UNITED NATIONS, December 31 – The UN under Ban Ki-moon doesn't always denounce coup d'etats, much less attempted coups. But on December 31 Ban issued a 123 word statement about the attempt in the The Gambia, albeit not mentioning the name of the target of the coup, Yahya Jammeh.
Then Ban's Under Secretary General for Political Affairs, American Jeffrey Feltman, briefed the UN Security Council.
Spoiler alert: Inner City Press is exclusively told by sources that UN official Chambas will go to Gambia on Friday, January 2. Since the Security Council President was asked on camera when Chambas would go and only said "soon," call it a coup scooplet.)
The US had already issued a statement on December 30: “The United States is aware of reports of a coup attempt on December 30 in The Gambia. We strongly condemn any attempt to seize power through extra-constitutional means. We regret the loss of life and call on all parties to refrain from further violence.”
Thirteen hours later when Ban Ki-moon issued his statement, he went a bit further and cited calm and called for an investigation, apparently by Jammeh's government itself:
“The Secretary-General is following closely developments in The Gambia. He reiterates the United Nations principled condemnation of all attempts to seize power through unconstitutional means. Referring to reports that indicate that the situation in Banjul is calm, he calls for all parties to exercise restraint and to refrain from further violence.
“Noting the seriousness of any attempt to overthrow governments by force, the Secretary-General encourages the establishment of a transparent investigation into the events of 30 December, in compliance with due process and respect for the rule of law. In that regard, he urges the Government of The Gambia, and its security and defense forces to act in full respect for human rights. The United Nations will continue to closely monitor the situation.”
When the UN Security Council meeting on the topic began at 10:10 am on December 31, there were tumbleweeds at the stakeout in front. Some may denounce The Gambia, but at the UN or at least in its press corp, there is not apparently much interest.
When the meeting ended, in less than 45 minutes, Inner City Press asked Feltman about it. He said since the SG had issued a statement, he had nothing to add. In 2015, theFree UN Coalition for Access will be pressing for all UN Under Secretaries General to answer questions.
Finally, the Security Council's president for December, from Chad, came and summarized the meeting, saying that UN official Chambas, previously the head of UNAMID in Darfur, will file a report. There have been problems with UNAMID's reporting.
(Again in terms of micro-news, Inner City Press is exclusively told by sources that Chambas will go to Gambia on Friday, January 2. Since the UNSC President was asked on camera when Chambas would go and only said "soon," call it a coup scooplet.)
Inner City Press asked the outgoing Security Council president about the December 30 closed door meeting about Sudan throwing out two UN officials, Yvonne Helle and Ali Al-Za'tari. He said he couldn't speak, nothing had been agreed to. Which is why the UN Secretariat should have spoken and taken questions, as FUNCA requestedand will continue to request in 2015. Watch this site.
UNITED NATIONS, December 30, more here – After Inner City Press received a leaked copy of Sudan UN Development Program Country Director Yvonne Helle's December 24 e-mail saying she had been ordered to leave the country, it reported it and asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about it at the UN's noon briefing on December 24. Story here, video from UN noon briefing here.
On December 30, UN Security Council consultations came to nothing: no Press Statement, not even "elements to the press." The UN Secretariat's briefer, Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson, did not come to the stakeout to speak, even after a request from Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access (see below).
Now the Sudan Tribune -- we name the media -- quotes Foreign Minister Ali Karti crowing that "[The UNSC] did not come out with anything." They also report that "local Sudanese newspapers quoted diplomatic sources as saying that Khartoum decided to replace its UN ambassador Rahamtalla Mohamed Osman and have him return home by mid-January... Sources attributed the move to his unjustified absence from the UNSC briefing this month by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court Fatou Bensouda... Sudan’s current ambassador to Juba Mutrif Sideeg is speculated to replace Osman."
