Showing posts with label Doha. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Doha. Show all posts

Friday, November 13, 2015

UNethical: On Libya, Before Leon's Murky UAE Deal, Mitri Got Waiver from Ban Ki-moon, Embedded Here


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 13more here -- When Bernardino Leon, set for a $1500 a day job with the United Arab Emirates, came to the UN Security Council for the final time on November 5, Inner City Press asked  him about the UAE. He did not answer; Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access said; louder, that he should do a question and answer stakeout on UNTV.

 Leon did emerge and take questions; Inner City Press went first and asked him if he had sought approval from the UN Ethics Office before pursuing the UAE job, if he acknowledged the conflict of interest and thought it will impact intra-Libya talks. Video here.Leon did not answer about the UN Ethics office, but conceded that the “optics” were bad.Video here.

  Leon's predecessor as UN envoy to Libya Tarek Mitri, however, got a formal "Note" from Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, signed by Ban's chief of staff Susana Malcorra and cc-ed to Under Secretaries General Jeffrey Feltman (Political Affairs), Yukio Takasu (Management) and Joan Dubinksy (Ethics Office) approving outside activity for Mitri, which Inner City Press is putting online hereand embedded below.

  Among the continuing outside engagements approved by Ban Ki-moon were for Mitri to be on the Board of the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, in Beirut and Doha.
  Did Leon get, or even seek, such a Note from Ban? The leaked emails show that Feltman knew of Leon's job search with the UAE by August 27, at latest. 
  Now after more leaked emails, of the UAE about embargo / sanctions violations and that the UN's Jeff Feltman knew of Leon's UAE job search as of August 27 at latest, Leon on the evening of November 12 issued this:
"I am aware of the report today in the New York Times about Libya and alleged activities in contravention of United Nations Security Council resolutions. In light of this report, I have decided to request a full clarification of the issue, including from the United Arab Emirate (UAE) authorities, as I take time to reflect on the next steps in my professional career."
 While Leon said that "I" have decided to request clarification from the UAE, Reuters reported that the UN is seeking an explanation. But Leon did not say he will share the UAE's explanation with the UN, much less with the public. And shouldn't the UN Security Council's Libya sanctions committee be seeking the explanation, or asking for action against the UAE?
 So is Leon no longer taking the UAE job? What about Feltman and what he knew? We'll have more on this.

  For Leon, it's about more than optics. Inner City Press has researched and compared Bernardino Leon's conduct, as reflected by the emails he does not dispute, to the UN Charter and UN staff rules which apply to him. And after publishing the rules, Inner City Press on November 6 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about them. Video here.
  Leon wrote to the UAE: "all my movements and proposals have been consulted with (and in many cases designed by) the HOR and Aref Nayed and Mahmud Jibril (with whom I speak on a daily basis) following Your request."
 UN Charter Article 100 provides that "In the performance of their duties, the Secretary-General and the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any Government or from any other authority external to the Organization. They shall refrain from any action which might reflect on their position as international officials responsible only to the Organization."
  But Leon told the UAE took and obeyed "Your request" - and got the UAE job. Also relevant was Leon's oath: "(b) Staff members shall make the following written declaration witnessed by the Secretary-General or his or her authorized representative:

'I solemnly declare and promise to exercise in all loyalty, discretion and conscience the functions entrusted to me as an international civil servant of the United Nations, to discharge these functions and regulate my conduct with the interests of the United Nations only in view, and not to seek or accept instructions in regard to the performance of my duties from any Government or other source external to the Organization.'" From the Staff Rules:
 "Rule 1.2 Basic rights and obligations of staff
Conflict of interest

(m) A conflict of interest occurs when, by act or omission, a staff member’s personal interests interfere with the performance of his or her official duties and responsibilities or with the integrity, independence and impartiality required by the staff member’s status as an international civil servant. When an actual or possible conflict of interest does arise, the conflict shall be disclosed by staff members to their head of office, mitigated by the Organization and resolved in favour of the interests of the Organization;

