After ISIL Beheads James Foley, US Cites Attempt to Free Him in Syria; On Journalists' Deaths, AFP Portrays Them "In Gaza"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 20 -- After the US confirmed that it was journalist James Foley who was beheaded by ISIL after being forced to read a statement, later on August 20 the Pentagon issued this:

"The United States attempted a rescue operation recently to free a number of American hostages held in Syria by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). This operation involved air and ground components and was focused on a particular captor network within ISIL. Unfortunately, the mission was not successful because the hostages were not present at the targeted location."

  In light of the reference to "ground components," some wonder if Syria will assert a violation of its sovereignty. Why make this announcements?

  Agence France Presse, purporting an info-graphic of journalists killed last year, listed four as killed "in Gaza." Since all other listed jurisdiction are full UN member states, some surmised AFP's nomenclature let off the hook the killer of those journalists. Despite calling it social media, hours later AFP has not responded.

    Inner City Press on August 18 asked the Security Council's president for August Mark Lyall Grant of the UK if the Council gets reports:

Inner City Press: You said that Iraq came up, so I wanted to know, the US has providing publicly these updates of airstrikes by the Mosul damn. I’m just wondering, is there any, under your Presidency, is the Security Council, is there any mechanism for getting, I guess, reports of these from countries taking military action or arming the Peshmerga? And just separately, in Mali, these two peacekeepers were killed by suicide attack and I’m wondering is there any movement in the Council to have a Press Statement, or some response to this Peacekeeping attack in Mali?

Amb Lyall Grant: Yes, on the second point, France did signal that it was circulating, and indeed has now has circulated a draft Press Statement with the deadline of 3 o’clock this afternoon, of silence procedure, on the UN Peacekeepers tragically killed in Mali. On the Iraq situation, the representative of the United States, did indeed give a very short update on action that the United States had been taking including the role of the UK and Australia in humanitarian airdrops.

 Both Australia and obviously the US are also on the Security Council, but from the answer it appears that the US representative -- Samantha Power? -- was the one to report on their role in the airdrops. And what of France providing weapons in Kurdistan? We hope to have more on this.

   President Barack Obama's dual rationale for the campaign of airstrikes in Iraq had been the plight of the Yazikis on Mount Sinjar and the protection of US personnel in Erbil and Bagdad.

  Then the US began airstrikes around the Mosul Dam. Now Obama's War Powers Resolution letter to Congress, as the NSC's gloss puts it, says this new bombing "is consistent with President Obama's directive that the U.S. military protect U.S. personnel and facilities in Iraq, since the failure of the Mosul Dam could threaten the lives of large numbers of civilians, threaten U.S. personnel and facilities -- including the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad -- and prevent the Iraqi government from providing critical services to the Iraqi populace."

  Helping the Iraqi government provide services doesn't appear to have been part of the initial mission. So what will be next?

 A variety of talking heads on the Sunday news shows in the US demanded to know why Obama has not bombed in Syria as in Iraq -- ignoring that only in the latter has bombing been invited by the government, and the vetoes in the UN Security Council. We'll have more on this.

 On August 14 the UN had at its noon briefing a call-in the spokesperson of its Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Kieran Dwyer. Inner City Press asked Dwyer if airdrops now promised by Australia and Germany are still needed -- and about a UN map showing humanitarian problems and lack of access in Ninewa and Anbar provinces. Click here to view.

   Dwyer replied that bilateral requests are up to Iraqi authorities, and said, yes, there are problems and lack of access in Anbar and Ninewa (where ISIL held Mosul is).

  At the US State Department briefing less than an hour later, the Department's deputy spokesperson Marie Harf was asked if the US might now provided airstrikes or "assistance" in Anbar, and if this would be covered by the last War Powers notice Obama gave to Congress.

  I am not a lawyer, Harf said, adding in essence that the US acts when it can be useful with its "unique capabilities." She was asked why the US did not use military force to protect civilians in Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo or Central African Republic -- Sri Lanka could be added -- and called each case unique.

  The line-of-the-briefing at the State Department was that seven airstrikes to prevent a genocide is not a bad deal. Indeed.

   Smaller gauge, Inner City Press is still asking how exactly the UN is "coordinating" aid, for example could he say why the UK had aborted an airdrop of aid as reported by BBC?

 OCHA's Dwyer on August 11 made various claims about coordinating then couldn't or wouldn't explain the UK's abortive aid delivery, telling Inner City Press to ask the UK or BBC. What kind of coordination is this?

  After the US on August 8 announced completion of its second air-drop of aid to Sinjar Mountain in Iraq, President Barack Obama on August 9 said “I don't think we're going to solve this problem in weeks."

   Obama said that the Iraq military when far from Baghdad did not have the commitment to hold ground against an aggressive adversary: that is, ISIL.  So, Obama said, would move to "play some offense."

  So, the question arises, who else is going to play? Now, after the US was given first shot, France is mulling arming the Kurds.

 On August 9 Inner City Press was reliably and for then exclusively informed that Iraq had written to the UN Security Council invite any and all UN member states to deliver aid to areas controlled by Islamic State, with Iraq's agreement. [On August 9, the UK mission confirmed this to Inner City Press.]

  And so the question arises -- what about aid from Iran? From Russia? From China -- which has told the Press of $4.9 million in medical supplies to Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone for ebola?

