For Iran Deal, UN Security Council Next Week, US Says, E10 Taken For Granted

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 14 -- Less than two hours after the Iran Deal was announced in Vienna by the EU's Federica Mogherini then Iran's Javad Zarif, the US White House held a background press call, "embargoed until conclusion." This meant, no tweets. But on the call, after Reuters asked a softball about Obama's involvement, several Senior Administration Officials gushed about Obama's calls to Vienna, updates from Susan Rice, concern for Israel's security.

  It was said Obama will not only call Netanyahu but also of course the King of Saudi Arabia. (It seemed clear that the civilian casualties from the Saudi's US-supported airstrikes on Yemen would not come up.) 

  Another of the Senior Administration Officials said that since the P5 agree, a UN Security Council resolution, to be introduced as early as next week, should be smooth. The Election Ten are taken for granted, mere window-dressing.

 As is the UN Secretariat. Earlier on July 14, Ban Ki-moon chimed in nearly immediately to welcome the deal. This stood in contrast to his 60 hour silence after his own faux Yemen Deal failed amid airstrikes. Success has many wannabe parents; UNsuccessful many fewer.

 Obama from Washington at 7 am said he will veto any legislation slowing this down; The Elders chaired by Kofi Annan spoke quickly against any “ideological preconceptions [or] narrow political interests.”

  Journalists camped out under the Evita-like balcony of the Coburg Hotel for more than two weeks gushed about UN Security Council action "in days," as France's Fabius put it. France is the Council's pen-holder on Burundi, another UNsuccess.

  The Security Council was set to meet later on July 14, about the DR Congo, in which FDLR forces were said headed to Burundi. Inner City Press headed to the Council. Watch this site

 Back on November 24, 2014, hours after the Iran talks in Vienna ended by a further extension, Inner City Press at the UN's November 24 noon briefing asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric if Ban had any comment.

   "Let me get back to you," Dujarric said. Others asked, what does that mean?

  Forty minutes later, Dujarric's office sent this out:

"In response to questions about the extension of talks concerning Iran’s nuclear programme, the Spokesman has the following to say:

"The Secretary-General is encouraged by the determination and commitment by the P5+1 and the Islamic Republic of Iran to overcome their remaining differences and to achieve a comprehensive agreement. He calls upon the parties in the months ahead to sustain the positive momentum and to build upon the progress they have made. He hopes that all sides continue to implement their agreed commitments with a spirit of mutual trust and in good faith."

  Dujarric even made a comment when Inner City Press asked about Chuck Hagel resigning: Ban enjoyed his time with Hagel. Note: and disinvited Iran from the Montreux talks on Syria.

In Vienna the press conference by John Kerry was delayed by Obama's farewell to Chuck Hagel.

 (Covering that event, CNN's Wolf Blitzer said let's see if a reporter shouts a question. But the applause was too loud: no question on the P5+1 talks, or anything else.)

  Minutes later in a tent in Vienna, Kerry was asked about Hagel being micro-managed by the White House in of the two American press questions he took. After that he insisted, give the foreign press a change. To an Iranian question, he called himself both candid and fair.

  As the Iran P5+1 talks continued on the eve of the current deadline, who was bragging about having predicted their failure? Western wire service Reuters, crowing that "Other media now coming around to @reuters consistent reporting on how final Iran atomic deal unlikely."

 While false exclusives have proliferated at Reuters under Stephen J. Adler, there a second, separate trend at work here.

  On another UN sanctions regime, Somalia and Eritrea, even when former Reuters reporter turned sanctions monitor Dinesh Mahtani was forced to resign for havingchampioned a new leader for the country he was supposed to monitor, Reuters entirely omitted his removal from its claimed exclusives on the sanctions report.

  Some of this goes beyond a desire, compensated by editor Adler, to claim exclusives even where not merited (including by adopted a policy of not crediting others' exclusives).  At the UN, Reuters has gone so far as to try to censor and remove from Google's Search as "copyrighted" copies of Reuters complaints against other media filed with the UN, click here for that. 

