US Power Wanted Vote on DPRK March 1, Russia Got Some Accommodations

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 1 --  North Korea launched a rocket and satellite, a month after the Security Council tersely condemned the last test, and just before US football's Super Bowl.

  On February 25 in front of the UN Security Council, US Ambassador Samantha Power said, "There must be and there will be accountability for North Korea's actions." (But not for the UN's actions, apparently, see below).

 On February 29 (leap year), the following arrived on background:

"The United States has asked that the draft sanctions resolution on the DPRK be put in blue. We have requested that the Angolan presidency schedule the adoption for tomorrow after Security Council consultations on the March program of work, which will start at 3:00 p.m."

But then on March 1, this:

"Subsequent to the United States’ request to place the draft sanctions resolution on DPRK into blue and to schedule a Council vote for this afternoon, Russia invoked a procedural 24-hour review of the resolution, so the vote will be on Wednesday."

  On the afternoon of March 1, when the vote was to have taken place, Russia's ambassador Vitaly Churkin told the press, "Issues to take care of, we discussed them with the US delegation, I think they accommodated some of our concerns. Have they accommodated all of our concerns? not entirely. But you know, we are working for consensus of course.  You never get everything you want. It's very complicated text. It's a resolution that is necessary, which the Security Council need to adopt because of of certain challenges coming from DRPK. So we'll see what happens tomorrow."

Churkin didn't answer on the coal or fuel provisions; it was unclear but as to one individual he said, “He is not even in Russia. We are surprised he appeared there in the first place.”

   Inner City Press notes, in the annex of the weekend's draft, one Jang Song Chol, listed as KOMID's representative in Russia...

 At a UNSC wrap up session earlier on February 29, Spain as chair of the DPRK sanctions commitee said it hopes for adoption as soon as possible.

 After the February 25 meeting, Power emerged and described the proposed new sanctions. Inner City Press asked, any humanitarian carve-out for example on the aviation fuel ban? No answer. (Japan did answer, below). Power as fast transcribed by InnerCityPro.com:

"Today in response to the DPRK’s recent nuclear test and subsequent proscribed missile launch, the United States tabled a draft security council resolution that, if adopted, would break new ground and represent the strongest set of sanctions imposed by the Security Council in more than two decades.

Let me explain some of the resolution’s major provisions. The first time in history, all cargo going in and out of the DPRK would be subjected to mandatory inspection. For the first time, all small arms and other conventional weapons would be prohibited to be sold to the DPRK.

In addition, this resolution would impose financial sanctions targeting DPRK banks and assets, and ban all who use nuclear and missile-related items. Also for the first time, the Security Council would impose sectoral sanctions on the DPRK, limiting and in some instances banning outright exports from the DPRK of coal, iron, gold, titanium, and rare earth minerals, and banning the supply to the DPRK of aviation fuel, including notably rocket fuel. These measures would also ground DPRK flights suspected of carrying contraband; suspicious vessels carrying illicit items would be denied access to ports.

These sanctions, if adopted, would send an unambiguous and unyielding message to the DPRK regime. The world will not accept your proliferation. There will be consequences for your actions. And we will work relentlessly and collectively to stop your nuclear program. If adopted, and implemented fully, these sanctions would constitute a major increase in pressure compared to the Council’s previous actions on DPRK. They have broader scope, and target more of the DPRK’s pressure points. They also have unprecedented interdiction provisions to make sure the other provisions get enforced. Most notable among them is mandatory inspection of cargo to and from the DPRK.

In addition, these sanctions would make it much harder for the DPRK to raise the funds, import the technology, and acquire the know-how to advance its illicit nuclear and ballistic missile programs. For more than a decade, in spite of the international community’s efforts, DPRK has taken progressive steps toward its declared goal of developing nuclear tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles. The international community cannot allow the DPRK regime to achieve that goal. The United States will not allow that to happen."

  Inner City Press asked Japan's PR Motohide Yoshikawa the same question, if any humanitarian carve outs in the case of famine, for example. He said humanitarian concerns are "embedded" in the resolution, which he said he'd just seen.

 Could the US not have shared the draft with its UNSC ally Japan?

 French PR Francois Delattre, when asked on his way in what the strongest element in the draft is, said You will soon see. So he's seen it, but not Japan?

  And what of the pending free press outrage at the UN?

  As the UN Security Council's 11 am Sunday meeting began, French Ambassador Francois Delattre stood on the entrance steps making points in French and English. China's Ambassdor Liu Jieyi squeezed by the stairs and, when almost into the Council, turned and said, "We are greatly concerned, we are working with the Council." Video here.

After UN (formerly US) official Jeffrey Feltman briefed the Security Council behind closed doors, the Council agreed on a Press Statement, read out at the stakeout by Rafael Ramirez of Venezuela, President for February. Inner City Press tweeted a photo of the Press Statement, here; it says “the Security Council will adopt expeditiously a new Security Council resolution.”

  But on his way out, Russia's Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said, “We haven't seen a text at all.” He said Russia would like to see a re-start of the Six Party Talks abut that “currently the atmosphere is such that the resumption of those talks is unlikely.”

   In a three way stakeout (complete with one question each from US, Japanese and Korean media), US Ambassador Power cited Presidents Obama and Xi Jinping's phone conversation, saying “they agreed on the importance of  a strong and united international response to North Korea’s illegal actions, including through an impactful UN Security Council resolution.”

   South Korea's Ambassador Oh Joon said, “about the missile defense, as you know the Republic of Korea and United States announced yesterday an alliance decision to improve the existing missile defense system. As the terminology first, this is missile defense system, which is defensive in nature. And it shouldn’t worry anyone else because this is focused on North Korea’s provocations and predicated on North Korea’s provocations.”

Before the meeting Japan's Ambassador Yoshikawa said it is time to use the pressure, as fast transcribed by InnerCityPro.com:

Yoshikawa: Good morning. Thank you for coming on Sunday morning. We were very shocked at the DPRK has launched themissile despite the warning coming from many corners of the world. And thisis a clear violation of the past Security Council resolutions,  whether you call it a satellite or what. Using their missile technology is a clear violation of the UN security council resolutions, and it came after, four weeks after the nuclear test. So we hope that today the Council will make ourselves very clear that we cannot condone the acts, the violation of the Security Council resolutions by DORK. And it went over Japan, it landed near the Philippines. This is a clear threat to the lives of many people.

Q: You must be frustrated with China.

A: China was for more dialogue, I think. What we need is no longer the dialogue, but using the pressure to make understood the DPRK.

Q: What do you expect today?
A: We will be asking for expeditious, adoption of the robust Security Council resolution.

  Inner City Press has put the DPRK position online on Scribd, here.

  What about UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon? Last time he met with his senior advisers -- all male -- then issued a statement. Then on February 5 he told a UNA-UK audience in London how important gender empowerment has been to him.

  If Ban is in fact running for President in South Korea, how will this help him? And any shadow over the US Super Bowl? Any (early) question in the GOP debate? We'll be following this.

Back on January 6 after North Korea announced it had tested a hydrogen bomb, at the UN a Security Council meeting was called for 11 am. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon read a statement at the UNSC stakeout at 10:30 am, taking no question as usual.

 After 1 pm, Security Council President for January Elbio Rosselli of Uruguay emerged and read out a Press Statement below. Japan's Ambassador Motohide Yoshikawa spoke, and Inner City Press asked him of Ban's moves to visit DPRK. He replied that if such a trip emphasized UN resolutions including on human rights, it could be useful. Video here. But what WAS Ban's trip going to be about?

   Earlier, UNTV fed out B-roll of Ban meeting with his advisers -- Kim Won-soo and Jeff Feltman formerly of the US State Department, Vine here -- and Ban canceled a previously scheduled (also “no questions”) appearance that Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Accesscritiqued here.

Back on November 17, 2015 when Ri Hung Sik, Ambassador at-large of the Democratic People's Republic of Korean, held a press conference at the North Korean mission, he said that he had heard nothing, nothing at all, about UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon visiting North Korea, which Yonhap ascribed to a senior UN source.

Even when asked a leading question about a hypothetical Ban trip, Ri Hung Sik said Ban's UN would have to improve its relations with DPRK. Inner City Press is putting the audio online here, and embedded below.

