MH17 Tribunal Resolution Vetoed in UNSC by Russia, 3 Abstain, Australia's Vow Before Vote

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 29 -- After threatening to call the vote on a proposed tribunal on the downing of flight MH17 in the UN Security Council on July 21 and then July 27, on July 29 the vote took place, on this resolution.

  As expected, Russia vetoed, and three countries abstained: China, Angola and Venezuela.

 Before the vote, Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop stopped and told reporters:

  “We have met with and spoken with members of the Security Council upon a number of occasions and I remain optimistic that this resolution will pass. We have received expressions of support from a majority of the members of the Security Council. Should Russia exercise its veto it would be an affront to the families of those aboard MH17, for the UN Security Council has already demanded that those responsibility be held to account, and that all states cooperate, and they should be cooperating in determining that accountability. So, I’m not optimistic that justice will be done and should the resolution not be adopted today, we will not be swayed from the power of determination to bring justice to the families and loved ones who lost their cherished family and friends aboard Malaysian Airlines MH17.

   “We have had a very significant level of support expressed by a majority of the members. I won’t get down to numbers but I’m awed by the level of support we have had and indeed, 18 nations have indicated that they would cosponsor our resolution. That includes not only members of the Security Council b ut also other nations who lost citizens and residents aboard that ill-fated flight. We had a very positive meeting with Secretary General Ban Ki moon this morning. He expressed his support for what we were doing. He expressed his gratitude for the joint investigation team who’ve been carrying out the preliminary investigation to date, the Dutch safety board and the other relevant safety boards who’ve been conducting investigations into the safety aspects of this tragedy. And he assured us that should the issue of justice not be achieved today it will be tomorrow."

   “We will continue to hope, and advocate for support for this resolution today. Should it not be achieved, the joint investigation team will continue in our resolve to obtain justice for the families, and we will come up with an alternative mechanism. But our focus today is on achieving what we think is international best practice for a situation like this, and that is, an impartial, independent tribunal backed by the Security Council, under the auspices of resolution 2166, which was passed last year." Bishop went into the UNSC, where the veto and three abstentions took place.

   The Netherlands' Bert Koenders, a former UN official in Cote d'Ivoirethen Mali, buzzed around the Security Council and stood for interviews. Australia's Julie Bishop posed on First Avenue with the UN behind her. Whether any questions about her government paying human traffickers would be allowed was UNclear.

 Bishop stopped on her way in, but declined to predict the vote count. Russia's Vitaly Churkin said, "Our position has not changed, listen to my speech."

   Ukraine's Pavlo Klimkin, last here talking up peacekeeping in Donbas, said that if the resolution didn't pass there would be more shoot-downs.

 Back on July 20 Inner City Press asked the UN Security Council president for July, New Zealand's Gerard von Bohemen if there will be a July 27 vote. It is not "set in stone," he replied. Before that, von Bohemen said:

"We had consultations as you know, this afternoon on the issue of MH17 and what should be done by way of follow up to Resolution 2166 and the proposal by Joint Investigation Team of countries who want an international tribunal.

"I think it was a very positive discussion. There was strong support in the room for the establishment of a tribunal. Russia, of course, has a different perspective on this and explained its resolution and there were a number of countries that urged the two key proponents to come together and try to find a united way forward.

"Attention was drawn to the fact that the Council achieved great unity this morning for the Iran resolution and that same spirit, I think we should try to capture in this exercise.

"Having said that, I noted, and so did the Russian Federation, that the issue of the tribunal is the key deciding point.  And that’s the one that we are going to grapple with."

  Back on July 21, 2014, after the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution to an independent international investigation of the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over Eastern Ukraine, Inner City Press asked Malaysia's then Permanent Representative to the UNHussein Haniff if there was, in fact, an agreement with the separatist rebels for Malaysia to get the black boxes. Video here.

Ambassador Hussein Haniff said yes, “there is this understanding that the black box will be handed over to Malaysia.” He said, “We have our people ready, we hope this agreement will be honored.”

Inner City Press asked when the hand-over is supposed to take place.

“Like around now,” Ambassador Hussein Haniff replied. It was just past 5 pm in New York on July 21.

Earlier on July 21 at the US State Department's press briefing in Washington, Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf was asked if Malaysia was breaking ranks with other countries by making its own deal with the rebels, and if an agreement with Malaysia about the black boxes and flight recorders would give the separatist rebels leadership any legitimacy.

No, Harf insisted. Watch this site.

