Inner City Press

In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYTAzerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis

Share |   

Follow on TWITTER
 More: InnerCityPro

MRL on Patreon

Home -

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis


(FP Twitterati 100, 2013)

ICP on YouTube
Sept 24, 2013

UN: Sri Lanka


FOIA Finds  

Google, Asked at UN About Censorship, Moved to Censor the Questioner, Sources Say, Blaming UN - Update - Editorial

Support this work by buying this book

Click on cover for secure site orders

also includes "Toxic Credit in the Global Inner City"




Bank Beat

Freedom of Information

How to Contact Us

Spinning N Korea's Trade, AP Omits France and Ireland From Lede, Lists India & China, Inserts Malaysia

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon video, draft

UNITED NATIONS, September 12 – Who does business with North Korea? Some trading partners get air-brushed out, at least by the Associated Press. Here's the AP lede, followed by the underlying report Inner City Press and others already wrote about, which we've uploaded here on Patreon. AP: "UN Experts: NKorea Exported $270 Million Illegally Recently, By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS SEPT. 9, 2017, 9:03 P.M, UNITED NATIONS — North Korea illegally exported coal, iron and other commodities worth at least $270 million to China and other countries including India, Malaysia and Sri Lanka in the six-month period ending in early August in violation of U.N. sanctions, U.N. experts say." But here's the paragraph 71 from the experts' report: "The DPRK exported a total of $44,344,912 of iron and steel (HS code72) between October 2016 and April 2017 to the following countries: Barbados, China, Costa Rica, Egypt, France, El Salvador, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Pakistan and Sri Lanka." So why did AP focus only on China, India and Sri Lanka (and insert Malaysia), while leaving out of the lede Costa Rica, Egypt, European Ireland and P5 Security Council member France, listed in the UNderlying report? Isn't purchase by France more newsworthy than by neighbor China? In fairness, France is listed later in the AP story. But in today's rushed media environment, people read the lede. Why focus on dog biting man, rather than the French man biting and buying the dog? We'll have more on this. When Nikki Haley spoke on North Korea's hydrogen bomb test in the UN Security Council on US Labor Day, she called for a vote on new sanctions on Kim Jong Un's government on September 11. They passed 15-0, after reducing the cut into North Korea's oil and dropping a proposal travel ban and asset freeze on Kim Jong Un. Spinning on background, a US official familiar with the negotiations said, before the vote, that "Kim Jung Un doesn’t have that many assets that are out there and vulnerable anyway." Now you tell us. Here are the speeches of China and Russia after the vote, transcribed by Inner City Press:  China's Liu Jieyi: On the 4th of September, this year, theDPRK, in defiance of the general opposition of the international community, conducted yet another nuclear test. The Chinese government firmly opposes and strongly condemns such an act. China is committed to the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, to the peace and stability of the peninsula and to the solution of the issue through dialogue and consultation.
The resolution adopted by the Security Council today reflects this principle of 3 commitments and demonstrates the unanimous position of the international community of opposing DPRK’s development of nuclear and ballistic missile technologies and to preserving the international non-proliferation regime.
China urges DPRK to take seriously the expectations and will of the International community to halt DPRK’s nuclear and missile development effectively, not conduct any more nuclear or missile tests, and return to the track of denuclearization.
The resolution reiterates the maintenance of peace and stability on the peninsula and northeast Asia, and it commits to resolve the issue through peaceful, diplomatic means,  supports the resumption fo the 6 party talks as well as the commitment contained in the September 19th statement, and, emphasizes the importance of de-escalating tension on the peninsula. All parties should implement the relevant provisions contained in the Security Council resolutions.
The nuclear issue must be resolved peacefully. Measures must be taken to balance the legitimate security concerns of all parties.
China has been making efforts for denuclearization and for maintaining peace and stability of the peninsula.
On July 4 this year China and Russia issued a joint statement on the Korean peninsula, based on China’s proposals of a dual track approach to promote denuclearization of the peninsula in parallel with the establishment of a peace mechanism on the peninsula and suspension for suspension initiative of  DPRK halting its nuclear and missile activities and US and RoK suspension of large-scale military exercises and based on Russia’s proposal of a step by step approach. Both parties formulated a road map for the solution of the Korean peninsula issue. The joint Chinese and Russian initiative is as realistic as it is feasible. It is tackling both the symptoms and the root causes to advance the peaceful settlement of the Korean peninsula nuclear issue and maintain peace and stability of the peninsula. We hope to obtain the positive response and backing of the US and others.
We hope the US will incorporate into its specific policies regarding DPRK the four no’s of not seeking regime change in DPRK, not seeking the collapse of the regime in DPRK, not seeking an accelerated reunification of the peninsula, and not sending its military north of the 38th parallel. China is a close neighbor to the Korean peninsula. We’ve been consistently committed to denuclearization and we are against war and chaos on the peninsula.
The deployment of THAAD anti-missile system severely undermines regional strategic balance. it undermines the strategic interest of regional countries, China included. China strongly urges relevant parties to work against its deployment and remove equipment.
At present the situation on the peninsula is sensitive, complex, and grave. Relevant parties should remain cool-headed and avoid any rhetoric or action that would escalate tensions. The priority at present is to comprehensively and strictly implement the Security Council resolutions. Relevant parties should resume talks and negotiation sooner rather than later, endeavor to advance denuclearization, and maintin peace and stability of the peninsula, and the council should undertake its historic responsibility in this regard. China will continue to advance dialogue and consultations, work together with all relevant parties, and make a positive and constructive effort for the settlement at an early date of the Korean peninsula issue for obtaining denuclearization and for long-term peace and stability of the peninsula.

