On Assad, Kerry Says "We Have to Negotiate in the End" - But Not Directly, State Department Quickly Adds

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 15 -- By the time CBS's "Face the Nation" went on the air in New York City  at 10:30 am on the ides of March, quotes by US Secretary of State John Kerry and negotiating with Syria's Bashar al Assad had already gone around the world.

  Still, Face the Nation pushed the Syria segment into its second half hour, and even then only showed a snipped. Margaret Brennan asked about negotiating with Assad. Kerry said, "We have to negotiate in the end" - then it was cut off.

  The State Department quickly tweeted that "John Kerry repeated long-standing policy that we need negotiated process with regime at table - did not say we would negotiate directly with Assad."

 But as edited and shown, in response to a question if he negotiate with Assad, Kerry said, "We have to negotiate in the end."

  The previous was full of selfies asking, of Syria, #WhatDoesIt Take? Kerry's statement could be seen an answer - that was parceled out and circulated, partial denied and spun.

  At the UN, two months after the Syrian government sponsored a photo exhibition that the opposition Syrian National Coalition unsuccessfully asked the UN to cancel, on March 10 a counter-exhibition of photos depicting torture in Syrian prisons had its opening.

  US Deputy Permanent Representative Michele Sison, previously US Ambassador to Sri Lanka, moderated the proceedings, noting that US Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Charles Rapp had come up from Washington. 

 One wondered what the two of them, and other of the sponsors, thought of the UN giving an at least six month deferral to Sri Lanka for war crimes in 2009.

  Turkey's Ambassador called the Syrian National Coalition the real representatives of the Syrian people; theSNC's Najib Ghadbian said that Assad forces killed some 32,000 in 2014, 75% civilians, while ISIS or Da'esh in 2014 in Syria killed some 3000, 85% of whom were military, he said.

  Did US Ambassador Sison wince at the statement? It seemed that way. By the time the microphone portion of the event was over, no one had disagreed. Rapp took up a position for the camera of Saudi television; others wondered at the distinction between co-hosts and co-sponsors. 

  Inner City Press learned that the organizers wanted the exhibit in a "better" location further down the hall but were given the same spot the Syrian government got. The idea of a Warning was theirs.

  On the evening before the opening, Inner City Press visited the site to find a Warning: The Following Images Are Disturbing.

  Another sign said "The content of this exhibition is solely the responsibility of the sponsoring and supporting member states, any queries should be directed to them."

  An invitation to the Press said that "The Permanent Missions of France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States and the co-sponsors the Permanent Missions of Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Kuwait, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden and the United Arab Emirates cordially invite you to attend the opening of the exhibit “Caesar Photos: Inside Syrian Authorities’ Prisons” on Tuesday, 10 March 2015, 6-7pm, at the South Wall of the United Nations Conference Building."

 A separate invitation came from the Syrian National Coalition, which had tried to get the previous exhibition canceled: 

Co-Hosts: Permanent Missions of France, the State of Qatar, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States

Co-Sponsored by: Co-Hosts and the Permanent Missions of the Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Italy, the State of Kuwait, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, United Arab Emirates

In Coordination with: Coalition for a Democratic Syria (CDS) and Syrian National Coalition

“Caesar Photos: Inside Syrian Authorities’ Prisons" exhibit displays photos of detainees from the prisons run by Syrian authorities that were taken by a defector from the Syrian army who is known by the pseudonym Caesar. 

  Back on January 7, a day when officials around the world and at the UN after the attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris spoke about the right to freedom of expression and to display unpopular views, the UN received a protest to a photo exhibit about Syria set to begin the next day, January 8.

 The Syrian National Coalition -- the moderate opposition, in Washingtonese -- wrote to UN Management official Yukio Takasu:

"It has come to my attention that on 8 – 16 January 2015 the United Nations Secretariat Building will host an exhibit for the Syrian Arab Republic Mission featuring the photographs of Syrian regime propagandist Hagop Vanesian, in an event entitled 'My Homeland.' The UN cannot in good conscience host an exhibit that callously promotes a regime that is responsible for immense death and unprecedented destruction. By doing so, the UN condones the atrocities committed by Syrian forces, and serves as a mouthpiece for Assad’s heinous war crimes."