Specific instances of prohibited conduct

(k) Staff members shall neither offer nor promise any favour, gift, remuneration or any other personal benefit to another staff member or to any third party with a view to causing him or her to perform, fail to perform or delay the performance of any official act. Similarly, staff members shall neither seek nor accept any favour, gift, remuneration or any other personal benefit from another staff member or from any third party in exchange for performing, failing to perform or delaying the performance of any official act."
  We'll have more on this.
On November 5, Leon also said that the GNC, which has written to the UN complaining about Leon's new job, has its own problems to solve. After Leon argued that his new job is not really a conflict because it is “academic,” Inner City Press without the UN microphone asked him to confirm it is the UAE government that will be paying him. It is.
  Inner City Press asked Leon if he thought there should be some “cooling off” period during which a UN mediator cannot go work for one of the parties to the conflict. Leon said he is just a civil servant and has to work somewhere. 
  It seemed a strange defense of the UAE job, and give rise to an idea, only half in jest: a UN “Trust Fund” to support mediators so they don't sell out to parties to the conflicts they work on. It's similar to the idea that former President of the General Assembly John Ashe had to take hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes because he comes from a small country.
   Leon appeared to say that no one from the UN has raised any question about him negotiating for and taking the UAE job. Inner City Press asked the Security Council's president for November, Matthew Rycroft of the UK, if the issue came up in consultations and did not receive a “yes” answer. Instead, Rycroft told Inner City Press that the UN must have a lot of rules about this.
  But does it?d
  At noon, with Leon still inside the Security Council, UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric declined to tell the Press if Leon has even sought UN Ethics Office clearance to negotiate with the UAE for a $1,500 a day job while purportedly serving the UN in Libya. 
 Dujarric said again and again that Leon had worked hard and had been subject to criticism from all side -- like the UN's (also dubious) Yemen envoy. Dujarric told one reporter that he was not asking a question -- suddenly rules are important, one wag remarked -- and tried to distinguish the analogies, raised by Inner City Press earlier, to Tony Blair's business interests while Quartet Envoy, and Alexander Downer on Cyprus.
   Inner City Press asked, in light of the other UN scandals, if Ban Ki-moon saw the need to implement rules before he leaves. Dujarric's reply was that each case is different; on the CAR rapes he said wait for the (delayed) report. Can this scandal similarly be put on ice? Watch this site.
  But Leon taking money from the UAE, which has a stake in the Libya conflict he purported to mediate, is not a one-off in today's UN. Not only is there the concurrent John Ashe - Frank Lorenzo - Ng Lap Seng scandal, and the yet to be addressed cover up of peacekeeper rapes in Central African Republic involving UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous - there have been other conflict envoys.
  Tony Blair did business in the region while envoy of the Middle East Quartet, Inner City Press Q&A video here.
Alexander Downer continued with the consultancy Bespoke Approach while UN envoy on Cyprus, story by Inner City Press here. There are more. So there is a systemic problem that must be addressed.
  But in part these scandals are not linked together not only due to lassitude on the part of those who also want jobs with the UN, but of the UN Correspondents Association, which not only took funds from Ng's South South News, gave it an award and photos for Ng with Ban at Cipriani -- it is now offering seats with Ban at Cipriani Wall Street for $6,000. But shocked at Leon.
  Back on July 15 after Leon briefed the UN Security Council about his political agreement without the Tripoli-based General National Congress, Inner City Press asked him what plan he may have to get the GNC to sign, and about long-time Libyan ambassador Ibrahim Dabbashi's criticism in the Security Council of its Sanctions Committee.Video here.
  On the latter, Leon said that that first step is to form a unity government, THEN to listen to what it asks for. On the GNC, Leon seems to say they agree in principle, only differing on timing or sequencing. 
  The same two questions, nearly identically, were repeated by a Gulf media; an Italian journalist asked about the flow of migrants to Europe. This, Leon seized on, asking rhetorically what “we” can tell the British, whose people were killed in Tunisia by a guy reportedly trained in Libya.
  The answer again reflected Leon's at least dual allegiances or constituencies. He was the EU's envoy, then put in to replace UN enovy Tarek Mitri. Recently former IAEA El Baradei said Leon was involved in the “coup” in Egypt. (Leon said he hasn't seen that You Tube and doubts El Baradei said it.)
