UNITED NATIONS,
March 7 – Among the top ten
investors in nuclear weapons
are banks which stand to
benefit from the de-regulatory
bill S.2155
in Washington, including JP
Morgan Chase, Bank of America,
Citigroup, Wells Fargo, State
Street and Goldman Sachs. This
is according to a just
released study by the
International Campaign to
Abolish Nuclear Weapons
(ICAN), here.
Should this move them out of
the UN Global Compact,
administered by Secretary
General Antonio Guterres? On
March 7 Inner City Press asked
Guterres' deputy spokesman
Farhan Haq, UN transcript here: Inner
City Press: The ICAN, the
Nobel Prize-winning group on
nuclear weapons, has put out a
list of companies that are…
that they say are profiting
from the nuclear weapons
manufacturing industry.
So, I guess it made me wonder,
in connection with the oil
company question that
Stéphane [Dujarric] responded
to yesterday, whether the UN
Global Compact views… how it
views funding and profiting
from nuclear weapons
production. These are,
like, major American banks —
Citi, Chase, Goldman Sachs,
State Street. And… and,
given that the
Secretary-General… I know
that, when he was in Europe,
he said, this is going to be a
big drive for nuclear
disarmament. Does he
think this should be a
criterion? Do you think
that companies should have to
come up with some kind of plan
to divest? Deputy
Spokesman: The criteria
for the Global Compact and
what it is intended to achieve
are very clear on their
website, and so I would just
refer you to what they,
themselves, state as both
their mandate and the criteria
for inclusion. So that's
about that. Of course,
we do encourage all companies
to act in as socially
responsible way as possible,
and we hope that they will do
so in questions of
disarmament, as well. Inner
City Press: Right.
Okay. I mean, I guess
I'm just wondering if he has a
view since this is an issue
that he says is important to
him and he seems to have some
input into those
criteria. They're not
voted by Member States.
They're a UN Secretariat...
Deputy Spokesman:
Yes. I mean, well, it's
clear what the criteria are,
but the Secretary-General has
made it clear that he wants
all parties, including big
business, to behave with a… an
attitude of social
responsibility, and that
includes when it comes to
nuclear disarmament." So will
anyone be kicked out or
suspended, as CEFC belatedly
was? Back on 9 October
2017 when ICAN held a press
conference at the UN on
October 9, Inner City Press
asked the ICAN representatives
about two prior Nobel winners.
On nuclear weapons, the
Pugwash Conferences have
raised the issue of state
which hold nuclear weapons for
others: in Europe, Italy, the
Netherlands, Germany, Belgium
and Turkey. And, as another
elephant in the room, Inner
City Press asked for ICAN's
view of if Aung San Suu Ki
should have to return her
Nobel, given the mass killings
and displacement of the
Rohingya in Myanmar's Rakhine
State. ICAN's
Asia-Pacific director Tim
Wright replied, “There are
five countries in Europe that
currently host US nuclear
weapons on their soil:
Belgium, Germany, Italy, the
Netherlands, and Turkey. The
treaty on the prohibition of
nuclear weapons offers a very
clear pathway for those
nations to accede. They would
be required to remove the
weapons within a particular
time line and according to
particular conditions to be
agreed. We have very strong
campaigns in most of those
countries. We have many
parliamentarians who have
pledged to work for the
signature and ratification of
this treaty by those
countries. So we are confident
in the reasonably near future
a number of those current
nations hosting nuclear
weapons join this treaty.”
Then ICAN's overall
executive director Beatrice
Fihn said, “Just quickly on
the issue of Myanmar. ICAN is
a campaign focusing on nuclear
weapons, so we’ve never really
made statements on other
issues, and I think it’s a bit
early for us to reflect on
what it means to be a Nobel
prize winner. But obviously
we’re a campaign that is fully
committed to humanitarian law,
and international law. That’s
all I can say about that
issue.” We'll have more on
this. In other statements, as
fast transcribed by
InnerCityPro.com: Tim Wright:
We take this opportunity to
renew our call to the Japanese
government to sign and ratify
the treaty on the prohibition
of nuclear weapons. Its
failure to do so is a betrayal
of the Hibakusha, who for more
than 70 years have worked
tirelessly to eliminate
nuclear weapons. They have
issued a dire warning to
humanity and we must listen to
their testimony and hear their
call. Thank you.
