By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, October
19, more
here --
When the US
announced it
had
air-dropped
weapons to Kurds
in Kobane in
Syria on
October 19,
there was no
mention of the
UN, much less
of the UN
Security
Council.
But the stage
had been set:
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon and UN
envoy Staffan
de Mistura
both called
for military
action. Now
will they praise
the US action
in Syria? How
fast?
Earlier on
October 19,
the White
House issued
this read-out:
"The
President
called Turkish
President
Recep Tayyip
Erdogan last
night to
discuss Syria,
particularly
the situation
in Kobani, and
steps that
could be taken
to counter
ISIL
advances.
The President
expressed
appreciation
for Turkey
hosting over a
million
refugees,
including
thousands from
Kobani.
The two
leaders
pledged to
continue to
work closely
together to
strengthen
cooperation
against ISIL."
It rang false,
this last
line. But on a
background
call after the
airdrops,
Senior US
Administration
Officials said
that Obama
told Erdogan
it would
happen.
Asked if land
re-supply is being
considered, another
said that
Turkey would be
spoken with.
Inevitably one
wonders: if
Turkey hadn't
so decisively
lost its race
for a UN
Security Council
seat on
October 16,
with only 60
votes to
Spain's 132,
would its
opposition to
the US action
be more vocal,
or considered
by the US?
The US said
its "military
forces
conducted
multiple
airdrops
tonight in the
vicinity of
Kobani, Syria
to resupply
Kurdish forces
on the ground
defending the
city against
ISIL. The
airdrops were
conducted by
U.S. Air Force
C-130 aircraft
deployed to
the U.S.
Central
Command area
of
responsibility.
The aircraft
delivered
weapons,
ammunition and
medical
supplies that
were provided
by Kurdish
authorities in
Iraq."
But who's to
say the weapons
of the Kurds
in Iraq weren't
the weapons
provided by
the US and
others?
On October 10
Inner City
Press asked UN
Security
Council
president Maria
Cristina
Perceval
of Argentina
if any Council
member has
raised Kobane
in the
Council.
No, she said.
Video
here from
Minute 8:04
(initial
question in
Spanish.)
Back on
October 7 de
Mistura jumped
in calling for
outside action
- by Turkey?
The UN said de
Mistura said:
"The
world has seen
with its own
eyes the
images of what
happens when a
city in Syria
or in Iraq is
overtaken by
the terrorist
group called
ISIS or
Da'esh:
massacres,
humanitarian
tragedies,
rapes,
horrific
violence. The
city of Kobane
on the
northern
border of
Syria, close
to Turkey, has
been under
siege now for
three weeks.
There were
400000
inhabitants .
They have been
defending
themselves –
they are all
Kurds- they
have been
defending
themselves
with great
courage. But
they are now
very close to
not being able
to do so. They
are fighting
with normal
weapons,
whereas the
ISIS has got
tanks and
mortars. The
international
community
needs to
defend them.
The
international
community
cannot sustain
another city
falling under
ISIS. Turkey
has been very
generous in
receiving more
than 200000 of
its
inhabitants
but what is
needed now is
concrete
action. The
world, all of
us, will
regret deeply
if ISIS is
able to take
over a
city which has
defended
itself with
courage but is
close to not
being able to
do so. We need
to act now."
The
UN's noon
briefing on
October 7,
before de
Mistura's
statement, was
rife with
questions on
Kobane. One
correspondent
said Turkey
had supported
ISIL until a
year ago; a
Turkish state
media
correspondent
then prefaced
a question by
saying that
Hezbollah in
Syria should
have been
raised.
On October 6,
UN Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon issued
a statement,
below, calling
for action. By
whom? Turkey
which has its
own interested
position on
the Kurd, and
on the Assad
government?
Ban's
statement:
"The
Secretary-General
is following
with grave
concern the
ongoing
offensive by
ISIL on the
northern
Syrian town of
Ayn al-Arab,
which has
already
resulted in
massive
displacement
of civilians,
including into
Turkey, and
numerous death
and injuries.
"In light of
the gross and
extensive
violations of
human rights
and
international
humanitarian
law the
terrorist
group has
committed in
areas that
have fallen
under its
control in
Syria and Iraq
during its
barbarous
campaign, he
urgently calls
on all those
with the means
to do so to
take immediate
action to
protect the
beleaguered
civilian
population of
Ayn al-Arab."
While some
find it
strange to
hear a UN
Secretary
General
calling for
military
action -- the
catch line is
"General Moon"
-- Ban can and
does justify
it as
Responsibility
to Protect
which he has
belatedly
re-branded for
himself as
"Rights Up
Front."
But Ban only
came up with
"Rights Up
Front" after
his UN did
nothing as the
Sri Lanka
government
killed tens of
thousands of
civilians in
northern Sri
Lanka in 2009.
Ban did not
call for any
action to
protect
civilians
then, far from
it.
Either Ban has
learned his
lesson, or in
this case
there are
major powers
that since
they have been
unable to get
a UN Security
Council
mandate for
military
action on
Syria want the
quasi
legitimacy, or
fig leaf, of
Ban Ki-moon's
call as
authorization.
Protecting
civilians is
good --
although Ban
Ki-moon's UN
has not even
called for it
in other
circumstances.
Self-interested
military
action dressed
up as R2P?
We'll see.
Watch this
site.
, 
