At UN on Abyei Force, Deal Struck Friday Night, Monday Vote Predicted

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, June 24 -- With Abyei still smoking and South Kordofan in flames, UN Security Council members met past 8 pm on Friday to hammer out a final draft resolution.

The text, subject to a silence procedure on Saturday and “going blue” on Sunday, should be adopted on Monday, numerous Council members told Inner City Press at the otherwise empty stakeout.

Earlier the UK and France had questioned if 4000 troops would be needed. The UN Department for Peacekeeping Operations gave a briefing, mentioning NATO's 45,000 troops in Kosovo. Manhattan's 10,000 police officers were also mentioned. That concern dropped away.

Delegations from both East and West said human rights concerns were raised, most notably by Germany, which was quoted by the other delegations as arguing that to not include rights monitors would be a bad precedent. Others pointed to the terms of the Addis Ababa agreement between North and South Sudan.

Leaving the Council Friday night, two non-Western delegations told Inner City Press that the agreed text, with a few “bracketed items,” followed the Addis agreement in all important ways. There was an air of collaboration, that this was important and should be passed.

A more cynical or realistic view is that when both the US and China want stability in a place, for economic reasons, the others fall into place.

In a sense the Council's credibility is on the line. They embraced the Addis agreement, when Thabo Mbeki presented it to them on Monday. How could they then modify it so much as to give Khartoum the opportunity to renege and not remove its troops?

“Silence procedure on Saturday, in blue on Sunday and a vote on Monday,” a member told Inner City Press. We'll see.

On Abyei, As France & UK Ask Why Fewer Troops Not OK, Others Says Just Stick to Addis Ababa Deal

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 24, updated -- After the UN Security Council received a briefing about the Abyei peacekeeping force of Ethiopian troops agreed to by Khartoum and Juba, there were splits in the Council about what mandate the force should have and how large it should be.

Multiple Council sources told Inner City Press that France and the UK questioned whether the more than 4000 troops agreed to by the parties in Addis Ababa are in fact needed. Another delegation marveled that on wanting the more than 4000, China, the US and India were all on the same side.

To that list Russia can be added. They'd “like to save money” as much as the next delegation, they say, but “Babacar Gaye,” the UN's military chief, explained why over 4000 are needed, to defend themselves.

Germany is known to argue that to stick to the Addis agreement, and have no human rights monitoring component to the mission, would be a step backward, a bad precedent. But as Gaye, the Russians and others argue, if is wasn't in the Addis agreement it shouldn't be imposed.

To add more, they say, could be an invitation for Khartoum to refuse to withdraw its troops from Abyei.

In fairness to those who urge going beyond the Addis agreement, we publish this from a self-described “Security Council diplomat” --

“a number of delegations have a lot of questions. Of course, those delegations want the Ethiopians in, and expeditiously. We need them there. We want them to have a robust posture. And we don't want to undermine the Addis agreement. But as proposed, its a purely military and not an integrated mission, so we need at minimum to ask some questions about how humanitarian and human rights issues, or links with policing in Abyei, or what the civilian component of UNISFA would do, could be addressed in a co-ordinated, if not integrated, way. These elements aren't necessarily inconsistent with what was agreed at Addis, and that's what we are trying to explore.”

A member who favors simply adopting what was agreed at Addis said, if they delay or make additions, the violence will be on them. Call it brinksmanship. Watch this site.

Update of 6:40 pm -- while some are speaking of a Saturday session and even vote on the Abyei resolution, a knowledgeable P-5 source predicted to Inner City Press that it "needs to go back to capitals" and "they don't work on weekends, so Monday." We'll see.

Update of 7:10 pm -- a non-Western Council member tells Inner City Press the idea is to leave human rights only in the perambular paragraphs, while tying the operative ("thou shalt") paragraphs directly to the Addis agreement. In consultations, DPKO defended the 4000 soldier figure (against those asking why not reduce to 3000) by pointing to Kosovo with 40,000 troops; the number of police in Manhattan was also brought up, host country...

Update of 7:45 pm -- another non-Western political coordinator ups the ante, telling Inner City Press of 45,000 NATO troops in Kosovo, 10,000 police in Manhattan. Says they're onto operative paragraphs now, also predicts vote on Monday.

At UN on Abyei Force, Delay on Precedent of No Human Rights Mandate - But Khartoum May Nix If In?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 24, updated -- In the face of stated urgency in Abyei, those raising questions in the UN Security Council go beyond the UK and French concerns reported this morning by Inner City Press, to wider concerns about “precedent” raised by Germany, which will take Council presidency in July.

