Inner City Press Asks Iraq Ambassador Alhakim About Turkish Troops, He Says Draft Resolution With Egypt

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 16 -- When Iraq's Ambassador to the UN M A Alhakim took questions at the Security Council on February 16, Inner City Press asked him what Iraq wants the Council to do about the 650 Turkish troops in the country without permission.

 We want a resolution, Ambassador Alhakim replied, saying that a draft is with Security Council member Egypt, and citing the Arab League.

 Inner City Press also asked Alhakim about the UN Liaison Officer confirmed as killed the day before in Diayala. Alhakim expressed condolences and said Iraq will try to find and bring the perpetrators to justice. One thought of the unresolved killing of UN staffer Louis Maxwell in Afghanistan, where UN envoy Jan Kubis also served. We'll have more on this.




Back on December 18, 2015 fter the Iraq - Turkey meeting of the Security Council held after the higher profile Syria meeting, Inner City Press asked Iraqi Foreign Minister Jaafari and Turkish Ambassador Cevic about their dispute.

 Inner City Press asked Jaafari if his statement in the Council met Iraq might use force, and also to answer if the stated agreement of the Permanent Five members of the Council's ambassadors in Baghdad to act for Iraq had translated or traveled to the Security Council in New York.

  Jaafari said that while Iraq seeks peace, all possibilities are on the table. Video here and embedded below.

 When Turkey's Permanent Representative Cevic came to the stakeout, Inner City Press asked him about Jaafari's request for a resolution condeming Turkey's invasion and demanding the withdrawal of Turkish troops.

Cevic gamely insisted that Turkey means well and will resolve this.Video  here.

 Reuters translated this as, "At U.N., Turkey accuses Iraq of undermining Islamic State fight." and so it goes at the UN. There were no Elements to the Press.

Inside the Council, Jaafair had said that "on the third of December 2015, Turkish forces estimated at hundreds of soldiers with a number of armored vehicles, tanks, and artillery penetrated into Iraqi territory in depth of 110 kilometers into northern Iraqi territory; in particular, the province of Nineveh without asking for an official permission from the Iraqi federal authorities.. Iraq is requesting the Security Council to assume its international legal responsibilities under the UN Charter, and to adopt a clear and explicit resolution includes the following, first, condemnation of the Turkish occupation and illegal incursion against the will of a founding member state of the UN, in breaching the rules and provisions of the UN Charter and the norms of international law. Second, demanding Turkey to withdraw its troops immediately, and to ensure, with all available measures, immediate and unconditional withdrawal to the recognized international border between the two countries, and to ensure the non-recurrence of such unilateral actions which jeopardize international relations and exacerbate sectarian and nationalist tensions in the region and expose regional and international security to significant risks.”

  Jaafari last paragraph in the Security Council on Friday concluded, “As we hand over the duty to protect Iraq and its security, unity and territorial integrity to your esteemed council, which is stressed in its resolutions, the Republic of Iraq retains its inherent right of individual or collective self-defense according to the provisions of Article 51 of the UN Charter, if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, and to take all necessary measures to end this hostile act which is an affront to good-neighborly relations, and threatens international peace and security.”

Back on December 8 after the UN Security Council met behind closed doors about Turkey's activities in Iraq, afterward in front of the Council Iraqi Ambassador Alhakim explained his country's position. Inner City Press Periscope video here. In pertinent part:

“A couple of days ago, troops from Turkey moved into Iraqi territory. That is illegal against international law, and against the Charter of the United Nations. We are working on this bilaterally between Baghdad and Ankara, and when we need, we have letters available to the Security Council, but they are no being issued by Baghdad yet."

Q: Are you confident Turkey will remove its troops soon?

Amb Alhakim: "We believe that Ankara understood the Iraqi position, strongly. We have made it very clear that what came through the border has to go back... There is a meeting between the Russian ambassador in Baghdad, and that’s normal, because we summoned as well by the prime minister, as well as the foreign minister, and also the ambassador of US, Britain, as well as, there will be a brief tomorrow at the foreign ministry to the P5...".

 Now on December 11, Alhakim handed US Ambassador Samantha Power and her team his government's letter, in Arabic as Power told Reuters, but also a translation, which Inner CIty Press has obtained and puts online here:

"Letter to the Security Council on the violation of the Turkish troops against Iraq sovereignty.

       At a time when Iraq is engaged in the struggle against global terrorism on the behalf of the international community, and Iraq's army alongside various security forces are fighting the integral battle against the abhorrent Da’esh entity which controls some Iraqi cities, we were hoping that a neighbor would aid Iraq and protect its security, sovereignty and help embolden Iraq in this conflict.

