On Syria, UNSC Cites Barrel Bombs, Not Government Helicopters, Syria's Version

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 5 -- When UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's envoy on Syria Staffan de Mistura came to the UN Security Council stakeout on April 24, Inner City Press asked him about criticism of how he has run his office to date. De Mistura declined to respond. But see below.

 On May 30, the UN Spokesperson's Office issued a statement for de Mistura, condemning "the death of at least 70 civilians in Syria's northern Aleppo province by barrel bombs dropped from government helicopters."  The statement, full text here, said that "all evidence shows that the overwhelming majority of the civilian victims in the Syrian conflict have been caused by the use of such indiscriminate aerial weapons." Some were sure to wonder, what about ISIS?

  On June 5, the day after a briefing by UN OCHA's John Ging, the Security Council issued a press statement mentioning barrel bombs but NOT "government helicopters," as Mistura put it. The full Security Council statement is below.

  Inner City Press has also seen Syria's June 4 letter to the Council, which said "the Syrian Arab Army targeted a location in the neighborhood of 'Al-bab' in Aleppo, where the terrorist groups were holding a meeting to plan an attack on the city of Aleppo. The information available confirms the death of 81 terrorists. The incident that happened in the 'Al-Sha'ar' neighborhood in Aleppo was an explosion of weapons warehouse used by terrorists during their activities in the city of Aleppo. The incident resulted in the death of a number of terrorists and civilians."

Here, Roshomon-like, is the UNSC Press Statement of June 5:

The members of the Security Council were briefed by Mr. John Ging, Operations Director of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs regarding the recent upsurge of violence in Aleppo.

The members of the Security Council expressed their deep concern at the continued high level of violence in Syria and condemned all violence directed against civilians and civilian infrastructure, including medical facilities. They expressed outrage at all attacks against civilians, as well as indiscriminate attacks, including those involving shelling and aerial bombardment, such as the use of barrel bombs, which have reportedly been extensively used in recent days in Aleppo Governorate and other areas throughout Syria, leaving many dead and injured civilians, including children.  

The members of the Security Council recalled that all obligations under international humanitarian law must be respected in all circumstances by all parties. They recalled, in particular, the obligation to distinguish between civilian populations and combatants, and the prohibition against indiscriminate attacks, and attacks against civilians and civilian objects. The members of the Security Council reiterated their call on all parties to immediately implement in full the provisions of Security Council resolutions 2139 (2013),  2165 (2014) and 2191 (2014) and of the Presidential Statement of 2 October 2013 (S/PRST/2013/15).

The members of the Security Council reaffirmed the primary responsibility of the Syrian Authorities to protect the population in Syria and reiterated that parties to the armed conflict bear the primary responsibility to take all feasible steps to ensure the protection of civilians.

The members of the Security Council condemned increased terrorist attacks resulting in numerous casualties and destruction carried out by ISIL, Al-Nusra Front and other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Al-Qaida, and called on all parties to commit to putting an end to terrorist acts perpetrated by such organisations and individuals and reminded that Member States must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, international refugee and international humanitarian law.

The members of the Security Council reaffirmed that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security, and that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, wherever, whenever and by whomsoever committed.

The members of the Security Council reiterated that the only sustainable solution to the current crisis in Syria is through an inclusive and Syrian-led political process with a view to full implementation of the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012. In this respect, they expressed their full support for the role and efforts of the Special Envoy, of the Secretary-General, Staffan de Mistura.

  But as de Mistura holds a new round on consultations in Geneva, with all press coverage Banned, he is belatedly replacing his principal political affairs officer with one Stephanie Koury, Inner City Press is informed, who in Iraq headed the UN's Kirkuk office, as well as a stint in another of the UN's failed (or turned-over) mediation missions, in Yemen, see below.

 Previously, Inner City Press reported on how de Mistura ingratiated himself to Ban Ki-moon by hiring and promoting Ban's son in law Siddharth Chatterjee while serving as envoy in Iraq. (Some of that reported wascensored, but not on Inner City Press.) This led to push-back from the UN, which continues to the day - something that the new Free UN Coalition for Access opposes.

  Last week the UN said of de Mistura's upcoming five to six weeks of talks on Syria in Geneva that there will be no interviews or stakeouts, nor even any photo-sprays, during all that time. FUNCA opposes this closing-down of the UN as well.

  A picture has emerged of de Mistura's running of the UN's Syria office, in which "cronies" from his time in Iraq and after that Afghanistan have been favored in jobs, with very little to show for it.

  De Mistura's functional political affairs chief, for example, has been Elpida Rouka, who was de Mistura's "Special Assistant" in Iraq. Her i-Phone composed political memos have been exclusively mocked to Inner City Press by close associates of de Mistura, but de Mistura declared her the only authorized channel of "substantive" information to UN Headquarters in New York.

 At a key moment in de Mistura's doomed push for a "freeze" in Aleppo, Inner City Presss is exclusively informed that de Mistura went with, over ceasefire expert Julian Hottinger, one Matt Waldman, listed as an adviser not only of de Mistura on Syria but also of the European Institute for Peace, which as Inner City Press has reported de Mistura remains president of the Board of Governors.

 (Back in September 2014, Inner City Press asked the UN Office of the Spokesperson, "please confirm or deny that Mr. de Mistura will be (allowed to be) based in Brussels, and separate state his contract status: When Actually Employed? Paid at USG level? Is he being allowed to continue working with / for any non-UN organization, if so which, and what review of possible conflicts of interest was made, and by whom?")

