On Mali, French Colonialism Doesn't Even Benefit Bamako, Of Uranium & Araud

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 20 -- Those who claimed or actually through colonialism was dead, at least in the UN, take note: after fighting in Kidal in northern Mali, former colonial power France convened a UN Security Council meeting on the afternoon of May 20. 

  French Ambassador Gerard Araud skipped the earlier meetings about Norht Korea and Sudan, but arrived just before 5 pm to circulate a draft press statement of France's position, for the Council to adopt. 

   It wasn't immediately accepted, if nothing else to keep up appearances. While a few cosmetic changes were being made, Araud came to a very controlled stakeout: he did not take Press questions about Mali calling the MNLA the sole aggressors, and "narco-terrorists."

   Now Inner City Press will go further: France is accused by many in southern Mali of having paradoxically sided with the MNLA, if only to oppose Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, which France calls AQMI, and affiliates.

  And that, sources say, is mostly about defending French Areva's uranium interests in Niger. That is, France's colonialism is not even to the benefit of its proxies in Bamako -- it is purely economic. And in Niger, Areva pays cheap with the government. So it doesn't benefit Africa at all. It is, after all, FrancAfrique.

  This is part of why Araud will not take Press questions. During his last Council presidency in December, he grew progressively more shrill, notably when asked about France angling to get paid by other UN member states to run airfields in northern Mali.

  Later he threatened to sue Inner City Press, for reporting an incident fully documented by the New York Police Department, on which Inner City Press had given Araud's mission the chance to comment before public. But under Araud, France's Mission to the UN did not want to comment -- it wanted to censor. So Araud, not having commented, threatened to sue.

  Since then, Araud and his spokesman Frederic Jung have taken on the habit of Herve Ladsous, French deputy ambassador during the Rwanda genocide in 1994 -- try to keep the UN microphone away from the Press.

   Araud's previous spokesman told Inner City Press to be sure to distinguish Ladsous, who wouldn't answer, from Araud who would. But now they are indistinguishable. And if only in light of the French government's claims about freedom of the press, they should both go. And not only to DC.

  As the Free UN Coalition for Access has noted, later on May 20 like here, as Araud enters his final days as France's Ambassador to the UN he has, on April 15 for example, attacked a longtime Lebanese correspondent telling him, "You are not a journalist, you are an agent." Click here for that.

  With that hanging in the air, Araud found it easier to deal with"interlocutors" on Twitter, for example on Mali, here. But May 20 at the UN, he did not address or follow the International Monetary Fund in questioning Ibrahim Boubacar Keita's purchase of a new Boeing 737 jet for $40 million. So what did the UN peacekeeping mission, Bert Koenders and Herve Ladous, know and when did they know it?

   None of this is answered in the ham-handed UNSC press statement issued at 10 pm on May 20, of which Inner City Press publishes the full text:

Security Council press statement on Mali, 20 May 2014

The members of the Security Council strongly condemned the violent clashes in Kidal on 17 and 18 May in the context of the Malian Prime Minister’s visit in Kidal, which resulted in the death of Malian Defense and Security forces personnel, as well as eight civilians, including six government officials. They expressed their deepest condolences to their families as well as to the Government of Mali.

The members of the Security Council strongly condemned the unacceptable seizure by force of administrative buildings, including the Governorate, the taking of hostages by armed groups, notably MNLA, as well as the attacks on the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA). They called for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of armed groups from the Governorate building and for their return to their previous positions in the framework of the cantonment process.

The members of the Security Council insisted on the need for those responsible for these actions to be identified and held accountable. They underlined that these actions undermine efforts towards peace and security in northern Mali, particularly in the region of Kidal, and constitute a grave violation of Security Council resolution 2100 (2013), which calls on all rebel armed groups to put aside their arms and cease hostilities immediately, and of the Ouagadougou Preliminary Agreement of 18 June 2013.

The members of the Security Council called on all parties to act with restraint and refrain from any further violence that could threaten civilians. They reiterated their support for the restoration of the authority of the Malian State over its entire territory, including in Kidal. They further reiterated that only a credible and inclusive negotiation process can bring long-term peace and stability throughout the country, respecting the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Mali. They called for the resumption as soon as possible of the cantonment process and of sincere peace talks between the Malian government and the armed groups signatories and adherent to the Ouagadougou Preliminary Agreement.

