Stewart Stogel, Who Asked UN UNcomfortable Questions, Dead at 60, Questions Continue

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 24 -- In the small world of journalists covering the UN from within, Stewart Stogel stood out as combative, dogged, critical, unique. He staked out Kofi Annan outside his UN-provided Sutton Place townhouse; he shouted questions at diplomats entering the Security Council while others mouthed, “Hello, Ambassador.”

On November 24 the UN's Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit announced:

“It is with great sadness that my office just learned that U.N. correspondent Stewart Stogel passed away from complications of diabetes. Stew was a veteran journalist who had been covering the United Nations, its Secretaries-General and the activities of the Member States for many years. He worked for several media outfits and his stories appeared on ABC News, Press TV and NBC News but also in Newsweek, The Miami Herald, The Washington Times and World Net Daily. He was 60 years old.”

  Often, those Stogel was covering including in Mount Vernon where he lived, would try to undermine his connections to the above-listed publications. The UN itself made Stogel re-apply for credentials and, according to him, did not make his work easier. Inner City Press and the new Free UN Coalition for Access offers a few anecdotes, links and Rest in Peace wishes.

  In 2008 UNICEF's Ann Veneman agreed to essentially rent out the UN's North Lawn to an event by Madonna, or really, Gucci. Stogel registered to cover it; Inner City Press investigated it from outside. Ultimately many in the UN stepped away from the flawed event. But Stogel kept digging, even as a public relations firm tried to complain against him. His story is here.  Stew Stogel was a working journalist. He will be missed.

  Stogel in his reporting on the UN had a love - hate relationship with some in UN Security: some were sources, others went after him. 

  He reported critically on UN Security official Bruno Henn - who, Inner City Press today reports in Stogel's spirit, has been acted in the most recent Department of Safety and Security promotion / demotion exercise - and was known for his reporting on a so-called “riot” last time the UN changed catering contractors, as it is slated to do again on December 31, click here for that. Stogel likewise had a love - hate relations with the Accreditation unit: he liked and was liked by some.

  Another Stogel story, in 2010, involved the reduction in journalists' access at the UN Security Council, citing then “French ambassador Gerard Araud, who had been growing increasingly frustrated with unwelcomed ambush interviews.” 

  Precisely the kind of blacklisting which BuzzFeed faced this year from the UN World Health Organization, and which when the Free UN Coalition for Access asked UN spokesman Dujarric about, Dujarric said the UN doesn't do, Stogel faced from Dujarric's predecessor.

Also in 2010, even while accredited through other media, Stogel joined the campaign for bloggers' rights at the UN, writing to the same UN office which eulogized him that

“ICP is reporting that the media/accreditation status of bloggers is still being debated within DPI. Why? Ban Ki-moon is now in office more than three years and this question still remains? The White House addressed the issue of bloggers more than 6 years ago, yet at the UN it is still debated? Why?

“It becomes an important issue because of the repeated confrontational positions DPI has taken with press especially since Ban Ki-moon arrived. DPI has taken the outrageous position of contacting various news organizations and occasionally 'advising' them on who to assign to cover the United Nations. It is tradition going back more than 50 years of accrediting news organizations, not individuals. The Organization has often used credential accreditation as a "political" pressure tactic to retaliate for news coverage it took exception to. This is a department that is quite literally spinning out of control. How long will this continue?”

  In the spirit of Stew Stogel, these questions will continue to be asked. Watch this site.

   

UNICEF, Still Without Gucci's Money, Dodges German Scandal, Answers on Heroin in Sri Lanka, Does Good

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
and see,www.innercitypress.com/un3unicef040408.html

UNITED NATIONS, April 4 -- Two months after it lent the UN's name and North Lawn to Gucci, which claimed the event celebrated its store opening on Manhattan's Fifth Avenue, and to Madonna, for a charity affiliated with the Kabbalah Center of Los Angeles, UNICEF has still not received any of the money raised by the event, according to an agency spokesman.

UNICEF still refuses to provide any answers about the prospective use by Madonna's group of funds raised using UNICEF's name and the UN's lawn, stating that it "has no relationship" with the organization. UNICEF insiders still doggedly defend the irregularities in the fundraiser as being attributable to the ostensibly independence U.S. Fund for UNICEF. But is clear that this doppelganger is closely enough linked to UNICEF to trigger reputational harm to the UN, if not legal responsibility -- since the UN system is, literally, lawless, cloaked in immunity from legal action including to elicited presumptively public information about the agency's spending in action.