  One might think that the UN's Syria envoy position is or should be a full time job, without outside second positions like continuing as president of the board of a group like the European Institute for Peace. But this is the UN, where the special representative on Cyprus Alexander Downer was allowed to work full time at an investment bank or consultancy Bespoke Approach, Tony Blair as Middle East Quartet representative and businessman, and now a similar UNdisclosed arrangement in Yemen.

(Inner City Press has four times asked simple public financial disclosure questions about Ban's new Yemen envoy Ismael Ould Cheikh Ahmed, without answer.)

  All of the above said, de Mistura is a pleasant man; while in Afghanistan he pledged to get to the bottom of the murder of UN staffer Louis Maxwell there although he never did (nor did others in today's UN).  But Inner City Press - and FUNCA - are committed to a closely-covered and open UN, and the trend, from the top down, is in quite the opposite direction. Here was the UN's "Note to Correspondents" -

The Geneva Consultations on Syria will begin next week Monday, 4 May, at the Palais des Nations and last for an initial period of five to six weeks.

The Special Envoy of the Secretary-General Staffan de Mistura has invited as many of the parties as possible, primarily the Syrian parties (government, opposition and civil society), as well as the regional and international stakeholders, to discuss with the Special Envoy, the dire situation in Syria today and to provide their candid views on where we stand vis-a-vis implementation of the Geneva Communiqué almost three years since it was adopted.

The Special Envoy and the Deputy Special Envoy, Ramzy Ezzeldine Ramzy, will conduct closed and separate consultations with each party.

There will be no photo opportunities, no stakeouts, and no interviews while the consultations are being conducted at the Palais. However, periodic photo and video feeds will be provided by UN Photo and UN Television.

The UNOG Spokesman and Director, a.i., of the UN Information Service in Geneva, and the Office of the Special Envoy's Public Information Officer, will provide periodic updates to the Geneva Press Corps and others, as and when appropriate and necessary.

No major public announcements are expected during, or at the conclusion of, these Consultations. The Special Envoy will assess the progress of his stock-taking at the end of the process and report to the Secretary-General with his findings and recommendations.

Thank you for understanding.  

  Thank you indeed.

 Back on April 24, Inner City Press asked de Mistura if the Saudi-led airstrikes on Yemen changed any of the dynamics on Syria. 

  In reply, de Mistura told Inner City Press that "everything in the region these days is connected." He added that he is focused on Syria.

 Inner City Press also asked de Mistura about criticism made by his former adviser Mouin Rabbani on Qatar's Al Jazeera TV, that Mistura is out of his depth and not up for the task.

 De Mistura replied, I will not respond, you would do the same, if one of your ex-colleagues...

  Inner City Press asked the question because it hadn't been asked, tellingly. 

 Dina Kawar said Mistura “mentioned what he will do next month in Geneva, holding separate meetings with the Syrian parties, representatives of the civil society and regional and international actors. He will provide his assessment to the Secretary General and keep the Security Council informed,” Kawar said, taking no questions.

  Staffan de Mistura emerged, saying he would take two or three questions. He said, “the only way is to test, a stress test,” a phrase like his previous “freeze.” He said, “by end of June we should be in the position to reassess whether any convergence on substance and report to the Secretary General.”

  De Mistura said, “This is not Geneva Three, this is a series of consultation, one to one. We can convene and ask everyone to come and not exclude anyone.. Iran is a member country of the UN, it is a major play in the region, it has influence in Syria. The UN has the right, and will be inviting everyone.”

  Unlike Montreux, it was observed by... one wag.

  Back on April 16, that the Syrian chemical weapons victim and doctor who briefed the UN Security Council did so behind closed doors, with no UN Television coverage, was a product of the Council's rules.

  It was an “Arria formula” meeting, which was not be listed in the UN Journal or even on the blue electronic signs outside it. (The sign said the meeting was about "nutrition.")

  Afterward chemical weapons victim Qusai Zakarya took some questions in the hall, before again going behind closed doors of the UN Censorship Alliance, see below.

  Inner City Press in this public space asked Qusai Zakarya what he thought of UN envoy on Syria Staffan de Mistura.

Qusai Zakarya said replied to Inner City Press, "I think Staffan de Mistura is a hypocrite. I think his very disgusting attempt to shine up the image of the regime is exposed to the Syrian people and to a nlot of members of the international community. His offer on freezes was a joke. If he really cared about saving lives he would have convinced the regime to stop using its fire power. We have a lot of outrage against his attempts, the deal he was trying to offer, it's just another false attempt to shine up the image of the regime."

   Inner City Press asked him if he would meet with any UN official. “I can't answer that questio right now,” he said. Then the convoy went to the clubhouse of the UN Censorship Alliance, which had sent notice only to those who pay it money: "They will have just presented their accounts in front of the UN Security Council at an Arria-formula meeting on Syria Chemical Weapons."

     But why would the doctors, in holding a supposed press conference afterward, not do so in the UN Press Briefing Room on UNTV, as can be done by any NGO or individual as long as sponsored by a member state? 

    Instead, 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 itsreporting 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 fromReuters, 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, UN Envoy Staffan de Mistura Talks Up Six Week Halt in Aleppo, Takes No Questions, Leaves

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 17 -- When the UN's envoy to Syria Staffan de Mistura came to the Security Council on February 17, it was his first briefing since October 30. This time, he took no questions, instead trying to clarify comments he made about Assad being "part of the solution."

  While de Mistura announced the government's willingness for a six week halt to aerial bombing and artillery shelling in Aleppo, start date to be announced from Damascus, when Inner City Press asked if he wanted this memorialized in a Security Council resolution he did not answer.

