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

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive series

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spokesman:  I’ll leave it at that. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iran Deal Approved 15-0 by UNSC, Power Speaks, Of Israel's Ron Prosor & Times Square

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 20 -- The Iran Deal draft resolution was adopted by the UN Security Council 15-0 at 9 am on Monday. This came the day after a slew of US members of Congress said the UN vote should wait for their 60 day review, and two days before a protest of the deal to be held in Times Square seven blocks west of the UN in Manhattan.

  In speeches after the unanimous vote, Russia's Vitaly Churkin shouted out Kazakhstan as well as Austria and Switzerland, which hosted the talks. US Samantha Power vowed to pursue Iran on others issues. Iranian ambassador Gholamali Khoshroo was to speak inside the Security Council, then Israel's Ron Prosor outside at the stakeout.

  The day after the Iran Deal was announced in Vienna by the EU's Federica Mogherini then Iran's Javad Zarif, on July 15 a draft resolution was circulated in the UN Security Council, with paragraphs on sanctions snap-back and other provisions. Inner City Press put the draft, obtained from multiple sources, online here.

  As detailed below, the vote is set for July 20, 9 am in New York.

 On the US Sunday morning political talk shows, not only Republican Senator from Wyoming John Barrasso but also Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland said the Obama administration shouldn't take the deal to the UN until Congress considers it. Republican Tom Cotton of Arkansas, speaking from London, said the same, citing Cardin and Steny Hoyer.

 On July 19, the US State Department in Washington said:

"Pursuant to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, today the State Department transmitted to Congress the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, its annexes, and related materials. These documents include the Unclassified Verification Assessment Report on the JCPOA and the Intelligence Community's Classified Annex to the Verification Assessment Report, as required under the law. Therefore, Day One of the 60-day review period begins tomorrow, Monday, July 20."

  Then at 5 pm on July 16, Inner City Press reported that the UNSC vote on the draft would occur on Monday, July 20 at 9 am.

  Hours later, the UN confirmed this, and a US Mission spokesperson tweeted the timing. Reuters, typically, then published a story quoting an UNnamed "U.S. official" on the timing; the CBS former head of the UN Censorship Alliance echoed the timing targeting the P3 with nothing but photos. (The current head of the Censorship Alliancewas invisible, checked out.)

  This is how the UN works, or doesn't. At the underlying UNSC experts' meeting there were only two journalists. But Western missions served up information later to non-present correspondents, who by quoting unnamed sources seemed knowledgeable. This is today's UN.

  On July 16, the Security Council's 15 members at the Expert level met about the draft. Inner City Press and one other journalist staked-out the meeting (Periscope video for now here), held in basement Conference Room 8 and afterward asked attendees what the next step would be. 

  While several said "No comment" -- since it will presumably help them, including the US Legal Expert and a former French mission spokesman -- from others Inner City Press was told of a 9 am Monday July 20 vote on the resolution.

  It was said that France was pushing for a weekend vote, on Sunday, related to Foreign Minister Fabius desire to travel to Tehran with the vote already done. This was resisted - now, 9 am Monday, before a Security Council Arria formula meeting about Gaza, sponsored by Malaysia and Jordan. Watch this site.

  Here embeddd is the draft. Operative Paragraphs 11, 12and 15 bear particular interest, with their purported automaticity. See also, InnerCityPro.com.

Iran Deal Draft UNSC Resolution as Uploaded by Inner City Press byMatthew Russell Lee

   On July 14 the US White House held a background press call, "embargoed until conclusion." This meant, no tweets. But on the call, after Reuters asked a softball about Obama's involvement, several Senior Administration Officials gushed about Obama's calls to Vienna, updates from Susan Rice, concern for Israel's security.

  It was said Obama would not only call Netanyahu but also of course the King of Saudi Arabia. (He did both, adding Russia's Putin as well.)

   Earlier on July 14, Ban Ki-moon chimed in nearly immediately to welcome the deal. This stood in contrast to his 60 hour silence after his own faux Yemen Deal failed amid airstrikes. Success has many wannabe parents; UNsuccessful many fewer.

 Obama from Washington at 7 am said he will veto any legislation slowing this down; The Elders chaired by Kofi Annan spoke quickly against any “ideological preconceptions [or] narrow political interests.”

