On Syria Chemical Weapons, Sellstrom Says Zamalka Range 2 Kilmeters, Khan al Asal Video Was Popova's

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 13 -- The day after Åke Sellström handed his second and final report on Syria chemical weapons to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, he appeared to take press questions.

Inner City Press asked him and fellow panelists Scott Cairns of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and Dr. Maurizio Barbeschi of the World Health Organization three questions:

1) to estimate the range of the rockets fired on Zamalka, 2) to respond to allegations that the rocket they examined in Moadamiya was filmed elsewhere, and 3) if the video they reviewed about Khan al Asal was that of Russian journalist Anastasia Popova.

Sellstrom confirmed it was Popova's -- click here for Inner City Press' previous coverage -- and said he wasn't aware of allegations that the rocket they examined in Moadamiya was filmed elsewhere (see sample YouTube here).

On Zamalka, he offered a range of two kilometers, but said it is unclear as to how much it weighed and what it was filled with.

Later, Maurizio Barbeschi of WHO said that the UN Human Rights Council could be a venue to rule on WHO used chemical weapons. Angela Kane cites as other precedents the inquiry into the killing of Benazir Bhutto and the Hariri Tribunal.

  Kane said if a private lawyer asked for the samples to sue, she would have to consult the UN Legal Counsel. Inner City Press notes that this UN Counsel refused to even accept service of court papers about the UN bringing cholera into Haiti, killing more than 8000 people.

Some marveled that there has been no mechanism at all on the killing of 40,000 civilians in Sri Lanka in 2009. Rights Up Front? Only sometimes, in some cases. Watch this site.

   

Amid Diplomacy & Double Standards at UN, Fond Farewell to India's Deputy Permanent Representative Manjeev Singh Puri

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 13 -- Amid the chaotic whirl of the UN's diplomatic holiday party season, some farewells cannot be missed. Thursday night's for India's Deputy Permanent Representative Manjeev Singh Puri was one such event.

  There were hurdles to surmount: his goodbye meeting with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, listed for 4:40 pm, was postponed for a photo op of Ban receiving Ake Sellstrom's second Syria chemical weapons report (Ban took no questions). Manjeev said bye to Ban at 5:40; Ban but not bloggers later appeared at the Bahrain national day.

  Then, crossing Second Avenue to the Indian mission on 43rd Street, an African Permanent Representative told Inner City Press he was supposed to "go to Francophonie first" -- but decided "Manjeev is more important." Despite other actual superpower events, this priority was shared.

  Inside the Indian mission, Under Secretaries General like from the Department of Political Affairs (recounting travels in Syria before his Lebanon posting for the US government made this no longer comfortable) and other African Permanent Representatives noshed on spicy meat rolls.

  Making an appearance was Hardeep Singh Puri, heading back to India, and his successor as Permanent Representative Asoke Mukerji. Manjeev's successor, who he's been showing around the UN, was there: B.S. Bishnoi.

  Afghanistan's Zahir Tanin told Inner City Press that from his perspective, the Inter Governmental Negotiation on Security Council reform held earlier in the day had gone better than expected. 

  As Inner City Press note, it began with less the forty countries signed up, down from a previous ninety, due to dissatisfaction with President of the General Assembly John Ashe's Advisory Group of six and their recent "non-paper" supplemented by a memo from San Marino's Permanent Representative Daniele Bodini, one of Ban Ki-moon's golf partners.

Recently another Permanent Representative went to ask how he, too, could golf with Ban and was told he'd have to find out which clubs to join. That too is how the UN goes, double standards everywhere -- but with Manjeev Singh Puri going, some laughter and sharp analysis will be lost. Watch this site.

   

UN's Second Syria Chemical Weapons Report, on Which Ban Ki-Moon Declines Qs, Says Never Got to Khan al Asal, Mentions Popova Video

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 12 -- When UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon accepted Ake Sellstrom's second report on Syria chemical weapons on December 12, unlike the first he did not call it overwhelming. 

  When asked, he declined to answer any question about it (and declined a separate question about the reported execution in North Korea). Inner City Press video here.

