On Syria Complaint Against David or Peter Galbraith, Conflicting Reports of Reuters and AFP, Will Either Be Corrected?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 6, updated -- In Syria news-product, two wire services and their customers on January 5 reported they have seen or obtained a December letter to the Security Council complaining of unauthorized visits by Bernard Kouchner, John McCain and another American named Galbraith.

  Agence France Presse, and customers such as Al Arabiya, call him David Galbraith, and say the letter is dated December 24.

  But the former US official, who has even appeared on France 24 about Syria, is PETER Galbraith. Reuters, which has that name but says the letter is dated December 30, doesn't mention Galbraith's litigation about his claimed personal economic interest in Kurdistan oil. News consumers might want to know, no?

Update: the letter clearly says PETER Galbraith, and contrary to what Reuters reported that it "saw," is dated December 24. See here.

 So "David" Galbraith in AFP, and Reuters' incorrect date, will they ever be corrected?

  These two wires appeared later in late December -- the day of Syrian Ambassador Ja'afari's letter or not? -- on the story of Sudan's move to expel two UN officials.

 Amid charges that the UN in Sudan, including Herve Ladsous' UN Peacekeeping in Darfur, has colluded with the authorities in Khartoum to cover up rapes and killing, now the UN's Resident Coordinator Ali Al Za'tari has been ordered to leave Sudan by January 2, Inner City Press first reported earlier today. Inner City Press similarlyexclusively reported, and asked the UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about, Sudan's ouster of UNDP Country Director Yvonne Heller on December 24. Video here. 

 While Inner City Press asked the question, Agence France Presse was in the front row of the UN Press Briefing Room but neither said nor asked anything. (Reuters either wasn't there, as with the Gambia meeting of the Security Council, or lurked to belatedly repackage the story, with a half dozen jouranlists listed, as its own.)

   A full day after that, AFP published a derivative storyabout the Sudanese orders, without any credit, and without this new news, responsive to Inner City Press' question(s) -- after another inquiry by Inner City Press to Dujarric and UNDP on December 25, Dujarric sent this:

From: Stephane Dujarric [at] un.org
Date: Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: Press request on Sudan PNG-ing Yvonne Helle (asked Dec 24) & now Dec 25 Ali Al-Za'tari
To: Matthew Lee [at] InnerCityPress.org
Cc: UNDP, funca [at] FUNCA.info

Matthew, The UN has filed a protest with the government of Sudan following their decision to request the departure of two senior UN officials from the country. 

  As to AFP, they then published a second story, saying ""The UN has filed a protest with the government of Sudan following their decision to request the departure of two senior UN officials from the country," Mr Dujarric told AFP."  Told AFP? 

  This is the same Agence France Presse which has been silent on the under-performance at UN Peacekeeping of Herve Ladsous, including a recent complaint to the UN and the Security Council P3 about Ladsous and Darfur.

By contrast, Sudan Tribune for example credits Inner City Press, here. What are AFP's policies? We've asked in the past and no answer was ever given (but see this and this).

  Overall, soo the UN has now filed a protest -- but what about the UNFPA case in April, and this one, in Darfur, which Inner City Press exclusively reported on earlier today?  And why hasn't Agence France Presse, which haspreviously acted at the UN in defense of UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, written about the 123 NGOs' and Sudan experts' complaint about Ladsous, below?

  Earlier this Fall, Sudan's security agency NISS ordered a UN humanitarian staffer to leave El Fasher in North Darfur, Inner City Press is exclusively informed.  

  She left, to Khartoum -- where NISS "harassed" her, ordering her to return to El Fasher and "apologize" to a NISS official there. 

   Ultimately she left Sudan. Nothing was said, as with an earlier case in April (on which we'll have more; questions are pending to spokespeople who cite the holiday). This is today's UN, under Ban Ki-moon and Herve Ladsous, Helen Clark and, until now, Ali Al-Za'tari.  Watch this site.

