At UN, Australian Briefing on Chlorine in Syria, Palestine Letters; Burkina Faso and South Sudan Statements

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 5 -- The day after Australian Ambassador and UN Security Council president for November Gary Quinlan got his program of work agreed to, the Council  met behind closed doors on the afternoon of November 5 about Syria chemical weapons, and Palestine.

   Inner City Press reported on Palestinian Observer Riyad Mansour's letter and Q&A stakeout, here; additional letters about Jerusalem and the Al Aqsa Mosque were submitted to Quinlan by Jordan and by Israel.

  Quinlan told the press all three letters have been circulated and that, if requested by Council members, a meeting would be possible on November 6 despite there also being International Court of Justice elections in the Council and General Assembly.

 On Syria chemical weapons, after Quinlan summarized the briefing that was given behind closed doors by Sigrid Kaag by video from Beirut, he was asked by the correspondent from Al Mayadeen - who walked out of Quinlan's November 4 briefing - about his use of the term "Syrian regime."

  Was Quinlan speaking in his national capacity -- for the "Australian regime," as the Al Mayadeen correspondent put it -- or for the Council? Quinlan nodded and said, "Syrian government."

  Inner City Press asked Quinlan about Palestine, yielding the answer about the letters being circulated, and about reports of ISIS using chlorine in Iraq, and possibly having helicopters like other vehicles seized in Mosul.

  Quinlan said that "one member" had brought that up in the consultations. After he left, Syrian Permanent Representative Bashar Ja'afari spoke of ISIS using choline in Iraq and that ISIS might have helicopters. Off-camera Ja'afari told Inner City Press his government had destroyed the three planes ISIS claimed to have, and that none of the three could fly.

  Inner City Press also asked Ja'afari if UN Peacekeeping has contacted his government about getting UNDOF peacekeepers back on the Syrian side, taken over by Jabhat al Nusra. Ja'afari replied, no, that perhaps UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous is asleep or in winter lethargy.

  Inner City Press notes that Ladsous is certainly not reporting on deaths and attacks in Central African Republic, click here for that.

  Kaag is said to be seeking, or waiting for, another post in the UN system (Inner City Press asked her about it in a briefing, without direct response). Some wonder for how much longer these monthly briefing will continue. We'll see.

  The previously afternoon, on November 4, the Security Council met on Libya, South Sudan and, at Quinlan's request, Burkina Faso.

  The Burkina Faso briefing, which Inner City Press first reported on Tuesday morning, was to have been by UN envoy to West Africa Mohammed ibn Chambas. But first a source told Inner City Press that "the connection was too weak;" later, Quinlan mentioned the curfew there as well.

  The Security Council agreed to "Elements to the Press" on Libya; on South Sudan and Burkina Faso, for now there were summaries by Quinlan. 

  Twenty four hours later, there was still no Press Statement by the Security Council on Burkina Faso. But then one was issued, but not read out by Quinlan, on South Sudan, then the same on Burkina Faso. We'll have more on this.

   

On Syria, Inner City Press Asks Ambassador Ja'afari of US-Made BGM-71TOW Missiles, UNSC Press Elements Without Geneva III

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 17 -- Homs in Syria was the topic when the UN Security Council met at 5:30 pm on April 17. France called the meeting but most who left called it a failure.

 What was agreed to were vague "elements to the press" about supporting envoy Lakhdar Brahimi's call for local ceasefire talks in Homs.  

  Inner City Press asked April's Council president Joy Ogwu of Nigeria why no reference to wider "Geneva 3" talks was included. It is not in there, she indicated. Video here.

  Then Syrian Ambassador Bashar Ja'fari came to speak. Inner City Press asked him about US-made BGM-71 TOW missiles now in Syria, of the group Harakat Hazm. They are with Al Nusra, Ja'afari said.

  Inner City Press asked on what basis Ja'afari said the US approved their transfer to Syria, if they could have come through Turkey. Ja'afari said there is no way they could come in without approval from Washington. Video here.

