On
Syria Chemical
Weapons, UK
Calls Military
Action
Hypothetical,
US To Decide
in 48 Hours
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon here,
photos
UNITED
NATIONS, April 9
– Nine of
the UN
Security
Council's 15
members called
for a meeting
about "reports
of chemical
weapons attack
in Syria;"
Russia called
for a meeting
on
international
peace and
security. As the
meeting(s) began, at
the Council
stakeout the
UK's Karen
Pierce was
asked if her
country supports
military
action. She
called it
hypothetical,
then pointedly
quoted Lenin.
Sweden's
Olof Skoog, by
contrast,
said Sweden generally
does not favor
military
action. He has
proposed
elements for
discussion in
a closed door
consultation after
the open
meeting. In
Washington,
President
Trump's
spokesperson
Sarah Huckabee
Sanders
repeated that
"currently"
the US is not
conducting air
strikes on
Syria. We'll
have more on that,
and on the air
strikes on Syria's
T4 base near
Homs, attributed
to Israel (and to
the advice
of Mattis).
In Washington, US
President Trump said at
his cabinet
meeting “It
was atrocious.
It was
horrible" and
that his
administration
will be
making a
decision on
Syria in the
next 24-48
hours. “This
is about
humanity and
it can’t be
allowed to
happen. If
it’s the
Russians, if
it’s Syria, if
it’s Iran, if
it’s all of
them together,
we’ll figure
it out.” (On meeting
North Korea's
Kim Jong Un, Trump
said meeting
will be in May OR early
June.)
In the UN
Security
Council
the
nine, this
time unlike on
March 19,
include Cote d'Ivoire.
The
UK On April
8 tweeted,
"UK, France,
US, Poland,
Netherlands,
Sweden,
Kuwait, Peru
and Cote
d’Ivore have
called an
emergency
meeting of
#UNSC to
discuss
reports of
chemical
weapons attack
in #Syria.
Meeting
expected on
Monday." Back
on March
19, these
other countries
did not have
Cote d'Ivoire
with them on
Syria,
resulting in a
failed vote to
hold a UN
Security
Council
meeting on
Syria. (An Arria
formula
meeting was
quickly
convened down
the hall,
where Inner
City Press
due to UN
censorship for
corruption can only
go, if at all,
with UN minder).
This time,
they got France-aligned
Cote d'Ivoire
on-side. Back on
March
19, UN
High
Commissioner
for Human
Rights Prince
Zeid
was reportedly
slated
to brief the Council
at 3 pm. Zeid on
his way into
the Council
told the press
his Office has
not had access
to Syria for
some years but
he they
"speak to people."
Now on March
23, a snow day
in New York,
at 6:20 pm
after nearly
all media had
left the UN
(Inner City
Press stayed
to the end of
the Council
meeting on
Western Sahara),
UN Secretary
General
Antonio Guterres
has issued and
seemingly
tried to bury, in
snow, this statement:
"The
Secretary-General
met on 20
March with the
Director
General of the
Organization
for the
Prohibition of
Chemical
Weapons (OPCW)
and reiterated
his support
for its work
in
investigating
allegations of
the use of
chemical
weapons in
Syria, and his
confidence in
the integrity
and expertise
of the OPCW,
its
Fact-Finding
Mission and
its
conclusions. The
Secretary-General
is alarmed at
the persistent
allegations of
the use of
chemical
weapons in the
Syrian Arab
Republic. The
use of
chemical
weapons, under
any
circumstances,
is
unjustifiable
and abhorrent.
Equally
unjustifiable
is a lack of
response to
such use, if
and when it
occurs.
Impunity
cannot prevail
with respect
to such
serious crimes. The
Secretary-General
reiterates his
call for the
Security
Council to
demonstrate
unity and
resolve on
this matter."
A call to an
empty building.
Earlier on
March 21,
Inner City Press
asked
Guterres'
spokesman Stephane
Dujarric, UN
transcript
here:
Inner City
Press: in
the Security
Council this
morning,
Ambassador
Nebenzia of
Russia, at the
end of the
Libya meeting,
said, I'm
coming forth
with a
documentary,
not that he
made it, but
that he did
present it,
about eastern
Ghouta.