 Inner City Press ran back to the UN and asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric, transcript here:

Inner City Press: here was just a press conference at the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) mission, and there their minister, Ri Hung Sik, asked about the Secretary-General's possible reported trip, said he's heard nothing about it at all and that there are many rumours on the internet.  He also said that this South Korean national security law that makes it illegal for South Korean citizens to speak positively of the DPRK… that's how he described it… should be looked at by the UN.  So I wanted to know, what is the Secretary-General's view of that law?  And if that's an accurate description, is he bound by it?

Spokesman:  I'm not aware of the law.  As far as Ban Ki-moon, he is the Secretary-General of the United Nations and is doing his duty as such.

   But why did Team Ban play it so coy on Yonhap's report? Now late on November 17, the UN has issued this more specific denial:

"In response to questions asked about a report from Xinhua and the Korean Central News Agency stating that the Secretary-General would be travelling to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea next week, the Spokesman had the following to say: The Secretary-General will not be travelling to the DPRK next week. He will be in New York most of the week and then travel to Malta for the Commonwealth Summit. From there, he will go to directly to Paris to attend CoP21. The Secretary-General has repeatedly said that he is willing to play any constructive role, including traveling to the DPRK, in an effort to work for peace, stability and dialogue on the Korean Peninsula."

  Before Inner City Press left the DPRK mission on November 17, it asked Ri Hung Sik for his view of UN Special Rapporteur Marzuki Darusman and when or if UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid will visit North Korea.

  Of Darusman, Ri Hung Sik said he met him only once, and that it seems Darusman does not speak his own words, or think his own thoughts. Of Zeid, he said the discussion is of technical cooperation, but no date was given. Video here.

   During the press conference, there was no question, as at a prior DPRK press conference, about Donald Trump...

On Paused Syria Talks, Inner City Press Asks 3 Why Kurdish PYD Excluded, 2 Answer (Russia and Venezuela), But France Walks Away

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 5 -- When the UN pulled the plug on the Intra-Syrian Talks, or merely as envoy Staffan de Mistura said pushed them back to February 25, de Mistura said that the UN "is not prepared to hold talks for the sake of talks" and concluded, "Mr. de Mistura will leave tomorrow to attend the London conference."

 On February 5, the UN Security Council met to hear from de Mistura by video, behind closed doors. Afterward, Inner City Press asked three of the Permanentn Representatives in attendance why the Kurdish PYD had been excluded from the talks.

 Security Council President for Febraury Rafael Ramirez of Venezuela said, Yes, this had been discussed. Russia's Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said since Kurds at 15% of Syria, they should be included - and that if Turkey supports Syria's territorial integrity, it should stop blocking the PYD.

  But after French Ambassador Francois Delattre speechified at the UNTV microphone and had taken two questions, Inner City Press asked quite audibly about the PYD. Video here.  Delattre's spokesman directed that the UNTV microphone be given to Reuters for a vague question, then Delattre said, C'est fini.

  Inner City Press asked again, loudly, about the PYD. Delatte walked away, indicating as he has before, I will have to get back to you. But he has not, for eaxmple on Burundi. Later Inner City Press heard rumblings about the use of Periscope -- see here for acts of Voice of America -- which, ironically, a number of Security Council delegations use and follow Inner City Press on. But what ABOUT the PYD? Watch this site.

On the way in, UK Ambassador Matthew Rycroft stopped and took five questions from four media, largely blaming Russia for the pause in the talks. Video here.

  Inner City Press tried asking, third time until it worked, what about the “petty procedural issues” that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had also blamed in his post-pause statement. A definition has yet to be given; Rycroft replied to Inner City Press' question on what the opposition should do on February 25 by saying that the opposition needs to be shown it is supported.

   For balance, Russia's Ambassador Vitaly Churkin was asked about this accusation and called it “in bad taste.” Churkin added, “They should blame those who support the terrorists. It's not a Russian escalation, it's intensified efforts by the government to fight the terrorists.”

 On February 4 in front of the UN Security Council, Inner City Press asked Rycroft's Deputy Peter Wilson what Ban Ki-moon meant by "petty procedural" and other issues stalling the talks. Video here, and see below.

 Later on February 4 the UN Mission of Venezuela, President of the Security Council for February, issued a statement that, on February 5 the Security Council will hold a meeting to evaluate the political situation in Syria after the talks were suspended for three weeks by the Special Envoy of the Secretary General Staffan de Mistura.

  Venezuela's Ambassador Rafael Ramirez said in his national capacity, “We are in favor of dialogue without any preconditions, and the most important thing is that the countries that have influence with the government or the opposition are committed to and confident in the negotiations.”

  Inner City Press asked Ramirez if Sudan will speak on the debate on sanctions on February 11; Ramirez said yes. On February 1 Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access (FUNCA) asked Ramirez to hold such Q&A stakeouts after closed door meetings: and on February 4, he did. Tweeted photo here.

  The UK's Peter Wilson said the London Conference is "our" (UK) focus, and to pay attention to the speech Ban gave. On that way to the UN Security Council stakeout, another country's diplomat told Inner City Press there would be a session with de Mistura on February 5.

  As Inner City Press was filming the Q&A with Wilson, the correspondent from Voice of America took two photographs... of Inner City Press' phone. The gola, we surmise for past and recent experience, may be to Ban filming and whole technologies at the UN Security Council stakeout and even elsewhere in the UN, which the old UN Correspondents Association has tried to do in the past.

 The new Free UN Coalition for Access (FUNCA) would oppose that - watch this site, and note that many Security Council delegations use Periscope, and the UN itself purports to promote social media.

  Notably, de Mistura's statement did not cast blame for the failure - but hours later, Reuters channeled a "senior UN official" it allowed to remain unnamed:

"A senior U.N. official told Reuters on condition of anonymity that de Mistura called a halt to the talks after Russia increased air strikes to help the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, undermining the negotiating process. 'I think the special envoy decided to suspend the talks because the (United Nations) did not want to be associated with the Russian escalation in Syria, which risks undermining the talks completely,' the official said."

  Reuters did not explain WHY it granted anonymity to this described "senior UN official." But since even this source said he or she "thinks" de Mistura decided, it called into question, what kind of source is this? UN Political chief Feltman, whom Reuters UN bureau chief has previously used, would not "think" what de Mistura decided. 

 But now Ban Ki-moon has said, or read, what the unnamed senior UN official said, albeit without naming any country, see below.

 Does Reuters grant (more) anonymity to Ban Ki-moon?

 At the UN in New York on February 3, Reuters' correspondent actively cut off Inner City Press questioning about UN corruption, saying "you're grasping at straws." Vine here, story here.

  Meanwhile the UN bureau chief promoted himself appearing at aVienna UN event, top-heavy with Reuters connections.

 On February 4, Ban said this:

"It is deeply disturbing that the initial steps of the talks have been undermined by the continuous lack of sufficient humanitarian access, and by a sudden increase of aerial bombings and military activities within Syria.  The focus on the people of Syria is also being lost amid petty procedural matters."

  Ban Ki-moon and petty? Say it ain't so.

Back on December 18 in the Lotte New York Palace Hotel, ministers Lavrov and Gentiloni, Fabius and Kerry passed through with entourages; UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon left early typically without answering any questions, as Inner City Press Periscoped andreported. Hours later, the draft resolution was agreed to, then adopted 15-0 by the UN Security Council, here.

 On December 26, the UN issued this for its envoy Staffan de Mistura:

"Further to resolution 2254 (2015) of the Security Council, unanimously adopted on 18 December 2015, United Nations Special Envoy for Syria, Mr. Staffan de Mistura, has intensified efforts towards convening representatives of the Syrian Government and the broadest possible spectrum of the Syrian opposition and others to engage in a political process leading towards implementation of the objectives and principles for a political solution to the Syrian conflict as contained in the Geneva Communique of 30 June 2012, and the Vienna Statements of 30 October and 14 November 2015.

"In line with the clear parameters outlined in Security Council resolution 2254 (2015), the Special Envoy intends to complete his consultations in early January, with a view to initiating intra-Syrian talks on a target date of 25 January 2016 in Geneva. He counts on full cooperation of all the relevant Syrian parties in this process. Continuing developments on the ground should not be allowed to derail it. The Special Envoy also relies on the continued crucial support of the International Syria Support Group.