In a parallel universe across the Atlantic, UNICEF Germany has now scheduled a re-election of its entire board of directors, after a scandal which found that the organization falsely claimed it did not pay commission fees to individuals who helped organize large donations. "By paying a commission of $45,000 without getting any demonstrable service in return, UNICEF Germany has violated the principle of the economical and careful use of funds," the watchdog organization Central German Institute for Social Questions, or DZI, has said.

Inner City Press had asked UNICEF's headquarters for an update on the UNICEF Germany scandal, including a copy of an audit a previous agency response said largely disproved the mounting scandal. UNICEF Headquarters then declined to provide a copy of the audit, stating that "it was the German National Committee for UNICEF that hired KPMG and that has the legal relationship with KPMG, so you will have to contact the NatCom regarding any requests for KPMG documentation." But it's UNICEF's and the UN's name that is in question.

Inner City Press also reiterated its request, pending since the run-up to the Gucci - UNICEF event more than two months ago, for an opportunity to put questions to UNICEF executive director Ann Veneman, who told the UN's Management chief Alicia Barcena to give the North Lawn to Gucci and Madonna. On this last, UNICEF replied that "within the last two months, the Executive Director has found time to give three press conferences, in Haiti, in Sierra Leone and in Liberia" -- that is, in places other than the New York headquarters where the Gucci fiasco occurred, or in Germany where the UNICEF scandal continues to grow. UNICEF's response continues, "Should we decide to hold a press conference at UNHQ we will inform you through the usual channels." We'll be waiting.

In the interim, Inner City Press has been given this UNICEF response to questions raised about a UNICEF worker who arrived recently in Sri Lanka and nearly immediately overdosed on heroin. UNICEF declines to provide the individual's name but states that

UNICEF confirms that on 17 March 2008 a consultant, newly contracted by UNICEF Sri Lanka, was placed under arrest by the police. The consultant arrived in Colombo on 5 March 2008 to commence a 4-month contract with UNICEF, based in Colombo. On 12 March she was hospitalized, and on 17 March was placed under arrest while still in hospital... On 25 March she was brought before a magistrate, and pled guilty. Subsequently the contract between the consultant and UNICEF was terminated by mutual agreement, and she has now left the country. Beyond that, UNICEF considers the resolved by the relevant national authorities and the individual concerned. For this reason, UNICEF will not release or confirm the former consultant's name.

For your information, in the case of short-term individual contractors UNICEF does not require a full medical examination prior to entering into a contract. However prospective contractors are required to provide a medical certificate from his or her doctor certifying that the person is medically fit for service. In this instance, I am advised that the certification was provided.

We will soon have more on the topic of the use of contractors by UN funds and programs such as UNICEF, UNHCR and the UN Development Program. While UNICEF's answers are appreciated, questions about the reported beating of a Somali member of parliament by UNICEF guards in Baidoa, and about the failure to return at least six of the 103 children kidnapped by French NGO Zoe's Ark, remain pending, as does a request for UNICEF's comment on the pardon by Chad and release by France of those who kidnapped the children. A late generic denunciation of impunity is perhaps to be expected.

About the veracity of the child soldier memoir which Ann Veneman has promoted seemingly at every opportunity, Inner City Press has been told that "UNICEF has not fact-checked Mr. Beah's book, 'Long Way Gone.' However it is our view that the book is a credible account of the tragedy of recruitment of children into armed groups, told by one who undoubtedly experienced this abuse first hand. It is an abuse that is still suffered by tens of thousands of children around the world."

For the record, about half of the money raised on the UN's North Lawn, it "will go to Schools for Africa, a joint campaign founded by UNICEF and the Nelson Mandela Foundation in 2004 to promote education for all children in Africa." Good. So, half the money raised in the UN's name is accounted for. UNICEF has also told Inner City Press

The US Fund [for UNICEF] advises that its arrangement with Gucci states that the donation will be paid within 60 days of the event. This means that the US Fund should receive the donation on 6 April (or 7 April, since the 6th is a Sunday). I am advised that this timeframe is standard for events and corporate partner donations, as it takes time for payments from attendees, live auction winners, and pledge donors to be collected. As previously advised, UNICEF has no relationship with Raising Malawi.

