On Ukraine, UNSC Sunday Night Meeting Is Open, Taranco Not Feltman to Brief

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 13 -- Ukraine was listed as a mere footnote on the April agenda of the UN Security Council. But now an emergency consultation has been called for 8 pm on Sunday, April 13, at the request of Russia.

  Inner City Press arrived at the Security Council at 7 pm and was reliably informed that there will be an open meeting, and a briefing by UN Assistant Secretary General Taranco (and not Under Secretary General Feltman, who traveled to Ukraine with Ban Ki-moon when he met the leader of the Svoboda Party, and stayed behind for days. (That the meeting will be open was later confirmed by the UN.)

   Still, just before 7 pm there were only three cars parked in front of the UN, and no UNTV at the stakeout, where Inner City Press understands that Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin will "probably" speak after the meeting. Will Ukraine's Ambassador Yuriy Sergeyev, who used to represent Yankukovych, also come to speak?

  It was only Friday April 11 when Sergeyev was slated to give a talk promoted by UN scribes  at Rutgers University in Newark entitled "Seeing Through the Spin: Sorting Fact from Fiction in Public Information." There should be much spin at the UN on Sunday night. 

   While UN deputy human rights official Ivan Simonovich's report on Ukraine is slated to be heard, also behind closed doors, on April 15, the UN Secretariat didn't announce it would send any briefing to the Sunday night fight session. Then again, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon spoke on another topic, Western Sahara, with Morocco's King on Saturday but the UN refused to give a read-out, click here for that. Watch this site.

  Back on March 30 it was midnight in Paris when US Secretary of State John Kerry came to take two questions from two media about his meeting with Russia's Sergey Lavrov. One of the two asked about Palestine, Israel and prisoners. That, Kerry declined to answer, saying only that he spoke with Benyamin Netanyahu fifteen minutes before.

   Kerry was asked what was said about the "Russian troops." He replied those troops are on Russian soil, so it's not about legality. To some, this implies that Crimea, or at least Russian presence there, is off the table.

   On Crimea, as if in a parallel universe the UN Security Council will hold an "Arria formula" meeting on March 31 featuring a Crimean Tatar and a journalist from Crimea, organized by Council member Lithuania, it was confirmed to Inner City Press.

   Tatar leader Mustafa Jemilev has been calling for another referendum in Crimea.  This meeting comes a day after US Secretary of Stat John Kerry and Russia's Sergey Lavrov meeting at the Russian Ambassador's residence in Paris. While the US talked Crimea, Russia moved on to Moldova.

   Russia's read-out of Putin's call to Obama raised the latter issue and was silent on the former. Much was made of this by talking heads on US Sunday morning shows.

   Perennial David Gergen mocked Kerry for turning his plane around to meet with Lavrov, asking rhetorically if this is the promised diplomatic isolation. A pair of Michaels, Hayden and Morell, mused about a commitment for Ukraine not to join NATO, or even the European Union. But what about the IMF deal?

  Soon to be former elected official Mike Rogers, headed to talk radio, went beyond dark talk of a land bridge to Moldova to speculate about Russia moving from South Ossetia to Armenia. He's running for the Republican Presidential nomination, it seems.

   On March 28 while at the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon took selective questions from the press about Ukraine (and Venezuela), the US White House issued a read-out of a call between President Barack Obama and Russia's Vladimir Putin, here.  Russia issued a different read-out, here. So how relevant is the UN?

   Later a Senior Administration Official explained,

We’re not going to get into the details, but they discussed the latest iteration of a working document that Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov have been working on to de-escalate the situation, which has been the guiding concept of our approach.

As you know, previously we discussed general elements of an off-ramp, including: international monitors, pull back of Russian forces, and direct Russia-Ukraine dialogue - supported by the international community - taking into account the Ukrainian government's openness to constitutional reform and upcoming Ukrainian elections. Throughout this process, we have been coordinating closely with the Ukrainians, including on this diplomatic proposal.

And later still:

The U.S. de-escalation proposal was fully coordinated with the Ukrainian government, and responded to points raised in a March 10 Russian paper.  We are awaiting a response from the Russians.

  Back at the UN, Ban Ki-moon mentioned the word "radical."

  It was inevitable: as Inner City Press first reported, while in Kyiv Ban met with the leader of the Svodoba Party, adjudged as both racist and anti-Semitic and most recently beating up a television executive then getting the footage censored from YouTube via a bogus Millennium Digital Copyright Actcomplaint.

  In fact, on March 27 at the UN General Assembly stakeout Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin told Inner City Press Ban's meeting was "disturbing" and that he looked forward to an explanation in the March 28 Security Council consultations. Video here. (We hope to have more on this.)

