On R2P, UNSC's Open Meeting Is Closed As Ban Ki-moon Dodges Inner City Press' Burundi Question, ACT on Next SG

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 14 -- The UN Security Council's “open” meeting on the Responsibility to Protect on December 14 was ironic, and not only because the sign outside the meeting said “Closed."

Earlier in the day Secretary General Ban Ki-moon dodged a loud Press question about killings in Burundi, two hours after Burundi's Ambassador to the UN, who blocks the Press from his Twitter feed, told the Swiss-chaired Peacebuilding Configuration that it is all a member of opposition controlled from outside the country trying to create an “Arab Spring-like” event. So much for R2P.

  Still, to Switzerland's credit they gave the press a copy of what Ambasssador Jürg Lauber, who chaired the PBC meeting at which Albert Shingiro spoke, said to the Security Council on behalf of ACT:

“Switzerland is the coordinator of ACT, Accountability, Coherence and Transparency, a cross regional group comprised of 25 Member States, and we are honored to speak on its behalf. ACT congratulates Chile and Spain for holding this meeting in an open Arria format and welcomes the opportunity to exchange views with the Security Council. The Responsibility to Protect requires us to take action both to prevent atrocity crimes and to act to end them when they do occur...

“While States play a central role in implementing the principle of the Responsibility to Protect, the United Nations continue to have a crucial function. ACT is actively engaged in order to reach increased transparency, inclusiveness and a more rigorous process in selecting the next chief of the Organization to represent all of us. The identification and appointment of the best candidate for the post of the Secretary-General—an individual committed to be independent and impartial in recommending actions to the Security Council and all other stakeholders involved in the system, for instance through Human Rights Up Front, to stop and prevent conflict and mass atrocities – would contribute to enhance the credibility of the whole UN system. We therefore welcome the fact that all Security Council members and the President of the General Assembly agreed on a joint letter calling for applications, in order to start the process in a timely manner according to General Assembly Resolution 69/321. Members States are looking forward to receiving this letter.”

  We'll have more on this.

Back on September 8, Responsibility to Protect was the topic of an open UN press conference and debate, or series of speeches, even as the UN said nothing about the Saudi coalition's airstrikes on Sana'a and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon did not mention Burundi in his prepared speech, much less Sri Lanka.

  Inner City Press asked UN officials Adama Dieng and Jennifer Welsh at their joint press conference about both Sri Lanka and Burundi, as well as South Sudan and the critique by Venezuela and others of R2P in the UN.

   Dieng called for the release of the African Union's report on crimes in South Sudan; he called Burundi a political problem and Welsh spoke of preventive diplomacy. 12 minute video here. 

  Welsh acknowledged that the UN's response to crimes in Sri Lanka has been a failure; she paid some respect to Venezuela's and Cuba's objections (though back in the afternoon's session, she disagreed with Venezuela's argument that R2P divides states into those who are “responsible” and those who are not).

  In the final 24 minutes there were 12 speakers; Myanmar got cut off (it had not used the work Rohingya) for the next speaker, Iran; Dieng uses his prerogative to give out some more time. Inner City Press believes, on both Burundi and South Sudan, that the UN when it wants to uses deference to regional organizations to turn away from its R2P claims, while it didn't defer to the African Union on Libya. And so it goes.

Inner City Press Asks Palestine's Mansour of International Protection Force, He Says Israel Violating Fourth Geneva Convention, Cites Responsibility to Protect

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 21 -- When the State of Palestine's Permanent Observer to the UN Riyad Mansour came to the Security Council stakeout on October 21, it was to denounce the exhibit Israel's new Permanent Representative Danny Danon had displayed on an tripod easel outside the Security Council five days earlier on October 16. Inner City Press asked Mansour for a progress report on his proposal for an international protection presence and Mansour gave two answers.

  First, he said, Israel has abrogated its duties under the Fourth Geneva Convention to itself offer protection in the Occupied Territories, quite the contrary. Second, Mansour said, there is the Responsibility to Protect. Video here.

  Four hours later, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was to brief the Security Council by video from Ramallah, but only behind closed doors. As Inner City Press asked Mansour, Ban is next slated to travel to Amman. Will that be about an international protection force? Watch this site.

On October 16 before the emergency Palestine meeting of the UN Security Council, requested by Jordan on behalf of the Arab Group, began, Israel's new Permanent Representative to the UN Danny Danon came to address the press at the stakeout, with a tripod easel like his predecessor Ron Prosor.

   Inner City Press broadcast the easel via Periscope, and asked Danon about what's said in the Security Council about an expanded Quartet helping the situation. Danon replied that the solution is direct negotiations, with no preconditions.

