As UN's Syra Envoy de Mistura Is Transcribed by US, Echoes of Ban Ki-moon's Private Jet from Qatar: Words with Friends

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 14, more here -- When the UN's envoy to Syria Staffan de Mistura met in Geneva with US Secretary of State John Kerry, what the two said was issued not by the UN but by the US:

 In the US transcript, de Mistura is quoted of the conflict in Syria, “this is the fourth year, and we need to find a solution and a political solution. I will continue, I can tell you, pushing for Aleppo because Aleppo has become an iconic example of where things could start sending the best signal. In other words, that bombing, shelling, barrel bombing, mortar shelling would stop, and bring some humanitarian aid, which means giving some hope to the Syrian people... The Syrian people are just saying, enough. And we should not let them down.”

    Does the UN stand by this transcript? Did the UN sign off on it? The question is asked because last July the US transcribed the UN's Ban Ki-moon saying, of his decision to accept free private jet travel from Qatar, "we do not have much time to weigh the rule."

   When Inner City Press, which had first reported on July 19, 2014 Ban's acceptance of free private jet travel from Qatar, pursued this quote at and about the UN, suddenly the transcript was changed, to have Ban saying "We do not have much time to wait and lose."

    Now after meeting with de Mistura, Kerry said "we hope that the UN efforts led by Special Envoy de Mistura can have effect, and we wanted to meet today to talk about this, and I wish him well. He’s heading to Damascus next week.”

   One might ask, is the UN accepting gifted travel for all this, too? Despite the previous controversy and requests, the UN refused to set up a system to disclose its acceptance of such gifts, or to implement a Freedom of Information Act for the UN Secretariat, as long urged by theFree UN Coalition for Access, which continues to ask:

   Does the UN, while claiming to abide by its own stated ethics rules, simply not have time for them and waive them?  And then manipulate and "correct" transcripts to cover it up -- and reply to questions about it by saying, "You're not entitled to be at the noon briefing?" Video here from Minute 4:26.

  Based on Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's answer in Jerusalem on July 23, as initially transcribed by the US State Department, that "we do not have much time to weigh the rules," it appears confirmed that the UN's rules were waived for Ban to take a Qatar-funded jet on his Middle East tour.

  But at the UN's July 23 noon briefing when Inner City Press asked, UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq insisted Ban had not said what the US State Department said he had, and said he has an audio file to this effect -- an audio file that for some reason also did not include the question about the Qatar funded plane that preceded Ban's now altered response.

  Inner City Press requested the audio file, which as of 6:00 pm has not been provided.

   But, the UN got the US State Department to put up a "corrected" transcript, to modify the online version without notice the change, to Ban having said "We do not have much time to wait and lose." So much for "the rules."

 Haq also denied that there is any conflict of interest in accepting the Qatar-funded travel, but did not say when or how an opinion was sought from the UN's Ethics Office. Video here and embedded below. Inner City Press has asked, in writing:

"This is a request for the the entire audio file of the Secretary General's press availability in Jerusalem at which the US State Department transcribed the question, “Mr. Secretary-General, do you think it’s appropriate for Qatar to be paying for your flight here” and this answer:

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.

See, http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/07/229662.htm
[since changed on State Department website from this archived version, here]

"This is also a request to be informed if, when and how the UN Ethics Office was asked about the Secretary General accepting the gift of travel on the Qatar-funded, and the UN's estimate of the value of the gift; a statement of all rules applicable to receipt of this gift, and how much has been spent on Secretary General travel in the past two years. On deadline."

  Here is the UN's "response," with neither the audio file, nor the budget or financial information:

To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:59 PM

The State Department has acknowledged that its transcription was in error and has corrected the record, please see link below.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/07/229662.htm

The Ethics Office has agreed on the need to use the chartered plane because of the Secretary-General's need to travel to a number of locations in the Middle East at short notice, The Ethics Office notes that the Secretary-General interacts with all 193 Member States, and he is scrupulous at maintaining the independence of the UN when engaged in his political and diplomatic undertakings.

   This does not answer "when and how the UN Ethics Office was asked about the Secretary General accepting the gift of travel on the Qatar-funded, and the UN's estimate of the value of the gift; a statement of all rules applicable to receipt of this gift, and how much has been spent on Secretary General travel in the past two years." Watch this site.

