Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Nigeria's UN Security Council Presidency in April Has 10 Stakeouts, Candor on W. Sahara, E10


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 30 -- When Nigeria's Ambassador to the UN Joy Ogwu came to the Security Council stakeout late on April 30 after a month as Council president, she paraphrased Shakespeare. All the world is a stage, or the Council is at the center of the play.

  She certainly did her best during the month, in terms of accessibility: she did nine question and answer stakeouts. Including one by foreign minister Aminu Wali on April 28, and Nigeria did ten, on topics ranging from Western Sahara, to Syria and the Central African RepublicDarfurSouth Sudan and genocide.

  On Western Sahara, to take that example, Ogwu to her credit came out and said that she had pushed the African Union position, that there should be a human rights monitoring mechanism in the MINURSO mission.

  But the MINURSO resolution is written by a "Group of Friends on Western Sahara" that does not include any African Union members, and no mechanism was included.
  On April 30 Inner City Press asked Ogwu about something France's Ambassador Gerard Araud, who once held a mere three question and answer stakeouts in a month as president,had said: that "The UN has never been a place for 'real' negotiation.  It legitimizes or implements agreements reached elsewhere."
   Ogwu said she disagreed, saying that the elected members of the Security Council have sought and obtained a global mandate. It is good, then, that it is Araud set to leave the Council, in July, and not Nigeria.
  In the run-up to Nigeria's end of presidency reception, multiple sources describe angry communications from the old UN Correspondents Association led by Pamela Falk of CBS demanding to know why they weren't at least initially invited. When it was mentioned that Inner City Press was actually at the stakeout during the month, from within the UNCA Executive Committee came an e-mail described as absurd, on which we may have more. 
 The new Free UN Coalition for Access is not just about free food, and 4:30 pm cocktail receptions as UNCA held on April 30 as Iraq's Ambassador spoke at the stakeout - along with Nigeria's Joy Ogwu. Good month.
  Back on April 2 when Ogwu assumed the UN Security Council presidency Inner City Press asked her about Ukraine being a footnote in the month's Program of Work, and about the predicted fast approval of a new mandate for the MINURSO mission in Western Sahara. Video here, from Minute 21:21
  In the Program of Work the "consultations" on Western Sahara are set for April 17 and adoption of the resolution on April 23. Inner City Press asked if this means it is in the hands of the "Group of Friends," which does not include any African member.
Ogwu replied, "we expect to be fully involved." Given that the African Union position on Western Sahara, will that mean that a human rights monitoring mechanism for MINURSO, as exists in other peacekeeping missions, will be seriously considered? 
  Will the US, which proposed such a mechanism last year, push forward again? Secretary of State John Kerry is visiting both Morocco and Algeria early in April. We'll see.
  On Ukraine, Inner City Press asked if the expect report of UN human rights deputy Ivan Simonovic will trigger a meeting or consultation of the Security Council. Ogwu replied, with due regard for strategic planning, that bridge will be crossed when reached.
  As the second question -- why there is a claim of tradition of UNCA, often the UN's Censorship Alliance trying to get others thrown out of the UN and blocking access to documents on the Internet, automatically getting the first question is and will be addressed elsewhere -- the new Free UN Coalition for Access encouraged Ambassador Ogwu to hold question and answer stakeouts, even brief ones, after closed door consultations, as Luxembourg did (14) in March.
  Ogwu noted the invitation. With agenda items on the Middle East, Central African Republic, Darfur, South Sudan and it seems North Korea, in Arria formula style, such stakeout should be useful. Watch this site.