    

At NYU, Galbraith's Kurdish Oil & Abrams' Contra Conviction Unmentioned

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 5 -- With Elliot Abrams slated to debate Peter Galbraith Tuesday on whether America's global wings should be clipped, moderated by ABC's John Donvan for the Intelligence Squared series, certain basic facts were expected to come out.

Elliot Abrams was found guilty -- and later pardoned -- for misleading Congress about Iran - Contra. More recently, Peter Galbraith's financial interest in oil in northern Iraq's Kurdistan region was exposed by the Norwegian and then US press. (Full disclosure: Inner City Press wrote about it, on this site.)

But neither fact was mentioned even when Galbraith, hiding in plain sight, asked why the US hadn't just left Kurdistan alone, since “it was working.” For him, clearly.

This is what happens when you set up a debate between people with similar Achiles Heels. With Mutually Assured Destruction, each debater clips his wings. But where was the moderator? Where was this Intelligence, Squared?

The program for the event, held in NYU's Skirball Center, listed among “Bright” donors Mort Zuckmerman, and among advisors Fareed Zakaria. So where was the journalistic impulse?

Donvan asked the audience for faux applause for rebroadcast on Bloomberg television. Eliot Cohen said his non-clipping side should win because on the other wise would be Kim Jong-il and Hugo Chavez. Lawrence Korb played the churlish accountable to Galbraith's oil man feint. Ultimately the two Elliots won. Truth and full disclosure, however, were each ill served.

All four panelists said they supported US involvement in Libya, though the wing clippers said they agreed that no ground troops should be used. But what about arming the rebels, and Obama (and Cameron's) position that they can, despite the arms embargo in UN Security Council Resolution 1970, even as modified by Resolution 1973? America's wings clipped, indeed....

At UN, Ban Says Holbrooke's Public Blog Talk of de Mistura Is Not Proper, But Unlike Galbraith, Jurisdiction Questioned

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/un4monte011210.html

UNITED NATIONS, January 12 -- Two weeks ago, Inner City Press reported that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon would name as his envoy to Afghanistan Staffan de Mistura, who hired Mr. Ban's son in law in Iraq. A week ago, Inner City Press asked Mr. Ban about it. Ban replied that the choice is his "prerogative."

Last Friday, U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke told Foreign Policy's The Cable that de Mistura told him he has been offered the post.

With the cat entirely out of the bag, Inner City Press on January 11 asked Mr. Ban, in his first stakeout interview in the UN's new North Lawn Conference Building, "Richard Holbrooke is being quoted as saying that you have offered the top UN post in Kabul to Staffan de Mistura. I wonder, is he right in saying that?" Video here, from Minute 15:18.

The premise of the question was, while Ban's talking points last week involved questioning why the New York Times would chime on on his prerogative, it would be more difficult to say Holbrooke was wrong.

But Ban's answer was almost identical, that "I don't think it is proper to discuss detailed matters on appointment procedures publicly." But it seems clear that Ban has offered the job to de Mistura, who in turn told Holbrooke -- to nail the job down, some say -- and Holbrooke intentionally went public.

When Ban says this is not "proper," does he mean that de Mistura should not have told Holbrooke that he's been offered the job? Since, as Inner City Press exclusively reported, Ban's choice as Darfur envoy of Ibrahim Gambari leaked because Gambari asked some UN staff to sign up to work for him in El Fasher, Ban could have told de Mistura to keep it under raps.

Or, as his comments seem to point, is Ban calling Holbrooke's public statement to The Cable improper? Previously, Ban fired Peter Galbraith, whom Holbrooke has pushed for the UN's deputy post in Kabul, for going public with his critic of Kai Eide covering up Hamid Karzai electoral fraud.

Ban can and does crack down on UN staff for speaking publicly or blowing the whistle. One wonders if Ban's implicit rebuke of Holbrooke leaves any mark at all. Ultimately, it traces back to de Mistura. But he has ingratiated himself with Ban's Turtle Bay. Between now and the conference on Afghanistan in London on January 28, what could go wrong? Watch this site.

