At
UN
on Syria,
France Says It
Won't Be 45
Days, Kofi on
Consequences
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
July 11,
updated --
After Syria
envoy Kofi
Annan briefed
the Security
Council
speaking of
"consequences,"
French
Ambassador
Gerard Araud
rushed first
to the
stakeout,
before even
Council
President
Nestor Osorio,
to say that a
new
resolution,
countering the
Russian draft,
would be
circulated in
the
afternoon.
Inner
City
Press asked
Araud about
what it had
already
exclusively
reported, the
American
position
expressed by
Ambassador
Susan Rice
that the US
would only
support a 45
and not 90 day
extension of
the
UNSMIS
mission.
Araud
replied,
"You have more
information
than I have on
our proposal,
which is NOT a
US proposal."
As
a
follow up,
Inner City
Press asked,
"Is 45 days
the period?"
"No,"
Araud
said.
Update:
but the draft,
in Operative
Paragraph 9,
says "45
days."
Others
say
the real rub
is whether the
resolution
will be under
Chapter 7 of
the UN Charter
or not.
Perhaps the
drafters --
and the Obama
administration
- could go up
to 90 days, as
Russia
proposes, if
Russia agrees
to Chapter 7.
Or maybe split
the difference
at 60 days.
Inner
City
Press asked
Russian Deputy
Permanent
Representative
Pankin if
Annan in his
closed door
briefing had
asked for
sanctions or
Chapter
7. No, Pankin
said, he only
spoke of
"consequences,"
which
doesn't
necessarily
mean any
particular
provision of
the UN
Charter.
The
UK's
Mark Lyall
Grant had
accurately
used that
word,
consequences.
Inner City
Press asked
him if General
Robert Mood,
whom German
Ambassador
Peter Wittig
said the day
was a good
opportunity to
thank,
is in fact
leaving
UNSMIS.
(Wittig, as
later
transcribed by
his mission,
replied "I
have no
information
about his
plans. I just
thought since
we are
approaching
the end of the
mandated
period it
would be
worthwhile to
thank him for
his relentless
efforts in a
very, very
difficult
environment.")
Syria's
Ja'afari,
when Inner
City Press
asked about
Mood, offered
praise and
then
stopped,
saying this
wouldn't help
Mood at all.
He said Syria
prefers
at least a 90
day extension,
but it is up
to the
Council. He
specifically
denounced the
Swiss grenades
that entered
Syria via the
UAE (and, the
Emiratis
claim, the
Muslim
Brotherhood),
and then also
Germany
selling
submarines to
Israel.
Back
in,
well,
whatever,
Lyall Grant
declined to
answer about
Mood, and
said to watch
for the
resolution.
From the UK
transcript:
Inner
City
Press: how
long are you
proposing to
expand the
Mission for,
and
what
percentage of
its military
component do
you think will
be
reduced and do
you think
General Mood
will stay on?
Is that your
understanding?
Amb.
Lyall
Grant: I don’t
want to
comment on
individual
tenures.
General
Mood was taken
on in an
initial three
month mandate
and that three
months is
obviously up
in a couple of
weeks, but
it’s for him
and
the
Secretary-General
to decide on
the future for
him. In terms
of
the mandate
renewal, you
will see
obviously once
the text is
circulated and
put into blue,
you’ll
obviously get
a chance to
see
what is
included in
it.
But
who
will sponsor
it? As another
Council
meeting, about
West Africa,
began in the
Council, Inner
City Press
asked the
Portuguese
delegation if
they were
co-sponsors.
They said they
thought so.
We'll
see.
Footnote:
of
those speaking
at the
stakeout, only
Ambassador
Rice wouldn't
take
a question
from the
Press,
although or
because it had
already
reported
through other
sources her 45
day quote. One
would think
the US would
(want to)
reiterate this
publicly. But
we'll see.
Here's
a transcript
of Inner City
Press Q&A
with Russia's
Pankin:
Inner
City Press:
Ambassaor Rice
called your
draft
insufficient,
and French
Ambassador
Araud just now
called it
toothless.What's
your reaction?
And did
Kofi Annan ask
for sanctions
in the Council
today?
DPR
Pankin: Well,
the terms
toothless or
insfuficient.
It's not hte
first time you
hear these
expressions.
Insufficient:
I got a
positive
signal in
that, which
means that it
is a basis,
but something
is missing.
Unfortunately,
what they
think is
missing is
Chapter 7, but
while saying
that they
would not
support the
Russian draft
in its present
version, they
did not deny
that it could
be a basis, or
its elements
could be used
for reaching
final
agreement.
About Kofi
Annan, Kofi
Annan did not
ask us to
apply
sanctions. He
just said that
the Security
Council should
speak in a
united and
single voice
and make sure
to send a
signal that
its suggested
recommendations
and actions
have to be
implemented,
or there will
be
consequences.
That's true.
But
consequences
does not mean
necessarily
actions under
a certain
chapter or a
certain
article. As
for presure, I
mean, any
decision by
the Security
Council has to
be respected
and
implemented..
in our view
it's political
and diplomatic
pressure
equally on all
sides,and
unfortunately
there are
sides that are
not even
reachable, I'm
talking about
the third side
to the Syrian
conflict which
was mentioned
during this
discussion,
and the
question is
still in the
air, what to
do with the
third force.