The following does not surprise us at all. Just keep in mind that behind each UN official stands the UN Member State that sent him /or her to become a UN official on the Member State’s quota. But this is not enough, each official has also to look out for the interests of the those major UN Members that helped in his appointment. This makes it crystal clear that Indian Pachauri, who was brought to head the IPCC in a US coup that removed from that position the US/British Chief Scientist of the World Bank because of his seemingly too strong advocacy of the need for action, will be bound first to India’s interests, then the US, and eventually to the subject matter. In the case of the UNDP, The Turkish Kamal Dervis may have points of view that could deviate from Pachauri’s as India’s petroleum refinery business interests may be different from oil transit Turkey. In any case, both gentlemen are not scientists as  the subject matter may have required if the topic is climate change. Neither is the UN Secretary-General steeped in natural sciences. All three will then be fed by in house information and it could become tough when they do not sing from the same score. Further, their spokespeople may have their own filters for the news - after all - they are also on some country’s quota, and backed by some more powerful benefactors. That is the UN reality and who does not recognize it is simply deluding himself. In the light of this we found amusing the UN’s difficulty in keeping score when a good enquiring journalist wants clear answers. We bring here Matthews posting from exchanges we had a chance to watch ourselves in part.

On Road to Bali, Kyoto Protocol Under Fire, UN’s Ban Defends from NGO, not UNDP 

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, November 29 — Ten days before the Bali climate change conference, the Kyoto Protocol is under fire from outside and inside the UN. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, through his spokesperson, tried to rebut the outside criticism on Thursday, rejecting non-governmental organization WWF’s estimate that one in five Clean Development Mechanism projects “would have been done anyway.” Video here, from Minute 15:24. The spokesperson said that’s “impossible to say” because the “science is new.” In any case, she said, the CDM rules are the responsibility of the 175 countries in the conference of parties to the Kyoto Protocol, not of the UN. But does Ban Ki-moon think the rules are strong enough? The answer will have to be pursued.

            Wednesday there were even fewer answers. A day after questioning the UN Development Program about its Human Development Report’s criticism of the Kyoto Protocol, and its call for developing countries to commit to emission caps, Inner City Press asked Mr. Ban’s Associate Spokesman for his position on the report.

Ban Ki-moon and Dr. Pachauri, UNDP report not shown

From the transcript:

Inner City Press: The report yesterday by UNDP, the Human Development Report on Climate Change, you know, called for specific emissions targets, including for developing countries.  It’s been criticized by India and even by Dr. Pachauri, the UN’s IPCC expert on it.  Ban Ki-moon, does he agree with the UNDP report, or does he disagree with the report?  What does he think of it?  It’s a UN report on climate change that now Dr. Pachauri has criticized.  So where does Ban Ki-moon stand on the recommendations of the report?

Associate Spokesperson:  We stand by the UN system’s reports.  Obviously, they have the right to publish a variety of reports with a variety of views in it.  We don’t have to sit as the referee between different officials about that.

Inner City Press: Does he believe that the developing countries should go to Bali with an idea of committing to targets for reductions of emissions or not?  Developing countries.  That seems like a key issue.

Associate Spokesperson:  The Secretary-General’s positions about Bali have been articulated by him several times in the past, and I can just refer you simply to his comments, which do not deal with that particular issue.

            Why answer about an issue by referring to comments which “do not deal with that particular issue”? And who but the Secretary-General is going to referee between two conflicting UN system positions on global warming? Maybe it will all become clear in Bali. Stay tuned.