The members of the Security Council reiterated their full support to MINUSMA in the implementation of its mandate and the French forces acting in support of the Mission.

  So, don't worry about the government in Bamako? Nor IBK's jet?

   As Inner City Press reported last week, despite not having required Security Council approval, Ladsous has been soliciting drones or "unarmed unmanned aerial vehicles" for Mali. Inner City Press has twiceasked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric to explain the solicitation without approval, but no answer has been given.

  Despite speeches by Annick Girardin, the French secretary of state for development, what did France's outgoing ambassador to the UN Gerard Araud do or say about these issues during the Security Council trip to Mali that he led?

  Actually, France has stealthily lined up to get paid by other UN member states for "air field services" in northern Mali through a letter of assist regarding which Araud refused to answer Press questions in December (then stopped answering Press questions altogether). So as one wag put it, France could get paid to service Air IBK -- if IBK ever visited and negotiated in northern Mali.

   Back in January regarding gang rape charges against UN peacekeepers in Mali the UN told Inner City Press, "the Government of Chad has further advised the Department of Peacekeeping Operations that it has completed the national investigation."

    On April 9, Inner City Press asked DPKO chief Herve Ladsous what the results of the completed investigation had been, but he refused to answer, click here for that.

  And so on April 23 Inner City Press put the question to the UN's Mali envoy Bert Koenders. More than three months after the DPKO told Inner City Press the investigation was completed, Koenders said it will only be finished in "two or three weeks." Video here, from Minute 3:39.

   Even though by his account the investigation is not finished, he said "we have found very little evidence of sexual violence by Chadian troups... at first glance some of the accusations have not bee proven." 

   While Koenders unlike Ladsous at least purported to respond to this question, and one about Dutch attack helicopters bound for Mali, there is a lack of clarity. Beyond the "completed" investigation by Chad, is there another, UN investigation? Are there preliminary findings based on which Koenders said what he did? As with the rapes in Minova in the Democratic Republic of the Congo by DPKO's partners in the Congolese Army, we will continue to pursue this issue.

  Inner City Press also asked about the five Dutch helicopter's Mali's foreign minister Abdulaye Diop had told it about earlier in the morning. Koenders said, "We welcome contribution of Dutch government," specifying three Apache attack helicopters in May, and two transport helicopters in September or October. 

  Koenders cited all information fusion, being the ears and eyes on extremist groups. Earlier, Inner City Press asked Foreign Minister Diop if such information will be shared with his government, or only within MINUSMA and its troop contributing countries. Diop said he didn't know. So this, too, will require clarification

  As an aside, later on April 23 the UN's envoy to Somalia Nicholas Kay complained of the lack of helicopters from the AMISOM mission. It left one wondering about how the UN is run: did the Netherlands give the copters to Mali because one of its nationals is the UN's envoy there? We hope to have more on this.

  On April 23 when Inner City Press asked Malian foreign minister Diop for an update on dialogue in Kidal, and on the stated investigation of the shooting of civilian demonstrators there, he replied that he is too new in the position to answer on the probe. He said there is a new chief negotiator for the armed groups and what he called, in a Nixonian phrase, the "silent majority." Where did the last ten weeks go?

  Back on January 16 the UN Spokesperson's Office sent Inner City Press this response, which does not answer the question of accountability. But here it is, in full:

Subject: Your question on Mali
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:23 PM
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com

In response to your question about the follow-up to the allegations of sexual assault by United Nations peacekeepers in MINUSMA in September 2013, we have received the following information:

The Department of Peacekeeping Operations officially notified the Government of Chad of these allegations in late September. The Government of Chad officially responded, saying that it would take responsibility for the investigations. The Government of Chad has further advised the Department of Peacekeeping Operations that it has completed the national investigation, and the United Nations awaits advice on the outcome of the investigations and follow-up accountability measures as appropriate.

  The UN is waiting for "advice" -- but will it ever make it public? How else can the UN's stated Human Rights Due Diligence Policy be assessed?

