Iraq's Alhakim Says Turkish Move Into Iraq Was Illegal, Must Re Reversed, Conveying Bilaterally, to P5 Ambassadors in Baghdad

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 8 -- After the UN Security Council met behind closed doors on December 8 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...".

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.

Kerry Finds Syria's Mouallem in P5 Clubhouse, Source Tells ICP, Fabius Disconnect

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 30 -- Before US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov came to the UN Security Council stakeout after 5 pm on September 30, they had met in the clubhouse office of the Permanent Five members - with a third minister in the mix.

  Inner City Press was informed, and at 6:20 pm tweeted, that Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem had been in the P5 clubhouse when Kerry arrived; Kerry was "left waiting," Inner City Press was told.

  Once at the stakeout, Kerry said (fast transcribed by InnerCityPro)

 "Sergey has described the meeting we have had, which we would both agree was a constructive meeting. I relayed a reiterated the concerns I expressed in the course of the SC meeting which was led by Russia today. Concerns we have about the nature of the targets, the type of targets, and the need for clarity, and it is one thing to be targeting ISIL, we’re concerned that is not what’s happening .

 "So, as Sergey said, we agreed on the imperative of as soon as possible, perhaps even tomorrow, having a military to military deconfliction discussion, whatever can be done as soon as possible. Because we agreed on the urgency of the deconfliction.

 [Earlier on September 30, France's Laurent Fabius called it disconnection.]

"Secondly, we did discuss a numerb of different ways to address the conflict itsel.f  And several options were agreed to be further discussed. I need to take those back to Washington. And to the president, and our team. I’m sure Sergie will likewise discuss with President Putin and his team. And we will follow up on that, because we also agreed it is imperative to find a solution and avoid escalating in any way or seeing it intensify by forces beyond anyone’s control. And finally, the foreign minister and I agreed that even as we don’t have yet a resolution with respect ot some critical choices we think we have some very specific steps that may be able to lead in the right direction. That needs to be properly explored and so we finally agreed we have a lot of work to do, and we’re going to get to doing that work as rapidly as possible understanding fully how urgent this is, in the context of refugee,s and the impact on Europe, the impact on the region, and understanding also that we need to see Syria kept full, unified, secular, democratic. Thpse are big agreements in that regard, and now we need to work on getting ther. We wil stay in very close touch."

When French Foreign Minister  Fabius walked into the UN Security Council on September 30 he was asked about Russia's airstrikes in Syria. He did not answer. 

  But on almost no notice, he appeared in the UN Press Briefing Room later than morning, saying that France has three "conditions" for airstrikes. Inner City Press asked, three times, if Turkey's bombing of the Kurds meets France's conditions.  Video here.

 Fabius refused to answer, even as some scribes traveling with him noted he should answer.

  He'd said, in French (as transcribed by InnerCityPro - the French only send their transcription to some UN correspondents)

"Simplement, nous avions observe que il y avait des critiques formules, a l’egard de beaucoup, les americains, les francais, les autres, parce que nous ne serions pas efficases contre le daesh. Nous agissons. Et donc j’ai dis qu’il fallait agir contre le Daech. Et je maintiens toute a fait ca. Aujourd’hui il y a des actions qui sont menes. Il restera a voir contre qui elles sont menes. Si elles sont menees effectivement contre Daesh et les groupes terrorists, bien. Des lors que d’autres groupes ne sont pas vises. Et puis, ells doivent s’accompagner d’action pour empecher les bombaredment des population civils, et puis elles doivent s’accompagner aussi de la recherché d’une solution politique que je viens de definir. La France n’a pas changer d’opinion.
Si d’autre veulent agir contre le Daesh, il serons le bienvenue. Des l’ors que les 3 conditions de l’efficacite sont respecte."

  So does Turkey's blasting the Kurds meet the conditions?

