Gerard Araud Was To Leave UN July 15, France Said, But He's Still Here, Where's Delattre?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 16, more here -- The departure of Gerard Araud from the UN as French Ambassador was belatedly confirmed in June, more than two months after it was reported by Inner City Press. 

  Here is the French government announcement, saying Araud would leave July 15 to be replaced by Francois Delattre, formerly French Ambassador in Washington. 

 But on the morning of July 16, Inner City Press witnessed -- and photographed, here -- Araud entering the Security Council. So is this formal French announcement not true?

  The question is asked in part because the switch from Araud, one hopes, will bring press freedom improvements at the UN.

 Araud and Delattre have been linked before, on the question on who in the French foreign service met about Western Sahara with actor Javier Bardem, after which Bardem said Morocco had been called France's mistress. First Delattre was named, then Araud - who said he would ask Laurent Fabius for permission to sue. It hasn't happened.

  Within the French diplomatic service, it was Jacques Audibert who was to come to New York in July to belatedly replace Gerard Araud as Ambassador. 

  Then it was not to be: Audibert left his Quay d'Orsay post, including on the Iran P5+1, to become Francois Hollande's “G7 and G8 sherpa.” This seemed to leave Araud in place - until today.

  On April 15, Araud used the UN Press Briefing Room to tell a Lebanese correspondent with whom he disagrees, “You are not a journalist, you are an agent.” The old UN Correspondents Association, atuned to Araud's granting or withholding of access, has “dragged its feet” in providing any push-back, according to the correspondent.

  Since December when he was asked for France to be transparent about how much it is charging the UN under a “Letter of Assist” for air field services in northern Mali, Araud has resisted Press questions. He threatened to sue about an article using an NYPD document on which his mission had been asked to comment in advance, but chose instead to try to intimidate against publication by saying it would be a “hostile act” and access would cease.

  In April, Araud got combative in essentially denying what other Security Council members confirm has been French policy on Western Sahara; then he declared a publicized ($20) question and answer session to be entirely off the record.

  There's more here. Watch this site.

   

Araud Leaving UN as French Ambassador Is Belatedly Confirmed, Delattre to Come, Free Press Benefits?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 11, more here -- The departure of Gerard Araud from the UN as French Ambassador has been confirmed today, long after it was reported by Inner City Press. His replacement? Francois Delattre, currently French Ambassador in Washington. Araud, typically, won't say where he is going.

 The two have been linked before, on the question on who in the French foreign service met about Western Sahara with actor Javier Bardem, after which Bardem said Morocco had been called France's mistress. First Delattre was named, then Araud - who said he would ask Laurent Fabius for permission to sue. It hasn't happened.

  Within the French diplomatic service, it was Jacques Audibert who was to come to New York in July to belatedly replace Gerard Araud as Ambassador. 

  Then it was not to be: Audibert left his Quay d'Orsay post, including on the Iran P5+1, to become Francois Hollande's “G7 and G8 sherpa.” This seemed to leave Araud in place - until today.

  On April 15, Araud used the UN Press Briefing Room to tell a Lebanese correspondent with whom he disagrees, “You are not a journalist, you are an agent.” The old UN Correspondents Association, atuned to Araud's granting or withholding of access, has “dragged its feet” in providing any push-back, according to the correspondent.

  Since December when he was asked for France to be transparent about how much it is charging the UN under a “Letter of Assist” for air field services in northern Mali, Araud has resisted Press questions. He threatened to sue about an article using an NYPD document on which his mission had been asked to comment in advance, but chose instead to try to intimidate against publication by saying it would be a “hostile act” and access would cease.

  In April, Araud got combative in essentially denying what other Security Council members confirm has been French policy on Western Sahara; then he declared a publicized ($20) question and answer session to be entirely off the record.

  There's more here. Watch this site.

   

French PR Gerard Araud Is Quoted By La Croix That Mistral Warship Sales to Russia Continue, Araud's Off the Record Games

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 3 -- In the past week French Ambassador Gerard Araud declared a question and answer session at a Manhattan law firm to be off record, though that was never said in the solicitation to come for the cost of $20.

Inner City Press went to the event, intending to ask Araud to reconcile his florid speeches on Ukraine in the Security Council with France's continued sale of Mistral warships to Russia, a question Araud previously refused to answer at the Council stakeout.

   But in the same week Araud was quoted by name in La Croix and elsewhere as saying to reporters that the Mistral sale continues, is not impacted by sanctions "'les Mistral ne sont pas concernés par les sanctions,' a assuré Gérard Araud, représentant permanent de la France auprès de l’Onu." Click here for La Croix.

   It is mysterious, Araud unilaterally pulling a bait and switch at the $20 law firm event and calling it off the record, then being quoted on the record bragging of Mistral sales.

  This is not like Spanish actor Javier Bardem quoting Araud as calling Morocco France's "mistress" on the Western Sahara issue, then Araud denying it and talking about filing a lawsuit (which he hasn't filed yet) - this is a direct quote, in at least two publications.

