Inner City Press: Investigative Reporting from the United Nations

At UN, Japan Says Each N. Korean Refugee Must Be Reviewed, Abductees Are Focus

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 19 -- As Japan's Ambassador to the UN Yukio Takasu talked to the Press Thursday about North Korea's nuclear programs, Inner City Press asked if Japan will accept North Korean refugees, not based on a previous tie to Japan but rather on the abuse and dangers they face in their own country.

"They have to follow [our] immigration law," Ambassador Takaku replied. "The Japanese government has to examine it case by case, we can't just say that any North Korean came come."

The issue, however, is what standard Japan applies to asylum seekers. According to Human Rights Watch, Japan give primacy to those who have ties to Japan.

Japan's Takasu has media's attention, used for nukes and abductees

To the contrary, HRW insists, "North Korean refugees who arrive at Japan's borders, embassies or consulates should have their claims for asylum assessed under the provisions of the 1951 Refugees Convention and the 1967 Protocol."

After Inner City Press asked the question, at the Security Council stakeout, Ambassador Takasu said "Japan has a policy of accepting foreigners, first if they want to come to Japan, to pursue a safe and happy life." Then he referred to, without explaining, Japanese immigration law.

On the larger question, of Japan doing more about North Korea than simply nuclear and abduction issues, Takasu pointed to a resolution in the General Assembly's Third Committee, urging other countries to support it. We will have more on this.

* * *

UNICEF Has "No Position" on China's One Child Policy, Lucy Liu Calls It Tradition, of Stealth MOUs and Re-election Worries

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 19 -- What is UNICEF's position on China's One Child Policy? It doesn't have one.

In the run up to a UN children's agency event featuring Lucy Liu commemorating the Convention on the Rights of the Child's twentieth anniversary, Inner City Press asked UNICEF to "please state UNICEF's / Ms. Veneman's position on China's one child policy."

Inner City Press also requested a copy of UNICEF's memorandum of understanding with the Chinese government's state media organization Xinhua, which has recently been publicizing the UN's "child protection" work.

On the eve of the event, UNICEF refused to provide a copy of the MOU with Xinhua -- it pointed instead to a press release -- and responded to Inner City Press in writing that:

"UNICEF does not work in China on either population or family planning issues.This relationship is managed by another UN agency, UNFPA, which works with China's National Population and Family Planning Commission. UNICEF works only in maternal and child health with the Ministry of Health. We are not involved in the Government's Family Planning and Population policies or programmes and as such, we have no official position on the issue."

Given UNICEF's rhetoric about its uncompromising protection of children, to hide behind UNFPA or say it takes no position on policies until it work with them seemed puzzling. Inner City Press went to UNICEF's headquarters on November 19, hoping to ask Executive Director Ann Veneman directly for her position.

Ms. Veneman was appointed by then-President George W. Bush, and many have speculated that the Obama administration may have someone else in mind for the post. If this is indeed the dynamic, how would Ms. Veneman's silence on this issue of human rights in China play?

UNICEF's Ann Veneman, at left, Gucci but no policy. UNICEF has many good staff, but glitz and politics are beneath it

At the press conference, at which Inner City Press despite raised hand was not called on to ask a question, Ms. Veneman and Lucy Liu were asked indirectly about the policy. An intrepid reporter from Xinhua asked about the disparity between male and female children in rural China, which is how UNICEF's relatd "State of the World's Children" report, at page 22, couched the issue.

Ms. Veneman replied that "it is not only China" but that "we need to speak out." But why then does UNICEF not have a position -- that is, why does UNICEF not speak out?

Lucy Liu, a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador, said that it is important for UNICEF to respect countries' "traditions." Whether the current Chinese government's one child policy can be construed as a tradition is unclear. Ms. Liu also said that China's greater number of males may lead to sexual violence and rape, equating a "room full of men" with "endorphins." Ms. Veneman laughed, seeming uncomfortable.

The U.S. Congress recently heard testimony about China's One Child Policy. Ms. Veneman is known to micro-manage UNICEF's public communications on such topics, for example by insisting to see and personally approve any press release about countries such as Iraq or Afghanistan. In further micro management, UNICEF sources tell Inner City Press that when interviewed by her stealth partner Xinhua, Ms. Veneman gave stage direction such as to only film her from the "third button up." Xinhua, despite having at the UN several energetic or respected journalists, apparently complied.

