On
Eritrea
Sanctions,
China "Rejects
Push for
Action," Vote
Switched to
Monday?
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
November 30 --
While on
Eritrea
sanctions the
US and Gabon
continued
pushing
Wednesday
afternoon for
a vote later
in the day,
more
opposition to
the push
became public.
Chinese
Permanent
Representative
Li Baodong, on
his way into
the
consultations,
told
Inner City
Press, "We
reject any
effort to push
for action."
He added, "Let
the President
of Eritrea
come to
present his
statement."
The
request by
Isaias Afwerki
of Eritrea to
"be given the
audience to
address
the [UNSC]
before any
action is
taken on the
draft
resolution"
has been
blocked by US
Ambassador
Susan Rice.
Inner City
Press asked
UK Ambassador
Mark Lyall
Grant about
Afwerki
speaking.
"We
have no
objection,"
Lyall Grant
said. Inner
City Press
asked if the
UK
would call for
a procedural
vote, which
would require
a simple
majority with
no veto
powers. Lyall
Grant said no,
"We're not
asking him to
come, so
there's no
reason for us
to ask... If
those
who
particularly
want him to
come, I expect
they'd call
for a vote."
A
number of
Council
members have
told Inner
City Press it
would be a bad
precedent to
not grant the
request of a
head of state
to address the
Council,
especially
before
sanctions. But
who will call
for that
procedural
vote? "It's
better it's by
consensus,"
one
member told
Inner City
Press. But
what deal
might make the
US move?
Update
of 3:50 pm --
sources in the
Council
predict the
vote pushed
back "at
least" to
Monday, and
President
Afwerki being
invited.
(c) UN Photo
Li Baodong and
Vitaly
Churkin: no
pasaran
Meanwhile
while it
was said the
US has on its
side, among
Council
African
members, not
only Gabon but
Nigeria,
sources said
that Nigeria
either "wants
more time" or
"is flexible."
We'll see.
The
US
cites the
position of
IGAD on
Eritrea -- at
the same time
IGAD is
telling Kenya
to allow Omar
al Bashir,
indicted by
the
International
Criminal Court
for genocide
in Sudan, to
visit without
being
arrested. If
the US cites
IGAD favorably
for one
position, does
it
agree with
this second
IGAD position?
Watch this
site.
, 
