At UN, Iran on Netanyahu, Burundi on Radio, Ban Ki-moon's Spox Office Called "Lid" During North Korea Speech

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 1 -- In this UN General Assembly debate, in the fire hydrant spray of words and catch-phrase, some stand out and well as some omissions. Inner City Press will note some of them here, in reverse chronological order.

On October 1, the UN General Assembly shifted from high security to what some here call “garbage time.” The metal detectors were removed; the GA Hall became noticeably more empty. Isn't the UN founded on “sovereign equality”? If that were true, would an official like Herve Ladsous be allowed to remain atop UN Peacekeeping?

  The longest speech of the day, right up with Obama, was Israel's Netanyahu. But unlike in previous years, UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric did NOT this time defer to Netanyahu and postpone his briefing. He went right ahead. It was after that that Ireland's Charles Flanagan quoted Seamus Heaney, and South Sudan's James Wani Igga urged there be no sanctions against his young nations.

  Inner City Press put the speech of Burundi's Joseph Butare online, here - he said “only” three radio stations and one television were targeted, and criticized “a neighboring state” (some say it is against this neighbor that France has done so little as penholder on Burundi in the Security Council.)

  John Key of New Zealand explained how the Security Council should be improved; the foreign minister of North Korea went further, blasting the Security Council for being a tool of the United States and mocking the so-called “UN Command.”

  In the middle of North Korea's speech, Ban Ki-moon's spokesman's office squawked that “the lid is on” - they were closing down. Yet even after that, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir began his (white wash) speech with a shout out to Ban. Has Ban become invisible?

  Kyrgyzstan called for a better fight against terrorism; the DR Congo's Tshibanda said that now that the M23 was eliminated, it was time for the UN mission MONUSCO to shrink down. What about the FDLR? What about Ladsous?

  The Bahamas quoted a singer (“pay me what you owe me”) and the hurricane to come. In right of reply, Pakistan trashed back at India; Iran slammed Netanyahu's speech but did not draw a reply. There's always tomorrow.

  On September 30, at night, the speaker for Morocco slipped in a reference to the "Moroccan Sahara," criticizing "plans made in offices." Of course, Morocco has tried to Ban Western Sahara speakers even from the UNTV microphone.

  Pakistan's Nawaz Sharif said, "I want to use the opportunity today to propose a new peace initiative with India, starting with measures that are the simplest to implement: One, we propose that Pakistan and India formalize and respect the 2003 understanding for a complete eeasefire on the Line of Control in Kashmir. For this purpose, we call for UNMOGIP's expansion to monitor the observance of the ceasefire. Two, we propose, that Pakistan and India reaffirm that they will not resort to the use or the threat of use of force under any circumstances. This is a central element of the UN Charter. Three, steps be taken to demilitarize Kashmir. Four, agree to an unconditional mutual withdrawal from Siachen Glacier, the world's highest battleground."

  Libya's "Acting Head of State" Agila Saleh Essa Gwaider used the speech to trash the GNC:

"The House of Representatives, as the legitimate authority elected by all Libyans, has been and still is supportive of dialogue as a strategic option to resolve the political and security crisis in Libya. The House of Representatives made all possible concessions to encourage the extra legitimate authority to disassociate itself from terrorism and join the dialogue table in order to spare Libyans more bloodshed and put an end to the destruction of Libyan cities. However, we notice more intransigence in positions and more misinterpretations of the flexibility shown by the house of representatives. It seems flexibility has been misunderstood, even by Mr Bernardino Leon, the Special Representative of the Secretary General, who tried to bring us back to square one and unravel all that has been achieved in the last months..

  “In case of continued intransigence of the General National Congress by rejecting the agreement, the House calls on its boycotting members to advance its interest and the interest of its constituents on any other measures. They are called upon to participate in the election of an inclusive government of national accord, apart from the terrorist groups"

  On September 29, St Vincent and the Grenadines slammed the Dominican Republic for its ousters to Haiti, and criticized the UN for not taking responsibility for bringing cholera to Haiti, and for its peacekeepers' rapes in the Central African Republic (which UN Peacekeeping boss Herve Ladsous had linked to a lack of "R&R," here.)

 Yemen's Hadi said Yemenis "thanks" the Saudi airstrikes on them.

 For the UK, UN Security Council "pen-holder" on Yemen, it was Phillip Hammond who spoke. At first, UNlike most other countries other than, for example, Yemen and the US, the UK's speech was NOT sent out by the UN.  After some inquiries, a UK spokesperson said it would come out soon. But should one have to ask so much? We'll have more on this.

