Afghan Inaction on UN Death as UNICEF Hired Karzai Insiders, UN in Kabul

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 17 -- The UN system's comprised relations with powers in Hamid Karzai's Afghanistan are exhibited both by the UN's failure to push for accountability for the killing of UN staff member Louis Maxwell by Afghan national forces and UNICEF's hiring of Kabul insiders, to keep Karzai and his ministers happy, sources say.

For months Inner City Press has asked the UN about the death of Louis Maxwell at the hands of Afghan national forces. A UN board of inquiry, referring to friendly fire, should have led to an Afghan investigation and prosecution.

When Inner City Press asked top UN Security official Gregory Starr why nothing had been done, he talked about turmoil in the Karzai government, adding that with so many Afghans killed, it was hard to push about the death of a particular individual like Louis Maxwell. Rank and file UN Security staff expressed shock at this answer, and surmised that the UN didn't want to ruffle any feathers in the Karzai administration, wanting to remain in the country in parallel with the ongoing US led occupation.

Weeks ago, a variety of sources told and confirmed to Inner City Press that the UN's children's agency likewise was hiring “cronies” of Karzai and his ministers, in order to curry favor with the government and ministries.

Inner City Press asked UNICEF about some of these connections. For days, UNICEF did not provide answers to these Afghanistan questions, while exhibiting fast turn around about its operations in other countries. Inner City Press was admonished not to go forward with a story based on “unverified” names and connections. Then UNICEF ultimately confirmed the names and hirings, while providing a different explanation:

“our work in Afghanistan is undertaken under very difficult circumstances, and we are often obliged to adjust time frames for the achievement of objectives to reflect changing circumstances. There have been instances where UNICEF has felt that the work its consultants are undertaking in support of Government capacity-building has drifted away from our objectives and our mandate. In these cases considerable additional effort is put into ensuring that their activities are refocused.”

Here in fairness to UNICEF is the full Q&A with the agency's spokesman, followed by Inner City Press' November 16 inquiry about accountability for the murder of UN staff member Louis Maxwell:

Subject: Qs re Afghanistan Catherine Mbegune / Najibullah Mujudidi etc
To: "Matthew Russell Lee" [at] InnerCityPress.com
From: Christopher de Bono [at] unicef.org

Hi Matthew, Here are my answers.

1. Please confirm or deny that UNICEF provided Karzai associate Najibullah Mujudidi with a retainer or other payment, and unless deny, please comment on how this is appropriate, and what services were rendered;

Dr. Mojadidi, a former World Health Organization official, has worked as a UNICEF local consultant in Afghanistan. He was paid a standard consultants’ rate. The terms of reference for the consultancy involved providing policy and strategic advice on the implementation of social sector programmes, including overseeing the implementation of a polio initiative, and preparing briefs for UNICEF on donor and national development strategies. Normal assessments were done upon completion of the assignments, and these indicate that the terms of reference were met to the satisfaction of UNICEF. At the time of his consultancies with UNICEF, Dr. Mojadidi was not a member of the Government of Afghanistan or a government official.

2. Please confirm or deny that UNICEF's Catherine Mbegune signed a blank travel authorization for Najibullah Mujudidi and unless deny, please comment on how this is appropriate;

During Catherine Mbengue’s time as UNICEF representative in Afghanistan she signed two (2) only travel authorizations for Dr Mojididi to undertake travel on behalf of UNICEF. These travel authorizations contain the standard specific details about the reason for travel, dates and destination, and are in accordance with our regulations. We should note that a travel authorization, whether blank or completed, is not a voucher and could not be used for “unlimited travel”. It is an administrative procedure that facilitates a specific trip undertaken on UNICEF’s behalf.

3. Please describe UNICEF's Catherine Mbegune's practices with respect to sole source (or “no bid”) contracts and, separately, that one such sole source contract was to be to an affiliate of a university in the US where the Head of Health section (acting deputy Rep) Brandao Co got his scholarship and degree.

While competitive bidding is the norm for UNICEF contracts, we have no option in some circumstances but to enter into single source contracts, particularly when the specific expertise that we require, as a consequence of external circumstances, is only available from one provider or when security or emergency circumstances mean that the usual competitive review cannot be completed in time to provide the help that we need. Representatives in difficult environments, like Afghanistan was at that time, often have legitimate recourse to single source contracts and Ms. Mbengue was no exception.

