On
Ukraine, US
Power Cited
Chekhov,
Churkin Warns
on Cooperation
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, March
19--
After US
Ambassador
Samantha Power
said Russia's
Vitaly Churkin
was creative
like Tolstoy
or Chekhov,
Churkin asked
for a right of
reply or
additional
statement at
the end of the
Mach 19 UN
Security
Council
meeting on
Ukraine.
Churkin said
that from
these two
literary
references,
Power has
stooped to
tabloids, and
that this
should change
if the US
expected
Russian
cooperation.
The reference,
it seemed, was
to Syria and
Iran, and
other UN
issues.
One wanted to
explore this
at the stakeout,
but neither
Power nor
Churkin spoke
there. In
fact, no one
did: even
Ukraine's Yuriy
Sergeyev left,
down the long
hallways with
his leather
coat and
spokesperson.
One wondered
why.
There were
many questions
to ask. Why
did Ivan
Simonovic's UN
human rights
report not
mention the
Svoboda Party
MPs beating up
the head of
Ukrainian
national
television?
Will France, despite
its Gerard
Araud's
speech,
continue
selling
Mistral
warships to
Russia?
What of France's
role in the earlier
referendum
splitting
Mayotte from
the Comoros
Islands?
Araud
exchanged a
few words with
those
media he
answers to
while on the
stairs, then
left. The UK's
Mark Lyall
Grant spoke
longer, but
still left.
Why didn't
Simonovic at
least come and
answer
questions? Perhaps
he will, later
in the week.
When
Security
Council
session began
at 3 pm on
March 19, Russia was
listed as the
tenth speaker,
after other
Council
members
including not
only the US
but France.
(The order, however,
would soon
change: Argentina
and Russia
switched spots.)
Speaking first,
Deputy Secretary
General Jan
Eliasson
recounted
dates and
events, such
as the US and
European Union
sanctions of
Marcy 17.
Inner City
Press asked UN
spokesperson
Stephane Dujarric
if there was
any UN comment
on or view of
such
unilateral
sanctions.
There was no
comment.
UN human
rights deputy
Ivan Simonovic
spoke next,
saying that
attacks on
ethnic Russians
have been
neither widespread
nor
systematic.
Simonovic did
not mention
the widely
publicized assault
on a national
TV executive
by Svoboda
Party MPs.
Ukraine's
Yuriy Sergeyev
mocked the
referendum,
saying that
those who
didn't vote
were visited
at home.
France's
Gerard Araud
said that if
there are
fascists in
this story, it
is not where
they're said
to be -- but
he did not
address the
Svoboda Party
and its attack
on the TV
executive. Nor
has he
addressed the
analogy to the
referendum
France pushed
to split
Mayotte from
Comoros, nor
France's
ongoing sale
of Mistral warships
to Russia.
After Nigeria
spoke, Argentina's
listed place
was taken by
Russia, in
what has been
confirmed to
Inner
City
Press
as an exchange.
Russia's
Vitaly Churkin
zeroed in on
Simonovic not
mentioning the
Svoboda MPs'
assault, nor evidence
that the same
snipers should
police and
protesters in
Kyiv.
US Ambassador
Samantha Power
called this an
assault on
Simonovic's
report, and
said Churkin
had been as
imaginative as
Tolstoy or Chekhov,
echoing an
earlier US
State Department
Top Ten list.
So what is the
US, one wag
mused, John Updike
or Thomas Pynchon?
It was a
session meant
for words.
Now that UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon races
to Russia for
relevance, the
news was
handed out
selectively by
UN Moscow
three hours
before Ban's
new
spokesperson,
after a
request,
confirmed it.
It's worth
remembering
Moscow's anger
at who called
Ban's tune on
Kosovo. What
will be
different now?
After Russia,
Ban will head
to Kyiv to
meet Yatsenyuk
and the UN human
rights
monitors.
But no
announcement
by Ban's
Office of the
Spokesperson,
which has
repeatedly
refused to
confirm Ban
trips even
when the
country visited
has already
disclosed it.
