Showing posts with label kirby. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kirby. Show all posts

Sunday, March 20, 2016

On Yemen, Inner City Press Asks Ban Ki-moon's Fishy Envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed About Saudi Airstrikes, His Meetings


By Matthew Russell Lee

WASHINGTON, March 19 --  When Inner City Press asked US State Department spokesperson John Kirby about Yemen on March 15, Kirby said "we welcome the fact that there is a cessation of hostilities."
  On March 16, Inner City Press returned to the State Department and asked Kirby's deputy Mark Toner about the Saudi airstrikes in Hajjah which killed, it asked, 41 or 107 people; Toner replied in part that the US could not verify the specifics, see below.
 On March 19, amid yet MORE Saudi airstrikes on Sana'a, the UN's fishy envoy Ismail Ould Cheick Ahmed said something pubicly, on Twitter - but it was not about the bombing and suffering. Instead it was: "Important meetings in Sana'a today in order to prepare for the next round of peace talks for #Yemen."
  So Inner City Press asked him, "Press question for @OSESGY: I see you saying you have important meetings in Sana'a; any comment on #Saudi airstrikes there?"
  While some predicted blocking -- the approach taken by Burundi's current Ambassador to the UN, and a former of a P5 -- we will await a response and explanation, watch this site.
On March 18, Inner City Press asked Kirby again:
Inner City Press: On Yemen, I see that you answered yesterday and you said you didn’t have the details yet about this airstrike in Hajjah province, but now the UN’s human rights commissioner has said that his team got there on Wednesday.  They put the death count at 106.  UNICEF Yemen puts it at 118.  So I’m just wondering, do you accept that as kind of – as – is that enough information to – for the U.S. to say this did happen and that’s the death count?

MR KIRBY:  We’re aware and deeply concerned by reports that a significant number of civilians may have been killed or injured during a strike near a market in northern Yemen.  I’m unable today to verify any of the specifics of what happened.  I would note, though, that the coalition has stated that it will conduct an investigation of the incident, and we encourage them to conduct a prompt, transparent investigation and publicly release the results.  It’s vital that the investigation provide a thorough and objective accounting of the facts and circumstances of the incident and, if appropriate, to address any factors that led to it so that we can prevent reoccurrence, of course.

As we’ve said previously, we’re deeply concerned by the effects of the crisis in Yemen, both in terms of civilian casualties and the dire humanitarian situation which still exists.  Okay?
  
 On March 18, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights put the civilian death toll at 106; UNICEF in Yemen puts the figure at 118 dead including 22 children.
 On March 16, Inner City Press returned and asked Kirby's deputy Mark Toner about the Saudi airstrike in Hajjah, full video here from Minute 56:28; Vine hereUS transcript here:
QUESTION: Inner City Press. I want to ask about Yemen and something about the UN.

MR TONER: Sure.

Inner City Press: On Yemen, yesterday, Mr. Kirby said that we welcome the fact that there’s a cessation of hostilities. And then, as I’m sure you know, there was a big airstrike in Haja province – some people say 41 killed --

MR TONER: Yeah.

Inner City Press: -- some say 107. What do you say to that? And related back to the genocide question, also still on Yemen, Sudan is part of the coalition. Sudan has troops in Yemen with the U.S.-supported coalition. And I’m wondering, how is that – does that – does the genocide finding as to Omar al-Bashir in Darfur have any implication for the U.S. not being part of a coalition or militarily cooperating with a government whose head of state is charged with genocide by the ICC and was found by Colin Powell to --

MR TONER: So to your first question, we’re certainly aware of the reports that civilians may have been killed or injured during a strike, I believe, near a market in Haja province. I can’t at this time – cannot verify the specifics. We remain deeply concerned by the devastating toll of the crisis in Yemen, both in terms of civilian casualties, but also, obviously, in terms of the humanitarian situation that Yemen faces. We urge all sides to comply with obligations under international humanitarian law.

Speaking to the broader peace process, as you know, Secretary Kerry was just there. I was with him over the weekend, as was poor Dave here. And we were on a trip to Saudi Arabia. But one of the things that we discussed – he discussed, rather, with both the Saudi – His Royal Highness King Salman, also the crown prince, and the deputy crown prince as well as Saudi Foreign Minister al-Jubeir – they talked about the need for a political solution to the situation in Yemen. And so we support the UN efforts to that end.

In terms of your second question, I’m actually – I just don’t know the specifics about that or what prohibits us – you’re saying why we would not have been part of this, are we prohibited from taking part in that?

Inner City Press: No, no, I guess I was saying – you were saying that there – or people were saying in this first round that there were some legal implications if you make a finding of genocide. And I don't know if those include not working with --

MR TONER: But I’m not sure whether they pertain to --

Inner City Press: -- the government who --

MR TONER: I’d have to – yeah, I can take that question. I don't know.

QUESTION: Okay. And do you know – just one other – because I think the question was taken yesterday.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask about this corruption case about the UN. Today, in the Southern District of New York, the former deputy permanent representative of the Dominican Republic pled guilty and has pledged to cooperate against the former president of the General Assembly, John Ashe. I wanted to know the State Department’s position on it, and also on the Government Accountability Project. They wrote a letter – a public letter to the U.S. Mission to the UN urging them to get involved in opposing retaliation by the UN against the press that has been reporting on the corruption scandal. I think that some members of Congress are actually now – but I haven’t seen anything from the State – from the U.S. mission. So I’m wondering, is the State Department aware of the corruption case, and also separately of this GAP letter, and what’s their response to it?

MR TONER: I would imagine we’re aware. I’m not, unfortunately. I apologize we haven’t gotten back to you on that. We’ll take it.

At the March 13 press conference of US Secretary of State John Kerry and his counterparts, French Jean-Marc Ayrault, Italy's Paolo Gentiloni and the foreign minister of Germany, Yemen came up this way, from Kerry:
"We discussed Yemen, where we have agreed to work even more closely together in the next days to explore the possibilities of the political solution, and we both agree that it would be desirable to see if we can find a similar approach as we did in Syria to try to get a ceasefire. So we’re going to continue to work on that quietly, and we have a team of people who are going to continue to be working together to that effect."
Kerry mentioned it only in connection with his talks with Saudi Arabia -- no mention that the Saudis are responsible for two thirds of deaths, according even to the UN's Prince Zeid -- and Al Jazeera, cutting away, mentioned only Syria and Libya. France 24 wasn't even covering the press conference, stuck on an old show about Asia.
  Kerry spoke of medical aid in Syria; Inner City Press has been reporting -- even as the UN Secretariat ousts and harasses it -- on a developing resolution in the UN Security Council. The Saudi Ambassador said UNOCHA does not even want an aid access resolution on Yemen; the UN has not contradicted it.
  France's Ayrault spoke mechanically of support for Ban Ki-moon's envoy on Yemen. But where is he? 
On March 15, Inner City Press asked US State Department spokesperson John Kirby, from the US transcript:
Inner City Press: I want to ask about Yemen.  I saw the Secretary’s comments when he was in Saudi Arabia about possibility of a ceasefire similar to Syria and something about having teams on the ground working on that.  So I wanted to know – it seems like there’s talks between the Houthis and the Saudis that don’t involve Saleh or even Hadi.  It seems – what’s the U.S.’s – like, what was he referring to?  Is it – does he view direct negotiations between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia as a positive thing?  Is that the ceasefire he’s talking about?  And what’s the role of the UN envoy, who seems not to be part of those talks, and of Mr. Hadi going forward?  Is he the future president of Yemen or is he – has time passed him by?

MR KIRBY:  So there’s a lot there.  There – we still continue to support the UN special envoy and his efforts.  That’s not going to change.  And when the Secretary was in the region over the weekend, Yemen was – as he said, was a significant point of discussion with Saudi leaders.  Nothing has changed about our support for the UN special envoy and his efforts to get a political process going and move forward.  And the United States is going to remain firmly behind that effort.

He also said that we welcome reports that there is a reduction in violence between Houthis and the coalition forces led by Saudi Arabia.  We welcome the fact that there is a cessation of hostilities, quite frankly, that appears to also be holding.  That’s a good thing, because we’ve long said that there needs to be an increased effort by the international community to get humanitarian aid and assistance to so many Yemeni citizens who are in need, and that’s hard to do when there is still violence going on between both sides.

