As UN Aid Chief Valerie Amos Leaves, Inner City Press Asks If Post Is UK's Like France & Peacekeeping, US & Political Affairs

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 26 -- When the UN announced on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving the departure of Humanitarian Affairs chief Baroness Valerie Amos, Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq if the vacancy will be advertised for candidates from all countries, or if it is set aside for Amos' United Kingdom.

  Amos' predecessor was UK Sir John Holmes, just as current UN Department of Political Affairs chief Jeffrey Feltman's predecessor was American B. Lynn Pascoe, now back at the UN on the UN Peacekeeping Operations review panel. UN Peacekeeping is even more closely held, with France controlling it four times in a row, now at a nadir with Herve Ladsous.

  Haq insisted that the Humanitarian Affairs vacancy will be open to candidates from all regions. But when Inner City Press asked if it will be advertised for example in The Economist, Haq did not answer.

  There have been rumblings, noted by Inner City Press, of DPA chief Jeffrey Feltman leaving -- and of the US perhaps trading Political Affairs for Peacekeeping. But that theory seems to have been that US State Department Number Three Wendy Sherman would move up to William Burns' deputy spot, opening her position for the return of Feltman.

  Now that the Obama administration has put Tony Blinken into the State Department Deputy post, as one insider told ICP, “Feltman stays at the UN.”

Even without any double switch, Ladsous is under fire atop DPKO, not only for refusal to answer questions, back to rapes in Minova in DR Congo, but now in Tabit in Darfur as well. 

 Haq, like lead UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric on November 26, would not when Inner City Press asked confirm receipt of a letter, critical of Ladsous' DPKO, from Darfuri groups, here. 

 Outgoing UN Security Council president Gary Quinlan of Australia not only confirmed receipt of the letter - he circulated it to the other Council members. A press officer of UK mission to the UN tells Inner City Press, "I can confirm that we received the letter indirectly." We'll have more on this, and on Amos' work while at the UN, and perhaps reason(s) for leaving.

  On November 25, it was Quinlan and not Amos who took question after Amos' briefing on Syria. How much will Amos speak, publicly, before her departure at the end of March? Much, is the hope and goal of the Free UN Coalition for Access. Watch this site.

   

For UN's Ban, the Hits Just Keep On Coming, Bad First Half Reviews Trigger Fight Back

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/ban1reviews070109.html

UNITED NATIONS, July 1 -- Halfway through a torrent of less than favorable reviews of the first half of his five year term as UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon and those around him have suddenly sought more and more tightly controlled press coverage. Outlandish claims of accomplishment are made, that Ban saved 500,000 people in Myanmar, that he is the second most trusted leader in the world, and number one on climate change.

The strategy is viewed as risky, even by UN supporters. On June 30 a senior Security Council diplomat told Inner City Press that Ban should just "lie low" for the rest of the summer and use the time to replace some of the advisers and officials who have brought him to this point, who "don't seem to be able to tell Ban what is really going on."

While the first part of this advice is not being followed, perhaps the latter will be, or some officials will simply leave for their own reasons.

The current spate of reviews of Ban's performance began with a report card in The Economist, ranking Ban three out of ten for "speaking truth to power" and two out of ten for management. Inner City Press asked Ban to respond, during his last press conference.

Showing rare passion, Ban lashed out at his critics, saying he needs more resources, he needs more support. What followed were even more negative reviews, in the Financial Times and Foreign Policy.

Then began the publish counter offensive. Ban appeared on the Charlie Rose television show, where he made his claim to have saved half a million Burmese. This exact phrase had earlier been deployed in interviews with publications now preparing their own Ban first half reviews.

Two major newspapers are now competing on who will come out first, while a third -- a ailing West Coast daily which no longer covers Ban's UN day to day -- has been brought in on little notice with the expectation that its verdict will be more positive. In the interim, UN supporters have been countered with mostly online pro-Ban pieces.

Before his current trip beginning in Japan then Myanmar, Ban did a separate sit-down with Japanese reporters. Rather than tell the whole UN press corps about the Burma trip, his Spokesperson's Office pre-selected not only the organizations which would be allowed to come, but even the particular reporters.

The fear, as one of Ban's 38th floor advisers told Inner City Press, is that Burma may become "Sri Lanka Two," an embarrassment in which the re-imprisonment of Aung San Suu Kyi, like the bombardment then internment of Tamils, is legitimated by a seemingly hapless UN Secretary General. But if that is what happens, who can it be reported differently?

