South Korea's Park Geun-hye Is UN's Ban Ki-moon's Sole New Years Call Read-Out, Controlled

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 1 -- The only New Years call by Ban Ki-moon for which the UN has issued a read-out, as of 11 pm on January 1, is with Park Geun-hye of Ban's native South Korea, where he is reported in the mix for the next Presidential race.

 The UN issued this:

"The Secretary-General and President Park Geun-hye of the Republic of Korea (ROK) exchanged New Year's greetings in a phone conversation today.

"The Secretary General commended the ROK's active contribution to the work of the United Nations under the leadership of President Park, including through global efforts to address climate change and fight against Ebola, among others. The Secretary-General noted this year would meaningfully mark the 70th anniversaries of both the founding of the United Nations and the independence of the ROK.

"He told President Park that he looked forward to the ROK’s leadership in forging a meaningful agreement on climate change, as well the accomplishment of the Millennium Development Goals and the shaping of the post-2015 development agenda.

"They also discussed issues related to the Korean Peninsula. The Secretary-General appreciated President Park's commitment to building peace and prosperity in the Korean Peninsula through inter-Korean dialogue. He took note of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s positive response today.

"The Secretary-General reaffirmed his readiness to provide any support, as appropriate, in facilitating peace and stability in the region in close coordination with the concerned countries." 

  Who is writing this material? Back on December 22, when UN Secretary General returned from a belated Ebola tour and took three questions, two of them were about North Korea. Ban, looking down at notes, answered about human rights.

  At the end, Inner City Press asked about the allegations that UN Peacekeeping covered by 200 rapes in Tabit in Darfur. Ban smiled but did not answer. Meanwhile Ban has been sent a letter from 123 non-governmental organizations and experts saying, among other things, that the head of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous should not remain in the position.

  Inner City Press obtained and put the letter on line on the morning of December 22, here. 

  Another question: does Ban Ki-moon demand and get questions in advance of his rare press conferences, the better to answer them? 

  On December 17, it seemed that he did. Video here, Inner City Press and Free UN Coalition for Access story here. Of those picked by Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric on December 17, two of his three on December 22 were again selected, including the most obviously pre-submitted question(er); the third on December 22 was Agence France Presse, predictably about North Korea, not Ladsous.

  On December 18, Inner City Press for FUNCA asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric, for the record, if questions had been given in advance. Dujarric said, twice, that it is his job to get Ban Ki-moon ready for the press conference. 

  Does that mean getting questions in advance? Dujarric repeated the same answer. Video here.  It seems that it does.

   On December 17 after Ban thanked some of those in the UN Press Briefing Room for inviting and celebrating him at a black-tie ball the previous night, the first question was set aside for the group that celebrated him, the UN Correspondents Association. Video here.

Outgoing UNCA president Pamela Falk asked Ban about Cuba, “since you've visit,” and Ban said he had been told in advance. While he added, by the US, he glanced down and read out a statement. Of course, Ban Ki-moon has no responsibility for or power over US policy on Cuba.Video here.

Ban was asked a soft question about the US torture report -- but NOT whether he thinks anyone should be prosecuted. Ban was asked a question about Ebola and another about the transatlantic slave trade from Africa.

  In response to the latter question, Ban read the entirety of his answer from a script. Video here. 

Yes, it was in French. But if he's getting the questions in advance on this, why not others? And as another journalist in the room, not Inner City Press, said afterward, maybe he wasn't called on because he hasn't been willing to give his question in advance.

 It is not academic: the way Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric ran the December 17 press conference, no questions were taken on allegations that the UN covered up mass rapes in Darfur, and video that UN Peacekeepers shot democracy protesters in Haiti.

The Free UN Coalition for Access, formed because Ban's UNCA far from defending journalists tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN, believes that questions should not be requested or given in advance of press conferences. We'll have more on this. Watch this site.

Here's from the UN's December 18, 2014 transcript:

Inner City Press:  I wanted to ask about the press conference held yesterday, if you can confirm or deny that at least certain of the questions were provided in advance to the Secretary-General and he read an answer to them.  And I ask this because it seems if we are here having what seems to be a press conference, it seems at least important to at least know if it's scripted.