 
  
In Iraq Election, 60% Turn-Out But Not in Falluja, PR Tells ICP
By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, April 30 -- After Iraq's Permanent Representative to the UN held up his finger on April 30 to show that he had voted, Inner City Press asked him if voting had been possible in Falluja.
  No, he replied, in Falluja it was not possible, but some who lived there went and voted elsewhere. How many?
  He cited a 60% overall turn-out, and said his own 80 year old mother told him that who she voted for is none of this business. Call it a mature democracy.
 Back on March 27 after the UN's envoy to Iraq Nickolay Mladenov briefed the UN Security Council on March 27, Inner City Press asked him if the April 30 elections can go forward unless the Independent High Elections Commissioners reverse their resignations.
  Mladenov said their resignations have not yet been accepted, and that the parliament is trying to give them immunity from liability for decisions, to keep them independent.
  Inner City Press also asked about the "good reputation" standards for candidates, and one who has been disqualified. Mladenov said attempts are underway to avoid "arbitrary" disqualifications.
  The Security Council stakeout had a lot of correspondents, but not for Iraq. There was a North Korea consultation to follow, and even though the US had not circulated any draft, largely Japanese media were waiting for any summary of the meeting from Luxembourg, the Council's president for March.
  No such summarize was given on March 26, after Russia raised the issue of "terrorist" attacks on Latakia in Syria. But this NOrth Korea was a big one.  Mladenov gracefully answered three correspondents' questions, the first one generally about terrorism, and then was gone.
   Even back in January, the situation in Anbar in Iraq was deadly serious; in the UN Security Council in New York, less so.
  After the Security Council met on January 9 about Iraq, Inner City Press asked Jordan's Permanent Representative Prince Zeid, the Council president for the month, if a draft Presidential Statement had been circulated by the United States.
  When on Friday afternoon a public meeting of the Security Council was called for 5:30 pm, it was for the agreed-to presidential statement. The UN's machinery whirled into gear: the UN Television cameras, Security officers, interpreters.
  But when the meeting started at 5:34 pm, even watching UNTV on a small screen out at the stakeout it was clear that one of the 15 seats was empty: Nigeria's.
  Since it is often said that all 15 have to be present to hold such a meeting, Inner City Press ran up to the third floor gallery to look again. Sure enough: Nigeria's seat, next to Luxembourg, was empty. Click here.
  Prince Zeid read about the Presidential Statement -- it did NOT call on the government to show restraint -- and the meeting was over.
  Iraq's Permanent Representative Mohamed Ali Alhakim came out and despite being discouraged by some from doing a public, UN televised stakeout, told Inner City Press (on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access) that he would take to the microphone.
  Inner City Press asked him what the government sees as the next steps in Falluja, given that at least some Council members have been talking about the need to show restraint, even maximum restraint.
  Mohamed Ali Alhakim replied that the government is "working with the tribes" and is hoping that the fight can take place outside of the city.
  Afterward Inner City Press asked a Council legal expert if, in fact, Nigeria was marked absent and if there was any precedent. "You saw what you saw," was the pithy answer; a precedent back in 1950 was cited. Surely there are some more recent. But this is just the first month, for the five new members.
  Since the statement was basically agreed to between the United States and Iraq and rubber stamped by the other Council members, perhaps it was fair for Nigeria to not arrive. In further fairness, there was a closed meeting down in Conference Room 1 of the "Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations," which Nigeria has chaired. Photo and snark here. We may have more on this. Watch this site.

 
  

For Ukraine, IMF Delivers $17.01B For 2 Years, $3.19B Right Now, Crimea in IMF's Ukraine Data


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 30 -- The International Monetary Fund has as predicted come through with cash for Ukraine: $17.01 billion over two years, and $3.19 billion available immediately. The IMF sent this statement to the Press:

IMF Executive Board Approves 2-Year US$17.01 Billion Stand-By Arrangement for Ukraine, US$3.19 Billion for immediate Disbursement

The Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) today approved a two-year Stand-By Arrangement (SBA) for Ukraine. The arrangement amounts to SDR 10.976 billion (about US$17.01 billion, 800 percent of quota) and was approved under the Fund's exceptional access policy. The authorities’ economic program supported by the Fund aims to restore macroeconomic stability, strengthen economic governance and transparency, and launch sound and sustainable economic growth, while protecting the most vulnerable.