 At what point does this become more (or less) that journalism? What about "other media now coming around to @reuters consistent" refusal to credit smaller media, attempts to get them kicked out, then censoring the Internet? We'll have more on this.

  Back on October 27 when the UN's special rapporteur on human rights in Iran Ahmed Shaheed held a press conference at the UN, Inner City Press asked him for an update on what he had said about the effect of sanctions and banning of Iran from the SWIFT payments system which Inner City Press asked him about one year and three days earlier, 2013 here from Minute 12:29.

  On October 24, 2013, Shaheed had acknowledged that the banning of Iran from the SWIFT payments system had had an impact. On October 27, 2014, Shaheed said he believes Iran is still banned from SWIFT, but he had no update. Instead he said that humanitarian exemptions to sanctions are having successes. 2014 video here.

 But banning from SWIFT or "de-SWIFT-ing" is not a targeted sanction at all, and he did not mention any exemptions to it.

   Overall, Inner City Press asked Shaheed what impact he thought "the nuclear issue" and the P5 + 1 talks have on human rights in Iran.  Shaheed said he doesn't like linkage, but added that when there's focus on the nuclear issue, it takes away from the focus on human rights. 

  Last year Inner City Press obtained and exclusively published an internal OHCHR plan to take over the "rule of law" functions of the rest of the UN system, and the staffing of the Special Representatives on Children and Armed Conflict, Sexual Violence and Conflict, R2P and the Prevention of Genocide.What has happened on that? Are rapporteurs, like sanctions monitors, still not given any training or orientation by the UN?

Footnote: on October 27, the UN Correspondents Association which so often demands the first question be set-aside for it didn't even send anyone to Shaheed's press conference. One attendee said, it's defUNCA-ed, as in defunct, or de-UNCA-ed, like de-SWIFT-ed. The new Free UN Coalition for Access, present, did not try to brand the press conference, because there was no need. Watch this site.

   

On Yemen, No UN Security Council Statement About No Diesel in Country, Where to Meet, "Procrastination"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 1, with transcript -- On Yemen, the UN Security Council convened a closed door meeting on Friday May 1 at 1 pm. Going in, Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin explained that he called it, because not only weapons but diesel fuel is being blocked from getting in, to propose a statement.

  Churkin emerged mid-meeting and said more, then finally at the end expressing disappointment no agreement was reached. Here's Inner City Press' fast transcription of what Churkin said:

"There were some proposals for language from resolution 2216. But this really shows an amazing indecision and I think lack of understanding of how things are evolving. I told them, listen, when you were pushing for this resolution 2216 your forecast was not what we are seeing now. If it wasn’t, then there is a problem with their analysis. They are, some countries are going back to the capitals. But I see the mood, I don’t see any prospect for this.

"It was a procrastination reaction. In one situation we heard people talking about humanitarian problems, and now they are prepared to ignore them altogether. They play lip service. They say, things are very bad. But what can we do?

  "It is very clear from resolution 2216 that it did not authorize the use of military force. Some colleagues were saying that the Saudi led coalition is trying to make sure that resolution 2216 is implemented. This is not the case. Their action is completely outside the resolution. The resolution does not provide for military means....
 
  "The next step, I am pretty sure we will not have any statement today. But we’ll see what the new special representative is going to do. I think I was encouraged, somewhat encouraged, to hear Jeff Feltman say the SG wants to act quickly. He wants to put together a conference very quickly. And I think also it’s my understanding the things which were worked on before agreed on before are not going to be discarded.

"The GCC initiative is there, and the GCC initiative is supported in 2216. So you cannot – if that were to be discarded we would have to start from scratch. The GCC initiative needs to be implemented. And this is what the special representative of the SG, the previous one, had been working on. Now we have a new person, and we hope he can restart the process very quickly."

  We'll see. New UK Ambassador Matthew Rycroft stopped on his way into the meeting and said "there can be no military solution, the only way out is a political solution and that means a return to political talks."

  Good - but where?

