At UN, Amid Libya & Sudan Fights, Farewell to UK's Quarrey, France Now Dean of UNSC Coordinators

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 21 -- How the UN Security Council functions, and doesn't, was on display Tuesday, amid a farewell to the UK's political coordinator David Quarrey as well as news of who will replace Loraine Sievers in Security Council Affairs.

It was only in mid-May that Russia's political coordinator Vladimir Safronkov passed on to Quarrey the silver cup meant for the dean of Security Council political coordinators. Click here for Inner City Press' exclusive report.

Now it will go to France, whose Permanent Representative was in attendance as well, as well as his counterpart from Lebanon. Russia's political coordinator, who just began, joked that he may never get it.

Without breaching any, or many, diplomatic secrets, we can report that UK Permanent Representative Mark Lyall Grant is a lifelong fan of the West Ham football club -- or at least since the 1970s, where they were “the most violent club” according to one reception attendee.

Closer to the work of the Council, an attendee at both consultations Tuesday afternoon told Inner City Press that “even the US” knows that recognition of the Libyan rebels in Benghazi will not be in any Council presidential statement, and was “engaging.”

So too on the Sudan PRST, on which Sudan's Permanent Representative told Inner City Press earlier on Tuesday that “two paragraphs have to go, or the relations between Sudan and the UN will be changed.”

As a warm roast to Quarrey, it was recalled that his first intervention in the Council was to ask when a certain UN Mission would be discussed. When asked what the mission was, Quarrey answered honestly that he didn't not know, his expert had asked him to raise it.

Norma Chan said she respected that. Her successor, present Tuesday night, said he earlier that day sent out notice of Loraine's replacement, and disagreed with Inner City Press that her successor has being sent notices about July's work before today's announcement. We stand to be corrected -- or not.

Quarrey is getting promoted to the UK's new version of the US national security apparatus. In light of Tuesday's quote by David Cameron that he wished the generals would fight and he speak, Quarrey and the agency's role seems to be to convey the speeches to the fighters. We wish him luck.

After 1 Candidate Race, Ban Takes Last Question of UN Radio, “Propaganda”

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 21 -- After Ban Ki-moon won a one candidate election as UN Secretary General for the next five years, he came to take questions from the press. There are unanswered questions swirling about the inaction in Sudan of UN peacekeepers under Ban's command, and about Ban's own inaction on war crimes in Sri Lanka.

But with time limited, Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky whispered in the ear of the UN TV sound man, pointing out where to give the last question.

It was to UN Radio, the UN's own radio service, and the question was what Ban Ki-moon will do with the world's youth. Ban answered, then in the face of a request for a “question on Sudan,” Nesirky, Ban and two South Korean advisers left the UN, presumably to celebrate.

Afterward a number of reporters said it was improper to give one of the few questions to Ban to the UN's own in-house “propaganda” station, as one reporter called it, “under Ban's UN.”

Ban Ki-moon's big day began Tuesday with a meeting with Kim Sung-hwan the Foreign Minister of South Korea, the job Ban used to have. Then there was a billed media availability at 9:30 am about sustainable sanitation.

Inner City Press attended, ready to ask about Ban's Panel of Experts' finding that UN peacekeepers' practices in Mirebalais, Haiti hadn't stopped feces from entering drinking water. But no questions were taken.

At noon Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Nesirky, who said there had been no meeting, only the 9:30 event, four seats and a rostrum. Inner City Press asked about the Sri Lanka Killing Fields documentary -- Nesirky said Ban hasn't seen it, but that it's incorrect -- and then about GRULAC, the Latin American and Caribbean states group.

A GRULAC member has shown Inner City Press notes from Ban's meeting with GRULAC, as which the “invisibility” of Latin America and the Caribbean in Ban's first term was critiqued. Inner City Press asked Nesirky what is Ban's response to the critique.

“The immediate response is he's just come back from a long trip to four countries in Latin America,” Nesirky said.

Inner City Press asked, so the trip was his response to the critique?

“That's extremely frivolous,” said Nesirky, later in the day to give the UN's own in-house radio station the last question, rather than take a chance on Ban having to response to actual critiques.

“Trips take a long time to plan," Nesirky added.

But of course the problem is more than trips. Ban may be going to the South Sudan independence ceremony on July 9, but has yet to address the inaction of UN peacekeepers under his command in Abyei and Southern Kordofan, much less questions about Darfur.

In between the questionless press (non) availability at 9:30 and this noon briefing, Ban met with his corporate Global Compact. An attendee said he left early, saying there's “something in the General Assembly... about my future,” to much laughter.

