Showing posts with label Ismael Gaspar Martins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ismael Gaspar Martins. Show all posts

Thursday, March 24, 2016

On Western Sahara, UNSC Issues Vague Press Elements, Unsure What Morocco Said



By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 24 -- Why didn't UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon go to El Aaiun in Western Sahara, even to visit the headquarters of the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara?  And why on March 21 did Ban say, "We had a good meeting in the Security Council today" when his deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq toldInner City Press it was fine it was excluded between there were no Secretariat staff involved? Who is Ban's "we"?

  On March 24, after three hours of consultations, the UN Security Council emerged with so-called "Press Elements" read by the Council's President for March, Angola's Ambassador Gaspar Martins. Periscope video here.

  After the Elements were read out, Inner City Press asked if they meant all15 members would like to see MINURSO returned to Western Sahara, and if some thought Ban Ki-moon should, as demanded, apologize. Inner City Press also asked about Morocco's foreign minister's comment that the country's recent moves are "irreversible."

  Still later, while UN minders were telling Inner City Press it had to leave the second floor even as other UN correspondents on UNCA's board remained doing interviews, Inner City Press managed to get a read-out, that in the Security Council consultations members had not been sure of, or agreed on, what Morocco's minister had said, and so would have to meet again soon. Watch this site.

Strangely, while Ban's Secretariat saying it is strongly opposing Morocco's note verbale it civilian staff leave "the territory of the Kingdom of Morocco," on March 23 to Reuters and AFP it was an anonymous UN official who made the argument.

On March 24, Inner City Press asked Ban's Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq about this incongruity: why ostensibly speak truth to (Moroccan) power... anonymously?

 Instead of explaining, Haq said to Inner City Press, For a journalist you seem to have a problem with officials speaking to the media. Well, no: why only to pro-Ladsous scribes, and anonymously? Inner City Press asked if Herve Ladsous as head of UN Peacekeeping will finally hold a press conference, which it seems he hasn't since September 11, 2015 when on camera he linked peacekeeper rapes to "R&R." Haq did not respond.

 (On Reuters and AFP and anonimity, it's ironic: both were linked to anti-Press anonymous troll society media accounts, here; now it seemsVoice of America has joined them.)

 Meanwhile, in response to Inner City Press posting a late February photo of Polisario military equipment which was emailed this week among Ladsous, Edmond Mulet and Christopher Ross, pro-Moroccans have responded with their own (photos of) show of force. Watch this site.

  At the March 23 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq, UN transcript here:

Inner City Press: Some of the MINURSO staff stayed in Las Palmas, and some were sent home on leave.  Does this indicate any kind of projecting when they can go back?  How fast could they go back?  And why didn't they all stay nearby in theatre in Las Palmas?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  Well, there were some who were UN Volunteers who were sent back to their home countries.  The staff who are needed are in Las Palmas awaiting the point when, we hope, they can go back to Laayoune to go about their regularly scheduled work.

 As the UN Security Council had another round of closed door consultations about MINURSO on March 23, Inner City Press' sources tell it that a mild draft Press Statement is being "shot down" by Egypt, for the Arab Group or League - with France once again able to hide its imminent veto on the issue.

 As to Spain, whose foreign ministry has yet to answer - and in full disclosure whose highest UN official Cristina Gallach ordered Inner City Press out of the UN on two hours' notice and it still trying to seize its office, restrict its ability even to cover the Security Council on Western Sahara, video here -- sources says it is "blackmailed."

 What does that mean? Morocco can turn on migration, act on the small territories, has many Spanish companies on its territory and at sea. "Unless a larger power tells Spain to be decisive on this, Spain will just drivft," was the verdict. We await the ministry's comment.

Update of March 24: even as the Security Council met on March 24 about the Middle East, Morocco's NY diplomats massed in front of the Council, meeting various Council members, including from the Permanent Five. We'l have more on this.


Cristina Gallach, with Qatar's ex-PR, Spain sign, credit UN Photo/Evan Schneider

  UN DPKO boss Herve Ladsous went into the Security Council on the afternoon of March 23 without a word or answer. On his way out at 4:30 pm, Inner City Press asked him, Any progress on MINURSO? No answer. Any response to the Tony Banbury op-ed? One in his entourage laughed. Would retaliation follow? For Inner City Press, it already has. Watch this site.

On March 22, Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq:

Inner City Press: yesterday, you'd said that the 8:30 event in the Security Council had no Secretariat involvement.  And then, later in the day, myself and a colleague were in the second-floor hallway and asked the Secretary-General what it was being accomplished on Western Sahara, and he said, "We had a good meeting in the Security Council today."  So I wanted to know, what does that mean?  Was there…

Deputy Spokesman:  He was talk about the luncheon.

Inner City Press:  He said “in” the Security Council.

Deputy Spokesman:  He was talking about the luncheon.  He had a luncheon with the Security Council.

Inner City Press:  Right.  In the Security Council?

Deputy Spokesman:  I mean, you can quibble with his prepositions, but that's what he was referring to.

Inner City Press: On what basis do you say there was no Secretariat involvement in the 8:30 event?

Deputy Spokesman:  On the basis of the fact that I'm aware of my colleagues in Security Council Affairs Department (SCAD) and they had no involvement.  There were no interpreters even.

Inner City Press:  I also have another question on Western Sahara.

Deputy Spokesman:  Okay.

Inner City Press:  Okay.  Thanks a lot.  I wanted to know… I've seen a photograph of military equipment, which has been put on alert in the last few days, and I've also seen a chain of e-mails that this was sent to Mr. [Edmond] Mulet from Mr. [Christopher] Ross, also to Mr. [HervĂ©] Ladsous.  And I wanted to know, since they've received this, what's their reaction to it?  And will you give a readout of Mr. Ladsous' and [Atul] Khare's meeting of TCC's (troop-contributing countries) yesterday afternoon at… in… on the second floor of the Conference Building?

Deputy Spokesman:  Regarding that, this is simply a discussion with troop contributors at a time of great concern about the situation in Western Sahara, so they provided an update on the situation there.

