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

By Matthew Russell Lee, full docs, II, Fox

UNITED NATIONS, July 20 – When US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met with UN Security Council members at 10 am on July 20, it was not inside the UN, which has become a place not only of corruption and bribing of General Assembly Presidents but now also of censorship by Secretary General Antonio Guterres. Instead the meeting was at South Korea's mission to the UN on 45th Street, less than a half block from the UN. Inner City Press could and did stake out the South Korean mission - but was banned by Guterres from entering the UN and covering Pompeo's and Nikki Haley's stakeout in the UN. So here, after the fact, is that transcript: "SECRETARY POMPEO:  Good afternoon, everyone.  First I want to commend my good friend Ambassador Haley and her excellent team here at the United Nations.  Her leadership in advancing American interest on North Korea and many other issues has been evident here this morning, and she’s got a great team behind her helping.  So thank you, Nikki.

The main reason I came here today was to meet with members of the UN Security Council – South Korea and Japan as well – to convey details of my work on the trip to North Korea earlier this month and the progress that was made there.  I also had the opportunity to meet with UN Secretary-General Guterres to discuss the topic and other topics as well.

The countries of the Security Council are united on the need for final, fully verified denuclearization of North Korea, as agreed to by Chairman Kim.  Strict enforcement of sanctions is critical to our achieving this goal.

Members of the UN Security Council, and by extension all UN member-states, have unanimously agreed to fully enforce sanctions on North Korea, and we expect them to continue to honor those commitments.  When sanctions are not enforced, the prospects for the successful denuclearization are diminished.  Right now, North Korea is illegally smuggling petroleum products into the country at a level that far exceeds the quotas established by the United Nations.  These illegal ship-to-ship transfers are the most prominent means by which this is happening.

These transfers happened at least 89 times in the first five months of this year and they continue to occur.  The United States reminds every UN member-state of its responsibility to stop illegal ship-to-ship transfers, and we urge them to step up their enforcement efforts as well.

We must also crack down on other forms of sanctions evasion, including the smuggling of coal by sea, smuggling by overland borders, and the presence of North Korean guest workers in certain countries.  North Korean cyber thefts and other criminal activities are also generating significant revenues for the regime, and they must be stopped.

President Trump remains upbeat about the prospects of denuclearization of North Korea.  So do I, as progress is happening.  It is the Trump administration’s hope that one day the DPRK could be in our midst here at the United Nations – not as a pariah, but as a friend.  Imagine UN Security Council meetings in which the DPRK nuclear and missile programs were not the agenda time and time again.  We’ll be able to focus our energy on so many urgent problems that face our world.

I believe this reality is possible, and so does President Trump.  But it will take full enforcement of sanctions for us to get there.  It will also take Chairman Kim following through on his personal commitments that he made to President Trump in Singapore.  The path ahead is not easy; it will take time.  But our hopes for a safer world for all of us and a brighter future for North Korea remains our objective, and that hope endures.

Thank you.  Ambassador Haley.

AMBASSADOR HALEY:  Thank you so much.  And I’m very grateful to my friend, Secretary Pompeo, for coming out and meeting with the Security Council today.

This is what we know.  Eighteen months ago when I came in, our biggest concern was North Korea.  Everyone was wondering when that new test was going to happen, everyone was wondering when the new threat would occur, and the entire international community knew something had to happen.  It was a herculean task by the Security Council to pass three massive sanctions packages, getting rid of all exports, 90 percent of their trade, 30 percent of their oil, expelling all labor workers and scheduling that down, making sure all joint ventures stopped.  All of that combined with the international community coming together and expelling diplomats and stopping communication, and with the President’s tough stance, all of that was really the combination that brought North Korea to the table.

Now, North Korea and the U.S. have started to have talks.  And as those things are happening, we and the Security Council and the international community have to support those talks.  And the best way we can support those talks is to not loosen the sanctions.  And what we have been seeing is certain countries wanting to do waivers, certain countries saying, “Let’s lift sanctions,” certain countries wanting to do more.  And what – I appreciate Secretary Pompeo coming up and what we continue to reiterate is we can’t do one thing until we see North Korea respond to their promise to denuclearize.  We have to see some sort of action.  And so until that action happens, the Security Council’s going to hold tight, the international community – we ask you to hold tight as we go forward.

The problem that we are encountering is that some of our friends have decided that they want to go around the rules.  You saw that there was violations of the oil ban.  We have, as Secretary Pompeo said, seen 89 times where that has happened.  We have photographs of proof of ship-to-ship transfers.  And our friends, what we decided was let’s come together and let’s make sure that this stops.  So the U.S. put yesterday a halt to all additional refined petroleum shipments to North Korea.  China and Russia blocked it.

Now for China and Russia to block it, what are they telling us?  Are they telling us that they want to continue supplying this oil?  They claim they need more information.  We don’t need any more information.  The sanctions committee has what it needs.  We all know it’s going forward.  We put pressure today on China and Russia to abide and be good helpers through this situation and to help us continue with denuclearization.