From the UN's January 11 transcript:

Inner City Press: On Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke is being quoted as saying that you have offered the top UN post in Kabul to Staffan de Mistura. I wonder, is he right in saying that?

SG: First of all, this appointment of a new Special Representative of the Secretary-General is still under consideration. Of course, I don't think it is proper to discuss detailed matters on appointment procedures publicly, but as soon as the decision is made I will let you know. I have been discussing this matter with President [Hamid] Karzai and other concerned major parties who could be the best candidate who can really work together with all major parties to have a very harmonious and coordinated role as SRSG of the United Nations.

As we've noted, just as Hamid Karzai vetoed Paddy Ashdown for the post, he may try the same with de Mistura, even more so after Holbrooke's staged endorsement.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un4monte011210.html

As Galbraith Claims He Challenged UN Before Nambiar's Quote to NYT, UN Mute

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/unama5leak122109.html

UNITED NATIONS, December 21, updated -- After the UN's chief of staff Vijay Nambiar was quoted on December 17 that the UN knew its Afghanistan deputy Peter Galbraith was pitching the overthrow of Hamid Karzai to Joe Biden and this was "one of several factors" why he was fired, the UN refused to elaborate. This continued on December 21, when UN Spokesman Martin Nesirky declined to comment on Inner City Press' questions about Mr. Nambiar.

Mr. Nesirky, previously answering Inner City Press' question, said that because Galbraith was challenging his termination, it would not be appropriate to comment. This was not said at the noon briefing when the question was asked. Rather, it was inserted later into the transcript.

The next day, Inner City Press asked if Galbraith had launched his challenge before or after Vijay Nambair's quote. Nesirky said he'd check.

Now Galbraith tells Inner City Press that this challenge was filed on December 10, well before Nambiar's comment. If true, the UN's stated reason for now refusing to comment appears in a different light.

Being "tired" of l'affaire Galbraith is one thing. But the issue of fraud in the Afghan election, and the UN's role in it, should not be allowed to be buried on now specious legal grounds.

In his e-mail to Inner City Press, below, Galbraith raises an issue of media ethics. Knowing both sides of this dynamic, Inner City Press for now simply presents Galbraith's submission, on which we will follow up.

For now we say: whether one sides with the UN or Galbraith in this conflict, the issue of fraud in Karzai's election is larger. Watch this site.

From: Peter Galbraith
To: Matthew.Lee at InnerCityPress.com
Sent: 12/20/2009 1:37:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: Re: Press Q from UN: did you disclose oil interest, if so did UN leak it?

I filed my action on December 10, before Nambiar's quote. Having failed to come up with a plausible explanation for my dismissal, the UN now seeks to use the legal action as a pretext to stop discussing the matter, and the underlying issue of how it handled fraud in the Afghanistan elections. The fact that Vijay Nambiar chose to speak out on my case after I commenced legal action places his quote--and the whole new York Times story--in a rather different context. At the time he wrote his story about my supposed plot to oust Karzai, New York Times reporter James Glanz knew I had started legal action but chose not to share it with the New York Times readers until a separate story the the next day which carefully did not say when the legal action began. For the record, there was no plan to oust Karzai and the story is a complete phony.

Like you, New York Times readers are smart enough to smell a rat in a story about an event that supposedly occurred two months earlier but is only "leaked" after legal action begins. It is too bad, Glanz did not think it important for them to know that.

I am more optimistic than you that the UN legal system will produce the accountability that is so important in this matter.

Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/unama5leak122109.html

Galbraith Claims Disclosed Oil Interest to UN, Eide Leaked Before Leaving? Successor Tales

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/unama1leak121109.html

UNITED NATIONS, December 11 -- As the Norwegian press reports UN envoy to Afghanistan Kai Eide will leave the post in March if not before, the conflict between Eide and his former deputy Peter Galbraith has taken a new twist.

