Impunity
for WIPO's
Gurry After He
Retaliates
Against Union
Chief?
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
October 11, more
here --
The UN system
claims to have
whistleblower
protections --
but
retaliation is
the rule
rather than
the exception.
A recent and
ongoing
example is at
the World
Intellectual
Property
Organization.
Inner City
Press has
published two letters.
Today it
publishes another
letter,
"on behalf of
the 176
million
members of the
International
Trade Union
Confederation,"
and a flier:
"The attack on
the WIPO Staff
Association is
an attack on
the rights of
all UN staff."
Flier
for
reinstatement
of
whistleblower
Moncef Kateb
at WIPO
On October 9,
Inner City
Press asked
Under
Secretary
General for
Management
Yukio Takasu
why the UN
Staff Union in
New York has
been left in
chaos,
essentially
with no union
recognized by
management. Video here.
In Geneva
on September
19, the
President of
the WIPO Staff
Association,
Moncef Kateb
was summarily
dismissed in
retaliation
for his staff
representative
duties, and
for
whistleblowing.
Here
is a letter of
support from
the three
staff
association
federations
representing
120,000
international
civil
servants.
WIPO's
Director
General
Francis Gurry
is head of UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's high
level
committee on
management.
Meanwhile,
Gurry is the
subject of
preliminary
investigations
into two
different
charges, one
for
influencing a
procurement
process, the
other for
using the
Geneva police
to obtain the
DNA of WIPO
staff so as to
identify the
author of a
letter against
him.
Here is
the Deputy
Director
General's September 17
letter specifying
the charges
against Gurry
and asking if
he will be
suspended.
Here also
is the September
19 letter of
the Ambassador
of Estonia to
the Ambassador
of Finland, as
chair of the
Assembly of
WIPO,
urging the
charges
against Gurry
be presented
to entire
Assembly.
Ban
Ki-moon has
still done
nothing about
this.
On
September 17,
Inner City
Press asked
Ban Ki-moon's
deputy
spokesman
Farhan Haq:
Inner
City
Press:
The
Secretary-General
started this
review of
whistleblower
protection at
the UN some
time ago, I
think more
than a year
ago. Has
there been any
finding or
public product
from
that? It
was a Canadian
judge.
Last time the
whistleblower
protections
came up, he
named someone
to look into
it. But,
whatever
happened to
that?
Deputy
Spokesman
Haq: I
believe they
are going
about their
work. I
don't have
anything to
share about
that.
Once that's
done, we'll be
able to say
something
more.
Inner
City Press had
asked Ban's
lead spokesman
on September
5:
Inner
City Press:
There was this
decision over
the Labor Day
weekend in the
case of Mr.
[James]
Wasserström,
which was a
big
whistleblower
case...Tthe
decision that
was made that
still upheld
$15,000
against the
Secretary-General
for having
refused to
comply with
production and
discovery
orders, but it
cut back on
the rights and
protections of
whistleblowers
and that this
may violate
this 2014 law,
requiring the
US Government
to withhold
funds if the
UN doesn't
enact best
practice for
whistleblowers.
What is the
UN's response
to this
criticism?
Spokesman:
I should have
something more
detailed for
you.
But,
obviously, you
know, we
respect the
decisions made
by the
internal
justice system
here. As
for whether or
not those
decisions
violate the
laws of the
United States
or any other
country, that
is not for me
to interpret.
Inner City
Press:
What about the
decision that
the
Secretary-General
erred in not
complying with
discovery
orders, do you
accept that?
Spokesman:
As I said, I
hope to have
something
further.
Twelve days
later, the
whistleblower
question has
still not been
answered. So
Inner City
Press asked
Dujarric's
deputy Farhan
Haq, who said
something had
been received
from the UN
Ethics Office.
Why was it not
provided to
Inner City
Press? Then
this email:
From:
UN
Spokesperson -
Do Not Reply
[at] un.org
Date: Wed, Sep
17, 2014 at
12:58 PM
Subject: Your
questions on
Wasserstrom
ruling
To:
Matthew.Lee
[at]
innercitypress.co
In
response to
your
questions, we
would like to
reaffirm the
Secretary-General's
strong support
for the
professional
work done by
the Ethics
Office. Beyond
that, in the
case you have
referred to,
the UN
Administrative
Tribunal has
ruled that Mr.
Wasserstrom’s
original UNDT
application
was not
receivable, on
the basis that
the Ethics
Office does
not make
administrative
decisions, but
rather is
limited to
issuing
recommendations
to the
Administration.
In not making
administrative
decisions,
findings of
the Ethics
Office are not
subject to
UNDT review
pursuant to
the
requirements
of the UNDT
Statute.
The
Ethics Office
concurs with
this judgment.
