On Children and Armed Conflict UN Ignores Biya Then Blamed NATO Idea on Guterres CdC Viotti

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive CJR PFT

UNITED NATIONS GATE, July 29 – How desperate is Antonio Guterres to get a second term as UN Secretary General? To placate China, and continue his related failure on Myanmar, he first ordered his Special Adviser on Children and Armed Virginia Gamba conflict to move to the "good child killer" List B the Tatmadaw Kyi, including integrated border guard forces. Photo here. This according to a "strictly confidential" report obtained and exclusively published by Inner City Press.  Now on the eve of Gamba's press conference ina UN Press Briefing Room Guterres has banned Inner City Press from now for the 391st day, another exclusive:

   Gamba was moving toward listing NATO for its actions in Afghanistan. When she received push back from the Belgians, she immediately blamed the idea of listing NATO on Guterres' content-with-censorship chief of staff Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti.  Also, the Office has done nothing on Cameroon - not surprising, given Guterres' failure on that and other countries. The whole lot should be fired - at a minimum, say it now: no second term for Guterres. He should not even remain in office until the end of this term.

 As to Viotti, she was repeatedly told soon after Guterres had Inner City Press roughed up and banned, and did nothing. Those UN scribes now feigning concern about dead children not only help Guterres cover up child rapes including by not asking about it and giving Guterres tuxedo-ed awards, some like AlJazeera colluded to get Inner City Press banned, and others stayed silent.

 Guterres' UN press corpse is so rotten that on July 26 there was not a single in-person question at its noon briefing, while Guterres and his spokesmen refused Cameroon and other questions from banned Inner City Press and covered up for three day child rape by a Morocco peacekeeper in DRC. Children and Armed Conflict, indeed. #DumpGuterres

Guterres doesn't care that even Guatemalan diplomat Gert Rosenthal called him out forsystemic failure on Myanmar, just as The Onion mocked his failure on the Uighurs in China. Guterres wants a second term and has covered up his links with CEFC China Energy, including by roughing up and banning Inner City Press, to try to get it.

On July 1, after Guterres lavished praise onChina's Xi at the G20, in Hong Kong protesters faced off with riot police, the anniversary of Hong Kong’s return to repressive Chinese rule. Guterres, typically, said nothing. His campaign slogans about preventive diplomacy have proven empty, even as he tries to ride the Belt and Road to a second term that would end whatever's left of the UN's credibility.

  On June 6, banned Inner City Press asked Guterres and his spokes- / hachetman Stephane Dujarric: "June 6-3: On China, human rights and the SG, what is the SG's response to reports that China has announced former Hong Kong police chief Andy Tsang Wai-hung’s nomination for the top post at the United Nations organisation fighting drug crimes - Mr Tsang's nomination could also be controversial for his management of the Occupy protests, during which tear gas was used on pro-democracy demonstrators.  That shone a spotlight on government efforts to clamp down on activists in the former British colony, with the gatherings of mostly students dubbed the "Umbrella Movement" after they used umbrellas to shield themselves from the pepper spray.  Concerns over the autonomy of Hong Kong's judicial system have increased, as the Beijing-backed government seeks an extradition bill that critics say could be used to target dissidents living in the city.  That legislation may have helped drive a record turnout of more than 180,000 on Tuesday night for Hong Kong's annual vigil to remember the Chinese military's crackdown in Tiananmen Square. Police put the number of attendees at 37,000. The nomination is China’s first attempt to fill a top position at a major international organisation since it detained Meng Hongwei, then the head of the global policing body Interpol, last year.  It was understood UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres would select a successor in a few months to replace the current executive director, Yury Fedotov of Russia, who had been in office since 2010"?"

  More than two weeks later, no answer at all despite Dujarric's promise that there would be answers. Guterres is entirely corrupt. And this:  "The former commissioner of police, Andy Tsang, said on Saturday the level of force used by police during the June 12 protests was necessary and restrained.  Tsang said from what he saw on live TV broadcasts, there was a level of violence caused by protesters that was more serious than what had been seen during the 2014 civil disobedience movement, when he was leading the police force.  He said it would not have been possible for the police to stop the violent action if they had only used tear gas, but not rubber bullets and bean bag rounds. He added the police had showed restraint by only using force "passively", and more people would have been hurt had police not acted at the time.  Nearly 80 people were injured in the clashes on June 12."

