Showing posts with label inner city pres. Show all posts
Showing posts with label inner city pres. Show all posts

Saturday, March 12, 2016

Inner City Press Asks UN As Ashe Scandal Extends to Current & Next PGA, Bethel Link


By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive series
UNITED NATIONS, March 12 -- While many try to insulate today's UN from the open corruption of the recent past of President of the General Assembly John Ashe, there is continuity to this UN scandal.
  Inner City Press in October 2015 repeatedly raised that Ashe's chief of staff Paulette A. Bethel of the Bahamas was and is current PGA Mogens Lykketoft's “Special Adviser, Coordination and Engagement,” at the senior D2 level.
   Now as high UN officials including Cristina Gallach, who was with now indicted Frank Lorenzo at the South South Awards, try to oust Inner City Press completely from the UN premises or at least restrict its access, Inner City Press on March 11 reported and asking about this:
  By having her position with Lykketoft, Paulette Bethel continues to have immunity. Ban Ki-moon has not waived it, despite the portrait painted of her the John Ashe indictment. She “knows where the bodies are buried,” as the phrase has it.
  And perhaps for that reason, Inner City Press is multiply informed that Bethel is lobbying for a continued immunity job with the NEXT President of the General Assembly, whether from Cyprus or Fiji.
  In fact, Inner City Press is informed, both candidates to succeed Lykketoft as PGA, Cyprus and Fiji, was lobbied to keep Bethel on -- as a D2, with full immunity -- if they win the job, and were promised (the same) votes if they do. 
Now, Inner City Press is informed of new (March 11) developments regarding Paulette Bethel's immunity status.
  For now, what does this mean? Well -- did Lykketoft make the same corrupt deal? Why WOULD Lykketoft, claiming to be so different from John Ashe, keep Ashe's chief of staff on his team? Even Banned from the UN second floor where Lykketoft's office -- used to campaign for Helle Thorning-Schmidt, as Inner City Press exclusively covered -- we'll have more on this. Here.
On March 11, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric -- who among other things has refused to answer on lending UN Press Briefing Room, in which indictee Frank Lorenzo appeared without being listed in the Media Alert -- about this.
 Video here UN transcript here
Inner City Press: I want to return to the indictment of John Ashe, I'd asked you before, but I have more to ask about it, that the previous Chief of Staff of John Ashe, Paulette Bethel, is currently the number three official in Mogens Lykketoft's office.  And as Chief of Staff, she's listed throughout the indictment and charge sheet in the John Ashe case. I've also become aware that there's requests being made to potential new PGAs (Presidents of the General Assembly), Cyprus and Fiji, to continue her in the employment as a D-2 UN official. If a person is a UN staff member but works for the PGA's office, one, what is the status of their immunity from prosecution and testifying?  And, two, who can waive that immunity?  Is it the Secretary-General, as with other UN staff, or is there some special status for a UN staff member who works for the PGA's office?

Spokesman Dujarric:  Look, speaking not in relation to the particular case that you mentioned, because her employment and the employment of anybody in the PGA's office is up to the PGA itself, the Secretary-General has the authority to lift the immunity of any UN staff member.

Inner City Press:  Does it seem strange to you that someone listed so prominently in the indictment remains on the UN payroll? Can you describe the immunity that that obtains?  If, for example, the US Attorney's Office wanted to speak to a Chief of Staff who went to Macau, who was involved in all of these actions…

Spokesman:  I'm not going to speak to… I can't speculate…

Inner City Press:  D-2, D-2 generally.

Spokesman:  I can't speculate to the case.  I don't… I'm not privy to anything that the US Attorney may or may not be doing.  What is clear is that anyone, as far as I know, under the rank of Assistant Secretary-General, which would include D-2s, such as myself, carries functional immunity.  As a matter of principle, immunity is not there to block any criminal investigation.  Maggie?

