At UN, UNviewable Debate Plays Bait & Switch With Stiglitz, Partners in Decay

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 4 -- The UN wants to play in the big leagues in terms of communication, which is fine. But there are mounting questions concerning how and if this is being carried out, and at what sacrifice.

  Monday afternoon at the UN illustrates these questions. 

  The UN Department of Public Information had promoted a debate on development and good governance, set for 5 pm in the Dag Hammarskjold Library Auditorium.

  This "Academic Impact" debate has to have featured Joseph Stiglitz, billed as "Professor of economics, Columbia University, and recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences."

   But at 5:10 pm there was no Stiglitz. The moderator, Maher Nasser of DPI's Outreach Division, described a process of point and counter-point that would add up to 30 minutes. So Inner City Press went to cover the meeting of the Sudan Sanctions committee of the UN Security Council.

  While staking out that meeting, and ultimately speaking with the committee's chairperson about using "good offices" to try to resolve the blocking of one of the sanctions Experts, it should have been possible to follow the UNTV webcast of the debate.

  But also another DPI official, Stephane Dujarric, wrote on February 1 to the Free UN Coalition on Access which raised the issue back in December, "Owing to technical issues that we working to resolve, only some of the live meetings are viewable on iOs devices (iPhones, iPads)."

  But the platform FUNCA complained of is the increasingly ubiquitous Android, on which the live webcast still does not work.

  And so Inner City Press after speaking with the Sudan Sanctions chairperson ran back to the Dag Hammarskjold Library Auditorium, where the debate was still ongoing. 

  By now, one of the three non-Stiglitz panelists was leaving: Susan Woodward of the Graduate Center of the City University of New York."

   Nasser took two more questions from the Internet -- good -- but then distinguished between those in the room from the beginning of the event, or who came in later. 

  Who did the bait and switch? And why can't DPI, with its budget, get its webcast working on a platform as ubiquitous as Android?

The session ended with a mock vote, on whether good governance helps development. But the question was posed in such a way that many in the audience groaned and asked for it to be rephrased.

  In this, it was reminiscent of an event in the same auditorium in late December, a general meeting of DPI's "main" (or only, according to Dujarric) partner, the UN Correspondents Association. 

 A 15 minute video, by FUNCA.info, is online here.

  At that meeting, right after a vote was taken rejecting naming and shaming those behind on dues, the president of UNCA denounced a particular member by name. What's the use of voting?

  Since then, including the same day of this UN Academic Impact debate, UNCA "leaders" told down substantive FUNCA flyers, while DPI for now allows UNCA -- and only UNCA -- to maintain a glassed-in bulletin board on which for months in 2012 UNCA displayed a five page letter denouncing the Press. Ah, free speech.

   Now there's talk of UNCA, under challenge, belatedly moving to amend its Constitution. But it already violated its Constititution. Dujarric on January 17 linked UNCA to the League of Nations. And it appears it should and will go the way of the League of Nations. Watch this site.

Footnote: one shame was that of the two remaining debaters, it was a return by Jomo Sundaram, previously of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs and now Assistant Director-General at FAO.

   Earlier on Monday Jomo joked to Inner City Press that there are no similarly tough questions at FAO. But here at the UN, no questions allowed - no Monday evening, and prospectively not Wednesday February 6 at noon. UN Department of PRIVATE Information? Can or will the new guy turn it around? Watch this site.

UN Economists Disagree With IMF & Geithner on China, Bollinger Blind on US Banks

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 5, updated -- While the International Monetary Fund and US officials like Timothy Geithner call for changes in the valuation of China's yuan, the UN on Thursday said that economic problems in the US and countries like it cannot be blamed on China, and defended valuation of currency and capital controls as sovereign rights.

Inner City Press asked UN Deparment of Economic and Social Affairs official Jomo Sundaram about Geithner's and the IMF's charges, and to explain the UN's and IMF's differences on issues ranging from India's economic prospects to the place of capital controls.

Jomo replied that the IMF has been ignoring Article Six of its Articles of Agreement, which he says gives states the right to manage their capital accounts. He said UN bodies like the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, are “closer to governments” that the IMF, which works from Washington.

Certainly, ESCAP chief Noeleen Heyzer has made comments viewed as favorable to the still military dominated government of Myanmar, and Jomo on Thursday tossed seemingly gratuitous praise to Sri Lanka, just after a UN Panel of Experts described 40,000 civilians killed there.

