As If Scripted, Plea to Saudi Arabia to Maintain UNSC Seat from Arab Group- With Syria Expelled: To Make Unanimous Decision, Throw Out Those Who Disagree

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 19 -- The day after Saudi Arabia announced it would not take the UN Security Council seat it won without competition on October 17 (click here for Inner City Press coverage), on Saturday the Arab Group at the UN issued a statement calling on the Saudis to "maintain their Membership in the Security Council." The unofficial translation into English is below.

  While not noted by, for example, Agence France Presse, this statement was only unanimous and the "silence procedure" for objection not broken because the Arab Group at the UN has thrown out the Syrian Arab Republic.

That is, to make decisions unanimous, throw out those who disagree.

  This takes on the flavor of a choreographed tantrum by the Saudis, to get the attention of the United States, drive the US away from Iran's Hassan Rouhani or toward renewed military threats on Syria. And then reverse course and "accept" the Security Council seat?

  Notably, Saudi Arabia has been "in training" for the Security Council seat for some time, "going to Columbia University for help," as one observer put it. They began to fund a procedural Security Council reporter. This contributed to the surprise occasioned by their October 18 announcement.

  But this fast and public Arab Group request that they "maintain" their seat cast things in a different light. This way, even in reversing course Saudi Arabia could save face, saying they only took the seat because their fellow Arab countries -- minus at least one of course -- begged them to. "We're doing this for you," the Saudis could say.

But what would the "this" be? Urging the same rebels it arms and tells not to negotiate with Assad to go to Geneva Two? Removing or loosening sanctions on Iran?  For more on that, click here for this reporter's longer piece on Beacon Reader, a new feature. Watch this site.

Here is the Arab Group (minus Syria) press release of October 19, 2013:

"The Arab Group, at level of Ambassadors, Permanent Representatives to the United Nations in New York, discussed in an extraordinary fashion, the situation regarding the position of the Brothers in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia regarding their Membership in the Security Council. With our understanding and respect for the position of the Brothers in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, we hope that they, which are amongst the blessed who represent the Arab and Islamic world at this important and historical stage, specifically for the Middle East region, to maintain their Membership in the Security Council and continue their brave role in defending our issues specifically at the rostrum of the Security Council."

   

On Haiti Cholera, Ex-UN Guehenno Now Switches "Come Clean" to "Make Others Pay," UN's Way

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 9 -- When a hole opens in the UN's armor of immunity, there are fast moves to close it.

   On August 7, with the UN of Ban Ki-moon and Herve Ladsous still denying all claims that Ladsous' UN Peacekeeping brought cholera to Haiti and killed 8,000 people, after Inner City Press again asked Ban's spokesperson about it, Ladsous' predecessor Jean-Marie Guehenno tweeted this:

"Peacekeepers have done a lot for Haiti, but UN needs to come clean on cholera crisis."

  Inner City Press retweeted then wrote about it, noting that this is a former chief of UN Peacekeeping. So where is Herve Ladsous on this? He's out of headquarters, after refusing Press questions then spoon-feeding spin to a friendly scribe. August 7 Q&A with's Ban's lead spokesperson Martin Nesirky, here.

  Thursday August 8 was a UN holiday. So in its August 7 story, Inner City Press asked: what will the UN say about its own former head of peacekeeping, a post now devolved to Herve Ladsous who was rejected in favor of Guehenno, then in favor of Alain Le Roy, then a third strike in favor of Jerome Bonnafont -- only to be put in the job by France after Bonnafont bragged about getting it?

The flaw was that Ladsous has a record, of arguing for the escape of the genocidaires from Rwanda into Eastern Congo. How can he lead an (all African) intervention brigade now in the Congo?

On August 9, Inner City Press asked Ban's associate spokesperson Farhan Haq about what Jean-Marie Guehenno said. Haq replied there would be no UN comment on what Guehenno said in his "private capacity." Video here, from Minute 2:07.

But lo and behold later on the afternoon of August 9, Guehenno who is now a professor at Columbia but still in the UN loop, having had at least one Under Secretary General job, and a posting on Ban's Senior Advisory Group of Peacekeeping Operations (with a Sri Lankan military leader depicted in the UN's own report as engaged in war crimes),"clarified" his August 7 tweet:

"UN can take responsibility by pushing harder on member states to fund health and sanitation in Haiti with substantial donations."

