|
UN
Reverses Again on NGO Expulsion, Dodges Questions on Uzbek Border
Closing and Nigerians in Bakassi, Malay Visit
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, November 23, updates below
-- After first taking
the entry pass of a non
governmental organization which spoke at the General Assembly
stakeout after the vote on the Goldstone report on Gaza and then
denying it, the UN on November 23 announced that the entry pass
would
be restored. The NGO disagrees.
As Inner City Press first
reported, the NGO was asked to
sign a statement or "admission" that it had broken "some
security rules." The initially offered statement alleged a
political basis for the expulsion, but the UN refused the statement.
According to Monday's UN announcement it had apparently been sanitized.
But see below.
In
the same
November 23 noon briefing, Inner City Press asked three question, not
a single one of which got answered. Video here,
from Minute 19:03. Is
the UN aware of Nigerian
complaints about the treatment of their
countrymen in the Bakassi peninsula? Deputy Spokesperson Marie
Okabe
said the Department of Political Affairs would update her if any
important new development occurred. So this is not important?
UN's Ban and Uzbek foreign minister, explanation of
border closing not shown
Inner
City Press asked
about Uzbekistan closing its border with Kazakhstan. Does the
UN, which a new center in Ashkabat, have something to say? Ms. Okabe
said she would ask the Department of Political Affairs.
How
about a read
out of Secretary General Ban
Ki-moon's November 22 meeting with the
prime minister of Malaysia? If it was a meal, Ms. Okabe said, we
won't have a read out. Not even if Sri Lanka was on the menu?
Worse,
when a
correspondent asked about Honduras and the elections slated for
Sunday, Ms. Okabe answered as if the question were about Pakistan.
Video here,
from Minute 18:46. In any event -- no comment on either!
Watch this site.
During the November 23 noon briefing, Deputy
Spokesperson Marie Okabe read out loud:
"And I just got an update to what we had mentioned to
you when we were asked about updates regarding the pass card belonging
to Anne Bayefsky. We have just been informed by the Department of
Safety and Security that there has been an amicable agreement, in which
Ms. Bayefsky would admit to have breached some security rules and would
have her pass cards returned to her.So, that’s what I have for you."
Afterwards, Inner City Press received this:
Subj:
update
From: anne@hudsonny.org
To: mlee@innercitypress.org
Sent: 11/23/2009 10:52:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
Hi
Matthew,
Just to let you know
that I was told by a reporter this evening that the UN had announced at
the noon briefing they had reached an agreement with me to
sign some kind of confession written by them and to return my
pass thereafter. I am very surprised that the UN would fabricate
such an announcement for the world's press knowing full well
that no such agreement had been reached. All I knew was that
they intended to require me to sign a statement (which they would draft
unilaterally) and if I were to sign their statement (which I had not
yet seen at the time of the press briefing), then they intended
to return my pass.
Watch this site.
Update
2: And 23 and 1/2 hours after the questions was asked, this arrived,
which we publish in full:
Subj:
Your question on Nigeria and Bakassi
From:
unspokesperson-donotreply at un.org
To:
Inner City Press
Sent:
11/24/2009 11:57:00 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
Regarding
your question yesterday about "a call in the Nigerian parliament
for the UN to take action about incidents that happened in Nigeria in
the Bakasi peninsula and to somehow enforce this Greentree Agreement"
...
"UN
Civilian Observers are liaising closely with the Government of
Cross-River State in Nigeria to assess the situation of those
displaced from Bakassi. The UN is working with both Nigeria and
Cameroon in the framework of the Follow-Up Committee to ensure
continued compliance with Greentree Agreement."
And on Uzbekistan, even three days later, still nothing.
Watch this site.
* * *
UN
Finally Admits Barring NGO After GA Stakeout Speech, Cites
Technicality, Precedent Not Needed
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, November 20 -- Days after
denying
it had stripped the entry pass of a non governmental organization
representative
who spoke
November 5 at the General Assembly stakeout microphone after the
Assembly's vote on the Goldstone report on Gaza, the UN on November
19 reversed itself and acknowledged the action.
Inner
City Press,
which covered the expulsion on November 5 and later asked the UN to
confirm it, on November 19 asked for the reason and precedent for the
stripping of credentials. Outgoing spokesperson Michele Montas denied
that speaking at the GA microphone was the reason, but could not cite
any precedent for expelling an NGO for a minor entry violation.
