As Ban Ki-moon Nears Uzbekistan, Inner City Press' Urlaeva Question UNanswered, Ban's UN Self-Interview

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 9 -- As UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, embroiled in a scandal of his UN covering up alleged child rapes by French peacekeeping soldiers in the Central African Republic, on a long trip through Central Asia then for murky talks on Yemen in Geneva on June 14, the question remains whether he will raise human rights issues in the countries he visits.

   Back on June 4, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric, video here, transcript here: and below, about the case of Elena Urlaeva in Uzbekistan. Dujarric said "We're looking into it" - but has not answered on it in the five days since.

  Ban, for whom answering press questions at UN headquarters is more and more rare, did an "interview" with his own UN News Center about this trip, before he left. The Free UN Coalition for Access finds this a dubious practice.

Here's from the UN's June 4 transcript:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask you about Uzbekistan.  In light of the Secretary-General's trip, and just generally, there's been a pretty high-profile arrest and abuse of a human rights defender, Elena Urlaeva, who is known to document forced labor in cotton fields there.  She was arrested, subject to cavity searches, X-rays.  A number of human rights groups have spoken against it.  And I wonder, one, is the Secretary-General aware of it?  And, two, is this the type of issue…?

Spokesman Dujarric:  We've seen the reports.  The Secretary-General will very much bring up the issue of human rights on his… on every stop in the region.  You know, the human rights record in the region is mixed.  That's evident.  We obviously welcome the engagement of these countries with the UN human rights machinery.  The Secretary-General will tell his… reiterate to his interlocutors the importance of working with that machinery, offering the UN's help in working to implement the recommendations of the Human Rights Council.  I think by the end of 2016, all the countries will have gone through the Universal Periodic Review.  We also have a human rights centre in Dushanbe, which is there to help, as well.  And he will also make the point of the importance of civil society, of a free civil society that can operate, so the human rights issues will be raised.

Inner City Press:  But, on this particularly kind of pretty high-profile case, does he have a view of the arrest and some would say torture of this activist?

Spokesman:  Obviously, we're… we're… we're looking into it but it's clear that civil society groups in every country need to be able to operate freely.

   We'll continue to watch how Ban addresses these issues during his travel - and after.


Inner City Press also asked about the Rohingya:

Inner City Press:  Rohingya question?  The Asian Centre for Human Rights put out a report blaming not just the Government of Bangladesh but the UN/UNHCR [Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees] for failure to register up to 2,000 Rohingya within the country, which it says makes them much more susceptible to trafficking because they don't have the stature… they haven't been registered by the UN system.  So, I wonder, is there some reason that UNHCR or the UN system to the level of Mr. [Vijay] Nambiar and the people working on it…

Spokesman:  Let me look into that specific report.

   Ten hours later, there had been no response. Watch this site.
   

UN Says It's Ukraine's Call If It Pulls 600 Troops from Peacekeeping, UN's Call on Elections If-Asked, Whispered to UN News Center

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 30 -- After Ukrainian defense official Andriy Ordinovych said that the country's 18 helicopter crews might be recalled from UN Peacekeeping missions to take part in operations in Eastern Ukraine, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric about it.Video here.

  On helicopters, Dujarric said he was not aware of any talks. Later on May 30 his office sent this to Inner City Press:

From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Fri, May 30, 2014 at 2:59 PM
Subject: Your question on Ukraine
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] innercitypress.com

The UN relies on the voluntary contributions of Member States for boots on the ground and equipment. Decisions as to whether specific units are withdrawn belong, ultimately, to the responsible national authorities. Approximately 600 Peacekeepers from Ukraine continue to serve in our various operations around the globe. Ukrainian personnel are valuable and highly-skilled and play important roles in implementing our mandates in our Missions, and we continue to remain grateful for their service and contributions.

  Inner City Press also on May 30 asked UN Spokesman Dujarric why he had confined Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's comment on the May 25 election to an "if-asked" he read out only part of when Inner City Press asked on May 27.  Dujarric replied, "I'm the one at the podium, it's my call." Video here.

Background: On May 27, the first UN work day after the voting in Ukraine, Inner City Press went to the UN's noon briefing and asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Stephane Dujarric:

Inner City Press: I wanted to know if the UN has any position on the jets bombing and strafing around Donetsk in Ukraine and the ultimatum to surrender or be killed that’s been issued by Government, as well as the death of an Italian and Russian journalist over the weekend.

