From SDNY Peter Bright Presentment Reported By Inner City Press May 23 Now Pick Up 2 Weeks Later Bright Still in MCC

By Matthew Russell Lee, May 23 Periscope here

SDNY COURTHOUSE, June 8 – Less than an hour after witnessing Peter Bright presented in shackled in front of his wife in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's Magistrates Court on May 23, Inner City Press published into Google News a story about it. Also Periscope video here, round up tweet.Inner City Press reported that Bright's Federal Defenders lawyer argued that a video camera in Bright's Brooklyn apartment building militates for his release on bond. He was not released.

   Two weeks later the Daily Dot's Claire Goforth from Florida published a story about Bright's arrest based off the complaint on the PACER document system. This has been picked up, with and without more. But why is there no document in PACER about the proceeding that was due on June 6? On any renewed bid for bail by the Federal Defenders, who since that as reported by Inner City Press got another accused pedophile Byran Pivnickreleased? Inner City Press which first reported this case will continue on it. Watch this site, @InnerCityPress and the new @SDNYLIVE.   

  From Inner City Press' exclusive May 23 report: "A dual British - US citizen living in Brooklyn but reaching out for underage sex was presented, with his wife in the courtroom by that time only with Inner City Press. Federal Defender Amy Gallichio argued that Peter Bright should be released, since his building in Brooklyn has a video surveillance system. 

  But would the neighbors want the U.S. Attorney's Office to see their comings and goings? Gallichio offered for Bright to install his own camera over his door and turn the files in to the government. Judge Freeman found this of intersted and invited a second try, if only in writing. She quizzed Bright's all-American wife in the gallery and said the Peter is lucky. Was his claim to be "training" an eleven year old girl in The Bronx just puffery? Inner City Press will stay on this case." And now we are.

North Korea's Ri Yong Ho Says All Options on Operations Table, At One UN Hotel, Periscope

By Matthew Russell Lee, Photos, Periscope

UNITED NATIONS, September 25 – Days after the UN Security Council banned textile exports from North Korea, the country fired another missile over Japan's Hokkeido. On September 23, North Korea's Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho delivered this speech in the UN General Assembly hall, then came to meet UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, USg Jeffrey Feltman and others. There was a photo op, well attended by wire services and largely Japanese and some South Korean photographers - and Inner City Press. Saturday Periscope video here. Then on Monday September 25 Ri held a press encounter - no questions, just two statements - in front of the One UN Hotel / Millennium Hilton. Inner City Press streamed Periscope, here. 

He said, all options are on the operations table. Inner City Press asked the North Korea Mission to the UN if the international legal conference they have been asking for was discussed; the North Korean Mission to the UN told Inner City Press its “Foreign Minister raised that issue during the meeting. He also told UNSG to be most impartial, not to take one-sided.” We'll see. Back on September 21, this speech in the UN General Assembly Hall, by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, as transcribed in English by Inner City Press: "The situation on the Korean peninsula is now a focus of international attention. The 19 September this year, that is two days ago, marks the 12th  anniversary of the 2005, September 19 joint statement of the 6 party talks. At that time, the 6 parties, China, the United States, Russia,  DPRK, RoK and Japan, with China being the chair, made concerted efforts, the two main parties concerned, the US and DPRK made the decision, and we had formulated the roadmap for denuclearization of the peninsula. The DPRK undertook to abandon its nuclear programs, and the US undertook to normalize its relations with the DPRK. All parties committed to setting up a peace mechanism for the peninsula. The statement opened up new vistas for regional peace and stability. 12 years have passed. Some think things have changed on the peninsula and the statement has become outdated, but we believe things following the progressing trend of the times never become outdated, and decisions on the right track never become obsolete. If there is any change, anything we need now, it is denuclearization that is more comprehensive, more thorough, and more irreversible. There should be no new nuclear weapon state whether it is in the north or the south of the peninsula, whether it is in Northeast Asia or other parts of the world. We urge the DPRK not to go further on a dangerous direction. We call ont eh US to honor its four no commitment, and we call on all parties to play a constructive role in easing tensions.  There is still hope for peace and we must not give up. Negotiation is the only way out. Parties should meet each other halfway by recognizing each other’s legitimate concerns. In China’s view, the day when the denuclearization of the peninsula is realized should also be the day when a peace mechanism is established. China is always a force for peace. We have made tireless efforts for a peaceful resolution on the Korean peninsula. Whatever changes may take place, however long it may take, China will stay firmly committed to denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and to regional peace and stability." Back on September 15 Russian Ambassador Nebenzia said, as transcribed by Inner City Press: "we made a statement, a press statement by the president of the Security Council condemning the recent launch, calling on the DPRK to stop it, and also, which is important, reiterating the need for political and diplomatic solution of the crisis, early... We’re discussing that we’re in a vicious circle. We have a provocation, a resolution, then another provocation. Many people raised the issue that we have to think outside the box.  There is the China Russia road map of the 4th of July, which is at the moment the only political proposal on the table... Take away this morning’s Secretary of State Tillerson’s statement, our  American colleague said that Russia and China should quickly implement the sanctions measures provided for in 2375. To which we said that we are responsible members of the international community and we honestly implement resolutions that we adopt in the Security Council but this resolution also provides for political measures that should be implemented equally in that sense we called on our US partners and others to implement the political and diplomatic solutions that are provided for in the resolution and without implementing this we also will consider it as non-compliance with the resolution, not fully implementing the resolution. We were considering what elements we might include in a resolution that would be on a political side.. One way or another, we are including them in the resolutions we have already adopted. We would possibly like more. We’ll see what happens. I think people are keen to discuss it during the high level -- one way or another it will come up, both in the debates and in the meetings. We think that threats, tests, launches should be stopped and we should engage in meaningful negations. Many serious American actors are saying there is no way but to sit at the table and come to think how to resume the six party talks. I think it was Madeline Albright who was referring to it recently and some others as well. There are serious analyses in the American press of the issue, which came out in the last few days before we adopted resolution 2375. Many people around the world understand that there’s no alternative to this in the end."  US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson the day before said, "North Korea's provocative missile launch represents the second time the people of Japan, a treaty ally of the United States, have been directly threatened in recent weeks. These continued provocations only deepen North Korea's diplomatic and economic isolation. United Nations Security Council resolutions, including the most recent unanimous sanctions resolution, represent the floor, not the ceiling, of the actions we should take.  We call on all nations to take new measures against the Kim regime. China supplies North Korea with most of its oil. Russia is the largest employer of North Korean forced labor. China and Russia must indicate their intolerance for these reckless missile launches by taking direct actions of their own." When Nikki Haley spoke on North Korea's hydrogen bomb test in the UN Security Council on US Labor Day, she called for a vote on new sanctions on Kim Jong Un's government on September 11. They passed 15-0, after reducing the cut into North Korea's oil and dropping a proposal travel ban and asset freeze on Kim Jong Un. Now on September 14 North Korea has fired another missile, right over Japan's Hokkeido. And the UN was holding... a fashion show, in its General Assembly lobby, introduced by its new head of "Global Communications" who has yet to even respond to emails about her Department's imposition of UN minders on the independent Press. We'll have more on this. Back on September 11, spinning on background, a US official familiar with the negotiations said, before the vote, that "Kim Jung Un doesn’t have that many assets that are out there and vulnerable anyway." Now you tell us. On September 6, the US draft came out, saying it would among other things BAN oil exports to North Korea (see language below); CNN is still using that term (but see new draft and language below). The vote is slated for 6 pm on September 11; mid morning when Inner City Press asked Italy's Ambassador Sebastiano Cardi about the oil provisions, he said he wouldn't comment on the "details." Video here.At 3 pm, French Ambassador Francois Delattre said "The bottom line is simple: the threat of DPRK has changed in scope, scale, and its very nature. We’re facing not a regional but a global threat, which unites us. We fully support the resolution proposed by the US. We think it’s a robust resolution, a needed step towards the firmness I was just referring to. Our deep belief is that only a firm reaction of the Council can open the path to a political res. Our firm attitude today is the best antidote to the risk of war. I think the conditions are met to go for a vote. We completely support the resolution as it is. By definition this is a compromise to get everybody on board. We believe we have a  strong, robust resolution and it is a needed and important step with respect to the firmness that is the condition for a political solution tomorrow."

