Showing posts with label spin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label spin. Show all posts

Thursday, March 24, 2016

On Western Sahara, Inner City Press Is Told Egypt Grills Statement, Spain Is "Blackmailed"



By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 23 -- Why didn't UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon go to El Aaiun in Western Sahara, even to visit the headquarters of the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara?  And why on March 21 did Ban say, "We had a good meeting in the Security Council today" when his deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq toldInner City Press it was fine it was excluded between there were no Secretariat staff involved? Who is Ban's "we"?

 As the UN Security Council had another round of closed door consultations about MINURSO on March 23, Inner City Press' sources tell it that a mild draft Press Statement is being "shot down" by Egypt, for the Arab Group or League - with France once again able to hide its imminent veto on the issue.

 As to Spain, whose foreign ministry has yet to answer - and in full disclosure whose highest UN official Cristina Gallach ordered Inner City Press out of the UN on two hours' notice and it still trying to seize its office, restrict its ability even to cover the Security Council on Western Sahara, video here -- sources says it is "blackmailed."

 What does that mean? Morocco can turn on migration, act on the small territories, has many Spanish companies on its territory and at sea. "Unless a larger power tells Spain to be decisive on this, Spain will just drivft," was the verdict. We await the ministry's comment.


Cristina Gallach, with Qatar's ex-PR, Spain sign, credit UN Photo/Evan Schneider

  UN DPKO boss Herve Ladsous went into the Security Council on the afternoon of March 23 without a word or answer. On his way out at 4:30 pm, Inner City Press asked him, Any progress on MINURSO? No answer. Any response to the Tony Banbury op-ed? One his in entourage laughed. Would retaliation follow? For Inner City Press, it already has. Watch this site.

On March 22, Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq:

Inner City Press: yesterday, you'd said that the 8:30 event in the Security Council had no Secretariat involvement.  And then, later in the day, myself and a colleague were in the second-floor hallway and asked the Secretary-General what it was being accomplished on Western Sahara, and he said, "We had a good meeting in the Security Council today."  So I wanted to know, what does that mean?  Was there…

Deputy Spokesman:  He was talk about the luncheon.

Inner City Press:  He said “in” the Security Council.

Deputy Spokesman:  He was talking about the luncheon.  He had a luncheon with the Security Council.

Inner City Press:  Right.  In the Security Council?

Deputy Spokesman:  I mean, you can quibble with his prepositions, but that's what he was referring to.

Inner City Press: On what basis do you say there was no Secretariat involvement in the 8:30 event?

Deputy Spokesman:  On the basis of the fact that I'm aware of my colleagues in Security Council Affairs Department (SCAD) and they had no involvement.  There were no interpreters even.

Inner City Press:  I also have another question on Western Sahara.

Deputy Spokesman:  Okay.

Inner City Press:  Okay.  Thanks a lot.  I wanted to know… I've seen a photograph of military equipment, which has been put on alert in the last few days, and I've also seen a chain of e-mails that this was sent to Mr. [Edmond] Mulet from Mr. [Christopher] Ross, also to Mr. [HervĂ©] Ladsous.  And I wanted to know, since they've received this, what's their reaction to it?  And will you give a readout of Mr. Ladsous' and [Atul] Khare's meeting of TCC's (troop-contributing countries) yesterday afternoon at… in… on the second floor of the Conference Building?

Deputy Spokesman:  Regarding that, this is simply a discussion with troop contributors at a time of great concern about the situation in Western Sahara, so they provided an update on the situation there.

Inner City Press:  And what about the equipment?  What's the response of this e-mail between Mr. Ross, Mr. Ladsous and Mr. Mulet showing essentially missiles and massed troops?

Deputy Spokesman:  I… this is one of a number of issues that needs to be resolved, and we'll have to see what they do in further discussions.

  Now we asked, What is the position of Spain the former colonial power in all this? On March 21 Inner City Press asked Angola's Foreign Minister Georges Chikoti what had been accomplished on defending MINURSO; his answer declined comment on the "Spanish Sahara."

