Palestine's Flag To Fly at UN, 119 Yes, 45 Abstain, 8 No: US, Israel, Canada, Australia and Four Islands, List of Non-Voters

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 10, updated -- The UN draft resolution to fly the State of Palestine's flag in front of the UN passed on September 10, 119 in favor, 45 abstaining and eight against: the United States, Canada, Israel, Australia, Tuvalu, Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. Inner City Press put the UN voting sheet online here.

  There were also countries which didn't vote at all, like Uganda, Haiti, Georgia, Malawi, South Sudan and, strangely, Yemen. Iraq's Permanent Representative said all Arab Group members supported the draft; Yemen's representative was in the building, Inner City Press saw and greeted him. What happened?

Update: Inner City Press went to the UN General Assembly stakeout after the meeting and asked Iraq's Ambassador about Yemen not voting; it was explained as a problem of Yemen being behind on its dues to the UN.

  The resolution states that it is “taking note of the participation of non-member Observer States, which maintain permanent observer missions at United Nations Headquarters, in the sessions and work of the General Assembly, recalling that the State of Palestine became a non-member Observer State at the United Nations on 29 November 2012, and recalling also in this regard its resolution 67/19 of 29 November 2012 and previous relevant resolutions.”

   The adopted resolution “decides that the flags of non-member Observer States at the United Nations maintaining permanent observer missions at Headquarters shall be raised at the United Nations Headquarters and Offices following the flags of the Member States of the United Nations and requests the Secretary-General to undertake the necessary measures for the implementation of this resolution during the seventieth session of the General Assembly and within 20 days of the adoption of this resolution.”

 After the vote, for example, Sweden explained why it voted Yes; Netherlands said why it abstained. The two, and Italy, will vie for two WEOG seats on the UN Security Council.

On August 28, the Holy See / Vatican has issued this:

“In accordance with the rules governing the General Assembly no Member or Observer State is entitled to oppose the tabling of a draft resolution by a Member State. In light of this, the Holy See does not object to the tabling of a draft resolution concerning the raising of the flags of Observer States at the UN Headquarters and offices.

“The Holy See, however, notes the long established praxis and tradition of the UN, sing 1945, whereby only flags of member States are displayed at the UN Headquarters and offices and will accept whatever  decision the UN may wish to take in this regard in the future.”

  Got it?

  Staking out the August 27 Arab Group meeting, Inner City Press was told by two major Arab states that the flag will "definitely" go up, and was reliably informed that the flag for Palestine would go after those of ("full") member states, that is near 42nd Street in front of the UN Library building.

  Inner City Press asked an involved delegation if the UN was ready with the flag pole and was told yes, a letter has been sent to that effect.

  Much earlier, anti-flag delegations were pitching the story, which was eventually picked up.

 On both August 27 and again on August 28, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's office of the spokesperson:

"Yesterday, Inner City Press was told in but not by the UN that if the draft resolution on raising the State of Palestine's flag at the UN passes, (1) it would go at the end of Member States, that is, nearest 42nd street and (2) that 'the UN' has written a letter concerning its readiness to install the needed flagpole.

 "I understand you will not comment on what may happen in the GA but I am requesting UN Secretariat (Protocol, OLA and/or DM/FMS) confirmation of where a non-member State's flag WOULD go, and on readiness to install the flagpole including that a letter to that effect has been written and sent."

 The UN has refused to answer that question, for more than 24 hours.

 On August 27, a meeting on the Diplomacy of Pope Francis, scheduled at 4 pm in Conference Room 3, waslisted as "Closed." (There was another 4 pm event upstairs at the UN.)

Back on June 18 after UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon decided not to list Israel or Hamas in the annex of his Children and Armed Conflict report -- nor the French troops alleged to have raped children in the Central African Republic -- Ban came to the UN Security Council media stakeout, accompanied by CAAC expert Leila Zerrougui. But he answered no questions.

  On June 24, the UN's Under Secretary General for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman addressed the Security Council, saying:

“The Secretary General took note of the release on Monday of the Human Rights Council's independent Commission of Inquiry's report on Gaza. While we do not comment on the substance of such reports, it is our hope that it will contribute to bringing justice to victims of last year's war and encourage the parties to engage in serious and credible examinations of their own behavior." 

  But is that credible? Down in UN Conference Room 3, US, joined only by Canada, voted with Israel against a UN Budget resolution on Lebanon and the attack on Qana; upstairs, the US' representative left the Council with Feltman and got on the same elevator with him. Periscope video here available for 24 hours, after 470 live views. Geneva may well tilt one way, but the Secretariat tilts the other. Watch this site.

  Back on June 18 after Ban read a statement about climate change and then the "controversy" about his report, he said he had to leave. There were some grumbles; Inner City Press asked, about the Central African Republic rapes and cover up, what about the Panel? Ban did not answer. Periscope video for now here.

  Zerrougui stayed, gamely; she declined to answer about the non-inclusion of Israel. Inner City Press asked her about the CAR rapes and cover up. She said while she didn't find out all in time, once she did, she spoke with the government concerned.

  Inner City Press reported exclusively that Zerrougui met French Ambassador Francois Delattre -- his Mission declined to confirm or deny, when asked in writing by Inner City Press - but what has come of it? 