  Ja'afari was asked by Voice of America, on whose Broadcast Board of Governor's US Secretary of State John Kerry serves, why Syria doesn't use Russia or China to get a meeting about Kassab. Ja'afari responded to the question; he did not say as France Ambassador Gerard Araud did on April 15 to Al Mayadeen, "You are not a journalist, you are an agent."
 
  By Araud's logic, is not Voice of America an agent? Is not France 24, also called on by Ja'afari? Ah, freedom of the press. Here is what the Free UN Coalition for Access has done so far.

   When outgoing French Ambassador Araud scheduled a press conference on human rights for April 15, he began to receive many questions, here, about blocking human rights monitoring in Western Sahara. 

  It is a policy Araud is particularly associated with, since Javier Barden quoted him calling Morocco France's "mistress." Araud spoke of suing, but hasn't.

   But when during the April 15 press conference, in which Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access were not called on, Araud was asked about France having killed people in Algeria, Araud told the questioner, You are not a journalist, you are an agent. Video here.

  The French run press conference gave the first question to Al Arabiya, for UNCA (now known as the UN's Censorship Alliance), then France 24.  By Araud's spokesperson Frederic Jung, a  Voice of America affiliate was given a question. 

  Syria "Caesar" report panelist David Crane was asked who funded it and answered on camera merely that he was paid. (The photographs, Inner City Press noted and notes, are extremely troubling - all the more reason that taking Qatar's funding and denouncing the only critical question were unwise.)

  Afterward, Inner City Press asked Crane to confirm the payment was from Qatar. He confirmed it. Inner City Press asked, did you seek any other, less compromised funding? The answer was no. In fact, Crane said he gave his recommendations to the Syrian National Council. Afterward Inner City Press asked him if he meant the Turkey based group headed by Ahmed Al Jarba, and Crane said yes, than added, "The resistance" writ large.

     When Qatar sponsored an event at the UN in New York on March 21 featuring the Syrian Coalition headed by Ahmad al Jarba, a group calling its the Syrian Grassroots Movement held protests seeking to oust Jarba.

   By March 22, the group stated that some 40,000 people in 58 cities inside Syria had participated in demonstrations to get Jarba out of his post, saying "it is time to put an end to political corruption."

  Back in September 2013, France sponsored an event in the UN and called Jarba the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people. French Ambassador Gerard Araud was the first questioning at Qatar's March 21 Syrian Coalition event. What is France's position now? Who chooses the leaders?

  Likewise, back in July 2013 and earlier this month, the Jarba-led Syrian Coalition held faux "UN" events in the clubhouse Ban Ki-moon's Secretariat gives to the largely Gulf and Western UN Correspondents Association. How does that now appear, in light of the anti-Jarba protests?

   Qatar's March 21 event was not listed in the UN Journal nor in the UN Media Alert. It was not on the UN's publicly available webcast.

  Select media outlets were there, when Inner City Press came in at the end to ask a question: Al Jazeera on the podium in Qatar's event, Al Arabiya like a Saudi diplomat -- not the Permanent Representative -- in the audience along with Al Hayat, even Al Hurra, on whose Broadcasting Board of Governors US Secretary of State John Kerry serves.

   The new Free UN Coalition for Access is against faux UN events, in the clubhouse the Secretariat gives to what's become its UN Censorship Alliance or elsewhere.

   On March 21 Inner City Press put these questions, also on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, to the UN's top two spokespeople:

"there is an event in Conference Room 4 right now, sponsored by Qatar, which is no listed in today's UN Journal, nor is it on UN Webcast http://webtv.un.org/ but it appears to be being filmed. Please explain the legal status of this meeting, if there are any sponsored beyond Qatar, how it was publicized and if any request to have it webcast was made. Thanks, on deadline."

  But no answer was provided. Inner City Press ran to the event and from the back of a three quarters empty Conference Room 4 asked why the event was so stealth: not in the UN Journal, not webcast.

  The Permanent Representative of Qatar answered, saying it was a "special event" to which Qatar had invited (some) member states and groups, and (some) media. There is a UN Media Alert, but this event was not put in it.

  Perhaps it was publicized by the Gulf & Western United Nations Correspondents Association, which has twice hosted faux "UN" events by the Syrian National Coalition or Syrian Coalition. (In both cases, the Free UN Coalition for Access suggested that the SNC hold its events in the UN briefing room, accessible to all journalists.)