       On the evening of the 3rd of December, 2015, Turkish military forces comprised of over hundreds soldiers, their tanks and armored cars had crossed Iraq's internationally recognized borders, penetrating into Iraqi territory in depth of 110 kilometers inside Iraqi territory, stationing themselves in Bashiqa town, near the city of Mosul in northern Iraq, without any semblance of prior consent, coordination or consultation with the Iraqi federal government; ultimately constituting a flagrant violation of the provisions and the principles of the UN Charter, as well as a breach of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Iraqi state - fully protected under the provisions of the UN Charter and the principles of international law and the relevant Security Council resolutions, which emphasized the independence and sovereignty of Iraq and the unity and integrity its territory.

The intrusion of Turkish troops deep into Iraqi territory with a significant number of Turkish soldiers and their military hardware is an act of provocation and a violation of the provisions of international law and this unilateral military movement is a hostile act in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and the relevant provisions of international law.

       Iraq has stressed in the letter to the Security Council dated the 25th of June, 2014, along with the  letter dated on the 20th of September, 2014, that the assistance for Iraq in regards to military training and advanced technology with the necessary weapons to fight Da’esh terrorist entity, must be conducted in accordance with the "bilateral and multilateral agreements, with full respect for national sovereignty and in line with the Iraqi Constitution, and in coordination with the Iraqi armed forces". On this legitimate and incontestable basis, Iraq rejects and strongly opposes any military movements in the fight against terrorism in Iraq that have been made without prior consultation with the Iraqi federal government and without its consent to such military movements and condemns it in the strongest possible terms.

      Iraq has worked, out of the respect for good faith in dialogue as a means to resolve international disputes and our commitment to constructive, neighborly relations and mutual respect with Turkey, to contain the situation through diplomatic channels and bilateral mechanisms with Turkey, but its efforts did not succeed in persuading Turkey to withdraw its troops from the occupied Iraqi territories in question.

         In this regard, Iraq calls on the Security Council to shoulder its responsibilities in the maintenance of  international peace and security in accordance with the UN Charter, in order to protect Iraq and its sovereignty, safety and territorial integrity which has been unlawfully violated by Turkish troops that have penetrated into Iraqi territory without advanced notice, nor the knowledge or approval of the Iraqi federal government, and calls on the Security Council to compel Turkey to withdraw its military troops and hardware immediately, and to ensure with all available measures, the immediate and unconditional withdrawal to the  recognized international border between the two countries, and to ensure the non-recurrence of such violations against Iraqi sovereignty which jeopardize international relations and exposure of regional and international security apparatus to such a callous and significant risk.

        Iraq would like to inform member states that Iraq retains its inherent right of self-defense in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Charter and the norms of international law, and to take all necessary measures to end this hostile act and to stop the questionable Turkish ambitions in sovereign Iraqi territory. Such acts are offensive to good-neighborly relations, and threaten international peace and security.
       I should be grateful that this letter be circulated to the members of the Security Council, and distributed as an official document to the United Nations.

                       Yours Sincerely.

                                                  Dr. Ibrahim al-Jaafari
                                        Foreign Minister of the Republic of Iraq
                                                  11 / December / 2015"

On the Vienna process, after the Syria talks moving to New York on December 18 was called into question by Russia on December 8, along with a statement that the group that killed Russia's pilot in northern Syria should be on the terrorism list compiled by Jordan, Inner City Press put thee questions to  Turkey's Ambassador Cevic. Video here.   Here's fast transcript by InnerCityPro.com:
Inner City Press: On Syria, do you think the Vienna process meeting should take place in New York on the 18th? Are you satisfied with the Saudi process for choosing the opposition?

Amb Cevik: The plans, I don’t know how fixed, I mean how clear it is, but we are making our preparations for the meeting.

Inner City Press: Are there any groups invited to Saudi Arabia that you think shouldn’t be part of the opposition delegation?

Amb Cevik: I think so far, in our view, they are working on the right concept. Let’s see if they succeed. Having a coalition group that would be able to take part in the process is one of the most important things.
Inner City Press: [Russia] said the group that killed their pilot should be put on the terror list. Do you have any view on that?

Amb Cevik: If they know the specifics, I don’t know. But to our knowledge, there was no terrorist organization, no extreme Daesh, Nusra, in that area. They are the Turkomens, and we know them, they are moderate people.

  This may be an issue. Watch this site.



On Syria after coy comments by the UN's Ban Ki-moon if the next meeting would be in New York, John Kerry in Washington at the Saban Forum in Washington on December 5 said:

"the governments involved are going to meet later in this month in New York in order to continue to move this process forward.  Our goal is to facilitate a transition that all parties have stated that they support: a unified Syria...The purpose of this transition will be to establish a credible, inclusive governance within six months.  The process would include the drafting of a new constitution and arrangements for internationally supervised elections within 18 months...Meanwhile, a nationwide ceasefire will go into effect between the government and the responsible opposition, assuming they come to the table and they begin this initial process."

