By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
January 14 --
When does
diplomatic
immunity
become
diplomatic
impunity?
Last week
Inner City
Press compared
the high
profile case
of Indian
diplomat
Devyani
Khobragade
who was
indicted in
connection
with allegedly
underpaying a
domestic
worker with an
earlier case
of a French
diplomat
Romain Serman
who was taken
into police
custody while
attempting to
buy cocaine,
according to NYPD records.
Inner
City Press had
asked the
French mission
to comment on
the NYPD
record and
Serman's case
but was told
only that it
was a "hostile
act" if the
records, also
including
leaked
documents
showing
France's
domination of
the UN with
regard to
former
colonies in
Africa,
remained
online. Inner
City Press
rejected that
French
censorship
bid.
On
January 13,
after the
comparison to
the Indian
diplomat,
things
escalated.
Both on his
way into the
Security
Council and
again on his
way out,
French
Ambassador
Gerard Araud
stopped to
shout at Inner
City Press
about the
story.
When Inner
City Press
began pointing
out that his
Mission had
been asked for
comment but
had only
responded with
the "hostile
act" threat,
Araud shouted
over the
point, and
made another
threat, to
sue.
Click
here
for video /
audio by UNTV
taken at the
stakeout.
And embedded
below: "flag
shot" with
UNTV ambient
audio.
Perhaps
Araud
or the French
Mission to the
UN do not
understand
press freedom
as guaranteed
by the First
Amendment to
the US
Constitution.
This is what
investigative
journalism is:
ferreting out
such
documents,
seeking
comment on
that,
analyzing and
comparing
them,
publishing.
The
French mission
should have
commented, if
it disputed
the document
or thought it
should be
amplified with
some
explanation --
for example,
that citing
diplomatic
immunity made
the arrest,
but not this
record, go
away:
"for
attempting to
purchase
cocaine and
marijuana from
a known drug
dealer...106th
Street and
Park
Ave...claimed
to be a
diplomat from
the country of
France and
displayed a ID
which proved
such.
When...Miranda
rights he
refused to
cooperate...was
taken into
custody"
That
is the story:
that for
attempting to
buy cocaine,
for which many
are in prison
in the US and
New York
State, a
French
diplomat not
only was not
treated
similarly, but
was allowed to
leave the
country and
then return,
now, as French
consul in San
Francisco.
That is the
comparison to
the Indian
case, in which
it is said
that Ms.
Khobragade is
on a "watch
list" and
would be
arrested if
she tried to
re-enter the
US where her
two children,
4 and 7, live.
The
Indian case
was widely
reported and
it does not
seem that the
Indian foreign
service or Ms.
Khobragade
threatened to
sue any media
for reporting
it.
That is
Araud's French
Mission's
tactic,
deployed in
lesser ways
against others
covering the
UN who in turn
were so cowed,
or so needed
access to the
French
Mission, that
they resisted
any reporting
of the French
Mission's
censorship and
conditioning
of access on
positive
coverage.
Araud's
threat
to sue
notwithstanding,
the UN is so
lawless that
it allows its
Media
Accreditation
unit and
process to be
open for bids
at censorship
or outright
exclusion.
After facing
such from some
atop the United
Nations
Correspondents
Association
(now the UN's
Censorship
Alliance),
not unrelated
to ces
jeux francais,
the new Free
UN Coalition
for Access
asserts
journalists'
right to due
process and,
even regarding
the French
mission and
French foreign
policy,
freedom of the
press. Watch
this site.
Footnote:
ironically the
day after
Araud's
threat, French
president
Francois
Hollande said
he would not
try to sue,
since he has
immunity and
it would be a
double
standard. But
is France
engaged,
through Araud,
in triple
standards? Or
is Araud on
his own on
this one and
soon, as he
foreshadowed,
leaving the
UN?
, 