The approval of the SBA enables the immediate disbursement of SDR 2.058 billion (about US$3.19 billion), with SDR 1.29 billion (about US$2 billion) being allocated to budget support. The second and third disbursements will be based on bi-monthly reviews and performance criteria, and the remainder of the program period will be subject to standard quarterly reviews and performance criteria.

  Back on April 24 the IMF said it expected to approve a $14-18 billion program for Ukraine on April 30, while still including Crimea in its Ukraine data, IMF spokesperson Gerry Rice said at the IMF's embargoed briefing on April 24.

  Rice said the IMF expects its $14-18 billion to "unlock" $15 billion in financial assurances that have already been made by others, whom he did not name. He said that the IMF has now received from Kyiv documents covering all "prior actions" or conditions imposed by the IMF.

  Asked if sanctions imposed to "punish" Russia might harm Ukraine, Rice said the IMF position is that current US and European Union sanctions on Russia are unlikely to have a significant effect on the Ukrainian economy. He said the IMF believes the more substantial risk is from the possible further escalation of tensions.

  On the IMF still including Crimea in its Ukraine data, Rice would not explain except to add that Crimea is only 3.7% of its Ukrainian data. Asked for analogies to lending to Ukraine at this time, Rice cited past IMF programs in Bosnia, Sri Lanka and Peru, calling them "fragile" and with "political tensions."

While the IMF answered three of the six questions Inner City Press submitted during the briefing, its question concerning whether the IMF still includes Abkhazia and South Ossetia in its Georgia data was not answered -- nor whether it includes Western Sahara in its Morocco data.

  The inclusion of Crimea in the IMF's Ukraine data raises the question of the relation between the UN General Assembly vote, with 58 abstentions, on the Crimean referendum and the International Monetary Fund, as well as the US Congress' refusal to pass the IMF quota reforms which US President Obama agreed to in 2010.

 Watch this site.

 
  

At UN, Access Craved by Human Rights Watch, Job Obtained by Amnesty, But Who Watches the UN?


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 30 -- Who watchdogs the UN on human rights, on issues from bringing cholera to Haiti to working with rapists in the Congo, and with child soldier recruiters in Mali?

  When Inner City Press asked Human Rights Watch to disclose what issues its Ken Roth was raising to UN Security General Ban Ki-moon, HRW's UN lobbyist Philippe Bolopion declined, saying that HRW wants to maintain access: "To preserve our ability to have frank discussions with UN officials and advance our advocacy goals, we don't typically communicate on the content of discussions we have with them."

  Amnesty International with its wider membership has generally been more active. But a question is raised this week by the UN hiring as a spokesperson for its Department of Political Affairs the head of Amnesty's UN advocacy office Jose Luis Diaz (whose work, for example on Sri Lanka, we have in full disclosure praised in the past).

  Under the same "anti revolving door" provision that prohibit bank regulators from going directly to work for bank, some might wonder about a person going from a job which presumably includes watchdogging the UN's own performance directly to working for the UN. 

 With all due respect the same questions arise: how long was the job being applied for? Was there any recusal?

  For the human rights "community," if there is one, these may be uncomfortable questions. A UN job may be viewed as better paying, or as offering a better opportunity to impact rather than just complain about issues. 

  But are there safeguards, when already the UN is hardly held to account? We hope to have more on this. Watch this site.

 
  

FOIA Response Shows UN Feltman Communication with US On "Other System" - Non-UN?


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 30 -- Of a recent Freedom of Information Act disclosure by the US State Department, many have argued that there is no smoking gun, there is nothing new. Focusing on the UN, Inner City Press does find something new, though perhaps already known or suspected by some.

  Former US official Jeffrey Feltman, now head of the UN Department of Political Affairs, wrote from his UN.org email account to then Susan Rice-staffer Salman Ahmed on September 12, 2012 saying "thank you for your note on the other system." (The topic was Benghazi and Chris Stevens, may he and his colleagues rest in peace.)