  On January 17, Inner City Press asked UN acting deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq about it. From the UN's transcript, video here and embedded below:

Inner City Press: On Mali, I wanted to thank you for this written answer you gave yesterday afternoon that Mali has said that its completed its investigation of the alleged rape in Mali by the Chadian troops. And it said that the UN awaits advice on the outcome of the investigation. And what I wanted to know is whether… what part of that is going to be made public, given both the human rights due diligence policy, etcetera? I appreciate you saying that the investigation is finished, but, has… did they clear the soldiers? Were the soldiers found guilty? Where does it stand?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: As we emailed to you, the Mission does await advice on the outcome of the proceedings. We know that there have been proceedings regarding the case. You know this is a case regarding sexual assault and so, we await further information from that. We’ll try to make public what we can of the information that we receive.

Inner City Press: So, they literally just told you that it’s complete, but…no indication on what was done? I guess I wonder when --

Acting Deputy Spokesperson: The information I have in the email that was sent to you is the information we have. If we have any further updates, we’ll share it with you at that point.

  Two weeks later, nothing. So what will members of the Security Council ask, find and make public?

  One of the UN's other too-few criticisms of military action in north Mail, the shooting into a crowd of protesters in Kidal on November 28, was disputed in the Security Council on January 16.

  In a statement prepared like a defense attorney, trying raise reasonable doubt, Mali's Permanent Representative Sekou Kasse said that the UN Mission MINUSMA elements closest to the shooting were 400 meters away, precluding them from "objective" testimony. 

  The argument made was one must wait for the ballistic analysis ordered by the Malian government itself. Inner City Press asked Mali's foreign minister on April 23. Watch this site.

   

At UN, Ban Ki-moon 2014 Press Conference Has No DR Congo, Haiti or Even Latin America or Asia, After Sri Lanka Sanitized: Censors' Circle

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 10 -- As the UN under Secretary General Ban Ki-moon gets pushed to the margins of issues like Israel - Palestine, the nuclear "files" on Iran and North Korea, and even on the Central African Republic, out in the world there is mounting criticism of the UN.

  Even in CAR, the UN defers to forces with undue influence on the country for year, notably former colonial power France; the UN's humanitarian response has been slammed by Doctors Without Borders.

  In places where the UN actually is relevant, just for example, many in Haiti remain outraged at the UN bringing cholera then refusing to even accept court papers. 

  The UN's inaction and worse as tens of thousands were slaughtered in 2009, now sanitized into the "Rights Up Front agenda, has not led to any accountability. One of the perpetrators became an adviser to the UN and to Ban -- on Peacekeeping.

  Ban's UN, including in the way it manages the mostly compliant media, manages to keep such questions out, or at least keep them away from Ban Ki-moon.

  On January 10 Ban Ki-moon held his beginning of the year press conference. He brought up "Rights Up Front," twice -- but none of the questions taken were on it. Rather, Ban's acting deputy spokesman automatically gave the first of only eight questions to the United Nations Correspondents Association, a group which became in Ban's time the UN's Censorship Alliance, seeking to get the investigative Press expelled citing its reporting on Sri Lanka and conflict of interest at the UN.

(Haq gave a question to a state media which took the lead in asking for the "review" of Inner City Press' accreditation, click here for that request and e-mail saying Reuters, AFPand, yes, "UNCA" supported it. There have been no reforms since; the Free UN Coalition for Access has been formed.Reuters went on to file a bad faith Digital Millennium Copyright Act complaint to ban access to a similar communication to the UN from Google's search, click here for that.)

  In Ban's January 10 press conference there followed a series of predictable questions on Syria. Amazingly, the entire continents of Latin America (much less the UN's impunity for bringing cholera to Haiti) and even Asia, did not come up in the questions that Haq selected.

  Haq appears to view his job as making Ban, or perhaps the wider UN, look good. While that's one way to view the spokesperson's role, at least twice Haq has mis- or under-spoken then not gone back to correct it. He told Inner City Press in a briefing that the UN *does* screen deploying peacekeepers for cholera. 

  Haq never corrected it, but when Inner City Press raised it a second time having found that this was false, Haq acknowledged that what he'd said was not, in fact, the case. But the false claim or assurance remains, even on January 10, 2013, online for example here. This is the UN.

