UN
Denies Ban's
Lawyer Called
US Strikes in
Syria Illegal,
Silent on
Feltman
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, March
3 -- How
scared does
the UN of Ban
Ki-moon and
his senior
officials run
of the United
States? Inner
City Press on March 4 asked
Ban's
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric of a
detailed
article
reporting that
Ban's
“chief
counsel,
Miguel de
Serpa Soares.
Syria was
still a
sovereign
country and
U.N. member
state, the
legal team
reminded their
colleagues.
Bombing its
territory
required
authorization
from the
Syrian
government or
the U.N.
Security
Council. But
as the
last-minute
backchannel
notice made
clear, the
White House
was not
seeking
either. Thus,
the lawyers
said, there
needed to be a
public
statement that
the United
States was
violating the
U.N. Charter.”
That day,
Dujarric told
Inner City
Press that the
airing of “internal
discussions
leading to
statements
by the
Secretary-General,
I think, is
not
particularly
helpful.”
Two days
later,
Dujarric ended
his noon
briefing by
saying:
“Matthew you
had asked
about the
article in The
New Republic
the other day.
The UN Legal
Counsel never
qualified the
American air
strikes in
Syria as
illegal or
against the
Charter.
Accordingly he
has never
suggested that
a statement
should be made
to that
effect.”
It remains
unclear if the
denial is only
for
Miguel de
Serpa Soares,
who never does
press
conference,
and not for
his Office of
Legal Counsel
staff.
It is
noteworthy
that Dujarric
did not return
to deny the reported
position
of Political
Affairs Under
Secretary
General (and
former US
State
Department
official)
Jeffrey
Feltman that
“if Ban
condemned the
U.S. attack,
he could
undermine a
crucial
military
effort and
give political
cover to
Obama’s
domestic
opponents.”
Feltman had
been promised
to hold a
question and
answer
stakeout on
March 6 --
twice Dujarric
told Inner
City Press its
questions for
Feltman could
be asked when
he “did” the
stakeout
outside the UN
Security
Council -- but
on March 6,
soon after
Dujarric's
above-quoted
denial,
Feltman's
stakeout was
canceled, to
be replaced by
a session
“sometime next
week.”
And do it goes
at the UN. Here is what
Inner City
Press asked
Dujarric on
March 4,
including if
Ban is
speaking to
member states
about one of
his proposal
now under
fire:
Inner
City
Press:
There are some
other things
but I wanted
to ask, I'm
sure you've
seen the New
Republic
long-form article
about the
Secretary-General
by Jonathan
Katz, and I
wanted to ask,
one if you
have any
overall
response to it
but
specifically
to the report
on the US
bombing that
began of
Islamic State
of the… of
Iraq, in the
Levant that
the Council
and Mr. Serpa
Soares said
this would
violate the
charter and
that DPA
[Department of
Political
Affairs] under
Jeffrey
Feltman said
go for it.
Spokesman
Dujarric:
I think the…
we're very
much aware of
the
article.
I think the…
you know, the
airing in
public of
healthy
internal
discussions
leading to
statements by
the
Secretary-General,
I think, is
not
particularly
helpful.
And they don't
always
particularly
reflect the
reality of
those
discussions.
I think what
is important
is to refer
back to what
the
Secretary-General
actually said
on the… on
that day in
September.
Inner
City
Press:
Okay.
One follow-up
and an
example.
I mean, beyond
that specific,
it seems to
represent… to
portray the
Secretary-General
as not really
getting
involved in
these debates
and staying
“above the
fray”.
So, I wanted
to know, one,
if you have a
response to
that, and two,
for example,
right now,
there's a big
renewed debate
in the Fifth
Committee
about the
Secretary-General's
proposal on
same-sex
marriage
benefits for
UN
staff.
Is the
Secretary-General
himself taking
an active part
in speaking to
Member States
about that?
Spokesman
Dujarric:
The
Secretary-General
receives
advice from
his senior
advisers.
That's why God
created senior
advisers, it
is to provide
advice to the
Secretary-General.
The
Secretary-General
and staff are
very much
aware of what
is going on in
the Fifth
Committee.
It is a debate
that we are
closely
watching.
And we will
leave it at
that for the
time
being.
Then two days
later, this:
“Matthew
you had asked
about the
article in The
New Republic
the other day.
The UN Legal
Counsel never
qualified the
American air
strikes in
Syria as
illegal or
against the
Charter.
Accordingly he
has never
suggested that
a statement
should be made
to that
effect. And
that's it.
Thank you.”
But that's NOT
it. Watch this
site.
, 
