On Syria, UN Envoy de Mistura Aims Talks Jan 25, UNRWA on Yarmouk, Alloush Dead

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 26 -- In the Lotte New York Palace Hotel on December 18, ministers Lavrov and Gentiloni, Fabius and Kerry passed through with entourages; UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon left early typically without answering any questions, as Inner City Press Periscoped and reported. Hours later, the draft resolution was agreed to, then adopted 15-0 by the UN Security Council, here.

 On December 26, the UN issued this for its envoy Staffan de Mistura:

"Further to resolution 2254 (2015) of the Security Council, unanimously adopted on 18 December 2015, United Nations Special Envoy for Syria, Mr. Staffan de Mistura, has intensified efforts towards convening representatives of the Syrian Government and the broadest possible spectrum of the Syrian opposition and others to engage in a political process leading towards implementation of the objectives and principles for a political solution to the Syrian conflict as contained in the Geneva Communique of 30 June 2012, and the Vienna Statements of 30 October and 14 November 2015.

"In line with the clear parameters outlined in Security Council resolution 2254 (2015), the Special Envoy intends to complete his consultations in early January, with a view to initiating intra-Syrian talks on a target date of 25 January 2016 in Geneva. He counts on full cooperation of all the relevant Syrian parties in this process. Continuing developments on the ground should not be allowed to derail it. The Special Envoy also relies on the continued crucial support of the International Syria Support Group.

The people of Syria have suffered enough. Their tragedy is now felt throughout the region and beyond. They deserve the full attention and commitment from all their Syrian representatives, who should now show leadership and vision to overcome differences for the sake of Syria."

 The day before, on December 25, on Syria UNRWA's spokesman Chris Gunness said:

"UNRWA welcomes any developments that could end the armed conflict in and around Yarmouk, and ease the inhuman conditions that Palestine refugees and other civilians are in Yarmouk continue to endure. Over the past three months, there have been persistent reports of negotiations for some form of truce or evacuation arrangement in Yarmouk.  These reports are credible and UNRWA is taking them seriously, although they have not been officially or formally confirmed, and details have been vague. There are several thousands of civilians living in deeply abject conditions in Yarmouk. As UNRWA is deeply concerned about their well-being, the Agency is seeking from the Syrian government further details of any negotiated arrangements that will affect the humanitarian situation of civilians in Yarmouk. In particular, UNRWA demands that any arrangements being negotiated in and around Yarmouk must include guarantees for a durable cessation of hostilities, for the protection of civilians, and for safe, uninterrupted humanitarian access for UNRWA and other humanitarian actors. UNRWA is redoubling its strong appeals to the Government of Syria and relevant actors to allow and facilitate humanitarian access to Yarmouk.  This is urgently needed to enable UNRWA to   deliver food, clean water, winter supplies,  healthcare,  and other humanitarian assistance and services to civilians in Yarmouk. UNRWA stands ready immediately to respond to the humanitarian needs of the entire civilian population of Yarmouk."

  Meanwhile the head of Jaysh al Islam Zahran Alloush was killed al Ghouta.

  Back on December 18 at the UN the US day ended in a bilateral meeting between Iranian minister Zarif and John Kerry -- a photo spray was canceled -- and a low key meeting on Iraq and Turkey that we asked about and reported on here.

  Kerry and Lavrov, joined by UN envoy Staffan de Mistura, held this three-question press conference. Kerry said the negotiations should begin in mid to late January (in contrast to the early January in the resolution). Lavrov said only the “patriotic opposition” should be involved in negotiations. Staffan de Mistura said very little.

  That Kerry's spokesman John Kirby, who ran the press conference, gave the second question to the Washington Post, and the third to Russian media, was perhaps understandable. But the first question, Kirby set aside for “Al Arabiya.”  The question quickly turned into three, after being branded for “UNCA,” now the UN Corruption Association, a group which sold seats with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for $6000 only earlier this week.

