Showing posts with label CFR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CFR. Show all posts

Sunday, July 7, 2019

With Jeffrey Epstein In MCC What Does CFR His Grant Recipient Council on Foreign Relations Say?


By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon
SDNY COURTHOUSE, July 7 – Back on March 6 when the question of releasing or at least reviewing sealed Jeffrey Epstein documents was taken up by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Inner City Press story here, Alan Dershowitz was there. Afterward by the elevators in 40 Foley Square Inner City Press asked Dershowitz, what he'd thought of Judge Sweet's decision. He began to say, Judge Sweet made a mistake - when first his lawyer gestured that they should go, and then the clerk of court asked everyone to leave the floor. 
 Now it's reported not only that on July 8 Epstein will be presented and indicted on sex trafficking charges but also that a search warrant was executed on Epstein's Manhattan mansion at 8 East 71st Street on July 6. Epstein is in the Metropolitan Correctional Center, photo here, along with among others convicted UN briber, Antonio Guterres linked, Patrick Ho of CEFC.
  Cursory research revealed not only Epstein as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, but bragging about his financial support to CFR, through the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation. Photo here. What will CFR say? Will they belatedly be returning the money?

hile some call it a pink hued building on a dead end street, his mansion is at 9 East 71st Street - one block, it turns out, from the Qatar royal family mansion which has hosted human trafficking covered up in the SDNY, see Inner City Press here, and below.
The July 8 presentment will presumably be in Courtroom 5A of 500 Pearl Street, or perhaps a larger room to accommodate the interest. In Courtroom 5A as the July 1-3 work week ended Inner City Press alone in the gallery observed Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses signed sealed indictments and warrants, even with what some called sleight of hand of saying there would be no action until 8 pm then, when Inner City Press ran to the PACER terminal in the press room, ending the day's business at 7:45 pm with no press present. Expect on July 7 another Geoffrey Berman press conference as well -- Inner City Press will be there.
  The rights or lack of rights of victims have been highlighted for some in this case - but the violation of rights of less prominent people has been happening every day, from before March until now in the SDNY including its murky Magistrates Court. Inner City Press was in the 2d Circuit in March and will be in the SDNY July 8, based from a PACER terminal, documenting the disparities. Watch this site.
Back in March all of the parties - the Miami Herald's Julie Brown, Mike Cernovich, Alan Dershowitz and even Virginia Giuffre -- were pushing for the unsealing of the documents, except Ghislaine Maxwell.  Her lawyer Ty Gee argued that people had relied on the commitment to seal the information. He ended by saying the U.S. judicial system is not about democracy. 
But by then the panel of Judges of Cabranes, Pooler and Droney had made it pretty clear they will be remanding the case and the 167 documents back to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The only question seems to be whether Judge Sweet, who initially agreed to seal them, will get the case on remand or if another judge will. 
. He challenged Giuffre to sue him, and of Judge Cassel was highly critical, a term of art. 
Another term of art: slut-shamer, a term applied during the argument to Mike Cernovich but one that the judges mocked, with Judge Pooler asking if there was a "slut-shaming cabal." The wider point was that there is in the United States no system for certifying journalists, that as the Ninth Circuit case Opsidium v Cox has it, journalist is something you do, not something you are. 
All citizens - and non citizens, as in the case of Argentines seeking information about their country's debt revealed in a U.S. case - have a right to information, a right that predated the Constitution.  The judges reserved judgement. Inner City Press will continue to cover this and other SDNY and 2nd Circuit cases - watch this site.
The Qatar ruling family's abuse of employees and laws was exposed in an off the record initial conference at in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on February 14; Inner City Press was the only media present. 