  Even this week, after Haq declined to confirm UN layoff letters Inner City Press asked about, having seen, only when Inner City Press asked again the next day did Haq read out a statement about Ban's "digital" UN. Then in yesterday'sclosed door Town Hall meeting, Ban was described as "heartbroken" as he signed the layoff ordered on December 31. Secret heartbreak, apparently.

  While there are many UN staff working hard, the UN will not improve while it shields itself from questions and buys the compliant media. Even this morning, many in the Great Lakes are looking for the UN to explain and take action on the photographed and videoed participation of UN vehicles in Goma celebrations of the false rumor of Rwanda's Paul Kagame's death. 

 The UN should have to answer these question -- but the UN won't even take the questions. Watch this site.

   

As France Openly Picks & "Holds Back" Leaders in Central African Republic, Colonialism Not Mentioned be Reuters, Accepted by UN Secretariat?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 8 -- On Central African Republic on January 6 some noted that UN Department of Political Affairs chief Jeffrey Feltman avoided directly answering on France's lack of impartiality in its intervention in its former colony.  

   Feltman seemed to focus on the UN's role on humanitarian issues -- even on that, the UN has been subject to scathing criticism from Doctors Without Borders -- while leaving the finding of a political solution to others.

   Today, Reuters quotes three French officials, two named and one unnamed, opining about who should lead CAR, including, "Djotodia and us, it's not a love story. The quicker he goes, the better things will be. We are making do with him and holding him back."

   And yet Reuters, now the colonial news wire, did not mention FrancAfrique or this colonial relationship, whether such picking of leaders from outside like France did with Ahmad al Jarba in Syria, is appropriate. This is, to some, "the international community."

  Back on January 6 as the Central African Republic consultations of the UN Security Council stretched past 6 pm, Permanent Representatives then even Deputy Permanent Representatives left, even as new Council member Lithuania spoke.

One departing diplomat told Inner City Press that US Ambassador Samantha Power "gave a moving speech" but "it's not longer a time for speeches but action."

Inner City Press asked the diplomat if the sentiment is to move to a UN peacekeeping mission, or stay with MISCA (in which component contingents have fought each other) and the French SANGARIS force, accused of disarming the Seleka but not anti-balaka militia.

  The answer was UNclear. The briefer was the head of the UN's Department of Political Affairs, Jeffrey Feltman, whose statement during the open meeting said "this is the first case for the Secretary General's new Rights Upfront agenda." That was the UN's belated reaction to its own systemic failure during the killing of tens of thousands of civilians in Sri Lanka in 2009.

  But last month Doctors Without Borders pilloried the UN for not protecting civilians, even inside its own compounds, and for not deploying despite requests to Yaloke and Bouca. UN humanitarian chief Valerie Amos told Inner City Pressshe was "disappointed" by MSF's letter. What would Feltman say?

  When finally Feltman emerged, Inner City Press asked him about reports of France disarming the Seleka, not the predominantly Christian anti-balaka. Feltman replied that a "non-discriminatory way" is required, all most be disarmed. He said more coordination is needed between the UN, France's Sangaris, and MISCA. 

 Moments later, Inner City Press asked Jordan's Permanent Representative Prince Zeid, the president of the Security Council for January, about perceived (im)partiality. He responded that the situation is complex, as African members pointed out, and that he and other new Council members had material to work through. We'll see.

   

Mandela Praised at UN, By Rwanda Then Ban Ki-moon, Questions of Colonialism and Censorship Alliance, What Would Mandela Say?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 5 -- When news of Nelson Mandela's death reached the UN, inside the Security Council Argentina was giving a speech about the International Criminal Tribunals for Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Proceedings stopped for a moment of silence.

  Rwandan Ambassador Eugene-Richard Gasana came out to the stakeout and told Inner City Press of Mandela, "He was a great man." On November 15, Gasana gave a moving speech in the Council about the dignity of Africa.

  As to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, at first the idea was that he would speak on UN Television without taking questions. But then reporters were told he'd speak in the Press Briefing Room. Inner City Press went there, inevitably wondering if the UN of today is fighting or perpetuating colonialism.

  Just that morning, France was given a mandate to re-enter its former colony the Central African Republic, as it re-entered Mali less than a year ago. 