  On is way into the meeting, Churkin had cited an April 30 statement by Saudi Arabia which he said could be read as calling for the talks to resume in Riyadh, which "some of the parties are definitely not going to attend."

  As Inner City Press reported and asked the UN, Iran's foreign minister Javad Zarif at NYU this week said Geneva might be the venue; Inner City Press asked the UN which, in a rare answer, said it is a possibility.

Here is Inner City Press' fast transcript of what Churkin said on his way into the UNSC:

  "There are very serious basic shortages of food, medicine, diesel fuel which for some reason they’re not allowing to be brought in. Everything there works on diesel fuel in Yemen. 
There is no embargo of bringing anything but weapons for some people. So, why they are posing problems for bringing in diesel fuel is something which has to be looked at.

"And generally, we all support negotiations and we don’t see an interest on the part of those who are engaged in bombing in engaging with the new special representative of the Secretary General. So, we are going to discuss, and I hope we hear what Mr. Feltman has to stay about the statement they issued yesterday where it could be read as calling for a meeting in Riyadh, which some parties definitely are not going to attend, and sort of as a rallying cry for those who support President Hadi, against whom, I suppose against those who they are fighting now in Yemen.
But always, it is boding very ill for developments in the near future, both on humanitarian and security front. We want to discuss the situation with members of the Security Council.

....we’ll be proposing a brief press statement. As from the outset. From the outset. It reflects end of hostilities, or at least humanitarian pauses, and immediate resumption of talks on the basis which has been prepared through a lengthy process of negotiations by Mr. Benomar."

  UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on April 25 named Ismael Ould Cheikh Ahmed to replace Jamal Benomar as envoy.

  Three times Inner City Press had asked the Office of the UN Spokesperson why Ould Cheikh Ahmed is not listed on Ban's webpage of public financial discloure and to say, yes or no, if he has an interest in a business which received funding from the Gulf. Three times the Office of Spokesperson promised to look into and give an answer, but never did. This is Ban's UN.
 
   

For Ban Ki-moon's Fishy Envoy Rejected in Yemen, No Public Financial Disclosure: Annals of Ismael Ould Cheikh Ahmed

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 29, updated -- On Yemen, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on April 25 named Ismael Ould Cheikh Ahmed to replace Jamal Benomar as envoy.

  Three times Inner City Press had asked the Office of the UN Spokesperson why Ould Cheikh Ahmed is not listed on Ban's webpage of public financial discloure and to say, yes or no, if he has an interest in a business which received funding from the Gulf. Three times the Office of Spokesperson promised to look into and give an answer, but never did. This is Ban's UN.

Update: Speaking at NYU on April 29, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif said he think Yemen talks will be reconvened in Geneva by the UN. We hope to have more on this.

  On April 28, Inner City Press asked again:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask on the new Yemen Special Adviser, Mr. Ould Cheikh Ahmed, there was this understanding of why on the page of the Secretary-General there's no public financial disclosure.

Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq:  Regarding that, we did check with the ethics office, and he has made available his disclosure in line with the existing rules and procedures, and so he is up to date on those.  There are times when for… for a variety of different reasons people's disclosures may not be on the website.

Inner City Press:  But is he one of the officials that's decided to not make even the summary public?  I want… because when the name is listed, there’s a checkbox…

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  I've said what I have to say on that, but he has made his disclosures in line with the appropriate rules and regulations.

Inner City Press:  And also Stéphane had said that he would check whether a letter was received by the Office of the Secretary-General from a number of parties in Yemen concerning the appointment of this new envoy.  Did he do that?  Have you received that letter?

Deputy Spokesman:  I don't know.  This was when?

Inner City Press:  It was on Friday, I believe, that I asked him and he said he would check.  The reports are that the… a variety of the parties in Yemen wrote a letter about the process of replacing Mr. Benomar.  And I wanted to obviously just to know if you got it…

Deputy Spokesman:  Certainly… In the day after you asked, we announced the appointment, so that is part of our answer. And with that, let me bring our guest.  

 So, none of the public financial disclosure which Ban talked so much about. Why not?

