Inner City Press: Investigative Reporting from the United Nations

On Sri Lankan Killings, As Alston Asks Rajapaksas, Why Not UN's Nambiar?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 21 -- While the UN in New York has been mute about the admission by Sri Lanka's former General Sarath Fonseka of orders by Presidential brother Gotabhaya Rajapaksa to kill those who sought to surrender, an independent rapporteur for the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva Philip Alston wrote to the government on December 18 formally requesting answers.

If the past is any guide, the Rajapaksa administration will either not provide direct answers, or will issue vituperative denials. It did this in response to video footage depicting Sri Lankan soldiers killing bounded and naked people, footage that has since been authenticated.

So one wonders, given not only the UN's role in the final days of what even it called the "bloodbath on the beach" in Sri Lanka, but especially UN chief of staff Vijay Nambiar's reported role in the deadly surrenders, why Rapporteur Alston has not already demanded answers from the UN itself. Nambiar was present with Ban at the Security Council stakeout on Monday morning, click here for the Inner City Press story.

UN's Ban and Nambiar, Alston's questions on killings not yet shown

On December 15, Inner City Press asked the UN spokesman, Martin Nesirky

Inner City Press: John Holmes has appeared on an interview with CNN’s [Christiane] Amanpour, and seemed to confirm that during the final days of the fighting in Sri Lanka, that Vijay Nambiar was telephoned by leaders who sought to surrender, who ended up being killed. So, there is a big controversy right now in Sri Lanka about the charge that the Defence Minister, with whom Mr. Ban has met, gave the orders to kill surrendering prisoners. I wonder if it’s possible, is that… Number one, can you, it’d be good to hear instead from Holmes about Nambiar, or maybe from Mr. Nambiar, but what was the UN’s role in these attempted surrenders? And where does it stand on Mr. Ban’s call for accountability or some type of an outside investigation or panel of inquiry into possible war crimes?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: What Mr. Holmes said yesterday, he speaks for himself in this particular case; of course, I am not going to amplify what he said. He knows what he’s talking about. What I would suggest is that you let me find out some more details and then I can answer you with more certainty.

Inner City Press: All right. Maybe from Mr. Nambiar on some basis, because I think he’s confirmed that he got these calls from people who ended up being killed while waving white flags. So, it seems important to nail down what happened.

Spokesperson Nesirky: Once he’s back in town, we’ll see what we can do.

After that, with Nambiar in Copenhagen ostensibly unreachable by the UN, he gave a quote to the New York Times trashing a former UN official fired for openly blowing the whistle on what he called the UN's cover up of electoral fraud in Afghanistan. So on December 17, Inner City Press again asked

Inner City Press: Earlier this week there was an issue that came up with Mr. Nambiar and his role in the deadly surrender at the end of the Sri Lankan conflict, and you were like, well, when he comes back we’ll talk to him. Clearly he is reachable, apparently, to at least the New York Times. Mr. Nambiar, I mean. Is he in Copenhagen? Is that where he gave those comments?

Spokesperson Nesirky: I will have guidance.

Later, the UN inserted into the transcript an answer -- but not about Nambiar, much less the killings in Sri Lanka:

[The Spokesperson later announced that the reason Peter Galbraith's appointment as Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General for the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan was terminated was that the Secretary-General determined that such action would be in the interests of the Organization. Further elaboration would not be appropriate at this time since Mr. Galbraith has chosen to challenge the termination of his appointment.]

Now Alston writes to the Sri Lankan government, but not to the UN's own Vijay Nambiar, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's chief of staff. Ban Ki-moon will speak before Christmas about Copenhagen. What about extrajudicial killings, and the UN's own role? Watch this site.

Here is Alston's letter to the Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations office at Geneva

18 December 2009

Excellency,

I have the honour to address you in my capacity as Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251 and to Human Rights Council resolution 8.3.

I write to your Excellency's Government with regard to the circumstances of the death of three senior representatives of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Mr. Balasingham Nadeshan, Mr. Seevaratnam Pulidevan and Mr. Ramesh, as well as of members of their families, in the night of 17 to 18 May 2009.