"Will
you confirm
what BBC says
UN Moscow told
it, that the
Secretary
General is
traveling to
Russia
tomorrow to
meet President
Putin and
FM Lavrov --
and is so, can
you explain
why and how
this UN news
was
distributed in
that way
first, and not
through your
office, to all
correspondents
at once? The
latter part of
the question
is on behalf
of the Free UN
Coalition for
Access as
well."
Forty five
minutes later,
after a mass
e-mail, Dujarric
replied:
"Matthew,
The
official
announcement
was just made.
The UN office
in moscow did
not announce
anything
before we did.
I did see some
leaked reports
this morning
from various
sources but
nothing is
official until
it's
announced by
this office."
But it wasn't
a "leaked
report" -- BBC
said that UN
Moscow had CONFIRMED
it. We'll have
more on this.
For now it's
worth reviewing
Ban Ki-moon's
response to
Abkhazia and
South Ossetia
in 2008...
The day after
the Crimea
referendum,
the US White
House
announced new
sanctions and
Russia said
Ukraine should
adopt a
federal
constitution.
Inner City
Press asked UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
spokesperson
Stephane
Dujarric for
Ban's or the
UN's comment
on either, if
Ban thinks
sanctions
should ideally
be imposed
through the UN
and not
unilaterally,
and if this
might lead to
a tit for tat.
Dujarric said
Ban's focus is
on encouraging
the parties to
"not add
tensions;" on
Russia's
federal
constitution
proposal he
said the UN is
"not going to
get into
judging every
step." Video here.
With Serry
gone from
Crimea and
Simonovic
called
unbalanced by
Russia, what
is the UN's
role? Is it
UNrelevant?
On the US
sanctions
earlier on
March 17,
self-described
Senior
Administration
Official (SAO)
1 described
sanctions on
individuals in
the Russian
arms sector.
One had and
has to wonder:
how does this
relate to the
sale of
Mistral
warships to
Russia by US
ally France?
Inner City
Press asked
at the State
Department on
March 14,
click here for
that.
SAO 2
said the US
can now impose
sanctions on
"Russian
government
cronies." Also
on the list:
Viktor
Yanukovych.
Another SAO
offered "fun
facts" about
the
referendum,
including
pre-marked
ballots. It
was repeatedly
noted that the
EU list of
sanctions
individuals,
not to be
publicly
released until
March 18,
overlaps
somewhat but
is different
from the US
list.
Notably,
a
Senior
Administration
Official said
that "we" -
presumably
meaning the
US, are moving
forward with
IMF
negotiations.
But what is
the US' direct
role in what
the IMF says
is an entire
independent
process?
SAO 1
acknowledged
this will
impact the US'
bilateral
relations with
Russia, noting
the G8, but
saying that
Russia is
"invested" in
the Iran P5+1
process, and
in the removal
of Syria's
chemical
weapons. What
about
Afghanistan,
the subject of
the UN
Security
Council's
meeting on
March 17?
Going
into the
meeting, UK
Ambassador
Mark Lyall
Grant said
that the plan
is to have a
General
Assembly
briefing on
Ukraine on
March 20.
Even
as the Crimea
referendum
vote was
taking place,
US Senators
returned from
a whirlwind
trip to Kyiv
to appear on
the US Sunday
morning
television
shows.
Senator Bob
Corker R-TN
said that the
Obama
administration
created a
"permissive"
atmosphere
that led to
this; he
slammed
Secretary of
State John
Kerry's
"wishy-washiness"
and gifts with
Sergey Lavrov.
Also on Fox
News Sunday,
Senator Bob
Menendez D-NJ
insisted that
for the
International
Monetary Fund
to help
Ukraine, the
long-stalled
reforms must
be passed by
Congress.
But when Inner
City Press put
this question
directly to
IMF
spokesperson
Gerry Rice on
March 13, Rice
declined to
confirm the
connection.
See video here,
at from Minute
12:05.
Over on CBS'
Face the
Nation, former
US National
Security
Adviser Tom
Donilon
bragged how
sanctions on
Iran showed
what could be
done to
pressure
Russia.
