UNITED NATIONS, November 30 -- After even countries pressured by the United States like Albania decided they could not host the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons, now the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons has announced that
"the United States has offered to contribute a destruction technology, full operational support and financing to neutralise Syria’s priority chemicals, which are to be removed from the country by 31 December... Currently a suitable naval vessel is undergoing modifications to support the operations and to accommodate verification activities by the OPCW."
If the ship is already "undergoing modifications," the plan is far along. But will it be US government personnel doing the destruction? Or some outside contractor yet to be announced?
The OPCW itself has acknowledged it has procurement rules; it has referred to its chemical weapons trust fund. Inner City Press again on November 29 asked Ban Ki-moon's spokespeople where and when the information about the UN's trust fund will be published, a question still not answered.
When Sigrid Kaag took questions at the UN in New York on November 5, Inner City Press asked her about the trust fund and she said it was important, it would be soon. Video here, from Minute 3:16. So where is it?
Meanwhile, the UN on November 29 did confirm to Inner City Press what the Swedish government first announced: a further delay in Ake Sellstom's second chemical weapons report, including on Khan al-Asal, to December 13 (or as the UN puts it, "mid December" after having said "late October" then "early December"). Click here for that.
The OPCW trust fund concludes that Director General Ahmet Üzümcü "invited Member States to also consider providing in-kind contributions by contracting companies to conduct destruction activities." Contributions BY contracting companies? Or TO these for-profit companies? Watch this site.
UNITED NATIONS, November 30 -- Each December like clockwork UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had read out canned remarks praising the leadership of the United Nations Correspondents Association.
But what makes this year different?
For one, it is public record that UNCA leaders tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN. The documents emerged from a Freedom of Information Act request to Voice of America, a US government agency. FOIA inquiries continue.
To defend the right of all journalists to report on issues like the UN's inaction in Sri Lanka, the Free UN Coalition for Access was formed. Another difference is it like Inner City Press is on the record, not anonymous trolling like UNCA "leaders" have in 2013.
In 2013 under Pamela Falk of CBS, the UNCA "leaders" have gone stealth, starting counterfeit FUNCA and Inner City Press accounts on Twitter, and posting anonymous comment for example on the site of the UK New Statesman.
Falk and her outgoing first vice president Lou Charbonneau of Reuters were on notice, and in at least one of the two cases actively involved, in the trolling back in February 2013:on the record audio here, and here, and here (Reuters, saying "the problem is your website" - Censorship Alliance.) The UNCA trolls were back at it on November 27, the day before US Thanksgiving.
Should the UN be using and partnering, exclusively, with a group like this one has become? What does it say about this UN's commitment to freedom of the press?
So what does Ban say, then, on December 4 when returning from UNIDO in Peru he is scheduled to prop up the UNCA trolls' legitimacy by speaking at an event in the clubhouse he gave them on the UN's third floor, in which UNCA in July held a faux "UN briefing" with Saudi-sponsored Syria rebel Ahmad al Jarba, who Ban also met in his UN-provided residence in September?
Four pm, coupe de champagne? Why not? And who cares if the Security Council is meeting about carnage in a former French colonies, as it was last Monday on Central African Republic when UNCA scheduled a competing event?
This time, France might in deference solicitously cancel any briefing about the carnage. They took all of August off. What's two hours in the afternoon for champagne with the censors?
What can be said about those follow-overs like Falk, and even more of wannabe UNCA-ites for 2014, with this censorship and trolling public record? There will be faux elections, and then Ban is to speak again for $250 a plate at Cipriani's on 42nd Street. Is this the UN, with a Censorship Alliance? Watch this site.
Earlier today Millett tweeted, "Which is your worst #airport in the world? For me it's #Khartoum Last week it was hot, dirty and devoid of any information or welcome."
Inner City Press has been in the Khartoum airport, and like many around the world it leaves a lot to be desired. But the lack of diplomacy seemed noteworthy, so when Inner City Press saw Millett's tweet it replied from @InnerCityPress,"This is classic UK diplomacy."
This in turn was picked up by the Sudan Tribune, which also asked, what was Millett doing in Sudan? Millett meanwhile has replied only to an ICT consultant who follows, what else, the Queen Alia International Airport in Amman, Jordan where Millett is based.
What's next, Millett's review of refugee camps? We'll be happy to publish what he puts out. Watch this site.
UNITED NATIONS, November 29 -- Now the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) has declared an end to their ceasefire with the Malian Army. This comes after the Army opened fire on protesters in Kidal whom they and the UN "peacekeepers" had told to leave.
"What happened is a declaration of war. We will deliver this war," said MNLA vice president Mahamadou Djeri Maiga. "Wherever we find the Malian army we will launch the assault against them. It will be automatic. The warnings are over," Maiga vowed.
