UNITED NATIONS GATE, April 6 – At the UN with Antonio Guterres 28 months into his term as Secretary General, there's talk of reform but little transparency. Now after Guterres changed his failed proposal to move UN jobs out of New York, Uganda and Geneva - switched to proposing the jobs go to, where else, Shenzhen in China, while Guterres covers up for convicted UN briber China Energy Fund Committee - this too has failed. The UN Budget Committee, favors in which Guterres sold out to then chair Cameroon for, has delayed Guterres' modified proposal until at least September. Uganda, whose foreign minister Sam Kutesa like Guterres has financial links to CEFC China Energy, wanted it put back a full four years.
Here was Uganda's draft, exclusively made public here by banned Inner City Press: "Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the global service delivery model for the United Nations Secretariat,1 as well as the related report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, 1. Takes note of the report of the Secretary-General; 2. Also takes note of the report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions; 3. Notes with appreciation the intention of the Secretary-General to establish a global service delivery model for the United Nations Secretariat; 4. Regrets the lack of transparency in the process leading to the current proposals; 5. Requests the Secretary-General to put forward a new proposal for the global service delivery model, for the consideration and approval of the General Assembly at its seventy-eighth session, which retains and builds on the existing shared service centre of the United Nations Secretariat established in July 2010 by the General Assembly, through its resolution 64/269 of 24 June 2010, and which preserves the skills, knowledge and experience of staff currently implementing shared services." But for now Guterres' proposal is delayed until September 2019 for consideration. What bribes might be paid by then? There's been no audit of CEFC China Energy, and Guterres continues to ban the Press which reports on this. Guterres is corrupt. Inner City Press, which was roughed up and banned from the UN by Guterres amid its questions about his CEFC links, has obtained an advance copy of the UN Advisory Committee on Administration and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) review of Guterres' changes; a close observer summarizes that China to the side bought off Uganda to drop or mitigate its opposition to losing so many jobs. Meanwhile even the ACABQ has problems with putting the French language, FrancAfrique serving center in Montreal, many time zones away. From the advance ACABQ, which Inner City Press is exclusively putting online in full, Scribd: "Taking into account the significant number of French- speaking clients in the African region, the Advisory Committee notes with concern the time zone gap between the region and Montréal, the centre that would provide French- speaking services to clients in Africa. The Committee expects that the Secretary-General will provide more detailed information." Then again, Guterres might just get China to buy off or strong-arm those who have questions, for the jobs and Organization he is giving them while concealing his own financial links with CEFC China Energy.
About Uganda, from the March 8 report: "Upon enquiry, the Advisory Committee was informed that since the inception of RSCE, approximately $7.71 million has been invested in RSCE office space, in addition to $9.77 million invested in training and technology facilities which are not related to the scope of the global service delivery model. The Advisory Committee expects the Secretary-General to provide further information to the General Assembly, at the time of its consideration of this report, on the investments made in RSCE. Considering the significant number of proposed abolishments, the investments made in RSCE to date, the request of the General Assembly in resolution 72/266 B, and its key regional role, the Advisory Committee trusts that the Secretary-General will ensure the optimal use of RSCE’s capacity and the implementation of mitigation measures for its affected staff. The Committee recommends that the General Assembly request the Secretary-General to provide more information on this matter." Waste of money, to serve China. Guterres also proposing to move jobs to Montreal in Canada, a tip of his cap to Francophonie, and again to Nairobi from Uganda. Inner City Press which has reported exclusively on Guterres' bogus reforms from the beginning, and has for its troubled been roughed up by his Security and banned from entering the UN now for 202 days and counting, will have more on each of these proposals. Significantly, the "Not for distribution" document banned Inner City Press has obtained shows that Guterres aims to cut fully 349 UN jobs in Uganda. We have put in written questions to Guterres and his spokesmen Stephane Dujarric and Farhan Haq, who have not answered this: "January 22-1: On the SG's new Global Service Delivery Mechanism proposal, please immediately state how and why the SG chose China - including in light of the CEFC China Energy UN bribery and Gulbenkian Foundation issues you have refused to answer Inner City Press on - and how Montreal was selected, and how many post Uganda would lose." Seven hours later, no answer. But Inner City Press has the document: 349 jobs to be cut in Entebbe, under Guterres' plan. And now Uganda's Sam Kutesa, implicated in Patrick Ho's bribery for CEFC China Energy, linked to Guterres, is complaining about Guterres and an unnamed consultant, urging Uganda's Parliament to support a second fight. Even banned from entering the UN by Guterres as we cover the bribery, we will cover this.On January 22 the spokesperson for UN PGA Maria Fernanda Espinosa Garces, Monica Grayley, said that Espinosa's predecessor Sam Kutesa the foreign minister of Uganda who took $500,000 to China Energy Fund Committee will NOT be coming to an event for former PGAs in New York - she didn't say why. We'll have more on this. Here's about Shenzhen - in connection with which, consider Guterres omission of his paid board membership on Gulbenkian Foundation which tried to sell its Partex Oil company to CEFC even after the indictment of its Patrick Ho for UN bribery: "The proposed Global Shared Service Centre in Shenzhen will consist of the Office of the Chief, as well as the Finance Section, headed by a P-5 Section Chief, and the Client Support Unit, headed by a P-4 Unit Chief, who would report to the Chief of the Global Shared Service Centre in Shenzhen. The service centre will also manage a local client support desk staffed by three General Service (Local Level) in Bangkok to provide local client support services. The local client support desk positions will be funded by general temporary assistance for a period of up to two years after implementation. 61. The proposed “Chief of Global Shared Service Centre in Shenzhen” at the D-1 level will report to the Director, Global Shared Services and would be fully accountable for the service quality and operational performance of the Global Shared Service Centre in Shenzhen, including the implementation of the performance management framework at section and individual staff levels. He or she would be responsible for the following: • Implementing the business plan of the Global Shared Service Centre in Shenzhen, whose primary objective is to efficiently and effectively provide administrative transactional services in the areas of financial transactional services; • Planning, managing and overseeing the activities of all administrative and operational components of the service centre; leading and managing the operations of the office of 195 staff (173 posts + 22 GTA positions); • Ensuring effective service delivery and achieving the operational targets and key performance indicators; • Developing and implementing quality control mechanisms in place to improve the quality and timeliness of services; 18 [A/73/706] • Cultivating a culture of client orientation and service delivery by ensuring responsiveness of service centre staff to client queries, systematically evaluating client satisfaction and making adjustments as necessary; • Leading the implementation of change management initiatives focused on process improvements, increased automation and optimization of systems and tools; • Leading the implementation of a communications strategy that provides information to all service centre’s stakeholders through open and frequent communication channels; • Leading the implementation of future service expansions in this service centre location, including expansion of client base, implementation of new services, recruitment for new service sections or units, and upgrade of office facilities and ICT infrastructure as necessary; and • Liaising with the host country as necessary and appropriate on all matters pertaining to the host country agreement. 62. The proposed P-5 post would be section chief of the Finance Section with a number of 164 staff (148 posts + 16 GTA), responsible for leading and overseeing the operations of the section, managing staff performance and resources, and coordinating activities and reports related to budget and staffing. The Finance Section consists of the Accounts Payable Unit (140 staff) and the Special Global Operations Unit (23 staff), which will initially include processes related to bank reconciliation and calculation of travel and shipping lump-sum payments. 63. The seven proposed posts at the P-4 level include the following: • One post would be unit chief of the Client Support Unit (19 staff in the centre + 3 staff in the local client support desk in Bangkok), responsible for the management and operations of the unit to ensure standardized and efficient client support. • One post would be Administrative Officer in the Office of the Chief, responsible for the overall coordination of human resources management, budget preparation and financial management (including funding and cost recovery) for the service centre. • Four posts would be Finance Officers in the Accounts Payable Unit of the Finance Section, responsible for overseeing service delivery and assist the section chief in managing staff performance in the unit. • One post would be Finance Officer in the Special Global Operations Unit, responsible for overseeing service delivery and assist the section chief in managing staff performance in the unit. 64. The ten proposed posts at the P-3 level would include the following: • One Human Resources Officer, a Finance Officer and an Information Systems Officer located in the Office of the Chief, responsible for assisting in the coordination of human resources management, budget preparation, financial management and information technology support for the service centre. • Six Finance Officers assisting the P-4 Finance Officer in overseeing service delivery in the Accounts Payable Unit and the Special Global Operations Unit of the Finance Section. • One Administrative Officer assisting the Chief of the Client Support Unit in overseeing the daily operations of the unit. 65. The proposed P-2 post would be Associate Finance Officer in the Accounts Payable Unit of the Finance Section to assist in ensuring the delivery of transactional services. 66. The proposed fifteen General Service (Principal Level) posts would be responsible for assisting the professional officers in the supervision of larger teams of General Service (Local Level) staff in the 19 [A/73/706] Finance Section (13 PL) and the Client Support Unit (2 PL), as well as carrying out more complex transactions. The 138 General Service (Local level) posts would be responsible for carrying out administrative transactional services in the Finance Section (122 OL), as well as providing client support services in the Client Support Unit (13 OL) and administrative support in the Office of the Chief (3 OL)." On 1 July 2018 there was a claim that the peacekeeping budgets tied to the supposed reforms had been "approved," with no open meeting of the Budget Committee and with Inner City Press which covers it still banned from entering the building on the weekends or evenings when the Committee had consultations, having been ousted June 22 by Guterres' gun-toting guards who refused to give their names. Video here, story here, new petition here.So Inner City Press on July 3 went to cover the Fifth Committee meeting, of which it had been officially informed by UN spokespeople. But once there, it was physically ousted by rogue UN Security Lieutenant Ronald E. Dobbins and another, right in front of ASG Christian Saunders. On July 5, Inner City Press was banned from entering the UN, even as the UN bragged of approvals. But even UN meetings coverage says what the GA approved: "Under the draft’s section IV titled “Global service delivery model for the United Nations Secretariat”, the Assembly endorsed the conclusions and recommendations in ACABQ’s report (document A/72/7/Add.50), requesting that the Secretary-General submit a new proposal for the model no later than the first resumed part of its seventy-third session — which would take fully into account paragraph 5 of the ACABQ’s report, as well as comments, observations and recommendations of the Joint Inspection Unit — and to both consult and consider Member States and relevant stakeholders." So they ousted and are banning the Press for this - disgusting.
