UNSC Adopts Syria Chemical Weapons Accountabilty Mechanism Resolution, Talk of Khan al Asal, Hiroshima, PRST

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 7 -- After long negotiations between the US and Russia, the UN Security Council on August 7 adopted a resolution to establish a so-called accountability mechanism for the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Outside the Council before and after the unanimous vote on August 7, Russia's ambassador Vitaly Churkin referred to a Presidential Statement he said may be adopted early next week, to support UN envoy Staffan de Mistura's work.

  Inside the Council after the vote, Syria's Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari began his speech with a reference to the 70th anniversary of the US dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. He went to to say the UN never investigated the use of chemical weapons, by rebels he said, in Khan al Asal.

   In its resolution the Security Council “recalls that in its resolution 2118, it decided that the Syrian Arab Republic and all parties in Syria shall cooperate fully with the OPCW and the United Nations.” It seems doubtful that ISIS will cooperate.

   Churkin in his post-vote speech inside the Council said that “the existing mechanics of the UN and OPCW do not have a mandate to identify those participating in such acts. Moreover, we became witnesses of the many politicized statements in this regard, which were clearly meant to be propaganda. It was necessary to eliminate this gap, which was done with the adoption of today’s resolution... Any efforts in the Syrian area must be in line with assisting a search for a political solution to the conflict.”

   Inside the Council, US Samantha Power delivered this speech. At the stakeout, questions were given to Reuters, Al Hurra (really, France 24, by mistake), and Voice of America. (We'll have a separate piece on Power's response to the Press' final question about Burundi. For now, here'sprevious stakeout, sit-down.

   After the meeting ended, on the steps leading out from the UNSC stakeout, Churkin said “I hope it will translate into our continued joint work on the political front. We are working, I think very well, on a PRST [Presidential Statement] in support of Staffan de Mistura’s efforts. I hope it will be adopted...” More on InnerCityPro.com.
   

UN Delayed Its 2d Syria Chemical Weapons Report, Now Moves It Up a Day Before Sweden Said - Why?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 12 -- Why is the  the UN so proud that its delayed second chemical weapons report by Ake Sellstrom, including on Khan al Asal, will be released December 12 instead of, as Sweden's government said, on December 13?

  The UN cut off questioning, but will allow photographs of the hand over. A Security Council diplomat told Inner City Press the report will go online "shortly," and the Council should meet about it next week.

  After reporting the delay on November 28, US Thanksgiving, Inner City Press waited until November 29, a UN work-day (albeit with no noon briefing), to ask Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokespeople in writing:

"Please confirm that Ake Sellstrom's second report on chemical weapons in Syria, including in Khan al Asal, will be finished on December 13, as reported on Swedish government website: http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/495 From the UN's perspective, is the 13th still "early December"? Relatedly, please explain in detail the reason for delay from the initial projection of "late October." Also, why was it the Swedish government and not the UN that announced this new completion date?"

Here was the UN's response to Inner City Press:

Subject: Your questions for Friday
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:42 PM
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com

Regarding the questions you asked by email, the Spokesperson has the following to say:

On the report by Ake Sellstrom's team, the date for the issuance of the final report of the investigation into allegations of the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic has been delayed as additional analytical work has been required. The results of this analysis are expected in the next few days and the report finalised thereafter. The issuance of the final report is expected to be in the middle of December.

  When Inner City Press last asked, the UN said without explanation it had been delayed into "early December"? Video here and embedded (second) below.

  As to the 13th, the question was why didn't the UN announce it? The UN canceled its noon briefing on November 27 for a "stakeout" at which Secretary General Ban Ki-moon took only two insider questions, none on Syria (or the increasing corporate domination of by the UN, most recently by Bank of America and even Shell.)

  On December 11 Ban's spokesperson Martin Nesirky was asked (by Inner City Press) about the December 13 date, and replied that it would be the UN's decision. Then on December 12 he said it would be in the afternoon -- then would not accept even a second question, instead taking four from the same journalist.  For the photo op, one must arrive a full 55 minutes early.

   The UN's chemical weapon team under Ake Sellstrom first went to Syria to look into Khan al Asal, where Syria said rebels used sarin gas. But once in Damascus, the team shifted its focus to a later, August 31 incident in Al Ghouta.