The
Wall Street
Journal of November 20 chimed
in on the topic, citing this reporter's
work. Some wondered if the UN only confessed to the expulsion because
of inquiries by the WSJ; other hearkened back to a meeting by
five
senior UN officials, including Ms. Montas, as which legal action
against both the WSJ and Inner City Press was discussed.
The
UN likes to
expel its critics, then deny doing so.
UN Spokesperson and UN Police
From this week's
transcripts on l'affaire Bayefsky:
November
16: Could you give us a status report on Anne Bayefsky, whether her
credentials have been restored, or whether there is a plan to restore
them or…?
Associate
Spokesperson Haq: No, no. Her credentials and the credentials of
her organization are not changed at this stage. She belongs to a
non-governmental organization. It’s possible in the future that
there could be a review, but at this stage there has been no removal
of credentials from that non-governmental organization or from Ms.
Bayefsky.
Then
on November
18, Inner City Press asked
Inner
City Press: you’d said, regarding this non-governmental
organization that had the pass stripped after speaking in front of
the General Assembly the day of the Goldstone Report vote. I think
you said on Monday, there has been no change in the status, but I
spoke to the person and they can’t get into the building. So can
you explain how what you say is consistent with the person actually
not having their pass, and who made the decision to remove it and
what the process is to follow up on that?
Associate
Spokesperson: Well, the accreditation of the NGO has not changed. That
non-governmental organization is still accredited with ECOSOC
[Economic and Social Council]. In terms of pass cards, I believe
their passes had been taken at the time of the incident that occurred
when they spoke without authorization. I believe that those were
being kept so the NGO could then pick them up. So I believe the NGO
can pick up those passes once more. That’s what I was informed.
Inner
City Press: Okay. Because the person says they were asked to fill
out a statement and if they didn’t turn it in exchange for getting
the pass, then the pass was never returned. I just wanted to clear
that up, since you’d said that there had been no change, that was
your understanding.
Associate
Spokesperson: As far as I am aware, the NGO is an accredited NGO, so
it’s still entitled to have passes. Until that changes, they have
accreditation through ECOSOC.
Then
on November
19, Spokesperson Montas reversed course, and Inner City Press
followed up:
Spokesperson
Montas: We were asked about the situation of a pass card belonging to
Anne Bayefsky yesterday. We have received some information from the
Department of Safety and Security (DSS) about the matter, and I’d
like to make the following clarification:
On
Thursday, 5 November 2009, at approximately 1800 hours, Ms. Anne
Bayefsky, an accredited member of the UN Economic and Social Council
(ECOSOC) Non-Govermental Organization (NGO) Institute on Human Rights
and the Holocaust, utilized her UNHQ-issued building pass in an
unauthorized manner at the security turnstiles to grant access to Mr.
Joel B. Pollak into restricted areas of the Headquarters complex.
Further, Ms. Bayefsky transferred her Geneva-issued UN building pass
to Mr. Pollak, in whose possession it was discovered. Based on these
breaches of security protocol, both passes were retrieved. The
outcome of the security inquiry will be forwarded by DSS to the
Department of Economic and Social Affairs/ECOSOC for their
determination as to final disposition. So I hope this clarifies what
was said yesterday. We got more information today on the issue.
...Inner
City Press: On the announcement or the clarification that you gave
on this Bayefsky pass -- and thanks for that -- I just wanted to know
two things. One is, is there no relation between this continued
suspension of the pass and the person speaking at the General
Assembly stakeout on 5 November? Because that seemed to trigger the
incident, and…
Spokesperson:
Well that was part of it. I gave you the two issues that were
pending in terms of the security breach, and I already said about the
intervention in front of the Security Council stakeout that it was a
matter for… Whoever speaks at the stakeout has to be introduced
either by a Member State or by an organization within the UN system. An
NGO cannot step up unless that person is accompanied by a Member
State, cannot step up to the microphone and just make a statement.
Inner
City Press: No, no, I understand that, I just want to know if
that’s part of the basis for the suspension of the pass or…?
Spokesperson:
No, I already said what the basis was.
Inner
City Press: Okay.
Spokesperson:
…the introduction of someone with a pass that was hers.
Inner
City Press: And has DSS ever run across a similar situation with
other NGOs and not suspended their passes?
Spokesperson:
Not that I know of. In every case where there is a security breach
the passes are temporarily suspended until the case is fully
investigated.