 We now add: UNCA gave one of its prizes, a free trip to Turkey, to one of its Vice Presidents, from Agence France Presse. Even Kellogg's prohibits its employees from competing for its prizes. But not UNCA, which ignoring the Iraq - Turkey meeting in the Security Council was trying to buy people with Prosecco on December 18, after selling seats with Ban for $6,000.

  Several other UN-based journalists -- not (only) this one -- complained afterward that the first question and attempted follow up were a “Saudi circus” which made the UN press corps look bad -- as did attempt to throw out certain journalists, photographers, from the front row at the beginning.

   Afterward a photo spray of a meeting between Kerry and Iran's Zarif was declared “by invitation only” and then canceled. In the Security Council, with very few journalists still at the stakeout, the US presidency began the meeting on Iraq's complaint against Turkey being in its territory. We'll have more on this.

After the vote inside the Council Lavrov said, “The unanimous adoption today on the Council has created a broad front on the basis of the UN Charter, on the basis of all of those who are pushing back against terror, including the Syrian army, [some] armed militias, parts of the Syrian opposition, and the Russian air forces, in response to the legitimate request of the Syrian government."

Inside as Nasser Judeh of Jordan spoke, UN TV cut repeatedly to Syria's Bashar Ja'afari, looking more and more skeptical. France's Fabius spoke briefly and left. Outside at the stakeout, talk turned to a Kerry press conference, open to all.

 Italy's Paolo Gentiloni, by contrast, scheduled a press availability only for Italian media. A wag from the Free UN Coalition for Access asked, Isn't Gentiloni the foreign and not interior minister? Isn't he running for a Security Council seat? We'll have more on this.

In the  hotel lobby in the late morning a Permanent Five member of the Security Council's spokesperson briefed a gaggle of journalists in the lobby amid hissed that it was “off the record.”

  There was a gingerbread model of the NY Palace hotel which, the sign said, took 300 hours to make. All that was lacking, one wag - this one - snarked on Twitter, was a little gingerbread Laurent Fabuis.

 Back that UN, the 1 pm stakeout by the EU's Mogherini was postponed and then canceled. The Security Council scheduled for 3 pm got pushed back to 4.  Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric if Ban had spoken, what would he have said? Vine here.

On December 17, the day before Syria talks resumed at the New York Palace Hotel in Manhattan, finance ministers spoke in the UN Security Council about cutting off financing for ISIS. French finance minister Michel Sapin spoke darkly of the use of pre-paid cards for the November 13 Paris attacks; Russia's Ambassador Churkin named two Turkish companies as involved in ISIS oil sale.

  Inner City Press asked Syria's Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari, who came to take questions at the Council stakeout, about ISIS' oil. He named Turkey, then want on to name Qatar and Saudi Arabia, slamming its “Sunni coalition” recently announced.

  When US Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, along with Sapin and the UK's George Osborne held a short press conference in the UN briefing room, Inner City Press hoped to asked Sapin about pre-paid cards, and Lew and Osborne about Bitcoin. But the question, just four, were limited to Reuters, the Wall Street Journal, the New York and Financial Times. So it goes.

   It seems there will be no Press access at the New York Palace; Ja'afari has said he will speak, at the UN, and whatever ISSG press availability there is should be at the UN, with a 3 pm meeting on December 18 scheduled. Watch this site.

Back on December 8, Inner City Press put thee questions to  Turkey's Ambassador Cevic. Video here.   Here's fast transcript byInnerCityPro.com:
Inner City Press: On Syria, do you think the Vienna process meeting should take place in New York on the 18th? Are you satisfied with the Saudi process for choosing the opposition?

Amb Cevik: The plans, I don’t know how fixed, I mean how clear it is, but we are making our preparations for the meeting.

Inner City Press: Are there any groups invited to Saudi Arabia that you think shouldn’t be part of the opposition delegation?

Amb Cevik: I think so far, in our view, they are working on the right concept. Let’s see if they succeed. Having a coalition group that would be able to take part in the process is one of the most important things.
Inner City Press: [Russia] said the group that killed their pilot should be put on the terror list. Do you have any view on that?

Amb Cevik: If they know the specifics, I don’t know. But to our knowledge, there was no terrorist organization, no extreme Daesh, Nusra, in that area. They are the Turkomens, and we know them, they are moderate people.