So we welcome this – that development, and we welcome the news that there are discussions between the two sides.  If those discussions can lead to a resolution of the conflict and to a continuation of the reduction of violence, that too is a healthy thing.  But it doesn’t mean that we aren’t also going to continue to support the UN track here, because we still believe that that is an important part of putting in place a sustainable governing structure, one that the Yemeni people clearly deserve going forward.  So it’s both, it’s both.  And he’s very much focused on both tracks and I think you’re going to continue to see that be the case going forward."
 On March 15, a Saudi airstrike killed at least 106 civilians in northern Yemen... 
On March 14, Inner City Press had asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:
Inner City Press: on Yemen, there are obviously a lot of reports now that the Saudis are negotiating directly with the Houthis.  This was referred to by some degree by John Kerry in his visit to Saudi Arabia over the weekend.  Where is the envoy?  Is the envoy part of this?  Is this outside the envoy…

Spokesman:  We referred to it, as well, on Thursday or Friday where this is something that the envoy welcomes and has been encouraging for some time.
 But is he involved?
  On March 5 Inner City Press published another exclusive: UN envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed's email to UN Under Secretary General for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman, which contradicts what envoy Ould Cheikh Ahmed most recently told the Security Council. The email exclusively published by Inner City Press shows flexibility on the Houthi side, with the prospects of meeting in Jordan or Morocco, while the Saudis insist on sending low level representation. The email is published in full, below.
 On March 7, two days after exclusively publishing Envoy IOCA's email to Feltman, Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq about it. He did not deny the email, instead saying that the envoy is working hard.
 But on March 8, when lead UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric gave a read-out of whom the Envoy met in Riyahd, there were no Houthis mentioned. 
 Inner City Press then asked Dujarric of the multiply-sourced Houthi - Saudi meetings: was Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed not even involved? If he was, why were the Houthis not included in Dujarric's litany of the Envoy's meetings? Vine hereFrom the UN transcript:
Inner City Press: On Yemen, you'd said that the envoy had been in Riyadh.  Yesterday, I'd asked Farhan [Haq] about this email that the envoy had written to Jeff Feltman about his discussions with the Houthis.  And now there's a report that the Houthis are, in fact, now in Riyadh and met at some level with the Saudis.  So, since the Houthis weren't listed in your readout of interlocutors, does he have anything to do with that, or is that a track outside of mediation--

Spokesman Dujarric:  We've seen these reports.  This is something that the Special Envoy has been encouraging for quite some time.  What's your second question?
An hour later in the UN Lobby Inner City Press asked UN OCHA's Stephen O'Brien about what Saudi Arabia's ambassador said March 4, that OCHA does not want a humanitarian access UNSC resolution for Yemen.
  I hadn't seen that, O'Brien politely replied. Inner City Press encouraged him, then, to check it out - the video's on YouTube. Watch this site.
 And dissembling to the Security Council? Likewise, Inner City Press asked Haq about the Saudi Permanent Representative to the UN saying that Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, and senior leadership of Stephen O'Brien's OCHA, privately said no humanitarian access resolution by the Security Council is needed.
  Haq insisted to Inner City Press that what O'Brien said in the open session was his position. But Inner City Press pointed out, O'Brien said the "humanitarian IT equipment" the Saudis seized would be delivered to Aden by March 6 - whereas Haq on March 7 said "later this week."
  Inner City Press asked Haq to confirm or deny at least the delivery of the humanitarian IT equipment, by email since Haq's "squawks" over the press floor public address system don't reach it, with UN DPI Banning ICP from its longtime office (petition here). We'll see.
 Here is the email:
"Dear Jeff, I just completed a 2-day visit in Riyadh and wanted to give you a quick update on how things have developed since my discussions with H/Mohamed AbdelSalam last week in Muscat.
I had a private discussion with both State Minister Mussaeed Al Ayban and Abu Ali where I briefed them on the readiness of the Houthis to resume discrete face-to-face meetings with KSA representatives. While they welcomed the progress made and expressed their commitment to go ahead with this track, they also emphasized that:
i) in light of the progress the Coalition has been making on the ground and their advance toward Sanaa, the Houthis should seize this opportunity and discuss in good faith as they are in a weaker position on the ground and their options are narrowing;
ii) KSA will not consider elevating the level of their representation in the KSA-H talks, as Mohamed AbdelSalam had requested. KSA considers that the 2 representatives they are sending are at the level of Mohammed AbdelSalam and the Houthis should not expect a higher representation at this point;
iii) KSA accepted the proposal of Mohamed AbdelSalam to meet in a third country (Jordan). Mohamed Abe Assalem has suggested to me either Morocco or Jordan as the venue.
 I immediately called Mohemad AbdelSalam from Riyadh to share the outcomes of the meeting. He was going to talk to his leadership and revert to me with a confirmation. If the Houthis accept, the Houthi - KSA meeting could go ahead as early as next week, in Jordan. We of course would not participate nor be present. I have however already started coordination with the Jordan Ambassador to Yemen, as needed.
Although we still do not have an agreement for a new cessation of hostilities, we have continued to press for commitment to the De-Escalation and Coordination Committee (DCC), and a range of economic initiatives (especially in relation to the Central Bank's independence and the reactivation of the Social Welfare Fund).
In my meeting with the GoY delegation, I continued to impress upon them the importance of participation of the GoY in the DCC, and to training which we are planning to organize in Amman during the coming weeks. The UK Ambassador informed me that Foreign Minister and Head of GoY delegation AbdelMalik El Mikhalfi today had responded positively to his suggestion.
There are been positive developments on economic initiatives which I have supported as well. Foreign Minister Mikhalfi participated in the Central Bank board meeting last week in Amman together with the Minister for Finance and the CB Governor. DPM/MoFA Mikhalfi acknowledged that significance of the Governor's attendance from Sanaa and was very grateful for my personal efforts to secure his participation with the Houthis, which was seen by the GoY as an important confidence building measure. Mikhalfi agreed on the necessity of developing further economic initiatives including the support for the SWF and SFD. My office is working with the UNCT, World Bank and IMF in order to ensure a sufficient level of technical support for these proposals.
 I am now in Nouakchott for 4 days where I need to renew my G4 visa and will proceed to New York on 16 February ahead of the SC briefing. I intend to remain in NYC until 22 February in order to meet with key Member States and HQ officials. I plan to also travel to Washington DC 19 February and hold meetings there. I look forward to seeing you in New York in a few days.
Best regards, Ismail."
  The above email was sent on February 11 and contradicts what Ould Cheikh Ahmed told the Security Council; meanwhile Saudi Arabia's Ambassador to the UN told the press on March 4 that envoy IOCA does NOT want a humanitarian access resolution.
 In the UN Security Council on the Yemen sanctions resolution adopted on February 24, language was added to try to discourage the Panel of Experts from looking into the act of the Saudi-led Coalition. Concessions were made, of a kind not made for or about other countries under sanctions.
  (Inner City Press had to follow the process from outside the UN, literally, the park on 43rd Street across First Avenue, because only days after Inner City Press asked why the UN was so quiet about false claims of Iranian military equipment in a UN WFP aid ship, Inner City Press was summarily thrown out of the UN for seeking three weeks earlier to cover an event in the UN Press Briefing Room, and Banned, without due process. Petition here.)
  On March 4 in the same UN Press Briefing Room, Saudi Ambassador to the UN Abdallah Y. Al-Mouallimi held an unscheduled press conference to announce that OCHA, whose Yemen pick up the pieces campaign Saudi Arabia largely funds, does not think there's a need for a humanitarian access resolution. If true, some will say that OCHA has been bought.
 Inner City Press asked al-Mouallimi why his Yemeni counterpart had claimed to Inner City Press, on the record, that the WFP ship the Saudis seized contained "Iranian military equipment"? 
Al-Mouallimi said, among other things, the ship DID come from Iran... and the equipment wasn't on the manifest and was "hidden." 
Inner City Press asked him about cluster bomb use; he denied it and many media printed that quote, without more. Inner City Press asked him, if opposed to the UN Panel of Experts looking into the impacts of the Saudi Coalition, who should do it? This was not answered, except to again emphasize how tied the PoE is to the underlying, one-sided resolution.
 At the end, Inner City Press asked Mouallimi to encourage the Yemen / Hadi delegation to hold its press session in this same UN Press Briefing Room, and not for Gulf and Western UNCA scribes only, a spoonfed breakfast,  see below. Al-Mouallimi said he would convey the request. We'll see.
 On March 1, back in on a reduced access pass, Inner City Press asked UN OCHA official John Ging about taking "aid" money from Saudi Arabia while it blasts away at Yemen. Video here.
 Ging said these two are "ring fenced," and that the UN doesn't allow Saudi Arabia to put conditions on aid or where it is delivered.

  Inner City Press asked, what about the Saudi threat that aid workers should leave Houthi-controlled areas? Ging said the UN had pushed back.
But quietly, as was the case with the Saudi diversion of the WFP ship. Does money talk?  Apparently yes. 

Saturday, March 19, 2016

On Western Sahara, Projected UN Security Council Meeting Not Called, Two Tweets by Spox of US Mission to the UN Noted



By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 19 -- Why can't UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon go to El Aaiun in Western Sahara, even to visit the headquarters of the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara?

  On March 16, Inner City Press asked the US State Department about Western Sahara and then (from the State Department briefing room) published this, emailed to Inner City Press from Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner:

"The United States continues to support the UN-led process designed to bring about a peaceful, sustainable, and mutually-agreed solution to the conflict in the Western Sahara, one in which the human rights of all individuals are respected.

We support the work of the UN Secretary General’s Personal Envoy for the Western Sahara and the mandate of the UN Mission for the Referendum on Western Sahara (MINURSO).

We encourage all of the parties to remain fully and actively engaged in pushing the process toward an effective resolution."