Due to its
independent
status, and in
order to
protect its
essential role
as an
independent
and impartial
body within
the
Organization
representing
neither
management or
staff, the
Ethics Office
considers that
its
determinations
cannot be
deemed
attributable
to the
Secretary-General,
and therefore
cannot
constitute
administrative
decisions.
As this was
sent, Inner
City Press was
on a press
conference
call about the
litigation
against the UN
for bringing
cholera to
Haiti; it was
said the UN
after 15 month
called the
claim "not
receivable" --
just like in
the
whistlblower
case. This is
today's UN.
Inner City
Press on
September 17
asked Haq for
an update into
the inquiry
into
whistleblower
protections
that Ban
Ki-moon
ordered. We'll
have more on
this.
Eight
days after
Inner City
Press
exclusively
reported
that Chambas
as the head of
the
peacekeeping
mission being
investigated
for
under-reporting
attacks on
civilians was
being given
the UN Office
in West Africa
post in Dakar,
and asked
about it,
on September
12 the UN on
September 12
confirmed the
move.
Inner City
Press had
asked on
September 5,
and did again
on September
12, if this
move didn't
undercut or
pre-judge the
UN's
investigation
into charges
that the
Darfur mission
under Chambas
under-reported
attacks on
civilians.
On September
12, UN
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric
insisted he
didn't want to
"pre-judge"
the
inquiry.
But by giving
the new post,
this has
already been
done. There is
little to no
accountability
in today's UN.
Chambas was
quoted last
month that the
UN “cannot
stop
Government
forces from
entering camps
for the
displaced,”
despite a
supposed
protection of
civilians
mandate.
Inner City
Press asked
UN Spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric about
it on August
22 and he
said “we will
check with the
Mission to
verify the
quotes and see
what actually
they have been
doing.” But in
the two weeks
since,
nothing.
Now Inner City
Press has
exclusively
learned from
multiple
sources that
Chambas is set
to be
rewarded, or
moved, to the
Dakar, Senegal
UN Office on
West Africa
post vacated
by Said
Djinnit.
This would be
classic UN:
amid a scandal
about UNAMID
under Chambas
covering up
the murder and
abuse of
civilians, a
promotion, in
a game of
musical
chairs.
On August 22,
Inner City
Press asked:
Inner
City Press: in
Darfur, it
seems that Mr.
Mohamed ibn
Chambas went
to Kalma Camp
and met with
residents who
expressed a
variety of
complaints,
but he was
quoted as
saying there
that UNAMID
[African
Union-United
Nations Hybrid
Operation in
Darfur] cannot
stop
Government
forces from
entering camps
for the
displaced, and
it has left
many people
confused
whether, what
is UNAMID’s
role in terms
of protection
of civilians
given these
[inaudible]
entrances in
the camp and
people lying
on the ground?
Spokesman
Dujarric:
I will… we
will check
with the
Mission to
verify the
quotes and see
what actually
they have been
doing.
Two weeks, no
answer. Now
this.
UN
Peacekeeping
and its
mission in
Darfur
continue take
a selective
and lax
approach to
protecting
civilians.
This example
concerns the
UN's evolving
statements on
the Al-Salam
camp.
After
whistleblower
Aicha Elbasri
further
exposed UN
Peacekeeping
under Herve
Ladsous as
covering up
attacks in
Darfur, on
June 17
several
Security
Council
members joined
International
Criminal Court
prosecutor
Fatou Bensouda
in calling for
an
investigation.
On August 7,
Inner City
Press asked
the Joint
Special
Representative
of the African
Union-United
Nations
Mission in
Darfur,
Mohamed Ibn
Chambas, about
the status of
the probe.
Chambas told
Inner City
Press he had
met earlier in
the day with
the
commission,
whose members
will be on
their say to
Darfur.
Inner
City Press
asked if the
report will be
public.
Chambas only
said his staff
will
cooperate.
Apparently it
will be up to
Ban Ki-moon,
or even Herve
Ladsous, to
decide to
release or
withhold the
report.
Back
in Khartoum on
August 11,
Chambas said
this:
"And
on the attack
on Alsalam
camp, let me
state that we
have
information
about this. We
have always
stated that
the
responsibility
for
maintaining
law and order
in Sudan lays
with the
Government.
This is a
sovereign
country, it
has law
enforcement
obligations,
it has its
justice system
and the AU,
the UN is only
here to
facilitate and
ensure that
law and order
and justice
are maintained
and are
enforced
according to
due process of
law. So, we
want to say
that we will
continue to
engage with
the Government
of Sudan in
accordance
with its own
protection of
civilian
mandate and to
ensure that
the activities
on law
enforcement
agencies are
carried out
without
infringement
of the rights
of innocent
civilians
specially
vulnerable
communities in
IDP camps. We
hope that on
the other hand
residents of
IDP camps can
understand and
do understand
that
possession of
weapons,
carrying of
weapons is not
allowed in IDP
camps under
international
humanitarian
law.