Inner City Press wrote an exclusive story that day, February 14, then more in the following few days as more sources contacted us. Now it has learned that the UK's Daily Mail days later on February 21 false claimed an exclusive on the story, here
On June 1 Inner City Press reported that the Qatari royals' lawyers were on the cusp of succeeding in burying the case in mediation by JAMS. A low-ball settlement - except for attorneys fees -- was submitted to SDNY Judge J. Paul Oetken on June 1. The total is $150,000, fully half being attorneys' fees; it is signed by the royals without any admission.
 And now on June 10, this: "ORDER: The proposed settlement at Docket Number 36-1 is approved, and the case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court shall retain jurisdiction solely to resolve any disputes arising from the settlement agreement and the settlement of this action. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 6/10/2019) (jca)."  So the issue of human trafficking has been buried, for money, in the SDNY.
Tellingly, the cover letter stated that "Defendants – who are members of the royal family of Qatar – noted that if they received certification from the State Department, they would potentially be considered diplomats entitled to full immunity, resulting in immediate dismissal of the litigation for lack of subject matter jurisdiction." So the Qatar royalsused the threat of support from the U.S. State Department to cover up human trafficking. We'll have more on this - and there is more on Patreon, here.
Earlier the Qatari royals' lawyer complained of a text message from Benjamin Boyd.  Judge Oetken noted to "uncertainty as to how Defendants caught sight of the offending text message in the first place," left it open to pursue the issue later, without prejudice.
  On April 17 the Qatari royals' lawyers filed a motion to stay the proceeding past the June 14 return date, for mediation by JAMS. Judge Oetken's order on the motion is listed but no live in the docket.
   The plaintiffs' lawyers, Pardalis & Novavicka through Araidne Panagopoulou engaged in other mundane FLSA litigation in front of Judge Oetken even on May 20, here, seem unaware of the explosive human rights aspects revealed / revealable in this case. It's one in which the public, through the Press, must stay alert, and on Notice - watch this site.
On April 10 we reported that these Qatari royals, stating that they are diplomats, are seeking to further extend the case, writing that "Defendants Sheikh Jassim Abdulaziz Al-Thani and Sheikha Al Mayassa bint Hamad Al-Thani (“Sheikh and Sheikha”) are Qatari residents and diplomats, and as a result, frequently travel to Doha for reasons pertaining to their diplomatic duties and their participation in other civic engagements. At the moment, Sheikh and Sheikha (and members of their staff, many of whom are anticipated to be document custodians in the litigation) are scheduled to be in Qatar for the remainder of the month of March, through the beginning of April to prepare for and attend the formal opening of the Qatar National Museum (as Sheikha is the Chairperson of Qatar Museums). The parties have actively participated in written discovery thus far; they have already exchanged document requests and interrogatories, and they are in the process of negotiating a confidentiality stipulation. However, as a result of Sheikh and Sheikha’s (and their staff’s) travel schedules, Defendants anticipate some subsequent delays in the upcoming stages of discovery, especially pertaining to data collection of ESI from custodians (as requested by Plaintiffs) and the scheduling of their depositions (which are currently noticed for April 16, 2019). In order to ensure that Defendants are able to collect, process, review and produce ESI responsive to Plaintiffs’ document requests, and schedule mutually agreeable dates for depositions to take place in New York thereafter, Defendants respectfully request that the current discovery deadlines be modified as follows: Current Deadline Proposed Deadline Deposition Completion Date May 1, 2019 July 1, 2019 Completion of all Fact Discovery June 10, 2019 August 9, 2019 Status Conference June 14, 2019 August 16, 2019 (or any other date that is convenient for the Court)." Back to August?  Since its exclusive report that day, Inner City Press has been contacted by more employees and whistleblowers and a range of apparent legal violations by the Qatar royal family has come to light. 