In an e-mail to Inner City Press, Galbraith claims that he disclosed to the UN his interest in a Kurdish oil field, and expresses "surprise that a Norwegian tabloid happened to write a story about it within a week of my Washington Post Outlook piece describing Kai Eide's role in downplaying the fraud in the Afghanistan elections."

The implication, spelled out by Galbraith's supporters, is that the UN and perhaps Kai Eide himself leaked Galbraith's financial information to the Norwegian press. Galbraith has refused, however, to release a copy of the financial disclosure form he filed with the UN.

Inner City Press has asked the UN if Galbraith disclosed the oil interest. UN Ethics Officer Robert Benson responded that Galbraith filed a form, but that its contents will not be disclosed, even to the UN's executive 38th floor, apparently. The financial disclosure forms are filed with PriceWaterhouseCoopers. It is unclear who in the UN system vets them for conflicts of interest.

Additionally, the Norwegian media which reported Galbraith's interest were following a story between the oil company DNO and the Kurdish Regional Government. During their course of their inquiry, they stumbled on documents reflecting an interest in the oil field by a company which only later was discovered to be controlled by Galbraith.

Still, UN officials have bad mouthed Galbraith both on and off the record. At a press conference at UN headquarters, the number two official of UN Peacekeeping Edmond Mulet said that Galbraith had an ulterior motive which would later be revealed. And a senior UN official from the 38th floor called UN correspondents to make them aware of the Norwegian stories.

While Eide unilaterally announced he will stay until March, the word from the 38th floor -- read, deputy chief of staff -- is that Eide will leave after the conference on Afghanistan.

A question is, who's next for the UN in Afghanistan? While Inner City Press joked on Friday with former Nepal envoy Ian Martin -- "next stop Kabul?" -- the smart money is on former UN envoy to Iraq Staffan de Mistura. The reasoning is telling: if the UN puts someone higher profile in, they will have to spend more on security. One wag also wondered whether de Mistura would bring his previous chief of staff with him.

Jean Marie Guehenno was said to be in the running, but apparently France is not lobbying for him. Inner City Press sought to question Mr. Guehenno at an event on the Congo one week ago, but he declined to answer questions. Zut alors!

Galbraith wrote to Inner City Press that:

Subj: Re: Press Q from UN: did you disclose oil interest
From: Peter Galbraith
To: Inner City Press

Dear Matthew,

I did disclose all financial holding and interests to the UN including the fact that I had a breach of contract claim in arbitration against DNO. (This is the accurate description of the interest and not as described in the NY Times.) The contents are confidential and, for lots of reasons, I intend to keep them that way. The key accusation in the NYT story--that I pushed through constitutional provisions for my own benefit is untrue and illogical. I was a private citizen and had no ability to push through anything. The NYT provides no source for this allegation and, in a breach of any standard of fairness, never asked me to respond to it.

My arrangement with DNO dates back to June 2004 or more than five years ago. I do find it surprising that a Norwegian tabloid happened to write a story about it within a week of my Washington Post Outlook piece describing Kai Eide's role in downplaying the fraud in the Afghanistan elections. But, I also find the UN's ever shifting public explanations for my firing also to be curious. Not one of them was ever mentioned to me at any time. And they all smell of desperation to come up with some rationale for firing a senior UN official who had a private disagreement with boss about whether UNAMA should be concerned about massive fraud in a UN funded and supported election.

On the chapter 6 stuff, you are all wet. If you read carefully the questions and answers, you will see they were replies to questions sent both to Amb Redman and me. They reflected the views of the US government, which I represented and not me personally. Since they were questions to the record, I may not have even seen them before they were submitted. (At this stage, I can't recall). The USG took the same position on enforcing the arms embargo as the UK, France, Germany and Russia. None felt legally obliged to report on violations. The only difference is that we were asked our view by the Croatians and the others were not. But their position and behaviour was the same. (except for Russia which was a major source of arms going to Croatia and Bosnia, in spite of the government's pro-Serb tilt.)

