UN
Tells Press to Pay $23,000 For Space to Cover It, Sources Say, Scant UN
Media
Coverage to Further Decrease?
Byline:
Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis
UNITED
NATIONS, May 29, updated June 1
-- The press would for the first time in UN history
be charged for space in UN headquarters under a plan announced in a
closed door meeting on May 28 by officials of Secretary General Ban
Ki-moon. Since Mr. Ban assumed the position 29 months ago, CNN has
stopped covering the UN on a daily basis, and the Washington
Post is
mulling closing its UN bureau.
Nevertheless the chief of the UN's
Capital Master Plan renovation Michael Adlerstein told press corps
members that in the "swing space" for media for the next
three to four years, work spaces like the ones they have now for free
will require them to pay $23,000, or even $70,000 in the case of
broadcast media.
The same amounts or more will be charged again once
the UN Headquarters building is renovated, sources in the
meeting told Inner City Press. Despite multiple requests by Inner
City Press, neither Adlerstein or his spokesman have commented for
this story.
Already,
Mr. Ban's administration receives less press coverage than his
predecessor Kofi Annan, who never charged the media. What is not
known is if the move to charge the media tens of thousands of dollars
comes from and is approved by Mr. Ban, or is a unilateral project of
Adlerstein and his boss, Under Secretary for Management Angela Kane.
Last
summer, Inner City Press was provided by a whistleblower with a copy
of a Department of Management internal memo reflected that Ms. Kane
wanted a review of public institutions similar to the UN to see if
they charge the media for space.
As Inner
City Press reported on July
17, 2008
, in
a July 15 memo, Principal Officer Lena Dissin said that Angela Kane,
the then-new Under Secretary General for Management, "has asked
us to quickly get some benchmarks from other organizations to see
what facilities if any they may make available to the press,"
and on what basis.
But
neither the U.S. State Department nor City Hall in New York charge
money. While Kane has refused to answer emailed questions, Adlerstein
in the hallway of the UN months ago told Inner City Press that the
rationale for trying to charge, if they did, would be that for the
first time the UN is having to rent a lot of outside space, and so is
looking at costs more closely.
Apparently, though, the UN is not
looking at precedents, neither of the fact that no previous UN
Secretary General charged money to the press, nor that the State
Department, White House and City Hall do not. In fact, the UN is
directed by General Assembly resolutions that are now sure to be
cited to make it easier, and not harder, for the press to cover it.
UN's Ban and Adlerstein view [Press free?] Capital
Master Plan, UN Sept. 12, 2008
On
May 29, Inner City Press telephoned Adlerstein's spokesman Werner
Schmidt, whose voice mail message said his line was busy. Inner City
Press left a detailed message about the media charges and asked for
confirmation or denial and comment, on deadline, before noon.
No
response was received then or even by 3 p.m., so Inner City Press
telephoned
Adlerstein's line. His secretary said he was in a meeting for the
next hour. Inner City Press again explained the question, and that a
response was requested. He will call you back in an hour,
Adlerstein's receptionist said. Twenty four hours later there has
been no response.
Ms. Kane has previously told Inner City Press, in
writing, that she had no time to answer such questions, and to ask
everything at the UN's noon briefing. But on May 29, Deputy
Spokesperson Marie Okabe said from the outset that she would take
only two questions from the entire press corp, including on charges
that the UN covered up 20,000 civilian deaths in Sri Lanka. According,
we publish this story now.
The
explanation above is apparently necessary, because within the
embattled Department of Management Inner City Press is informed of a
strategy to lash out at the Press for not obtaining comments in
advance. But when high officials say they have no time to answer
questions and to ask at the noon briefing, at which it is said that
only two questions will be taken, it is not the Press' fault.
In
fact, related to the anti-press strategy reported on above, simply in
the past four day week, the UN has neglected to provide follow-up
answers promised on at least two (mis) management issues.
On
May 26, fresh back from traveling with and covering Mr. Ban's trip to
Sri Lanka and Copenhagen, Inner
City Press asked
Inner
City Press: the Secretary-General went to UNOPS in Copenhagen. There,
not long ago, there was a story in I guess, the Washington
Post, talking about this UNOPS Director problem in Afghanistan and
missing funds and the dispute between USAID and the UN about the
return of funds that were improperly diverted to other uses. Is this
something that either he raised in his speech at UNOPS or in speaking
with Mr. Jan Mattsson? What’s the UN system done since that report
came out about missing money?
Deputy
Spokesperson Okabe: We’ll check with UNOPS
But
four days later, no answer has been provide, not even a cursory
read-out of Mr. Ban's meeting with UNOPS director Mattsson. On May
27, Inner City Press asked
Inner
City Press: Marie, I want to ask a question about a contract that the
UN is entering into for outside legal counsel to defend a claim by
PCP International. They’re paying an outside legal firm, it
appears, $500,000, and then Headquarters’ committee on contracts
now shows there are significant irregularities in it. Can you
explain on what basis? Doesn’t the UN have its own legal
department? When does it hire outside firms and, in this case, if
you can look into it, why were the safeguards of procurement
overridden?
