At UN, No Follow Through on Whistleblower Protection, As No Answers from UN Peacekeeping

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 13 -- When Inner City Press asked about the UN's ostensible protection of whistleblowers nearly two years ago, on May 21, 2013, it was told that "the UN Secretariat has engaged Justice Louise Otis of Canada to conduct an independent review of the Organization's protection against retaliation policy.. and her final report is expected to be delivered to the Secretary-General later in the year."

 But when Inner City Press on April 10, 2015, asked about the status of Justice Otis' report, UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric said, "I'm not aware of any Judge Otis report." Three days later, no answer; no update was inserted into the UN transcript, here:

Inner City Press: I'm assuming that you've seen this letter from nine whistle-blowers including Mr. [James] Wasserstrom, [inaudible] and others saying the Secretary-General current protections are totally either unimplemented or unsatisfactory and calling for the release of this report that was done by Judge [Louise] Otis some time ago. It was said that he'd commissioned an outside report by a Canadian jurist and it hasn't been released or he doesn't think it's been released.  What's the response that?  And can it be released now?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I'll check.  I'm not aware of any Judge Otis report.  We obviously recognize and value the whistle-blower protection.  They have been… I think it comes… it's a bedrock of accountability and being able to address serious wrongdoing of the organization.  There have been protections put in place since 2005, which was in accordance with best practice at the time.  We obviously conduct any serious review of any allegations having to do with whistle-blower protection.  And I would say that we're obviously looking to actively strengthen the protection against retaliation specifically by reforming the policy so that it enhances how the UN encourages the reporting of misconduct and protects whistle-blowers from retaliation and facilitates retaliation prevention.

Inner City Press:  What do you think of their proposal of external arbitration?  These are nine individuals who have all apparently had a pretty…

Spokesman Dujarric:  Obviously, I'm not going to go into the details of the individual cases that were brought up, but I think the point is that we're always looking and we are… we're actively currently working on strengthening the protection.  Obviously, any proposal would be looked at seriously.

  For the UN transcript they looked up and added the name "Louise" before Otis - maybe because the whistleblowers'letter specifically asked Ban to "publicly release the external study of whistleblower protections at the UN conducted
by Justice Louise Otis" -- but no update on the report that was due more than sixteen months ago.

  Currently the UN Secretariat says doubts are being unfairly raised about, for example, its UN Joint Staff Pension Fund - but it refused again and again to answer even if Investment Committee chair Ivan Pictet had resigned. 

  More tellingly, the UN Secretariat has allowed an Under Secretary General to openly and repeatedly say that he won't and doesn't have to answer questions from specific media (video here, Vine here). After that, why would parts of the UN like the Pension Fund, or the constellation around whistleblower protection, feel a need to answer any question? But how it is working?

 The whistleblower signatories included James Poole, Miranda Brown, Aicha Elbasri, James Wasserstrom, Vesna Dzuverovic, Cynthia Brzak, Rasna Warah, Nasr Ishak and Mahan Amarnath.

Back on May 21, 2013 Inner City Press asked the UN Office of the Spokesperson about protections for  UN whistleblowers. Minutes after the (very short) noon briefing, Inner City Press was sent this response:

Subject: Re: Your question at the noon briefing
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:27 PM
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com

The UN Secretariat has engaged Justice Louise Otis of Canada to conduct an independent review of the Organization's protection against retaliation policy for the purpose of issuing recommendations to the Secretary-General to enhance policy effectiveness. Justice Otis is an expert in international administrative law, and formally served on the Redesign Panel on the United Nations Administration of Justice System.

Justice Otis' review is currently underway, and her final report is expected to be delivered to the Secretary-General later in the year.

  Sixteen months after that deadline, nothing. Watch this site.

On Eve of Haiti Earthquake Fifth Anniversary, US Court Dismisses Cholera Suit Against UN, Will Be Appealed

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 9 -- On the eve of the fifth anniversary of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, US District Judge J. Paul Oetken of the Southern District of New York has given the dubious gift of dismissing a lawsuit against the UN for bringing cholera to the country, which has killed over 8,700 Haitians.