  Journalists camped out under the Evita-like balcony of the Coburg Hotel for more than two weeks gushed about UN Security Council action "in days," as France's Fabius put it. Now we know why. Watch this site 

  Previously as the Iran P5+1 talks continued on the eve of the then-deadline, who was bragging about having predicted their failure? Western wire service Reuters, crowing that "Other media now coming around to @reuters consistent reporting on how final Iran atomic deal unlikely."

 While false exclusives have proliferated at Reuters under Stephen J. Adler, there a second, separate trend at work here.

  On another UN sanctions regime, Somalia and Eritrea, even when former Reuters reporter turned sanctions monitor Dinesh Mahtani was forced to resign for havingchampioned a new leader for the country he was supposed to monitor, Reuters entirely omitted his removal from its claimed exclusives on the sanctions report.

  Some of this goes beyond a desire, compensated by editor Adler, to claim exclusives even where not merited (including by adopted a policy of not crediting others' exclusives).  At the UN, Reuters has gone so far as to try to censor and remove from Google's Search as "copyrighted" copies of Reuters complaints against other media filed with the UN, click here for that. 

 At what point does this become more (or less) that journalism? What about "other media now coming around to @reuters consistent" refusal to credit smaller media, attempts to get them kicked out, then censoring the Internet? We'll have more on this.

  Back on October 27, 2014 when the UN's special rapporteur on human rights in Iran Ahmed Shaheed held a press conference at the UN, Inner City Press asked him for an update on what he had said about the effect of sanctions and banning of Iran from the SWIFT payments system which Inner City Press asked him about one year and three days earlier, 2013 here from Minute 12:29.

  On October 24, 2013, Shaheed had acknowledged that the banning of Iran from the SWIFT payments system had had an impact. On October 27, 2014, Shaheed said he believes Iran is still banned from SWIFT, but he had no update. Instead he said that humanitarian exemptions to sanctions are having successes. 2014 video here.

 But banning from SWIFT or "de-SWIFT-ing" is not a targeted sanction at all, and he did not mention any exemptions to it.

   Overall, Inner City Press asked Shaheed what impact he thought "the nuclear issue" and the P5 + 1 talks have on human rights in Iran.  Shaheed said he doesn't like linkage, but added that when there's focus on the nuclear issue, it takes away from the focus on human rights.  Now what?

Footnote: on October 27, 2014, the UN Correspondents Association which so often demands the first question be set-aside for it didn't even send anyone to Shaheed's press conference. One attendee said, it's defUNCA-ed, as in defunct, or de-UNCA-ed, like de-SWIFT-ed. The new Free UN Coalition for Access, present, did not try to brand the press conference, because there was no need. Watch this site.

   

After UN's Ban Ki-moon Dodges on Cholera in Haiti, 77 in US Congress Write to Him, Questions

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 23 -- After UN Secretary General dodged legal papers in one of the cases about UN Peacekeeping having brought cholera to Haiti, now 77 members of the US Congress have written to Ban:

"In the interests of securing justice for the victims and impacted communities as well as strengthening the UN’s leadership as a champion for human rights, we urge you to act immediately to establish a settlement mechanism through which victims and their families may seek relief and the country can move forward with the water and sanitation infrastructure it so desperately needs. Unless and until the UN honors the fundamental right to access justice, the issue of UN accountability in Haiti will remain."

  Inner City Press on December 23 asked Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric about the December 18 letter. Video here. He said, on camera, he didn't know about it. Inner City Press pointed out it is on Rep. John Conyers' web site - and if UN can't find it, here it is.

 The members of Congress signing the letter to Ban include John Conyers, Barbara Lee, James P. McGovern, Raul Grijalva, Donald Payne, Alan Grayson, John Lewis, Zoe Lofgren, Corrine Brown, Maxine Waters, Danny Davis, Bobby Rush, Jose Serrano, Gregory Meeks, Brad Sherman, Eliot Engel, Shiela Jackson Lee, Keith Ellison, Chaka, Fattah, Lloyd Doggett, Carolyn Maloney, Henry Waxman, Elijah Cummings, Al Green, Yvette Clark, Charles Rangell, Alcee Hastings, Jan Schakowsky, Adam Schiff, William Lacy Clay, Stephen Lynch and Michael Michaud, among others.
   
When Ban last held a press conference, it seemed clear that he had question(s) in advance, click here and here for that. But Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access will be asking -- and following up on what is now becoming a UN cover up of its peacekeepers shooting at democracy demonstrators on December 12 and blocking the camera of media trying to cover it. Video here, from 0:18; a second video is here. Now who will be help accountable?