Inner City Press noted the presence outside the Security Council on December 30 of Rahamtalla Mohamed Osman; Council sources described to it an encounter between Rahamtalla Mohamed Osman and UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant including the latter saying, You can't say that, it is outrageous -- which might actually help Rahamtalla Mohamed Osman. We've asked.
"This is a request that Deputy SG Eliasson or someone else from the Secretariat hold a press availability on Sudan's decision to expel Yvonne Helle (which I asked about at the December 24 noon briefing) and Ali Al-Za'tari... I understood the DSG to say he would not be speaking afterward since it was consultations. But a media availability by the Secretariat, ideally the DSG but another if necessary, later this afternoon is being requested, including on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access."
UN Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq replied in the negative:
"Regarding your request for a press availability, yes, the Deputy Secretary-General said that he would not speak at the stakeout, given that the Security Council had held consultations. The views he expressed were in keeping with what we have been saying on Sudan, including in the 25 December SG statement:
'The Secretary-General condemns the Government of Sudan's decision to expel the United Nations Resident Coordinator and Humanitarian Coordinator and the Country Director of the United Nations Development Programme. The sanctioning of United Nations personnel sent to Sudan to carry out their duties in accordance with the United Nations Charter is unacceptable. The Secretary-General calls on the Government of Sudan to reverse its decision immediately and urges it to cooperate fully with all United Nations entities present in Sudan.'"
Later on December 30, minutes before the UN Security Council was to vote on the draft Palestine resolution, the UN put this out:
Note to Correspondents – in response to questions on Sudan
The Secretary-General’s strongly critical position on the expulsion from Sudan of the Resident Coordinator and Humanitarian Coordinator (RC/HC) and UNDP Country Director is clear.
Departure of these key senior United Nations officials would constitute a serious loss for the humanitarian and development community in Sudan at a time when humanitarian needs are growing and the country faces significant development challenges.
The United Nations has been engaging the Government of Sudan at several levels to obtain a reversal of its decision. It is essential that the United Nations can continue to carry out its crucial duties in the country. The Government has agreed to extend the deadline for the RC/HC's departure from 2 January until the end of the month. Discussions on this issue continue.
The United Nations remains committed to a productive and fruitful working relationship with the Government of Sudan for the benefit of its people, on the basis of respect of sovereignty. The United Nations counts on the full cooperation of the Government of Sudan in enabling all UN entities and their leadership to carry out their important work.
" Inner City Press has asked, why was nothing said when Sudan expelled the Country Director of the UN Population Fund UNFPA in April? When Sudan this Fall chased a UN aid official out of Darfur? There have been no public explanation, but Inner City Press is compiling a picture -- call it "Profiles in Cowardice" -- from multiple sources; watch this site.
(Inner City Press is told by sources that Sudan's Permanent Representative exchanged words with a Security Council members PR on December 30, we hope to have more on this.)
For now we add this: when UNHCR the UN's refugee agency held a staff planning mtg in Khartoum, Sudan's security agency NISS then refused to let the Darfur-based international staff return to their posts.
For months they sat in Khartoum waiting, incidentally spending large amounts from UNHCR's public budget. Ultimately many of the international staff were simply moved, quietly, to other countries.
And why didn't the UN system, the UN Security Council and its members speak at that time, and in April when UNFPA's Country Director was thrown out?
In April 2014, Inner City Press asked UNFPA to "Please confirm or deny that in Sudan UNFPA Representative Pam Delargy was told to leave the country on April 7 and, separately, that she did leave. And anything else. Please also provide an update on Mr. Siddhart Chatterjee as UNFPA Representative in Kenya: date of commencement, what work has been done."
UNFPA replied to Inner City Press on April 9, "The United Nations Resident Coordinator in Khartoum, Sudan was notified by the Government of Sudan that the UNFPA Representative had been requested to leave the country at a short notice. A press release by the Sudanese Government has been issued to this effect. We regret this decision and are in communication with the United Nations Country Team in Sudan to seek further clarification on this matter. We hope that we would very soon be able to continue and re-establish normal relationships with the Government of Sudan."
