Inner City Press Asks Iraq FM Jaafari and Turkey Ambassador Cevic About Territorial Integrity, P5 & Article 51 of UN Charter

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 18 -- After the Iraq - Turkey meeting of the Security Council held after the higher profile Syria meeting on December 18, Inner City Press asked Iraqi Foreign Minister Jaafari and Turkish Ambassador Cevic about their dispute.

 Inner City Press asked Jaafari if his statement in the Council met Iraq might use force, and also to answer if the stated agreement of the Permanent Five members of the Council's ambassadors in Baghdad to act for Iraq had translated or traveled to the Security Council in New York.

  Jaafari said that while Iraq seeks peace, all possibilities are on the table. Video here and embedded below.

 When Turkey's Permanent Representative Cevic came to the stakeout, Inner City Press asked him about Jaafari's request for a resolution condeming Turkey's invasion and demanding the withdrawal of Turkish troops.

Cevic gamely insisted that Turkey means well and will resolve this.Video  here.

 Reuters translated this as, "At U.N., Turkey accuses Iraq of undermining Islamic State fight." and so it goes at the UN. There were no Elements to the Press.

Inside the Council, Jaafair had said that "on the third of December 2015, Turkish forces estimated at hundreds of soldiers with a number of armored vehicles, tanks, and artillery penetrated into Iraqi territory in depth of 110 kilometers into northern Iraqi territory; in particular, the province of Nineveh without asking for an official permission from the Iraqi federal authorities.. Iraq is requesting the Security Council to assume its international legal responsibilities under the UN Charter, and to adopt a clear and explicit resolution includes the following, first, condemnation of the Turkish occupation and illegal incursion against the will of a founding member state of the UN, in breaching the rules and provisions of the UN Charter and the norms of international law. Second, demanding Turkey to withdraw its troops immediately, and to ensure, with all available measures, immediate and unconditional withdrawal to the recognized international border between the two countries, and to ensure the non-recurrence of such unilateral actions which jeopardize international relations and exacerbate sectarian and nationalist tensions in the region and expose regional and international security to significant risks.”

  Jaafari last paragraph in the Security Council on Friday concluded, “As we hand over the duty to protect Iraq and its security, unity and territorial integrity to your esteemed council, which is stressed in its resolutions, the Republic of Iraq retains its inherent right of individual or collective self-defense according to the provisions of Article 51 of the UN Charter, if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, and to take all necessary measures to end this hostile act which is an affront to good-neighborly relations, and threatens international peace and security.”

Back on December 8 after the UN Security Council met behind closed doors about Turkey's activities in Iraq, afterward in front of the Council Iraqi Ambassador Alhakim explained his country's position. Inner City Press Periscope video here. In pertinent part:

“A couple of days ago, troops from Turkey moved into Iraqi territory. That is illegal against international law, and against the Charter of the United Nations. We are working on this bilaterally between Baghdad and Ankara, and when we need, we have letters available to the Security Council, but they are no being issued by Baghdad yet."

Q: Are you confident Turkey will remove its troops soon?

Amb Alhakim: "We believe that Ankara understood the Iraqi position, strongly. We have made it very clear that what came through the border has to go back... There is a meeting between the Russian ambassador in Baghdad, and that’s normal, because we summoned as well by the prime minister, as well as the foreign minister, and also the ambassador of US, Britain, as well as, there will be a brief tomorrow at the foreign ministry to the P5...".

 Now on December 11, Alhakim handed US Ambassador Samantha Power and her team his government's letter, in Arabic as Power told Reuters, but also a translation, which Inner CIty Press has obtained and puts online here:

"Letter to the Security Council on the violation of the Turkish troops against Iraq sovereignty.

       At a time when Iraq is engaged in the struggle against global terrorism on the behalf of the international community, and Iraq's army alongside various security forces are fighting the integral battle against the abhorrent Da’esh entity which controls some Iraqi cities, we were hoping that a neighbor would aid Iraq and protect its security, sovereignty and help embolden Iraq in this conflict.

       On the evening of the 3rd of December, 2015, Turkish military forces comprised of over hundreds soldiers, their tanks and armored cars had crossed Iraq's internationally recognized borders, penetrating into Iraqi territory in depth of 110 kilometers inside Iraqi territory, stationing themselves in Bashiqa town, near the city of Mosul in northern Iraq, without any semblance of prior consent, coordination or consultation with the Iraqi federal government; ultimately constituting a flagrant violation of the provisions and the principles of the UN Charter, as well as a breach of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Iraqi state - fully protected under the provisions of the UN Charter and the principles of international law and the relevant Security Council resolutions, which emphasized the independence and sovereignty of Iraq and the unity and integrity its territory.