Voice of America:  Steph, anything on Mr. de Mistura's smaller conversations 
Yes, smaller conversations... There is a history, here.
 After being thrown out of the UN on two hours notice by Under Secretary General for DPI Cristina Gallach on February 19, on March 10 back in on a "non resident correspondent" "Green P" pass, Inner City Press was ordered out of the UN at 8 pm, here, as it worked on this story -- here's an Inner City Press story on Bethel and Ban Ki-moon's connection to the scandal -- in the UN Lobby. 
 UNder this kind of harassment, intimidation and attempted censorship, there is only one approach: publish, publish, publish. If Bethel didn't have the immunity that comes with a UN D-2 post, what might she testify to? Who could waive her immunity?
 Beyond the already problematic #NextPGA, how should the next UN Secretary General be selected, to improve the Organization? 
  At a minimum, transparently. But that's not what's happening so far.  On February 26 Inner City Press asked Lykketoft if those who are running -- to date, six official candidates -- will be required or even asked to disclose who is financing their campaigns. Video here. 
Lykketoft replied that he feels he has no mandate to require such disclosures. Inner City Press followed up: will Lykketoft, who was describing a process for “interaction” with the candidates beginning April 12, even ask them to make such disclosures, ideally in writing before April 12, or during their appearance?
   Lykketoft told Inner City Press, I encourage you to ask them. But while a UNTV stakeout will be set up outside the “interactive” meetings, nothing requires the candidates to take questions. And Inner City Press being present to ask such questions is being opposed and undermined by the UN Department of Public Information under Cristina Gallach -- who got her UN job in a murky way, as Inner City Press reported here -- and by Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric. We'll have more on that, as relates to Next SG.
The frontrunner, many say, is Bulgaria's Irina Bokova, current the head of UNESCO. In fact, in that capacity and on that dime Bokova was scheduled to appear in UN Headquarters on February 22, for an event called “UNESCO Green Citizens: Pathfinders for Change.”
  In the run-up, Inner City Press asked on Twitter what Bokova and UNESCO thought of UN Public Information chief Cristina “Maybe She Should Be SG” Gallach having Inner City Press thrown out of the UN, literally. There's been no answer.
   Inner City Press RSVP-ed for the UNESCO event, February 22 at 6 pm. Despite being told at 9:45 am that it is “Banned from all UN premises,” UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric in a staged colloquy at the noon briefing claimed that Inner City Press is NOT Banned - just has to "vacate its office." Why?
  Inner City Press, with the paper UNESCO pass, attended the February 22 event. Some discussion, attempting to resolve the situation, will not be reported here. But threats were repeated; Bokova it turns out canceled at the last minute, leaving some correspondents - not this one - disappointed. There was for a moment an open mic, and Inner City Press for one wished for some dark horse candidate to grab the moment, and the mic, and shake things up. It's needed: the UN is in decay. 
  Meanwhile, another seeming candidate Susana Malcorra -- still wonder her views on the ouster, while noting that her successor Edmond Mulet hasn't even answered -- has left, shall we say, eyes behind. We'll have more on this.
Meanwhile a person who worked for Ban from 2014 “to” 2016 has taken to the editorial pages of the New York Times to promote Angela Merkel as the Next SG. 
 Inner City Press has asked questions about that -- and, again by analogy, about why Ban is refusing to make public those who are seeking to become the head of UNEP. Here's the February 16 UN transcript.
Back in early February, Inner City Press was informed that two candidates, one declared and one not yet, were campaigning at the African Union summit in Addis Ababa: Argentina's Susana Malcorra, and FYROM's and former PGA Srgjan Kerim. What is the position of each of these, for example, on the UN having a Freedom of Information Act? 
 The UN Spokesperson's Office this week refusing to provide basic information about how it "lends" out the UN Press Briefing Room shows the need for a FOIA. And what changes would the candidates bring to the OSSG, and information availability generally? There will be questionnaires...
  Meanwhile a spat has broken out in which Australia indicates it does NOT have to support Helen Clark, agreed to by Tony Abbott, but rather could support Kevin Rudd. Has Helen Clark even declared? If and when she does, will she step down as UNDP Administrator? Watch this site.
 On January 18 at an event marking Slovakia's 70th year of membership in the UN, reference was made to the country's candidate(s) for the position: both foreign minister Miroslav Lajcák and, as Inner City Press has previously asked about and reported, Ján Kubiš, currently the UN's envoy to Iraq. 
After the event, with speeches by Ban Ki-moon's chief of staff Edmond Mulet, the head of DPI and Professor Stephen Schlesinger, a cynic opined to Inner City Press that despite or because of all the Eastern European Group candidates, maybe Mulet's predecessor Susana Malcorra, now being “seasoned” in Argentina, will return and get the job. We'll have more on this.
On December 15, after President of the General Assembly Mogens Lykketoft as well as US Ambassador Samantha Power co-signed a letterto all states and Observer States to put forward candidates, Lykketoft took questions. 
 On January 15, Lykketoft's office put online a third nomination letter, that of Montenegro for Igor Luksic, joining FYROM's Srgjan Kerim and Croatia's Pusic. Here.
