At
UNESCO After US Pull-Out, Does
Japan Have Leverage to Block
Comfort Women Docs?
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Text here
on Patreon
UNITED NATIONS,
October 28 – When UNESCO's
Manos Antoninis took questions
on October 26, Inner City
Press asked
him how the Paris-based agency
is responding to the United
States leaving it. He
responded, diplomatically
perhaps, with praise of some
in the US, those who root out
climate change denial from
school curriculum. Inner City
Press previously exclusively
reported on an emergency
conference call convened by
the Department of Public
Information, though Antonio
Guterres' spokespeople have
refused to confirm it, as they
refuse even to say where
Guterres is. But at UNESCO,
the pull-out of the US gives
the spotlight and leverage to
the agency's second biggest
funder, Japan. And Japan is
using it. Previously the
country withheld dues to try
to block the registration of
documents about its actions in
Nanjing, China. But "Documents
on the Nanking Massacre” were,
in fact, registered. This year
the fight is about
documentation of so-called
comfort women or sex slaves
the Japanese military took in
World War II. South Korean
foreign ministry spokesman Noh
Kyu-duk said this week,"Our
government is working on the
listing with the basic
attitude that a lesson should
be learned from the comfort
women issue." If withholding
dues didn't have the desired
effect on Nanjing, perhaps a
threat to fully leave, as the
US and Israel are doing, would
impact UNESCO on the comfort
women issues, particularly
under its new
Director-General. (South Korea
says it is trying to rush the
registration before Irina
Bokova leaves). We'll have
more on this. In the pie in
the sky world of the UN's
Disarmament Committee, various
resolutions on the "total
elimination of nuclear
weapons" were put to a vote on
October 27. Japan's long-time
resolution L35, "United action
with renewed determination
toward the total elimination
of nuclear weapons" was put
over from October 26 to October
27. (On the 26th in front of
the UN Security Council, Inner
City Press asked Japanese
Ambassador Koro Bessho if it
would come up that afternoon;
he told Inner City Press, "I
think it is delayed a little."
In fact, it was for a whole
day. But before it came up,
North Korea denounced it as a
product of “Japan's sick and
impure political purposes” and
said that particular
paragraphs “jeopardize our
supreme interests.” Egypt,
too, said it would abstain as
the draft focused on the duties
of non-nuclear states. When
the resolution came up for a
vote "as a whole," it passed
with 144 voting Yes, four No
and 27 abstentions. And the
voting on other resolutions,
including on the dumping of
radioactive waste," continued.
There would be a Halloween
party later, in the Ex-Press
Bar, for money. While North
Korea's diplomats might not be
there, one finds it hard to
believe recent quotes about
never seeing the North
Koreans. They show up at many
receptions, sometimes
complimenting the quality of
the food. We'll have more on
this. When North Korea's
Deputy Ambassador Kim In Ryong
appeared in the UN Disarmament
Committee on October 16, his
written text said “As long as
one does not take part in the
US. military actions against
the DPRK, we have no intention
to use or threaten to use
nuclear weapons against any
other country.” But it seems
he did not read it out loud.
Inner City Press got the
written text, and notes that
in the UN, whose chairing
meetings often ask speakers to
deliver only a part of their
written speeches, and turn in
the rest for the record. So
Inner City Press publicly
asked the UN General Assembly
President's spokesman whether
this North Korean statement
should be considered official
or not. The PGA Spokesman
after 5 pm e-mailed Inner City
Press this answer: "In the
General Assembly, only the
portions of statements that
are read aloud form part of
the verbatim record. The
verbatim record is then
considered to be an “official
record” of the United Nations.
Delegations can distribute
longer written versions of
their statements, but those do
not form part of the verbatim
or “official” records of
General Assembly meetings."
We'll have more on this. The
UN's North Korea sanctions
list was expanded by four
ships, including the Jiu Shun
recently outed by the
Washington Post as carrying
thousands of rocket propelled
grenades to Egypt. See listing
quietly added to UN Security
Council 1718 Sanctions
Committee website, here.
Recent Inner City Press asked
the Committee's chair,
Sebastiano Cardi of Italy, if
there was any discussion in
the Committee of North Korean
arms sales to the UAE or Egypt
and he said no. Now, this listing.
We'll have more on this. Days
after the UN Security Council
banned textile exports from
North Korea, the country fired
another missile over Japan's
Hokkeido. On September 23,
North Korea's Foreign Minister
Ri Yong Ho delivered this
speech in the UN General
Assembly hall, then came to
meet UN Secretary General
Antonio Guterres, USg Jeffrey
Feltman and others. There was
a photo op, well attended by
wire services and largely
Japanese and some South Korean
photographers - and Inner City
Press. Saturday Periscope
video here.