  Inner City Press previously got an answer from US State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf on the US' view of France's Mistral sales to Russia. From the State Department's March 14, 2014 transcript:

Inner City Press: on Ukraine, one question that’s come up is, in terms of sanctions is France has this big deal where it’s selling Mistral warships to Russia, and it’s said that it’s going forward. What does the United States think of that sale of military hardware?

MS. HARF: Well, decisions about these kind of sales are obviously a matter for each sovereign state to take into account including a host of factors – obviously, international law, regional stability. We would hope that any country would exercise judgment and restraint when it comes to transferring military equipment that could exacerbate tensions in any conflict region. In general, I think that certainly applies here.

   As Araud nears the end of his time at the UN, there are many questions he should be asked but has been avoiding. 

  For example, if his speeches about Russia in Ukraine are France's position, why is the French sale of Mistral warships to Russia still going forward? Inner City Press asked this at the UN Security Council stakeout but Araud declined to answer.

And as simply another example while Araud claims to have taken no position to oppose a human rights monitoring mechanism in Western Sahara, this is called into question by an answer he gave Inner City Press in 2013, when he still answered Press questions, about bilateral dialogue with Morocco being the best way. 

  Many beyond Inner City Press find Araud's position unclear, or as some put it, hypocritical.

  So when publicly on Twitter there appeared an opportunity to ask questions to Araud, albeit for $20, Inner City Press signed up, to "welcome Ambassador Gérard Araud, Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations, to discuss French priorities at the United Nations. Araud will address efforts to allow UN Security Council action regarding the crisis in Syria, as well as French and UN initiatives to allow stabilization in the Central African Republic and in Mali."

   Nowhere did it say it was on background or off the record. The money was accepted, confirmation sent. 

  And on May 1, after a UN briefing about the Central African Republic, Inner City Press rushed up to the venue, in a second floor law firm conference room in the Citigroup building.

  Inside the audience was affluent, business people in suits. There were oatmeal raisin cookies and at a conference table, Araud was answering questions. Then he said, repeatedly, "This is off the record."

  Is it legitimate? Why would one publicize an appearance and Q&A by Araud, for money, with no mention of its being off the record -- and then make it off the record? Why was Araud's spokesperson Frederic Jung there for this "off the record" Q&A with business people?

  In Washington last Friday, John Kerry spoke at the Trilateral Commission under announced in advance off the record rules, but a tape was obtained and the rest is history. Here, the event was never said in advance to be off the record, and money was accepted.

  While Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access, which has asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric to convey to Araud and his presumptive successor Jacques Audibert the UN's stated position that correspondents should be treated with respect -- this after Araud on the record and on camera told a reporter, not this one, that "You are not a journalist, you are an agent" -- fully support the reporting on Kerry's Trilateral talk, in this report there are no quotes. But there are questions. Watch this site.

   

On Syria, Outgoing French PR Araud Denounces Only Critical Question (on Algeria, no Western Sahara), Crane Admits Qatar, SNC

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 15 -- When outgoing French Ambassador to the UN Gerard Araud scheduled a press conference on human rights for April 15, he began to receive many questions about blocking human rights monitoring in Western Sahara. 

  It is a policy Araud is particularly associated with, since Javier Barden quoted him calling Morocco France's "mistress." Araud spoke of suing, but hasn't.

   But when during the April 15 press conference, in which Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access were not called on, Araud was asked about France having killed people in Algeria, Araud told the questioner, You are not a journalist, you are an agent.

  The French run press conference gave the first question to Al Arabiya, for UNCA (now known as the UN's Censorship Alliance), then France 24.  By Araud's spokesperson Frederic Jung, a  Voice of America affiliate was given a question. 

  Syria "Caesar" report panelist David Crane was asked who funded it and answered on camera merely that he was paid. (The photographs, Inner City Press noted and notes, are extremely troubling - all the more reason that taking Qatar's funding and denouncing the only critical question were unwise.)

  Afterward, Inner City Press asked Crane to confirm the payment was from Qatar. He confirmed it. Inner City Press asked, did you seek any other, less compromised funding? The answer was no. In fact, Crane said he gave his recommendations to the Syrian National Council. Afterward Inner City Press asked him if he meant the Turkey based group headed by Ahmed Al Jarba, and Crane said yes, than added, "The resistance" writ large.

     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.

   On March 21 Inner City Press put these questions, also on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, to the UN's top two spokespeople:

"there is an event in Conference Room 4 right now, sponsored by Qatar, which is no listed in today's UN Journal, nor is it on UN Webcast http://webtv.un.org/ but it appears to be being filmed. Please explain the legal status of this meeting, if there are any sponsored beyond Qatar, how it was publicized and if any request to have it webcast was made. Thanks, on deadline."

  But no answer was provided. Inner City Press ran to the event and from the back of a three quarters empty Conference Room 4 asked why the event was so stealth: not in the UN Journal, not webcast.

  The Permanent Representative of Qatar answered, saying it was a "special event" to which Qatar had invited (some) member states and groups, and (some) media. There is a UN Media Alert, but this event was not put in it.

