Inner City Press -- Investigative Reporting From the Inner City to Wall Street to the United Nations

On Georgia, UN Calls Russian Walk-Out "Procedural," Dodges on Press Restrictions, Passes Buck

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, October 16 -- Following Russia's walk-out of the long-hyped meeting in Geneva about South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the UN in New York on Wednesday decided to try to put the best spin on the breakdown. Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson told the Press

"The first session of the international discussions on Georgia wrapped up in Geneva today with a decision to hold the next meeting on 18 November. In a press conference after the session, the Secretary-General's Special Representative for Georgia, Johan Verbeke, said one should not dramatize the 'procedural incident' that happened today.  In that regard, he noted that all participants had been present, had expressed their views, and had acted in a responsible way."

   Today's UN seems to feel it is responsible for praising any process, no matter how superficial or cynical. For example in Myanmar, Ban Ki-moon and his envoy find themselves defending visits in which both democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and senior General Than Shwe refuse to meet with the UN's envoy. It's not a failure, the UN says, it's a process.

  But the standoff about whether representatives of Abkhazia and South Ossetia will be allowed into the meetings, and how, and whether they will be allowed into the United States for meetings at UN headquarters is, frankly, not the UN's fault. So why should the UN be straining the truth to call a walk-out a "procedural incident"?  Worse, why did the UN agree to block press coverage of the October 15 meeting, held in UN premises?

Ban in Geneva, Russian walk-out, exclusion of Press and buck-passing not shown

  Wednesday in New York, Inner City Press asked Ban's Spokesperson:

Inner City Press:  You read out a statement about how not to misinterpret procedural disagreements in Geneva.  Some are saying the Russian delegation walked out.  They said the talks were finished.  Is that not the case?

Spokesperson:  That is not the case.

Inner City Press:  So, they have agreed to come on 18 November?

Spokesperson:  Yes.

Inner City Press:  I had asked you earlier in the week, when it would be decided who was going to provide security for the UNOMIG [United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia] observers?

Spokesperson:  We have asked that question and we’ll get the answer for you soon.

Inner City Press:  Do you think it was determined during this meeting or the meeting...?

Inner City Press:  I don’t know.  We don’t have the details yet.  We spoke with Mr. Verbeke about the general content of the meeting but we did not speak about the specific details.

Inner City Press:  Was the procedural thing that you referred, was this the inclusion of South Ossetia and Abkhazia representatives in the meeting?

Spokesperson: It was about participation, yes.

Inner City Press:  Did the UN have a position on whether they should be able to participate or...

Spokesperson:  The UN was not involved. Well, the UN was involved in the technical meetings, of course, but the position is to be decided at those meetings.

  Just after Spokesperson Michele Montas said that an answer would be provided about who is responsible for providing security for the UN Observers in Abkhazia, her Associate Brendan Varma came into the briefing room, handing both Ms. Montas and Inner City Press a copy of an email from earlier in the week stating that "in order to ensure the continued security of UNOMIG's operations beyond October 15, when the CIS Peacekeeping force will be officially disbanded, we are in contact with authorities on both sides of the ceasefire line. We expect to receive the necessary assurances."

 Scrawled on the print out of the earlier email handed to Inner City Press was an admonishment, "we already sent you this answer yesterday."  But since this canned response was from before the October 15 meeting, and deadline, it seemed fair and logical to ask on October 15 what the decision was. Inner City Press reiterated the request, and asked for a description and explanation of restrictions the UN has placed on the media in connection with the October 15 meeting, along with an unrelated question if UN official Lynn Pascoe is in Rabat trying to convince the Moroccans to accept Christopher Ross as the UN's envoy for Western Sahara.

  This resulted in a breathtaking three strikes and you're out non-response of buck-passing:

"1) on georgia, we've given you info based on what dpko told us -- for any further clarifications, pls contact dpko (nick birnback)

"2) on geneva, we weren't there today, so pls contact our colleagues in the geneva office -- marie heuze or elena ponomareva

"3) on Mr Pascoe, pls follow up with jared kotler from DPA."

  First, the Office of the Spokesperson of the Secretary-General is paid to hold daily press briefings and answer question. To refer three questions in a row to other people is unacceptable. Inner City Press waited 22 hours after the above non-response, to allow reconsideration, before being compelled to publish this.

  Second, on the Geneva meeting, Spokesperson Montas had made a presentation and claims about the meeting. Then when called on it, her office said, Ask Geneva.

   On Morocco, the question concerns Ban Ki-moon's proposed Western Sahara envoy. How can his Spokesperson's Office not answer the question?

  On the UN's (other) restrictions on the Press, we continue to inquire and report.

Note: Catch this reporter on Icelandic television, www.ruv.is

Watch this site, and this Oct. 2 debate, on UN, bailout, MDGs.

* * *

These reports are usually also available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis.

Click here for a Reuters AlertNet piece by this correspondent about Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army. Click here for an earlier Reuters AlertNet piece about the Somali National Reconciliation Congress, and the UN's $200,000 contribution from an undefined trust fund.  Video Analysis here

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

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 2006-08 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com -