  At the US State Department's briefing on August 8, much as made of Iraq inviting the US, and only the US, in . But now, would others including Iran be welcome? Shouldn't they be?

  Aid is needed, and not only in Sinjar. We'll have more on this.

(Given the numbers cited on Sinjar mountain, Inner City Press couldn't help wondering about 2009 when 40,000 people were cornered & killed in Sri Lanka.)

On August 7 after 6:30 pm, Council president for August Mark Lyall Grant emerged to read a press statement, followed by question and answer stakeouts by French deputy Alexis Lamek and Iraqi Permanent Representative Alhakim.

  Inner City Press asked Lamek if France will take military action. While we'll await the French mission's transcript, Lamek eventually said "that needs to be done indeed."

  There is a draft resolution in the works, with UK Ambassador Lyall Grant saying that a new draft would be circulated later on August 7. The Security Council left on August 8 for a week-long trip to Europe and South Sudan and, it is now widely reported, Somalia. Now what? 

On July 25 after the UN Security Council met behind closed doors with the Syria Commission of Inquiry's Paulo Sergio Pinheiro and Karen AbuZayd, the two Commissioners and UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant came to take questions from the press.

  Karen AbuZayd spoke of abuses not only by the government but also, in response to a question, by what she called the Islamic State of Iraq and [Syria], ISIL. 

  Inner City Press when called on asked her about ISIS' takeover of border crossing, renaming as Islamic State and attacks on non-Sunni Muslims in Mosul.

In this context, what did she think of hers or another Commission of Inquiry covering the group's abuses in Iraq as well? Bigger picture, does the state by state focus of the UN make sense in this context?

  AbuZayd said she prefers not to call them “Islamic State,” it give them too much credit. Pinheiro resisted any talk of expanding his Commission's mandate -- Syria is enough.

  A US state media asked about foreign fighters, including pro-government; Pinheiro said that Hezbollah is the only group of foreign fighters he's away of.

 This is strange, given that the UN's own recent report on Syria humanitarian access notes that “on June 29, the Islamic State issued a statement announcing that the Caliphate included people from the following nationalities: Caucasian [sic], Indian, Chinese, Shami (Levantine), Iraqi, Yemeni, Egyptian, North African, American, French, German, and Australians." Watch this site.

Footnote: one wanted to ask AbuZayd about developments -- to put it mildly -- in Gaza, where she used to head UNRWA, but this too was deemed beyond the scope of the stakeout. Another former Gaza hand, John Ging, has been speaking on the topic this week. Perhaps we'll hear from Ms. AbuZayd. We'll be watching.

   

On Gaza, Charts After UNRWA Shelling, Further Ammo Transfers

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 30 -- After the most recently deadly shelling of an UNRWA school in Gaza, the United States acknowledged releasing more ammunition to Israel, calling it normal (see below).

   On July 30 at 2:30 pm, Israeli Ambassador Ron Prosor went to meet UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson about the shelling. On his way up he showed Inner City Press a chart, marking nearby sites from which he said rockets were being fired.

  In the UN Security Council, the Gaza issue has essentially been delegated to the US. In the UN Security Council on July 30, Nigeria criticized the Council's delay in issuing even a Presidential Statement; Chad called the Council "impotent."

  At the end of Rwandan presidency reception later on Wednesday, Inner City Press was told by more than one Council member that it is all up to the US. But, one might ask, how can a party transferring ammunition be considering an honest broker? 

  Couldn't this transfer had been at least delayed? But that too would have been a story, bigger than this one, which Inner City Press was notified was broken by CNN, leading to this statement:

"The Department of Defense received a letter of request from the Israeli Ministry of Defense on July 20 for a normal Foreign Military Sales delivery of ammunition.  The appropriate DoD activities processed the request through normal inter-agency processes, resulting in a signed Letter of Offer and Acceptance on July 23.

"Two of the requested munitions were available in the War Reserve Stockpile Ammunition-Israel (WRSA-I), on the ground in Israel, and were therefore delivered to the Israeli Defense Force from this stockpile. Both munitions had been in WRSA-I stock for a few years, well before the current crisis.  All stocks in WRSA-I, as required by law, are "in excess to U.S. requirements." Issuing munitions from the WRSA-I stockpile was strictly a sourcing decision and White House approval was not required.

 "The United States is committed to the security of Israel, and it is vital to U.S. national interests to assist Israel to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability. This defense sale is consistent with those objectives."

  Thus spake the US Pentagon, or at least its spokesperson Kirby. But what will UN Security Council members say, at their July 31 session? Watch this site.

 Back on July 27-28, the Security Council convened to adopted a Presidential Statement, below.

 Afterward, Inner City Press asked Jordan's Deputy Permanent Representative why no vote had been called thedraft resolution, if there was one or more vetoes or abstaining votes that would block it.

  He said things haven't reached that stage; rather it was a matter of seeing when the members of the Council thought a resolution would be useful to support of ceasefire. 

  Some ask: so is that the UN Security Council's only function?

  Inner City Press asked Israel's Ron Prosor about thedifferent drafts leaked to Haaretz and Al Jazeera (which Inner City Press noted, here). Prosor went wider scope with his answer. A ceasefire did not sound closer.

  Prosor was also asked about Ban Ki-moon flying around in a Qatar-funded private jet - a question on which Inner City Press first reported eight days ago, and on which Ban himself should answer.