Then as the speeches began, with Bolivia having to give the speech for GRULAC, one of Ban's spokespeople pointedly asked Inner City Press, “Happy day, isn't it?” Reporters are not supposed to say (but only show). Watch this site.

On Libya and Sudan, Obama Mission at UN Hits the BRICS

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 21 -- When the African members of the UN Security Council proposed a Presidential Statement on Libya the day before last week's closed door meeting with the African Union, the US Mission to the UN led by Susan Rice said it had been proposed too late to be issued on June 15.

Then on June 17, sources tell Inner City Press, the US Mission proposed a series of amendments to the African draft, essentially killing it. While the purpose of the African draft was to reiterate the contents of the Council's Resolution 1973, the US has proposed for example a paragraph that

“The Members of the Security Council urged Member States to recognize the Transitional National Council as the legitimate interlocutor for the Libyan people.”

On June 21, Inner City Press asked the Deputy Permanent Representative of one of the seven countries fully supporting the African Libya PRST about the draft and this paragraph. The DPR, after a shake of the head, said: “They should stick to what was said in the room... We try to.”

Inner City Press has sought US Mission comment on this, and on their scheduling at 3 pm on Tuesday of a political coordinators meeting on the US draft Sudan PRST, after the same coordinators had been summoned to a 3:30 consultation on the Libya text.

No response was received before the US-called meeting on Sudan, including on the purpose of the Sudan PRST, and when a resolution for the proposed Ethiopian troops for Abyei might be forthcoming.

Nor was an answer given when Ambassador Susan Rice and her two spokesmen walked into the General Assembly at 3:15 pm for Ban Ki-moon's second term vote. Then, Rice was observed chatting with her Russian counterpart. These are the consultations which count.

Footnote: Inner City Press learned that while the US had called for the 3 pm consultations on Sudan at the political coordinator, the US did not send its political coordinator but rather an assistant. “Typical,” one delegation said. But has the US killed the draft Libya statement? We'll see.

On Verge of 2d Term, Ban Still Hasn't Watched Sri Lanka Killing Fields Film, Called Not Correct

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 21 -- As the film Sri Lanka Killing Fields was screened Tuesday on the west side of First Avenue in New York, across the street at the UN Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky if Ban has yet seen the film, and for the UN's response to its conclusion that Ban has not implemented the recommendation of his own Panel of Experts on war crimes in the country.

Nesirky, while stating that Ban has not seen the film -- available online including here -- said that Ban's role is “something not correctly portrayed in that film.” But when asked by Inner City Press if even the review of the UN's own actions, committed to by Ban in April, has in fact begun,

Nesirky said only that “the process of coordinating between different parts of the UN system, to ensure that kind of internal look, is being coordinated between different agency and diff parts of the Secretariat at the moment.”

Among the UN actions to be reviewed are withholding casualty figures, pulling out of Kilinochchi, and the role of Ban's own chief of staff Vijay Nambiar in conveying assurances of safety to surrenderees, who were in fact killed in the so-called White Flag incident.

With whom will Ban coordinate about that one, some have asked -- Nambiar?

Then Nesirky told Inner City Press, “you were there with the Secretary General in Sri Lanka [in May 2009], you know well yourself it was more than a whistlestop tour to one refugee camp. You were a witness to that yourself.”

Yes -- and that's one of the reasons to be pursuing these questions, even on the day Ban is slated to get a second five year term as Secretary General. We'll be covering that as well -- watch this site.

Footnote: at the screening in the Church Center, five men in suits at the back of the room said they had a stack of Sri Lanka's response to the film. Inner City Press, on the way to the UN noon briefing, asked for a copy. “You'll get it afterward,” one of them said, refusing to provide a copy. It's said that Sri Lankan Ambassador Palitha Kohona was going to respond. He too was involved in the White Flag incident; separately the Mission he heads often urges more positive coverage of Sri Lanka. But why not provide the response? We'll see.

With US Flailing on Syria & Yemen, Whither Public Diplomacy, McHale?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 21 -- As Judith McHale returns to the private sector after promoting US foreign policy on a “people to people” basis, she was asked to assess the Obama administration's work on the Syria draft resolution, moribund in the UN Security Council.

Recently France's Ambassador to the UN Gerard Araud wrote an op-ed for newspapers in Brazil, talking or trying to talk directly to Brazilians past their government. Inner City Press asked McHale if she thought this was a good idea.

McHale nodded and said, “when we are in discussions, it's important for government of the United States to makes its views and strategies well known to the populations of those countries.”