Whether such careful management, of camera shots and policy positions, leads to a second term for Ms. Veneman at UNICEF is not yet known. Watch this site.

* * *

As Blair Lobbies for Wataniya, Do Kuwait and JPM Chase's Arranger Role Spell UN Conflict of Interest?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 13 -- When Tony Blair does business, who does he work for? He represents the Quartet, and thus the UN, on development in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. He has been paid by JPMorgan Chase as a consultant, and presumably works for them. When he acts in the West Bank for the Wataniya cell phone company, who is he working for?

The UN has repeatedly claimed that there would and could be no conflict of interest between Blair's paid position for JPMorgan Chase and his work in the Palestinian Occupied Territories. When Inner City Press asked Blair, after a meeting of the Quarter in the Conference Room 4 in UN Headquarters, about any safeguards in place for his UN and JPMorgan Chase roles, he scoffed. A Blair staffer confirmed that he continued in JPM Chase's employ.

This week, Tony Blair attended a press conference announcing the finalization of Wataniya's deal, which Blair "negotiated." At the UN noon briefing on November 11, Inner City Press asked about this last:

Inner City Press: yesterday, Tony Blair was in Ramallah, and he’s described as having negotiated on behalf of a cell phone company with the Israeli Government. There’s a whole press conference also that noted his role for the Quartet and for the UN. So I’m wondering, did he do this on behalf of the Quartet and the UN and what is the UN’s knowledge, do they have any knowledge on this business negotiating activity?

Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe: I have no knowledge of that.

Even forty six hours later, no answer has been provided. But even cursory research reveals that Blair's employer JPMorgan Chase served as a "mandated lead arranger" for the acquisition of Wataniya. Click here for the document.

So again, what safeguards are in place? Who is Tony Blair working for?

Tony Blair Associates has as a client Kuwait, and by implication its royal family, while Blair has met with the finance minister of Kuwait while representing JPMorgan Chase. Wataniya Palestine is substantially (57%) owned by investors from Qatar and... Kuwait. For the former, it's Qatar Telecom. But for the later, it's the Kuwait Investment Authority, which operates on behalf of the State of Kuwait -- Tony Blair Associates' client. So when Blair lobbies for Wataniya, who is he representing?

Tony Blair and UN's Ban, JPM Chase safeguards not shown

While awaiting the UN's answers, we note that in June 2009, "Wataniya Palestine CEO Alan Richardson recently called on Middle East envoy and former British prime minister Tony Blair to intervene on behalf of Wataniya to get the frequency released. Richardson previously has been involved in controversial cell phone projects in Iraq, with Orascom and Iraqna, contracts which the U.S. Pentagon urged the Coalition Provisional Authority to cancel.

So to the degree Tony Blair is working for Richardson, this too is problematic. But beyond the UN and Quarter, is Blair working for Kuwait? With JPMorgan Chase's documented mandate lead arranger role for the acquisition of Wataniya, there is a conflict which, it would seem, will require action. Blair is dismissive, and the UN appears cowed. Watch this site.

* * *

Were Galbraith's Oil Interests As Undisclosed at UN as at Opinion Pages He Wrote For?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 12, updated Nov. 13 -- Following reports that former UN Deputy Special Representative to Afghanistan Peter Galbraith's oil investments are worth up to $100 million, Inner City Press on November 12 asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe if Galbraith disclosed this interest in his financial disclosure form.

Ms. Okabe stated that such forms are filled out when a person joins the UN at the level Mr. Galbraith did, and are "vetted by a professional firm," namely PriceWaterhouseCoopers. But did Galbraith make the disclosure which it's now clear was required?

Ms. Okabe refused to answer, instead referring the question to UN Ethics Officer Robert Benson, who oversees the financial disclosure regime. Inner City Press asked Mr. Benson by both e-mail and telephone, early and late on the afternoon of November 12, but received no answer by the evening.

Update: on November 13, UN Ethics Officer Robert Benson wrote to Inner City Press that "The Ethics Office can confirm that although Mr. Galbraith is no longer with the United Nations, he was a participant in the United Nations Financial Disclosure program following his appointment; however, as provided for in GA Resolution A/RES/60/238, the information disclosed remains confidential."

