Inner City Press Asks UN of Feltman Summoned to Benghazi Committee in DC on December 8, Is Told "Ask US"

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive series

UNITED NATIONS, December 4 -- Three days after Inner City Press asked the UN why its Under Secretary General for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman forwarded other UN officials' emails to his former colleagues at the US State Department months after he moved to the UN, US sources tell Inner City Press Feltman is slated to head to Washington on December 8.

 In October in the House Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi, it was noted that the Committee had none of Feltman's emails. After sources told Inner City Press Feltman will appear before the Committee on December 8, Inner City Press on December 4 asked UN Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq to confirm or deny it. Video here.

  Haq declined to confirm, telling Inner City Press to ask the US.But what if Feltman used UN lawyers to respond? And as shown, Feltman after working at the UN continued to forward emails, including other UN officials' emails, to the US State Department.

 Inner City Press now asks, will Feltman be under oath on December 8? Watch this site.

  This takes place amid unanswered Press questions about Feltman's and Ban's knowledge of Bernardino Leon, while UN Envoy to Libya, negotiating a $500,000 a year job with the United Arab Emirates, a player to say the least in Libya. We'll have more on this.

 On November 30 among the 5,109 Hillary Clinton emails released by the US State Department was one from October 2012 from Jeffrey Feltman, then already ostensibly with and for the UN, to Jake Sullivan about Lebanon.

 Feltman forwarded the US State Department a copy of his own email to “his guy” in Lebanon, British UN official Derek Plumbly and asks for US advice on whom he should call.

  Inner City Press on March 28, 2012 first reported that Feltman would take over UN Department of Political Affairs from fellow American B. Lynn Pascoe, and asked if it was wise, to whom would Feltman be loyal. Now the question arises: why was Feltman still in October 2012, afterstarting with the UN on July 2, 2012, forwarding his emails to the US State Department?

 On December 1, 2014, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, transcript here:

Inner City Press: about Mr. Feltman, yesterday, as happens monthly, there was a release of… of e-mails by the US State Department.  And without getting into all the… all 5,000 of the e-mails, I wanted to ask about the ones that involve Mr. Feltman, specifically in the time frame after he left the State Department and came to the UN.  So, there’s an e-mail in 19 October 2012.  This is months after he was at the UN, in which he forwards to Jake Sullivan and others in the State Department his communications with Derek Plumbly about Lebanon.  And he says, “Here’s my communications with my guy in Lebanon”, redacted, redacted, redacted, “please tell me what you think and advise.”  And I guess I wanted to ask you, is it… what is the… what’s the protocol for a former… of any government, not just the US, for a UN official to share what are presumably confidential UN communications with his previous employer, and how would you… how do you respond to this?

Spokesman:  I think the way to look at it is that, I think, through our mediation efforts, UN officials are often in touch with Foreign Ministries or permanent missions and share our analysis.  And that’s often how we get our work done.  I’m not going to comment on the exact… you know, what exactly was said.  I haven’t seen the e-mail.  But I think it’s… you know, we have contact, and we share our analysis with members of the Security Council, with permanent missions and Foreign Ministries.

Inner City Press:  My question is one of the e-mails… in one of the e-mails, Mr. Feltman says, I’ve tried to send this through Hotmail, but it didn’t work, which to me implies it wasn’t necessarily as a UN official.  Like, would you say… in what you’ve described as the protocol, should this be done very clearly as a UN official seeking advice from the…?

Spokesman:  As I said, I think there is nothing untoward with senior UN officials who we often… in dealing with mediation, we need to consult with different sides and share analysis and share information.

Inner City Press:  [Did he] share with others, other than the US?

Spokesman:  I’ll leave it at that. 

 On October 20, 2012, the State Department's Elizabeth Dibble says she spoke with Feltman; in September, Feltman told Huma Abedin he's walk on hot coals for Hillary. He offered to cancel a meeting with Esther Brimmer in order to meet with Hillary in the Waldorf -- saying he had problems responding with hotmail, that the 90s may have ended. He wasnot using his UN email address.
We'l have more on this.

  Also in the November 30 release is an email that in Eastern Congo, theM23 rebels did NOT loot the Central Bank in Goma -- Inner City Press in 2012 questioned the New York Times reporting that that this did, in fact, happen - and an evergreen line, that “Ban's gambit didn't work out too well.” What wa about Syria, but has been repeated for example with the faux ceasefire on Yemen. We'll have more on this.

Back on August 31 among the 4,368 Hillary Clinton emails released by the US State Department were only 17 that mention Libya. In one, forwarded by Feltman, a Qaddafi staffer was angry at P.J. Crowley's failure to apologize, here.

 (In another just released email, Feltman bragged how his interview with An-Nahar pushed Nasrallah out of the news, "HBJ" loved it, here.)

  Feltman is cc-ed on a "sensitive but not classified" email about February 2010 Egypt being "amazed" that Hillary Clinton flew over on the way to Qatar and Saudi Arabia without stopping.
 
 Another of the 17 email mentioning Libya was mostly about promoting the US' concern about Haiti, here.

  By contrast, 38 emails cite "Sudan," including this one in which Jimmy Carter offers help on that country, Korea, Cuba and "the Middle East."

