On South Yemen, Could Al-Beidh Be Sanctioned As "Spoiler" by UN Security Council For Secession Talk?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 4 -- The UN claims it respects freedom of speech and the right to espouse political views including secession. But with a Yemen resolution being prepared by the UN Security Council, ostensibly directed at political spoilers, could a continued call for the (renewed) independence of South Yemen result in sanctions, including a travel ban and asset freeze?

Back on February 15, 2013 the Security Council issued a Presidential Statement expressing

"concern over reports of interference in the transition by individuals in Yemen representing the former regime, the former opposition, and others who do not adhere to the guiding principles of the Implementation Mechanism Agreement for the transition process, including former President Ali Abdullah Saleh and former Vice-President Ali Salim Al-Beidh. The Security Council reiterates its readiness to consider further measures, including under Article 41 of the UN Charter"

  Ali Salim Al-Beidh was formerly the president of South Yemen, which until 1990 was the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen. Now based in Lebanon -- or "south Beirut" as some darkly point out, with its Shi'a Crescent connotation -- Ali Salim Al-Beidh is once again asserting the right of southern Yemen to be independent.

  Does that alone make him a spoiler, legitimately subject to UN Security Council sanctions? South Sudan long advocated for the independence it ultimately received. So there is nothing per se spoiler about such advocacy.

  The Security Council has just returned from a French-led trip to Mali. They traveled to Mopti, near the north, and met with leaders from some communities in the north, but not Kidal. Former colonial power France has said all must participate in a dialogue. Would refusal to, and espousing of a right to independence, be considered sanction-able by the Security Council?

  Just before the February 2 US Super Bowl, a lengthy segment reading out the US Declaration of Independence was read out. Obviously there was no UN or Security Council at the time. But it's worth reflecting on: is there a right to advocate for independence?

  The loophole may be the allegation of external support, an allegation amplified and self-proved in Gulf and Western media. If groups in Yemen are making advances, they must have support from Iran, the dark talk goes -- therefore, they should be stopped and sanctioned; they are terrorists.

  Aren't armed groups in Syria getting external support? Those that advocate secession or even just autonomy, like the Rojava Kurds, are excluded from the process of Geneva Two. But are they spoilers? Sanctionable? There is no law, no protection of free speech or political participation. This is the UN.

  Now al-Beidh may well have other problems; it may be as UN envoy Jamal Benomar told Inner City Press at the Security Council stakeout twice, than many in the Southern Movement are amenable to the National Dialogue and that by implication al-Beidh is an extreme. But is advocacy sanctionable? Should it be?

   

Spinning Reduction in UNSC Media Workspace Agreed to by UNCA Big Wigs, DPI Claims Press Might Eavesdrop on Turkish Gazebo: Ironic, After Raid

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 31 -- As furniture was carted back into the UN Security Council, in the hallway outside where previously there was a media worktable a representative of the Department of Public Information tried to justify to Inner City Press the planned banning of media workspace there.

  The Free UN Coalition for Access, ever since it saw the proposed prohibition in the draft UN Media Access Guidelines on May 21, has been asking for a reversal or explanation of the reduction in media access from what existed before the Council's move to the basement, and while it was downstairs.

  And for now, this is the best DPI can come up with: diplomats sitting in the strange gazebo-like alcove of the so-called Turkish Lounge might be concerned about eavesdropping.

This strange argument immediately followed the statement that the press could sit IN the gazebo with a laptop. So which is it?

  (The specter of violating privacy is ironic from DPI, which on March 18 conducted a non-consensual raid on Inner City Press' office while UNCA's president Pam Falk took photographs she has yet to explain -- more to come on this.)

It appears increasingly clear that the proposed elimination of a media worktable in front of the Security Council is supported, is even attributable to, the Gulf and Western big wire services that control the old UN Correspondents Association Executive Committee.

Inner City Press asked DPI for identify of the drafters of the following paragraph:

"f. The Security Council stakeout area, including the Turkish Lounge, is not to be used as a permanent workspace for the media. When the Council is not in session, correspondents should minimize the amount of time in the area, unless interviewing or conversing with a U.N. delegate or official."

We all agreed to it, has been the answer. The parties to the Guidelines are UNCA -- apparently, only the Executive Committee, since there has been not general membership meeting or discussion of agreeing to this reduction in access -- DPI, UN Security and Ban Ki-moon's Office of the Spokesperson.

But Ban's Office at Friday's noon briefing said it didn't even know when the draft Guidelines would go into effect.

The UN preaches transparency and public participation to governments about the world. But even on this Guidelines, it can't say who proposed what, what the responses to FUNCA's proposed amendments are, or when the Guidelines -- which Guidelines? -- would go into effect. It's a joke, except it's not funny.

It has been explained to the top of DPI that it is with a media worktable that the Security Council has been able to be covered before the temporary move, and during the interim period.

It has been explained, since these top DPI officials like some of the wire services rarely come to the stakeout that a range of reporters use the media worktable at different time, for example to wait to speak with "their" ambassador during Council open debates. There is no way to know the specific time of a speaker, as some run over, and people trade places.

  So journalists have been able, while they wait, to work on laptops at the table, rather than as DPI and the UNCA big wigs now propose, stand up for three or four hours at a time. Why require that? We'll have more on this. Watch this site.