UN
Now Rations Questions, Passes Buck on Nepotism, of Kosovo and
Double Standards
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, January 6 -- The new UN Spokesman Martin Nesirky on January
6 told the Press, "You can ask one more question, your choice." Even
when he could not or would not answer the question asked, about the UN's
continued losses to Myanmar strongman Than Shwe in forced
currency exchange, he did not allow a second question, about the UN
in Kosovo.
Video here,
from Minute 26:47.
Inner
City Press
asked, Is there some limit?
Is there a new system to ration or
apportion questions being instituted? Earlier in the day's noon
briefing, Nesirky had engaged for a full seven minutes with one
correspondent, telling him "I'm enjoying this as much as you
are." Video here,
from Minute 9:36 to 16:36.
Nesirky's
stated
rationale for rationing further questions was that the "Secretary
General is going to speak at the stakeout and I have to stand next to
him." But Nesirky disallowed simple and short factual questions
before 12:30, and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon did not arrive at the
Security Council stakeout until after 12:45.
Mr.
Nesirky said
he would keep a list of questions asked, to ensure that they were
answered. But, while still early in his tenure, Nesirky has taken to
only selectively answering
questions. Since last week, a question has been pending with his
Office of Ban Ki-moon's son in law and what has been called nepotism
not only by Inner City Press but also the Washington Post.
Some
surmise that
Nesirky's seeming double standard -- seven minutes allowed to a
correspondent from a British daily who may or may not even use the
answer this week, while disallowing questions from an online
publication which covers the UN for better and worse every day --
reflects a certain media elitism.
Nesirky
previously
worked for the UK-based wire service Reuters, covering among other
capitals that of South Korea, Seoul. Some are watching out for
favorable treatment to Reuters, but the January 6 noon briefing
reflected at best bad time management skills, and functionally, a
form of media elitism.
While
providing questionable answered about the entry
into Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's residence of a person neither
invited nor even a UN staff member, Nesirky told Inner City Press,
"This is not a story." Perhaps within Reuters he could make that
judgment. But as another correspondent pointed out at the January 6
briefing, it is not the UN Spokesman's role.
Increasingly,
when
Nesirky does not want to answer a question in the briefing he says
that it was answered elsewhere, then refuses to repeat the answer. On
January 5 he did this with regard to the UN's position on Al Shaabab
in Somalia demanding that humanitarian workers there not promote
democracy or human rights.
Nesirky said
that Peter Smerdon of WFP in
Nairobi had answered the question. Had he? Previously Nesirky said
Smerdon answered with regard to Al Shabaab trying to charge $20,000.
On
January 6, Inner
City Press wanted to ask Nesirky for the UN's reply to Al
Shaabab's
statement in Mogadishu that they never tried to charge WFP $20,000.
But Nesirky said, no more questions.
The Kosovo
question that he half-heard and then cut off concerned a request
from Serbian president Boris Tadic to the "international institutions"
in Pristina, presumably including the UN, to arrange a visit to Kosovo.
Did the UN receive the request? What does
it think of it? The question was cut off and disallowed.
Ban Ki-moon was previously criticized for dodging the question of
whether Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence complied with
international law. This is the UN's job. And to take and answer
questions is the UN Spokesperson's job.
UN's new spokesman, who some now call
"NeSmirky," a work in progress
When
he can't say
that a question has previously
been answered, Nesirky will defer to a
future answer which may never be given. On January 6, Inner City
Press asked him to confirm that Ibrahim Gambari's salary was paid by
a mixture of the UN's funds for Myanmar and for Iraq, a post Gambari
lost. Nesirky said, you can asked USG for Management Angela Kane
tomorrow.
Inner
City Press
has other
questions for Ms. Kane, including some unanswered by
Nesirky's office. Nesirky said he couldn't guarantee that Ms. Kane
could be asked, or would answer, the question. Inner City Press tried
to ask another question, and Nesirky cut in, "No you don't."
Video here,
from Minute 21:53. The total elapsed time was less then
two minutes, versus the previous seven minute colloquy.
Even
when questions
are put to his Office in writing, not only about Mr. Ban's son in law
but also other nepotism questions, referred to the UN in Cote
d'Ivoire and never answered, and simple questions about the UN's work
in the Bakassi Peninsula, Cameroon and Nigeria. Mr. Nesirky has said
he would keep a list of questions asked, to ensure that they were
answered. That list is getting longer, while it is still early in his
tenure. Watch this site.
* * *
At
UN, Kai Eide's Swansong and Ban's Prerogative, Afhgan Veto in Wings
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, January 6 -- As outgoing UN envoy to Afghanistan Kai Eide
spoke in the Security Council Wednesday morning, Russian Ambassador
Vitaly Churkin slumped next to him, non-plussed. Eide fell under fire
not only for allegedly covering up President Hamid Karzai's election
fraud in 2009, but also from Russia and others for being, in their
view, too willing to talk with the Taliban.
The
question
of
who will replace Eide has already been decided by Secretary General
Ban Ki-moon, a senior Ban advisor told Inner City Press on the
evening of January 5. Publicly, it's between Staffan de Mistura,
favored by the U.S. and Ban, and Jean-Marie Guehenno, favored by
France (and pronounced by the Russian mission as "Gavno,"
or excrement.)
The
self-styled
Paper of
Record slammed both Kai Eide and de Mistura's "low key
style" and "bureaucratic instincts." The UN's
response, seeming decided on at a meeting Monday morning and
crystallized in talking points, was to question why the paper chimed
in with an editorial at this time.
As
the Security Council's gabfest on Afghanistan came to an end, Inner
City Press asked Ban Ki-moon what he made of the New York Times
editorial. He said he had read it, but that choosing the replacement
of Kai Eide is his "prerogative." But what about Hamid
Karzai's veto?
As
to the origins
of the Gray
Lady's editorial, while the U.S. State Department is
pushing de Mistura, there are other views in Foggy Bottom, with direct
access to Times Square. The finger points at Richard Holbrooke,
and as the
actual author the retired op-ed writing Robert Unger. Last time,
Holbrooke lobbied Ban to get Peter Galbraith appointed. Given how that
worked out, the theory goes, Holbrooke couldn't lobby Ban directly, but
rather had to
work through the Times. But Ban has in essence shot it down.
UN's Ban, Kai Eide moving out of focus, Karzai veto
Left
unanswered
for a week now are questioned posed to spokesman Martin Nesirky about
Ban
Ki-moon's son in law Siddarth Chatterjee, hired by de Mistura in
Iraq, later promoted by Jan Mattsson at UNOPS in Copenhagen, in both
cases reportedly to gain favor with Mr. Ban. On January 6, Nesirky
for the first time cut off questions, saying at 12:30 that Ban was
about to speak at the Security Council stakeout. But up to 12:50, Ban
had still not appeared.
Others
muse that
Ban Ki-moon's call for NATO to name a civilian / humanitarian czar is
a fall back position. If de Mistura is vetoed by Karzai, he could go
for the UN-urged NATO position. It would be nice to get more of these
questions answered, but at this UN it is not happening. Watch this
site.
Footnote: as the
Council meeting broke up Mona Jul, Norwegian Deputy Ambassador, and
lambaster of Mr. Ban, waited and greeted Kai Eide. In her anti-Ban
memo, the only SRSG she praised was... her paisan Kai Eide. Eide will
hold a press conference at the UN on January 7. We'll be there.
, 