Inner City Press:  And what about the equipment?  What's the response of this e-mail between Mr. Ross, Mr. Ladsous and Mr. Mulet showing essentially missiles and massed troops?

Deputy Spokesman:  I… this is one of a number of issues that needs to be resolved, and we'll have to see what they do in further discussions.

  Now we asked, What is the position of Spain the former colonial power in all this? On March 21 Inner City Press asked Angola's Foreign Minister Georges Chikoti what had been accomplished on defending MINURSO; his answer declined comment on the "Spanish Sahara."

Earlier on March 21, having had difficulty getting an answer from Spain's Mission to the UN particularly after Cristina Gallach, the highest Spanish official in the UN system, ousted Inner City Press from its office and the UN without due process -- and from the Western Sahara meeting, Periscope here -- sent this to Spain's Foreign Ministry Spokesperson:

From: Matthew Russell Lee [at] innercitypress.com
Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 9:15 AM
Subject: Press Q on Spain's position on Morocco ordering out 83 UN/AU staff from MINURSO, and UN doing it, on deadline, thanks
To: cecilia.yuste [at] maec.es

Hello -
This is a Press request to know Spain's position on Morocco ordering 83 UN (and AU) staff to leave “the territory of the Kingdom of Morocco,” as they referred to Western Sahara - and, separately, to UNSG Ban Ki-moon and/or DPKO chief Herve Ladsous deciding to in fact evacuate these staff to Las Palmas.
We have not heard Spain's position from the Mission here - there are other issues - and so put this question to you, on deadline. Please acknowledge receipt and provide substantive response asap.
Thank you in advance,
Matthew Russell Lee,  Inner City Press
Office at UN: Room S-303, UN HQ, NY NY 10017 (??)
Cell: 718-716-3540 [& 
http://www.funca.info/]
Email Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com and this
www.twitter.com/innercitypress and @FUNCA_info
www.InnerCityPress.com
Periscope live broadcasts: https://www.periscope.tv/innercitypress
Video of protest in Jaffna, Sri Lanka (in Tamil) https://youtu.be/bKofyMHwJUs
Sri Lanka Sunday Times, March 20, 2016 http://www.sundaytimes.lk/160320/columns/187127-187127.html
   But twelve hours later, no answers at all...

As the 8:30 am meeting took place, Inner City Press once it got about the retaliatory Ban imposed by UN official Cristina Gallach heard from its sources that this photograph of troops and missiles - note the flag(s) - was circulating among the highest UN officials including DPKO chief Herve Ladsous, and that Morocco was moving to oust even MINURSO military personnel from Dakhla. There were still no other media present at 9:30 am.

  Inner City Press arrived at the UN at 8:20 am and as passing through the now required (by UN censorship and retaliation) metal detectors saw a convoy diplomats from the Morocco mission going in.

 But up at the Security Council, the door for "non-resident correspondents" was locked; Inner City Press' current pass downgraded in retaliation by the UN doesn't work on the turnstiles and there was no guard present.

 Inner City Press set up in the hall, but from there was unable to put questions -- as it has  right to -- to the Permanent Representatives going in.

  Seen, through glass, were the Perm Reps of France and Spain chatting amiably; PRs of New Zealand and Ukraine and Russia; American Deputy David Pressman.

  At the noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq, Vine here (video still not provided)


UN transcript here:

Inner City Press: there was a meeting this morning at 8:30 and most of the permanent representatives of the Council went in and I wondered if you could explain.  I was unable to cover it.  The door was locked to the Council.  It was definitely a meeting.  I saw them going in.  There were ambassadors of the P-5 and others that went in.  Why didn't your office announce this meeting and why was the door for non-resident correspondents locked to go to the stakeout and speak to people?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  We ourselves were not privy to the meeting.  It was a meeting for ambassadors only.  As far as I'm aware there was no Secretariat staff, including interpreters.

 Later on March 21, along with telling Ban (again) that his Under Secretary General for "Communications" Cristina Gallach and Security had thrown Inner City Press out of its office and the UN as a whole on February 19, Inner City Press asked Ban what he was doing on Western Sahara.

 Ban said, "We had a good meeting in the Security Council today."Audio embedded here.


But didn't Haq say it was fine to Ban Inner City Press because there were no Secretariat staff involved? Beyond who is Ban's we, does the justification for censorship stand up?

Beyond having physically thrown Inner City Press out of the UN, twice, does Ban's UN not want the media on its announcement list to cover such a meeting?

Inner City Press had heard of the Monday 8:30 am meeting from sources in the region on Sunday evening.
 Moroccan state media MAP reported on March 20 that “significant number” of UN staffers had left El Aaiun airport in UN aircraft and commercial flights to Las Palmas in Spain, that 73 U.N. staffers had left and 10 would leave in the afternoon.

  Why did Ban (or the head of UN Peacekeeping, Frenchman Herve Ladsous) give in? If, in the most positive light, it was for staff safety --which was ignored for example in Sri Lanka -- why has Ban not come out and said that? This is a new low.

  On March 16, Inner City Press asked the US State Department about Western Sahara and then (from the State Department briefing room) published this, emailed to Inner City Press from Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner:

"The United States continues to support the UN-led process designed to bring about a peaceful, sustainable, and mutually-agreed solution to the conflict in the Western Sahara, one in which the human rights of all individuals are respected.

We support the work of the UN Secretary General’s Personal Envoy for the Western Sahara and the mandate of the UN Mission for the Referendum on Western Sahara (MINURSO).

We encourage all of the parties to remain fully and actively engaged in pushing the process toward an effective resolution."

  But on March 19, a strongly rumored UN Security Council meeting about Western Sahara did not happen, at least by 3 pm.

It seems friends of Morocco - read, France - argued that the meeting was not needed. But what of Morocco's "note verbale" telling 84 people to leave "the territory of the Kingdom of Morocco"?

 That's the rub - under international law, Western Sahara is NOT "the territory of the Kingdom of Morocco." So how can 84 people be ordered out this way?