  Before Inner City Press' question, the Israeli Mission called on the New York Post's columnist, but another reporter was able to pose his question, complete with counter-prop, a photo on an i-Pad. (Inner City Press broadcast this too on Periscope.) The Israeli Mission, unlike some others, didn't try to insist that the question had to go to the journalist they'd chosen: the Free UN Coalition for Access favors this allowing of some openness in stakeout, unlike the censoring control asserted by, for example, UN Peacekeeping boss Herve Ladsous and some missions.

   Danon, it emerges, did not speak inside the Security Council; he has yet to hand his credentials to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon (who is, once again, traveling, this time in Italy); he said he will do so on Wednesday of next week.

  Outside the Security Council at the stakeout Danon said, “Whoever avoids direct negotiations is looking for an escape hatch, and Abbas’s favorite kind of escape, is to spread slanderous lies about the situation on the Temple Mount, especially about the status quo. However, only 2 weeks ago Prime Minister Netanyahu stood here at the UN and repeated his commitment once again to maintaining the status quo. Let me make it clear. Israel will not agree to any international  presence on the Temple Mount. Any such intervention would violate the decades long status quo.”

   After the speeches in the Council Chamber, Inner City Press asked Palestine's Permanent Observer Riyad Mansour about an international protection presence. He replied that back in 1994 in UNSC Resolution 904, some 37 Scandinavian observers were deployed and remain in Hebron, so why not now? Why not indeed.

  Jordan's Dina Kawar seemed to say that such an international force is not envisioned at this point. Oman's representative, as head of the Arab Group, said work would continue. One wanted to ask her also about Oman's work on the conflict in Yemen, but it was not the time.

  Using the easel that he brought, Danon said, “On Monday, a  Palestinian boy attacked an Israeli boy who was riding his bike, stabbing him no less than 15 times. Let me repeat: 15 times! The victim is still hospitalized in critical condition. Ask yourselves, why would a 13-year-old boy decide to go on a stabbing spree and try to take another boy’s life? The answer is that such acts of terror do not occur in a vacuum. When a Palestinian child turns on a TV, he doesn’t see Barney or Donald Duck, he sees murderers portrayed as heroes. When he opens a textbook, he doesn’t learn about math and science, he’s being taught to hate.”

  Then Danon unveiled a picture or cartoon, knives at a body, widely photographed.

 “This picture you see here is an example of the kind of messages that Palestinian children are being exposed to day in and day out. The picture gives children elaborate instructions on how to stab a Jew. We talk about a lot about incitement- here you see what Palestinian incitement looks like. This picture is what is being taught in middle schools! Instead of educating about peace and tolerance, the Palestinian leadership is brainwashing children with incitement and hate,” Danon continued.

  The UN itself denounced social media, and got asked about its own, or UNRWA staff's, use of social media; UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq said the UN reviews even its staff's retweets. Really? We'll have more on this.
   

On Responsibility to Protect, Inner City Press Asks UN Duo of Burundi & S Sudan, Failure in Sri Lanka & Critique

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 8 -- Responsibility to Protect was the topics of a UN press conference and debate, or series of speeches, on September 8, even as the UN said nothing about the Saudi coalition's airstrikes on Sana'a and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon did not mention Burundi in his prepared speech, much less Sri Lanka.

  Inner City Press asked UN officials Adama Dieng and Jennifer Welsh at their joint press conference about both Sri Lanka and Burundi, as well as South Sudan and the critique by Venezuela and others of R2P in the UN.

   Dieng called for the release of the African Union's report on crimes in South Sudan; he called Burundi a political problem and Welsh spoke of preventive diplomacy. 12 minute video here. 

  Welsh acknowledged that the UN's response to crimes in Sri Lanka has been a failure; she paid some respect to Venezuela's and Cuba's objections (though back in the afternoon's session, she disagreed with Venezuela's argument that R2P divides states into those who are “responsible” and those who are not).

  In the final 24 minutes there were 12 speakers; Myanmar got cut off (it had not used the work Rohingya) for the next speaker, Iran; Dieng uses his prerogative to give out some more time. Inner City Press believes, on both Burundi and South Sudan, that the UN when it wants to uses deference to regional organizations to turn away from its R2P claims, while it didn't defer to the African Union on Libya. And so it goes.

   

On UN Budget, Some Empty Seats for R2P & Debt Restructuring Votes, Ends with Whimper and Small Bang of Gavel

By Matthew Russell Lee, Follow up on Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, December 29 -- After pushing the UN budget deadline back from December 24, on December 29 its Fifth Committee further pushed controversial items back, while finalizing over $3 billion in funds for UN Peacekeeping, mis-run by Herve Ladsous whom 123 non-governmental organizations and Sudan experts have asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to fire.