  This may be an issue. Watch this site.



On Syria after coy comments by the UN's Ban Ki-moon if the next meeting would be in New York, John Kerry in Washington at the Saban Forum in Washington on December 5 said:

"the governments involved are going to meet later in this month in New York in order to continue to move this process forward.  Our goal is to facilitate a transition that all parties have stated that they support: a unified Syria...The purpose of this transition will be to establish a credible, inclusive governance within six months.  The process would include the drafting of a new constitution and arrangements for internationally supervised elections within 18 months...Meanwhile, a nationwide ceasefire will go into effect between the government and the responsible opposition, assuming they come to the table and they begin this initial process."

  But who is this "responsible opposition"? Does it include Al Qaeda affiliates? Can last-minute mergers cleanse these groups? Watch this site.

 Back on November 14 in the shadow of the November 13 Paris attacks, the International Syria Support Group met and issued a statement in Vienna, follow by statements by US John Kerry, Russia's Sergey Lavrov and the UN's Staffan de Mistura, flashing his pince-nez and the highlighted document below.

  But what will happen when a group said to be linked to Al Nusra is hit by an airstrike, and the Free Syrian Army says it's them, not Nusra?

Meeting in Vienna on November 14, 2015 as the International Syria Support Group (ISSG), the Arab League, China, Egypt, the EU, France, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United Nations, and the United States to discuss how to accelerate an end to the Syrian conflict.  The participants began with a moment of silence for the victims of the heinous terrorist attacks of November 13 in Paris and the recent attacks in Beirut, Iraq, Ankara, and Egypt.  The members unanimously condemned in the strongest terms these brutal attacks against innocent civilians and stood with the people of France.

Subsequently, the participants engaged in a constructive dialogue to build upon the progress made in the October 30 gathering. The members of the ISSG expressed a unanimous sense of urgency to end the suffering of the Syrian people, the physical destruction of Syria, the destabilization of the region, and the resulting increase in terrorists drawn to the fighting in Syria.