The people of Syria have suffered enough. Their tragedy is now felt throughout the region and beyond. They deserve the full attention and commitment from all their Syrian representatives, who should now show leadership and vision to overcome differences for the sake of Syria."

 The day before, on December 25, on Syria UNRWA's spokesman Chris Gunness said:

"UNRWA welcomes any developments that could end the armed conflict in and around Yarmouk, and ease the inhuman conditions that Palestine refugees and other civilians are in Yarmouk continue to endure. Over the past three months, there have been persistent reports of negotiations for some form of truce or evacuation arrangement in Yarmouk.  These reports are credible and UNRWA is taking them seriously, although they have not been officially or formally confirmed, and details have been vague. There are several thousands of civilians living in deeply abject conditions in Yarmouk. As UNRWA is deeply concerned about their well-being, the Agency is seeking from the Syrian government further details of any negotiated arrangements that will affect the humanitarian situation of civilians in Yarmouk. In particular, UNRWA demands that any arrangements being negotiated in and around Yarmouk must include guarantees for a durable cessation of hostilities, for the protection of civilians, and for safe, uninterrupted humanitarian access for UNRWA and other humanitarian actors. UNRWA is redoubling its strong appeals to the Government of Syria and relevant actors to allow and facilitate humanitarian access to Yarmouk.  This is urgently needed to enable UNRWA to   deliver food, clean water, winter supplies,  healthcare,  and other humanitarian assistance and services to civilians in Yarmouk. UNRWA stands ready immediately to respond to the humanitarian needs of the entire civilian population of Yarmouk."

  Meanwhile the head of Jaysh al Islam Zahran Alloush was killed al Ghouta.

  Back on December 18 at the UN the US day ended in a bilateral meeting between Iranian minister Zarif and John Kerry -- a photo spray was canceled -- and a low key meeting on Iraq and Turkey that we asked about and reported on here.

  Kerry and Lavrov, joined by UN envoy Staffan de Mistura, held this three-question press conference. Kerry said the negotiations should begin in mid to late January (in contrast to the early January in the resolution). Lavrov said only the “patriotic opposition” should be involved in negotiations. Staffan de Mistura said very little.

  That Kerry's spokesman John Kirby, who ran the press conference, gave the second question to the Washington Post, and the third to Russian media, was perhaps understandable. But the first question, Kirby set aside for “Al Arabiya.”  The question quickly turned into three, after being branded for “UNCA,” now the UN Corruption Association, a group which sold seats with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for $6000 only earlier this week.

 We now add: UNCA gave one of its prizes, a free trip to Turkey, to one of its Vice Presidents, from Agence France Presse. Even Kellogg's prohibits its employees from competing for its prizes. But not UNCA, which ignoring the Iraq - Turkey meeting in the Security Council was trying to buy people with Prosecco on December 18, after selling seats with Ban for $6,000.

  Several other UN-based journalists -- not (only) this one -- complained afterward that the first question and attempted follow up were a “Saudi circus” which made the UN press corps look bad -- as did attempt to throw out certain journalists, photographers, from the front row at the beginning.

   Afterward a photo spray of a meeting between Kerry and Iran's Zarif was declared “by invitation only” and then canceled. In the Security Council, with very few journalists still at the stakeout, the US presidency began the meeting on Iraq's complaint against Turkey being in its territory. We'll have more on this.

After the vote inside the Council Lavrov said, “The unanimous adoption today on the Council has created a broad front on the basis of the UN Charter, on the basis of all of those who are pushing back against terror, including the Syrian army, [some] armed militias, parts of the Syrian opposition, and the Russian air forces, in response to the legitimate request of the Syrian government."

Inside as Nasser Judeh of Jordan spoke, UN TV cut repeatedly to Syria's Bashar Ja'afari, looking more and more skeptical. France's Fabius spoke briefly and left. Outside at the stakeout, talk turned to a Kerry press conference, open to all.

 Italy's Paolo Gentiloni, by contrast, scheduled a press availability only for Italian media. A wag from the Free UN Coalition for Access asked, Isn't Gentiloni the foreign and not interior minister? Isn't he running for a Security Council seat? We'll have more on this.

In the  hotel lobby in the late morning a Permanent Five member of the Security Council's spokesperson briefed a gaggle of journalists in the lobby amid hissed that it was “off the record.”

  There was a gingerbread model of the NY Palace hotel which, the sign said, took 300 hours to make. All that was lacking, one wag - this one - snarked on Twitter, was a little gingerbread Laurent Fabuis.

 Back that UN, the 1 pm stakeout by the EU's Mogherini was postponed and then canceled. The Security Council scheduled for 3 pm got pushed back to 4.  Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric if Ban had spoken, what would he have said? Vine here.

On December 17, the day before Syria talks resumed at the New York Palace Hotel in Manhattan, finance ministers spoke in the UN Security Council about cutting off financing for ISIS. French finance minister Michel Sapin spoke darkly of the use of pre-paid cards for the November 13 Paris attacks; Russia's Ambassador Churkin named two Turkish companies as involved in ISIS oil sale.

  Inner City Press asked Syria's Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari, who came to take questions at the Council stakeout, about ISIS' oil. He named Turkey, then want on to name Qatar and Saudi Arabia, slamming its “Sunni coalition” recently announced.

  When US Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, along with Sapin and the UK's George Osborne held a short press conference in the UN briefing room, Inner City Press hoped to asked Sapin about pre-paid cards, and Lew and Osborne about Bitcoin. But the question, just four, were limited to Reuters, the Wall Street Journal, the New York and Financial Times. So it goes.

   It seems there will be no Press access at the New York Palace; Ja'afari has said he will speak, at the UN, and whatever ISSG press availability there is should be at the UN, with a 3 pm meeting on December 18 scheduled. Watch this site.

Back on December 8, Inner City Press put thee questions to  Turkey's Ambassador Cevic. Video here.   Here's fast transcript byInnerCityPro.com:
Inner City Press: On Syria, do you think the Vienna process meeting should take place in New York on the 18th? Are you satisfied with the Saudi process for choosing the opposition?

Amb Cevik: The plans, I don’t know how fixed, I mean how clear it is, but we are making our preparations for the meeting.

Inner City Press: Are there any groups invited to Saudi Arabia that you think shouldn’t be part of the opposition delegation?

Amb Cevik: I think so far, in our view, they are working on the right concept. Let’s see if they succeed. Having a coalition group that would be able to take part in the process is one of the most important things.
Inner City Press: [Russia] said the group that killed their pilot should be put on the terror list. Do you have any view on that?

Amb Cevik: If they know the specifics, I don’t know. But to our knowledge, there was no terrorist organization, no extreme Daesh, Nusra, in that area. They are the Turkomens, and we know them, they are moderate people.

  This may be an issue. Watch this site.

UK Blames Pause in Syria Talks on Russia, Whose Ambassador Churkin Says That's "In Bad Taste"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 5 -- When the UN pulled the plug on the Intra-Syrian Talks, or merely as envoy Staffan de Mistura said pushed them back to February 25, de Mistura said that the UN "is not prepared to hold talks for the sake of talks" and concluded, "Mr. de Mistura will leave tomorrow to attend the London conference."

 On February 5, the UN Security Council met to hear from de Mistura by video, behind closed doors. On the way in, UK Ambassador Matthew Rycroft stopped and took five questions from four media, largely blaming Russia for the pause in the talks. Video here.

  Inner City Press tried asking, third time until it worked, what about the “petty procedural issues” that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had also blamed in his post-pause statement. A definition has yet to be given; Rycroft replied to Inner City Press' question on what the opposition should do on February 25 by saying that the opposition needs to be shown it is supported.

   For balance, Russia's Ambassador Vitaly Churkin was asked about this accusation and called it “in bad taste.” Churkin added, “They should blame those who support the terrorists. It's not a Russian escalation, it's intensified efforts by the government to fight the terrorists.”

 On February 4 in front of the UN Security Council, Inner City Press asked Rycroft's Deputy Peter Wilson what Ban Ki-moon meant by "petty procedural" and other issues stalling the talks. Video here, and see below.