  It was Syria which first invited the UN to investigate chemical weapons there, the Khan al Asal incident. Later a Russian television reporter Ms. Anastasia Popova said she had video, and Inner City Press asked about it. It was provided, and is mentioned in Sellstrom's second report, but no more than that.

  Sellstrom's report says they never got to Khan al Asal. The report is online here; after it was up, the filler text on UN Disarmament's web site was still a Latin quote about pleasure and pain. 

  Ban will brief the General Assembly about it on December 13, and the Security Council on December 16, when he says he'll take press (or Press?) questions. His spokesperson took only one Inner City Press question on Thursday, and Friday's by no means certain. 

  After reporting the delay on November 28, US Thanksgiving, Inner City Press waited until November 29, a UN work-day (albeit with no noon briefing), to ask Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokespeople in writing:

"Please confirm that Ake Sellstrom's second report on chemical weapons in Syria, including in Khan al Asal, will be finished on December 13, as reported on Swedish government website: http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/495 From the UN's perspective, is the 13th still "early December"? Relatedly, please explain in detail the reason for delay from the initial projection of "late October." Also, why was it the Swedish government and not the UN that announced this new completion date?"

Here was the UN's response to Inner City Press:

Subject: Your questions for Friday
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:42 PM
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com

Regarding the questions you asked by email, the Spokesperson has the following to say:

On the report by Ake Sellstrom's team, the date for the issuance of the final report of the investigation into allegations of the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic has been delayed as additional analytical work has been required. The results of this analysis are expected in the next few days and the report finalised thereafter. The issuance of the final report is expected to be in the middle of December.

  When Inner City Press last asked, the UN said without explanation it had been delayed into "early December"? Video here and embedded (second) below.

  As to the 13th, the question was why didn't the UN announce it? The UN canceled its noon briefing on November 27 for a "stakeout" at which Secretary General Ban Ki-moon took only two insider questions, none on Syria (or the increasing corporate domination of by the UN, most recently by Bank of America and even Shell.)

  On December 11 Ban's spokesperson Martin Nesirky was asked (by Inner City Press) about the December 13 date, and replied that it would be the UN's decision. Then on December 12 he said it would be in the afternoon -- then would not accept even a second question, instead taking four from the same journalist.  For the photo op, one must arrive a full 55 minutes early.

   The UN's chemical weapon team under Ake Sellstrom first went to Syria to look into Khan al Asal, where Syria said rebels used sarin gas. But once in Damascus, the team shifted its focus to a later, August 31 incident in Al Ghouta.

It reported quickly on that, then returned to Syria -- ostensibly, to look into Khan al Asal and other locations. On September 30, UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky announced that 

"the team of chemical weapons investigators led by Professor Ake Sellström, which was in Syria to investigate allegations of the use of chemical weapons there, has just left the country after completing its six-day mission. The team will now move to the phase of finalizing its report, which the team hopes will be ready by late October."

Even then, on October 4, Inner City Press asked about limitations on that visit, including not visiting Khan al Asal: (Video here)

Inner City Press: Khan al-Asal, without any disrespect, I just wanted a simple answer why the UN never went to Khan al-Asal. I read it a number of times; maybe I am being dense, but was it that it they couldn’t get there? Was it was too deteriorated? I am not suggesting those are the reasons, I just wanna know what the reason is.

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, it does say, not in that particular part that you have in front of you; it does say on 30 September, that transcript from Monday, or let’s be clear about it: I said there are a number of reasons, potential reasons. And one of those includes that with the passage of time, it becomes… I don’t think you expect me, I know you are reading what I said, you don’t think you’d expect me to say exactly what I said on Monday?

Inner City Press: I am asking you a substantive question; what would you say to those who say it’s a shame if the request, the initial request to go to Syria was to visit this one place... it seems to cry, to call out for an answer of why what was initially requested was not done.