And so I think this was a day of very frank talk between the Secretary, the foreign minister of South Korea, our Japanese friends as well, as well as the Security Council to say:  If we want to see success, we have to see a response from Chairman Kim, and we have to continue to hold the line until that happens.  And so very successful day, again, promising that the Security Council has remained united and continuing to put pressure on our members to not fall through on that process.  Thank you.

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary --

MS NAUERT:  Three quick – three quick questions.  Rich Edson, Fox News.

QUESTION:  Thank you.  Mr. Secretary, UN Ambassador Haley mentioned that Russia isn’t being all that helpful to sanctions enforcement.  The President mentioned after his meeting with President Putin that President Putin was going to help on North Korea.  Is Russia reneging on an agreement that it made with the President?  And is – what else did the two presidents agree to when they met?

SECRETARY POMPEO:  So enforcement of sanctions is a continuing process.  There are many places where the Russians have been helpful.  Certainly since the very beginning of the time of the UN Security resolutions the Russians have done many things to enforce these sanctions, and we’re deeply appreciative of that.  What we need now, though, is we need to continue that.  We need to make sure that the world doesn’t begin to see this – this is not an American demand for the North Koreans to denuclearize; it is the world’s demand and we need the world to continue to participate.

And so where we find issues where any country, whether it’s Russia or another one, not doing their part to enforce it, we’re going to make sure that we provide the information to them so they can all see it and the world can see it, and we’re going to demand that every country in the world do their part.

MS NAUERT:  Kylie from CBS News.

QUESTION:  Just following up, Mr. Secretary, on a question about Russia, because that’s kind of what everyone in Washington is talking about today.  Why is it a good idea for the President to invite Vladimir Putin to the White House?  What does the U.S. have to gain from that visit?