  But who is this "responsible opposition"? Does it include Al Qaeda affiliates? Can last-minute mergers cleanse these groups? Watch this site.

 Back on November 14 in the shadow of the November 13 Paris attacks, the International Syria Support Group met and issued a statement in Vienna, follow by statements by US John Kerry, Russia's Sergey Lavrov and the UN's Staffan de Mistura, flashing his pince-nez and the highlighted document below.

  But what will happen when a group said to be linked to Al Nusra is hit by an airstrike, and the Free Syrian Army says it's them, not Nusra?

Meeting in Vienna on November 14, 2015 as the International Syria Support Group (ISSG), the Arab League, China, Egypt, the EU, France, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United Nations, and the United States to discuss how to accelerate an end to the Syrian conflict.  The participants began with a moment of silence for the victims of the heinous terrorist attacks of November 13 in Paris and the recent attacks in Beirut, Iraq, Ankara, and Egypt.  The members unanimously condemned in the strongest terms these brutal attacks against innocent civilians and stood with the people of France.

Subsequently, the participants engaged in a constructive dialogue to build upon the progress made in the October 30 gathering. The members of the ISSG expressed a unanimous sense of urgency to end the suffering of the Syrian people, the physical destruction of Syria, the destabilization of the region, and the resulting increase in terrorists drawn to the fighting in Syria.

The ISSG acknowledged the close linkage between a ceasefire and a parallel political process pursuant to the 2012 Geneva Communique, and that both initiatives should move ahead expeditiously.  They stated their commitment to ensure a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political transition based on the Geneva Communique in its entirety.  The group reached a common understanding on several key issues.
The group agreed to support and work to implement a nationwide ceasefire in Syria to come into effect as soon as the representatives of the Syrian government and the opposition have begun initial steps towards the transition under UN auspices on the basis of the Geneva Communique.  The five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council pledged to support a UNSC resolution to empower a UN-endorsed ceasefire monitoring mission in those parts of the country where monitors would not come under threat of attacks from terrorists, and to support a political transition process in accordance with the Geneva Communique.   
All members of the ISSG also pledged as individual countries and supporters of various belligerents to take all possible steps to require adherence to the ceasefire by these groups or individuals they support, supply or influence.  The ceasefire would not apply to offensive or defensive actions against Da’esh or Nusra or any other group the ISSG agrees to deem terrorist.
The participants welcomed UN Secretary General Ban’s statement that he has ordered the UN to accelerate planning for supporting the implementation of a nationwide ceasefire.  The group agreed that the UN should lead the effort, in consultation with interested parties, to determine the requirements and modalities of a ceasefire.  
The ISSG expressed willingness to take immediate steps to encourage confidence-building measures that would contribute to the viability of the political process and to pave the way for the nationwide ceasefire.  In this context, and pursuant to clause 5 of the Vienna Communique, the ISSG discussed the need to take steps to ensure expeditious humanitarian access throughout the territory of Syria pursuant to UNSCR 2165 and called for the granting of the UN’s pending requests for humanitarian deliveries.   The ISSG expressed concern for the plight of refugees and internally displaced persons and the imperative of building conditions for their safe return in accordance with the norms of international humanitarian law and taking into account the interests of host countries.  The resolution of the refugee issue is important to the final settlement of the Syrian conflict.  The ISSG also reaffirmed the devastating effects of the use of indiscriminate weapons on the civilian population and humanitarian access, as stated in UNSCR 2139.  The ISSG agreed to press the parties to end immediately any use of such indiscriminate weapons.
The ISSG reaffirmed the importance of abiding by all relevant UN Security Council resolutions, including UNSCR 2199 on stopping the illegal trade in oil, antiquities and hostages, from which terrorists benefit.
Pursuant to the 2012 Geneva Communique, incorporated by reference in the Vienna statement of October 30, and in U.N. Security Council Resolution 2118, the ISSG agreed on the need to convene Syrian government and opposition representatives in formal negotiations under UN auspices, as soon as possible, with a target date of January 1.  The group welcomed efforts, working with United Nations Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura and others, to bring together the broadest possible spectrum of the opposition, chosen by Syrians, who will decide their negotiating representatives and define their negotiating positions, so as to enable the political process to begin.  All the parties to the political process should adhere to the guiding principles identified at the October 30 meeting, including a commitment to Syria’s unity, independence, territorial integrity, and non-sectarian character; to ensuring that State institutions remain intact; and to protecting the rights of all Syrians, regardless of ethnicity or religious denomination.   ISSG members agreed that these principles are fundamental.
The ISSG members reaffirmed their support for the transition process contained in the 2012 Geneva Communique.  In this respect they affirmed their support for a ceasefire as described above and for a Syrian-led process that will, within a target of six months, establish credible, inclusive and non-sectarian governance, and set a schedule and process for drafting a new constitution.  Free and fair elections would be held pursuant to the new constitution within 18 months. These elections must be administered under UN supervision to the satisfaction of the governance and to the highest international standards of transparency and accountability, with all Syrians, including the diaspora, eligible to participate.   
Regarding the fight against terrorism, and pursuant to clause 6 of the Vienna Communique, the ISSG reiterated that Da’esh, Nusra, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the UN Security Council, and further, as agreed by the participants and endorsed by the UN Security Council, must be defeated.  The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan agreed to help develop among intelligence and military community representatives a common understanding of groups and individuals for possible determination as terrorists, with a target of completion by the beginning of the political process under UN auspices.
The participants expect to meet in approximately one month in order to review progress towards implementation of a ceasefire and the beginning of the political process.