Beyond the failure to pay overtime which was the subject of the February 14 proceeding, Inner City Press is now informed that others of the Qatar royals' workers are brought in through JFK airport on private jets, into limousine that drive onto the tarmac. These employees are then made to work long hours with no protections in the mansion at 9 East 72nd Street in Manhattan. 
Inner City Press is informed, tellingly, that one female worker from the Philippines in forced to sleep in front of  Sheikh Jassim bin Abdulaziz Al-Thani's bedroom room so that she can be ready to bring him food or water or even give massages at any hour. His wife Sheikha Al Mayassa bint Hamad Al-Thani, the sister of Qatar's ruler, buys art for Qatar's museum and runs the "Reaching Out To Asia" foundation.Meanwhile her workers have their hair pulled and a tooth broken by her son. When workers are fired they are urged to fly to Doha where they would face arrest. 
The scams work this way: the Qatari royals' employees signed contracts in Doha and then are told that their visas to the US, unless they are smuggled / trafficked in through the JFK Airport tarmac, are under the control of the royals. While waiting to be processed at JFK they are presented with a new less favorable contract and told if they do not sign it, they will not be admitted. If they work for the family in Qatar, they face imprisonment for any disagreement. 
In New York the family's close protection guards, some without visas, brandish illegal large knives. NYPD was called when the royals sought to have one fired employee, Chantelle McGuffie, removed from her apartment at 221 East 50th Street near the UN. Still this family, these systematic crimes, have yet to be acted on by authorities including the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York despite the facts dragged through the SDNY court. 
Inner City Press, in reporting this despite threats - at the UN, Qatar's state media Al Jazeera has worked with UNSG Antonio Guterres' spokesman Stephane Dujarric to have Inner City Press roughed up and banned, see Columbia Journalism Review here - aims to put an end to this impunity. Watch this site.
Background: the sister of the ruler of Qatar is being sued by at least three employees who say they were made to work six days a week without being paid overtime, and were retaliated against. Inner City Press was the only media present at the initial pre trial conference on the case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on February 14, and was tempted to object when the Qatari royal's lawyer from the Proskauer law firm urged SDNY Judge J. Paul Oetken for a confidentiality order. 
Royals of a gas-rich emirate that has locked up poets for criticizing them, seeking to cover up their retaliation and refusal to pay overtime? It remains to be seen how much will be covered up in the case. The defendants are Sheikha Al Mayassa bint Hamad Al-Thani and Sheikh Jassim bin Abdulaziz Al- Thani. 
From the answer to the Complaint: "Defendants admit that Mr. Bancroft began his employment in Doha, Qatar and that he accompanied Defendants when they moved to New York, but otherwise deny the  allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint.  40. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint.  41. Defendants admit that Mr. Bancroft accompanied Defendants on their European travels in various countries during the summer of 2016, but upon information and belief,  otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint.    42. Defendants admit that Mr. Bancroft accompanied Defendants on their trip to Qatar in the summer of 2017, but otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the  Complaint.  43. Defendants admit that Mr. Bancroft accompanied Defendants on their European travels in various countries during the summer of 2018, but upon information and belief,  otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint.    44. Defendants admit that Mr. Bancroft traveled with the family to Miami and Boston."
 This is the life of corrupt royals and diplomats, such like those at the UN up to and including its Secretary General Antonio Guterres who lives alone in a $15 million mansion on Manhattan's Sutton Place (where he favors Qatar state media Al Jazeera, using it to oust the independent Press which questions him.) This is the world of immunity and impunity and now, it is urged, confidentiality. Inner City Press, now covering the SDNY daily, will have more on this. 