Two Permanent Five members of the Council, from East and West, both expressed bafflement to Inner City Press about Germany's position. The wonder from the East was that Germany would want to add mandates to the Ethiopian force beyond those agreed by Khartoum and Juba.

From the West, the Germany use of the word “precedent” was not understood. Perhaps, it was surmised, the problem is the idea of a UN mandated peacekeeping force without a human rights monitoring component -- like has been allowed for MINURSO in Western Sahara. That, was a precedent.

But the concerns, contrary the caricature presented from East and West, are for a UN peacekeeping force made of of only one country, a relatively neighboring one at that.

The Eastern position would be to view this like a multi-national force, as if paid for by the Ethiopians. But the UN will pay.

Some say Khartoum's real position is they'd like an IGAD force, paid by the UN. But if the German's and others push to put in mandates that Khartoum (and Juba) never agreed to, could the deal fall apart? Watch this site.

At UN, Talk of Dutch Replacing Choi, Carpetbagger Aims for Iraq, Musical Chairs

By Matthew Russell Lee, News analysis

UNITED NATIONS, June 24 -- With Abidjan buzz with reports that Dutch politician Bert Koenders is set to replace UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's ally Choi Young-jin atop the UN Mission there, in New York it fits into a puzzle of Ban's doling out of UN posts by country.

Currently the Netherlands “has” the UN top spot in Iraq's UNAMI mission, in the person of Ad Melkert. But Melkert is coming up on two years in the job, and is said to be on his way out.

Sources tell Inner City Press that already Michael von der Schulenburg, the UN official chopping at the bit to get out of Sierra Leone, is vying to replace Melkert in Iraq. These well placed sources say that von der Schulenburg previously while serving the UN in Iran ran a business exporting carpets and other antiquities. What better new posting, then, than Iraq?

While the UN this week confirmed to Inner City Press that Ban has tapped Norway's Hilde Johnson, in advance, to replace Haile Menkerios in South Sudan, at Friday's noon briefing there was said to be no announcement ready about Choi. On June 22 Inner City Press asked about a set of Assistant Secretaries General whose contracts have expired:

Inner City Press: it appears that some of the ASGs [Assistant Secretaries-General] in DESA [Department of Economic and Social Affairs], Thomas Stelzer or Ms. [Rachel] Mayanja, that their contracts have expired, that according to Secretariat data, in the one case, expired in December; in one case, expired in March; the idea being that maybe they are not going to be renewed, that they are supposed to find other posts as part of mobility. Can you confirm that, and what is the, what are the legalities, what are the specifics of working at the UN without a contract? It said that Mr. Stelzer is being paid as, almost as a consultant, although he is an ASG, at least on paper.

Ban & Schulenburg, note the empty chairs, magic carpet not shown

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: Well, I don’t think right here and now I would want to get into individual personnel cases. I don’t think that is appropriate. If that picture changes, I will let you know.

Inner City Press: can you say as a general matter that this idea that five years in a post may be enough and that people should look, not to leave the system, but look for other posts in the system. Is that something that the Secretariat is putting out?

Spokesperson Nesirky: As you well know, that is something that has been discussed at some length amongst Member States, and there are differing views on that amongst Member States. And as a general rule, as a general practice, it is not appropriate to comment on individuals’ contracts or employment status with the Organization. Other questions? Yes, Mr. Abbadi?

Ah, UN transparency. There are a number of UN officials who are coming up on five years in the same job: let the musical chairs begin! Watch this site.

At UN, Amid Congo Vote Delays, Ban's Shadowy Meetings, Of Rape & Swedish Tweeting

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 24 -- With elections in the Democratic Republic of the Congo scheduled for November, on UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's schedule for June 24 at 9:15 am appeared candidate Etienne Tshisekedi.

When Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesman Farhan Haq for a readout or summary of the meeting, and if the UN believes the elections are on track to be held in November, Haq would not answer either question. He said that the UN doesn't give readouts of meetings like this.

Nor does the UN appear to give notice. The Permanent Representative of the DRC Atoki Ileka complained to Inner City Press that he was never told that Ban was meeting with DRC candidate Tshisekedi, nor the topic of the meeting.

It has emerged that in order to hold the elections in November, the voters register would have had to be completed by May. But it has still not been completed, bills about it still stalled in the parliament.

When Roger Meece, the head of the UN Mission in the Congo MONSCO, was recently in New York, he spoke about the elections without giving notice of this delay. He painted a happy picture, including rejecting calls that the UN more closely track human rights violations related to the upcoming elections.

