UN
Says and Shows It Won't Cover Stories Countries Don't Like, Critics
Targeted
Byline:
Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis
UNITED
NATIONS, July 1 -- The UN runs its own News Service, its own Video
and Radio operations. The chief of these divisions, Ahmad Fawzi, was
asked on July 1 what the UN does on the story if "a country
regards it as not a good story."
"We
don't do
it," Mr. Fawzi. The audience at the UN-TV showcase, mostly
comprised of UN staff members, laughed. Inner City Press followed up,
asking if the UN would cover news events that trigger criticism of
the UN, like the slaughters in Rwanda or Srebrenica.
Fawzi
replied
that the UN commissioned a report on the failures of its member
states and peacekeeping operation in Srebrenica. He added, "Are
we going to produce a video about it? I don't know."
Inner
City Press
has previously
interviewed Mr. Fawzi's colleague Susan Farkas, now
the head of UN TV and Radio and present at the July 1 screening, who
told the
Press, "I find it astonishing that you think there's a
story in the fact that we don't investigate the UN... The UN pays
us. The UN pays us to produce a program which promotes the issues that
the UN cares about."
Thus,
the first of
the videos shown on July 1 concerned children left behind in Moldova
as their parents migrate for jobs. The second concerned the genocide
in Rwanda, but merely mentioned without explaining that prior to the
upsurge in killing, nearly all UN personnel left.
It
certainly did
not mention the UN Development Program staffer who used UN equipment
to round up and target Tutsis to be killed. That is not the only
story, but it is part of the story. And a stoytelling that is
precluded from the beginning from including all pertinent facts
cannot be called independent.
Inner
City Press
asked Fawzi about the UN News Service, which churns out relentlessly
pro-UN stories, ranging from Ban Ki-moon's popularity to the UN's
successes in the Congo. Appearing to take the question to be about
the UN's press release service, Fawzi said "we cover what
happens in the building [but] it is not gloss, it is not promotional,
it tells what goes on in the House."
But UN
News Service covers
nearly every statement by UN agency, never quotes a critic or even
raises a question. It is not unlike the state news agencies of some
member countries. And any member state, it appears, can get a story
removed from the Service. A story on Nagorno Karabakh, for example,
fell under criticism and was quietly taken down. So too a story about
Sri Lanka from the affiliated -- but ostensibly even more independent
-- UN humanitarian Relief Web news service.
While
in the
previous
interview Ms. Farkas went on to ask, "Do you work for
the Heritage Foundation," on July 1 Fawzi said, "there are
others whose job it is to look at us critically and we accept that
with a very open mind and an open heart."
It is
not clear what
"we" he was referring to. Consider a "Dear Colleague"
letter circulated to the 435 members of the House of
Representatives
earlier this week, the text of which is below.
In UN-TV, Fawzi (at right) monitors Ban
Ki-moon's image
"Angered
by past and continuing media reports of corruption, mismanagement and
inaction at the United Nations, the UN is again seeking to cover up
evidence and stifle freedom of the press.
Meeting
on May 8
about 'reporting by the press,' high level UN officials discussed
sending threatening letters to several press agencies and other
bodies, as well as complaining to Google News about a small,
independent news agency that has uncovered numerous UN scandals. Last
year, a similar complaint resulted in that agency's temporary removal
from Google News. In response to a question about that meeting, the
Secretary General's spokeswoman furiously retorted, 'I don't have to
account to you for meetings I participate in.'
The UN's
Department
of Management is also reportedly pushing to obstruct press coverage,
seeking to charge media outlets $23,000 to maintain office space, and
to move journalists covering the UN into open, un-walled offices --
deterring whistleblowers from coming forth and preventing oversight.
These UN
efforts to
restrict press freedom and oversight directly contravene the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognized that
'Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression... and
to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media
and regardless of frontiers.' Once again, the UN is actually
undermining the principles on which it was founded."
The
May 8 meeting,
involving Under Secretaries General Angela Kane (Management), Kiyo
Akasaka (Public Information -- the boss of both Mr. Fawzi and Ms.
Farkas) and Patricia O'Brien (Legal Affairs), as
well as Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's speech writer Michael Meyer
and Spokesperson Michele Montas, was memorialized in a
memo from Ms.
Kane to Ban.
