UN's Myanmar Special Rapporteur Announces Visit, But Rohingya Not Mentioned In Her 450-Word Press Release: UN Policy?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 5 -- The Myanmar visit of the UN's Special Rapporteur Yanghee Lee starts this week, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights announced on January 5 in a 450 word press release that did not use the word "Rohingya" or even Muslim once.

  In June 2014 a UN team visited Myanmar and did not use the word Rohingya, later telling Inner City Press this was at the government's request. Video here.

  Now Yanghee Lee says “I will pay special attention to the significant human rights concerns raised by the package of four bills on protection of race and religion, which contain provisions that do not meet international human rights standards. I am deeply concerned that if passed, these four bills will legitimize discrimination, in particular against religious and ethnic minorities, and against women."

  We'll see. Yanghee Lee will visit Rakhine State and Northern Shan State, then hold a press conference in a Yangon hotel on January 16.

  Back in June 2014, the UN's humanitarian deputy Kyung-wha Kang gave an opening press conference statement to correspondents that did not use the word "Rohingya."

 On June 17, Kang told Inner City Press that the government asked her not to use the word "Rohingya" in public -- and she agreed and did not use the word. Video here. In that, at least when asked she answered.

  Inner City Press asked Kang how this was consistent with the claim that the UN is pushing Myanmar authorities on the Rohingya -- or Rakhine? -- issue. Kang said there is a division of responsibilities, that the human rights site of the UN speaks differently that the humanitarian side. 

 In the January 5, 2015, press release of 450 words, not one of them "Rohingya"?

 And what about "Good Offices" envoy Nambiar?

From the UN's June 9 transcript:

Inner City Press: It’s been a long weekend so I have a few questions, how ever you want to do it. I wanted to ask you, now that you say Ms. Kang is going to Myanmar, local media there reports that UNICEF having used the word Rohingya, then apologized for it and committed not to use it any further. This is reported there with local authorities saying the UN will no longer use this word. And I wanted to know, is this... UN policy?

Spokesman: I don’t know. I don’t know. You should ask UNICEF, but I’ll check on my end, but I don’t know.

Question: Yes, is there a UN policy [to not use the word “Rohingya”]

Spokesman Dujarric: I don’t know.

  So he doesn't know if there's a UN policy against even using the name of the Rohingya group? 

  Back on May 23, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Dujarric, to put the question to Ban's “Good Office” envoy to Myanmar Vijay Nambiar. 

  Are these Good Offices? And what is Nambiar's and the UN's response to a new report documenting the UN's troubling role during the final stage of Sri Lanka's conflict in 2009?

  UNICEF on its website acknowledges then spins:

“$ 87,000 per month... Standard due diligence on the owner and her family concluded that none of the international sanctions in place until recently had been levied against the landlady or her immediate family and no criminal charges were extant. Although allegations against a member of her family who was once a member of the previous military regime surfaced, the official had since left public office and was not subject to any criminal charges or international sanctions.”

  Is that the UN's standard -- member of previous military regime is fine to pay $87,000 a month to, as long as no current criminal charges? 

  And what now of the report UNICEF agreed not to use the word Rohingya?

This is what Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman, on May 23:

Inner City Press: on Myanmar,I wanted to ask it here, because there’s a good offices mandate of the Secretariat. UNICEF has acknowledged that it’s paying $87,000 a month in rent to a former member of the military Government of Myanmar. And, although they say that they did a sanctions check and found… they acknowledge that the person was a member of the junta, they say that it’s okay. And I wanted to know, is this sort of, UN-wide, does the UN in terms of looking at its business relationships and the payments of those types of money — is just not being on the sanctions list enough? Or is there some higher standard?

Spokesman Dujarric: Let me look at what UNICEF has said and if I have anything, I’ll get back to you.

Inner City Press: And maybe ask Mr. [Vijay] Nambiar. That was my thought.

Spokesman: Would be happy to.

Inner City Press: And about the Sri Lanka report, as well.

Spokesman: Yes.