It reported quickly on that, then returned to Syria -- ostensibly, to look into Khan al Asal and other locations. On September 30, UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky announced that 

"the team of chemical weapons investigators led by Professor Ake Sellström, which was in Syria to investigate allegations of the use of chemical weapons there, has just left the country after completing its six-day mission. The team will now move to the phase of finalizing its report, which the team hopes will be ready by late October."

Even then, on October 4, Inner City Press asked about limitations on that visit, including not visiting Khan al Asal: (Video here)

Inner City Press: Khan al-Asal, without any disrespect, I just wanted a simple answer why the UN never went to Khan al-Asal. I read it a number of times; maybe I am being dense, but was it that it they couldn’t get there? Was it was too deteriorated? I am not suggesting those are the reasons, I just wanna know what the reason is.

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, it does say, not in that particular part that you have in front of you; it does say on 30 September, that transcript from Monday, or let’s be clear about it: I said there are a number of reasons, potential reasons. And one of those includes that with the passage of time, it becomes… I don’t think you expect me, I know you are reading what I said, you don’t think you’d expect me to say exactly what I said on Monday?

Inner City Press: I am asking you a substantive question; what would you say to those who say it’s a shame if the request, the initial request to go to Syria was to visit this one place... it seems to cry, to call out for an answer of why what was initially requested was not done.

Spokesperson: Right, right, so, listen: As I have said, as I have said here a number of times, there are a number of factors why it was not possible or feasible to go. And one of those is that with the passage of time, there is a deterioration of the material that could be used for sampling, and, therefore, to help decide whether chemical weapons were used or not. But as I also said, there is a portfolio of different ways that the team, the investigation team, can gather evidence and try to determine at a distance whether chemical weapons were used. That’s one of the possible constraints. Another is obviously security. And with regard to the broader question about the passage of time, everybody knows that it was not for want of trying that the team did not get there until August. As you well know from March, there was extremely hard work done on both sides — meaning the Syrian authorities and the United Nations in the form of the Office for Disarmament Affairs — to make this work. It was not easy. And that’s been plainly said by any number of people, including the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs. But the fact of the matter is that everyone persevered because there was an interest to get in. And eventually, they were able to get in and they were able then to determine that chemical weapons had indeed been used in that incident on 21 August; and they furthermore have continued both outside and then, on a subsequent visit to Syria that ended on Monday, to gather material so that they can present a final report at the end of this month.

When October 31 arrived without any report, Inner City Press went to the UN's noon briefing and asked about the status of Sellstrom's report (video here)

Inner City Press: on Syria and chemical weapons, since it is now the end of October, I wanted to ask for a status update of the second Sellström report on Khan al-Asal, on the other sites, where does this stand?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, you’re right it’s 31 October, trick or treat. So Professor Sellström is working on the final report in coordination with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and World Health Organization experts who were part of the UN mission. A number of samples are still being analysed by the designated laboratories and the results are expected to be provided to the UN Mission early next week. The final report is expected to be finalized in early December, after all information gathered by the UN mission has been evaluated. Other questions, please.

So why, after the speed up of Sellstrom's report into al Ghouta, which Ban Ki-moon declared to be "overwhelming" before he even saw it, has his reporting including Khan al Asal been delayed for more than a month -- and then to December 12? That has still not been answered. Watch this site.

   

On Syria, UN Confirms to Inner City Press Its Second Chemical Weapons Report Delayed to "Mid December," As Swedes Said - Why?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 29 -- Why has the UN's second chemical weapons report by Ake Sellstrom, including on Khan al Asal, now been pushed back from the end of October until December 13?

  And why was it the government of Sweden, Sellstrom's country, and not the UN to announce it?

  After reporting the delay on November 28, US Thanksgiving, Inner City Press waited until November 29, a UN work-day (albeit with no noon briefing), to ask Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokespeople in writing:

"Please confirm that Ake Sellstrom's second report on chemical weapons in Syria, including in Khan al Asal, will be finished on December 13, as reported on Swedish government website: http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/495 From the UN's perspective, is the 13th still "early December"? Relatedly, please explain in detail the reason for delay from the initial projection of "late October." Also, why was it the Swedish government and not the UN that announced this new completion date?"