After ICP's Peacekeeping Rape Story Confirmed by UN, Reuters Steals Without Credit, Then Wants to Censor Periscope Video at UNSC Stakeout

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive Series

UNITED NATIONS, February 18 -- 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.

 While the story continues, we note that Reuters UN bureau first triest to undermine the story, then stole it without credit - and on February 18 tried to undermine Inner City Press live-streaming Periscope video from the UN Security Council stakeout. Welcome to the UN Censorship Alliance.

  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?

Exclusive: UN Emails Show New Rapes in CAR, Ladsous' Contingents by Matthew Russell Lee

 


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 here. Video 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 here. Didn'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.

On Paused Syria Talks, Inner City Press Asks 3 Why Kurdish PYD Excluded, 2 Answer (Russia and Venezuela), But France Walks Away

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 5 -- When the UN pulled the plug on the Intra-Syrian Talks, or merely as envoy Staffan de Mistura said pushed them back to February 25, de Mistura said that the UN "is not prepared to hold talks for the sake of talks" and concluded, "Mr. de Mistura will leave tomorrow to attend the London conference."

 On February 5, the UN Security Council met to hear from de Mistura by video, behind closed doors. Afterward, Inner City Press asked three of the Permanentn Representatives in attendance why the Kurdish PYD had been excluded from the talks.

 Security Council President for Febraury Rafael Ramirez of Venezuela said, Yes, this had been discussed. Russia's Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said since Kurds at 15% of Syria, they should be included - and that if Turkey supports Syria's territorial integrity, it should stop blocking the PYD.

  But after French Ambassador Francois Delattre speechified at the UNTV microphone and had taken two questions, Inner City Press asked quite audibly about the PYD. Video here.  Delattre's spokesman directed that the UNTV microphone be given to Reuters for a vague question, then Delattre said, C'est fini.

  Inner City Press asked again, loudly, about the PYD. Delatte walked away, indicating as he has before, I will have to get back to you. But he has not, for eaxmple on Burundi. Later Inner City Press heard rumblings about the use of Periscope -- see here for acts of Voice of America -- which, ironically, a number of Security Council delegations use and follow Inner City Press on. But what ABOUT the PYD? Watch this site.

On the way in, UK Ambassador Matthew Rycroft stopped and took five questions from four media, largely blaming Russia for the pause in the talks. Video here.

  Inner City Press tried asking, third time until it worked, what about the “petty procedural issues” that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had also blamed in his post-pause statement. A definition has yet to be given; Rycroft replied to Inner City Press' question on what the opposition should do on February 25 by saying that the opposition needs to be shown it is supported.

   For balance, Russia's Ambassador Vitaly Churkin was asked about this accusation and called it “in bad taste.” Churkin added, “They should blame those who support the terrorists. It's not a Russian escalation, it's intensified efforts by the government to fight the terrorists.”

 On February 4 in front of the UN Security Council, Inner City Press asked Rycroft's Deputy Peter Wilson what Ban Ki-moon meant by "petty procedural" and other issues stalling the talks. Video here, and see below.

 Later on February 4 the UN Mission of Venezuela, President of the Security Council for February, issued a statement that, on February 5 the Security Council will hold a meeting to evaluate the political situation in Syria after the talks were suspended for three weeks by the Special Envoy of the Secretary General Staffan de Mistura.

  Venezuela's Ambassador Rafael Ramirez said in his national capacity, “We are in favor of dialogue without any preconditions, and the most important thing is that the countries that have influence with the government or the opposition are committed to and confident in the negotiations.”

  Inner City Press asked Ramirez if Sudan will speak on the debate on sanctions on February 11; Ramirez said yes. On February 1 Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access (FUNCA) asked Ramirez to hold such Q&A stakeouts after closed door meetings: and on February 4, he did. Tweeted photo here.

  The UK's Peter Wilson said the London Conference is "our" (UK) focus, and to pay attention to the speech Ban gave. On that way to the UN Security Council stakeout, another country's diplomat told Inner City Press there would be a session with de Mistura on February 5.

  As Inner City Press was filming the Q&A with Wilson, the correspondent from Voice of America took two photographs... of Inner City Press' phone. The gola, we surmise for past and recent experience, may be to Ban filming and whole technologies at the UN Security Council stakeout and even elsewhere in the UN, which the old UN Correspondents Association has tried to do in the past.

 The new Free UN Coalition for Access (FUNCA) would oppose that - watch this site, and note that many Security Council delegations use Periscope, and the UN itself purports to promote social media.

  Notably, de Mistura's statement did not cast blame for the failure - but hours later, Reuters channeled a "senior UN official" it allowed to remain unnamed:

"A senior U.N. official told Reuters on condition of anonymity that de Mistura called a halt to the talks after Russia increased air strikes to help the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, undermining the negotiating process. 'I think the special envoy decided to suspend the talks because the (United Nations) did not want to be associated with the Russian escalation in Syria, which risks undermining the talks completely,' the official said."

  Reuters did not explain WHY it granted anonymity to this described "senior UN official." But since even this source said he or she "thinks" de Mistura decided, it called into question, what kind of source is this? UN Political chief Feltman, whom Reuters UN bureau chief has previously used, would not "think" what de Mistura decided. 

 But now Ban Ki-moon has said, or read, what the unnamed senior UN official said, albeit without naming any country, see below.

 Does Reuters grant (more) anonymity to Ban Ki-moon?

 At the UN in New York on February 3, Reuters' correspondent actively cut off Inner City Press questioning about UN corruption, saying "you're grasping at straws." Vine here, story here.

  Meanwhile the UN bureau chief promoted himself appearing at aVienna UN event, top-heavy with Reuters connections.

 On February 4, Ban said this:

"It is deeply disturbing that the initial steps of the talks have been undermined by the continuous lack of sufficient humanitarian access, and by a sudden increase of aerial bombings and military activities within Syria.  The focus on the people of Syria is also being lost amid petty procedural matters."

  Ban Ki-moon and petty? Say it ain't so.

Back on December 18 in the Lotte New York Palace Hotel, ministers Lavrov and Gentiloni, Fabius and Kerry passed through with entourages; UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon left early typically without answering any questions, as Inner City Press Periscoped andreported. Hours later, the draft resolution was agreed to, then adopted 15-0 by the UN Security Council, here.

 On December 26, the UN issued this for its envoy Staffan de Mistura:

"Further to resolution 2254 (2015) of the Security Council, unanimously adopted on 18 December 2015, United Nations Special Envoy for Syria, Mr. Staffan de Mistura, has intensified efforts towards convening representatives of the Syrian Government and the broadest possible spectrum of the Syrian opposition and others to engage in a political process leading towards implementation of the objectives and principles for a political solution to the Syrian conflict as contained in the Geneva Communique of 30 June 2012, and the Vienna Statements of 30 October and 14 November 2015.