But why then are Brazil, India and South Africa (and of course Lebanon) along with China and Russia declining to even engage on the Syria draft?

Inner City Press asked McHale if she thought that the critique that the US and its allies have gone beyond resolution 1973 into “regime change” is a view held by the people of those countires, or other their governments.

This question, like many asked during the hour long session at the Council on Foreign Relations, McHale did not directly answer. She said, “one of the things we're trying to do is provide the context for the stance the US takes on issues. Our position on Libya and Syria is well know. We are in a multilateral force there.”

But a multilateral force with what goal?

One is left to conclude that no amount of social media, or expertise from the Discovery Channel, can gild an unclear or unacknowledged policy. The moderator was James Rubin, who posited getting help on Security Council resolutions as one measure of public diplomacy. If so, the Obama administration's loud success on Resolution 1973 has turned to a series of defeats, on the stalled Syria draft and the failure to even make a proposal about the killings in Yemen.

Most recently, the US Mission to the UN has taken to opposing an African Union proposed Presidential Statement on Libya by introducing "poison pill" amendments they know the African members won't accept. This too will eventually have an impact.

There are changes coming, beyond McHale's departure, in the State Department. If polls are any guide, Obama's popularity outside of the US has been declining for some time. In the private sector, this would not be called success. Is it, in the sector of public diplomacy?

On Libya, As Ban Won't Comment on Civilian Death, Poison Pill PRST Amendments

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 20 -- As NATO admits misfiring in Tripoli, in a military campaign supposedly coordinated by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Ban's spokesman on Monday declined to comment directly on the civilian deaths -- “that is really a matter for NATO to comment on” -- while refusing to provide any details about what he'd called “negotiation[s] under the auspices” of part-time UN envoy Al Khatib.

On the eve of a vote to get a second five year term as Secretary General, Ban appears to want to have it both ways on the conflict in Libya. While Resolution 1973 said that he was to receive notifications and coordinate much of the military action, he has not, and won't even issue a direct comment on admitted killings of civilians by NATO.

The draft Presidential Statement on Libya proposed last week by the Security Council's African members and exclusively reported and published by Inner City Press gave rise to an experts level meeting on June 17. The US has put forward many amendments.

Inner City Press is told these include a call to recognize the Transitional National Council in Benghazi, and other steps which the sponsors say go because Resolution 1973. These are called “poison pill” amendments, but the drafters are trying to incorporate those that they can.

Meanwhile, over the weekend Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky said that the “Secretary-General said the beginnings of a negotiation process are now underway under the auspices of his Special Envoy to Libya, Mr. Abdul-Elah Al-Khatib.” But on Monday when asked about this negotiation process and the UN role, Nesirky said

“I don’t really have anything further to add to the wording that is there in the readout at this point, namely that the Secretary-General has said that the beginnings of a negotiation process are under way under the auspices of Special Envoy al-Khatib. I think necessarily, and by definition because this is an extremely delicate process, the details at this point may not be available.”

If the process -- if there is one -- is so “delicate,” why did Ban make the claim about the existence of talks? Only to assert the centrality of his part time (and conflicted) envoy Khatib, and thus of himself?

And if he and the UN are central to what's happening in Libya, how when asked for comment on the killing of civilians can his spokesman say “that is really a matter for NATO to comment on”? Watch this site.

As Ban Takes Darfur Deal from Bassole, IDPs & Rebels Ignored, Abandoned

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 20 -- Ignoring complaints from Darfur itself, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Monday accepted a yellow bound peace agreement from Burkina Faso foreign minister Djibril Bassole and his Qatari counterpart.

Bassole twice told Ban, even during the photo op, “congratulations on what will happen tomorrow” -- referring to the expected General Assembly approval of the Security Council's June 17 recommendation of Ban for a second five year term.

At his June 6 press conference announcing he wants a second term, Ban was asked about his “failure” on Darfur in his first five years. As it happens, there is escalating fighting, reports of Zaghawas killed, and rejection of this so-called peace agreement by the Justice & Equality Movement (JEM) and others.

JEM leader Khalil Ibrahim has been trapped in Libya for weeks. Inner City Press asked the UN about requests to it by JEM to help remove Ibrahim from Tripoli, as the UN did with its international staff. Apparently it was never done; Khalil Ibrahime was abandoned.