  On December 16, for the second day in a row, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, whether the peacekeeper filmed shooting a pistol and pushing back a cameraman -- like his boss Ladsous -- had been interviewed yet.
 
 Dujarric would not answer even this, saying he will only speak when he hears from MINUSTAH. Video here. 


This might be called a cover up, or a hope it goes away -- even as Ban Ki-moon, in tuxedo, goes to the ball of his UN Censorship Alliance where an award about Haiti will be given out, with no answers on shooting protesters there.

  Back on December 15, Inner City Press also asked UN Spokesman Dujarric about the incident, which the UN mission MINUSTAH has said it is investigating itself. Dujarric repeated this, adding that he didn't want to "pre-judge." Video here. But MINUSTAH's short press statement already characterized as "violent" the demonstrators that were shot at.

 Dujarric said they'd have to see if the peacekeeper felt threatened. Video here. After the web-cast UN noon briefing, Inner City Press was contacted by viewers who noted this subjective idea of an armed authority feeling threatened is that invoked in the cases of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri and Eric Garner on Staten Island in New York.

  As on its impunity for bringing cholera to Haiti, the UN is on strange and untenable ground in seeking to justify shooting at unarmed people. And the head of UN Peacekeepering Herve Ladsous is conveniently in former French colony Senegal during all this.

 UN Peacekeeping's chief is Herve Ladous, and tellingly he himself tried to block the camera of the Press, right inside the UN, in September 2014. Vine here.


When a subordinate carries out the same act as his or her ultimate supervisor publicly did, it is  case of command responsibility. So who should be held accountable is known - but will it happen?

  Back on December 2, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric about MINUSTAH and protests:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask you about Haiti, since there's the Mission there.  There have been protests about the failure to hold elections and they've been put down by police.  I wanted to know, first, whether there's been any MINUSTAH [United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti] involvement; and also what the Mission's thinking is as the 12 January deadline imposes when the Government will be dissolved and Mr. [Michel] Martelly will rule by decree.  Is that the fact?  And what’s the UN doing?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I don't believe there's been… I don't believe there's been any involvement of MINUSTAH in the demonstrations.  Obviously, it's important that people have the right to demonstrate peacefully and it's up to the authorities to ensure that right is respected.  The political situation in Haiti obviously remains a concern.  It is one that we're following closely.

   So what happened December 2 ("no involvement of MINUSTAH") and December 12 - MINUSTAH shooting into the crowd? Inner City Press has asked Dujarric about the UN's rules of engagement, so far without answer.

   With questions unanswered, UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous had the gall on the afternoon of December 13 to rebroadcast MINUSTAH self-congratulations that ignored its filmed shooting at protesters and threatening media. Inner City Press initially asked the UN Spokesman:

"What were the rules of engagement? Who gave the order to use pistol(s) and, separately, tear gas? What is the UN's understanding of injuries caused? What was the role, and is the comment, of the Under Secretary General for Peacekeeping Operations Herve Ladsous?"

  Inner City Press twice, in two media, asked for an explanation or comment from the UN Spokesman, and Saturday afternoon received this:

"The United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, (MINUSTAH), has been informed of an alleged excessive use of force, while responding to violent demonstrators targeting law enforcement personnel supporting the Haitian National Police (HNP) and causing injuries and destruction of property, during the demonstration in Port-au-Prince today. The Mission takes this allegation very seriously and immediately opened an investigation to establish the facts."

  Artfully, or inartfully, the MINUSTAH statement does not state that it is the UN's own alleged (filmed) excessive use of force - so is the UN investigating itself? We've asked the UN Spokesperson and weekend duty officer this:

Because the MINUSTAH statement leaves it unclear, can you confirm that it is the UN's own “alleged excessive use of force” that the UN is now investigating?

What is the time frame for the investigation?

Who is doing the investigation? MINUSTAH's human rights unit?

Can to state now that the results of the investigation will be made public?

Since the MINUSTAH statement expresses conclusions about the demonstrators (“violent,” “and causing injuries and destruction of property”) please provide similar preliminary findings as to UN Peacekeepers' action shown on this video:http://youtu.be/38owUZrNHzA

   Hours later, no answer, even as the second video emerged. Others in the UN system have been asked; we'll have more on that.