  At the March 28 noon briefing Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq if Ban had known in advance that Svoboda's leader would be present, and if he would address it at the stakeout. Video here.

  Haq declined to provide anything more than the list of parties Ban met with, which was provided after Inner City Press repeatedly asked over two days.

   But when Ban came to speak after briefing the Council, the questioners chosen were AP, CBS (or, the UN's Censorship Alliance), Bloomberg and Voice of America. While noting as an aside that Voice of America tried ot get the investigative Press thrown out of Ban's UN, in a request to Ban's now-spokesman,click here, big picture, all four questioners selected by / for Ban were Western -- all US-based, in fact. Ban was not asked about the Svoboda meeting.

   Moments later, Inner City Press asked outgoing Security Council president for March Sylvie Lucas of Luxembourg about Ban meeting Svoboda. She said, among other things, that You should have asked the Secretary General.

  But how? We'll have more on this.

   On March 27 when the UN General Assembly voted on a resolution rejecting the Crimea referendum, it was far from unanimous. There were 100 countries for, 11 against and fully 58 abstaining.

  Afterward, Inner City Press asked Russia Ambassador Vitaly Churkin about citation in the meeting of Kosovo as a precedent, and about UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon having met the leader of the Svoboda Party.

  Churkin took issue with a high US official claiming there was a referendum in Kosovo, and expressed concern about Ban meeting with a party deemed among other things racist and anti-Semitic.

   Inner City Press ran, before 12:10 pm, to the UN noon briefing in order to ask these and other questions. But Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq had begun and ended the briefing before 12:09. 

   This contrasts to Ban's Spokesperson's Office having, for example in October 2013, delayed the noon briefing so thata(nother) country's speech could be covered, click here for that.

  When asked on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Accesswhat the Spokesperson's Office policy is, Haq said, "You want a policy where it's all about you." We'll have more on this.

  In the GA meeting beyond Kosovo, Nicaragua cited the Honduras coup as an analogy. St. Vincent's cited Grenada, saying the positions are reversed but abstaining because the Ukraine resolution is about the principals, not the principles.

  Uruguay cited Kosovo and also the referendum carried out in the Malvinas / Falkland Islands. UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant was in the room, and tweeted at; if there's a response we'll publish.

   Earlier it was 4:25 am in New York and Washington when theInternational Monetary Fund announced its preliminary agreement for a $14 - $18 billion loan program with Ukraine. 

 Inner City Press asked the IMF to confirm or comment on reports that the Ukrainian "increase the price of natural gas for household consumers by an average of 50%" is attributable to the IMF. 

  At the IMF's 9:30 am embargoed briefing, IMF deputy spokesperson William Murray read out the question then said that the program has five components, including energy sector reform.

  He said Ukraine will reduce subsidies to the energy sector, and that current prices in Ukraine are two to three times lower than in neighboring countries. He said, as it did to other questions, that responses were given in a press conference in Kyiv.

 In New York at the UN, a General Assembly meeting started at 10 am. Russia's Ambassador Vitaly Churkin recounted history and said radicals "called the shots" in the change of government. We've noted that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon met with the leader of the Svoboda party while in Kyiv.

  In Washington later on March 27 the US Congress is expected to act on a $1 billion loan guarantee to Ukraine, but not on the IMF changes the Obama administration requested. Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney issued a statement welcoming the IMF preliminary deal, concluding that "We also remain committed to providing the IMF with the resources it needs – in partnership with Congress – to provide strong support to countries like Ukraine as well as reinforcing the Fund’s governance to reflect the global economy."
  
  Two weeks ago on March 13, the day after several US Senators argued that International Monetary Fund quota reform would have to be approved by Congress to enable the IMF to meaningfully assist Ukraine, Inner City Press asked IMF spokesperson Gerry Rice if this is true. Video here, from Minute 12:05.

  Rice genially said several times that the question couldn't or wouldn't be answered while the IMF mission is “in the field” in Ukraine. He initially gave the same answer to Inner City Press' question that had nothing to do with Ukraine: is it true, as Russia reportedly argued at the most recent G-20 meeting, that quota reform could be accomplished without US approval, under some set of rule changes?

  Rice during the briefing repeated this could not be answered while the mission is in Ukraine. Later it was conveyed that the reform is not possible without US approval. The answer is appreciated: a benefit of asking in person. But Inner City Press (and the Free UN Coalition for Access) hope to make the online asking of questions work better from now on. 

 And on March 27, for example, IMF deputy spokesperson William Murray read out this question from Inner City Press:

"On Zimbabwe, please confirm IMF is re-opening its office and respond to Finance Minister Patrick Chinamasa saying part of the deal included cutting Zimbabwe's wage bill from 70 percent of the budget but this pledge will not be met, 'addressing it overnight would mean very drastic measures which I indicated to them (IMF) I am not prepared to take. That would mean retrenchment of civil servants.'"

