UNdisclosed
Location,
March 20 --
Does the UN
have a track
record of
objective
and impartial
investigations
and reports?
The question
was raised by
at least four
speakers
Wednesday at
the UN
Security
Council
stakeout.
Syria's
Permanent
Representative
Bashar Ja'afari
in the morning
said UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon had
been asked
to send a
specialized,
independent
and neutral
technical
mission to
look into the
use of
chemical
weapons, he
said by the
opposition.
After
a Security
Council
session on the
Central
African
Republic,
which few
covered,
March's
Council
president
Vitaly Churkin
of Russia came
out
and described
France
counter-asking
in
consultations
for an
investigation
of “rumors” of
chemical
weapons use by
the
government.
He
said this
might just be
a way to slow
things down,
or to widen
the
scope as was
done in Iraq
where, he
noted, nothing
was found.
France's
Permanent
Representative
Gerard Araud
had been
waiting to the
side of
the stakeout.
When he came
to the
microphone --
the same
microphone
that his
countryman Herve Ladsous had seized to avoid
Inner City
Press' questions
about the 126
rapes in
Minova by his
partners in
the
Congolese Army
-- Araud said,
“Now you will
hear the side
of
truth.”
Araud
spoke in
French,
leaving UK
Deputy
Permanent
Representative
Philip
Parham to
deliver the
message in
English.
But
when are the
UN's reports
impartial?
What ever
happened to
the report
into the
disputes
massacre in
Houla in
Syria?
Why
didn't Ban
Ki-moon
stand behind
his own report
on killings in
Sri Lanka --
then went and
accepted and
praised a
“whitewash”
report handed
to him by
Japan's
Permanent
Representative
Nishida,
without making
the report
public?
UN
reports are
changed, like
a recent one
on Eritrea; UN
reports get
redacted, like
the Petrie
Report on Sri
Lanka. So what
kind of report
can be
expected about
chemical
weapons in
Syria? We can
only imagine.
Watch this
site.
, 
