After UN Cocaine Exclusive Press Asks of Bomb Squad Inaction, "Noose Cover Up"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, Jan 30, updated Jan 31, 10:40 am -- With the UN yet to answer the questions of Inner City Press, which exclusively broke last week's story about 14 kilograms of cocaine in the UN mail room, other UN Security whisteblowers have come forward with troubling tales, of racism and what they call lax response to packages identified by bomb sniffing dogs.

Inner City Press was informed, and at Monday's UN noon briefing asked, about an incident this month in which three separate UN bomb sniffing dogs "sat down" -- conveying suspicious -- about a package brought in by a courier service by the name of TNT.

But, the UN Security whistleblowers say, "the bomb squad was never called by the command." Rather, the TNT courier was allowed or told to take the suspicious package out of the UN, out onto the streets of New York.

Last week after breaking the cocaine story on the morning of January 26, Inner City Press asked the UN why instead of waiting to see who might come and pick up the 14 kilograms of cocaine in the UN mail room, it was spirited so quickly out of the building with the UN claiming it had "no UN connection."

That question, and follow up or even admission of the arrest in 2006 of an employee in the UN mail room after an indictment for drug trafficking, has still not been answered.

In light of the UN's failure to provide any answers about the bomb threat, five hours and counting after the Q&A transcribed below, Inner City Press now posts as a matter of public concern another complain received from inside the UN:

"In the month of January 2012 a Security officer in the UN in New York discovered a 'hangman's noose'... in an office in the North Lawn Building... in view of other staff members and visitors to the UN. The UN.... is trying to keep it out of the media. Is this the respect for diversity and human rights the UN is practicing at headquarters? They why should the world listen to them?"

We'd like to have Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson's office's (or DSS') answer to these charges, but there seems to be a back-up in answers, or the patterns of cover-ups alleged in the complaint above.

DSS Greg Starr & bags: bomb dogs etc not shown (c) MRLee

As background, in 2006 a UN staffer was said to have drawn swastikas but, UN insiders say, was "protected by Bruno Henn" of UN Security, and only given sensitivity training.

From the UN's transcription of its January 30 noon briefing:

Inner City Press: I want to ask a security question, it’s following up on last week’s 14 kilograms of cocaine story. First, some other security individuals have stepped forward and said that this month, January, there was three separate UN bomb sniffing dogs sat down, i.e., identified a package that arrived in the mail room as being problematic and asked that the bomb squad be called, and rather than that happen, the package was allowed to drive off to parts unknown. They have a deep concern that there is something wrong with the way in which security is dealing with the mail thing, it is the same question of why the 14 kilograms of cocaine were spirited out of the building before waiting to see who would pick them up... The final thing is I got the answer, there is a 2006 indictment of a UN mail room employee, it was a pretty big case in which he was distributing khat from Somalia throughout the United States, it’s a federal indictment. So I wondered, you said that they were unaware of any arrests, maybe they didn’t understand, was there some limited time frame they were looking at or are they unaware that that took place?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: Do you recall what was the outcome of that case, Matthew?

Inner City Press: No, he was arrested; my question was [about arrests,] you wrote back and said they are unaware of any arrests.

Spokesperson: As I said, I would like to ask further about that, and that’s what I did. When I have something, I will let you know.

Inner City Press: On this other one, they have a concern and apparently they are not able to address it internally for whatever reason. And it seems [it could impact] all of us. I am saying this idea that if a package identified as potentially containing explosives is identified by UN security, is the protocol to actually check the package or just let it go, you know, continue on freely on the streets of New York?

Spokesperson: Let me check, Matthew. Okay, thanks very much.

But after nine hours and counting, there was no answer at all. Watch this site.

Update of January 31, 2012, 10:45 am -- more than twenty hours after the questions were asked, this came in which we publish in full:

Date: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:05 AM
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] @un.org
Subject: Your question on security
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com

On your questions yesterday on security:

- We do not discuss the specifics of security screening for rather obvious reasons.

- The Security and Safety Service has made it clear that no package that is identified as potentially hazardous by dogs or other screening methods is allowed into the premises or to proceed without further investigation. In all such cases action is taken.

We'll have more on all this.

At AU, Ban Spins "Negligence" in S. Sudan As UN Stonewalls, Drops Migiro

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 29 -- Amid charges of UN negligence in not ensuring that its Mission in South Sudan had military helicopters from mid November until the bloodshed in Pibor in Jonglei State, Ban Ki-moon on Sunday while refusing to say what he knew and when again put his spin on the issue.

He told the AU Summit in Addis Ababa

"South Sudan is twice the size of Germany, with less than 100 kilometers of paved roads. Our peacekeepers are doing all they can — with what they have. Despite severe logistical constraints, particularly air transport, the mission succeeded in saving many lives during the recent crisis in Jonglei. Yet clearly: without air assets such as helicopters, we cannot do all that we must do to protect people. Today, I appeal once again to you and to all Member States."

Meanwhile Ban's spokesman in New York Martin Nesirky after twice refusing to say when Ban knew that UNMISS had no military helicopters and when what Ban's called his "begging" belatedly began on Friday referred Inner City Press on this to UN Peacekeeping, "DPKO and DFS" which he said would provide "the details."