 Palestine's Riyad Mansour cited as a precedent a 1994 Security Council resolution providing protecting in Hebron, by Norwegians in white shirts, he said. He said he wished the Presidential Statement had called for Israel to pull out of Gaza, and that he wished for a resolution. We will continue on this.

  Inner City Press immediately inquired and was informed it was to adopt a Presidential Statement; the version below was provided. But why not a resolution? Why proceeding so cautiously, compared most recently with the July 21 resolution on MH17 in Ukraine?  

     As to the UNSC, here's the PRST as provided - and adopted:

UNSC Presidential Statement

The Security Council expresses grave concern regarding the deterioration in the situation  as a result of the crisis related to Gaza and the loss of civilian lives and casualties.

The Security Council calls for full respect of international humanitarian law, including the protection of civilian population, and reiterates the need to take appropriate steps to ensure the safety and well-being of civilians and their protection.

The Security Council expresses strong support for the call by international partners and the Secretary-General of the United Nations for an immediate and unconditional humanitarian ceasefire, allowing for the delivery of urgently needed assistance, and they urged all parties to accept and fully implement the humanitarian ceasefire into the Eid period and beyond. The Security Council commends the efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry for their efforts in this regard.

The Security Council also calls on parties to engage in efforts to achieve a durable and fully respected ceasefire, based on the Egyptian initiative. In this regard, the Security Council welcomes the efforts of international partners and the convening of the international meeting to support the ceasefire held in Paris on July 26, 2014 and urges all concerned regional and international parties to vigorously support efforts to consolidate an agreement between the parties.

The Security Council emphasizes that civilian and humanitarian facilities, including those of the UN, must be respected and protected, and called on all parties to act consistently with this principle.

The Security Council calls for the full implementation of resolution 1860 (2009) and stressed the need for immediate provision of humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian civilian population in the Gaza Strip, including through urgent additional contribution to UNRWA. The Security Council recognizes and commends the vital role played by the Agency, along with other United Nations agencies and humanitarian organizations, in addressing the critical humanitarian needs in Gaza.

The Security Council urges the parties and the international community to achieve a comprehensive peace based on the vision of a region where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace with secure and recognized borders as envisioned  in Security Council resolution 1850 (2008).

  Earlier, with even the “humanitarian pause” over in Gaza, the draft "framework" agreement rejected by the Israeli cabinet on July 25 was leaked from both sides. 

   But the versions leaked by each side were different.

  On Al Jazeera a one-page document was waved around, which had Qatar in the first paragraph as one of the signatories making commitments, which provided for the opening of “border and non-border” crossings and specified fishing rights up to 12 nautical miles, and a $47 million commitment by the US.

  In the “5 pm Confidential Draft” published by Ha'aretz, Qatar is the last paragraph (without Egypt), fishing rights and the $47 million from the US are not specified, nor are “non-border” crossing being opened.

  At least, the two sides leaked different stages or versions of the draft. Or is there more to this, in the spin war that this stage of the Gaza war has become?

  (The drafts are different; Al Jazeera is saying Ha'aretz stole its scoop. There may be more to this.)

  Meanwhile, silence at the UN with the draft Security Council resolution of Jordan and the Arab League not scheduled for a vote, and canned statements from Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who after taking a Qatar-funded private jet from New York to Doha refused through his spokespeople to answer Inner City Press' follow-up questions on who paid for the rest of his travel. Watch this site.

   

To Iraq, Obama Tells Congress Deploying 275 For Now, DoD on First 170, No Coordination with Iran

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 16 -- It's on, US in Iraq -- back to the future? Under the War Powers Resolution, US President Obama on June 16 told Congress of a June 15 deployment to Iraq:

"Starting on June 15, 2014, up to approximately 275 U.S. Armed Forces personnel are deploying to Iraq to provide support and security for U.S. personnel and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. This force is deploying for the purpose of protecting U.S. citizens and property, if necessary, and is equipped for combat. This force will remain in Iraq until the security situation becomes such that it is no longer needed.

"This action has been directed consistent with my responsibility to protect U.S. citizens both at home and abroad, and in furtherance of U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive. I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148)."

   Pentagon Press Secretary RADM John Kirby added:

"Over the weekend, a number of teams totaling approximately 170 U.S. personnel began arriving in Baghdad from within the U.S. Central Command Area of Responsibility. We have also moved approximately 100 personnel into the region to provide airfield management, security, and logistics support, if required."

Also on June 16, while the US met with Iran about ISIL in Iraq, there was NO discussion of "military coordination or strategic determinations," 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 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 play 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.

   

In DC, Ban Ki-moon to Meet Syria Skeptics Hagel & Dempsey: On Ukraine or UN at War?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 7 , more here -- Days after the UN and US were contradicted by the Syrian Coalition on who took over Kassab, on April 7 UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq announced that "on Friday, 11 April, the Secretary-General will visit the Pentagon, where he will meet with US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey."

  To some it might seem inappropriate, a UN Secretary General meeting with the head of a country's military. Ban could claim, as his or France's head of Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous implied but never already about his meeting with Sudan's ICC-indicted president Bashir, that it is all about peacekeeping. But would Ban meet the head of Russia's military? China's?

 Later on April 7 the Wall Street Journal reported that while US Secretary of State John Kerry favors increased military action against Bashar al Assad, Hagel and Dempsey are skeptical. So, beyond Ukraine, where Ban met with the leader of the Svoboda Party, is this Ban Ki-moon's agenda with Hagel and Dempsey?