  The UN, after ousting Tarek Mitri as envoy in favor of Bernardino Leon, has been promoting its good works in Geneva and in the country. 
  Back on February 18, speaking before the foreign ministers of Libya (Tobruk) and Egypt, Leon again cited his own work: "given the sense of urgency, I have called for the next meeting of the political dialogue to finalize discussions initiated in Geneva on the formation of government of national unity and security arrangements to pave the way for a formal and comprehensive cessation of hostilities.”
  At the Security Council stakeout before the Jordan-requested meeting began, UK Ambassador Lyall Grant said the meeting would provide a chance to hear from Libya and Egypt; he said he hadn't yet seen the draft resolution. (Another non-Arab Permanent Representative said they HAD seen the draft.)
 After Leon, Libya's foreign minister said he is not requesting an international intervention, only wants Egypt's help.
 Egypt's Foreign Minister Shoukry, citing the killing of the US Ambassador in Benghazi, said that too little was done after the parliament was chased to Tobruk. He said he is counting on Jordan to distribute the draft resolution. Some of the Council say they have a different line of thinking. Watch this site.
 Bernardino Leon, as Inner City Press exclusively reported, was installed as head of UNSMIL after then-head Tarek Mitri declined to make the UN mission a mere appendage of European / UK diplomacy. Is it working?
  UNSMIL's former deputy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed of Mauritania has been moved to head UNMEER, the UN's Ebola mission. Sources in Yemen say Ould Cheikh Ahmed was the UN's “designated security official” when a UNICEF staffer was taken hostage while traveling to the Sana'a airport without the required (and needed) security detail. Some say Ould Cheikh Ahmed was distracted, in Yemen and later in Libya, by side business interests. 
  But a check of Ban Ki-moon's Public Disclosure website, where his officials are supposed to make rudimentary disclosure of the finances and outside business interests, does not even list Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed (while numerous other Deputy SRSGs are listed). His is not in the most recent database, for 2013 - and may escape any disclosure by become an Under Secretary General with a mere nine month stint at UNMEER. Then what? We'll stay on this.
  When the UN Security Council met about Mali on January 6, it was Malian Foreign Minister Abdoulaye Diop, and not UN Peacekeeping official Herve Ladsous, who distributed his speech and came to take Press questions. (Ladsous has a policy against it, here and here.)
  Inner City Press asked Diop about the Mali talks in Algiers, and about the impact of Libya. On the latter, Diop said that “in 2012 the Mali crisis started when the war started in Libya and many Malian elements who were part of the Libyan army decided to come back home with the arms and ammunition. This started the destabilization of Mali.”
   Diop added, "In the southern part of Libya there is a group that has declared allegiance to the Islamic State.” (When asked to name the group he could not or would not.)
On Leon: To try to counter Libya's lawless power struggle, the UN engaged in one of its own. 
  And unlike most of the member states that make up the UN, and most other inter-governmental organizations, this UN does not answer questions, at least not directly.
  After Inner City Press repeated asked about it, including at the UN's noon briefings on August 11 and 13, on August 14 the UN said Bernardino Leon will take over as its Libya envoy on September 1.
  When Inner City Press asked if that is really Leon's starting day, given that he's said he'll go to Tripoli as early as next week representing the UN, Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq said Leon is merely "familiarizing" himself with the work he will be, and Mitri remains in place until September 1. Really?
  Ignoring the previous questions and the power-play, wire services likeReuters merely retyped ("reported") the UN's August 14 announcement that Leon will start September 1. And now?
 Back on August 1, Inner City Press exclusively reported that UN envoy to Libya Tarek Mitri was being "pushed out" of the post, including by UK envoy to Libya Jonathan Powell, and cited his brother Lord Powell's extensive business in Libya through Magna Holdings.
  The UK mission, usually responsive, did not provide comment on written Press questions on this; at UN Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant's August 4 press conference Inner City Press asked about Powell's and Mitri's relationship, without direct answer, see here.
  Then the UK's Ambassador to Libya Michael Aron has announced, on Twitter no less,  that Mitri is out and Ban Ki-moon has installed a new UN envoy, former Zapatero diplomat Bernardino Leon Gross.
  The UN, at least at its August 8 noon briefing and in emails since, has not announce anything about replacing Mitri, much less by whom.
  In 2011 when France had already gotten its Jerome Bonnafont in place to replace its Alain Le Roy atop UN Peacekeeping, Bonnafont's bragging about it in India, where he was French Ambassador, led to Ban rescinding the "offer."