[Set aside first question] I
asked the US ambassador about
this win, and about the
nuclear disarmament treaty,
and she said there would be no
possible impact on
disarmament. How do you
counteract this argument? How
will you convince the P5 to
disarm? What will you do about
umbrella nations like Japan?
A: It’s quite expected that
they would say that. This is
something we’ve heard from the
beginning: the humanitarian
consequence doesn’t matter;
the work of all these other
states doesn’t matter; the
work of civil society doesn’t
matter. Clearly it matters.
And I think the protests
against this shows that it
does have an impact on them.
But frankly, of course a Nobel
peace prize isn’t going to
make Trump give up nuclear
weapons. But I don’t think
that’s really what we’re doing
here. What we’re trying to do
is make nuclear weapons
unacceptable in the mindsets
of people. And that is where
civil society has the power.
That’s what’s changing things.
And in the end, governments
have to do what their people
say. And in the end, that
gives us an enormous
opportunity to reach out to
new audiences and to mobilize
people once again.
For a long time, nuclear
weapons have been seen as an
issue of the past, something
that is no longer relevant.
And developments recently,
that started a few years ago
with the potential new nuclear
arms race, all the nuclear
arms states modernizing, and
these direct threats of using
nuclear weapons, slaughtering
hundreds of thousands of
civilians, makes this an issue
once again. And I think this
Nobel peace prize can really
bring about a much bigger
movement against nuclear
weapons. I think we also have
to remember that in
times of big crisis,
before, we have always made
the most progress. It was
after the Cuban missile crisis
that the Tlateloco treaty was
negotiated, and also the NPT.
It was during the 80s, during
the huge tensions between the
US and the Soviet Union, that
the Reykjavik meeting
happened, and the whole
nuclear freeze movement. So I
think these great crises also
bring about public
mobilization. I think that’s
where this peace process is
extremely timely and urgently
needed attention on this
issues.
Ray Acheson: Just to add
quickly to what Beatrice said,
I think in the beginning when
we approached the treaty with
our government partners, the
idea was also that it would
have a normative effect, a
legal effect, a political
effect, and an economic
effect. And we’re going to see
that happen over time. Of
course, nothing will happen
immediately. Nuclear weapons
aren’t just going to magically
disappear. But what’s going to
happen over time is what we’ve
seen happen with cluster
munitions, which have been
banned now for some time. Even
countries which initially
objected to the treaties have
joined, and even those that
haven’t are still more or less
abiding by their provisions,
and coming every year more or
less in compliance, even if
they haven’t joined onto them
officially. So I think we will
see those types of impacts
happen over the years. And I
think the economic side of
this is going to be very
significant. There’s already
divestment campaigns underway,
where banks and other
financial institutions are
withdrawing money from nuclear
weapons producers. And I think
that the Nobel peace prize
going to ICAN is going to
really get the word out about
campaigns like that and other
initiatives that people around
the world can do to
contribute.
Austria PR: From a member
state’s perspective, we didn’t
have any illusion that the
nuclear weapon states would
join, from day one. But we
believe this treaty is filling
a legal gap and is able to
delegitimize and even
stigmatize the last weapon of
mass destruction which is
still on earth not outlawed.
No one of these prohibition
treaties was universal from
the very beginning. Not
even the non-proliferation
treaty was universal. And I
always like to remind nuclear
weapons states who now say the
NPT is the only agreement
which should be around, that
even nuclear weapon states, it
took them over two decades to
join this treaty. So we are
patient, we wait for them to
join us.
Q Does ICAN have any North
Korean members? Have you
reached out to the government?
What have you done, and what
are you planning to do?
A: In terms of North Korea,
no. We do not have members in
North Korea, they are not a
country where civil society
can engage, which makes that
difficult. I think these kinds
of treaties still impact that
kind of state. No one is
really immune towards
international norms. It does –
we hear NK here at the UN
needing to defend themselves,
needing to argue why they’re
doing what they’re doing. And
they’re doing that because
there’s a certain expectation
that you don’t do that. We see
in other issues, countries
that perhaps aren’t
recognizing certain norms
still have to engage in a
discussion about them. So I
think it does have an impact,
anyway. And what we do know is
that it will be impossible to
get NK to disarm as long as we
think that nuclear weapons are
acceptable. When we say that
nuclear weapons are acceptable
and absolutely necessary, like
the nuclear states and many of
the umbrella states say, for
security, North Korea is
always going to want them, and
see them as legitimate and
justified. And I think that’s
what this treaty is about.