  Suddenly Guehenno's (re) definition of coming clean has nothing to do with taking responsibility, but rather "pushing" others to pay for the consequences of DPKO's ongoing negligence.

  Here's the question: how can the UN, and DPKO which Guehenno used to head, preach rule of law if it never takes responsibility? Blaming plaintiffs' attorneys is not enough: to merely push others to pay, and not accept responsibility, is lawless.

  Who "got to" Guehenno? Or is the promise or desire for future UN-world posts enough to bring about such a quick reversal? If even standing by his statement for two days, Guehenno hearkens back to a time before the spreading "Ladsousification" of Ban's UN. Watch this site. And this noon briefing video, before Guehenno's afternoon "clarification," from Minute 2:07:

   

On Mali at Columbia, Nameless Discussion of Colonialism & Other Big Issues Under Outdate Chatham House Rules Superseded by Social Media

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 2 -- On Mali there was an event at Columbia University Tuesday night, advertised as “free and open to the public, but please register by writing.” So Inner City Press did, identifying itself as the Press, listing its office at the UN.

  Columbia's Stephen Wertheim, the last name you'll see in this piece, wrote back, “You are now registered for the talk, which starts at 7:30 pm. We look forward to seeing you there.”

  After that, notice of the event was further publicized on the website of the Free UN Coalition for Access, as still is another event at the UN this Thursday.

  After a final story about the day's Arms Trade Treaty vote in the UN General Assembly, Inner City Press arrived at the event. There were twenty to twenty five people, of all ages -- and all nameless here.

  After a lengthy speech and two social media missives, as the question and answer began, the moderator suddenly said -- and we'll paraphrase and not quote here -- that he should have said so from the beginning, this would be under Chatham House rules, you can use the idea but no quote.

  And so what were the ideas?

That the media focuses too much on the military offensive, which one participant called the kinetic aspect.

That there is a lot of corruption even in the south of Mali.

That the Malian military commits human rights violations, and that the UN does not have the resources to have a crew of human rights observers ready to go there.

That the UN will soon name a Special Representative of the Secretary General.

That the Malian press is reporting rumors of relations of Nicolas Sarkozy and the MNLA. (Inner City Press has been more focused on Sarkozy's hardly concealed try out to help invest Qatar's money, with his contacts in the center-right government in Spain.)

That the Security Council implicitly endorsed the French approach.

Inner City Press, which is surely free to report its own questions but apparently not the answers, asked if the envisioned “parallel force” would be under UN control; if coup leader Amadou Sanogo will continue to play a role in the Malian military, and how the fast action to defend Bamako differed from the decision to let Bagui in the Central African Republic fall.

  There was a response to each question, but how to report the answers under the spirit of the Chatham House rules is not clear. 

 As Inner City Press left it was told, despite the language of the invitation and its RSVP as the Press, that it is somehow understood that events in the university are under Chatham House rules.

  No, that is not automatically understood. People give on the record speeches at universities. In fact, since students have Facebook pages and blogs and, yes, Twitter accounts, it is entirely unclear what restriction on a class or seminar would look like, or how they could work.

  Nevertheless, Inner City Press has complied with the belatedly announced Chatham House rules. Who is served? The Security Council hears Wednesday on Mali. Watch this site.

Footnote: the UN office that Inner City Press listed on its RSVP has, as we've noted, been raided by the UN and others on March 18. We'll have more on this.

On Sri Lanka, UN's Ban Praises “Whitewash” Report That Is Still Not Public

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, March 3 – A week after UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon accepted a Sri Lanka whitewash report from five Ambassadors following a photo op covered by Inner City Press, the first media question to Ban in Geneva was about Sri Lanka.

   Ban answered by praising the report, which despite requests from Inner City Press neither he nor the whitewashing Ambassadors have released to the public. 

 Ban said of the hand-over, " I recognized through our meeting with them the important steps taken by the Government of Sri Lanka since the end of the conflict." What steps?

   While the UN says that after its inaction in Sri Lanka while 40,000 were killed in 2009 it is now studying the “lessons learned,” Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on February 22 met with Sri Lankan Ambassador Palitha Kohona and four other Permanent Representatives to accept a quite contrary report.

