UNITED
NATIONS, June 16
--
How badly run
is the UN
under Ban
Ki-moon? So
far Ban has a
head of
peacekeeping,
Herve Ladsous,
who links
rapes to
R&R and
refuses to
answer Press
questions. Ban
has a head of
“Public
Information”
Cristina
Gallach who
evicts the
critical
Press, tells a
Nobel Prize
winner it was
based on an
internal
report then
tells the U.S.
Senate Foreign
Relations
Committee she
has “no
written
records” about
it.
At
the UN Office
for the
Coordination
of
Humanitarian
Affairs, a
Functional
Review
circulated on
June 10 by USG
Stephen
O'Brien, and
exclusively
published by
Inner City
Press
here, lays
bare (some of)
the problems
at OCHA. Examples
below.
On June
15, Inner
City Press
wrote to Ban
Ki-moon's two
top
spokespeople
and asked them
for the
UN's response
to or comment
on this
report that
the UN - that
is, global
taxpayers -
had paid for.
Neither
similarly UN
paid
spokesperson
ever confirmed
receipt of the
Press
questions.
So on
June 16, Inner
City Press at
the noon
briefing asked
Ban's lead
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric about
it - and he
refused to
comment,
calling it a
"leaked"
document, akin
to internal
email (on
which, of
course,
comments are
often made.) Vine here.
Now we
publish the
response by
many OCHA
officials and
experts, some
of whom Inner
City Press has
previously
reported about
and supported,
when for
example they
faced de facto
expulsion from
a country.
Some tell
Inner City
Press O'Brien
is trying to
angle to stay
one when Ban
Ki-moon
leaves. Here
is the letter,
exclusively
published by
Inner City
Press:
From:
Vincent
Lelei/OCHA/FD
To:
Stephen
O'Brien/OCHA/NY@OCHA
Cc:
Kyung-Wha
Kang/OCHA/NY@OCHA,
John
Ging/OCHA/NY@OCHA,
Gwi-Yeop
Son/OCHA/NY@OCHA,
Rudolph
Muller/OCHA/GE@OCHA,
Mark
Bidder/OCHA/FD@OCHA,
Justin
Brady/OCHA/FD@OCHA,
David
Carden/OCHA/FD@OCHA,
Helena
Fraser/OCHA/FD@OCHA,
Ivo
Freijsen/OCHA/FD@OCHA,
Paul
Handley/OCHA/FD@OCHA,
Trond
Jensen/OCHA/FD@OCHA,
Ute
Kollies/OCHA/FD@OCHA,
Susan Le
Roux/OCHA/FD@OCHA,
Sarah
Muscroft/OCHA/FD@OCHA,
Rein
Paulsen/OCHA/FD@OCHA,
Caroline
Peguet/OCHA/FD@OCHA,
Johan
Peleman/OCHA/FD@OCHA,
Esteban
Sacco/OCHA/FD@OCHA,
Sebastien
Trives/OCHA/FD@OCHA,
Heli
Uusikyla/OCHA/FD@OCHA,
Markus
Werne/OCHA/FD@OCHA,
Bamouni
Dieudonne/OCHA/FD@OCHA,
George
Khoury/OCHA/FD@OCHA
Date:
14/06/2016
01:12 PM
Subject:
Critical
observations
by the Heads
of Office on
Functional
Review Outcome
Dear Stephen,
We would like
to thank you
for sharing
the Summary of
Preliminary
Findings of
the OCHA
Functional
Review and
welcome your
leadership in
having called
for the
Functional
Review and
taking on the
difficult task
of making OCHA
more fit for
purpose.
We have many
detailed
comments to
offer on the
diagnosis and
look forward
to providing
them and
engaging in
discussions on
possible
solutions in
the coming
weeks.
However, as
some of the
preliminary
findings
appear to us
to have been
heavily
influenced by
the HQ
dynamics, we
thought it may
be useful to
share our most
immediate and
important
observations
ahead of any
next step in
the review
process,
including
ongoing
engagements.
As we are sure
you can
imagine, we
were very
disappointed
to read of the
degree of
dysfunction at
the HQ
management
level. We have
found it
immensely
frustrating
that key
issues
affecting our
field
operations -
such as UMOJA
and mobility -
have not been
responded to
with one voice
from HQ, and
that we have
been left at
field-level to
deal with
incoherent
messages on
OCHA's
direction.
However, while
the morale and
motivation of
our
organisation
may have
suffered, as
field
leadership we
have
gratefully
been spared
the most part
of the HQ
dynamics and
been able to
implement our
field
operations -
which after
all represent
the bulk of
OCHA’s staff,
work and
branding of
the
organization -
in line with
the vision and
trajectory
laid out in
the Strategic
Framework.
