As
US
Restricts UN Staff to 25 Miles from NY, UN Complains, After
Press Asks
By
Matthew
Russell Lee, Exclusive
UNITED
NATIONS,
September 1 -- The United States, which is required to allow
entry by diplomats from countries like Iran, Cuba and Belarus to
attend the United Nations in New York, requires these diplomats to
register and seek permission to travel more than 25 miles from
Columbus Circle in Manhattan.
But
recently Inner
City Press learned that the U.S. has been imposing the same
restriction on UN staff members from such countries, despite the fact
that UN staff are deemed to be international civil servants, not
working for the countries where they were born. (In fact, some such
UN staff are opponents of their governments.)
On
August 19,
Inner City Press asked
UN spokesman Martin Nesirky about this:
Inner
City
Press: It’s come to my attention that there are UN staff
members from countries that are on United States sanctions lists
that, whereas diplomats from these countries are precluded from
travelling beyond 25 miles outside of New York without getting
permission of the State Department, that there are UN staff members
that, although they are international civil servants, are similarly
being required to check with the State Department to travel beyond 25
miles. I think that there are Under-Secretaries-General aware of
their staff members in this situation. I wanted to know whether the
Secretariat believes it’s appropriate that UN staff members who are
international civil servants, not working for their underlying
Government, are subject to this restriction. Why hasn’t the
Secretariat fought for the rights of its staff members right here in
the United States?
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
Where you’re sitting now is not in the United States,
Matthew.
Inner
City
Press: No, no, I understand. I’m saying that the State
Department, in granting the G-4 visa, has imposed the condition that
these individuals, UN staff members…
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
No, I heard what you said, but I need to find out. I don’t
have anything for you on that. But thanks for the question and we’ll
look into it.
Inner
City Press
asked the question because it was aware of situations in which UN
Under Secretaries General threw up their hands and said nothing could
or would be done.
UN's Ban looking up at Obama, restrictions on UN
staff not shown
But when the UN answered Inner City Press'
question, here is what they said:
Subject:
Your
question on immunities for UN staff
To: Matthew.Lee [at]
innercitypress.com
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply
<unspokesperson-donotreply [at] un.org>
I
can
confirm that, in answer to your question, we have the following
response:
"The
United
Nations Secretariat has indicated to the United States
Government its position of principle concerning the treatment of its
staff solely on the basis of their nationality and has requested that
all travel restrictions be removed by the host country as soon as
possible."
On
September 1,
Inner City Press asked when it was that the UN “indicated to the
U.S. government its position of principle.” No answer was given --
some assume because the UN only belatedly raised the issue to the
U.S. government AFTER the question was raised. Watch this site.
* * *
UN
Whistleblower
Awarded $166,000 from UNDP, Exposed N.Korea
Irregularities
By
Matthew
Russell Lee, Exclusive
UNITED
NATIONS,
August 31 -- The whistleblower who exposed irregularities in
the UN Development Program's programs in North Korea,
only to be
fired and barred from UN premises, today won a $166,000 judgment from
the UN Dispute Tribunal.
Tony
Shkurtaj,
whose story Inner City Press exclusively
covered from his first
blowing of the whistle after UNDP ignored his complaints to then
Administrator Kemal Dervis and
Spokesman David Morrison's use of mainstream media to smear
Shkurtaj's character and educational background, has doggedly pursued
his rights as a whistleblower, first through the UN's seemingly
powerless Ethics Office and now through the UN Dispute Tribunal.
On
August 31, in a decision Inner City Press has obtained and is putting
online here,
UNDT
Judge Ebrahim-Carstens ruled:
"The
Tribunal
finds that not only was the applicant not given an
opportunity to respond to these adverse findings, he was not even
made aware of the EIIRP’s concerns regarding his credibility at any
point prior to the issuance of the report. The Tribunal is persuaded
by the applicant’s argument that the report of the EIIRP contained
adverse findings against him and that, in the particular
circumstances of this case, he should have been made aware of them
prior to the issuance of the report and provided with the opportunity
to comment on them and provide his explanations. Therefore, the
Ethics Office’s finding that there was a violation of the
applicant’s procedural right to be made aware of—and to have the
opportunity to respond to—the adverse findings concerning his
credibility and trustworthiness was reasonable and justified. This is
particularly so considering the report was made public, following
which there was no further process made available to the applicant to
contest these findings. This failure resulted in a violation of the
applicant’s due process rights, damaged his career prospects and
professional reputation, and caused him emotional distress, for all
of which he should be compensated. I find that the recommendation of
the Director of the Ethics Office that the applicant be paid fourteen
months’ salary was reasonable in light of all the circumstances of
this case". (14 months x $11,500 = 161,000)
UNDP's Clark and Team Ban, whistleblower protections not shown
"The
referral
of the report to the Ethics Office for recommendations was
part of UNDP’s effort to carry out a fair and objective
fact-finding exercise and this referral was meant to be meaningful,
particularly considering the history of this case. The undertaking by
UNDP was to share EIIRP’s findings with the Director of the Ethics
Office, who “could then provide an opinion and formulate
recommendations, as may be appropriate, on the retaliation
allegations in light of these findings”. This meant that, having
submitted to the process, UNDP was required to give serious and
timeous consideration to the Ethics Office’s comments and
recommendations, make a decision on them and provide this decision,
along with the reasons, to the applicant. There is no evidence before
me that UNDP afforded such timeous and serious consideration to the
Ethics Office’s recommendation. This failure and the resultant
procedural delay shall be recompensed. In light of the circumstances
of this case, I find that the lump sum amount of USD5,000 is
appropriate to compensate the applicant." (+$5,000).”
Earlier,
UNDP
refused to abide by the UN Ethics Office ruling that Shkurtaj's due
process rights were violated. Now the new UN justice system, that
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has bragged so much about, has
vindicated Shkurtaj's rights. Will Ban allow UNDP under Helen Clark
to continue to thumb its nose at whistleblower's rights? Watch this
site.
Footnote: Even
earlier this month, UNDP dodged questions on fraud by its highest
representative to the Palestinian people, exposed by Inner City Press,
click
here. Until now, Ban Ki-moon has done nothing to reign in UNDP's
Helen Clark, whose advice has gotten Ban into more and more trouble.
What will happen here?
Update of September
1, 1 p.m. -- Inner City Press asked UN acting Deputy Spokesman Farhan
Haq about the UNDT judgment and whether the UN will finally comply and
recompense the whistleblower. Haq called the decision "complex" and
said it is being studied....
* * *
, 
