With UK's Andrew Lansley for UN Aid Chief Called Appalling, Herve Ladsous' Story, Dumped on UN Peacekeeping

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 26 -- Minutes after the UN announced the departure of Humanitarian Affairs chief Baroness Valerie Amos, Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq if the vacancy will be advertised for candidates from all countries, or if it is set aside for Amos' United Kingdom.

  While Haq insisted that the position is "open to people from any region," transcript below, the disposition of the top jobs in UN Peacekeeping (four Frenchmen in a row) and Political Affairs (two consecutive Americans) indicates otherwise.

  Now from the UK comes word that Prime Minister David Cameron is tapping the man he in July "sacked as Health Secretary and Leader of the House: Andrew Lansley" and "has reportedly refused to come up with two alternative candidates, as requested by the UN Secretary General."

  While the UN refuses to be transparent about this "please submit three candidates" form of limited competition for positions already designated by nationality, it is what happened with UN Peacekeeping, multiple sources have told Inner City Press.

  But even this is often waived. It is UNclear if when B. Lynn Pascoe left as head of the UN Department of Political Affairs, the US put forward anyone beyond Jeffrey Feltman, who has the job.

  For Peacekeeping, as Inner City Press exclusively reported in July 2011, when Alain Le Roy left France put forward three candidates and Ban Ki-moon selected Jerome Bonnafont, then France's ambassador to India.

  After Bonnafont started bragging about having the job, and Inner City Press reported such boast based on sourcing in India and closer, Team Ban decided that Bonnafont was not the team player they were looking for.

  But then president Nicolas Sarkozy, angered, refused to put forward another trio of candidates, instead "dumping" on the UN Herve Ladsous, who had been rejected by Kofi Annan during a previous one-of-three process. Ban Ki-moon accepted these damaged goods, and Ladsous has gone on to cover up rapes by the Congolese Army and now in Darfur, and to openly refuse to answer Press questions,video compilation here, UK New Statesman coverage here.

  How would Lansley be? And how is the UN in such decay? Even for the Secretary General position there was some limited competition. 

 At a much smaller but not unrelated level, the in-house United Nations Correspondents Association is set to "elect" as president, with no competition, a rarely present Italian scribe Giampaolo Pioli, who tried to censor Press articles about Sri Lanka in his previous tenure, click here for that. Also under Pioli, UNCA was used to try to censor, or censure, Inner City Press' reporting about how Ladsous was foisted on the UN, here.

  One reason the UN is in such decay is that few questions are asked, and even fewer are answered, at the UN. Here's the UN's transcript of what Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq on November 26:

Inner City Press: on the Under-Secretary-General position for OCHA, Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, could describe what the process for recruitment will be in the context that many people say that at least the top three jobs are pretty much assigned by country, for Humanitarian Affairs that was John Holmes and then Amos; the US had [B. Lynn] Pascoe, now Mr. Feltman; that France has had peacekeeping four times in a row.  Is this job going to be put in The Economist?  Are you seeking candidates from any Member State that chooses to step forward, or is it essentially designated for the United Kingdom?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  The idea that there are spots that are designated is more a popular myth than reality.  As you know, many of the positions that have been said to be earmarked for this or that country have not over time proven to be that way.  There was an idea that Political Affairs was reserved for someone from the United Kingdom.  It hasn’t been that way for quite some time.  There’s been talk of how different agencies are headed by Americans or other nationalities, for example, UNDP (United Nations Development Programme), and over time you see that hasn’t held true.  That’s the case with this position, as well.  We’re seeking applicants from every area.

Inner City Press:  Will it be like in The Economist?  Is there going to be some public process to seek candidates?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  We are seeking candidates.  We don’t talk so much about the appointment process as it’s in procedure, but certainly it’s open to people from any region.

  We'll stay on this.

  There have been rumblings, noted by Inner City Press, of DPA chief Jeffrey Feltman leaving -- and of the US perhaps trading Political Affairs for Peacekeeping. But that theory seems to have been that US State Department Number Three Wendy Sherman would move up to William Burns' deputy spot, opening her position for the return of Feltman.

