UN
Won't Disclose Ban's 1 on 1 Meetings This Month, Presidents Beyond Sri
Lanka?
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
September 30, 2010 -- While the UN issued summaries of some
100 meetings between countries' leaders and Secretary General Ban
Ki-moon during this month's General Debate, for between five and ten
of these meetings there was an additional one on one session which
was not included in the UN's summaries, it has emerged.
On
September 29,
Inner City Press asked Ban's adviser Nicholas Haysom why Ban's
statements minimizing the mandate of the UN panel on war crimes in
Sri Lanka, about which Sri Lanka President Mahinda Rajapaksa later
bragged, had not been included in the UN's summary of the Sri Lanka
meeting, which alone among the 100 summaries included a summary of
non-Ban statements.
Hayson
admitted
this was “abnormal,” but said that one in ten or one in twenty of
Ban's meetings also had a tete a tete (or one on one) segment, not
included in the summaries. He said these might involve “staff
issues” or other private issues.
For
two days now,
Inner City Press has asked Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky to disclose
at least which of Ban's 100 meeting included one on one sessions not
included in the summaries, and to either put an asteriskk by these
incomplete summaries or expand them to include at least the issues
discussed tete a tete.
Nesirky has
for now refused. This is yet another
reason the UN needs a Fredom of Information law.
UN's Ban & Rudd- previous "courtesy call" tete a
tete not shown
From the UN's
September
29 transcript:
Inner
City
Press: what Mr. Haysom said that apparently 1 in 10 of these
bilateral meeting of the Secretary-General during this general debate
have been separate tête-à-têtes on seemingly
un-summarized
portions. I just wanted to know…
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
This is standard, Matthew. Let’s knock this on the head
straight away. First of all, he said 1 in 10 or 1 in 20. And it was
a figure he clearly plucked out of the air as a generalization. He
wasn’t saying — he didn’t have a spreadsheet in front of him
that 1 in 10 or 1 in 20. First thing. Second thing is the very
nature of diplomatic discourse is that if you have a
tête-à-tête,
that’s what it is. You can’t expect then to have a readout of
what someone is trying to speak about confidentially. If the other
party chooses to do so, that is for them to do and is not for us to
judge. That said, the readouts that we provided, and which we tried
to provide swiftly and provide in some detail, are to help you in the
best way that we possibly can. Clearly you don’t seem to
appreciate that.
Inner
City
Press: No, I guess my question is just that, rather than take
his estimate of it, is it possible to get the number of the
bilaterals with tête-à-têtes? And shouldn’t you put
an asterisk
on the ones that are incomplete summaries? It strikes me like, to
have a summary that leaves the most important issues out is worse
than having no summary, in a way.
Spokesperson:
Well, you might want to ask your colleagues how useful or otherwise
they believe the readouts have been. That’s the first thing. Second
thing is to get involved in that kind of statistics, it really
doesn’t work like that. And here is why: because sometimes there
will be a meeting that is scheduled to be with delegations and the
Secretary-General and the other principal will decide, no; they think
that it would be time better spent given that most of these meetings
are 20 minutes, 15 minutes — just the two of them, because they
have one specific topic that they need to deal with. On other
occasions, it can be the other way around. So, it’s not terribly
helpful for you or anybody. We try to provide the information that
we can in the best possible way. Next question, next question?
Inner
City
Press: I just want to ask one question actually about Israel in
this situation, in which Israel made a representation about a promise
they said the Secretary-General had made apparently in a
tête-à-tête
meeting. The Secretary-General and your Office said that’s not
true, we deny that. So, it’s not the case that when Presidents or
interlocutors make representations you don’t represent, it just
seems like, given the controversy that surrounded the panel, given
that the meeting with the panel wasn’t in his schedule, some
conclude that he is somehow now ashamed of this panel or won’t
include in the summary. Why wouldn’t he include his panel in the
summary…?
Spokesperson:
Matthew, with respect, with respect, the panel that you are talking
about, we have spoken about that openly here. We’ve told you about
the fact that they met. I don’t really see what your problem is
there. What is your next question?
Inner
City
Press: I’ll ask this. There is a report…
Spokesperson:
And then I might turn to some other people who might have some
questions too. In fact I will take a question from someone else
first and then I’ll come back to you.
From
the
UN's
September 30 transcript:
Inner
City
Press: you’d said that there is no need of a spreadsheet of
statistics. Having thought much about what Mr. [Nicholas Fink]
Haysom said yesterday, which is that some portion — whether 1 in 10
or 1 in 20 — of these bilateral meetings with leaders included an
heretofore undisclosed side meeting in which topics as public as the
Panel would be discussed, is it possible to know which of the
bilaterals involved in tête-à-têtes, not the topic
of them, just
the fact that…?
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
Typically, typically, as I said to you, there are different
types of meetings. Sometimes a tête-à-tête will, if
you like,
spontaneously happen at the end of the meeting with the delegations.