  Perhaps it was publicized by the Gulf & Western United Nations Correspondents Association, which has twice hosted faux "UN" events by the Syrian National Coalition or Syrian Coalition. (In both cases, the Free UN Coalition for Access suggested that the SNC hold its events in the UN briefing room, accessible to all journalists.)

  Since French Ambassador Gerard Araud, the first questioner flanked by representatives of Saudi Arabia and of Turkey which earlier in the day banned Twitter, has spoken about "fakes" and others about accountability, Inner City Press asked if the groups Al Nusra and ISIS, and those who fund them such as private individuals in Qatar alluded to at the US State Department briefing earlier in the day, could or would be held accountable.

  The SNC representative emphasized what he called links between the Assad regime and ISIS, saying it was too easy to blame the Gulf countries.

Here's from the March 21 US State Department briefing transcript:

Question: you have concerns about the withdrawal of the ambassadors. Do you also have concerns about the reasons that these countries said that they withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar? In other words, do you – if you have concerns about the withdrawal of the ambassadors, do you also have concerns about Qatar’s behavior, which – alleged behavior, let’s say – which led to these countries withdrawing their ambassadors?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I know one of the issues that has been mentioned is the issue of private donations to extremists – and that’s something that some have mentioned – operating in Syria and elsewhere. It remains an important priority in our high-level discussions, and one that we also certainly raise with all states in the region, including Qatar, including the Government of Kuwait, wherever we have concerns.

After Inner City Press asked about the sponsorship of the event, a one-page "Joint Statement by the Co-Organizers" was passed out, listing among the co-organizers France, the UK, US, Belgium, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Inner City Press tweeted it. 

   Even 24 hours later, the UN's top two spokespeople had not answered the simple questions put to them, above. Watch this site.

   

French Ambassador Araud Denies Pillay CAR Report & NYPD Document Online -- Like Bardem Morocco Quote?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 6 -- French Ambassador to the UN Gerard Araud on March 6 denied the existence of a report by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, dated January 20, that in the Central African Republic the French Sangaris force's disarmament of the ex Seleka left Muslim communities at risk of attack.

  Araud said, "There is no Navi Pillay report." But here it is.

  Araud has said that Javier Bardem is lying when he quotes Araud saying that Morocco is France's "mistress." Araud's denial of the existence of Navi Pillay's report -- or statement -- puts his denial of the Morocco as mistress quote in a different light.

So too does Araud's angry claim in January that a New York Police Department document Inner City Press published after asking Araud's mission for comment is a fake. It is a New York Police Department incident report, here.

  In that case, it is Araud's claim that since the French diplomat Romain Serman -- now France's consul in San Fransisco -- claimed diplomatic immunity after being detained for attempted purchase of cocaine, it was not a real arrest record. But to yell that it is a "fake" and threaten to sue? Click here for that.

  Likewise, perhaps Araud means that Pillay's statement, which is on the Office of the High Commissioner's website, is not a report because it is a statement. But to claim, after walked away from the stakeout microphone without taking the question, that there is no Navi Pillay report?

   So what really is Araud's argument about Bardem quoting him that Morocco is France's mistress, on Western Sahara? Did Araud say it, but slightly differently? Watch this site.

   

On Ukraine, UK Wants to Hear from Eliasson, of Serry, Feckless French PR

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 6 -- As the fourth Ukraine meeting of the UN Security Council in a week convened on March 6 at 2:30 pm, UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant stopped and spoke to the media.

  Lyall Grant said the purpose of the meeting, which the UK had requested, was to hear from UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson, and about what happened to UN envoy Robert Serry in Crimea. Video here.

   Moments later, French Ambassador Gerard Araud passed by, also on his way into the Security Council. But no one asked him anything. Less than an hour before, on UNTV at the stakeout, Araud denied that UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay made a report on January 20 that France's selective disarmament in the Central African Republic put Muslims at risk of attack.

  To some it seems the French government cites human rights against others, but dodges and denies human rights issues as to itself or its allies, as with Morocco and Western Sahara, on which Araud has been quoted by Javier Bardem, click here for that.

 Four hours after the US announced Ukraine related sanctions, Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky if the UN had any comment on what some of its member states, including Russia, call unhelpful and even illegal "unilateral" sanctions.

  No, Nesirky said, no comment on the actions of individual countries in this regard. But of course, the UN Secretariat does have comments on actions by Russia.

 Nesirky was asked if the UN considers Crimea under occupation. He replied that UN envoy Robert Serry felt a certain presence there. One wag - this one - asked, poltergeist?

   Pressed, Nesirky referred the press to Serry's interview with "Wolf Blitzer on CNN." To some it seemed, while the UN said Serry would have no press availability today, the UN was proud to get Serry - on CNN.

  Inner City Press asked Nesirky to confirm Serry's quotes to UAA, that he probably wouldn't go back to Crimea and would leave Ukraine on Saturday. Nesirky said he'd check. The UN's Jan Eliasson is slated to brief the Security Council by video at 2:30, in a meeting Inner City Press, as early at 7 am, was told was requested by the UK. We'll be there.