  On Syria, the issue of the over-running of largely Armenian Kessab has been brewing for days, including around the UN Security Council, in Hollywood and in Washington. 

  On April 2 Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq if the UN had any access to or knowledge about Kessab, including who did what there. Haq said the UN doesn't know that. Video here, from Minute 13:50. Shouldn't it?

  Kim "Famous For Being Famous" Kardashian has gotten involved, due to the Armenian connection; this played a role in US Ambassador Samantha Power being asked about the issue when she testified about the Obama Administration's international organizations budget.

At least one UN wag muses that Russia might want to convene Kardashian to the UN for an Arria formula meeting on Kessab, or Kassab -- others from Hollywood have come to testify on other issues, why not this one?

  Power is quoted (mostly in the Armenian press) as saying, " I would note that, unfortunately, the extremist group that appears to have taken hold of that town is not one that the United States and the United Nations overall has a great deal of leverage over."

Update: but here is a photo of Syria Coalition Jarba, here.

  Some are saying that it was ISIL / ISIS -- that is, the extremists -- did it, but on April 2 Ahmed al Jarba's Syria Coalition put this out:

Syrian Coalition: Russian accusations against rebels in Kasab are false

Khalid Saleh, President of the Media Office, commends "the heroes of the Free Syrian Army for their honorable treatment of the Armenian inhabitants of Kasab following the liberation of the town." Saleh described Russia's calls for the UN Security Council to discuss "the extremist militants' violations" against the Armenian population of the town as "baseless accusations through which Russia seeks to shuffle the cards and to deflect the attention of the international community away from the massacres committed by the Assad regime against the Syrian people. "The Armenians are a fundamental part of the Syrian fabric and the rebels continue to protect them in Aleppo and Kasab. We expect the Russians to demonstrate seriousness in reaching a political solution to end the bloodshed, but the only language that the Assad regime and its allies understand is the language of militarization and bombing of civilians," Saleh said. In a similar vein, The Syrian Coalition has renewed confidence in the Free Syrian Army’s ability to protect all civilians, regardless of religious, ethnic and political affiliation. Recently, different fighting groups issued a number of statements, in which they reiterated their commitment to protecting civilian population across Syria. "Every time rebels gain ground, the Assad regime leads a smear campaign to discredit rebels. As the rebels advance in the Kassab area, Assad continues to create smear ads. Activists posted a video on social networks reaffirming their commitment to protect holy places. In the video the Armenian Church appears intact." The Syrian Coalition also stresses that it is committed to the unity of Syrian society and the FSA is committed to the protection of civilians against Assad’s militias. It is vital that the international community realize that the Assad regime has to be removed, so that the Syrian people can decide their own future and build a pluralistic, democratic, and free Syria." The Syrian Coalition also demands that the international community put pressure on the Assad regime to stop the fierce military campaign waged against the people of Mount Turkman. "The Assad regime is attempting to eliminate the cultural components that have long enriched the Syrian civilization throughout history. It should have also followed the example of the FSA fighters, who liberated the town of Kassab without committing any violations against the Armenian population of the town, nor did they attack churches or houses of worship." The Syrian Coalition also calls on the FSA fighters not to harm any of the people in the coastal region, including Kassab, which contains one of the most important historical monuments in the world. "We have to protect the civilians in the areas that we liberate, regardless of their views or orientation. FSA fighters must fight those who are armed and that kill the civilians on charges of supporting the revolution. The Assad regime poses a threat not only to Syrian culture, but also to the regional and global culture.” Mohammed Sarmin, Advisor to the interim Prime Minister, visited the town of Kassab north of Latakia and met with the leader of the Western Front, Colonel Mustafa Hashim, and leaders of the Ansar Al Sham brigade. Sarmini handed them the aid sent by the Syrian interim government to the coastal front. He also toured some medical centers and field hospitals, stressing the readiness of the Ministry of Health in the interim government to provide all kinds of medical support. The Shariah Committee in Mount Turkman condemns the murder of two young men by Assad's shabiha in the dominantly Turkman neighborhood of Ali Jamal in central Latakia as a retaliation to the victories of the Free Syrian Army in Latakia province, in which the Turkman fighters played a vital role. The spokesman for the Sharia Committee also said that the battle for the Syrian coast has not witnessed any revenge killings, based on ideology, religion or race. The Syrian minorities, which the Assad claims he protect, are playing a vital role in the battle, which proves to the whole world that the Assad regime lies when it talks about protection of minorities. (Source: Syrian Coalition)

  And here is Jarba's tweeted photo. So now what? Watch this site.

Update 2: After Inner City Press asked about Kassab on April 2, when it asked again on April 3 UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq said he'd sent some information to those who asked about Kassab on April 2 - but not to Inner City Press. After Inner City Press asked about a letter from Armenia's foreign minister on April 3, Haq's office squawked confirmation then sent this:

Subject: Your question on Kassab
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:38 PM
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com
Cc: Stephane Dujarric [at] un.org

The Office of the Spokesperson can confirm that the Secretary-General has received a letter from the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Armenia, concerning the attacks in Kassab, Syria.

  Now what?

