfelt. At the end an indigenous legislator from Peru stepped forward to give him her business card. It's 2010 and networking is everything.

In fact in the film, networking is central. The enormous trees which the U.S. corporate invaders are seeking to fell have "roots which interconnect," Signourey Weaver informs us, making up a network. The invaders are not impressed. Echoing Iraq, pointing at a book about the Na'vi, it is said that "when people are sitting on [stuff] that you want, you make them your enemy."

In another echo of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and post 9/11/01 war, the military villain vows "we'll fight terror with terror." He has looked at the protagonist's file - "I see you were in Venezuela." One wonders, is Cameron predicting a US assault on Hugo Chavez, before the time frame of the film?

While the movie was being screened, Cameron did fast one on one interviews with reporters. Inner City Press didn't ask for one, but heard about at least two. The "we are all White Messiahs" line was said both in private and in public: it is a talking point, for better or worse.

Inner City Press asked the UN how the screening came about and was told

"Matthew - The idea for the screening came about as the Secretariat for the Permanent Forum had heard many positive reactions from indigenous representatives on the film and how it was echoing their own stories. Through personal contacts of the Secretariat and the NGO co-sponsors, they contacted James Cameron re the possibility of a screening and it went from there."

Since, as Cameron put it, the movie made "$2.7 billion for Rupert Murdoch," clearly he doesn't need the publicity. It seems he consented to the event in order to put to rest the residual criticism of the movie as racist -- although the "White Messiah" critique has been raised mostly by, well, white Messiahs -- and to show that his motives weren't commercial.

Witness Cameron's support to a protest of a project in Brazil. One wonders what Cameron thinks of President Lula's policies on the indigenous. Or of Evo Morales' recent comment that Western food, genetically engineers, leads to "baldness and homosexuality."

Cameron disclosed that he opposed the invasion of Iraq -- very courageous, at this point -- and that corporate interests are "plundering if you will." Yes, they will, including the financiers of the studios distributing Avatar. But if enough business cards are passed, perhaps there will be justice. At least, there will be a sequel. Watch this site.

UN footnote -- and the United Nations is increasingly often only a footnote -- one wanted to ask Cameron where he thought the UN would be in the conflict he depicted. But the public Q&A session was too short and smacked of pre-determined. If reality's any guide, the UN would be offering humanitarian assistance on behalf of the invaders, after the invasion.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/film1avatar042410.html

As Sri Lanka AG Met With UN's Ban, War Crimes Panel Unnamed for Six Weeks

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/lanka9unfollow042210.html

UNITED NATIONS, April 22 -- The UN's Ban Ki-moon has yet to name the panel of experts to advise him on accountability and war crimes in Sri Lanka which he announced six weeks ago as coming "without delay."

To determine what happened, Inner City Press on April 22 asked Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky to confirm Ban met with Sri Lanka's attorney general Mohan Peiris -- which Inner City Press exclusively reported three days ago -- and to explain the delay. Video here, at end.

Nesirky, who earlier in the briefing tried to ensure that Inner City Press could not ask more questions, said he would look into it. Later on April 22 his Office confirmed that meeting with Sri Lanka's attorney general. He did not, however, explain the delay.

At a UN reception thrown by Israel on April 20, Ban told Sri Lanka's Ambassador Palitha Kohona "I am not against your government," according to sources standing next to the two. Kohona has predicted that no panel will ever be named, quipping that the UN should instead investigate the Vatican for pedophilia.

Kohona to his credit is one of the more candid UN ambassador. Inner City Press has committed to try to write a non-conflict story, perhaps about the government's Memoranda of Understanding with non-governmental organizations.

Among Ambassador Kohona's honesties, reflecting the combativenature of his government, was his statement this week that Sri Lanka advocated against Ban Ki-moon's $3 million grant through the UN Peacebuilding Fund, which Kohona said went to UNDP. But UNDP still took it -- typical UN system arrogance, going for the money (but weak on human rights).