Earlier on March 21, having had difficulty getting an answer from Spain's Mission to the UN particularly after Cristina Gallach, the highest Spanish official in the UN system, ousted Inner City Press from its office and the UN without due process -- and from the Western Sahara meeting, Periscope here -- sent this to Spain's Foreign Ministry Spokesperson:

From: Matthew Russell Lee [at] innercitypress.com
Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 9:15 AM
Subject: Press Q on Spain's position on Morocco ordering out 83 UN/AU staff from MINURSO, and UN doing it, on deadline, thanks
To: cecilia.yuste [at] maec.es

Hello -
This is a Press request to know Spain's position on Morocco ordering 83 UN (and AU) staff to leave “the territory of the Kingdom of Morocco,” as they referred to Western Sahara - and, separately, to UNSG Ban Ki-moon and/or DPKO chief Herve Ladsous deciding to in fact evacuate these staff to Las Palmas.
We have not heard Spain's position from the Mission here - there are other issues - and so put this question to you, on deadline. Please acknowledge receipt and provide substantive response asap.
Thank you in advance,
Matthew Russell Lee,  Inner City Press
Office at UN: Room S-303, UN HQ, NY NY 10017 (??)
Cell: 718-716-3540 [& 
http://www.funca.info/]
Email Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com and this
www.twitter.com/innercitypress and @FUNCA_info
www.InnerCityPress.com
Periscope live broadcasts: https://www.periscope.tv/innercitypress
Video of protest in Jaffna, Sri Lanka (in Tamil) https://youtu.be/bKofyMHwJUs
Sri Lanka Sunday Times, March 20, 2016 http://www.sundaytimes.lk/160320/columns/187127-187127.html
   But twelve hours later, no answers at all...

As the 8:30 am meeting took place, Inner City Press once it got about the retaliatory Ban imposed by UN official Cristina Gallach heard from its sources that this photograph of troops and missiles - note the flag(s) - was circulating among the highest UN officials including DPKO chief Herve Ladsous, and that Morocco was moving to oust even MINURSO military personnel from Dakhla. There were still no other media present at 9:30 am.

  Inner City Press arrived at the UN at 8:20 am and as passing through the now required (by UN censorship and retaliation) metal detectors saw a convoy diplomats from the Morocco mission going in.

 But up at the Security Council, the door for "non-resident correspondents" was locked; Inner City Press' current pass downgraded in retaliation by the UN doesn't work on the turnstiles and there was no guard present.

 Inner City Press set up in the hall, but from there was unable to put questions -- as it has  right to -- to the Permanent Representatives going in.

  Seen, through glass, were the Perm Reps of France and Spain chatting amiably; PRs of New Zealand and Ukraine and Russia; American Deputy David Pressman.

  At the noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq, Vine here (video still not provided)


UN transcript here:

Inner City Press: there was a meeting this morning at 8:30 and most of the permanent representatives of the Council went in and I wondered if you could explain.  I was unable to cover it.  The door was locked to the Council.  It was definitely a meeting.  I saw them going in.  There were ambassadors of the P-5 and others that went in.  Why didn't your office announce this meeting and why was the door for non-resident correspondents locked to go to the stakeout and speak to people?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  We ourselves were not privy to the meeting.  It was a meeting for ambassadors only.  As far as I'm aware there was no Secretariat staff, including interpreters.

 Later on March 21, along with telling Ban (again) that his Under Secretary General for "Communications" Cristina Gallach and Security had thrown Inner City Press out of its office and the UN as a whole on February 19, Inner City Press asked Ban what he was doing on Western Sahara.

 Ban said, "We had a good meeting in the Security Council today."Audio embedded here.


But didn't Haq say it was fine to Ban Inner City Press because there were no Secretariat staff involved? Beyond who is Ban's we, does the justification for censorship stand up?

Beyond having physically thrown Inner City Press out of the UN, twice, does Ban's UN not want the media on its announcement list to cover such a meeting?

Inner City Press had heard of the Monday 8:30 am meeting from sources in the region on Sunday evening. Then past 2 am on Monday, Polisario's US representative sent out an announcement that "the Security Council will meet at 8:30am on Monday morning to discuss the new crisis."

