Exclusive Series: As Inner City Press Probes UN Pension Fund, Now A Global Town Hall Meeting, Murex

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive series

UNITED NATIONS, April 12 -- Irregularities at the $50 billion UN Joint Staff Pension Fund, which Inner City Press has previously exclusively covered, for example here, have grown worse, according to whistleblower communications received by Inner City Press from multiple sources, and published on March 29.

  Now Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's chief of staff has scheduled a "Global Town Hall Meeting" to "provide reassurance concerning the health of the Fund itself... in response to recent attention surrounding the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund."

  Why did the UN resist confirming when Inner City Press three times asked if Investment Committee chair Ivan Pictet had resigned? Why did Ban's representative to the Pension Fund Carolyn Boykin never appear to answer questions as had been proffered?

  Now there's talk of a shift into hedge funds, and irregularities in contracting for IT services, from Murex (criticized by the UN's own Office of Internal Oversight Services) prospectively to Bloomberg without a full procurement process. The way to "provide clarity" is to answer or at least try to answer questions when they are asked. We'll have more on this.

 On April 8, after Inner City Press three times asked the UN spokespeople to simply confirm that Ivan Pictet resigned as chair of the Fund's Investment Committee, lead spokesman Stephane Dujarric belated acknowledged it.UN's transcript.

  Then on April 10, against belatedly, the UN issued a lengthy statement, which in fairness we publish here in full, while our series on the Pension Fund, now on its Investment Committee, continues:

In response to recent reports about the Joint Staff Pension Fund, Under-Secretary-General for Management Yukio Takasu has the following to say:

Various communications, including in the media, have unfortunately been circulated recently alleging fraud and irregularities at the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund (“UNJSPF” or “the Fund”). I would like to provide some factual information to clarify any misunderstandings and misrepresentations.

The UNJSPF enjoys a healthy funded status in excess of 90%, and we are committed to preserving the sanctity of the Fund.

The UNJSPF takes every precaution they can to prevent fraud. Staff who have any information of alleged wrongdoing are obliged to report those concerns to the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS). All allegations of fraud, misconduct, or violation of applicable human resources or financial rules and regulations are, and will continue to be, taken seriously and fully considered.

OIOS has confirmed that they have reviewed the nature of the recent allegations that have been brought to their attention. OIOS has indicated that none of the allegations that have appeared in the press thus far constitute financial fraud. OIOS is collecting all information available on this situation, and will examine closely every allegation.

As required for any large pension fund, the UNJSPF has a very robust internal control framework, with several oversight bodies including, but not limited to, internal auditors (OIOS), external auditors, a Pension Board, an Audit Committee, an Asset Liability Monitoring Committee, an Enterprise-wide Risk Management Working Group, and Risk Management & Compliance staff.

The governance structure of UNJSPF also reflects a clear delineation of responsibilities. Reporting to the UNJSPF Board, the Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Arvizú, is responsible for the liability side of the Fund, primarily for administration and benefit payments. Management of the investments of the Fund is the responsibility of the Representative of the Secretary-General (“RSG”), Ms. Carol Boykin, who reports to the Secretary-General.

In order to ensure the effective operation of the Fund, the United Nations Pension Board has long recognized the requirements of the Fund to have staff with very specific and long-term expertise, owing to the complex pension design, financial management and global payroll, and that the Fund’s human resources management should be in line with its operational and investment needs. As such, since 2000, there has been a memorandum of understanding in place which stipulates that UN administrative procedures and directives do not automatically apply to the Fund staff, since the requirements of the Board take precedence.

The United Nations Pension Board, and the General Assembly, have requested that this existing memorandum of understanding be reviewed and updated. Consideration on the elements of a revised memorandum of understanding is ongoing and will involve the appropriate consultations with staff.

Any decisions on human resources policies or the financial rules governing the operations of the UNJSPF will be taken with a view to ensuring they are best suited to meet the operational and investment needs of the Fund.

 We'll have more on this - watch this site.

From the UN's April 8 transcript:

Inner City Press: This has to do with the Pension Fund, as I alluded to.  I asked Farhan, then I asked you, whether the head of the investment committee of this $50 billion fund has resigned.  And I wanted to ask now, that I've heard that a memo has gone to the Fifth Committee to that effect.

Spokesman:  Yes, it has… he did leave.  He did resign.  And if I'm not mistaken, he said that after, I think, almost 10 years of service, he felt it was time to move on.  We're obviously very grateful for the time and effort Mr. Pictet put into his role.

Inner City Press:  I've heard also that his letter of resignation actually makes some criticism.  Is that a full summary?

Spokesman: No, I would…  I would not agree with that assessment.