  As set forth below, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in a contradictory way, in a private event in the clubhouse of a group that has itself engaged in censorship, spoke on January 7 about the need for freedom of expression. 

  (Whether he's raised this in his native South Korea, where a newspaper editor faces criminal charges for insulting the president, is not known; the issue was not included in Ban's long read-out of his New Years call to South Korean president Park.)

  Perhaps Ban's Secretariat won't act on the SNC complaint, which we're linking to here, because it came one day before the exhibition. Will its response be about "freedom of expression"?

  There are certainly distinctions to be made between Charlie Hebdo, the Syrian government and this photographer, and we're open to hearing all. But what does freedom of expression mean?

   

On Ukraine, Senator Bob Corker Slams John Kerry "Wishy-Washiness," Bob Menendez Spins IMF, French Mistral in Question

By Matthew Russell Lee, Inner City Press Follow Up

UNITED NATIONS, March 16 -- Even as the Crimea referendum vote was taking place, US Senators returned from a whirlwind trip to Kyiv to appear on the US Sunday morning television shows.

   Senator Bob Corker R-TN said that the Obama administration created a "permissive" atmosphere that led to this; he slammed Secretary of State John Kerry's "wishy-washiness" and gifts with Sergey Lavrov.

    But in the Senate committee mark-up last week, Corker was all bipartisan sweetness and light. What changed?

  Also on Fox News Sunday, Senator Bob Menendez D-NJ insisted that for the International Monetary Fund to help Ukraine, the long-stalled reforms must be passed by Congress.

  But when Inner City Press put this question directly to IMF spokesperson Gerry Rice on March 13, Rice declined to confirm the connection. See video here, at from Minute 12:05.

   Over on CBS' Face the Nation, former US National Security Adviser Tom Donilon bragged how sanctions on Iran showed what could be done to pressure Russia.

  But on NBC's Meet the Press, Senator Jeff Flake R-AZ said it's going to be difficult to "reverse" Crimea with economic sanctions. 

   Here's something that should and will be pursued this week:France's continued sale of Mistral warships to Russia, even as its UN Ambassador Gerard Araud rails about Russia losing a rook and chess game in Ukraine. Who's playing games?

   On Ukraine, on March 15 after the UN Security Council vote on a US-drafted resolution calling the Crimea refendum invalid failed with Russia vetoing and China abstaining, Urkaine's Yuriy Sergeyov told the press there are Russian troops on the mainland.

    He said there will be more action next week, mentioning a debate on "revitalization," presumably of the UN General Assembly, aimed at the UN Security Council veto system.

  Little mentioned in Saturday's proceedings is that the US vetos resolutions on Israel, in settlements for example, and votes against non-binding resolution in the General Assembly about the embargo on Cuba, for example. 

   Sergeyev is deft, but he refused to answer a question about how the expansion of NATO impacts on this. "Don't provoke me," he said.

  The Free UN Coalition for Access objects to speakers at the UN picking which questions to answer. There are worse cases: France's Gerard Araud for example refused to answer on his country's sale of Mistral warships to Russia. Herve Ladsous of UN Peacekeeping went so far as to direct his spokesman to grab the UN microphone so a question couldn't be asked.  Video hereand here.

   The US to its credit in terms of a single standard has questioned, at least implicitly, the French Mistral sale to Russia. Inner City Press on March 14 asked US State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf about the sale:

Inner City Press: on Ukraine, one question that’s come up is, in terms of sanctions is France has this big deal where it’s selling Mistral warships to Russia, and it’s said that it’s going forward. What does the United States think of that sale of military hardware?

MS. HARF: Well, decisions about these kind of sales are obviously a matter for each sovereign state to take into account including a host of factors – obviously, international law, regional stability. We would hope that any country would exercise judgment and restraint when it comes to transferring military equipment that could exacerbate tensions in any conflict region. In general, I think that certainly applies here. Video here, from Minute 20:13.

  Operative Paragraph 5 of the vetoed resolution, which even the UK Mission to the UN put online before the UN itself did, provided

"OP5 Declares that this referendum can have no validity, and cannot form the basis for any alteration of the status of Crimea; and calls upon all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any alteration of the status of Crimea on the basis of this referendum and to refrain from any action or dealing that might be interpreted as recognizing any such altered status"

  So, the Crimea resolution scheduled for March 16 would have no validity. But, as Russian foreign minister Lavrov asked in London on March 14, couldn't the same be said of the French-organized referendum splitting Mayotte from the Cosmoros?