  On March 27, Murray said he would not comment directly on what the Finance Minister said, but pointed to a press release we will add a link to.

  Back on March 13 in another non-Ukraine question, Inner City Press asked Rice about a book published earlier this week in Hungary, that the then-economy minister in 2011 told Goldman Sachs that the government would be going to the IMF for a program. Since much currency trading ensued, Inner City Press asked if the IMF has any rules limiting its government interlocutors from trading on or sharing insider information.Video here, from Minute 31:12.

  Rice said there are confidential provisions. But are those only for the contents of communication and not the existence of communications or negotiations? We'll see.

  

On Ukraine, Russia Calls UNSC Sunday Night Meeting, Of Spin & Sergeyev, Secretariat Silent?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 13 -- Ukraine was listed as a mere footnote on the April agenda of the UN Security Council. But now an emergency consultation has been called for 8 pm on Sunday, April 13, at the request of Russia.

  Inner City Press understands that Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin will "probably" speak at the UNSC stakeout after the closed-door meeting. Will Ukraine's Ambassador Yuriy Sergeyev, who used to represent Yankukovych, also come to speak?

  It was only Friday April 11 when Sergeyev was slated to give a talk promoted by UN scribes  at Rutgers University in Newark entitled "Seeing Through the Spin: Sorting Fact from Fiction in Public Information." There should be much spin at the UN on Sunday night. 

   While UN deputy human rights official Ivan Simonovic's report on Ukraine is slated to be heard, also behind closed doors, on April 15, the UN Secretariat didn't announce it would send any briefing to the Sunday night fight session. Then again, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon spoke on another topic, Western Sahara, with Morocco's King on Saturday but the UN refused to give a read-out, click here for that. Watch this site.

  Back on March 30 it was midnight in Paris when US Secretary of State John Kerry came to take two questions from two media about his meeting with Russia's Sergey Lavrov. One of the two asked about Palestine, Israel and prisoners. That, Kerry declined to answer, saying only that he spoke with Benyamin Netanyahu fifteen minutes before.

   Kerry was asked what was said about the "Russian troops." He replied those troops are on Russian soil, so it's not about legality. To some, this implies that Crimea, or at least Russian presence there, is off the table.

   On Crimea, as if in a parallel universe the UN Security Council will hold an "Arria formula" meeting on March 31 featuring a Crimean Tatar and a journalist from Crimea, organized by Council member Lithuania, it was confirmed to Inner City Press.

   Tatar leader Mustafa Jemilev has been calling for another referendum in Crimea.  This meeting comes a day after US Secretary of Stat John Kerry and Russia's Sergey Lavrov meeting at the Russian Ambassador's residence in Paris. While the US talked Crimea, Russia moved on to Moldova.

   Russia's read-out of Putin's call to Obama raised the latter issue and was silent on the former. Much was made of this by talking heads on US Sunday morning shows.

   Perennial David Gergen mocked Kerry for turning his plane around to meet with Lavrov, asking rhetorically if this is the promised diplomatic isolation. A pair of Michaels, Hayden and Morell, mused about a commitment for Ukraine not to join NATO, or even the European Union. But what about the IMF deal?

  Soon to be former elected official Mike Rogers, headed to talk radio, went beyond dark talk of a land bridge to Moldova to speculate about Russia moving from South Ossetia to Armenia. He's running for the Republican Presidential nomination, it seems.

   On March 28 while at the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon took selective questions from the press about Ukraine (and Venezuela), the US White House issued a read-out of a call between President Barack Obama and Russia's Vladimir Putin, here.  Russia issued a different read-out, here. So how relevant is the UN?

   Later a Senior Administration Official explained,

We’re not going to get into the details, but they discussed the latest iteration of a working document that Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov have been working on to de-escalate the situation, which has been the guiding concept of our approach.

As you know, previously we discussed general elements of an off-ramp, including: international monitors, pull back of Russian forces, and direct Russia-Ukraine dialogue - supported by the international community - taking into account the Ukrainian government's openness to constitutional reform and upcoming Ukrainian elections. Throughout this process, we have been coordinating closely with the Ukrainians, including on this diplomatic proposal.

And later still:

The U.S. de-escalation proposal was fully coordinated with the Ukrainian government, and responded to points raised in a March 10 Russian paper.  We are awaiting a response from the Russians.

  Back at the UN, Ban Ki-moon mentioned the word "radical."