   Judge Oetken's ruling, here, cites another UN impunity case, Brzak v. United Nations, concerning sexual harassment by the head of the UN's refugee agency, concluding that "the United Nations, MINUSTAH, Ban Ki-moon, and Edmond Mulet are absolutely immune from suit in this Court." So much for accountability. So much for the rule of law.

  The plaintiffs' counsel vow to appeal. Mario Joseph of the Bureau des Avocats Internationaux in Haiti said, "We won't stop fighting until the UN cholera stops killing Haitians."

  The UN didn't even go to court to make the argument: the US did. On January 8, the US State Department's Special Coordinator Tom Adams said, "as you know, there’s a legal case been brought against the United Nations.  We’re not a party to that case.  We have asserted the immunity of the United Nations in that suit.  We didn’t do this out of a lack of sympathy for the victims, but it’s just part of our treaty obligations."

  On January 9, Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq:

Inner City Press: I want to ask a question about Haiti.  In the run-up to the fifth anniversary of the earthquake there, yesterday the State Department held a call and they said — they were asked about the litigation about the UN allegedly bringing cholera to Haiti and they said, although they are arguing in court for the UN's immunity, this doesn't mean that they're not sympathetic to the victims.  It's simply an application of their duty under treaty, i.e., to defend the UN. I wanted to know… I guess I wanted to ask for your response.  Do you see the US making these arguments in court that the UN should not have to appear and answer the charges as somehow vindicating the UN's position or a legal requirement that the US must undertake under its — under the Host Country Agreement?

Deputy Spokesperson Haq:  I wouldn't have any comment.  I don't really have anything to add what the US has said.

   Some might translate "what the US has said" as a claim to be legally required to argue for impunity. But there's more: it seems that where and when the US sees fit, it does not comply with its treaty obligations.

   For example, the US imposes restrictions to within 25 miles of Columbus Circle in Manhattan not only on diplomats from countries like Iran, Cuba and Syria, but even UN staff members from those countries. These have to seek advance permission to any trip beyond the limits, which the US says can and often is denied.

  So is the US absolutely required to argue in court for impunity for the UN for bringing cholera to Haiti? Separately, given the power the US has over the UN -- take for example Ban Ki-moon's disinvitation of Iran to the Montreux talks about Syria -- couldn't the US if it wanted "encourage" the UN to provide some recompense to families who lost their breadwinner to the cholera UN Peacekeeping brought?  This should be asked, and will be pursued. Watch this site.

How can the International Monetary Fund publish a 37-page report on Haiti and not mention cholera once? The IMF report, release here on January 5, does mention the UN Mission MINUSTAH which brought cholera, but not the disease and its impact.

 Is that because the UN brought it?

  The IMF says, of risks, "On the domestic front, governance problems, and political resistance to improving tax administration, as well as renewed spending pressures (including for Petrocaribe-related spending) could worsen an already unsustainable fiscal outlook and reduce the room to react to shocks, such as natural disasters. Reform momentum could also slow if political tensions resume
in the context of long-delayed congressional and municipal elections, and a reduction in the MINUSTAH stabilization force."

  The UN Security Council will visit Haiti on January 23 to 25, Council President for January Christian Barros Melet announced on January 5. We'll have more on this.

  After UN Secretary General dodged legal papers in one of the cases about UN Peacekeeping having brought cholera to Haiti, 77 members of the US Congress wrote to Ban:

"In the interests of securing justice for the victims and impacted communities as well as strengthening the UN’s leadership as a champion for human rights, we urge you to act immediately to establish a settlement mechanism through which victims and their families may seek relief and the country can move forward with the water and sanitation infrastructure it so desperately needs. Unless and until the UN honors the fundamental right to access justice, the issue of UN accountability in Haiti will remain."

  Inner City Press on December 23 asked Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric about the December 18 letter. Video here. He said, on camera, he didn't know about it. Inner City Press pointed out it is on Rep. John Conyers' web site - and if UN can't find it, here it is.

 The members of Congress signing the letter to Ban include John Conyers, Barbara Lee, James P. McGovern, Raul Grijalva, Donald Payne, Alan Grayson, John Lewis, Zoe Lofgren, Corrine Brown, Maxine Waters, Danny Davis, Bobby Rush, Jose Serrano, Gregory Meeks, Brad Sherman, Eliot Engel, Shiela Jackson Lee, Keith Ellison, Chaka, Fattah, Lloyd Doggett, Carolyn Maloney, Henry Waxman, Elijah Cummings, Al Green, Yvette Clark, Charles Rangell, Alcee Hastings, Jan Schakowsky, Adam Schiff, William Lacy Clay, Stephen Lynch and Michael Michaud, among others.
   