No relationship except giving Madonna's Raising Malawi and Gucci access to the UN's North Lawn, and use of UNICEF's name and logo, to raise money... We will continue to follow these issues.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un3unicef040408.html

UNICEF's Dodging of Gucci Event Questions Mirrored by German Funding Scandals, Ann Veneman's History

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un7gucci020608.html

UNITED NATIONS, February 6 -- With UN grounds surrounded by a tall black fence, and private security manning the perimeter ensuring that UN staff and correspondents were thrown out, a Gucci-promoting event half-benefiting an entity that is not even incorporated as a not-for-profit got underway Wednesday night. The UN turned over its land and logo at the request of UNICEF's director Ann Veneman, who unlike Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was intent on still attending the event. About this, then about a growing scandal about UNICEF's in Germany, Inner City Press asked if Ms. Veneman would be available to answer questions, including on the way in or out of the event. Inner City Press was repeatedly told she would not answer any questions in this fashion. Rather, two terse written answers were provided, "authorized for release" by Ms. Veneman herself.

Amazingly, Veneman answered "no" to the question, "before asking the Secretariat for use of the UN North Lawn, did you or your staff conduct any due diligence on the other beneficiary of the event, including into whether it is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization and the use of funds?" No, was the answer. Earlier in the day, Inner City Press had sought clarification of this lack of due diligence, using the hyperbolic question, "What if the other beneficiary were Al Qaeda?" The answer was that it wouldn't make any difference to UNICEF. An offer of funding was made to UNICEF and they took it, and used the power of their brand to convince the UN Secretariat to cede control over the UN's land, and brand, to Gucci.

Gucci very quickly said that the event was to "celebrate the opening of Gucci's New York 5th Avenue Flagship store" and this offensive claim was trumpeted from the website of the US Fund for UNICEF.

Why did UNICEF allow it? While UNICEF argues that to stop this exploitation of the UN was the job of the UN's Office of Legal Affairs or of the US Fund for UNICEF, since it was UNICEF and its director Ann Veneman which requested the use of the UN's North Lawn and stood to make money from its use, UNICEF had a responsibility to act. Why didn't it? While UNICEF seems to believe that its staffers have no right to an opinion, several insiders tell Inner City Press the director Veneman is enamored with celebrity, and thus with association with this event.

Strangely or perhaps tellingly, an online site about airline passengers with senses of entitlement reports that "Anne Veneman (former US Secretary of Agriculture) [was] very mean and rude as was her security detail. She demanded Pepsi when we only had Coke, and she stated that she made the request for Pepsi to be on board when she made the reservation."

During her tenure as Agriculture Secretary -- she still prefers to be called the honorific "Secretary" rather than her UNICEF title -- Ms. Veneman oversaw scandals concerning mad cow disease. Before that she worked for the corporate law and lobbying firm Patton Boggs. In the process of being placed at UNICEF by President Bush in 2005, "Ms. Veneman was asked if she would continue to emphasize primary and secondary education for girls. 'I don't come with any broad agenda with regard to those or any other social issue,' she said. 'I don't believe these issues are relevant to the mission of UNICEF.'" But a glitzy auction and dinner of wild striped bass and seared salmon "celebrating" the opening of a Gucci store on Fifth Avenue is "relevant to the mission of UNICEF"?

The second of her terse written answers belatedly acknowledged that Gucci's "statement was not in keeping with our understanding of the nature and purpose of the event, and this was communicated to the organizers." Written follow-up questions about how, when and to whom this was communicated have yet to be answered. While Veneman managed to avoid any Q&A in the run-up to Wednesday's misconceived Gucci-fest, thus undermining the import of any after-provided answers, it seems clear that Veneman will have to take questions, herself, about the growing scandal surrounding her agency in Germany. Click here for Deutsche Welle's article entitled "Donors Flee, Criticisms Mount Amid Germany's UNICEF Crisis."