Some also found Meece's presentations in New York “a little light,” as one observer put it, on the issue of sexual violence and rape.

Amb. Ileka in UNSC with Araud of France, Nov election not shown

Now on June 23 the UN announced at its noon briefing that

We have received several worrying reports about incidents of an unknown number of alleged rapes and looting committed in the Nyakiele area in South Kivu, some 40 kilometres north of Fizi town, between 9 and 12 June. Investigations to confirm these reports are ongoing in consultation with local authorities. The United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) and partners are dispatching an assessment team to Nyakiele, a remote village located 8 hours by foot from the nearest UN military base. The humanitarian NGO [non-governmental organization] Médecins Sans Frontières has separately reported treating over 100 victims of rape and other forms of trauma since accessing this small village on 21 June.

As Inner City Press reported earlier this year, from the previous mass rape scandal that confronted Meece from his first days atop MONUSCO, only Mayele is still in jail, and even he may be released. Now what?

Ban Ki-moon's representative on sexual violence and conflict Margot Wallstrom, was Tweeting during this period. Here are four in a row:

Swedish speaker? Read "Viagra vapen i Libyen" in today's Dagens Nyheter @ http://t.co/4NXELgG. Monday, June 20, 2011 10:30:44 AM via web

More for Swedish speakers: "Viagra är Gaddafis vapen", op-ed in today's NSD @ http://t.co/xDDXd6Y. Monday, June 20, 2011 11:13:28 AM via web

Attending the ceremony for the appointment of Ban Ki-moon as Secretary-General of the UN for a second term. Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:04:28 PM via web

I condemn in the strongest possible terms the mass rape of over 150 civilians, mainly women and girls, in the area of Minembwe, South Kivu about 19 hours ago via web

And so it goes at the UN. Watch this site.

At UN on Abyei Resolution, Western Delay on Budget & Bombing

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, June 24 -- With much talk of the urgency of authorizing and sending Ethiopian troops to Abyei in Sudan, a split has developed in the Security Council about the timing and contents of the necessary Council resolution.

Within the Council's Permanent Five members, there's both support for adopting the Abyei resolution on Friday June 24, to get the clock running. Other P-5 members want a briefing from the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and have an additional round of amendments.

Blame for delay is usually cast on Russia and China, as on the moribund Syria resolution. But in this case, the United Kingdom acknowledges having more amendments, and not seeing a difference on the ground for waiting until next week. Sources on June 24 told Inner City Press that France too is for delay. French Ambassador Gerard Araud was observed on June 22 outside the closed meeting on Darfur complaining about the budget.

The issues on content involve not only whether and how much -- if any -- of the criticism of Khartoum's bombing in Abyei and South Kordofan to migrate from the draft Presidential Statement introduced earlier in the week by the United States, but also what relation the Ethiopian force will have with the post July 9 UN mission in South Sudan.

Some feel that doesn't need to be decided at this time, in a way that results in any delay of adopting the Abyei resolution authorizing the Ethiopian troops to deploy to Abyei.

Following the UN's confirmation this week of Inner City Press' scoop that Norway's Hilde Johnson has been tapped by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to succeed Haile Menkerios for the UN in South Sudan, seemingly at the request of the US Mission and Ambassador Susan Rice, some pushback has developed in the Security Council, where praise of Menkerios is contrasted to Hilde Johnson's history as an advocate.

Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky said that the Council has been consulted or coordinated with before Ban tapped Hilde Johnson. Comments on June 24 did not seem to bear that out. Watch this site.

Amid UN Council Card Games, Turnover Continues, Olek Matsuka's Rise

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 24 -- The UN Security Council late on June 23 resembled a casino or series of card games. In the consultations room there were consultation on sanctions in Liberia. Elsewhere, the new draft resolution to send Ethiopian troops to Abyei was being discussed.

As experts on the Golan Heights mission UNDOF returned from meeting in the UN's North Lawn building, it emerged that Russia had “put into blue” its draft resolution on the topic, not containing the condemnation of violence sought by Western members including the United States.

(Being put in blue ink connotes that a resolution can be voted on within 24 hours. Click here for Inner City Press' previous article about the departure of the Council's long-time and much missed “Mister Blue,” Troy Setiawan.)

Speaking to Council diplomats as they went in and out of the casino, Inner City Press learned that Russia had just circulated a draft resolution seeking to establish a new UN Special Representative on the allegations of organ trafficking in and by leaders of Kosovo.

“It's tied to something else,” one diplomat whispered to Inner City Press. It always is.

