After Pope Francis Speaks on Usury in UNGA, Inner City Press Asks New UNPGA Mogens Lykketoft of Debt, "Not Within UN Walls," He Predicts: Really?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 25 -- After Pope Francis in his General Assembly speech denounced "usury, especially where developing countries are concerned," Inner City Press later on September 25 asked new General Assembly President Mogens Lykketoft about the comment and the process in the GA, at least in the last session, on sovereign debt restructuring. Video here.

  Lykketoft said that he didn't think the issue would be dealt with within the UN's walls -- strange, given that resolutions sponsored by Argentina, Bolivia and the Group of 77 and China on just his have passed by substantial majorities. Perhaps Inner City Press will have the opportunity to ask Lykketoft about this again: getting a question in to him is proving less straight forward that it should be, but we remain optimistic. Watch this site.

 The issue of sovereign debt restructuring was taken up at the UN on December 5, 2014 with a resolution on modalities for negotiation sponsored by Bolivia for the Group of 77 and China put to a vote in the Second Committee of the UN General Assembly.

  The US spoke against the resolution and in favor of dealing with it through the International Monetary Fund -- note that the US is blocking IMF reform -- and was one of 16 countries to vote "no."  34 countries abstained and fully 128 countries voted yes.
 
  Afterward Bolovia's Permanent Representative Sacha Llorenti and his counterpart from Argentina Maria Cristina Perceval held a press conference in the UN Press Briefing Room.

  Inner City Press thanked the duo for the Free UN Coalition for Access-- tellingly, the old UN Correspondents Association wasn't there, though the UN Secretariat insists on setting aside question for what's become its UN Censorship Alliance -- and asked about the IMF, and a growing investors in Argentina's debt.

  Llorenti emphasized the greater legitimacy of the UN General Assembly -- one country, one vote -- over the pay to play environment of the IMF. He contrasted the 16 "no" voting countries as a percentage of those in the GA, versus their power in the IMF.

  Perceval joined and expanded in this comments, and declined to comment on the company Inner City Press had asked about, Highland Capital. She said this is not about Argentina's problem but the multilateral process. She said that Argentina took a lead on the issue of the disappeared, though it was too late to help Argentina. 

  While understandable, there's nothing wrong with a particular country's problems being an engine for raising an issue of wider import. This is how things get changed, if they do, says the Free UN Coalition for Access. We'll have more on this.

On October 6 with the dispute between Argentina and hedge or vulture funds more and more discussed, the International Monetary Fund on released a paper and held an embargoed press call on the topic of "Strengthening the Contractual Framework to Address Collective Action Problems in Sovereign Debt Restructuring."

  Inner City Press asked the IMF's Sean Hagan, General Counsel and Director of the IMF's Legal Department, how his "market based" approach relates to the vote take last month in the UN General Assembly and to respond to the critique that the lack of quota reform at the IMF undermines the legitimacy of its approach.

   Hagan said the UNGA's approach is "treaty based," and that

"There was insufficient support in our members to support that approach, there has been in no change in the attitude of our members when we discussed this last year.”

  But in essence the membership of the IMF is the same as the UN General Assembly -- it's just that in the IMF votes are weighed to wealth, measured in the past. The UN is controlled by five permanently veto-wielding Security Council members. At the IMF for now there is one veto: the US.

  Hagan made much of Kazakhstan including some of the IMF supported language in its most recent bond issuance. He mentioned copycat litigation, already pending in Grenada. He said it seems the issue will be discussed at the upcoming IMF and World Bank Annual Meetings in a session involving "civil society organizations." We'll have more on this.

 For now, the IMF on October 6 said "Directors acknowledged that the recent New York court decisions with respect to Argentina may exacerbate collective action problems, although most felt that the extent of their impact on the restructuring process is still unclear. Directors welcomed the recent modification of pari passu clauses in certain sovereign bond issuances to explicitly exclude the obligation to effect ratable payments."

 So beyond the cited Kakastan, how prevalent is this?

 The IMF also on October 6 discussed "the inclusion of an enhanced collective action clause (CAC) that includes a more robust 'aggregation' feature to address collective action problems more effectively."

  Back on September 11, two days after 124 nations in the UN General Assembly voted to start a process on sovereign debt restructuring, Inner City Press asked the International Monetary Fund, "What is the IMF's comment on the “sovereign debt restructuring” resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 9? The resolution cites the IMF's work on the issues, in 2003."

