Benghazi
Email Show USg
Feltman
Talking Free
Qatar Flights,
Diss Brazil
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, May
22 -- Amid the
296 emails
released by
the US State
Department
about
Benghazi,
Libya on May
22 are four
which mention
the UN
Security
Council. Three
of these four
include
mention of
then-US,
now-UN Jeffrey
Feltman, with
one being
authored
Feltman
himself.
(Jake Sullivan
forwarded it
to Hillary
Clinton.)
In it, Feltman
recounts
telephone
calls with
United Arab
Emirates
Foreign
Minister
Abdullah bin
Zayed, called
AbZ, and
Qatar's Hamad
bin Jassim,
HBJ. Feltman
note the rare
coordination
of the two --
and that
Qatar's HBJ
offers a plane
for Jibril to
get to Paris.
Later, Feltman
would hold the
same calls for
the UN, where
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon would
take the same
free flights
from Qatar, as
exclusively
reported by
Inner City
Press.
(There's more,
more recent,
here.)
In another
email touting
Hillary
Clinton's work
on Libya it is
listed: “March
17 - HRC
secures
Russian
abstention
&
Portuguese
& African
support for
#UNSC 1973."
This
does not
mention the
abstentions of
China,
Germany, India
and of Brazil,
which
propounded its
"Responsibility
While
Protecting"
doctrine.
In an email
called Libya
Tick Tock, it
is recounted
that Feltman
was sent to
Tunis on June
16, 2011 to
tell a Qadhafi
delegation
that Qadhafi
must go.
Now in 2015,
Inner City
Press has exclusively
reported on
Hillary
Clinton's
successor John
Kerry telling
Ban Ki-moon
not to hold
Yemen talks in
Geneva on May
11 -- a
process as
noted
involving USg
Feltman as
every stage.
With the
post-Riyadh
Yemen talks
set for May
28, we'll have
more on this.
Back on April
29, Inner City
Press asked
the UN's
deputy
spokesperson
to confirm
that the UN
was
considering
Geneva as a
venue to
continue Yemen
talks, after
its previous
envoy Jamal
Benomar
resigned in
protest of
Saudi
airstrikes and
was replaced
by a more
amenable
envoy, Ismael
Ould Cheikh
Ahmed.
UN deputy
spokesperson
Farhan Haq
replied that
“we do not
officially
have a venue
yet.
Geneva is
certainly one
of the venues
that is being
considered,
and that may
very well be
where it's
taking place.”
After that,
Inner City
Press has
learned,
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon spoke
with US
Secretary of
State John
Kerry, who
discourage --
rejected, in
essence -- the
date of May 11
in Geneva
which the UN
had put in
writing, in
multiple
documents
since seen by
Inner City
Press.
The UN's
argument,
tellingly, was
the May 11
would work
well for Ban
Ki-moon's
schedule (he
would be
returning from
his May 9
attendance of
Victory Day in
Moscow) and
that the
Houthis were
more likely,
but not
certain, to
attend in
Geneva rather
a Saudi
selected
venue.
In an echo of
the UN's
failing
mediation on
Syria, the UN
acknowledged
that while
Iran should
attend in
Geneva, Saudi
Arabia might
refuse to
attend in Iran
did.
And
so the UN's
idea was a
Yemeni-only
event in
Geneva, with
Ban Ki-moon to
speak and then
leave. New
enovy Ismael
Ould Cheikh
Ahmed would
then conduct
consultations
-- like Staffan
de Mistura is
doing on Syria,
the UN
analogized
without
apparent irony
-- and perhaps
move the
ongoing talks
to Muscat,
Oman.
(Involved in
all this
planning, not
surprisingly,
has been
American
Jeffrey
Feltman,
previously of
the US State
Department.
While a nice
enough guy,
this combined
with France's
even more open
domination of
UN
Peacekeeping
through USG
Herve Ladsous,
has also
caused the UN
to
increasingly
be viewed as
partial. The
UK controls
Humanitarian
Affairs
through
incoming
Stephen
O'Brien as
exclusively
reported by
Inner City
Press,
credited by UK
Channel 4
and the Telegraph.)
As to the UN's
idea of May 11
talks in
Geneva, Kerry
said no, that
the UN should
wait until
after the
Saudi convened
event, now set
for May 17 in
Riyadh. The
Houthis, of
course, will
not attend
that. Ban
Ki-moon is
invited, but
might see it
smells of
failure or
partiality.
In any event,
while the UN
has not
announced it
South Korean
sources say
Ban will be in
South Korea
for four whole
days around
May 20. (Some
say he has an
interest in
running for
office there.)
But if Ismael
Ould Cheikh
Amhed attends
the Riyadh
meeting and is
put on display
on the podium,
what possible
credibility
with or access
to the Houthis
could he have?
Tellingly,
while others
have reported
the Ismael
Ould Cheikh
Ahmed is going
to Paris
before visting
Riyadh, they
have not said
why. Inner
City Press is
informed the
Paris stop
over is at the
request or
demand of the
head of the
Gulf
Cooperation
Council, who
is on vacation
in Paris. This
is today's UN.
(SPA
subsequently
reported or
bragged that
Ismael "Wild"
Cheikh Ahmed
met in Paris
with GCC
Secretary
General
Abdullatif bin
Rashed
Al-Zayani.)
