As UNDP Re-Directs to Airline Ads, No Answer on $10 to Hear Clark, UN Responds to FUNCA, But Is Australia on Afghanistan or Zimbabwe in UNSC?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 4 -- While the UN Development Program has not explained a $10 charge to hear Administrator Helen Clark speak, after 24 hours, its Liberia website's "Delivering as One" section is re-directing traffic to airline advertisements.

  While the UN's main Twitter account @UN quickly responded to the Free UN Coalition for Access when @FUNCA_info raised this problem -- the UN deleted its own link, which it said worked when it had been "scheduled" --UNDP has still not respond on that or the charging of money to hear its Administrator speak.

  Helen Clark, who will apparently be in her native New Zealand from July past the middle of August, also has not explained the $5 charge for children to hear her on August 7 at the Baycourt Centennial Theatre in Tauranga City, New Zealand. 

  Rather, Clark has promoted her television appearances there and re-tweeted all praise and mentions.

  The advertisement for the August 7 talk says Clark "will be speaking about her work as head of the United Nations Development Program, the peak global body that coordinates development strategy globally, and works in over 170 countries to empower people’s lives while helping nations become more resilient. With a budget of over $US 5 billion a year."

  Five billion dollars a year but Administrator Helen Clark virtually never holds a question and answer press conference at UN Headquarters in New York. Last year after an inquiryby Inner City Press, she did disavow a previous award she'd given to a tobacco firm. 

  That came through UNDP lead spokesperson Satinder Bindra, to whom along with Clark's "personal" spokesperson Christina LoNigro and Abdel-Rahman Ghandour the Free UN Coalition for Access has sent these questions:

"This is a timely request for an explanation of how (or if) it is consistent with UN system principles and rules for UNDP Administrator Helen Clark's upcoming talk "about her work as head of the United Nations Development Program" to have an entrance fee of $10, and even $5 for children:

http://www.ticketdirect.co.nz/event/details/77032/helen-clark-challenges-and-achievements-in-making-a-better-world

"Given that this for-pay event is impending, please provide the requested explanation upon receipt / as quickly as possible and confirm receipt of this request for explanation.

"This is also a formal request that Administrator Clark belatedly hold a question and answer press conference in UN Headquarters in New York, and for an explanation of why she has done even fewer of these than Kemal Dervis or Ad Melkert. Thank you in advance."

  As said 24 hours ago, we will publish any substantive response -- one would think, well in advance of the August 7 event, which is listed (tellingly) as "sold out." Will those people be given their money back?

  Meanwhile, hats off to @UN for responding so quickly. Hats off, too, to UK Permanent Representative Mark Lyall Grant, who replied to a question from Inner City Press about the attack on the Indian consulate in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, if only to refer the question to the UN Mission of Australia, which was assigned the lead or "pen" in the Security Council about Afghanistan.

  No reply yet from them - but from Australia itself comes news, from foreign minister Bob Carr, that Australia wants the elections in Zimbabwe re-run. Will they raise that in the UN Security Council? It's been asked. Watch this site.

Footnote: The quick response, and "thanks," of @UN to the Free UN Coalition for Access stands in contrast to that of the sub-unit Department of Public Information, which has threatened to suspend or withdraw the accreditation of Inner City Press for merely hanging a sign of the Free UN Coalition for Access on the door of its shared office, click here to view.

   FUNCA asked questions that have not been answered, about this and that, and noted that the UN or DPI can't outlaw an organization like the Free UN Coalition for Accesswhich would, has and will if necessary do its work without DPI. Watch this site.

   

Pre-Vote At UN, Rwanda "Confident," SADC Might Abstain, Carr Says Too Many EU

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 18 -- In the run-up to the first round of balloting for UN Security Council seats on Thursday morning, Inner City Press asked two Rwandan diplomats on their way in for their predicted vote count.

No predictions, was the reply, but we are confident. The timing of the leak of a Congo sanctions report two days before the voting alleging Rwandan support of the M23 mutineers has led to a question: how many abstentions? Lost in most of the coverage is Rwanda's pre-existing objection to the sanctions Group of Experts coordinator Steve Hege, for downplaying in 2009 the threat posed by the FDLR militia.

A well placed African source predicted to Inner City Press that some in SADC would abstain, along with the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Of the DRC's dismissed objection just before the voting, that Rwanda is not eligible because it is not peace-loving and is an oasis for war criminals, another African Permanent Representative said, "it's not the time for that, this is not the place for substantive" moves.

  Another asked, "hasn't Bosco [Ntaganda] been leaving in the Congo?" Does that make them an oasis?

In the WEOG race, Inner City Press asked Australian foreign minister Bob Carr if he felt there are already too many Europeans in the Council. Yes, he said, very much so. Then he got more diplomatic, describing Australia's credentials. We'll see -- watch this site.

