FOIA Response Shows UN Feltman Communication with US On "Other System" - Non-UN?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 30 -- Of a recent Freedom of Information Act disclosure by the US State Department, many have argued that there is no smoking gun, there is nothing new. Focusing on the UN, Inner City Press does find something new, though perhaps already known or suspected by some.

  Former US official Jeffrey Feltman, now head of the UN Department of Political Affairs, wrote from his UN.org email account to then Susan Rice-staffer Salman Ahmed on September 12, 2012 saying "thank you for your note on the other system." (The topic was Benghazi and Chris Stevens, may he and his colleagues rest in peace.)

  The UN question raised, as it was by the leaked audio of Victoria Nuland telling US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoff Pyatt that Feltman got UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to send Robert Serry to Ukraine, is in how close contact Feltman remains with US officials -- and HOW, on what "other system"?

Here is the document, click here.

  Does this mean, other e-mail system? As simple as Gmail or more secure?

  When Inner City Press asked the UN about the Nuland audio, Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq tried to claim the Nuland wasn't referring telling Geoff Pyatt about Jeff Feltman but rather some third, still undisclosed Jeff (or Geoff).

  Now Feltman is on his way to Ukraine again, after a formal stop in Cyprus -- about which Inner City Press previously asked the UN without confirmation until today. Feltman is a genial individual but these questions must be asked, and the UN should answer them.

  How will the UN now explain Feltman and the US Mission's "other system"? Watch this site.

   

On Ukraine, UK Not Russia Asked For April 28 UN Security Council Feltman Briefing, Late After Middle East Debate

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 28 -- On Ukraine at the UN for days there's been talk of Russia requesting an emergency Security Council meeting as they did back on April 13, to take the rhetorical offensive on Kyiv's "counter-terrorism" drive.

   But when an April 29 Security Council meeting was announced late on April 28, it was the UK which had requested it. 

  The slated briefer is former US official Jeffrey Feltman, of whom US official Victoria Nuland said in a leaked call with US Ambassador to Kyiv Geoff Pyatt, Jeff [Feltman] got Ban Ki-moon to send Robert Serry to Ukraine. (We know how well THAT worked out, a wag was heard to say.)

  On April 29, however, the Security Council is set to rubber stamp the resolution of the "Group of Friends on Western Sahara" and another resolution on Cote d'Ivoire sanctions, then hold an "open debate" on the Middle East.

  Open debates means that all UN member states can sign up to speak. One about sexual violence in conflict back on April 25 had 61 speakers and went all day. So how late will the Ukraine meeting start? It also conflicts with a session about UNSC Resolution 1540 (non-proliferation) by income Council president for May South Korea, whose foreign minister will address the Council on May 7. By then what will be the situation in Ukraine?

  Earlier on April 28 when the US announced new sanctions on Russia, senior Obama administration officials or "SAOs" were asked about the stock price of Russian banks actually going up since they were not on the list, and if the US has given up on Crimea.

   On Crimea, one SAO cited the UN General Assembly's overwhelming condemnation. But as Inner City Press reported the day of that vote, there were 58 abstentions.

   The US officials were directly asked about France's still-proposed sale of Mistral warships to Russia, on which Inner City Press asked US State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf on March 14. On April 28, one SAO said this issues wasn't in their bailiwick; a second SAO the Europeans are looking into this.

   At the UN, outgoing French Ambassador Gerard Araud has refused to answer Press questions about the Mistral. In France, foreign minister Laurent Fabius has said it would only be reconsidered if other European countries committed to similar losses for themselves, which seems unlikely.

   A questioner calling in from Moscow asked the US officials about the captive "OSCE observers." Since even one of the SAO had called them "Vienna Document observers," one waited to see it would be specified to clarify the record. But now. The SAO who cited "Vienna Document" observers said their mistreatment makes sectoral sanctions more likely. Well, four of the seven ARE German...

   This returns to the question of Russian bank stocks. Sanctions on the financial and energy sector are described as the US' ace in the hole. When would it be played? Would it? Watch this site.

Back on March 14, Inner City Press asked US State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf on March 14 about France's Mistral deal, about a pending UN Security Council resolution and an analogy raised earlier in the day by Russian foreign minister Lavrov: the French-run referendum that split Mayotte off from the Comoros.

  On the Mistral sale, Harf replied that ""Decisions about these kind of sales are obviously a matter for each sovereign state... 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.. That certainly applies here." Video here, from Minute 18:34.

  Hart said she would check if the US has discussed the Mistral sale with France.

   From the State Department transcript:

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.

 
  French foreign minister Laurent Fabius, who like his Permanent Representative to the UN Gerard Araud has declined comment on the Mistral sale, has said he may travel to Russia on March 18.

On the Mayotte analogy, Harf said "In general, it's very clear under Ukraine's constitution how this legally could take place... a countrywide referendum. She said of "any comparisons, they just don't have relevancy here."

  Inner City Press also asked Harf about South Sudan: Riek Machar's rejection of the proposed deployments of regional forces by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development,and of the Salva Kiir government's information minister saying that broadcasting interviews with rebels in South Sudan would be illegal. 