The ISSG acknowledged the close linkage between a ceasefire and a parallel political process pursuant to the 2012 Geneva Communique, and that both initiatives should move ahead expeditiously.  They stated their commitment to ensure a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political transition based on the Geneva Communique in its entirety.  The group reached a common understanding on several key issues.
The group agreed to support and work to implement a nationwide ceasefire in Syria to come into effect as soon as the representatives of the Syrian government and the opposition have begun initial steps towards the transition under UN auspices on the basis of the Geneva Communique.  The five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council pledged to support a UNSC resolution to empower a UN-endorsed ceasefire monitoring mission in those parts of the country where monitors would not come under threat of attacks from terrorists, and to support a political transition process in accordance with the Geneva Communique.   
All members of the ISSG also pledged as individual countries and supporters of various belligerents to take all possible steps to require adherence to the ceasefire by these groups or individuals they support, supply or influence.  The ceasefire would not apply to offensive or defensive actions against Da’esh or Nusra or any other group the ISSG agrees to deem terrorist.
The participants welcomed UN Secretary General Ban’s statement that he has ordered the UN to accelerate planning for supporting the implementation of a nationwide ceasefire.  The group agreed that the UN should lead the effort, in consultation with interested parties, to determine the requirements and modalities of a ceasefire.  
The ISSG expressed willingness to take immediate steps to encourage confidence-building measures that would contribute to the viability of the political process and to pave the way for the nationwide ceasefire.  In this context, and pursuant to clause 5 of the Vienna Communique, the ISSG discussed the need to take steps to ensure expeditious humanitarian access throughout the territory of Syria pursuant to UNSCR 2165 and called for the granting of the UN’s pending requests for humanitarian deliveries.   The ISSG expressed concern for the plight of refugees and internally displaced persons and the imperative of building conditions for their safe return in accordance with the norms of international humanitarian law and taking into account the interests of host countries.  The resolution of the refugee issue is important to the final settlement of the Syrian conflict.  The ISSG also reaffirmed the devastating effects of the use of indiscriminate weapons on the civilian population and humanitarian access, as stated in UNSCR 2139.  The ISSG agreed to press the parties to end immediately any use of such indiscriminate weapons.
The ISSG reaffirmed the importance of abiding by all relevant UN Security Council resolutions, including UNSCR 2199 on stopping the illegal trade in oil, antiquities and hostages, from which terrorists benefit.
Pursuant to the 2012 Geneva Communique, incorporated by reference in the Vienna statement of October 30, and in U.N. Security Council Resolution 2118, the ISSG agreed on the need to convene Syrian government and opposition representatives in formal negotiations under UN auspices, as soon as possible, with a target date of January 1.  The group welcomed efforts, working with United Nations Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura and others, to bring together the broadest possible spectrum of the opposition, chosen by Syrians, who will decide their negotiating representatives and define their negotiating positions, so as to enable the political process to begin.  All the parties to the political process should adhere to the guiding principles identified at the October 30 meeting, including a commitment to Syria’s unity, independence, territorial integrity, and non-sectarian character; to ensuring that State institutions remain intact; and to protecting the rights of all Syrians, regardless of ethnicity or religious denomination.   ISSG members agreed that these principles are fundamental.
The ISSG members reaffirmed their support for the transition process contained in the 2012 Geneva Communique.  In this respect they affirmed their support for a ceasefire as described above and for a Syrian-led process that will, within a target of six months, establish credible, inclusive and non-sectarian governance, and set a schedule and process for drafting a new constitution.  Free and fair elections would be held pursuant to the new constitution within 18 months. These elections must be administered under UN supervision to the satisfaction of the governance and to the highest international standards of transparency and accountability, with all Syrians, including the diaspora, eligible to participate.   
Regarding the fight against terrorism, and pursuant to clause 6 of the Vienna Communique, the ISSG reiterated that Da’esh, Nusra, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the UN Security Council, and further, as agreed by the participants and endorsed by the UN Security Council, must be defeated.  The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan agreed to help develop among intelligence and military community representatives a common understanding of groups and individuals for possible determination as terrorists, with a target of completion by the beginning of the political process under UN auspices.
The participants expect to meet in approximately one month in order to review progress towards implementation of a ceasefire and the beginning of the political process.


When the Chair of the UN's Syria Commission of Inquiry Paulo Sergio Pinheiro took questions after a closed door meeting with the Security Council, Inner City Press asked him about airstrikes in Syria, particularly by members of the Council. Periscope video here.

   Pinheiro replied that, not having been to Syria (except once as an individual, he told Inner City Press afterward, second Periscope here), he could not determine the facts of the airstrikes. But he said he had urged the Council members involved to comply with international humanitarian and human rights law.

Here fast transcription by InnerCityPro.com:

Inner City Press: For the 2 commissioners: with the increasing airstrikes by many parties now inside Syria, how is the commission able to collect, are you able to collect information about the airstrikes that occur and to figure out who’s doing what? And did you have any guidance to, there’s some members of the Security Council who are involved in these strikes, in terms of how to conduct them or how to coordinate more? I’d just like to know how you’re dealing with this new change.

Pinheiro: As you know, we investigate violations of human rights law and breaches of international and humanitarian law from – by all warring parties, by government, by the armed groups, by the terrorist groups... Yes, we had said this to the Security Council in the formal meeting, that we have received delegations about casualties, about results of those airstrikes that you have mentioned. But at this point, we are not in a position to attribute what was the responsible, the member state responsible for this airstrikes. We hope by March when, or in February when we release our report, to be in a better position to elaborate on that. What we have done, it was what we said at the human rights council, that our roles is to remind member states involved in these airstrikes the necessity of respecting the protection of the civilian population in terms of human rights and humanitarian law.

   It was said the Commission would share information with countries -- or rather, prosecutors or courts -- looking into their own nationals, as victims or perpetrators. Afterward, only on Periscope, Inner City Press asked Pinheiro if this every implicated the type of privacy concerns the UN and its Herve Ladsous cite as a basis to go after OHCHR's Anders Kompass, who blew the whistle on French troops' rapes in the Central African Republic, alleged violating victims' privacy.