Already the national chairwoman of UNICEF Germany, Heidi Simonis, quit in protest this month "after blowing the whistle late last year on the alleged waste of donor funds collected by the body." Tellingly, mainstream critics point out that UNICEF's Dietrich Garlichs is simultaneously the chief of UNICEF Germany and also sits on its supervisory board. Can you say, conflict of interest? But at the recent opening of UNICEF's Executive Board meeting here, which few other journalists attended much less covered, Inner City Press waited to see if issues of audit availability to member states, or safeguards and rules for corporate partnerships, or the brewing Germany scandal would be addressed -- none were. Now even German Chancellor Angela Merkel has joined the call for action on UNICEF's mismanagement. And where is Ann Veneman? Partying with Madonna, Tom Cruise and Donald Trump and refusing to appear at a press availability and take any questions. We'll see.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un7gucci020608.html

Gucci's Boast that UN Event Celebrated Its Store Is Quietly Withdrawn, But Questions Remain Unanswered by UNICEF's Veneman

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un6gucci020608.html

UNITED NATIONS, February 6 -- On the day of the event on the UN's North Lawn which Gucci had said was to "celebrate the opening of Gucci's New York 5th Avenue Flagship store," this statement was quietly taken down from the website of the US Fund for UNICEF. Gucci's previously available "UNICEF" web page, which made this and other claims, suddenly became unavailable. And UNICEF, through its spokesman Christopher de Bono told Inner City Press that UNICEF director Ann Veneman "did not vet anything as far as the other part of the money" which is said to be for "Raising Malawi," which is not a non-profit organization.

Mr. de Bono described a process in which the executive director of the US Fund for UNICEF approached Ann Veneman with the idea of fundraiser on the UN's North Lawn, half of the ticket sales to which would go to UNICEF, half to "Raising Malawi." On this basis, and apparently without conferring with any other UNICEF or UN staff, Ms. Veneman asked UN Under Secretary General Alicia Barcena for use of the UN's' North Lawn, and such approval was quickly given.

Unwisely, it now appears. Ms. Barcena on February 4 acknowledged that Gucci's claims were "inappropriate," and that night Ban Ki-moon's chief of staff Vijay Nambiar told Inner City Press that "Gucci has gone to far," that Mr. Ban had been "planning to go, but now... he is getting himself a little worried about it." On February 6, it was confirmed that Ban will not be attending, although his associate spokesman, contrary to what the Chief of Staff on Monday said, ascribed this to Ban's travel plans, which may have changed. Against the deadline of the event, six hours off, Inner City Press asked the associate spokesman to confirm or deny that the UN's Office of Legal Affairs had written to Gucci to complain about the exploitation of the UN's name, but that no timely response was given by Gucci.

Asked on camera by Inner City Press why she gave approval for this use of the UN's grounds, Ms. Barcena said because of her impression of UNICEF. But UNICEF then referred all questions to US Fund for UNICEF, which did not respond to telephone questions, then to written questions. Finally on Wednesday afternoon, four hours before the event, US Fund for UNICEF's Marissa Buckanoff replied in part that Gucci is covering the cost of the event and "making a corporate donation to the two organizations." Inner City Press then asked, since Raising Malawi is not a 501(c)3, to what entity is Gucci would be making a donation, and for an estimate of the costs of the event, and if they are greater than the amount that will be given to UNICEF and Raising Malawi (or its co-founder and presumptive fiscal conduit, the Kabbalah Center of Los Angeles." Additionally, Inner City Press asked and will continue to ask: what safeguards exist at US Fund for UNICEF and at UNICEF regarding corporate "partners" use of the UN and/or UNICEF and their names or logos for commercial gain or promotion?

As simply, for now, two examples, UNICEF and Deutsche Bank have been mingled, and US Fund for UNICEF lists as a partner the ExxonMobil Foundation -- the questions is, does ExxonMobil get to claim that the next UN event is to celebrate a new oil well? There is no reason why not, if the process used here is continued.

Requests have been made for UNICEF's Ann Veneman to answer basic questions, which has not occurred as of this writing. A question has been submitted in writing: before asking the Secretariat for use of the UN North Lawn, did you or your staff conduct any due diligence on the other beneficiary of the event, including into whether it is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization and the use of funds, and once Gucci and US Fund for UNICEF put out press release that the event would 'celebrate the opening of Gucci's New York 5th Avenue Flagship store,' did you take any action?" Apparently they do not want to answer questions about, or allow questions at, this event which, until the morning of, was to "celebrate the opening of Gucci's New York 5th Avenue Flagship store."

