Letter
from
Gaddafi Minister Names d'Escoto Brockmann Libyan Envoy to UN
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
March 30 -- Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, former Nicaraguan
foreign minister and UN General Assembly President, has been named
Libya's
permanent representative to the UN in a letter from
Gaddafi's foreign minister Musa Koussa, a copy of which Inner City
Press has obtained.
Click
here for
letter in Arabic (PDF), here for
Spanish
translation by Nicaraguan government (Word).
UN deputy spokesman Farhan Haq told the Press at noon on March 30 that
the UN had not received the letter. When Inner City Press asked him
about Koussa's letter's statement that the US had denied a visa to
Gaddafi's first replacement, Ali Treki, Haq said "ask the United
States." Inner City Press has, without response.
Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann is a dual citizen of Nicaragua and the United
States - he does not need a visa. And on March 31 he will hold a press
conference, which Haq presented only in terms of Nicaragua and the GA,
not Libya.
Ban & d'Escoto in chamagne toast, Libyan letter not shown
The
stakes are now
raised at the UN. Under customary procedure, d'Escoto Brockmann would
be accepted as Permanent Representative replacing Shalgam. He could
then enter and speak in the Security Council, as well as go and
“clean out” the Libyan Mission to the UN on 48th Street of all
those who renounced Gaddafi.
But
these are not
customary times. It is possible that Western “coalition” members
and / or Secretary General Ban Ki-moon could push Musa Koussa's
letter to the General Assembly's Credential Committee, as they
recently did the case of Cote d'Ivoire. That would set a precedent.
Watch this site.
* * *
On
Libya, As Russia & India Say Can't Arm Rebels, Ban
Punts, Obama & Shalgam
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
March 29 -- While the chairman of the UN's Libya Sanctions
committee says that arming the
rebels would be impermissible, and the
Permanent Representatives of Russia and India told Inner City Press
just that on the morning of March 29, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
apparently, or conveniently, takes no position.
Inner
City Press
at the noon briefing asked Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky for if it
is Ban's understanding that the arms embargo of Resolution 1970 still
prohibits arming the rebels, despite the protection of civilians
“notwithstanding” clause of Resolution 1973.
“I think that's
for the Security Council to determine,” said Nesirky, who had just
said that “the ceasefire means what is says,” a ceasefire on both
side.
Why
would Ban
opine on one portion of the resolutions and not another? Inner City
Press pointed out to Nesirky that Ban's predecessor was willing, at
least once, to opine on the legality of a Permanent Council member's
action.
The
US, notably,
is now arguing that the resolutions give the “flexibility” to arm
the rebels, and France is saying it is ready to talk about it,
seemingly not through the UN Security Council.
It's
a battle
among the Permanent Five members of the Security Council, for now
with US and Russia with directly opposite positions.
On
March 29 Inner
City Press asked Russian Permanent Representative Vitaly Churkin of
the resolutions permit arming the rebels. “No,” Churkin, noting
that the US had asked for the arms embargo.
Minutes
later,
Inner City Press quoted Churkin's response to US Permanent
Representative Susan Rice, who had earlier on “Good Morning America
said that
“the
United States would maintain financial and diplomatic pressure on the
Libyan government until Gaddafi leaves and hinted that new steps
could be in the offing, including the arming of Libyan rebels. 'We
have not made that decision, but we’ve not certainly ruled that
out,' she said on ABC’s 'Good Morning America' program.”
Ambassador
Rice said thanks for the information about what Churkin had said. Inner
City Press
has asked the US Mission to the UN to explain their argument, and “If
the US were to move to fund the rebels, would it inform (and,
separately, seek guidance or approval from) the UNSC Sanctions
committee first?” So far answers have not been provided.
But,
in fairness,
the US Mission to the UN did answer an Inner City Press question
about if anti-Gaddafi dipomats Ibrahim Dabbashi and Shalgam are
invited and present at President Obama's dedication of the Mission's
new building. “Shalgam is here,” the Mission has informed Inner
City Press.
Later,
Obama is
headed uptown for a $30,000 a plate Democratic National Commitee
fundraiser at Red Rooster. Inner City Press is told there will be
protests. Watch this site.
* * *
At
UN
on
Libya, Clash on Arming Rebels, Dutch
In,
Malta Stopped
Greek
Ship
By
Matthew
Russell
Lee, Exclusive
UNITED
NATIONS,
March
29 -- Libya
sanctions
and arms embargo were the topics
on Tuesday morning outside the Security Council, even as the meeting
inside concerned Lebanon. The Netherlands has formally written in
under Resolution 1973 to join the coalition, a well placed Council
source exclusively told Inner City Press.
An
explanation of
Malta's query to the Libya Sanctions Committee was finally gleaned,
as another Inner City Press exclusive: Malta stopped a Greek ship
from delivering petroleum products to a subsidiary of the Libyan
national oil company.
The
subsidiary is
not on the UN sanctions list. But it is on the European Union list.
Malta 1, Greek ship 0.
Other
battles
are
not so clear. Inner City Press asked India's Permanent Representative
Hardeep Singh Puri for India's position on if arming the Libyan
rebels is permitted. No, he said, adding, and you can quote me.
Inner City
Press asked Russian Permanent Representitive Vitaly Churkin, is arming
the rebels permissible under Resolution 1973? No, he said, shaking his
head. He noted that it had been the Americans themselves who asked for
the arms embargo.
While
no
answer
was gleaned from US Permanent Representative Susan Rice despite a
question proffered at 10:16 am as she entered the Council and 11:10 am
when she left, it is
understood that the US dispute an account of the negotiation of
Paragraph 4 of Resolution 1973 in which Ambassador Rice said that the
“notwithstanding” phrase was needed in case the US had to go in
with weapons to save a downed pilot.
The
US, it is
understood, says that referred to only precluding an occupation and
not an intervention. But with Libyan Sanctions Committee chair Cabral
now twice issuing an interpretation that arming the rebels is not
permissible, Russia and India on the record and others with the same
view, including China Inner City Press can report, could
the US “just do it,” in the Nike phrase?
Another
member
of
the “Coalition” tells Inner City Press that while the
“notwithstanding” phrase is somehow clear, his country believes
that enforcing the no fly zone is the way to go.
If somehow
the no
fly zone weren't being enforced, perhaps giving air defense equipment
to the rebels could construed as protecting civilians. But to give
offensive weapons? Even the non-US coalition member said no.
But
again: might
the US “just do it,” in the Nike phrase?
Footnote:
for
President
Obama's visit today to the UN, or the US Mission across
First Avenue from the UN, press access has been limited to a “pool”
from the White House press corps, as well as Mission selected
journalists from the UN press corps.
There's
some grumbling, the
substance of which is that a White House based reporter might miss
some UN relevant details, including regarding which diplomats are
invited. We'll have more on this.
, 