  Pinheiro said disclosure would require the consent of the victims, but said that is most often given. He summoned over the Commission's Coordinator James Rodehaver, who previously did similar work on Afghanistan. It was Rodehaver who clarified that it is not countries but prosecutors and courts which can request information. He noted that a court in Sweden has cited the Commission's work, to show the conditions in a particular place and time in Syria.

  Pinheiro added that the Commission's work should make the type of “Mapping” exercises as was done in Eastern Congo unnecessary. The information has been collected. Now what? Watch this site.

On Syria Chemical Weapons, Sellstrom Says Zamalka Range 2 Kilmeters, Khan al Asal Video Was Popova's

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 13 -- The day after Åke Sellström handed his second and final report on Syria chemical weapons to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, he appeared to take press questions.

Inner City Press asked him and fellow panelists Scott Cairns of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and Dr. Maurizio Barbeschi of the World Health Organization three questions:

1) to estimate the range of the rockets fired on Zamalka, 2) to respond to allegations that the rocket they examined in Moadamiya was filmed elsewhere, and 3) if the video they reviewed about Khan al Asal was that of Russian journalist Anastasia Popova.

Sellstrom confirmed it was Popova's -- click here for Inner City Press' previous coverage -- and said he wasn't aware of allegations that the rocket they examined in Moadamiya was filmed elsewhere (see sample YouTube here).

On Zamalka, he offered a range of two kilometers, but said it is unclear as to how much it weighed and what it was filled with.

Later, Maurizio Barbeschi of WHO said that the UN Human Rights Council could be a venue to rule on WHO used chemical weapons. Angela Kane cites as other precedents the inquiry into the killing of Benazir Bhutto and the Hariri Tribunal.

  Kane said if a private lawyer asked for the samples to sue, she would have to consult the UN Legal Counsel. Inner City Press notes that this UN Counsel refused to even accept service of court papers about the UN bringing cholera into Haiti, killing more than 8000 people.

Some marveled that there has been no mechanism at all on the killing of 40,000 civilians in Sri Lanka in 2009. Rights Up Front? Only sometimes, in some cases. Watch this site.

   

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

By Matthew Russell Lee

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

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

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

From the UN's October 3 transcript:

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

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

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

Spokesperson: I answered that, as well.

Inner City Press: Okay. Can you say why?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Read the transcript.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   

UN's Syria Report Comes Out, Pre-Spun, Ban Ki-moon as Cowbell in Kerry's Rock and Roll Band

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 16 -- The UN's belated release of its Syria chemical weapons report was as much amateur spin as Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's moves that preceded it.

Ban called the report "overwhelming" before he saw it; he flashed its first page for publication on UN Photo then had the photo taken down.

  On Monday rather than put it directly online as they'd said, the UN handed out hard copies of portions of the report, seeming surprised there was a lot of demand. Finally it went online - after the French Mission to the UN put up a one-page Ghouta for Dummies.

 Ban says his team was "unable to... verify the total number of causalities." So the 1,400 figure can keep being used, or ABC's "hundredS of thousands."

  The air was taken out of the report by the US cutting a deal with Russia in Geneva. Now there will be calls for referrals to the ICC, which it seems would trigger a veto.

  The UN undermined the report not only by Ban jumping the gun, but also by his previous bogus reporting exonerating the UN for bringing cholera to Haiti. 

   If the UN was willing to mis-represent that, even after the initial reporters walked away from the conclusion, how can this report be given weight?

To the US, Ban and the UN are like the cowbell in a rock band -- accompaniment. And amateurish at that. Watch this site.

   

On Syria, Charlie Rose Ignores Qatar, Saudi & Bahrain, Leers about Gaddafi, Russia's Churkin's Response

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 10 -- On Syria, PBS at 11 pm on Monday belatedly ran the full hour of Charlie Rose's Sunday morning interview with Bashar al-Assad. Much had changed in the interim, not least the proposal that Syria let the UN oversee or destroy chemical weapons. 