   Inner City Press asked US State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf about both the resolution and the Mayotte analogy on March 14. From the US transcript:

Inner City Press: on Ukraine, there’s talk of the Security Council resolution – seems pretty clear that Russia would veto it, but there’s some discussion of trying – is it the U.S.’s intention to try to get a vote on a resolution declaring the referendum illegal before Sunday?

And also, Lavrov mentioned, and also Churkin as well, this example of Mayotte. They used – I mean, they’ve come up with different examples – Kosovo and others – but one in particular. Both of them raised an island of Comoros where France organized an referendum to break Comoros off – to break Mayotte off from Comoros, and said that this wasn’t authorized by the UN or the African Union. So I just wondered – I mean, maybe you’ll slap it down, but what’s the response to their argument?

MS. HARF: Well, in general, I think that it’s very clear under Ukraine’s constitution that governs Ukraine how this kind of referendum legally could take place. And that would involve a country-wide referendum, basically relying on the premise that any decisions about Ukraine’s territory need to be made by all of the people of Ukraine. So setting aside any comparisons, there are very clear rules in Ukraine’s constitution, which is in effect, that lay out how this kind of referendum could take place. That’s not what we see here. So any comparisons aside, they just don’t have relevancy here.

On the first question, I don’t have anything on a potential Security Council resolution. We’ve been very clear that there will be costs. I don’t have anything to outline for you in terms of what that might look like, but we as the United States, independently, have a number of tools at our disposal that we can use if and when we need to make clear those costs with this referendum going forward. Video here from Minute 18:34.

  Back on March 13 when Churkin took the Council floor he had a flourish of analogies: the US Declaration of Independence, the Falkland (or Malvinas) Islands, Puerto Rico, and the recognition by some of Kosovo without even a referendum, he said, only an act of the legislature.

   Churkin said that France organized a referendum to break Mayotte away from the Comoros, in violation of UN resolution and using their veto, he said. Click here for some background.

  Would French Amabassador Gerard Araud respond? 

  Of late at the UN, his spokesperson Frederic Jung has called only on friendly journalists; Araud refused for example to answer why France is still selling Mistral warships to Russia, and claimed that Navi Pillay has not reported that France put Muslims at risk in the Central African Republic. The jokes, some say, are getting stale.

   Speaking after former US, now UN official Jeffrey Feltman, Yatsenyuk said if Russia persists, no country will ever again give up nuclear weapons, as Ukraine did. 

 Yatsenyuk shifted into Russian to speak directly to Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, just as Ambassador Sergeyev has done.  But Russia wasn't listed to speak and reply until the 14th of 17 slots. After Luxembourg as Council President for March, the next three speakers were the US, UK and France.

  US Ambassador Samantha Power cited the draft UNSC resolution, but didn't opine if China might abstain rather than join Russia in a veto.

  When French Ambassador Gerard Araud spoke, the question in the air which he refused to answer is why France is going forward with the sale of Mistral warships to Russia. Rather than answer it, Araud made stale jokes about Kosovo. 

   While in Washington, Yatsenyuk said he knows the International Monetary Fund program is "not the sweet candy." Inner City Press covers the IMF and can only say: ask Greece.

  Here is video of the IMF's March 13 briefing, see Minutes 12:05 and 31:12.

  Asked about allowing any referendum in Crimea, Yatsenyuk said the legislature in Kyiv would have to permit it; he said there could be dialogue about increased autonomy from Crimea, on taxes and language rights.

  He was asked about Jihadis going to Crimea and he answered about the Tatars. He bragged that a deputy prime minister in the new government "represents the Jewish community."  But what about Right Sector?

  The US State Department announced for example that the Department of Defense will be giving Meals Ready to Eat or MREs to the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

   Over on Capitol Hill, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee marked-up the "Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014."

  Absent on jury duty, Senator Marco Rubio had a proposed amendment about the G8 and not invading your neighbor read out; it was agreed to.

  Senator Rand Paul proposed an amendment to remove loan guarantees and the International Monetary Fund from the bill. He said the loans would go to back Russia back and noted that the proposed IMF reforms would raise Russia's power in the IMF from 2.5% to 2.71%

  Senator Bob Menendez replied that the IMF wouldn't give a dime unlesss Ukraine commits to changes. Can you say, austerity? Paul's amendment failed.