  Among those few that mention UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on August 26, 2010, Huma Abedin wrote to Hillary Clinton that "Ban ki-Moon will formally welcome NATO logistical support in Pakistani flood relief."

 Back on July 31 among the 1,356 Hillary Clinton emails released by the US State Department on July 31 are only 14 which mention Libya.

  There is the threat of Gaddafi staying at his UN Permanent Representative's house in Engelwood, New Jersey, then that gettingcanceled. 

 (There is an email to Cheryl Mills from Martin Edelman, citing "support in Israel for dialogue with Syria... chess game with Iran.)

  There is then-US, now-UN official Jeffrey Feltman noting that US funding might go to an NGO headed by a Gaddafi, here.

  The newly released emails mention Feltman's "boss" Ban Ki-moon 12 times.

  One was from Strobe Talbott, about dining with Ban (who will be in DC against next week, here) and trying to find the right "channel" to reach Hillary on, here.

  One is a "Call Sheet" for Hillary Clinton to call Ban on August 24, 2009, starting "You are calling UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to ask him to co-host with you an event at UNGA to advance the Global Partnership for Agriculture and Food Security."

  Another email, which Inner City Press reported a month ago, is about NOT having UN Food and Agriculture Organization chief Jacques Diouf host the meeting.  

 There is one email that mentions the UN Development Program, UNDP - but it is hard to read, literally: apparently a hard-copy.

  There are 16 emails mentioning Sri Lanka. One of them also mentions Ban, whose record on Sri Lanka continues to be questioned today, but most of which are about responding to the Government of Sri Lankacomplaining about Hillary Clinton linking their army to rape in a September 30, 2009 speech. It is "put to bed" by a letter to Sri Lanka's then Foreign Minister.

  Morocco is mentioned only three times: the Forum for the Future twice, and once concerning urging Guinea's Dadis Camera to seek exile in Morocco or another French-speaking country.

UN Official Jeffrey Feltman Summoned to Benghazi Committee December 8, Shared UN Emails With US

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive series

UNITED NATIONS, December 4 -- Three days after Inner City Press asked the UN why its Under Secretary General for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman forwarded other UN officials' emails to his former colleagues at the US State Department months after he moved to the UN, US sources tell Inner City Press Feltman is slated to head to Washington on December 8.

 In October in the House Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi, it was noted that the Committee had none of Feltman's emails. Now sources there tell Inner City Press Feltman will appear before the Committee on December 8, extraordinary for a UN official and presumably requiring conferring with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

  This takes place amid unanswered Press questions about Feltman's and Ban's knowledge of Bernardino Leon, while UN Envoy to Libya, negotiating a $500,000 a year job with the United Arab Emirates, a player to say the least in Libya. We'll have more on this.

 On November 30 among the 5,109 Hillary Clinton emails released by the US State Department was one from October 2012 from Jeffrey Feltman, then already ostensibly with and for the UN, to Jake Sullivan about Lebanon.

 Feltman forwarded the US State Department a copy of his own email to “his guy” in Lebanon, British UN official Derek Plumbly and asks for US advice on whom he should call.

  Inner City Press on March 28, 2012 first reported that Feltman would take over UN Department of Political Affairs from fellow American B. Lynn Pascoe, and asked if it was wise, to whom would Feltman be loyal. Now the question arises: why was Feltman still in October 2012, after starting with the UN on July 2, 2012, forwarding his emails to the US State Department?

 On December 1, 2014, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, transcript here:

Inner City Press: about Mr. Feltman, yesterday, as happens monthly, there was a release of… of e-mails by the US State Department.  And without getting into all the… all 5,000 of the e-mails, I wanted to ask about the ones that involve Mr. Feltman, specifically in the time frame after he left the State Department and came to the UN.  So, there’s an e-mail in 19 October 2012.  This is months after he was at the UN, in which he forwards to Jake Sullivan and others in the State Department his communications with Derek Plumbly about Lebanon.  And he says, “Here’s my communications with my guy in Lebanon”, redacted, redacted, redacted, “please tell me what you think and advise.”  And I guess I wanted to ask you, is it… what is the… what’s the protocol for a former… of any government, not just the US, for a UN official to share what are presumably confidential UN communications with his previous employer, and how would you… how do you respond to this?

Spokesman:  I think the way to look at it is that, I think, through our mediation efforts, UN officials are often in touch with Foreign Ministries or permanent missions and share our analysis.  And that’s often how we get our work done.  I’m not going to comment on the exact… you know, what exactly was said.  I haven’t seen the e-mail.  But I think it’s… you know, we have contact, and we share our analysis with members of the Security Council, with permanent missions and Foreign Ministries.

Inner City Press:  My question is one of the e-mails… in one of the e-mails, Mr. Feltman says, I’ve tried to send this through Hotmail, but it didn’t work, which to me implies it wasn’t necessarily as a UN official.  Like, would you say… in what you’ve described as the protocol, should this be done very clearly as a UN official seeking advice from the…?

Spokesman:  As I said, I think there is nothing untoward with senior UN officials who we often… in dealing with mediation, we need to consult with different sides and share analysis and share information.

Inner City Press:  [Did he] share with others, other than the US?

Spokesman:  I’ll leave it at that. 

