Inner City Press Asks Tony Lake of N. Mali and Yemen, Gordon Brown of Double Shifts in Schools

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 2 -- Schooling for Syrian refugee children was the topic of a UN press conference by UNICEF's Tony Lake and former UK prime minister Gordan Brown on October 2; they urged the press to writing about it, and so we are.

  The International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity the two promoted seems top heavy, with Larry Summers, Tanzania's Jakaya Kiwete and the World Bank's Jim Kim, Alibaba's Jack Ma and the now ubiquitous Helle Thorning Schmidt, lobbying to replace Antonio Guterres at UNHCR.

  Brown's idea of double shifts in schools in Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan, though, is a good one. Inner City Press asked if this means training more teachers, and of the plight of children in Yemen, and in the North of Mali, where Malian minister Abdulaye Diop says schools in Kidal may re-open on mid October, after being closed for three years. Is the UN system helping?

  Tony Lake said that UNICEF retained a "toehold" in most parts of North Mali -- one wondered if this includes Kidal or not -- and emphasized it's not just about the future of these children, but of their country.

  Gordon Brown appeared to have two bodyguards with him; who is paying for these was another question time did not allow. The UK government?

Back on September 10 when Gordon Brown held a press conference by phone to the UN promoting funding for the schooling of Syrian refugee children, Inner City Press asked Brown about how to help and school those children now on the move, through Turkey and Greece, Serbia and Hungary, Austria and Germany -- but not Denmark (click here about Denmark's candidate to head UNHCR.)

  Brown said that refugee children, those seeking asylum, should be well treated (he declined a question about any particular connection to the UK); he emphasized that most Syrian refugee children remain in the region.

  Inner City Press asked if the funds sought were essentially budget support for Turkey and Lebanon and Jordan, for their schools to take in more students, or for schools in large camps like Za'atari.

  Brown said it is a question of running two shifts of schools in Lebanon and Turkey, he said there are teachers and space, it's funding that is needed.

Back on May 21 Brown was at the UN promoting a new fund for children's education in emergencies, he cited the plight of youths in internally displaced persons camps.

  Inner City Press asked Brown about the alleged sexual abuse of IDP children in the Central African Republic by French soldiers in the Sangaris "peacekeeping" force, which French chief of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous is listed as trying to cover up by firing the whistleblower, in a UN Dispute Tribunal ruling finding that was not contested. Video here.

  Brown first said, I think you know what I'd think of that. Then he said he understands there is a "report" being prepared on that.

 But as Inner City Press has exclusively reported, that "report" - by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services, whose director Michael Stefanovic has recused himself from the investigation - is itself beset by problems. Shouldn't Brown, the self-styled UN point man on problems of IDP youth, know and say about this?

 (When BBC's Nick Bryant prefaced a question with a reference to Brown's previously incarnation, Brown cut him off and said he was only at the UN to answer "international" questions. What could be more international than the abuse of children in CAR by French "peacekeepers"?)

 Inner City Press also asked Brown if he had followed up on the child soldiers in South Sudan he had brought up in his last UN appearance. Since then, General (or "warlord," as Brown put it) Johnson Olony has been in the news for more mayhem. But Brown answered only generally, that if he'd had his Fund, none of it might have happened. Perhaps.

 Back on  March 18 Brown's first line was “It has been one month since the kidnapping of 89 South Sudanese boys from their classrooms to train them as child soldiers.”

  Inner City Press has previously asked the UN why it was so slow to report that abduction, and reluctant to acknowledge that the abductors are linked with the Salva Kiir / SPLA government in Juba. So Inner City Press asked Gordon Brown about this, video here.

  Brown cut in and replied that the abductor is a “war lord” and that the connection with the government is just something Inner City Press was speculating about. (This despite the government in Juba summoning SPLA Maj-Gen. Johnson Olony about the abduction.)

  Brown went out to say that the “terrorist group” -- the SPLA? -- had cynically offered to let the boys return to sit exams, then return to being child soldiers.

   Despite the material in the public record about the abductor's connection to the South Sudan government the UN talks and works with, Reuters took Brown's answer to Inner City Press and reported orretyped it at face value without analysis under the headline “South Sudan warlord offers abducted boys sit exams.”