 This are Guterres' friends and candidates. Guterres is corrupt.

June 6-3: On China, human rights and the SG, what is the SG's response to reports that China has announced former Hong Kong police chief Andy Tsang Wai-hung’s nomination for the top post at the United Nations organisation fighting drug crimes - Mr Tsang's nomination could also be controversial for his management of the Occupy protests, during which tear gas was used on pro-democracy demonstrators.  That shone a spotlight on government efforts to clamp down on activists in the former British colony, with the gatherings of mostly students dubbed the "Umbrella Movement" after they used umbrellas to shield themselves from the pepper spray.  Concerns over the autonomy of Hong Kong's judicial system have increased, as the Beijing-backed government seeks an extradition bill that critics say could be used to target dissidents living in the city.  That legislation may have helped drive a record turnout of more than 180,000 on Tuesday night for Hong Kong's annual vigil to remember the Chinese military's crackdown in Tiananmen Square. Police put the number of attendees at 37,000. The nomination is China’s first attempt to fill a top position at a major international organisation since it detained Meng Hongwei, then the head of the global policing body Interpol, last year.  It was understood UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres would select a successor in a few months to replace the current executive director, Yury Fedotov of Russia, who had been in office since 2010"?  No answers. #DumpGuterres.

More here.

Kunduz MSF Hospital Bombing by US Draws Comments from UN, Obama

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 3, more here – After repeated airstrikes destroyed the MSF hospital in Kunduz killing doctors and patients, the sequence of UN statements of condemnation began with Rights Commissioner Zeid, then Ban Ki-moon, then Aid Chief Stephen O'Brien. Some wondered why not the UN Department of Political Affairs, which runs the UNAMA mission in the country, headed by American Jeffrey Feltman.

  Obama chimed in, saying that he's asked the Department of Defense to keep him informed of the investigation. Imagine, some asked, if the new strikes in Syria caused such carnage: would saying "we are investigating" be enough? We'll have more on this.

Background: Following up on Inner City Press exclusive publication of UN Development Program audits of its Law and Order Trust Fund Afghanistan, including double payments and other irregularities, whistleblowers this past summer exclusively provided Inner City Press with yet more damning documents. 

   On August 15, 2014 UNDP belatedly specified that "there is an ongoing investigation related to issues raised in documents published by Inner City Press" - but again uses this as a rationale for the lack of response not only by UNDP but also the UNAMA mission and UN Department of Safety and Security.

  On fifty five days later, despite two more requests from Inner City Press, UNDP has nothing on any results of its investigation. It has provided its response to the October 6 release by the US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction -- which says (other) audits will be released by the end of the year.

  When will any of these audits, including one promised in early September about Rwanda ghost consultancies, be released? 

  Inner City Press asked at the October 10 noon briefing, then in writing: "this is a request for UNDP's response to SIGAR's allegations -- and for the results of the probes UNDP answered on August 15 then in early September, about Afghanistan and Rwanda."

  The latter two have yet to be answered, other than "let me check and I will get back to you." On SIGAR, UNDP says "we will make publicly available an audit of our oversight of the monitoring agent before the end of this year." (The rest should go here.)

  On Rwanda ghost consultancies, UNDP told Inner City Press on September 3, "The results of the investigation will be available once it is complete." It has not been made available; nor has any update yet been provided. 

   As to what the documents and "issues raised" regarding Afghanistan are, see for now here, here, here and here, exclusively provided to Inner City Press by now-former UNDP staff. There are more documents, one more of which was published today, here.

In it, the same Colonel Bashary who threatened he would not tolerate these accusation turns up on the list of double payments. 

  This publication follows four days in which UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric, formerly UNDP's spokesman, had not said whether an audit cited as a justification for not answering is the troubling audit completed in February 2014. 

  After Inner City Press asked again on August 15, UNDP's Dylan Lowthian provided this response, which we publish in full:

The 'Security Gap Project' (SGAP) which you have previously referred to was established to enhance security for all United Nations personnel working in Afghanistan. SGAP supported the Government to develop dedicated protection services to the United Nations to enable reconstruction, development and humanitarian activities to be carried out.