 Contrary to the analogies UN and DPKO spokesman Stephane Dujarric used, Eritrea kicking out UNMEE for not enforcing its legal right to Badme, or Chad kicking out MINURCAT, Morocco is not the host country of MINURSO.  So the note verbale, which in any event should have been sent to the Security Council, is not effective.

 But what is the role of Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row atop UN Peacekeeping, in this - and in the ouster of Inner City Press on February 19, ostensibly by his fellow Frenchman Stephane Dujarric and Cristina Gallach, the highest official of Spain in UN System? We'll have more on this.

Meanwhile two tweets from the account of the acting spokesperson for the US Mission to the UN got a lot of play, on both sides of the issue,click here to view.


  On March 18 Inner City Press asked Kirby, again, about theGovernment Accountability Project's letter to the US Mission to the UN about UN retaliation against the Press. Kirby said, "I’m also happy to refer you to our mission up in New York City." Later his office put in writing, "On the question on the Government Accountability Project letter, we’d refer you to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations."

But Inner City Press has already asked three at the US Mission about the GAP letter.

After the Security Council met on March 18 about Western Sahara, the Council's President for March, Ambassador Gaspar Martins of Angola, said the members had agreed to work both bilaterally and as  Council. Which is it? Left solo, France reflexively defends Morocco. French Ambassador Delattre on his way in said:

"With respect to Western Sahara, we, as France, but also as member of the Security Council, are having one clear objective, which is to appease the tensions. And that is why we believe that, at this stage, an important thing in order to appease the tensions, is for Morocco and the UN to have a serene, respectful, and in-depth dialogue. We believe this is absolutely important in order to, again, appease the tensions. This is our number one priority, and we will continue on this path."

 Sounds bilateral... Watch this site.

On March 14, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric about an upcoming meeting it had heard from other sources about. From the UN transcript:

Inner City Press: Has there been a request by Morocco's Foreign Minister to meet with the Secretary-General this week?

Spokesman Dujarric:  Yes.

Inner City Press:  And will that be an open photo op?

Spokesman Dujarric:  The meeting is still… we're still working on the scheduling of the meeting.  Obviously, it will be a photo op, as it is usually with every Foreign Minister that comes to town.  Vine here.

 And then, despite Inner City Press' question, Dujarric's office waited until four minutes before the deadline to go up to photograph the meeting to announce it. Some photo op.

 On February 29, Inner City Press directly asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric, who replied that Ban's trip will be in two parts -- it's just that when the El Aaiun portion will happen is not known.

On March 7, Dujarric called in to the UN Noon Briefing from - where else -- Paris and made much of Ban's visit to part of the MINURSO mission but not its headquarters. Dujarric said there would be a second stage of the trip - to Rabat.

  Inner City Press now asks: why did the English language UN transcription of the March 7 briefing include Dujarric Q&A on Western Sahara, here -- while the UN's French language transcription, here, pointed did not?

Is this to please France?  On March 10 Inner City Press asked Dujarric,Vine hereUN transcript here:

Inner City Press: when you called in from Paris about Western Sahara, I've looked at the transcriptions, the UN transcriptions of the noon briefing that day in English and French.  And in English, there's your whole Q&A about Western Sahara, and in French, it's just not there.  And I'm wondering, is there some reasons? They're both working languages, et cetera.  What's the reason for that?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I don't… I'm not sure we put out a transcript in French of my…

Inner City Press:  No, in English… in the English noon brief…

Spokesman Dujarric:  I'm not sure we put out a transcript; I'll check.

  Twenty five hours later, nothing. So on March 11, even as Dujarric tried to deny Inner City Press any more questions, Inner City Press asked, UN transcript here:

Inner City Press: on Western Sahara, do you have an answer on the two press statements, English and French?

Spokesman Dujarric:  No.  But I… we're working on it.

  Vine here. Then Dujarric abruptly walked out of the UN Press Briefing Room, from which he ousted Inner City Press directly on January 29, and indirectly through another on February 19.

  Working on it? How hard can it be? At 6 pm on March 11 Dujarric's office called "lid," end of day, still without answering; Dujarric said something about "two weeks." Watch this site.

  On March 7, Inner City Press asked Dujarric if Ban had even tried to get to MINURSO's headquarters in El Aaiun -- Dujarric didn't answer that -- and if Ban hadn't in his comment distributed on March 6 given Morocco a veto over the referendum promises even in the name of the MINURSO mission.

Back on March 2, Inner City Press asked Dujarric's deputy Farhan Haq why Ban is not going, while wanly claiming he has the right to do. UN transcript here.

Ban was supposed to go in November 2015 but he canceled it, thinking he could get more political - read, South Korea electoral -- play by going to North Korea. But then North Korea turned him down.

  On February 25, Inner City Press asked Dujarric about issues including Western Sahara, after three days reporting on the UN from outside after Ban's head of Communications Cristina Gallach threw Inner City Press out without due process: petition hereweird pro Morocco spin on the ouster, here.

  Now ahead of Ban's March 1 stop in Spain - will Gallach be there? - there is pick up of the fact that Gallach is Spain's highest UN official, and that she ousted the Press from the UN.



Will it be resolved by, or come to head on, March 1? In defense of Ban and Gallach, anonymous troll account has taken to tweeting, now at Spanish journalists, that Gallach is fine and didn't throw Inner City Press out of the UN on two hours notice without once speaking to it. But those are the fact. Among the new troll account's followers are Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric and four UNCA board members, plus Reuters bureau chief Louis Charbonneau, who has a history with this,see here.

On February 26, Dujarric said, "the Secretary-General's right to visit any peacekeeping mission, but there is the de facto authorities in that area would need to provide the clearance for the plane to land."

   So, he really DOESN'T have the right, and isn't really pushing for it. Inner City Press on February 26 asked Dujarric, UN transcript here:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask what the Secretary-General's goals are for this Western Sahara trip.  What is he seeking to come out of it?  Does he… would he like to see a referendum with independence as a goal?  What's he go into it looking at?  Thanks.

