Inner City Press

Inner City Press -- Investigative Reporting From the Inner City to Wall Street to the United Nations

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis

Google
  Search innercitypress.com Search WWW (censored?)

In Other Media-eg Nigeria, Zim, Georgia, Nepal, Somalia, Azerbaijan, Gambia Click here to contact us     .

,



Home -

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis

CONTRIBUTE

Subscribe to RSS feed

BloggingHeads.tv


Video (new)

Reuters AlertNet 8/17/07

Reuters AlertNet 7/14/07

Support this work by buying this book

Click on cover for secure site orders

also includes "Toxic Credit in the Global Inner City"
 

 

 


Community
Reinvestment

Bank Beat

Freedom of Information
 

How to Contact Us



At UN, Ban's Claim of 99% Public Financial Disclosure Called “Metaphorical”

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 28 -- Rather than admit that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon misspoke when he claimed two weeks ago that 99% of his officials have made public financial disclosure, Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky told Inner City Press on Friday, “I wouldn't get hung up on the ninety nine percent figure as a mathematical absolute, because it is also a metaphorical expression, that nearly everyone” disclosed. Video here, transcript below.

  But this claim of 99% transparency has been Ban's response to questions about the UN's lack of accountability under his watch. On January 14, Ban told the press that “now ninety nine percent of senior advisers of the United Nations have declared their financial assets publicly on the website.”

  Inner City Press reviewed the UN's web site and found that this was not the case. On the eve of hearing before the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee about the UN, Inner City Press published a list of the many Ban officials who instead of making even basic disclosure state that “I have chosen to maintain the confidentiality of the information disclosed by me in order to comply with the Financial Disclosure Program.”

  The officials not making public disclosure range from Ban' two Sudan envoys Ibrahim Gambari and Haile Menkerios through Rule of Law chief Dmitry Titov to Ban's close ally and envoy to Cote d'Ivoire Choi Young-jin.

  The lack of public disclosure came up at the House of Representatives hearing on January 25, and Inner City Press that day and each day since has e-mailed Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky with this request:

Please explain Ban Ki-moon statement that 99% of his officials have made public financial disclose in light of the actual, much lower figure on [the UN website], with non public disclosure by inter alia Gambari, Choi Young-jin, Jan Mattsson, Greg Starr, Iqbal Riza, Terje Roed-Larsen, Said Djinnit, Mr. Diarra, Ajay Chhibber, Haile Menkerios, Ray Chambers, Peter Sutherland, dead links Nicolas Michel and Achim Steiner, only "outside activity" and no finance or clients for Alexander Downer, Douste Blazy, etc.”

  Nesirky, who on January 21 after Inner City Press asked about the UN's seeming failure to comply with its own Regulation 1.2 said he wouldn't answer any more questions until Inner City Press somehow acted “appropriately,” never answered this e-mail question.


UN's Ban & Nesirky on Jan 14: transparency claim now called "metaphor"

  At the UN noon briefing on January 28, Inner City Press finally asked Nesirky directly about Ban's statement that 99% of his officials have made public financial disclosure.

Nesirky began by dodging the questions, saying that "financial disclosure means to disclose to the United Nations what your assets are and so on. And then it is fully within the rights of the individual to elect or not to elect for that to be publicly disclosed. And I think you will see that in the vast majority of cases, this is publicly disclosed."

But Ban specifically used the word “publicly” on January 14, saying that “ninety nine percent of senior advisers of the United Nations have declared their financial assets publicly on the website.” Click here for footage of Ban's claims from a recent piece on Swedish TV including Inner City Press and a FAC hearing witness.

  Inner City Press on January 28 asked Nesirky if Ban considered disclosing a refusal to make public any financial information to be “public financial disclosure.”

This is when Nesirky told Inner City Press, “I wouldn't get hung up on the 99% figure as a mathematical absolute, because it is also a metaphorical expression, that nearly everyone” disclosed. Video here.

So at the UN, a claim by Ban Ki-moon that 99% of his officials have made public financial disclosure is just a metaphor.