No one so far has spoken of any improvements to this process; no one at UNICEF or the US Fund for UNICEF has even acknowledged on the record that there's been any problem.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un6gucci020608.html

As Gucci Exploits the UN for an Ad, Who Protects the UN Is Left Unanswered by Ban Ki-moon

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un5gucci020508.html

UNITED NATIONS, February 5 -- When a corporation openly uses the UN's name to promote its business, what happens? The question was raised Tuesday to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, concerning Gucci's statement that an event Wednesday night on the UN's North Lawn "will celebrate the opening of Gucci's New York 5th Avenue Flagship store." While his chief of staff Vijay Nambiar had said that "Gucci has gone too far," impacting Ban's plans, and his Under Secretary-General for Management Alicia Barcena said on camera that Gucci's statement was inappropriate, Ban dodged the question, saying that the event's proceeds will go to UNICEF for a humanitarian purpose. Video here, from Minute 16:18. Even that is only half true. Fifty percent of the proceeds will go to an entity called Raising Malawi, which is not a registered non-profit corporation. A search of corporate database for Raising Malawi find a single formal reference, in an SEC filing by NutraCea which refers to that company's drive to "utilize our production capacity more efficiently and to focus on driving sales of high-end derivative products."

Gucci's high-end products, meanwhile, were shown to selected media by "creative director" Frida Giannini on Tuesday at the aforementioned flagship store, in the Trump building on Fifth Avenue and 56th Street. A reporter who has heard the questions that have arisen at the UN asked Gucci about them. "We don't want to deal with that," was the answer. But Gucci CEO Mark Lee gushed, misleadingly, that $4 million would be raised for UNICEF and "for Malawi." But the unincorporated entity "Raising Malawi," affiliated with the Kabbalah Center of Los Angeles, is not the same thing as the country of Malawi. It was said that only fashion reporters are being allowed to cover the event on Wednesday night, reminiscent to some to FEMA's recent fake press conference. But Inner City Press is told for example that a gossip reporter in gaining access, personally approved by Madonna.

When previously questioned about Raising Malawi, Madonna's publicist Liz Rosenberg responded angrily that of course it was co-founded with the Kabbalah Center of Los Angeles, but that money would be accounted for. Has this happened? Certainly not at the UN. And in fact Ms. Rosenberg this week confirmed that "a 501 (c) 3 application has been formally applied for and the organization is awaiting final confirmation from the IRS" -- that is, it is not yet even a non-profit corporation. While Madonna may, how ever distractedly, intend to somehow help the UN, refusing to answer questions and running roughshod of the UN's grounds and procedures and enabling the misuse of the UN's "brand" for commercial purposes has, in fact, the opposite effect. UNICEF, too, is harming the UN in this instance.

UNICEF director Ann Veneman has, contrary now to Ban and increasingly troublingly, not answered a single question about her and her agency's actions. Insiders at UNICEF say that Veneman is so star-struck she would give the UNICEF building west of First Avenue away. Officials on the East of First Avenue seem to see the problem, but not have the get-up-and-go to even speak to Veneman, not dissimilar to the way the UN Development Program's Kemal Dervis was allowed to rebuff the UN Ethics Office's whistleblower protections. (UNICEF is more similar to Enron, in that it can use a convoluted organizational structure in order to avoid any oversight or accountability, by referring questions about the corporate use of its and the UN's name to an affiliate, which does not have to, and does not, answer.)

More fundamentally, if this UN cannot even stand up to Gucci, or to its affiliated UNICEF, how can it deal for example with president al-Bashir of Sudan?