   In the Fifth Committee there were two rounds of voting on whether the Responsibility to Protect was ever approved by the GA. (Inner City Press tweeted the vote counts here and here; on Section 4 with R2P in it, there were 141 "Yes" votes. Then a lull until 7 pm to vote it out in the full General Assembly.

  Of the UN's 193 member states, fewer than 160 voted in the Fifth Committee. How many would in the full GA?Photo here.

  The answer, at least on the sovereign debt restructuring resolution, was 170 of 193: the resolution passed 120 in favor, 35 abstaining and 15 against, including the US, UK, Israel, Switzerland, Japan and Australia.

 Then on Section 4 with R2P in it, there were 137 "Yes" votes -- four fewer than in the Fifth Committee. Some, it seems, didn't understand the difference between voting for Cuba's amendment or Section 4. Sri Lanka, it must be said, voted against R2P in both the Fifth Committee and in the GA. Sudan's seat was empty, even when the UNAMID budget was adopted, as for when the ICTR on Rwanda was passed through. (Rwanda spoke in favor of R2P in both the Fifth Committee and GA

  In  GA speeches, the Law of the Sea Treaty, LOST, was being trashed by Turkey and others, while a new probe into the death of Dag Hammarskjold was approved. (The UN's promised self-probe into its peacekeepers shooting at unarmed demonstrators for democracy in Haiti two weeks ago is apparently still UNfinished.)

  Finally, after Syria spoke on Special Political Missions and Iran against funding for the sanctions committee against it, Ambassador Masood Khan of Pakistan read out a list of item that had been deferred and it was over, with a whimper and a small bang of the gavel.

   In the run up to the December 24 budget showdown at the UN, diplomats worked until six in the morning, on issues ranging from the 2016 budget to the first performance report.

  At 3 pm on December 24, however, the outgoing head of the Group of 77, Bolivia's Sacha Llorenti, told G77 representatives that the other side said no more talks today. Later in the day it was rolled-over to the next week, and now Inner City Press is first to report some of the results.

  Beyond the money (see below), the contentious issue of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's same sex marriage benefits, on which the Organization for Islamic Cooperation and others were prepared to vote no, has been pushed over into the next session. One African Permanent Representative, not in the OIC, told Inner City Press Ban should "just withdraw" his policy. Ban is on annual leave.

  On Yom Kippur, Diwali and other religions' holidays becoming official UN system holidays, sources tell Inner City Press that language has been arrived at that allows these holidays to be celebrated without requiring it.

  The Partnerships facilities, which many delegates linked to former UN official Robert Orr, ran into opposition from those who say its modalities and "programmatic" elements must be further negotiated. The return of some $150 million by the Capital Master Plan is still being pushed for; G77 says it "held the line on re-costing."

  In the hallway outside Conference Rooms 5, 1 and 3, Inner City Press interviewed a range of diplomats and UN Secretariat officials about the  rebellion by some member states at Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's policy position -- or "executive order," as one delegate called it -- on same sex marriage. 

  "Between the OIC and African countries, it's going down," one Permanent Representative had told Inner City Press. The other side says that Ban has the power to "just do it." But, even the person making this argument conceded,  Ban is no Obama.

  And, another asked, where IS Ban Ki-moon, as his policy is "going down" in the Fifth Committee? On December 29 the answer was: on annual leave.

  A delegate from Uruguay last week urged the rest of the Fifth Committee of the UN General Assembly to do everything possible to come to a conclusion before midday on December 24. That didn't happen.  Now will it be done on December 29?

In this session the Fifth Committee is considering, for example, the proposed program budget outline for the biennium 2016-17. On this, amid threats of cut-backs, the Group of 77 and China put a resolution into an “L document” on December 23, leading to protests from diplomats from Italy, Japan and the US.

Diplomats stayed until 6 am on December 24, and returned for a G77 meeting at 11 am, moved due to its size from Conference Room 9 to CR 1. Bolivia's Permanent Representative Sacha Llorenti, soon to turn over the G77 gavel to South Africa, reported back to G77 Ambassador where things stood.

For now, the Fifth Committee “plenary” is not set until 3 pm, with the full General Assembly with no time set at all.

Other items include the Capital Master Plan, the Extraordinary Chambers court in Cambodia, revised estimates for the Ebola mission UNMEER and for theHuman Rights Council (regarding cut-backs at which, see this Inner City Press story) and UNHQ long term accommodation needs, otherwise known as building on a current New York City playground.

Another item concerns the UN's UMOJA system, with cost overruns and corruption scandals. One former UMOJA official, Paul van Essche who was caught up in a scandal -- "PHP irregularities," Inner City Press exclusive coverage here -- now announces he'll resurface as UNICEF's chief of information technology in January 2015. We'll have more on this.

