After Iran P5+1 Extension For 4 Months, US Still Against New Sanctions Laws, Of BNP Paribas Sanctions Busting, Murky Mistrals

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 18 -- As the deadline for the Iran nuclear talks loomed, on July 18 the Joint Plan of Action was extended until November 24. 

  Three Senior US Administration Officials (SAOs) held a press call on background. The first SAO spoke against moves in Congress to legislate on new or future sanctions, saying that could undermine P5+1 unity.

  The second SAO said that while the US is concerned about Iran's activities in Syria, in Gaza and in Iraq, only long-range missiles that could carry nuclear weapons would be addressed in the talks.

  The third SAO bragged that $2.8 billion in the next four months will not begin to fix Iran's economy, and that the US will emphasize that Iran is not open for business, its central bank is under sanctions.

  But didn't BNP Paribas still do business in Iran? On a related note, France's outgoing ambassador to the UN Gerard Araud on July 18 said the the Mistral ships being sold "are not destroyers but transportation and command ships." (A reply: they are amphibious assault vessels.) With this attitude, what's next?

 Back on June 16 with the P5+1 talks starting in Vienna, the question arose how ISIL's advance in Iraq might impact them. 

  On June 16 a Senior State Department Official told the press, "We are open to engaging the Iranians, just as we are engaging other regional players on the threat post by ISIL in Iraq. The issue did come up briefly with Iran on the margins of the P5+1 in Vienna today, separate from our trilateral meeting. These engagements will not include military coordination or strategic determinations about Iraq’s future over the heads of the Iraqi people. We will discuss how ISIL threatens many countries in the region, including Iran, and the need to support inclusivity in Iraq and refrain from pressing a sectarian agenda."

  Earlier on June 16 a US Senior Administration Official told reporters the issue does not give Iran more leverage, while talks about Iraq may occur "on the margins," that is separate from the P5+1 process. 

  Asked of timing, the US official said "we are all focused on July 20... we can get this done."

  The official said that "World Cup fever has presented itself here in Vienna." Today Iran plays Nigeria, and the US plays Ghana (with Vice President Biden in attendance).

  Asked again about Iraq, the official said that the situation in Ukraine hadn't impacted the P5+1 talks. Inner City Press wonders if, with the blocking in the UN Security Council of Russia's proposed statement on the attack on its embassy in Kyiv, that might change.

  And as set forth before, how Francois Hollande's and Laurent Fabius' open lobbying for BNP Paribas and its violation of Iran sanctions might have an impact as well.

 Fabius has said that Iran wants hundreds of thousands of centrifuges and that France is drawing the line there, copying itself from 2013.

   But how strange: Francois Hollande and Fabius defend BNP Paribas' violation of Iran sanctions, while loudly playing hardball. Playing is the operative word.  

   With the July 20 deadline to conclude the Iran nuclear talks looking more uncertain, early on June 7 the US State Department announced that “Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns and Under Secretary for Political Affairs Wendy R. Sherman will travel to Geneva for consultations with Iranian officials on June 9-10.”

  Beyond the two days' relation to the July 20 deadline, they also come as Iran sanctions violations by BNP Paribas are being actively defended by French president Francois Hollande and foreign minister Laurent Fabius.

  These June 9-10 US - Iran meetings was called a bilateral and other US attendees were named, including Brooke Anderson, previously at the US Mission to the UN, and Jake Sullivan, who was with Vice President Biden at Petro Poroshenko's inaugural in Kyiv on June 7.

  Then Iranian bilaterals with Russia and China, each separately, were announced. The question was raised June 7 by Inner City Press: what about France and the UK? What about the European Union?

  The EU quickly announced that its Helga Schmid will also play a role -- or “join” -- in Geneva. EU spokesperson Michael Mann said, “The US will hold a bilateral with the deputy chief Iranian negotiator in Geneva next week. EU Political Director Helga Schmid will join. Other bilaterals will follow in the next days.”

  So when is a bilateral meeting NOT a bilateral?

  Soon a US Senior Adminstration Official on background responded to questions: “As we've said - and as the EU just noted - these talks are intensifying. The P5+1 and the EU have been in total coordination throughout these talks, including regarding bilateral discussions. As such, EU Political Director Helga Schmid will join in Geneva as well.”