  Now that the Obama administration has put Tony Blinken into the State Department Deputy post, as one insider told ICP, “Feltman stays at the UN.”

Even without any double switch, Ladsous is under fire atop DPKO, not only for refusal to answer questions, back to rapes in Minova in DR Congo, but now in Tabit in Darfur as well. 

 Haq, like lead UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric on November 26, would not when Inner City Press asked confirm receipt of a letter, critical of Ladsous' DPKO, from Darfuri groups, here. 

 Outgoing UN Security Council president Gary Quinlan of Australia not only confirmed receipt of the letter - he circulated it to the other Council members. A press officer of UK mission to the UN told Inner City Press, "I can confirm that we received the letter indirectly." We'll have more on this, and on Amos' work while at the UN, and perhaps reason(s) for leaving, including as, like Lansley, may related to UK politics.

  We might also suggest, if the UN under Ban is to remain so captured by Permanent Members of the Security Council, a more deserving British candidate, in connection with the April 2015 arrival of Matthew Rycroft atop the UK Mission to the UN.

  On November 25, it was Quinlan and not Amos who took question after Amos' briefing on Syria. How much will Amos speak, publicly, before her departure at the end of March? Much, is the hope and goal of the Free UN Coalition for Access. Watch this site.

   

As UN Aid Chief Valerie Amos Leaves, Inner City Press Asks If Post Is UK's Like France & Peacekeeping, US & Political Affairs

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 26 -- When the UN announced on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving the departure of Humanitarian Affairs chief Baroness Valerie Amos, Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq if the vacancy will be advertised for candidates from all countries, or if it is set aside for Amos' United Kingdom.

  Amos' predecessor was UK Sir John Holmes, just as current UN Department of Political Affairs chief Jeffrey Feltman's predecessor was American B. Lynn Pascoe, now back at the UN on the UN Peacekeeping Operations review panel. UN Peacekeeping is even more closely held, with France controlling it four times in a row, now at a nadir with Herve Ladsous.

  Haq insisted that the Humanitarian Affairs vacancy will be open to candidates from all regions. But when Inner City Press asked if it will be advertised for example in The Economist, Haq did not answer.

  There have been rumblings, noted by Inner City Press, of DPA chief Jeffrey Feltman leaving -- and of the US perhaps trading Political Affairs for Peacekeeping. But that theory seems to have been that US State Department Number Three Wendy Sherman would move up to William Burns' deputy spot, opening her position for the return of Feltman.

  Now that the Obama administration has put Tony Blinken into the State Department Deputy post, as one insider told ICP, “Feltman stays at the UN.”

Even without any double switch, Ladsous is under fire atop DPKO, not only for refusal to answer questions, back to rapes in Minova in DR Congo, but now in Tabit in Darfur as well. 

 Haq, like lead UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric on November 26, would not when Inner City Press asked confirm receipt of a letter, critical of Ladsous' DPKO, from Darfuri groups, here. 

 Outgoing UN Security Council president Gary Quinlan of Australia not only confirmed receipt of the letter - he circulated it to the other Council members. A press officer of UK mission to the UN tells Inner City Press, "I can confirm that we received the letter indirectly." We'll have more on this, and on Amos' work while at the UN, and perhaps reason(s) for leaving.

  On November 25, it was Quinlan and not Amos who took question after Amos' briefing on Syria. How much will Amos speak, publicly, before her departure at the end of March? Much, is the hope and goal of the Free UN Coalition for Access. Watch this site.

   

As US Samantha Power Pitches Peacekeeping at AEI Despite Haiti, Darfur Cover Ups, Should US Trade DPA for DPKO?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 7 -- When US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power spoke about peacekeeping at the American Enterprise Institute on November 7, she acknowledged the failure of the MONUSCO mission amid slaughter in Mutarule in Eastern Congo in June.

  But the US' recent support for UN impunity for the Department of Peacekeeping Operations having negligently brought cholera to Haiti was not addressed.

  And while the UN Secretariat has withheld its full report into alleged cover-ups of attacks in Darfur even from the Security Council's members, who got only the Executive Summary, this was not addressed either. 