Stop allowing them to justify
having weapons of mass
destruction that are only
meant to indiscriminately
slaughter hundreds of
thousands of civilians.
Q: We have a nuclear deal with
Iran that is in peril right
now. What can ICAN do?
A: That’s exactly the problem
with only focusing on
proliferation. Because if you
don’t address the underlying
problem with nuclear weapons,
if some countries still have
it, you are going to be unable
to prevent every single state
in the world forever from
developing nuclear weapons. We
can’t force any one country to
disarm. Countries will disarm
when they think it’s in their
interest. What we’re trying to
do with this treaty is make it
in their interest to disarm.
You’ve seen over time chemical
and biological weapons,
landmines, cluster munitions
were once seen as okay weapons
to have. Countries were happy
to have them, proud to have
them. And suddenly they were
prohibited by treaties. And it
became difficult. They started
making other choices. Some of
them because of the treaty,
answered it straightforwardly,
signed it. Some of them don’t
sign it but still make
changes. So I think this is
also how we approach it in the
middle east. We can’t prevent
states from wanting nuclear
weapons forever. We have to
make nuclear weapons unwanted.
The Middle East zone free of
weapons of mass destruction is
part of the NPT action plan of
2010. And one of the failures
of the 2015 review conference
is that there was no progress
on this issue, and no progress
on article 6 of the NPT,
meaning that nuclear weapon
states took it upon themselves
to disarm . We haven’t seen
this. And this frustration has
also led to this ban treaty.
And since you mentioned it,
the JCPOA on Iran, we
Europeans are very clear, we
think there is no
justification to decertify,
and it will also be harmful
and self-defeating. If you
want to control
non-proliferation, this will
send the totally wrong
message.
Q The Nobel Committee
themselves said that the
international prohibition will
not, in itself, eliminate a
single nuclear weapon. What’s
your response? And, have you
seen any pressure on states
that participated in the
negotiations from nuclear
weapon states?
A: Tim Wright: The treaty
provides a pathway for
accession for nuclear armed
nations. If a nuclear nation
were to join, which we expect
them to do at some point in
the futre, an additional
agreement would need to be
negotiated setting out the
parameters within which they’d
pursue the disarmament of
their nuclear arsenal. In that
sense, the weapons would be
eliminated under the treaty or
the associated protocols. I
think we wouldn’t agree fully
with the comment made by the
Norwegian nobel committee in
that regard. Austria PR: "Yes,
there is pressure on states,
even Austria, which is known
to be very stubborn in this
respect. There is pressure on
states not to sign. There was
pressure not to participate.
And there are even veiled, or
not so much veiled, threats.
But I hope this Nobel prize
will give an encouragement to
these countries to say, okay,
this is the right thing to do
and they will join us." Back
in July 2017, days after the
then most recent North Korea
missile launch, a "Legally
Binding Instrument to Prohibit
Nuclear Weapons, Leading
towards Their Total
Elimination" was adopted
122-1-1, with Singapore
abstaining and the Netherlands
voting No. Inner City Press
asked the President of the
Conference, Costa Rican
Ambassador Elayne Whyte Gómez
about the Netherlands'
complaint that the treaty is
not verifiable; she replied
that there is more work to be
done, through protocols.
Periscope video here.
Now on September 20, a tired
looking Antonio Guterres gave
a short speech opening the
treaty for signature without
mentioning Kim Jong Un, dubbed
"Rocket Man" by Donald Trump
just the day before. Here's
from what Guterres said: "It
is an honor to oversee this
historic treaty’s opening for
signature, the first
multilateral disarmament
treaty in more than 2 decades.