Update of May 7: Jomo Sundaram has written in that "I only mentioned Sri Lanka to make the point that rapid growth in South Asia was not just an India story." Duly noted, although some might also note while it is the IMF's modus operendi to ignore human rights concerns, one expects has historically expected something a bit more nuanced from the UN. But duly noted.

But ESCAP was not able to report much data about the Democratic People's Republic of Korea -- so they are not able to get close to ALL governments.

Also at the UN this week, Columbia University president Lee Bollinger told the press that there needs to be more journalism in China because “we don't know the condition of Chinese banks.” One wanted to ask him, what about the US banks whose dalliance in predatory mortgages led the whole world into economic meltdown? But the question was not taken. So it goes at the UN.

On IMF Quota Changes, Spin War Emerges, IMF Role in Debt of Sudan Questioned

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 18 -- After the International Monetary Fund's board agreed on November 5 to move six percent of powers to developing countries, the IMF says that “most commentary was positive.”

But when Inner City Press asked UN Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Affairs Jomo Kwame Sundaram about it on November 16, he said that two thirds of the six percent comes from “other developing countries,” and that the quota system should be further reformed. Video here, from Minute 21:30.

At the IMF's biweekly briefing on November 18, Inner City Press asked IMF spokesperson Caroline Atkinson about this criticism. She said she wasn't aware of it (since “most commentary was positive”) and argued that 80% came from “advanced economies” and the rest from “a small number of oil producing” countries which she said are technically classified as developing.

Ms. Atkinson then said that of the 187 members, 110 countries saw their quotas increase, 102 of them emerging and dynamic countries -- another euphemism for developing?

These two very different views of the changes turn on how one defines developing. While the UN often mis-classifies these, to rely entirely on the IMF to assess the seriousness of IMF reforms also seems unwise.

Inner City Press also submitted two country specific question, the first of which on Sudan Ms. Atkinson read out and acknowledged, promising a later answer:

On Sudan, both Hillary Clinton and the UK's William Hague on Nov 16 said they are in talks about reducing the national debt as an incentive for the Southern Sudan secession referendum scheduled for January 9. Is the IMF involved in any such talks? Can the IMF play any role in reducing Sudan's debt? [We will publish the IMF's answer - watch this site.]

On Democratic Republic of Congo, what is the IMF's reaction to the shortfall in Paris Club debt reduction (“82.4 percent reduction of Congo's debt stock, short of the 90 percent target”) and to the pace of reforms in the DRC?

Watch this site.

UN G-20 Team Cuts Out UNDP & Jomo, Ban 2d Term in View, DC House Looming

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 9 -- As UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon arrived in South Korean for the G-20 meeting, UN sources in New York complained to Inner City Press about an “unprecedented level of micro-management” by Ban's office in the run up to the G-20.

South Korea having this G-20 is a laurel in the country's crown, as is Ban's position in the UN. But Ban wants to use this G-20 meeting, if possible, to get endorsements for a second term as Secretary General, publicly or privately. So nothing can go wrong.

For that reason, the sources tell Inner City Press, unlike before other G-20 meetings when a range of UN system officials have been involved, this time Ban's closest advisers seized control of preparations.

Excluded or elbowed out among others the sources tell Inner City Press were Norwegian Olav Kjorven, assistant secretary-general and director of policy at UNDP and Malaysia Jomo Kwame Sundaram, the assistant secretary general of DESA under Sha Zukang, the Under Secretary General who wined and dined with and gave an award to the Tiananmen Square general during Ban's recent trip to Shanghai.

This of course is bad form. But Ban is under pressure, especially after the controversy surrounding his craven suck-up to China during his four day visit, not once publicly mentioning the name of this year's Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo.

Even the generally liberal and pro-UN New York Times ran an editorial questioning whether Ban should be supported for a second term.

Now, after the November 2 election, Ban and his advisers know they face a buzz saw in the Republican controlled House Foreign Relations committee, probably under UN knowledgeable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who may look into issues ranging from UN inaction in Darfur to Myanmar as well as UNRWA. Their tour guide to Washington Robert Orr, reportedly the crafter of the “US is a deadbeat” line, may lose his way in the new Committee. Will they hire a lobbyist? Watch this site.

IMF Loan to Sri Lanka Should Not Serve "Quasi Military" Purpose, UN Official Says

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/imf2srilanka032709.html

UNITED NATIONS, March 27 -- A day after the Sri Lankan government's as well as the Tamil Tigers' killing of civilians was criticized in a session of the Security Council, the purpose of its $1.9 billion loan request to the UN-affiliated International Monetary Fund was questioned at the UN.

