At UN, Hillary Takes Hand-Picked Questions About Deleted Emails, Gration in the Can

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 10 -- Once Hillary Clinton chose the UN as the backdrop for her press availability to address email-gate, the UN Security Council media stakeout area began to fill up.

 Questions included, isn't it the government which is supposed to review what is public and private in a government official's email? (See, for example, this FOIA response with cell phone numbers redacted.)

   Awaiting Hillary, the UN moved the flags of the 15 Security Council members to the side, in front of the replica of Picasso's Guernica. But the blue sheet saying “Security Council” remained.

      From an ill-attended press conference about women in parliaments, at which the front row middle seats were blocked off with a signs, “Andrea Mitchell” and “NBC,” Inner City Press passed through the glass turnstiles to the stakeout. 

 The aforementioned Andrea Mitchell was already there in front. Incongruously an officer of what's called the UN Correspondents Association was also in front, getting whispered to. BuzzFeed needless to say was in the (Glass) House, as were a number of TV faces.

  The speeches in the Economic and Social Council chamber continued, from English into German, much praise of corporations and their work for women's rights. When it was over, Hillary Clinton and entourage came to the stakeout, which hushed.

   After some opening remarks about Beijing + 20 and the 47 Senators' letter said to only help Iran, Hillary turned to her emails - and for the first pre-selected questions, conveniently, to the UN Correspondents Association, which offered thanks and, predictably, a softball.

   (Inner City Press quit this UNCA after their board tried to demand changes or removal from the Internet of articles about Sri Lanka and conflicts of interest, among other topics, then co-founded the new Free UN Coalition for Access which presses, as relevant here, for a UN Freedom of Information Act)

   Questions started getting somewhat better: why did Hillary delete what she called private emails? A journalist tried to ask about Ambassador Scott Gration, reportedly fired for similarly evading the Federal Records Act, but the journalist got shouted down.

   Inner City Press, tweeting and Vining in the back, started shouting “Scott Gration” during each brief lull. At the end Hillary Clinton said to go online and read the inspector general's report (and yes, there is more: Gration working off Gmail in a bathroom in the Nairobi embassy, here.)

   A UN true believer complained that the press didn't call about gender equality, only email-gate. But it was Hillary who chose this venue, and who chose the questions, at least the first one. This may not end well. 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 Syria, Jarba's SNC Says Ukrainians Beat "Foreign Tyrants," Subtweeting Russia and Iran As NBC Says "1 Million Dead"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 23 -- On American network NBC on Sunday, David Gregory of Meet the Press said "one million are dead in Syria." Maybe this was part of the network's Sochi Olympics hype; maybe Gregory simply mis-spoke (he later mumbled, including the refugees).  

  But since Gregory's line of questioning to the NSC's Susan Rice was why isn't the Obama administration getting more involved with the armed opposition in Syria, inflating the death figures becomes propaganda. (A reader chimed in that, by contrast, the death figures in Iraq were under-stated.)

   Meanwhile the "Geneva II opposition" of the Syrian Coalition under Ahmad al Jarba who either is or is not of a Beirut university graduate (h/t) came out with congratulations for the Ukrainian people for their victory over "foreign tyrannical forces." 

   The subtweet-like reference was clearly to Russia. But as another talking head misspoke on Sunday, does Iran have some secret role in Ukraine? Or as Helene Cooper like Michael Bloomberg put it, "The Ukraine"?

 On February 22 after the UN Security Council voted 15-0 to adopt the modified draft humanitarian resolution on Syria on February 22, Inner City Press asked UK Permanent Representative Mark Lyall Grant about his Russian counterpart Vitaly Churkin's statement that there is no "automaticity" to further steps in the event of non-compliance.

  Lyall Grant to his credit acknowledged that is true, that a separate Security Council action (which could be vetoed) would be necessary to take such further steps: "Ambassador Churkin is right that there would need to be a further decision by the Security Council if specific action under articles 41 or article 42 were to be taken." 

  But he said the compromise language that remained in the final resolution was stronger than formulations that had triggered vetoes in the past. Transcript below.