    

On Ukraine, US Pentagon Puts on Hold All Military-to-Military Engagements with Russia

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 3 -- After the third Ukraine meeting of the UN Security Council in four days, at which US Ambassador Samantha Power said OSCE monitors are heading to Kyiv tonight, Read Admiral John Kirby, the US Pentagon's Press Secretary, put out this statement:

"Although the Department of Defense finds value in the military-to-military relationship with the Russian Federation we have developed over the past few years to increase transparency, build understanding, and reduce the risk of military miscalculation we have, in light of recent events in Ukraine, put on hold all military-to-military engagements between the United States and Russia. This includes exercises, bilateral meetings, port visits and planning conferences.

The Defense Department is closely monitoring the situation and remains in close contact with the State Department and interagency, along with our Allies, Partners and NATO. We call on Russia to deescalate the crisis in Ukraine and for Russian forces in Crimea to return to their bases, as required under the agreements governing the Russia Black Sea Fleet.

Some media outlets are speculating on possible ship movements in the region. There has been no change to our military posture in Europe or the Mediterranean; our Navy units continue to conduct routine, previously planned operations and exercises with allies and partners in the region."

   Earlier on Monday, Russia's Vitaly Churkin came out to answer questions. Inner City Press asked him of supporting the mission to Ukraine by UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson, a former Swedish foreign minster, while questioning that of Robert Serry.

  Churkin replied that he had spoken with Eliasson before he left for Kyev. It is unclear if Eliasson will get to Crimea. But some note that unlike Serry, who appears in leaked audio with former US now UN official Jeff Feltman "getting" Ban to send him to Ukraine, Eliasson strives to bridge various gaps.

  UK Ambassador Lyall Grant came out, and Inner City Press asked him if the UK is moving toward sanctions as the US says it is. He politely declined to answer this non-UN question. 

From the UK Mission transcript:

Inner City Press: G8 and sanctions? There’s a lot of talk from the US side of looking at financial sanctions on individuals in Russia and there’s talk of not only not going to this preparatory meeting for the Sochi G8 but to have Russia essentially excluded from the G8 and to go back to a G7. What’s the UK position on that and at what point would that become something that you would be looking at?

Amb Lyall Grant: Those issues are being discussed elsewhere. I want to focus today on the UN aspects of this.

   Ukraine's Yuriy Sergeyev held a long and surreal stakeout. Inner City Press asked him to explain the dispute about how many troops Russia can have in Crimea. He said 11,000 including 2,000 marines, that Russia had reiterated this again in December and was now committing "aggression."

   France's Gerard Araud, as has become his pattern, took only two questions: one in French, the second from France 24. After four and a half years at the UN - his figure, in the Council -- he is becoming more each day like Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row atop UN Peacekeeping.

 The stakeouts ended with the Moldovan Permanent Representative. Inner City Press asked him about US Secretary of State John Kerry's statement that Russia is pressuring Moldova. He spoke of troops on high alert, and another autonomous region now threatening not to participate in elections. 

  Inner City Press asked him about the size of the OSCE mission Samanatha Power referred to. He said he's participated in three OSCE mission; he mentioned sizes between 10 and two or three thousand. So what is being referred to here? We'll have more on this.

  Earlier in the Council chamber, Churkin unveiled a letter from Viktor Yanukovych requesting Russian help. 

 US Ambassador Samantha Power snarked that it sounded like Russia is the enforcement arm of the UN Human Rights High Commissioner, Navi Pillay. She announced that "tonight the OSCE will begin" deploying monitors. 

  But will these OSCE monitors get into Crimea? Will UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson? At the day's UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked spokesperson Martin Nesirky what the role of Robert Serry is now.

  Nesirky said his main job is the Middle East. But then in the Security Council meeting, UN official Oscar Fernandez Taranco said that Serry is going BACK to Ukraine. Earlier, it was leaked that former US now UN official Jeff Feltman "got" Ban Ki-moon to send Serry to Ukraine. And now?

  On Sunday, the day after Saturday's inconclusive Ukraine meeting at the UN Security Council, three US Senior Administration Officials held a background press call to describe the US' next moves.

  Secretary of State John Kerry will be in Kyev on Tuesday. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland is heading to Vienna; the US wants to explore monitors from the OSCE (UN monitors were mentioned, but it's difficult to see veto-wielding Russia agreeing to them at this point).

  Senior Administration Official 2 said Russia is in an occupation position in Crimea and moving more troops in. The three were asked, doesn't this show weakness of the Obama administration, at least with respect to Russia's Vladimir Putin?

  Senior Administration Official 1 quickly brought up that Putin didn't listen on Georgia -- which was in 2008, under Republican George W. Bush (the question was from Fox News). 

  All three said that Putin is not operating from a position of strength, with Senior Administration Official 2 saying that when it comes to soft power, Vladimir Putin has no game. Asked about Russian money in London, the official said the US is looking at Russian banks.

  On the 1994 Budapest Memorandum (see below), the US is moving to call a meeting under the Memo's terms and will see if Russia shows up.

  At the UN on March 1, after the Ukraine open meeting then consultations of the UN Security Council took place, Council president for March Sylvie Lucas of Luxembourg came out and read a short statement.

  Inner City Press asked her if this was a mere "elements to the press," not even an agreed Press Statement. This seems to be the case. She politely answered, but not why China and the ten elected members did not speak in the open meeting.