During Ms. Mbengue’s tenure as Representative, UNICEF Afghanistan was considering commissioning a nutrition survey of certain areas of Afghanistan, because we were concerned about a lack of useful data and the impact of poor nutrition on the health and well-being of children. Discussions took place around the possibility of hiring of Johns Hopkins University to undertake this survey. Johns Hopkins University (with which UNICEF often works) had previously demonstrated its capacity to undertake surveys in the same area of Afghanistan, including by successfully completing the only recent credible survey on infant mortality in the area. The basis of the preliminary discussion was the capacity of this university to undertake such a proper study in a region prone to serious travel, communications and security problems. Ultimately UNICEF did not commission the nutrition survey and no agreement with Johns Hopkins was entered into. The fact that a UNICEF staff member had attended that university was not a consideration.

4. Please confirm or deny that UNICEF paid associates / advisers of Riz Izan for MRRD, Wadek for Education and the minister for health and unless deny, please comment on how this is appropriate, responding to the assertion that these were at least in part payments for “keeping the Ministers happy".

As part of its country programme UNICEF Afghanistan has provided consultants who give technical advice to the Ministries, including the Ministry of Education. This is consistent with global practice and part of our efforts to achieve our mandate to build capacity within the government and thereby improve the education of children in Afghanistan. The consultants are based at the Ministry, although the UNICEF office is in regular contact with them. In addition, the Ministry provides UNICEF with regular reports, including quarterly updates, on the activities the consultants undertake, which UNICEF uses as one source to determine whether the agreed results are being achieved.

Your readers may wish to note that our work in Afghanistan is undertaken under very difficult circumstances, and we are often obliged to adjust time frames for the achievement of objectives to reflect changing circumstances. There have been instances where UNICEF has felt that the work its consultants are undertaking in support of Government capacity-building has drifted away from our objectives and our mandate. In these cases considerable additional effort is put into ensuring that their activities are refocused so was can be confident they are in line with our programmatic objectives.

The characterization you provide in quotes (although not attributed to anybody) is inaccurate. In order to be sustainable, UNICEF’s initiatives to improve education and health in many countries often include support to improve government capacity. This is one example of such a project.

Chris de Bono

Here is the pertinent portion of the UN's transcript of its November 16 noon briefing, about any Afghan investigation into the murder of UN staff member Louis Maxwell:

Inner City Press: I want to ask about Afghanistan and the UN staff member Louis Maxwell that died there in the compound... what has the UN done to ensure that its recommendation to the Afghan Government that they investigate who killed Louis Maxwell and the circumstances of his death actually be done? Has there been any progress since Mr. [Gregory] Starr’s visit there? What can you say about that?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haz: I don’t have anything further to report to you since Mr. Starr’s visit. As you know, that visit by Gregory Starr was part of our effort to ensure that there is follow-up, and we will continue to press the Afghan authorities. Ultimately, the onus for follow-up action is on them.

More than a day later, no information about any follow-up has been provided. Watch this site.

Probe of Afghan Murder of UN Staffer Maxwell Stalled by “Cultural Sensitivity,” Starr Says, Glitch of Karzai Firing

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/un5maxstarr071810.html

UNITED NATIONS, July 18 -- The murder by Afghan National Forces of UN Security officer Louis Maxwell last October is supposed to now be investigated by the Hamid Karzai government.

Inner City Press has learned that the Karzai administration has yet to do anything, and now that the UN is only half heartedly following up, for reasons of “cultural sensitivity,” as UN Security chief Gregory Starr told Inner City Press -- or cynical political accommodation, as diplomats close to the case put it.

Asked about the Maxwell case on July 14, Starr told Inner City Press, “The problem is, in many cases you're asking the Afghans to really follow up on one person. How many thousands of Afghans have died? So you've got to be sensitive culturally.”

Other UN Security personnel since interviewed by Inner City Press have expressed concern. “He's supposed to represent us,” as one put it, asking that his name not be used for fear of retaliation. “He's not supposed to accept the cover up of the murder of a UN staff, to suck up to the Afghans - or to the Americans.”