Spokesman Dujarric:  No, I think the press conference is not scripted.  It's my job as the Secretary-General's Spokesman to be ready for this briefing and to be ready for… to help the Secretary-General be ready for his briefing.

Inner City Press: On the answer on the Transatlantic Slave Trade, his entire answer was read out.  And I'm saying this with all due respect, but is this normal?  Is it normal in a press conference to have an answer known in advance and an answer read out?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I think, as I said, Matthew, it's my job to be ready for the briefings and to make sure the Secretary-General is ready for his.

Inner City Press:  Does that include knowing what questions will be asked?  There is a big difference.

Spokesman:  Those are the only words I can use.  So, anything else?  Yes, I'll come back to you.

   

After Ukraine Quotes Ban Entire World For Them, UN Wan Read-Out

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 25 -- Here's how today's UN deals with Ukraine: after its President Petro Poroshenko and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon spoke on November 25, Ukraine puts out its own read-out, including that "Ban Ki-moon assured that the entire world supported Ukraine."

  Inner City Press tweeted this quote at 6:44 pm, noting that the UN hadn't put out any read-out of the call at all, while Ban's spokesman left the UN.

 At 8:36 pm, the UN Spokesman's office put out this read-out:

"The Secretary-General spoke by telephone today to H.E. Mr. Petro Proroshenko, President of Ukraine. The Secretary-General thanked the President for his tireless efforts to find a peaceful and lasting solution to the conflict in south-east Ukraine. They discussed the severe challenges surrounding the delivery of funds and essential supplies to parts of eastern Ukraine, and the President’s efforts to find an adequate solution.

"The Secretary-General and the President agreed that the Minsk agreements provided a clear path towards peace and their implementation was essential. The Secretary-General informed the President that in continuation of his good offices he had asked Under-Secretary-General for Political Affaris Jeffrey Feltman to return to Kiev in mid-December for further consultations with the Government and key stakeholders."

   No mention of the "entire world" supporting Ukraine. And the euphemism about "delivery of funds" seems to be a reference to Prime Minister Yatsenyuk cutting off pension payments in Donbas. The UN's Ivan Simonovic spun this issue to select scribes; his office has since said that 

"Indeed a briefing on Ukraine was organised on Wednesday with a couple of journalists on the Ukraine report that was published earlier yesterday. Invitations at this briefing were sent on no scientific basis and can certainly be expanded for future occasions. 

"Indeed, following on your suggestion at yesterday's noon briefing as well as on many similar suggestions, including from other journalists, we are looking into the possibility of holding wider briefings on various human rights issues, including in the press conference room. We will keep you posted on those plans."

 But since then, no information or "postings," including to follow up questions Inner City Press on behalf of the newFree UN Coalition for Access asked. This is how today's UN is dealing with Ukraine - and much else. Watch this site.

  Back in October, Ukraine was scheduled to speak at the UN about its “Committee on Information” on October 21, but as UN speeches usually go longer than allowed, its turn was postponed until October 22.

That didn't stop the “UN Radio” Russian service from reporting on the speech on October 21 as if it had in fact been given that day. As translated, UN Radio on October 21 reported

“The representative of Ukraine accused Russia of using the information strategy of the Cold War

“One of the main prerequisites of violence in Ukraine became a propaganda information. This was stated by the representative of the Mission of Ukraine to the United Nations, speaking at a meeting of the Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly.”

  The UN's Fourth Committee did meet on October 21 - but Ukraine didn't speak. Instead it was the first speaker on the afternoon of October 22. Its speech, delivered in perfect French including the word “rigolo,” linked Russia to Joseph Goebbels.

  In reply, the Russian mission's spokesman brought up the recent Human Rights Watch report of the Ukrainian government using cluster bombs in and against Donetsk, and the lack of clarity on who called the snipers shots in Maidan Square.

  Later in the Fourth Committee meeting, Bolivia slammed “powers” who use information technology to intervene and violate privacy, bringing to mind USAID's “Cuban Twitter” and, of course, the NSA.

  Then Jordan said it was first among Arab nations to enact an Access to Information law, in 2007. The Free UN Coalition for Access has been pressing for a Freedom of Information Act at the UN, click here and here for that.

