On Ukraine, Inner City Press Asks Kyiv PR Sergeyev of HRW Grad Rocket Report, IMF Trache & Ceasefire Conditions

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 30 -- When Ukraine's Permanent Representative to the UN Yuriy Sergeyev held a UN press conference on July 30, Inner City Press asked him about the Human Right Watch report his government is using Grad rockets, killing at least 16 civilians between July 12 and 21 near Donetsk.

  Sergeyev responded first about the UN's (or Ivan Simonovic's) report, then emphasized that Russian media is saying Ukraine is using ballistic missiles.

  Inner City Press repeated the question, emphasizing it concerns Human Rights Watch's report, not the UN's, and not Russian media.  Sergeyev provided essentially the same answer.

  Here is the HRW report, online.

  Inner City Press also asked about the status of the International Monetary Fund program, after the downing of MH17. Sergeyev said Ukraine has met with the IMF's Christine Lagarde and "will" get the next tranche of the program in late August.  But won't there be an Executive Board meeting?

After Russian foreign minister and US Secretary of State John Kerry spoke by phone on July 27, the US State Department issued two read-outs, or a readout in two stages.

  The second, an "additional point" by a Senior State Department Official, was that Kerry "underlined our support for a mutual cease fire verified by the OSCE and reaffirmed our strong support for the international investigation to show the facts of MH17."

  Inner City Press on July 30 asked Sergeyev for Ukraine's position on this. Sergeyev cited as "pre-conditions" the closing of the border with Russia, and the release of all hostages.

  Back on July 28 Inner City Press asked Russia's Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin about this read-out: does the US support a ceasefire?

“I supposed he said they did,” Churkin replied. “What their message is in private to the Ukrainians is a different story... There was a phone converation between Vice President Biden and President Poroshenko [then] they went up another stage in escalating the conflict after that and immediately.”

  Procedurally, Ukraine set aside the first question at its press conference saying, "Pamela, traditionally you open our session." Using this UN Correspondents Association set-aside, Pam Falk of CBS asked about rebels mining the MH17 site. Her UNCA sidekick asked about "Russian propaganda." 

   And so it went until, fifth, the new Free UN Coalition for Access asked about HRW's report. This is how it's working, with the UN's Censorship Alliance. In this context, the Free UN Coalition for Access is against the automatic setting-aside of questions. 

 Back on July 25 at the UN  Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq:

Inner City Press: Is there any UN involvement in trying to bring about this deployment? Does the Secretary-General believe that such a deployment would go through the Security Council? Should go through the Security Council? Should the consent of the separatists be sought to avoid a conflict? What’s the UN’s thinking on this deployment of armed individuals into a conflict zone?

Deputy Spokesman Haq: I believe that this is an issue that may come up, among the members of the Security Council in the coming days, so I’ll leave it in their hands.

  Five hours later Security Council member Mark Lyall Grant of the UK said

“Its early days, the negotiations between The Netherlands and the Ukrainian government are continuing, as I understand it, in Kyiv. The Australians are obviously involved as well in terms of negotiating the bilateral agreement. When that happens, I think it is quite likely that the Dutch government may want to inform the Security Council of that agreement, and I think it also quite likely that the Security Council will want to take note of that agreement, very possibly in a resolution. I wouldn't expect that to be controversial, and that could happen very quickly after agreements have been reached in Kyiv.” 

  Meanwhile at the International Monetary Fund's July 24 embargoed briefing, Inner City Press asked IMF  Deputy Spokesperson William Murray:

Inner City Press: "On Ukraine, what is the IMF's estimate or thoughts on the impact of the downing in Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 in Eastern Ukraine, and its impact, if any, on the IMF's program?

MR. MURRAY: You know, we're concerned about conflict in the region and a statement we issued the other day addresses that issue.

 But what about MH17 and its aftermath? The IMF did substantively answer Inner City Press' Gaza and Israel question, here.  Watch this site.

   

To Ukraine, Russia's Churkin Asks If US Speaks Differently in Private, Of Kyiv Dutch Delay

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 27 -- After Russian foreign minister and US Secretary of State John Kerry spoke by phone on July 27, the US State Department issued two read-outs, or a readout in two stages.

  The second, an "additional point" by a Senior State Department Official, was that Kerry "underlined our support for a mutual cease fire verified by the OSCE and reaffirmed our strong support for the international investigation to show the facts of MH17."

  On July 28 Inner City Press asked Russia's Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin about this read-out: does the US support a ceasefire?