  UN Peacekeeping's lack of transparency begins at the top: Under Secretary General Herve Ladsous outright refused to answer Inner City Press' questions about the Congolese Army's rapes in Minova (video compilation here) and most recently blocked Inner City Press' camera with a file folder, Vine here.

  Power was making a detailed and in places nuanced pitch for increased support for UN Peacekeeping, saying for example that it needs anti-IED equipment.  (Video of her talk is online here.)

  One was left wondering, the US takes UN Peacekeeping so seriously, shouldn't it trade in the UN Department of Political Affairs, for example if Jeff Feltman returns to the State Department in Wendy Sherman's post as Inner City Press has heard and reported, for the top UN Peacekeeping job?

  Then the US could make a better, to some more credible, pitch for support for peacekeeping.

  As we asked before in late September: when an activist becomes an ambassador, what happens?

  On September 30, US Ambassador Samantha Power emerged from the UN Security Council and described to the press some of the General Debate week meetings held by President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry and she had in New York.

  She mentioned the Biden-chaired meeting on Strengthening Peace Operations, which came to be described as a pledging conference. But what of particular problems with UN Peacekeeping that need to be strengthened, such as its covering up of attack on civilians in Darfur as alleged by a whistleblower?

  UN inaction amid death in Darfur is the type of issue an activist, including this one, fastens onto and doesn't let go. But right now the Obama administration likes and is using the United Nations, and so offers very little criticism of it.

  Recently the US State Department filed legal papers supporting the UN's immunity -- read, impunity -- for allegedly having brought cholera to Haiti. In the General Debate on September 29, the foreign minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

“called on the United Nations to accept itsrole and offer recompense to the victims of the cholera outbreak that its peacekeepers have been proven to introduce to Haiti. A year later, the UN continues to dodge its moral and ethical responsibility. The legitimacy of this body to conduct future peacekeeping missions and the legacy of its leadership at the highest levels, will be irreparably damaged by failure to immediately redress this glaring wrong.”

  An activist, including this one, would latch onto such an analysis and not let go. But right now, the US is supporting the UN's impunity. 

  Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about the quote at the September 30 noon briefing, and he said the UN is raising money, and Ban Ki-moon visited Haiti. But what about accountability? How can the UN preach rule of law while dodging the service of legal papers?

  Or a closer question: how can UN Peacekeeping, even to try to belatedly stop the bloodletting in the Central African Republic, use helicopters from the Sri Lankan Army, currently under investigation for war crimes by the UN's own Human Rights Council?

  How about moves against freedom of the press inside the UN, in writing, on video, systemic?

  Or back to Darfur: even in order to carrying corpses in the Ebola red-zone, how can the UN move out 400 four by fours from Darfur, which it is accused of covering up ongoing attacks on civilians?

  There are, of course, smaller or less media-genic issues on which the roles of activist and ambassador don't conflict. The freeing in Burundi, if only on health grounds, of human rights activist Pierre Claver Mbonimpa, would seem to merit some comment from Ambassador Power, given her comments at the beginning of the month and before.

  These type of questions are not taken or at least, were not taken on September 30. Instead the line of the questions taken, some in advance, ranged from a request to criticize Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov's General Debate speech (done), to praise Ban Ki-moon (done), and to disagree with Syrian Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari (done). Even on the perennial issue of Palestine there was little pushing. It is an ecosystem. Watch this site.

   

As Iran - US “Bilateral” Joined by EU, Might France's Nicolas de Riviere Ride In, Sanctions-Busting BNP Paribas in Tow?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 7 -- 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 arose: 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.

   

Syrian Coalition Wants Brahimi to Convince "Wendy Chairman" of US to Pressure Russia: Then Geneva III?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 1 -- Ten days after protests inside Syria to oust Ahmad al Jarba as head of the Syrian National Coalition, this Syria Coalition has sent out conditions for re-starting the Geneva talks:

"Louay Safi, spokesman for the Syrian Coalition, said that if Lakhdar Brahimi managed to convince U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Wendy Chairman to put pressure on Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Bogdanov to change the Russian position towards the Syrian crisis, then we can consider the resumption of negotiations with the Assad regime."

