On Syria, US in Washington Post Credits Russia Shift to Ban Ki-moon Pre-Judging Chemical Weapons Report He Hadn't Yet Seen

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 16 -- That Ban Ki-moon serves the US as Secretary General of the UN has been UNdoubted from his first day on the job. But now the US repays the favor, crediting Ban -- anonymously, of course -- with bringing about a shift in Russia position, how ever small, on Syria.

Today's Washington Post reports:

"As Kerry appealed to Lavrov, he mentioned a breaking story in the media. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, meeting with a women’s group in New York, had been quoted as saying that U.N. inspectors who had investigated an alleged Aug. 21 chemical attack outside Damascus had significant evidence that it had taken place and that it was massive, and would report their findings to the Security Council on Monday. The Americans 'sensed a small shift on the Russian side,' the official said, and Lavrov left the meeting, saying he was going to the nearby Russian embassy for consultations with Moscow. He returned and said he would stay for an additional meeting the next day."

  There's a problem, however, with this revisionist tale. As Inner City Press first reported, watching the closed session of the Women's International Forum on Friday, Ban's comments on the Sellstrom report that he had not yet seen were only in response to a question from the floor.

  That is to say, Ban would not have called the report he had not seen "overwhelming" unless the question was asked. So who did the questioner work for? Or, shouldn't the questioner be credited?

  The question to Ban was, why don't you strip Assad of Syria's seat as Gaddafi was stripped of Libya's UN seat? The answer, not given by Ban, is that Ban had nothing to do with that: it is the Credentials Committee of the UN General Assembly.

In the case of Libya, deputy Dabbashi and then Perm Rep Shalgam jumped ship and renounced Gaddafi whom they had for years worked for.

In the case of Syria, Bashar Ja'afari has not similarly jumped ship. No shift of seat is on the horizon. But the Washington Post reports none of this, just the US' post deal spin. We'll have more on this.

   

New Benghazi Books, from Exit the Colonel, a Guardian Short and Shalgam, Long: of Tony Blair and German Solar

By Matthew Russell Lee

 

UNITED NATIONS, October 20 -- Benghazi being one for the books, it has seemed time to cite some recent publications on and from Libya.

  Ethan Chorin's "Exit the Colonel," due for publication on October 23, is surprisingly light on the process at the UN, not even mentioning Resolution 1970 which referring Gaddafi & Co. to the International Criminal Court.

  But Chorin does recount how France "jumped the gun" after Resolution 1973 and began bombing with some eight Rafale jets in what they called Operation l'Harmattan.

 And, to his credit, Chorin critically memorializes that "as of 2008, [Tony] Blair was hired by the US bank JPMorgan to undertake business development in Libya." Blair, of course, continues as representative of the Quartet, while wheeling and dealing in Gaza.

   Chorin also offers this explanation of Germany's abstention on Resolution 1973: "German firms had already begun negotiations with the Libyans to create a vast solar power array in the Libyan desert capable of supplying up to 20 percent of Europe's industrial energy needs." Where is that project now?

  Inner City Press last week asked Libyan Ambassador Abdelrahman Shalgam if he was aware of Chorin's book. He was not, but recounted to Inner City Press anecdotes from his own 559 page book published by Dar al Madarek in Cairo year, about Gaddafi's people.

  Shalgam did not address the conflict in his mission, this time when an underling spoke about the the "siege" of Bani Walid and got fired for his advocacy.

  "He broke the chain of command," another Libyan diplomat told Inner City Press. But didn't Shalgam?

  Nor does "Exit the Colonel" mention Shalgam's deputy Ibrahim Dabbashi, still more active around the UN. It does, however, cite Chris Stevens in the Acknowledgments, as well as Shalgam and his book, several times.

  "Exit the Colonel: The Hidden History of the Libyan Revolution" has been praised by Joe Wilson and Libya uber-pundit Dirk Vandewalle, who was hired by the UN's Ian Martin to help whip up his oft-changed plan for a UN Mission in Libya.

