Your support
means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you
access to exclusive bonus material on
our Patreon page. Click
here to become a patron. MRL
on Patreon
UNITED NATIONS,
March 9 – When Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
came to the UN on 7 March 2018
to open an exhibition about
Jerusalem, he singled out a
particular UN Security
officer, Matthew Sullivan, and
brought him in front of the
microphone. Link to photo here.
He said, as he had
on 26 September 2016, see
below, that Sullivan seeks him
out after each year's General
Assembly speech and reviews
it. Sullivan then called
Netanyahu a great orator, and
said the cartoon chart of Iran
and the bomb with a burning
fuse was his favorite. Inner
City Press went and asked the
UN Spokesman Stephane
Dujarric, who had been
present. Dujarric acknowledged
it but said Sullivan
"was thrown
into a
limelight that
he did not
seek." Well,
no - Netanyahu has repeated
this same quote of Sullivan,
using Sullivan's name, in a
weekly cabinet meeting on
September 26, 2016, Facebook video
at -5:24, translated there
into English. So on March 9,
after being told by another UN
Security officer that Sullivan
was now seeking to file some
sort of complaint against
Inner City Press, at the days
noon briefing Inner City Press
asked again, getting off off
in the process by Agence
France Presse. Video here.
From the UN's March 9 transcript:
Inner City Press: Yesterday, I
had asked you about what
happened during the visit of
Prime Minister [Benjamin]
Netanyahu and… and Officer
Matthew Sullivan. You
had said that he was cast into
a light that he hadn't
expected, and that was
fine. It… the… the…
since found that in a… in a
meeting with his Cabinet in
September 2016, Prime Minister
Netanyahu said, this is a
quote from his Facebook page,
translated into English from
Hebrew, "I met there with
Matthew Sullivan, an American
security man, a former New
York City policeman and he
waits for me every time at the
exit. He always gives me
his opinion about the speech
and he told me it was an
excellent speech, but I had
given him a better one.
I asked him which one was
better. He said the bomb
speech was better." So
it was exactly what was said
downstairs yesterday, like
almost verbatim, so I guess I
want to ask you, it doesn’t
seem like it was as
spontaneous as…
Spokesman: I don't speak
for the Prime Minister of
Israel, nor do I write his
remarks that he shares with
his Cabinet. As I said,
again, Inspector Sullivan is a
distinguished supervisor in
our security service, and I
think I answered your
question. Inner
City Press:
I guess my question is, and I
say this because many staff
members have reached out and
said they've been told not to
speak in exactly this way, so
I just want to be clear
whether they can or they
can't. If the UN was
aware of these comments…
Spokesman: I think he
was… Inspector Sullivan has
been put in a very difficult
position that he did not… that
was not of his own making. Inner
City Press:
Was he aware of the statement
in 2016, that he was being
quoted? Spokesman: I
don't know. Yes, Carole?
Question: Can I ask
about… You've asked five
questions..." And thus
Dujarric let / used AFP to cut
off the line of questioning.
Left to the end, Inner City
Press continued: maybe you
don't know, but you could find
out. Was either the
Department of Safety and
Security (DSS) or Inspector
Sullivan aware back in
September 2016, when the Prime
Minister made the comments and
put them online, saying that
this high inspector, as you've
called him, in the UN praised
my… my Iran bomb speech.
And if he had
been…Spokesman: I'm not
aware that anyone was aware of
those comments.
Inner City
Press:
Now that you are aware, does
what happened yesterday seem
as spontaneous as you
portrayed it yesterday?
Spokesman: It is not for
me to say whether or not the
things that were done or said
by a visiting Head of
Government in this
organization is spontaneous or
not spontaneous. What I
do know is that Mr. Sullivan,
Inspector Sullivan, was there
to supervise the security
arrangements of a high-level
guest. He was sought out
by the Prime Minister and in
no way sought to find himself
in front of the camera. Inner
City Press: But if… if the UN
were aware that a person at
his level of the UN had been
quoted in this way, as he was
in 2016… Spokesman: You
know, people… I'm not going to
go into hypotheticals.