Spokesman Dujarric: The Secretary-General is alarmed by the continuing violence that we’ve seen in the east over the weekend where clashes in Donetsk, as you said, left dozens dead. The Secretary-General urged that the restoration of State control over Government facilities be achieved through exclusively peaceful means, including an inclusive political dialogue. And obviously, we very much regret the deaths of the journalists who were killed covering the story.

Inner City Press: Does that mean that “surrender or die”... by the Government or the Government waiting for the new President, that this is something that the UN doesn’t support?

Spokesman Dujarric: I think what I’ve just said is that the Secretary-General urged that restoration of State control over Government facilities be achieved through exclusively peaceful means, including an inclusive political dialogue.

  During the May 27 briefing, Dujarric made no comment on the election in Ukraine, and no comment or “off the cuff” statement from Ban Ki-moon went up on the UN's website.

  But the UN News Center reported:

27 May 2014 – While welcoming the “generally peaceful” nature of Ukraine’s weekend presidential elections, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today expressed concern that eligible voters in some parts of the county’s crisis torn eastern region were not allowed to participate in the national poll.

“The Secretary-General welcomes the fact that polling in most of Ukraine took place in a generally peaceful and orderly manner and largely in line with international standards and fundamental freedoms, according to a number of national and international monitors,” according to a statement read out be a UN spokesperson.

At the same time however, Mr. Ban is concerned that eligible voters were denied the right to vote in parts of eastern Ukraine, said the statement, echoing media reports suggesting polling irregularities and disruptions in the east, which has seen a wave of anti-Government sentiment over the past two months.

“The SG is alarmed by continuing violence in the east, where clashes in Donetsk left dozens dead yesterday,” the statement went on to say, adding that the UN chief urged that restoration of State control over Government facilities be achieved through exclusively peaceful means, including an inclusive political dialogue.

This line, “generally peaceful,” was picked up by the Saudi Press Agency; the UN News Center (English) article was quickly put up on the website of the UN in Ukraine.

  But where was the line said, or “read out b[y] a UN spokesperson”? 

  Inner City Press looked on the UN Spokesperson's website: not there. So at the May 29 noon briefing, as spokesman Dujarric tried to end the briefing after only two questions, Inner City Press asked.

  Dujarric replied that the statement was read out to “some of your colleagues” in the hallway. Moments later he e-mailed this to Inner City Press, as “shared language” --

The Secretary-General welcomes the fact that polling in Ukraine took place in a generally peaceful and orderly manner and largely in line with international standards and fundamental freedoms, according a number of national and international monitors.

The Secretary-General is concerned, however, that eligible voters were denied the right to vote in parts of eastern Ukraine.

The Secretary-General is alarmed by continuing violence in the east, where clashes in Donetsk left dozens dead yesterday. He urged that restoration of state control over government facilities be achieved through exclusively peaceful means, including an inclusive political dialogue.

  Inner City Press asked, If this was a prepared statement, why was it not read out in the briefing room and put on the SG's or Spokeperson's web site?

  Dujarric replied, “It was an if asked.”

  But why would the UN make its statement on the Ukraine election an If-Asked?

  It appears that when no one asked in the briefing room, somehow Dujarric got asked by... UN News Center? So, a cynic might conclude, the UN can arrange to be asked by its own media.

  Note that the UN News Center Russia page reversed the If-Asked “shared language” to start with the last part, more palatable to Russia:

27/05/2014 - UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is alarmed by reports of continued violence in the east of Ukraine, particularly in Donetsk, where dozens of people were killed. This was announced by his press secretary Stephen Dyuzharrik. "Secretary-General strongly resembles that restoration of state control agencies should be only through peaceful means, including an inclusive political dialogue" - a spokesman said at a press briefing on Tuesday. Secretary General welcomed the fact that "the vote in many parts of Ukraine took place in a peaceful manner, in accordance with international standards and ensuring fundamental freedoms, as reported by a number of national and international observers." Meanwhile, the head of the UN is concerned that in some parts of eastern Ukraine. legitimate voters were denied their right to vote. Dyuzharrik Stephen noted that the United Nations deeply regrets the deaths of journalists covering the events in Ukraine. He expressed hope that the issue of protection of journalists will be reflected in the next report of the UN mission to monitor the situation of human rights in the country. According to media reports, in eastern Ukraine were killed Italian journalist Andrea Rokkelli and his Russian translator Andrei Mironov.