  Harf noted that she had begun the briefing with a statement condemning crackdowns on the press in Russia, and that would apply here. But would it? Watch this site.

   

On Ukraine, Kerry Tells Lavrov US Hopes Russia Works With EU (& IMF), UN on Margins Again

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 23 -- On Sunday morning US John Kerry spoke with Russia's Sergey Lavrov and, according to a senior State Department official, expressed hope

"that the Russian Federation will join with us, the European Union and its member states, and other concerned countries to help Ukraine turn the page and emerge from this crisis stronger... He also underscored the United States' expectation that Ukraine's sovereignty, territorial integrity and democratic freedom of choice will be respected by all states."  

   Later @JohnKerry himself tweeted kudos to previous Secretary of State nominee Susan Rice, how well she had done on Ukraine NBC's Meet the Press. (As noted, David Gregory said one million have died in Syria, click here for that.)

  There, Rice mentioned working with the EU and the International Monetary Fund. Apparently it's the IMF that's meant by "appropriate international organization," and not the United Nations.

  What David Gregory gleaned from the leaked call to Geoff Pyatt was that Russia leaked it -- no mention of the plan, at least at that time, to use the UN to F- the EU. How much has change since then - including the UN being back on the margins.

  And so it occurs to ask: could Russia benefit from Ukraine being raised in the UN Security Council, where it has a veto, as it doesn't (but the US does) at the IMF? Could the UN oversee a deal, on which Russia says the opposition has already reneged?

  Then again, if Russia were to "pull an Abkhazia" (or South Ossetia) in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, it could be the Westerners trying to get the UN to condemn it. But in the Security Council, Russia has a veto. Again: UNrelevant. 

As with the State Department's February 22 Kerry - Lavrov readout, it might be surprising to some that Sunday's does not include anything on Syria, on which the UN Security Council passed a resolution on February 22. But left unmentioned even as to Ukraine is the East / West split, particularly with regard the Crimea, Donetsk and the wider Donbass. Could Ukraine's "territorial integrity," the mantra at the UN, be in jeopardy? 

  Back on Friday February 21, Presidents Obama and Putin had a phone conversation which a Senior US State Department Official called "positive" and at the US' initiative.

  The official said that Yanukovych has gone on a trip to Kharkiv in his eastern base in the country, "for some kind of meeting that's taking place out there," and recounted a rumor that the deposed interior minister has fled to Belarus.

  US State Department official William Burns will be heading to Ukraine; Vice President Joe Biden has spoken nine times with Yanukovych: twice in November, once in December, three times in January and on February 4, 18 and 20. Even Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel finally got through to his Ukraine's counterpart, Lebedev.

  Amid the self-congratulation, the United Nations was once again on the margins. The UN has made much of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's talk with Yanukovych at the Sochi Olympics, and another phone call today.

  But tellingly, the Senior US State Department Official while citing a "good offices" role for "the international community" did not mention the UN once, in opening remarks nor in response to the eight questions taken. (Two were from the New York Times, the second of which referred to Putin's call with "President Bush.")  An overly long question from Le Figaro was cut off.

 Back on February 19 when Lithuania's foreign minister Linas Linkevieius came to the UN Security Council stakeout, that country seemed to be the one to ask him about. Inner City Press asked Linkevieius about his visit to Washington; he replied among other things that there is a need for "more coordination." Video here.

  Later on February 19 a US Senior State Department Official told the press that "Russia has not been transparent about what they are doing in Ukraine," citing that Russia for example does not provide read-outs of its contacts in Ukraine. 

  The US' own high level contacts have gotten more difficult: "they are not picking up the phone," the official said, adding that three European Union foreign ministers are on their way.

  Of the four questions Linkevieius took at his UN stakeout, one was on the UN's North Korea report, another on Venezuela. A Russian reporter waiting at the stakeout with his hand raised was not given a question. This is the UN.

  Moments later at the UN's February 19 noon briefing, outgoing UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky was asked about a perceived double standards in responses to Bosnia and Ukraine. (The question was echoed on February 20, comparing Ukraine with Bahrain). Nesirky said every situation is different -- of course -- and also said the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had met for 90 minutes in Sochi with President Yanukovych.

  Ironically the US Senior State Department Official on February 19 was asked about Yanukovych becoming more hardline after his visit to Sochi. From Foggy Bottom to Turtle Bay, the view is different -- in the case of the UN, often marginal and self-serving. For example, Ban Ki-moon gave no read-out of his beginning of the year call with the president of his native South Korea.

  Ah, transparency. Watch this site.

Footnote: On the Obama - Putin "positive" call, Inner City Press muses it may signal a 15-0 vote in the UN Security Council on the Syria humanitarian resolution about which Inner City Press asked State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf earlier on February 21, click here for that.

   

On Nuland Leak about Ukraine & Feltman, UN Tells Inner City Press It Might Be a THIRD Jeff, Or Geoff Pyatt: UNreal

By Matthew Russell Lee, Follow Up

UNITED NATIONS, February 7 -- The leaked audio of the US State Department's Victoria Nuland about Ukraine, best known for her "f*ck the EU" comment, continues to reveal more and more regarding relations between the US Administration and the United Nations, at least former US official Jeffrey Feltman.

