In
Murky
UN, Kane & Trezza Look to Geneva,
Nairobi Opaque, Zannier
to OSCE?
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
February 19 -- Asked about how told UN jobs are given out,
long time UN official David Nabarro on February 19 told Inner City
Press, “There are intensive efforts underway in the selection of so
many senior positions in our system to increase transparency.” Video
here.
One
wishes that
were true. For weeks, Inner City Press has been asking Secretary
General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky to clarify the status
of Under Secretary General Angela Kane, who was one of two finalists
to lead the UN Office in Geneva, and to state whether UN envoy to
Kosovo Lamberto Zannier gave notice before he put his name in the
ring to head the OSCE.
Nesirky
has
ignored the repeated questions about Kane, including when she would
belatedly hold the next of her promised press conferences, and on the
latter he said “Ask Italy.”
Kane's
competitor
for the Geneva post has been Italian official Carlo Trezza, his
country's delegate on disarmament and other topics. On February 19
the buzz was that Trezza and not Kane was getting the post; some said
due to corruption
scandals and delays in the UMOJA technology program
under Kane's watch.
Kane
has previously told Inner City Press she
has no time to answer questions from the press, to send them all to
the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary General, where
dozens of questions are pending, including the unanswered ones about
Kane and UN management.
UN's Ban, Ms. Kane over his shoulder, public
financial disclosure & answers not shown
But
why can't the
UN say who are the finalists for jobs, and why? There is for example
a new Under Secretary General post at the UN in Nairobi, which was
created after UN
headquarters unceremoniously removed Tanzanian Anna
Tibaijuka from leading that office and put the German Achim Steiner
in charge.
The African
Group fought back and a new management post
was created. But who will fill it? Who is even in contention? Watch
this site.
* * *
At
UN,
Ban's
Claim of 99% Public Financial Disclosure Called
“Metaphorical”
By
Matthew
Russell
Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
January
28 -- Rather than admit that UN Secretary General Ban
Ki-moon misspoke when he claimed two weeks ago that 99% of his
officials have made public financial disclosure, Ban's spokesman
Martin Nesirky told Inner City Press on Friday, “I wouldn't get
hung up on the ninety nine percent figure as a mathematical absolute,
because it is also a metaphorical expression, that nearly everyone”
disclosed. Video here,
transcript
below.
But
this claim of
99% transparency has been Ban's response to questions about the UN's
lack of accountability under his watch. On January 14,
Ban told the
press that “now ninety nine percent of senior advisers of the
United Nations have declared their financial assets publicly on the
website.”
Inner
City
Press
reviewed the UN's web site and found that this was not the case. On
the eve of hearing before the US House of Representatives Foreign
Affairs Committee about the UN, Inner City Press published
a list of
the many Ban officials who instead of making even basic disclosure
state that “I have chosen to maintain the confidentiality of the
information disclosed by me in order to comply with the Financial
Disclosure Program.”
The
officials not
making public disclosure range from Ban' two Sudan envoys Ibrahim
Gambari and Haile
Menkerios through Rule of Law chief Dmitry Titov to
Ban's close ally and envoy to Cote d'Ivoire Choi
Young-jin.
The
lack of public
disclosure came up at the House of Representatives hearing on January
25, and Inner City Press that day and each day since has e-mailed
Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky with this request:
“Please
explain Ban Ki-moon statement that 99% of his officials have made
public financial disclose in light of the actual, much lower figure
on [the UN website], with non public disclosure by inter alia
Gambari, Choi Young-jin, Jan Mattsson, Greg Starr, Iqbal Riza, Terje
Roed-Larsen, Said Djinnit, Mr. Diarra, Ajay Chhibber, Haile
Menkerios, Ray Chambers, Peter Sutherland, dead links Nicolas Michel
and Achim Steiner, only "outside activity" and no finance
or clients for Alexander Downer, Douste Blazy, etc.”
Nesirky,
who
on
January 21 after Inner City Press asked about the UN's seeming
failure to comply with its own Regulation 1.2 said he
wouldn't answer
any more questions until Inner City Press somehow acted
“appropriately,” never answered this e-mail question.
UN's Ban & Nesirky on Jan 14: transparency claim
now called "metaphor"
At
the UN noon
briefing on January 28, Inner City Press finally asked Nesirky
directly about Ban's statement that 99% of his officials have made
public financial disclosure.