This is a scam, that the Free UN Coalition for Access is opposing. Watch this site.

   

On Ukraine, UN Whispered Praise of Election to Its Own UN News Center, Switched Message to its Russian Language Service

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 29 -- Back on May 27, the first UN work day after the voting in Ukraine, Inner City Press went to the UN's noon briefing and asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Stephane Dujarric:

Inner City Press: I wanted to know if the UN has any position on the jets bombing and strafing around Donetsk in Ukraine and the ultimatum to surrender or be killed that’s been issued by Government, as well as the death of an Italian and Russian journalist over the weekend.

Spokesman Dujarric: The Secretary-General is alarmed by the continuing violence that we’ve seen in the east over the weekend where clashes in Donetsk, as you said, left dozens dead. The Secretary-General urged that the restoration of State control over Government facilities be achieved through exclusively peaceful means, including an inclusive political dialogue. And obviously, we very much regret the deaths of the journalists who were killed covering the story.

Inner City Press: Does that mean that “surrender or die”... by the Government or the Government waiting for the new President, that this is something that the UN doesn’t support?

Spokesman Dujarric: I think what I’ve just said is that the Secretary-General urged that restoration of State control over Government facilities be achieved through exclusively peaceful means, including an inclusive political dialogue.

  During the May 27 briefing, Dujarric made no comment on the election in Ukraine, and no comment or “off the cuff” statement from Ban Ki-moon went up on the UN's website.

  But the UN News Center reported:

27 May 2014 – While welcoming the “generally peaceful” nature of Ukraine’s weekend presidential elections, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today expressed concern that eligible voters in some parts of the county’s crisis torn eastern region were not allowed to participate in the national poll.

“The Secretary-General welcomes the fact that polling in most of Ukraine took place in a generally peaceful and orderly manner and largely in line with international standards and fundamental freedoms, according to a number of national and international monitors,” according to a statement read out be a UN spokesperson.

At the same time however, Mr. Ban is concerned that eligible voters were denied the right to vote in parts of eastern Ukraine, said the statement, echoing media reports suggesting polling irregularities and disruptions in the east, which has seen a wave of anti-Government sentiment over the past two months.

“The SG is alarmed by continuing violence in the east, where clashes in Donetsk left dozens dead yesterday,” the statement went on to say, adding that the UN chief urged that restoration of State control over Government facilities be achieved through exclusively peaceful means, including an inclusive political dialogue.

This line, “generally peaceful,” was picked up by the Saudi Press Agency; the UN News Center (English) article was quickly put up on the website of the UN in Ukraine.

  But where was the line said, or “read out b[y] a UN spokesperson”? 

  Inner City Press looked on the UN Spokesperson's website: no there. So at the May 29 noon briefing, as spokesman Dujarric tried to end the briefing after only two questions, Inner City Press asked.

  Dujarric replied that the statement was read out to “some of your colleagues” in the hallway. Moments later he e-mailed this to Inner City Press, as “shared language” --

The Secretary-General welcomes the fact that polling in Ukraine took place in a generally peaceful and orderly manner and largely in line with international standards and fundamental freedoms, according a number of national and international monitors.

The Secretary-General is concerned, however, that eligible voters were denied the right to vote in parts of eastern Ukraine.

The Secretary-General is alarmed by continuing violence in the east, where clashes in Donetsk left dozens dead yesterday. He urged that restoration of state control over government facilities be achieved through exclusively peaceful means, including an inclusive political dialogue.

  Inner City Press asked, If this was a prepared statement, why was it not read out in the briefing room and put on the SG's or Spokeperson's web site?

  Dujarric replied, “It was an if asked.”

  But why would the UN make its statement on the Ukraine election an If-Asked?

  It appears that when no one asked in the briefing room, somehow Dujarric got asked by... UN News Center? So, a cynic might conclude, the UN can arrange to be asked by its own media.

