In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS GATE, January 22 – In 2018 the Dutch foreign ministry took the extraordinary step of trying to give $100,000 to a UN official for ostensibly doing his job. The official, now former High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad al Hussein, was by then well known among other things for retaliation, against Anders Kompass, Miranda Brown, Emma Reilly and others. The latter two to their credit raised the issue to the Dutch parliament, regarding the country's foreign ministry mis-award of the Human Rights Tulip prize. And now belatedly - and for what it's worth before the Dutch foreign ministry's long promised response to Inner City Press' appeal of their UN Mission's withholding of all records about Cameroon and their role in UN censorship requested by Inner City Press under the country's freedom of information act, the WOB - the parliament has published a retraction, via here, including "The answer to question 12 in the parliamentary questions with reference 2018D41938 and answering questions 4 and 5 in the parliamentary questions with a characteristic 2018D42031 on the case of Emma Reilly has been adapted and supplemented. The answering left room for the conclusion that the OHCHR has denied that lists of names of human rights defenders have been shared with the Chinese authorities. The OHCHR has confirmed that names are shared, but refutes the fact that this has led to harmful consequences for the human rights defenders in question. In addition, in the revised answer examining the treatment of Reilly's case by the UN Ethics Office and the fact that the Ethics Office has determined that Reilly misbehavior reported within the OHCHR. In the answer to questions 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the parliamentary questions with characteristics 2018D42031 is the reference to the case of Miranda Brown at the UN Tribunal for Dispute Resolution removed, because this case is not related to its role as a whistleblower within the OHCHR." The UN of Guterres, for now, never apologizes - they had Inner City Press roughed up and banned 202 days now; Zeid while at the UN did nothing, and is now with The Elders. We'll have more on this.  The Dutch Mission to the UN, ending the year and its UN Security Council tenure withholding all documents requested by Inner City Press about Cameroon and the Mission's role in the UN banning the Press, is going out in a blaze of self congratulations. While they voted the EU line, they were less than transparent in chairing the North Korea / DPRK sanctions committee and embraced Antonio Guterres' total ban on Inner City Press, which asked them about sanctions chicanery and inaction on Cameroon. Here's hoping those replacing them do better - and that perhaps now, off the Council, one or more in The Hague can reverse the mission'sembrace of UN censorship for corruption and play a more opening role. It is now clear that when Guterres refused Inner City Press questions about China Energy Fund Committee and had it roughed up and banned, he had a conflict of interest. The Gulbenkian Foundation for which he was a paid board member was trying to sell its Partex Oil and Gas to CEFC. This must all be reversed and acted upon in 2019. Back on December 20 the Dutch mission tweeted that adopting in the UN General Assembly of its OPCW resolution has been unanimous. Inner City Press, even still banned by Antonio Guterres from entering the UN for the 169th day, replied that there are been 12 abstentions. It expected in reply an argument that zero "No" votes meant unanimous, or some other justification or excuse. But there was no reply. Without any explanation or disclosure, the Dutch Mission to the UN deleted its tweet and put up a substitute: "Today, the #UNGA adopted with an overwhelming majority the resolution acknowledging the cooperation between the @UN and the @OPCW. #KingdomNL is proud to have submitted this resolution as host nation of the OPCW." This is not a best practice; it is UNtransparent like the withholding of all records about the Netherlands Mission's role in and response to the banning of Inner City Press, and all records about Cameroon. As the Cameroon government of 36 year President Paul Biya prepared for today's re-coronation to a seventh term by slaughtering civilians in the Anglophone regions as well as in the North, it  re-engaged Washington lobbying firm Squire Patton Boggs, on a retainer of $100,000 per quarter plus expenses, documents show. The UN belatedly acknowledged to Inner City Press, which UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres had roughed up on July 3 right after it spoke to Cameroon's Ambassador Tommo Monthe, that Guterres met with a Cameroon delegation on July 11. Guterres' spokesman Farhan Haq has three times refused to answer Inner City Press e-mailed question whether Guterres was aware his meeting was stage managed by lobbyists at Patton Boggs, and what was discussed. While suspended but before the UN outrageously purported to impose a lifetime ban on entry, Inner City Press asked the same and more to the Dutch Mission to the UN, in writing and in person. (And now has its "WOB" appeal set for a hearing, albeit by Skype, below, as now Dutch Ambassador Karel von Oosterom and his Spokesman refuse to answer any Inner City Press questions, unlike other UNSC Ambassador, November 19 video here.) After Guterres banned Inner City Press from entry from July 3 onward, in order to report on the UN Inner City Press had to seek answers other than at the UN Noon Briefing and UN Security Council stakeout position, from which Guterres and Smale also banned it. Inner City Press asks question in front of the UN Delegates Entrance, and has gotten about put online responses from, among others, outgoing UN Human Rights Commissioner Zeid, Burundi's Ambassador, and on August 20, for example, a diplomat on the North Korea sanctions committee -- whose Dutch chair Karel van Oosterom refused to comment. 