  But these, like Inner City Press' repeated questions about the new report on Sri Lanka, by a member of Ban's only Panel of Experts, have gone unanswered.

  The issue of rent and war crimes has arisen before at the UN in connection with Sri Lanka. In 2011 the president of the UN Correspondents Association agreed with Sri Lanka's Permanent Representative Palitha Kohona to screen a government film denying war crimes in the Dag Hammarskjold Library Auditorium. 

  This was agreed to without asking other UNCA executive committee members like Inner City Press -- which since quit UNCA and co-founded the Free UN Coalition for Access -- and without disclosure or recusal. Inner City Press reported a previous financial relationship -- rent -- between Kohona and the UNCA president. The subsequent attempts to censor Inner City Press are sketched here and have continued since, sometimes comically. But this is not fUNny. This is the UN. Watch this site.

   

On Burundi, UN Gushes About Elections Monitors, Silent on Incursion, Youth Wing

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 2 -- In the run up to this year's elections in Burundi, and with the UN and other still silent on a reported armed incursion into the country, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on January 2 gushed:

"The Secretary-General is pleased that the United Nations Electoral Observation Mission in Burundi (to be known by the French acronym of MENUB) officially started work on 1 January 2015 as mandated by Security Council resolution 2137 (2014). MENUB is headed by the Secretary-General's Special Envoy, Mr. Cassam Uteem of Mauritius, and will follow and report on the presidential, parliamentary and local elections that are scheduled between May and September 2015. The Secretary General notes that peaceful and credible elections are critical for the people of Burundi, and hopes that all Burundians will seize this opportunity to consolidate peace and stability in their country."

  But will this new / replacement UN mission say what it sees?

 Back on November 28 the UN was scheduled to publicly release a report about human rights and torture in Burundi. But it restricted pre-distribution of the report to media that can afford to have a Swiss-based correspondent, and refused requests by the Free UN Coalition for Access to state how many Burundian media organizations are so represented at the UN in Geneva. Why?

  Now, the UN Committee Against Torture "concluding remarks" have been belatedly put online, in French, including on the Imbonerakureyouth wing of the ruling CNDD, the reported arming of which the UN largely covered up, as it is accused of also doing for example in Darfur in Sudan:

Violences politiques

22. Le Comité est préoccupé par :

a) les restrictions posées au droit de réunion et de manifestation par les forces de maintien de l’ordre, et des rapports faisant état de cas de répression violente des manifestations, menant à l’utilisation excessive de la force par les autorités, par exemple lors de manifestations de mars 2014.

(b) les violations graves des droits de l’homme perpétrées par un groupe de jeunes proche du pouvoir appelés Imbonerakure, telles que le harcèlement d’opposants politiques, la perturbation de réunions publiques, les intimidations, les arrestations et les détentions arbitraires, voire l’usage d’actes violents et le recours au règlement des affaires «à l’aimable». Le Comité exprime sa vive préoccupation à propos des informations indiquant que le gouvernement fournirait des armes et des formations à ce groupe. (art. 2, 12, 14, 16)

L’État partie devrait :

a) prendre des mesures urgentes pour s’assurer que toute violation des droits de l’homme commise soit immédiatement réprimée, indépendamment du statut de leur auteur. Les responsables de violations devraient être poursuivis et, s’ils sont reconnus coupables, condamnés à des peines appropriées, et les victimes devraient être dûment indemnisées et des mesures de réadaptation devraient leur être octroyées.

b) diligenter des enquêtes sur les Imbonerakure, leurs liens avec le pouvoir, y compris la livraison d’armes, et leurs actions, ceci en vue d’assurer le plein respect des dispositions de la Convention. 

  So what follow up will there be? Watch this site.

   The November 24 announcement said only the "UNOG-based press corp" will get embargoed copies of this:

"BURUNDI: Allegations of torture and ill-treatment by law enforcement officials and prison officers; sub-standard conditions of detention; no independent body to monitor places of detention;  high numbers in custody and pre-trial detention; political violence; the Truth and Reconciliation Commission."

