Day After MH17, Syrian Rebels Call for "Advanced Weapons"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 18 -- Less than 24 hours after Malaysian Airlines MH17 went down in Eastern Ukraine, the Syrian Coalition rebels put out a press release that they should be given "advanced weapons."

   Here is what the Syrian Coalition, until recently headed by Saudi backed Ahmad Al Jarba and now headed by Saudi backed Hadi Al Bahra, said:

“Louay Safi, spokesman for the Syrian Coalition, said earlier that the connection between the Assad regime and ISIS has never been so intimately interwound as it is today with the progress being made by regime forces near Aleppo and that of ISIS in Deir Ezzor. These advancement have not been interrupted by a single clash between regime forces and ISIS, which proves the existence of full coordination between them.” Safi attributes the setbacks suffered by Syrian rebels to the reluctance of the friends of Syria group to provide the rebels with the advanced weapons that can tip the balance on the ground.”

  What about, “in the air”? The Syrian Coalition continues:

“Furthermore, Safi agrees with the former U.S. ambassador to Syria Robert Ford, who blames the rise of extremist groups in Syria on the Obama administration’s hesitation to support the moderate opposition forces. The military situation is very critical, as regime forces are about to laid siege on Aleppo. But even if Assad’s forces recapture Aleppo, the crisis will not be over. (Source: Syrian Coalition)”

  So, what of the US announced plan for $500 million to “vetted” Syrian rebels?

Also on Syria, on July 14 when the UN Security Council adopted a resolution on humanitarian access to Syria, its Operative Paragraph 11 said the Council “affirms that it will take further measures in the event of non-compliance with this resolution or resolution 2139 (2014) by any Syrian party.”

 Afterward, Australia's Permanent Representative to the UN Gary Quilan emphasized at the media stakeout that resolutions are binding, that the Council had affirmed that it will take measures if not complied with by the parties. Video here, from Minute 2:10

  Inner City Press sought to ask a question about a statement inside the Security Council by Russia's Vitaly Churkin, and Quinlan agreed to take the question. Inner City Press asked Quinlan to respond to Churkin saying that the resolution “doesn't plan for automatism” in sanctions or the use of force, that any such steps would require the specific consideration of the Security Council and “convincing evidence.” Video of Churkin's statement here, from Minute 25.

  Quinlan replied that what Churkin said was correct, then said that while there would have to be a further decision by the Security Council about what measures to take, the decision that some measures would be taken has already been made. Video here from Minute 18.

Readers can draw their own conclusion how meaningful it is to claim that a decision to definitely act has been made, if another vote including veto powers is required.

Footnote: Asking this question was not easy. The first question was given to Voice of America; the second taken by the whip of the UN Correspondents Association's president, sometimes writing for the Huffington Post. She then tried to keep the UN Television boom microphone operator for giving the microphone to Inner City Press -- even as Ambassador Quinlan said, “Matthew... what Ambassador Churkin said was correct.” 

  This UNCA, becoming the UN's Censorship Alliance,seems to believe it can block questions (as well as having tried to get Inner City Press thrown out after its reporting about Sri Lanka, here). The new (and resulting) Free UN Coalition for Access opposes this.

  To come full circle, acknowledging deft diplomacy by Australia and its co-leads Jordan and Luxembourg on this resolution, it is sometimes hard not to note the contradiction of Australia returning asylum seekers from Sri Lanka after only “reviewing” their claims on a ship. Inner City Press has asked Ambassador Quinlan about this, and we hope to have a story on the topic soon. Watch this site.

   

Atop Syrian Coalition, Jarba Is Out, Hadi al-Bahra In, Both Saudi-Backed: Meet the New Boss

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 8, more here -- Atop the Syrian Coalition, Saudi-backed Hadi al-Bahra has replaced Saudi-backed Ahmad Jarba, with a total of 62 votes according to the Coalition. Meet the new boss.

   While Jarba's was term-limited out, he endorsed his successor, having let him stand in for him at the talks in Geneva. Given Jarba's previous feting inside the UN, in a session run by France and another by the UN Correspondents Association, some wonder if Jarba will now hit the lecture circuit.

   Sixteen day ago under Jarba, the Syrian Coalition criticized US President Obama. Coalition spokesman Louay Safi said he "regrets" Obama telling CBS  "he dismissed the idea that supplying US arms to moderate Syrian rebels would have toppled President Assad, calling it a 'fantasy.'"