 On October 20, 2012, the State Department's Elizabeth Dibble says she spoke with Feltman; in September, Feltman told Huma Abedin he's walk on hot coals for Hillary. He offered to cancel a meeting with Esther Brimmer in order to meet with Hillary in the Waldorf --saying he had problems responding with hotmail, that the 90s may have ended. He was not using his UN email address.
We'l have more on this.

  Also in the November 30 release is an email that in Eastern Congo, the M23 rebels did NOT loot the Central Bank in Goma -- Inner City Press in 2012 questioned the New York Times reporting that that this did, in fact, happen - and an evergreen line, that “Ban's gambit didn't work out too well.” What wa about Syria, but has been repeated for example with the faux ceasefire on Yemen. We'll have more on this.

Back on August 31 among the 4,368 Hillary Clinton emails released by the US State Department were only 17 that mention Libya. In one, forwarded by Feltman, a Qaddafi staffer was angry at P.J. Crowley's failure to apologize, here.

 (In another just released email, Feltman bragged how his interview with An-Nahar pushed Nasrallah out of the news, "HBJ" loved it, here.)

  Feltman is cc-ed on a "sensitive but not classified" emailabout February 2010 Egypt being "amazed" that Hillary Clinton flew over on the way to Qatar and Saudi Arabia without stopping.
 
 Another of the 17 email mentioning Libya was mostly about promoting the US' concern about Haiti, here.

  By contrast, 38 emails cite "Sudan," including this one in which Jimmy Carter offers help on that country, Korea, Cuba and "the Middle East."

  Among those few that mention UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on August 26, 2010, Huma Abedin wrote to Hillary Clinton that "Ban ki-Moon will formally welcome NATO logistical support in Pakistani flood relief."

 Back on July 31 among the 1,356 Hillary Clinton emails released by the US State Department on July 31 are only 14 which mention Libya.

  There is the threat of Gaddafi staying at his UN Permanent Representative's house in Engelwood, New Jersey, then that getting canceled. 

 (There is an email to Cheryl Mills from Martin Edelman, citing "support in Israel for dialogue with Syria... chess game with Iran.)

  There is then-US, now-UN official Jeffrey Feltman noting that US funding might go to an NGO headed by a Gaddafi, here.

  The newly released emails mention Feltman's "boss" Ban Ki-moon 12 times.

  One was from Strobe Talbott, about dining with Ban (who will be in DC against next week, here) and trying to find the right "channel" to reach Hillary on, here.

  One is a "Call Sheet" for Hillary Clinton to call Ban on August 24, 2009, starting "You are calling UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to ask him to co-host with you an event at UNGA to advance the Global Partnership for Agriculture and Food Security."

  Another email, which Inner City Press reported a month ago, is about NOT having UN Food and Agriculture Organization chief Jacques Diouf host the meeting.  

 There is one email that mentions the UN Development Program, UNDP - but it is hard to read, literally: apparently a hard-copy.

  There are 16 emails mentioning Sri Lanka. One of them also mentions Ban, whose record on Sri Lanka continues to be questioned today, but most of which are aboutresponding to the Government of Sri Lanka complaining about Hillary Clinton linking their army to rape in a September 30, 2009 speech. It is "put to bed" by a letter to Sri Lanka's then Foreign Minister.

  Morocco is mentioned only three times: the Forum for the Future twice, and once concerning urging Guinea's Dadis Camera to seek exile in Morocco or another French-speaking country.

Kaag Replacing Plumbly in Lebanon, As UK's Andrew Lansley Waits for Amos OCHA Post

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 1 -- The UN finally confirmed what has been known since the summer, that Sigrid Kaag would replace Derek Plumbly as UN Special Coordinator on Lebanon. 

  Back on September 4 when Kaag held her final press conference at the UN on Syria chemical weapons, some journalists congratulated her - and then went to ask why the US is not intervening in Syria.

 Inner City Press asked Kaag if she could speak on her next move in the region. She said that was up to Ban Ki-moon, and that she was in the hands of God.

  So too, some say, is the UK's Andrew Lansley, nominated by UK Prime Minister David Cameron to replace Valerie Amos atop UN OCHA. Those who like the fait accompli nature of Kaag's posting in Lebanon, for a Dutch government which abruptly withdrew Koenders from Mali amid both chaos and Ebola, are in no position to question Lansley. Inner City Press however did, also on December 1, here.

 Back at its 42nd meeting, the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons' Executive Council asked that OPCW's Director-General start preparatory work for the conclusion of a contract without calling for tenders, quotations, or proposals with a commercial company" to destroy 12 chemical weapons production facilities in Syria.Here, at Paragraph 4.2

   That is a set-aside or sole source contract. Inner City Press on July 7, since OPCW-UN Joint Mission head Sigrid Kaag was not in New York but rather Cyprus asked UN deputy spokesman Farhan Haq to explain why a sole source contract would be used.  Video here.

  Back on June 8, Haq did not permit Inner City Press to asked OPCW's Kaag a question. But on July 7 on the set aside contract he said, Ask OPCW.

   Inner City Press asked, isn't some money that the UN raised or helped raise to be used for this sole source contract? Haq referred to Kaag's previous reporting, and reiterated, Ask OPCW. Video here.

 OPCW on June 8 announced:

“The Norwegian vessel Taiko, which is participating in the multinational maritime operation to remove chemicals from Syria, departed today for Finland and the United States to deliver its cargo of chemicals for destruction in those countries.”