Deputy
Spokesperson Okabe: This is the first I hear of this, so we’ll
have to look into it for you.
But
three days later, no answer has been received to this detailed
question that is, like the attempt to charge the press money, in the
purview of the Department of Management. The question is based on
internal UN documents provided to Inner City Press by a
whistleblower. [On June 1, five days
after the question, the UN provided a response, which is published
below.]
Currently, such documents whether about the UN's $250
million no-bid contract with Lockheed Martin or irregularities in the
UN Medical Service, or even Inner City Press' acknowledged
exclusive this week of a leaked
copy of the draft Security Council resolution on North Korea can be
given to the Press in a closed-door
office without monitoring by the UN. Under the new plan of Adlerstein
and Kane, absent $23,000, this would not be possible.
Even now, a person
the UN has suspected of being the Medical Services
whistleblower has had her e-mail "broken into" by the UN
and checked, including to read any communications with the Press.
Inner City Press asked at the noon briefing for the UN's comment on the
legality of its treatment of the person, but no answer has been given.
Welcome to the UN. We will report on any UN responses belatedly
received.
Update
of June 1 -- five days after the PCP International question above, the
UN provided this response:
Subject:
response to your question of 27 May
From:
UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply
To:
Inner City Press
Sent:
Mon, 1 Jun 2009 6:27 pm
Question
: Marie, I want to ask a question about a contract that the UN is
entering into for outside legal counsel to defend a claim by PCP
International, they’re paying an outside legal firm, and it
appears, $500,000, and then Headquarters’ committee on contracts
now it shows there are significant irregularities in it. Can you
explain on what basis? Doesn’t the UN have its own Legal
Department? When does it hire outside firms and in this case, if you
can look into it, why were the safeguards of procurement overridden?
[Answer]
The legal contract referred to in the question was bid out on a
competitive basis after appropriate due diligence. The contract was
recently signed. The acquisition process was reviewed by the
Headquarters Committee on Contracts (HCC) and as such the appropriate
safeguards and internal control measures, as per the Procurement
Manual, were undertaken to ensure that the procurement case is
compliant with the established rules and regulations and a best value
for money outcome was achieved in the interest of the Organization.
As the release of commercial contractual information is a potential
for litigation, it is inappropriate for the UN to add any further
comment.
The question was based on
internal UN documents being provided to Inner City Press by a
whistleblower. Watch this site.
* * *
UN's
Somali Envoy Says Press Is Accomplice to Genocide, No Info on
Norway's Role
Byline:
Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis
UNITED
NATIONS, May 29 -- Testifying about Somalia to the U.S. Senate on May
21, a representative of Oxfam said that "the United Nations
Development Program gave direct financial support for police salaries
and some of these police were implicated in serious human rights
abuses." On May 29, Inner City Press asked the Somali
Transitional Federal Government's foreign minister Mohamed Abdullahi
Omaar to respond. "I'm appreciat[ive] of that worry," he
said, saying that the "concern.. speaks on behalf of the
Somalia individuals who suffer." Video here,
from Minute 21:36.
But
when Inner City Press less than an hour later posed the same human
rights question to the UN's envoy to Somalia, Ahmedou Ould Abdallah,
he called the question "irresponsible," the questioner an
"accomplice to.... genocide" and told Inner City Press that
"there will be more killing and anarchy [and] you will be
responsible." Video here,
from Minute 19:44.
Inner
City Press pointed about that it was Oxfam's testimony, and that is
seemed fair to ask how the UN is making sure the funding it gives in
Somalia supports and does not contravene human rights principles.
Ould Abdallah, who previously said that the press should not report
on the killing of civilians by African Union peacekeepers, disagrees.
He said the Somali police should be paid even if some "stole
money money" or committed "abuse." This is not the UN
policy. But the UN has become so out of control that no one dares to
reign Ould Abdallah in, or even tries.
When
Ould Abdallah attacked the media who reported on African Union
peacekeepers firing into a crowd of civilians in Mogadishu, and
compared these media outlets to Radio Milles Colines which stoked
genocide in Rwanda, both Human Rights Watch and press freedom groups
demanded he issue a retraction. Inner City Press asked about it at
the UN in New York, and was later told by senior UN officials that
Ould Abdallah had been told to retract it by headquarters, but had
not do so. So much for accountability.
Emblematic
is the lack of answers on how Ould Abdallah, according to a joint
Somali - Kenyan filing under the Law of Sea's Continental shelf
process, arranged for assistance from Norway and its Petroleum
Directorate. Inner City Press wrote about this and asked the UN and
Ould's spokesperson Suzie Price, but never received an answer.
On
Friday, the question was put to Ould Abdallah and he said he is "no
specialist," that he was unfamiliar with the filing that states
that he prepared it. "Ask Norway," he said. Video here,
from Minute 12:30. Inner City
Press already has -- click here -- but Ould Abdallah's non answers
on May 29 only raise more questions.
