To
Replace
Guterres at
UNHCR, Danish
Irony or Philippo
Grandi,
Waiting for
More
By Matthew
Russell Lee,
Exclusive
series
UNITED
NATIONS,
September 8 --
While UN
Spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric
declined to
confirm to
Inner City
Press on
September 8
that Denmark
has nominate
its former
Prime Minister
Helle
Thorning-Schmidt
to replace
Antonio
Guterres as UN
High
Commissioner
for Refugees,
the country
has said it,
even as it
tries to
dissuade
refugees from
coming. (Inner
City Press
asked the UN
Spokesman
about that
irony as well,
transcript
below.)
There
is another
nominee Inner
City Press
will now
report,
Filippo Grandi
of Italy, from
2010 to 2014
the head of
UNRWA. Sources
complain to
Inner City
Press that
Thorning-Schmidt
should be
disqualified
by UNHCR's
criticism of
Denmark during
her tenure,
and the Grandi
is among other
things not
"high profile"
enough.
(The same can
be said of
some of those
asking their
countries'
support to run
to replace Ban
Ki-moon as
Secretary
General, but
more on this
anon.)
The US
always owned,
and recently
re-upped for,
the UNHCR
Deputy spoke.
So why not a
more migrant-
or
refugee-side
nominee? We
hope to have
more on this.
Here's what
Inner City
Press asked
the UN on
September 8:
Inner City
Press: I want
to ask you, it
is reported
that the
former Prime
Minister of
Denmark, Ms.
Thorning-Schmidt,
has been
raised to the
Secretary-General
by the current
Government as
a candidate to
replace Mr.
Guterres.
Can you
confirm that?
Spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric:
No, I mean,
I've seen the
reports.
There is a
mechanism
through which
the next UNHCR
Head will be
selected.
Once there is
a new Head to
be named, one
will be named.
Inner City
Press: because
some people
are saying
it's ironic
given
Denmark's
position on
accepting
refugees.
Spokesman:
People see
irony in a lot
of the places.
Inner City
Press:
Let's see if
we can
generate
irony.
Does the
Secretary-General
have any view
of Arab Gulf
States who are
quite involved
in the
conflict in
Syria in terms
of having
supported
rebel groups
etcetera, the
number of
refugees
they've
taken?
What has… is
he calling
them on the
phone?
Spokesman: I
would —
gentlemen… you
know, my
podium is your
podium, but it
comes with
certain risks
and irony. I
think I would
encourage you
to read what
the
Secretary-General's
Special
Representative
on migration,
Mr.
Sutherland,
said today in
Geneva, where
he talked
about
responsibility,
about global
responsibility
towards
refugees, and
that that
responsibility
doesn't mean
just giving
financial
support.
It means
taking people
in. And
that
responsibility
needs to be
shared
While many
have noted
that Saudi
Arabia and
Gulf Arab
countries that
have poured
funding into
the war in
Syria have not
taken a single
refugee, when
UN Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon made a
round of calls
on September 6
to (unnamed)
leaders, these
were only in
Europe.
As on
sexual abuse
by
peacekeepers,
"name and
shame" is the
opposite of
Ban Ki-moon's
approach. He
didn't name
the European
leaders he
spoke to, and
didn't call
Saudi Arabia,
the UAE, Qatar
or Bahrain,
much less the
US, Canada or
Australia.
Former UK
foreign
secretary
David Miliband
appeared on
both ABC This
Week and NBC
Meet the Press
on September
6, talking
about refugee
flows from
Syria only in
term of Assad,
with no
mention at all
of ISIS. Even
when Miliband
cited Aylan
Kurdi fleeing
from Kobane,
he blamed it
on barrel
bombs.
Looking
back to
Miliband's
time as UK
foreign
secretary, one
couldn't help
noting for
example that
if he'd put
even deployed
even half of
this advocacy
during the
slaughter in
Sri Lanka in
2009, lives
might have
been
saved.
The argument
that he, and
Kouchner for
example, were
constrained on
Sri Lanka due
to terrorism
is put to the
lie but
Miliband's
airbrushing of
ISIS now.