Sometimes it is pre-programmed, it’s scheduled as precisely that —
a tête-à-tête, with no one else unless there is need
for an
interpreter. And sometimes, it is done at the request of one side or
the other. There is nothing unusual or nothing new in this —
absolutely nothing unusual or nothing new. What is new, and it
doesn’t seem to be appreciated by you, is that we have been
providing readouts of every single bilateral meeting, virtually every
bilateral meeting that’s been held, the last one of which was held
this morning with the Foreign Minister of Guinea.
Inner
City
Press: It was that Mr. Haysom used the word “abnormal”. I
don’t want to belabour it, but he said it was abnormal that the
readout of the Sri Lanka public, or open, meeting included a
representation of what the President said. So, I’d actually
thought since it’s abnormal, and I have looked at the other ones,
there is not to my knowledge a single one of the other hundred that
has such a representation. I think I would like to at least ask to
know, how was that readout prepared? Was it prepared by the same
people who prepared the other 99, or was it prepared in some special
fashion? Because I think it’s relevant to get, he himself used the
word abnormal, not me. So, if it’s abnormal…
Spokesperson:
Well, I am the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General. But I am not
the Spokesperson for Fink Haysom. He speaks eloquently and on his
own account and he also happens to be the Director of the Political
Unit. So he has a very good understanding of how readouts are put
together. But this is mechanics. I understand your interest, I do. And
I also understand your interest in this particular country and
subject matter, I do. Why it was done differently, I cannot say
right now. If I can find out more, I’ll be very happy to tell you. But
don’t simply assume that it’s been done for some particular
political reason. It could simply be that that’s the way that that
one was done. You don’t have to necessarily read something else
into that.
But
why not
disclose at least which of Ban's 100 meeting included one on one
sessions not included in the summaries, and to either put an asterisk
by these incomplete summaries or expand them to include at least the
issues discussed in the one on one meeting?
This is yet
another reason the UN needs a Fredom of Information law. Watch this
site.
At
UN,
Undisclosed Ban Meetings on 2d Term, Burma Business,
Sell Out of Rights?
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
September 29, 2010 -- The accuracy of the UN's 100 readouts
of meetings of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon with national leaders in
the past week was cast
into doubt Wednesday when Ban adviser Nicholas
Haysom admitted a separate unsummarized meeting between Ban and Sri
Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa.
Only
in the tete a
tete meeting did Ban raise the issue of the UN panel on war crimes in
Sri Lanka. This was not included in the purported read out of Ban -
Rajapaksa communications.
Inner
City Press
asked Haysom how many of Ban's bilateral contacts included separate
one on one meetings without advisers present. One in ten, Haysom
said, or one in twenty.
When
Ban's
spokesman Martin Nesirky took questions, Inner City Press asked for a
list of which of the 100 Ban meetings for which Nesirky's office
issued read outs had included tete a tete sessions, and for summaries
of what issues Ban raised in these sessions. Nesirky refuses to
provide this information.
So
how is one to
know which read outs are incomplete? Perusing the list of Ban's
summarized bilateral meetings, some jump out are potentially
involving issues not included in the read out:
Afghanistan:
since
the Afghan National Forces of Hamid Karzai murdered UN staff
member Louis Maxwell, but Afghanistan has failed to conduct the
investigation ostensibly called for the UN board of inquiry belatedly
established after cell phone footage leaked, could this issue have
been raised?
Sudan:
Ban's
envoy in Darfur Ibrahim Gambari has until now allowed the
government to deny permission for peacekeepers to leave their bases
to protect civilians. Ban told Inner City Press at a stakeout that he
would work on this, but has said little publicly since. Was this
discussed in any tete a tete meeting with Sudanese vice president Ali
Osman Taha?
UN's Ban & Goodluck Jonathan, Ban secret meeting
not shown
DPRK
or
North Korea: Ban while South Korean minister of foreign affairs
and trade had many dealings with North Korea, regarding which his
closest spokesperson has refused to make disclosure.
Uzbekistan:
Ban
publicly praised strongman Islam Karimov, even as he forced
people back across the border into Kyrgyzstan, while locking up
others. Might Ban have belated raised this issue, or the
incarceration of anti-AIDS activist Maxim Popov for distributing a UN
system funded pamphlet, in a tete a tete meeting?
Myanmar:
when
he was South Korean minister of foreign affairs and trade, Ban
praised a Daewoo pipeline across Burma as a “win - win situation.”
Inner City Press has asked Ban's Office if he still has this view of
standardless investment in the military regime, but has gotten no
answer. Could this have been discussed in a tete a tete meeting?
Those
five track
Haysom's “one in twenty” of 100 bilaterals. Under his “one in
ten” formula, on which Nesirky refused to provide any further
information, Ban could have had tete a tete's with each of the
Permanent Five members of the Security Council, any one of which
could veto a second term by Ban, as the U.S. did to Boutros Ghali...
* * *
, 