   

Srebrenica Draft Fails in UN Secuity Council, With Four Abstention & Russia's Veto, Final Text Here

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 8 -- When the draft resolution to commemorate the 20th anniversary of Srebrenica was put up for a vote in the UN Security Council on July 8, after having been two times postponed on July 7, both Russia's Vitaly Churkin and China's Liu Jieyi urged that a vote not be held. Deputy Permanent Representative Peter Wilson of the UK, the sponsor of the resolution, said that a vote should be taken.

   The resolution then failed, with ten in favor, Russia casting a veto against, and four countries abstaining: China, Nigeria, Angola and Venezuela.  Inner City Presshas put the failed draft resolution online here. 

  Before the vote, Russia's Ambassador Churkin told the other members of the Security Council that

“when the delegation of Bosnia and Herzegovina first approached us with the need to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the tragedy in Srebrenica we agreed that this to be done solemnly, given the particular sensitivity of the topic for people in Bosnia Herzegovina and in the region on the whole. We were saying that what we need to do is to underscore the positive in the road covered and look into the future. That is exactly what in the beginning was being said by the United Kingdom delegation, when they said they are ready to prepare a draft resolution for the Security Council. However, the implementation of the initiative has shown that this is following a different direction. The draft submitted by the United Kingdom turned out to be not constructive, confrontational, and politically motivated. It contained distortions, as a result of which the blame for the past is placed basically on one people. This approach, according to which you single out one party for a war crime, is not legitimate and can result in even greater division within the Bosnian society. From the very beginning, we tried to make sure that the document is valid in its nature. We proposed an alternative option, aimed on forward looking logic. However, our key statements were ignored.”

      China's Ambassador Liu Jieyi then said, “regarding the draft resolution to commemorate Srebrenica event, at this moment Council members still have great concerns. To force a vote on the draft resolution when major differences still remain is not in conformity with national reconciliation within Bosnia and Herzegovina and in the region at large. It will also affect the unity of the Council members. China believes that the Council members can well continue their exchange of views on the matter of the draft resolution and should refrain from hasty actions.”

  In a statement issued after the vote by the UK, Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said, “We are disappointed that our Resolution to commemorate the 20th anniversary of Srebrenica was vetoed today. We had three goals: to commemorate the victims of the genocide in Srebrenica and victims on all sides during the conflict in Bosnia Herzegovina; to appeal for justice for all and reconciliation; and to note the lessons for the UN, of these tragic events. The Resolution did not point fingers of blame nor seek to reopen painful divisions. The failure to adopt this Resolution is a snub to the families of the victims and the survivors of Srebrenica.  True reconciliation requires facing up to the realities of the past by all sides and determination to learn the lessons for the future. We owe it to all those who lost their lives in the war to work together to help build a safe and prosperous Bosnia Herzegovina.”
   

On UN Security Council Reform, New United for Consensus Paper Calls for Transparency, No New Permanent Seats

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 25 -- With UN Security Council reform to be taken up again tomorrow, Inner City Press has obtained and is publishing here the United for Consensus group's proposals for 2015, being circulated today by Italy's mission to the UN as UfC Focal Point. 

 As before, UfC is opposed to the creation of new Permanent seats on the Council (while that is what the G4 grouping wants).

   United for Consensus says, “we could support a UNSC of up to 26 members in total - a Council that is more representative of the international community as a whole while preserving the principles of democracy and accountability to Member States. The legitimacy of the Council depends not only - or even primarily - on its composition, but on its transparency, accountability and effectiveness. It is not just about who takes decisions, but most importantly the inclusive and democratic nature of decision-making.”

   “Transparency in the work of the Security Council should be enhanced through, for instance, better access to information, an increase in open briefings, and greater interaction with the General Assembly and other interested parties, including TCCs/PCCs and regional and sub-regional organizations.”

   Inner City Press and the new Free UN Coalition for Access might add there has in some recent months been a decrease even in question and answer media stakeouts after closed consultation of the Council.

  UfC continues, “the new category of longer term non-permanent seats and an appropriate increase in two-year non-permanent seats could guarantee better representation among regional groups as well as Small States, including Small Island Developing States (SIDS). Such an increase in the membership of the Council could also provide avenues to account for the aspirations of cross regional and sub-regional groups. Re-election and rotation of seats would be left to the autonomous arrangements within each regional group.

    On the veto, UfC says “While outright abolition of the veto would be ideal, in the immediate term our negotiations should address how to best limit the use of veto in circumstances that include, but are not limited to, mass atrocities.”