Radio Dabanga (June 8) reported that JEM

“accused the Sudanese government of planning an attempt to assassinate its leader, Dr. Khalil Ibrahim, in Libya. Jibril Adam Bilal, the spokesperson of the movement, said in a press release that the movement managed to foil the plot to kill the chairman of the movement. The Darfuri rebels claimed that they were able to determine the source of the attempt and stop it by foreknowledge of the means of the attempt. Jibril Bilal affirmed that the movement knew which governmental entitities had paid 25 billion Sudanese pounds to an organization called Bijer B to carry out the operation and there is an investigation going on to know more facts. Jibril warned the National Congress Party that it is stupid to try these attempts which have unknown consequences and would lead the country to a path the country has never taken before.”

Then again, the UN might just deny the Radio Dabanga report, as it did on June 20 when asked about reported failure to deliver food to IDP camps in El Geneina, Darfur:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask about in Darfur, there is a report again by Radio Dabanga that food has stopped being delivered to the IDP camps in El Geneina. I tried over the weekend to write to both WFP [World Food Programme] and UNMIS - I mean UNAMID [African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur] — to ask whether it is true and why this would happen. Is that something you can confirm?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: I’ll see what the World Food Programme or our colleagues at the UN Mission have on that.

Three hours later, Nesirky's office sent this:

Subject: Your question on Darfur and Sudan
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 3:45 PM
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com

The World Food Programme has confirmed that the food distributions to El Geneina are on track, and any reports suggesting that such distributions have stopped are inaccurate.

Here's what WFP then sent Inner City Press:

“We are not stopping food distribution in any of the nine camps that we serve in El Geneina in West Darfur. Distribution plan is on schedule, very much within the 30-day cycle. We completed distribution in two camps (El Hujaj and Jaama) and today distribution will start in El Riyadh. In other camps (Abu Zar, Ardamata, Kirinding 1 and 2, and Dorti) distribution will start from the 22nd onwards. In Sultan camp, food voucher distribution started yesterday and so far we have not seen any trouble.”

And there's the key word: “voucher” distribution. Because the camp residents are opposing the use of vouchers and “traders” --

“A sheikh from one of the camps said that the Program used to distribute the food rations every month but did not do so this month after they were informed by the displaced people that they, the displaced people, would not receive their food rations from traders. The sheikh said that they demand an explanation from WFP regarding the delay, stating that the representatives of the WFP who used to meet with the sheikhs after intervals have stopped doing so. The sheikh stated that diseases such as malnutrition and diarrhea have spread in camps because of the lack of relief materials.”

The UN as reported above refused to speak to the actual people in the camps, just as it ignores the actual rebels in Darfur. The plan to declare peace in Darfur appears to be to ignored and isolate the rebel movements, and hold photo ops in New York. Watch this site.

As Khartoum Floats Aid Cut Off, Juba Says Harun Should Be In The Hague, Not El Obeid, UN Flew Him, Says All Is Fine

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 20, updated -- Amid reports of ethnic cleansing in Southern Kordofan as well as Abyei, the UN Security Council assembled in its chamber at 10 am on Monday for a briefing by video from Addis Ababa by mediator Thabo Mbeki and UN Mission in Sudan chief Haile Menkerios.

After a delay, Mbeki appeared on screen to describe a just-signed agreement on Abyei, and predict that one will be reached on Southern Kordofan. Ethiopian troops will be sent into Abyei, after Security Council authorization of the deployment and, it seems, an understanding about “Somalia-style” rules of engagement.

After the briefing, the Ambassador of Sudan, following by the South Sudan representative, came to the stakeout to take Press questions. Inner City Press asked the National Congress Party's Permanent Representative Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman about his statement that humanitarian aid to Southern Kordofan “might” be restored shortly -- was this an admission that it has been cut off, and food used as a weapon?

He blamed it on the SPLA, and said that they had tried to install Al Hilu “who lost the election” as governor of South Kordofan. Video here.

Moments later, the representative of Southern Sudan Ezekiel Lol Gatkouth told Inner City Press that Ahmed Harun the supposed winner of the Southern Kordofan election, which the UN praised, doesn't even come from Southern Kordofan, has fled to El Obeid and “should be in the Hague” for war crimes. Video here.

Since the UN has in fact offered helicopter flights to Harun, who is indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes in Darfur, Inner City Press asked the South Sudan representative if he thought the UN should arrest Harun, rather than flying him around. “He should be in the Hague,” he repeated.

Ezekiel Lol Gatkouth at stakeout, Haroun not shown

With these deep disagreements, it is difficult to know what to make of the 10 page Abyei agreement announced with such fanfare by Mbeki and the UNMIS' Menkerios. He has been in Addis for day, meanwhile UNMIS has been “categorically denying” it did anything wrong on Southern Kordofan. This UN's reflexive denial undermines its credibility.