  This is how Reuters mindlessly - or cynically - supports the UN, from Herve Ladsous covering up rapes in Minova in the DR Congo and Tabit in Darfur, to in this case channeling Gordon Brown about South Sudan. Brown also called Olony's SPLA a “terrorist group” -- we'll have more on this.

 On March 3 after the UN Security Council voted unanimously to create a South Sudan sanctions committee and Panel of Experts, Inner City Press asked the country's Permanent Representative Francis Deng about the vote, and about children abducted to become soldiers, allegedly by a government-aligned militia.

    Deng replied that sanctions rarely help and that the reasons the US had waited still applied.

   Inner City Press asked if Deng thought the Security Council should have waited until its meets with the African Union Peace and Security Council on March 12. Deng replied that the Council talks about coordinating with and even deferring to regional bodies and Africa, but then doesn't.

  On child soldiers, Deng said that their abduction violates the country's cultural traditions. We'll have more on this.

 On February 27 after UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric read out a vague summary of the UN's investigation into the deadly downing of one of its helicopters in South Sudan last August, Inner City Press asked for specifics:

Inner City Press: you said that they were unable to determine who did it, that it came from an area between In Opposition and the Government.  But there was this audiotape of Peter Gadet threatening the UN to shoot down helicopters that was… you know, days before it was shot down.  So, can you say or find out whether these Board of Inquiry people listened to the audio and whether they found it not credible or… why it's not part of the report?

Spokesman Dujarric:  They had all the information that was available to them.  As a general point, a threat is a threat.  I think what they were looking at is for hard evidence to figure out who had shot the helicopter, they were not able to come in with any conclusive information.

Inner City Press: Do they use a different standard of proof than even a court because usually like it seems like --

Spokesman:  A Board of Inquiry tries to establish what happened.  Obviously, they looked at the helicopter and all the information they had.  That's the conclusion they came up with. 

  But why? Beyond Gadet, the International Crisis Group, for example, implies that the government itself shot the copter down: 

"an UNMISS helicopter was shot down on 26 August, killing three. Although the results of its investigation have not been released, initial reports suggest this was done from territory controlled by the government and by a weapons system know to be in the hands of the government [n. 100:  Crisis Group interviews, UN officials, Nairobi, November 2014; defence and security adviser, Nairobi, December 2014.]"

  For UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous to remain silent is consistent with its approach to the Tabit rapes in Darfur, the Minova rapes in November 2012 by the DR Congo Army, and the shooting at unarmed protesters in Haiti (to say nothing of the killing by cholera there.)

  On an abuse in South Sudan on which the UN was slow and partial in reporting, Inner City Press on February 24 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask first about South Sudan.  There was this very kind of high-profile kidnapping of dozens of children, and what I really wanted to ask you about is, although it was initially said it was unclear who did it, there are now reports that the militia that is responsible for it is basically part of the army of South Sudan.  And I wanted to know what Ellen Løj or the human rights component of UNMISS, what they say about those allegations that seem to be serious?

Spokesman Dujarric:  We’ve seen increased reports of kidnapping of children and forced enrollment into units, whether it’s the report you stated which our colleagues at UNICEF have flagged for us, or other reports, and I know it’s something that is of concern to all of us here.  It is being looked at both by the Mission and by different departments here.  But it’s obviously a big concern.  We have worked very hard to ensure that children are freed from such activity, and we will continue do so.

Inner City Press:  But do you expect the UN system to say who is responsible?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I know they’re looking into these — we’ve seen these reports.  We’re looking into them.

 Now Radio Tamazuj reports on this, citing Inner City Press' questions under the headline, "UN refuses to name abductors of 1000+ men and children in South Sudan."

  We'll have more on that, as well.

   

Inner City Press Asks Gordon Brown of Syrian Children on the Move, Double Shifts in Schools

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 10 -- When Gordon Brown held a press conference by phone to the UN promoting funding for the schooling of Syrian refugee children on September 10, Inner City Press asked Brown about how to help and school those children now on the move, through Turkey and Greece, Serbia and Hungary, Austria and Germany -- but not Denmark (click here about Denmark's candidate to head UNHCR.)

  Brown said that refugee children, those seeking asylum, should be well treated (he declined a question about any particular connection to the UK); he emphasized that most Syrian refugee children remain in the region.