    Inner City Press on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access immediately challenged this restricted distribution. First Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman in New York, and now the UN in Geneva have refused to lift the restriction, without substantive explanation. On November 27, Inner City Press and FUNCA asked:

"Now on the eve of the press conference, reiterating the request below, that embargoed copies not be needlessly restricted only to "UNOG-based" press... But the media that have reporters based in UNOG are larger, more corporate media. So that particular embargoed report should be released to all UN system accredited media, not only those with reporters based at UNOG. The Free UN Coalition for Access says that should go the other way, too -- embargoed UN reports should not be restricted to NY / UNHQ based media either."

On November 27, the UN in Geneva via Liz Throssell Media Officer for the UN Treaty Bodies, replied:

"Dear Matthew, The six-hour time difference is very much in your favour, and unlike the journalists here you will have an entire working day to report on the Committee against Torture's 'Concluding Observations' on the eight countries they have been reviewing this session. These will be posted online at around 8:00 a.m. New York Time -- you will be able to find whichever ones that interest you by scrolling down through the countries listed here."

 But this is not responsive. As Inner City Press and FUNCA have replied, "the request is that you not arbitrarily limit embargoed copies only to your 'UNOG-based press corps.' They will be able to publish stories at the embargo time, while despite your message, others will not."

   The UN's Throssell replied again:

"Dear Matthew, The story is a Geneva dateline. The Treaty Bodies meet in Geneva and hold their press conferences here, hence when we are able to give embargoed copies, often at short notice, it is standard practice that it should be to journalists based here. The concluding observations will be available on our website from around 8am your time. It is also important to note that the committee's session was not about one country but eight, and that the interests of the UNOG press corps are similarly not limited to one country.  You speak of the larger more corporate media in the UNOG Press Corps, but, as Stephane [Dujarric, Ban Ki-moon's spokesman] pointed out, there is a large number of freelancers here, working for a variety of English language and other language media."

  Note that the UN, at least in New York, has stated that it does not accredit freelancers.  Inner City Press and FUNCA replied in an hour's time:

"You write 'it is standard practice that it should be to journalists based here' but please be aware: for UN reports released in Nairobi embargoed copies are offered to reporters outside of Kenya and outside of Africa. So is this “standard practice” Geneva (and New York) specific? TheFree UN Coalition for Access is opposed to this “standard practice,” which is inconsistently applied even in the UN system. We are very much aware that reports beyond the US (and Ukraine) are being released. In light of the above, can you please state how many Burundi based media organizations are represented in the UNOG-based press corp to which you are limited distribution of the embargoed (Burundi) report?"

   But Ms. Throssell and the NY based spokesperson she copied did not answer; both gone from the office. No answer on Burundi (or anything else.)

Again: Why limited pre-distribution of this report to the media which can afford to have a Switzerland-based correspondent, or "freelancer"? What is wrong with the UN? And what will be the effect, like with themurky "gray lady" system at the UN in New York, be of this pre-spinning? Click here for Inner City Press and FUNCA's coverage of the opaque race to head the UN Department of Public Information, here. The UN must do better.

  Back on November 5 when UN envoy Parfait Onanga-Anyanga briefed the UN Security Council by video, he cited the belated release from jail of rights defender Pierre Claver Mbonimpa. 

  But little was said of why the government jailed him: for inquiring into the UN's own leaked memo about the ruling CNDD party arming its youth wing, including in camps across the border in the DR Congo.

  When the public then private meetings of the Security Council were over, Inner City Press asked the Council's president for November Gary Quinlan if the leaked memo about CNDD arming its youth wing had been discussed, what the Council's current understanding of that is, and if possible sanctions for political violence are being considered.

  Quinlan replied that sanctions were not discussed. He said that the Council is well aware of the memo and has discussed it, but that today's focus had been on the trajectory going forward to the 2015 elections.

  Even after Quinlan's Q&A stakeout, to his credit his second in as many days, the UN Spokesperson's office still didn't have or give a copy of what Onanga-Anyanga had read to the Council three hours earlier. 