And I just
wanted to
know, is it
something… has
the
Secretary-General
seen it?
Do you have
any view of…
Spokesman:
I… I don't
know.
I'll have to
check." Hours
later,
nothing.
Inside
the
Council on
March 21,
a procedural vote
was called on
whether to
hold the
briefing, and
it failed: Yes
votes were USA,
France, UK,
Sweden,
Poland, Peru,
Netherlands
and
Kuwait. Against
were China,
Russia,
Bolivia and Kazakhstan. And
the
determinative
abstentions:
Cote d'Ivoire,
Equatorial
Guinea,
Ethiopia.
After the
vote, Sweden's
Permanent
Representative
Olof B. Skoog said
there might be
another format
- not a formal
Council
meeting - as
early as today. And
soon he and
his counterparts
from France
and the UK and
the US Deputy
PR came back
and announced
an "Arria
formula"
meeting in 20
minutes in the
ECOSOC Chamber
- which Inner
City Press,
UNlike others,
can only reach
with a minder,
due to UN
censorship. Still,
to the end
when Inner
City Press had
to shout out a
question from
behind a barrier
to Zeid, video
here,
story here,
Inner City Press covered and
summarized it
here: US:
Human rights
do have a
place in the
Security
Council. It is
absolutely
appropriate
for the
Council to
focus on human
rights.
Especially the
human rights
of children.
Syria needs to
allow
“unfettered
humanitarian
access,” The
Assad regime’s
atrocities in
Syria have
caused
unparalleled
suffering.
Crimes against
humanity and
war crimes in
Syria. Certain
member states
don’t want
these facts to
come out. We
reiterate our
call to an
immediate end
to egregious
human rights
abuses.
Assad and his
allies have
been the
primary
perpetrators
of killing in
this war. We
repeat our
call to a
political
solution. As
today’s
briefing has
shown, the
situation in
Syria is an
example of how
violation of
human rights
can lead to a
grave threat
to
international
peace and
security. The
international
community
cannot be
silent when
innocent lives
are at stake.
Sweden: The
fact that we
are meeting in
this room does
not prejudge
the format and
location of
future
briefings.
Russia: we
consider this
event as a
violation of
the rules of
procedure. It
was organized
violating
rules, when
delegations
didn’t have
enough time to
prepare. We
deemed it to
be yet another
demonstration
of a lack of
respect by
members of the
SC, both to
the SC itself
and to the
situation. The
interest in
having such a
show was so
great that
different
premises were
found and
interpreters
were found. A
large audience
was not found.
This confirms
the very value
of this
meeting.We are
not going to
go into
detail. We
explained our
reasons in the
other room.
First of all
we deem it to
be very
controversial
to have the
outdated
assertion that
the reason for
the conflict
in Syria was
deprivation of
rights of
people by the
administration
in Damascus…it
is clear that
it is nothing
other than the
western
countries
warping a
historical
reality. They
want to wipe
from one’s
memories their
own
geopolitical
experiments in
the middle
east and north
Africa…The
west has
already
recognized
mistakes that
were made in
Iraq and
Libya…
Kuwait: The
situation in
Syria now
encourages
impunity.
Kuwait
condemns all
hostilities
and calls for
ending them.
All
responsible
for killing
civilians…must
be held
accountable….for
crimes which
amount to war
crimees The
latest
developments:
we have
listened last
week to
briefings
China:
Recently the
situation in
Syria remains
complex and
sensitive. We
need to
realize the
ceasefire and
increase
humanitarian
aid. The UN
should be the
main mediator;
we need to
support
Staffan de
Mistura.
Respect the
territorial
integrity of
Syria. The
main
responsibility
of the
Security
Council is the
maintenance of
international
peace and
security –
china is
opposed to
discussing
specific human
rights issues.
We had less
than 30
minutes to
prepare for
this
conference. In
the spirit of
cooperation we
did
participate.
Kazakhstan: We
don’t believe
in a military
solution. We
need a serious
compromise
form all
sides. We’re
deeply
committed to
seeing an end
to the
suffering of 7
long years.