  Here's what de Mistura read, from his little notebook: “The government of Syria has indicated to me a willingness to halt all aerial bombing, all types, and artillery shelling for a period of six weeks all over the city of Aleppo, from a date which we will be announcing from Damascus. Therefore I plan therefore to proceed to Damascus and hopefully to Aleppo as soon as possible... We will engage very much the opposition to see them respond to a similar request from UN to halt mortar and rocket fire all over the city of Aleppo for six weeks."

  Then de Mistura backed toward the elevator as media shouted how small his accomplishments have been, even that he is increasing rather than reducing violence.  I will not take questions, he said, you must forgive me. Really?

Back on October 30, Mistura came to the Security Council stakeout and spoke of "freeze zones." Or so most present heard it -- some later said he meant "free" zone, akin to local ceasefires.

  But it was impossible to clarify: de Mistura took only four questions, careful selected, including Voice of America, France 24 and Al Jazeera English. While de Mistura, ever the dandy, ascribe his choice to gender balance - much needed - there was no ideological or geo-political balance. 

 Afterward, Syria's Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari took many more questions, from across the spectrum: Japanese media, TASS, France 24, Al Mayadeen. Inner City Press asked him about the "freeze" (or free) zones and about the Golan Heights. He replied that UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous had ignored the Nusra Front takeovers in the area, and previously kidnapping of Filipinos peacekeepers. We'll have more on this.

* * *

  It was Saturday afternoon in a mostly empty UN when this photo-op was added to Ban's schedule, in his 38th floor office:

"05:20 pm    38th Floor    Photo Opportunity:  The Secretary-General with H.E. Mr. Hadi al-Bahra and other Members of the National Coalition of Syria Revolution and Opposition Forces
(UNTV/PHOTO,  INTERNATIONAL MEDIA, WEBCAST)"

  But when Inner City Press went the requisite 30 minutes in advance in order to cover the photo-op, it was told that only the UN's in-house photo service could attend to create this propaganda photo.

  Inner City Press on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, which pushes for media freedom, asked al-Bahra and the Syrian Coalition why it was closed. They tweeted back:

@innercitypress - We asked. But told by @UN_Spokesperson that option of opening to media only available to "member states". 

   But, as Inner City Press immediate replied -- after finding that the photo op wasn't even on UN EZTV, the 29 channels of the UN's in-house TV network --  Ban held an open photo op on August 18 with Malala, who is not a member states. We'll have more on this.

   All week, Ban has been holding such meetings in his office with heads of state and government. Now, this one rebel group is in. What about other rebel groups? Doesn't this selectivity as least call out for transparency -- having other than in-house media present?

  Ban's UN is lawless -- including dodging service of legal papers for bringing cholera to Haiti.

  After 5 pm on Friday, September 26, the Syrian Coalition Media Office went out by email a speech, entitled "Hadi al Bahra addresses United Nations General Assembly."

 The question, asked by Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access, was where and when was this speech ostensibly given to the UN General Assembly? The rebels are not the government, at least not yet. So what did the e-mail mean?

After approval by the US Congress to arm and train rebels in Syria, and the airstrikes in Syria that began on September 22, Free Syrian Army commanders began complaining the strikes hit only ISIL (and Khorasan).

  The Syrian Opposition Coalition, set to be presented as a government in an event in the UN's Economic and Social Council chamber on September 24, put this out:

"Nasr al-Hariri, Secretary General of the Syrian Coalition, said that the Syrian people will not trust the international efforts to fight ISIS as long as they ignore the voices of millions of Syrians who have been subjected to the terror of the Assad regime and its allies,” during a visit to the FSA battalions in the countryside of Aleppo and Idlib, along with Mohammed Qaddah, Vice President of the Syrian Coalition. 'We regret that the international community has come up with partial solutions to the Syrian conflict in which hundreds of thousands were killed or detained by the Assad regime. The military strikes being carried out by the international coalition against the positions of ISIS and Al Nusra Front will be short of stemming the tide of extremism as long as they are directed against the symptoms of the problem and not its root cause. Moreover, these strikes will only be interpreted as an attempt to reproduce and rehabilitate the Assad regime and will prompt more Syrians to take up arms as long as the Assad regime is spared the military strikes.' 

"Hariri also stress that any solution other than helping the Syrian people topples the Assad regime will only serve to consolidate extremism in Syria and the region. Therefore, the international community must assume its responsibilities and deal with the situation in Syria in a more realistic and responsible way. Hariri stresses that the world is not yet aware that the battle against terrorism cannot be solved only militarily, but must include an organized political process capable of addressing the root causes of extremism. 

"The meager international support for the Syrian national projects, including the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian Coalition, has led to the emergence of other projects that attracted many young people who do not necessarily endorse those projects’ vision. However, we are quite certain that those young people, when provided with the suitable alternative, will be an essential part of the mosaic structure on which the new Syria will be built. 

"The Syrian people cannot accept watching the international coalition’s warplanes avenging the killing of journalist James Foley while failing to do justice to Hamza al-Khatib, Abdul Qader Al Saleh, Ghiath Matar and hundreds of thousands of Syrians. Furthermore, terrorism cannot be fought piecemeal, but its root causes must be addressed to save Syria and the whole world from the threats imposed by the extremist groups.” It is worth mentioning that many FSA commanders expressed their willingness to cooperate in order to further institutionalize the FSA and prepare it to effectively lead the struggle against the Assad regime and ISIS."

  On September 23, the UN's new (third) Syria envoy Staffan de Mistura was supposed to take questions from the press at 4:50 pm on September 23. But he did not appear. After a time the UN said he was lost: he had gone to the wrong stakeout, but Spokesman Stephane Dujarric was looking for him.