The shifting ways Ban dealt with Kosovo -- going silent when asked about the legality from the UN perspective of recognizing the theretofore Serbian provinces' unilateral declaration of independence -- and then with Abkhazia and South Ossetia are fodder for forthcoming reviews, as is Ban's claim to have been responsible for the deployment of UN peacekeepers in Darfur. There are pieces in the works, unless destructive deadline competition curtail them, to assess and take apart even Ban's claims on climate change.

Team Ban's recently reach-out to selected media is undermined, meanwhile, by anti-press initiatives by his management and Capital Master Plan officials. These were summarized in a "Dear Colleague" letter circulated to the 435 members of the House of Representatives earlier this week, the text of which is below.

"Angered by past and continuing media reports of corruption, mismanagement and inaction at the United Nations, the UN is again seeking to cover up evidence and stifle freedom of the press.

Meeting on May 8 about 'reporting by the press,' high level UN officials discussed sending threatening letters to several press agencies and other bodies, as well as complaining to Google News about a small, independent news agency that has uncovered numerous UN scandals. Last year, a similar complaint resulted in that agency's temporary removal from Google News. In response to a question about that meeting, the Secretary General's spokeswoman furiously retorted, 'I don't have to account to you for meetings I participate in.'

The UN's Department of Management is also reportedly pushing to obstruct press coverage, seeking to charge media outlets $23,000 to maintain office space, and to move journalists covering the UN into open, un-walled offices -- deterring whistleblowers from coming forth and preventing oversight.

These UN efforts to restrict press freedom and oversight directly contravene the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognized that 'Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression... and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.' Once again, the UN is actually undermining the principles on which it was founded."

The May 8 meeting, involving Under Secretaries General Angela Kane (Management), Kiyo Akasaka (Public Information) and Patricia O'Brien (Legal Affairs), as well as Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's speech writer Michael Meyer and Spokesperson Michele Montas, was memorialized in a memo from Ms. Kane to Ban.

Inner City Press was shown the memo, wrote and asked Ban's spokeswoman Michele Montas about it by email, along with the three USGs, none of whom has yet to explain how their participation is consistent not only with the First Amendment, which they say does not apply, but even to the cited Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Ban's Spokesperson Michele Montas is widely reported to be leaving in November. His speech writer is said to still review to his previous employer, Newsweek, as "we." Angela Kane, who convened and summarized the anti-Press meeting, is said by Staff Union sources to be leaving. The UN's top lawyer is rarely if even seen in the building, having done only one press conference in all her time on the job.

Ban's senior adviser Kim Won-soo has yet to do any on the record press conference, although he speaks extensively on background for the forthcoming Ban reviews. He and Ban are joined at the hip. Whether the press strategy adopted by the 38th floor is working is in serious doubt, as is whether Ban will take the symptomatic advice offered Tuesday, to in essence lay low, shake up and start over. Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/ban1reviews070109.html

UN's Ban Questioned on Record, on Sri Lanka, Half Time Pep Talk

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/ban09june2presser061109.html

UNITED NATIONS, June 11 -- Half way into the five year term as UN Secretary General he was awarded in 2006, Ban Ki-moon on June11 tried to defend low grades he has received for his management of the UN and not "speaking truth to power."

At Mr. Ban's press conference for June, his spokesperson Michele Montas pointedly did not call on Inner City Press. Only a week before she had said the UN should be able to regulate the Press, after a memo revealed her attendance at a May 8 meeting at which legal threats and "complaining to Google News" about Inner City Press was discussed. On June 11, she looked elsewhere to award the right to question.

But CNN's longtime correspondent, characteristically classy, yielded his question to Inner City Press. Video here, from Minute 42:41. To inquire into Ban's views on his Spokesperson's and top officials' seeming underlying of freedom of the press, while necessary and to later be asked, had to take a back seat to a bigger picture question. From the UN's transcript, the question and then Ban's annotated answer:

Inner City Press: There is an article in today's Economist, called “Ban Ki-moon - the score at half time”. It reviews half of your first term. I want to ask you to respond to it. Under the rubric “truth to power” they give you a three out of ten, and they use the example of Sri Lanka - they say that Mr. Ban denied that the UN had leaked grim civilian casualty figures. On management they give two out of ten. There are some better grades, I acknowledge. On management, they say there is a problem with communicating with senior staff, that you have to show more leadership in drumming up peacekeepers.