In the middle of the Security Council debate, Inner City Press ran through the UN's garage to the day's noon briefing. But neither of the two Sudan questions put to Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky got answered. Confirm or deny The Guardian / Observer's report that UNMIS in Kordofan lost control of its weapons -- Nesirky said he'd look into it.

In Darfur, over the weekend Inner City Press asked the spokesperson both for UNAMID and the UN World Food Program to confirm or deny a report that the UN stopped delivering food to IDPs in El Geneina. Neither responded, and neither did Nesirky at Monday's noon briefing.

And now the UN peacekeeping presence in Abyei is being jettisoned for a different one, from Ethiopia. And in Southern Kordofan? Watch this site.

Footnote: Ezekiel Lol Gatkouth presented to Inner City Press this timeline: South Sudan will formally declare independence on July 9, followed by Security Council vote-in as a state on July 13, and General Assembly on July 14. We'll be here.

Update of 4 pm: Later, this arrived:

Subject: Your question on Darfur and Sudan
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 3:45 PM
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com

The World Food Programme has confirmed that the food distributions to El Geneina are on track, and any reports suggesting that such distributions have stopped are inaccurate.

As for any reports of UNMIS losing control of heavy weaponry, UNMIS does not have heavy weapons. Its weaponry includes AK-47s and armoured personnel carriers.

The first answer, then, has the UN denying in entirety a story (with quotes) from Radio Dabanga. The second denied a story in The Guardian about Southern Kordofan, on which WFP has separately told Inner City Press that

“On Kadugli, we still have not been able to obtain access to our warehouse. However we have received assurances from the local authorities that our food is intact.”

And so it goes at the UN.

On Sudan, As Mbeki Presents Ethiopian Solution, “Somalia-Like” Mandate in Play?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 20 -- As Thabo Mbeki briefed the UN Security Council about Abyei in Sudan on Monday morning, he mentioned that the mandate of the Ethiopian troops to replace Sudan's forces is still being worked on.

Sources close to the negotiations tell Inner City Press that Ethiopia has said it will not be as “passive” as the UN peacekeepers have been. “Look at the UN blue helmets,” a source told Inner City Press. “They let people just take their guns away. Is that a military force?”

Most recently the UN forces in Southern Kordofan are reported to have allowed heavy artillery and anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns to be taken from them.

But others harken back to when Ethiopia went into Somalia in 2006, blasting away until it reached Mogadishu. Is this the solution the UN and Security Council members want in Abyei?

Mbeki said he'd met with Southern Kordofan SPLA leader Al Hilu. As Inner City Press reported last week, Al Hilu through his spokesman accused the UN peacekeepers in Kadugli of rape. After first delaying, the UN subsequently denied the charges, saying that no evidence had come forward.

But as Kordofan sources point out, Hilu is on the run from the forces of Khartoum. Top UN peacekeepers Alain Le Roy on June 16 told Inner City Press he hadn't spoken to Al Hilu, then said seeming uncertain that the Mission (UNMIS) had spoken with Al Hilu about the charges. But had they? Watch this site.

As Ban Claims Libya Talks Are Led by Khatib, Jordan Activities Still UNexplained

By Matthew Russell Lee, News analysis

UNITED NATIONS, June 19 -- As Libyan rebels deny negotiating with Gaddafi, on June 18 UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's office issued a statement that “the beginnings of a negotiation process are now underway under the auspices of [Ban's] Special Envoy to Libya, Mr. Abdul-Elah Al-Khatib.”

Khatib, who notably did not attend or engage with the African Union ministerial delegation to the UN in New York last week, has been allowed by Ban to continue as a paid Jordanian senator. Inner City Press has repeatedly asked Ban's spokesperson how this double-service for the UN and Jordan complies with the letter and spirit of UN rules.

While Ban's lead spokesperson Martin Nesirky took to saying that Khatib's contract with the UN was still being formalized, a US diplomat on background assured Inner City Press weeks ago that it would all soon be normalized.

But nothing has been said by Ban's office. The Obama administration has nevertheless reflexively quickly supported Ban's campaign, announced June 6, for a second five year term as Secretary General.

As Inner City Press reported, Khatib after Ban hurriedly hired him refused to give up or suspend his political work and business in Jordan. Inner City Press asked Khatib on camera about protests and democracy in Jordan itself, and Khatib minimized the protests. Since then, with the King's convoy stoned by protesters, media that reported it were cracked down on.