UNITED NATIONS, December 22 – When the UN Budget Committee met on Saturday night in a UN that SG Antonio Guterres has banned Inner City Press from for its coverage of the Committee and of Guterres' conflicts of interest, there were fights on Responsibility to Protect, Gaza and kicking Human Resources Management down the road. Tweeted thread here.
Cuba made its annual amendment to say Responsibility to Protect was never approved by the UN. Austria for the EU responded it was approved in UNSC Resolution 1366 in 2001. Cuba's amendment had 24 yes votes, 68 no, and 48 abstentions including India.
Israel put forward an amendment to not fund an inquiry into Gaza. It got, voting with it, the US, Liberia, and Australia the country of the Committee's chair Gillian Elizabeth Bird. Twelve abstained.
Human Resources Management failed, with Egypt for the Group of 77 blaming it on Guterres' Secretariat giving documents too late. Guterres was long gone, refusing to answer to where or how much he is spending. (Inner City Press ran a scoop seeming to require responses by OIOS, even impeachment, here.) Egypt mourned again this failure at the end of the Fifth at 8 pm, and wished well incoming G77 chair Palestine. Bring it on - but hold Guterres and his regime of censorship for corruption to account. While UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres was refusingthroughout 2018 to begin any UN audit into China Energy Fund Committee, implicated in the UN bribery prosecution US v Patrick Ho, Guterres had a secret.
Guterres was and it seems still is connected with and compensated by a company which was trying to sell its oil and gas business to China Energy Fund Committee in 2018. Guterres' failure to disclose and refusal to audit was a direct conflict of interest, which he has tried to cover up by roughing up and banning Inner City Press which asked him about it. (See January 2018 press conference here, July 2018 roughing up by Guterres' UN Security here, banning letter via Press Freedom Tracker here.)
For years Guterres received money as a board member of the Calouste Galbenkian Foundation, which despite its name is the 100% owner of Partex Oil and Gas. Partex has operations in Angola, Abu Dhabi, Brazil, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, Oman and Portugal. It was to a Portuguese court that Guterres, while justifying no listing some of his income, disclosed in 2016 that he was paid at least € 2735 per month for his position with the Gulbenkian Foundation.
But while a now deleted Foundation web page (archived here) stated that Guterres continued with Gulbenkian into 2018, Guterres did not list it on his most recent, and so far lone, UN Public Financial Disclosure, which covered 2016 ("Disclosing financial and other interests for the 2016 reporting year").
So why did Guterres disclose his position with the Club of Madrid, but not with the Gulbenkian Foundation / Partex Oil and Gas? It is worth noting that Guterres' wife Catarina Vaz Pinto has also been connected to Gulbenkian.
Following the roughing up and banning from the UN of Inner City Press which has covered the CEFC scandal throughout, Guterres' head of Global Communications Alison Smale promised UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression David Kaye, who asked, that the UN would still answer Inner City Press' written questions.
But as 2018 came to a close Guterres' spokesmen Stephane Dujarric and Farhan Haq left unanswered 36 questions in a row from Inner City Press, including this: “Beyond the 35 questions from Inner City Press you refused to answer this week, this is a request on deadline that you (1) state when SG Guterres left his position on the Gulbenkian Foundation,
(2) state why Gulbenkian was not listed on SG Guterres' public financial disclosure which covered 2016;
(3) explain how it is not a conflict of interest for SG Guterres to have refused to start an audit of CEFC in the UN, as requested by Inner City Press in January 2018, given CEFC's bid for the oil business of Gulbenkian.
Also, again, state why under SG Guterres there have been no updates to the UN public financial disclosures since those filed for 2016. Also, again, explain your refusal to answer any of Inner City Press' questions this week despite USG Smale's statements to GAP, me and UNSR David Kaye. On deadline.”
The question was also sent to the e-mail addresses of Guterres, his chief of staff Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, his Deputy Amina J. Mohammed, and Smale, who earlier in the week told Inner City Press she would take “under advisement” her 17 August 2018 pretextual withdrawal of Inner City Press decade long UN media accreditation. It seems clear that Guterres and his team have engaged in censorship for corruption, to conceal a blatant conflict of interest by Guterres. It has been raised by Inner City Press to the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services, and others. Watch this site.
Back on 5 December 2018 Patrick Ho was found guilty of seven of eight counts of violating the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and month laundering. (He was only not guilty on money laundering in Chad - where the bribe was not through any US bank but in cash, $2 million in a gift box). The evidence showed that the NGO he ran, China Energy Fund Committee, used its ongoing UN consultative status to pay bribes to Ugandan foreign minister - and Ashe's successor as President of the UN General Assembly -- Sam Kutesa.. He was working with precedessor Vuk Jeremicwhile Jeremic was UN PGA. CEFC even offered weapons, tanks and drones, to Chad's long time president Idriss Deby for oil blocks or a stake in the Chad Cameroon pipeline. (Inner City Press published documents here.)
The night of the verdict I asked UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres what he will do to clean up the UN, where he has left CEFC without any audit, still in consultative status with the UN. On his way from his Mercedes to a glitzy fundraiser including George and Amal Clooney, Guterres refused to answer. The next day when asked by another journalist why Guterres had refused to answer banned Inner City Press' question, his spokesman Stephane Dujarric claimed that the UN has “cooperated” with the prosecution. But the bribery group remains in the UN, unaudited.
Why has the case of US versus Ho, and now the guilty verdicts, garnered relatively so little interest, with the corruption of the UN exposed by it scarcely mentioned all? SG Guterres is hoping it goes away. In terms of corruption, he did not disclose and refuses to answer on the African business links of his son Pedro Guimarães e Melo De Oliveira Guterres. He refuses to answer how much he spends in public funds flying to his home in Lisbon at least sixteen times sofar as SG.
So CEFC remains an accredited non governmental organization with the UN's Economic and Social Council, while investigative Inner City Press for which I have been covering the case has been dis-accredited by and ousted from the UN, put on a list of those permanently banned without notice, due process or appeal. On December 7 I was informed I am banned from a “UN Human Rights” event on December 10 to be addressed by Guterres and his human rights commissioner Michelle Bachelet. But this reporting will not stop - Guterres' corruption of the UN must be addressed, through oversight or as is discussed elsewhere, impeachment. From the lofty goals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to Guterres' censorship for corruption is UNacceptable.
With UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet and her Deputy Andrew Gilmour set to speak in the UN on human rights day on December 10, Inner City Press responded to an invitation and was told, "Thank you for registering to attend the Human Rights Day event at the United Nations on Monday 10 December. On Monday, please come to the UN Visitors’ Gate on First Avenue opposite 45th street starting at 2pm, at which time entry passes will be distributed."
Then, past six p.m. on Friday, December 7 thisfrom Bachelet's and Gilmour's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights: "Dear Matthew,We have received notification from UN Security that your name was flagged as "BARRED" on the list we submitted for passes for Monday's event (3pm, ECOSOC Chamber).We will therefore not have a pass for you and are unable to facilitate entry. Thank you for your interest and best regards, OHCHR New York Office." Photo of email here.
Inner City Press immediately wrote back, to the sender and Bachelet and her assistant, to Andrew Gilmour and to the moderator of the event, "Particularly since you are the UN Office of the High Commissioner for *Human Rights,* did you not ask why a journalist who asks the Secretary General and his spokesmen about the killings in Cameroon, Burundi, UN corruption, UN peacekeepers' sexual abuse of civilians, and Sri Lanka, is “BARRED” from attending your human rights event - without any hearing or appeal? I will appreciate your Office's answer to this." We'll have more on this.
Bachelet gave a speech on October 15 in the UN's Third Committee, she emphasized a prioritization of social and economic rights and said one of the officials of her office is "on mission in Silicon Valley" in the US. There are questions about this - but Inner City Press which has covered human rights and the UN for more than a decade was for the first time banned from access a High Commissioner's speech. This has been raised repeated to Bachelet since she took office but she has so far done nothing, not even responded. Meanwhile on October 12 Cameroon, from whose Paul Biya Secretary General Antonio Guterres took a golden statue and favors in the Fifth (Budget) Committee and remains silent on the slaughter of Anglophones, was elected to a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. This system is failing - but if Bachelet cannot even answer on Guterres maintaining a secret banned list including not only Inner City Press but also "political activists" - and anti-corruption campaigners - then the UN of Guterres has hit its newestlow.
UNITED NATIONS, March 8-- Accountability, or really UN-accountability, was the topic when the UN Fifth (Budget) Committee met on March 8, amid a major bribery scandal and the continuing shame of UN Peacekeeper rapes in the Central African Republic and elsewhere.
Thailand's Sirithon Wairatpanij for the Group of 77 and China said "the Group emphasizes its full support on the zero-tolerance approach for all fraudulent acts."
Switzerland was more specific, saying that "in light of recent events, most notably the alleged bribery of the former President of the General Assembly, we believe that it is important to renew the Organization’s commitment to a zero-tolerance approach towards fraudulent acts."
But is the scandal just about the former PGA John Ashe? He and Ng Lap Seng, including through Frank Lorenzo's South South News and Sheri Yan's Global Sustainability Foundation, bought documents from Ban Ki-moon's Secretariat, for example the "reissued for technical reasons" switch to the GA document about a South South center in Macau.
Zero tolerance? The person who made just this switch has yet to be identified. It's like the UN's supposed zero-tolerance for sexual abuse, while UN Peacekeeping chief links rapes to "R&R."
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric on February 9, when asked by Inner City Press how now-indicted Frank Lorenzo came to use and have his photo taken in the UN Press Briefing Room on September 8, 2011 while it never appeared in the UN Media Alert, simply refused to answer. Video here.
