As UNDP Justifies $5 Charge to Kids to Hear Clark, Re-Directs to Airline Ads

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 5 -- Now the UN Development Program has provided a justification to the Free UN Coalition for Access of the  $10 charge to hear Administrator Helen Clark speak, from Clark's personal spokesperson Christina LoNigro:

"The Tauranga Branch of the United Nations Association is a small local organisation and the fees charged for the event will be used to cover the cost of the venue.  Any additional proceeds will be given to the YWCA Future Leaders Programme."

  It's appreciated, but charging money to hear a UN system official speak -- in this case, charging $5 to children -- is not only unsavory, but may run afoul of General Assembly Resolution 92(I), which provides that

"Members of the United Nations should take such legislative or other appropriate measures as are necessary to prevent the use, without authorization by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and in particular for commercial purposes by means of trademarks or commercial labels, of the emblem, the official seal and the name of the United Nations, and of abbreviations of that name through the use of its initial letters"

  When previously raised by Inner City Press regarding a similar $10 charge to hear Robert Orr at the Korea Society, the oral response was to waive the fee. Presumably children weren't being charged in that case.

  Also, there may be a UNA pattern here: Inner City Press previously questions the charging of money for another UNA event, here.

  Meanwhile, now more than 24 hours after it was exposed,UNDP's Liberia website's "Delivering as One" section is stillre-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 fixed the link.

  Beyond these, FUNCA asked LoNigro and UNDP lead spokesperson Satinder Bindra and Abdel-Rahman Ghandour this:

"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."

  On this, no response yet. The decline in New York media Q&A by UNDP's Administrator began under a UN official now in charge of both accreditation and UN Television, about which questions asked Monday by FUNCA and others, about the low quality of audio for the MERCOSUR foreign minister's stakeout about US spying were not responded to. Meanwhile even UNWebcast gushed to the new US Ambassador. This is the UN.

Footnote: The quick response, and "thanks," of @UN to theFree 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.

   

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.

   

Exclusive: Of $10 Charge to hear UNDP's Helen Clark Speak in NZ, Like UN's Pay to Ask Through UNCA, Free UN Coalition for Access Questions

At UNDP, Pay to Listen to Clark, Pay to Ask through UNCA, FUNCA Fights 

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 3 -- How can people be charged money, $10 for adults and even $5 for children, to hear a UN system official speak about their work for the UN?

  The Free UN Coalition for Access put this question to the UN Development Program's three top spokespeople regarding UNDP Administrator Helen Clark's upcoming August 7 talk at the Baycourt Centennial Theatre in Tauranga City, New Zealand.

  The advertisement 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 inquiry by Inner City Press, she did disavow a previous business 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, here.

"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."

  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?

  There is a disturbing trend of money being charged in the UN system, that the Free UN Coalition for Access is looking into. At UN press conference, the UN Correspondents Association as it becomes increasingly discredited for, among other things, spying for the UN (story, audio of UNCA's first vice president Louis Charbonneau of Reuters,document with his "you didn't get this from me"), fights ever harder to be given the first question.

  But since UNCA 2013 president Pamela Falk of CBS News has said that this first question can be given to ANY dues paying member of UNCA, even one who ran for but was not elected to the Executive Committee, it is clearly a situation of pay to play: a person getting a first question at the UN in exchange for paying money. Where is the Office of Legal Affairs? The Ethics Office? OIOS?

  Also the UN gives large room S-310 to UNCA, for briefings they publicize only to those who pay them money. Even member states have started to complain about this. But those in charge of this increasingly discredited partnership, the UN Censorship Alliance, are apparently out of touch with member states and the rules of the UN that at least some of them used to previously seek to enforce.

This charging of money to children to hear a UN system official speak takes place outside of UN premises, far from New York in Helen Clark's native New Zealand. Watch this site.

   

As UNDP's Selective "For the Record" Omits Alberdi Flap, Scandals Proliferate

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/undp4208media042008.html

UNITED NATIONS, April 20 -- Alone among UN agencies, the UN Development Program has spent money and time to create a media "fast reaction team" to seek to ostensibly rebut and discredit reporting and reporters critical of UNDP and its high officials. When the coordinator of its Millennium Campaign Eveline Herfkens was accused of taking $7000 a month from the Dutch government while ostensibly working only for the UN system, UNDP's online "For the Record" leaped to her defense. Once the charges were proved, UNDP simply moved on to attack other media reports, stating for example that

On allegations about procurement irregularities in Burundi...In January 2007, UNDP's office in Burundi submitted a request for procurement of $2.3 million worth of medical supplies from Hospital Services (Burundi). After looking into the matter, the request was rejected by UNDP’s corporate procurement review due to a perceived non-transparent procurement process. Contrary to recent allegations, UNDP’s own internal controls identified the shortcomings and halted the procurement action.

