After Ban Ki-moon on Qatar-Funded Plane Says No Time For Rules, UN Censors Transcript

By Matthew Russell Lee, Follow up on exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, July 23, more here -- Does the UN, while claiming to abide by its own stated ethics rules, simply not have time for them and waive them?  And then doctor its transcripts to cover it up?

  Based on Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's answer today in Jerusalem, that "we do not have much time to weigh the rules," it appears they were waived. But why has the UN claimed or implied otherwise?

   The US State Department transcript, out first, included a question to Ban and his answer:

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, do you think it’s appropriate for Qatar to be paying for your flight here, given their support for Hamas?

SECRETARY-GENERAL BAN: No – ladies and gentlemen, this is the 15th day since the crisis began. We do not have much time to weigh the rules.

  But when 45 minutes later the UN sent out its transcript, it omitted the question about the Qatar-funded plane, and changed what Ban said:

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s remarks to press after meeting with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry Jerusalem, 23 July 2014

SG: Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the 15th day since the crisis began. We do not have much time to wait and lose.

  The UN has previously censored its transcripts to omit the Free UN Coalition for Access and what was said to Ban. We'll have more on this.

On July 21, the UN belatedly answered Inner City Press' July 19 inquiry about Secretary General Ban Ki-moon accepting a free Qatar-funded, British registered private jet for his current travel about Gaza. Video hereand embedded below.

  On July 23 in Jerusalem, Ban Ki-moon was asked,"do you think it’s appropriate for Qatar to be paying for your flight here?"

  And Ban Ki-moon responded, "No – ladies and gentlemen, this is the 15th day since the crisis began.  We do not have much time to weigh the rules."

   Inner City Press, and now the Free UN Coalition for Access, have been pursuing this question, including with Transparency International which answered "it would seem that the Secretary General would have had to have been previous clearance to undertake such a paid trip by the Qatari government. This question should be posed to the Office of Ethics."

  And so on July 22, Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq if the UN Ethics Office was asked about accepting the free Qatar-funded private jet flights.

  Haq replied:

“I'm aware that as a standard policy, we inform the Ethics Office of all such offers...I don't know about this particular case. I know it for past cases, every time I have asked the Ethics Office about this, they have talked about being informed about this... They do approve these on the case of exceptional circumstances.”

Inner City Press asked Haq to get an answer from the Ethics Office, if they were asked before Ban began his current trip in the Qatar-funded jet.

Haq said, “I can do this... This is what has happened several times in the past.” 

  But apparently not this time. Ban said, "We do not have much time to weigh the rules." We'll stay on this.

   Should the UN Secretary General in a mediation attempt accept free travel from a country with a particular interest in the conflict to be mediated?

   What review should take place? What disclosures should be made, and when? From the UN's July 21 transcript, video here from Minute 31:

Inner City Press: you are saying that the use of private planes, generically if necessary, is signed off by the ethics office, but my question is, private planes provided by anyone? Would the Secretary-General, would he accept such service from any Member State, or would he accept it from corporations? The question becomes, given that particular countries have different views of the conflict, what review is made before accepting a particular country’s contribution?

Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq: Well, we do have, like I said, an ethics office and a legal office that can look into these things and see whether something is appropriate or not.

Inner City Press: Was this particular flight checked or you’re saying there’s a generic ruling in advance that any private plane is okay?

Deputy Spokesman Haq: No, I don’t think there’s a generic ruling about this, but certainly, if you need to justify this for essential needs, and something like this, a trip that the Secretary-General was able to embark on and made the decision on just at the end of last week and then had to travel, starting Saturday evening, something like that would have been extremely hard or basically impossible to do in a different sort of way.

Inner City Press: I’m asking because in the budget Committee, often many, particularly developing world countries, they say that things should be funded out of the UN’s general budget rather than taking voluntary contributions from States that then have influence. So, my question is, isn’t there a travel budget? We’ve asked in this room many times to know what the budget is, so I’d still like to know that. But, if there is a budget, why wasn’t the general UN budget used for this rather than taking a specific gift from a specific country? That’s the question.

Deputy Spokesman Haq: The worry is, of course, if you run out of money early, does that mean you can’t travel, even if there’s a crisis? In this case, there was a crisis that necessitated sudden travel.

  Inner City Press broke the story on July 19 -- credit has been given, for example, by Newsweek, here -- and has been asking Ban's spokespeople for disclosure and what safeguards are in place.