Then on Monday September 25 Ri
held a press encounter - no
questions, just two statements
- in front of the One UN Hotel
/ Millennium Hilton. Inner
City Press streamed Periscope,
here.
He said, all options are on
the operations table. Inner
City Press asked the North
Korea Mission to the UN if the
international legal conference
they have been asking for was
discussed; the North Korean
Mission to the UN told Inner
City Press its “Foreign
Minister raised that issue
during the meeting. He also
told UNSG to be most
impartial, not to take
one-sided.” We'll see. Back on September
21, this speech in the UN
General Assembly Hall, by
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang
Yi, as transcribed in English
by Inner City Press: "The
situation on the Korean
peninsula is now a focus of
international attention. The
19 September this year, that
is two days ago, marks the
12th anniversary of the
2005, September 19 joint
statement of the 6 party
talks. At that time, the 6
parties, China, the United
States, Russia, DPRK,
RoK and Japan, with China
being the chair, made
concerted efforts, the two
main parties concerned, the US
and DPRK made the decision,
and we had formulated the
roadmap for denuclearization
of the peninsula. The DPRK
undertook to abandon its
nuclear programs, and the US
undertook to normalize its
relations with the DPRK. All
parties committed to setting
up a peace mechanism for the
peninsula. The statement
opened up new vistas for
regional peace and stability.
12 years have passed. Some
think things have changed on
the peninsula and the
statement has become outdated,
but we believe things
following the progressing
trend of the times never
become outdated, and decisions
on the right track never
become obsolete. If there is
any change, anything we need
now, it is denuclearization
that is more comprehensive,
more thorough, and more
irreversible. There should be
no new nuclear weapon state
whether it is in the north or
the south of the peninsula,
whether it is in Northeast
Asia or other parts of the
world. We urge the DPRK not to
go further on a dangerous
direction. We call ont eh US
to honor its four no
commitment, and we call on all
parties to play a constructive
role in easing tensions.
There is still hope for peace
and we must not give up.
Negotiation is the only way
out. Parties should meet each
other halfway by recognizing
each other’s legitimate
concerns. In China’s view, the
day when the denuclearization
of the peninsula is realized
should also be the day when a
peace mechanism is
established. China is always a
force for peace. We have made
tireless efforts for a
peaceful resolution on the
Korean peninsula. Whatever
changes may take place,
however long it may take,
China will stay firmly
committed to denuclearization
of the Korean peninsula and to
regional peace and stability."
Back on September 15 Russian
Ambassador Nebenzia said, as
transcribed by Inner City
Press: "we made a statement, a
press statement by the
president of the Security
Council condemning the recent
launch, calling on the DPRK to
stop it, and also, which is
important, reiterating the
need for political and
diplomatic solution of the
crisis, early... We’re
discussing that we’re in a
vicious circle. We have a
provocation, a resolution,
then another provocation. Many
people raised the issue that
we have to think outside the
box. There is the China
Russia road map of the 4th of
July, which is at the moment
the only political proposal on
the table... Take away this
morning’s Secretary of State
Tillerson’s statement,
our American colleague
said that Russia and China
should quickly implement the
sanctions measures provided
for in 2375. To which we said
that we are responsible
members of the international
community and we honestly
implement resolutions that we
adopt in the Security Council
but this resolution also
provides for political
measures that should be
implemented equally in that
sense we called on our US
partners and others to
implement the political and
diplomatic solutions that are
provided for in the resolution
and without implementing this
we also will consider it as
non-compliance with the
resolution, not fully
implementing the resolution.
We were considering what
elements we might include in a
resolution that would be on a
political side.. One way or
another, we are including them
in the resolutions we have
already adopted. We would
possibly like more. We’ll see
what happens. I think people
are keen to discuss it during
the high level -- one way or
another it will come up, both
in the debates and in the
meetings. We think that
threats, tests, launches
should be stopped and we
should engage in meaningful
negations. Many serious
American actors are saying
there is no way but to sit at
the table and come to think
how to resume the six party
talks. I think it was Madeline
Albright who was referring to
it recently and some others as
well. There are serious
analyses in the American press
of the issue, which came out
in the last few days before we
adopted resolution 2375. Many
people around the world
understand that there’s no
alternative to this in the
end." US Secretary of
State Rex Tillerson the day
before said, "North Korea's
provocative missile launch
represents the second time the
people of Japan, a treaty ally
of the United States, have
been directly threatened in
recent weeks. These continued
provocations only deepen North
Korea's diplomatic and
economic isolation. United
Nations Security Council
resolutions, including the
most recent unanimous
sanctions resolution,
represent the floor, not the
ceiling, of the actions we
should take. We call on
all nations to take new
measures against the Kim
regime. China supplies North
Korea with most of its oil.
Russia is the largest employer
of North Korean forced labor.
