Inner City Press -- Investigative Reporting From the United Nations to Wall Street to the Inner City

UNITED NATIONS, July 16 -- The day after the Iran Deal was announced in Vienna by the EU's Federica Mogherini then Iran's Javad Zarif, on July 15 a draft resolution was circulated in the UN Security Council, with paragraphs on sanctions snap-back and other provisions. Inner City Press put the draft, obtained from multiple sources, online here.

  Then at 5 pm on July 16, Inner City Press reported that the UNSC vote on the draft would occur on Monday, July 20 at 9 am.

  Hours later, the UN confirmed this, and a US Mission spokesperson tweeted the timing. Reuters, typically, then published a story quoting an UNnamed "U.S. official" on the timing; the CBS former head of the UN Censorship Alliance echoed the timing targeting the P3 with nothing but photos. (The current head of the Censorship Alliance was invisible, checked out.)

  This is how the UN works, or doesn't. At the underlying UNSC experts' meeting there were only two journalists. But Western missions served up information later to non-present correspondents, who by quoting unnamed sources seemed knowledgeable. This is today's UN.

  On July 16, the Security Council's 15 members at the Expert level met about the draft. Inner City Press and one other journalist staked-out the meeting (Periscope video for now here), held in basement Conference Room 8 and afterward asked attendees what the next step would be.

  While several said "No comment" -- since it will presumably help them, including the US Legal Expert and a former French mission spokesman -- from others Inner City Press was told of a 9 am Monday July 20 vote on the resolution.

  It was said that France was pushing for a weekend vote, on Sunday, related to Foreign Minister Fabius desire to travel to Tehran with the vote already done. This was resisted - now, 9 am Monday, before a Security Council Arria formula meeting about Gaza, sponsored by Malaysia and Jordan. Watch this site.

  Here embeddd is the draft. Operative Paragraphs 11, 12 and 15 bear particular interest, with their purported automaticity. See also, InnerCityPro.com.

Iran Deal Draft UNSC Resolution as Uploaded by Inner City Press by Matthew Russell Lee

   On July 14 the US White House held a background press call, "embargoed until conclusion." This meant, no tweets. But on the call, after Reuters asked a softball about Obama's involvement, several Senior Administration Officials gushed about Obama's calls to Vienna, updates from Susan Rice, concern for Israel's security.

  It was said Obama would not only call Netanyahu but also of course the King of Saudi Arabia. (He did both, adding Russia's Putin as well.)

   Earlier on July 14, Ban Ki-moon chimed in nearly immediately to welcome the deal. This stood in contrast to his 60 hour silence after his own faux Yemen Deal failed amid airstrikes. Success has many wannabe parents; UNsuccessful many fewer.

 Obama from Washington at 7 am said he will veto any legislation slowing this down; The Elders chaired by Kofi Annan spoke quickly against any “ideological preconceptions [or] narrow political interests.”

  Journalists camped out under the Evita-like balcony of the Coburg Hotel for more than two weeks gushed about UN Security Council action "in days," as France's Fabius put it. Now we know why. Watch this site

  Previously as the Iran P5+1 talks continued on the eve of the then-deadline, who was bragging about having predicted their failure? Western wire service Reuters, crowing that "Other media now coming around to @reuters consistent reporting on how final Iran atomic deal unlikely."

 While false exclusives have proliferated at Reuters under Stephen J. Adler, there a second, separate trend at work here.

  On another UN sanctions regime, Somalia and Eritrea, even when former Reuters reporter turned sanctions monitor Dinesh Mahtani was forced to resign for having championed a new leader for the country he was supposed to monitor, Reuters entirely omitted his removal from its claimed exclusives on the sanctions report.

  Some of this goes beyond a desire, compensated by editor Adler, to claim exclusives even where not merited (including by adopted a policy of not crediting others' exclusives).  At the UN, Reuters has gone so far as to try to censor and remove from Google's Search as "copyrighted" copies of Reuters complaints against other media filed with the UN, click here for that.

 At what point does this become more (or less) that journalism? What about "other media now coming around to @reuters consistent" refusal to credit smaller media, attempts to get them kicked out, then censoring the Internet? We'll have more on this.

  Back on October 27, 2014 when the UN's special rapporteur on human rights in Iran Ahmed Shaheed held a press conference at the UN, Inner City Press asked him for an update on what he had said about the effect of sanctions and banning of Iran from the SWIFT payments system which Inner City Press asked him about one year and three days earlier, 2013 here from Minute 12:29.

  On October 24, 2013, Shaheed had acknowledged that the banning of Iran from the SWIFT payments system had had an impact. On October 27, 2014, Shaheed said he believes Iran is still banned from SWIFT, but he had no update. Instead he said that humanitarian exemptions to sanctions are having successes. 2014 video here.

 But banning from SWIFT or "de-SWIFT-ing" is not a targeted sanction at all, and he did not mention any exemptions to it.

   Overall, Inner City Press asked Shaheed what impact he thought "the nuclear issue" and the P5 + 1 talks have on human rights in Iran.  Shaheed said he doesn't like linkage, but added that when there's focus on the nuclear issue, it takes away from the focus on human rights.  Now what?

Footnote: on October 27, 2014, the UN Correspondents Association which so often demands the first question be set-aside for it didn't even send anyone to Shaheed's press conference. One attendee said, it's defUNCA-ed, as in defunct, or de-UNCA-ed, like de-SWIFT-ed. The new Free UN Coalition for Access, present, did not try to brand the press conference, because there was no need. Watch this site.