  Senator John McCain proposed giving the President the power to sanction "corrupt officials" in Russia. This amendment passed.

  Senator John Barrosso R-Wyoming tried to add the export of liquified natural gas to Ukraine. Menendez replied that Turkey would block any import of LNG into the Black Sea. Others also opposed Barrosso's proposal, calling it out of order and subject to the jurisdiction of the Banking and Energy Committees. So it goes in Washington.

 On March 11, the US House of Representatives went late with speeches denouncing Russia.

 The longest was by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who recounted on the House floor history from 1941, how only because Hitler had to turn back to put down the revolution in Yugoslavia did he not conquer Russia but got stopped the month after.
  
  Rep Carolyn Maloney, Democrat of New York, said that Yanukovych had "a golden toilet." That Internet image has widely been discredited, but who's counting? She promoted an event at "Four Freedoms" park at the tip of Roosevelt Island.

  US President Barack Obama was in Manhattan at $32,000 a plate fundraisers, one including Mayor Bill De Blasio. Then Obama flew back to New York, where he will meet Ukraine's Yatsenyuk on March 12 at 2:45 pm.

   UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, on the other hand, is slated according to Bill De Blasio's scheduled to meet with De Blasio at 2 pm at City Hall. It is not in the UN's Media Alert, as was repeatedly requested by the Free UN Coalition for Access(whose member Luiz Rampelotto took this photo on March 12 of Ban, his head of protocol and US political guru Bob Orr).

   Earlier on March 11 in the US House of Representatives in DC, Ohio Democrat Marcy Kaptur recounted the suffering of Ukraine including under the Nazis; California Republican Ed Royce called for adoption of H.R. 499 before Yatsenyuk's arrival.

  But there was a call for yeas and nays to be counted, and debate shifted to a religious exemption for Obamacare. (Obama himself was headed to New York to raise money.)

  The US announced that

Tomicah Tillemann, Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State for Civil Society and Emerging Democracies will travel to Geneva, Switzerland, March 11-12, to represent the United States at the 12th meeting of the Governing Council of the Community of Democracies... The meeting will address a broad range of issues related to democracy including the status of freedom of association in the world, challenges facing human rights defenders, and current developments in Ukraine. Governing Council members will recognize Moldova’s graduation from the Community’s Democracy Partnership Task Force.

While in Geneva, Dr. Tillemann will participate in a number of events hosted by the CD’s working groups. These include an introductory meeting of the new Freedom of Expression Working Group and a panel discussion on lessons learned from Ukraine.

   Amid all this, there was some off-camera grumbling not only about impacted countries' unwillingness to impose sanctions, but in particular about France's continued sale of weaponry to Russia. 

  While France rails against Russian actions in Ukraine and the Crimea, it is in the midst of selling two Mistral warships to Russia for $1.4 billion.

  On March 10 when France's Permanent Representative to the UN Gerard Araud came to the Security Council stakeout to say how concerned he is, Inner City Press three times asked about the warship sale. But Araud refused to answer. 

  Araud's spokesperson Frederic Jung calls first on Agence France Presse, which did not ask the question about the warships. This is France's or Araud's deal: hard questions result in banishment; when Araud doesn't like a story or a quote, he threatens to sue. There was walk of (a lack of) freedom of the press in Crimea.

  If Araud wouldn't answer, might Delattre?

  Inner City Press asked UK Permanent Representative Mark Lyall Grant if in the Security Council's March 10 private meeting there was any discussion of what the US says are questions John Kerry has sent to Sergey Lavrov. 

  No, Lyall Grant answered. From the UK Mission transcript:

Inner City Press: Question on Ukraine.  Do you think there will be any opposition to Yatseniuk?  He has said publicly that he’s going to address the Council on the 13th.  How do you think that could play out?  And also the US has said that it has asked a series of questions to Russia and basically it said that it won’t travel there until these questions are answered.  I wondered did this come up in the Council and does it bear any relation, this process of putting questions to Mr Lavrov and the process inside the Council?