New York, 20 March 2016 – The UN representative of Western Sahara’s government, the Frente POLISARIO, has condemned Morocco’s expulsion on Sunday of UN peacekeepers from Western Sahara, calling it a “slap in the face to the Security Council, and a dangerous provocation that could lead to war.”

 The African Union called Morocco’s decision “a very dangerous precedent that challenges the mandate of the UN Security Council in maintaining international peace and security." Polisario added, "If the Security Council fails to respond, it would not only threaten peace and security in the Maghreb region, but undermine and endanger many UN peacekeeping missions around the world.”

 Moroccan state media MAP reported on March 20 that “significant number” of UN staffers had left El Aaiun airport in UN aircraft and commercial flights to Las Palmas in Spain, that 73 U.N. staffers had left and 10 would leave in the afternoon.

  Why did Ban (or the head of UN Peacekeeping, Frenchman Herve Ladsous) give in? If, in the most positive light, it was for staff safety --which was ignored for example in Sri Lanka -- why has Ban not come out and said that? This is a new low.

  On March 16, Inner City Press asked the US State Department about Western Sahara and then (from the State Department briefing room) published this, emailed to Inner City Press from Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner:

"The United States continues to support the UN-led process designed to bring about a peaceful, sustainable, and mutually-agreed solution to the conflict in the Western Sahara, one in which the human rights of all individuals are respected.

We support the work of the UN Secretary General’s Personal Envoy for the Western Sahara and the mandate of the UN Mission for the Referendum on Western Sahara (MINURSO).

We encourage all of the parties to remain fully and actively engaged in pushing the process toward an effective resolution."

  But on March 19, a strongly rumored UN Security Council meeting about Western Sahara did not happen, at least by 3 pm.

It seems friends of Morocco - read, France - argued that the meeting was not needed. But what of Morocco's "note verbale" telling 84 people to leave "the territory of the Kingdom of Morocco"?

 That's the rub - under international law, Western Sahara is NOT "the territory of the Kingdom of Morocco." So how can 84 people be ordered out this way?

 Contrary to the analogies UN and DPKO spokesman Stephane Dujarric used, Eritrea kicking out UNMEE for not enforcing its legal right to Badme, or Chad kicking out MINURCAT, Morocco is not the host country of MINURSO.  So the note verbale, which in any event should have been sent to the Security Council, is not effective.

 But what is the role of Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row atop UN Peacekeeping, in this - and in the ouster of Inner City Press on February 19, ostensibly by his fellow Frenchman Stephane Dujarric and Cristina Gallach, the highest official of Spain in UN System? We'll have more on this.

Meanwhile two tweets from the account of the acting spokesperson for the US Mission to the UN got a lot of play, on both sides of the issue,click here to view.


  On March 18 Inner City Press asked Kirby, again, about theGovernment Accountability Project's letter to the US Mission to the UN about UN retaliation against the Press. Kirby said, "I’m also happy to refer you to our mission up in New York City." Later his office put in writing, "On the question on the Government Accountability Project letter, we’d refer you to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations."

But Inner City Press has already asked three at the US Mission about the GAP letter.

After the Security Council met on March 18 about Western Sahara, the Council's President for March, Ambassador Gaspar Martins of Angola, said the members had agreed to work both bilaterally and as  Council. Which is it? Left solo, France reflexively defends Morocco. French Ambassador Delattre on his way in said:

"With respect to Western Sahara, we, as France, but also as member of the Security Council, are having one clear objective, which is to appease the tensions. And that is why we believe that, at this stage, an important thing in order to appease the tensions, is for Morocco and the UN to have a serene, respectful, and in-depth dialogue. We believe this is absolutely important in order to, again, appease the tensions. This is our number one priority, and we will continue on this path."

 Sounds bilateral... Watch this site.

On March 14, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric about an upcoming meeting it had heard from other sources about. From the UN transcript:

Inner City Press: Has there been a request by Morocco's Foreign Minister to meet with the Secretary-General this week?

Spokesman Dujarric:  Yes.

Inner City Press:  And will that be an open photo op?

