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

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 18 -- While airstrikes and airdrops take place in Iraq without any approval by the UN Security Council -- the government in Baghdad has invited them -- Inner City Press on Augut 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.

On August 7 after 6:30 pm, Council president for August Mark Lyall Grant emerged to read a press statement, followed by question and answer stakeouts by French deputy Alexis Lamek and Iraqi Permanent Representative Alhakim.

  Inner City Press asked Lamek if France will take military action. While we'll await the French mission's transcript, Lamek eventually said "that needs to be done indeed."

  There is a draft resolution in the works, with UK Ambassador Lyall Grant saying that a new draft would be circulated later on August 7. The Security Council left on August 8 for a week-long trip to Europe and South Sudan and, it is now widely reported, Somalia. Now what?

On July 25 after the UN Security Council met behind closed doors with the Syria Commission of Inquiry's Paulo Sergio Pinheiro and Karen AbuZayd, the two Commissioners and UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant came to take questions from the press.

  Karen AbuZayd spoke of abuses not only by the government but also, in response to a question, by what she called the Islamic State of Iraq and [Syria], ISIL.

  Inner City Press when called on asked her about ISIS' takeover of border crossing, renaming as Islamic State and attacks on non-Sunni Muslims in Mosul.

In this context, what did she think of hers or another Commission of Inquiry covering the group's abuses in Iraq as well? Bigger picture, does the state by state focus of the UN make sense in this context?

  AbuZayd said she prefers not to call them “Islamic State,” it give them too much credit. Pinheiro resisted any talk of expanding his Commission's mandate -- Syria is enough.

  A US state media asked about foreign fighters, including pro-government; Pinheiro said that Hezbollah is the only group of foreign fighters he's away of.

 This is strange, given that the UN's own recent report on Syria humanitarian access notes that “on June 29, the Islamic State issued a statement announcing that the Caliphate included people from the following nationalities: Caucasian [sic], Indian, Chinese, Shami (Levantine), Iraqi, Yemeni, Egyptian, North African, American, French, German, and Australians." Watch this site.