ICP Asks UN's Syria Commission About Abuses by FSA or Coalition

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 20 -- As the UN's Syria Commission of Inquiry -- they would later take Press questions, see below -- began briefing the UN Security Council at 10 am on February 20 in basement Conference Room 11, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights sent a link to the CoI's report to its email list (here).)

  Some, not all, had been given the report in advance under embargo, and bragged about it, then downplayed the abuses of ISIS and Nusra also detailed in the report.  Other abuses were hardly mentioned. This is how today's UN works.

  The four Commissioners and UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant then came to take media questions.  After Al Jazeera, CBS and Reuters, Inner City Press asked the Commissioners if, beyond the Government, Nusra and ISIS they cataloged abuses by the Kurds, Free Syrian Army or even Coalition.

 It was Vitit Muntarbhorn who answered for the other Commissioners, saying, We cover all sides: the authorities, their colleagues so to speak, the non-state armed groups in their variety, we cover the Kurds as well. One recurrent issues is the use of child soldiers particularly under ISIS. Video here.

  What about the Coalition? And the Free Syrian Army which is listed even by the UN as recruiting child soldiers?

 The other Commissioners, all present, are Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro (Chair), Karen Koning AbuZayd and Carla del Ponte. Given her history with Kosovo, one wanted to ask her about the new organ trafficking allegations against ISIS in Iraq. But the rule was, Syria only.

  Similarly, the UN's monthly report on humanitarian access in Syria was not placed as before in the UN Spokesperson's Office for all, but only to some. 

  Not (yet) asked is how to square this ninth released Syria CoI report with High Commissioner Zeid's recommendation this week to withhold a similar report about the 40,000 people killed in Sri Lanka in 2009.

  Despite all the talk of accountability in Syria, if there were a change would the reports and calls all be buried or "deferred"? We'll have more on this.

  Back on January 28, the UN's Syria humanitarian monthly briefing had this to say about Islamic State:

“access to ISIL controlled Raqqa and Deir ez Zor is particularly concerning. UN agencies were unable to deliver food to the entire caseload of 600,000 people in these two governorates in December due to lack of agreement with armed groups on the ground."

  So is Islamic State the "armed group" the UN is referring to? And were none of the 600,000 people served, or not all of them?

    The government “has continued to condut airstrikes, including barrel bombs, in densely populated areas... for nearly two weeks, Al Nusra Front has cut water supplies to Idlib city, affecting some 600,000 people.”

  This monthly breifing was given on January 28 by Kyung-wha Kang "on behalf of Valerie Amos," who leaves the UN in March. (Click herefor Inner City Press exclusive coverage.) The underlying report was not distributed in advance through the UN Spokesperson's office "gray lady" system, see below, instead handed selectively to Western wire service(s).

  The Syria humanitarian resolution adopted by the UN Security Council back on December 17 covers "all parties to the Syrian domestic conflict."

  After the adoption, Inner City Press asked Australian Permanent Representative Gary Quinlan, yes or no, if any of the obligations in the resolution apply to the US-led campaign of air strikes in Syria.

  "No," Quinlan replied.

   "Why not?" Inner City Press asked.

  Quinlan said "I know where you are going" with that, but emphasized that the resolution had been adopted unanimously.

   But the question is, why carve out anyone, particularly one using force from the air, from a Security Council resolution about international humanitarian law?  To some, the answer is obvious, involving Israel being exempt from resolutions about the Golan Heights, US aversion to the International Criminal Court, etc. 

  But why are these double standards simply accepted without question? After Quinlan and his counterparts from Luxembourg and Jordan finished speaking at the Security Council stakeout microphone, the dozen journalists listening to them left as Syria's Permanent Representative Bashar Ja'afari came to the microphone to reply. And so it goes at the UN.

When outgoing UN humanitarian aid chief Valerie Amos briefed the Security Council about Syria on December 15, there was in the Spokesperson's Office no accompanying report. Amos' briefing to the Council did not address casualties from US and Gulf allies' air strikes, as November's written report had.

 Instead, Amos said that “all parties to the conflict continue to violate the most basic laws with devastating consequences. The Government has continued to use barrel bombs in densely populated areas, killing and maiming people. The use of barrel bombs has been particularly acute in Aleppo, Hama, Idlib, Rural Damascus, Deir Ez-Zor, Ar-Raqqa and Da'ra.”

 She did mention that “opposition groups have also prevented medical supplies from reaching besieged communities in Nubul and Zarah.” 

 Most troublingly, Amos said that the UN has received reports of 350 children, some as young as five years old, being trained for combat in a military camp in Ar-Raqqa by ISIL.

  Back in late November, the UN released its Syria aid access report  in the same pre-spun way it did on April 23, then on May 22, on June 20and then on July 24 and August 28. Unlike other reports, for example onSudan where both the UN's Herve Ladsous and Valerie Amos have been petitioned by Darfuri groups, here, the UN put an advance copy of this Syria report its its so-called "gray lady."

