UNGA Speeches Have Ban Without Ladsous, Lykketoft Without UNHCR, Rousseff Goes Local

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 28 -- 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.

   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, for what audience was this meant? Watch this site.
   

After Rousseff Lays Out Brazil's INDC, ICP Asks of Deforestation, Livestock

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 27 -- After President Dilma Rousseff announced Brazil's Intended Nationally Determined Contribution on September 27, Inner City Press -- having fought from being excluded -- asked her how the INDC proposes to offset for continued deforestation and subsidies to the livestock industry. Video here.

   In the General Assembly Hall, Rousseff laid out the outlines of Brazil's INDC:

“We are investing in low-carbon farming. We have reduced deforestation in the Amazon rainforest by 82%. Rest assured that we will continue to undertake ambitious actions. I therefore would like to announce that the contribution of Brazil will be a reduction of 37% of its greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. Our ambition is to reach a reduction of 43% by 2030. The base year in both cases is 2005.

 “In this context, Brazil intends to adopt the following measures by 2030, regarding agriculture, livestock and the use of land: first eliminating illegal deforestation; second, restoring and reforesting 12 million hectares; third, recovering 15 million hectares of degraded pastures; and fourth, creating 5 million hectares of integrated crop-livestock-forest area.

  “Concerning energy, our objectives are: first, a ratio of 45% of renewable sources in our total energy mix. It should be noted that the global average is only 13%. Second, a proportion of 66% of hydropower in our electricity generation output. Third, a share of 23% of renewable sources, including wind, solar and biomass power, in our electricity output; fourth, an increase of 10% in our electricity efficiency rate; and fifth, a proportion of 16% of ethanol fuel and other sugarcane-derived biomass sources in our total energy mix."

 We'll see.

Back on August 11 after the then-most recent climate change announcement, this time by Australia, Inner City Press on August 11 asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric about it, video here, transcript here:

Inner City Press: in the statement about the countries coming out with their climate change targets, Australia came out with one.  It's sort of become a touchstone, many people are saying there's no way it would lead to 2°C…

Spokesman Dujarric:  First of all, we very much welcome countries that issue their INDC.  It's an important step, and we very much hope that all Member States will do so.  They really need to be seen as a floor and not a ceiling.  They're a starting point.  There will be discussions prior to Paris.  There will, obviously, be discussions in Paris.  People are free to, obviously, express their opinion on certain countries' INDCs, but for our part, we're glad we have them, and we do see them as a starting point in the discussions.

Back on June 18 when the UN gave a climate change briefing by UNDP's Cassie Flynn, and Jo Scheuer, on June 18 Inner City Press asked about the under-funding of the Least Development Countries Fund, and if South Korea is backsliding in its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions. Video here.

  The answers, on film, were to promote other funding vehicles, and to say that South Korea has still yet to file its INDC.

Back on June 4 the UN's Assistant Secretary-General on Climate Change Janos Pasztor held a press conference and Inner City Press asked him about unspent funds at the Clean Development Mechanism in Bonn, and about reported backsliding by South Korea on its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions on greenhouse gas reduction.

  Pasztor said that the CDM is still needed; he said country have committed not to backslide. Video here. (South Korea had yet to submit its INDCs, it seems). Inner City Press asked Pasztor to provide a comment, if he has one, once South Korea's filing is made.

Back on May 5, Inner City Press asked him about criticism of the Green Climate Fund, including at the recent Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Video here and embedded below.

  Specifically, why will the "Green" Climate Fund provide financial for coal-powered plants? Pasztor replied that some felt that an exclusion for coal would have been divisive. On statements at the PFII that the UN is helping to "monetize" nature, Pasztor replied that most states feel differently. But what about the indigenous?
  
  Pasztor in his opening statement had praised the UN Pension Fund for now investing in "green equities" and "green bonds." Since the UN has responded to Press questions about irregularities alleged at the Pension Fund by emphasizing how separate and independent it is, Inner City Press asked Pazstor if the UN Secretariat had brought about this Pension Fund decision.