  Inner City Press asked UK Ambassador Lyall Grant about the Budapest Memorandum -- has it already been violated, including by the Western IMF side, in terms of economic coercion? Is it just a superseded document summoned up for pragmatic reasons now?

  Lyall Grant acknowledged that some time has passed. From the UK Mission transcript:

Inner City Press: The Budapest memorandum. There’s been a lot of talk about it. It requires the UK, Russia and France to seek immediate Security Council action if there’s a threat of force, so is this the end of your duties, or do you have a duty to defend Ukraine? And it also seems to commit the UK and others to refrain from economic coercion, so some people have been saying that on both sides, the economic coercion factor has been played. Has this memorandum been complied with since ‘94, or is it just pulled out at this time as a convenient document?

Amb Lyall Grant: Clearly, this document has become very relevant in the last few days. We believe that the first step should be a meeting of the signatories of the Budapest memorandum, as Ukraine government has suggested should take place. Proposals have been made for a meeting of the three signatories as early as Monday, but so far Russia has not agreed to that meeting.

  Lyall Grant also said his prime minister David Cameron spoke with Vladimir Putin and his foreign secretary William Hague will be in Ukraine on Sunday.

  Inner City Press asked Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson of Russia's critique of envoy Robert Serry "getting played," and of the leaked (US) audio about former US now UN official Jeffrey Feltman "getting" Ban to send Serry to Ukraine.

   Eliasson said Serry is an international civil servant, but that the UN is not mediating, he is only a go-between for now. Will that change?

  US Samantha Power came out, saying another things that President Obama is suspending participation in the preparation for the G8 in Sochi. She took only two questions; it was not possible to ask her about movement on loan guarantees, or her view of the US' duties under the Budapest Memorandum. So it goes at the UN.

  When the open meeting happened, after two hours of wrangling about format, not all 15 members of the Council --not even all five Permanent members -- spoke. (China didn't).

  Instead, UN Deputy Secretary General Eliasson led off, saying that Ban Ki-moon would speak with Vladimir Putin. That had already taken place, but even an hour later, no read-out. 

Update: after publication of this story, the UN e-mailed out Ban Ki-moon's "remarks" after he spoke with Putin. Remarks to whom? And how long was Ban's call?

  US President Barack Obama spoke with Putin for 90 minutes, citing as Samantha Power did OSCE observers -- and the International Monetary Fund (see below).

   Russia's Vitaly Churkin said that EU officials has stoked up the protests, and violated the February 21 agreement.

   France's Gerard Araud, in the midst of a scandal about a quote Javier Barden attributed to him, Morocco as France's mistress, said it was Russia which hadn't supported the February 21 agreement. Following US Samantha Power and UK Mark Lyall Grant, whose foreign secretary William Hague is headed to Ukraine, Araud was the last speaker in the open meeting. Strange and telling compromise.

  As the Council went back behind closed doors for consultations, Inner City Press asked Ukraine's Ambassador Yuriy Sergeyev about "economic coercion" prohibited in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum he kept citing.
  
  Sergeyev replied that Russia tried to use economic coercion. But what about the IMF?

  Earlier on his way in Sergeyev stopped and told the press it is now a Russian "aggression" and that the UN Charter has been "brutally" violated. Video here.

 He said an appeal is being made to the US, France, UK and China, under the rubric of non-proliferation; he said there is still time, before Russian president Vladimir Putin signs the order for military moves in Crimea.

  Then the Security Council "suspended" for ten minutes; Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin emerged and said some members of the Council are trying to change the format of the meeting, that Russia agrees with the format proposed by Luxembourg, which took over today as Council president.

After UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's envoy Robert Serry spun the contents of a closed door Security Council consultation on Ukraine on which there was no agreed outcome, Ban himself did the same on Saturday.

   Ban's spokesperson announced at 1:20 am he would speak and "take a few questions" -- at 1:30 pm.  Lo and behold, after Ban's statement that there was agreement in the Security Council on Friday -- there wasn't -- was read, the first question was given to Pamela Falk of CBS. 

  This is as president of the UN Correspondents Association,whose board held an hour-long Q&A with Ban in February in which Ukraine wasn't even asked out. So why now?

  In order to ask, Could Serry go to Crimea?  Hours before Serry through the spokesperson had said no. But the purpose of this UN TV theater is to get this spin "on camera" - that's the role Falk's UNCA is playing. 

   Also Ban said he is going to speak with Putin soon. Will his spokesperson take question, this time with notice, on that?

   On February 28, Serry's impartiality as "UN" envoy on Ukraine was called into question, on camera, in front of the UN Security Council by Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin.

   A "Note to Correspondents" was put out Saturday morning by the UN Spokesperson's Office in which Serry put his spin on the Security Council consultations at which he was not present, and at which not even a Press Statement was agreed:

Note to correspondents: Statement by Mr. Robert Serry, Senior Advisor to the Secretary-General, at the end of his mission to Ukraine

Kyiv, 1 March 2014

Following the consultations in the United Nations Security Council yesterday, the Secretary-General requested me to go to Crimea as part of my fact-finding mission. I have since been in touch with the authorities of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and have come to the conclusion that a visit to Crimea today is not possible. I will therefore proceed to Geneva, where I will tomorrow brief the Secretary-General on my mission and consult with him on next steps.

In Crimea, I would have conveyed, also on behalf of the Secretary-General, a message for all to calm the situation down and to refrain from any actions that could further escalate an already-tense environment.