  So again: when is a bilateral no longer a bilateral? Will France itself try to participate, with Jacques Audibert's replacement Nicolas de Riviere a/k/a Flippy Nic? 

  How to compare France's hard-line position on Iran and sanctions violations now that Francois Hollande and Laurent Fabuis are actively defending sanctions violations, not only to Sudan but also Iran, by BNP Paribas? A new dynamic? Watch this site.

   

French President Hollande Lobbies for BNP as Six US Senators Question France's Mistral Warship Sales to Russia

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 6 -- France at the UN and elsewhere speechifies about violations of sanctions by others, but now President Francois Hollande and Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius are defending BNP Paribas' violation of Sudan and Iran sanctions. 

  Meanwhile, on June 5 a bipartisan group of six US Senators wrote to Hollande to protest France's continued sale of Mistral warships to Russia even as France speechifies about Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.  These speeches, some say, need captions.

  The protest to Hollande came from Senators Dick Durbin of Illinois, the majority whip; Chris Murphy of Connecticut; Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire; Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota; Edward Markey of Massachusetts and Republican Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.

   Meanwhile Hollande and foreign minister Laurent Fabius are lobbying to get BNP Paribas off the hook for violating sanctions on Sudan and Iran. They denounce sanctions violations by others, but defend their own.

   Last month French Ambassador Gerard Araud declared a question and answer session at a Manhattan law firm to beoff record, though that was never said in the solicitation to come for the cost of $20.

Inner City Press went to the event, intending to ask Araud to reconcile his florid speeches on Ukraine in the Security Council with France's continued sale of Mistral warships to Russia, a question Araud previously refused to answer at the Council stakeout.

   But in the same week Araud was quoted by name in La Croix and elsewhere as saying to reporters that the Mistral sale continues, is not impacted by sanctions "'les Mistral ne sont pas concernés par les sanctions,' a assuré Gérard Araud, représentant permanent de la France auprès de l’Onu." Click here for La Croix.

   It is mysterious, Araud unilaterally pulling a bait and switchat the $20 law firm event and calling it off the record, then being quoted on the record bragging of Mistral sales.

  This is not like Spanish actor Javier Bardem quoting Araud as calling Morocco France's "mistress" on the Western Sahara issue, then Araud denying it and talking about filing a lawsuit (which he hasn't filed yet) - this is a direct quote, in at least two publications.

  Inner City Press previously got an answer from US State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf on the US' view of France's Mistral sales to Russia. From the State Department's March 14, 2014 transcript:

Inner City Press: on Ukraine, one question that’s come up is, in terms of sanctions is France has this big deal where it’s selling Mistral warships to Russia, and it’s said that it’s going forward. What does the United States think of that sale of military hardware?

MS. HARF: Well, decisions about these kind of sales are obviously a matter for each sovereign state to take into account including a host of factors – obviously, international law, regional stability. We would hope that any country would exercise judgment and restraint when it comes to transferring military equipment that could exacerbate tensions in any conflict region. In general, I think that certainly applies here.

   As Araud nears the end of his time at the UN, there are many questions he should be asked but has been avoiding. 

  For example, if his speeches about Russia in Ukraine are France's position, why is the French sale of Mistral warships to Russia still going forward? Inner City Press asked this at the UN Security Council stakeout but Araud declined to answer.

And as simply another example while Araud claims to have taken no position to oppose a human rights monitoring mechanism in Western Sahara, this is called into question by an answer he gave Inner City Press in 2013, when he still answered Press questions, about bilateral dialogue with Morocco being the best way. 

  Many beyond Inner City Press find Araud's position unclear, or as some put it, hypocritical.

  So when publicly on Twitter there appeared an opportunity to ask questions to Araud, albeit for $20, Inner City Press signed up, to "welcome Ambassador Gérard Araud, Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations, to discuss French priorities at the United Nations. Araud will address efforts to allow UN Security Council action regarding the crisis in Syria, as well as French and UN initiatives to allow stabilization in the Central African Republic and in Mali."

   Nowhere did it say it was on background or off the record. The money was accepted, confirmation sent. 