  Inner City Press asked if the funds sought were essentially budget support for Turkey and Lebanon and Jordan, for their schools to take in more students, or for schools in large camps like Za'atari.

  Brown said it is a question of running two shifts of schools in Lebanon and Turkey, he said there are teachers and space, it's funding that is needed.

Back on May 21 Brown was at the UN promoting a new fund for children's education in emergencies, he cited the plight of youths in internally displaced persons camps.

  Inner City Press asked Brown about the alleged sexual abuse of IDP children in the Central African Republic by French soldiers in the Sangaris "peacekeeping" force, which French chief of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous is listed as trying to cover up by firing the whistleblower, in a UN Dispute Tribunal ruling finding that was not contested. Video here.

  Brown first said, I think you know what I'd think of that. Then he said he understands there is a "report" being prepared on that.

 But as Inner City Press has exclusively reported, that "report" - by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services, whose director Michael Stefanovic has recused himself from the investigation - is itself beset by problems. Shouldn't Brown, the self-styled UN point man on problems of IDP youth, know and say about this?

 (When BBC's Nick Bryant prefaced a question with a reference to Brown's previously incarnation, Brown cut him off and said he was only at the UN to answer "international" questions. What could be more international than the abuse of children in CAR by French "peacekeepers"?)

 Inner City Press also asked Brown if he had followed up on the child soldiers in South Sudan he had brought up in his last UN appearance. Since then, General (or "warlord," as Brown put it) Johnson Olony has been in the news for more mayhem. But Brown answered only generally, that if he'd had his Fund, none of it might have happened. Perhaps.

 Back on  March 18 Brown's first line was “It has been one month since the kidnapping of 89 South Sudanese boys from their classrooms to train them as child soldiers.”

  Inner City Press has previously asked the UN why it was so slow to report that abduction, and reluctant to acknowledge that the abductors are linked with the Salva Kiir / SPLA government in Juba. So Inner City Press asked Gordon Brown about this, video here.

  Brown cut in and replied that the abductor is a “war lord” and that the connection with the government is just something Inner City Press was speculating about. (This despite the government in Juba summoning SPLA Maj-Gen. Johnson Olony about the abduction.)

  Brown went out to say that the “terrorist group” -- the SPLA? -- had cynically offered to let the boys return to sit exams, then return to being child soldiers.

   Despite the material in the public record about the abductor's connection to the South Sudan government the UN talks and works with, Reuters took Brown's answer to Inner City Press and reported orretyped it at face value without analysis under the headline “South Sudan warlord offers abducted boys sit exams.”

  This is how Reuters mindlessly - or cynically - supports the UN, from Herve Ladsous covering up rapes in Minova in the DR Congo and Tabit in Darfur, to in this case channeling Gordon Brown about South Sudan. Brown also called Olony's SPLA a “terrorist group” -- we'll have more on this.

 On March 3 after the UN Security Council voted unanimously to create a South Sudan sanctions committee and Panel of Experts, Inner City Press asked the country's Permanent Representative Francis Deng about the vote, and about children abducted to become soldiers, allegedly by a government-aligned militia.

    Deng replied that sanctions rarely help and that the reasons the US had waited still applied.

   Inner City Press asked if Deng thought the Security Council should have waited until its meets with the African Union Peace and Security Council on March 12. Deng replied that the Council talks about coordinating with and even deferring to regional bodies and Africa, but then doesn't.

  On child soldiers, Deng said that their abduction violates the country's cultural traditions. We'll have more on this.

 On February 27 after UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric read out a vague summary of the UN's investigation into the deadly downing of one of its helicopters in South Sudan last August, Inner City Press asked for specifics:

Inner City Press: you said that they were unable to determine who did it, that it came from an area between In Opposition and the Government.  But there was this audiotape of Peter Gadet threatening the UN to shoot down helicopters that was… you know, days before it was shot down.  So, can you say or find out whether these Board of Inquiry people listened to the audio and whether they found it not credible or… why it's not part of the report?

Spokesman Dujarric:  They had all the information that was available to them.  As a general point, a threat is a threat.  I think what they were looking at is for hard evidence to figure out who had shot the helicopter, they were not able to come in with any conclusive information.

Inner City Press: Do they use a different standard of proof than even a court because usually like it seems like --

Spokesman:  A Board of Inquiry tries to establish what happened.  Obviously, they looked at the helicopter and all the information they had.  That's the conclusion they came up with. 