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un5gucci020508.html

Gucci's Use of UN "Worries" Ban Ki-moon, May Not Attend Madonna Event Now, His Chief of Staff Vijay Nambiar Says

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un4gucci020408.html

UNITED NATIONS, February 4 -- Less than forty-eight hours before the Gucci-sponsored event on the UN's North Lawn, held in the name of UNICEF and of Madonna's organization Raising Malawi, Vijay Nambiar, chief of staff to Ban Ki-moon, told Inner City Press that "I don't know how such things happen... Gucci went a little too far." Inner City Press had asked him the same question earlier asked of Under Secretary General for Management Alicia Barcena: what about Gucci's press release saying that the UN event would "celebrate" the opening of a Gucci flagship store on Fifth Avenue? Mr. Nambiar shook his head, saying that Ban Ki-moon had been "planning to go, but now... he is getting himself a little worried about it." He said, "how you build it up is most important, there always a danger," this last presumably referring to over-commercialization. "Ultimately we'll have to see with UNICEF," he said, "the way they built it up."

To his credit, Mr. Nambiar cut through the haze thrown up earlier in the day by UNICEF and the Spokesperson's Office, that it was not UNICEF which had to answer, but rather the US Fund for UNICEF. Nambiar did not mention this outside organization once. And inside the still under-construction tent, the logos of Gucci and UNICEF are interspersed, not US Fund for UNICEF. This use of logo is also irregular, and has given rise to questions about whose logo should be removed, particularly if Ms. Veneman still intends to attend the event. Security sources told Inner City Press on Monday night that the proponents intend to bring their own guards, calling them event planners.

"I would have thought they would have been more careful," Nambair said on Monday night. While referring to Gucci, it applies equally to UNICEF. Sources tell Inner City Press that UNICEF director Ann Veneman was pitched on the idea and approved it without consulting with others from UNICEF or the wider UN. This is contrary to UNICEF's previously claims to Inner City Press that there is no "back-channel" to Ann Veneman. In fact, Ms. Veneman through a spokesperson has defiantly proclaimed, now despite the doubts expressed by Under Secretaries-General Alicia Barcena and Vijay Nambiar, that she will attend. But will she answer any questions?

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un4gucci020408.html

UN Official Calls Gucci's Use of Lawn for Ad Inappropriate, Sees Need for Inquiry into Madonna's "Raising Malawi," While UNICEF Stays Silent

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un3gucci020408.html

UNITED NATIONS, February 4 -- Asked about the propriety of Gucci using the UN's North Lawn to promote a store opening, and whether the UN should have inquired into whether Madonna's "Raising Malawi" entity is a registered non-profit organization, UN Under Secretary-General for Management Alicia Barcena on Monday said Gucci's ad is inappropriate, and that UNICEF should have investigated "Raising Malawi." Video here, from Minute 19:13.

It seemed clear, following Ms. Barcena's admission, that UNICEF has questions to answer. But a senior UNICEF official, asked by Inner City Press on Monday afternoon if any UNICEF spokesperson will come address the issues said no, that yet another organization, UN Fund for UNICEF, should be the one to answer. UN Fund for UNICEF, in turn, refuses to answer any questions about Raising Malawi, much less Gucci, and the public relations firm for the event says that the "red carpet is filled."

The UN of late speaks about accountability, but on this mis-use of the UN's lawn and name, the finger pointing goes from the Secretariat to UNICEF to a non-UN fundraising entity to a non-registered purported charity to a PR flak who refuses to answer questions. Welcome to the UN system in 2008 -- raiding Malawi.

Inner City Press began questioning this use of the UN's North Lawn two weeks ago, when construction of a now-massive edifice began. UN Fund for UNICEF, to whom Inner City Press was directed, refused to answer questions. Finally an e-mail response was sent that tables for the event cost $25,000 to $100,000. US Fund for UNICEF's spokesperson Marissa Buckanoff said she was unable to comment on Raising Malawi's 501(c)3 status"-- that is, whether or not it is a registered non-profit organization in its own right, or only a part of the Kabbalah Center of Los Angeles. The PR firm handling the event told a reporter, not with Inner City Press, who asked about coverage on Wednesday evening that "unfortunately there is no press inside the event and the red carpet has already been filled." Kelly Moss of KDC Worldwide continued that "we will have plenty of B Roll that we'd to share so that you can still cover the event." The non-Inner City Press reporter has ask how an event can be held at the UN with UN accredited-correspondents barred.