  But on March 19, a strongly rumored UN Security Council meeting about Western Sahara did not happen, at least by 3 pm. And two tweets from the account of the acting spokesperson for the US Mission to the UN got a lot of play, on both sides of the issue, click here to view.

 On March 18, lead State Department spokesperson John Kirby said:

"We’re aware of those reports that they’ve asked the UN mission for the referendum in Western Sahara to reduce the size of its mission – to leave, as you put it.  We reiterate our support to that UN mission and to its important mission – to the important job that it’s there to do.  Yesterday the United States participated in a closed session of the UN Security Council, where members expressed concern about the situation.  The United States encourages all of the parties to remain fully and actively engaged in seeking an effective resolution."

  On March 18 Inner City Press asked Kirby, again, about theGovernment Accountability Project's letter to the US Mission to the UN about UN retaliation against the Press. Kirby said, "I’m also happy to refer you to our mission up in New York City." Later his office put in writing, "On the question on the Government Accountability Project letter, we’d refer you to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations."

But Inner City Press has already asked three at the US Mission about the GAP letter.

After the Security Council met on March 18 about Western Sahara, the Council's President for March, Ambassador Gaspar Martins of Angola, said the members had agreed to work both bilaterally and as  Council. Which is it? Left solo, France reflexively defends Morocco. French Ambassador Delattre on his way in said:

"With respect to Western Sahara, we, as France, but also as member of the Security Council, are having one clear objective, which is to appease the tensions. And that is why we believe that, at this stage, an important thing in order to appease the tensions, is for Morocco and the UN to have a serene, respectful, and in-depth dialogue. We believe this is absolutely important in order to, again, appease the tensions. This is our number one priority, and we will continue on this path."

 Sounds bilateral... Watch this site.

  On March 17 Inner City Press reported there would be an "emergency" meeting, under "Any Other Business," about MINURSO and Morocco's decisions. Since Ban's Secretariat, through USG of DPI Cristina Gallach, threw Inner City Press out of the UN on two hours notice on February 19, covering UN events has been significantly more difficult.

 Nevertheless, even for now at this remove we can report: Ban's Secretariat says MINURSO has 85 international staff and 157 national staff; it is considering a "family" duty station, which family members in El Aaiun and Las Palmas -- for now. The Security Council did not offer up the support Ban wanted. Then again, what has Ban done on injustice perpetrated by his Administration?

  On March 13, there was a protest of Ban Ki-moon in Rabat, Morocco that we predict will trigger a canned response (a protest in Jaffna, Sri Lanka drew no response at all, despite repeated questions).

 It was, it now seems clear, in a ham-handed attempt to forestall such protest that the UN on March 7 published UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric's Q&A on Western Sahara only in its English transcript of the day's noon briefing, not in the French version. Ham-handed and UNtransparent.

On March 14, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric about an upcoming meeting it had heard from other sources about. From the UN transcript:

Inner City Press: Has there been a request by Morocco's Foreign Minister to meet with the Secretary-General this week?

Spokesman Dujarric:  Yes.

Inner City Press:  And will that be an open photo op?

Spokesman Dujarric:  The meeting is still… we're still working on the scheduling of the meeting.  Obviously, it will be a photo op, as it is usually with every Foreign Minister that comes to town.  Vine here.

 And then, despite Inner City Press' question, Dujarric's office waited until four minutes before the deadline to go up to photograph the meeting to announce it. Some photo op.

Hours afterward, Ban's / Dujarric's Office issued this, in English only:

"Readout of the Secretary-General’s meeting with H.E. Mr. Salaheddine Mezouar, Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Morocco

The Secretary-General met today with H.E. Mr. Salaheddine Mezouar, the Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Morocco, to exchange views on the state of efforts to settle the Western Sahara dispute, as well as his recent visit to the region to explore ways to intensify the negotiating process.

The Secretary-General took note of the misunderstanding related to his use of the word “occupation” as his personal reaction to the deplorable humanitarian conditions in which the Sahrawi refugees have lived in for far too long.

The Secretary-General also conveyed his astonishment at the recent statement of the Government of Morocco and expressed his deep disappointment and anger regarding the demonstration that was mobilized on Sunday, which targeted him in person. He stressed that such attacks are disrespectful to him and to the United Nations.

He also requested a clarification regarding the reported presence of several members of the Moroccan Government among the demonstrators. The Secretary-General asked the Foreign Minister to ensure that the United Nations enjoys respect in Morocco.

In choosing to misrepresent the purpose and progression of the Secretary-General’s trip to the region, the demonstrators, and their sponsors, deliberately chose to ignore that at every stop on his trip he underlined his personal commitment to encouraging genuine negotiations between the parties to achieve “a just, lasting and mutually acceptable political solution, which will provide for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara”, as the Security Council has repeatedly requested.

The Secretary-General underscored to the Foreign Minister that he has adhered closely to the Security Council’s mandate.

The Secretary-General reiterated his 4 November 2015 call for genuine and serious negotiations without preconditions to make progress soonest."

 On February 29, Inner City Press directly asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric, who replied that Ban's trip will be in two parts -- it's just that when the El Aaiun portion will happen is not known.

On March 7, Dujarric called in to the UN Noon Briefing from - where else -- Paris and made much of Ban's visit to part of the MINURSO mission but not its headquarters. Dujarric said there would be a second stage of the trip - to Rabat.

  Inner City Press now asks: why did the English language UN transcription of the March 7 briefing include Dujarric Q&A on Western Sahara, here -- while the UN's French language transcription, here, pointed did not?

Is this to please France?  On March 10 Inner City Press asked Dujarric,Vine hereUN transcript here:

Inner City Press: when you called in from Paris about Western Sahara, I've looked at the transcriptions, the UN transcriptions of the noon briefing that day in English and French.  And in English, there's your whole Q&A about Western Sahara, and in French, it's just not there.  And I'm wondering, is there some reasons? They're both working languages, et cetera.  What's the reason for that?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I don't… I'm not sure we put out a transcript in French of my…

Inner City Press:  No, in English… in the English noon brief…

Spokesman Dujarric:  I'm not sure we put out a transcript; I'll check.

  Twenty five hours later, nothing. So on March 11, even as Dujarric tried to deny Inner City Press any more questions, Inner City Press asked, UN transcript here:

Inner City Press: on Western Sahara, do you have an answer on the two press statements, English and French?

Spokesman Dujarric:  No.  But I… we're working on it.

  Vine here. Then Dujarric abruptly walked out of the UN Press Briefing Room, from which he ousted Inner City Press directly on January 29, and indirectly through another on February 19.

  Working on it? How hard can it be? At 6 pm on March 11 Dujarric's office called "lid," end of day, still without answering; Dujarric said something about "two weeks." Watch this site.

  On March 7, Inner City Press asked Dujarric if Ban had even tried to get to MINURSO's headquarters in El Aaiun -- Dujarric didn't answer that -- and if Ban hadn't in his comment distributed on March 6 given Morocco a veto over the referendum promises even in the name of the MINURSO mission.

On March 6, Ban Ki-moon (provided by the UN in French only)

"j’ai aussi rencontré les membres du personnel de la MINURSO, qui font preuve d’un grand dévouement. Ils sont prêts à aider à organiser un référendum s’il y a un accord entre les parties. Je me suis rendu dans plusieurs sites, et je compte aller prochainement au quartier général de la mission, à Laayoune, au Sahara occidental."

  Ban met staff of MINURSO - but not at its headquarters in El Aaiun - and said they are ready, after decades, to help organize a referendum IF there is an agreement between the parties. So Morocco has a veto?

  Dujarric dodged this too, saying that Envoy Christopher Ross should visit Rabat in late March. Inner City Press asked if Ban, now in his final year as SG, will at least ask the "Group of Friends" on Western Sahara, including France with its implicit or secret veto, to allow the promised referendum.

  Dujarric said he does not agree France wields a secret veto -- again, no surprise there - but to watch Ban's report to the Security Council in April. We will.

  Still, many long suffering Saharawis say even this half-visit by Ban Ki-moon is better than nothing. We'll see.

On March 5, Ban Ki-moon said he was in the regin "to visit the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO). I will visit the team site in Bir Lahlou, as well as personnel performing vital demining activities. I saw the remarkable and demanding work the Mission is doing in harsh conditions of the Hammada. I also expect to visit the headquarters of MINURSO in Laayoune, Western Sahara, soon."

  When? And why not say when he's not doing in now? And why he canceled in November (on the off chance he could go to North Korea. Priorities.)

Ban also said, "I have been heartened by the faith Sahrawis people put in the UN, its principles, and international law." If true, has the faith paid off?

Back on March 2, Inner City Press asked Dujarric's deputy Farhan Haq why Ban is not going, while wanly claiming he has the right to do. UN transcript here.

Ban was supposed to go in November 2015 but he canceled it, thinking he could get more political - read, South Korea electoral -- play by going to North Korea. But then North Korea turned him down.