  But why? Beyond Gadet, the International Crisis Group, for example, implies that the government itself shot the copter down: 

"an UNMISS helicopter was shot down on 26 August, killing three. Although the results of its investigation have not been released, initial reports suggest this was done from territory controlled by the government and by a weapons system know to be in the hands of the government [n. 100:  Crisis Group interviews, UN officials, Nairobi, November 2014; defence and security adviser, Nairobi, December 2014.]"

  For UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous to remain silent is consistent with its approach to the Tabit rapes in Darfur, the Minova rapes in November 2012 by the DR Congo Army, and the shooting at unarmed protesters in Haiti (to say nothing of the killing by cholera there.)

  On an abuse in South Sudan on which the UN was slow and partial in reporting, Inner City Press on February 24 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask first about South Sudan.  There was this very kind of high-profile kidnapping of dozens of children, and what I really wanted to ask you about is, although it was initially said it was unclear who did it, there are now reports that the militia that is responsible for it is basically part of the army of South Sudan.  And I wanted to know what Ellen Løj or the human rights component of UNMISS, what they say about those allegations that seem to be serious?

Spokesman Dujarric:  We’ve seen increased reports of kidnapping of children and forced enrollment into units, whether it’s the report you stated which our colleagues at UNICEF have flagged for us, or other reports, and I know it’s something that is of concern to all of us here.  It is being looked at both by the Mission and by different departments here.  But it’s obviously a big concern.  We have worked very hard to ensure that children are freed from such activity, and we will continue do so.

Inner City Press:  But do you expect the UN system to say who is responsible?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I know they’re looking into these — we’ve seen these reports.  We’re looking into them.

 Now Radio Tamazuj reports on this, citing Inner City Press' questions under the headline, "UN refuses to name abductors of 1000+ men and children in South Sudan."

  We'll have more on that, as well.

   

Inner City Press Asked Gordon Brown of Central African Republic Alleged Sexual Abuse by French Troops, And About South Sudan Child Soldiers

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 21 -- When Gordon Brown held a press conference in the UN promoting a new fund for children's education in emergencies, he cited the plight of youths in internally displaced persons camps.

  Inner City Press asked Brown about the alleged sexual abuse of IDP children in the Central African Republic by French soldiers in the Sangaris "peacekeeping" force, which French chief of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous is listed as trying to cover up by firing the whistleblower, in a UN Dispute Tribunal ruling finding that was not contested. Video here.

  Brown first said, I think you know what I'd think of that. Then he said he understands there is a "report" being prepared on that.

 But as Inner City Press has exclusively reported, that "report" - by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services, whose director Michael Stefanovic has recused himself from the investigation - is itself beset by problems. Shouldn't Brown, the self-styled UN point man on problems of IDP youth, know and say about this?

 (When BBC's Nick Bryant prefaced a question with a reference to Brown's previously incarnation, Brown cut him off and said he was only at the UN to answer "international" questions. What could be more international than the abuse of children in CAR by French "peacekeepers"?)

 Inner City Press also asked Brown if he had followed up on the child soldiers in South Sudan he had brought up in his last UN appearance. Since then, General (or "warlord," as Brown put it) Johnson Olony has been in the news for more mayhem. But Brown answered only generally, that if he'd had his Fund, none of it might have happened. Perhaps.

 Back on  March 18 Brown's first line was “It has been one month since the kidnapping of 89 South Sudanese boys from their classrooms to train them as child soldiers.”

  Inner City Press has previously asked the UN why it was so slow to report that abduction, and reluctant to acknowledge that the abductors are linked with the Salva Kiir / SPLA government in Juba. So Inner City Press asked Gordon Brown about this, video here.

  Brown cut in and replied that the abductor is a “war lord” and that the connection with the government is just something Inner City Press was speculating about. (This despite the government in Juba summoning SPLA Maj-Gen. Johnson Olony about the abduction.)

  Brown went out to say that the “terrorist group” -- the SPLA? -- had cynically offered to let the boys return to sit exams, then return to being child soldiers.

   Despite the material in the public record about the abductor's connection to the South Sudan government the UN talks and works with, Reuters took Brown's answer to Inner City Press and reported orretyped it at face value without analysis under the headline “South Sudan warlord offers abducted boys sit exams.”

