Inner City Press

UN Won't Disclose Ban's 1 on 1 Meetings This Month, Presidents Beyond Sri Lanka?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 30, 2010 - While the UN issued summaries of about 100 meetings between countries' leaders and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon during this month's General Debate, for between v and ten of these meetings there was an extra one on one session which was not included in the UN's summaries, it has emerged.

On Sep 29, Inner City Press asked Ban's adviser Nicholas Haysom why Ban's statements minimizing the authorisation of the UN panel on war crimes in Sri Lanka, about which Sri Lanka President Mahinda Rajapaksa later bragged, had not been included in the UN's summary of the Sri Lanka meeting, which alone among the 100 summaries included a compact of non-Ban statements.

Hayson admitted this was "abnormal," but said that one in ten or one in 20 of Ban's meetings also had a tete a tete (or one on one) segment, not included in the summaries. He said these might involve "staff issues" or other private issues.

For two years now, Inner City Press has asked Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky to reveal at least which of Ban's 100 meeting included one on one sessions not included in the summaries, and to either put an asteriskk by these incomplete summaries or amplify them to admit at least the issues discussed tete a tete.

Nesirky has for now refused. This is yet another reason the UN needs a Fredom of Information law.From the UN's September 29 transcript:

Inner City Press: what Mr. Haysom said that apparently 1 in 10 of these bilateral meeting of the Secretary-General during this general debate have been separate tte-ttes on seemingly un-summarized portions. I only wanted to know_

Spokesperson Nesirky: This is standard, Matthew. Let`s knock this on the question straight away. First of all, he said 1 in 10 or 1 in 20. And it was a fancy he clearly plucked out of the air as a generalization. He wasn`t saying - he didn`t receive a spreadsheet in face of him that 1 in 10 or 1 in 20. First thing. Second thing is the real nature of diplomatic discourse is that if you have a tte-tte, that`s what it is. You can`t expect so to give a readout of what somebody is stressful to talk about confidentially. If the former party chooses to do so, that is for them to do and is not for us to judge. That said, the readouts that we provided, and which we tried to leave swiftly and provide in some detail, are to serve you in the better way that we possibly can. Clearly you don`t appear to value that.

Inner City Press: No, I suppose my head is simply that, rather than hold his idea of it, is it possible to get the issue of the bilaterals with tte-ttes? And shouldn`t you put an asterisk on the ones that are incomplete summaries? It strikes me like, to give a compact that leaves the most significant issues out is worse than having no summary, in a way.

Spokesperson:Well, you might wish to ask your colleagues how useful or otherwise they think the readouts have been. That`s the foremost thing. Second thing is to get mired in that kind of statistics, it really doesn`t act like that. And here is why: because sometimes there will be a meeting that is scheduled to be with delegations and the Secretary-General and the other principal will decide, no; they believe that it would be time better spent given that most of these meetings are 20 minutes, 15 minutes - just the two of them, because they make one specific topic that they want to cover with. On former occasions, it can be the former way around. So, it`s not terribly helpful for you or anybody. We try to supply the data that we can in the best possible way. Next question, next question?

Inner City Press: I only need to ask one question actually about Israel in this situation, in which Israel made a representation about a call they said the Secretary-General had made apparently in a tte-tte meeting. The Secretary-General and your Situation said that`s not true, we deny that. So, it`s not the face that when Presidents or interlocutors make representations you don`t represent, it only seems like, given the argument that encircled the panel, given that the encounter with the panel wasn`t in his schedule, some reason that he is somehow now ashamed of this panel or won`t include in the summary. Why wouldn`t he include his gore in the summary_?

Spokesperson:Matthew, with respect, with respect, the jury that you are talking about, we have spoken about that openly here. We`ve told you near the fact that they met. I don`t really see what your job is there. What is your next question?

Inner City Press: I`ll ask this. There is a report_

Spokesperson:And so I might go to some other people who might get some questions too. In fact I will make a motion from somebody else first and so I`ll get second to you.

From theUN's September 30 transcript:

Inner City Press: you`d said that there is no want of a spreadsheet of statistics. Having thought often about what Mr. [Nicholas Fink] Haysom said yesterday, which is that some portion - whether 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 - of these bilateral meetings with leaders included an heretofore undisclosed side meeting in which topics as public as the Board would be discussed, is it possible to know which of the bilaterals involved in tte-ttes, not the issue of them, just the fact that_?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Typically, typically, as I said to you, there are different types of meetings. Sometimes a tte-tte will, if you like, spontaneously happen at the end of the meeting with the delegations. Sometimes it is pre-programmed, it`s scheduled as just that - a tte-tte, with no one else unless there is take for an interpreter. And sometimes, it is done at the request of one position or the other. There is nothing strange or nothing new in this - absolutely nothing strange or nothing new. What is new, and it doesn`t appear to be apprehended by you, is that we have been providing readouts of every single bilateral meeting, virtually every bilateral meeting that`s been held, the final one of which was held this morn with the Foreign Minister of Guinea.

Inner City Press: It was that Mr. Haysom used the word "abnormal". I don`t need to belabour it, but he said it was abnormal that the readout of the Sri Lanka public, or open, meeting included a representation of what the Chairman said. So, I`d actually thought since it`s abnormal, and I have looked at the early ones, there is not to my knowledge a single one of the other hundred that has such a representation. I guess I would wish to at least ask to know, how was that readout prepared? Was it prepared by the sami people who prepared the other 99, or was it prepared in some special fashion? Because I guess it`s relevant to get, he himself used the word abnormal, not me. So, if it`s abnormal_

Spokesperson:Well, I am the Voice for the Secretary-General. But I am not the Voice for Fink Haysom. He speaks eloquently and on his own accounting and he also happens to be the Director of the Political Unit. So he has a really good reason of how readouts are put together. But this is mechanics. I see your interest, I do. And I also understand your interest in this peculiar state and subject matter, I do. Why it was done differently, I cannot say right now. If I can get out more, I`ll be really glad to say you. But don`t simply assume that it`s been done for some particular political reason. It could only be that that`s the way that that one was done. You don`t get to necessarily read something else into that.

But why not reveal at least which of Ban's 100 meeting included one on one sessions not included in the summaries, and to either put an asterisk by these incomplete summaries or expand them to admit at least the issues discussed in the one on one meeting?

This is yet another reason the UN needs a Fredom of Information law. Watch this site.