 This stakeout is where Inner City Press asks questions only because Guterres and Smale have banned it since July 3. But in her August 17 letter, Smale justifies the ban imposed July 3 with this post-July 3 interviews, and says that UNnamed member states - and somehow correspondents - have complained. 

 Is that Dutch Ambassador Karel vanOosterom? Inner City Press submitted a FOIA or WOB request - and now an appealon which there will be a Skype hearing, including based on October 7 election irregularities and the denial's evasion on Dutch role in UN censorship which now includes a secret barred list which violations applicable law, see below.  First, the request: "This is request under the WOB / Dutch Freedom of Information act for the following records as that term is defined in WOB, including but not limited to all electronic records, emails, text/SMS message and communications in any form, involving the Netherlands Mission to the UN in New York since August 15, 2017 regarding Cameroon and/or Southern Cameroons and all meeting including Amb van Oosterom's July 11 meeting with Cameroonian ministers, all responses to communications received about Cameroon including but not limited to Inner City Press' communications of 

July 14, 2018 to "Eybergen, Bas van" 
NYV@minbuza.nl
Frits.Kemperman [at] minbuza.nl,
NYV-COM@minbuza.nl, Oosterom and Kaag

July 25, 2018 to the same recipients;
and August 12, 2018 to the same recipients;
and multiple verbal questions to your PR and DPR since July 3.
  To explain the last part of this request, the head of UN Dep't of Public Info Alison Smale in issuing a lifetime ban to my on August 17 wrote "“We would also note your conduct at the entrances of the United Nations premises and nearby, including the use of profanities and derogatory assertions and language toward individuals accessing the United Nations, in close proximity to them. Video / live broadcasts of this are frequently published on the Inner City Press' website and other media platforms. This conduct gives rise to potential safety concerns for Member State diplomats...The conduct described above has generated multiple complaints to the United Nations from Member States."

  Given Ambassador van Oosterom and his Deputy PR's flat refusal to answer or even acknowledge the Cameroon questions I asked them at the Delegates Entrance stakeout, most recently Amb van Oosterom on August 20 about North Korea (on which other delegations answered, despite PR van Oosterom being the chair), this is a request for all record that reflect or are related to any communications by the Dutch Mission to the UN about questions or comments received at the stakeout(s).
Given the situations in Cameroon and South Cameroons, I and Inner City Press asked for expedited processes of this request." And wereceived back this: "Bedankt voor uw e-mail.
Afhankelijk van de aard en inhoud van uw bericht kunt u binnen twee werkdagen een reactie tegemoet zien.
Uw kenmerk is E3487878
Met vriendelijke groet,
Informatie Rijksoverheid
Thank you for your e-mail.
Depending on the nature and content of your message you can expect a reply within two working days.
Your reference is E3487878
Kind regards,
Public Information Service, Government of the Netherlands." But now on September 20, another extension: "
Date September 2Oth 2018 MinBuza-2018.1035870
Re Postponement notice in relation to Wob application
Dear Mr. Lee,
By email of August 22th 2018 you submitted an application to my Ministry as
referred to in section 3, subsection 1 of the Government Information (Public
Access) Act (Wet openbaarheid van bestuur; WOB) concerning PVVN meetings
regarding Cameroon.
The Wob provides that a decision must generally be taken within four weeks after
receipt of the application, but may be deferred by four weeks. It is not possible to
decide on your application within four weeks because more time is necessary to
ensure that the decision is taken with due care. On the basis of section 6 of the
WOB 1 am therefore extending the time limit for deciding on your application by
four weeks.
1f you have any questions concerning the status of your application and the time
limit for dealing with it, please contact DJZ-NR.
Yours sincerely,
For the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
the acting head of the Netherlands Law Devision of the Legal Affairs Department,

mr. drs. ie" But having received no documentson October 22, still banned but watching van Oosterom say how he would tweet each of the ten points in his UN Security Council speech, Inner City Press itself tweeted that it had no WOB response. Minutes later an email from his Alternate Political Coordinator Charlotte van Baak with a letter dated October 17, five days before, denying access to any documents at all. Letter here on Patreon, here on Scribd. 