First and
foremost, we
appeal to you
to fix HQ
through
rationalising
and realigning
structure with
function. From
a field
perspective,
there are
simply too
many
disconnected
entities -
indeed, this
is why many
colleagues put
forward the
concept of a
Functional
Review several
years ago. To
this end, we
were deeply
concerned to
read the
diagnosis that
"formal
connections
between the
field and
relevant
functions in
HQ would allow
for improved
quality and
consistency
throughout the
organisation".
We in
the field
believe that
there is
clarity around
what is
expected from
us and how
best to
achieve this
from our line
management,
and such
clarity
empowers us to
lead our teams
and enables
effective
engagement
with our
partners in
the discharge
of our duties.
Under no
circumstance
should we
countenance a
return to the
notion of
multiple
reporting
lines from the
field to HQ.
Many of us
have painful
memories of
that chaotic
experience in
past years -
it
disempowered
field
management and
made it highly
difficult for
us to deliver
on the outputs
expected of
our offices
when our staff
were being
tasked by, and
reporting to,
different
units in HQ,
creating
diffused and
confusing
accountability
arrangements.
We can already
see this
happening in
some instances
in the absence
of formal
reporting
lines, as with
the management
of pooled
funds.
What we need
is more
disciplined
and
coordinated
engagement
with the field
to achieve the
vision
outlined in
OCHA's
Strategic
Framework, not
more reporting
lines. We are
fully
committed to
continue to be
held to full
account for
the
performance of
our offices -
through our
direct
reporting line
to CRD and
CRD's
reporting line
to you - but
will be unable
to deliver if
we are unable
to oversee the
performance
and tasking of
our teams.
In the same
spirit, we are
having
difficulties
understanding
the logic that
informs the
recommendation
from the
review team
about the need
to ensure an
“appropriate
span of
control and
balance within
the
organization”.
We trust that
this is not
implying that
there is a
need to
somehow
arithmetically
balance the
relative size
of the
different
parts of the
organization,
as this would
seem to run
counter to the
imperative of
ensuring that
form follows
function, and
to the stated
need of
keeping a
single
reporting line
for maximum
accountability
for field
operations
both of which
we feel are
imperative.
We
enthusiastically
welcome the
reference to
decentralization
of
decision-making,
and hope this
translates
into immediate
implementation
of the
long-standing
commitment
from the 2013
Global
Management
Retreat to
delegate
meaningful
administrative
and budgetary
authority to
Heads of
Office. We
also welcome
the proposal
to have
additional
surge capacity
and expertise
placed at
regional
level, in
support of
country-level
requirements.
However, we
would like to
encourage you
from the
outset to
ensure that no
additional
reporting
lines,
structures,
layers or
complications
are introduced
for us at
country-level
under the
rubric of
decentralisation.
Our current
direct
reporting line
to CRD allows
us to function
with the pace,
flexibility
and delegated
authority
(with the
exception of
finances and
administration)
demanded by
the high-paced
emergency
settings we
operate in. We
are able to
seek and
obtain
guidance and
support from
our Section
Chiefs in
real-time –
regardless of
the hour or
day – when
needed, and
hope this
light and
effective
structure will
remain in
place moving
forward. We
are all
acutely aware
of the lessons
from the Ebola
crisis, where
one of WHO's
biggest
obstacles was
its cumbersome
regional
structure, and
sincerely hope
we avoid such
challenges in
OCHA.
While we
welcome and
very much
support your
efforts to
overcome the
dysfunctional
HQ dynamics,
we were
concerned to
read the EMC
described as
an inclusive
body when it
has no direct
field
representation.
We have not
seen any
agendas,
readouts or
outcomes
circulated
from EMC
meetings,
which used to
be the case
with SMT
meetings. We
are of course
eager to know
the direction
of the
organisation
and to be able
to represent
this, and your
vision,
faithfully. We
therefore hope
that, whatever
comes next,
keeping field
management
engaged and
informed in
key
decision-making
processes will
be a priority.
We welcome the
strong
emphasis in
the report on
a revitalised
and refocused
human
resources
management
services.
However, we
were of course
very
disappointed
that the
exceptional
challenges
faced with
UMOJA roll out
was not
mentioned even
once in the
report. We
highly
appreciate
your personal
leadership on
this issue
since our Head
of Office
workshop in
December.