 Here's from the UK speech; Australia's is below that:

UK: "as the Prime Minister pledged yesterday, the UK will resume a significant role in enabling peacekeeping operations, particularly in Africa where the UK will support efforts by the United Nations and the African Union to end some of the world’s most destabilising conflicts - conflicts that are prompting mass migration from South Sudan and sustaining terrorist groups in Somalia.

"The UN must strive to represent the new realities of our age, with a reformed Security Council. It must have the best possible leadership, with a transparent system for selecting the next Secretary General, and he (or dare I suggest, perhaps, she?) will have to head a more efficient organization, ensuring that every cent it receives from its members states is used to maximum effect.As a founding member of the UN, and as a permanent member of the Security Council, the UK will champion that reform agenda. And we will continue to promote the ideals that the United Nations represents."

 But is it "rule of law," when none of the French soldiers accuse of rape a year ago in the Central African Republic have had a judicial decision?

Australia's Julie Bishop:

 “All states must uphold their responsibility to protect civilians from the most serious international crimes. Security Council members have a particular responsibility to do so. In that context, we welcome proposals to restrain use of the veto where mass atrocity crimes are being committed. Australia's term on the Security Council in 2013-14 demonstrated that elected members can play an active and constructive role. I am therefore pleased to announce that Australia is nominating to serve again on the Council for the 2029-30 term

  “As a non-permanent member of the Security Council, we experienced first-hand the difficulties the Council faces in responding to the crises and conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, South Sudan, Central African Republic and Mali. Nowhere is the devastation greater than in Iraq and Syria. Daesh is wreaking devastating harm on individuals, families and communities and destroying the world's heritage, in gross violation of international law and basic concepts of morality. It cannot be allowed to prevail.

  “Australia is participating in coalition military action to combat Daesh in Iraq and Syria. We are doing so within the framework of the Charter, and in a manner consistent with international law. Defeating Daesh requires both military and political action. Reconciliation and inclusive governance in Iraq are key to reducing Daesh's appeal and support. We continue to advocate for a political solution that can bring an end to the conflict in Syria, and we support UN envoy de Mistura's efforts towards this end.

  “We do not believe any transition option should be rejected, all permutations of a political solution should be assessed with clear-eyed realism," Bishop said.

  The last speech of September 28 was Abdullah Abdullah of Afghanistan, who cited the day's attacks and the only belatedly disclosed death of Mullah Omar. Before him, Bolivia's Evo Morales when off script, sub-tweeting Donald Trump, directly asking why and how the UK claims to own an island, Malvinas, “so close to our continent.' Ecuador's Correa trashed Chevron both for pollution and legal chicanery.

  South Africa's Zuma said, “We reiterate our support of the people of Western Sahara and urge the international community to support their struggle for self-determination, freedom, human rights and dignity.”

 Nigeria's Buhari said, “Friends of Nigeria and foreign investor partners will be encouraged to know that the new Government is attacking the problems we inherited head-on.” Apparenlty Bring Back Our Girls (also) means Bring Back Our Investment.

   Earlier, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said “Democratic backsliding is a threat in too many places, as leaders seek to stay in office beyond their mandated limits” - but didn't say the word, Burundi, while he did shout out The Gambia.

  Ban also said, “I am deeply troubled by growing restrictions on media freedoms and civil society” - although when his chief of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous had Inner City Press ejected from an “open” meeting, Ban did nothing.

  New General Assembly President Mogens Lykketoft said, “As President of the General Assembly I will support member states in their ambitions for revitalization and reform – including a new, more transparent process for selection of the next Secretary General.”

 But when Inner City Press has asked him about the process for selection the next head of the UN's refugee agency UNHCR, he has said that he favors his fellow Dane Helle Thorning Schmidt but that it is entirely up to current Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
   Before US President Barack Obama's 42 minute long speech, which Inner City Press separately reviewed here, Brazil's Dilma Rousseff spoke of a Palestinian state, low-carbon agriculture, and this:

“The Brazilian government and society do not tolerate corruption. The Brazilian democracy becomes stronger when the authorities recognize the limits imposed by the law as their own limits. We Brazilians want a country where the law is the limit. Many of us fought for this, precisely when laws and rights were violated during the military dictatorship. We want a country where rulers behave strictly according to their duties, without giving way to excesses. The sanctions of the law must apply to all those who committed illicit acts bearing in mind the need to uphold the principle of due process.”

  As Inner City Press asked midday on HuffPostLive, here, for what audience was this meant? Watch this site.
   

For Iran Deal, UN Security Council Next Week, US Says, E10 Taken For Granted

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 14 -- Less than two hours after the Iran Deal was announced in Vienna by the EU's Federica Mogherini then Iran's Javad Zarif, the US White House held a background press call, "embargoed until conclusion." This meant, no tweets. But on the call, after Reuters asked a softball about Obama's involvement, several Senior Administration Officials gushed about Obama's calls to Vienna, updates from Susan Rice, concern for Israel's security.