Inner
City Press: And just one last thing on security breaches, is there
any update in terms of suspensions or removal of suspensions on the
-- I’m trying to think of the best way to say it -- the “chicken
episode”? Because these two gentlemen were suspended.
Spokesperson:
I don’t know what was done after what I told you. I can, of
course, follow up on whether there were any other measures taken.
Inner
City Press: Notice the name of the company wasn’t said to give
them any publicity. We’ll just call them the “chicken company”
for now.
Spokesperson:
The “chicken company” yes, thank you so much! [Laughter]
UN
Claims "No Removal of Credential" of NGO Barred Since
Stakeout Speech
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, November 16 -- Eleven days after a non-governmental
organization's representative had her UN identification pass taken
away for speaking at the General Assembly stakeout microphone, UN
Associate Spokesperson Farhan Haq was asked if her credentials had
been restored.
"There's
been
no removal of the credentials of Ms. Bayefsky or her organization,"
Haq claimed, on camera. Video here,
from Minute 17. But a simply
phone call to Ms. Bayefsky reveals that her I.D. card, required to
gain access to the UN complex, has not been returned. [Click here
for Inner City Press' first exclusive report of Ms. Bayefsky's ejection
from the UN.]
Ms.
Bayefsky told
Inner City Press of that after her pass was confiscated by UN
Security, she was asked to draft and sign a written statement, after
which her pass would be returned to her. She spent more than two
hours writing the statement, and included in it a comment by a UN
Security official that "the Palestinian Observer was very upset"
at what she had said at the microphone, after the Assembly's vote on
the Goldstone report about Gaza.
Then,
Ms. Bayefsky
say, the UN through Security official Anne Hammenrudh no longer
wanted her to sign or turn in the statement. Rather, she was told
that the matter would be referred to the Assembly's Committee on Non
Governmental Organizations, which doesn't meet until the end of
January. [Click here
for previous Inner City Press coverage
of the
Committee on NGOs.]
So
while Ms.
Bayefsky is, for now, barred from the UN for the rest of the year, UN
Spokesperson Farhan Haq says "her credentials are not changed"
and "there's been no removal of credentials."
UN's Ban speaks to NGOs in Mexico: a one-way street?
Confiscated I.D. not shown
In
the very same
briefing, Haq explained of the UN's removal of a poster about Chinese
Web censorship from its Internet Governance Forum in Egypt that the
poster was "already on the floor, face up" and that the UN
"folded it, undamaged." Still, the poster and its message
were removed, just like Ms. Bayefsky. Click here
for that story.
* * *
UN's
Velvet Glove Censorship of Poster on Great Firewall of China,
"Folded, Undamaged"
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, November 16 -- After the UN in Egypt removed a poster
protesting Chinese web censorship from its Internet Governance Forum,
at its headquarters in New York its Associate Spokesman Farhan Haq
told Inner City Press the poster was "folded up... undamaged."
Haq
said solemnly, "No UN official was involved in throwing the
poster on the floor." He confirmed that the UN removed the
poster, but said it was "on the floor, face up" when the UN
demanded its removal. Video here,
from Minute 20:26.
On
the other hand,
a delegate at the Internet Governance Forum has been quoted
that "the
poster was thrown on the floor and we were told to remove it because
of the reference to China and Tibet. We refused, and security guards
came and removed it. The incident was witnessed by many."
A more authoritative account: "The UN officials... asked us to
remove it and one of our staff placed it on the ground for us to
consider what to do. That's where we had the discussion. When we
refused to remove it, their security guards bundled it up and took it
away."
The
UN's Haq
explained the incident by stating that the group which unfurled the
poster about censorship had, earlier in the conference, distributed
an "unauthorized" flier for a movie about Tibet. Haq said
this was prohibited by the UN, because it was a "political issue
not related to the Internet Governance Forum."
But isn't web
censorship an issue "related to the Internet Governance Forum"?
In fact, as
Inner City Press has exclusively
reported, the UN in New York uses filtering software which has blocked
such web sites as (China's) Anti-CNN.com, click here
for that story.
Military computing? UN's velvet glove censorship not
shown
The poster
contained the sentence: "The first generation of internet
controls consisted largely of building firewalls at key internet
gateways; China's famous 'Great Firewall of China' is one of the
first national Internet filtering systems."
Inner
City Press, which in full disclosure has its own experience with UN
attempts to censor, click here,
asked the UN's Haq at Monday's noon briefing to confirm that the
above-quoted poster concerned internet censorship. Four hours later,
no confirmation had been provided. Watch this site.