“I'm done answering questions,” Dujarric said, cutting Inner City Press off and calling on Voice of America's correspondent (see previous correspondence here) for an unrelated, mere scheduling question.
On February 19, moments after Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Dujarric about UN cover-ups in South Sudan, lack of transparency on Burundi and financial mismanagement -- its UN identification pass was flagged as "deactivated" and would not open the gate to access the UN Security Council stakeout.
Then Inner City Press was given two hours to leave by USG Cristina Gallach, was thrown out into First Avenue by UN Security, and Banned from all UN premises.
After two lawyer's letters, a petition and more, Inner City Press re-entered on February 25 with unfairly reduced access and asked Dujarric, UN transcript here:
Inner City Press: Can you say now when the… the… the long-delayed OIOS [Office of Internal Oversight Services] audit of the contacts between Ng Lap Seng, Frank Lorenzo, Global Sustainability Foundation and Sun Kian Ip Foundation and UN-affiliated entities will be completed?
Spokesman: My understanding on the OIOS investigation on this… in the Secretariat should be ready next month.
We'll see.
Inner City Press back on February 10 asked Dujarric what questions it is, what he and the UN will not answer. Video here, UN transcript here:
Inner City Press: I'm trying to figure out what questions will be answered and which ones won't be answered. So, I'm going to preface this in an entirely different way. As you know, Frank Lorenzo has been indicted. The allegation is that his South-South News funneled money and was part of a bribery conspiracy at the UN. There is a photograph of the Secretary-General receiving from Mr. Frank Lorenzo an award statue in October 2011 after an event [in the UN Press Briefing Room, not on the UN Media Alert.] Either, do you have any comment or, logistically, is there any thinking within the Secretariat of what should be done with gifts given by this now controversial organization, part of the indictment?
Spokesman Dujarric: As you know, we are conducting an audit of the relationship between a number of those people who were named in the indictments and UN entities. That is ongoing. Hopefully, it should be finished soon, and we'll see where that leads us. Okay.
We'll have more on this.
Lorenzo is a major figure in the corruption scandal surrounding the UN under Ban Ki-moon, along with former President of the General Assembly John Ashe and Macau-based businessman Ng Lap Seng, who after funneling money the UN Correspondents Association (including through Lorenzo's South South News) got a photo op with Ban at an UNCA event at Cipriani.
So how can Dujarric, the spokesman, simply refuse to answer factual questions about how Lorenzo gained access to the UN Press Briefing Room without being listed in the UN Media Alert, to which Dujarric begrudgingly referred Inner City Press on February 8? How has the UN sunk this low?
On February 8, Inner City Press asked Dujarric for the list of times he or his Office have “lent” out the UN Press Briefing Room, since he said on February 1 that “who gets to use this room is really my decision.”
But Dujarric refused to provide the list, instead telling Inner City Press that a list of “public” uses of the room could be compiled from UN MALU (Media Accreditation and Liasion Unit) Media Alerts. Video here.
Inner City Press asked Dujarric why he participated in the September 23, 2014 event by French President Francois Hollande from which Inner City Press was asked to leave, video here -- Dujarric did not answer this, more on this to come -- and about one sample use of the Press Briefing Room.
Frank Lorenzo, now indicted for bribery at the UN and found not to be immune, was for example in the UN Press Briefing Room on September 8, 2011, about the South South Awards / South South News, funded by also indicted Ng Lap Seng and a funder of the UN Correspondents Association.
Dujarric said go look at the MALU Media Alerts. But digging up the MALU Media Alert for September 8, 2011, there was NO mention or Lorenzo or South South News or Awards. Dujarric's answer, even by its own terms, doesn't hold water. We'll have more on this. Watch this site.
On February 5 Inner City Press asked Dujarric's Deputy Farhan Haq about the ruling in the UN corruption cases that Frank Lorenzo is NOT immune. (John Ashe is also claiming immunity.) Inner City Press asked Haq if the UN Press Briefing Room, already “lent” to another fundee of indicted Ng Lap Seng, UNCA, was ever lent to Lorenzo. Video here.
Haq replied, again without checking, that “if” Lorenzo had ever been in the UN Press Briefing Room, it would have been as Deputy Permanent Representative of the Dominican Republic. But Lorenzo also led Ng-funded “South South News,” which gave money to UNCA; the indictment and ruling are based on things Lorenzo is described as doing NOT in his official capacity as DPR of the Dominican Republic. We'll have more on this.
UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq on February 4 instead of even purporting to answer Inner City Press' questions openly guessed at the motivation of the questions. Vine here, full video here. The question concerned Ng Lap seng, indicted for bribery at the UN; Haq said if you can look into corruption at the UN Correspondents Association (a Ng fundee who was lent the room on January 29), go do so.
But the UN has said it is auditing Ng's and Sheri Yan's dealings with and at the UN, which must include UNCA, which is given a large UN room, and the Press Briefing Room too, off the record sit-downs with Ban Ki-moon (two of whose closest associates were at the founding of Yan's Global Sustainability Foundation), and sells seats with Ban for $6,000.
Haq refused to answer. Inner City Press aksed, When does Stephane [Dujarric, the lead spokesman who said who gets to use the Press Briefing Room is really his decision] get back? "Whenever he wants," Haq said. This is today's UN. We'll have more on this.
On February 3, Inner City Press for the second day in a row asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq to provide a list of to whom his office, or simply lead UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, “lent” the UN Press Briefing Room. Haq on February 3 now said there is no list, but they have the information.
So Inner City Press asked a question about the information: has the UN Press Briefing Room been “lent” to any affiliate or fundee of Ng Lap Seng or the Global Sustainability Foundation, named in the US Attorney's corruption indictment.
Haq said, “No.” But since the UN Press Briefing Room was, Dujarric said, “lent to UNCA” on January 29, and UNCA has taken funds from Ng Lap Seng's entities, Inner City Press asked Haq if he was sure.
Haq insisted that money is not asked for to lend the UN Press Briefing Room. But that was not the question: has it been lent to a grantee of Ng Lap Seng.
As Inner City Press was still asking, Reuters' UN correspondent Michelle Nichols, holding Reuters' apparently Permanent seat on the UNCA board, cut in, saying “You're clutching at straws.” Video here
Inner City Press was not asking Reuters any question. On February 2, the former Reuters UN bureau chief cut in, as did the Agence France Presse correspondent Carole Landry (who is also on UNCA's board). We'll have more on this.
Dujarric didn't show up at the February 2 noon briefing, so Inner City Press had to ask his Deputy, Farhan Haq. The UNCA representative, Reuters retiree Evelyn Leopold, immediately tried to cut off the question with a loud, “Here we go again.” (This was echoed afterward by Carole Landry the English language correspondent of Agence France Presse, silent when the UN Press Briefing Room was given over to Hollande and others were asked to leave). Here's Periscope of the glass box the AFP scribe "reports" Inner City Press was "hidden" in; here's February 2 video:
This shows why there should be a UN Freedom of Information Act, something which while requested by the Free UN Coalition for AccessBan Ki-moon has tellingly done nothing about during his opaque tenure.
Instead of providing this basic information, Haq claimed Inner City Press is “mudding the waters” of having covered the January 29 meeting of UNCA, including about this group's offering of space in the UN to those who pay it money, from an entirely visible, glassed in box, from which Inner City Press live-tweeted and live-streamed Periscope video.Here's saved Periscope video of what this “hiding place” looks like.
We'll have more on this - and will continue to pursue the list of UN privatization of the Press Briefing Room. Watch this site.
But UN Spokesman Stepane Dujarric on February 1, when Inner City Press asked him under what rule he had given over the UN Press Briefing Room to the UNCA groups which charged $6,000 to sit with Ban, said “who gets to use this room is really my decision.” Vine here.
Really? The use of the UN Press Briefing Room is decided, without any rules, by this one individual? The same individual who often dodges Inner City Press' questions by saying “It's up to member states”?
But there are other problems here. After Dujarric previously lent the UN Press Briefing Room on September 23, 2014 to the entourage of the president of Dujarric's native France Francois Hollande, video here, it was then indicated that it wouldn't happen again.
Then on September 25, 2014 when Inner City Press asked Dujarric “please state which countries during this UNGA have used the UN Press Briefing Room for briefing not open to all UN correspondents, other than France at 11 am on September 23. (Also, what was your role on September 23 around 11 am in the room behind the Press Briefing Room podium?)”
Dujarric replied, in writing, “I dont have the information on the first point for you. On the second, I'm not sure that I understand it except that I was just looking into the room. I tend to be a curious person.”
Dujarric “didn't have the information” on private use of the UN Press Briefing Room, which use he says “is really my decision”? We'll have more on this.
On Wall Street in December 2015, the UN Correspondents Association (UNCA) sold seats with Ban Ki-moon for $6,000 ($12,000 for a full table). Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric how this could be and was first told, As long as it's transparent.
UNCA previously took money from Macau-based casino magnate Ng Lap Seng, now under house arrest for bribery at the UN, and gave him a photo op with Ban. Now the UN or at least Dujarric gave this UNCA, now the UN Corruption Association, its UN Press Briefing Room -- and on January 29 threw out the Press seeking to cover this meeting of a group that has sold the UN and Ban, amid scandals.
On February 1, Inner City Press went to the next UN noon briefing to asked Dujarric what the rules for throwing media out of the UN Press Briefing Room are, and to explain his poking at Inner City Press' phone to stop its Periscope streaming broadcast of the event in the UN Press Briefing Room, video here, transcript here.
Dujarric cut off questions, including about his "lending" of the UN Briefing Room to the entourage of France's Francois Hollande - which will continue. In fact, the UN omitted or censored Inner City Press' entirely audible question about Hollande from the transcript. Dujarric made a threat. This is today's UN.
Sitting in a glassed in booth live-tweeting and livestreaming Periscope video cannot be called "hiding," even in the UN.
