On the Trans Pacific Partnership, Inner City Press Asks UN's Pingfan Hong, He Calls TPP & T-TIP “Discriminatory, A Step Backward”

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 19 -- Just as US Secretary of State John Kerry gave a speech in Washington State promoting the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership, Inner City Press in New York asked UN official Pingfan Hong for the UN's view of the TPP.

  Pingfan Hong said that TPP would be a step backward from the multilateral process, and that it would be discriminatory against countries in the developing world. Video here. 

  It was a rare "stand up to the US" moment in today's UN.  Earlier this month, as exclusively reported by Inner City Press, when Kerry told UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon not to try to hold a Yemen talks in Geneva including the Houthis, Ban immediately acquiesced. But Pingfan Hong spoke his mind, here

  We have transcribed it:

Inner City Press: On trade policy, the big one right now is TPP, John Kerry is giving a speech about it, what is DESA's view, impact on US economy and world economy, should it be modified or disclosed?

UN's Pingfan Hong: About the TPP, from a UN or a DESA point of view, we don’t consider that as a single issue. We analyze that issue from the perspective of the multilateral treaty system. That is, compare that with the WTO. From that point of view, it’s kind of at best, TPP, it’s paradoxical. For example, if you see those 20 areas covered, in this TPP, from e-commerce to other services, intellectual property rights, labor standards, environmental standards, indeed TPP sets a much higher standard than WTO negotiations.

From that you’ll probably say it’s a little bit forward looking, or it’s more advanced. On the other hand you see, from a developing country’s point of view, both this Trans Pacific Partnership as well as this trans Atlantic, they are US and EU centric. So it's a set back actually, the progress made in multilateral trading system after World War Two it's backward from that point of view, means that your developing countries, they don’t have much voice or bargaining power in this two, major, developed economy driven, this regional trade, the largest two trade agreements.

From UN point of view we are still in favor of the multilateral trading system of WTO, because any regional trade agreement, including these two biggest ones, definitely they do, they are discriminatory for a large number of non member countries. And to a large extent they are also undermining this multilateral treaty system in terms of they’re working, not only trade, from other regions, but also divert the political efforts for many countries to work on this WTO trade negotiations, Doha round. 

 Trade is just a means. It’s a means for development. So from a development point of view, we should focus on whether treaty negotiation can contribute to the development or not. Not just how much trade it would generate. So in that sense it’s more complicated than just look at the single... I mean, we don’t want to pay too much attention to the political debate, like now it’s still ongoing, in the US on this issue. 

 Meanwhile in Renton, Washington Kerry praised TPP with no acknowledgement of flaws such as the globalization of censorship under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, example here.

  That example, ironically, is by Reuters - a news wire one might think would oppose censorship.

 Back on January 15, 2014 on Capitol Hill, Fast Track for the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership was promoted in the guise of a twenty-year review of NAFTA. 

  The US Chamber of Commerce, Carla Hills and former Congressman David Dreier were among the pro Fast Track for TPP witnesses before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. 

  As Chairman Salman's introduction put it, "NAFTA has been the impetus for the regional bilateral trade agreements reached since then, and has provided important lessons as the U.S. seeks to build closer ties to trade and investment partners through the much anticipated Trans Pacific Partnership."

  After some perfunctory praise of NAFTA, and some unanswered questions about free trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea, things quickly turned to promotion of the TPP. The bill was introduced in Congress on January 9; it has been protested including in Harlem on January 4, 2014, here. 

  The Senate Finance Committee press release is here, the bill is here, their summary here. It would globalize schemes like the pro-corporate Digital Millennium Copyright Act, misused by Reuters UN bureau chief to get a leaked document banned from Google's search.

   While free press protections are in some ways advanced in the United States, as the Free UN Coalition for Access has begun highlighting, theUS Digital Millennium Copyright Act can be and has been used as an end-run attack on freedom of the press.

   Leaked documents used in an investigative story can be blocked, as the Reuters' complaint to Google blocked from Google's search its bureau chief's e-mail to the UN seeking to get Inner City Press thrown out. This is a perversion of the concept of copyright (as well as a contradictory argument for Reuters or anyone in journalism to be making, that such documents should be taken down or blocked.)

   In Chile, for example, any such take-down requires the requester to get a court order. But DMCA provides, and Google allowed, blocking based on a non-reviewed, bad faith complaint.

  As the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry told Inner City Press about the case:

"Unfortunately, it is all too easy for a copyright holder (assuming that the person that sent this notice actually held copyright in the email) to abuse the DMCA to take down content and stifle legitimate speech. As countries outside the US consider adopting DMCA-like procedures, they must make sure they include strong protections for free speech, such as significant penalties for takedown abuse."

  Along with other pro-corporate provisions, TPP would internationalize this abuse of copyright to undermine freedom of the press.  

 If this remains precedent, what else could come down?

  Why not an email from Iran, for example, to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency? Why not a sanctions filing by a country? Here is Reuters logic, accepted if only automatically by Google:

The copyrighted material is a private email I wrote in April 2012 and for which I never gave permission to be published. It has been published on a blog and appears in on the first page of search results for my name and the firm I work for, Reuters. It can be seen here: http://www.innercitypress.com/reutersLC3unmalu.pdf

  But this is true of ANY leaked document: it can be said that the entity or person exposed "never gave permission [for it] to be published." Does that mean Google can or should block search access to it?

  Can a complaint to a Media Accreditation official against a competitor legitimately be considered "private"? In any event, the DMCA is not about protecting privacy.

  Iran or North Korea could say a filing or status report they make with the IAEA is "private" and was not intended to be published. Would Google, receiving a DMCA filing, block access to the information on, say, Reuters.com?

  The logic of Reuters' August 14, 2013 filing with Google, put online via the ChillingEffects.org project, is profoundly anti free press.

  The fact that Google accepts or didn't check, to remain in the DMCA Safe Harbor, the filing makes it even worse. The request to take-down wasn't made to InnerCityPress.com or its server -- it would have been rejected. But banning a page from Search has the same censoring effect.

  The US has a regime to protect freedom of the press, and against prior restraint. But this is a loophole, exploited cynically by Reuters. What if a media conducted a long investigation of a mayor, fueled by a leaked email. When the story was published, could the Mayor make a Reuters-like filing with Google and get it blocked?