   Inner City Press is putting the full United for Consensusdocument online here. We'll have more on this.

   

On Palestine Draft in UNSC, What Difference Would January Make?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 30 -- From Cairo Mahmoud Abbas and the Arab League said Jordan will finally push in the UN Security Council for a draft resolution which would set a timeline to end Israel's occupation, of November 2016.

  The delay has been long. But now, in one month's time, Venezuela and Spain join the Security Council, along with Angola, Malaysia and New Zealand. Wouldn't the draft get more "yes" votes in January 2015 than in December 2014?

   Rather than analyze this, Reuters for example vaguely reports that "some diplomats have described the Palestinian-drafted text as 'unbalanced.'" Very helpful. For whom?

 Back on October 21 as the Palestine debate of the UN Security Council went on in the Council chamber, Inner City Press conferred with a range of Council sources about the pending draft resolution to set a time frame to end Israel's occupation.

Negotiations were held on the draft last week but only at the “expert” level, not of Permanent Representatives of the Council's 15 members. Supporters of the current draft, according to Inner City Press' sources, include China and Russia, Argentina and Chile, Chad and it was assumed Nigeria, although sources say Nigeria in consultations said they didn't yet have instructions.

France was described as more excited by the draft than either the US or the UK, as not have a problem with a time frame to end the Occupation but wanting unstated changes to the draft. France did not put forth amendments, a source told Inner City Press, guessing that France didn't want to “embarrass” the US Administration before the November mid-term elections.

The UK was described as less enthusiastic, but as somehow “softened” by the recent vote in Parliament favoring recognizing Palestine as a state.

Talk turned to the new members of the Security Council coming in on January 1, with Malaysia instead of South Korea seen as a shift in favor of Palestine as a state. (This reporter's Security Council elections coverage is collected here.) Angola and Venezuela are seen as supportive and “even Spain,” as one source put it to Inner City Press. But what about New Zealand? We'll have more on this. Watch this site.

   

On Palestine Draft, Riyad Mansour Wants UN Security Council Vote This Month, Application for Full Membership Next, When 5 New Members in January

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 4 -- With questions mounting about when Palestine's resolution setting a time frame to end Israel's occupation will actually be put to a vote in the Security Council, on November 4 the Press asked the State of Palestine's Observer Riyad Mansour.

   Mansour said that he wants a vote on the resolution "this month." He said, "this exercise, we're going to be done with this month. This month. If there are parties which have a veto power and they select otherwise... we have options."

  Mansour said, "we are cooking it under slow fire, but I think after today we will increase the fire a bit."

   As to the five new members coming onto the Council on January 1, Mansour said then Palestine may put forward an application for full UN membership. "The first thing we are considering for them is to submit our application for membership. If somebody casts a veto, I will still be a few steps ahead of Israel."

  Even if it's vetoed, Mansour said, as long as Palestine reaches the "threshold" that requires a veto, he will have done better than Israel and will be like Italy and Ireland, Finland and Jordan, which were subject to vetoes and had to wait.

  Back on October 21 as the Palestine debate of the UN Security Council went on in the Council chamber, Inner City Press conferred with a range of Council sources about the pending draft resolution to set a time frame to end Israel's occupation.

Negotiations were held on the draft last week but only at the “expert” level, not of Permanent Representatives of the Council's 15 members. Supporters of the current draft, according to Inner City Press' sources, include China and Russia, Argentina and Chile, Chad and it was assumed Nigeria, although sources say Nigeria in consultations said they didn't yet have instructions.

France was described as more excited by the draft than either the US or the UK, as not have a problem with a time frame to end the Occupation but wanting unstated changes to the draft. France did not put forth amendments, a source told Inner City Press, guessing that France didn't want to “embarrass” the US Administration before the November mid-term elections.

The UK was described as less enthusiastic, but as somehow “softened” by the recent vote in Parliament favoring recognizing Palestine as a state.

Talk turned to the new members of the Security Council coming in on January 1, with Malaysia instead of South Korea seen as a shift in favor of Palestine as a state. (This reporter's Security Council elections coverage is collected here.) Angola and Venezuela are seen as supportive and “even Spain,” as one source put it to Inner City Press. But what about New Zealand? We'll have more on this. Watch this site.