 Later on February 4 the UN Mission of Venezuela, President of the Security Council for February, issued a statement that, on February 5 the Security Council will hold a meeting to evaluate the political situation in Syria after the talks were suspended for three weeks by the Special Envoy of the Secretary General Staffan de Mistura.

  Venezuela's Ambassador Rafael Ramirez said in his national capacity, “We are in favor of dialogue without any preconditions, and the most important thing is that the countries that have influence with the government or the opposition are committed to and confident in the negotiations.”

  Inner City Press asked Ramirez if Sudan will speak on the debate on sanctions on February 11; Ramirez said yes. On February 1 Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access (FUNCA) asked Ramirez to hold such Q&A stakeouts after closed door meetings: and on February 4, he did. Tweeted photo here.

  The UK's Peter Wilson said the London Conference is "our" (UK) focus, and to pay attention to the speech Ban gave. On that way to the UN Security Council stakeout, another country's diplomat told Inner City Press there would be a session with de Mistura on February 5.

  As Inner City Press was filming the Q&A with Wilson, the correspondent from Voice of America took two photographs... of Inner City Press' phone. The gola, we surmise for past and recent experience, may be to Ban filming and whole technologies at the UN Security Council stakeout and even elsewhere in the UN, which the old UN Correspondents Association has tried to do in the past.

 The new Free UN Coalition for Access (FUNCA) would oppose that - watch this site, and note that many Security Council delegations use Periscope, and the UN itself purports to promote social media.

  Notably, de Mistura's statement did not cast blame for the failure - but hours later, Reuters channeled a "senior UN official" it allowed to remain unnamed:

"A senior U.N. official told Reuters on condition of anonymity that de Mistura called a halt to the talks after Russia increased air strikes to help the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, undermining the negotiating process. 'I think the special envoy decided to suspend the talks because the (United Nations) did not want to be associated with the Russian escalation in Syria, which risks undermining the talks completely,' the official said."

  Reuters did not explain WHY it granted anonymity to this described "senior UN official." But since even this source said he or she "thinks" de Mistura decided, it called into question, what kind of source is this? UN Political chief Feltman, whom Reuters UN bureau chief has previously used, would not "think" what de Mistura decided. 

 But now Ban Ki-moon has said, or read, what the unnamed senior UN official said, albeit without naming any country, see below.

 Does Reuters grant (more) anonymity to Ban Ki-moon?

 At the UN in New York on February 3, Reuters' correspondent actively cut off Inner City Press questioning about UN corruption, saying "you're grasping at straws." Vine here, story here.

  Meanwhile the UN bureau chief promoted himself appearing at aVienna UN event, top-heavy with Reuters connections.

 On February 4, Ban said this:

"It is deeply disturbing that the initial steps of the talks have been undermined by the continuous lack of sufficient humanitarian access, and by a sudden increase of aerial bombings and military activities within Syria.  The focus on the people of Syria is also being lost amid petty procedural matters."

  Ban Ki-moon and petty? Say it ain't so.

Back on December 18 in the Lotte New York Palace Hotel, ministers Lavrov and Gentiloni, Fabius and Kerry passed through with entourages; UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon left early typically without answering any questions, as Inner City Press Periscoped andreported. Hours later, the draft resolution was agreed to, then adopted 15-0 by the UN Security Council, here.

 On December 26, the UN issued this for its envoy Staffan de Mistura:

"Further to resolution 2254 (2015) of the Security Council, unanimously adopted on 18 December 2015, United Nations Special Envoy for Syria, Mr. Staffan de Mistura, has intensified efforts towards convening representatives of the Syrian Government and the broadest possible spectrum of the Syrian opposition and others to engage in a political process leading towards implementation of the objectives and principles for a political solution to the Syrian conflict as contained in the Geneva Communique of 30 June 2012, and the Vienna Statements of 30 October and 14 November 2015.

"In line with the clear parameters outlined in Security Council resolution 2254 (2015), the Special Envoy intends to complete his consultations in early January, with a view to initiating intra-Syrian talks on a target date of 25 January 2016 in Geneva. He counts on full cooperation of all the relevant Syrian parties in this process. Continuing developments on the ground should not be allowed to derail it. The Special Envoy also relies on the continued crucial support of the International Syria Support Group.

The people of Syria have suffered enough. Their tragedy is now felt throughout the region and beyond. They deserve the full attention and commitment from all their Syrian representatives, who should now show leadership and vision to overcome differences for the sake of Syria."

 The day before, on December 25, on Syria UNRWA's spokesman Chris Gunness said:

"UNRWA welcomes any developments that could end the armed conflict in and around Yarmouk, and ease the inhuman conditions that Palestine refugees and other civilians are in Yarmouk continue to endure. Over the past three months, there have been persistent reports of negotiations for some form of truce or evacuation arrangement in Yarmouk.  These reports are credible and UNRWA is taking them seriously, although they have not been officially or formally confirmed, and details have been vague. There are several thousands of civilians living in deeply abject conditions in Yarmouk. As UNRWA is deeply concerned about their well-being, the Agency is seeking from the Syrian government further details of any negotiated arrangements that will affect the humanitarian situation of civilians in Yarmouk. In particular, UNRWA demands that any arrangements being negotiated in and around Yarmouk must include guarantees for a durable cessation of hostilities, for the protection of civilians, and for safe, uninterrupted humanitarian access for UNRWA and other humanitarian actors. UNRWA is redoubling its strong appeals to the Government of Syria and relevant actors to allow and facilitate humanitarian access to Yarmouk.  This is urgently needed to enable UNRWA to   deliver food, clean water, winter supplies,  healthcare,  and other humanitarian assistance and services to civilians in Yarmouk. UNRWA stands ready immediately to respond to the humanitarian needs of the entire civilian population of Yarmouk."

  Meanwhile the head of Jaysh al Islam Zahran Alloush was killed al Ghouta.

  Back on December 18 at the UN the US day ended in a bilateral meeting between Iranian minister Zarif and John Kerry -- a photo spray was canceled -- and a low key meeting on Iraq and Turkey that we asked about and reported on here.

  Kerry and Lavrov, joined by UN envoy Staffan de Mistura, held this three-question press conference. Kerry said the negotiations should begin in mid to late January (in contrast to the early January in the resolution). Lavrov said only the “patriotic opposition” should be involved in negotiations. Staffan de Mistura said very little.

  That Kerry's spokesman John Kirby, who ran the press conference, gave the second question to the Washington Post, and the third to Russian media, was perhaps understandable. But the first question, Kirby set aside for “Al Arabiya.”  The question quickly turned into three, after being branded for “UNCA,” now the UN Corruption Association, a group which sold seats with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for $6000 only earlier this week.

 We now add: UNCA gave one of its prizes, a free trip to Turkey, to one of its Vice Presidents, from Agence France Presse. Even Kellogg's prohibits its employees from competing for its prizes. But not UNCA, which ignoring the Iraq - Turkey meeting in the Security Council was trying to buy people with Prosecco on December 18, after selling seats with Ban for $6,000.

  Several other UN-based journalists -- not (only) this one -- complained afterward that the first question and attempted follow up were a “Saudi circus” which made the UN press corps look bad -- as did attempt to throw out certain journalists, photographers, from the front row at the beginning.

   Afterward a photo spray of a meeting between Kerry and Iran's Zarif was declared “by invitation only” and then canceled. In the Security Council, with very few journalists still at the stakeout, the US presidency began the meeting on Iraq's complaint against Turkey being in its territory. We'll have more on this.

After the vote inside the Council Lavrov said, “The unanimous adoption today on the Council has created a broad front on the basis of the UN Charter, on the basis of all of those who are pushing back against terror, including the Syrian army, [some] armed militias, parts of the Syrian opposition, and the Russian air forces, in response to the legitimate request of the Syrian government."

Inside as Nasser Judeh of Jordan spoke, UN TV cut repeatedly to Syria's Bashar Ja'afari, looking more and more skeptical. France's Fabius spoke briefly and left. Outside at the stakeout, talk turned to a Kerry press conference, open to all.