  Here is the text of Reuters' communication to the UN's top Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit official Stephane Dujarric and MALU's manager, to which it claimed "copyright" and for now has banned from Google's Search:

Hi Isabelle and Stephane,

I just wanted to pass on for the record that I was just confronted by Matt Lee in the DHL auditorium in very hostile fashion a short while ago (there were several witnesses, including Giampaolo). He's obviously gotten wind that there's a movement afoot to expel him from the UNCA executive committee, though he doesn't know the details yet. But he was going out of his way to be as intimidating and aggressive as possible towards me, told me I "disgust" him, etc.

In all my 20+ years of reporting I've never been approached like that by a follow journalist in any press corps, no matter how stressful things got. He's become someone who's making it very hard for me and others in the UN press to do our jobs. His harassment of fellow reporters is reaching a new fever pitch.

I just thought you should know this.

Cheers,

Lou
Louis Charbonneau
Bureau Chief. United Nations
Reuters News Thomson Reuters reuters. com

This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and information company.

"UNCA" in the for-now banned e-mail is the United Nations Correspondents Association. The story developed here, as to Sri Lanka;here is a sample pick-up this past weekend in Italian, to which we link and give full credit, translated into English (NOT for now by Google) --

The fool of Reuters to the UN

by Mahesh - 12/27/2013 -calls for the removal of a letter from the head of his bureau at the United Nations, pursuing a copyright infringement on the part of the competition
Try to make out a small competitor from the UN press room and then, when these publish proof of intrigue, invokes the copyright to release a letter from compromising the network.

MOLESTA-AGENCY  Inner City Press is a small non-profit agency covering the work of the United Nations for years, with an original cut, which become distasteful to many. Unlike other matching its founder master sent never tires of asking account of inconsistencies and contradictions and often refers to unpleasant situations involving colleagues and their reportage, too often twisted to obvious political contingencies.

THE LAST CAVITY – In this case the clutch is born when Matthew Lee, Inner City Press ever since he founded and made famous in the 90 's, challenged the screening of "Lies Agreed Upon" in the auditorium of the United Nations, a filmaccio of propaganda in which the Sri Lankan regime tries to deny the now tested massacres (and destroyed by International Crisis Group). In the piece, in which denounced the incident, Lee also announced that the screening was organized by the President of the United Nations Correspondents (UNCA), Italian Giampaolo Pioli, skipping the normal consultation procedure for this kind of events. Pioli then, was also accused of being in a conflict of interest, given that he rented an apartment in New York an apartment to the Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN in Sri Lanka, named Palitha Kohona and is suspected of war crimes.

TRY WITH THE COPYRIGHT- So he comes to the letter with which Louis Charbonneau, Reuters bureau chief at the United Nations, wrote to the Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit (MALU) calling for the ouster of Lee, which the UN being there for years as his colleagues, but we see that this was not done. Lee, however, comes into possession of the letter and publish it, and then writes to Google millantando Charbonneau the copyright on the letter and asking for removal pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That is a bit like if a company request the removal of a compromising document from a journalistic investigation, in the name of copyright, a claim clearly absurd and disingenuous.

HARASSMENT AND THREATS- In the letter published, Charbonneau complained about the aggressive behavior of Lee and cited among the witnesses to cases where Lee had been "aggressive" towards him even Pioli. Lee with that piece has gained throughout a hail of protests from Sri Lanka and an investigation by the UNCA, along with death threats and other well-known amenities the refugees away from the clutches of the regime, but it is still there. Behold then the brilliant idea of Charbonneau, improperly used copyright law to censor the objectionable publications to a colleague and competitor. Pity that Lee has already resisted successfully in similar cases, in 2008 was the same Google to remove your site from being indexed in the news in its search engines, it is unclear what impetus behind, only to regret it soon after that even Fox News had cried scandal.

   

Exclusive: On Yemen, UN Had Planned May 11 Talks in Geneva But US Kerry Said No, UN Sources Tell Inner City Press

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, May 6 -- The UN's bungling of Yemen mediation has become ever more clear, according to multiple sources and documents exclusively seen by Inner City Press.

  On April 29, Inner City Press asked the UN's deputy spokesperson to confirm that the UN was considering Geneva as a venue to continue Yemen talks, after its previous envoy Jamal Benomar resigned in protest of Saudi airstrikes and was replaced by a more amenable envoy, Ismael Ould Cheikh Ahmed.

   UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq replied that “we do not officially have a venue yet.  Geneva is certainly one of the venues that is being considered, and that may very well be where it's taking place.”

   After that, Inner City Press has learned, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon spoke with US Secretary of State John Kerry, who discourage -- rejected, in essence -- the date of May 11 in Geneva which the UN had put in writing, in multiple documents since seen by Inner City Press.

  The UN's argument, tellingly, was the May 11 would work well for Ban Ki-moon's schedule (he would be returning from his May 9 attendance of Victory Day in Moscow) and that the Houthis were more likely, but not certain, to attend in Geneva rather a Saudi selected venue.

   In an echo of the UN's failing mediation on Syria, the UN acknowledged that while Iran should attend in Geneva, Saudi Arabia might refuse to attend in Iran did. 

 And so the UN's idea was a Yemeni-only event in Geneva, with Ban Ki-moon to speak and then leave. New enovy Ismael Ould Cheikh Ahmed would then conduct consultations -- like Staffan de Mistura is doing on Syria, the UN analogized without apparent irony -- and perhaps move the ongoing talks to Muscat, Oman.

  (Involved in all this planning, not surprisingly, has been American Jeffrey Feltman, previously of the US State Department. While a nice enough guy, this combined with France's even more open domination of UN Peacekeeping through USG Herve Ladsous, has also caused the UN to increasingly be viewed as partial. The UK controls Humanitarian Affairs through incoming Stephen O'Brien as exclusively reported by Inner City Press, credited byUK Channel 4 and the Telegraph.)

  As to the UN's idea of May 11 talks in Geneva, Kerry said no, that the UN should wait until after the Saudi convened event, now set for May 17 in Riyadh. The Houthis, of course, will not attend that. Ban Ki-moon is invited, but might see it smells of failure or partiality.