   Finally after 6 pm de Mistura and Dujarric arrived. But de Mistura declined to comment on the airstrikes on Syria, deferring to Ban Ki-moon. Dujarric chose six questioners, three of whom were from Italian media. Dujarric called out "ANSA;" de Mistura said, "bongiorno" This is what the UN and this post have become: de Mistura is half-Italian, with little chance of success or even relevance it becomes a "local boy makes good" story.

  (Certainly, de Mistura may see it differently: Inner City Press has heard from a range of UN sources that de Mistura feels he could and should be Secretary General.)

  Normally Inner City Press would not comment on the nationality of the questioners selected. But earlier on September 23, Dujarric who is French was involved in aproblematic French-only use of the UN Press Briefing Room by President Hollande. 

  Dujarric peeked out of the door while Inner City Press was being told to leave the UN Press Briefing Room, partial video here; the Free UN Coalition for Accessunderstands that Media Accreditation was told to back off from the French event by the Spokesman's Office. So. Noon briefings where this could be asked have been canceled; written questions have not been answered. This too is today's UN.

  On September 22 after a day of UN formalities, and with John Kerry with the Syrian Opposition Coalition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the US started bombing in Syria, see below. It cited help from five Arab Kingdoms in hitting ISIL by Raqqa, but went it alone against the Khorosan group near Aleppo.

  On September 23 when UK Development Secretary Justine Greening spoke about aid to Syria, Inner City Press asked her if these airstrikes were coordinated in any way with humanitarians on the ground, amid reports one was close to a hospital.

  Greening declined to get into the specifics, saying the UK was not part of the airstrike but supported them. She said that the spread of ISIL had hurt humanitarian efforts, which is certain. 

  Greening said, "I won't get into the details, the UK was not part of the airstrikes. The advance of ISIL placed pressure on the ability of humanitarian workers." 

   But why not coordinate with aid workers on the ground?  And what about this Khorosan group, until now mentioned only once in a White House briefing?

  On a background White House press call, a Senior Administration Official said that the US long told Russia that its support for Assad would lead to the rise of extremism. Unsaid was Russia's position that US allies' support of fighters in Syria led to extremism. 

  Tellingly, Ban Ki-moon has yet to speak about the air strikes. Inner City Press asked his spokesman for a comment on the night of September 22, and saw this spokesman on September 23. But no answer.

  Inner City Press has put these questions to Dujarric:

Press questions on deadline: what is Ban Ki-moon's response to US on the record (and reportedly Saudi Arabia, Jordan and UAE) bombing in Syria without consent of Syrian government, or approval of the UN Security Council? Separately, was Ban Ki-moon informed in advance?

  Hours later, no response from the UN.

   Back on  September 19 while the UN Security Council's meeting on Iraq went on, Canada's Foreign Minister John Baird came out to take questions at the Council stakeout.

  Inner City Press asked him if Canada thinks that for airstrikes in Syria against ISIL, the consent of the Assad government or of the Security Council should be sought.

  Baird said that on "intervention in Syria there are two views. One could say that every country has a right to defend itself. Iraq is being attack by terrorists in the neighboring country. We take great issue with Assad... That has yet to be determined."

  The Syrian Opposition Coalition, it emerges, will hold a press conference inside the UN building on September 22. But it will not be a UN press conference - instead, it will be in the clubhouse the UN gives to what has become itsUN Censorship Alliance (having tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN), publicized only to those who pay money to UNCA in dues.

  Why not go through the front door, and have a member state like Canada sponsor the Syrian Coalition's Hadi Al Bahra in the UN Press Briefing Room, as others do? We'll have more on this.

  On September 18, the day after the US House of Representatives voted to arm and train "moderate" rebels in Syria, the Syrian Opposition Coalition said training 5,000 will not be enough. An hour later, they put out a statement about ISIL stranding 7,000 civilians on the Syrian - Turkish border:

"As the 'Islamic State' intensifies shelling on Ayn al Arab (Kobanê in Kurdish) in northern Syria, thousands of people remain trapped in the towns and villages in the area. As as a result, activists reported a mass exodus of civilians from the neighboring villages of Kaalak, Zark Qumshi, Zalkhek, and Turaman. The Syrian Coalition condemns ISIS's brutal tactics and calls on Turkish authorities to open borders in the area and provide refuge to those fleeing from the barbaric group. More than 7000 civilians are reported to be stranded along the Turkish Syrian borders since Thursday, most of them women and children."

 Echoes of Mount Sinjar in Iraq - and that led to airstrikes. Earlier on September 18, the Syrian Coalition put this out:

"Abdelahad Astepho, member of the political committee, said that the US Congress’s vote in favor of President Obama’s plan to train and equip the Free Syrian Army is 'a step in the right direction though it was made late. Limiting the training and equipment program to 5,000 FSA fighters is not enough to counter the threat of the Assad regime and ISIS. Therefore, it is necessary to increase the number of trainees to solve the whole problem of terrorism once and for all. Moreover, limiting the program to this small number may prolong the bloody conflict, thus prolonging the suffering of the Syrian people.' Astepho calls on the US Senate 'to back the training and equipment program and for its immediate implementation, as any delay will cost Syrians more lives. Any delay in the implementation of this plan will lead to further expansion of the terror practiced by the Assad regime and the terrorist group ISIS.'"

 This after on the Senate floor just who these "moderate" rebels are was still being questioned. If 5000 is not enough, how many would be? To the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 17, former Ambassador Bob Ford said there are 80,000 "non-Nusra, non-ISIL" rebels. Where do these figures come front?

   Back on September 13, hours after US President Barack Obama's speech, the Syrian Coalition put out a press release requesting airstrikes and cash from Congress, pronto.

While more than two dozen countries pledged support for Iraq against the Islamic State in the Security Council on September 19, who would speak on UNTV about it?