A UN Board of Inquiry report, still be withheld from the public and Mr. Maxwell's family, calls on the Afghans to identify the individuals who killed Maxwell long after an attack on a UN guesthouse, which Maxwell fought off.

When Inner City Press asked UN peacekeeping official Susana Malcorra for any progress, she said that the head of the UN Department of Safety and Security Gregory Starr had traveled to Kabul, and to ask him. But Mr. Starr has yet during his tenure to hold a press conference.

On July 14, Inner City Press waited outside the UN's ECOSOC chamber to ask Starr about the case. After six o'clock he emerged, and to his credit agreed to answer some questions from the Press. He said:

“There's a joint investigation by the American FBI and the Afghans. We know Louis was killed after the attack. The circumstances of that are still under investigation. I spoke to the minister of the interior of Iraq [sic] myself and they are looking into it. I hope ultimately to find all the circumstances. There is the video. The problem is interpreting what really happened in that video. We're not an investigative agency. We've turned it over to the proper investigative authority.”

Significantly, Starr added as a concession, “I think there is a momentary glitch. The Minister of Interior was dismissed.”

After a pause, Inner City Press asked Starr about (non) answers it got on June 30 from UN envoy to Afghanistan Staffan de Mistura (video here) and from then Security Council president Claude Heller of Mexico, who'd led the Council's trip to Kabul (video here). Inner City Press concluded, it seems like the issue is falling off the map.

Staff considered it, then said, verbatim: “The problem is, in many cases you're asking the Afghans to really follow up on one person. How many thousands of Afghans have died? So you've got to be sensitive culturally.”

Not only other UN Security officers but also diplomats and non UN military personnel since interviewed by Inner City Press have expressed deep concerns. “They are covering up the death of this guy, because the UN and US want good relations with Karzai,” one said. “So if they go to Somalia, if the TFG [Transitional Federal Government] or Ugandan peacekeepers kill a UN staff, they'd cover that up too?”

Perhaps Mr. Starr, and Ms. Malcorra's deputy Tony Banbury who asserted there was no cover up, but then ducked questions, will now provide more answers, including to the Maxwell and UN family. Watch this site.

And see cell phone video, here, esp. at Minute 1:01 to 1:04

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un5maxstarr071810.html

In Afghanistan, UN Won't Investigate Black Jail or Speak on Election Spending

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/unama1jail051210.html

UNITED NATIONS, May 12, updated -- With Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Washington to meet with Barack Obama today, it's not only the US that's making nice: the UN is following suit, abdicating even on human rights to both the US military and Karzai government.

In most countries where the UN has a presence, particularly a Mission like it has in Afghanistan, it claims to monitor human rights violations. So for example, if only to burnish its credibility, the UN Mission under both Kai Eide and now Staffan de Mistura has issued press releases criticizing killings of civilians by the US and ISAF, when the numbers are too high.

But when Inner City Press asked the UN on May 11, with Karzai in the US, about reports of a "black prison" on the Bagram base, UN spokesman Martin Nesirky replied "this is a United States base; it’s for the United States to comment on."

Inner City Press asked, "Does UNAMA have any human rights component? Doesn’t the UN have some role, where it has a peacekeeping mission, to investigate claims like this?"

Nesirky said, "The UN’s mandate there is very clear and this particular story... this is something that you can clearly ask the US."

But it's not about asking, it's a question of what the UN is going to do. Does it just sit in a country, see reports of human rights violations, and do nothing? In Sudan, for example, while the UN actually does very little to stop the killing, it does speak about it a lot. But the UN dares not criticize the US -- or for that matter China or other Permanent Five members of the Security Council who could veto a second Ban Ki-moon term.

Nor is the UN clear about money it's said to offer. A week after the UN flip flopped on whether it would offer aid to the interim government in Kyrgyzstan -- at first no, then ostensibly yes, which upon inquiry was simply a quantification of aid already being given -- Inner City Press asked how much the UN will devote to the upcoming Afghan parliamentary election. Karzai's fraud addled election cost the UN quite a bit.

From the May 11 UN transcript:

Inner City Press: it’s reported that the upcoming parliamentary elections there; this IEC [Independent Election Commission] official, Zakaria Barakzai, has said that the UN will make up a funding shortfall of some $40 million. Is that the case? What is going to be the UN’s financial contribution or activity in connection with that election?

