In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee, Video I II III RS HK

UNITED NATIONS GATE, May 30 – Today's UN and its partners including some on diplomacy are well versed in hypocrisy - but sometimes things go so far they must be noted and replied to, in this case to this year's President of the UN General Assembly several of whose predecessors as PGA have been shown to have have been bribed by CEFC China Energy, proclaims hers is a "UN4ALL." On March 8 Espinosa held a press conference that her spokesperson Monica Grayley repeatedly claimed was open to all - while knowing that Inner City Press was banned from attending or asking questions.

  And so it was on May 30, when Grayley for Espinosa issued a canned answer on which Inner City Press was prohibited from asking any follow up, that she urges all sides to end violence, as if government soldiers burning down whole villages were the equivalent of what they say they are fighting. There is no dialogue; there is a dictator living in Geneva. We'll have more on this.

So Espinosa's claim to be open is false, as in context is some of the praise she offered. Now with Inner City Press still banned she and her spokesperson Monica Grayley are dodging on the expose of her corrupt spending, telling softball stooges to just go ask Ecuador. No, one should ask a court - corruption and censorship are crimes. From Ecuador: "Maintaining Maria Fernanda Espinosa as president of the United Nations General Assembly will have cost the country a little more than half a million dollars by the end of her year in office. That if you only count the payment of your salary for one year, amounting to the not insignificant 12 thousand monthly, plus your rent, your expenses of representation and transfer. In total 510 811 dollars. We must add the cost of the two Ecuadorian advisers who work with her: $ 241 570. So for the work of Espinosa in the UN, Ecuador will have disbursed 752 381 dollars.  The cost to the country does not end there. You have to add other expenses that were made before your appointment and that have not yet been quantified. For example, what was invested during the campaign that the lady did in several countries, in order to undermine the candidacy of Honduras that, by the end of 2017, practically had the global consensus to be the winner. Part of that amount will have to be presented by the Office of the Comptroller General, who made an examination of the cost of using the presidential plane for the displacement of Espinosa during the months prior to his election. In total, this will mean for the plundered tax coffers of Ecuador around one million dollars.  The figure is not pig hair, especially considering the economic conditions of the country. Therefore, it is inevitable to ask the question, was it worth paying so much?  To answer, the first thing is to consider that the Presidency of the General Assembly is a symbolic position, with very little capacity for decision and political struggle. Basically, it has the function of organizing the debates during the year that the General Assembly lasts. According to the expertin the history of the United Nations, Helmut Volger, to discourage any possible political ambition of the President, article 36 of the UN Charter says that the "president, in the exercise of his functions, is under the authority of the General Assembly " So obvious is the lack of interest in the position, that member countries do not provide a salary, so the President is paid by his country of origin, says Volger. "The lack of power, in addition to the inadequate working conditions have meant that the Presidency has been assumed rather uninspiring and inexperienced diplomats," said Christian Wenaweser, the Liechtenstein ambassador in 2007 during a debate to reform the letter of the UN, recalls Volger.  The exercise of the position has not meant for Ecuador any substantial benefit for the country. If you look at the websiteof promotion that Espinosa has set up, it is notorious that his management, like that of practically all the previous presidents of the Assembly, has been focused on public relations and draconian issues such as the overcoming of women in underdeveloped countries; no to an international policy agenda of Ecuador. What benefits has management brought to Ecuador? Among the most relevant data, on his page, there is information about a visit to Cuba, made at the beginning of April, where he met with President Miguel Díaz-Canel and in which, faithful to his ideological preferences, he praised "the resistance" of Cuba before "the unjust blockade" of the USA. It also appears a visit made to Mexico on the occasion of the possession of Manuel López Obrador and a campaign to eradicate the use of plastic bottles in which it seems to have been very involved. There are interviews in which he talks about the importance of multilateralism or south-south cooperation. The same is seen in your Twitter account.  Chancellery report on expenses María F. Espinosa  In fact, the one million dollars that the Ecuadorian taxpayers will have paid at the end of the year of Espinosa's presidency is a contribution to the ex-chancellor's resume and consequently to his apparent political aspirations. A contribution, without a doubt, very expensive.  The sponsorship of the candidacy for the Presidency of the Assembly and the concession of the generous conditions with which she was to exercise that position were, evidently, part of a payment of favors from Lenin Moreno. Espinosa and her husband, Eduardo Mangas, were very close to him when Espinosa was Ecuador's ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Switzerland. Both were, in addition, key political operators for the presidential candidacy of the current president. Espinosa asked for a license to come to Ecuador during the election campaign and when Moreno assumed power, she was named chancellor. In that position he was the cornerstone of the shameful international policy of the first year of Moreno's government in which he supported Maduro's Venezuela and the discourse of sympathy and support for the authoritarian regimes of Cuba and Nicaragua was maintained.  That María Fernanda Espinosa has been nominated to the Presidency of the General Assembly when she was involved in the scandal because of the way she nationalized and accredited Julian Assange as an Ecuadorian diplomat in Moscow, is also evidence that the president was willing to do everything to defend and protect your former political operator.  As well as Rafael Correa sent $ 1.6 million to Moreno to incubate his presidential candidacy in Geneva, Moreno has done with Espinosa. The payment of favors and the logic of friendships and loyalties are paid. But of course, with the country's silver." From her canned March 8 opening statement: "my team and I are preparing for the “Women In Power” event, which will take place in the General Assembly, on Tuesday, 12 March.  I am very grateful to all Heads of State and Government who are participating (six women) and also to other leaders, Ministers of State, representatives of international organizations and civil society.  The Presidents of Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania, Nepal and Trinidad and Tobago will be here, as well as the Prime-Minister of Iceland, the Vice-Presidents of Colombia and Costa Rica and the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, the former President of Ireland, Mary Robinson, among other female leaders.  My message for this event is clear: women are still vastly underrepresented in leadership positions around the world, and it is high time to change it for good." Then why praise the pilfering of the SG post that was supposed to go in 2016 to a woman? After UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres amid Inner City Press questions about his links to CEFC China Energy had Inner City Press roughed up by UN Security and banned from any entry of the UN, Espinosa's belated 11 February response was to say... it's all up to Guterres.  Now Inner City Press can report what it hears from its many UN sources, that Espinosa who burned her bridges in Ecuador is angling to see if she could take over the UN Secretary General position from Guterres, whose censorship she has been supporting. Under this theory, the corrupt and ambitious Guterres would leave the UN to return to Portuguese politics and the Eastern European Group would again be excluded. With GRULAC pushing, Espinosa would try to use her time being a sycophant to China as a calling card to become UNSG. This is how low the UN is sinking, in the view even of UN staff close to Espinosa - and to Guterres. Espinosa's chief of staff, about whom Inner City Press reported on his search for another UN job as he left UNFPA before Inner City Press was roughed up and banned - and therefore had and has a conflict of interest -- issued this response on past 4 pm on February 11: "From: Kwabena Osei-Danquah Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 4:44 PM Subject: Re: Formal request to PGA regarding restoration of full access to cover the GA To: innercitypress  Cc: Monica Grayley , Nadia Kalb , Raquel Martins   Dear Mr. Lee... The President of the General Assembly is not in a position to review or grant media accreditation. All media access at UN Headquarters is governed by an agreement between the Department of Global Communications, Department of Safety and Security (DSS), the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General (OSSG) and the United Nations Correspondents Association (UNCA).     The President of the General Assembly is committed to openness to and accessibility of media and will work with all stakeholders, consistent with her authority, to bring the United Nations closer to the people and to make the United Nations relevant for all.      Yours Sincerely,        Kwabena Osei-Danquah  Chef de Cabinet to the President of the 73rd Session of the General Assembly."