And when, we ask, might Slovakia put in a nomination for Jan Kubis? And would Czech Republic make a nomination, while its Deputy Prime Minister says "no more refugees"? 
 Earlier on January 15, Inner City Press asked Lykketoft who is paying for his trips to the United Arab Emirates, Davos and Jordan. Video here.Later Lykketoft's spokesperson replied, "The PGAs trip to Abu Dhabi is being funded by Govt of UAE and the rest of the trip by the Office of the PGA." The answer is appreciated; we'll have more on this.
 On Next SG, back on December 15 Inner City Press asked Lykketoft if the General Assembly's “dialogues” with candidates will be open -- yes -- and if he thought a candidate currently heading a UN agency should step down to run. (He did not answer this.)
  Lykketoft said so far there are two formal candidates: Croatia's foreign minister Vesna Pusic and former PGA Srgjan Kerim of FYROM. Inner City Press asked, during the press conference, how for example a person like ex-PGA Vuk Jeremic, without the support of his government at present, could run. Lykketoft said that another state could nominate him.
(An aside: if it's true that neither Pusic nor Kerim are on Twitter, what does that say about the place of technology and social media in the current Next SG race?)
  Minutes later, on Periscope (speaking of transparency), Inner City Press asked Lykketoft of a nomination from a non-state would even be processed. No, he indicated. So much for “We the Peoples.” And so much, perhaps, for Eastern Europe, if Crimea becomes a litmus test.
On December 11, Inner City Press asked the foreign ministers of both Ukraine and Lithuania, both members of the Eastern European Group, about who should be next SG. Video here. 
From the answers, it seems at least these two countries will demand a candidate which would condemn a P5 Security Council member's violation of the UN Charter. Since p5 members have a veto over the SG, maybe the post will move beyond the group. We'll be covering this, watch this site. 
F We note that at the increasingly corrupt UN Correspondents Association, there are no term limits and this year, all six officers are running without opposition, headed by Giampaolo Pioli who previously rented one of his apartments to Sri Lanka's ambassador then screened his war crimes denial film, and now sells seats with Ban Ki-moon for $6,000. Let's hope this process can lead to an SG who can clear the UN up.
 On September 22, after the Permanent Representatives of Estonia and Costa Rica announced a high level meeting on the topic on September 26; Estonia's Sven Jürgenson said his priority is the best candidate, not necessarily from the Eastern European group. 
   Inner City Press asked if this same push for transparency applies to the current murky process of selecting the new High Commissioner for Refugees, of which it is said Ban Ki-moon alone choose (Danish UNGA President Mogens Lykketoft told Inner City Press he “favors” the Danish ex-Prime Minister but plays no role.)
  Costa Rica's Juan Carlos Mendoza Garcia told Inner City Press that reforms in Secretary General selection could help reform other selections in the UN system. Inner City Press - and the Free UN Coalition for Access -- ask, isn't the refugee top post something of a test case?
  Tellingly, the old UN Correspondents Association demanded to ask - and largely waste - the first question, the time of meritless hierarchy that is precisely what's wrong with the UN. We'll have more on this, and on the September 26 high level meeting.
  Back on July 22 the subject was discussed behind closed doors by the UN Security Council. Afterward UK Ambassador Matthew Rycroft emerged and described the meeting as a first step, adding that the UK intends to convene a so-called Arria formula meeting of the Council once candidates come forward.
  Inner City Press asked Rycroft if the issue of regional rotation - that is, the the Next SG post belongs to the Eastern European Group -- came up. He said that it did, adding among other things that the UK does not think that is the most important factor. Periscope video here, for now.
Background: on June 30, UN Conference Room 11 was full to discuss the Next SG question, in an event organized by the 27 member states (so far) making up ACT (Accountability, Coherence, Transparency). 
  Surprising to some, on the panel was UK Permanent Representative Matthew Rycroft, who said among other things that the Next SG should not necessarily be from the Eastern European Group.
  The room was full -- Inner City Press stood by the door, broadcastingby Periscope and live-tweeting with laptop in hand -- but with a notable contingent of Eastern European representatives. One question identified herself as such: a woman, and Eastern European. Just saying.
   William Pace of WFM reminisced how Boutros Boutros Ghali's second term was vetoed in a deal between the (Bill) Clinton adminstration and then-Senator Jesse Helms, to release dues payments to the UN. 
 The proposal now is for a single seven year term. Mary Robinson says she knows of another P5 country, beyond the UK, which is open to a single seven year term.
  When it was open for questions, Inner City Press (also on behalf of the new Free UN Coalition for Access, which unlike the older correspondents grouping actually fights for more transparency by the UN) asked why not have a debate among prospective candidates? 
  Why not require disclosure of how much is spend on each candidates campaign, including banning or requiring the disclosure of spending of the funds of UN Programmes (UNDP) or Organizations (UNESCO) for their chiefs to campaign to replace Ban Ki-moon?