Inner City Press asked this week about the UN system's silence and UNFPA replied, "UNFPA now has a new representative in Sudan, who has assumed her responsibilities three months ago. I will follow up with our Khartoum office regarding your second question."
UNITED NATIONS, December 30 – With the UN belatedly moving to stand up to pressure from the Sudanese government of Omar al Bashir, who has ordered UN officials Yvonne Helle and Ali Al-Za'tari to leave the country, Inner City Press has reported on a way in which the UN transferred the U.S. dollars of UN national staff in Sudan to the Bank of Khartoum.
On December 30, Inner City Press wrote to UN spokespeople again:
"This is a request that Deputy SG Eliasson or someone else from the Secretariat hold a press availability on Sudan's decision to expel Yvonne Helle (which I asked about at the December 24 noon briefing) and Ali Al-Za'tari.. A media availability by the Secretariat, ideally the DSG but another if necessary, later this afternoon is being requested, including on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access. Either way, am awaiting Secretariat response on why UN national staff members' US dollar accounts in UNFCU were transferred to the Bank of Khartoum, and why the UN Secretariat said nothing publicly when the Country Director of UNFPA was expelled from Sudan in April."
This last question, about the UN's silence on the UNFPA ouster in April, has yet to be answered. But on UNFCU, the UN Office of the Spokesperson sent this, which we publish in full:
"There has been a restriction on the cashing of foreign checks by Sudanese national staff. At the same time, the Bank of Khartoum has put on hold all foreign check cashing by all staff in Sudan. Since this decision was taken in November 2014, UNDP has been working with UNFCU to find an acceptable solution.
"UNDP would like to further clarify that the issue is unrelated to the requested departure by the Sudan government of the United Nations Resident Coordinator and Humanitarian Coordinator, and Resident Representative of the United Nations Development Progamme (UNDP) and the UNDP Country Director. UNDP is coordinating with the UN and with the Government of Sudan to address the situation. UNDP remains strongly committed to the human development, peace and security of all the citizens of Sudan."
In the first document Inner City Press exclusively published, here, UNFCU's President and CEO William Predmore told national staff in Sudan that
"We understand the concerns of our members after necessary account restrictions were implosed, and we regret there was not an opportunity to deliver communications more swiftly to the individuals impacted... As you may be aware, UNFCU is subject to U.S. Regulations (including those promulgated by the Office of Foreign Assets Controls (OFAC)). In order to ensure compliance with those regulations, checking account services and debit card services were terminated for local staff.”
(Many were stranded with AMT cards that didn't work, while their dollars were transferred to the Bank of Khartoum.)
But contrary to what UNFCU's Predmore told staff in writing, the US OFAC in the second document Inner City Press is exclusively publishing today, here, told UN staff that sanctions law and regulation does NOT require what the UN has done, citing 31 CFR 538.531. Click here to view in PDF.
Last week Inner City Press exclusively reported on the UN Federal Credit Union abruptly telling UN national staff in Sudan that their accounts were being frozen and the dollars in them transferred to the Bank of Khartoum. Inner City Press has asked the UN, including UNDP, OCHA andUNFPA, to explain this.
On December 27 Inner City Press exclusively published a complaint filed with Ali Al-Za'tari about the change,here. Inner City Press notes that the decision to give the UN national staff's dollars to the Bank of Khartoum flies in the face, in fact, of the sanctions. The complaint to Al-Za'tari states that
“UNFCU closed checking and savings accounts of national staff without prior notification and consultation and unilaterally transferred all funds of staff members' accounts to local saving accounts to be paid in SDG by Bank of Khartoum... Based on the long years of established provision of the UNFCU service, majority of national staff have made long term financial arrangements taking into account UNFCU deposits facilities which provided solutions to many of their problems such as medical treatments and education to them and their families.”
Tellingly, Predmore's letter to staff also says that the switch was made pursuant to UNDP's rules. What rules?