  Unsaid, and UNanswered, is that the destination in the US is Port Arthur, Texas, specifically a facility of the France-based multinational Veolia which has recently been fined for negligent chemical destruction practices.

   Maybe that negligence can be distinguished from Veolia's upcoming work. But the UN and OPCW have refused to answer the question.

   On June 4 when Sigrid Kaag came to take questions about the UN - OPCW Weapons mission in Syria, no question was taken about violations by OPCW contractor Veolia. 

 The UN's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq gave questions, all in a row, to Al Arabiya, BBC, Fox and Al Jazeera. At the noon briefing, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric about Veolia's violations in Texas. He said to ask OPCW.  The request that OPCW probe in Ukraine reports of the use of chemicals including chloroform in Odessa remains unacted on. 

   The question of why the OPCW  chose to dispose of Syria's chemical weapons a company Veolia which does business in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, first raised by Inner City Press on February 15, was finally put to Sigrid Kaag on May 8, 2014.

  She told Inner City Press to "ask the OPCW," which ran the tender. 

  Now the OPCW's report to the Security Council, to be issued as a document of the Security Council under symbol S/2014/368 (OPCW EC-M-42/DG.1) says "from 30 April to 2 May, a visit took place in the United States at the Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C., in Port Arthur, Texas, selected for the disposal of Priority 2 inorganic chemicals through the solicitation process conducted by the OPCW."

   But we now report and link to: Veolia's Port Arthur facility has been fined $13, 500 by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for repeated carbon monoxide emission violations. Click here for the report, which cites other problems with equipment.

Background: In the OPCW tender, 14 companies submitted bids. On February 14 the OPCW told the press there were two winners:

Ekokem OY AB (Finland)

Veolia Environmental Services Technical Solutions, LLC (U.S.A.)

   Veolia stands accused of illegal operations in the occupied Palestinian territories, including waste disposal in the illegally occupied Jordan valley, North of the Yafit settlement; waste water treatment in the illegal Israeli settlement of Modi’in Illit; bus service to illegal settlements and Jerusalem Light Rail / tramway. h/t In April 2010 the UN Human Rights Council declared the tramway and its operations to be illegal (A/HRC/RES/13/7 of 14 April 2010).

  So how did the OPCW select Veolia? There was a one page press release sent to the media, "reported" (or merely repeated, without any of the above) by Reuters and others, not mentioning that France, where Veolia is actually headquartered at the parent level, had contributed no money at all to the OPCW or UN trust funds on destroying Syria's chemical weapons.

   On transparency back on February 6, after OPCW-UN mission chief Sigrid Kaag briefed the UN Security Council about Syria chemical weapons, Inner City Press asked her about her Mission's trust funds, as it did back on January 8.

   Inner City Press noted that the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons put online a January 24 press release about Canada donated 10 million CAD, but that it had no link to any over-all chart.

  Kaag said, "I knew you'd ask that," and said it should go online soon. Video here and embedded below.  After 6 pm, Inner City Press ran an update with the chart, which shows for example that to the UN Trust Fund, Japan has pledged $9 million -- but has as of yet provided no money.

  In terms of cash, Kaag's native Netherlands has provided more (barely) that the United States:  $2,062,500 versus $2 million from the US.
 
  The OPCW Trust Fund for Syria is denominated in Euros. The European Union is the largest donor, and several EU members have also contributed in their own name - but not France.

  A separate OPCW Syria Trust Fund for the Destruction of Chemical Weapons has more in unpaid pledges then monies actually paid. Among those yet to come through are once again Japan, the aforementioned Canada, the EU, Australia, India, Italy and South Korea.

   There is the maritime component (see chart) and then this:

In addition to their contribution to the OPCW trust fund for the Destruction of Chemical Weapons, Canada contributed another CAD 5 million (almost US$ 4.7 million) for the destruction operations on board the vessel MV Cape Ray. Italy has indicated that the port of Gioia Tauro will be made available for transloading of priority chemicals from the cargo vessels onto the MV Cape Ray. Germany has indicated it will dispose of approximately 370 tons of effluent generated through the hydrolysis of the priority chemicals. The United Kingdom has indicated that it will destroy two binary chemical weapon components at a commercial facility.

    And so the only Permanent Five member of the Security Council not to contribute... is France.

  Inner City Press continues to await from the UN a response to repeated questions submitted about the Joint Mission's chief of staff Abdullah Fadil. Sources say he has asked UNTSO, where he worked before the Joint Mission, to respond in some way. 

  But the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary General, which has had these questions in writing since before Christmas 2013, has provided no answers at all. And there are more questions ready, particularly in light of a motion for disclosure to force the SG represented by ALS to give us access to the reports of OIOS, the Ombudsman Office and CDU that has been filed in the UN Dispute Tribunal.

For now, consider the issued raised, below and in this unresponded to follow up question:

"As a follow up to the not-answered [earlier question, see below], please confirm or deny that Michael Antoine has also transferred from UNTSO to the UN-OPCW joint mission on chemical weapons in Syria, but that he is in Cyprus; please explain his duties to jump from FS4 to FS6; please describe the Joint Mission's interview and recruitment practices."