   The UK's Rycroft said that prohibitions are not the answer -- agreed -- but did not answer on requiring financial disclosures. (He said we don't want massive spending, one isn't running for president. Which raises another question: what about some form of matching funds for candidates from lower income countries?)
  While much of the focus seems to be on arranging letters from the President of the Security Council to the President of the General Assembly, as Inner City Press asked at the ACT event and asked the new PGA Mogens Lykketoft himself, twice (video), can't the PGA call a high level meeting and invite candidates to present themselves? In this way, the wider world outside the UN could get engaged, and put on some pressure. The anonymous polling of which candidates are “discouraged” by the P5 members should not, FUNCA contends, be repeated.
  Costa Rica's Permanent Representative Juan Carlos Mendoza-García wrapped up, and the event was over. It was promising, but moves for reform and opening up should begin as soon as possible. Watch this site.
  Back on June 1, after several press conference on the topic and a closed door General Assembly session on April 27, the ACT group of 27 states (Accountability, Coherence and Transparency) submitted their page and a half set of proposals to the Presidents of the Security Council and of the General Assembly. 
  Even before these proposals are debated, candidates are edging for an advantage; dark horses are positioning themselves for it the post slips away from the Eastern European Group. Inner City Press has mentioned Helen Clark, using the UN Development Program post to campaign (staff who cross her on Twitter are reprimanded, as Inner City Pressreported here.)
 Another "dark horse" candidate, Inner City Press is told, is Swedish foreign minister and former UN official Margot Wallstrom. We'd like to hear from her what she thnks of the UN's handling of allegations of sexual abuse by French "peacekeepers" in the Central African Republic, including the role of another reputed dark horse candidate, or at least candidate to head the UN in Geneva, Susana Malcorra. And what did Ban know, and when did he know it?
  The Free UN Coalition for Access agrees, there should be formal candidacies, platforms -- and adds, why not debates?
  We'd like to hear the Swiss view on this - from today forward, from a new mission spokesperson, Simone Eymann. Her predecessor Adrian Sollberger at his farewell reception on June 1 joked how being an elections officer is like speed dating. He is remaining with the the Foreign Department of Switzerland working in the Cabinet of the Secretary of State, in Berne.
  So why NOT some debates among candidates for Secretary General, when they declare? We'll have more on this.
 How to pick the next UNSG: that was the question on the afternoon of April 27 in what was called a "closed" meeting in the Trusteeship Council Chamber. The meeting being labeled closed, and not on UN webcast, is a bad beginning, the Free UN Coalition for Access believes.
 To counter-act this Inner City Press did its reporting about the meeting, from India urging that there be more than one - a panel - of candidates proposed, to Moldova emphasizing that the next SG should come from Eastern Europe.
 Canada said regional rotation should inform but not determine the selection. The UK to its credit released a copy of the speech by new Permanent Representative Matthew Rycroft - but how to square its proposals with David Cameron nominating Andrew Lansley to replace Valerie Amos as Emergency Relief Coordinator, then insisting that the UK should have the post, now in the person of Stephen O'Brien.
Update: With only a few dozen states choosing to speak, the chair decided to try to finish them all -- five states in twelve minutes? -- to end the debate on April 27. This too may not be the right spirit.
Update II: And when the rushed session ended, the next one was announced for May 12, on the "institutional memory" of the Office of the President of the General Assembly.
  Earlier in a 10 am press conference by the campaign called "1 for 7 Billion: Find the Best UN Leader."
  At the April 27 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson for Ban's views on needed reforms. Apparently there are none: it is up to member states, he said, adding that selecting a women would be good. What about pay to play?
  Inner City Press asked the panel if, as happened last time, increase trade and aid funding by a candidates' country should at least be disclosed, if not prohibited. William Pace of WFM replied not only about countries spending hundreds of million of Euros, but also about the heads of international agencies using their posts to campaign.
  Since UNDP's Helen Clark is known to have told associates and underlings she would like to be the next SG, Inner City Press asked the panel for comment. They were diplomatic, including on the UK, said to be a reformer on the SG post, having insisted it retain the Emergency Relief Coordinator positioon, albeit in the person of Stephen O'Brien and not Cameron's first nominee (and National Health Service destroyer) Andrew Lansley.
  Natalie Samarasinghe of UNA-UK said the campaign around (well, against) Lansley was a positive step forward; she said that social media makes secret processes less possible. (But see the replacement at Yemen envoy of Jamal Benomar by a Mauritanian official who has not made public financial disclosure).
  Yvonne Terlingen, now Senior Policy Adviser at WFM,  also cited the OCHA process or campaign. WFM's Pace seemed to conflate the entire UN press corps with the UN Correspondents Association, a group that for example tried to censor Press coverage of how Under Secretary General Herve Ladsous got the job, then tried to get the Press thrown out.