   In any event, while the UN has not announced it South Korean sources say Ban will be in South Korea for four whole days around May 20. (Some say he has an interest in running for office there.)

  But if Ismael Ould Cheikh Amhed attends the Riyadh meeting and is put on display on the podium, what possible credibility with or access to the Houthis could he have?

  Tellingly, while others have reported the Ismael Ould Cheikh Ahmed is going to Paris before visting Riyadh, they have not said why. Inner City Press is informed the Paris stop over is at the request or demand of the head of the Gulf Cooperation Council, who is on vacation in Paris. This is today's UN.

 On April 25, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on April 25 named Ismael Ould Cheikh Ahmed to replace Jamal Benomar as envoy on Yemen.

  Three times Inner City Press had asked the Office of the UN Spokesperson why Ould Cheikh Ahmed is not listed on Ban's webpage of public financial discloure and to say, yes or no, if he has an interest in a business which received funding from the Gulf. Three times the Office of Spokesperson promised to look into and give an answer, but never did. This is Ban's UN.

  On April 28, Inner City Press asked again:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask on the new Yemen Special Adviser, Mr. Ould Cheikh Ahmed, there was this understanding of why on the page of the Secretary-General there's no public financial disclosure.

Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq:  Regarding that, we did check with the ethics office, and he has made available his disclosure in line with the existing rules and procedures, and so he is up to date on those.  There are times when for… for a variety of different reasons people's disclosures may not be on the website.

Inner City Press:  But is he one of the officials that's decided to not make even the summary public?  I want… because when the name is listed, there’s a checkbox…

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  I've said what I have to say on that, but he has made his disclosures in line with the appropriate rules and regulations.

Inner City Press:  And also Stéphane had said that he would check whether a letter was received by the Office of the Secretary-General from a number of parties in Yemen concerning the appointment of this new envoy.  Did he do that?  Have you received that letter?

Deputy Spokesman:  I don't know.  This was when?

Inner City Press:  It was on Friday, I believe, that I asked him and he said he would check.  The reports are that the… a variety of the parties in Yemen wrote a letter about the process of replacing Mr. Benomar.  And I wanted to obviously just to know if you got it…

Deputy Spokesman:  Certainly… In the day after you asked, we announced the appointment, so that is part of our answer. And with that, let me bring our guest.  

 So, none of the public financial disclosure which Ban talked so much about. Why not?

 On April 24, Inner City Press had asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric:

Question:  Okay.  I'm also informed of a letter from political parties in Yemen, including those representing Houthis and others, directed at the Secretary-General making two requests.  One, that Mr. Ould Cheikh Ahmed not be named as a replacement to Mr. [Jamal] Benomar and that someone be appointed or retained who actually they will speak with.  And I wanted to know… you may not know of this letter yet, but I'm reliably informed it is either there or on its way…

Spokesman:  All right.  I will look for the letter.

Question:  And I guess my question would be, do you… has the Secretary-General… since we've already… we've heard from some of the ambassadors from the Security Council that he's put forward a name.  Did he put any effort to speak to the parties on the ground in Yemen, the actual Yemenis?

Spokesman:  I think the… when we're ready to announce the person, we will.  Obviously, for a… an appointment as delicate as this… as this ongoing… to represent the Secretary-General in this ongoing crisis, it is normal to have as broad of a consultation as possible, and what is obviously extremely important is that once that envoy is named, that adviser is named, that all the parties give him access and engage with him.

Question:  If you get the letter, will you squawk it?  Does it mean that these parties that wrote…

Spokesman:  I think…

Question: …once consulted…

Spokesman:  It's an ongoing humanitarian crisis.  It's an ongoing conflict.  And we are trying to get the political process back on track.  So we'd like to have a special envoy as soon as… a Special Adviser as soon as possible, and again hope that all the parties engage with him.

Question:  Didn't you have one? That's my question.  Didn't you actually have a Special Adviser?

Spokesman:  Yes, we have Mr. Benomar…

Question:  Is it your understanding that he's entirely unwilling to continue in the post?

Spokesman:  Well, I think he's… he's… he's expressed his desire to move on and, as we said, we are… we're in the process of naming somebody shortly.

   No response about the letter, either. This does not bode well.

  After Saudi Arabia was allowed to oust UN mediator Jamal Benomar for being insufficiently supportive of its airstrikes, the UN is being promoted, again, as an honest broker.  How so, when the UN is UNtransparently naming as a replacement mediator an individual who previously failed in Yemen, refusing to make public financial disclosure?   How weak and untransparent is today's UN?  It it apparently considering appointing as replacement envoy to Yemen a partial individual whom one side has indicated it would not speak with.

   

In First Remarks in Sri Lanka, US John Kerry Quiet on War Crimes Probe, No Follow Through?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 2 -- When in Sri Lanka US Secretary of State John Kerry delivered a thousand words of remarks after his counterpart Mangala Samaraweera the war crimes reports, withheld by the UN for at least six months and previously promised by Sri Lanka's government, were not addressed. Diplomacy may (often) be about emphasizing the positive, but where is the follow-through? Here is a transcription of Kerry's remarks:

"I want to thank the foreign minister for an extraordinarily generous... Mangala has given me a really generous and very personal welcome here today, and it is an historic moment, one that I’m very proud and pleased to be able to share with him. And I’m grateful for his friendship and for the invitation, which he offered me when he came to Washington, to come here today in order to renew the relationship between the United States of America and Sri Lanka.

This is a paradise, a very beautiful island nation. It has enormous assets, wonderful, extraordinary people, and great, great promise for the future. And I pledged to him and to his delegation here today that the United States wants to work with Sri Lankans and help in any way we can to shape the future that the people of Sri Lanka want.

The foreign minister and I last met in February in Washington, and today we talked about the enormous progress that Sri Lanka has made in just a few short months – and progress that can be measured: progress on restoring democratic institutions; progress on creating more accountable governance; the passage of the 19th amendment, in which the president kept his promise to reduce the powers of the presidency and move them more to the people through a broader sharing, is an example of that; progress in combatting corruption; and progress on reconciliation that can lead to a much more enduring peace and to shared prosperity for all Sri Lankans.