When Ban last held a press conference, it seemed clear that he had question(s) in advance, click here and here for that. But Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access will be asking -- and following up on what is now becoming a UN cover up of its peacekeepers shooting at democracy demonstrators on December 12 and blocking the camera of media trying to cover it. Video here, from 0:18; a second video is here. Now who will be help accountable?

  On December 16, for the second day in a row, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, whether the peacekeeper filmed shooting a pistol and pushing back a cameraman -- like his boss Ladsous -- had been interviewed yet.
 
 Dujarric would not answer even this, saying he will only speak when he hears from MINUSTAH. Video here. 


This might be called a cover up, or a hope it goes away -- even as Ban Ki-moon, in tuxedo, goes to the ball of his UN Censorship Alliance where an award about Haiti will be given out, with no answers on shooting protesters there.

  Back on December 15, Inner City Press also asked UN Spokesman Dujarric about the incident, which the UN mission MINUSTAH has said it is investigating itself. Dujarric repeated this, adding that he didn't want to "pre-judge." Video here. But MINUSTAH's short press statement already characterized as "violent" the demonstrators that were shot at.

 Dujarric said they'd have to see if the peacekeeper felt threatened. Video here. After the web-cast UN noon briefing, Inner City Press was contacted by viewers who noted this subjective idea of an armed authority feeling threatened is that invoked in the cases of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri and Eric Garner on Staten Island in New York.

  As on its impunity for bringing cholera to Haiti, the UN is on strange and untenable ground in seeking to justify shooting at unarmed people. And the head of UN Peacekeepering Herve Ladsous is conveniently in former French colony Senegal during all this.

 UN Peacekeeping's chief is Herve Ladous, and tellingly he himself tried to block the camera of the Press, right inside the UN, in September 2014. Vine here.


When a subordinate carries out the same act as his or her ultimate supervisor publicly did, it is  case of command responsibility. So who should be held accountable is known - but will it happen?

  Back on December 2, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric about MINUSTAH and protests:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask you about Haiti, since there's the Mission there.  There have been protests about the failure to hold elections and they've been put down by police.  I wanted to know, first, whether there's been any MINUSTAH [United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti] involvement; and also what the Mission's thinking is as the 12 January deadline imposes when the Government will be dissolved and Mr. [Michel] Martelly will rule by decree.  Is that the fact?  And what’s the UN doing?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I don't believe there's been… I don't believe there's been any involvement of MINUSTAH in the demonstrations.  Obviously, it's important that people have the right to demonstrate peacefully and it's up to the authorities to ensure that right is respected.  The political situation in Haiti obviously remains a concern.  It is one that we're following closely.

   So what happened December 2 ("no involvement of MINUSTAH") and December 12 - MINUSTAH shooting into the crowd? Inner City Press has asked Dujarric about the UN's rules of engagement, so far without answer.

   With questions unanswered, UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous had the gall on the afternoon of December 13 to rebroadcast MINUSTAH self-congratulations that ignored its filmed shooting at protesters and threatening media. Inner City Press initially asked the UN Spokesman:

"What were the rules of engagement? Who gave the order to use pistol(s) and, separately, tear gas? What is the UN's understanding of injuries caused? What was the role, and is the comment, of the Under Secretary General for Peacekeeping Operations Herve Ladsous?"

  Inner City Press twice, in two media, asked for an explanation or comment from the UN Spokesman, and Saturday afternoon received this:

"The United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, (MINUSTAH), has been informed of an alleged excessive use of force, while responding to violent demonstrators targeting law enforcement personnel supporting the Haitian National Police (HNP) and causing injuries and destruction of property, during the demonstration in Port-au-Prince today. The Mission takes this allegation very seriously and immediately opened an investigation to establish the facts."

  Artfully, or inartfully, the MINUSTAH statement does not state that it is the UN's own alleged (filmed) excessive use of force - so is the UN investigating itself? We've asked the UN Spokesperson and weekend duty officer this:

Because the MINUSTAH statement leaves it unclear, can you confirm that it is the UN's own “alleged excessive use of force” that the UN is now investigating?