As the Syrian Coalition becomes even more marginal on the Syria issue, during the General Assembly week it has again gone behind closed doors with the UN Censorship Alliance, like Ahmed al Jarba but not Hadi al Bahra, we note.

  With news of deployments inside Syria, and French president Hollande bragging about airstrikes, one would think current Syria Coalition president Khaled Khoja would want to speak to all journalists, webcast all over the world, in the UN briefing room.

 Especially now that he wants to speak against other airstrikes. 

But no. 

Reverting, the Syrian Coalition under Khoja has gone back behind closed doors, with UNCA, now known as the UN's Censorship Alliance. This is a group which has tried to get the investigative Press ejected, and which said nothing for example about Turkey's detention of three and now one Vice News journalist -- about which Inner City Press for the new Free UN Coalition for Access asked Turkish Prime Minister Davutoglu on September 28, here.

  Davutoglu didn't put his press conference, at which he took critical questions, behind closed doors. Are the Syrian Coalition and Khoja not ready for prime time? 

 They cancelled a September 29 presser, then rescheduled one on September 30. The UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric promoted it. But it is NOT a "UN" press conference. It is a scam.

 When Khaled Khoja, as then-new president of the Syrian National Coalition, held an actual UN press conference on April 29, Inner City Press asked him about the Free Syrian Army working with Jabhat al Nusra, and the UN reports that the FSA has recruited and used child soldiers.

  Khoja acknowledged that the FSA has had "tactical alliances" with al Nusra, for example in Idlib. He said the ties are exaggerated, including by "media of the regime." But given that Nusra is a UN-designated terrorist group, what to make of these alliances?

  The question on FSA child soldiers was not answered. Khoja said that the US train and equip program for now does not benefit the FSA. 

The sequel  show was also behind closed door, in the UN Censorship Alliance (UNCA), not on UNTV. This is the same UNCA which hosted former Syrian Coalition head Ahmad al Jarba, allowing him to claim he had a “UN press briefing.”  It is a scam.

  And so on April 24 Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Dujarric if Jarba's successor, after Hadi al Bahra, Khaled Khoja will hold a Q&A session in the open UN Press Briefing Room. We'll see.

    UNCA and its board members have, for example, sought to get other journalists thrown out of the UN, for reporting on the financial relationship of UNCA's then and now president Giampaolo Pioli with an alleged war criminal, accepting rent money from him and later agree to screen his war crimes denial film inside the UN, under the UNCA banner.  If one has a case to make, this is not the place to make it.

  Even since its outright censorship bid, the way UNCA is run gives less and less confidence. On April 10, the UN Spokesperson's Office announced over its public address system that "in a few short moments in the UNCA room there will be a press conference by a State Department official."

   But as Inner City Press immediately reported, it wasn't any "press conference" -- it was off the record spin, typical of this UNCA now known as the UN's Censorship Alliance (the invitation they send to those who pay UNCA money is below.)

  Just before 5 pm, the UN Spokesperson's Office made a second public address system announcement: it was NOT a press conference, but rather an off the record presentation by the US State Department.

  All this in the big room the UN gives to UNCA, its Censorship Alliance. Why is the UN involved in this in any way at all?

  The announcement by UNCA president Giampaolo Pioli, sent only to those who pay UNCA money (then forwarded to Inner City Press along with messages of shock and disgust) said

"For correspondents interested in an informal off-the-record meeting with [the] Deputy Director, Media Hub of the Americas, U.S. Department of State Bureau of Public Affairs, please join us in the UNCA Meeting Room, Friday, April 10th at 3:30pm.

"The meeting will be to explain the work of the State Department Public Affairs bureau that works with international media, to provide assistance in gaining better access to State Department officials and information, in addition to presenting the work done in the Media Hub of the Americas where the Director is the State Department spokesperson in Spanish and Portuguese for regional media and Spain and Portugal.