Here is the UN's response to Inner City Press:

Subject: Your questions for Friday
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:42 PM
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com

Regarding the questions you asked by email, the Spokesperson has the following to say:

On the report by Ake Sellstrom's team, the date for the issuance of the final report of the investigation into allegations of the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic has been delayed as additional analytical work has been required. The results of this analysis are expected in the next few days and the report finalised thereafter. The issuance of the final report is expected to be in the middle of December.

  When Inner City Press last asked, the UN said without explanation it had been delayed into "early December"? Video here and embedded (second) below.

  Is the 13th of a month still "early" in the month? Why didn't the UN announce it? The UN canceled its noon briefing on November 27 for a "stakeout" at which Secretary General Ban Ki-moon took only two insider questions, none on Syria (or the increasing corporate domination of by the UN, most recently by Bank of America and even Shell.)

   The UN's chemical weapon team under Ake Sellstrom first went to Syria to look into Khan al Asal, where Syria said rebels used sarin gas. But once in Damascus, the team shifted its focus to a later, August 31 incident in Al Ghouta.

It reported quickly on that, then returned to Syria -- ostensibly, to look into Khan al Asal and other locations. On September 30, UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky announced that 

"the team of chemical weapons investigators led by Professor Ake Sellström, which was in Syria to investigate allegations of the use of chemical weapons there, has just left the country after completing its six-day mission. The team will now move to the phase of finalizing its report, which the team hopes will be ready by late October."

Even then, on October 4, Inner City Press asked about limitations on that visit, including not visiting Khan al Asal: (Video here)

Inner City Press: Khan al-Asal, without any disrespect, I just wanted a simple answer why the UN never went to Khan al-Asal. I read it a number of times; maybe I am being dense, but was it that it they couldn’t get there? Was it was too deteriorated? I am not suggesting those are the reasons, I just wanna know what the reason is.

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, it does say, not in that particular part that you have in front of you; it does say on 30 September, that transcript from Monday, or let’s be clear about it: I said there are a number of reasons, potential reasons. And one of those includes that with the passage of time, it becomes… I don’t think you expect me, I know you are reading what I said, you don’t think you’d expect me to say exactly what I said on Monday?

Inner City Press: I am asking you a substantive question; what would you say to those who say it’s a shame if the request, the initial request to go to Syria was to visit this one place... it seems to cry, to call out for an answer of why what was initially requested was not done.

Spokesperson: Right, right, so, listen: As I have said, as I have said here a number of times, there are a number of factors why it was not possible or feasible to go. And one of those is that with the passage of time, there is a deterioration of the material that could be used for sampling, and, therefore, to help decide whether chemical weapons were used or not. But as I also said, there is a portfolio of different ways that the team, the investigation team, can gather evidence and try to determine at a distance whether chemical weapons were used. That’s one of the possible constraints. Another is obviously security. And with regard to the broader question about the passage of time, everybody knows that it was not for want of trying that the team did not get there until August. As you well know from March, there was extremely hard work done on both sides — meaning the Syrian authorities and the United Nations in the form of the Office for Disarmament Affairs — to make this work. It was not easy. And that’s been plainly said by any number of people, including the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs. But the fact of the matter is that everyone persevered because there was an interest to get in. And eventually, they were able to get in and they were able then to determine that chemical weapons had indeed been used in that incident on 21 August; and they furthermore have continued both outside and then, on a subsequent visit to Syria that ended on Monday, to gather material so that they can present a final report at the end of this month.

When October 31 arrived without any report, Inner City Press went to the UN's noon briefing and asked about the status of Sellstrom's report (video here)

Inner City Press: on Syria and chemical weapons, since it is now the end of October, I wanted to ask for a status update of the second Sellström report on Khan al-Asal, on the other sites, where does this stand?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, you’re right it’s 31 October, trick or treat. So Professor Sellström is working on the final report in coordination with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and World Health Organization experts who were part of the UN mission. A number of samples are still being analysed by the designated laboratories and the results are expected to be provided to the UN Mission early next week. The final report is expected to be finalized in early December, after all information gathered by the UN mission has been evaluated. Other questions, please.