  And on May 1, after a UN briefing about the Central African Republic, Inner City Press rushed up to the venue, in a second floor law firm conference room in the Citigroup building.

  Inside the audience was affluent, business people in suits. There were oatmeal raisin cookies and at a conference table, Araud was answering questions. Then he said, repeatedly, "This is off the record."

  Is it legitimate? Why would one publicize an appearance and Q&A by Araud, for money, with no mention of its being off the record -- and then make it off the record? Why was Araud's spokesperson Frederic Jung there for this "off the record" Q&A with business people?

  In Washington last Friday, John Kerry spoke at the Trilateral Commission under announced in advance off the record rules, but a tape was obtained and the rest is history. Here, the event was never said in advance to be off the record, and money was accepted.

  While Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access, which has asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric to convey to Araud and his once presumptive successor Jacques Audibert the UN's stated position that correspondents should be treated with respect -- this after Araud on the record and on camera told a reporter, not this one, that "You are not a journalist, you are an agent" -- fully supported the reporting on Kerry's Trilateral talk, in this report there are no quotes. But there are questions. 

  Now with Audibert bound elsewhere, the Araud watch continues, in the name of press freedom and another thing French diplomats speechify about: protection of journalists. Watch this site.

   

ICC Syria Referral Carve Outs French PR Araud Obfuscated Slammed by NGOs; Murky Mistrals

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 27 -- Even before France's draft resolution to refer parts of the conflicts in Syria to the International Criminal Court failed on a double veto on May 22, there was criticism of France for agreeing to carve outs such as for the Golan Heights, for Israel, and for nationals of non ICC members like the United States.

  It took five days after the double veto and after a first letter that omitted the issue, but on May 27 the Coalition for the International Criminal Court came out criticizing the carve outs that French Ambassador Araud defended and obfuscated.

   On May 22 Inner City Press asked Araud after the vote about these carve outs: if an American pilot as part of a coalition of the willing, not approved by the UN Security Council due to veto, bombed civilians and was downed in Syria, would he be taken to the ICC?

"Of course," Araud replied. "It is not a peacekeeping operation. Read the text." Video here.

   Today's CICC letter says "Security Council referrals to the ICC should not include exemptions of the nationals of some states while conferring jurisdiction over the nationals of others states, as is the effect of OP7."

  The CICC has still not answered this May 23 Press question: "is what Araud said true?"

  Throughout May 22 Inner City Press received opinions, including from Americans surprised French diplomat Araud, slated to become an Ambassador in Washington in July, would say this, or that the US had agreed to support a draft which while exempting the Golan Height might put an American pilot in front of the ICC.

  There were also more legal opinions, some that Araud was technically right under Operative Paragraph 7 of the draft resolution:

“Decides that nationals, current or former officials or personnel from a State outside the Syrian Arab Republic which is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of that State for all alleged acts or omissions arising out of or related to operations in the Syrian Arab Republic established or authorized by the Council, unless such exclusive jurisdiction has been expressly waived by the State.”

  Presumably when Araud said yes the US pilot could be taken to the ICC because “it is not a peacekeeping operation,” he was referring to the phrase “ all alleged acts or omissions arising out of or related to operations in the Syrian Arab Republic established or authorized by the Council.”

  But the loophole, of course, is “RELATING to operations... established or authorized by the Council.” If the Council authorizes cross-border provision of aid into Syria, and an American pilot did bombing runs in Syria, would it be said the bombing was RELATED to the authorized aid operations?

  Ultimately, how can a country which is not a member of the ICC refer others to a court that is not good enough for it?

  Araud also belatedly addressed an issue he has refused to answer Inner City Press questions on: France's sale of Mistral warships to Russia while he speechifies about aggression on Crimea and Ukraine. Araud said those sales are a different matter: video here. This too causes some consternation in Washington and elsewhere. We'll have more on this.

  And as to the CICC, they've said that on the DRC's mere two convictions for 130 rapes by its soldiers in Minova in November 2012, and whether UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous is eviscerating the UN's claimed Human Rights Due Diligence Policy by continuing support to the 41st and 391st Battalions implicated in the rapes is beyond their mandate. So in whose mandate is that?

