Exclusive: UN Claimed Giving Its Staff's Dollars to Sudan Was Required by US Sanctions, But OFAC Told UN Staff Otherwise

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive Must Credit

UNITED NATIONS, December 29, more here – With the UN belatedly moving to stand up to pressure from the Sudanese government of Omar al Bashir, who has ordered UN officials Yvonne Helle and Ali Al-Za'tari to leave the country, Inner City Press has learned more about a particularly shameful way in which the UN and Al-Za'tari tried to placate the Sudanese government, to the extend of giving it the U.S. dollars of UN national staff in Sudan.

   Today Inner City Press is exclusively publishing a letter from the UN Federal Credit Union claiming the transfer was related to UN sanctions, and an opinion from the US Office of Financial Assets Control which says that is not the case. Inner City Press questions to the UN and its agencies have been pending for days.

    In the first document Inner City Press is exclusively publishing today, here, UNFCU's President and CEO William Predmore told national staff in Sudan that

"We understand the concerns of our members after necessary account restrictions were implosed, and we regret there was not an opportunity to deliver communications more swiftly to the individuals impacted... As you may be aware, UNFCU is subject to U.S. Regulations (including those promulgated by the Office of Foreign Assets Controls (OFAC)). In order to ensure compliance with those regulations, checking account services and debit card services were terminated for local staff.”

   (Many were stranded with AMT cards that didn't work, while their dollars were transferred to the Bank of Khartoum.)

  But contrary to what UNFCU's Predmore told staff in writing, the US OFAC in the second document Inner City Press is exclusively publishing today, here, told UN staff that sanctions law and regulation does NOT require what the UN has done, citing 31 CFR 538.531. Click here to view in PDF.

   Last week Inner City Press exclusively reported on the UN Federal Credit Union abruptly telling UN national staff in Sudan that their accounts were being frozen and the dollars in them transferred to the Bank of Khartoum. Inner City Press has asked the UN, including UNDP, OCHA andUNFPA, to explain this. 

   On December 27 Inner City Press exclusively published a complaint filed with Ali Al-Za'tari about the change,here. Inner City Press notes that the decision to give the UN national staff's dollars to the Bank of Khartoum flies in the face, in fact, of the sanctions.  The complaint to Al-Za'tari states that 

“UNFCU closed checking and savings accounts of national staff without prior notification and consultation and unilaterally transferred all funds of staff members' accounts to local saving accounts to be paid in SDG by Bank of Khartoum... Based on the long years of established provision of the UNFCU service, majority of national staff have made long term financial arrangements taking into account UNFCU deposits facilities which provided solutions to many of their problems such as medical treatments and education to them and their families.”

  Tellingly, Predmore's letter to staff also says that the switch was made pursuant to UNDP's rules. What rules?

  Now the UN Security Council is set to meet on December 30 about Sudan's order to Ali Al-Za'tari and Yvonne Helle to leave; the Council will say they are in support of UN staff. What will they do about UN staff members' dollars having been given to the Sudanese authorities?

  In essence, UNDP and its Resident Coordinator Ali Al-Za'tari gave Khartoum the U.S. dollars of UN national staff, without notice. Even that wasn't enough to keep him in the country. But it is reminiscent of another UN scam Inner City Press exclusive uncovered, the overpayment of Myanmar by inflated foreign exchange rate in the wake of Cyclone Nargis.

  That was covered and credited – will this be? Or does thescam here extend to covering up the complicity of UN officials like not only Herve Ladsous but even, yes, Ali Al-Za'tari, who remained silent when UNFPA's country director was thrown out of Sudan in April, and as Inner City Press asked the UN on December 24, gave in quickly to the ouster of Yvonne Helle? Watch this site.

   

On South Sudan, US Says Sanctions Don't Necessaritly Bar Taxes or "Access Payments" to Peter Gadet's Militia

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 2 -- Four weeks after the United States announced South Sudan sanctions on Marial Chanuong and Peter Gadet on May 6, on June 2 it clarifiedthat paying "taxes" to Gadet's militia wouldn't necessarily violate the sanctions:

Q: Are humanitarian aid groups prohibited from making payments to or otherwise transacting with non-designated individuals or entities in South Sudan, including militias and armed groups under the command or control of a designated individual?

A: An entity in South Sudan that is commanded or controlled by an individual designated under Executive Order 13664 is not considered blocked by operation of law. Payments, including “taxes” or “access payments,” made to non-designated individuals or entities under the command or control of an individual designated under E.O. 13664 do not, in and of themselves, constitute prohibited activity. U.S. persons should employ due diligence, however, to ensure that an SDN is not, for example, profiting from such transactions

   One wonders about the timing of the Q&A - was this really a "frequently" asked question?

  (Inner City Press also wonders whether US State Department envoy Russ Feingold has inquired with Burundi into the jailing of human rights defender Mbonimpa. Sanctions on that, or on arming the CNDD youth wing, in camps in Eastern Congo which the UN mission MONUSCO won't even go and check?)

  On May 6 a US Senior Administration Official, when asked by Inner City Press if thought had been or will be given to sanctioning the Kiir government officials who took to the radio waves prior to the deadly attack on the UN compound of UNMISS in Bor, resisted discussing anyone not yet on the list.

   But it would seem clear that there could be at least one further intermediary step of sanctions before reaching Kiir and his former Vice President.

  Gadet was previously used by the government for disarmament. Inner City Press asked UN envoy Hilde Johnson about it on March 15, 2012 and Johnson replied that to "us in the UN" who did the disarmament, including Gadet, was "less than relevant. Now Gadet is under US sanctions.