  For more than an hour the media was told that French foreign minister Laurent Fabius would be “coming to the stakeout” to take questions on UNTV. It was pushed back, then when finally Fabius emerged he rushed past the stakeout into the hallway, where he spoke only in French.

 Update: to be fair, the French Mission put out this transcript.

  So too with Turkey's foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu. When he emerged from the Security Council, hesummoned Turkish media down the hallway for a private stakeout. Some non-Turkish journalists weren't allowed to go, something protested by the Free UN Coalition for Access. But why not openly take questions?

  The three on-camera stakeouts that occurred were bySyria's Bashar Ja'afari, Iraq's Foreign Minister Jaafari (no relation, if that needs to be said), and Canada's John Baird. To the last of these, Inner City Press asked if before any bombing in Syria consent should be sought from Damascus or the Council. That has “yet to be determined,” Baird replied.

  Iraqi FM Jaafari, when Inner City Press asked if the Coalition should speak with Syria, seemed to dodge the question. But at least he took questions on camera, as did Syria's Ja'afari. Where were the others? Is this how GA Week will be? FUNCA in is on the case, including aboutfaux UN press conferences like those held in the private club handed out by the UN to its Censorship Alliance. That group tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN, now masquerades on media freedom. This is how the UN works. Watch this site.

As UN's Syra Envoy de Mistura Is Transcribed by US, Echoes of Ban Ki-moon's Private Jet from Qatar: Words with Friends

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 14, more here -- When the UN's envoy to Syria Staffan de Mistura met in Geneva with US Secretary of State John Kerry, what the two said was issued not by the UN but by the US:

 In the US transcript, de Mistura is quoted of the conflict in Syria, “this is the fourth year, and we need to find a solution and a political solution. I will continue, I can tell you, pushing for Aleppo because Aleppo has become an iconic example of where things could start sending the best signal. In other words, that bombing, shelling, barrel bombing, mortar shelling would stop, and bring some humanitarian aid, which means giving some hope to the Syrian people... The Syrian people are just saying, enough. And we should not let them down.”

    Does the UN stand by this transcript? Did the UN sign off on it? The question is asked because last July the US transcribed the UN's Ban Ki-moon saying, of his decision to accept free private jet travel from Qatar, "we do not have much time to weigh the rule."

   When Inner City Press, which had first reported on July 19, 2014 Ban's acceptance of free private jet travel from Qatar, pursued this quote at and about the UN, suddenly the transcript was changed, to have Ban saying "We do not have much time to wait and lose."

    Now after meeting with de Mistura, Kerry said "we hope that the UN efforts led by Special Envoy de Mistura can have effect, and we wanted to meet today to talk about this, and I wish him well. He’s heading to Damascus next week.”

   One might ask, is the UN accepting gifted travel for all this, too? Despite the previous controversy and requests, the UN refused to set up a system to disclose its acceptance of such gifts, or to implement a Freedom of Information Act for the UN Secretariat, as long urged by theFree UN Coalition for Access, which continues to ask:

   Does the UN, while claiming to abide by its own stated ethics rules, simply not have time for them and waive them?  And then manipulate and "correct" transcripts to cover it up -- and reply to questions about it by saying, "You're not entitled to be at the noon briefing?" Video here from Minute 4:26.

  Based on Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's answer in Jerusalem on July 23, as initially transcribed by the US State Department, that "we do not have much time to weigh the rules," it appears confirmed that the UN's rules were waived for Ban to take a Qatar-funded jet on his Middle East tour.

  But at the UN's July 23 noon briefing when Inner City Press asked, UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq insisted Ban had not said what the US State Department said he had, and said he has an audio file to this effect -- an audio file that for some reason also did not include the question about the Qatar funded plane that preceded Ban's now altered response.

  Inner City Press requested the audio file, which as of 6:00 pm has not been provided.

   But, the UN got the US State Department to put up a "corrected" transcript, to modify the online version without notice the change, to Ban having said "We do not have much time to wait and lose." So much for "the rules."

 Haq also denied that there is any conflict of interest in accepting the Qatar-funded travel, but did not say when or how an opinion was sought from the UN's Ethics Office. Video here and embedded below. Inner City Press has asked, in writing:

"This is a request for the the entire audio file of the Secretary General's press availability in Jerusalem at which the US State Department transcribed the question, “Mr. Secretary-General, do you think it’s appropriate for Qatar to be paying for your flight here” and this answer:

SECRETARY-GENERAL BAN: No – ladies and gentlemen, this is the 15th day since the crisis began. We do not have much time to weigh the rules.

See, http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/07/229662.htm
[since changed on State Department website from this archived version, here]

"This is also a request to be informed if, when and how the UN Ethics Office was asked about the Secretary General accepting the gift of travel on the Qatar-funded, and the UN's estimate of the value of the gift; a statement of all rules applicable to receipt of this gift, and how much has been spent on Secretary General travel in the past two years. On deadline."

  Here is the UN's "response," with neither the audio file, nor the budget or financial information:

To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:59 PM

The State Department has acknowledged that its transcription was in error and has corrected the record, please see link below.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/07/229662.htm

The Ethics Office has agreed on the need to use the chartered plane because of the Secretary-General's need to travel to a number of locations in the Middle East at short notice, The Ethics Office notes that the Secretary-General interacts with all 193 Member States, and he is scrupulous at maintaining the independence of the UN when engaged in his political and diplomatic undertakings.

   This does not answer "when and how the UN Ethics Office was asked about the Secretary General accepting the gift of travel on the Qatar-funded, and the UN's estimate of the value of the gift; a statement of all rules applicable to receipt of this gift, and how much has been spent on Secretary General travel in the past two years." Watch this site.

