After Libya Bombing in Qubbah, Sanctions Threat Fails In UN Security Council, Leaving Only Generic Anti-Terror Press Statement

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 21, more here -- The UN, after ousting Tarek Mitri as envoy in favor of Bernardino Leon, has been promoting its good works in Geneva and in the country. 

 And so on February 20, after the bombing in al-Qubbah claimed by an ISIS affiliate, Leon's UNSMIL mission issued a condemnation.

 Things were not so simple, however, in the UN Security Council. The UK proposed a Press Statement which the members of the Security Council would have reaffirmed their readiness to consider sanctions under resolution 2174 (2014) against those who seek to impede this process and undermine Libya’s democratic transition.

 But this was NOT adopted. It seemed to treat the GNC in Tripoli as the Security Council recently treated or addressed the Houthis in Yemen.

 Instead, past 11 pm in New York, a generic statement of the that the Security Council uses against any terrorist attack was agreed to an issued. Most would simply report it. But there was something NOT adopted, that is significant.

Often except in cases where the drafter wants to complain of blocking such moves go unreported or even covered-up. This may happen in the ongoing process to replace Valerie Amos at OCHA; on Jan Kubis replacing Nickolay Mladenov for the UN in Iraq, Inner City Press exclusively reported it on February 18 and asked at the day's noon briefing; others echoed without credit days later. This is the UN.

Earlier on February 20 Inner City Press asked UK Permanent Representative Mark Lyall Grant of the US and it seems Russia opposing lifting the arms embargo. Lyall Grant replied diplomatically that it was all being negocatiated. But there are solid positions, aren't there?

  On February 18, speaking before the foreign ministers of Libya (Tobruk) and Egypt, Leon again cited his own work, see below.

 After the meeting at a stakeout by the foreign ministers of Libya and Egypt, Inner City Press asked if they wanted other countries' military help. Some video here.

 Egyptian Foreign Minister Shoukry replied that they want "solidarity," and "consistency" with the approach against ISIS taken in Iraq and Syria. (Those are two different approaches, of course.)

 The lifting of the arms embargo imposed on the Libyan government in 2011 is being proposed. Qatar may be against that - but what about Security Council member(s)? We'll have more on this.

In the meeting, Leon said: "given the sense of urgency, I have called for the next meeting of the political dialogue to finalize discussions initiated in Geneva on the formation of government of national unity and security arrangements to pave the way for a formal and comprehensive cessation of hostilities.”

  At the Security Council stakeout before the Jordan-requested meeting began, UK Ambassador Lyall Grant said the meeting would provide a chance to hear from Libya and Egypt; he said he hadn't yet seen the draft resolution. (Another non-Arab Permanent Representative said they HAD seen the draft.)

 After Leon, Libya's foreign minister said he is not requesting an international intervention, only wants Egypt's help.

 Egypt's Foreign Minister Shoukry, citing the killing of the US Ambassador in Benghazi, said that too little was done after the parliament was chased to Tobruk. He said he is counting on Jordan to distribute the draft resolution. Some of the Council say they have a different line of thinking. Watch this site.

At the UN Security Council's meeting on February 15 -- about Yemen -- nothing was said about ehte Egyptians in Libya. But hours later a Senior US State Department Official issued this:

"Secretary Kerry called Egyptian Foreign Minister Shoukry today in the aftermath of the horrific video showing the murder of twenty-one Egyptians. The Secretary offered his condolences on behalf of the American people and strongly condemned the despicable act of terror.  Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Shoukry agreed to keep in close touch as Egyptians deliberated on a response."

 Bernardino Leon, as Inner City Press exclusively reported, was installed as head of UNSMIL after then-head Tarek Mitri declined to make the UN mission a mere appendage of European / UK diplomacy. Is it working?

  UNSMIL's former deputy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed of Mauritania has been moved to head UNMEER, the UN's Ebola mission. Sources in Yemen say Ould Cheikh Ahmed was the UN's “designated security official” when a UNICEF staffer was taken hostage while traveling to the Sana'a airport without the required (and needed) security detail. Some say Ould Cheikh Ahmed was distracted, in Yemen and later in Libya, by side business interests. 