  Since French Ambassador Gerard Araud, the first questioner flanked by representatives of Saudi Arabia and of Turkey which earlier in the day banned Twitter, has spoken about "fakes" and others about accountability, Inner City Press asked if the groups Al Nusra and ISIS, and those who fund them such as private individuals in Qatar alluded to at the US State Department briefing earlier in the day, could or would be held accountable.

  The SNC representative emphasized what he called links between the Assad regime and ISIS, saying it was too easy to blame the Gulf countries.

Here's from the March 21 US State Department briefing transcript:

Question: you have concerns about the withdrawal of the ambassadors. Do you also have concerns about the reasons that these countries said that they withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar? In other words, do you – if you have concerns about the withdrawal of the ambassadors, do you also have concerns about Qatar’s behavior, which – alleged behavior, let’s say – which led to these countries withdrawing their ambassadors?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I know one of the issues that has been mentioned is the issue of private donations to extremists – and that’s something that some have mentioned – operating in Syria and elsewhere. It remains an important priority in our high-level discussions, and one that we also certainly raise with all states in the region, including Qatar, including the Government of Kuwait, wherever we have concerns.

After Inner City Press asked about the sponsorship of the event, a one-page "Joint Statement by the Co-Organizers" was passed out, listing among the co-organizers France, the UK, US, Belgium, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Inner City Press tweeted it. 

   Even 24 hours later, the UN's top two spokespeople had not answered the simple questions put to them, above. Watch this site.

   

At IMF, Masood Ahmed Answers Inner City Press on Jordan $264 Million Loan & Syrian Refugees, Silent on Morocco and Western Sahara

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS System, April 11 -- When the International Monetary Fund recently announced a staff-level agreement to lend $264 million to Jordan, it was reported as "for Syrian refugees."

  Since doing humanitarian aid on credit, or on the installment plan, seems more than a little strange, Inner City Press submitted a question to the IMF's Middle East and Central Asia Department director Masood Ahmed: "can you explain the relation between this Stand By Arrangement tranche and the flow of refugees from Syria?"

  At the IMF's April 11 press conference, this question was read to Masood Ahmed by communications officer Wafa Amr, and Ahmed offered a lengthy answer.

  He said that Jordan's economy has been impacted not only by Syria but also disruption of energy flows from Egypt. But, he specified, IMF loans are not for specific projects or humanitarian aid. Still, that's how it was reported.

  A representative of Al Mayadeen TV asked a follow up question about the Syrian conflict's impact on Lebanon; SABA asked a question about Yemen and then the press conference was over.

  This Morocco question which Inner City Press submitted has not yet been answered:

You cited disbursements to Jordan & Tunisia but not Morocco. Where does that stand? What is the impact of the unresolved issue of Western Sahara, where it's said Morocco should not exploit resources, and Morocco's economic prospects?

  If and when an answer is received, we will report it. At least this IMF press conference took and answered online question(s), as urged by the Free UN Coalition for Access.

  When at the IMF three ministers atop the G24 group of developing countries took the stage at 6 pm on April 10, they were fired up about, or against, the US Congress refusing to adopt the so-called quota reform.

 G24 chairperson Ashraf El Araby of Egypt raised the issue. The first questioner -- one of only three, from a total of two media -- asked what will you do if the US doesn't agree to reform in six months?

  All options must be considered, Amar Bhattacharya of the G24 Secretariat said. Another questioner from the same media asked if loans contingent on the reform might be called in. Amar Bhattacharya said that would have to be considered.

  The only other questioner went big picture, asking if the situation of Ukraine and Russia was casting a shadow on the IMF and World Bank meetings. Senior IMF Communications Officer Silvia Zucchini said the G24 wasn't the right group to answer that. And it was over.

  The Free UN Coalition for Access would suggest that for such press conferences the IMF use the technology it uses for its usual biweekly briefings, where accredited journalists can pose questions online from elsewhere. Inner City Press had questions, but no way to ask there. Here was Inner City Press' G24 coverage from two years ago.