SGAP closed at the end of 2013. An audit of the project was carried out by Grant Thornton beginning in October 2013 and was completed in January 2014. Upon completion, the audit was issued in February 2014 and in-keeping with our commitment to transparency and accountability, was subsequently published on the UNDP global website, where it is publicly available to download. Audits are an essential part of our control mechanisms. They are conducted in order to identify both strengths and weaknesses in our programs as a way to increase our overall performance.

There is no second audit of the SGAP project.

As outlined by the Deputy Spokesperson at the briefing on Friday 8 August, there is an ongoing investigation related to issues raised in documents published by Inner City Press. In order to avoid jeopardizing the investigation process, the details of investigations are kept confidential and very limited information is made available to offices outside the UNDP Independent Office of Audit and Investigation, until the process of gathering relevant evidence and fact-finding has been completed. Should the matter be substantiated, the evidence gathered by the Office of Audit and Investigation will form the basis of remedial action.

  We'll have more on this. For now, Inner City Press is informed that now "the heat is on at the Kabul office" -- this is called a cover-up, and retaliation against (the wrong) whistleblowers.

 The UNDP Independent Office of Audit and Investigation COMPLETED an audit of this Closing the Security Gap on February 12, 2014, Report Number 1251, here.

  That report noted "incomplete recording of expenditure incurred in 2012. Salaries were not charged to the Project for the first
five months of 2012; lack of appropriate audit evidence on fuel charges amounting to $60,715 and rent expenses of $13,589; overstatement of indirect program support costs by $21,737."

   First, it was and is unacceptable for this UN to say it will not respond to troubling documents because it is conducting its own audit or "investigation," with no completion date named and no commitment to make it public. The new Free UN Coalition for Access is opposing and seeking to reverse this UN descent into obfuscation and stonewalling.

  Inner City Press asked Dujarric on August 11:

Inner City Press: last week there was some back and forth about the UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) programmes in Afghanistan that resulted in Farhan [Haq] on Friday saying that an audit is ongoing, and while the audit is ongoing, there will be no comment.  At least that’s how I interpreted it.  But, I’ve looked into it and it turns out that there was an audit that was completed of this very program called “Closing the Security Gap” project, finished in February of this year by Grant Thorton.  It made a lot of negative findings, but… it wasn’t clear to me, since UNDP never directly answered the questions, is this audit that’s being cited the old audit?  Is there a new audit?  If there’s a new audit of the same programme, how much was paid for the former audit?  And can you explain how it’s appropriate for the Secretariat to not answer questions about DSS [Department of Safety and Security] and UNAMA [United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan] by referring to a UNDP audit that may already be completed?

Spokesman Dujarric:   My short answer is, show me what you have, what you’re referring to and I’m happy to look into it because I’m a little confused by the number of audits myself.

  Inner City Press immediately emailed the audit to Dujarric, along with these three questions:

1) is this the audit Farhan / UNDP were referring to at Friday's noon briefing and justifying not answering questions about DSS and UNAMA?

2) if a second audit of the Closing the Security Gap Project is underway, why? And, either way, how much was paid for the Grant Thorton Audit?

3) This is a requests for the Secretariat to respond to the references to DSS and UNAMA in the documents Farhan was responding to on Friday.

  There was no answer. Inner City Press asked Dujarric again on August 13:

Inner City Press: I’d asked you on Monday about this UNDP audit that was cited as a reason they were not answering a questions about [Department of Safety and Security] and UNAMA [United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan].  Have you been able to find out from them whether this February 2014 audit was the one that they’re citing now or is there a new audit?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I haven’t had a chance to actually follow-up but I will. 

 Two day later, nothing. So Inner City Press asked yet again.

 Before publishing any of the documents, Inner City Press posed questions to five UNDP spokespeople. But none even confirmed receipt -- including Abdel-Rahman Ghandour, the spokesperson who belatedly responded to Inner City Press' previous LOTFA exclusives.

 What changed, other than Inner City Press' subsequent reporting on UNDP Administrator Helen Clark's layoff campaign, and these new troubling questions?

 The questions were sent on August 5 to the following, without response for 72 hours: lead spokesperson Dheepa Pandian (out of the office from August 1 to 18), Mila Rosenthal and Helen Clark's personal spokesperson Christina Lo Nigro.