  But a check of Ban Ki-moon's Public Disclosure website, where his officials are supposed to make rudimentary disclosure of the finances and outside business interests, does not even list Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed (while numerous other Deputy SRSGs are listed). His is not in the most recent database, for 2013 - and may escape any disclosure by become an Under Secretary General with a mere nine month stint at UNMEER. Then what? We'll stay on this.

  When the UN Security Council met about Mali on January 6, it was Malian Foreign Minister Abdoulaye Diop, and not UN Peacekeeping official Herve Ladsous, who distributed his speech and came to take Press questions. (Ladsous has a policy against it, here and here.)

  Inner City Press asked Diop about the Mali talks in Algiers, and about the impact of Libya. On the latter, Diop said that “in 2012 the Mali crisis started when the war started in Libya and many Malian elements who were part of the Libyan army decided to come back home with the arms and ammunition. This started the destabilization of Mali.”

   Diop added, "In the southern part of Libya there is a group that has declared allegiance to the Islamic State.” (When asked to name the group he could not or would not.)

    A Greek ship near Derna was bombed -- Inner City Press on January 5 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric by whom; he said the UN does not know.  The Free UN Coalition for Access has asked UN Peacekeeping why the speeches of Ladsous, unlike other UN officials, are not made available.

 Back on November 4 when the UN Security Council met about Libya behind closed doors, the Press outside at the stakeout was repeatedly told that Leon would come and take questions at the stakeout.

 This is what the replaced Tarek Mitri did, each time he briefed the Security Council. With Leon being criticized inside Libya it would seem he'd have all the more reason to speak.

  But he did not. When he came out he barely broke stride -- Inner City Press took a photograph, blurred -- while saying the new Security Council Gary Quinlan of Australia would speak later. When Quinlan did, it was a bland "Press Elements."

  Still the scribes churned it. At 8:15 pm Agence France Presse bragged that it had "obtained" a French-drafted request to put Ansar al-Sharia, Benghazi and Derna, on the Al Qaeda sanctions list. 

"A copy of the French-led request to the Al-Qaeda sanctions committee was obtained by AFP." Wonder how...

   Reuters issued a breathless report with unnamed diplomats at 8:19 pm. Both have tried to get smaller investigative Press thrown out of the UN - see documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, here andhere - and this request by Reuters to censor one of its complaints to the UN from Google's Search.

  Back on August 27 amid airstrikes in Libya, when outgoing UN envoy Tarek Mitri briefed the UN Security Council, the airstrikes weren't even mentioned in his more than six page prepared text distributed by the UN.

  Inside the Council chamber, improvising but only a little bit, Mitri mentioned the strikes, but not who did them. Back on August 19 and once again since, Inner City Press asked the UN if it knew anything about who was behind them:

Inner City Press: Who did the air strikes?  General Haftar?  What's the UN, either Mr. León or Mr. Mitri or whoever is currently in charge, what's their sense of who's doing air strikes in Tripoli?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I don't… I think we reported back with the Mission yesterday, if there's anything more I'll share it with you.

  But in the days since, the UN has said nothing. Now the Libyan Dawn group  has taken over the Tripoli airport despite the airstrikes and alleged that the strikes have the involvement of Haftar's (or Hiftar's) supporters, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. What does the UN -- or now Bernardino Leon -- know and say about that? Watch this site.

On Leon: To try to counter Libya's lawless power struggle, the UN engaged in one of its own. 

  And unlike most of the member states that make up the UN, and most other inter-governmental organizations, this UN does not answer questions, at least not directly.

  After Inner City Press repeated asked about it, including at the UN's noon briefings on August 11 and 13, on August 14 the UN said Bernardino Leon will take over as its Libya envoy on September 1.

  When Inner City Press asked if that is really Leon's starting day, given that he's said he'll go to Tripoli as early as next week representing the UN, Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq said Leon is merely "familiarizing" himself with the work he will be, and Mitri remains in place until September 1. Really?

  Ignoring the previous questions and the power-play, wire services likeReuters merely retyped ("reported") the UN's August 14 announcement that Leon will start September 1. And now?

 Back on August 1, Inner City Press exclusively reported that UN envoy to Libya Tarek Mitri was being "pushed out" of the post, including by UK envoy to Libya Jonathan Powell, and cited his brother Lord Powell's extensive business in Libya through Magna Holdings.