  And what of the CAR rapes by the French troops? They are mentioned in the text of the report, but not in the Annex. Ban said a Panel would be set up- but hasn't yet done it.

 Inner City Press is exclusively informed that concerned member states will meet not with Ban but his Deputy Jan Eliasson on June 19. Some are concerned Ban might even try to put Eliasson on the "independent" panel, despite controversy about an August 8, 2014 email saying Eliasson would be briefed that afternoon about the CAR rapes. (The UN now says Eliasson didn't learn of them until April 2015.)  We'll see.

   

To UN Human Rights Council Candidates, Inner City Press Asks of Sri Lanka, Free Press & Covered-Up Child Rapes in CAR

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 15 -- When countries running for seats on the UN Human Rights Council appeared in the ECOSOC Chamber to take questions on July 15, it was a staffer from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights who moderated. Inner City Press ran to the room to asked questions; not called on, it tweeted this question: on OHCHR cover-up of child rapes in the Central African Republic, what's the HRC oversight role?

   When that question was read out, Switzerland's Ambassador Paul Seger said the issue had injured the reputation of the UN and OHCHR and that the Human Rights Council might have to take it up, once Ban Ki-moon's “independent” panel issues its report, due in mid-September. Slovenia and Georgia also responded.

  In the interim, Inner City Press ran to the ECOSOC Chamber a second time, from the Security Council stakeout, and asked about the the delay in the report on Sri Lanka, due in March, to September, and about freedom of the press, specifically but not only in South Korea. Video here.

   Seger said the UN was not at its best on Sri Lanka; South Korea argued that press freedom is only abridged for national security. (One wonders.)  Georgia also responded on press freedoms; Inner City Press was thus glad to have asked the question for the Free UN Coalition for Access, FUNCA.

  The exercise on July 15 was on balance a good one, and leads one to wonder again why at least this, if not direct debate, is not possible or even required in the race for the next Secretary General. We'll have more on this.

   

On Children and Armed Conflict, Ban Ki-moon Gets Criticized, Israel Replies in Arabic, Two on Donbas

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 18 -- After UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon decided not to list Israel or Hamas in the annex of his Children and Armed Conflict report -- nor the French troops alleged to have raped children in the Central African Republic -- on June 18 Ban came to the UN Security Council media stakeout, accompanied by CAAC expert Leila Zerrougui. He left it to her to answer. Inner City Press covered that, and later speeches.

  After Ban read a statement about climate change and then the "controversy" about his report, he said he had to leave. There were some grumbles; Inner City Press asked, about the Central African Republic rapes and cover up, what about the Panel? Ban did not answer. Periscope video for now here.

 In later speeches, many criticized Ban for the omission and urged him to reverse it. Israel on the other hand said without "attention to intention," the CAAC office ill-served children.

  Australia called for the Security Council's South Sudan sanctions committee to start listing people. Myanmar sung its own praises. Palestine, whose stakeout Inner City Press missed, said this:

  “We come before the Security Council anguished by the Secretary-General's decision to exclude Israel from the list of parties committing grave violations against children in his annual Report on Children and Armed Conflict (S/2015/409). Israel, the occupying Power, is without doubt a flagrant violator of child rights. Israel systematically commits crimes against Palestinian children, its actions contravening its obligations under human rights law, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and international humanitarian law, which obligates the occupying Power to ensure the well-being and safety of the civilian population under its occupation.

  “Evidence verified by the United Nations and numerous human rights organizations affirms that Israel continues to kill and maim children, attack schools and hospitals, and prevent humanitarian access, with devastating impact on the rights, lives and well-being of Palestinian children. These facts are well documented in the current report and similar past reports.

  “According to the established criteria, such actions would trigger a listing among the grave violators identified in the report's annex. And, yet, Israel was not included in that list as pressures were again blatantly exerted to shield it from censure and measures of accountability. This glaring omission and failure to hold Israel responsible for its crimes comes at heavy cost to our innocent children, who are being denied the protection of the law, their rights violated, their suffering deepened and their lives, dreams and futures shattered, without consequence.

  “Israel's brutality increased against Palestinian children in 2014, causing the 3rd highest number of child fatalities in armed conflicts worldwide. As reported, at least 557 Palestinian children were killed, the majority in the Gaza Strip during the Israeli military assaults of July-August 2014, including 340 boys and 200 girls, from babies of one week old to 17 years old.

“Israel must be held accountable for its crimes. We are convinced that only collective international action can compel it to cease its violations and respect the law. Our pursuit of accountability and commitment to international law are evident in our accession to the Rome Statute and other international treaties. While the Israeli Government continues to demonstrate in word and deed that it has no interest in peace and the rule of law, insistent on denying the Palestinian people their rights and entrenching its occupation, the Palestinian leadership remains committed to peace. To salvage the prospects for peace, we implore the international community, with the Security Council at the forefront, to act to uphold international law and UN resolutions towards ending Israel's illegal occupation and achieving freedom and justice for the Palestinian people. Until then, we again appeal for protection of the Palestinian people, beginning with our children."

 At the end there were only four rights of reply, or "further statements" as they are called in the Security Council.

  Israel shot back - in Arabic; Russia took on Georgia and Ukraine, which is said is hurting children in Dongas. Both counties did their replies and that that was it. Inner City Press chatted with a tired Zerrougui as she left, even as the doors to the Security Council stakeout were locked. 