It became very clear from yesterday’s Council consultations that the unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine is not to be called into question. This is a time for dialogue and to engage with each other constructively.

  Recipients of previous "Notes to Correspondents" were surprised, because Serry in his "other" apparently not time intensive enough job as Ban Ki-moon's Middle East Coordinator does not characterize Security Council processes that do not result in a legal outcome.

  This comes a day after the UN's incoming spokesperson Stephane Dujarric praised a 10-tweet "analysis" of Crimean involving, predictably, the assumption of Chinese and Russian vetoes, and more problematically that Argentina and Nigeria abstained "for some reason." 

  To this view, Africa and Latin America are unknowable. But is this appropriate for an incoming UN Spokesperson? For somehow whose been in charge of UN Media Accreditation?

  This UN is increasingly used by officials for their own countries. Former US now UN official Feltman "got" Ban Ki-moon to send Serry to Ukraine.  With French ambassador Gerard Araud having been quoted by Javier Bardem that Morocco is France's mistress, Herve Ladsous the fourth Frenchman in a row to head UN Peacekeeping on February 26 lavished "UN" praise on Morocco through the Magreb Arab Press. There's more to be said on this.

   The day before on February 28 after US Ambassador Samantha Power emerged from the Security Council and spoke to the press about a mediation mission to Ukraine involving Robert Serry, Russia's Vitaly Churkin raised questions about the plan.

  He noted that Serry on February 22 was quoted as supporting the process -- that is, the violation even then of the February 21 agreement. 

 The subtext, still audible, was the leaked audio about former US now UN official Jeffrey Feltman "getting" Ban Ki-moon to send Serry to Ukraine. This may resonate for some time.

  Inner City Press asked Churkin of reports Russia would participate closely in the accelerating International Monetary Fund process. Churkin said Russia is open to helping, but only when more is known about what kind of government Ukraine's will be. One might think the IMF would be similarly cautious. But one might be wrong.

  Nearly simultaneous with Samantha Power at the UN, President Barack Obama spoke at the White House. As sent out, he said, "It would be a clear violence of Russia’s commitment to respect the independence and sovereignty and borders of Ukraine, and of international laws." Seems"violation" was meant -- a Freudian slip?

  When UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant came to the stakeout, Inner City Press asked him too about the IMF, which which his foreign secretary William Hague met this week. Lyall Grant distinguished between the financial and the political mediation process. But some say they are intimately connected. From the UK Mission transcript:

Inner City Press: Your Foreign Secretary was in Washington and met, among other people, with the International Monetary Fund. What’s the relationship between that process and either the mediation process that’s proposed, or trying to address issues in the Crimea.

Amb Lyall Grant: There are a number of challenges facing the new government in Kyiv. One of them is the economy. My Foreign Secretary, as you said, went to see the IMF in Washington, because we believe the IMF needs to take the lead in putting together a financial package to help the Ukrainian government to recover from the economic crisis that it’s in and to help the Ukrainian government take the necessary tough decisions for the structural reforms that are required to put the economy back on track. So this is not directly linked to any political mediation, but it is to address one of the key challenges that the new government in Kyiv faces.

   Lithuania's Permanent Representative Raimonda Murmokaite, who as we noted yesterday had yet to do a question and answer stakeout after Council consultations during her month as Council president, finally did. Inner City Press asked her of the mediation mission cited by Samantha Power would require a Security Council resolution or other action.

  Raimonda Murmokaite said that a proposal had just been made. But moments later, Lyall Grant said he didn't think any UNSC approval was needed for Serry to go to Crimea.

   Churkin, on the other hand, said only if the Crimeans want him, no imposed mediation. That leaked audio resonates still.

   Earlier Ukraine's Ambassador to the UN Yuriy Sergeyev came to the Security Council stakeout after briefing the Council. Inner City Press asked him three rounds of questions, ranging from the International Monetary Fund to the International Criminal Court, military presence to Viktor Yanukovych's press conference earlier in the day.

   Sergeyev called the press conference "comedy," emphasizing the Yanukovych left the country (and arguing more seriously that he thereby violated the February 21 deal.)

   On the IMF, Sergeyev said the Fund's team will be "on the ground" early next week. He was asked about austerity but dodged it; he said that the key is that money doesn't "disappear" as he said that from Russia did.

  While standing at the stakeout, a supporter of the ICC tweeted at Inner City Press if Sergeyev raised it in the Council. Inner City Press asked about the ICC and the extradition request to Russia. Sergeyev said the ICC is complex and that he favors a Ukrainian process first.

   On the IMF, how fast could post Yanukovych Ukraine get US money or loan guarantees? Back on the afternoon of February 26 came this on the record statement by State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki:

"The United States is continuing to consider a range of options, including loan guarantees, to support Ukraine economically. But no decision has been made and the next step is the formation of a multi-party, technical government. Once that government is formed we will begin to take immediate steps, in coordination with multilateral and bilateral partners, that could compliment an IMF package, to support Ukraine."

  There was a lot of chatter about a $1 billion US loan guarantee, including from a roundtable by Secretary of State John Kerry held after he did an interview with Andrea Mitchell. Oh, This Town or #ThisTown. So which is it?

  On February 27, the IMF's Christine Lagarde announced that the new Ukraine has asked for an IMF program; herspokesperson Gerry Rice said an IMF team on be 'on the ground' next week.