 When Inner City Press asked French Ambassador Gerard Araud about this colonial history and "FrancAfrique," he denied his country has economic interests in the CAR.Recently the wire service Reuters, at and for the UN the Western go-to for leaks both ways, declared that FrancAfrique is over. Really?

In the UN Briefing Room, Ban Ki-moon arrived and recounted meeting Mandela, who told him there were many, many other fighters for liberation, "known and unknown."

Ban is headed to Paris for a conference on Africa. Some might wonder, FrancAfrique and ask, What Would Mandela Say? Or remember, why aren't leaders like Thomas Sankara still alive?

Footnote: after that Ban's spokesperson Martin Nesirky said there was time for two questions. Correctly, he called on South Africa Broadcasting Corporation first. 

  But then, further propping up what has become the UN's Censorship Alliance, he called on the Reuters reporter who moved up to sit in what is, absurdly, UNCA's "Holy Seat." The Reuters reporter, who as shown here has spied for the UN, made sure to brand his softball question "on behalf of the United Nations Correspondents Association."

Given his and this group's leadership's involvement in censorship, for example ordering down articles about Sri Lanka and conflicts of interest, and French domination of UN Peacekeeping for colonial purposes, this said it all about today's UN and how it's covered. What Would Mandela Say? Watch this site.

   

UN As Colonialism: Permanent Five Rule on Malvinas, Cuba Blockade; Of French Polynesia and French-Led DR Congo Trip

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 7 -- Some say the UN's golden age, if one existed, was when a slew of countries became independent. 

 But Monday afternoon in the UN basement, when the Special Political and Decolonization Committee met, the UN as a vehicle for neo-colonialism was in view.

  Country after country decried the UK's claim to sovereignty over the Malvinas, which it calls Falkland Islands. In reply, the UK simply reasserted sovereignty. It has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council, one of five.

  Many countries denounced the US for ignoring General Assembly resolutions calling for an end of its blockage on Cuba. But the US has another of the five veto-wielding seats on the Security Council. Reuters at the UN highlighted a piece about the blockade -- not even written from or about the UN, but mocking this as the 22nd request.

  It was UNclear what Reuters said about Malvinas - in the past, Reuters' UN bureau chief has tried to act in the UK's favor, mocking how long Argentina's foreign minister's family has been in that country.

  Something new this year, on the Committee's list of non self governing territories, is French Polynesia, which along with Western Sahara (where France long opposed any UN human rights monitoring) and Guam will be debated Tuesday.

  While Monday's opening session took place, the Permanent Representatives of the UK, US, Morocco and others were traveling in Africa -- "led," according to the UN, by France's Deputy Permanent Representative.

  In a nitty-gritty but telling example of the UN as colonialism, France was allowed to alone decide which media could accompany the Security Council delegation and fly, for free, on the UN plane. (See UN admission to Inner City Press, on video, here.)

  This despite being only a co-leader of one of the trip's four legs. (Rwanda, for example, co-led one leg but has said it was allowed no role in deciding about press coverage.)

France chose and was rewarded by Reuters, and US state media Voice of America.

  What's the point of running for the Security Council if one is still so excluded? If Secretary General Ban Ki-moon deems fit to openly meet first with only the Permanent Five members, for example on Syria?

  But the debate will continue, for example tomorrow Tuesday down in the UN basement, and this coverage will continue, undaunted, doubling down. The UN was supposed to be against colonialism, not embody it. Watch this site.

After France Hand-Picks Scribes for DRC and Rwanda Trip, Australia Won't Even Confirm the Trip as MONUSCO Has: Of CAR, Leaks & Stakeouts

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 30 -- When outgoing UN Security Council president for September Gary Quinlan of Australia held his "wrap up" press conference on Monday, he twice referred to his country being the "pen holder" on items on the Council's agenda.

  Being the "pen holder" means the right to present the first draft of documents on the item. But has the Security Council allowed it to mean more than that, to the the extent of censorship?

  Earlier on Monday Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Martin Nesirky to confirm how decisions were made on which media could accompany the Security Council on its upcoming trip beginning in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

  Nesirky replied that the decisions were made "in consultation with the lead mission from the Security Council for the entire trip." Video here, from Minute 13:10.

