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

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 13 -- While France's sale of Mistral warships to Russia is still one of the many issues on which outgoing French Ambassador to the UN Gerard Araud has refused to answer questions, in the past two days those above him in the French government have given different answers.

   On May 12 on CNN, foreign minister Laurent Fabius suggested France had #not ruled out reviewing the sale of warships to Russia."

  But earlier on May 12 an official in the office of President Francois Hollande has, on condition of anonymity, fully confirmed the sale.

  So is France saying one thing on US media, and other thing elsewhere? Shouldn't this questions be answered, or at least taken, on the ostensible neutral ground of the United Nations?

  Speaking to reporters in Baku, the Hollande administration official "who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the discussions, cited the size of the contract, the penalties that would be due in the event of cancellation and France’s refusal to be the only country taking a meaningful hit on sanctions."

  The deal involves French state-owned military contractor DCNS and the shipbuilder STX, and is said to be worth $1.6 billion to France.

   On May 10 speaking on the record in Germany, Hollande said "The contract was signed in 2011, it is being carried out and will be completed by next October."

   What then of Araud's "James Bond" and other speeches in the UN Security Council? And will the issue be raised during foreign minister Laurent Fabuis' upcoming visit to Washington and meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry?

  Araud's slated replacement at the UN Jacques Audibert met last week with the US State Department's William Burns but there was no read-out. For Fabuis, if rarely for Araud, there will be.

  Back on May 1, Araud declared a question and answer session at a Manhattan law firm to be off record, though that was never said in the solicitation to come for the cost of $20.

Inner City Press went to the event, intending to ask Araud to reconcile his florid speeches on Ukraine in the Security Council with France's continued sale of Mistral warships to Russia, a question Araud previously refused to answer at the Council stakeout.

   But in the same week Araud was quoted by name in La Croix and elsewhere as saying to reporters that the Mistral sale continues, is not impacted by sanctions "'les Mistral ne sont pas concernés par les sanctions,' a assuré Gérard Araud, représentant permanent de la France auprès de l’Onu." Click here for La Croix.

   It is mysterious, Araud unilaterally pulling a bait and switch at the $20 law firm event and calling it off the record, then being quoted on the record bragging of Mistral sales.

  This is not like Spanish actor Javier Bardem quoting Araud as calling Morocco France's "mistress" on the Western Sahara issue, then Araud denying it and talking about filing a lawsuit (which he hasn't filed yet) - this is a direct quote, in at least two publications.

  Inner City Press previously got an answer from US State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf on the US' view of France's Mistral sales to Russia. From the State Department's March 14, 2014 transcript:

   As Araud nears the end of his time at the UN, there are many questions he should be asked but has been avoiding.

  For example, if his speeches about Russia in Ukraine are France's position, why is the French sale of Mistral warships to Russia still going forward? Inner City Press asked this at the UN Security Council stakeout but Araud declined to answer.

And as simply another example while Araud claims to have taken no position to oppose a human rights monitoring mechanism in Western Sahara, this is called into question by an answer he gave Inner City Press in 2013, when he still answered Press questions, about bilateral dialogue with Morocco being the best way.

  Many beyond Inner City Press find Araud's position unclear, or as some put it, hypocritical.

  So when publicly on Twitter there appeared an opportunity to ask questions to Araud, albeit for $20, Inner City Press signed up, to "welcome Ambassador Gérard Araud, Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations, to discuss French priorities at the United Nations. Araud will address efforts to allow UN Security Council action regarding the crisis in Syria, as well as French and UN initiatives to allow stabilization in the Central African Republic and in Mali."

   Nowhere did it say it was on background or off the record. The money was accepted, confirmation sent.

  And on May 1, after a UN briefing about the Central African Republic, Inner City Press rushed up to the venue, in a second floor law firm conference room in the Citigroup building.

  Inside the audience was affluent, business people in suits. There were oatmeal raisin cookies and at a conference table, Araud was answering questions. Then he said, repeatedly, "This is off the record."

  Is it legitimate? Why would one publicize an appearance and Q&A by Araud, for money, with no mention of its being off the record -- and then make it off the record? Why was Araud's spokesperson Frederic Jung there for this "off the record" Q&A with business people?

  In Washington last Friday, John Kerry spoke at the Trilateral Commission under announced in advance off the record rules, but a tape was obtained and the rest is history. Here, the event was never said in advance to be off the record, and money was accepted.

  While Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access, which has asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric to convey to Araud and his presumptive successor Jacques Audibert the UN's stated position that correspondents should be treated with respect -- this after Araud on the record and on camera told a reporter, not this one, that "You are not a journalist, you are an agent" -- fully support the reporting on Kerry's Trilateral talk, in this report there are no quotes. But there are questions. Watch this site.