According to information I have received:

On 17 May 2009, the day before your Excellency's Government announced that its forces had completely defeated the LTTE. Messrs, Nadeshan, Pulidevan and Ramesh were trapped with other senior cadres of the LTTE in a small area north of Vellamullivaikkal. Through intermediaries they sought to establish contact with your Excellency's Government to inquire how they could surrender to the Sri Lanka Army (SLA). The reply, coming from the Secretary of Defence in your Excellency's Government and from a Members of Parliament who is at the same time a senior adviser to the President, and conveyed through the intermediaries, was that they should walk towards the positions of the SLA in a way that made their intentions clear and holding a white cloth. The Commander of the SLA 58th Brigade, the unit on the front line with the last LTTE position, however, received a telephone call from the Secretary of Defence instructing him to order his forces to shoot those surrendering. When Messrs. Nadeshan, Pulidevan and Ramesh walked towards the SLA positions carrying white cloths in the first hours of 18 May 2009, soldiers opened fire on them and killed them. An unspecified number of family members of the three men were killed as well.

These allegations were made by the Commander of the Sri Lanka Army at the time of the events and subsequent Chief of Defence Staff (now retired) General Gardihewa Sarath Chandralal Fonseka, in an interview to the newspaper The Sunday Leader. The accounts of journalists embedded with the SLA 58th Brigade confirm some of the alleged circumstances of the death of Messrs. Nadeshan, Pulidevan and Ramesh and their families.

While I do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these reports, I would like to refer your Excellency's Government to fundamental legal rules applicable to all armed conflicts under international humanitarian law and human rights law.

Common Article 5 (applicable to armed conflict not of an international character) of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, to which your Excellency's Government is a party, dictates that "[p]ersons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely [....]". To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at anytime and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds".

Similarly, an authoritative study of customary international humanitarian law finds that attacking and killing persons who are recognized as hors de combat is prohibited. Persons hors de combat include anyone who clearly expresses an intention to surrender, provided he or she abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape (Rule 47 0f the Customary Rules of International Humanitarian Law identified in the study of the International Committee of the Red Cross).

It is my responsibility under the mandate provided to me by the Human Rights Council to seek to clarify all cases brought to my attention. Since I am expected to report on the death of Messrs. Nadeshan, Pulidevan and Ramesh, as well as of the members of their families, I would be grateful for the cooperation and observations of your Excellency's Government. In particular in relation to the following questions:

1. Are the allegations summarized above accurate, If not so, please share the information and documents proving their inaccuracy.

2. What information does your Excellency's Government have on the family members of Messrs. Nadeshan, Pulidevan and Ramesh allegedly killed on 18 May 2009.

3. Please refer to the results of my military, police, judicial and other inquiry or investigation carried out in relation to the allegations summarized above.

I undertake to ensure that your Excellency's Government's response to each of these questions is accurately reflected in the report I will submit to the Human Rights Council for its consideration.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Philip Alston
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions

* * *

As UN's Ban "Divides and Rules" G-77, Pachauri's Bank Links Unexamined

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 21 -- While most observers and even participants describe the Copenhagen global warming talks as a disappointment, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Monday told the Press that they "sealed the deal" and were a success.

Inner City Press asked Mr. Ban about the scandal erupting around the undisclosed business interests of the chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Rajendra Pachauri, from the Tata Group through Deutsche Bank to Credit Suisse, and about the criticism by the chairman of the Group of 77 and its now 130 member states.

Mr. Ban entirely dodged the first question, paradoxically using it as an opportunity to praise business. On the second, he asserted that the chairman of the Group of 77 was not, in fact, speaking for the Group, since others' of its members spoke more positively.

Moments later, Inner City Press asked Sudan's Ambassador to the UN about Mr. Ban's comments. "Divide and rule," he answered, calling the Copenhagen process "climate apartheid." This phrase steps back from his counterpart in Copenhagen who analogized it to the Holocaust.

Pachauri's conflicts of interest are extensive and emblematic of the UN's lack of transparency and safeguards.

UN's Ban and Pachauri, financial disclosure not shown

As detailed in the Telegraph

In 2008 he was made an adviser on renewable and sustainable energy to the Credit Suisse bank and the Rockefeller Foundation. He joined the board of the Nordic Glitnir Bank... This year Dr Pachauri joined the New York investment fund Pegasus as a ‘strategic adviser’... He is on the climate change advisory board of Deutsche Bank... One subject the talkative Dr Pachauri remains silent on, however, is how much money he is paid for all these important posts, which must run into millions of dollars.