   

At UN, Kofi Annan's Communications Chief Mortimer on R2P In Libya, Inner City Press Asks, Gaddafi's Lessons Taken by Sri Lanka?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 17 -- When former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's communications chief Edward Mortimer spoke at the UN on November 17, Inner City Press asked him about Darfur, which is mentioned in the “Responsibility to Protect” section of the recently released book of Annan speeches edited by Mortimer, and about Sri Lanka.

  Mortimer selected a speech by Annan on April 7, 2004 where Annan said “at the invitation of the Sudanese government, I propose to send a high level team to Darfur to gain a fuller understanding of the extent and nature of this crisis.”

  Now in November 2014, more than 10 year later, Annan's successor Ban Ki-moon has belatedly responded to the UNAMID mission's November 9 press release denying rapes by Sudanese forces, saying “village community leaders reiterated to UNAMID that they coexist peacefully with local military authorities in the area. None of those interviewed confirmed that any incident of rape took place in Thabit” -- seeking to send in another team.

  Inner City Press asked Mortimer what he thought of the UN's record on Darfur in the last ten years -- and of the UN's record in Sri Lanka, on and after the war crimes in 2009.

  Mortimer is the chair of the UK-based Sri Lanka Campaign. One can only imagine his views of Annan's successor Ban Ki-moon going on a Rajapaksa “victory tour” on northern Sri Lanka in May 2009, but would still like to hear it. But not at the UN, apparently.

  Mortimer's answer focused on Responsibility to Protect generally, with an emphasis on how it was used in or on Libya in 2011. He said that called into question what would have happened had NATO not started bombing, and provided lessons for other dictators: don't use language like Gaddafi did about Benghazi, and develop friends in the international community - or, on the Security Council.

  This last might well be applied to the Rajapaksa government. But for the record, Mortimer didn't say it here.

  In a session moderated by Maher Nasser, acting head of the Department of Public Information, Mortimer was also asked about humor in speeches, and recounted Annan mishandling the Arnold Schwartznegger line "I'll bebaahhk" to “I will be back.” 

  He mentioned the group Independent Diplomat, which is pursuing issues of war crimes in Sri Lanka -- as, apparently, is also British Ian Martin, “under the radar” -- and the publishing industry's lack of interest in the UN. That may be true at least for now. But we recommend the book Mortimer has edited, “Kofi Annan, We the People's: A UN for the 21st Century” put out by Paradigm Publishers, and any memoir he may publish. Watch this site.

   

On North Korea Draft at UN, Alongside Cuban Amendment, Broader Concerns of R2P & ICC

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 13 -- Five days before a General Assembly draft resolution urging the referral of North Korea to the International Criminal Court is scheduled for debate and votes in the UN's Third Committee, the expected Cuban amendment to strip out the ICC language is being discussed. Cuba is called one of the few allies of North Korea.

   As Inner City Press reported on November 4, here, a wider range of countries have expressed concern to the European Union and Japan about not only the ICC language, but also a reference to the Responsibility to Protect. 

  While these countries may not constitute the majority to derail the proposal, if an amendment along the lines of their concerns is proposed, the waters will be clouded. This should be next Tuesday, November 17.

  On November 8 the US announced that the Democratic People Republic of Korea released U.S. citizens Kenneth Bae and Matthew Todd Miller, held for two years and seven months, respectively.

  The US State Department said "We also want to thank our international partners, especially our Protecting Power, the Government of Sweden, for their tireless efforts to help secure the freedom of Mr. Bae and Mr. Miller. The Department of State reiterates our strong recommendation against all travel by U.S. citizens to the DPRK."

  This comes amid talk that the proposed referral of North Korean human rights to the UN Security Council for follow-on referral to the International Criminal Court might be traded away for a visit. Some are opposing the ICC language on other grounds, Inner City Press has learned.

   Some non-aligned countries have told the resolution's co-sponsors the European Union and Japan that they do not favor the language on the ICC, nor on the Responsibility to Protect, these sources exclusively tell Inner City Press.

  More recently Inner City Press has heard from sources not sponsoring the resolution that an amendment will be offered to strip out the ICC and other language, but may not pass. And now?

  Meanwhile, the Security Council's president for November Gary Quinlan of Australia indicated on November 4 that some of his colleagues in the Council -- certainly not all - think the Security Council can directly consider the question of referring North Korea to the ICC. Is the position based on guessing there would not be a veto? Or to work around a loss of momentum in the General Assembly's Third Committee? We'll continue on this.

  The draft in Operative Paragraph 7

"Encourages the Security Council to consider the relevant conclusions and recommendations of the commission of inquiry and take appropriate action, including through consideration of referral of the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, to the International Criminal Court; and consideration of the scope for effective targeted sanctions against those who appear to be most responsible for crimes against humanity."

  The drafters note that this language is "BASED ON OP 7 HRC25/25+ OP10 68/182 SYRIA INT. CRIM. JUSTICE MECH. REFERRAL."