So why, after the speed up of Sellstrom's report into al Ghouta, which Ban Ki-moon declared to be "overwhelming" before he even saw it, has his reporting including Khan al Asal been delayed for more than a month -- and then to December 13? That has still not been answered. Watch this site.

   

On Syria, UN Second Chemical Weapons Report by Sellstrom Now Delayed to December 13, Swedish Government Says - Why?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 28 -- Why has the UN's second chemical weapons report by Ake Sellstrom, including on Khan al Asal, now been pushed back from the end of October until December 13?

  And why has it been the government of Sweden, Sellstrom's country, and not the UN to announce it?

  The Swedish government web site says:

"On 25 November, Defense Minister Karin Enstrom kemexperten Ake Sellström the Defense Ministry in Stockholm. Sellström was in March asked the United Nations to lead an investigation of Syria in accordance with the Secretary General of the mechanism. The assignment was to investigate the chemical weapons used in Syria. The final report is planned to be presented to the UN on 13 December." Translation by Google, h/t

  When Inner City Press last asked, the UN said without explanation it had been delayed into "early December"? Video here and embedded (second) below.

  Is the 13th of a month still "early" in the month? Why didn't the UN announce it? The UN canceled its noon briefing on November 27 for a "stakeout" at which Secretary General Ban Ki-moon took only two insider questions, none on Syria (or the increasing corporate domination of by the UN, most recently by Bank of America and even Shell.)

   The UN's chemical weapon team under Ake Sellstrom first went to Syria to look into Khan al Asal, where Syria said rebels used sarin gas. But once in Damascus, the team shifted its focus to a later, August 31 incident in Al Ghouta.

It reported quickly on that, then returned to Syria -- ostensibly, to look into Khan al Asal and other locations. On September 30, UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky announced that 

"the team of chemical weapons investigators led by Professor Ake Sellström, which was in Syria to investigate allegations of the use of chemical weapons there, has just left the country after completing its six-day mission. The team will now move to the phase of finalizing its report, which the team hopes will be ready by late October."

Even then, on October 4, Inner City Press asked about limitations on that visit, including not visiting Khan al Asal: (Video here)

Inner City Press: Khan al-Asal, without any disrespect, I just wanted a simple answer why the UN never went to Khan al-Asal. I read it a number of times; maybe I am being dense, but was it that it they couldn’t get there? Was it was too deteriorated? I am not suggesting those are the reasons, I just wanna know what the reason is.

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, it does say, not in that particular part that you have in front of you; it does say on 30 September, that transcript from Monday, or let’s be clear about it: I said there are a number of reasons, potential reasons. And one of those includes that with the passage of time, it becomes… I don’t think you expect me, I know you are reading what I said, you don’t think you’d expect me to say exactly what I said on Monday?

Inner City Press: I am asking you a substantive question; what would you say to those who say it’s a shame if the request, the initial request to go to Syria was to visit this one place... it seems to cry, to call out for an answer of why what was initially requested was not done.

Spokesperson: Right, right, so, listen: As I have said, as I have said here a number of times, there are a number of factors why it was not possible or feasible to go. And one of those is that with the passage of time, there is a deterioration of the material that could be used for sampling, and, therefore, to help decide whether chemical weapons were used or not. But as I also said, there is a portfolio of different ways that the team, the investigation team, can gather evidence and try to determine at a distance whether chemical weapons were used. That’s one of the possible constraints. Another is obviously security. And with regard to the broader question about the passage of time, everybody knows that it was not for want of trying that the team did not get there until August. As you well know from March, there was extremely hard work done on both sides — meaning the Syrian authorities and the United Nations in the form of the Office for Disarmament Affairs — to make this work. It was not easy. And that’s been plainly said by any number of people, including the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs. But the fact of the matter is that everyone persevered because there was an interest to get in. And eventually, they were able to get in and they were able then to determine that chemical weapons had indeed been used in that incident on 21 August; and they furthermore have continued both outside and then, on a subsequent visit to Syria that ended on Monday, to gather material so that they can present a final report at the end of this month.