Now before 8 am on February 12 Inner City Press has sent this reply and reiterated request: "Dear President of the UN General Assembly Espinosa Garcés and chief of staff:     I write in reply to your February 11 e-mail stating that "[t]he President of the General Assembly is not in a position to review or grant media accreditation."  Forty days ago I informed you that the Secretariat has barred me from any enter of the UN since 3 July 2018 - this has been not only as a journalist reporting on the UN, which I have done since 2005, but even as a member of the public, seeking to attend events of and related to the General Assembly you preside over.    For your information, when I have arrived at the Visitors' Entrance, even with a ticket in my name to attend a GA event, I have been told that I am on a "permanent barred list," which is not public, which I was placed on without any hearing or due process, and from which there is no appeal. This is UNacceptable.     Your 11 February response also states that "[t]he President of the General Assembly is committed to openness to and accessibility of media and will work with all stakeholders, consistent with her authority, to bring the United Nations closer to the people and to make the United Nations relevant for all."    This is inconsistent with your apparent decision, forty days after my written request, to do nothing about the Secretariat's banning of me from any openness or accessibility - and with "UN4ALL."  So I ask again, now that you have formally had this information for 41 days - in fact, I raised it to you at the UN Delegates Entrance Gate even before you assumed your position - what are you going to do about it? I also must point out that based on whistleblowers within UNFPA Inner City Press and I published a report concerning Kwabena Osei-Danquah, who authored / signed your Office's 11 February response.  In this light, I am asking for a response from you, the PGA.  Please confirm your personal receipt of this reply and state what you will do, consistent with you statements on press freedom and, separately, on 'UN4ALL.'    Thank you for your prompt attention."  We'll have more, much more, on this. On 5 December 2018 after an eight day trial Inner City Press covered, also here, a jury in lower Manhattan rendered seven guilty verdicts in the UN bribery case of US v Ho, in which a still UN accredited NGO known as CEFC used the UN to offer weapons to Chad's Idriss Deby for oil and a stake in the Chad - Cameroon pipeline - and for paying $500,000 to a foundation suggested by Ugandan foreign minister Sam Kutesa's wife Edith Gasan Kutesa. While Guterres refuses Inner City Press' questions about why it is not a conflict of interest to refuse to audit CEFC when in 2018 it tried to buy Partex Oil & Gas from the Gulbenkian Foundation of which Guterres has been a paid board member, in Uganda President Museveni - for whom Kutesa sought a $500,000 campaign contribution - said his Attorney General would check where the money went. Even that is more than Guterres' UN is doing. Now Kutesa is proclaiming that his not being present for a UN meeting of other former PGAs - including Peter Thomson who also met with CEFC's Ye Jianming and Vuk Jeremic who worked for Ye - does NOT mean that he is under a travel ban or would be arrested in the United States. What does it say about the UN that three live former PGAs have these questions over them, with a fourth having died while on trial for taking bribes from the same Ye Jianming? Would current PGA Espinosa have invited John Ashe if he were still alive? In jail? We don't know - her spokesperson Monica Grayley has not responded to two e-mails from Inner City Press. Instead on February 4 she said that "not all former PGAs were invited," repeatedly, about Kutesa, adding that an ex PGA from "the Middle East" was going to come but couldn't. In the typical ghoulish hypocrisy of Guterres' - and Espinosa's? - UN, the faux question was from James Bays of Al Jazeera which/who worked with Stephane Dujarric to get roughed up and banned Inner City Press which actually covered the CEFC bribery trial. Here now is Espinosa's press release: "A group of former Presidents of the General Assembly (PGA) are meeting today for an interactive dialogue at the invitation of the current PGA, María Fernanda Espinosa. The theme for the meeting is “Revitalisation of the United Nations in favour of a strengthened multilateral rules-based system”.  This is the first event of this kind. President Espinosa said; “At a time of growing populism, xenophobia and unilateralism, I am delighted that so many former Presidents of the General Assembly have come together to make the case for a revitalised United Nations and for the measures needed to strengthen multilateralism at a time when it is coming under great pressure”.  The previous leaders of the General Assembly taking part in the event are: Their Excellencies Miroslav Lajčák,72nd session; Peter Thomson, 71st session; Mogens Lykketoft, 70th session; Vuk Jeremić, 67th session; Joseph Deiss, 65th session; Jan Eliasson, 60th session H.E. Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa, 61st session. This informal meeting will take place at 3 p.m. at Conference Room Number 4 at the UN Secretariat in New York. This event will be broadcast live.     At 6 pm. the former PGAs and the current President of the General Assembly will talk to UN Correspondents on “Strengthening Multilateralism at the UN” in a session moderated by the president of UNCA, Ms. Valeria Robecco and to which members of the UN Correspondents Association have been invited.     Media Contacts:  Office of the President of the UN General Assembly  Mark Seddon, Monica Grayley." Apparently to "UN4ALL" Espinosa, any journalist who is not a member of UNCA a/k/a the UN Censorship Alliance must be kept away from these events. We'll have more on this. On January 30 Grayley promoted, and Espinosa attended, a supposely "UN4ALL" event for those who paid money. This is today's UN. We'll have more on this.  And now this: The head of High Court Civil Division, Justice Andrew Bashaija, has been appointed to hear the bribery case against Kutesa. As defendant, Kutesa has been given 15 days from the date of receipt of the summons to file his defense before the hearing date is fixed. A concerned citizen, Brian Atuheire, petitioned court seeking a declaration that Mr Kutesa is unfit to hold a public office following the bribery allegations against him in the US court. Of course, this can't be done with regard to UN officials, who have (and abuse) total impunity. We'll have more on this. Uganda's Attorney General, William Byaruhanga, who is listed as one of the respondents in this case, has since assured Parliament that he will come up with a preliminary report on Kutesa bribery claims in January 2019.The evidence flashed on the screen at trial, seen by Inner City Press, makes the quid pro quo clear: $500,000 to wherever Kutesa said in exchange for business opportunities in Uganda. Now an interim report is due by December 20: Uganda's Speaker of parliament Rebecca Kadaga has directed the Government through Attorney General William Byaruhanga to provide parliament with an interim report into the allegations that Kutesa took a bribe from Former Hong Kong Home Affairs minister Patrick Ho Chi-ping for China Energy Fund Committeee in order to help him secure business deals in Uganda before parliament closes out on 20th of this month.

