On
North Korea US
Seizes Wise
Honest Ship
For Sanctions
On Which UN
Has Been
UNtransparent
By Matthew
Russell Lee, CJR Letter Denial
UN GATE / SDNY,
May 9 – Today a
North Korean ship was
seized by the
United States,
with only a fleeing
reference to
the United
Nations, whose
DPRK Sanctions
Committee has
been an
untransparent
backwater, see
below. On a
U.S. Department
of Justice press
call at
1 p.m.,
Inner City
Press asked Geoffrey
S. Berman,
United States
Attorney for
the Southern
District of
New York, if
he or the
Department
expects North
Korea or its
allies
including
China to
context the seizure in
the UN and its
Security
Council's DPRK
Sanctions
1718
Commitee (and
if the UN had
helped, or
hurt). Berman
said "no
comment" (he
previously answered
Inner City
Press'
question about
Rochester Drug
Co-op, here).
The seized
ship is on the
way to
American Samoa
from Indonesia and
as to the
SDNY, North
Korea has 60
days to try to
contest it.
After that it
will be sold
or put to U.S.
government
use.... From May
9, prior to
any DOJ press
call: ", John
C. Demers,
Assistant
Attorney
General for
National
Security,
William F.
Sweeney Jr.,
Assistant
Director-in-Charge
of the New
York Office of
the Federal
Bureau of
Investigation,
and John
Brown,
Assistant
Director of
the
Counterintelligence
Division of
the Federal
Bureau of
Investigation,
announced
today the
filing of a
civil
forfeiture
complaint
against M/V
Wise Honest
(the “Wise
Honest”), a
17,061-ton,
single-hull
bulk carrier
ship
registered in
the Democratic
People’s
Republic of
Korea (“DPRK”
or “North
Korea”).
The Wise
Honest, one of
North Korea’s
largest bulk
carriers, was
used to
illicitly ship
coal from
North Korea
and to deliver
heavy
machinery to
the
DPRK.
Payments for
maintenance,
equipment, and
improvements
of the Wise
Honest were
made in U.S.
dollars
through
unwitting U.S.
banks.
This conduct
violates
longstanding
U.S. law and
United Nations
Security
Council
resolutions.
U.S. Attorney
Geoffrey S.
Berman
said:
“Today’s civil
action is the
first-ever
seizure of a
North Korean
cargo vessel
for violating
international
sanctions.
Our Office
uncovered
North Korea’s
scheme to
export tons of
high-grade
coal to
foreign buyers
by concealing
the origin of
their ship,
the Wise
Honest.
This scheme
not only
allowed North
Korea to evade
sanctions, but
the Wise
Honest was
also used to
import heavy
machinery to
North Korea,
helping expand
North Korea’s
capabilities
and continuing
the cycle of
sanctions
evasion.
With this
seizure, we
have
significantly
disrupted that
cycle.
We are willing
and able to
deploy the
full array of
law
enforcement
tools to
detect, deter,
and prosecute
North Korea’s
deceptive
attempts to
evade
sanctions.”
The
Dutch Mission
to the UN, ending
the year and
its UN
Security
Council tenure
withholding
all documents
requested by
Inner City
Press about
Cameroon and
the Mission's
role in the UN
banning
the Press, is
going out in a
blaze of self
congratulations.
While they
voted the EU
line, they
were less than
transparent in
chairing the
North Korea /
DPRK sanctions
committee and
embraced
Antonio
Guterres'
total ban on Inner
City Press,
which asked
them about
sanctions
chicanery
and inaction on
Cameroon. Here's
hoping
those
replacing them
do
better - and
that perhaps
now, off the
Council, one or
more in The
Hague can reverse
the mission's
embrace of UN
censorship for
corruption and
play a more
opening role. It
is now clear
that when Guterres
refused Inner
City Press
questions
about China
Energy Fund
Committee and
had it roughed
up and banned,
he had a conflict
of interest.
The Gulbenkian
Foundation for
which he was a
paid board
member was
trying to sell
its Partex Oil
and Gas to
CEFC. This
must all be
reversed and
acted upon in
2019. Back
on
December 20
the Dutch
mission
tweeted that
adopting in
the UN General
Assembly of
its OPCW resolution
has been unanimous.