  Note that the UN News Center Russia page reversed the If-Asked “shared language” to start with the last part, more palatable to Russia:

27/05/2014 - UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is alarmed by reports of continued violence in the east of Ukraine, particularly in Donetsk, where dozens of people were killed. This was announced by his press secretary Stephen Dyuzharrik. "Secretary-General strongly resembles that restoration of state control agencies should be only through peaceful means, including an inclusive political dialogue" - a spokesman said at a press briefing on Tuesday. Secretary General welcomed the fact that "the vote in many parts of Ukraine took place in a peaceful manner, in accordance with international standards and ensuring fundamental freedoms, as reported by a number of national and international observers." Meanwhile, the head of the UN is concerned that in some parts of eastern Ukraine. legitimate voters were denied their right to vote. Dyuzharrik Stephen noted that the United Nations deeply regrets the deaths of journalists covering the events in Ukraine. He expressed hope that the issue of protection of journalists will be reflected in the next report of the UN mission to monitor the situation of human rights in the country. According to media reports, in eastern Ukraine were killed Italian journalist Andrea Rokkelli and his Russian translator Andrei Mironov.

This is a scam, that the Free UN Coalition for Access is opposing. Watch this site.

   

On Syria, UN News Centre Air-Brushes Free Syrian Army Child Soldiers From Report, Cover Up Like Reuters

By Matthew Russell Lee, Follow Up on Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, February 6 -- A week after Inner City Press first quoted the UN report on Syria and child soldiers, and that the Free Syrian Army recruits and uses them (from Paragraph 12), the UN's own "UN News Centre" belatedly put out 800 words about the report.

  But tellingly, three words NOT in the UN News Centre report are "Free Syrian Army." The US has resisted addressing this, because they support the FSA, now contrary to Congress' 2008 Child Soldiers Prevention Act.

  But should the UN be burying this part of its own report, a report that was ready but not put on the UN's website until after the Geneva II round of Syria talks?

  As Inner City Press reported in September, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon hosted Syria rebel and FSA supporter Ahmad al Jarbar at Ban's residence, quietly -- without notice in the UN Media Alert and with no independent, only UN in-house media there. 

   The United Nations Correspondents Association used the big room Ban's UN gives them to host a faux "UN briefing" for Jarba in July 2013. Reuters, which has in essence a Permanent seat on the UNCA board, was six days late in selectively re-typing the UN Syria child soldiers report, contrary to their gleeful pre-spin, for example, of reports alleging Rwandan support of the M23.

  FSA? What FSA?

  UNICEF director Tony Lake, former US National Security Adviser, spoke out yesterday about the UN report on child soldiers in Syria. But he neglects to mention that the Free Syrian Army, supported by the US and many countries on the UNICEF board, is shown to recruit and use child soldiers.

  After 6 pm on February 5 UNICEF put this out:

The grave violations against children cited in the report demand a response. UNICEF joins the Secretary General in calling for an immediate end to the targeting of innocent children and civilians, including the use of weapons that cause indiscriminate and disproportionate harm, such as those employed in a deadly wave of attacks across Aleppo this week.

In a meeting of the UNICEF Executive Board today, UNICEF Executive Director Anthony Lake said that all those involved in the conflict and those who have influence over them have an obligation to do everything possible to protect children from violence – violence that is not of children’s making, and in which they should play no part.

     Just as the US is trying not to directly answer on the implications of the FSA portion of the report, under the 2008 US Child Soldiers Prevention Act, UNICEF does not mention this aspect. But might they act on it? Yesterday, Lake answered Inner City Press' question on the looting and use of UNICEF backpacks by the army of South Sudan, a US ally, video here.

   Amid reports that the US already provides or is ready to provide aid to armed groups in Syria like the Free Syrian Army (FSA), on January 29 Inner City Press first highlightedand then on January 30 asked the US Mission to the UN a finding in the UN's then-unpublished report on Children and Armed Conflict in Syria:

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

  The US has cited the recruitment and use of child soldiers to suspend US aid to armies of governments which had previously been receiving it.  Inner City Press asked, so how could the US provide aid to a non-state group which even the UN has found using child soldiers?

  The US Mission to the UN was asked, orally and then in writing, on January 29. Another mission said it would only comment after the report was published and became official.

  On February 4, the UK Mission to the UN provided this response to Inner City Press:

"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."

    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 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?"