 Chinese Permanent Representative Liu Jieyi came out to give his country's view on the resolution; Inner City Press then asked him how the resolution applies to groups like Al Nusra and ISIS or ISIL, to Syrian communities like in Al Raqqa?  He replied that it applies to everyone.

  French Ambassador Gerard Araud spoke in French and while he did, his spokesperson Frederic Jung gesticulated at the UN (or outsourced Team People) boom microphone operator to whom to give the questions. Two of the three were in French, the other was from France 24.  Inner City Press asked, What about Hezbollah being dropped from the resolution? Araud walked off.

  The proposers of the resolution, Jordan, Australia (calling for ICC action) and Luxembourg (saying non-compliance would trigger further action) all spoke, as did US Ambassador Samantha Power. Like UK Lyall Grant, she said that the reference to (non-automatic) further steps was stronger than a formulation vetoed in the past.  But as Lyall Grant candidly acknowledged, the further steps are NOT automatic.

  From the original draft by Australia, Luxembourg and Jordan, omitted in the final resolution were references to the International Criminal Court, Hezbollah and Quds Force, an explicit reference to the threat of sanctions, and specifics on cross border aid from Turkey and Iraq.

  After the vote, but still in the Chamber, first Luxembourg then Australia praised their work -- which was refreshing from non-Permanent, elected members. Some found Australia's position at odds with how it treats asylum seekers, and for its relatedly anti-immigration position for impunity for Sri Lanka, for example. This question was not taken at the stakeout.

  To not leave them out, Nigeria referred to a proposal, highlighted by Argentina, to stop all introduction of arms into Syria. Rwanda spoke in favor of it to. But, tellingly, it did not make it in. Lithuania spoke at the stakeout, but took no questions.

Twenty hours before the UN Security Council is slated to vote on the re-drafted Syria humanitarian resolution, Inner City Press asked US State Department Marie Harf about the evolution of the draft, specifically the deletion of a reference to Hezbollah and Quds Force, and for any predictions for the rare Saturday vote.

   Harf replied that the draft is substantially the same as that first proposed by Australia, Luxembourg and Jordan -- "we didn't merge" the drafts, she said, referring to Russia's counter proposal. Transcript below. On this: "We didn’t merge the two drafts, right? We negotiated to maintain key provisions of the original resolution that we think are essential to saving lives on the ground."

  She declined to predict a 15-0 vote, but later cited the upcoming vote as a sign of working with China, in contrast to disagreeing on Tibet and President Obama meeting earlier in the day with the Dalai Lama. The State Department on February 21 designated Sarah Sewall as "US Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues.

 (Notably, former Chinese Permanent Representative to the UN Li Baodong recently criticized Australia's policies on asylum seekers, an issue Inner City Press also asked Harf about in light of the deadly riot at Australia's detention facility on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea -- more on that in a separate story.)

    On Syria it was announced on the evening of February 20 that the humanitarian resolution will be voted on at 11 am on Saturday, February 22.  What changed?

   Compare, for example, the "terrorism paragraph," #12 in Australia's (and Jordan's and Luxembourg's) first draft, and #14 now. As first drafted, it explicitly called for Hezbollah and Quds Force to immediately withdraw from Syria.

  Now the draft "in blue," to be voted on, does not mention Hizballah or Quds Force. Instead, it adds to Al-Qaeda "its affiliates and other terrorist groups;" compare to Russia's now "merged in draft," which referred to "Al-Qaeda and other terrorist and extremist groups."  The new addition of "affiliates" applies only to Al Qaeda.  This is one example, as most questioning in front of the Security Council has focused only on timing.

   In front of the Security Council on February 21, Inner City Press asked February's Council president Raimonda Murmokaite of Lithuania, if any changes were being made to the draft formally put "in blue," an archaic reference to the ink color of final drafts. She replied that the blue version is the version.

   After meeting on Syria draft resolutions on February 18, UN Security Council Ambassador exited one by one issuing one liners on projected timing for a vote.

  Russia's Vitaly Churkin, asked if there would be a vote this week, said setting timelines is not really productive.