However, we
are compelled
to remind the
authors that
without an
effective and
efficient
administrative
services,
supported by
an effective
platform to
facilitate
field
operations in
crisis and
emergency
settings, OCHA
will
inevitably
fail in its
mission, and
fail in its
duty of care
to our staff.
OCHA is now a
serious player
in the
humanitarian
sphere. The
importance of
our mandate
needs to be
matched by the
robustness of
our
administrative
systems in
supporting the
only asset
that we have
(our staff),
and enabling
our field
operations to
function
optimally in
increasingly
challenging
locations. We
need
operational
support and
systems that
are solid from
the outset of
an operation -
not one or two
years down the
line - and
regularly
reviewed in
existing
operations.
Above and
beyond
fit-for-purpose
systems, we
need a
wholesale
change in the
attitude and
orientation of
the
administrative
support that
we receive –
one that puts
the needs of
the field, and
the treatment
of our staff,
front, back
and centre.
Please be
reassured,
USG, that we
are fully
committed to
supporting you
in ensuring
that this once
in
decades
functional
review
delivers real
and important
change for our
organisation,
at a time when
the demand for
our services
is escalating.
As those on
the front
lines of
humanitarian
action, we
will be proud
to be the face
of that
change.
Finally, allow
us to
congratulate
you on the
success of the
first-ever
World
Humanitarian
Summit – this
is a very
exciting time
for OCHA and
for the work
that we all
do.
Yours
sincerely,
Mark Bidder,
HoO
Philippines
Justin Brady,
HoO Somalia
David Carden,
HoO oPt
Bamouni
Dieudonne, HoO
Niger
Helena Fraser,
HoO Regional
Office for the
Syria Crisis
Ivo Freijsen,
HoO Sudan
Paul Handley,
HoO Ethiopia
Trond Jensen,
HoO Turkey
George Khoury,
HoO Yemen
Ute Kollies,
HoO Mali
Vincent Lelei,
HoO Nigeria
Susan Le Roux,
OiC Iraq
Sarah
Muscroft, HoO
Jordan
Rein Paulsen,
HoO DRC
Caroline
Peguet, OiC
CAR
Johan Peleman,
HoO Lebanon
Esteban Sacco,
OiC South
Sudan
Sebastien
Trives, HoO
Syria
Heli Uusikyla,
HoO Pakistan
Markus Werne,
HoO ROAP"
Here
were some of
the critique
in the report:
"The
leadership
team does not
work well
together.
There is
entrenched
polarization
and a lack of
trust among
many of OCHA’s
senior
managers, who
do not see
themselves as
part of a
single,
unified team.
This is
combined with
a sense that
everything is
a 'zero-sum'
game, which
drives what
are perceived
as 'turf
battles' and
'kingdom
building'."
"Decision-making
at the senior
management
level
generally
lacks
discipline,
transparency
and
accountability.
A lack of
transparency
in
decision-making
is felt
throughout the
organization.
Senior
managers do
not
consistently
execute
today's
documented
management
model, and
collective
discussion and
alignment as a
group do not
reliably
translate into
cohesive
action among
the members of
the leadership
team"
"The
management
system is not
codified in a
clear way, and
is lacking key
components and
interconnections.
There is no
management
system in
place to drive
a clear agenda
for the
organization
as a whole,
one that
assures that
the proper
topics are
being
prioritized
and discussed
for regular
and relevant
decision-making."
Culture
"relative to
available NGO
benchmarks,
OCHA scored in
the bottom
quartile
across every
area of the
survey. This
is highly
unusual, and
the stark
result is a
strong
indication
that the
challenges
across the
other areas
covered by the
Functional
Review have
had a negative
impact on the
OCHA staff
engagement,
morale and
satisfaction."
"The
leadership
team does not
work well
together.
There is
entrenched
polarization
and a lack of
trust among
many of OCHA’s
senior
managers, who
do not see
themselves as
part of a
single,
unified team.
This is
combined with
a sense that
everything is
a 'zero-sum'
game, which
drives what
are perceived
as 'turf
battles' and
'kingdom
building'."
The
report was
written by
Boston
Consulting
Group (BCG)
and MANNET. On
June 13,
Assistant
Secretary
General
Kyung-wha Kang
resigned:
To:
OCHA SMT
Members,
OCHAFieldStaff,
OCHA-HQs
From:
Kyung-Wha
Kang/OCHA/NY
Sent by: Laila
Bourhil/OCHA/NY
Date:
06/13/2016
02:54PM
Subject:
Message to all
OCHA Staff
Dear
colleagues,
With
much sadness,
but also with
deep gratitude
and sense of
achievement, I
would like to
share with you
my decision to
leave my post
in the coming
months. I've
conveyed the
decision to
the
Secretary-General
and the USG,
both of whom
have accepted
this with
respect and
well wishes.