The UN has previously censored its transcripts to omit the Free UN Coalition for Access and what was said to Ban. 

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 here and 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.

  Watch this site.

   

Gaza Ceasefire In Shambles, Ban and Kerry Say UN's Serry Got Assurances, DSG Said No Need Direct Contact with Hamas

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 1, more here -- At 5:30 pm on July 31 the UN announced it would read out a statement, "for the cameras," in its briefing room. Inner City Press ran there but arrived just as the ceasefire statement finished.

   But the first line said, "the UN Representative in Jerusalem, Special Coordinator Robert Serry, has received assurances that all parties have agreed to an unconditional humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza."  With the ceasefire in shambles, that is dubious.

 Haaretz has reported that Serry "spoke with Hamas leadership in Gaza."

   On July 30, Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson about UN direct contacts with Hamas, citing Ban Ki-moon accepting Qatar-funded private jet travel to Doha, and Eliasson said "we don’t feel any need to, at this stage, to be in direct contact with Hamas." From the UN's transcript (video here)

Inner City Press: Sure, thanks a lot. Matthew Lee, Inner City Press. On behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, thanks for the briefing. It seems like on this immediate end of the fighting, a sticking point is whether the IDF would remain in Gaza at all. It seems like one of the demands is that they leave in order for there to be a cessation. I want to know if the UN… not the whole golden formula, but just on that one point, what your thinking is, and also, whether the UN and Secretary-General should reach out directly to Hamas. I know that, you know, former OCHA head Jan Egeland, you know, he met with Joseph Kony, which is a pretty extreme example, but it seems like at this point, given that speaking with Mahmoud Abbas may not actually directly relate to the rockets that are being fired. Is there any thought of the Secretary-General reaching out directly to Hamas leadership, especially since he flew on this Qatar-funded plane to Doha and could probably set up such a meeting? What’s your thinking on that? Thank you.

Deputy Secretary-General: We have channels, very strong channels, both, of course, to Egypt, which is working very closely with Israel, but also very close contacts with both Turkey and Qatar, who have close relationships to Hamas. And the Secretary-General has worked extremely intensely with these different actors. And we hope that the combined efforts from Egypt and Turkey and Qatar, and of course, the United States, which has been working very, very hard and very closely with the Secretary-General on the humanitarian ceasefire issue, that these attempts will be successful. And we hope that both sides will understand that the Secretary-General’s proposals are still on the table. They are always there. The Israeli Security Cabinet met yesterday and I made sure that Ambassador [Ron] Prosor was aware of the fact that the [Secretary-General’s] proposal for a humanitarian ceasefire, whether it was for a week or 24 hours or 72 hours, would be there and considered on the table. But, we are in contact closely with all the other actors. So, we don’t feel any need to, at this stage, to be in direct contact with Hamas.

   So what changed? Or did the "we" mean only Ban and his deputy Eliasson? We'll have more on this.

    Earlier on July 31, after the UN Security Council met for five hours, in the wake of the shelling of the UNRWA school in Jabalya, what emerged were mere "elements to the press" - the weakest form of Security Council action.

  The "press elements" consist of 77 words, not one of which is "school." Inner City Press listened and transcribed it:

“Council members expressed their grave disappointment that the messages in the Presidential Statement of 28 July have not been heeded. They reiterated in the strongest terms their expectation that the PRST must be implemented Council members called for an immediate unconditional humanitarian ceasefire, that can lead to a sustainable ceasefire, based upon the Egyptian proposal. Pending this, Council members encouraged the use of humanitarian pauses. They called on member states to donate to UNRWA's flash appeal.”

   Earlier on July 31 when UN Relief and Works Agency chief Pierre Krahenbuhl called in on July 31 to take questions from the media, Inner City Press asked him to explain a sentence from his earlier briefing to UN Security Council.

   Krahenbul told the Council, "should further large scale displacements indeed occur, the Occupying Power, according to International Humanitarian Law, will have to assume direct responsibility to assist these people."

  Inner City Press asked Krahenbuhl to explain this, also if UNRWA is thinking of seeking reimbursement for destruction from Israel, and if he is aware of the European Union seeking reimbursement for the destruction of EU-funded projects.

