As North Korea Launches, GOP Debate & Super Bowl, UNSC 11 am Sunday

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 6 --  North Korea launched a rocket, a month after the Security Council tersely condemned the last test, and less than an hour before a US Republican debate in New Hampshire. On February 5, even a Permanent Five member of the Security Council said it had yet to receive any draft resolution about the test. So what will the UN Security Council do now?

Update 10:20 pm: The UNSC Presidency tells Inner City Press, it "Is confirmed the emergency meeting of the Security Council tomorrow at 11 am on North Korea."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After North Korea Launch and Meeting, UNSC President Says 15 Agree Violation, Nothing on Trilateral Meeting of Japan South Korea and US in The Hague

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 27 -- Two dasy after the Democratic People's Republic of Korea fired medium range missiles toward Japan, the UN Security Council held a meeting late on March 27 at the request of the US.

  Afterward Council president for March Sylvie Lucas of Luxembourg read out "elements to the press" that all members agreed the launch was a violation, and that consultations would continue. Video here.

  Inner City Press asked if a Presidential Statement or Press Statement was envisioned, but Lucas did not expand. Inner City Press asked her, and then South Korean's Permanent Representative, if they thought the launch's timing was related to the trilateral meeting held in The Hague between Japan, South Korea and the US.

  Lucas said it did not come up; the South Korean PR said that whatever North Korea's motives, the launch was a violation. Then it was over.

  During the meeting, a North Korean diplomat sat on a couch further down the second floor. Another diplomat spoke with him there, then returned, into the Council then out in the so-called Turkish Lounge. We hope to have more on this.

   On March 26, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq was asked by Inner City Press if Ban had any comments on the launch.. Video here.

  Haq said, You'll recall after the firing of short range missiles, on March 17... the Secretary General emphasized the need for DPRK to refrain for provocative acts. 

  But even three hours later as a UN Security Council meeting began, on the Golan Heights, there was no UN Secretariat comment yet. (Later one was emailed out: in response to questions.) French Ambassador Gerard Araudbreezed into the 3 pm meeting at 3:22 and said there might be a Council statement, he wasn't sure.

  The night before, Inner City Press asked Luxembourg, as UN Security Council president for March, if any meeting was in the works. Their mission quickly replied, "@innercitypress we are aware of reports, no UNSC meeting foreseen for the moment."

  And on March 26 she said nothing for that day; if tomorrow, she said let's see if there is a request.

  In Washington, US State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf said on March 25: 

North Korea launched two No Dong medium-range ballistic missiles from near its west coast on March 26 (local time). Both flew in an easterly direction over North Korea’s land mass and impacted in the Sea of Japan, according to U.S. government information. It does not appear that North Korea issued any maritime notifications providing warning of the launches.

We are closely monitoring the situation on the Korean Peninsula. Coming on the heels of the DPRK’s March 3 and February 27 Scud launches, these March 26 launches of medium-range No Dong ballistic missiles represent a troubling and provocative escalation that the United States takes very seriously.

Launches using ballistic missile technology are a clear violation of UN Security Council resolutions 1718, 1874, and 2094. Resolutions 1718 and 1874 require North Korea to suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program and to re-establish a moratorium on missile launches. Resolutions 1874 and 2094 further require the DPRK to stop conducting any launches using ballistic missile technology.

We are closely coordinating with our allies and partners, including in the UN Security Council, to take the appropriate measures in response to this latest provocation and to address the threat to global security posed by the DPRK’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

We urge North Korea to exercise restraint and refrain from further threatening actions.

    Was the March 24 press conference one of threats? The DPRK deputyrecounted a litany of ways the US has thrown "cold water" on attempts at reconciliation on the Korean peninsula, adding the the US needs an enemy in the region to justify its military presence.

  Inner City Press, after thanking Ri Tong Il for this briefing on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, asked him to comment on the trilateral Japan - South Korea - US meeting planned for March 24 in The Hague, and on last week's announcement that DPRK will resume "high level" talks with Japan. Video here from Minute 29:57.

