Inner City Press Asks UN Global Compact's Lise Kingo If Arms Trade Can Join, Yes If Legal, She Says

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 21 -- When new UN Global Compact chief Lisa Kingo took questions about upcoming private sector events on September 21, Inner City Press asked for her view on the need for substantive standards for this UN program, to avoid "blue-washing."Video here. 

  Kingo replied that the focus on the Global Compact is on reports. Inner City Press asked, then, if arms manufacturers or traders could join.

 Kingo replied that "illegal areas like the ones you mentioned" couldn't join.

 But, Inner City Press pointed out, armed manufacturing and trading is legal. She replied that "special kinds of bombs" might not be. So: no standards? We'll have more on this.

Back on June 25, 2015, the UN Global Compact was studied and praised in a 205 page study by DNL-GL. Inner City Press asked DNL-GL's Henrik Madsen if he has listened to critics of the Compact as "bluewashing," having as members banks like HSBC which engage in tax evasion and predatory lending.

  Madsen replied that he would be telling companies later in the day that they should pay their taxes. Fine - but HSBC has helped its customer to evade taxes. What about that?

  Georg Kell of the Compact said Madsen will be joining the Compact board of directors; earlier he said he's told the Compact principles are in the Koran.

 Inner City Press asked about Westpac, which cut remittances to Somalia. This was not directly answered.

Back on June 5 financial inclusion was the topic at the UN when Queen Maxima of the Netherlands held a press conference at the UN, for which she's the the “Special Advocate for Inclusive Finance for Development.”

  Inner City Press asked Queen Maxima what she has done on the issue of banks like Barclays and Westpac cutting of remittances to Somalia.Video here.

   Queen Maxima, who had cited remittances in her opening statement, replied among other things that banks take a “risk-based approach,” and that the smaller profits they make on remittances make them cut them off. 

  It is on just this type of thinking, we'd say, that this UN office ought to be raising its voice, for example in the case of Westpac, which is a member of the UN Global Compact.

 Inner City Press also asked Queen Maxima if UN agencies like UNRWA and UNHCR are working on the issue of the unbanked, trying to ensure that the payments they make help recipients to establish bank accounts. This too is unclear - the answer was that the UN is studying this, is producing knowlege. It will be good to produce results. We will stay on this.
   

For Climate Week NYC, Inner City Press Asks How BNP Paribas Is Supporter, Coal Plant Financier

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 21, more here -- In the run up the climate change events during UN General Assembly week, Inner City Press on September 17 asked UN's Assistant Secretary-General on Climate Change Janos Pasztor whether INDCs to date would raised temperatures by 3 degrees Celsius, as Christiana Figueres has said, or 2.5 degree as the Guardian has an unnamed UK official saying. Video here.

  On September 21, Pasztor was in the UN Press Briefing Room again, to read a statement of support from Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for Climate Week NYC. The moderator of the press conference, The Climate Group's Eduardo Goncalves, said too submit questions by Twitter, and Inner City Press did: “Q for #CWNYC: how did you vet your sponsors,  Siemens, Procter & Gamble, & BNP Paribas, which has supported the #Tufanbeyli coal plant in #Turkey?”

   But the question was not among those read out. So Inner City Press ran to the press conference, thanked the panelists on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, and asked the question again. Video here.

   Goncalves said that sponsors and supporters “share our values,” without answering Inner City Press' question about coal. Later on September 21, the new head of the UN Global Compact Lise Kingo of Denmark said that any business with a “legal” product can join that organization; she showed off a New York City MetroCard with the Global Compact's logo on it. (New York City's director of Recovery and Resiliency Daniel A. Zarrilli was on the Climate Week panel but did not show his MetroCard.)

  Not only diplomats but corporations and in some cases their lobbyists are coming to New York and into the UN: we'll be watching, and asking questions. Watch this site. KralcreSecre

  Back on September 17, Pasztor's answer to Inner City Press included "3.5 degrees;" Figueres' spokesperson chimes in this is the difference between frying and cooking. But who was the Guardian's anonymous "merely warming" source?

  Amina Mohammed, Special Advisor to the Secretary-General on Post-2015 Development Planning, spoke about financing issues, on which Inner City Press asked about how to count if the $100 billion goal is reached by 2020. 