Inner City Press: What's the process for actually appointing a new Chairperson of this $50 billion fund?  What's the Secretary-General's role?

Spokesman: I will find out.

  Well, Inner City Press is multiply informed that RSG Carolyn Boykin has been proposing current IC member Linah Kelebogile Mohohlo, but that there are attendance issues.

  Other IC members with questions:  Simon Zheng of China, about Boykin's (lack of) knowledge of the RMB, and Achim Kassow of Germany. There are others, and we'll have more.

  On March 30, Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq:

Inner City Press..  about alleged irregularities in the Pension Fund and a desire by the current Chief of the Pension Fund to change the rules so there's less outside review. Is the Secretariat aware of these concerns and how does the Secretariat think they should be resolved, and how would staff in New York be represented as to this $53 billion fund?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  As you know, the Secretariat in the form of the Secretary-General does not have control over the Pension Fund.  It's not something that I can comment on.  You'd have to take that up directly with the Pension Fund. 

  It seemed a strange or telling answer, given that there is a Representative of the Secretary General to the pension fund, Caro Boykin, on whom Inner City Press has previously reported, here.

  More recently, as first reported here by Inner City Press, Boykin's management has been questioned by the UN Dispute Tribunal on March 30, 2015, here, in Singh vs UNSG (Ban Ki-moon):

"the Applicant’s request for management evaluation was deem
ed premature, and thus not receivable. However, the MEU made the following observations:

"Following communications with the UNJSPF, the MEU noted that the job opening for the Post was exceptionally approved by [OHRM] and later reviewed and approved by the Central Review Board. The MEU learned that the CFA exception was granted because the future incumbent will be in charge of managing all investments of the [IMD], which are valued at USD 53 billion."

  So after learning more about the growing scandal in the UN Pension Fund, including through a staff meeting on March 31 that was itself controversial, Inner City Press on April 1 asked Haq again.

 Haq now said he had spoken with Boykin who might -- might -- speak to the press. Inner City Press asked, yes or no, if Investment Committee chairman Ivan Pictet has quit.  Haq did not answer.

 There are $53 billion at stake here, and the Secretary General appoints the members of the Investment Committee. We'll have more on this.

 And on this, the allegations of (some) staff:

-Attempts by the fund CEO, Sergio Arvizú, to recruit a new CFO, subsequent  found to be unsuitable for the post.

- A consultancy services contract worth $520,000, divided into two, so as to avoid scrutiny by the Headquarters Committee on Contracts, a committee that only reviews procurement requests above $500,000.

- Attempts by the CEO to approve return air tickets from Mexico to New York for four individuals with no relationship, contractual or otherwise, to the fund.

- Irregular modification of a vacancy announcement in order to favor a particular candidate to the post of D-1 Chief of Legal Services.

- Attempts by the CEO to give a short-term contract to a 90 year-old referee on his CV -- this person was said, on March 31, to be closer to 100 years old.

  A failure to disclose a conflict of interest involving JP Morgan Chase was also alleged.

  The UN Pension Fund, which has resisted not only Press coverage but also accountability to its own pensioneers, is said to be poised to implement a major reduction in staff rights, according to a communication a whistleblower directed to Inner City Press on April 2, 2014 and which Inner City Press published on April 3, here.

   Inner City Press immediately began investigating the complaint, including a draft Secretary General's Bulletin said to be pushed by Pension Fund CEO Sergio Arvizu Trevino. From April 3 through the UN noon briefing on April 14, Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokespeople three times for a response, including to staff unions' letters of protest. 

  Finally on April 14 came this response from Ban's spokesman:

Subject: Your question on the Joint Staff Pension Fund
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] org
Date: Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:21 PM
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com
Cc: Stephane Dujarric [at] org

The UN Joint Staff Pension Fund (UNJSPF) is not a Secretariat entity but composed of many member organizations. The matter of formalizing delegation of certain authorities in human resources matters to the CEO of the UNJSPF follows discussions at the Board and the General Assembly. The General Assembly requested a review of the policies governing the recruitment, promotion and retention of the staff of the Fund and measures to find suitable candidates for certain Fund positions that were difficult to fill. The review found that the currently applicable memorandum of understanding between the Office of Human Resources Management and the UNJSPF no longer fully meets the needs of the Fund as a inter-agency entity with a unique mandate.

  This despite extensive protest from impacted staff, for example this received by Inner City Press:

"There is no way they accept 'No" for an answer to this mandate even though they say we are here to listen to your concerns, unless you stand united and firm with details clearly expressed and drafted sitting with the staff and their representatives. This divide and rule must stop and an inclusive conversation guaranteeing staff rights for grievances and eliminating this mess until the IPAS goes live and works as necessary. Sending you the complete documents we have received so far, thanks to those who contributed some documents attached here that are taken from the various communications and found at printers (special thanks to those high level people). Will send more as they become available.