   On February 25 the shift in Ukraine was echoed on the US Eastern seaboard. At the UN in New York, Ukraine's Yanukovych-era Ambassador Yuriy Sergeyev canceled his 11 am press conference - though we can now link to this video of his "I am with you" moment with demonstrators outside the Ukrainian mission in New York.

  Two hours after his February 25 cancellation, in Washington, journalists Inner City Press knows from covering the International Monetary Fund took the short walk to the US State Department's briefing to ask about pre-conditions. Follow the money.

  Back at the UN, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Martin Nesirky said he didn't know how long Ban's Middle East coordinator Robert Serry will stay in Ukraine. (He was still there on February 26.) 

  Just how high profile there does Serry's past stint as Dutch Ambassador in Kyiv make him? What similar former ambassador might Ban Ki-moon have to offer in Thailand? Just how (un) relevant has the UN become?

   Back on Sunday morning US John Kerry spoke with Russia's Sergey Lavrov and, according to a senior State Department official, expressed hope

"that the Russian Federation will join with us, the European Union and its member states, and other concerned countries to help Ukraine turn the page and emerge from this crisis stronger... He also underscored the United States' expectation that Ukraine's sovereignty, territorial integrity and democratic freedom of choice will be respected by all states."  

   Later @JohnKerry himself tweeted kudos to previous Secretary of State nominee Susan Rice, how well she had done on Ukraine NBC's Meet the Press. (As noted, David Gregory said one million have died in Syria, click here for that.)

  There, Rice mentioned working with the EU and the International Monetary Fund. Yes, it's the IMF that's meant by "appropriate international organization," and not the United Nations.

  What David Gregory gleaned from the leaked call to Geoff Pyatt was that Russia leaked it -- no mention of the plan, at least at that time, to use the UN to F- the EU. How much has change since then - including the UN being back on the margins.

  And so it occurs to ask: could Russia benefit from Ukraine being raised in the UN Security Council, where it has a veto, as it doesn't (but the US does) at the IMF? Could the UN oversee a deal, on which Russia says the opposition has already reneged?

  Then again, if Russia were to "pull an Abkhazia" (or South Ossetia) in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, it could be the Westerners trying to get the UN to condemn it. But in the Security Council, Russia has a veto. Again: UNrelevant. 

As with the State Department's February 22 Kerry - Lavrov readout, it might be surprising to some that Sunday's does not include anything on Syria, on which the UN Security Council passed a resolution on February 22. But left unmentioned even as to Ukraine is the East / West split, particularly with regard the Crimea, Donetsk and the wider Donbass. Could Ukraine's "territorial integrity," the mantra at the UN, be in jeopardy? 

  Back on Friday February 21, Presidents Obama and Putin had a phone conversation which a Senior US State Department Official called "positive" and at the US' initiative.

  The official said that Yanukovych has gone on a trip to Kharkiv in his eastern base in the country, "for some kind of meeting that's taking place out there," and recounted a rumor that the deposed interior minister has fled to Belarus.

  US State Department official William Burns will be heading to Ukraine; Vice President Joe Biden has spoken nine times with Yanukovych: twice in November, once in December, three times in January and on February 4, 18 and 20. Even Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel finally got through to his Ukraine's counterpart, Lebedev.

  Amid the self-congratulation, the United Nations was once again on the margins. The UN has made much of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's talk with Yanukovych at the Sochi Olympics, and another phone call today.

  But tellingly, the Senior US State Department Official while citing a "good offices" role for "the international community" did not mention the UN once, in opening remarks nor in response to the eight questions taken. (Two were from the New York Times, the second of which referred to Putin's call with "President Bush.")  An overly long question from Le Figaro was cut off.

 Back on February 19 when Lithuania's foreign minister Linas Linkevieius came to the UN Security Council stakeout, that country seemed to be the one to ask him about. Inner City Press asked Linkevieius about his visit to Washington; he replied among other things that there is a need for "more coordination." Video here.

  Later on February 19 a US Senior State Department Official told the press that "Russia has not been transparent about what they are doing in Ukraine," citing that Russia for example does not provide read-outs of its contacts in Ukraine. 

  The US' own high level contacts have gotten more difficult: "they are not picking up the phone," the official said, adding that three European Union foreign ministers are on their way.

  Of the four questions Linkevieius took at his UN stakeout, one was on the UN's North Korea report, another on Venezuela. A Russian reporter waiting at the stakeout with his hand raised was not given a question. This is the UN.

  Moments later at the UN's February 19 noon briefing, outgoing UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky was asked about a perceived double standards in responses to Bosnia and Ukraine. (The question was echoed on February 20, comparing Ukraine with Bahrain). Nesirky said every situation is different -- of course -- and also said the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had met for 90 minutes in Sochi with President Yanukovych.

  Ironically the US Senior State Department Official on February 19 was asked about Yanukovych becoming more hardline after his visit to Sochi. From Foggy Bottom to Turtle Bay, the view is different -- in the case of the UN, often marginal and self-serving. For example, Ban Ki-moon gave no read-out of his beginning of the year call with the president of his native South Korea.

  Ah, transparency. Watch this site.

Footnote: On the Obama - Putin "positive" call, Inner City Press mused it would signal a 15-0 vote in the UN Security Council on the Syria humanitarian resolution about which Inner City Press asked State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf earlier on February 21, click here for that.