  At the IMF's embargoed briefing that day, IMF spokesperson William Murray provided a long answer, including that the IMF is working on a "market based" solution, particularly on debt contractual terms to prevent "hold out" problems. He mentioned, as he had to, Argentina, which has had it own contentious relation with the IMF.

  Clearly, Argentina -- and Bolivia as chair of the Group of 77 -- were aware of these IMF efforts when they pursued the issue in the UN General Assembly. But it's a power game.

When Argentina's foreign minister Héctor Timerman held a press conference at the UN at 5:30 pm on September 9, he was flanked not only by Argentina's ambassador to the UN Maria Cristina Perceval but also the chair of the Group of 77, Sacha Llorenti of Bolivia. 

  They spoke of 11 countries opposing their resolution on sovereign debt and vultures funds, or sovereign debt restructuring, including the United States. Timerman took the high road, saying that Argentina would present a project with the G77 and speak with all opponents. 

  He asked how the UN General Assembly, which he called the most democratic forum, could be involved in so many fields but not this one. Why indeed.

   Back in June, Inner City Press thanked Timerman and his finance minister Axel Kicillof on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, then asked if Elliott Management and Aurelius Capital hold stakes in other G77 members, and if the case shows the need for reform, that countries should have at least the same debt restructuring rights as corporations.

  Kicillof added, states and the people (pueblos) they represented. He said that in the G77 meeting, Peru had spoken. An attentive Inner City Press reader chimed in with a question about Ecuador, which sold bonds just this week.

  But in that case, new language tried to avoid the Argentina decision of the US Supreme Court, just as Belize and Armenia have also done on their debt. Watch this site. 

    

In UN Decolonization Committee, US Absent From Meeting On Puerto Rico & Vieques, Western Sahara Next

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 22 -- With Puerto Rico the topic of the UN's Decolonization Committee on Monday afternoon, the outside speakers cited the inability to vote for US President to the environmental destruction of Vieques by US bombs. Afterward member states spoke, including Nicaragua on the Monroe Doctrine and Sandino. Cuba's resolution was brought up for decision -- and passed without a vote.

   Inner City Press ran downstairs to basement Conference Room 3 as Cuba was speaking after the vote. Venezuela's Permanent Representative was there, along with his Bolivian counterpart and others. But the seat of the United States, like those of France and the UK beside it, were empty. Periscope video for now here. “It's always like this,” one delegate told Inner City Press. The UN is a strange place.

  (Cuba's Deputy Permanent Representative said that the UN Department of Public Information last Monday said that webcasting of the Committee was guaranteed, but this was later brought into question as has been raised to theFree UN Coalition for Access.)

  While the chairperson of the meeting said that the agenda for June 23 had yet to be decided, Inner City Press had heard it will be Western Sahara. In that case, it seems doubt that Morocco will follow the US and “just say no,” not show up.

  One thing that may be different this year is the revelations in the Morocco cables leaked by or on “Chris Coleman” Twitter account. Earlier on June 22, Inner City Press asked the UN Spokesman who it was in the UN, who called Anders Kompass a “sleaze-bag.” Video here.  We'll have more on this.
   

Fish in High Seas Subject of Friday Night Fight at UN, Consensus Reached

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 24 -- After late Friday night negotiations, consensus was reached to begin negotiating the first UN treaty to conserve marine biological diversity in ocean areas beyond national jurisdiction. The document will be published and voted on in the UN General Assembly.

   But how did it come about, at the end?

   On the morning of Friday, January 23 things did not look good. The larger group took over Conference Room 5 in the UN basement, with a hundred-some seat; the Group of 77 repaired to smaller Conference Room 8. (The Security Council was in a closed meeting in Room 7 about human rights and peacekeeping; some UN-based reporters werelured into a meeting feigning a fight for access,  leadership engaged in censorship).

   Inner City Press spoke with different sides of the oceans debate, some expressing frustration not only at big power but also seafaring (and fishing) countries like Iceland and Argentina. It came down to a showdown in Conference Room 5, while upstairs in the Delegates Lounge new contractor Culinart served up drinks.

   Surprising to many of those involved, longtime Sri Lanka ambassador Palitha Kohona was in the mix, even after the defeat of “his” president Mahinda Rajapaksa and investigation of Gotabaya Rajapaksa for media murder. Kohona was head of the UN's Treaty Division, so there's that. Jamaica's Deputy Permanent Representative was in the house, and South Africa now speaking for the Group of 77, having taken over from Bolivia.