  The UK mission, usually responsive, did not provide comment on written Press questions on this; at UN Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant's August 4 press conference Inner City Press asked about Powell's and Mitri's relationship, without direct answer, see here.

  Then the UK's Ambassador to Libya Michael Aron has announced, on Twitter no less,  that Mitri is out and Ban Ki-moon has installed a new UN envoy, former Zapatero diplomat Bernardino Leon Gross.

  The UN, at least at its August 8 noon briefing and in emails since, has not announce anything about replacing Mitri, much less by whom.

  Ban Ki-moon's office said that for August 9 and 10, "Spokesperson on call:  Mr. Farhan Haq." So Inner City Press wrote to Farhan Haq, as well as to lead spokesman Stephane Dujarric:

Hello. Now that the UK Ambassador to Libya, and others, have announced that Ban Ki-moon has appointed Bernardino Leon to replace Tarek Mitri as Ban's representative to Libya, head of UNSMIL, this is a request on deadline - today - that your Office confirm that this appointment or nomination has been made.

Has the letter been sent to the Security Council?

Is Leon already confirmed?

If not, how it is appropriate that P5 countries are saying he already has the job?On deadline, today.

Given many of the ongoing Afghanistan leaks are about UN DSS and UNAMA, not UNDP, there will be further questions. But the above is on deadline for today. Thank you in advance.

  But more than four hours later, by "close of business" in New York, the "spokesperson on duty" had not answered, had not even acknowledged receipt of the question.

  What does it mean to be the UN's "spokesperson on duty"?

   Isn't it for Ban Ki-moon to make this announcement? In fact, in 2011 when France had already gotten its Jerome Bonnafont in place to replace its Alain Le Roy atop UN Peacekeeping, Bonnafont's bragging about it in India, where he was French Ambassador, led to Ban rescinding the "offer."

  France countered with three time loser Herve Ladsous, Inner City Press reported each step -- including Bonnafont in July 2011 being tapped for the post, and even congratulation cards to Bonnafont, here, and threats from AFP then the UN Correspondents Association -- and the rest is, well, a type of history (coverage in UK New Statesman, here).

  Ladsous refuses all Inner City Press questions, video compilation here; Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq on August 8, alluding to Ladsous and now UNDP, said it is because of "people skills." Or reporting?

  So Ban has accepted or done nothing to stop this P3 power grab to oust Mitri. But can "his" successor be pre-announced and Ban accept that too? 

Footnote: Inner City Press is exclusively informed that UNSMIL deputy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed also has business, literally: fisshing business. Ban and those in control of this play accept that too? Watch this site.

Background: Inner City Press on August 1 asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric what UN envoy Tarek Mitri is doing; Dujarric said he was not aware but would check.

  Inner City Press had reported that Mitri, unlike the other UN international staff who relocated to Tunis, went back to his native Lebanon. Sources in the region exclusively told Inner City Press that Mitri had been hoping for a government post in Lebanon, describing him as less than committed to remaining with the UN.

   Now we can report more. These knowledgeable sources say that Mitri is being "pushed out," mostly they say by the UK's envoy to Libya, former Tony Blair aide Jonathan Powell.

  "Mitri was expected to take on a mostly support function," one source told Inner City Press. "He stood up and said no, headquarters didn't back him up and now he's being pushed out." We'll have more on this.

  It was nine days after Libya's foreign minister Mohamed Abdel Aziz at the UN Security Council stakeout told the Press his country wanted international help to protect oil fields and ports, including airports, that the US announced it had relocated its Tripoli embassy staff out of the country to Tunisia.

  Inner City Press asked, where is UN envoy to Libya Tarek Mitri? He briefed the Security Council from Beirut -- sources tell Inner City Press he has been on vacation there, and this deputy, too, was out of the country.

  Back on July 17 when Libya's foreign minister Mohamed Abdel Aziz emerged from the UN Security Council to take questions from the media, Inner City Press asked him to be more specific about what type of “support” force he is asking for.

  Mohamed Abdel Aziz replied that the request is not for a “military” force -- but then went on to say say the force should protect oil fields and ports. If that's not military, what is it?