  More than an hour later when UK Permanent Representative Mark Lyall Grant emerged, Inner City Press asked him if he thinks there will be a vote this week. Lyall Grant told Inner City Press, "I think there'll be a vote this week, I hope."

Update of Feb 19, 10:07 am: overnight, Russian foreign minister Lavrov was quoted by Interfax that the draft could be approved in days if Security Council members don't try to "politicize" the issue. Then his way into the Feb 19 "rule of law" debate, Lyall Grant said "we hope we will be in a position to vote this week." 

  Earlier in the day, Syria's Permanent Representative Bashar Ja'afari, who was lead negotiator at the talks in Geneva, re-appeared at the UN in New York; we'll have more on this.

  Australia's Gary Quinlan, asked if his draft with Luxembourg and Jordan is the basis of negotiation, said, Yes.

  Jordan's Prince Zeid, asked the same question, nodded and called the issues urgent.

  After US President Barack Obama met with Jordan's King Abdullah II in Rancho Mirage, California, a self-described US Senior Administration Official said "Jordan and the United States are both working together in the Security Council at present and there is an ongoing, pretty intensive negotiation over a potential humanitarian resolution in the Security Council aimed at not only condemning the atrocities, but trying to create a legal predicate for cross-border operations and cross-line operations."

  In terms of creating a "legal predicate," the Western draft resolution 

"demands that the Syrian authorities promptly facilitate rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian access to people in need through the most effective ways, including across conflict lines and across borders from neighboring countries, and lift all restrictions on cross-border humanitarian access, in particular, via Turkey and Iraq, and stresses, in this regard, the particularly urgent need for the Syrian authorities to reopen the Yariba border crossing with Iraq."

  But as described below, the Russian counter-draft

"urges all parties, in particular the Syrian authorities, to promptly facilitate safe and unhindered humanitarian access to people in need, through the most effective ways, including across conflict lines and, where appropriate, across borders from neighboring countries, in accordance with the UN guiding principles of humanitarian emergency assistance."

  Could the US and its allies objec to "the UN guiding principles of humanitarian emergency assistance"? 

  In terms of the negotiations process in New York being "intensive," Inner City Press covered the February 14 session, it was at the "experts" level and the Lithuanian presidency did not provide a summary much less question and answer stakeout afterward, as the Free UN Coalition for Access requested at the beginning of the month. (China, by contrast, held nine Q&A stakeouts during its recent Security Council presidency; for Lithuania as of February 15 the number is zero.)

   The UN Spokesperson's office did not announce in advance mediator Lakhdar Brahimi's down-beat February 15 press conference in Geneva, at which no date was set for any more talks; the UN in New York is closed until February 18. Intensive?

   Russia had counter-proposed a Syria humanitarian resolution, and has also proposed a counter-terrorism Presidential Statement, Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told the press on February 13.

   Churkin said after Russia heard US statements about the rise of terrorism in Syria, the idea of the Presidential Statement arose. He said Russia's counter-draft resolution on humanitarian access also has terrorism language.

   Inside the Security Council in an otherwise nearly empty UN, humanitarian chief Valerie Amos' briefing and closed door consultations continued. Earlier on February 13, Inner City Press exclusively reported on a four page letter the Syrian mission submitted to the Security Council president, naming towns which the armed opposition -- "terrorists" -- were blockading. Click here for that.

  At the February 13 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky to confirm these blockades. He replied that the UN has never denied that there are blockages from the opposition side. But if Valerie Amos won't name the opposition groups, the UN's or her critique appears to be one-sided.

  On February 10 in the US State Department briefing, deputy spokesperson Marie Harf had talked up the humanitarian resolution; she was asked why the US is supposedly deferring to the too-slow UN, after the high level humanitarian meeting in Rome.

  Churkin said on February 10 that Rome meeting has been "quite useless" and that it "departed from the original conception." On February 13 he criticized it again, contrasting it to what he called Russia's practical approach. He said the Russian embassy in Damascus was involved in the deal(s) to get aid into Homs. 