Zeid at the
end of the
meeting: To
say the SC
should not
deal with
human rights
issues
requires
further
reflection. A
colleague once
said to me –
the severe
human rights
violations of
today are the
conflicts of
tomorrow.
Geneva is the
center of
gravity for
the
examination of
human rights.
As conditions
get worse and
worse, it is
necessary that
the Security
Council be
apprised. For
the Security
Council not to
deal with
human rights
would be like
saying that a
hospital
shouldn’t deal
with
patients."
Earlier
the
US State
Department
issued a
statement on
Afrin,
beginning "The
United States
is deeply
concerned over
reports from
Afrin City
over the last
48
hours.
It appears the
majority of
the population
of the city,
which is
predominantly
Kurdish,
evacuated
under threat
of attack from
Turkish
military
forces and
Turkish backed
opposition
forces.
This adds to
the already
concerning
humanitarian
situation in
the area, with
United Nations
agencies
reporting a
displaced
population in
or from Afrin
district in
the hundreds
of thousands,
who now
require
immediate
shelter and
other
assistance to
meet basic
needs.
We are also
concerned over
reports of
looting inside
the city of
Afrin.
We have
repeatedly
expressed our
serious
concern to
Turkish
officials
regarding the
situation in
Afrin." Back
on March 12 US
Ambassador
Nikki Haley told
the Council,
We have
drafted a new
ceasefire
resolution
that provides
no room for
evasion...It
will take
effect
immediately
upon adoption
by the
Council.
Inner
City Press is
publishing the
draft here.
Back on March 7
before
the UN
Security
Council's
closed door
meeting about
Syria,
France Ambassador
Francois
Delattre stopped and
spoke with or
at the press, in
French and
English. He
went on so
long that his
co-requested
Jonathan Allen
of the UK, who
was on-desk,
went in without
speaking to
the press.
Sweden did;
its co-penholder
Kuwait did
not. And when
three hours
later it was
over, the
Dutch president
of the Council
for March only
read a short
statement and
took no
questions.
Periscope
video here.
As fast
transcribed by
Inner
City Press:
"Members of
the Security
Council
expressed
concern about
humanitarian
situation. The
cessation of
hostilities
was discussed.
The
implementation
of Resolution
2401 was
discussed.
Next Monday
the Security
Council will
be briefed by
the Secretary
General on the
implementation
of resolution
2401." This is
the Secretary
General who
only the day
before changed
his statement.
Antonio
Guterres on
March 6 issued
a "revised" statement
on Eastern
Ghouta in Syria. He
added the word
"reportedly"
on the death
count. At the
demand
of whom? Inner
City Press
asked, at the
March 7
noon briefing,
and was told
that the UN
fixed it
itself. And
why didn't he
know minutes
later? Where
is the
leadership,
while Guterres
and his
Global
Communications
team devote
time and
resources to
restricting
and censoring
the critical
Press? The
first version,
at 6:27 pm:
"The
Secretary-General
is concerned
about
continued
reports of
attacks
throughout the
besieged
enclave of
eastern
Ghouta, which
claimed the
lives of more
than 100
people on 5
March, as well
as reports of
shelling of
the city of
Damascus." The
second revised
version
at 6:42 pm,
with the new
word
"reportedly"
added in: "The
Secretary-General
is concerned
about
continued
reports of
attacks
throughout the
besieged
enclave of
eastern
Ghouta, which
reportedly
claimed the
lives of more
than 100
people on 5
March, as well
as reports of
shelling of
the city of
Damascus." We'll
have more on
this. Amid
talk that a
call for a
ceasefire in
Syria was
unrealistic,
Inner City Press on
February 22
alone staked out an evening
meeting of the
UN Security
Council's
Elected Ten
members,
exclusive
video here. On
February 24 the changed
draft was
approved 15-0.
More than a
week later on
Sunday
March 4 the UN
announced
that it "and
partners plan
to deliver
humanitarian
assistance to
Duma in
eastern Ghouta
tomorrow, 5
March 2018.