   Inner City Press has also sought comment from prospective UN-related awardee Andrea Bocelli, slated to accept without reference to the UN bringing cholera or now shooting into crowds there an award from the UN's Censorship Alliance next week -- and continues to await response.

  The MINUSTAH mission has just published this: "MINUSTAH has been informed of an alleged excessive use of force, while responding to violent demonstrators targeting law enforcement personnel supporting the Haitian National Police (HNP) and causing injuries and destruction of property, during the demonstration in Port-au-Prince today. The Mission takes this allegation very seriously and immediately opened an investigation to establish the facts."

  But UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous is already accused of cover-ups. This MINUSTAH statement doesn't even say against whom the allegations are.

  Inner City Press, before the December 12 protests and footage of the UN firing into them, asked the UN Office of the Spokesperson about the failure to hold elections, and if the MINUSTAH mission was involved in cracking down on demonstrations. On the latter, the answer given then was no.

  Now, this video, by Le Nouvelliste. Who will be held accountable? UN Peacekeeping is run by Herve Ladsous, a former French diplomat and spokesman during the ouster of Aristide. We will have more on this.

The day after the injustice of the UN's impunity for bringing cholera to Haiti was the subject of a religious service across First Avenue from the UN, photo here, Inner City Press asked the UN's spokesman Stephane Dujarric, video here:

Inner City Press:  About Haiti.  There was — yesterday afternoon, almost at the same time as the Ebola press conference, there was a religious ceremony held across the street of the Church Centre by both Haitians that live in New York who have had family members killed by cholera and also UN staff who feel that the UN policy of not directly addressing the claims for the families that were victims of the cholera is unjust.  I wanted to know if you were aware of that, if you have any response to it?

Spokesman:  I personally was not aware.  I think you know that the legal position of the UN as to this case is not, has not changed.  That being said, the UN continues to be very involved jointly with the Government of Haiti to work on the cholera issue in Haiti, to work on rebuilding the sanitation system, and I think the Secretary-General in his visit to Haiti in — over the summer, right?  In July, in mid-July, excuse me, in mid-July, I think, you know, went to one of the impacted village, prayed with the families and showed his empathy to the victims.

Inner City Press:  I understand that.  I don't think — people see the Secretary-General trying to raise funds for water and sanitation going forward.  I guess the question becomes for families that lost their breadwinner and, therefore, have kids who are unable to go to school with school fees, things like that, is there any — what's the UN's thinking?  Is the — the Government apparently has not addressed that problem.  So I'm wondering… I guess…

Spokesman:  I think whenever you have — whenever you have victims of any disaster, the issue of losing the breadwinner is an important one and one that needs to be addressed by national authorities in assistance with the international community.  Masood?

  Up to December 12, a item in the US State Department's public schedule read:

"COUNSELOR TOM SHANNON Counselor Shannon is on travel to Port-au-Prince, Haiti through December 12. He is accompanied by Haiti Special Coordinator Thomas Adams."

  Shannon and Adams have been in Haiti for days, it seemed preparing for a visit by Secretary of State John Kerry on December 12. Protests are planned, not least due to the US arguing in court in support of the UN's immunity, that is, impunity, and refusal to help its victims, families whose bread-winner was killed by the cholera UN Peacekeeping brought.

   Does the US read its own (incomplete) travel warnings?

 But at the UN State Department's December 12 briefing, the Department's spokesperson said "we believe elections are essential for Haiti’s democratic development and to advance progress made in reconstruction and development. The United States and, certainly, Counselor Shannon on his trip and Haiti Special Coordinator Tom Adams are certainly advocating strongly for dialogue and compromise among the parties that will lead to a Haitian solution to permit elections without further delay. Toward that end, we welcome the December 9th recommendations offered by the consultative commission established by President Martelly as a basis for dialogue. We understand he’ll speak today regarding the recommendations.

So our position as the United States is that we broadly support dialogue and compromise leading to a solution in Haiti that will permit elections without further delay, and we think that’s incredibly important to advance progress made there."

  There was no visit by Kerry. But, on Twitter, a photo of the UN's MINUSTAH using a gun to shoot, for which Inner City Press has asked the UN Spokesperson for a response. Watch this site.


 
  MSF Doctors Without Borders said on November 24 that "the population has slowly lost their immunity to the disease. Compared to the same period in 2013, the number of cases handled by MSF has almost doubled. The lack of sanitary infrastructure and of measures to clean water risk aggravating the epidemic."