   Lead spokesman Dujarric replied but did not answer on July 19. When he called in to the UN noon briefing from Cairo on July 21, Inner City Press asked him again on whose plane Ban is traveling. 

  This time, Dujarric answered that Ban is flying on a Qatar government funded, UK registered plane.  But he did not answer if there are any safeguards against influence or conflicts of interest. Would Ban accept free flights from any UN member state? From anyone at all?

  Inner City Press asked Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq, who said the the UN Ethics Office said taking private planes is okay when necessary.

  But private planes from ANYONE? Any member state? A corporation? There have been no real answers, yet. But there need to be.

 Diplomats told Inner City Press that Ban would fly -- on a Qatari plane -- to Qatar, Ramallah (but not for now Gaza), Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait.

  The diplomats who complained to Inner City Press questioned not only Ban taking free flights from a particular country, but also how the use (and landing) of a Qatari plane will play in, for example, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

 Inner City Press asked Ban's top two spokespeople, and the spokesperson listed as on weekend duty, the following:

"Please state whether the Secretary General is accepting free transportation from any member state or outside party for his current trip to the region concerning the Gaza crisis, and if so please explain the reason and any safeguards in place against influence or conflict of interest.

"Such disclosure should be common practice; if necessary, note that former Spokesperson Nesirky did answer such Press questions, for example concerning the Secretary General flying on a UAE plane (see sample below). On deadline, thank you in advance.

From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Subject: Your questions
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] InnerCityPress.com
Date: Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:00 PM

- The UAE Government provided an aircraft to fly the Secretary-General from Beirut to Abu Dhabi because of time constraints.

     Later on July 19, the following was received, which we publish in full 25 minutes after receipt:

From: Stephane Dujarric [at] un.org
Date: Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: Press question if SG is accepting free travel from any member state or outside party, as was disclosed in 2012, on deadline, thanks
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress [dot] com
Cc: FUNCA [at] funca.info

Dear Matthew, Thanks for your question and thanks for the draft answer. The logistical details of the SG's trip, including the travel arrangements are still being worked out. Once we are in a position to confirm them, i will revert.

best

Stephane Dujarric (Mr.)
Spokesman for the Secretary-General

  But obviously the "logistical details" of getting to Qatar were worked out - Ban had already been to Qatar, then Kuwait before Cairo.

  One asked, what can you solve if you can't even say how you got there?

  Inner City Press thanked Dujarric and his colleagues for the interim response and asked, "both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Poroshenko's office say they have spoken with the Secretary General and give read-outs. Will a UN read-out be put out? If so, when? If not, why not?"

  On July 21, Inner City Press asked Haq, who confirmed the calls took place but nothing about the contents. What is happened with the UN? TheFree UN Coalition for Access is pressing for reforms. We'll have more on this.

   

In South Sudan, Hilde Johnson Was Silent on Kiir's Media Crackdown, Now UN Selective Omissions of Transcript: Free UN Coalition for Access

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 26 -- What is the commitment of the UN, and its Peacekeeping mission in South Sudan, to freedom of the press?

Earlier this month when Salva Kiir's information minister Michael Makuei Lueth said the all media would have to register with the government and publications pushed back, Inner City Press on December 5 asked UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky:

Inner City Press: in South Sudan the media, large and small, they are complaining about unwritten rules being issued by the Minister of Information and Broadcasting, requiring information they say is not in the statute from journalists and they say it is basically to silence the media in South Sudan. Since there is a UN peacekeeping mission there, I am wondering, do they have any comment on these Government moves concerning the press in South Sudan?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, I think the Secretary-General’s Special Representative in South Sudan has been quite vocal on the need for press freedom and freedom of the media. So, I would refer you to what she said in the past. But, I will look to see if there is anything specific on this latest aspect that you are referring to.

  Nesirky never returned with any statement by SRSG Hilde Johnson (nor has his office answered the South Sudan questions Inner City Press has e-mailed to him and the "Duty Officer" as he has gone a week without holding a noon briefing at which questions could be asked.)

  But on December 26, Nesirky was the moderator when Hilde Johnson appeared by video to take questions. Inner City Press asked about Johnson praising Salva Kiir on accountability despite reports that weapons were handed out from inside his own compound (Inner City Press story here).

  Now Nesirky's office has issued a transcript of Johnson's press conference. In the transcript, left in as the self-identification of the first questioner, like Nesirky a former Reuters reporter, thanking Johnson on behalf of the United Nations Correspondents Association, a group which has documentably asked the UN to throw out the investigative press, and has not seen any reforms since; the new Free UN Coalition for Access has been established.