   First the rub was Paragraph 7; then it shifted back to Paragraph 6 bis, about not undermining the Law of the Sea and other related instruments. Versions was projected on the wall; the phrase “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” was deployed.  And finally, though less than advocate wanted, this agreement to negotiated was reached. And so it goes at the UN.

   

At UN, Second Sovereign Debt Restructuring Resolution Passes 128-16-34 in Second Committee, Of Unreformed IMF

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 5 -- The issue of sovereign debt restructuring was taken up against at the UN on December 5, with a resolution on modalities for negotiation sponsored by Bolivia for the Group of 77 and China put to a vote in the Second Committee of the UN General Assembly.

  The US spoke against the resolution and in favor of dealing with it through the International Monetary Fund -- note that the US is blocking IMF reform -- and was one of 16 countries to vote "no."  34 countries abstained and fully 128 countries voted yes.
 
  Afterward Bolovia's Permanent Representative Sacha Llorenti and his counterpart from Argentina Maria Cristina Perceval held a press conference in the UN Press Briefing Room.

  Inner City Press thanked the duo for the Free UN Coalition for Access -- tellingly, the old UN Correspondents Association wasn't there, though the UN Secretariat insists on setting aside question for what's become its UN Censorship Alliance -- and asked about the IMF, and a growing investors in Argentina's debt.

  Llorenti emphasized the greater legitimacy of the UN General Assembly -- one country, one vote -- over the pay to play environment of the IMF. He contrasted the 16 "no" voting countries as a percentage of those in the GA, versus their power in the IMF.

  Perceval joined and expanded in this comments, and declined to comment on the company Inner City Press had asked about, Highland Capital. She said this is not about Argentina's problem but the multilateral process. She said that Argentina took a lead on the issue of the disappeared, though it was too late to help Argentina. 

  While understandable, there's nothing wrong with a particular country's problems being an engine for raising an issue of wider import. This is how things get changed, if they do, says the Free UN Coalition for Access. We'll have more on this.

On October 6 with the dispute between Argentina and hedge or vulture funds more and more discussed, the International Monetary Fund on released a paper and held an embargoed press call on the topic of "Strengthening the Contractual Framework to Address Collective Action Problems in Sovereign Debt Restructuring."

  Inner City Press asked the IMF's Sean Hagan, General Counsel and Director of the IMF's Legal Department, how his "market based" approach relates to the vote take last month in the UN General Assembly and to respond to the critique that the lack of quota reform at the IMF undermines the legitimacy of its approach.

   Hagan said the UNGA's approach is "treaty based," and that

"There was insufficient support in our members to support that approach, there has been in no change in the attitude of our members when we discussed this last year.”

  But in essence the membership of the IMF is the same as the UN General Assembly -- it's just that in the IMF votes are weighed to wealth, measured in the past. The UN is controlled by five permanently veto-wielding Security Council members. At the IMF for now there is one veto: the US.

  Hagan made much of Kazakhstan including some of the IMF supported language in its most recent bond issuance. He mentioned copycat litigation, already pending in Grenada. He said it seems the issue will be discussed at the upcoming IMF and World Bank Annual Meetings in a session involving "civil society organizations." We'll have more on this.

 For now, the IMF on October 6 said "Directors acknowledged that the recent New York court decisions with respect to Argentina may exacerbate collective action problems, although most felt that the extent of their impact on the restructuring process is still unclear. Directors welcomed the recent modification of pari passu clauses in certain sovereign bond issuances to explicitly exclude the obligation to effect ratable payments."

 So beyond the cited Kakastan, how prevalent is this?

 The IMF also on October 6 discussed "the inclusion of an enhanced collective action clause (CAC) that includes a more robust 'aggregation' feature to address collective action problems more effectively."

  Back on September 11, two days after 124 nations in the UN General Assembly voted to start a process on sovereign debt restructuring, Inner City Press asked the International Monetary Fund, "What is the IMF's comment on the “sovereign debt restructuring” resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 9? The resolution cites the IMF's work on the issues, in 2003."

  At the IMF's embargoed briefing that day, IMF spokesperson William Murray provided a long answer, including that the IMF is working on a "market based" solution, particularly on debt contractual terms to prevent "hold out" problems. He mentioned, as he had to, Argentina, which has had it own contentious relation with the IMF.