  Inner City Press asked the UN to respond to this, on November 28, but the UN has refused. The US government has online, also dated November 24, 2014, a Haiti web page that (still) says, under Health, that "Incidents of cholera have declined dramatically  since a major outbreak in 2010." Click here for that.

  While that page was not changed or updated, on December 4 the US State Department put out a travel warning for Haiti which mentioned what MSF called the "lack of sanitary infrastructure" - but NOT that the UN brought cholera to Haiti, much less that the US is supporting the UN's claim of immunity or impunity for it. Click here for the December 4 travel warning.

   The new US Travel Warning does, however, mention the UN, in this way: "The United Nations’ Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) remains in Haiti to support the activities of the Haitian National Police (HNP). The HNP, with assistance from MINUSTAH, is responsible for maintaining order and rendering assistance.  However, given the possibility and unpredictability of spontaneous protests, their ability to assist U.S. citizens during disturbances is very limited."

  It must be said: some of these protests are ABOUT cholera, and are DIRECTED at the UN, having having brought it and for having done nothing for the victims, whole families left without their main breadwinner.

   The US page on Haiti, on Safety and Security, says "Please see ourinformation for victims of crime, including possible victim compensation programs in the United States."

  What about compensation for the victims of the UN in Haiti?

  Inner City Press continues to pursue this question at the UN. On November 20 when Jose Ramos Horta took questions about the UN Peacekeeping review panel he now chairs, he initially said that the UN bringing cholera to Haiti was beyond the panel's mandate.

  When Inner City Press was able to ask him a question, it was to challenge this. How could more than 8,000 people killed, and the continuing impact on the UN's credibility, be beyond the mandate of this panel? Video here.

  Ramos Horta replied that, on reflection, he would raise the issue of cholera in Haiti to the panel's members, which now include Sri Lankan former UN official Radhika Coomaraswamy as well.

   Inner City Press also asked about the cover-up scandals swirling around UN Peacekeeping, about rapes and more in Darfur. Ramos Horta replied about abuses by peacekeepers in Timor Leste, that there must be accountability (he praised Sergio de Mello in this respect.)

UN Peacekeeping has become subject, under Herve Ladsous, to mounting questions about its operations, from crashed drones, selective “neutralization” of some rebels groups and not others, like the FDLR in the DR Congo, covering up attacks in Darfur and lack of accountability fornegligently introducing cholera to Haiti, to name just a few.

While Ladsous refuses and even blocks Press questions about these topics, recently Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has taken to saying that a major “external” panel will be set up to review the issues. On Friday, October 31, Ban’s spokesman Stephane Dujarric announced the 14-member panel, to be chaired by Ramos-Horta.

Congress Requires UN To Put Peacekeeper Sex Abuse Info Online, Cromnibus I

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 11 -- A little noticed provision of the US Continuing Resolution / Omnibus or CRomnibus set for adoption this week in Congress is that for the $2.1 billion for UN Peacekeeping, the Appropriations Committee must be told that the

"United Nations has in place measures to prevent United Nations employees, contractor personnel, and peacekeeping troops serving in the mission from trafficking in persons, exploiting victims of trafficking, or committing acts of illegal sexual exploitation or other violations of human rights, and to bring to justice individuals who engage in such acts while participating in the peacekeeping mission, including prosecution in their home countries of such individuals in connection with such acts, and to make information about such cases publicly available in the country where an alleged crime occurs and on the United Nations’ Web site."

  But as Inner City Press established as recently as November 20, the UN refuses to say if peacekeepers it sends home or repatriates are in fact prosecuted. This information is not provided even in response to Press questions, must less put on the UN's website.

  So will the $2.1 billion be withheld? Particularly as the head of UN Peacekeeping, Herve Ladsous, continues to cover up alleged mass rapes in Tabit in Darfur, and refuses to answer Press questions about it? 

  Tales from the Cromnibus will continue.

On November 20 amid unanswered questions in Darfur about UN Peacekeeping's investigation of and reporting on attacks on civilians, including 200 alleged rapes in Taabit,  UN Police Adviser Stefan Feller and UNAMID Police chief Hester Panera took question from the Press.

 Inner City Press asked Panera about her Mission's (in) action on Tabit, including issuing a November 9 press release claiming the residents get along well with Sudanese security, without mentioning that the interviews were conducted with these security officials present.