The intrusion of Turkish troops deep into Iraqi territory with a significant number of Turkish soldiers and their military hardware is an act of provocation and a violation of the provisions of international law and this unilateral military movement is a hostile act in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and the relevant provisions of international law.

       Iraq has stressed in the letter to the Security Council dated the 25th of June, 2014, along with the  letter dated on the 20th of September, 2014, that the assistance for Iraq in regards to military training and advanced technology with the necessary weapons to fight Da’esh terrorist entity, must be conducted in accordance with the "bilateral and multilateral agreements, with full respect for national sovereignty and in line with the Iraqi Constitution, and in coordination with the Iraqi armed forces". On this legitimate and incontestable basis, Iraq rejects and strongly opposes any military movements in the fight against terrorism in Iraq that have been made without prior consultation with the Iraqi federal government and without its consent to such military movements and condemns it in the strongest possible terms.

      Iraq has worked, out of the respect for good faith in dialogue as a means to resolve international disputes and our commitment to constructive, neighborly relations and mutual respect with Turkey, to contain the situation through diplomatic channels and bilateral mechanisms with Turkey, but its efforts did not succeed in persuading Turkey to withdraw its troops from the occupied Iraqi territories in question.

         In this regard, Iraq calls on the Security Council to shoulder its responsibilities in the maintenance of  international peace and security in accordance with the UN Charter, in order to protect Iraq and its sovereignty, safety and territorial integrity which has been unlawfully violated by Turkish troops that have penetrated into Iraqi territory without advanced notice, nor the knowledge or approval of the Iraqi federal government, and calls on the Security Council to compel Turkey to withdraw its military troops and hardware immediately, and to ensure with all available measures, the immediate and unconditional withdrawal to the  recognized international border between the two countries, and to ensure the non-recurrence of such violations against Iraqi sovereignty which jeopardize international relations and exposure of regional and international security apparatus to such a callous and significant risk.

        Iraq would like to inform member states that Iraq retains its inherent right of self-defense in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Charter and the norms of international law, and to take all necessary measures to end this hostile act and to stop the questionable Turkish ambitions in sovereign Iraqi territory. Such acts are offensive to good-neighborly relations, and threaten international peace and security.
       I should be grateful that this letter be circulated to the members of the Security Council, and distributed as an official document to the United Nations.

                       Yours Sincerely.

                                                  Dr. Ibrahim al-Jaafari
                                        Foreign Minister of the Republic of Iraq
                                                  11 / December / 2015"

On the Vienna process, after the Syria talks moving to New York on December 18 was called into question by Russia on December 8, along with a statement that the group that killed Russia's pilot in northern Syria should be on the terrorism list compiled by Jordan, Inner City Press put thee questions to  Turkey's Ambassador Cevic. Video here.   Here's fast transcript by InnerCityPro.com:
Inner City Press: On Syria, do you think the Vienna process meeting should take place in New York on the 18th? Are you satisfied with the Saudi process for choosing the opposition?

Amb Cevik: The plans, I don’t know how fixed, I mean how clear it is, but we are making our preparations for the meeting.

Inner City Press: Are there any groups invited to Saudi Arabia that you think shouldn’t be part of the opposition delegation?

Amb Cevik: I think so far, in our view, they are working on the right concept. Let’s see if they succeed. Having a coalition group that would be able to take part in the process is one of the most important things.
Inner City Press: [Russia] said the group that killed their pilot should be put on the terror list. Do you have any view on that?

Amb Cevik: If they know the specifics, I don’t know. But to our knowledge, there was no terrorist organization, no extreme Daesh, Nusra, in that area. They are the Turkomens, and we know them, they are moderate people.

  This may be an issue. Watch this site.



On Syria after coy comments by the UN's Ban Ki-moon if the next meeting would be in New York, John Kerry in Washington at the Saban Forum in Washington on December 5 said:

"the governments involved are going to meet later in this month in New York in order to continue to move this process forward.  Our goal is to facilitate a transition that all parties have stated that they support: a unified Syria...The purpose of this transition will be to establish a credible, inclusive governance within six months.  The process would include the drafting of a new constitution and arrangements for internationally supervised elections within 18 months...Meanwhile, a nationwide ceasefire will go into effect between the government and the responsible opposition, assuming they come to the table and they begin this initial process."