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

  Now ten days later, after the Obama administration on June 26 announced it is asking Congress for $500 million for the vetted opposition -- read, Jarba's Syrian Coalition and the Free Syrian Army, still said by the UN to recruit and use child soldiers -- the Coalition said this:

"Ahmed Jakal, member of the political committee, blamed ISIS’s takeover of Abu Kamal near the Syrian-Iraqi borders on the international community’s reluctance to provide the Syrian rebels with the necessary means to curb the rise of this extremist group. 

'We have always warned of the threat posed by ISIS on Syria and the region. ISIS’s surge will not stop at Abu Kamal, as it moves on to capture more towns in Deir Ezzor province. Therefore, the international community must empower the moderate Syrian rebels to fight ISIS, which act as Assad’s proxy in the rebel-held areas.' Jakal also stresses that 'ISIS’s capture of the oil fields in eastern Syria is a tactical move in the group’s overall strategy to consolidate its newly established “caliphate,” which Iran and the Assad regime use as a scarecrow to influence the world public opinion in their favor.' 

Jakal concluded his remarks pointing out that the major powers have not yet realized that the extremist organizations are being used by regional powers to serve their political and economic interests."

  This follows a Syrian Coalition read-out:

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

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

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

  Is Robert Ford running for office?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   

After Syria Coalition Again Cites Robert Ford on Obama, Istanbul Confab

By Matthew Russell Lee

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

  Now two weeks later, after the Obama administration on June 26 announced it is asking Congress for $500 million for the vetted opposition -- read, Jarba's Syrian Coalition and the Free Syrian Army, still said by the UN to recruit and use child soldiers -- Safi has again blamed Obama, saying:

"'the connection between the Assad regime and ISIS has never been so intimately interwound as it is today with the progress being made by regime forces near Aleppo and that of ISIS in Deir Ezzor. These advancement have not been interrupted by a single clash between regime forces and ISIS, which proves the existence of full coordination between them.' Safi attributes the setbacks suffered by Syrian rebels to the reluctance of the friends of Syria group to provide the rebels with the advanced weapons that can tip the balance on the ground. This reluctance contrasts with the unlimited support the Assad regime receives from his Russian and Iranian allies, who have been conspiring on the Syrian people and their revolution for dignity and freedom. The resignations of some members of the FSA's Supreme Military Council were prompted by the lack of military support, which in turn led to a lack of a unified leadership capable countering regime forces and the Iranian militias." Furthermore, Safi agrees with the former U.S. ambassador to Syria Robert Ford, who blames the rise of extremist groups in Syria on the Obama administration’s hesitation to support the moderate opposition forces. The military situation is very critical, as regime forces are about to laid [sic] siege on Aleppo."

   Even by this logic, is ISIS or the Islamic State's advance in Iraq directly due to "full coordination" with Maliki? The Syria Coalition is set to meet in Istanbul, amid jockeying by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

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

  Is Robert Ford running for office?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 But how clear has Ban Ki-moon been, when he met with Jarba?

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

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

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

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

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

   

Now Syria Coalition Trashes Obama, Praises Hillary Clinton & Robert Ford, UN on Margins: Et Tu, Jarba?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 22, more here -- Now the Syrian Coalition has criticized US President Obama. 

 While the Coalition seemed to think that ISIL's advance in Iraq would make the US more likely to give it weapons, now Coalition spokesman Louay Safi  "regrets" Obama telling CBS  "he dismissed the idea that supplying US arms to moderate Syrian rebels would have toppled President Assad, calling it a 'fantasy.'"

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

 Jumping directly into US politics, Safi says: "Had the Obama administration heeded the advice of the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and his special envoy to Syria we would not have had the current situation in Syria or in the region as a whole.” 

  Is Robert Ford running for office?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   

Syrian Coalition Wants Brahimi to Convince "Wendy Chairman" of US to Pressure Russia: Then Geneva III?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 1 -- Ten days after protests inside Syria to oust Ahmad al Jarba as head of the Syrian National Coalition, this Syria Coalition has sent out conditions for re-starting the Geneva talks:

"Louay Safi, spokesman for the Syrian Coalition, said that if Lakhdar Brahimi managed to convince U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Wendy Chairman to put pressure on Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Bogdanov to change the Russian position towards the Syrian crisis, then we can consider the resumption of negotiations with the Assad regime."

 Who is this "Wendy Chairman," you ask? What does she chair? It appears to be the US State Department's Wendy Sherman.