Back on August 11 after the climate change announcement of Australia, Inner City Press on August 11 asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric about it, video here, transcript here:

Inner City Press: in the statement about the countries coming out with their climate change targets, Australia came out with one.  It's sort of become a touchstone, many people are saying there's no way it would lead to 2°C…

Spokesman Dujarric:  First of all, we very much welcome countries that issue their INDC.  It's an important step, and we very much hope that all Member States will do so.  They really need to be seen as a floor and not a ceiling.  They're a starting point.  There will be discussions prior to Paris.  There will, obviously, be discussions in Paris.  People are free to, obviously, express their opinion on certain countries' INDCs, but for our part, we're glad we have them, and we do see them as a starting point in the discussions.

Back on June 18 when the UN gave a climate change briefing by UNDP's Cassie Flynn, and Jo Scheuer, on June 18 Inner City Press asked about the under-funding of the Least Development Countries Fund, and if South Korea is backsliding in its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions. Video here.

  The answers, on film, were to promote other funding vehicles, and to say that South Korea has still yet to file its INDC.

Back on June 4 the UN's Assistant Secretary-General on Climate Change Janos Pasztor held a press conference and Inner City Press asked him about unspent funds at the Clean Development Mechanism in Bonn, and about reported backsliding by South Korea on its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions on greenhouse gas reduction.

  Pasztor said that the CDM is still needed; he said country have committed not to backslide. Video here. (South Korea had yet to submit its INDCs, it seems). Inner City Press asked Pasztor to provide a comment, if he has one, once South Korea's filing is made.

Back on May 5, Inner City Press asked him about criticism of the Green Climate Fund, including at the recent Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Video here and embedded below.

  Specifically, why will the "Green" Climate Fund provide financial for coal-powered plants? Pasztor replied that some felt that an exclusion for coal would have been divisive. On statements at the PFII that the UN is helping to "monetize" nature, Pasztor replied that most states feel differently. But what about the indigenous?
  
  Pasztor in his opening statement had praised the UN Pension Fund for now investing in "green equities" and "green bonds." Since the UN has responded to Press questions about irregularities alleged at the Pension Fund by emphasizing how separate and independent it is, Inner City Press asked Pazstor if the UN Secretariat had brought about this Pension Fund decision.

 Pazstor replied that the Pension Fund answers to the Secretary General and that "she" - Carolyn Boykin, presumably - had made this decision. We'll have more on this, after noting Pasztor by no means the least responsive UN official...

 When last September 21 the People's Climate March assembled at Manhattan's Columbus Circle, there were anti-corporate puppets in front of the Trump International Hotel and Tower, speeches by coal miners and from the Marshall Islands.

   Many called on the UN to do better. But UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon joined the march mid-way, at Radio City Musical Hall with New York Mayor Bill de Blasio. Senator Chuck Schumer was on hand, walking by a Bronx contingent chanting how Fresh Direct has broken its promises.

  Inner City Press' 90 second video of the march is here.

  The UN's or "BKM" (Ban Ki-moon) Climate Summit will feature Cargill and Walmart, Credit Agricole and Bank of America. The last of these is the first, in terms of funding mountain top coal removal. These are the contradiction. Inner City Press tweeted photos on@InnerCityPress. More to follow.

  The night before the People's Climate March, the UN buildings on First Avenue lit up with photos and footage of trees and fish and written messages. It is called "illUmiNations." Inner City Press video here.

   Inner City Press late on September 19, after covering the Ukraine,Iraq, Ebola and Iran nuclear meetings inside the UN, went out and found a sort of trial run for the screening taking place on First Avenue, alreadylined with NYPD cement blocks. Photo here.

   Looking back at the UN's press release for the upcoming "VIP Press Screening" -- hard to know how they could exclude non-VIPs from it, or why they would want to -- there were laudatory quotes about UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, and: 

Obscura Digital has staged similar large-scale architectural mapping projection events on the Sydney Opera House, the Guggenheim Museum, and the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque. For examples of previous work, please visit the following link http://wdrv.it/1tx7Emd.

 In that video compilation, well worth watching, there are also corporate projects for Coca-Cola and YouTube owned by Google, with history at the UN. 

  A message Inner City Press photographed on September 19, here,  was "In nature's economy, the currency is not money but life." Is this true of Coca-Cola?

   There are questions about the UN's UNcritical approach to corporations and corporate "partnerships."

   In the run up to the UN's September 23 Climate Summit, the UN put out a media advisory promoting the participation of 14 corporations ranging from Saudi Aramco through Cargill, McDonald's and Walmart to Bank of America and Credit Agricole. 