I
am deeply
grateful to
Valerie for
bringing me on
board to OCHA
as her Deputy,
and also to
Stephen for
keeping me.
The USG/ERC
position is
one of the
toughest jobs
in the world,
and it has
been a
privilege to
assist them.
The
past three
years have
been a period
of mounting
and
unprecedented
challenges for
OCHA, which we
took on with
great passion
and
dedication.
It has been an
eye-opening
journey and
personal
fulfillment to
be a part of
the
experience.
I've learned
tremendously
from all of
you, and will
cherish the
moments of
working
together both
at HQ and in
the field. My
decision is
made easier
with OCHA on a
high note in
the aftermath
the success of
the WHS and
the personal
prospect of
joining my
full family
back home, but
also harder
knowing of the
challenging
times that lie
ahead for
OCHA.
But I am
confident that
the SG and the
USG will
ensure the
appointment of
a successor
who will bring
fresh energy,
vision and
motivation
that will
enable the
organization
to thrive and
perform at the
highest
standards.
As
the
recruitment of
a successor
will take many
months, the
exact
departure date
has yet to be
decided in
consultation
with the
USG. In
the meanwhile,
I assure you
of my on-going
full
dedication to
working with
all of you to
the very last
day.
Best
regards, K
Ms. Kyung-wha
Kang
Assistant
Secretary-General
for
Humanitarian
Affairs and
Deputy
Emergency
Relief
Coordinator
Next
stop
Gwi-Yeop Son?
This is Ban's
UN.
How
does the UN
under Ban Ki-moon
and his "Public
Information"
chief Cristina
Gallach
pretextually
evict the
critical Press
from its long
time office
and confine it
to minders,
hindering
further
reporting on
their
corruption?
This UN
"Aide
Memoire,"
which Ban's
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric
called
"leaked" and
refused to
answer
questions on,
shows how.
First,
Ban's
spokesman
Dujarric made
a non-public
deal on
January 26
with Giampaolo
Pioli of the
UN
Correspondents
Association to
privatize the
UN Press
Briefing Room
on January 29
- but not tell
anyone it was
private.
Next,
when Inner
City Press
which quit
UNCA in 2012
finding it too
close to Ban
and corrupt,
for example
Pioli's
unilateral
granting of a
"UN" screening
for Sri
Lanka's war
crimes denial
film at the
request of its
Ambassador
Palitha Kohona
who had been
Pioli's
tenant, click
here,
appeared to
cover the
event, get
Dujarric to
order Inner
City Press to
leave, without
showing any
paperwork.
After
Inner City
Press, as it
said it would,
left as soon
as a single UN
Security guard
said to,
conspire with
Under
Secretary
General
Gallach, whom
Inner City
Press had
previously
questioned
about her role
in the Ban's
Ng Lap Seng UN
bribery
scandal, to
issue a letter
on February 19
telling Inner
City Press to
leave its
office and the
building on
two hours
notice -
without once
speaking to
Inner City
Press.
Throw Inner
City Press in
the streets, audio
here,
evict its ten
years of
investigative
files from its
office, video
here, then
just before
Inner City
Press could
re-apply for
its stolen
office, gave
it to an
Egyptian state
media, Akhbar
Elyom, whose
correspondents
Sanaa Youssef,
a former UNCA
president, has
not anywhere
near met the
UN's stated
three day a
week
requirement
for such an
office, and
who never asks
questions.
To top
it off, leave
South South
News, founded
with Ng Lap
Seng's money
and by Francis
Lorenzo, who
has pleaded
guilty to UN
bribery
charges, with
its office and
Resident
Correspondent
accreditation.
See
Courthouse
News, here.
Thus the
investigative
Press is
punished,
publicly, and
a chilling
message sent
to anyone else
who might dare
to cover Ban
Ki-moon's role
in the
corruption
scandal, while
he seeks to
run for the
South Korean
presidency in
2017. This
Ban, or his
spokesman,
coyly denies
of course.
Of the
retaliatory
eviction, Ban
said “that is
not my
decision.” But
it is. He was
set extensive
information,
including the
total
inconsistency
of what
Gallach told
Nobel Prize
winner Jose
Ramos Horta
when he
inquired for
Inner City
Press (she
said she
ouster order
was based on
an “internal
report”) and
what the UN
told the U.S.
Senate Foreign
Relations
Committee
(that the UN
has “no
records” that
the meeting
was closed.