Inner City
Press, even
still banned by
Antonio
Guterres from
entering the
UN for the
169th day,
replied that
there are been
12
abstentions. It expected
in reply an
argument that
zero "No"
votes meant unanimous,
or some
other
justification
or excuse. But
there was no
reply. Without
any
explanation or
disclosure,
the Dutch
Mission to the
UN deleted
its tweet and
put up a substitute:
"Today, the
#UNGA adopted
with an
overwhelming
majority the
resolution
acknowledging
the
cooperation
between the
@UN and the
@OPCW.
#KingdomNL is
proud to have
submitted this
resolution as
host nation of
the OPCW."
This is not a
best practice;
it is UNtransparent
like the
withholding
of all records
about the
Netherlands
Mission's role in and
response to
the banning of
Inner City Press,
and all
records about
Cameroon. As
the
Cameroon
government of
36 year
President
Paul
Biya prepared
for today's
re-coronation
to a seventh term by
slaughtering
civilians in
the Anglophone
regions as well as in
the North,
it
re-engaged Washington
lobbying firm
Squire Patton
Boggs, on a
retainer
of $100,000 per
quarter
plus
expenses, documents
show. The
UN belatedly
acknowledged
to Inner City
Press,
which UN Secretary
General
Antonio
Guterres had
roughed up on
July 3 right
after it spoke
to Cameroon's
Ambassador Tommo
Monthe, that
Guterres met
with a
Cameroon
delegation on
July 11. Guterres'
spokesman
Farhan Haq has
three times
refused to
answer Inner
City Press e-mailed
question
whether
Guterres was
aware his
meeting was
stage managed
by lobbyists
at Patton
Boggs, and
what was
discussed.
While
suspended but
before the UN
outrageously
purported to
impose a
lifetime ban
on entry,
Inner City Press
asked the same and
more to the Dutch
Mission to the
UN, in
writing and in
person. (And
now has its
"WOB"
appeal set for
a hearing,
albeit by Skype,
below, as now
Dutch
Ambassador
Karel von
Oosterom and his
Spokesman
refuse to
answer any
Inner City
Press
questions,
unlike other
UNSC
Ambassador,
November 19
video here.)
After
Guterres banned
Inner City
Press from entry from
July 3 onward,
in order to report
on the UN
Inner City
Press had to
seek answers
other than at
the UN Noon
Briefing and UN
Security
Council
stakeout
position, from
which Guterres
and Smale also banned
it. Inner
City Press
asks question
in front of
the UN
Delegates
Entrance, and
has gotten
about put
online
responses
from, among
others,
outgoing UN
Human Rights
Commissioner
Zeid,
Burundi's
Ambassador,
and on August
20, for
example, a diplomat
on the North
Korea
sanctions committee -- whose
Dutch chair
Karel van
Oosterom refused
to comment.
This
stakeout
is where Inner
City Press asks
questions only because
Guterres and
Smale have
banned it since
July 3. But in
her August 17
letter, Smale
justifies the
ban
imposed July 3
with this
post-July 3
interviews,
and says that
UNnamed
member states -
and somehow
correspondents -
have
complained.
Is that
Dutch
Ambassador
Karel van
Oosterom? Inner
City Press
submitted a
FOIA or WOB
request -
and now an
appealon which
there will be a
Skype hearing,
including
based on October 7
election
irregularities and the
denial's evasion on
Dutch role in
UN censorship
which now
includes a
secret barred
list which
violations
applicable
law, see
below.
First, the
request:
"This is
request under
the WOB /
Dutch Freedom
of Information
act for the
following
records as
that term is
defined in
WOB, including
but not
limited to all
electronic
records,
emails,
text/SMS
message and
communications
in any form,
involving the
Netherlands
Mission to the
UN in New York
since August
15, 2017
regarding
Cameroon
and/or
Southern
Cameroons and
all meeting
including Amb
van Oosterom's
July 11
meeting with
Cameroonian
ministers, all
responses to
communications
received about
Cameroon
including but
not limited to
Inner City
Press'
communications
of
July 14, 2018
to "Eybergen,
Bas van"
NYV@minbuza.nl
Frits.Kemperman [at] minbuza.nl,
NYV-COM@minbuza.nl, Oosterom
and Kaag
July 25, 2018
to the same
recipients;
and August 12,
2018 to the
same
recipients;
and multiple
verbal
questions to
your PR and
DPR since July
3.