  On behalf of the new Free UN Coalition for Access, Inner City Press repeatedly asked for this, which is given out much quicker on other countries on the Council's agenda. Finally the question was put to UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric himself -- because it should be fixed. It is not good enough to say that the office of this particular envoy -- a nice guy, we note in passing -- undercuts and is allowed to undercut the UN's transparency - particularly after the leaked memo and attempts to cover that up. We'll have more on this.

Back on September 3, Inner City Press asked US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power about Mbonimpa, and relatedly about the reports of Burundi's ruling party arming its youth wing. Video here, and embedded (with Libya question) below, with US Mission transcript.

  Samantha Power replied that she has raised the imprisonment of Mbonimpa with Burundi's leadership, publicly and privately. (Inner City Press previously asked Ambassador Power about Burundi at a Security Council question and answer stakeout of the type the new Free UN Coalition for Access urges all Security Council presidencies to hold after closed door consultation sessions.)

“I suppose the situation on the ground has not changed materially,” Ambassador Power said, “since we last engaged on this... the closing of political space, the walking away from aspects of the Arusha Accords.”

  During the recent African Leaders Summit in Washington she and other US officials raised the issues, she said. The US “wants the UN to maintain a role on the ground in the coming weeks as we approach the elections,” she said. Inner City Press has reported on Burundi using the “persona non grata” process to expel UN staff.

  Ambassador Power noted that the Security Council has held more meetings about Burundi this year than in any other analogous period. One wonders, will this continue up to the election? After? Watch this site.

Updated with US Mission transcript:

MODERATOR: Last question is Matthew.

QUESTION: Matthew Lee, Inner City Press. Thanks for the briefing and, on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, hoping for question and answer stakeouts after consultations to hear what happened and ask you about it... On Burundi, I know that you visited there, and I wanted to know what’s the status of the UN looking into allegations that the ruling party was arming its youth wing and trying to get the release of this human rights defender, Mbonimpa, who is, I believe still in jail after several months.  Thanks.

AMBASSADOR POWER:On Burundi, I personally raised the case of the human rights defender and lawyer that you mentioned many, many times publicly and privately with the Burundian leadership. I think the – I suppose the situation on the ground has not changed materially since we last engaged on this. We still have real concerns about the closing of political space, the walking away from aspects of the Arusha Accords, which have been the foundation on which Burundi’s stability and peace and reconciliation have been predicated. All of those concerns remain, and they were raised by myself and by other American officials in the African Leaders Summit when President Nkurunziza visited not long ago.

The only thing I can say I guess beyond that at this point is that we are also deeply committed to ensuring that the UN maintains a role – an important role on the ground in Burundi in the coming weeks, particularly as we approach the elections, which are likely to be a very tense time, given what the government has done against opposition parties, and given that, again, the circumstances for civil society and the opposition have grown much more difficult in recent weeks. We don’t have reason to expect that things are suddenly going to open and that’s going to create tension, and I will note that the Council, I think, has met more on Burundi in recent months than probably in any other analogous period.

So again, this is something that I think we have made our views as a council and we have made our views bilaterally speaking by national capacity very well known to the Burundi authorities at a very combustible time. Thank you, everybody.

   

On US' New North Korea Sanctions, Doesn't Say If It Will Ask UNSC 1718 Committee Too, Nor Explain "Sudan Materials"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 2 -- When the US imposed sanctions on three North Korean entities and 10 individualson January 2, it said it was not for any direct involvement in the hacking of SONY Pictures. But "Senior Administration Officials" in a background call later on January 2 said they stand behind the US' attribution of the hack to North Korea.

  One of the Senior Adminstration Officials cited UN Security Council sanctions against North Korea. But it was not said if the US will ask that Resolution 1718 Committee to adopt any of these sanctions.

  The Treasury Department's list includes "Jang Song Chol is a KOMID representative... working with individuals in Sudan who are procuring materials from him."

  While the materials are presumably weapons, it was not said if they were destined for use in Darfur, on which there ARE sanctions and an arms embargo imposed by the UN Security Council - this would be a double sanctions violation.

