On Libya, Ban Soft on Probe of NATO, Mis-Cites Ian Smith, Official Being Let Go

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 25 -- After making claims about how he is reforming the UN, but with the press and public banned from his question and answer session with UN member states, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Wednesday was asked "on Libya, do you think that there is a role for a UN Security Council investigation into civilians casualties of NATO bombings?"

This has been a controversial issue at the UN, even more so after Ban last month claimed that NATO fully complied with the protection of civilians mandate of Security Council resolution 1973. But even with a month to think about it, this was Ban's answer:

"I understand that NATO authorities have also mentioned to the issue of how to address the accountability of the civilian casualties in the course of military operations in Libya. But I am waiting for all their consultations."

Beyond mocking what he calls his "quiet leadership," many have noted that on some issues Ban defers entirely to member states (or here, "NATO authorities") while on others he woodenly urges member states, or the Council, to do things. There is no consistency.

There is not even much accuracy. In his opening statement, Ban said that "on Libya, my Special Representative, Ian Smith, and High Commissioner Navi Pillay briefed the Security Council this morning." Video here, at Minute 7:10.

Ian Smith, of course, was ruler of colonial Rhodesia, renamed Zimbabwe. The UN modified its transcript of Ban's press conference, changing it to "my Special Representative, Ian [Martin]."

(In another place, Ban mis-said the first name of the expert on Children and Armed Conflict as he announced she will be leaving; the UN simply omitted the embarrassing error from the transcript.)

After the Libya briefing to which Ban Ki-moon referred, Inner City Press asked Navi Pillay for her view of if NATO's casualties in Libya should be investigated. She answered that NATO is now cooperating with the Commission of Inquiry, whose report will be awaited. She noted that some in the Security Council would like the reporting to be to the Council.

Ban's trick at times seems to be to outsource statements to Pillay. For example when Ban spoke with Yemen's Ali Saleh in November, he claimed to Inner City Press that the matter of immunity was not really discussed. Later Pillay denounced the immunity law that Saleh got. But where is Ban Ki-moon? Quiet leadership, indeed.

Again, on the question of Ban's now outgoing deputy from Tanzania, Asha-Rose Migiro, Inner City Press on January 21 exclusively reported that she is out, to be replaced by Susana Malcorra (who has a role in the lack of military helicopters in South Sudan.) On January 23 Inner City Press asked Nesirky about it, but he claimed ignorance. Inner City Press wrote about it again on January 24, after the UN resident representative in Tanzania confirmed it.

At his press conference, Ban belatedly confirmed it, saying that Migiro offered to leave. In fact, multiple sources in the African Group at the UN say Migiro lobbied them to try to stay, and say that Ban has again rebuffed the African Group as he has on their demand he appoint a full time Special Adviser on Africa.

This is Ban's UN. But we will not stop asking. Watch this site.

On Libya, China Says NATO Should Stop, Russia Sees TNC As "Effective" Ruler

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, September 1 -- As at the "Friends of Libya" meeting in Paris, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and his most special adviser Ian Martin try to put the UN and its views at the center, in New York Chinese Permanent Representative Li Baodong told Inner City Press China thinks "the conflict must be stopped, including NATO's bombing."

Martin, in his August 22 report to Ban that Inner City Press exclusively obtained and published, said that the '''protection of civilians' mandate implemented by NATO does not end with the fall of the Qadhafi government and, therefore, NATO would continue to have some responsibilities."

When Martin belatedly took questions on August 30 and Inner City Press asked him about this line, with which China and others disagree, Martin called it a "factual statement."

The reason the UN won't get called out on this is that China, Russia and others now want the UN to play a central role, opposing it to NATO. But that is what makes Martin's "factual statement" about a continuing NATO role problematic -- and interesting.

On the last evening of August a well-placed European diplomat at the UN posited to Inner City Press that the reason there has not yet been proposed in the Security Council a resolution to systematically unfreeze Libyan assets is that it would "give an opportunity for China and Russia to counter propose that NATO must stop bombing."

Therefore the piecemeal notes verbales to the Council's Libya Sanctions Committee continue. German Permanent Representative Peter Wittig told Inner City Press on September 1 that his country's requests -- citing "relevant authorities" and not the Transitional National Council -- had the last "two holds" on them listed that morning. As Inner City Press reported on August 31, Norway on that day make its own unfreezing request.

Named as a placer of holds was Russia, which is now reported to have recognized the TNC. Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs' English language web site on September 1 said "The Russian Federation recognizes the National Transitional Council of Libya as the ruling authority."

Inner City Press asked Russia's Permanent Representative Vitaly Churkin about this; he said "'effective' authority would be a better" translation -- as in "the effective authority."

But focusing on one of the word's at least two meaning, will the TNC be effective? Watch this site.