“I supposed he said they did,” Churkin replied. “What their message is in private to the Ukrainians is a different story... There was a phone converation between Vice President Biden and President Poroshenko [then] they went up another stage in escalating the conlict after thaat and immediately.”

Churkin said UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has estimated the civilians killed in the conflict at 1,100 and said, “I do hope watching TV coverage... they will understand this is an extremely dangerous crisis and course of action and will give a proper signal.” He said Ukraine would listen, since they “depend on the advice of the US and their politcal support.”

  Inner City Press also asked Churkin if Russia think the Dutch and Australians would need Security Council action to send police, armed or unarmed, to Eastern Ukraine. 

  Churkin replied that Kyiv has been dragging its feet, most recently saying their deal with the Dutch will need ratification by a parliament that has been dissolved. Even if re-called on July 31, will there be a quorum? Churkin said he would leave it up to the Press' “literary talents” to find the right word for this. Watch this site.

 Back on July 25 at the UN  Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq:

Inner City Press: Is there any UN involvement in trying to bring about this deployment? Does the Secretary-General believe that such a deployment would go through the Security Council? Should go through the Security Council? Should the consent of the separatists be sought to avoid a conflict? What’s the UN’s thinking on this deployment of armed individuals into a conflict zone?

Deputy Spokesman Haq: I believe that this is an issue that may come up, among the members of the Security Council in the coming days, so I’ll leave it in their hands.

  Five hours later Security Council member Mark Lyall Grant of the UK said

“Its early days, the negotiations between The Netherlands and the Ukrainian government are continuing, as I understand it, in Kyiv. The Australians are obviously involved as well in terms of negotiating the bilateral agreement. When that happens, I think it is quite likely that the Dutch government may want to inform the Security Council of that agreement, and I think it also quite likely that the Security Council will want to take note of that agreement, very possibly in a resolution. I wouldn't expect that to be controversial, and that could happen very quickly after agreements have been reached in Kyiv.” 

  Meanwhile at the International Monetary Fund's July 24 embargoed briefing, Inner City Press asked IMF  Deputy Spokesperson William Murray:

Inner City Press: "On Ukraine, what is the IMF's estimate or thoughts on the impact of the downing in Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 in Eastern Ukraine, and its impact, if any, on the IMF's program?

MR. MURRAY: You know, we're concerned about conflict in the region and a statement we issued the other day addresses that issue.

 But what about MH17 and its aftermath? The IMF didsubstantively answer Inner City Press' Gaza and Israel question, here.  Watch this site.

   

In Ukraine, US State Department Official Says Supports Mutual Ceasefire Verified by OSCE, International Investigation of MH17

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 27 -- After US Secretary of State John Kerry called his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov on July 27, the US State Department issued two read-outs, or a readout in two stages.

  The second, an "additional point" by a Senior State Department Official, was that Kerry "underlined our support for a mutual cease fire verified by the OSCE and reaffirmed our strong support for the international investigation to show the facts of MH17."

   While the second part of the sentence includes the word "international" that Russia pushed for in the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 investigation resolution adopted on July 21, the first part of the sentence caused more surprise: a ceasefire? 

  While the second read-out didn't say so, did this mean only in the area around the site where MH17 went down? We'll have more on this as it develops.

  The first (part of the) readout, by a Senior State Department Official, was that

"During a phone call this afternoon, Secretary Kerry urged Foreign Minister Lavrov to stop the flow of heavy weapons and rocket and artillery fire from Russia into Ukraine, and to begin to contribute to deescalating the conflict.  He did not accept Foreign Minister Lavrov’s denial that heavy weapons from Russia were contributing to the conflict.

"Secretary Kerry provided an update on his meetings in the Middle East and Paris this past week and the ongoing efforts to achieve a ceasefire."

 Back on July 25 at the UN  Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq:

Inner City Press: Is there any UN involvement in trying to bring about this deployment? Does the Secretary-General believe that such a deployment would go through the Security Council? Should go through the Security Council? Should the consent of the separatists be sought to avoid a conflict? What’s the UN’s thinking on this deployment of armed individuals into a conflict zone?

Deputy Spokesman Haq: I believe that this is an issue that may come up, among the members of the Security Council in the coming days, so I’ll leave it in their hands.

  Five hours later Security Council member Mark Lyall Grant of the UK said

“Its early days, the negotiations between The Netherlands and the Ukrainian government are continuing, as I understand it, in Kyiv. The Australians are obviously involved as well in terms of negotiating the bilateral agreement. When that happens, I think it is quite likely that the Dutch government may want to inform the Security Council of that agreement, and I think it also quite likely that the Security Council will want to take note of that agreement, very possibly in a resolution. I wouldn't expect that to be controversial, and that could happen very quickly after agreements have been reached in Kyiv.” 