Spokesperson Nesirky: We need to find out the exact numbers for you, if you’re giving me numbers like this. I am not familiar with those. I would need to find out.

Inner City Press: Also it’s reported, including by the UN’s own ReliefWeb, that the Afghan Government has cancelled the licences of 172 non-governmental organizations, including 20 international NGOs. I’m wondering if the UN, as it did in Sudan, for example, has any comment on this cancelling of licences of NGOs.

Spokesperson: This is something that our colleagues in Kabul are probably very familiar with. I have not heard; my colleagues here in New York have not heard any particular word from the Mission there. If we have something, then we will obviously let you know.

Inner City Press: There is also a report today that, both by the BBC and the Red Cross, of the discovery of a black jail; i.e., an unreported interrogation centre on the Bagram Air Force Base that the United States runs in Afghanistan. I wonder if it’s, if that is anything that the UNAMA [United Nations Assistance Mission for Afghanistan] or its human rights component has ever heard of? Do they intend to investigate it? Do they have any comment on it?

Spokesperson: That’s something for the United States. This is a United States base; it’s for the United States to comment on. We’ve seen the reports.

Question: Does UNAMA have any human rights component? Doesn’t the UN have some role, where it has a peacekeeping mission, to investigate claims like this?

Spokesperson: The UN’s mandate there is very clear and this particular story — obviously we’ve seen that story on the BBC. This is something that you can clearly ask the US.

But the US Misison to the UN hasn't even answer a question posed on the morning of May 11, 24 hours later. Watch this site.

Update: over 24 hours later, this came in:

Subject: Your questions on Afghanistan
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply
Date: Wed, May 12, 2010 at 3:40 PM
To: matthew.lee [at] innercitypress.com

We have some answers from UNAMA concerning your recent questions at the noon briefing about Afghanistan.

Concerning the financing of the Afghan elections: It is not correct that the UN funds elections in Afghanistan. Rather, Staffan de Mistura has asked donors to release funds to support Afghanistan's electoral bodies for the upcoming elections. The UN will work on mobilizing funds to fill the gap.

Concerning the licensing of NGOs: The UN Mission (UNAMA) and Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) are looking into it further but have no comment at this time. It does not seem to affect any NGOs working with UN.

Concerning reports about a secret prison facility at Bagram, UNAMA has no independent information on this report.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/unama1jail051210.html

As Karzai Visits US, More Questions of Who Killed Louis Maxwell Raised by Sister: An Inconvenient Death

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/un4maxwell051010.html

UNITED NATIONS, May 9 -- An inconvenient death casts a shadow, at least for some, over this week's visit to the U.S. by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and over the UN.

The murder of American UN staffer Louis Maxwell in October 2009, following an attack on a UN guesthouse of international elections workers in Kabul, has belatedly been described by the UN as "friendly fire."

But a cell phone video suggests, and Mr. Maxwell's sister among others believes, that Maxwell was summarily executed by Afghan National forces after the firefight was over. The UN never retracted its version, that Maxwell and four other UN staff were all killed by the Taliban, until the video became public and questions became to be asked, including by Inner City Press.

See cell phone video, here, esp. at Minute 1:01 to 1:04

Maxwell's sister over the weekend wrote to Inner City Press for a third time, now putting into words the doubt that the Taliban were (solely) responsible for the attack on the UN guesthouse. She focuses on the conflict of interest the UN has, in confining itself to an internal investigation -- which it described as external and independent -- and then refusing to release a copy of its report, even to the family.

But the U.S., too, has a conflict, as a press conference call by Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute on May 7 shows. Lute repeatedly described Karzai as "our partner" and spoke about the training and evaluation of Afghan National forces. (Lute is, as Inner City Press has reported, the husband of former head of the UN Department of Field Support Jane Holl Lute.)