Spokesman Dujarric:  The meeting is still… we're still working on the scheduling of the meeting.  Obviously, it will be a photo op, as it is usually with every Foreign Minister that comes to town.  Vine here.

 And then, despite Inner City Press' question, Dujarric's office waited until four minutes before the deadline to go up to photograph the meeting to announce it. Some photo op.

 On February 29, Inner City Press directly asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric, who replied that Ban's trip will be in two parts -- it's just that when the El Aaiun portion will happen is not known.

On March 7, Dujarric called in to the UN Noon Briefing from - where else -- Paris and made much of Ban's visit to part of the MINURSO mission but not its headquarters. Dujarric said there would be a second stage of the trip - to Rabat.

  Inner City Press now asks: why did the English language UN transcription of the March 7 briefing include Dujarric Q&A on Western Sahara, here -- while the UN's French language transcription, here, pointed did not?

Is this to please France?  On March 10 Inner City Press asked Dujarric,Vine hereUN transcript here:

Inner City Press: when you called in from Paris about Western Sahara, I've looked at the transcriptions, the UN transcriptions of the noon briefing that day in English and French.  And in English, there's your whole Q&A about Western Sahara, and in French, it's just not there.  And I'm wondering, is there some reasons? They're both working languages, et cetera.  What's the reason for that?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I don't… I'm not sure we put out a transcript in French of my…

Inner City Press:  No, in English… in the English noon brief…

Spokesman Dujarric:  I'm not sure we put out a transcript; I'll check.

  Twenty five hours later, nothing. So on March 11, even as Dujarric tried to deny Inner City Press any more questions, Inner City Press asked, UN transcript here:

Inner City Press: on Western Sahara, do you have an answer on the two press statements, English and French?

Spokesman Dujarric:  No.  But I… we're working on it.

  Vine here. Then Dujarric abruptly walked out of the UN Press Briefing Room, from which he ousted Inner City Press directly on January 29, and indirectly through another on February 19.

  Working on it? How hard can it be? At 6 pm on March 11 Dujarric's office called "lid," end of day, still without answering; Dujarric said something about "two weeks." Watch this site.

  On March 7, Inner City Press asked Dujarric if Ban had even tried to get to MINURSO's headquarters in El Aaiun -- Dujarric didn't answer that -- and if Ban hadn't in his comment distributed on March 6 given Morocco a veto over the referendum promises even in the name of the MINURSO mission.

Back on March 2, Inner City Press asked Dujarric's deputy Farhan Haq why Ban is not going, while wanly claiming he has the right to do. UN transcript here.

Ban was supposed to go in November 2015 but he canceled it, thinking he could get more political - read, South Korea electoral -- play by going to North Korea. But then North Korea turned him down.

  On February 25, Inner City Press asked Dujarric about issues including Western Sahara, after three days reporting on the UN from outside after Ban's head of Communications Cristina Gallach threw Inner City Press out without due process: petition hereweird pro Morocco spin on the ouster, here.

  Now ahead of Ban's March 1 stop in Spain - will Gallach be there? - there is pick up of the fact that Gallach is Spain's highest UN official, and that she ousted the Press from the UN.



Will it be resolved by, or come to head on, March 1? In defense of Ban and Gallach, anonymous troll account has taken to tweeting, now at Spanish journalists, that Gallach is fine and didn't throw Inner City Press out of the UN on two hours notice without once speaking to it. But those are the fact. Among the new troll account's followers are Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric and four UNCA board members, plus Reuters bureau chief Louis Charbonneau, who has a history with this,see here.

On February 26, Dujarric said, "the Secretary-General's right to visit any peacekeeping mission, but there is the de facto authorities in that area would need to provide the clearance for the plane to land."

   So, he really DOESN'T have the right, and isn't really pushing for it. Inner City Press on February 26 asked Dujarric, UN transcript here:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask what the Secretary-General's goals are for this Western Sahara trip.  What is he seeking to come out of it?  Does he… would he like to see a referendum with independence as a goal?  What's he go into it looking at?  Thanks.