  It was said Obama will not only call Netanyahu but also of course the King of Saudi Arabia. (It seemed clear that the civilian casualties from the Saudi's US-supported airstrikes on Yemen would not come up.) 

  Another of the Senior Administration Officials said that since the P5 agree, a UN Security Council resolution, to be introduced as early as next week, should be smooth. The Election Ten are taken for granted, mere window-dressing.

 As is the UN Secretariat. Earlier on July 14, Ban Ki-moon chimed in nearly immediately to welcome the deal. This stood in contrast to his 60 hour silence after his own faux Yemen Deal failed amid airstrikes. Success has many wannabe parents; UNsuccessful many fewer.

 Obama from Washington at 7 am said he will veto any legislation slowing this down; The Elders chaired by Kofi Annan spoke quickly against any “ideological preconceptions [or] narrow political interests.”

  Journalists camped out under the Evita-like balcony of the Coburg Hotel for more than two weeks gushed about UN Security Council action "in days," as France's Fabius put it. France is the Council's pen-holder on Burundi, another UNsuccess.

  The Security Council was set to meet later on July 14, about the DR Congo, in which FDLR forces were said headed to Burundi. Inner City Press headed to the Council. Watch this site

 Back on November 24, 2014, hours after the Iran talks in Vienna ended by a further extension, Inner City Press at the UN's November 24 noon briefing asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric if Ban had any comment.

   "Let me get back to you," Dujarric said. Others asked, what does that mean?

  Forty minutes later, Dujarric's office sent this out:

"In response to questions about the extension of talks concerning Iran’s nuclear programme, the Spokesman has the following to say:

"The Secretary-General is encouraged by the determination and commitment by the P5+1 and the Islamic Republic of Iran to overcome their remaining differences and to achieve a comprehensive agreement. He calls upon the parties in the months ahead to sustain the positive momentum and to build upon the progress they have made. He hopes that all sides continue to implement their agreed commitments with a spirit of mutual trust and in good faith."

  Dujarric even made a comment when Inner City Press asked about Chuck Hagel resigning: Ban enjoyed his time with Hagel. Note: and disinvited Iran from the Montreux talks on Syria.

In Vienna the press conference by John Kerry was delayed by Obama's farewell to Chuck Hagel.

 (Covering that event, CNN's Wolf Blitzer said let's see if a reporter shouts a question. But the applause was too loud: no question on the P5+1 talks, or anything else.)

  Minutes later in a tent in Vienna, Kerry was asked about Hagel being micro-managed by the White House in of the two American press questions he took. After that he insisted, give the foreign press a change. To an Iranian question, he called himself both candid and fair.

  As the Iran P5+1 talks continued on the eve of the current deadline, who was bragging about having predicted their failure? Western wire service Reuters, crowing that "Other media now coming around to @reuters consistent reporting on how final Iran atomic deal unlikely."

 While false exclusives have proliferated at Reuters under Stephen J. Adler, there a second, separate trend at work here.

  On another UN sanctions regime, Somalia and Eritrea, even when former Reuters reporter turned sanctions monitor Dinesh Mahtani was forced to resign for havingchampioned a new leader for the country he was supposed to monitor, Reuters entirely omitted his removal from its claimed exclusives on the sanctions report.

  Some of this goes beyond a desire, compensated by editor Adler, to claim exclusives even where not merited (including by adopted a policy of not crediting others' exclusives).  At the UN, Reuters has gone so far as to try to censor and remove from Google's Search as "copyrighted" copies of Reuters complaints against other media filed with the UN, click here for that. 

 At what point does this become more (or less) that journalism? What about "other media now coming around to @reuters consistent" refusal to credit smaller media, attempts to get them kicked out, then censoring the Internet? We'll have more on this.

  Back on October 27 when the UN's special rapporteur on human rights in Iran Ahmed Shaheed held a press conference at the UN, Inner City Press asked him for an update on what he had said about the effect of sanctions and banning of Iran from the SWIFT payments system which Inner City Press asked him about one year and three days earlier, 2013 here from Minute 12:29.

  On October 24, 2013, Shaheed had acknowledged that the banning of Iran from the SWIFT payments system had had an impact. On October 27, 2014, Shaheed said he believes Iran is still banned from SWIFT, but he had no update. Instead he said that humanitarian exemptions to sanctions are having successes. 2014 video here.

 But banning from SWIFT or "de-SWIFT-ing" is not a targeted sanction at all, and he did not mention any exemptions to it.

   Overall, Inner City Press asked Shaheed what impact he thought "the nuclear issue" and the P5 + 1 talks have on human rights in Iran.  Shaheed said he doesn't like linkage, but added that when there's focus on the nuclear issue, it takes away from the focus on human rights. 