So I am very mindful that as I stand here in Sri Lanka, more than 10 years after the tsunami on December of 2004, so many people are suffering in Nepal from the devastating earthquake that struck one week ago. And I want to commend the government and the people of Sri Lanka for quickly sending response teams to Kathmandu. The United States is also mobilizing a major response, but it’s indication of the sensitivity of this government and its sense of responsibility and its desire to be a part of the world community that it responded so quickly.

It is tragedies like the Asian tsunami, of the Nepal earthquake – or the Nepal earthquake – that underscore our need to work together to support one another in times of crisis, yes, but also in times of opportunity. And this is a time of opportunity for Sri Lanka. In Sri Lanka today, I think many of us see a moment of extraordinary promise. The foreign minister recently gave a rousing speech to parliament, and I was particular inspired by his statement that the true safeguarding of sovereignty can be achieved only by fulfilling our obligations to our people and by preserving and upholding the multiethnic, multilingual, multi-religious nature of our society.

He emphasized as well the importance of working closely together with other countries and with international organizations. Already we have seen those words actually backed up by actions. That’s what makes this government important, and it’s what makes this government different. Sri Lanka is now playing a role on everything from maritime security and trade to cyber issues and climate change. And I am particularly grateful to the foreign minister for hosting an event on cyber-crime and for taking steps to become the first country in South Asia to accede to the Budapest convention.

But I know that you also have a tremendous amount of work to do here at home. You are working on creating an enduring peace and you’re working on providing prosperity for all of your people. Many challenges and difficult decisions obviously still lie ahead, and we talked about many of them this morning. But one thing that struck me was the readiness of this government to open its doors and to open its minds to different ideas and to new and more effective and efficient ways of doing things.

One thing about this Sri Lankan Government seems very clear: the president and the prime minister and the foreign minister are not afraid of tackling tough issues. They’re willing to make difficult decisions and

they are committed to keeping their promises. We’ve seen that with the 100-day Plan. And as the government heads into the parliamentary elections this summer, Sri Lankans will continue to rely on their tremendous leadership and commitment.

So I am here today because I want to say to the people of Sri Lanka that in this journey to restore your democracy the American people will stand with you. We intend to broaden and to deepen our partnership with you. And to that end, the foreign minister and I agreed to establish an annual partnership dialogue between our two governments. I’ve also asked teams from across our government to mobilize quickly in order to provide technical assistance as the Government of Sri Lanka embraces these important reforms. And we will soon have members of that team from the Treasury Department and from the Commerce Department come here in order to work with the government on the economic measures that could be taken to provide for greater investment and greater growth. And as you know, President Obama recently nominated one of our most talented Foreign Service officers – Atul Keshap – to be our ambassador to Sri Lanka.

So Mangala, thank you again for a very generous welcome. These are very important days here in Sri Lanka. And all of us need to rely on each other and we need to work together cooperatively. That’s exactly how we’re going to forge a stronger friendship, and that’s also how we’re going to forge a stronger partnership and an even better future for both of our countries.

What strikes me about Sri Lanka and the United States – and it got lost in the last years – is that the truth is we want the same thing for our people. We actually share the same values. We have the same aspirations for better jobs, for education, for health, for prosperity, for peace, for stability, for reconciliation. Those are the things that bring us together; that’s what brings me here today. And I’m very proud to be here to help renew the partnership and the friendship between the people of the United States and the people of Sri Lanka. Thank you, my friend."

  And certainly not only the current Sri Lankan government, but those involved in war crimes including the killing of tens of thousands of people in 2009, are thankful for these type of remarks. We'll have more on this.

Back on February 26, 2015, nine days after the UN Human Rights Council under Joachim Rucker granted HCHR Zeid's request to withhold the already delayed report on war crimes in Sri Lanka, the UN added Jaffna as a stop to the Sri Lanka visit by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's highest political official Jeffrey Feltman.

  That came two days after Inner City Press asked if Feltman would go to Jaffna, site of protests of the delay, and was told "Colombo only." 

  But when Inner City Press asked the UN on both March 3 and again on March 4 if Feltman while in Jaffna had received what's called the genocide resolution, and what he will do with it, the question went unanswered for a week.

  Until on March 10 when Feltman came to do a too-rare sit down press conference. Inner City Press asked Feltman three questions on Sri Lanka, including about the genocide resolution and deferral of the investigation report. Video here, from Minute 12:19

 On this last, Feltman said the delay keeps the pressure one -- NOT the position the UN takes for example with the African Union's report on South Sudan. This incongruity, like other incongruities of the UN on Sri Lanka, have not been explained. 

 On the genocide resolution, he said "I was handed the packet of material but it was not the genocide resolution passed by the Northern Provincial Council" but rather the type of issues of the north as represented by their elected would like to see included in any credible accountability mechanism. Video here. Really? We'll have more on this.

  Here is the video of March 3; the March 4 video has yet to be provided and the transcript is not online. Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, when asked again, said that Feltman has been asked, if he briefs the Security Council, to come to the Council's stakeout. On no notice? And when might Feltman brief the Security Council about Sri Lanka?

  Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric if Feltman is conveying a weakening of the call for an international inquiry (video here and see below), and Dujarric said to watch what Feltman says in his lone Colombo press availability. How?

  (There's this, from Jaffna, by Feltman's interlocutor. What's wrong with the UN?)

  In any event, since the decision was made by the Human Rights Council in Geneva, how can Feltman be making any representations about what will happen next?

   With the UN yet to send out any of the promised read-outs, even as it sends them out about other countries, this has been reported:

“The Under Secretary General for Political Affairs of the UN Jeffrey Feltman who arrived in the island today on a 4 day official visit met with President Maithripala Sirisena and Acting Foreign Minister Ajith P Perera. Following the discussions Acting Foreign Minister Ajith P Perera expressed these views during which he said the calls for an international inquiry against Sri Lanka are weakening.”

  Inner City Press directly asked for the UN's response to this last, but by noon on March 2, nothing. So it went and asked the question.

 On Friday, February 27, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:

Inner City Press: on this trip by Mr. Feltman to Sri Lanka, I wanted to know:  can you confirm he's meeting with the Tamil National Alliance… that's tomorrow?  And will there be any readouts?