SECRETARY POMPEO:  Yeah, I’m happy that the two leaders of two very important countries are continuing to meet.  If that meeting takes place in Washington, I think it’s all to the good.  Those conversations are incredibly important.  We have our senior leaders meeting all across the world with people where we have deep disagreements with.  It is incredibly valuable to the people of the United States of America that President Putin and President Trump continue to engage in dialogue to resolve the difficult issues that our countries face between each other.  I think this makes enormous sense, and I’m very hopeful that that meeting will take place this fall." In the morning session on 45th Steet also attending was Japan's Ambassador Koro Bessho, who declined to speak on his way in unlike Dutch PR Karel van Oostrom, who spoke but said little. French PR Francois Delattre, when asked by Inner City Press if his country is blocking any UNSC meeting about the killings in Cameroon by Frenh ally Paul Biya, refused to answer. Pompeo is set to meet Guterres on July 20 at 11:10 am -- investigative media Inner City Press remains banned from the photo op and from the UN as it has been since on July 3 it sought to cover Guterres' $6.7 billion budget. Fox News story here, GAP blogs I and II, UK Independent here. Then at 12 noon Pompeo with USUN Nikki Haley will speak in the UN "VIP Entrance" only to the media that the UN decides to let it, which includes the state media of Egypt, for example, but not independent Press based in the US, in the South Bronx to be exact. This is disgusting censorship, which we will be reporting on. Watch this site. On July 13 Pompeo, along with Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and Jared Kushner (of whose meeting with UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres the UN never issued any read-out), headed to Mexico to meet with President-elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and others. While immigration and even helicopter issues are said to be on the agenda, flying under the radar is the UN's Guterres' proposal to move jobs currently at UN Headquarters in New York to Mexico City as part of his so-called Global Service Delivery Mechanism reform. In an eleventh hour process from which Guterres' UN Security ousted and roughed up Inner City Press, the GSDM was not approved earlier this month, which which Uganda whic would have lost jobs is taking credit. But did Pompeo's US Mission to the UN actually support this shift of jobs? If so, why? That remains unclear. Watch this site. At the UN with Antonio Guterres 18 months into his term as Secretary General, there's talk of reform but little transparency. On July 1 there was a claim that the peacekeeping budgets tied to the supposed reforms had been "approved," with no open meeting of the Budget Committee and with Inner City Press which covers it still banned from entering the building on the weekends or evenings when the Committee had consultations, having been ousted June 22 by Guterres' gun-toting guards who refused to give their names. Video here, story here, new petition here. So Inner City Press on July 3 went to cover the Fifth Committee meeting, of which it had been officially informed by UN spokespeople. But once there, it was physically ousted by rogue UN Security Lieutenant Ronald E. Dobbins and another, right in front of ASG Christian Saunders. On July 5, Inner City Press was banned from entering the UN, even as the UN bragged of approvals. But even UN meetings coverage says what the GA approved: "Under the draft’s section IV titled “Global service delivery model for the United Nations Secretariat”, the Assembly endorsed the conclusions and recommendations in ACABQ’s report (document A/72/7/Add.50), requesting that the Secretary-General submit a new proposal for the model no later than the first resumed part of its seventy-third session — which would take fully into account paragraph 5 of the ACABQ’s report, as well as comments, observations and recommendations of the Joint Inspection Unit — and to both consult and consider Member States and relevant stakeholders." So they ousted and are banning the Press for this - disgusting.
Fox News story here, GAP blogs I and II. Guterres' proposed Global Service Delivery Model (GSDM) may, despite Guterres' murky attempts to over-ride his advisory team's recommendations, be an exception, as it would eliminate jobs in New York, jobs held by Americans. But the UN's Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions slammed the proposal, as Inner City Press exclusively asked about on June 14, see below. In the UN Budget Committee at the beginning of the week members criticized Guterres' request to vote on the moving-target plan by the end of the Committee's session on Friday June 22. On June 21 Inner City Press asked Guterres' deputy spokesman Farhan Haq if Guterres expected a vote by June 22, and to explain why Guterres wants to move more jobs to Budapest given Prince Zeid's critique of just enacted Hungarian laws. Haq said the placement of UN jobs has nothing to do with human rights - clearly - and referred Inner City Press to the spokesman for the President of the General Assembly, who said the session is being extended to Sunday, June 24. But since Inner City Press has been evicted and restricted, by Guterres' spokespeople and Global Communicator Alison Smale, it cannot enter the UN to cover this big money budget session which it, alone about the UN press corps, is following. In fact, the session were held Saturday and Sunday, after Inner City Press was  ousted on Friday, June 22, video here, story here. On June 29, under the same UNexplained threat of "Gooters' Goons," Inner City Press came to cover the budget end game. Diplomats said that the US is conditioning softening its threatened budget cuts on getting reforms. Fine - but a reform that fires Americans in New York, to move jobs to Mexico City? Has their boss heard of this? Near midnight between Friday and Saturday Inner City Press asked the Chair of the UN Budget Committee Tommo Monthe of Cameroon if it would get done tonight. He said maybe. Guterres has gone beyond his own natural disinterest to actively cover up Cameroon's Biya's killings in order to get the chairman's help. But when the chips are down, Guterres is mostly about  censoring and attacking the Press that covers it and him. At the cusp of June 30 and July 1, with Inner City Press barred from the UN while Guterres virtue signals with taxpayers' money in Bangladesh, UN sycophants gushed that a $6.7 billion peacekeeping budget was approved. But that can only legitimately be done in an open session on UNTV, and there is no indication of that. Guterres' leaving town during this, and barring his lone critic, is disgusting, and those who "report" without mentioning either. All there is a document with modest reductions in peacekeeping missions. The mission in Haiti MINUJUSTAH goes does from Guterres' proposal of $124 million to $121 million; MINURSO in Western Sahara goes down from $53.9 million to $52.3 million. UNAMID in Darfur, which is being blocked in its movements to Jebal Marra, takes a hit. But no Fifth Committee plenary on UNTV, no answer to written questions, Guterres in Bangladesh claiming he will "continue" to pressure Aung San Suu Kyi's Myanmar while Sheikh Hasina continues to speak of putting the Rohingya on a far away island... well, we'll have more on this. On June 25 Guterres spokesman refused to explain, and the PGA's spokesman while confirming the sessions took place referred questions on media access to the Secretariat - which, it seems, is a corrupt censor. On June 18, Inner City Press asked when or if the criticized Guterres proposal would be considered by the UN's Fifth (Budget) Committee. Summary by UN: "The Spokesperson was asked for updates related to the General Assembly’s consideration of the Secretary-General’s Global Service Delivery Model (GSDM) report. The Spokesperson later said that an advance copy of the relevant report by the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) had been released last week. As of now, no date had been announced for this agenda item to be introduced in the General Assembly’s Fifth Committee." Then Inner City Press was helpfully informed that it would be considered on June 19. At that meeting, Egypt for the G77 said it was all being rushed, as did Switzerland (which would lose jobs) and Uganda (natch). The Joint Inspection Unit panned the proposal, too. It would be absurd to consider it before the slated June 22 end of the Committee session. But this is the UN. Strangely, the US Mission to the UN supported the proposal, which would involved its citizens, General Service staff, losing jobs. This an hour before a White House press call about trade with and tariffs on China. Are these policies coherent? From Guterres, on his way to the World Cup, silence on this, and on the US impending withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council. We'll have more on this. The GSDM proposal, which Inner City Press first wrote about in early March, is to move to cheaper location(s) back office functions like human resources, payments and payroll.

Inner City Press reported -- and has published full documents on Patreon, here -- the four cities in Guterres' initial filing with ACABQ. On June 14, Inner City Press asked Guterres' deputy spokesman Farhan Haq, UN transcript here: Inner City Press: the Administrative Committee on Advisory and Budgetary Questions [Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions] has put out a report on the Secretary-General's proposal on the global service delivery mechanism, the three cities, and moving… moving several jobs.  They… I guess the word is, reject it.  They're saying that they don't accept three cities.  There should only be two cities, one in Africa.  And they're also saying that the Secretary-General should provide further information to those impacted, including staff.  What… what is the Secretary-General's response to that?  And… and seems to… will slow down the implementation.  So what's he going to do?