From the UN's transcript of January 28:

Inner City Press: In his last press conference in here, the Secretary-General said when asked about the [Inga-Britt] Ahlenius book, that 99 per cent of officials have made public financial disclosure. And just having looked at the website of disclosures, it doesn’t, that number is not the number. The number of his officials including Mr. Choi [Young-jin] of Côte d'Ivoire, [Ibrahim] Gambari, [Haile] Menkerios, Said Djinnit, Michael Williams, whom you mentioned, they have all filled out a form saying “we chose not to disclose”. So, I just… I have been trying to figure out, what is the 99 per cent figure based on? Does he include people that say “I won’t disclose” as having made a public disclosure? Or, what is the actual number?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: Financial disclosure means to disclose to the United Nations what your assets are and so on. And then it is fully within the rights of the individual to elect or not to elect for that to be publicly disclosed. And I think you will see that in the vast majority of cases, this is publicly disclosed.

Inner City Press: When he said public, that’s the phrase that he used — he said that 99 per cent of my officials have made public financial disclosures. So, is that… that’s not what he meant? He meant that they have actually… they have made disclosure to the UN?

Spokesperson: Well I think also I wouldn’t get hung up on the 99 per cent figure as a mathematical absolute, because it is also a metaphorical expression meaning nearly everyone, okay?

Inner City Press: But, Mr. Choi, does he think that Mr. Choi, kind of a close ally, long-time person that he has worked with, does he think that Mr. Choi should publicly disclose? Would he call on him to publicly disclose?

Spokesperson: Again, this is a matter for the individuals concerned. Okay, yes?

No, not okay. Watch this site.

* * *

UN Officials Refusing Financial Disclosure Range from Sudan to Security, Abidjan to Lebanon, Ban's Friends & UNtrue Claim

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, January 25, updated -- In the run up to UN corruption hearings in the US House of Representatives today, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon angrily answered questions about lack of transparency by claiming that 99% of his officials publicly disclose their finances. This is not true, as Inner City Press has said and now documents.

   On the UN's website for such disclosures, numerous Ban officials simply state “I have chosen to maintain the confidentiality of the information disclosed by me in order to comply with the Financial Disclosure Program.” This is not public disclosure of finances: it is its opposite.

   Those Ban officials refusing make even the most basic disclosure -- as simple as in what country they own property, such as the one line disclosure by top UN lawyer Patricia O'Brien that she owns “farmland, Ireland” -- ranging from both of Ban's envoys in Sudan, Ibrahim Gambari and Haile Menkerios to UN officials with outside jobs that might conflict, such as Terje Roed-Larsen (Lebanon and IPI), Peter Sutherland (migration and BP) and Ray Chambers (malaria and hedge funds).

  When Chambers took the job, Inner City Press asked him about his outside interests. Now Chambers simply states, “I have chosen to maintain the confidentiality of the information disclosed by me in order to comply with the Financial Disclosure Program.”

There are other ways to not disclosure. Philippe Douste-Blazy, whom Inner City Press has exposed as wasting millions of dollars through the “MassiveGood” scheme, discloses no finances, only service for the Millennium Foundation.

  Alexander Downer, Ban's man on Cyprus, makes no financial disclosure although he lists he works at the business consultancy Bespoke Approach. And do its clients, in Turkey for example, raise conflicts? There is no way to know.

Ban's close ally and Cote d'Ivoire envoy Choi Young-jin states that “I have chosen to maintain the confidentiality of the information disclosed by me in order to comply with the Financial Disclosure Program,” as does Ban's UN Security chief Gregory Starr.


UN's Ban & chief of staff Nambiar in Dept of Management: empty forms not shown

These refusals are noteworthy given how superficial even the “public disclosures” are. Peacekeeping logistics deputy Anthony Banbury, who famously said that “only” three rapes in a Haitian IDP camp “elated” him, lists “Nil” for both assets and liabilities, as does General Assembly Affairs chief Shaaban Shaaban.