Ban's office has dodged even specifying which exemptions or special powers they may be invoking to be declaring as a UN Under Secretary General and staff member a sitting politician.

Similarly, when asked throughout last week what safeguards will be imposed on the lobbying of Ban by his son in law Siddarth Chatterjee now that he's confirmed as hired as “Chief Diplomatic Officer” of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Nesirky has simply said there are rules and we'll comply with them.

What rules? How can the UN preach rule of law when it would even describe it own processes with regard to lobbying of the UN by members of the Secretary General's immediate family and double service for the UN fraught with conflicts of interest? Watch this site.

At UN, As European Union Uses Special Rights, Caricom Calls It Abuse, Qatar on Tap as President of the General Assembly

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 17 -- Six weeks after the European Union won special rights in the UN General Assembly after months of opposition led by the Caribbean states group CARICOM, the struggle continued at the tail end of a General Assembly debate on the Millennium Summit.

After GA President Joseph Deiss allowed the European Union to speak, Deiss tried to end the meeting. But the Ambassador of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Camillo Gonsalves asked to take the floor.

He said, on behalf of Caricom, that the EU should not have been allowed to speak in the Explanation After the Vote section, since as a non member state, the EU had no vote.

Deiss said he “took note” of the statement, then again tried to end the meeting. The representative of Venezuela tapped her formica country name plate on her desk until Deiss begrudgingly gave her the floor.

After she said that Venezuela for the record supported CARICOM's objection, Deiss called hers a “declaration after a declaration,” and gaveled the meeting closed.

Afterward, Inner City Press asked Ambassador Gonsalves to explain. “There were to be no general statements,” he said. “The EU was inscribed to speak after the vote. A special provision was created by the chair for the EU, who didn't ask if anyone else wanted to speak in that way. As soon as the EU spoke, he shut it down.”

Ban Ki-moon & Ashton: "When Cathy met Ban Ki," 1 wants special rights, the other a 2d term

An EU member's Permanent Representative argued to Inner City Press that while St. Vincent should then have been allowed to make a general statement, if the EU did, there was nothing wrong with letting the EU make a general statement. But only the EU? When member states weren't allowed? This is why they were and are called special rights. Will the incoming President of the General Assembly, the Ambassador of Qatar who is to be elected on June 22, be so accommodating to the European Union? Watch this site.

As UN Denies Sri Lankan Copter Offer, Killing Fields Moved Out of UN

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 17 -- The UN on Friday denied it has received any offers for helicopters from Sri Lanka.

After air force spokesman air force spokesman Andy Wijesuriya was quoted that “we have offered our aircraft” -- Ukraine-manufactured Mi-24 helicopter gunships as well as Chinese-made Y-12 fixed-wing transporters -- Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky how the Panel of Experts' report on war crimes would impact the UN's review of the offer.

Four hours later Nesirky's office sent this response to Inner City Press:

Subject: Your question on Sri Lanka
Date: Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:24 PM
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com
Cc: Martin Nesirky [at] un.org

Regarding the offer of gunships, DPKO's Force Generation Service has not yet received any formal offer from Sri Lanka.

The Sri Lankan air force was involved in what even UN under secretary general John Holmes called the “bloodbath on the beach” in 2009, most recently depicted in UK Channel 4's “Killing Fields” documentary.

This was to be screened inside the UN in New York on June 21, just before a vote is taken in the General Assembly on Ban Ki-moon getting a second five year term as Secretary General. (As of June 15,Ban had not watched the filmAs of June 15, Ban had not watch the film, Nesirky told Inner City Press.)

But now the screening has been moved outside of the UN, to the “Church Center” across the street. Sri Lankan Ambassador Palitha Kohona told Inner City Press he was going to attend the screening if it was inside the UN. Apparently, he will not attend across the street. Of the scenes of extrajudicial execution, he said one cannot prove who is Sinhalese and who is Tamil. There is, of course, a sound track. Watch this site.

At UN, “Going Through Motions” on Syria Resolution, Attending Just to Listen

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 17 -- When UN Security Council experts met Friday morning about the long pending Syria draft resolution, China and Russia attended, unlike on Saturday, June 11. But China said they are not prepared to negotiate about the text, “just listen,” Inner City Press is informed.

The Permanent Representative of another Council member told Inner City Press, “With two veto threats, the West is just going through the motions.”

Three hours later outside the Security Council's so-called “horizon briefing” at which Syria was one of five agenda items, a Western Council member's representative told Inner City Press that in the closed door meeting, comments were made that the refusal to engage of “certain members” made the Council look bad. This did not seem to much impact those with a veto.