   

On Referring Gaza to the ICC, New UN Rapporteur Wibisono Tells Inner City Press He Doubts There Are Nine "Yes" Votes on UNSC

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 29 -- When the UN's new Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Makarim Wibisono, held a UN press conference on October 29, Inner City Press asked him if he is calling for referral of the situation to the International Criminal Court, as his follow Indonesian UN Rapporteur Marsuki Darusman is, with regard to North Korea.

   The question is about the mandate and scope of rapporteurs. Darusman at the end of his October 28 press conference discussed in the briefing room with scribes how a pending General Assembly resolution might be modified in exchange for him getting into North Korea, video here.

    Wibisono replied that the first step would be for the Palestinian parties -- that would be, Hamas and Fatah -- to unite and decide to apply to join the ICC.

   But, Inner City Press pointed out, North Korea is not a member of the ICC. Darusman is calling for the situation to be sent to the UN Security Council for a vote on referring it to the ICC.

   Wibisono's answer to the follow up did not mention the expected veto(es) - which could well be applicable to North Korea, but hasn't dissuaded Darusman or Japan or the European Union -- but instead said he doubted there are nine “Yes” votes in the Security Council to refer the situation in Gaza to the ICC.

   Would that remain the same after January 1, with Venezuela, Malaysia and Angola coming onto the Security Council, along with New Zealand and Spain? Watch this site.

   As the Palestine debate of the UN Security Council went on in the Council chamber on October 21, Inner City Press conferred with a range of Council sources about the pending draft resolution to set a time frame to end Israel's occupation.

Negotiations were held on the draft last week but only at the “expert” level, not of Permanent Representatives of the Council's 15 members. Supporters of the current draft, according to Inner City Press' sources, include China and Russia, Argentina and Chile, Chad and it was assumed Nigeria, although sources say Nigeria in consultations said they didn't yet have instructions.

France was described as more excited by the draft than either the US or the UK, as not have a problem with a time frame to end the Occupation but wanting unstated changes to the draft. France did not put forth amendments, a source told Inner City Press, guessing that France didn't want to “embarrass” the US Administration before the November mid-term elections.

The UK was described as less enthusiastic, but as somehow “softened” by the recent vote in Parliament favoring recognizing Palestine as a state.

Talk turned to the new members of the Security Council coming in on January 1, with Malaysia instead of South Korea seen as a shift in favor of Palestine as a state. (This reporter's Security Council elections coverage is collected here.) Angola and Venezuela are seen as supportive and “even Spain,” as one source put it to Inner City Press. But what about New Zealand? We'll have more on this. Watch this site.

   

In Africa Week, Libya Post-NATO Chaos Cited to Demand African Veto in UN Security Council, Other UN Anachronisms like UNCA

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 15 -- When the Africa Week press conference was held at the UN, Inner City Press asked African Union Ambassador Tete Antonio about an African veto on the Security Council, and now in its absence Libya has worked out.

  Antonio said if the veto remains, Africa should have one and will work out which country holds it. He said that Libya is a daily question now, with the chaos that has followed the AU Framework being rejected. 

  These followed more extensive answers the two gave on October 1. That day, after a UN session on African Regional Economic Communities there was a press conference involving Maged Abdelaziz, UN Special Adviser on Africa, the AU's Tete Antonio and the Free UN Coalition for Access, which challenged the closing and privatization of the UN Press Briefing Room.

Click here for video of RECs briefing, here for FUNCA on HuffPo Live.

In the 32nd floor conference room of the Special Adviser on Africa, Inner City Press asked how the work of the RECs related to the African issues on the agenda of the Security Council, for example in South Sudan.

Tete Antonio said, “You know our fight, we are trying to convince the Security Council to have assessed contributions to make sure the AU or the RECs on behalf of the international community is very successful.”

Maged Abdelaziz spoke of Agenda 2063, issues raised by Egypt and Cape Verde including “Silencing the Gun” dealing with the economic and the governance components.

 (On October 15, Maged Abdelaziz said an African veto on the Security Council, or no veto at all, should be addressed in 2015.)

Near the end of the October 1 session, after responses by several of the RECs including ECOWAS on its work in Guinea Bissau and Mali, Abdelaziz said in his personal capacity, not as a UN official, that Africa deserves two Permanent seats on the Security Council, with veto. This, he said, would have prevented what a number of speakers called the foreign interference in Libya. This is an ongoing theme. 

  At the October 15 press converence, the representative of the old UN Correspondents Association demanded the first question as a set-aside, said "I have been at the UN a long time" then asked about Zimbabwe in connection with the African Peer Review Mechanism. Afterward, as journalists from African asked questions, the UNCA representative left. This is how it works - or doesn't.