  The draft also "expresses its very deep concern at the precarious  humanitarian  situation in the country, which could rapidly deteriorate owing to limited resilience to natural disasters and to government policies causing limitations in the availability of and access to food." UN humanitarian official John Ging recently told the press how under-funded the UN's aid appeal for DPRK is.

  A US' September 23 event was at the Waldorf Astoria. The speakers were the US' Robert King, then John Kerry, then an articulate escapee, the foreign ministers of South Korea and Japan and finally UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid of Jordan.

  Afterward Inner City Press asked Zeid if it was he who brought the blue UN flag to the event which was not in the UN and did not play by the UN rules of "right of reply." He laughed, graciously. The bombing in Syria had begun only the night before.

  Back on August 25 when North Korean deputy ambassador Ri Tong Il held a UN press conference inside the UN, he described his government's August 18 letter to the UN Security Council requesting an emergency meeting about the US - South Korean joint military exercises, Ulchi Freedom Guardian.

  On August 20, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's first letter arose in Security Council consultations.As Inner City Press reported that day, the Council's president for August Mark Lyall Grant of the UK said that China had raised the issue of the letter, asking for other members' views. He said no further action or consideration of the letter is expected.

   After Ri Tong Il on August 25 said no response had been received, Inner City Press asked him if, beyond what Lyall Grant said at the stakeout, a formal letter should have been sent.

  Citing a US military web site which lists 10 other countries involved in UFJ, including the UK and France, Inner City Press what about the other countries in the joint military exercises, are they just a fig leaf?

  Ri Tong Il answered the second question first saying that the US never gives troup numbers, and that every time the US is talking about troops, under pretext of exercise they bring in nuclear weapons, aircraft carrier George Washington, B52, Tomahawk missiles. And they have all related weapons. And now concerning number of troops, over half a million. You can see, they are ready to move at any time. With full capacity. Plus, over 40,000 civilian population of South Korea. This is a full scale war exercise and the word ewcercise is not proper one. They are fully ready since they have been holding them annually.

 On the letter(s), Ri Tong Il said concerning the response from the UNSC, we in the name of the Permanent Repressentative presented a formal request addressed to His Excellency Grant, and in established practice of protocol whatever answer should be addressed to us. They’re not showing any respect even for the protocol. They should reply.

  Inner City Press immediately asked the UK Mission to the UN, whose spokesperson Iona Thomas quickly replied, "On the letter, it is my understanding that there is no requirement to respond to such requests in writing.  As the Ambassador said at the stakeout on Wednesday, there was no support in the Council for discussing the issue."

  Perhaps burying the lead on August 25 Ri Tong Il said, "The entire army of DPRK is closely watching. DPRK will conduce the most powerful pre-emptive nuclear strike against the US since the US openly decleared it would use so-called tailored deterrents. As long as the US exposes its intention to remove the government of Pyongyang, the DPRK responds the same way by making out conter-actions on a regular basis."

  Back on August 1, Inner City Press asked Ri Tong Il if he had asked for the letter to be formally circulated, or would North Korea take it to the General Assembly?

  Ri Tong Il replied that it is not a question of approaching individual countries, but a formal request to the Security Council. Inner City Press inquired with the mission of Rwanda, July's president, and got a copy of the letter and the response that there was no consensus for holding the requested emergency meeting. Inner City Press has put the letter online here.

  Also, at the bottom of this page is a fast transcript of the press conference, by Inner City Press & the Free UN Coalition for Access.

Inner City Press also asked Ri Tong Il for an update on his mission's announcement thirteen months ago that it sought the end of the so-called “UN Command” in South Korea. Ri Tong Il said his country remains opposed to it:

On UN command, the DPRK is consistently insisting on the dismantling of UN Command in South Korea. This is a UN body but not under the direction of the UN, it is not under the approval of its budget. If you look at the inside nature, 100 percent US troops. This is a typical example of position of power by the US. It should be dismantled. And we are raising it to the UN on a regular basis.

  Later on August 1 Inner City Press asked Stephane Dujarric, the spokesman for Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, if Ban has received North Korea's letter complaining about the Seth Rogen film “The Interview.” (Inner City Press has commented on the letter, here.). Dujarric said the letter has been received, but Ban has no response.

  Ban, of course, was South Korea's foreign minister. His c.v. or biography, including for a recent op-ed about Haiti(where the UN brought cholera and then has dodged accountability), states that Ban previously served as “Director of the UN’s International Organizations and Treaties Bureau.” 

 Other iterations say he was director of the “UN’s International Organizations and Treaties Bureau in South Korea, Seoul” (here). So was that really a UN (or “UN's”) agency? Or is is like the UN Command? Watch this site.