Spokesperson: Right, right, so, listen: As I have said, as I have said here a number of times, there are a number of factors why it was not possible or feasible to go. And one of those is that with the passage of time, there is a deterioration of the material that could be used for sampling, and, therefore, to help decide whether chemical weapons were used or not. But as I also said, there is a portfolio of different ways that the team, the investigation team, can gather evidence and try to determine at a distance whether chemical weapons were used. That’s one of the possible constraints. Another is obviously security. And with regard to the broader question about the passage of time, everybody knows that it was not for want of trying that the team did not get there until August. As you well know from March, there was extremely hard work done on both sides — meaning the Syrian authorities and the United Nations in the form of the Office for Disarmament Affairs — to make this work. It was not easy. And that’s been plainly said by any number of people, including the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs. But the fact of the matter is that everyone persevered because there was an interest to get in. And eventually, they were able to get in and they were able then to determine that chemical weapons had indeed been used in that incident on 21 August; and they furthermore have continued both outside and then, on a subsequent visit to Syria that ended on Monday, to gather material so that they can present a final report at the end of this month.

When October 31 arrived without any report, Inner City Press went to the UN's noon briefing and asked about the status of Sellstrom's report (video here)

Inner City Press: on Syria and chemical weapons, since it is now the end of October, I wanted to ask for a status update of the second Sellström report on Khan al-Asal, on the other sites, where does this stand?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, you’re right it’s 31 October, trick or treat. So Professor Sellström is working on the final report in coordination with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and World Health Organization experts who were part of the UN mission. A number of samples are still being analysed by the designated laboratories and the results are expected to be provided to the UN Mission early next week. The final report is expected to be finalized in early December, after all information gathered by the UN mission has been evaluated. Other questions, please.

So why, after the speed up of Sellstrom's report into al Ghouta, which Ban Ki-moon declared to be "overwhelming" before he even saw it, has his reporting including Khan al Asal been delayed for more than a month -- and then to December 12? That has still not been answered. Watch this site.

   

UN Delayed Its 2d Syria Chemical Weapons Report, Now Moves It Up a Day Before Sweden Said - Why?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 12 -- Why is the  the UN so proud that its delayed second chemical weapons report by Ake Sellstrom, including on Khan al Asal, will be released December 12 instead of, as Sweden's government said, on December 13?

  The UN cut off questioning, but will allow photographs of the hand over. A Security Council diplomat told Inner City Press the report will go online "shortly," and the Council should meet about it next week.

  After reporting the delay on November 28, US Thanksgiving, Inner City Press waited until November 29, a UN work-day (albeit with no noon briefing), to ask Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokespeople in writing:

"Please confirm that Ake Sellstrom's second report on chemical weapons in Syria, including in Khan al Asal, will be finished on December 13, as reported on Swedish government website: http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/495 From the UN's perspective, is the 13th still "early December"? Relatedly, please explain in detail the reason for delay from the initial projection of "late October." Also, why was it the Swedish government and not the UN that announced this new completion date?"

Here was the UN's response to Inner City Press:

Subject: Your questions for Friday
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:42 PM
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com

Regarding the questions you asked by email, the Spokesperson has the following to say:

On the report by Ake Sellstrom's team, the date for the issuance of the final report of the investigation into allegations of the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic has been delayed as additional analytical work has been required. The results of this analysis are expected in the next few days and the report finalised thereafter. The issuance of the final report is expected to be in the middle of December.

  When Inner City Press last asked, the UN said without explanation it had been delayed into "early December"? Video here and embedded (second) below.

  As to the 13th, the question was why didn't the UN announce it? The UN canceled its noon briefing on November 27 for a "stakeout" at which Secretary General Ban Ki-moon took only two insider questions, none on Syria (or the increasing corporate domination of by the UN, most recently by Bank of America and even Shell.)

  On December 11 Ban's spokesperson Martin Nesirky was asked (by Inner City Press) about the December 13 date, and replied that it would be the UN's decision. Then on December 12 he said it would be in the afternoon -- then would not accept even a second question, instead taking four from the same journalist.  For the photo op, one must arrive a full 55 minutes early.

   The UN's chemical weapon team under Ake Sellstrom first went to Syria to look into Khan al Asal, where Syria said rebels used sarin gas. But once in Damascus, the team shifted its focus to a later, August 31 incident in Al Ghouta.