Footnote: After the UN session on African Regional Economic Communities held on the morning of October 1 in UN Conference Room 2, there was a press conference scheduled for 1 pm on the second floor. This conflicted with an event of UNCA, now known as the UN's Censorship Alliance; the African press conference got canceled. Inner City Press went down to Conference Room 2 and urged, on behalf of the new Free UN Coalition for Access, that the briefing be reinstated. 

 But up on the second floor, the UN Spokesperson's office said this would be difficult. The UN Press Briefing Room, previously taken over by the French delegation, was locked. Finally it was decided to conduct the session up on the 32nd floor, in what we'll call a FUNCA briefing. Video here.

   

For Syria ICC Referral Resolution Facing Veto, Hollande Says France "Will Spare No Effort"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 22 -- In the run up to the vote on a resolution to refer parts of the conflicts in Syria to the International Criminal Court, the Syria Coalition quotes French president Francois Hollande that ""France will spare no effort in the Security Council to pass a resolution allowing the referral of the Syrian file to the International Criminal Court."

  Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin already announced Russia will veto the resolution, calling it a "publicity stunt." 

  Ahmad Jarba, president of the Syrian Coalition, announced that “we along with our allies are going to take moves to stop the farcical elections that the Assad regime intends to hold." 

  According to the Syrian Coalition, "Hollande denounced the presidential elections which the Assad regime intends to hold 'in utter disregard for the grave times Syria is going through and at a time when millions of Syrians have been displaced. These elections are illegal, and the situation in Syria requires more attention by the international community.' Hollande also said that an embassy for the Syrian Coalition in Paris will be opened in Paris." 

   But the Syrian Coalition's representative in France Munther Makhous complained about Francois Hollande, as so many in France do:

"The French president pledged that he would give the Paris office of the Syrian Coalition all the legal powers necessary to operate as an official Syrian Embassy in the future, but designated no official target date for it to be done. Hollande also told us that he hoped that all the legal and political powers enjoyed by an embassy would be granted to the Syrian Coalition which has already been recognized as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people. However, the granting of legal powers to the Syrian Coalition needs to be approved by the UN Security Council."

   This last is unclear -- France certainly didn't get a Security Council vote to host an event in the UN last September at which it declared Ahmad Jarba the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people. 

  But some wonder, if France is handing out "diplomatic mission" status,why not to the MNLA? Click here for that.

   Back on May 14 when the Syrian Coalition's Special Representative to the UN, Dr. Najib Ghadbian, held a press conference in New York, Inner City Press asked him of the significance of the Obama administration designating the Coalition as a “foreign mission,” and of responses to the Coalition's requests for weapons. Video here.

  Ghadbian called US “foreign mission” status symbolic and political as well as legal. He said the Coalition would like to take over Syrian embassies and consulates, and to get Syria's seat at the League of Arab States which it had in one Summit but not since.

  On weapons Ghadbian called the Coalition's meetings in Washington with members of both houses of Congress, from both parties, productive, and said they'd like a pilot program like the TOW missiles. Video here. This may cause some response.

  Inner City Press also asked about the pending France-US draft Security Council resolution to refer some parts of the conflicts in Syria to the International Criminal Court. Ghadbian acknowledged that some -- he mentioned African countries -- don't like the ICC but said, these are the international institutions. 

  He predicted that Russia, but perhaps not China, will veto any ICC referral. Human Rights Watch did not appear, as advertised, at the press conference; Ghadbian apologized, and thanked his staff. He said he will be back soon to talk about starvation. Watch this site.

   

Al Aqsa Mosque "Provocations" Raised at UN, But No Vote on Horizon

By Matthew Russell Lee, Investigative 4th Look

UNITED NATIONS, March 18 -- When the State of Palestine's Riyad Mansor held a stakeout on March 18, it was after he and a group of ambassadors met Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about "provocations" by Israel at the Al-Aqsa mosque.

  Inner City Press asked Mansour how these might impact the negotiations involving US Secretary of State John Kerry, and if in the day's consultations on the Middle East, the US had offered to use its leverage or had been, in its words, isolated and "naked before the world."

    Mansour replied that the provocations show that some in Israel seek to derail the negotiations. Off camera he said the Security Council must "shoulder its responsibilities."

  Earlier on March 18 Inner City Press asked Sylvie Lucas of Luxembourg, the Council's president for March, about the same group of ambassadors' March 7 meeting with her. She said she briefed Council members about it on March 10. 