Rather, the resolution's proponents are now openly calling out those whose foreign ministers have made comments about the resolution, to come and negotiate around specifics in the text.

South African's foreign minister this week told the press that a Syria resolution could “insinuate regime change.” The response seems to be, show us where in the text the insinuation can be found. But the concern may not be only or even mostly textual.

Ban Ki-moon has been in Brazil, but his spokesperson's office's read-outs of meetings with the president and foreign minister do not mention any discussion of Brazil's position on the resolution. Ban is seeking a vote on a second five year term as Secretary General on June 21. Watch this site.

Footnote: the non-attendance at last Saturday's meeting on the draft Syria resolution was explained as a matter of worker's rights: only work on weekends if necessary, and since no change of voting Monday or Tuesday, why meet Saturday? So further weekend sessions, at least on Syria, seem unlikely.

As UN Council Touts Ban 2d Term, GRULAC Hasn't Endorsed, Process Questioned

By Matthew Russell Lee, News analysis

UNITED NATIONS, June 17 -- Who chooses the UN Secretary General and how? On Friday at the UN, the 15 members of the Security Council in a closed door meeting, not even by vote, recommended Ban Ki-moon for a second five year term by acclamation.

Moments later the President of the Security Council for June, the Ambassador of Gabon, came to the stakeout to read on camera a statement that “in a private meeting,” Ban was recommended.

When Inner City Press asked, “are you aware that GRULAC has not endorsed Ban?” he walked away from the microphone. Standing by the stakeout was Kim Won-soo, Ban's chief adviser and ostensible deputy to chief of staff Vijay Nambiar.

GRULAC is the Latin American and Caribbean states group. On June 7, Inner City Press reported that five GRULAC members had said they didn't have instructions from their capitals to endorse Ban.

Earlier on Friday Inner City Press stood outside the GRULAC meeting in the UN's North Lawn building. When Colombia's Ambassador emerged to attend the Council's 11 am meeting, he told Inner City Press that one country was still saying it didn't have instructions. He offered a name; later the spokesperson of a Western Council member said “I think it is Barbados,” amid laughter.

But the critique by GRULAC was more substantial, that Ban was too attentive to Permanent Five members of the Council, ignoring even countries which contribute peacekeepers to the missions voted by the Security Council.

Some of the Security Council members who made much of the unanimous recommendation for Ban say in other settings that Ban's pliant style is bad for the UN and multilateralism.

Something is wrong with a process in which, despite this view, unanimous reappointment for five years is delivered without any competition, no other candidates, not even a campaign speech and pledges.

The General Assembly vote is scheduled for June 21 at 3 pm. As one GRULAC Permanent Representative told Inner City Press, “once the Permanent Five decide, we are all just window dressing.” Watch this site.

At UN, GRULAC Delay of Council Vote for Ban Is To “Send A Message,” UNheard?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 16, updated -- After Ban Ki-moon's second term as UN Secretary General was delayed on Thursday in the Security Council, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky about it, and whether Ban had spoken with countries in the Latin American and Caribbean states group GRULAC, whose failure to endorse Ban was twice exclusively reported by Inner City Press.

Nesirky declined to provide any readout of Ban's meetings with GRULAC representatives including heads of state. Later on Thursday, a GRULAC diplomat told Inner City Press “we want to send Ban Ki-moon a message that we are not satisfied by his first term, that he must do better in his second. There is no other candidate, so this is all that we can do.”

Meanwhile the Security Council, which would like to say that it recommendation to the General Assembly is just that, and not an unfair domination by the Permanent Five members, decided that it will adopt a resolution recommending Ban behind closed doors on Friday at 11 am, whether or not GRULAC delivers its endorsement by them.

While some see that as a disrespect of the regional groups and their process -- there is, after all, no rush to re-annoint Ban -- others see it as honest: as one GRULAC Permanent Representative told Inner City Press, “Once the Permanent Five express themselves, we are all just window dressing.”

Interestingly, some in GRULAC have endorsed Mexico's Carstens to head the IMF, over France's Christine Lagarde. One said, “At least the IMF has more than one candidate.”

Ban, who traveled this week to Colombia, Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil, might want to look closer not only at the ALBA countries, but also at Mexico (known to want more General Assembly input into the selection of the Secretary General, and more attention to Latin America), Guatamala and Paraguay, peacekeeping contributor countries...