  This Spring's meeting has coincided with the death of former Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. Here is a 2012 Q&A with him, about the Volcker Rule and Tim Geithner, now cashed out to Warburg Pincus. They're cashing in on the Umpqua - Sterling Bank merger -- but that's another story.

  After Congress dropped International Monetary Fund reform from its legislation on Ukraine aid and sanctions, earlier today IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde calls the decision "utterly disappointing."

  In her embargoed "Global Policy Agenda," Lagarde returns to the theme: "The delay in making effective the 2010 reform package is utterly disappointing... These reforms are
essential to ensure the continued legitimacy, relevance, financial strength, and effectiveness of the Fund. Next steps will build on the advice of the Chairman of the International Monetary
and Financial Committee in his consultations with the membership regarding available options to complete the current round of the quota and governance reform process, with the objective of completing the 15th Review by January 2015."

 Seems like speaking with Rand Paul et al might be a good idea.

  Lagarde also brags that "several new lending programs have been put in place, including to support Armenia and Albania, while Poland, Colombia, and Mexico continue to benefit from added liquidity buffers through the Flexible Credit Line. Myanmar completed a staff-monitored program that has triggered debt relief from the Paris Club, and a major effort continues to build capacity in key areas of macroeconomic management."

  Lagarde has no mention of the violence in Rakhine State, nor of the Rohingya being excluded from the UN-funded census.

   Back on March 27 it was 4:25 am in New York and Washington when the International Monetary Fund announced its preliminary agreement for a $14 - $18 billion loan program with Ukraine. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

No Deal on Iran as France's Larurent Fabius Plays Prima Donna, Leaves EU's Ashton & Zarif to Explain, Reconvene Nov 20-1

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 9 -- While the talks on Iran in Geneva went past midnight, ultimately not even an interim agreement was reached. 

  Breaking the news -- and the talks -- was Laurent Fabius of France. But, as at the UN where he rejected a question about France's history in Algeria, Fabius did not take questions. 

  
  Rather, the EU's Catherine Ashton and Javad Zarif of Iran got a few questions, the last one from BBC: are you disappointed? Zarif said no, it was worth it, they will reconvene on November 20-21. But this will be at a lower level. 

  And what will happen, for example in the US Congress, in the interim? At the UN, will anyone tell France, no more using the UN for your African colonial projects?

  On Mali, after it intervened before Council approval in January 2013, France held solo media stakeouts, tightly controlling who got to ask questions and when.

  On the Democratic Republic of the Congo, France took the initiative even from the other Western P3 and handpicked which media could go on the UN plane to cover what was called the Security Council's Great Lakes trip (or France's "Genocide Joyride" as others called it).

  On the Central African Republic most recently, France deigned to "share" the spotlight with Rwanda - - most to shunt off questions about the International Criminal Court to that African Union member. Inner City Press video (and question) here.

  Further back, in December 2010 France abstained from the Security Council's resolution ending the Iraq Oil for Food program, entirely to push the interests of Banque Nationale de Paris.

  So why should Fabius' eleventh hour grandstanding come as a surprise? 

   Back in September 2013, after France tried to take leadership of the Syria expatriate opposition by sponsored Ahmed al Jarba as the "sole representative of the Syria people," Inner City Press asked Fabius how this alchemy could be performed in the UN without a vote of the credentials committee.

  Fabius responded with bluster; moments later he told a reporter from Al Mayadeen that he was not a real journalist, and turned as usual to French state media. It's to that and another audience that Fabius' prima donna routine is directed. Watch this site.

   

France As Prima Donna on Iran in Geneva Presaged on Africa & Iraq at UN in NY

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 9 -- The (re) emergence of France and its foreign minister Laurent Fabius as prima donna at P5+1 talks with Iran in Geneva has been a surprise to some. 

 It shouldn't be. 

 Of late among the P5 in the UN Security Council, France has been talking above its weight.

  On Mali, after it intervened before Council approval in January 2013, France held solo media stakeouts, tightly controlling who got to ask questions and when.

  On the Democratic Republic of the Congo, France took the initiative even from the other Western P3 and handpicked which media could go on the UN plane to cover what was called the Security Council's Great Lakes trip (or France's "Genocide Joyride" as others called it).