So, notwithstanding the non-responsive answer Monday morning, does Mr. Ban believe that Pachauri should make public financial disclosure of these interests? Watch this site.

* * *

IMF Silent on Climate Change Proposal to Use Its Gold and SDR Interest

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 18 -- While world media reports that the International Monetary Fund might play a role in climate change adaptation funding, as proposed by among others George Soros, IMF spokesperson Caroline Atkinson told the Press on Thursday that how SDRs (special drawing rights) are used is "up to individual countries." Video here.

But the proposal involves the IMF using the gold it holds, already ostensibly directed to less developed countries, for the purpose of adaptation. So shouldn't the IMF have a response?

Sitting "idle" in the IMF's coffers are $150 billion for just 15 countries. But the IMF apparently doesn't have the funding or staff or commitment to prepare a transcript of its mere biweekly press briefing the same day it is held.

Below are portions of the proposal.

Bella Center, venue of climate change talks, IMF not shown

Developed countries' governments are laboring under the misapprehension that funding has to come from their national budgets but that is not the case. They have it already. It is lying idle in their reserves accounts and in the vaults of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), available without adding to the national deficits of any one country. All they need to do is to tap into it.

In September 2009, the IMF distributed to its members $283 billion worth of SDRs, or Special Drawing Rights. SDRs are an arcane financial instrument but essentially they constitute additional foreign exchange. They can be used only by converting them into one of four currencies, at which point they begin to carry interest at the combined treasury bill rate of those currencies. At present the interest rate is less than one half of one percent. Of the $283 billion, more than $150 billion went to the 15 largest developed economies. These SDRs will sit largely untouched in the reserve accounts of these countries, which don't really need any additional reserves... The United Kingdom and France each recently lent $2 billion worth of SDRs to a special fund at the IMF to support concessionary lending to the poorest countries. At that point the IMF assumed responsibility for the principal and interest on the SDRs. The same could be done in this case.

The IMF owns a lot of gold, more than a hundred million ounces, and it is on the books at historical cost. At current market prices it is worth more than $100 billion over its book value. It has already been designated to be used for the benefit of the least developed countries. The proposed green fund would meet this requirement...it could make the difference between success and failure in Copenhagen.

So shouldn't the IMF have had something to say about the proposals? Watch this site.

* * *

IMF Studies Congo Deals by India and China, Quid Pro Quo by Canada at Paris Club on Mining, UN's Kivu Spin

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 11 -- The Congo battles for and is embattled by its natural resources, the International Monetary Fund made plain on Friday, perhaps inadvertently. During a press conference call explaining the IMF's $550 million facility to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the IMF's Brian Ames put the DRC's external debt at $13 billion.

Inner City Press asked about new debts to China and prospectively India, about conflict and mining in the East, and Canada's use in the Paris Club of debt relief to strong-arm for two of its mining firm.

Ames, who traveled to Kinshasa to negotiate about what he called the "China deal," described how with IMF pressure the deal decreased in size from $9 billion to $6.2 billion, with "only" $3 billion guaranteed by the Congolese government.

Even this guarantee, he emphasized, could only become due in 25 years. Still, the IMF urged the restructuring of the China deal. Inner City Press asked about a newly reported loan proposal by India to the Congo, for $263 million.

Ames said that was just an announcement, when Congolese officials were in India. To Inner City Press, a connection with the Congo's loud demand that Indian peacekeepers leave the UN Mission in the Congo, MONUC, is inescapable. India is paid by the UN and makes money on these peacekeepers. How does this sum relate to whatever concessional rates India will offer to the Congo?

Inner City Press asked what the IMF thinks of Canada's delay of a Paris Club vote on debt relief to the Congo based on contracts canceled to Canadian mining firms. Ames agreed that this had happened, saying it was really about 1st Quantum. But what about Toronto-based Lundin Mining, whose 24% stake in the Tenke Fungurume mine and its $1.8 billion contract are being "re-negotiated"?

After Ames said that Canada had, after a week's delay in November, agreed on a conference call to go forward with debt relief, Inner City Press him if 1st Quantum's contract was restored. No, he answered, but the Congolese government, which already won a round of litigation in its own courts, has agreed to international arbitration.