The UN has previously censored its transcripts to omit the Free UN Coalition for Access and what was said to Ban. 

On July 21, the UN belatedly answered Inner City Press' July 19 inquiry about Secretary General Ban Ki-moon accepting a free Qatar-funded, British registered private jet for his current travel about Gaza. Video here and embedded below.

  On July 23 in Jerusalem, Ban Ki-moon was asked,"do you think it’s appropriate for Qatar to be paying for your flight here?"

  And Ban Ki-moon responded, "No – ladies and gentlemen, this is the 15th day since the crisis began.  We do not have much time to weigh the rules."

   Inner City Press, and now the Free UN Coalition for Access, have been pursuing this question, including with Transparency International which answered "it would seem that the Secretary General would have had to have been previous clearance to undertake such a paid trip by the Qatari government. This question should be posed to the Office of Ethics."

  And so on July 22, Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq if the UN Ethics Office was asked about accepting the free Qatar-funded private jet flights.

  Haq replied:

“I'm aware that as a standard policy, we inform the Ethics Office of all such offers...I don't know about this particular case. I know it for past cases, every time I have asked the Ethics Office about this, they have talked about being informed about this... They do approve these on the case of exceptional circumstances.”

Inner City Press asked Haq to get an answer from the Ethics Office, if they were asked before Ban began his current trip in the Qatar-funded jet.

Haq said, “I can do this... This is what has happened several times in the past.” 

  But apparently not this time. Ban said, "We do not have much time to weigh the rules." We'll stay on this.

  Watch this site.

   

On Syria, UN Amos Silent on Coalition Casualties, Cites Nubul, Gray Lady No More

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 15 -- When outgoing UN humanitarian aid chief Valerie Amos briefed the Security Council about Syria on December 15, there was in the Spokesperson no accompanying report. Amos' briefing to the Council did not address casualties from US and Gulf allies' air strikes, as November's written report had.

 Instead, Amos said that “all parties to the conflict continue to violate the most basic laws with devastating consequences. The Government has continued to use barrel bombs in densely populated areas, killing and maiming people. The use of barrel bombs has been particularly acute in Aleppo, Hama, Idlib, Rural Damascus, Deir Ez-Zor, Ar-Raqqa and Da'ra.”

 She did mention that “opposition groups have also prevented medical supplies from reaching besieged communities in Nubul and Zarah.” 

 Most troublingly, Amos said that the UN has received reports of 350 children, some as young as five years old, being trained for combat in a military camp in Ar-Raqqa by ISIL.

  Back in late November, the UN released its Syria aid access report  in the same pre-spun way it did on April 23,then on May 22, on June 20 and then on July 24 and August 28. Unlike other reports, for example on Sudanwhere both the UN's Herve Ladsous and Valerie Amos have been petitioned by Darfuri groups, here, the UN put an advance copy of this Syria report its its so-called "gray lady."

  As previously reported, the "gray lady" holds documents, of late only the month's Security Council program of work, of which advance copies are released, sometimes with a heads-up to favored media. 

  Who decided for the UN Secretariat and Spokesman which are the important issues meriting such treatment? The Free UN Coalition for Access posits that it should be all reports, with no advance notice to favored media. The system could be fixed, but to simply without explanation return to the current murk is UNacceptable - and typically UN.

  In December, a correspondent was told, "there is no more gray lady." 

  The new "advance" report, dated November 21, nevertheless says, in Paragraph 9, that "armed opposition and designated terrorist groups continue shelling government controlled areas, including in civilian populated areas... including in Damascus, Homs, Hama and Quneitra. For example, on October 20, mortar shelling was reported on a university in Quneitra."

  So who did this shelling: the  "designated terrorist groups" ISIL and Al Nusra, or the "armed opposition" and did this include the Free Syrian Army? 

 In Paragraph 15, the new / "advance" UN report says that "the international coalition continued airstrikes against ISIL in Syria on a near-daily basis with reports of some 865 people killed, including 50 civilians, in Aleppo, Deir ez-Zor, Hasakeh, Idlib and Raqqa since strikes began."

  Fifty out of 865 - the UN doesn't opine.  The UN report describes the proposal of its envoy Staffan de Mistura (without giving credit to the Geneva-based Center for Humanitarian Dialogue for the idea). Today, the Syrian Coalition said:

"Commenting on the ceasefire proposal put forward by the UN special envoy to Syria Staffan de Mistura, the Syrian Coalition stated that “the goal of any UN move should guarantee the right of the Syrian people to self-determination, to choose their political system, to preserve the unity of Syria and to reject any foreign intervention, especially Iran’s military and political intervention. “Any political process must be based on the Security Council resolutions, including resolutions No. 2118, 2165, 2170, the Geneva I protocols, and the clauses related to the establishment of a transitional governing body with full powers, and accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The starting points for Mistura’s plan must include the establishment of protected safe zones, a no-fly zone north of latitude 35, and south of latitude 33, and in the Qalamoun region, and taking tangible measures to expel the terrorist foreign militias imported by the Assad regime. The plan must also ensure the delivery of relief aid to the areas under siege, the prevention of the Assad regime from using civilians as hostages in exchange for political gains, the release of detainees and the disclosure of Assad’s secret prisons.” Moreover, the statement stresses that the proposed local ceasefires in some areas must be based on the Geneva protocols and the UN Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 2165." The Syrian Coalition, as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people, confirms it is open to any efforts aimed at helping the Syrian people get rid of tyranny, stressing that it is the only party mandated to respond to the UN initiatives that should not affect the unity of the Syrian opposition, rehabilitate the Assad regime or its head, or fuel fears of a taking Syria toward fragmentation and division."