Spokesman Dujarric:  Obviously, the… you know, a lot… a large focus will be on the humanitarian situation.  He'll be visiting the camps near Tindouf, and it is also part of his preparation, obviously… he will report on the trip in his upcoming report, which is scheduled for April.

  Humanitarian,? We'll have more on this.
 
  We'll see. UN President of the General Assembly Mogens Lykketoft announced a trip to Europe and Morocco; particularly as the bribery case against former PGA John Ashe proceeds, with two guilty pleas and also indicted former Dominican Republic Deputy Permanent Representative (and South South News executive) Francis Lorenzo found to NOT have immunity, taking Moroccon government funding for a trip to Morocco with a Morocco-provided staffer, particularly (but not only) if not addressing the obvious issue of Western Sahara, seems ill-advised. We'll have more on this.

  Why is this not covered more? Well, Lorenzo's (and also indicted Ng Lap Seng's) South South News gave tens of thousands of dollars to the UN Correspondents Association - where Lykketoft at least early in his term held his “press” events, and which more recently got the Office of the UN Spokesperson to throw the Press out of the UN Press Briefing Room, amid these corruption questions. We'll have more on this, too.





  Since the criminal complaint, Inner City Press has asked Ban's spokespeople for basic information, and has been rebuffed. Most recently, both the UN Development Program and Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric (previously of UNDP) have refused to provide even a copy of the agreement signed by Ng, UNDP's Teresa Liu and Dominica Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit.

  Inner City Press reported that UNDP was asking corporations for $100,000 to be seated next to heads of state by UNDP. Closer to Ban, literally, the UN Correspondents Association (which previously took money from Ng's media vehicle, then gave it an UNCA Award and Ng a photo op with Ban) now offers seats at the VIP table, next to Ban, for $6,000 (half table) or $12,000 (full table). By most definitions, this is corruption.

  Mogen Lykketoft, meanwhile, couldn't bring himself to say Ashe's name, only referring to the President of the 68th General Assembly session. Lykketoft, who allowed his Office to be used for fellow Dane Helle Thorning-Schmidt to campaign for the top spot in the UN's refugee agency UNHCR, said he will be making reform proposals. We will be there - with questions for Lykketoft.

  Ban again mentioned what he told Inner City Press at his last stakeout, a task force under his chef of staff Susana Malcorra. But as Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Dujarric, with all due respect, Malcorra accepted one of Ng's South South Awards, for Ban. And as note, Gallach went. We'll have more on this.
 

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

On Syria, Inner City Press Asks US State Dep't of Inclusion of Kurds, Spox Says Up To de Mistura



By Matthew Russell Lee

WASHINGTON, March 15 -- Before UN envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura took four questions in Geneva on March 14, he announced that for the next ten days, he will grant no exclusive interviews.  Background below.

Later on March 14, after de Mistura briefed the UN Security Council by video, Ambassador Gaspar Martins of Angola, president of the Council for March, emerged to say that all members found Russia's announcement of starting to withdraw most of its forces from Syria positive.

  Inner City Press asked Gaspar Martins if the (yet to be agreed) inclusion of Kurdish groups in Syria into the talks was discussed. Yes, he said, there is a desire that the talks get more inclusive.

 But will they, particularly after the Ankara attack?

 On March 15, Inner City Press put the question to US State Department spokesperson John Kirby. From the State Department transcript:

Inner City Press: what does the U.S. think of the inclusion of Kurdish groups from – in Syria in the talks?  There’s more and more – many countries talk – say they should be involved.  Obviously, Turkey says that they shouldn’t be involved; there’s the Ankara attack.  Has your – what’s the thinking here?

MR KIRBY:  I’ve addressed this before and our position is exactly the same.  The invitations to the talks were decided and sent by the UN, by Special Envoy de Mistura.  He sent invitations this time to the same groups that he sent last time.  Right now, that does not include Kurdish groups in the proximity talks.  That said, as before, he continues to consult with a wide range of groups, to include Kurdish groups.  And we believe that we need to respect his decision-making process going forward and how he wants to conduct these talks.  We’re going to continue to support that.  And again, there are consultations, there are discussions going on.  We recognize that those consultations are important.

Here's the background, then Inner City Press' question on it: on March 1 the "Association des Correspondants Aupres des Nations Unies a Geneve" (ACANU), in a bit of advocacy the NY-based UNCA does not engage in, protested de Mistura making announcements about the Syria talks in exclusive interviews, and not to all correspondents at once.

 Inner City Press has obtained the ACANU letter, which was cc-ed to UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric (who threw Inner City Press out of the UN Press Briefing Room on January 29 and out of the entire UN on February 19 and 22,petition here) and published it here.

  In New York, Ban Ki-moon and his Under Secretaries General like Herve Ladsous dole out information to favored correspondents; Ban's USG for Public Information Cristina Gallach on February 19 went so far as to oust Inner City Press after speaking with Giampaolo Pioli's UNCA but not Inner City Press. Will de Mistura, as now pledged, be different?

On March 14, Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric told Inner City Press there is no policy in this regard. From the UN transcript:

Inner City Press: I saw you [carbon copied] on this, so it seems like a fair question to you.  I saw a letter from the ACANU, or the Geneva press association of correspondents, directed to Mr… Mr. de Mistura and [carbon copied] to you, protesting that he announced a delay… initial delay in the Syria talks in an exclusive interview.  And I saw him this morning very early say that he's not going to do any exclusive interviews between 14 and 24 March, sort of as an accommodation.  I guess I wanted to know, what is the UN's policy in terms of both the Secretary-General or a news-maker like de Mistura giving… ACANU seemed to say very clearly this information should be given to all correspondents at the same time.  Do you agree with that?

Spokesman:  No, Mr. de Mistura is a seasoned diplomat.  He chooses to… he deftly handles the media, and he will do whatever he feels he needs to do.  There is no policy per se on any of these issues that you raised.

  No policy - like on the "lending out" of the UN Press Briefing Room, resulting in differences of opinion on the right to cover events there which the UN, Dujarric, can use as a pretext to oust the Press.

