Amid
Syria Failure,
UN Demands
Deletion of
its Official's
Name,
Questions
Sources
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
May 17 -- Amid
charges from
all sides that
the UN's and
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
activities in
Syria are a
failure,
the UN's
response on
Thursday was
to seek to
censor press
coverage of
differing
description of
an upcoming UN
trip to
Damascus, then
to
question its
sources.
As
Inner City
Press reported
yesterday --
and modifies
at the UN's
request in
this
version -- on
May 16 a
Security
Council
Permanent
Representative
told
the press that
"in
the
coming days
Jean-Marie
'Guehenno and
DPKO,' the UN
Department of
Peacekeeping
Operations,
will go to
Damascus, on
the political
track,
with it was
hoped Kofi
Annan to
follow. Later
on May 16,
Inner City
Press was
informed that
the request
was made [deleted
at UN's
request]
on the issue
of the
observers, not
the political
track."
More
than 12 hours
later came
this from
DPKO's
spokesman,
copying Ban
Ki-moon's
spokesman
Martin
Nesirky:
Date:
Thu,
May 17, 2012
at 7:46 AM
I
have become
aware of
you[r] web
article and
tweets naming
[individual's
name included
in DPKO's
email, but
deleted here]
as
planning to
travel to
syria along
with dpko
colleaugues.
Your
decision to
publish this
information in
advance of a
trip has
created
a potentially
serious
security
situation for
un personnel.
I ask that
you remove all
such
references
from the inner
city press
website
without delay,
for the sake
of the safety
and security
of un
peacekeeping
personnel.
For
the UN to
request
post-publication
removal from
the Internet
of
information,
stated on the
record by a
Security
Council's
Permanent
Representative,
seems to
implicate
freedom of the
press issues
which
seem not to be
the UN's
priority under
Ban Ki-moon.
But within
minutes of
receiving the
above, Inner
City Press
modified the
story,
removing the
name and an
included
critique of
the individual
specified in
DPKO's removal
request, then
replied that
the Permanent
Representative
"yesterday
morning
on the record
stated that
Jean Marie
Guehenno and
DPKO were
going to
Damascus.
Subsequent
reporting
found that the
request was
for Mr.
Ladsous plus
three. If you
have a problem
with names,
you
need to speak
to Permanent
Representatives,
including
among the
Permanent Five
members of the
Security
Council... I'm
still waiting
for the
promised
answer beyond
Entebbe of
DPKO's use of
private
military and
security
firms, and for
the UN
casualty
estimate at
Pibor. Please
advise. I have
immediately
removed
references in
this
article to Mr.
Ladsous, which
seems to be
your major
concern."
Significantly,
DPKO did not
request the
deletion of
Jean-Marie
Guehenno's
name. The name
it requested
delation of it
gave,
obviously, to
the Syrian
government. So
from where
does the
claimed danger
come?
Even
with this
change, the UN
Peacekeeping
spokesman
persisted, now
inquiring into
what Inner
City Press'
"subsequent
reporting"
consisted of:
"Thank
you
for removing
the name.
However much
of the damage
has in fact
been done
already. I am
very concerned
that Inner
City Press
seems to
wash its hands
of
responsibility
for what it
chooses to
publish. By
Inner City
Press's own
reporting,
[the]
Ambassador
[misnamed by
DPKO]
did not appear
to have named
DPKO names. I
do not know
what you
mean by
'subsequent
reporting,'
and given the
lack of other
reports I
can only
assume you
mean your own
decision to
publish Mr
[X's] name.
The problem
that I have is
with the
ramifications
for UN
peacekeeping
personnel
safety and
security, and
with Inner
City Press's
decision
to publish in
complete
disregard for
these matters.
Your response
below
indicates a
continued
blithe
recklessness
with regard to
the
safety and
security of UN
personnel
operating in
highly
volatile
circumstances."
In
fact, while
Inner City
Press
immediately
made the
deletions
requested by
DPKO
despite their
seeming basis
in removing a
single
individual
from the
public eye,
DPKO has for
six months
promised to
sign a Status
of
Forces
Agreement for
the
peacekeepers
in Abyei, four
of whom bled
out
and died due
to slow
med-evac due
to the lack of
a SOFA. No
explanation
has been
provided,
including
after another
request on
Thursday.
At
Thursday's
noon briefing,
while
deliberately
as requested
not using any
individual's
name, even
that provided
on the record
by a Security
Council
Permanent
Representative,
Inner City
Press asked
Ban Ki-moon
spokesman
Martin Nesirky
to clarify if
this visit to
Damascus is
about the
political
track, or only
about
observers.
Nesirky
refused to
answer this,
cloaking the
entire
question in an
invocation of
safety
and accusing
the previous
publication as
being
"unacceptable."
Inner City
Press said it
disagrees 100%
with the
attempt at
censorship of
information
stated on the
record by UN
member states'
Permanent
Representatives,
then asked on
the issue of
actual safety
the question
of why despite
the public
statement six
months ago
still
no SOFA was in
place for the
peacekeepers
in Abyei.
Nesirky said
when he has
something he
will say.
Notably, under
Nesirky the
Office of the
Spokesperson
for the
Secretary
General was
thrown out of
the Security
Council and
lost previous
access.
Perhaps this
is why they
cannot control
what Council
Permanent
Representatives
say on the
record, but
then seek to
censor the
subsequent
press
coverage.
The response
to censorship
is, in this
case, a
description of
the attempt at
censorship,
while
accomodating
the stated but
not explained
pretext for
the attempt at
censorship.
Watch this
site.
, 