Inner City Press is informed that Galbraith is now being barred from the op-ed pages of major American media based on his failure to accurate disclose his financial interests. The New York Times confirmed this on November 13. Galbraith is arguing that he didn't read the form, a strange argument for a diplomat who argued that the U.S. didn't have to comply with UN Security Council resolutions regarding the Balkans as long as they were under Chapter VI and not VII of the UN Charter.

Earlier, just after Galbraith was fired by Ban Ki-moon, Ban's deputy chief of peacekeeping Edmond Mulet told the Press that Galbraith had some ulterior motive which would soon become clear. On November 12, Inner City Press asked an involved UN official if Mulet had meant the oil investments, or that he might want to run for lieutenant government of Vermont. "The latter," the official said. Only at the UN.

Galbraith and Scott Ritter, disclosure of $100 million oil investment not shown

From the November 12 transcript:

Inner City Press: ...about Peter Galbraith, former Deputy UNAMA representative and his interest in oil contracts in northern Iraq. I wanted to know when he became a Deputy Special Representative, did he fill out the financial disclosure forms, and I’d also like to know whether this investment was disclosed in those forms.

Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe: As you know, the financial disclosure forms are something that the Secretary-General has instituted, it’s part of his UN reform, and all staff, once they’ve joined the Organization as senior staff and those in positions that require financial disclosure, are required to fill that form out upon entry into the Organization. So it’s a requirement.

Inner City Press: [inaudible] It seems, this article would make it important to know whether this, they say the investment is worth up to $100 million, whether that was disclosed in the form and if it wasn’t, what were the reasons…?

Deputy Spokesperson Okabe: As you know, these forms are vetted by a professional firm and if they see fit that they need to follow up on any questions that they have, that is done. I think Robert Benson, when he was here last time, gave you a briefing on how that procedure works. And just because they are not made public, it does not mean that they have not been vetted, and the firm that goes through it does the vetting and if they have any questions, they do get back to the staff member and do the follow-up on that.

Inner City Press: [inaudible] is it possible to just, and I don’t expect you to do it right this moment, but to get a yes or no answer, whether that investment was disclosed in the forms. Is that going to be possible?

Deputy Spokesperson Okabe: You know, you can ask that to Robert Benson, but that’s his call.

But Benson has yet to return a call, nor an e-mail asking the above and the following questions, below.

Update of November 13, 2009 -- the following was received:

Subj: Re: Press questions,Galbraith, whisteblowers etc, thanks in advance
From: Robert Benson [at] un.org
To: Inner City Press
Sent: 11/13/2009 9:23:56 A.M. Eastern Standard Time

Dear Mr Lee:

Responses provided:

Hi. At today's noon press briefing, I asked if Peter Galbraith (until recently Deputy SRSG in Afghanistan) had filled out a UN financial disclosure form, and separately if he had disclosed the oil interests in Iraq reported in today's NY Times.

Marie Okabe referred me to you on both questions.

A1 -- "The Ethics Office can confirm that although Mr. Galbraith is no longer with the United Nations, he was a participant in the United Nations Financial Disclosure program following his appointment; however, as provided for in GA Resolution A/RES/60/238, the information disclosed remains confidential."

Q2 -- I have also been told that in a recent UN Dispute Tribunal hearing, about the UNDP - North Korea whistleblower case, that OLA said they would not "allow" you to testify in the case. Are you aware of this? What do you think of UNDP's failure to follow your recommendation?

A2 -- "Since this is a matter that is before the UN Dispute Tribunal, I prefer not to make any comment regarding the matter."

Q3 - How many whistleblowers deserving protection have you certified / found in the past two years? Based on how many applications / approaches?

A3 - "The detailed information regarding the number of requests for protection against retaliation received by the Ethics Office and their disposition can be found in the Office’s Annual Reports for the previous two (2) years; that is, paragraphs 59-66 of A/64/316 and paragraphs 47-53 of A/63/301."

Q4 - Finally, does your Office cover local staff of UN Peacekeeping Missions? There is a recent case of a former MONUC local staffer, alleging MONUC involvement in / knowledge of diversion of jet fuel among other things, who has told me he feels retaliated against. Would your Office have jurisdiction?