 And so there will be more - watch this site. Tellingly, UN Management has engaged in what many view ascensorship, click here for that.

   In the interim the old Staff Union has gotten involved, stating that it is "confident that the draft is real and is currently under consideration" --

In case this draft is approved the CEO of the fund will be able to:

remove the UN contracts of over 230 pension fund staff;

appoint, promote and terminate pension board staff at will;

make exceptions to the staff rules; and much more.

Worryingly, it was the Pension Board that was supposed to formulate proposals on HR issues and present them to the General Assembly. We understand that the CEO is now pressuring the Secretary-General to sign this off before the Pension Board even meets, thus making it a fait accompli. This would contradict the wishes of the General Assembly.

The staff of the fund manage $45 billion - your $45 billion. They rightly work in a diligent and independent manner, which is essential - it's your retirement income at stake.

We are aware of strange management practices at the Pension Fund for a while. Staff members there work under one of two types of contracts: a regular UN contract or a contract limited to service in the Pension Fund. If this draft goes forward, the Fund's CEO will have absolute power over his staff and we will have very little oversight on the way our pension fund is managed.

  The whistleblower's summary points at CEO Sergio Arvizu Trevino and his deputy Paul Dooley. Back in July 2013 when the UN Pension Fund was poised to designate a new deputy director, sources told Inner City Press that first among the three finalists was an individual previously recommended for discipline by the Office of Internal Oversight Service, Paul Dooley.

   Inner City Press, contacted by whistleblowers inside the Pension Fund, previously dug into a lack of accountability there. It obtained and reported on OIOS' "Investigation of conflict of interest, favoritism and mismanagement at the UN Joint Staff Pension Fund" describing how through the Pension Fund's Paul Dooley, millions of dollars in contacts were given to a company called Sprig, Ltd, run by Gerald Bodell, who was previously Dooley's supervisor at Guardian Mortgage Corporation. 

  Recommendations 1 and 2 of the OIOS investigative report directed that "appropriate action be taken” regarding Dooley as well as Dulcie Bull.

Previous chief Bernard G. Cocheme refused to implement the recommendation for discipline. Farhan Haq, then as now a UN spokesperson, confirmed to Inner City PressCocheme's decision not to discipline:

Subj: Your question on OIOS and the Pension Fund
From: Farhan Haq [at] un.org
To: Inner City Press

In March 2006, the OIOS completed an investigation into allegations of possible conflict of interest, favoritism and mismanagement at the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund. Based upon the evidence adduced, OIOS concluded that several staff members - including two Senior UNJSPF staff - have acted improperly in connection to contracts for information technology services awarded to a consultant retained by UNJSPF. 

OIOS issued several recommendations in this case, including that UNJSPF management take appropriate action against its two staff. The Chief Executive Officer of UNJSPF informed OIOS that he disagrees with the findings and recommendations of the report of investigation - as regards the actions of his staff - and advised that he "intends to take no action" with regard to them. OIOS advised him that pursuant to its mandate, it will report his response to the General Assembly.

That was one thing. But to now promote the individual to deputy chief? As one Pension Fund source put it to Inner City Press, there is less and less accountability in the UN, the more and more they talk about it elsewhere.

  Back then, the UN fought back against Inner City Press' reports by a spurious Security complaint how Inner City Press went to the Pension Fund to cover a meeting. This was repeated last year when Inner City Press covered meetings of Herve Ladsous' Senior Advisory Group on Peacekeeping Operations including a Sri Lankan military figure depicted in the UN's own reports as engaged in war crimes.

In 2013, the UN threatened to suspend or withdraw Inner City Press' accreditation for merely hanging a sign of the new Free UN Coalition for Access, which it co-founded to oppose the earlier type of attacks, against any journalist.Labor rights, free press without favoritism or censorship - what is Ban's UN coming to? Watch this site. 

   

US Budget Proposal Mixes UN Missions in Afghanistan & Libya, On Ebola, Inner City Press Asked State Department Why

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 2 --When the US proposed budget for its State Department was released on February 2, it included a $10 million increase in proposed funding for the UN regular budget. Under this, three UN missions -- for Afghanistan, Libya and Ebola response -- were combined together for a request of $42 million. Documenthere, at Page 43.

    On a background call, Inner City Press asked about this, including if the estimate for the UN Support Mission in Libya is impacted by that Mission hardly being present on the ground in the country anymore.

   A Senior State Department Official replied, focusing on Afghanistan, telling Inner City Press that, “we believe that the funding level is probably doing to stay constant over the FY 2016 period. The funding levels that we've got for the political missions are for six months assessment for Afghanistan. We believe that that funding level then will catch up the the second six money will catch up. So that you'll be seeing a lag on the overall payment there.”

   UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has made a range of claims about his budgets, the consistency with the US request we are still evaluating. For now, here is the State Department transcript:

OPERATOR: Thank you. That’s Matthew Russell Lee from Inner City Press. Please go ahead.

INNER CITY PRESS: Sure, thanks a lot. I was looking at the UN section of it – I think it’s around page 43 – and I just – I noticed that for the mission – special political missions in Afghanistan and Libya and also the mission on Ebola, they’re all kind of lumped together at $42 million. I mean, it may have something to do with the way the UN has funded them, but can you – is there any breakout of that, and particularly this – given that the UN mission in Libya is actually no longer present on the ground in the country, is that – do you expect that number to go up or go down?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: So we believe that that funding level is probably going to stay constant over the FY 2016 period. The funding levels that we’ve got for the political missions are for a six-month assessment for Afghanistan. And we believe that that funding level then will catch up the second six months, so you’ll be seeing a lag on the overall payment there.

  Other questioners on the embargoed call asked about the Green Climate Fund, Moldova and Georgia, migration and the so-called Cromnibus or Continuing Resolution / Omnibus, which has provisions impacting funding to the UN based on protecting whistleblowers (dubious) andcombating sexual exploitation and abuse (same), as well as on funding to the Palestinian Authority. We are digging into each of these. Watch this site.

    

Impunity for WIPO's Gurry After He Retaliates Against Union Chief Moncef Kateb?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 11, more here -- The UN system claims to have whistleblower protections -- but retaliation is the rule rather than the exception. A recent and ongoing example is at the World Intellectual Property Organization. 

  Inner City Press has published two letters. Today it publishes another letter, "on behalf of the 176 million members of the International Trade Union Confederation," and a flier: "The attack on the WIPO Staff Association is an attack on the rights of all UN staff."

Flier for reinstatement of whistleblower Moncef Kateb at WIPO

  On October 9, Inner City Press asked Under Secretary General for Management Yukio Takasu why the UN Staff Union in New York has been left in chaos, essentially with no union recognized by management. Video here.

  In Geneva on September 19, the President of the WIPO Staff Association, Moncef Kateb was summarily dismissed in retaliation for his staff representative duties, and for whistleblowing. Here is a letter of support from the three staff association federations representing 120,000 international civil servants.

   WIPO's Director General Francis Gurry is head of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's high level committee on management. Meanwhile, Gurry is the subject of preliminary investigations into two different charges, one for influencing a procurement process, the other for using the Geneva police to obtain the DNA of WIPO staff so as to identify the author of a letter against him. 

  Here is the Deputy Director General's September 17 letterspecifying the charges against Gurry and asking if he will be suspended.

  Here also is the September 19 letter of the Ambassador of Estonia to the Ambassador of Finland, as chair of the Assembly of WIPO, urging the charges against Gurry be presented to entire Assembly. 

  Ban Ki-moon has still done nothing about this.

 On September 17, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesman Farhan Haq:

Inner City Press:  The Secretary-General started this review of whistleblower protection at the UN some time ago, I think more than a year ago.  Has there been any finding or public product from that?  It was a Canadian judge.  Last time the whistleblower protections came up, he named someone to look into it.  But, whatever happened to that?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  I believe they are going about their work.  I don't have anything to share about that.  Once that's done, we'll be able to say something more.

Inner City Press had asked Ban's lead spokesman on September 5:

Inner City Press: There was this decision over the Labor Day weekend in the case of Mr. [James] Wasserström, which was a big whistleblower case...Tthe decision that was made that still upheld $15,000 against the Secretary-General for having refused to comply with production and discovery orders, but it cut back on the rights and protections of whistleblowers and that this may violate this 2014 law, requiring the US Government to withhold funds if the UN doesn't enact best practice for whistleblowers.  What is the UN's response to this criticism?

Spokesman:  I should have something more detailed for you.  But, obviously, you know, we respect the decisions made by the internal justice system here.  As for whether or not those decisions violate the laws of the United States or any other country, that is not for me to interpret.

Inner City Press:  What about the decision that the Secretary-General erred in not complying with discovery orders, do you accept that?

Spokesman:  As I said, I hope to have something further.