 The officials were asked if this is the first instance of the US imposing sanctions for a cyber hack; they replied that sanctions have been imposed under an Executive Order, 13606, on Syrian and Iranian sanctionees for using the Internet for human rights harm.

 If the US is now willing to impose sanctions in defense of the right of free speech - and freedom of the press - there are many other deserving targets, some of them US allies. We'll have more on this.

On December 22 when the North Korea agenda item was proposed, the UN Security Council president from Chad gave a time for objections.

  China objected and spoke (below), and then in the meeting itself, spoke again, also below.

   After the meeting - seventeen speeches, no replies or request for an outcome - only South Korean ambassador Oh Joon and the UN's Ivan Simonovic came out to take questions at the UNTV stakeout.

 Inner City Press asked each of them the same two questions: about the UN's "field based structure" in Seoul, to open in March 2015, and if the turning off of the Internet in North Korea, some say by the US as its response to the Sony hack, could itself be a human rights violation (even granting how few people in DPRK have access to the Internet).

  This later question, both speakers seemed to dodge.Video here. Oh Joon said no one can turn off the entire Internet -- even in North Korea? -- and Simonovic said he wouldn't speculate.

  Nor did he address how South Korea's law restricting speech about North Korea might impact the work or credibility of the coming OHCHR office there.

  Earlier China's Permanent Representative said:

"China has stated its position against the Security Council's involvement in the human rights issues in DPRK. China has been consistent. The Security Council is not the forum to discuss human rights issues. We oppose any outcome document on the situation of human rights in DPRK.

"China is a neighbor to the Korean peninsula. China will never allow any turbulence or war in the Korean peninsula. We hope the members of the Security Council place their interest in denuclearization and maintenance of peace as a priority, exercise restraint, avoid rhetoric and mutual provocation, and refrain from activities that may lead to the escalation of tension. China will work towards the  realization of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, the maintenance of peace and stability, and will address issues through peace and dialogue. China hopes the relevant parties will take real actions to create the environment for the relaunch of six party talks."

  Among the speeches, Rwanda recalling the UN Security Council's in- or mal-action during its 1994 genocide (see a 1994 memo here, and a letter to the UN today here.)

  Here is how China objected to the item at the beginning of the meeting:

"China is against using the existence of violation of human rights as a reason to include the agenda of the DPRK in the Security Council. The UN charter stipulates that the purpose of the Security Council is to maintain international peace and security. The Security Council is not a forum for getting involved in human rights issues.

"Currently, international peace and security are faced with daunting challenges. The Security Council should focus on addressing issues that really concern peace and security: upholding the goal of denuclearization, maintaining peace, and maintaining dialogue, these are in the common interests of all parties. The Security Council should work more to facilitate dialogue and refrain from doing anything that might cause the escalation of tension."

  Then Australia read into the record the letter which requested the meeting. A vote was called. China and Russia opposed the agenda item; Chad and Nigeria abstained.  It was decided to proceed.

  The first speaker was the UN's Taye-Brook Zerihoun (instead of Jeffrey Feltman), who began with the SONY Pictures hack.

  UN Assistant Secretary General Ivan Simonovic was to briefing the Security Council on DPRK. His office sent his speech to select journalists, embargoed until 3 pm. Inner City Press, despite previous requests to Simonovic's (and before that, Ladsous') spokesperson, was not sent the speech, and was not bound by any embargo agreement...

  Here's DPRK on the UNGA vote:

The Foreign Ministry of the DPRK released the following statement on Saturday:

The efforts of the DPRK government to build the world's best power and a land of bliss for people where they are well-off as the masters under the socialist system have faced a grave challenge of the hostile forces.

The anti-DPRK "human rights resolution" which had been rammed through the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly by the U.S. was finally adopted in a forcible manner at a plenary session of the 69th UN General Assembly on Friday.

The "resolution" contains even the poisonous call for considering the matter of referring the "human rights issue" of the DPRK to the International Criminal Court, not content with malignantly hurting the DPRK's policy for ensuring genuine human rights. It is the most vivid manifestation of the U.S. harsh hostile policy toward the DPRK aimed at isolating and stifling it at any cost.

