As
UN
Corruption Hearings Loom, Ban Team Ignores Reform &
Elections Questions
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
January 23 -- Two days before hearings about problems in the
UN of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in the US House of
Representatives, Ban's spokespeople refused to answer basic questions
about the case against the UN's lead investigator and Ban's admitted
delays in reform.
Even
on an African
election Ban said he would be “following with anticipation,” his
Spokesperson's Office refused to answer questions about the UN's role
in irregularities in voting.
This
followed a
January 21
threat by lead Ban spokesman Martin Nesirky to no longer
answer questions from the Press rather than state how the Ban
administration enforces the UN's own rules.
Midday
on January
22, Inner City Press submitted to Nesirky and a staffer basic
questions 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?
Not
only did
Nesirky not answer these on January 22 - he and his deputy Farhan Haq
also ignored the questions on January 23, when posed in relation to
the upcoming House hearing, failing to even acknowledge the
questions.
Ban Ki-moon & Nesirky, refused questions about
corruption & elections not shown
Nesirky's job
description states that he “answers press
queries in person, by telephone and e-mail, around the clock...
including ability to present and defend difficult positions often in
unanticipated situations.”
On
January 21,
after he left the briefing room amid unanswered questions, Nesirky's
Office put out this statement, in his own name:
Statement
Attributable
to the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General: Elections
in the Central African Republic
The
Secretary-General
will be following with anticipation the
presidential and legislative elections due to be held on 23 January
in the Central African Republic... The United Nations Integrated
Peacebuilding Office in the Central African Republic (BINUCA) and the
UN Country Team have been working with the Central African
authorities to help consolidate peace in the country.
It
is not clear
under Ban and Nesirky what “following with anticipation” means.
On January 23 Inner City Press asked Nesirky and Haq:
What
is
the UN's comment on, involvement in and action on the reported
delays and irregularities at the polls in Central African Republic?
See, e.g., http://www.minews26.com/content/?p=4457
&
http://af.reuters.com/article/centralAfricanRepublicNews/idAFLDE70M09J20110123?sp=true
More
than six hours later, the question about breaking news of
irregularities in this election Ban was supposedly “following with
anticipation” was not even acknowledged. This is the UN of Ban and
his staff, including Nesirky. The hearings are brewing in DC. 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.
, 