  Inner City Press on September 16 asked Summit promoter Robert Orr how these 14 were selected for listing in the media advisory, and if the UN had reviewed their wider record. For example, the recent court decision involving Cargill and child slavery in Cote d'Ivoire, or Saudi Aramco not allowing employees in Saudi Arabia to protest.

   Orr mentioned a luncheon during the summit about carbon pricing and the UN Global Compact, a branch of the UN which repeatedly says it does not enforce substantive standards, only encourages reporting and dialogue.  Well, Saudi Aramco did not respond to the complaint about “employees allegedly dismissed after being detained for participation in civil rights protests in Saudi Arabia.”

   And what of the environment? Bank of America has been the number one funder of mountain-top removal coal mining, but Ban Ki-moon made it chairman the chief of his Sustainable Energy for All initiative.

  On behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, Inner City Press asked that those making commitments, like the 14 corporations named, hold question and answer sessions during the summit. We'll see.

   

After Iran P5+1 Extension For 4 Months, US Still Against New Sanctions Laws, Of BNP Paribas Sanctions Busting, Murky Mistrals

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 18 -- As the deadline for the Iran nuclear talks loomed, on July 18 the Joint Plan of Action was extended until November 24. 

  Three Senior US Administration Officials (SAOs) held a press call on background. The first SAO spoke against moves in Congress to legislate on new or future sanctions, saying that could undermine P5+1 unity.

  The second SAO said that while the US is concerned about Iran's activities in Syria, in Gaza and in Iraq, only long-range missiles that could carry nuclear weapons would be addressed in the talks.

  The third SAO bragged that $2.8 billion in the next four months will not begin to fix Iran's economy, and that the US will emphasize that Iran is not open for business, its central bank is under sanctions.

  But didn't BNP Paribas still do business in Iran? On a related note, France's outgoing ambassador to the UN Gerard Araud on July 18 said the the Mistral ships being sold "are not destroyers but transportation and command ships." (A reply: they are amphibious assault vessels.) With this attitude, what's next?

 Back on June 16 with the P5+1 talks starting in Vienna, the question arose how ISIL's advance in Iraq might impact them. 

  On June 16 a Senior State Department Official told the press, "We are open to engaging the Iranians, just as we are engaging other regional players on the threat post by ISIL in Iraq. The issue did come up briefly with Iran on the margins of the P5+1 in Vienna today, separate from our trilateral meeting. These engagements will not include military coordination or strategic determinations about Iraq’s future over the heads of the Iraqi people. We will discuss how ISIL threatens many countries in the region, including Iran, and the need to support inclusivity in Iraq and refrain from pressing a sectarian agenda."

  Earlier on June 16 a US Senior Administration Official told reporters the issue does not give Iran more leverage, while talks about Iraq may occur "on the margins," that is separate from the P5+1 process. 

  Asked of timing, the US official said "we are all focused on July 20... we can get this done."

  The official said that "World Cup fever has presented itself here in Vienna." Today Iran plays Nigeria, and the US plays Ghana (with Vice President Biden in attendance).

  Asked again about Iraq, the official said that the situation in Ukraine hadn't impacted the P5+1 talks. Inner City Press wonders if, with the blocking in the UN Security Council of Russia's proposed statement on the attack on its embassy in Kyiv, that might change.

  And as set forth before, how Francois Hollande's and Laurent Fabius' open lobbying for BNP Paribas and its violation of Iran sanctions might have an impact as well.

 Fabius has said that Iran wants hundreds of thousands of centrifuges and that France is drawing the line there, copying itself from 2013.

   But how strange: Francois Hollande and Fabius defend BNP Paribas' violation of Iran sanctions, while loudly playing hardball. Playing is the operative word.  

   With the July 20 deadline to conclude the Iran nuclear talks looking more uncertain, early on June 7 the US State Department announced that “Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns and Under Secretary for Political Affairs Wendy R. Sherman will travel to Geneva for consultations with Iranian officials on June 9-10.”

  Beyond the two days' relation to the July 20 deadline, they also come as Iran sanctions violations by BNP Paribas are being actively defended by French president Francois Hollande and foreign minister Laurent Fabius.

  These June 9-10 US - Iran meetings was called a bilateral and other US attendees were named, including Brooke Anderson, previously at the US Mission to the UN, and Jake Sullivan, who was with Vice President Biden at Petro Poroshenko's inaugural in Kyiv on June 7.