"In line with the clear parameters outlined in Security Council resolution 2254 (2015), the Special Envoy intends to complete his consultations in early January, with a view to initiating intra-Syrian talks on a target date of 25 January 2016 in Geneva. He counts on full cooperation of all the relevant Syrian parties in this process. Continuing developments on the ground should not be allowed to derail it. The Special Envoy also relies on the continued crucial support of the International Syria Support Group.

The people of Syria have suffered enough. Their tragedy is now felt throughout the region and beyond. They deserve the full attention and commitment from all their Syrian representatives, who should now show leadership and vision to overcome differences for the sake of Syria."

 The day before, on December 25, on Syria UNRWA's spokesman Chris Gunness said:

"UNRWA welcomes any developments that could end the armed conflict in and around Yarmouk, and ease the inhuman conditions that Palestine refugees and other civilians are in Yarmouk continue to endure. Over the past three months, there have been persistent reports of negotiations for some form of truce or evacuation arrangement in Yarmouk.  These reports are credible and UNRWA is taking them seriously, although they have not been officially or formally confirmed, and details have been vague. There are several thousands of civilians living in deeply abject conditions in Yarmouk. As UNRWA is deeply concerned about their well-being, the Agency is seeking from the Syrian government further details of any negotiated arrangements that will affect the humanitarian situation of civilians in Yarmouk. In particular, UNRWA demands that any arrangements being negotiated in and around Yarmouk must include guarantees for a durable cessation of hostilities, for the protection of civilians, and for safe, uninterrupted humanitarian access for UNRWA and other humanitarian actors. UNRWA is redoubling its strong appeals to the Government of Syria and relevant actors to allow and facilitate humanitarian access to Yarmouk.  This is urgently needed to enable UNRWA to   deliver food, clean water, winter supplies,  healthcare,  and other humanitarian assistance and services to civilians in Yarmouk. UNRWA stands ready immediately to respond to the humanitarian needs of the entire civilian population of Yarmouk."

  Meanwhile the head of Jaysh al Islam Zahran Alloush was killed al Ghouta.

  Back on December 18 at the UN the US day ended in a bilateral meeting between Iranian minister Zarif and John Kerry -- a photo spray was canceled -- and a low key meeting on Iraq and Turkey that we asked about and reported on here.

  Kerry and Lavrov, joined by UN envoy Staffan de Mistura, held this three-question press conference. Kerry said the negotiations should begin in mid to late January (in contrast to the early January in the resolution). Lavrov said only the “patriotic opposition” should be involved in negotiations. Staffan de Mistura said very little.

  That Kerry's spokesman John Kirby, who ran the press conference, gave the second question to the Washington Post, and the third to Russian media, was perhaps understandable. But the first question, Kirby set aside for “Al Arabiya.”  The question quickly turned into three, after being branded for “UNCA,” now the UN Corruption Association, a group which sold seats with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for $6000 only earlier this week.

 We now add: UNCA gave one of its prizes, a free trip to Turkey, to one of its Vice Presidents, from Agence France Presse. Even Kellogg's prohibits its employees from competing for its prizes. But not UNCA, which ignoring the Iraq - Turkey meeting in the Security Council was trying to buy people with Prosecco on December 18, after selling seats with Ban for $6,000.

  Several other UN-based journalists -- not (only) this one -- complained afterward that the first question and attempted follow up were a “Saudi circus” which made the UN press corps look bad -- as did attempt to throw out certain journalists, photographers, from the front row at the beginning.

   Afterward a photo spray of a meeting between Kerry and Iran's Zarif was declared “by invitation only” and then canceled. In the Security Council, with very few journalists still at the stakeout, the US presidency began the meeting on Iraq's complaint against Turkey being in its territory. We'll have more on this.

After the vote inside the Council Lavrov said, “The unanimous adoption today on the Council has created a broad front on the basis of the UN Charter, on the basis of all of those who are pushing back against terror, including the Syrian army, [some] armed militias, parts of the Syrian opposition, and the Russian air forces, in response to the legitimate request of the Syrian government."

Inside as Nasser Judeh of Jordan spoke, UN TV cut repeatedly to Syria's Bashar Ja'afari, looking more and more skeptical. France's Fabius spoke briefly and left. Outside at the stakeout, talk turned to a Kerry press conference, open to all.

 Italy's Paolo Gentiloni, by contrast, scheduled a press availability only for Italian media. A wag from the Free UN Coalition for Access asked, Isn't Gentiloni the foreign and not interior minister? Isn't he running for a Security Council seat? We'll have more on this.

In the  hotel lobby in the late morning a Permanent Five member of the Security Council's spokesperson briefed a gaggle of journalists in the lobby amid hissed that it was “off the record.”

  There was a gingerbread model of the NY Palace hotel which, the sign said, took 300 hours to make. All that was lacking, one wag - this one - snarked on Twitter, was a little gingerbread Laurent Fabuis.

 Back that UN, the 1 pm stakeout by the EU's Mogherini was postponed and then canceled. The Security Council scheduled for 3 pm got pushed back to 4.  Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric if Ban had spoken, what would he have said? Vine here.

On December 17, the day before Syria talks resumed at the New York Palace Hotel in Manhattan, finance ministers spoke in the UN Security Council about cutting off financing for ISIS. French finance minister Michel Sapin spoke darkly of the use of pre-paid cards for the November 13 Paris attacks; Russia's Ambassador Churkin named two Turkish companies as involved in ISIS oil sale.

  Inner City Press asked Syria's Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari, who came to take questions at the Council stakeout, about ISIS' oil. He named Turkey, then want on to name Qatar and Saudi Arabia, slamming its “Sunni coalition” recently announced.

  When US Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, along with Sapin and the UK's George Osborne held a short press conference in the UN briefing room, Inner City Press hoped to asked Sapin about pre-paid cards, and Lew and Osborne about Bitcoin. But the question, just four, were limited to Reuters, the Wall Street Journal, the New York and Financial Times. So it goes.

   It seems there will be no Press access at the New York Palace; Ja'afari has said he will speak, at the UN, and whatever ISSG press availability there is should be at the UN, with a 3 pm meeting on December 18 scheduled. Watch this site.

Back on December 8, Inner City Press put thee questions to  Turkey's Ambassador Cevic. Video here.   Here's fast transcript byInnerCityPro.com:
Inner City Press: On Syria, do you think the Vienna process meeting should take place in New York on the 18th? Are you satisfied with the Saudi process for choosing the opposition?

Amb Cevik: The plans, I don’t know how fixed, I mean how clear it is, but we are making our preparations for the meeting.

Inner City Press: Are there any groups invited to Saudi Arabia that you think shouldn’t be part of the opposition delegation?

Amb Cevik: I think so far, in our view, they are working on the right concept. Let’s see if they succeed. Having a coalition group that would be able to take part in the process is one of the most important things.
Inner City Press: [Russia] said the group that killed their pilot should be put on the terror list. Do you have any view on that?

Amb Cevik: If they know the specifics, I don’t know. But to our knowledge, there was no terrorist organization, no extreme Daesh, Nusra, in that area. They are the Turkomens, and we know them, they are moderate people.

  This may be an issue. Watch this site.

After Pause in Syria Talks, Inner City Press Asks UK Ambassador Peter Wilson of "Petty Procedural Issues"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 4 -- When the UN pulled the plug on the Intra-Syrian Talks, or merely as envoy Staffan de Mistura said pushed them back to February 25, de Mistura said that the UN "is not prepared to hold talks for the sake of talks" and concluded, "Mr. de Mistura will leave tomorrow to attend the London conference."