Russia's Nebenzia: Russia does not accept the claims of DPRK to become a nuclear state and has supported all Security Council resolutions demanding an end to the nuclear and missile programs of Pyongyang, in the interest of the denuclearizing of the peninsula.
Therefore we supported, and are supporting, the sanctions containedi n the resolutions aimed at compelling the DPRK to meet the demands of the Security Council. This fully applies also to the demands of 2371 even though we underscored that the measure of  financial and economic pressure had been exhausted and any further measures could be tantamount to the attempt at suffocating its economy, including the total embargo of the country and provoking a deep humanitarian crisis.
In other words, what we’re talking about here is not just cutting the channels of feeding the banned nuclear and missile activity but rather inflicting unacceptable damage on innocent civilians.
We proposed a reasonable and realistic alternative to the logic of sanctions, which has proven that it is unworkable, time and again. The alternative consisted of: starting implementing not just the sanction parts of the aforementioned resolutions of the Security Council, but also those provisions that called for a peaceful political and diplomatic settlement through dialogue and negotiations, and such provisions are contained in all the Security Council resolutions. Ignoring them means a direct violation of consensus agreements reached in the Council.
The unwillingness of the authors to include the idea of using the good offices and mediation potential of the Secretary General, as well as the denial to reaffirm the statement made by Tillerson, on the Four No’s, the lack of plans to start war, regime change, the forced reunification of the two Koreas and the violation of the 38th parallels all gives rise to very serious questions in our minds. We have not yet received answers to those. Russia, as was underscored by President Putin on the 5th of September, firmly denounces the recent provocation by Pyongyang but we’re convinced that diverting the menace from the Korean peninsula could be done through newer sanctions but exclusively through political means. That’s exactly the approach which was proposed by Russia and China in the joint statement dated 4th July, the joint roadmap on step by step moving to the settlement starting with de-escalation steps and bilateral lowering tensions and then implementing confidence-building measures and creating the conditions for the resumption of negations.
It’s a big mistake to under estimate this Russia China initiative. It remains on the table at the Security Council. We will insist on it being considered.
We did support resolution 2375 today because, while we’re convinced there is no future for us if we only try to compel the leadership or move away from dialogue, we think leaving nuclear tests without a firm reaction would be wrong. But we underscored that the reaction of the security council had to be thought through, it needs to take into account the humanitarian aspect of the situation in North Korea, the legitimate interest of the civilians, and the specific nature of the relationship between Pyongyang and foreign partners which have nothing to do with nuclear and missile tests but would meet the interest of the civilians.
Many of our colleagues stated that this resolution is a prologue to work on political settlement. We would like to in the very near future see proof of that, and call upon all members of the Security Council, and all UN members, to undertake specific efforts not in word but deed in order to find ways for a political and diplomatic settlement of the issue of the Korean peninsula. Thank you.On September 6, the US draft came out, saying it would among other things BAN oil exports to North Korea (see language below); CNN is still using that term (but see new draft and language below). The vote is slated for 6 pm on September 11; mid morning when Inner City Press asked Italy's Ambassador Sebastiano Cardi about the oil provisions, he said he wouldn't comment on the "details." Video here. At 3 pm, French Ambassador Francois Delattre said "The bottom line is simple: the threat of DPRK has changed in scope, scale, and its very nature. We’re facing not a regional but a global threat, which unites us. We fully support the resolution proposed by the US. We think it’s a robust resolution, a needed step towards the