Spokesman Dujarric:  Obviously, the… you know, a lot… a large focus will be on the humanitarian situation.  He'll be visiting the camps near Tindouf, and it is also part of his preparation, obviously… he will report on the trip in his upcoming report, which is scheduled for April.

  Humanitarian,? We'll have more on this.
 
  We'll see. UN President of the General Assembly Mogens Lykketoft announced a trip to Europe and Morocco; particularly as the bribery case against former PGA John Ashe proceeds, with two guilty pleas and also indicted former Dominican Republic Deputy Permanent Representative (and South South News executive) Francis Lorenzo found to NOT have immunity, taking Moroccon government funding for a trip to Morocco with a Morocco-provided staffer, particularly (but not only) if not addressing the obvious issue of Western Sahara, seems ill-advised. We'll have more on this.

  Why is this not covered more? Well, Lorenzo's (and also indicted Ng Lap Seng's) South South News gave tens of thousands of dollars to the UN Correspondents Association - where Lykketoft at least early in his term held his “press” events, and which more recently got the Office of the UN Spokesperson to throw the Press out of the UN Press Briefing Room, amid these corruption questions. We'll have more on this, too.





  Since the criminal complaint, Inner City Press has asked Ban's spokespeople for basic information, and has been rebuffed. Most recently, both the UN Development Program and Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric (previously of UNDP) have refused to provide even a copy of the agreement signed by Ng, UNDP's Teresa Liu and Dominica Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit.

  Inner City Press reported that UNDP was asking corporations for $100,000 to be seated next to heads of state by UNDP. Closer to Ban, literally, the UN Correspondents Association (which previously took money from Ng's media vehicle, then gave it an UNCA Award and Ng a photo op with Ban) now offers seats at the VIP table, next to Ban, for $6,000 (half table) or $12,000 (full table). By most definitions, this is corruption.

  Mogen Lykketoft, meanwhile, couldn't bring himself to say Ashe's name, only referring to the President of the 68th General Assembly session. Lykketoft, who allowed his Office to be used for fellow Dane Helle Thorning-Schmidt to campaign for the top spot in the UN's refugee agency UNHCR, said he will be making reform proposals. We will be there - with questions for Lykketoft.

  Ban again mentioned what he told Inner City Press at his last stakeout, a task force under his chef of staff Susana Malcorra. But as Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Dujarric, with all due respect, Malcorra accepted one of Ng's South South Awards, for Ban. And as note, Gallach went. We'll have more on this.
 

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

After Re-Tweeted Spin of Syria Desert Photo, Of "Four Year Old Alone," UNHCR Tells Inner City Press Its Side of Story


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 18 -- After the UN's refugee agency UNHCR acknowledged that in the much-tweeted photograph of 4 year old Syrian refugee Marwan alone in the desert, his family was 20 paces ahead, Inner City Press asked UNHCR spokesperson Melissa Fleming what has learned from it.

 Now she has replied, and we publish it in full:

Subject: Press question about photo, safeguards, impact
From: Melissa Fleming [at] unhcr.org
Date: Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:21 PM
To: "Matthew Russell Lee [at] InnerCityPress.com

Dear Matthew, as one of four related images tweeted in the span of 11 minutes, the photo of Marwan was meant to help document an influx of Syrian refugees crossing the border into Jordan. But it quickly lost its context when it was retweeted, eliciting concerns that the boy may have been alone for hours or days, not minutes.

We sought to clarify Marwan's situation with subsequent posts and statements noting that his parents were steps away when the photo was taken, and that they were safely together. And once another photographer brought it to our attention, we also posted a wider shot showing Marwan among a large group of refugees.

  Inner City Press, also on behalf of the new Free UN Coalition for Access, immediately after the February 18 noon briefing posed these questions to UNHCR's Fleming:

"Hello. At the UN noon briefing in New York, I asked for the UN system's response on the flap about inaccurate descriptions of the four-year told refugee Marwan crossing from Syria into Jordan, that he was alone, then that he was "reunited" with this family, and who's most responsible, how to avoid this in the future, and how it impacts the UN system's credibility and perception of the Syrian refugee crisis.
"I was told, ask Melissa Fleming. So I am. Please send me what you can, on UNHCR's position on all this including what if anything UNHCR will do in the future to avoid this, both in terms of initial captions like "reunited" and correcting any different characterization such as that which was re-tweeted over 8000 times. Thanks in advance."