Congo's Kabila and China's Hu Jintao, Indian UN peacekeepers and IMF and Canadian pressure not shown

Ames' colleague, whom Ames instructed to "earn his paycheck," added the 1st Quantum has other mines in the Congo, that the dispute involves only one mine. Yes, but that is the $553 million Kolwezi copper and cobalt project.

Inner City Press asked if the IMF has concerns, similar to those evidence on the China deal, about the prospects of an Indian infrastructure loan. It is just a proposal, Ames said, adding that it would be for two hydro electric projects and one water project. Actually, the third would be $50 million towards the rehabilitation of the rail system in Kinshasa.

When Inner City Press asked about reports, including by the UN's Group of Experts, of illegal mining in the Kivus, Ames said that since this revenue stream has yet to go to the government, its diversion does not have an impact and is not considered. Actually, the UN Group's report shows that units of the Congolese army are involved in the illegal mining.

Inner City Press asked the UN about reports its own Office of Legal Affairs advised MONUC not to work with units of the Congolese army involved in these and other crimes. The response:

Subj: your question on the DRC
From: unspokesperson-donotreply [at] un.org
To: Inner City Press
Sent: 12/10/2009 1:33:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time

I. The tasks carried out by MONUC are determined by the Security Council. The mission has a mandate to provide support to the Congolese Armed Forces (FARDC) in disarming illegal armed groups while protecting the civilian population. MONUC continues to give the highest priority to protection of civilians.

II. In furtherance of this mandate, MONUC and DPKO requested advice from the Office of Legal Affairs regarding the conditions governing their collaboration with the FARDC. In full transparency, the Secretariat and the Mission advised the Security Council of the risks involved and potential consequences of cooperating with the FARDC. The Security Council has repeatedly expressed their unanimous support for MONUC and for the joint operations with the FARDC against the FDLR, with full respect for International Humanitarian, Human Rights and Refugee Law.

III. After extensive consultations between the Secretariat the Mission and OLA, a policy was developed, setting out the conditions under which the Mission would support FARDC. This policy was transmitted to the DRC Government in November. It specifies that all MONUC participation in FARDC operations must be jointly planned and must respect international humanitarian law, human rights and refugee law. The policy also includes measures designed to improve FARDC performance as well as to prevent and sanctioning violations. This 'conditionality' provision is why the Mission suspended support to a specific FARDC unit believed to have been involved in the targeted killing of civilians in the Lukweti area of North Kivu.

Let's remember that the IMF is ostensibly part of the UN system. We will continue to follow this -- watch this site.

* * *

IMF Murky on Angola's Oil, Bond and China Deals, Doles Out $1.4 Billion

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 25 -- Days after announcing a $1.4 billion arrangement with Angola, the International Monetary Fund held a press conference call to offer explanations. At the end, things were murkier than before. Inner City Press asked if the IMF had been able to fully assess the income and distribution of revenue from the state owned oil company Sonangol.

The IMF's Lamine Leigh, who led the Fund's missions to Angola in August and September, replied that "in the context of our negotiations, Sonangol participated fairly well." Inner City Press asked, since Sonangol has accounts in off shore financial centers and tax havens, if the IMF had gotten to the bottom of these accounts.

After a long pause, Lamine Leigh proffered another answer, that the government has "committed to steps in the more general area of resource revenue transparency." But what about the Sonangol accounts?

Oil in Angola, Sonangol's accounts not shown

Inner City Press asked about the statement by IMF Deputy Managing Director and Acting Chair Takatoshi Kato that in Angola "measures will be taken to strengthen further the regulatory and supervisory framework." The IMF's Senior Advisor on Africa Sean Nolan replied that the IMF analyzed the effect of the exchange rate on borrowers and "on the banks."

In fact, Angola's government has gotten billions in pre-export oil loans from, for example, BNP Paribas, Standard Chartered and Deutsche Bank. The latter has made similar loans in Turkmenistan, assailed by transparency and human rights advocates. How much of the IMF's new arrangement benefits these banks?

In fact, the questioner after Inner City Press, cutting off follow up, was from Standard Bank. Other than Inner City Press, the only other media questioner was from Reuters.

Before the call ended, Inner City Press was able to ask about Angola's reported $4 billion bond sale planned for December. Sean Nolan said that the IMF's "understanding" with Angola does involve a "fundraising effort," but that the timing was not agreed to, the IMF does not "micromanage" to that extent. Nolan added that there is an agreement on an "overall limit."