  UN Geneva spokesman Ahmad Fawzi on March 14 gave the first question to “our Turkish colleague” -- who asked about the timing of elections in Syria. The next picked questioner identified himself “with the Geneva press corps;” then Al Jazeera Arabic asked if there is any deadline for a deal to be reached.

  To this, de Mistura said this first round would run from March 14 to 24 -- during which no exclusive interviews, he said -- then a recess of a week or ten days. This will be folllowed by a second round of two weeks, then another recess, length undefined.

  Fawzi's final question went to ACANU, representing Geneva correspondents accredited by the UN, hopefully (much) better than the decaying and corrupt UN Correspondents Association the UN uses in New York. This question was to say when meetings begin and end. And then it was over.

One couldn't help wonder if there were anywhere near this focus on the slaughter in Yemen - and where is de Mistura's counterpart Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed?

 On Syria, will the Ankara attack impact mounting demands that the Kurds be given a role in this round of talks? We'll have more on this.

On Syria, Inner City Press Asks UNSC Prez of Kurds in Talks, He Says Inclusive



By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 14 -- Before UN envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura took four questions in Geneva on March 14, he announced that for the next ten days, he will grant no exclusive interviews.  Background below.

Later on March 14, after de Mistura briefed the UN Security Council by video, Ambassador Gaspar Martins of Angola, president of the Council for March, emerged to say that all members found Russia's announcement of starting to withdraw most of its forces from Syria positive.

  Inner City Press asked Gaspar Martins if the (yet to be agreed) inclusion of Kurdish groups in Syria into the talks was discussed. Yes, he said, there is a desire that the talks get more inclusive.

 But will they, particularly after the Ankara attack?

Here's the background, then Inner City Press' question on it: on March 1 the "Association des Correspondants Aupres des Nations Unies a Geneve" (ACANU), in a bit of advocacy the NY-based UNCA does not engage in, protested de Mistura making announcements about the Syria talks in exclusive interviews, and not to all correspondents at once.

 Inner City Press has obtained the ACANU letter, which was cc-ed to UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric (who threw Inner City Press out of the UN Press Briefing Room on January 29 and out of the entire UN on February 19 and 22,petition here) and publishes it here.

  In New York, Ban Ki-moon and his Under Secretaries General like Herve Ladsous dole out information to favored correspondents; Ban's USG for Public Information Cristina Gallach on February 19 went so far as to oust Inner City Press after speaking with Giampaolo Pioli's UNCA but not Inner City Press. Will de Mistura, as now pledged, be different?

On March 14, Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric told Inner City Press there is no policy in this regard. From the UN transcript:

Inner City Press: I saw you [carbon copied] on this, so it seems like a fair question to you.  I saw a letter from the ACANU, or the Geneva press association of correspondents, directed to Mr… Mr. de Mistura and [carbon copied] to you, protesting that he announced a delay… initial delay in the Syria talks in an exclusive interview.  And I saw him this morning very early say that he's not going to do any exclusive interviews between 14 and 24 March, sort of as an accommodation.  I guess I wanted to know, what is the UN's policy in terms of both the Secretary-General or a news-maker like de Mistura giving… ACANU seemed to say very clearly this information should be given to all correspondents at the same time.  Do you agree with that?

Spokesman:  No, Mr. de Mistura is a seasoned diplomat.  He chooses to… he deftly handles the media, and he will do whatever he feels he needs to do.  There is no policy per se on any of these issues that you raised.

  No policy - like on the "lending out" of the UN Press Briefing Room, resulting in differences of opinion on the right to cover events there which the UN, Dujarric, can use as a pretext to oust the Press.

  Spokesman Ahmad Fawzi on March 14 gave the first question to “our Turkish colleague” -- who asked about the timing of elections in Syria. The next picked questioner identified himself “with the Geneva press corps;” then Al Jazeera Arabic asked if there is any deadline for a deal to be reached.

  To this, de Mistura said this first round would run from March 14 to 24 -- during which no exclusive interviews, he said -- then a recess of a week or ten days. This will be folllowed by a second round of two weeks, then another recess, length undefined.

  Fawzi's final question went to ACANU, representing Geneva correspondents accredited by the UN, hopefully (much) better than the decaying and corrupt UN Correspondents Association the UN uses in New York. This question was to say when meetings begin and end. And then it was over.

One couldn't help wonder if there were anywhere near this focus on the slaughter in Yemen - and where is de Mistura's counterpart Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed?

 On Syria, will the Ankara attack impact mounting demands that the Kurds be given a role in this round of talks? We'll have more on this.

Previously, when the UN pulled the plug on the Intra-Syrian Talks, or as envoy Staffan de Mistura said merely pushed them back, de Mistura said that the UN "is not prepared to hold talks for the sake of talks."

  Then de Mistura was scheduled after delay to brief the Security Council on Friday, February 26 at 3 pm, in connection with a vote on a US - Russian draft Inner City Press had seen.

 After a delay described below, de Mistura briefed by video, saying he intends to re-convene Intra-Syrian talks on March 7.

  The Council approved the resolution 15-0, Russia's Gatilov spoke of strict implementation, and the need for "immediate" talks.

 At 2:40 pm, UK Ambassador Matthew Rycroft was in the hall outside the Council, talking heatedly into his cell phone. Another Council diplomat, on background, said there would be a delay of at least 30 minutes or an hour - someone didn't agree.

 Inner City Press was told by sources it was to renegotiate the annex of groups.

Now Inner City Press has been informed of more. In the public session, UK Matthew Rycroft said "The HNC represents a broad sweep of the opposition forces fighting in Syria against the tyranny of Asad. They deserve our whole-hearted support, which regrettably was not reflected in this resolution."

  Other changes were to the Cairo and Moscow platforms. But, the sources tell Inner City Press, the country which occasioned the delay was.... France.

  France was miffed to have been left on the sidelines by the Russian - US bilateral negotiations. Similarly miffed to have been left on the sidelines of the US - China negotiations on North Korea? Strange how when elected members complain, for example about their exclusion from the so-called "Group of Friends on Western Sahara," France is unconcerned or happy. Now, they feel excluded...  We'll have more on this.