  This question has not been answered; a question Inner City Press submitted about the tension between South Korea and Japan, including in South Sudan, caused by Japan's prime minister's visit to a shrine for the country's World War Two dead was answered in a statement apparently given to other media, on a regional or political basis, 13 hours before today's "first" Note to Correspondents. The Free UN Coalition for Access is challenging these practices.

   Previously Inner City Press had asked, without answer:

"Please confirm or deny that Abdullah Fadil is with the UN-OPCW joint mission on chemical weapons in Syria, that while at UNTSO he managed to have Ministry of Foreign Affairs cards from both Israel and Lebanon, and separately that he is under investigation by OIOS and/or other UN bodies for recruitment irregularities and SEA."

  Five days later the question has not even been acknowledged, much less answered. Questions submitted and re-submitted to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's top two spokespeople on the morning of December 21, about civilians at risk, have not been acknowledged. 

  By stonewalling, and by the practices described in the below, which are evident elsewhere and to the very top of the UN system, the UN credibility is being damaged. At least questions should be answered.

  While we have more, here's from the underlying whistleblower's initial complaint giving rise to the question, about the current chief of staff of UN - OPCW mission for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in Syria:

I am an avid reader of the Inner City Press. My numerous Missions with the UN can confirm what your many articles state: rampant corruption, nepotism, and recruitment manipulation at all levels in the UN. Sadly, this conduct is only increasing. Within the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) it is not "what you know" but it’s "who you know." There is an absolute absence of accountability. It is often said that nobody gets fired unless you are a whistle-blower or suspected of bringing the UN into disrepute by exposing corruption; usually after becoming exasperated trying to deal with it via due process. After speaking to many staff members, I am compelled to report a matter that concerns me. The mission/UN is failing to take action and I feel that it is time that external scrutiny is required.

1. Mr. Abdullah Fadil, a Somali (now Canadian), is a member of the UNTSO Mission in Israel. He is an international staff Member at the level of Director (D1) and occupies the position of Chief Mission Support (CMS). He is the most senior civilian in the mission. As CMS he has control over all administrative functions, most notably, finance, procurement, and recruitment. He previously held similar positions in Kosovo, Khartoum and Darfur... He is well known in the DPKO system and there are numerous allegations against Mr. Fadil presently being investigated by the Office of Internal Oversight (OIOS), Ombudsman Office, and the Complaints and Discipline Unite (CDU). These allegations range from sexual harassment, Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (SEA), to manipulating recruiting to allow friends (internally) and externally to jump recruitment rosters. This includes managing recruiting panels and overseeing the selection process.

All UNTSO staff recruited in the UNTSO Mission in the three years he has been the CMS are either former girlfriends, absolute loyal friends from former missions, or family members. The method of control is to provide the Chief Personnel Officer (CPO) with his handpicked short list along with a verbal directive as to whom he wished to be selected. This practice tended to exclude competent staff as he put loyalty to himself as the primary selection criteria. This allowed him to have a foundation of very loyal staff that he could rely upon. Senior managers within the mission could not recruit competent staff. Managers who voiced their concern were either moved sideways or resigned.

4. Due to these many complaints he was asked to take a temporary assignment to Syria (OPCW) to reduce the level of discontent in the mission.

5. The allegations include obstructing an investigation by the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) into the fraudulent use of tax free PX fuel cards (Israel) by national staff and some international staff. His obstruction included briefing the suspect prior to being interviewed by investigators. His intent was cover up the extent of the fraud by International Staff (friends) who had aided and abetted the fraud. This allegation also included misuse of duty free products (alcohol) to pay rent in disputed territories.

6. A most egregious act that must be investigated, and which should result in his termination from the UN, is the fraudulent acquisition of a MOFA card from the government of Lebanon. The circumstances are that Mr. Fadil is located in Jerusalem and holds a valid Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) card which grants him residency in Israel. To qualify for this status, one is required to reside/hold residency in that country due to one’s UN official status. The process requires that one file a signed request to the Host Government for a MOFA card as an official of the United Nations. The signature verifies the accuracy of the document and information provided. One must include an address, UN letter of appointment, and photographs. The MOFA card grants certain privileges and benefits as a member of the UN.

In addition to the Israeli MOFA card provided to Mr. Fadil by the Israeli Government, he was recently found to have a MOFA card from the Government of Lebanon. Inquiries confirm that two years ago he fraudulently applied for MOFA status in Lebanon stating that he was a resident in Lebanon. This is not true as he and family reside in Jerusalem. He has also misrepresented himself to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Fadil has been using that same Lebanese MOFA card in Lebanon to obtain benefits. In short, he has two MOFA cards; one for Israel and one Lebanon. When this fraud becomes known to the governments of Israel and Lebanon they might apply a high level of scrutiny to new legitimate applicants. This could have a significant impact on UN staff members and UNMOs applying for MOFA cards within Lebanon and Israel. He has placed us all at disadvantage by giving both governments cause to delay and further investigate applications. He has placed the UN in a difficult position. Hence the cover up.

We will have more. There are a number of other Press questions long-pending in Ban Ki-moon's Office of the Spokesperson, never responded to, stonewalled. Watch this site.