  As previously reported, the "gray lady" holds documents, of late only the month's Security Council program of work, of which advance copies are released, sometimes with a heads-up to favored media. 

  Who decided for the UN Secretariat and Spokesman which are the important issues meriting such treatment? The Free UN Coalition for Access posits that it should be all reports, with no advance notice to favored media. The system could be fixed, but to simply without explanation return to the current murk is UNacceptable - and typically UN.

  In December, a correspondent was told, "there is no more gray lady."

   In this system, selective reports circulate for days before the UN's actual report. 

  The spoon-fed pre-spinner, ironically, has engaged in censorship of other leaks, click here for ChillingEffects.org, here for critique by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

  As Inner City Press reported here, Australia along with Luxembourg and Jordan pushed a  resolution on Syria aid access. 

  Again, the UN report does not directly address calls in Washington to support the Free Syrian Army -- which is still listed by another part of the UN as recruiting and using child soldiers.

  On ISIL, the report continues in Paragraph 8: "ISIL continues to increase its influence in the Syrian Arab Republic, predominantly along the main supply lines in rural central Homs, Hama, Rif
Dimashq, southern Hasakeh and western Aleppo. It also continues to fight for the control of border crossings and natural resources. During the reporting period, it made advances in Raqqa, Hasakeh, and Aleppo governorates following clashes with Government forces."

  How has the pre-spinning worked, or not worked? Back on July 24 at 11:15 am US state media began tweeting about the report. Inner City Press went to the Spokesperson's Office and asked if it had been put out as described below. No, was the answer.

  But 15 minutes later, the Spokesperson's Office squawked that the report had been distributed to the Council, and there is then was in the "gray lady" -- the only UN report still distributed this way -- no reports on Africa are.

 Back on June 20, just before 6 pm, the UN Spokesperson's Office announced over its "squawk" system to correspondents still in the building that the report had been circulated. This meant it had been placed in piece of furniture in the Spokesperson's Office which has sat empty for many days now.

  Apparently only these Syria reports are now pre-released, pre-announced and pre-spun. 

  In terms of the Spokesperson's duty to answer questions, there was by closure on June 20 no answer to Inner City Press' request to confirm or deny Ban Ki-moon was handed legal papers about the introduction of cholera into Haiti as he entered the Asia Society, Inner City Presscoverage here.

  Back on May 22 the UN's go-to wire service, which has also tried to get other media thrown out, gushed that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's "toughly worded report... said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government bore the greater responsibility."

   This wire's report didn't mention the Free Syrian Army displacing people (in the report) or the FSA recruiting child soldiers (in another recent UN report, which Inner City Press noted here.)

  Nor did it mention, for example, "45,000 in areas besieged by opposition forces in Nubul and Zahra." The number remains the same in the June 20 report.

   As we diplomatically sketched on April 23 hoping for some reform, the UN Spokesperson's Office makes "advance copies" of reports available. That is fine - but there is no consistency in who they tell of the availability of reports or how they make the announcement.

  Showing bias, they only "squawk" over the internal intercom system some but not all reports. 

  Now this inconsistency applies to pre-releasing some but not all reports. Who decides? How?

   Using the squawk system rather than e-mailing all resident correspondents favors media, like the UN friendly wire, which have a person sitting in their office -- for example a person who filed a "for the record" complaint against another media, than scammed Google intobanning the leaked complaint from Search, misusing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, click here for that.

  Other international organizations handle this with less bias. The IMF gives accredited media like Inner City Press embargoed copies of documents, and hold embargoed briefings to which accredited journalists anywhere in the world can pose questions, then wait and report at the embargo time. The UN must improve: and the Free UN Coalition for Access is working on this.

  Other have complained about this murky UN practices; others still a month ago asked FUNCA to wait a week before proposing reforms, which it did. But where are any reforms? We will continue to Press.

   If the Gulf & Western insiders on the board of the UN Correspondents Association, which tried to get other media thrown out of the UN, have a problem with disclosure, they too should push the UN to reform. But they won't even reform themselves, and for example commit not to seek the expulsion of other media from the UN. 

  The current spokesperson has taken sides on this and other things; it is time for reform. If Ban Ki-moon is so tough and principled, why was hepraising the president of Sri Lanka just after a report showed him seeking to "go all the way" and kill all his opponents? This all circles back. We'll have more on this.

Further back-ground: On April 30 when UN Humanitarian chief Valerie Amos took media questions, Inner City Press asked her about two paragraphs of her report on Syria, the advance copy of which was released on April 23 as analyzed below.

   Paragraph 47 disclosed 25 UN staff members detained. Inner City Press asked, by whom? Amos said by both the government and the armed groups. 

 The June 20 report, in Paragraph 44, says "29 UN staff (27 UNRWA and 2 UNDP) are currently detained of which four are missing."