 On February 19, Russia convened a UN Security Council meeting and proposed a draft resolution on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria. Western powers, as they're called, were dismissive the draft.

  Here's some of what Turkey's Permanent Representative said, as fast transcribed by InnerCityPro.com:

"The fighting, it’s not only bombing militarily, hospitals, schools, medical facilities, are being bombed, after the Russian Federation’s intervention in the war, the majority of the civilian casualties are caused by this intervention. So it is, the resolution is there, so why do we need another resolution in that regard? When I see the text I found it... silent on the humanitarian issue.

 "For us, any terrorist organization is a terrorist organization, full stop. For PYD they seem to try to get legitimacy by seeming fighting with Daesh. Actually this is not the case... For us, fighting against another terrorist organization does not give legitimacy to any terrorist organization."

 Inner City Press -- in the middle of being thrown out of the UN for seeking to covering meetings in the building, click here for that -- talked its way through a UN Security block at the Council stakeout and asked Turkey's Permanent Representative Cevic if his country would send in ground troops. He said only if part of a multinational force.

  Also at the stakeout - with a UN Security "minder" still trailing Inner City Press, like one of Ban Ki-moon's thought police as one wag put it -- Inner City Press asked the President of the Council for February, Venezuela's Rafael Ramirez, if he would convene and emergency meeting if Turkey or Saudi Arabia were to send in ground troops. He said yes, he would convene such a meeting.

  But as things stands, even with Ban Ki-moon's censor Cristina Gallach receiving calls to delay and reverse her decision, Inner City Press could not cover such an emergency Security Council meeting.

  We'll have more on all this.

 On February 16, Inner City Press asked Syrian Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari about de Mistura's and Ban Ki-moon's explanations of why those talks ended - and about the UN saying Ban was misquoted in or misinterpreted by the Financial Times.

  Ja'afari said that the UN would rather blame itself than the opposition, because then the UN would get push-back from “Westerners.” Ja'afari said that de Mistura's deputy only provided him with a partial list of the opposition delegations as the talks were ending. Ja'afari called them badly organized.

  Before Ja'afari spoke, the Security Council's president for February Rafael Ramirez of Venezuela told reporters that the Council's members agreed to tell Turkey to comply with international law. Associated Press - click here for AP's UN rape reporting on Feb 15 - asked if that meant all members.  All to different degrees, was the answer.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

On South Sudan, Inner City Press Asks Ambassadors of UK & Angola of Kiir's Reservations, "Very Serious," Angola's PR Says


By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive series
UNITED NATIONS, August 27 -- After the South Sudan peace agreement was signed by President Salva Kiir, saying that he had reservations, there has been a lot of vague talk about these reservations, with the US "not recognizing" them, some saying they've seen them but not publishing, and others saying wait and see. 
 Now it's time to see: Inner City Press is publishing the 12 page docuemnt, here, just as Inner City Press earlier put online the August 17 Compromise Agreement, as first  obtained, here.
  After publishing Kiir's 12 pages of reservations, Inner City Press on August 27 in front of the Security Council asked the Permanent Representatives of Angola and of the United Kingdom about Kiir's reservations.
  Angola's Ismael Abraao Gaspar Martins told Inner City Press, when asked one on one outside the Security Council, "I have seen them. These are very serious reservations, I think. This calls for the Council to monitor what is there, how it's going to be implemented and what actions we need to continue to do, to make sure they move forward, so the violence stops. If it has been adopted, it has to be applied."
 Earlier, on his way into the Syria meeting, Inner City Press asked UK Permanent Representative Matthew Rycroft about Kiir's reservations, specifically the "deletion" of provisions to disarm the SPLM-N, and groups in Darfur (on which the UK holds the Council's pen). Periscope video here.
  The 12-page reservation document says to delete the provision about disarming Darfur based armed groups including JEM, SLA-Minnawi, SLA-Abdulwahid, as well as the SPLM-North.
  It resists calling the Army the NDFSS and referring to the "Armed Opposition" instead of the SPLM/A-IO. It says the National Army will remain inside its headquarters, and would delete Juba from the list of cantonment areas. It says there is a need to reconstitute the Monitoring and Verification Mechanism.
  It says to limit the JMEC and delete the word "oversee" throughout.
 The article on reparation and compensation is to be removed.
 Who would be vice president(s) would be up to Kiir: no reward for rebellion, or "gambling" on who ministers will be. The rebels should not be governors in Unity, Jonglei and Upper Nile State. Power sharing should be 70-20, not 46-40.  Funds should be with the Minister of Finance. As always, follow the money -- Inner City Press would add, to Kenya Commercial Bank and beyond. We'll have more on this.
  Before Kiir signed, Uganda's Yoweri Museveni advised him to get the UN out of the country, saying having the UN is is a sign of weakness and that the UN preserves terrorism.
 Past 5 pm New York time on August 26, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon offered praise for Kiir signing, saying nothing of the reservation or of the UN being openly trashed by Museveni.
  It is to Museveni that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has been deferring on Burundi, still not having named a UN envoy as the UN Security Council called "imminent" two weeks ago. (Ban was in France on August 26, praising the country's ambassadorial corps without a single mention of French troops' alleged rape of children in the Central African Republic, covered up by Ban's (French) head of UN Peacekeeping, Herve Ladsous.)
  In fairness to Museveni, his reference may have been in part to Ladsous' MONUSCO failing to act on armed groups in Eastern Congo -- including the FDLR, which also impinges on Burundi. We'll have more on this. Here was Ban's August 26 statement:
"The Secretary-General welcomes the signature today by President Salva Kiir of the Agreement on the resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan. This is a critical and necessary step towards ending the 20 month-long conflict that has devastated South Sudan and subjected its people to unspeakable suffering." full statement here.
  In front of the Security Council on August 26, there was loose talk about Kiir signing; an African diplomat told Inner City Press, "He signed! He was obliged!" with no mention of the reservations. The UN had no noon briefing  -- it said it woul only have one if something important happened, this was apparently not important - here are answers from August 24 and August 25, Inner City Press' South Sudan questions have been not been answered.
  On August 25, Ellen Loj, the head of the UN Mission in the country UNMISS told the UN Security Council that Kiir is expected to sign the agreement on August 26. Inner City Press asked, how might that impact the pending draft resolution on sanctions and an arms embargo?
  After consultations on August 25, Security Council President for August Joy Ogwu of Nigeria emerged with Elements to the Press including:
“The Council members expressed concern on the deteriorating humanitarian and security situation. They condemned the continuing fighting by the parties and underlined the need for a peaceful resolution of the crisis.
  “They expressed optimism that President Salva Kiir would follow through on his commitment to sign the IGAD Plus Peace Agreement without reservation.
  “They stressed the importance of full implementation of the Agreement. Council members underscored the need to remain engaged on the situation in South Sudan. In this regard they expressed their readiness to act immediately if President Kiir does not sign the agreement tomorrow as he has undertaken."
  Inner City Press asked Ambassador Ogwu about sending the draft resolution's annexes to the African Union and IGAD, as an African delegation told Inner City Press about. Ogwu answered that speed is important, but also that it be concerted, a consensus, like an orchestra, it doesn't matter who writes the notes, but... Periscope video here; here's fast transcript of Q&A from InnerCityPro, which also has analysis:
Inner City Press: Some members talked about sending the annexes to the AU or IGAD. Was there discussion of that? When you say immediately, does it include that? 
Amb Ogwu: We all understand the need for urgency, because the situation is urgent. But also there is the need for concerted action, for consensus. It is a stage and all the players must act as an orchestra, play the symphony, it doesn’t matter who writes the notes but it’s important to act in unison, act with one voice.