I appreciate very much your doggedness in pursuing the issue of how the UN handled the Afghan elelection fraud. Keep up the good work. Peter

Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/unama1leak121109.html

Were Galbraith's Oil Interests As Undisclosed at UN as at Opinion Pages He Wrote For?

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/uneth1galbraith111209.html

UNITED NATIONS, November 12, updated Nov. 13 -- Following reports that former UN Deputy Special Representative to Afghanistan Peter Galbraith's oil investments are worth up to $100 million, Inner City Press on November 12 asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe if Galbraith disclosed this interest in his financial disclosure form.

Ms. Okabe stated that such forms are filled out when a person joins the UN at the level Mr. Galbraith did, and are "vetted by a professional firm," namely PriceWaterhouseCoopers. But did Galbraith make the disclosure which it's now clear was required?

Ms. Okabe refused to answer, instead referring the question to UN Ethics Officer Robert Benson, who oversees the financial disclosure regime. Inner City Press asked Mr. Benson by both e-mail and telephone, early and late on the afternoon of November 12, but received no answer by the evening.

Update: on November 13, UN Ethics Officer Robert Benson wrote to Inner City Press that "The Ethics Office can confirm that although Mr. Galbraith is no longer with the United Nations, he was a participant in the United Nations Financial Disclosure program following his appointment; however, as provided for in GA Resolution A/RES/60/238, the information disclosed remains confidential."

Inner City Press is informed that Galbraith is now being barred from the op-ed pages of major American media based on his failure to accurate disclose his financial interests. The New York Times confirmed this on November 13. Galbraith is arguing that he didn't read the form, a strange argument for a diplomat who argued that the U.S. didn't have to comply with UN Security Council resolutions regarding the Balkans as long as they were under Chapter VI and not VII of the UN Charter.

Earlier, just after Galbraith was fired by Ban Ki-moon, Ban's deputy chief of peacekeeping Edmond Mulet told the Press that Galbraith had some ulterior motive which would soon become clear. On November 12, Inner City Press asked an involved UN official if Mulet had meant the oil investments, or that he might want to run for lieutenant government of Vermont. "The latter," the official said. Only at the UN.

From the November 12 transcript:

Inner City Press: ...about Peter Galbraith, former Deputy UNAMA representative and his interest in oil contracts in northern Iraq. I wanted to know when he became a Deputy Special Representative, did he fill out the financial disclosure forms, and I’d also like to know whether this investment was disclosed in those forms.

Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe: As you know, the financial disclosure forms are something that the Secretary-General has instituted, it’s part of his UN reform, and all staff, once they’ve joined the Organization as senior staff and those in positions that require financial disclosure, are required to fill that form out upon entry into the Organization. So it’s a requirement.

Inner City Press: [inaudible] It seems, this article would make it important to know whether this, they say the investment is worth up to $100 million, whether that was disclosed in the form and if it wasn’t, what were the reasons…?

Deputy Spokesperson Okabe: As you know, these forms are vetted by a professional firm and if they see fit that they need to follow up on any questions that they have, that is done. I think Robert Benson, when he was here last time, gave you a briefing on how that procedure works. And just because they are not made public, it does not mean that they have not been vetted, and the firm that goes through it does the vetting and if they have any questions, they do get back to the staff member and do the follow-up on that.

Inner City Press: [inaudible] is it possible to just, and I don’t expect you to do it right this moment, but to get a yes or no answer, whether that investment was disclosed in the forms. Is that going to be possible?

Deputy Spokesperson Okabe: You know, you can ask that to Robert Benson, but that’s his call.

But Benson has yet to return a call, nor an e-mail asking the above and the following questions, below.