 On February 4 in front of the UN Security Council, Inner City Press asked UK Deputy Ambassador Peter Wilson what Secretary General Ban Ki-moon meant by "petty procedural" and other issues stalling the talks. Video here, and see below.

  Wilson said the London Conference is "our" (UK) focus, and to pay attention to the speech Ban gave. On that way to the UN Security Council stakeout, another country's diplomat told Inner City Press there would be a session with de Mistura on February 5.

  As Inner City Press was filming the Q&A with Wilson, the correspondent from Voice of America took two photographs... of Inner City Press' phone. The gola, we surmise for past and recent experience, may be to Ban filming and whole technologies at the UN Security Council stakeout and even elsewhere in the UN, which the old UN Correspondents Association has tried to do in the past.

 The new Free UN Coalition for Access (FUNCA) would oppose that - watch this site, and note that many Security Council delegations use Periscope, and the UN itself purports to promote social media.

  Notably, de Mistura's statement did not cast blame for the failure - but hours later, Reuters channeled a "senior UN official" it allowed to remain unnamed:

"A senior U.N. official told Reuters on condition of anonymity that de Mistura called a halt to the talks after Russia increased air strikes to help the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, undermining the negotiating process. 'I think the special envoy decided to suspend the talks because the (United Nations) did not want to be associated with the Russian escalation in Syria, which risks undermining the talks completely,' the official said."

  Reuters did not explain WHY it granted anonymity to this described "senior UN official." But since even this source said he or she "thinks" de Mistura decided, it called into question, what kind of source is this? UN Political chief Feltman, whom Reuters UN bureau chief has previously used, would not "think" what de Mistura decided. 

 But now Ban Ki-moon has said, or read, what the unnamed senior UN official said, albeit without naming any country, see below.

 Does Reuters grant (more) anonymity to Ban Ki-moon?

 At the UN in New York on February 3, Reuters' correspondent actively cut off Inner City Press questioning about UN corruption, saying "you're grasping at straws." Vine here, story here.

  Meanwhile the UN bureau chief promoted himself appearing at aVienna UN event, top-heavy with Reuters connections.

 On February 4, Ban said this:

"It is deeply disturbing that the initial steps of the talks have been undermined by the continuous lack of sufficient humanitarian access, and by a sudden increase of aerial bombings and military activities within Syria.  The focus on the people of Syria is also being lost amid petty procedural matters."

  Ban Ki-moon and petty? Say it ain't so.

   Back on January 25 de Mistura started his press conference in Geneva on a 15 minute delay, he apologized then said, "Due to the intense disagreements frankly, and different opinions on who should be on the list, the actual beginning of the talks, which was meant to be today, have been delayed. Today, therefore, instead of announcing the beginning of the talks, I’m in a position of still announcing to you the date in which, in my opinion, we will be in a position to send invitations: tomorrow. And the date which we’ll be aiming at having  the beginning of intra-Syrian talks: 29th January.."

   Why will that work any better? There will be no photos, de Mistura said. Then, taking over the picking of question, he took one on.. how many rooms?

de Mistura: The issue about rooms, and delegations, will be part of the creativity of the proximity talks. There will be a lot of shuttling, because there is not only diff delegations but also vicil society, women, and others who deserve to be heard…you could have quite a lot of simultanrous meetings taking place.

Q: Are you expecting a general ceasefire?

A "Every party has a right to decide when it wishes to come. Our main principle is, no preconditions

We will be pushing, and I think from the American and Russian side there’s also an interest in this: at the beginning we will be discussing a ceasefire. So the choice is whether to talk about that before or during.
…I think the Syrians are telling us something, they say we want something concrete, when you start talks give us something concrete. So we will be pushing the ceasefire talk…the condition should be that it is a real ceasefire and not just local. This is not what we want. We want something that will put an end to the fighting."

  Back on January 18 when after closed door consultation with UN Syria envoy de Mistura the Security Council's president for January Elbio Rosselli was asked if there will be a delay in the talks past January 25, he replied, "I would only say that no different date was considered today.”

  But de Mistura has yet to send out any invitations; who will be invited has not yet been agreed, as the UN announced in its noon briefing held as Rosselli spoke. Here's what Rosselli said at the stakeout:

"“The Security Council heard today the first oral report by Mr. de Mistura who's been working very, very actively following on the different aspects of Resolution 2254 of 18 December last year. As you all know, Mr. de Mistura has had a very, very active and hectic agenda, visiting most of the capitals of the concerned states, traveling from Riyadh to Damascus, to Amman, back to Geneva, moving to Tehran, moving everywhere.

“There has been since the very first days of January concern about whether the situation that erupted between Saudi Arabia and Iran could affect the course of the process. Mr. de Mistura has made very clear references that he got directly from the ministers of foreign affairs of both Iran and Saudi Arabia assurances that that would not be the case, and that that incident is completely isolated from the consideration of the agenda of 2254.

“We the Council reiterated its very strong unanimous support for the role that Mr. de Mistura is playing, has played and will continue to play and the central aspect of the process in the the terms of resolution 2254. This is as much as I would be in a position to transmit to you.”

  Meaning, it seems, that these were the Council's agreed-to Press Elements. We'll have more on this.

Back on December 18 in the Lotte New York Palace Hotel, ministers Lavrov and Gentiloni, Fabius and Kerry passed through with entourages; UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon left early typically without answering any questions, as Inner City Press Periscoped andreported. Hours later, the draft resolution was agreed to, then adopted 15-0 by the UN Security Council, here.

 On December 26, the UN issued this for its envoy Staffan de Mistura:

"Further to resolution 2254 (2015) of the Security Council, unanimously adopted on 18 December 2015, United Nations Special Envoy for Syria, Mr. Staffan de Mistura, has intensified efforts towards convening representatives of the Syrian Government and the broadest possible spectrum of the Syrian opposition and others to engage in a political process leading towards implementation of the objectives and principles for a political solution to the Syrian conflict as contained in the Geneva Communique of 30 June 2012, and the Vienna Statements of 30 October and 14 November 2015.

"In line with the clear parameters outlined in Security Council resolution 2254 (2015), the Special Envoy intends to complete his consultations in early January, with a view to initiating intra-Syrian talks on a target date of 25 January 2016 in Geneva. He counts on full cooperation of all the relevant Syrian parties in this process. Continuing developments on the ground should not be allowed to derail it. The Special Envoy also relies on the continued crucial support of the International Syria Support Group.

The people of Syria have suffered enough. Their tragedy is now felt throughout the region and beyond. They deserve the full attention and commitment from all their Syrian representatives, who should now show leadership and vision to overcome differences for the sake of Syria."

 The day before, on December 25, on Syria UNRWA's spokesman Chris Gunness said:

"UNRWA welcomes any developments that could end the armed conflict in and around Yarmouk, and ease the inhuman conditions that Palestine refugees and other civilians are in Yarmouk continue to endure. Over the past three months, there have been persistent reports of negotiations for some form of truce or evacuation arrangement in Yarmouk.  These reports are credible and UNRWA is taking them seriously, although they have not been officially or formally confirmed, and details have been vague. There are several thousands of civilians living in deeply abject conditions in Yarmouk. As UNRWA is deeply concerned about their well-being, the Agency is seeking from the Syrian government further details of any negotiated arrangements that will affect the humanitarian situation of civilians in Yarmouk. In particular, UNRWA demands that any arrangements being negotiated in and around Yarmouk must include guarantees for a durable cessation of hostilities, for the protection of civilians, and for safe, uninterrupted humanitarian access for UNRWA and other humanitarian actors. UNRWA is redoubling its strong appeals to the Government of Syria and relevant actors to allow and facilitate humanitarian access to Yarmouk.  This is urgently needed to enable UNRWA to   deliver food, clean water, winter supplies,  healthcare,  and other humanitarian assistance and services to civilians in Yarmouk. UNRWA stands ready immediately to respond to the humanitarian needs of the entire civilian population of Yarmouk."