   

French Ambassador Araud Tells Inner City Press A US Pilot Would Be Taken To ICC, Surprise in DC, Loopholes and Mistral Warship Sales Defended

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 22 -- Even before France's draft resolution to refer parts of the conflicts in Syria to the International Criminal Court failed on a double veto on May 22, there was criticism of France for agreeing to carve out such as of the Golan Heights, for Israel, and for nationals of non ICC members like the United States.

Inner City Press asked Araud after the vote about these carve outs: if an American pilot as part of a coalition of the willing, not approved by the UN Security Council due to veto, bombed civilians and was downed in Syria, would he be taken to the ICC?

"Of course," Araud replied. "It is not a peacekeeping operation. Read the text." Video here.

 Throughout May 22 Inner City Press received opinions, including from Americans surprised French diplomat Araud, slated to become an Ambassador in Washington in July, would say this, or that the US had agreed to support a draft which while exempting the Golan Height might put an American pilot in front of the ICC.

  There were also more legal opinions, some that Araud was technically right under Operative Paragraph 7 of the draft resolution:

“Decides that nationals, current or former officials or personnel from a State outside the Syrian Arab Republic which is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of that State for all alleged acts or omissions arising out of or related to operations in the Syrian Arab Republic established or authorized by the Council, unless such exclusive jurisdiction has been expressly waived by the State.”

  Presumably when Araud said yes the US pilot could be taken to the ICC because “it is not a peacekeeping operation,” he was referring to the phrase “ all alleged acts or omissions arising out of or related to operations in the Syrian Arab Republic established or authorized by the Council.”

  But the loophole, of course, is “RELATING to operations... established or authorized by the Council.” If the Council authorizes cross-border provision of aid into Syria, and an American pilot did bombing runs in Syria, would it be said the bombing was RELATED to the authorized aid operations?

  Ultimately, how can a country which is not a member of the ICC refer others to a court that is not good enough for it?

  Araud also belatedly addressed an issue he has refused to answer Inner City Press questions on: France's sale of Mistral warships to Russia while he speechifies about aggression on Crimea and Ukraine. Araud said those sale are a different matter: video here. This too causes some consternation in Washington and elsewhere. We'll have more on this.

   

French FM Laurent Fabius Implies Mistral Warship Sale to Russia Could Be Reviewed, Araud Dodged, Neutral Ground?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 13 -- While France's sale of Mistral warships to Russia is still one of the many issues on which outgoing French Ambassador to the UN Gerard Araud has refused to answer questions, in the past two days those above him in the French government have given different answers.

   On May 12 on CNN, foreign minister Laurent Fabius suggested France had #not ruled out reviewing the sale of warships to Russia."

  But earlier on May 12 an official in the office of President Francois Hollande has, on condition of anonymity, fully confirmed the sale.

  So is France saying one thing on US media, and other thing elsewhere? Shouldn't this questions be answered, or at least taken, on the ostensible neutral ground of the United Nations?

  Speaking to reporters in Baku, the Hollande administration official "who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the discussions, cited the size of the contract, the penalties that would be due in the event of cancellation and France’s refusal to be the only country taking a meaningful hit on sanctions."

  The deal involves French state-owned military contractor DCNS and the shipbuilder STX, and is said to be worth $1.6 billion to France.

   On May 10 speaking on the record in Germany, Hollande said "The contract was signed in 2011, it is being carried out and will be completed by next October." 

   What then of Araud's "James Bond" and other speeches in the UN Security Council? And will the issue be raised during foreign minister Laurent Fabuis' upcoming visit to Washington and meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry?

  Araud's slated replacement at the UN Jacques Audibert met last week with the US State Department's William Burns but there was no read-out. For Fabuis, if rarely for Araud, there will be.

  Back on May 1, Araud declared a question and answer session at a Manhattan law firm to be off record, though that was never said in the solicitation to come for the cost of $20.

Inner City Press went to the event, intending to ask Araud to reconcile his florid speeches on Ukraine in the Security Council with France's continued sale of Mistral warships to Russia, a question Araud previously refused to answer at the Council stakeout.

   But in the same week Araud was quoted by name in La Croix and elsewhere as saying to reporters that the Mistral sale continues, is not impacted by sanctions "'les Mistral ne sont pas concernés par les sanctions,' a assuré Gérard Araud, représentant permanent de la France auprès de l’Onu." Click here for La Croix.