A senior UN official indicated to Inner City Press on April 22 not to expect any movement on Ban's six week old commitment to name a panel on war crimes on Sri Lanka, even just to advice him (Ban). But how can he back out of this? Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/lanka9unfollow042210.html

At UN, Spokesman Goes Berserky, from Bhutto Report To Afghan Cover Up

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/un1berserky042210.html

UNITED NATIONS, April 22 -- The public face of the UN has been melting down this month. Martin Nesirky in public, at the noon briefing which he runs, has taken to criticizing particular stories, to relegating disfavored journalists to the back of the question cue or seeking to limit question, even on topics like Thailand and Sudan.

But that's only the public part. In a meeting with major wire journalists before the Bhutto Report press conference, Nesirky "melted down" in one participant's phrase and jabbed his finger at a reporter, saying you can't talk to me like that.

Based on these descriptions, a new moniker has been suggested: Berserky.

Nesirky, or Berserky, loudly claimed that Bhutto panel leader Munoz refused to provide his report before the press conference, but this turned out to not be true. There was anger, there was lash out, there was attempted rapprochement. But only to some.

Even some of those favored by Nesirky have wondered at how little he fought the exclusion of his Office from Security Council consultations. Asked in a noon briefing by Inner City Press if there is any update, he said to ask the Council. But Japanese Ambassador Takasu on April 22 told Inner City Press this is mere housekeeping. It appears there is no update: Nesirky is out. Is that what has driven him Beserky?

To some, to began early. The moment he was named to the psot last year, some surmised without rancor that his knowledge of Ban Ki-moon's native tongue Korean had played a role in his selection. As they said on Seinfeld, nothing wrong with that. But Nesirky appeared at a noon briefing at which he took no questions, to deny that language played any role in his selection. This might have been a clue.

Inner City Press for its part can point most recently to the April 21 briefing, when Nesirky descended to using his bully pulpit to unilaterally denounce a "blog" story -- he emphasized the word "blog" several times -- which characterized as a cover up the UN's stealth processing of evidence indicating UN Security officer Louis Maxwell was killed by the Afghan National forces.

The next day, April 22, Nesirky relegated Inner City Press to the last question to UNRWA's John Ging, and sought to take no more questions from Inner City Press, including on Sudan, Thailand and Sri Lanka. There were other questions to be asked, but they will come in the future. With or without Beserky. Watch this site.

Footnote: while Mr. Nesirky appears to doubt it, Inner City Press has no particular animus toward him. In person, he is pleasant. Some say he takes questions too personally. One hope this relationship can be saved.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un1berserky042210.html

Amid Gaza Blackout, UNRWA's Lights On, Canada Earmarks, Cast Lead's Shadow

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/gaza1power042210.html

UNITED NATIONS, April 22 -- As Hamas and Fatah have bickered over electricity payments, many in Gaza have gone without lights. Not among these are the UN Relief and Works Agency, which has its own generators. Inner City Press asked UNRWA's John Ging about the power plant shutdown, who's to blame and what can be done. Video here, from Minute 36:15.

Ging acknowledged that the dispute is between the "de facto government of Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah," with the former recently agreeing to make payments to the latter. Fatah, as it happens, is accusing Hamas officials themselves of not paying their power bills. Truly, it is a power game.

Inner City Press also asked Ging about on the one hand, executions carried out by Hamas, and on the other deaths killed by bombings by the Israel Defense Forces. Ging was cautious, referring to statistics on UN web sites and Hamas' rocket killing "a migrant worker on an Israeli kibbutz." He said that condemning executions is not within UNRWA's mandate, but that the wider UN system has condemned.

It was at the end of Ging's press conference that spokesman Martin Nesirky called on Inner City Press, when Ging was going to leave. Inner City Press asked Ging about Canada's funding decision on UNRWA. "You ask the big questions right at the end," Ging said.

He went out of his way to express appreciation to Canada, saying it has not decreased but only ear-marked its funding. But in the U.S. House of Representatives, an "UNRWA Humanitarian Accountability Act" has been introduced. Watch this site.

Footnote: Recently the author Normal Finkelstein was invited by the UN Correspondents Association to give a talk at the UN. Inner City Press attended, and asked for Finkelstein's assessment of Ban Ki-moon's performance during Operation Cast Lead. The review was not positive.