  It was inevitable: as Inner City Press first reported, while in Kyiv Ban met with the leader of the Svodoba Party, adjudged as both racist and anti-Semitic and most recently beating up a television executive then getting the footage censored from YouTube via a bogus Millennium Digital Copyright Actcomplaint.

  In fact, on March 27 at the UN General Assembly stakeout Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin told Inner City Press Ban's meeting was "disturbing" and that he looked forward to an explanation in the March 28 Security Council consultations. Video here. (We hope to have more on this.)

  At the March 28 noon briefing Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq if Ban had known in advance that Svoboda's leader would be present, and if he would address it at the stakeout. Video here.

  Haq declined to provide anything more than the list of parties Ban met with, which was provided after Inner City Press repeatedly asked over two days.

   But when Ban came to speak after briefing the Council, the questioners chosen were AP, CBS (or, the UN's Censorship Alliance), Bloomberg and Voice of America. While noting as an aside that Voice of America tried ot get the investigative Press thrown out of Ban's UN, in a request to Ban's now-spokesman,click here, big picture, all four questioners selected by / for Ban were Western -- all US-based, in fact. Ban was not asked about the Svoboda meeting.

   Moments later, Inner City Press asked outgoing Security Council president for March Sylvie Lucas of Luxembourg about Ban meeting Svoboda. She said, among other things, that You should have asked the Secretary General.

  But how? We'll have more on this.

   On March 27 when the UN General Assembly voted on a resolution rejecting the Crimea referendum, it was far from unanimous. There were 100 countries for, 11 against and fully 58 abstaining.

  Afterward, Inner City Press asked Russia Ambassador Vitaly Churkin about citation in the meeting of Kosovo as a precedent, and about UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon having met the leader of the Svoboda Party.

  Churkin took issue with a high US official claiming there was a referendum in Kosovo, and expressed concern about Ban meeting with a party deemed among other things racist and anti-Semitic.

   Inner City Press ran, before 12:10 pm, to the UN noon briefing in order to ask these and other questions. But Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq had begun and ended the briefing before 12:09. 

   This contrasts to Ban's Spokesperson's Office having, for example in October 2013, delayed the noon briefing so thata(nother) country's speech could be covered, click here for that.

  When asked on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Accesswhat the Spokesperson's Office policy is, Haq said, "You want a policy where it's all about you." We'll have more on this.

  In the GA meeting beyond Kosovo, Nicaragua cited the Honduras coup as an analogy. St. Vincent's cited Grenada, saying the positions are reversed but abstaining because the Ukraine resolution is about the principals, not the principles.

  Uruguay cited Kosovo and also the referendum carried out in the Malvinas / Falkland Islands. UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant was in the room, and tweeted at; if there's a response we'll publish.

   Earlier it was 4:25 am in New York and Washington when theInternational Monetary Fund announced its preliminary agreement for a $14 - $18 billion loan program with Ukraine. 

 Inner City Press asked the IMF to confirm or comment on reports that the Ukrainian "increase the price of natural gas for household consumers by an average of 50%" is attributable to the IMF. 

  At the IMF's 9:30 am embargoed briefing, IMF deputy spokesperson William Murray read out the question then said that the program has five components, including energy sector reform.

  He said Ukraine will reduce subsidies to the energy sector, and that current prices in Ukraine are two to three times lower than in neighboring countries. He said, as it did to other questions, that responses were given in a press conference in Kyiv.

 In New York at the UN, a General Assembly meeting started at 10 am. Russia's Ambassador Vitaly Churkin recounted history and said radicals "called the shots" in the change of government. We've noted that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon met with the leader of the Svoboda party while in Kyiv.

  In Washington later on March 27 the US Congress is expected to act on a $1 billion loan guarantee to Ukraine, but not on the IMF changes the Obama administration requested. Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney issued a statement welcoming the IMF preliminary deal, concluding that "We also remain committed to providing the IMF with the resources it needs – in partnership with Congress – to provide strong support to countries like Ukraine as well as reinforcing the Fund’s governance to reflect the global economy."
  
  Two weeks ago on March 13, the day after several US Senators argued that International Monetary Fund quota reform would have to be approved by Congress to enable the IMF to meaningfully assist Ukraine, Inner City Press asked IMF spokesperson Gerry Rice if this is true. Video here, from Minute 12:05.

  Rice genially said several times that the question couldn't or wouldn't be answered while the IMF mission is “in the field” in Ukraine. He initially gave the same answer to Inner City Press' question that had nothing to do with Ukraine: is it true, as Russia reportedly argued at the most recent G-20 meeting, that quota reform could be accomplished without US approval, under some set of rule changes?

  Rice during the briefing repeated this could not be answered while the mission is in Ukraine. Later it was conveyed that the reform is not possible without US approval. The answer is appreciated: a benefit of asking in person. But Inner City Press (and the Free UN Coalition for Access) hope to make the online asking of questions work better from now on. 

