On E. Ukraine Voting, US Slams "Kremlin-Based Social Media," Merkel Mentioned But Not French Mistral Warship Sale to Russia

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 10 -- On the eve of the planned referendums in Eastern Ukraine, two days after the IMF wouldn't say it was concerned about them, the US State Department issued this:

As the United States has said, the referenda being planned for May 11 in portions of eastern Ukraine by armed separatist groups are illegal under Ukrainian law and are an attempt to create further division and disorder. If these referenda go forward, they will violate international law and the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The United States will not recognize the results of these illegal referenda.

In addition, we are disappointed that the Russian government has not used its influence to forestall these referenda since President Putin’s suggestion on May 7 that they be postponed, when he also claimed that Russian forces were pulling back from the Ukrainian border.

Unfortunately, we still see no Russian military movement away from the border, and today Kremlin-backed social media and news stations encouraged residents of eastern Ukraine to vote tomorrow, one even offering instructions for polling stations in Moscow. Russian state media also continue to strongly back the referenda with no mention of Putin’s call for postponement.

The focus of the international community must now be on supporting the Ukrainian government’s consistent efforts to hold a presidential election on May 25. International observers note that preparations for these elections are proceeding apace and in accordance with international standards, which will allow all Ukrainian people a voice in the future of their country. According to recent independent polls, a substantial majority of Ukrainians intend to vote on May 25. Any efforts to disrupt this democratic process will be seen clearly for what they are, attempts to deny the rights of Ukraine’s citizens to express their political will freely.

As President Obama and Chancellor Merkel stated on May 2, the Russian leadership must know that if it continues to destabilize eastern Ukraine and disrupt this month’s presidential election, we will move quickly to impose greater costs on Russia.

The Russian government can still choose to implement its Geneva commitments, as well as follow through on President Putin’s statement of May 7. We call on them to do so.

  While citing Germany's Merkel, the State Department spokesperson's statement doesn't mention she met May 10 with France's Francois Hollande, who re-affirmed his country's sale of Mistral warships to Russia, click here for that.

  But is the International Monetary Fund, given its new program with Ukraine, concerned about the referendums still slated to go forward this Sunday, May 11?

  IMF spokesperson Gerry Rice at the Fund's embargoed May 8 press briefing resisted using the word “concern,” saying that he wouldn't speculate. Asked if the more than $3 billion already disbursed might be used for military purposes, or to re-pay Russia, Rice said it was for budget support, to stabilize public finances and for budget deficit.

But many have said the IMF position that if Kyiv further loses control of the East the program would have to be revised creates an incentive to use force. Not surprisingly, Rice did not agree with this. But the incentives remain that way.

Rice was asked to state what the IMF's interest rate for Ukraine is, but didn't, saying it is a matter of public record.

Inner City Press submitted five questions two of which, on Bosnia and Ghana, were answered at the briefing and will be separately reported. Watch this site.

   

On Ukraine, IMF Won't Say Rate Or If Concerned by May 11 Referendums, Incentive to Retake the East?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 8 -- Is the International Monetary Fund, given its new program with Ukraine, concerned about the referendums still slated to go forward this Sunday, May 11?

IMF spokesperson Gerry Rice at the Fund's embargoed May 8 press briefing resisted using the word “concern,” saying that he wouldn't speculate. Asked if the more than $3 billion already disbursed might be used for military purposes, or to re-pay Russia, Rice said it was for budget support, to stabilize public finances and for budget deficit.

But many have said the IMF position that if Kyiv further loses control of the East the program would have to be revised creates an incentive to use force. Not surprisingly, Rice did not agree with this. But the incentives remain that way.

Rice was asked to state what the IMF's interest rate for Ukraine is, but didn't, saying it is a matter of public record.

Inner City Press submitted five questions two of which, on Bosnia and Ghana, were answered at the briefing and will be separately reported. Watch this site.

   

On Abyei, South Sudan's Deng Praises Referendum, Sudan PR Calls It Personal, Susan Rice Echo

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 25 -- Sudan's and South Sudan's ambassadors traded speeches about Abyei in the UN Security Council Monday morning, and things got personal.

  While the Security Council urged against the unilateral referendum held in Abyei, South Sudan's Francis Deng on Monday praised it. He said the Miseriya had been out of the area "in their own homeland" 125 miles away when the referendum was held.