  At the State Department's March 31 briefing, deputy spokesperson Marie Harf said "right now what we’re really focused on is to see if Special Joint Representative Brahimi can get these talks re-started again. As we’ve said, they’re on a pause."

  But not if Brahimi can convince Wendy Chairman!

  After the protest, Jarba gave a speech in Kuwait asking that Syrian embassies in Arab capitals be given to him. 

  Apparently credibility inside Syria is not important. If for example France and its scribes deem Jarba the representative of the Syrian people, the logic goes, why not give him the far-flung embassies?

  From Jarba's March 25 speech to the Arab League Summit in Kuwait:

"Let me say quite frankly that keeping Syria’s seat empty in your midst sends a clear message to Assad that he can kill and that the seat will wait for him to resolve his war. This is how the regime understands the message, and our people ask themselves: if the West failed to provide us with the needed weapons, what prevents our brothers from resolving the matter of our seat amongst you? I would like to add that reality dictates that the Syrian embassies in Arab capitals should be given to the National Coalition."

   While Qatar sponsored an event at the UN in New York on March 21 featuring Jarba's Syrian Coalition headed, 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 questioner, with a intentionally easy question, 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.

   

On Syria, Geneva II Round Ends With a Whimper, Stealth Brahimi Presser, UN Incommunicado

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 15 -- The second round of Syria talks in Geneva ended with a whimper, a short press conference by UN mediator Lakhdar Brahimi, unannounced by the UN Spokesperson in New York, for which it was left unclear when video or audio would go online on the UN's website. The Free UN Coalition for Access asked.

   On the UN Radio website, even after Brahimi ended his press conference, the lead story was about Syrian opposition spokesman Louay Safi. On the Russia web site of UN Radio, Safi was not portrayed. Tell the people what (it's thought) they want -- that is the UN's new way.

  The final question had Al Jazeera telling Brahimi there was bitterness in his voice, and asking if he might not threaten to resign, in order to put pressure. But on whom? Brahimi left the briefing room and it was announced that it would close, delegations might speak "outside." Who owns the UN?

  UN Security Council members' "experts" met on the various drafts on the afternoon of February 14; they left quietly for a three day weekend afterward, and the Lithuania presidency of the Council for February offered no summary or guidance, much less a question and answer stakeout (there's yet to be on this month.)

  Back on January 30 on the next to last day of the first round of Syria talks in Geneva, Brahimi was asked about a "terrorist attack" on a television station, killing seven. He called it a loaded question. From the UN's transcript:

Q. : (unofficial translation from Arabic) What is not known is that Al-Ikhbariya TV [Syrian news] was subjected to a terrorist attack. It was completely destroyed in an explosion and the terrorism led to seven of its staff being killed. My question, Mr. Brahimi, is, for you, what comes first? Ending the terrorism and bloodshed in Syria or distributing political posts? Thank you.

Brahimi : (unofficial translation from Arabic) That’s a loaded question…Let’s take another question.

  In what remained of the 13 minutes press conference, the UN took questions from Swiss and German media, from state owned France 24, and Al Kul radio based, as Ahmad al Jarba's SNC is, in Turkey.

   On January 30, the SNC's vaunted social media team (or "Official account of the Syrian National Coalition Media Unit in Geneva process")tweeted that "this morning in Geneva 2 our delegation asked that meeting start with a minute’s silence for the victims of Assad." 

  Hours later in Washington, US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki spoke of this as a good sign, then quoted Brahimi as the basis of her statement. (That the US shows more respect to Brahimi than Ban Ki-moon, whom they successfully ordered to UN-invite Iran, is another story).

  That the Syria government side agreed to the moment of silence would seem to indicate they didn't agree to silence for "Assad's victims." A reporter asked that if there is a communique on January 31, it be put out in writing and in the afternoon, before the "radios shut down." A bit behind the times, but hey - this is the UN.

  In New York on January 29 Inner City Press asked Iran's Permanent Representative Khazaee about missing anything at the talks in Montreux, from which the UN dis-invited Iran.

  It worked out better this way, Khazaee told Inner City Press, on his way into the Security Council to give a speech on War and Its Lessons.

  On January 27, Inner City Press asked why journalists were being banned from filming near the entrance to the Syria talks. Haq said, Ask Geneva, but the spokesperson there did not answer. So the Free UN Coalition for Access raised the issue, as a negative precedent.  The belated answer that came was that the two delegations, government and SNC, had requested it. Still, what about the precedent? Asked another way, can Jarba limit freedom of the press INSIDE the UN?

