On
Syria,
If US Has No
Use for SC or
Waiting for UN
Report, Why in
UN?
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
September 5 --
After US
Ambassador
Samantha Power
on
Thursday said
that the UN
Security
Council is
blocked
and not
necessary for
the US to take
military
action on
Syria, the
issue of
why not at
least wait for
the UN report
on chemical
weapons was
not
answered or
allowed.
Inner
City Press
asked a range
of Security
Council
members,
beyond the one
who earlier
told Inner
City Press not
convinced,
about what had
been
shown. A
Security
Council member
who went to
the show at
the mission
told Inner
City Press it
was the same
shown "back in
the
capital."
So
why NOT
wait for the
UN report? The
US must be
paying for 25%
of
that report,
right?
But
more
fundamentally,
if the Obama
Administration
has no use for
the
Security
Council, and
now not for
the UN
Secretariat
either, what
does it say
about its
claimed
multi-lateralism.
Why even was
Samantha
Power's staged
stakeout held
inside the UN?
Or is the UN
just a stage
at this point?
One wag,
particularly in light
of the
questions,
mused
why not move
it to
Hollywood?
The
staged
stakeout
preempt the
Council
president Gary
Quinlan's
question
and answer
session on
Sudan and
South Sudan.
Inner City
Press
returned to
the Council at
2:45 seeking
information. Quinlan
graciously
indicated
that he would
like to say
something on Abyei
-
but, it seems,
not today.
That's just a
footnote now.
As
Samantha Power
came into the
Council at
3:08 pm for
the meeting on
Iran, Inner
City Press
asked about
the UN report.
She gestured
she
was in a rush
to get into
the Council.
And, she was
among the
first
speakers. And
left at 3:26
pm. She'll
spend longer
on Friday at
the
Center for
American
Progress in
Washington.
Maybe
there
she'll
answer, Why
not wait for
the UN report?
We will keep
asking, on the
record, on
this: why NOT
wait for the
UN report?
Watch this
site.
, 