Netherlands Denies Press Ac... by on Scribd

This is the text: "Mission of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations 666 Third Avenue, New York 10017 www.netherlandsmission.org
Contact Bas van Eybergen 
Date
October 17, 2018 WOB Request on Cameroon
Dear Mr Lee,
In your email of 8/22/18 you requested information on Cameroon, invoking the Government Information (Public Access) Act (Wet openbaarheid van bestuur; WOB).
The documents you requested concerned "all electronic records, emails, text/SMS message and communications in any form, involving the Netherlands Mission to the UN in New York since August 15, 2017 regarding Cameroon and/or Southem Cameroons and all meeting including Amb van Oosterom's July 11 meeting with Cameroonian ministers, all responses to communications received about Cameroon including but not limited to Inner City Press' communications."
Statutory framework Your application falls within the scope of the Government Information (Public Access) Act.
Specification of documents In response to your application, the following documents have been found:
- Internal emails from August 2017 until October 2018
External emails from August 2017 until October 2018 A preparatory document for a meeting with a delegation of another UN member state, dated 07/12/18 One instruction of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Permanent Mission, dated 10/12/18 Two reports of the Permanent Mission to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dated 08/23/18 and 10/14/18
Decision I have decided not to disclose the requested documents. Please find the considerations for my decision in the next paragraph.
Considerations
Intemal Consultations Section 11, subsection 1 of the WOB provides that where an application concerns information contained in documents drawn up for the purpose of internal consultation, no information will be disclosed concerning personal opinions on policy contained in them.
It is apparent from the history of the legislation that the phrase "documents drawn up for the purpose of internal consultation' should be deemed to include papers drawn up by civil servants, the ministry's senior management and political leadership, correspondence within a ministry and between ministries, draft documents, meeting agendas, minutes, summaries and conclusions of internal discussions and reports of civil service advisory committees. As regards these documents, the intention to treat them as documents for internal consultation must either be expressly apparent or reasonably surmisable. This limitation of the duty of disclosure has been included in the WOB because it is necessary to ensure that civil servants and any external participants taking part in the internal discussions and involved in formulating and preparing policy do not feel constricted in doing so. They must be able to communicate entirely frankly among themselves and with government ministers. Only the positions actually adopted by the administrative authority are relevant constitutionally. Personal opinions on policy include views, opinions, comments, proposals and conclusions, together with the arguments put forward in support of them.
The internal emails have been drawn up for the purpose of internal consultation and contain personal opinions on policy. I have decided not to disclose any information of those internal emails, as I do not consider that public disclosure of the positions taken individually by civil servants would be in the interests of effective, democratic governance. I therefore see no reason to disclose.
Interational relations Section 10, subsection 2, opening words and (a) of the WOB provides that data should not be disclosed if the interest in disclosure is outweighed by the interest in maintaining relations between the Netherlands and other States or international organisations. The history of this provision shows that this ground for refusal is intended to prevent a situation in which a statutory duty to disclose information would have the effect of harming Dutch international
relations. In order for this provision to be applied, it is not necessary for deterioration of good relations with other countries to be expected. It is instead sufficient if the provision of information is likely in some ways to make international contacts more difficult, for example if maintaining diplomatic relations or conducting bilateral consultations with countries would be harder than before or if people in these countries would be less inclined to provide certain data than previously.
The external emails, and the documents dated 07/12/18, 10/12/18, 08/23/18 and 10/14/18 include information that could harm the international relations of the Netherlands. I have therefore decided not to disclose them.
Yours sincerely,
Charlotte van Baak Alternate Political Coordinator of the Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations in New York."  Is this Freedom of Information in The Netherlands - every document withheld, by one's own subordinate?And so on October 24, to the Mission and Ministry's Legal Adviser Mirnel Comic, Inner City Press has filed this appeal: "NOTICE OF OBJECTION

October 24, 2018

This is a formal notice of objection to / appeal from the total denial of my 22 August 2018 WOB request. After repeated delays, the response from the Dutch Mission to the UN only mentions one part of my request, on Cameroon, and on that denies access to every single documents, external as well as internal, with a logic that would make the Ministry of Foreign Affairs entirely exempt from the WOB, clearly not the legislative intent.

Beyond the shameful denial of all Cameroon related documents, the belated response troublingly does not mention this portion of my request: “the head of UN Dep't of Public Info Alison Smale in issuing a lifetime ban to my on August 17 wrote "“We would also note your conduct at the entrances of the United Nations premises and nearby, including the use of profanities and derogatory assertions and language toward individuals accessing the United Nations, in close proximity to them. Video / live broadcasts of this are frequently published on the Inner City Press' website and other media platforms. This conduct gives rise to potential safety concerns for Member State diplomats...The conduct described above has generated multiple complaints to the United Nations from Member States."