On Eve of UNSC Vote, Australia's Carr Skips SC Debate, Cambodia Fires at NYT, Rwanda and Hege

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 17 -- On the eve of UN Security Council elections, several last minute pitches were made, documents leaked, responses made or ignored.

  In the Western European and Other states Group, in which Finland, Australia and Luxembourg vie for two seats, Finland's foreign minister Erkki Tuomioja met at 4:30 pm with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, his chief of staff Susana Malcorra and chief political adviser Jeffrey Feltman.

  Finnish Permanent Representative Jarmo Viinanen on October 16 told Inner City Press his country has 165 commitments. They are also preparing bags of dried blueberries for distribution.

   Inner City Press covered the Finnish photo op and while waiting to go up to the North Lawn's third story spotted Australia's foreign minister Bob Carr cutting through the lobby. 

  Unlike his counterparts from Luxembourg and Finland, he did not speak at the day's Rule of Law debate in the Security Council. Nor was he listed on Ban Ki-moon's schedule. But he was working it.

  Australian Permanent Representative Gary Quinlan told Inner City Press he has 162 commitments.

   A well placed diplomat, speaking exclusively to Inner City Press on October 17, mused that Australia is "far from Africa," but is high profile in disarmament, important to the Continent. 

  "There's little exchange of support with Africa," he said, "they always have clean slates. So it's about putting in a factory, or even just a football pitch."

   He went on to the next WEOG election, in which New Zealand is slated to face off with Spain and Turkey. "This is bad for New Zealand," he said, "if Australia gets on, there's no way New Zealand will. And if Australia loses, how could New Zealand win?"

  New Zealand's Permanent Representative, in the Security Council on Wednesday, joined Brazil in question the "carve-outs" from referrals to the International Criminal Court, used by the United States in the Libya referral.

   What Ban's spokesman called the leaking of the report of the Democratic Republic of the Congo Group of Expertsled by Steve Hege was widely seen as a "dirty trick," as two diplomats from different continents put it. But still no alternative candidate stepped forward in the African Group. Likewise Argentina is unopposed in GRULAC.

  The New York Times ran an op-ed against Cambodia, running against South Korea and Bhutan for a single seat;Cambodia responded with a letter to the editor which we will put online here.

  It seems an opportune time to also highlight and link to a recent study of how various Security Council reform proposals would impact the chances of particularly countries to serve on the Council -- click here for that, "Platform for Change." Watch this site.

For UNSC, Luxembourg Said to Have 150 Promises, Australia Counts on Trips, Finland Prepares the Berries

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 15 -- It's time for a vote count in the race among Australia, Luxembourg and Finland for two UN Security Council seats, in the run-up to Thursday's vote. 

  Luxembourg is said to have commitments for 150 votes, which would be a win in the first round. But, as others point out, it's a secret ballot and such promises have fallen apart in the past. Some countries say they support all three.

  Australia, non-Australian sources tell Inner City Press, does not have 129 votes, at least not yet. But others say that the money spent -- which they put not at $40 million but $24 million "allocated," as Foreign Minister Julia Gillard answered Inner City Press-- including on trips by many smaller countries, may serve Australia well if there are multiple rounds. 

 Some countries abide by their commitment only for the first round, then release themselves. Some are always released.

  Australia's foreign minister Bob Carr is already in town, wining and dining; Finland is holding a reception next, with minister Erkki Tuomioja working it. Bags of dried blueberries are being prepared for distribution on Thursday, following the blueberry pie chocolate bars earlier handed out, with Martti Ahtisaari's face on them. But remember: Canada tried with maple syrup...

   Cambodia, competing with South Korea and Bhutan for a single Asian seat, is "in mourning" for former King Sihanook, as the country's representative Hor Nam Bora put it to Inner City Press. There was much buzz about his interview with Inner City Press last week. Will a candid presentation of a country's case help it? Watch this site.

At UN, Dutch and Aussies Lavish Praise on Obama, Even on Test Ban Treaty

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 27 -- Even on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the US has not ratified, the foreign ministers of Australia and the Netherlands replied to Inner City Press' question on Thursday with fulsome praise of Barack Obama.

  Bob Carr of Australia replied, "I would commend president Obama for his leadership, and urge the US Congress to see this as the world sees it."

  Many here have that urging for the US Congress.

  Inner City Press asked, for a second time, if the changes in Egypt, from Mubarak to Morsi, made that country ratifying the CTBT any more likely.

  Dutch foreign minister Uri Rosenthal ignored the Egypt question, but offered, "on the role of the US, I noticed that the Obama administration actually has been very active on nuclear security... held in Seoul, and will be held in the Netherlands in 2014, very much at the initiative of the president of the United States."

  On the changes in Egypt and the CTBT Carr replied, "I'm not sure I can comment usefully on that," a formulation he used a moment later on a question about Article 7 of the Treaty. And so it goes at the UN. Video here.