  This is how Reuters mindlessly - or cynically - supports the UN, from Herve Ladsous covering up rapes in Minova in the DR Congo and Tabit in Darfur, to in this case channeling Gordon Brown about South Sudan. Brown also called Olony's SPLA a “terrorist group” -- we'll have more on this.

 On March 3 after the UN Security Council voted unanimously to create a South Sudan sanctions committee and Panel of Experts, Inner City Press asked the country's Permanent Representative Francis Deng about the vote, and about children abducted to become soldiers, allegedly by a government-aligned militia.

    Deng replied that sanctions rarely help and that the reasons the US had waited still applied.

   Inner City Press asked if Deng thought the Security Council should have waited until its meets with the African Union Peace and Security Council on March 12. Deng replied that the Council talks about coordinating with and even deferring to regional bodies and Africa, but then doesn't.

  On child soldiers, Deng said that their abduction violates the country's cultural traditions. We'll have more on this.

 On February 27 after UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric read out a vague summary of the UN's investigation into the deadly downing of one of its helicopters in South Sudan last August, Inner City Press asked for specifics:

Inner City Press: you said that they were unable to determine who did it, that it came from an area between In Opposition and the Government.  But there was this audiotape of Peter Gadet threatening the UN to shoot down helicopters that was… you know, days before it was shot down.  So, can you say or find out whether these Board of Inquiry people listened to the audio and whether they found it not credible or… why it's not part of the report?

Spokesman Dujarric:  They had all the information that was available to them.  As a general point, a threat is a threat.  I think what they were looking at is for hard evidence to figure out who had shot the helicopter, they were not able to come in with any conclusive information.

Inner City Press: Do they use a different standard of proof than even a court because usually like it seems like --

Spokesman:  A Board of Inquiry tries to establish what happened.  Obviously, they looked at the helicopter and all the information they had.  That's the conclusion they came up with. 

  But why? Beyond Gadet, the International Crisis Group, for example, implies that the government itself shot the copter down: 

"an UNMISS helicopter was shot down on 26 August, killing three. Although the results of its investigation have not been released, initial reports suggest this was done from territory controlled by the government and by a weapons system know to be in the hands of the government [n. 100:  Crisis Group interviews, UN officials, Nairobi, November 2014; defence and security adviser, Nairobi, December 2014.]"

  For UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous to remain silent is consistent with its approach to the Tabit rapes in Darfur, the Minova rapes in November 2012 by the DR Congo Army, and the shooting at unarmed protesters in Haiti (to say nothing of the killing by cholera there.)

  On an abuse in South Sudan on which the UN was slow and partial in reporting, Inner City Press on February 24 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask first about South Sudan.  There was this very kind of high-profile kidnapping of dozens of children, and what I really wanted to ask you about is, although it was initially said it was unclear who did it, there are now reports that the militia that is responsible for it is basically part of the army of South Sudan.  And I wanted to know what Ellen Løj or the human rights component of UNMISS, what they say about those allegations that seem to be serious?

Spokesman Dujarric:  We’ve seen increased reports of kidnapping of children and forced enrollment into units, whether it’s the report you stated which our colleagues at UNICEF have flagged for us, or other reports, and I know it’s something that is of concern to all of us here.  It is being looked at both by the Mission and by different departments here.  But it’s obviously a big concern.  We have worked very hard to ensure that children are freed from such activity, and we will continue do so.

Inner City Press:  But do you expect the UN system to say who is responsible?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I know they’re looking into these — we’ve seen these reports.  We’re looking into them.

 Now Radio Tamazuj reports on this, citing Inner City Press' questions under the headline, "UN refuses to name abductors of 1000+ men and children in South Sudan."

  We'll have more on that, as well.

   

On 89 Boys Abducted in South Sudan, Inner City Press Asks & Gordon Brown Blames Terrorist War Lord, Reuters Repeats

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 18 -- When Gordon Brown held a press conference in the UN on  March 18 his first line was “It has been one month since the kidnapping of 89 South Sudanese boys from their classrooms to train them as child soldiers.”

  Inner City Press has previously asked the UN why it was so slow to report that abduction, and reluctant to acknowledge that the abductors are linked with the Salva Kiir / SPLA government in Juba. So Inner City Press asked Gordon Brown about this, video here.