   US State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf on February 13 insisted that the US supports the Australian - Luxembourg - Jordan draft. But what about the Russian submission, now on counter-terrorism? 

  From Geneva, France 24 reported wanly on the Brahimi talks; in New York, it asked Churkin if a vote should be expect before the Olympics are over. He said, there is no connection.

  Neither France 24, nor other ostensibly Syria-focused media have done much follow up, but on January 29 Inner City Press first published quotes from the UN's report on Syria Children and Armed Conflict, specifically that the Free Syrian Army recruits and uses child soldiers: 

"Throughout the reporting period, the United Nations received consistent reports of recruitment and use of children by FSA-affiliated groups."

  Inner City Press asked the US Mission to the UN to respond to the report, since Congress in its 2008 Child Soldiers Prevention Act said the US Government should condemn the use of child soldiers by paramilitaries like the FSA. Inner City Press was told to put the request for comment in writing, and did, to the UK Mission as well.

   The report had already been circulated to Security Council members in English; the UK said it would wait to provide Inner City Press with a comment until the report was made official on February 3, that is to say, when it was translated into the UN's five other official languages and put on the Internet.

   Readers asked Inner City Press where on the UN website to find the Syria child soldiers report. Inner City Press told them it would go online on February 3, and noted that theFree UN Coalition for Access had previously opposed the UN withholding or delaying the release of important document like this.

  In this case, however, the delay affirmatively helped the Syrian opposition. On January 29 they were in Geneva, issuing statements about abuses by the Assad government. They were not asked about the Free Syrian Army's use of child soldiers.

   On February 3, Inner City Press again asked the UK for its comment, and it did arrive the following day on February 4:

"The UK absolutely condemns the use of child soldiers in all cases, and strongly supports international efforts to stop the use of child soldiers. We urge all parties in the Syrian conflict to release any children held in detention.

"Armed conflict affects millions of lives around the world, and children are among those most vulnerable to the effects of conflict. The only way to secure the long-term future of Syria’s children is to find a political solution to the crisis.

"We have made clear our absolute condemnation of the use of child soldiers. As noted in this report, the use of child soldiers by the opposition is not systematic and is limited to certain elements. We have provided training to the Supreme Military Council of the Syrian opposition on the law of armed conflict, and will continue to work with them to help ensure that they meet their obligations under international law."

    Before publishing the UK's quote, Inner City Press again in writing asked two spokespeople of the US Mission to the UN for their comment -- noting that the UK had provided one. As Inner City Press noted, that might be OK for the United Kingdom -- but what about the US, including in light of the 2008 Child Soldiers Prevention Act, which provides for example:

It is the sense of Congress that— 

 (1) the United States Government should condemn the conscription, forced recruitment, or use of children by governments, paramilitaries, or other organizations; 

 (2) the United States Government should support and, to the extent practicable, lead efforts to establish and uphold international standards designed to end the abuse of human rights described in paragraph (1); 

  There are prohibitions on funding which can only be overridden for formal, public findings by the President. Given all this, Inner City Press on February 4 again asked the two spokespeople for the US Mission to the UN its January 30 question: "could the US provide aid to a non-state group, the FSA and its affiliates, which the UN has found using child soldiers?" 

  The New York Times, saying that the child soldiers report was "quietly presented to the Security Council last week," had a quote from the State Department. Why was the report, and this statement, delayed a full six days until the Geneva II talks were over?

  Even more cynically, Voice of America on whoseBroadcasting Board of Governors US Secretary of State John Kerry serves, also ran a delayed / withheld story on the report; Reuters typically didn't bring up the US Child Soldiers Prevention Act  and claimed that the report was released on February 4, when even the Times said it was February 3 -- and see Inner City Press' January 29 story, here.

 On January 29, Inner City Press published additional quotes from the report, including that:

"Boys aged 12 to 17 were trained, armed, and used as combatants or to man checkpoints. For instance, a 15 year-old boy reported being recruited in April 2012 by the FSA in Tall Kalakh (Tartus governate), and participation in military operations.... Also indicative was the case of a 16 year-old boy from Homs who reportedly joined the FSA as a combatant. In March 2013, his family reported to the United Nations that he was still fighting with the group."