Protesters in Kidal were killed yesterday while opposing the visit of Mali prime minister Oumar Tatam Ly. UN "peacekeepers" from the MINUSMA mission told the protesters to leave -- despite the UN's stated commitment to the right to protest -- and then they were shot, by the Malian Army with which the UN is partnering. Two women are in critical condition.
Inner City Press went to the UN on Friday, a UN workday, and posed this question in writing since there was no in-person noon briefing:
"In Mali, after protesters in Kidal were subjected to live fire, please describe the role of the MINUSMA peacekeepers in the events, including in reportedly telling the protesters to leave the airport. Is that true? Is so, why did the UN tell protesters to leave, given the UN's stated commitment to the right to protest?"
In-person, Inner City Press asked UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous about Kidal, but he said nothing. Here is the UN's written response to Inner City Press, citing an UNclear MINUSMA press release:
Subject: Your questions for Friday From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org Date: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:42 PM To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com
Regarding the questions you asked by email, the Spokesperson has the following to say:
Regarding your questions on Mali, the UN Mission, MINUSMA, has provided the following information in a press release today:
Bamako, 29 November 2013 - MINUSMA strongly condemns the violence that took place yesterday in Kidal prior to the scheduled arrival of the Prime Minister and a Government delegation.
The Mission deplores the fact that, despite a security plan coordinated by the Malian Government on Wednesday in cooperation with MINUSMA and supported by Serval, incidents of a serious nature took place.
MINUSMA, in close cooperation with Serval, assisted the evacuation of three of the injured for medical care in Gao.
MINUSMA calls for restraint and a return to the negotiating table to continue discussions toward a solution in accordance with Security Council Resolution 2100 (2013) and the commitments made, including on security and investigation arrangements, in the Ouagadougou Preliminary Agreement.
If as reported the Malian Army shot protesters, leaving two women in critical condition, what does it mean to say the UN "deplores the fact that, despite a security plan coordinated by the Malian Government on Wednesday in cooperation with MINUSMA and supported by Serval, incidents of a serious nature took place"?
It's worth nothing that even Reuters found the MINUSMA press release to "not shed much light on what actually happened in Kidal yesterday."
We say "even" because Ladsous has several times usedReuters at the UN as a pass-through for misleading or self-serving answering, for example as he covered up for monthsthe 135 rapes in Minova by his partners in the Congolese Army.
Reuters at the UN coordinated with AFP at attempt to get Inner City Press thrown out; AFP led with the way Inner City Press asked Ladsous a question about the Minova mass rapes. Now, after the two were linked by MediaBistro with troll counterfeit Inner City Press twitter accounts, onNovember 27 the troll social media campaign began again.
Ladsous is who he is -- but Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokespeople, even just to keep UN Peacekeeping here from making the whole UN look bad, need to provide more and better answers, as well as to question their "exclusive" partnership with an association of big media "mean girls" who have descended into anonymous trolling. Two more questions Inner City Press asked on Friday weren't even acknowledged. Another DPKO question:
"With regard to Lebanon and UNIFIL, please state the UN's knowledge of Israel's "spying" stations and whether these spy on UNIFIL's communications as alleged by the Lebanese government and its Committee on Assessing the Dangers of the Israeli Telecomm Towers in Lebanese Territory."
To this, Ban Ki-moon's spokespeople replied to Inner City Press:
"Regarding your questions on Lebanon, the UN Interim Force, UNIFIL, says it has no information on this."
Well, beyond the UK coverage of Ladsous, here's coverageof the issue in Lebanon, on which Ladsous' UNIFIL said "it has no information." Watch this site.
When a 2013 UNCA executive committee member filed a stealth complaint with UN Security leading with how Inner City Press posed a question to UN Under Secretary General for Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous, who refused Press questions (video here, UK coverage here), the UN's Censorship Alliance slipped lower, under 2013 president Pamela Falk of CBS.
As reported by Media Bistro, two UNCA board members began false Inner City Press twitter accounts. Exposed, neither of these two are listed as running -- usually there is no competition -- for re-election in 2014. But one, Louis Charbonneau, is simply to be replaced by another Reuters scribe, endorsed by Falk; the other Tim Witcher, the earliest Ladsous fan, has become an endorser too.
On November 27, 2013, the UNCA trolls were at it again, anonymously, online. Those who partner with UNCA and prop it up, informed, have not stopped it, nor has UNCA's "leadership." When what began as a press organization descends into trying to censor or get other journalists thrown out, it calls out for scrutiny and coverage. This Press coverage is on the record, just as Inner City Press also covers the UN Staff Union, its budget committees, "Ethics" Office and other arcania. Unlike the UNCA counterfeiters and trolls, it is on the record, by name, for attribution.