 On April 24, Inner City Press had asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric:

Question:  Okay.  I'm also informed of a letter from political parties in Yemen, including those representing Houthis and others, directed at the Secretary-General making two requests.  One, that Mr. Ould Cheikh Ahmed not be named as a replacement to Mr. [Jamal] Benomar and that someone be appointed or retained who actually they will speak with.  And I wanted to know… you may not know of this letter yet, but I'm reliably informed it is either there or on its way…

Spokesman:  All right.  I will look for the letter.

Question:  And I guess my question would be, do you… has the Secretary-General… since we've already… we've heard from some of the ambassadors from the Security Council that he's put forward a name.  Did he put any effort to speak to the parties on the ground in Yemen, the actual Yemenis?

Spokesman:  I think the… when we're ready to announce the person, we will.  Obviously, for a… an appointment as delicate as this… as this ongoing… to represent the Secretary-General in this ongoing crisis, it is normal to have as broad of a consultation as possible, and what is obviously extremely important is that once that envoy is named, that adviser is named, that all the parties give him access and engage with him.

Question:  If you get the letter, will you squawk it?  Does it mean that these parties that wrote…

Spokesman:  I think…

Question: …once consulted…

Spokesman:  It's an ongoing humanitarian crisis.  It's an ongoing conflict.  And we are trying to get the political process back on track.  So we'd like to have a special envoy as soon as… a Special Adviser as soon as possible, and again hope that all the parties engage with him.

Question:  Didn't you have one? That's my question.  Didn't you actually have a Special Adviser?

Spokesman:  Yes, we have Mr. Benomar…

Question:  Is it your understanding that he's entirely unwilling to continue in the post?

Spokesman:  Well, I think he's… he's… he's expressed his desire to move on and, as we said, we are… we're in the process of naming somebody shortly.

   No response about the letter, either. This does not bode well.

  After Saudi Arabia was allowed to oust UN mediator Jamal Benomar for being insufficiently supportive of its airstrikes, the UN is being promoted, again, as an honest broker.  How so, when the UN is UNtransparently naming as a replacement mediator an individual who previously failed in Yemen, refusing to make public financial disclosure?   How weak and untransparent is today's UN?  It it apparently considering appointing as replacement envoy to Yemen a partial individual whom one side has indicated it would not speak with.

   

US John Kerry and Iran's Zarif Meet on Nuclear and ISIL, "Separate & Apart" Per Senior US State Department Official

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 21 -- When US Secretary of State John Kerry met his Iranian counterpart Javad Zarif at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in Manhattan on September 21, ISIL and the nuclear issue were "separate and apart," according to the US readout.

  A senior US State Department official provided this on background:

"Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Zarif met for over an hour at the Waldorf Astoria today. They met one-on-one first, and then were joined by Deputy Secretary Burns and Under Secretary Sherman on the US side and Deputy FM Araghchi and Deputy FM Ravanchi on the Iranian side. They spent time reviewing the status of the EU-led P5+1 negotiations on Iran's nuclear program. They discussed both the progress that has been made and the work that still needs to be done. Secretary Kerry noted that this week is an opportunity to make additional progress and stressed that it is our intention to do so. Separate and apart from the nuclear issue, they also discussed the threat posed by ISIL.  Going forward, the Secretary and Foreign Minister Zarif agreed to meet further as needed while in New York this week."

 Back on August 29 the US announced new Iran-related sanctions. It targeted among others banks, including Tajikistan-based Kafolatbank, “owned by Sarmayeh Bank, which was identified as an Iranian financial institution by the U.S. Department of the Treasury in July 2012.”

    On August 30, Iranian president Hassan Rouhani held a lengthy press conference in Tehran, saying on this that of the P5+1 group the other country whose good will is in doubt is the United States. 

  He denounced the sanctions and said it is unclear if he'll go to the UN General Assembly week in New York or to the “environmental meeting” just before it. If not, Foreign Minister Zarif will lead the delegation.

  Journalist Jason Rezaian was asked about, but the question was not answered. The Free UN Coalition for Access believes it should be, as other press freedom questions should not go UNaddressed.

