UN
Denying
Claim of Ban
Trip to
Palestine
While AU,
Flights Now
Disclosed?
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
January 21 --
Palestine's
Permanent
Observer to
the UN Riyad
Mansour on
January 6 told
Inner
City Press
that there
would be a
visit to
Ramallah by UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon in
late January
or early
February in
connection
with Ban's
trip to the
African Union
summit.
But
on January 20
when Ban's
spokesman
Martin Nesirky
announced to
the press
Ban's trip
to the AU in
Addis Ababa,
he mentioned
only a stop
over in Davos,
Switzerland
for the World
Economic
Forum.
Inner
City Press
asked if this
meant that Ban
would not on
this trip go
to Palestine.
Nesirky
replied that
"we are not
going to be
giving dates
for
visits to that
part of the
world for
obvious
reasons."
Ban
did disclose
in advance his
recent trip to
Lebanon and
the United
Arab Emirates
(the latter on
a UAE provided
private jet)
-- a trip
which, Mansour
said,
initially was
going to
include a
Palestine
stop. So is
Ramallah
considered by
the UN so much
more dangerous
than Beirut?
Or is Ban
not going to
Palestine
despite what
Mansour said?
Reminded
by Inner
City Press of
what Mansour
had on camera
said on
January 6,
Nesirky
replied,
"Riyad Mansour
does not speak
for the
Secretary-General;
I speak for
the
Secretary-General."
Okay...
Inner
City Press
also asked
about
Nesirky's
January 19
belated
response to
Inner City
Press' thrice
asked question
about who paid
for Ban's
travel to the
UAE -- does
this mean that
going forward
there will be
routine
disclosure of
assistance,
travel or
financial or
otherwise, Ban
accepts from
member states?
Nesirky appeared
to say that
now this
WILL be
routinely
disclosed.
(c) UN Photo
Ban and Abbas,
already
postponed trip
to Palestine
postponed
again?
Disclosures
forthcoming?
From
the UN's
January 20,
2012
transcript:
Inner
City
Press: I have
two quick
questions on
trips. One is,
Riyad Mansour
had said
at the
stakeout, not
as a leak but
as a statement
on his, you
know,
in his
capacity as
the Permanent
Observer of
Palestine,
that he
believes that
the
Secretary-General
was going to
travel to
Palestine
in connection
with his trip
to the African
Union. He said
it at
first had been
on this Beirut
and United
Arab Emirates
trip, and then
it was put
back for some
reason. But is
that going to
take place; is
it going to
take place
later?
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
The
Secretary-General
addressed that
when he spoke
to all
of you in the
MALU Square,
just upstairs
from here, and
he said that
there has been
some
speculation.
He said he
would be
travelling to
the Middle
East. But we
are not going
to be giving
dates for
visits
to that part
of the world
for obvious
reasons.
Inner
City
Press: I am
only saying
it because
since Riyad
Mansour said
it was in
connection
with the
African Union
one, does it
mean it’s not
taking place?
Spokesperson:
Yes, but with
respect, Riyad
Mansour does
not speak for
the
Secretary-General;
I speak for
the
Secretary-General.
Inner
City
Press: I saw
it
yesterday you
did say that
the flight
from Beirut to
the United
Arab
Emirates, the
United Arab
Emirates for
the purposes
of speed,
provided a
plane. Is it
the
Secretariat’s
position that
any Member
State that
offered
transportation,
that such an
offer would be
accepted or is
there some
kind of a
screening
process? For
example,
if Syria right
now said, or
Zimbabwe, is
there
some process,
is any offer
for travel by
any Member
State
accepted
because it
helps the UN
budget or is
there some --
Spokesperson:
It’s actually
primarily not
to do with the
budget. It is
simply
to do with
time
constraints;
because in
some cases, to
be able to get
from A to B
commercially
would take too
long to be
able to get to
the
next event,
the next
meetings in a
timely
fashion. It is
as simple
as that. And I
think it goes,
without
saying, that
it is thought
about
extremely
carefully.
Inner
City
Press: I
have been told
that in some
cases Member
States, in
some cases in
the
past, have
later
presented a
bill for just
what you are
saying that
it is not for
the budget; it
is for
convenience
and is billed.
Without
casting any
aspersions,
assistance
like free air
travel could
seem to create
a conflict of
interest. Not
a financial
one, not a
personal one,
but
political one.
For example,
if a country
provided
travel
to the
Secretary-General
on a long
trip, some
might say that
this
might make the
Secretary-General
less likely to
criticize that
country. So, I
wanted to
know, has the
United Arab
Emirates
billed for
this? In some
cases does the
UN
reimburse the
country for
travel, or is
it always, is
it ad hoc?
Spokesperson:
I think the
point here is
that this is
not something
new. It has
been done in
the past on
occasions when
it has been
necessary,
because of
time
constraints or
other
considerations,
to be able to
get from one
point to
another, and
that has not
been possible
commercially.
As you well
know, and as I
mentioned
yesterday and
as
you saw in our
e-mail to you,
pretty much
all of the
travel is on
commercial
flights or on
UN
peacekeeping
aircraft. And
there are
certainly no
movies on
them. That’s
for sure.
Inner
City
Press: Going
forward, if it
is true that
it is almost
all, it seems
like if you
were to
disclose
when this type
of assistance
is received
you probably
wouldn’t have
to disclose
much, but I
guess I am
making a
request.
Because of the
possible
conflict of
interest of
receiving
assistance
from
particular
Member States,
are you going
to disclose or
does it have
to be asked,
in regard to
each trip?
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
Well, we heard
what you said
before on
this; you’ve
asked
in the same
way that
trips, that
flights of
that kind
should be made
known. And
obviously I
will do what I
can to help
you with that,
as
I did this
time and as I
did when we
went to Libya.
Inner
City
Press: Okay.
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
Okay, yeah.
So
we'll expect
disclosure in
the future? In
advance unless
dangerous?
We'll see.
, 