  Zerrougui stayed, gamely; she declined to answer about the non-inclusion of Israel. Inner City Press asked her about the CAR rapes and cover up. She said while she didn't find out all in time, once she did, she spoke with the government concerned. Periscope here.

  Inner City Press reported exclusively that Zerrougui met French Ambassador Francois Delattre -- his Mission declined to confirm or deny, when asked in writing by Inner City Press - but what has come of it? Watch this site. 

   Sources tell Inner City Press that Zerrougui is slated to be leaving her post, to one at the African Union. Cynics told Inner City Press that's why she went semi-public with her recommendation, which Ban ignored. Supporters said she should stay and fight. We'll see.

  And what of the CAR rapes by the French troops? They are mentioned in the text of the report, but not in the Annex. Ban said a Panel would be set up- but hasn't yet done it.

 Inner City Press is exclusively informed that concerned member states will meet not with Ban but his Deputy Jan Eliasson on June 19. Some are concerned Ban might even try to put Eliasson on the "independent" panel, despite controversy about an August 8, 2014 email saying Eliasson would be briefed that afternoon about the CAR rapes. (The UN now says Eliasson didn't learn of them until April 2015.)  We'll see.

  Back on June 8 both Palestine and Israel issued statements, below. Inner City Press beyond reporting on each asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric why the French Sangaris force in the Central African Republic, regarding which the UN has evidence of sexual abuse against children as young as nine years told, is not on Ban's list. This remains UNclear.

    Riyad Mansour, Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations, issued a statement that “we deeply regret the Secretary-Generals decision to exclude Israel from the list of parties who commit grave violations against children in armed conflict. This decision strikingly contradicts the UN's own evidence and the set criteria on this matter. It is without doubt that Israel, the occupying Power, flagrantly, systematically and grossly commits human rights violations against Palestinian children constituting grave violations that qualify it for such a listing in the annex to the Annual Report on Children and Armed Conflict.. The UN's inaction, submitting to the inordinate pressures exerted, sends a most regrettable signal that the same criteria do not apply in all situations for all children, undermining the credibility of the UN system as a whole and the CAAC mechanism in specific.”

  The “pressure exerted” included the United States, which also got Ban to cancel the Yemen talks that had been slated for May 11, click here for that Inner City Press exclusive. Likewise, despite a UN Dispute Tribunal ruling that UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous asked for CAR rape whistleblower Anders Kompass to resign, nothing has been done with regard to Ladsous, the four Frenchman in a row atop UN Peacekeeping. It is not only on CAAC that Ban gives in to inordinate pressure.

   Israel's Ron Prosor put out a statement that “the UN Secretary General was right not to submit to the dictates of the terrorist organizations and the Arab states, in his decision not to include Israel in this shameful list, together with organizations like ISIS, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. However, the UN still has a long way to go. Instead of releasing thousands of reports and lists against Israel, the UN must unequivocally condemn the terrorist organizations that operate in the Gaza Strip. I call on the Secretary General to put an end to the destruction these organizations cause the people of Gaza, when they obstruct humanitarian aid, fire from civilian population centers and use innocents as human shields. Only after these organizations are recognized as terrorist organizations and condemned, can we promote real solutions.”

    Ban's spokesman Dujarric, before Inner City Press asked him about the French Sangaris force in CAR, told reporters to not worry so much about the list. Really? Others, reporting on this, did not mention the French forces' sexual abuse. We'll have more on this.

Back on June 1 In the run up to Ban's decision on whether to include Israel in the UN's list of those abusing children in armed conflict, Inner City Press asked Pierre Krähenbühl, the Commissioner General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, UNRWA, for his view.

  Krahenbuhl diplomatically said he'd have no comment until after the decision is made.

 And now?

   

IMF Talks Up Its Ukraine Program, But On Libya No Answers, Of Yemen's Poor and Ghana Trip, No Georgia

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 19 -- At the International Monetary Fund's biweekly embargoed briefing on February 19,  Inner City Press asked IMF spokesperson Gerry Rice for the IMF's view of the economic impacts of the Libyan crisis on that country, the region and the world.  No answer was given.

  Instead, the IMF insisted that its assumptions for proposing over $17 billion to Ukraine would be met; Rice said the IMF's program has no "conditionality" about stopping or even slowing the war.

  Inner City Press also asked, twice, about Georgia, where "Economy Minister Giorgi Kvirikashvili has said the country has approach the IMF for assistance to stabilize the Lari - can you confirm and what would be the next steps?" This was not answered either.

  Following up on Ghana, on which he answered last week, Rice said an IMF team is in Accra from today to February 26. Inner City Press had asked, "Ghana's head of IMF Negotiation Team Kwesi Botchway has said most of the issues with the IMF have been concluded and to expect action at the April 2015 IMF Executive Board meeting. Is that where things stand?"

  On Yemen, Inner City Press asked, "how does the ongoing political stand-off impact the IMF's program? Who are the IMF's interlocutors in Yemen at this time?" The interlocutor question was not answered. Rice took a question he said was from Yemen -- then corrected, "Saudi Arabia" -- and said the IMF is concerned about the poor.

  Amid a flurry of questions about Greece and a possible Grexit, Rice said, I'm wrapping it, it's a wrap. But the questions will continue.