   It was before 8 am in Washington on March 6 when the White House announced an 

"Executive Order that authorizes sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for activities undermining democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine; threatening the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine; contributing to the misappropriation of state assets of Ukraine; or purporting to assert governmental authority over any part of Ukraine without authorization from the Ukrainian government in Kyiv."

  How this last criterion would have applied, say, to South Sudan or Kosovo is not clear. The White House held a background call at 8:30 am, on which a Senior Administration Official said they can also target "derivatives" - those providing material support. Another added the "OSCE team is on the ground" (see below).

  Meanwhile the UN on the morning of March 6 announced that while its envoy Robert Serry, threatened in Crimea the day before, will be in Kyiv, but no press availabilities. 

  On March 5, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe announced it is sending 40 unarmed military personnel to Ukraine, from twenty one countries.

  Inner City Press asked the OSCE to update, beyond the 18 countries in its press release, which were the three "new" contributors of personnel. The answer came: Austria, Iceland and Italy.

  Based on a quote from Paris, Inner City Press has asked the OSCE if it has any comment on Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov saying its steps "do not help create an atmosphere of dialogue"?  As of this writing an hour after the question, no reply.

  The other 18 OSCE contributors are: Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the United States.

   On Estonia (and Ukraine) more leaked audio has emerged on YouTube, in what we're calling Kwikileaks, of the EU's Catherine Ashton and Estonia's Foreign Minister Urmas Paet.Click here for audio, particularly from Minute 8:30.

  After both speak of a prospective new Ukrainian Health Minister, Olga, Paet says:

"Olga said all evidence shows the people killed by snipers, among police and people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides."

  Paet says the new coalition does not want to investigate; Ashton says "We do want to investigate" -- but where is the investigation?

  In Freetown, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said:

"let me add one [thing] which I had forgotten to mention about the situation in Ukraine. I have decided to dispatch the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, Mr. Ivan Simonovic, to Ukraine to visit Kiev and the eastern part of Ukraine, including Crimea, to see and monitor the human rights situation there. This is what I wanted to add to the AP correspondent."

  Crimea is in the south -- but will Simonovic investigate what Estonia's foreign minister told Ashton about the same snipers killed police and the people in the street?

  In New York the UN announced that its Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson will call into a briefing late Wednesday morning. Inner City Press asks, why not Robert Serry, who's gone to Crimea, and who features in the last set of leaked audio?

   Tuesday night at a $32,000 a plate DSCC fundraiser at the Virginia home of former US Senator Chuck Robb, Barack Obama said

"I’ll be happy to give you more details of what’s happening in Ukraine. The essence of it is, is we have a country that has been in a difficult situation for quite some time, that had a President that was closely associated with the Russians, who a large segment of the Ukrainian population did not feel was representing them well,although he had been democratically elected. You had a crisis inside of Ukraine as a consequence of his decision not to sign an agreement that would have oriented their economy a little more towards the West. That got out of control and we got involved only to prevent initially from bloodshed occurring inside the country and succeeded in doing that. But, ultimately, a deal that was brokered for a power-sharing arrangement in an election led to him fleeing and we now have a situation in which the Russians I think are engaging in a fundamental breach of international law in sending troops into the country to try to force the hands of the Ukrainian people. We may be able to deescalate over the next several days and weeks, but it’s a serious situation and we’re spending a lot of time on it."

  One key phrase was, "he had been democratically elected."

   At the UN on March 3 after the third Ukraine meeting of the UN Security Council in four days, at which US Ambassador Samantha Power said OSCE monitors are heading to Kyiv tonight, Read Admiral John Kirby, the US Pentagon's Press Secretary, put out this statement:

"Although the Department of Defense finds value in the military-to-military relationship with the Russian Federation we have developed over the past few years to increase transparency, build understanding, and reduce the risk of military miscalculation we have, in light of recent events in Ukraine, put on hold all military-to-military engagements between the United States and Russia. This includes exercises, bilateral meetings, port visits and planning conferences.

The Defense Department is closely monitoring the situation and remains in close contact with the State Department and interagency, along with our Allies, Partners and NATO. We call on Russia to deescalate the crisis in Ukraine and for Russian forces in Crimea to return to their bases, as required under the agreements governing the Russia Black Sea Fleet.

Some media outlets are speculating on possible ship movements in the region. There has been no change to our military posture in Europe or the Mediterranean; our Navy units continue to conduct routine, previously planned operations and exercises with allies and partners in the region."

   Earlier on Monday, Russia's Vitaly Churkin came out to answer questions. Inner City Press asked him of supporting the mission to Ukraine by UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson, a former Swedish foreign minster, while questioning that of Robert Serry.

  Churkin replied that he had spoken with Eliasson before he left for Kyev. It is unclear if Eliasson will get to Crimea. But some note that unlike Serry, who appears in leaked audio with former US now UN official Jeff Feltman "getting" Ban to send him to Ukraine, Eliasson strives to bridge various gaps.