Tomorrow’s
convoy will
consist of 46
truckloads of
health and
nutrition
supplies,
along with
food for
27,500 people
in need and
will be led by
Ali AlZa’tari,
the UN
Resident /
Humanitarian
Coordinator. The
UN and
partners have
received
approval to
deliver
assistance for
70,000 people
in need in
Duma. The UN
has received
assurances
that the
remaining
supplies for
all approved
people in need
will be
delivered on 8
March 2018. The
only UN
delivery of
assistance to
eastern Ghouta
in 2018 was on
14 February
when a convoy
with
assistance for
7,200 people
reached
Nashabiyah."
Watch this
site. Back
on February 24,
as Syria's
Ambassador
Ja'afari began as
final speaker,
US Ambassador
Nikki Haley
and then France's
Francois
Delattre
walked out.
But the UK's
speaker, Stephen
Hickey,
stayed to the
end. Inner
City Press
twice asked
him at the
stakeout
afterward to
explain
this, but he demurred.
Meanwhile, when
Inner City
Press asked Russia's
Nebenzia
what this
meant for
Council diplomacy,
he replied to
ask them, but
I think you
know. But why
the differences
among the
so-called P3?
Here's from
Operative
Paragraph 1:"Demands
that all
parties cease
hostilities
without delay
and engage
immediately to
ensure full
and
comprehensive
implementation
of this demand
by all
parties, for a
durable
humanitarian
pause for at
least 30
consecutive
days
throughout
Syria" - but
does "without
delay" mean
the same thing
as "immediately"?
If so, why not use
the word
immediately?
And
does it full
apply to Afrin? And
to as Ja'afari
put it, to the
areas
controlled by
the US
and to the
Golan? They
call this
intentional
ambiguity.
Full
version put
out by the UN
attached here
on Patreon; Alamy
speech photos
here.
We'll
have more on
this.
The
UN Department
of Public
Information's
UNTV is live
during
meetings of
the Security
Council, like
on Saturday
February 24,
and moves
in with a boom
microphone
to record
Ambassadors speaking
to reporters.
It happened on
February 23
with the UK
and Jordan,
and February
24 with the
Netherlands.
But during the
consultations
with Syria's
Ambassador Bashar
Ja'afari
emerged and
was speaking
to a half
dozen
reporters,
fielding
questions in
English and
Arabic, UNTV
stopped
filming. Why?
And why
does UN DPI,
under Alison Smale, not
answer any
questions, but
only censor
and spin?
Inner City
Press has
requested the
video
before and
after cut from
DPI.
Back on
February 22, Inner
City Press
asked Sweden's
Olof Skoog if
the meeting
was
productive. He
said the E10
are always
helpful, the
"extremes"
are
represented on the
E10. He
indicted that
a new
draft would
be put out on
February 23.
And on
February 23,
with Inner
City Press
roped in to
cover a
meeting in
ECOSOC, with UN minder
four feet
away, Skoog
rushed by at 10
am and into
the Council.
Russia's
Nebenzia
followed five
minutes later,
stopping to
ask Inner City
Press, This is
a new
stakeout? Only
Inner City
Press is caged
in, for two
years for its
coverage. But no vote
at 11, then
none at noon.
At 2:30, there was
an "E10
coordination
meeting."
An
afternoon of
closed door
consultations,
with non
Council
members
waiting in the
chamber, continued
past five.
Then Skoog
said he is
disappointed but
there will be
a vote
Saturday at
noon, either
way. Kuwait's
Mansour
Al-Otaibi, the
president of the
Council for
February, said
the issue is
"OP1" -
Operative
Paragraph 1 -
but
reiterated,
vote Saturday
at noon. At that
time, US
Ambassador
Nikki Haley
walked into the
Council
and told the
Press, "Today we're
going to see
if Russia has
a conscience."
Video here, and tweeted
Vine. Full
Periscope here, including
Syrian
Ambassador
Ja'afari
asking if Al
Jazeera is
chairing the day's
Security
Council
session.
Inner
City Press on
February 22
alone staked out an evening
meeting of the
UN Security
Council's
Elected Ten
members,
exclusive
video here.