 

The Guardian has put out a "short" by Martin Chulov and Luke Harding, "Libya: Murder in Benghazi and the Fall of Gaddafi." It seems an interesting format, with the Guardian reportedly considering like others dispensing entirely with a printed version. ""Exit the Colonel," too, is available as an e-book from Public Affairs. The hardcover lists at $29.99, so you might want to stay digital. Watch this site.

On Syria, As Russia Nixes Ahtisaari, India On Abstention, Strange Rights of Reply

By Matthew Russell Lee, Partial exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, August 3 -- When the UN General Assembly reconvened for speeches after the Saudi resolution on Syria was adopted with 133 in favor, 31 abstaining and 12 against, Inner City Press asked Russian Permanent Representative Vitaly Churkin what his country thought of Martti Ahtisaari as a replacement for Kofi Annan as envoy to Syria.

   "No, no, he is in deep retirement," Churkin told Inner City Press. Russia clashed with Ahtisaari over his position on Kosovo.

   Inner City Press asked Indian Permanent Representative Hardeep Singh Puri about his country's abstention. He indicated that if the "welcoming" of the Arab League's resolution had instead been "noting," India might have voted yes. He also, in the GA Hall, condemned terrorism in Syria.

   India's abstention allowed the argument, made to Inner City Press at the beginning of the afternoon's session, that more the half of the world's population did not support the Saudi resolution.

   Inner City Press asked the Saudi Permanent Representative about this and he said, Then they could change the way we vote. India's Hardeep Singh Puri added, we believe in One Country, One Vote.

   Syria's Permanent Representative Bashar Ja'afari indicated that this couldn't be an Arab League resolution, since two Arab countries had not supported it. Beyond Syria's negative vote, Algeria abstained.

   Inner City Press was asked via Twitter why Yemen sponsored the resolution but then did not vote. The answer is that Yemen is behind in due and not allowed to vote, despite being pointed to as one of the UN's few "successes" this year.

  Tanzania also abstained, explaining it was due to resolution's lack of focus on "external forces."

  Argentina, whose opposition to the stronger version of the draft had an impact as exclusively reported by Inner City Press, voted yes but said afterward the resolution does NOT in any way authorize force to protect civilians. Thou dost protest too much?

  Similarly, Nigeria said it does NOT support the Arab League's July 22 decisions or telling the Syrian opposition to unify. But Nigeria voted yes.

  New Zealand said that it "joins China" in regretting Kofi Annan quitting. Why China? Well, New Zealand will be running for a UN Security Council seat in a year. That's often what these speeches are about.

  Canada opined that "Annan" Six Point Plan is dead. But like Russia's Churkin said of the UNSMIS mission, it could just be renamed.

   Libya's Ibrahim Dabbashi -- many are unclear if he or Shalgam is the Permanent Representative -- called on the General Assembly to do two things it can't -- impose sanctions and make referrals to the International Criminal Court -- and one thing it could do: try to strip credentials, as happened also for Laurent Gbagbo's Cote d'Ivoire.

  At the end there were Right to Reply statements. Iran trashed the "Zionist Regime." Germany spoke, but did not reply on Syria's statement about its sale of nuclear submarines to Israel.

  The EU deputy representative spoke, but did not reply to critique of EU sanctions. Afterward he told Inner City Press that under the current resolution, the EU does not HAVE a right to reply. That might be a problem.

  Bahrain replied that the forces in its borders "are from Al Jazeera." One wag mused, well that clears it up. And then the debate ended. We will have more on this -- watch this site.

President of GA Admits Qatar Role in His & Ban's Travel, Ban Is Asked to Disclose

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 22 -- For weeks the Office of the President of the General Assembly has refused to answer questions from Inner City Press concerning who paid for the travels of the PGA and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

As the last question permitted on December 22 to PGA Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser, Inner City Press asked this question, and asked for a response to Libyan diplomat Shalgam's critique of "interference" in Libya by Qatar, for which Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser served as Permanent Representative until earlier this year.

Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser declined to respond to Shalgam, suggesting that Inner City Press ask his successor at the Qatari mission, but acknowledged that Qatar has paid for some of his recent travel with Ban Ki-moon. He cited a Qatar provided flight from Nairobi to Doha.

Whether Qatar providing such assistance may present a conflict of interest, or at least should be fully disclosed by the PGA, is a topic for another day. More immediately, Inner City Press moments later asked Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky to disclose material support Ban receives from particular member states.

Nesirky described a number of legs of travel not paid for by Qatar -- his office has previously told Inner City Press Ban traveled to Libya on a "charter" flight -- and acknowledged the Nairobi to Doha flight by Qatar.

Inner City Press asked if the UN Secretariat will disclose, at least going forward in 2012, material support to Ban Ki-moon and his travel from particular member states. Nesirky said he would look into it. Watch this site.

On Libya, As Shalgam Accuses Qatar of Interference, Martin to Gulf, Rice to Tripoli

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 28 -- Libyan diplomat Mohammed Abdel Rahman Shalgam recently accused Qatar of aiding Islamists within Libya. On Monday, Inner City Press asked both UN envoy Ian Martin and US Ambassador Susan Rice about Shalgam's complaints.

Martin finessed the question by mentioning, but not summarizing, his visit to Qatar and the United Arab Emirates: "I recently visited Qatar and the Emirates and discussed how assist... coordinated by the UN." Video here, from Minute 3:55.

Inner City Press asked Martin if the assistant alleged by Shalgam would be contrary to law. Again Martin sidestepped the question, saying that "they made clear" the want to "support in ways agreed with NTC and now with the government." Shalgam IS the government, so clearly this has not always been the case.

Soon afterward Inner City Press put the question to US Ambassador Susan Rice, after she described her recent visit to Tripoli:

Inner City Press: On Libya, the diplomat Shalgam has said, he's complained, that he's said that Qatar has, even since the end of the conflict, been funding parties in Libya, the Islamists, he said. He made this complaint publicly. I think Ian Martin has gone to Qatar and the UAE to speak to both of them. What does, either in your visit, or overall as the U.S., do you think that there are still countries other than Libya sort-of interfering in the process in Libya? What do you make of what Mr. Shalgham said?

Ambassador Rice: Well I've heard those concerns expressed, and I think the most important point is that all friends and supporters of the new Libya need to come together in support of the authority of the new Libyan government. And to channel all of our support and assistance, consistent with their needs and desires.

There are many different challenges that the new Libyan government is facing. How to deal with the militias; security; informing and incorporating all elements of Libyan society into an inclusive government structure; proceeding with an election process in which all feel they have a stake. And so, I think, clearly the message I received from Libyan interlocutors was gratitude for U.S. and international support but a strong assertion of their sovereign need and desire to chart their own future and the request and expectation that their partners all support their agenda.

These are diplomat answers. But as a senior UN official put it to Inner City Press on Monday, there is resentment growing about how Qatar "such a small country" can be buying so much influence. Watch this site.

As Libya Rebels Recognized by Contact Group, UN Stance Unchanged

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 18 -- What has been the impact of the Contact Group on Libya last week deeming the National Transitional Council as the legitimate government?

At the UN, none. A spokesman for the chair of the Libya Sanctions Committee said that there are not changes to the sanctions or arms embargo. (In any event, as Inner City Press covered, France parachuted weapons into the Nafusa mountains.)