Inner City Press for now makes a single, sample observation, publicly: the 2013 and one-party system style presumptive 2014 UNCA chief Pamela Falk, who demands first questions at the UN on topics she does not write or broadcast on, cravenly directed alongside her UNCA's troll campaign a red white and blue American photo to US Ambassador Power. That is called: being a sycophant to P/power.
And there are others, trying to get on the inside with this group of trolls and censors? Watch this site.
UNITED NATIONS, November 29 -- On the afternoon of Black Friday, the US White House sent out an announcement from Secretary of State John Kerry bragging about enforcement of sanctions on Iran's sale of crude oil, even during the next six months.
Kerry's statement said
"I am pleased to announce that, based on additional significant reductions in the volume of their purchases of Iranian crude oil, China, India, the Republic of Korea, Turkey, and Taiwan have again qualified for an exception to sanctions outlined in Section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012. These additional reductions were determined based on an analysis of these economies’ purchasing activity over the previous six months. Additionally, Malaysia, South Africa, Singapore, and Sri Lanka have also qualified again for the NDAA exception because they no longer purchase crude oil from Iran."
Was this just because these were the first three listed by the State Department? What about "Turkey and Taiwan" -- sure to make China (UN) happy? What about Malaysia, South Africa, Singapore, and Sri Lanka -- praised by the US even as it resists accountability for its mass atrocities in 2009 and since?
The Iran nuclear deal, and claims of continuing punishment including by "de-SWIFT-ing" Iran's banks, constitute a pinata for these media, easy pickings. But why be incomplete and inaccurate? Watch this site.
UNITED NATIONS, November 29 -- Protesters in Kidal were killed yesterday while opposing the visit of Mali prime minister Oumar Tatam Ly. UN "peacekeepers" from the MINUSMA mission told the protesters to leave -- despite the UN's stated commitment to the right to protest -- and then they were shot, by the Malian Army with which the UN is partnering. Two women are in critical condition.
Inner City Press went to the UN on Friday, a UN workday, and posed this question in writing since there was no in-person noon briefing:
"In Mali, after protesters in Kidal were subjected to live fire, please describe the role of the MINUSMA peacekeepers in the events, including in reportedly telling the protesters to leave the airport. Is that true? Is so, why did the UN tell protesters to leave, given the UN's stated commitment to the right to protest?"
In-person, Inner City Press asked UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous about Kidal, but he said nothing. Here is the UN's written response to Inner City Press, citing an UNclear MINUSMA press release:
Subject: Your questions for Friday From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org Date: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:42 PM To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com
Regarding the questions you asked by email, the Spokesperson has the following to say:
Regarding your questions on Mali, the UN Mission, MINUSMA, has provided the following information in a press release today:
Bamako, 29 November 2013 - MINUSMA strongly condemns the violence that took place yesterday in Kidal prior to the scheduled arrival of the Prime Minister and a Government delegation.
The Mission deplores the fact that, despite a security plan coordinated by the Malian Government on Wednesday in cooperation with MINUSMA and supported by Serval, incidents of a serious nature took place.
MINUSMA, in close cooperation with Serval, assisted the evacuation of three of the injured for medical care in Gao.
MINUSMA calls for restraint and a return to the negotiating table to continue discussions toward a solution in accordance with Security Council Resolution 2100 (2013) and the commitments made, including on security and investigation arrangements, in the Ouagadougou Preliminary Agreement.
If as reported the Malian Army shot protesters, leaving two women in critical condition, what does it mean to say the UN "deplores the fact that, despite a security plan coordinated by the Malian Government on Wednesday in cooperation with MINUSMA and supported by Serval, incidents of a serious nature took place"?
It's worth nothing that even Reuters found the MINUSMA press release to "not shed much light on what actually happened in Kidal yesterday."
We say "even" because Ladsous has several times used Reuters at the UN as a pass-through for misleading or self-serving answering, for example as he covered up for monthsthe 135 rapes in Minova by his partners in the Congolese Army.
Reuters at the UN coordinated with AFP at attempt to get Inner City Press thrown out; AFP lead with the way Inner City Press asked Ladsous a question about the Minova mass rapes.
Ladsous is who he is -- but Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokespeople, even just to keep UN Peacekeeping here from making the whole UN look bad, need to provide more and better answers. Two questions Inner City Press asked on Friday weren't even acknowledged. Another DPKO question:
"With regard to Lebanon and UNIFIL, please state the UN's knowledge of Israel's "spying" stations and whether these spy on UNIFIL's communications as alleged by the Lebanese government and its Committee on Assessing the Dangers of the Israeli Telecomm Towers in Lebanese Territory."
To this, Ban Ki-moon's spokespeople replied to Inner City Press:
"Regarding your questions on Lebanon, the UN Interim Force, UNIFIL, says it has no information on this."
Well, beyond the UK coverage of Ladsous, here's coverage of the issue in Lebanon, on which Ladsous' UNIFIL said "it has no information." Watch this site.
