By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, March 19 -- Now UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon races to Russia for relevance, with the news handed out selectively by UN Moscow three hours before Ban's new spokesperson, after a request, confirmed it.
It's worth remembering Moscow's anger at who called Ban's tune on Kosovo. What will be different now? After Russia, Ban will head to Kyiv to meet Yatsenyuk and the UN human rights monitors.
But no announcement by Ban's Office of the Spokesperson, which has repeatedly refused to confirm Ban trips even when the country visited has already disclosed it.
"Will you confirm what BBC says UN Moscow told it, that the Secretary General is traveling to Russia tomorrow to meet President Putin and FM Lavrov -- and is so, can you explain why and how this UN news was distributed in that way first, and not through your office, to all correspondents at once? The latter part of the question is on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access as well."
Forty five minutes later, after a mass e-mail, Dujarric replied:
"Matthew, The official announcement was just made. The UN office in moscow did not announce anything before we did. I did see some leaked reports this morning from various sources but nothing is official until it's announced by this office."
But it wasn't a "leaked report" -- BBC said that UN Moscow hadCONFIRMED it. We'll have more on this. For now it's worth reviewing Ban Ki-moon's response to Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2008...
The day after the Crimea referendum, the US White House announced new sanctions and Russia said Ukraine should adopt a federal constitution.
Inner City Press asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Stephane Dujarric for Ban's or the UN's comment on either, if Ban thinks sanctions should ideally be imposed through the UN and not unilaterally, and if this might lead to a tit for tat.
Dujarric said Ban's focus is on encouraging the parties to "not add tensions;" on Russia's federal constitution proposal he said the UN is "not going to get into judging every step." Video here.
With Serry gone from Crimea and Simonovic called unbalanced by Russia, what is the UN's role? Is it UNrelevant?
On the US sanctions earlier on March 17, self-described Senior Administration Official (SAO) 1 described sanctions on individuals in the Russian arms sector. One had and has to wonder: how does this relate to the sale of Mistral warships to Russia by US ally France? Inner City Pressasked at the State Department on March 14, click here for that.
SAO 2 said the US can now impose sanctions on "Russian government cronies." Also on the list: Viktor Yanukovych. Another SAO offered "fun facts" about the referendum, including pre-marked ballots. It was repeatedly noted that the EU list of sanctions individuals, not to be publicly released until March 18, overlaps somewhat but is different from the US list.
Notably, a Senior Administration Official said that "we" - presumably meaning the US, are moving forward with IMF negotiations. But what is the US' direct role in what the IMF says is an entire independent process?
SAO 1 acknowledged this will impact the US' bilateral relations with Russia, noting the G8, but saying that Russia is "invested" in the Iran P5+1 process, and in the removal of Syria's chemical weapons. What about Afghanistan, the subject of the UN Security Council's meeting on March 17?
Going into the meeting, UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant said that the plan is to have a General Assembly briefing on Ukraine on March 20.
Even as the Crimea referendum vote was taking place, US Senators returned from a whirlwind trip to Kyiv to appear on the US Sunday morning television shows.
Senator Bob Corker R-TN said that the Obama administration created a "permissive" atmosphere that led to this; he slammed Secretary of State John Kerry's "wishy-washiness" and gifts with Sergey Lavrov.
Also on Fox News Sunday, Senator Bob Menendez D-NJ insisted that for the International Monetary Fund to help Ukraine, the long-stalled reforms must be passed by Congress.
But when Inner City Press put this question directly to IMF spokesperson Gerry Rice on March 13, Rice declined to confirm the connection. See video here, at from Minute 12:05.
Over on CBS' Face the Nation, former US National Security Adviser Tom Donilon bragged how sanctions on Iran showed what could be done to pressure Russia.
But on NBC's Meet the Press, Senator Jeff Flake R-AZ said it's going to be difficult to "reverse" Crimea with economic sanctions.
On Ukraine, on March 15 after the UN Security Council vote on a US-drafted resolution calling the Crimea refendum invalid failed with Russia vetoing and China abstaining, Urkaine's Yuriy Sergeyov told the press there are Russian troops on the mainland.
He said there will be more action next week, mentioning a debate on "revitalization," presumably of the UN General Assembly, aimed at the UN Security Council veto system.
Little mentioned in Saturday's proceedings is that the US vetos resolutions on Israel, in settlements for example, and votes against non-binding resolution in the General Assembly about the embargo on Cuba, for example.
Sergeyev is deft, but he refused to answer a question about how the expansion of NATO impacts on this. "Don't provoke me," he said.
The Free UN Coalition for Access objects to speakers at the UN picking which questions to answer. There are worse cases: France's Gerard Araud for example refused to answer on his country's sale of Mistral warships to Russia. Herve Ladsous of UN Peacekeeping went so far as to direct his spokesman to grab the UN microphone so a question couldn't be asked. Video here and here.
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. Video here, from Minute 20:13.