  France countered with three time loser Herve Ladsous, Inner City Press reported each step -- including Bonnafont in July 2011 being tapped for the post, and even congratulation cards to Bonnafont, here, and threats from AFP then the UN Correspondents Association -- and the rest is, well, a type of history (coverage in UK New Statesman, here).
  Ladsous refuses all Inner City Press questions, video compilation here; Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq on August 8, alluding to Ladsous and now UNDPsaid it is because of "people skills." Or reporting?
  So Ban has accepted or done nothing to stop this P3 power grab to oust Mitri. But can "his" successor be pre-announced and Ban accept that too? 
Footnote: Inner City Press is exclusively informed that UNSMIL deputy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed also has business, literally: fisshing business. Ban and those in control of this play accept that too? Watch this site.
Background: Inner City Press on August 1 asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric what UN envoy Tarek Mitri is doing; Dujarric said he was not aware but would check.
  Inner City Press had reported that Mitri, unlike the other UN international staff who relocated to Tunis, went back to his native Lebanon. Sources in the region exclusively told Inner City Press that Mitri had been hoping for a government post in Lebanon, describing him as less than committed to remaining with the UN.
   Now we can report more. These knowledgeable sources say that Mitri is being "pushed out," mostly they say by the UK's envoy to Libya, former Tony Blair aide Jonathan Powell.
  "Mitri was expected to take on a mostly support function," one source told Inner City Press. "He stood up and said no, headquarters didn't back him up and now he's being pushed out." We'll have more on this.
  It was nine days after Libya's foreign minister Mohamed Abdel Aziz at the UN Security Council stakeout told the Press his country wanted international help to protect oil fields and ports, including airports, that the US announced it had relocated its Tripoli embassy staff out of the country to Tunisia.
  Inner City Press asked, where is UN envoy to Libya Tarek Mitri? He briefed the Security Council from Beirut -- sources tell Inner City Press he has been on vacation there, and this deputy, too, was out of the country.
  Back on July 17 when Libya's foreign minister Mohamed Abdel Aziz emerged from the UN Security Council to take questions from the media, Inner City Press asked him to be more specific about what type of “support” force he is asking for.
  Mohamed Abdel Aziz replied that the request is not for a “military” force -- but then went on to say say the force should protect oil fields and ports. If that's not military, what is it?
  Inner City Press also asked Mohamed Abdel Aziz for Libya's current position on the US arresting Abu Khatallah. Compared to the complaints of others, Mohamed Abdel Aziz said that even though under international law it is unacceptable, since Libya can't protect witnesses, maybe it is okay.
  Given the current state of affairs, what is “Libya's” position?
  Meanwhile on July 17 the UN's envoy to Libya Tarek Mitri told the Security Council -- by video from his native Lebanon, while other UN international staff are in Tunisia -- that the fighting has “cast a shadow over the election on 25 June of the 200 member Council of Representatives.” Ya don't say.
 Mitri said that barely forty percent of the 1.5 million registered Libyans went to the polls. He said 12 seats will remain vacant; 41 candidates were disqualified under the post-Gaddafi Law on Political and Administrative Isolation. 

