Inner City Press: Investigative Reporting from the United Nations

At UN, Questions of Ban's Son in Law's Hirings and Promotion Unanswered, In Denmark

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 23, updated -- In today's United Nations, questions of possible nepotism and family connections have become taboo. Few pose or pursue them and if asked, they are not answered. The lack of transparency starts at the very top. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's son in law Siddharth Chatterjee, well placed sources tell Inner City Press, has recently transferred with a promotion from the UN Mission in Iraq, from which patron Staffan de Mistura has left, to the UN Office of Project Services in Copenhagen, Denmark, under a new patron, Jan Mattsson.

In late May, Inner City Press traveled with Ban Ki-moon and senior advisors including his speech writer to Sri Lanka and back. On the return leg, after photo opportunities including a scene in the government run internment camp in Vavuniya in which detained children sung the name of Mr. Ban, the UN plane stopped in Copenhagen. An environmental conference for business executives was taking place in the Bella Center, which will host December's climate talks.

Outside the Center, Inner City Press met and interviewed an official from the UN Development Program. He said his job that Sunday was to drive Mr. Ban's wife to meet with the wife of UNOPS chief Jan Mattsson. He added incongruously that he'd been told to wait off to the side of these meeting of spouses. Inner City Press alluded to this in its dispatch from Copenhagen, wondering but not directly asking if this was an appropriate use of UN money and staff time.

In New York this month, well placed UN sources told Inner City Press that Siddharth Chatterjee had quietly shifted from the UN in Baghdad to UNOPS in Copenhagen back in early May, once it was clear Staffan de Mistura was leaving his post of Ban's envoy in Iraq to take the number two post in the World Food Program. (Inner City Press was the first to report de Mistura's departure and replacement by UNDP's Ad Melkert, here and here.) The sources, speaking on condition of anonymity due to express fear of retaliation, said that Ban's son in law was getting a promotion.

When Chatterjee took the Baghdad job as de Mistura's chief of staff, he was slated for a promotion. After Inner City Press and then the Washington Post wrote about it, the UN quickly and some felt defensively announced that Chatterjee would not be moving up a grade in UN pay scale. The Post reported that "This has greatly upset the U.N. rank and file, who are fretting that maybe Chatterjee is trying to leapfrog other qualified staff to get the assignment "

When Inner City Press asked about it, spokesperson Michele Montas replied on video that "we feel the publication of any information that increases the risk to any staff member and to the mission as a whole is not very helpful." (Apparently this argument is now being extended from Baghdad to Copenhagen). Team Ban hastened to argue that since Chatterjee had known de Mistura before, no nepotism was involved and again that the hire should not have been reported at all.

But de Mistura, as a savvy UN player, has a history of hiring the relatives of powerful Headquarters officials. He hired the son of Kofi Annan's chief of staff Iqbal Riza, even creating a middleman for payment to skirt rules or scrutiny. The source opine to Inner City Press that Mattsson, until recently criticized in the UN system for UNOPS' lack of audit and then identified system flaws, is emulating de Mistura. It is a fact that during the recent New York meeting of the executive board of UNOPS and UNDP, Ban issued a ruling that gave Mattsson greater freedom in staffing decisions, used to increase the number of higher level D-1 and D-2 positions at UNOPS in Copenhagen.

UN's Ban partially unveiling with UNOPS' Mattsson on May 25, 2009

Against this backdrop, Inner City Press on July 20 asked Ban's speech writer, who is also the Director of Communications, about what whistleblowing staff had said of Chatterjee. Under Kofi Annan, Inner City Press would simply have gone to then UN spokespeople and asked a factual question, as it once did about a trust fund controlled by the family of Annan's wife. Such factual questions deserve factual answers; counter interpretations of the facts can be offered too, and included as quotes in stories. On this story, all that Team Ban has said is that Ban is concerned about safety, and sensitive to family.

Also on June 20, Inner City Press put factual question about Chatterjee to Ban's chief Spokesperson Michele Montas. She said she would get the answers. Inner City Press said, in light of Team Ban's argument that Ban is sensitive to family matters, that it would choose to question and await answers outside of the UN's formal noon briefing. At the June 21 noon briefing Inner City Press asked about Sri Lanka, Ethiopia and Afghanistan but not the Chatterjee questions, choosing instead to approach Ms. Montas afterwards expecting response to the simple factual questions. But none were given.