  Panera told Inner City Press, "We have to realize we are working in a sitution with very strong spoilers... There were statements by the Secretary General in this regard. We are going to follow up further, we are sending teams to try and get more information." Video here.

   So is the allegation that those reporting rape are "spoilers"? Or the UNAMID whistleblower? And how can it be said UNAMID is sending teams, when the government has blocked access for a second time?

  One year (or 364 days) ago, Inner City Press asked Feller about accountability, specifically, a UN Police officer who after being charged with sexual abuse and exploitation in Haiti fled by plane to Canada. Inner City Press first asked about this in April 2013 and was told "DPKO says that the case is still under investigation by the Canadian authorities."

  Feller on last year did follow through, like his Police Adviser predecessor Marie Orler, and provide a response to Inner City Press' question. Feller is significantly more responsive that the overall boss of UN Peacekeeping, video compilation here, Vine here. But the lack of accountability is pervasive.

   A year ago, the answer, through Police Division Communications Officer Zoe Mentel, was: "Regarding the case you asked the Police Adviser about this morning, we did check into this matter and it is currently under investigation with the police-contributing country."

  And on November 20, 2014, Feller gave a "generic" answer but did not provide any specific information about this case, whether the defendant who fled was cleaned or disciplined. Is it any wonder people doubt "zero tolerance" at the UN?

   That's seven months after Inner City Press was given in essence the same answer. UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous allowed the Congolese Army to go a full year on the 135 rapes in Minova by the 41st and 391st Battalions, to which the UN still provides support.

  Is his Department's cover up in Darfur, including on the rape allegations in Thabit, really any surprise? What will the Ramos Horta review panel do about this?

  Some might wonder if the hope isn't just that the Canadian case goes away. But that is not accountability; it is not transparency or the rule of law. Given the wider UN's attempt to evade substantial charges of bringing cholera to Haiti, MINUSTAH's reputation is already in question in the country. The questions will continue.

  Watch this site.

Footnote: While the moderator, the Ladsous spokesman who in September tried to block Inner City Press' filming from the General Assembly stakeout, called first on UNCA then AFP, he did as third question call on Inner City Press, or rather, as he said, "Foonca," theFree UN Coalition for Access, which is fine. And the question asked was of the type that, when put to Ladsous, Ladsous has said "I do not respond to you Mister." But the questions will continue to be asked, and should be answered. We'll see.

   

On Ukraine, IMF Announces $14-18 Billion Preliminary Deal As Gas Prices Rise 50%, Press Qs

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 27 -- It was 4:25 am in New York and Washington when the International Monetary Fund announced its preliminary agreement for a $14 - $18 billion loan program with Ukraine. 

  Twelve hours before, Inner City Press asked a number of IMF spokespeople to confirm or comment on reports that the Ukrainian "increase the price of natural gas for household consumers by an average of 50%" is attributable to the IMF. 

 Receipt of the question was acknowledged; perhaps it will be answered at the IMF's 9:30 am briefing, embargoed until 10:30 am (when the UN General Assembly will be considering a resolution on Ukraine).

  Later on March 27 the US Congress is expected to act on a $1 billion loan guarantee to Ukraine, but not on the IMF changes the Obama administration requested. Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney issued a statement welcoming the IMF preliminary deal, concluding that "We also remain committed to providing the IMF with the resources it needs – in partnership with Congress – to provide strong support to countries like Ukraine as well as reinforcing the Fund’s governance to reflect the global economy."
  
  Two weeks ago on March 13, the day after several US Senators argued that International Monetary Fund quota reform would have to be approved by Congress to enable the IMF to meaningfully assist Ukraine, Inner City Press asked IMF spokesperson Gerry Rice if this is true. Video here, from Minute 12:05.

  Rice genially said several times that the question couldn't or wouldn't be answered while the IMF mission is “in the field” in Ukraine. He initially gave the same answer to Inner City Press' question that had nothing to do with Ukraine: is it true, as Russia reportedly argued at the most recent G-20 meeting, that quota reform could be accomplished without US approval, under some set of rule changes?

  Rice during the briefing repeated this could not be answered while the mission is in Ukraine. Later it was conveyed that the reform is not possible without US approval. The answer is appreciated: a benefit of asking in person. But Inner City Press (and the Free UN Coalition for Access) hope to make the online asking of questions work better from now on. We'll see.