Deputy Spokesman:  Regarding that, we're going to continue our dialogue with the Member States, including through the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, and we'll follow up with the intention of trying to get the system in place as early as possible next year." We'll have more on this. The initially proposed four cities were Budapest, Kuala Lumpur, Mexico City and Nairobi. The first three were each the product of conflict of interest. Guterres wanted Budapest, those involved say, in order to support or cover up his Budapest move while at UNHCR. But given Victor Orban's statements, why is Antonio "Mister Migration" Guterres tweaking the process to reward Hungary? On Kuala Lumpur, UNDP in that country "lent" John Kidd to mediate or change the outside consultants' recommendations - and include KL. Now Malaysia has said it cannot or will not commit the requisite resources, and Inner City Press is informed - not by Guterres spokespeople which it has repeatedly asked - that Kuala Lumpur is out. And then there were three. Inner City Press asked in each article in this series, What will happen to Entebbe which was set up by DFS for their GFSS Global Field Support Strategy? And now Uganda's Museveni has protested to Guterres, without response. Museveni called the decision "unfair;" his foreign minister Sam Kutesa has threatened to call a vote in the General Assembly, of which he was president (and allegedly accepted bribes from Patrick Ho of China Energy Fund Committee, still in Special Consultative status with UN ECOSOC. On May 7, Inner City Press asked Guterres' spokesman Stephane Dujarric, again, about the GSDM and specifically about Uganda - and it turns out Guterres spoke with Kutesa, though presumably not about the CEFC bribery scandal, on which Guterres has yet to act. From the UN transcript: Inner City Press: I want to ask you again about this global service delivery mechanism.  Seems that… you'd said you were going to give some granular guidance, but I wanted to ask you if it's the case that Kuala Lumpur has dropped out of the four cities and, if so, why, and also if you can confirm the receipt of a letter by the President of Uganda protesting  their non-selection in… despite having this Entebbe situation and the various critiques he's made in it.  There's been a call… at least they've said that Sam Kutesa, which… a name from the past, may call a vote in the General Assembly about the selection of Nairobi over them.  And staff are… are… many people and I've asked here to see the underlying recommendations of how these cities were selected.

Spokesman:  Not aware of Kuala Lumpur.  On Entebbe, the Secretary-General spoke last week with the Foreign Minister of Uganda to explain the situation to him.  A number of functions related to peacekeeping will remain in Entebbe.

Inner City Press:  Could I ask you…

Spokesman:  Go ahead.

Inner City Press: I want to ask you another… since it seem… so, was that called before or after the reported letter from the President?

Spokesman:  It was before.  I'm not… I can't confirm the letter's been received." On May 18, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Farhan Haq about reports in Uganda, video here, UN transcript here: in Uganda it's reported that the Global Service Delivery Mechanism reform would result in the loss of 290 jobs in the Entebbe centre and 205 of whom are Ugandan nationals, and so this is all over press there.  And I've also seen it described that 58 jobs from Geneva would be moved to Budapest.  Are these the real numbers? And…  and when is the time where the Secretary-General will actually publicly say the impact of this proposed reform?

Deputy Spokesman:  Well, this is still something that's under discussion, so I don't think we can treat anything as final.  As we've made clear, we will continue with the use of Entebbe as a regional base for many of our functions." Many now say, particularly seeing a recent directive of ECLAC (on Patreon here) which is Alicia Barcena's other job, that Mexico City as a late replacement for Brazil was a favor for her. (Guterres, who only returned to New York on May 4 and from whose Lusophone garden party in the UN on May 5 his UN Security sought to ban Inner City Press from covering despite it being in the Media Alert of Alison Smale's DPI, will on May 7 and 8 be in Cuba with ECLAC; we'll have more on this). Impacted staff in Santiago are being told they can move to Mexico City - but G staff in New York cannot. We've put a memo on suspended external recruitment on Patreon, here. Now staff have provided Inner City Press with these critiques and comments, from before KL's drop out, posted and awaiting response from Guterres' Secretariat: "So the basis on which to choose the four locations, potentially leading to significant job losses elsewhere, was made on the basis of the three-page report (A/72/801/Add.1) mentioned above? Or are there other reports and behind-the-scenes decisions that aren't being shared in this rather brief article?

(2): In A/72/801/Add.1, one of the Assessment criteria is language requirements (II. 3. (c) “The specific requirements of different parts of the Secretariat, including language requirements”). However, the results of the assessment indicated that Budapest, Nairobi, Kuala Lumpur and Mexico City were the highest scoring as they were deemed, among other criteria, to have “sufficient language capacity to serve global clients”, IV. 6. (c). Knowing that there are six official languages of the UN: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish with English and French as the working languages, how did the drafters of the Report of the Secretary-General and those who carried out the assessment (whomever they are) appraise that these locations do have “sufficient language capacity” unless it was decided that the official languages of the UN is only English, and incidentally Spanish?