  Clearly, Argentina -- and Bolivia as chair of the Group of 77 -- were aware of these IMF efforts when they pursued the issue in the UN General Assembly. But it's a power game.

When Argentina's foreign minister Héctor Timerman held a press conference at the UN at 5:30 pm on September 9, he was flanked not only by Argentina's ambassador to the UN Maria Cristina Perceval but also the chair of the Group of 77, Sacha Llorenti of Bolivia. 

  They spoke of 11 countries opposing their resolution on sovereign debt and vultures funds, or sovereign debt restructuring, including the United States. Timerman took the high road, saying that Argentina would present a project with the G77 and speak with all opponents. 

  He asked how the UN General Assembly, which he called the most democratic forum, could be involved in so many fields but not this one. Why indeed.

   Back in June, Inner City Press thanked Timerman and his finance minister Axel Kicillof on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, then asked if Elliott Management and Aurelius Capital hold stakes in other G77 members, and if the case shows the need for reform, that countries should have at least the same debt restructuring rights as corporations.

  Kicillof added, states and the people (pueblos) they represented. He said that in the G77 meeting, Peru had spoken. An attentive Inner City Press reader chimed in with a question about Ecuador, which sold bonds just this week.

  But in that case, new language tried to avoid the Argentina decision of the US Supreme Court, just as Belize and Armenia have also done on their debt. Watch this site. 

    

As Ukraine & Russia Cross Info Swords, UN Radio Reported Ukraine's Speech As Given A Day Before It Was

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 22 -- Ukraine was scheduled to speak at the UN about its “Committee on Information” on October 21, but as UN speeches usually go longer than allowed, its turn was postponed until October 22.

That didn't stop the “UN Radio” Russian service from reporting on the speech on October 21 as if it had in fact been given that day. As translated, UN Radio on October 21 reported

“The representative of Ukraine accused Russia of using the information strategy of the Cold War

“One of the main prerequisites of violence in Ukraine became a propaganda information. This was stated by the representative of the Mission of Ukraine to the United Nations, speaking at a meeting of the Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly.”

  The UN's Fourth Committee did meet on October 21 - but Ukraine didn't speak. Instead it was the first speaker on the afternoon of October 22. Its speech, delivered in perfect French including the word “rigolo,” linked Russia to Joseph Goebbels.

  In reply, the Russian mission's spokesman brought up the recent Human Rights Watch report of the Ukrainian government using cluster bombs in and against Donetsk, and the lack of clarity on who called the snipers shots in Maidan Square.

  Later in the Fourth Committee meeting, Bolivia slammed “powers” who use information technology to intervene and violate privacy, bringing to mind USAID's “Cuban Twitter” and, of course, the NSA.

  Then Jordan said it was first among Arab nations to enact an Access to Information law, in 2007. The Free UN Coalition for Access has been pressing for a Freedom of Information Act at the UN, click here and here for that.

  FUNCA covers the Fourth Committee, including on Decolonization, and the Committee on Information, where at least theoretically the UN's descent into censorship could be raised and resolved. The old UN Correspondents Association, a part of this trend toward privatization of briefings and even censorship -- ordering Press articles off the Internet, getting leaked copies of their complaints to the UN's MALU banned from Google's search, here -- was nowhere to be seen. We'll have more on this.

   

At UN, JPMorgan Chase Closed Accounts, But It Gets Its Name Dropped from General Assembly Resolution

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 10 -- On the same day the banking industry's lawsuit against New York City's responsible banking ordinance was dismissed, at the UN on First Avenue the General Assembly issued muted criticism of JPMorgan Chase. Video here, from Minute 2:59:35.

  Back on March 18 JPMorgan Chase came up as a topic, and target, in a closed door meeting at the UN of the Group of 77 and China on March 18, several Permanent Representative then exclusively told Inner City Press. They marveled that the UN does business with JPM Chase while the bank cuts off many of the member states of the UN.

  In April, a G77-agreed draft resolution emerged, including a review of the UN's relations with JPM Chase -- by name. Inner City Press has publishing the full text of that draft, below.

  But in the months since April, the resolution got watered down, until it was adopted without opposition or debate at the end of a three-hour UN General Assembly session on September 9. (There was debate about Argentina and sovereign debt restructuring, which Inner City Press covered yesterday here.)

   Introducing the resolution was Bolivia, as chair of the Group of 77 and China; their speech said that banks in the City of New York have "humiliated" several nation's UN missions.