Now the UN Security Council is set to meet on December 30 about Sudan's order to Ali Al-Za'tari and Yvonne Helle to leave; the Council will say they are in support of UN staff. What will they do about UN staff members' dollars having been given to the Sudanese authorities?
In essence, UNDP and its Resident Coordinator Ali Al-Za'tari gave Khartoum the U.S. dollars of UN national staff, without notice. Even that wasn't enough to keep him in the country. But it is reminiscent of another UN scam Inner City Press exclusive uncovered, the overpayment of Myanmar by inflated foreign exchange rate in the wake of Cyclone Nargis.
UNITED NATIONS, December 30, more here-- The Palestinian UN Security Council resolution failed on December 30. It 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 Permanant Observer Riyad 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."
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.”
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.”
Here's the text of the amended draft:
Jordan: draft resolution
Reaffirming its previous resolutions, in particular resolutions 242 (1967); 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), 1544 (2004), 1850 (2008), 1860 (2009) and the Madrid Principles,
Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,
Reaffirming the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital,
Recalling General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,
Reaffirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and recalling its resolutions 446 (1979), 452 (1979) and 465 (1980), determining, inter alia, that the policies and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the territories occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,
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,
Affirming the imperative of resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees on the basis of international law and relevant resolutions, including resolution 194 (III), as stipulated in the Arab Peace Initiative,
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,
Underlining that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, and calling for a sustainable solution to the situation in the Gaza Strip, including the sustained and regular opening of its border crossings for normal flow of persons and goods, in accordance with international humanitarian law,
Welcoming the important progress in Palestinian state-building efforts recognised by the World Bank and the IMF in 2012, and reiterating its call to all States and international organizations to contribute to the Palestinian institution building programme in preparation for independence,
Reaffirming that a just, lasting and peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be achieved by peaceful means, based on an enduring commitment to mutual recognition, freedom from violence, incitement and terror, and the two-State solution, building on previous agreements and obligations and stressing that the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an agreement that ends the occupation that began in 1967, resolves all permanent status issues as previously defined by the parties, and fulfils the legitimate aspirations of both parties,
Condemning all violence and hostilities directed against civilians and all acts of terrorism, and reminding all States of their obligations under resolution 1373 (2001),
Recalling the obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of civilians and ensure their protection in situations of armed conflict,
Reaffirming the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders,
Noting with appreciation the efforts of the United States in 2013/14 to facilitate and advance negotiations between the parties aimed at achieving a final peace settlement,
Aware of its responsibilities to help secure a long-term solution to the conflict,
1. Affirms the urgent need to attain, no later than 12 months after the adoption of this resolution, a just, lasting and comprehensive peaceful solution that brings an end to the Israeli occupation since 1967 and fulfils the vision of two independent, democratic and prosperous states, Israel and a sovereign, contiguous and viable State of Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within mutually and internationally recognized borders;
2. Decides that the negotiated solution will be based on the following parameters:
– borders based on 4 June 1967 lines with mutually agreed, limited, equivalent land swaps;
– security arrangements, including through a third-party presence, that guarantee and respect the sovereignty of a State of Palestine, including through a full and phased withdrawal of the Israeli occupying forces, which will end the occupation that began in 1967 over an agreed transition period in a reasonable timeframe, not to exceed the end of 2017, and that ensure the security of both Israel and Palestine through effective border security and by preventing the resurgence of terrorism and effectively addressing security threats, including emerging and vital threats in the region;
– a just and agreed solution to the Palestine refugee question on the basis of Arab Peace Initiative, international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, including resolution 194 (III);
– 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;
– the just settlement of all other outstanding issues, including water and prisoners;
3. Recognizes that the final status agreement shall put an end to the occupation and an end to all claims and lead to immediate mutual recognition;