Spokesman Dujarric:  We talked to our colleagues in DPA [Department of Political Affairs] to make sure we can get some readouts e-mailed over the weekend as they happen.

   But more than 24 hours later, after Feltman's meeting with the TNA, there was no read-out. 

  Meanwhile it was reported under the headline "UN clarifies the delay" that "the UN Under Secretary General for Political Affairs, Jeffrey Feltman, told the TNA that the release of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Inquiry on Sri Lanka (OISL) report on alleged war crimes in the Island was postponed to September this year following the assurance given by the new Government, that it would conduct an internal investigation under UN supervision."

  So since UN DPA is tweeting about Feltman's trip, Inner City Pressasked in this same medium, "Press Q: So, did government promise an 'investigation under UN supervision'?"

  So far, no answer. The UN is UNresponsive - click here for that,including with regard to the UN's Censorship Alliance - but we'll stay on it.

  Rucker, speaking in Geneva, has claimed that this delay was "very rational" in a "relatively unique" case. Are all forms of impunity and justice delayed "relatively unique"?

  On February 24, UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said:

"Mr. Feltman will then travel to Sri Lanka on Saturday.  There, he plans to meet with senior officials of the Government of Sri Lanka, political parties and civil society groups. This will be his first visit to Sri Lanka, and he looks forward to discussing with Sri Lankan leaders various issues of mutual concern."

  Inner City Press immediately asked Ban Ki-moon's Spokesman Stephane Dujarric if Feltman will at least visit Jaffna in the north, site of protests of UN High Commissioner Prince Zeid's recommendation of the day:

Inner City Press: I want to ask in advance whether he’s going to go only to Colombo or Jaffna where there were pretty big protests over the weekend against the decision to defer that human rights report.  I’m wondering what’s the relationship between his trip and that… the process supposedly in six months to…

Spokesman Dujarric:  My understanding is that he will only go to Colombo to meet with various people.  We’ll get you, as the meetings happen, we’ll try to get you readouts.

 Now, Jaffna has been added. But what will the read-outs be? We'll have more on this

  Back on February 13 after Sri Lanka's new government spoke of doing another local investigation into war crimes in 2009, and asking for a suspension of the UN Human Rights Council process, Inner City Press went to Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera's meeting with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

  No other media at the UN attended; only the UN's own in-house UN Photo and UN TV. But accompanying Mangala Samaraweera were outgoing Ambassador Palitha Kohona and others. Video here.

  Ban Ki-moon, before Inner City Press was whisked out of the meeting, told Mangala Samaraweera he had met him after the tsunami - that is, when Ban was a South Korean diplomat.

  On February 17, after High Commissioner Prince Zeid recomended and got for Sri Lanka a six month deferral of action, Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq, asked of Shavendra Silva by IPS, said 

"the Secretary-General is aware that the new administration is planning to set up a domestic accountability mechanism and will be carefully assessing developments.  The Secretary-General, as you're aware, met with the Minister of External Affairs of Sri Lanka last Friday, 13 February, and stressed the importance of Sri Lanka to show firm and clear commitment to accountability, reconciliation and human rights.  He also encouraged the Government to engage continuously with the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  Advancing accountability, like other parts of the post-war agenda in Sri Lanka, will lay the basis for the country to make further progress on peace, democracy and development.  The UN remains committed to support Sri Lanka’s efforts to address the postwar agenda.  The Secretary-General is also aware of reactions from various communities to the decision by the Human Rights Council, and the Secretary-General will positively engage with the new Government and support its efforts."

  This is shameful all around, in light of talk of accountability.

  Last week, the UN's Oscar Fernandez Taranco met the US State Department's Nisha Biswal. Inner City Press asked if it was about Bangladesh, and was told, "in part." Taranco was at Ban's meeting with Samaraweera, here. So was Sri Lanka and the deferral request the other part? Watch this site.

Back on February 12 Inner City Press asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman for the UN's position. Video here. 

  First, Inner City Press asked whether Sri Lanka's Palitha Kohona is leaving the UN:

Inner City Press: yesterday, he met with Ambassador Kohona of Sri Lanka.  I couldn't tell if that was a farewell call or not.

Spokesman Dujarric:  It was indeed a farewell call.

Inner City Press:  And did the issue of not pursuing the Human Rights Council investigation into Sri Lanka arise?

Spokesman Dujarric:  It was, indeed, a farewell call.  I mean, the Secretary-General's position on the, on the human rights investigation is unchanged.  He's obviously aware that the new administration is considering setting domestic accountability mechanisms and will be carefully assessing these developments.  The Secretary-General has stressed the importance of Sri Lanka establishing credible mechanisms that meet international standards.  Advancing accountability, like other parts of the post-war agenda in Sri Lanka, will lay the basis for the country to make further progress on peace, democracy and development.  The UN stands ready, as always, to support Sri Lanka's efforts to address the post-war agenda as we have consistently affirmed.

  It's a question that when raised, here, to the US State Department went so far unanswered. New foreign minister Mangala Samaraweera is set to meet with Ban on February 13. Watch this site. 

  Back on January 12 the UN said that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon made this call:

"The Secretary-General congratulated President Sirisena’s election and the successful conclusion of the presidential election. The Secretary-General and President Sirisena discussed the President’s 100-day plan and Sri Lanka’s post-war agenda. The Secretary-General affirmed continuous support by the UN to Sri Lanka."

  That is, the UN's read-out of Ban's call had no mention of accountability or of the UN Human Rights Council inquiry into the bloodbath on the beach in 2009. We'll have more on this.

 After Mahinda Rajapaksa conceded defeat but before 10:30 pm on January 8 in Washington, US Secretary of State issued a statement, below. 

  Inner City Press published it, and asked the UN for its comment. Told to expect one in the AM, New York time, Inner City Press noted, the earlier the better. Twelve hours later, there was nothing.

  So Inner City Press asked again at the noon briefing on January 9, after new President Sirisena's inauguration. UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq said the UN welcomes the transfer of power, then later in the briefing read out this statement:

"The Secretary-General congratulates the people of Sri Lanka on the successful conclusion of the presidential election, and welcomes the constitutional transfer of power.