"Is it four billion dollars?" Inner City Press asked.

Nolan replied that the precise limit will be "clear in the documents," which have yet to be released. Why play hide the ball?

Nolan praised the country for "appointing reputable financial and legal advisers for the transaction" -- JPMorgan Chase will be the manager.

Nolan continued that the actual size of the bond sale will depend on how much "concessionary lending" Angola gets from "countries with a strong record of financial support to Angola."

Inner City Press asked if the size of China's loans to Angola -- China gets 16% of its foreign oil from Angola -- were known by the IMF or considered.

"That hasn't figured in our discussions," the IMF's Nolan responded. Why not? Watch this site.

* * *

IMF's Report Buries Its Icesave Conditionality, Enforcer's Duplicity?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 3 -- While the IMF has acknowledged that its second round of disbursements to crisis-hit Iceland was delayed for months by the country's failure to placate those in the Netherlands and UK who did business with IceSave, the IMF's just released report on Iceland buries the issue on page 30 of the 98 page report. The IMF states that

"[t]he terms and conditions of Nordic loans, amounting to $2.5 billion, have been finalized. Their disbursement has been linked to resolution of the Icesave dispute with the U.K. and Netherlands over deposit insurance liabilities. After protracted discussions, the three governments have reached an agreement on this"

Once that agreement was reached, on October 18, the IMF then went forward with a letter of intent and memorandum of understanding for the second tranche of financing. But, as with the IMF's moves in Latvia for Swedish banks, some see the Fund operating as an enforcement or collections agent for creditors who even less would like to show their hand.

Iceland / Icesave protest, but is the heartfelt sign true?

Since the IMF does not like to admit or reveal its degree of control over the countries it lends to, the de facto conditions for loans, such as paying off on IceSave, are often not explicit in what purport to be full agreements containing all express and implied terms.

In fact, the IMF has claimed that it "no longer" engages in conditionality. But the Iceland report has an entire chart about conditionalities. It's just that the most important one was left unsaid. Is this diplomacy or duplicity?

The IMF's Iceland report continues, about other loan requests including from Russia:

"A loan from the Faroe Islands ($50 million) has already disbursed, and a loan from Poland has been agreed ($200 million), and will disburse alongside the next 3 program reviews. A $500 million loan originally committed by Russia is no longer expected, but the $250 million in over-financing in the original program, an expected macro-stabilization loan from the EU ($150 million), and use of an existing repo facility with the BIS ($700 million, of which $214 million is outstanding) will more than offset this."

Offset may be the right word. Last year, in the midst of Iceland's abortive run for a seat on the UN Security Council, the country announced it had to seek a $4 billion loan from Russia. It was after that that the IMF loan commitment was made -- an "offset," some saw it -- and after talks in Istanbul, on October 15 the already whittled down loan request to Russia was formally rejected.

Then the deal with the UK and Netherlands, and the IMF's releasing. While the IMF calls these types of moves only technical, others call them power politics. Watch this site.

* * *

IMF Plays Ukraine, Zim and Pakistan As "Technical" Questions, Pushes Tax Hikes in Serbia

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 22 -- Are the International Monetary Fund's negotiations with countries about the level of taxes and salaries for public sector employees, the pricing of electricity and the privatization of social services political, or merely "economic and technical"? The questions arose Thursday in connection with Ukraine, Zimbabwe and Pakistan, among others, in the IMF's first press briefing since its annual meeting in Turkey.

IMF spokesperson Caroline Atkinson fielded questions for half an hour, leaving unanswered one submitted by Inner City Press about Serbia, where the IMF's Paul Thompson has been quoted that "if the Serbian delegation has a concrete pan for decreasing expenses, we will support it, if not, they will have to agree with us and think about increasing taxes." Left unanswered: how is raising taxes merely "technical"?

Ms. Atkinson did respond to Inner City Press' questions about Ukraine, Zimbabwe and Pakistan. While a full transcript is available online here, and video here, in sum the Q & A went as follows:

Inner City Press asked, In Ukraine, the opposition party is critical of the IMF as funding the campaign of Tymoshenko. What is the IMF's response to the opposition's criticism? Ms. Atkinson replied that IMF funds go to the central bank, and that the IMF has a team on the ground in Kiev for a third review.