* * *

 Previously, on February 5, Rice answered on the IMF's process in Ghana (and in Mongolia, see below).

  Inner City Press asked "In Ghana, President Mahama on Feb 3 said, 'Ghana is committed to securing an IMF programme and we are confident that we will reach agreement with the IMF by the end of this quarter.' What is the process / status at the IMF?"

  IMF spokesperson Rice said there has been "good progress," and mentioned "cleaning up the payroll" and "medium term reforms," as well as considering the impact of declining oil prices.

 On August 28, 2014 on Ghana Inner City Press had asked “Convention People’s Party chair Samia Nkrumah has said, 'It will be erroneous to accept the fact that IMF conditionalities could not be rejected since in 1965, Ghana, under the First President, Dr Kwame Nkrumah, rejected the proposal of the IMF when they recommended the sale of national assets such as factories in exchange for a loan.' What is the IMF's response?”

  Rice then said that the IMF team will be in Accra in September. Things have moved since then.

  On February 5 about Mongolia, Inner City Press asked, "what is the process forward on their request for an IMF stand-by arrangement? When will a visit to the country take place?"

  Rice replied, "The IMF has received a request from the Mongolian authorities to begin discussions of possible support to Mongolia. The IMF will be sending a team to Ulaanbaatar soon to initiate these discussions."

 The February 5 briefing began with drama and a guest: Christine Lagarde on Ebola, in English and French, taking two questions then out.

The IMF said, "subject to Board approval of requests from the individual countries, it is expected that the CCR trust would provide grants-for-debt relief of close to $100 million for the three countries affected by Ebola in West Africa –Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea. These funds would come in addition to the $130 million of assistance provided in September 2014 and to
a second round of new concessional loans amounting to about $160 million to be considered soon by the Executive Board."

 Lagarde said that one country, which she left unnamed, has made a commitment that they will be announcing. She cited non-Paris club members, naming only Russia as a creditor of Guinea. She said there'll be more at the G20 in Istanbul. 

  After that, there were seven questions to Lagarde's spokesperson Gerry Rice about Greece -- he declined to comment on the ECB further squeezing Greece -- then two on Ukraine, where the IMF is said to be in line for only $6 billion of the $15 billion now requested. US John Kerry is in Kiev today, including on IMF. Then the Inner City Press two questions, and one not answered on Sri Lanka:

In Sri Lanka on bank consolidation, new Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran has said “I have also asked the IMF to send some technical experts to look at these issues from an international perspective and they have agreed to do so.” Can you confirm that? Would it be in connection with IMF visit at the end of February?

  On Sri Lanka, which was not answered during the IMF briefing, the new government is cutting off payments to Lagarde's predecessor Dominique Strauss Kahn, who once out through the revolving door (of a Manhattan hotel) sold his services to the Rajapaksas. Any comment, or future safeguards, on that? 

 After the briefing and expiration of the embargo there was this answer by Gerry Rice of the IMF: "“We have been discussing with the authorities a multi-faceted technical assistance mission on financial sector issues. Looking at financial system stability and supervision in the context of the ongoing consolidation process is one element. We are currently putting together a team to send to Colombo, but will discuss with the CBSL specific needs in the next week so that we can select the best experts and structure the mission. It will likely take place after the staff visit in February, as this is a separate, technical assistance exercise.”

   

On Ukraine, IMF Says Staff Will "Take Stock" Of Keeping In Crimea Data- Tells Inenr City Press, "Until Recognition"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 1 -- The day after the International Monetary Fund announced its $17 billion program for Ukraine, under embargo until 11 am it released its Staff Report and held a media call.

   In the Staff Report the IMF says, "It is acknowledged that at this stage the authorities do not have effective control with respect to Crimea for purposes of implementing their economic policies in that territory... Staff will take stock of future developments on this matter that might affect the need and feasibility of presenting Ukraine’s data with or without Crimea."

   Inner City Press on the embargoed call asked the IMF's Reza Moghadham what factors the staff will "take stock" of in terms on continuing to include Crimea in Ukraine's data.

    Reza Moghadham replied that it is IMF policy to continue to include until their is "international recognition" of the separation. Inner City Press asked, so does the IMF still include Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia's data?

   Moghadham said Georgia is not in his division, but that an answer might come. Inner City Press submitted the question in writing last Thursday, as well as asking if Western Sahara is included in Morocco's data by the IMF. 

  On April 30, the IMF sent this statement to the Press:

IMF Executive Board Approves 2-Year US$17.01 Billion Stand-By Arrangement for Ukraine, US$3.19 Billion for immediate Disbursement

The Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) today approved a two-year Stand-By Arrangement (SBA) for Ukraine. The arrangement amounts to SDR 10.976 billion (about US$17.01 billion, 800 percent of quota) and was approved under the Fund's exceptional access policy. The authorities’ economic program supported by the Fund aims to restore macroeconomic stability, strengthen economic governance and transparency, and launch sound and sustainable economic growth, while protecting the most vulnerable.

The approval of the SBA enables the immediate disbursement of SDR 2.058 billion (about US$3.19 billion), with SDR 1.29 billion (about US$2 billion) being allocated to budget support. The second and third disbursements will be based on bi-monthly reviews and performance criteria, and the remainder of the program period will be subject to standard quarterly reviews and performance criteria.