  FUNCA covers the Fourth Committee, including on Decolonization, and the Committee on Information, where at least theoretically the UN's descent into censorship could be raised and resolved. The old UN Correspondents Association, a part of this trend toward privatization of briefings and even censorship -- ordering Press articles off the Internet, getting leaked copies of their complaints to the UN's MALU banned from Google's search, here -- was nowhere to be seen. We'll have more on this.

   

In Ukraine, US State Department Official Says Supports Mutual Ceasefire Verified by OSCE, International Investigation of MH17

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 27 -- After US Secretary of State John Kerry called his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov on July 27, the US State Department issued two read-outs, or a readout in two stages.

  The second, an "additional point" by a Senior State Department Official, was that Kerry "underlined our support for a mutual cease fire verified by the OSCE and reaffirmed our strong support for the international investigation to show the facts of MH17."

   While the second part of the sentence includes the word "international" that Russia pushed for in the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 investigation resolution adopted on July 21, the first part of the sentence caused more surprise: a ceasefire? 

  While the second read-out didn't say so, did this mean only in the area around the site where MH17 went down? We'll have more on this as it develops.

  The first (part of the) readout, by a Senior State Department Official, was that

"During a phone call this afternoon, Secretary Kerry urged Foreign Minister Lavrov to stop the flow of heavy weapons and rocket and artillery fire from Russia into Ukraine, and to begin to contribute to deescalating the conflict.  He did not accept Foreign Minister Lavrov’s denial that heavy weapons from Russia were contributing to the conflict.

"Secretary Kerry provided an update on his meetings in the Middle East and Paris this past week and the ongoing efforts to achieve a ceasefire."

 Back on July 25 at the UN  Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq:

Inner City Press: Is there any UN involvement in trying to bring about this deployment? Does the Secretary-General believe that such a deployment would go through the Security Council? Should go through the Security Council? Should the consent of the separatists be sought to avoid a conflict? What’s the UN’s thinking on this deployment of armed individuals into a conflict zone?

Deputy Spokesman Haq: I believe that this is an issue that may come up, among the members of the Security Council in the coming days, so I’ll leave it in their hands.

  Five hours later Security Council member Mark Lyall Grant of the UK said

“Its early days, the negotiations between The Netherlands and the Ukrainian government are continuing, as I understand it, in Kyiv. The Australians are obviously involved as well in terms of negotiating the bilateral agreement. When that happens, I think it is quite likely that the Dutch government may want to inform the Security Council of that agreement, and I think it also quite likely that the Security Council will want to take note of that agreement, very possibly in a resolution. I wouldn't expect that to be controversial, and that could happen very quickly after agreements have been reached in Kyiv.” 

  Meanwhile at the International Monetary Fund's July 24 embargoed briefing, Inner City Press asked IMF  Deputy Spokesperson William Murray:

Inner City Press: "On Ukraine, what is the IMF's estimate or thoughts on the impact of the downing in Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 in Eastern Ukraine, and its impact, if any, on the IMF's program?

MR. MURRAY: You know, we're concerned about conflict in the region and a statement we issued the other day addresses that issue.

 But what about MH17 and its aftermath? The IMF didsubstantively answer Inner City Press' Gaza and Israel question, here.  Watch this site.

   

North Korea Nuclear & Rights Issues Were Focus of Trilateral Meeting of US - Japan - South Korea in DC, Do UNSC "Elements to the Press" Suffice?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 7 -- The business day after the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's deputy ambassador to the UN Ri Tong Il slammed the trilateral meetings of the US, Japan and South Korea, the US on April 7 sent out a media note about the April 7 meeting.

  It referred to human rights, on which a UN Security Council Arria formula meeting is expected on April 17. It reiterated the Council's unanimous condemnation of ballistic missile firing - but left it unclear if anything beyond those "Elements to the Press" is being sought. It said the three countries will consult with China and Russia.  Here is the Media Note just sent out:

April 7, 2014 U.S.-Japan-Republic of Korea Trilateral Meeting in Washington MEDIA NOTE

Following President Obama’s March 25 meeting in The Hague with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Republic of Korea (ROK) President Park Geun-hye, the United States, Japan, and the Republic of Korea (ROK) held a productive, substantive trilateral meeting April 7, 2014 to coordinate on a wide range of issues related to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).

These discussions reflect the close ongoing cooperation between our three countries, as well as our common values and interests across the Asia-Pacific region.