   Twelve days later, the whistleblower question has still not been answered. So Inner City Press asked Dujarric's deputy Farhan Haq, who said something had been received from the UN Ethics Office. Why was it not provided to Inner City Press? Then this email:

From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:58 PM
Subject: Your questions on Wasserstrom ruling
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.co

In response to your questions, we would like to reaffirm the Secretary-General's strong support for the professional work done by the Ethics Office. Beyond that, in the case you have referred to, the UN Administrative Tribunal has ruled that Mr. Wasserstrom’s original UNDT application was not receivable, on the basis that the Ethics Office does not make administrative decisions, but rather is limited to issuing recommendations to the Administration. In not making administrative decisions, findings of the Ethics Office are not subject to UNDT review pursuant to the requirements of the UNDT Statute.

The Ethics Office concurs with this judgment. Due to its independent status, and in order to protect its essential role as an independent and impartial body within the Organization representing neither management or staff, the Ethics Office considers that its determinations cannot be deemed attributable to the Secretary-General, and therefore cannot constitute administrative decisions.

  As this was sent, Inner City Press was on a press conference call about the litigation against the UN for bringing cholera to Haiti; it was said the UN after 15 month called the claim "not receivable" -- just like in the whistlblower case. This is today's UN.

  Inner City Press on September 17 asked Haq for an update into the inquiry into whistleblower protections that Ban Ki-moon ordered. We'll have more on this.

  Eight days after Inner City Press exclusively reported that Chambas as the head of the peacekeeping mission being investigated for under-reporting attacks on civilians was being given the UN Office in West Africa post in Dakar, and asked about it, on September 12 the UN on September 12 confirmed the move.

  Inner City Press had asked on September 5, and did again on September 12, if this move didn't undercut or pre-judge the UN's investigation into charges that the Darfur mission under Chambas under-reported attacks on civilians. 

  On September 12, UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric insisted he didn't want to "pre-judge" the inquiry.  But by giving the new post, this has already been done. There is little to no accountability in today's UN.

  Chambas was quoted last month that the UN “cannot stop Government forces from entering camps for the displaced,” despite a supposed protection of civilians mandate.

   Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about it on August 22 and he said “we will check with the Mission to verify the quotes and see what actually they have been doing.” But in the two weeks since, nothing.

   Now Inner City Press has exclusively learned from multiple sources that Chambas is set to be rewarded, or moved, to the Dakar, Senegal UN Office on West Africa post vacated by Said Djinnit.

   This would be classic UN: amid a scandal about UNAMID under Chambas covering up the murder and abuse of civilians, a promotion, in a game of musical chairs.

   On August 22, Inner City Press asked:

Inner City Press: in Darfur, it seems that Mr. Mohamed ibn Chambas went to Kalma Camp and met with residents who expressed a variety of complaints, but he was quoted as saying there that UNAMID [African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur] cannot stop Government forces from entering camps for the displaced, and it has left many people confused whether, what is UNAMID’s role in terms of protection of civilians given these [inaudible] entrances in the camp and people lying on the ground?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I will… we will check with the Mission to verify the quotes and see what actually they have been doing.

  Two weeks, no answer. Now this. 

  UN Peacekeeping and its mission in Darfur continue take a selective and lax approach to protecting civilians.  

   This example concerns the UN's evolving statements on the Al-Salam camp. 

  After whistleblower Aicha Elbasri further exposed UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous as covering up attacks in Darfur, on June 17 several Security Council members joined International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda in calling for an investigation.

  On August 7, Inner City Press asked the Joint Special Representative of the African Union-United Nations Mission in Darfur, Mohamed Ibn Chambas, about the status of the probe.

   Chambas told Inner City Press he had met earlier in the day with the commission, whose members will be on their say to Darfur.

 Inner City Press asked if the report will be public. Chambas only said his staff will cooperate. Apparently it will be up to Ban Ki-moon, or even Herve Ladsous, to decide to release or withhold the report.

 Back in Khartoum on August 11, Chambas said this:

"And on the attack on Alsalam camp, let me state that we have information about this. We have always stated that the responsibility for maintaining law and order in Sudan lays with the Government. This is a sovereign country, it has law enforcement obligations, it has its justice system and the AU, the UN is only here to facilitate and ensure that law and order and justice are maintained and are enforced according to due process of law. So, we want to say that we will continue to engage with the Government of Sudan in accordance with its own protection of civilian mandate and to ensure that the activities on law enforcement agencies are carried out without infringement of the rights of innocent civilians specially vulnerable communities in IDP camps. We hope that on the other hand residents of IDP camps can understand and do understand that possession of weapons, carrying of weapons is not allowed in IDP camps under international humanitarian law.

"It’s also imperative, and it’s a responsibility of the leaders of IDP camps to ensure that no one is using these camps to keep weapons or to hide weapons, because this is against international humanitarian law. These are the issues involved there and we as UNAMID we will continue to work with both sides, with IDP leaders to educate them what is permissible in these camps and what is not, and at the same time working  with Government to enforce legitimately law and order but to do that respecting the civic and human rights of the citizens and also respecting due process of law. Thank you."

