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

By Matthew Russell Lee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   

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

By Matthew Russell Lee

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

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

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

From the UN's October 3 transcript:

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

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

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

Spokesperson: I answered that, as well.

Inner City Press: Okay. Can you say why?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Read the transcript.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   

Ban Ki-moon Says "Overwhelming" Report To Show Chemical Use in Syria, in "Closed" Meeting

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 13 -- In an abruptly closed lecture by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to the Women's International Forum on Friday morning, Ban said the UN's forthcoming report on Syria will be "overwhelming" and will show that chemical weapons were used, that Assad has committed many crimes against humanity and will face accountability. Video here, from Minute 34:35.

"I can't say this publicly," Ban said, until I get the report.

But he DID say it, putting the bragging about the report by French foreign minister Laurent Fabius and UK officials in a new light.

Ban's lecture to WIF was listed in the day's UN Media Alert, but when Inner City Press went to cover it, the sign said "closed." On behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access@FUNCA_info, Inner City Press asked for an explanation from the UN Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit and its boss, Stephane Dujarric. But no explanation came.

   A UN Television staffer, however, told Inner City Press to look for the event on in-house UN EZTV, under Conference Room 2. And there it was, with Ban saying things about Syria using chemical weapons that even he said "I can't say publicly." But he did say it. And now the leaks become clearer.

Ban's associate spokesperson Farhan Haq refused to confirm these when Inner City Press asked at noon:

Inner City Press: not just Mr. Araud, but Laurent Fabius said openly that the report should come out Monday and that it will implicate Mr. [Bashar al]-Assad. And then Mr. Araud said that France, I don’t know if it was him, was told this by the Secretary-General last night. So I am asking, what I e-mailed you, he is a Permanent Representative for France; what does that mean? Are you saying it’s not true?

Associate Spokesperson Haq: I don’t know what precisely he has said. What I can say is that the Secretary-General has not received the report thus far. We will let you know once the report has been received. But I cannot confirm what day that will be.

Inner City Press: Did he speak to France last night, as Mr. Araud said?

Associate Spokesperson: He has been in touch with a wide number of Member States…

Inner City Press: Did he speak to Russia?

Associate Spokesperson: He has been in touch with a wide number of Member States over the previous days about the crisis in Syria, a wide number of Member States, but in any case, the report has not been received.

Later in the briefing, Inner City Press asked more formally, in the spirit of the Free UN Coalition for Access, for disclosure:

Inner City Press: Because France has said that it heard from the Secretary-General on the topic of the report, I would like to make a request that you at least disclose whether Ban Ki-moon talked to all five members of the permanent five. So I just, that’s a request.

Associate Spokesperson: He has been speaking sporadically in recent days with all of the five members, of the five permanent members.

Inner City Press: But it’s pretty important. Given what Mr. Fabius said, it’s pretty important, I’m just making that request.

  Now with UK officials claiming even more detailed knowledge of the report, it becomes even more important. The UK and France, ostensibly such fans of the UN (if only because their Security Council veto rights magnify their power) are in fact shredding its credibility or its claimed impartiality.

  The UN Secretariat has done this itself, too -- given that this UN issued a report exonerating itself for bringing cholera to Haiti, and clings to that even after the scientists who delivered the false report now disclaim it, why should the UN's report on chemical weapons be treated as a sacred cow?

  A Nordic Ambassador on Thursday night argued to Inner City Press that Sellstrom is a good man. Fine. But if it's not him leaking, is it Ban? Araud said the Secretary General told France. Watch this site.

   

On UN Syria Report, Australia Says Security Council Will Get It, It Is Being Sped Up by Ban: Race for Relevance

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 4 -- Questions about the UN's forthcoming report on chemical weapons in Syria were raised Wednesday to the incoming president of the UN Security Council, Gary Quinlan of Australia.

  Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has said that UN member states should share their evidence with his team, led by Ake Sellstrom. (Inner City Press has twice asked, and it seems that the US has NOT shared the evidence it showed Senators behind closed doors.)

  Inner City Press asked Quilan if as Security Council president in the month the UN report will be finished he wants there to be a Security Council process on the report, or if it will simultaneously go to all 193 UN member states while, it appears, the UN goes forward disregarding the UN report.

  Quinlan answered that "on the Sellstrom report all I can say is the expectation of the Council is it will come to Council as soon as possible after it is complete." 

   He said the Secretary General "has indicated the UN has been using a number of creative ways to expedite the scientific analysis, using more people and laboratories."

  Quinland said, there is "confidentiality associated with that," but that Ban has a "sense of urgency" -- which we have been dubbing the Race for Relevance.

Referring to the meeting Inner City Press covered yesterday afternoon, Quinlan said there was a briefing "yesterday as you know by Kane to the group of member states who signed the letter" requesting the investigation of the August 21 use of chemical weapons. He said Australia was among the requesters, and "that group has a high level of interest to get the report."