  But who is this "responsible opposition"? Does it include Al Qaeda affiliates? Can last-minute mergers cleanse these groups? Watch this site.

 Back on November 14 in the shadow of the November 13 Paris attacks, the International Syria Support Group met and issued a statement in Vienna, follow by statements by US John Kerry, Russia's Sergey Lavrov and the UN's Staffan de Mistura, flashing his pince-nez and the highlighted document below.

  But what will happen when a group said to be linked to Al Nusra is hit by an airstrike, and the Free Syrian Army says it's them, not Nusra?

Meeting in Vienna on November 14, 2015 as the International Syria Support Group (ISSG), the Arab League, China, Egypt, the EU, France, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United Nations, and the United States to discuss how to accelerate an end to the Syrian conflict.  The participants began with a moment of silence for the victims of the heinous terrorist attacks of November 13 in Paris and the recent attacks in Beirut, Iraq, Ankara, and Egypt.  The members unanimously condemned in the strongest terms these brutal attacks against innocent civilians and stood with the people of France.

Subsequently, the participants engaged in a constructive dialogue to build upon the progress made in the October 30 gathering. The members of the ISSG expressed a unanimous sense of urgency to end the suffering of the Syrian people, the physical destruction of Syria, the destabilization of the region, and the resulting increase in terrorists drawn to the fighting in Syria.

The ISSG acknowledged the close linkage between a ceasefire and a parallel political process pursuant to the 2012 Geneva Communique, and that both initiatives should move ahead expeditiously.  They stated their commitment to ensure a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political transition based on the Geneva Communique in its entirety.  The group reached a common understanding on several key issues.
The group agreed to support and work to implement a nationwide ceasefire in Syria to come into effect as soon as the representatives of the Syrian government and the opposition have begun initial steps towards the transition under UN auspices on the basis of the Geneva Communique.  The five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council pledged to support a UNSC resolution to empower a UN-endorsed ceasefire monitoring mission in those parts of the country where monitors would not come under threat of attacks from terrorists, and to support a political transition process in accordance with the Geneva Communique.   
All members of the ISSG also pledged as individual countries and supporters of various belligerents to take all possible steps to require adherence to the ceasefire by these groups or individuals they support, supply or influence.  The ceasefire would not apply to offensive or defensive actions against Da’esh or Nusra or any other group the ISSG agrees to deem terrorist.
The participants welcomed UN Secretary General Ban’s statement that he has ordered the UN to accelerate planning for supporting the implementation of a nationwide ceasefire.  The group agreed that the UN should lead the effort, in consultation with interested parties, to determine the requirements and modalities of a ceasefire.  
The ISSG expressed willingness to take immediate steps to encourage confidence-building measures that would contribute to the viability of the political process and to pave the way for the nationwide ceasefire.  In this context, and pursuant to clause 5 of the Vienna Communique, the ISSG discussed the need to take steps to ensure expeditious humanitarian access throughout the territory of Syria pursuant to UNSCR 2165 and called for the granting of the UN’s pending requests for humanitarian deliveries.   The ISSG expressed concern for the plight of refugees and internally displaced persons and the imperative of building conditions for their safe return in accordance with the norms of international humanitarian law and taking into account the interests of host countries.  The resolution of the refugee issue is important to the final settlement of the Syrian conflict.  The ISSG also reaffirmed the devastating effects of the use of indiscriminate weapons on the civilian population and humanitarian access, as stated in UNSCR 2139.  The ISSG agreed to press the parties to end immediately any use of such indiscriminate weapons.
The ISSG reaffirmed the importance of abiding by all relevant UN Security Council resolutions, including UNSCR 2199 on stopping the illegal trade in oil, antiquities and hostages, from which terrorists benefit.
Pursuant to the 2012 Geneva Communique, incorporated by reference in the Vienna statement of October 30, and in U.N. Security Council Resolution 2118, the ISSG agreed on the need to convene Syrian government and opposition representatives in formal negotiations under UN auspices, as soon as possible, with a target date of January 1.  The group welcomed efforts, working with United Nations Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura and others, to bring together the broadest possible spectrum of the opposition, chosen by Syrians, who will decide their negotiating representatives and define their negotiating positions, so as to enable the political process to begin.  All the parties to the political process should adhere to the guiding principles identified at the October 30 meeting, including a commitment to Syria’s unity, independence, territorial integrity, and non-sectarian character; to ensuring that State institutions remain intact; and to protecting the rights of all Syrians, regardless of ethnicity or religious denomination.   ISSG members agreed that these principles are fundamental.
The ISSG members reaffirmed their support for the transition process contained in the 2012 Geneva Communique.  In this respect they affirmed their support for a ceasefire as described above and for a Syrian-led process that will, within a target of six months, establish credible, inclusive and non-sectarian governance, and set a schedule and process for drafting a new constitution.  Free and fair elections would be held pursuant to the new constitution within 18 months. These elections must be administered under UN supervision to the satisfaction of the governance and to the highest international standards of transparency and accountability, with all Syrians, including the diaspora, eligible to participate.   
Regarding the fight against terrorism, and pursuant to clause 6 of the Vienna Communique, the ISSG reiterated that Da’esh, Nusra, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the UN Security Council, and further, as agreed by the participants and endorsed by the UN Security Council, must be defeated.  The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan agreed to help develop among intelligence and military community representatives a common understanding of groups and individuals for possible determination as terrorists, with a target of completion by the beginning of the political process under UN auspices.
The participants expect to meet in approximately one month in order to review progress towards implementation of a ceasefire and the beginning of the political process.