  After current UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon invited and then UNinvited Iran to the Syria talks in Montreux, former Secretary General Kofi Annan announced he and three other Elders would visit Iran.

 On January 27, Inner City Press asked Ban's acting deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq if Annan's talks in Iran are coordinated in any way with Ban or Lakhdar Brahimi, and why journalists covering the talks in Geneva were banned from filming or photographing the Syrian or opposition delegations entering or leaving the UN. Video here.

  Haq replied, We don't speak for the Elders, and said to put the media access question to his counterpart in Geneva. Inner City Press did, on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, so far without answer. 

  On January 27, Brahimi said that SNC would "try to" produce a list of people kidnapped or detained by armed groups in Syria. But then he admitted the obvious: there are armed groups the SNC doesn't control or have contact with. 

  An obvious question would be: what percentage of armed opposition in Syria does the SNC represent? But no one asked it. Instead, Agence France Presse asked Brahimi about Srebrenica, why a list of males in Old City Homs would be produced.  

  Did AFP raise this when the UN in South Sudan separated Dinka from Nuer? When France in Central African Republic disarmed the predominately Muslim ex-Seleka and left Muslim communities to be attacked by Christian anti-Balaka, as even Navi Pillay has said?  AFP serves not only France -- pass through on Francois Hollande's break-up note, for example -- abut also the UN, giving easy interviews to the UN's envoy on cholera in Haiti, where the UN introduced the disease.

   Brahimi said he is going day to day; on January 27 he will meet with the two sides together, speaking through him, then separately. Why aren't the Kurds of Rojava, for example, represented in the talks?

  Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, as well as Martti Ahtisaari, Desmond Tutu and Ernesto Zedillo, will be in Iran from January 26 to 29, to discuss among other things "mutual respect" and peace in the region: that is, Syria.

  This comes after current UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on January 20 reversed his "decision" of the previous day of inviting Iran to the Syria talks in Montreux. The contrast, some say, couldn't be clearer.

   (Among those not making the obvious comparison was Reuters editor in chief Stephen Adler, bylined on a dispatch from Davos identifying Annan as "Ex-Syria Envoy." Under Adler's watch, Reuters at least through its UN bureau has degenerated into a pass-through for Western missions, alsoseeking to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN then mis-using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to try to cover it it: that is, censor it from Google's Search. Click here for that story. DMCA filing here, via ChillingEffects.org).

   Now in Geneva Syria's Permanent Representative to the UN Bashar al Ja'afari is speaking for the government. In New York, Ban's spokesperson's office has refused to answer a detailed "note verbale" from the Syrian mission about inaccurate answers to Press questions about who attack UN peacekeepers in the Golan. 

 On January 20 in the Security Council, Ja'afari complained again of inaction on complaints by Herve Ladsous, the fourth French head of UN Peacekeeping in a row. This is why the UN is not even the lead mediator on South Sudan, much less the Middle East or Syria.

Ending the Syria speeches in Montreux on January 22, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called them "productive." Then his spokesperson accused some non-Western media of being "disrespectful of the Secretary General of the UN," after he gave the last two questions to Bloomberg and NHK.  How was it productive?

   Even before the afternoon session began, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius took to the Montreux stakeout to say Syrian foreign minister Moallem was "aggressive." This is the same Fabius who in September at the UN declared Ahmad al Jarba the leader of the Syrian people, and refused to take critical questions from the media including about his country's practices.

   Australia was represented not by foreign minister Julie Bishop but rather its Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Peter Woolcott (who also chairs a humanitarian high level group on Syria, it's been pointed out to Inner City Press.).  Bishop is on Washington, and soon New York. 

   Ahmad al Jarba spoke next to last, thanking Saudi Arabia, viewed as his sponsor, as if in an Oscars speech. Ban Ki-moon wrapped up, calling it productive and asking the assembled (hand-picked, without Iran) minister to "wish [him] luck" as he went to speak to the media. 

  There, the questions were chosen much as they are at the UN in New York, as documented and critiqued by the Free UN Coalition for Access -- but in Montreux, this was actively protested. (FUNCA also questioned the UN citing Ban's press conference as a basis to cancel its noon briefing in New York, on South Sudan, Central African Republic, Mali and other countries in which the UN is at least somewhat less marginal or US dominated.)

  When John Kerry held his press conference, only four questions were taken: CBS, a Turkish media, BBC and Al Hurra, on whose Broadcasting Board of Governors John Kerry himself serves. Freedom of the press at today's US State Department we covered yesterday, here.