   The Free UN Coalition for Access has repeatedly asked, including at UN noon briefings, why these reports don't just go online for all to see. The response, off-camera, has been to allow translation into the UN's official six languages. Really?

  The result is that stories are written, for example here by Reuters, that focus on the Syrian government while the report has whole sections about Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, ISIS, et al. Is this retyping really "reporting" by the Reuters bureau chief, who himself is engaged in censorship, here?

 Despite the lack of any stated rule in this regard,  FUNCA and Inner City Press have been criticized for even questioning or reporting on this anti-public process. A previous UN spokesperson told Inner City Press the reason for stealth is that "the member states" would like pre-release before translation. But doesn't the Secretariat WORK for member states? Or is this how they buy the fealty of the scribes?

   But if Gulf media immediately scans and puts the advance copy online, where is the mystery? Where is the double standard? Wouldn't it be better for the UN itself to put the report online when available?

 And then not, as it did on Western Sahara, change the report after getting pushed around? FUNCA is and will remain for UN transparency and fair treatment. And FUNCA maintains there should be answers -- including from UN Under Secretaries General -- and written rules. The UN has outright refused to explain why for example the Turkish Cypriot leader Eroglu was allowed to speak on UNTV but Polisario is not. The lack of rules only benefits the powerful: media, countries, corporations.

     When Qatar sponsored an event at the UN in New York on March 21 featuring the Syrian Coalition headed by Ahmad al Jarba, a group calling its the Syrian Grassroots Movement held protests seeking to oust Jarba.

   By March 22, the group stated that some 40,000 people in 58 cities inside Syria had participated in demonstrations to get Jarba out of his post, saying "it is time to put an end to political corruption."

  Back in September 2013, France sponsored an event in the UN and called Jarba the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people. French Ambassador Gerard Araud was the first questioning at Qatar's March 21 Syrian Coalition event. What is France's position now? Who chooses the leaders?

  Likewise, back in July 2013 and earlier this month, the Jarba-led Syrian Coalition held faux "UN" events in the clubhouse Ban Ki-moon's Secretariat gives to the largely Gulf and Western UN Correspondents Association. How does that now appear, in light of the anti-Jarba protests?

   Qatar's March 21 event was not listed in the UN Journal nor in the UN Media Alert. It was not on the UN's publicly available webcast.

  Select media outlets were there, when Inner City Press came in at the end to ask a question: Al Jazeera on the podium in Qatar's event, Al Arabiya like a Saudi diplomat -- not the Permanent Representative -- in the audience along with Al Hayat, even Al Hurra, on whose Broadcasting Board of Governors US Secretary of State John Kerry serves.

   The new Free UN Coalition for Access is against faux UN events, in the clubhouse the Secretariat gives to what's become its UN Censorship Alliance or elsewhere.

Watch this site.

   

On Syria, After Murky Photo-Op With Ban Ki-moon, Hadi Al Bahra Wants Air Support

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 1 -- A week after the rebels of the "Syrian Opposition Coalition" were presented by some counties as the new or "only legitimate" government of Syria, they have called for "air support." Hadi al Bahra, who had a meeting with on September 27 UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon which was publicized while banning the independent press, to Al Hayat:

"criticizes the failure to give sufficient support for the Free Syrian Army in its battle against ISIS and the Assad regime, calling on the international coalition to 'provide air cover for the FSA in the areas what will be wrestled from ISIS to protect them from the attacks of Assad’s air force and to help the FSA fill the void after driving ISIS out of northern Syria.'

"In an exclusive interview with Al Hayat newspaper, Bahra said that that 'the elimination of terrorism and extremism cannot be achieved through military operations alone, but through an integrated social and political process and through addressing the root cause of terrorism, namely the dictatorial Assad regime.'

"Commenting on the visit of the Syrian Coalition’s delegation to New York, Bahra said that 'we have received clear promises from the American administration that it would cooperate with the political and military leadership of the Syrian Revolution, a stance is also shared by countries such as France, Britain, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. All these countries share with us the same vision that the anti-ISIS campaign will not yield tangible results unless there are integrated political and social programs and full coordination with the Syrian opposition. The Russians will surely change their position towards the situation in Syria when the balance of forces is changed on the ground. Russia has specific interests in the region, so do the Russians support Assad out of love for it, or that because the Assad regime serve their interests as long as it holds to power. Therefore, when the balance of power is tipped the military and political burdens will outweigh the benefits of preserving the Assad regime and consequently its position will change.'" (Source: Syrian Coalition)

  On September 29, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric why the independent press was banned, and who attended along with Hadi al Bahra.

  Dujarric said to ask the Syrian Opposition Coalition -- that is, no transparency from the UN -- and said that when Ban met non-governmental parties like Turkish Cypriot leader Dervis Eroglu, only UN Photo was present. He said he was not equating the two.