  Then Iranian bilaterals with Russia and China, each separately, were announced. The question was raised June 7 by Inner City Press: what about France and the UK? What about the European Union?

  The EU quickly announced that its Helga Schmid will also play a role -- or “join” -- in Geneva. EU spokesperson Michael Mann said, “The US will hold a bilateral with the deputy chief Iranian negotiator in Geneva next week. EU Political Director Helga Schmid will join. Other bilaterals will follow in the next days.”

  So when is a bilateral meeting NOT a bilateral?

  Soon a US Senior Adminstration Official on background responded to questions: “As we've said - and as the EU just noted - these talks are intensifying. The P5+1 and the EU have been in total coordination throughout these talks, including regarding bilateral discussions. As such, EU Political Director Helga Schmid will join in Geneva as well.”

  So again: when is a bilateral no longer a bilateral? Will France itself try to participate, with Jacques Audibert's replacement Nicolas de Riviere a/k/a Flippy Nic? 

  How to compare France's hard-line position on Iran and sanctions violations now that Francois Hollande and Laurent Fabuis are actively defending sanctions violations, not only to Sudan but also Iran, by BNP Paribas? A new dynamic? Watch this site.

   

IMF Praises French Banks, Silent on BNP Paribas' Sudan Violations, Lagarde Echo?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 3 -- In the International Monetary Fund's final Article IV consultation report on France issued under embargo on July 3 there is an elephant in the room, or in the report: BNP Paribas, its violations of sanctions and nearly $9 billion fine. Click here for Inner City Press'coverage of the settlement.

  The IMF today says of France that its "Directors observed that the economy and public finances are better shielded from banking shocks thanks to the efforts made by banks to build stronger liquidity and capital buffers and to an improved bank resolution framework. However, they noted that the regulatory framework is still evolving." 

 Still evolving away from concealing transactions with Omar al Bashir's Sudan, for example?

  The IMF's eight-page Staff Report mentions BNP only twice: both in charts touting French banks' compliance with Basel III. The 31-page "Selected Issues" does not mention BNP once.

   Then again, now the US Securities & Exchange Commission has given a waiver from BNP suffering the consequences of its actions and plea (click here for a Reuters piece citing Inner City Press' previous work on Chase Manhattan now JPMorgan Chase.)

 In the May 15 initial Article IV consultation report on France, the IMF opined that as "credit demand picks up, the ability of French banks to provide financing to the economy could be constrained. This risk can be mitigated by securitization of bank credit."

   Nevermind that it was securitization without safeguards that triggered the global predatory lending financial meltdown in the first place. 

  The IMF report is full of praise for Francois Hollande's new right-leaning policies, for example: "We take note of the renewed emphasis on making the enterprises the engine of growth. Cuts in taxes and social security contributions will enrich the employment content of growth and help enterprises rebuild their competitive capacity, provided they are used to boost investment. And the simplification shock is gaining strength through an approach that is well structured and promises to deliver meaningful gains for the private sector."

  Will this praise be borne out? If French banks do more securitization, who will be helped, and who hurt? And what would Lagarde's IMF say? Are there any safeguards in place?  Who's running for political office in France?

    Back on May 8, while Ukraine and Greece were the subjects of the first six questions taken at the International Monetary Fund's briefing, the IMF impacts countries all over the world. Inner City Press submitted five questions -- on Morocco, Madagascar, Pakistan, Bosnia and Ghana -- the last two of which were read out and answered during the briefing. Video here, filmed from IMF webcast while at UN Security Council stakeout

  Inner City Press also back in May asked: while the Managing Director is in Morocco, can you answer if Western Sahara is included by the IMF in Morocco's data, and what impact the IMF believes the Western Sahara issue has on Morocco's economy and economic prospects?

This last one, Inner City Press also asked a second time, and again more recently on connection with the IMF's Ukraine program. And still no answer. Watch this site.

   

As Hollande-Defended BNP Paribas Settles for $8.9 Billion, Its Guilty Sudan Knowledge Shown

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 30 -- On Iran earlier this month French foreign minister Fabius has said that Iran wants hundreds of thousands of centrifuges and that France is drawing the line there, copying itself from 2013.

   But how strange: Francois Hollande and Fabius defended BNP Paribas' violation of not only Sudan but also Iran sanctions, while loudly playing hardball. Playing is the operative word.  