Washington, in utter disregard of the procedures and regulations of the UN, staged a farce of making the "human rights issue" of the DPRK an official agenda item by instigating its followers at the UN Security Council even before the adoption of the "resolution" at the UN General Assembly. This fact clearly proves its dangerous politically-motivated attempt to invent an excuse for mounting an invasion of the DPRK under the pretext of "human rights".

Under the present serious situation where the human rights issue of an individual country was politicized at the UN to make a dangerous precedent for abusing it for toppling the social system of the country and the human rights issue stands at the crossroads of genuine cooperation or war, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the DPRK solemnly clarifies its stand as follows:

First. The DPRK vehemently and categorically rejects the anti-DPRK "human rights resolution" rammed through the plenary session of the UN General Assembly by the hostile forces on the basis of plots, lies and fabrications and high-handed and arbitrary practices.

The "resolution", which was fabricated on the basis of the misinformation, a collection of "testimonies" made by human scum bereft of even an iota of conscience and appearance as human beings, failing to witness the actual human rights performance in the DPRK, can never remain valid no matter where and by whom it was "adopted."

Second. As the U.S. hostile policy toward the DPRK to mount an invasion of it under the excuse of human rights has become clear, the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula has lost its meaning.

The U.S. has reduced to dead papers all the agreements it made with the DPRK including the Sept. 19 joint statement adopted at the six-party talks in which the DPRK and the U.S. committed themselves to the mutual respect for sovereignty and peaceful co-existence from the moment it launched an all-out human rights showdown with the DPRK.

Third. The DPRK will take all the necessary measures, not bound to anything, to defend its sovereignty and security from the evermore undisguised moves of the U.S. to stifle it.

The DPRK will put increased spurs to its efforts to bolster up in every way its capability for self-defence including nuclear force.

The service personnel and people of the DPRK will smash the hostile forces' reckless "human rights" racket through unprecedentedly toughest counteractions and firmly defend the socialist system, their life and soul.

  On the Security Council from the EU are permanent members France and the UK, and Luxembourg which leaves in 13 days (Spain will replace it in 2015 and 2016). Ten days after ten UN Security Council members wrote to request a meeting on the situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the request was discussed behind closed doors on December 15.

  The day arrived at for the session appears to be December 22 (Inner City Press asked the Chadian President of the Security Council for December), with a moment of drama at the beginning.

 That day, the President of the Council will say, "the provision agenda is the situation in the DPRK," and any Council member has the right to object. There are, however, no veto rights on this procedural matter.

  China's Permanent Representative to the UN Liu Jieyi said China is opposed to putting DPRK on the Council's agenda, calling the situation there complex and sensitive. Will he object on December 22? Wait and see, he said.

  On December 5, ten UN Security Council council members on December 5 asked for a Council meeting on the subject.

  Inner City Press obtained the letter that day and put it online, here.

After ICC Papers In, Palestine's Mansour Tells Inner City Press Retroactive to Gaza, Meeting with ICC Registrar, On Appropriations, Nigeria Excused?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 2, more here -- Days after the UN Security Council rejected Palestine's draft resolution, Mahmoud Abbas on December 31 signed the Rome State to join the International Criminal Court. Inner City Press had asked Palestine's Permanent Observer Riyad Mansour about just this move back on December 11, here. 

  On January 2 just after the UN accepted Palestine's papers to join the ICC, Inner City Press asked Mansour if the decision has been made to ask for action on Israel at the ICC, and about the CRomnibus appropriations bill provision to cut US funding to the Palestinian Authority if it does so.

  Mansour said Palestine has already asked the ICC Registrar for retroactivity to cover the last Gaza war in 2014, and that he would met with a representative of the ICC Registrar, who happened to be in New York, in an hour's time.

  On the threatened funding cut, which Senator Chuck Schumer issued a press release about, Mansour said it was strange to punish the Palestinians for seeking justice.

  Inner City Press also asked Mansour if Nigeria's absention on the Palestine resolution surprised him. He said to focus on the larger power, and that Nigeria's Explanation of Vote sounded like they had voted Yes. 