Friday, December 19, 2014

UN Meets Afghan Taliban in Doha, Works Quietly with ICC, On LOTFA & Death of Louis Maxwell


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, December 19 -- After the UN Mission in Afghanistan's new chief Fink Haysom briefed the Security Council on December 18, he came to the Council's stakeout and took questions from the Press.
His predecessor Jan Kubis had previously answered about the scandal plagued UN Law and Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan, promising a “public accounting;” further back when he was Afghanistan envoy, Staffan de Mistura told Inner City Press he would get to the bottom of the killing of UN staff member Louis Maxwell there.
  Haysom on December 18 said that the Louis Maxwell case was being handled by the UN Department of Safety and Security. On December 19, when to his credit he held a sit-down press conference, he said that the LOTFA issues were more for the UN Development Program -- which has been far from responsive -- and that it is largely a matter of answering the questions from donors. That's certainly part of it. But what about the “public accounting”?
  Some of these issues go beyond Haysom as SRSG. It was up to Ban Ki-moon to push the Karzai government about the killing of Louis Maxwell, and he didn't. UNDP should be answering the questions about LOTFA, but isn't. Still, doesn't this make the UNAMA mission's job more difficult?
  Again to his credit, Haysom said that UNAMA formally reached out to the Taliban, on human rights issues, and meet with them in Doha. He emphasized there can be no (entirely) military solution.
  Inner City Press tried to ask UNAMA Human Rights Office chief Georgette Gagnon if her office works with the International Criminal Court's inquiry into Afghanistan. 
 But it was Haysom who answered, saying yes UNAMA participates constructively but that it is confidential. With the release, even redacted, of the summary of the US torture report, the ICC's Afghanistan inquiry has become all the more interesting. We'll have more on this.
Footnote: in terms of accessibility during his visit to UNHQ in New York, Haysom should be credited. Under Secretaries General like Herve Ladsous and even, less abusively, Jeffrey Feltman rarely speak to the media. Inner City Press for the new Free UN Coalition for Access on December 19 thanked Haysom -- and posits that willingness to answer questions from the media should be one of the criteria by which UN officials, including for example the next head of OCHA, are chosen.

 
  

Friday, August 1, 2014

On Gaza, Jeffrey Feltman Won't Say If UN's Serry Had Direct Contact with Hamas, Qatar-Funded Travel Not Routinely Disclosed, Questions Censored


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 1, more here -- At 5:30 pm on July 31 the UN announced its spokesman Stephane Dujarric would read out a statement, "for the cameras," in its briefing room. Inner City Press ran there but arrived just as Dujarric finished reading the ceasefire statement.

   But the first line said, "the UN Representative in Jerusalem, Special Coordinator Robert Serry, has received assurances that all parties have agreed to an unconditional humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza."  With the ceasefire in shambles, that is dubious.

 Now Haaretz has reported that Serry "spoke with Hamas leadership in Gaza."

  So on August 1 Inner City Press put two questions to UN Department of Political Affairs chief Jeffrey Feltman. First, would he confirm that Serry spoke with Hamas in Gaza?

   And second, as a former - and future? - US officials, does Feltman think the UN should at least disclose when Ban Ki-moon accepts "in kind" / gifts such as the Qatari-funded private jet he flew on to Doha, to mediate on Gaza.

  Dujarric cut off this question to Feltman, saying that it was already answered. But there is no routine disclosure by the UN. And the impact on the UN's political role is obvious, for example considering that this was the ONLY question asked of Ban Ki-moon in Jerusalem (the UN censored it), and it's been asked at the UN Security Council stakeout.

  Dujarric did not answer when asked, shouldn't there be disclosure. He called it "in kind" - but is it subtracted from what Qatar owes or pays the UN in dues?

  Then Feltman refused to say if Serry spoke with Hamas, saying that he wasn't with Serry. So Feltman doesn't know? Or won't say?

 It's one thing for a diplomat from a country to say, that's secret. But since the UN ostensibly represents, works for and is accountable at least to all 193 states, if not to "we the peoples," on what logic are these things secret? We'll have more on this.