Thank you,

Giampaolo Pioli
UNCA President"

  
 Pioli's invite linked to a self-description of this US Bureau of Public Affairs, that “PA/IME works in close collaboration with State Department and interagency colleagues to create and manage tools to ensure accurate coverage of U.S. foreign policy by major international media.”

    UNCA represents only part of the UN press corps. This writer, for example, quit the group after 2012.  UNCA is said by UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric to receive the first question in the UN Press Briefing Room “by tradition,” even after UNCA's Executive Board tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN for its reporting about Sri Lanka, UN Peacekeeping and colonialism (Herve Ladsous) among other topics.

 UNCA did nothing when Ladsous adopted the policy of refusing to answer any questions from the investigative Press, and having his spokespeople physically grab the UNTV microphone to try to avoid the questions being heard.

  Now UNCA wants to facilitate “accurate coverage of U.S. foreign policy.” Does it perform this service for other countries?

    Inner City Press, like the new Free UN Coalition for Access which it co-founded after quitting UNCA, is not against "accurate coverage of US foreign policy." Last month, Inner City Press asked the US State Department about Yemen (including the decision not to evacuate Yemeni Americans from the country), Cuba (the US restrictions on its diplomats at the UN), the Maldives, Middle East and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In each case, Inner City Press reported the answers in full, where possible with video.

  But why provide this platform for one country and not others? Earlier on April 10 UNCA will have a presentation by a former US CIA employee who served in Saipan, Korea, Vietnam and "Burma," as the UNCA notice puts it.

  What has happened to this UNCA under Pioli and presumably current Executive Committee members from Reuters, the US Broadcast Board of Governors and ANSA? And how now can the UN continue to “partner” with UNCA, exclusively, using this partial group as a proxy for the wider press corps? 

 Earlier on April 9, when the UN with little notice canceled its question and answer noon briefing in deference to a "press encounter" with Ban Ki-moon at which Dujarric handpicked the questioners and Ban notably did not call for a halt or even pause in airstrikes on Yemen, UNCA said nothing. (They will, however, have a "Prosecco toast" with Ban later in the month.)

 The Free UN Coalition spoke up in criticism, as here. We'll have more on and of this.

   

On Syria ICC Referral Draft, Inner City Press Is Told P5 Hasn't Discussed, Doubt It Passes

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 8 -- After the breathless reporting on May 7 about the US and France agreeing to a cynically sculpted resolution aiming to refer to the International Criminal Court some of the conflict in some parts of Syria, and even then with an exclusion for nationals of all non ICC members expect Syria, Inner City Press asked questions on May 8.

  Inner City Press is reliably informed that there has as yet been no discussion among the Permanent Five members of the Security Council about the draft; one member exclusively told Inner City Press, I don't think it will be passed.

  The issue also came up at the US State Department's May 8 briefing, where spokesperson Jen Psaki said the US supports the draft. She was asked about the occupied territory of the Golan Heights, but not about the full scope and cynicism of the carve outs.

  In 2011 when the Security Council referred the situation in Libya to the ICC, the US demanded and got a similar but narrowed carve-out (Libya has no Golan Heights and therefore no Israel issue). Even so, Brazil threatened to abstain based on the cynicism of the US carve-out, as Inner City Press covered here.

  So is the assumption that the current Elected Ten members of the Security Council are all less principled than Brazil in 2011?

  In the rush to make the US position seem principled or progressive, or newsworthy when a veto by Russia or China would make the whole charade an exercise in P3 feel-good while Assad reclaimed Homs, are these questions not even being asked?

  Needing this level of impunity shows a lack of confidence in the ICC. The message is, the ICC can be sicced on one's enemies, but only if one's friends are protected. The ICC is a tool.

  In terms of sourcing, if it is said that the US and France -- fresh off its stealth and non-admitted opposition to mere human rights monitoring in Western Sahara -- refused to comment on their game, who else could be the source? P3 minutes two equals what?