Ban Ki-moon is
responsible;
he has created
an atmosphere
of
retaliation,
has retained
and empowered
Under
Secretaries
General like
Herve Ladsous,
who linked
rapes to
R&R and
openly refuses
Press
questions, and
Gallach. We'll
have more on
this: it must
be reversed.
The
issue is to be
raised at the
UN Human
Rights Council
this coming
week.
And
this
contraction
has already
been raised,
between the
UN's "Aide
Memoire" to
the U.S.
Senate Foreign
Relations
Committee
saying there
is no written
records of the
underlying
January 29
meeting being
closed, and
Under
Secretary
General
Cristina
Gallach
telling Nobel
Peace Prize
winner Jose
Ramos-Horta
that her
ouster
decisions was
based on
considering an
"internal
report."
So
is it no
written
record, or
internal
report?
Was
inaccurate
information
provided to
the U.S.
Senate Foreign
Relations
Committee? Or
to Nobel Peace
Prize winner /
UN official
Jose Ramos
Horta? On June
13, Inner City
Press asked
the question
to Ban
Ki-moon's
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric, who
cut the
question off,
saying "we're
good" then,
"You may not
be good, I'm
really good" -
perhaps a new
motto for the
Ban Ki-moon
administration.
Video
here.UN
Transcript:
Inner
City Press: I
wanted to ask
you this, a
request for a
document.
The… the
Under-Secretary-General
of DPI wrote
to [José]
Ramos-Horta in
February and
said that she
had considered
an internal
report, and
I've seen an
aide-memoire,
which says
that there's
no written
record of the
same topic
that she
raised.
So, I wanted
to know, can
you square
these
two? How
is it
possible…?
Spokesman:
No. I
have no…
again, these
are your
personal
issues.
Inner City
Press:
She wrote to
the Senate and
she wrote to a
Nobel Prize
winner…
Spokesman:
Matthew,
Matthew.
We're good.
Inner City
Press:
No, no, we're
not good…
Spokesman:
You may not be
good.
I'm really
good.
Inner City
Press:
I'm sure
you're good.
Spokesman:
But, I'm not
answering
those
questions.
Those are
questions to
be dealt with…
your personal
case should be
raised
directly with
DPI.
Inner
City Press:
I'm asking you
how a Nobel
Prize winner
was told one
thing, and the
Senate was
told something
else.
Spokesman:
Thank
you.
We're going to
get our
colleague on
the phone.
Gallach
told
Ramos-Horta
Inner City
Press had
"open"
violated a
rule and she
considered an
"internal
report" --
when the Aide
Memoire,
here,
shows the UN
says it has no
written record
the meeting
was closed and
the Handbook
allegedly
violated is
not public:
"Dear
mr
Ramos-Horta,
Many thanks
for your
message which
allows me to
inform you
about the
decision I
have taken on
the type of
accreditation
that Mr Lee
has and will have
in the future.
Recently mr
Lee openly
broke the
rules that
guide all the
resident correspondents.
After careful
consideration
of the
internal
report
elevated to
me, I decided
to continue
providing him
with a press
pass that
allows him to
work without
any impediment
at the UN, as
the vast
majority of
journalists.
What the UN
cannot do is
to let him use
an space
exclusively
for him,
after the
mentioned
events.
As you can
see, mr Lee
will have a
valid press
card as soon
as he presents
himself to the
accreditation
premises.
Rest assured
that I am the
first person
to be
interested in
ensuring
totally free
and safe
reporting from
the UN HQ and
about the UN.
This is what
mr. Lee will
be able to do.
I remain at
your disposal
for any
further
clarification
that you might
need and want.
My warmest
regard,
Cristina"
But the
UN says it has
no written
record the
meeting was
closed; the
Handbook
allegedly
violated is
not public.
And "without
impediment"
has turned out
to mean "with
minders," and
even not
permitted to
cover a
Western Sahara
briefing Inner
City Press was
invited to,
only on June
10.
The
UN is trying
to give Inner
City Press'
long time
shared office
to an Egyptian
state media,
Akhbar Elyom,
whose
correspondent
hasn't come
close to
meeting the
three day a
week
requirement
and never asks
any questions.
It rewards
others like
this, while
retaliating
against and
trying to
censor the
critical
Press.
This
will be raised
this week at
the UN Human
Rights
Council; the
UN in
continued
attempt to
censorship has
not responded
to Inner City
Press' formal
requests
submitted more
than two week
ago. Watch
this
site.
On June
8 Ban's
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric
outright
refused to
provide a copy
of, or any
answer
questions
about, the
"Handbook" the
alleged
violation of
which the UN
told the
Senate Foreign
Relations
Committee was
the basis for
evicting Inner
City Press. Aide
Memoire to
SFRC here.