After the UN's craven reversal on including Iran in the Syria session in Montreux, it has turned out to be a series of speeches mostly by countries significantly less important to that conflict and the region.

   In the morning session on January 22, Italy and Spain spoke and Japan offered money. Turkey spoke without mentioning the Kurds -- but neither did supposed representative of the range of Syrian opposition Ahmad al Jarba.

   Since Jarba's Saudi-sponsored, Saud al Faisal called him "Excellency," pomp like Jarba's faux "UN briefing" with Gulf and Western media in July.

   Using his PresidentJarba Twitter account, on which Inner City Presspreviously reported, Jarba repeated his own speech. Turns out he follows Anonymous, among only 51 follows. Who knew?

   The UK's William Hague's microphone went dead; when it came back on he bemoaned the lack of a women's delegation to the talks. The UN did not push for this on Syria, nor on South Sudan - but Ban Ki-moon highlighted that for a moment, how ever brief, there was a woman in both the Syria and (Jarba) Syrian National Coalition seat. Call it a photo op.

  Behind Hague was a UN alumni, the UK's former political coordinator in the Security Council David Quarrey. His Russian counterpart Vladimir Safronkov was also there, in Sergey Lavrov's delegation.

  Ban Ki-moon announced a lunch break until 2:45 pm, to be followed by 18 more speakers, then the Syria and SNC speakers like rights of reply. What did people think these speeches would accomplish. We'll have a separate story on that soon.

  At the UN on January 21, Inner City Press asked Haq for the UN's response to Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif saying "Ban Ki-moon contacted me several times last week and I stated to him explicitly that we don’t accept any preconditions for participating in the meeting. We regret that Mr. Ban Ki-moon has withdrawn his offer and believe that such an attitude is not appropriate for the status and dignity of the Secretary-General."

  Haq said Ban believed he had "oral understandings" with Zarif. 

  Inner City Press asked Haq, since the Geneva I Communique requires a commitment to a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms, how are Qatar and Saudi Arabia, both of which are among those still providing weapons and more to armed groups in Syria, invited to Montreux? Where's Ban's dismay at that?

   Haq said that Ban is dismayed at the militarization of the conflict. Video here. 

  Earlier on January 21, Inner City Press spoke with Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN Vitaly Churkin about Ban Ki-moon about-face.

  Churkin told Inner City Press, exclusively, "some people let him down, and not necessarily the Iranians."

  Others have analogized Ban to the American Charlie Brown, kicking at empty space when the football is taken away at the last second. Was Ban Ki-moon set up?

   Since the Geneva I Communique requires a commitment to a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms, how for example are Qatar and Saudi Arabia, both of which provide weapons and more to armed groups in Syria, invited to Montreux?
 
   Also, where are the Kurds?  Those who actually control territory in the north, Rojava, are not part of Ahmad al Jarba's turkey-based Syrian Coalition, and were not separately invited to the talks. What about theirdismay? We'll have more on this.

   On January 20, Inner City Press asked Iran's Ambassador about Ban's dismay or disappointment. Video here.

 Outside the UN Security Council later on January 20, Inner City Press asked Iranian Permanent Representative to the UN Khazaee about Ban having been "dismayed" by the Iranian foreign ministry's spokesperson's comments.

  Kazaee replied, "I think all of you are very well aware about the consistency in our position about G2, so the high political officials are expected to act based on realities."

   Yes, realities: minutes after Ban's spokesperson's disinvitation announcement, Jarba's Syrian Opposition Coalition returned to the position voted on with 44 members absent: they will attend the talks in Switzerland.

  Earlier, after Ban's spokesperson's statement Iran's Khazaee said (and his spokesperson sent to Inner City Press) --

"The   Islamic Republic of Iran appreciates the efforts of the UN Secretary General and his special envoy, Mr. Brahimi in finding a political solution for Syrian crisis. Iran has always been supportive of finding a political solution for this crisis.  

"However the Islamic Republic of Iran does not accept any preconditions for its participation in Geneva II conference. If the participation of Iran is conditioned to accept Geneva I communique, Iran will not participate in Geneva II conference."

  After that arrived, Inner City Press asked Syrian Permanent Representative Bashar Ja'afari about Iran's statement. He replied, "My sincere advice, don't waste your time on this issue -- they will be there."  Then he went into the Security Council, where Syria is listed as the 35th of 47 speakers on the Middle East, with Iran 39th.  What will they say? Watch this site. 

