At UNDP, Carlos Slim Praises Competition After $1B Antitrust Fine, As With Bill Gates, UN Likes Monopolists

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 6 -- Fresh off a $1 billion fine for monopolization in Mexico, Carlos Slim Helu appeared Friday with the UN Development Program talking about economic development in Latin America.

Inner City Press asked Slim about the case, and the place of antitrust law and competition in economic development. Slim cut the question off and launched into an underdog story, of having taken on AT&T, MCI / Worldcom, Verizon.

Yes, he acknowledged, there are places where his company comtrols 100% of the market. He said this could be attributed to who had the better and more extensive network.

Many who attended his press conference at UNDP wondered why Carlos Slim would come to the UN at this time. But this is not his first or only connection. Already, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon named him to a climate change advisory panel.

Mexico and climate change seem to together in the eyes of the UN system. As Inner City Press exclusively reported, the Latin American head of state left unnamed by UN Environment Program in the run up to its “Champions of the Environmental” award ceremony on May 10 is president Felipe Calderon Hinojosa.

After Inner City Press fruitlessly asked Slim about the case and $1 billion antitrust fine, a UNDP staff came over and pointed out that Bill Gates was charged with similar monopolization. It occurs that the UN has a thing for monopolists. Inner City Press raised the same questions about Gates, for example when an Under Secretary General's brother held an event at the UN as “Microsoft's Ambassador to Africa.”

Friday's press conference, held in connection with the Fourth Ministerial Forum on Development in Latin America, was supposed to include Viviana Caro, Minister of Development Planning of Bolivia -- but did not.

Alongside Carlos Slim was Angelino Garzón, Vice President of Colombia, who jumped in to say that monopolies must be opposed by governments. One wanted to ask, by $1 billion fines? But the press conference was over.

Serving as moderator was UNDP's chief for Latin America Heraldo Munoz. Before going to UNDP he as Chile's Permanent Representative to the UN, and chaired a UN inquiry into the murder of Benazir Bhutto. When the report was released, he held a press conference, something that has not been done by the more recent UN panels on Sri Lanka war crimes and then cholera in Haiti. And so it goes at the UN.

As UN Descends Toward Slopenhagen, Of Vattenfall's Abuse and Stakeout Post Hoc Games

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/uncope4offmessage110909.html

UNITED NATIONS, November 9 -- If an agreement is not binding, can you be said to seal the deal? This question was put Monday to the UN's climate change advisor Janos Pasztor, who until recently was calling for a legally binding agreement at the Copenhagen talks in December.

Now Pasztor echoes Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's retreat to a "politically binding" agreement, as phrased most recently in London: " if we agree on a strong politically-binding commitment that will be I think a reasonable success." Toward that goal, apparently, Ban travels to Washington on November 10.

Inner City Press asked Pasztor when it occurred to the UN Secretariat that a legally binding -- that is, a binding -- agreement would not be possible: before or after they said Yvo de Boer was incompletely quoted when he said precisely that? Video here, from Minute 26:12. There was not a specific month, Pasztor answered genially. A few weeks ago.

It's been a slippery slope, one commented, from Jeffery Sachs to Yvo de Boer to this. A slippery Slopenhagen indeed.

Inner City Press asked about the reported walk-out by African countries from the last negotiating session in Barcelona. Pasztor was, as always, relentlessly upbeat, saying they did not walk out of Barcelena (certainly not the city, one wag whispered) but only some meetings -- and then they "walked back" in. So all's fine?

Noting that the SealTheDeal2010 web site, unlike its 2009 version, is not in UN hands, Inner City Press asked if the campaign would morph. Video here, from Minute 30:30. No, Pasztor said, we must have a deal in 2009 in Copenhagen. But is a deal that is not legally binding a deal at all?

Pasztor on November 6 attended a meeting of the Secretary General's Advisory Group on Energy and Climate Change, in the UN's basement. Yvo de Boer was listed as "not participating," and Mexican tycoon Carlos Slim Helu as participating only by teleconference. That was better than the CEO of Vattenfall, a company which has said publicly its use of coal will actually increase in the next few years.

As Inner City Press has raised to Pasztor and UN global goods guru Bob Orr, Vattenfall put out a press release stating that CEO Lars Josefsson's selection by Ban meant the company has a good environmental record. Both have said such claims are inappropriate, and the CEOs are selected and must attend in their personal capacity.

Apparently, Vattenfall has never been disciplined or retracted its claim using the UN. And on November 6, the list of participatants lists "Arne Mogren (on behalf of Lars Josefsson)." What was that about CEOs attending personally?

Listed among "additional participants (consultants and advisors to principals)" was Reid Detchon, a vice president with an NGO, the UN Foundation. Who would he -- or they -- be advising?

Footnote: While some NGOs are invited in, another was escorted away from the General Assembly stakeout on November 5, and had UN passes stripped. On November 9, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesperson Michele Montas when NGOs can speak at the stakeout. Video here, from Minute 17:31.

When they are sponsored by Member States, she said, then added "or Observer Missions," a reference to Palestine's Riyad Mansour and his guests from Jerusalem who spoke at the Security Council stakeout on November 6.

Montas even defended the stakeout of Mia Farrow, as a "UNICEF Special Ambassador." But what about Polisario, which had the plug pulled while it spoke? What about HRW, after the Human Rights Council elections? Which Member States invited them to the stakeout? And was that known in the heat of the moment, or only made up afterwards?

And see, www.innercitypress.com/uncope4offmessage110909.html