Inner City
Press asked
Sweden's Olof Skoog if
the meeting
was
productive. He
said the E10
are always
helpful, the
"extremes"
are
represented on the
E10. He
indicted that
a new
draft will be
put out on
February 23.
Inner
City Press
also asked
Bolivia and
Kazakhstan (which
thanked it for
asking), and
Netherlands
which said too
early to
comment. Back
on
February 14 published
the full text
of the UN
Security
Council's then
draft
resolution making
that call and
more, here
on Patreon.
Some
highlights from the
Operative
Paragraphs
below. On
February 21,
Russia called
a briefing
by the UN's Mark
Lowcock from
Geneva on
12 noon on
February 22
(at the
February 21 UN
noon
briefing, no
media other
than Inner
City Press
asked any
questions, so
it seems it
doesn't
matter); but when
will the vote
come? The February
22 noon meeting
ended with
Kuwait urging
Syria's
Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari
to limit
himself to
five minutes,
and Ja'afari
and Russia's
Nebenzia objecting.
Kuwait replied it was
relying on
"Note 507."
Inner City
Press asked
Nebenzia about
it and he said
it was
impolite, when
the meeting
was all about
Syria. Russia
has proposed
changes,
including a
condemnation of
shelling from
Eastern Ghouta
of
residential
areas in
Damascus City,
including
diplomatic
premises.
Sweden's Olof
Skoog says it's leaning
toward
February 23.
On the morning February
22 outside a
meeting about
Palestine,
correspondents
questions were
nearly
entirely about
Syria, with Sweden's
Olof Skoog
rating the difficulty
of the
negotiations
as 11 on a
scale of 1 to
10. (The UN
Department of
Public
Information, apparently
distracted by
and focused on
censoring the
Press and serving
certain member
states, didn't
notice there
would be press
interest in
the Palestine
meeting,
Periscope
video here).
France's
Francois
Delattre, who
has yet to
comment on
refoulements
to Cameroon,
said he is
deeply
concerned.
Now this from
the UK:
"Foreign
Secretary
Boris Johnson
has called for
an end to the
violence in
Eastern Ghouta
and emphasised
the UK's
leading role
in peace
negotiations. The
Foreign
Secretary
said: 'I
am utterly
appalled by
the brutal and
merciless
violence that
the Asad
regime is
inflicting on
the people of
Eastern
Ghouta. They
are enduring a
hell entirely
of the making
of Asad and
his enablers. Today
in the UN
Security
Council, the
UK will press
Russia to
support a
ceasefire to
allow for the
urgent
delivery of
humanitarian
aid.
Protecting
Syrians and
getting them
the lifesaving
aid they need
must be
paramount. The
UK is
committed to
working
closely with
all
international
partners to
secure an end
to the
terrible
bloodshed and
make progress
towards a
political
solution,
which is the
only way to
bring peace to
the people of
Syria.'" The
White House on
February 21
said, "We
fully support
the call from
the United
Nations for a
cessation of
violence to
allow for the
unfettered
delivery of
humanitarian
supplies and
urgently
needed medical
evacuations of
civilians. The
United States
also calls
upon Russia
and its
partners to
live up to
their
obligations
with respect
to
de-escalation
zones,
particularly
those in
Eastern
Ghouta, and to
end further
attacks
against
civilians in
Syria. Assad
and his
deplorable
regime must
stop
committing
additional
atrocities and
must not be
further
abetted by
backers in
Moscow and
Tehran. The
regime’s
horrific
attacks
demonstrate an
urgent need
for the UN-led
Geneva process
to advance
toward a
political
resolution for
Syria that
respects the
will of the
Syrian people,
in accordance
with the UN
Security
Council
Resolution
2254." Earlier US
Ambassador Nikki Haley
said, "The
United Nations
Security
Council is
considering a
resolution
that would
establish a
one-month
ceasefire to
allow for the
delivery of
critical
supplies and
evacuation of
the wounded. It’s
time to take
immediate
action in the
hopes of
saving the
lives of the
men, women,
and children
who are under
attack by the
barbaric Assad
regime. It is
simply
preposterous
to claim that
these attacks
on civilians
have anything
to do with
fighting
terrorism. The
Security
Council must
move to adopt
a resolution
establishing a
ceasefire. The
United States
will support
it, as should
every member
of the
Council." Showdown.