  Back on April 24 the IMF said it expected to approve a $14-18 billion program for Ukraine on April 30, while still including Crimea in its Ukraine data, IMF spokesperson Gerry Rice said at the IMF's embargoed briefing on April 24.

  Rice said the IMF expects its $14-18 billion to "unlock" $15 billion in financial assurances that have already been made by others, whom he did not name. He said that the IMF has now received from Kyiv documents covering all "prior actions" or conditions imposed by the IMF.

  Asked if sanctions imposed to "punish" Russia might harm Ukraine, Rice said the IMF position is that current US and European Union sanctions on Russia are unlikely to have a significant effect on the Ukrainian economy. He said the IMF believes the more substantial risk is from the possible further escalation of tensions.

  On the IMF still including Crimea in its Ukraine data, Rice would not explain except to add that Crimea is only 3.7% of its Ukrainian data. Asked for analogies to lending to Ukraine at this time, Rice cited past IMF programs in Bosnia, Sri Lanka and Peru, calling them "fragile" and with "political tensions."

While the IMF answered three of the six questions Inner City Press submitted during the briefing, its question concerning whether the IMF still includes Abkhazia and South Ossetia in its Georgia data was not answered -- nor whether it includes Western Sahara in its Morocco data.

  The inclusion of Crimea in the IMF's Ukraine data raises the question of the relation between the UN General Assembly vote, with 58 abstentions, on the Crimean referendum and the International Monetary Fund, as well as the US Congress' refusal to pass the IMF quota reforms which US President Obama agreed to in 2010.

   Watch this site.

   

IMF Has Crimea in Ukraine Data, No Answer If Western Sahara in Morocco Data, $14-18 Billion Program Slated for April 30

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 24 -- The International Monetary Fund says it expects to approve a $14-18 billion program for Ukraine on April 30, while still including Crimea in its Ukraine data, IMF spokesperson Gerry Rice said at the IMF's embargoed briefing on April 24.

  Rice said the IMF expects its $14-18 billion to "unlock" $15 billion in financial assurances that have already been made by others, whom he did not name. He said that the IMF has now received from Kyiv documents covering all "prior actions" or conditions imposed by the IMF.

  Asked if sanctions imposed to "punish" Russia might harm Ukraine, Rice said the IMF position is that current US and European Union sanctions on Russia are unlikely to have a significant effect on the Ukrainian economy. He said the IMF believes the more substantial risk is from the possible further escalation of tensions.

  On the IMF still including Crimea in its Ukraine data, Rice would not explain except to add that Crimea is only 3.7% of its Ukrainian data. Asked for analogies to lending to Ukraine at this time, Rice cited past IMF programs in Bosnia, Sri Lanka and Peru, calling them "fragile" and with "political tensions."

While the IMF answered three of the six questions Inner City Press submitted during the briefing, its question concerning whether the IMF still includes Abkhazia and South Ossetia in its Georgia data was not answered -- nor whether it includes Western Sahara in its Morocco data.

  The inclusion of Crimea in the IMF's Ukraine data raises the question of the relation between the UN General Assembly vote, with 58 abstentions, on the Crimean referendum and the International Monetary Fund, as well as the US Congress' refusal to pass the IMF quota reforms which US President Obama agreed to in 2010.

  The IMF board meeting to consider the Fund's Ukraine program is slated for April 30. Watch this site.

   

On Ukraine, US John Kerry to Kyiv on Tuesday, Nuland to Vienna, Georgia Bush on Georgia Cited

By Matthew Russell Lee, Inner City Press Follow Up

UNITED NATIONS, March 2 -- The day after an inconclusive Ukraine meeting at the UN Security Council, three US Senior Administration Officials held a background press call to describe the US' next moves.

  Secretary of State John Kerry will be in Kyev on Tuesday. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland is heading to Vienna; the US wants to explore monitors from the OSCE (UN monitors were mentioned, but it's difficult to see veto-wielding Russia agreeing to them at this point).

  Senior Administration Official 2 said Russia is in an occupation position in Crimea and moving more troops in. The three were asked, doesn't this show weakness of the Obama administration, at least with respect to Russia's Vladimir Putin?

  Senior Administration Official 1 quickly brought up that Putin didn't listen on Georgia -- which was in 2008, under Republican George W. Bush (the question was from Fox News). 

  All three said that Putin is not operating from a position of strength, with Senior Administration Official 2 saying that when it comes to soft power, Vladimir Putin has no game. Asked about Russian money in London, the official said the US is looking at Russian banks.

  On the 1994 Budapest Memorandum (see below), the US is moving to call a meeting under the Memo's terms and will see if Russia shows up.

  At the UN on March 1, after the Ukraine open meeting then consultations of the UN Security Council took place, Council president for March Sylvie Lucas of Luxembourg came out and read a short statement.

  Inner City Press asked her if this was a mere "elements to the press," not even an agreed Press Statement. This seems to be the case. She politely answered, but not why China and the ten elected members did not speak in the open meeting.

  Inner City Press asked UK Ambassador Lyall Grant about the Budapest Memorandum -- has it already been violated, including by the Western IMF side, in terms of economic coercion? Is it just a superseded document summoned up for pragmatic reasons now?