firmness I was just referring to. Our deep belief is that only a firm reaction of the Council can open the path to a political res. Our firm attitude today is the best antidote to the risk of war. I think the conditions are met to go for a vote. We completely support the resolution as it is. By definition this is a compromise to get everybody on board. We believe we have a  strong, robust resolution and it is a needed and important step with respect to the firmness that is the condition for a political solution tomorrow." On their way in to the morning Security Council meeting on Colombia the Ambassadors of the UK and Sweden spoke to the press. The UK's Matthew Rycroft said, This afternoon on North Korea we will be voting on a draft of the US circulated last night, it’s a very robust resolution and the UK supports it wholeheartedly. [Watered down?] "It’s called negotiations, and that’s what we do. There’s a significant pride in keeping the Security Council united, and I hope today’s vote will be united. The version on the table is strong, robust." Sweden's Olof Skoog said, "We certainly support the draft as it stands now." The US proposed asset freezes on five individuals including Kim Jong Un and seven entities; now it's one person (not Kim Jong UN) and three companies. On oil, here is what the September 10 revised draft says: "Decides that all Member State shall not supply, sell, or transfer to the DPRK in any period of
twelve months after the date of adoption of this resolution an amount of crude oil that is in
excess of the amount that the Member State supplied, sold or transferred in the period of
twelve months prior to adoption of this resolution, unless the Committee approves in advance on a case-by-case basis a shipment of crude oil is exclusively for livelihood purposes of DPRK nationals and unrelated to the DPRK’s nuclear or ballistic missile programmes or
other activities prohibited by resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094
(2013), 2270 (2016), 2321 (2016), 2356 (2017), 2371 (2017) or this resolution; (New)" And here was the US original draft: "Ban exports of crude oil, condensate, refined petroleum products, and natural gas liquids tothe DPRK: Decides that all Member States shall prohibit the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the DPRK, through their territories or by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories, of all crude oil, condensates, refined petroleum products, and natural gas liquids; (New)." Would Russia, for one, vote even for this? Haley had at the begin of the September 4 meeting recounted 24 years of history. (Inner City Press asked UK Ambassador Matthew Rycroft on his way in about Myanmar and the Rohingya, here.) Russia's Ambassador Nebenzia called Haley's an "excursion" into history and reiterated his country's and China's freeze for freeze proposal. China's Liu Jieyi said, as transcribed by Inner City Press: "The Chinese government resolutely opposes and strongly condemns the nuclear test of the DPRK in violation of the UNSC resolutions. Achieving the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and maintaining the nuclear non-proliferation system and peace and stability in Northeast Asia, this is the firm stance of the Chinese government…we strongly urge the DPRK to face up swuarely to the firm will of the international community on the issue of the denuclearization of the peninsula and earnestly abide by the resolutions of the council…The situation of the peninsula is deteriorating constantly as we speak, falling into a  vicious circle. The situation must be resolved peacefully. China will never allow chaos and war on the peninsula. The parties concerned must strengthen their sense of urgency…take practical measures, make joint efforts together to ease the situation, restart the dialogue and talks, and prevent further deterioration of the situation on the peninsula. The proposal by China and Russia of a 2 track approach, which promotes the denuclearization of the peninsula and establishment of a peace mechanism in parallel, the suspension for suspension initiative, which calls for the DPRK to suspend its nuclear and missile activities and for the US and the RoK to suspend their large scale military exercises and step by step concession from Russia are the basis on which brought countries jointly proposed a road map to resolve the issue.