 And on March 27, for example, IMF deputy spokesperson William Murray read out this question from Inner City Press:

"On Zimbabwe, please confirm IMF is re-opening its office and respond to Finance Minister Patrick Chinamasa saying part of the deal included cutting Zimbabwe's wage bill from 70 percent of the budget but this pledge will not be met, 'addressing it overnight would mean very drastic measures which I indicated to them (IMF) I am not prepared to take. That would mean retrenchment of civil servants.'"

  On March 27, Murray said he would not comment directly on what the Finance Minister said, but pointed to a press release we will add a link to.

  Back on March 13 in another non-Ukraine question, Inner City Press asked Rice about a book published earlier this week in Hungary, that the then-economy minister in 2011 told Goldman Sachs that the government would be going to the IMF for a program. Since much currency trading ensued, Inner City Press asked if the IMF has any rules limiting its government interlocutors from trading on or sharing insider information.Video here, from Minute 31:12.

  Rice said there are confidential provisions. But are those only for the contents of communication and not the existence of communications or negotiations? We'll see.

For Ukraine, US Says Continues IMF Talks, Imposes New Sanctions Including Related to Weapons: So, On French Mistral Warship Sale to Russia?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 17 -- The day after the Crimea referendum, the US White House announced new sanctions and held a background press call about it. 

  Self-described Senior Administration Official (SAO) 1 described sanctions on individuals in the Russian arms sector. One had and has to wonder: how does this relate to the sale of Mistral warships to Russia by US ally France? Inner City Pressasked at the State Department on March 14, click here for that.

  SAO 2 said the US can now impose sanctions on "Russian government cronies." Also on the list: Viktor Yanukovych. Another SAO offered "fun facts" about the referendum, including pre-marked ballots. It was repeatedly noted that the EU list of sanctions individuals, not to be publicly released until March 18, overlaps somewhat but is different from the US list.

  Notably, a Senior Administration Official said that "we" - presumably meaning the US, are moving forward with IMF negotiations. But what is the US' direct role in what the IMF says is an entire independent process?

  SAO 1 acknowledged this will impact the US' bilateral relations with Russia, noting the G8, but saying that Russia is "invested" in the Iran P5+1 process, and in the removal of Syria's chemical weapons. What about Afghanistan, the subject of the UN Security Council's meeting on March 17?

Going into the meeting, UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant said that the plan is to have a General Assembly briefing on Ukraine on March 20.

 Even as the Crimea referendum vote was taking place, US Senators returned from a whirlwind trip to Kyiv to appear on the US Sunday morning television shows.

   Senator Bob Corker R-TN said that the Obama administration created a "permissive" atmosphere that led to this; he slammed Secretary of State John Kerry's "wishy-washiness" and gifts with Sergey Lavrov.

    But in the Senate committee mark-up last week, Corker was all bipartisan sweetness and light. What changed?

  Also on Fox News Sunday, Senator Bob Menendez D-NJ insisted that for the International Monetary Fund to help Ukraine, the long-stalled reforms must be passed by Congress.

  But when Inner City Press put this question directly to IMF spokesperson Gerry Rice on March 13, Rice declined to confirm the connection. See video here, at from Minute 12:05.

   Over on CBS' Face the Nation, former US National Security Adviser Tom Donilon bragged how sanctions on Iran showed what could be done to pressure Russia.

  But on NBC's Meet the Press, Senator Jeff Flake R-AZ said it's going to be difficult to "reverse" Crimea with economic sanctions. 

   Here's something that should and will be pursued this week:France's continued sale of Mistral warships to Russia, even as its UN Ambassador Gerard Araud rails about Russia losing a rook and chess game in Ukraine. Who's playing games?

   On Ukraine, on March 15 after the UN Security Council vote on a US-drafted resolution calling the Crimea refendum invalid failed with Russia vetoing and China abstaining, Urkaine's Yuriy Sergeyov told the press there are Russian troops on the mainland.

    He said there will be more action next week, mentioning a debate on "revitalization," presumably of the UN General Assembly, aimed at the UN Security Council veto system.

  Little mentioned in Saturday's proceedings is that the US vetos resolutions on Israel, in settlements for example, and votes against non-binding resolution in the General Assembly about the embargo on Cuba, for example. 

   Sergeyev is deft, but he refused to answer a question about how the expansion of NATO impacts on this. "Don't provoke me," he said.

  The Free UN Coalition for Access objects to speakers at the UN picking which questions to answer. There are worse cases: France's Gerard Araud for example refused to answer on his country's sale of Mistral warships to Russia. Herve Ladsous of UN Peacekeeping went so far as to direct his spokesman to grab the UN microphone so a question couldn't be asked.  Video hereand here.