  Inner City Press also asked Mohamed Abdel Aziz for Libya's current position on the US arresting Abu Khatallah. Compared to the complaints of others, Mohamed Abdel Aziz said that even though under international law it is unacceptable, since Libya can't protect witnesses, maybe it is okay.

  Given the current state of affairs, what is “Libya's” position?

  Meanwhile on July 17 the UN's envoy to Libya Tarek Mitri told the Security Council -- by video from his native Lebanon, while other UN international staff are in Tunisia -- that the fighting has “cast a shadow over the election on 25 June of the 200 member Council of Representatives.” Ya don't say.

 Mitri said that barely forty percent of the 1.5 million registered Libyans went to the polls. He said 12 seats will remain vacant; 41 candidates were disqualified under the post-Gaddafi Law on Political and Administrative Isolation. Final results are supposed to be announced on July 20. Watch this site.

   

On Ukraine, UNSC Resolution on Minsk Deal Adopted Just After Press Statement on Debaltseve, New Diplomatic Two-Step Technique?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 17 -- Three days into the stated ceasefire in Eastern Ukraine, and  half an hour before a vote on Russian-drafted resolution, the UN Security Council issued a Press Statement. Then it adopted a resolution, 15-0. 

When Security Council president Liu Jieyi of China read the Press Statement out, Inner City Press asked him if it was linked to votes on the resolution. He replied he expected that to be unanimous -- and it was. Lyall Grant of the UK telegraphed it, saying that  he would be voting for it (he asked if the Press Statement had been read out). A new technique?

In the resolution the Security Council, “reaffirming its full respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine,” says it “endorses the 'Package of measures for the implementation of the Minsk Agreements,' adopted and signed in Minsk on 12 February 2015.”

The resolution “welcomes the Declaration by the President of the Russian Federation, the President of Ukraine, the President of the French Republic and the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany in support of the 'Package of measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements", adopted on 12 February 2015 in Minsk and their continuing commitment therein to the implementation of the Minkk Agreements.”

Referring to the earlier resolution about downed Malaysia Airways flight MH17, the resolution notes it is “reaffirming its Resolution 2166 (2014).”

In the Press Statement, by contrast, "the members of the Security Council expressed grave concern at the continued fighting in and around Debaltseve, Ukraine, which has resulted in numerous civilian casualties.

The members of the Security Council regretted that, despite the announcement of a ceasefire on 15 February, violence has continued in recent days in some parts of eastern Ukraine.

The members of the Security Council called on all parties to immediately cease hostilities and abide by commitments agreed in Minsk, including facilitating access for the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to monitor and verify compliance with the Minsk Agreements. 

The members of the Security Council further called on all parties to treat detained individuals humanely."

   And so it goes at the UN.

On February 16 the US State Department said

"The United States is gravely concerned by the deteriorating situation in and around Debaltseve in eastern Ukraine.  The OSCE Special Monitoring Mission confirms that attacks continue in this area as well as other locations, including Sievierodonetsk, Luhansk, and Donetsk city.  The Government of Ukraine reports that its forces have been fired on 129 times in the last 24 hours by Russia-backed separatists, killing 5 and wounding 25, including attacks on a convoy evacuating the wounded from Debaltseve.  The separatists have publicly declared that they refuse to observe the ceasefire in Debaltseve, and OSCE monitors have not been provided security guarantees for access."

On this last, the OSCE also said that "The SMM encountered two restrictions to their freedom of movement on 15 February in Donetsk region: on the outskirts of Debaltseve by members of the “Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”) and near Vynohradne (101km south-south-west of Donetsk) by Ukrainian Armed Forces personnel."

  So what of this second denial of access? And what of the pending draft UN Security Council resolution? On February 15 Malaysia's Ambassador said he has requested an amendment about MH17; some said the response would come on February 16. 

 But by 5 pm, the UN was quiet but for a North Korea press conference, here. Watch this site.

  Back when the midnight ceasefire deadline approached, Ukraine's President Poroshenko broadcast from Kiev, and CNN from Mariupol, praising the Azov Battalion. 

  Some in the media seems disappointed the ceasefire wasn't immediately broken. Al Jazeera put on an analyst from the Rand Corporation prediction Russia would break it.