(3): It is striking that the costs (staff, operations, setup) do NOT include the heavy and continuing costs of headquarters staff trying to work with out-stationed staff. The 2016 JIU report identified this as a weakness in past business case analysis and it is repeated here. I see the costs here with my FAO colleagues trying to work with Budapest and they are quite significant in terms of lost staff time." Guterres? On April 18, Inner City Press asked Guterres' spokesman Dujarric again, UN transcript here: Inner City Press: I've asked a couple times about this global service delivery mechanism, which sounds very dry, but would actually move 600 jobs out of New York to Mexico City, Budapest…

Spokesman:  You know, I apologise.  I will have language for you on that.

Inner City Press: Even more than language, I want to add an extra question before… maybe this… maybe the language is already written, but there seems to be a question, not only just about how the cities were selected, particularly Budapest, where, in the past, the Secretary-General, António Guterres, in his former job, already moved jobs to Budapest.  And I'm wondering, does he have any thoughts now that there are protests about Viktor Orbán and the position on migration of moving more jobs to Hungary?

Spokesman:  I will get back to you on all of that.

Inner City Press: And… and has… how was it decided that four cities was the right run…?  There seems to be a question about that.

Spokesman:  I will get back to you. " But he hasn't. On April 13, Inner City Press again asked Guterres' spokesman Dujarric who dodged and then said he'd get "granular guidance" - then hours later left for the weekend having provided no information. From the UN transcript: Inner City Press: I had also asked you sometime before about this… this is I think you will know about, the global supply delivery mechanism or GSDM, and the proposal by the Secretary-General to move jobs out of New York and elsewhere to four cities.  I mean, it's now an official document, the ACABQ [Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions], and I guess I wanted… what I'm hearing from people in the process is that the consultant's recommendation of cities, in fact, were not the ones that the Secretary-General has proposed to a ACABQ, that there were some changes, for example, to include Mexico City, that… that an individual from Kuala Lumpur, from… from Malaysia UNDP was involved, a Mr. John Kidd, and somehow Kuala Lumpur showed up…

Spokesman:  You know, I think there's a process.  The report will go to the Fifth Committee.

Inner City Press:   My question is whether the underlying consultant's report that was paid for with public money will be released, as I understand ACABQ has asked they should get it, but I’m saying since it's the public's money…

Spokesman:  I have no information it to share with you on this at this point.  Yes, go ahead.

Inner City Press:  And you said, I asked you, it’s not just sharing, in your previous answer you had said, “Don't worry.  Staff have a right to move.”  That was my understanding of your answer, when I said the effect of this proposal, just as to the United States…

Spokesman:  I think I said… the thrust of my answer is that there are procedures in place.

Inner City Press:   But my question to you, and maybe you'll answer it or not, is that G staff have no right to move, even if they wanted to move to Mexico City and keep their jobs, they are unable, as G staff, to do so.

Spokesman:  I will try to get some granular guidance.

Inner City Press:  On ECLAC [Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean], as well, because I see an amendment on moving ECLAC to Mexico.  It’s public money.

Spokesman:  I'm not debating the fact that it's public money." Then, no answer. Public money wasted, without accountability. We'll have more on this.

Inner City Press was exclusively told by whistleblowers that Guterres wanted to pick Budapest as he did at UNHCR - among his other nicknames he's become known to some as Antonio "Budapest" Guterres. There's talk of wasted spending to try to get Entebbe on the list. On April 5 after publishing this exclusive, Inner City Press asked Guterres' spokesman Stephane Dujarric, who six hours later provided no explanation at all. From the UN transcript: Inner City Press: My understanding is, after a review of 45 cities, António Guterres has selected four cities as the winners of 684 UN posts:  Mexico City, Nairobi, Kuala Lumpur, and Budapest, which it had chosen previously.  And I just wanted to know, it seems like it's a big thing that they've just told ACABQ what the four cities are.  What's the logic behind it?  What's the impact on… on… are the people… are people that are employed here, particularly local staff… are they able to move to these new jobs, or are they going to terminated?  Are new jobs going to be found for them?  And how did he select these four out of the 45 cities listed?