When the Chair of the UN's Syria Commission of Inquiry Paulo Sergio Pinheiro took questions after a closed door meeting with the Security Council, Inner City Press asked him about airstrikes in Syria, particularly by members of the Council. Periscope video here.

   Pinheiro replied that, not having been to Syria (except once as an individual, he told Inner City Press afterward, second Periscope here), he could not determine the facts of the airstrikes. But he said he had urged the Council members involved to comply with international humanitarian and human rights law.

Here fast transcription by InnerCityPro.com:

Inner City Press: For the 2 commissioners: with the increasing airstrikes by many parties now inside Syria, how is the commission able to collect, are you able to collect information about the airstrikes that occur and to figure out who’s doing what? And did you have any guidance to, there’s some members of the Security Council who are involved in these strikes, in terms of how to conduct them or how to coordinate more? I’d just like to know how you’re dealing with this new change.

Pinheiro: As you know, we investigate violations of human rights law and breaches of international and humanitarian law from – by all warring parties, by government, by the armed groups, by the terrorist groups... Yes, we had said this to the Security Council in the formal meeting, that we have received delegations about casualties, about results of those airstrikes that you have mentioned. But at this point, we are not in a position to attribute what was the responsible, the member state responsible for this airstrikes. We hope by March when, or in February when we release our report, to be in a better position to elaborate on that. What we have done, it was what we said at the human rights council, that our roles is to remind member states involved in these airstrikes the necessity of respecting the protection of the civilian population in terms of human rights and humanitarian law.

   It was said the Commission would share information with countries -- or rather, prosecutors or courts -- looking into their own nationals, as victims or perpetrators. Afterward, only on Periscope, Inner City Press asked Pinheiro if this every implicated the type of privacy concerns the UN and its Herve Ladsous cite as a basis to go after OHCHR's Anders Kompass, who blew the whistle on French troops' rapes in the Central African Republic, alleged violating victims' privacy.

  Pinheiro said disclosure would require the consent of the victims, but said that is most often given. He summoned over the Commission's Coordinator James Rodehaver, who previously did similar work on Afghanistan. It was Rodehaver who clarified that it is not countries but prosecutors and courts which can request information. He noted that a court in Sweden has cited the Commission's work, to show the conditions in a particular place and time in Syria.

  Pinheiro added that the Commission's work should make the type of “Mapping” exercises as was done in Eastern Congo unnecessary. The information has been collected. Now what? Watch this site.

Kerry Says Syria Use of Chemicals Is "UNdeniable" - So Why Is UN Team Still There?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 26 -- US Secretary of State John Kerry declared Monday afternoon that Syria's use of chemical weapons is "undeniable." 

  One wonders then, what the UN inspectors are doing there. 

  Kerry quoted UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that the UN team will only make findings whether chemical weapons were used, not by whom. Kerry says the use is already clear. So, again, what are the UN inspectors doing there?