It reported quickly on that, then returned to Syria -- ostensibly, to look into Khan al Asal and other locations. On September 30, UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky announced that 

"the team of chemical weapons investigators led by Professor Ake Sellström, which was in Syria to investigate allegations of the use of chemical weapons there, has just left the country after completing its six-day mission. The team will now move to the phase of finalizing its report, which the team hopes will be ready by late October."

Even then, on October 4, Inner City Press asked about limitations on that visit, including not visiting Khan al Asal: (Video here)

Inner City Press: Khan al-Asal, without any disrespect, I just wanted a simple answer why the UN never went to Khan al-Asal. I read it a number of times; maybe I am being dense, but was it that it they couldn’t get there? Was it was too deteriorated? I am not suggesting those are the reasons, I just wanna know what the reason is.

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, it does say, not in that particular part that you have in front of you; it does say on 30 September, that transcript from Monday, or let’s be clear about it: I said there are a number of reasons, potential reasons. And one of those includes that with the passage of time, it becomes… I don’t think you expect me, I know you are reading what I said, you don’t think you’d expect me to say exactly what I said on Monday?

Inner City Press: I am asking you a substantive question; what would you say to those who say it’s a shame if the request, the initial request to go to Syria was to visit this one place... it seems to cry, to call out for an answer of why what was initially requested was not done.

Spokesperson: Right, right, so, listen: As I have said, as I have said here a number of times, there are a number of factors why it was not possible or feasible to go. And one of those is that with the passage of time, there is a deterioration of the material that could be used for sampling, and, therefore, to help decide whether chemical weapons were used or not. But as I also said, there is a portfolio of different ways that the team, the investigation team, can gather evidence and try to determine at a distance whether chemical weapons were used. That’s one of the possible constraints. Another is obviously security. And with regard to the broader question about the passage of time, everybody knows that it was not for want of trying that the team did not get there until August. As you well know from March, there was extremely hard work done on both sides — meaning the Syrian authorities and the United Nations in the form of the Office for Disarmament Affairs — to make this work. It was not easy. And that’s been plainly said by any number of people, including the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs. But the fact of the matter is that everyone persevered because there was an interest to get in. And eventually, they were able to get in and they were able then to determine that chemical weapons had indeed been used in that incident on 21 August; and they furthermore have continued both outside and then, on a subsequent visit to Syria that ended on Monday, to gather material so that they can present a final report at the end of this month.

When October 31 arrived without any report, Inner City Press went to the UN's noon briefing and asked about the status of Sellstrom's report (video here)

Inner City Press: on Syria and chemical weapons, since it is now the end of October, I wanted to ask for a status update of the second Sellström report on Khan al-Asal, on the other sites, where does this stand?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, you’re right it’s 31 October, trick or treat. So Professor Sellström is working on the final report in coordination with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and World Health Organization experts who were part of the UN mission. A number of samples are still being analysed by the designated laboratories and the results are expected to be provided to the UN Mission early next week. The final report is expected to be finalized in early December, after all information gathered by the UN mission has been evaluated. Other questions, please.

So why, after the speed up of Sellstrom's report into al Ghouta, which Ban Ki-moon declared to be "overwhelming" before he even saw it, has his reporting including Khan al Asal been delayed for more than a month -- and then to December 12? That has still not been answered. Watch this site.

   

As US Proposes to Destroy Syrian Chemical Weapons Off-Shore, Procurement for First Stage? And Where Is UN's Trust Fund?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 30 -- After even countries pressured by the United States like Albania decided they could not host the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons, now the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons has announced that 

"the United States has offered to contribute a destruction technology, full operational support and financing to neutralise Syria’s priority chemicals, which are to be removed from the country by 31 December... Currently a suitable naval vessel is undergoing modifications to support the operations and to accommodate verification activities by the OPCW."

   If the ship is already "undergoing modifications," the plan is far along. But will it be US government personnel doing the destruction? Or some outside contractor yet to be announced?

  The OPCW itself has acknowledged it has procurement rules; it has referred to its chemical weapons trust fund. Inner City Press again on November 29 asked Ban Ki-moon's spokespeople where and when the information about the UN's trust fund will be published, a question still not answered.