   It is mysterious, Araud unilaterally pulling a bait and switchat the $20 law firm event and calling it off the record, then being quoted on the record bragging of Mistral sales.

  This is not like Spanish actor Javier Bardem quoting Araud as calling Morocco France's "mistress" on the Western Sahara issue, then Araud denying it and talking about filing a lawsuit (which he hasn't filed yet) - this is a direct quote, in at least two publications.

  Inner City Press previously got an answer from US State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf on the US' view of France's Mistral sales to Russia. From the State Department's March 14, 2014 transcript:

Inner City Press: on Ukraine, one question that’s come up is, in terms of sanctions is France has this big deal where it’s selling Mistral warships to Russia, and it’s said that it’s going forward. What does the United States think of that sale of military hardware?

MS. HARF: Well, decisions about these kind of sales are obviously a matter for each sovereign state to take into account including a host of factors – obviously, international law, regional stability. We would hope that any country would exercise judgment and restraint when it comes to transferring military equipment that could exacerbate tensions in any conflict region. In general, I think that certainly applies here.

   As Araud nears the end of his time at the UN, there are many questions he should be asked but has been avoiding. 

  For example, if his speeches about Russia in Ukraine are France's position, why is the French sale of Mistral warships to Russia still going forward? Inner City Press asked this at the UN Security Council stakeout but Araud declined to answer.

And as simply another example while Araud claims to have taken no position to oppose a human rights monitoring mechanism in Western Sahara, this is called into question by an answer he gave Inner City Press in 2013, when he still answered Press questions, about bilateral dialogue with Morocco being the best way. 

  Many beyond Inner City Press find Araud's position unclear, or as some put it, hypocritical.

  So when publicly on Twitter there appeared an opportunity to ask questions to Araud, albeit for $20, Inner City Press signed up, to "welcome Ambassador Gérard Araud, Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations, to discuss French priorities at the United Nations. Araud will address efforts to allow UN Security Council action regarding the crisis in Syria, as well as French and UN initiatives to allow stabilization in the Central African Republic and in Mali."

   Nowhere did it say it was on background or off the record. The money was accepted, confirmation sent. 

  And on May 1, after a UN briefing about the Central African Republic, Inner City Press rushed up to the venue, in a second floor law firm conference room in the Citigroup building.

  Inside the audience was affluent, business people in suits. There were oatmeal raisin cookies and at a conference table, Araud was answering questions. Then he said, repeatedly, "This is off the record."

  Is it legitimate? Why would one publicize an appearance and Q&A by Araud, for money, with no mention of its being off the record -- and then make it off the record? Why was Araud's spokesperson Frederic Jung there for this "off the record" Q&A with business people?

  In Washington last Friday, John Kerry spoke at the Trilateral Commission under announced in advance off the record rules, but a tape was obtained and the rest is history. Here, the event was never said in advance to be off the record, and money was accepted.

  While Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access, which has asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric to convey to Araud and his presumptive successor Jacques Audibert the UN's stated position that correspondents should be treated with respect -- this after Araud on the record and on camera told a reporter, not this one, that "You are not a journalist, you are an agent" -- fully support the reporting on Kerry's Trilateral talk, in this report there are no quotes. But there are questions. Watch this site.

   

In Baku, French Official Insists Mistral Warship Sales to Russia Will Continue, Araud Dodged, Will Fabius with Kerry?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 12 -- While France moving forward with selling Mistral warships to Russia is still one of the many issues on which outgoing French Ambassador to the UN Gerard Araud has refused to answer questions, now an official in the office of President Francois Hollande has, on condition of anonymity, fully confirmed the sale.

  Speaking to reporters in Baku, the Hollande administration official "who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the discussions, cited the size of the contract, the penalties that would be due in the event of cancellation and France’s refusal to be the only country taking a meaningful hit on sanctions."

  The deal involves French state-owned military contractor DCNS and the shipbuilder STX, and is said to be worth $1.6 billion to France.

   On May 10 speaking on the record in Germany, Hollande said "The contract was signed in 2011, it is being carried out and will be completed by next October." 

