Ban
Ki-moon's
Nesirky Claims UN Pension Fund Not Part of UN, No Answers on Africa as
Even Questions Are Restricted
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, February 5 -- "I don't think that's question that I
need to answer," UN Spokesman Martin Nesirky told the Press on
February 5. Inner City Press had asked about a UN Administrative
Tribunal decision in favor of former Secretary General Kofi Annan,
reversing the UN Pension Fund and awarded Annan two pensions, as a
staff member and as Secretary General. (Click here
for Inner City Press' February 4
exclusive report and link.)
"That
sounds
like something for the Pension Fund to answer, not me," Nesirky
said, in what is becoming a trend two months into Nesirky's tenure.
Inner City Press explained that the Pension Fund claims its building
on Second Avenue is not open to the UN press corps.
"You've
just
answered your own question," Nesirky said. "It's not part
of the UN system." Video here,
from Minute 14:42.
Since
it
decidedly is -- it has the
UN's immunity and Nesirky's boss Secretary
General Ban Ki-moon for example names a representative, currently
Warren Sach -- Inner City Press asked Nesirky to repeat and explain,
"the UN Pension Fund is not a part of the UN system?"
Then
Nesirky
claimed that is not "a question I need to answer."
So
what or whose
questions does UN spokesman
Nesirky acknowledge that he "needs
to answer"? Also on February 5,
Inner City Press asked straight
forward questions
about Darfur, for the UN's response to widely
reported fighting between rebel groups displacing 10,000 people in an
area in which the UN is charged with protecting civilians. Nesirky
said only, "Let me find out." Video here,
from Minute 14:17.
When
Inner City
Press asked about UN
training of ex-rebels in Nigeria's restive Niger
Delta, Nesirky demanded to know how the article in the Guardian
newspaper of Nigeria was sourced, what UN official was named. Video
here,
from Minute 27:23. Inner
City Press provided the information, in response to which Nesirky
again said, let's find out. Yeah, let's.
UN's Ban and his spokesman, number of
questions limited, many not answered
This
was the
approach of Nesirky's predecessor Michele Montas, to answer less than
half of the questions posed. But even she rarely said, only one more
question, or, no more questions for you, as Nesirky increasingly does.
At first, Nesirky said he would answer
all questions, putting them on a list until they were answered. (Click here
for Inner City Press' first
month review of "NeSmirky"). But
repeated questions at the noon briefing about Somalia have yet to be
answered.
Questions
put to
him in writing about nepotism reaching to the highest levels of the
UN have been entirely ignored. In response to a nepotism question
about Ivory Coast, he outsourced answering to the UN Mission there,
which provided an intentionally misleading answer. Nesirky, even when
shown the answer and then a contradicting acknowledgement, had
nothing to say.
Apparently
that too
is "not a question I need to answer," according to Mr.
Nesirky. Watch this site.
* * *
As
Kofi Annan Wins a Double UN Pension, a Roberta Annan at
UNDP
By
Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive
UNITED
NATIONS, February 4 -- Former Secretary General Kofi Annan's fight to
receive two pension from the UN has been decided in his favor, in a
so far unreported ruling that reversed the embattled chief of the UN
Pension Fund, Bernard Cocheme.
The
UN
Administrative Tribunal's Judgment Number 1495, which Inner City
Press has obtained
and is putting online here, deals with the narrow
question of whether the Pension Fund correctly determined that former
S-G Annan should not receive the full pension benefits he believes
should be afforded to him.
In
his filings
before the Tribunal, Annan argued that his understanding of the word
"suspended" to mean deferred until a later time. But the
Pension Fund argued that the word "suspended" meant that Annan "agreed
to forfeit his pension benefits during the period
he served as Secretary-General."
The
judgment
explains that Mr. Annan's case represented an "unprecedented
situation for the UNJSPF" in that Annan "was the first UN
staff member in the history of the Organization to be elected to this
high office."
Despite
the seeming
double-dipping, Annan is found be eligible to receive both his full
pension benefits as a result of his career as a UN staffer, in
addition to those benefits provided to a former
Secretary-General. (And see Footnote Analysis, below).