  Now we add: (in) consistent with the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008.

 The report, now issued as a document of the UN Security Council under the symbol S/2014/31, goes on to recount:

"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 as to the US and the recent report it is or is moving toward aiding the armed FSA, what steps will be taken on this UN report? Watch this site.

Footnote: While the US does sometimes answer questions, and is often pleasant as for example on a recent inquiry with the State Department about Sri Lanka, too often it does not. 

  The US Mission never provided an explanation of what several Security Council members told Inner City Press theUS Mission had said about its "policy" on how to described the Rwanda genocide; the State Department in Washington appears to have a policy of limiting its most timely information alternatively to "mainstream" -- often meaning dying or pro-Administration -- media and to those which support its positions.  But we will keep asking. Watch this site.

   

In UN Language Games, Its Russian News Service Quotes Syria FM, Its English News Does Not

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 22 -- When UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had an "oral" (mis) understanding with Iran's foreign minister Javad Zarif resulting in Ban disinviting Iran to the Syria talks, some wrote it off to language problems.

  But Ban's UN does not appear innocent in its use of different languages. By the afternoon of January 22 at UN headquarters in New York, the UN's Russian language News Center had a story repeating what Syrian foreign minister Moallem had said in Montreux. Click here to view; use browser translation.

Syrian Foreign Minister: any outcome of the negotiations will be the subject of a national referendum

22.01.2014 - Today, at the opening of the World Conference on Syria in Montreux made Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem, He said that the results of the negotiations will be submitted to a referendum and called a number of states to stop supporting terrorists in his country. "We arrived here to represent the people and the country. Yes, Mr. Kerry U.S. Secretary of State), everyone should understand that nobody in the world except the Syrians, has no right to deny the legitimacy or confer legitimacy of the president or the government, the constitution or the law, or anything else in Syria. This - the right and constitutional duty. And everything that we agree here, will be the subject of a national referendum."

  But at the same time, the UN's main English language News Centre had no story on Moallem's speech. Click here. Does the UN think that this "tell them what they want to hear" editorial policy makes up for the disinvitation and double standards?

  Inner City Press previously exposed a similar double-game by the UN News Center when six Latin American foreign ministers came to New York. So this now is a pattern, that the Free UN Coalition for Access, seeking to make the UN transparent, is now taking up. We'll have more on this. 

Ending the Syria speeches in Montreux on January 22, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called them "productive." Then his spokesperson accused some non-Western media of being "disrespectful of the Secretary General of the UN," after he gave the last two questions to Bloomberg and NHK.  How was it productive?

   Even before the afternoon session began, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius took to the Montreux stakeout to say Syrian foreign minister Moallem was "aggressive." This is the same Fabius who in September at the UN declared Ahmad al Jarba the leader of the Syrian people, and refused to take critical questions from the media including about his country's practices.

   Australia was represented not by foreign minister Julie Bishop but rather its Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Peter Woolcott (who also chairs a humanitarian high level group on Syria, it's been pointed out to Inner City Press.).  Bishop is on Washington, and soon New York. 

   Ahmad al Jarba spoke next to last, thanking Saudi Arabia, viewed as his sponsor, as if in an Oscars speech. Ban Ki-moon wrapped up, calling it productive and asking the assembled (hand-picked, without Iran) minister to "wish [him] luck" as he went to speak to the media. 

  There, the questions were chosen much as they are at the UN in New York, as documented and critiqued by the Free UN Coalition for Access -- but in Montreux, this was actively protested. (FUNCA also questioned the UN citing Ban's press conference as a basis to cancel its noon briefing in New York, on South Sudan, Central African Republic, Mali and other countries in which the UN is at least somewhat less marginal or US dominated.)

  When John Kerry held his press conference, only four questions were taken: CBS, a Turkish media, BBC and Al Hurra, on whose Broadcasting Board of Governors John Kerry himself serves. Freedom of the press at today's US State Department we covered yesterday, here.

After the UN's craven reversal on including Iran in the Syria session in Montreux, it has turned out to be a series of speeches mostly by countries significantly less important to that conflict and the region.

   In the morning session on January 22, Italy and Spain spoke and Japan offered money. Turkey spoke without mentioning the Kurds -- but neither did supposed representative of the range of Syrian opposition Ahmad al Jarba.