  When Sigrid Kaag took questions at the UN in New York on November 5, Inner City Press asked her about the trust fund and she said it was important, it would be soon. Video here, from Minute 3:16. So where is it?

  Meanwhile, the UN on November 29 did confirm to Inner City Press what the Swedish government first announced: a further delay in Ake Sellstom's second chemical weapons report, including on Khan al-Asal, to December 13 (or as the UN puts it, "mid December" after having said "late October" then "early December"). Click here for that.

  The OPCW trust fund concludes that Director General Ahmet Üzümcü "invited Member States to also consider providing in-kind contributions by contracting companies to conduct destruction activities." Contributions BY contracting companies? Or TO these for-profit companies? Watch this site.

   

On Syria, UN Second Chemical Weapons Report by Sellstrom Now Delayed to December 13, Swedish Government Says - Why?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 28 -- Why has the UN's second chemical weapons report by Ake Sellstrom, including on Khan al Asal, now been pushed back from the end of October until December 13?

  And why has it been the government of Sweden, Sellstrom's country, and not the UN to announce it?

  The Swedish government web site says:

"On 25 November, Defense Minister Karin Enstrom kemexperten Ake Sellström the Defense Ministry in Stockholm. Sellström was in March asked the United Nations to lead an investigation of Syria in accordance with the Secretary General of the mechanism. The assignment was to investigate the chemical weapons used in Syria. The final report is planned to be presented to the UN on 13 December." Translation by Google, h/t

  When Inner City Press last asked, the UN said without explanation it had been delayed into "early December"? Video here and embedded (second) below.

  Is the 13th of a month still "early" in the month? Why didn't the UN announce it? The UN canceled its noon briefing on November 27 for a "stakeout" at which Secretary General Ban Ki-moon took only two insider questions, none on Syria (or the increasing corporate domination of by the UN, most recently by Bank of America and even Shell.)

   The UN's chemical weapon team under Ake Sellstrom first went to Syria to look into Khan al Asal, where Syria said rebels used sarin gas. But once in Damascus, the team shifted its focus to a later, August 31 incident in Al Ghouta.

It reported quickly on that, then returned to Syria -- ostensibly, to look into Khan al Asal and other locations. On September 30, UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky announced that 

"the team of chemical weapons investigators led by Professor Ake Sellström, which was in Syria to investigate allegations of the use of chemical weapons there, has just left the country after completing its six-day mission. The team will now move to the phase of finalizing its report, which the team hopes will be ready by late October."

Even then, on October 4, Inner City Press asked about limitations on that visit, including not visiting Khan al Asal: (Video here)

Inner City Press: Khan al-Asal, without any disrespect, I just wanted a simple answer why the UN never went to Khan al-Asal. I read it a number of times; maybe I am being dense, but was it that it they couldn’t get there? Was it was too deteriorated? I am not suggesting those are the reasons, I just wanna know what the reason is.

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, it does say, not in that particular part that you have in front of you; it does say on 30 September, that transcript from Monday, or let’s be clear about it: I said there are a number of reasons, potential reasons. And one of those includes that with the passage of time, it becomes… I don’t think you expect me, I know you are reading what I said, you don’t think you’d expect me to say exactly what I said on Monday?

Inner City Press: I am asking you a substantive question; what would you say to those who say it’s a shame if the request, the initial request to go to Syria was to visit this one place... it seems to cry, to call out for an answer of why what was initially requested was not done.

Spokesperson: Right, right, so, listen: As I have said, as I have said here a number of times, there are a number of factors why it was not possible or feasible to go. And one of those is that with the passage of time, there is a deterioration of the material that could be used for sampling, and, therefore, to help decide whether chemical weapons were used or not. But as I also said, there is a portfolio of different ways that the team, the investigation team, can gather evidence and try to determine at a distance whether chemical weapons were used. That’s one of the possible constraints. Another is obviously security. And with regard to the broader question about the passage of time, everybody knows that it was not for want of trying that the team did not get there until August. As you well know from March, there was extremely hard work done on both sides — meaning the Syrian authorities and the United Nations in the form of the Office for Disarmament Affairs — to make this work. It was not easy. And that’s been plainly said by any number of people, including the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs. But the fact of the matter is that everyone persevered because there was an interest to get in. And eventually, they were able to get in and they were able then to determine that chemical weapons had indeed been used in that incident on 21 August; and they furthermore have continued both outside and then, on a subsequent visit to Syria that ended on Monday, to gather material so that they can present a final report at the end of this month.