We restated our commitment to the September 19, 2005 Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks and its core goal: the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner.

We reaffirmed the UN Security Council’s unanimous condemnation of the DPRK’s recent ballistic missile launches as a violation of UN Security Council resolutions 1718, 1874, 2087, and 2094.

We also reiterated our commitment to the full and transparent implementation of all UN Security Council resolutions concerning the DPRK and urged the DPRK to refrain from further threatening actions.

We pledged to continue working closely with each other and with our allies and partners in the international community to focus international attention on the deplorable human rights situation in North Korea, and to hold the DPRK accountable for its systematic and ongoing violations of the human rights of its people.

We likewise agreed on the importance of improvements in inter-Korean relations and a resolution of the abductions issue.

All parties committed to close continued bilateral and trilateral coordination, as well as consultation with China, Russia, and other key partners on relevant issues concerning the DPRK.

 On April 4 at the UN to the North Korean deputy, Inner City Press asked two rounds of questions (see below), the first on the upcoming April 7 trilateral meeting of the US, Japan and South Korea in Washington, the second about a UN Security Council "Arria formula" meeting on North Korea human rights tentatively scheduled for April 17. Video here, from Minute 5:55.

  Ri Tong Il said the trilateral meeting is about the US wanting a military alliance, a continued military presence in the region.  On the Arria formula meeting, he said to wait and see -- then added that if the US steps over the "red line," they know what will happen. Do they? And where is the line?

  US envoy Robert King, Ri Tong Il said, is not be allowed into the DPRK, therefore his requests about prisoner Kenneth Bae will not be considered. Asked of drones, Ri Tong Il spoke of US drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan. In his opening statement he spoke of the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and said the US should "go through punishment."

  The 11 am press conference was only announced at 10:35 am. When Ri Tong Il entered, there were few journalists in the room. He waited five minutes then began. 

 He called on Inner City Press / the new Free UN Coalition for Access for the first question. Since the old UN Correspondents Associations so-called "Holy Seat" was empty and no attempt had been made to brand the press conference as UNCA (become the UN's Censorship Alliance), Inner City Press did not mention FUNCA, said only, thanks.

  But then a questioner from Reuters, whose bureau chief has engaged in outright censorship by mis-citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act tocon Google into banning one of his "on the record" anti-Press complaints to the UN from Google's Search, told Ri Tong Il, Thank you on behalf of UNCA. Video here, from Minute 10:12.

  So while it should not have been necessary, FUNCA then thanked Ri Tong Il, video here from Minute 23:33, to counter this branding by the UN Censorship Alliance, whose board tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN and has had no reforms.

   Back on March 27, two days after the Democratic People's Republic of Korea fired medium range missiles toward Japan, the UN Security Council held a meeting at the request of the US.

  Afterward Council president for March Sylvie Lucas of Luxembourg read out "elements to the press" that all members agreed the launch was a violation, and that consultations would continue. Video here.

  Inner City Press asked if a Presidential Statement or Press Statement was envisioned, but Lucas did not expand. Inner City Press asked her, and then South Korean's Permanent Representative, if they thought the launch's timing was related to the trilateral meeting held in The Hague between Japan, South Korea and the US.

  Lucas said it did not come up; the South Korean PR said that whatever North Korea's motives, the launch was a violation. Then it was over.

  During the meeting, a North Korean diplomat sat on a couch further down the second floor. Another diplomat spoke with him there, then returned, into the Council then out in the so-called Turkish Lounge. We hope to have more on this.

   On March 26, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq was asked by Inner City Press if Ban had any comments on the launch.. Video here.

  Haq said, You'll recall after the firing of short range missiles, on March 17... the Secretary General emphasized the need for DPRK to refrain for provocative acts. 

  But even three hours later as a UN Security Council meeting began, on the Golan Heights, there was no UN Secretariat comment yet. (Later one was emailed out: in response to questions.) French Ambassador Gerard Araudbreezed into the 3 pm meeting at 3:22 and said there might be a Council statement, he wasn't sure.

  The night before, Inner City Press asked Luxembourg, as UN Security Council president for March, if any meeting was in the works. Their mission quickly replied, "@innercitypress we are aware of reports, no UNSC meeting foreseen for the moment."