From OPs: the
Security
Council "Decides
that all
parties to the
Syrian
conflict shall
immediately
abide by a
humanitarian
pause and
cessation of
violence
throughout
Syria, for a
period of 30
consecutive
days to begin
at [00:00 h,
(Damascus
time) on XX
February
2018], [72
hours after
the adoption
of this
resolution],
to enable the
delivery of
humanitarian
aid and
services and
medical
evacuations of
the critically
sick and
wounded;
Further
decides that,
48 hours after
the start of
the
humanitarian
pause, all
parties to the
Syrian
conflict shall
allow and
facilitate
weekly United
Nations and
Syrian Arab
Red Crescent
convoys to all
requested
areas based on
United
Nations’
assessments of
need, in order
to allow safe,
unimpeded and
sustained
deliveries of
humanitarian
aid, including
medical and
surgical
supplies, to
the millions
of people in
need in all
parts of
Syria, in
particular to
those 5.6
million people
in 1,244
communities in
acute need,
including the
2.9 million
people in
hard-to-reach
and besieged
locations; Decides
moreover that
all parties to
the conflict
shall allow
and facilitate
unconditional
medical
evacuations by
the United
Nations and
its
implementing
partners,
based on
medical need
and urgency,
and requests
the United
Nations and
their
implementing
partners to
start
undertaking
such medical
evacuations 48
hours after
the start of
the
humanitarian
pause... Endorses
the five
measures
identified by
the Emergency
Relief
Coordinator on
11 January
2018 during
his mission to
Syria, and
calls on all
parties to
facilitate the
implementation
of these five
measures and
others as
specified in
relevant
Security
Council
resolutions,
to ensure
principled,
sustained and
improved
humanitarian
assistance to
Syria in 2018; Calls
upon all
parties to
immediately
lift the
sieges of
populated
areas,
including in
Eastern
Ghouta,
Yarmouk, Foua
and Kefraya,
and demands
that all
parties allow
the delivery
of
humanitarian
assistance,
including
medical
assistance,
cease
depriving
civilians of
food and
medicine
indispensable
to their
survival, and
enable the
rapid, safe
and unhindered
evacuation of
all civilians
who wish to
leave, and
underscores
the need for
the parties to
agree on
humanitarian
pauses, days
of
tranquility,
localized
ceasefires and
truces to
allow
humanitarian
agencies safe
and unhindered
access to all
affected areas
in Syria,
recalling that
starvation of
civilians as a
method of
combat is
prohibited by
international
humanitarian
law [2139 with
updated
locations];
OP 8. Requests
the
Secretary-General
to report to
the Council on
the
implementation
of this
resolution,
and on
compliance by
all relevant
parties in
Syria within
15 days of
adoption of
this
resolution and
thereafter..."
We'll have
more on this.
On
February 9,
after Inner
City Press
exclusively
reported that
the UN's top
Middle East
post is slated
for Susanne
Rose with only
"basic
Arabic,"
Guterres'
deputy
spokesman
Farhan Haq
refused Inner
City Press'
questions
about the
selection
process.
The
top UN
Political
Affairs
position
belongs to the
United States.
With
Obama-nominee
Jeffrey
Feltman set to
leave by March
31, now
Feltman has
used his final
days to name
an ally or
protege to
head the
Middle East
and Western
Asia Division,
to continue
his views even
under his
replacement.
It is Susanne
Rose, who
worked for
Feltman in
Beirut. But
she speaks
only "basic
Arabic." There
is grumbling
in DPA - and
elsewhere.
Here's
from the
letter, by
Feltman's
deputy
Miroslav Jenca
since Feltman
is in South
Korea with
Guterres, or
to create the
illusion of
recusal: Rose
was "Political
and Economic
Counselor in
Beirut, Middle
East Officer
in Rome (where
she spent the
first year as
an exchange
diplomat at
the NATO
office of the
Italian
Ministry of
Foreign
Affairs),
Staff
Assistant to
the Assistant
Secretary for
Economic
Affairs, and
Economic
Officer in
Trinidad and
Tobago....