  The September report, conveniently cutting off on September 17, said "Government forces also shelled and undertook airstrikes against ISIL positions in the northern and eastern parts of the country in an attempt to stop ISIL."  What about the US and five Kingdom's airstrikes?

  Inner City Press on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access went to the UN Spokesperson's Office on September 29, the eve of the Security Council's month meeting, and asked for an explanation why rather than reform the pre-spin system, the reports are simply not pre-released. There was no explanation.

Update: on September 30, the UN Spokesperson's office put the report, dated September 23, into its "Gray Lady." What was the point? We'll have more on this. The UN should be transparent.

 The new report goes on, "Government- controlled cities and towns continued to be subject toindiscriminate mortar attacks, shelling and vehicle-borne improvised explosivedevices by armed opposition, extremist and designated terrorist groups, notably in
Aleppo and Damascus governorates. For example, in Aleppo city, extensive shellingin the Khalideah residential and commercial area at the beginning of September resulted in the deaths of eight civilians, including women and children."
 
 On a group neither listed with ISIL and Al Nursa, nor (formally) with the Free Syrian Army, the new UN report says "On September 5, armed opposition groups took control of the Dokhanya and Ein Tarma suburbs of Damascus and engaged government forces in Midan and Zahira al Jadida, located less than 2 km from the Old City. A similar operation took place in Teshrine district, north of Damascus. On 16 September, one of the main Islamic Front factions (Ajnad al Sham) announced the beginning of a second phase of rocket attacks on the centre of Damascus."

   In the new system, selective reports circulate for days before the UN's actual report. 

  The spoon-fed pre-spinner, ironically, has engaged incensorship of other leaks, click here for ChillingEffects.org, here for critique by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

  As Inner City Press reported here, Australia along with Luxembourg and Jordan pushed a  resolution on Syria aid access. 

  Again, the UN report does not directly address calls in Washington to support the Free Syrian Army -- which is still listed by another part of the UN as recruiting and using child soldiers.

  On ISIL, the report continues in Paragraph 8: "ISIL continues to increase its influence in the Syrian Arab Republic, predominantly along the main supply lines in rural central Homs, Hama, Rif
Dimashq, southern Hasakeh and western Aleppo. It also continues to fight for the control of border crossings and natural resources. During the reporting period, it made advances in Raqqa, Hasakeh, and Aleppo governorates following clashes with Government forces."

  How has the pre-spinning worked, or not worked? Back on July 24 at 11:15 am US state media began tweeting about the report. Inner City Press went to the Spokesperson's Office and asked if it had been put out as described below. No, was the answer.

  But 15 minutes later, the Spokesperson's Office squawked that the report had been distributed to the Council, and there is then was in the "gray lady" -- the only UN report still distributed this way -- no reports on Africa are.

 Back on June 20, just before 6 pm, the UN Spokesperson's Office announced over its "squawk" system to correspondents still in the building that the report had been circulated. This meant it had been placed in piece of furniture in the Spokesperson's Office which has sat empty for many days now.

  Apparently only these Syria reports are now pre-released, pre-announced and pre-spun. 

  In terms of the Spokesperson's duty to answer questions, there was by closure on June 20 no answer to Inner City Press' request to confirm or deny Ban Ki-moon was handed legal papers about the introduction of cholera into Haiti as he entered the Asia Society, Inner City Presscoverage here.

  Back on May 22 the UN's go-to wire service, which has also tried to get other media thrown out, gushed that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's "toughly worded report... said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government bore the greater responsibility."

   This wire's report didn't mention the Free Syrian Army displacing people (in the report) or the FSA recruiting child soldiers (in another recent UN report, which Inner City Press noted here.)

  Nor did it mention, for example, "45,000 in areas besieged by opposition forces in Nubul and Zahra." The number remains the same in the June 20 report.

   As we diplomatically sketched on April 23 hoping for some reform, the UN Spokesperson's Office makes "advance copies" of reports available. That is fine - but there is no consistency in who they tell of the availability of reports or how they make the announcement.

  Showing bias, they only "squawk" over the internal intercom system some but not all reports. 

  Now this inconsistency applies to pre-releasing some but not all reports. Who decides? How?

   Using the squawk system rather than e-mailing all resident correspondents favors media, like the UN friendly wire, which have a person sitting in their office -- for example a person who filed a "for the record" complaint against another media, than scammed Google into banning the leaked complaint from Search, misusing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, click here for that.

  Other international organizations handle this with less bias. The IMF gives accredited media like Inner City Press embargoed copies of documents, and hold embargoed briefings to which accredited journalists anywhere in the world can pose questions, then wait and report at the embargo time. The UN must improve: and the Free UN Coalition for Access is working on this.

  Other have complained about this murky UN practices; others still a month ago asked FUNCA to wait a week before proposing reforms, which it did. But where are any reforms? We will continue to Press.

   If the Gulf & Western insiders on the board of the UN Correspondents Association, which tried to get other media thrown out of the UN, have a problem with disclosure, they too should push the UN to reform. But they won't even reform themselves, and for example commit not to seek the expulsion of other media from the UN. 

  The current spokesperson has taken sides on this and other things; it is time for reform. If Ban Ki-moon is so tough and principled, why was he praising the president of Sri Lanka just after a report showed him seeking to "go all the way" and kill all his opponents? This all circles back. We'll have more on this.

Further back-ground: On April 30 when UN Humanitarian chief Valerie Amos took media questions, Inner City Press asked her about two paragraphs of her report on Syria, the advance copy of which was released on April 23 as analyzed below.