   On July 30, Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson about UN direct contacts with Hamas, citing Ban Ki-moon accepting Qatar-funded private jet travel to Doha, and Eliasson said "we don’t feel any need to, at this stage, to be in direct contact with Hamas." From the UN's transcript (video here)


Inner City Press: Sure, thanks a lot. Matthew Lee, Inner City Press. On behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, thanks for the briefing. It seems like on this immediate end of the fighting, a sticking point is whether the IDF would remain in Gaza at all. It seems like one of the demands is that they leave in order for there to be a cessation. I want to know if the UN… not the whole golden formula, but just on that one point, what your thinking is, and also, whether the UN and Secretary-General should reach out directly to Hamas. I know that, you know, former OCHA head Jan Egeland, you know, he met with Joseph Kony, which is a pretty extreme example, but it seems like at this point, given that speaking with Mahmoud Abbas may not actually directly relate to the rockets that are being fired. Is there any thought of the Secretary-General reaching out directly to Hamas leadership, especially since he flew on this Qatar-funded plane to Doha and could probably set up such a meeting? What’s your thinking on that? Thank you.
Deputy Secretary-General: We have channels, very strong channels, both, of course, to Egypt, which is working very closely with Israel, but also very close contacts with both Turkey and Qatar, who have close relationships to Hamas. And the Secretary-General has worked extremely intensely with these different actors. And we hope that the combined efforts from Egypt and Turkey and Qatar, and of course, the United States, which has been working very, very hard and very closely with the Secretary-General on the humanitarian ceasefire issue, that these attempts will be successful. And we hope that both sides will understand that the Secretary-General’s proposals are still on the table. They are always there. The Israeli Security Cabinet met yesterday and I made sure that Ambassador [Ron] Prosor was aware of the fact that the [Secretary-General’s] proposal for a humanitarian ceasefire, whether it was for a week or 24 hours or 72 hours, would be there and considered on the table. But, we are in contact closely with all the other actors. So, we don’t feel any need to, at this stage, to be in direct contact with Hamas.
   So what changed? Or did the "we" mean only Ban and his deputy Eliasson? We'll have more on this.
    Earlier on July 31, after the UN Security Council met for five hours, in the wake of the shelling of the UNRWA school in Jabalya, what emerged were mere "elements to the press" - the weakest form of Security Council action.
  The "press elements" consist of 77 words, not one of which is "school." Inner City Press listened and transcribed it:
Council members expressed their grave disappointment that the messages in the Presidential Statement of 28 July have not been heeded. They reiterated in the strongest terms their expectation that the PRST must be implemented Council members called for an immediate unconditional humanitarian ceasefire, that can lead to a sustainable ceasefire, based upon the Egyptian proposal. Pending this, Council members encouraged the use of humanitarian pauses. They called on member states to donate to UNRWA's flash appeal.”

   Earlier on July 31 when UN Relief and Works Agency chief Pierre Krahenbuhl called in on July 31 to take questions from the media, Inner City Press asked him to explain a sentence from his earlier briefing to UN Security Council.