When the Chair of the UN's Syria Commission of Inquiry Paulo Sergio Pinheiro took questions after a closed door meeting with the Security Council, Inner City Press asked him about airstrikes in Syria, particularly by members of the Council. Periscope video here.

   Pinheiro replied that, not having been to Syria (except once as an individual, he told Inner City Press afterward, second Periscope here), he could not determine the facts of the airstrikes. But he said he had urged the Council members involved to comply with international humanitarian and human rights law.

Here fast transcription by InnerCityPro.com:

Inner City Press: For the 2 commissioners: with the increasing airstrikes by many parties now inside Syria, how is the commission able to collect, are you able to collect information about the airstrikes that occur and to figure out who’s doing what? And did you have any guidance to, there’s some members of the Security Council who are involved in these strikes, in terms of how to conduct them or how to coordinate more? I’d just like to know how you’re dealing with this new change.

Pinheiro: As you know, we investigate violations of human rights law and breaches of international and humanitarian law from – by all warring parties, by government, by the armed groups, by the terrorist groups... Yes, we had said this to the Security Council in the formal meeting, that we have received delegations about casualties, about results of those airstrikes that you have mentioned. But at this point, we are not in a position to attribute what was the responsible, the member state responsible for this airstrikes. We hope by March when, or in February when we release our report, to be in a better position to elaborate on that. What we have done, it was what we said at the human rights council, that our roles is to remind member states involved in these airstrikes the necessity of respecting the protection of the civilian population in terms of human rights and humanitarian law.

   It was said the Commission would share information with countries -- or rather, prosecutors or courts -- looking into their own nationals, as victims or perpetrators. Afterward, only on Periscope, Inner City Press asked Pinheiro if this every implicated the type of privacy concerns the UN and its Herve Ladsous cite as a basis to go after OHCHR's Anders Kompass, who blew the whistle on French troops' rapes in the Central African Republic, alleged violating victims' privacy.

  Pinheiro said disclosure would require the consent of the victims, but said that is most often given. He summoned over the Commission's Coordinator James Rodehaver, who previously did similar work on Afghanistan. It was Rodehaver who clarified that it is not countries but prosecutors and courts which can request information. He noted that a court in Sweden has cited the Commission's work, to show the conditions in a particular place and time in Syria.

  Pinheiro added that the Commission's work should make the type of “Mapping” exercises as was done in Eastern Congo unnecessary. The information has been collected. Now what? Watch this site.

Iraq's Alhakim Tells Inner City Press of His Government's Aid Funding, How Libya Should Proceed with UN Security Council

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 17 -- When Nickolay Mladenov gave his last briefing as UN Envoy to Iraq to the Security Council on February 17, he said “sixty percent of the humanitarian operations in Iraq are likely to shut-down or be curtailed unless funding is received before March. The essential medicines pipeline will break at the end of March.”
 
   Outside the Security Council, Inner City Press asked Iraq's Ambassador Alhakim about what Mladenov said. He replied that his government has put up $1 billion. 

   Alhakim was asked of the beheadings of Egyptian Copts in Libya and Egypt's foreign minister being at the UN in New York seeking support for its military response.

  Alhakim said the better route would be for Libya to follow what Iraq did: have the government tell the Security Council, "we need help," and that those who wish to act must tell the government.

  Inner City Press asked, what of the split between the governments in Tobruk and Tripoli? A Gulf media -- guess which one -- said that not all members of the League of Arab States recognize Tobruk.

  Alhakim, answering Inner City Press, acknowledged that the split between Tobruk and Tripoli is a problem. "Libya needs help," he said. That is an understatement.

Back on November 18, 2014 when Mladenov briefed the Security Council, he said he welcomed "the Government's efforts to explore the elements of a common political and regional security approach to combat ISIL. This has been a key feature in the discussions that Iraq's political leaders have pursued with Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE and others."

  There was one neighbor, that Iraq speaks with, not listed by Mladenov: Syria.

  Inner City Press asked Mladenov about his omission of Syria. His answer was that "the situation in Syria is quite different from all of its neighbors." Then he referred to reconciliation and development.  

