At
UN,
Ban Prefers
Attack on Kofi
Annan in The
Whistleblower
to Critique of
His UN's Sri
Lanka Act in
Killing Fields
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
August 16 --
Two months
after the
premiere of
the film
"Killing
Fields" about
Sri Lanka
including a
critique of
the UN's weak
performance
under
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon, Inner
City Press
asked Ban's
acting deputy
spokesman "Yes
or no: has Ban
Ki-moon
watched
'Killing
Fields of Sri
Lanka'?"
Weeks
ago, the UN
told Inner
City Press
that a DVD of
the film had
been given to
Ban Ki-moon
and that he
would watch it
when he had
time. When Ban
returned from
his native
South Korea,
he went on
vacation (or,
"intends to
have some time
off this
week," as Haq
described it).
On
August 16, Haq
having
canceled the
day's UN noon
briefing told
Inner City
Press by
e-mail: "He
has received a
copy of the
film from
Channel 4."
Given
the way the
question was
asked, we read
this answer as
"No," Ban has
not watched
it.
This
stands in
clear contrast
to Ban's
August 11
letter to the
director of
the film "The
Whistleblower," also criticizing the UN but for a time period before
Ban Ki-moon
took over, as
noted under
the heading "Ban
confronts a
sordid chapter
in UN's
history"
in Foreign
Policy which
received the
letter.
Why
has Ban
watched The
Whistleblower
-- with his
senior
advisers, no
less -- and
not "Killing
Fields of Sri
Lanka"? The
latter's
critique of
the UN, in
2009, Ban is
in fact
responsible
for. The other
he can lay off
to another
time, and
claim he is
fixing the
problem.
Ban & his
Special
Adviser
Nambiar,
Killing Fields
not seen
Ban's
letter doesn't
say if his
chief of staff
Vijay Nambiar
was one of the
senior
advisers with
whom Ban
watched The
Whistleblower.
More than one
source has
suggested that
Nambiar might
be behind Ban
not commenting
on, or even
apparently
watching,
Killing Fields
of Sri Lanka,
given among
other things Nambiar's
involvement in
the so-called
white flag
killings
depicted in
the movie.
While
Ban on August
11 wrote
that he is
asking the
President of
the General
Assembly to
sponsor a
screening in
the UN of The
Whistleblower,
he has
not even
transmitted
the Panel of
Experts'
report on Sri
Lanka to the
UN Human
Rights
Council.
Haq
on August 15
said that
still might
happen in the
future.
Maybe after
Ban finds the
time, with or
without
Nambiar, to
watch a movie
that critiques
his UN's
performance?
We'll see.
* *
*
At
UN
on Sri Lanka,
Ban Ki-moon
Didn't Even
Submit Panel
Report to
Geneva, "Could
Still Happen"
- But When?
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
August 15,
updated with
transcript --
Asked about an
editorial
accusing UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon of
being "lax" on
countries such
as Sri Lanka,
Ban's acting
deputy
spokesman
Farhan Haq on
Monday
countered that
Ban had "on
his own
authority
appointed a
Panel of
Experts" on
Sri Lanka.
Inner
City Press
asked if
Ban had even
transmitted
the Panel's
report to the
Human Rights
Council,
and if he
finds it
unfortunate
that the Human
Rights Council
did not take
up or act on
the detailed
report.
Haq
replied that
the Panel's
report has
"not been
formally
submitted by
Secretary
General at
this stage
although that
could still
happen in the
future."
Earlier
this month,
representatives
of a number of
member states
asked Inner
City Press why
Ban never
transmitted
the Panel's
report to the
Human Rights
Council. "This
sent a
message," one
representative
told Inner
City Press
with a shake
of the head,
"that Ban
doesn't really
want action on
his own
report."
The
representative
went on to
marvel that
Vijay Nambiar,
who was
involved in
the white flag
killing
described in
the Report,
has been
allowed to
play any role
in the review
and (in)
action on the
Report.
Now
some in the
Ban
administration
imply that the
report has
been held
back. For
leverage or
due to a lack
of commitment?
One Ban
administration
representative
told Inner
City Press, on
condition of
anonymity due
to fear of
retaliation
and firing,
that if Ban
has any
leverage, he
would use it
for "more
pressing"
topics than
Sri Lanka.
Meanwhile
Ban's Office
of the
Spokesman is
reducing
question and
answers by 40%
by canceling
noon
briefings;
lead spokesman
Martin Nesirky
will only
return on
August 29, if
then. Ban has
returned from
South Korea,
but will try
to take this
week off.
An
article
in the
Canadian press
about the cut
back in
question and
answer time
quoted
Inner City
Press asking
Haq "How did
you decide to
say that
journalists
here want less
information
rather than
more?" and an
unnamed UN
official that
the "coming
week looks to
be pretty
calm." Watch
this site.
From
the
UN's
transcription
of its August
15, 2011 noon
briefing:
Inner
City
Prss: There is
an editorial
in the
Guardian that
came out over
the weekend,
called “United
Nations: Weak
leaders
wanted”, and
it is, one of
the lines is:
“China, Burma,
Sri Lanka have
benefited from
Mr. Ban’s lax
hand. To save
his legacy he
must refresh
his top team
with people
who understand
the UN’s
principles.”
What’s the UN,
what does it
think of this
editorial and
is there a
plan to
actually make
some kind of a
shake-up; not
necessarily
obviously in
response to
this
editorial, but
what’s the
response to
that analysis
that weakness
on Sri Lanka,
Myanmar, et
cetera, have
stained the
UN’s legacy?
Acting
Deputy
Spokesperson
Farhan Haq:
First of all,
as you will no
doubt be
unsurprised to
learn, I don’t
agree with
that
particular
evaluation. On
Sri Lanka, for
example, the
Secretary-General,
acting on his
own authority,
did create a
Panel of
Experts under
the leadership
of Marzuki
Darusman,
which came out
with a report
which to this
day is one
that we
believe is
worthy of
study and
further action
from Member
States. We do
believe that
there are many
issues on
which the
Member
Governments of
the United
Nations
themselves
need to take
action. But on
cases where
they have not
done so, as
you know, the
Secretary-General
has taken it
upon himself,
as in Sri
Lanka, and
indeed as in
his own good
offices
efforts in
Myanmar.
Beyond that,
you’d also
asked about
whether there
would be a
shake-up. Of
course, there
is no point or
intention to
do any
shake-up in
reaction to
any editorial
or indeed any
articles here
or there. But
the
Secretary-General,
as you are
aware, will be
starting his
second term in
office in
January. And
he does expect
to make
different
moves and
reinvigorate
and revitalize
his team for a
second term.
Inner
City
Press: Just
one follow-up
on that, just
on the Sri
Lanka side,
because I
guess there is
a sort of a
difference of
opinion. Did
the
Secretary-General
ever transmit
that report to
the Human
Rights
Council? I
mean, more
just directly,
does he think
it is
unfortunate
that action
wasn’t taken
in this
session, all
of which took
place after
the report was
released? Did
he ask them to
take action or
is there some
future goal to
transmit it?
Acting
Deputy
Spokesperson
Haq: First of
all, as you
know, the
report is a
public
document. It
has not been
formally
submitted to
the Human
Rights Council
by the
Secretary-General
at this stage,
although that
could still
happen in the
future. Right
now, what we
expect and
hope to see is
that concerned
Member States
who are now
appraised of
the contents
of that report
will take it
up and push
for something
further. As
you know, the
report has a
number of
recommendations,
including for
further
investigation
and for
further
efforts at
accountability.
And we believe
that they need
to be taken up
very
seriously.
, 