   

On Refugees, UN's Plumbly Speaks for Lebanon, Of Belgian Rotation Out of UNIFIL

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 12 -- When the UN's Special Coordinator for Lebanon Derek Plumbly came to take questions outside the UN Security Council on November 12, he lavished praise on Saudi Arabia's financial contribution to the Army. He said on a range of topics, it is not my decision to make, it is for the people of Lebanon.

  Inner City Press asked Plumbly about the following headline, "Plumbly Rules Out Naturalization of Syrian Refugees." If such decisions are truly for the people of Lebanon, is it for Plumbly to rule anything out, or in?

  Rather than clarify the headline, Plumbly said yes, that is his position. He said it's a matter for the people of Lebanon, and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. But while he's free to note that Lebanon and some others have not wanted to sign the 1951 Refugees Convention, should Plumbly so openly say it's fine not to sign it?

  Appearing with Plumbly, at least at the beginning of his question and answer stakeout, was Australian Ambassador Gary Quinlan, president of the Security Council for November. While there were consultation in the morning on Liberia, no questions were taken on that topic. (In fairness, Quinlan has made an effort to take questions after nearly all other consultations, so we'll see.)

  Inner City Press also asked Plumbly about the withdrawal from UNIFIL of Belgium's 100 plus peacekeepers. He said they were in de-mining, and rotations are routine. But who's coming in? 

Back on July 31, in the International Monetary Fund's then just released Lebanon report the word Syria appeared no less than 59 times, blamed for nearly everything. But the report at page 6 acknowledges:

“Lebanon could not create sufficient jobs even before the Syria crisis. According to the World Bank, only some 3,800 jobs were generated per year (one for every six new entrants to the labor market) in 2005–09. Reflecting insufficient job opportunities, the unemployment rate stood at 11 percent in 2011, slightly above the MENA average of 10 percent. Like in the MENA region, unemployment was much higher among the youth -- over one third of labor force participants aged 15 - 24 are unemployed. Around half of the labor force was employed in the informal sector.”

The IMF opined, “Without a resolution in Syria, economic performance is expected to remain weak.” But what kind of resolution?

As good news, the IMF said

“Lebanon might become a commodity producer over the next decade, with petroleum set to be an important source of government revenue. Recent seismic surveys suggest that Lebanon’s oil and gas resources could be in excess of 25 trillion cubic feet (tcf). While not particularly large by international standards, this estimate still points to the potential for a substantial revenue increase for many years (though not starting before 2020 at the earliest).”

For now, on delinquent loans held by Lebanese banks, the IMF “staff called for an improvement of loan classification and restructuring rules. The increase in loans under watch and the widespread use of overdrafts warrant tighter rules guiding the classification of NPLs and the restructuring of loans, including re-aging of overdrafts and arrears” (Yesterday Inner City Press reported on Cyprus non-performing loans and the foreclosure scheme the IMF is demanding, here.)

Also on Lebanese banks, the IMF “encouraged progress on the Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) regime. A better understanding of the source of deposits and adequate identification of beneficial owners would allow more effective monitoring of transactions and strengthening of risk-based supervision—necessary to enhance the integrity of the financial sector.”

The IMF report contains as an annex a “Statement by Mr. Shaalan on behalf of the Lebanese authorities” -- of whom while there the IMF met with Prime Minister Salam, Minister of Finance Khalil, Governor of the Banque du Liban (BdL) Salame -- the IMF met with that says “Lebanon’s AML/CFT regime is in practice fully compliant with international standards, and Lebanon’s financial intelligence unit, the Special Investigation Commission, actively cooperates with its foreign counterparts.” We'll see. Watch this site.

   

In UN Musical Chairs, Sigrid Kaag For Middle East, Inner City Press Is Told Eliasson Mulled as New Brahimi, Ban Ki-moon Replacement?

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, June 25 -- How will the UN play musical chairs in the Middle East? 

  Amid the UN's search for a new envoy to Syria to replace Lakhdar Brahimi, Inner City Press on June 25 asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric if it is true that the mandate of Robert Serry as Middle East Coordinators expires at the end of 2014.

   Dujarric said he didn't know. When Inner City Press asked if we can find out, Dujarric said flippantly if he finds out, he'll say. Or course he could find out.

   One reason Inner City Press is asking is that the Permanent Representative of a P5 member of the Security Council told Inner City Press that while current Syria chemical weapons envoy Sigrid Kaag would be a good replacement for Brahimi, she wants another post in the Middle East?

  Which one? At Kaag's last stakeout, Dujarric's deputy Farhan Haq did not allow any Inner City Press question,going “all Western” (or another observer noted, “All UNCA,” the United Nations Correspondents Association a/k/a the UN's Censorship Alliance).

A good UN source exclusively told Inner City Press that Kaag “wants Lebanon,” seeming to mean the post currently held by Derek Plumley. But he's been in place for a shorter time than Serry. Is that the post? 

  Inner City Press is also told there are some “visa issues” that make Kaag moving to New York or the US difficult. Again, banning Press questions to Kaag does not make resolution of these questions easier.

  In terms of who might replace Brahimi, here is what good UN sources are exclusively telling Inner City Press: current Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson may be interested in keeping that post and taking on the Syria envoy assignment, explaining the delay in selection.

  And could he be the next Secretary General as well, instead of Helen Clark of whom only nine percent of UNDP staff have confidence (another question not answered by Dujarric, and not allowed by UNDP on June 24), former PGAs Kerim or Jeremic, or one of the two Bulgarian women candidates? More on all this to follow. Watch this site.