  UK Ambassador Lyall Grant came out, and Inner City Press asked him if the UK is moving toward sanctions as the US says it is. He politely declined to answer this non-UN question. 

From the UK Mission transcript:

Inner City Press: G8 and sanctions? There’s a lot of talk from the US side of looking at financial sanctions on individuals in Russia and there’s talk of not only not going to this preparatory meeting for the Sochi G8 but to have Russia essentially excluded from the G8 and to go back to a G7. What’s the UK position on that and at what point would that become something that you would be looking at?

Amb Lyall Grant: Those issues are being discussed elsewhere. I want to focus today on the UN aspects of this.

   Ukraine's Yuriy Sergeyev held a long and surreal stakeout. Inner City Press asked him to explain the dispute about how many troops Russia can have in Crimea. He said 11,000 including 2,000 marines, that Russia had reiterated this again in December and was now committing "aggression."

   France's Gerard Araud, as has become his pattern, took only two questions: one in French, the second from France 24. After four and a half years at the UN - his figure, in the Council -- he is becoming more each day like Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row atop UN Peacekeeping.

 The stakeouts ended with the Moldovan Permanent Representative. Inner City Press asked him about US Secretary of State John Kerry's statement that Russia is pressuring Moldova. He spoke of troops on high alert, and another autonomous region now threatening not to participate in elections. 

  Inner City Press asked him about the size of the OSCE mission Samanatha Power referred to. He said he's participated in three OSCE mission; he mentioned sizes between 10 and two or three thousand. So what is being referred to here? We'll have more on this.

  Earlier in the Council chamber, Churkin unveiled a letter from Viktor Yanukovych requesting Russian help. 

 US Ambassador Samantha Power snarked that it sounded like Russia is the enforcement arm of the UN Human Rights High Commissioner, Navi Pillay. She announced that "tonight the OSCE will begin" deploying monitors. 

  But will these OSCE monitors get into Crimea? Will UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson? At the day's UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked spokesperson Martin Nesirky what the role of Robert Serry is now.

  Nesirky said his main job is the Middle East. But then in the Security Council meeting, UN official Oscar Fernandez Taranco said that Serry is going BACK to Ukraine. Earlier, it was leaked that former US now UN official Jeff Feltman "got" Ban Ki-moon to send Serry to Ukraine. And now?

  On Sunday, the day after Saturday's inconclusive Ukraine meeting at the UN Security Council, three US Senior Administration Officials held a background press call to describe the US' next moves.

  Secretary of State John Kerry will be in Kyev on Tuesday. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland is heading to Vienna; the US wants to explore monitors from the OSCE (UN monitors were mentioned, but it's difficult to see veto-wielding Russia agreeing to them at this point).

  Senior Administration Official 2 said Russia is in an occupation position in Crimea and moving more troops in. The three were asked, doesn't this show weakness of the Obama administration, at least with respect to Russia's Vladimir Putin?

  Senior Administration Official 1 quickly brought up that Putin didn't listen on Georgia -- which was in 2008, under Republican George W. Bush (the question was from Fox News). 

  All three said that Putin is not operating from a position of strength, with Senior Administration Official 2 saying that when it comes to soft power, Vladimir Putin has no game. Asked about Russian money in London, the official said the US is looking at Russian banks.

  On the 1994 Budapest Memorandum (see below), the US is moving to call a meeting under the Memo's terms and will see if Russia shows up.

  At the UN on March 1, after the Ukraine open meeting then consultations of the UN Security Council took place, Council president for March Sylvie Lucas of Luxembourg came out and read a short statement.

  Inner City Press asked her if this was a mere "elements to the press," not even an agreed Press Statement. This seems to be the case. She politely answered, but not why China and the ten elected members did not speak in the open meeting.

  Inner City Press asked UK Ambassador Lyall Grant about the Budapest Memorandum -- has it already been violated, including by the Western IMF side, in terms of economic coercion? Is it just a superseded document summoned up for pragmatic reasons now?

  Lyall Grant acknowledged that some time has passed. From the UK Mission transcript:

Inner City Press: The Budapest memorandum. There’s been a lot of talk about it. It requires the UK, Russia and France to seek immediate Security Council action if there’s a threat of force, so is this the end of your duties, or do you have a duty to defend Ukraine? And it also seems to commit the UK and others to refrain from economic coercion, so some people have been saying that on both sides, the economic coercion factor has been played. Has this memorandum been complied with since ‘94, or is it just pulled out at this time as a convenient document?

Amb Lyall Grant: Clearly, this document has become very relevant in the last few days. We believe that the first step should be a meeting of the signatories of the Budapest memorandum, as Ukraine government has suggested should take place. Proposals have been made for a meeting of the three signatories as early as Monday, but so far Russia has not agreed to that meeting.

  Lyall Grant also said his prime minister David Cameron spoke with Vladimir Putin and his foreign secretary William Hague will be in Ukraine on Sunday.