 So what happened?

  On the afternoon of December 31, the US State Department's Jeff Rathke, Director of Office of Press Relations, put out this statement:

"We are deeply troubled by today’s Palestinian action regarding the ICC. It is an escalatory step that will not achieve any of the outcomes most Palestinians have long hoped to see for their people. Actions like this are not the answer. Hard as it is, all sides need to find a way to work constructively and cooperatively together to lower tensions, reject violence, and find a path forward.

"Today’s action is entirely counter-productive and does nothing to further the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a sovereign and independent state. It badly damages the atmosphere with the very people with whom they ultimately need to make peace. 

"As we’ve said before, the United States continues to strongly oppose actions – by both parties – that undermine trust and create doubts about their commitment to a negotiated peace. Our position has not changed.  Such actions only push the parties further apart. 

"Every month that goes by without constructive engagement between the parties only increases polarization and allows more space for destabilizing actions.  Our efforts should focus on creating an environment for meaningful talks. 

"While we are under no illusions regarding the difficult road of negotiations, direct negotiations are ultimately the only realistic path for achieving the aspirations of both peoples. All of us would like to see the day when that effort can resume, and can lead to the peace that we all know is the only real, sustainable answer to the underlying causes of this conflict."

  The document is supposed to be filed or deposited with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who is listed as on "annual leave." (Ban's spokespeople have no press briefing scheduled for today.)

  The ICC, of course, is no panacea. Sudan's Omar al Bashir, for example, was been indicted by the ICC for genocide, but still UN officials like Herve Ladsous meet with him without providing explanations. Still, Abbas said he would do something, and now he has.

  The Palestinian resolution which failed on December 30 needed nine "Yes" votes to trigger the expected US veto. It got only eight "Yes" votes, as Nigeria abstained along with the United Kingdom, Lithuania, South Korea and Rwanda.

 Afterward, Palestine's Mansour said, "Why have the efforts of the Arab Group, with the full support of the NAM and the OIC and all other friends worldwide, to legislate this consensus through the Council as a contribution towards bringing an end to this conflict through peaceful, political, diplomatic and non-violent means repeatedly blocked?"

 The NAM is the Non-Aligned Movement and as Inner City Press noted contemporaneous with the vote, both Rwanda and Nigeria are members of NAM (list here) -- but both of them abstained.

  Rwanda's abstention was assumed, including in the Arab Group meeting held earlier on December 30. The abstention of Nigeria, which meant that the United States' "No" vote would not be considered a veto, was something else.

  To the surprise of some, Nigeria and its President Goodluck Jonathan were not listed among the calls of US Secretary of State John Kerry. The State Department's spokesperson Jeff Rathke on December 30 said

"In the last 24 to 48 hours the Secretary has made a number of calls to counterparts.  Let me give you a list of them.  He has spoken with President Kagame of Rwanda; he has spoken on a few occasions with Jordanian Foreign Minister Judeh; he has spoken with the Saudi foreign minister, the Egyptian foreign minister, with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, with the UK foreign secretary, with the EU high representative, Chilean Foreign Minister Munoz, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linkevicius.  The – he has spoken, as I mentioned yesterday, with PA President Abbas.  He has spoken with the Luxembourg foreign minister, with German Foreign Minister Steinmeier, and with French Foreign Minister Fabius. So by my count, that’s 13 different individuals.  Some of them he’s spoken with more than once, so more than 13 calls over the last day or two."

  Despite this, it's said that Kerry called Goodluck Jonathan, and that a State Department spokesperson - Rathke? - said it. Where? We continue to wait.

 It's reported that while Kerry doesn't list a call to Nigeria, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyau did -- for Goodluck, some say.

 Inner City Press after the vote asked Jordan's Ambassador Dina Kawar if the Arab Group intended to put this or another Palestine resolution in front of the new line up of Security Council members entering in two days, with Angola replacing Rwanda and Malaysia replacing South Korea (and New Zealand replacing Australia, which voted no). She said the Arab Group would keep working, but did not say when another resolution will be put forward.