  Here is the adopted text of the resolution, seen in advance by IPS, which also quoted Sri Lanka's ambassador Palitha Kohona about it. Kohona was previously, among other things, a UN official, so he should know.

  Still, the idea that asking Ban Ki-moon to press the US to do almost anything is dubious. Will JPMorgan Chase view a UNGA resolution in which it is not directly named, only "sub-tweeted," as a threat to its reputation? After its behavior during the subprime lending meltdown -- the predatory bender -- does that even have to be asked?

  Back on March 18 in the half-light of the UN Conference Building's second floor, ambassadors complained that while JPMorgan Chase is moving to deny many of their missions bank accounts, the bank also overcharges them when for example they pay or get paid by UN Peacekeeping.

  The idea discussed was to draft and vote on a General Assembly resolution on the topic. The US government is required, under the UN Host Country Agreement, to try to ensure banking services for countries' diplomatic missions. Here is the G77-agreed language, on which for now the UN Secretariat has declined comment:

7 April 2014 Group of 77 and China DRAFT RESOLUTION General Assembly Sixty-eighth session

Agenda item 124 Strengthening of the United Nations system

Agenda item 125 United Nations reform: measures and proposals

Enhancement of the administration and financial functioning of the United Nations

The General Assembly,

PP1 Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and its relevant provisions,

PP2 Considering the agreement established by the United Nations, the host country, and the City of New York, in order to guarantee the rights, obligations and the fulfillment of responsibilities by Member States towards the United Nations, under the United Nations Charter and international law,

PP3 Taking into consideration also that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and the host country agreement of 26 June 1947 approved by General Assembly resolution A/RES/169(II), are the regulatory framework for States and international organizations, in particular the relations for the United Nations headquarters in the City of New York and the Member and Observer States,

PP4 Expressing its deep concern over the decisions made on a number of occasions by several banking institutions, including JP Morgan Chase Bank (the United States consumer and commercial banking business of JPMorgan Chase & Co.) in relation to the closing of the Permanent Missions’ accounts and the accounts of their staff accredited to the United Nations and their relatives,

PP5 Regretting the notifications made by the host country to the Permanent Missions, indicating that the relations between the Permanent Missions of Member and Observer States and their staff with the banking institutions in the City of New York, as well as the financial relations between the United Nations Secretariat and the banking institutions, are both of a private nature and are not regulated, directed, or oriented in any way by the host country or any of its agencies,

PP6 Stressing that Governments of Members and Observers of the United Nations, the Permanent Missions and their staff, as well as the United Nations headquarters, UN Agencies, Funds and Programmes, ought to be guaranteed the normal functioning of their facilities in order to discharge their duties, and recalling the obligations of the Host Country under international law to accord full facilities for the performances of the functions of the Permanent Missions accredited to the United Nations;

PP7 Keeping in mind the need for Permanent Missions and the United Nations organization as a whole, to establish long-term business relations based on mutual trust and respect, especially in light of the latest actions taken by some banking institutions, including the JP Morgan Chase Bank in this regard,

OP1 Requests the Secretary General to review and report to the General Assembly, within the next 120 days following the adoption of the present resolution, of any obstacles or impediments observed in the accounts opened by the Permanent Missions of Member and Observer States or their staff at the JP Morgan Chase Bank in the City of New York, and the impact that these impediments have on the adequate functioning of their offices, and, to this end, invites Member and Observer States to provide the Secretary General with relevant information that will facilitate the elaboration of such report;

OP2 Also requests the Secretary General to submit to the General Assembly a set of recommendations and a proposal oriented to reviewing the U.N. Secretariat’s financial relations with the JP Morgan Chase Bank and considering alternatives to such financial institutions and to report thereon along with the information requested in OP1 above;

OP3 Further requests the Secretary General, as soon as possible but not later than 30 days from the adoption of the present resolution, to provide Member and Observer States with alternative options regarding banking services in the City of New York, to allow them to adequately manage and maintain their accounts, assessed budgetary contributions, voluntary contributions, transfers and other financial activities directly related to their membership to the United Nations, and their Permanent Missions, while reassuring, by holding proper negotiations on this matter in his capacity as UN chief administrative officer, including with the host country, that all Permanent and Observer Missions and their staff and their family members will be granted equal, fair, and non-discriminatory treatment from the referred institutions when conducting their respective accounts;