  Last year Inner City Press obtained and exclusively published an internal OHCHR plan to take over the "rule of law" functions of the rest of the UN system, and the staffing of the Special Representatives on Children and Armed Conflict, Sexual Violence and Conflict, R2P and the Prevention of Genocide.What has happened on that? Are rapporteurs, like sanctions monitors, still not given any training or orientation by the UN?

Footnote: on October 27, the UN Correspondents Association which so often demands the first question be set-aside for it didn't even send anyone to Shaheed's press conference. One attendee said, it's defUNCA-ed, as in defunct, or de-UNCA-ed, like de-SWIFT-ed. The new Free UN Coalition for Access, present, did not try to brand the press conference, because there was no need. Watch this site.

   

Obama Cites Netanyahu and Iran at WHCD, No Yemen or Freddie Gray Death in Baltimore

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 25 -- Amid the excess of the White House Correspondents Association dinner, there were not only protests of police brutality and the killing of Freddie Gray in Baltimore and continued airstrikes by Saudi Arabia in Yemen, but massive hypocrisy in the corporate press corps.

  At the UN, which Inner City Press knows best, corporate wire services tried to get the investigative Press thrown out.  While their cohorts in Washington praised themselves for pushing for greater access, at the UN these same companies are sichophants to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who hasn't held a press conference in UN headquarters this year. Only the Free UN Coalition for Access has complained.

  Obama however was funny, saying he's so close with Joe Biden he can't get served pizza in Indiana, and comparing the Koch brothers to The Bachelor. He said Martin O'Malley is a nobody. His “anger translator” chided the media for over-covering Ebola, but only for two weeks.

  There was almost no foreign policy, other than a shot at Israel's Netanyahu, and a shout out to the Washington Post reporter imprisoned in Iran. What about the Zone 9 Bloggers imprisoned in US ally Ethiopia? What about US ally Saudi Arabia's continued airstrikes on Yemen? Yeah, the corporate media is really holding Washington accountable.

 Many organizations like to "launch" their reports at or in the United Nations, and so ask few questions about UN. This coming week the Committee to Protect Journalists will be in but not of the UN - it will unveil a report about press freedom in the clubhouse of an organization which has tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN.

 It's not that this hasn't been raised to CPJ. On February 14, 2013, Inner City Press asked CPJ about the UN Correspondents Association's board members trying tocensor its reporting about Sri Lanka and trying to get its UN accreditation "reviewed."

 The CPJ response was no comment on the "internal dynamics of the UN's accreditation process," saying its focus is "international press freedom issues." Isn't censorship at the UN international?

  Now it gets worse - the above quoted Q&A was at least in the open UN Press Briefing Room. Now CPJ intends to take its report launch behind closed doors in clubhouse the UN gives UN, its UN Censorship Alliance, publicized only to those who pay UNCA money. 

  The new Free UN Coalition for Access challenges all this - and CPJ's corporate and selective advocacy for only some journalism. It is a tuxedo approach such as on display in DC.

   Back on February 14, 2013 when CPJ came to the UN Press Briefing Room to “launch” its annual report on press freedom Inner City Press asked them, not for the first time, about the UN's own treatment of the full range of journalists, their right to access the UN and to due process if challenged. Video here, from Minute 29:12.

  As example, Inner City Press noted the UN limiting accreditation by geography and to those who abide by the “principles of the Organization,” and total lack of due process rules for journalists on complaints as those filed against Inner City Press in 2012 by Voice of America,Reuters' Louis Charbonneau and the “UN Correspondents Association” for which he spoke on Thursday. Video here, from Minute 12:04.

  Rob Mahoney of CJP, who had begun the press conference by saying “we look to the UN” on these issues, declined to comment on the "internal dynamics of the UN's accreditation process," saying he doesn't know enough about it since he focuses on "international press freedom issues." Video here, from Minute 30:40.

  But aren't unfair rules of the UN worldwide in denying access to journalists "international press freedom issues"? And how can you "look to the UN" to help if you don't first look AT the UN?

  While Charbonneau's UNCA in mid-2012 initiated a process against Inner City Press citing an article it wrote about Sri Lanka (and UNCA, see here), Inner City Press received death threats from supporters of the Rajapaksa government in Sri Lanka.

  Inner City Press asked UNCA to stop or at least suspend its process; this was refused, including by Charbonneau, who told Inner City Press to “go to the NYPD.”

Remembering CPJ's Bob Dietz' focus on Sri Lanka, Inner City Press wrote to him and CPJ's Joel Simon. The response came from CPJ's Americas Research Associate Sara Rafsky:

“Thank you very much for alerting us about your situation. At the moment, the Americas program is swamped with urgent cases... Thus it will most likely be some time before I can look into your case.”