 Italy's Paolo Gentiloni, by contrast, scheduled a press availability only for Italian media. A wag from the Free UN Coalition for Access asked, Isn't Gentiloni the foreign and not interior minister? Isn't he running for a Security Council seat? We'll have more on this.

In the  hotel lobby in the late morning a Permanent Five member of the Security Council's spokesperson briefed a gaggle of journalists in the lobby amid hissed that it was “off the record.”

  There was a gingerbread model of the NY Palace hotel which, the sign said, took 300 hours to make. All that was lacking, one wag - this one - snarked on Twitter, was a little gingerbread Laurent Fabuis.

 Back that UN, the 1 pm stakeout by the EU's Mogherini was postponed and then canceled. The Security Council scheduled for 3 pm got pushed back to 4.  Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric if Ban had spoken, what would he have said? Vine here.

On December 17, the day before Syria talks resumed at the New York Palace Hotel in Manhattan, finance ministers spoke in the UN Security Council about cutting off financing for ISIS. French finance minister Michel Sapin spoke darkly of the use of pre-paid cards for the November 13 Paris attacks; Russia's Ambassador Churkin named two Turkish companies as involved in ISIS oil sale.

  Inner City Press asked Syria's Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari, who came to take questions at the Council stakeout, about ISIS' oil. He named Turkey, then want on to name Qatar and Saudi Arabia, slamming its “Sunni coalition” recently announced.

  When US Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, along with Sapin and the UK's George Osborne held a short press conference in the UN briefing room, Inner City Press hoped to asked Sapin about pre-paid cards, and Lew and Osborne about Bitcoin. But the question, just four, were limited to Reuters, the Wall Street Journal, the New York and Financial Times. So it goes.

   It seems there will be no Press access at the New York Palace; Ja'afari has said he will speak, at the UN, and whatever ISSG press availability there is should be at the UN, with a 3 pm meeting on December 18 scheduled. Watch this site.

Back on December 8, Inner City Press put thee questions to  Turkey's Ambassador Cevic. Video here.   Here's fast transcript byInnerCityPro.com:
Inner City Press: On Syria, do you think the Vienna process meeting should take place in New York on the 18th? Are you satisfied with the Saudi process for choosing the opposition?

Amb Cevik: The plans, I don’t know how fixed, I mean how clear it is, but we are making our preparations for the meeting.

Inner City Press: Are there any groups invited to Saudi Arabia that you think shouldn’t be part of the opposition delegation?

Amb Cevik: I think so far, in our view, they are working on the right concept. Let’s see if they succeed. Having a coalition group that would be able to take part in the process is one of the most important things.
Inner City Press: [Russia] said the group that killed their pilot should be put on the terror list. Do you have any view on that?

Amb Cevik: If they know the specifics, I don’t know. But to our knowledge, there was no terrorist organization, no extreme Daesh, Nusra, in that area. They are the Turkomens, and we know them, they are moderate people.

  This may be an issue. Watch this site.

On North Korea, UN Security Council Meets, Ban Ki-moon Takes No Questions, Russia Says "Cool Heads"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 6 --  After North Korea announced it had tested a hydrogen bomb, at the UN a Security Council meeting was called for 11 am. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon read a statement at the UNSC stakeout at 10:30 am, taking no question as usual.

   UNTV fed out B-roll of Ban meeting with his advisers -- Kim Won-soo and Jeff Feltman formerly of the US State Department, Vine here -- and Ban canceled a previously scheduled (also “no questions”) appearance that Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access critiqued here.

  Russia's Ambassador Churkin on his way into the Security Council at 11 am said, “Cool heads, cool heads.” The UK's Deputy Permanent Representative Peter Wilson spoke (Periscope video here), as did Japan's Permanent Representative.

Back on December 10, 2015, for Human Rights Day there was a UN Security Council meeting about human rights in North Korea. This comes as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon canceled a November 25 visit to Western Sahara because he thought he could go to North Korea, which still hasn't happened.

 After the meeting on December 10, Inner City Press asked UK Deputy Permanent Representative Peter Wilson, and then High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid al Hussein, about a Ban Ki-moon trip.

The UK's Wilson said his country would like to see dialogue. When Inner City Press asked Zeid if he'd discussed Ban's trip with him, Zeid said no.

 So on December 11, Inner City Press asked Ban's Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq, transcript here:

Inner City Press: At the stakeout after yesterday's meeting on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the question arose to Prince Zeid whether he had discussed with the Secretary-General, the Secretary-General's possible trip to DPRK in terms of a human rights component to it.  And he seemed to indicate that the two had not discussed it.

What I wanted to ask you is, one, is that the case?  And two, what is the place, what would be the place of human rights in not… obviously the trip hasn't taken place yet, but in terms of clearly he has said that negotiations are under way and I saw Mr. Kim quoted to that effect, what is the place of human rights in such a trip?

Deputy Spokesman:  Human rights has a place in all of the Secretary-General's travels and it would do so in this case as well.  Regarding specifics, that will have to wait until when a trip is arranged, and there's nothing further to say about that.  We've been trying to make preparations when it's feasible, but there's nothing further to announce at this point. Have a good weekend, everyone.

   One is left wondering what would be the agenda of a Ban trip to North Korea - and what the US, which sponsored the December 10 meeting, thinks of such a trip. While it is difficult to get a USUN answer to the question, other ambassadors have told Inner City Press that Japan is against such a Ban trip. We'll have more on this.

 On December 10, there was a vote on whether to hold the meeting at all.

 On the way in, Venezuela's Ambassador said he was against the meeting; China's Deputy merely smiled.

 Inside, after a speech by China demanding a vote, and a Samanatha Power speech, the vote was held: the nine requesters in favor, four against (including Russia), and two abstentions (including Nigeria).

 Soon it was said Japan and South Korea - but not North Korea - would participate in the meeting, and OHCHR Zeid and USg Feltman would brief. Feltman's briefing is online here.

 Zeid, as fast transcribed by InnerCityPro (OHCHR will have full text) said:

"The abduction of foreign nationals, forced disappearences, and a litany of other violations have not been halted or reversed by the government of the DPRK. There is no accountability and no independent judiciary. Millions of peole in the DPRK are denied basic rights. They are not allowed to move freely or speak about injustices, they are not allowed to follow their faith, they are denied access to information. The commission of inquiry describes the appalling nature of the political prison camps where people, including children, have been starved, tortured, raped. Hundreds of thousands have died in these camps…they are believed to contain 80,000 to 120,000 prisoners.

The report said that “the gravity, scale and nature of the human rights violations reveal a state that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.” The new office in Seoul has begun collecting testimony from people who have left the DPRK and deepening evidence. During my visit I met defectors, men and women, and their personal experiences were harrowing. My concern over the threats issued by DPRK and media against the office in Seoul—it is wholly unacceptable to issue threats against a UN office.

3 types of allegations : victims and witnesses spoke to severe treatment of detainees – no access to lawyers, inhuman conditions, torture during interrogation. Food insecurity is an ongoing concern. The systemic failure of the distribution system hasn’t been addressed. Women in the DPRK are subject to violence and discrimination, and there’s a lack of awareness that such violence is unacceptable. Restrictions on movements across the border with china had a negative impact on women, and augmented risk of detention for those who try to cross border.

The family reunions were a welcome development and should be regularized. We’re organizing a workshop on the human rights implications of separation of families. Most have reached an advanced age. Those selected for previous reunions have no possibility of maintaining contacts.

The matter of international abductions is a cause of very grave concern. The establishment of a special investigation committee in the DPRK was positive but no info has been provided since then on results. The fate of abductees must be established. OHCHR organized consultations on human rights and abductions, followed by a visit to Japan.

This year the GA may call on the SC to take action by referring the matter to the ICC which I believe to be essential. Any call must go hand in hand with dialogue with government of DPRK. My office has continued to engage with authorities. There are signs that the governemnt is making tentative efforts to engage, and I welcome the invitation to visit the country. My office is engaged with the office to explore modalities. The systemic failings heighten international anxieties. More must be done to ensure respect. I thank you."

 It is a serious issue, but there are questions about the staging. The UN called it an "urgent" meeting, below, when it was well known for five days. Two defectors were bought to speak - but in the private clubhouse of a Correspondents Association.