  After Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq to reply about the UN Secretariat's own role, Haq on August 8 read a statement from UNDP -- there will be no answer pending a UNDP audit. Video here.

   This is pure stonewalling. And can Ban Ki-moon's UN Secretariat's Department of Safety and Security and UNAMA Mission hide behind a UNDP investigation that may never be public? 

   After Haq refused another Inner City Press question, after the UNTV cameras turned off, Haq told Inner City Press that UNDP refused to answer the August 5 questions, below, due to "your people skills." Inner City Press deals perfectly well with numerous diplomats at the UN and many others -- but UNDP and some UN officials don't like hard questions and think they can simply stonewall, in the UN's Zone of Impunity.

   Seventy two hours in, while the UN Secretariat of Ban Ki-moon said it wouldn't answer about the role of its own Department of Safety and Security and UNAMA mission while UNDP answers, August 6 and 7 video here -- UNDP had provided no answer at all.

   This despite UNDP Administrator Helen Clark having been subject to formal governmental requests about related UNDP irregularities in Afghanistan in May. Is this any way to run for UN Secretary General?

  The fourth document, exclusively published here, makes even more clear why Bann Ki-moon's Secretariat must respond. The document describes double payments then introduces one "Colonel Bashary," who threatens not to talk about corruption, "I will not tolerate these accusations." Click here to view.

  In Afghanistan as Inner City Press exclusively dug into, UN Security official Louis Maxwell was killed, presumptively by Afghan Forces -- and the UN has obtained zero accountability for this killed staff member. Inner City Press has put questions about Louis Maxwell toDeputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson, who to his credit responded, and to current Syria envoy Staffan de Mistura, here.

Now: why would the UN be telling a whistle-blower to "just let it be," then refusing to answer? 

  The third document, exclusively published here, concerns "'Ghost Staffing' at the UN Protective Force," about which the UN Department of Safety and Security said, "Just let it be for now." Click here to view.

    On August 5, Inner City Press exclusively published this one, linking it to the LOTFA scandal: an official "was again advised that it may be illegal for salaried police officials to take cash payments to augment their salaries" but the adviser was told it was "no longer my priority under LOTFA and that I was no longer to address these issues with DPII or DSS."

  This and the other documents indicate that little was fixed, that UNDP goes after whistleblowers, and does not follow up even when for example it is involved in visa fraud. 

   Inner City Press on morning of August 5 asked no fewer than four spokespeople at UNDP, including the personal spokesperson for UNDP Administrator (and UNSG candidate) Helen Clark for their response to the below. 

 There had been no answers. Inner City Press exclusively published the second document, here: about payments by UNAMA / UNDSS to fully salaried Afghan forces. Click here.

  Both UNAMA and UNDSS are run by Ban Ki-moon's Secretariat, so Ban's spokespeople must answer. UNDP's Helen Clark herself has refused official inquiry about these irregularities. So on August 6 Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq:

Inner City Press: The payments by UNDSS (Department of Safety and Security) and UNAMA (United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan) in Afghanistan to members of the Ministry of Interior and other Afghan forces that are already under full salary by the Government. Various documents have come out that show an internal UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) whistle blower seeking to raise these issues within UNDP because, I guess, because as the country team, or whatever. But the documents list, they name UNDSS, they name UNAMA, and basically the person was told, “Don’t raise this anymore.” So, I was anticipating you to say “Ask UNDP”. And I have more than 24 hours ago. I don’t have any answer from them. But I want to ask you, because the documents are not just about UNDP, but about DSS and UNAMA, is it… what are the rules? Is it UN’s, DPKO’s (Department of Peacekeeping Operations), DPA’s (Department of Political Affairs) and DSS’s understanding that Afghan forces shouldn’t receive out double payments. If this information came to light, I think it did, what was done about it? That’s my question to you. I don’t know if you get an answer today. Is it possible?

Deputy Spokesman Haq: As I’m sure you’ve anticipated, and indeed you said you anticipated, yes, I’m aware that UN Development Programme is in touch with you on this. They’ve informed you that they will get back to you. And so, we will first have to wait for what their reply is. First ask them.

Inner City Press: How long --

Deputy Spokesman: No, no. It’s no use trying to get the two of us talk at cross purposes with each other. UNDP will get back to you.