  Brown cut in and replied that the abductor is a “war lord” and that the connection with the government is just something Inner City Press was speculating about. (This despite the government in Juba summoning SPLA Maj-Gen. Johnson Olony about the abduction.)

  Brown went out to say that the “terrorist group” -- the SPLA? -- had cynically offered to let the boys return to sit exams, then return to being child soldiers.

   Despite the material in the public record about the abductor's connection to the South Sudan government the UN talks and works with, Reuters took Brown's answer to Inner City Press and reported orretyped it at face value without analysis under the headline “South Sudan warlord offers abducted boys sit exams.”

  This is how Reuters mindlessly - or cynically - supports the UN, from Herve Ladsous covering up rapes in Minova in the DR Congo and Tabit in Darfur, to in this case channeling Gordon Brown about South Sudan. Brown also called Olony's SPLA a “terrorist group” -- we'll have more on this.

 On March 3 after the UN Security Council voted unanimously to create a South Sudan sanctions committee and Panel of Experts, Inner City Press asked the country's Permanent Representative Francis Deng about the vote, and about children abducted to become soldiers, allegedly by a government-aligned militia.

    Deng replied that sanctions rarely help and that the reasons the US had waited still applied.

   Inner City Press asked if Deng thought the Security Council should have waited until its meets with the African Union Peace and Security Council on March 12. Deng replied that the Council talks about coordinating with and even deferring to regional bodies and Africa, but then doesn't.

  On child soldiers, Deng said that their abduction violates the country's cultural traditions. We'll have more on this.

 On February 27 after UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric read out a vague summary of the UN's investigation into the deadly downing of one of its helicopters in South Sudan last August, Inner City Press asked for specifics:

Inner City Press: you said that they were unable to determine who did it, that it came from an area between In Opposition and the Government.  But there was this audiotape of Peter Gadet threatening the UN to shoot down helicopters that was… you know, days before it was shot down.  So, can you say or find out whether these Board of Inquiry people listened to the audio and whether they found it not credible or… why it's not part of the report?

Spokesman Dujarric:  They had all the information that was available to them.  As a general point, a threat is a threat.  I think what they were looking at is for hard evidence to figure out who had shot the helicopter, they were not able to come in with any conclusive information.

Inner City Press: Do they use a different standard of proof than even a court because usually like it seems like --

Spokesman:  A Board of Inquiry tries to establish what happened.  Obviously, they looked at the helicopter and all the information they had.  That's the conclusion they came up with. 

  But why? Beyond Gadet, the International Crisis Group, for example, implies that the government itself shot the copter down: 

"an UNMISS helicopter was shot down on 26 August, killing three. Although the results of its investigation have not been released, initial reports suggest this was done from territory controlled by the government and by a weapons system know to be in the hands of the government [n. 100:  Crisis Group interviews, UN officials, Nairobi, November 2014; defence and security adviser, Nairobi, December 2014.]"

  For UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous to remain silent is consistent with its approach to the Tabit rapes in Darfur, the Minova rapes in November 2012 by the DR Congo Army, and the shooting at unarmed protesters in Haiti (to say nothing of the killing by cholera there.)

  On the draft sanctions resolution, Inner City Press reported that that of the Elected Ten or E10, African members Chad and Angola, as well as Latin America members Venezuela and Chile, urged that the African Union and the regional body Intergovernmental Authority should take the lead before any Security Council’s decision.

  Sources tell Inner City Press that in this view, decision should only be taken on the draft after the Security Council meets with IGAD and the African Union Peace and Security Council, scheduled the sources tell Inner City Press for March 12 during a French-organized Security Council trip also including, the sources say, the Central African Republic and Burundi. We'll have more on this.

  On an abuse in South Sudan on which the UN was slow and partial in reporting, Inner City Press on February 24 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask first about South Sudan.  There was this very kind of high-profile kidnapping of dozens of children, and what I really wanted to ask you about is, although it was initially said it was unclear who did it, there are now reports that the militia that is responsible for it is basically part of the army of South Sudan.  And I wanted to know what Ellen Løj or the human rights component of UNMISS, what they say about those allegations that seem to be serious?

