By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
August 20 --
After the US
confirmed that
it was
journalist
James Foley
who was
beheaded by
ISIL after
being forced
to read a
statement,
later on
August 20 the
Pentagon
issued this:
"The United
States
attempted a
rescue
operation
recently to
free a number
of American
hostages held
in Syria by
the Islamic
State of Iraq
and the Levant
(ISIL). This
operation
involved air
and ground
components and
was focused on
a particular
captor network
within ISIL.
Unfortunately,
the mission
was not
successful
because the
hostages were
not present at
the targeted
location."
In light of
the reference
to "ground
components,"
some wonder if
Syria will
assert a
violation of
its
sovereignty.
Why make this
announcements?
Agence France
Presse, purporting
an info-graphic
of journalists
killed last
year, listed
four as killed
"in Gaza."
Since all
other listed
jurisdiction
are full UN
member states,
some surmised
AFP's
nomenclature
let off the
hook the
killer of
those journalists.
Despite
calling it
social media,
hours later
AFP has not
responded.
Inner City
Press on
August 18
asked the
Security
Council's
president for
August Mark
Lyall Grant of
the UK if the
Council gets
reports:
Inner
City Press:
You said that
Iraq came up,
so I wanted to
know, the US
has providing
publicly these
updates of
airstrikes by
the Mosul
damn. I’m just
wondering, is
there any,
under your
Presidency, is
the Security
Council, is
there any
mechanism for
getting, I
guess, reports
of these from
countries
taking
military
action or
arming the
Peshmerga? And
just
separately, in
Mali, these
two
peacekeepers
were killed by
suicide attack
and I’m
wondering is
there any
movement in
the Council to
have a Press
Statement, or
some response
to this
Peacekeeping
attack in
Mali?
Amb Lyall
Grant: Yes, on
the second
point, France
did signal
that it was
circulating,
and indeed has
now has
circulated a
draft Press
Statement with
the deadline
of 3 o’clock
this
afternoon, of
silence
procedure, on
the UN
Peacekeepers
tragically
killed in
Mali. On the
Iraq
situation, the
representative
of the United
States, did
indeed give a
very short
update on
action that
the United
States had
been taking
including the
role of the UK
and Australia
in
humanitarian
airdrops.
Both
Australia and
obviously the
US are also on
the Security
Council, but
from the
answer it
appears that
the US
representative
-- Samantha
Power? -- was
the one to
report on
their role in
the airdrops.
And what of
France
providing
weapons in
Kurdistan? We
hope to have
more on this.
President
Barack Obama's
dual rationale
for the
campaign of
airstrikes in
Iraq had been
the plight of
the Yazikis on
Mount Sinjar
and the
protection of
US personnel
in Erbil and
Bagdad.
Then the US
began
airstrikes
around the
Mosul Dam. Now
Obama's War
Powers
Resolution
letter to
Congress, as
the NSC's
gloss puts it,
says this new
bombing "is
consistent
with President
Obama's
directive that
the U.S.
military
protect U.S.
personnel and
facilities in
Iraq, since
the failure of
the Mosul Dam
could threaten
the lives of
large numbers
of civilians,
threaten U.S.
personnel and
facilities --
including the
U.S. Embassy
in Baghdad --
and prevent
the Iraqi
government
from providing
critical
services to
the Iraqi
populace."
Helping the
Iraqi
government
provide
services
doesn't appear
to have been
part of the
initial
mission. So
what will be
next?
A
variety of
talking heads
on the Sunday
news shows in
the US
demanded to
know why Obama
has not bombed
in Syria as in
Iraq --
ignoring that
only in the
latter has
bombing been
invited by the
government,
and the vetoes
in the UN
Security
Council. We'll
have more on
this.
On
August 14 the
UN had at its
noon briefing
a call-in the
spokesperson
of its Office
for the
Coordination
of
Humanitarian
Affairs Kieran
Dwyer. Inner
City Press
asked Dwyer if
airdrops now
promised by
Australia and
Germany are
still needed
-- and about a
UN
map showing
humanitarian
problems and
lack of access
in Ninewa and
Anbar
provinces.
Click here to
view.
Dwyer replied
that bilateral
requests are
up to Iraqi
authorities,
and said, yes,
there are
problems and
lack of access
in Anbar and
Ninewa (where
ISIL held
Mosul is).
At the US
State
Department
briefing less
than an hour
later, the
Department's
deputy
spokesperson
Marie Harf was
asked if the
US might now
provided
airstrikes or
"assistance"
in Anbar, and
if this would
be covered by
the last War
Powers notice
Obama gave to
Congress.
I am not a
lawyer, Harf
said, adding
in essence
that the US
acts when it
can be useful
with its
"unique
capabilities."
She was asked
why the US did
not use
military force
to protect
civilians in
Sudan, the
Democratic
Republic of
Congo or
Central
African
Republic --
Sri Lanka
could be added
-- and called
each case
unique.
The
line-of-the-briefing
at the State
Department was
that seven
airstrikes to
prevent a
genocide is
not a bad
deal. Indeed.
Smaller gauge,
Inner City
Press is still
asking how
exactly the UN
is
"coordinating"
aid, for
example could
he say why the
UK had aborted
an airdrop of
aid as
reported by
BBC?
OCHA's
Dwyer on
August 11 made
various claims
about
coordinating
then couldn't
or wouldn't
explain the
UK's abortive
aid delivery,
telling Inner
City Press to
ask the UK or
BBC. What kind
of
coordination
is this?
After the US
on August 8
announced
completion of
its second
air-drop of
aid to Sinjar
Mountain in
Iraq,
President
Barack Obama
on August 9
said “I don't
think we're
going to solve
this problem
in weeks."
Obama said
that the Iraq
military when
far from
Baghdad did
not have the
commitment to
hold ground
against an
aggressive
adversary:
that is,
ISIL.
So, Obama
said, would
move to "play
some offense."
So, the
question
arises, who
else is going
to play? Now,
after the US
was given
first shot,
France is
mulling arming
the Kurds.
On
August 9 Inner
City Press was
reliably and
for then
exclusively
informed that
Iraq had
written to the
UN Security
Council invite
any and all UN
member states
to deliver aid
to areas
controlled by
Islamic State,
with Iraq's
agreement. [On
August 9, the
UK mission
confirmed this
to Inner City
Press.]
And so the
question
arises -- what
about aid from
Iran? From
Russia? From
China -- which
has told the
Press of $4.9
million in
medical
supplies to
Guinea,
Liberia and
Sierra Leone
for ebola?
At the US
State
Department's
briefing on
August 8, much
as made of
Iraq inviting
the US, and
only the US,
in . But now,
would others
including Iran
be welcome?
Shouldn't they
be?
Aid is needed,
and not only
in Sinjar. We'll
have more on
this.