  After saying, "I know you," Ri Tong Il told Inner City Press to "ask them" the first question. On the second, he cited the 2002 Joint Declaration in Pyongyang with Japan -- here -- adding that "past crimes" must be addressed.

  After his opening statement he'd said he could only take a couple of questions. Pamela Falk of CBS grabbed the first one for the United Nations Correspondents Association, and promptly asked two questions.  And so it goes at the UN.

  Back on January 24, DPRK's then Permanent Representative Sin Son Ho held a press conference.  He read a five-page statement entitled "It Is the Invariable Stand of the DPRK to Improve the Inter-Korean Relations and Achieve National Reconciliation and Unity."

  When he was finished he took three questions. He called on Inner City Press second, and when asked, "Will you answer the first one?" said he would take them in a bunch. On behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, he was thanked for the briefing, and prospectively for answers. But it was not to be.

  Inner City Press asked if the inter-family reunions he referred to would go forward even if the South Korean - US military exercises set for February do. Inner City Press asked asked, as it has the UN, about UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's January 2 call to President Park of South Korea, on which the UN refused to give a read-out. (FUNCA has protested this.)

  But Sin Son Ho said that the answers would be found in his statement -- no Ban there -- or on KNCA, state media. Might they know what Ban and Park discussed, and why?

 South Korean president Park Geun-hye went public on January 2 about a call her office said was initiated to her by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. 

  Ban "discussed the situation in North Korea, regional tensions over Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's visit to a controversial war shrine and other issues of common interest, her office said."

  What were these other "issues of common interest"?  More than four hours after Park's office went public about the call, the UN through Ban's spokespeople or otherwise, has provided no information. This is a pattern.

  As 2013 ended at the UN, the question arose why Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's statement on tensions between Japan and Ban's native South Korea (and China) was given to regional media before the Press which had formally asked a question, and why Ban's spokesperson has been deflecting questions since.

The answer, proposed exclusively to Inner City Press by well-placed sources in South Korea, involves Ban Ki-moon being in a poll for the country's 2017 presidential election, as a candidate of incumbent Park's faction of the ruling Saenuri party. Click here for story on that polling, in Korean.

Last week, Inner City Press asked Ban's two top spokespeople:

"on South Sudan, in light of the SG's response at his last stakeout, please provide his / the UN's response to the subsequent report that

'The Korean side is now accusing the Japanese of politically using the emergency faced by Korean troops in South Sudan, with one unnamed official saying that the Abe government’s linking of the ammo supply to its 'active pacifism' initiative was a 'clear political provocation.' Another unnamed official said Korea had told the Japanese to handle this quietly out of fear that the locals would turn hostile and attack Korean troops if word got out that they’d received ammo, but the Japanese were instead turning this into a big story. Korean government officials are also saying that they intend to return all the ammo to Japan once Korean ammo arrives from Korea, despite the fact that the Japanese said they could keep it.'"

But the spokesperson, Martin Nesirky and Farhan Haq, never answered this question, or even acknowledged receiving it. 

  While later a "Note to Correspondent" about Ban's position was sent out, and Inner City Press reported on it, it turned out that the very same Ban position had been given out to regional media 13 hours before. This practice is being opposed in 2014 by the Free UN Coalition for Access, whatever the motives of the practice.

  But here, as also illuminated by Ban spokesperson Nesirky's push-back at questions from Chinese media on December 30, and December 31 responding to Inner City Press' factual question about whether UNMISS had been contacted by the South Koreans before the South Koreans contacted Japan (and also about UNMISS' relationship with the American military or bullet-holders), there may be more.

  December 31 Q&A video here, and embedded below.

The theory, made composite from Inner City Press' South Korean sources, goes like this:

"South Korean peace keepers receive artillery fire from hostile forces -> SK field commanders immediately request ammunition shipment from Japanese peace keepers in the vicinity -> Japanese cabinet convenes an emergency meeting to approve the shipment -> shipment goes to SK -> upon media scrutiny (as this could mark a landmark shift in Japan's overseas defense activity), SK denies making a direct request to Japan and claims that it was made through UN (UNMISS) -> Japan refutes and even releases a clip from video conf between SK and JP units to prove its point -> UN supports SK's claim -> SK explains that the decision was made by field commanders... To put it succinctly [according to this theory]: Ban is potentially giving political cover for the Park administration by insisting on UN's role in the process."