Susanne speaks
French,
Italian,
Spanish,
German, and
basic Arabic.
She was born
in Berkeley,
California,
and has a
14-month year
old Havanese
dog named
Tartufo."
Senior
staff and
diplomats have
been asking
Inner City
Press which
American will
replace
Feltman. On
January 25,
amid
complaints of
Guterres'
silence and
long weekends
away, a name
emerged
leaving some
shaking their
heads: Dina
Powell. "She's
perfect," one
said of
Trump's deputy
national
security
adviser for
strategy of
whom
spokesperson
Sarah Huckabee
Sanders said
she's
"returning
home to New
York. She’s
expected to
continue
working with
the
administration
on Middle East
policy issues
from outside
the White
House." Why
not from the
UN? (Some now
tell Inner
City Press she
has declined
the post.)
Inner City
Press notes
she's been
spotted in
Davos, where
Guterres at
the last
moment did not
go. "Really?"
demanded
another,
alongside a
controversial
Serbian
government
presentation
in the UN
Delegates'
Entrance.
Stranger
things have
happened.
Guterres gave
his "Global
Communications"
position to an
official,
Alison Smale,
who refuses to
answer Press questions
even about whistleblowers'
complaints
about her
Department of
Public
Information.
Another
Brit Martin
Griffiths
seems destined
to take over
the UN's Yemen
envoy post,
perhaps taking
with him some
staff
currently
assigned to
Staffan de
Mistura for
Syria. Other
Department of
Political
Affairs posts
have already
been given
away, but not
yet announced.
Until now.
To
head the UN-affiliated
International Organization for
Migration (IOM), the US on
February 2 nominated Ken
Isaacs of the group
Samaritan's Purse, active in
Sudan and elsewhere. Inner
City Press at the UN has been
pursuing the story it first
exposed of UN Secretary
General Antonio Guterres
having recently met Sudan's
Omar al Bashir, indicted for
genocide in Darfur by the
International Criminal Court,
without even notifying the ICC
in advance, as required. So
after the US nomination, Inner
City Press visited Isaac's
Twitter account, to see if
he'd opined on Guterres'
unprecedented move. Isaacs'
Twitter account, @KenIsaacs1,
was accessible to the public;
he had re-tweeted about the
Nunes memo.
But by February
3, the account was protected,
not accessible. Photo here.
Perhaps it's a function of the
upcoming election among IOM
member states, the scrutiny of
involved officials - like
Guterres himself. But what
*does* Isaacs think of
Guterres meeting with Bashir,
indicted for war crimes in
Sudan, without even telling
the ICC in advance, and not
disclosing it until Inner City
Press asked at the UN noon
briefing on January 29?
Question here.
Watch this site.
Today's UN of
Antonio Guterres, who just met
with ICC indictee Omar al
Bashir, and his Deputy Amina
J. Mohammed who has refused
Press questions
on her rosewood signatures
and now the refoulement of 47
people to Cameroon from "her"
Nigeria, has become a place of
corruption and censorship.
Amid UN bribery scandals,
failures in countries from
Cameroon to Yemen and
declining transparency,
today's UN does not even
pretend to have content
neutral rules about which
media get full access and
which are confined to minders
or escorts to cover the
General Assembly.
Inner City Press,
which while it pursue the
story of Macau-based
businessman Ng Lap Seng's
bribery of President of the
General Assembly John Ashe was
evicted by the UN Department
of Public Information from its
office, is STILL confined to
minders as it pursues the new
UN bribery scandal, of Patrick
Ho and Cheikh Gadio
allegedly bribing President of
the General Assembly Sam
Kutesa, and Chad's Idriss
Deby, for CEFC China Energy.
Last week Inner
City Press asked UN DPI where
it is on the list to be
restored to (its) office, and
regain full office - and was
told it is not even on the
list, there is no public list,
the UN can exclude,
permanently, whomever it
wants. This is censorship...
***
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
Past
(and future?) UN Office: S-303, UN, NY 10017 USA
For now: Box 20047,
Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other,
earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in
the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright
2006-2018 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
for
|
,