Inner
City Press was shown the memo, wrote
and
asked Ban's spokeswoman Michele Montas about it by email, along with
the three USGs, none of whom has yet to explain how their
participation is consistent not only with the First Amendment, which
they say does not apply, but even to the cited Article 19 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
While it has
previously been claimed to Inner City Press that the UN would not, for
example, even consider seeking to have a publication removed from
Google News, Ms. Kane's memo shows different. What was that again, that
"there are
others whose job it is to look at us critically and we accept that
with a very open mind and an open heart"? Some do and some don't.
Footnote: the "Dear
Colleague" letter circulated on Capitol Hill states that the UN is
"seeking to charge
media outlets $23,000 to maintain office space, and
to move journalists covering the UN into open, un-walled offices --
deterring whistleblowers from coming forth and preventing oversight."
Previously the Department of Public Information, where Mr. Fawzi works
and which Mr. Akasaka heads, told UN journalist they would have the
same walled free space during and after the fix-up on the UN building.
Now
that first $23,000 was demanded, then wall-less "whistlebelower free"
zones have been offered, no explanation of the change has been offerer,
nor how it is consistent with the statement that "there are
others whose job it is to look at us critically and we accept that
with a very open mind and an open heart." Watch this site.
* * *
UN
E-mails Allege Plot to Deny Ban a Second Term, Trick for Supachai at
UNCTAD?
Byline:
Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: Exclusive
UNITED
NATIONS, June 24 -- Weeks after the filing with the UN investigative
unit of emails showing a dirty tricks campaign by staffers of UN
Conference on Trade and Development chief Supachai Panitchpakdi to
get a second term, on Wednesday UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
nevertheless announced he is supporting Supachai for another four
years.
Inner City Press, which exclusively
reported the filing on
June 22, asked Ban's spokesperson if Ban had considered its
contents,
and acknowledged any connection between them and the reappointment.
The
most explosive part of the emails, being
published for the first time
today by Inner City Press, are the arguments made in a May 8, 2009
email by Supachai's special adviser Kobsak Chutikul, that African and
other countries were supporting Ivory Coast's former trade minister
to deny Supachai from Thailand a second term in order to set a
precedent to deny Ban Ki-moon a second term as Secretary General, due
to "his perceived Western backers."
Ban's
spokesperson declined to comment on the filing, saying it is before
the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services. Video here
from Minute
10:45. But senior Ban officials including Management chief Angela
Kane and Ethics Officer Robert Benson have had the complaint since
June 4. Meanwhile, the complainant has reportedly been demoted.
Inner
City Press asked Supachai if his UNCTAD has any whistleblower
protection provisions. Yes we will follow those, Supachai answered.
He claimed he "never campaigned," despite what the emails
show his special adviser Kobsak Chutikul doing. He claimed he only
"responded to some countries' remarks." Video here,
from
Minute 56:18.
Given
these statement, Inner City Press is today publishing some of the
emails at issue, here.
UN's Ban and UNCTAD's Supachai: a snub of latter hurts former?
In a May 8, 2009 email marked Attachment E and
headlined, "NAM Note Verbale," Chutikul wrote to three
senior UNCTAD staff, including the subsequent complainant:
"Gentlemen,
please see attached NAM Note Verbale sent out to all NAM Missions
today. In light of this new development, it is the assessment of Thai
and some ASEAN Ambassadors that the picture has become clear --
UNCTAD SG post has become an innocent bystander caught in the middle
of a bigger struggle... The goal seems to be to insist on
geographical rotation of posts, and undermining the practice /
tradition of two continuous terms, with the real target being the UN
SG (and his perceived western backers)."
This
argument raises the issue, for some interviewed by Inner City Press
so far: did Ban have something of a conflict of interest in
overriding (after working to override and change) African Group
resistance and giving Supachai a second term? In fact, that too is
laid out in Supachai's special adviser's Mach 8 e-mail, referring to
telling Team Ban "things like 'you are the real target' or 'you
are next.'"
The
emails point to several other improprieties, and it is extraordinary
that Team Ban wants or wanted to ignore them and simply reappoint
Supachai.
Following
Chutikul's"all hands on deck" e-mail, the press was on to
get Ban to announce his referral of Supachai's renomination to the
General Assembly. A Chinese staff member conferred with Beijing, and
that asked for evidence of which way Ban was leaning (Attachment G).
Another UNCTAD staffer questioned why the African Group targeted the
second term of Supachai and not Frenchman Pascal Lamy at the World
Trade Organization -- "because he's white"? The e-mails are
replete with racial references.
Now what will happen? Watch this site.