   On reimbursement, Krahenbuhl said there is a precedent, from Operations Cast Lead, but it is too early to look into it on this, "Protective Edge."

   While continuing to parse Krahenbuhl's response on Occupation, the general (assembly) theory is that duties as Occupying Power were delegated or outsourced to UNRWA when it was created by the UN General Assembly.  It seems the duties could be handed back. But how would non-compliance with or non-fulfillment of these duties be enforced? 

Just capitalizing letters in a legal phrase doesn't make it so.

   Earlier on July 31 outside the UN Security Council, Israel's Ambassador Ron Prosor and then the State of Palestine's Permanent Observer Riyad Mansour took questions from the Press.

  Inner City Press asked Prosor about Krahenbuhl's call to end the blockade of Gaza. Prosor replied that Israel has no interest in being in Gaza -- what, is there oil there, he asked rhetorically -- but cited and showed charts of Hamas rocket fire, and tunnels (which he said are funded by Qatar).

  Inner City Press asked Mansour about the US Department of Defense' confirmation of new ammunition transfers to Israel (see below).

  Mansour said that more weapons are not needed; he said that the killing of entire families would make peace much more difficult to achieve but that it should be strived for, an independent state of Palestine.

  In the UN Security Council, the Gaza issue has essentially been delegated to the US. In the UN Security Council on July 30, Nigeria criticized the Council's delay in issuing even a Presidential Statement; Chad called the Council "impotent."

  At the end of Rwandan presidency reception later on July 30, Inner City Press was told by more than one Council member that it is all up to the US. But, one might ask, how can a party transferring ammunition be considering an honest broker? 

  Couldn't this transfer had been at least delayed? But that too would have been a story, bigger than this one, which Inner City Press was notified was broken by CNN, leading to this statement:

"The Department of Defense received a letter of request from the Israeli Ministry of Defense on July 20 for a normal Foreign Military Sales delivery of ammunition.  The appropriate DoD activities processed the request through normal inter-agency processes, resulting in a signed Letter of Offer and Acceptance on July 23.

"Two of the requested munitions were available in the War Reserve Stockpile Ammunition-Israel (WRSA-I), on the ground in Israel, and were therefore delivered to the Israeli Defense Force from this stockpile. Both munitions had been in WRSA-I stock for a few years, well before the current crisis.  All stocks in WRSA-I, as required by law, are "in excess to U.S. requirements." Issuing munitions from the WRSA-I stockpile was strictly a sourcing decision and White House approval was not required.

 "The United States is committed to the security of Israel, and it is vital to U.S. national interests to assist Israel to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability. This defense sale is consistent with those objectives."

  Thus spake the US Pentagon, or at least its spokesperson Kirby. But what will UN Security Council members say, at their July 31 session? Watch this site.

 Back on July 27-28, the Security Council convened to adopted a Presidential Statement, below.

 Afterward, Inner City Press asked Jordan's Deputy Permanent Representative why no vote had been called thedraft resolution, if there was one or more vetoes or abstaining votes that would block it.

  He said things haven't reached that stage; rather it was a matter of seeing when the members of the Council thought a resolution would be useful to support of ceasefire. 

  Some ask: so is that the UN Security Council's only function?

  Inner City Press asked Israel's Ron Prosor about thedifferent drafts leaked to Haaretz and Al Jazeera (which Inner City Press noted, here). Prosor went wider scope with his answer. A ceasefire did not sound closer.

  Prosor was also asked about Ban Ki-moon flying around in a Qatar-funded private jet - a question on which Inner City Press first reported eight days ago, and on which Ban himself should answer.

 Palestine's Riyad Mansour cited as a precedent a 1994 Security Council resolution providing protecting in Hebron, by Norwegians in white shirts, he said. He said he wished the Presidential Statement had called for Israel to pull out of Gaza, and that he wished for a resolution. We will continue on this.

  Inner City Press immediately inquired and was informed it was to adopt a Presidential Statement; the version below was provided. But why not a resolution? Why proceeding so cautiously, compared most recently with the July 21 resolution on MH17 in Ukraine?  

  Earlier, with even the “humanitarian pause” over in Gaza, the draft "framework" agreement rejected by the Israeli cabinet on July 25 was leaked from both sides. 