Tellingly,
while Ismael
Ould Cheikh
Ahmed rushed
to Washington
DC to meet at
the US State
Department on
May 1, as of
the late
afternoon of
May 5 the
president of
the UN
Security
Council had
yet to meet
Ismael Ould
Cheikh Ahmed.
On
April 25, UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon on
April 25 named
Ismael Ould
Cheikh Ahmed
to replace
Jamal Benomar
as envoy on
Yemen.
Three times
Inner City
Press had
asked the
Office of the
UN
Spokesperson
why Ould
Cheikh Ahmed
is not listed
on Ban's
webpage of
public
financial
discloure and
to say, yes or
no, if he has
an interest in
a business
which received
funding from
the Gulf.
Three times
the Office of
Spokesperson
promised to
look into and
give an
answer, but
never did.
This is Ban's
UN.
On April 28,
Inner City
Press asked
again:
Inner
City Press: I
wanted to ask
on the new
Yemen Special
Adviser, Mr.
Ould Cheikh
Ahmed, there
was this
understanding
of why on the
page of the
Secretary-General
there's no
public
financial
disclosure.
Deputy
Spokesman
Farhan
Haq:
Regarding
that, we did
check with the
ethics office,
and he has
made available
his disclosure
in line with
the existing
rules and
procedures,
and so he is
up to date on
those.
There are
times when
for… for a
variety of
different
reasons
people's
disclosures
may not be on
the website.
Inner City
Press:
But is he one
of the
officials
that's decided
to not make
even the
summary
public?
I want…
because when
the name is
listed,
there’s a
checkbox…
Deputy
Spokesman
Haq:
I've said what
I have to say
on that, but
he has made
his
disclosures in
line with the
appropriate
rules and
regulations.
Inner City
Press:
And also
Stéphane had
said that he
would check
whether a
letter was
received by
the Office of
the
Secretary-General
from a number
of parties in
Yemen
concerning the
appointment of
this new
envoy.
Did he do
that?
Have you
received that
letter?
Deputy
Spokesman:
I don't
know.
This was when?
Inner City
Press:
It was on
Friday, I
believe, that
I asked him
and he said he
would
check.
The reports
are that the…
a variety of
the parties in
Yemen wrote a
letter about
the process of
replacing Mr.
Benomar.
And I wanted
to obviously
just to know
if you got it…
Deputy
Spokesman:
Certainly… In
the day after
you asked, we
announced the
appointment,
so that is
part of our
answer. And
with that, let
me bring our
guest.
So,
none of the
public
financial
disclosure
which Ban
talked so much
about. Why
not?
On
April 24,
Inner City
Press had
asked Ban's
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric:
Question:
Okay.
I'm also
informed of a
letter from
political
parties in
Yemen,
including
those
representing
Houthis and
others,
directed at
the
Secretary-General
making two
requests.
One, that Mr.
Ould Cheikh
Ahmed not be
named as a
replacement to
Mr. [Jamal]
Benomar and
that someone
be appointed
or retained
who actually
they will
speak
with.
And I wanted
to know… you
may not know
of this letter
yet, but I'm
reliably
informed it is
either there
or on its way…
Spokesman:
All
right. I
will look for
the letter.
Question:
And I guess my
question would
be, do you…
has the
Secretary-General…
since we've
already… we've
heard from
some of the
ambassadors
from the
Security
Council that
he's put
forward a
name.
Did he put any
effort to
speak to the
parties on the
ground in
Yemen, the
actual
Yemenis?
Spokesman:
I think the…
when we're
ready to
announce the
person, we
will.
Obviously, for
a… an
appointment as
delicate as
this… as this
ongoing… to
represent the
Secretary-General
in this
ongoing
crisis, it is
normal to have
as broad of a
consultation
as possible,
and what is
obviously
extremely
important is
that once that
envoy is
named, that
adviser is
named, that
all the
parties give
him access and
engage with
him.
Question:
If you get the
letter, will
you squawk
it? Does
it mean that
these parties
that wrote…
Spokesman:
I think…
Question:
…once
consulted…
Spokesman:
It's an
ongoing
humanitarian
crisis.
It's an
ongoing
conflict.
And we are
trying to get
the political
process back
on
track.
So we'd like
to have a
special envoy
as soon as… a
Special
Adviser as
soon as
possible, and
again hope
that all the
parties engage
with him.
Question:
Didn't you
have one?
That's my
question.
Didn't you
actually have
a Special
Adviser?
Spokesman:
Yes, we have
Mr. Benomar…
Question:
Is it your
understanding
that he's
entirely
unwilling to
continue in
the post?
Spokesman:
Well, I think
he's… he's…
he's expressed
his desire to
move on and,
as we said, we
are… we're in
the process of
naming
somebody
shortly.
No response
about the
letter,
either. This
does not bode
well.
After
Saudi Arabia
was allowed to
oust UN
mediator Jamal
Benomar for
being
insufficiently
supportive of
its
airstrikes,
the UN is
being
promoted,
again, as an
honest
broker.
How so, when
the UN has
UNtransparently
named as a
replacement
mediator an
individual who
previously
failed in
Yemen,
refusing to
make public
financial
disclosure?
How weak and
untransparent
is today's
UN?
, 