Some officials are listed, but there is no link to any form, even one refusing to disclose. These include Achim Steiner of UNEP and former UN lawyer, still listed as adviser Nicolas Michel, who took money from the Swiss government for his housing while serving as the UN's lawyer. Since that scandal, there are issues about Ban officials receiving housing subsidies through their spouses, not disclosed on the “public” disclosure forms.

Other Ban officials stating “I have chosen to maintain the confidentiality of the information disclosed by me in order to comply with the Financial Disclosure Program” include West Africa envoy Said Djinnit, Middle East and Lebanon specialist Michael Williams, UNDP Asia boss Ajay Chhibber (in charge, another other places, of Myanmar), Jan Mattsson of UNOPS, where Ban's son in law got a controversial promotion, and Cheick Sidi Diarra, whose brother has been Microsoft's Ambassador to Africa, allowed to use a UN dining room for this purpose.

In another display of non - transparency, Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky on January 21 told Inner City Press he would not answer any more questions until Inner City Press acted “appropriately.” This outburst came after Inner City Press asked for the second day in a row how UN Staff Regulation 1.2 applies to UN official's outside political activity.

Ban named Jack Lang as his adviser on piracy, reporting to the Security Council today. But Lang continues to write letters as an official of a political party in France, for example regarding Ivory Coast (where, again, Ban's envoy Choi Young-jin refuses to disclose his finances). The UN has refused to apply its Regulation 1.2 to this or other case, or to even answer questions about it.

   One wonders how this will be dealt with at today's US House of Representative hearings and afterward. Click here for footage of Ban's claims from a recent piece on Swedish TV including Inner City Press and a hearing witness.

  Ban's main claim to transparency, the 99% of his officials make public financial disclosure, is simply not true, and his spokesman refuses to answer any questions. Watch this space.

Update of 11:15 am -- Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesperson's office, Messrs. Nesirky and Haq, the clarify Ban's now disproved claim, and received back only this, from Haq:

On the House of Representatives, what we have to say for today is:

The United Nations has always worked constructively with the United States, and we share the same goals: for a stronger UN, one that is efficient, effective, and accountable. That is why the Secretary-General has made strengthening the UN one of his top priorities since taking office.

The Secretary-General is convinced that a strong, effective and efficient United Nations needs the active and constructive support of Member States. To achieve that, he will continue to engage with the US Administration and with the US Congress on ways to ensure that the Organization can find solutions to today’s challenges, and deliver on the mandates given by it Member States.

  Still with no answer at all are questions submitted January 22, including

Ban Ki-moon is quoted by Bloomberg, which he sought out, that Congressional Republicans' "only complaint they may have is the lack of much faster progress than they might have expected.” What specific areas of "progress" was the SG referring to? Namely, which areas does the SG acknowledge not having met expectations and for which progress should have been made "faster"?

Michael Dudley, the acting head of OIOS' Investigations Division, is under investigation, for among other things, retaliation and evidence tampering. Given that Ban Ki-moon says he prides himself on the transparency of his administration, what specifically are the facts surrounding the investigation process regarding Mr. Dudley, and will the UN be reassigning him to other duties during the investigation?

 Watch this site.
* * *

Retaliation by Spokesman for "Transparent" Ban Ki-moon Typifies UN Decay

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 21 -- While UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon runs for a second term claiming transparency and good government, he is represented by a spokesman who on Friday refused to answer questions after being asked about the applicability of a UN rule.

  As Inner City Press asked a question about the UN seeming cover-up of killings in Darfur, Spokesman Martin Nesirky stood up and left the briefing room, saying “I will take questions from you when you behave in an appropriate manner.”

  The only interchange earlier in the briefing had Inner City Press asking how UN Staff Regulation 1.2, prohibiting staff from public statements underlying impartiality applied to UN official (and Ban Ki-moon favorite) Michelle Montas going on CNN to say she would sue Baby Doc Duvalier.

  The previous day, Inner City Press has asked Nesirky what rule applied to Montas' actions. Nesirky did not provide any rule then, nor the next day.