I'm just stating what I know
as facts." It's not
hypothetical. Here's the
online English translation of
what Netanyahu told his
cabinet in September 2016: "I
met there with Matthew
Sullivan, an American security
man, a former New York City
policeman, and he waits for me
every time at the exit from
the United Nations General
Assembly. He always gives me
his opinion about the speech
and he told me that it was an
excellent speech, but that I
have given a better one. I
asked him which one was
better. He said the bomb
speech was better. He said, 'I
express the general sense that
United States citizens have in
their massive support for the
State of Israel.' They see us
as representing their values
and this continues and it is
the fundamental truth about
the special relationship
between the two countries."
But on 7 March 2018 UN
Spokesman Stephane Dujarric
told Inner City Press that
Sullivan had been caught up in
the moment. What, repeating
word for word what Netanyahu
has been recounting for a year
and a half? We'll have more on
this. From the March 7 UN
transcript: Inner City Press:
I saw you were down there, and
I mean this with all due
respect. Obviously,
Officer Sullivan, Matthew
Sullivan, maybe he was put in
a hard spot, brought up to the
microphone, but it seemed to
me that he was saying that…
that, each year at the GA, he
greets Prime Minister
Netanyahu, and reviews his
speech. And then he
said, "You're a great orator",
and then he said… he seemed to
say that the cartoon of the
bomb and the fuse was a
particularly good
speech. And I'm just
wondering… everyone is
definitely entitled to their
views, but I know that many UN
staff feel constrained from…
from praising one way or
another a speech viewed as
controversial, and I wanted to
know, what are the rules?
Spokesman: Indeed, I
was. I think Inspector
Sullivan was thrown into a
limelight that he did not
seek. The Prime Minister
seemed to have called for
him. And the inspector
has been here and has a had
very long and extremely
distinguished career here, is
known… he has known Heads of
States and Heads of
Governments for a long time,
including the current Prime
Minister of Israel, who, as
you know, also served as
Permanent Representative here
a few years ago. Inner City
Press: Right. I just
have one more… because you
were saying he didn't seek it
out, but I was… I was down
there, as well. And
again, I mean this will all
due respect. I saw him
taking selfies with… with…
with Benjamin Netanyahu before
he was brought to the
microphone, so, clearly…
Spokesman: Well, I think
in both cases, the Prime
Minister came… called out
Inspector Sullivan and went to
find him. Inspector
Sullivan was there to do his
work, to secure the area, to
supervise security. He
at no point sought out to have
his photo taken. Inner City
Press: This… this… this detail
that after each speech… I
mean, I know, for example,
there was a… Ralph was a
security guard here, but I
never heard him say one way or
another if he liked a
particular leader or liked a
particular speech. I'm
just wondering, for the
benefit of going forward,
because I've known people to
be disciplined for it.
I'm not… I'm asking you, what
is the rule? Spokesman:
I think… I feel I've answered
your question." Well, no. That
the exhibition, and statement,
were controversial is
exemplified by the event not
being listed in the day's
Media Alert as sent out. (An
addition, in red print, was
sent later.) The Under
Secretary General for Global
Communications, Alison Smale,
did not attend the exhibition
opening, when she goes to less
high profile ones. (She
refuses to explain this, or
any content neutral media
access rules the UN may or may
not have). Sullivan, Inner
City Press previously reported,
was on the board of an
organization holding
commercial events in UN
conference rooms, including
for GPS sneakers. When Inner
City Press asked about this,
Sullivan and the UN spokesman
said Inner City Press only
looked into it because
Sullivan had "thrown Inner
City Press out of the UN."
That did happen, for covering
UN corruption, and Haiti
cholera. And, as Inner City
Press was also first to report,
Sullivan was previously beaten
up by Turkey's Erdogan's
guards. We'll have more on
this. In today's UN, Holocaust
remembrance is politicized,
and the Department of Public
Information which makes
decisions is not transparent,
does not answer Press
questions. On January 25 Inner
City Press went to cover a
Serbia-sponsored event about
the Jasenovac extermination
camp, complete with a long
speech by Serbian Foreign
Minister Ivica Dacic,
Periscope here.