  Since this seemed to defer to Sudan's Abu Tira, and even to blame the victims, Inner City Press on August 13 asked:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask about Darfur, Missouri and Afghanistan.  On Darfur, photos have come out of the Sudanese uniformed Abu Tira forces going through a refugee camp or [internally displaced persons] camp in El Salam and making the residents lie on the ground.  And Mr. Chambas was asked about it and said that this was entirely up to the Sudanese and it just seems sort of strange. I mean, I know there is a Human Rights component to these peacekeeping missions.  Does the UN, does UNAMID [United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur] or does anyone in the Secretariat, are they aware of these photographs?

Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:  I will check.

  Twenty three hours later, Dujarric sent nothing to Inner City Press. But UNAMID issued a belated statement, which seems to contradict or attempt to rehabilitate Chambas' dismissive August 11 comments:

"Following a security raid conducted on Al Salam IDP camp on 5 August when individuals were arrested for alleged possession of illegal drugs, weapons and ammunition, UNAMID monitored the trials of those arrested during the operation; most of whom have since been released. UNAMID has been engaging relevant state authorities on the conditions of those still being detained.

"Other security raids have been conducted in Otash and Dereig camps and are part of a wider campaign by the South Darfur authorities to address the high level of criminality in the State, especially around Nyala.

"The security raids have generated alarm and anxiety amongst IDPs in Kalma camp, who are anticipating a similar operation at their camp and have expressed their concerns to UNAMID."

 We'll continue on this.

  Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq if an independent investigation of Ladsous' UN Peacekeeping will be done, and if not, why not? Video here.

  Haq claimed that UN Peacekeeping is already acting on Elbasri's complaints, and that it had been telling the press about it. Inner City Press asked, where have these updates been provided.
 
  Haq cited a read-out given in March, largely generic; then he said the requests made on June 17 would be studied.

 Ban's spokesman Dujarric - in the midst of a controversy about UN Peacekeeping chief Ladsous' mission in the DRC flying sanctioned FDLR leaders around, said "you can pick up the phone" - after siting next to Ladsous while he refused to answer Press questions on DRC.

  On May 29, Ladsous refused Press questions, video here,compilation here.

   Back on April 24 when Darfur as such was the topic of the UN Security Council, three major Darfur rebel groups wrote to the Council to investigate "all reports of the Peace Keeping Mission, including reports presented to the UNSC by [Under] Secretary General for Peace Keeping Mr. Ladous and the reliability of the sources he had relied on."

   But unlike his abortive stakeout on the evening of April 23 about South Sudan, video here, Ladsous did not come out to answer any questions. And at the April 24 UN noon briefing, when Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq for a response to the request for an investigation of Ladsous and his reports, there was none: not one modified or corrected report was cited.

  Instead, from the "holy seat" of the UN Correspondents Association a long time scribe followed up to say that it is not all Ladsous' fault, and to cast blame on the government. This reflexively shifting of blame from the UN to the government, whose new Permanent Representative spoke in the Council on April 24, is in this case particularly absurd: how can the government be responsible for the UN's own reports being inaccurate?  There is little to no accountability in today's UN. And the new Free UN Coalition for Access is now taking this on.

  We'll be following this. Watch this site.

   

Push to Review World Intellectual Property Organization's Gurry After He Retaliates Against Union Chief

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 22, more here -- The UN system claims to have whistleblower protections -- but retaliation is the rule rather than the exception. The most recent example is at the World Intellectual Property Organization, which holds its own General Assembly today in Geneva, parallel to the one in New York. Inner City Press now publishes two letters.

  On September 19, the President of the WIPO Staff Association, Moncef Kateb was summarily dismissed in retaliation for his staff representative duties, and for whistleblowing. Here is a letter of support from the three staff association federations representing 120,000 international civil servants.

   WIPO's Director General Francis Gurry is head of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's high level committee on management. Meanwhile, Gurry is the subject of preliminary investigations into two different charges, one for influencing a procurement process, the other for using the Geneva police to obtain the DNA of WIPO staff so as to identify the author of a letter against him. 

  Here now is the Deputy Director General's September 17 letter specifying the charges against Gurry and asking if he will be suspended.

  Here also is the September 19 letter of the Ambassador of Estonia to the Ambassador of Finland, as chair of the Assembly of WIPO, urging the charges against Gurry be presented to entire Assembly at its meeting. We'll have more on this.

 On September 17, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesman Farhan Haq:

Inner City Press:  The Secretary-General started this review of whistleblower protection at the UN some time ago, I think more than a year ago.  Has there been any finding or public product from that?  It was a Canadian judge.  Last time the whistleblower protections came up, he named someone to look into it.  But, whatever happened to that?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  I believe they are going about their work.  I don't have anything to share about that.  Once that's done, we'll be able to say something more.