  And on March 26 she said nothing for that day; if tomorrow, she said let's see if there is a request.

  In Washington, US State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf said on March 25: 

North Korea launched two No Dong medium-range ballistic missiles from near its west coast on March 26 (local time). Both flew in an easterly direction over North Korea’s land mass and impacted in the Sea of Japan, according to U.S. government information. It does not appear that North Korea issued any maritime notifications providing warning of the launches.

We are closely monitoring the situation on the Korean Peninsula. Coming on the heels of the DPRK’s March 3 and February 27 Scud launches, these March 26 launches of medium-range No Dong ballistic missiles represent a troubling and provocative escalation that the United States takes very seriously.

Launches using ballistic missile technology are a clear violation of UN Security Council resolutions 1718, 1874, and 2094. Resolutions 1718 and 1874 require North Korea to suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program and to re-establish a moratorium on missile launches. Resolutions 1874 and 2094 further require the DPRK to stop conducting any launches using ballistic missile technology.

We are closely coordinating with our allies and partners, including in the UN Security Council, to take the appropriate measures in response to this latest provocation and to address the threat to global security posed by the DPRK’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

We urge North Korea to exercise restraint and refrain from further threatening actions.

    Was the March 24 press conference one of threats? The DPRK deputyrecounted a litany of ways the US has thrown "cold water" on attempts at reconciliation on the Korean peninsula, adding the the US needs an enemy in the region to justify its military presence.

  Inner City Press, after thanking Ri Tong Il for this briefing on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, asked him to comment on the trilateral Japan - South Korea - US meeting planned for March 24 in The Hague, and on last week's announcement that DPRK will resume "high level" talks with Japan. Video here from Minute 29:57.

  After saying, "I know you," Ri Tong Il told Inner City Press to "ask them" the first question. On the second, he cited the 2002 Joint Declaration in Pyongyang with Japan -- here -- adding that "past crimes" must be addressed.

  After his opening statement he'd said he could only take a couple of questions. Pamela Falk of CBS grabbed the first one for the United Nations Correspondents Association, and promptly asked two questions.  And so it goes at the UN.

  Back on January 24, DPRK's then Permanent Representative Sin Son Ho held a press conference.  He read a five-page statement entitled "It Is the Invariable Stand of the DPRK to Improve the Inter-Korean Relations and Achieve National Reconciliation and Unity."

  When he was finished he took three questions. He called on Inner City Press second, and when asked, "Will you answer the first one?" said he would take them in a bunch. On behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, he was thanked for the briefing, and prospectively for answers. But it was not to be.

  Inner City Press asked if the inter-family reunions he referred to would go forward even if the South Korean - US military exercises set for February do. Inner City Press asked asked, as it has the UN, about UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's January 2 call to President Park of South Korea, on which the UN refused to give a read-out. (FUNCA has protested this.)

  But Sin Son Ho said that the answers would be found in his statement -- no Ban there -- or on KNCA, state media. Might they know what Ban and Park discussed, and why?

 South Korean president Park Geun-hye went public on January 2 about a call her office said was initiated to her by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. 

  Ban "discussed the situation in North Korea, regional tensions over Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's visit to a controversial war shrine and other issues of common interest, her office said."

  What were these other "issues of common interest"?  More than four hours after Park's office went public about the call, the UN through Ban's spokespeople or otherwise, has provided no information. This is a pattern.

  As 2013 ended at the UN, the question arose why Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's statement on tensions between Japan and Ban's native South Korea (and China) was given to regional media before the Press which had formally asked a question, and why Ban's spokesperson has been deflecting questions since.

The answer, proposed exclusively to Inner City Press by well-placed sources in South Korea, involves Ban Ki-moon being in a poll for the country's 2017 presidential election, as a candidate of incumbent Park's faction of the ruling Saenuri party. Click here for story on that polling, in Korean.

Last week, Inner City Press asked Ban's two top spokespeople:

"on South Sudan, in light of the SG's response at his last stakeout, please provide his / the UN's response to the subsequent report that

'The Korean side is now accusing the Japanese of politically using the emergency faced by Korean troops in South Sudan, with one unnamed official saying that the Abe government’s linking of the ammo supply to its 'active pacifism' initiative was a 'clear political provocation.' Another unnamed official said Korea had told the Japanese to handle this quietly out of fear that the locals would turn hostile and attack Korean troops if word got out that they’d received ammo, but the Japanese were instead turning this into a big story. Korean government officials are also saying that they intend to return all the ammo to Japan once Korean ammo arrives from Korea, despite the fact that the Japanese said they could keep it.'"