  The UN question raised, as it was by the leaked audio of Victoria Nuland telling US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoff Pyatt that Feltman got UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to send Robert Serry to Ukraine, is in how close contact Feltman remains with US officials -- and HOW, on what "other system"?

Here is the document, click here.

  Does this mean, other e-mail system? As simple as Gmail or more secure?

  When Inner City Press asked the UN about the Nuland audio, Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq tried to claim the Nuland wasn't referring telling Geoff Pyatt about Jeff Feltman but rather some third, still undisclosed Jeff (or Geoff).

  Now Feltman is on his way to Ukraine again, after a formal stop in Cyprus -- about which Inner City Press previously asked the UN without confirmation until today. Feltman is a genial individual but these questions must be asked, and the UN should answer them.

  How will the UN now explain Feltman and the US Mission's "other system"? Watch this site.

 
  

As UN's Valerie Amos Answers Inner City Press On Syria Report UNtransparently Released by UN, Needed Reforms


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 30 -- When UN Humanitarian chief Valerie Amos took media questions on April 30, Inner City Press asked her about two paragraphs of her report on Syria, the advance copy of which was released on April 23 as analyzed below.

   Paragraph 47 disclosed 25 UN staff members detained. Inner City Press asked, by whom? Amos said by both the government and the armed groups.

  Paragraph 45 described what seemed to be slight improvements in visa-granting by Syria, as well as requests "canceled" by the UN Department of Safety and Security. Amos said there are slight improvements but there is a need for more.

   The processing of the slaughter in Syria like in South Sudan, the Central African Republic and elsewhere has become routinized and ideological. Take again, how with further analysis, the example the UN's release on the evening of April 23 of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's second report under UNSC Resolution 2139.

   Along with criticism of the government, this report for example cites armed groups injuring and displacing civilians in Al-Zahraa (Paragraph 5), displacing 7500 in Kassab (by al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham and Ansar al-Sham paragraph 6), blowing off car bombs in Alawite neighborhoods in Homs (Paragraph 9), and so forth.  But what part gets reported?