Inner City Press pointed out the obvious: this booth is entirely glassed in and visible from the podium he spoke at, and from the rostrum used on January 29 by UNCA's head Giampaolo Pioli and two board members (one from US government Broadcasting Board of Governors, as is relevant to the censorship bid contrary to the US First Amendment.)
Dujarric cut off Inner City Press' follow up question; uniquely the entire first row of the briefing room was this day filled with UNCA board members, two from Agence France Presse (they asked nothing), and Pioli, who also asked nothing. One wondered if Dujarric, who on January 29 told Inner City Press it should "join UNCA" arranged or collaborated with this dubious "show of force."
At least, unlike January 29, Dujarric did not jab at Inner City Press' camera, and the Reuters correspondent who twice blocked the camera with paper on January 29 did not do so this time.
One is left wondering if the UN's Dujarric believes he can eject any media, at any time, from any event in the UN Press Briefing Room, and if he, Reuters or UNCA will try the same camera-banning they engaged in on January 29 in the UN Press Briefing Room at the UN Security Council stakeout. Watch this site.
At the January 29 noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Dujarric about Ban's paid / sold appearances, transcript here.
On January 29, UNCA leadership including Giampaoli Pioli, two scribes for the US Broadcasting Board of Governors, one from Reuters and others demanded that Inner City Press not cover a meeting in the UN Press Briefing Room.
Suspending their meeting in which they discussed among other tawdry topics selling UN space to those who pay them money, UNCA called in UN Spokesman Dujarric and his deputy and then UN Security, who are the request of Dujarric asked Inner City Press to leave.
There were ironies aplenty. Not only about a group of "correspondents" trying to close and make secret their meeting in the UN Press Briefing Room, but also that it was Dujarric who told Inner City Press that the UN Press Briefing Room would not again be "lent out," after Inner City Press challenged the lending out to French President Francois Hollande.
Dujarric, deploying the F-bomb, Vine here, told Inner City Press, Yes, I am ordering you out, you can put it in your story. Vine here. He tried to turn Inner City Press' camera phone off. Vine here.
His deputy, pointing at Inner City Press, told some of the scribes, "He lies a lot" -- after providing patently false answers about UN peacekeeping and other topics.
The Voice of America correspondent Margaret Besheer, last seenclaiming there were Liberians in Burundi, to which in an untransparent process she (and Reuters and AFP) accompanied the recent Security Council trip, made comments which most contexts are deemed antithetical to free press. She's done it before (see this letter to Dujarric); she said "go on your meds."
With the UN embroiled in scandals including the indictments of the former President of the General Assembly John Ashe and Macau businessman Ng Lap Seng and the founder of South South News, on December 14 the UN Correspondents Association sold seats with Ban Ki-moon for $6000. Periscope I here;Periscope II here.
UN corruption, never reformed, rises from the Ashes, courtesy of UNCA, now the UN Corruption Association.
And yet, from inside Cipriani Wall Street, one of the musicians paid to play has an open mind, and when shown reporting on UN corruption asks, Should I make a scene? Tweet here.
Just ask, who here paid $6000 as solicited by UNCA to sit with Ban Ki-moon. And why pay it? With Ng Lap Seng, it's clear.
Is it journalism to solicit and take money from those you ostensibly cover? Where does it go? We'll have more on this.
Earlier on December 14 UNCA lobbed three softball questions to Ban -- none on Burundi, for example -- from the former president of UNCA Pamela Falk, then the current vice president and finally the current questioner for UNCA. Inner City Press loudly asked a question about the killings in Burundi, which Ban declined to answer. Vine here.
Inner City Press for the new Free UN Coalition for Access asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric about the propriety of UNCA selling seats with Ban. Dujarric said, "As long as it's transparent." Is that the standard?
One would expect the UN press corps, even the entity the UN itself chooses to set aside first questions for, to be pursuing rather than be involved in the scandals.
One might also expect UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to be more cautious of colluding in events in which access to him has been sold.
But with the UN Correspondents Association, this year more than ever, that is not the case. The group or its leadership, headed by Italian paparazzi scribe Giampaolo Pioli who after trying to get the investigative Pressthrown out of the UN now covers actors like Morgan Freeman while others at his paper cover the UN, is selling seats with Ban Ki-moon for $6,000.
In response to Press questions about this UNseemly sale of access, Ban's spokesman said "as long as it's transparent." Will that keep the indictments from expanding?
This year's sale of Ban, like to Ng Lap Seng in 2011, is an Italian job, run by pazarazzi / "correspondent" / landlord Giampaolo Pioli.
How does this UNCA sleaze fest differ from the South South Awards, inextricably linked to the indictments of Ng Lap Seng, South South News' Frank Lorenzo and former President of the General Assembly John Ashe? Hardly at all. So what will happen? We'll have more on this.
For now we can report that at the December 11 closed door session on "Revitalization of the General Assembly," both the UN's Controller and Ban Ki-moon's new chief of staff Edmond Mulet made arguments for post-Ashe reforms that a number of member states found far too little. And Ban is slated to have seats next to him sold for $6000. We'll have more on this too.
On December 10, days after Pioli used the large room the UN gives to UNCA, its UN Censorship Alliance, to campaign for a Security Council seat for his native Italy by giving out free meats, the view into the Club was blocked. So much for transparency.
While calling for an audit of sale of UN access under John Ashe, should Ban openly allow access to him to be sold? He appears intent on doing so, or operating by inertia, on automatic pilot. Inner City Press now learns that Ban's twice delayed report on the cover up of peacekeepers' rapes in the Central African Republic will be pushed further back, after the sell-out, buried. We'll have more on this.
UNCA's awards, such as they gave to South South News for money, include awards and payments to entities who've served on their own Board.
The United Nations Correspondents Association is honored to invite you to participate and contribute to the 20th annual UNCA Awards event with guest of honor U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and H.S.H. Prince Albert II of Monaco, recipient of the 2015 Global Advocate of the Year Award for climate change. Exclusive raffle prizes include business class airline tickets around the world with hotel accommodations and a grand prize FIAT 500X car. As your esteemed presence will ensure the success of this event, we are pleased to send you the below opportunities to attend the gala dinner:
Mission Table Special Price / $6000 (half-table) 5 seats at VIP table at the gala event
Special Ambassador Contribution / $2,000 -1 VIP ticket for Ambassador with premium seating to dinner + 1 complimentary VIP ticket for spouse or guest -Special acknowledgement of the Ambassador and the Mission in the UNCA Awards Journal of the evening -Additional tickets for UN Diplomats of the Mission can be purchased at the special price of $750 each
Giampaolo Pioli, UNCA President Please make all checks payable to 'UNCA Awards Committee' Contributions to the UNCA Awards Committee are tax deductible. The UNCA Awards Committee is a 501-c(3)"
This is precisely the type of sale of access involved in the indictments of Ng, Sheri Yan and Frank Lorenzo.
While others are announcing audits and freezing such contacts, UNCA under Pioli is bulling forward, charging ever more money, getting ever further from journalistic purposes.
On November 20, Pioli's UNCA circulated a list of candidates with no competition for any of the six officer positions. It also pre-announced its awards, including to Reuters (on its Board) and others. We'll have more on this.
For the three running unopposed for five president slots, two were already on the UNCA board during the relevant time period; the other isPioli's former protege at Quotidiano Nazionale. It's an Italian thing.
UNITED NATIONS, December 23 -- When the UN General Assembly approved a $5.4 billion two-year budget on the evening on December 23, there were a lot of late nights in the basement's Conference Rooms 5, 6, 7 and 8 were behind it. Inner City Press periodically covered that basement action, on Twitter and Periscope - but for the final approval, the Press was absent or shut out.
Inner City Press went to cover the approval session but found the door to media booths locked, and no one to open them. Through a circuitous route, Inner City Press arrived at the public balcony - which was entirely empty. A supervisor from UN Security - which this week told Inner City Press to be quiet as it spoke about corruption by former President of the GA John Ashe -- said he would not open the media booths.
There was some drama: Cuba called a point of order that left new PGA Mogens Lykketoft flummoxed, conferring with Catherine Pollard. Turkey, El Salvador and others took the floor to say they are not party to the Law of the Sea Treaty. Iran criticized the politicization of this year's Syria human rights resolution.
Ironically, Canada and EU and US spoke at length about transparency, even as the public balcony was empty and the media booths locked. Worse, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said “openness benefits everyone,” though he has presided over the closing, and refused Inner City Pressquestions on Burundi, then on any topic including the UN corruption scandals at his end of the year press conference.He left Wednesday without taking questions.
By contrast, India's outgoing Ambassador Asoke Mukerji congratulated his Nepali counterpart on a job well done; others congratuled South Africa as chair of the Group of 77. There was a lot of hard work done in the Committee and it should be praised. In 2016, however, the UN must do better. Watch this site.
UNITED NATIONS, June 22 -- French soldiers in the Central African Republic allegedly sexually abused children, as exposed in a UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights report given to the French government by longtime OHCHR staffer Anders Kompass.
Kompass was urged to resign -- according to a UN Dispute Tribunal ruling reinstating him, by French head of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous, who has since tersely denied it -- and Miranda Brown who worked with him did in fact have her UN service ended, see below.
On June 23 Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric why the investigation of Kompass would continue alongside Ban's new panel - and why Ban was refusing to disclose the country of origin of a new set of accused child sexual abusers, this time directly in the MINUSCA mission.
Dujarric on the latter replied that Ban will wait until (at least) his next report to begin naming names. In response, Inner City Press can report that senior UN sources have exclusively told it that in CAR the allegation is of two peacekeepers having sex with a 12 year old girl for less than one dollar - and these these peacekeepers are from Burundi.
That Ban would refuse to disclose this is particularly troubling in light of questions raised by Burundi civil society, and the Free UN Coalition for Access, about Ladsous' Peacekeeping still using abusive Burundi security forces. We'll have more on this.