 At 12:30 pm on January 20, Inner City Press asked Nesirky if Ban is equally dismayed at the Syrian National Coalition's spokesperson calling Ban's bait and switch invite "immoral, even in politics."  Nesirky declined to specifically express dismay at this comment, only saying that a number of comments have been disappointing.  "This one?" Nesirky would not answer.

  Given the SNC's 2 pm ultimatum on Ban to disinvite Iran, Inner City Press asked Nesirky if the invitation to the SNC was the only one to non-Assad Syrians, or if for example Kurds could be invited. Nesirky said: one unified delegation. Hardly -- 44 members of the SNC already dropped out before the vote to attend. What would the vote count be now?

Before the Middle East meeting of the UN Security Council on January 20, the Permanent Representatives of France, the UK and Russia spoke to the press about Iran being invited to the Syria talks beginning in Montreux January 22.

  Ambassador Gerard Araud of France, which Bashar Assad called a proxy state of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, said the ball is in the court of Iran, to explicitly accept Geneva I. The UK's Mark Lyall Grant said the UK position is that Iran must clarify, publicly, that it accepts Geneva I.

  Others ask why should Iran accept a communique of Geneva I to which it was not invited. Others say Iran does in its way accept the communique - it just interprets it differently.

  Russian Permanent Representative Vitaly Churkin said "of course" the US had been consulted before Iran was invited. If the SNC now does not attend, Churkin said, it would be a "big mistake."

   Ban Ki-moon went into the Security Council suite with a big entourage; there was a time he was not on UNTV in the chamber. Inner City Press can report that UNTV technicians were asked to pipe in a feed of the public meeting into a side room. There was talk of Ban's selective meetings, using the code name EU P2. 

  The Istanbul based Syrian National Coalition set a deadline of 2 pm in New York on January 20 for the invitation to be rescinded. 

  Soner Ahmed, an SNC spokesman, said Ban "waited to invite Iran until after the coalition’s decision to attend the conference. That is immoral, even in politics."

    Ban previously met with the SNC's Ahmad al Jarba in Ban's UN provided residence; when the Free UN Coalition for Access asked why it had not been on his schedule, the meeting was called personal.  Now, things have really gotten personal.

  Among UNanswered questions is whether the SNC would or would have brought any Kurdish representatives, and why or whether the Kurds will not now be invited.

  Saudi Arabia shot back at the invitation of Iran by saying they should not attend because it "has military forces in Syria." But doesn't Uganda have fighting forces in South Sudan, while being a member of "mediator" IGAD? UN-consistency.

   Ban made his Iran invitation announcement in a hastily thrown togetherpress conference held Sunday evening in an nearly empty UN building, on barely an hour's notice.

Nevertheless, Ban's spokesperson automatically gave the first question to the United Nations Correspondents Association, a partisan group which for example held a faux "UN briefing" for Ahmad al Jarba of the Turkey-based Syrian Coalition. Click here for Inner City Press story on that.

Ban Ki-moon dodged and did not answer on the weakness of Jarba's Coalition, from which over 40 members decided not to attend the vote approving attended at the talks in Switzerland. Nor until the end of this press conference did Ban mention the inclusion of women. Has he asked Jarba about that?

  Ban said he spoke with Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif, who "committed to play a constructive and positive role." Ban repeated this line when asked about the litmus test of accepting that Geneva II is about Geneva I which was about "establishing a transitional governing body with full executive powers" -- on mutual consent, whatever that means.

  Ban also announced supplemental invitations to Montreux for, among others, Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands and, yes, South Korea.

  It was at 4:21 pm that the UN sent out an email that Ban would appear for a "brief and important statement" in the UN at 5:30 pm. When that time arrived, the so-called UNCA chair (or "Holy Seat") on which the UN has affixed a metal tag was filled -- and from that seat a complaint was made to try to get another correspondent moved. 

  UNCA's president Pamela Falk of CBS was not there; nor was her first vice president, who nonetheless was heard to call into the room. It is time to end the practice of the UN automatically giving the first question toUNCA - a group of which executive committee members tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN (and to get leaked documents removed from Google's search under a specious DMCA filing by Reuters' bureau chief) and which has not reformed in any way since then.

The Free UN Coalition for Access additionally asks why this announcement was made this way. There is more and more staging at the UN, faux Q&A and UNTV footage put out hoping it will be used as B roll. The UN should be more transparent, less of a scam. We'll have more on this.