   Ban's Spokesperson's Office, run by Stephane Dujarric, at the end of the Security Council's meeting on South Sudan (video here) announced over the UN intercom that the report had been transmitted to the Security Council. This was code to say, correspondents can come pick up a copy of the "advance version." 
  But, we now specify, Dujarric's Office of Ban's Spokesperson does not similarly squawk ALL reports. Also, by only squawking rather than e-mailing, sedentary or big media with two correspondents are favored, as they have someone sitting in an office to hear the squawk.  This should and must be reformed.
   The Free UN Coalition for Access has repeatedly asked, including at UN noon briefings, why these reports don't just go online for all to see. The response, off-camera, has been to allow translation into the UN's official six languages. Really?
  The result is that stories are written, for example here by Reuters, that focus on the Syrian government while the report has whole sections about Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, ISIS, et al. Is this retyping really "reporting" by the Reuters bureau chief, who himself is engaged in censorship, here?
   Voice of America breathlessly tweeted -- apparently their story if there is one will be re-typed in Washington -- from the report. All of this is only allowed to masquerade as journalist because of the UN's archaic withholding from the public of information.
 Despite the lack of any stated rule in this regard,  FUNCA and Inner City Press have been criticized for even questioning or reporting on this anti-public process. A previous UN spokesperson told Inner City Press the reason for stealth is that "the member states" would like pre-release before translation. But doesn't the Secretariat WORK for member states? Or is this how they buy the fealty of the scribes?
   But if an affiliate of US Voice of America immediatelyscans and puts the advance copy online, where is the mystery? Where is the double standard? Wouldn't it be better for the UN itself to put the report online when available?
 And then not, as it did on Western Sahara this month, change the report after getting pushed around? FUNCA is and will remain for UN transparency and fair treatment. And FUNCA maintains there should be answers -- including fromUN Under Secretaries General -- and written rules. For days, the UN has refused to explain why for example the Turkish Cypriot leader Eroglu was allowed to speak on UNTV but Polisario is not. The lack of rules only benefits the powerful: media, countries, corporations.
   After the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons told the UN Security Council on April 23 that Syria has removed or destroyed 88% of supplies, the questions were mostly about new reports of chlorine gas use.
  Inner City Press asked April's Security Council president Joy Ogwu of Nigeria about any investigation by the OPCW. She said, they could play a role. Inner City Press asked, But will they? 
   Next, Syria's Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari came out, denied that his government used the "mundane" chemical chlorine but said the timing of the allegation was too convenient.
    Inner City Press asked him of the Syria Coalition's statement it would not resume Geneva talks in the foreseeable future given the announcement of elections in June. Ja'afari replied that his government is still waiting to hear back from mediator Brahimi, who he added has "made many mistakes."
   There was more interest than usual in asking Ja'afari questions. Some grabbed the boom microphone; Reuters bureau chief barged into the roped off area of the UN Television cameraman, according to the cameraman himself. Instead of apologizing, the Reuters bureau chief demanded, What are you looking at.
  We note this because we are against a two or three tier UN and it's the same character who who filed "for the record" but "private" anti-Press complaints with the UN he-- one of them saying he couldn't do his job with the Press around -- then got one of them censored from Google's Search claiming it was copyrighted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Click here for that. This is how the UN works, or doesn't.
  Back on April 17, Homs in Syria was the topic when the UN Security Council met at 5:30 pm. France called the meeting but most who left called it a failure. 
 What was agreed to were vague "elements to the press" about supporting Brahimi's call for local ceasefire talks in Homs.  
  Inner City Press asked April's Council president Joy Ogwu of Nigeria why no reference to wider "Geneva 3" talks was included. It is not in there, she indicated. Video here.
  Then Syrian Ambassador Bashar Ja'fari came to speak. Inner City Press asked him about US-made BGM-71 TOW missiles now in Syria, of the group Harakat Hazm. They are with Al Nusra, Ja'afari said.
  Inner City Press asked on what basis Ja'afari said the US approved their transfer to Syria, if they could have come through Turkey. Ja'afari said there is no way they could come in without approval from Washington. Video here -- this is Inner City Press YouTube video.
  Unlike other stakeouts, the UN did not put on its UN Webcast archive Ja'afari's long April 17 stakeout including on TOW missiles. Inner City Press asked about it on April 22 at the noon briefing, and later another UN individual acknowledged it had not gone up. But why?  Now, only after asking, it is up. Click here (TOW question and answer from Minute 15:17.) This is how the UN works, or doesn't.
  Ja'afari was asked by Voice of America, on whose Broadcast Board of Governor's US Secretary of State John Kerry serves, why Syria doesn't use Russia or China to get a meeting about Kassab. Ja'afari responded to the question; he did not say as France Ambassador Gerard Araud did on April 15 to Al Mayadeen, "You are not a journalist, you are an agent."