So why didn't Ban's spokesperson answer Inner City Press' initial written question last week, or Inner City Press' in-person December 31 question? Such stonewalling only gives rise to more questions, or as here, theories. Or, when will it and the other so far ignored questions be answered? Watch this site.

Footnote: as context for most other than Chinese media on December 30 not pursuing this, consider that the insider United Nations Correspondents Association has accepted a large Samsung television, which was being installed on December 31. 

 UNCA's 2013 and 2014 president Pamela Falk claimed that the TV does not involve any mission. But even the UN, when asked by Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access, admitted that the TV equipment went from Samsung to South Korea's Mission to the UN to the UN and then to UNCA: it involved the South Korean mission and government. We'll have more on this.  
[January 2 update, and e-mail from "UNCA Office, here.]

Update: after 5:50 pm on New Years Eve the UN provided the responses below, which we publish just after 6 pm on December 31:

Subject: Your questions at noon on South Sudan
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:52 PM
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com

Regarding your question at noon today on Pariang, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations has provided the following information from the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS):

As of 31 December, UNMISS has 120 troops in its base in Pariang. The Mission reports it has no evidence that Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) elements are involved in the conflict in South Sudan.

On your question on the provision of ammunition to the South Korean engineering corps in UNMISS, this was a bilateral arrangement between two Member States. We suggest you direct your question to the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea. In terms of the UNMISS role, the Mission transported the ammunition to the South Korean troops in Bor. The US is a troop contributor to UNMISS; it contributes five military personnel to the Mission.

   

Exclusive: On DPRK, China's Li Baodong Tells ICP No Resolution, Rice "Went Too Far," New Transparency

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, December 12 -- Eight hours after North Korea's launch triggered closed door consultations of the UN Security Council on Wednesday, Chinese Permanent Representative Li Baodong told Inner City Press exclusively of some of the diplomatic points which had arisen.

  On the substance, Li told Inner City Press "our position is, we do not think a resolution can serve the purpose... Already we have two resolution."

  He told Inner City Press, "there's no agreement on the nature of the launching yet. We can have a conversation, what's the nature of this." He added, "DPRK this time has shown some degree of transparency. They are going to delay, they have problems, they recognize they have problems."

  On the process and atmosphere inside the Security Council, Li Baodong Inner City Press that US Ambassador Rice "used very aggressive language... I told her, I cannot accept that kind of language. You can disagree with my position, but you cannot use that kind of language."

  Li Baodong said, "I was representing my government... It went too far. I had to make that response. You have to show respect."

  Referring to the "elements to the press" that were ultimately issued on Wednesday, Li said "later on, she shows up with compromise." But will that now be all that the West gets? 

   Later on Wednesday, Inner City Press spoke with Japan's Permanent Representative Nishida. He expressed frustration at the current make-up of the Council, even asked -- in jest, one must assume -- the Press to "talk with Baodong." 

   These are big issues, but individual personalities negotiate them. What was served by the run-in between Susan Rice and Li Baodong on Wednesday? We'll see.

  On the difference, ignored by many, between a UNSC Press Statement and mere "elements to the press," it has been reliably explained to Inner City Press that unlike a Press Statement, elements to the press (1) do not go on the UNSC's web site, (2) are not translated, and (3) are not circulated. They are significantly weaker, an active Security Council expert exclusively detailed to inner City Press. Watch this site.

After DPRK Rocket Failure, Non-Urgent UN Meeting, Press Statement Expected

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 12 -- The impending North Korean missile launch has been a constant buzz at the UN Security Council this month. Council President Susan Rice has taken stakeout questions on it, and spoke about it on CNN. Then on Thursday it happened, and the rocket failed.

The Security Council as it happened was meeting, Deputy Permanent Representatives negotiating a draft resolution to send an advance team to Syria.