OP4 Requests the host country, in light of its obligations under international law including the host country agreement, in particular sections 1, 2(b) and 27 and especially stressing the provisions as outlined in section 25, and the Vienna Convention, to take, as soon as possible, all the necessary measures to ensure Permanent Missions accredited to the United Nations and their staff are granted equal, fair and non-discriminatory treatment by the banking system;

OP5 Underscores the importance of the host country taking the necessary measures to ensure that personal data and information of persons affected by the closure of accounts is kept confidential by banking institutions, including the JP Morgan Chase Bank and the possible successors of those institutions, and requests the Secretary-General to work with the host country in that regard and to report to the General Assembly within 90 days;

OP6. Decides to keep this matter under review during the 68th session of the General Assembly as well as the following sessions.

   So JPMorgan Chase was in PP4 of the April draft, but its name was dropped before the September vote. JPM Chase was centrally involved in the 2008 predatory lending meltdown that hurt the economies of countries around the world, as Inner City Press has covered in depth. It has avoided any jail time for that, and now slips out of a UNGA resolution. But the press for accountability will continue. Watch this site.

   

Bolivia's Carlos Mesa Explains Chile International Court of Justice Case at UN, Next Stop OAS

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 6 -- Former Bolivian president Carlos Mesa came to the UN on September 5 to explain his country's International Court of Justice case against Chile for access to the Pacific Ocean. 

  He met with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon (who also, for example, listens to Argentina about the Malvinas / Falkland Islands), and said he would soon meet with Jimmy Carter.

  Inner City Press asked Mesa about another meeting, with the Organization of American States' Secretary General José Miguel Insulza -- who happens to be from Chile. Recently Inner City Press has inquired into the possible impact of Ban Ki-moon's history as South Korea's foreign minister on (not) commenting on a press freedom case there.

  To Mesa, Inner City Press asked if he thought Insulza's Chilean roots might have any impact.

  Mesa diplomatically said no, and also that Bolivia knows it is up to the ICJ to decide, these meetings are simply to explain the country's position. That Latin America has gone so long without an inter-state war is noteworthy. Bolivia is currently the head of the Group of 77; Latin America could and should have more positions in the international system. Watch this site.

Footnote: The UN News Centre, in Spanish, covered Mesa's press conference -- but apparently did not do so in English. The Free UN Coalition for Access is inquiring into such selectivity at the UN, particularly in the run-up to the the high level week(s).

   

On Gaza, Criticism in UN General Assembly of Security Council Inertia, ISIL Compared to Both Israel & Hamas

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 6, more here -- In the UN General Assembly on the morning of August 6 Robert Serry, the UN's coordinator on the Middle East Peace Process, said that this Process “may also need action by the Membership, including the Security Council, at the appropriate time.”

  But when would that be? Throughout the day's debate, countries criticized the Security Council for inaction, some blaming the Arab Group, others an unnamed Permanent member of the Council, some saying, the United States.

  The word genocide was used numerous times; at the end, Israel took issue with Bolivia and Cuba for comparisons to Hitler, offering to give them the email address of the UN's Holocaust Education Outreach program.

 (In the hall after that, another country's representative asked Inner City Press why they hadn't been included with Bolivia ad Cuba.)

   Some speakers looked beyond Gaza. Iraq compared Israel to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant; Israel had compared ISIL and Hamas. 

  Syria's Bashar Ja'afari, very much back in New York, mocked the Security Council for limited its condemnation of ISIL to killings in Iraq but not Syria. He invoked former President of the General Assembly d'Escoto Brockmann, recently re-instated by the Pope.

  South Africa's Deputy Permanent Representative said the Security Council has done nothing on Palestine for more than five years, and cited the US' veto of the draft resolution on settlements.

  Pakistan's Masood Khan said, "Gaza has been wrecked and ravaged; this was no war, there was no symmetry."

 Bolivia's Permanent Representative Sacha Llorenti, who earlier in the day met with current President of the General Assemblye John Ashe and Argentina's Foreign Minister Hector Timerman about holding a GA session about sovereign debt, slammed the Security Council for inaction.

 

  As the meeting began, a Permanent Representative who has previously complained of General Assembly inaction on Gaza now noted that no outcome was even proposed to the GA meeting, "just talk."

  An hour before the belated General Assembly meeting began, a closed-door consultation was called on the Jordan-drafted proposed Security Council resolution, at the level (mostly) of Permanent Representative. The day before on August 5 it was said that this draft is already "in blue" -- strange, if it is still being negotiated.