   Since Jarba's Saudi-sponsored, Saud al Faisal called him "Excellency," pomp like Jarba's faux "UN briefing" with Gulf and Western media in July.

   Using his PresidentJarba Twitter account, on which Inner City Presspreviously reported, Jarba repeated his own speech. Turns out he follows Anonymous, among only 51 follows. Who knew?

   The UK's William Hague's microphone went dead; when it came back on he bemoaned the lack of a women's delegation to the talks. The UN did not push for this on Syria, nor on South Sudan - but Ban Ki-moon highlighted that for a moment, how ever brief, there was a woman in both the Syria and (Jarba) Syrian National Coalition seat. Call it a photo op.

  Behind Hague was a UN alumni, the UK's former political coordinator in the Security Council David Quarrey. His Russian counterpart Vladimir Safronkov was also there, in Sergey Lavrov's delegation.

  Ban Ki-moon announced a lunch break until 2:45 pm, to be followed by 18 more speakers, then the Syria and SNC speakers like rights of reply. What did people think these speeches would accomplish. We'll have a separate story on that soon.

  At the UN on January 21, Inner City Press asked Haq for the UN's response to Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif saying "Ban Ki-moon contacted me several times last week and I stated to him explicitly that we don’t accept any preconditions for participating in the meeting. We regret that Mr. Ban Ki-moon has withdrawn his offer and believe that such an attitude is not appropriate for the status and dignity of the Secretary-General."

  Haq said Ban believed he had "oral understandings" with Zarif. 

  Inner City Press asked Haq, since the Geneva I Communique requires a commitment to a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms, how are Qatar and Saudi Arabia, both of which are among those still providing weapons and more to armed groups in Syria, invited to Montreux? Where's Ban's dismay at that?

   Haq said that Ban is dismayed at the militarization of the conflict. Video here. 

  Earlier on January 21, Inner City Press spoke with Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN Vitaly Churkin about Ban Ki-moon about-face.

  Churkin told Inner City Press, exclusively, "some people let him down, and not necessarily the Iranians."

  Others have analogized Ban to the American Charlie Brown, kicking at empty space when the football is taken away at the last second. Was Ban Ki-moon set up?

   Since the Geneva I Communique requires a commitment to a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms, how for example are Qatar and Saudi Arabia, both of which provide weapons and more to armed groups in Syria, invited to Montreux?
 
   Also, where are the Kurds?  Those who actually control territory in the north, Rojava, are not part of Ahmad al Jarba's turkey-based Syrian Coalition, and were not separately invited to the talks. What about theirdismay? We'll have more on this.

   On January 20, Inner City Press asked Iran's Ambassador about Ban's dismay or disappointment. Video here.

 Outside the UN Security Council later on January 20, Inner City Press asked Iranian Permanent Representative to the UN Khazaee about Ban having been "dismayed" by the Iranian foreign ministry's spokesperson's comments.

  Kazaee replied, "I think all of you are very well aware about the consistency in our position about G2, so the high political officials are expected to act based on realities."

   Yes, realities: minutes after Ban's spokesperson's disinvitation announcement, Jarba's Syrian Opposition Coalition returned to the position voted on with 44 members absent: they will attend the talks in Switzerland.

  Earlier, after Ban's spokesperson's statement Iran's Khazaee said (and his spokesperson sent to Inner City Press) --

"The   Islamic Republic of Iran appreciates the efforts of the UN Secretary General and his special envoy, Mr. Brahimi in finding a political solution for Syrian crisis. Iran has always been supportive of finding a political solution for this crisis.  

"However the Islamic Republic of Iran does not accept any preconditions for its participation in Geneva II conference. If the participation of Iran is conditioned to accept Geneva I communique, Iran will not participate in Geneva II conference."

  After that arrived, Inner City Press asked Syrian Permanent Representative Bashar Ja'afari about Iran's statement. He replied, "My sincere advice, don't waste your time on this issue -- they will be there."  Then he went into the Security Council, where Syria is listed as the 35th of 47 speakers on the Middle East, with Iran 39th.  What will they say? Watch this site. 