Before
Inner City Press
was even able
to ask the
question,
Dujarric cut
it off, and
later
disallowed an
unrelated
Press question
about other UN
corruption.
Video
here,
transcript here and
below, with
quotes from
Ban Ki-moon
later on June
8.
Ban
later on June
8 said: "I
will continue
to defend the
rights of
journalists
and to do
everything
possible,
publicly and
privately, to
ensure that
journalists
have the
freedom to
work...I will
also continue
to stand up
for the rights
of journalists
and their
defenders to
be represented
here at the
United
Nations.
"I am
extremely
disturbed by
recent remarks
by the
President-elect
of the
Philippines,
Rodrigo
Duterte. [Inner
City Press had
asked, here.]
I
unequivocally
condemn his
apparent
endorsement of
extrajudicial
killing, which
is illegal and
a breach of
fundamental
rights and
freedoms.
Such comments
are of
particular
concern in
light of
on-going
impunity for
serious cases
of violence
against
journalists in
the
Philippines. I
have expressed
my
disappointment
that the
Non-Governmental
Organization
Committee
voted to deny
the Committee
to Protect
Journalists
consultative
status with
the Economic
and Social
Council...I
have presents
for each of
you [segue to
presentation].
"
e
This is what
it has come
to: censorship
while Ban
exchanges
gifts and
drinks
champagne with
his friends
and sells out
the UN human
rights lists
to the highest
bidder (for
now, Saudi
Arabia.) From
the
June 8
transcript:
Inner
City
Press:
I've asked you
about this
aide-mémoire
that was sent
by the UN to
the Senate
Foreign
Relations
Committee.
So I want to
ask you about
it
again.
What I want to
ask you about…
Spokesman:
My answer's
not going to
change.
Inner City
Press:
No, here's
what I want to
ask you about
specifically.
You call it a
leaked
document.
It's hard to
understand if
it's sent from
the UN to a
committee.
It's
leaked.
But this is my
question.
And it's sort
of a FOIA
(Freedom of
Information
Act) like
question.
The document
says that what
was violated
is something
called the UN
Handbook for
Safety and
Security
Personnel.
Spokesman:
Matthew,
Matthew, your
personal
issues will
not be
discussed
here.
Inner City
Press:
You're calling
it personal…
Spokesman:
Thank
you.
Masood?
Inner City
Press:
But if you can
punish
journalists,
where is the
document?
I'm requesting
the handbook.
Spokesman:
Talk to DPI
(Department of
Public
Information).
Inner City
Press: I
did, and they
don't have it.
Spokesman:
Talk to them
again.
Even
as groups like
the Government
Accountability
Project tell
Ban to reverse
the eviction
and give Inner
City Press
back its long
time office
and Resident
Correspondent
pass, Ban's UN
tellingly
moved to award
Inner City
Press' office
to Egypt state
media
Al-Akhbar /
Akhbar
Elyoum.
While
Ban told Inner
City Press
"That is not
my decision,"
and his Under
Secretary
General
Cristina
Gallach has
yet to explain
anything to
Inner City
Press, on June
5 we published
the UN's
"Aide Memoire"
which claims
that the
"rule" against
being in an
interpreters
booth is in a
UN Security
handbook that
is not
available to
the public -
it is not on
the Internet,
not on the
UN's in-house
iSeek and on
June 6, UN
MALU did not
have it -- and
states there
is no paper
work for the
underlying
meeting being
closed.
The UN
Aide Memoire
says the
entire event
-- which
included UN
paid sound
engineering -
was organized
orally between
UNCA President
Giampaolo
Piolo and Ban
Ki-moon's
Spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric. So
on June 5,
Inner City
Press asked
Dujarric about
it, video
here, only
to have
Dujarric call
it a "leak" he
could not
verify and to
insist Inner
City Press
ask the
Department of
Public
Information.
Inner
City Press:
This I wanted
to ask you and
I'll try to
keep it
brief.
I've seen now
a aide-mémoire
that the UN, I
guess, Office
of Legal
Affairs sent
to the Senate
Foreign
Relations
Committee, and
they said
this. It had…
since it
involves you,
I wanted to
ask you about
it. It
says that, as
to a meeting
held in this
room on 29
January, the
UN has no
documents,
correspondence
or other
written
materials in
print or
electronic
that it was a
closed
meeting.
And it says
you arranged
it entirely
orally that it
would be
closed.
So, I wanted
to ask you
this. As
a financial
matter, how is
it possible to
arrange for UN
audio
engineering
without there
being any
written record
and how…?