  Lyall Grant acknowledged that some time has passed. From the UK Mission transcript:

Inner City Press: The Budapest memorandum. There’s been a lot of talk about it. It requires the UK, Russia and France to seek immediate Security Council action if there’s a threat of force, so is this the end of your duties, or do you have a duty to defend Ukraine? And it also seems to commit the UK and others to refrain from economic coercion, so some people have been saying that on both sides, the economic coercion factor has been played. Has this memorandum been complied with since ‘94, or is it just pulled out at this time as a convenient document?

Amb Lyall Grant: Clearly, this document has become very relevant in the last few days. We believe that the first step should be a meeting of the signatories of the Budapest memorandum, as Ukraine government has suggested should take place. Proposals have been made for a meeting of the three signatories as early as Monday, but so far Russia has not agreed to that meeting.

  Lyall Grant also said his prime minister David Cameron spoke with Vladimir Putin and his foreign secretary William Hague will be in Ukraine on Sunday.

  Inner City Press asked Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson of Russia's critique of envoy Robert Serry "getting played," and of the leaked (US) audio about former US now UN official Jeffrey Feltman "getting" Ban to send Serry to Ukraine.

   Eliasson said Serry is an international civil servant, but that the UN is not mediating, he is only a go-between for now. Will that change?

  US Samantha Power came out, saying another things that President Obama is suspending participation in the preparation for the G8 in Sochi. She took only two questions; it was not possible to ask her about movement on loan guarantees, or her view of the US' duties under the Budapest Memorandum. So it goes at the UN.

  When the open meeting happened, after two hours of wrangling about format, not all 15 members of the Council --not even all five Permanent members -- spoke. (China didn't).

  Instead, UN Deputy Secretary General Eliasson led off, saying that Ban Ki-moon would speak with Vladimir Putin. That had already taken place, but even an hour later, no read-out. 

Update: after publication of this story, the UN e-mailed out Ban Ki-moon's "remarks" after he spoke with Putin. Remarks to whom? And how long was Ban's call?

  US President Barack Obama spoke with Putin for 90 minutes, citing as Samantha Power did OSCE observers -- and the International Monetary Fund (see below).

   Russia's Vitaly Churkin said that EU officials has stoked up the protests, and violated the February 21 agreement.

   France's Gerard Araud, in the midst of a scandal about a quote Javier Barden attributed to him, Morocco as France's mistress, said it was Russia which hadn't supported the February 21 agreement. Following US Samantha Power and UK Mark Lyall Grant, whose foreign secretary William Hague is headed to Ukraine, Araud was the last speaker in the open meeting. Strange and telling compromise.

  As the Council went back behind closed doors for consultations, Inner City Press asked Ukraine's Ambassador Yuriy Sergeyev about "economic coercion" prohibited in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum he kept citing.
  
  Sergeyev replied that Russia tried to use economic coercion. But what about the IMF?

  Earlier on his way in Sergeyev stopped and told the press it is now a Russian "aggression" and that the UN Charter has been "brutally" violated. Video here.

 He said an appeal is being made to the US, France, UK and China, under the rubric of non-proliferation; he said there is still time, before Russian president Vladimir Putin signs the order for military moves in Crimea.

  Then the Security Council "suspended" for ten minutes; Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin emerged and said some members of the Council are trying to change the format of the meeting, that Russia agrees with the format proposed by Luxembourg, which took over today as Council president.

After UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's envoy Robert Serry spun the contents of a closed door Security Council consultation on Ukraine on which there was no agreed outcome, Ban himself did the same on Saturday.

   Ban's spokesperson announced at 1:20 am he would speak and "take a few questions" -- at 1:30 pm.  Lo and behold, after Ban's statement that there was agreement in the Security Council on Friday -- there wasn't -- was read, the first question was given to Pamela Falk of CBS. 

  This is as president of the UN Correspondents Association,whose board held an hour-long Q&A with Ban in February in which Ukraine wasn't even asked out. So why now?

  In order to ask, Could Serry go to Crimea?  Hours before Serry through the spokesperson had said no. But the purpose of this UN TV theater is to get this spin "on camera" - that's the role Falk's UNCA is playing. 

   Also Ban said he is going to speak with Putin soon. Will his spokesperson take question, this time with notice, on that?

   On February 28, Serry's impartiality as "UN" envoy on Ukraine was called into question, on camera, in front of the UN Security Council by Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin.

   A "Note to Correspondents" was put out Saturday morning by the UN Spokesperson's Office in which Serry put his spin on the Security Council consultations at which he was not present, and at which not even a Press Statement was agreed:

Note to correspondents: Statement by Mr. Robert Serry, Senior Advisor to the Secretary-General, at the end of his mission to Ukraine

Kyiv, 1 March 2014

Following the consultations in the United Nations Security Council yesterday, the Secretary-General requested me to go to Crimea as part of my fact-finding mission. I have since been in touch with the authorities of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and have come to the conclusion that a visit to Crimea today is not possible. I will therefore proceed to Geneva, where I will tomorrow brief the Secretary-General on my mission and consult with him on next steps.

In Crimea, I would have conveyed, also on behalf of the Secretary-General, a message for all to calm the situation down and to refrain from any actions that could further escalate an already-tense environment.

It became very clear from yesterday’s Council consultations that the unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine is not to be called into question. This is a time for dialogue and to engage with each other constructively.