Q: Can you clarify, if he does not sign tomorrow, will you vote on the US draft resolution?
Amb Ogwu: We decided that we will take immediate action if he does not sign, or if he signs with reservations....

Inner City Press: Any discussion of the military situation? Which side is more responsible for the military action since the Addis meeting?
Amb Ogwu: We are seeking peace. We are not apportioning blame to any particular side. We are urging all the parties to come together to relieve the dire humanitarian situation and to stop the fighting.

Q: What about justice? We heard from Stephen O’Brien this morning…
Amb Ogwu: I don’t think Stephen O’Brien mentioned anything about justice.
Q: He spoke about women being raped, atrocities.
Amb Ogwu: Yes. That is an outcome. But that is left for another department. I would not want to go into that. But we all agreed I would say on measures to be taken that anybody who is found culpable will be held accountable. There is one voice in the Council.
  In her national capacity, Nigeria's Ambassador Ogwu emphasized the need for an arms embargo, and to check where the weapons in the country are.
  Loj said, "a Mini-Summit has been called for tomorrow, where the Government of the Republic of South Sudan, in the interest of peace, is expected to sign the proposed agreement. Despite this hopefully positive development, the security situation on the ground has been volatile and tense. Fighting in the Greater Upper Nile region has remained intense and further escalation of hostilities in southern Unity State has had increasingly severe consequences for the civilian population. Major offensives conducted by the SPLA and its allied militias into Opposition-held areas have led to further deterioration of the security and humanitarian situation since April, and have resulted in numerous reports of grave human rights violations. Most recently, on August 19, fighting occurred between SPLA and Opposition forces around Leer town, with both sides trading accusations of having initiated the attack.
  Loj spoke of discouraging some from entering the UN's "protection of civilian" camps, without addressing the blocking of civilians fleeing fighting from the UN's Yambio camp, which Inner City Press has repeatedly asked about. Nor did she address if UNMISS' radio station, Radio Miraya, kept rigt on broadcasting amid a strike by media in the country to protect the assassination of journalist Peter Julius Moi.
  On August 18, Inner City Press asked UN Associate Spokesperson Maestracci, "do you have any comment on, or does the mission have any comment on, Salva Kiir having said at the airport on his way to Addis that 'if anybody among journalists does not know that this country has killed people, we will demonstrate it one day, one time'?" 
  By August 21, after South Sudanese journalist Peter Julius Moi was assassinated in Juba, Inner City Press asked the next UN Associate Spokesperson Eri Kaneko this question, video here:
Inner City Press: In South Sudan,  virtually all media there, the Union of Journalists in South Sudan and the Association for Media Development in South Sudan, have agreed to a media blackout in mourning and as a protest of the murder of the journalist Peter Julius Moi.  They’re saying that UNMISS’ Radio Miraya is going to keep broadcasting.  Is that the case?  Is Miraya part of sort of the media of South, what’s the position of the UN on this?

Associate Spokesperson:  I’m not aware, but I will look into that.
  Eight hours later and counting, there has been no answer. Video here.

  On both August 18 and 19 when Inner City Press asked, UN spokesperson Maestracci declined to confirm or deny any of the fighting in the country -- a pattern for UNMISS under UN Peacekeeping boss Herve Ladsous. On August 19, Maestracci told Inner City Press, "As soon as I have [information], I will give it to you." None came: also a pattern.
  But Inner City Press sources tell it of ongoing clashes in Upper Nile, in Pageri, East Equatoria, still ongoing. The Juba – Nimule road, the only "proper tarmac road" in the country, remains closed; limited communications within the fragmented phone networks confirm that civilians are being targeted.
   West Equatorial Governor Joseph Bakasoro is still detained.
  Also, here is UNMISS sit-rep for insiders, not meant for the public, apparently:
“Following attacks in Pageri on 18 Aug 2015 host country security forces have advised that there is still military operation in the vicinity of Pageri town (30 kms North of Nimule).

UN Security advises that:

·        UN/INGO travels on the Juba - Nimule road are currently restricted.

·        UN Security will re-assess the situation in the next 24 hours and will advise accordingly.

·        In the interim all missions should be cleared with UN Security until further notice.