If the Council is a casino, its work is held together by a staff of croupiers or card dealers. This staff, called the Security Council Affairs Division, has seen rapid turnover of late.

As Inner City Press exclusively reported, the chief of the UN Department of Political Affairs which oversees SCA Lynn Pascoe, after issuing a disciplinary note to file moved Horst Heitmann from the top job in Security Council Affairs over to DPA's Middle East division.

Norma Chan returned from retirement to fill in at the top, and Loraine Sievers continued in what's called the second spot. After a longer interim period than projected, Movses Abelian came south from being omnipresent secretary of the Fifth (Budget) Committee in the North Lawn to SCA's top spot.

(That the Fifth Committee under Abelian's successor Sharon van Buerle has still not, as of June 24, finished what's called its "May" session is referred to by some, only half in jest, as a tribute to Abelian.)

Now, with Loraine Sievers retiring at the end of this month, a recruitment was held to replace her. Source told Inner City Press that Abelian wisely played no part in the panel, since he would have to keep working with whomever came in second to be second. (Abelian explains this as that the process began before he took up his position.)

The finalists were Oseloka Obaze, who rose to prominence in DPA when former Nigerian diplomat Ibrahim Gambari had what's now Pascoe's job, and Oleksandr Matsuka, who despite the Japanese sounding name is listed by the UN as UKR: Ukrainian.

During the selection process, staff were told to send all notices for July 2011 to Matsuka, called Olek. Some thought this indicated in advance who would win. They were not surprised, then, when a belated e-mail went out declaring Matsuka the winner.

There was dark talk that Obaze, who has more seniority, was passed over due to his connections with Gambari, said to not be a selling point with Pascoe's chief of staff Karin Ann Gerlach. Others note that both are qualified, and will be working together in the number two spot to some degree.

After Inner City Press mentioned the transition, presaged by the direction to send July e-mails to Matsuka, in a piece this week about another Security Council member transition, UK Political Coordinator David Quarrey's return to London to a national security job, it was quickly explained to Inner City Press first that both Matsuka and Obaze were getting the e-mails about July.

Then this was modified: Matsuka was receiving July, and Obaze August. While promotions to posts at the UN's D-1 level like this are usually not announced, it was done in this case.

Sievers, after her long service in the Council, will become the co-author of the fourth edition of the standard treatise on the procedures of the Security Council. We wish her well, as the games go on.

We'll aim to have a book review, as well as an update on an overarching question here: what happens with Lynn Pascoe, and with the top spot at the UN Department of Political Affairs? Watch this site.

US Position on Libya Rebels Stalls African Draft, UN Silence on NATO

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 23 -- The draft statement on Libya proposed by the African members of the UN Security Council has been stalled by a series of proposed amendments including one by the United States that

“The Members of the Security Council urged Member States to recognize the Transitional National Council as the legitimate interlocutor for the Libyan people.”

The US Mission to the UN did not answer Inner City Press' written questions about the amendment on June 21. On June 23, Inner City Press was able to ask US Ambassador Susan Rice:

Inner City Press: on the Libya presidential statement that's been pending for some time, [I] was told that the U.S. had proposed language to the effect that member states recognized the Transitional National Council as the legitimate interlocutor of the Libyan people. The U.S. hasn't recognized the TNC. How is it consistent that U.S. would be proposing that as an amendment and essentially killing this PRST?

Ambassador Rice: We have stated, the United States has stated, that we view the TNC as the legitimate interlocutor of the Libyan people. That has been our stated policy now. I think the statement was made on or about June 9th. Now, so there's no discrepancy there. And that is the basis of U.S policy.

While the first draft of the statement was circulated before the African Union ministerial delegation met with the Security Council on June 15, once that date pass the purpose of the statement was said to be as a summary and memorialization of the meeting.

Numerous sources inside the June 15 “informal interactive dialogue” say that members, including the US, did not in that meeting “urged Member States to recognize the Transitional National Council as the legitimate interlocutor for the Libyan people.”

The Deputy Permanent Representative of one of the seven countries fully supporting the African Libya PRST about the draft and this paragraph. The DPR, after a shake of the head, said: “They should stick to what was said in the room... We try to.”

Also on June 23, Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky about the UN's coordinator with NATO:

Inner City Press: Mr. Gaye, the chief military protocol guy of the United Nations, Babacar Gaye, met with NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization]. And NATO has put out a press release talking about operational readiness, how the two worked together. And I just wondered: did the UN in that meeting raise issues concerning NATO’s admission that civilians were killed by its bombing Libya, given the UN’s role or the Secretariat’s role under resolution 1973 (2011)?