   Twenty two hours later -- with the UN Security Council yet to act on a draft resolution about the deal in Minsk, see below -- UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon put out this statement:

"The Secretary-General welcomes the start of a cease-fire in eastern Ukraine as agreed on 12 February under the package of measures for implementation of the Minsk accords.

"He notes that the cease-fire appears to be largely holding, giving a desperately needed respite to civilians trapped in the area and contributing to a swift and peaceful resolution of the conflict. However, the Secretary-General is seriously concerned over reports of continued instances of hostilities including in Debaltseve and reiterates his call for all parties to abide by the cease-fire without exception.

"The Secretary-General reminds all of the significance of the cease-fire, which forms the basis for the broader implementation of the Minsk accords and to restore peace and stability to Ukraine."

  At the UN Security Council on Sunday, February 15, there was a vote on Yemen, here, but not on Ukraine. Why not? Malaysia's Permanent Representative told the Press that he had proposed adding language about downed flight MH17 and was waiting for a response from Moscow. Some said this would come on Monday - also a holiday -- at 10 am. We'll see.

  Late on February 14, a Senior US State Department Official provided this read-out:

"In a conversation with FM Lavrov today, the Secretary [Kerry] underscored the importance of full implementation of the Minsk agreements, beginning with a full ceasefire at midnight tonight local time. He also expressed concern about the fierce fighting around Debaltseve, and efforts by Russia and the separatists to cut off the town in advance of the ceasefire. They also discussed negotiations in New York on a draft UNSCR welcoming  the Minsk agreements, as well as Syria."

  The Russian proposed resolution on the "Package of measures for the implementation of the Minsk agreements" is "in blue," and could be voted on Sunday, February 15 at 10 am in New York, as Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access reported on Friday, here. There is also a (GCC drafted) resolution on Yemen.

On February 13, Inner City Press asked Ukraine's Ambassador Yuriy Sergeyev about the IMF deal and the border, video here.

Back on January 23 the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights spoke, belatedly, on pension and travel restrictions imposed by the authorities in Kiev.

  On January 30, Inner City Press asked Ukrainian Permanent Representative to the UN Yuriy Sergeyev about the OHCHR and UN High Commissioner for Refugees' criticisms, about Kiev's requests to the International Monetary Fund and its relationship with the Syriza party in Greece.

  Sergeyev started with this last, saying he understands Syriza has changed its position and will be visiting Kiev. Sergeyev referred to maintaining EU "solidarity." On the IMF, he said Ukraine's new Finance Minister has predicted the country will receive a new tranche from the IMF by the end of February.

  On pensions, Sergeyev said they were cut off because money cannot be delivered into zones not under government control; he said pensioners can receive their money if they leave the zone. But aren't there restrictions?

 On January 23 the OHCHR on pension and benefit payments, on which Inner City Press has reported on since November, said 

"the impact on civilians of the recent decision by the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine to restrict movement in and out of the areas controlled by armed groups. As of 21 January, people traveling to and from these areas need to obtain special passes and provide documents to justify the need to travel. These limitations are worrying, especially in light of the escalating hostilities. It adds to concerns created by the Government decision in November 2014 to discontinue providing State services in the territories controlled by armed groups. The introduction of such restrictions will likely have a severe effect on the most vulnerable groups, such as older people, mothers with children and people with disabilities who may depend heavily on social benefits. We urge Ukrainian authorities to take immediate steps to redress this situation."

  But will they? UNHCR, the UN's refugee agency, added on January 23 that

  “New security clearance procedures are put in place and specific documentation is now required to pass through checkpoints in the east of Ukraine. These new procedures apply to Ukrainian nationals, the United Nations, NGOs, national and some other international humanitarian organizations.

   “These restrictions on movements within Donetsk and Luhansk regions in the east of the country further complicates an already difficult situation for those forcibly displaced and made worse by the intensified fighting we have seen in recent days,” the UNHCR briefing notes said. “These practices restrict access to non-government controlled areas and limit the delivery of needed humanitarian assistance into the conflict zones. The Ukrainian government has reportedly adopted this resolution which entered into force yesterday (Thursday 22 January) limiting all movements in and out of the conflict zones."