   The US to its credit in terms of a single standard has questioned, at least implicitly, the French Mistral sale to Russia. Inner City Press on March 14 asked US State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf about the sale:

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. Video here, from Minute 20:13.

  Operative Paragraph 5 of the vetoed resolution, which even the UK Mission to the UN put online before the UN itself did, provided

"OP5 Declares that this referendum can have no validity, and cannot form the basis for any alteration of the status of Crimea; and calls upon all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any alteration of the status of Crimea on the basis of this referendum and to refrain from any action or dealing that might be interpreted as recognizing any such altered status"

  So, the Crimea resolution scheduled for March 16 would have no validity. But, as Russian foreign minister Lavrov asked in London on March 14, couldn't the same be said of the French-organized referendum splitting Mayotte from the Cosmoros?

   Inner City Press asked US State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf about both the resolution and the Mayotte analogy on March 14. From the US transcript:

Inner City Press: on Ukraine, there’s talk of the Security Council resolution – seems pretty clear that Russia would veto it, but there’s some discussion of trying – is it the U.S.’s intention to try to get a vote on a resolution declaring the referendum illegal before Sunday?

And also, Lavrov mentioned, and also Churkin as well, this example of Mayotte. They used – I mean, they’ve come up with different examples – Kosovo and others – but one in particular. Both of them raised an island of Comoros where France organized an referendum to break Comoros off – to break Mayotte off from Comoros, and said that this wasn’t authorized by the UN or the African Union. So I just wondered – I mean, maybe you’ll slap it down, but what’s the response to their argument?

MS. HARF: Well, in general, I think that it’s very clear under Ukraine’s constitution that governs Ukraine how this kind of referendum legally could take place. And that would involve a country-wide referendum, basically relying on the premise that any decisions about Ukraine’s territory need to be made by all of the people of Ukraine. So setting aside any comparisons, there are very clear rules in Ukraine’s constitution, which is in effect, that lay out how this kind of referendum could take place. That’s not what we see here. So any comparisons aside, they just don’t have relevancy here.

On the first question, I don’t have anything on a potential Security Council resolution. We’ve been very clear that there will be costs. I don’t have anything to outline for you in terms of what that might look like, but we as the United States, independently, have a number of tools at our disposal that we can use if and when we need to make clear those costs with this referendum going forward. Video here from Minute 18:34.

  Back on March 13 when Churkin took the Council floor he had a flourish of analogies: the US Declaration of Independence, the Falkland (or Malvinas) Islands, Puerto Rico, and the recognition by some of Kosovo without even a referendum, he said, only an act of the legislature.

   Churkin said that France organized a referendum to break Mayotte away from the Comoros, in violation of UN resolution and using their veto, he said. Click here for some background.

  Would French Amabassador Gerard Araud respond? 

  Of late at the UN, his spokesperson Frederic Jung has called only on friendly journalists; Araud refused for example to answer why France is still selling Mistral warships to Russia, and claimed that Navi Pillay has not reported that France put Muslims at risk in the Central African Republic. The jokes, some say, are getting stale.

   Speaking after former US, now UN official Jeffrey Feltman, Yatsenyuk said if Russia persists, no country will ever again give up nuclear weapons, as Ukraine did. 

 Yatsenyuk shifted into Russian to speak directly to Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, just as Ambassador Sergeyev has done.  But Russia wasn't listed to speak and reply until the 14th of 17 slots. After Luxembourg as Council President for March, the next three speakers were the US, UK and France.

  US Ambassador Samantha Power cited the draft UNSC resolution, but didn't opine if China might abstain rather than join Russia in a veto.

  When French Ambassador Gerard Araud spoke, the question in the air which he refused to answer is why France is going forward with the sale of Mistral warships to Russia. Rather than answer it, Araud made stale jokes about Kosovo. 

   While in Washington, Yatsenyuk said he knows the International Monetary Fund program is "not the sweet candy." Inner City Press covers the IMF and can only say: ask Greece.

  Here is video of the IMF's March 13 briefing, see Minutes 12:05 and 31:12.

  Asked about allowing any referendum in Crimea, Yatsenyuk said the legislature in Kyiv would have to permit it; he said there could be dialogue about increased autonomy from Crimea, on taxes and language rights.

  He was asked about Jihadis going to Crimea and he answered about the Tatars. He bragged that a deputy prime minister in the new government "represents the Jewish community."  But what about Right Sector?

  The US State Department announced for example that the Department of Defense will be giving Meals Ready to Eat or MREs to the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

   Over on Capitol Hill, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee marked-up the "Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014."