  On February 25, Inner City Press asked Dujarric about issues including Western Sahara, after three days reporting on the UN from outside after Ban's head of Communications Cristina Gallach threw Inner City Press out without due process: petition hereweird pro Morocco spin on the ouster, here.

  Now ahead of Ban's March 1 stop in Spain - will Gallach be there? - there is pick up of the fact that Gallach is Spain's highest UN official, and that she ousted the Press from the UN.



Will it be resolved by, or come to head on, March 1? In defense of Ban and Gallach, anonymous troll account has taken to tweeting, now at Spanish journalists, that Gallach is fine and didn't throw Inner City Press out of the UN on two hours notice without once speaking to it. But those are the fact. Among the new troll account's followers are Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric and four UNCA board members, plus Reuters bureau chief Louis Charbonneau, who has a history with this,see here.

On February 26, Dujarric said, "the Secretary-General's right to visit any peacekeeping mission, but there is the de facto authorities in that area would need to provide the clearance for the plane to land."

   So, he really DOESN'T have the right, and isn't really pushing for it. Inner City Press on February 26 asked Dujarric, UN transcript here:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask what the Secretary-General's goals are for this Western Sahara trip.  What is he seeking to come out of it?  Does he… would he like to see a referendum with independence as a goal?  What's he go into it looking at?  Thanks.

Spokesman Dujarric:  Obviously, the… you know, a lot… a large focus will be on the humanitarian situation.  He'll be visiting the camps near Tindouf, and it is also part of his preparation, obviously… he will report on the trip in his upcoming report, which is scheduled for April.

  Humanitarian,? We'll have more on this.
 
  We'll see. UN President of the General Assembly Mogens Lykketoft announced a trip to Europe and Morocco; particularly as the bribery case against former PGA John Ashe proceeds, with two guilty pleas and also indicted former Dominican Republic Deputy Permanent Representative (and South South News executive) Francis Lorenzo found to NOT have immunity, taking Moroccon government funding for a trip to Morocco with a Morocco-provided staffer, particularly (but not only) if not addressing the obvious issue of Western Sahara, seems ill-advised. We'll have more on this.

  Why is this not covered more? Well, Lorenzo's (and also indicted Ng Lap Seng's) South South News gave tens of thousands of dollars to the UN Correspondents Association - where Lykketoft at least early in his term held his “press” events, and which more recently got the Office of the UN Spokesperson to throw the Press out of the UN Press Briefing Room, amid these corruption questions. We'll have more on this, too.





  Since the criminal complaint, Inner City Press has asked Ban's spokespeople for basic information, and has been rebuffed. Most recently, both the UN Development Program and Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric (previously of UNDP) have refused to provide even a copy of the agreement signed by Ng, UNDP's Teresa Liu and Dominica Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit.

  Inner City Press reported that UNDP was asking corporations for $100,000 to be seated next to heads of state by UNDP. Closer to Ban, literally, the UN Correspondents Association (which previously took money from Ng's media vehicle, then gave it an UNCA Award and Ng a photo op with Ban) now offers seats at the VIP table, next to Ban, for $6,000 (half table) or $12,000 (full table). By most definitions, this is corruption.

  Mogen Lykketoft, meanwhile, couldn't bring himself to say Ashe's name, only referring to the President of the 68th General Assembly session. Lykketoft, who allowed his Office to be used for fellow Dane Helle Thorning-Schmidt to campaign for the top spot in the UN's refugee agency UNHCR, said he will be making reform proposals. We will be there - with questions for Lykketoft.

  Ban again mentioned what he told Inner City Press at his last stakeout, a task force under his chef of staff Susana Malcorra. But as Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Dujarric, with all due respect, Malcorra accepted one of Ng's South South Awards, for Ban. And as note, Gallach went. We'll have more on this.
 

On Western Sahara, Inner City Press Asks State Dept in DC, In NY France Talks Serene Dialogue



By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 18 -- Why can't UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon go to El Aaiun in Western Sahara, even to visit the headquarters of the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara?

  On March 16, Inner City Press asked the US State Department about Western Sahara and can now (from the State Department briefing room) publish this, from Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner:

"The United States continues to support the UN-led process designed to bring about a peaceful, sustainable, and mutually-agreed solution to the conflict in the Western Sahara, one in which the human rights of all individuals are respected.

We support the work of the UN Secretary General’s Personal Envoy for the Western Sahara and the mandate of the UN Mission for the Referendum on Western Sahara (MINURSO).

We encourage all of the parties to remain fully and actively engaged in pushing the process toward an effective resolution."

 On March 18, lead State Department spokesperson John Kirby said more:

"We’re aware of those reports that they’ve asked the UN mission for the referendum in Western Sahara to reduce the size of its mission – to leave, as you put it.  We reiterate our support to that UN mission and to its important mission – to the important job that it’s there to do.  Yesterday the United States participated in a closed session of the UN Security Council, where members expressed concern about the situation.  The United States encourages all of the parties to remain fully and actively engaged in seeking an effective resolution."

After the Security Council met on March 18 about Western Sahara, the Council's President for March, Ambassador Gaspar Martins of Angola, said the members had agreed to work both bilaterally and as  Council. Which is it? Left solo, France reflexively defends Morocco. French Ambassador Delattre on his way in said:

"With respect to Western Sahara, we, as France, but also as member of the Security Council, are having one clear objective, which is to appease the tensions. And that is why we believe that, at this stage, an important thing in order to appease the tensions, is for Morocco and the UN to have a serene, respectful, and in-depth dialogue. We believe this is absolutely important in order to, again, appease the tensions. This is our number one priority, and we will continue on this path."

 Sounds bilateral... Watch this site.

  On March 17 Inner City Press reported there would be an "emergency" meeting, under "Any Other Business," about MINURSO and Morocco's decisions. Since Ban's Secretariat, through USG of DPI Cristina Gallach, threw Inner City Press out of the UN on two hours notice on February 19, covering UN events has been significantly more difficult.

 Nevertheless, even for now at this remove we can report: Ban's Secretariat says MINURSO has 85 international staff and 157 national staff; it is considering a "family" duty station, which family members in El Aaiun and Las Palmas -- for now. The Security Council did not offer up the support Ban wanted. Then again, what has Ban done on injustice perpetrated by his Administration?

  On March 13, there was a protest of Ban Ki-moon in Rabat, Morocco that we predict will trigger a canned response (a protest in Jaffna, Sri Lanka drew no response at all, despite repeated questions).

 It was, it now seems clear, in a ham-handed attempt to forestall such protest that the UN on March 7 published UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric's Q&A on Western Sahara only in its English transcript of the day's noon briefing, not in the French version. Ham-handed and UNtransparent.

On March 14, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric about an upcoming meeting it had heard from other sources about. From the UN transcript:

Inner City Press: Has there been a request by Morocco's Foreign Minister to meet with the Secretary-General this week?

Spokesman Dujarric:  Yes.

Inner City Press:  And will that be an open photo op?

Spokesman Dujarric:  The meeting is still… we're still working on the scheduling of the meeting.  Obviously, it will be a photo op, as it is usually with every Foreign Minister that comes to town.  Vine here.

 And then, despite Inner City Press' question, Dujarric's office waited until four minutes before the deadline to go up to photograph the meeting to announce it. Some photo op.

Hours afterward, Ban's / Dujarric's Office issued this, in English only:

"Readout of the Secretary-General’s meeting with H.E. Mr. Salaheddine Mezouar, Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Morocco

The Secretary-General met today with H.E. Mr. Salaheddine Mezouar, the Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Morocco, to exchange views on the state of efforts to settle the Western Sahara dispute, as well as his recent visit to the region to explore ways to intensify the negotiating process.

The Secretary-General took note of the misunderstanding related to his use of the word “occupation” as his personal reaction to the deplorable humanitarian conditions in which the Sahrawi refugees have lived in for far too long.

The Secretary-General also conveyed his astonishment at the recent statement of the Government of Morocco and expressed his deep disappointment and anger regarding the demonstration that was mobilized on Sunday, which targeted him in person. He stressed that such attacks are disrespectful to him and to the United Nations.

He also requested a clarification regarding the reported presence of several members of the Moroccan Government among the demonstrators. The Secretary-General asked the Foreign Minister to ensure that the United Nations enjoys respect in Morocco.

In choosing to misrepresent the purpose and progression of the Secretary-General’s trip to the region, the demonstrators, and their sponsors, deliberately chose to ignore that at every stop on his trip he underlined his personal commitment to encouraging genuine negotiations between the parties to achieve “a just, lasting and mutually acceptable political solution, which will provide for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara”, as the Security Council has repeatedly requested.

The Secretary-General underscored to the Foreign Minister that he has adhered closely to the Security Council’s mandate.

The Secretary-General reiterated his 4 November 2015 call for genuine and serious negotiations without preconditions to make progress soonest."

 On February 29, Inner City Press directly asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric, who replied that Ban's trip will be in two parts -- it's just that when the El Aaiun portion will happen is not known.

On March 7, Dujarric called in to the UN Noon Briefing from - where else -- Paris and made much of Ban's visit to part of the MINURSO mission but not its headquarters. Dujarric said there would be a second stage of the trip - to Rabat.