Spokesman Dujarric:  We’ve seen increased reports of kidnapping of children and forced enrollment into units, whether it’s the report you stated which our colleagues at UNICEF have flagged for us, or other reports, and I know it’s something that is of concern to all of us here.  It is being looked at both by the Mission and by different departments here.  But it’s obviously a big concern.  We have worked very hard to ensure that children are freed from such activity, and we will continue do so.

Inner City Press:  But do you expect the UN system to say who is responsible?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I know they’re looking into these — we’ve seen these reports.  We’re looking into them.

 Now Radio Tamazuj reports on this, citing Inner City Press' questions under the headline, "UN refuses to name abductors of 1000+ men and children in South Sudan."

  We'll have more on that, as well. Inner City Press has put the full text online here:

South Sudan Sanctions Draft Circulated in UN Security Council, Exclusive Reporting on Non-P3 Deferences to... by Matthew Russell Lee

  The full draft we are publishing, in the public interest, above.  Reuters typically said they "obtained" it but did not publish it; Voice of America said they saw it, and mechanically quoted HRW on Russia and China, with nothing about the view of the African and Latin American members of the Security Council. Watch this site.

   

On Malala Day, UN Won't Answer on Gordon and Sarah Brown's Charity A World at School, or How Access Granted

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 12 -- Malala's speech at the UN on Friday was an inspiration. But the UN at least in part used it to direct concerned people to a non-UN charity, A World at School, which was started by Gordon Brown's wife Sarah in 2002.

  When Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Martin Nesirky about this at Friday's noon briefing, he insisted that the focus should be on Malala's speech. 

 While the UN might have preferred narratives of the day, it seems to Inner City Press (and to the new Free UN Coalition for Access) that the purpose of the UN noon briefing is to answer the questions that are asked.

  If it's just a one-way communication, like much of the UN system's social media, there's no reason to have an in-person question and answer session.

  When Inner City Press said it had “additional questions about this the World at School and the media access, but if you say it’s not the right day, I will ask them another day,” Nesirky said he would get back with responses. 

 But as of 8 pm, no answers have been provided, on A World at School or why the UN Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit told journalists there were no tickets, when Nesirky said there were ten. Who got them? On what basis?@FUNCA_info has asked.

From Friday's noon briefing transcript by the UN:

Inner City Press: on media access, there ended up being no tickets available through [Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit] to attend it. But in trying to pursue tickets, we were referred to something called A World at School and also to the office of the UN Special Envoy on Global Education, Gordon Brown. What is the connection between A World at School and the United Nations? Is it a UN body? And the office of Gordon Brown, it says at the bottom of it, “copyright Gordon and Sarah Brown and the reds” [sic - made up by UN], the website was registered by this World at School, so I wanted to know, is it a UN office, is it funded out of the UN’s budget, both entities are laudable, but it seems a little bit blurry. Is this a UN entity or not? Gordon Brown is a UN official, but why is his website not a UN website?

Spokesperson : Gordon Brown has a very specific role given to him by the Secretary-General as the Special Envoy for Global Education and for, as the leading champion of Global Education First, the initiative that the Secretary-General launched. And of course, the presence of Malala here today on her birthday — and after all, that is what this should be about — was extremely powerful. Anybody who listened to her speech, I imagine could not fail to be moved by it and to feel inspired and motivated by it, too.

As for your question about access, tickets were available. Ten tickets were indeed available and were distributed. It was first-come, first-served. And as you will have seen, and as I think people around the world saw, it was being broadcast, and therefore, people who did not get into the room — and it was not only journalists who could not get into the room — believe me, there are many who would have wished to have been there. It was possible to cover this, and I think many people did cover it, even if they were not in the room.

Inner City Press: A World at School, it seems laudable, the speech was great. I am just trying to figure out, Gordon Brown, what relationship is the UN?

Spokesperson: Listen, Matthew, I think, I am happy to take this up with you, but I truly believe that the focus today should be on Malala and the work that she has done, the symbolism of her visit here. And I think that anybody who has been listening to that, and indeed followed the Youth Assembly that has followed, there are many, many extremely courageous, bright and eloquent young people who are advocating strongly for what is fundamental rights. And I think that’s where the focus should be today. Other questions, please. Yes?

Question [Journalist from Pakistan, not on UNCA board]: But, Martin, that’s all very well about Malala, but why should some outside body be controlling the access to the General Assembly Hall and not the United Nations itself?