As UN Confirms Ban to Iran for NAM, Questions of Feltman & Qatar on Syria, UNSC Echoes

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 22 -- After bristling at an online read-out by Israel's Bibi Netanyahu, and after being spoken to more quietly by the US' Susan Rice, Ban Ki-moon's office Wednesday at noon announced that Ban will in fact be going to Iran for the Non-Aligned Movement meeting at the end of August.

  Inner City Press, which had twice before Wednesday asking about the trip, questioned its link to Ban's top political adviser Jeffrey Feltman's briefing that morning to the Security Council. 

  Feltman said Ban is concerned about arms flows to all parties in Syria, but cited only Resolution 1747, which covers Iran's exports. Are Ban and Feltman equally concerned about exports by Saudi Arabia and Qatar?

  Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky, as regards the trip, said that this issue will come up. (At about the same time in closed door Security Council consultations, Inner City Press has learned, Russia was asking Feltman why he hadn't mentioned Qatar, telling him to read the newspapers more often.)

  When Inner City Press asked if Feltman had advised Ban against the trip to Iran, if there was any response, Nesirky said the response is that Ban "is going."

  Was this known all along? What is its relation to Team Ban's pique at Bibi? Last Wednesday Inner City Pressasked Ban's deputy spokesman Eduardo Del Buey:

Inner City Press: There’s a Haaretz story, quoting Benjamin Netanyahu having done a readout of his side of the call that was had, saying that the UN Office of the Spokesman was critical of that. And so I’ve asked you before, what’s the difference with this call? Was it said by the Secretary-General that there should be no readout of the call? Because your side does do readouts--

Deputy Spokesperson Del Buey: Matthew, we do readouts sometimes and we don’t do readouts sometimes, and we’re not going to comment on calls that may or may not have taken place last week.

Inner City Press: Is this something that’s decided between the Secretary-General and the leader at issue, whether it’s going to be read out?

Deputy Spokesperson: The Secretary-General decides when he wants a readout issued of a meeting or a phone call or an encounter of some type, and then the readout is issued.

Inner City Press: So is the other side free to do its own readout without incurring any anger or dissatisfaction from the Secretary-General’s Office? That’s what happened here. It’s reported that Bibi Netanyahu put it on the Internet, what he told Ban Ki-moon, and that the UN didn’t like that. And I just wanted to know is that --

Deputy Spokesperson: I would say that each side is free to do what it wants to, but there are courtesy issues involved. And, normally, I would suggest that, I know when the Secretary-General does a meeting, normally when he issues a readout, normally both sides know that there’s going to be a readout issued.

  Israel is "all in" in urging non-attendance in Tehran. And in Australia, Shadow Minister Foreign for Foreign Affairs and Trade Julie Bishop is urging Permanent Representative to the UN Gary Quinlan not to go. 

  Non-shadow Foreign Minister Bob Carr has said Quinlan is going. Australia is running for a Security Council seat, against Finland and Luxembourg, and may remember what happened to Canada last time, when it lost out to Germany and Portugal. Watch this site.

Carr Says Ban Acknowledged Australia's SC Case, BanWould "Praise Any State"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 11 -- When new Australia Foreign Minister Bob Carr came to meet UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on April 10, Inner City Press went to the photo-op, along with two Australian photographers. See here and here.

Afterward Carr bragged that Ban had acknowledged the strength of his country's case for a Security Council seat, a campaign started by his predecessor Kevin Rudd.

Funny thing, though -- when Ban issued his own read out of the meeting, there was no mention of the Security Council, much less Australia's race against Finland and Luxembourg, where Ban is traveling to now.

So at the UN's April 11 noon briefing Inner City Press asked:

Inner City Press: This meeting with the Australian Foreign Minister, Bob Carr, I saw the readout and then I also saw what Mr. Carr said that Australia’s bid for a Security Council seat was discussed and he said that the Secretary-General has acknowledged that Australia has a good case, so I just wonder, was it discussed in that meeting? This is obviously a key issue to Australia. Is Mr. Carr wrong or is there some diplomatic reason not to include the full agenda of the discussion?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: Matthew, readouts are not transcripts of meetings, they are readouts of meetings and we do not put in readouts the interlocutors comments. We are referring to what the Secretary-General has raised or topics that have been raised that are of a general interest. For example, the DPRK. Everybody knows that a number of countries are bidding for Security Council seats, non-permanent seats. And everybody knows that that’s a decision that is in the hands of Member States and not the Secretary-General. And, therefore, it is not proper for him to take a position on any Member State’s bid. It is also obvious that the Secretary-General would recognize the work of any Member State at the United Nations. So, I think that is pretty clear, Matthew.

Any member state? How about Syria? Watch this site.