   Christine Lagarde has announced that "the Ukrainian authorities have requested a multi-year arrangement with the Fund, supported by the Extended Fund Facility, to replace the existing Stand-By Arrangement."

   Back on November 12, UN Assistant Secretary General Jens Toyberg-Frandzen said, among other things, that "on November 5, Prime Minister Yatsenyuk announced that pensions would be halted to areas under rebel control."

  Inner City Press, covering the meeting from just outside the Council chamber, spoke to a range of passing diplomats and was left with this question: isn't the halting of pensions to rebel held areas a form of collective punishment?

 Once posed, with the words "accrued pensions," two defenses of the practice came in. First, that pensions in Ukraine are not accrued but are based on taxes collected and none are being collected in Donbas. Second, that trucks with pension payments were being robbed.  The word "Western Union" was bandied around.

  Last 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.

   

After Peshawar Attack, UNSC Statement, Zeid on Taliban, Afghan Future

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 16, more here -- After the attack on a school in Peshawar, on Tuesday morning at the UN Inner City Press asked a Pakistani diplomat about a UN Security Council statement. "I hope they make one," he replied. "Do you think they will?" They did - past 9 pm.

  Earlier the Office of the Spokesperson for Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced that Ban would speak about the school attack in his speech to the Security Council about the African Union.

 Ban asked or told Chad, as Council president, with your permission I will make a statement. Then he said, “the UN will continue to support the efforts of the Pakistani authorities in their fight against terrorism and extremism. I urge the Government of Pakistan to make every effort to bring the perpetrators to justice.”

 Later, past nine PM, the Security Council issued this statement:

The members of the Security Council condemned in the strongest terms the depraved and savage terrorist attack against children that occurred at a school in Peshawar, Pakistan on 16 December 2014, causing the death of over 140 innocent civilians including 132 children and countless injuries, for which Tehrik-e-Taliban has claimed responsibility.  They expressed their deep sympathy and condolences to the victims of this heinous act of terrorism and to their families, and to the people and Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The members of the Security Council also wished a speedy recovery to those injured.

The members of the Security Council condemned in the strongest terms this targeting of schoolchildren and a school by terrorists.  They reiterated their condemnation of violations and abuses committed against children by terrorists and welcomed the ongoing efforts of the people and officials of Pakistan to protect schools and schoolchildren.

The members of the Security Council reaffirmed that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security, and that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, wherever, whenever and by whomsoever committed.

The members of the Security Council reiterated their determination to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations.

The members of the Security Council underlined the need to bring perpetrators, organizers, financiers and sponsors of these reprehensible acts of terrorism to justice and urged all States, in accordance with their obligations under international law and relevant Security Council resolutions, to cooperate actively with relevant authorities in this regard.

The members of the Security Council recalled that Tehrik-e-Taliban is included on the Al Qaida Sanctions List and is thus subject to the asset freeze and arms embargo in resolution 2161 (2014) and further recalls that any individual or entity that provides financial or material support to the group, including the provision of arms or recruits, is eligible to be added to the Al-Qaida Sanctions List and subject to sanctions measures.

The members of the Security Council commended the resolute efforts of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to counter the menace of terrorism.  The members of the Security Council underscored that this or any other attack by the Tehrik-e-Taliban would only strengthen their resolve to support the people of Pakistan and fight terrorism. The Security Council will continue to support the efforts of the Pakistani authorities in their fight against terrorism and violent extremism.

 There is some discussion of "good and bad Taliban."

Given the new bilateral agreements between Afghanistan with NATO, and separately with the US, some were asking: a new UN Security Council resolution needed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch this site.

    

As In Baghdad UN Convoy Attacked, Staff Safe, UN Security Council / Ban Ki-moon Statements to Come, UNlike for Leon in Libya?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 16, more here -- After a UN convoy in Baghdad was attacked, UN envoy Nickolay Mladenov there issued a statement on the UN mission's website, and a tweet.

  Inner City Press asked Mladenov if a statement from the UN in New York - from the Security Council or Secretary General Ban Ki-moon -- would help.

 

 Mladenov replied that he had put out a statement, which is good.