While there was a disclaimer
sign, a representative of
DPI's Holocaust Outreach unit
was there. The event was
listed (as "invitation only")
on DPI's list of events in the
UN Visitors Lobby - but an
Israeli-mission sponsored
event set for January 31
wasn't listed. Questions to
DPI chief Alison Smale, on access
and complaints by
whistleblowers of malfeasance
in DPI, have gone
unanswered. Inner City Press
was required unlike others to
get a UN DPI / Smale "minder"
to even cover the Holocaust
photo op (Inner City Press'
Alamy photos here);
later, US Ambassador Nikki
Haley issued this, on (retaliatory)
Prince Zeid's earlier
statement: "This whole issue
is outside the bounds of the
High Commissioner for Human
Rights office’s mandate and is
a waste of time and resources.
While we note that they wisely
refrained from listing
individual companies, the fact
that the report was issued at
all is yet another reminder of
the Council’s anti-Israel
obsession. The more the Human
Rights Council does this, the
less effective it becomes as
an advocate against the
world’s human rights abusers.
The United States will
continue to aggressively push
back against the anti-Israel
bias, and advance badly needed
reforms of the Council."
Earlier on January 31, even
before 10 am, two
developments: a commemoration
on the third floor balcony of
the General Assembly Hall at
9:20 am (Periscope including
Leningrad and translation here), and
this, from Danny Danon: “On
the day that the UN is marking
International Holocaust
Remembrance Day, the UNHRC has
chosen to publicize this
information about the number
of companies operating in
Israel. This is a
shameful act which will serve
as a stain on the UNHRC
forever. We will
continue to act with our
allies and use all the means
at our disposal to stop the
publication of this
disgraceful blacklist.” We'll
have more on this - and on
Secretary General Antonio
Guterres' meeting with Darfur
genocide
indictee Omar al Bashir,
UNdisclosed until Inner City
Press asked about it at the
January 29 noon briefing, and
still covered up. At the UN's
January 26 noon briefing,
Inner City Press asked, UN video,
transcript here:
Inner City Press: I wanted to
ask you about an event that
took place in the delegates'
entrance last night, sponsored
by the Serbian Mission.
It was about a… a
concentration camp and it's
reported that Croatia wrote
directly to António Guterres
to try to get it cancelled,
given the presentation, and I
wanted to know, what can you
say about that, I guess?
There seems to be a lot of
controversy about it, and I
did notice… note some staff of
the… I guess, the Holocaust
Unit of DPI [Department of
Public Information]
present. What was the
relationship between the UN
and the event? And do
you have any comment on the…
the event? Deputy
Spokesman: I don't have
any comment on the
event. As you know,
different Member States can
use the building to hold
different events, and that is
their right. Inner City Press:
But maybe it's related,
because I guess I want to
understand this.
There's… there's a separate
story about an Israeli singer,
Benayoun, who had sought to…
yeah, who had sought to
come. There was a lot of
controversy. Somebody
wrote to António Guterres to
say, "Don't have him."
Alison Smale wrote back and
said, "He's not
invited." Turns out he
is coming, but the event that
he'll be at, which is
sponsored by the Israeli
Mission, is not on the UN's
schedule of Holocaust events,
it says. So what's the
relation… I guess what I'm
meaning is, even if these
events have nothing to do with
the UN, including the ones
that have been held elsewhere
in the GA Lobby, who decides
which… which events get listed
on the… on the list of UN
Holocaust week events and
which are not? Is that a
political decision? Who
decides that? Deputy
Spokesman: Well, the
United Nations itself,
including its Department of
Public Information, has a
programme of Holocaust events,
and those are listed as
such. Of course, Member
States are free to organize
their own events, but many of
them will not be on the UN
program. Those are
events organized by Member
States. Inner City Press: DPI
reviews the events in advance
and says this one will be
listed on our programme, and
this one won't? Deputy
Spokesman: DPI has an
office that deals with the
remembrance of the Holocaust
and they deal specifically
with that. Inner City
Press: So they decided
that the Serbian one was too
controversial? Or how
did it work? Deputy
Spokesman: No, the
Serbian one is organized by
Member States. Meetings
organized by Member States are
separate. You know,
there are meetings that are
part of the Holocaust
commemoration that's organized
by DPI, and then there are
other ones that are organized
by Member States. Inner City
Press: But there's a
sign down in the GA that lists
the week's events, and some of
them are sponsored by
missions. Do you see
what I mean? It's not
like there are UN events and
mission events. Deputy
Spokesman: Those would
have been agreed to
beforehand." So the Serbian
event was "agreed beforehand"
with the UN, since it is
listed, but the Israel event
is not? On January 29, US
Ambassador Nikki Haley is
taking the UN Security Council
members down to Washington,
including to the Holocaust
Museum. We'll have more on
this. When UN Secretary
General Antonio Guterres goes
to the PyeongChang Olympics
next month, his real dream is
to get an invite to the north,
to Pyongyang, UN sources
exclusively tell Inner City
Press. Having failed on other
diplomatic initiatives like
Cyprus in his first year atop
the UN, Guterres is
"desperate" for some high
profile drama, the sources
say. The UN's acceptance of a
"Junior Professional Officer"
who is the son of a high
official of Kim John Un's
Workers Party -- whom Inner
City Press in October
exclusively identified as Kim
Joo Song, here
-- was meant to built the
connections to get Guterres
into the country. But isn't it
the US that Kim Jong Un wants
to negotiate with? We'll have
more on this. When the UN's
Committee on Relations with
the Host Country met on
January 17, the representative
of the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea read a
three-page statement
condemning the US for issuing
his Mission to the UN's
tax-exempt card in the name
"North Korea" and not
Democratic People's Republic
of Korea. He said, "We
presumed it would be only a
kind of technical mistake by
the U.S. side, and returned
the card back to the U.S.