  But Inner City Press was approached by outraged UN staff, who called Nesirky “the worst spokesperson the UN has ever had,” and provided the applicable rule. They also provided a precedent from last decade, when Doctor Andrew Thompson was fired under this rule for making public UN peacekeepers' sexual abuse of those they were charged to protect.

  On January 21, Inner City Press asked Nesirky about the rule, and intended to ask about the Thompson precedent. But Nesirky said, “I don't want to talk about it further.” Video here, from Minute 18:30.

  Earlier in the briefing, Inner City Press had asked why the UN has said nothing about Sudan's Omar al Bashir's government blocking the printing of a newspaper directed at Southern Sudan, after they published articles about the secession referendum. Video here from Minute 16.

After the UN Rules question, despite having said he would take Inner City Press' question about Ban Ki-moon's humanitarian coordinator for Sudan Georg Charpentier's claims that the thousands of violent deaths in Darfur in the last 12 months were not the al Bashir government's fault, Nesirky refused to take the question.

  Rather he stood up to leave. Asked why, he said “I will take questions from you when you behave in an appropriate manner.”

   A spokesperson is paid to answer questions. It is particularly strange that the spokesperson for a Secretary General claiming transparency and good government would simply refuse to answer about the applicability of a rule to a public UN action.

  To then retaliate against the media asking the question about rule and refuse to take any question, including about a UN mission for which the UN charges its member states $1 billion a year is outrageous.

   But in Ban Ki-moon's UN, will a UN official who on camera refuses to do his job, explicitly retaliating against a question about Ban administration lawlessness suffer any consequences?

  Other organizations would fire such an individual, including it seems the UN-affiliated International Monetary Fund. Inner City Press currently also covers the IMF, for example getting three questions answered on January 20 with no acrimony, retaliation or lack of professionalism. But in Ban's UN, officials like Nesirky are permitted lawless behavior that would not be allowed anywhere else.

Already, Nesirky has publicly yelled at Inner City Press, “It is my briefing! I run it how I chose!” For the week at the end of 2010, for which he was being paid, Nesirky left question after question unanswered.

Earlier this month, Inner City Press asked Nesirky for Ban's response to a New York Times article about bloat, overlap and waste in Ban's UN. Nesirky replied that since Ban was holding a press conference on January 14, Inner City Press could ask him then. But Nesirky did not allow Inner City Press to ask any question on January 14. Afterward, Inner City Press assessed the lack of transparency in Ban's UN for Swedish television, here.

Most recently, Nesirky said he would get an answer about Ban's staff's involvement in war crimes described in the New Yorker magazine - but has not provided any answers. Many UN correspondents have said he should not remain in the job. And yet he does, representing Ban Ki-moon and a UN that is, particularly on this front, in dramatic decay. Watch this site.

Click here for Inner City Press' March 27 UN debate

Click here for Inner City Press March 12 UN (and AIG bailout) debate

Click here for Inner City Press' Feb 26 UN debate

Click here for Feb. 12 debate on Sri Lanka http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/17772?in=11:33&out=32:56

Click here for Inner City Press' Jan. 16, 2009 debate about Gaza

Click here for Inner City Press' review-of-2008 UN Top Ten debate

Click here for Inner City Press' December 24 debate on UN budget, Niger

Click here from Inner City Press' December 12 debate on UN double standards

Click here for Inner City Press' November 25 debate on Somalia, politics

and this October 17 debate, on Security Council and Obama and the UN.

* * *

These reports are usually also available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis.

Click here for a Reuters AlertNet piece by this correspondent about Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army. Click here for an earlier Reuters AlertNet piece about the Somali National Reconciliation Congress, and the UN's $200,000 contribution from an undefined trust fund.  Video Analysis here

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

UN Office: S-453A, UN, NY 10017 USA Tel: 212-963-1439

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Google
  Search innercitypress.com  Search WWW (censored?)

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

            Copyright 2006-08 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com -