Spokesperson: I’ll ask my colleagues in DPKO [Department of Peacekeeping Operations], but the Secretary-General is on record repeatedly as saying that the point of the resolution is to avoid civilian casualties and he has also made it clear that he has had conversations with NATO leaders up to, and including, the NATO Secretary-General on precisely this topic. Next question?

We'll see. On the draft Libya PRST, there was supposed to be a discussion on June 23 under “Any Other Business” but it didn't take place. Two delegation told Inner City Press their versions of “why,” but we'll wait to hear from the statement's sponsors themselves. Watch this site.

UN Dodges Sri Lanka Claim On Killing Fields, Ban Ki-moon Hasn't Seen, Silent on Prageeth

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 23 -- While Sri Lanka has yet to even respond to the UN on its Panel of Experts report on war crimes, the country's Mission to the UN has put out a response to the recent film “Killing Fields," entitled "Still trying to corner Sri Lanka." On June 23, Inner City Press asked for the UN's reply:

Inner City Press: There has been a response now by the Sri Lankan Mission to the Killing Fields film.. it talks about the scene where Tamil civilians were seen pleading with the UN not to leave, which was Kilinochchi. And the statement by the Mission is: “At the time the UN had said that the demonstration was not genuine.” Is it possible to know from the UN if they agree with this or they deny this statement by the Sri Lanka Mission that the demonstration, which was one of the things he is supposed to be looking into; the UN’s own action, pulling out of Kilinochchi, did the UN leave because they thought that the demonstration was somehow not genuine, or is this a false statement by the Sri Lankan Mission?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: I’ll have to look into that; I don’t know the answer to that at this point.

But when Nesirky's office did respond, they did not address Sri Lanka's statement that “At the time the UN had said that the demonstration was not genuine.” This was the response they inserted into their transcript:

[He later added that, unfortunately, the United Nations had to reluctantly withdraw from Kilinochchi on 16 September of that year, following the announcement by the Government of Sri Lanka that they could no longer ensure the safety of aid workers in the Vanni, and their request that United Nations and NGO staff should relocate to Government-controlled territory.]

A question, of course, is did the UN protest or make enough noise about leaving. And why wouldn't the UN deny (or confirm) Sri Lanka's statement that “At the time the UN had said that the demonstration was not genuine”?

When Ban announced for a second term as Secretary General on June 6, Inner City Press asked him about Sri Lanka and he said he would be starting the review of the UN's own actions. It has still not started, according to his spokesman, who has also twice told Inner City Press that Ban has not seen the documentary “Killing Fields.” Click here for Channel 4.

Nor has a major Ban advisor, nor the most senior UN official from Sri Lanka, Radhika Coomaraswamy (who told Inner City Press she would be recused from any decision to review actions in Sri Lanka). So who is it, who “briefed Ban” about the Killing Fields?

Footnote: On June 23, Ban with the Committee to Protect Journalists. Inner City Press asked CPJ for a read out, and if the case of disappeared Sri Lankan journalist Prageeth Eknelygoda had been raised, and what Ban said.

CPJ replied that “the focus of our meeting was the Middle East and freedom of expression online but we also provided details on the Prageeth Eknelygoda case. Our time was also cut a bit short because Ban was running late. It is our understanding that there will not be a readout of the meeting and that is a decision of the Secretary General’s office.”

Later, CPJ issued a press release about the meeting, which mentioned two French journalists in Afghanistan and a blogger in Bahrain but not Prageeth Eknelygoda. Watch this site.

While Rebels Oppose Darfur Deal, US Supports It, Bassole to Send Letters, including to Khalil Ibrahim in Tripoli

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 23 -- The day after UN Security Council heard about what's called the Darfur Peace Agreement from the foreign ministers of Burkina Faso and Qatar, Inner City Press put questions about the agreement and rebel group's opposition to both of them, and US Permanent Representative Susan Rice.

When Ambassador Rice came out of the Security Council, Inner City Press asked her, “most of the rebel groups have spoken actually against the document. I wanted to know you know whether you think this will actually bring peace to Darfur.”

Rice replied that “we are of the view that that agreement represents a step, an important step, forward. Obviously, in and of itself it is not sufficient to end the conflict in Darfur, but we think it was an important step and we have supported it.”

But the Justice and Equality Movement, whose leader Khalil Ibrahim remains trapped in Tripoli which is being bombed by NATO, has spoken against the document, as have the rebel groups led by Abdel Wahid al-Nur and Minni Minnawi. Inner City Press put this question to the two foreign ministers.