  Inner City Press asked Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson of Russia's critique of envoy Robert Serry "getting played," and of the leaked (US) audio about former US now UN official Jeffrey Feltman "getting" Ban to send Serry to Ukraine.

   Eliasson said Serry is an international civil servant, but that the UN is not mediating, he is only a go-between for now. Will that change?

  US Samantha Power came out, saying another things that President Obama is suspending participation in the preparation for the G8 in Sochi. She took only two questions; it was not possible to ask her about movement on loan guarantees, or her view of the US' duties under the Budapest Memorandum. So it goes at the UN.

  When the open meeting happened, after two hours of wrangling about format, not all 15 members of the Council --not even all five Permanent members -- spoke. (China didn't).

  Instead, UN Deputy Secretary General Eliasson led off, saying that Ban Ki-moon would speak with Vladimir Putin. That had already taken place, but even an hour later, no read-out. 

Update: after publication of this story, the UN e-mailed out Ban Ki-moon's "remarks" after he spoke with Putin. Remarks to whom? And how long was Ban's call?

  US President Barack Obama spoke with Putin for 90 minutes, citing as Samantha Power did OSCE observers -- and the International Monetary Fund (see below).

   Russia's Vitaly Churkin said that EU officials has stoked up the protests, and violated the February 21 agreement.

   France's Gerard Araud, in the midst of a scandal about a quote Javier Barden attributed to him, Morocco as France's mistress, said it was Russia which hadn't supported the February 21 agreement. Following US Samantha Power and UK Mark Lyall Grant, whose foreign secretary William Hague is headed to Ukraine, Araud was the last speaker in the open meeting. Strange and telling compromise.

  As the Council went back behind closed doors for consultations, Inner City Press asked Ukraine's Ambassador Yuriy Sergeyev about "economic coercion" prohibited in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum he kept citing.
 
  Sergeyev replied that Russia tried to use economic coercion. But what about the IMF?

  Earlier on his way in Sergeyev stopped and told the press it is now a Russian "aggression" and that the UN Charter has been "brutally" violated. Video here.

 He said an appeal is being made to the US, France, UK and China, under the rubric of non-proliferation; he said there is still time, before Russian president Vladimir Putin signs the order for military moves in Crimea.

  Then the Security Council "suspended" for ten minutes; Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin emerged and said some members of the Council are trying to change the format of the meeting, that Russia agrees with the format proposed by Luxembourg, which took over today as Council president.

After UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's envoy Robert Serry spun the contents of a closed door Security Council consultation on Ukraine on which there was no agreed outcome, Ban himself did the same on Saturday.

   Ban's spokesperson announced at 1:20 am he would speak and "take a few questions" -- at 1:30 pm.  Lo and behold, after Ban's statement that there was agreement in the Security Council on Friday -- there wasn't -- was read, the first question was given to Pamela Falk of CBS. 

  This is as president of the UN Correspondents Association,whose board held an hour-long Q&A with Ban in February in which Ukraine wasn't even asked out. So why now?

  In order to ask, Could Serry go to Crimea?  Hours before Serry through the spokesperson had said no. But the purpose of this UN TV theater is to get this spin "on camera" - that's the role Falk's UNCA is playing. 

   Also Ban said he is going to speak with Putin soon. Will his spokesperson take question, this time with notice, on that?

   On February 28, Serry's impartiality as "UN" envoy on Ukraine was called into question, on camera, in front of the UN Security Council by Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin.

   A "Note to Correspondents" was put out Saturday morning by the UN Spokesperson's Office in which Serry put his spin on the Security Council consultations at which he was not present, and at which not even a Press Statement was agreed:

Note to correspondents: Statement by Mr. Robert Serry, Senior Advisor to the Secretary-General, at the end of his mission to Ukraine

Kyiv, 1 March 2014

Following the consultations in the United Nations Security Council yesterday, the Secretary-General requested me to go to Crimea as part of my fact-finding mission. I have since been in touch with the authorities of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and have come to the conclusion that a visit to Crimea today is not possible. I will therefore proceed to Geneva, where I will tomorrow brief the Secretary-General on my mission and consult with him on next steps.

In Crimea, I would have conveyed, also on behalf of the Secretary-General, a message for all to calm the situation down and to refrain from any actions that could further escalate an already-tense environment.

It became very clear from yesterday’s Council consultations that the unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine is not to be called into question. This is a time for dialogue and to engage with each other constructively.

  Recipients of previous "Notes to Correspondents" were surprised, because Serry in his "other" apparently not time intensive enough job as Ban Ki-moon's Middle East Coordinator does not characterize Security Council processes that do not result in a legal outcome.

  This comes a day after the UN's incoming spokesperson Stephane Dujarric praised a 10-tweet "analysis" of Crimean involving, predictably, the assumption of Chinese and Russian vetoes, and more problematically that Argentina and Nigeria abstained "for some reason." 

  To this view, Africa and Latin America are unknowable. But is this appropriate for an incoming UN Spokesperson? For somehow whose been in charge of UN Media Accreditation?