We'll continue to follow this.

Watch this site.

   

After US' New Iran-Related Sanctions, Rouhani Slams Them, NY Trip for UN General Assembly UNclear, Jason Rezaian UNaddressed

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 30 -- Amid the P5+1 Iran talks, the US on August 29 announced new Iran-related sanctions. It targeted among others banks, including Tajikistan-based Kafolatbank, “owned by Sarmayeh Bank, which was identified as an Iranian financial institution by the U.S. Department of the Treasury in July 2012.”

    On August 30, Iranian president Hassan Rouhani held a lengthy press conference in Tehran, saying on this that of the P5+1 group the other country whose good will is in doubt is the United States. 

  He denounced the sanctions and said it is unclear if he'll go to the UN General Assembly week in New York or to the “environmental meeting” just before it. If not, Foreign Minister Zarif will lead the delegation.

  Journalists Jason Rezaian and Yeganeh Salehi were asked about, but the question was not answered. The Free UN Coalition for Access believes it should be, as other press freedom questions should not go UNaddressed.

  Just as the US has said it will not coordinate with Iran in striking ISIL, Rouhani said while fighting terrorism if good, Iran will not cooperate or coordinate with the US. One wondered, was this a coordinated statement, or just each side playing to some home-country sentiments?

   On a background call on August 29 with Senior Administration Officials, many of the questions were about Russia (they were not answered, at least not on the call).

  Back on July 18 as the deadline for the Iran nuclear talks loomed, the Joint Plan of Action was extended until November 24. 

  Three Senior US Administration Officials (SAOs) held a press call on background. The first SAO spoke against moves in Congress to legislate on new or future sanctions, saying that could undermine P5+1 unity.

  The second SAO said that while the US is concerned about Iran's activities in Syria, in Gaza and in Iraq, only long-range missiles that could carry nuclear weapons would be addressed in the talks.

  The third SAO bragged that $2.8 billion in the next four months will not begin to fix Iran's economy, and that the US will emphasize that Iran is not open for business, its central bank is under sanctions.

  But didn't BNP Paribas still do business in Iran? On a related note, France's outgoing ambassador to the UN Gerard Araud on July 18 said the the Mistral ships being sold "are not destroyers but transportation and command ships." (A reply: they are amphibious assault vessels.) With this attitude, what's next?

 Back on June 16 with the P5+1 talks starting in Vienna, the question arose how ISIL's advance in Iraq might impact them. 

  On June 16 a Senior State Department Official told the press, "We are open to engaging the Iranians, just as we are engaging other regional players on the threat post by ISIL in Iraq. The issue did come up briefly with Iran on the margins of the P5+1 in Vienna today, separate from our trilateral meeting. These engagements will not include military coordination or strategic determinations about Iraq’s future over the heads of the Iraqi people. We will discuss how ISIL threatens many countries in the region, including Iran, and the need to support inclusivity in Iraq and refrain from pressing a sectarian agenda."

  Earlier on June 16 a US Senior Administration Official told reporters the issue does not give Iran more leverage, while talks about Iraq may occur "on the margins," that is separate from the P5+1 process. 

  Asked of timing, the US official said "we are all focused on July 20... we can get this done."  We'll continue to follow this.

Watch this site.

   

In Munich, UN's Ban Ki-moon Cites Robert Serry as Dutch Envoy to Ukraine, Iran Face (Saving?) Time

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 1 -- At the Munich Security Conference when UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon took questions, two of five he took focused on Ukraine. Ban explained having dispatched Robert Serry, a former diplomat from the Netherland who is the UN's Middle East coordinator, to the country. Back on January 29 in New York, Inner City Press asked the UN: 

Inner City Press: In the Ukraine, I’m not sure if I missed some announcement on your part that Robert Serry met with President [Yevgeny] Yanukovich and I wanted to know: is that the case? What’s the UN’s… why was it him, given his title? And what’s the UN seeking to accomplish?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: The Secretary-General asked Mr. Robert Serry to travel to Kiev on his behalf to convey the United Nations’ solidarity with Ukraine and to encourage dialogue. He will be in Ukraine from yesterday until Thursday, tomorrow. As for his past experience, he has worked in the Ukraine before. He continues to be the Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process. That hasn’t changed.