  Inner City Press also asked UN humanitarian chief Valerie Amos about aid access in Anbar province, and if there are access problems in areas characterized as government controlled. She replied that while most problems are in ISIL controlled areas, there are areas controlled by pro-government militia where there are also access problems.  

  New High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeidof Jordan also spoke, but more briefly, before a "working lunch." He took questions on Syria and Israel; meanwhile,Sri Lanka's foreign minister has accused him of double standards, on which it'd be good to hear a response. On the"leaks" scandal in his Office, as well. We hope to have more on this.
 
  On November 16 after a UN convoy in Baghdad was attacked, Mladenov -- already in New York, it seems -- issued a statement on the UN mission's website, and a tweet.

  On November 18 Inner City Press asked Mladenov what inquiry the UN is making into who was behind the attack, and why. He said it is not clear yet if the UN was targeted or just a "target of opportunity."

  Inner City Press back on November 16 asked Mladenov by Twitter if a statement from the UN in New York - from the Security Council or Secretary General Ban Ki-moon -- would help. 

 Mladenov replied that he had put out a statement, which is good.

  But when does the UN Security Council, and Ban, issue statements? A week ago the UN (formerly EU) envoy to Libya Bernardino Leon was targeted by a car bomb. No Security Council press statement - although one was issued later in the week when the empty embassies of Egypt and the UAE in Libya were bombed. (Now a hotel in Benghazi is being hit with air strikes, but that's another story.)

   Was there no statement about the attack on Leon at Leon's request? Was there a desire not to recognize or publicize this attack on the UN? And what of the attack now in Baghdad, where the UN suffered the Canal Hotel bombing in the past? We've asked, and we'll see.

  Back on November 9, hours after a bombing in Libya near UN envoy Bernardino Leon, which came after Libya Dawn in Tripoli called him not impartial and persona non grata, still the UN in New York had not put out any statement at all.

  Instead, UN Department of Political Affairs' new spokesman merely selectively emailed to some Western media. No statement; nothing on the UNSMIL mission's web site. To new Free UN Coalition for Access, this is a new low in UN (non) communications.

 Back on November 4 when the UN Security Council met about Libya behind closed doors, the Press outside at the stakeout was repeatedly told that Leon would come and take questions at the stakeout.

 This is what the replaced Tarek Mitri did, each time he briefed the Security Council. With Leon being criticized inside Libya it would seem he'd have all the more reason to speak.

  But he did not. When he came out he barely broke stride -- Inner City Press took a photograph, blurred -- while saying the new Security Council Gary Quinlan of Australia would speak later. When Quinlan did, it was a bland "Press Elements."

  Still the scribes churned it. At 8:15 pm Agence France Presse bragged that it had "obtained" a French-drafted request to put Ansar al-Sharia, Benghazi and Derna, on the Al Qaeda sanctions list. 

"A copy of the French-led request to the Al-Qaeda sanctions committee was obtained by AFP." Wonder how...

   Reuters issued a breathless report with unnamed diplomats at 8:19 pm. Both have tried to get smaller investigative Press thrown out of the UN - see documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, here andhere - and this request by Reuters to censor one of its complaints to the UN from Google's Search.

  Back on August 27 amid airstrikes in Libya, when outgoing UN envoy Tarek Mitri briefed the UN Security Council, the airstrikes weren't even mentioned in his more than six page prepared text distributed by the UN.

  Inside the Council chamber, improvising but only a little bit, Mitri mentioned the strikes, but not who did them. Back on August 19 and once again since, Inner City Press asked the UN if it knew anything about who was behind them:

Inner City Press: Who did the air strikes?  General Haftar?  What's the UN, either Mr. León or Mr. Mitri or whoever is currently in charge, what's their sense of who's doing air strikes in Tripoli?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I don't… I think we reported back with the Mission yesterday, if there's anything more I'll share it with you.

  But in the days since, the UN has said nothing. Now the Libyan Dawn group  has taken over the Tripoli airport despite the airstrikes and alleged that the strikes have the involvement of Haftar's (or Hiftar's) supporters, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. What does the UN -- or now Bernardino Leon -- know and say about that? Watch this site.

On Leon: To try to counter Libya's lawless power struggle, the UN engaged in one of its own. 

  And unlike most of the member states that make up the UN, and most other inter-governmental organizations, this UN does not answer questions, at least not directly.

  After Inner City Press repeated asked about it, including at the UN's noon briefings on August 11 and 13, on August 14 the UN said Bernardino Leon will take over as its Libya envoy on September 1.

  When Inner City Press asked if that is really Leon's starting day, given that he's said he'll go to Tripoli as early as next week representing the UN, Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq said Leon is merely "familiarizing" himself with the work he will be, and Mitri remains in place until September 1. Really?