Footnote: In Ri Tong Il's press conference, the UN Correspondents Association demanded the first question, and gave it to a representative of a media from Japan - another representative of which took a second question, before other media got even one. While both are genial, this is how UNCA, a/k/a the UN's Censorship Alliance, works.

The new Free UN Coalition for Access is opposed to any set-asides or automatic first questions. Also, despite the continued censorship of the question, the Free UN Coalition for Access believes that at a minimum the UN should disclose “in kind” (or gift) private jet travel for Ban Ki-moon paid for by a state. We'll have more on this.Watch this site.

   

In DPRK, Release of Bae & Miller As UN General Assembly Draft on ICC Referral Will Face Amendments - And Pass?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 8 -- The US announced that the Democratic People Republic of Korea on November 8 released U.S. citizens Kenneth Bae and Matthew Todd Miller, held for two years and seven months, respectively.

  The US State Department said "We also want to thank our international partners, especially our Protecting Power, the Government of Sweden, for their tireless efforts to help secure the freedom of Mr. Bae and Mr. Miller. The Department of State reiterates our strong recommendation against all travel by U.S. citizens to the DPRK."

  This comes amid talk that the proposed referral of North Korean human rights to the UN Security Council for follow-on referral to the International Criminal Court might be traded away for a visit. Some are opposing the ICC language on other grounds, Inner City Press has learned.

   Some non-aligned countries have told the resolution's co-sponsors the European Union and Japan that they do not favor the language on the ICC, nor on the Responsibility to Protect, these sources exclusively tell Inner City Press.

  More recently Inner City Press has heard from sources not sponsoring the resolution that an amendment will be offered to strip out the ICC and other language, but may not pass. And now?

  Meanwhile, the Security Council's president for November Gary Quinlan of Australia indicated on November 4 that some of his colleagues in the Council -- certainly not all - think the Security Council can directly consider the question of referring North Korea to the ICC. Is the position based on guessing there would not be a veto? Or to work around a loss of momentum in the General Assembly's Third Committee? We'll continue on this.

  The draft in Operative Paragraph 7

"Encourages the Security Council to consider the relevant conclusions and recommendations of the commission of inquiry and take appropriate action, including through consideration of referral of the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, to the International Criminal Court; and consideration of the scope for effective targeted sanctions against those who appear to be most responsible for crimes against humanity."

  The drafters note that this language is "BASED ON OP 7 HRC25/25+ OP10 68/182 SYRIA INT. CRIM. JUSTICE MECH. REFERRAL."

  The draft also "expresses its very deep concern at the precarious  humanitarian  situation in the country, which could rapidly deteriorate owing to limited resilience to natural disasters and to government policies causing limitations in the availability of and access to food." UN humanitarian official John Ging recently told the press how under-funded the UN's aid appeal for DPRK is.

  A US' September 23 event was at the Waldorf Astoria. The speakers were the US' Robert King, then John Kerry, then an articulate escapee, the foreign ministers of South Korea and Japan and finally UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid of Jordan.

  Afterward Inner City Press asked Zeid if it was he who brought the blue UN flag to the event which was not in the UN and did not play by the UN rules of "right of reply." He laughed, graciously. The bombing in Syria had begun only the night before.

  Back on August 25 when North Korean deputy ambassador Ri Tong Il held a UN press conference inside the UN, he described his government's August 18 letter to the UN Security Council requesting an emergency meeting about the US - South Korean joint military exercises, Ulchi Freedom Guardian.

  On August 20, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's first letter arose in Security Council consultations.As Inner City Press reported that day, the Council's president for August Mark Lyall Grant of the UK said that China had raised the issue of the letter, asking for other members' views. He said no further action or consideration of the letter is expected.

   After Ri Tong Il on August 25 said no response had been received, Inner City Press asked him if, beyond what Lyall Grant said at the stakeout, a formal letter should have been sent.

  Citing a US military web site which lists 10 other countries involved in UFJ, including the UK and France, Inner City Press what about the other countries in the joint military exercises, are they just a fig leaf?

  Ri Tong Il answered the second question first saying that the US never gives troup numbers, and that every time the US is talking about troops, under pretext of exercise they bring in nuclear weapons, aircraft carrier George Washington, B52, Tomahawk missiles. And they have all related weapons. And now concerning number of troops, over half a million. You can see, they are ready to move at any time. With full capacity. Plus, over 40,000 civilian population of South Korea. This is a full scale war exercise and the word ewcercise is not proper one. They are fully ready since they have been holding them annually.

 On the letter(s), Ri Tong Il said concerning the response from the UNSC, we in the name of the Permanent Repressentative presented a formal request addressed to His Excellency Grant, and in established practice of protocol whatever answer should be addressed to us. They’re not showing any respect even for the protocol. They should reply.