   On February, Ban explained: Serry "was a former Dutch Ambassador to Ukraine." Oh.
 
  In his remarks to the press, Ban made a glancing reference to "South Sudan and the Central African Republic and many other places" but did not mention Mali, where France and Chad are leading a two-day Security Council trip starting February 2.

  On Central African Republic, as luck would have it a MSC panel on February 1 included Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. Despite the EU's and other participants stated focus on CAR, no one asked Giscard about Emperor Bokassa and other French roots to the crisis in the CAR.

  Ban's other answers included Cyprus, on which he praised Alexander Downer, which is less and less frequent between the two parties or even in the UN, where word is still expected if Downer pull the rip cord and becomes an Australian ambassador, perhaps to London.  In separate answers, Ban gave his view on Syria and Iran. 

 A UN read-out said Ban spoke with Iran's Javad Zarif about Syria -- no mention of Ban having disinvited Iran to the Syria talks, after the US demanded it. And so it goes.

  As on January 31, below, former UN official Jean-Marie Guehenno got a question, about how hard it is to identify power, as to former UK foreign secretary David Miliband, throwing humanitarian impartiality into the wind, despite his International Rescue Committee post.

  On January 31 in the Syria roadshow, both Lakhdar Brahimi and Ahmad al Jarba appeared Friday night at the Munich Security Conference, after a week of talks in Geneva. Brahimi took questions but Jarba did not, instead being allowed a statement in which he cited Ban Ki-moon's invitation and then walking off the stage.

  Thus he took no question, for example, on the now UN reported use of child soldiers by the Free Syrian Army, on which Inner City Press reported here.

  From the audience, moderator Anne-Marie Slaughter gave a question to former UN Peacekeeping official Jean-Marie Guehenno. As Inner City Press reported, Guehenno previously said the UN should come clean about having brought cholera to Haiti. Then quickly, apparently under pressure, he reversed himself and said that countries should pay money, that should be the focus. These are the insiders' views.

   Emma Bonino, foreign minister of Italy, laid the blame at the feet of Russia and Iran, and told Saeb Erekat not to "preach to the converted." David Miliband, formerly UK foreign secretary, was called on as a humanitarian, but his one example was of targeting by the Syrian "regime." 

  Brahimi has proposed that the Syria talks resume on February 10 in Geneva; he said the SNC agreed but the Syrian delegation said they had to consult.  

   On January 30, the SNC's vaunted social media team (or "Official account of the Syrian National Coalition Media Unit in Geneva process")tweeted that "this morning in Geneva 2 our delegation asked that meeting start with a minute’s silence for the victims of Assad." 

  Hours later in Washington, US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki spoke of this as a good sign, then quoted Brahimi as the basis of her statement. (That the US shows more respect to Brahimi than Ban Ki-moon, whom they successfully ordered to UN-invite Iran, is another story).

  That the Syria government side agreed to the moment of silence would seem to indicate they didn't agree to silence for "Assad's victims." A reporter asked that if there is a communique on January 31, it be put out in writing and in the afternoon, before the "radios shut down." A bit behind the times, but hey - this is the UN.

  In New York on January 29 Inner City Press asked Iran's Permanent Representative Khazaee about missing anything at the talks in Montreux, from which the UN dis-invited Iran.

  It worked out better this way, Khazaee told Inner City Press, on his way into the Security Council to give a speech on War and Its Lessons.

  On January 27, Inner City Press asked why journalists were being banned from filming near the entrance to the Syria talks. Haq said, Ask Geneva, but the spokesperson there did not answer. So the Free UN Coalition for Access raised the issue, as a negative precedent.  The belated answer that came was that the two delegations, government and SNC, had requested it. Still, what about the precedent? Asked another way, can Jarba limit freedom of the press INSIDE the UN?