And is this boy still fighting with the FSA? There is more to be said about this UN report, but what steps will actually be taken on this UN report? 

on February 14, the following was received from US Mission deputy spokesperson Tony Deaton:

"We are deeply disturbed by the contents of this report and strongly condemn the mistreatment and torture of children in any conflict. We equally condemn the use of child soldiers in Syria and around the world. The use of children in armed conflict is morally reprehensible, and the United States in no way supports or condones this activity. We vet recipients of our assistance to the moderate opposition and work diligently to prevent assistance from falling into the hands of groups that recruit or use children in combat or employ terror tactics."

While we will continue to pursue how the 2008 Child Soldiers Prevention Act applies after the FSA finding in the UN report, we appreciate the US response and publish it in full.

Watch this site.

Here is the US State Department's Feb 21 transcript:

MODERATOR: Up next, Marie, we have Matthew Russell Lee from Inner City Press. Operator, can you please open Matthew’s line? And Matthew, go ahead.

Inner City Press: Thanks a lot. I wanted to ask something on Syria, and then something else you may have something on. It sounds – this humanitarian resolution at the UN is set for voting on tomorrow morning.

MS. HARF: Yes.

Inner City Press: And it looks like the draft or the final draft put into blue or to be voted on has dropped – it dropped a reference that it had in it to Hezbollah and to the Quds Force. And it made – obviously, made changes to try to garner these votes. Well, do you have anything to say about – do you think that these changes are weak in the draft, and do you have a sense it’s going to be 15-nothing, or what do you think?

MS. HARF: Well, a couple points. You are correct. We do expect the Security Council resolution to be voted on tomorrow. And it’s my understanding that this is basically the original draft that we supported that was drafted by some of our colleagues on the Security Council – Australia, Luxembourg, and Jordan. We didn’t merge the two drafts, right? We negotiated to maintain key provisions of the original resolution that we think are essential to saving lives on the ground.

I don’t want to prejudge the outcome. I think one thing I’ve learned is not to make those kinds of predictions. But what I would say is that if China and Russia and everyone else is as concerned as we’ve all said about the humanitarian crisis, then they should support this resolution. So we will see if we can get a vote that goes the right way here – not for our sake, quite frankly, but for the sake of the Syrian people.

Here's from the UK Mission's Feb 22 transcript:

Inner City Press: In terms of this idea of further steps being triggered by noncompliance, Ambassador Churkin used this word earlier: "It's not automatic, there's no automaticity," so I wanted to know, what's your view of what happens if there's noncompliance. And also, I noticed that Hezbollah and Quds force were dropped from the resolution, but Al Qaeda remains in. How should we interpret that in terms of naming one group and not naming another?

Amb Lyall Grant: Well, there were a lot of changes made in the text of the resolution through the negotiating process; that is a normal process of negotiation in the Security Council. The key thing on this occasion was to secure unanimous adoption, and we're delighted that such a strong resolution was adopted unanimously. In terms of the strong trigger mechanism, it is a strong trigger mechanism, much stronger than in some previous resolutions, some of which indeed were vetoed. But Ambassador Churkin is right that there would need to be a further decision by the Security Council if specific action under articles 41 or article 42 were to be taken. That is clear that the Security Council would have to take a further decision, but the language which says that the Council expresses its intent to take further steps in the event of noncompliance is very specific and much stronger than we might have had.

    

As US Focuses on Journalists on July 17, It's “All Western,” Member Complains, "One Sided"

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, July 1 -- As the US held closed door bilateral meetings with other members of the UN Security Council on its proposed program of work for its presidency in July, Inner City Press alone just outside the chamber asked the Ambassadors going in and out about the US plans for the month.

  Their thematic debate, Inner City Press was told, is on the 17^th of July about the protection of journalists. A concern was expressed that the US' choices for speakers are not balanced -- “all report for US, UK or French outlets,” one diplomat complained exclusively to Inner City Press, naming a reporter from US-based Associated Press and Richard Engel of NBC.