 Inner City Press asked Dujarric if Ban met any other rebels during this General Debate, since there are many rebel groups in the world.

  Dujarric said the Syrian rebels were the only ones Ban met with. We'll have more on this. 

  It was Saturday afternoon in a mostly empty UN when this photo-op was added to Ban's schedule, in his 38th floor office:

"05:20 pm    38th Floor    Photo Opportunity:  The Secretary-General with H.E. Mr. Hadi al-Bahra and other Members of the National Coalition of Syria Revolution and Opposition Forces
(UNTV/PHOTO,  INTERNATIONAL MEDIA, WEBCAST)"

  But when Inner City Press went the requisite 30 minutes in advance in order to cover the photo-op, it was told that only the UN's in-house photo service could attend to create this propaganda photo.

  Inner City Press on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, which pushes for media freedom, asked al-Bahra and the Syrian Coalition why it was closed. They tweeted back:

@innercitypress - We asked. But told by @UN_Spokesperson that option of opening to media only available to "member states". 

   But, as Inner City Press immediate replied -- after finding that the photo op wasn't even on UN EZTV, the 29 channels of the UN's in-house TV network --  Ban held an open photo op on August 18 with Malala, who is not a member states. We'll have more on this.

   All week, Ban has been holding such meetings in his office with heads of state and government. Now, this one rebel group is in. What about other rebel groups? Doesn't this selectivity as least call out for transparency -- having other than in-house media present?

  Ban's UN is lawless -- including dodging service of legal papers for bringing cholera to Haiti.

  After 5 pm on Friday, September 26, the Syrian Coalition Media Office went out by email a speech, entitled "Hadi al Bahra addresses United Nations General Assembly."

 The question, asked by Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access, was where and when was this speech ostensibly given to the UN General Assembly? The rebels are not the government, at least not yet. So what did the e-mail mean?

After approval by the US Congress to arm and train rebels in Syria, and the airstrikes in Syria that began on September 22, Free Syrian Army commanders began complaining the strikes hit only ISIL (and Khorasan).

  The Syrian Opposition Coalition, set to be presented as a government in an event in the UN's Economic and Social Council chamber on September 24, put this out:

"Nasr al-Hariri, Secretary General of the Syrian Coalition, said that the Syrian people will not trust the international efforts to fight ISIS as long as they ignore the voices of millions of Syrians who have been subjected to the terror of the Assad regime and its allies,” during a visit to the FSA battalions in the countryside of Aleppo and Idlib, along with Mohammed Qaddah, Vice President of the Syrian Coalition. 'We regret that the international community has come up with partial solutions to the Syrian conflict in which hundreds of thousands were killed or detained by the Assad regime. The military strikes being carried out by the international coalition against the positions of ISIS and Al Nusra Front will be short of stemming the tide of extremism as long as they are directed against the symptoms of the problem and not its root cause. Moreover, these strikes will only be interpreted as an attempt to reproduce and rehabilitate the Assad regime and will prompt more Syrians to take up arms as long as the Assad regime is spared the military strikes.' 

"Hariri also stress that any solution other than helping the Syrian people topples the Assad regime will only serve to consolidate extremism in Syria and the region. Therefore, the international community must assume its responsibilities and deal with the situation in Syria in a more realistic and responsible way. Hariri stresses that the world is not yet aware that the battle against terrorism cannot be solved only militarily, but must include an organized political process capable of addressing the root causes of extremism. 

"The meager international support for the Syrian national projects, including the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian Coalition, has led to the emergence of other projects that attracted many young people who do not necessarily endorse those projects’ vision. However, we are quite certain that those young people, when provided with the suitable alternative, will be an essential part of the mosaic structure on which the new Syria will be built. 

"The Syrian people cannot accept watching the international coalition’s warplanes avenging the killing of journalist James Foley while failing to do justice to Hamza al-Khatib, Abdul Qader Al Saleh, Ghiath Matar and hundreds of thousands of Syrians. Furthermore, terrorism cannot be fought piecemeal, but its root causes must be addressed to save Syria and the whole world from the threats imposed by the extremist groups.” It is worth mentioning that many FSA commanders expressed their willingness to cooperate in order to further institutionalize the FSA and prepare it to effectively lead the struggle against the Assad regime and ISIS."

  On September 23, the UN's new (third) Syria envoy Staffan de Mistura was supposed to take questions from the press at 4:50 pm on September 23. But he did not appear. After a time the UN said he was lost: he had gone to the wrong stakeout, but Spokesman Stephane Dujarric was looking for him.

   Finally after 6 pm de Mistura and Dujarric arrived. But de Mistura declined to comment on the airstrikes on Syria, deferring to Ban Ki-moon. Dujarric chose six questioners, three of whom were from Italian media. Dujarric called out "ANSA;" de Mistura said, "bongiorno" This is what the UN and this post have become: de Mistura is half-Italian, with little chance of success or even relevance it becomes a "local boy makes good" story.