Update of November 13, 2009 -- the following was received:

Subj: Re: Press questions,Galbraith, whisteblowers etc, thanks in advance
From: Robert Benson [at] un.org
To: Inner City Press
Sent: 11/13/2009 9:23:56 A.M. Eastern Standard Time

Dear Mr Lee:

Responses provided:

Hi. At today's noon press briefing, I asked if Peter Galbraith (until recently Deputy SRSG in Afghanistan) had filled out a UN financial disclosure form, and separately if he had disclosed the oil interests in Iraq reported in today's NY Times.

Marie Okabe referred me to you on both questions.

A1 -- "The Ethics Office can confirm that although Mr. Galbraith is no longer with the United Nations, he was a participant in the United Nations Financial Disclosure program following his appointment; however, as provided for in GA Resolution A/RES/60/238, the information disclosed remains confidential."

Q2 -- I have also been told that in a recent UN Dispute Tribunal hearing, about the UNDP - North Korea whistleblower case, that OLA said they would not "allow" you to testify in the case. Are you aware of this? What do you think of UNDP's failure to follow your recommendation?

A2 -- "Since this is a matter that is before the UN Dispute Tribunal, I prefer not to make any comment regarding the matter."

Q3 - How many whistleblowers deserving protection have you certified / found in the past two years? Based on how many applications / approaches?

A3 - "The detailed information regarding the number of requests for protection against retaliation received by the Ethics Office and their disposition can be found in the Office’s Annual Reports for the previous two (2) years; that is, paragraphs 59-66 of A/64/316 and paragraphs 47-53 of A/63/301."

Q4 - Finally, does your Office cover local staff of UN Peacekeeping Missions? There is a recent case of a former MONUC local staffer, alleging MONUC involvement in / knowledge of diversion of jet fuel among other things, who has told me he feels retaliated against. Would your Office have jurisdiction?

A4 - "Yes, our Office would cover a request for protection against retaliation by local staff member from a UN Peacekeeping Mission. May I suggest that you have the individual contact our Office, in that way we would be able to advise the him/her directly."

Q5 - How long more do you remain in Office?

A5- "My three (3) year appointment as the Director of the Ethics Office will end on 30 April 2010, following which I will retire. During my tenure as the United Nations first Director of Ethics, I have indicated on numerous occasions that I considered it important, particularly in relation to the independence of the Office, that I serve for a fixed term and that I leave at the conclusion of that term. The Secretary-General has been informed and has accepted my plans to retire."

While the answers, even the next day, are appreciated, one wonders in light of Q&A 2, above, who would want this job after the retirement announced in A5 takes place. Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/uneth1galbraith111209.html

UN's Ban Favors "Phantom Polling Stations" Decried by Fired Galbraith in Afghan Runoff

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/unama2sideline102009.html

UNITED NATIONS, October 20 -- For the second round of Afghan elections now slated for November 7, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon favors keeping open what were described as "phantom" polling stations by the deputy envoy who Ban fired, Peter Galbraith.

Shortly after Hamid Karzai announced he would accept the second round based on findings of widespread fraud in the first, Ban spoke with the Press outside the UN Security Council chamber in New York. Inner City Press asked him, "What about the phantom polling stations?" Galbraith said that polling stations in areas entirely under the control of the Taliban, where no verification would be possible, should not be open in the first round.

Inner City Press asked Mr. Ban if he thinks these "so-called phantom polling stations" should be open in the second round. Ban, after repeating the phrase, said "I'd like to make it clear... the purpose of the UN is assisting the electoral process last time" was to "ensure all Afghanistan people would be able to express their will by casting votes."

"The idea suggested by Mister Peter Galbraith to reduce the number of polling stations" just to avoid fraud was "not acceptable [under] the core values of democracy," Ban said.

Ban then argued this was why he fired Galbraith, "not about fraud," but on the principle of enfranchisement. While many correspondents after Ban's stake out interview expressed skepticism at this, noting that Galbraith was only fired when he publicly called into question the partiality of Ban's top envoy Kai Eide and thus of Ban himself, at a minimum Ban's statement might be interpreted as, going public with a call to limit the number of polling stations was "not acceptable."