 Pazstor replied that the Pension Fund answers to the Secretary General and that "she" - Carolyn Boykin, presumably - had made this decision. We'll have more on this, after noting Pasztor by no means the least responsive UN official...

 When last September 21 the People's Climate March assembled at Manhattan's Columbus Circle, there were anti-corporate puppets in front of the Trump International Hotel and Tower, speeches by coal miners and from the Marshall Islands.

   Many called on the UN to do better. But UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon joined the march mid-way, at Radio City Musical Hall with New York Mayor Bill de Blasio. Senator Chuck Schumer was on hand, walking by a Bronx contingent chanting how Fresh Direct has broken its promises.

  Inner City Press' 90 second video of the march is here.

  The UN's or "BKM" (Ban Ki-moon) Climate Summit will feature Cargill and Walmart, Credit Agricole and Bank of America. The last of these is the first, in terms of funding mountain top coal removal. These are the contradiction. Inner City Press tweeted photos on@InnerCityPress. More to follow.

French Delegation Holds Hollande Presser on No Notice, Asserts Control, CAR Question

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 27 -- A year after French President Francois Hollande tried to privatize the UN Press Briefing Room by having non-French journalists removed, his team on September 27, 2015 adopted a different strategy for the same result. At 8:40 am the UN said there would be a press conference by Hollande in just five minutes, at 8:45 am. Call it innovation.

  Apparently in his press conference, Hollande had many of the seats in the front of the UN Press Briefing Room “reserved” - because Brazil cited this as a precedent for their 11:30 am press conference by Dilma Rousseff (that's another story).  France, returning with Hollande for a session scheduled for 2:15 pm, again tried to control spaces in the front rows, as did the old UN Correspondents Association, which ejected a visiting journalist from “its” seat.

 And the question for Hollande? For Inner City Press, it would be what actions have been taken on the French soldiers alleged to have raped children in the Central African Republic. Watch this site.

Update: After Hollande came in, two people who had sat next to Inner City Press through the entire Japanese briefing from 1:30 pm got up, to give their seat to Laurent Fabuis and Royale. Then a lady approached Inner City Press, in full view of UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric, and told Inner City Press to move, she's a "minister." Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access said Non, je suis journaliste, je veux poser ma question.

Meanwhile Ban Ki-moon said Peru's President Humala regretted not being present. But he WAS present, next to Hollande. Inner City Press asked Humala about the Trans Pacific Partnership on September 27: watch this site.

Back on September 23, 2014 the entourage of French President Francois Hollande repeatedly ordered the UN accredited Press to leave the UN's Press Briefing Room.

  A briefing by Hollande had been scheduled for 11 am, then was canceled. But at 10:55 am as a previous briefing about climate change was ending, Inner City Press was told to leave the room.

  The question, On whose orders? was not answered. Instead a woman in the French delegation said the room was "reserved." 

   This is not a restaurant, Inner City Press replied, now on behalf of the new Free UN Coalition for Access, which advocates for the rights of journalists and for a Freedom of Information Act covering the UN.

  Another member of the French delegation said loudly, "They'll take away his accreditation." It was not necessarily an idle threat: the UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric had looked into the room as this happened. 

   Inner City Press said, if UN Media Accreditation -- or UN Security -- tell me to leave, I will. But not before. Video here.

  Meanwhile the representative of the old UN Correspondents Alliance meekly left; previously, UNCA did nothing when previous French Permanent Representative Gerard Araud in this room told a Lebanese reporter, "You are not a journalist, you are an agent."

  After a time, the woman from Hollande's entourage said that the chief of UN Media Accreditation, whom she made a point of saying she knows well, was not answering the phone. A French security guard told Inner City Press to leave. But this is not their role, in the UN briefing room.

  Finally the French foreign minister Laurent Fabius and the new Permanent Representative to the UN came and sat in the front room with Inner City Press and FUNCA.  Hollande appeared from the doorway Spokesman Dujarric had looked out of.