  One UN wag notes that no vote has been called recently on this, though there was already one vote on Ukraine, and may soon be another. The Emperor may have no clothes, but you're only naked if a vote is called.

  Back on March 5 when Mansour held a stakeout with representatives of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Non-Aligned Movement and Arab League, his topic was, yes, the Al-Aqsa mosque.

  Inner City Press asked Mansour if recent events there impacted the described agreement by Palestine with US Secretary of State John Kerry not to go to the International Criminal court -- and about the selection by the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons of a company, Veolia, which does business in the Occupied Palestine Territory, as Inner City Press first reported three weeks ago.

   Mansour said that the commitment to Kerry was not implicated, these moves were by the OIC, NAM, Arab Group et al. (Egypt's Permanent Representative reiterated this).

  On the OPCW's choice of Veolia, Mansour said while he still needed to study the matter, the European Union has taken decisions not to deal with companies profiting from the illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. 

  So what of the EU -- and OIC and NAM -- votes on the OPCW board?

   To dispose of Syria's chemical weapons, 14 companies submitted bids to the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons. On February 14 the OPCW told the press there were two winners:

Ekokem OY AB (Finland)

Veolia Environmental Services Technical Solutions, LLC (U.S.A.)

   Veolia, it turns out, stands accused of illegal operations in the occupied Palestinian territories, including waste disposal in the illegally occupied Jordan valley, North of the Yafit settlement; waste water treatment in the illegal Israeli settlement of Modi’in Illit; bus service to illegal settlements and Jerusalem Light Rail / tramway. h/t In April 2010 the UN Human Rights Council declared the tramway and its operations to be illegal (A/HRC/RES/13/7 of 14 April 2010).

  So how did the OPCW select Veolia? There is a one page press release sent to the media, "reported" (or merely repeated, without any of the above) by Reuters and others, not mentioning that France, where Veolia is actually headquartered at the parent level, has contributed no money at all to the OPCW or UN trust funds on destroying Syria's chemical weapons.

   On transparency back on February 6, after OPCW-UN mission chief Sigrid Kaag briefed the UN Security Council about Syria chemical weapons, Inner City Press asked her about her Mission's trust funds, as it did back on January 8.

   Inner City Press noted that the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons put online a January 24 press release about Canada donated 10 million CAD, but that it had no link to any over-all chart.

  Kaag said, "I knew you'd ask that," and said it should go online soon. Video here and embedded below.  After 6 pm, Inner City Press ran an update with the chart, which shows for example that to the UN Trust Fund, Japan has pledged $9 million -- but has as of yet provided no money.

  In terms of cash, Kaag's native Netherlands has provided more (barely) that the United States:  $2,062,500 versus $2 million from the US.

  The OPCW Trust Fund for Syria is denominated in Euros. The European Union is the largest donor, and several EU members have also contributed in their own name - but not France.

  A separate OPCW Syria Trust Fund for the Destruction of Chemical Weapons has more in unpaid pledges then monies actually paid. Among those yet to come through are once again Japan, the aforementioned Canada, the EU, Australia, India, Italy and South Korea.

   There is the maritime component (see chart) and then this:

In addition to their contribution to the OPCW trust fund for the Destruction of Chemical Weapons, Canada contributed another CAD 5 million (almost US$ 4.7 million) for the destruction operations on board the vessel MV Cape Ray. Italy has indicated that the port of Gioia Tauro will be made available for transloading of priority chemicals from the cargo vessels onto the MV Cape Ray. Germany has indicated it will dispose of approximately 370 tons of effluent generated through the hydrolysis of the priority chemicals. The United Kingdom has indicated that it will destroy two binary chemical weapon components at a commercial facility.

    And so the only Permanent Five member of the Security Council not to contribute... is France.

   On delay, US Ambassador Samantha Power was asked of Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin saying that the US ship to destroy the weapons was not even in the Mediterranean yet. She said she would "set the record straight" that this had nothing to do with Syria's delay, and that the ship would be there soon. (It did arrive).

  Only two questions were allowed to Ambassador Power, from Al Jazeera then from Al Hurra, on whose Broadcasting Board of Governors US Secretary of State John Kerry sits.

  The Veolia / OPT question will have to be answered, by the OPCW and one hopes by the US and other OPCW members. (Outgoing UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky has told Inner City Press, "Ask the OPCW.") Watch this site.