  This UN is increasingly used by officials for their own countries. Former US now UN official Feltman "got" Ban Ki-moon to send Serry to Ukraine.  With French ambassador Gerard Araud having been quoted by Javier Bardem that Morocco is France's mistress, Herve Ladsous the fourth Frenchman in a row to head UN Peacekeeping on February 26 lavished "UN" praise on Morocco through the Magreb Arab Press. There's more to be said on this.

   The day before on February 28 after US Ambassador Samantha Power emerged from the Security Council and spoke to the press about a mediation mission to Ukraine involving Robert Serry, Russia's Vitaly Churkin raised questions about the plan.

  He noted that Serry on February 22 was quoted as supporting the process -- that is, the violation even then of the February 21 agreement. 

 The subtext, still audible, was the leaked audio about former US now UN official Jeffrey Feltman "getting" Ban Ki-moon to send Serry to Ukraine. This may resonate for some time.

  Inner City Press asked Churkin of reports Russia would participate closely in the accelerating International Monetary Fund process. Churkin said Russia is open to helping, but only when more is known about what kind of government Ukraine's will be. One might think the IMF would be similarly cautious. But one might be wrong.

  Nearly simultaneous with Samantha Power at the UN, President Barack Obama spoke at the White House. As sent out, he said, "It would be a clear violence of Russia’s commitment to respect the independence and sovereignty and borders of Ukraine, and of international laws." Seems"violation" was meant -- a Freudian slip?

  When UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant came to the stakeout, Inner City Press asked him too about the IMF, which which his foreign secretary William Hague met this week. Lyall Grant distinguished between the financial and the political mediation process. But some say they are intimately connected. From the UK Mission transcript:

Inner City Press: Your Foreign Secretary was in Washington and met, among other people, with the International Monetary Fund. What’s the relationship between that process and either the mediation process that’s proposed, or trying to address issues in the Crimea.

Amb Lyall Grant: There are a number of challenges facing the new government in Kyiv. One of them is the economy. My Foreign Secretary, as you said, went to see the IMF in Washington, because we believe the IMF needs to take the lead in putting together a financial package to help the Ukrainian government to recover from the economic crisis that it’s in and to help the Ukrainian government take the necessary tough decisions for the structural reforms that are required to put the economy back on track. So this is not directly linked to any political mediation, but it is to address one of the key challenges that the new government in Kyiv faces.

   Lithuania's Permanent Representative Raimonda Murmokaite, who as we noted yesterday had yet to do a question and answer stakeout after Council consultations during her month as Council president, finally did. Inner City Press asked her of the mediation mission cited by Samantha Power would require a Security Council resolution or other action.

  Raimonda Murmokaite said that a proposal had just been made. But moments later, Lyall Grant said he didn't think any UNSC approval was needed for Serry to go to Crimea.

   Churkin, on the other hand, said only if the Crimeans want him, no imposed mediation. That leaked audio resonates still.

   Earlier Ukraine's Ambassador to the UN Yuriy Sergeyev came to the Security Council stakeout after briefing the Council. Inner City Press asked him three rounds of questions, ranging from the International Monetary Fund to the International Criminal Court, military presence to Viktor Yanukovych's press conference earlier in the day.

   Sergeyev called the press conference "comedy," emphasizing the Yanukovych left the country (and arguing more seriously that he thereby violated the February 21 deal.)

   On the IMF, Sergeyev said the Fund's team will be "on the ground" early next week. He was asked about austerity but dodged it; he said that the key is that money doesn't "disappear" as he said that from Russia did.

  While standing at the stakeout, a supporter of the ICC tweeted at Inner City Press if Sergeyev raised it in the Council. Inner City Press asked about the ICC and the extradition request to Russia. Sergeyev said the ICC is complex and that he favors a Ukrainian process first.

   On the IMF, how fast could post Yanukovych Ukraine get US money or loan guarantees? Back on the afternoon of February 26 came this on the record statement by State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki:

"The United States is continuing to consider a range of options, including loan guarantees, to support Ukraine economically. But no decision has been made and the next step is the formation of a multi-party, technical government. Once that government is formed we will begin to take immediate steps, in coordination with multilateral and bilateral partners, that could compliment an IMF package, to support Ukraine."

  There was a lot of chatter about a $1 billion US loan guarantee, including from a roundtable by Secretary of State John Kerry held after he did an interview with Andrea Mitchell. Oh, This Town or #ThisTown. So which is it?

  On February 27, the IMF's Christine Lagarde announced that the new Ukraine has asked for an IMF program; herspokesperson Gerry Rice said an IMF team on be 'on the ground' next week.

   On February 25 the shift in Ukraine was echoed on the US Eastern seaboard. At the UN in New York, Ukraine's Yanukovych-era Ambassador Yuriy Sergeyev canceled his 11 am press conference - though we can now link to this video of his "I am with you" moment with demonstrators outside the Ukrainian mission in New York.