  The meeting with Kane was not listed in the UN Journal, and the sign outside Conference Room 6 said briefing by the High Representative for Disarmament. But as Inner City Press' YouTube showed, Syria's Bashar Ja'afari was inside.

  In fact, it may be that any member state could attend -- and that any member state can get the Sellstrom report. (A Permanent Representative who is part of the ACT group on Security Council report told Inner City Press, yes, all 193.)

  We'll see. When called on, Inner City Press thanked Quinlan for the briefing and on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access @FUNCA_info requested that he does question and answer stakeout after each closed-door consultation of the Council in his month. Watch this site.

   

On Syria, Is "UN Would Take 2 Weeks to Report on Chemical Weapons" Channeled by Insiders To Justify Faster US Action?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 30 -- Would US President Barack Obama wait two weeks before taking military action on what his administration repeatedly on Friday called clear and convincing evidence that Syria's Assad government used chemical weapons on August 21?  It seems unlikely.

  And so what to make of the flurry of spoon-fed UN insiders all parroting the same line on Friday afternoon, that the UN report will take two weeks according to a "UN diplomat"? Or that UN team chief Ake Sellstrom wanted four weeks? These "reports" and echoes have the effect of validating the US taking action sooner, casting the UN as too slow.

As Inner City Press separately reported after speaking, on the record, with Syria's Permanent Representative to the UN Bashar Ja'afari, Damascus' position is that the US has made itself the secret judge of secret evidence. This has echoes of the FISA courts, and also the NSA spying scandal. But few link these.

No, the fix is in, the players are playing their parts.

    Earlier in the week, much was made of the Syrian government's delay in granting the UN's request for its chemical weapons inspection team to visit al Ghouta.

Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Farhan Haq at Tuesday's noon briefing when it was that the UN formally requested access to al Ghouta -- on Saturday, August 24 or before? Video here, from Minute 12. Video with captions, on Inner City Press YouTube channel, here and embedded below, with transcript.

Haq read out a press statement from August 22, in which Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said a request is being sent. Then, Haq said, Ban's High Representative on Disarmament Angela Kane "stepped forward with the request" -- on August 24, Saturday.

It was granted the next day.

Inner City Press asked again, was there any formal request by the UN other than Ban's press statement, before August 24? Haq called this "semantics." But when Inner City Press asked Ban's spokespeople to respond to widely circulated press releases about a request being made to Ban, the UN says the actual formal request had not been received yet, and so: no comment. Why should the UN say it must be different for Syria?

How could the UN be so sloppy? Or was it sloppy?

  While the delay to Sunday (or Monday, when the team got out and said, if this YouTube video on which Haq declined comment when Inner City Press asked is not false, that they are not even looking at what type of munition was used in part because they didn't want to put it in their white UN 4 by 4) is now an element in the case for missile strikes, the UN didn't formally ASK until Saturday, in the person of Angela Kane

   Inner City Press covered Kane when she was head of Ban's Department of Management, including an investigation by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services for favoritism in the UN's so-called UMOJA computer management system.

  When Japan's Yukio Takasu returned after a pause from being his country's Ambassador to the UN to take over Kane's job, Kane's native Germany lobbied for her to get another top UN job. She was offered one in Lebanon, as Inner City Press reported, but did not want it. So she "got" Disarmament.

  This connection must be noted: it was Germany which got Kane this job, in the same way that France installed Herve Ladsous as the fourth French head of UN Peacekeeping in a row, and the US picked Jeffrey Feltman, formerly the State Department's chief on the Middle East to replace B. Lynn Pascoe as Ban's political chief.

  So the fact that Germany has expressed a willingness to join a coalition to strike Syria, without UN Security Council approval, and the Germany's Angela Kane's role in the "UN's" chemical weapons inspection team should be noted.

  But by most media covering the UN, it is not. When Inner City Press even mentions Ladsous' and UN Peacekeeping's French connection, Ladsous refuses to answer questions, and some media, including the French wire service Agence France Presse on one of whose management boards Ladsous served, have even filed complaints with the UNagainst Inner City Press. 

  This is dysfunction, and is now being countered by the Free UN Coalition for Access, @FUNCA_info.

  Another major wire service, Reuters, joined in the second of AFP's complaints. On August 26 Reuters based a piece essentially selling or planning for the legality of military strikes on Syria without Security Council or even General Assembly approval around, as lead, a comment by the Council on Foreign Relations' Richard Haass.

  But on that CFR call, as noted by Inner City Press, was Judith Miller. Given her role during the lead up to the US intervention in Iraq, one might think this would have been included in an overly-long rehash story. But no. 