  Meanwhile at the International Monetary Fund's July 24 embargoed briefing, Inner City Press asked IMF  Deputy Spokesperson William Murray:

Inner City Press: "On Ukraine, what is the IMF's estimate or thoughts on the impact of the downing in Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 in Eastern Ukraine, and its impact, if any, on the IMF's program?

MR. MURRAY: You know, we're concerned about conflict in the region and a statement we issued the other day addresses that issue.

 But what about MH17 and its aftermath? The IMF didsubstantively answer Inner City Press' Gaza and Israel question, here.  Watch this site.

   

On Flight MH17, With Dutch & Australian Police Said Headed to Ukraine, UN Tells ICP Members of UNSC May Discuss, UK Prediction

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 25 -- Amid reports of police from the Netherlands and now Australia headed to Ukraine and the crash-site of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, Inner City Press on July 25 asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq:

Inner City Press: Is there any UN involvement in trying to bring about this deployment? Does the Secretary-General believe that such a deployment would go through the Security Council? Should go through the Security Council? Should the consent of the separatists be sought to avoid a conflict? What’s the UN’s thinking on this deployment of armed individuals into a conflict zone?

Deputy Spokesman Haq: I believe that this is an issue that may come up, among the members of the Security Council in the coming days, so I’ll leave it in their hands.

  Five hours later Security Council member Mark Lyall Grant of the UK said

“Its early days, the negotiations between The Netherlands and the Ukrainian government are continuing, as I understand it, in Kyiv. The Australians are obviously involved as well in terms of negotiating the bilateral agreement. When that happens, I think it is quite likely that the Dutch government may want to inform the Security Council of that agreement, and I think it also quite likely that the Security Council will want to take note of that agreement, very possibly in a resolution. I wouldn't expect that to be controversial, and that could happen very quickly after agreements have been reached in Kyiv.” 

  Meanwhile at the International Monetary Fund's July 24 embargoed briefing, Inner City Press asked IMF  Deputy Spokesperson William Murray:

Inner City Press: "On Ukraine, what is the IMF's estimate or thoughts on the impact of the downing in Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 in Eastern Ukraine, and its impact, if any, on the IMF's program?

MR. MURRAY: You know, we're concerned about conflict in the region and a statement we issued the other day addresses that issue.

 But what about MH17 and its aftermath? The IMF didsubstantively answer Inner City Press' Gaza and Israel question, here.  Watch this site.

   

Shootdown Showdown At UN Security Council, Dueling on MH17 Drafts, US 1988 Downing of Iranian Plane Cited by Russia

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 20 -- While the UN Security Council held an emergency meeting about Gaza at 10 pm on Sunday, July 20, Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin emerged to speak about the pending draft resolution(s) on downed flight MH17.

   He said he expected consultations with Australia after the Gaza meeting; he said Russia would support a draft with providing for a independent, impartial investigation.

   As a pointed precedent, he cited the US' downing of a airplane in 1988. (That killed approximately 300 Iranian passengers). 

   Moments later, UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant arrived at the Security Council, stopping to say that the new proposals seemed like typical Russian delaying tactics. Foreign ministers are on the way; it's said a vote will be held at 3 pm on July 21. But on what language?

  Australian Ambassador Gary Quinlan arrived at 10:55 pm, stopping to say there is no reason any Council member should not support the earlier draft.  Inner City Press will be following this.

 Back on July 18 the UN Security Council at 10 am  issued a Press Statement on Malaysian Airlines MH17 down(ed) in Eastern Ukraine.

  Meanwhile earlier on July 18 the Syrian Coalition rebels put out a press release that they should be given "advanced weapons."

   Here is what the Syrian Coalition, until recently headed by Saudi backed Ahmad Al Jarba and now headed by Saudi backed Hadi Al Bahra, said:

“Louay Safi, spokesman for the Syrian Coalition, said earlier that the connection between the Assad regime and ISIS has never been so intimately interwound as it is today with the progress being made by regime forces near Aleppo and that of ISIS in Deir Ezzor. These advancement have not been interrupted by a single clash between regime forces and ISIS, which proves the existence of full coordination between them.” Safi attributes the setbacks suffered by Syrian rebels to the reluctance of the friends of Syria group to provide the rebels with the advanced weapons that can tip the balance on the ground.”