I might add to that, protection of whistle-blowers and free press. I just wanted to know, do you agree with any of this critique, are there things you intend to do better in a second term? What do you make of this piece in the Economist assigning those two grades?

SG: I would regard it as the judgment of the Economist. There may be a different judgment on my performance. First of all, during the last two and a half years, I had three priorities. First of all, to catalyze a global response to critical global issues – like climate change, managing the consequences of the international economic crisis, global health and global terrorism. On climate change, you may agree with me that from almost dead - if not dead, a dormant status - this issue has risen to the level of leaders of the world. It has become a top priority issue of this world. I am going to really work hard to seal the deal in Copenhagen in December. I am working for all humanity, for the future of Planet Earth.

Note: Ban is clearly passionate about climate change, but some might also mention Al Gore in this role. Ban appointed a mentor and former boss in South Korea as a UN climate change envoy, then added the past General Assembly president Srgjan Kerim to his climate roster. These are patronage appointments, many feel, that do no credit to the environment and provide support for the grades the Economist gave.

SG: To deliver results to those most in need, you should know that I have been working very hard to represent the well-being of the most vulnerable people. I have been working as the voice of the voiceless people, and defend those people who are defenseless. You see my performance on the record.

Note: Most recently Ban went to Sri Lanka, and saw Tamils locked up in internment camps. Since returning to New York, Ban's Spokespeople have resisted commenting on the plight of these defenseless people, who are being locked up with UN funds.

Inner City Press asked, what about the outgoing Sri Lankan chief justice's comment that the people in the camps have no legal protection, cannot get the jurisdiction of Sri Lankan court? Ban's Associate Spokesperson dryly called this a "national issue." So much for voice for the voiceless. Some say, apologist for governments.

SG: On reform, you should understand that this has been accumulating over the last sixty years. During the last two and a half years, I can proudly say that I have made significant changes in the working culture of the United Nations, to make this most transparent, accountable, efficient and mobile and effective. I don't claim that I have finished the job. There are much more things to be done in the reform process of the United Nations. Look at these accumulated, very cumbersome, bureaucratic systems of the United Nations. I am also in a very difficult position to move these reform processes ahead. Have you ever seen somebody who has been, as passionately as I have been doing, to change this working culture of the United Nations? There will be some complaints. People just love business as usual. They simply don't want to change. This is what I really wanted to change.

Note: Ban could have made his top officials file public financial disclosure, or face non reappointment. He didn't. He is viewed, perhaps because of those around him, as unapproachable by many. His top management official, Angela Kane, barely speaks with the Staff Union. Therefore few things have been reformed.

SG: You should look very closely and follow me, what I have been doing, what I have in my mind. I have never left climate change [or] reform of the United Nations. I will continue to do that, whatever somebody may say. But be sympathetic, and just try to closely follow what I have been doing, not just based on conventional wisdom. Fix your eyesight and vision on the 21st [century]. Don't look at the 1950s, 1960s., where the United Nations was the only universal body. Now you have so many international actors – the European Union, the African Union, the OAS, ASEAN – the United Nations must work together in close coordination with all these organizations. And we need the full support of the Member States.

Note: Ban appointed former peacekeeping chief Jean Marie Guehenno as his Under Secretary General for Regional Cooperation, that is on all these groups. Then, Ban did not assign Guehenno a single piece of work. It was a patronage appointment, apparently designed to keep Guehenno's visa status. This is not a new way of doing business.

SG: Without the political support, without resources provided by the Member States, it is difficult, however capable a person may be the Secretary-General. It is just impossible. I need more political support. I need more resources by the Member States. Then judge my support on the basis of that. The mandate should be supported and accompanied by the resources and political support. Don't just look at my performance on the basis of just vague or conventional perceptions of the United Nations.

Note: Is it too conventional to think that the UN Secretary General should speak up for members of a minority group interned by a majoritarian government using UN money? Is it vague to think that a CEO who has he wants those whom he appointed to make public financial disclosure could easily bring it about, by conditioning appointment or re-appointment on disclosure? We could go on and on. The point is, what improvements will there be? Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/ban09june2presser061109.html