  These was no follow up by CPJ. The New York Civil Liberties a month later, citing the complaint against Inner City Press, asked the UN to state its due process rules, which the UN has yet to do.

   The  Free UN Coalition for Access, on behalf of which Inner City Press thanked Mahoney and his largely silent panel for coming, is pursuing changes to the UN's archaic and exclusionary accreditation rules and Media Access Guidelines.

   UNCA's, and Charbonneau's, response was to tear down flyers on the topic. Atop UNCA again is Giampaolo Pioli the past president who, after renting one of his apartments to Palitha Kohona, later granted Kohona's request as Sri Lanka's ambassador to screen that government's war crimes denial film "Lies Agreed To" inside the UN, under the UNCA banner. Inner City Press reported on it, was told to remove the article from the Internet or face expulsion from the UN. That is censorship, and CPJ was informed: but partners with UNCA. This is not press freedom.

   Then on February 12, 2014  when CPJ its "Attacks on the Press" report online, under the heading Africa there were pages on Tanzania and Swaziland, for example, but none on South Sudan or Mali.

  CPJ's Joel Simon began the February 12, 2014 "launch" press conference by explaining why it was held at the United Nations (he cited countries trying to use the UN to control the Internet). Inner City Press when called on asked if CPJ thinks the UN Peacekeeping missions in South Sudan and Mali do enough to combat crackdowns on the press there, for example the Salva Kiir government seizing a complete issue of the Juba Monitor, and theats against MaliActu.. 

 Now we wonder, including on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, what CPJ thinks of the UN bureau chief of Reuters, with essentially a permanent seat on UNCA board, mis-using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to get Google to block access to a leaked anti-Press complaint to the UN from its search. Isn't that censorship? 

CPJ & Reuters current and former, Feb 14, 2013 (c) MRLee

   The problem here is that groups like CPJ like to use the UN to “launch” their reports. Mahoney joked with two separate Reuters reporters: click here, here and here for three (of many) documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reflecting Reuters and the UN.

Reuter's Charbonneau shakes with Ban: on what? (c) Luiz Rampelloto

  CPJ or at least Mahoney seem to assume that Big Media like Reuters (and Agence France Presse, click here) can do no wrong. But that is not the case. 

Footnote: Mahoney to his credit put forth a definition of journalism far broader than the one pushed -- anonymously -- by UNCA "leaders" in a counterfeit social media account they established, which refers repeatedly to "non-media activists" as those who question UNCA's acts, including through the Free UN Coalition for Access. Most recently, they send / copy the counterfeit messages to countries' mission to the UN. 

 So in terms of vetting and advocacy at and about the UN, would CPJ do better? Definitely. Will it? Watch this site.

After Israel Election, UN's Ban Ki-moon Speaks Only Through If-Asked: Running Scared?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 18, more here -- The day after Israel's election, the UN did not issue any statement as it does on other elections. Instead, its deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq waited to be asked the question, then read out word for word an "if-asked" about Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's position that was not put online as a statement, nor put on the counter in the UN Spokesperson's office. Ban's UN, it seems, is running scared.

 Here is Ban Ki-moon's If-Asked:

“The Secretary-General welcomes the announcement of the preliminary results of yesterday's Israeli general elections and hopes for the rapid establishment of a new Government that reflects the will of all Israeli voters. It is incumbent on the new Israeli Government, once formed, to create the conditions for a negotiated final peace agreement - with the active engagement of the international community - that will end the Israeli occupation and realize the creation of a viable Palestinian state, living in peace and security alongside Israel. This includes the cessation of illegal settlement building in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Secretary-General firmly believes this is also the best and only way forward for Israel to remain a democratic state. He urges the Israeli Government to resume, without further delay, the transfer of the tax revenues it is obligated to dispense to the Government of Palestine in accordance with the Paris Protocol.”

  Back on January 5, days after the UN Security Council rejected Palestine's draft resolution, Palestinian Observer to the UN Riyad Mansour wrote to UN Security Council President Christian Barros of Chile  to complain of Israel's decision to withheld Palestinian tax revenue, calling it piracy.

   Mansour  said “Israel, the Occupying power, has resumed the theft of Palestinian tax revenues in direct retaliation for the legitimate, steps taken by the Palestinian leadership,” including filing to join the International Criminal Court.

  Mansour said “we reiterate such such an action constitutes an act of piracy” and asked the UN Security Council members to “uphold their responsibilities toward addressing this illegal situation in all its manifestations.”

  Inner City Press on January 5 asked Barros about a new Palestine resolution; he said he hadn't been informed of one, formally or informally, but that he'd read media reports there might be a move "next week."

 Now it's been far longer. But now, with the results, how much longer?