After the talk, the New Republic ran a review of not only Finkelstein but UNCA. [Ok, full disclosure of membership in UNCA and appearance in the New Republic piece.] The byline included that the author was an intern at the Inter Press Service, a media closely aligned with the generally pro Palestinian Group of 77 bloc. The affiliation led to some agita. Only at the UN.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/gaza1power042210.html

On Kabul Staff Death, "External" Prober Had Conflict of Interest, UN's Unilateral Spin

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/unleak6afgh042210.html

UNITED NATIONS, April 22, updated -- The UN's supposedly "external" Board of Inquiry into the murder of Louis Maxwell and other UN staff in Kabul last October was revealed Thursday to have been under the decidedly "internal" leadership of Andrew Hughes, who served as the UN's Police chief from 2007 until, it seems, March 8, 2010. The Board of Inquiry began, without any public notice, in January 2010.

The Board of Inquiry was triggered by cell phone video footage showing Louis Maxwell, long after fighting around the guesthouse was over, being shot and killed, and not by Taliban. The UN knew this since December, but only belatedly and begrudgingly discussed the issue publicly when asked, repeatedly, in April.

At the noon briefing of April 20 in response to Inner City Press' questions, UN Spokesman Martin Nesirky stated "this particular board... was composed of external and internal senior personnel with relevant backgrounds and Afghanistan expertise -- including in security; investigations; and agencies, funds and programmes. It was led by a former senior Australian Federal Police Officer."

While Nesirky emphasized "former Australian Federal Police Officer" -- that is, external to the UN -- since then, Mr. Hughes was named to a UN post by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. In fact, during his service with UN Police, the unit's publication "UN Police Magazine of July 2009"described the unit's work in Afghanistan as "forging trust in uniformed police, establishing faith in national justice systems."

One wonders: isn't a bit of a conflict of interest to have Mr Hughes be responsible for evaluating the actions of the Afghanistan National Police, an entity that Mr Hughes was responsible "forging trust" and "establishing faith" in?

On April 22, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Nesirky basic factual questions about the overlap of Mr. Hughes service as UN Police chief and as "external" leader of the Board of Inquiry, and whether once he left his Police chief post, he was paid by the UN for this "external" work.

Nesirky refused to answer these or other questions, saying that all he would say was a prepared statement that the Board of Inquiry -- disclosed belatedly and only after questions -- was now complete but that Afghanistan and "other relevant stakeholders" must have time to respond before the UN speaks about it. Video here, from Minute 44:26.

But while the UN's Spokesman deflects all questions by saying nothing can be said until later, the Number Two official in the UN Department of Field Support, Tony Banbury, served up the UN's position on the report and on charges they have covered up to Foreign Policy's new blog, "Turtle Bay" [for praise of which, on other stories, see below.]

Inner City Press asked Nesirky when Banbury would come to answer questions, since he had spoken on the record to Turtle Bay. Nesirky responded that Inner City Press had send written questions to Banbury "on deadline" - which have remained unanswered six hours later, including these:

Will the UN identify the probe's other members?

Were other UN departments informed of the composition of the board prior to its commencement of work, and invited to participate, or was the Board just selected and appointed by DPKO/DFS?

Can the UN confirm Ban Ki Moon's prior statement that Afghan police failed to respond to the guesthouse for 90 minutes?

Was Louis Maxwell's weapon retrieved by the UN, and does the UN have it in its possession?

Was the killer of Louis Maxwell ever identified or apprehended? Where is he now?

Thursday at the UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked "where is Mr. Banbury today," since he did not respond to these written questions about his on the record claims. Neskiry would not answer.

In fact, in what a number of reporters viewed as retaliation, Nesirky tried to deny Inner City Press to right to ask any other questions, cutting off any follow up and saying "one more question," about a movie. As Inner City Press put forward a question, Nesirky closed his binder and stood. Video here, from Minute 59:25. The question was about Thailand and requests made to the UN by the protesters. Nesirky relented and read out another statement, dodged a question on Sri Lanka and was gone. And so it goes at the UN.