  Inner City Press immediately asked the UK Mission to the UN, whose spokesperson Iona Thomas quickly replied, "On the letter, it is my understanding that there is no requirement to respond to such requests in writing.  As the Ambassador said at the stakeout on Wednesday, there was no support in the Council for discussing the issue."

  Perhaps burying the lead on August 25 Ri Tong Il said, "The entire army of DPRK is closely watching. DPRK will conduce the most powerful pre-emptive nuclear strike against the US since the US openly decleared it would use so-called tailored deterrents. As long as the US exposes its intention to remove the government of Pyongyang, the DPRK responds the same way by making out conter-actions on a regular basis."

  Back on August 1, Inner City Press asked Ri Tong Il if he had asked for the letter to be formally circulated, or would North Korea take it to the General Assembly?

  Ri Tong Il replied that it is not a question of approaching individual countries, but a formal request to the Security Council. Inner City Press inquired with the mission of Rwanda, July's president, and got a copy of the letter and the response that there was no consensus for holding the requested emergency meeting. Inner City Press has put the letter online here.

  Also, at the bottom of this page is a fast transcript of the press conference, by Inner City Press & the Free UN Coalition for Access.

Inner City Press also asked Ri Tong Il for an update on his mission's announcement thirteen months ago that it sought the end of the so-called “UN Command” in South Korea. Ri Tong Il said his country remains opposed to it:

On UN command, the DPRK is consistently insisting on the dismantling of UN Command in South Korea. This is a UN body but not under the direction of the UN, it is not under the approval of its budget. If you look at the inside nature, 100 percent US troops. This is a typical example of position of power by the US. It should be dismantled. And we are raising it to the UN on a regular basis.

  Later on August 1 Inner City Press asked Stephane Dujarric, the spokesman for Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, if Ban has received North Korea's letter complaining about the Seth Rogen film “The Interview.” (Inner City Press has commented on the letter, here.). Dujarric said the letter has been received, but Ban has no response.

  Ban, of course, was South Korea's foreign minister. His c.v. or biography, including for a recent op-ed about Haiti(where the UN brought cholera and then has dodged accountability), states that Ban previously served as “Director of the UN’s International Organizations and Treaties Bureau.” 

 Other iterations say he was director of the “UN’s International Organizations and Treaties Bureau in South Korea, Seoul” (here). So was that really a UN (or “UN's”) agency? Or is is like the UN Command? Watch this site.

Footnote: In Ri Tong Il's press conference, the UN Correspondents Association demanded the first question, and gave it to a representative of a media from Japan - another representative of which took a second question, before other media got even one. While both are genial, this is how UNCA, a/k/a the UN's Censorship Alliance, works.

The new Free UN Coalition for Access is opposed to any set-asides or automatic first questions. Also, despite the continued censorship of the question, the Free UN Coalition for Access believes that at a minimum the UN should disclose “in kind” (or gift) private jet travel for Ban Ki-moon paid for by a state. We'll have more on this.Watch this site.

   

On North Korea, Questioning of General Assembly Draft on ICC & R2P, Traded for a Visit?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 4 -- Amid talk that the proposed referral of North Korean human rights to the UN Security Council for follow-on referral to the International Criminal Court might be traded away for a visit, some are opposing the ICC language on other grounds, Inner City Press has learned.

   Some non-aligned countries have told the resolution's co-sponsors the European Union and Japan that they do not favor the language on the ICC, nor on the Responsibility to Protect, these sources exclusively tell Inner City Press.

  Meanwhile, the Security Council's president for November Gary Quinlan of Australia indicated on November 4 that some of his colleagues in the Council -- certainly not all - think the Security Council can directly consider the question of referring North Korea to the ICC. Is the position based on guessing there would not be a veto? Or to work around a loss of momentum in the General Assembly's Third Committee? We'll continue on this.

  The draft in Operative Paragraph 7

"Encourages the Security Council to consider the relevant conclusions and recommendations of the commission of inquiry and take appropriate action, including through consideration of referral of the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, to the International Criminal Court; and consideration of the scope for effective targeted sanctions against those who appear to be most responsible for crimes against humanity."

  The drafters note that this language is "BASED ON OP 7 HRC25/25+ OP10 68/182 SYRIA INT. CRIM. JUSTICE MECH. REFERRAL."

  The draft also "expresses its very deep concern at the precarious  humanitarian  situation in the country, which could rapidly deteriorate owing to limited resilience to natural disasters and to government policies causing limitations in the availability of and access to food." UN humanitarian official John Ging recently told the press how under-funded the UN's aid appeal for DPRK is.

  A US' September 23 event was at the Waldorf Astoria. The speakers were the US' Robert King, then John Kerry, then an articulate escapee, the foreign ministers of South Korea and Japan and finally UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid of Jordan.