The
judgment
raises a question, in the wake of the UN
Justice System's other
recent judgment, exclusively reported by Inner City Press, which
strongly criticized the current DGACM boss
Shaaban M. Shaaban. That decision portends a future decision on
whether Shaaban should be held personally accountable for the payment
of $20,000 in "compensatory damages" to a DGACM jobseeker. On February
3, Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky quietly announced that
Ban would appeal the Tribunal's decision, but failed to explain on
what basis Judge Adams had erred in his decision.
Nesirky
answered
Inner City Press' February 3 question by inserting into the "Briefing
Highlights" that the UN would appeal. This was not put in the
transcript, nor apparently was it conveyed to Inner City Press.
Nevertheless,
when
Inner City Press on February 4 asked Nesirky about it, he said, you
have your answer. But on what basis is Ban appealing? You have your
answer, Nesirky said.
Article
12 of the Statute of the UN Administrative Tribunal allows either
party to submit a request for revision or correction of judgment. A
question is: Will Ban try to request a "revision" or
"correction of judgment" in this case?
Speaking
of
Annan(s), Inner City Press was told by a whistleblower that a
relative, Roberta Annan, was given a consultant's contract by UNDP /
the Global Environment Fund. Inner City Press asked, and received
multiple denials. For example, wehlers [at] thegef.org replied, "we
have no employee by the name of Annan."
UN's Ban and Kofi Annan, 2bl pension, Roberta and
Shaaban not shown
Inner
City Press
returned to its sources, and told UNDP the name of the person under
whom Roberta Annan was working: Julia Wolf. Then this admission /
denial:
Subject:
answers
From:
Stephane Dujarric at undp.org
To:
Inner City Press
Matthew,
On Roberta Annan:
There
is in fact a "Roberta Annan" working as a UNOPS consultant
on a UNDP project on climate change adaptation funded by the GEF.
She was hired through a competitive process and her supervisors very
much value her work. As for her supposed relationship with Kofi
Annan, she has no direct relations with the former Secretary-General
and does not know him personally.
Stephane
Dujarric
Director
of Communications
UN
Development Programme
Inner
City Press
asked , "I want to understand your Roberta Annan answer:
"As
for her supposed relationship with Kofi Annan, she has no direct
relations with the former Secretary-General and does not know him
personally."
As
I asked, what IS the family relationship?
"There
is in fact a "Roberta Annan" working as a UNOPS consultant
on a UNDP project on climate change adaptation funded by the GEF. "
What
does the project consist of? Is she based in New York? Why is there a
UNOPS consultant on a UNDP project funded by GEF? -- why didn't UNDP
hire its own consultant? Please explain.
"She
was hired through a competitive process and her supervisors very much
value her work."
Please
describe the competitive process (by UNOPS?) to hire this consultant:
how many applied, how advertised, how many interviewed, etc. Thanks
To
which the only
reply was
The
project in question is www.adaptationlearning.net . You can all the
information you need there. As the project is a multi-agency project,
there is nothing surprising to find a UNOPS person working there. As
I said previously, she was recruited through the usual competitive
process.
Regarding
Roberta, I really have nothing else to add except to say that she
does not know Mr. Annan personally and has no direct family link with
Mr. Annan. I am not in the habit and will not start to ask staff
about their family genealogy going back several generations.
Again,
feel free to publish my response in full.
Watch
this site.
Footnote
analysis: a long time UN Pension Fund insider whom Inner City Press
respects has this analysis of the Annan decision:
1.
Irony that UNAT closes its door with what, most likely, will ne the
most famous case in its history - 60 years?.
2.
it proves what Inner City Press has been saying about Pension Fund:
incompetent because has a management gone wild without control.
3.
The Pension Board allows Cocheme to manage incompetently or use the
Fund to harm or favor people, as they did with staff and consultants.
4.
The UN as a whole allows Cocheme to do the wildest things.
5.
This time he was stopped.
6.
How can Cocheme say that Kofi Annan is not entitled to his pension
when the Regulations says that he is? How can he say that they cut
he voluntarily agreed to forfeit his pension when the PF Regulations
DO NOT ALLOW it. [This part is not clear in the Judgement 1495], but
I know it.
7.
Where is the Pension Board oversight?
8.
Conclusion: the Board that was mislead by Cocheme has the obligation
to ask him to resign.
We'll
see
, 