   

As Palestine Resolution Fails in UN Security Council With Nigeria Abstaining, Israel's Goodluck?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 30, more here -- The Palestinian UN Security Council resolution failed on December 30. It needed nine "Yes" votes to trigger the expected US veto. It got only eight "Yes" votes, as Nigeria abstained along with the United Kingdom, Lithuania, South Korea and Rwanda.

 Afterward, Palestine's Permanant Observer Riyad Mansour said, "Why have the efforts of the Arab Group, with the full support of the NAM and the OIC and all other friends worldwide, to legislate this consensus through the Council as a contribution towards bringing an end to this conflict through peaceful, political, diplomatic and non-violent means repeatedly blocked?"

 The NAM is the Non-Aligned Movement and as Inner City Press noted contemporaneous with the vote, both Rwanda and Nigeria are members of NAM (list here) -- but both of them abstained.

  Rwanda's abstention was assumed, including in the Arab Group meeting held earlier on December 30. The abstention of Nigeria, which meant that the United States' "No" vote would not be considered a veto, was something else.

  To the surprise of some, Nigeria and its President Goodluck Jonathan were not listed among the calls of US Secretary of State John Kerry. The State Department's spokesperson Jeff Rathke on December 30 said

"In the last 24 to 48 hours the Secretary has made a number of calls to counterparts.  Let me give you a list of them.  He has spoken with President Kagame of Rwanda; he has spoken on a few occasions with Jordanian Foreign Minister Judeh; he has spoken with the Saudi foreign minister, the Egyptian foreign minister, with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, with the UK foreign secretary, with the EU high representative, Chilean Foreign Minister Munoz, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linkevicius.  The – he has spoken, as I mentioned yesterday, with PA President Abbas.  He has spoken with the Luxembourg foreign minister, with German Foreign Minister Steinmeier, and with French Foreign Minister Fabius. So by my count, that’s 13 different individuals.  Some of them he’s spoken with more than once, so more than 13 calls over the last day or two."

 It's reported that while Kerry doesn't list a call to Nigeria, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyau did -- for Goodluck, some say.

 Inner City Press after the vote asked Jordan's Ambassador Dina Kawar if the Arab Group intended to put this or another Palestine resolution in front of the new line up of Security Council members entering in two days, with Angola replacing Rwanda and Malaysia replacing South Korea (and New Zealand replacing Australia, which voted no). She said the Arab Group would keep working, but did not say when another resolution will be put forward.

  So what comes next? Below, we cover the issue of the International Criminal Court.

   A source from inside the Arab Group meeting tells Inner City Press that question - the benefit or not of "making" the US veto - was a major topic in the meeting, but the decision was made by the Arab Group to support the Palestinians' strategy and request for a vote, with the above expectation, at this time.

   On December 30 at around 1 pm, Mansour said, “We are happy that the Arab Group on the basis of previous ministerial meetings has considered in a positive and responsible way the request of the Palestinian leadership to put the draft resolution to a vote, possibly this afternoon, if not tomorrow morning, this is related to the readiness of the Secretariat of the Security Council.”

Referring it seems not only to the US but also to the UK, Palestine's Mansour said on Tuesday, “If one party decides for whatever reason that they do not want to go along with this massive support to find a solution to this conflict, to try to save the two-state solution by asking for an end of the Occupation that started in 1967, so that the State of Palestine could enjoy its independence, if a party is not going to go along with this mood, in Europe and in all corners of the globe... it is not for lack of giving time as Arabs, we have been deliberating for almost three and a half months.”

  At 11:30 am on December 30, another meeting about the amended draft began in UN Conference Room 9. UN Television hastily set up a microphone and stakeout (without formally informing the press corps, which the Free UN Coalition for Access is inquiring into). 

  Down in the UN's first basement diplomats from Jordan paced around; the meeting upstairs in the Security Council about Sudan throwing out two more high UN officials was essentially forgotten. 

   Before the Sudan expulsions meeting on December 30 of the Security Council, for now their last of the year, UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant told the press of the Palestine amended draft, “the new text has been circulated but no negotiations have been scheduled and no vote has yet been scheduled, so we wait to see if there will be a vote this year, or next year or not at all.”

   On the contents of the resolution, Lyall Grant said “there are difficulties with the text, particularly the language on time scales and the language of refugees. We would have some difficulties with the text. We don't know when the vote will be held.”

Palestine met with the Arab Group at the UN about the pending draft Security Council resolution on December 29.  Afterward, Inner City Press asked Palestine's Observer Riyad Mansour and Jordan's Permanent Representative Dina Kawar about US opposition. Video here.