Karzai's pre-trip Washingotn Post op-ed says he will "convey my deepest condolences to families of those who lost their lives in Afghanistan." Lute and his staffer emphasized that Karzai will spend three full hours with Obama. In all that time, will the matter of Louis Maxwell be raised? Inner City Press was on the press call and put itself in the question cue as soon as it was open, but was not able to ask the question. But the questions will continue. Below is Louis Maxwell's third letter to Inner City Press (click here for 2nd)

Subject: Who Benefited?
rom: aijalon
Date: Sun, May 9, 2010 at 3:39 PM
To: Matthew Lee [at] innercitypress.com

* Around October 20, 2009, Kai Eide the top UN official of the mission affirmed that the August 20 elections had been tainted. It was stated that about one to five of the votes should be discounted and that most of the election fraud came from Karzai supporters.

* On October 28 the UN guesthouse was attacked. The same guesthouse where UN monitors for this same election was staying.

* After the attack it is stated by top UN officials that senior afghan officials were uncooperative in providing information and that they(UN) were completely stonewalled.

* On November 1 the runoff candidate to Karzai drops out of the election race,

* On November 7 Karzai is declared president.

* And this is the same government that Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon wants to investigate their deliberate killing(murder) of my brother Louis Maxwell

You be the judge....

Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un4maxwell051010.html

UN Conflicted on Drone Deaths, Unaware of Karzai Censorship, Cambodia Impunity

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/un1inpun030110.html

UNITED NATIONS, March 1 -- Despite its asserted importance in Afghanistan, the UN was not aware Monday of the Hamid Karzai government's outlawing and censoring of media coverage of Taliban attacks.

Inner City Press asked the spokesman for UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who was on Monday in Hollywood, what Mr. Ban or the UN thought of the restrictions. "I'll need to look into it," Mr. Nesirky said. Video here, from Minute 45:55.

Last week Karzai unilaterally struck down the UN's role in the Electoral Complaints Commission, and when Inner City Press asked, Mr. Nesirky referred only to some mirky UNAMA statements. Perhaps Karzai was thus emboldened to censor the media.

The UN's expert on children and armed conflict, Radhika Coomaraswamy, on Monday praised U.S. and ISAF forces for imcreasing their safeguards against killing civilians, including children.

Inner City Press asked Ms. Coomaraswamy how this assessment squares with the killing by the U.S. on February 21 of 27 civilians in Uruzgan Province. Video here, from Minute 33:26.

Ms. Coomaraswamy nodded and said she had met with General McCrystal the very next morning. She said the U.S. has good better at announcing investigations and apologies, but that the next steps will be remediation and accountability. But when will that be?

Just as the UN paid lip service to freedom of the press, but had nothing to say as that freedom was eliminated by its "partner" Hamid Karzai, so Mr. Nesirky also on Monday said that the purpose of tribunals with the UN-affiliated one in Cambodia is to ensure accountability. Video here, from Minute 44:14.

But in light of government interference, there is a call for Mr. Ban to appoint an Assistant Secretary General to try to "save" the Cambodian court.

There is already a UN Under Secretary General, Patricia O'Brien, ostensibly responsible for the UN's interface with the Cambodian tribunal. At a rare press conference by Ms. O'Brien, Inner City Press sought to ask about the Cambodia court, but Ms. O'Brien declined to answer.

Monday Inner City Press asked that she come and provide a briefing not only about Cambodia, about also the UN's Hariri tribunal, and certain other matters. We'll see.

Footnote: Across from UN headquarters on Monday morning, protesters held signs begging the UN to make the Bangadesh miilitary end Operation Uttaran, which has resulted in the death of civilians in the Chittagong Hill Tracts.

At Monday's noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Mr. Nesirky about the protest, which also called for the UN Development Program to suspend a program in the area. Mr. Nesirky said he was not aware. Video here, from Minute 43:35. We'll be waiting to see what the UN says -- and does. Watch this site.

Update: after preparation of the above, five hours after the question was raised, the UN provided this answer:

In reference to your question on Bangladesh from today's Noon Briefing, to which Martin said he'd look in to... The United Nations system in Bangladesh is closely monitoring the situation in the Chittagong Hill Tracts and hopes that all will unite to help the recovery from this tragedy in a spirit of peace for the greater good of the nation. Also, the United Nations stands ready to provide targeted assistance to those in need, in close collaboration with the Government.

