On
Syria at UN,
Libya Echoes
in Speeches,
Of Who Could
Impartially
Monitor &
Transition..
in Paris?
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
March 12 -- As
inside the UN
Security
Council on
Monday morning
speeches
plodded on
about the
"Arab Spring,"
mostly but not
only
Syria, the
press was told
that French
foreign
minister Alain
Juppe
would come to
the stakeout.
Then it was
said there
would be a
delay,
that Juppe
wanted to stay
in the Council
and hear
China's
Permanent
Representative
Li Baodong.
Li Baodong in
his
speech echoed
Russia in
questioning
how the
Council's
Libya
resolution was
implemented,
cautioning
against
"exceeding
mandates."
(Russia's
Foreign
Minister
Lavrov had
said that on
Libya some had
"misled the
international
community.")
Inner City
Press
asked Juppe,
then this UK
counterpart
William Hague,
about Russia
and
China's
accusation.
Juppe was
dismissive. Video
here.
Hague, asked
more
specifically
about the
second of the
five point
Lavrov
announced from
Cairo,
"impartial
monitoring
mechanism,"
said the UK
would
have not a
problem with
that:
"As to any
role for a
monitoring
mechanism or
process, well
that would
obviously
depend on the
political
process that
is agreed...
We’re not
opposed in
principle to
such a thing."
Video
here.
But what would
it
mean? On
camera, Inner
City Press
asked Lavrov
to explain it.
The
answer veered
into the role
of Kofi Annan.
Video
here.
But Annan does
not have
binoculars.
And Inner City
Press has been
told, and it
is fairly
obvious, that
some no one
trust current
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon
to run an
"impartial
monitoring
operations,"
after he
announced in
December that
NATO had
strictly
complied with
Resolution
1973 and its
protection of
civilians
mandate.
France dropped
weapons into
the Nafusa
mountains; the
BBC has
reported on
the UK's
training role
in Libya. The
recent UN
Independent
Commission of
Inquiry report
on Libya says
NATO killed
some 60
civilians,
including
18 rescuers in
Majer. How can
this
impartially be
called "strict
compliance"?
Beyond the
continuing
disagreement
on whether a
UN resolution
should call
for a
"transition"
-- or "regime
change" as
some call
it -- there is
also this
question of
who would
monitor that
even
protection of
civilians or
humanitarian
aid wouldn't
turn into an
exercise in
importing
weapons,
including by
French like
airdrops.
Inner City
Press
told India's
Permanent
Representative
Hardeep Singh
Puri what
Alain
Juppe had said
about
political
transition.
"Where?"
Hardeep
Singh Puri
asked. "In
France?"
Another
Council
diplomat
called France
the most
interested,
given
Sarkozy's
electoral
campaign.
Inner City
Press
asked top UN
humanitarian
Valerie Amos
if she'd met
with the
Syrian
opposition.
She said she'd
tried to get
into an
opposition
held area
of Homs -- not
Baba Amr --
but had been
unsuccessful.
Inner City
Press asked
for her view
of the
narrative that
Assad's forces
were
attacking
armed
opponents, in
Homs and now
Idlib, versus
the
narrative that
after such
attacks,
people armed
themselves in
defense. She
said
narratives
don't matter,
civilians
should have to
be in harm's
way.
Inner City
Press
asked Ban's
spokesman
Martin Nesirky
for the third
time to
disclose
who went to
Syria with
Kofi Annan --
on TV, former
UN officials
Alan
Doss and Ahmed
Fawzi were
plainly
visible, at
least in Cairo
-- and
now, which
businesspeople
Annan met
with.
The UN's Lynn
Pascoe on
March 9 told
Inner City
Press Doss
would be going
in, but Ban's
spokesman
Nesirky has
yet to confirm
even that.
Hillary at
stakeout, on
Afghanistan:
"that's not
us." (c) MRLee
At Monday's
ill-attended
noon briefing
-- two
journalists,
this time --
Inner
City Press
asked Nesirky
for Ban's
response to
Lavrov's call
for Ban
to address
NATO's
civilian
casualties in
Libya. Nesirky
said Ban was
meeting with
Lavrov and it
might come up
and be in the
read out.
Inner City
Press
asked Lavrov,
did you raise
it to Ban?
Yes, Lavrov
said. But what
did
Ban respond?
Watch this
site.
Footnote:
When
Hillary
Clinton spoke
at the
stakeout, she
began with the
killing of
Afghan's by a
US soldier
described as
"rogue."
Her
spokesperson
Victoria
Neuland called
on two
questioners,
neither
based at the
UN. Clinton
herself,
however,
allowed one
more, though
her answer was
equally as
scripted. In
her speech in
the Council
she
spoke of
Yemen, without
mention the
impunity Ali
Saleh has
gotten
with GCC and,
many in the
Yemeni youth
movement say,
US support.
Likewise on
Egypt
she said the
US will
support IMF
lending, even
as many
in that
country say
they shouldn't
have to pay
back loans
taken by the
military SCAF
government,
just as some
in the Syrian
opposition say
that any new
Syrian
government
won't pay any
loans taken
out over
March 2011.
Where are Las
Vegas odds
makers when
you need them?
From
the UK's
transcript:
Inner
City Press:
“Both Russia
and China seem
to refer
pretty openly
to the [Libya]
Resolution,
and how it was
implemented,
"don’t mislead
the
international
community and
don’t exceed
mandates," and
Mr Lavrov’s
second point
is this idea
of an
impartial
monitoring
mechanism,
which is
something that
China has also
echoed. I
don’t know
what the idea
would be,
maybe to
ensure that
humanitarian
assistance, or
protection of
civilians,
didn’t turn
into arming
the
opposition.
What do you
think of that
second point,
and can you
imagine
agreeing to a
Resolution
which would
make it
impossible to
arm, to
provide
further arms
to the
opposition?”
Rt Hon William
Hague: “We
want any
Resolution to
contribute to
bringing about
a cessation of
violence and
that would be
on all sides.
And our
position from
the United
Kingdom and
the European
Union, is that
we have an
arms embargo
on Syria
completely, so
I think where
we stand on
these things
is very clear.
Of course we
want an end to
violence in
every
direction in
Syria. We want
a political
process. We
want people to
be able to
express
themselves in
a free and
democratic
way, but to be
free to do so,
not to do so
in a violent
way. As to any
role for a
monitoring
mechanism or
process, well
that would
obviously
depend on the
political
process that
is agreed,
whether one
can be agreed
through the
work of Kofi
Annan, or
embodied in a
Security
Council
Resolution,
that would
depend on
that. We’re
not opposed in
principle to
such a thing.”