Civil society played a vital
role in bringing the treaty to
fruition. There are survivors
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
Hibakusha, continue to remind
us of the devastating
consequences of nuclear
weapons. [ICP: Most NGOs are
banned from the UN for UNGA
week.] The treaty on the
prohibition of nuclear weapons
is the product of increasing
concerns about the risk posed
by the continued existence of
nuclear weapons, including the
catastrophic humanitarian and
environmental consequences of
their use. Today, we
rightfully celebrate a
milestone. Now we must
continue along the hard road
towards elimination of nuclear
arsenals... I now declare the
treaty on the prohibition of
nuclear weapons open for
signature." On July 6 Inner
City Press asked Elayne
Whyte Gómez
how the North Korean launch
had impacted talks, and what
the treaty would do about the
issue. She said that an
international norm could help
improve things. Video here.
Inner City Press also asked
about the provisions for
withdrawal. She said that
right is mandated by the law
of treaties but the notice
period is extended,
particularly for parties to a
conflict. She said Antonio
Guterres presumably supports
it since it's mandated by the
General Assembly. It's classic
UN - as is a list of countries
proposed changes which Inner
City Press obtained and puts
online on Patreon, here.
US Ambasssador Nikki Haley,
along with the UK's Matthew
Rycroft and France's Francois
Delattre, said
they had "not taken part
in the negotiation of the
treaty on the prohibition of
nuclear weapons. We do not
intend to sign, ratify or ever
become party to it. Therefore,
there will be no change in the
legal obligations on our
countries with respect to
nuclear weapons." Full
statement here.
After North Korea fired
another missile, on June 3-4,
UN Secretary General was in
his stomping ground of Lisbon,
Portugal, after days of his
spokesman not disclosing where
he was. The Spokesman,
Stephane Dujarric, later put
out a statement from New York,
below. The US Mission
spokesman announced that
Ambassador Nikki Haley
"requested an urgent UN
Security Council meeting on
North Korea in response to
ballistic missile launch.
Session [July 5] afternoon."
By evening Inner City Press
was reliably informed the
meeting would be open. And it
was, ending with a back and
forth between Nikki Haley and
Russian charge d'affaires
Vladimir Safonkov, who said
sanctions are not a panacea
while Haley spoke, if
necessary, of proceeding
anyway. Haley said, "One of
our capabilities lies with our
considerable military forces.
We will use them if we must,
but we prefer not to have to
go in that direction. We have
other methods of addressing
those who threaten us and of
addressing those who supply
the threats. In the coming
days, we will bring before the
Security Council a resolution
that raises the international
response in a way that is
proportionate to North Korea’s
new escalation." Periscope
from Council stakeout here
and here.
The launch, now said to be
intercontinental, was also
expected to be discussed at
the upcoming G20 meeting in
Germany. Meanwhile the UN
system continues to recruit
internationally for "Junior
Professional Officers" to work
for it in Pyongyang, here
- Inner City Press on July 5
asked UN Spokesman Dujarric
about that,
and for all details on any
North Korean participation in
or agreements with the UN JPO
program. He should answer,
today, after once again vague
defending WIPO's work on
cyanide patents for North
Korea (see below). The UN
Security Council president for
July, China, had only hours
before reiterated its
suspension for suspension
proposal, while UN DESA chief
Wu Hong Bo had said of course
North Korea would have the
right to place a Junior
Professional Officer in the
UN. The UN's World
Intellectual Property
Organization had defended
working on cyanide patents for
North Korea, and Guterres'
spokespeople had defended it.
But on July 4 the UN issued
this: "The Secretary-General
strongly condemns the launch
of a ballistic missile of
possible intercontinental
range conducted by the
Democratic People’s Republic
of Korea (DPRK) on 4 July
2017. This action is yet
another brazen violation of
Security Council resolutions
and constitutes a dangerous
escalation of the situation.
The DPRK leadership must cease
further provocative actions
and comply fully with its
international obligations. The
Secretary-General underlines
the importance of maintaining
the unity of the international
community in addressing this
serious challenge." The US
Mission's subsequent press
release said, "A short time
ago, Ambassador Nikki Haley
and her counterparts from
Japan and the Republic of
Korea requested an emergency
UN Security Council meeting to
be held in the open chamber in
response to North Korea’s
intercontinental ballistic
missile launch. The Security
Council session will be held
tomorrow afternoon at 3:00
p.m. EDT." After the last
launch, the UN Security
Council added to its sanctions
list 14 individuals and four
companies. Inner City Press
put the resolution online here.