  The new Free UN Coalition for Access seeks to open the UN and these processes - watch this site.

Ban Brags of Rape Response at 11 PM, Inner City Press Ousted at 8, No Q&A, Retaliation?



By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 12 -- Amid a litany of rape charges against UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous, Inner City Press exclusively obtained and on February 12 published UN emails showing another round of sexual abuse of minors in Ouaka prefecture in the Central African Republic by UN Peacekeepers from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Click here to view.

 On March 11, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution on the topic, after an Egyptian proposed amendment was defeated five in favor, nine against and one abstention. (Egypt abstained on the final vote.) Inner City Press put the adopted resolution online here. 

  Despite UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric defending - and from what he said, seeming to have ordered -UN Security's ouster of Inner City Press from the UN at 8 pm, Dujarric's office then issued a press statement about the resolution... after 11 pm.

  The UN's in-house / propaganda UN News Center dutifully wrote up Ban's 11 pm emission -- the next morning, and in fine social media technique tweeted it with a photograph of a tieless Ban speaking passionately at the UN Security Council stakeout.

 Only, this was an old photograph. On the issue of sexual abuse this week, while Ban's personal rostrum was set up at the stakeout, it was quickly removed. (On Ban's way out of the Security Council, Inner City Press directly informed him that UN Security and the Department of Public Information's Cristina Gallach had thrown it out of the UN. Ban looked surprised; Inner City Press was thrown out again eight hours later.

Is it retalation? The Government Accountability Project has told the US Mission that it is, here. And?)

Ban would not be taking questions about the UN and rape -- just as his head of Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous takes no public or Press questions, after having publicly, right next to Dujarric, linked the rapes to "R&R."

  And Ban's head of UN Women, South Africa's Phumzile Mlambo, despite having once again this week been asked by Inner City Press and again provided the video, still has no comment or response to Ladsous' outrageous comment. Status of Women indeed.

  Of the new UNSC resolution, Operative Paragraph 2 calls for repatriation when “a particular troop-contributing country whose personnel are the subject of an allegation or allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse has not taken appropriate steps to investigate the allegation and/or when the particular troop- or police-contributing country has not held the perpetrators accountable or informed the Secretary General of the progress of its investigations and/or actions taken.”

  Operative Paragraph 8, which we're calling the Sangaris paragraph for the French Sangaris force in CAR, “calls upon Member States deploying non-United Nations forces authorized under a Security Council mandate to take appropriate steps to investigate allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse, hold perpetrators accountable and repatriate units when there is credible evidence of widespread or systemic sexual exploitation or abuse by those units.”

 Will France repatriate itself? Earlier on March 11, Inner City Press asked French minster (of the environment) Segolene Royal about not only the UN Global Compact but also the scandal of the French Sangaris rapres in CAR.

  Segolene Royal said that the French defense minister Jean-Yves le Drian is addressing the issue. Inner City Press later tweeted at the both: where is the response? How long is credible to take action? "Shorter is better," the genial French Ambassador Francois Delattre said. We'll have more on this.

 On March 4 at 11 am Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's report on "Special measures for protection from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse" came out from under embargo and Inner City Press immediately published this review.

Ban's response is inadequate; tellingly, it is not the boss of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous, who has on camera linked the rapes to R&R, who is presenting or pitching the response, but lower profile Atul Khare.

On March 10, Ban presented his report to the UN Security Council, followed by Council members' speeches. Ladsous attended - refusing Inner City Press' question about Code Blue's critique on the way in -- and left even as China was speaking.

 Later at the March 10 noon briefing, Inner City Press asked the director of UN Women Phumzile Mlambo, not for the first time, for her response to Ladsous having publicly linked the rapes to R&R. She replied that she remembered the Press question, but hadn't been able to "corroborate" it.