  Meanwhile the head of Jaysh al Islam Zahran Alloush was killed al Ghouta.

  Back on December 18 at the UN the US day ended in a bilateral meeting between Iranian minister Zarif and John Kerry -- a photo spray was canceled -- and a low key meeting on Iraq and Turkey that we asked about and reported on here.

  Kerry and Lavrov, joined by UN envoy Staffan de Mistura, held this three-question press conference. Kerry said the negotiations should begin in mid to late January (in contrast to the early January in the resolution). Lavrov said only the “patriotic opposition” should be involved in negotiations. Staffan de Mistura said very little.

  That Kerry's spokesman John Kirby, who ran the press conference, gave the second question to the Washington Post, and the third to Russian media, was perhaps understandable. But the first question, Kirby set aside for “Al Arabiya.”  The question quickly turned into three, after being branded for “UNCA,” now the UN Corruption Association, a group which sold seats with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for $6000 only earlier this week.

 We now add: UNCA gave one of its prizes, a free trip to Turkey, to one of its Vice Presidents, from Agence France Presse. Even Kellogg's prohibits its employees from competing for its prizes. But not UNCA, which ignoring the Iraq - Turkey meeting in the Security Council was trying to buy people with Prosecco on December 18, after selling seats with Ban for $6,000.

  Several other UN-based journalists -- not (only) this one -- complained afterward that the first question and attempted follow up were a “Saudi circus” which made the UN press corps look bad -- as did attempt to throw out certain journalists, photographers, from the front row at the beginning.

   Afterward a photo spray of a meeting between Kerry and Iran's Zarif was declared “by invitation only” and then canceled. In the Security Council, with very few journalists still at the stakeout, the US presidency began the meeting on Iraq's complaint against Turkey being in its territory. We'll have more on this.

After the vote inside the Council Lavrov said, “The unanimous adoption today on the Council has created a broad front on the basis of the UN Charter, on the basis of all of those who are pushing back against terror, including the Syrian army, [some] armed militias, parts of the Syrian opposition, and the Russian air forces, in response to the legitimate request of the Syrian government."

Inside as Nasser Judeh of Jordan spoke, UN TV cut repeatedly to Syria's Bashar Ja'afari, looking more and more skeptical. France's Fabius spoke briefly and left. Outside at the stakeout, talk turned to a Kerry press conference, open to all.

 Italy's Paolo Gentiloni, by contrast, scheduled a press availability only for Italian media. A wag from the Free UN Coalition for Access asked, Isn't Gentiloni the foreign and not interior minister? Isn't he running for a Security Council seat? We'll have more on this.

In the  hotel lobby in the late morning a Permanent Five member of the Security Council's spokesperson briefed a gaggle of journalists in the lobby amid hissed that it was “off the record.”

  There was a gingerbread model of the NY Palace hotel which, the sign said, took 300 hours to make. All that was lacking, one wag - this one - snarked on Twitter, was a little gingerbread Laurent Fabuis.

 Back that UN, the 1 pm stakeout by the EU's Mogherini was postponed and then canceled. The Security Council scheduled for 3 pm got pushed back to 4.  Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric if Ban had spoken, what would he have said? Vine here.

On December 17, the day before Syria talks resumed at the New York Palace Hotel in Manhattan, finance ministers spoke in the UN Security Council about cutting off financing for ISIS. French finance minister Michel Sapin spoke darkly of the use of pre-paid cards for the November 13 Paris attacks; Russia's Ambassador Churkin named two Turkish companies as involved in ISIS oil sale.

  Inner City Press asked Syria's Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari, who came to take questions at the Council stakeout, about ISIS' oil. He named Turkey, then want on to name Qatar and Saudi Arabia, slamming its “Sunni coalition” recently announced.

  When US Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, along with Sapin and the UK's George Osborne held a short press conference in the UN briefing room, Inner City Press hoped to asked Sapin about pre-paid cards, and Lew and Osborne about Bitcoin. But the question, just four, were limited to Reuters, the Wall Street Journal, the New York and Financial Times. So it goes.

   It seems there will be no Press access at the New York Palace; Ja'afari has said he will speak, at the UN, and whatever ISSG press availability there is should be at the UN, with a 3 pm meeting on December 18 scheduled. Watch this site.

Back on December 8, Inner City Press put thee questions to  Turkey's Ambassador Cevic. Video here.   Here's fast transcript byInnerCityPro.com:
Inner City Press: On Syria, do you think the Vienna process meeting should take place in New York on the 18th? Are you satisfied with the Saudi process for choosing the opposition?

Amb Cevik: The plans, I don’t know how fixed, I mean how clear it is, but we are making our preparations for the meeting.

Inner City Press: Are there any groups invited to Saudi Arabia that you think shouldn’t be part of the opposition delegation?

Amb Cevik: I think so far, in our view, they are working on the right concept. Let’s see if they succeed. Having a coalition group that would be able to take part in the process is one of the most important things.
Inner City Press: [Russia] said the group that killed their pilot should be put on the terror list. Do you have any view on that?

Amb Cevik: If they know the specifics, I don’t know. But to our knowledge, there was no terrorist organization, no extreme Daesh, Nusra, in that area. They are the Turkomens, and we know them, they are moderate people.

  This may be an issue. Watch this site.

UN Claims It Didn't Lend Press Briefing Room to Ng Lap Seng Fundee, Reuters Cuts Off Inner City Press Questions, for UNCA

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 3 -- The  UN won't provide a simple list of when and to whom it “lent” the UN Press Briefing Room, from the“reservation” Spokesman Dujarric gave to the entourage of French President Hollande on September 23, 2014 until his murky “lending” of the UN Press Briefing Room to UNCA on January 29, 2016 andsubsequent ejection of Inner City Press.

 On February 3, Inner City Press for the second day in a row asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq to provide a list of to whom his office, or simply lead UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, “lent” the UN Press Briefing Room. Haq on February 3 now said there is no list, but they have the information.

  So Inner City Press asked a question about the information: has the UN Press Briefing Room been “lent” to any affiliate or fundee of Ng Lap Seng or the Global Sustainability Foundation, named in the US Attorney's corruption indictment.

  Haq said, “No.” But since the UN Press Briefing Room was, Dujarric said, “lent to UNCA” on January 29, and UNCA has taken funds from Ng Lap Seng's entities, Inner City Press asked Haq if he was sure.

  Haq insisted that money is not asked for to lend the UN Press Briefing Room. But that was not the question: has it been lent to a grantee of Ng Lap Seng.

   As Inner City Press was still asking, Reuters' UN correspondent Michelle Nichols, holding Reuters' apparently Permanent seat on the UNCA board, cut in, saying “You're clutching at straws.” Video here


Fast transcript:

ICP: I wanted to ask you again for a list, or disclosure, of use of this room approved by the office of the spokesman. Yesterday you said that you’re in charge of the room, you have the information, do you have it now?

Haq: We have the information but we don’t have a list. We don’t keep a list. We do this case by case.