UNDP's seeming rebuttals are selective: the gist of Inner City Press' reporting about UNDP in Burundi is that UNDP refused to give information about the contracting irregularity to representatives of two donor member states who asked -- and then arranged a job for one of the requesters. Despite a track record of refusing to show documents and audits even to its funders, UNDP has now claimed that it would be willing to show anything on its Intranet to interested reporters. But UNDP has delayed and finally declined in answer basic factual questions from Inner City Press, preferring to wait and respond selectively on its "For the Record" blog-like page. UNDP is clearly proud of the page. But what does it choose to respond to?

Earlier this month, the Associated Press ran articles severely critical of the award, by UNDP, of the top spot at UNIFEM to a Spanish national, over a more qualified candidate from India, in the shadow of Spain giving $700 million to UNDP. AP reported that "UNDP spokesman David Morrison refused to answer any questions about the selection process." There was no response from UNDP on its "For the Record" page, which is subheaded, "Official responses to inaccurate press reports." Either UNDP agrees that the post award was determined by money, or is afraid to critique what it considers a media outlet more mainstream not only than Inner City Press, but also than Fox News. So "For the Record" should be more accurately labeled, a response to media that UNDP is not afraid of. Or perhaps it is the range of NGO outrage at the selection process -- most recently, opposition has been expressed by, among others,

-the Fiji Women's Rights Movement (Pacific)

-International Women's Human Rights Law Clinic (USA)

-Popular Education Network of Women from Latin America and the Caribbean

-Women's Action for Change (Pacific)

-Women's Development Collective (South East Asia)

-Women in Development Europe

-Young Women Activists (Global)

UNDP also claims it shares the information on its Intranet with its "NGO partners." We'll see

Regarding UNDP's claims that it would happily show information from its intranet to reporters, and offer briefings on subjects needing clarification, not only have Kemal Dervis and Ad Melkert not taken questions in months, here after a week's delay was UNDP's response to two simple factual questions from Inner City Press:

In a message dated 4/2/2008 1:03:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, christina.lonigro [at] undp.org writes:

On your questions regarding compensation for the Algiers bombing, due to the ongoing processing of claims and the Brahimi investigation, I have no information to give you at this time.

On your question at the briefing regarding a Fox News story about an alleged "no bid contract" in Venezuela, I encourage you to look at our response posted on our website. http://www.undp.org/for-the-record/index.shtml The process for this contract was competitive and the article contained many mischaracterizations and inaccuracies.

Underlying the still-disputed Venezuela contract issue, and the Algiers insurance question which the UN Secretariat, unlike UNDP, realized it must answer, there are numerous questions to UNDP this year which the agency has chosen not to answer, after promising responses. Ironically, one of the questions involves which media outlets UNDP provides payments to. Now having patiently waited more than a month for responses to factual questions to UNDP, each will be reported in turn. Among many other things, there's lack of confidence in UNDP management in Bangladesh, plagiarism, and another contract controversy, in Trinidad.

UNDP also recently reached out to take issue with media reports in Malaysia, in a way that may reflect those its "media monitoring" is going --

"In a related development, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) clarified that UNDP national expert in Sarawak for the peat swamp project, Dr Alexander Sayok, is a staff of the Forest Research Institute of Malaysia (FRIM) and not a staff of the UNDP and thus Dr Sayok's comments on the lack of enforcement against wildlife abuse in Sarawak was his personal view.

"When contacted, the UNDP Kuala Lumpur spokesman said that the UNDP did not have an office in Sarawak and thus it could not give any official comments on issues in this state. 'However, the coverage by The Star on this endangered animal's issue has been listed as among the top most important articles from among the news events in more than 100 countries monitored by the UNDP over the past few days,' she said."

So, not only does UNDP monitor "more than 100 countries" every few days -- its goal in doing do is to rebut its own lower-level employees and contractors comments that are critical of any government. That is, UNDP's media monitoring attacks not only reporting and reporters who question UNDP's actions, but its own employees who question any government's or UNDP's actions...

And see, www.innercitypress.com/undp4208media042008.html

UN Refugee Agency Workers Impacted by Algiers Bombing Were Uninsured, Funds Diverted, Sources Say

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un3unhcr040708.html

UNITED NATIONS, April 7 -- Of the seventeen UN victims of the bombing on December 11 of the UN premises in Algiers, four were UN system contractors for whom the UN had not bought any insurance, according to Inner City Press' sources and as partially confirmed by the UN's Deputy Communications Director. While payments are being made to victims, in the case of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, this is coming out of the operating budgets, insiders say -- that is, from funds meant to be helping the poor and refugees. Specifically, UNHCR sources describe internal documents in which $1.5 million is set aside for uninsured workers for UNHCR, and say that since this cannot be paid out of the administrative budget, it must come out of operations, funded intended for refugees.