  But in front of the General Assembly on August 6, an African diplomat told Inner City Press that the resolution was put "in blue" precisely in order to block any General Assembly action. When the Security Council is seized of a matter, he said, the General Assembly cannot act.

  So what is going on in this ping-pong between UN Security Council and UN General Assembly, while UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has still not corrected his August 1 statement that an Israeli Defense Forces solider was "captive" of Hamas, now that the IDF said he was killed in action? Watch this site.

At 10 pm on August 4 in New York, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement on the Gaza ceasefire set to begin three hours later. But he had yet to correct his August 1 statement on the previous ceasefire. Here is the new statement:

"The Secretary-General welcomes the efforts leading to a new ceasefire as announced today.  He commends the parties for committing to this ceasefire of 72 hours, to begin Tuesday, 5 August, at 8 a.m. local time, and calls on them to abide by it.  Until the start of the ceasefire, the parties must exercise the utmost restraint.

"The Secretary-General urges the parties to commence, as soon as possible, talks in Cairo on a durable ceasefire and the underlying issues. In this regard, he welcomes the proactive engagement of the Palestinian delegation under the leadership of President Abbas.  Such talks are the only way to sustainably stop the violence, which has cost far too many lives, and to change the untenable and tragic status quo in Gaza.  The United Nations stands ready to lend its full support to these efforts."

On August 1 at noon in New York, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon through his spokesman said that an Israeli Defense Forces soldier had been taken captive and that this called "into question the credibility of Hamas' assurances to the United Nations. The Secretary-General demands the immediate and unconditional release of the captured soldier."

  Later on August 1, a range of UN officials described to Inner City Press the pressure put on Ban to rule that Hamas broke the ceasefire and held captive an IDF soldier.  "How does he know?" one UN official demanded.

   On August 2, the IDF said that the soldier, Hadar Goldin, "was killed in action."  

  So on August 4, with no correction issued by the UN, Inner City Press asked Ban's associate spokesperson Vannina Maestracci if there would be any correction, since Ban's statement was used --

  Maestracci cut off the question, "let me stop you right there," and said that the UN tried to get things right with fast moving events. Video here, and embedded below.

  Fine - but when as here the UN was wrong, aren't they supposed to correct it? Maestracci's colleagues have repeatedly said that they correct the record when necessary. Is that the case? What about this case? Watch this site.

At 5:30 pm on July 31 the UN announced its spokesman Stephane Dujarric would read out a statement, "for the cameras," in its briefing room. Inner City Press ran there but arrived just as Dujarric finished reading the ceasefire statement.

   But the first line said, "the UN Representative in Jerusalem, Special Coordinator Robert Serry, has received assurances that all parties have agreed to an unconditional humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza."  With the ceasefire in shambles, that is dubious.

 Now Haaretz has reported that Serry "spoke with Hamas leadership in Gaza."

  So on August 1 Inner City Press put two questions to UN Department of Political Affairs chief Jeffrey Feltman. First, would he confirm that Serry spoke with Hamas in Gaza?

   And second, as a former - and future? - US officials, does Feltman think the UN should at least disclose when Ban Ki-moon accepts "in kind" / gifts such as the Qatari-funded private jet he flew on to Doha, to mediate on Gaza.

  Dujarric cut off this question to Feltman, saying that it was already answered. But there is no routine disclosure by the UN. And the impact on the UN's political role is obvious, for example considering that this was the ONLY question asked of Ban Ki-moon in Jerusalem (the UN censored it), and it's been asked at the UN Security Council stakeout.

  Dujarric did not answer when asked, shouldn't there be disclosure. He called it "in kind" - but is it subtracted from what Qatar owes or pays the UN in dues?

  Then Feltman refused to say if Serry spoke with Hamas, saying that he wasn't with Serry. So Feltman doesn't know? Or won't say?

 It's one thing for a diplomat from a country to say, that's secret. But since the UN ostensibly represents, works for and is accountable at least to all 193 states, if not to "we the peoples," on what logic are these things secret? We'll have more on this.

   Earlier on July 31 outside the UN Security Council, Israel's Ambassador Ron Prosor and then the State of Palestine's Permanent Observer Riyad Mansour took questions from the Press.

  Inner City Press asked Prosor about Krahenbuhl's call to end the blockade of Gaza. Prosor replied that Israel has no interest in being in Gaza -- what, is there oil there, he asked rhetorically -- but cited and showed charts of Hamas rocket fire, and tunnels (which he said are funded by Qatar).