  Beyond the sanctions, Inner City Press asked the US Senior Administration Officials about Secretary of State John Kerry's emphasis in Addis Ababa on the need for a legitimate force to help make peace: in the US' thinking, would this force be part of UNMISS?

  A second Senior Administration Official replied that conversations are ongoing, that the regional force would be related but, it seems, might be separate. 

  Now it seems the force, including Ethiopia, Kenya and Rwanda, will be related and technically a part of UNMISS - but Hilde Johnson is leaving as envoy in July. Watch this site.

Footnote: When the US Treasury Department put online the specifics, it appeared that Peter Gadet, now subject to a travel ban, has no passport.

US Transcript:

MODERATOR: Our next question is from.. Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Great. Thanks a lot, [Moderator]. I wanted to ask, there was a – it was said that in Security Council consultations at the UN that senior government officials were named in a radio broadcast prior to the attacks in Bor on the UN compound in killing the civilians. I just wonder if you can say are these people – is that the case? Do you know the names of people that sort of called for that attack, and in which case, why aren’t they on this list?

And I also – this might for Senior Administration Official Number Two. Secretary Kerry was talking about a legitimate force to help make peace. And I just wanted to know, is the UN – is the U.S. thinking of that as part of UNMISS mission or as the IGAD force? And if so, would it require a Security Council approval? Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: On the first, I mean, we typically do not comment on actors against whom we are – we have not yet – we have not yet acted, a clunky way of saying we don’t comment on those who are not part of our designation. But anyone who is contributing to the violence, whether that’s by directing violence, whether that’s by funding it, fueling it, contributing arms, can be a subject of designation in the future. And I’ll leave it to my State Department colleague to answer the second question.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah. On the question about the regional force and on UNMISS, we – it is something that conversations and discussions are ongoing between countries of IGAD, with New York, with ourselves and others on how best to create this additional force presence that we are working very much with UNMISS and see this as part of the same effort. But we do think it’s very important that the regional forces are able to join this effort in larger numbers and appreciate the efforts of, particularly, the governments of Ethiopia and Kenya, who are leading the mediation and who are seeking to work with UNMISS in this regard.

   

UN Admits Impact of Syria Sanctions,Won't Raise in Kuwait, Met SPLM-North, Press Preferences

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 28 -- Two days before the UN makes a pitch in Kuwait for $1.5 billion in aid for Syria and Syrian refugees, Inner City Press asked UN humanitarian official John Ging about the current impact of sanctions on humanitarian activities in Syria.

  Complaints come not only from the Syrian government but also NGOs from Italy and Denmark, among others. Medicine can't be produced; even diapers are in short supply. What does the UN have to say about this?

  Ging acknowleged that the sanctions are a problem, noting not only medicine but fuel.

   So will the UN be raising the impact of sanctions, Inner City Press asked Ging, at the January 30 meeting in Kuwait?

   Ging said that would be up to the "participants," seeming to mean the donors themselves. 

   But the UN didn't leave it up to donors to come up with the $1.5 billion estimate. And isn't the UN supposed to lead? To identify a problem, even if one powerful donors would rather ignore, and raise the issue?

   Inner City Press also asked Ging to answer a question that others in OCHA have declined to answer: did OCHA meet with the SPLM-North representatives who were in New York last week? 

  The UK's Mark Lyall Grant to his credit, forthright like Ging, acknowledged to Inner City Press that the UK met with them, despite Khartoum's opposition.

  French Deputy Permanent Representative Martin Briens, by contrast and like an OCHA deputy, said "no comment."

  If the UN has a meeting its existence should not be private. By what right could the UN, owned and ostensibly controlled by all 193 of its member states, have secret meetings?

   Ging said yes, OCHA did meet with SPLM-North, on humanitarian issues. He expressed outrage that eight months after a Security Council resolution demanding access, "nothing" has been accomplished in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states.

  Earlier in his briefing, Ging was talking about moving aid through border crossings to Syria that not controlled by the Syrian government, say it is not possible for now but something could be done about it. 

   Inner City Press asked him to contrast this with the possibility of bringing in aid to Southern Kordofan from South Sudan. This, Ging did not answer.

Footnote: normally at a noon briefing with a UN official as a guest, there is no hierarchy of question, no first question to the now-dubious UN Correspondents Association, a/k/a UN Censorship Alliance. But new president Pamela Falk on Monday arranged to be called on first, and pointly thanked Ging "on behalf of UNCA."

   Then Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesman Eduardo Del Buey called on a series of other UNCA members. As the last question, Inner City Press thanked Ging on behalf of the new Free UN Coalition for Access,FUNCA, and asked about Sudan and Syria sanctions. 

   It's ironic because Falk, while often not present at the UN, has in the past been a lawyer about sanctions, representing clients with business in Cuba before the US Treasury's OFAC. So since she claimed the first question, why didn't she ask about sanctions, or something other than a softball? Ah, politics. 

 When UNCA inserts or asserts itself, so will FUNCA as is its right. The head of the UN Department of Public Information has been informed to this effect. The matter of UNCA's "exclusive" glassed-in bulletin board and the UN's "postponed" threat to tear down FUNCA's flyers remains unanswered by the UN, like so many others. 

  Meanwhile during the day on Monday UNCA "leaders" tore down a half dozen FUNCA fliers questioning the UN's non-accreditation of opposition media. Watch this site.