When October 31 arrived without any report, Inner City Press went to the UN's noon briefing and asked about the status of Sellstrom's report (video here)

Inner City Press: on Syria and chemical weapons, since it is now the end of October, I wanted to ask for a status update of the second Sellström report on Khan al-Asal, on the other sites, where does this stand?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, you’re right it’s 31 October, trick or treat. So Professor Sellström is working on the final report in coordination with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and World Health Organization experts who were part of the UN mission. A number of samples are still being analysed by the designated laboratories and the results are expected to be provided to the UN Mission early next week. The final report is expected to be finalized in early December, after all information gathered by the UN mission has been evaluated. Other questions, please.

So why, after the speed up of Sellstrom's report into al Ghouta, which Ban Ki-moon declared to be "overwhelming" before he even saw it, has his reporting including Khan al Asal been delayed for more than a month -- and then to December 13? That has still not been answered. Watch this site.

   

UNdisclosed: When Faux Syria Rebel Jarba Went to Ban Ki-moon's Home, What Role for DOJ-Filer Independent Diplomat & UN Charter?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 2 -- Why did UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon meet, last Saturday night at his UN-provided residence, with Saudi sponsored Syria rebel boss Ahmad al Jarba?

  It's a multi-part question Inner City Press has been trying to explore. Why did he meet with him at all? The answer, beyond that the US, France, Saudi Arabia and others wanted him to, appears to involve a race for relevance on the Geneva Two talks proposed for mid November.

  It may be that Jarba represents no one in Syria. But by hook or by crook his name has become known; it allowed Ban to issue a 106 word read out of his meeting, urging unity in Geneva.

  But why did Ban do the meeting in his residence? That answer may have become clear at the UN Security Council stakeout Wednesday morning. After questioning the Ambassadors of the UK and Luxembourg, Inner City Press asked Syria's Bashar Ja'afari about the meetings with Jarba. 

  Ja'afari said that such meeting "inside the UN" violated the UN Charter. So did Ban try to work around that?

Inner City Press went to Wednesday's UN noon briefing and asked Ban's spokesperson Martin Nesirky:

Inner City Press: just now at the stakeout, the Syrian Permanent Representative, [Bashar] Ja’afari, reiterated that meetings held inside the UN premises with someone like Mr. [Ahmed] al-Jarba violate the UN Charter. That’s his allegation. Since he used the sewords “inside the building," I wanted to ask you to respond to the idea: Is this one of the reasons that the Secretary-General met with Mr. al-Jarba at his residence? And I also wanted to know, since you said it’s his residence, we should understand it wasn’t in the UN Media Alert, it seemed like that same day there were photos taken by UN Photo of him going into the building and looking at papers, relaxed after a day of hard diplomacy. So, how is that consistent? What time did he meet with Mr. al-Jarba? And why was no photograph taken, as was taken with Mr. Sellström?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, I think we’ve already said the Secretary-General met on Saturday evening with Mr. al-Jarba and other members of his delegation and with Senior Advisers from the UN. And this took place at the residence for precisely the reason that I mentioned, that it was at the end of the day, it was arranged at relatively short notice, and so that’s the first point. The second point is simply this: that we’ve addressed the question of last week and that meeting that took place. I don’t have anything further to add to that.

  We are continuing to explore when, how and by whom the Ban - Jarba meeting was arranged.

  Research in public records by Inner City Press finds that on March 29, 2013, the "National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces" signed a contract with Independent Diplomat to "provide advice and/support to the Syrian Coalition on diplomatic communications (for example, letters to the UN Security Council), preparation for international visits and meetings, and assistance with drafting of speeches, aide-memoires, and other diplomatic materials)."