A4 - "Yes, our Office would cover a request for protection against retaliation by local staff member from a UN Peacekeeping Mission. May I suggest that you have the individual contact our Office, in that way we would be able to advise the him/her directly."

Q5 - How long more do you remain in Office?

A5- "My three (3) year appointment as the Director of the Ethics Office will end on 30 April 2010, following which I will retire. During my tenure as the United Nations first Director of Ethics, I have indicated on numerous occasions that I considered it important, particularly in relation to the independence of the Office, that I serve for a fixed term and that I leave at the conclusion of that term. The Secretary-General has been informed and has accepted my plans to retire."

While the answers, even the next day, are appreciated, one wonders in light of Q&A 2, above, who would want this job after the retirement announced in A5 takes place. Watch this site.

* * *

On Food Speculation, UN's Expert Says Nothing's Being Done, S. Korean Land Grabs from Madagascar to Sudan, Brazil on Ethanol

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 21 -- After many speeches at the UN about the need to crack down on financial speculation in food, nothing has been done, the UN's expert on the right to food told Inner City Press on Wednesday.

Olivier de Schutter, a Belgian law professor just back from a visit to Brazil about, among other things, the loss of land for food to ethanol, replied that "nothing is moving at the inter-governmental level." This despite a statement by the G-20 in April favoring the regulation of hedge funds which present systemic risk. The argument is that commodities index funds which speculate in food present systemic risk to net food importing countries. But nothing has been done.

De Schutter spoke about the monopolization of the seed industry, and made a slew of recommendations for governments. The three top monopolizers -- Monsanto, Dupont and the Swiss-based Syngenta -- are all members of the UN Global Compact, and claim to comply with human rights. De Schutter pointed out the antitrust law is directed as national and not global or subnational markets. It is all very heady but one wonders what effect it has.

Brazil might be one of de Schutter's claims to impact. He spoke glowingly of President Lula, saying that Brazil has said that only 19% of land can be used for sugar cane for ethanol, and has committed to monitor labor rights. But what about, for example, Indonesia and Malaysia?

De Schutter, action on food speculation not shown

After De Schutter's briefing, Inner City Press asked his staffer for an update on the proposed land grab in Madagascar by South Korea based Daewoo, which was reputed after the coup in that country. De Schutter had been scheduled to visit, but it was put off by the coup. The same thing happened in Honduras. So perhaps De Schutter does have an effect after all, mused one wag.

Footnote: immediately after De Schutter's briefing, the UN's Haile Menkerios was scheduled to speak to the Press about Madagascar. While the UN usually compartmentalizes its work such that a rapporteur looks at land grabs, while the Secretariat remains on "political affairs" narrowly defined, this land grab played a role in the change of government. Now it's said the South Korean deal is being pursued from India, while South Korea appears to have moved on to 690,000 hectares in Sudan. Watch this site.

* * *

UN's Indigenous Expert Stymied in Russia, Does Not Engage in Myanmar, Will Visit Ecuador

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 19 -- Russia blocked the UN's expert on the rights of indigenous people from visiting the site slated for the Evenki dam in Krasnoyarsk Territory, it emerged at the UN on Monday.

Inner City Press asked James Anaya, the UN's Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedom of indigenous people, if he had in fact been allowed to visit the site. The Russian press had quoted Igor Kurtushin, deputy head of the territorial administration’s department for external relations that "it would not be easy to visit the Evenki sites due to peculiar weather patterns."

Inner City Press asked if Anaya had visit the contested site, from which indigenous people would be evicted. No, he said, it wasn't in the agenda we were able to negotiate. Video here, from Minute 30:53.

Was this, in fact, due to the weather, Inner City Press followed up. "The weather was good was I was there," Anaya answered, describing two flights in Krasnoyarsk and an outdoor meal of reindeer parts. Video here, from Minute 36:29.

This can be contrasted to Panama, where the government allowed Anaya to visit the site of a proposed dam. When Inner City Press asked about Ecuador and conflicts there, Anaya said he is going in December, invited by the government.

To some, Anaya seems too accommodating of governments. When Inner City Press asked about Canada's refusal to sign on to the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People, Anaya said Canada is moving in the right direction, that he doesn't criticize countries if there is the "possibility" of movement.