  That UNDP "is in touch with you" was and is not true: there has been no response at all. The statement UNDP "will get to you" remains unfulfilled. This is today's UN system -- even when UN system staff unions wrote to Ban Ki-moon about Helen Clark, and Inner City Press repeated asked about the letter, there has been no response.

  Here is what Inner City Press asked on August 5, no answer:

This is an Inner City Press Press request on deadline for UNDP's comment / response to the following narrative provided to us by UNDP whistleblowers:

UNDP purchased $100,000 in fuel for a special police unit and it was discovered that some or all of the fuel was stolen by the police. The project manager - chief technical adviser for the project refused to purchase another allocation of fuel due to this reported corruption. Refusing to purchase this additional fuel caused problems between the project manager - chief technical adviser and the chief of UN security in Afghanistan.

This followed with reports that several vehicles purchased by this same UNDP project and given to this same special police unit were not being used for the unit but had instead been given as political gifts or other reasons to other offices of the Afghan government. After giving these vehicles to higher ranking officials the Colonel of this special police unit was promoted to General.

The project manager - chief technical adviser reported this and nothing happened. As part of the review which discovered this the corruption of payments made by the UN security office in Afghanistan to the special police unit was also discovered and reported.

 This is also a request for UNDP response / comment on another issue, of visa overstay, also on deadline:

UNDP's staff from Afghanistan have not returned to their duty station after being granted visas to attend/participate in the recent UN Games in the USA. UNDP supported the official/G4 visas for all of these Afghan nationals and now they have remained behind in the USA... How can the organization justify sending a dozen people half-way around the world to compete in 'UN Games'? How many of them were given business class tickets since the travel exceeds the 9 hour standard? Is this a proper use of public monies? How can an office so critical to the development of Afghanistan in this time of change see it as beneficial for a dozen of their staff to go on a paid junket to the USA?

1. Lailuma Shirzad (procurement) - overstay in USA.

2. Abdul Hamid Karimi (procurement) - presumably in UK

3. Idrees Sherzai (HR) - went to US, but crossed the border and is now in Canada

4. Shahkhalid Yousafzai - went to US, but crossed the border and is now in Canada

This is on deadline. This is also a request for UNDP's response to thestaff survey and the critique(s) of the restructuring / layoffs. 

  On the visas we can for now add: There are 3 more from ELECT Project and 3 to 4 from Information Communications and Technology Unit whom whistleblowers say have also overstayed their visas. We plan to have more. Watch this site.

   

Talking Turkey Not Kurds, NATO Picks Reuters & Al Arabiya, Ban Ki-moon to Follow?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 28 -- Of Turkey's letter to the UN Security Council, Inner City Press asked UNSC President Gerard von Bohemen of New Zealand on the afternoon of July 27. Inner City Press was informed that it had been received and circulated; at least this was a straight-forward answer.

  On July 28, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg delivered the statement of the North Atlantic Council after Article 4 meeting convened by Turkey, then took three pre-selected questions.

  It began with "Turkish TV," asking if in the meeting there was any controversy (no, said Stoltenberg). Next was Reuters, which asked if NATO will do any of the work currently done by the US-led Coalition - Turkey's bombing of the Kurdish PKK (and YPD, it seems) was not mentioned.

  Third and last was Al-Arabiya, about the long sought no-fly or "safe" zone inside Syria. Then it was over. The question, for the Free UN Coalition for Access and others, was whether UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's scheduled Q&A stakeout on Syria on July 29 will be along with same lines: "Turkish TV," Reuters and Al-Arabiya. Or will US state media be thrown in?

   On July 27 Ban's UN issued one statement after the day's noon briefing - and then another.  At the noon briefing, Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric said Ban spoke “over the weekend to the Prime Minister of Turkey.  They spoke on regional issues — that is what I can share with you.”

  More than two hours later at 2:41 pm, Ban's spokesperson's office sent this out:

  “In response to questions on Turkey asked at the Monday noon briefing, the Spokesman had the following to say:

“The Secretary-General is concerned by the latest escalation of tension between Turkey and PKK elements. He expresses the hope that there will be an immediate return to constructive dialogue in order to continue to find a peaceful solution to the challenge at hand. The Secretary-General calls on all concerned to refrain from returning to a deadly conflict which has in the past brought so much suffering and grief to the people of Turkey.”