…we hope the parties concerned will seriously consider this and actively respond to it. China calls upon the International Community to jointly and comprehensively and fully implement the relevant resolutions of the SC on DPRK, firmly push forward the goal of denuclearization of the peninsula, and maintain peace and stability on the peninsula." Earlier, Haley said, "Kim Jong Un's abusive use of missiles shows he is begging for war. War is never something the US wants. But our patience not unlimited.... The idea  of "freeze for freeze" is insulting. When an ICBM is pointed at you, do not lower your guard. Enough is enough. The incremental approach has not worked. We must "quickly enact the strongest sanctions here in UNSC. We have kicked can down road long enough. There is no road left." Two days before today's reported North Korean nuclear test, incoming UN Security Council president for September Tekeda Alemu of Ethiopia held a long press conference at the UN and only mentioned North Korea once, per the UN Department of Public Information's summary, here. Will the Security Council and its president still leave New York for five days?
This as some on the UN Security Council, and UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres or at least his spokesman Stephane Dujarric have no problem with or comment on the UN's own World Intellectual Property Organization helps North Korea with a patent application for social cyanide (WIPO site here).  On Capitol Hill on June 28, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) urged US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley to act on WIPO, including its retaliation against whistleblowers. Haley spoke about reviewing peacekeeping missions, which is needed - as is a review and reversal of the UN's lack of protections for free press, and continued restrictions on investigative Press. At the day's UN noon briefing Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, UN Transcript here. The UN Secretariat also backed up WIPO on May 26 when Inner City Press asked, transcript here and below. Inner City Press on May 16 began to ask US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley about it (video here). On May 17, Nikki Haley replied to Inner City Press' question: "All parts of the UN system need to support the Security Council in its efforts to respond to the grave threat of North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction programs. Sodium cyanide is banned for export to North Korea by the Security Council. A common sense reaction would be for WIPO to inform the Council of such patent applications. Its failure to do so may have dangerous consequences.” Inner City Press on September 1 asked Ambassador Alemu four questions, including on Burundi (on the Council's agenda) and the Oromo Protests, a major human rights issue. Video here. But when the UN Department of Public Information wrote up the press conference, it did not even MENTION Burundi, much less the Oromo protests. See UN document here. What is wrong with UN DPI, a corrupt UN Department which spends $200 million a year in public funds, but doe not even has any rules, content neutral or otherwise, on how it accredits and/or restricts the independent press which covers the UN? Where is the new head of DPI, Alison Smale?   In response to Inner City Press asking why Burundi, where even the UN says there is a risk of genocide, is not on his September Program of Work nor on the agenda of the Council's visit to Addis Ababa, Alemu on September 1 - not covered by the UN - said that you can't compare Burundi to Central African Republic, that Burundi has “strong state institutions.” But it is that very “strength,” which some say the country shares with Ethiopia, and with until recently military-ruled Myanmar about which Inner City Press also asked, that has led to the human rights violations. In this context, Inner City Press asked Alemu about the Oromo protests - and crackdown - in his country. He diplomatically chided Inner City Press for not having asked in private, saying that social media has played a dangerous role. Meanwhile the UN brags about its (propaganda) social media work. We'll have more on this. Alamy photos here.


Feedback: Editorial [at]

Past (and future?) UN Office: S-303, UN, NY 10017 USA
For now: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

 Search  Search WWW (censored?)

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2017 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] for