To
explain the
last part of
this request,
the head of UN
Dep't of
Public Info
Alison Smale
in issuing a
lifetime ban
to my on
August 17
wrote "“We
would also
note your
conduct at the
entrances of
the United
Nations
premises and
nearby,
including the
use of
profanities
and derogatory
assertions and
language
toward
individuals
accessing the
United
Nations, in
close
proximity to
them. Video /
live
broadcasts of
this are
frequently
published on
the Inner City
Press' website
and other
media
platforms.
This conduct
gives rise to
potential
safety
concerns for
Member State
diplomats...The
conduct
described
above has
generated
multiple
complaints to
the United
Nations from
Member
States."
Given
Ambassador van
Oosterom and
his Deputy
PR's flat
refusal to
answer or even
acknowledge
the Cameroon
questions I
asked them at
the Delegates
Entrance
stakeout, most
recently Amb
van Oosterom
on August 20
about North
Korea (on
which other
delegations
answered,
despite PR van
Oosterom being
the chair),
this is a
request for
all record
that reflect
or are related
to any
communications
by the Dutch
Mission to the
UN about
questions or
comments
received at
the
stakeout(s).
Given the
situations in
Cameroon and
South
Cameroons, I
and Inner City
Press asked
for expedited
processes of
this request."
And we
received back this:
"Bedankt voor
uw e-mail.
Afhankelijk
van de aard en
inhoud van uw
bericht kunt u
binnen twee
werkdagen een
reactie
tegemoet zien.
Uw kenmerk is
E3487878
Met
vriendelijke
groet,
Informatie
Rijksoverheid
Thank you for
your e-mail.
Depending on
the nature and
content of
your message
you can expect
a reply within
two working
days.
Your reference
is E3487878
Kind regards,
Public
Information
Service,
Government of
the
Netherlands."
But now
on September
20, another
extension: "
Date September
2Oth 2018
MinBuza-2018.1035870
Re
Postponement
notice in
relation to
Wob
application
Dear Mr. Lee,
By email of
August 22th
2018 you
submitted an
application to
my Ministry as
referred to in
section 3,
subsection 1
of the
Government
Information
(Public
Access) Act
(Wet
openbaarheid
van bestuur;
WOB)
concerning
PVVN meetings
regarding
Cameroon.
The Wob
provides that
a decision
must generally
be taken
within four
weeks after
receipt of the
application,
but may be
deferred by
four weeks. It
is not
possible to
decide on your
application
within four
weeks because
more time is
necessary to
ensure that
the decision
is taken with
due care. On
the basis of
section 6 of
the
WOB 1 am
therefore
extending the
time limit for
deciding on
your
application by
four weeks.
1f you have
any questions
concerning the
status of your
application
and the time
limit for
dealing with
it, please
contact
DJZ-NR.
Yours
sincerely,
For the
Minister of
Foreign
Affairs,
the acting
head of the
Netherlands
Law Devision
of the Legal
Affairs
Department,
mr. drs. ie" But
having received
no documents on
October 22, still banned
but watching
van Oosterom say how
he would tweet each of
the ten
points in his
UN Security
Council
speech, Inner
City Press
itself tweeted
that it had no
WOB response.
Minutes
later an email
from his Alternate
Political
Coordinator
Charlotte van
Baak with a letter
dated October
17, five
days before,
denying access
to any documents
at all. Letter
here
on Patreon,
here
on Scribd.