And so Inner City Press wrote to chiefs Herve Ladsous and Susana Malcorra and agency spokespeople:

This concerns South Sudan. In a January 18 speech the Secretary General said he "saw the violence in South Sudan coming weeks before but had no military helicopters and, 'at the critical moment, I was reduced to begging for replacements.'"

But I'm told that the UN was informed in mid November that the Russian helicopters would not fly.

The Secretary General said more on this topic on January 25, and on January 26 and today I asked his spokesman to name the date on which the UN / Ban Ki-moon was notified (and separately, knew) that there would not be military helicopters flying in South Sudan.

On January 26 the spokesman said "in December" and when I asked when in December he said, "I don’t have the exact date now."

Today when I asked again, rather than provide the date he told me to ask DPKO / DFS.

So I am asking:

1) when was the UN told that the Russian helicopters would not fly in South Sudan?

2) if different, when was Ban Ki-moon told that the Russian helicopters would not fly in South Sudan?

3) when did Ban Ki-moon start "begging," in his words, for helicopters, before the events in Pibor?

4) what does the UN say was the impact on its ability to protect civilians in Pibor of not having military helicopters?

Separately, in her January 23 video briefing, SRSG Hilde Johnson said after being told that Russian helicopters wouldn't fly, she was "subsequently" told that they would. I asked what date, she said she didn't have it with her but it would be provided. It hasn't been; I've asked about it at the UN noon briefing: can that date now be provided?

But rather than answer these questions, including for information that was already promised to the UN, DPKO's Kieran Dwyer provided more spin, entirely dodging the questions on which Ban's spokesman had publicly referring Inner City Press. Dwyer wrote:

Susana Malcorra has forwarded your email to me (copy below). I have spoken with her; she was on her way to the airport for official travel when she received it. I believe that her briefing to you on the topic of the helicopters earlier in January covered most of these issues, and I will reiterate the key points in response to your email today on behalf of her and the other addressees.

It was the end of November 2011 when the Russian military helicopters in South Sudan stopped flying. However, at no stage did the Russian Government tell the United Nations that there was a permanent or irrevocable decision to keep the helicopters grounded.

Therefore, while military helicopters were grounded in November all our efforts through late last year and early this year were to ensure the conditions for the Russian military helicopters to fly again. This included direct efforts by the Secretary-General himself, which he has referred to.

Even until today, while we are aware of media reports of the decision by the Russian Government to withdraw its military helicopters from South Sudan, we have not been formally advised of this.

On the ground, the Mission was informed that Russian crews were awaiting instructions from their capital. So our efforts continued to focus on ensuring conditions to allow them to fly again. The United Nations cannot replace the Russian helicopters while they are still based in South Sudan and when the UN has not been informed of any irrevocable decision that they will not fly again. In the meantime, the United Nations sought temporary measures by mobilising helicopters from neighbouring missions.

This information was provided to you in an extensive briefing by Susana Malcorra earlier in January.

Not only is there still no date provided -- it's that after Malcorra in a "briefing" that she asked be mostly off the record, Ban gave a speech entirely passing the buck, and the UN has since refused to provide the basis of what Ban is saying: what did Ban know, and when did he know it?

Significantly, the UN didn't even mention its failure to get military helicopters to Pibor until it was exposed, by Inner City Press, in a January 11 story. Then, rather than make disclosure and say how this would be avoided in the future, the spinning and stonewalling began, and has spread.

So less than an hour after DPKO's Dwyer's response, Inner City Press asked him, Ladsous, Malcorra and Johnson again:

This is not responsive to the questions asked, nor does it provide the information that Hilde Johnson said at the end of her January 23 video briefing would be provided.

You refer to what USG Malcorra said on January 16, but these questions as I explained spring from Ban Ki-moon's January 18 R2P speech and January 25 statements:

-- WHEN did Ban Ki-moon start "begging," in his words, for helicopters, before the events in Pibor?

-- when was Ban Ki-moon told that the Russian helicopters would not fly in South Sudan?

These are the questions I have been asking in the noon briefing, and on which I was referred to DPKO / DFS. So I am waiting for the answer(s), and the information SRSG Johnson said she would provide.

Even the statement you have sent does not mention what the Russians have told me was the UN inserting into the draft Letter of Assist having machine gun mounts on the helicopters, and the role that played in the delay and ultimate rejection of the draft Letter of Assist.

Along with answering the questions that I actually asked, please address this last as well. And please confirm or deny that another troop contributing country has, they say, had an offer of military / "attack" helicopters on the table before the UN, for two months they say, and state the issues considered in delaying and, at least for now, not accepting these helicopters.

In the more than 30 hours and counting since these reiterated questions were sent to DPKO, Ladsous, Malcorra and Johnson, not one of the questions has been answered.

Meanwhile Ban to the AU in Addis said, "our peacekeepers are doing all they can... Today, I appeal once again to you and to all Member States."

Ban also said "I have made Africa a priority from day one" - less than a week after he belated confirmed that he is dropping Asha-Rose Migiro of Tanzania as his Deputy Secretary General, as Inner City Press first reported, likely for the aforementioned Susana Malcorra of Argentina.

Nor despite repeated public requests from the African Group has Ban appoined, as required, a full time Special Adviser on Africa.

But the claims in Addis, amid continued refusal to take and answer the simple questions about presumptive negligence in South Sudan, is becoming outrageous, and will continue to be pursued. Watch this site.