  Ignoring the previous questions and the power-play, wire services like Reuters merely retyped ("reported") the UN's August 14 announcement that Leon will start September 1. And now?

 Back on August 1, Inner City Press exclusively reportedthat UN envoy to Libya Tarek Mitri was being "pushed out" of the post, including by UK envoy to Libya Jonathan Powell, and cited his brother Lord Powell's extensive business in Libya through Magna Holdings.

  The UK mission, usually responsive, did not provide comment on written Press questions on this; at UN Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant's August 4 press conference Inner City Press asked about Powell's and Mitri's relationship, without direct answer, see here.

  Then the UK's Ambassador to Libya Michael Aron hasannounced, on Twitter no less,  that Mitri is out and Ban Ki-moon has installed a new UN envoy, former Zapatero diplomat Bernardino Leon Gross.

  The UN, at least at its August 8 noon briefing and in emails since, has not announce anything about replacing Mitri, much less by whom.

  Ban Ki-moon's office said that for August 9 and 10, "Spokesperson on call:  Mr. Farhan Haq." So Inner City Press wrote to Farhan Haq, as well as to lead spokesman Stephane Dujarric:

Hello. Now that the UK Ambassador to Libya, and others, have announced that Ban Ki-moon has appointed Bernardino Leon to replace Tarek Mitri as Ban's representative to Libya, head of UNSMIL, this is a request on deadline - today - that your Office confirm that this appointment or nomination has been made.

Has the letter been sent to the Security Council?

Is Leon already confirmed?

If not, how it is appropriate that P5 countries are saying he already has the job? On deadline, today.

Given many of the ongoing Afghanistan leaks are about UN DSS and UNAMA, not UNDP, there will be further questions. But the above is on deadline for today. Thank you in advance.

  But more than four hours later, by "close of business" in New York, the "spokesperson on duty" had not answered, had not even acknowledged receipt of the question.

  What does it mean to be the UN's "spokesperson on duty"?

   Isn't it for Ban Ki-moon to make this announcement? In fact, in 2011 when France had already gotten its Jerome Bonnafont in place to replace its Alain Le Roy atop UN Peacekeeping, Bonnafont's bragging about it in India, where he was French Ambassador, led to Ban rescinding the "offer."

  France countered with three time loser Herve Ladsous, Inner City Press reported each step -- including Bonnafont in July 2011 being tapped for the post, and evencongratulation cards to Bonnafont, here, and threats from AFP then the UN Correspondents Association -- and the rest is, well, a type of history (coverage in UK New Statesman, here).

  Ladsous refuses all Inner City Press questions, video compilation here; Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq on August 8, alluding to Ladsous and now UNDP, said it is because of "people skills." Or reporting?

  So Ban has accepted or done nothing to stop this P3 power grab to oust Mitri. But can "his" successor be pre-announced and Ban accept that too? 

Footnote: Inner City Press is exclusively informed that UNSMIL deputy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed also has business, literally: fisshing business. Ban and those in control of this play accept that too? Watch this site.

Background: Inner City Press on August 1 asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric what UN envoy Tarek Mitri is doing; Dujarric said he was not aware but would check.

  Inner City Press had reported that Mitri, unlike the other UN international staff who relocated to Tunis, went back to his native Lebanon. Sources in the region exclusively told Inner City Press that Mitri had been hoping for a government post in Lebanon, describing him as less than committed to remaining with the UN.

   Now we can report more. These knowledgeable sources say that Mitri is being "pushed out," mostly they say by the UK's envoy to Libya, former Tony Blair aide Jonathan Powell.

  "Mitri was expected to take on a mostly support function," one source told Inner City Press. "He stood up and said no, headquarters didn't back him up and now he's being pushed out." We'll have more on this.

  It was nine days after Libya's foreign minister Mohamed Abdel Aziz at the UN Security Council stakeout told the Press his country wanted international help to protect oil fields and ports, including airports, that the US announced it had relocated its Tripoli embassy staff out of the country to Tunisia.

  Inner City Press asked, where is UN envoy to Libya Tarek Mitri? He briefed the Security Council from Beirut -- sources tell Inner City Press he has been on vacation there, and this deputy, too, was out of the country.

  Back on July 17 when Libya's foreign minister Mohamed Abdel Aziz emerged from the UN Security Council to take questions from the media, Inner City Press asked him to be more specific about what type of “support” force he is asking for.

  Mohamed Abdel Aziz replied that the request is not for a “military” force -- but then went on to say say the force should protect oil fields and ports. If that's not military, what is it?

  Inner City Press also asked Mohamed Abdel Aziz for Libya's current position on the US arresting Abu Khatallah. Compared to the complaints of others, Mohamed Abdel Aziz said that even though under international law it is unacceptable, since Libya can't protect witnesses, maybe it is okay.

  Given the current state of affairs, what is “Libya's” position?

   Watch this site.