  But apparently calling for a return to dialogue didn't go down well in come quarters. So more than five hours later at 7:52 pm Ban's spokesperson's office put out a second statement:

“In response to further questions asked after the Noon Briefing on the recent attacks in Turkey, the Spokesman said:

 “The Secretary-General expresses his deepest condolences to the Government and people of Turkey in the face of recent violent terrorist attacks, which have claimed the lives of a number of citizens and injured many others.”

  It seems that if Turkey wants another statement, they'll get one. Watch this site.
   

On Afghanistan, UN Security Council Looks Forward to NATO "Non-Combat" Mission, What's in a Word?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 3, more here -- Given the new bilateral agreements between Afghanistan with NATO, and separately with the US, some were asking: a new UN Security Council resolution needed?

  Back on October 9, German Defense Minister Thomas de Maiziere said, “We would want to have a UN resolution, a resolution of the U.N. Security Council.” 

  And on December 11 they got a resolution, which looks forward to a "non combat" mission. But how does it relate to US forces in Afghanistan?

   US President Barack Obama's December 11 War Powers letter to the Congress said:

"Following the completion of the ISAF mission at the end of 2014, the mission to help train, advise, and assist the ANSF and  Afghan ministries and institutions will continue through the follow-on NATO-led Resolute Support Mission. Today, there are approximately 15,000 U.S. forces inAfghanistan. The U.S. Armed Forces are on track to draw down to  a Force Management Level of 9,800 by early 2015... By the end of 2016, U.S. forces would draw down to a small presence at our embassy in Kabul, focusing primarily on security assistance activities. The United States would continue to work with our Afghan partners to pursue the remnants of al-Qa'ida and more broadly to work with our partners in the region to continue to detect and disrupt extremist threats."

As the deadline drew near, and it emerged that contrary to what was previously announced the US does envision conducting some combat operations in Afghanistan after the end of the year, the question was whether a resolution could be adopted in the Security Council.

   Inner City Press on December 3 asked the ambassadors of both Russia and the United Kingdom about it. Russia's Vitaly Churkin told Inner City Press, “there is anther complicating element. The American operations in Afghanistan on basis of the bilateral agreement with Afghanistan are not covered by this NATO Afghanistan arrangement, and therefore will not be covered by this possible Security Council resolution.”

   He said, “the American seem to have changed their minds. Originally they announced that after this year they would not engage in combat operations. Now there are reports that after all they do envision the possibility of some combat operations. I think that in that context there also needs to be a concern, will NATO be able to stay within announced scope of just training and supporting the Afghani forces?”

 Churkin said that some in NATO now says that a resolution is not absolutely necessary but that “this is required by some counties, both members of NATO and non members of NATO who theoretically would like to participate. But they have their requirements and we have our requirements on the Security Council,” including a substantive end of mission report, and future reporting to the Security Council.

  He concluded that there are too many unanswered questions to say with certainty that the Security Council will be able to adopt a resolution. He said, “there are curtain requirements, we believe, which need to be met. The first requirement is that before we encourage in any way a new operation we need to be updated on the results of the previous operation. At this point there is no assurance that we’ll receive a substantive report. Not just a short sentence that they have completed their mission, but one containing an analysis of what has been accomplished and what has not. This is the first requirement. Another requirement is that we believe that the Security Council cannot simply produce a text of a resolution and let the process go into the blue. We need reports to the SC. And for some reason NATO countries are reluctant to give us assurance that they are going to report their activities to the SC. Without periodic reports to the SC we believe it’s rather strange to endorse something and than to forget all about it.”

  Moments later, Inner City Press asked UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant about it, as he headed to the Permanent Five members' meeting room, into which his Australian counterpart Gary Quinlan had already gone in. Lyall Grant told Inner City Press that some do want such a resolution, and that there'll be a discussion. 

  Now on December 12, after a December 10 consultation at the Permanent Representative level, the adopted resolution "welcomes the agreement between NATO and Afghanistan to establish the post-2014 non-combat Resolute Support Mission, which will train, advise and assist the Afghan National Defence and Security Forces at the invitation of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.”

 The resolution “affirms its readiness to revisit this resolution in the context of the Council's consideration of the situation in Afghanistan.” We'll see. Watch this site.

Watch this site.