This as some on the UN
Security Council, and UN
Secretary General Antonio
Guterres or at least his
spokesman Stephane
Dujarric have no problem
with or comment on the UN's
own World Intellectual
Property Organization helps
North Korea with a patent
application for social cyanide
(WIPO site here).
On
Capitol Hill on June 28, Rep.
Chris Smith (R-NJ) urged US
Ambassador to the UN Nikki
Haley to act on WIPO,
including its retaliation
against whistleblowers. Haley
spoke about reviewing
peacekeeping missions, which
is needed - as is a review and
reversal of the UN's lack of
protections for free press,
and continued restrictions on
investigative Press. At the
day's UN noon briefing Inner
City Press asked UN Spokesman
Stephane Dujarric, UN
Transcript here:
Inner City Press: down in
Washington this morning,
there's a hearing in the
committee… House Committee on
Foreign Affairs, and the issue
of the… the World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO),
not only its dealings with
patents for North Korea, but
its retaliation against its
own staff, you know, has been
raised. So, I've asked
you about it before. I
just wanted to know, what does
the Secretary-General… given
there's even some provisions
of US law about failure to
protect whistle-blowers, has
he taken any action on the…
the numerous cases within WIPO
of…?
Spokesman: The Sec… WIPO
is an independent agency,
specialized agency. It
has its own governing body, on
which the United States is
represented. I expect
those discussions are going on
between the US and WIPO… the
WIPO leadership, and I really
have nothing else to add than
what I've previously said on
the issue.
Inner City Press: Right, but
given that they're a part of
the Chief Executives Board
(CEB) and there are certain, I
guess, minimum standards in
the UN system, such as not
using criminal defamation
against the press, I would
assume…?
Spokesman: As a matter
of principle, the Sec… and
this goes across the board for
every organization. The
Secretary-General expects all
UN agencies, whether
specialized or not, to… to
uphold standards… minimum
standards. But, I'm not
going to go into the details
of WIPO management, which is
an issue that WIPO management
will… dealing with, with its
own governing body.
The UN
Secretariat alsobacked up WIPO
on May 26 when Inner City
Press asked, transcript here
and below. Inner City Press on
May 16 began to ask US
Ambassador to the UN Nikki
Haley about it (video
here).
On May 17, Nikki
Haley replied to Inner City
Press' question: "All parts of
the UN system need to support
the Security Council in its
efforts to respond to the
grave threat of North Korea’s
weapons of mass destruction
programs. Sodium cyanide is
banned for export to North
Korea by the Security Council.
A common sense reaction would
be for WIPO to inform the
Council of such patent
applications. Its failure to
do so may have dangerous
consequences.”
The UN through
spokesman Stephane Dujarric
told Inner City Press it
supports WIPO, video
here. On May 19, Inner
City Press asked North Korea's
Ambassador Kim In Ryong about
it, without answer. Video
here. Then the US
Mission to the UN issued a
longer press release, here.
On May 26, Inner City Press
asked the UN's deputy
spokesperson Farhan Haq to
respond. UN transcript:
Inner City Press: since, since
I last asked, the US Mission
has put out a second,
more-detailed statement about
the World Intellectual
Property Organization's (WIPO)
work on the sodium cyanide
patent for either a North
Korean individual or the
Government. They seem to
insist that there was no need
for them to inform the
Sanctions Committee that
everything is fine with
that. And I wanted to
know, what does the
Secretary-General think, given
his calls and his own
statements that all Member
States take this very
seriously both, implementing…
does he think that WIPO has
met all of its obligations and
that it should continue in the
future to do patent work in
North Korea on cyanide without
informing the Committee?
Deputy Spokesman: Well,
as you're aware, the World
Intellectual Property
Organization has, twice now,
on its website, put
explanations of its actions,
and we would refer you to what
they have said on this.
Of course, the
Secretary-General does want
all Member States, and,
indeed, all parts of the UN,
to abide by Security Council
resolutions, but you can see
what the explanation is
provided by WIPO itself.
Question: But, what does
he think of their
explanation? I guess
that's my question. He's
the head of the UN
System. Does he think…
obviously, there are some that
think that the…
what they're saying is
asinine, and they think that
it's fine. So, I'm
asking what does he think of
it?