  On June 30 as BNP settled for $8.8 billion but no jail time, the "Statement of Facts" released shows BNP's guilty knowledge: 

a “senior BNPP Paris compliance officer reminded other high-level BNPP compliance and legal employees that certain Sudanese banks with which BNPP dealt 'play a pivotal part in the support of the Sudanese government... A BNPP Paris executive with responsibilities for compliance across all BNPP branches warned in a memorandum that: 'In a context where the International Community puts pressure to bring an end to the dramatic situation in Darfur, no one would understand why BNP Paribas persists [in Sudan] which could be interpreted as supporting the leaders in place."

   So given Hollande's and Fabius' defenses of BNP, how should their pontification, on Sudan and other UN files, be interpreted?

   With the July 20 deadline to conclude the Iran nuclear talks looking more uncertain, how to compare France's hard-line position on Iran and sanctions violations now that Francois Hollande and Laurent Fabuis are actively defending sanctions violations, not only to Sudan but also Iran, by BNP Paribas? A new dynamic? Watch this site.

   

On Iran P5+1, US Insists Iraq Issue UNconnected - But BNP Paribas, Kyiv Embassy Attack?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 16 -- With Iran nuclear P5+1 talks starting in Vienna, the question arises how ISIL's advance in Iraq may impact them. 

  A US Senior Administration Official on June 16 told reporters it does not give Iran more leverage, while talks about Iraq may occur "on the margins," that is separate from the P5+1 process. 

  Asked of timing, the US official said "we are all focused on July 20... we can get this done."

  The official said that "World Cup fever has presented itself here in Vienna." Today Iran plays Nigeria, and the US plays Ghana (with Vice President Biden in attendance).

  Asked again about Iraq, the official said that the situation in Ukraine hadn't impacted the P5+1 talks. Inner City Press wonders if, with the blocking in the UN Security Council of Russia's proposed statement on the attack on its embassy in Kyiv, that might change.

  And as set forth before, how Francois Hollande's and Laurent Fabius' open lobbying for BNP Paribas and its violation of Iran sanctions might have an impact as well.

 Fabius has said that Iran wants hundreds of thousands of centrifuges and that France is drawing the line there, copying itself from 2013.

   But how strange: Francois Hollande and Fabius defend BNP Paribas' violation of Iran sanctions, while loudly playing hardball. Playing is the operative word.  

   With the July 20 deadline to conclude the Iran nuclear talks looking more uncertain, early on June 7 the US State Department announced that “Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns and Under Secretary for Political Affairs Wendy R. Sherman will travel to Geneva for consultations with Iranian officials on June 9-10.”

  Beyond the two days' relation to the July 20 deadline, they also come as Iran sanctions violations by BNP Paribas are being actively defended by French president Francois Hollande and foreign minister Laurent Fabius.

  These June 9-10 US - Iran meetings was called a bilateral and other US attendees were named, including Brooke Anderson, previously at the US Mission to the UN, and Jake Sullivan, who was with Vice President Biden at Petro Poroshenko's inaugural in Kyiv on June 7.

  Then Iranian bilaterals with Russia and China, each separately, were announced. The question was raised June 7 by Inner City Press: what about France and the UK? What about the European Union?

  The EU quickly announced that its Helga Schmid will also play a role -- or “join” -- in Geneva. EU spokesperson Michael Mann said, “The US will hold a bilateral with the deputy chief Iranian negotiator in Geneva next week. EU Political Director Helga Schmid will join. Other bilaterals will follow in the next days.”

  So when is a bilateral meeting NOT a bilateral?

  Soon a US Senior Adminstration Official on background responded to questions: “As we've said - and as the EU just noted - these talks are intensifying. The P5+1 and the EU have been in total coordination throughout these talks, including regarding bilateral discussions. As such, EU Political Director Helga Schmid will join in Geneva as well.”

  So again: when is a bilateral no longer a bilateral? Will France itself try to participate, with Jacques Audibert's replacement Nicolas de Riviere a/k/a Flippy Nic? 

  How to compare France's hard-line position on Iran and sanctions violations now that Francois Hollande and Laurent Fabuis are actively defending sanctions violations, not only to Sudan but also Iran, by BNP Paribas? A new dynamic? Watch this site.

   

Before Iran "Copycat" Bilateral, France Hardball on Centrifuges, Soft on BNP Paribas

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 9 -- Two days after a French "copycat" bilateral meeting with Iran was posited by Inner City Press, foreign minister Laurent Fabius had confirmed it. 

  Now Fabius has said that Iran wants hundreds of thousands of centrifuges and that France is drawing the line there, copying itself from 2013.