ICP: So can I ask a question –

Haq: The bottom line, Matthew, and this is an important thing, we keep all press briefings in this room open to all press. The meeting that you were trying to crash into on Friday was not a press briefing.

ICP: My question is this – anything that you excude people from you’re going to say is not a briefing. As a simple question. One, I think you should disclose the list, since it’s public –

Haq: There’s no such list.

ICP: Public resources are being used. Since you say you have it –

Haq: There’s not a list. We have the information. There’s not a list.

ICP: Okay. Here’s the question. Has the room been lent, by your office, to any affiliate or fundee of Ng Lap Send or the Global Sustainability Foundation, both of which are named in the US Attorney’s office indictment?

Haq: No.

ICP: You know that to be the case?

Haq: I know that to be the case. I know that to be the case.

ICP: You heard the word “fundee” and you said no.

Haq: I know that it’s not a question. No one puts up money…

ICP: That’s not what I asked. I said have you lent the room to a fundee of Ng Lap Seng or the Global Sustainability Foundation? If you need time to answer it, please email it. But that’s the question.

Haq: I don’t need any time to answer this. Look, some of the ways the room is used is, for example, we talk to college students. That’s open to college students.

ICP: You can exclude that from the list. I’m not interested in that.

Haq: It’s open to the model UN, people who are not part of the model UN don’t go. In this case, on Friday, it was open to the correspondents’ association, that was their organizational meeting.

ICP: You’ve heard the question, right?

Haq: I’ve heard the question. That’s my answer.

ICP: You asked Stephane? You said you would. That’s his answer too?

Reuters / UNCA: You’re really clutching at straws.

ICP: I didn’t ask you any questions. You should ask your own questions.

Haq: If you’re so keen on the rules, you shouldn’t hide in the interpreter’s booth.

ICP: I didn’t hide there. It’s totally glass. Can you please look at it? I didn’t hide there. I was sitting right there. Something is really desperately wrong. I didn’t ask Reuters a question, just for the record.

  Inner City Press was not asking Reuters any question. On February 2, the former Reuters UN bureau chief cut in, as did the Agence France Presse correspondent Carole Landry (who is also on UNCA's board). We'll have more on this.

  Dujarric didn't show up at the February 2 noon briefing, so Inner City Press had to ask his Deputy, Farhan Haq. The UNCA representative, Reuters retiree Evelyn Leopold, immediately tried to cut off the question with a loud, “Here we go again.” (This was echoed afterward by Carole Landry the English language correspondent of Agence France Presse, silent when the UN Press Briefing Room was given over to Hollande and others were asked to leave). Here's Periscope of the glass box the AFP scribe "reports" Inner City Press was "hidden" in; here's February 2 video:


 UN transcript:

Inner City Press: I'd wanted to ask Stéphane this, but I'm… I'll… I guess I'll ask you it.  Yesterday, I was trying to ask, and I think I was cut off, but my question was, he said, "Who gets to use this room is really my decision."  So, I wanted to ask you, it's something I've asked him before…

UNCA Representative, cutting in:  Here we go again.

Deputy Spokesman:  Let's make sure that everyone gets the opportunity to ask questions, please.

Inner City Press:  Thanks.  What I wanted to ask is that there was… there was an instance in 23 September 2014, where the French delegation of François Hollande used the room.  There was some… it was called a misunderstanding.  I have some communication with Stéphane.  At that time… I guess what I want to know is, between then and now, how often does this happen?  And is it really the case that one individual decides who uses the room?  And I ask because we're often told here that everything is about Member States.  And so, I wanted to know, between 23 September 2014, and Friday when it was, again, I guess rented… lent out… excuse me… to UNCA [United Nations Correspondents Association], how many private uses of this room have there been?  And I'm asking because, given that it's an extraordinary claim to say it's one person's decision who uses it, I'd just like to know how many times was it used?

Deputy Spokesman:  It's our office that gets consulted on these matters.  There's a big difference between providing rooms for briefings, where we try to make sure that briefings are open to all reporters, and providing the room just as a room for a different sort of event by an organization or by a group.  But, in any case, it's our office that controls the use of the room.

Inner City Press:  So, do you have the information?  Can you give a list?

Deputy Spokesman:  It's not really…

Inner City Press:  It's important because at least it…[avoids misunderstanding when something is public and when it is not]

Deputy Spokesman:  Yes, we have the…

Inner City Press:  …when something is public and when it's not.  Excuse me.  I'm sorry.  I mean…

Deputy Spokesman:  I was being assured your question would be accorded with due respect, so please do not talk over my answers.

Inner City Press:  Sure.  I wanted to clarify.  Go ahead.

Deputy Spokesman:  The basic point is, yes, you know, we know who holds meetings in this room.  We're the ones who have the keys.  We hold the responsibility for opening of the room up.  We do that primarily for press briefings.  Every now and then, there are things like organizational meetings or other things that are not briefings.

Inner City Press:  So, why is there a problem providing that list, if you have the list and you, obviously, have the information?  Is it somehow confidential?

Deputy Spokesman:  It's not confidential.  But, frankly, the problem with the room last Friday had to do with a violation caused by one individual hiding in the room, surreptitiously recording colleagues…[See glass box here]

Inenr City Press:  I didn't hide.  Again… I'll say it again.  I'm sitting there live tweeting it and Periscoping it.  So, it's hardly hiding.  But, I want to ask you again, in the spirit of transparency, you have the information.  This doesn't seem like there's any reason that it's secret.  Just can you provide a list of uses of this room by your office lent out between 23 September 2014 and Friday?

Deputy Spokesman:  I can ask Stéphane, but honestly, this is something that we provide information for our colleagues in the Department of Public Information.  It's not a secret.  And it's… and to that extent, but I don't want you to muddy the issue.  The problem of last Friday was not a problem having to do with the use of the room.

Inner City Press:  I'm not muddying the information.

Deputy Spokesman:  That was entirely legitimate.  What’s unusual is for one person to…

Inner City Press:  When François Hollande held a press conference here, I was asked to leave.  They said they would call security, and I didn't leave, because I feel there's a right to cover events in this room.  If you can provide the list, you should provide the list.

Deputy Spokesman:  All right.  You can say what you want to justify your actions.

   So, Haq admits that his or Dujarric's Office maintains a list -- but eight hours and counting after the briefing refuses to provide it. Inner City Press asked for it again: there is no diplomatic basis for withholding it. This shows why there should be a UN Freedom of Information Act, something which while requested by the Free UN Coalition for AccessBan Ki-moon has tellingly done nothing about during his opaque tenure.

   Instead of providing this basic information, Haq claimed Inner City Press is “mudding the waters” of having covered the January 29 meeting of UNCA, including about this group's offering of space in the UN to those who pay it money, from an entirely visible, glassed in box, from which Inner City Press live-tweeted and live-streamed Periscope video.Here's saved Periscope video of what this “hiding place” looks like. 

  We'll have more on this - and will continue to pursue the list of UN privatization of the Press Briefing Room. Watch this site.

 But UN Spokesman Stepane Dujarric on February 1, when Inner City Press asked him under what rule he had given over the UN Press Briefing Room to the UNCA groups which charged $6,000 to sit with Ban, said “who gets to use this room is really my decision.” Vine here.

   Really? The use of the UN Press Briefing Room is decided, without any rules, by this one individual? The same individual who often dodges Inner City Press' questions by saying “It's up to member states”?

   But there are other problems here. After Dujarric previously lent the UN Press Briefing Room on September 23, 2014 to the entourage of the president of Dujarric's native France Francois Hollande, video here, it was then indicated that it wouldn't happen again. 