   

Amid ISIL Advance in Iraq, UN Cites 200,000 Yazidis in Mountains, UN Security Council Issues Press Statement, Mulls Resolution, Action

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 7, updated -- As the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) continues to advance, a urgent UN Security Council meeting was called. But what would it issue, beyond a press statement?

After 6:30 pm, Council president for August Mark Lyall Grant emerged to read a press statement, followed by question and answer stakeouts by French deputy Alexis Lamek and Iraqi Permanent Representative Alhakim.

  Inner City Press asked Lamek if France will take military action. While we'll await the French mission's transcript, Lamek eventually said "that needs to be done indeed."

  Inner City Press asked Alhakim about airdrops, if ISIL has anti-aircraft guns and if the dam has been taken over. This last, he denied, saying that ISIL does not control the dam.

Update: after those stakeouts, a senior US Department of Defense official told the press:

“I can confirm that tonight, at the direction of the Commander in Chief, the U.S. military conducted a humanitarian assistance operation in Northern Iraq to air drop critical meals and water for thousands of Iraqi citizens threatened by ISIL near Sinjar. The mission was conducted by a number of U.S. military aircraft under the direction of U.S. Central Command. The aircraft that dropped the humanitarian supplies have now safely exited the immediate airspace over the drop area.”

  And shortly after that, US President Barack Obama announced he has authorized airstrikes. He took no questions.

  There is a draft resolution in the works, with UK Ambassador Lyall Grant saying that a new draft would be circulated later on August 7. The Security Council leaves on August 8 for a week-long trip to Europe and South Sudan and perhaps some other places for now undisclosed. Some wonder how they will keep up not only with Iraq (and the Levant) but also Gaza and conceivably Ukraine and other matters.

  In a statement from Baghdad, the UN mission UNAMI announced that “over the last 48 hours 200,000 civilians have fled the advance of ISIL, with at least 180,000 crossing into the Dohuk district of the Kurdistan Region.” UNAMI said “up to 200,000 predominantly Yazidi civilians becoming trapped on Jabal Sinjar in territory not controlled by ISIL.”

 Even before the Security Council turned from its regularly scheduled Darfur meeting to the urgent session on Iraq, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, not in the UN but "in New York" according to his public schedule, put out a statement calling on those with “resources to positively impact the situation to support the Government.”

 Did that mean air strikes?

On July 25 after the UN Security Council met behind closed doors with the Syria Commission of Inquiry's Paulo Sergio Pinheiro and Karen AbuZayd, the two Commissioners and UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant came to take questions from the press.

  Karen AbuZayd spoke of abuses not only by the government but also, in response to a question, by what she called the Islamic State of Iraq and [Syria], ISIL. 

  Inner City Press when called on asked her about ISIS' takeover of border crossing, renaming as Islamic State and attacks on non-Sunni Muslims in Mosul.

In this context, what did she think of hers or another Commission of Inquiry covering the group's abuses in Iraq as well? Bigger picture, does the state by state focus of the UN make sense in this context?

  AbuZayd said she prefers not to call them “Islamic State,” it give them too much credit. Pinheiro resisted any talk of expanding his Commission's mandate -- Syria is enough.

  A US state media asked about foreign fighters, including pro-government; Pinheiro said that Hezbollah is the only group of foreign fighters he's away of.

 This is strange, given that the UN's own recent report on Syria humanitarian access notes that “on June 29, the Islamic State issued a statement announcing that the Caliphate included people from the following nationalities: Caucasian [sic], Indian, Chinese, Shami (Levantine), Iraqi, Yemeni, Egyptian, North African, American, French, German, and Australians." Watch this site.

Footnote: one wanted to ask AbuZayd about developments -- to put it mildly -- in Gaza, where she used to head UNRWA, but this too was deemed beyond the scope of the stakeout. Another former Gaza hand, John Ging, has been speaking on the topic this week. Perhaps we'll hear from Ms. AbuZayd. We'll be watching.

   

In Iraq Election, 60% Turn-Out But Not in Falluja, PR Tells ICP

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 30 -- After Iraq's Permanent Representative to the UN held up his finger on April 30 to show that he had voted, Inner City Press asked him if voting had been possible in Falluja.

  No, he replied, in Falluja it was not possible, but some who lived there went and voted elsewhere. How many?

  He cited a 60% overall turn-out, and said his own 80 year old mother told him that who she voted for is none of this business. Call it a mature democracy.

 Back on March 27 after the UN's envoy to Iraq Nickolay Mladenov briefed the UN Security Council on March 27, Inner City Press asked him if the April 30 elections can go forward unless the Independent High Elections Commissioners reverse their resignations.

  Mladenov said their resignations have not yet been accepted, and that the parliament is trying to give them immunity from liability for decisions, to keep them independent.