Spokesman:
Matthew, I
don't know
what document
you're quoting
for or what…
the veracity
of this leaked
document.
Inner City
Press:
They sent it
to the Senate
Foreign
Relations
Committee.
Spokesman:
We've gone
through your
personal case
here over and
over again,
and I would
ask you to
take it up
with DPI
[Department of
Public
Information].
Inner City
Press: This
quotes you.
Spokesman:
Lot of things
quote me.
But
here is what
the UN's Aide
Memoire
provided to
the U.S.
Senate Foreign
Relations
Committee
says, in
Paragraph 9:
“The
Spokesperson
of the
Secretary-General
of the United
Nations has
informed the
Office of
Legal Affairs
that on or
about Tuesday,
26 January
2016, he was
approached by
the President
of UNCA who
orally
requested
permission
from the
Spokesperson
for the use of
the UN Press
Briefing Room
in order to
hold a
members-only
meeting of
UNCA. Among
his other
duties, the
Spokesperson
grants
permission for
the use of the
UN Press
Briefing Room
for meetings
other than
press
briefings. The
UNCA President
told the
Spokesperson
that the UNCA
Meeting Room
on the fourth
floor of the
United Nations
Secretariat
Building was
being prepared
for a
reception to
be held after
the closed
members-only
meeting and
so, the UNCA
Meeting Room
was
unavailable
for such
closed
members-only
meeting on the
29th of
January. The
Spokesperson
gave
permission
orally to the
President of
UNCA during
that encounter
on or about
the 26th of
January.”
As Inner City
Press
reported,
there were
UNTV audio
staff in the
engineers'
booth for the
UNCA meeting.
Is it credible
that this use
of UN
resources was
organized
without a
single written
record? Inner
City Press was
told that the
engineer was
to make sure
to disable the
microphones in
the briefing
room, other
than those at
the podium
occupied by
this UNCA
President
Giampaolo
Pioli and two
others.
The
UN's response
is false in
many ways -
but note that
the UNCA
Meeting Room
is NOT on the
fourth floor.
So what else
is false?
Watch this
site.
Aide
Memoire now
here
It states that
Gallach has NO
paperwork that
the meeting
she ousted and
evicted Inner
City Press for
attending was
closed. This
was requested:
“Documentation
received by
Cristina
Gallach,
Under-Secretary-General
for
Communications
and Public
Information,
including
emails,
letters, and
any other
written
communications
indicating
that the
United Nations
Correspondents
Association
meeting in the
Press Briefing
Room, that Mr.
Lee was barred
from
attending, was
a closed
meeting.”
Here is the
UN's response:
“No
official of
the United
Nations has
received or is
in possession
of any
documentation,
correspondence
or any written
materials,
whether in
print or
electronic
form,
indicating
that the
closed meeting
of the United
Nations
Correspondents
Association
(UNCA), which
took place on
Friday, 29
January 2016,
was taking
place or was a
closed
meeting.”
So if the UN
admits there
is NO WRITTEN
RECORD that
this event in
the UN Press
Briefing Room
was a closed
meeting, how
was it a
closed
meeting? How
could Inner
City Press be
ousted and
evicted for
seeking to
cover, in the
UN Press
Briefing Room,
an event
attended by
other
correspondents
and NOWHERE
listed as
closed?
And now Inner
City Press'
long time
office given
to an Egyptian
state media
which rarely
comes to the
UN and never
asks
questions?
This is a
scam; this is
UN censorship..
The UN
"aide memoire"
also claims
that Stephane
Dujarric
orally told UN
Correspondents
Association
honcho
Giampaolo
Pioli, who
previously
demanded that
Inner City
Press remove
from the
Internet a
factual story
about his
financial
relationship
with Sri
Lanka's
Ambassador
Palith Kohona,
that the
meeting was
closed. This
is a joke;
this is a
pretext.
This is
censorship. Tweeted
photograph
here.
On May
19, a sign for
"Al Akhbar
Yom" went up
on Inner City
Press' office
- Inner City
Press has
STILL never
seen the
correspondent
being given
the stolen
office.
So on
May 20 Inner
City Press
went to get an
on the record
explanation
from Ban
Ki-moon's
spokesman
Stephane
Duajrric,
before Ban
sets out on a
campaign trip
to South Korea
(denied by his
senior adviser
Kim Won-soo).
But not only
did Dujarric
refuse to
answer the
question -
Gallach's DPI
intentionally
omitted from
the transcript
Inner City
Press'
entirely
audible
question about
Ban Ki-moon's
commitment to
freedom of the
press. The
question then,
answer itself.