When October 31 arrived without any report, Inner City Press went to the UN's noon briefing and asked about the status of Sellstrom's report (video here)

Inner City Press: on Syria and chemical weapons, since it is now the end of October, I wanted to ask for a status update of the second Sellström report on Khan al-Asal, on the other sites, where does this stand?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, you’re right it’s 31 October, trick or treat. So Professor Sellström is working on the final report in coordination with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and World Health Organization experts who were part of the UN mission. A number of samples are still being analysed by the designated laboratories and the results are expected to be provided to the UN Mission early next week. The final report is expected to be finalized in early December, after all information gathered by the UN mission has been evaluated. Other questions, please.

So why, after the speed up of Sellstrom's report into al Ghouta, which Ban Ki-moon declared to be "overwhelming" before he even saw it, has his reporting including Khan al Asal been delayed for more than a month -- and then to December 13? That has still not been answered. Watch this site.

   

On Syria, UN Won't Say If Saudi Arabia Rebuffed Brahimi, Al Arabiya Puts Assad in Maliki's Mouth

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 1 -- The UN's envoy on Syria Lakhdar Brahimi was asked, "after Saudi Arabia refused to receive you;" he called it a speech, not a question," but did not confirm or deny that the Saudis declined to receive him.

So Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky on November 1 to confirm or deny (video here and embedded below)

Inner City Press: one of the questions that Mr. Brahimi was asked in his press conference in Damascus was about Saudi Arabia refusing his request to visit. And he said it was a speech and not a question, but as I read it, I didn’t see him say yes or no. Can you say whether he asked to visit Saudi Arabia and whether this request was denied, as the question has it?

Spokesperson: Well, with the greatest respect, Matthew, if Mr. Brahimi didn’t answer the question, I don’t think you’d expect that I would.

Inner City Press: It seems important…

  Particularly since Secretary General Ban Ki-moon praised Saudi Arabia so effusively after they said they wouldn't be taking the Security Council seat they without competition won.

  In other transcript games, when Iraq's Prime Minister Maliki spoke to the media with US President Obama, the White House's foreign pool report by Nadia Bilbassy-charters of Al-Arabiya said that Maliki "denounced the use of chemical weapons that were used both in Iraq under Saddam Hussain and in Syria by President Assad."

  The last part of this seemed dubious. And lo and behold, when the transcript came out, Maliki actually said we "want to avoid the use of chemical weapons, because we and the Syrians suffered a lot from these weapons." That is, not that Assad had used them.

  On the allegation that it was the opposition that used chemical weapons, for example in Khan al Asal, the UN as Inner City Press gleaned andscreened yesterday the UN has pushed back its report from late October a full month to early December. The UN still hasn't explained why. Watch this site.

   

Video: UN's Failure to Go to Khan Al Asal UNexplained, Like Ban's Jarba Meetings

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 5 -- Why didn't the UN chemical weapons team ever go to Khan al Assal, which Syria asked them to visit back in March 2013? First the UN demanded access to other sites. Then once in Damascus, it dropped Khan al Assal in favor of al Ghouta - then left the country.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon declared the result report by Ake Sellstrom "overwhelming" before he even saw it. Then he sent Sellstrom back from September 25 to September 30. Finally it seemed Khan al Assal would be visited.

But it wasn't, the UN has yet to explain why. Inner City Press asked on both October 3 and was told the answer was in a previous transcript. But it wasn't. So Inner City Press asked again on October 4, transcript and video here and below:

From the UN's October 3 transcript:

Inner City Press: Angela Kane says that she, in hindsight, regrets not having simply gone to Khan al-Asal, but instead, having requested to go to other sites which led to these, these months’ delay; so, one, I wanted to know whether the Secretary-General also has that analysis that the delay may have actually played some role in the further use of chemical weapons. And I also wanted to know whether the [Åke] Sellström team, in their most recent visit, just to be sure: did they, did they actually get out to Khan al-Asal?

Spokesperson Nesirky: I have already answered that, Matthew: no, they did not.

Inner City Press: Alright. So, why not? That’s what, I’d only learned yesterday, I may, I might have missed your earlier answer, but why didn’t they go where they were initially going to speci--

Spokesperson: I answered that, as well.

Inner City Press: Okay. Can you say why?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Read the transcript.