  Inner City Press has previously reported that Deng's family comes from Abyei, and has questioned if he owns property there. It makes for a more dramatic story.

  Sudan's Permanent Representative Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman took the floor to say Deng's speech was against the current tenor between Khartoum and Juba, and was based on "personal interests" and not the interests of the whole of South Sudan.

  It's rare these days at the UN for arguments to turn personal in this way. Relatedly, some in the Council note that soon after Ambassador Susan Rice was promoted to Washington, there were no more twice a month meetings on Sudan and South Sudan. In fairness we report that others say that's a coincidence. Like Deng's personal story? Both are compelling. Watch this site.

   

In Wake of Ethnic Cleansing, Dubious Kyrgyz Referendum Supported by UN -- and U.S.?

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/un7kyrgyz061610.html

UNITED NATIONS, June 16 -- Despite over 100,000 ethnic Uzbeks having been forced by violence out of Kyrgyzstan, the UN's man in Turkmenistan Miroslav Jenca has said the UN supports still holding the country's post-coup referendum on June 27.

Inner City Press asked UN Associate Spokesman Farhan Haq on June 16 is this might not be rewarding ethnic cleansing, and whether the UN believed that those who had to flee Kyrgyzstan should be allowed to vote in the referendum:

Inner City Press: with this number of people displaced and shooting still going on, what would the UN say to those who say that an ethnic minority that’s being targeted here won’t be able to vote in the referendum, thereby rendering it less than legitimate?

Associate Spokesperson: As far as that goes, yes, Mr. Jenca does believe that the referendum needs to go ahead. Our Electoral Affairs Division also is supportive of this. We realize the challenges, given the level of displacement, but the Electoral Division is in touch with the relevant electoral bodies in Kyrgyzstan and we’re trying to see what alternatives can be done to make sure that people exercise their right to vote.

Inner City Press: Do you believe that the 100,000 Kyrgyz citizens now in Uzbekistani camps should be allowed to vote in the election?

Associate Spokesperson: We believe that all steps should be taken to make sure that all of the Kyrgyz population can vote. The question, you’re right, there is a very strong logistical challenge at this stage, and we’ll have to see how that can be resolved. But our electoral people are in touch with the relevant authorities in Kyrgyzstan on this.

Inner City Press: Mr. Jenca, from his statement that it must go forward, it seems like he thought that it’s been resolved, or is he saying that it should go forward if it’s resolved or…?

Associate Spokesperson: He believes that, at this current stage, there is a series of options, all which have their difficulties and their problems. And the best way forward is to continue with the referendum, and try to address all the various challenges that have been caused by this displacement.

The referendum would install Roza Otunbayeva -- a former UN staffer -- in power through 2011, and approve Constitutional changes. To do so weeks after ethnic cleansing raises questions. What is the position of the United States, whose Robert Blake is headed to Bishkek this week? As Uzbeks call it ethnic cleansing or "attempted genocide," what does the US war crimes off, or Samantha Power, have to say?

More from the rest of the UN transcript:

Inner City Press: on this readout of the Secretary-General’s call with Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan. Am I misreading it? Did he ask that the border be opened so that people there that still are facing violence are able to cross or did he not?

Associate Spokesperson: Just to read back the readout, which we just got, he said that he highly appreciated Uzbekistan’s constructive efforts in addressing the alarming humanitarian situation in Kyrgyzstan, particularly in opening the border for refugees and providing for their care despite limited resources.

Inner City Press: Why did they report that it was open at first and then it was closed? Is it open or closed?

Associate Spokesperson: As we’ve said in the last couple of days, there were contradictory reports on this. We’ve been getting information on UNHCR, and like I said, the Secretary-General just earlier today spoke with President Karimov and this is the readout that I have.

Question: [inaudible] what about this report that this crisis was deliberately triggered off, that report by the United Nations?

Associate Spokesperson: This is from comments that were made by my counterpart at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Rupert Colville. I’d just refer you back to Mr. Colville’s remarks, where he talked about identifying five specific incidents of attacks a few days ago. And that’s part of the public record that we have in our briefing notes from there.

How can the UN say that an attempted genocide or ethnic cleansing was planned, without saying who planned it? Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un7kyrgyz061610.html