mission, while requesting them
to correct that serious
mistake." The statement, which
Inner City Press has
exclusively obtained
immediately after the meeting
(photos here,
full PDF of letter via
Patreon, here)
continued that the U.S.
mission replied, "It seems to
be a glitch in our database,
we'll reach out to our office
in DC." That was on December
13, the statement said,
continuing: "on 14th December
there was an explanation from
the U.S. mission informing
that, quoted as 'Our DC office
has indicated that all country
/ mission names on OFM
credentials for Democratic
People's Republic of Korea
indicate North Korea which is
the conventional short
abbreviation. The short name
for the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea is North
Korea, so the tax card will
remain the same." The
statement concluded by
condemning "such reckless
political hostile policy" and
demanded an apology. Watch
this site. Throughout 2016 New
Zealand documentary maker
Gaylene Preston and her crew
staked out the UN Security
Council along with Inner City
Press, awaiting the results of
the straw polls to elected Ban
Ki-moon's sucessor as UN
Secretary General. Preston's
focus was Helen Clark, the
former New Zealand prime
minister then in her second
term as Administrator of the
UN Development Program.
Preston would ask Inner City
Press after each poll, What
about Helen Clark's chances?
Suffice it to say Clark never
caught fire as a candidate.
Inner City Press told Preston,
as did many other interviewees
in her documentary “My Year
with Helen,” that it might be
sexism. But it might be power
too - including Samantha
Power, the US Ambassador who
spoke publicly about gender
equality and then in secret
cast a ballot Discouraging
Helen Clark, and praised
Antonio Guterres for his
energy (yet to be seen).
Samantha Power's hypocrisy is
called out in Preston's film,
in which New Zealand's
Ambassador complains that
fully four members of the
Council claimed to be the
single “No Opinion” vote that
Clark received. There was a
private screening of My Year
With Helen on December 4 at
NYU's King Juan Carlos Center,
attended by a range of UN
staff, a New Zealand designer
of a website for the country's
proposal new flag, and Ban
Ki-moon's archivist, among
others. After the screening
there was a short Q&A
session. Inner City Press used
that to point out that
Guterres has yet to criticize
any of the Permanent Five
members of the Council who did
not block him as the US,
France and China blocked
Clark, with Russia casting a
“No Opinion.” And that
Guterres picked a male from
among France's three
candidates to head UN
Peacekeeping which they own,
and accepted males from the UK
and Russia for “their” top
positions. Then over New
Zealand wine the talk turned
to the new corruption at the
UN, which is extensive, and
the upcoming dubious Wall
Street fundraiser of the UN
Correspondents Association,
for which some in attendance
had been shaken down, as one
put it, for $1200. The
UN needed and needs to be
shaken up, and hasn't been.
But the film is good, and
should be screened not in the
UN Censorship Alliance but
directly in the UN Security
Council, on the roll-down
movie screen on which failed
envoys like Ismail Ould Cheikh
Ahmed are projected. “My Year
With Helen” is well worth
seeing.
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
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 2006-2018 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com for