UN
Ethics Office Cover Up
of UN
Official's Book Sales With
Morocco Ignored in OHCHR Statement
v ICP
By Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS,
February 3 – A leaked UN Ethics
Office memo that raises
questions not only about that
Office but also the UN Office
of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights was published by
Inner City Press on February
1, here.
On
February 2, OHCHR responded
with press release and tweet
claiming that Inner City
Press' report - back on the UN
memo - was unfounded. Inner
City Press replied, asking
OHCHR or @UNHumanRights to
explain how the finding for
example about Morocco improperly
paying for OHCHR official Eric
Tistounet's book-selling event
was "not substantiated." There
was not response.
On
February 3, Inner City Press
asked UN spokesman Stephane
Dujarric about Morocco's
payments - he refused to
answer - and if the reclusive
head of the UN Ethics Office
Elia Armstrong will come and
answer questions, as for example
her predecessor Robert Benson
did. There has been no answer.
Inner City
Press supports the replies of
the Government Accountability
Project, here,
and of the annotator, which we
are putting online
here.
Eric
Tistounet of the Office of the
High Commissioner for Human
Rights, without Ethics
approval, published a book and
had a member state promote it.
Document
at Page 11. One
pitch mentions the state
of Morocco.
Prince
Zeid's OHCHR responded with a
press
release denying
everything, concluding "the
claims made by the staff
member were found to be
unsubstantiated." Inner City Press
has asked OHCHR this.
But the
Ethics Office memo - on which
UN holdover spokesman Stephane
Dujarric refused to answer
Inner City Press, video
here - admits Reilly's
exposing of Morocco paying to
promote OHCHR's Tistounet's
book created a right to
protection. And the event's
website makes clear Morocco
was paying, against the rules.
That's not "unsubstantiated" -
that's a cover up of
corruption. On this and the
rest, we'll have more.
For now we
only note that Zeid's OHCHR's
self-serving total denial,
seemingly a product of fear of
loss of US funding, has been
welcomed by Pierre Nkurunziza
supporters in Burundi.
And this, from
the annotator:
"They are clearly
panicked, and the OHCHR Press
Release is not saving the
Ethics Office.
This would, of course, be the
same OHCHR that still insists
they did nothing wrong in the
Kompass / CAR sexual abuse
case…...
The question is not whether
there was a casual connection
between Eric Tistounet’s
decision and Cao Shunli’s
death. Eric Tistounet’s
decision gave Emma Reilly
cause to be concerned for the
safety of the human rights
activists in China, and in the
specific case of Cao Shunli,
that concern turned out to be
justified.
The question is whether Emma
Reilly had reasonable grounds
to believe that Eric
Tistounet’s decision might be
misconduct ….. and the Ethics
Office bent over backwards to
say ‘no’!
This would, of course, be the
same Ethics Office as was
involved in “facilitating”
Zeid's misconduct complaint
against Kompass - and didn’t
know that child sex abuse
generally gets a bad rap in
the Press."
Yes,
that's them.
The UN
spokespeople who defended Ban
Ki-moon's corruption to Inner
City Press until the day he
left, and stonewall now, often
say the Ethics Office as
approved this or that. For
example, Ban's mentor and UN
official Han Seung-soo being
on the boards of directors of
Doosan Infracore and Standard
Chartered Bank, which has UN
contracts.
Or Jane
Holl Lute, being on the board
of a railroad, and also a
"senior US administration
official" while being a UN
official. The list goes on.
UN
Ethics Office memo to Emma Reilly,
and on Eric Tistounet, via Inner
City Press by Matthew
Russell Lee on Scribd
But
it gets worse, much worse. As
stated by the memo's annotator
to Inner City Press:
"this is a
whistleblower protection case.
The staff member reported that
OHCHR gave names of Chinese
human rights activists to the
Chinese government. This was
when China was trying to get
on the Human Rights Council.
They prevented a number of
activists from traveling to
Geneva to attend the meetings,
and we know that one of them
subsequently died in police
custody.
OHCHR tried very
hard to keep this quiet, but
one Human Rights Officer, Emma
Reilly, complained about it.
They then retaliated against
her.
Of all the
insanity in this, possibly the
best bit of all is the Ethics
Office arguing that even after
OHCHR deviated from their
usual policy and shared
information with the Chinese
government about which Chinese
human rights activists were
being accredited to attend the
Human Rights meeting, and even
though a human rights activist
DIED after being detained to
stop her traveling to a UN
human rights
meeting..........a UN Human
Rights Officer still does not
have reasonable grounds to
believe that misconduct has
taken place....... so nothing
she said or did is
'protected.' The new
whistleblower policy is a POS
because nothing in it will
give the s/m any comfort when
the Ethics Office bends over
backwards not to recognize
retaliation. There is still
nothing the staff member can
do about this.
Can you make these documents
available on your site?"
But of
course. See more of his
summary here,
and response
to Ethics Office, here.
And see this,
from the Government
Accountability Project which
also requested a reversal of
UN USG Cristina Gallach's
retaliatory eviction of Inner
City Press, without response
from the old
UNSG and old
USUN /
Isobel Coleman
- still UNacted on by the new
SG. We'll have more on this.