At Monday's UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky if the UN would change its decision to silence the NTC's representatives, Abdurrahman Mohamed Shalgam and Ibrahim Dabbashi:

Inner City Press: with the decision by the Contact Group to recognize the National Transitional Council as essentially the Government of Libya, I wonder [what] that changes. I know that the UN Secretariat gave these courtesy passes to former Ambassador Shalgham and his deputy, Ibrahim Dabbashi. But then it imposed some conditions that they couldn’t speak at the stakeout, but they could come into the building. Does the Contact Group decision about who is the legitimate representative of Libya change anything about the Secretariat’s decision on these two diplomats that have gone to the Benghazi side?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Not to my knowledge, because the Contact Group is not responsible for recognizing or otherwise.

Inner City Press: Could we get Ian Martin? Is it possible, given Ian Martin’s now even more prominent role in this, you know, transition in Libya, to have him either do a stakeout or come to the this room just to describe what his work is and where it stands?

Spokesperson: We can certainly ask.

So far, nothing. Watch this site.

Footnotes: while Dabbashi most recently predicted to Inner City Press that Gaddafi would be "gone by mid-July," it's now July 18, and he's still there...

A question put to the IMF's spokespeople on Monday, whether the Contact Group's decision changed in any way the Bretton Woods institution's previous stance of not working with the National Transitional Council has so far not been answered. It will be asked at the IMF's next briefing.

On Libya, US Says Arming Rebels Is Legal, Deferred Answer on Visas of d'Escoto

By Matthew Russell Lee

WASHINGTON DC, April 14 -- While at its April 14 briefing the US State Department on Libya was primarily asked why it is not arming or funding the rebels, giving more planes or even “whacking” Gaddafi, described as “fist pumping” in a convertible in Tripoli, Inner City Press ask State Department spokesman Mark Toner if allowing funds to the rebels might not result in violations of the arms embargo in UN Security Council resolution 1970.

While the idea is that arming the rebels would require another resolution, beyond 1973, Toner replied that arming the rebels is legal. See transcript:

MR. TONER: We believe that – our understanding of the sanctions and what was prohibited, that this was – this action was legal, that it was lawful.

Inner City Press: How about the arms embargo? How does – I mean, if this – both revenue streams, do you feel that the arms embargo under Resolution 1970, which is a total arms embargo on the country, is this something that you would be discussing with (inaudible)? Do you think – you keep saying that the revenue stream is only for the operation of the government.

MR. TONER: We’ve talked about this before, and what we’ve said is that 1970 – taken in totality, 1970 and 1973 – that it is permissible to get arms to the opposition, and that’s something that remains on the table, certainly. We’ve never taken that option away.

Inner City Press: And could I ask you about visas, too? So also on Libya, there – I’ve tried to ask this to the mission in New York --

MR. TONER: Yeah.

Inner City Press: -- but there was – there were stories saying that Ali Treki, who is the former foreign minister of Libya, was denied a U.S. visa, more recent stories saying that D’Escoto Brockmann, who was named to represent Libya, couldn’t get a visa. Is that true? And what’s the visa status of the two diplomats who left?

MR. TONER: D’Escoto Brockmann is the Nicaraguan?

Inner City Press: Nicaraguan. Absolutely.

MR. TONER: Okay. Yeah. I’m trying to remember, but this is a couple weeks ago, I believe, when this was in the news. But we had very real concerns about his status, and I believe we were looking into it, but at the same time, obviously, complying with our obligations as a host nation for the UN. But we felt that he had – we had concerns – there were concerns about his status here that needed to be addressed. I don’t know what the exact status is today of that, though. I’d have to check.

Inner City Press: (Inaudible) the Nicaraguan? His --

MR. TONER: Yes, the Nicaraguan. As far as the Libyan --

Inner City Press: The representatives – yeah, Shalgam and Dabbashi.

MR. TONER: -- representative – I’m not sure what the status of that is. I’ll have to check for you.

Inner City Press: : Okay. Yeah, thanks.

Seven hours later there still was no answered. And while an official of the US Mission to the UN, which has rebuffed Press questions about visas for some time, told Inner City Press that on Libya the legality of UN envoy al Khatib also being paid by Jordan would be publicly addressed this week, it hasn't been. We'll see -- watch this site.