"The Secretary-General applauds the Sri Lankan Elections Commission for its professionalism in ensuring a peaceful and credible election. He also commends the efforts of the candidates, including in particular outgoing President Mahinda Rajapaksa, law enforcement agencies and civil society for upholding and respecting democratic governance.

"The Secretary-General looks forward to working with President Maithripala Sirisena and the people of Sri Lanka. He affirms the continuous support of the United Nations for development, reconciliation, political dialogue and accountability in Sri Lanka."

  Inner City Press immediately asked Haq if what this reference to accountability portends for the UN inquiry into the events in 2009. We'll have more on this.

  Amnesty International has said that "Sri Lanka has for years resisted all international efforts to investigate the conflict years, and instead relied on domestic investigation bodies that toed the government line. This has to end – the new government should cooperate fully with the UN investigation.”

   Watch this site.

  In other possible routes to accountability, talk of seeking justice in US courts as to several joint American citizens in Team Rajapaksa - or on the team during the 2009 "Bloodbath on the Beach" -- has picked up. Some team members have reportedly already left the country: we'll have more on this.

 

   

On Sri Lanka, US' John Kerry Congratulates Sirisena, So What Next for Rajapaksa's Corps, at UN and Beyond?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 8 -- On Sri Lanka's election before 10:30 pm on January 8 in Washington, US Secretary of State issued a statement, below. The UN, which went silent at the end on electoral violence, echoing its more problematic silence during the Bloodbath on the Beach in 2009, had yet to speak. Kerry said:

STATEMENT BY SECRETARY KERRY

January 8, 2015

Conclusion of Sri Lankan Elections and Election of Maithripala Sirisena

The Sri Lankan people deserve great credit on the successful conclusion of their elections.  They turned out in great numbers to exercise their democratic rights and every vote was a victory for Sri Lanka.

The United States applauds the Sri Lankan Elections Commissioner, the security forces, Sri Lankan civil society, and the candidates themselves for making sure this election was not marred by unrest and for ensuring a significant drop in campaign-related violence. It will be important for that effort to continue in the coming days.

I commend President Rajapaksa for accepting the results of the election in the proud tradition of peaceful and orderly transfers of power in Sri Lanka. His words tonight about accepting the verdict of the people and moving forward are important.

I look forward to working with President-elect Maithripala Sirisena as his new government works to implement its campaign platform of a Sri Lanka that is peaceful, inclusive, democratic, and prosperous."

  It's done. But what does it portend for the Rajapaksas' military / diplomatic corps, like Shavendra Silva and in New York, Palitha Kohona?

  Inner City Press on January 7 asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask you this about the elections in Sri Lanka because the Secretary-General had earlier made this call to G.L. Peiris.  Now, with the election right around the corner, one of the opposition supporters has now been killed.  And I wanted to know, is he satisfied since this call that this election will be free and fair?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I think… it's not a question of the Secretary-General being satisfied.  It's a question of the Secretary-General continuing to reiterate his call to the Government of Sri Lanka to ensure that the elections go about in a peaceful manner and are fully inclusive.

  Earlier on January 7, Ban Ki-moon lauded and attended a private event hosted by, yes, Sri Lankan ambassador Palitha Kohona's former landlord. Inner City Press on behalf of the new Free UN Coalition for Access asked Dujarric about the protocol for that event, too, story here.

 Back on January 5, Inner City Press asked Dujarric why his office delayed the read-out of Ban's December 24 call to minister GL Peiris until December 29. Video here.

   The delay was not explained; Dujarric said that recent events, including today (January 5) make Ban's call for reconciliation and political dialogue all the more important. Something wrong with this sequence: Ban makes a call, violence increases; his Office says his call is more important than ever.

   On December 23 after Rajapaksa reiterated that he will not cooperate with the UN inquiry in to human rights and war crimes, Inner City Press asked Dujarric about that. Video here.

 On December 29, Dujarric's office put out this read-out of Ban's calls to  Peiris on December 24 -- that is, the read out came five days after the call:

"The Secretary-General spoke on the phone with H.E. Mr. GL Peiris, Minister of External Affairs of Sri Lanka, on 24 December. The Secretary-General conveyed his strong expectation that the Government of Sri Lanka will ensure the peaceful and credible conduct of the Presidential Election on 8 January 2015. The Secretary-General also noted the importance of inclusive participation of all Sri Lankan voters, including from minority communities, in the election process without any fear. He reaffirmed the UN’s continuous support for reconciliation, political dialogue and accountability in Sri Lanka. "

  We'll see.  Meanwhile the UN's website for the inquiry says, "The call for submission is now ended. No further submission will be accepted." Is this really Ban's "Rights Up Front"?

When the UN's Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide Adama Dieng took questions on December 9, Inner City Press asked him if he considered what happened in Sri Lanka in 2009 (and before and after) to be genocide, and of the work of and reaction to the UN panel, see below.

  Dieng said what happened in 2009 was a failure of the international community, with the killing of thousands "under our eyes." Video here, and embedded below.

  Dieng cited the UN's Petrie report, and then Ban Ki-moon (who'd gone on a Rajapaksa sponsored victory tour of northern Sri Lanka in mid 2009) later establishing a "Rights Up Front" program.

  (As Inner City Press points out, Ban has tellingly disconnected Rights Up Front from its roots of failure in Sri Lanka.)

  As the belated investigation of war crimes in Sri Lanka mandated by the UN Human Rights Council proceeds, new evidence concerning the "white flag killings" of surrendering Liberation Tiger of Tamil Eelam leaders has emerged.

  A statement has been published in media censored by the Sri Lankan government that Shavendra Silva, Sri Lanka's Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, was ordered by Defense Secretary and presidential brother Gotabaya Rajapaksa "not to accommodate any LTTE leaders attempting to surrender and informed that they all should be killed." Full text below.

 Killing those who are surrendering is a war crime. The LTTE leaders were lured out, to their deaths, by assurances delivered through the UN from Sri Lankan officials including its Permanent Representative to the UN Palitha Kohona.

  Inner City Press has doggedly pursued the ramification of these White Flag killings and the wider Bloodbath on the Beach (initially here, in Johns Hopkins' SAIS Review of International Affairs); below is a response to Inner City Press from Shavendra Silva. Tellingly, there has been censorship inside the UN itself.

