After
ICP Asked of WIPO's N Korea Work, Nikki Haley
Calls WIPO "Dangerous," UK Response
Here
By Matthew
Russell Lee, follow up
UNITED NATIONS,
May 19 – While the UN's World
Intellectual Property
Organization helps North Korea
with a patent application for
social cyanide (WIPO site here),
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. Now, just before
the UK Mission responsed to
the Press in writing, the US
Mission to the UN has issued
this press release:
"The United
States continues to be
concerned about the way the
World Intellectual Property
Organization has handled North
Korea’s patent application for
the production of sodium
cyanide. 'The thought of
placing cyanide in the hands
of the North Koreans,
considering their record on
human rights, political
prisoners, and assassinations
is not only dangerous but
defies common sense. We urge
all UN agencies to be
transparent and apply the
utmost scrutiny when dealing
with these types of requests
from North Korea and other
rogue nations,' said
Ambassador Haley.
The United States has long
encouraged UN specialized
agencies to be in close
contact with Security Council
sanctions committees regarding
any activity related to the
implementation of Security
Council resolutions. 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."
Inner City
Press adds: this should (even)
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. And
here is the written answer of
a Spokesperson for the UK
Mission to the UN:
"The chemical substance sodium
cyanide has been subject to
Security Council sanctions on
DPRK since 2006, as it is
deemed a significant
proliferation risk. These
measures remain in force and
are binding on all states.
"Sanctions on DPRK require
continued vigilance from the
international community to be
effective. The sharing of
information amongst technical
experts is a vital component
of sanctions implementation
and must continue." That's the
UK's answer; France by
contrast hasn't answered in
any way (nor about Cameroon, here.)
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
,