  "Watch your Twitter feed," Inner City Press said, and send her (and Brazil's Permanent Representative Patriota) the video link.

  Spain in the debate said that countries should have six months to take action. So how long has French taken on the Sangaris rapes? Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric for his view. He said the French process is ongoing. For how long?

  We'll have more on the question of whether the draft Security Council resolution should also address Sangaris, and for example the French Force Licorne in Cote d'Ivoire. Inner City Press asked Brazil's Patriota if the issue should be in the General Assembly as well. He said yes, citing Jose Ramos Horta -- who has chimed in to the UN against its ouster of Inner City Press, so far without it being reversed. Now we can say: Ban knows. Personally.

On March 4 at the 11:15 am press conference -- tellingly, the UN Correspondents Association wasn't present - Inner City Press asked Khare why it wasn't Ladsous presenting, why Ban Ki-moon noted without criticism a mere nine day suspension for sexual exploitation, why sexual abuse of a 14 year old was classified by the UN as "transactional"?

 Khare did not explain Ladsous' absence, nor answer if Ladsous was the unnamed UN official who pre-spun Reuters and a few others.

He did not directly say that Reuters broke the embargo - he said to ask DPI about that , which is funny in that DPI threw Inner City Press out of the UN for trying to cover an event in this same UN Press Briefing Room, while collaborating with Reuters - but added he was surprised to see the advance story. Video here.

There is no accountability at the top - or in the field. The March 4 report in Paragraph 20 presents as legitimate a nine day suspension for sexual exploitation, and undefined "administrative sanctions" for sexual exploitation that led to a "Peacekeeper baby." This is shameful.

  Zeid firing whistleblower Kompass was asking about by France 24 - but not Ladsous.

 As to the Central African Republic, where the UN covered up French Sangaris troops child rapes and then fired the whistleblower -- not mentioned in the report -- the UN blamed the victims, saying the country is poor, women and girls are for sale: a more diplomatic entree into what Ladsous came out and said on September 11, 2015, linking rapes to R&R.

 Combine this with an Inner City Press question Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric refused to answer - how could the UN log in sexual abuse of a 14 year old, statutory rape, as "transactional" sex -- and the scam of Ban's response becomes clear.

 Perhaps because the product is so worthless, the attempt to sell and spin it was extensive.

  Since December Inner City Press has asked at noon briefings when Ban Ki-moon's response to the Deschamps report would be released, including asking about member state dissatisfaction with the response, and Ladsous.  "March," Ban's two spokesman said.

 On Wednesday Inner City Press learned that not the official responsible for the rapes, Herve Ladsous, but lower profile Atul Khare had shot a UN TV "interview" about the response. Now, in similar propaganda fashion, an UNnamed UN official has poured the spin on Reuters and the old "small group of reporters" -- that is, those who never reported that Ladsous, on camera, linked the rapes to R&R. This is the UN Corruption Association.
 
  Inner City Press on March 3 asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq, video hereUN transcript here.

  But, even as to the report which the UN insisted was under embargo until 11 am on March 4, when Reuters nevertheless published a weak story about it on March 3, with no mention of Ladsous, the UN did nothing.

  Given the UN's no due process move to on February 19 expel Inner City Press from the UN for merely trying to cover an event in the UN Press Briefing Room on January 29, petition here, Inner City Press strictly complied with the embargo although obtaining the report through other channels was easy.

 Reuters doesn't have to worry about the UN throwing it out - it does (some in) the UN's dirty work. We'll have more on this as well.

  Even from within DPKO there is disgust at the response, as dodging or not implement many of the recommendations. More on that when the UN belatedly comes out from behind its self-pleasuring curtain of its own media, and insider scribes. One final note: the Reuters bureau chief at the March 1 press conference by Angola on its Program of work loudly cut off another reporter - not this one -- as if owning the UN.

  After Inner City Press on February 15 asked about the email its had published - and Reuters' UN bureau chief Louis Charbonneau, notably,tried to dismiss and then stole the story - on February 16 UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq in the noon briefing read out a statement confirming nearly all of the email Inner City Press had published: that there were four new victims, minors, troops from DR Congo.

 But Haq did not say that two of the victims had children from the statutory rape. So Inner City Press asked Haq to confirm that, and asked who would pay: the UN or the DRC soldiers? Haq said there are meetings in Ban's office to respond to just such issues, after December's Deschamps report. Video here.

 And then Reuters, even while its editor Dan Grebler said the first theft was being looked into, just retyped and stole it again, this time by its UN correspondent Michelle Nichols, here.