"OP5 Declares that this referendum can have no validity, and cannot form the basis for any alteration of the status of Crimea; and calls upon all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any alteration of the status of Crimea on the basis of this referendum and to refrain from any action or dealing that might be interpreted as recognizing any such altered status"
So, the Crimea resolution scheduled for March 16 would have no validity. But, as Russian foreign minister Lavrov asked in London on March 14, couldn't the same be said of the French-organized referendum splitting Mayotte from the Cosmoros?
Inner City Press asked US State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf about both the resolution and the Mayotte analogy on March 14. From the US transcript:
Inner City Press: on Ukraine, there’s talk of the Security Council resolution – seems pretty clear that Russia would veto it, but there’s some discussion of trying – is it the U.S.’s intention to try to get a vote on a resolution declaring the referendum illegal before Sunday?
And also, Lavrov mentioned, and also Churkin as well, this example of Mayotte. They used – I mean, they’ve come up with different examples – Kosovo and others – but one in particular. Both of them raised an island of Comoros where France organized an referendum to break Comoros off – to break Mayotte off from Comoros, and said that this wasn’t authorized by the UN or the African Union. So I just wondered – I mean, maybe you’ll slap it down, but what’s the response to their argument?
MS. HARF: Well, in general, I think that it’s very clear under Ukraine’s constitution that governs Ukraine how this kind of referendum legally could take place. And that would involve a country-wide referendum, basically relying on the premise that any decisions about Ukraine’s territory need to be made by all of the people of Ukraine. So setting aside any comparisons, there are very clear rules in Ukraine’s constitution, which is in effect, that lay out how this kind of referendum could take place. That’s not what we see here. So any comparisons aside, they just don’t have relevancy here.
On the first question, I don’t have anything on a potential Security Council resolution. We’ve been very clear that there will be costs. I don’t have anything to outline for you in terms of what that might look like, but we as the United States, independently, have a number of tools at our disposal that we can use if and when we need to make clear those costs with this referendum going forward. Video here from Minute 18:34.
Back on March 13 when Churkin took the Council floor he had a flourish of analogies: the US Declaration of Independence, the Falkland (or Malvinas) Islands, Puerto Rico, and the recognition by some of Kosovo without even a referendum, he said, only an act of the legislature.
Churkin said that France organized a referendum to break Mayotte away from the Comoros, in violation of UN resolution and using their veto, he said. Click here for some background.
Would French Amabassador Gerard Araud respond?
Of late at the UN, his spokesperson Frederic Jung has called only on friendly journalists; Araud refused for example to answer why France is still selling Mistral warships to Russia, and claimed that Navi Pillay has not reported that France put Muslims at risk in the Central African Republic. The jokes, some say, are getting stale.
Speaking after former US, now UN official Jeffrey Feltman, Yatsenyuk said if Russia persists, no country will ever again give up nuclear weapons, as Ukraine did.
Yatsenyuk shifted into Russian to speak directly to Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, just as Ambassador Sergeyev has done. But Russia wasn't listed to speak and reply until the 14th of 17 slots. After Luxembourg as Council President for March, the next three speakers were the US, UK and France.
US Ambassador Samantha Power cited the draft UNSC resolution, but didn't opine if China might abstain rather than join Russia in a veto.
When French Ambassador Gerard Araud spoke, the question in the air which he refused to answer is why France is going forward with the sale of Mistral warships to Russia. Rather than answer it, Araud made stale jokes about Kosovo.
While in Washington, Yatsenyuk said he knows the International Monetary Fund program is "not the sweet candy." Inner City Press covers the IMF and can only say: ask Greece.
Asked about allowing any referendum in Crimea, Yatsenyuk said the legislature in Kyiv would have to permit it; he said there could be dialogue about increased autonomy from Crimea, on taxes and language rights.
He was asked about Jihadis going to Crimea and he answered about the Tatars. He bragged that a deputy prime minister in the new government "represents the Jewish community." But what about Right Sector?
The US State Department announced for example that the Department of Defense will be giving Meals Ready to Eat or MREs to the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
Over on Capitol Hill, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee marked-up the "Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014."
Absent on jury duty, Senator Marco Rubio had a proposed amendment about the G8 and not invading your neighbor read out; it was agreed to.
Senator Rand Paul proposed an amendment to remove loan guarantees and the International Monetary Fund from the bill. He said the loans would go to back Russia back and noted that the proposed IMF reforms would raise Russia's power in the IMF from 2.5% to 2.71%
Senator Bob Menendez replied that the IMF wouldn't give a dime unlesss Ukraine commits to changes. Can you say, austerity? Paul's amendment failed.
Senator John McCain proposed giving the President the power to sanction "corrupt officials" in Russia. This amendment passed.
Senator John Barrosso R-Wyoming tried to add the export of liquified natural gas to Ukraine. Menendez replied that Turkey would block any import of LNG into the Black Sea. Others also opposed Barrosso's proposal, calling it out of order and subject to the jurisdiction of the Banking and Energy Committees. So it goes in Washington.
