As we noted previously, the United Nations has for some time treated US journalist Matthew Russell Lee in a discriminatory and, we believe, retaliatory manner. He has covered, in depth, a number of issues that have embarrassed the Organization, such as sexual abusescommitted by peacekeepers in Africa, the role of UN peacekeepers in bringing cholera to Haiti, and war crimes in Sri Lanka, among other problems.
Since we last reported on the UN’s treatment of Matthew Russell Lee (Inner City Press), the harassment has intensified. On July 5th, the United Nations HQ guards flatly refused to allow Inner City Press inside the UN, and then told Fox News that “Based on his unacceptable behavior, and the fact that he was a repeat offender, having been similarly removed from the building on June 22nd, Matthew Lee has been temporarily barred from the premises pending a full review of this incident.”
Of course, the question now becomes: who is conducting this review? Whoever it is, Mr. Lee reports that he has not been contacted. Moreover, although the objectivity of the review is uncertain, it seems that if Mr. Lee is barred from the premises, the guards who damaged his laptop, tore his shirt and twisted his arm should be similarly suspended, pending the outcome of the review.
At this writing, the UN has unilaterally revoked Mr. Lee’s Resident Correspondent’s status without sufficient notice to preserve his records and expelled him twice physically from the UN premises as he tried to cover official events. Mr. Lee is a blogger/reporter for the Inner City Press, which has been accredited to cover United Nations activities since 2006.
As we explored the requirements for the accreditation of journalists to cover UN activities, we discovered a curious feature of the process: United Nations officials decide who can cover the United Nations at its New York Headquarters. In contrast, the process of accrediting journalists to cover the US Congress is governed by a committee of journalists, which ensures that decisions regarding eligibility for a press pass are objective and independent of the institution scrutinized.
This wrinkle in the UN process is not surprising; in fact, it is a modus operandi on many UN fronts. Institutional capture of any potentially objective, never mind critical, review of UN operations is a fine art there. When scandal erupts publicly, the Organization typically convenes a nominally external and independent panel or committee to inquire into the issue and prepare a report. If the Commission is a three-member panel, two of the members will have extensive connections to the UN. The background of such committee members often includes former employment at the United Nations or a history of prestigious and lucrative special UN assignments, which, we assume, the beneficiaries would be loath to lose. Presumably, then, two of three panelists are motivated to safeguard the reputation of the Organization, itself.
In short, objective review of UN procedures and activities is typically flawed by an obscure conflict of interest that amounts to institutional control of whatever examination of operations or events has been demanded by Member States or general publics. The Government Accountability Project does not wish to name the house mice who execute these pseudo-legitimate functions, but they are known to the people affected by them.
One example that comes immediately to mind is the case of whistleblower Artjon Shkurtaj at the UN Development Fund (UNDP). Some years ago, Mr. Shkurtaj reported to the US FBI that the UNDP safe in the office in Pyongyang contained counterfeit US dollars, payments were made to ghost contractors in the country and unannounced visits to project sites were prohibited by the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Through a series of maneuvers, the Executive Head of UNDP, first withdrew his agency from the coverage of the new anti-retaliation policy adopted at Headquarters, and then assured the Member States that Mr. Shkurtaj’s retaliation complaint would be independently reviewed by an external panel. The panel, however, was appointed by Mr. Dervis himself, who informed the press before the panel had completed its investigation of what it would find.
The selection of the Secretary General’s Special Coordinator on Improving the United Nations Response to Sexual Exploitation and Abuse was similarly tainted, after news of sexual exploitation of children by peacekeepers in Africa broke open. The Special Coordinator had previously held a senior position related to UN peacekeeping for six years. She was therefore charged with evaluating the conduct of former colleagues.
In this most recent case, Mr. Lee must be accredited by the United Nations Media Accreditation & Liaison Unit, and internal department at UN New York Headquarters. Because Mr. Lee’s publication appears online, he is subject to the accreditation guidelines for such media, which include this parameter: “the website must belong to a recognized media organization and have a specific, verifiable street address and a telephone number.” Note the word “recognized.” The statement does not specify who or what must recognize the media organization, but we can safely assume that the recognition in question must come from the UN Media Accreditation & Liaison Unit.
Further, the UN makes accreditation contingent on the following conditions: “All UN Media ID Card holders acknowledge that the United Nations reserves the right to deny or withdraw accreditation of journalists from media organizations whose activities run counter to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations or who abuse the privileges so extended or put the accreditation to improper use or act in a way not consistent with the principles of the Organization or established journalism ethics and standards.”
Once again, the arbiter of the journalists’ conduct is not a committee of journalists, but rather the Department of Public Information (now the Department of Global Communications) internal to the UN itself.
After 40 years of operation, the Government Accountability Project can persuasively document that an institution cannot effectively police itself. This is why objective press coverage is necessary, and an international consensus on this point led to the inclusion of Article 19 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Matthew Russell Lee helps to ensure objective press coverage of the United Nations, and the UN must stop its harassment of him if it is to comply with its own principles.