Reporters for Japanese media appeared at the stakeout, expecting immediate action. But the failure of the missile both led to some expressions of glee, some of disappointment or anti-climax, and to confusion about how the Council would react.

A well placed Council member told Inner City Press to expect just a Press Statement, far less than a resolution or Presidential Statement. The US Presidency did schedule a meeting, but it was said not to be any emergency session, just in the normal course of Council business.

Earlier on Thursday, Ambassador Rice had said

"Well, I've said that we think the Council should respond credibly. I believe it will. I'm not going to pre-sage a negotiation that hasn't begun, before a launch that hasn't happened. We have said and others have said that the wise thing would be for North Korea to forgo this provocative and ill-considered action, which is in blatant violation of international law and their international obligations. Every time they go down a path such as this, their isolation intensifies, the needs of their people increase, and they become more and more out of the bounds of the international community. That will be the case if they do so again."

Meanwhile there was news of a coup d'etat in Guinea Bissau, a country already on the Security Council's agenda. That too will be dealt with, in the Council's fashion, on Friday. Watch this site.

At UN Council, North Korean Launch Ends in Whimper, Not Bang, Media Decamps

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/unsc9dprk041309.html

UNITED NATIONS, April 13, updated -- With a whimper and not a bang, the UN Security Council is slated to unanimously adopt a presidential statement Monday at 3 about North Korea's "launch" eight days ago, saying it "contravened" -- not that it "violated" -- the Council's 2006 resolution. Over the weekend, Inner City Press put the draft statement online, here. Monday at noon, the spokesman for the Mexican presidency of the Council said no objections had been received by the deadline, thus putting to bed a rumor that Libya might object.

With most of the Japanese press corps having decamped -- click here for an InnerCityPress.org riff about the crews from Tokyo, denounced a "reptile media" by North Korean diplomats -- we are left with the embers of fights fought and misleading Mission statements. Associated Press, for example, has denounced France's Mission to the UN for apparently deceiving it about what Ambassador Ripert said, click here for the AP correction. There has been some push-back to Inner City Press' review of the communications strategies of France, the UK and other Council members, here.

Left unanalyzed in the hoopla about the agreed-to presidential statement is that the underlying sanctions imposed in 2006 are still unlikely to be enforced. Will South Korea actually stop and search ships on their way to North Korea? It is unlikely. Kim Jong-il has won, those trying to flee the country are in worse off state than ever. And so it goes at the UN. If anything transpires, we will live-blog the Council session, below on this page.

Update of 3:11 p.m. -- the Presidency's spokesman has told the Press that there will be no statements by member states in the Chamber, just the read-out by Ambassador Heller, who will then speak at the stakeout. There's grumbling: can the Council expand a sanctions list by a non-binding statement? Duplicitous compromise is a phrase that's used.

Update of 3:59 p.m. -- in a series of back to back stakeouts with the press, the ambassadors of Mexico, the US, China, Japan, Russia, the UK and Turkey all sung the praises of the presidential statement. (Inner City Press asked the one non-DPRK question, to Mexico about Sri Lanka, to be reported later today).

President Heller called the text a positive compromise. Ambassador Susan Rice said that the US views presidential statements, “broadly speaking, as binding” -- a position apparently not shared by the US “plant” in UNAMA, Peter Galbraith, who has told Congress in writing that even resolution, if under chapter 6 rather than 7 of the UN charter, don't have to be complained with. Inner City Press' attempt to ask about the two American journalists DPRK is holding did not result in a response.

Ambassador Takasu put the best face he could on things, saying that at least it was unanimous. (This perhaps implied it was better than a “binding” resolution if even one country, like Libya, has abstained.) Inner City Press and another asked how many companies or entities Japan's wants to be sanctioned. More than three, was the answer.

UK Ambassador Sawers acknowledged that the statement did not impose new sanctions. The Ambassador of China made a statement but took no questions. As he left, he was asked if China will search ships. Russia's Vitaly Churkin took that questions, and said all countries must comply. The Ambassador of Turkey, which chairs the sanctions committee, said the process will start, he is new to it. Then the media decamped and things went back to normal.