But the spokesperson, Martin Nesirky and Farhan Haq, never answered this question, or even acknowledged receiving it. 

  While later a "Note to Correspondent" about Ban's position was sent out, and Inner City Press reported on it, it turned out that the very same Ban position had been given out to regional media 13 hours before. This practice is being opposed in 2014 by the Free UN Coalition for Access, whatever the motives of the practice.

  But here, as also illuminated by Ban spokesperson Nesirky's push-back at questions from Chinese media on December 30, and December 31 responding to Inner City Press' factual question about whether UNMISS had been contacted by the South Koreans before the South Koreans contacted Japan (and also about UNMISS' relationship with the American military or bullet-holders), there may be more.

  December 31 Q&A video here, and embedded below.

The theory, made composite from Inner City Press' South Korean sources, goes like this:

"South Korean peace keepers receive artillery fire from hostile forces -> SK field commanders immediately request ammunition shipment from Japanese peace keepers in the vicinity -> Japanese cabinet convenes an emergency meeting to approve the shipment -> shipment goes to SK -> upon media scrutiny (as this could mark a landmark shift in Japan's overseas defense activity), SK denies making a direct request to Japan and claims that it was made through UN (UNMISS) -> Japan refutes and even releases a clip from video conf between SK and JP units to prove its point -> UN supports SK's claim -> SK explains that the decision was made by field commanders... To put it succinctly [according to this theory]: Ban is potentially giving political cover for the Park administration by insisting on UN's role in the process."

So why didn't Ban's spokesperson answer Inner City Press' initial written question last week, or Inner City Press' in-person December 31 question? Such stonewalling only gives rise to more questions, or as here, theories. Or, when will it and the other so far ignored questions be answered? Watch this site.

Syria's Ja'afari Wants Probe of Rebel's Gas, UN Says Four Days Just for Ghouta, No Read-outs of Ban Ki-moon's Calls with Kerry and Hague: Why Not?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 28 -- While the proponents of missile strikes on Syria, and belatedly of a draft resolution to authorize it, were hardly forthcoming to the UN press corps on Wednesday, Syrian Permanent Representative Bashar Ja'afari did speak at noon at the UN TV stakeout.

Ja'afari said that he just filed a letter asking that the UN probe be extended to include three days on which he said the Syrian Army inhaled sarin gas he attributed to the rebels or armed groups.

Inner City Press asked Ja'afari to respond to US Secretary of State John Kerry statement that Syria delayed five days in approving the UN's request to inspect the August 21 / al Ghouta site.

Ja'afari said in fact there was no delay. (Yesterday Inner City Press established through questioning that the UN's formal request to Syria wasn't made until Saturday, August 24.)

Inner City Press ran to the UN's noon briefing, which began while Ja'afari was speaking. Inner City Press asked Ban's associate spokesperson Farhan Haq about Ja'afari's request and whether it could be done in the four days Ban said are needed.

Haq said that the four day figure was just to inspect the August 21 site. So, one wonders, would this be twelve more days?

When Inner City Press asked Haq if Ban thinks that use of missiles as publicly mulled by the Obama administration would require UN Security Council approval, Haq pointed to a Ban speech about international law which does not directly address the question.

Inner City Press asked Haq for a list of Ban's telephone calls with heads of state or foreign ministers on the topic of Syria; the answer was no. The Free UN Coalition for Access will keep asking why.

Since the US State Department said at its August 27 briefing that Kerry spoke with Ban, Inner City Press asked for a read-out; the answer was no. But on Inner City Press' question of if Ban raised staff safety - with staff in Syria while the US talks missiles -- Haq searched for and read an If-Asked, about everyone should respect staff safety.

Another reporter seconded Inner City Press' request for Ban's call with Kerry. Haq said the request was "noted." We'll see.

  When the Security Council held an emergency session on Syria on August 21, at a draft press statement was proposed but replaced by a mere meeting summary after Russia and China asked for 24 hours to check with their capitals, new US Ambassador Samantha Power was not present. She was, it has emerged, on a previously scheduled trip to Ireland.