 Who is this "Wendy Chairman," you ask? What does she chair? It appears to be the US State Department's Wendy Sherman.

  At the State Department's March 31 briefing, deputy spokesperson Marie Harf said "right now what we’re really focused on is to see if Special Joint Representative Brahimi can get these talks re-started again. As we’ve said, they’re on a pause."

  But not if Brahimi can convince Wendy Chairman!

  After the protest, Jarba gave a speech in Kuwait asking that Syrian embassies in Arab capitals be given to him. 

  Apparently credibility inside Syria is not important. If for example France and its scribes deem Jarba the representative of the Syrian people, the logic goes, why not give him the far-flung embassies?

  From Jarba's March 25 speech to the Arab League Summit in Kuwait:

"Let me say quite frankly that keeping Syria’s seat empty in your midst sends a clear message to Assad that he can kill and that the seat will wait for him to resolve his war. This is how the regime understands the message, and our people ask themselves: if the West failed to provide us with the needed weapons, what prevents our brothers from resolving the matter of our seat amongst you? I would like to add that reality dictates that the Syrian embassies in Arab capitals should be given to the National Coalition."

   While Qatar sponsored an event at the UN in New York on March 21 featuring Jarba's Syrian Coalition headed, a group calling its the Syrian Grassroots Movement held protests seeking to oust Jarba.

   By March 22, the group stated that some 40,000 people in 58 cities inside Syria had participated in demonstrations to get Jarba out of his post, saying "it is time to put an end to political corruption."

  Back in September 2013, France sponsored an event in the UN and called Jarba the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people. French Ambassador Gerard Araud was the first questioner, with a intentionally easy question, at Qatar's March 21 Syrian Coalition event. What is France's position now? Who chooses the leaders?

  Likewise, back in July 2013 and earlier this month, the Jarba-led Syrian Coalition held faux "UN" events in the clubhouse Ban Ki-moon's Secretariat gives to the largely Gulf and Western UN Correspondents Association. How does that now appear, in light of the anti-Jarba protests?

   Qatar's March 21 event was not listed in the UN Journal nor in the UN Media Alert. It was not on the UN's publicly available webcast.

  Select media outlets were there, when Inner City Press came in at the end to ask a question: Al Jazeera on the podium in Qatar's event, Al Arabiya like a Saudi diplomat -- not the Permanent Representative -- in the audience along with Al Hayat, even Al Hurra, on whose Broadcasting Board of Governors US Secretary of State John Kerry serves.

   The new Free UN Coalition for Access is against faux UN events, in the clubhouse the Secretariat gives to what's become its UN Censorship Alliance or elsewhere.

   On March 21 Inner City Press put these questions, also on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, to the UN's top two spokespeople:

"there is an event in Conference Room 4 right now, sponsored by Qatar, which is no listed in today's UN Journal, nor is it on UN Webcast http://webtv.un.org/ but it appears to be being filmed. Please explain the legal status of this meeting, if there are any sponsored beyond Qatar, how it was publicized and if any request to have it webcast was made. Thanks, on deadline."

  But no answer was provided. Inner City Press ran to the event and from the back of a three quarters empty Conference Room 4 asked why the event was so stealth: not in the UN Journal, not webcast.

  The Permanent Representative of Qatar answered, saying it was a "special event" to which Qatar had invited (some) member states and groups, and (some) media. There is a UN Media Alert, but this event was not put in it.

  Perhaps it was publicized by the Gulf & Western United Nations Correspondents Association, which has twice hosted faux "UN" events by the Syrian National Coalition or Syrian Coalition. (In both cases, the Free UN Coalition for Access suggested that the SNC hold its events in the UN briefing room, accessible to all journalists.)

  Since French Ambassador Gerard Araud, the first questioner flanked by representatives of Saudi Arabia and of Turkey which earlier in the day banned Twitter, has spoken about "fakes" and others about accountability, Inner City Press asked if the groups Al Nusra and ISIS, and those who fund them such as private individuals in Qatar alluded to at the US State Department briefing earlier in the day, could or would be held accountable.