UNITED NATIONS, November 29 -- Why has the UN's second chemical weapons report by Ake Sellstrom, including on Khan al Asal, now been pushed back from the end of October until December 13?
And why was it the government of Sweden, Sellstrom's country, and not the UN to announce it?
After reporting the delay on November 28, US Thanksgiving, Inner City Press waited until November 29, a UN work-day (albeit with no noon briefing), to ask Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokespeople in writing:
"Please confirm that Ake Sellstrom's second report on chemical weapons in Syria, including in Khan al Asal, will be finished on December 13, as reported on Swedish government website: http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/495 From the UN's perspective, is the 13th still "early December"? Relatedly, please explain in detail the reason for delay from the initial projection of "late October." Also, why was it the Swedish government and not the UN that announced this new completion date?"
Here is the UN's response to Inner City Press:
Subject: Your questions for Friday From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org Date: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:42 PM To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com
Regarding the questions you asked by email, the Spokesperson has the following to say:
On the report by Ake Sellstrom's team, the date for the issuance of the final report of the investigation into allegations of the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic has been delayed as additional analytical work has been required. The results of this analysis are expected in the next few days and the report finalised thereafter. The issuance of the final report is expected to be in the middle of December.
When Inner City Press last asked, the UN said without explanation it had been delayed into "early December"? Video here and embedded (second) below.
Is the 13th of a month still "early" in the month? Why didn't the UN announce it? The UN canceled its noon briefing on November 27 for a "stakeout" at which Secretary General Ban Ki-moon took only two insider questions, none on Syria (or the increasing corporate domination of by the UN, most recently by Bank of America and even Shell.)
The UN's chemical weapon team under Ake Sellstrom first went to Syria to look into Khan al Asal, where Syria said rebels used sarin gas. But once in Damascus, the team shifted its focus to a later, August 31 incident in Al Ghouta.
"the team of chemical weapons investigators led by Professor Ake Sellström, which was in Syria to investigate allegations of the use of chemical weapons there, has just left the country after completing its six-day mission. The team will now move to the phase of finalizing its report, which the team hopes will be ready by late October."
Inner City Press: Khan al-Asal, without any disrespect, I just wanted a simple answer why the UN never went to Khan al-Asal. I read it a number of times; maybe I am being dense, but was it that it they couldn’t get there? Was it was too deteriorated? I am not suggesting those are the reasons, I just wanna know what the reason is.
Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, it does say, not in that particular part that you have in front of you; it does say on 30 September, that transcript from Monday, or let’s be clear about it: I said there are a number of reasons, potential reasons. And one of those includes that with the passage of time, it becomes… I don’t think you expect me, I know you are reading what I said, you don’t think you’d expect me to say exactly what I said on Monday?
Inner City Press: I am asking you a substantive question; what would you say to those who say it’s a shame if the request, the initial request to go to Syria was to visit this one place... it seems to cry, to call out for an answer of why what was initially requested was not done.
Spokesperson: Right, right, so, listen: As I have said, as I have said here a number of times, there are a number of factors why it was not possible or feasible to go. And one of those is that with the passage of time, there is a deterioration of the material that could be used for sampling, and, therefore, to help decide whether chemical weapons were used or not. But as I also said, there is a portfolio of different ways that the team, the investigation team, can gather evidence and try to determine at a distance whether chemical weapons were used. That’s one of the possible constraints. Another is obviously security. And with regard to the broader question about the passage of time, everybody knows that it was not for want of trying that the team did not get there until August. As you well know from March, there was extremely hard work done on both sides — meaning the Syrian authorities and the United Nations in the form of the Office for Disarmament Affairs — to make this work. It was not easy. And that’s been plainly said by any number of people, including the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs. But the fact of the matter is that everyone persevered because there was an interest to get in. And eventually, they were able to get in and they were able then to determine that chemical weapons had indeed been used in that incident on 21 August; and they furthermore have continued both outside and then, on a subsequent visit to Syria that ended on Monday, to gather material so that they can present a final report at the end of this month.
Inner City Press: on Syria and chemical weapons, since it is now the end of October, I wanted to ask for a status update of the second Sellström report on Khan al-Asal, on the other sites, where does this stand?
Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, you’re right it’s 31 October, trick or treat. So Professor Sellström is working on the final report in coordination with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and World Health Organization experts who were part of the UN mission. A number of samples are still being analysed by the designated laboratories and the results are expected to be provided to the UN Mission early next week. The final report is expected to be finalized in early December, after all information gathered by the UN mission has been evaluated. Other questions, please.
So why, after the speed up of Sellstrom's report into al Ghouta, which Ban Ki-moon declared to be "overwhelming" before he even saw it, has his reporting including Khan al Asal been delayed for more than a month -- and then to December 13? That has still not been answered. Watch this site.