But isn't that the problem? Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un1inpun030110.html

UN's Afghan Selection Colored by Nepotism and No-Show Jobs, Karzai Veto Threats

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/un1monte010110.html

UNITED NATIONS, January 1 -- With the short list for the UN's top post in Afghanistan reportedly narrowed down to three, UN sources confirm to Inner City Press that the push is on to get approval for Staffan de Mistura, currently in a virtually no-show job with the World Food Program.

What many in the UN but few outside it talk about is di Mistura's previous choice of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's son in law Siddarth Chatterjee as his deputy in Iraq, and the role they think this plays in de Mistura's frontrunner status.

While Mr. Ban has shown discomfort and anger about any questions concerning the fast promotions his son in law has received since he became Secretary General, few explanations have been given.

That UN officials like de Mistura and now Jan Mattsson of the UN Office of Project Services, where Chatterjee has been given a D-1 position that is quietly being upgraded to D-2, ingratiate themselves with UN Headquarters by promoting the Secretary General's son in law has also not been addressed.

Inner City Press, which covered both of these Chatterjee promotions, the latter exclusively, was chided by Mr. Ban's previous Spokesperson Michele Montas to stop asking about Chatterjee in the UN's noon briefings, but rather to get answers from Ban's senior advisor Kim Won-soo.

This meeting was quickly changed to be "off the record," and then canceled. South Korea's Deputy Permanent Representative then took Inner City Press to lunch and provided a detailed defense of the promotions and of Mr. Ban. (Later, he claimed the lunch was only about September's UN General Debate.)

Chatterjee himself took to calling and making legal threats to journalists who had picked up on Inner City Press' reports on his promotions, and getting them removed from the Internet, at least from web sites hosted in his native India.

It is not clear if Chatterjee made these calls during time he was being paid by UNOPS. It is clear, however, that UNOPS devoted staff time to media strategies to defend Chatterjee's promotions and Chatterjee himself, work it hard to imagine being done if he was not the UN Secretary General's son in law.

In the week between Christmas and New Year, Inner City Press submitted to Mr. Ban's new Spokesman Martin Nesirky questions about Siddarth Chatterjee, including about his promotions, qualifications and fitness.

While on the afternoon of Christmas Eve Mr. Nesirky's office provided at least cursory answers to other questions asked, including referring questions about possible nepotism by a Ban appointee to another spokesperson, the questions about Ban's son in law not only were not answered, they were not mentioned. But they will not go away. The responses are being sought only in fairness, explicitly on deadline. Watch this site.

UN's Ban and de Mistura, son in law answers and Karzai veto not shown

The other two named candidates are Jean Marie Guehenno, strangely with the backing of the New York Times, and Ian Martin, currently in an ill-defined role with the UN Department of Political Affairs. What the Times did not mention about Mr. Guehenno, in fairness, is that after he was replaced by fellow Frenchman Alain Le Roy, he was given a no show UN Under Secretary General position for "Regional Cooperation."

While that post should have involved liaising between the UN and NATO, for example, or ECOWAS or even the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, months into the job Guehenno candidly admitted to Inner City Press that he had done no work at all. He was shut in writing a book. How its publication, or the timing of its publication, may be related to the current campaigning for the Kabul post is not clear.

Following his candor, Guehenno clammed up. At a recent forum about illegal mining in the Congo, at which questions about the UN Peacekeeping Mission in the Congo's involvement with rogue Army units who mine and massacres, Guehenno explicitly refused to answer any questions from Inner City Press. While in the midst of his campaign for Kabul he perhaps felt he had nothing to gain, ham handed rebuffing of the press would not make Guehenno that different front Kai Eide, outgoing in only one of the word's two senses.

Ironically, Guehenno is also mentioned by human rights groups as a candidate to take over from Alan Doss at the UN Mission in the Congo. Doss is himself embroiled in a nepotism scandal since Inner City Press received and published his e-mail telling the UN Development Program to bend and break UN rules and give a job to his daugther.

Mr. Ban five months ago promised an investigation, but some attribute the delay to Ban's own resistance to nepotism questions. Doss may be allowed to serve out his contract then Guehenno, if still available, be given the Congo job.

Ian Martin appeared to go a good job in Nepal, although it appears now to be unraveling. When Inner City Press asked him in a UN hallway about Kabul, Martin laughed. Later he clarified he was not laughing with Inner City Press, only laughing. And laughter may be one of the many things there is not enough of in Kabul.