  Absent on jury duty, Senator Marco Rubio had a proposed amendment about the G8 and not invading your neighbor read out; it was agreed to.

  Senator Rand Paul proposed an amendment to remove loan guarantees and the International Monetary Fund from the bill. He said the loans would go to back Russia back and noted that the proposed IMF reforms would raise Russia's power in the IMF from 2.5% to 2.71%

  Senator Bob Menendez replied that the IMF wouldn't give a dime unlesss Ukraine commits to changes. Can you say, austerity? Paul's amendment failed.

  Senator John McCain proposed giving the President the power to sanction "corrupt officials" in Russia. This amendment passed.

  Senator John Barrosso R-Wyoming tried to add the export of liquified natural gas to Ukraine. Menendez replied that Turkey would block any import of LNG into the Black Sea. Others also opposed Barrosso's proposal, calling it out of order and subject to the jurisdiction of the Banking and Energy Committees. So it goes in Washington.

 On March 11, the US House of Representatives went late with speeches denouncing Russia.

 The longest was by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who recounted on the House floor history from 1941, how only because Hitler had to turn back to put down the revolution in Yugoslavia did he not conquer Russia but got stopped the month after.
  
  Rep Carolyn Maloney, Democrat of New York, said that Yanukovych had "a golden toilet." That Internet image has widely been discredited, but who's counting? She promoted an event at "Four Freedoms" park at the tip of Roosevelt Island.

  US President Barack Obama was in Manhattan at $32,000 a plate fundraisers, one including Mayor Bill De Blasio. Then Obama flew back to New York, where he will meet Ukraine's Yatsenyuk on March 12 at 2:45 pm.

   UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, on the other hand, is slated according to Bill De Blasio's scheduled to meet with De Blasio at 2 pm at City Hall. It is not in the UN's Media Alert, as was repeatedly requested by the Free UN Coalition for Access(whose member Luiz Rampelotto took this photo on March 12 of Ban, his head of protocol and US political guru Bob Orr).

   Earlier on March 11 in the US House of Representatives in DC, Ohio Democrat Marcy Kaptur recounted the suffering of Ukraine including under the Nazis; California Republican Ed Royce called for adoption of H.R. 499 before Yatsenyuk's arrival.

  But there was a call for yeas and nays to be counted, and debate shifted to a religious exemption for Obamacare. (Obama himself was headed to New York to raise money.)

  The US announced that

Tomicah Tillemann, Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State for Civil Society and Emerging Democracies will travel to Geneva, Switzerland, March 11-12, to represent the United States at the 12th meeting of the Governing Council of the Community of Democracies... The meeting will address a broad range of issues related to democracy including the status of freedom of association in the world, challenges facing human rights defenders, and current developments in Ukraine. Governing Council members will recognize Moldova’s graduation from the Community’s Democracy Partnership Task Force.

While in Geneva, Dr. Tillemann will participate in a number of events hosted by the CD’s working groups. These include an introductory meeting of the new Freedom of Expression Working Group and a panel discussion on lessons learned from Ukraine.

   Amid all this, there was some off-camera grumbling not only about impacted countries' unwillingness to impose sanctions, but in particular about France's continued sale of weaponry to Russia. 

  While France rails against Russian actions in Ukraine and the Crimea, it is in the midst of selling two Mistral warships to Russia for $1.4 billion.

  On March 10 when France's Permanent Representative to the UN Gerard Araud came to the Security Council stakeout to say how concerned he is, Inner City Press three times asked about the warship sale. But Araud refused to answer. 

  Araud's spokesperson Frederic Jung calls first on Agence France Presse, which did not ask the question about the warships. This is France's or Araud's deal: hard questions result in banishment; when Araud doesn't like a story or a quote, he threatens to sue. There was walk of (a lack of) freedom of the press in Crimea.

  If Araud wouldn't answer, might Delattre?

  Inner City Press asked UK Permanent Representative Mark Lyall Grant if in the Security Council's March 10 private meeting there was any discussion of what the US says are questions John Kerry has sent to Sergey Lavrov. 

  No, Lyall Grant answered. From the UK Mission transcript:

Inner City Press: Question on Ukraine.  Do you think there will be any opposition to Yatseniuk?  He has said publicly that he’s going to address the Council on the 13th.  How do you think that could play out?  And also the US has said that it has asked a series of questions to Russia and basically it said that it won’t travel there until these questions are answered.  I wondered did this come up in the Council and does it bear any relation, this process of putting questions to Mr Lavrov and the process inside the Council?