* * *
As Blair Lobbies for
Wataniya, Do Kuwait and JPM Chase's Arranger Role Spell UN Conflict of
Interest?
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, November 13 -- When Tony Blair does business, who does he
work for? He represents the Quartet, and thus the UN, on development
in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. He has
been paid by JPMorgan
Chase as a consultant, and presumably works for them. When he acts
in
the West Bank for the Wataniya cell phone company, who is he
working
for?
The
UN has
repeatedly claimed that there would and could be no conflict of
interest between Blair's paid position for JPMorgan Chase and his
work in the Palestinian Occupied Territories. When Inner City Press
asked Blair, after a meeting of the Quarter in the Conference Room 4
in UN Headquarters, about any safeguards in place for his UN and
JPMorgan Chase roles, he scoffed. A Blair staffer confirmed that he
continued in JPM Chase's employ.
This
week, Tony
Blair attended a press conference announcing the finalization of
Wataniya's deal, which Blair "negotiated." At the UN noon
briefing on November 11, Inner City Press asked about this last:
Inner
City Press: yesterday, Tony
Blair was in Ramallah, and he’s
described as having negotiated on behalf of a cell phone company with
the Israeli Government. There’s a whole press conference also that
noted his role for the Quartet and for the UN. So I’m wondering,
did he do this on behalf of the Quartet and the UN and what is the
UN’s knowledge, do they have any knowledge on this business
negotiating activity?
Deputy
Spokesperson Marie Okabe: I have no knowledge of that.
Even
forty six
hours later, no answer has been provided. But even cursory research
reveals that Blair's employer JPMorgan Chase served as a "mandated
lead arranger" for the acquisition of Wataniya. Click here
for
the document.
So
again, what
safeguards are in place? Who is Tony Blair working for?
Tony
Blair
Associates has as a client Kuwait, and by implication its royal
family, while Blair has met with the finance minister of Kuwait while
representing JPMorgan Chase. Wataniya Palestine is substantially
(57%) owned by investors from Qatar and... Kuwait. For the former,
it's Qatar Telecom. But for the later, it's the Kuwait
Investment
Authority, which operates on behalf of the State of Kuwait
-- Tony Blair Associates' client. So when Blair lobbies for
Wataniya, who is he
representing?
Tony Blair and UN's Ban, JPM Chase safeguards not
shown
While
awaiting the
UN's answers, we note that in June 2009, "Wataniya Palestine CEO
Alan Richardson recently called on Middle East envoy and former
British prime minister Tony Blair to intervene on behalf of Wataniya
to get the frequency released. Richardson previously has been
involved in controversial cell phone projects in Iraq, with Orascom
and Iraqna, contracts
which the U.S. Pentagon urged the Coalition Provisional Authority to
cancel.
So
to the degree
Tony Blair is working for Richardson, this too is problematic. But
beyond the UN and Quarter, is Blair working for Kuwait? With JPMorgan
Chase's documented mandate lead arranger role for the acquisition of
Wataniya, there is a conflict which, it would seem, will require
action. Blair is dismissive, and the UN appears cowed. Watch this
site.
* * *
Were
Galbraith's Oil Interests As Undisclosed at UN as at Opinion Pages He
Wrote For?
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, November 12, updated Nov. 13
-- Following reports that former UN Deputy
Special Representative to Afghanistan Peter Galbraith's oil
investments are worth up to $100 million, Inner City Press on
November 12 asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe if Galbraith
disclosed this interest in his financial disclosure form.
Ms.
Okabe stated
that such forms are filled out when a person joins the UN at the
level Mr. Galbraith did, and are "vetted by a professional
firm," namely PriceWaterhouseCoopers. But did Galbraith make the
disclosure which it's now clear was required?
Ms.
Okabe refused to
answer, instead referring the question to UN Ethics Officer Robert
Benson, who oversees the financial disclosure regime. Inner City
Press asked Mr. Benson by both e-mail and telephone, early and late
on the afternoon of November 12, but received no answer by the
evening.
Update: on November 13, UN Ethics
Officer Robert Benson wrote to Inner City Press that "The
Ethics Office can confirm that although Mr. Galbraith is
no longer with the United Nations, he was a participant in the United
Nations Financial Disclosure program following his appointment;
however, as provided for in GA Resolution A/RES/60/238, the
information disclosed remains confidential."