Footnote: Inner City Press does not like to disparage other media, particularly one which like the writer of Turtle Bay has done good work at and on the UN, on OIOS and many other topics. While Turtle Bay says it was offered the Banbury briefing and had no choice but to take it, it is noteworthy that Banbury and UN thought this "blog" was the best venue to unilaterally put out their side of the story.

We put "blog" in quotes, including to follow UN Spokesman Martin Nesirky's statements April 21 against what Inner City Press "put on [its] blog" about the UN covering up. Is this 2010, the UN, using one blog against another?

One might for example note in blog-style that Banbury is most famous of late for saying that news of three rapes in camps in Haiti "almost elated me," and then issuing a convoluted clarification later. Now he speaks unilaterally and takes no questions. "Like Tiger Woods' first press conference," as one reporter put it. Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/unleak6afgh042210.html

At UN, Press Banned from Delegates' Entrance, Spokesman from Consultations

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/sc7unreform042210.html

UNITED NATIONS, April 22 -- As the UN Security Council takes up the seemingly arcane subject of its "working methods," there was a development Thursday morning on the move by some Permanent Council members to give less access to the press.

A convoluted series of rules, below, about how the press can use the stairs outside the Security Council, and essentially Banning the press from the Delegates' Entrance, were emailed to correspondents, on behalf of April's Japanese presidency of the Council.

Spokespeople for other Council members, when shown the diktat, said it was more restrictive than they had agreed to. They pointed the finger at top UN security official Gregory Starr as responsible. We'll see, if the Spokesperson's Office answers.

That Office, having been barred from Council consultations, now refuses to answer questions about why it was barred and what it is doing. On April 22 Inner City Press asked Spokesperson Martin Nesirky for an update on the Secretariat's access to the Security Council consultations. from the UN's transcript:

Spokesperson Nesirky: I told you before Matthew, that this is something that you could ask the President of the Security Council about. This is a matter for them. But, as I have also told you, we -- meaning my Office -- have a role to play in ensuring that the Secretary-General is up to speed on what is happening. And as I say, further to that, it would be better for you to speak to the President of the Security Council.

Inner City Press: That’s exactly why I was asking for the update. If you regain access or if there is some development, it seems like you know…

Spokesperson Nesirky: If there is a development you would know about it.

How?

Meanwhile, the UN has decided to install an unmanned camera to film the entrance to the Council. But it will not have sound. Inner City Press has dubbed them "drone cameras." Thursday morning there was a delay in installation, as the single key to the now storage space under the stairs could not be found. Then when the work began it was abruptly stopped as too loud for the Council.

The Press' working conditions above the library continued to deteriorate, with all phone conversations audible and the decision to cancel in-house telephone calls to UN missions in the field not rescinded. A meeting with Capital Master Plan chief Michael Adlerstein and others on these subjects, delayed so that Ahmad Fawzi's replacement Eric Falt could attend, then conflicted with a stakeout by the International Civilian Aviation Organization. Now it is announced that Mr. Falt is already leaving, to take a post at UNESCO in Paris. Bon voyage.

Here is the stairway message send out to reporters:

Please find below the rules for press access in the Security Council area, including the stairs. This information was provided by the Japanese Mission, which is holding the Security Council presidency for the month of April.

- The press will, in principle, stay in the closed off area to the right of the stairs.

- The press will be able to call out to a PR (or a member of a delegation) and ask if s/he can follow that PR (or a member of a delegation) up the stairs to continue their conversation. If the PR (or a member of a delegation)

agrees, the member of the press may leave the closed off area, follow that person up the stairs, turn “LEFT” to go out to the entrance and resume their conversation.

- The press will not be able to go beyond a certain point from the stairs (something will be put up to indicate how far they can go).

- When the conversation is over the press will go back down the stairs and go into the closed off area.

- The press will not be allowed to roam around on the 1 st floor or the top of the stairs (Delegates' Entrance area), nor will they be allowed to accompany someone coming down the stairs.

- These restrictions are all for safety reasons.

- The Kuwaiti boat area (the area to the “RIGHT” of the stairs if you are going up) will be for delegates only.