  Hollande said he had come mostly about climate change, but that a French citizen had been taken hostage in Algeria by a group linked with ISIL or "Da'ech," as he called the group. He said arms deliveries would continue; he noted the previous night's air strikes, by others, on Syria.

  Hollande said he would meet in the afternoon with the Syrian Opposition Coalition's Hadi al Bahra, who he called the only legitimate leader of Syria. Then he left without taking questions.

  The day before, UNCA hosted al Bahra (as they had his predecessor Ahmad Jarba) in the clubhouse the UN gives this group, publicized only to those which pay it dues. Given that UNCA did nothing when Araud told the Lebanese reporter "you are not a journalist, you are an agent," why didn't Hollande hold his press conference in the club of UNCA, the UN's Censorship Alliance?

   

UN General Assembly Debate Schedule Has Ukraine & Egypt, Mugabe & Sri Lanka, Abbas & Kiir: A September to Remember?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 31 -- When UN General Assembly week begins on September 24, US President Barack Obama will speak second after Dilma Rousseff of Brazil, as before. But according to the scheduled Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access are today putting online here, then things get more interesting.

The head of state of Morocco, presumably the King, is scheduled for that same first morning, along with France's Francois Hollande and Argentina's Cristina Kirchner. That afternoon starts with Evo Morales of Bolivia, which has just declared Israel a terrorist state.

Thursday, September 25 has the head of state of Iran, presumbly Hassan Rouhani, and then back to back Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine and President Sisi of Egypt. That afternoon has for example Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Mahinda Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka, as well as Joseph Kabila of the DRC and Erdogan of Turkey.

On Friday, September 26, the head of state of the State of Palestine, Mahmood Abbas, is on the schedule; in the afternoon there's Haiti, Venezuela, Serbia and Nepal.

Saturday, deep into the General Debate, Russia and China go back to back represented by ministers, as is Security Council member Australia. The afternoon has Salva Kiir of South Sudan but from Burundi, the Vice President.

Monday, September 29 has the Deputy Prime Minister of Syria and ministers from Thailand and Bahrain. The afternoon has Malaysia.

The final day, September 30, has the Head of Government of Israel and a minister from Sudan in the morning; in the afternoon a minister of North Korea or the Democratic People Republic of Korea as well as Myanmar. And then it's over, or should be. Watch this site.

   

Follow the Money: US Owes UN $795M, Brazil $75M, First 2 Speakers in GA, Peacekeeping Shorts Rwanda, India, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Pakistan: #Ladsous2013

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 9 -- It's an annual ritual, the UN Controller's report to member states on who much they owe and are owned. But Wednesday morning in the UN's Fifth (Budget) Committee, Controller Yukio Takasu flashed a slide of the two biggest "deadbeats" in paying the UN.

  The US owes $795 million; the second slowest-payer is Brazil, at $75 million. The irony is that these were the first two speakers at the UN's General Debate in late September. (Brazil's Dilma Rousseff slammed the US for spying; Obama delivered a lecture light of Africa, click here for Inner City Press review.)

  Some wonder: should you speak first, if you pay last?

  Takasu also fleetingly disclosed the growing shortfall in or underpayment to UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row to hold the position.

  At the end of 2012, states had not paid UN Peacekeeping $2.1 billion. Now? Takasu put the figure at $3.4 billion. It seems fair to ask if among the reasons might not be declining confidence in Ladsous. Certainly, the news of Ladsous' lack of responsiveness has now spread beyond the UN -- click here for an article in yesterday's New Statesman in the UK.

  Ladsous is a deadbeat, too. Given Ladsous' history in the Great Lakes region -- click here for that -- it is problematic that UN Peacekeeping owns $37 million to Rwanda, seemingly its highest per-capita debt.

  UN Peacekeeping also owns India $80 million, Ethiopia $54 million, Bangladesh $50 million and Pakistan $49 million. It's a South Asian thing - plus Abyei, the entire peacekeeping mission in which Ethiopia runs.