  In the clip, Nuland told US official Geoff Pyatt that Jeff Feltman "got Serry and Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry can come in Monday or Tuesday" to Ukraine.

  On February 7 Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq if as described Jeff Feltman "got" Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to sent Serry to Ukraine.

  While saying he would not comment on others' leaked conversations, Haq then told Inner City Press he (and presumably the UN) is not convinced Nuland was referring to Feltman or rather "another Jeff" (or Geoff).

  Inner City Press, after intervening questions trying in essence to bolster the UN's position, by the United Nations Correspondents Association president Pamela Falk of CBS who also praised Ban Ki-moon during the briefing, asked Haq if he was really positing a THIRD Jeff / Geoff who "gets" Ban Ki-moon to do things.  Video coming soon. 

   Earlier today Inner City Press reviewed how the Nuland leak was covered, by Reuters and (better) by Gawker.

   Reuters managed to not even MENTION Feltman in its long story about the leaked audio. 

   Despite that, or because of it, UN spokesperson Haq gave the first, tone-setting question about the Nuland audio to Reuters' UN bureau chief. 

  Gawker to its credit ran a transcript, but calls the apparently little known Feltman "Felton."

   Inner City Press first reported in March 2012 that Feltman would switch from being a US Assistant Secretary of Stateto UN Under Secretary General for Political Affairs. The US essentially owns this UN position (US Lynn Pascoe was Feltman's predecessor), just as France owns UN Peacekeeping through Herve Ladsous and three other Frenchmen in a row before him. The UK for now has Humanitarian Affairs, twice in a row.)

  As Inner City Press first highlighted yesterday evening, at Minute 2:40 of the leaked audio Nuland says she spoke to Feltman and "he's now gotten both Serry and Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday" and "have the UN glue this thing, f*ck the EU." Listen here.

  Significant here, particularly given Feltman's previous position with the US government, is that Ban, ostensibly Feltman's boss, apparently didn't tell Feltman what to do. Rather, Feltman "got" Ban Ki-moon to agree to something that was pleasing to the US, to help the US "f*ck the EU."

   The Reuters piece is typical of its UN coverage, just as for example it delayed six days in reporting on a UN finding that the US (and UK and French) favored Free Syrian Army recruits and uses child soldiers, until the last Geneva Two talks were over. (Click here for that.)  

  Reuters UN bureau chief has even essentially spied for the UN, giving a UN media accreditation official an internal UN Correspondents Association anti Press document three minutes after promising not to.  Another Reuters filing to this same official has been banned from Google's Search after a cynical use of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by the Reuters bureau chief. Click here for that, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation's ChillingEffects.org.

   Gawker runs this transcript:

Nuland: I can't remember if I told you this or if I only told Washington this, but when I talked to Jeff Felton [the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs] this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy, Robert Serry. Did I write you that this morning?

Pyatt: Yeah, I saw that.

Nuland: Okay. He's now gotten both Serry and Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and have the UN help glue it, and, you know, fuck the EU.

   Transcripts are the way to go - but by calling Feltman "Felton," the point about his previous position with the US State Department, in Syria then Lebanon then covering the whole Middle East may be lost.

  There is another Middle East connection, through Serry. On January 29, Inner City Press had asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq to confirm that the Ukraine trip of Robert Serry, who would seem to have a full time job as the UN's Middle East process coordinator: 

Inner City Press: In the Ukraine, I’m not sure if I missed some announcement on your part that Robert Serry met with President [Yevgeny] Yanukovich and I wanted to know: is that the case? What’s the UN’s… why was it him, given his title? And what’s the UN seeking to accomplish?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: The Secretary-General asked Mr. Robert Serry to travel to Kiev on his behalf to convey the United Nations’ solidarity with Ukraine and to encourage dialogue. He will be in Ukraine from yesterday until Thursday, tomorrow. As for his past experience, he has worked in the Ukraine before. He continues to be the Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process. That hasn’t changed.

  Haq confirmed the assignment -- now we know by whom -- and later Ban explained that Serry had been his native Netherlands' ambassador to Ukraine.

  Since Nuland says she'd spoken to Feltman that morning and he had a "new name" for Ukraine, one is left wondering who the first choice, perhaps by Ban or some other operative, had been.

  The US State Department and Mission, despite Inner City Press' written questions to the latter since January 30 for an explanation of how the US can support the Free Syrian Armynow that it is named in the UN report Inner City Press first quoted on January 29 as a recruiter and user of child soldiers, has not answered, despite the terms of the US Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008.

  When Ambassador Samantha Power spoke about Syria at the UN on February 6, only two questions were taken: Al Jazeera and Al Hurra, on whose Broadcasting Board of Governors John Kerry serves.

  Nor has a simple question been answered about why the proposed replacement for UN Reform Ambassador Joe Torsella, Leslie Berger Kiernam, had her name "withdrawn."So we are less than confident that the US will explain the dynamic between the State Department and Feltman as reflect in Nuland's leaked audio. Perhaps the UN or Feltman -- or even Serry -- will explain. Watch this site.