   But how strange: Francois Hollande and Fabius defend BNP Paribas' violation of Iran sanctions, while loudly playing hardball. Playing is the operative word.  

   With the July 20 deadline to conclude the Iran nuclear talks looking more uncertain, early on June 7 the US State Department announced that “Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns and Under Secretary for Political Affairs Wendy R. Sherman will travel to Geneva for consultations with Iranian officials on June 9-10.”

  Beyond the two days' relation to the July 20 deadline, they also come as Iran sanctions violations by BNP Paribas are being actively defended by French president Francois Hollande and foreign minister Laurent Fabius.

  These June 9-10 US - Iran meetings was called a bilateral and other US attendees were named, including Brooke Anderson, previously at the US Mission to the UN, and Jake Sullivan, who was with Vice President Biden at Petro Poroshenko's inaugural in Kyiv on June 7.

  Then Iranian bilaterals with Russia and China, each separately, were announced. The question was raised June 7 by Inner City Press: what about France and the UK? What about the European Union?

  The EU quickly announced that its Helga Schmid will also play a role -- or “join” -- in Geneva. EU spokesperson Michael Mann said, “The US will hold a bilateral with the deputy chief Iranian negotiator in Geneva next week. EU Political Director Helga Schmid will join. Other bilaterals will follow in the next days.”

  So when is a bilateral meeting NOT a bilateral?

  Soon a US Senior Adminstration Official on background responded to questions: “As we've said - and as the EU just noted - these talks are intensifying. The P5+1 and the EU have been in total coordination throughout these talks, including regarding bilateral discussions. As such, EU Political Director Helga Schmid will join in Geneva as well.”

  So again: when is a bilateral no longer a bilateral? Will France itself try to participate, with Jacques Audibert's replacement Nicolas de Riviere a/k/a Flippy Nic? 

  How to compare France's hard-line position on Iran and sanctions violations now that Francois Hollande and Laurent Fabuis are actively defending sanctions violations, not only to Sudan but also Iran, by BNP Paribas? A new dynamic? Watch this site.

   

After Iran - US Bilateral, France Will Play Copycat June 11, BNP in Tow?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 9 -- Two days after a French "copycat" bilateral meeting with Iran was posited by Inner City Press, foreign minister Laurent Fabius had confirmed it. 

  After the US finishes its second day of meetings with Iran on June 10, France on June 11 with meet with the Iranians. One way wondered: what, to sell them Mistral warships as well? Or to ask them to cook the books on BNP Paribas' violations of sanctions?

   With the July 20 deadline to conclude the Iran nuclear talks looking more uncertain, early on June 7 the US State Department announced that “Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns and Under Secretary for Political Affairs Wendy R. Sherman will travel to Geneva for consultations with Iranian officials on June 9-10.”

  Beyond the two days' relation to the July 20 deadline, they also come as Iran sanctions violations by BNP Paribas are being actively defended by French president Francois Hollande and foreign minister Laurent Fabius.

  These June 9-10 US - Iran meetings was called a bilateral and other US attendees were named, including Brooke Anderson, previously at the US Mission to the UN, and Jake Sullivan, who was with Vice President Biden at Petro Poroshenko's inaugural in Kyiv on June 7.

  Then Iranian bilaterals with Russia and China, each separately, were announced. The question was raised June 7 by Inner City Press: what about France and the UK? What about the European Union?

  The EU quickly announced that its Helga Schmid will also play a role -- or “join” -- in Geneva. EU spokesperson Michael Mann said, “The US will hold a bilateral with the deputy chief Iranian negotiator in Geneva next week. EU Political Director Helga Schmid will join. Other bilaterals will follow in the next days.”

  So when is a bilateral meeting NOT a bilateral?

  Soon a US Senior Adminstration Official on background responded to questions: “As we've said - and as the EU just noted - these talks are intensifying. The P5+1 and the EU have been in total coordination throughout these talks, including regarding bilateral discussions. As such, EU Political Director Helga Schmid will join in Geneva as well.”

  So again: when is a bilateral no longer a bilateral? Will France itself try to participate, with Jacques Audibert's replacement Nicolas de Riviere a/k/a Flippy Nic? 

  How to compare France's hard-line position on Iran and sanctions violations now that Francois Hollande and Laurent Fabuis are actively defending sanctions violations, not only to Sudan but also Iran, by BNP Paribas? A new dynamic? Watch this site.