·        Additionally, UN/INGO missions into Pageri are to be suspended until a clearer picture is established as there are reports of heavy host country security forces deployed in Pageri.” 
  ... This is how things are at UN Headquarters and elsewhere in the system, especially in UN Peacekeeping under Ladsous. The Free UN Coalition for Access is challenging this.

  On August 19 after UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson briefed the Council behind closed doors - he stopped and told Inner City Press is was not a short consultation, only a scheduling misunderstanding - he stopped on the way out and spoke again.
 
  Inner City Press asked Eliasson the question the UN Spokesperson has for two days declined to answer: "Have the two sides started fighting again?"
  Eliasson to his credit answered: "There are reports, they are very worrying. And this is also why, it is important if there is this progress towards signing of an agreement, that it is accompanied by the need for a ceasefire. A diplomatic solution cannot be found if there is not a de escalation."
  Moments later New Zealand's Ambassador Gerard van Boheman stopped and spoke about the US submitted draft resolution that the US' Susan Rice had alluded to the day before, that that it "does deal with an arms embargo also posits additional sanctions, if the agreement is not signed. I think there’s general recognition that the situation in South Sudan is not good, there’s a recognition that the IGAD and that the IGAD plus countries have been doing all they can. We want to be able to support their efforts.”
 
  Ambassador van Boheman said that “it’s quite a technical resolution. So I think it will take quite a bit of work to get everyone on the same page.”  Could that timing be related to the 15 days from August 17 deadline for Salva Kiir to sign?
  Inner City Press also asked van Bohemen about Yemen, but that's another story.
 On South Sudan, from the UN's August 18 transcript:
on South Sudan, can the Mission there, or do you have anything on reported, an attack by the Government on the opposition in a place called Imatong?  And do you have any comment on, or does the mission have any comment on, Salva Kiir having said at the airport on his way to Addis that "if anybody among journalists does not know that this country has killed people, we will demonstrate it one day, one time"?  It's a comment that CPJ has criticized, and I wonder if the mission has seen it and what they think of it.

Associate Spokesperson:  So on Imatong — is that what it's called?

Correspondent:  Yeah.

Associate Spokesperson:  I actually do not have a statement.  On South Sudan and the comments on the media that were made by Salva Kiir, yes, the Mission told us they were very concerned about, over the curbing of the press freedom in South Sudan, including recent closure of media houses and threats to journalists.  And they've also reiterated the importance of independent, free and pluralistic press.

Question:  Is the Deputy… I just wanted to ask one thing.  I saw that the Deputy Secretary-General's schedule says appointments are internal.  Did he come back from Addis?  Is there some way…

Associate Spokesperson:  He is on his way back.
  On August 19, Inner City Press asked Maestracci again - still no information on Imatong, nor Upper Nile, Pageri or other attacks since. From the August 19 UN transcript:
Inner City Press: I wanted to ask about South Sudan.  I’d asked you yesterday about whether UNMISS could confirm reports of fighting and now there’s increased reports of fighting and counter charges by the Government and the opposition of fighting in Upper Nile State, also near the Ugandan border.  So I’m wondering if UNMISS, given its presence in the country, it seems important to know is this taking place and if so which side is instigating it?

Associate Spokesperson Vannina Maestracci:  We’re checking and we’re waiting for an answer.  As soon as I have one, I will give it to you.
  Nothing was given, but see above.
 Inner City Press asked DSG Eliasson of reports of fighting in South Sudan, he acknowledged the reports, Periscope video here. We'll have more on this.

 
  

Friday, May 22, 2015

After Six Abstentions on Small Arms Resolution in UNSC, ICP Asks Angola, Chad & Lithuania Ambassadors Why, Of Libya


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, May 22 -- When the UN Security Council adopted its resolution on Small Arms and Light Weapons on Friday there were six abstentions, including China, Russia, Venezuela and all three of the Security Council's African members, Angola, Nigeria and Chad.
     Angola's Permanent Representative Ismael Gaspar Martins, speaking also for Chad and Nigeria, said in the Council after that vote that “unfortunately our proposals regarding the issue of proliferation and access to small arms and light weapons to non state actors were not sufficiently considered  in this resolution. As a country which has gone through a very painful experience, it would be political unacceptable not to seize this opportunity to address the problem of supply of weapons to non state actors.”
  The resolution said it is “emphasizing that the illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons can aid terrorism, and illegal armed groups and facilitate increasing levels of transnational organized crime and underscoring that such illicit trafficking could harm civilians, including women and children, create instability and long-term governance challenges and complicate conflict resolution.” But the resolution did not mention non-state actors.
    Chad's Permanent Representative Mahamat Zene Cherif said in the chamber after the vote, “Chad has observed with regret that a resolution as important as this and the object of which was to help those regions affected by the impact small arms and light weapons, and more specifically Africa, would be adopted without involving the representatives of the Continent in this Council.”
  After the meeting was over, at the Security Council stakeout, Inner City Press asked Angola's Gaspar Martins about the argument that the resolution's reference to terrorism covered non-state actors. 
  He said the two concepts are different. Inner City Press asked about the trend, with the Security Council declining to hear from former president Chissano for the African Union on Western Sahara. He said, there is a problem with the Council. Video here.

   Inner City Press asked Chad's Mahamat Zene Cherif about two examples: the airdropping of weapons into Libya, and the “arm and equip” program for the Free Syrian Arm.  Mahamat Zene Cherif said the objection was broader that these two cases, destabilization is happening in a number of places.  Gaspar Martins added that the intervention in Libya has led to the spread of terrorism in the Sahel; he cited Kenya as well.
  When Lithuania's Raimonda Murmokaite came out, Inner City Press asked her about these abstentions and these two cases, and Angola noting the offer of a carve out for private security contractors from the concept of non-state actors.
  Raimonda Murmokaite said that it is not private security companies causing mayhem -- Inner City Press said, “Blackwater,” she said “not exactly” -- but terrorist groups and their offshoots as well as criminal gangs. “These are the guys... not some nebulous non-state actors,” she said. “We have have gladly included pirates,” she said, or human traffickers or smugglers, on which the EU is separately asking for Security Council action. We'll have more on that.