Ah, safety. One wondered how this would be policed: with ankle bracelets on the journalists? Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/sc7unreform042210.html

As Congo Army Charged With 11 Murders in Mbandaka, UN Investigation Uncertain

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/un1mbandaka042110.html

UNITED NATIONS, April 21 -- The UN, trying to convince Congolese President Joseph Kabila to let its MONUC peacekeeping mission stay in his country, helped Kabila's soldiers to re-take the Mbandaka airport on April 5. Now a Congolese human rights group is asserting that in the re-taking of the airport, 11 civilian were killed.

Inner City Press on Wednesday asked UN spokesman Martin Nesirky if the UN is aware of the human rights groups' reports, and if the UN will investigate them. Nesirky replied that the UN is aware of the reports, but cannot confirm them.

But since the UN Security Council has repeatedly given the MONUC mission a mandate to "protect civilians," isn't this triggered by awareness of reports that, at a minimum, its partner the Congolese Army may have killed more than ten civilians?

Nesirky repeated the same line, "what I can say is that at the moment we cannot confirm this." He added, "it doesn’t preclude what you are saying that it is being looked into." Frankly, very few things are "precluded" to MONUC. But isn't this mission, led by scandal plagued British SRSG Alan Doss, required to take some action, under its mandate? Watch this site.

From the UN's April 21 transcript, Inner City Press' questions and OSSG's Nesirky's responses:

Question: In the Democratic Republic of the Congo where the Government re-took the airport that had been taken by rebels or was ascribed to ethnic tensions, a Congolese human rights group has said that the Government killed 11 civilians during its re-taking of the airport. I am wondering, since the UN has such a, you know, big presence in the Congo and works with the Government, are they aware of this and are they going to anything to look into this alleged killing of civilians by the Government?

Spokesperson: We’ve heard the report, but we can’t confirm this information.

Question: But is the UN going to look into it, I guess, is my question. It’s within its mandate to look into that.

Spokesperson: At the moment, what I can tell you is that we can’t confirm this information.

Question: Does it have, I mean, I know that MONUC -- I’m sorry to -- has a human rights component and has a mandate to protect civilians. Would this, would looking into alleged killing of civilians by the host Government fall within the mandate of protection of civilians?

Spokesperson: Well, what I can say is that at the moment we cannot confirm this. But it doesn’t preclude what you are saying that it is being looked into. But what I can tell you at the moment is what I have told you.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un1mbandaka042110.html

Tharoor's Cricket-Gate Echoes at UN, Nepotism and Dubai Business, Faux Kofi

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/shashi1gate042110.html

UNITED NATIONS, April 21 -- With former UN official Shashi Tharoor forced to resign as a minister in India, the Indian media has been seeking comment from all and sundry in UN headquarters. Shashi, charged with steering payoffs to a close associate in connection with a cricket team, has proclaimed that his time at the UN was without blemish. Is that true?

In a word, no. Shashi bent the rules to get people jobs including people, shall we say, very close to him. As Inner City Press first reported, one of the people he got a job for is related to an Indian auditor who did the first, whitewashing investigation / cover up of what would become known as the Oil for Food scandal.

From that, the Indian media wanted to know about Shashi's role in Oil for Food. Shashi's former colleague in the UN Department of Public Information, Ahmad Fawzi, took an Indian television reporter to task for even asking the question. He said he'd never heard of the favoritism hiring allegations on the UN's 10th floor. Fawzi is retired now, but he trumpeted the UN's line.

Allegedly trumpeting, but probably falsely, was an online contributor call him - or her - self Kofi Annan. IANS in India reported at face value a posting by "Kofi Annan" defending Shashi and other Indian politicians. Inner City Press will venture this is a faux Kofi, a Faufi, to coin a word.

Meanwhile Indian media in New York tried to track down the real Kofi, seen at UN Headquarters just the other day along with top Peacekeeping Alain Leroy.

When Shashi lost out to Ban Ki-moon in his quest to become Secretary General, he went to work for a Dubai based firm that was seeking investments in India. Shashi made it sound like a social venture, even a nonprofit, which it decidedly was not.

But this is not a crime. Nor is referring to coach class on an airline as "cattle class," even if you fly in the government's money and post the statement on Twitter. Arrogant, perhaps. But not a crime. As to Cricket-Gate, we'll see. Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/shashi1gate042110.html