Surreally, this UN Corruption Association was the venue on December 10 for two North Korea witnesses, Grace Jo and Jung Gwang II, whose handlers instead of booking the UN press briefing room which any member state can do, put them behind the closed doors of UNCA. Since UNCA under Pioli engages in censorship, here, perhaps it was not only ironic but appropriate.

 The new Free UN Coalition for Access, founded by two defectors from the increasingly corrupt UNCA, pursued the question of why information about the North Korea UNSC meeting was withheld from the press and public. UNCA said nothing, took defectors behind closed doors.

  As of 8 am, the day's UN Journal does not list it; nor does the UN Media Alert nor the Security Council's online Program of Work. The last of these may explain it: after the Council's closed door meetings on Western Sahara (listed) and Turkey on December 8, Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told the press that the US should have disclosed the intended North Korea meeting when formulating its Program of Work for December, when the US is President.

  Inner City Press has checked with another Security Council delegation, which said it is a good argument, but not enough to "stop" the meeting. But enough to have the meeting UNlisted, even six and a half hours before?

  The UN has an archaic, anti-public game under which "Arria formula" meetings of the Security Council are not listed in the UN Journal, sometimes not even on the blue signs outside the meeting. The Free UN Coalition for Access thinks that sending diplomatic signals by withholding information from the public is not what the UN, ostensibly about "We the Peoples," should be about. We'll hare more on this.

Update: at 10:30 am, the UN sent out this: "URGENT Message from the President of the Security Council  The President of the Security Council wishes to inform the members of the Council that a public meeting in connection with the agenda item “The situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” will be convened today at 2.30 p.m. "

  But it was no surprise - it was known since December 5, and December 8.

Then this was (mis) added:  “02:15pm   LIVE   Stakeout 2nd floor outside the Security Council Chamber:
 10:00am   LIVE   Security Council 7575 meeting:  Briefing: the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”

 10 am? This is what happens when the ball is hidden...

 It is (well) explained online, without excusing the UN Media Alert misleading (and UNTV mis-timing) --

" The UN Journal for the day the Council convened to take up the situation in the DPRK contained no notice of a Council meeting on that topic (Journal No. 2014/244).  This also had been the case when the Council held the formal meeting on 15 September 2006 at which the procedural vote on the agenda item relating to Myanmar was put to a vote (Journal No. 2006/178).  In contrast, Journal No. 2005/142 did contain a notice of the meeting at which the procedural vote on the agenda item relating to human settlements issues in Zimbabwe was put to a vote.  This is explained by the fact that between the 2005 notice in the Journal and the lack of notice in 2006 and 2014, the Council had adopted its Note by the President, S/2006/507.  Paragraph 1 of that Note (and of the subsequent Note S/2010/507) states:  “The provisional agenda for formal meetings of the Council should be included in the Journal of the United Nations provided that it has been approved in informal consultations”.  Notice for the 2006 and 2014 meetings therefore could not be included in the Journal because the Council members had been unable to reach consensus beforehand." [Link]

 But why did the UN Media Alert not list this known meeting? FUNCA will pursue.

For more than a month there have been rumors, stoked in some cases by the UN, that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon may visit North Korea.

 To some it seemed strange, right after the UN's Third Committee enacted a resolution about human rights in North Korea. What that country might gain from a high level UN visit might be clear -- showing that the resolution didn't mean much -- and some surmise that the Korean Peninsula is increasingly Ban's focus. But what would be in it, from a Ban-to-DPRK visit, for the resolution's proponents?

  On December 3 the Spokesperson for the U.S. Mission to the UN Hagar Chemali issued a statement that “last year in December the UN Security Council convened for the first time in history to discuss the human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). Today, Chile, France, Jordan, Lithuania, Malaysia, New Zealand, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States have requested another meeting of the Security Council to examine conditions in DPRK and their effects on international peace and security. As President of the Security Council for the month of December, the United States will now work quickly to schedule this meeting. We will provide additional details as soon as we have them.”

  Now, again from Ms. Chemali, this: "We intend to convene the Security Council meeting on the situation in the DPRK on Thursday, December 10 at 2:30 PM. We are currently working with the Secretariat to explore the availability of senior briefers from DPA and OHCHR. We will update on briefers as soon as we have more details."

  In the US Mission's December 3 statement, Ambassador Samantha Power said: “A year ago, the Security Council met for the first time on the widespread and systematic human rights violations being committed by the North Korean government. Having placed the issue on the Security Council’s agenda last year, we believe it is critical for the Council to continue to shine a light on the abuses in North Korea and speak regularly about the DPRK’s human rights situation – and what we can do to change it – for as long as the crimes committed there persist.”

   For now we can say, this would seem to make a Ban Ki-moon visit to DPRK (even) less likely, at last in December. And in January, when Uruguay is set to be UN Security Council president? Watch this site.

Back on November 17 when Ri Hung Sik, Ambassador at-large of the Democratic People's Republic of Korean, held a press conference at the North Korean mission, he said that he had heard nothing, nothing at all, about UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon visiting North Korea, which Yonhap ascribed to a senior UN source.

Even when asked a leading question about a hypothetical Ban trip, Ri Hung Sik said Ban's UN would have to improve its relations with DPRK. Inner City Press is putting the audio online here, and embedded below.

 Inner City Press ran back to the UN and asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric, transcript here:

Inner City Press: here was just a press conference at the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) mission, and there their minister, Ri Hung Sik, asked about the Secretary-General's possible reported trip, said he's heard nothing about it at all and that there are many rumours on the internet.  He also said that this South Korean national security law that makes it illegal for South Korean citizens to speak positively of the DPRK… that's how he described it… should be looked at by the UN.  So I wanted to know, what is the Secretary-General's view of that law?  And if that's an accurate description, is he bound by it?

Spokesman:  I'm not aware of the law.  As far as Ban Ki-moon, he is the Secretary-General of the United Nations and is doing his duty as such.

   But why did Team Ban play it so coy on Yonhap's report? Now late on November 17, the UN has issued this more specific denial:

"In response to questions asked about a report from Xinhua and the Korean Central News Agency stating that the Secretary-General would be travelling to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea next week, the Spokesman had the following to say: The Secretary-General will not be travelling to the DPRK next week. He will be in New York most of the week and then travel to Malta for the Commonwealth Summit. From there, he will go to directly to Paris to attend CoP21. The Secretary-General has repeatedly said that he is willing to play any constructive role, including traveling to the DPRK, in an effort to work for peace, stability and dialogue on the Korean Peninsula."

  Before Inner City Press left the DPRK mission on November 17, it asked Ri Hung Sik for his view of UN Special Rapporteur Marzuki Darusman and when or if UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid will visit North Korea.

  Of Darusman, Ri Hung Sik said he met him only once, and that it seems Darusman does not speak his own words, or think his own thoughts. Of Zeid, he said the discussion is of technical cooperation, but no date was given. Video here.

   During the press conference, there was no question, as at a prior DPRK press conference, about Donald Trump...

On French Paris Attacks Resolution, French PR Delattre Says "Last Mile," No Mali Comment

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 20 -- After France circulated in the UN Security Council the post-Paris Attacks resolution repeatedly talked about by French President Francois Hollande, it immediately on November 19 put it "in blue" for voting, which would then take place asearly as November 20.

 On November 20 as French Ambassador Francois Delattre entered the Security Council for a regularly scheduled meeting about Peacekeeping Operations featuring Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row atop UN Peacekeeping, Delattre spoke about the French draft resolution.Periscope video here. As fast transcribed by InnerCityPro.com:

“We hope for a vote the sooner the better, I cannot tell you when exactly, but it is one week after the attacks... There is no reason frankly there is only good spirit and good vibes so to speak around the table... I am cautious by nature, the mood is really good.

 “We try to have something that can unite everyone at the Security Council the Russians included. We think we should not waste time, we have a good partnership with Ambassador Churkin with all the other ambassadors... it's a question of the last mile, I will tell you more as soon as I know.”

  Inner City Press and others asked about Mali and the attack on the Radisson Hotel there. Delattre said, “We are closely watching the situation with great concern of course but no particular comment at this stage.” No comment? Shouldn't a terrorist attack in sub-Saharan Africa be added to the French draft? Some say the vote might be as early at 1 pm.

  Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin on Thursday afternoon told reporters he saw nothing "offensive in it," that a couple of days could have improved it but that perhaps both resolutions could be adopted,citing 9/11/01 as a precedent.

 On his way into the Security Council's regularly scheduled meeting on Kosovo, Churkin stopped and told the press that “Theirs is much more narrow draft, ours is broader, more fundamental so basically I don't see much of a contradiction. We're studying it. I don't [see] anything particularly offensive. This is a good draft, we are looking at it. Maybe if they took a day or two more to work on it they could have improved a thing or two.”

   On if both draft resolutions could be adopted, Churkin said, “I think they could, because if you think back to events after 9/11, first there was a short draft then a couple of weeks later there was a more comprehensive draft.”

The day before on November 18 after Russia circulatedits resolution, French Permanent Representative Francois Delattre came out to talk to the media, not on UNTV but by the steps. He said, as fast transcribed by InnerCityPro:

"Russia requested this meeting on the issue of terrorism, and introduced once again this September 30th draft resolution... I repeated our total determination to fight Daesh, a fight which requires a united response from the whole international community. As you know French President Francois Hollande announced that the Security Council must adopt as soon as possible a resolution on the fight against Daesh. We are actively working to prepare a text that will be short, strong, and focused on the fight against our common enemy, Daesh. Short, strong, and focused on the fight against Daesh. And in this respect we consider the Russian proposal is a contribution that will be carefully studied.

 "I think we have two different texts here. The text we have in mind, and that we are working on very closely, strongly, following President Hollande’s statement, is a text that is strong, short, that is Daesh-centered, and that has one goal after the tragic Paris attack, which is to make sure that the international community is united, finally united, in the fight against Daesh. We all know the threat. The threat is still here. So this is our political responsibility asa the Security Council to have this text adopted, not for long, or endless negotiations about the niceties, but one, simple, clear political message. We need, and this is our responsibility, to have a text which all key actors of the international community can unite in order to act, and to act together." 

Together?

"  On November 17 UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric announced that Ban would sign the condolence book at the French Mission to the UN that afternoon.

  After 2 pm, the UN emailed out “*SG PHOTO-OP ADDED*” so Inner City Press went to the French Mission to cover it.

  In the lobby of 245 East 47th Street, also known as One Dag, the security officer said he would call upstairs to French Mission, on the 44th floor, and get the OK. The guard handed the photo to Inner City Press, which explained why it was here, that the UN has announced this photo-op. The guard took the phone back. Video here.

  “They say no,” the guard said. France 24 was upstairs, and others who did not even report on it. Inner City Press waited in the lobby, exchanging pleasantries with a half dozen diplomats including the Permanent Representative of Palau; passers-by in the One Dag lobby included the Permanent Representative of a country France has criticized for, ironically, freedom of the press. Video here.

  Ban Ki-moon and French Ambassador Francois Delattre came down,accompanied by Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric. The UN convoy pulled out onto Second Avenue. Later Dujarric's office would send out Ban's remarks -- Ban refused the only question asked -- and UNTV would distribute video of Ban and Mrs. Ban signing, even shots of the French hand-picked scribes in attendance. Would Charlie Hebdo have made the cut?

 On November 18, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Dujarric:

Inner City Press: You announced yesterday at this signing of the condolence book at the French Mission by the Secretary-General.  So I wanted to know, it seemed like I tried to go to your office.  You weren't there.  I went to MALU [Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit].  It seems like it's a UN thing, so I went to cover it, but I was unable to cover it when they called upstairs from the downstairs…

Spokesman Dujarric:  If it's a UN thing, if it happens in the UN.

Inner City Press:  Right.  Is it the Secretary-General's position where space exists for his outside events that UN journalists should be able to cover it or not?

Spokesman:  We rely on our hosts.

Back on September 28, 2015, the day of the UN Peacekeeping summit at the UN, Inner City Press managed to ask French President Francois Hollande about alleged rapes by French troops in the Central African Republic (CAR) and about French head of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous having linked rapes to “recreation” and R&R. Video here.

  Hollande replied that when French troops are charged -- as they have been, in CAR -- France pushes for prosecutions, but also due process. Does that explain the one-year delay in the Sangaris CAR case?  The question was not taken.

  Later on September 28, Inner City Press went to cover the High Level Meeting on Peacekeeping, and found Ladsous slouched in his hair, wanly applauding pledges then glaring up at the photographers booth where Inner City Press was. Something is very wrong at the top of UN Peacekeeping - until it is addressed, the various commitments ring hollow.

A year after French President Francois Hollande tried to privatize the UN Press Briefing Room by having non-French journalists removed, his team on September 27, 2015 adopted a different strategy for the same result. At 8:40 am the UN said there would be a press conference by Hollande in just five minutes, at 8:45 am. Call it innovation.

  Apparently in his press conference, Hollande had many of the seats in the front of the UN Press Briefing Room “reserved” - because Brazil cited this as a precedent for their 11:30 am press conference by Dilma Rousseff (that's another story).  France, returning with Hollande for a session scheduled for 2:15 pm, again tried to control spaces in the front rows, as did the old UN Correspondents Association, which ejected a visiting journalist from “its” seat.

 And the question for Hollande? For Inner City Press, it would be what actions have been taken on the French soldiers alleged to have raped children in the Central African Republic. Watch this site.

Update: After Hollande came in, two people who had sat next to Inner City Press through the entire Japanese briefing from 1:30 pm got up, to give their seat to Laurent Fabuis and Royale. Then a lady approached Inner City Press, in full view of UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric, and told Inner City Press to move, she's a "minister." Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access said Non, je suis journaliste, je veux poser ma question.

Meanwhile Ban Ki-moon said Peru's President Humala regretted not being present. But he WAS present, next to Hollande. Inner City Press asked Humala about the Trans Pacific Partnership on September 27: watch this site.

Back on September 23, 2014 the entourage of French President Francois Hollande repeatedly ordered the UN accredited Press to leave the UN's Press Briefing Room.

  A briefing by Hollande had been scheduled for 11 am, then was canceled. But at 10:55 am as a previous briefing about climate change was ending, Inner City Press was told to leave the room.

  The question, On whose orders? was not answered. Instead a woman in the French delegation said the room was "reserved." 

   This is not a restaurant, Inner City Press replied, now on behalf of the new Free UN Coalition for Access, which advocates for the rights of journalists and for a Freedom of Information Act covering the UN.

  Another member of the French delegation said loudly, "They'll take away his accreditation." It was not necessarily an idle threat: the UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric had looked into the room as this happened. 

   Inner City Press said, if UN Media Accreditation -- or UN Security -- tell me to leave, I will. But not before. Video here.

  Meanwhile the representative of the old UN Correspondents Alliance meekly left; previously, UNCA did nothing when previous French Permanent Representative Gerard Araud in this room told a Lebanese reporter, "You are not a journalist, you are an agent."

  After a time, the woman from Hollande's entourage said that the chief of UN Media Accreditation, whom she made a point of saying she knows well, was not answering the phone. A French security guard told Inner City Press to leave. But this is not their role, in the UN briefing room.

  Finally the French foreign minister Laurent Fabius and the new Permanent Representative to the UN came and sat in the front room with Inner City Press and FUNCA.  Hollande appeared from the doorway Spokesman Dujarric had looked out of.

  Hollande said he had come mostly about climate change, but that a French citizen had been taken hostage in Algeria by a group linked with ISIL or "Da'ech," as he called the group. He said arms deliveries would continue; he noted the previous night's air strikes, by others, on Syria.

  Hollande said he would meet in the afternoon with the Syrian Opposition Coalition's Hadi al Bahra, who he called the only legitimate leader of Syria. Then he left without taking questions.

  The day before, UNCA hosted al Bahra (as they had his predecessor Ahmad Jarba) in the clubhouse the UN gives this group, publicized only to those which pay it dues. Given that UNCA did nothing when Araud told the Lebanese reporter "you are not a journalist, you are an agent," why didn't Hollande hold his press conference in the club of UNCA, the UN's Censorship Alliance?