Nor the next day, June 22, on the eve of Ban's and his Spokesperson's trip to China and Mongolia. On July 23 a 10 a.m. debate on the "Responsibility to Protect" hosted by General Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann will not include Ban due it's said to his trip. A source on Ban's 38th floor, long after working hours, nodded despairing, "why don't they just answer the questions? To refuse to just makes Ban look worse," adding hopefully that management, media relations and communications changes may be made "for the good of the UN" during Ban's time in his native country in August.

The UN's own Office of Internal Oversight Services appears to do nothing in this regard. Even in the face of the President of the General Assembly's unexplained hiring with UN money of two relatives, reported first by Inner City Press and then the Times of London, OIOS has not acted. Inner City Press asked and was told that jurisdiction is being "looked into," but that complaints by anonymous sources, even those fear retaliations, should not be given weight.

The issue arose at a recent UN noon briefing, where Inner City Press was told that no more questions about the hirings would be accepted. At much lower levels of governance, questions about boss' son in law being hired and promoted within the Organization would be asked and answers given. Why is it different within this UN? Watch this site.

Update: Four days after Inner City Press off-camera asked the UN Office of the Spokesperson to confirm that Mr. Ban's son in law got a promotion at UNOPS, still with no answered the question was asked at the July 23 noon briefing. The question was dodged, but after the briefing Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe quietly confirmed that yes, Ban's son in law now works at UNOPS. She would not state how many ranks he'd been promoted, saying despite its relevance to the Secretariat that all questions should be directed to UNOPS's spokesperson. He is out of the office into August, but half-responded below the following questions:

Hello. I have been directed by the UN Spokesperson's Office, Marie Okabe, to direct questions to you about UNOPS' hiring of Siddarth Chatterjee, the Secretary General's son in law:

what is his current position: D-1 or D-2? What was his position before: P-5? Please state and confirm or deny. Please state what will be Mr. Chatterjee's compensation. was the vacancy announced? what was the vacancy number? many applicants for the vacancy were there? beyond specific responses to the questions above, please describe the UNOPS recruitment and hiring process, and any safeguards in place.

Please confirm that the spouses of the Secretary General and Mr. Mattssson met in late May, describe all use of UN system personnel in this regard and the cost. Please describe and disclose all communications between the Bans and the Mattssons, in connection with the hiring, with S-G's decision to increase UNOPS' autonomy in hiring and the increase in D-1 and D-2 positions and otherwise.

The next day, just before the noon briefing, the following arrived, responding to some but not all of the above questions:

Subj: response from UNOPS to your question
From: [Deputy Spokespeson at] un.org
To: Inner City Press
Sent: 7/24/2009 11:48:20 A.M. Eastern Standard Time

Response from UNOPS on the selection of Siddharth Chatterjee as UNOPS Regional Director for Europe and Middle East

Siddharth Chatterjee, was appointed in May 2009 as UNOPS Regional Director for Europe and the Middle East (EMO). He was awarded the position after competing successfully in a routine and transparent recruitment process independently managed by UNOPS.

Mr. Chatterjee met or exceeded all the criteria for the post. UNOPS totally rejects any suggestion that he gained the position due to family connections.

For 12 years Mr. Chatterjee held positions of increasing responsibility in UN peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Iraq, and working for UNICEF in Sudan, Indonesia and Somalia. Earlier he served 12 years with distinction in the Indian Army Special Forces, including duty as a military observer for the UN, rising to the rank of senior Major. During the recruitment process he impressed the selection panel with his 24 years of leadership and experience handling UN tasks in conflict and post-conflict settings.

The post of regional director was advertised on UNOPS website and in prominent international media. UNOPS received 121 applications, and short listed five candidates based on their specific experience and their match to the competencies sought for the position. UNOPS conducted a formal panel interview with these five, asking identical questions of each. The candidates were ranked based on their interview scores. References were checked and the successful candidate offered the position.