  But there was Charlie Rose, reading questions off a list with little follow up. And here Inner City Press is putting online a transcript -- with a few lines in Russian -- of Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin's response. Talk about weird timing.

   Rose repeated that Syria delayed the UN inspectors, with Inner City Press' follow up questions with the UN showed that the UN only formally requested access to Ghouta on August 24, granted the next day.

   In a telling moment, when Assad noted that the US used depleted uranium in Iraq (the effect in Fallujah were shown by VICE last season) and Israel used white phosphorus in Gaza, Rose just moved on to the next question. Next!

   Same when Rose intoned that people don't want one family running a country. What about Saudi Arabia? What about Qatar? What, as one Inner City Press follower chimed in, about the Bushes?

   Rose seemed to leer when he asked Assad if he was worry about what happened to Gaddafi -- visions of gun butts dancing in his head. Is this the West's accountability?

Showing his crack knowledge of Syria's divisions, Rose called it a minority sect dictatorship. But what about Bahrain?

Anyway, the news cycle had moved on. Here though is a transcript of Churkin with some Russian. Watch this site.

   

On Syria, Samantha Power Changes Sequence of Stalling & Requests, US Blocked a Statement on Damascus Car Bombing

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 6 -- After US Ambassador Samantha Power took only three questions at the on September 5, from CBS, Reuters and a Gulf media, some thought she would take more during her hour-long appearance today at the Center for American Progress in DC. In this they were disappointed.

  It was supposed to run from 2 pm to 3 pm. But Power's appearance was 20 minutes late. The speaker who introduced her was openly pro missile strike. Then Samantha Power began.

  It was an edited and selective history of the Syria issue at the UN, to say the least. Power said that the US worked to set up the UN chemical weapons inspection team -- but did not mention that Syria was the first to ask for a UN probe, of chemical weapons at Khan al Asal, Syria says by the rebels.

Power said that Russia and sometimes China blocked press statements, but did not mention for example the draft press statement on a car bombing in Damascus that, as Inner City Press covered, the US blocked in February of this year.

The promised Geneva Two talks had already long been delayed before the August 21 incident. But Power said that diplomacy was stalled BY the August 21 incident at Ghouta.

The day after the US invited Security Council members and some other states, those that asked the UN to focus on Ghouta, to the US Mission to see evidence, Power spoke of countries being convinced. But as Inner City Press reported yesterday, one attendee said he was not convinced by the evidence; another said it was the same shown "back in the capital."

Since then other attendees have told Inner City Press the US invitation was directed beyond the Security Council members to those countries which wrote to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon asking for an investigation into the August 21 incidents.

That's the same group the UN's Angela Kane invited to a stealth meeting in the North Lawn building earlier this week -- but that, Syria's Permanent Representative Ja'afari also attended (and spoke afterward, see Inner City Press YouTube here.)

While some make much of a Saudi draft General Assembly resolution, other interested countries tell Inner City Press "that's on hold" and speak of another, quite different resolution.

There's also this question, for the US: would it support a Uniting for Peace resolution which could empower to act on the issues the US uses its veto for in the Security Council?

  These are questions that should have been, and should be, answered. But well before 3, when Samantha Power stopped talking, she walked out stage left. The last line? "Watch for a Replay at video.state.gov." President Barack Obama will give a speech on the evening of September 10. Watch this site.

Footnote: left as a footnote because Darfur is now being turned into one, Inner City Press asked the UN on Friday about reports of deadly Sudanese army bombing in East Jebel Marra. For UN humanitarian chief Valerie Amos the UN spokesperson said, "Syria only." Is that the case at the Mission too?

   

On Syria, How Will the UN Release Its Report, After Angela Kane's "Interested Countries" Session?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 5 -- How much can the UN rush its Syria chemical weapons report, and to whom will it give the report? Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Farhan Haq both questions on Thursday.

At the G20 in St. Petersburg European Council President Herman Van Rompuy was quoted that he expected "the findings to be revealed later Thursday."

Inner City Press asked, to get it denied or confirmed; Haq said no, there will be no report today.