  This contract was filed with the US Justice Department on April 8, 2013.

  In July 2013, Jarba and his Coalition held a faux "UN briefing" in the clubhouse of the UN Correspondents Association, whose Executive Committee includes Pamela Falk of CBS as 2013 president, Louis Charbonneau of Reuters as apparently Permanent first vice president (he doesspy for the UN, click here), and representatives from Al Arabiya, Agence France Presse, the Saudi Press Agency (still), L'Orient Le Jour and others. (Ironically also Moroccan state media, though ID represents the Polisario Front.)

Two attempts by this UNCA executive committee to "score" (for) Jarba another faux "UN briefing" in UN Room S-310 during General Debate week were postponed and then canceled.

  The questions by the new Free UN Coalition for Access@FUNCA_info about the attempted briefing were never substantively answered. Here's another question: since ID to its credit did, should UNCA have to register?

  Jarba held an aborted briefing in the Intercontinental Hotel with ID representatives out in the hall. (In full disclosure, Inner City Press respects much of ID's work, but not this.) But then Jarba scored big with Ban Ki-moon. Did Independent Diplomat, given its contract, play a role? Why can't Somaliland, then, get a meeting with Ban Ki-moon? Watch this site.

   

Ban Ki-moon DID Receive Syria's Protest, Spox Tells Inner City Press, France's Jarba-Fest Going Forward Was Ban's Answer: Precedent

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 30 -- After UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued a read out of his meeting with Saudi-sponsored Syria rebel boss Ahmad al Jarba on Saturday, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesperson Martin Nesirky about Syria's urgent letter of four days previous.

  In that letter, a copy of which Inner City Press provided to Nesirky, Syria said that France's September 26 session with Jarba in the UN's ECOSOC Chamber violated the UN Charter.

  Nesirky replied that "the Secretary-General met with Mr. al-Jarba at his Residence this evening with a small number of the Secretary-General's senior advisers. The Spokesperson is not aware of any letter so far from the Syrian Mission on the topic you mention."

  Inner City Press sent follow up questions that Nesirky did not answer that day, or the next. So on Monday Inner City Press asked Nesirky about the letter, about why Ban's meeting with Jarba was not even in the UN Media Alert, and about France's September 26 Jarba-fest in ECOSOC.

  Nesirky said the meeting was put together quickly and was in Ban's residence. But, we note, when Ban met in his -- well, the UN's -- residence with his Syria chemical weapons envoy Ake Sellstrom, he made sure to have UN Photo there, to flash the front page of Sellstrom's report.

Then Nesirky said that yes, Ban HAD received Syria's letter, and that the French meeting going forward was the response.

Inner City Press asked if that means that any member state can now hold such a meeting inside the UN, declaring a rebel in (or out) of another state to be the sole legitimate representative of the other state's people.

Nesirky didn't answer that. But that's the question. Some say it's more and more clear who Ban Ki-moon works for, he doesn't even try to hide it anymore.

At the same noon briefing, Nesirky confirmed that while his office solicited expression of interest from journalists to cover the UN Security Council's trip to Africa's Great Lakes region, France was allowed to hand-pick which journalists would go.

Then Nesirky cut off and did not allow Inner City Press' follow up question on the legitimacy of this, saying others didn't want to hear about Inner City Press' travel plans. (He later refused without explanation to take an Inner City Press question about the Democratic Republic of the Congo.)

  When Ban's partner and Alliance the UN Correspondents Association held a faux "UN briefing" by Jarba in July, Nesirky refused to answer how that complied with UN rules, or the basis on which the UN gives UNCA a big clubhouse to hold such meetings (which included a Sri Lanka goverment film denying war crimes.) 

  No substantive answers -- but a threat by Ban's Department of Public Information to suspend or withdraw the accreditation of Inner City Press for daring to hang the sign of the new and alternative Free UN Coalition for Access@FUNCA_info on the door of its shared office, when Ban's UNCA has five signs.

There's more to say, but this is Ban's UN. Watch this site.