   But the versions leaked by each side were different.

  On Al Jazeera a one-page document was waved around, which had Qatar in the first paragraph as one of the signatories making commitments, which provided for the opening of “border and non-border” crossings and specified fishing rights up to 12 nautical miles, and a $47 million commitment by the US.

  In the “5 pm Confidential Draft” published by Ha'aretz, Qatar is the last paragraph (without Egypt), fishing rights and the $47 million from the US are not specified, nor are “non-border” crossing being opened.

  At least, the two sides leaked different stages or versions of the draft. Or is there more to this, in the spin war that this stage of the Gaza war has become?

  (The drafts are different; Al Jazeera is saying Ha'aretz stole its scoop. There may be more to this.)

  Meanwhile, silence at the UN with the draft Security Council resolution of Jordan and the Arab League not scheduled for a vote, and canned statements from Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who after taking a Qatar-funded private jet from New York to Doha refused through his spokespeople to answer Inner City Press' follow-up questions on who paid for the rest of his travel. Watch this site.

   

On Gaza, Inner City Press Asks Why No UN Ban Ki-moon Direct Outreach to Hamas, Citing Qatar-Funded Jet; Not Needed, DSG Says

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 30 -- On Gaza when the UN's Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson and John Ging took questions on July 30, Inner City Press asked why Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has not directly reached out to Hamas, particularly since his flying to Doha on a Qatar-funded private jet would imply such a meeting could easily be arranged.

  Eliasson replied that “we have channels to Egypt, which is working closely with Israel, but also close contacts with Turkey and Qatar, which have relations with Hamas. The SG has worked intensely with these actors. We hope that the combined efforts from Egypt and Turkey and Qatar -- and the US which has been working very hard, and closing with SG -- that these attempts will be successful.”

  Citing the July 29 meeting of Israel's security cabinet, Eliasson said he personally made sure Israeli Ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor “was aware that the SG's proposal were on the table... We are in contact with all the other actors. We don't feel any need at this stage to be in direct contact with Hamas.”

  Inner City Press began a follow-up question, like the UN Spokesman allowed to many others including the set-aside first questioner, but it was disallowed. There remain numerous unanswered questions about Ban accepting free private jet travel from member states with stakes in the conflicts being mediated.

  There's more to be said about how the questioning was run, including the first question set-aside and failure to hold a regular briefing to take for example questions on Africa and peacekeeping. Both failures and favoritism are opposed by the Free UN Coalition for Access which spoke quite audibly, for the record - and transcript when it comes out, watch this site.

  John Ging said that 249 children have been killed so far, 21% of those killed. He said that this time there have been four times more people displaced than in previous round(s). So far. Watch this site.

   

On Gaza, UN Offers Canned Statements and UNacted-On Draft Resolution After Ban Ki-moon's UNdisclosed Gifted Travel

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 26, more here -- As the death count in Gaza rose after the UN Security Council's emergency meeting on Sunday, July 20, what was the response at the UN?

   Secretary General Ban Ki-moon flew around the region, first on a Qatar-funded private jet, then a Saudi jet -- then his spokespeople stopped answering Inner City Press on whose jet or dime Ban was flying. 

  At the Security Council, there was talk about the Jordan or Arab Group draft resolution. But on July 24 on his last day in the Council, French Ambassador Gerard Araud said that no vote had been scheduled on the draft.

    When UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon finally spoke in Cairo on July 25, it was about a mere 12 hour humanitarian pause. 

 And before any press questions, it was said "Mr. United Nations Secretary-General has to leave." But where to? On whose plane? Because the UN has stonewalled, the questions have to be asked and pursued.

  US Secretary John Kerry, to whom nearly all of the media questions were directed, denied that Israel's cabinet had voted down the larger proposal; Kerry headed to Paris to meet with the foreign ministers including those of Turkey and Qatar.

  But there, no deal was announced. Al Jazeera put online a draft they said Israel had rejected; an Israeli columnist criticized what he called the draft Kerry submitted and was criticized. 

 One issue was whether a ceasefire or humanitarian pause should involved Israel pulling its forces out of Gaza. But Ban, flying on undisclosed aircraft, issued canned statements that did not address the issue.

  Intentions for peace are not enough.