On March 11, the US House of Representatives went late with speeches denouncing Russia.
The longest was by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who recounted on the House floor history from 1941, how only because Hitler had to turn back to put down the revolution in Yugoslavia did he not conquer Russia but got stopped the month after.
Rep Carolyn Maloney, Democrat of New York, said that Yanukovych had "a golden toilet." That Internet image has widely been discredited, but who's counting? She promoted an event at "Four Freedoms" park at the tip of Roosevelt Island.
US President Barack Obama was in Manhattan at $32,000 a plate fundraisers, one including Mayor Bill De Blasio. Then Obama flew back to New York, where he will meet Ukraine's Yatsenyuk on March 12 at 2:45 pm.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, on the other hand, is slated according to Bill De Blasio's scheduled to meet with De Blasio at 2 pm at City Hall. It is not in the UN's Media Alert, as was repeatedly requested by the Free UN Coalition for Access (whose member Luiz Rampelotto took this photo on March 12 of Ban, his head of protocol and US political guru Bob Orr).
Earlier on March 11 in the US House of Representatives in DC, Ohio Democrat Marcy Kaptur recounted the suffering of Ukraine including under the Nazis; California Republican Ed Royce called for adoption of H.R. 499 before Yatsenyuk's arrival.
But there was a call for yeas and nays to be counted, and debate shifted to a religious exemption for Obamacare. (Obama himself was headed to New York to raise money.)
The US announced that
Tomicah Tillemann, Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State for Civil Society and Emerging Democracies will travel to Geneva, Switzerland, March 11-12, to represent the United States at the 12th meeting of the Governing Council of the Community of Democracies... The meeting will address a broad range of issues related to democracy including the status of freedom of association in the world, challenges facing human rights defenders, and current developments in Ukraine. Governing Council members will recognize Moldova’s graduation from the Community’s Democracy Partnership Task Force.
While in Geneva, Dr. Tillemann will participate in a number of events hosted by the CD’s working groups. These include an introductory meeting of the new Freedom of Expression Working Group and a panel discussion on lessons learned from Ukraine.
Amid all this, there was some off-camera grumbling not only about impacted countries' unwillingness to impose sanctions, but in particular about France's continued sale of weaponry to Russia.
On March 10 when France's Permanent Representative to the UN Gerard Araud came to the Security Council stakeout to say how concerned he is, Inner City Press three times asked about the warship sale. But Araud refused to answer.
Araud's spokesperson Frederic Jung calls first on Agence France Presse, which did not ask the question about the warships. This is France's or Araud's deal: hard questions result in banishment; when Araud doesn't like a story or a quote, he threatens to sue. There was walk of (a lack of) freedom of the press in Crimea.
If Araud wouldn't answer, might Delattre?
No, Lyall Grant answered. From the UK Mission transcript:
Inner City Press: Question on Ukraine. Do you think there will be any opposition to Yatseniuk? He has said publicly that he’s going to address the Council on the 13th. How do you think that could play out? And also the US has said that it has asked a series of questions to Russia and basically it said that it won’t travel there until these questions are answered. I wondered did this come up in the Council and does it bear any relation, this process of putting questions to Mr Lavrov and the process inside the Council?
Amb Lyall Grant: On the question of putting questions to Mr Lavrov was not raised today. Nor indeed was a possible visit by Mr Yatseniuk the Prime Minister of Ukraine. But the Prime Minister is coming to the United States this week. We understand that he does want to address the Security Council and we would fully support that and we hope that all member states would support it.
Some wonder of the relation between the two processes, and of the relevance. Lyall Grant added that the UK would support Ukraine's Yatsenyuk addressing the Security Council.
Inner City Press asked Luxembourg's Sylvie Lucas about Yatsenyuk's statement he "will" address the Council on March 13. She replied, We will react when we receive such a request.
The US has announced that Ukraine's Arseniy Yatsenyuk will meet with President Barack Obama on March 12; he has added he will address the UN Security Council on March 13.
But if UNSC Permanent Five member Russia does not recognize Yatsenyuk, can he? On Syria, France and others declared that Ahmad al Jarba is the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people. But he was confined to a Friends of Syria meeting down the hall from the Security Council, and before that a faux "UN briefing" with the UN's Gulf & Western media club.
Yuriy Sergeyev has addressed the Security Council at least four times in the last ten days. But he was Ukraine's Ambassador under Yanukovych: he is automatically recognized. With Yatsenuk, it may be different.
When the UN Security Council was debating Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the US problematized their representatives getting visas to come address the UN. The US can and will let in Yatsenyuk, into the country - but will Russia, into the UN Security Council?
On March 7 with little fanfare, Ukraine's Ambassador Sergeyev went into basement Conference Room 3. Outside the sign simply said, "GRULAC: Grulac meeting [Closed]."
GRULAC is the Latin American and Caribbean Group at the UN. Sergeyev told Inner City Press he is trying to brief each regional group. But why have it closed?