What is the time frame for the investigation?

Who is doing the investigation? MINUSTAH's human rights unit?

Can to state now that the results of the investigation will be made public?

Since the MINUSTAH statement expresses conclusions about the demonstrators (“violent,” “and causing injuries and destruction of property”) please provide similar preliminary findings as to UN Peacekeepers' action shown on this video:http://youtu.be/38owUZrNHzA

   Hours later, no answer, even as the second video emerged. Others in the UN system have been asked; we'll have more on that.

   Inner City Press has also sought comment from prospective UN-related awardee Andrea Bocelli, slated to accept without reference to the UN bringing cholera or now shooting into crowds there an award from the UN's Censorship Alliance next week -- and continues to await response.

  The MINUSTAH mission has just published this: "MINUSTAH has been informed of an alleged excessive use of force, while responding to violent demonstrators targeting law enforcement personnel supporting the Haitian National Police (HNP) and causing injuries and destruction of property, during the demonstration in Port-au-Prince today. The Mission takes this allegation very seriously and immediately opened an investigation to establish the facts."

  But UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous is already accused of cover-ups. This MINUSTAH statement doesn't even say against whom the allegations are.

  Inner City Press, before the December 12 protests and footage of the UN firing into them, asked the UN Office of the Spokesperson about the failure to hold elections, and if the MINUSTAH mission was involved in cracking down on demonstrations. On the latter, the answer given then was no.

  Now, this video, by Le Nouvelliste. Who will be held accountable? UN Peacekeeping is run by Herve Ladsous, a former French diplomat and spokesman during the ouster of Aristide. We will have more on this.

The day after the injustice of the UN's impunity for bringing cholera to Haiti was the subject of a religious service across First Avenue from the UN, photo here, Inner City Press asked the UN's spokesman Stephane Dujarric, video here:

Inner City Press:  About Haiti.  There was — yesterday afternoon, almost at the same time as the Ebola press conference, there was a religious ceremony held across the street of the Church Centre by both Haitians that live in New York who have had family members killed by cholera and also UN staff who feel that the UN policy of not directly addressing the claims for the families that were victims of the cholera is unjust.  I wanted to know if you were aware of that, if you have any response to it?

Spokesman:  I personally was not aware.  I think you know that the legal position of the UN as to this case is not, has not changed.  That being said, the UN continues to be very involved jointly with the Government of Haiti to work on the cholera issue in Haiti, to work on rebuilding the sanitation system, and I think the Secretary-General in his visit to Haiti in — over the summer, right?  In July, in mid-July, excuse me, in mid-July, I think, you know, went to one of the impacted village, prayed with the families and showed his empathy to the victims.

Inner City Press:  I understand that.  I don't think — people see the Secretary-General trying to raise funds for water and sanitation going forward.  I guess the question becomes for families that lost their breadwinner and, therefore, have kids who are unable to go to school with school fees, things like that, is there any — what's the UN's thinking?  Is the — the Government apparently has not addressed that problem.  So I'm wondering… I guess…

Spokesman:  I think whenever you have — whenever you have victims of any disaster, the issue of losing the breadwinner is an important one and one that needs to be addressed by national authorities in assistance with the international community.  Masood?

 
  MSF Doctors Without Borders said on November 24 that "the population has slowly lost their immunity to the disease. Compared to the same period in 2013, the number of cases handled by MSF has almost doubled. The lack of sanitary infrastructure and of measures to clean water risk aggravating the epidemic."

  Inner City Press asked the UN to respond to this, on November 28, but the UN has refused. The US government has online, also dated November 24, 2014, a Haiti web page that (still) says, under Health, that "Incidents of cholera have declined dramatically  since a major outbreak in 2010." Click here for that.

  While that page was not changed or updated, on December 4 the US State Department put out a travel warning for Haiti which mentioned what MSF called the "lack of sanitary infrastructure" - but NOT that the UN brought cholera to Haiti, much less that the US is supporting the UN's claim of immunity or impunity for it. Click here for the December 4 travel warning.

