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

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 2 -- As the Obama administration starts public and closed-door lobbying of Congress about chemical weapons in Syria, in the UK Nick Clegg has dismissed the idea of a second vote there. Defense Minister Hammond said much would have to change to even call a second vote.

   How about letting the US use UK facilities on Cyprus to take action on Syria? Number 10, Inner City Press learned and tweeted Sunday, has said there are no plans to offer assistance if allies like the US take action. It would apparently be different with regard to US bases on UK soil.

   Whether or not the US would really need to use facilities in Cyprus, some in the US see it as a slap in the face. Could that dramatic "Death Notice for the Special Relationship" contain more truth than initially thought?

  Meanwhile, which Secretary General gets the Syria chemical weapons evidence now being talked about so publicly -- the UN's or NATO's?

  On September 1 Inner City Press asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Martin Nesirky if the hair and blood sample evidence US Secretary of State John Kerry was talking about had been shared with the UN.

Nesirky said he didn't know.

  On September 2 another Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen of NATO announced that "I have been presented with concrete information and, without going into details, I can tell you that personally I am convinced, not only that a chemical attack has taken place, but I am also convinced that the Syrian regime is responsible."

  Putting aside for the moment whether is it NATO's Rasmussen's role to be publicly ruling on evidence "without going into detail," it is striking that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon either didn't get the US' evidence, or wouldn't disclose that he had. (Previously, Nesirky did confirm to Inner City Press the receipt of other evidence.)

  When Ban Ki-moon signed a Memorandum of Understanding with NATO, there were questions from Russia and others if this was appropriate. (Then, NATO and not the UN was given a role in a plan for Libya that Inner City Press exclusively put online.)

 The UN declined to make public or even summarize its MOU with NATO.  It and UN agreements like it should be made public; the new Free UN Coalition for Access @FUNCA_info is and will be pushing for this.

  Here's a question: under the MOU, shouldn't Rasmussen of NATO share with Ban Ki-moon this supposedly convincing evidence -- especially if the UN won't or can't say if the US has?

  Returning to NATO itself, why would Rasmussen interject himself as an individuals into this question of evidence, pending now before the US Congress and, at least in UN-world, on hold while the samples collected in Syria are running through European labs, with two Syrian government representatives in toe? Where is the accountability for Rasmussen? Watch this site.