  Inner City Press now asks: why did the English language UN transcription of the March 7 briefing include Dujarric Q&A on Western Sahara, here -- while the UN's French language transcription, here, pointed did not?

Is this to please France?  On March 10 Inner City Press asked Dujarric,Vine hereUN transcript here:

Inner City Press: when you called in from Paris about Western Sahara, I've looked at the transcriptions, the UN transcriptions of the noon briefing that day in English and French.  And in English, there's your whole Q&A about Western Sahara, and in French, it's just not there.  And I'm wondering, is there some reasons? They're both working languages, et cetera.  What's the reason for that?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I don't… I'm not sure we put out a transcript in French of my…

Inner City Press:  No, in English… in the English noon brief…

Spokesman Dujarric:  I'm not sure we put out a transcript; I'll check.

  Twenty five hours later, nothing. So on March 11, even as Dujarric tried to deny Inner City Press any more questions, Inner City Press asked, UN transcript here:

Inner City Press: on Western Sahara, do you have an answer on the two press statements, English and French?

Spokesman Dujarric:  No.  But I… we're working on it.

  Vine here. Then Dujarric abruptly walked out of the UN Press Briefing Room, from which he ousted Inner City Press directly on January 29, and indirectly through another on February 19.

  Working on it? How hard can it be? At 6 pm on March 11 Dujarric's office called "lid," end of day, still without answering; Dujarric said something about "two weeks." Watch this site.

  On March 7, Inner City Press asked Dujarric if Ban had even tried to get to MINURSO's headquarters in El Aaiun -- Dujarric didn't answer that -- and if Ban hadn't in his comment distributed on March 6 given Morocco a veto over the referendum promises even in the name of the MINURSO mission.

On March 6, Ban Ki-moon (provided by the UN in French only)

"j’ai aussi rencontré les membres du personnel de la MINURSO, qui font preuve d’un grand dévouement. Ils sont prêts à aider à organiser un référendum s’il y a un accord entre les parties. Je me suis rendu dans plusieurs sites, et je compte aller prochainement au quartier général de la mission, à Laayoune, au Sahara occidental."

  Ban met staff of MINURSO - but not at its headquarters in El Aaiun - and said they are ready, after decades, to help organize a referendum IF there is an agreement between the parties. So Morocco has a veto?

  Dujarric dodged this too, saying that Envoy Christopher Ross should visit Rabat in late March. Inner City Press asked if Ban, now in his final year as SG, will at least ask the "Group of Friends" on Western Sahara, including France with its implicit or secret veto, to allow the promised referendum.

  Dujarric said he does not agree France wields a secret veto -- again, no surprise there - but to watch Ban's report to the Security Council in April. We will.

  Still, many long suffering Saharawis say even this half-visit by Ban Ki-moon is better than nothing. We'll see.

On March 5, Ban Ki-moon said he was in the regin "to visit the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO). I will visit the team site in Bir Lahlou, as well as personnel performing vital demining activities. I saw the remarkable and demanding work the Mission is doing in harsh conditions of the Hammada. I also expect to visit the headquarters of MINURSO in Laayoune, Western Sahara, soon."

  When? And why not say when he's not doing in now? And why he canceled in November (on the off chance he could go to North Korea. Priorities.)

Ban also said, "I have been heartened by the faith Sahrawis people put in the UN, its principles, and international law." If true, has the faith paid off?

Back on March 2, Inner City Press asked Dujarric's deputy Farhan Haq why Ban is not going, while wanly claiming he has the right to do. UN transcript here.

Ban was supposed to go in November 2015 but he canceled it, thinking he could get more political - read, South Korea electoral -- play by going to North Korea. But then North Korea turned him down.

  On February 25, Inner City Press asked Dujarric about issues including Western Sahara, after three days reporting on the UN from outside after Ban's head of Communications Cristina Gallach threw Inner City Press out without due process: petition hereweird pro Morocco spin on the ouster, here.

  Now ahead of Ban's March 1 stop in Spain - will Gallach be there? - there is pick up of the fact that Gallach is Spain's highest UN official, and that she ousted the Press from the UN.



Will it be resolved by, or come to head on, March 1? In defense of Ban and Gallach, anonymous troll account has taken to tweeting, now at Spanish journalists, that Gallach is fine and didn't throw Inner City Press out of the UN on two hours notice without once speaking to it. But those are the fact. Among the new troll account's followers are Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric and four UNCA board members, plus Reuters bureau chief Louis Charbonneau, who has a history with this,see here.

On February 26, Dujarric said, "the Secretary-General's right to visit any peacekeeping mission, but there is the de facto authorities in that area would need to provide the clearance for the plane to land."

   So, he really DOESN'T have the right, and isn't really pushing for it. Inner City Press on February 26 asked Dujarric, UN transcript here:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask what the Secretary-General's goals are for this Western Sahara trip.  What is he seeking to come out of it?  Does he… would he like to see a referendum with independence as a goal?  What's he go into it looking at?  Thanks.

Spokesman Dujarric:  Obviously, the… you know, a lot… a large focus will be on the humanitarian situation.  He'll be visiting the camps near Tindouf, and it is also part of his preparation, obviously… he will report on the trip in his upcoming report, which is scheduled for April.

  Humanitarian,? We'll have more on this.
 
  We'll see. UN President of the General Assembly Mogens Lykketoft announced a trip to Europe and Morocco; particularly as the bribery case against former PGA John Ashe proceeds, with two guilty pleas and also indicted former Dominican Republic Deputy Permanent Representative (and South South News executive) Francis Lorenzo found to NOT have immunity, taking Moroccon government funding for a trip to Morocco with a Morocco-provided staffer, particularly (but not only) if not addressing the obvious issue of Western Sahara, seems ill-advised. We'll have more on this.

  Why is this not covered more? Well, Lorenzo's (and also indicted Ng Lap Seng's) South South News gave tens of thousands of dollars to the UN Correspondents Association - where Lykketoft at least early in his term held his “press” events, and which more recently got the Office of the UN Spokesperson to throw the Press out of the UN Press Briefing Room, amid these corruption questions. We'll have more on this, too.





  Since the criminal complaint, Inner City Press has asked Ban's spokespeople for basic information, and has been rebuffed. Most recently, both the UN Development Program and Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric (previously of UNDP) have refused to provide even a copy of the agreement signed by Ng, UNDP's Teresa Liu and Dominica Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit.

  Inner City Press reported that UNDP was asking corporations for $100,000 to be seated next to heads of state by UNDP. Closer to Ban, literally, the UN Correspondents Association (which previously took money from Ng's media vehicle, then gave it an UNCA Award and Ng a photo op with Ban) now offers seats at the VIP table, next to Ban, for $6,000 (half table) or $12,000 (full table). By most definitions, this is corruption.

  Mogen Lykketoft, meanwhile, couldn't bring himself to say Ashe's name, only referring to the President of the 68th General Assembly session. Lykketoft, who allowed his Office to be used for fellow Dane Helle Thorning-Schmidt to campaign for the top spot in the UN's refugee agency UNHCR, said he will be making reform proposals. We will be there - with questions for Lykketoft.

  Ban again mentioned what he told Inner City Press at his last stakeout, a task force under his chef of staff Susana Malcorra. But as Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Dujarric, with all due respect, Malcorra accepted one of Ng's South South Awards, for Ban. And as note, Gallach went. We'll have more on this.
 

On Western Sahara, Inner City Press Asks State Dept, Which Says It Support MINURSO


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 18 -- Why can't UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon go to El Aaiun in Western Sahara, even to visit the headquarters of the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara?

  On March 16, Inner City Press asked the US State Department about Western Sahara and can now (from the State Department briefing room) publish this, from Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner:

"The United States continues to support the UN-led process designed to bring about a peaceful, sustainable, and mutually-agreed solution to the conflict in the Western Sahara, one in which the human rights of all individuals are respected.

We support the work of the UN Secretary General’s Personal Envoy for the Western Sahara and the mandate of the UN Mission for the Referendum on Western Sahara (MINURSO).

We encourage all of the parties to remain fully and actively engaged in pushing the process toward an effective resolution."

 On March 18, lead State Department spokesperson John Kirby said more:

"We’re aware of those reports that they’ve asked the UN mission for the referendum in Western Sahara to reduce the size of its mission – to leave, as you put it.  We reiterate our support to that UN mission and to its important mission – to the important job that it’s there to do.  Yesterday the United States participated in a closed session of the UN Security Council, where members expressed concern about the situation.  The United States encourages all of the parties to remain fully and actively engaged in seeking an effective resolution."

As the Security Council met on March 18 about Burundi and Yemen, Inner City Press was told another topic was added....

  On March 17 Inner City Press reported there would be an "emergency" meeting, under "Any Other Business," about MINURSO and Morocco's decisions. Since Ban's Secretariat, through USG of DPI Cristina Gallach, threw Inner City Press out of the UN on two hours notice on February 19, covering UN events has been significantly more difficult.