Friday, July 24, 2015

Iran Deal Sold by Kerry at CFR in NY, Called Out in Times Square


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, July 24 -- The Iran Deal UN Security Council resolution was adopted by the UNSC 15-0 on July 20. This came the day after a slew of US members of Congress said the UN vote should wait for their 60 day review, and two days before a protest of the deal to be held in Times Square, where a slew of US elected officials, and Secretary of State John Kerry, were denounced from the stage.
 On July 24, Kerry came to New York to field questions at the Council on Foreign Relations on Park Avenues, then to meet the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the American Jewish Committee.
 At CFR, Kerry argued that a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is less likely with the Deal than without it. He mentioned Yemen, bragging that he stopped Iran from landing a ship there (no mention was made of the new U.S. APCs in Aden). He said that Saudi Arabia spends $80 billion a year on defense, "fancy toys." Look at the impact of those toys on Yemen.
  Kerry said that France's Fabius is going to Iran, and that Germany will be going (actually, it's already gone). Moderator Richard Haass apologized for how few questions were taken from the floor, saying Kerry had other meetings to go to. But would he be protested there?
  Back on July 20 in the Security Council in speeches after the unanimous vote, Russia's Vitaly Churkin shouted out Kazakhstan as well as Austria and Switzerland, which hosted the talks. US Samantha Power vowed to pursue Iran on others issues. Iranian ambassador Gholamali Khoshroo was to speak inside the Security Council, then Israel's Ron Prosor outside at the stakeout.
  The day after the Iran Deal was announced in Vienna by the EU's Federica Mogherini then Iran's Javad Zarif, on July 15 a draft resolution was circulated in the UN Security Council, with paragraphs on sanctions snap-back and other provisions. Inner City Press put the draft, obtained from multiple sources, online here.
  As detailed below, the vote is set for July 20, 9 am in New York.
 On the US Sunday morning political talk shows, not only Republican Senator from Wyoming John Barrasso but also Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland said the Obama administration shouldn't take the deal to the UN until Congress considers it. Republican Tom Cotton of Arkansas, speaking from London, said the same, citing Cardin and Steny Hoyer.
 On July 19, the US State Department in Washington said:
"Pursuant to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, today the State Department transmitted to Congress the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, its annexes, and related materials. These documents include the Unclassified Verification Assessment Report on the JCPOA and the Intelligence Community's Classified Annex to the Verification Assessment Report, as required under the law. Therefore, Day One of the 60-day review period begins tomorrow, Monday, July 20."
  Then at 5 pm on July 16, Inner City Press reported that the UNSC vote on the draft would occur on Monday, July 20 at 9 am.
  Hours later, the UN confirmed this, and a US Mission spokesperson tweeted the timing. Reuters, typically, then published a story quoting an UNnamed "U.S. official" on the timing; the CBS former head of the UN Censorship Alliance echoed the timing targeting the P3 with nothing but photos. (The current head of the Censorship Alliancewas invisible, checked out.)
  This is how the UN works, or doesn't. At the underlying UNSC experts' meeting there were only two journalists. But Western missions served up information later to non-present correspondents, who by quoting unnamed sources seemed knowledgeable. This is today's UN.
  On July 16, the Security Council's 15 members at the Expert level met about the draft. Inner City Press and one other journalist staked-out the meeting (Periscope video for now here), held in basement Conference Room 8 and afterward asked attendees what the next step would be. 
  While several said "No comment" -- since it will presumably help them, including the US Legal Expert and a former French mission spokesman -- from others Inner City Press was told of a 9 am Monday July 20 vote on the resolution.