On June 23 the UN's Fifth (Budget) Committee is set to approve a resolution (we've put it online here and embedded below) which, on these issues, says that
Special measures for protection from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse
42. Recalls section IV of its resolution 66/264 and reaffirms the collective and unanimous position that one substantiated case of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse is one case too many;
43. Reaffirms the need for full implementation of the United Nations policy of zero-tolerance of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse in peacekeeping operations;
44. Welcomes the Secretary-General’s determination to strengthen measures for protection from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse in the areas of prevention, enforcement and remedial action;
45. Notes the declining number of reported allegations of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse cases during this reporting period, and reiterates its concern at the number of cases, particularly those involving the most egregious forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse;
46. Expresses concern about the response of the United Nations to the recent allegations of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse in the Central African Republic;
47. Welcomes the establishment of an External Independent Review by the Secretary-General to review and assess the response of the United Nations to recent allegations of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, including in the Central African Republic, as well as a broad range of systemic issues related to how the United Nations responds to serious information of this kind, and encourages the Review to give due consideration to decision-making processes in all involved departments and offices and at all levels of the Organisation, including senior management;
48. Requests the Secretary-General to report expeditiously to the General Assembly on the findings of the Review, and further requests him to report on the lessons learned and measures for improvement no later than the main part of its seventieth session; 49. Recalls the Secretary-General’s Bulletin ST/SGB/2005/21 on protection against retaliation for reporting misconduct and for cooperating with duly authorized audits or investigations, and welcomes the prompt reporting in good faith of any misconduct, including sexual exploitation and sexual abuse in peacekeeping operations;
50. Recalls paragraph 21 of its resolution 69/272, encourages the Secretary-General to continue his efforts to strengthen accountability in all sectors of field missions, and, to this end, urges the Secretary-General and Member States to undertake all relevant actions within their respective areas of competence, including holding perpetrators accountable; 51. Requests the Secretary-General to ensure the availability of easily accessible reporting mechanisms for victims of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse;
52. Also requests the Secretary-General to improve the timeliness and quality of investigations;
53. Stresses the importance of responsibility and accountability of the most senior managers in HQ and missions in determining organisational behaviour and leading by example for the conduct of both uniformed personnel and civilian staff in peacekeeping operations;
54. Requests the Secretary-General to make further efforts to ensure that all personnel are made fully aware of, and remain compliant with, their personal responsibilities regarding the zero-tolerance policy of the Organisation, upon their arrival in the mission and throughout their deployment;
55. Stresses the importance of training all personnel for the prevention of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, and requests the Secretary-General to expedite the development of the e-learning programme and deploy it as soon as possible; 56. Recognizes the commitment of the troop-contributing countries to the United Nations zero tolerance policy against sexual exploitation and abuse;
57. Recalls paragraph 55 of the report of the Secretary-General (A/69/779) and requests the Secretary-General to engage in consultations with MS, in particular TCCS, on the reporting methodology on SEA cases, and to update the relevant Committees on the results of his efforts in this regard in his future reports;
58. Reiterates the importance of improving the collaboration between the SG and the TCCs and PCCs with regard to allegations of SEA, emphasizing the need to maintain a frequent exchange of information on the ongoing processes;
The UN tried to forestall questions by saying Secretary General Ban Ki-moon would name an independent panel to investigate. On June 5, Inner City Press exclusively reported that Ban himself told a group of states his panel would include at least one African, and one woman. The slower FP Turtle re-reported this, days later, as if heard for the first time; later it said Sweden is on the group, which is not the case.
On June 22 Ban belatedly named his three member panel. While it's called independent, one of the three members currently works for the UN's International Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda (ICTR), Hassan Jallow.
Inner City Press at the June 22 UN noon briefing asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric how then it could be considered independent. He insisted it should be seen that way, while separately stating that everyone who works for the UN is paid by the UN.
On June 23, Dujarric returned to say Jallow will be stepping away in some fashion from the ICTR.
The other two members are Yasmin Sooka of South Africa, previously on a UN panel on Sri Lanka, and Marie Deschamps, a retired Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. “No Volcker,” one observer remarked.
Inner City Press asked Dujarric to confirm that Ban's deputy Jan Eliasson met on June 19 with concerned member states -- he did -- and to explain why this was not on Eliasson's public schedule (he did not). Inner City Press asked about Spokesman Dujarric about a UN spokesperson calling whistleblower Kompass a “sleaze-bag.” Video here.
On June 11 Miranda Brown wrote a second letter to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, stating that Ban's Executive Office and presumably his Deputy Jan Eliasson knew back on August 8, 2014 of the evidence of child rape in CAR by French "peacekeepers" - and did nothing except months later try to get Kompass to resign.
On June 12, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric about this and he denied that Deputy Secretary General Eliasson knew anything about the CAR sexual abuse allegations in August 2014, saying he only learned of them in April 2015.
Inner City Press asked if this meant the UN was denying the existence of an April 8, 2015 email from Ban's executive office saying that Eliasson would be briefed.
Dujarric responded by saying "categorically" that Eliasson was not told of the CAR allegations until April 2015. See transcript below.
In light of this response, Inner City Press now reports it is informed that the August 8, 2014 response from Ban's Executive Office was not from any clerical or scheduling staff, but high official Andrew Gilmour, whose influence spreads to Syria and elsewhere, who said DSG Eliasson would be briefed that afternoon." If he wasn't, why not? And who was briefed? We'll have more on this.
Inner City Press: Two interrelated questions. One has to do with Miranda Brown, who I have asked you about before, whistle-blower, has put in writing that the Office of Ban Ki-Moon was told about the sexual allegations and evidence of sexual abuse in Central Africa Republic on, at latest, 8 August 2014. She says there was a response by that office to Mr. [Anders] Kompass's assistant saying that Jan Eliasson had been put in charge of it. I'd like to know what’s your response to that? It's very different than hearing what they heard about it in the spring. How would you explain the lack of action, given that? The inter-related question is that on the report that you insist on calling a draft, when it was given to the DFS [Department of Field Support], but actually it was finished, it was just withheld for a month. It says clearly in the report that victims are not… that there's a problem. United Nations have performed very poorly in assisting victims of sexual abuse and assault. Only 26 of 217 SEA [sexual exploitation and abuse] victims were even referred for assistance and it's unclear if they received any. So, I'm wondering, on Monday, are you going to have, like, a written response that is available?
Spokesman: I think what… it's hard for me to predict what I'm going to do in the next hour, so I don't know what we'll have on Monday. On your second part, this UN report, this OIOS report is yet another tool to help the system, DFS, DPKO and all the parts of the house to perform better on issues relating to sexual abuse and exploitation. We can always do better and we need to do much better. On the issue of support for the victims and follow-through in support of the victims, one of the big challenges that we have had is the lack of funding, is that what had been proposed by the Secretary-General was not funded by the Member States. We've had to do it with existing resources and we haven't had the funds that we needed. We also need to do better in terms of communications to the population at large in terms of how they can access hot line, what their rights are, what is illegal, how they can protect themselves. There are all sorts of ways we can improve. I think what we have seen since, over the past number of years, is a decrease of cases of sexual abuse while overall the number of peacekeepers has increased. What I would go on to Miss Brown, she makes a number of claims in her letter, which are, you know, claims. Obviously, as to who was told in various offices, when, what and where it will be looked at thoroughly by the external panel, independent panel, which we hope to announce, hopefully next week. What I can tell you categorically is that the Deputy Secretary-General was only made aware of this issue in April. So, that is a fact which I am telling you now. What information was passed onto his office, to whom it was passed on, how that was dealt with, that will be looked at by the review panel, but the Deputy Secretary-General was not made aware of this issue until April of this year.
Inner City Press: So, are you saying an 8 April 2014 email from Executive Office of Ban Ki-Moon to Ms. Linnea Arvidsson, Mr. Kompass's personal assistant, indicating that the Deputy Secretary-General would be briefed on the report that was submitted doesn't exist?
Spokesman: That's not what at all I'm saying. What I'm saying is that obviously the panel will have access to e-mails, will look as to who received what documents, who was informed, who was not informed. What I can tell you categorically is that, personally, the Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations was not informed of this until April.
Inner City Press: In March on the timeline… in March, when it was the staff retreat in Turin and Ms. [Susana] Malcorra asked OIOS and the Ethics Office to get together to speak about Mr. Kompass, who else other than Miss Malcorra was made aware that…?
Spokesman: All these issues will be looked at, but she makes a claim regarding the Deputy Secretary-General, which I counter and which to me is false.
Miranda Brown, regarding whose case Inner City Press has repeatedly asked the UN in New York and Geneva, writes:
"I was the Acting Director of the Africa Branch at OHCHR in early August 2014 during the period shortly after the MINUSCA report came to OHCHR’s attention in Geneva. Mr Kompass was my direct supervisor at the time. My testimony to the OIOS investigation would have supported Mr Kompass’ decision to disclose the MINUSCA report to the French Government and would have shed light on many elements relating to the disclosure.
"Emails document my involvement and I was the key contact between OHCHR and MINUSCA during the period immediately following the disclosure. Following my email to Mr Kompass on 7 August 2014, the Special Assistant to Deputy High Commissioner Flavia Pansieri, Ms Linnea Arvidsson, sent an email to the Executive Office of the Secretary General informing the UN leadership about the allegations of child sexual abuse in the Central African Republic and advising the UN leadership that the unredacted MINUSCA report had been transmitted to the French Government. Ms Arvidsson’s email to your Executive Office included as attachments the unredacted MINUSCA report and the letter of acknowledgement from the French Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva, Ambassador Nicolas Niemtchinow. On 8 August 2014, your Executive Office confirmed receipt of Ms Arvidsson’s email and indicated that the Deputy Secretary General was being briefed about the transmittal of the unredacted report to the French Government.
"Thus the UN leadership, including your Executive Office and the Deputy Secretary General as aware that the unredacted MINUSCA report had been transmitted to the French Government. If child victims and witnesses had been put at risk through the transmittal of the unredacted report to the French Government, why did the UN leadership wait until March 2015 to take disciplinary action against Mr Kompass? At the time, in August 2014, the message being conveyed to OHCHR staff in Geneva was that the UN leadership considered Mr Kompass’ disclosure of the unredacted MINUSCA report to the French Government to b appropriate under the circumstances."