And see, http://www.innercitypress.com/unsc9dprk041309.html

On North Korean Missile, UN Council's Failure to Launch Called "Cautious" by China

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/unsc4dprk040509.html

UNITED NATIONS, April 5 -- The Security Council meeting on North Korea broke up Sunday evening with a whisp of a press statement, and a seemingly illusory promise of "constructive consultation" on getting a Council resolution to condemn North Korea's missile launch. The most telling on-camera comment came from China's Ambassador Zhang Yesui, who said that the Council's response must be "cautious and proportionate."

Council sources tell Inner City Press that during the consultations, China said that a press statement, and nothing more, certainly not a resolution, would be the appropriate response to North Korea's launch. Inner City Press asked Council president Claude Heller of Mexico point blank to confirm that China said this. That's something to ask China, Ambassador Heller replied.

China's reasoning emerged in background interviews with other diplomats. (Zhang Yesui refused all questions at the stakeout, his spokesman saying that he had to rush to meetings with the American mission.) Japan's Ambassador Yukio Takasu offered a summary of the past decade of North Korean launches and attempted launches, in 1998, 2006 and now. China is noting that in 1998, all the Council did was issue a press statement. So there is precedent for that approach, in their view. And that is all they need.

Others argue that this present launch violates 2006's Resolution 1918, which prohibited acts related to ballistic missile technology. But, the reply argument goes, if North Korea has a right to develop space, how else can they launch their satellites? And if Resolution 1718 was intended to have the effect of barring their development of space, it should have spelled that out.

Inner City Press asked Ambassador Takasu if the issues of human rights or the Japanese abductees came up, and if China had indeed said a press statement is all that is appropriate. "That is not my position," Ambassador Takasu replied, leaning away from the microphone, leaving the questions of human rights and abductees unanswered. So too with U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice: she was already leaving the microphone as human rights as a question was posed by Inner City Press. There was no answer. But there may be answers to all this, later this week. Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/unsc4dprk040509.html

As UN Council Meets on N. Korea Missile, China With Leverage, Japan in a Box

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/unsc3dprk040509.html

UNITED NATIONS, April 5, updated -- As Japan's requested Security Council meeting on North Korea's missile shot begins in New York, the expectations raised in Tokyo constrain the action and portend disappointment. Before the missile's flight, talk on the issue around the Council centered on whether Japan could obtain new sanctions in a resolution, or might have to accept a non-binding Presidential Statement. After a week of inquiries with Council diplomats, Inner City Press has preliminarily concluded that China is the winner, if there is one, from this missile launch.

China has a rationale to block a new sanctions resolution -- North Korea's claim that it was only a satellite, to which it has a right. China also prefers the Six Party Talks formula, which it can control better than it can the Security Council. (The same might be said of the United States.) So now that the missile has flown, what could convince China not a veto a resolution condemning North Korea?

Diplomats speaking on condition of anonymity tell Inner City Press that China can extract explicit or implicit commitments for allowing even a watered-down resolution to get through. These might include laying off on what little pressure there has been of late on Myanmar for democratization.

Inner City Press at midnight on April 4 reported and uploaded Japan's letter to Council president Claude Heller, and Heller's spokesman's confirmation that the consultations would begin at 3. At 2:30, there was already a buzz outside the Council, and a crush of journalists, a high percentage of which represent Japanese media. Inner City Press is set up and will be posting updates on this site. Stay tuned.

Update of 3:09 p.m. -- as Ambassadors push through the press scrum, some stop for short statements on camera at the stakeout. France's Ripert says they're seeking unanimity. Japan's Takasu said "Thank God" actual physical damage wasn't done. U.S. Ambassador Rice takes no questions, the UK's Karen Pierce rushes straight into the chamber. China is off-stage, holding the cards...

A Western diplomat tells Inner City Press that no resolution is possible today, because they'd have to check with capitals. At most, a non-binding statement, and perhaps not even that.

For more updates, see, www.innercitypress.com/unsc3dprk040509.html