   The new US Travel Warning does, however, mention the UN, in this way: "The United Nations’ Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) remains in Haiti to support the activities of the Haitian National Police (HNP). The HNP, with assistance from MINUSTAH, is responsible for maintaining order and rendering assistance.  However, given the possibility and unpredictability of spontaneous protests, their ability to assist U.S. citizens during disturbances is very limited."

  It must be said: some of these protests are ABOUT cholera, and are DIRECTED at the UN, having having brought it and for having done nothing for the victims, whole families left without their main breadwinner.

   The US page on Haiti, on Safety and Security, says "Please see ourinformation for victims of crime, including possible victim compensation programs in the United States."

  What about compensation for the victims of the UN in Haiti?

  Inner City Press continues to pursue this question at the UN. On November 20 when Jose Ramos Horta took questions about the UN Peacekeeping review panel he now chairs, he initially said that the UN bringing cholera to Haiti was beyond the panel's mandate.

  When Inner City Press was able to ask him a question, it was to challenge this. How could more than 8,000 people killed, and the continuing impact on the UN's credibility, be beyond the mandate of this panel? Video here.

  Ramos Horta replied that, on reflection, he would raise the issue of cholera in Haiti to the panel's members, which now include Sri Lankan former UN official Radhika Coomaraswamy as well.

   Inner City Press also asked about the cover-up scandals swirling around UN Peacekeeping, about rapes and more in Darfur. Ramos Horta replied about abuses by peacekeepers in Timor Leste, that there must be accountability (he praised Sergio de Mello in this respect.)

UN Peacekeeping has become subject, under Herve Ladsous, to mounting questions about its operations, from crashed drones, selective “neutralization” of some rebels groups and not others, like the FDLR in the DR Congo, covering up attacks in Darfur and lack of accountability fornegligently introducing cholera to Haiti, to name just a few.

While Ladsous refuses and even blocks Press questions about these topics, recently Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has taken to saying that a major “external” panel will be set up to review the issues. On Friday, October 31, Ban’s spokesman Stephane Dujarric announced the 14-member panel, to be chaired by Ramos-Horta.

In a run-on sentence, Ban listed the panel’s topics: “the changing nature of conflict, evolving mandates, good offices and peace-building challenges, managerial and administrative arrangements, planning, partnerships, human rights and protection of civilians, uniformed capabilities for peacekeeping operations and performance.”

Inner City Press asked Dujarric about a word NOT in the list: drones. Earlier on October 31 in the UN General Assembly’s Fourth Committee, the representative of Ecuador said that UN Peacekeeping’s use of drones should be subject to review by the General Assembly’s C-34 Committee: that is, by member states. (Ladsous evaded the C-34, then deployed more drones than he’d mentioned to the Security Council, and won’t answer on the reasons behind the crashes; DRC envoy Martin Kobler told Inner City Press it was due to “wind.”)

Dujarric cut the question off, saying that it was “too granular” and that drones might fall — as one did in DRC — under “the changing nature of conflict.”

But the question is, should UN Peacekeeping and Ladsous be subject only to review by a panel picked by Ban Ki-moon, or by the member states? Dujarric said Ban’s panel’s report will go the the General Assembly.

It is called an “external” panel, but included not only a number of long-time insiders, but even the current Under-Secretary-General for Field Support, Ameerah Haq. This reporter asked Dujarric if this meant that Haq is leaving, and Dujarric said yes. The Free UN Coalition for Access opines: she is the wrong one to be leaving.

Strikingly, only TWO of Ban’s Panel’s 14 members are from Africa, where the vast majority of UN Peacekeepers are deployed. These members are from Ghana and Tunisia, not from countries with UN Missions like DRC, Mali, Cote d’Ivoire, Central African Republic if not to say Liberia, where Ladsous is said to be planning “emergency responses” with a government that has quarantined whole neighborhoods like West Point in Monrovia.

Recently during the Security Council proceeding to renew the mandate of the mission in Haiti, many ambassadors from Latin America said Troop Contributing Countries weren’t sufficiently consulted; Argentina said it would not participate in certain policing or repression activities. Will that be reviewed? We’ll have more on this.