  So what comes next? Below, we cover the issue of the International Criminal Court.

   A source from inside the Arab Group meeting tells Inner City Press that question - the benefit or not of "making" the US veto - was a major topic in the meeting, but the decision was made by the Arab Group to support the Palestinians' strategy and request for a vote, with the above expectation, at this time.

   On December 30 at around 1 pm, Mansour said, “We are happy that the Arab Group on the basis of previous ministerial meetings has considered in a positive and responsible way the request of the Palestinian leadership to put the draft resolution to a vote, possibly this afternoon, if not tomorrow morning, this is related to the readiness of the Secretariat of the Security Council.”

Referring it seems not only to the US but also to the UK, Palestine's Mansour said on Tuesday, “If one party decides for whatever reason that they do not want to go along with this massive support to find a solution to this conflict, to try to save the two-state solution by asking for an end of the Occupation that started in 1967, so that the State of Palestine could enjoy its independence, if a party is not going to go along with this mood, in Europe and in all corners of the globe... it is not for lack of giving time as Arabs, we have been deliberating for almost three and a half months.”

  At 11:30 am on December 30, another meeting about the amended draft began in UN Conference Room 9. UN Television hastily set up a microphone and stakeout (without formally informing the press corps, which the Free UN Coalition for Access is inquiring into). 

  Down in the UN's first basement diplomats from Jordan paced around; the meeting upstairs in the Security Council about Sudan throwing out two more high UN officials was essentially forgotten. 

   Before the Sudan expulsions meeting on December 30 of the Security Council, for now their last of the year, UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant told the press of the Palestine amended draft, “the new text has been circulated but no negotiations have been scheduled and no vote has yet been scheduled, so we wait to see if there will be a vote this year, or next year or not at all.”

   On the contents of the resolution, Lyall Grant said “there are difficulties with the text, particularly the language on time scales and the language of refugees. We would have some difficulties with the text. We don't know when the vote will be held.”

Palestine met with the Arab Group at the UN about the pending draft Security Council resolution on December 29.  Afterward, Inner City Press asked Palestine's Observer Riyad Mansour and Jordan's Permanent Representative Dina Kawar about US opposition. Video here.

  The text of the amended draft is below; six changes include:

New in PP 3 “and to independence in their State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital,”

New PP6 “Recalling also its relevant resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem, including resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, and bearing in mind that the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognized by the international community,”

New PP8: “Recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004 on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,”

New phrasing in OP2: “a just resolution of the status of Jerusalem as the capital of the two States which fulfils the legitimate aspirations of both parties and protects freedom of worship;”

adding the 2 words “and prisoners;”

New 10bis. "Reiterates its demand in this regard for the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem."

   Less than an hour before the Arab Group meeting ended, at the US State Department briefing in Washington, the Department's spokesperson said the US opposes the draft, and others oppose the draft as well, in part because it “fails to account for Israel's legitimate security needs.” 

Update from US transcript: 

MR. JEFF RATHKE:  "We’ve seen reports regarding Palestinian and Jordanian plans to bring their text to a vote at the Security Council.  There are discussions still taking place in New York and we are – and with the Secretary, who has spoken with some of his counterparts, and we are therefore engaging with all the relevant stakeholders.  As we’ve said before, this draft resolution is not something that we would support and other countries share the same concerns that we have."

  Inner City Press asked, and Mansour replied, “There was a telephone conversation between President Mahmoud Abbas and Secretary of State John Kerry yesterday and I'm sure they discussed all the issues.”

   Dina Kawar said the amendments concern “the issue of Jerusalem, and others concern prisoners, water, settlements.” She said, “the Arab Group supports, they have now the copy of the new amendments, we are going to submit today to the Secretariat.”

  On timing she said, “If I tell you this week and it happens next week you're going to come back and ask" why.

Dina Kawar and Riyad Mansour on Dec 28, 2104, (c) M.R. Lee

 Mansour said on the timing of a vote, “realistically it could be tomorrow or the day after.”

Watch this site.