But on NBC's
Meet the
Press, Senator
Jeff Flake
R-AZ said it's
going to be
difficult to
"reverse"
Crimea with
economic
sanctions.
On Ukraine, on
March 15 after
the UN
Security
Council vote
on a
US-drafted
resolution
calling the
Crimea
refendum
invalid failed
with Russia
vetoing and
China
abstaining,
Urkaine's
Yuriy Sergeyov
told the press
there are
Russian troops
on the
mainland.
He said there
will be more
action next
week,
mentioning a
debate on
"revitalization,"
presumably of
the UN General
Assembly,
aimed at the
UN Security
Council veto
system.
Little
mentioned in
Saturday's
proceedings is
that the US
vetos
resolutions on
Israel, in
settlements
for example,
and votes
against
non-binding
resolution in
the General
Assembly about
the embargo on
Cuba, for
example.
Sergeyev is
deft, but he
refused to
answer a
question about
how the
expansion of
NATO impacts
on this.
"Don't provoke
me," he said.
The Free
UN Coalition
for Access
objects to
speakers at
the UN picking
which
questions to
answer. There
are worse
cases:
France's
Gerard Araud
for example
refused to
answer on his
country's sale
of Mistral
warships to
Russia. Herve
Ladsous of UN
Peacekeeping
went so far as
to direct his
spokesman to
grab the UN
microphone so
a question
couldn't be
asked. Video here and here.
Inner
City Press: on
Ukraine, one
question
that’s come up
is, in terms
of sanctions
is France has
this big deal
where it’s
selling
Mistral
warships to
Russia, and
it’s said that
it’s going
forward. What
does the
United States
think of that
sale of
military
hardware?
MS.
HARF: Well,
decisions
about these
kind of sales
are obviously
a matter for
each sovereign
state to take
into account
including a
host of
factors –
obviously,
international
law, regional
stability. We
would hope
that any
country would
exercise
judgment and
restraint when
it comes to
transferring
military
equipment that
could
exacerbate
tensions in
any conflict
region. In
general, I
think that
certainly
applies here.
Video
here, from
Minute 20:13.
"OP5
Declares that
this
referendum can
have no
validity, and
cannot form
the basis for
any alteration
of the status
of Crimea; and
calls upon all
States,
international
organizations
and
specialized
agencies not
to recognize
any alteration
of the status
of Crimea on
the basis of
this
referendum and
to refrain
from any
action or
dealing that
might be
interpreted as
recognizing
any such
altered
status"
So, the Crimea
resolution
scheduled for
March 16 would
have no
validity. But,
as Russian
foreign
minister
Lavrov asked
in London on
March 14,
couldn't the
same be said
of the
French-organized
referendum
splitting
Mayotte from
the Cosmoros?
Inner City
Press asked US
State
Department
deputy
spokesperson
Marie Harf
about both the
resolution and
the Mayotte
analogy on
March 14. From
the US
transcript:
Inner
City Press: on
Ukraine,
there’s talk
of the
Security
Council
resolution –
seems pretty
clear that
Russia would
veto it, but
there’s some
discussion of
trying – is it
the U.S.’s
intention to
try to get a
vote on a
resolution
declaring the
referendum
illegal before
Sunday?
And
also, Lavrov
mentioned, and
also Churkin
as well, this
example of
Mayotte. They
used – I mean,
they’ve come
up with
different
examples –
Kosovo and
others – but
one in
particular.
Both of them
raised an
island of
Comoros where
France
organized an
referendum to
break Comoros
off – to break
Mayotte off
from Comoros,
and said that
this wasn’t
authorized by
the UN or the
African Union.
So I just
wondered – I
mean, maybe
you’ll slap it
down, but
what’s the
response to
their
argument?
MS.
HARF: Well, in
general, I
think that
it’s very
clear under
Ukraine’s
constitution
that governs
Ukraine how
this kind of
referendum
legally could
take place.
