When Inner
City Press
last asked,
the UN said
without
explanation it
had been
delayed into
"early
December"? Video here and embedded (second)
below.
As to the
13th, the
question was why
didn't the UN
announce it?
The UN
canceled its
noon briefing
on November 27
for a
"stakeout" at
which
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon took
only two
insider
questions,
none on Syria
(or the
increasing
corporate
domination of
by the UN,
most recently
by Bank of
America and
even Shell.)
On December 11
Ban's
spokesperson
Martin Nesirky
was asked (by
Inner City
Press) about
the December
13 date, and
replied that
it would be
the UN's decision.
Then on
December 12 he
said it would
be in the
afternoon --
then would not
accept even a
second
question, instead
taking four
from the same
journalist.
For the photo
op, one must
arrive a full
55 minutes
early.
The UN's
chemical
weapon team
under Ake
Sellstrom
first went to
Syria to look
into Khan al
Asal, where
Syria said
rebels used
sarin gas. But
once in
Damascus, the
team shifted
its focus to a
later, August
31 incident in
Al Ghouta.
It
reported
quickly on
that, then
returned to
Syria --
ostensibly, to
look into Khan
al Asal and
other
locations. On
September
30, UN
spokesperson
Martin Nesirky
announced
that
"the
team of
chemical
weapons
investigators
led by
Professor Ake
Sellström,
which was in
Syria to
investigate
allegations of
the use of
chemical
weapons there,
has just left
the country
after
completing its
six-day
mission. The
team will now
move to the
phase of
finalizing its
report, which
the team hopes
will be ready
by late
October."
Even
then,
on October
4, Inner
City Press asked
about
limitations on
that visit,
including not
visiting Khan
al Asal: (Video here)
Inner
City
Press: Khan
al-Asal,
without any
disrespect, I
just wanted a
simple answer
why the UN
never went to
Khan al-Asal.
I read it a
number of
times; maybe I
am being
dense, but was
it that it
they couldn’t
get there? Was
it was too
deteriorated?
I am not
suggesting
those are the
reasons, I
just wanna
know what the
reason is.
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
Well, it does
say, not in
that
particular
part that you
have in front
of you; it
does say on 30
September,
that
transcript
from Monday,
or let’s be
clear about
it: I said
there are a
number of
reasons,
potential
reasons. And
one of those
includes that
with the
passage of
time, it
becomes… I
don’t think
you expect me,
I know you are
reading what I
said, you
don’t think
you’d expect
me to say
exactly what I
said on
Monday?
Inner
City
Press: I am
asking you a
substantive
question; what
would you say
to those who
say it’s a
shame if the
request, the
initial
request to go
to Syria was
to visit this
one place...
it seems to
cry, to call
out for an
answer of why
what was
initially
requested was
not done.
Spokesperson:
Right, right,
so, listen: As
I have said,
as I have said
here a number
of times,
there are a
number of
factors why it
was not
possible or
feasible to
go. And one of
those is that
with the
passage of
time, there is
a
deterioration
of the
material that
could be used
for sampling,
and,
therefore, to
help decide
whether
chemical
weapons were
used or not.
But as I also
said, there is
a portfolio of
different ways
that the team,
the
investigation
team, can
gather
evidence and
try to
determine at a
distance
whether
chemical
weapons were
used. That’s
one of the
possible
constraints.
Another is
obviously
security. And
with regard to
the broader
question about
the passage of
time,
everybody
knows that it
was not for
want of trying
that the team
did not get
there until
August. As you
well know from
March, there
was extremely
hard work done
on both sides
— meaning the
Syrian
authorities
and the United
Nations in the
form of the
Office for
Disarmament
Affairs — to
make this
work. It was
not easy. And
that’s been
plainly said
by any number
of people,
including the
High
Representative
for
Disarmament
Affairs. But
the fact of
the matter is
that everyone
persevered
because there
was an
interest to
get in. And
eventually,
they were able
to get in and
they were able
then to
determine that
chemical
weapons had
indeed been
used in that
incident on 21
August; and
they
furthermore
have continued
both outside
and then, on a
subsequent
visit to Syria
that ended on
Monday, to
gather
material so
that they can
present a
final report
at the end of
this month.
When October
31 arrived
without any
report, Inner
City Press
went to the
UN's noon
briefing and asked
about the
status of
Sellstrom's
report (video here)
Inner
City Press: on
Syria and
chemical
weapons, since
it is now the
end of
October, I
wanted to ask
for a status
update of the
second
Sellström
report on Khan
al-Asal, on
the other
sites, where
does this
stand?
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
Well, you’re
right it’s 31
October, trick
or treat. So
Professor
Sellström is
working on the
final report
in
coordination
with the
Organisation
for the
Prohibition of
Chemical
Weapons, and
World Health
Organization
experts who
were part of
the UN
mission. A
number of
samples are
still being
analysed by
the designated
laboratories
and the
results are
expected to be
provided to
the UN Mission
early next
week. The
final report
is expected to
be finalized
in early
December,
after all
information
gathered by
the UN mission
has been
evaluated.
Other
questions,
please.
So
why, after the
speed up of
Sellstrom's
report into al
Ghouta, which
Ban Ki-moon
declared to be
"overwhelming"
before he even
saw it, has
his reporting
including Khan
al Asal been
delayed for
more than a
month -- and
then to
December 12?
That has still
not been
answered.
Watch this
site.
, 