Among the uninsured UNHCR victims according to colleagues were Mouloud Bouledroua, who was killed; Zaidi Hasina, broken foot and several injuries, Zeccar Yasine, broken feet and several injuries; Boutaiba Sofiane, several injuries; Zeccar Yasine, broken feet and several injuries, and Kamel Housnia, both legs amputated. How $1.5 million will be split between them is unclear. The UN's Deputy Communications Director Stephane Dujarric, in an April 7 e-mail to Inner City Press, put UNHCR's fatalities at two, and noted that one fatality each at the World Food Program and the International Labor Organization were outside of the coverage of the UN system's Malicious Acts Insurance Policy.

While the majority of those killed were Algeria, other UN system workers who got killed came from Senegal, the Philippines and Denmark; higher-level UN officials focused on this last Danish case, noting the tragedy that since he had only recently arrived in Algeria, he was not covered by insurance. But UNHCR, and it is believed WFP and ILO, routinely leave their national staff uninsured. No one Inner City Press spoke to in preparing this story suggested that the UN does not owe these people. Most, in fact, felt that the UN pays too little. Rather, many questioned UNHCR's use of uninsured contracts, the lack of accountability for the decisions make in the run-up to December 11, and the UN's lack of transparency.

Twelve days ago, Inner City Press asked the UN refugee agency UNHCR and the UN Development Program about the insurance coverage. UNHCR said answers would be provided March 27, but none arrived. On March 26, the UNDP's Christina Lonigro, to whom Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson's office referred Inner City Press, said she was getting right on the information request. On March 27, she said she was soon have answers from UNDP's Arab States bureau, except they were out at a meeting. She added, " if you are you insinuating that I am purposefully not answering your questions, I assure you that is not the case." A UN staffer in the Office of the Spokesperson of the Secretary-General supported the delay, arguing that the UN provides responses more quickly than Wal-Mart (whose employment practices UNHCR seems to be emulating, in the lack of insurance coverage).

On April 2, UNDP's Lonigro changed course and said "on your questions regarding compensation for the Algiers bombing, due to the ongoing processing of claims and the Brahimi investigation, I have no information to give you at this time." A spokesperson for Ban Ki-moon echoed that "UNDP is the lead" on this issue and that "claims are still being reviewed." Ultimately, and to his credit, Deputy Communications Director Stephane Dujarric agreed to provide a response, and Inner City Press agree to wait an additional five days to get it.

It was worth it. Mr. Dujarric confirmed that several UN agencies, including UNHCR, ILO and WFP, are outside of the UN's Malicious Acts Insurance Policy. He told Inner City Press:
Thirteen out of the seventeen staff members or SSA contractors killed in Algiers are covered by the UN's Malicious Acts Insurance Policy. Their claims are being processed by insurers. Disability claims will be identified on completion of medical process. The additional staff/SSA that belonged to non-participatory agencies is having their claims processed by their 'home' agencies. [UNHCR (2), ILO (1) and WFP (1)].

In addition, claims for payments for killed and injured staff/SSA contractors on official duty are being handled under the internal self-insured scheme called Appendix D of the Staff Rules which leads to payments for injured staff members or to recognized dependants in case of death... So far, 13 claims have been received by the UN. There is internal system in place for reviewing these claims by a board consisting of representatives of staff and management.

This Appendix D is derided as being out of date, specifying low set payments for example for the loss of a limb. Those confined to this internal UN justice system contrast their situation with that of "outsiders" who alleged negligence by the UN, for example in the aftermath of the flying glass at the Canal Hotel bombing in Baghdad in 2003. There is talk of large settlements to certain outsides, while some trapped in the UN system's justice system have cases pending in the UN Administrative Tribunal since 2003.

But even some long-time UN watchers expressed shocked when informed today that UNHCR, and perhaps WFP and ILO, are outside of the UN's Malicious Acts Insurance Policy. One source indicated WFP had at least tried to get insurance for its contractors. But it would seem that the Executive Boards and governing bodies of each of these agencies -- and applicable national governments -- should demand answers from management, and make the answers public.

Many view the Lakhdar Brahimi inquiry -- Brahimi himself said not to call it an investigation -- as not conducive to finding the truth about and assigning some responsibility for, or even learning lessons from, the run-up to and aftermath of the December 11 Algiers bombings. Brahimi has said he will focus on why people target the UN; it is highly unlikely he will report on whether those impacted had insurance. Nor has the UN said if his report will be made public. The first UN report, by the Department of Safety and Security, is being withheld. One of its lines, though, is known: "care has been taken not to apportion blame or responsibility." And so it goes, for now, at the UN.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un3unhcr040708.html