Inner City Press -- Investigative Reporting From the United Nations to Wall Street to the Inner City

By Matthew Russell Lee, Follow Up on Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, February 5 -- On Syria, how does an obvious contradiction between US law and position gets played down or disappear? By delay, stonewalling and then a canned answer to a pat, softball question. But will it work?

    On January 29 Inner City Press first published quotes from the UN's report on Syria Children and Armed Conflict, specifically that the Free Syrian Army recruits and uses child soldiers:

"Throughout the reporting period, the United Nations received consistent reports of recruitment and use of children by FSA-affiliated groups."

  Inner City Press asked the US Mission to the UN to respond to the report, since Congress in its 2008 Child Soldiers Prevention Act said the US Government should condemn the use of child soldiers by paramilitaries like the FSA. Inner City Press was told to put the request for comment in writing, and did, to the UK Mission as well.

  But the US Mission never provided a response, even after Inner City Press on February 4 re-inquired, noting that the UK had responded.

   The State Department gave a belated quote on February 4 to the New York Times, and then at the February 5 briefing got asked the question, but in conclusory, soft-ball fashion: what does the US think of the report (no mention of the FSA).

  Spokesperson Jen Psaki said the US is "disturbed by contents of this report" and we "condemn use of child soldiers" which is "reprehensible." Psaki said the US "does not support this activity."
 
  But the US supports the FSA, which is depicted in the report engaged in the activity. There was no follow up question; the US Mission has still not responded.

   Back on January 29 when Inner City Press first quoted it, and on January 30 when Inner City Press asked the US Mission to the UN about it, the report had already been circulated to Security Council members in English; the UK said it would wait to provide Inner City Press with a comment until the report was made official on February 3, that is to say, when it was translated into the UN's five other official languages and put on the Internet.

   Readers asked Inner City Press where on the UN website to find the Syria child soldiers report. Inner City Press told them it would go online on February 3, and noted that the Free UN Coalition for Access had previously opposed the UN withholding or delaying the release of important document like this.

  In this case, however, the delay affirmatively helped the Syrian opposition. On January 29 they were in Geneva, issuing statements about abuses by the Assad government. They were not asked about the Free Syrian Army's use of child soldiers.

   On February 3, Inner City Press again asked the UK for its comment, and it did arrive the following day on February 4:

    Before publishing the UK's quote, Inner City Press again in writing asked two spokespeople of the US Mission to the UN for their comment -- noting that the UK had provided one. As Inner City Press noted, that might be OK for the United Kingdom -- but what about the US, including in light of the 2008 Child Soldiers Prevention Act, which provides for example:

It is the sense of Congress that—

 (1) the United States Government should condemn the conscription, forced recruitment, or use of children by governments, paramilitaries, or other organizations;

 (2) the United States Government should support and, to the extent practicable, lead efforts to establish and uphold international standards designed to end the abuse of human rights described in paragraph (1);

  There are prohibitions on funding which can only be overridden for formal, public findings by the President. Given all this, Inner City Press on February 4 again asked the two spokespeople for the US Mission to the UN its January 30 question: "could the US provide aid to a non-state group, the FSA and its affiliates, which the UN has found using child soldiers?"

  Inner City Press had previously noted to them difficulty is getting responses from the State Department in Washington, which says some of its notices are restricted to "mainstream" -- read, legacy -- media, and to "ask the Mission."

  The US Mission has yet to respond. But today's New York Times, saying that the child soldiers report was "quietly presented to the Security Council last week," has a quote from the State Department. Why was the report, and this statement, delayed a full six days until the Geneva II talks were over?

  Even more cynically, Voice of America on whose Broadcasting Board of Governors US Secretary of State John Kerry serves, also ran a delayed / withheld story on the report; Reuters typically didn't bring up the US Child Soldiers Prevention Act  and claimed that the report was released on February 4, when even the Times said it was February 3 -- and see Inner City Press' January 29 story, here.  For an intra-Reuters comparison, click here.

 On January 29, Inner City Press published additional quotes from the report, including that:

"Boys aged 12 to 17 were trained, armed, and used as combatants or to man checkpoints. For instance, a 15 year-old boy reported being recruited in April 2012 by the FSA in Tall Kalakh (Tartus governate), and participation in military operations.... Also indicative was the case of a 16 year-old boy from Homs who reportedly joined the FSA as a combatant. In March 2013, his family reported to the United Nations that he was still fighting with the group."

And is this boy still fighting with the FSA? There is more to be said about this UN report, but as to the US and the recent report it is or is moving toward aiding the armed FSA, what steps will actually be taken on this UN report? Watch this site.

Reiterated footnote: While the US does sometimes answer questions, and is often pleasant as for example on a recent inquiry with the State Department about Sri Lanka, too often it does not.

  The US Mission never provided an explanation of what several Security Council members told Inner City Press the US Mission had said about its "policy" on how to described the Rwanda genocide; the State Department in Washington appears to have a policy of limiting its most timely information alternatively to "mainstream" -- often meaning dying or pro-Administration -- media and to those which support its positions.  As is evidenced by this story, and the February 5 briefing. But we will keep asking. Watch this site.