   

On Lebanon UN's Plumbly on NIMBY But Not Franco-Saudi Arms, IPI Insiders

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 26 -- When UN envoy to Lebanon Plumbly took questions across First Avenue from the UN at the International Peace Institute, moderator Warren Hoge noted that the questions were coming from IPI people.

  Plumbly said that while a transit camp for refugees from Syria is needed, there is a problem of NIMBY: Not In My Back Yard. But questions that needed to be asked, were not -- by design.

   We note, as we did a month ago, that IPI increasingly serves as a highly controlled environment for a certain kind of question, on February 26 for UN Peacekeeping chiefHerve Ladsous, on March 26 for Plumbly.

  For example, when Plumbly said his job is to ring the alarm for the needs of Lebanon's Army, no one asked if it is appropriate for the UN to be beating the drum for Saudi Arabia to give billions for Lebanon to buy weapons from France, which is also selling Mistral warships to Russia.

  The March 26 event had the same feel, and many of the same participants, as a stealth meeting on March 21 featuring the opposition Syrian Coalition, hosted by Qatar. But at least that one, any UN accredited journalist could enter. Not so with IPI.

  IPI is led by Terje Roed-Larsen. Two weeks ago, Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric tostate what Roed-Larsen does for the UN, in the context of criticism of lack of transparency about the UN's envoys. Even after asking a second time, there has still been no answer. When there is, we will report it.

  Given Roed-Larsen's role under UNSC Resolution 1540 on Lebanon, his IPI hold an event on Lebanon with an UNbalanced list of invitees is noteworthy.

 Back on February 26, the questions at IPI were mostly speeches -- Ladsous briefly said he is "nuance" on Chad, then left. With no answers, he was photographed re-entering the UN with his new spokesperson Nick Birnback (who must know that Le Roy and Guehenno, unlike Ladsous, answered questions).

  Left on the IPI panel was French Ambassador Gerard Araud, recently but increasingly Ladsous-like. Most recentlyhe was (mis?) quoted in Le Monde about Morocco, which is now called un scandale in the UN. But he wasn't asked about it at IPI.

  In fact, Araud declined to answer even the "Security Council question" that IPI's Warren Hogue referred to him, choosing instead to take an implicit potshot at former Council member Pakistan for having child soldier "problems" on its territory.

  Filling in for him was Luxembourg's Sylvie Lucas, who announced the March 7 open debate. Here's hoping that Ladsous' choices in Mali, and the UN report on child soldiers recruitment and use by the Free Syrian Army -- on which the US has joined the UK in commenting on. What function for this UN is IPI playing?

Ladsous leaving IPI after 9 min of Q&A, Araud & Warren Hogue look on

  Back on February 11 when French Ambassador Gerard Araud emerged from the UN Security Council meeting on Syria, his spokesperson Frederic Jung made sure various forms of friendly state media could be serviced. 

  Inner City Press asked, repeatedly, "Child soldiers?"  This is because the Free Syrian Army, which France supports, has been found by the UN itself to both recruit and use child soldiers.  Here is the UN report (Para 12-13); here is UK comment.

  Since this was ostensibly a French priority under Araud's predecessor Jean-Maurice Ripert and de la Sabliere before that, Inner City Press put the question to Araud.

   But Araud's spokesperson Jung called on France 24, he called on US state media, he called, twice, on Reuters UN bureau chief.  Finally when Inner City Press again said "Child soldiers?" Araud answered as he walked away from the microphone -- pulling a Ladsous, it's called -- saying "O.P. 1," or operative paragraph one, which cites the UN report and condemns recruitment and use.

  But that's not the question: the question is, how can France continue to support a group that is named by the UN as a recruiter and user of child soldiers? We will continue asking.

  When UN mediator Lakhdar Brahimi took press questions in Geneva on February 11, he confirmed he'll meet on February 14 with the US' Wendy Sherman and Russia's Gatilov, then return to New York "sometime next week" to tell Secretary General Ban Ki-moon what's going on.

    (Apparently phones and e-mail aren't good enough -- perhaps wise in light of the NSA and Nuland's intercepted call about Jeff Feltman and F- the EU.)

   Just as at the US State Department briefing on February 10, Brahimi was asked, Why wait until Friday? Brahimi said these are important people, it's hard to find a day.  Told that Syria's Mekdad complained his government had not been consulted, Brahimi agreed, saying that's how these trilateral meetings are done.

   Why don't you impose an agenda, Brahimi was asked.  He replied, I can't put a gun to their heads.

  The next question began, since you don't have a gun -- Brahimi cut in, I do have a gun but I don't want to use it. But what's the gUN?

  At the UN on the evening of February 10, at Iran's National Day reception featuring, among others, the Permanent Representatives of France, the UK and China, many references were made to how "delicate" the talks in Geneva are. Some cite this as the reason not to vote on the draft humanitarian resolution Russia's Vitaly Churkin calls "beyond redemption." Could ending the talks be Brahimi's gun?

  Here's Inner City Press tweeted photo of French PR Araud and Iran's PR Khazaee, and here's one of Araud making some point to Ban Ki-moon moments before.