   Inner City Press had asked Ban's lead spokesman on September 5:

Inner City Press: There was this decision over the Labor Day weekend in the case of Mr. [James] Wasserström, which was a big whistleblower case...Tthe decision that was made that still upheld $15,000 against the Secretary-General for having refused to comply with production and discovery orders, but it cut back on the rights and protections of whistleblowers and that this may violate this 2014 law, requiring the US Government to withhold funds if the UN doesn't enact best practice for whistleblowers.  What is the UN's response to this criticism?

Spokesman:  I should have something more detailed for you.  But, obviously, you know, we respect the decisions made by the internal justice system here.  As for whether or not those decisions violate the laws of the United States or any other country, that is not for me to interpret.

Inner City Press:  What about the decision that the Secretary-General erred in not complying with discovery orders, do you accept that?

Spokesman:  As I said, I hope to have something further.

   Twelve days later, the whistleblower question has still not been answered. So Inner City Press asked Dujarric's deputy Farhan Haq, who said something had been received from the UN Ethics Office. Why was it not provided to Inner City Press? Then this email:

From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:58 PM
Subject: Your questions on Wasserstrom ruling
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.co

In response to your questions, we would like to reaffirm the Secretary-General's strong support for the professional work done by the Ethics Office. Beyond that, in the case you have referred to, the UN Administrative Tribunal has ruled that Mr. Wasserstrom’s original UNDT application was not receivable, on the basis that the Ethics Office does not make administrative decisions, but rather is limited to issuing recommendations to the Administration. In not making administrative decisions, findings of the Ethics Office are not subject to UNDT review pursuant to the requirements of the UNDT Statute.

The Ethics Office concurs with this judgment. Due to its independent status, and in order to protect its essential role as an independent and impartial body within the Organization representing neither management or staff, the Ethics Office considers that its determinations cannot be deemed attributable to the Secretary-General, and therefore cannot constitute administrative decisions.

  As this was sent, Inner City Press was on a press conference call about the litigation against the UN for bringing cholera to Haiti; it was said the UN after 15 month called the claim "not receivable" -- just like in the whistlblower case. This is today's UN.

  Inner City Press on September 17 asked Haq for an update into the inquiry into whistleblower protections that Ban Ki-moon ordered. We'll have more on this.

  Eight days after Inner City Press exclusively reported that Chambas as the head of the peacekeeping mission being investigated for under-reporting attacks on civilians was being given the UN Office in West Africa post in Dakar, and asked about it, on September 12 the UN on September 12 confirmed the move.

  Inner City Press had asked on September 5, and did again on September 12, if this move didn't undercut or pre-judge the UN's investigation into charges that the Darfur mission under Chambas under-reported attacks on civilians. 

  On September 12, UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric insisted he didn't want to "pre-judge" the inquiry.  But by giving the new post, this has already been done. There is little to no accountability in today's UN.

  Chambas was quoted last month that the UN “cannot stop Government forces from entering camps for the displaced,” despite a supposed protection of civilians mandate.

   Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about it on August 22 and he said “we will check with the Mission to verify the quotes and see what actually they have been doing.” But in the two weeks since, nothing.

   Now Inner City Press has exclusively learned from multiple sources that Chambas is set to be rewarded, or moved, to the Dakar, Senegal UN Office on West Africa post vacated by Said Djinnit.

   This would be classic UN: amid a scandal about UNAMID under Chambas covering up the murder and abuse of civilians, a promotion, in a game of musical chairs.

   On August 22, Inner City Press asked:

Inner City Press: in Darfur, it seems that Mr. Mohamed ibn Chambas went to Kalma Camp and met with residents who expressed a variety of complaints, but he was quoted as saying there that UNAMID [African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur] cannot stop Government forces from entering camps for the displaced, and it has left many people confused whether, what is UNAMID’s role in terms of protection of civilians given these [inaudible] entrances in the camp and people lying on the ground?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I will… we will check with the Mission to verify the quotes and see what actually they have been doing.

  Two weeks, no answer. Now this. 

  UN Peacekeeping and its mission in Darfur continue take a selective and lax approach to protecting civilians.  

   This example concerns the UN's evolving statements on the Al-Salam camp. 

  After whistleblower Aicha Elbasri further exposed UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous as covering up attacks in Darfur, on June 17 several Security Council members joined International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda in calling for an investigation.

  On August 7, Inner City Press asked the Joint Special Representative of the African Union-United Nations Mission in Darfur, Mohamed Ibn Chambas, about the status of the probe.