Djibril Bassole, who stepped down as joint UN-AU mediator earlier this month, said “I think so far there is no rejection... they need to sit with the government in Khartoum.” He added, “the armed movements are still divided.”

Qatar's foreign minister Ahmad Bin Abdulah Al Mahmoud said that the document represents what people in Darfur want, and therefore puts pressure on the rebels. He said, “for first time, all stakeholders were in one room. JEM they participated as well as LJM.. The movements are psay]ing they are looking for right of people of Darfur. They were there, expressed their requirements... as Brother Bassole said... we going to send letters to movements.”

After other media questions in Arabic and French, Inner City Press followed up, asking how they would reach out to JEM's Khalil Ibrahim trapped in Tripoli.

Bassole said that “we have been trying to get him out of Tripoli, it is not that easy. We will keep working on it with our partners to keep him out of there” to sign.

Would they only get him out of harm's way in Tripoli IF he signs? The UN was asked long ago to get him out, as the UN got its own international staff out. But he remains there. Watch this site.

At UN, Russia Puts UNDOF Syria Resolution Into Blue, Organ Envoy Floated

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, June 23 -- Russia put a draft resolution on Syria, the UN mission UNDOF, “into blue” on Thursday afternoon, three diplomats told Inner City Press.

A Western diplomat expressed frustration, saying that especially with the earlier draft resolution condemning violence in Syria stalled, the UNDOF resolution should “reflect events on the ground” in a way that the Russian draft does not.

US Ambassador Susan Rice earlier on Thursday told the press that “we think that there needs to be a credible renewal of the mandate of UNDOF and that that mandate renewal needs to account [for] recent developments on the Golan Heights and on the area between Israel and Syria.”

But at the UN, going “into blue” connotes that a vote can be called in 24 hours. “Russia is forcing their hand,” a third diplomat said.

At the same time, Russia circulated a resolution on the issue of alleged organ trafficking in and by the leadership of Kosovo. As described to Inner City Press, the resolution calls for a UN Special Representative on the organ trade issue, who could either coordinate or do his or her own investigation. Click here for Inner City Press coverage last month of the organ issue.

An opponent of the organ resolution said of Russia, “they are trying to connect the two.”

A proponent noted that there's a certain Republika in which the resolution may be popular.

Thursday afternoon's session ended abruptly without the planned “Any Other Business” segment on the pending Libya Presidential Statement. We will have more on this.

Tale of Three Photo-Ops: At UN, Ban Ki-moon Meets Envoys of Israel, CAR & Saudi Arabia, 2 Co-Greeters

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 23 -- Ban Ki-moon met and took credentials from three new ambassadors at the UN on Thursday. The Press was given one hour's notice of the triple header of photo ops: Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Central African Republic. As it happened CAR was put in between the other two, as a form of buffer.

Earlier at the stakeout, Israeli Ambassador Ron Prosor told Inner City Press he had not yet discussed the Durban review or “Durban Three” with the Secretary General, but would. Would this be the day?

Inner City Press arrived as required twenty minutes before the first stakeout. After being checked for weapons with an electronic wand, Inner City Press and an Israeli photographer were taken up to the Secretary General's suite on the third floor of the North Lawn Building.

Up in Ban's reception room while waiting, the Israeli Mission's genial spokeswoman made funny small talk about the world of spokespeople in the UN. When, before Ambassador Prosor, Ban Ki-moon came in, she whispered to him to button up the lower button of his suit jacket so his tie would not be seen. He did.

Ambassador Prosor came in with his staff, and greeted Ban then Department of Political Affairs chief Lynn Pascoe. Click here for photo. Then they all went into Ban's office for a quick meeting.

When Prosor and team left, by another door, the new Ambassador of the Central African Republic Charles-Armel Doubane came in with two staffers, one apparently from CAR and one apparently not.

Ban came in, his second buttom undone again. He read out his greeting in French and was introduced to Lynn Pascoe, who returned the greeting in English. Then they went into Ban's office.

The third and final photo op involved the new Ambassador of Saudi Arabia, Abdallah Yahya A. Al-Mouallimi. This time the co-greeter with Ban, again with second button undone, was not Pascoe but rather Vijay Nambiar. Click here for photo. Ban introduced him as “my chief of staff” to Ambassador Al-Mouallimi, who said, “I know, I met you last night.” Mysteries, mysteries.