Then, after Inner City Press reported on this exchange in a story about Ban Ki-moon's meeting, with Angela Kane present, with Iran's foreign minister Javad Zarif, Nesirky's office sent this:

Subject: Your question at the Noon Briefing
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:58 PM
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com

In reference to your question at the [October 3] Noon Briefing, the Spokesperson said the following at the Noon briefing on 30 September 2013:

Question: Thank you, Martin. Just had a quick question about Dr. Sellström’s mission: Does that mean he won’t go back to Syria now, now that he is finalizing the report and they didn’t go to Khan al-Assal in the end?

Spokesperson: They are now heading out of Syria with the aim of finalizing their report. And I will be able to provide details on where they have been, but not right at this moment. They have not visited Khan al-Assal to my knowledge. But that does not mean that they have not been able to collect a large body of information, which they had been doing in any case in the lead up to their initial visit and then to their return. And so, if I have any more details, I will let you know. And I know also that they will now be seeking to marshal all of the information that they do have with the aim of putting that report together by the end of October, as we just said.

Inner City Press published the above in full, while still asking: why? And the next day on October 4, Inner City Press asked again:

Inner City Press: I did read the transcript; it’s not like I don’t read these things and it was sent to me again, I just want to... forgetting the transcript and without any disrespect, I just wanted a simple answer why the UN never went to Khan al-Asal. And I read, I read it a number of times; maybe I am being dense, but was it that it they couldn’t get there? Was it that the, the, the, it was too deteriorated? I am not suggesting those are the reasons, I just want to know what the reason is.

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, it does say, not in that particular part that you have in front of you; it does say on 30 September, that transcript from Monday, or let’s be clear about it: I said there are a number of reasons, potential reasons. And one of those includes that with the passage of time, it becomes… I don’t think you expect me, I know you are reading what I said, you don’t think you’d expect me to say exactly what I said on Monday?

Inner City Press: I am asking you a kind of a substantive question; what would you say to those who say it’s, it is a shame that if the request, the initial request to go to Syria was to visit this one place, it seems to cry, to call out for an answer of why what was initially requested was not done.

Spokesperson Nesirky: Right, right, so, listen: As I have said, as I have said here a number of times, there are a number of factors why it was not possible or feasible to go. And one of those is that with the passage of time, there is a deterioration of the material that could be used for sampling, and, therefore, to help decide whether chemical weapons were used or not. But as I also said, there is a portfolio of different ways that the team, the investigation team, can gather evidence and try to determine at a distance whether chemical weapons were used. That’s one of the possible constraints. Another is obviously security. And with regard to the broader question about the passage of time, everybody knows that it was not for want of trying that the team did not get there until August. As you well know from March, there was extremely hard work done on both sides — meaning the Syrian authorities and the United Nations in the form of the Office for Disarmament Affairs — to make this work. It was not easy. And that’s been plainly said by any number of people, including the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs. But the fact of the matter is that everyone persevered because there was an interest to get in. And eventually, they were able to get in and they were able then to determine that chemical weapons had indeed been used in that incident on 21 August; and they furthermore have continued both outside and then, on a subsequent visit to Syria that ended on Monday, to gather material so that they can present a final report at the end of this month.

  That says why the UN thought it wasn't WORTH going to Khan al Asal, not why they COULDN'T go to the spot that Syria had asked them to visit. It's like Ban Ki-moon meeting at his (UN-provided) residence with Saudi-sponsored Syria rebel boss Ahmad al Jarba -- a reflection of where Ban is coming from.

  Footnote: Ban's partners in the UN Correspondents Association, whose Executive Committee is dominated by Gulf and Western media from Al Arabiya and Reuters, where as Nesirky points out he worked for 25 years (video here),hosted Jarba for a faux UN briefing in July, on which Nesirky refused to answer questions by the Free UN Coalition for Access @FUNCA_info about whether this really WAS a "UN briefing," and why this room is given by the UN to a partisan organization. We'll have more on this. Watch this site.

   

Critique: On Syria, NYT Runs Confession of Angela Kane -- But Why NOT Khan al Asal, What of UMOJA Scandal, Germany Role?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 2 -- Confession as revisionism? The New York Times tonight ran an interview with UN Disarmament official Angela Kane, allowing her to say she regretted not investigating the alleged use of chemical weapons in Khan al Asal in Syria in March.