  Next, Nesirky called on Reuters bureau chief Louis Charbonneau, who not only supported the request to throw out Inner City Press, but even spied for the UN, giving aninternal anti-Press UNCA document to the UN three minutes after promising not to do so. (Story here, document here,audio here.)

  The transcript sent out by Nesirky's office leaves in the identification "Reuters," as it left in UNCA and, next, AP.

But for the fourth question, Inner City Press' question on Johnson praising Kiir, the transcript omits both the thanks on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, and Inner City Press. Compare to the UN Video, here, at Minute 20:39. 

  It is, one person seeing the transcript joked, like recent revisionism and erasure in North Korea. You just erase out what you don't like. But is this the UN? Johnson's UNMISS? This is UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous, who says openly he has "policy" of not answering Press questions?Video here, UK coverage here.

  Who is responsible for the UN's nitty-gritty but telling censorship and erasure? We'll have more on this. Watch this site.

   

Asked About Fracking, UN's Ban Ki-moon Says Gas Is Good, Silent on Tear Gas Used on Indigenous Protesters, Press Games

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 19 -- When asked about fracking on Friday, the response of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon ignored the impacts on drinking water and instead said that "natural gas had an important role to play as we transition to lower-carbon sources."

The question by Inner City Press came in the context of Canadian authorities arresting and pepper spraying members of the Elsipogtog First Nation as they protested fracking. From the UN's online transcript* of its October 18 noon briefing, to which it appended Ban's answer before sending the answer to Inner City Press:

Inner City Press: the Elsipogtog First Nation in Canada yesterday were arrested and pepper-sprayed as they protested fracking or shale gas extraction near their land. So, I wanted to know if the Secretariat is aware of this, if there is any comment on Canada's response. I also wanted to know, the Secretary-General, since he is big in this field of green energy and various kinds of energy, does he have any view of this fracking which many environmental and other activists say is destructive, trying to get the last rinds out of the earth in terms of hydrocarbons?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: Well, first of all, we are obviously aware of the reports from Canada, but I don’t have any comment on that at the moment. And with regard to the broader question of fracking, I will have to have to look and see what I can tell you on that, but I don’t have anything at the moment, okay.

  If Ban's Spokesperson's office gets an answer in the hours after the noon briefing, they have been asked to e-mail it to the questioner, for use in the reporting the question was asked for. 

  But often Nesirky's office chooses to withhold answers to Inner City Press' questions until they can be given to all at once, put in the transcript or sometimes even given to other media, not Inner City Press, before that. The Free UN Coalition for Access @FUNCA_info protests this practice, as applies to all correspondents. But it continues. After 8 pm on October 18, this arrived:

From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] UN.org
Date: Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 8:05 PM
Subject: Question
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com

This was added to today's transcript after your question on fracking:

[The Spokesperson later said that natural gas had an important role to play as we transition to lower-carbon sources but that we must be aware that it cannot meet all our needs. He added that we must ensure that development of gas resources should go hand in hand with promoting clean energy solutions.]

  So that's Ban Ki-moon's answer on and understanding of fracking? It'd be like asking about animal cruelty in the industrial production of poultry, and Ban saying, chicken is good, but so are other future foods.

  Ban heads to Denmark on October 21 to discuss green energy -- with institutional investors. Is this what the UN has become?

* - At the most petty level, the noon briefing transcript above has had to be "cleaned up" -- at the order of the Spokesperson's Office, a particular staffer sent to transcribe it leaves in and even adds "uh, uh, uh" and stutters to the UN's (mis) transcription of critical Press questions asked.

   It is pathetic. Compare UN transcript to UN video, for each questioner. We'll have more on this. Watch this site.

   

UN Deletes FUNCA's Thanks to Deputy SG Jan Eliasson From Its Transcript, But UN Video Shows It: Censorship Alliance

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 3 -- How far with the UN go to try to ban dissent and to censor those who question it?

   Recently Inner City Press asked the UN to respond to what a Somalia whistleblower told it, that the head of the UN Mine Action Service in Mogadishu David Bax has been sharing genetic information from bombings with US intelligence.

  While still not answering the question, now after 10 days, the UN is conducting a witch hunt seeking to root out the whistleblower.

  On a smaller scale in UN Headquarters itself, the UN seems intent on trying to ban the sign and even name of the new Free UN Coalition for Access. 