Meanwhile work circulated Thursday that Ban's spokesperson's office was already inviting select UN correspondents to be “briefed” by Ban on June 21, when obviously Ban and his office expect to receive the final General Assembly vote. Some call it jumping the gun, or worse -- watch this site.

From the UN's June 16 transcript of its noon briefing:

Inner City Press: various diplomats early today said that it is because the GRULAC, the Latin American and Caribbean regional group, has not yet endorsed the Secretary-General for a second term, that it was postponed until tomorrow at 11 a.m. Now, what I wanted to know is, is that the Secretariat’s understanding: as of 7 June, five countries in GRULAC had said they hadn’t gotten instructions or weren’t, didn’t endorse. Has the Secretary-General or the Secretariat spoken, do you believe, with those five countries on this topic?

Spokesperson Nesirky: I think anything to do with this matter needs to come from the Member States, and particularly anything related to the Council deliberations, and then indeed the General Assembly deliberations needs to come from the Member States.

Inner City Press: But I guess it’s because sometimes we get readouts of the Secretary-General’s communications with, certainly, Heads of State, but sometimes even foreign ministers. So I am asking really about the Secretary-General’s own communications with Heads of State.

Spokesperson Nesirky: As I have said, we’ve said from the outset and the Secretary-General announced it here that he was making himself available for a second term, should Member States so decide; then he would be honoured to be able to serve a second term. And it is for the Council, in the first instance, to discuss and decide, and then for the General Assembly to follow up on that. And I think that’s the process that needs to run its course, and any other comment at this point is really not for us to make.

But why then already be making invitations to a victory party / briefing?

UN Admits Kadugli Peacekeepers Refused Convoy Escort, France Downplays It

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 16 -- When the UN Security Council met behind closed doors Thursday about the humanitarian situation in South Kordofan, Sudan, much criticism was directed at the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, whose troops in Kadugli reported declined to leave their base and do their jobs, as recently happened with the Zambian peacekeepers in Abyei.

After the meeting, Inner City Press asked DPKO chief Alain Le Roy about the criticism. He acknowledged that a UN battalion in Kadugli was “not willing to escort a convoy... there was heavy shelling.”

Moments later, Inner City Press on camera asked French Ambassador Gerard Araud if the Council discussed if a peacekeeper battalion declined to provide escort or come out of its base. According to the French Mission's transcript, Araud replied that

“a question was specifically asked whether all the instructions had [always] been followed. Alain [Le Roy] told us 'yes, they have always been followed.' The only example - which was an example where the personnel was requested to evacuate, so it’s not a question of protection - was when the personnel hesitated for a few hours because of their own safety on the ground.”

But Le Roy spoke about a battalion refusing to escort a convoy, presumably not only of soldiers. In fact, the UN evacuated -- or relocated, as UN OCHA put it -- international staff from Kadugli to El Obeid. In any event, refusing orders to escort a convoy is a “command and control” problem, as one Council delegation put it.

Some skeptics wonder if the French Mission's and Ambassador's speed to speak on these issues is entirely attributable to a concern for protection of civilians, or might involve defending the performance of DPKO whose past, current and seemingly future chiefs as promised by S-G Ban Ki-moon seeking a second term are all French.

Inner City Press asked Le Roy about the safety of Sudanese UN staff, who were not evacuated by the UN to El Obaid. Le Roy to his credit said that the UN was trying to contact all of them by radio, but had not been able to reach those in “downtown Kadugli because we have no access to downtown Kadugli.”

Some question how UNMIS can be said to be protecting civilians in Kadugli if it has “no access to downtown Kadugli.” Watch this site.

As Sudan Pulls US & UK Diplomats from UN Helicopter, Raising of Stakes?

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, June 16, updated -- When a UN Mission in Sudan helicopter landed in White Nile state, the Sudanese government took a US and a UK diplomat off the plane.

As described to Inner City Press by a spokesman for the UK Mission to the UN, the Sudanese authorities said they had not been notified of the flight and therefore questioned its purpose and passenger list.

Inner City Press asked US Ambassador Susan Rice about a “US diplomat arrested in Sudan.” She said, “I don't think that's the right word,” and went into the Security Council for a closed door meeting about violence involving the Sudanese Armed Forces and militias and tribes they support.

Asked if this detention should been as a raising of the stakes by Khartoum, the UK Spokesman told Inner City Press no. He could not name another time that Sudanese authorities have similarly questioned the use of UNMIS facilities by UK diplomats, but posited that the issue was more that the UNMIS helicopter had not given notice of its landing in Magennes than the identity of the passengers.