China and Russia must indicate
their intolerance for these
reckless missile launches by
taking direct actions of their
own." When Nikki Haley spoke
on North Korea's hydrogen bomb
test in the UN Security
Council on US Labor Day, she
called for a vote on new
sanctions on Kim Jong Un's
government on September 11.
They passed 15-0, after
reducing the cut into North
Korea's oil and dropping a
proposal travel ban and asset
freeze on Kim Jong Un. Now on
September 14 North Korea has
fired another missile, right
over Japan's Hokkeido. And the
UN was holding... a fashion show,
in its General Assembly lobby,
introduced by its new head of
"Global Communications" who
has yet to even respond to emails
about her Department's
imposition of UN minders on
the independent Press. We'll
have more on this. Back on
September 11, spinning on
background, a US official
familiar with the negotiations
said, before the vote, that
"Kim Jung Un doesn’t have that
many assets that are out there
and vulnerable anyway." Now
you tell us. On September 6,
the US draft came out, saying
it would among other things
BAN oil exports to North Korea
(see language below); CNN is
still using that term (but see
new
draft and language
below). The vote is slated for
6 pm on September 11; mid
morning when Inner City Press
asked Italy's Ambassador
Sebastiano Cardi about the oil
provisions, he said he
wouldn't comment on the
"details." Video here.
At 3 pm, French Ambassador
Francois Delattre said "The
bottom line is simple: the
threat of DPRK has changed in
scope, scale, and its very
nature. We’re facing not a
regional but a global threat,
which unites us. We fully
support the resolution
proposed by the US. We think
it’s a robust resolution, a
needed step towards the
firmness I was just referring
to. Our deep belief is that
only a firm reaction of the
Council can open the path to a
political res. Our firm
attitude today is the best
antidote to the risk of war. I
think the conditions are met
to go for a vote. We
completely support the
resolution as it is. By
definition this is a
compromise to get everybody on
board. We believe we have
a strong, robust
resolution and it is a needed
and important step with
respect to the firmness that
is the condition for a
political solution tomorrow."
On their way in to the morning
Security Council meeting on
Colombia the Ambassadors of
the UK and Sweden spoke to the
press. The UK's Matthew
Rycroft said, This afternoon
on North Korea we will be
voting on a draft of the US
circulated last night, it’s a
very robust resolution and the
UK supports it wholeheartedly.
[Watered down?] "It’s called
negotiations, and that’s what
we do. There’s a significant
pride in keeping the Security
Council united, and I hope
today’s vote will be united.
The version on the table is
strong, robust." Sweden's Olof
Skoog said, "We certainly
support the draft as it stands
now." The US proposed asset
freezes on five individuals
including Kim Jong Un and
seven entities; now it's one
person (not Kim Jong UN) and
three companies. On oil, here
is what the September 10
revised draft says: "Decides
that all Member State shall
not supply, sell, or transfer
to the DPRK in any period of
twelve months after the date
of adoption of this resolution
an amount of crude oil that is
in
excess of the amount that the
Member State supplied, sold or
transferred in the period of
twelve months prior to
adoption of this resolution,
unless the Committee approves
in advance on a case-by-case
basis a shipment of crude oil
is exclusively for livelihood
purposes of DPRK nationals and
unrelated to the DPRK’s
nuclear or ballistic missile
programmes or
other activities prohibited by
resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874
(2009), 2087 (2013), 2094
(2013), 2270 (2016), 2321
(2016), 2356 (2017), 2371
(2017) or this resolution;
(New)" And here was the US
original draft: "Ban exports
of crude oil, condensate,
refined petroleum products,
and natural gas liquids tothe
DPRK: Decides that all Member
States shall prohibit the
direct or indirect supply,
sale or transfer to the DPRK,
through their territories or
by their nationals, or using
their flag vessels or
aircraft, and whether or not
originating in their
territories, of all crude oil,
condensates, refined petroleum
products, and natural gas
liquids; (New)." Would Russia,
for one, vote even for this?
Haley had at the begin of the
September 4 meeting recounted
24 years of history. (Inner
City Press asked UK Ambassador
Matthew Rycroft on his way in
about Myanmar and the
Rohingya, here.)
Russia's Ambassador Nebenzia
called Haley's an "excursion"
into history and reiterated
his country's and China's
freeze for freeze proposal.
China's Liu Jieyi said, as
transcribed by Inner City
Press: "The Chinese government
resolutely opposes and
strongly condemns the nuclear
test of the DPRK in violation
of the UNSC resolutions.
