Ban's
Apology
to Turkey
After UN Staff
Were Beaten
Still
Unexplained
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
September 27
--
Dissatisfaction
with UN
Secretary
General
Ban Ki-moon grew on
Tuesday as
his Office
refused to
explain why he
apologized
to the Turkish
delegation of
Prime Minister
Erdogan
even
as UN Security
officers lay
injured,
beaten by
Erdogan's
guards.
Inner
City Press,
which exclusively
on September
23 reported
the fight
and fall out,
on
September 27
put questions
to Ban's
spokesman
Martin Nesirky
in
writing and
then at the
noon briefing.
By five
o'clock none
had been
answered,
except for a
"no" to a
request that
UN Security
chief Greg
Starr hold a
press
conference on
the scandal.
Security
source suggest
that the
person to
brief is David
Joseph Bongi.
Before
11 am
Tuesday, Inner
City Press put
five questions
by e-mail to
Nesirky,
none answered
or
acknowledged
six hours
later:
Here
are
five question
for this
morning in
addition to
the ones
pending:
1.
Did
the S-G
himself come
up with the
idea of
preemptively
apologizing
to Prime
Minister
Erdogan, or
was this a
recommendation
of one of his
advisers?
2.
There
are Security
officers
complaining
that a more
proper course
of
action would
have been to
conduct a full
inquiry before
making an
apology. If
the apology
wasn't Mr.
Ban's idea,
whose was it?
Mr.
Nambiar's? Mr.
Pascoe's? Mr.
Starr's? Can
these
officials
answer
questions?
3.
Will
the UN
Secretariat,
or the
Secretary-General,
take any steps
to
advise
Delegations to
heed the
instructions
of security
personnel?
4.
Some
DSS officers
and UN staff
believe that
the SG owes
them an
apology for
how he handled
this incident.
Is there any
contrition on
the part of
the S-G or his
advisers, or
would you have
handled this
the same way
again (e.g. a
preemptive
apology)?
5.
Will
there be an
actual
investigation
of this
incident,
including the
retaliatory
actions
against the
officers by
Management,
and if so,
who will
conduct it?
Nesirky
and his
team, two of
whom were
cc-ed, never
even
acknowledged
receipt of
these
questions.
Erdogan &
Ban,
previously,
jostling &
fast apology
not shown
So
at Tuesday's
noon briefing
Inner City
Press had
to ask:
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
Yes, Matthew?
Inner
City
Press: one
question I
sent you
earlier today
and then
something
else that’s
just factual
on this.
You’ve said
that there
there
is an attempt
to look into
avoiding this
in the future,
in whichever
way it is. And
I wanted to
know if that
involves in
any way
telling
delegations
to, you know,
heed the
instructions
of UN Security
or to
not, it seems
with the
apology, the
implication is
that the UN
Security were
in the wrong,
although they
were the ones
injured. So
I wanted to
know, is there
some message
going out to
the
delegations,
I say this
because people
in UN Security
say they said
“stop”,
they didn’t
stop and
that’s what
happened. So
is that viewed
by
you as part of
something that
the
Secretariat
could clarify
to
delegations,
or is it just,
if anything
happens, UN
Security is
wrong, as it
appears to
some?
Spokesperson:
What I said
yesterday was
that necessary
action is
being taken to
prevent such
misunderstandings
in the future.
And that
action could
take various
forms. I don’t
know at this
stage what
that could
include.
Clearly,
liaising with
delegations in
the run-up to
the
General
Assembly is an
important part
of such
activities to
prevent
misunderstandings.
Inner
City
Press:
Factually, it
seems that
even the
Turkish
Mission and
delegation
acknowledge
that they
requested and
received extra
passes,
that their
delegation
involved not
only the Prime
Minister, but
a
Deputy Prime
Minister and
five separate
ministers and
then a bunch
of
security. And
so the
question is:
is it possible
to know what
other
countries were
given extra
passes in this
way, because
it seems to
some in
Security to
have
contributed to
the incident?
Spokesperson:
Let me ask.
Yeah?
Inner
City
Press: maybe
you will
answer this
one. you
didn’t say it
was
an apology,
but the Turks
have said in
the Turkish
press that it
was,
that he
received an
apology. And
it seems to
have taken
place around
2:30 p.m. on
Friday. So,
given all the
constraints
that you’re
under, to say,
what did the
Secretary-General
know at that
time that
led him to say
something that
the Turkish
side took as
an apology?
Did he speak
to Mr. Starr?
What was the
basis of his
information?
even if you
don’t want to
say what the
information
was, what did
he
know at 2:30
p.m. Friday
that led him
to say
something that
was
interpreted as
an apology?
Spokesperson:
Well, as I
have said, we
believe that
this has been
satisfactorily
resolved. I
confirmed
yesterday that
the
Secretary-General
did
indeed meet
the Prime
Minister. And
I don’t really
have anything
further on
that...
Inner
City
Press: One,
just more on
that. Did Mr.
Starr give a
yes or no
in terms of
giving some
kind of a
press
availability
about UN
Security as
regards this
incident and
otherwise?
Spokesperson:
Not explicit,
but I believe
it’s no.
So
UN Security
sources
suggest to the
Press one
David Joseph
Bongi. They
also tell
Inner City
Press there is
an
investigation,
or "fact
finding,"
but doubt any
results will
be made public
unless the
press keeps
pushing. Keep
Pressing, they
say. Will do.
, 