  The text of the amended draft is below; six changes include:

New in PP 3 “and to independence in their State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital,”

New PP6 “Recalling also its relevant resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem, including resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, and bearing in mind that the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognized by the international community,”

New PP8: “Recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004 on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,”

New phrasing in OP2: “a just resolution of the status of Jerusalem as the capital of the two States which fulfils the legitimate aspirations of both parties and protects freedom of worship;”

adding the 2 words “and prisoners;”

New 10bis. "Reiterates its demand in this regard for the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem."

   Less than an hour before the Arab Group meeting ended, at the US State Department briefing in Washington, the Department's spokesperson said the US opposes the draft, and others oppose the draft as well, in part because it “fails to account for Israel's legitimate security needs.” 

Update from US transcript: 

MR. JEFF RATHKE:  "We’ve seen reports regarding Palestinian and Jordanian plans to bring their text to a vote at the Security Council.  There are discussions still taking place in New York and we are – and with the Secretary, who has spoken with some of his counterparts, and we are therefore engaging with all the relevant stakeholders.  As we’ve said before, this draft resolution is not something that we would support and other countries share the same concerns that we have."

  Inner City Press asked, and Mansour replied, “There was a telephone conversation between President Mahmoud Abbas and Secretary of State John Kerry yesterday and I'm sure they discussed all the issues.”

   Dina Kawar said the amendments concern “the issue of Jerusalem, and others concern prisoners, water, settlements.” She said, “the Arab Group supports, they have now the copy of the new amendments, we are going to submit today to the Secretariat.”

  On timing she said, “If I tell you this week and it happens next week you're going to come back and ask" why.

Dina Kawar and Riyad Mansour on Dec 28, 2104, (c) M.R. Lee

 Mansour said on the timing of a vote, “realistically it could be tomorrow or the day after.”

Here's the text of the amended draft:

Jordan: draft resolution

Reaffirming its previous resolutions, in particular resolutions 242 (1967); 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), 1544 (2004), 1850 (2008), 1860 (2009) and the Madrid Principles,

Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,

Reaffirming the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital,

Recalling General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,

Reaffirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and recalling its resolutions 446 (1979), 452 (1979) and 465 (1980), determining, inter alia, that the policies and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the territories occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,

Recalling also its relevant resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem, including resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, and bearing in mind that the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognized by the international community,

Affirming the imperative of resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees on the basis of international law and relevant resolutions, including resolution 194 (III), as stipulated in the Arab Peace Initiative,

Recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004 on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,

Underlining that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, and calling for a sustainable solution to the situation in the Gaza Strip, including the sustained and regular opening of its border crossings for normal flow of persons and goods, in accordance with international humanitarian law,

Welcoming the important progress in Palestinian state-building efforts recognised by the World Bank and the IMF in 2012, and reiterating its call to all States and international organizations to contribute to the Palestinian institution building programme in preparation for independence,

Reaffirming that a just, lasting and peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be achieved by peaceful means, based on an enduring commitment to mutual recognition, freedom from violence, incitement and terror, and the two-State solution, building on previous agreements and obligations and stressing that the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an agreement that ends the occupation that began in 1967, resolves all permanent status issues as previously defined by the parties, and fulfils the legitimate aspirations of both parties,

Condemning all violence and hostilities directed against civilians and all acts of terrorism, and reminding all States of their obligations under resolution 1373 (2001),

Recalling the obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of civilians and ensure their protection in situations of armed conflict,

Reaffirming the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders,

Noting with appreciation the efforts of the United States in 2013/14 to facilitate and advance negotiations between the parties aimed at achieving a final peace settlement,

Aware of its responsibilities to help secure a long-term solution to the conflict,

1. Affirms the urgent need to attain, no later than 12 months after the adoption of this resolution, a just, lasting and comprehensive peaceful solution that brings an end to the Israeli occupation since 1967 and fulfils the vision of two independent, democratic and prosperous states, Israel and a sovereign, contiguous and viable State of Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within mutually and internationally recognized borders;

2. Decides that the negotiated solution will be based on the following parameters:

– borders based on 4 June 1967 lines with mutually agreed, limited, equivalent land swaps;

– security arrangements, including through a third-party presence, that guarantee and respect the sovereignty of a State of Palestine, including through a full and phased withdrawal of the Israeli occupying forces, which will end the occupation that began in 1967 over an agreed transition period in a reasonable timeframe, not to exceed the end of 2017, and that ensure the security of both Israel and Palestine through effective border security and by preventing the resurgence of terrorism and effectively addressing security threats, including emerging and vital threats in the region;

– a just and agreed solution to the Palestine refugee question on the basis of Arab Peace Initiative, international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, including resolution 194 (III);

– a just resolution of the status of Jerusalem as the capital of the two States which fulfils the legitimate aspirations of both parties and protects freedom of worship;

– the just settlement of all other outstanding issues, including water and prisoners;