  Recipients of previous "Notes to Correspondents" were surprised, because Serry in his "other" apparently not time intensive enough job as Ban Ki-moon's Middle East Coordinator does not characterize Security Council processes that do not result in a legal outcome.

  This comes a day after the UN's incoming spokesperson Stephane Dujarric praised a 10-tweet "analysis" of Crimean involving, predictably, the assumption of Chinese and Russian vetoes, and more problematically that Argentina and Nigeria abstained "for some reason." 

  To this view, Africa and Latin America are unknowable. But is this appropriate for an incoming UN Spokesperson? For somehow whose been in charge of UN Media Accreditation?

  This UN is increasingly used by officials for their own countries. Former US now UN official Feltman "got" Ban Ki-moon to send Serry to Ukraine.  With French ambassador Gerard Araud having been quoted by Javier Bardem that Morocco is France's mistress, Herve Ladsous the fourth Frenchman in a row to head UN Peacekeeping on February 26 lavished "UN" praise on Morocco through the Magreb Arab Press. There's more to be said on this.

   The day before on February 28 after US Ambassador Samantha Power emerged from the Security Council and spoke to the press about a mediation mission to Ukraine involving Robert Serry, Russia's Vitaly Churkin raised questions about the plan.

  He noted that Serry on February 22 was quoted as supporting the process -- that is, the violation even then of the February 21 agreement. 

 The subtext, still audible, was the leaked audio about former US now UN official Jeffrey Feltman "getting" Ban Ki-moon to send Serry to Ukraine. This may resonate for some time.

  Inner City Press asked Churkin of reports Russia would participate closely in the accelerating International Monetary Fund process. Churkin said Russia is open to helping, but only when more is known about what kind of government Ukraine's will be. One might think the IMF would be similarly cautious. But one might be wrong.

  Nearly simultaneous with Samantha Power at the UN, President Barack Obama spoke at the White House. As sent out, he said, "It would be a clear violence of Russia’s commitment to respect the independence and sovereignty and borders of Ukraine, and of international laws." Seems"violation" was meant -- a Freudian slip?

  When UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant came to the stakeout, Inner City Press asked him too about the IMF, which which his foreign secretary William Hague met this week. Lyall Grant distinguished between the financial and the political mediation process. But some say they are intimately connected. From the UK Mission transcript:

Inner City Press: Your Foreign Secretary was in Washington and met, among other people, with the International Monetary Fund. What’s the relationship between that process and either the mediation process that’s proposed, or trying to address issues in the Crimea.

Amb Lyall Grant: There are a number of challenges facing the new government in Kyiv. One of them is the economy. My Foreign Secretary, as you said, went to see the IMF in Washington, because we believe the IMF needs to take the lead in putting together a financial package to help the Ukrainian government to recover from the economic crisis that it’s in and to help the Ukrainian government take the necessary tough decisions for the structural reforms that are required to put the economy back on track. So this is not directly linked to any political mediation, but it is to address one of the key challenges that the new government in Kyiv faces.

   Lithuania's Permanent Representative Raimonda Murmokaite, who as we noted yesterday had yet to do a question and answer stakeout after Council consultations during her month as Council president, finally did. Inner City Press asked her of the mediation mission cited by Samantha Power would require a Security Council resolution or other action.

  Raimonda Murmokaite said that a proposal had just been made. But moments later, Lyall Grant said he didn't think any UNSC approval was needed for Serry to go to Crimea.

   Churkin, on the other hand, said only if the Crimeans want him, no imposed mediation. That leaked audio resonates still.

   Earlier Ukraine's Ambassador to the UN Yuriy Sergeyev came to the Security Council stakeout after briefing the Council. Inner City Press asked him three rounds of questions, ranging from the International Monetary Fund to the International Criminal Court, military presence to Viktor Yanukovych's press conference earlier in the day.

   Sergeyev called the press conference "comedy," emphasizing the Yanukovych left the country (and arguing more seriously that he thereby violated the February 21 deal.)

   On the IMF, Sergeyev said the Fund's team will be "on the ground" early next week. He was asked about austerity but dodged it; he said that the key is that money doesn't "disappear" as he said that from Russia did.

  While standing at the stakeout, a supporter of the ICC tweeted at Inner City Press if Sergeyev raised it in the Council. Inner City Press asked about the ICC and the extradition request to Russia. Sergeyev said the ICC is complex and that he favors a Ukrainian process first.

   On the IMF, how fast could post Yanukovych Ukraine get US money or loan guarantees? Back on the afternoon of February 26 came this on the record statement by State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki:

"The United States is continuing to consider a range of options, including loan guarantees, to support Ukraine economically. But no decision has been made and the next step is the formation of a multi-party, technical government. Once that government is formed we will begin to take immediate steps, in coordination with multilateral and bilateral partners, that could compliment an IMF package, to support Ukraine."

  There was a lot of chatter about a $1 billion US loan guarantee, including from a roundtable by Secretary of State John Kerry held after he did an interview with Andrea Mitchell. Oh, This Town or #ThisTown. So which is it?

  On February 27, the IMF's Christine Lagarde announced that the new Ukraine has asked for an IMF program; herspokesperson Gerry Rice said an IMF team on be 'on the ground' next week.