Beyond Ramos-Horta, the Panel’s members include Jean Arnault of France — some wonder if he’s there to protect Ladsous — Abhijit Guha of India, Ameerah Haq of Bangladesh, Andrew Hughes of Australia, Wang Xuexian of China, Hilde Johnson of Norway after a troubled stint in South Sudan, Henrietta Joy Abena Nyarko Mensa-Bonsu of Ghana, Floriano Peixoto Vieira Neto of Brazil, Bruce Jones of Canada, Youssef Mahmoud of Tunisia, B. Lynn Pascoe of the US, whom Inner City Press reported was in the mix to replace Alexander Downer as UN envoy to Cyprus but was said to be blocked from getting it, Alexander Ilitchev of Russia and Ian Martin of the UK, who returned to the UN to mull mediation after starting the ill-fated UN Mission in Libya. Martin’s previous Board of Inquiry report on bombing in Gaza in 2009, Ban Ki-moon undercut with a cover-letter. We’ll have more on this, too.

   

On Haiti Cholera, US Filing Supports UN Impunity, As Ban Ki-moon Dodges Legal Papers

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 8, with a song -- On the UNhaving brought cholera to Haiti, the US government on July 7 filed another letter supporting the UN's immunity -- or in this case, impunity. 

   The US' 15-page letter cites in support of UN immunity the case of Cynthia Brzak, regarding sexual harassment by UNHCR's Ruud Lubber, and a letter to US Ambassador Samantha Power from the UN's counsel Miguel de Serpa Soares, which Inner City Press is putting online, here.  TheUS letter to the court is here.

  Beyond supporting Secretary General Ban Ki-moon dodging the service of legal papers -- on which Ban's spokespeople have themselves dodged and more -- the US letter cited the UN - Haiti program on cholera on which the UN's Pedro Medrano has yet to take Press questions.

  The US letter says, "The General Convention and the SOFA provide that any dispute between a state party and the UN shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice, see General Convention, art. VIII, § 30; SOFA art. VIII, § 58; and the SOFA provides that any dispute between MINUTSAH [sic] and the Government of Haiti shall be submitted to arbitration, see SOFA art. VIII, § 57."

  So much for "we the peoples."

   Back on May 15, opposition to the US' first iteration of its position was filed, with amicus support from a bevy of law professors, an ex judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and former UN human rights rapporteur on torture Manfred Nowak.

  Nowak said, "the UN needs to understand that immunity cannot mean impunity. If it refuses to provide people alleging harm with a path to justice, courts will refuse to uphold its immunity.”

   But then as now, the UN under  Ban Ki-moon wouldn't even bring its envoy on cholera Pedro Medrano forward for questioning. Inner City Press has asked, for example on April 21:

Inner City Press: … seemed to quote Mr. Medrano as predicting in advance that this panel he would be on with the Government may provide assistance, but he said, like, the word “compensation” won’t be used. So I wanted to know, is that a UN position? Is it his prediction of that the Government doesn’t want the word “compensation” used? And is there some way that we can have by video or otherwise, a kind of, some kind of presentation by Mr. Medrano?

Spokesman Stephane Dujarric: Sure, on Haiti, over the weekend, the terms of reference on this high level committee on cholera, which would be a UN and Government of Haiti committee, have been officially agreed on. And the aim is really for the joint effort of to fight cholera between the UN and the Government of Haiti. The Committee aims at further improving the coordination response to the epidemic and obviously we expect to have an official announcement in the next couple of days. But this is a very important… the establishment of this committee is a very important one in terms of our efforts, and most importantly the Government of Haiti’s efforts, to address not only cholera but also the associated water and sanitation issues....

Inner City Press: Just on Medrano, I will like to say again if you could do a briefing in this room it would help.

Spokesman Dujarric: I hear you.

  But did he? There has still been no briefing. Members of the US Congress have written to State Department diplomats about this case in the past. Based on this letter, will they do so again?

   As the first US answer was released, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was partying with in-house scribes, most of whom never pursued this most outrageous case of UN impunity, or even asked if Ban Ki-moon like a scoff law was hiding from the process server.

 Now on July 8, these same scribes are offering symbiosis, bread and circuses, or pretzels and beer, in the large room Ban's UN gives them, usually sitting empty even as the News Agency of Nigeria was evicted due to lack of space. This is today's UN.