  The SNC representative emphasized what he called links between the Assad regime and ISIS, saying it was too easy to blame the Gulf countries.

Here's from the March 21 US State Department briefing transcript:

Question: you have concerns about the withdrawal of the ambassadors. Do you also have concerns about the reasons that these countries said that they withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar? In other words, do you – if you have concerns about the withdrawal of the ambassadors, do you also have concerns about Qatar’s behavior, which – alleged behavior, let’s say – which led to these countries withdrawing their ambassadors?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I know one of the issues that has been mentioned is the issue of private donations to extremists – and that’s something that some have mentioned – operating in Syria and elsewhere. It remains an important priority in our high-level discussions, and one that we also certainly raise with all states in the region, including Qatar, including the Government of Kuwait, wherever we have concerns.

After Inner City Press asked about the sponsorship of the event, a one-page "Joint Statement by the Co-Organizers" was passed out, listing among the co-organizers France, the UK, US, Belgium, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Inner City Press tweeted it. 

   Even 24 hours later, the UN's top two spokespeople had not answered the simple questions put to them, above. Watch this site.

   

On Syria, Brahimi to Meet US & Russia Friday in Geneva, Then Come to UN in NY, Check the Gun

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 11 -- When UN mediator Lakhdar Brahimi took press questions in Geneva on February 11, he confirmed he'll meet on February 14 with the US' Wendy Sherman and Russia's Gatilov, then return to New York "sometime next week" to tell Secretary General Ban Ki-moon what's going on.

    (Apparently phones and e-mail aren't good enough -- perhaps wise in light of the NSA and Nuland's intercepted call about Jeff Feltman and F- the EU.)

   Just as at the US State Department briefing on February 10, Brahimi was asked, Why wait until Friday? Brahimi said these are important people, it's hard to find a day.  Told that Syria's Mekdad complained his government had not been consulted, Brahimi agreed, saying that's how these trilateral meetings are done.

   Why don't you impose an agenda, Brahimi was asked.  He replied, I can't put a gun to their heads.

  The next question began, since you don't have a gun -- Brahimi cut in, I do have a gun but I don't want to use it. But what's the gUN?

  At the UN on the evening of February 10, at Iran's National Day reception featuring, among others, the Permanent Representatives of France, the UK and China, many references were made to how "delicate" the talks in Geneva are. Some cite this as the reason not to vote on the draft humanitarian resolution Russia's Vitaly Churkin calls "beyond redemption." Could ending the talks be Brahimi's gun?

  Here's Inner City Press tweeted photo of French PR Araud and Iran's PR Khazaee, and here's one of Araud making some point to Ban Ki-moon moments before.

The Syria "humanitarian draft" which French foreign minister Laurent Fabius has vowed to push in UN Security Council this week, while French President Francois Hollande is in Washington and San Francisco, was described by Russia's Ambassador Vitaly Churkin on February 10 as "beyond redemption."

  "They were trying to convene a meeting, but we felt that was not necessary," Churkin told the press. "They were insisting that the meeting should be dedicated to discussing a certain text, but we felt the text is beyond redemption." He said Russia wants to be back to "pragmatics."

  "This text is not going to be adopted," Churkin said, coming out of the UN Security Council seconds behind US Ambassador Samantha Power.

  An hour earlier in the US State Department briefing, deputy spokesperson Marie Harf had talked up the humanitarian resolution; she was asked why the US is supposedly deferring to the too-slow UN, after the high level humanitarian meeting in Rome.

  Churkin also said that meeting has been "quite useless" and that it "departed from the original conception." UN humanitarian chief Valerie Amos is slated to brief the Security Council about it on February 13, but now one wonders: to what end?

  In Geneva, UN mediator Brahimi met with the Syrian National Coalition and the government's Bashar Ja'afari, usually its ambassador at the UN. Unlike in the last round, Brahimi did not hold a press conference. France 24 showed Ja'afari walking into entrance A13 of the UN in Geneva, then the SNC, in a loop.