  It was said that France was pushing for a weekend vote, on Sunday, related to Foreign Minister Fabius desire to travel to Tehran with the vote already done. This was resisted - now, 9 am Monday, before a Security Council Arria formula meeting about Gaza, sponsored by Malaysia and Jordan. Watch this site.
  Here embeddd is the draft. Operative Paragraphs 1112and 15 bear particular interest, with their purported automaticity. See also, InnerCityPro.com.
   On July 14 the US White House held a background press call, "embargoed until conclusion." This meant, no tweets. But on the call, after Reuters asked a softball about Obama's involvement, several Senior Administration Officials gushed about Obama's calls to Vienna, updates from Susan Rice, concern for Israel's security.
  It was said Obama would not only call Netanyahu but also of course the King of Saudi Arabia. (He did both, adding Russia's Putin as well.)
   Earlier on July 14, Ban Ki-moon chimed in nearly immediately to welcome the deal. This stood in contrast to his 60 hour silence after his own faux Yemen Deal failed amid airstrikes. Success has many wannabe parents; UNsuccessful many fewer.
 Obama from Washington at 7 am said he will veto any legislation slowing this down; The Elders chaired by Kofi Annan spoke quickly against any “ideological preconceptions [or] narrow political interests.”
  Journalists camped out under the Evita-like balcony of the Coburg Hotel for more than two weeks gushed about UN Security Council action "in days," as France's Fabius put it. Now we know why. Watch this site 
  Previously as the Iran P5+1 talks continued on the eve of the then-deadline, who was bragging about having predicted their failure? Western wire service Reuters, crowing that "Other media now coming around to @reuters consistent reporting on how final Iran atomic deal unlikely."
 While false exclusives have proliferated at Reuters under Stephen J. Adler, there a second, separate trend at work here.
  On another UN sanctions regime, Somalia and Eritrea, even when former Reuters reporter turned sanctions monitor Dinesh Mahtani was forced to resign for havingchampioned a new leader for the country he was supposed to monitor, Reuters entirely omitted his removal from its claimed exclusives on the sanctions report.
  Some of this goes beyond a desire, compensated by editor Adler, to claim exclusives even where not merited (including by adopted a policy of not crediting others' exclusives).  At the UN, Reuters has gone so far as to try to censor and remove from Google's Search as "copyrighted" copies of Reuters complaints against other media filed with the UN, click here for that
 At what point does this become more (or less) that journalism? What about "other media now coming around to @reuters consistent" refusal to credit smaller media, attempts to get them kicked out, then censoring the Internet? We'll have more on this.
  Back on October 27, 2014 when the UN's special rapporteur on human rights in Iran Ahmed Shaheed held a press conference at the UN, Inner City Press asked him for an update on what he had said about the effect of sanctions and banning of Iran from the SWIFT payments system which Inner City Press asked him about one year and three days earlier, 2013 here from Minute 12:29.
  On October 24, 2013, Shaheed had acknowledged that the banning of Iran from the SWIFT payments system had had an impact. On October 27, 2014, Shaheed said he believes Iran is still banned from SWIFT, but he had no update. Instead he said that humanitarian exemptions to sanctions are having successes. 2014 video here.
 But banning from SWIFT or "de-SWIFT-ing" is not a targeted sanction at all, and he did not mention any exemptions to it.
   Overall, Inner City Press asked Shaheed what impact he thought "the nuclear issue" and the P5 + 1 talks have on human rights in Iran.  Shaheed said he doesn't like linkage, but added that when there's focus on the nuclear issue, it takes away from the focus on human rights.  Now what?
Footnote: on October 27, 2014, the UN Correspondents Association which so often demands the first question be set-aside for it didn't even send anyone to Shaheed's press conference. One attendee said, it's defUNCA-ed, as in defunct, or de-UNCA-ed, like de-SWIFT-ed. The new Free UN Coalition for Access, present, did not try to brand the press conference, because there was no need. Watch this site.