  Then on September 25, 2014 when Inner City Press asked Dujarric “please state which countries during this UNGA have used the UN Press Briefing Room for briefing not open to all UN correspondents, other than France at 11 am on September 23. (Also, what was your role on September 23 around 11 am in the room behind the Press Briefing Room podium?)”

  Dujarric replied, in writing, “I dont have the information on the first point for you. On the second, I'm not sure that I understand it except that I was just looking into the room. I tend to be a curious person.”

   Dujarric “didn't have the information” on private use of the UN Press Briefing Room, which use he says “is really my decision”? We'll have more on this.

  On Wall Street in December 2015, the UN Correspondents Association (UNCA) sold seats with Ban Ki-moon for $6,000 ($12,000 for a full table). Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric how this could be and was first told, As long as it's transparent.

 UNCA previously took money from Macau-based casino magnate Ng Lap Seng, now under house arrest for bribery at the UN, and gave him a photo op with Ban. Now the UN or at least Dujarric gave this UNCA, now the UN Corruption Association, its UN Press Briefing Room -- and on January 29 threw out the Press seeking to cover this meeting of a group that has sold the UN and Ban, amid scandals.

  On February 1, Inner City Press went to the next UN noon briefing to asked Dujarric what the rules for throwing media out of the UN Press Briefing Room are, and to explain his poking at Inner City Press' phone to stop its Periscope streaming broadcast of the event in the UN Press Briefing Room, video here, transcript here.

 Dujarric cut off questions, including about his "lending" of the UN Briefing Room to the entourage of France's Francois Hollande - which will continue. In fact, the UN omitted or censored Inner City Press' entirely audible question about  Hollande from the transcript. Dujarric made a threat. This is today's UN.

   (This Periscope video show how non-hidden this box is.)

 Sitting in a glassed in booth live-tweeting and livestreaming Periscope video cannot be called "hiding," even in the UN.

 Inner City Press pointed out the obvious: this booth is entirely glassed in and visible from the podium he spoke at, and from the rostrum used on January 29 by UNCA's head Giampaolo Pioli and two board members (one from US government Broadcasting Board of Governors, as is relevant to the censorship bid contrary to the US First Amendment.)

  Dujarric cut off Inner City Press' follow up question; uniquely the entire first row of the briefing room was this day filled with UNCA board members, two from Agence France Presse (they asked nothing), and Pioli, who also asked nothing. One wondered if Dujarric, who on January 29 told Inner City Press it should "join UNCA" arranged or collaborated with this dubious "show of force."

 At least, unlike January 29, Dujarric did not jab at Inner City Press' camera, and the Reuters correspondent who twice blocked the camera with paper on January 29 did not do so this time.

  One is left wondering if the UN's Dujarric believes he can eject any media, at any time, from any event in the UN Press Briefing Room, and if he, Reuters or UNCA will try the same camera-banning they engaged in on January 29 in the UN Press Briefing Room at the UN Security Council stakeout. Watch this site.

  At the January 29 noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Dujarric about Ban's paid / sold appearances, transcript here.

  On January 29, UNCA leadership including Giampaoli Pioli, two scribes for the US Broadcasting Board of Governors, one from Reuters and others demanded that Inner City Press not cover a meeting in the UN Press Briefing Room.

  Suspending their meeting in which they discussed among other tawdry topics selling UN space to those who pay them money, UNCA called in UN Spokesman Dujarric and his deputy and then UN Security, who are the request of Dujarric asked Inner City Press to leave.

  There were ironies aplenty. Not only about a group of "correspondents" trying to close and make secret their meeting in the UN Press Briefing Room, but also that it was Dujarric who told Inner City Press that the UN Press Briefing Room would not again be "lent out," after Inner City Press challenged the lending out to French President Francois Hollande.

   Dujarric, deploying the F-bomb, Vine here, told Inner City Press, Yes, I am ordering you out, you can put it in your story. Vine here. He tried to turn Inner City Press' camera phone off. Vine here.

 His deputy, pointing at Inner City Press, told some of the scribes, "He lies a lot" -- after providing patently false answers about UN peacekeeping and other topics.

  The Voice of America correspondent Margaret Besheer, last seenclaiming there were Liberians in Burundi, to which in an untransparent process she (and Reuters and AFP) accompanied the recent Security Council trip, made comments which most contexts are deemed antithetical to free press. She's done it before (see this letter to Dujarric); she said "go on your meds."

  Pioli, landland to Sri Lanka's ambassador who then gave him an UNCA / "UN" screening to that country's war crimes denial film, insisted that to stand up for the right to cover meetings in the UN Press Briefing Room one must be crazy. He never asks questions: he's a landlord. See here. 
 Here's more to be said, but for now, here is the video.

  Ban's interaction with this UN Corruption Association are NOT transparent. The new Free UN Coalition to Access, which on January 27 thanked the New York State Comptroller and others at a 1:15 pm press conference with no one in UNCA's "holy seat," has repeatedly critiqued this lack of transparency, as journalists should. 

  Amazingly, while this UN Corruption Association routinely tries to lure briefers away from the UN Press Briefing Room, now the UN gives it that room for this meeting: UN Censorship Alliance. We'll have more on this.

  On January 20, Inner City Press received a solicitation:
 
"UNA-UK is delighted to invite you to an event with H.E. Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, on the morning of 5 February 2016... We are giving UNA-UK members and supporters the opportunity to book their place before tickets go on general sale and also recognising your ongoing support by offering a discounted rate (tickets will be £10 reduced from £15).

Click here to book your place - use the code [removed upon UNA-UK request] to claim your discount."

  So you can only hear Ban Ki-moon on London for 15 pounds - or 10 pounds if you join the organization. In New York, UNCA charges money (and only distributes information the UN gives it to those who pay its dues) - and still charges to sit with Ban.

 With the UN embroiled in scandals including the indictments of the former President of the General Assembly John Ashe and Macau businessman Ng Lap Seng and the founder of South South News, on December 14 the UN Correspondents Association sold seats with Ban Ki-moon for $6000.  Periscope I here;  Periscope II here.

UN corruption, never reformed, rises from the Ashes, courtesy of UNCA, now the UN Corruption Association.

  And yet, from inside Cipriani Wall Street, one of the musicians paid to play has an open mind, and when shown reporting on UN corruption asks, Should I make a scene? Tweet here.

 Just ask, who here paid $6000 as solicited by UNCA to sit with Ban Ki-moon. And why pay it? With Ng Lap Seng, it's clear.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) said Ban supports journalists. But the UNCA he's supporting tries to get them out of the UN. RSF did good work of late. But willful blindness does not help journalists.

The new EU representative naively said, First UNCA; the Turkish mission tweeted a photo of Ban (after its Perm Rep hob-nobbed with him in front of Monaco's painting, ignoring the invasion of Iraq, whose Ambassador arrived in tux to the Corruption Ball, we excuse him.)

 Since UNCA previously at such an event at Cipriani sold photo ops with Ban Ki-moon to now-indicted Ng Lap Seng, who will be this year's Ng Lap Seng?  Into Cipriani, this time the one on Wall Street, passed many tuxedoed individuals never seen at the UN. What were they buying? What safeguards had been added since Ng Lap Seng and John Ashe? None.

  New PGA Mogens Lykketoft arrived, as did Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson and David Nabarro, who stopped in the rain to speak with Inner City Press, as did another Under Secretary General. How can the UN and its group of scribes remain so UNreformed, despite indictments and public scandal?

