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

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 15 -- After the UN Security Council adopted its resolution on ISIL and the Al Nusra Front on August 15, there was a round of speeches in the Council, then three Q&A stakeouts just outside it. Inner City Press put the resolution online here.

  Inner City Press asked UK Permanent Representative Mark Lyall Grant to confirm that the resolution does not authorize any military operations. He confirmed this, saying that as to Iraq no Council authorization is needed, since the government is inviting it. Transcript below.

  Syrian Permanent Representative Bashar Ja'afari complained that Lyall Grant had limited the participation not only of Syria but also Iraq -- something that, at least as to the timing of the speeches, Iraq's Permanent Representative confirmed. He made clear, however, that Iraq had input into the resolution, while Syria did not.

  Inner City Press asked Iraq's Permanent Representative Alhakim if his country would like to see US military action beyond protection of Yazidis on Mount Sinjar and of US personnel in Erbil and Baghdad. He handled the question diplomatically, praising the effectiveness of US airstrikes to date.

  What does this resolution really accomplish, beyond grandiose call on ISIL to “disband”? The six new names in the Al Qaeda sanctions list could have and probably should have been through the 1267 Committee. But Council members wanted to be seen to be doing something.

“It's like the foreign ministers flying in with one planeload of aid,” as one wag, not this one, put it. “It makes them feel good but it is not the solution.” Watch this site.

From the UK Mission to the UN's transcript:

Inner City Press: There was mention made in a number of speeches on cutting down on travel and the use of social media. I just wonder: One, are there any kind of limits on this in terms of, is it illegal for someone to say that they think that the politics of Iraq have been too sectarian. Where does that line get drawn? And also one of the Representatives said, this does not authorise military operations at all, and I wanted to know if you agreed with that, despite being under Chapter 7?
 
Amb. Lyall Grant: It is a Chapter 7 resolution. No it doesn’t authorise military action. There is no need for a resolution to authorise military action. The action that has been taken so far is at the request of the Iraqi government. On the wider point, we are not suggesting that this resolution is going to immediately, dramatically change the situation on the ground. There are a number of elements within it that will need to be worked through with Member States, but it is a first step towards establishing a longer term international framework for tackling this major threat that has arisen.