   This is partially answered above. Will it happen again? 

  Within the UN system this type of messaging, if not outed, is congratulated. But now? And those in the media who ran with it, or as UNHCR now says, created it -- do they now have to reverse themselves with regard to this photo? Will they?
  In the too-closed world of UN Headquarters in New York, for example, among the "world updates from UNCA Correspondents" by the United Nations Correspondents Association which hosted a faux "UN briefing" for Syrian National Coalition head Ahmad al Jarba in July, Marwan was described as a "4 year old crossing the desert alone." Alone?
  By contrast, a written UN report stating that the Free Syrian Army recruits and uses child soldiers was ignored for five days, until Syria talks in Geneva (where the information might embarrass the opposition delegation) was over, click here for that.
   How about reporting what the SNC actually says? With the talks in Geneva stalled, the SNC's "Secretary General" Badr Jamous on February 17 put out a statement that "if Russia vetoes a potential UN resolution, then actions outside the Security Council must be taken following the example of Iraq."
  Because Iraq has worked out so well? Jamous' call came after a widely vilified article by Jeffrey Sachs, himself a UN official of sorts though to his credit he doesn't take his orders from Ban Ki-moon, that counseled an end to US calls for regime change in Syria. 
   Sachs praised incremental changes in Myanmar -- no mention of the Rohingya, for example -- and asserted that if the US stopped aiding Syria rebels, Saudi Arabia and Qatar might as well. Really?
 After US President Barack Obama met with Jordan's King Abdullah II in Rancho Mirage, California, a self-described US Senior Administration Official said "Jordan and the United States are both working together in the Security Council at present and there is an ongoing, pretty intensive negotiation over a potential humanitarian resolution in the Security Council aimed at not only condemning the atrocities, but trying to create a legal predicate for cross-border operations and cross-line operations."
  In terms of creating a "legal predicate," the Western draft resolution 
"demands that the Syrian authorities promptly facilitate rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian access to people in need through the most effective ways, including across conflict lines and across borders from neighboring countries, and lift all restrictions on cross-border humanitarian access, in particular, via Turkey and Iraq, and stresses, in this regard, the particularly urgent need for the Syrian authorities to reopen the Yariba border crossing with Iraq."
  But as described below, the Russian counter-draft
"urges all parties, in particular the Syrian authorities, to promptly facilitate safe and unhindered humanitarian access to people in need, through the most effective ways, including across conflict lines and, where appropriate, across borders from neighboring countries, in accordance with the UN guiding principles of humanitarian emergency assistance."
  Could the US and its allies objec to "the UN guiding principles of humanitarian emergency assistance"? 
  In terms of the negotiations process in New York being "intensive," Inner City Press covered the February 14 session, it was at the "experts" level and the Lithuanian presidency did not provide a summary much less question and answer stakeout afterward, as the Free UN Coalition for Access requested at the beginning of the month. (China, by contrast, held nine Q&A stakeouts during its recent Security Council presidency; for Lithuania as of February 15 the number is zero.)
   The UN Spokesperson's office did not announce in advance mediator Lakhdar Brahimi's down-beat February 15 press conference in Geneva, at which no date was set for any more talks; the UN in New York is closed until February 18. Intensive?
   Russia had counter-proposed a Syria humanitarian resolution, and has also proposed a counter-terrorism Presidential Statement, Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told the press on February 13.
   Churkin said after Russia heard US statements about the rise of terrorism in Syria, the idea of the Presidential Statement arose. He said Russia's counter-draft resolution on humanitarian access also has terrorism language.
   Inside the Security Council in an otherwise nearly empty UN, humanitarian chief Valerie Amos' briefing and closed door consultations continued. Earlier on February 13, Inner City Press exclusively reported on a four page letter the Syrian mission submitted to the Security Council president, naming towns which the armed opposition -- "terrorists" -- were blockading. Click here for that.
  At the February 13 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky to confirm these blockades. He replied that the UN has never denied that there are blockages from the opposition side. But if Valerie Amos won't name the opposition groups, the UN's or her critique appears to be one-sided.
  On February 10 in the US State Department briefing, deputy spokesperson Marie Harf had talked up the humanitarian resolution; she was asked why the US is supposedly deferring to the too-slow UN, after the high level humanitarian meeting in Rome.
  Churkin said on February 10 that Rome meeting has been "quite useless" and that it "departed from the original conception." On February 13 he criticized it again, contrasting it to what he called Russia's practical approach. He said the Russian embassy in Damascus was involved in the deal(s) to get aid into Homs. 