   Chambas told Inner City Press he had met earlier in the day with the commission, whose members will be on their say to Darfur.

 Inner City Press asked if the report will be public. Chambas only said his staff will cooperate. Apparently it will be up to Ban Ki-moon, or even Herve Ladsous, to decide to release or withhold the report.

 Back in Khartoum on August 11, Chambas said this:

"And on the attack on Alsalam camp, let me state that we have information about this. We have always stated that the responsibility for maintaining law and order in Sudan lays with the Government. This is a sovereign country, it has law enforcement obligations, it has its justice system and the AU, the UN is only here to facilitate and ensure that law and order and justice are maintained and are enforced according to due process of law. So, we want to say that we will continue to engage with the Government of Sudan in accordance with its own protection of civilian mandate and to ensure that the activities on law enforcement agencies are carried out without infringement of the rights of innocent civilians specially vulnerable communities in IDP camps. We hope that on the other hand residents of IDP camps can understand and do understand that possession of weapons, carrying of weapons is not allowed in IDP camps under international humanitarian law.

"It’s also imperative, and it’s a responsibility of the leaders of IDP camps to ensure that no one is using these camps to keep weapons or to hide weapons, because this is against international humanitarian law. These are the issues involved there and we as UNAMID we will continue to work with both sides, with IDP leaders to educate them what is permissible in these camps and what is not, and at the same time working  with Government to enforce legitimately law and order but to do that respecting the civic and human rights of the citizens and also respecting due process of law. Thank you."

  Since this seemed to defer to Sudan's Abu Tira, and even to blame the victims, Inner City Press on August 13 asked:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask about Darfur, Missouri and Afghanistan.  On Darfur, photos have come out of the Sudanese uniformed Abu Tira forces going through a refugee camp or [internally displaced persons] camp in El Salam and making the residents lie on the ground.  And Mr. Chambas was asked about it and said that this was entirely up to the Sudanese and it just seems sort of strange. I mean, I know there is a Human Rights component to these peacekeeping missions.  Does the UN, does UNAMID [United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur] or does anyone in the Secretariat, are they aware of these photographs?

Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:  I will check.

  Twenty three hours later, Dujarric sent nothing to Inner City Press. But UNAMID issued a belated statement, which seems to contradict or attempt to rehabilitate Chambas' dismissive August 11 comments:

"Following a security raid conducted on Al Salam IDP camp on 5 August when individuals were arrested for alleged possession of illegal drugs, weapons and ammunition, UNAMID monitored the trials of those arrested during the operation; most of whom have since been released. UNAMID has been engaging relevant state authorities on the conditions of those still being detained.

"Other security raids have been conducted in Otash and Dereig camps and are part of a wider campaign by the South Darfur authorities to address the high level of criminality in the State, especially around Nyala.

"The security raids have generated alarm and anxiety amongst IDPs in Kalma camp, who are anticipating a similar operation at their camp and have expressed their concerns to UNAMID."

 We'll continue on this.

  Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq if an independent investigation of Ladsous' UN Peacekeeping will be done, and if not, why not? Video here.

  Haq claimed that UN Peacekeeping is already acting on Elbasri's complaints, and that it had been telling the press about it. Inner City Press asked, where have these updates been provided.

  Haq cited a read-out given in March, largely generic; then he said the requests made on June 17 would be studied.

 Ban's spokesman Dujarric - in the midst of a controversy about UN Peacekeeping chief Ladsous' mission in the DRC flying sanctioned FDLR leaders around, said "you can pick up the phone" - after siting next to Ladsous while he refused to answer Press questions on DRC.

  On May 29, Ladsous refused Press questions, video here,compilation here.

   Back on April 24 when Darfur as such was the topic of the UN Security Council, three major Darfur rebel groups wrote to the Council to investigate "all reports of the Peace Keeping Mission, including reports presented to the UNSC by [Under] Secretary General for Peace Keeping Mr. Ladous and the reliability of the sources he had relied on."

   But unlike his abortive stakeout on the evening of April 23 about South Sudan, video here, Ladsous did not come out to answer any questions. And at the April 24 UN noon briefing, when Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq for a response to the request for an investigation of Ladsous and his reports, there was none: not one modified or corrected report was cited.

  Instead, from the "holy seat" of the UN Correspondents Association a long time scribe followed up to say that it is not all Ladsous' fault, and to cast blame on the government. This reflexively shifting of blame from the UN to the government, whose new Permanent Representative spoke in the Council on April 24, is in this case particularly absurd: how can the government be responsible for the UN's own reports being inaccurate?  There is little to no accountability in today's UN. And the new Free UN Coalition for Access is now taking this on.

  We'll be following this. Watch this site.