  But when does the UN Security Council, and Ban, issue statements? A week ago the UN (formerly EU) envoy to Libya Bernardino Leon was targeted by a car bomb. No Security Council press statement - although one was issued later in the week when the empty embassies of Egypt and the UAE in Libya were bombed. (Now a hotel in Benghazi is being hit with air strikes, but that's another story.)

   Was there no statement about the attack on Leon at Leon's request? Was there a desire not to recognize or publicize this attack on the UN? And what of the attack now in Baghdad, where the UN suffered the Canal Hotel bombing in the past? We've asked, and we'll see.

  Back on November 9, hours after a bombing in Libya near UN envoy Bernardino Leon, which came after Libya Dawn in Tripoli called him not impartial and persona non grata, still the UN in New York had not put out any statement at all.

  Instead, UN Department of Political Affairs' new spokesman merely selectively emailed to some Western media. No statement; nothing on the UNSMIL mission's web site. To new Free UN Coalition for Access, this is a new low in UN (non) communications.

 Back on November 4 when the UN Security Council met about Libya behind closed doors, the Press outside at the stakeout was repeatedly told that Leon would come and take questions at the stakeout.

 This is what the replaced Tarek Mitri did, each time he briefed the Security Council. With Leon being criticized inside Libya it would seem he'd have all the more reason to speak.

  But he did not. When he came out he barely broke stride -- Inner City Press took a photograph, blurred -- while saying the new Security Council Gary Quinlan of Australia would speak later. When Quinlan did, it was a bland "Press Elements."

  Still the scribes churned it. At 8:15 pm Agence France Presse bragged that it had "obtained" a French-drafted request to put Ansar al-Sharia, Benghazi and Derna, on the Al Qaeda sanctions list. 

"A copy of the French-led request to the Al-Qaeda sanctions committee was obtained by AFP." Wonder how...

   Reuters issued a breathless report with unnamed diplomats at 8:19 pm. Both have tried to get smaller investigative Press thrown out of the UN - see documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, here andhere - and this request by Reuters to censor one of its complaints to the UN from Google's Search.

  Back on August 27 amid airstrikes in Libya, when outgoing UN envoy Tarek Mitri briefed the UN Security Council, the airstrikes weren't even mentioned in his more than six page prepared text distributed by the UN.

  Inside the Council chamber, improvising but only a little bit, Mitri mentioned the strikes, but not who did them. Back on August 19 and once again since, Inner City Press asked the UN if it knew anything about who was behind them:

Inner City Press: Who did the air strikes?  General Haftar?  What's the UN, either Mr. León or Mr. Mitri or whoever is currently in charge, what's their sense of who's doing air strikes in Tripoli?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I don't… I think we reported back with the Mission yesterday, if there's anything more I'll share it with you.

  But in the days since, the UN has said nothing. Now the Libyan Dawn group  has taken over the Tripoli airport despite the airstrikes and alleged that the strikes have the involvement of Haftar's (or Hiftar's) supporters, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. What does the UN -- or now Bernardino Leon -- know and say about that? Watch this site.

On Leon: To try to counter Libya's lawless power struggle, the UN engaged in one of its own. 

  And unlike most of the member states that make up the UN, and most other inter-governmental organizations, this UN does not answer questions, at least not directly.

  After Inner City Press repeated asked about it, including at the UN's noon briefings on August 11 and 13, on August 14 the UN said Bernardino Leon will take over as its Libya envoy on September 1.

  When Inner City Press asked if that is really Leon's starting day, given that he's said he'll go to Tripoli as early as next week representing the UN, Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq said Leon is merely "familiarizing" himself with the work he will be, and Mitri remains in place until September 1. Really?

  Ignoring the previous questions and the power-play, wire services like Reuters merely retyped ("reported") the UN's August 14 announcement that Leon will start September 1. And now?

 Back on August 1, Inner City Press exclusively reportedthat UN envoy to Libya Tarek Mitri was being "pushed out" of the post, including by UK envoy to Libya Jonathan Powell, and cited his brother Lord Powell's extensive business in Libya through Magna Holdings.

  The UK mission, usually responsive, did not provide comment on written Press questions on this; at UN Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant's August 4 press conference Inner City Press asked about Powell's and Mitri's relationship, without direct answer, see here.