Achieving the denuclearization
of the Korean peninsula and
maintaining the nuclear
non-proliferation system and
peace and stability in
Northeast Asia, this is the
firm stance of the Chinese
government…we strongly urge
the DPRK to face up swuarely
to the firm will of the
international community on the
issue of the denuclearization
of the peninsula and earnestly
abide by the resolutions of
the council…The situation of
the peninsula is deteriorating
constantly as we speak,
falling into a vicious
circle. The situation must be
resolved peacefully. China
will never allow chaos and war
on the peninsula. The parties
concerned must strengthen
their sense of urgency…take
practical measures, make joint
efforts together to ease the
situation, restart the
dialogue and talks, and
prevent further deterioration
of the situation on the
peninsula. The proposal by
China and Russia of a 2 track
approach, which promotes the
denuclearization of the
peninsula and establishment of
a peace mechanism in parallel,
the suspension for suspension
initiative, which calls for
the DPRK to suspend its
nuclear and missile activities
and for the US and the RoK to
suspend their large scale
military exercises and step by
step concession from Russia
are the basis on which brought
countries jointly proposed a
road map to resolve the
issue.…we hope the parties
concerned will seriously
consider this and actively
respond to it. China calls
upon the International
Community to jointly and
comprehensively and fully
implement the relevant
resolutions of the SC on DPRK,
firmly push forward the goal
of denuclearization of the
peninsula, and maintain peace
and stability on the
peninsula." Earlier, Haley
said, "Kim Jong Un's abusive
use of missiles shows he is
begging for war. War is never
something the US wants. But
our patience not unlimited....
The idea of "freeze for
freeze" is insulting. When an
ICBM is pointed at you, do not
lower your guard. Enough is
enough. The incremental
approach has not worked. We
must "quickly enact the
strongest sanctions here in
UNSC. We have kicked can down
road long enough. There is no
road left." Two days before
today's reported North Korean
nuclear test, incoming UN
Security Council president for
September Tekeda Alemu of
Ethiopia held a long press
conference at the UN and only
mentioned North Korea once,
per the UN Department of
Public Information's summary,
here.
Will the Security Council and
its president still leave New
York for five days? This
as some on the
UN Security
Council, and
UN Secretary
General
Antonio
Guterres or at
least his
spokesman Stephane Dujarric have no
problem with
or comment on
the UN's own
World
Intellectual
Property
Organization
helps North
Korea with a
patent
application
for social
cyanide (WIPO
site here).
On
Capitol Hill
on June 28,
Rep. Chris
Smith (R-NJ)
urged US
Ambassador to
the UN Nikki
Haley to act
on WIPO,
including its
retaliation
against
whistleblowers.
Haley spoke
about
reviewing
peacekeeping
missions,
which is
needed - as is
a review and
reversal of
the UN's lack
of protections
for free
press, and
continued
restrictions
on
investigative
Press. At the
day's UN noon
briefing Inner
City Press
asked UN
Spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric, UN
Transcript here. The UN
Secretariat
also backed up
WIPO on May 26
when Inner
City Press
asked,
transcript here and
below. Inner
City Press on
May 16 began
to ask US
Ambassador to
the UN Nikki
Haley about it
(video
here). On
May 17, Nikki
Haley replied
to Inner City
Press'
question: "All
parts of the
UN system need
to support the
Security
Council in its
efforts to
respond to the
grave threat
of North
Korea’s
weapons of
mass
destruction
programs.
Sodium cyanide
is banned for
export to
North Korea by
the Security
Council. A
common sense
reaction would
be for WIPO to
inform the
Council of
such patent
applications.
Its failure to
do so may have
dangerous
consequences.”
Inner
City Press on September 1
asked Ambassador Alemu four
questions, including on
Burundi (on the Council's
agenda) and the Oromo
Protests, a major human
rights issue. Video
here.
But
when the UN Department of
Public Information wrote up
the press conference, it did
not even MENTION Burundi, much
less the Oromo protests. See
UN document here.
What is wrong with UN DPI, a corrupt
UN Department which spends
$200 million a year in public
funds, but doe not even has
any rules, content neutral or
otherwise, on how it accredits
and/or restricts
the independent press which
covers the UN? Where is the
new head of DPI, Alison Smale?
In response to Inner City
Press asking why Burundi,
where even the UN says there
is a risk of genocide, is not
on his September Program of
Work nor on the agenda of the
Council's visit to Addis
Ababa, Alemu on September 1 -
not covered by the UN - said
that you can't compare Burundi
to Central African Republic,
that Burundi has “strong state
institutions.” But it is that
very “strength,” which some
say the country shares with
Ethiopia, and with until
recently military-ruled
Myanmar about which Inner City
Press also asked, that has led
to the human rights
violations. In this context,
Inner City Press asked Alemu
about the Oromo protests - and
crackdown - in his country. He
diplomatically chided Inner
City Press for not having
asked in private, saying that
social media has played a
dangerous role. Meanwhile the
UN brags about its
(propaganda) social media
work. We'll have more on this.
Alamy photos here.
***
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
Past
(and future?) UN Office: S-303, UN, NY 10017 USA
For now: Box 20047,
Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other,
earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in
the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright
2006-2017 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
for
|