UN
Ban on Free
Expression But
For "Common
Purpose,"
Or Can't Be
Protected
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
September 19
-- Now
according to
the UN,
freedom of
expression can
only be
protected when
what is said
is for "common
purpose,"
according to
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon in a press
conference on
Wednesday.
This
makes a
mockery of
press freedom:
it will only
be supported
by the UN
when the UN
likes what is
being said.
Here is what
Ban said,
according to
the UN's
own transcript:
"Freedom
of
expression
should be and
must be
guaranteed and
protected,
when
they are used
for common
justice,
common
purpose. When
some people
use this
freedom of
expression to
provoke or
humiliate some
others’
values and
beliefs, then
this cannot be
protected in
such a way."
Also
triggered by
this UN's
ambivilent
position on
freedom of the
press, the UN
has been
asked,
similarly,
what
content-neutral
rules it
has for accrediting
journalists.
Under
Ban Ki-moon,
the UN's
top
peacekeeping
official Herve
Ladsous has
said he will
not answer any
questions
from Inner
City Press,
because
he does not
like its
previous
coverage,
which has
concerned rape
and
abuse by
peacekeepers
and Ladsous'
proposal for
the UN to use
drones.
The
last three
heads of the
UN Department
of
Peacekeeping
Operations
have been from
France, and so
then-President
Nicolas
Sarkozy was
given le
droit
to name the
fourth.
Sarkozy
chose
Jerome
Bonnafont, a
flashy French
diplomat then
Ambassador to
India. But
Bonnafont made
the mistake of
bragging that
he had the
job, and Inner
City Press heard and
reported it.
Suddenly
Bonnafont
was out,
and without
any interview,
without any
review, bland
bureaucrat
Herve Ladsous
was given the
job.
What
were Ladsous'
credentials?
He had
arranged the
flights of
Michele
Aliot-Marie on
planes of
cronies of
Tunisian
dictator Ben
Ali.
Aliot-Marie
left in
disgrace: but
Ladsous was
sent to the
UN.
Here,
when asked
about the
Tunisia
flights, he
refused to
answer. He
soon
proposed
another form
of flight for
the UN, the
use of drones,
but
wouldn't say
who would get
the
information
gathered by
the drones.
Then he
decided that
the Press
which asked
these
questions
would
be cut off -
until he
either shifted
to positive
coverage, or
was
banished.
But
that's not how
it's supposed
to work, at
least under
the First
Amendment. And
so questions
kept being
asked -- about
a politicized
pull-out from
Syria, about
cholera in
Haiti, about
peacekeepers'
negligence and
even
recruitment of
murderous
militias in
the Congo --
and Ladsous
just kept
refusing to
answer or even
to acknowledge
the
questions. Video
here, from
Minute 5:06.
Ban
Ki-moon's
spokesperson's
office tried
to say this
didn't matter,
they
would
get answers
for
DPKO. But this
substitution
didn't work.
Former UN
Department of
Field Support
boss Susana
Malcorra
became Ban's
chief of
staff, and
still nothing
changed.
Basically,
once
a top UN
position has
been ceded to
a Permanent
Five member of
the Security
Council, they
can send
anyone. Anyone
at all. It
undermines any
concept of
meritocracy or
transparency
at the UN. But
that doesn't
seem to
matter.
Ladsous came
to run the
UN's main
department
into the
ground, and he
has been worse
for the UN
than
having NO ONE
in the job.
But France
voted for Ban
Ki-moon so
they
get the job,
and they chose
Ladsous.
But
wasn't it Sarkozy
who chose
Ladsous? What
does Francois
Hollande say?
What does Jan
Eliasson say?
Many others
are bought in,
or are
ignoring the
Ladsous
circus -- but
some aren't.
To
Ladsous and it
seems Ban,
freedom of the
press
including to
question
is only
guaranteed if
the questions
are deemed by
them to be
"for
common
justice,
common
purpose." But
who defines
these?
Watch
this site.
, 