  That "lead mission, the "pen holder" on DRC, is France, which supported the genocidaire government in Rwanda and their post-genocide escape into Eastern Congo.

  So Inner City Press asked Quinlan to explain the goals of this upcoming trip, and how not only the goal but which media can go were decided on.

  Quinlan declined to answer, or even to confirm that there IS a trip. Inner City Press told him, and has since tweeted evidence, that the MONUSCO mission run by Herve Ladsous (the fourth Frenchman in a row to head UN Peacekeeping) has already been talking publicly about the trip: October 3 in Kinshasa, October 4 in Goma.

Here is an article quoting MONUSCO's spokesperson Madnodje Mounoubai, picked up by the UN's own Radio Okapi.

So there is no basis not to answer. We hope to have more on this.

  Inner City Press also asked Quinlan why there had been n oaction in his month on the Central African Republic. He cited a ministerial meeting which France sponsored at the EU offices. But, surprise, surprise, Inner City Press was not informed of or invited to cover there, either.

Inner City Press asks and reports about CAR, and has in the past routinely been invited to EU briefings, particularly those involving as this did Kristalina Georgieva (who even on Monday was sending replied to the new Free UN Coalition for Access @FUNCA_info from the UNHCR meeting in Geneva on Syria, here.) But not this one.

Similarly for UNSC Africa trips in the past, in 2008 to the DRC and as it turned out Rwanda, and 2010 to Uganda and elsewhere, Inner City Press went after in one case it was explained that France tried to block or "veto" it (for noting France's history in the region), but then co-leader of the trip South Africa said it was not for France to censor the Press.

What happened this time? Actually, there are separate leaders for each leg of the trip, Inner City Press has learned and, after Nesirky's answer, has reported.

Also in his end of presidency press conference, Quinlan twice joked about the leaking of his draft Presidential Statement on humanitarian access in Syria, saying "WE didn't leak it" to Reuters. It is not hard to figure out for whom Reuters' UN Bureau serves as a pass through (and for whom it spies: click here for story, here for document, here for audio.) It was pointed out that Agence France Presse had it to -- natch. We'll have more on this.

Footnote: on behalf of the new Free UN Coalition for Access, Inner City Press thanked Quinlan for the relatively many stakeouts he did in September, noting that one on Abyei was somewhat needlessly delayed. It was a month more transparent than most, thought, to be repeated in November 2014. Watch this site.

   

Media for UN's DR Congo Trip Picked "In Consultation" With France, US Leads on Rwanda, UK on Uganda: UN as Colonialism

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 30 -- That the UN under Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is or can be a colonial project was confirmed on Monday when Ban's spokesperson Martin Nesirky told Inner City Press the decision on what journalist can go and cover the Security Council's Great Lakes trip was made "in consultation with the lead mission from the Security Council for the entire trip." Video here, from Minute 13:10.

  That "lead mission" is France, which supported the genocidaire government in Rwanda and their post-genocide escape into Eastern Congo.

  Even in the past for similar Security Council trips, Inner City Press went after it was explained that France tried to block or "veto" it (for noting France's history in the region), but then co-leader of the trip South Africa said it was not for France to censor the Press.

  What happened this time? Actually, there are separate leaders for each leg of the trip, Inner City Press has learned and now, after Nesirky's answer, reports.

The final leg of the trip, to the African Union in Addis Ababa, is not led by France in any way, involving October's Council president Azerbaijan.

The UK is given a piece of the Uganda leg, and the US is said to "lead" the Rwanda leg. So did the US State Department, unlike South Africa in 2010, allow France to ban the participation of Inner City Press? 

  And, why does the UN -- and US -- allow a former colonial power to choose which media get to accompany a UNSC trip on a UN plane? Some may be asleep at the switch, but for others, they have even less excuse. Watch this site.

Subject: Re: Security Council trip to Africa
From: Jerome Bernard 
Date: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 6:46 PM
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] InnerCityPress [dot] com
cc: Free UN Coalition for Access [at] FUNCA.info

Hi Matthew,  I am sorry but because of the very limited number of seats in the UN plane it won't be possible for you to travel with the Security Council for this trip to the Great Lakes Region of Africa. I am sure there will be other opportunities for travel in the future. Best regards, 

Jerome Bernard, Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General