 Nevertheless, even for now at this remove we can report: Ban's Secretariat says MINURSO has 85 international staff and 157 national staff; it is considering a "family" duty station, which family members in El Aaiun and Las Palmas -- for now. The Security Council did not offer up the support Ban wanted. Then again, what has Ban done on injustice perpetrated by his Administration?

  On March 13, there was a protest of Ban Ki-moon in Rabat, Morocco that we predict will trigger a canned response (a protest in Jaffna, Sri Lanka drew no response at all, despite repeated questions).

 It was, it now seems clear, in a ham-handed attempt to forestall such protest that the UN on March 7 published UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric's Q&A on Western Sahara only in its English transcript of the day's noon briefing, not in the French version. Ham-handed and UNtransparent.

On March 14, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric about an upcoming meeting it had heard from other sources about. From the UN transcript:

Inner City Press: Has there been a request by Morocco's Foreign Minister to meet with the Secretary-General this week?

Spokesman Dujarric:  Yes.

Inner City Press:  And will that be an open photo op?

Spokesman Dujarric:  The meeting is still… we're still working on the scheduling of the meeting.  Obviously, it will be a photo op, as it is usually with every Foreign Minister that comes to town.  Vine here.

 And then, despite Inner City Press' question, Dujarric's office waited until four minutes before the deadline to go up to photograph the meeting to announce it. Some photo op.

Hours afterward, Ban's / Dujarric's Office issued this, in English only:

"Readout of the Secretary-General’s meeting with H.E. Mr. Salaheddine Mezouar, Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Morocco

The Secretary-General met today with H.E. Mr. Salaheddine Mezouar, the Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Morocco, to exchange views on the state of efforts to settle the Western Sahara dispute, as well as his recent visit to the region to explore ways to intensify the negotiating process.

The Secretary-General took note of the misunderstanding related to his use of the word “occupation” as his personal reaction to the deplorable humanitarian conditions in which the Sahrawi refugees have lived in for far too long.

The Secretary-General also conveyed his astonishment at the recent statement of the Government of Morocco and expressed his deep disappointment and anger regarding the demonstration that was mobilized on Sunday, which targeted him in person. He stressed that such attacks are disrespectful to him and to the United Nations.

He also requested a clarification regarding the reported presence of several members of the Moroccan Government among the demonstrators. The Secretary-General asked the Foreign Minister to ensure that the United Nations enjoys respect in Morocco.

In choosing to misrepresent the purpose and progression of the Secretary-General’s trip to the region, the demonstrators, and their sponsors, deliberately chose to ignore that at every stop on his trip he underlined his personal commitment to encouraging genuine negotiations between the parties to achieve “a just, lasting and mutually acceptable political solution, which will provide for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara”, as the Security Council has repeatedly requested.

The Secretary-General underscored to the Foreign Minister that he has adhered closely to the Security Council’s mandate.

The Secretary-General reiterated his 4 November 2015 call for genuine and serious negotiations without preconditions to make progress soonest."

 On February 29, Inner City Press directly asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric, who replied that Ban's trip will be in two parts -- it's just that when the El Aaiun portion will happen is not known.

On March 7, Dujarric called in to the UN Noon Briefing from - where else -- Paris and made much of Ban's visit to part of the MINURSO mission but not its headquarters. Dujarric said there would be a second stage of the trip - to Rabat.

  Inner City Press now asks: why did the English language UN transcription of the March 7 briefing include Dujarric Q&A on Western Sahara, here -- while the UN's French language transcription, here, pointed did not?

Is this to please France?  On March 10 Inner City Press asked Dujarric,Vine hereUN transcript here:

Inner City Press: when you called in from Paris about Western Sahara, I've looked at the transcriptions, the UN transcriptions of the noon briefing that day in English and French.  And in English, there's your whole Q&A about Western Sahara, and in French, it's just not there.  And I'm wondering, is there some reasons? They're both working languages, et cetera.  What's the reason for that?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I don't… I'm not sure we put out a transcript in French of my…

Inner City Press:  No, in English… in the English noon brief…

Spokesman Dujarric:  I'm not sure we put out a transcript; I'll check.

  Twenty five hours later, nothing. So on March 11, even as Dujarric tried to deny Inner City Press any more questions, Inner City Press asked, UN transcript here:

Inner City Press: on Western Sahara, do you have an answer on the two press statements, English and French?

Spokesman Dujarric:  No.  But I… we're working on it.

  Vine here. Then Dujarric abruptly walked out of the UN Press Briefing Room, from which he ousted Inner City Press directly on January 29, and indirectly through another on February 19.

  Working on it? How hard can it be? At 6 pm on March 11 Dujarric's office called "lid," end of day, still without answering; Dujarric said something about "two weeks." Watch this site.

  On March 7, Inner City Press asked Dujarric if Ban had even tried to get to MINURSO's headquarters in El Aaiun -- Dujarric didn't answer that -- and if Ban hadn't in his comment distributed on March 6 given Morocco a veto over the referendum promises even in the name of the MINURSO mission.

On March 6, Ban Ki-moon (provided by the UN in French only)

"j’ai aussi rencontré les membres du personnel de la MINURSO, qui font preuve d’un grand dévouement. Ils sont prêts à aider à organiser un référendum s’il y a un accord entre les parties. Je me suis rendu dans plusieurs sites, et je compte aller prochainement au quartier général de la mission, à Laayoune, au Sahara occidental."

  Ban met staff of MINURSO - but not at its headquarters in El Aaiun - and said they are ready, after decades, to help organize a referendum IF there is an agreement between the parties. So Morocco has a veto?

  Dujarric dodged this too, saying that Envoy Christopher Ross should visit Rabat in late March. Inner City Press asked if Ban, now in his final year as SG, will at least ask the "Group of Friends" on Western Sahara, including France with its implicit or secret veto, to allow the promised referendum.

  Dujarric said he does not agree France wields a secret veto -- again, no surprise there - but to watch Ban's report to the Security Council in April. We will.

  Still, many long suffering Saharawis say even this half-visit by Ban Ki-moon is better than nothing. We'll see.

On March 5, Ban Ki-moon said he was in the regin "to visit the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO). I will visit the team site in Bir Lahlou, as well as personnel performing vital demining activities. I saw the remarkable and demanding work the Mission is doing in harsh conditions of the Hammada. I also expect to visit the headquarters of MINURSO in Laayoune, Western Sahara, soon."

  When? And why not say when he's not doing in now? And why he canceled in November (on the off chance he could go to North Korea. Priorities.)

Ban also said, "I have been heartened by the faith Sahrawis people put in the UN, its principles, and international law." If true, has the faith paid off?

Back on March 2, Inner City Press asked Dujarric's deputy Farhan Haq why Ban is not going, while wanly claiming he has the right to do. UN transcript here.

Ban was supposed to go in November 2015 but he canceled it, thinking he could get more political - read, South Korea electoral -- play by going to North Korea. But then North Korea turned him down.

  On February 25, Inner City Press asked Dujarric about issues including Western Sahara, after three days reporting on the UN from outside after Ban's head of Communications Cristina Gallach threw Inner City Press out without due process: petition hereweird pro Morocco spin on the ouster, here.

  Now ahead of Ban's March 1 stop in Spain - will Gallach be there? - there is pick up of the fact that Gallach is Spain's highest UN official, and that she ousted the Press from the UN.



Will it be resolved by, or come to head on, March 1? In defense of Ban and Gallach, anonymous troll account has taken to tweeting, now at Spanish journalists, that Gallach is fine and didn't throw Inner City Press out of the UN on two hours notice without once speaking to it. But those are the fact. Among the new troll account's followers are Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric and four UNCA board members, plus Reuters bureau chief Louis Charbonneau, who has a history with this,see here.

On February 26, Dujarric said, "the Secretary-General's right to visit any peacekeeping mission, but there is the de facto authorities in that area would need to provide the clearance for the plane to land."

   So, he really DOESN'T have the right, and isn't really pushing for it. Inner City Press on February 26 asked Dujarric, UN transcript here:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask what the Secretary-General's goals are for this Western Sahara trip.  What is he seeking to come out of it?  Does he… would he like to see a referendum with independence as a goal?  What's he go into it looking at?  Thanks.

Spokesman Dujarric:  Obviously, the… you know, a lot… a large focus will be on the humanitarian situation.  He'll be visiting the camps near Tindouf, and it is also part of his preparation, obviously… he will report on the trip in his upcoming report, which is scheduled for April.

  Humanitarian,? We'll have more on this.
 
  We'll see. UN President of the General Assembly Mogens Lykketoft announced a trip to Europe and Morocco; particularly as the bribery case against former PGA John Ashe proceeds, with two guilty pleas and also indicted former Dominican Republic Deputy Permanent Representative (and South South News executive) Francis Lorenzo found to NOT have immunity, taking Moroccon government funding for a trip to Morocco with a Morocco-provided staffer, particularly (but not only) if not addressing the obvious issue of Western Sahara, seems ill-advised. We'll have more on this.