Amb Lyall Grant: On the question of putting questions to Mr Lavrov was not raised today.  Nor indeed was a possible visit by Mr Yatseniuk the Prime Minister of Ukraine.  But the Prime Minister is coming to the United States this week.  We understand that he does want to address the Security Council and we would fully support that and we hope that all member states would support it.

Some wonder of the relation between the two processes, and of the relevance. Lyall Grant added that the UK would support Ukraine's Yatsenyuk addressing the Security Council.

 Inner City Press asked Luxembourg's Sylvie Lucas about Yatsenyuk's statement he "will" address the Council on March 13. She replied, We will react when we receive such a request.

  The US has announced that Ukraine's Arseniy Yatsenyuk will meet with President Barack Obama on March 12; he has added he will address the UN Security Council on March 13. 

  But if UNSC Permanent Five member Russia does not recognize Yatsenyuk, can he? On Syria, France and others declared that Ahmad al Jarba is the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people. But he was confined to a Friends of Syria meeting down the hall from the Security Council, and before that a faux "UN briefing" with the UN's Gulf & Western media club.

   Yuriy Sergeyev has addressed the Security Council at least four times in the last ten days. But he was Ukraine's Ambassador under Yanukovych: he is automatically recognized. With Yatsenuk, it may be different.

   When the UN Security Council was debating Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the US problematized their representatives getting visas to come address the UN. The US can and will let in Yatsenyuk, into the country - but will Russia, into the UN Security Council?

   On March 7 with little fanfare, Ukraine's Ambassador Sergeyev went into basement Conference Room 3. Outside the sign simply said, "GRULAC: Grulac meeting [Closed]."

  GRULAC is the Latin American and Caribbean Group at the UN. Sergeyev told Inner City Press he is trying to brief each regional group. But why have it closed? 

   Inner City Press staked out the meeting, as upstairs the farewell of Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Martin Nesirky was partially held in the room the UN gives to the UN Correspondents Association, which has become the UN's Censorship Alliance.Bottoms up!

Ukraine's Yatsenyuk to Meet Obama March 12 - But UNSC March 13?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 10 -- The US has announced that Ukraine's Arseniy Yatsenyuk will meet with President Barack Obama on March 12; he has added he will address the UN Security Council on March 13. 

  But if UNSC Permanent Five member Russia does not recognize Yatsenyuk, can he? On Syria, France and others declared that Ahmad al Jarba is the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people. But he was confined to a Friends of Syria meeting down the hall from the Security Council, and before that a faux "UN briefing" with the UN's Gulf & Western media club.

   Yuriy Sergeyev has addressed the Security Council at least four times in the last ten days. But he was Ukraine's Ambassador under Yanukovych: he is automatically recognized. With Yatsenuk, it may be different.

   When the UN Security Council was debating Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the US problematized their representatives getting visas to come address the UN. The US can and will let in Yatsenyuk, into the country - but will Russia, into the UN Security Council?

   On March 7 with little fanfare, Ukraine's Ambassador Sergeyev went into basement Conference Room 3. Outside the sign simply said, "GRULAC: Grulac meeting [Closed]."

  GRULAC is the Latin American and Caribbean Group at the UN. Sergeyev told Inner City Press he is trying to brief each regional group. But why have it closed? 

   Inner City Press staked out the meeting, as upstairs the farewell of Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Martin Nesirky was partially held in the room the UN gives to the UN Correspondents Association, which has become the UN's Censorship Alliance. Bottoms up!

   Throughout the day the rumor grew that there would be another emergency meeting on Saturday, if only to further raise the profile of the issues. At Friday's noon briefing, Inner City Press asked the departing Nesirky again about the leaked EU - Estonia audio that the same snipers shot protesters and police.

  Nesirky again declined to comment on the audio, saying it may or may not be authentic (Estonia has said it is). But he said these seemed like the type of issues on which the UN's Ivan Simonovic will conduct "fact finding." We'll see.

   In terms of fact finding: in Crimea, how long was UN envoy Robert Serry held? By whom?

  A day after UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson told the media Serry was threatened and told to leave Crimea, got in his car which could not move, then walked to his hotel, the story was contradicted, or exaggerated. 

  Inner City Press asked Ukraine's Ambassador Yuriy Sergeyev about Serry. Sergeyev, at the UNTV stakeout, said that "Russian... kept him a long time." 

   Sergeyev added that Russians now come into Crimea pretending to be tourists, for example from Kazakhstan. He told a Russian reporter that the only movement of displaced people is to Western Ukraine.

  Inner City Press asked Sergeyev about the sanctions announced by the US in the morning, and how things are going with the IMF. Sergeyev said his government is getting "good signals" from the IMF, and that the sanctions announcements also "send signals." Then he went into the UN Security Council, where a meeting for members only, convened by the UK, was taking place. 

   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.