  Inner City Press, having twice asked asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokespeople to confirm Ban has been served with legal papers, on February 28 asked about Gallon's report:

Inner City Press: on Haiti, there is a recent report just out by Gustavo Gallón, who is the UN independent expert on human rights in Haiti, and he says, as a direct quote, that full compensation for the damage suffered by the Haitian people by the introduction of cholera to the island should be paid as quickly as possible. So, I understand that he is an independent expert and doesn’t work for the Secretariat; at the same time, it’s a respected position and a mandate formed by the Human Rights Council, so I wanted to know what in the face of this sort of either intra-UN or intra-UN system critique, what is the response of the United Nations?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: Well, simply, that you answered the question yourself. The Human Rights Council-appointed special rapporteurs and other special advisers of various kinds are independent and they are not appointed by the Secretary-General and I don’t have anything further to say on that.

Inner City Press: But does the UN system expect, for example, countries when when they are subject to these type recommendations or criticism by an independent experts of the Human Rights Council to respond in some way to them to say: we agree or disagree, or that is why we disagree?

Spokesperson Nesirky: That’s for each individual Member State to decide.

Ah, leadership. Meanwhile, while the UN has refused to answer if Ban was served the court papers, beyond thissong, Inner City Press will now publish the sad litany of attempts to serve what could be described as a scoff law:

On December 19, 2013, at approximately 3:11 PM, a paralegal for Plaintiffs’ counsel contacted OLA by telephone and spoke to a woman who identified herself as “Mae” (who, upon information and belief, is Mae Arkoncel, Assistant to the UN Legal Counsel). Mae confirmed that OLA had received the faxed documents from Plaintiffs’ counsel and stated that the UN was currently 'reviewing the documents'...

Service of process by delivery to Defendant Ban personally through the use of a private process server... was attempted again on January 20, 2014, at approximately 10:05 AM, at Defendant Ban’s residence located at [redacted by ICP]. A security guard informed the server that Defendant Ban was not present, and refused to open the door or accept service.

8. Service of process by delivery to Defendant Ban personally through the use of a private process server... was perfected on January 20, 2014, at approximately 2:00 PM, at Defendant’s Ban residence located at [redacted by ICP]. A male who identified himself as 'security' answered the door and informed the server that he would not accept service and that Defendant Ban was not present. The server affixed the process to the front door with masking tape and informed the security guard that he was doing so with the intention that the documents would be forwarded to Defendant Ban. The server then mailed another copy of the process to Defendant Ban at the same address.

That's called "nail-and-mail," and it's what's used with a fugitive or scoff law. Is that what this UN has become? It's the basis of this lyric, can't serve the papers up in the townhouse, song here. Watch this site.

   

As UN Invokes Immunity to Defeat Sex Harassment Case, UN Claims It's in Its Interest

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/un1lubbers030310.html

UNITED NATIONS, March 3 -- While the UN this week is full of talk of women's rights, the UN has repeatedly invoked immunity to fight of the sexual harassment lawsuit of Cynthia Brzak, most recently in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. The UN not only said it is "absolutely immune against such cases, it also gave the impunity to former UN system employee Ruud Lubbers.

But when UN spokesman Martin Nesirky was asked about the widely reported case, he said that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has "no comment." Minutes later, when Mr. Ban's Advisor on Woman's Issues Rachel Mayanja was asked about the case, she claimed that the UN "does not invoke immunity easily." Video here, from Minute 11:10.

In fact, when Inner City Press asked UN Associate Spokesman Farhan Haq about the UN's failure to invoke immunity when two national staff members were arrested and allegedly tortured by the government of Sri Lanka last year, Haq conceded at the UN "normally" invokes immunity, article here.

On March 3, Ms. Mayanja said that UN only invokes immunity "if the interests of the Organization are at stake."

So does the UN have an "interest" is sexual harassment?

When Ruud Lubbers was questioned by the Press about the case, he offered to demonstrate. "Come here," he said on camera to a reporter, then patted him on the back. Video here, from Minute 10:30.

Lubbers said he would do that same to Nane Annan, the wife of then Secretary General Kofi Annan. Video here, from Minute 15:25. Soon thereafter he resigned.

Why then as the UN continued to insist that Ruud Lubbers should be immune? And why would it misspeak about it? We will continue to pursue answers, during and after the current Commission on the Status of Women meetings at the UN. Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un1lubbers030310.html