Reasonable minds can disagree about whether polling stations that cannot be effectively monitored help or hurt democracy. Therefore to argue that any questioning of such stations is "not acceptable under the core values of democracy" might seem hyperbolic, or an attempt to spin what some see as another of the UN's firing of whistleblowers or critics.

As possible deals between Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah will be rumored to cancel the November 7 run-off, there is sure to be a debate about, among other things, the wisdom of the so called phantom polling stations. Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/unama2sideline102009.html

At UN, Sen. Boxer Criticizes Firing of Galbraith, No Goldstone Discussion

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/un1boxer101209.html

UNITED NATIONS, October 12 -- Senator Barbara Boxer of California, after meeting UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, was asked on Monday morning by Inner City Press about Mr. Ban's firing of long time U.S. diplomat Peter Galbraith as the UN's deputy in Afghanistan, for alleging the UN is covering up pro-Karzai voting fraud. Video here, from Minute 4:10

"On Mr. Galbraith, t's a very sad day when someone is dismissed for telling the truth, that's how I feel about it," Senator Boxer replied. Video here, from Minute 6:18.

But did she bring up the firing to Ban Ki-moon during their meeting? Apparently not. When Inner City Press asked Sen. Boxer if she had raised to Ban the UN system's handling of the Goldstone report on Gaza, Boxer testily replied that she had come only on two topics: violence against women, which she said took up 75% of the meeting -- and "that you never asked any questions about" -- and climate change. Video here, from Minute 8:59.

In Sen. Boxer's read out of the violence against women portion of the meeting, she spoke of rapes in broad daylight then turned to an aide for the name of the country. Guinea -- Guinea Conakry.

Inner City Press asked Sen. Boxer about charges that the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo works with Congolese army units which are accused of rape. Sen. Boxer gave an answer that may be news: that of the "five generals," three have been relieved of duty, but two continue to serve. The reference is to five names that the UN gave to President Kabila. But is being relieved of duty enough? And is 60% a passing grade?

On climate change, Inner City Press asked Sen. Boxer to respond to chief U.S. negotiator Jonathan Pershing's statement that if the Congress hasn't passed legislation before the Copenhagen meeting, it will be very difficult for the U.S. to make any specific commitment at that meeting.

Boxer's response was that she does not agree that the U.S. is not making progress. She spoke about court decisions and actions of governors and mayors. But what about the Congress? What about the U.S.'s ability to make a commitment in Copenhagen? Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un1boxer101209.html

UN Denies Galbraith's a Whistleblower, Told Him to Be Quiet about Kai Eide's and UNAMA's Pro-Karzai Bias

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/un2elections100709.html

UNITED NATIONS, October 7 -- With the UN facing charges of bias and cover up of fraud in Afghanistan, Wednesday in New York the UN presented no fewer than three officials to the Press corps, all intent on rebutting and bad mouthing the UN's fired deputy envoy Peter Galbraith.

The Department of Peacekeeping Operation's second in command Edmond Mulet said the Galbraith has "personal motives" for going public with his complaints that main envoy Kai Eide has been covering up electoral irregularities in the service of Hamid Karzai. Inner City Press asked Mulet to describe how Galbraith has hired for the job, and why these personal motives, or propensity to be a loose cannon, had not been discovered at the time.

Mulet said that while Galbraith had been "a candidate among others... he was selected by the Secretary General... I cannot deny that him being a citizen of an important country that plays an important role in Afghanistan, that also was a factor we took into consideration." Video here, from Minute 1:01:56.

According to Mulet, the UN thought Galbraith's American citizenship was a plus, that Galbraith would somehow represent or be a conduit to the United States. So what now -- does Galbraith speak for the U.S.? Or, as some surmise, did Richard Holbrooke create a Frankenstein and then "leave him out to dry"?