   What then of Araud's "James Bond" and other speeches in the UN Security Council? And will the issue be raised during foreign minister Laurent Fabuis' upcoming visit to Washington and meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry?

  Araud's slated replacement at the UN Jacques Audibert met last week with the US State Department's William Burns but there was no read-out. For Fabuis, if rarely for Araud, there will be.

  Back on May 1, Araud declared a question and answer session at a Manhattan law firm to be off record, though that was never said in the solicitation to come for the cost of $20.

Inner City Press went to the event, intending to ask Araud to reconcile his florid speeches on Ukraine in the Security Council with France's continued sale of Mistral warships to Russia, a question Araud previously refused to answer at the Council stakeout.

   But in the same week Araud was quoted by name in La Croix and elsewhere as saying to reporters that the Mistral sale continues, is not impacted by sanctions "'les Mistral ne sont pas concernés par les sanctions,' a assuré Gérard Araud, représentant permanent de la France auprès de l’Onu." Click here for La Croix.

   It is mysterious, Araud unilaterally pulling a bait and switchat the $20 law firm event and calling it off the record, then being quoted on the record bragging of Mistral sales.

  This is not like Spanish actor Javier Bardem quoting Araud as calling Morocco France's "mistress" on the Western Sahara issue, then Araud denying it and talking about filing a lawsuit (which he hasn't filed yet) - this is a direct quote, in at least two publications.

  Inner City Press previously got an answer from US State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf on the US' view of France's Mistral sales to Russia. From the State Department's March 14, 2014 transcript:

Inner City Press: on Ukraine, one question that’s come up is, in terms of sanctions is France has this big deal where it’s selling Mistral warships to Russia, and it’s said that it’s going forward. What does the United States think of that sale of military hardware?

MS. HARF: Well, decisions about these kind of sales are obviously a matter for each sovereign state to take into account including a host of factors – obviously, international law, regional stability. We would hope that any country would exercise judgment and restraint when it comes to transferring military equipment that could exacerbate tensions in any conflict region. In general, I think that certainly applies here.

   As Araud nears the end of his time at the UN, there are many questions he should be asked but has been avoiding. 

  For example, if his speeches about Russia in Ukraine are France's position, why is the French sale of Mistral warships to Russia still going forward? Inner City Press asked this at the UN Security Council stakeout but Araud declined to answer.

And as simply another example while Araud claims to have taken no position to oppose a human rights monitoring mechanism in Western Sahara, this is called into question by an answer he gave Inner City Press in 2013, when he still answered Press questions, about bilateral dialogue with Morocco being the best way. 

  Many beyond Inner City Press find Araud's position unclear, or as some put it, hypocritical.

  So when publicly on Twitter there appeared an opportunity to ask questions to Araud, albeit for $20, Inner City Press signed up, to "welcome Ambassador Gérard Araud, Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations, to discuss French priorities at the United Nations. Araud will address efforts to allow UN Security Council action regarding the crisis in Syria, as well as French and UN initiatives to allow stabilization in the Central African Republic and in Mali."

   Nowhere did it say it was on background or off the record. The money was accepted, confirmation sent. 

  And on May 1, after a UN briefing about the Central African Republic, Inner City Press rushed up to the venue, in a second floor law firm conference room in the Citigroup building.

  Inside the audience was affluent, business people in suits. There were oatmeal raisin cookies and at a conference table, Araud was answering questions. Then he said, repeatedly, "This is off the record."

  Is it legitimate? Why would one publicize an appearance and Q&A by Araud, for money, with no mention of its being off the record -- and then make it off the record? Why was Araud's spokesperson Frederic Jung there for this "off the record" Q&A with business people?

  In Washington last Friday, John Kerry spoke at the Trilateral Commission under announced in advance off the record rules, but a tape was obtained and the rest is history. Here, the event was never said in advance to be off the record, and money was accepted.

  While Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access, which has asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric to convey to Araud and his presumptive successor Jacques Audibert the UN's stated position that correspondents should be treated with respect -- this after Araud on the record and on camera told a reporter, not this one, that "You are not a journalist, you are an agent" -- fully support the reporting on Kerry's Trilateral talk, in this report there are no quotes. But there are questions. Watch this site.