This came after Lwemiyaga county MP Theodore Sekikubo raised the matter before parliament and asked the house to take a decision. In response the attorney general William Byaruhanga informed parliament how the president had asked him to investigate the matter and will share the findings with parliament in January next year. But the MP disagreed with the attorney general on this time frame, saying they needed the report very first.
Kadaga then ordered Byaruhanga to present an interim report before parliament breaks off for a Christmas recess. Meanwhile at the UN -- nothing. This is a new low even for the UN of Antonio Guterres, who did not answer through his spokesmen the written request for comment from Inner City Press, banned from the UN for 161 days and counting by Guterres. Later on December 5 in front of an expensive catering hall near the UN, Cipriani 42nd Street, Secretary General Antonio Guterres lumbered out of a Mercedes and Inner City Press asked him, Any comment on the UN bribery guilty verdict? Guterres, whose spokesman Stephane Dujarric was standing in Cipriani's entrance, made a dismissive gesture with his hand and went in. Video here. Now on December 10 Dujarric has claimed "the UN was used and abused by a number of people." But Guterres has gone out of his way to not have listed WHO has used and abuse the UN. Presidents of the General Assembly Sam Kutesa and Vuk Jeremic? Why has Guterres refused to audit, and even left CEFC in the UN while barring Inner City Press? We'll have more on this. On December 6, on which Guterres spokesman did not answer a single one of the questions Inner City Press submitted in writing (despite three written promises by Guterres' USG Alison Smale that such questions would be answered), Dujarric was asked about Guterres' no comment, video here: "Question:  I saw the SG didn’t [answer] a question when asked about the Patrick Ho guilty charges last night.  Does he have a comment on that?