Inner City Press asks again: what did Ban and his Office DO after being informed of the evidence of French "peacekeepers" child rape in CAR on August 7-8, 2014? Ban's (French) head of UN Peacekeeping appears in the UNDT ruling asking for Kompass to resign. His UNexplained subsequent denial then (like Ban) long trip out of New York has left these questions unanswered. But the questions must be answered. Watch this site.
On June 8, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric first about the French forces' non-inclusion in Ban's Children and Armed Conflict list, then about the whistleblowers, video here, transcript here:
Inner City Press: it seems like the abuse the UN was aware of in the Central African Republic by the French Sangaris forces, was there any consideration of including them and if so, why not?
Spokesman Dujarric: On the CAR [Central African Republic], the situation in the CAR, part of the CAR was drafted with the information available at the time of the writing of the report. As you know, the… we do hope to announce soon the external independent inquiry which will shed light on the process.
Inner City Press: I'm sorry to reiterate this. I'd sent you these questions but wanted to ask you. I asked the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights who said that Mr. Kompass is going to be extended, although he also said it's not Geneva's decision; it's up to New York. And there are several Member State who believe he's not being extended--
Spokesman: No, I have no indication whatsoever that his contract will not be renewed.
Inner City Press: It does apparently expire in one month.
Spokesman: Right. No, as I said, I have no indication whatsoever that his contract will not be renewed.
Inner City Press: ]OHCHR] had said something about contracts being automatically extended if a person is under investigation. Is that your understanding?
Spokesman: I think that is very likely a policy but as I said, for Mr. Kompass, I have no indication that his…
Inner City Press: The other thing I asked you is about Miranda Brown who was an… worked with Mr. Kompass and has since been terminated. I know that she wrote a letter to the Secretary-General dated 23 May saying she's willing to participate, but not if she's fired by the UN and has no immunity. Has the Secretary-General’s responded to the letter?
Spokesman: I don't believe there has been a response. I don't know if it was received. I don't believe she was terminated, I think her fixed-term contract was not renewed.
Inner City Press: What would you say to those who say if you actually want to know… this was a person who was number two to Kompass at the time involved. What arrangements were being made to try to get her evidence?
Spokesman: I think we would have to leave that to the panel once it's named.
Miranda Brown wrote to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon:
"I am a key witness in the Office of Internal Oversight Service (OIOS) investigation into the disclosure by Mr Anders Kompass, Director at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), of the MINUSCA report Sexual Abuse on Children by International Armed Forces in the M’Poko IDP camp in Bangui, Central African Republic to the French authorities.
Despite my appeals to the High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, my employment at OHCHR was terminated on 21 May 2015, one day before I was scheduled to provide testimony as a key witness in the OIOS investigation. Please see attached OIOS’ repeated requests to interview me. As a result of my termination, I now have no functional immunity and given this and the punitive termination of my employment, I am scared of testifying in the investigation.
I was the Acting Director of the Africa Branch at OHCHR in early August 2014 during the period shortly after the MINUSCA report came to OHCHR’s attention in Geneva. Mr Kompass was my direct supervisor at the time. Emails document my involvement and I was the key contact between OHCHR and MINUSCA during the period immediately following the disclosure.
My testimony to the OIOS investigation would have supported Mr Kompass’ decision to disclose the MINUSCA report to the French Government and would have shed light on many elements relating to the disclosure. As such, my testimony would also have been very embarrassing and potentially problematic for High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein and others in the UN leadership, who have publicly denounced Mr Kompass for wrongdoing and placing victims, investigators and witnesses at risk.
The stated reason for the termination of my employment at OHCHR is that there is no position available for me at OHCHR headquarters in Geneva, where half of the roughly one thousand OHCHR staff work. This explanation is implausible, deeply suspicious, bears all the hallmarks of retaliation, and is, at best, an abject failure to protect a key witness and, at worst, constitutes possible witness tampering. I have requested an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the termination of my employment at OHCHR.
I understand there may have been a second disclosure of the MINUSCA report to the French authorities by a female staff member at OHCHR, and that because of my prior history as a whistleblower at World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), suspicions may have fallen on me as the source of the second disclosure. This is false. While I agree with Mr Kompass’ decision to disclose the report to the French authorities and enjoy good relations with the French Permanent Mission in Geneva, I have had no contact with the French Government on the MINUSCA report. The French Government would be able to confirm this. I believe that I know the female OHCHR staff member who made the second disclosure to the French Permanent Mission in Geneva. I do not expect her identity will be revealed as she would then herself become at risk of reprisal.
Secretary General, if you would like my testimony in the OIOS investigation and for this investigation to have any credibility at all, you will need to immediately reinstate me in a P5 level position in Geneva, if necessary in another UN organisation or entity. I shall be willing to testify in this investigation or another inquiry if one is launched, once my functional immunity is restored, my job is safe and I no longer fear retaliation. I am sure you will agree that the Member States of the United Nations expect the investigation into Mr Kompass’ disclosure of the MINUSCA report to the French authoritiesand any subsequent inquiry into these matters to be thorough, fair, transparent and impartial.
This will not be the case without my testimony, however inconvenient this might prove to some in the UN leadership."
What will Ban do, now that he has belatedly said he will appoint an “independent” Panel?
Meanwhile, amid reports that OHCHR would not extend Kompass' contract, Inner City Press asked OHCHR spokesperson Rupert Colville to “confirm or deny this decision to not extend this fixed term contract.”
Colville has, in fact, denied, writing to Inner City Press that
“It is not true. Like all the rest of us, Anders's contract has an end date (which is indeed some time in July). The High Commissioner will request that it be extended (the final decision for someone at Anders's very senior D2 level is in fact made in New York not Geneva). However, when someone's contract ends while they are under investigation, an extension is automatically granted anyway.”
The answer is appreciate. But why didn't that policy apply to Miranda Brown? Watch this site.
On June 3, after Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced an intention to name an independent panel at least 14 UN member statesmet about its terms of reference and to whom beyond Ban it should report, as Inner City Press exclusively details below.
Now Inner City Press reports on the June 5 meeting between four of those states -- minus South Africa - which met on June 5 with Ban Ki-moon and more than a half dozen other officials, including Deputy Eliasson, DFS' Atule Khare, Herve Ladsous' fill-in and others.
The states -- the UN identified them as Australia, Guatemala, Japan and Finland, though the last was Norway -- went in with a series of positions and questions, including:
"We are concerned by the damage that these incidents, and their follow-up, have done to the UN’s reputation and credibility in an area where the UN is expected to uphold the highest standards and values.
The review must be conducted in an expeditious manner and the results must be fully transparent.
It is crucial that the review looks at the whole chain of events, including the senior management’s decisions leading to disciplinary action against Mr. Anders Kompass. This has cast doubt about the credibility of the UN’s human rights commitments in field missions and about the integrity of its whistleblower policy.
It is crucial to remove any doubts that the UN is fully committed to preventing sexual exploitation and abuse and to ensure effective investigation of any such allegations in field missions. In addition, accountability for perpetrators, and protection and assistance to victims, must be ensured.
Questions: What will be the scope of the Independent External Review (CAR only? The UN’s handling of the investigation, SEA more broadly?)
To what extent has the Human Rights Up Front approach been applied?
Will the review look at institutional reforms to better address cases of SEA, including timely reporting and action in cases of abuse?
Will the review look at the protection of whistleblowers? What is the status regarding the pending case against Mr. Anders Kompass – in light of doubts that have been raised about this process?"
In fact, Inner City Press is informed that OHCHR and Zeid personally are poised to not renew Kompass' fixed term contract, set to expire on July 8, 2015, and to give the required one month notice by June 8.
Inner City Press in response to the UN read-out on the evening of June 5 formally asked the UN Spokesman: "I have heard that UN OHCHR has decided not to extend Anders Kompass' fixed term contract, which is set to expire on July 8, 2015. I understand that under UN rules, he must be given one month's notice and will thus need to receive notification by no later than Monday June 8, 2015.
"Given the allegations of retaliation (and the UNDT ruling), please confirm or deny this decision to not extend this fixed term contract."
This retaliation, despite US Mission attempts to protect the UN, could result in funding cuts or at least damaging hearings. But as with Ladsous, high UN officials are allowed to operate out of control in their fiefdoms.
In response to the above, Inner City Press can exclusively report these UN responses:
The Office of the High Commisioner for Human Rights is sending a team to the Central African Republic.
Regarding the External Independent Review, it was assured that it will be done by someone completely outside the UN, also excluding the UN’s own investigative capacity. It was still not decided who would lead the panel, but it would consist of at least one woman and one African. It would examine the specific case of allegations in the Central African Republic, but also look at the broad range of systemic issues being raised.
Regarding the time-frame and further ToR’s of the Review, this would be discussed after the meeting and be determined shortly.
Regarding the case of Anders Kompass, it was pointed out that the separate investigation was ongoing, and the outcome must be awaited before further comments.
But if Zeid intends to not extend Kompas' fixed term contract, that part of it is moot. And Ban is heading off on another long trip. Watch this site.
Note: three days after Inner City Press exclusively reported that Ban told the ambassadors he would name an African and a woman, slower others are repeating it, citing "diplomats." That's the UN beat.
An emerging and damaging question for the UN is who knew what, when. Inner City Press asked when Ban knew of the alleged child rapes -- "March" is now the answer.
There was a retreat of all senior UN officials in Turin, Italy on March 18-19, 2015. This was days after Kompass says he was told the French Under Secretary General for Peacekeeping Operations Herve Ladsous wanted him to resign. (Ladsous now denies this, see below.)
In Turin, Ban's chief of staff Susan Malcorra put together the ostensibly independent Ethics Office and Office of Internal Oversight Services, calling into further question the UN's claimed whistleblower protections.
If Ban's chief of staff knew of the alleged child rapes, it is difficult to believe Ban didn't know. But what did he do?