  Why is this not covered more? Well, Lorenzo's (and also indicted Ng Lap Seng's) South South News gave tens of thousands of dollars to the UN Correspondents Association - where Lykketoft at least early in his term held his “press” events, and which more recently got the Office of the UN Spokesperson to throw the Press out of the UN Press Briefing Room, amid these corruption questions. We'll have more on this, too.





  Since the criminal complaint, Inner City Press has asked Ban's spokespeople for basic information, and has been rebuffed. Most recently, both the UN Development Program and Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric (previously of UNDP) have refused to provide even a copy of the agreement signed by Ng, UNDP's Teresa Liu and Dominica Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit.

  Inner City Press reported that UNDP was asking corporations for $100,000 to be seated next to heads of state by UNDP. Closer to Ban, literally, the UN Correspondents Association (which previously took money from Ng's media vehicle, then gave it an UNCA Award and Ng a photo op with Ban) now offers seats at the VIP table, next to Ban, for $6,000 (half table) or $12,000 (full table). By most definitions, this is corruption.

  Mogen Lykketoft, meanwhile, couldn't bring himself to say Ashe's name, only referring to the President of the 68th General Assembly session. Lykketoft, who allowed his Office to be used for fellow Dane Helle Thorning-Schmidt to campaign for the top spot in the UN's refugee agency UNHCR, said he will be making reform proposals. We will be there - with questions for Lykketoft.

  Ban again mentioned what he told Inner City Press at his last stakeout, a task force under his chef of staff Susana Malcorra. But as Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Dujarric, with all due respect, Malcorra accepted one of Ng's South South Awards, for Ban. And as note, Gallach went. We'll have more on this.
 

On Yemen, Inner City Press Again Asks US Of Saudi Killing 106, Saudi (Self) Probe Cited

By Matthew Russell Lee


WASHINGTON, March 18 --  When Inner City Press asked US State Department spokesperson John Kirby about Yemen on March 15, Kirby said "we welcome the fact that there is a cessation of hostilities."
  On March 16, Inner City Press returned to the State Department and asked Kirby's deputy Mark Toner about the Saudi airstrikes in Hajjah which killed, it asked, 41 or 107 people; Toner replied in part that the US could not verify the specifics, see below.
On March 18, Inner City Press asked Kirby again:
Inner City Press: On Yemen, I see that you answered yesterday and you said you didn’t have the details yet about this airstrike in Hajjah province, but now the UN’s human rights commissioner has said that his team got there on Wednesday.  They put the death count at 106.  UNICEF Yemen puts it at 118.  So I’m just wondering, do you accept that as kind of – as – is that enough information to – for the U.S. to say this did happen and that’s the death count?

MR KIRBY:  We’re aware and deeply concerned by reports that a significant number of civilians may have been killed or injured during a strike near a market in northern Yemen.  I’m unable today to verify any of the specifics of what happened.  I would note, though, that the coalition has stated that it will conduct an investigation of the incident, and we encourage them to conduct a prompt, transparent investigation and publicly release the results.  It’s vital that the investigation provide a thorough and objective accounting of the facts and circumstances of the incident and, if appropriate, to address any factors that led to it so that we can prevent reoccurrence, of course.

As we’ve said previously, we’re deeply concerned by the effects of the crisis in Yemen, both in terms of civilian casualties and the dire humanitarian situation which still exists.  Okay?
  
 On March 18, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights put the civilian death toll at 106; UNICEF in Yemen puts the figure at 118 dead including 22 children.
 On March 16, Inner City Press returned and asked Kirby's deputy Mark Toner about the Saudi airstrike in Hajjah, full video here from Minute 56:28; Vine hereUS transcript here:
QUESTION: Inner City Press. I want to ask about Yemen and something about the UN.

MR TONER: Sure.

Inner City Press: On Yemen, yesterday, Mr. Kirby said that we welcome the fact that there’s a cessation of hostilities. And then, as I’m sure you know, there was a big airstrike in Haja province – some people say 41 killed --

MR TONER: Yeah.

Inner City Press: -- some say 107. What do you say to that? And related back to the genocide question, also still on Yemen, Sudan is part of the coalition. Sudan has troops in Yemen with the U.S.-supported coalition. And I’m wondering, how is that – does that – does the genocide finding as to Omar al-Bashir in Darfur have any implication for the U.S. not being part of a coalition or militarily cooperating with a government whose head of state is charged with genocide by the ICC and was found by Colin Powell to --

MR TONER: So to your first question, we’re certainly aware of the reports that civilians may have been killed or injured during a strike, I believe, near a market in Haja province. I can’t at this time – cannot verify the specifics. We remain deeply concerned by the devastating toll of the crisis in Yemen, both in terms of civilian casualties, but also, obviously, in terms of the humanitarian situation that Yemen faces. We urge all sides to comply with obligations under international humanitarian law.

Speaking to the broader peace process, as you know, Secretary Kerry was just there. I was with him over the weekend, as was poor Dave here. And we were on a trip to Saudi Arabia. But one of the things that we discussed – he discussed, rather, with both the Saudi – His Royal Highness King Salman, also the crown prince, and the deputy crown prince as well as Saudi Foreign Minister al-Jubeir – they talked about the need for a political solution to the situation in Yemen. And so we support the UN efforts to that end.

In terms of your second question, I’m actually – I just don’t know the specifics about that or what prohibits us – you’re saying why we would not have been part of this, are we prohibited from taking part in that?

Inner City Press: No, no, I guess I was saying – you were saying that there – or people were saying in this first round that there were some legal implications if you make a finding of genocide. And I don't know if those include not working with --

MR TONER: But I’m not sure whether they pertain to --

Inner City Press: -- the government who --

MR TONER: I’d have to – yeah, I can take that question. I don't know.

QUESTION: Okay. And do you know – just one other – because I think the question was taken yesterday.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask about this corruption case about the UN. Today, in the Southern District of New York, the former deputy permanent representative of the Dominican Republic pled guilty and has pledged to cooperate against the former president of the General Assembly, John Ashe. I wanted to know the State Department’s position on it, and also on the Government Accountability Project. They wrote a letter – a public letter to the U.S. Mission to the UN urging them to get involved in opposing retaliation by the UN against the press that has been reporting on the corruption scandal. I think that some members of Congress are actually now – but I haven’t seen anything from the State – from the U.S. mission. So I’m wondering, is the State Department aware of the corruption case, and also separately of this GAP letter, and what’s their response to it?

MR TONER: I would imagine we’re aware. I’m not, unfortunately. I apologize we haven’t gotten back to you on that. We’ll take it.

At the March 13 press conference of US Secretary of State John Kerry and his counterparts, French Jean-Marc Ayrault, Italy's Paolo Gentiloni and the foreign minister of Germany, Yemen came up this way, from Kerry:
"We discussed Yemen, where we have agreed to work even more closely together in the next days to explore the possibilities of the political solution, and we both agree that it would be desirable to see if we can find a similar approach as we did in Syria to try to get a ceasefire. So we’re going to continue to work on that quietly, and we have a team of people who are going to continue to be working together to that effect."
Kerry mentioned it only in connection with his talks with Saudi Arabia -- no mention that the Saudis are responsible for two thirds of deaths, according even to the UN's Prince Zeid -- and Al Jazeera, cutting away, mentioned only Syria and Libya. France 24 wasn't even covering the press conference, stuck on an old show about Asia.
  Kerry spoke of medical aid in Syria; Inner City Press has been reporting -- even as the UN Secretariat ousts and harasses it -- on a developing resolution in the UN Security Council. The Saudi Ambassador said UNOCHA does not even want an aid access resolution on Yemen; the UN has not contradicted it.
  France's Ayrault spoke mechanically of support for Ban Ki-moon's envoy on Yemen. But where is he? 
On March 15, Inner City Press asked US State Department spokesperson John Kirby, from the US transcript:
Inner City Press: I want to ask about Yemen.  I saw the Secretary’s comments when he was in Saudi Arabia about possibility of a ceasefire similar to Syria and something about having teams on the ground working on that.  So I wanted to know – it seems like there’s talks between the Houthis and the Saudis that don’t involve Saleh or even Hadi.  It seems – what’s the U.S.’s – like, what was he referring to?  Is it – does he view direct negotiations between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia as a positive thing?  Is that the ceasefire he’s talking about?  And what’s the role of the UN envoy, who seems not to be part of those talks, and of Mr. Hadi going forward?  Is he the future president of Yemen or is he – has time passed him by?

MR KIRBY:  So there’s a lot there.  There – we still continue to support the UN special envoy and his efforts.  That’s not going to change.  And when the Secretary was in the region over the weekend, Yemen was – as he said, was a significant point of discussion with Saudi leaders.  Nothing has changed about our support for the UN special envoy and his efforts to get a political process going and move forward.  And the United States is going to remain firmly behind that effort.

He also said that we welcome reports that there is a reduction in violence between Houthis and the coalition forces led by Saudi Arabia.  We welcome the fact that there is a cessation of hostilities, quite frankly, that appears to also be holding.  That’s a good thing, because we’ve long said that there needs to be an increased effort by the international community to get humanitarian aid and assistance to so many Yemeni citizens who are in need, and that’s hard to do when there is still violence going on between both sides.