Deputy Spokesman: We're
aware of what their
explanation is, and we refer
you back over to them.
That is not
leadership. Inner City Press
adds: condemnation should also
include the UN Federal Credit
Union, which is soliciting the
funds of the North Korean
mission and its employees, as
well as UNA-USA members. Inner
City Press on the morning of
May 18 asked the chair of the
UN Security Council's North
Korea sanctions committee, the
Italian Mission to the UN
under Sebastiano Cardi, "Does
your Mission, which holds the
chair of the 1718 Committee,
agree that WIPO should have
informed the Security Council
of this work with North Korea?
I recently asked Ambassador
Cardi about a DPRK sanctions
violation in Germany, without
yet much of a response. I
notice that the Italian
mission stopped sending Inner
City Press any information at
all in February 2017. Please
explain." In the afternoon,
the Italian Mission's
spokesperson Giovanni Davoli
replied, "the Panel of Experts
was not aware of this matter.
Therefore the Committee could
not be. The Panel announced
they are going to open an
investigation. Once the
Committee will receive the
report of the panel, we might
be able to comment further."
We await that, and another
answer.
Inner City Press also on
May 18 asked UN Spokesman
Stephane Dujarric about
Ambassador Haley's response -
but all Dujarric would do was
refer, positively, to a WIPO
press release. In its press
release, WIPO says "a DPRK
individual citizen applicant
filed an international patent
application under WIPO’s PCT
system in respect of a process
for production of sodium
cyanide." Are there really
"individual applicants" in
today's North Korea? Isn't the
import of sodium cyanide into
North Korea a violation of UN
sanctions? Dujarric called
this WIPO's "very clear
explanation." Inner City Press
repeatedly asked Dujarric to
state if the Secretariat finds
WIPO's statement on May 16 --
before Ambassador Haley's
response -- sufficient.
Apparently yes. We'll have
more on this: Inner City Press
has asked other UN Security
Council members. Watch this
site. In an earlier exchange
with UN Spokesman Stephane
Dujarric, the UN itself
acknowledged that the Security
Council's Panel of Experts is
belatedly looking into it as a
possible sanctions violation.
Video
here, transcript below.
Later to May's President of
the UN Security Council,
Uruguay's Elbio Rosselli,
Inner City Press asked about
UN WIPO's (non) compliance
with UN sanctions, working on
a patent for North Korea's
production of sodium cyanide.
Periscope video here.
Ambassador Rosselli said
he had not heard of the issue.
At the UN's May 16 noon
briefing, Inner City Press had
asked the UN about that and
its reporting that the UN
Federal Credit Union,
regulated by the US National
Credit Union Administration,
openly solicits the business
of both North Korean employees
of the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea's mission to
the UN and the members of the
UN Association of the USA
(UNA-USA), amid questions of
immunity and a previous UNFCU
settlement for sanctions
violations. UN
briefing video here,
from Min 10:20.
UN Spokesman
Stephane Dujarric dodged on
whether Secretary General
Antonio Guterres would this
time talk to WIPO chief
Francis Gurry, as he did not
as Gurry deployed criminal
defamation law against the
press; he also wouldn't answer
on UNFCU. UN transcript:
Inner City Press: About
WIPO [World Intellectual
Property Organization] doing a
patent application for North
Korea for the production of
sodium cyanide, which is
banned to be brought into the
country. Before, it
wasn't clear to me if the
Secretary-General had
communicated with WIPO about
their use of criminal
defamation against
journalists. But, is
this something that concerns
him? I also want to ask
you about the UN Federal
Credit Union (UNFCU) openly
soliciting deposits from… from
the Mission of North Korea, as
well as the employees of the
Mission despite having
previously settled sanctions
charges for just such activity
on another sanctioned
country. Do you think
that this is consistent with
this whole idea of tightening
up?