  After Takasu's presentation, Inner City Press asked him off-camera about a story it's working on involving stealthy Qatari funding (Inner City Press has asked if Saudi Arabia will be solicited too, a form of competition like in Syria and Egypt, and also for transparency). We'll have more on this. Watch this site.

   

On Syria, Questions About UN Trust Fund & Plans, on Cyprus; Ban Ki-moon Said to "See From One Eye"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 8 -- The chemical weapons mission to Syria will have its back-office in Cyprus, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has told the Security Council in a letter released Monday night.

  So it is not strange that at a Cypriot photo exhibition in the UN lobby on Tuesday evening, Inner City Press spoke with Syria's Permanent Representative to the UN Bashar Ja'afari. He told Inner City Press that while even US Secretary of State John Kerry is praising Syria for its compliance, Ban Ki-moon is not.

He sees from one eye, Ja'afari said.

  Recent background to this was Ban Ki-moon, after receiving an urgent complaint from Ja'afari, doing nothing as France held an event inside the UN declaring Saudi-sponsored rebel Ahmad al Jarba the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people.

  After that, Ban invited Jarba to his UN-provided home on Sutton Place, met with him and issued a read-out which was longer than Ban's read-outs with several Presidents, notably from Latin America including even Dilma Rousseff of Brazil, who criticized the US for spying.

  Another attendee at Tuesday's Cyprus event went further than Ja'afari, saying Ban's response when US President Barack Obama was threatening cruise missiles on Damascus "said it all."

Here's from the transcript of the UN's noon briefing on October 8, Inner City Press questioning Ban's associate spokesperson Farhan Haq about Ban's letter:

Inner City Press: he said that he is considering establishing a trust fund, so I wanted to know if you could say a little bit how that works, is it anyone that wants to contribute to it? And the other one is, it says, he has this idea that in phase three, Member States are gonna be invited to provide additional assistance, not only equipment but he seems to say security, so I just wanted to know what does this mean, is this gonna be a mission under DPKO [Department of Peacekeeping Operations], is the reference to Member States in phase three an idea that there would military security provided by countries not under DPKO or what, or just if you can say a little bit more what’s the intention of this paragraph.

Associate Spokesperson Haq: Well, first of all, these are recommendations, proposals, that have gone to the Security Council. So, the important thing is to see how the members of the Security Council will react. And, of course, we await a response from the Security Council to this. This is his recommendations in terms of how we are to abide by the various timelines that the Security Council have given for us to do this work. But, I would just refer you to the letter itself, which says, “given the complex nature of phase three,” which is — for those of you who have been following this, the phase stretching from 1 November of this year until the end of June 2014 — “given the complex nature of phase three, additional analysis and consultation is required, involving the OPCW, the United Nations and Member States which may be in a position to contribute to the associated activities in order to develop a viable operational concept and conduct the necessary planning”. So, that would need to be the first step, is essentially dialogue amongst those parties.

Inner City Press: just a follow-up because it has this phrase about it being highly probable that Member States would be asked to provide security, I understand the Security Council has to approve it, but I wanted to know, is this a proposal that this security would be through a mission under DPKO or that they would authorize other forces to go into Syria, that’s the question.

Associate Spokesperson Haq: Well, I don’t think we can get ahead of ourselves here. First, of course, like we said, the Security Council needs to consider this letter, and respond as appropriate. Beyond that, as I just said, there would need to be a dialogue involving the United Nations, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and key Member States. And we will have to see what the results of those… that dialogue would be.

Inner City Press: I am sorry to be still on this letter, but where it says that there will be a special coordinator that the Secretary-General would appoint in consultation with the Director-General of OPCW, is this a name that would then be put through the Security Council kind of like an SRSG [Special Representative of the Secretary-General] is, advise and consent, or is it entirely up to the two, heads of the Organizations? And because I am trying to understand this idea that everything is up to the Security Council, on the trust fund, he says “I also intend to establish a trust fund”. So, does that mean also, with the approval of the Security Council, or is that something he can do himself?