Inner
City Press
is informed that Galbraith is now being barred from the op-ed pages
of major American media based on his failure to accurate disclose his
financial interests. The New York
Times confirmed this on November 13. Galbraith is arguing that
he didn't read the
form, a strange argument for a diplomat who argued that the U.S.
didn't have to comply with UN Security Council resolutions regarding
the Balkans as long as they were under Chapter VI and not VII of the
UN Charter.
Earlier,
just
after Galbraith was fired by Ban Ki-moon, Ban's deputy chief of
peacekeeping Edmond Mulet told the Press that Galbraith had some
ulterior motive which would soon become clear. On November 12, Inner
City Press asked an involved UN official if Mulet had meant the oil
investments, or that he might want to run for lieutenant government
of Vermont. "The latter," the official said. Only at the
UN.
Galbraith and Scott Ritter, disclosure of
$100 million oil investment not shown
From
the
November 12 transcript:
Inner
City Press: ...about Peter Galbraith, former Deputy UNAMA
representative and his interest in oil contracts in northern Iraq. I
wanted to know when he became a Deputy Special Representative, did he
fill out the financial disclosure forms, and I’d also like to know
whether this investment was disclosed in those forms.
Deputy
Spokesperson Marie Okabe: As you know, the financial disclosure
forms are something that the Secretary-General has instituted, it’s
part of his UN reform, and all staff, once they’ve joined the
Organization as senior staff and those in positions that require
financial disclosure, are required to fill that form out upon entry
into the Organization. So it’s a requirement.
Inner
City Press: [inaudible] It seems, this article would make it
important to know whether this, they say the investment is worth up
to $100 million, whether that was disclosed in the form and if it
wasn’t, what were the reasons…?
Deputy
Spokesperson Okabe: As you know, these forms are vetted by a
professional firm and if they see fit that they need to follow up on
any questions that they have, that is done. I think Robert Benson,
when he was here last time, gave you a briefing on how that procedure
works. And just because they are not made public, it does not mean
that they have not been vetted, and the firm that goes through it
does the vetting and if they have any questions, they do get back to
the staff member and do the follow-up on that.
Inner
City Press: [inaudible] is it possible to just, and I don’t expect
you to do it right this moment, but to get a yes or no answer,
whether that investment was disclosed in the forms. Is that going to
be possible?
Deputy
Spokesperson Okabe: You know, you can ask that to Robert Benson, but
that’s his call.
But
Benson has yet
to return a call, nor an e-mail asking the above and the following
questions, below.
Update
of November 13, 2009 -- the following was received:
Subj:
Re: Press questions,Galbraith, whisteblowers etc, thanks in advance
From:
Robert Benson [at] un.org
To:
Inner City Press
Sent:
11/13/2009 9:23:56 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
Dear
Mr Lee:
Responses
provided:
Hi.
At today's noon press briefing, I asked if Peter Galbraith (until
recently Deputy SRSG in Afghanistan) had filled out a UN financial
disclosure form, and separately if he had disclosed the oil interests
in Iraq reported in today's NY Times.
Marie
Okabe
referred me to you on both questions.
A1
-- "The Ethics Office can confirm that although Mr. Galbraith is
no longer with the United Nations, he was a participant in the United
Nations Financial Disclosure program following his appointment;
however, as provided for in GA Resolution A/RES/60/238, the
information disclosed remains confidential."
Q2
-- I have also been told that in a recent UN Dispute Tribunal
hearing, about the UNDP - North Korea whistleblower case, that OLA
said they would not "allow" you to testify in the case. Are
you aware of this? What do you think of UNDP's failure to follow your
recommendation?
A2
-- "Since this is a matter that is before the UN Dispute
Tribunal, I prefer not to make any comment regarding the matter."
Q3
- How many whistleblowers deserving protection have you certified /
found in the past two years? Based on how many applications /
approaches?
A3
- "The detailed information regarding the number of requests for
protection against retaliation received by the Ethics Office and
their disposition can be found in the Office’s Annual Reports for
the previous two (2) years; that is, paragraphs 59-66 of A/64/316 and
paragraphs 47-53 of A/63/301."
Q4
- Finally, does your Office cover local staff of UN Peacekeeping
Missions? There is a recent case of a former MONUC local staffer,
alleging MONUC involvement in / knowledge of diversion of jet fuel
among other things, who has told me he feels retaliated against.