Inner City Press asked Mulet and his colleagues to respond to Galbraith's statement in the Daily Telegraph that

"the final instruction from the Secretary-General before sacking him last week was: 'Do not talk.' He initially agreed to Ban Ki-moon's request after being given assurances that his dismissal would be presented as a dispute over how the UN mission was handling electoral fraud in Afghanistan. But he decided to break his silence, after officials announced instead that his sacking was in the 'best interests of the mission.' 'I might have tolerated even this last act of dishonesty in a dispute dating back months if the stakes were not so high.'"

While Mulet didn't answer, his colleague Wolfgang Weisbrod-Weber, the Director of the Asia and Middle East Division of DPKO, said that while he didn't know what Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said, DPKO has told Galbraith "do not exacerbate the divergence of views in public unnecessarily."

Since Galbraith was complaining not only of electoral fraud but also of bias by his boss, Kai Eide, and was told to be quiet and then was fired, Inner City Press asked how this complied or relates to the UN's statement policy of protection of whistleblowers' rights to make such complaints. Video here, from Minute 1:04:14.

Mulet insisted that Galbraith is not a whistleblower, saying "he has a personal agenda, a person objective that will become clear in the future." Another reporter said that Ban's chief of staff Vijay Nambiar said that Galbraith was removed because he was trying to engineer an unconstitutional change of government in Afghanistan. There was no response to this, nor to Inner City Press' question about whether the UN will, as Karzai challenger Abdullah Abdullah and others have urged, conduct an investigation of Eide's actions, by the Office of Internal Oversight Services.

While Mulet and Craig Jenness, Director of the Electoral Assistance Division of the Department of Political Affairs both insisted that the UN had no monitoring role in Afghanistan, a May 11, 2009 press release by the UN stated that "UNAMA will follow these elections closely and monitor the campaign to help ensure that the fundamental political rights of the Afghan people are respected. " So which is it? Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un2elections100709.html

UN Counters Galbraith Fallout with Unnamed Official, Sampler Next for Kabul?

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/un1elections100109.html

UNITED NATIONS, October 1 -- Charged with covering up electoral fraud to benefit Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, the UN in New York on Thursday, in a background briefing to the Press, argued that it is not the UN's role to uncover or publicize fraud. Rather, the speaker who insisted on being identified only as a senior UN official said, the UN makes recommendation for procedures to be put in place so that fraud can be detected.

But if the UN's recommendations are dismissed, or if implemented are then revoked, does the UN say anything? No, the senior official said, why should we? The Independent Electoral Commission isn't breaking any laws.

Inner City Press asked the official if Afghan law provides for any penalty for those found guilty of fraud. I don't know, the UN official said, adding that the Elections Complaints Commission, three of whose five members are appointed by the UN, has no power to impose criminal penalties.

The official provided by the UN, answered again and again that he was baffled by the critiques made by the UN's just fired deputy envoy to Afghanistan, Peter Galbraith. Inner City Press asked if Galbraith's letter to Ban Ki-moon is true in saying that Eide ordered UN staff not to talk about the election and fraud. I can't imagine Kai doing that, the official said. He allowed that the UN has rules about how staff can talk, and Kai might have reminded UNAMA staff of the rules.

Critique the UN's management, Galbraith said that only weak organizations punish those who disagreed in internal debates. The official said that went beyond his remit, as did Ban Ki-moon's decision to suspend any UN assistance to the November elections in Honduras. That was Ban's decision, a Ban spokesperson has said. But, as with the firing of Galbraith, who will explain it on the record?

Footnotes: The Times of London has reported that, to replace Galbraith, the U.S. is pushing the UN to try Donald "Larry" Sampler. He worked with a USAID contractor, and is in fact a Facebook friend of Gary K. Helseth, accused of accused of corruption in Afghanistan with the UN Office of Project Services. Some Sample(r).

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un1elections100109.html