Given Ambassador van Oosterom and his Deputy PR's flat refusal to answer or even acknowledge the Cameroon questions I asked them at the Delegates Entrance stakeout, most recently Amb van Oosterom on August 20 about North Korea (on which other delegations answered, despite PR van Oosterom being the chair), this is a request for all record that reflect or are related to any communications by the Dutch Mission to the UN about questions or comments received at the stakeout(s).” This was and is not limited to questions about Cameroon but rather any documents related to the area around the Delegates Entrance Gate and related to freedom of the Press, communications with UN Department of Public Information / Global Communications or UN Security. The invocation of the exemption used implies the Government, or at least Mission, wants secrecy in order to lobby for the censorship the UN is engaged in. I demand expedited treatment of this appeal, in that the withdrawal of my media accreditation amid questions on Cameroon and other topics has morphed into a seemingly lifetime ban on a secretary “barred” list that the UN claims is an internal document [video here] even with respect to people on it. This is a violation of human rights, including EU/EC rights. I demand expedited treatment, also after irregularities in the Cameroon elections of Oct 7, for this notice of objection." And now (on October 30) from The Hague and not like the response from the very Mission questioned this acknowledgement of appeal and timeline: "Dear Mr. Lee, I hereby ackowledge receipt of your notice of objection to the decision on your Wob request dated 8/22/18. I would like to draw your attention to the handling period for your notice of objection. You receive a decision or adjournment notice within six weeks of the day on which the deadline for submitting the notice of objection expired. In the event of an adjournment notice, the decision on your notice of objection will be adjourned for a maximum of six weeks.
Met vriendelijke groeten, / With kind regards,
Edith Kraaijeveld Administratief medewerker"

And on November 22 - US Thanksgiving - this: 
"Dear Mr. Lee,
Your objection will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the General Administrative Law Act (Algemene wet bestuursrecht; Awb). This means that, provided your notice of objection satisfies the requirements of the Awb, you in principle have the right to be heard on the matter of your objection.
With a view to establishing a objections committee for the purpose of a hearing, please inform me before December 1st 2018 whether you wish to exercise the right to be heard in accordance with section 7:2 of the Awb. This hearing will take place by Skype.
If you do not indicate before this date that you wish to exercise this right, no hearing will take place.
Met vriendelijke groeten, / With kind regards,
Edith Kraaijeveld
Administratief medewerker
Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken
Directie Juridische Zaken
Afdeling Nederlands Recht
Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Legal Affairs Department | Netherlands Law Division (DJZ/NR)." Inner City Press on Thanksgiving replied: "This is to confirm that I do hereby assert my right to be heard in accordance with section 7:2 of the General Administrative Law Act and to pursue these records I have been seeking for months. Please advise." Watch this site.

Earlier, Inner City Press asked the Netherlands'Mission's two spokespeople Bas van Eybergen and Frits Kemperman as well as the Mission's general e-mail address since Ambassador von Oosterom's e-mail, like that of Minister Sigrid Kaag who used to block Inner City Press on Twitter but to her credit stopped, bounces back: "This follows up on Inner City Press' previous written questions, and questions I have asked at the UN Delegates Entrance since I have now been banned from entering the UN for 40 days after being roughed up by UN Security while covering the UN Budget meetings on July 3: I have obtained the Cameroon government's version of their meeting with, as they list it in their memo: -Mr. Karel J. G. Van OOSTEROM, Permanent Representative of the Netherlands, and I am hereby request your Mission's version / read-out of the meeting. I would also like to know if you were aware that the meeting was stage managed by Washington based lobbying firm Squire Patton Boggs, paid $100,000 a quarter by the Paul Biya government, and if your mission has had other meeting this year arranged by paid lobbyists (if so, please disclose them). Finally, for now, I am again informing your Mission that my roughing up and ban from the UN was without basis (I was allowed to stay to stake out that advised Budget Committee meeting under the UN Guidelines) and that the supposed review being conducted has had no due process. See, e.g., July 30 Columbia Journalism Review, here(citing Cameroon and Yemen, another others) and August 11 Fox News, here, on the shifting of the UN's Kafkaesque "review." I was interviewed only once, back on July 10, by UN Security in the basement of the UNITAR building, only about portions of July 3. Your mission has stood by during this 40 days of censorship in contravention of your government's purported positions on freedom of the press and protection of journalist. This is a request on deadline that you explain, and take action." Still nothing.