On French Paris Attacks Resolution, Russia Says Not Offensive, Both Could Be Adopted

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 19 -- After France circulated in the UN Security Council the post-Paris Attacks resolution repeatedly talked about by French President Francois Hollande, it immediately put it "in blue" for voting.

  Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin on Thursday afternoon told reporters he saw nothing "offensive in it," that a couple of days could have improved it but that perhaps both resolutions could be adopted,citing 9/11/01 as a precedent.

 On his way into the Security Council's regularly scheduled meeting on Kosovo, Churkin stopped and told the press that “Theirs is much more narrow draft, ours is broader, more fundamental so basically I don't see much of a contradiction. We're studying it. I don't [see] anything particularly offensive. This is a good draft, we are looking at it. Maybe if they took a day or two more to work on it they could have improved a thing or two.”

   On if both draft resolutions could be adopted, Churkin said, “I think they could, because if you think back to events after 9/11, first there was a short draft then a couple of weeks later there was a more comprehensive draft.”

The day before on November 18 after Russia circulatedits resolution, French Permanent Representative Francois Delattre came out to talk to the media, not on UNTV but by the steps. He said, as fast transcribed by InnerCityPro:

"Russia requested this meeting on the issue of terrorism, and introduced once again this September 30th draft resolution... I repeated our total determination to fight Daesh, a fight which requires a united response from the whole international community. As you know French President Francois Hollande announced that the Security Council must adopt as soon as possible a resolution on the fight against Daesh. We are actively working to prepare a text that will be short, strong, and focused on the fight against our common enemy, Daesh. Short, strong, and focused on the fight against Daesh. And in this respect we consider the Russian proposal is a contribution that will be carefully studied.

 "I think we have two different texts here. The text we have in mind, and that we are working on very closely, strongly, following President Hollande’s statement, is a text that is strong, short, that is Daesh-centered, and that has one goal after the tragic Paris attack, which is to make sure that the international community is united, finally united, in the fight against Daesh. We all know the threat. The threat is still here. So this is our political responsibility asa the Security Council to have this text adopted, not for long, or endless negotiations about the niceties, but one, simple, clear political message. We need, and this is our responsibility, to have a text which all key actors of the international community can unite in order to act, and to act together." 

Together?

"  On November 17 UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric announced that Ban would sign the condolence book at the French Mission to the UN that afternoon.

  After 2 pm, the UN emailed out “*SG PHOTO-OP ADDED*” so Inner City Press went to the French Mission to cover it.

  In the lobby of 245 East 47th Street, also known as One Dag, the security officer said he would call upstairs to French Mission, on the 44th floor, and get the OK. The guard handed the photo to Inner City Press, which explained why it was here, that the UN has announced this photo-op. The guard took the phone back. Video here.

  “They say no,” the guard said. France 24 was upstairs, and others who did not even report on it. Inner City Press waited in the lobby, exchanging pleasantries with a half dozen diplomats including the Permanent Representative of Palau; passers-by in the One Dag lobby included the Permanent Representative of a country France has criticized for, ironically, freedom of the press. Video here.

  Ban Ki-moon and French Ambassador Francois Delattre came down,accompanied by Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric. The UN convoy pulled out onto Second Avenue. Later Dujarric's office would send out Ban's remarks -- Ban refused the only question asked -- and UNTV would distribute video of Ban and Mrs. Ban signing, even shots of the French hand-picked scribes in attendance. Would Charlie Hebdo have made the cut?

 On November 18, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Dujarric:

Inner City Press: You announced yesterday at this signing of the condolence book at the French Mission by the Secretary-General.  So I wanted to know, it seemed like I tried to go to your office.  You weren't there.  I went to MALU [Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit].  It seems like it's a UN thing, so I went to cover it, but I was unable to cover it when they called upstairs from the downstairs…

Spokesman Dujarric:  If it's a UN thing, if it happens in the UN.

Inner City Press:  Right.  Is it the Secretary-General's position where space exists for his outside events that UN journalists should be able to cover it or not?

Spokesman:  We rely on our hosts.

Back on September 28, 2015, the day of the UN Peacekeeping summit at the UN, Inner City Press managed to ask French President Francois Hollande about alleged rapes by French troops in the Central African Republic (CAR) and about French head of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous having linked rapes to “recreation” and R&R. Video here.

  Hollande replied that when French troops are charged -- as they have been, in CAR -- France pushes for prosecutions, but also due process. Does that explain the one-year delay in the Sangaris CAR case?  The question was not taken.

  Later on September 28, Inner City Press went to cover the High Level Meeting on Peacekeeping, and found Ladsous slouched in his hair, wanly applauding pledges then glaring up at the photographers booth where Inner City Press was. Something is very wrong at the top of UN Peacekeeping - until it is addressed, the various commitments ring hollow.

A year after French President Francois Hollande tried to privatize the UN Press Briefing Room by having non-French journalists removed, his team on September 27, 2015 adopted a different strategy for the same result. At 8:40 am the UN said there would be a press conference by Hollande in just five minutes, at 8:45 am. Call it innovation.

  Apparently in his press conference, Hollande had many of the seats in the front of the UN Press Briefing Room “reserved” - because Brazil cited this as a precedent for their 11:30 am press conference by Dilma Rousseff (that's another story).  France, returning with Hollande for a session scheduled for 2:15 pm, again tried to control spaces in the front rows, as did the old UN Correspondents Association, which ejected a visiting journalist from “its” seat.

 And the question for Hollande? For Inner City Press, it would be what actions have been taken on the French soldiers alleged to have raped children in the Central African Republic. Watch this site.

Update: After Hollande came in, two people who had sat next to Inner City Press through the entire Japanese briefing from 1:30 pm got up, to give their seat to Laurent Fabuis and Royale. Then a lady approached Inner City Press, in full view of UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric, and told Inner City Press to move, she's a "minister." Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access said Non, je suis journaliste, je veux poser ma question.

Meanwhile Ban Ki-moon said Peru's President Humala regretted not being present. But he WAS present, next to Hollande. Inner City Press asked Humala about the Trans Pacific Partnership on September 27: watch this site.

Back on September 23, 2014 the entourage of French President Francois Hollande repeatedly ordered the UN accredited Press to leave the UN's Press Briefing Room.

  A briefing by Hollande had been scheduled for 11 am, then was canceled. But at 10:55 am as a previous briefing about climate change was ending, Inner City Press was told to leave the room.

  The question, On whose orders? was not answered. Instead a woman in the French delegation said the room was "reserved." 

   This is not a restaurant, Inner City Press replied, now on behalf of the new Free UN Coalition for Access, which advocates for the rights of journalists and for a Freedom of Information Act covering the UN.

  Another member of the French delegation said loudly, "They'll take away his accreditation." It was not necessarily an idle threat: the UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric had looked into the room as this happened. 

   Inner City Press said, if UN Media Accreditation -- or UN Security -- tell me to leave, I will. But not before. Video here.

  Meanwhile the representative of the old UN Correspondents Alliance meekly left; previously, UNCA did nothing when previous French Permanent Representative Gerard Araud in this room told a Lebanese reporter, "You are not a journalist, you are an agent."

  After a time, the woman from Hollande's entourage said that the chief of UN Media Accreditation, whom she made a point of saying she knows well, was not answering the phone. A French security guard told Inner City Press to leave. But this is not their role, in the UN briefing room.

  Finally the French foreign minister Laurent Fabius and the new Permanent Representative to the UN came and sat in the front room with Inner City Press and FUNCA.  Hollande appeared from the doorway Spokesman Dujarric had looked out of.

  Hollande said he had come mostly about climate change, but that a French citizen had been taken hostage in Algeria by a group linked with ISIL or "Da'ech," as he called the group. He said arms deliveries would continue; he noted the previous night's air strikes, by others, on Syria.

  Hollande said he would meet in the afternoon with the Syrian Opposition Coalition's Hadi al Bahra, who he called the only legitimate leader of Syria. Then he left without taking questions.

  The day before, UNCA hosted al Bahra (as they had his predecessor Ahmad Jarba) in the clubhouse the UN gives this group, publicized only to those which pay it dues. Given that UNCA did nothing when Araud told the Lebanese reporter "you are not a journalist, you are an agent," why didn't Hollande hold his press conference in the club of UNCA, the UN's Censorship Alliance?