  At the July 3 noon briefing with Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson, before asking about Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, Inner City Press thanked Eliasson “on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access.”

UN video here, from Minute 19:44.

  But when the UN put out its transcript, the name of FUNCA was cut out:

“Q: I want to thank you for doing this briefing so soon after you got back, and also I hope that we will have some questions on more general UN items, after, it should be... There is DRC, Haiti and other things going on.”

  By contrast, the UN (mis) transcription left in the name of the old UNCA, as recited by its 2013 president Pamela Falk of CBSNews.com:

“Q: Mr. Deputy Secretary-General, welcome on behalf of the UN Correspondents’ Association, welcome back and thank you for the briefing.”

  Who in the UN decided what to cut out of what purports to be a transcript? What is the basis of the deletions? If they cut this, do they cut or change whole questions? Answers? We have asked.

  This takes place as the UN Department of Public Information has threatened to suspend or withdraw Inner City Press' accreditation for having a FUNCA sign on the door of its office - despite the fact that UNCA is allowed two signs, and much more.

  Even amid this censorship, FUNCA continues its work,pushing inside the UN to restore space for the press and public 100% eliminated in the new General Assembly Hall, and on July 3 supporting a FUNCA member in Somaliland, protesting the jailing of two fellow journalists there.

  But how far with the UN go to try to ban dissent and to censor those who question it? And what does it undermine? Watch this site.

  

UK Contradictions on Somaliland & Falklands, Mistranscribing on Table, DFID Flights

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 6 -- While the UK now takes the lead on Somalia, getting Nicholas Kay appointed UN envoy and chairing today's Security Council debate about the country, it does not seem to take seriously the arguments for independence of Somaliland, as well as Puntland and Jubaland. Click here and here for previous Inner City Press stories on this.

  Meanwhile, in the midst of the Somalia debate in the Security Council, UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant re-tweeted about the right of self-determination of people in the Falkland Islands. What about self-determination in Hargeisa?

  There are questions, too, about the UN system handing Somaliland's airspace to Mogadishu, and the role of a UK DFID funded airline. A journalist in the region got the run-around from UN OCHA (the type of UN systemwide stonewalling the Free UN Coalition for Access is trying to counter-act) and requested that this be asked:

“Is it true, USAID and DIFD yearly cover overall expenses incurring UNHAS running cost in Somalia? If yes, why UNDP staff paid expenses on flight and persuaded to use UNHAS instead of EU chartered airlines which is free?"

The answer provided by a "UN spokesperson in Somalia" was this:

“Following notification by authorities in Somaliland, all UN flights to and from Somaliland have been suspended with effect from yesterday at 6pm. The United Nations and its agencies are taking this transportation issue seriously and are in discussions with the relevant authorities to bring about a resolution as quickly as possible. There has been no impact on ongoing UN programmes and it is our priority to ensure no interruption of support or activities. The UN welcomes the ongoing efforts to resolve this quickly.”

If that were the focus, why hand over the airspace? Here's what Lyall Grant said on Thursday:

"One of the very important roles that needs to take place in parallel with the security and stability aspect is the formulation and agreement of the constitutional relationship that will exist between the Federal Government of Somalia and some of the Somali regions, so Somaliland, Puntland and Jubaland and other regions. And one of the important roles that the Federal government of Somalia and the representatives of those regions have in the immediate future is to begin the process of dialogue to make sure that a constitutional settlement can be reached."

  What was that again, about self-determination?

  As we've inquired into May 21 and reported on since, one or more times a day, the UK is presiding over the roll-back in (new) media access to the Security Council from what existed not only during the Council's renovation relocation but also before it. 

  When Inner City Press for FUNCA asked UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant if he supported continued media workspace at the Council and if so what he would do about it, Lyall Grant said this is a matter for the UN Department of Public Information and "the journalists" -- it's becoming clear which journalists. See UK Mission "World Press Freedom Day" video, here.

Even the UK's transcript of Lyall Grant's press conference mis-represents the questions. It's always easier to dodge a question other than the one asked. Compare UN web cast video here, from Minute 17:32, to this (mis) transcription:

"media work table used to be in front of Security Council has been moved. Do you think that there should be one so reporters can stay throughout consultations so reporters can speak with people going in and out? What will you do if you think it should be replaced?"

Actually said, or asked was if Lyall Grant and UK believe that the media access and press worktable should to maintained, and "I you believe that, what will you do to make sure it takes place?"

The question was not about the table being "replaced." There's more. We are, as noted, experimenting. Watch this site.