By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
September 11
-- After the
UN refused to
confirm how
its planning
for Syria
changed, from
US threatened
missile
strikes to the
Russian-proposed
chemical
weapons
initiative,
Inner City
Press staked
out the
Russian
Mission during
the meeting of
the Permanent
Five members
of the
Security
Council. Video
here, and
embedded
below.
As
Inner City
Press reported
from the
sidewalk in
front of the
Russian
Mission, the
meeting lasted
barely 35
minutes, and
afterward
neither US
Ambassador
Samantha Power
nor France's
Gerard Araud
said anything.
At least the
UK's Mark
Lyall Grant
said that he
had no
comment.
But
Inner City
Press has
since learned
that the
meeting,
contrary to
spoon-fed
Western
report, was
NOT about the
French draft
resolution,
which some say
the US would
like to
supersede, but
rather about
the initiative
on chemical
weapons. Many
call it the
Russian
initiative,
but we call it
"the
initiative."
(This is NOT
in deference
to Poland's
claim to be
the father of
the plan.)
This
explains the
fast and not
happy exit by
the Western
P3. But how to
explain this Reuters
report, by
a
reporter who
didn't even go
up to the
Russian
Mission?
"diplomats
said.
Among the
topics to be
discussed by
U.S., British,
Chinese,
French and
Russian
diplomats is a
French draft
resolution
that would
give the
government of
Syrian
President
Bashar
al-Assad an
ultimatum to
give up its
chemical
arsenal or
face punitive
measures."
That
was NOT among
the topics
discussed. So
who were the
unnamed
diplomats
Reuters'
quoted? Not
hard to guess.
Earlier
on September
11, Inner City
Press
asked UN
spokesperson
Farhan Haq
about the UN's
planning:
Inner
City Press:
about this
issue of
planning, I heard
last week that
there is
planning
within DPKO
[Department of
Peacekeeping
Operations]
and I saw the
answer that
was e-mailed
to me today
saying that
there “has
been
contingency
planning for a
range of
scenarios”,
but that it is
exclusively up
to the
Security
Council. So, I
understand
that to
implement a
plan, it is up
to the
Security
Council, but
can you
acknowledge
that DPKO does
planning
before it has
any mandate
from the
Security
Council and
that this
planning now
involves this
new proposal
to search for
and/or destroy
chemical
weapons?
Associate
Spokesperson
Haq: No, I
can’t confirm
that. We don’t
actually talk
in detail
about
contingency
planning. What
I can say is
that the
Department of
Peacekeeping
Operations
does do
contingency
planning for a
range of
potential
scenarios.
Ultimately,
what plan we
adopt depends
upon what
scenario
reflects the
present
reality.
Inner
City Press:
And did you
have a plan
for the
contingency of
a military
strike
directed at
chemical
weapons
facilities, as
discussed by
the United
States?
Associate
Spokesperson:
I wouldn’t
comment on the
specifics of
our
contingency
planning. It
is a
contingency,
like I said,
for a wide
range of
scenarios.
Watch
this site.
, 