Would your Office have jurisdiction?
A4
- "Yes, our Office would cover a request for protection against
retaliation by local staff member from a UN Peacekeeping Mission. May
I suggest that you have the individual contact our Office, in that
way we would be able to advise the him/her directly."
Q5
- How long more do you remain in Office?
A5-
"My three (3) year appointment as the Director of the Ethics
Office will end on 30 April 2010, following which I will retire.
During my tenure as the United Nations first Director of Ethics, I
have indicated on numerous occasions that I considered it important,
particularly in relation to the independence of the Office, that I
serve for a fixed term and that I leave at the conclusion of that
term. The Secretary-General has been informed and has accepted my
plans to retire."
While
the answers,
even the next day, are appreciated, one wonders in light of Q&A
2, above, who would want this job after the retirement announced in
A5 takes place. Watch this site.
* * *
In
Kabul Chaos, UN Pull Out Doesn't Add Up, Transcript Held Back, Budget
Delayed
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, November 9 -- While Afghans and aid
agencies criticize the
UN for a lack of clarity in its partial pull out announcement
after
the Taliban killed five UN staff, in New York the UN insists its
messages have been clear.
Inner City Press asked, for example, if
the UN's figure of 200 people leaving the country included the
reported 14 UNICEF staffers who are leaving. "We have answered
that "we have already answered," that the 200 include "all
agency and UNAMA" personnel. Video here,
from Minute 14:40.
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon on November 6 gave a rambling answer in response to what
"red lines in your head" would have to be cross for the UN
to pull out completely, as it did from Iraq after the bombing of its
Canal Hotel headquarters there. He said, in part, that "no
UNAMA election officials will be moved out... No UNAMA field staff
will be moved out."
More
than
seventy hours after Mr. Ban's comments, the UN had not put the
transcript online
on its "Off the Cuff" comments web site, nor emailed it to the
Press, as usually happens
one or two hours after a public statement by Ban.
Inner
City Press,
which questioned Ban on November 6 and published
quotes that day about
it, here, on November 9 asked Ban's spokeswoman Michele Montas why
the transcript had not been put online. Video here,
from Minute
30:27.
"Mostly
technical reasons," Ms. Montas replied. But Inner City Press has
seen a copy of the transcript which her Office prepared before six
p.m. on November 6. Notably, as Ban was answering the "red
lines" question, his chief of staff Vijay Nambiar arrived at the
stakeout and gestured to end it, telling Inner City Press, we cannot
tell them how to attack us. Then the transcript was not put on line,
and still has not been.
But
the streaming
video is online, Inner City Press' questions here
(from Minute 6:42)
and Ban's "red lines" answer here
(from Minute 12:40). The
transcript which the Spokesperson's Office prepared but then did not
put online has Ban saying "There will be around 200 staff in a
phased way - I would like to tell you -- 120 administrative staff
will be relocated in six to eight weeks, and 30 development staff in
six to eight weeks and 50 administrative officers will be rotated
between Kabul, Dubai and Kuwait..".
What is the
difference between "administrative staff" (120) and
"administrative officers" (50)? Mr. Ban went on, "UNDP
level officers -- they have ended their assignment - 30 out of 125
are now remaining in Kabul." Are the 95 who left included in the
UN's evacuation count? Are the 30 who, it seems, will leave
included?
Mr. Ban on
November 6 said, "there was unfortunately a misunderstanding of our
positions." Neglecting to put online the transcript of the Secretary
General's answers on Afghanistan for more than 70 hours doesn't help.
UN's Ban and his Spokesperson on Nov. 6, as
of Nov. 9, transcript not shown
The
UN claims this
is all clear, but it is not. In fact, Kabul is full of rumors of UN
pull out of more than 200 system staff. The price of
food has shot
up. As one international aid NGO was quoted, "the UN should have
offered the option for its staff to relocate, rather than issue a
blanket relocation. 'That's a bad signal to everyone: The
perpetrators are getting what they want and are encouraged to
continue, and the population feels more and more abandoned, realizing
how little it takes to frighten us away, and to leave them alone to
fend for themselves, in every possible field.'"
On
behalf of the
UN, Ms. Montas refused to comment on or reply to this on November 9,
saying that it is all clear. But is it?
Footnote:
even the budget is not clear. After announcing he was seeking money
after the five staff were killed, now the spokesman for the chair of
the UN Budget committee tells Inner City Press that no proposals have
yet been submitted to the committee, they are anticipated as "an
add on to the budget fascicle" of DSS at the end of November.