  "There's an Iraqi and Somalia, too, but they report for Western media," the complainant continued.

  There are, of course, journalists for non-Western media who are attacked and at risk. Wouldn't it be a further reaching debate with them included?

  Recently Inner City Press reported how the top officials at the UN Correspondents Association, from CBS and Reuters, asked blatantly one-sided questions, on Edward Snowden and Syria. 

 UNCA's president for 2013, Pamela Falk of CBSNews.com,asked then US Ambassador Susan Rice about “autocratic” countries like Ecuador, adding Russia and China. Is Ecuador autocratic? Is that really the focus of the NSA revelations?

This one sided view pervades today's UN, to the point of the UN Department of Public Information trying to ban even the sign of an alternative group, the Free UN Coalition for Access. Watch this site.

  

As ICC Is Used In NBC's "Crossing Lines," Of Immunity, Ruud Lubbers and UN's Failure in Sri Lanka

By Matthew Russell Lee, TV Review

UNITED NATIONS, June 29 -- The UN system has become so low-profile if not to say irrelevant during the tenure of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that any mainstream coverage might seen good. And so some welcomed NBC's new series “Crossing Lines,” which uses the International Criminal Court, albeit inaccurately and absurdly.

  In the pilot double episode, a “dream team” of six detectives wants to investigate four killings in four European countries, but doesn't have jurisdiction. How to solve this plot problem? Travel to The Hague and meet Luis Moreno Ocampo facsimile Donald Sutherland.

  At first Sutherland / Ocampo demurs. But then after a reference to Kosovo, a card is played: the crime of aggression. That's it -- Sutherland gives the detectives a warrant. And they're off to Paris.

  But there the local authorities are not impressed by the ICC, not unlike the current government of Kenya. The detectives are locked up until they show their ICC paper. They are released. Simple as that.

  The bad guy uses diplomatic immunity, American, to drive through check points without getting his car searched. This week at the UN, Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Eduardo Del Buey about a Peruvian diplomatic to the UN now charged with human trafficking. Not our problem, Del Buey in essence said. Transcript here. And below.

  The idea of the ICC being used against immunity, though, brings to mind for example the UN's own immune Ruud Lubbers, here. Or why not the UN bringing cholera to Haiti?

  The whole thing makes one wonder why the ICC could do nothing -- nothing! -- about the killing of 40,000 civilians in Sri Lanka in 2009. There wasn't even much call for ICC involvement, unlike today in Syria. It's only TV. And that was a war without witnesses.

  One imagines a realistic show about the UN. One imagines. Watch this site.

  

From the UN's transcript of its June 26, 2013, noon briefing:

Inner City Press: could I ask you about a charge of human trafficking against a UN diplomat that works at the UN in the Peruvian Mission. And given --

Deputy Spokesperson Del Buey: Well, excuse me…

Inner City Press: Alright.

Deputy Spokesperson: He does not work at the UN.

Inner City Press: In the UN.

Deputy Spokesperson: He works for the Peruvian Mission.

Inner City Press: Okay, absolutely. He is a UN diplomat. My question is just, given the important of this topic to the Secretary-General and the Secretariat in general, does he take any interest in this case? Do they see this as a proper use of immunity? If the allegations are true is this a proper use of the term human trafficking and is there some concern that people work in the building, not for the UN, have you know, immunity that this may be a loophole for human trafficking?

Deputy Spokesperson: Well, we are not going to prejudge what happens until we have the information, Matthew.

Inner City Press: Right, but you will seek the information…?

Deputy Spokesperson: Well, we are…

Inner City Press: I mean, at some point?

Deputy Spokesperson: …we are obviously monitoring…

Inner City Press: Okay.

Deputy Spokesperson: …the situation, but as I said at the beginning, this… the reports we’ve seen are of a Peruvian diplomat assigned to the Peruvian Mission at the United Nations…

Inner City Press: Sure.

Deputy Spokesperson: …not a United Nations staff member…

Inner City Press: No, I understand.

Deputy Spokesperson: …not a member of the general Secretariat.

Inner City Press: Sure.