Associate Spokesperson Haq: Well, the first foremost point is we are awaiting what the Security Council’s response to this letter will be. It is the Security Council, mind you, who requested this letter within a ten-day deadline. We have met that deadline, we have presented these proposals, and we will have to see what the reaction will be.

Inner City Press: it’s just to understand what part of what he is proposing is something that he is saying, this is what I want to do, please approve it. And which part of it is he just saying this is what I intend to do and I am going to do, which is different.

Associate Spokesperson Haq: The letter as whole is a response to their request for a concept of operations for a series of proposals. He has now presented them the proposals and it is for them to review. Yes, Pam?

We'll have more on this Trust Fund. Watch this site.

   

As Process Starts for a New UN Building, Would It Provide More or Less Access? he Free Coalition for Access (FUNCA) Is on the Case

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 2 -- Not unlike a Friday afternoon document dump, the first public hearing about the UN's proposed new building to take over the Robert Moses Playground south of 42nd Street was held on September 24. 

  It was the first day of the just-concluded General Debate. President Barack Obama, pre-shutdown, spoke that day, just after Brazil's Dilma Rousseff slammed US spying.

  At the very time of the public hearing, UK foreign secretary William Hague and UN Sexual Violence in Conflict envoy Bangura held a stakeout. Inner City Press attended that, asking about 135 rapes in Minova by the UN's partners in the Congolese Army. Video here, from Minute 7:22. But now, this report.

  The building would be 36 stories tall, connected to the existing Secretariat Building by a tunnel. It would be developed by the UN Development Corporation, which did One UN Plaza (where Iran's Hassan Rouhani held his press conference last week) and the UNICEF building.

  The architecture of the so-called UN Consolidated Building, by FXFOWLE and Japanese architect Fumihiko Maki, is described as drab. There is, not surprisingly, local opposition to the loss of the playground. A Wikileaked cable from then-US Ambassador Susan Rice about the underlying security issues is online, here.

  Security can go overboard. Witness for example the unceremonious ripping-out on 44th Street and 47th Street this week of the CitiBike racks installed just months earlier. The heads of state are gone, but the bikes and even racks aren't back. (Click here for Inner City Press tweeted photograph, night of October 1.)

  The current $2 billion renovation of the existing UN is still not complete; the General Debate was held in a temporary building with no media seats, no nearby stakeout, and little access. Would this proposed new building offer more access? That is among the questions the Free UN Coalition for Access @FUNCA_info will be asking.

  The City's ULURP process can take some time; there is also the certainty of a new Mayor, and new City Council speaker, coming in. Watch this site.

   

Ban Ki-moon's 106-Word Jarba Read-Out Trumps Latin Presidents Including Brazil, & Uganda PM

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 30 -- UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon met with Saudi-sponsored Syria rebel boss Ahmad al Jarba on September 28 at his (UN-provided) residence. It was not on the UN Media Alert, but afterward his Office of the Spokesperson issued a 106 word read-out of the meeting.

  All this despite and without responding to an urgent September 24 protest from Syria's government. Inner City Press asked about Syria's letter; Ban's Office of the Spokesperson replied that it was not aware of the letter.

   Inner City Press immediately provided a copy and asked, "what is the Secretariat's response to the argument? Separately, as now applies to SG's September 28" meeting with al-Jarba?

More than a day has elapsed, and there has been no response. Rather, the questions have mounted. If it was an unofficial or personal meeting, why was there a read-out more than 100 words long?

We must therefore compare this Jarba read-out to some of Ban's other read-outs, for now just between September 22 and September 24 with a focus on Latin America.

  For the President of Paraguay on September 22, Ban Ki-moon's Office of the Spokesperson issues a read-out of 71 words -- compared to 106 words for the Saudi sponsored Syria rebel boss Jarba.

  For the President of Panama on September 22, Ban's Office issued a read-out of 41 words, less than half of its Jarba read-out.