 Notably, Reuters' UN bureau has been shown to have spied for the UN, handing over an internal anti-Press document of the UN Correspondents Association (which under 2013 president Pamela Falk of CBS hosted Syrian rebel Jarba for what it called a "UN briefing") to UN official Stephane Dujarric. Story here, audio here, document here.

This beat just goes on. Watch this site.

Kerry Says Syria Use of Chemicals Is "UNdeniable" - So Why Is UN Team Still There?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 26 -- US Secretary of State John Kerry declared Monday afternoon that Syria's use of chemical weapons is "undeniable." 

  One wonders then, what the UN inspectors are doing there. 

  Kerry quoted UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that the UN team will only make findings whether chemical weapons were used, not by whom. Kerry says the use is already clear. So, again, what are the UN inspectors doing there?

  Inner City Press asked Ban's associate spokesperson Farhan Haq if Ban would ask to be notified before any US cruise missile, since there are UN staff in the country. Haq called it speculative -- but is it? After Kerry's statement Monday?

  Haq said the UN will not engage in speculative comment. But it's not speculative. UK foreign minister William Hague, for example, that morning said on the radio that military action on Syria without UN Security Council approval "would be legal, I would argue." 

  Hague did not specify under what legal theory: self-defense under UN Charter Article 51? Retaliation or retribution?

  Haq said the UN is still trying to put together the Geneva Two talks. But that no longer seems to be the US' interest. Inner City Press' question of whether Ban would at least seek notification before a missile strike, since there are UN staff members inside Syria, went unanswered.

  On a second round, Inner City Press asked Haq whether Ake Sellstrom has any mandate to say WHO used chemical weapons, and how his findings will be conveyed. Haq first confirmed that "responsibility" is not in Sellstrom's mandate.

  But then, after a pause, Haq added something, an If-Asked, about the team constructing "an evidenced based narrative." Every story has a plot. Watch this video of the Q&A. Watch this site.

   

On Syria, UN Tells Inner City Press It Will Do "Evidence Based Narrative," No Words Against Missile

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 26 -- With leaders from the US, UK, France and others talking about military action on Syria, Inner City Press at the UN's August 26 noon briefing asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's associate spokesperson Farhan Haq for the UN position on such a military strike. Video here and embedded below

  Haq said the UN will not engage in speculative comment. But it's not speculative. UK foreign minister William Hague, for example, that morning said on the radio that military action on Syria without UN Security Council approval "would be legal, I would argue." 

  Hague did not specify under what legal theory: self-defense under UN Charter Article 51? Retaliation or retribution?

  Haq said the UN is still trying to put together the Geneva Two talks. But that no longer seems to be the US' interest. Inner City Press' question of whether Ban would at least seek notification before a missile strike, since there are UN staff members inside Syria, went unanswered.

  On a second round, Inner City Press asked Haq whether Ake Sellstrom has any mandate to say WHO used chemical weapons, and how his findings will be conveyed. Haq first confirmed that "responsibility" is not in Sellstrom's mandate.

  But then, after a pause, Haq added something, an If-Asked, about the team constructing "an evidenced based narrative." Every story has a plot. Watch this video of the Q&A. Watch this site.

   

On Chemical Weapons in Syria, Ake Sellstrom Talks to Swedish Media, Silence on ISIS Threat to Aid Workers

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 21, updated -- Amid new reports of chemical weapons use in Syria, at 11:15 am Inner City Press was informed that no formal request had yet been made for a UN Security Council meeting. Still one was "expected."

Update: at 11:38 am, Inner City Press was told of a request by five countries for a UNSC meeting, at 3 pm or "5 pm the latest."

Update of 12:18 pm: the UNSC meeting will be at 3 pm.

  Three days ago the UN office of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told the press that the UN "team investigating allegations about the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic arrived in Damascus... Please note the team will not be speaking to the media."

  Now, Swedish team leader Ake Sellstrom is quoted as telling Swedish news agency TT that "it sounds like something that should be looked into. It will depend on whether any UN member state goes to the secretary general and says we should look at this event."

So not only is Sellstrom "speaking to the media," one from his own country, but he is detailing or advising UN member states how to proceed.

  Ban Ki-moon is leaving for his native South Korea on August 21. Saudi Arabia, not a member of the Security Council, has called for a Security Council meeting. The UK has said it will raise it to the Security Council. For now, no Council meeting is scheduled for August 21. There is an August 22 session on Sudan and South Sudan.

  Inner City Press is informed, at least as of 11:15 am, that despite their public statements, either the UK nor France nor any other Security Council member has formally asked for a Council meeting on Syria. But it is still predicted.

  Separate from today's reports of chemical weapons, on August 20 there were urgent dispatches that the ISIS rebels had ordered humanitarian aid workers to leave northern Syria. The Free UN Coalition for Access asked if UN official Valerie Amos of her Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs have any reaction to that. So far, no response. Watch this site.