Two weeks ago in Washington, Inner City Press asked IMF spokesman David Hawley to describe any safeguards that the loan proceeds wouldn't be used in connection with the government's military actions in north Sri Lanka or its detention camps for internally displaced people. Mr. Hawley said that negotiations were continuing.

Since then, the IMF has received extensive written opposition to the loan request as made, most of it quoting the Sri Lankan Central Bank's statement that the aim of the IMF loan is to "continue with the resettlement, rehabilitation and reconstruction work in the Northern Province, and the continued rapid development of the Eastern Province," which it deems key "not only to uplift the living standards of the people in the areas affected by the decades long conflict, but also to successfully implement the government's efforts to bring a sustainable solution to the conflict."

UN's Jomo Kwame Sundaram, use of Sri Lanka's IMF loan not shown

On March 27, Inner City Press asked the UN's Jomo Kwame Sundaram, Assistant Secretary-General on Economic Development at the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, about Sri Lanka's application for an emergency loan from the IMF and the resulting controversy. He replied that IMF loans generally shouldn't be used for "military or quasi-military purposes." It seems clear that the government's "resettlement" camps serve a quasi military purpose. What then will happen on the loan request? Watch this site.

Footnotes: Inner City Press asked asked Jomo K.S., in the run-up to the G20 meeting in London, for his views on the different proposals of the Stiglitz Panel on which he serves and of Ban Ki-moon, whom as an ASG he also serves. His answer was a model of diplomacy, that the reason Ban would not repeat his $1 trillion call while at Wednesday's stakeout interview with Gordon Brown was that Ban was being "a gracious host."

Some opine that it's Gordon Brown that wants to be seen as saving the world. At Friday's noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesperson if it is true that the World Bank's Bob Zoellick, who for more than a month has been promoting his own proposal that 0.7% of rich countries' stimulus packages be devoted to poor countries, called Ban to ask him to not come out with the trillion-dollar request. Ban's spokesperson said they had spoken, and that she would try to get a read-out. For now, an Inner City Press debate on these topic will appear over the weekend here.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/imf2srilanka032709.html

UN Economist Jomo K.S. Sings of Sovereign Wealth Funds, Does Not Publicly Disclose His Own Finances

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un1desajomo032608.html

UNITED NATIONS, March 26 -- The UN's view of the subprime lending crisis in the U.S. is that "there may be increased interest in Asia-Pacific's assets... if investors regard markets in the region as having decoupled, at least partly, from the United States." The UN economic and social survey containing this project was unveiled Thursday in New York by Assistant Secretary General Jomo Kwame Sundaram, an economist from Malaysia. Since Mr. Jomo in his briefing mentioned sovereign wealth funds, as does the report, Inner City Press asked Jomo for the UN's view on whether such funds should increase their disclosures and transparency. While referring to a recent U.S. Treasury Department agreement with the funds of Singapore and Abu Dhabi, Jomo said that the UN has no position on sovereign wealth funds and transparency.

The report mentions measures to increase transparency, so Inner City Press asked Jomo to explain why, on his putative public financial disclosure form, he left the form blank other than check next to a box, "I have chosen to maintain... confidentiality." Jomo alluded to his divorce and to some litigation in his country, Malaysia, and said that his lawyer advised against making any public disclosure. Video here. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged all of his ASGs to publicly disclose some of their finances, an urging from which Mr. Jomo and some other have "decoupled."

The report among other things demonstrates the needs of small island states in the Pacific, a grouping which is protesting Secretary-General Ban's move to merge what had been their USG with the Office of the Special Adviser on Africa. The revived protest bring into question whether Secretariat will be forced to re-open the small island states office. Reportedly leading the charge is Bangladesh, which celebrated its national day on Wednesday. Ban's chief of staff was there, along with his USGs for peacekeeping and political affairs. But no Ban, it seems. No man is an island...

On sovereign wealth funds, the report says that they have "bolstered weakened banking sectors in the United States and Europe... Notable purchases include equity stakes for the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation in Citigroup and UBS, for Korea Investment Corporation and Singapore's Temasek Holdings in Merrill Lynch, for the China Investment Corporation in Morgan Stanley and for Temasek Holdings in Barclays." Jomo said that further regulation of or restrictions on sovereign wealth funds are unlikely, since their investments are so needed to bolster subprime-battered banks.

On that, the scuttlebutt these days in Turtle Bay is that the UN should have bought Bear Stearns, to get its building on 46th Street and Madison Avenue. The UN will pay an undisclosed sum for merely rent space for five years across the street and 380 Madison. As Jomo could probably advise, it's better to own than to rent...

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un1desajomo032608.html