  Back in 2011, while publicly calling for an end to impunity, the US at a Council experts' meeting on the morning of February 26 demanded the following paragraph:

6. Decides that nationals, current or former officials or personnel from a State outside the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya which is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of that State for all alleged acts or omissions arising out of or related to operations in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya established or authorized by the Council, unless such exclusive jurisdiction has been expressly waived by the State.

  When the resolution was adopted later that day -- after Security Council ambassadors quietly attended a Chinese circus before the 8 pm vote -- Inner City Press asked French Ambassador Gerard Araud about the paragraph. (In 2014, Araud who is now slated to leave in July denied ever opposing human rights monitoring in Western Sahara, a position an African member of the Council during Araud tenure laughed at.)

  Of the Libay carve-out, applicable to the prospective Syria carve-out, Araud said in 2011, “that was for one country, it was absolutely necessary for one country to have that considering its parliamentary constraints, and this country we are in. It was a red line for the United States. It was a deal-breaker, and that's the reason we accepted this text to have the unanimity of the Council.”

  That day, Inner City Press was not called on to ask Ambassador Rice about the paragraph, and so wrote a story with Araud's quote and the paragraph.

On March 1, 2011 outside the UN General Assembly, Inner City Press managed to ask Rice:

Inner City Press: Can I ask you a question about the Security Council resolution? (inaudible) On the Security Council resolution that passed Saturday, some have now raised a question about the US asking for that paragraph six, which exempts Americans, and, I guess, others, anyone that's not an ICC member, from referral and prosecution by the ICC. They say it undercuts international law-Brazil said it, now the head of the Rome Statute grouping of member states said it. Why did the US ask for that? And don't you see a downside to saying there's no impunity if you are excluding people from referral?

Ambassador Rice: No, I don't see a downside. As you well know, the United States is not a party and we have thought it important, if we were going to, for the first time, affirmatively support such a resolution, to make sure that is was clear the limitations as to who jurisdiction applied to. That's why we supported that phrase. Your assertion and that of others that somehow this provides a pass for mercenaries, I think, is completely misplaced. I don't think that the International Criminal Court is going to spend its time and effort on foot soldiers that have been paid small amounts of money by Qadhafi. They're going to focus on the big fish, so I think your interest was misplaced.

  Counting on the ICC not to prosecute a certain size of killer seemed and seems a bit strange. Watch this site.

   

In Dysfuncational UN Elections, Staff Union On-Again, Off-Again as in Cote d'Ivoire; Samsung UN Censorship Alliance Cite Ethics

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 9 -- Of two elections scheduled this coming week in the UN, the one in the UN Staff Union has new developments each day; the other smugly does not want to be covered. 

  Days before the Union election, as Inner City Pressreported while publishing the announcement, an attempt was made to "recall the polling officers."  Now that has been rejected, by the Chairperson of the Polling Officers:

Subject: Message from the Polling Officers
From: Polling Officers UNSU
Date: Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 6:36 PM

To All Staff Members of the United Nations Secretariat in New York

Last Friday night, 6 December 2013, a recall of the Polling Officers by the Group of Unit Chairpersons was broadcast to all staff from the official email account of the United Nations Staff Union, one hour after the Polling Officers have issued a statement clarifying the circumstances surrounding the nomination and determination of the ineligibility of the President of the Union.

The Polling Officer are greatly concerned that the Group of Unit Chairpersons which normally meets once every other blue moon, and had been late 6 months in electing the Polling Officers, has already had two emergency meetings within a week for the sole purpose to postpone the election.

The Polling Officers would like to assure the staff that the election of the Leadership and 45th Staff Council will be held as scheduled, on 10 and 11 December 2013.

  This back and forth has echoes of the election in Cote d'Ivoire that led to military intervention. By contrast, no Permanent Five members of the Security Council has enough of an interest here for even a public relations intervention, thus far.

   The other "election" -- though four of the six top posts are clean slates with no competition --  is of the UN Correspondents Association, whose more than a dozenboard members participated in efforts to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN. 