Netherlands
Denies Press
Ac... by
on Scribd
This is the text:
"Mission of
the Kingdom of
the
Netherlands to
the United
Nations 666
Third Avenue,
New York 10017
www.netherlandsmission.org
Contact Bas
van Eybergen
Date
October 17,
2018 WOB
Request on
Cameroon
Dear Mr Lee,
In your email
of 8/22/18 you
requested
information on
Cameroon,
invoking the
Government
Information
(Public
Access) Act
(Wet
openbaarheid
van bestuur;
WOB).
The documents
you requested
concerned "all
electronic
records,
emails,
text/SMS
message and
communications
in any form,
involving the
Netherlands
Mission to the
UN in New York
since August
15, 2017
regarding
Cameroon
and/or Southem
Cameroons and
all meeting
including Amb
van Oosterom's
July 11
meeting with
Cameroonian
ministers, all
responses to
communications
received about
Cameroon
including but
not limited to
Inner City
Press'
communications."
Statutory
framework Your
application
falls within
the scope of
the Government
Information
(Public
Access) Act.
Specification
of documents
In response to
your
application,
the following
documents have
been found:
- Internal
emails from
August 2017
until October
2018
External
emails from
August 2017
until October
2018 A
preparatory
document for a
meeting with a
delegation of
another UN
member state,
dated 07/12/18
One
instruction of
the Ministry
of Foreign
Affairs to the
Permanent
Mission, dated
10/12/18 Two
reports of the
Permanent
Mission to the
Ministry of
Foreign
Affairs, dated
08/23/18 and
10/14/18
Decision I
have decided
not to
disclose the
requested
documents.
Please find
the
considerations
for my
decision in
the next
paragraph.
Considerations
Intemal
Consultations
Section 11,
subsection 1
of the WOB
provides that
where an
application
concerns
information
contained in
documents
drawn up for
the purpose of
internal
consultation,
no information
will be
disclosed
concerning
personal
opinions on
policy
contained in
them.
It is apparent
from the
history of the
legislation
that the
phrase
"documents
drawn up for
the purpose of
internal
consultation'
should be
deemed to
include papers
drawn up by
civil
servants, the
ministry's
senior
management and
political
leadership,
correspondence
within a
ministry and
between
ministries,
draft
documents,
meeting
agendas,
minutes,
summaries and
conclusions of
internal
discussions
and reports of
civil service
advisory
committees. As
regards these
documents, the
intention to
treat them as
documents for
internal
consultation
must either be
expressly
apparent or
reasonably
surmisable.
This
limitation of
the duty of
disclosure has
been included
in the WOB
because it is
necessary to
ensure that
civil servants
and any
external
participants
taking part in
the internal
discussions
and involved
in formulating
and preparing
policy do not
feel
constricted in
doing so. They
must be able
to communicate
entirely
frankly among
themselves and
with
government
ministers.
Only the
positions
actually
adopted by the
administrative
authority are
relevant
constitutionally.
Personal
opinions on
policy include
views,
opinions,
comments,
proposals and
conclusions,
together with
the arguments
put forward in
support of
them.
The internal
emails have
been drawn up
for the
purpose of
internal
consultation
and contain
personal
opinions on
policy. I have
decided not to
disclose any
information of
those internal
emails, as I
do not
consider that
public
disclosure of
the positions
taken
individually
by civil
servants would
be in the
interests of
effective,
democratic
governance. I
therefore see
no reason to
disclose.
Interational
relations
Section 10,
subsection 2,
opening words
and (a) of the
WOB provides
that data
should not be
disclosed if
the interest
in disclosure
is outweighed
by the
interest in
maintaining
relations
between the
Netherlands
and other
States or
international
organisations.
The history of
this provision
shows that
this ground
for refusal is
intended to
prevent a
situation in
which a
statutory duty
to disclose
information
would have the
effect of
harming Dutch
international
relations. In
order for this
provision to
be applied, it
is not
necessary for
deterioration
of good
relations with
other
countries to
be expected.
It is instead
sufficient if
the provision
of information
is likely in
some ways to
make
international
contacts more
difficult, for
example if
maintaining
diplomatic
relations or
conducting
bilateral
consultations
with countries
would be
harder than
before or if
people in
these
countries
would be less
inclined to
provide
certain data
than
previously.