Nesirky
began
by
dodging the questions, saying that "financial disclosure means to
disclose to the United Nations what your assets are and so on. And then
it is fully within the rights of the individual to elect or not to
elect for that to be publicly disclosed. And I think you will see that
in the vast majority of cases, this is publicly disclosed."
But
Ban
specifically used the word “publicly” on January 14, saying that
“ninety nine percent of senior advisers of the United Nations have
declared their financial assets publicly on the website.” Click here
for
footage
of Ban's claims from a recent piece on Swedish TV
including Inner City Press and a FAC hearing witness.
Inner
City Press on January 28 asked Nesirky if Ban considered disclosing a
refusal to make
public any financial information to be “public financial
disclosure.”
This
is
when
Nesirky told Inner City Press, “I wouldn't get hung up on the 99%
figure as
a
mathematical absolute, because it is also a metaphorical expression,
that nearly everyone” disclosed. Video here.
So
at the UN, a
claim by Ban Ki-moon that 99% of his officials have made public
financial disclosure is just a metaphor.
From
the
UN's
transcript of January 28:
Inner
City
Press:
In his last press conference in here, the
Secretary-General said when asked about the [Inga-Britt] Ahlenius
book, that 99 per cent of officials have made public financial
disclosure. And just having looked at the website of disclosures, it
doesn’t, that number is not the number. The number of his
officials including Mr. Choi [Young-jin] of Côte d'Ivoire,
[Ibrahim]
Gambari, [Haile] Menkerios, Said Djinnit, Michael Williams, whom you
mentioned, they have all filled out a form saying “we chose not to
disclose”. So, I just… I have been trying to figure out, what is
the 99 per cent figure based on? Does he include people that say “I
won’t disclose” as having made a public disclosure? Or, what is
the actual number?
Spokesperson
Martin
Nesirky:
Financial disclosure means to disclose to the United
Nations what your assets are and so on. And then it is fully within
the rights of the individual to elect or not to elect for that to be
publicly disclosed. And I think you will see that in the vast
majority of cases, this is publicly disclosed.
Inner
City
Press:
When he said public, that’s the phrase that he used —
he said that 99 per cent of my officials have made public financial
disclosures. So, is that… that’s not what he meant? He meant
that they have actually… they have made disclosure to the UN?
Spokesperson:
Well
I think also I wouldn’t get hung up on the 99 per cent figure
as a mathematical absolute, because it is also a metaphorical
expression meaning nearly everyone, okay?
Inner
City
Press:
But, Mr. Choi, does he think that Mr. Choi, kind of a
close ally, long-time person that he has worked with, does he think
that Mr. Choi should publicly disclose? Would he call on him to
publicly disclose?
Spokesperson:
Again,
this is a matter for the individuals concerned. Okay, yes?
No,
not okay. Watch
this site.
* * *
UN
Officials
Refusing
Financial
Disclosure Range from Sudan to Security, Abidjan to
Lebanon, Ban's Friends & UNtrue Claim
By
Matthew
Russell
Lee,
Exclusive
UNITED
NATIONS,
January
25,
updated -- In the run up to
UN corruption hearings in the
US House of Representatives today, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
angrily answered questions about lack of transparency by claiming
that 99% of his officials publicly disclose their finances. This is
not true, as Inner City Press has said and now documents.
On
the UN's website
for such disclosures, numerous Ban officials simply state “I have
chosen to maintain the confidentiality of the information disclosed
by me in order to comply with the Financial Disclosure Program.” This
is not public disclosure of finances: it is its opposite.
Those
Ban
officials
refusing
make even the most basic disclosure -- as simple
as in what country they own property, such as the one line disclosure
by top
UN
lawyer
Patricia O'Brien that she owns “farmland, Ireland”
-- ranging from both of Ban's envoys in Sudan, Ibrahim
Gambari and Haile
Menkerios to UN officials with outside jobs that might
conflict, such as Terje
Roed-Larsen
(Lebanon
and IPI), Peter
Sutherland
(migration
and
BP) and Ray
Chambers (malaria and hedge
funds).
When Chambers
took the job, Inner City Press asked him
about
his outside interests. Now Chambers
simply
states,
“I have chosen
to maintain the confidentiality of the information disclosed by me
in
order to comply with the Financial Disclosure Program.”