   US State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf on February 13 insisted that the US supports the Australian - Luxembourg - Jordan draft. But what about the Russian submission, now on counter-terrorism? 
  From Geneva, France 24 reported wanly on the Brahimi talks; in New York, it asked Churkin if a vote should be expect before the Olympics are over. He said, there is no connection.
  Neither France 24, nor other ostensibly Syria-focused media have done much follow up, but on January 29 Inner City Press first published quotes from the UN's report on Syria Children and Armed Conflict, specifically that the Free Syrian Army recruits and uses child soldiers: 
"Throughout the reporting period, the United Nations received consistent reports of recruitment and use of children by FSA-affiliated groups."
  Inner City Press asked the US Mission to the UN to respond to the report, since Congress in its 2008 Child Soldiers Prevention Act said the US Government should condemn the use of child soldiers by paramilitaries like the FSA. Inner City Press was told to put the request for comment in writing, and did, to the UK Mission as well.
   The report had already been circulated to Security Council members in English; the UK said it would wait to provide Inner City Press with a comment until the report was made official on February 3, that is to say, when it was translated into the UN's five other official languages and put on the Internet.
   Readers asked Inner City Press where on the UN website to find the Syria child soldiers report. Inner City Press told them it would go online on February 3, and noted that theFree UN Coalition for Access had previously opposed the UN withholding or delaying the release of important document like this.
  In this case, however, the delay affirmatively helped the Syrian opposition. On January 29 they were in Geneva, issuing statements about abuses by the Assad government. They were not asked about the Free Syrian Army's use of child soldiers.
   On February 3, Inner City Press again asked the UK for its comment, and it did arrive the following day on February 4:
"The UK absolutely condemns the use of child soldiers in all cases, and strongly supports international efforts to stop the use of child soldiers. We urge all parties in the Syrian conflict to release any children held in detention.
"Armed conflict affects millions of lives around the world, and children are among those most vulnerable to the effects of conflict. The only way to secure the long-term future of Syria’s children is to find a political solution to the crisis.
"We have made clear our absolute condemnation of the use of child soldiers. As noted in this report, the use of child soldiers by the opposition is not systematic and is limited to certain elements. We have provided training to the Supreme Military Council of the Syrian opposition on the law of armed conflict, and will continue to work with them to help ensure that they meet their obligations under international law."
    Before publishing the UK's quote, Inner City Press again in writing asked two spokespeople of the US Mission to the UN for their comment -- noting that the UK had provided one. As Inner City Press noted, that might be OK for the United Kingdom -- but what about the US, including in light of the 2008 Child Soldiers Prevention Act, which provides for example:
It is the sense of Congress that— 
 (1) the United States Government should condemn the conscription, forced recruitment, or use of children by governments, paramilitaries, or other organizations; 
 (2) the United States Government should support and, to the extent practicable, lead efforts to establish and uphold international standards designed to end the abuse of human rights described in paragraph (1); 
  There are prohibitions on funding which can only be overridden for formal, public findings by the President. Given all this, Inner City Press on February 4 again asked the two spokespeople for the US Mission to the UN its January 30 question: "could the US provide aid to a non-state group, the FSA and its affiliates, which the UN has found using child soldiers?" 
  The New York Times, saying that the child soldiers report was "quietly presented to the Security Council last week," had a quote from the State Department. Why was the report, and this statement, delayed a full six days until the Geneva II talks were over?
  Even more cynically, Voice of America on whoseBroadcasting Board of Governors US Secretary of State John Kerry serves, also ran a delayed / withheld story on the reportReuters typically didn't bring up the US Child Soldiers Prevention Act  and claimed that the report was released on February 4, when even the Times said it was February 3 -- and see Inner City Press' January 29 story, here.
 On January 29, Inner City Press published additional quotes from the report, including that:
"Boys aged 12 to 17 were trained, armed, and used as combatants or to man checkpoints. For instance, a 15 year-old boy reported being recruited in April 2012 by the FSA in Tall Kalakh (Tartus governate), and participation in military operations.... Also indicative was the case of a 16 year-old boy from Homs who reportedly joined the FSA as a combatant. In March 2013, his family reported to the United Nations that he was still fighting with the group."
And is this boy still fighting with the FSA? There is more to be said about this UN report, but what steps will actually be taken on this UN report? Watch this site.