  But now, Inner City Press hears directly from Security Council sources, Ambassador Power has been making calls to other Council members' Permanent Representatives, including in the non-Permanent Five. One of these exclusively told Inner City Press, "She's developed a theory over the years about not needing Security Council approval to take action. So the calls are in that context."

  "But," the source continued, "there is a difference between a country stepping in between two tribes to stop one from killing the other. To shoot cruise missiles from far away, saying you're going to stop chemical weapons that way?" There was a bitter laugh.

  Some contrast the role of Chile during the run-up to the intervention in Iraq to the inability of the Security Council this month to asserts its role under international law. Why doesn't a member table a resolution seeking to stop missile strikes while UN personnel remain in Damascus, the source asked. It was rhetorical. The script appears written - but the calls are being made.

    Much is being made of the Syrian government's delay in granting the UN's request for its chemical weapons inspection team to visit al Ghouta.

Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Farhan Haq at Tuesday's noon briefing when it was that the UN formally requested access to al Ghouta -- on Saturday, August 24 or before? Video here, from Minute 12. Video with captions, on Inner City Press YouTube channel, here and embedded below, with transcript.

Haq read out a press statement from August 22, in which Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said a request is being sent. Then, Haq said, Ban's High Representative on Disarmament Angela Kane "stepped forward with the request" -- on August 24, Saturday.

It was granted the next day.

Inner City Press asked again, was there any formal request by the UN other than Ban's press statement, before August 24? Haq called this "semantics." But when Inner City Press asked Ban's spokespeople to respond to widely circulated press releases about a request being made to Ban, the UN says the actual formal request had not been received yet, and so: no comment. Why should the UN say it must be different for Syria?

How could the UN be so sloppy? Or was it sloppy?

  While the delay to Sunday (or Monday, when the team got out and said, if this YouTube video on which Haq declined comment when Inner City Press asked is not false, that they are not even looking at what type of munition was used in part because they didn't want to put it in their white UN 4 by 4) is now an element in the case for missile strikes, the UN didn't formally ASK until Saturday, in the person of Angela Kane

   Inner City Press covered Kane when she was head of Ban's Department of Management, including an investigation by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services for favoritism in the UN's so-called UMOJA computer management system.

  When Japan's Yukio Takasu returned after a pause from being his country's Ambassador to the UN to take over Kane's job, Kane's native Germany lobbied for her to get another top UN job. She was offered one in Lebanon, as Inner City Press reported, but did not want it. So she "got" Disarmament.

  This connection must be noted: it was Germany which got Kane this job, in the same way that France installed Herve Ladsous as the fourth French head of UN Peacekeeping in a row, and the US picked Jeffrey Feltman, formerly the State Department's chief on the Middle East to replace B. Lynn Pascoe as Ban's political chief.

  So the fact that Germany has expressed a willingness to join a coalition to strike Syria, without UN Security Council approval, and the Germany's Angela Kane's role in the "UN's" chemical weapons inspection team should be noted.

  But by most media covering the UN, it is not. When Inner City Press even mentions Ladsous' and UN Peacekeeping's French connection, Ladsous refuses to answer questions, and some media, including the French wire service Agence France Presse on one of whose management boards Ladsous served, have even filed complaints with the UNagainst Inner City Press. 

  This is dysfunction, and is now being countered by the Free UN Coalition for Access, @FUNCA_info.

  Another major wire service, Reuters, joined in the second of AFP's complaints. On August 26 Reuters based a piece essentially selling or planning for the legality of military strikes on Syria without Security Council or even General Assembly approval around, as lead, a comment by the Council on Foreign Relations' Richard Haass.

  But on that CFR call, as noted by Inner City Press, wasJudith Miller. Given her role during the lead up to the US intervention in Iraq, one might think this would have been included in an overly-long rehash story. But no. 

 Notably, Reuters' UN bureau has been shown to have spied for the UN, handing over an internal anti-Press document of the UN Correspondents Association (which under 2013 president Pamela Falk of CBS hosted Syrian rebel Jarba for what it called a "UN briefing") to UN official Stephane Dujarric. Story here, audio here, document here.

This beat just goes on. Watch this site.