Spokesman Dujarric: I
don't speak for the Credit
Union. They're an
independent body. I
would agree… I would urge you
to question them. On the
[Democratic People’s Republic
of Korea] and the Fox News
report, obviously, I think
what's contained in the report
is disturbing and demands
looking into. The Panel
of Experts… the Security
Council Panel of Experts, as
you know, is an independent
team reporting to the
Council. And they have
the prerogative to look into
all alleged violations of DPRK
sanctions and report to the
Council
accordingly. I
think, as noted in the
article, the Panel's
coordinator said the Panel
will look into the
issue. And I think we'll
need… the Panel will do its
work and report back.
And if… we will obviously look
more directly into the issue,
as well from our end.
Inner City Press: Given
that there have been previous
allegations and reported
retaliation at WIPO concerning
activities with North Korea,
do you or the
Secretary-General think it's
something that at the CEB
[Chief Executives Board] or
some kind of system-wide, does
it need to be reiterated to
the UN agencies that these
sanctions are reported?
Spokesman: I think the
need… the absolute need to
respect the sanctions regime,
both whether it's from Member
States or within the UN, I
think, is clear and should be
clear to everyone.
UNFCU's
website lists
under “Missions to the UN in
New York eligible to join
UNFCU” that of “North Korea
(DPRK"). Inner City Press
asked UNFCU's Senior Manager
of Media Relations Elisabeth
Philippe questions including
“why some UN member states'
missions to the UN are
eligible to join UNFCU,
including the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea,
and others are not, why
members of UNA-USA became
eligible to join UNFCU, what
regulatory filings in any
UNFCU made for this change in
field of membership, and any
restrictions on the use of
these UNA-USA members' funds,
and what services UNFCU offers
to UN agencies and country
teams, in which countries, and
if there are any restrictions
or safeguards.”
On deeming
the North Korean mission and
all of its employees eligible,
UNFCU's Ms. Philippe told
Inner City Press, “The
employees of any mission to
the United Nations based in
New York are eligible to apply
for UNFCU membership. The
employees of all missions are
eligible to join once their
mission has submitted an
application and been
approved.” The website says
the mission itself can join
UNFCU. On May 10, Inner City
Press asked the chairman of
the UN Security Council's
North Korea Sanctions
Committee Sebastiano Cardi
about North Korea's embassy in
Berlin
renting out space as a hostel,
video
here. What safeguards
does UNFCU, with UNA-USA's
members in its field of
membership, have?
On UNFCU
expanding its field of
membership to including anyone
who joins UNA-USA, Ms.
Philippe told Inner City
Press, “UNA-USA is the largest
UN advocacy organization in
the United States. UNFCU is a
financial organization
providing retail banking for
the UN community. Members of
UNA-USA, who are US citizens
or permanent residents of the
US, are eligible to become
members of UNFCU. In December
2013, the National Credit
Union Administration (NCUA),
the US regulatory body which
oversees US federal credit
unions, approved the expansion
of UNFCU membership to include
UNA-USA based on a shared
mission and values in support
of the United Nations. UNA-USA
members who become members of
UNFCU are eligible for the
full suite of products and
services available to UNFCU’s
field of membership.”
But what
is in the “full suit of
products and services”
available from UNFCU? The US
Office of Financial Asset
Control or OFAC settled
charges against UNFCU for, in
connection with Mission
employees, violating
sanctions, see here. And Inner
City Press' third question,
about precisely what services
“UNFCU offers to UN agencies
and country teams” - including
for example in North Korea -
remained at publication time
unanswered. Now this: "As a
member-owned financial
institution that serves the UN
community globally, UNFCU
provides bank account services
to UN/agency staff, and
consultants subject to payroll
requirements of the various UN
agencies and subject to the
rules and regulations
governing all US Financial
Institutions. Accounts are
maintained in US dollars and
are protected by federal share
insurance through the National
Credit Union Administration.
UNFCU complies with US
regulations, including those
governing US economic
sanctions." But why then did
UNFCU settle charges of
sanctions violations? We'll
have more on this. Inner City
Press previously exclusively
reported for example
that "Sudanese nationals
working for the UN have had
part of their salaries paid
into UN Federal Credit Union
accounts, in U.S. dollars.
Then they were told that these
dollar accounts were frozen,
and could only be transferred
to the Bank of Khartoum."
Watch this site.
***
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
Past
(and future?) UN Office: S-303, UN, NY 10017 USA
For now: Box 20047,
Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other,
earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in
the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright
2006-2017 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
for
,