Which of the other high UN officials present in Turin learned there or before about the alleged child rapes, by then already covered up for months? There is a photo of the participants.
UN in Turin, March 19, 2015 UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe ICP: Who knew?
These include some who want to run to replace Ban, or for other high positions. We will have more on this.
The UN did not give the report to the host country authorities in CAR. And according to UN documents -- on May 29 released in more detail by Code Blue naming Ladsous directly, here -- UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous then urged that the whistleblower Kompass be forced to resign.
The documents also implicate a number of other UN officials, and French government inaction, see below. After Press questioning turned to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, what he knew and when he knew it, Ban on June 3 announced an intention to set up an "independent" Panel. Inner City Press asked if it will report only to Ban -- yes. This is a problem. Video here.
On June 3 a meeting was convened to seek answers and improvement on the UN's response, by Guatemala and Norway, with attendees from all UN Regional Groups, see below. Inner City Press has spoken with several members; Norway will be requesting a meeting for the group with Ban Ki-moon, on topics ranging from to whom the Panel will report to its Terms of Reference to the actions of OIOS and the Ethics Office.
As Inner City Press analyzed below, there is a history of UN panels being used to cover up.
Now Code Blue has these three recommendations:
"First, this must be a truly external and independent inquiry. No member of existing UN staff should be appointed to investigate nor to act as the investigators’ secretariat.
"Second, it must be understood that top members of the Secretary-General’s own staff will have to be subject to investigation. This must go right up to the level of Under-Secretaries General. No one can be excluded, whether the Director of the Ethics Office or the USG of the Office of Internal Oversight Services or the Secretary-General’s own Chef de Cabinet. It would appear that all of them and more acted inappropriately in response to the dreadful events in CAR.
"Third, the reference in the Secretary-General’s announcement of a review to ‘the broad range of systemic issues’ is crucial to the inquiry. What happened in the Central African Republic was an atrocity, but the fact that the UN stood silent for nearly a year after its own discovery of widespread peacekeeper sexual abuse (even if by non-UN troops) is itself a bitter commentary on the Secretary-General’s declared policy of ‘zero tolerance’."
Inner City Press would add, past UN staff and offiicals as well. Consider these past panels, as put together and at the end analyzed by Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access:
On 22 September 2003, Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed Mr. Martti Ahtisaari, former President of Finland, to chair an Independent Panel on the Safety and Security of UN Personnel in Iraq.
The priority of the Independent Panel’s investigation of the “oil-for-food” programme was to “get after” allegations of corruption and misconduct within the United Nations itself and, more broadly, the question of the maladministration of the “oil-for-food” programme, stated Paul A. Volcker, Chairman of the Independent Panel, in a press conference at UNHQ.
The UN Commission of Inquiry, appointed by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at the request of the Pakistani Government, reached no conclusion as to the organizers and sponsors behind the attack in which a 15-year-old suicide bomber blew up Ms. Bhutto’s vehicle in the city of Rawalpindi on 27 December 2007. The three-member panel, which was headed by Chilean Ambassador to UN Heraldo Muñoz and included Marzuki Darusman, former attorney-general of Indonesia, and Peter Fitzgerald, a veteran official of the Irish National Police, urged the Government to undertake police reform in view of its “deeply flawed performance and conduct.”
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon established the Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident on 2 August 2010. The Panel received and reviewed reports of the detailed national investigations conducted by both Turkey and Israel.
On 22 June 2010, the Secretary-General announced the appointment of a Panel of Experts to advise him on the implementation of the joint commitment included in the statement issued by the President of Sri Lanka and the Secretary-General at the conclusion of the Secretary-General's visit to Sri Lanka on 23 March 2009.
Meanwhile UN staff advocates have written to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, his chief of staff and Ladsous, among others, demanding resignations. On June 2 Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric, who Banned any Inner City Press question to Ladsous on May 29, what Ban Ki-moon DID, once he learned in March about the rapes.Video here and embedded below.
Dujarric said he had nothing to add to his previous answers. Huh?
Inner City Press asked Dujarric, in light of OHCHR Zeid using a private email address for UN business, what the UN's record retention policy is. Dujarric said the policy must be available somewhere. To this has the UN descended.
Dujarric said the investigation by Lapointe's OIOS, discredited in the leaked emails, will "lead where it will lead." But Lapointe has told OIOS invstigators to not go beyond what they are asked to look at -- in this case, only the whistleblower. This is called a cover up.
When Hillary Clinton used the UN Security Council stakeout to belatedly answer questions about her own use of private email while US Secretary of State, it was described as an accident of scheduling, or attempt to use the UNSC backdrop to convey gravitas. But the echo now with Prince Zeid also using private email for presumably public business raises similar questions.
Anders Kompass was asked to send his side of the story -- to a private email address, but wisely declined.
Beyond the treatment of Kompass himself, the documents show pressure brought to bear on lower-level staff to make and thereby launder the high officials' desire for an investigation of Kompass.
Most directly, it is asked, what UN staff member will now report fraud or misconduct, knowing that OIOS and the Ethics Office will then discuss the accusations with their boss? This is a question Inner City Press on May 29 asked UN Spokesman Staphen Dujarric, who BannedInner City Press from putting a single question to Ladsous - the question has yet to be answered.
UN staff advocates have written directly to Ban Ki-moon and his deputy, Ladsous and Atul Khare and others, demanding resignations. They are offended by the exposure of lack of independence at the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services and UN Ethics Office, and question whether the US should cut off funding under the 2014 U.S. Consolidated Appropriation Act, section 7048(a)(1)(B). After reading those leaked documents, how exactly can the U.S. Secretary of State (or anybody else) certify that the UN's whistle-blower policy fulfils the Act's requirements? Is there any "independent adjudicative body" in this chain? Evidently the Ethics Office and OIOS are not."
The staff notice Ban's appearance at another softball soccer game, among those who are supposed to hold him and the UN accountable. The call for Ladsous to resign out be fired has spread from the African Group to Latin America and GRULAC.
On May 30, OHCHR for Prince Zeid issued a statement beginning, "In the wake of the revelations of alleged serious sexual abuse of children."
But Zeid was told of the allegations long before their "revelation" via leaks. And tellingly, he continued to mistakenly think and say the rapes were in Mali and not CAR.
Likewise, both UN Peacekeeping's Herve Ladsous -- listed as urging the whistleblower to resign, which he denies while refusing to take questions on -- and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon both knew of the alleged child rapes by "the Spring," but did nothing.
This requires an investigation, and not by the UN's Office of Internal Oversight Services, shown to not be independent, told to meet Zeid and the UN Ethics Office by Ban's chief of staff Susan Malcorra.
Inner City Press reported on some of the documents and went to Ladsous' rare press conference on May 29 (International Day of UN Peacekeepers) in order to ask some questions. Video here.
But Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric, choosing who could ask questions, refused to call on Inner City Press, even for Ladsous to say, as he did under Dujarric's predecessor Martin Nesirky, "I don't respond to you, Mister."
So Inner City Press objected, on behalf of the new Free UN Coalition for Access (the old UNCA has become part of the problem) and asked questions, video here, transcript here.
The documents also call into serious question the claims of "independence" from the office of Ban Ki-moon of the Office of Internal Oversight Services and the UN Ethics Office.
Consider this: OIOS head Carman Lapointe, writing to James Finness (still in charge of the "investigation" spokesman Stephane Dujarric continues to use as an excuse to not answer question), noted that at the UN staff retreat in March "I received an urgent email from the CdC [Ban's Chef de Cabinet Susana Malcorra] to meet with Zeid, Flavia and Joan."
So OIOS is not independent - it can to told, by Ban's chief of staff, to meet with collaborate with the Ethics Office as well as OHCHR's Zeid and Pansieri.
Inner City Press previously reported on and asked Dujarric about OIOS' flawed process and a high profile recusal, see below.
As noted, Inner City Press reported on some of the documents and went to Ladsous' rare press conference on May 29 (International Day of UN Peacekeepers) in order to ask some questions.
But Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric, choosing who could ask questions, refused to call on Inner City Press, even for Ladsous to say, as he did under Dujarric's predecessor Martin Nesirky, "I don't respond to you, Mister."
So why did Nesirky allow Press questions to Ladsous, and Dujarric didn't?
Dujarric set the first question aside for "UNCA" -- but called on an individual who was not elected to their board, who lost the election; her question was a vague softball offering Ladsous a chance to comment on Central African Republic. He said, it was one nation, not under blue helmet.
But Ladsous' MINUSCA mission knew of the sexual abuse since at latest August 5, 2014. Inner City Press said, "Follow up on CAR?" Dujarric called on Reuters, which previously wrote to him trying to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN (then filed to get his leaked complaint blocked or Banned from Google's Search, here.) Reuters did not even aske about the CAR sexual abuse.
What emerged is that both Ladsous -- and, troublingly, Ban Ki-moon -- were formally informed of the sexual abuse of children in CAR "in the spring." What date? And what did they do?
Dujarric said, "last question;" as Ladsous left the room Inner City Press asked Ladsous about him speaking about the whistleblower Kompass with OHCHR's Zeid, also a subject of the new documents -- no answer.
Inner City Press objected to Dujarric, who has fielded or dodged a dozen Inner City Press questions about the CAR rapes and Ladsous' role, not even being allowed to ask a question. Dujarric said, "Noted."Video here.
And what? Again, Dujarric's predecessor Nesirky, and his deputy Del Buey, allowed Inner City Press to put questions to Ladsous. What if the difference? We'll have more on this.
On July 30, 2014, Ambassador Nicolas Niemtchinow, Permanent Representative of France to the UN in Geneva wrote to Kompass that action was being taken. But then, nothing.
On August 5, 2014 the Human Rights Officer in CAR of OHCHR wrote to Renner Onana of the already-then UN mission MINUSCA; DPKO's SRSG Babacar Gaye was referenced.
So when did Gaye or MINUSCA tell DPKO chief Ladsous?