  In another non-Ukraine question, Inner City Press asked Rice about a book published earlier this week in Hungary, that the then-economy minister in 2011 told Goldman Sachs that the government would be going to the IMF for a program. Since much currency trading ensued, Inner City Press asked if the IMF has any rules limiting its government interlocutors from trading on or sharing insider information. Video here, from Minute 31:12.

  Rice said there are confidential provisions. But are those only for the contents of communication and not the existence of communications or negotiations? We'll see.

  

After Tunisia FM Predicts $500 Million from IMF After Jan 29, IMF Tells ICP Not So Fast, Vehicle Tax Increase Protests "Complex"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 9 -- In Tunisia amid protests of the new vehicle tax, put down with tear gas in the south, Finance Minister Ilyas Fakhfakh said on January 8, "the IMF's conditions are to reach a political agreement to finalize the transition, and keep our deficit under control. We have so far taken the main necessary measures. It is on the right track. There is a meeting on January 29, and we expect to get that tranche after that."

At the International Monetary Fund's biweekly media briefing the next day, January 9, Inner City Press asked:

"On Tunisia, what is the IMF's response to criticism that its requirements or recommendations have led to the vehicle tax increase being protested (the government has responded with tear gas)? Is Tunisia on track for second $500 million tranche at or after January 29 meeting, as finance minister Ilyas Fakhfakh said yesterday?"

  IMF deputy spokesperson William Murray read out most of the question, and his response by no means confirmed that a second tranche will be forthcoming on or soon after January 29. 

  In fact, he said the first program review of the facility established in June 2013 is not yet agreed to; it is being combined and discussed with the second review.

  Murray said that the underpinnings of the protests are "complex," and that the "political issues boiling there" implact "policy implementation." He concluded that the IMF remains committed to supporting Tunisia with finance and advice.

  So what ABOUT the advice to raise the vehicle tax, now being protested?

  Still, that Tunisia question got a response. Here are three other questions Inner City Press put in, before and during the briefing, that have yet to be answered by embargo deadline:

On South Sudan, given the upsurge in violence in the past three weeks, what is the status of the IMF's programs, and what is its assessment of the economic impact of the crisis?

On Iceland, what is the IMF's response to prime minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson statement that criticism of debt reduction is wrong-headed? What is the IMF's position in the US on mortgage principal reduction?

Also on the US, does the IMF have any comment on moves in Congress to question or not approve the US' payment(s) to the IMF as part of the omnibus bill being negotiated?

Watch this site.

   

On Syria, As NATO SG Rasmussen Brags of Being Shown "Convincing Evidence," Not Shared with UN's Ban Ki-moon, Under MOU?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 2 -- Which Secretary General gets the Syria chemical weapons evidence now being talked about so publicly -- the UN's or NATO's?

  On September 1 Inner City Press asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Martin Nesirky if the hair and blood sample evidence US Secretary of State John Kerry was talking about had been shared with the UN.

Nesirky said he didn't know.

  On September 2 another Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen of NATO announced that "I have been presented with concrete information and, without going into details, I can tell you that personally I am convinced, not only that a chemical attack has taken place, but I am also convinced that the Syrian regime is responsible."

  Putting aside for the moment whether is it NATO's Rasmussen's role to be publicly ruling on evidence "without going into detail," it is striking that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon either didn't get the US' evidence, or wouldn't disclose that he had. (Previously, Nesirky did confirm to Inner City Press the receipt of other evidence.)

  When Ban Ki-moon signed a Memorandum of Understanding with NATO, there were questions from Russia and others if this was appropriate. (Then, NATO and not the UN was given a role in a plan for Libya that Inner City Press exclusively put online.) 

 The UN declined to make public or even summarize its MOU with NATO.  It and UN agreements like it should be made public; the new Free UN Coalition for Access@FUNCA_info is and will be pushing for this.

  Here's a question: under the MOU, shouldn't Rasmussen of NATO share with Ban Ki-moon this supposedly convincing evidence -- especially if the UN won't or can't say if the US has?

  Returning to NATO itself, why would Rasmussen interject himself as an individuals into this question of evidence, pending now before the US Congress and, at least in UN-world, on hold while the samples collected in Syria are running through European labs, with two Syrian government representatives in toe? Where is the accountability for Rasmussen? Watch this site.