By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 18 -- In the UN Security Council just after 10 am on July 18 Jeffrey Feltman, former a US official now UN political affairs chief, read-out a four page briefing.


 
  Feltman said “the UN has at this point no independent verification of the circumstances regarding the tragic crash.” But, he added, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon “strongly condemns this apparently deliberate downing of a civilian aircraft.”

   This gave rise to a question: is Feltman or Ban Ki-moon saying the shooters-down of the MH17 plane KNEW it was a civilian aircraft?

    Feltman recited that “on July 13, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation issued a statement noting that one Russian national died and two were seriously injured when a Ukrainian army shell hit a residential house. Ukraine has rejected this claim.”

  The news, such as there was, in Feltman's briefing was that Ban has asked him to travel to Kyiv and Moscow. Is he viewed as impartial? At this point, perhaps the UN thinks, does it matter?

 Earlier on July 18 the Security issued a Press Statement; here is the text, now as sent out by the Rwandan presidency of the Council, still not (as of 10:42 am) by the UN Spokesperson's Office:

"The members of the Security Council expressed their deepest sympathies and condolences to the families of the victims, and to the people and Governments of all those killed in the crash in Eastern Ukraine on 17 July of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur.

  The members of the Security Council called for a full, thorough and independent international investigation into the incident in accordance with the international civil aviation guidelines and for appropriate accountability.

  The members of the Security Council further stressed the need for all parties to grant immediate access by investigators to the crash site to determine the cause of the incident"

  Meanwhile earlier on July 18 tthe Syrian Coalition rebels put out a press release that they should be given "advanced weapons."

   Here is what the Syrian Coalition, until recently headed by Saudi backed Ahmad Al Jarba and now headed by Saudi backed Hadi Al Bahra, said:

Also on Syria, on July 14 when the UN Security Council adopted a resolution on humanitarian access to Syria, its Operative Paragraph 11 said the Council “affirms that it will take further measures in the event of non-compliance with this resolution or resolution 2139 (2014) by any Syrian party.”

 Afterward, Australia's Permanent Representative to the UN Gary Quilan emphasized at the media stakeout that resolutions are binding, that the Council had affirmed that it will take measures if not complied with by the parties. Video here, from Minute 2:10

  Inner City Press sought to ask a question about a statement inside the Security Council by Russia's Vitaly Churkin, and Quinlan agreed to take the question. Inner City Press asked Quinlan to respond to Churkin saying that the resolution “doesn't plan for automatism” in sanctions or the use of force, that any such steps would require the specific consideration of the Security Council and “convincing evidence.” Video of Churkin's statement here, from Minute 25.

  Quinlan replied that what Churkin said was correct, then said that while there would have to be a further decision by the Security Council about what measures to take, the decision that some measures would be taken has already been made. Video here from Minute 18.

Readers can draw their own conclusion how meaningful it is to claim that a decision to definitely act has been made, if another vote including veto powers is required.

Footnote: Asking this question was not easy. The first question was given to Voice of America; the second taken by the whip of the UN Correspondents Association's president, sometimes writing for the Huffington Post. She then tried to keep the UN Television boom microphone operator for giving the microphone to Inner City Press -- even as Ambassador Quinlan said, “Matthew... what Ambassador Churkin said was correct.”

  This UNCA, becoming the UN's Censorship Alliance, seems to believe it can block questions (as well as having tried to get Inner City Press thrown out after its reporting about Sri Lanka, here). The new (and resulting) Free UN Coalition for Access opposes this.

  To come full circle, acknowledging deft diplomacy by Australia and its co-leads Jordan and Luxembourg on this resolution, it is sometimes hard not to note the contradiction of Australia returning asylum seekers from Sri Lanka after only “reviewing” their claims on a ship. Inner City Press has asked Ambassador Quinlan about this, and we hope to have a story on the topic soon. Watch this site.