So we welcome this – that development, and we welcome the news that there are discussions between the two sides.  If those discussions can lead to a resolution of the conflict and to a continuation of the reduction of violence, that too is a healthy thing.  But it doesn’t mean that we aren’t also going to continue to support the UN track here, because we still believe that that is an important part of putting in place a sustainable governing structure, one that the Yemeni people clearly deserve going forward.  So it’s both, it’s both.  And he’s very much focused on both tracks and I think you’re going to continue to see that be the case going forward."
 On March 15, a Saudi airstrike killed at least 106 civilians in northern Yemen... 
On March 14, Inner City Press had asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:
Inner City Press: on Yemen, there are obviously a lot of reports now that the Saudis are negotiating directly with the Houthis.  This was referred to by some degree by John Kerry in his visit to Saudi Arabia over the weekend.  Where is the envoy?  Is the envoy part of this?  Is this outside the envoy…

Spokesman:  We referred to it, as well, on Thursday or Friday where this is something that the envoy welcomes and has been encouraging for some time.
 But is he involved?
  On March 5 Inner City Press published another exclusive: UN envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed's email to UN Under Secretary General for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman, which contradicts what envoy Ould Cheikh Ahmed most recently told the Security Council. The email exclusively published by Inner City Press shows flexibility on the Houthi side, with the prospects of meeting in Jordan or Morocco, while the Saudis insist on sending low level representation. The email is published in full, below.
 On March 7, two days after exclusively publishing Envoy IOCA's email to Feltman, Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq about it. He did not deny the email, instead saying that the envoy is working hard.
 But on March 8, when lead UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric gave a read-out of whom the Envoy met in Riyahd, there were no Houthis mentioned. 
 Inner City Press then asked Dujarric of the multiply-sourced Houthi - Saudi meetings: was Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed not even involved? If he was, why were the Houthis not included in Dujarric's litany of the Envoy's meetings? Vine hereFrom the UN transcript:
Inner City Press: On Yemen, you'd said that the envoy had been in Riyadh.  Yesterday, I'd asked Farhan [Haq] about this email that the envoy had written to Jeff Feltman about his discussions with the Houthis.  And now there's a report that the Houthis are, in fact, now in Riyadh and met at some level with the Saudis.  So, since the Houthis weren't listed in your readout of interlocutors, does he have anything to do with that, or is that a track outside of mediation--

Spokesman Dujarric:  We've seen these reports.  This is something that the Special Envoy has been encouraging for quite some time.  What's your second question?
An hour later in the UN Lobby Inner City Press asked UN OCHA's Stephen O'Brien about what Saudi Arabia's ambassador said March 4, that OCHA does not want a humanitarian access UNSC resolution for Yemen.
  I hadn't seen that, O'Brien politely replied. Inner City Press encouraged him, then, to check it out - the video's on YouTube. Watch this site.
 And dissembling to the Security Council? Likewise, Inner City Press asked Haq about the Saudi Permanent Representative to the UN saying that Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, and senior leadership of Stephen O'Brien's OCHA, privately said no humanitarian access resolution by the Security Council is needed.
  Haq insisted to Inner City Press that what O'Brien said in the open session was his position. But Inner City Press pointed out, O'Brien said the "humanitarian IT equipment" the Saudis seized would be delivered to Aden by March 6 - whereas Haq on March 7 said "later this week."
  Inner City Press asked Haq to confirm or deny at least the delivery of the humanitarian IT equipment, by email since Haq's "squawks" over the press floor public address system don't reach it, with UN DPI Banning ICP from its longtime office (petition here). We'll see.
 Here is the email:
"Dear Jeff, I just completed a 2-day visit in Riyadh and wanted to give you a quick update on how things have developed since my discussions with H/Mohamed AbdelSalam last week in Muscat.
I had a private discussion with both State Minister Mussaeed Al Ayban and Abu Ali where I briefed them on the readiness of the Houthis to resume discrete face-to-face meetings with KSA representatives. While they welcomed the progress made and expressed their commitment to go ahead with this track, they also emphasized that:
i) in light of the progress the Coalition has been making on the ground and their advance toward Sanaa, the Houthis should seize this opportunity and discuss in good faith as they are in a weaker position on the ground and their options are narrowing;
ii) KSA will not consider elevating the level of their representation in the KSA-H talks, as Mohamed AbdelSalam had requested. KSA considers that the 2 representatives they are sending are at the level of Mohammed AbdelSalam and the Houthis should not expect a higher representation at this point;
iii) KSA accepted the proposal of Mohamed AbdelSalam to meet in a third country (Jordan). Mohamed Abe Assalem has suggested to me either Morocco or Jordan as the venue.
 I immediately called Mohemad AbdelSalam from Riyadh to share the outcomes of the meeting. He was going to talk to his leadership and revert to me with a confirmation. If the Houthis accept, the Houthi - KSA meeting could go ahead as early as next week, in Jordan. We of course would not participate nor be present. I have however already started coordination with the Jordan Ambassador to Yemen, as needed.
Although we still do not have an agreement for a new cessation of hostilities, we have continued to press for commitment to the De-Escalation and Coordination Committee (DCC), and a range of economic initiatives (especially in relation to the Central Bank's independence and the reactivation of the Social Welfare Fund).
In my meeting with the GoY delegation, I continued to impress upon them the importance of participation of the GoY in the DCC, and to training which we are planning to organize in Amman during the coming weeks. The UK Ambassador informed me that Foreign Minister and Head of GoY delegation AbdelMalik El Mikhalfi today had responded positively to his suggestion.
There are been positive developments on economic initiatives which I have supported as well. Foreign Minister Mikhalfi participated in the Central Bank board meeting last week in Amman together with the Minister for Finance and the CB Governor. DPM/MoFA Mikhalfi acknowledged that significance of the Governor's attendance from Sanaa and was very grateful for my personal efforts to secure his participation with the Houthis, which was seen by the GoY as an important confidence building measure. Mikhalfi agreed on the necessity of developing further economic initiatives including the support for the SWF and SFD. My office is working with the UNCT, World Bank and IMF in order to ensure a sufficient level of technical support for these proposals.
 I am now in Nouakchott for 4 days where I need to renew my G4 visa and will proceed to New York on 16 February ahead of the SC briefing. I intend to remain in NYC until 22 February in order to meet with key Member States and HQ officials. I plan to also travel to Washington DC 19 February and hold meetings there. I look forward to seeing you in New York in a few days.
Best regards, Ismail."
  The above email was sent on February 11 and contradicts what Ould Cheikh Ahmed told the Security Council; meanwhile Saudi Arabia's Ambassador to the UN told the press on March 4 that envoy IOCA does NOT want a humanitarian access resolution.
 In the UN Security Council on the Yemen sanctions resolution adopted on February 24, language was added to try to discourage the Panel of Experts from looking into the act of the Saudi-led Coalition. Concessions were made, of a kind not made for or about other countries under sanctions.
  (Inner City Press had to follow the process from outside the UN, literally, the park on 43rd Street across First Avenue, because only days after Inner City Press asked why the UN was so quiet about false claims of Iranian military equipment in a UN WFP aid ship, Inner City Press was summarily thrown out of the UN for seeking three weeks earlier to cover an event in the UN Press Briefing Room, and Banned, without due process. Petition here.)
  On March 4 in the same UN Press Briefing Room, Saudi Ambassador to the UN Abdallah Y. Al-Mouallimi held an unscheduled press conference to announce that OCHA, whose Yemen pick up the pieces campaign Saudi Arabia largely funds, does not think there's a need for a humanitarian access resolution. If true, some will say that OCHA has been bought.
 Inner City Press asked al-Mouallimi why his Yemeni counterpart had claimed to Inner City Press, on the record, that the WFP ship the Saudis seized contained "Iranian military equipment"? 
Al-Mouallimi said, among other things, the ship DID come from Iran... and the equipment wasn't on the manifest and was "hidden." 
Inner City Press asked him about cluster bomb use; he denied it and many media printed that quote, without more. Inner City Press asked him, if opposed to the UN Panel of Experts looking into the impacts of the Saudi Coalition, who should do it? This was not answered, except to again emphasize how tied the PoE is to the underlying, one-sided resolution.
 At the end, Inner City Press asked Mouallimi to encourage the Yemen / Hadi delegation to hold its press session in this same UN Press Briefing Room, and not for Gulf and Western UNCA scribes only, a spoonfed breakfast,  see below. Al-Mouallimi said he would convey the request. We'll see.
 On March 1, back in on a reduced access pass, Inner City Press asked UN OCHA official John Ging about taking "aid" money from Saudi Arabia while it blasts away at Yemen. Video here.
 Ging said these two are "ring fenced," and that the UN doesn't allow Saudi Arabia to put conditions on aid or where it is delivered.

  Inner City Press asked, what about the Saudi threat that aid workers should leave Houthi-controlled areas? Ging said the UN had pushed back.
But quietly, as was the case with the Saudi diversion of the WFP ship. Does money talk?  Apparently yes.