Amb Lyall Grant: On the question of putting questions to Mr Lavrov was not raised today.  Nor indeed was a possible visit by Mr Yatseniuk the Prime Minister of Ukraine.  But the Prime Minister is coming to the United States this week.  We understand that he does want to address the Security Council and we would fully support that and we hope that all member states would support it.

Some wonder of the relation between the two processes, and of the relevance. Lyall Grant added that the UK would support Ukraine's Yatsenyuk addressing the Security Council.

 Inner City Press asked Luxembourg's Sylvie Lucas about Yatsenyuk's statement he "will" address the Council on March 13. She replied, We will react when we receive such a request.

  The US has announced that Ukraine's Arseniy Yatsenyuk will meet with President Barack Obama on March 12; he has added he will address the UN Security Council on March 13. 

  But if UNSC Permanent Five member Russia does not recognize Yatsenyuk, can he? On Syria, France and others declared that Ahmad al Jarba is the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people. But he was confined to a Friends of Syria meeting down the hall from the Security Council, and before that a faux "UN briefing" with the UN's Gulf & Western media club.

   Yuriy Sergeyev has addressed the Security Council at least four times in the last ten days. But he was Ukraine's Ambassador under Yanukovych: he is automatically recognized. With Yatsenuk, it may be different.

   When the UN Security Council was debating Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the US problematized their representatives getting visas to come address the UN. The US can and will let in Yatsenyuk, into the country - but will Russia, into the UN Security Council?

   On March 7 with little fanfare, Ukraine's Ambassador Sergeyev went into basement Conference Room 3. Outside the sign simply said, "GRULAC: Grulac meeting [Closed]."

  GRULAC is the Latin American and Caribbean Group at the UN. Sergeyev told Inner City Press he is trying to brief each regional group. But why have it closed? 

   Inner City Press staked out the meeting, as upstairs the farewell of Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Martin Nesirky was partially held in the room the UN gives to the UN Correspondents Association, which has become the UN's Censorship Alliance.Bottoms up!

   Throughout the day the rumor grew that there would be another emergency meeting on Saturday, if only to further raise the profile of the issues. At Friday's noon briefing, Inner City Press asked the departing Nesirky again about the leaked EU - Estonia audio that the same snipers shot protesters and police.

  Nesirky again declined to comment on the audio, saying it may or may not be authentic (Estonia has said it is). But he said these seemed like the type of issues on which the UN's Ivan Simonovic will conduct "fact finding." We'll see.

On Syria, US Denis McDonough Says Vote Is Really on Iran, Assad Interview Teased for PBS, Media Games

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 8 -- Selling a military strike on Syria, US official Denis McDonough hit the Sunday talk shows. On CBS's Face the Nation he said that those who've seen the American evidence are convinced.

  That's not the case at the UN. As Inner City Press reported late last week, responses from those who'd gone to the US Mission to see the evidence included "not convinced" to "the same as shown in the capital." 

 A European country, in the meeting with those who asked the UN to probe the August 21 incident, grilled the US. Does McDonough know this? Or think that the public doesn't?

  On ABC's show This Week, McDonough said he's "outraged" at the suggestion that the US would be operating as Al Qaeda's air force. Is it outrageous to suggest that a strike might help the armed opposition, including Al Qaeda?

  On Face the Nation, McDonough announced that this vote is really a vote on Iran. Really?

  Drama occurred on Face the Nation, when Bob Schieffer put Charlie Rose on to say he'd had an interview with Bashar al Assad, but wouldn't show it until Monday night on PBS. Rose said Assad referred to Aleppo. But what did he say? Commercial tease (for an ostensibly non-commercial network) in the run up to war?

  Schieffer delivered his view, that strikes should go forward because the US said they would. Oh. Then he said, Some of our stations are leaving us now. Some of your viewers, too.

  From the UN, after @InnerCityPress was named one of two "Twitterati 100" covering the UN by Foreign Policy magazine, and after InnerCityPress.com ran articles questioning how the US is doling out information and questions to those on the UNCA Executive Committee whosponsored a faux "UN briefing" by Saudi sponsored Syria rebel boss Jarba, those insiders launched two counterfeit social media accounts. 

  This hostility was noticed, overseas and in Washington.

 The goal is confusion - they've followed diplomats, reporters and others -- and to undermine Inner City Press and questions being asked. But questions and reporting will continue. Watch this site.