ABC
This Week did
not asked
Miliband about
Gulf states
taken no
refugees, nor
about the UK's
policies under
David "Swarm"
Cameron;
neither US
Sunday show
asked about
Corbyn and the
UK Labor race.
Last
month on the
UN Security
Council's
Syria
Presidential
Statement,
adopted
“unanimously”
with Venezuela
disassociating
itself as
Lebanon when
it was a
member of the
Council did on
Syria, an
issue still
unaddressed is
the exclusion
of Elected Ten
members from
negotiations.
Inner
City Press
asked
Nigeria's
Ambassador Joy
Ogwu about
this on August
14, if the
Elected Ten
members of the
Security
Council
should
be brought
into
negotiating
documents
earlier, Video
here, from
2:43.
Ambassador
Ogwu said, on
UNTV camera,
“That’s an
aspiration of
the ten
elected
members. There
should be more
participation.”
In this
case, until
Venezuela
objected, they
were given a
mere 18 hours.
What is the
point of
running for a
seat on the
Security
Council if
rubber
stamping is
all that's
expected of
you?
This
paragraph, and
its compliance
or
non-compliance
with Syria's
constitution,
was and is at
issue:
“10. The
Security
Council
demands that
all parties
work urgently
towards the
comprehensive
implementation
of the Geneva
Communiqué,
aimed at
bringing an
end to all
violence,
violations and
abuses of
human rights
and violations
of
international
humanitarian
law and the
launching of a
Syrian-led
political
process
leading to a
political
transition
that meets the
legitimate
aspirations of
the Syrian
people and
enables them
independently
and
democratically
to determine
their future,
including
through the
establishment
of an
inclusive
transitional
governing body
with full
executive
powers, which
shall be
formed on the
basis of
mutual consent
while ensuring
continuity of
governmental
institutions.”
Disassociation,
allowing it to
be adopted as
unanimous
while a member
can disavow
it, may solve
a problem for
this
particular
text. But
other ongoing
dysfunctions
of the
Security
Council
continue.
Watch this
site.
Back on August
7 the Security
Council on
August 7 a
resolution to
establish a
so-called
accountability
mechanism for
the use of
chemical
weapons in
Syria. Outside
the Council
before and
after the
unanimous vote
on August 7,
Russia's
ambassador
Vitaly Churkin
referred to a
Presidential
Statement he
said may be
adopted early
next week, to
support UN
envoy Staffan
de Mistura's
work.
Inside
the Council
after the
vote, Syria's
Ambassador
Bashar
Ja'afari began
his speech
with a
reference to
the 70th
anniversary of
the US
dropping the
atomic bomb on
Hiroshima. He
went to to say
the UN never
investigated
the use of
chemical
weapons, by
rebels he
said, in Khan
al Asal.
In its
resolution the
Security
Council
“recalls that
in its
resolution
2118, it
decided that
the Syrian
Arab Republic
and all
parties in
Syria shall
cooperate
fully with the
OPCW and the
United
Nations.” It
seems doubtful
that ISIS will
cooperate.
Churkin in his
post-vote
speech inside
the Council
said that “the
existing
mechanics of
the UN and
OPCW do not
have a mandate
to identify
those
participating
in such acts.
Moreover, we
became
witnesses of
the many
politicized
statements in
this regard,
which were
clearly meant
to be
propaganda. It
was necessary
to eliminate
this gap,
which was done
with the
adoption of
today’s
resolution...
Any efforts in
the Syrian
area must be
in line with
assisting a
search for a
political
solution to
the conflict.”
Inside the
Council, US
Samantha Power
delivered this
speech. At the
stakeout,
questions were
given to
Reuters, Al
Hurra (really,
France 24, by
mistake), and
Voice of
America.
(We'll have a
separate piece
on Power's
response to
the Press'
final question
about Burundi.
For now,
here's previous
stakeout, sit-down.
After the
meeting ended,
on the steps
leading out
from the UNSC
stakeout,
Churkin said
“I hope it
will translate
into our
continued
joint work on
the political
front. We are
working, I
think very
well, on a
PRST
[Presidential
Statement] in
support of
Staffan de
Mistura’s
efforts. I
hope it will
be adopted...”
More on InnerCityPro.com. Follow @innercitypressFollow @FUNCA_info
, 