  On the most basic transparency, at the July 25 noon briefing Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq refused to tell Inner City Press on what kind of plane, paid by whom, Ban traveled to Cairo. 

  After belatedly telling Inner City Press Ban took a Qatar-funded private jet to Doha, and later a Saudi plane, now the UN won't answer basic questions about Ban's most recent outside-funded trips. 

   Ban's announcement was a shift down from remarks the UN had sent out, then retracted. At 7:22 AM Eastern Time in the US, Ban's Office of the Spokesperson emailed out Ban's remarks.  Seven minutes later at 7:29 AM they e-mailed again: "PLEASE RETRACT - Secretary-General's remarks to press in Cairo have not been delivered."

  While not required, Inner City Press decided to hold off reporting any of this, expecting Ban to speak with US Secretary of State John Kerry soon thereafter.

    Two hours later, the Wall Street Journal's Jay Solomon published a story quoting what Ban was "expected to say" --

"'On this, the last Friday of Ramadan, I call for an immediate, unconditional humanitarian pause in the fighting in Gaza and Israel,' Mr. Ban is expected to say Friday, according to a draft of his prepared comments. 'We can build on this initiative by supporting international efforts to put in place the elements of a longer-term cease-fire plan.' A spokesperson for Mr. Ban said the transcript was mistakenly released by the U.N. on Friday.”

   While still awaiting Ban's expected -- changed? -- remarks with John Kerry (a reporter on the scene says the UN flag has been placed and replaced at the site of the press availability), it's worth asking, how does the UN get "its" press corp to sit on Ban's remarks released, with no embargo, and then "retracted"?

   Inner City Press has reported on, and the Free UN Coalition for Accessseeks to counteract, this dynamic, for example here when the UN's Correspondents Assocation - known for more than one reason as the UN's Censorship Alliance -- provided Ban with a soccer photo op. 

  Significantly in these pre-released remarks, Ban once again cites the bombing of the UNRWA school in Beit Hanoun without saying anything about who did it - despite for example the widely reported series of IDF tweets. So again: why was Ban's pre-released statement sat on?

   The Free UN Coalition for Access also asks: how can it be that the UN does not disclose when Secretary General Ban Ki-moon accepts free travel on a private jet, and on July 24 would not tell Inner City Press how and on whose plane Ban flew to Iraq? Video here.

 We note that, along with a Newsweek piece that credited Inner City Press' exclusive, Solomon is one of two reporters trailing Kerry who've asked / tweeted about Ban using the Qatar funded private jet.

   Agence France Presse reported Ban's later retracted remarks, so for without correction. But AFP did not mention Ban's silence on who bombed the UNRWA school in Beit Hanoun.

  When Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Haq about the AFP report, Haq said AFP had been spoken to. But the report(s) remained online.

   This follows the UN's only belated acknowledgement, after Inner City Press asked several times, that Ban began his Gaza-related tour by flying on a Qatar-funded jet to Qatar, then Cairo.

 Bigger picture, does the UN, while claiming to abide by its own stated ethics rules, simply not have time for them and waive them?  When Inner City Press asked on July 23, UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq said, if you are here as a lawyer, "You're not entitled to be at the noon briefing."Video here from Minute 4:26.

  Here's the July 24, 2014, video:

  On the audio file, Haq referred to UN Radio. Here it is, for download at mp3 - but it cuts off the question asked of Ban about the Qatar-funded plane, that the State Department transcribed. 

The UN has previously censored its transcripts to omit the Free UN Coalition for Access and what was said to Ban; when Haq answered Inner City Press that Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir was dead, he "corrected" this in the transcript without ever telling Inner City Press that his answer was wrong, or had been "disappeared" in the transcript.

  On July 24 after Inner City Press asked for basic UN financial information -- last ten free trips -- Haq said, "You are not a prosecutor." Video here.
And here's the July 23, 2014 video:

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.

   We'll have more on this.

   

On Gaza, Ban Ki-moon Down to 12 Hour Pause, UN Still Won't Say How or On Who$e Plane Ban Travels, As He Leaves

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 25, more here -- When UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon finally spoke in Cairo on July 25, it was about a mere 12 hour humanitarian pause. 