  After current UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon invited and then UNinvited Iran to the Syria talks in Montreux, former Secretary General Kofi Annan announced he and three other Elders would visit Iran.

 On January 27, Inner City Press asked Ban's acting deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq if Annan's talks in Iran are coordinated in any way with Ban or Lakhdar Brahimi, and why journalists covering the talks in Geneva were banned from filming or photographing the Syrian or opposition delegations entering or leaving the UN. Video here.

  Haq replied, We don't speak for the Elders, and said to put the media access question to his counterpart in Geneva. Inner City Press did, on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, so far without answer. 

  On January 27, Brahimi said that SNC would "try to" produce a list of people kidnapped or detained by armed groups in Syria. But then he admitted the obvious: there are armed groups the SNC doesn't control or have contact with. 

  An obvious question would be: what percentage of armed opposition in Syria does the SNC represent? But no one asked it. Instead, Agence France Presse asked Brahimi about Srebrenica, why a list of males in Old City Homs would be produced.  

  Did AFP raise this when the UN in South Sudan separated Dinka from Nuer? When France in Central African Republic disarmed the predominately Muslim ex-Seleka and left Muslim communities to be attacked by Christian anti-Balaka, as even Navi Pillay has said?  AFP serves not only France -- pass through on Francois Hollande's break-up note, for example -- abut also the UN, giving easy interviews to the UN's envoy on cholera in Haiti, where the UN introduced the disease.

   Brahimi said he is going day to day; on January 27 he will meet with the two sides together, speaking through him, then separately. Why aren't the Kurds of Rojava, for example, represented in the talks?

  Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, as well as Martti Ahtisaari, Desmond Tutu and Ernesto Zedillo, will be in Iran from January 26 to 29, to discuss among other things "mutual respect" and peace in the region: that is, Syria.

  This comes after current UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on January 20 reversed his "decision" of the previous day of inviting Iran to the Syria talks in Montreux. The contrast, some say, couldn't be clearer.

   (Among those not making the obvious comparison was Reuters editor in chief Stephen Adler, bylined on a dispatch from Davos identifying Annan as "Ex-Syria Envoy." Under Adler's watch, Reuters at least through its UN bureau has degenerated into a pass-through for Western missions, alsoseeking to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN then mis-using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to try to cover it it: that is, censor it from Google's Search. Click here for that story. DMCA filing here, via ChillingEffects.org).

   Now in Geneva Syria's Permanent Representative to the UN Bashar al Ja'afari is speaking for the government. In New York, Ban's spokesperson's office has refused to answer a detailed "note verbale" from the Syrian mission about inaccurate answers to Press questions about who attack UN peacekeepers in the Golan. 

 On January 20 in the Security Council, Ja'afari complained again of inaction on complaints by Herve Ladsous, the fourth French head of UN Peacekeeping in a row. This is why the UN is not even the lead mediator on South Sudan, much less the Middle East or Syria.

Ending the Syria speeches in Montreux on January 22, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called them "productive." Then his spokesperson accused some non-Western media of being "disrespectful of the Secretary General of the UN," after he gave the last two questions to Bloomberg and NHK.  How was it productive?

   Even before the afternoon session began, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius took to the Montreux stakeout to say Syrian foreign minister Moallem was "aggressive." This is the same Fabius who in September at the UN declared Ahmad al Jarba the leader of the Syrian people, and refused to take critical questions from the media including about his country's practices.

   Australia was represented not by foreign minister Julie Bishop but rather its Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Peter Woolcott (who also chairs a humanitarian high level group on Syria, it's been pointed out to Inner City Press.).  Bishop is on Washington, and soon New York. 

   Ahmad al Jarba spoke next to last, thanking Saudi Arabia, viewed as his sponsor, as if in an Oscars speech. Ban Ki-moon wrapped up, calling it productive and asking the assembled (hand-picked, without Iran) minister to "wish [him] luck" as he went to speak to the media. 