  Afterward Inner City Press asked Zeid if it was he who brought the blue UN flag to the event which was not in the UN and did not play by the UN rules of "right of reply." He laughed, graciously. The bombing in Syria had begun only the night before.

  Back on August 25 when North Korean deputy ambassador Ri Tong Il held a UN press conference inside the UN, he described his government's August 18 letter to the UN Security Council requesting an emergency meeting about the US - South Korean joint military exercises, Ulchi Freedom Guardian.

  On August 20, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's first letter arose in Security Council consultations.As Inner City Press reported that day, the Council's president for August Mark Lyall Grant of the UK said that China had raised the issue of the letter, asking for other members' views. He said no further action or consideration of the letter is expected.

   After Ri Tong Il on August 25 said no response had been received, Inner City Press asked him if, beyond what Lyall Grant said at the stakeout, a formal letter should have been sent.

  Citing a US military web site which lists 10 other countries involved in UFJ, including the UK and France, Inner City Press what about the other countries in the joint military exercises, are they just a fig leaf?

  Ri Tong Il answered the second question first saying that the US never gives troup numbers, and that every time the US is talking about troops, under pretext of exercise they bring in nuclear weapons, aircraft carrier George Washington, B52, Tomahawk missiles. And they have all related weapons. And now concerning number of troops, over half a million. You can see, they are ready to move at any time. With full capacity. Plus, over 40,000 civilian population of South Korea. This is a full scale war exercise and the word ewcercise is not proper one. They are fully ready since they have been holding them annually.

 On the letter(s), Ri Tong Il said concerning the response from the UNSC, we in the name of the Permanent Repressentative presented a formal request addressed to His Excellency Grant, and in established practice of protocol whatever answer should be addressed to us. They’re not showing any respect even for the protocol. They should reply.

  Inner City Press immediately asked the UK Mission to the UN, whose spokesperson Iona Thomas quickly replied, "On the letter, it is my understanding that there is no requirement to respond to such requests in writing.  As the Ambassador said at the stakeout on Wednesday, there was no support in the Council for discussing the issue."

  Perhaps burying the lead on August 25 Ri Tong Il said, "The entire army of DPRK is closely watching. DPRK will conduce the most powerful pre-emptive nuclear strike against the US since the US openly decleared it would use so-called tailored deterrents. As long as the US exposes its intention to remove the government of Pyongyang, the DPRK responds the same way by making out conter-actions on a regular basis."

  Back on August 1, Inner City Press asked Ri Tong Il if he had asked for the letter to be formally circulated, or would North Korea take it to the General Assembly?

  Ri Tong Il replied that it is not a question of approaching individual countries, but a formal request to the Security Council. Inner City Press inquired with the mission of Rwanda, July's president, and got a copy of the letter and the response that there was no consensus for holding the requested emergency meeting. Inner City Press has put the letter online here.

  Also, at the bottom of this page is a fast transcript of the press conference, by Inner City Press & the Free UN Coalition for Access.

Inner City Press also asked Ri Tong Il for an update on his mission's announcement thirteen months ago that it sought the end of the so-called “UN Command” in South Korea. Ri Tong Il said his country remains opposed to it:

On UN command, the DPRK is consistently insisting on the dismantling of UN Command in South Korea. This is a UN body but not under the direction of the UN, it is not under the approval of its budget. If you look at the inside nature, 100 percent US troops. This is a typical example of position of power by the US. It should be dismantled. And we are raising it to the UN on a regular basis.

  Later on August 1 Inner City Press asked Stephane Dujarric, the spokesman for Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, if Ban has received North Korea's letter complaining about the Seth Rogen film “The Interview.” (Inner City Press has commented on the letter, here.). Dujarric said the letter has been received, but Ban has no response.

  Ban, of course, was South Korea's foreign minister. His c.v. or biography, including for a recent op-ed about Haiti(where the UN brought cholera and then has dodged accountability), states that Ban previously served as “Director of the UN’s International Organizations and Treaties Bureau.” 

 Other iterations say he was director of the “UN’s International Organizations and Treaties Bureau in South Korea, Seoul” (here). So was that really a UN (or “UN's”) agency? Or is is like the UN Command? Watch this site.

Footnote: In Ri Tong Il's press conference, the UN Correspondents Association demanded the first question, and gave it to a representative of a media from Japan - another representative of which took a second question, before other media got even one. While both are genial, this is how UNCA, a/k/a the UN's Censorship Alliance, works.

The new Free UN Coalition for Access is opposed to any set-asides or automatic first questions. Also, despite the continued censorship of the question, the Free UN Coalition for Access believes that at a minimum the UN should disclose “in kind” (or gift) private jet travel for Ban Ki-moon paid for by a state. We'll have more on this.Watch this site.