  On September 23 for the President Santos of Colombia, a country with major UN operations, Ban's Office of the Spokesperson issued a read out of 70 words. WithUruguay's President Mujica the read-out was 59 words, including noting that Uruguay is a major per-capita peacekeeping contributor.

  Even for Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, Ban's read out was shorter than for Jarba, despite Rousseff raising the US's widespread spying through the NSA. (Ban, it should be remembered, said that whistleblower Edward Snowden "misused" information and his position, in a closed door meet with Iceland parliamentarians which he later claimed was "closed").

So Ban was more detailed with Saudi-sponsored rebel Jarba than with the president of Brazil?

While we'll have more on this, Ban's "going light" (particularly when compared to his still not fully explained or justified meeting with Jarba) is not confirmed to Latin America. 

   As simple one Africa example, for Ban's September 20 meeting with Amama Mbabazi, Prime Minister of the Republic of Uganda, the read out was only 54 words, despite the upcoming UN Security Council trip to Uganda as well as the DRC, Rwanda and Ethiopia.

   For that, Ban's Office solicited journalists' request to go(after first limiting the invitation only to those paying money to the UN Correspondents Association, which held a fauxUN briefing by Jarba in July) -- but then allowed colonial powerhouse France to handpick which correspondents could go.

And so, some wonder, particularly after his Saturday night meeting with Jarba, for whom does Ban Ki-moon work? Watch this site.

   

At UN, Obama Dodges Critique of Spying, Denial of Palestine Visa, Spins Syria, Delegates DRC and Africa to France

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 24 -- Before US President Barack Obama began his speech Tuesday in the UN General Assembly, Brazil's Dilma Rousseff devoted much of hers to denoucing US spying programs.

Obama may have foreseen that -- Rousseff canceled a planned meeting with him -- but barely mentioned it. Rather as his staff had predicted, in a pre-speech call Inner City Pressreviewed here, he focused on Syria, Iran and "the Middle East," meaning Palestine and Israel.

Even on that, the US for example has delayed or denied the visa of a State of Palestine First Secretary from coming to the GA, see Inner City Press story, here.

On Syria, Obama said that neither the US nor any other country should decide who will take over in Syria. One wonders if he says that to Saudi Arabia, which sponsored Syria rebel boss Ahmad al Jarba, poised for a back-doorfaux "UN briefing" hosted by a group of Gulf and Western journalists.

As predicted, Obama's speech was light on Africa. The mentions came near the end, of US support for France and then the African Union in Mali, chasing the Lord's Resistance Army in "East Africa," and bombing Libya -- with the fig leaf of a Security Council resolution, of course.

There was no mention of Sudan, which Obama and his adviser have said they care so much about. While Obama used "Rwanda" as a trope of genocide, along with Srebrenica, he did not mention the UN's one-sided approach in the Democratic Republic of the Congo -- another country, like Mali and Ivory Coast, which the US has left to France.

  Obama cited Bahrain, calling it sectarian -- no mention of the 10 year sentence of US national Taqi Al Mayden. In the middle of his speech, the UN loud speaker in the UN Media Center, without enough seats or electrical outlets, pitched first a treaty signing by Russia's Sergey Lavrov, then a photo op of Ban Ki-moon and the State of Palestine's Abbas.

Later today Ban will also press the flesh with Sri Lanka's president Mahinda Rajapaksa. Obama said the US will take action to stop "mass atrocity" -- but it did not in Sri Lanka in 2009, and Obama did not mention the country. (As Inner City Press noted on Sunday, Samantha Power did, at the Social Good Summit.)

  After Obama, Turkey's president Gul zoned in on Syria, no mention of spying, nor of Rousseff's indirect criticism by contrast of Turkey's crackdown on Occupy Gezi in Taksim Square and elsewhere.

  Let the speech count begin: how many mentions of Syria? How many of the attack at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya? How few other mentions of Africa? How many mentions of the US' spying? Watch this site.