There
are
other
ways
to not disclosure. Philippe
Douste-Blazy, whom Inner City Press
has exposed
as
wasting
millions of dollars through the “MassiveGood”
scheme, discloses no finances, only service for the Millennium
Foundation.
Alexander
Downer, Ban's man on Cyprus, makes no
financial disclosure although he lists he works at the business
consultancy Bespoke Approach. And do its clients, in Turkey for
example, raise conflicts? There is no way to know.
Ban's
close
ally
and
Cote
d'Ivoire envoy Choi Young-jin states that “I have chosen
to maintain the confidentiality of the information disclosed by me in
order to comply with the Financial Disclosure Program,” as does
Ban's UN Security chief Gregory
Starr.
These
refusals
are
noteworthy
given how superficial even the “public disclosures”
are. Peacekeeping
logistics
deputy
Anthony Banbury, who famously said
that “only” three rapes in a Haitian IDP camp “elated” him,
lists “Nil” for both assets and liabilities, as does General
Assembly Affairs chief Shaaban
Shaaban.
Some
officials
are
listed,
but there is no link to any form, even one refusing to
disclose. These include Achim Steiner of UNEP and former UN lawyer,
still listed as adviser Nicolas Michel, who took money from the Swiss
government for his housing while serving as the UN's lawyer. Since
that scandal, there are issues about Ban officials receiving housing
subsidies through their spouses, not disclosed on the “public”
disclosure forms.
Other
Ban
officials
stating
“I have chosen to maintain the confidentiality of
the information disclosed by me in order to comply with the Financial
Disclosure Program” include West
Africa
envoy
Said Djinnit, Middle
East and Lebanon
specialist
Michael
Williams, UNDP Asia boss Ajay
Chhibber (in
charge, another other places, of Myanmar), Jan Mattsson of UNOPS,
where Ban's son in law got a controversial promotion, and Cheick
Sidi
Diarra, whose brother
has been Microsoft's Ambassador to Africa,
allowed to use a UN dining room for this purpose.
In
another display
of non - transparency, Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky on January 21
told Inner City Press he would
not answer any more questions until
Inner City Press acted “appropriately.” This outburst came after
Inner City Press asked for the second day in a row how UN Staff
Regulation 1.2 applies to UN official's outside political activity.
Ban
named Jack
Lang as his adviser on piracy, reporting to the Security Council
today. But Lang
continues
to
write letters as an official of a
political party in France, for example regarding Ivory Coast
(where, again,
Ban's envoy Choi Young-jin refuses to disclose his finances). The UN
has refused to apply its Regulation 1.2 to this or other case, or to
even answer questions about it.
One
wonders how this will be dealt with at today's US House of
Representative hearings and afterward. Click here
for
footage
of Ban's claims from a recent piece on Swedish TV
including Inner City Press and a hearing witness.
Ban's
main
claim
to
transparency, the 99% of his officials make public financial
disclosure, is simply not true, and his spokesman refuses to answer
any questions. Watch this space.
Update of 11:15 am
-- Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesperson's office, Messrs. Nesirky
and Haq, the clarify Ban's now disproved claim, and received back only
this, from Haq:
On
the
House
of
Representatives, what we have to say for today is:
The
United Nations has always worked constructively with the United
States, and we share the same goals: for a stronger UN, one that is
efficient, effective, and accountable. That is why the
Secretary-General has made strengthening the UN one of his top
priorities since taking office.
The
Secretary-General
is
convinced
that a strong, effective and efficient
United Nations needs the active and constructive support of Member
States. To achieve that, he will continue to engage with the US
Administration and with the US Congress on ways to ensure that the
Organization can find solutions to today’s challenges, and deliver
on the mandates given by it Member States.
Still with no
answer at all are questions submitted January 22, including
Ban
Ki-moon
is
quoted
by
Bloomberg, which he sought out, that
Congressional Republicans' "only complaint they may have is the
lack of much faster progress than they might have expected.” What
specific areas of "progress" was the SG referring to? Namely, which
areas does the SG acknowledge not having met
expectations and for which progress should have been made "faster"?
Michael
Dudley,
the
acting
head
of OIOS' Investigations Division, is under
investigation, for among other things, retaliation and evidence
tampering. Given that Ban Ki-moon says he prides himself on the
transparency of his administration, what specifically are the facts
surrounding the investigation process regarding Mr. Dudley, and will
the UN be reassigning him to other duties during the investigation?
Watch this site.
, 