  What about, “in the air”? The Syrian Coalition continues:

“Furthermore, Safi agrees with the former U.S. ambassador to Syria Robert Ford, who blames the rise of extremist groups in Syria on the Obama administration’s hesitation to support the moderate opposition forces. The military situation is very critical, as regime forces are about to laid siege on Aleppo. But even if Assad’s forces recapture Aleppo, the crisis will not be over. (Source: Syrian Coalition)”

  So, what of the US announced plan for $500 million to “vetted” Syrian rebels?

Also on Syria, on July 14 when the UN Security Council adopted a resolution on humanitarian access to Syria, its Operative Paragraph 11 said the Council “affirms that it will take further measures in the event of non-compliance with this resolution or resolution 2139 (2014) by any Syrian party.”

 Afterward, Australia's Permanent Representative to the UN Gary Quilan emphasized at the media stakeout that resolutions are binding, that the Council had affirmed that it will take measures if not complied with by the parties. Video here, from Minute 2:10

  Inner City Press sought to ask a question about a statement inside the Security Council by Russia's Vitaly Churkin, and Quinlan agreed to take the question. Inner City Press asked Quinlan to respond to Churkin saying that the resolution “doesn't plan for automatism” in sanctions or the use of force, that any such steps would require the specific consideration of the Security Council and “convincing evidence.” Video of Churkin's statement here, from Minute 25.

  Quinlan replied that what Churkin said was correct, then said that while there would have to be a further decision by the Security Council about what measures to take, the decision that some measures would be taken has already been made. Video here from Minute 18.

Readers can draw their own conclusion how meaningful it is to claim that a decision to definitely act has been made, if another vote including veto powers is required.

Footnote: Asking this question was not easy. The first question was given to Voice of America; the second taken by the whip of the UN Correspondents Association's president, sometimes writing for the Huffington Post. She then tried to keep the UN Television boom microphone operator for giving the microphone to Inner City Press -- even as Ambassador Quinlan said, “Matthew... what Ambassador Churkin said was correct.” 

  This UNCA, becoming the UN's Censorship Alliance,seems to believe it can block questions (as well as having tried to get Inner City Press thrown out after its reporting about Sri Lanka, here). The new (and resulting) Free UN Coalition for Access opposes this.

  To come full circle, acknowledging deft diplomacy by Australia and its co-leads Jordan and Luxembourg on this resolution, it is sometimes hard not to note the contradiction of Australia returning asylum seekers from Sri Lanka after only “reviewing” their claims on a ship. Inner City Press has asked Ambassador Quinlan about this, and we hope to have a story on the topic soon. Watch this site.

   

On Malaysia Airlines 17, US Complains of Limited OSCE Access, Reports of Bodies Moved: How Would It Be in Syria?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 19 -- If a plane was downed in rebel held areas of Syria, how fast would access be? Would calls be made on Qatar, Saudi Arabia or Turkey, supporters of the rebels, to ensure access, ceasefires, even an end to the rebellion?

  On Malaysia Airlines fight 17, US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki on July 19 said: "We are deeply concerned by the Russia-backed separatists’ refusal to allow OSCE monitors safe and unfettered access to the crash site of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17.  Yesterday, the monitors were allowed only 75 minutes at the site.  Today, they were allowed less than three hours.  Thus far, the separatists have only allowed monitors to have limited access to a small area.  The site is not secure, and there are multiple reports of bodies being removed, parts of the plane and other debris being hauled away, and potential evidence tampered with.  This is unacceptable and an affront to all those who lost loved ones and to the dignity the victims deserve.

"It is critical that there be a full, credible, and unimpeded international investigation as quickly as possible.  Russia-backed separatists committed Thursday to allowing full access to international observers and response teams and Russia supported an OSCE statement calling for the same.  We urge Russia to honor its commitments and to publicly call on the separatists to do the same."

  Back on July 18 in the UN Security Council Jeffrey Feltman, former a US official now UN political affairs chief, read-out a four page briefing.

  Feltman said “the UN has at this point no independent verification of the circumstances regarding the tragic crash.” But, he added, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon “strongly condemns this apparently deliberate downing of a civilian aircraft.”

   This gave rise to a question: is Feltman or Ban Ki-moon saying the shooters-down of the MH17 plane KNEW it was a civilian aircraft?

   Inner City Press went to the day's UN noon briefing and asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq. Video here and embedded below.

   Haq said that he doesn't speak for Feltman -- strange -- then read from Ban Ki-moon's statement.

  Inner City Press asked why while Ban had planned to speak with Poroshenko on July 18, it would now by July 19. Haq cited logistics, and said there was still hope for July 18.