Spokesman:  It went through a rigorous process you know, I will have to check, but my understanding is that, obviously, whenever jobs are moved, staff always have the option of moving with the post.  But let me try to get some more detailed language on that." Six hours later, nothing. Inner City Press also asked the spokesman for the President of the General Assembly, who replied "On the Secretary-General’s Global Service Delivery Model (GSDM) report, an advance unedited version of the report has been shared with Member States and is being considered today by the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ). The report will then be considered by the Fifth Committee in its second resumed session in May before going to the General Assembly plenary. Fifth Committee decisions are traditionally based on consensus." We'll have more on this. Earlier documents referred to Locations A (Budapest) B (Nairobi) C (Kuala Lumpur) and D (Mexico City) in the report.   The supplementary information containing the locations were distributed to the ACABQ members on April 4, Inner City Press has learned. The other (losing) candidates: "The United Nations Secretariat is currently conducting negotiations with the relevant member states. The names of the locations will be released to the committees through supplementary information. The 45 locations include Abidjan, Addis Ababa, Almaty, Amman, Apia, Bangkok, Beirut, Bonn, Brindisi, Budapest, Cairo, Copenhagen, Dakar,
Dubai, Entebbe, Fukuoka, Geneva, Incheon, Istanbul, Johannesburg, Kathmandu, Kigali, Kingston, Kuala Lumpur, Kuwait City, Lusaka, Manama, Mexico City, Montevideo, Nairobi, New Delhi, New York, Niamey, Panama City, Port of Spain, Rabat, Rio de Janeiro, Rome, Santiago, Suva, Tashkent, Valencia, Vienna, Washington D.C., Yaoundé." Some are surprised Guterres didn't go with Yaounde, Cameroon, since he took Biya's golden statue. Washington DC never had a chance...  The whistleblowers tell Inner City Press that dozens of jobs would be eliminated in New York, 75% of them held by women, of whom Guterres speaks so much. More than three dozens of those fired would be from the United States, which as was pointed out in September pays a quarter of the bills. What ever the wisdom, more transparency is needed. But to the contrary, Guterres and his Global Communicator Alison Smale continue to restrict the Press that asks, awarding its long time UN work space to a no-show Egyptian state media, Sanaa Youssef of Akhbar al Yom. On February 28, Guterres' UN Security told Inner City Press to stop recording, as Guterres was offering his "very very warm regards" to Sisi. Guterres' spokesman Stephane Dujarric does not answer Inner City Press' written questions; he evicted and still restricts Inner City Press. This is today's UN. And this: after Inner City Press asked at noon on March 2 about Guterres' "reform" and his spokesman Stephane Dujarric promised to look into it and provide an answer, five hours later... nothing. Some reform. From the UN's March 2 transcript: Inner City Press:  I've been hearing a lot talk about this “global service delivery model” and some people it seems if… unless I have it wrong, that there's going to be an outsourcing or offshoring of human resources and payroll jobs, and from what I've heard they're mostly general service jobs, basically a straight elimination of some 90 posts.  But what I wanted to know is people don't know where it's going.  One, can the general service staff, if they choose to, follow the jobs?  And is it true that Brazil is one of the candidates?  There's just a lot of… it's supposedly by March 15th they have to present…Spokesman:  Let me… I will try to get an update for you." Five hours later, nothing. Even on the environment, the UN's last refuge as it fails under Antonio Guterres on conflict prevention and anti-corruption, the UN is in decay. Guterres' deputy Amina J. Mohammed has refused Press questions since November on her role in signing 4000 certificates to export from Nigeria and Cameroon endangered rosewood already in China. Guterres, Mohammed and Alison Smale's only response has been to censor and continue to restrict the Press which asks, despite 5000 signature petition, UNanswered. Now whistleblowers in UNEP have written to Guterres, and excusively sent a copy to Inner City Press on "UNEP mis management, harassment and misuse of government resources Dear Mr. Solheim, It is almost 1.5 years since you became the Executive Director of UNEP.   While our wish would have been to address the issues below with you in person, this message is being sent to you anonymously for our protection, and given threats, harassment and actions being taken against staff who have tried to speak out, particularly as pertains to financial and human resource anomalies. i) Executive Office – Waste of government resources: We constantly receive feedback on the limited financial resources in the organisation.  Since you came on board, you have established numerous positions in the Executive Office, leading to an estimated 25 positions with about 14 professionals, while all previous Executive Directors worked effectively with only about 7 professionals...The additional cost of these positions is over USD 1.1 million in a year.  These funds could well be used to implement activities that meet our obligations and those of our Member States.  You have gone ahead to establish a temporary P5 Deputy Chief of Staff, in addition to having a Chief of Staff D1 and a P3 Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff.  The new position will cost another USD 206,000.  This adds up to USD 1.3 million wasted resources. How inefficient can an Executive Office be to warrant so many staff and special support to one person, when there are no sufficient resources to support activities in the substantive Divisions! You have inappropriately announced to the Member States that you will be advertising the positions of the D2 Director, Ecosystem Division and Director, New York Office without even discussing this with Mette Wilkie and Elliot Harris, the incumbents of the posts respectively.  The organisation is being led by your personal preferences and those of, the Chief of Staff, Anne LeMore who you brought into the organisation -and Sami Dimassi, Officer in-Charge of Corporate Services, whom you appointed against the decision of OHRM, given the un-merited selection. You appointed a P5, Gary from another agency to come and lead the Policy Division, while you have an already capable D1, Sheila Aggarwal-Khan.  This is another example of a wasted USD 205,600.