  Nothing has been reformed since; tactics in 2013 devolved into anonymous social media trolling and counterfeit Twitter accounts of the new Free UN Coalition for Access and of Inner City Press.

   An argument is made that the 2013 president of UNCA, Pamela Falk of CBS, is somehow not responsible for this, for trolling done under her watch, and for heading an organization which functions as the UN's Censorship Alliance. This is contrary to the very "command responsibility" principles the two top candidates awaiting coronation have espoused. 

  The decision to accept "through" the UN a Samsung television is defended by referring to some vibrant debate, although there is no record of a vote being taken or even who was present for the debate.  

  Unaccountability is increasingly pervasive throughout the UN, in ways as small as this and large, for example on the scandal of UN Peacekeeping having brought cholera to Haiti and now refusing to even accept (or confirm denying) service of legal papers.

  At least in the UN Staff Union, when it was claimed last week that a vote was taken to recall the poll officers, a request was made for the names of who voted which way. 

  In the UN's Censorship Alliance,  as documented by ongoing Freedom of Information Act requests including to Voice of America, "UNCA" reached out to the UN to seek the expulsion of Inner City Press without any vote even having been taken.

  There have been no reforms since -- but again, a re-coronation of Pamela Falk of CBS as the 2014 president of UNCA,now known as the UN Censorship Alliance, is set for next week. 

  A midnight defense has been mounted, that Falk has not "done anything" to anyone. But in 2013, she was asked to reign in those UNCA "leaders" who used the organization to try to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN, as they descended into anonymous trolling social media accounts, counterfeiting the new Free UN Coalition for Access and then Inner City Press.

  Falk's reaction in an on the record meeting was to demand that she not be written about, despite having sought this position, and putting herself forward at every opportunity to ask softball questions the answers to which are most often not published anywhere. Audio here, here and here.

  That United Nations Correspondents Association election also involves indicters and purported judges, and the Reuters successor to the scribe who spied (click here for that). That spying for the UN was done by UNCA first vice president and has not been addressed or acted on in any way. Such an organization is in no position to preach on ethics, journalistic or any other kind.

  This UN Censorship Alliance has just accepted a free Samsung TV, hiding behind the UN's own argument that this is fine. Here's Falk's explanation of UNCA's November 25 "General Meeting" with nowhere near quorum, as provided by an outraged member (Inner City Press quit UNCA and co-founded the Free UN Coalition for Access, yes, FUNCA):

"There was discussion about whether or not UNCA should receive a donation from Samsung and whether or not a Mission was involved. DPI was able to clarify the donation information, which does not involve a mission. This note was received: This is to confirm that once we get the donations from Samsung to the UN, DPI will loan a TV screen to UNCA to replace one of your old ones."

   Now it's said a vibrant debate took place. But only a handful of names are listed as attending, and no vote was taken because there was no quorum for a general meeting.  

Now this UNCA is poised to raise money, $250 a plate, for an event Ban Ki-moon is set to attend, after fielding softball questions two days earlier from his hosts (or censors). Can you say, conflict of interest? And this is another way that senior UN officials remain unaccountable. Watch this site.

   

Blogsclusive: Before Kenya ICC meeting, France & UK Et Al Locked Out of P5 Room, African Union Arguments

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, October 30 -- The evening before the UN Security Council's interactive dialogue on the African Union's request that the Council defer the Kenya cases of the International Criminal Court, two groups huddled in rooms next to each other, planning the morrow's action.

French and UK Permanent Representatives Araud and Lyall Grant arrived, but were unable to get into their P5 clubhouse, along with US Ambassador Jeff de Laurentis and representatives of Australia, Luxembourg, Guatemala. Inner City Press photos here, here and here.

  Some joked this was a form of Security Council reform, at least of Working Methods, of a kind unlikely to be seen for while.