4. Affirms that the definition of a plan and schedule for implementing the security arrangements shall be placed at the centre of the negotiations within the framework established by this resolution;
5. Looks forward to welcoming Palestine as a full Member State of the United Nations within the timeframe defined in the present resolution;
6. Urges both parties to engage seriously in the work of building trust and to act together in the pursuit of peace by negotiating in good faith and refraining from all acts of incitement and provocative acts or statements, and also calls upon all States and international organizations to support the parties in confidence-building measures and to contribute to an atmosphere conducive to negotiations;
7. Calls upon all parties to abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949;
8. Encourages concurrent efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace in the region, which would unlock the full potential of neighbourly relations in the Middle East and reaffirms in this regard the importance of the full implementation of the Arab Peace Initiative;
9. Calls for a renewed negotiation framework that ensures the close involvement, alongside the parties, of major stakeholders to help the parties reach an agreement within the established timeframe and implement all aspects of the final status, including through the provision of political support as well as tangible support for post-conflict and peace-building arrangements, and welcomes the proposition to hold an international conference that would launch the negotiations;
10. Calls upon both parties to abstain from any unilateral and illegal actions, as well as all provocations and incitement, that could escalate tensions and undermine the viability and attainability of a two-State solution on the basis of the parameters defined in this resolution;
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;
11. Calls for immediate efforts to redress the unsustainable situation in the Gaza Strip, including through the provision of expanded humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian civilian population via the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and other United Nations agencies and through serious efforts to address the underlying issues of the crisis, including consolidation of the ceasefire between the parties;
12. Requests the Secretary-General to report on the implementation of this resolution every three months;
13. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
Back on December 11 amid reports that if the Palestine resolution fails this month in the UN Security Council, Palestine will immediately join the International Criminal Court, Inner City Press asked Mansour about it. Video here.
Specifically, Inner City Press asked Mansour about the relation between the resolution(s) and Palestine joining the ICC
Mansour said the two are not conditional, and that Palestine wants to join the ICC, as is being urged at the current session of the ICC Assembly of State Parties at which Palestine is now a non-member state.Video here.
Meanwhile the US Continuing Resolution / Omnibus on Capital Hill had this to say:
"None of the funds appropriated under the heading ‘‘Economic Support Fund’’ in this Act may be made available for assistance for the Palestinian Authority, if after the date of enactment of this Act—
"(I) the Palestinians obtain the same standing as member states or full membership as a state in the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof outside an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians; or
"(II) the Palestinians initiate an International Criminal Court judicially authorized investigation, or actively support such an investigation, that subjects Israeli nationals to an investigation for alleged crimes against Palestinians."
Rather than analyze this, Reuters for example again vaguely reportsthat "some diplomats have described the Palestinian-drafted text as 'unbalanced.'" For whom? Now Reuters adds, "some Western Council diplomats." So helpful.
Back on October 21 as the Palestine debate of the UN Security Councilwent on in the Council chamber, Inner City Press conferred with a range of Council sources about the pending draft resolution to set a time frame to end Israel's occupation.
Negotiations were held on the draft last week but only at the “expert” level, not of Permanent Representatives of the Council's 15 members. Supporters of the current draft, according to Inner City Press' sources, include China and Russia, Argentina and Chile, Chad and it was assumed Nigeria, although sources say Nigeria in consultations said they didn't yet have instructions.
France was described as more excited by the draft than either the US or the UK, as not have a problem with a time frame to end the Occupation but wanting unstated changes to the draft. France did not put forth amendments, a source told Inner City Press, guessing that France didn't want to “embarrass” the US Administration before the November mid-term elections.
The UK was described as less enthusiastic, but as somehow “softened” by the recent vote in Parliament favoring recognizing Palestine as a state.
Talk turned to the new members of the Security Council coming in on January 1, with Malaysia instead of South Korea seen as a shift in favor of Palestine as a state. (This reporter's Security Council elections coverage is collected here.) Angola and Venezuela are seen as supportive and “even Spain,” as one source put it to Inner City Press. But what about New Zealand? We'll have more on this. Watch this site.