Spokesperson: Well, it’s the Trusteeship Council Chamber, and as I have said, the tickets were available.

To whom? These questions should be answered. Watch this site.

  

UN Shunts Malala Fans to Gordon Brown's Wife's Charity, Which Doesn't Answer on its Links with Gordo's "UN" Office

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 12 – The UN made much of Malala Day, and at least Malala herself did not disappoint in her speech. But what is the UN connection?

The UN referred the Press and many people to “A World at School” -- which turns out to be a UK charity set up by Gordon Brown's wife Sarah in 2002.

When Gordon Brown, out of power, was given a UN Envoy job by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, he linked it to his wife's charity.

  But neither Brown's office, nor his wife's A World at School, responded when contacted – as the UN directed – on Friday morning, nor to a request for information about their connection(s) and budget.

Malala spoke movingly; Gordon Brown and Ban much less so. 

  Malala said, "a deal that goes against rights of women is unacceptable," readable as a reference at negotiations with the Taliban by the US and others.

  The UN Department of Public Information, which fumbled or worse on transparency in media access to the event, devoted much time to promoting it with verbatim quotes, and links to Gordon Brown's wife's charity. 

  In fact, even the "UN" website of Gordon Brown's office was UN Envoy was registered, not by the UN, but by the Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown. What is going on?

More than a week ago on July 3, the UN Department of Public Information announced that “Education activist Malala Yousafzai will mark her 16th birthday, on Friday, 12 July 2013, by giving her first high-level public appearance and statement...a limited number of seats will be available for media, contact” the UN Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit.

Inner City Press immediately wrote to MALU, also on behalf of the new Free UN Coalition for Access, asking

“this is a timely request for access to cover youth / Malala events on July 12. Please confirm, and also, How many media seats ARE available? Also, what about media seats to cover the new / interim General Assembly hall, and separately, media worktables in the photo booths, as the Free UN Coalition for Access raised to DPI on June 10? The request for media worktable(s) at Security Council stakeout also remaining outstanding.”

  The chief of MALU wrote back that “We have put you on the list of people who have requested a ticket. I am waiting to hear from the organizers how many tickets there will be for the press. There is no mezzanine in the temporary GA for extra seating.”

  But a week late on the eve of Malala Day, as resident correspondents covering the July 11 Security Council meetings on Sudan / South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo were told to stand back and not block photographs of Gordon Brown and his entourage, there was still no word on media access to cover Malala Day and her speech.

  Inner City Press, again on behalf of FUNCA, inquired with UN Media Accreditation Thursday afternoon and was told they still didn't know how many tickets there would be.

  Despite further explanation by FUNCA of how bad the UN will look if it continues to totally exclude the public from the new General Assembly hall in the North Lawn building, and excludes the press from all but a handful of translation-less photo booths during the General Debate in September, both positions were reiterated.

At the UN's noon briefing on July 10, Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Martin Nesirky.

  We will return to that ongoing issue, and to recent UN reductions in access and even threats to accreditation. But as to Malala Day, after the second inquiry on the afternoon of July 11, there was still no word that evening, nor on the morning of the speech / Day, less than two hours before it's all set to begin.

  Like the exclusion of the press and public from the new General Assembly Hall, and the continuing defense of that despite detailed critique and constructive suggestions from FUNCA, the Free UN Coalition for Access, what does this say about the UN? Watch this site.

Update: After publication of the immedately above UN Media Accreditation & Liaison Unit e-mailed that it:

"will not receive any tickets from the organizers for mezzanine seats to attend Malala Day from 9:30 am to 11:30 am in the Trusteeship Council. For any inquiries, contact Justin van Fleet justin [at] educationenvoy.org or Mara Sirbu mara [at]aworldatschool.org"

   This means that if you followed the directions of UN DPI a week ago -- to write to MALU to access -- you were left until two hours before the event and then told to contact Gordon Brown's flacks.

WORSE: Gordon Brown's wife's charity, which didn't answer. Transcribing Malala's speech from the hall outside the Trusteeship Council Chamber, there was loud hammering and a tour group. The 2013 president of the UN's partner UNCA, Pamela Falk of CBS, was seen inside the TCC by an eagle-eyed FUNCA member; the UN's partner, predictable, did not complain of how (other) media was excluded. It's an Alliance. 

Again, what does this say about the UN?