But the bare minimum, it would seem, would be for UNICEF, who stands to make hundreds of thousands of dollars from the event and whose name is the reason the UN land was given, to answer questions. USG Barcena gave a press conference on Monday about UN accountability, and Inner City Press asked who had approved this use of the UN's North Lawn by Gucci and Raising Malawi. "We received a request from UNICEF," Ms. Barcena replied, calling UNICEF a "sister organization" and adding that "we do not deny use to any sister organization." Inner City Press asked if Gucci's statement that the event on UN grounds is in celebration of Gucci opening a flagship store on Fifth Avenue is appropriate. "No, I don't think so," Ms. Barcena said.

So who is responsible? Barcena made it clear that she relied on UNICEF, calling their cause "important" and UNICEF an "'honorable partner." UNICEF chief Ann Veneman has not taken questions from the UN press corps in UN headquarters in almost a year.

There have been previous questions about the fundraising judgment of UNICEF or its doppelganger US Fund for UNICEF. In May 2007,Inner City Press asked UNICEF for "information about who paid and how the reported $150,000 performance fee [for Snoop Doggy Dog] for benefit for UNICEF on April 17, 2007, at Cipriani Wall Street (see NY Post of April 19, 2007)."

UNICEF replied that "this was not a UNICEF run event. Cipriani organizes a concert series each year and this year, the US Fund for UNICEF was the beneficiary. We didn't incur any costs."

But since UNICEF directs prospective individual donors to the US Fund for UNICEF, it might have been important to respond to the New York Post so that readers were aware that the incident described, in which the toasted rapper Snoop Dogg refused to perform despite the $150,000 fee, was not directly attributable to UNICEF. The NY Post item ended up being re-reported in England, Houston and even Korea, and not only (as UNICEF seems to view dismissively) Fox, which reported that Snoop Dogg

"also insisted that 10 members of his personal posse be flown over first-class, and at the last minute almost didn't attend the concert, as his dressing room wasn't decked out with an Xbox for playing video games. 'We finally found someone who lent us their kids' Xbox,' an insider told Page Six. According to the paper, Snoop and his sidekicks were an hour late making it to the stage, which meant that the Pussycat Dolls (who were paid $300,000 to perform) were forced to speak, and consequently thanked "Unicel" instead of UNICEF. 'The idea that organizations pay and pamper these already rich people is disgraceful,' said Mia Logan, a New York mother whose 3-year-old daughter is suffering from a severe heart condition. 'If stars need to benefit financially, then it's obvious they have no interest in the cause. Just think how many lives could be saved with that money instead.'"

When UNICEF kept it fundraising shenanigans out in the wider city, it was one thing. But now it's brought onto UN land itself, and no one will answer questions about it. In the longer term, if UNICEF is focused on its and the UN's "brand," not all benefits... provide a benefit. The same NY Post, on February 6, 2007, quoted

"UNICEF spokeswoman Lisa Szarkowski [that] celebrities are often a vital, invaluable part of raising public awareness. And she concedes that the hierarchy of humanitarianism can be just as ruthless as that of any casting director or nightclub doorman. For years, she has been trying to book longtime activist / UNICEF ambassador Mia Farrow on various talk shows to discuss Darfur - but no one wanted to book her, because she lacks pop cultural currency."

It is again worth noting that UNICEF chief Ann Veneman has not taken questions from the UN press corps in UN headquarters in almost a year. When Inner City Press asked a senior UNICEF official that someone from UNICEF come and give a briefing about the event, the response was that all inquiries should be directed to UN Fund for UNICEF. Maybe, if money talks, they can let private commercial interests use the UN lawn for an ad. But they should not be able to outsource the responsibility to answer answers about this (mis) use of the UN. This is sleight of hand is or should be beneath UNICEF. But who will answer the questions? Developing.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un3gucci020408.html

UN's Gucci Event Costs $25,000 Per Table, One-Half to Madonna's Kabbalah Center, Some Call It Raiding Malawi

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un2gucci013108.html

UNITED NATIONS, January 31 -- A table at the Gucci and Madonna event scheduled for the North Lawn of the UN on February 6, which Gucci says will "celebrate the opening" of its flagship store on Manhattan's Fifth Avenue, costs a minimum of $25,000, a spokeswoman for the event told Inner City Press on Thursday. The cost ranges as high as $100,000 a table, or $10,000 per plate or plate. Half of the money raised will go to "Raising Malawi," whose website is emblazoned "Kabbalah Center," click here to view. Inner City Press, which first reported on the event on January 25, asked at the UN's January 31 noon briefing, "what percentage of the funds are going to something called 'Raising Malawi,' and is it the UN's understanding that it is in fact a non-profit? All of the funds will go to Malawi?"