UNITED NATIONS, December 30 -- After two weeks of questions about UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon seeming to have gotten questions in advance of his most recent press conferences, to whom does it matter?
But the only response by the old United Nations Correspondents Association, for which the UN Spokesman and other but not all others in the UN set aside first questions, was to insist that its outgoing president Pamela Falk did not give her question in advance.
Now on December 30, Falk has sent a grandiose letter to "Colleagues, Diplomats, and U.N. Staff" praising her own two years atop what's become the UN Censorship Alliance. It's a wide intended audience; hence this review.
Falk says, for example, that "we renovated the UNCA meeting room with a sound system that enables us to show movies and videos."
Falk continues, without irony, "we added news from our correspondents to the website by adding a live twitter feed."
As set forth below, not only did the UNCA and Falk twitter feeds both spike up with presumably purchased followers at exactly the same time -- Falk said she and by implication UNCA were hacked -- later, UNCA as the organization Ban Ki-moon's Secretariat claims gets out information to journalists took to blocking the Press from its moribund feed.
Going managerial, or bureaucratic, Falk says "we modernized our Directory and redesigned our Logo; we increased our membership; we increased our budget surplus; we participated as speakers at U.N. events" -- this last, only because the UN Secretariat seeks to prop up its UN Censorship Alliance.
Looking outward, Falk said "you should all know that UNCA simply could not function without the insight, institutional memory and very hard work of Melanie Randisi" -- who performed these functions when Pioli was president before, institutional memory indeed.
Falk grandly closed, "I will see you at U.N. Headquarters in my work for CBS News." In the spirit of the seasons we say, we'll see. There was a Pioli sighting outside the UN Security Council on Palestine, on which there was a UNTV stakeout earlier on December 30 of which correspondents were never formally told. But if the past is any guide, access for journalists -- and fight back against attempts at censorship -- is not really what this UNCA is about.
When the absurdity of the UN Correspondents Association, which the UN Secretariat says distributes information to those who cover the UN, blocking Inner City Press from its moribund Twitter feed is raised, the response is to claim that Pam Falk does not run that account.
But earlier in 2014, the UNCA account and Falk's own account zoomed up, seemingly with bought followers, at exactly the same time. And once outed, when Falk said it was somehow the result of being hacked, both accounts went back down at the same time. So how doesn't she run it? And if not her, who does run it? The entire 15 member Executive Committee?
In 2012 members of the UN Executive Committee, to which Inner City Press had been elected, complained about a public domain photograph Inner City Press published. Inner City Press in that instance granted their request that the photograph be taken down - but then took steps so they could no longer claim to be offended and demand censorship.
In another case, when Inner City Press modified an article about UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous at the demand of Agence France Presse and its allies on the UNCA board, they used the change as indicative of some problem with the story. But there was no problem:the story was entirely true.
And so, going into 2015, the Free UN Coalition for Access will be ramping up pressing for greater access, for a Freedom of Information Act covering the UN, and for no more special favors or status for UNCA, become the UN's Censorship Alliance.
In that spirit, on December 23 Inner City Press for FUNCA asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric the following (transcript; video here)
Inner City Press: yesterday you sent me an answer saying that a particular question asked at the Secretary-General’s press conference hadn't been given to you in advance, and I appreciate that. But I’d asked about the briefing as a whole. Is it possible to just get a yes or no, whether in the briefing that was held on 17 December, if any of the questions were provided in advance so that answers could be read?
Spokesman Dujarric: You know, it's, again, you had alluded to Pam's question. I answered you. Questions are not planted in this briefing and it is my job for the… my job to be prepared and to prepare the Secretary-General. I frankly, you know, I've been… I glided through high school, made it through college, never went to grad school, but I've been here 15 years, and I've studied all of you pretty closely, and I kind of know almost to a fault what question everybody's going to ask. So…
Inner City Press: I really appreciate that. I want it to be clear. The question I asked about, the one I specifically asked you sitting here and you standing there, was about the Transatlantic Slave Trade. It was about question 7 out of 10 and it was in French. So I’m sort of, I guess I'm thinking, maybe if it's in a different language, is that then appropriate to provide it in advance? I just wonder.