Distracted by DSK & Hacking, IMF Ignores Sudan & Afghan Banks, Questions about Censoring Its Research

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 23 -- With the International Monetary Fund refusing to answer or even acknowledge questions about its consideration of programs from Afghanistan through Belarus to South Sudan, set for independence on July 9, it seems the arrest and resignation of Dominique Strauss Kahn, the two candidate race to replace him and a recent hacking scandal have distracted the IMF.

When the IMF on Thursday morning held its first press briefing in two weeks, the questions largely related to the race between Christine Lagarde of France and Agustin Carstens of Mexico to replace DSK. Two questions, one online and the other in-person, concerned the IMF getting hacked. Deputy spokesman David Hawley said that “files were copied,” but deferred other answers.

Inner City Press submitted as it has in the past four questions by the IMF's online briefing center. In the past at least some questions have been answered, about Sudan and less frequently Sri Lanka.

But in his post-DSK era, these June 23 questions were entirely ignored:

With South Sudan set to declare independence on July 9, what is the status of the IMF's consideration of South Sudan, including in light of Sudanese president Omar al Bashir's threat to cut off the pipelines that takes South Sudan's oil to market?

Afghan authorities have complained about negotiations with IMF. On Afghanistan, can you state the status of and explain IMF's requirement that shareholders not have any management role in Afghan banks, given that this is allowed in the US, for example?

In terms of the IMF's research budget, some have questioned whether the IMF at times censors the conclusions of research. Is that true, and if so how does the IMF respond to the criticism?

In Belarus, will the new arrests of protesters in the last days have any impact on the IMF's consideration of Belarus' request for an IMF program?

Nor in the half hour between Hawley saying “there are no more questions” -- which wasn't true -- and the expiration of the embargo were any of the four questions answered. Previously the IMF has been asked about gift filings by its top officials, and hasn't answered. Oh, transparency.

As Ban Ki-moon's Spokesman Blames UN Radio for Question, Other Answers Not Public

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 22 -- Just after Ban Ki-moon won his one-candidate race for five more years as UN Secretary General, when he came to the General Assembly stakeout on June 21 his final question was given to the UN's own in-house radio station.

The question was, “hi Secretary-General, it is nice to see you again. How do you feel on this historic day and what is the message you have to the young people of the world?”

Ban smiled and gave his longest answer at the stakeout, transcribed and put online by the UN.

The next Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky, “at that press encounter yesterday, it seemed that the question was granted by yourself to UN Radio, which is owned by the UN, so it’s sort of an in-house station. Is that generally accepted?”

Nesirky, prepared for the question, said that “No, it is not generally accepted, and it shouldn’t have happened. And UN Radio staff have been reminded of what the rules are. The rules are quite clear: it is for people with press badges to ask questions.”

Some wondered about blaming the hapless UN Radio reporter, when it was Ban's spokesman who for whatever reason devoted the last question to her, and has left the seemingly scripted answer online.

Later on June 22 this problem was addressed by Ban taking, but the UN apparently not transcribing, by-invitation only questions, about Kashmir, Japanese engineers to South Sudan and as reported, Syria.

Ban was asked, perhaps as wishful thinking, about “speculation in Korea that you are a potential candidate for the President. Are you going to run for the presidency of the country?”

Twenty hours later, unlike his stage-managed stakeout including the child question from UN Radio, this Ban Q&A has not been transcribed and put online by the UN, even in its “off the cuff” section. To some this appeared to be a new media strategy, implemented on the first two days of Ban's new term:

Take public questions from the UN's own media and put the answers online; take questions in private from hand-selected journalists and don't put any transcript online. We'll see.

At UN, Doha Process on Darfur Ends in Whimper, No Rebels, No Rice

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 22 -- The issue of Darfur, once burning hot, degenerated Wednesday into a closed door UN Security Council meeting with no output. Even the scheduled press availability by Qatar's foreign minister, in New York to present the so-called Darfur Peace Agreement, got canceled.

“Where is George Clooney?” a representative of Qatari state media asked Inner City Press. More to the point, where was US Ambassador Susan Rice?

Qatar has hosted the Doha process, urging rebels to come in order to show the emirate's diplomatic prowess. But the final product has not been signed by the Justice and Equality Movement, whose leader Khalil Ibrahim the UN has refused to evacuate like its own staff from Tripoli, nor the factions led by Abdel Wahid al-Nur and Minni Minnawi.

From the “Astroturf” rebel movement led by former UN staff member Al-Tijani Al-Sissi, even Ali Karbino has broken away and joined the still-fighting rebels.

So what was or would be solved by the Darfur Peace Agreement?