  Palitha Kohona and Shavendra Silva appeared on a three person "UN" panel with Giampaolo Pioli, past and future president of the United Nations Correspondents Association, to screen a film denying war crimes called "Lies Agreed To." Photo below.

  As Inner City Press reported, Pioli had a previous financial relationship with Kohona, having rented him one of his Manhattan apartments; for using the UN Correspondents Association to screen the Sri Lanka government war crimes denial inside the UN, Pioli did not seek prior approval of other UNCA Executive Committee members.

  Inner City Press reported these facts, after pro-government media in Sri Lanka portrayed the screening inside the UN as a victory or even absolution. Immediately after that, Pioli convened a series of "emergency" UNCA  Executive Committee meetings. Links to audio are below; here's a sample story from The Guardian in the UK.

  First, Pioli demanded that the article be removed from the Internet (he rejected the offer to submit a written response of the type Shavendra Silva submitted).

  After Inner City Press refused to remove the entire article from the Internet, Pioli said he would get Inner City Press thrown out. Issues about the French mission to the UN were raised. Pioli's First Vice President from Reuters filed a complaint with the UN's Media Accreditation and Liaison unit, copied to Pioli (the Reuters bureau chief subsequently filed a sworn statement with Google to get this blocked from Search, claiming it was a private and even copyrighted communication, here.) 

  But Voice of America, which filed a formal request to the UN to "review" Inner City Press' accreditation, is subject to the US Freedom of Information Act. After Pioli tried to get Inner City Press to withdraw the FOIA request it filed, Inner City Press obtain documents, many heavily redacted and some not yet reported, showing how the campaign to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN worked, including UNCA talking "quietly" with UN officials to bring it about.

  We'll have more on all this. But how can it be, as the belated investigation of Sri Lanka war crimes goes forward, that not only is Shavendra Silva still a Deputy Permanent Representative in the UN (Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told Inner City Press that Silva being one of his advisers of Peacekeeping Operations was simply up to member states), but that this censor, Pioli, is slated in a classic no-competition "election" to come to head the UN Correspondents Association at least for 2015?

  This is a new low at the UN. The new Free UN Coalition for Access, which seeks to hold the UN to its stated principles including defending the right to free press and investigative journalism in the UN, will now pursuing these issues. 

Shavendra Silva, Giampaolo Pioli & Kohona in UN, UNCA banner, decay

Here is the new statement, as published, followed by Silva's previous response, and background including audio clips

Date: 5/17/2009   Time: 11.45 am – 12.30pm

Place: Wellamulliwikkal, MLT Sri Lanka (58 Division Operations room)

When the instructions from Mr.Gotayabhaya Rajapaksha the Secretary Defence of Sri Lanka to the 58 Division Commander Brigadier Shavendra Silva (Now Major General) was passed down over the telephone I was with the Brigadier. I was functioning as one of the defence correspondents attached to 58 Division.

The conversation took place is as follows.

Time:11.45am 1st call.

Mr.Gotabayaya Rajapaksha to Brigadier Shavendra Silva

Ordered not to accommodate any LTTE leaders attempting to surrender and informed that they all should be killed.

Time: 12.00 noon. -2 nd call.

Mr.Gotabayaya Rajapaksha to Brigadier Shavendra Silva.

Mr. Rajapaksha confirmed his order to Brigadier Shavendra Silva and informed about the International influence the LTTE is trying to bring upon on the Government at that time.

There after at about 12.15pm the Division Commander Brigadier Shavendra Silva having summoned his Brigade Commanders and Commanding Officers briefed them on what Secretary Defence told him.

However I do not know whether the troops on ground carried out the above instructions or not .

After two days time on the 19th I called the Commander of the Army General Sarath Fonseka and asked whether he is aware about the above instructions given by Mr. Gotabhaya Rajapaksha. He said that he is not aware about such instructions.

If any international commission or any war crime court requests from me to give any evidence regarding this telephone conversation between Mr.Gotabhaya Rajapaksha and Brigidier Shavendra Silva on 17th May 2009 I am prepared to give a statement or an affidavit to them.

Shavendra Silva to Inner City Press:

What I said was, in  the paragraph (90 of the POE page 25), never talks about the 58 Div shelling PTK hospital. After you read out loud the first part of the first  line of paragraph 90 where you talked about 55 and 58 Div, where I replied that what is in the paragraph is incorrect as it was the 53 and 58 Divisions who were involved in PTK. and the 55 Div was not there. Thats why I told you at the briefing that the content of the paragraph in the POE is inaccurate. In fact, later after the briefing I told you that they were in Challai when you asked where that Division was.

warm regards,

Ambassador Major General Shavendra Silva WWV RWP RSP USP psc
Deputy Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka
To the United Nations

Background and audio clips:  Press access and answers to questions at the UN generally have been in decline since at least 2011. Now the newFree UN Coalition for Access is combating the trend, which can only be done by naming names and providing specifics, now including audio. And so these clips, in reverse chronological order.

 In this audio clip, two days before formally beginning a process to try to get Inner City Press thrown out, Giampaolo Pioli as President of the United Nations Correspondents Association complains about Inner City Press reporting that he rented out of his Manhattan apartments to "Palitha" [Kohona, Sri Lanka's Ambassador to the UN] in the context of Pioli unilaterally using UNCA to screen a Sri Lanka government war crimes denial movie inside the UN. 

 Two days later, Pioli would convene a UN Correspondents Association Excutive Committee meeting to "examine" Inner City Press and try to throw it out - first of UNCA, then of the UN at a whole. This is the Pioli slated to return, with no competition at all, to head what he made the UN's Censorship Alliance.

 In a previous audio clip, Pioli tried to dictate to Inner City Press how it should have covered Sri Lanka, suggesting it should simply transcribe what "Palitha" (Kohona) and Shavendra Silva said and not report that he, Pioli, had rented out of his Manhattan apartments to Kohona before agreeing to use UNCA to screen the Sri Lankan government's war crimes denial film inside the UN.

  "Why did you have to" report that? Pioli demanded, claiming the rental arrangement was significantly further in the past than it was.