Spokesman: I really have nothing else to add to what I've just said to you.
On December 18, Inner City Press for FUNCA first asked Dujarric, for the record, if questions had been given in advance. Dujarric said, twice, that it is his job to get Ban Ki-moon ready for the press conference.
Does that mean getting questions in advance? Dujarric repeated the same answer. Video here.
On December 22, Dujarric sent this, which we near-instantly published:
Dear Matthew,
Just to make sure there's no misunderstanding, Pam Falk did not submit her question to me in advance of the SG's press conference on Wednesday. She had never submitted any question to me in advance.
Best, Steph
Via my Roman Tablet Mark VI
Duly noted, or at least, published. Overall, the answer seems strange when compared to Inner City Press' specific question on December 18 about Ban on December 18 reading a particularly answer from notes.UN transcript:
Inner City Press: I wanted to ask and I would like to hear your answer to this, I wanted to ask about the press conference held yesterday, if you can confirm or deny that at least certain of the questions were provided in advance to the Secretary-General and he read an answer to them. And I ask this because it seems if we are here having what seems to be a press conference, it seems at least important to at least know if it's scripted.
Spokesman Dujarric: No, I think the press conference is not scripted. It's my job as the Secretary-General's Spokesman to be ready for this briefing and to be ready for… to help the Secretary-General be ready for his briefing.
Inner City Press: On the answer on the Transatlantic Slave Trade, his entire answer was read out. And I'm saying this with all due respect, but is this normal? Is it normal in a press conference to have an answer known in advance and an answer read out?
Spokesman Dujarric: I think, as I said, Matthew, it's my job to be ready for the briefings and to make sure the Secretary-General is ready for his.
Inner City Press: Does that include knowing what questions will be asked? There is a big difference.
Spokesman Dujarric: Those are the only words I can use. So, anything else? Yes, I'll come back to you.
So why respond after a question about another question with a denial about "Pam Falk"? Pam Falk is Pamela Falk of CBS News, outgoing head of the UN Correspondents Association, whose past, present and future First Vice President indicated on December 16 that Falk is responsible for blocking Inner City Press from UNCA's near moribund Twitter accounts.
(On December 23, he conveyed, and we publish, "Pam says she is not the person who uses UNCA account." But as noted above, earlier in 2014, the UNCA account and Falk's own account zoomed up, seemingly with bought followers, at exactly the same time. And once outed, when Falk said it was somehow the result of being hacked, both accounts went back down at the same time. So how doesn't she run it? And if not her, who does run it? The entire 15 member Executive Committee? We'll have more on this).
A world in which that (and this sample audio) is consistent with freedom of the press, but the above must be emphasized, is too complex by half. There's more to say, but as noted, we publish it near-immediately.
On December 17 after Ban thanked some of those in the UN Press Briefing Room for inviting and celebrating him at a black-tie ball the previous night, the first question was set aside for the group that celebrated him, the UN Correspondents Association. Video here.
Outgoing UNCA president Pamela Falk asked Ban about Cuba, “since you've visit,” and Ban said he had been told in advance. While he added, by the US, he glanced down and read out a statement. Of course, Ban Ki-moon has no responsibility for or power over US policy on Cuba.Video here.
Ban was asked a soft question about the US torture report -- but NOT whether he thinks anyone should be prosecuted. Ban was asked a question about Ebola and another about the transatlantic slave trade from Africa.
In response to the latter question, Ban read the entirety of his answer from a script. Video here.
Yes, it was in French. But if he's getting the questions in advance on this, why not others? And as another journalist in the room, not Inner City Press, said afterward, maybe he wasn't called on because he hasn't been willing to give his question in advance.