Likewise, when Inner City Press asked about the position of Botswana that nearly all people there are indigenous, Anaya responded that he hadn't seen a need to contest this position during his recent visit there. Given that the position almost derailed the Declaration, it seems strange to some to be so accommodative of it now.

Reindeer, UN's Anaya and Russia permit to visit not shown

But it is to and within the UN system that Anaya is most accommodative. Inner City Press asked about the UN's REDD program, which was protested earlier this month. Anaya said that the UN agencies want to address indigenous issues. When Inner City Press asked about indigenous people in Myanmar, Anaya responded that since there is another rapporteur on Myanmar, he does not engage in Myanmar. Video here, from Minute 49:22.

First, this deference is not required: for example, the UN's expert on children and armed conflict engages with Myanmar, rather than deferring. Particularly given the issues that have arisen about the UN's special rapporteur on Myanmar, for Anaya to say he'll do nothing in or about the country ill-served indigenous people. Watch this site.

* * *

As France is Asked about Evictions in Calais and Chad, UN Cuts Off Questions, Jumps for Kouchner

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 19 -- In his first media availability at the UN, new French Ambassador Gerard Araud marked the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty with a press conference on October 19.

Inner City Press asked Ambassador Araud about his country's eviction of immigrants from a camp near Calais last month, about the drowning of residents of the Comoros trying to get to the French island of Mayotte, and about mass evictions in the capital of Chad, where the Idriss Deby government receives substantial French support. Video here, from Minute 25:32.

Ambassador Araud said immigration is an issues throughout the developed world, quickly equating the drowning of those seeking to get to Mayotte with deaths of African in the Mediterranean.

He said that the "dismantling" of the camp was because immigration should be restricted to that which is legal, so that Europeans don't "become violent." He said it was fair to be critical, he has seen such criticism of U.S. policies as well, but these countries are democracies.

Araud said that "answering about Chad is the easiest," and then proceeded to say that his Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, the moment he got the post, took in the lead is setting up peacekeeping mission in Eastern Chad, first through the European Union and then the UN.

A follow-up question was cut off by the UN's moderator, Rachel Mayanja. She said, "before we proceed... I am surprised none of you want to take advantage" of the boy on the panel, from Dominica, to "expose his journey." Video here, from Minute 31:55. But she had begun by saying that the youth would be accompanied by a chaperrone from ChildFund Caribbean, who was not on the podium.

After a more compliant correspondent dutifully asked the boy about photography -- ChildFund saved him from being a criminal, he equally dutifully said -- Inner City Press asked Ambassador Araud about the evictions done by French ally Idriss Deby, did he have any answer? He shook his head no. And the press conference was over. Video here, from Minute 34:49.

Afterwards, one of the French journalists opined that Ms. Mayanja may have been trying to protect or please France, a Permanent Five member of the Security Council, by shifting from questions about France's record to what she wanted journalists to ask and write about. This has become more prevalent at the UN.

France's Gerard Araud at the UN on Monday, Chad eviction answers not shown

We note that Ms. Mayanja's cutting off of questions cannot necessarily be ascribed to Araud. The UN may offer protection where none is even requested. If Ms. Mayanja wanted to play up the boy's story, why have him appear at the French Ambassador's first press conference?

Another reporter told Inner City Press that Bernard Kouchner called Ban Ki-moon recently and told him the UN should launch an investigation of the recent killing of some 150 protesters in Guinea Conakry. Ban did just that; when Inner City Press asked, his spokesman said that it was at the request of ECOWAS. But why didn't the UN launch any inquiry into the tens of thousands of civilians killed in Sri Lanka earlier this year?

Just as the UN on Monday sought to limit questions to the right kind of poverty, it will only investigate the killings of the right victims: it all depends on who the perpetrator is, and who provides protection.

Footnote: also on the Chad evictions, Inner City Press asked this question last week to Habitat's New York representative, and for an update on what if anything Habitat did to follow up on supposed commitments by Angola not to continue evictions. Video here. A response was promised, but has not been received. What was that again, about eradicating poverty?

These reports are usually also available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis.

Click here for a Reuters AlertNet piece by this correspondent about Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army. Click here for an earlier Reuters AlertNet piece about the Somali National Reconciliation Congress, and the UN's $200,000 contribution from an undefined trust fund. Video Analysis here

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

Inner City Press -- Investigative Reporting From the Inner City to Wall Street to the United Nations