   Krahenbul told the Council, "should further large scale displacements indeed occur, the Occupying Power, according to International Humanitarian Law, will have to assume direct responsibility to assist these people."
  Inner City Press asked Krahenbuhl to explain this, also if UNRWA is thinking of seeking reimbursement for destruction from Israel, and if he is aware of the European Union seeking reimbursement for the destruction of EU-funded projects.
   On reimbursement, Krahenbuhl said there is a precedent, from Operations Cast Lead, but it is too early to look into it on this, "Protective Edge."
   While continuing to parse Krahenbuhl's response on Occupation, the general (assembly) theory is that duties as Occupying Power were delegated or outsourced to UNRWA when it was created by the UN General Assembly.  It seems the duties could be handed back. But how would non-compliance with or non-fulfillment of these duties be enforced? 
Just capitalizing letters in a legal phrase doesn't make it so.
   Earlier on July 31 outside the UN Security Council, Israel's Ambassador Ron Prosor and then the State of Palestine's Permanent Observer Riyad Mansour took questions from the Press.
  Inner City Press asked Prosor about Krahenbuhl's call to end the blockade of Gaza. Prosor replied that Israel has no interest in being in Gaza -- what, is there oil there, he asked rhetorically -- but cited and showed charts of Hamas rocket fire, and tunnels (which he said are funded by Qatar).
  Inner City Press asked Mansour about the US Department of Defense' confirmation of new ammunition transfers to Israel (see below).
  Mansour said that more weapons are not needed; he said that the killing of entire families would make peace much more difficult to achieve but that it should be strived for, an independent state of Palestine.
  In the UN Security Council, the Gaza issue has essentially been delegated to the US. In the UN Security Council on July 30, Nigeria criticized the Council's delay in issuing even a Presidential Statement; Chad called the Council "impotent."
  At the end of Rwandan presidency reception later on July 30, Inner City Press was told by more than one Council member that it is all up to the US. But, one might ask, how can a party transferring ammunition be considering an honest broker? 
  Couldn't this transfer had been at least delayed? But that too would have been a story, bigger than this one, which Inner City Press was notified was broken by CNN, leading to this statement:
"The Department of Defense received a letter of request from the Israeli Ministry of Defense on July 20 for a normal Foreign Military Sales delivery of ammunition.  The appropriate DoD activities processed the request through normal inter-agency processes, resulting in a signed Letter of Offer and Acceptance on July 23.

"Two of the requested munitions were available in the War Reserve Stockpile Ammunition-Israel (WRSA-I), on the ground in Israel, and were therefore delivered to the Israeli Defense Force from this stockpile. Both munitions had been in WRSA-I stock for a few years, well before the current crisis.  All stocks in WRSA-I, as required by law, are "in excess to U.S. requirements." Issuing munitions from the WRSA-I stockpile was strictly a sourcing decision and White House approval was not required.

 "The United States is committed to the security of Israel, and it is vital to U.S. national interests to assist Israel to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability. This defense sale is consistent with those objectives."
  Thus spake the US Pentagon, or at least its spokesperson Kirby. But what will UN Security Council members say, at their July 31 session? Watch this site.
 Back on July 27-28, the Security Council convened to adopted a Presidential Statement, below.
 Afterward, Inner City Press asked Jordan's Deputy Permanent Representative why no vote had been called thedraft resolution, if there was one or more vetoes or abstaining votes that would block it.
  He said things haven't reached that stage; rather it was a matter of seeing when the members of the Council thought a resolution would be useful to support of ceasefire. 
  Some ask: so is that the UN Security Council's only function?
  Inner City Press asked Israel's Ron Prosor about thedifferent drafts leaked to Haaretz and Al Jazeera (which Inner City Press noted, here). Prosor went wider scope with his answer. A ceasefire did not sound closer.
  Prosor was also asked about Ban Ki-moon flying around in a Qatar-funded private jet - a question on which Inner City Press first reported eight days ago, and on which Ban himself should answer.
 Palestine's Riyad Mansour cited as a precedent a 1994 Security Council resolution providing protecting in Hebron, by Norwegians in white shirts, he said. He said he wished the Presidential Statement had called for Israel to pull out of Gaza, and that he wished for a resolution. We will continue on this.
  Inner City Press immediately inquired and was informed it was to adopt a Presidential Statement; the version below was provided. But why not a resolution? Why proceeding so cautiously, compared most recently with the July 21 resolution on MH17 in Ukraine?  
  Earlier, with even the “humanitarian pause” over in Gaza, the draft "framework" agreement rejected by the Israeli cabinet on July 25 was leaked from both sides. 
   But the versions leaked by each side were different.
  On Al Jazeera a one-page document was waved around, which had Qatar in the first paragraph as one of the signatories making commitments, which provided for the opening of “border and non-border” crossings and specified fishing rights up to 12 nautical miles, and a $47 million commitment by the US.
  In the “5 pm Confidential Draft” published by Ha'aretz, Qatar is the last paragraph (without Egypt), fishing rights and the $47 million from the US are not specified, nor are “non-border” crossing being opened.
  At least, the two sides leaked different stages or versions of the draft. Or is there more to this, in the spin war that this stage of the Gaza war has become?
  (The drafts are different; Al Jazeera is saying Ha'aretz stole its scoop. There may be more to this.)
  Meanwhile, silence at the UN with the draft Security Council resolution of Jordan and the Arab League not scheduled for a vote, and canned statements from Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who after taking a Qatar-funded private jet from New York to Doha refused through his spokespeople to answer Inner City Press' follow-up questions on who paid for the rest of his travel. Watch this site.