Footnote: Inner City Press is also told that the U.S., not wanting to be upstaged in Afghanistan, has joined Ban in pushing President Hamid Karzai to accept de Mistura. But Karzai, who previously vetoed the proposal to make Paddy Ashdown a "Super Envoy" to Afghanistan, is near to issuing a similar veto of di Mistura. Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un1monte010110.html

UN's Af-Pak Contradictions, on Threat Levels and No Bashardost Run-Off

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/unama7sideline110209.html

UNITED NATIONS, November 2 -- As in Kabul UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon assured Hamid Karzai that UN staff will stay in Afghanistan, the UN announced that it is pulling its international staff out of Northwest Pakistan, declaring the area at the UN's "Phase IV" security threat level. Is it safer in Afghanistan, where five UN staff as well as at least two others were killed last week before the second round of voting was canceled?

Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Michele Montas, who declined to provide the UN's threat level for Afghanistan. The UN press office in New York routinely refuses to discuss issues it deems about security. Why then did the UN in Pakistan, in a press release, declare the rise to Phase IV?

The press release, by Isharat Rizvi of UNIC Islamabad, says that Mr. Ban "has declared Phase IV (Emergency Operations) in NWFP and FATA." When Inner City Press asked about it, Ms. Montas replied, "That should not have happened." Video here, from Minute 17:27.

But again, why not? The UN has been criticized in Algeria for giving in to the government's desire that the threat level be kept low, in the run-up to the bombing of the UN in Algiers. So does the UN withhold its threat assessment levels to placate governments? The U.S. State Department, for example, issues public travel advisories for certain countries. But the UN is "owned" by its member states. Did Pakistan complain about the public raising to Phase IV?

Inner City Press also asked, for the second time, if the UN had contacted the third place finisher in the first round of Afghan elections.

Back on October 22, Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe

Inner City Press: the number three candidate in Afghanistan, I know you’ve said we may get this hook up, so I wanted to ask you this now. The candidate who came in number three, Mr. Bashardost, has said that he may tell those who voted for him -- 10 per cent of the voters -- to boycott the second round due to continuing concerns of fraud. I wanted to know, in all this, in the UN’s engagement both with Abdullah Abdullah and President Karzai, is the UN speaking to this number three candidate and what do they make of his critique of the second round in advance?

Deputy Spokesperson Okabe: I’m sure that the UN is supporting all efforts by the Afghan authorities in ensuring that a successful second round takes place.

Now the second round has been canceled, after Abdullah Abdullah withdrew, and the UN apparently never contacted the number three candidate, Ramazan Bashardost. Inner City Press asked Ms. Montas on November 2; she replied that the decision to cancel was up to the Independent Electoral Commission, which most see as dominated by Hamid Karzai.

But even before the IEC announced its decision, the UN's Kai Eide called for a "timely" conclusion. Inner City Press asked Ms. Montas to respond to those who see Eide's comment as indicating a preference, shared by the U.S., that the second round be canceled, not least for security of their people. No, Ms Montas seemed to claim. The UN had no preference. Video here, from Minute 17:27. Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/unama7sideline110209.html

UN's Ban Favors "Phantom Polling Stations" Decried by Fired Galbraith in Afghan Runoff

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/unama2sideline102009.html

UNITED NATIONS, October 20 -- For the second round of Afghan elections now slated for November 7, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon favors keeping open what were described as "phantom" polling stations by the deputy envoy who Ban fired, Peter Galbraith.

Shortly after Hamid Karzai announced he would accept the second round based on findings of widespread fraud in the first, Ban spoke with the Press outside the UN Security Council chamber in New York. Inner City Press asked him, "What about the phantom polling stations?" Galbraith said that polling stations in areas entirely under the control of the Taliban, where no verification would be possible, should not be open in the first round.

Inner City Press asked Mr. Ban if he thinks these "so-called phantom polling stations" should be open in the second round. Ban, after repeating the phrase, said "I'd like to make it clear... the purpose of the UN is assisting the electoral process last time" was to "ensure all Afghanistan people would be able to express their will by casting votes."