 
  

Monday, September 16, 2013

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.


"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."


  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.

 
  

Saturday, May 11, 2013

On ICC, Kenya Prepares a Second Letter to UNSC, Of Reuters' Lazy One-Member Spin



By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, May 11 -- After Kenya wrote to the UN Security Council about the International Criminal Court cases against President Uhuru Kenyatta and Deputy President William Ruto, a length Council consultation took place on May 9.
Mid-day on May 10, Inner City Press asked the Security Council president for May, Kodjo Menan of Togo, for an update. He said that Kenya's Permanent Representative to the UN had indicate he would submit the second letter very shortly.
Among the issues that arose in Thursday's consultations was whether Kenya's Permanent Representative can meet and make his case to the full Council, or only to a working group.
  Rwanda, whose Ambassador Eugene Richard Gasana led or initiative the push on thistold Inner City Press on the record that it would be insulting to refer a member state to a working group. A number of Council members supported and support this position.
  Rather, Reuters quoted an unnamed "senior council diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity" that the granting of even a deferral of prosecution for a year would be "unlikely."
So this Western view is presented, as the only view, with nothing on what actually took place in the Council. It's not just that it's one- (Western) sided: it's also lazy and incomplete.
But this is the agency which was unwilling to provide a copy or summary of any policy on crediting other media for use of their exclusive reports, and which in fact unethically bases compensation on how many of a correspondent's stories are called "exclusives," accurately or as often happens, inaccurately.
This is how the UN and Security Council are being reported on. Watch this site.
Footnote: Since the campaign involving Reuters UN bureau chief and UNCA First Vice President Louis Charbonneau continues and continues to evolve, it's worth noting that while Reuters' Kenya "story" was bylined by Michelle Nichols, it was re-distributed by Charbonneau. They call it (false) Buzz...

Friday, July 13, 2012

On Syria, Insider Spins ICP on Division Into 3, Alawites by Coast for Russian Port



By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 11, updated -- After a full day of Syria action at the UN Security Council, a non Council member offered a cynic's explanation for it to Inner City Press on Wednesday night.

  "They aim to divide Syria into three," the diplomat told Inner City Press, "with the Alawites controlling a small strip by the coast, so Russia can have a port. The Kurds will get their piece, and of course the Sunnis. It will be federalism, it will all be constructive ambiguity like in Iraq. But it will happen."

  Inner City Press asked the diplomat if as expected given his position he agreed with Qatar arming the Syrian opposition. "Of course not," he said, "it's destructive. But who is going to stop them?"

  The reason, he said, for the West's cautious approach on Syria is that simply removing Assad without having a successor ready would put Israel's border at risk. "And no one has emerged," he continued. 

  "The best model is Yemen, with the technical step down of Ali Saleh, no ICC, and he can return later. That's what's needed here."

  Another UN source protested that "Assad has killed too many," that he must go to the Hague. 

  The main source and cynic laughed. "You are being idealistic, that's not how these things work. They are arranged among the P-5, and they happen. And until World World Three, the Security Council will not be reformed." 

  While this last may be true, Inner City Press pointed out that the cynic's theory had a number of problems, not least the massive ethnic cleansing required and even in one view underway, with backing from the Gulf.

   But the cynic like the debate had moved on. Watch this site.