You are hardly available to provide leadership to the organisation as you are constantly traveling together with your special assistants most specifically Hao Chen.  Millions of resources have been lost in your business class travels, some of which are not necessary. ii)  Corporate Services Division, illegal actions, personal gain & conflict of interest: You have still maintained Sami Dimassi as officer in charge of Corporate Services Division, despite the temporary selection being rejected by OHRM. We wonder why Sami has been mandated to be making key management decisions yet he has not gone through a proper recruitment process as officer In-charge of that Division and has no qualifications and experience to match the job profile. His main activities are scuttling other people’s careers and family lives. It is unimaginable that United Nations can allow a staff member in the calibre of a Director to continue in the system and continue threatening other staff members including senior staff while quoting your name. The Secretary General in his previous address to staff has stated that he will not entertain any form of harassment in the Organization yet Sami continues to do this in all his dealing with staff from certain quarters. The following are a few examples of the mandate you have granted to your appointee against the decision of the United Nations Secretary General. Sami who is a Lebanese national, with Canadian citizenship in the system, has appointed Fadi Abou-Elias, another Lebanese to lead the budget activities, separating these from finance and the able leadership of Moses Tefula who is an expert with a doctorate in the field and with extensive experience. It is obvious to any expert in accounting and finance, the separation has been done to benefit specific individuals. Also, other UN agencies have consolidated these functions. Sami subsequently created a P3 position in the budget unit and appointed yet another Lebanese national, Joseph K. against the programme support budget (PSC).  These funds are supposed to provide programme support to the MEAs and Divisions that bring in the resources, in addition to corporate administrative support.  In addition, Sami and Fadi managed to enforce the selection of Fadi’s wife Nada Matta as P3 Fund Management Officer in the Science Division (where Sami worked previously) after being placed on temporary post to enable a quick appointment.  All budgetary matters of the Division are well sorted by her husband Fadi, bringing a conflict of interest, since he is the same one managing the organisation’s overall budget, against the UN financial rules and regulations. Much of her work is managed by her husband which is obvious in her change in decisions and guidance provided to the Division, once she receives her husband’s input to questions she may have answered without much knowledge. Recently, you appointed Emanuele Corino, P4 to lead all human resources and administration issues.  Emanuele is no expert in HR and has very limited knowledge in the field. He is an IT-expert Sir.  You have taken this responsibility from a capable P5, Mariama, with decades of expertise in the field.  Emanuele came on board as a consultant through UNOPS, who was then appointed as a UNOPS staff and despite Secretariat questions of his illegal appointment to UNEP he continued to lead procurement activities.  He is being supported by an excellent P4 who is an expert in HR and would better lead this docket if not the P5 Mariama.  In addition, the cost of paying Mariama,USD 205,600goes to waste as all her work has been handed over to an incapable Emanuele, and staff under her supervision deployed to other Divisions. Emanuele is propagating the use of UNOPS in hiring of HR services and procurement services. Consultants and staff, including in your office Sir, have been hired through UNOPS to circumvent the UN rules and regulations and he endorses it, being a beneficiary of such illegal processes. It also leads to misuse of resources provided by member states as UNOPS charges for these services that are provided for free by UNON. He is doing all this in collaboration with two senior HR officers in UNON and a senior Finance officer in UNON-DAS who has been promised to take over a position in UNEP. We request for a full investigation into this matter and the illegal conduct of the staff including misuse of his position. All the above positions have been granted to men, while you continue to preach gender (and in respect to the gender parity strategy) but unfortunately you are not leading by practice.  Sir, it is now public knowledge that the Chief of Finance in your organization, Moses Tefula has filed a case in the United Nations Dispute Tribunal for suspension of illegal action to move him, and to suddenly and unilaterally reclassify his position to a post downwards and transfer him to a position not commensurate with his grade. More details are publicly available in the UNDT website on UNDP/NBI/017/124. Sami and his support group is the architect behind this illegal action so that he can hand-over the powerful docket of Senior Finance Officer to his friends as is already happening. Sir, we remind you that the Member States have entrusted UNEP with close to a billion US dollars of annual contributions and it is un-imaginable that management of such resources can be delegated to friendship circles. While management may not like some staff members especially those from the black race to hold such key positions, we cannot allow the contributions of member states which come from the taxes of their nationalities to be jeopardized. iii) Harassment and illegal actions to get rid of colleagues who do not meet your, Sami Dimassi and Anne Le More’s liking. Efforts have been made to cause instability in the Divisions with missions purported to review the Division.  This has created fear among staff, uncertainty and worry on who will be gotten rid of, or who will be moved to an extra-budgetary post (XB) or contract non-renewal, in order to be sent home.  In this case XB is assumed to be any funds that are not from the regular budget or from the Environment Fund.  This was done in the Regional Office for Africa, the Communication Division, Geneva office and other offices where missions are being undertaken to threaten staff. A brutal example is the move of a P3 Regional Information Expert from Bahrain, along with four others because Sami did not like her, despite her previous performance appraisals meeting and in some instances exceeding expectations.  