  Inner City Press asked Ban's associate spokesperson Farhan Haq if Ban would ask to be notified before any US cruise missile, since there are UN staff in the country. Haq called it speculative -- but is it? After Kerry's statement Monday?

  Haq said the UN will not engage in speculative comment. But it's not speculative. UK foreign minister William Hague, for example, that morning said on the radio that military action on Syria without UN Security Council approval "would be legal, I would argue." 

  Hague did not specify under what legal theory: self-defense under UN Charter Article 51? Retaliation or retribution?

  Haq said the UN is still trying to put together the Geneva Two talks. But that no longer seems to be the US' interest. Inner City Press' question of whether Ban would at least seek notification before a missile strike, since there are UN staff members inside Syria, went unanswered.

  On a second round, Inner City Press asked Haq whether Ake Sellstrom has any mandate to say WHO used chemical weapons, and how his findings will be conveyed. Haq first confirmed that "responsibility" is not in Sellstrom's mandate.

  But then, after a pause, Haq added something, an If-Asked, about the team constructing "an evidenced based narrative." Every story has a plot. Watch this video of the Q&A. Watch this site.

   

With UN On the Ground in Syria, If or When Obama Shoots a Missile, Will Ban Ki-moon Clap?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 25 -- Amid the drumbeat of media coverage predicting US missile strikes on Syria, regardless of what the UN chemical weapons investigation team find in the suburbs of Damascus, a question arises whether the strikes would take place with the UN team still in the country.

  UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's office put out a statement on Sunday noting that "the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic affirmed that it will provide the necessary cooperation, including the observance of the cessation of hostilities at the locations related to the incident."

  But did Ban ask the Obama administration not to fire missiles, at last at this time? Will he?

Also, the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has been putting out maps of where UN agencies and international non-governmental organizations have a presence inside Syria. Will they be informed or avoided? Or was that the purpose of the maps?

  On US Sunday morning talk shows, CBS' Margaret Brennan noted that Jeffrey Feltman, now Ban's political chief but until recently the US State Department's face in the Middle East, will be heading to Iran after his quiet, some say craven, trip to Egypt. She implied Feltman could carry a message from the Obama administration, or about the threatened strikes, to Tehran. But is that the UN's role?

(How Feltman's post-Egypt itinerary, including Doha, was announced not by the UN but to for example the FARS News Agency, State Department press and columnists remains a question, which will be pursued by the new Free UN Coalition for Access.)

Those who fetishize international law point out that the exception to needing UN Security Council approval for the use of force is Article 51 of the UN Charter, which concerns SELF-defense. Could a US missile strike be construed as that?

As to the UN, will Ban Ki-moon be seeking to speak for international law, or only to be seen as "in the loop" before a strike takes place? Watch this site.

   

In Mali France Evaded "Algerian Element" in SCR 2085, Hostage Taking Followed

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 19 -- When the UN Security Council's Resolution 2085 on Mali was negotiated last month, safeguards were proposed and agreed too, steps that had to be taken BEFORE military action began.

  As Inner City Press reported at the time, Operative Paragraph 11 was called "the Algerian element" by one of its African sources on the Council -- an acknowledgment that a military offensive in Mali without following such steps could destabilize neighboring Algeria.

  But when France began bombing Konna in Mali on January 11, none of the safeguards had been followed. Instead, what followed was a large scale and now deadly hostage taking in Algeria.

  We have waited to write and ask this until, as French defense minister Jean-Yves Le Drian has now announced, there are no more French hostages in the In Amenas natural gas compound in Algeria.

  But simultaneously at the ECOWAS summit, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius has again claimed that France's military intervention is "in the framework of international legality." It wasn't and isn't.

  The "Algerian element" in UNSC Resolution 2085, agreed to be France, wasn't followed, and death there is what happened. Who is to blame?

   Consider Operative Paragraph 11 of Resolution 2085, particularly its final clause:

"11. Emphasizes that the military planning will need to be further refined before the commencement of the offensive operation and requests that the Secretary-General, in close coordination with Mali, ECOWAS, the African Union, the neighbouring countries of Mali, other countries in the region and all other interested bilateral partners and international organizations, continue to support the planning and the preparations for the deployment of AFISMA, regularly inform the Council of the progress of the process, and requests that the Secretary-General also confirm in advance the Council's satisfaction with the planned military offensive operation."