Since
the spin to
the NYT is
that Inner
City Press'
questions on
corruption and
censorship
somehow block
questions
other
correspondents
want to ask,
Inner City
Press twice
told Dujarric
it would hold
one question
to the end.
But Dujarric,
showing that
the spin is a
scam,
insisted: go
ahead. Video
here.From the UN
Transcript:
Inner
City Press: I
have another
question, but
I don't want
to…
Spokesman:
Well, just ask
it.
Inner City
Press:
No, no, I'll
wait.
Spokesman:
I'd like you
to ask it now.
Question:
Okay.
Stay where you
are and I’ll
do it as fast
as I
can. I
wanted to ask
you, you
sometimes say
you don’t have
a long memory,
but you’ve
been a
Spokesman for
a while.
When is the
last time, to
your
knowledge,
that the
publication
Akhbar al Youm
has been in
this room and
asked a
question?
And the reason
I asked… you
said I could
ask.
I’ll do it
quickly.
The office
that was
formerly
"Inner City
Press", has
been given to
this
organization.
I've never
seen them
here.
I'm aware
there's a rule
of being three
days a week
here.
So, I’m
wondering… and
you used to
implement that
rule.
And the reason
I’m asking
you, and
you’re going
to say, ask
MALU [Media
Accreditation
and Liaison
Unit], I want
an on the
record
quote.
This is a
media
organization
that CPJ
[Committee to
Protect
Journalists]
says targets
other medias
for arrest for
not agreeing
with the
Government.
Spokesman:
I will tell
you that I do
not have in my
head the
attendance
records of
journalists
here.
Some of you
are here every
day.
But, for the
rest of you, I
don't keep
tabs in my
head.
And again,
that’s a
question for
you to ask
MALU.
Inner
City
Pres:
But, I'm
asking for an
on-the-record
comment.
What does it
say about
freedom of the
press…
Spokesman:
I’ve given
you… Nabil?
Inner
City Press'
last line,
"What does it
say about
freedom of the
press," was
intentionally
mistranscribed
and censored:
it said, What
does it say
about Ban
Ki-moon's
commitment to
freedom of the
press."
This is
today's UN:
ham-handed
censorship.
The UN
says Resident
Correspondents
must be at the
UN three days
a week, but
Inner City
Press has
never seen
this person,
former UN
Correspondents
Association
president
Sanaa Youssef,
much less
asking a
question in
the UN noon
briefing.
The
point, of
course, which
Dujarric did
everything he
could to cut
off, including
walking out of
the brieifng
room and not
returning, is
what does it
say about Ban
Ki-moon's
supposed
commitment to
free press to
evict the
investigative
Press here
every day for
a state media
never here,
never with
questions,
which targets
other
journalists
for arrest?
The
question is
answering
itself, but we
will continue.
Dujarric's
deputy Farhan
Haq after the
briefing was
heard telling
DPI staff
under Gallach
that he had
predicted
Inner City
Press would
"go after"
Akhbar Elyom.
This is
today's UN:
here's Haq on
Jan 29, video
here,
and before.
Haq claimed
incorrectly
that "non
resident
correspondent"
passes get one
through to the
second floor:
either years
out of date or
intentional
inaccurate.
This too is
today's UN.
Scribes
speaking off
the record
according to
the New York
Times of May
14 "accused
[ICP] of
printing
gossip,
rumors." That
UNCA's
president
rented an
apartment to
Palitha Kohona
then granted
his request to
screenin the
UN his
government's
war crimes
denial film is
no rumor or
gossip.
But
Akhbar Elyom,
to which
Gallach's and
Ban's MALU and
UNCA have
given Inner
City Press'
office, not
only gets
journalists in
Egypt attested
- it targets,
with a "Muslim
Brotherhood"
smear, a
journalist who
works right in
the UN. Arabic
article here.
This is
the journalism
that Ban
Ki-moon and
his Cristina
Gallach want
and reward. By
taking away
Inner City
Press' office,
it is now
required to
have a minder
and is told to
not ask
diplomats
questions.
This is
censorship.
Akhbar
Elyom has been
used to finger
for
imprisonment
non-state
journalists in
Egypt. For
example, in
July 2015
Aboubakr
Khallaf, the
founder and
head of the
independent
Electronic
Media
Syndicate
(EMS), “was
arrested after
a news article
was published
by the
government-owned
daily Akhbar
Elyoum.”
Inner City
Press has
formally
requested the
return of its
long time
shared office
and Resident
Correspondent
status, as
have 1,450
people in this
petition,
here.