   Before Inner City Press was asked to leave the conference room, Japan's Permanent Representative Tsuneo Nishida told Ban that “Sri Lanka is an important country” and “this morning we would like to present our report.” Then the meeting was closed; in fact, no topic was ever listed for the meeting. Inner City Press was the only media there.

  Click here to view short YouTube video here, on channel of Inner City Press. See tweeted photo of Ban & Kohona, here.

   Some wondered if Ban would hold such a meeting, for example, with Syria's Permanent Representative Bashar Ja'afari and four other supportive Permanent Representatives, who could certainly be found. The answer would appear to be “no.” So why on Sri Lanka?

  Now it's worse: Ban not only formally accepted the whitewash report while not making public - he now cites the withheld report as showing accountability in Sri Lanka when asked about a "strong statement demanding the Human Rights Council to ask for an international and independent investigation. Do you support this request?"

 From the UN's March 1 transcript:

SG Ban Ki-moon: I have consistently underlined the critical importance of addressing accountability in Sri Lanka through a genuine and comprehensive national process achieving national reconciliation. Last week in New York I have received the Japanese ambassador who led the accountability assessment mission to Sri Lanka where representatives of Bangladesh, Nigeria, Rumania [sic], Sri Lanka and a Colombia University professor participated in an observation project to Sri Lanka last December. I recognized through our meeting with them the important steps taken by the Government of Sri Lanka since the end of the conflict and strongly underlined the need to address the remaining challenges particularly on issues relating to reconciliation and accountability. I highlighted the importance for the Government of Sri Lanka to work constructively with the international community towards that end. Thank you.

  Rebuffed in getting a copy of the report Ban now replies on from the UN itself, Inner City Press asked one of the hand-over Permanent Representatives, who passed the buck to another of the Perm Reps. This PR, when Inner City Press asked on February 28, declined saying Inner City Press' February 22 story had not been "friendly."

   Now as separately reported today the UN is telling Inner City Press it is deeply disappointed with its reporting, particularly its use of quotes even though on the record, and naming of names. Click here for that.  

Update of March 4: Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesman at Monday's noon briefing for a copy of the report, and/or an explanation of the "steps" Ban was referring to -- but got neither. Watch this site.

With DR Congo "Unwilling to Discuss" with M23, It's up to Uganda, UN Won't Skirmish

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 10 -- More than two hours after the UN's Democratic Republic of the Congo briefing to the Security Council began Wednesday afternoon, Council president Gert Rosenthal emerged to take questions at the stakeout. There were only two.

  Inner City Press asked if any Council members spoke in the closed door session to a need for the DRC government of Joseph Kabila to engage in talks with the M23 mutineers about their claims that promises made about integrating them into the Congolese army were not kept.

   Inner City Press noted that Uganda offered to mediate but was rebuffed by Kabila. Do all Council members agree?

  Rosenthal replied thoughtfully that "the DRC has been unwilling to have such discussions for reasons of its own," so such an initiative would be up to the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region through its current presidency, Uganda. Video here, from Minute 1:27.

  Yes, but Uganda was rebuffed. In order circumstances, the Security Council will urge parties to talk. Will it here, in the Presidential Statement that Rosenthal said he expects to issue early next week?

  France, whose Ambassador Gerard Araud left well before the meeting ended in order to give a speech at Columbia University about Syria, has said that there should be a dialogue between Kinshasa and Kigali, with no mention of the M23 and its stated grievances. So what will the Presidential Statement say?

  Inner City Press also asked Rosenthal if the UN has any access, humanitarian or otherwise, to the areas controlled by the M23. He replied that "there is a UN presence," MONUSCO, but it is limited to "urban areas." Apparently, that means Rutshuru.

  Rosenthal said that MONUSCO "is not looking for skirmishes with the M23 for obvious reasons." The reasons may be obvious, at least to some -- but just on the surface this seems to conflict with MONUSCO's supposedly robust protection of civilians mandate.

  This is another question that should be answered by thehead of UN Peacekeeping, Herve Ladsous, who refuses to answer Press questions and Wednesday was not in town to give the briefing -- he is in another UN Peacekeeping mission of dubious accomplishment, or constrained by France related colonial issues: MINURSO in Western Sahara, while it was being discussed in the UN's Special Committee on Decolonialization. Watch this site.