  Starting on January 12, Inner City Press asked the UN: did France get Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to "confirm in advance the Council's satisfaction with the planned military offensive operation" -- the details of which it seems Ban wasn't informed of?

  Were those steps and safeguards only applicable to AFRICAN intervenors?

  At the Security Council on January 14, French Permanent Representative Araud erroneously told Inner City Press that there was no French letter to the UN, only a Malian letter.

  But there WAS a French letter, and it did not mention UN Charter Article 51, which later became France's after the fact fig leaf for the bombing.

  On January 18, French mission spokesman Brieuc Pont did not permit Inner City Press to ask Araud a single question, unlike on January 14 and unlike the other speakers on January 18, from Valerie Amos through Navi Pillay to Security Council president Masood Khan, who told Inner City Press that France had not updated the Council on Mali since January 14.

  Claiming that the request of the Malian authorities is also dubious, since as Araud himself admitted to Inner City Press, coup leader Amadou Sanogo has an official role in the Malian military.

  Again: the safeguards in UNSC Resolution 2085, agreed to be France, weren't followed, and death is what has followed. Who is to blame? Watch this site.

Araud Says "There Is Only Malian Letter," French Letter Exists, w/o Article 51; Bamba Cites SCR 2085

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 14 -- As on Mali the UN Security Security began a closed door meeting on the afternoon of January 14 with UN official Jeffrey Feltman, Inner City Press asked French Permanent Representative Gerard Araud, "Your letter, did it cite Article 51?"

   Araud replied, "No, there was only one letter for the moment, and that's the letter of the Malians saying that they have requested the support of France, that's the letter that has been circulated to the Security Council on Friday."

   But moments later it was re-confirmed to Inner City Press that there WAS a letter from France on January 11, and that it did not cite Article 51 of the UN Charter.

 Article 51, which France did not cite, provides that

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

  The question concerns the basis of France's claim that its bombing of Mali begun on Friday "resides within the framework of international law." 

  Especially since France's letter did not cite Article 51, most understood this as France's claim to "reside" within the framework of the Security Council's Resolution on Mali, Resolution 2085.

  In fact, on Monday afternoon Ambassador Bamba of Cote d'Ivoire, which now heads ECOWAS, told Inner City Press that France was acting directly under Resolution 2085. 

In December, the UN Security Council's member spent multiple session negotiating Resolution 2085, which specified steps to be taken before military action began.

Among these was a requirement, in Operative Paragraph 11, that Ban Ki-moon as "Secretary-General also confirm in advance the Council's satisfaction with the planned military offensive operation."But France began bombing Konna on January 11, then Gao and elsewhere since, without any such "confirmation in advance" by Ban Ki-moon.On January 12 and against at the noon briefing on January 14, Inner City Press asked Ban's top three spokespeople to "please state, both as of the beginning of France's military operation and as of your response, what the Secretary General did to 'confirm in advance the Council's satisfaction with the planned military offensive operation,' specifying both what the Secretary General knew about the plans and operation, and what he knew of the Council's position on those plans and operation(s)."

Forty two hours later, at noon on Monday, the UN Secretariat had provided no answer at all. Instead, French Mission to the UN spokesman Brieuc Pont e-mailed to the Press a tweet about a Security Council meeting on January 14, then was quoted by Agence France-Presse that the purpose is to "proceed with an exchange of views between members of the council and with the UN secretariat."

And so Inner City Press asked at Monday's noon briefing. Deputy Spokesperson Eduardo del Buey, even 42 hours after getting the question in writing, had no answer.

He referred to an upcoming 3 pm Monday Security Council consultation with the head of Ban's Department of Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman -- which can't cure the "confirm in advance" requirement -- and to Ban's telephone calls with French foreign minister Fabius and Cote d'Ivoire president Ouattara.

A spokesperson as Monday's meeting began indicated with Feltman would not take press questions afterwards.

While the main concern is about France's claim that its bombing "resides within the framework of international law," there is the related question of why Araud said there was only a Malian letter, when there WAS and IS a French letter.

Previously, Araud told Inner City Press on UNTV that the European Union is not a candidate to chair the Central African Republic Peacebuilding configuration -- which several EU sources immediately disputed to Inner City Press. These issues are complex, but clarity is important, and is not being provided. Watch this site.

Footnote: Inner City Press also asked Del Buey about the reported takeover of Diabaly; this question was not answered. What IS the UN's role in and knowledge of the conflict in Mali? We'll see.