By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, February 5 -- After the murder by ISIS of two Japanese hostages and Jordan's pilot, on February 5 Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Yasuhisa Kawamura held a press conference at the UN. He described continued Japanese aid in the Middle East, including to countries impacted by ISIL.
Inner City Press asked Kawamura if Japan found unhelpful UN Security Council Resolution 2133purporting to ban negotiating with terrorists for hostages, noting that for example French hostage Serge Lazarevic was released in Mali then four rebel or terrorist fighters were released.
Inner City Press asked Kawamura if Japan found unhelpful UN Security Council Resolution 2133purporting to ban negotiating with terrorists for hostages, noting that for example French hostage Serge Lazarevic was released in Mali then four rebel or terrorist fighters were released.
(UNSC Resolution 2133 "calls upon all Member States to prevent terrorists from benefiting directly or indirectly from ransom payments or from political concessions and to secure the safe release of hostages.”)
Kawamura's answer was that Japan never spoke with ISIS in this case, only spoke with its allies like Jordan. But what is the policy? Does the Security Council resolution only constrain some?
On ISIS, the UN's Syria humanitarian monthly briefing last month had this to say about Islamic State:
“access to ISIL controlled Raqqa and Deir ez Zor is particularly concerning. UN agencies were unable to deliver food to the entire caseload of 600,000 people in these two governorates in December due to lack of agreement with armed groups on the ground."
So is Islamic State the "armed group" the UN is referring to? And were none of the 600,000 people served, or not all of them?
The government “has continued to condut airstrikes, including barrel bombs, in densely populated areas... for nearly two weeks, Al Nusra Front has cut water supplies to Idlib city, affecting some 600,000 people.”
This monthly breifing was given on January 28 by Kyung-wha Kang "on behalf of Valerie Amos," who leaves the UN in March. (Click here for Inner City Pressexclusive coverage.) The underlying report was not distributed in advance through the UN Spokesperson's office "gray lady" system, see below, instead handed selectively to Western wire service(s).
The Syria humanitarian resolution adopted by the UN Security Council back on December 17 covers "all parties to the Syrian domestic conflict."
After the adoption, Inner City Press asked Australian Permanent Representative Gary Quinlan, yes or no, if any of the obligations in the resolution apply to the US-led campaign of air strikes in Syria.
"No," Quinlan replied.
"Why not?" Inner City Press asked.
Quinlan said "I know where you are going" with that, but emphasized that the resolution had been adopted unanimously.
But the question is, why carve out anyone, particularly one using force from the air, from a Security Council resolution about international humanitarian law? To some, the answer is obvious, involving Israel being exempt from resolutions about the Golan Heights, US aversion to the International Criminal Court, etc.
But why are these double standards simply accepted without question? After Quinlan and his counterparts from Luxembourg and Jordan finished speaking at the Security Council stakeout microphone, the dozen journalists listening to them left as Syria's Permanent Representative Bashar Ja'afari came to the microphone to reply. And so it goes at the UN.
When outgoing UN humanitarian aid chief Valerie Amosbriefed the Security Council about Syria on December 15, there was in the Spokesperson's Office no accompanying report. Amos' briefing to the Council did not address casualties from US and Gulf allies' air strikes, as November's written report had.
Instead, Amos said that “all parties to the conflict continue to violate the most basic laws with devastating consequences. The Government has continued to use barrel bombs in densely populated areas, killing and maiming people. The use of barrel bombs has been particularly acute in Aleppo, Hama, Idlib, Rural Damascus, Deir Ez-Zor, Ar-Raqqa and Da'ra.”
She did mention that “opposition groups have also prevented medical supplies from reaching besieged communities in Nubul and Zarah.”
Most troublingly, Amos said that the UN has received reports of 350 children, some as young as five years old, being trained for combat in a military camp in Ar-Raqqa by ISIL.
Back in late November, the UN released its Syria aid access report in the same pre-spun way it did on April 23,then on May 22, on June 20 and then on July 24 and August 28. Unlike other reports, for example on Sudanwhere both the UN's Herve Ladsous and Valerie Amos have been petitioned by Darfuri groups, here, the UN put an advance copy of this Syria report its its so-called "gray lady."
As previously reported, the "gray lady" holds documents, of late only the month's Security Council program of work, of which advance copies are released, sometimes with a heads-up to favored media.
Who decided for the UN Secretariat and Spokesman which are the important issues meriting such treatment? The Free UN Coalition for Access posits that it should be all reports, with no advance notice to favored media. The system could be fixed, but to simply without explanation return to the current murk is UNacceptable - and typically UN.
In December, a correspondent was told, "there is no more gray lady."