  Neither they, nor other ostensibly Syria-focused media have done much follow up, but on January 29 Inner City Pressfirst published quotes from the UN's report on Syria Children and Armed Conflict, specifically that the Free Syrian Army recruits and uses child soldiers: 

"Throughout the reporting period, the United Nations received consistent reports of recruitment and use of children by FSA-affiliated groups."

  Inner City Press asked the US Mission to the UN to respond to the report, since Congress in its 2008 Child Soldiers Prevention Act said the US Government should condemn the use of child soldiers by paramilitaries like the FSA. Inner City Press was told to put the request for comment in writing, and did, to the UK Mission as well.

   The report had already been circulated to Security Council members in English; the UK said it would wait to provide Inner City Press with a comment until the report was made official on February 3, that is to say, when it was translated into the UN's five other official languages and put on the Internet.

   Readers asked Inner City Press where on the UN website to find the Syria child soldiers report. Inner City Press told them it would go online on February 3, and noted that theFree UN Coalition for Access had previously opposed the UN withholding or delaying the release of important document like this.

  In this case, however, the delay affirmatively helped the Syrian opposition. On January 29 they were in Geneva, issuing statements about abuses by the Assad government. They were not asked about the Free Syrian Army's use of child soldiers.

   On February 3, Inner City Press again asked the UK for its comment, and it did arrive the following day on February 4:

"The UK absolutely condemns the use of child soldiers in all cases, and strongly supports international efforts to stop the use of child soldiers. We urge all parties in the Syrian conflict to release any children held in detention.

"Armed conflict affects millions of lives around the world, and children are among those most vulnerable to the effects of conflict. The only way to secure the long-term future of Syria’s children is to find a political solution to the crisis.

"We have made clear our absolute condemnation of the use of child soldiers. As noted in this report, the use of child soldiers by the opposition is not systematic and is limited to certain elements. We have provided training to the Supreme Military Council of the Syrian opposition on the law of armed conflict, and will continue to work with them to help ensure that they meet their obligations under international law."

    Before publishing the UK's quote, Inner City Press again in writing asked two spokespeople of the US Mission to the UN for their comment -- noting that the UK had provided one. As Inner City Press noted, that might be OK for the United Kingdom -- but what about the US, including in light of the 2008 Child Soldiers Prevention Act, which provides for example:

It is the sense of Congress that— 

 (1) the United States Government should condemn the conscription, forced recruitment, or use of children by governments, paramilitaries, or other organizations; 

 (2) the United States Government should support and, to the extent practicable, lead efforts to establish and uphold international standards designed to end the abuse of human rights described in paragraph (1); 

  There are prohibitions on funding which can only be overridden for formal, public findings by the President. Given all this, Inner City Press on February 4 again asked the two spokespeople for the US Mission to the UN its January 30 question: "could the US provide aid to a non-state group, the FSA and its affiliates, which the UN has found using child soldiers?" 

  The New York Times, saying that the child soldiers report was "quietly presented to the Security Council last week," had a quote from the State Department. Why was the report, and this statement, delayed a full six days until the Geneva II talks were over?

  Even more cynically, Voice of America on whoseBroadcasting Board of Governors US Secretary of State John Kerry serves, also ran a delayed / withheld story on the report; Reuters typically didn't bring up the US Child Soldiers Prevention Act  and claimed that the report was released on February 4, when even the Times said it was February 3 -- and see Inner City Press' January 29 story, here.

 On January 29, Inner City Press published additional quotes from the report, including that:

"Boys aged 12 to 17 were trained, armed, and used as combatants or to man checkpoints. For instance, a 15 year-old boy reported being recruited in April 2012 by the FSA in Tall Kalakh (Tartus governate), and participation in military operations.... Also indicative was the case of a 16 year-old boy from Homs who reportedly joined the FSA as a combatant. In March 2013, his family reported to the United Nations that he was still fighting with the group."

And is this boy still fighting with the FSA? There is more to be said about this UN report, but what steps will actually be taken on this UN report? Watch this site.