  By Araud's logic, is not Voice of America an agent? Is not France 24, also called on by Ja'afari? Ah, freedom of the press. Here is what the Free UN Coalition for Access has done so far.
   When outgoing French Ambassador Araud scheduled a press conference on human rights for April 15, he began to receive many questions, here, about blocking human rights monitoring in Western Sahara. 
  It is a policy Araud is particularly associated with, since Javier Barden quoted him calling Morocco France's "mistress." Araud spoke of suing, but hasn't.
   But when during the April 15 press conference, in which Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access were not called on, Araud was asked about France having killed people in Algeria, Araud told the questioner, You are not a journalist, you are an agent. Video here.
  The French run press conference gave the first question to Al Arabiya, for UNCA (now known as the UN's Censorship Alliance), then France 24.  By Araud's spokesperson Frederic Jung, a  Voice of America affiliate was given a question. 
  Syria "Caesar" report panelist David Crane was asked who funded it and answered on camera merely that he was paid. (The photographs, Inner City Press noted and notes, are extremely troubling - all the more reason that taking Qatar's funding and denouncing the only critical question were unwise.)
  Afterward, Inner City Press asked Crane to confirm the payment was from Qatar. He confirmed it. Inner City Press asked, did you seek any other, less compromised funding? The answer was no. In fact, Crane said he gave his recommendations to the Syrian National Council. Afterward Inner City Press asked him if he meant the Turkey based group headed by Ahmed Al Jarba, and Crane said yes, than added, "The resistance" writ large.
     When Qatar sponsored an event at the UN in New York on March 21 featuring the Syrian Coalition headed by Ahmad al Jarba, a group calling its the Syrian Grassroots Movement held protests seeking to oust Jarba.
   By March 22, the group stated that some 40,000 people in 58 cities inside Syria had participated in demonstrations to get Jarba out of his post, saying "it is time to put an end to political corruption."
  Back in September 2013, France sponsored an event in the UN and called Jarba the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people. French Ambassador Gerard Araud was the first questioning at Qatar's March 21 Syrian Coalition event. What is France's position now? Who chooses the leaders?
  Likewise, back in July 2013 and earlier this month, the Jarba-led Syrian Coalition held faux "UN" events in the clubhouse Ban Ki-moon's Secretariat gives to the largely Gulf and Western UN Correspondents Association. How does that now appear, in light of the anti-Jarba protests?
   Qatar's March 21 event was not listed in the UN Journal nor in the UN Media Alert. It was not on the UN's publicly available webcast.
  Select media outlets were there, when Inner City Press came in at the end to ask a question: Al Jazeera on the podium in Qatar's event, Al Arabiya like a Saudi diplomat -- not the Permanent Representative -- in the audience along with Al Hayat, even Al Hurra, on whose Broadcasting Board of Governors US Secretary of State John Kerry serves.
   The new Free UN Coalition for Access is against faux UN events, in the clubhouse the Secretariat gives to what's become its UN Censorship Alliance or elsewhere.
   On March 21 Inner City Press put these questions, also on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, to the UN's top two spokespeople:
"there is an event in Conference Room 4 right now, sponsored by Qatar, which is no listed in today's UN Journal, nor is it on UN Webcast http://webtv.un.org/ but it appears to be being filmed. Please explain the legal status of this meeting, if there are any sponsored beyond Qatar, how it was publicized and if any request to have it webcast was made. Thanks, on deadline."
  But no answer was provided. Inner City Press ran to the event and from the back of a three quarters empty Conference Room 4 asked why the event was so stealth: not in the UN Journal, not webcast.
  The Permanent Representative of Qatar answered, saying it was a "special event" to which Qatar had invited (some) member states and groups, and (some) media. There is a UN Media Alert, but this event was not put in it.
  Perhaps it was publicized by the Gulf & Western United Nations Correspondents Association, which has twice hosted faux "UN" events by the Syrian National Coalition or Syrian Coalition. (In both cases, the Free UN Coalition for Access suggested that the SNC hold its events in the UN briefing room, accessible to all journalists.)
  Since French Ambassador Gerard Araud, the first questioner flanked by representatives of Saudi Arabia and of Turkey which earlier in the day banned Twitter, has spoken about "fakes" and others about accountability, Inner City Press asked if the groups Al Nusra and ISIS, and those who fund them such as private individuals in Qatar alluded to at the US State Department briefing earlier in the day, could or would be held accountable.
  The SNC representative emphasized what he called links between the Assad regime and ISIS, saying it was too easy to blame the Gulf countries.
Question: you have concerns about the withdrawal of the ambassadors. Do you also have concerns about the reasons that these countries said that they withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar? In other words, do you – if you have concerns about the withdrawal of the ambassadors, do you also have concerns about Qatar’s behavior, which – alleged behavior, let’s say – which led to these countries withdrawing their ambassadors?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I know one of the issues that has been mentioned is the issue of private donations to extremists – and that’s something that some have mentioned – operating in Syria and elsewhere. It remains an important priority in our high-level discussions, and one that we also certainly raise with all states in the region, including Qatar, including the Government of Kuwait, wherever we have concerns.
After Inner City Press asked about the sponsorship of the event, a one-page "Joint Statement by the Co-Organizers" was passed out, listing among the co-organizers France, the UK, US, Belgium, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Inner City Press tweeted it. 
   Even 24 hours later, the UN's top two spokespeople had not answered the simple questions put to them, above. Watch this site.