 
  

Sunday, August 25, 2013

In Egypt Coup-Volution, UN Tells Inner City Press Feltman Met with Muslim Brotherhood, But Not When Trip Was Planned


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 25 -- So amid continued crackdown in Egypt, in what Inner City Press has dubbed that country's coup-volution, ex-US now-UN Feltman has left Cairo and headed to, where else, Doha.

On Friday August 23 at the UN, Inner City Press asked again about Feltman: did he even meet with Muslim Brotherhood leaders in his four days in the country? From the UN's August 23 transcript:

Inner City Press: Mr. Feltman, in his visit to Egypt, there is a quote from the Muslim Brotherhood, Mr. Darrag, saying that they weren’t reached out to and that they had no meeting with Mr. Feltman. Given that they are the party that was ousted in what many people call a coup, did Mr. Feltman seek to meet with them? It seems like a clear question.
Deputy Spokesperson Del Buey: Well, Under-Secretary-General Jeffrey Feltman today concluded his three-day visit to Cairo, meeting with a broad range of interlocutors. He listened to diverse view points and conveyed the United Nations’ full support for an Egyptian-led peaceful path to resolving the crisis.
Inner City Press: A final follow-up. Does that broad range include the Muslim Brotherhood that was removed from power?
Deputy Spokesperson Del Buey: As mentioned, Mr. Feltman saw and spoke with a broad number of interlocutors from the Government, civil society, human rights and political parties, including from the Muslim Brotherhood.
  So Feltman and the Muslim Brotherhood was left to an "If-Pressed." And looking at the phrasing, it only says that Feltman "SAW" the Brotherhood. A cynic later on Friday asked Inner City Press: was this conversation with Muslim Brotherhood in a taxi? With the driver? Thomas Friedman style?
  Then the UN battens down the hatches, refusing to answer basic questions (not only about the spying but also) about even WHEN Feltman's trip was arranged. On at the August 21 noon briefing Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's now retired and DC-bound deputy spokesperson Eduardo Del Buey:
Inner City Press: the spokesman for the Egyptian Foreign Ministry has given their readout on the meeting with Mr. Feltman. They have said that it shouldn’t be internationalized, it has no international implications, but they also said, this is a quote, that the trip by Mr. Feltman was arranged “a few weeks ago”. So, I wanted to know, either now or when you can check in your office, when was this trip arranged, because it is presented as sort of the Secretariat’s response to the killings of 14 August, but they are saying it was weeks ago. When was the trip arranged?
Deputy Spokesperson Del Buey: Matthew, when we have an answer to that we will let you know.
  And, surprise surprise, they still haven't. On August 21 the US State Department's Voice of America, on whose Broadcast Board of Governors John Kerry serves, reported positively on Feltman's trip to Egypt, with no mention of Feltman's previous position with the US State Department.
  It would be good to hear from Feltman, for him to take press questions for example about when his Egypt trip was arranged, with whom he met, and how whatever message he is taking from Ban Ki-moon (other than, of course, "just listening" to the coup-volution) is different from the US position. Watch this site.
Footnote: these are the type of routine press briefing by UN Under Secretaries General that the new Free UN Coalition for Access @FUNCA_info is demanding not only of Feltman (and the ever-resistant Herve Ladsous) but also the UN's incoming chief counsel, replacing Patricia O'Brien. More on that to come.