 At 12:30 pm on January 20, Inner City Press asked Nesirky if Ban is equally dismayed at the Syrian National Coalition's spokesperson calling Ban's bait and switch invite "immoral, even in politics."  Nesirky declined to specifically express dismay at this comment, only saying that a number of comments have been disappointing.  "This one?" Nesirky would not answer.

  Given the SNC's 2 pm ultimatum on Ban to disinvite Iran, Inner City Press asked Nesirky if the invitation to the SNC was the only one to non-Assad Syrians, or if for example Kurds could be invited. Nesirky said: one unified delegation. Hardly -- 44 members of the SNC already dropped out before the vote to attend. What would the vote count be now?

Before the Middle East meeting of the UN Security Council on January 20, the Permanent Representatives of France, the UK and Russia spoke to the press about Iran being invited to the Syria talks beginning in Montreux January 22.

  Ambassador Gerard Araud of France, which Bashar Assad called a proxy state of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, said the ball is in the court of Iran, to explicitly accept Geneva I. The UK's Mark Lyall Grant said the UK position is that Iran must clarify, publicly, that it accepts Geneva I.

  Others ask why should Iran accept a communique of Geneva I to which it was not invited. Others say Iran does in its way accept the communique - it just interprets it differently.

  Russian Permanent Representative Vitaly Churkin said "of course" the US had been consulted before Iran was invited. If the SNC now does not attend, Churkin said, it would be a "big mistake."

   Ban Ki-moon went into the Security Council suite with a big entourage; there was a time he was not on UNTV in the chamber. Inner City Press can report that UNTV technicians were asked to pipe in a feed of the public meeting into a side room. There was talk of Ban's selective meetings, using the code name EU P2. 

  The Istanbul based Syrian National Coalition set a deadline of 2 pm in New York on January 20 for the invitation to be rescinded. 

  Soner Ahmed, an SNC spokesman, said Ban "waited to invite Iran until after the coalition’s decision to attend the conference. That is immoral, even in politics."

    Ban previously met with the SNC's Ahmad al Jarba in Ban's UN provided residence; when the Free UN Coalition for Access asked why it had not been on his schedule, the meeting was called personal.  Now, things have really gotten personal.

  Among UNanswered questions is whether the SNC would or would have brought any Kurdish representatives, and why or whether the Kurds will not now be invited.

  Saudi Arabia shot back at the invitation of Iran by saying they should not attend because it "has military forces in Syria." But doesn't Uganda have fighting forces in South Sudan, while being a member of "mediator" IGAD? UN-consistency.

   Ban made his Iran invitation announcement in a hastily thrown togetherpress conference held Sunday evening in an nearly empty UN building, on barely an hour's notice.

Nevertheless, Ban's spokesperson automatically gave the first question to the United Nations Correspondents Association, a partisan group which for example held a faux "UN briefing" for Ahmad al Jarba of the Turkey-based Syrian Coalition. Click here for Inner City Press story on that.

Ban Ki-moon dodged and did not answer on the weakness of Jarba's Coalition, from which over 40 members decided not to attend the vote approving attended at the talks in Switzerland. Nor until the end of this press conference did Ban mention the inclusion of women. Has he asked Jarba about that?

  Ban said he spoke with Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif, who "committed to play a constructive and positive role." Ban repeated this line when asked about the litmus test of accepting that Geneva II is about Geneva I which was about "establishing a transitional governing body with full executive powers" -- on mutual consent, whatever that means.

  Ban also announced supplemental invitations to Montreux for, among others, Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands and, yes, South Korea.

  It was at 4:21 pm that the UN sent out an email that Ban would appear for a "brief and important statement" in the UN at 5:30 pm. When that time arrived, the so-called UNCA chair (or "Holy Seat") on which the UN has affixed a metal tag was filled -- and from that seat a complaint was made to try to get another correspondent moved. 

  UNCA's president Pamela Falk of CBS was not there; nor was her first vice president, who nonetheless was heard to call into the room. It is time to end the practice of the UN automatically giving the first question toUNCA - a group of which executive committee members tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN (and to get leaked documents removed from Google's search under a specious DMCA filing by Reuters' bureau chief) and which has not reformed in any way since then.

The Free UN Coalition for Access additionally asks why this announcement was made this way. There is more and more staging at the UN, faux Q&A and UNTV footage put out hoping it will be used as B roll. The UN should be more transparent, less of a scam. We'll have more on this.