After UN Staff Vote "No Confidence" In Ban Ki-moon, & Talks Break Down in Mexico City, Ban Blames General Assembly

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 18 -- Blame for the breakdown in UN labor relations is being passed to the General Assembly by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. But is the GA the reason why the Staff Union voted "no confidence" in Ban earlier this year?

  On June 17, Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Eduardo Del Buey about a story it had exclusively published the day previous: the abrupt termination of the UN Staff Management Committee meeting in Mexico City on June 14.

  The Staff Union said that Ban's Secretariat gave a proposal late that sought to abrogate their negotiating rights. But Del Buey on June 17 blamed it all on the General Assembly, and said the proposal had been given four weeks in advance. From the UN's transcript:

Inner City Press: there was this meeting in Mexico City of the Staff Management Committee and the staff union has said that, basically, the Secretariat tried to abrogate their negotiating rights and ended the meeting several days early, including wasting resources of people that flew down there. Is there some response from the Secretariat to the claim by their union that they are not negotiating in good faith and wasted resources?

Deputy Spokesperson Del Buey: As a matter of fact there is.

Inner City Press: Great. Let’s do it.

Deputy Spokesperson Del Buey: The Staff-Management Committee meeting in Mexico City (SMC-II) ended prematurely on Friday, as you have well noted. The impasse arose related to the role of the Committee itself which, since 2011, has been governed by the Secretary-General’s bulletin (ST/SGB/2011/6), which provides that issues be resolved by consensus. The General Assembly, in its resolution 67/255, requested that the bulletin be revised in line with existing staff regulations. A draft revised bulletin was shared with members of the Staff-Management Committee, which removed the requirement for agreement by consensus.

Staff representatives disagreed with the General Assembly. While we recognize the importance of this issue to staff representatives, the position of the Member States is clear and the administration cannot revisit the issue with the General Assembly, as suggested by staff representatives.

Management demonstrated flexibility and encouraged the staff representatives at the SMC-II on several occasions to provide constructive suggestions that could be incorporated into the draft revision of the said resolution. Regrettably, staff representatives at SMC-II were not prepared to stick to the program of work that had been agreed upon and discussed the many other important agenda items. It was, therefore, not possible to continue this meeting.

Inner City Press: Can I just ask, because I have seen the president of the union’s e-mail saying that management’s presentation of this issue was done after the document submission deadline, at the eleventh hour, so if it was so clear, why didn’t the Secretariat tell them in advance? Probably you could have figured it out it was going to break down in Mexico. Is it the case that this was turned into, to the other side too late?

Deputy Spokesperson: I don’t believe it was; I believe it was sent about four weeks prior to the meeting.

  We'll have more on this. But it is clear that the Staff Union's "no confidence" in Ban Ki-moon resolution, overwhelmingly adopted earlier this year, cannot be blamed on the General Assembly. Watch this site.

At Arms Trade Treaty, Woolcott Accused of Breaking Word Until Russian Point of Order

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, March 28 -- During the Arms Trade Treaty talks which failed on Thursday night, many called president Peter Woolcott fair and an honest broker.

  But according not only to Syria but other countries, it broke down at the end.

  Syria's Permanent Representative Bashar Ja'afari exclusively told Inner City Press that Woolcott had committed that once an objection was made “crystal clear,” he would announced there was no consensus, no adoption.

But after it was clear that Iran was blocking consensus, then North Korea and Syria, Woolcott gave the floor to Mexico and others to argue that the ATT should be adopted nevertheless, “since there is no definition of consensus.”

These arguments continued until Russia made a point of order, that it IS clear what consensus means, and that none existed here.

Then and only then did Woolcott say that he'd always thought it had to be by consensus, and none existed.

Ja'afari told Inner City Press he asked to speak again, and was told that if he did, he would be “last.”

Afterward a number of other countries, including some not opposed to the ATT, said that Woolcott was a tool of the big countries. “He let Mexico speak to try to change the atmosphere in the room... You see he only stopped when a big country like Russia spoke up,” one arms expert told Inner City Press.

Another said, we can't just change the rules. Another said, the US pushed for the ATT to be under the rule of consensus, to be able to block it -- then “pushed Iran to block it.”

Inner City Press asked the head of the US delegation about this; he did not disagree, including saying, it's not a criticism. Alright then. Watch this site.

Update of 9:30 pm - We'd be told there would be a Woolcott stakeout, to get his side. But it's canceled. To be fair we'll make his argument: there was a list of speakers.

Update of 10:26 pm - after a long stand off resulting in the phrase, “there was no consensus and the draft decision was not adopted.” There's laughter, cheering - and a cloud over the UN.

No Consensus on Arms Trade Treaty, Some Try to Re-Define Consensus

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 28 -- The Arms Trade Treaty talks were to have concluded this afternoon; chairman Peter Woolcott has scheduled a press stakeout at 6 pm.

But as delegates continued milling around in Conference Room 1, Inner City Press observed the UN Television stakeout being taken apart at 6:10 pm.

By 6:45 pm, Iran, North Korea and Syria had formally objected, blocking consensus. Mexico and some others argued that the ATT could still be adopted -- without a vote -- since there is no definition of consensus.

But Syria cited a definition, from the World Health Organization in 1987. Russia echoed that. Iran went further, saying that those trying to change the rules should “leave the building.”

Iran had earlier spoken up with sample objections; sources told Inner City Press their main issue was the inclusion of a reference to UN Security Council Chapter 7 sanctions, which they are under.

North Korea, too, is under them. So is Sudan, but several sources told Inner City Press Sudan does not want to stand alone, or even, as a source put it “be seen as one of the rogues.”

But there are principles, and the proponents of the ATT if they wanted consensus might have paid more attention to them.

As delegates milled around on the first floor, Inner City Press nearly alone staked out the second floor protocol room NLB-2109. Iran's Permanent Representative came out with his Syrian counter-part Bashar Ja'afari. Soon thereafter, the objections were made, then the attempts to re-define consensus. Only at the UN. Watch this site.