  Inner City Press asked Mansour about the US Department of Defense' confirmation of new ammunition transfers to Israel (see below).

  Mansour said that more weapons are not needed; he said that the killing of entire families would make peace much more difficult to achieve but that it should be strived for, an independent state of Palestine.

  In the UN Security Council, the Gaza issue has essentially been delegated to the US. In the UN Security Council on July 30, Nigeria criticized the Council's delay in issuing even a Presidential Statement; Chad called the Council "impotent."

  At the end of Rwandan presidency reception later on July 30, Inner City Press was told by more than one Council member that it is all up to the US. But, one might ask, how can a party transferring ammunition be considering an honest broker? 

  Couldn't this transfer had been at least delayed? But that too would have been a story, bigger than this one, which Inner City Press was notified was broken by CNN, leading to this statement:

"The Department of Defense received a letter of request from the Israeli Ministry of Defense on July 20 for a normal Foreign Military Sales delivery of ammunition.  The appropriate DoD activities processed the request through normal inter-agency processes, resulting in a signed Letter of Offer and Acceptance on July 23.

"Two of the requested munitions were available in the War Reserve Stockpile Ammunition-Israel (WRSA-I), on the ground in Israel, and were therefore delivered to the Israeli Defense Force from this stockpile. Both munitions had been in WRSA-I stock for a few years, well before the current crisis.  All stocks in WRSA-I, as required by law, are "in excess to U.S. requirements." Issuing munitions from the WRSA-I stockpile was strictly a sourcing decision and White House approval was not required.

 "The United States is committed to the security of Israel, and it is vital to U.S. national interests to assist Israel to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability. This defense sale is consistent with those objectives."

  Thus spake the US Pentagon, or at least its spokesperson Kirby. But what will UN Security Council members say, at their July 31 session? Watch this site.

 Back on July 27-28, the Security Council convened to adopted a Presidential Statement, below.

 Afterward, Inner City Press asked Jordan's Deputy Permanent Representative why no vote had been called the draft resolution, if there was one or more vetoes or abstaining votes that would block it.

  He said things haven't reached that stage; rather it was a matter of seeing when the members of the Council thought a resolution would be useful to support of ceasefire. 

  Some ask: so is that the UN Security Council's only function?

  Inner City Press asked Israel's Ron Prosor about the different drafts leaked to Haaretz and Al Jazeera (which Inner City Press noted, here). Prosor went wider scope with his answer. A ceasefire did not sound closer.

  Prosor was also asked about Ban Ki-moon flying around in a Qatar-funded private jet - a question on which Inner City Press first reported eight days ago, and on which Ban himself should answer.

 Palestine's Riyad Mansour cited as a precedent a 1994 Security Council resolution providing protecting in Hebron, by Norwegians in white shirts, he said. He said he wished the Presidential Statement had called for Israel to pull out of Gaza, and that he wished for a resolution. We will continue on this.

  Inner City Press immediately inquired and was informed it was to adopt a Presidential Statement; the version below was provided. But why not a resolution? Why proceeding so cautiously, compared most recently with the July 21 resolution on MH17 in Ukraine?  

  Earlier, with even the “humanitarian pause” over in Gaza, the draft "framework" agreement rejected by the Israeli cabinet on July 25 was leaked from both sides. 

   But the versions leaked by each side were different.

  On Al Jazeera a one-page document was waved around, which had Qatar in the first paragraph as one of the signatories making commitments, which provided for the opening of “border and non-border” crossings and specified fishing rights up to 12 nautical miles, and a $47 million commitment by the US.

  In the “5 pm Confidential Draft” published by Ha'aretz, Qatar is the last paragraph (without Egypt), fishing rights and the $47 million from the US are not specified, nor are “non-border” crossing being opened.

  At least, the two sides leaked different stages or versions of the draft. Or is there more to this, in the spin war that this stage of the Gaza war has become?

  (The drafts are different; Al Jazeera is saying Ha'aretz stole its scoop. There may be more to this.)

  Meanwhile, silence at the UN with the draft Security Council resolution of Jordan and the Arab League not scheduled for a vote, and canned statements from Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who after taking a Qatar-funded private jet from New York to Doha refused through his spokespeople to answer Inner City Press' follow-up questions on who paid for the rest of his travel. Watch this site.