"It’s also
imperative,
and it’s a
responsibility
of the leaders
of IDP camps
to ensure that
no one is
using these
camps to keep
weapons or to
hide weapons,
because this
is against
international
humanitarian
law. These are
the issues
involved there
and we as
UNAMID we will
continue to
work with both
sides, with
IDP leaders to
educate them
what is
permissible in
these camps
and what is
not, and at
the same time
working
with
Government to
enforce
legitimately
law and order
but to do that
respecting the
civic and
human rights
of the
citizens and
also
respecting due
process of
law. Thank
you."
Since this
seemed to
defer to
Sudan's Abu
Tira, and even
to blame the
victims, Inner
City Press on
August 13
asked:
Inner
City Press: I
wanted to ask
about Darfur,
Missouri and
Afghanistan.
On Darfur,
photos have
come out of
the Sudanese
uniformed Abu
Tira forces
going through
a refugee camp
or [internally
displaced
persons] camp
in El Salam
and making the
residents lie
on the
ground.
And Mr.
Chambas was
asked about it
and said that
this was
entirely up to
the Sudanese
and it just
seems sort of
strange. I
mean, I know
there is a
Human Rights
component to
these
peacekeeping
missions.
Does the UN,
does UNAMID
[United
Nations Hybrid
Operation in
Darfur] or
does anyone in
the
Secretariat,
are they aware
of these
photographs?
Spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric:
I will check.
Twenty three
hours later,
Dujarric sent
nothing to
Inner City
Press. But
UNAMID issued
a belated
statement,
which seems to
contradict or
attempt to
rehabilitate
Chambas'
dismissive
August 11
comments:
"Following
a security
raid conducted
on Al Salam
IDP camp on 5
August when
individuals
were arrested
for alleged
possession of
illegal drugs,
weapons and
ammunition,
UNAMID
monitored the
trials of
those arrested
during the
operation;
most of whom
have since
been released.
UNAMID has
been engaging
relevant state
authorities on
the conditions
of those still
being
detained.
"Other
security raids
have been
conducted in
Otash and
Dereig camps
and are part
of a wider
campaign by
the South
Darfur
authorities to
address the
high level of
criminality in
the State,
especially
around Nyala.
"The security
raids have
generated
alarm and
anxiety
amongst IDPs
in Kalma camp,
who are
anticipating a
similar
operation at
their camp and
have expressed
their concerns
to UNAMID."
We'll
continue on
this.
Inner City
Press asked UN
deputy
spokesperson
Farhan Haq if
an independent
investigation
of Ladsous' UN
Peacekeeping
will be done,
and if not,
why not? Video
here.
Haq claimed
that UN
Peacekeeping
is already
acting on
Elbasri's
complaints,
and that it
had been
telling the
press about
it. Inner City
Press asked,
where have
these updates
been provided.
Haq
cited a
read-out given
in March,
largely
generic; then
he said the
requests made
on June 17
would be
studied.
Ban's
spokesman
Dujarric - in
the midst of a
controversy
about UN
Peacekeeping
chief Ladsous'
mission in the
DRC flying
sanctioned
FDLR leaders
around,
said "you
can pick up
the phone" -
after siting
next to
Ladsous while
he refused to
answer Press
questions on
DRC.
On May 29,
Ladsous
refused Press
questions, video here, compilation
here.
Back on April
24 when Darfur
as such was
the topic of
the UN
Security
Council, three
major Darfur
rebel groups
wrote to the
Council to
investigate
"all reports
of the Peace
Keeping
Mission,
including
reports
presented to
the UNSC by
[Under]
Secretary
General for
Peace Keeping
Mr. Ladous and
the
reliability of
the sources he
had relied
on."
But unlike his
abortive
stakeout on
the evening of
April 23 about
South Sudan, video here, Ladsous did not come
out to answer
any questions.
And at the
April 24 UN
noon briefing,
when Inner
City Press
asked
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon deputy
spokesperson
Farhan Haq for
a response to
the request
for an
investigation
of Ladsous and
his reports,
there was
none: not one
modified or
corrected
report was
cited.
Instead, from
the "holy
seat" of
the UN
Correspondents
Association a
long time
scribe
followed up to
say that it is
not all
Ladsous'
fault, and to
cast blame on
the
government.
This
reflexively
shifting of
blame from the
UN to the
government,
whose new
Permanent
Representative
spoke in the
Council on
April 24, is
in this case
particularly
absurd: how
can the
government be
responsible
for the UN's
own reports
being
inaccurate?
There is
little to no
accountability
in today's UN.
And the new Free UN Coalition for Access is now
taking this
on.
We'll
be following
this. Watch
this site.
, 
