In
DC, Nikki Haley Urged to Act
on WIPO and UN Retaliation,
Review UN Peacekeeping
By Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS,
June 28 – After North Korea
fired another missile, on June
2 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. (Smith also
noted that the UN Mission in
South Sudan did nothing during
the rapes in the Terrain Apartments,
and elsewhere.) 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. The UN Secretary again
backed 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