The external
emails, and
the documents
dated
07/12/18,
10/12/18,
08/23/18 and
10/14/18
include
information
that could
harm the
international
relations of
the
Netherlands. I
have therefore
decided not to
disclose them.
Yours
sincerely,
Charlotte van
Baak Alternate
Political
Coordinator of
the Permanent
Mission of the
Kingdom of the
Netherlands to
the United
Nations in New
York."
Is this
Freedom of
Information in
The Netherlands
- every
document
withheld, by
one's own
subordinate?
And so
on October 24,
to the
Mission and Ministry's Legal
Adviser
Mirnel Comic,
Inner
City Press has
filed this
appeal:
"NOTICE OF
OBJECTION
October 24,
2018
This is a
formal notice
of objection
to / appeal
from the total
denial of my
22 August 2018
WOB request.
After repeated
delays, the
response from
the Dutch
Mission to the
UN only
mentions one
part of my
request, on
Cameroon, and
on that denies
access to
every single
documents,
external as
well as
internal, with
a logic that
would make the
Ministry of
Foreign
Affairs
entirely
exempt from
the WOB,
clearly not
the
legislative
intent.
Beyond the
shameful
denial of all
Cameroon
related
documents, the
belated
response
troublingly
does not
mention this
portion of my
request: “the
head of UN
Dep't of
Public Info
Alison Smale
in issuing a
lifetime ban
to my on
August 17
wrote "“We
would also
note your
conduct at the
entrances of
the United
Nations
premises and
nearby,
including the
use of
profanities
and derogatory
assertions and
language
toward
individuals
accessing the
United
Nations, in
close
proximity to
them. Video /
live
broadcasts of
this are
frequently
published on
the Inner City
Press' website
and other
media
platforms.
This conduct
gives rise to
potential
safety
concerns for
Member State
diplomats...The
conduct
described
above has
generated
multiple
complaints to
the United
Nations from
Member
States."
Given
Ambassador van
Oosterom and
his Deputy
PR's flat
refusal to
answer or even
acknowledge
the Cameroon
questions I
asked them at
the Delegates
Entrance
stakeout, most
recently Amb
van Oosterom
on August 20
about North
Korea (on
which other
delegations
answered,
despite PR van
Oosterom being
the chair),
this is a
request for
all record
that reflect
or are related
to any
communications
by the Dutch
Mission to the
UN about
questions or
comments
received at
the
stakeout(s).”
This was and
is not limited
to questions
about Cameroon
but rather any
documents
related to the
area around
the Delegates
Entrance Gate
and related to
freedom of the
Press,
communications
with UN
Department of
Public
Information /
Global
Communications
or UN
Security. The
invocation of
the exemption
used implies
the
Government, or
at least
Mission, wants
secrecy in
order to lobby
for the
censorship the
UN is engaged
in. I demand
expedited
treatment of
this appeal,
in that the
withdrawal of
my media
accreditation
amid questions
on Cameroon
and other
topics has
morphed into a
seemingly
lifetime ban
on a secretary
“barred” list
that the UN
claims is an
internal
document [video
here]
even
with respect
to people on
it. This is a
violation of
human rights,
including
EU/EC rights.
I demand
expedited
treatment,
also after
irregularities
in the
Cameroon
elections of
Oct 7, for
this notice of
objection."
And now (on October 30) from The
Hague and not like the
response from
the very
Mission
questioned
this
acknowledgement
of appeal and
timeline:
"Dear Mr. Lee, I
hereby
ackowledge
receipt of
your notice of
objection to
the decision
on your Wob
request dated
8/22/18. I
would like to
draw your
attention to
the handling
period for
your notice of
objection. You
receive a
decision or
adjournment
notice within
six weeks of
the day on
which the
deadline for
submitting the
notice of
objection
expired. In
the event of
an adjournment
notice, the
decision on
your notice of
objection will
be adjourned
for a maximum
of six weeks.
Met
vriendelijke
groeten, /
With kind
regards,
Edith
Kraaijeveld Administratief
medewerker"
***
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
UN Office: S-303,
UN, NY 10017 USA
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 2006-2015 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com for
|