  (Certainly, de Mistura may see it differently: Inner City Press has heard from a range of UN sources that de Mistura feels he could and should be Secretary General.)

  Normally Inner City Press would not comment on the nationality of the questioners selected. But earlier on September 23, Dujarric who is French was involved in aproblematic French-only use of the UN Press Briefing Room by President Hollande. 

  Dujarric peeked out of the door while Inner City Press was being told to leave the UN Press Briefing Room, partial video here; the Free UN Coalition for Accessunderstands that Media Accreditation was told to back off from the French event by the Spokesman's Office. So. Noon briefings where this could be asked have been canceled; written questions have not been answered. This too is today's UN.

  On September 22 after a day of UN formalities, and with John Kerry with the Syrian Opposition Coalition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the US started bombing in Syria, see below. It cited help from five Arab Kingdoms in hitting ISIL by Raqqa, but went it alone against the Khorosan group near Aleppo.

  On September 23 when UK Development Secretary Justine Greening spoke about aid to Syria, Inner City Press asked her if these airstrikes were coordinated in any way with humanitarians on the ground, amid reports one was close to a hospital.

  Greening declined to get into the specifics, saying the UK was not part of the airstrike but supported them. She said that the spread of ISIL had hurt humanitarian efforts, which is certain. 

  Greening said, "I won't get into the details, the UK was not part of the airstrikes. The advance of ISIL placed pressure on the ability of humanitarian workers." 

   But why not coordinate with aid workers on the ground?  And what about this Khorosan group, until now mentioned only once in a White House briefing?

  On a background White House press call, a Senior Administration Official said that the US long told Russia that its support for Assad would lead to the rise of extremism. Unsaid was Russia's position that US allies' support of fighters in Syria led to extremism. 

  Tellingly, Ban Ki-moon has yet to speak about the air strikes. Inner City Press asked his spokesman for a comment on the night of September 22, and saw this spokesman on September 23. But no answer.

  Inner City Press has put these questions to Dujarric:

Press questions on deadline: what is Ban Ki-moon's response to US on the record (and reportedly Saudi Arabia, Jordan and UAE) bombing in Syria without consent of Syrian government, or approval of the UN Security Council? Separately, was Ban Ki-moon informed in advance?

  Hours later, no response from the UN.

   Back on  September 19 while the UN Security Council's meeting on Iraq went on, Canada's Foreign Minister John Baird came out to take questions at the Council stakeout.

  Inner City Press asked him if Canada thinks that for airstrikes in Syria against ISIL, the consent of the Assad government or of the Security Council should be sought.

  Baird said that on "intervention in Syria there are two views. One could say that every country has a right to defend itself. Iraq is being attack by terrorists in the neighboring country. We take great issue with Assad... That has yet to be determined."

  The Syrian Opposition Coalition, it emerges, will hold a press conference inside the UN building on September 22. But it will not be a UN press conference - instead, it will be in the clubhouse the UN gives to what has become itsUN Censorship Alliance (having tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN), publicized only to those who pay money to UNCA in dues.

  Why not go through the front door, and have a member state like Canada sponsor the Syrian Coalition's Hadi Al Bahra in the UN Press Briefing Room, as others do? We'll have more on this.

  On September 18, the day after the US House of Representatives voted to arm and train "moderate" rebels in Syria, the Syrian Opposition Coalition said training 5,000 will not be enough. An hour later, they put out a statement about ISIL stranding 7,000 civilians on the Syrian - Turkish border:

"As the 'Islamic State' intensifies shelling on Ayn al Arab (Kobanê in Kurdish) in northern Syria, thousands of people remain trapped in the towns and villages in the area. As as a result, activists reported a mass exodus of civilians from the neighboring villages of Kaalak, Zark Qumshi, Zalkhek, and Turaman. The Syrian Coalition condemns ISIS's brutal tactics and calls on Turkish authorities to open borders in the area and provide refuge to those fleeing from the barbaric group. More than 7000 civilians are reported to be stranded along the Turkish Syrian borders since Thursday, most of them women and children."

 Echoes of Mount Sinjar in Iraq - and that led to airstrikes. Earlier on September 18, the Syrian Coalition put this out:

"Abdelahad Astepho, member of the political committee, said that the US Congress’s vote in favor of President Obama’s plan to train and equip the Free Syrian Army is 'a step in the right direction though it was made late. Limiting the training and equipment program to 5,000 FSA fighters is not enough to counter the threat of the Assad regime and ISIS. Therefore, it is necessary to increase the number of trainees to solve the whole problem of terrorism once and for all. Moreover, limiting the program to this small number may prolong the bloody conflict, thus prolonging the suffering of the Syrian people.' Astepho calls on the US Senate 'to back the training and equipment program and for its immediate implementation, as any delay will cost Syrians more lives. Any delay in the implementation of this plan will lead to further expansion of the terror practiced by the Assad regime and the terrorist group ISIS.'"