  There, the questions were chosen much as they are at the UN in New York, as documented and critiqued by the Free UN Coalition for Access -- but in Montreux, this was actively protested. (FUNCA also questioned the UN citing Ban's press conference as a basis to cancel its noon briefing in New York, on South Sudan, Central African Republic, Mali and other countries in which the UN is at least somewhat less marginal or US dominated.)

  When John Kerry held his press conference, only four questions were taken: CBS, a Turkish media, BBC and Al Hurra, on whose Broadcasting Board of Governors John Kerry himself serves. Freedom of the press at today's US State Department we covered yesterday, here.

After the UN's craven reversal on including Iran in the Syria session in Montreux, it has turned out to be a series of speeches mostly by countries significantly less important to that conflict and the region.

   In the morning session on January 22, Italy and Spain spoke and Japan offered money. Turkey spoke without mentioning the Kurds -- but neither did supposed representative of the range of Syrian opposition Ahmad al Jarba.

   Since Jarba's Saudi-sponsored, Saud al Faisal called him "Excellency," pomp like Jarba's faux "UN briefing" with Gulf and Western media in July.

   Using his PresidentJarba Twitter account, on which Inner City Presspreviously reported, Jarba repeated his own speech. Turns out he follows Anonymous, among only 51 follows. Who knew?

   The UK's William Hague's microphone went dead; when it came back on he bemoaned the lack of a women's delegation to the talks. The UN did not push for this on Syria, nor on South Sudan - but Ban Ki-moon highlighted that for a moment, how ever brief, there was a woman in both the Syria and (Jarba) Syrian National Coalition seat. Call it a photo op.

  Behind Hague was a UN alumni, the UK's former political coordinator in the Security Council David Quarrey. His Russian counterpart Vladimir Safronkov was also there, in Sergey Lavrov's delegation.

  Ban Ki-moon announced a lunch break until 2:45 pm, to be followed by 18 more speakers, then the Syria and SNC speakers like rights of reply. What did people think these speeches would accomplish. We'll have a separate story on that soon.

  At the UN on January 21, Inner City Press asked Haq for the UN's response to Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif saying "Ban Ki-moon contacted me several times last week and I stated to him explicitly that we don’t accept any preconditions for participating in the meeting. We regret that Mr. Ban Ki-moon has withdrawn his offer and believe that such an attitude is not appropriate for the status and dignity of the Secretary-General."

  Haq said Ban believed he had "oral understandings" with Zarif. 

  Inner City Press asked Haq, since the Geneva I Communique requires a commitment to a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms, how are Qatar and Saudi Arabia, both of which are among those still providing weapons and more to armed groups in Syria, invited to Montreux? Where's Ban's dismay at that?

   Haq said that Ban is dismayed at the militarization of the conflict. Video here. 

  Earlier on January 21, Inner City Press spoke with Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN Vitaly Churkin about Ban Ki-moon about-face.

  Churkin told Inner City Press, exclusively, "some people let him down, and not necessarily the Iranians."

  Others have analogized Ban to the American Charlie Brown, kicking at empty space when the football is taken away at the last second. Was Ban Ki-moon set up?

   Since the Geneva I Communique requires a commitment to a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms, how for example are Qatar and Saudi Arabia, both of which provide weapons and more to armed groups in Syria, invited to Montreux?
 
   Also, where are the Kurds?  Those who actually control territory in the north, Rojava, are not part of Ahmad al Jarba's turkey-based Syrian Coalition, and were not separately invited to the talks. What about theirdismay? We'll have more on this.

   On January 20, Inner City Press asked Iran's Ambassador about Ban's dismay or disappointment. Video here.

 Outside the UN Security Council later on January 20, Inner City Press asked Iranian Permanent Representative to the UN Khazaee about Ban having been "dismayed" by the Iranian foreign ministry's spokesperson's comments.

  Kazaee replied, "I think all of you are very well aware about the consistency in our position about G2, so the high political officials are expected to act based on realities."

   Yes, realities: minutes after Ban's spokesperson's disinvitation announcement, Jarba's Syrian Opposition Coalition returned to the position voted on with 44 members absent: they will attend the talks in Switzerland...