  Inner City Press has obtained the Cameroon government's internal memo about the lobbying, including of Guterres and what he said, and this, regarding Mr. Karel J. G. Van OOSTEROM, Permanent Representative of the Netherlands: "they appreciated the initiative of the Head of State to send this Mission to the UN. The move has helped in a better understanding of the situation on the ground, instead of the one-sided information on the social media...Some members recognize the strategic position of Cameroon and her leadership role in the sub region...
REMARKS AND PERSPECTIVES
Maintain a direct link between our Government and the UN, by constant High-level Missions.
Adopt and adapt an aggressive Communication strategy, especially with the Anglo-Saxon press.
Get our Permanent Mission all documentation to distribute on a permanent basis." 

UNSG Guterres said that the ("Anglo-Saxon") media is unfair to Paul Biya's Cameroun and that he, Guterres, will help them in the "propaganda campaign." Guterres said he"will contact reasonable people" and "counter the daily press briefs." 

 Guterres has kept Inner City Press banned from the UN and its daily press briefings for 1 40 days, with the prospect of a longer or permanent ban by his conflicted, UK-national Under Secretary General for Global Communications Alison Smale (see Fox storyhere; Smale refused comment.)

  Here's from the Cameroon government's memo: "THE DION NGUTE/GHOGOMU PAUL MISSION REPORT 

High Level Mission to the USA
(11 – 20 July 2018)

Delegation Members:
H.E Dr DION NGUTE Joseph, Minister in charge of Missions at the Presidency,
H.E GHOGOMU Paul MINGO, Director of the Prime Minister’s Cabinet,
H.E MBAYU Felix, Minister Delegate to MINREX, in charge of the Commonwealth,
Mr. CHINMOUN Oumarou, Director of American and Caribbean Affairs at the MINREX, and 
Mme EYEMA ELINGE Susan epse EWUSI, Research Officer at the Presidency....

NEW YORK
Meeting with:
H.E Antonio Gutteres, Secretary General of the UNO

The Delegation was helped in the organization of audiences by the Cameroon Permanent Representative to the United Nations, H.E TOMMO MONTHE. At each audience, we presented the historical background of the socio-political crisis in the North West and South West Regions of Cameroon. We also briefed our hosts on the current situation in the two Regions, and explained the measures taken by the Government to address the crisis.

We insisted that it was an internal crisis for which the Government had mobilized all necessary security, political, social and humanitarian means for its management. We presented the Government Emergency Humanitarian Plan and stated our Government’s expectations from the UNO and the members of the Security Council.

For the SG/UN:
Cameroon is a very important and strategic Country,
We have a very wise and intelligent leader,
There is a pattern of inevitable problems when there is a linguistic minority,
The strategy of radical groups has always been to provoke, then show the world what the army is doing,
The global media is Anglo-Saxon dominated, so that there is a campaign to show that the English-speaking minority is being maltreated,
We are losing the international propaganda campaign, but he is willing to help. He will contact reasonable people,

Cameroon should however counter the daily press briefs" --

  And Guterres has Inner City Press banned from the UN's daily noon press briefing, and refuses to answer written questions about these meetings. Meanwhile, Guterres for a year sought to ingratiate himself to Biya's Ambassador Tommo Monthe, UN Budget Committee chair whose bureaucratic help Guterres wanted for example for his ill-gated Global Service Delivery Mechanism plan to move UN jobs from Geneva to Budapest, from New York to Mexico City, and from Entebbe, Uganda to Kenya. We'll have more, much more, on this. 

  On August 10, with Inner City Press banned from entering the UN for the 38th day by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, the DutchMission to the UN and HRW started bragging about a UN Security Council Presidential Statement which they said embodied deep concern. At first banned Inner City Press, thanks to Guterres who took Biya's golden statue in October 2017, couldn't even see the Statement: it was not on the Security Council'swebsite now run by the (Dutch) husband of thechief of staff of the UN Department of Political Affairs' Rosemary DiCarlo, and was not emailed out to those not (allowed) in the UN. But by mid afternoon it came out: and it was just a single line, about the "worrying increase in violence in the north-west and south-west regions of Cameroon." Why did Human Rights Watch make so much of this, after earlier this year telling Inner City Press - before Antonio"Golden Statue" Guterres banned it from the UN - that HRW omitted Cameroon from its 2018 World Report because it didn't view it as a top-90 problem? That's here. As Guterres and his Alison Smale and their stooges try to keep Inner City Press out even longer, we'll have more on this.

***

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

UN Office: S-303, UN, NY 10017 USA

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Search innercitypress.com  Search WWW (censored?)

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

 Copyright 2006-2019 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com for