Spokesman:  Just to say that we have been cooperating with the Federal authorities here in New York from the beginning of this investigation." That's not the point - Guterres still hasn't even started and audit of CEFC (Inner City Press asked him why in January 2018 before being roughed up by his Security and banned still), and why CEFC is still accredited in the UN. The only one out is Inner City Press which questions Guterres' performance and use of funds. On December 6, as it had on December 5, Inner City Press asked in writing: "December 6-5: Given yesterday's seven guilty verdicts in US v Ho for bribery under the FCPA with regard to former UN PGA Sam Kutesa and Chad President Deby who was reached out to right inside the UN, what is the SG's comment and what will be his action on Ho's China Energy Fund Committee and others it has “reached out” to in the UN? Yesterday Inner City Press published a text message in which UN-accredited NGO China Energy Fund Committee's Patrick Ho texted the offer he'd make to Chad's Deby: “$200 million up front plus some arms & renminbi discount loans.” This is the UN NGO that SG Guterres has refused to audit: offering arms. Again, another exhibit made part of the record shows the head of UN accredited NGO China Energy Fund Committee planning to help violate Iran sanctions. Inner City Press has published the CEFC email. What now is the SG's comment and action on a still UN accredited NGO not only offering weapons to Chad's Deby and others, but moving to violate Iran sanctions? Also, a wiretapped audio was played in which Patrick Ho of still accredited CEFC plotted with Sheri Yan who pleaded guilty about bribing PGA John Ashe (RIP). Given that there WAS an audit of some of the bribing of Ashe, why has SG Guterres done no audit of Patrick Ho, and payments to PGAs Jeremic and Kutesa? 

***

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

Past (and future?) UN Office: S-303, UN, NY 10017 USA
For now: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

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 2006-2019 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com for