Associate Spokesperson Farhan Haq then said, "I will refer those questions to UNICEF. UNICEF has been involved. Some of the arrangements are made by the US Committee for UNICEF. They do have a press release that we have upstairs that has some details on this for you. But beyond that, I think you should communicate with UNICEF directly."

But UNICEF has referred all questions to the US Fund for UNICEF (the word "Committee" was dropped from the title some time ago), and their spokeswoman Marissa Buckanoff, after having failed to respond to an inquiry on deadline on January 25, on Thursday replied that "tables to the event were sold for $25,000 to $100,000 each...The U.S. Fund for UNICEF will receive 50 percent of all ticket sales and other fundraising initiatives at the event. The other 50% will go to Raising Malawi... I am unable to comment on Raising Malawi's 501(c)3 status....I suggest you contact them regarding your question about their organization."

So, the UN Secretariat has referred all questions to UNICEF, which has in turn referred to an affiliated not-for-profit, which refuses to confirm or deny if a group which stands to make several hundred thousand dollars from an event on UN grounds is, in fact, a registered not-for-profit, and how this group will use the money. Meanwhile Gucci is using the event to advertise its store on Fifth Avenue. Who is setting guidelines for all this? A UN source on Thursday said that a contract must exist between the UN's Office of Legal Affairs and the above-named parties. But where is the contract? And why does it not prohibit commercial use in advertisement of the UN affiliation, for a luxury leather goods store?

This is in contrast even to the UN's previous entanglement with corporations during the celebration of the UN's 50th Anniversary. Corporations such as Swatch and Lucky Goldstar, LG (now Living Good) contributed funds, but were told they could not use this in advertising-like communication, and would be limited to be listed in a program for the event. Gucci does much more, for a more dubious endeavor. So is the UN improving? And what of the promised transparency?

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un2gucci013108.html

UN Lets Gucci Use Global Lawn to Advertise a Luxury Store Opening, While Madonna and Other Celebs Are to Wait in Heated Tents

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un1gucci012508.html

UNITED NATIONS, January 25 -- On the North Lawn of the UN's campus, facing the East River, metal frame buildings have this week been going up. Some thought this was the beginning of construction of the temporary General Assembly hall for use during the Capital Master Plan renovation. But inquiry found that these structures are even more transitory, meant for a one-night concert and fundraising on February 6, which is promoted by, and promotes, Gucci. This seeming strange, Inner City Press asked at Friday's noon briefing who approved this use of the UN, if the UN was charging any money for the use of the lawn, particularly given Gucci's advertising-like statement that "the event will celebrate the opening of Gucci's New York 5th Avenue Flagship store in February 2008." Click here for the press release, which also notes the involvement of a slew of celebrities including Madonna. (One wag at the noon briefing blurted out, "child trafficking." Other, playing off the name of Skanska, the UN's Capital Master Plan contractor, muttered "Skank-ska.")

UN spokesperson Marie Okabe said she would look into it, and later replied by email that "the UN decides who may use the lawn or other facilities. The sponsor is asked to pay the UN upfront prior to the event for all cost incurred (Security, Plant & Engineering, Custodial, Event Coordination, Lawn Repair, etc.) In this instance there is a Memorandum of Understanding between the sponsor Gucci and the UN."

The MOU was not provided, and it was said that it is the UN's Office of Legal Affairs which checks on which companies can use UN premises and, presumably, the appropriateness of their public statements about the use, and whether it is in connection with or to celebrate a commercial venture like the opening of a retail store. Ms. Okabe said that any further questions should be directed to the United States Fund for UNICEF's Director of Public Relations, Marissa Buckanoff. Inner City Press immediately telephoned Ms. Buckanoff and left a detailed message, on deadline, seeking comment on the appropriateness of Gucci deeming the event on the UN's North Lawn as celebrating its opening of a store. As of deadline, no response was received. Nor has it yet been confirmed how much each ticket would cost.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un1gucci012508.html