  Two hours after his February 25 cancellation, in Washington, journalists Inner City Press knows from covering the International Monetary Fund took the short walk to the US State Department's briefing to ask about pre-conditions. Follow the money.

  Back at the UN, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Martin Nesirky said he didn't know how long Ban's Middle East coordinator Robert Serry will stay in Ukraine. (He was still there on February 26.) 

  Just how high profile there does Serry's past stint as Dutch Ambassador in Kyiv make him? What similar former ambassador might Ban Ki-moon have to offer in Thailand? Just how (un) relevant has the UN become?

   Back on Sunday morning US John Kerry spoke with Russia's Sergey Lavrov and, according to a senior State Department official, expressed hope

"that the Russian Federation will join with us, the European Union and its member states, and other concerned countries to help Ukraine turn the page and emerge from this crisis stronger... He also underscored the United States' expectation that Ukraine's sovereignty, territorial integrity and democratic freedom of choice will be respected by all states."  

   Later @JohnKerry himself tweeted kudos to previous Secretary of State nominee Susan Rice, how well she had done on Ukraine NBC's Meet the Press. (As noted, David Gregory said one million have died in Syria, click here for that.)

  There, Rice mentioned working with the EU and the International Monetary Fund. Yes, it's the IMF that's meant by "appropriate international organization," and not the United Nations.

  What David Gregory gleaned from the leaked call to Geoff Pyatt was that Russia leaked it -- no mention of the plan, at least at that time, to use the UN to F- the EU. How much has change since then - including the UN being back on the margins.

  And so it occurs to ask: could Russia benefit from Ukraine being raised in the UN Security Council, where it has a veto, as it doesn't (but the US does) at the IMF? Could the UN oversee a deal, on which Russia says the opposition has already reneged?

  Then again, if Russia were to "pull an Abkhazia" (or South Ossetia) in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, it could be the Westerners trying to get the UN to condemn it. But in the Security Council, Russia has a veto. Again: UNrelevant. 

As with the State Department's February 22 Kerry - Lavrov readout, it might be surprising to some that Sunday's does not include anything on Syria, on which the UN Security Council passed a resolution on February 22. But left unmentioned even as to Ukraine is the East / West split, particularly with regard the Crimea, Donetsk and the wider Donbass. Could Ukraine's "territorial integrity," the mantra at the UN, be in jeopardy? 

  Back on Friday February 21, Presidents Obama and Putin had a phone conversation which a Senior US State Department Official called "positive" and at the US' initiative.

  The official said that Yanukovych has gone on a trip to Kharkiv in his eastern base in the country, "for some kind of meeting that's taking place out there," and recounted a rumor that the deposed interior minister has fled to Belarus.

  US State Department official William Burns will be heading to Ukraine; Vice President Joe Biden has spoken nine times with Yanukovych: twice in November, once in December, three times in January and on February 4, 18 and 20. Even Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel finally got through to his Ukraine's counterpart, Lebedev.

  Amid the self-congratulation, the United Nations was once again on the margins. The UN has made much of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's talk with Yanukovych at the Sochi Olympics, and another phone call today.

  But tellingly, the Senior US State Department Official while citing a "good offices" role for "the international community" did not mention the UN once, in opening remarks nor in response to the eight questions taken. (Two were from the New York Times, the second of which referred to Putin's call with "President Bush.")  An overly long question from Le Figaro was cut off.

 Back on February 19 when Lithuania's foreign minister Linas Linkevieius came to the UN Security Council stakeout, that country seemed to be the one to ask him about. Inner City Press asked Linkevieius about his visit to Washington; he replied among other things that there is a need for "more coordination." Video here.

  Later on February 19 a US Senior State Department Official told the press that "Russia has not been transparent about what they are doing in Ukraine," citing that Russia for example does not provide read-outs of its contacts in Ukraine. 

  The US' own high level contacts have gotten more difficult: "they are not picking up the phone," the official said, adding that three European Union foreign ministers are on their way.

  Of the four questions Linkevieius took at his UN stakeout, one was on the UN's North Korea report, another on Venezuela. A Russian reporter waiting at the stakeout with his hand raised was not given a question. This is the UN.

  Moments later at the UN's February 19 noon briefing, outgoing UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky was asked about a perceived double standards in responses to Bosnia and Ukraine. (The question was echoed on February 20, comparing Ukraine with Bahrain). Nesirky said every situation is different -- of course -- and also said the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had met for 90 minutes in Sochi with President Yanukovych.

  Ironically the US Senior State Department Official on February 19 was asked about Yanukovych becoming more hardline after his visit to Sochi. From Foggy Bottom to Turtle Bay, the view is different -- in the case of the UN, often marginal and self-serving. For example, Ban Ki-moon gave no read-out of his beginning of the year call with the president of his native South Korea.

  Ah, transparency. Watch this site.

Footnote: On the Obama - Putin "positive" call, Inner City Press mused it would signal a 15-0 vote in the UN Security Council on the Syria humanitarian resolution about which Inner City Press asked State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf earlier on February 21, click here for that.