 
  

Saturday, September 13, 2014

For Reform at US Mission to the UN, Obama Nominates Isobel Coleman from CFR


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, September 12 -- More than nine months after Joseph Torsella left as the US Mission to the UN's Ambassador on Management and Reform, and his first proposed successor withdrew, on September 12 the Obama administration announced a new nominee:  Isobel Coleman.
   She has been at the Council on Foreign Relations since 2002; before that she was at McKinsey, and founded NursingHands, Inc. Of her most recent book, her website says, "Through case studies on Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, Poland, South Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine,Pathways to Freedom explores the structural factors and policy choices that shaped eight important transitions—some successful, others less so."
  It was published by CFR in May, 2013. Particularly on Ukraine, and on Thailand in light of this year's coup, might there be updates?
   Management and Reform has historically been an important position at the US Mission and remains so today, given for example the need for a Freedom of Information Act for the UN. But will this nomination proceed?
   Back in November, 2013 Inner City Press reported thatTorsella would leave by the end of the year, then on November 21 that the Obama administration nominated to replace Torsella the lawyer Leslie Berger Kiernan.  
  On January 30, without explanation, her nomination was withdrawn, notified to the press by email after 6:25 pm:
WITHDRAWALS SENT TO THE SENATE:
Leslie Berger Kiernan, of Maryland, to be Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations for U.N. Management and Reform, with the rank of Ambassador, which was sent to the Senate on January 6, 2014.
 Back on November 15 the US Mission's Ambassador Samantha Power announced that Torsella would be leaving by the end of 2013.
  Inner City Press immediately tweeted it, along with the suggestion of 21 audit salute, since Torsella focused on the issue of releasing UN audits, pushing forward from where things were under his predecessor at the US Mission, Mark Wallace.
(Wallace went, notably, to United Against a Nuclear Iran which appears dis-united on the issue of new sanctions, with president saying no but spokesperson saying members say yes.)
  Torsella pushed for Fifth (Budget) Committeeproceedings to be on UN Television. The Group of 77 responded that other committees like the Second on development and Fourth which included decolonization and work on the rights of Palestinians should also be filmed. 
  Both have happened -- improvements in technology are also involved -- and it's all to the good.
   The G77 meeting at which Bolivia became as Inner City Press first reported the successor to Fiji was not initially televised; when Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access complained, the UN official in charge said it was belatedly on, check before asking.
   But it was UN staff which also complained, and this automatic defending of the UN is one of the things wrong, in the bigger picture for example on the UN bringing cholera to Haiti. 
  Where does or would Isobel Coleman stand on it? And a newly arising issues, on which Inner City Press hasreported: should the US State Department continue supporting the UN's bid for immunity for allegedly bringing cholera to Haiti? 
  We'll have more on that. For now, this on less reported parts of Torsella's legacy:
Torsella to his credit wasn't just about the money. The issue of lack of accountability in Sri Lanka got delegated to him, in part because military figure Shavendra Silva was cynically put on Ban's Senior Advisory Group on Peacekeeping Operations.
  In classic UN form, Ban stayed away telling Inner City Press it was a decision of the member states. Without saying more, Inner City Press can report Torsella worked on this.
    

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Jan Eliasson on UN's "Failure" in Sri Lanka, Says Report Withheld Until Implemented; Of Haiti Cholera and Ladsous


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 9 -- On its action in the face of mass killing, the UN says it wants to have the courage to"speak out about what we see" - but then won't yet release a report on just this about Sri Lanka.

  Since the UN's report on its inaction while 40,000 civilians were killed in Sri Lanka in 2009 was completed, Inner City Press and now the Free UN Coalition for Access have asked that it be released. Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson, who worke

  The report was not released in that month, only alluded to in Ban's General Assembly speech. On October 9 at the Council on Foreign Relations, as Inner City Press reported in advance, Eliasson spoke more about it. Video here and below.



As prepared, with "as delivered" added in italics in brackets:
"With respect to Sri Lanka, an internal review of UN action at the end of the civil war in 2009 noted a 'systemic' failure of different parts of the UN. Member States did no meet the tasks they themselves had set. The UN system did not adapt properly when the final brutal stage of the conflict put great pressure for a broader UN presence, which had been focused on development.
"A main lesson we are to draw from this is to ensure that the UN system has political and human rights expertise and resources in place where they are needed. Equally important is to recognize [and this is very important to me] that human rights violations are our best early warning signals in emerging crises-- and, of course, that we must [have the courage to] act on such signals and speak out about what we see. On behalf of the Secretary General, I have led this internal scrutiny. There is important work for the Member States as well."
  An obvious question came to mind, and was tweeted even before Eliasson finished: will the report be released?
  Eliasson said, not yet. He said that when he turned it over to Ban Ki-moon, he suggested that it not be released until the UN had implemented it, or part of it. How much is UNclear.
  Eliasson also said he couldn't say anything aboutresponsibility for cholera in Haiti, we have strict lines on that. As Deputy Secretary General, his "lines" could only come from one place: the Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon. So is it the case, that the withholding of the report is due to Eliasson, that Ban wants to release it? It should be released -- to withhold it is (another) cover up.
  For example, the spin now is that the UN in Sri Lanka in 2008 and 2009 was all development, and so didn't see human rights violations. But then OCHA chief John Holmes WAS there -- and OCHA pulled out. The UN's failure is not too much development -- it is high officials, tied to powerful member states, not acting on what they preached. Worse that Holmes, now, is Herve Ladsous. Click here for compilation video.
Footnote: In fairness, Eliasson said more, citing Charles Petrie and Michael Keating, and about human rights as an early warning sign. Inner City Press chides itself still, not having followed up enough after it asked a question in 2008 about the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs pulling out of Kilinochchi.
  It pursued -- see yesterday's UK New Statesman, here -- but, later than should have been. But it says so, here. Why would the UN withhold this report? For how long? Watch this site.