  It was this same Nichols who, at the UN Security Council stakeout on February 18 while Inner City Press was live-streaming after asking about a draft statement on Palestine, cut in loudly with "I see you Periscoping!"  And? So what? UN missions and the UN itself are broadcasting inside the UN on Periscope. Why would one media try to censor others?

  On February 15, Reuters first tried to claim these were "old" rapes, here -- then when shown otherwise, simply stole the story with no credit.This is apparently policy.

  So Inner City Press raised the issue of theft of exclusives (and lack of objectivity, at least at the UN) to Reuters itself. For now, we've received this, cc-ed also not only to the (repeat) offender but also to Reuters' genial seeming Brian Moss and Clive McKeef:

"Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. The appropriate Reuters staff will look into it and get back to you as soon as feasible.

Regards,
Dan Grebler
Desk Editor, Americas Desk"

  But but February 18, still no response. It's not that complicated.  Or was the Reuters correspondent's "intervention" the response? We'll have more on this too.

 The underlying emails, dated February 11, 2016, describe at least four underage victims, two of whom were impregnated by the rapist UN peacekeepers -- "in the locality Ngakobo in the Ouaka prefecture."

  On February 15, after emailing questions for two days to UN spokespeople in CAR and New York, Inner City Press at the UN's noon briefing asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq about the rapes, and the email it published on February 12. Haq answered, dodging on part of the email but not denying it. Video here.

 Then Associated Press asked, what about these new allegations? Video here. Haq answered - and from that, AP wrote its own derivative and belated story -- without credit, and without any mention of the critique of the UN in the emails. This is how it works, or doesn't.

 This too - Reuters UN "bureau chief" on Monday evening first reflexively came to the UN's defense saying that "Alleged Central African Republic rapes UN spox talked about today are same ones UN CAR said Feb 4 it was probing," citing (what else) a Reuters story of February 4 -- about a Human Rights Watch report about rapes in Bambari. But read the February 11 emails Inner City Press exclusively published, here:

“Herewith sharing with you a report I have just received from UNICEF indicating four minor girls aged between 16 and 17 years were victims of sexual exploitation and abuse allegedly committed by members of the DRC battalion in the locality Ngakobo in the Ouaka prefecture.”

  Up the email chain, Mercedes Gervilla in UN headquarters writes that “it would seem that many among the troops concerned, including Commanding officers were well aware of the abuse to which these children were being subjected. I also regret to inform you that in addition to these new 4 cases, there will likely be two more...”.  [We'll have more on this.]

  This is called... spinning for the UN. This is a trend at Reuters, even last week, here.



And there is a history: this same Reuters UN Bureau Chief Lou Charbonneau, when challenged, wrote to Stephane Dujarric, UN Spokesman, trying to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN, here.

  When this was exposed, Charbonneau cited Reuters to get his email to the UN taken out of Google's search, saying he never meant for it to be public and it was somehow copyrighted. (See his filing here, made public by EFF's ChillingEffects.org). That's censorship... by Reuters.

  This this case, after being shown this reflexive defense of the UN was wrong, Reuters simply re-wrote the story and stole it, with no credit.

 And now we must go back: Charbonneau announced a policy of not crediting Inner City Press, see here.

 This was raised at the time to Reuters, including to Stephen J. Adler. What kind of company is this?

  (Inner City Press previously asked the decaying UN Correspondents Association, while it tried to censor Press coverage of its boss, to promulgate a best practice for media at the UN to credit others' exclusives; it never happened. AP at the UN speaks for this UNCA, and apparently it for AP.)

  In the email chain Inner City Press exclusively published, middle management at the UN noted that the majority of sexual abuse in CAR has been committed by the battalions from the DRC and the Republic of Congo. And so Inner City Press posed these questions to UN spokespeople in both New York and the CAR:

"This is a request for your comment on, and any update on, the sexual abuse and exploitation cases in the Feb 11, 2016 emails now here

Also, what will be done with the Republic of Congo and DR Congo contingents? We are interested in if the UN and DPKO can, as currently be configured, be reformed.What is the status of the sexual abuse and exploitation cases that have been listed, including in the UN Press Briefing Room?"

  The response received by Inner City Press on Saturday afternoon in New York was from Bangui-based MINUSCA spokesman Vladimir Monteiro:

"Regarding your questions on DRC and Congo, here is Minusca's position:

"On DRC contingent, a decision to repatriate them has already been taken. It will be completed without delay by the end of the month. It is just a matter of planning it properly.