  On the Central African Republic most recently, France deigned to "share" the spotlight with Rwanda - - most to shunt off questions about the International Criminal Court to that African Union member. Inner City Press video (and question) here.

  Further back, in December 2010 France abstained from the Security Council's resolution ending the Iraq Oil for Food program, entirely to push the interests of BNP.

  So why should Fabius' eleventh hour grandstanding come as a surprise? 

   Back in September 2013, after France tried to take leadership of the Syria expatriate opposition by sponsored Ahmed al Jarba as the "sole representative of the Syria people," Inner City Press asked Fabius how this alchemy could be performed in the UN without a vote of the credentials committee.

  Fabius responded with bluster; moments later he told a reporter from Al Mayadeen that he was not a real journalist, and turned as usual to French state media. It's to that and another audience that Fabius' prima donna routine is directed. Watch this site.

   

At UN, Javad Zarif Asks Envoy to Syria Brahimi If He Comes to Iran Next, Ishallah Is Brahimi's Reply, Censors Jarba Games

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 2 -- "I came to say goodbye," envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi told Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif on Wednesday. "I am leaving."

  "Leaving to our place?" Zarif asked. "Are you coming to Iran next?"

  "Inshallah," Brahimi said. "Insha'Allah."

  UN General Debate week was over, but at 4:10 pm on Wednesday Iran's Zarif met with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and his team, on the UN's 38th floor.

  Inner City Press went up for the photo-op, along with other camera-people: four Iranian and one Lebanese, for the station Al Mayadeen. No one else, apparently, cared. But up on the 38th floor, even before the meeting, envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi came into view. A UN Security guard ordered, with authority unclear, not to film Brahimi.

  Also present on the UN side were Jeffrey Feltman, formerly the US State Department's Middle East chief, and Angela Kane, the head of UN Disarmament. There was Ivan Simonovic on human rights, and Valerie Amos on humanitarian affairs.

  There was Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson, seen earlier in the day at the press conference on migration, graciously making sure that the Free UN Coalition for Access @FUNCA_info got a question, about the death of workers from Nepal in Qatar.

But it was Zarif who appeared most collected and in charge at the beginning of the meeting with the UN. He said in passing this was his third time up here, "once with the President," Hassan Rouhani. As he signed Ban Ki-moon's book he said, I'll give you one more signature.

Ban's just prior meeting had been with Israeli politician Zehava Galon, Member of Knesset and Chairperson of the Meretz Party in Israel.

  After Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Tuesday speech -- for which Ban's spokesperson Martin Nesirky postponed the noon briefing -- and Iran's right of reply, which Nesirky talked over, it was reported as newsworthy that Iran called Israel, Israel. But that as subsequently corrected, that had been done before. What's in a word?

  While the four Iranian and one Lebanese camera-people and Inner City Press were up covering Zarif, Brahimi and Ban, down on the third floor of the UN there was a 4 pm party for the "end of the GA," in a space which only in July hosted a faux UN briefing by Saudi-sponsored Syria rebel boss Ahmad al Jarba. 

  Those are the politics of those running that club or alliance, the UN Correspondents' Association, UNCA, or UN's Censorship Alliance, to which Ban's UN gives a lock clubhouse for faux UN briefings -- the backdoor way into the UN, it's become known.

Nesirky when Pressed to explain why he postponed for Israel but spoke over Iran's reply replied, as transcribed by the UN:

Question: I understand there was a lot of interest in the speech of the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. [Benjamin] Netanyahu, and there have been other times where I’d wished the briefing had been postponed to hear, for example, the Foreign Minister of Rwanda. But, I just want to know what the policy is, because every day in this last seven days at noon there’s been somebody speaking. What’s the policy on when the briefing is postponed for a particular Head of State? Currently, Iran is speaking, giving its response to what Mr. Netanyahu said, and we’re, obviously, having the briefing at the same time. So, I just wanted to sort of ask you that, in an open-ended fashion, what is the policy?