 
  

On Sri Lanka, Eliasson Says "Speak What We See," Ban Hasn't Released Report


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 9 -- At the UN, when does hand-wringing stop and action or at least disclosure begin? 

  Since early August, a UN report on its own inaction in Sri Lanka in 2009 as 40,000 civilians were being killed has been finished. Inner City Press was told that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon would have something to say about it in September. 

 He said a few lines in the General Assembly; Inner City Press asked his spokesperson's office when the report would be released.

It is now October 9, and the report is nowhere to be found. But Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson, in remarks prepared for the Council on Foreign Relations, goes further than Ban:
"With respect to Sri Lanka, an internal review of UN action at the end of the civil war in 2009 noted a 'systemic' failure of different parts of the UN. Member States did no meet the tasks they themselves had set. The UN system did not adapt properly when the final brutal stage of the conflict put great pressure for a broader UN presence, which had been focused on development.
"A main lesson we are to draw from this is to ensure that the UN system has political and human rights expertise and resources in place where they are needed. Equally important is to recognize that human rights violations are our best early warning signals in emerging crises-- and, of course, that we must act on such signals and speak out about what we see. On behalf of the Secretary General, I have led this internal scrutiny. There is important work for the Member States as well."

  While Eliasson's statement is welcome -- admitting that the UN did not speak out about what it saw and, of course, withdrew from Kilinochchi, for example -- still the report should be released. The silence at the UN was noted yesterday in the UK New Statesman, here. The report must be released, says the alternative Free UN Coalition for Acces@FUNCA__info. Watch this site.

 
  

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

McCain Calls Syria "Growth Hormone for Al Qaeda" Needing More Than MREs, Reuters' Spin of Araud


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 18 -- The schizophrenia in Washington about Syria and its rebels was displayed by Senator John McCain on Tuesday night at the Council on Foreign Relations.

  On the one hand Senator McCain called the Syrian conflict a "growth hormone for Al Qaeda." Minutes later he said that Saudi weapons don't fall into the hands of Al Qaeda and the Al Nusra Front. How can he know that?

  McCain said he's been to Syria, he's met them. How many? Did he go to Raqqa? To Jarabulus where ISIS threatened to kill international humanitarians if they didn't leave?

  To his credit, McCain while claiming that with earlier assistance to the Free Syrian Army it "would have been over" for Assad admitted that it is more complex now. Yes.

  By contrast to Saudi Arabia and Qatar -- pronounced Cutter -- McCain mocked US assistance, which he said amounts so far to Meals Ready to Eat with expiration dates unknown.

On the UN, McCain said the General Assembly should condemn Russia, whose asylum grant to whistleblower Edward Snowden McCain called just a "sign of disrespect by Russia."

  Intriguingly, McCain said the "French Ambassador told me" that one hundred people from France have done to Syria for jihad. Which French Ambassador?

  Reuters in a long-read propaganda piece datelined Washington and Paris has French Ambassador to the UN Gerard Araud on an unnamed day in Spring 2013 telling an unnamed Russian diplomat (Churkin? Pankin?) France would come out with a show of Assad use of chemical weapons.

  The point of the Reuters piece seems to be that France was much more central to the drive toward military threats than was previously known. But in the Kerry - Lavrov endgame in Geneva, Ban Ki-moon calling Sellstrom's report "overwhelming" before he saw it did not come up, as it did in the Washington Post's insider piece.

What about Ban's faux flashing of the first page of the report, which Reuters and others liked so much? It's a team effort: these reporters, at least one of whom has been shown to spy for the UN, are just cogs in a wheel of propaganda. Watch this site.