  Inner City Press also asked about the "good reputation" standards for candidates, and one who has been disqualified. Mladenov said attempts are underway to avoid "arbitrary" disqualifications.

  The Security Council stakeout had a lot of correspondents, but not for Iraq. There was a North Korea consultation to follow, and even though the US had not circulated any draft, largely Japanese media were waiting for any summary of the meeting from Luxembourg, the Council's president for March.

  No such summarize was given on March 26, after Russia raised the issue of "terrorist" attacks on Latakia in Syria. But this NOrth Korea was a big one.  Mladenov gracefully answered three correspondents' questions, the first one generally about terrorism, and then was gone.

   Even back in January, the situation in Anbar in Iraq was deadly serious; in the UN Security Council in New York, less so.

  After the Security Council met on January 9 about Iraq, Inner City Press asked Jordan's Permanent Representative Prince Zeid, the Council president for the month, if a draft Presidential Statement had been circulated by the United States.

  Zeid replied on the Council's "continuing examination on possibility of putting something out."

  When on Friday afternoon a public meeting of the Security Council was called for 5:30 pm, it was for the agreed-to presidential statement. The UN's machinery whirled into gear: the UN Television cameras, Security officers, interpreters.

  But when the meeting started at 5:34 pm, even watching UNTV on a small screen out at the stakeout it was clear that one of the 15 seats was empty: Nigeria's.

  Since it is often said that all 15 have to be present to hold such a meeting, Inner City Press ran up to the third floor gallery to look again. Sure enough: Nigeria's seat, next to Luxembourg, was empty. Click here.

  Prince Zeid read about the Presidential Statement -- it did NOT call on the government to show restraint -- and the meeting was over.

  Iraq's Permanent Representative Mohamed Ali Alhakim came out and despite being discouraged by some from doing a public, UN televised stakeout, told Inner City Press (on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access) that he would take to the microphone.

  Inner City Press asked him what the government sees as the next steps in Falluja, given that at least some Council members have been talking about the need to show restraint, even maximum restraint.

  Mohamed Ali Alhakim replied that the government is "working with the tribes" and is hoping that the fight can take place outside of the city.

  Afterward Inner City Press asked a Council legal expert if, in fact, Nigeria was marked absent and if there was any precedent. "You saw what you saw," was the pithy answer; a precedent back in 1950 was cited. Surely there are some more recent. But this is just the first month, for the five new members.

  Since the statement was basically agreed to between the United States and Iraq and rubber stamped by the other Council members, perhaps it was fair for Nigeria to not arrive. In further fairness, there was a closed meeting down in Conference Room 1 of the "Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations," which Nigeria has chaired. Photo and snark here. We may have more on this. Watch this site.

   

On Iraq, UN Security Council Minus One, Nigeria, Approves a Statement on Anbar: No Restraint in Falluja?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 10 -- The situation in Anbar in Iraq is deadly serious; in the UN Security Council in New York, less so.

  After the Security Council met on January 9 about Iraq, Inner City Press asked Jordan's Permanent Representative Prince Zeid, the Council president for the month, if a draft Presidential Statement had been circulated by the United States.

  Zeid replied on the Council's "continuing examination on possibility of putting something out."

  When on Friday afternoon a public meeting of the Security Council was called for 5:30 pm, it was for the agreed-to presidential statement. The UN's machinery whirled into gear: the UN Television cameras, Security officers, interpreters.

  But when the meeting started at 5:34 pm, even watching UNTV on a small screen out at the stakeout it was clear that one of the 15 seats was empty: Nigeria's.

  Since it is often said that all 15 have to be present to hold such a meeting, Inner City Press ran up to the third floor gallery to look again. Sure enough: Nigeria's seat, next to Luxembourg, was empty. Click here.

  Prince Zeid read about the Presidential Statement -- it did NOT call on the government to show restraint -- and the meeting was over.

  Iraq's Permanent Representative Mohamed Ali Alhakim came out and despite being discouraged by some from doing a public, UN televised stakeout, told Inner City Press (on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access) that he would take to the microphone.

  Inner City Press asked him what the government sees as the next steps in Falluja, given that at least some Council members have been talking about the need to show restraint, even maximum restraint.

  Mohamed Ali Alhakim replied that the government is "working with the tribes" and is hoping that the fight can take place outside of the city.

  Afterward Inner City Press asked a Council legal expert if, in fact, Nigeria was marked absent and if there was any precedent. "You saw what you saw," was the pithy answer; a precedent back in 1950 was cited. Surely there are some more recent. But this is just the first month, for the five new members.

  Since the statement was basically agreed to between the United States and Iraq and rubber stamped by the other Council members, perhaps it was fair for Nigeria to not arrive. In further fairness, there was a closed meeting down in Conference Room 1 of the "Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations," which Nigeria has chaired. Photo and snark here. We may have more on this. Watch this site.