Tellingly, even the UN's cover up was delayed by High Commissioner Prince Zeid thinking he heard of French troops' sexual abuse in MINUSMA (Mali) and not MINUSCA (CAR).
Zeid asked his predecessor Navi Pillay if she met with French representatives about rapes in Mali -- the answer was no -- then much later asked her if she'd met with the French about CAR (the answer was yes.)
It was Zeid's Deputy Flavia Pansieri who conveyed Ladsous' directive to Kompass to resign. Zeid in his statement makes much of Pansieri meeting with a Swedish diplomat in the street, in casual clothes, after Sweden raised l'affaire Kompass at a dinner in honor of Ban Ki-moon's Deputy Jan Eliasson. THe UN's move now seems to be to try to lay all blame on Pansieri, whose term was expiring anyway. We'll have more on this.
"On 12 March 2015 meeting with the Deputy High Commissioner I was informed that the High Commissioner requested my resignation for the way I dealt with the reports of paedophilia in the Central African Republic. I was told that the High Commissioner had been asked for my resignation by Mr. Ladsous, Under Secretary-General for the Department of Peacekeeping Operations in New York, during a visit of the High Commissioner to New York."
Absent from the UN Fifth (Budget) Committee's May 18 meeting was not only embattled Peacekeeping chief Ladsous,, but also OIOS' Carman Lapointe.
In her stead for OIOS was Michael Stefanovic, who told the Fifth Committee that he has recused himself from the investigation and has written to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon as to why.
This is highly irregular. If the recusal was made on a personal connection between Stefanovic and the whistleblower Anders Kompass, Stefanovic would have recused himself from the earlier investigation - but he didn't. If it were such a recusal, he would have written to Lapointe, and not to the S-G.
For now we add this -- if OIOS Director Stefanovic has a conflict of interest, how can the UN be asking others to rely on an OIOS investigation? Inner City Press has asked a Permanent Member of the Security Council -- not France -- if an OIOS investigation would be sufficient, and has been told "No."
Now we have this, from the Fifth Committee's May 20 meeting:
Lapointe, summoned to the meeting via her Byun-kun Min, was asked
-When did OIOS/ID start the investigation into Anders Kompass?
-Why did Mr. Stefanovic recuse himself from the Kompass investigation?
-In view of Mr. Stefanovic recusing himself, did Ms. Lapointe see any impediments for the scope of the investigation, especially as it appeared to implicate an ASG or USG in misconduct?
Note - this is a reference to UN Peacekeeping USG Ladsous.
Multiple sources tell Inner City Press Lapointe replied that Stefanovic told only the Secretary General, not her, that he recused himself, and that the Deputy Director of OIOS in Vienna is now "overseeing" the investigation.
So those now on the case are James Finniss, Kanja and Margaret Gichanga -- who has been asking to interview WIPO whistleblower Miranda Brown, who worked alongside Kompass for a time. We'll have more on this. It is a new low for the UN.
Back on May 18, Inner City Press, staking out the Budget Committee meeting, spoke with Ban's chief of staff Susana Malcorra when she left the meeting. Here is a transcript, followed by an exclusive summary of what happened inside the closed meeting.
Inner City Press: How did it go in there? Are their questions answered?
CdC Malcorra: Well I hope, yes. Some of them still have questions that will be answered by my colleague. I think I’ve made a point of what it is that we’re discussing here. This investigation is a UN investigation. It was led by the UN in the field when they had allegations handed to them. It was the human rights cell in the mission that led this investigation. It looks like we were absent, but it was us...
And this investigation could, at least prima facie, there were places clear enough to further investigate by the member state. And as such, the information was provided to a member state. On a separate front, is how the information is provided. And we cannot accept the irresponsibility of the names of the victims, the witnesses and the investigators shared with the member states ... it’s inacceptable. It may look like a bureaucratic approach. It’s not a bureaucratic approach...
Inner City Press: What about not telling Central African Republic authorities?
CdC Malcora: They are discussing that now.
After the meeting ended, and Inner City Press spoke with numerous attendees - a common refrain was that the UN leadership is "in denial" - we have pieced together this summary of the meeting, and the totally insufficient answer on UN Peacekeeping chief Ladsous' role, a lack of recognition of his UNAMID mission's previous cover up of rapes in Tabit in Darfur, which the US and UK and other say they care about, and lack of follow up on whistleblowers.
Attendees' summary of Ban Ki-moon chief of staff Malcorra:
"Malcorra said she had no idea the session would go into the specifics of CAR, she thought it was to touch upon general Sexual Abuse and Exploitation policy (several attendees were dubious and angry about this approach.)
Malcorra said that in the case of misconduct by UN staff the procedures were in place. In this case, even when it was not UN peacekeepers the human rights cell in Bangui was there and they were the ones that initiated the investigation. It is thanks to the UN that allegations were substantiated and it was enough to decide to proceed with a further investigation.
The wrongdoing of the UN staffer Anders Kompass was to have shared the information without it being redacted putting the victims, witnesses and investigators lives in danger. She repeated many times this was a serious breach and that she disagreed with anyone that didn’t view this conduct wrong.
According to Malcorra the UN investigation lasted three months which allowed them to substantiate the allegations. When that finding was final it went to the two lines of command: The head of mission in CAR and the OHCHR. But, several asked, why didn't either of these tell the CAR authorities?
Malcorra said she would have preferred this case hadn't surfaced in the media and that it is regrettable member states have had to learn matters from the press. But that, Malcorra said, member states have to be aware that the press manipulates everything. Several states talked about the UN image and credibility to which Malcorra said she was very sad with those comments because if not for the UN these troops could have gotten away with these disturbing acts. She also said this was a clear case of damned if you do damned if you don’t. But what about the cover up? What about Ladsous?
Malcorra said that “no other element had been taken into account” for Kompass' firing. But member states were aware of Paragraph 9 of the UN Dispute Tribunal ruling reinstating Kompass. As noted, one Permanent Representatives (and several other diplomats) told Inner City Press that Ladsous should resign.
Tellingly, the sources say, Malcorra claimed didn’t recall any UNAMID coverup allegations. Tabit?
Malcorra didn’t even address the Otis report on whistleblowers - which Inner City Press has been asking Ban's spokesman about, repeatedly -- but assured member states that due protections are in place and that an adequate policy exists.
Malcorra said she looks forward to working further on the UN convention in paragraph 57 of the SG report on SEA and agrees that there are systemic flaws, and therefore there will be a review of all the processes.
According to sources in the meeting -- Inner City Press asked and was told to inquiry with member states -- the Legal Counsel and head of OLA qualified as excellent the cooperation with the French Authorities and that the lifting of immunity so far hasn’t been necessary because at this stage its very general requests of information that the UN promptly has given to the French authorities. For the sake of efficiency hasn’t gone through the lifting of immunity process but if a trial or judge becomes involved they will do it quickly at a later stage. Several member states were dubious. The EU, Inner City ress is informed, said “accountability starts at the top.”
Malcorra left unanswered why the host state, the CAR, was not involved. She is said to have ignored the specific question on the status of the OIOS investigation. She ignored the complaints about under-reporting saying that the trend of decrease was very clear and that the USG of DFS would go into details (what he did, genially, was repeat the Secretary General's report).
An impartial investigation was called for, from both sides of the Atlantic and elsewhere. There was a refrain afterward: Ladsous should resign."
A well-placed African Permanent Representative before the meeting told Inner City Press before the meeting that Ladsous should resign. But with him conveniently absent, would others be left holding the bag, trying to explain why he, Ladsous, appears in the UN Dispute Tribunal ruling as urging that the whistleblower resign?
Back on May 8, Inner City Press asked US Ambassador Samantha Power about both issues - the UN's failure to tell the CAR authorities, and Ladsous' "surprising" role, as High Commissioner Zeid put it earlier in the day. Video here and embedded below. Then Inner City Press asked the UN Spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, about the contradiction; for the first time, he gave a timeline.
Here is the video of Inner City Press questions to US Ambassador Power:
It is an answer that may move things forward. Ladsous, it should be noted, just this week snubbed a Joe Biden-linked Hemispheric peacekeeping conference in Uruguay, wasting an $8,000 first class plane ticket and angering many troop contributing countries. He refuses to answer Press question, for example on rapes in Minova, DRC and Tabit in Darfur.
As noted, on May 8, High Commissioner Zeid held a press conference, and twice refused to comment on why Ladsous was said to have pressured to fire or suspend the whistleblower.
Inner City Press has covered Ladsous' role from the beginning, and highlighted his appearance in Paragraph 9 of the UN Dispute Tribunal ruling reinstating Kompass. On May 7, Ladsous told Inner City Press, "I deny that" - then refused to take questions.
Zeid was asked, and first time said he should first give his view of the pressure to the investigator, not the media.
The second time, he said he was surprised to read it -- his Office did not contest that part of the ruling, effectively admitting it -- and that the head of UN Peacekeeping should not have been intervening about a non-UN force. Video here.
Neither he nor the questioners in the room in Geneva said the obvious: Ladsous is a longtime French diplomat; it is not rocket science to read Paragraph 9 as him (inappropriately) still working for "his" country.
Zeid said other things we'll report later; he alluded to the need for a Commission of Inquiry. Some ask, will Ladsous quit before then? Or after?
Early on May 8, UN system staff complained to Inner City Press that UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid of Jordan, in a closed staff meeting on May 8, tried to downplay the scandal, going so far as to blame imams in Bangui for not playing their role.
But it was OHCHR which didn't even give the report of the rape of CAR children to CAR authorities, only to the French.
In places, Zeid appeared to try to use his record ten years ago on sexual abuse to shift the blame to imams. Inner City Press has shown a failure by his Office to act on past leaking, to Morocco. We'll have more on this.
On May 7, Inner City Press asked more questions about this - including to Herve Ladsous himself.
After a long closed-door consultation meeting of the Security Council, Ladsous emerged. Inner City Press asked him, based on Paragraph 9 of the UNDT ruling, Why did you ask Kompass to resign?"