Finally UN Security was summoned - nothing had been scheduled - and they were let in.

Next door in the Security Council's suite ministers from Ethiopia, Uganda and elsewhere waited. Several came out and spoke exclusively with Inner City Press. Not to defer, they said, would threaten peace and security. Kenyan troops in in Somalia. There was the mall attack.

One said it would be "like putting Bush and Cheney in front of the ICC right after 9/11." Some might not have minded that - but it would never happen. The US is not a member of the Rome Statute of the ICC, and the US has a veto on the Security Council.

How can the West say no? Watch this site.

   

On DR Congo, France Said "Our Own Come First," Rwanda Insisted Civilian Deaths Be In UNSC Statement Too; ICJ Footnote

By Matthew Russell Lee, With exclusive audio

UNITED NATIONS, October 28 -- When the UN Security Council met about Eastern Congo at France's request on Monday afternoon, France proposed a press statement only on the death of a Tanzanian member of the UN's Force Intervention Brigade.

  Rwanda counter-proposed a longer statement but was told those issues could be considered later. Rwanda agreed to that, but held firm that the death of Rwandans by shelling from the DRC should be included.

   Inner City Press is informed that Rwanda directly challenged the idea that the UN Security Council should first and foremost be concerned with "one of our own." Rwanda said that its citizens are people too.

   While it was France which made the proposal, and holds the pen (and more) on DRC, there was an attempt to make this fight one of Rwanda against the Troop Contributing Countries. 

  But Rwanda is one of the largest TCCs, and said they would have no objection, if one of their peacekeepers were killed in Darfur, to including civilians in a press statement. There are no first and second class citizens, Rwanda said.

  It's worth nothing that not all TCCs have UN Peacekeeping missions in or next to their countries.

  Rwanda then suggested that two statement be issued. France, to avoid that, agree to include those killed in Rwanda -- and in the DRC -- in "their" statement, below (along with footnote on the International Court of Justice "private" meeting of Monday.)
condolences for the loss of civilian lives in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and in Rwanda following shells landing on its territory."]

    On Friday the UN Security Council expressed concern about renewed hostilities in Eastern Congo, called for "maximum restraint and de-escalation" and for a political solution. Video here.

   Inner City Press asked if the UN Mission MONUSCO was involved in the fighting and was told, by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon spokesperson, no.

  On Sunday UN envoy Martin Kobler announced that a member of MONUSCO's Force Intervention Brigade or "FIB" had been killed -- how that happened without being involved remains UNclear. Then Kobler toured land re-taken by the Congolese Army which the UN supports, even in the face of mass rape.

  On Monday in front of the Security Council, French Permanent Representative Gerard Araud told the Press about the weekend's developments in the Eastern Congo, "What is happening is great. It is the collapse of the rebels... The DRC army is restoring the sovereignty of the country. It is exactly what we were hoping for."  Exclusive audio here.

  How is this consistent with the Security Council's calls, agreed to and actually drafted by France which "hold the pen" for the Council on the DRC, for "restraint" and for a political solution through the Kampala talks?

  Or some now ask, were those calls just lies or a diversion, at least for some that agreed to or issued them?

  When the Security Council traveled recently to Eastern Congo, France was allowed to hand-pick which media could go on the UN plane and cover the trip. These scribes, predictably, are not raising or reporting these questions.

  Inner City Press asked: will Kobler take and at last answer questions? Or has he fully inhabited the character of his boss Herve Ladsous, who refuses Press questions? Video here,UK coverage here. Here is Ladsous' history in the Great Lakes region, for France.

  We note, in real time, a Kobler response to the Press late Monday, that "now the work starts." Inner City Press said "merci" and asked what's the plan to go after the FDLR?

  Here is another question. Araud said, of the weekend's fighting, "It is exactly what we were hoping for." Who is the "we"? The Security Council? UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous? France? Is there any difference between the latter two? Watch this site.

