After Complaint, Sweden Says It Can't Make Prosecutors Shut "Terrorist" Site

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 11 -- When Russia's Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin in a May 10 Security Council session called out Sweden for failing to close down the web site of Caucuses Emirate, saying this violated UNSC Resolution 1989, Inner City Press wrote about it and asked the Swedish government for its response. A day later, it has arrived, and it published in full below.

  At issue is Operative Paragraph 6 of Resolution 1989, which 

 

"Confirms that the requirements in paragraph 1 (a) above apply to financial and economic resources of every kind, including but not limited to those used for the provision of Internet hosting or related services, used for the support of Al-Qaida and other individuals, groups, undertakings or entities associated with it."

  While Inner City Press believes, with others, that freedom of expression issues may be raised by making illegal the "provision of Internet hosting services," for the UN and its member states, that train has left the station. Under Resolution 1989, adopted in 2011, and its cited Paragraph 1(a), UN member states must

"ensure that neither these nor any other funds, financial assets or economic resources are made available, directly or indirectly for such persons’ benefit, by their nationals or by persons within their territory."

Despite this, the 1989 Committee states, on its own website, that 

 

"The Kavkazcenter has been proclaimed the official information organ of the Emarat Kavkaz by Doku Umarov. Publications on the website are in Russian, English, Arabic, Turkish and Ukrainian... The principal internet provider of the website is located in Stockholm, Sweden.. The website has regularly published videos in which Doku Umarov and the heads of the Emarat Kavkaz have taken personal responsibility for terrorist acts carried out on the territory of Russia including the one at the Domodedovo airport (Moscow) on 24 January 2011."

  So what how does Sweden respond? With a day's delay, and after Inner City Press also tweeted the question at Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt, the First Secretary (Legal) of the Swedish Mission to the UN sent this to Inner City Press:

As to the first issue regarding the website, the Swedish Government's comments are the following.

Once the Security Council decides on sanctions, Member States are obliged, under international law, to implement these measures and incorporate the provisions in their own legal systems. For Sweden, this is done jointly with the other EU countries. Accordingly, Sweden has fully implemented UN Security Council Resolution 1989, including the listing of the organization ”Emarat Kavkaz”, through the EU Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002, which is directly applicable in Swedish national law.

Violations of an EU regulation on sanctions are punishable by Swedish law, i.e. the Act on Certain International Sanctions (1996:95). Swedish police, prosecutors and courts conduct investigations, press charges and issue verdicts independently from the Government. The Government cannot influence an authority or a court concerning a decision on how to apply Swedish law. It is up to the competent Swedish authorities to look into the issues of possible sanctions crime related to the listing of 'Emarat Kavkaz.'

As to the second question, it is, as you mention a CTED visit under resolution 1373. There are no visits foreseen by the 1267/1989 Committee or the Monitoring Group. 

 

  The "second question" referred to was

"I have learned that along with a CTED visit to Sweden in June, an expert of the 1989 Committee may go as well. What will Sweden say to them?"

  Along with arguing that the Swedish "Government cannot influence an authority or a court concerning a decision on how to apply Swedish law," the response says "there are no visits foreseen by the 1267/1989 Committee or the Monitoring Group."

  But Inner City Press understands that, at the request of Russia, an Al Qaeda / Resolution 1989 expert is slated to now accompany the previously scheduled CTED visit to Sweden in June. And what will come of it? 

 

  Inner City Press view is that if Sweden thinks the ban on providing web hosting violates free speech, it should say so, as should have members of the Council. 

  But silent non-compliance with resolutions -- just as Inner City Press discovered on May 10 that five Security Council members never even filed reports under Libya sanctions -- is the opposite of the rule of law. Watch this site.

UN Cites Outsourcing to Defend Blocking Web Sites of its Critics, Censorship Alleged

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un2censorweb042108.html

UNITED NATIONS, April 21 -- Following its exposure that the UN blocks access by its employees to websites such as anti-cnn.com and DailyMotion.com, Inner City Press asked Spokesperson Marie Okabe to justify the censorship. She responded "an answer is in the works for you, the UN is no different than any other organization in that it does have a management policy for its website." She provided a half-page printout of an email, stating that

"I read the Inner City Press article and there are three sites mentioned... anti-cnn.com, this site is blocked and is in the 'Spam' category; DailyMotion.com, this site is blocked and is in the 'Pornography' category... We have equipment installed in between our internet connection and the internal UN network which has a 'web content filter.' This company that provides this filter collects information from thousands of web sites throughout the world and categorizes them on a daily basis. The UN currently filters sites that are categorized as gambling, pornography, anonymizers, malicious sites, peer-to-peer and personal storage, remote access, spyware, hacking, spam."

But, for example, the web site "GlobalCompactCritics.net" is blocked. Attempts from inside the UN, by staff or in the library, to read the site results in a message from the "ICT Security Unit" that "you have been redirected to this page because the site you are attempting to access is blocked according to the policy as detailed in ST/SGB/2004/15.

This Secretary-General's Bulletin allows staff "limited personal use of ICT resources" unless these involve "pornography or engaging in gambling" or would "compromise the interests or the reputation of the Organization."

But whether or not the UN Organization agrees with the critique offered, for example, by GlobalCompactCritics.net, it is neither pornography or gambling. If this site "compromise the interests or the reputation of the Organization" then any number of other sites could be blocked. Inner City Press has asked the Chinese Mission to the UN about the blocking of anti-cnn.com. We will not publicly criticize it, was the answer, but they shouldn't criticize us. Inner City Press early on April 21 asked UNESCO's spokesperson in New York

"On deadline, this is a request for a comment from UNESCO on the fact that within UN Headquarters, web sites such as www.anti-cnn.com, dailymotion.com and, reportedly, globalcompactcritics.net, are blocked and cannot be accessed by UN staff. Is UNESCO aware of any other non-gambling, non-pornography sites which are blocked within UN headquarters? Does UNESCO monitor this? If not, why not? If so, please name the sites. If the response is that filtering sites has been outsourced, is that a response that UNESCO would find acceptable from governments?"

We'll continue to follow this issue -- watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un2censorweb042108.html