But when it is released, to whom will that be? Inner City Press asked about the meeting High Representative for Disarmament Angela Kane held in the North Lawn Building, supposedly only with the countries who wrote asking for a probe of Ghouta.

How can the UN do that? Several member states have asked Inner City Press about it, and whether they will get a copy of the report, or only these requesters.

When Inner City Press asked, Haq said some three dozen interested countries were there. Inner City Press asked, including Syria - as a requester? As an interested country. But aren't there more (or less, depending on the legal standard) than three dozen interested countries?

Inner City Press asked who will get the report. Haq said Ban has said the Security Council and all member states. But in what sequence? Who defines "interest"? Watch this site.

   

On Syria, UN Won't Comment on Kerry & Senate Dissing It, Tautologies Deployed

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 4 -- In its race for relevance on Syria, the UN keeps bobbing and weaving, on when its chemical weapons report will be finished, on who limited it scope. 

  On September 4 Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's associate spokesman Farhan Haq (video here, embedded below)

Inner City Press: there was a August 31st letter from Syria and I just wanted to get your position on this; they say that in March, when they first requested the Secretary-General to investigate Khan al-Asal and the use of chemical weapons, it was their request that the investigation actually determine who used them. And so they are saying that the way it is being cited now that the UN can’t and won’t determine who used chemical weapons in Ghouta is... not their fault. I wanted to know, is their presentation of March accurate, according to the UN, and what do you make of this most recent letter from them?

Associate Spokesperson Haq: Well, the Secretary-General was asked about the decision yesterday in his press briefing to you, and he made clear that he had taken the decision to determine whether or not chemical weapons had been used and not who used them. That is in line with previous such investigations, and in line with the procedures being used by the investigators themselves.

That's called a tautology: the investigators' procedures are "in line" with the procedures they themselves are using.

 In the next round, Inner City Press asked:

Inner City Press: yesterday in the Senate, John Kerry was asked about the UN report and he said that it is his understanding it will be ready in about three weeks. So I wanted to know, is this based on any communication he had with the Secretary-General? Also, I am sure you have seen this statement by former Secretary-General Kofi Annan that came out today. On behalf of the Elders, he seemed to be saying that Member States should hold off not only on taking action, but on reaching conclusions until the UN report is done. Does the Secretary-General believe that? In terms of the statements made yesterday in the Senate about what people know and taking a vote as early as later today, does the Secretary-General think that’s useful or not useful given that the UN report hasn’t come out?

Associate Spokesperson Haq: Well, the Secretary-General wouldn’t have any comment on the timing of domestic legislative processes, but he has very clearly called for countries to allow the work of the team to be done. And again, I just refer you back to what he said yesterday. And regarding a timeline, like I said, the Secretary-General has been in touch with Dr. Sellström, we put out some notes about his conversations in recent days with Dr. Sellström, and he has urged the team to do as much as they can to expedite their work while keeping within the scientific procedures that are required.

Finally, Inner City Press on behalf of the new Free UN Coalition for Access @FUNCA_info asked why the UN system's daily noon briefing was canceled in deference to a press "encounter" in which Ban took only two pre-selected questions:

Inner City Press: I and some others were left unclear why there was no noon briefing yesterday, given that the Secretary-General didn’t speak until 1 p.m., and took two questions. It seems like there is a lot of things going on in the world, so can you explain that?

Associate Spokesperson: Yeah, it is a very simple explanation. The Secretary-General… when the Secretary-General briefs the press, we don’t have a noon briefing. You have had, by the way, extra noon briefings on Saturday and Sunday, so I hope you are duly appreciative. [laughter]

Inner City Press: it’s not the number of briefings, it has to do with, the UN has billion dollar peacekeeping missions in Sudan, Congo, issues in Haiti, like you should be able to…

Associate Spokesperson: But, Matthew, we answer questions all day and you e-mailed us several questions which we’ve been trying to answer since then.

Question: Well, here’s a question that you didn’t answer, and I mean, I wanna ask it.

So: why did the UN cancel its briefing? Becuase it did: "when the Secretary-General briefs the press, we don’t have a noon briefing." That's called a tautology. Watch this site.