  Then the UK's Ambassador to Libya Michael Aron hasannounced, on Twitter no less,  that Mitri is out and Ban Ki-moon has installed a new UN envoy, former Zapatero diplomat Bernardino Leon Gross.

  The UN, at least at its August 8 noon briefing and in emails since, has not announce anything about replacing Mitri, much less by whom.

  Ban Ki-moon's office said that for August 9 and 10, "Spokesperson on call:  Mr. Farhan Haq." So Inner City Press wrote to Farhan Haq, as well as to lead spokesman Stephane Dujarric:

Hello. Now that the UK Ambassador to Libya, and others, have announced that Ban Ki-moon has appointed Bernardino Leon to replace Tarek Mitri as Ban's representative to Libya, head of UNSMIL, this is a request on deadline - today - that your Office confirm that this appointment or nomination has been made.

Has the letter been sent to the Security Council?

Is Leon already confirmed?

If not, how it is appropriate that P5 countries are saying he already has the job? On deadline, today.

Given many of the ongoing Afghanistan leaks are about UN DSS and UNAMA, not UNDP, there will be further questions. But the above is on deadline for today. Thank you in advance.

  But more than four hours later, by "close of business" in New York, the "spokesperson on duty" had not answered, had not even acknowledged receipt of the question.

  What does it mean to be the UN's "spokesperson on duty"?

   Isn't it for Ban Ki-moon to make this announcement? In fact, in 2011 when France had already gotten its Jerome Bonnafont in place to replace its Alain Le Roy atop UN Peacekeeping, Bonnafont's bragging about it in India, where he was French Ambassador, led to Ban rescinding the "offer."

  France countered with three time loser Herve Ladsous, Inner City Press reported each step -- including Bonnafont in July 2011 being tapped for the post, and evencongratulation cards to Bonnafont, here, and threats from AFP then the UN Correspondents Association -- and the rest is, well, a type of history (coverage in UK New Statesman, here).

  Ladsous refuses all Inner City Press questions, video compilation here; Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq on August 8, alluding to Ladsous and now UNDP, said it is because of "people skills." Or reporting?

  So Ban has accepted or done nothing to stop this P3 power grab to oust Mitri. But can "his" successor be pre-announced and Ban accept that too? 

Footnote: Inner City Press is exclusively informed that UNSMIL deputy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed also has business, literally: fisshing business. Ban and those in control of this play accept that too? Watch this site.

Background: Inner City Press on August 1 asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric what UN envoy Tarek Mitri is doing; Dujarric said he was not aware but would check.

  Inner City Press had reported that Mitri, unlike the other UN international staff who relocated to Tunis, went back to his native Lebanon. Sources in the region exclusively told Inner City Press that Mitri had been hoping for a government post in Lebanon, describing him as less than committed to remaining with the UN.

   Now we can report more. These knowledgeable sources say that Mitri is being "pushed out," mostly they say by the UK's envoy to Libya, former Tony Blair aide Jonathan Powell.

  "Mitri was expected to take on a mostly support function," one source told Inner City Press. "He stood up and said no, headquarters didn't back him up and now he's being pushed out." We'll have more on this.

  It was nine days after Libya's foreign minister Mohamed Abdel Aziz at the UN Security Council stakeout told the Press his country wanted international help to protect oil fields and ports, including airports, that the US announced it had relocated its Tripoli embassy staff out of the country to Tunisia.

  Inner City Press asked, where is UN envoy to Libya Tarek Mitri? He briefed the Security Council from Beirut -- sources tell Inner City Press he has been on vacation there, and this deputy, too, was out of the country.

  Back on July 17 when Libya's foreign minister Mohamed Abdel Aziz emerged from the UN Security Council to take questions from the media, Inner City Press asked him to be more specific about what type of “support” force he is asking for.

  Mohamed Abdel Aziz replied that the request is not for a “military” force -- but then went on to say say the force should protect oil fields and ports. If that's not military, what is it?

  Inner City Press also asked Mohamed Abdel Aziz for Libya's current position on the US arresting Abu Khatallah. Compared to the complaints of others, Mohamed Abdel Aziz said that even though under international law it is unacceptable, since Libya can't protect witnesses, maybe it is okay.

  Given the current state of affairs, what is “Libya's” position? Watch this site.