The bureau chief of Voice of America, who previously tried to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN after it reported on UNCA corruption, the boss Giampaolo Pioli renting one of his apartments to Sri Lanka's ambassador then screening his war crimes denial film in the UN, this time seemed to give the finger, flip the bird to the press. Ah, journalism.

Is it journalism to solicit and take money from those you ostensibly cover? Where does it go? We'll have more on this.

  Earlier on December 14 UNCA lobbed three softball questions to Ban -- none on Burundi, for example -- from the former president of UNCA Pamela Falk, then the current vice president and finally the current questioner for UNCA. Inner City Press loudly asked a question about the killings in Burundi, which Ban declined to answer. Vine here.

  Inner City Press for the new Free UN Coalition for Access asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric about the propriety of UNCA selling seats with Ban. Dujarric said, "As long as it's transparent." Is that the standard?


One would expect the UN press corps, even the entity the UN itself chooses to set aside first questions for, to be pursuing rather than be involved in the scandals.

 One might also expect UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to be more cautious of colluding in events in which access to him  has been sold.

  But with the UN Correspondents Association, this year more than ever, that is not the case. The group or its leadership, headed by Italian paparazzi scribe Giampaolo Pioli who after trying to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN now covers actors like Morgan Freeman while others at his paper cover the UN, is selling seats with Ban Ki-moon for $6,000.

  In response to Press questions about this UNseemly sale of access, Ban's spokesman said "as long as it's transparent." Will that keep the indictments from expanding?

Inner City Press on December 11 spoke with indictee Frank Lorenzo,pictured here with Ban Ki-moon, as written up by "Italian News."


This year's sale of Ban, like to Ng Lap Seng in 2011, is an Italian job, run by pazarazzi / "correspondent" / landlord Giampaolo Pioli.

 How does this UNCA sleaze fest differ from the South South Awards, inextricably linked to the indictments of Ng Lap Seng, South South News' Frank Lorenzo and former President of the General Assembly John Ashe? Hardly at all. So what will happen? We'll have more on this.

Here is a photo of Ban Ki-moon at South South Awards with several indictees, here.

 For now we can report that at the December 11 closed door session on "Revitalization of the General Assembly," both the UN's Controller and Ban Ki-moon's new chief of staff Edmond Mulet made arguments for post-Ashe reforms that a number of member states found far too little. And Ban is slated to have seats next to him sold for $6000. We'll have more on this too.

  On December 10, days after Pioli used the large room the UN gives to UNCA, its UN Censorship Alliance, to campaign for a Security Council seat for his native Italy by giving out free meats, the view into the Club was blocked. So much for transparency.

  Here is a photo of the Clubhouse:



  The flier on the glassed-in bulletin board, under the "election" results, is of fine recently deceased journalist Haider Rizvi. Inner City Press'obituary hinted at it, but now we're compelled to say: UNCA, or its sidekick, tried to get him thrown out of the UN. There'll be a memorial for Haider, which can be participated in online,  on December 12 - in Lahore. Truth is what journalism is about. But here's Pioli on Morgan Freeman:



 UNCA's "elections" had no competition at all for the officer seats, now doled out to AFP, France 24, the US Broadcasting Board of Governorsand ANSA from holdover president Giampaolo Pioli's native Italy.

  This UNCA "leadership" represents Italy and France, and old media -- tellingly, those new media which chose to run (Inner City Press quit UNCA after its censorship bid) for lesser UNCA seats were not selected. Also tellingly, the UN Spokesperson's office promoted the scam election, using its loudspeaker to try to get out the vote (for candidates who had no opponents.)

 The ringmaster, Giampaolo Pioli, came through the UN Security Council stakeout not to ask any question or even listen to answers on South Sudan or Syria; he glad handed his unopposed slate and then headed to the UN bar. He has arranged more Italian toasting, seeingly part of Italy's actually-opposed campaign for a Security Council seat (more on this in future dispatches).

  It's become the UN's Censorship Alliance - having tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN - and the UN Corruption Association, selling photo ops and seats with Ban Ki-moon.  Call them Ban Ki-moon shots.

  While calling for an audit of sale of UN access under John Ashe, should Ban openly allow access to him to be sold? He appears intent on doing so, or operating by inertia, on automatic pilot. Inner City Press now learns that Ban's twice delayed report on the cover up of peacekeepers' rapes in the Central African Republic will be pushed further back, after the sell-out, buried. We'll have more on this.

 UNCA's awards, such as they gave to South South News for money, include awards and payments to entities who've served on their own Board.

  In 2011 under then (and now) president Giampaolo Pioli, UNCA took money from the South South News of now-indicted Ng Lap Seng, then gave South South News an UNCA award and gave Ng Lap Seng a photo op with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

  Now in November 2015, Pioli has solicited $6000 from UN Ambassadors for seats at the “VIP” table at the UNCA “Ball” on Wall Street: to sit with Ban Ki-moon. Here is UNCA's pitch:

"Dear Ambassador,

The United Nations Correspondents Association is honored to invite you to participate and contribute to the 20th annual UNCA Awards event with guest of honor U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and H.S.H. Prince Albert II of Monaco, recipient of the 2015 Global Advocate of the Year Award for climate change.  Exclusive raffle prizes include business class airline tickets around the world with hotel accommodations and a grand prize FIAT 500X car. As your esteemed presence will ensure the success of this event, we are pleased to send you the below opportunities to attend the gala dinner:

Mission Table Special Price / $6000 (half-table) 5 seats at VIP table at the gala event
                                      
Special Ambassador Contribution / $2,000 -1 VIP ticket for Ambassador with premium seating to dinner + 1 complimentary VIP ticket for spouse or guest -Special acknowledgement of the Ambassador and the Mission in the UNCA Awards Journal of the evening -Additional tickets for UN Diplomats of the Mission can be purchased at the special price of $750 each

Giampaolo Pioli, UNCA President
Please make all checks payable to 'UNCA Awards Committee'
Contributions to the UNCA Awards Committee are tax deductible.
The UNCA Awards Committee is a 501-c(3)"

 This is precisely the type of sale of access involved in the indictments of Ng, Sheri Yan and Frank Lorenzo.

  While others are announcing audits and freezing such contacts, UNCA under Pioli is bulling forward, charging ever more money, getting ever further from journalistic purposes.

  On November 20, Pioli's UNCA circulated a list of candidates with no competition for any of the six officer positions. It also pre-announced its awards, including to Reuters (on its Board) and others. We'll have more on this.

    For the three running unopposed for five president slots, two were already on the UNCA board during the relevant time period; the other isPioli's former protege at Quotidiano Nazionale. It's an Italian thing.

   Running for Treasurer? It's Agence France Presse, whose previous correspondent tried to use a position on the UNCA board to censor Press coverage of Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row atop UN Peacekeeping.

  Reuters is in the mix, too, and another which joined Pioli in trying to censor coverage of Pioli unilaterally approving a Sri Lankan government war crimes denial film for a “UN” screening, after Pioli rented one of his apartments to Palitha Kohona, Sri Lanka's Ambassador to the UN. This is UN. But amid the new scandals at the UN, this is something new: watch this site.



Footnote: Inner City Press after Pioli's and others censorship bid, and attempt to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN (uncovered along with documents still to be published by a Freedom of Information Act request, here, and questioned by the New York Civil Liberties Union), quit the UNCA board and co-founded, with another who'd quit UNCA as corrupt, the Free UN Coalition for Access.

 FUNCA does not seek any automatic first questions, but opposes the UN setting aside first questions for an entity which, as now shown, isenmeshed in the very UN scandals that must be asked about. Watch this site.