The UN
system's mistreatment of
whistleblowers goes beyond the
UN Secretariat's firing of
Anders Kompass after he went
public with sexual abuse of
children in the Central
African Republic by
peacekeepers, and outright
censorship in 2016.
At the
World Intellectual Property
Organization, Director General
Francis Gurry abused his power
after a detailed charge of
misconduct filed by then
Deputy Director General James
Pooley. Whistleblower Miranda
Brown has yet to be
reinstated.
There was a staff
protest at WIPO in Geneva on
January 25. Video
here. Staff say, "Since
2008, WIPO staff have found
themselves on the receiving
end of DNA theft, interference
in procurement processes,
summary dismissal of their
staff union president Moncef
Kateb, intimidation of staff
who speak out and cover-up,
including the attempted
suppression of an
investigation by the UN's
Office of Internal Oversight
Services into inappropriate
behaviour by their
Director-General."
Also on
January 25, Inner City Press
asked the UN's holdover
spokesman Stephane Dujarric, UN transcript
here:
Inner City Press:
going back to when you
announced the new
whistle-blower policy.
I’m sure you’ve now seen that
the Government Accountability
Project has said it made some
good steps, but they think it
falls short of the US, under
the US law that requires
withholding
contributions. Do you
disagree with that? They’re
saying that the law requires
external arbitration.
Spokesman: I think we
look forward to having a
dialogue with the Government
Accountability Office, more
importantly, with the US
authorities on this. I
think we’re very, we feel very
strongly that the new
whistle-blower policy meets
best practices, that it is a
great improvement on what the
staff had before. And I
think it’s a testimony to both
parties willing to move
forward that the staff and
management agreed on this
rather quickly in the new
Secretary-General’s term.
Inner City Press: When
you say the staff, given that
there’s a dispute about who
the staff union is, what do
you mean by that?
Spokesman: Well, it’s
with the global, global staff
management…
"to call for the
removal of the WIPO Director
General. The agreed
demonstration will therefore
take place on Wednesday, 25
January 2017 from 12h15 to
12h45 in front of the broken
chair at the Place des
Nations. Speeches will
start at 12h15 sharp.... We
will also have some balloons
to hand out which calls for
the resignation of the WIPO
Director General.
We count on your presence at
the demonstration. Remember,
today it is WIPO, but tomorrow
it could be your
organization."
On January
6, Inner City Press asked the
UN about reports it would be
issuing a revised
whistleblower policy, and
about criticism of it. See
below.
The policy was
announced on January 23, the
first full day of the Trump
Administration in the US,
where already legislation
calls for cutting
contributions to the UN if it
does not protect
whistleblowers. Will this,
which still apparently denies
access to the UN Dispute
Tribunal, be enough?
Inner City Press
asked UN holdover spokesman
Stephane Dujarric on January
23, video here, UN
transcript here:
Inner City Press:
now that you've announced
this… the whistle-blower
policy, I wanted to ask you a
couple of things. As I'm
sure you know, the Government
Accountability Project in
[Washington], D.C., had
criticized this policy in
December 2016, and I wanted to
know, has… can you highlight
any changes? Basically,
they were saying that, in the
past, they… they are saying
it's weakening, the current
one, which says, if you allege
a violation of a rule, you're
protected. And now you
have to allege, according to
them in December, substantial
harm to the UN's reputation
and that that harm will be…
Has been resolved?
Spokesman: I think what
they… the criticism was aimed
at a draft that they
obtained. I will leave
it for them to speak. I
hope they and all concerned
Member States will read
through the policy. And
if they have any comments, we
obviously would welcome
them. But, I think no…
it's… it would be difficult to
argue that this new policy
weakens the whistle-blower
protection system. In
fact, it strengthens it, and
it keeps alive the broad
parameters under which… under
which staff members are able
to file complaints with the
Ethics Office.
Inner City Press: What
are António Guterres' views of
what happened with Mr.
[Anders] Kompass? This
was a high-profile
whistle-blower case known to
many Member States and
commented on newspapers all
over the world. Does he
believe that… would this new
protection… would this new
policy have in any way
protected Anders Kompass from
being fired and thrown out of
his office?
Spokesman: I think it's…
Mr. Kompass' case was examined
thoroughly by the… by the
independent panel. I
really don't have anything to…
you know, I… it's… I don't
think it would be… it would
not be possible for me to
hypothetically plug back in
what he may have done or may
not have done into a policy
that's just been enacted.
Inner City Press: And
can you just… I'd asked you
over the weekend, but can you
somehow, in a succinct way,
clarify what the Ethics Office
said about the Women's March
on Saturday? They sent
out an e-mail at 5 p.m.… 6
p.m. on Friday that saying
participation in political
events may be contrary to the
UN Charter. Was this
meant to tell staff not to go?
Spokesman: I think the
message from the Ethics Office
was meant as a reminder to
international civil servants
as to their code of
conduct. It was not
meant to prevent participation
in the march.
***
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
UN Office: S-303,
UN, NY 10017 USA
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other,
earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in
the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright
2006-2015 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
for
|