  Several facts are not stated in the article. For example, even when the UN team under Ake Sellstrom returned to Syria from September 25 to 30, they did NOT visit Khan al Asal.

  Also, while inconvenient, Angela Kane in her previous UN post as head of the Department of Management was subject to investigation for irregularities in the UN's "UMOJA" computer upgrade. Inner City Press exclusively reported on this, including obtaining and publishing the audit.

  The NYT story uses the adjective "friendly" as in Kane asking "friendly" countries to fly the chemical weapons samples. But this is key -- while a long time UN official, when she was taken out of her Department of Management post, it was her native Germany which lobbied Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to keep Kane on and thus to keep an Under Secretary General post for Germany. 

 This is how the UN works. Kane was offered a UN job in Lebanon, sources told Inner City Press, and rejected it. Over the candidacy of the Philippines' Permanent Representative, Kane got the Disarmament post. But the connection with Germany, given its position on Syria, should have been mentioned.

  We don't mean to be harsh -- the NYT recently switched UN correspondents, and giving time is key. (Some other media with bureau chiefs too long, too embedded here, it's another story -- one from Reuters has even spied for the UN, still UNexplained, click here for that).

  But while wanting to give time, these omissions may not bode well. We'll retain an open mind.

Footnote: one also wonders why the NYT has not covered the controversy surrounding Saudi sponsored Syria rebel boss Ahmad al Jarba being feted in the UN by France, and hosted by Ban Ki-moon in his residence, much less France's colonial domination of the Security Council's upcoming trip to Africa. But, one issue at a time. Watch this site.

   

On Syria, Samantha Power Changes Sequence of Stalling & Requests, US Blocked a Statement on Damascus Car Bombing

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 6 -- After US Ambassador Samantha Power took only three questions at the on September 5, from CBS, Reuters and a Gulf media, some thought she would take more during her hour-long appearance today at the Center for American Progress in DC. In this they were disappointed.

  It was supposed to run from 2 pm to 3 pm. But Power's appearance was 20 minutes late. The speaker who introduced her was openly pro missile strike. Then Samantha Power began.

  It was an edited and selective history of the Syria issue at the UN, to say the least. Power said that the US worked to set up the UN chemical weapons inspection team -- but did not mention that Syria was the first to ask for a UN probe, of chemical weapons at Khan al Asal, Syria says by the rebels.

Power said that Russia and sometimes China blocked press statements, but did not mention for example the draft press statement on a car bombing in Damascus that, as Inner City Press covered, the US blocked in February of this year.

The promised Geneva Two talks had already long been delayed before the August 21 incident. But Power said that diplomacy was stalled BY the August 21 incident at Ghouta.

The day after the US invited Security Council members and some other states, those that asked the UN to focus on Ghouta, to the US Mission to see evidence, Power spoke of countries being convinced. But as Inner City Press reported yesterday, one attendee said he was not convinced by the evidence; another said it was the same shown "back in the capital."

Since then other attendees have told Inner City Press the US invitation was directed beyond the Security Council members to those countries which wrote to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon asking for an investigation into the August 21 incidents.

That's the same group the UN's Angela Kane invited to a stealth meeting in the North Lawn building earlier this week -- but that, Syria's Permanent Representative Ja'afari also attended (and spoke afterward, see Inner City Press YouTube here.)

While some make much of a Saudi draft General Assembly resolution, other interested countries tell Inner City Press "that's on hold" and speak of another, quite different resolution.

There's also this question, for the US: would it support a Uniting for Peace resolution which could empower to act on the issues the US uses its veto for in the Security Council?

  These are questions that should have been, and should be, answered. But well before 3, when Samantha Power stopped talking, she walked out stage left. The last line? "Watch for a Replay at video.state.gov." President Barack Obama will give a speech on the evening of September 10. Watch this site.

Footnote: left as a footnote because Darfur is now being turned into one, Inner City Press asked the UN on Friday about reports of deadly Sudanese army bombing in East Jebel Marra. For UN humanitarian chief Valerie Amos the UN spokesperson said, "Syria only." Is that the case at the Mission too?