Footnote: In the private meeting on the ICJ, the question was raised why among the 15 judges each of the Permanent Five members always gets one. That is not in the charter. There was no convincing answer. We'll have more on this.

As emailed out by UN past 5 pm:

Security Council Press statement – attacks against MONUSCO

The members of the Security Council condemned in the strongest terms the attacks by M23 rebel group against the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission (MONUSCO) in North Kivu in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, killing one Tanzanian peacekeeper.

The members of the Security Council expressed their condolences to the family of the peacekeeper killed in the attack, as well as to the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania and to MONUSCO. They called on the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo swiftly to investigate the incident and bring the perpetrators to justice.

They also expressed their condolences for the loss of civilian lives in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and in Rwanda following shells landing on its territory.

The members of the Security Council reiterated their full support for MONUSCO and called on all parties to cooperate fully with the mission.

28 October 2013 

   

From Syria, UN Tells Inner City Press That Translators Left and that Ban Ki-moon Respects Elected Ten of UNSC, & Asks for Evidence: Turkish Delight

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 30 -- On Syria, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's office put back Friday's "noon" briefing to 12:30, to report on Ban's meeting with the Permanent Five members of the Security Council. 

 But Ban's spokesperson Martin Nesirky read-out only only Ban's words, not for example those of US Ambassador Samantha Power, who declined questions on the way in and out.

  Inner City Press asked Nesirky what Ban thinks of countries like Turkey and the US which make public summaries of what they call evidence of Assad's guilt for what happened in Ghouta. Nesirky said Ban has encouraged countries to share their evidence with the UN. Video herefrom Minute 11:40.

  So Inner City Press asked if Turkey (or, say, the US) have in fact shared information with the UN. The fact Nesirky repeated that Ban encourages them to seems to imply they have not.

  Amid reports of some of the UN chemical weapons team already leaving Syria, Inner City Press asked if it is true some left for Lebanon.. Nesirky said yes, but only translators and interpreters. Apparently on the inspectors' final day, these are not necessary?

  Later Inner City Press asked about the phrase Ban's associate spokesperson Farhan Haq used in an answer to the Press this week: that the UN team will construct an "evidence based narrative." Does that mean, where the missiles came from?

  Nesirky said it means statements by witnesses and survivors. Okay - would this include those in the military hospital the team just visited? Nesirky would not say if those inside were soldiers, citing medical privacy. (We've reported that in the Eastern Congo the UN obtained medical records of victims of rapes committed by the UN's partners in the Congolese Army's 391 and 41 Battalions.) 

  But did these interviews respond to Syria's requests to inspect three new sites, Bahariya on August 22, Jobar on August 24 and Ashrafiyat Sahnaya on August 25?

After John Kerry delivered a slightly delayed statement including calling France the US' oldest ally, two Senior Administration Officials told the press that the US has the evidence, including from NGOs. 

  One official spoke of "geo spacial" evidence, then mentioned gas masks. The second official mused that Assad had wanted to knock out opposition around Damascus, to "invest" in a campaign on Aleppo.

  In the Q&A session, Reuters wanted to know why Obama hasn't made a decision to bomb Damascus yet.

  Reference was made to Obama speaking about Syria with three allies, who turned out to be the Baltics of Estonia, Lithuania & Latvia. At the UN one wondered that Obama, if only as a fluke of scheduling, could speak to countries like these while Ban spoke only to the Permanent Five.

  Back at the UN, Inner City Press asked why Ban had convened only the Permanent Five? Some elected non-permanent members of the Council have complained to Inner City Press they were left out, not even shown the UK draft resolution.

  Nesirky said Ban told the Presidency -- for now, Argentina - that he is willing to brief the full Council. Video here, from Minute 28:22.

 Still to some, proceeding this way unnecessarily magnifies the power of the Five.

Ban will leave New York again on Tuesday. Will he meet the elected Ten before then? Will the US bomb Syria before that? Watch this site.