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

By Matthew Russell Lee, Photos, Q&A video

UNITED NATIONS, March 14 – 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. On March 14, Inner City Press asked the UN again, UN transcript here: Inner City Press: of Inspector Sullivan and Net… and Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu, it wasn't just an incident… I want to… I guess what I wanted… and he didn't answer this.  In September 2016, Prime Minister Netanyahu quoted exactly what Inspector Sullivan said later in 2018 about the Iran bomb fuse speech being the best speech ever.  And so, it seems like the question really isn't… isn't whether he was surprised in the basement last week, but did anyone look into when was the quote given that Mr. Netanyahu quoted in September 2016? And… and I guess I'm asking because, again, many UN staff have wondered whether they can do the same thing.  Is it appropriate to praise… to… to offer that type of praise twice, not once but twice, at least? Deputy Spokesman:  First of all, we do not control what the Prime Minister of Israel says.  That's his business… Inner City Press:  He was quoting Mr. Sullivan. Deputy Spokesman:  …nor do we police that.  Regarding private opinions expressed by staff, they… they're capable of talking to people and expressing their private opinions.  This is not a case where someone was expressly trying to express their opinion in public.  That was not sought by Officer Sullivan, as Stéphane made clear last week. Inner City Press: But, when somebody calls you over in front of cameras and a microphone, you still choose what you say.  Maybe you didn't expect to be called over but it's not… it's…? Deputy Spokesman:  As Stéphane made clear, he was doing his regular security duties.  He… there was no speaking engagement sought on behalf of the officer." A bit later on March 14: "this is not a case where someone sought to express a public opinion.  That was put upon him through circumstances outside of his control.  Yes? Inner City Press:I just wanted to allow the follow-up, but I just… I guess is… your answer about that it wasn't thrust on him, this also covers the September 2016 statement quoted by… Deputy Spokesman:  He had not… he was not making a public statement.  That was something he had expressed to a person who then disclosed it. Inner City Press: Right, but he did it twice, with… I mean, in… given that the first time was… I don't know.  Was it appropriate? Deputy Spokesman:  We've said what we've said." 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