3. Recognizes that the final status agreement shall put an end to the occupation and an end to all claims and lead to immediate mutual recognition;

4. Affirms that the definition of a plan and schedule for implementing the security arrangements shall be placed at the centre of the negotiations within the framework established by this resolution;

5. Looks forward to welcoming Palestine as a full Member State of the United Nations within the timeframe defined in the present resolution;

6. Urges both parties to engage seriously in the work of building trust and to act together in the pursuit of peace by negotiating in good faith and refraining from all acts of incitement and provocative acts or statements, and also calls upon all States and international organizations to support the parties in confidence-building measures and to contribute to an atmosphere conducive to negotiations;

7. Calls upon all parties to abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949;

8. Encourages concurrent efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace in the region, which would unlock the full potential of neighbourly relations in the Middle East and reaffirms in this regard the importance of the full implementation of the Arab Peace Initiative;

9. Calls for a renewed negotiation framework that ensures the close involvement, alongside the parties, of major stakeholders to help the parties reach an agreement within the established timeframe and implement all aspects of the final status, including through the provision of political support as well as tangible support for post-conflict and peace-building arrangements, and welcomes the proposition to hold an international conference that would launch the negotiations;

10. Calls upon both parties to abstain from any unilateral and illegal actions, as well as all provocations and incitement, that could escalate tensions and undermine the viability and attainability of a two-State solution on the basis of the parameters defined in this resolution;

10bis. Reiterates its demand in this regard for the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem;

11. Calls for immediate efforts to redress the unsustainable situation in the Gaza Strip, including through the provision of expanded humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian civilian population via the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and other United Nations agencies and through serious efforts to address the underlying issues of the crisis, including consolidation of the ceasefire between the parties;

12. Requests the Secretary-General to report on the implementation of this resolution every three months;

13. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

 Back on December 11 amid reports that if the Palestine resolution fails this month in the UN Security Council, Palestine will immediately join the International Criminal Court, Inner City Press asked Mansour about it. Video here.

Specifically, Inner City Press asked Mansour about the relation between the resolution(s) and Palestine joining the ICC

  Mansour said the two are not conditional, and that Palestine wants to join the ICC, as is being urged at the current session of the ICC Assembly of State Parties at which Palestine is now a non-member state.Video here.

  Meanwhile the US Continuing Resolution / Omnibus on Capital Hill had this to say:

"None of the funds appropriated under the heading ‘‘Economic Support Fund’’ in this Act may be made available for assistance for the Palestinian Authority, if after the date of enactment of this Act—

"(I) the Palestinians obtain the same standing as member states or full membership as a state in the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof outside an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians; or

"(II) the Palestinians initiate an International Criminal Court judicially authorized investigation, or actively support such an investigation, that subjects Israeli nationals to an investigation for alleged crimes against Palestinians."

  As Inner City Press exclusively reported, based on Security Council communications, Chad was pressured to not schedule any meetings after December 19. It pushed back, and scheduled one for December 22. Now this.

  Already, the delay has been long. It was cold, for example, at theUNRWA event held just outside the UN on December 2, photographedby the Free UN Coalition for Access, here. In one month's time, Venezuela and Spain join the Security Council, along with Angola, Malaysia and New Zealand. Wouldn't the draft get more "yes" votes in January 2015 than in December 2014?

   Rather than analyze this, Reuters for example again vaguely reportsthat "some diplomats have described the Palestinian-drafted text as 'unbalanced.'" For whom? Now Reuters adds, "some Western Council diplomats." So helpful.

 Back on October 21 as the Palestine debate of the UN Security Councilwent on in the Council chamber, Inner City Press conferred with a range of Council sources about the pending draft resolution to set a time frame to end Israel's occupation.

Negotiations were held on the draft last week but only at the “expert” level, not of Permanent Representatives of the Council's 15 members. Supporters of the current draft, according to Inner City Press' sources, include China and Russia, Argentina and Chile, Chad and it was assumed Nigeria, although sources say Nigeria in consultations said they didn't yet have instructions.

France was described as more excited by the draft than either the US or the UK, as not have a problem with a time frame to end the Occupation but wanting unstated changes to the draft. France did not put forth amendments, a source told Inner City Press, guessing that France didn't want to “embarrass” the US Administration before the November mid-term elections.

The UK was described as less enthusiastic, but as somehow “softened” by the recent vote in Parliament favoring recognizing Palestine as a state.

Talk turned to the new members of the Security Council coming in on January 1, with Malaysia instead of South Korea seen as a shift in favor of Palestine as a state. (This reporter's Security Council elections coverage is collected here.) Angola and Venezuela are seen as supportive and “even Spain,” as one source put it to Inner City Press. But what about New Zealand? We'll have more on this. Watch this site.