The opposition was not, it seems, saying that money from the IMF is being used by Tymoshenko for advertisements or to pay poll workers, but rather "MP and opposition government's finance minister, Mykola Azarov, said this at a meeting with delegates of an IMF mission, 'We must say that the program of cooperation with the IMF has turned out to be ineffective, and nothing is left but to consider the IMF's assistance as politically motivated, as funding of one of the candidates running for the presidency.'"

When another reporter asked a follow up question about Ukraine, wondering if with the IMF mission on the ground, the upcoming election "is an issue," Ms. Atkinson said the IMF does not comment while a mission is in the field, negotiating a program, but that information -- and one hopes some questions and answers -- will be provided once the mission is completed

IMF points the way, in budgets... and politics?

On Zimbabwe, Inner City Press asked, "NGOs are critical of the IMF for, they say, pushing Zimbabwe to privatize its social services system. Has the IMF pushed for that, and how does it respond to the criticism?" Ms. Aktinson, while saying she can get back to Inner City Press with more information, argued that the IMF does not favor or disfavor particular privatizations, but must be pushing to strengthen the social service sector to help the poor.

But speaking just ahead of civil society's consultative meeting with an IMF team under Article IV of the Fund's Articles of Agreement, NANGO said "'we are opposed to some IMF polices such as privatization of basic social services. We know it from the past that some IMF policies have worked against people in this country. They have affected the social services sector and their polices are anti-people and negative'... [NANGO] said some of the IMF instigated polices which had brought suffering to the people were the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP) and Zimbabwe Programme for Economic and Social Transformation (ZIMPREST)." It's a pretty specific critique, and we'll publish the IMF's response upon receipt.

Following up on Inner City Press' questions and article from August 2009, it asked "in Pakistan, the IMF in August extended for a year the country's time to eliminate electricity subsidies. Now, while the IMF says 2 price increases will be implemented, others say this is not possible politically. What is the IMF's thinking on consumer power pricing in Pakistan?"

Ms. Aktinson replied that "as I believe you know, the issue of issue of electric subsidy is typically done by the World Bank and Asian Development Bank," that IMF gets involved due to the budget."we will be having another review of the Pakistan program in early November." We'll be there....

* * *

On Food Speculation, UN's Expert Says Nothing's Being Done, S. Korean Land Grabs from Madagascar to Sudan, Brazil on Ethanol

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 21 -- After many speeches at the UN about the need to crack down on financial speculation in food, nothing has been done, the UN's expert on the right to food told Inner City Press on Wednesday.

Olivier de Schutter, a Belgian law professor just back from a visit to Brazil about, among other things, the loss of land for food to ethanol, replied that "nothing is moving at the inter-governmental level." This despite a statement by the G-20 in April favoring the regulation of hedge funds which present systemic risk. The argument is that commodities index funds which speculate in food present systemic risk to net food importing countries. But nothing has been done.

De Schutter spoke about the monopolization of the seed industry, and made a slew of recommendations for governments. The three top monopolizers -- Monsanto, Dupont and the Swiss-based Syngenta -- are all members of the UN Global Compact, and claim to comply with human rights. De Schutter pointed out the antitrust law is directed as national and not global or subnational markets. It is all very heady but one wonders what effect it has.

Brazil might be one of de Schutter's claims to impact. He spoke glowingly of President Lula, saying that Brazil has said that only 19% of land can be used for sugar cane for ethanol, and has committed to monitor labor rights. But what about, for example, Indonesia and Malaysia?

De Schutter, action on food speculation not shown

After De Schutter's briefing, Inner City Press asked his staffer for an update on the proposed land grab in Madagascar by South Korea based Daewoo, which was reputed after the coup in that country. De Schutter had been scheduled to visit, but it was put off by the coup. The same thing happened in Honduras. So perhaps De Schutter does have an effect after all, mused one wag.

Footnote: immediately after De Schutter's briefing, the UN's Haile Menkerios was scheduled to speak to the Press about Madagascar. While the UN usually compartmentalizes its work such that a rapporteur looks at land grabs, while the Secretariat remains on "political affairs" narrowly defined, this land grab played a role in the change of government. Now it's said the South Korean deal is being pursued from India, while South Korea appears to have moved on to 690,000 hectares in Sudan. 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