 This after on the Senate floor just who these "moderate" rebels are was still being questioned. If 5000 is not enough, how many would be? To the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 17, former Ambassador Bob Ford said there are 80,000 "non-Nusra, non-ISIL" rebels. Where do these figures come front?

   Back on September 13, hours after US President Barack Obama's speech, the Syrian Coalition put out a press release requesting airstrikes and cash from Congress, pronto.

While more than two dozen countries pledged support for Iraq against the Islamic State in the Security Council on September 19, who would speak on UNTV about it?

  For more than an hour the media was told that French foreign minister Laurent Fabius would be “coming to the stakeout” to take questions on UNTV. It was pushed back, then when finally Fabius emerged he rushed past the stakeout into the hallway, where he spoke only in French.
 
 Update: to be fair, the French Mission put out this transcript.

  So too with Turkey's foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu. When he emerged from the Security Council, hesummoned Turkish media down the hallway for a private stakeout. Some non-Turkish journalists weren't allowed to go, something protested by the Free UN Coalition for Access. But why not openly take questions?

  The three on-camera stakeouts that occurred were bySyria's Bashar Ja'afari, Iraq's Foreign Minister Jaafari (no relation, if that needs to be said), and Canada's John Baird. To the last of these, Inner City Press asked if before any bombing in Syria consent should be sought from Damascus or the Council. That has “yet to be determined,” Baird replied.

  Iraqi FM Jaafari, when Inner City Press asked if the Coalition should speak with Syria, seemed to dodge the question. But at least he took questions on camera, as did Syria's Ja'afari. Where were the others? Is this how GA Week will be? FUNCA in is on the case, including aboutfaux UN press conferences like those held in the private club handed out by the UN to its Censorship Alliance. That group tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN, now masquerades on media freedom. This is how the UN works. Watch this site.

   

After US House Votes to Arm and Train 5,000 Free Syrian Army Rebels, Syrian Opposition Coalition Says It Wants More

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 18 -- The day after the US House of Representatives voted to arm and train "moderate" rebels in Syria, the Syrian Opposition Coalition said this:

"Abdelahad Astepho, member of the political committee, said that the US Congress’s vote in favor of President Obama’s plan to train and equip the Free Syrian Army is 'a step in the right direction though it was made late. Limiting the training and equipment program to 5,000 FSA fighters is not enough to counter the threat of the Assad regime and ISIS. Therefore, it is necessary to increase the number of trainees to solve the whole problem of terrorism once and for all. Moreover, limiting the program to this small number may prolong the bloody conflict, thus prolonging the suffering of the Syrian people.' Astepho calls on the US Senate 'to back the training and equipment program and for its immediate implementation, as any delay will cost Syrians more lives. Any delay in the implementation of this plan will lead to further expansion of the terror practiced by the Assad regime and the terrorist group ISIS.'"

 This after on the Senate floor just who these "moderate" rebels are was still being questioned. If 5000 is not enough, how many would be? To the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 17, former Ambassador Bob Ford said there are 80,000 "non-Nusra, non-ISIL" rebels. Where do these figures come front?

   Back on September 13, hours after US President Barack Obama's speech, the Syrian Coalition put out a press release requesting airstrikes and cash from Congress, pronto.

  Now on September 13 the Coalition has put out this, about UN envoy de Mistura:

"Khatib Badla, member of the political committee, said that the new UN special envoy to Syria will not be able to succeed in his mission if he follows the same approach followed by his predecessors who failed to bring the Assad regime to the negotiating table," commenting on the statements of the UN envoy to Syria, Staffan de Mistura, who described as “useful" his meeting with Assad...

 De Mistura has described his meeting with Assad as “long and very useful,” and underlined the “necessity of combating terrorism and helping Syrians solve their crisis politically. “Terrorist threats have become a source of concern for people all over the world, de Mistura told reporters after the encounter. He added that “combating terrorist groups is one of the UN's priorities and this move would not be made without solving the country's crisis to create better situations for Syrians, stressing this move would be made to coincide with a comprehensive political process taking into consideration UN Resolution 2170 tasked with combating terrorism.” 

  Inner City Press five days ago asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric the following, in writing:

"please confirm or deny that Mr. de Mistura will be (allowed to be) based in Brussels, and separate state his contract status: When Actually Employed? Paid at USG level? Is he being allowed to continue working with / for any non-UN organization, if so which, and what review of possible conflicts of interest was made, and by whom?"

  Five days and no answer: UNtransparent.

On September 11, the Syrian Coalition's Hadi al-Bahra said:

"We urge the US Congress to approve the president’s policy as soon as possible, and to allow the training and equipping of Free Syrian Army. The Syrian Coalition, the legitimate representative of the Syrian people, stands ready and willing to partner with the international community not only to defeat ISIS but also rid the Syrian people of the tyranny of the Assad regime. Carrying out airstrikes against ISIS inside Syria might be crucial to international efforts aimed at eliminating the extremist group."