"On the 120 troops from Congo, they have been cantoned in Berberati to permit investigations by national investigators before their repatriation to their country  which will occur on 20 February 2016. For further details on this matter please contact HQ."

  But of course Inner City Press has already contacted "HQ" or UN Headquarters, including for example Ismini Palla of Ladsous' DPKO, who gave Agence France Presse the response to questions Inner City Press has publicly posed to UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, to the DPKO spokesman Nick Birnback, also cc-ed.

  So where ARE the updates on the cases the UN's Diane Corner listed in the UN Briefing Room? Why was it reported in early January that the DRC contingent had "been dismissed" when, in mid February, they are still in place? What is the status of the Burundian contingent in CAR? Follow up questions have been submitted to UN officials and spokespeople in CAR and headquarters in New York.

  Well placed sources tell Inner City Press these two countries' soldiers have been in the UN MINUSCA mission nearly entirely due to Ladsous and, more outrageously, the / his French government due to its political relations with the Republic of Congo and DRC.

  Ladsous, as Inner City Press has reported, told Burundi's Vice President that he is "pragmatic" about human rights; even on camera, Ladsous linked the rapes to "R&R," click here for video.

  While Ladsous' DPKO and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Office of the Spokesperson announced that the DRC contingent would be pulled out of Bambari and CAR in late Janaury, Inner City Press is informed this never happened: they are still there.

  Ladsous' DPKO, and now the UN Spokesperson's Office, are engaged in misleading the press and public, and doling out what information they provide to only the friendliest media.

 For recent example, Inner City Press for week has reported on and asked about the repatriation from CAR of Burundian troops charged with abuse during the crackdown on opponents of Pierre Nkurunziza's third term. Even after Inner City Press obtained and published on February 9 proof of three repatriations, all UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric told Inner City Press is that he would seek an update.

  Simarily, Ladsous' lead spokesman Nick Birnback told Inner City Press DPKO would have something to say about the particular Burundian officers in CAR Inner City Press asked him about.

  Then Ladsous' spokespeople including Ismini Palla gave their limited confirmations to Reuters and Agence France Presse, who published it without credit or context. (Neither media reported on Ladsous linking rape to R&R - nor did AP.)

 In a February email by UN official Anthony Banbury, soon to leave the UN after some heartfelt tears of outrage at peacekeepers' rapes, it is said:

"We have a pack of predatory criminals and rapists, preying on young girls,
under the banner of the United Nations. How can we stand by? In my view that battalion should be ordered to cease operations today, same with the RoC battalion, and be confined to camp and guarded full time so they cannot continue to abuse children. While we would pay a short-term price in terms of operations, we would gain so much in terms of the integrity and reputation of the UN, in the CAR and internationally, and we would almost certainly prevent more rapes of minor girls. We simply cannot sustain the argument that the benefit these troops are bringing to the UN and PoC is greater than the harm they are doing."

  What will the UN do? What will France, with new foreign minister Jean Marc Ayrault, do? How long can Ladsous - and the Congolese contingents - remain in place?


 


Having been told by sources of more rapes by peacekeepers in the Central African Republic, Inner City Press on January 26 reported them and on January 27 asked the UN's spokesperson Stephane Dujarric to confirm them - but he wouldn't. UN transcript hereVideo here.




  So what is the protocol of UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous, who linked the rapes to "R&R," here? How many more do they know about?

The UN report on rapes in the Central African Republic, released on December 17, found that UN Peacekeeping's Under Secretary General Herve Ladsous “illustrate[s] the UN's failure to respond to allegations of serious human rights violations in the meaningful way.”

 Ladsous has yet to take any questions about the report...

  When the Panel's three members held their December press conference, Inner City Press asked about Ladsous' failure to vet and his linking of rapes to “R&R.” Video here.  Marie Deschamps said pointedly she wouldn't comment on Ladsous' remarks; Yasmin Sooka said these are crimes for punishment, not recreation.

  As the last question, Inner City Press asked what it had wanted to ask Ban, and tried to ask Dujarric: what does this say about Ban's management? Video of Q&A hereDidn't Ban's chief of staff Malcorra, criticized in the report, do it for Ban? Didn't the “senior official” who ostensibly let the rape information die on the vine in the 38th floor work in an atmosphere created by Ban's nine years? We will pursue this.

  In December 2015, Ban allowed those who cover him, at least the UN Correspondents Association, to sell seats with him for $6,000. And it is these same who have airbrushed out Ladsous and others. We'll have more on this.