   On February 25 the shift in Ukraine was echoed on the US Eastern seaboard. At the UN in New York, Ukraine's Yanukovych-era Ambassador Yuriy Sergeyev canceled his 11 am press conference - though we can now link to this video of his "I am with you" moment with demonstrators outside the Ukrainian mission in New York.

  Two hours after his February 25 cancellation, in Washington, journalists Inner City Press knows from covering the International Monetary Fund took the short walk to the US State Department's briefing to ask about pre-conditions. Follow the money.

  Back at the UN, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Martin Nesirky said he didn't know how long Ban's Middle East coordinator Robert Serry will stay in Ukraine. (He was still there on February 26.) 

  Just how high profile there does Serry's past stint as Dutch Ambassador in Kyiv make him? What similar former ambassador might Ban Ki-moon have to offer in Thailand? Just how (un) relevant has the UN become?

   Back on Sunday morning US John Kerry spoke with Russia's Sergey Lavrov and, according to a senior State Department official, expressed hope

"that the Russian Federation will join with us, the European Union and its member states, and other concerned countries to help Ukraine turn the page and emerge from this crisis stronger... He also underscored the United States' expectation that Ukraine's sovereignty, territorial integrity and democratic freedom of choice will be respected by all states."  

   Later @JohnKerry himself tweeted kudos to previous Secretary of State nominee Susan Rice, how well she had done on Ukraine NBC's Meet the Press. (As noted, David Gregory said one million have died in Syria, click here for that.)

  There, Rice mentioned working with the EU and the International Monetary Fund. Yes, it's the IMF that's meant by "appropriate international organization," and not the United Nations.

  What David Gregory gleaned from the leaked call to Geoff Pyatt was that Russia leaked it -- no mention of the plan, at least at that time, to use the UN to F- the EU. How much has change since then - including the UN being back on the margins.

  And so it occurs to ask: could Russia benefit from Ukraine being raised in the UN Security Council, where it has a veto, as it doesn't (but the US does) at the IMF? Could the UN oversee a deal, on which Russia says the opposition has already reneged?

  Then again, if Russia were to "pull an Abkhazia" (or South Ossetia) in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, it could be the Westerners trying to get the UN to condemn it. But in the Security Council, Russia has a veto. Again: UNrelevant. 

As with the State Department's February 22 Kerry - Lavrov readout, it might be surprising to some that Sunday's does not include anything on Syria, on which the UN Security Council passed a resolution on February 22. But left unmentioned even as to Ukraine is the East / West split, particularly with regard the Crimea, Donetsk and the wider Donbass. Could Ukraine's "territorial integrity," the mantra at the UN, be in jeopardy? 

  Back on Friday February 21, Presidents Obama and Putin had a phone conversation which a Senior US State Department Official called "positive" and at the US' initiative.

  The official said that Yanukovych has gone on a trip to Kharkiv in his eastern base in the country, "for some kind of meeting that's taking place out there," and recounted a rumor that the deposed interior minister has fled to Belarus.

  US State Department official William Burns will be heading to Ukraine; Vice President Joe Biden has spoken nine times with Yanukovych: twice in November, once in December, three times in January and on February 4, 18 and 20. Even Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel finally got through to his Ukraine's counterpart, Lebedev.

  Amid the self-congratulation, the United Nations was once again on the margins. The UN has made much of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's talk with Yanukovych at the Sochi Olympics, and another phone call today.

  But tellingly, the Senior US State Department Official while citing a "good offices" role for "the international community" did not mention the UN once, in opening remarks nor in response to the eight questions taken. (Two were from the New York Times, the second of which referred to Putin's call with "President Bush.")  An overly long question from Le Figaro was cut off.

 Back on February 19 when Lithuania's foreign minister Linas Linkevieius came to the UN Security Council stakeout, that country seemed to be the one to ask him about. Inner City Press asked Linkevieius about his visit to Washington; he replied among other things that there is a need for "more coordination." Video here.

  Later on February 19 a US Senior State Department Official told the press that "Russia has not been transparent about what they are doing in Ukraine," citing that Russia for example does not provide read-outs of its contacts in Ukraine. 

  The US' own high level contacts have gotten more difficult: "they are not picking up the phone," the official said, adding that three European Union foreign ministers are on their way.

  Of the four questions Linkevieius took at his UN stakeout, one was on the UN's North Korea report, another on Venezuela. A Russian reporter waiting at the stakeout with his hand raised was not given a question. This is the UN.

  Moments later at the UN's February 19 noon briefing, outgoing UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky was asked about a perceived double standards in responses to Bosnia and Ukraine. (The question was echoed on February 20, comparing Ukraine with Bahrain). Nesirky said every situation is different -- of course -- and also said the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had met for 90 minutes in Sochi with President Yanukovych.

  Ironically the US Senior State Department Official on February 19 was asked about Yanukovych becoming more hardline after his visit to Sochi. From Foggy Bottom to Turtle Bay, the view is different -- in the case of the UN, often marginal and self-serving. For example, Ban Ki-moon gave no read-out of his beginning of the year call with the president of his native South Korea.

  Ah, transparency. Watch this site.

Footnote: On the Obama - Putin "positive" call, Inner City Press mused it would signal a 15-0 vote in the UN Security Council on the Syria humanitarian resolution about which Inner City Press asked State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf earlier on February 21, click here for that.