  The Turkey-based Coalition is calling for air strikes on Syria with no mention of even seeking UN Security Council approval; their lobbying is directed at the US Congress because inaction might tie up the money.

  Where is this all headed?

   Obama's September 10 speech was 2010 words long, mentioning Yemen and Somalia twice each, but Libya not once. Libya was an intervention Obama directed for the US, that has left dueling militia and missing passenger jets in its wake.

   The speech mentioned the UN once, the UN Security Council session on foreign fighters that Obama will chair on September 24. But what about at least seeking UN Security Council approval for air strikes on Syria? Apparently not.

   In calling for the arming of the Syrian opposition, including by Saudi Arabia, some question the qualitative difference with arming and training of rebels in Ukraine and snark: my rebels good, your rebels bad.

   Before the speech there were these quotes, embargoed until exactly 6:30 pm:

“So tonight, with a new Iraqi government in place, and following consultations with allies abroad and Congress at home, I can announce that America will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat. Our objective is clear: we will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy.”

“But I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil. This counter-terrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground. This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.”

  Whether it has been successful in Yemen -- where the Houthis drove all the way to Sana'a -- or Somalia where the US' local partners raised Shabelle Media, is UNclear. We'll cover the speech.

   Starting from the beheading of US journalist James Foley, the Syrian Coalition has pushed harder to equate Assad and the Islamic State, and to present themselves, based in Turkey, as a key to fighting ISIL. Their pitch on the Arab League meeting is below.

 But first, this read-out from a Senior US State Department official, of Secretary of State Kerry's call with Nabil al-Arabi:

"Secretary Kerry spoke with the Secretary General of the Arab League Nabil Elaraby today to discuss developments in the region and to provide an update on efforts to combat ISIL in advance of the Arab League meetings which start tomorrow.  They discussed the need for the Arab League and its members to take a strong position in the coalition that is developing against ISIL and the importance of decisive action to stop the flow of foreign fighters, counter ISIL's financing, and combat its incitement.

"The Secretary emphasized that the military aspect is only one part of this effort and that to degrade and destroy the threat posed by ISIL will require a holistic approach that will take time, persistence and require coordination with our Arab partners at the international, regional, and local level – combining military, law enforcement, intelligence, economic, and diplomatic tools. Both leaders also recognized that Iraq is on the front line in the war against ISIL and that Iraq, the United States, the region, and the international community must stand together to assist Iraq in facing this threat."

  Earlier on September 6 the Syrian Coalition issued a statement that:

"Nasr al-Hariri, Secretary General of the Syrian Coalition, calls on the Arab League to go beyond political recognition of the Syrian Coalition and grant it full legal recognition as the representative of the Syrian people during a meeting held today with Secretary General of the Arab League, Nabil al-Arabi. 

 "Al Arabi invited the Syrian Coalition to occupy Syria’s seat in the Arab League tomorrow and speak on behalf of the Syrian people. 'Fighting terrorism cannot be done piecemeal, therefore the Arab League’s resolution must include putting an end to the terror practiced by the Assad regime against the Syrian people,' Al Hariri said commenting on the Arab League’s intention to pass a resolution to confront terrorism during the upcoming ministerial meeting."

  The Syrian Coalition said it will churn out a quote right after Obama's speech.

Footnote: Agence France Presse, purporting an info-graphic of journalists killed last year, listed four as killed "in Gaza." Since all other listed jurisdiction are full UN member states, some surmised AFP's nomenclature let off the hook the killer of those journalists. Despite calling it social media, weeks later AFP had not responded.

   

After Murder of James Foley, Francois Hollande Brags France Had Armed Free Syrian Army, Syrian Coalition Blames Obama, UK Has Doubts

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 24 -- With the beheading of US journalists James Foley as the trigger, talk was turned to a wider campaign against ISIL, not only in Iraq but now in Syria.

   Opportunistically, the Syrian Coalition from Turkey is saying "James Foley was Victim of the Failure to Empower Syrian Rebels" (see below).

  Meanwhile on CNN's Sunday morning talk show State of the Union, host Candy Crowley badgered UK Ambassador to the UN Peter Westmacott, when will the UK use its planes? When will they arm the "Free Syrian Army" as Francois Hollande has bragged France has already done?

  Westmacott said that Iraq and the KRG haven't yet asked the UK for airstrikes; he said the UK will NOT provide lethal aid to the FSA, in light of ISIL's recapture of others' weapons.

  Did France not consider this? And doesn't Hollande bragging about providing weapons to rebels in Syria undercut his legal argument about arms going into Ukraine?