  On the Dutch Ambassador's request for UN assistance in returning victims' remains to the Netherlands, Haq said he was aware of the request, but not of any UN response.

    Feltman recited that “on July 13, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation issued a statement noting that one Russian national died and two were seriously injured when a Ukrainian army shell hit a residential house. Ukraine has rejected this claim.”

  The news, such as there was, in Feltman's briefing was that Ban has asked him to travel to Kyiv and Moscow. Is he viewed as impartial? At this point, perhaps the UN thinks, does it matter?

 Earlier on July 18 the Security issued a Press Statement; here is the text, now as sent out by the Rwandan presidency of the Council, still not (as of 10:42 am) by the UN Spokesperson's Office:

"The members of the Security Council expressed their deepest sympathies and condolences to the families of the victims, and to the people and Governments of all those killed in the crash in Eastern Ukraine on 17 July of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur.

  The members of the Security Council called for a full, thorough and independent international investigation into the incident in accordance with the international civil aviation guidelines and for appropriate accountability.

  The members of the Security Council further stressed the need for all parties to grant immediate access by investigators to the crash site to determine the cause of the incident"

  Meanwhile earlier on July 18 tthe Syrian Coalition rebels put out a press release that they should be given "advanced weapons."

   Here is what the Syrian Coalition, until recently headed by Saudi backed Ahmad Al Jarba and now headed by Saudi backed Hadi Al Bahra, said:

“Louay Safi, spokesman for the Syrian Coalition, said earlier that the connection between the Assad regime and ISIS has never been so intimately interwound as it is today with the progress being made by regime forces near Aleppo and that of ISIS in Deir Ezzor. These advancement have not been interrupted by a single clash between regime forces and ISIS, which proves the existence of full coordination between them.” Safi attributes the setbacks suffered by Syrian rebels to the reluctance of the friends of Syria group to provide the rebels with the advanced weapons that can tip the balance on the ground.”

  What about, “in the air”? The Syrian Coalition continues:

“Furthermore, Safi agrees with the former U.S. ambassador to Syria Robert Ford, who blames the rise of extremist groups in Syria on the Obama administration’s hesitation to support the moderate opposition forces. The military situation is very critical, as regime forces are about to laid siege on Aleppo. But even if Assad’s forces recapture Aleppo, the crisis will not be over. (Source: Syrian Coalition)”

  So, what of the US announced plan for $500 million to “vetted” Syrian rebels?

Also on Syria, on July 14 when the UN Security Council adopted a resolution on humanitarian access to Syria, its Operative Paragraph 11 said the Council “affirms that it will take further measures in the event of non-compliance with this resolution or resolution 2139 (2014) by any Syrian party.”

 Afterward, Australia's Permanent Representative to the UN Gary Quilan emphasized at the media stakeout that resolutions are binding, that the Council had affirmed that it will take measures if not complied with by the parties. Video here, from Minute 2:10

  Inner City Press sought to ask a question about a statement inside the Security Council by Russia's Vitaly Churkin, and Quinlan agreed to take the question. Inner City Press asked Quinlan to respond to Churkin saying that the resolution “doesn't plan for automatism” in sanctions or the use of force, that any such steps would require the specific consideration of the Security Council and “convincing evidence.” Video of Churkin's statementhere, from Minute 25.

  Quinlan replied that what Churkin said was correct, then said that while there would have to be a further decision by the Security Council about what measures to take, the decision that some measures would be taken has already been made. Video here from Minute 18.

Readers can draw their own conclusion how meaningful it is to claim that a decision to definitely act has been made, if another vote including veto powers is required.

Footnote: Asking this question was not easy. The first question was given to Voice of America; the second taken by the whip of the UN Correspondents Association's president, sometimes writing for the Huffington Post. She then tried to keep the UN Television boom microphone operator for giving the microphone to Inner City Press -- even as Ambassador Quinlan said, “Matthew... what Ambassador Churkin said was correct.” 

  This UNCA, becoming the UN's Censorship Alliance, seems to believe it can block questions (as well as having tried to get Inner City Press thrown out after its reporting about Sri Lanka, here). The new (and resulting) Free UN Coalition for Access opposes this.

  To come full circle, acknowledging deft diplomacy by Australia and its co-leads Jordan and Luxembourg on this resolution, it is sometimes hard not to note the contradiction of Australia returning asylum seekers from Sri Lanka after only “reviewing” their claims on a ship. Inner City Press has asked Ambassador Quinlan about this, and we hope to have a story on the topic soon. Watch this site.