 And before any press questions, it was said "Mr. United Nations Secretary-General has to leave." But where to? On whose plane? Because the UN has stonewalled, the questions have to be asked and pursued.

  US Secretary John Kerry, to whom nearly all of the media questions were directed, denied that Israel's cabinet had voted down the larger proposal; Kerry is heading to Paris to meet with the foreign ministers including those of Turkey and Qatar.

  While the UN has yet to say Ban will go to Paris, at the July 25 noon briefing Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq refused to tell Inner City Press on what kind of plane, paid by whom, Ban traveled to Cairo. 

  After belatedly telling Inner City Press Ban took a Qatar-funded private jet to Doha, and later a Saudi plane, now the UN won't answer basic questions about Ban's most recent outside-funded trips. 

   Ban's announcement was a shift down from remarks the UN had sent out, then retracted. At 7:22 AM Eastern Time in the US, Ban's Office of the Spokesperson emailed out Ban's remarks.  Seven minutes later at 7:29 AM they e-mailed again: "PLEASE RETRACT - Secretary-General's remarks to press in Cairo have not been delivered."

  While not required, Inner City Press decided to hold off reporting any of this, expecting Ban to speak with US Secretary of State John Kerry soon thereafter.

    Two hours later, the Wall Street Journal's Jay Solomon published a story quoting what Ban was "expected to say" --

"'On this, the last Friday of Ramadan, I call for an immediate, unconditional humanitarian pause in the fighting in Gaza and Israel,' Mr. Ban is expected to say Friday, according to a draft of his prepared comments. 'We can build on this initiative by supporting international efforts to put in place the elements of a longer-term cease-fire plan.' A spokesperson for Mr. Ban said the transcript was mistakenly released by the U.N. on Friday.”

   While still awaiting Ban's expected -- changed? -- remarks with John Kerry (a reporter on the scene says the UN flag has been placed and replaced at the site of the press availability), it's worth asking, how does the UN get "its" press corp to sit on Ban's remarks released, with no embargo, and then "retracted"?

   Inner City Press has reported on, and the Free UN Coalition for Accessseeks to counteract, this dynamic, for example here when the UN's Correspondents Assocation - known for more than one reason as the UN's Censorship Alliance -- provided Ban with a soccer photo op. 

  Significantly in these pre-released remarks, Ban once again cites the bombing of the UNRWA school in Beit Hanoun without saying anything about who did it - despite for example the widely reported series of IDF tweets. So again: why was Ban's pre-released statement sat on?

   The Free UN Coalition for Access also asks: how can it be that the UN does not disclose when Secretary General Ban Ki-moon accepts free travel on a private jet, and on July 24 would not tell Inner City Press how and on whose plane Ban flew to Iraq? Video here.

 We note that, along with a Newsweek piece that credited Inner City Press' exclusive, Solomon is one of two reporters trailing Kerry who've asked / tweeted about Ban using the Qatar funded private jet.

   Agence France Presse reported Ban's later retracted remarks, so for without correction. But AFP did not mention Ban's silence on who bombed the UNRWA school in Beit Hanoun.

  When Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Haq about the AFP report, Haq said AFP had been spoken to. But the report(s) remained online.

   This follows the UN's only belated acknowledgement, after Inner City Press asked several times, that Ban began his Gaza-related tour by flying on a Qatar-funded jet to Qatar, then Cairo.

 Bigger picture, does the UN, while claiming to abide by its own stated ethics rules, simply not have time for them and waive them?  When Inner City Press asked on July 23, UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq said, if you are here as a lawyer, "You're not entitled to be at the noon briefing."Video here from Minute 4:26.

  Here's the July 24, 2014, video:

  On the audio file, Haq referred to UN Radio. Here it is, for download at mp3 - but it cuts off the question asked of Ban about the Qatar-funded plane, that the State Department transcribed. 

The UN has previously censored its transcripts to omit the Free UN Coalition for Access and what was said to Ban; when Haq answered Inner City Press that Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir was dead, he "corrected" this in the transcript without ever telling Inner City Press that his answer was wrong, or had been "disappeared" in the transcript.

  On July 24 after Inner City Press asked for basic UN financial information -- last ten free trips -- Haq said, "You are not a prosecutor." Video here.
And here's the July 23, 2014 video:

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.

   We'll have more on this.