And that would
involve a
country-wide
referendum,
basically
relying on the
premise that
any decisions
about
Ukraine’s
territory need
to be made by
all of the
people of
Ukraine. So
setting aside
any
comparisons,
there are very
clear rules in
Ukraine’s
constitution,
which is in
effect, that
lay out how
this kind of
referendum
could take
place. That’s
not what we
see here. So
any
comparisons
aside, they
just don’t
have relevancy
here.
On the
first
question, I
don’t have
anything on a
potential
Security
Council
resolution.
We’ve been
very clear
that there
will be costs.
I don’t have
anything to
outline for
you in terms
of what that
might look
like, but we
as the United
States,
independently,
have a number
of tools at
our disposal
that we can
use if and
when we need
to make clear
those costs
with this
referendum
going forward.
Video
here from
Minute 18:34.
Back
on March 13
when Churkin
took the
Council floor
he had a
flourish of
analogies: the
US Declaration
of
Independence,
the Falkland
(or Malvinas)
Islands,
Puerto Rico,
and the
recognition by
some of Kosovo
without even a
referendum, he
said, only an
act of the
legislature.
Churkin said
that France
organized a
referendum to
break Mayotte
away from the
Comoros, in
violation of
UN resolution
and using
their veto, he
said. Click
here for some
background.
Would French
Amabassador
Gerard Araud
respond?
Of late at the
UN, his
spokesperson
Frederic Jung
has called
only on
friendly
journalists;
Araud refused
for example to
answer why
France is
still selling
Mistral
warships to
Russia, and
claimed that
Navi Pillay
has not
reported that
France put
Muslims at
risk in the
Central
African
Republic. The
jokes, some
say, are
getting stale.
Speaking after
former US, now
UN official
Jeffrey
Feltman,
Yatsenyuk said
if Russia
persists, no
country will
ever again
give up
nuclear
weapons, as
Ukraine did.
Yatsenyuk
shifted into
Russian to
speak directly
to Ambassador
Vitaly
Churkin, just
as Ambassador
Sergeyev has
done.
But Russia
wasn't listed
to speak and
reply until
the 14th of 17
slots. After
Luxembourg as
Council
President for
March, the
next three
speakers were
the US, UK and
France.
US Ambassador
Samantha Power
cited the
draft UNSC
resolution,
but didn't
opine if China
might abstain
rather than
join Russia in
a veto.
When French
Ambassador
Gerard Araud
spoke, the
question in
the air which
he refused to
answer is why
France is
going forward
with the sale
of Mistral
warships to
Russia. Rather
than answer
it, Araud made
stale jokes
about Kosovo.
While in
Washington,
Yatsenyuk said
he knows the
International
Monetary Fund
program is
"not the sweet
candy." Inner
City Press
covers the IMF
and can only
say: ask
Greece.
Asked about
allowing any
referendum in
Crimea,
Yatsenyuk said
the
legislature in
Kyiv would
have to permit
it; he said
there could be
dialogue about
increased
autonomy from
Crimea, on
taxes and
language
rights.
He was asked
about Jihadis
going to
Crimea and he
answered about
the Tatars. He
bragged that a
deputy prime
minister in
the new
government
"represents
the Jewish
community."
But what about
Right Sector?
The US State
Department
announced for
example that
the Department
of Defense
will be giving
Meals Ready to
Eat or MREs to
the Ukrainian
Armed Forces.
Over on
Capitol Hill,
the US Senate
Foreign
Relations
Committee
marked-up the
"Support for
the
Sovereignty,
Integrity,
Democracy, and
Economic
Stability of
Ukraine Act of
2014."
Absent on jury
duty, Senator
Marco Rubio
had a proposed
amendment
about the G8
and not
invading your
neighbor read
out; it was
agreed to.
Senator Rand
Paul proposed
an amendment
to remove loan
guarantees and
the
International
Monetary Fund
from the bill.
He said the
loans would go
to back Russia
back and noted
that the
proposed IMF
reforms would
raise Russia's
power in the
IMF from 2.5%
to 2.71%
Senator Bob
Menendez
replied that
the IMF
wouldn't give
a dime unlesss
Ukraine
commits to
changes. Can
you say,
austerity? Watch
this site.