"The idea suggested by Mister Peter Galbraith to reduce the number of polling stations" just to avoid fraud was "not acceptable [under] the core values of democracy," Ban said.

Ban then argued this was why he fired Galbraith, "not about fraud," but on the principle of enfranchisement. While many correspondents after Ban's stake out interview expressed skepticism at this, noting that Galbraith was only fired when he publicly called into question the partiality of Ban's top envoy Kai Eide and thus of Ban himself, at a minimum Ban's statement might be interpreted as, going public with a call to limit the number of polling stations was "not acceptable."

Reasonable minds can disagree about whether polling stations that cannot be effectively monitored help or hurt democracy. Therefore to argue that any questioning of such stations is "not acceptable under the core values of democracy" might seem hyperbolic, or an attempt to spin what some see as another of the UN's firing of whistleblowers or critics.

As possible deals between Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah will be rumored to cancel the November 7 run-off, there is sure to be a debate about, among other things, the wisdom of the so called phantom polling stations. Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/unama2sideline102009.html

UN Denies Galbraith's a Whistleblower, Told Him to Be Quiet about Kai Eide's and UNAMA's Pro-Karzai Bias

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/un2elections100709.html

UNITED NATIONS, October 7 -- With the UN facing charges of bias and cover up of fraud in Afghanistan, Wednesday in New York the UN presented no fewer than three officials to the Press corps, all intent on rebutting and bad mouthing the UN's fired deputy envoy Peter Galbraith.

The Department of Peacekeeping Operation's second in command Edmond Mulet said the Galbraith has "personal motives" for going public with his complaints that main envoy Kai Eide has been covering up electoral irregularities in the service of Hamid Karzai. Inner City Press asked Mulet to describe how Galbraith has hired for the job, and why these personal motives, or propensity to be a loose cannon, had not been discovered at the time.

Mulet said that while Galbraith had been "a candidate among others... he was selected by the Secretary General... I cannot deny that him being a citizen of an important country that plays an important role in Afghanistan, that also was a factor we took into consideration." Video here, from Minute 1:01:56.

According to Mulet, the UN thought Galbraith's American citizenship was a plus, that Galbraith would somehow represent or be a conduit to the United States. So what now -- does Galbraith speak for the U.S.? Or, as some surmise, did Richard Holbrooke create a Frankenstein and then "leave him out to dry"?

Inner City Press asked Mulet and his colleagues to respond to Galbraith's statement in the Daily Telegraph that

"the final instruction from the Secretary-General before sacking him last week was: 'Do not talk.' He initially agreed to Ban Ki-moon's request after being given assurances that his dismissal would be presented as a dispute over how the UN mission was handling electoral fraud in Afghanistan. But he decided to break his silence, after officials announced instead that his sacking was in the 'best interests of the mission.' 'I might have tolerated even this last act of dishonesty in a dispute dating back months if the stakes were not so high.'"

While Mulet didn't answer, his colleague Wolfgang Weisbrod-Weber, the Director of the Asia and Middle East Division of DPKO, said that while he didn't know what Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said, DPKO has told Galbraith "do not exacerbate the divergence of views in public unnecessarily."

Since Galbraith was complaining not only of electoral fraud but also of bias by his boss, Kai Eide, and was told to be quiet and then was fired, Inner City Press asked how this complied or relates to the UN's statement policy of protection of whistleblowers' rights to make such complaints. Video here, from Minute 1:04:14.

Mulet insisted that Galbraith is not a whistleblower, saying "he has a personal agenda, a person objective that will become clear in the future." Another reporter said that Ban's chief of staff Vijay Nambiar said that Galbraith was removed because he was trying to engineer an unconstitutional change of government in Afghanistan. There was no response to this, nor to Inner City Press' question about whether the UN will, as Karzai challenger Abdullah Abdullah and others have urged, conduct an investigation of Eide's actions, by the Office of Internal Oversight Services.

While Mulet and Craig Jenness, Director of the Electoral Assistance Division of the Department of Political Affairs both insisted that the UN had no monitoring role in Afghanistan, a May 11, 2009 press release by the UN stated that "UNAMA will follow these elections closely and monitor the campaign to help ensure that the fundamental political rights of the Afghan people are respected. " So which is it? Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un2elections100709.html