  When Inner City Press refused to remove the article from the Internet, and Pioli refused the offer to publish a letter to the editor, Pioli made good on his threat to try to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN. Complaints were filed by Pioli's first vice president from Reuters, who also used the Reuters servers for the campaign.

  Now Pioli has reappeared, slated to re-take over the helm of UNCA, now the UN's Censorship Alliance. Who will serve him last his past first vice president, a position current held by a representative of Turkish media? As to how correspondent Pioli owns so much real estate, there is a Turkish connection on which we will have more. The UN cannot be allow to further decay on press freedom and access. Watch this site.

  In the last audio clip, Pioli as President of the UN Correspondents Association said of this Press story about him, "take it out" -- that is, remove the entire story from the Internet -- because it is false or, he then says, "basically false."

  But Pioli first complained that he still found online (audio) facts of which he admitted "nothing is false" -- that before unilaterally deciding to screen a Sri Lankan government film denying war crimes he had rented one of his Manhattan apartments to Palitha Kohona, Sri Lanka's Ambassador to the UN.

  What was reported wasn't false, but Pioli ordered "take it out" and off the Internet. That is censorship. One question is, why is Pioli now seeking to return as head of UNCA, which he turned into the UN Censorship Alliance?

  The same clip has Pioli's then Vice President, himself a censor, here, deriding Inner City Press as a blogger someone "using" UNCA. In fact, after seeing how it could be used for censorship, Inner City Press quit UNCA and co-founded the new Free UN Coalition for Access.

   On September 6, 2011 without consulting with other UNCA board members Pioli used the UN's Dag Hammarskjold Library Auditorium and UNCA's now-debased logo to host a war crimes denial film by Sri Lanka's government. Inner City Press reported on the event, here. 

  Numerous "emergency" UNCA meetings followed, including about Inner City Press' coverage of Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row to head UN Peacekeeping despite his role during the Rwanda genocide of 1994; there was an amateurish statement drafted by Pioli about ethics. 

  Then Pioli, supported by Agence France Presse, said that no dissent, no matter how short, could to appended to the statement. Audio clip here. AFP even said, send it out yourself - seemingly an invitation to write about the issue, which happened and led to threats to oust Inner City Press from the UN, which Voice of America requested saying it had thesupport of AFP and Reuters, which then tried a cover-up, here.

(There was was an even more free press unfriendly "apology" drafted by Pioli, as well as his UNCA stirring up death threats which have been ongoing -- but that's another story.) 

   The day of Pioli's UNCA screening -- without UNCA board approval or even notice -- of Sri Lanka's war crimes denial, attempts at outright censorship began.

  Pioli had a financial relationship with Sri Lanka's ambassador Palitha Kohona, renting Kohona one of Pioli's Manhattan apartments. Inner City Press was told if it persisted in reporting this, Pioli would get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN. Inner City Press offered to run a response by Pioli, of any length, but the demand was that the article be removed from the Internet in its entirety: pure censorship. This is UNCA's past and seemingly future; watch for the next installment in this series --

Pioli on January 5 went to the UN noon briefing apparently only to try to brand it for the UNCA he's used for censorship; we'll have more on this.

Pioli & Ban Ki-moon, Sri Lanka war crimes denial not shown. UN Photo/Mark Garten

  Here is an audio clip in which Pioli while he was president of UNCA told Inner City Press that it should not report what a UN Assistant Secretary General said in a public place. Audio here. 

  Pioli would go on to order that an article about his own conflict of interest regarding Sri Lanka be taken down from the Internet or he would get the Press thrown out of the UN.

   So Pioli wants to ride again. After seeking the ouster of the investigative Press from the UN -- promising to bring it about, and demanding the removal of articles from the Internet -- he seeks to re-assume UNCA's presidency, endorsed by his two-year figurehead fill-in, Pamela Falk.  He is endorsing a slate of media that supported the ouster of the investigative Press, one of which then sought to censor even that, click here.

  To show how far the UN has fallen, consider that Pioli in September 2011 wrote and proposed this statement for UNCA's Executive Committee to issue:

"GiamPioli [at] aol.com; dear Colleagues, I propose to consider for a vote this statement  but I am more than happy to discuss  again

   UNCA EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE"

  That is Giampaoli Pioli, the once and future president of the UN's Censorship Alliance. The above draft, by Pioli, was at the request ofAgence France Presse, after an inquiry by the French mission to the UN. AFP's reporter wrote: "I am writing to you to request some kind of action by UNCA over a story published by Inner City Press on Friday which has caused serious damage to AFP. Inner City Press published a story about the new head of UN peacekeeping" -- that would be, Herve Ladsous. We will have more on this.

  Neither in 2011 and 2012 nor since has Pioli asked any critical questions at the UN, or pushed for greater access for journalists - quite the opposite. He rented one of his apartments to the ambassador of a country he later let screen a war crimes denial film in the UN under the sponsorship of UNCA, without even checking with other Executive Committee members much less recusing himself. 

  After Inner City Press reported on this, as later revealed by a Freedom of Information Act request to US state media Voice of America, "the lawyer's at our UNCA president's newspaper are preparing their libel lawsuit" against Inner City Press, click here for that. No lawsuit was ever filed, and how could it be? Pioli DID rent one of his apartment to the ambassador whose war crimes denial film he later screened. It was simply pressure to censor the coverage. Later it showed up in Italian, here.

  Pioli hosts UN officials and those whose votes he wants at a Long Island mansion he rents out, for tens of thousands of dollars a month, during the summer. He makes campaign contributions to politicians he is supposed to be covering. Small but telling, in the UN Press Briefing Room he gave a gift to the UN Deputy Spokesperson. This is the past and future UNCA.

  And how would this further decayed UNCA advocate even to maintain media access at the UN? The question has been asked by FUNCA, elsewhere. And it has been on HuffPost Live, here. Watch this site.

Footnote: as noted the old UN Correspondents Association, which is given privileged status and set-aside first questions nearly always used for softballs, has done nothing in recent years to improve or even defend press access. In fact, members of UNCA's Executive Committee have tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN, and there have been no reforms since. It's become the UN's Censorship Alliance. Theyprovide Ban Ki-moon with photo ops playing soccer with them. This is today's UN - and FUNCA is fighting to hold the UN to its stated principles.