The ACABQ is said to have a folder, but got the DSS management review
on a much delayed basis. Fast to pull out, slow to follow through,
some say. Watch this site.
* * *
UN's
Security Phase Confusion in Af-Pak Shown at Stakeout, Ban and Nambiar
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, November 6 -- In a press encounter that ended in disarray,
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Friday called the UN security
threat level in Afghanistan confidential, despite it being public in
Pakistan, and then described the reclassification, renovation and
vacating of various guest houses in Kabul.
His chief of staff Vijay
Nambiar rushed to the stakeout and gestured to spokesperson Michele
Montas to end it. Mr. Nambiar then told Inner City Press, we can't
tell them how to attack us.
Mr.
Ban had
emphasized the UN is not abandoning Afghanistan, that it cannot
curtail its development efforts there. Inner City Press asked about
northwest Pakistan, where the UN country office issued a press
release putting the threat level at Phase IV and suspending UN
development activities, and asked what the Phase is in Afghanistan.
Video here,
from Minute 6:42.
Mr.
Ban said that
security phases are "determined by DSS" [the Department of
Safety and Security] "after evaluating all situations." He
said it "needs not to be known publicly."
Inner
City Press
asked if there isn't a conflict of interest, like in Algeria before
the UN was bombed there, in which host countries doesn't want the UN
Security Phase raised, even if it's needed. Mr. Ban acknowledged that
this is "very sensitive," that host countries don't like
the level raised because it could effect "national prestige"
and "socio economic activities." He said, however, that the
UN sets its levels objectively.
Another
reporter
asked, in light of the UN's pulling out of Iraq after the bombing of
its Canal Hotel headquarters, what are the "red lines" that
would trigger a pull out from Afghanistan. Mr. Ban began to answer.
Inner City Press remarked to a diplomat at the stakeout, yeah, tell
the Taliban what it would take for the UN to leave.
Then,
as Mr. Ban
was describing the categorization of the UN's 93 guest houses into
those to be closed and those to be brought to "MOSS"
standards, Mr. Nambiar rushed back to the stakeout and gestured that
this should stop. Some thought this was because of Ban's next
appointment, with his advisory group of businesses on the
environment. But Mr. Nambiar explained, we cannot tell them how to
attack us.
UN's Ban and Nambiar leave Council,
divergence on disclosure not yet shown
While
this
statement was at the stakeout, with no mention of being off the
record or on background, some have since tried to say this was
implicit. For this reason, Inner City Press is not using the direct
quote. But in fact, it is not surprising that even the UN's 38th
floor would have divergent views on how much to disclose. Both
positions in this case could be defended. And
reporting these facts is to show how the UN actually functions.
Inner
City Press
asked this month's Security Council president, Austria's Thomas
Mayr-Harting, if Mr. Ban had told the Council in its consultations
what the UN Security Phase is in Afghanistan. He said he would rather
not "get into the details." Video here.
Another
reporter
remarked to Inner City Press that "it is easy enough to learn
the UN Security Phase." But why then be so secretive? In fact,
Inner City Press is informed that the Phase in Afghanistan, even
after the killing of five UN staff in a commando style raid by the
Taliban, was kept at Phase III, while it was raised to Phase IV in
Pakistan. Is this objective? Watch this site.
* * *
Click
here
for an Inner City Press YouTube channel video, mostly UN Headquarters
footage, about civilian
deaths
in Sri Lanka.
Click here for Inner City
Press' March 27 UN debate
Click here for Inner City
Press March 12 UN (and AIG
bailout) debate
Click here for Inner City
Press' Feb 26 UN debate
Click
here
for Feb.
12 debate on Sri Lanka http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/17772?in=11:33&out=32:56
Click here for Inner City Press' Jan.
16, 2009 debate about Gaza
Click here for Inner City Press'
review-of-2008 UN Top Ten debate
Click here for Inner
City Press' December 24 debate on UN budget, Niger
Click here from Inner City Press'
December 12 debate on UN double standards
Click here for Inner
City Press' November 25 debate on Somalia, politics
and this October 17 debate, on
Security Council and Obama and the UN.
* * *
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
UN
Office: S-453A, UN, NY 10017
USA
Tel: 212-963-1439
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
2006-08 Inner City Press, Inc. To request
reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com -
|
, 
