On
Syria,
Ban Takes
Center Stage
Then Defers to
Annan,
UN/Acceptable
Violations?
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNdisclosed
Location,
June 7 --
Outside the UN
Security
Council on
Thursday
afternoon,
three separate
rostrums were
set up. When
they emerged,
UN Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon took
the center.
But why?
Kofi
Annan is the
JOINT Special
Envoy of the
UN and Arab
League: Ban
and
the Arab
League's Araby
should have
been on his
two sides.
Especially
when Ban
answered a
question by
saying, I have
much to add to
what
[Annan] said.
One wag
muttered,
You're right,
you don't have
much to
add.
During
the closed
door Security
Council
consultations,
Western
diplomats
were bragging
that inside
Ban had said
that Annan's
six point plan
is
not likely to
be
implemented.
Inner City
Press asked a
non-Western
diplomat who
was inside the
room, did
Annan say
that? No, was
the
answer. And it
IS the "Annan
plan."
Annan,
of course, if
far from
perfect. When
Fox News was
given a
question,
the specter of
the Oil for
Food scandal
was in the
air. To ITN,
Annan
denounced
"unacceptable
human rights
violations."
It begs
the question:
are there
"acceptable"
rights
violations?
There do seem
to be, at
least for Ban
Ki-moon in Sri
Lanka. Anyone
who raises
this gets
targeted,
including for
expulsion.
Another
discrepancy
arose and
seemed to go
un- or
under-reported.
Earlier in
the week,
Inner City
Press learned
and
exclusively
reported that
after
indicating he
wanted to have
an "informal
interactive
dialogue" with
the Security
Council, as
for example
Thabo Mbeki
recently did
about Sudan,
Araby switched
course and
said he DIDN'T
want to meet
with the
Council.
Thursday
morning
a non-Western
diplomat
exclusively
told Inner
City Press
that
Arabi had
"changed his
mind or was
persuaded by
someone else"
and now wanted
an informal
dialogue,
which was then
scheduled for
2:30. Perhaps
this was
reported in
Western big
media and it's
just
not yet in
Google News.
But as of 6:15
pm on
Thursday, it's
not
there: until
now.
, 
