In
UN,
False Charge
by Warden
Referred Back
To Him By
Commissioner
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
March 16 -- In
the UN
fiefdoms are
created. Even
when it is
shown to those
above that a
particularly
capo has run
his domain
wrong, the
complaint is
merely
referred back
down to the
one
complained of,
for
retaliation.
In
the bigger
picture, this
is one of the
reasons that
the UN has no
meaningful
protection for
whistleblowers,
but instead a
pattern of
retaliation.
Recently the real-life
heroine of the
“Whistleblower”
movie,
Ms. Bolkovac,
spoke in the
UN,
calling on
reforms from
the Department
of
Peacekeeping
Operations.
Nothing has
happened; DPKO
chief Herve
Ladsous is
allowed to run
the Department
into the
ground.
In
the smaller
picture, the
official in
charge of UN
Media
Accreditation
Stephane
Dujarric has
recently been
shown to have
written and
filed a
false
complaint
against the
investigative
Press.
In
a February
27 letter,
Dujarric
stated of
a February 22
meeting that
that “it was
clearly
understood by
all sides
there would be
no
reporting or
recording of
the meeting.”
Dujarric
was
immediately
told that this
was false.
Another
attendee told
Dujarric, in
writing, that
Inner City
Press “did
indicate, in
response to a
comment Pam
[Falk of CBS
and UNCA]
made, that the
meeting was
being recorded
and deemed...
to be
'on-the-record.'”
The
resulting
recording
clearly
documents
Inner City
Press saying
“you
are on the
record” and
Pamela Falk
saying, “he's
going to write
this up.” Click here
to hear this
audio,
provided to
DPI.
So
Dujarric's
complaint is
false, having
the effect of
trying to
undermine or
stop
reporting.
But
Dujarric
did not
respond in any
way for 18
days. The
issue was
raised
to the
official above
Dujarric, the
head of DPI.
Amazingly,
this
was simply
referred back
down to
Dujarric, who
wrote late on
March 15 that
“the letter
stands and I
have nothing
to add.”
How
can the formal
complaint
letter, shown
to be false,
“stand”? Why
would Dujarric
take this
stance?
Here
is an analogy:
a prison
warden allows
a gang to
dominate the
yard,
calling in
others to be
shanked by the
favored gang's
new boss, an
almost ritual
initiation.
When
the shankee
afterward
refuses to
keep quiet,
the warden
files false
charges --
with himself
-- against the
shankee.
Finally
the
issue is
raised to the
far-away
Commissioner
of
Corrections,
who
is in charge
of the system.
But the
Commissioner,
busy with
other
matters,
merely refers
it back down
to the prison
warden.
What
do you think
happens next?
Could it
be that the
gang,
emboldened, sets
up and files
it own false
complaints,
piling on as
it were? What
does the
Commissioner
do about that?
Watch
this site.
Footnote:
this
same process
happened when
the New
York Civil
Liberties
Union
wrote to the
head of DPI on
July 5, 2012
asking, in
light of
attempt
to
dis-accredit
Inner City
Press directed
to and it
seems invited
by
Dujarric, what
the UN's due
process rules
for
journalists
are.
The
head of DPI
never
responded. In
fact, it was
the official
complained
of, Dujarric,
who was
allowed to
make the UN's
“response,”
then
refuse to
provide it to
journalists
including
Inner City
Press. This
is akin to
allowing a
rogue trader
to be his own
auditor. From
top to
bottom, this
UN is mis-run.
, 