She has a young family of two children whom she has had to leave in Bahrain under threat that she either takes up the move to Nairobi or leaves the organisation.  She was moved from a regular budget (RB) post, to temporary Environment Fund (Fund Reserve) for one year and is to then be moved to an extra-budgetary (XB) post that has no resources, in the expectation that if no funds are forthcoming or if she is not able to mobilise funds, she will be out on the streets.  This is after service to the organisation for 10 years. This is brut ant misuse of authority by Sami. It is against the “Family-friendly policies” of the UN system wide policy on gender parity which requires decision on staff mobility to be communicated at least six months prior to the moves and moves scheduled six months following the completion of the school year or accommodate the family needs otherwise as appropriate. The poor staff member is under distress, separated from her family who are in a foreign duty station and has to incur personal trips to see her young ones.
In contrast, you, Sir, have approved that your friend, a D1, Lisa Svensson can work from Europe, because for personal reasons she does not wish to work in Nairobi.  Her big office in Nairobi remains vacant with her name and organisational equipment while the same has to be provided again by another office in Europe.  She leads the marine team remotely as the rest of the staff under her responsibility are in Nairobi. Sir, how inhuman can you and Sami be, to summon one staff member, who is from a developing country against her wish, separating her from her young family, but provide a golden platter for another who is from a developed country... When you came on board in 2016, you immediately began with changing the organisation’s name, claiming not to understand acronyms, which have been used since the establishment of the organisation over four decades ago.  The whole world knows UNEP, UNDP, UNICEF etc.  Are you purporting that these should have been UN development, UN children… so that one day you Sir, can understand what they do, and that the work of the organisation has not been understood since 1972 due to its use of the acronym UNEP?
Despite numerous interventions during the meetings of the Committee of Permanent Representatives (CPRs) questioning the legitimacy of this change from UNEP to UN Environment, you have given a deaf ear.  Most are the times that you open the session and then take off, leaving your Deputy Executive Director Ibrahim Thiaw to find excuses for you... You forget that the rules are not set by the organisation, but through it by the Member States of the UN... You talk of reform and efficiency.  With all the above, and many more examples that would result in a very lengthy document,you have failed the organisation, you have failed us. Your actions are provoking staff to boycott the next Town Hall meeting in respect of all colleagues affected by your actions and those of your circle of friends that are running the organisation to peril. Our plea is to call for an immediate audit of the organisation, intervention and investigation." We'll have more on this. A Climate Risk event was held at the UN on January 31, complete with a delayed press conference with four speakers. Inner City Press asked them about the role of the UN, not just as a venue but as an actor, with a Deputy Secretary General Amina J. Mohammed who in 2017 signed 4000 certificates for already-exported endangered rosewood in China. The UN Global Compact accepted CEFC China Energy until Inner City Press repeated asking about its role as beneficiary of a UN bribery scheme to get oil in Uganda and Chad; China Energy Fund Committee is *still* in Special Consultative status with ECOSOC. Periscope video here, since the UN has withheld its, under UNTV boss Alison Smale.  Among the panelists, Betty Yee, California's Controller, repeatedly cited transparency. Fred Samama of Amundi to his credit acknowledged there is a danger of green-washing. Peter Damgaard Jensen of PKA said the UN could / should help emerging markets. (This is true, but today in Cameroon for example, the UN only supports colonialism and exploitation.) Iconic Jack Ehnes of CalSTRS appeared sympathetic. But will they continue to blithely provide a platform for the greenwashing not only of oil companies like CEFC China Energy, but of censoring UN officials like Amina J. Mohammed, who helped export endangered rosewood then refused all Press questions on it, and continues to censor and restrict the Press which asks? We'll have more on this - and on “The Investor Agenda.” Amid UN bribery scandals, failures in countries from Cameroon to Yemen and declining transparency, today's UN does not even pretend to have content neutral rules about which media get full access and which are confined to minders or escorts to cover the General Assembly.

Inner City Press, which while it pursue the story of Macau-based businessman Ng Lap Seng's bribery of President of the General Assembly John Ashe was evicted by the UN Department of Public Information from its office, is STILL confined to minders as it pursues the new UN bribery scandal, of Patrick Ho and Cheikh Gadio allegedly bribing President of the General Assembly Sam Kutesa, and Chad's Idriss Deby, for CEFC China Energy.

Last week Inner City Press asked UN DPI where it is on the list to be restored to (its) office, and regain full office - and was told it is not even on the list, there is no public list, the UN can exclude, permanently, whomever it wants. This is censorship, and has been accepted and even encouraged by what has become the UN Censorship Alliance, which accepted funds from Ng Lap Seng's South South News and had Inner City Press ejected from the UN Press Briefing Room as it inquired into the story.

When this UNCA held its annual meeting on January 29, it could barely reach quorom (Periscope here); it covered over the glass doors of the clubhouse the UN gives it with a sign board.

After UNSG @AntonioGuterres didn't disclose met Bashir & DSG silent on #Cameroon & DPI no answer, UN Censorship All… https://t.co/IpqoXqfkG9

— Inner City Press (@innercitypress) January 29, 2018

***

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

Search innercitypress.com  Search WWW (censored?)

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