The Syria "humanitarian draft" which French foreign minister Laurent Fabius has vowed to push in UN Security Council this week, while French President Francois Hollande is in Washington and San Francisco, was described by Russia's Ambassador Vitaly Churkin on February 10 as "beyond redemption."

  "They were trying to convene a meeting, but we felt that was not necessary," Churkin told the press. "They were insisting that the meeting should be dedicated to discussing a certain text, but we felt the text is beyond redemption." He said Russia wants to be back to "pragmatics."

  "This text is not going to be adopted," Churkin said, coming out of the UN Security Council seconds behind US Ambassador Samantha Power.

  An hour earlier in the US State Department briefing, deputy spokesperson Marie Harf had talked up the humanitarian resolution; she was asked why the US is supposedly deferring to the too-slow UN, after the high level humanitarian meeting in Rome.

  Churkin also said that meeting has been "quite useless" and that it "departed from the original conception." UN humanitarian chief Valerie Amos is slated to brief the Security Council about it on February 13, but now one wonders: to what end?

  In Geneva, UN mediator Brahimi met with the Syrian National Coalition and the government's Bashar Ja'afari, usually its ambassador at the UN. Unlike in the last round, Brahimi did not hold a press conference. France 24 showed Ja'afari walking into entrance A13 of the UN in Geneva, then the SNC, in a loop.

  Neither they, nor other ostensibly Syria-focused media have done much follow up, but on January 29 Inner City Pressfirst published quotes from the UN's report on Syria Children and Armed Conflict, specifically that the Free Syrian Army recruits and uses child soldiers: 

"Throughout the reporting period, the United Nations received consistent reports of recruitment and use of children by FSA-affiliated groups."

  Inner City Press asked the US Mission to the UN to respond to the report, since Congress in its 2008 Child Soldiers Prevention Act said the US Government should condemn the use of child soldiers by paramilitaries like the FSA. Inner City Press was told to put the request for comment in writing, and did, to the UK Mission as well.

   The report had already been circulated to Security Council members in English; the UK said it would wait to provide Inner City Press with a comment until the report was made official on February 3, that is to say, when it was translated into the UN's five other official languages and put on the Internet.

   Readers asked Inner City Press where on the UN website to find the Syria child soldiers report. Inner City Press told them it would go online on February 3, and noted that theFree UN Coalition for Access had previously opposed the UN withholding or delaying the release of important document like this.

  In this case, however, the delay affirmatively helped the Syrian opposition. On January 29 they were in Geneva, issuing statements about abuses by the Assad government. They were not asked about the Free Syrian Army's use of child soldiers.

   On February 3, Inner City Press again asked the UK for its comment, and it did arrive the following day on February 4:

"The UK absolutely condemns the use of child soldiers in all cases, and strongly supports international efforts to stop the use of child soldiers. We urge all parties in the Syrian conflict to release any children held in detention.

"Armed conflict affects millions of lives around the world, and children are among those most vulnerable to the effects of conflict. The only way to secure the long-term future of Syria’s children is to find a political solution to the crisis.

"We have made clear our absolute condemnation of the use of child soldiers. As noted in this report, the use of child soldiers by the opposition is not systematic and is limited to certain elements. We have provided training to the Supreme Military Council of the Syrian opposition on the law of armed conflict, and will continue to work with them to help ensure that they meet their obligations under international law."

    Before publishing the UK's quote, Inner City Press again in writing asked two spokespeople of the US Mission to the UN for their comment -- noting that the UK had provided one. As Inner City Press noted, that might be OK for the United Kingdom -- but what about the US, including in light of the 2008 Child Soldiers Prevention Act, which provides for example:

It is the sense of Congress that— 

 (1) the United States Government should condemn the conscription, forced recruitment, or use of children by governments, paramilitaries, or other organizations; 

 (2) the United States Government should support and, to the extent practicable, lead efforts to establish and uphold international standards designed to end the abuse of human rights described in paragraph (1); 

  There are prohibitions on funding which can only be overridden for formal, public findings by the President. Given all this, Inner City Press on February 4 again asked the two spokespeople for the US Mission to the UN its January 30 question: "could the US provide aid to a non-state group, the FSA and its affiliates, which the UN has found using child soldiers?" 

  The New York Times, saying that the child soldiers report was "quietly presented to the Security Council last week," had a quote from the State Department. Why was the report, and this statement, delayed a full six days until the Geneva II talks were over?

  Even more cynically, Voice of America on whoseBroadcasting Board of Governors US Secretary of State John Kerry serves, also ran a delayed / withheld story on the report; Reuters typically didn't bring up the US Child Soldiers Prevention Act  and claimed that the report was released on February 4, when even the Times said it was February 3 -- and see Inner City Press' January 29 story, here.

 On January 29, Inner City Press published additional quotes from the report, including that:

"Boys aged 12 to 17 were trained, armed, and used as combatants or to man checkpoints. For instance, a 15 year-old boy reported being recruited in April 2012 by the FSA in Tall Kalakh (Tartus governate), and participation in military operations.... Also indicative was the case of a 16 year-old boy from Homs who reportedly joined the FSA as a combatant. In March 2013, his family reported to the United Nations that he was still fighting with the group."

And is this boy still fighting with the FSA? There is more to be said about this UN report, but what steps will actually be taken on this UN report? Watch this site.