UN's Ban, Ould Abdallah at right, human rights not
shown
In Somalia,
this has become a controversy. As first
reported by Inner
City Press, the filing states
that Ould Abdallah
"initiated
the preparation of preliminary information indicative of the outer
limits of the continental shelf of Somalia beyond 200 nautical
miles... In the preparation of this material the SRSG accepted an
offer of assistance from the Government of Norway... Both the Royal
Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Norwegian Petroleum
Directorate have been involved in the preparation... All of the
expenses related to the preparation of the present submission have
been covered by the Government of Norway."
Norway,
of course, is a major oil producer. Absent safeguards that do not
appear to be in place, it is viewed as a conflict of interest for
Norway to pay for and prepare a filing about drilling rights for an
African country described as having no government. And yet little has
been said, and the UN has accepted the filing. Call them pirates of
the pen.
Inner
City Press asked the UN spokesperson's office, which begrudgingly
sent the question to Ould Abdallah's spokeswoman, who never answered.
She was in the room Friday, and did not purport to answer. Nor would
they answer which countries are funding Somalia's armed forces. The
UN told Inner City Press
Subj:
Question on Somalia at Tuesday's Noon Briefing
From:
unspokesperson-donotreply [at] un.org
To: Inner City Press
Sent:
5/27/2009 10:20:50 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
Find
below the response to your question at yesterday's Noon Briefing on
UN support for police personnel of the Transitional Federal
Government, (TFG): The UN Development Programme has provided
training to civilian police officers in Somalia, under
internationally approved guidelines with emphasis on community-based
policing practices.
So
far, 2,775 police personnel have undergone this internationally
approved training by UNDP for the TFG. These are the only police
personnel who are eligible for the payment of stipends which is paid
according to strict human rights and financial accountability
standards.
Some
donors are supporting payment of stipends to UNDP-trained police.
So
who are the donors? It appears that Ould Abdallah, whenever he
doesn't like or doesn't want to answer a question, particularly a
financial questions, calls the questioner an accomplice to genocide.
And so it goes at the UN.
At
UN, Sri Lanka Sinks Lower than the Basement, Ban Criticized on Human
Rights
Byline:
Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis
UNITED
NATIONS, May 28 -- The status of interred civilians in Sri Lanka has
sunk so low at the UN that even for Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to
be invited to brief the Security Council on his recent fly-over the
conflict zone has resulted in opposition from China, Russia, Viet Nam
and others.
In a closed door Security Council meeting Thursday, these
countries and others suggested that since there is no more conflict,
Ban should not brief the Council but rather the General Assembly. It
was arranged that Ban will meet private with Russia and Turkey, the
Council presidents for May and June. At most, Ban will brief the
Council in the UN's basement, put on par with Sri Lanka's Ambassador
to the UN.
Meanwhile Ban
was lambasted by Human Rights Watch for having offered praise to
Sri Lanka's interment camps, in a way that contributed to the
vote-down of a call for a international investigation yesterday in
the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. Inner City Press on Thursday
asked Ban's Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe to respond to the Wednesday
press release of Human Rights Watch, which
said
that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had regrettably undercut efforts
to produce a strong resolution with his recent comments in Sri Lanka.
Ban publicly praised the government for "doing its utmost"
and for its "tremendous efforts," while accepting
government assurances, repeatedly broken in the past, that it would
ensure humanitarian access to civilians in need.
Ban
also distanced himself from strong language used in April by the UN
under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, John Holmes, who
warned that the fighting in Sri Lanka could result in a "bloodbath."
Unlike Pillay, Ban also failed to press for an international inquiry.
"Secretary-General
Ban shares the blame for the Human Rights Council's poor showing on
Sri Lanka."
Nearly
24 hours after this press
release went online, Ms. Obake said that
the UN hadn't seen it. Video here,
from Minute 11:50. She said
however that on these issues "the Secretary General has been
very clear in public, perhaps more clear in private." Perhaps.
UN's Ban looking up - toward a Security
Council or GA "informal dialogue"?
After the noon briefing, the following arrived:
Subj:
Your questions on Sri Lanka
From:
unspokesperson-donotreply [at] un.org
To:
Inner City Press
Sent:
5/28/2009 2:17:18 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
Just
to add to what we already said at the noon briefing:
The
Secretary-General has repeatedly said wherever serious and credible
allegations are made of grave and persistent violations of
international humanitarian laws, these should be properly
investigated.
In
addition, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, while
noting that the Human Rights Council will not agree to set up such an
inquiry at this point, says that more information will come out, more
evidence will emerge about what did and did not happen. So an
international inquiry could still happen further down the line. The
Office also said that international human rights law is quite robust
-- there are different ways and means to get to the truth and provide
some measure of accountabilty. Sometimes it takes years, but this
Session and this resolution do not close any avenues.
But
Ban's speech upon arrival in Sri Lanka on May 22, and his Joint
Statement with the government exiting the country the next day, speak
for themselves.
In
a briefing primarily about Pakistan, Inner City Press asked the UN's
top humanitarian John Holmes if the doctors who remained in the
conflict zone to offer treatment and casualty figures are still being
detained and interrogated by the government of Sri Lanka. They are,
almost Holmes said they have received ICRC visits. Yesterday the head
of the ICRC said that his Red Cross has no access to some Sri Lankan
"interment" camps. Holmes said that he disagrees. Who is
one to believe? Watch this site.
, 