 
  

As US Congress Mulls Confirming Voice of America as Propaganda, VOA's Censorship Role Revealed under Freedom of Information Act



By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 30 -- Alongside a draft US law to further make "clear that the Voice of America mission is to support U.S. public diplomacy efforts," there are claims that VOA currently is more independent than this.

   At the United Nations, this is hardly the case. Recently France's outgoing Ambassador to the UN Gerard Araud told a reporter for what's called Shi'ite media, "You are not a journalist, you are an agent." But VOA's questions are no less directed.

 Significantly, Voice of America not only at the UN but from its Washington headquarters, in a formal complaint submitted to the current UN spokesman by editor Steve Redisch with the approval of supervisor David Ensor, asked the UN to "review the accreditation" of the investigative Press, click here for that.

  In e-mails subsequently obtained by Inner City Press under the Freedom of Information Act, the VOA bureau chief sought and said she had obtained support for censorship from the United Nations Correspondents Association and the bureau chiefs of Agence France Presse and Reutersherehere and then here (censorship under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act).

  Back on January 8, with Voice of America's Broadcasting Board of Governors still not having addressed censorship bids by VOA which it oversees, President Obama nominated to the BBG Michael W. Kempner, a founder of New Jersey's ConnectOne Bancorp and a bundler of campaign contributions.
   We asked and ask again, why does the US government need a propaganda network, and why turn it loose inside the US? And why would its BBG, after first granting Freedom of Information Act access and fee waivers then try to reverse all this after the documents released proved embarrassing?
  After that, BBG's FOIA Officer Andrew Krog suspended processing in the October 2013 government "funding lapse;" then Appeals Access Committee chair Marie Lennon denied access to any documents about taxpayer funded BBG programming in Sudan and Afghanistan (see below.)
  In the three days that followed, mail poured in providing yet more detailed accounts of BBG and Voice of America incompetence and assaults on the principles they supposedly uphold. 
  The union that represents workers there, AFGE Local 1812, has written that
poor morale was made markedly worse by a decision in 2010 to re-appoint the present newsroom director [Sonja Pace]. A correspondent since the 1980’s, she had been reassigned from the position of news chief more than a decade earlier. Fast forward to 2010: An audio recording of an open meeting in VOA’s newsroom shows that strong protests against the reappointment of the former news director were dismissed by VOA's Executive Editor [Steve Redisch] a former CNN employee. In the recording, the Executive Editor rejected staff concerns, saying 'you’re responsible for your own morale.' Though he has known of the morale crisis in VOA’s Central News Division created by the 2010 decision, current VOA director David Ensor has allowed this situation to continue.”
  Inner City Press in 2012 had its own experience of these three individuals. VOA's Executive Editor Steve Redisch wrote to the UN asking that Inner City Press' accreditation be “reviewed.”
  The only communication Inner City Press had received from VOA or BBG in Washington prior to this was from Sonja Pace, that “regarding VOA’s Charter and Code, we absolutely stand by those mandates and guidelines, without exception.”
  Apparently Voice of America's principles don't include the First Amendment. Subsequent inquiring under the Freedom of Information Act found David Ensor involved in the decision to try to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN. Ensor served the US State Department in Afghanistan and perhaps re-formed his view of press freedom there.
  In mid 2013, the Obama administration nominated former Afghanistan envoy Ryan Crocker to join the then half-empty Broadcasting Board of Governors, along with John Kerry, while claiming that the output under the BBG is entirely independent from the US government. This is not credible.
  The Colombia Journalism Review, with its own conflicts, has made this point, and BBG has belatedly responded. Will any of this finally bring accountability? Watch this site.