The Security Council met for hours on Wednesday with former joint UN-AU mediator Djibril Bassole, now Burkina Faso's foreign minister, and his Qatari counterpart.

Afterward top UN peacekeeper Alain Le Roy told Inner City Press, no one has signed the agreement yet. The Council is going to issue a press statement to put pressure for them to sign.

No press statement was issued. The focus seemed to have shifted to South Sudan -- some surmised that Darfur had just been used as a bargaining chip, to indict Omar al Bashir as leverage to let South Sudan go. And after July 9? Watch this site.

As Qatar Heads GA Over Poorer Nepal, In Shadow of FIFA, Press Is Told to "Ask Fiji”

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 22 -- After Qatar was appointed to head the UN General Assembly starting in September, winning candidate Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser came to take questions from the media.

Inner City Press asked him about reports that when he faced off with Nepal earlier this year, many countries which had committed to Nepal to vote for them mysteriously didn't once the Asia Group secret ballot was taken.

“I'm very surprised to hear this questions,” Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser said. He said yes, there had been a secret ballot. If you don't think it was fair, he told Inner City Press, “ask Fiji,” whose ambassador was head of the Asia Group at the time.

The question, though, is not that surprising. Not only has evidence been found that Qatar's Bin Hammam was buying votes to run for the president of FIFA against Sepp Blatter (and by implication at least to some, to buy the 2022 World Cup awarded to Qatar despite not only its size but even more its heat) -- even in this UN race, there's talk of jobs in the incoming PGA office being offered in exchange for votes.

This is becoming more and more of a pattern at the UN.

In the Secretariat, officials from some countries are allowed to stay on past what was said to be the five year limit in the same post. Inner City Press began asking Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky about some of these cases at Wednesday's noon briefing. Nesirky said he wouldn't discuss particular officials' contracts.

Inner City Press asked Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser for his view of the request by many states, recently most vocally Mexico, that the General Assembly be in charge of choosing the Secretary General, not the Security Council. Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser said that there have been a lot of debates about this, that nothing is resolved. Here's hoping something is accomplished during his time. We'll be watching.

Footnote: after the appointment of Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser as President of the overall General Assembly, committee chairs were elected, including for the Fifth (Budget) Committee the Permanent Representative of Cameroon, Tommo Monthe. He knows how the UN works, so here's hoping that the Fifth Committee under his leadership gets to the bottom of the increasing array of budgets tricks being used. Watch this site.

For South Sudan, Hilde Johnson Tapped as Ban's Envoy, UN Confirms to Press, “Like Susan Rice”

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 22 -- Hilde Johnson of Norway has been tapped to head the UN Mission in South Sudan, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky confirmed to Inner City Press on Wednesday.

Inner City Press asked about Sudanese president Omar al Bashir's threat to cut off the oil pipeline from South Sudan, set for independence on July 9, and whether the UN would sent Ms. Johnson there.

The oil pipeline threat is just one example of the foreseeable tensions between South Sudan and Khartoum that a UN envoy in Juba should work on.

But well placed UN sources have told Inner City Press, which first reported Ms. Johnson's candidacy and confirmed it with her, that “heart-felt activist” Hilde Johnson may find it hard to be heard in and by Khartoum.

After reporting Ms. Johnson's candidacy for the post as far back at May 16, along with UN officials Ian Martin of the UK and “Fink” Haysom of South Africa, Inner City Press asked the US Mission to the UN to confirm that Ambassador Susan Rice was lobbying Ban Ki-moon to give the post to Johnson.

US Mission spokesman Mark Kornblau replied to Inner City Press on June 14 that “we generally don’t comment on nominees until they are officially put forward by the Secretary General.”

On June 21, having confirmed from other diplomatic sources that Ban Ki-moon had acceded and tapped Johnson for the post, Inner City Press asked Kornblau, now that “she has the UNMIS job -- did the US / Ambassador Rice support her?” Twenty three hours later there has been no response. Now that the UN itself has confirmed, will Rice or her Mission now speak out?

Johnson recently chaired a UN session on how to help South Sudan. She is hardworking, having reportedly clashed while at UNICEF with other UN officials about the use of heightened security threat ratings by the UN during the Arab Spring.

But as one well placed source put it, “Why not name, like, Susan Rice at the UN's envoy to South Sudan? Isn't the point of the UN to be able to talk to both sides of a conflict?”

Some see this move by Ban as symbolic of the over-domination by the United States which even wire services have reported, much to the displeasure of Ban's communications team. The proof is and will be in the pudding. Watch this site.