By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, March 16 -- In the UN fiefdoms are created. Even when it is shown to those above that a particularly capo has run his domain wrong, the complaint is merely referred back down to the one complained of, for retaliation.
In the bigger picture, this is one of the reasons that the UN has no meaningful protection for whistleblowers, but instead a pattern of retaliation.
Recently the real-life heroine of the “Whistleblower” movie, Kathryn Bolkovac, spoke in the UN, calling on reforms from the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Nothing has happened; DPKO chief Herve Ladsous is allowed to run the Department into the ground.
In the smaller picture, the official in charge of UN Media Accreditation Stephane Dujarric has recently been shown to have written and filed a false complaint against the investigative Press.
In a February 27 letter, Dujarric stated of a February 22 meeting that that “it was clearly understood by all sides there would be no reporting or recording of the meeting.”
Dujarric was immediately told that this was false. Another attendee told Dujarric, in writing, that Inner City Press “did indicate, in response to a comment Pam [Falk of CBS and UNCA] made, that the meeting was being recorded and deemed... to be 'on-the-record.'”
The resulting recording clearly documents Inner City Press saying “you are on the record” and Pamela Falk saying, “he's going to write this up.” Click here to hear this audio, provided to DPI.
So Dujarric's complaint is false, having the effect of trying to undermine or stop reporting.
But Dujarric did not respond in any way for 18 days. The issue was raised to the official above Dujarric, the head of DPI.
Amazingly, this was simply referred back down to Dujarric, who wrote late on March 15 that “the letter stands and I have nothing to add.”
How can the formal complaint letter, shown to be false, “stand”? Why would Dujarric take this stance?
Here is an analogy: a prison warden allows a gang to dominate the yard, calling in others to be shanked by the favored gang's new boss, an almost ritual initiation.
When the shankee afterward refuses to keep quiet, the warden files false charges -- with himself -- against the shankee.
Finally the issue is raised to the far-away Commissioner of Corrections, who is in charge of the system. But the Commissioner, busy with other matters, merely refers it back down to the prison warden.
What do you think happens next?
Could it be that the gang, emboldened, sets up and files it own false complaints, piling on as it were? What does the Commissioner do about that? Watch this site.
Footnote: this same process happened when the New York Civil Liberties Union wrote to the head of DPI on July 5, 2012 asking, in light of attempt to dis-accredit Inner City Press directed to and it seems invited by Dujarric, what the UN's due process rules for journalists are.
The head of DPI never responded. In fact, it was the official complained of, Dujarric, who was allowed to make the UN's “response,” then refuse to provide it to journalists including Inner City Press. This is akin to allowing a rogue trader to be his own auditor. From top to bottom, this UN is mis-run.