This response does not state Mr. Ban's son in law's new rank nor compensation, nor describe "any safeguards in place" nor "confirm that the spouses of the Secretary General and Mr. Mattssson met in late May, describe all use of UN system personnel in this regard and the cost. Please describe and disclose all communications between the Bans and the Mattssons, in connection with the hiring, with S-G's decision to increase UNOPS' autonomy in hiring and the increase in D-1 and D-2 positions and otherwise."

These questions were reiterated to UNOPS and the UN Spokesperson's Office on July 24. Watch this site.

* * *

For UN's Ban, the Hits Just Keep On Coming, Bad First Half Reviews Trigger Savior Claims

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: Media Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, July 1 -- Halfway through a torrent of less than favorable reviews of the first half of his five year term as UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon and those around him have suddenly sought more and more tightly controlled press coverage. Outlandish claims of accomplishment are made, that Ban saved 500,000 people in Myanmar, that he is the second most trusted leader in the world, and number one on climate change.

The strategy is viewed as risky, even by UN supporters. On June 30 a senior Security Council diplomat told Inner City Press that Ban should just "lie low" for the rest of the summer and use the time to replace some of the advisers and officials who have brought him to this point, who "don't seem to be able to tell Ban what is really going on."

While the first part of this advice is not being followed, perhaps the latter will be, or some officials will simply leave for their own reasons.

The current spate of reviews of Ban's performance began with a report card in The Economist, ranking Ban three out of ten for "speaking truth to power" and two out of ten for management. Inner City Press asked Ban to respond, during his last press conference.

Showing rare passion, Ban lashed out at his critics, saying he needs more resources, he needs more support. What followed were even more negative reviews, in the Financial Times and Foreign Policy.

Then began the publish counter offensive. Ban appeared on the Charlie Rose television show, where he made his claim to have saved half a million Burmese. This exact phrase had earlier been deployed in interviews with publications now preparing their own Ban first half reviews.

Two major newspapers are now competing on who will come out first, while a third -- a ailing West Coast daily which no longer covers Ban's UN day to day -- has been brought in on little notice with the expectation that its verdict will be more positive. In the interim, UN supporters have been countered with mostly online pro-Ban pieces.

Before his current trip beginning in Japan then Myanmar, Ban did a separate sit-down with Japanese reporters. Rather than tell the whole UN press corps about the Burma trip, his Spokesperson's Office pre-selected not only the organizations which would be allowed to come, but even the particular reporters.

The fear, as one of Ban's 38th floor advisers told Inner City Press, is that Burma may become "Sri Lanka Two," an embarrassment in which the re-imprisonment of Aung San Suu Kyi, like the bombardment then internment of Tamils, is legitimated by a seemingly hapless UN Secretary General. But if that is what happens, who can it be reported differently?

The shifting ways Ban dealt with Kosovo -- going silent when asked about the legality from the UN perspective of recognizing the theretofore Serbian provinces' unilateral declaration of independence -- and then with Abkhazia and South Ossetia are fodder for forthcoming reviews, as is Ban's claim to have been responsible for the deployment of UN peacekeepers in Darfur. There are pieces in the works, unless destructive deadline competition curtail them, to assess and take apart even Ban's claims on climate change.

Team Ban's recently reach-out to selected media is undermined, meanwhile, by anti-press initiatives by his management and Capital Master Plan officials. These were summarized in a "Dear Colleague" letter circulated to the 435 members of the House of Representatives earlier this week, the text of which is below.

At UN, Team Ban's anti-Press strategy going goodbye?

"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) 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.

Ban's Spokesperson Michele Montas is widely reported to be leaving in November. His speech writer is said to still review to his previous employer, Newsweek, as "we." Angela Kane, who convened and summarized the anti-Press meeting, is said by Staff Union sources to be leaving. The UN's top lawyer is rarely if even seen in the building, having done only one press conference in all her time on the job.

Ban's senior adviser Kim Won-soo has yet to do any on the record press conference, although he speaks extensively on background for the forthcoming Ban reviews. He and Ban are joined at the hip. Whether the press strategy adopted by the 38th floor is working is in serious doubt, as is whether Ban will take the symptomatic advice offered Tuesday, to in essence lay low, shake up and start over. 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.

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

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

Inner City Press -- Investigative Reporting From the Inner City to Wall Street to the United Nations