Spokesperson Nesirky: I think journalists who are covering hard news do understand why I would not think it advisable to go head-to-head with Prime Minister Netanyahu. He’s the Head of Government, not the Head of State, by the way; that’s Shimon Peres. And, that’s the first thing. The second is that there is no hard and fast rule. It’s simply to try to help journalists, like yourself, to be able to cover things to the best of their ability. The fact of the matter is that the journalists in this building, for the most part, were focused today very much on what Prime Minister Netanyahu would have to say, and he was the last speaker in the general debate; and therefore, I took the decision that it would be better not to go head to head with Prime Minister Netanyahu, but to listen to what he had to say and to allow the journalists who are covering him to be able to listen, too, and not be… have their attention divided by wondering whether there was anything going to be said at the briefing, for example, about the chemical weapons team that went in today. As for the rights of reply, that’s a separate matter. That is a procedural matter. This was a speech that was the last one in the general debate.

Inner City Press:: And I really appreciate that. My only question would just be… since you’re using this term “hard news” and that this is harder news than other Heads of State or Heads of Government. Isn’t a definition of “hard news” hearing what the other side has to say, which is taking place right now?

Spokesperson: I think you understand the distinction, Matthew, and I think that most journalists in this room and watching this would understand the distinction

Inner City Press: Did you take a poll? Is that based on any polling data?

Spokesperson Nesirky: It’s based on my experience, for a quarter of a century — far longer than you, Matthew — as a journalist. Thanks very much. Good afternoon, thank you.

And that is another reason for the founding of the Free UN Coalition for Access, @FUNCA_info. Watch this site.

   

As Resolution Passes, Syria Told Ban Ki-moon France Violated Charter With Jarba, Press Games & History: China on Japan's Use of Chemical Weapons

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 27 -- After the UN Security Council adopted its Syria chemical weapons resolution 15-0, things got interesting. 

  In the chamber, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius claimed the resolution provides for accountability, which is false; his Chinese counterpart said that Japan used chemical weapons against China, which is true.

  At the stakeout, Inner City Press asked Syria's Permanent Representative Bashar Ja'afari about the French sponsored event the previously date, Group of Friends of the Syrian People, where Saudi-sponsored rebel Ahmad al Jarba was declared the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people.

  Ja'afari replied that he told Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, in advance, that the so-called side event violated the UN Charter; he added that Fabius has a "surreal" view of the resolution and the law.

  History too, apparently. Inner City Press asked Fabius, when he came out, how the Jarba event complied with the UN Charter.

  Fabius said he hadn't fully understood what Ja'afari said.

  Inner City Press said, en pasant, "Clearly."

  Fabius said, Either did you, probably. Then he said that while perhaps there was an issue under "the rules" -- that would be, the UN Charter -- it was clear that Assad killed 1,400 people.

  But, it occurred, when Sri Lanka killed 40,000 people in 2009, France didn't call any meeting, much less declare someone other than Mahinda Rajapaksa to be the representative of the Sri Lankan people.

  From the riser, a reporter from Al Mayadeen asked Fabius what about France killing Algerians. Fabius said, that's not a question. Then he turned to those closer to him, saying let's find "a real journalist."

  And so it is more clear that this French government, far from respecting freedom of the press, deems those whose questions it does not like to be non-journalists.

   It is similar to the way France as "pen holder" on the Democratic Republic of the Congo made it its business tohand pick which correspondents can go on and cover the Security Council trip to the Great Lakes region, including Rwanda.

  Ban Ki-moon took only two questions, one from a reporter for among others France 24 and then Pamela Falk, the 2013 president of the UN Correspondents Association, host of afaux UN briefing by Jarba in July. The UK also called on her, after Reuters. This is how it works at the UN.

  But a question arises: what was Ban Ki-moon's response to being told, in advance, that the UN Charter was being violated by France in the ECOSOC Chamber with Jarba? 

  Ban's Spokesperson's Office refused to answer Inner City Press' question about UNCA calling its session(s) with Jarba "UN briefings," saying, ask UNCA. That is not sufficient.

  It was said that Geneva Two should happen in mid-November; Australia's Gary Quinlan graciously stopped at the end of the evening and told Inner City Press that the next step is adopting the "humanitarian text" by next Wednesday. But wil that be a resolution or a Presidential Statement? Watch this site.