 Here is what the Syrian Coalition put out:

"Mohammed Qaddah, vice president of the Syrian Coalition, said that the terrorist attack on the United States did not begin with the murder of journalist James Foley, as was stated by deputy national security advisor to the White House Ben Rhodes. “Rather, the terrorist attack against not only the United States but against all humanity began with the Assad regime’s murder of the Syrian people amid an unprecedented silence by the international community. The United States bears much of the responsibility for this horrible crime when it did not react to the Assad regime’s repeated crossing of the red lines it had drawn and warned against crossing."

  How will Obama react?

Footnote: Agence France Presse, purporting an info-graphicof journalists killed last year, listed four as killed "in Gaza." Since all other listed jurisdiction are full UN member states, some surmised AFP's nomenclature let off the hook the killer of those journalists. Despite calling it social media, days later AFP has not responded.

   

A Week After Jarba's Syria Coalition Trashed Obama, Touts ISIS Fight in Deir al-Zor

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 29, more here -- Just a week ago Ahmad Jarba's Syrian Coalition criticized US President Obama. Coalition spokesman Louay Safi said he "regrets" Obama telling CBS  "he dismissed the idea that supplying US arms to moderate Syrian rebels would have toppled President Assad, calling it a 'fantasy.'"

  Safi said that "Obama's remarks are meant to cover up the inability of his administration to prevent the deterioration of the political and humanitarian situation in the Levant, and also to evade the growing criticism to his policies regarding the Syrian crisis."

  Now a week later, after the Obama administration on June 26 announced it is asking Congress for $500 million for the vetted opposition -- read, Jarba's Syrian Coalition and the Free Syrian Army, still said by the UN to recruit and use child soldiers -- the Coalition has put out a read-out of what Jarba told Kerry:

"In a June 27 meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry,  Syrian Opposition Coalition President Ahmad al-Jarba reiterated the Syrian Opposition’s commitment to establishing a strategic partnership with the United States in the fight against terrorism and the Assad regime’s enablers of extremism... The Free Syrian Army has established an operations center in the province of Deir al-Zor to combat ISIS terrorist forces... President Jarba said that Free Syrian Army leadership is prepared to cooperate with the United States and allies to defeat ISIS. In May, President Jarba presented President Obama and Pentagon officials a proposal to enhance FSA capacity as a means to prevent ISIS from further expanding in Syria and Iraq."

  Whether Saudi-backed Jarba has been effective in Syria is highly questionable. Now he's being touted as a solution in Iraq?

Back on June 22 Jarba's Safi said: "Had the Obama administration heeded the advice of the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and his special envoy to Syria we would not have had the current situation in Syria or in the region as a whole.” 

  Is Robert Ford running for office?

  On the Iraq - Syria border, the day after UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon speechified on June 20 at the Asia Society that "Syria’s neighbors should enforce a firm prohibition on the use of their land borders and airspace for arms flows and smuggling into Syria," ISIS took over a major crossing at Qaim, 200 miles west of Baghdad.

  At the UN's noon briefing on June 20, after Ban's speech, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric:

Inner City Press: I didn’t see it in his speech, but it seems like at least a large part of the Iraqi border may be controlled by ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and the Sham) or ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant).  So, in terms of realism, does this mean now absent Government control, it’s just an open flow of weapons? Is there an acknowledgement by the UN that nothing can be done in terms of weapons?

Spokesman Dujarric:  Well, I think, you know, Member States, groups that have an influence all have a responsibility to stop the flow of arms.

 Surely ISIS is listening to Ban. The Syrian Coalition of Ahmad Jarba, meanwhile, praised the speech and called for "serious" weapons. Inner City Press asked Dujarric:

Inner City Press: the Syrian Coalition of Ahmed al-Jarba has put out a statement praising the speech and saying that:  “There should be serious weapons and training for moderate opposition forces.”  And I wanted to know, just to be clear, the Secretary-General is not in favour of that, thinks this is a bad call?

Spokesman:  I think the Secretary-General could not have been clearer when he’s speaking about an arms embargo and speaking for the halt of flow of arms into Syria.

 But how clear *is* Ban Ki-moon, when he meets with Jarba?

  Now it turns out that near the Asia Society Team Ban got served with legal papers about having brought cholera to Haiti. Dujarric's deputy Farhan Haq told some media -- refusing to answer the Press -- that Ban himself didn't get the papers. We'll have more on this -- and on the UN's pre-spinning of Ban's speech, reviewed here.

   How can Ban's UN be taken seriously on Syria or anything else while dodging service of legal papers for cholera in Haiti, and refusing to answer about it?

On the humanitarian front, Ban “appealed for an end to the sieges” and for “immediate unfettered humanitarian access across internal front lines and across borders.”

  Later on June 20, Dujarric's and Haq's office murkily released a UN report which tracks Ban's speech, which theUN's go-to wire service then said it had "obtained."

  A draft resolution on cross-border aid is still being negotiated in the Security Council. But on June 19, Australian ambassador Gary Quinlan told the Press there would be no vote last week. When there is, will that be news? Watch this site.