   Paragraph 47 disclosed 25 UN staff members detained. Inner City Press asked, by whom? Amos said by both the government and the armed groups. 

 The June 20 report, in Paragraph 44, says "29 UN staff (27 UNRWA and 2 UNDP) are currently detained of which four are missing."

   The Free UN Coalition for Access has repeatedly asked, including at UN noon briefings, why these reports don't just go online for all to see. The response, off-camera, has been to allow translation into the UN's official six languages. Really?

  The result is that stories are written, for example here by Reuters, that focus on the Syrian government while the report has whole sections about Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, ISIS, et al. Is this retyping really "reporting" by the Reuters bureau chief, who himself is engaged in censorship, here?

 Despite the lack of any stated rule in this regard,  FUNCA and Inner City Press have been criticized for even questioning or reporting on this anti-public process. A previous UN spokesperson told Inner City Press the reason for stealth is that "the member states" would like pre-release before translation. But doesn't the Secretariat WORK for member states? Or is this how they buy the fealty of the scribes?

   But if Gulf media immediately scans and puts the advance copy online, where is the mystery? Where is the double standard? Wouldn't it be better for the UN itself to put the report online when available?

 And then not, as it did on Western Sahara, change the report after getting pushed around? FUNCA is and will remain for UN transparency and fair treatment. And FUNCA maintains there should be answers -- including from UN Under Secretaries General -- and written rules. The UN has outright refused to explain why for example the Turkish Cypriot leader Eroglu was allowed to speak on UNTV but Polisario is not. The lack of rules only benefits the powerful: media, countries, corporations.

  Back in April when Syrian Ambassador Bashar Ja'fari came to speak, Inner City Press asked him about US-made BGM-71 TOW missiles now in Syria, of the group Harakat Hazm. They are with Al Nusra, Ja'afari said.

  Inner City Press asked on what basis Ja'afari said the US approved their transfer to Syria, if they could have come through Turkey. Ja'afari said there is no way they could come in without approval from Washington. Video here -- this is Inner City Press YouTube video.

  Unlike other stakeouts, the UN did not put on its UN Webcast archive Ja'afari's long April 17 stakeout including on TOW missiles. Inner City Press asked about it on April 22 at the noon briefing, and later another UN individual acknowledged it had not gone up. But why?  Now, only after asking, it is up. Click here (TOW question and answer from Minute 15:17.) This is how the UN works, or doesn't.

  This has happened again in June  - click here.

  Ja'afari was asked by Voice of America, why Syria doesn't use Russia or China to get a meeting about Kassab. Ja'afari responded to the question; he did not say as France Ambassador Gerard Araud did on April 15 to Al Mayadeen, "You are not a journalist, you are an agent."
 
  By Araud's logic, is not Voice of America an agent? Is not France 24, also called on by Ja'afari? Ah, freedom of the press. Here is what the Free UN Coalition for Access has done so far.

   When outgoing French Ambassador Araud scheduled a press conference on human rights for April 15, he began to receive many questions, here, about blocking human rights monitoring in Western Sahara. 

  It is a policy Araud is particularly associated with, since Javier Barden quoted him calling Morocco France's "mistress." Araud spoke of suing, but hasn't.

   But when during the April 15 press conference, in which Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Accesswere not called on, Araud was asked about France having killed people in Algeria, Araud told the questioner, You are not a journalist, you are an agent. Video here.

  The French run press conference gave the first question to Al Arabiya, for UNCA (now known as the UN's Censorship Alliance), then France 24.  By Araud's spokesperson Frederic Jung, a Voice of America affiliate was given a question. 

  Syria "Caesar" report panelist David Crane was asked who funded it and answered on camera merely that he was paid. (The photographs, Inner City Press noted and notes, are extremely troubling - all the more reason that taking Qatar's funding and denouncing the only critical question were unwise.)

  Afterward, Inner City Press asked Crane to confirm the payment was from Qatar. He confirmed it. Inner City Press asked, did you seek any other, less compromised funding? The answer was no. In fact, Crane said he gave his recommendations to the Syrian National Council. Afterward Inner City Press asked him if he meant the Turkey based group headed by Ahmed Al Jarba, and Crane said yes, than added, "The resistance" writ large.

     When Qatar sponsored an event at the UN in New York on March 21 featuring the Syrian Coalition headed by Ahmad al Jarba, a group calling its the Syrian Grassroots Movement held protests seeking to oust Jarba.

   By March 22, the group stated that some 40,000 people in 58 cities inside Syria had participated in demonstrations to get Jarba out of his post, saying "it is time to put an end to political corruption."

  Back in September 2013, France sponsored an event in the UN and called Jarba the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people. French Ambassador Gerard Araud was the first questioning at Qatar's March 21 Syrian Coalition event. What is France's position now? Who chooses the leaders?

  Likewise, back in July 2013 and earlier this month, the Jarba-led Syrian Coalition held faux "UN" events in the clubhouse Ban Ki-moon's Secretariat gives to the largely Gulf and Western UN Correspondents Association. How does that now appear, in light of the anti-Jarba protests?

   Qatar's March 21 event was not listed in the UN Journal nor in the UN Media Alert. It was not on the UN's publicly available webcast.

  Select media outlets were there, when Inner City Press came in at the end to ask a question: Al Jazeera on the podium in Qatar's event, Al Arabiya like a Saudi diplomat -- not the Permanent Representative -- in the audience along with Al Hayat, even Al Hurra, on whose Broadcasting Board of Governors US Secretary of State John Kerry serves.

   The new Free UN Coalition for Access is against fauxUN events, in the clubhouse the Secretariat gives to what's become its UN Censorship Alliance or elsewhere.

Watch this site.