Inner City Press: Investigative Reporting from the United Nations

At UN on Sri Lanka, Ban Son in Law Called "Irrelevant," Rajapaksa Relations Still Undisclosed after Tete a Tete Meeting

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 29, 2010 -- With UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon embroiled in controversies including about his personal and familial relations with Sri Lanka, Mr. Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky declared on Wednesday that it is “irrelevant” whether Ban's son in law Siddarth Chatterjee served with the Indian military forces in Sri Lanka. Video here.

Back in March, Inner City Press had posed this question in writing to the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary General, without getting any answer. So on September 13, Inner City Press asked it and another related question in the UN's noon briefing:

Inner City Press: ...can you describe the personal relationship of the Secretary-General with Mr. Rajapaksa, including prior to becoming Secretary-General? And, can you confirm that the Secretary-General’s son-in-law served in the Indian peacekeeping force that occupied Tamil areas of Sri Lanka during previous peace negotiations? Just as a factual matter to know what the Secretary-General’s connections to Sri Lanka are?

Spokesperson Nesirky: ... as the final two questions, I will get back to you.

Two weeks later, neither answer had been provided. In the meantime, Ban had met with Sri Lanka President Mahinda Rajapaksa and Nesirky's office had issued a summary, including that “[t]he President updated the Secretary-General on the work of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission.”

Ban's summary made no mention of the UN panel on war crimes in Sri Lanka. The Sri Lanka's Office of the President issues its own summary:

“UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had yesterday told President Mahinda Rajapaksa in New York for the sessions of the UN General Assembly that his committee on Sri Lanka ``was in no way empowered to investigate charges against Sri Lanka, but was solely to advice him on matters relating to Sri Lanka,’’ according to a news release from the president’s office.”

When Inner City Press on September 27 asked Nesirky to reconcile these summaries, he said it was normal for the UN to not comment on president's summaries of talks with the Secretary General -- despite having done so with, for example, Sudan.

On September 29, Ban adviser Nicholas Haysom told Inner City Press that the UN summary including a paragraph of President Rajapaksa's comments was not normal. He said there was a one on one, tete a tete, meeting between Ban and Rajapaksa, of a type he said took place in one in ten, or one in twenty, of Ban's meetings. Why was it not included in the UN summary?

Nesirky refused to say which other of Ban's meetings had tete a tete portions. Inner City Press asked about his statement, two weeks previously, that he would “get back” to Inner City Press about Ban's relations with Rajapaksa, and Ban's son in law's relations with Sri Lanka.

Nesirky now insisted that this latter, about son in law Siddarth Chatterjee, was “irrelevant.”

UN's Ban depicted in Sri Lanka camp, son in law not shown

Ban's office has previous sought to cut off questioning about Ban's son in law, including his rapid rise through the UN system. In 2009, Inner City Press asked Nesirky's Office in writing to “please state from where the S-G's son in law Mr. Chatterjee got his degree(s), and the status of his case(s) with Ms. Shipra Sen.”

Ms. Shipra Sen had contacted Inner City Press, saying she could not otherwise get justice. She was married to Siddarth Chatterjee before he became involved with Mr. Ban's daughter Ban Hyu-yee. Ms. Sen states that Chatterjee used his connections to quash her in court, and that she had more recently contacted her to threaten her against speaking to Inner City Press.

Ms. Sen has described to Inner City Press Mr. Chatterjee's time with the Indian military whose time in Sri Lanka included charges of abuse and even war crimes, including graphic descriptions which make questions about Sri Lanka and Ban's son in law far from irrelevant.

It would seem important for Ban or his Office to comment. But on September 29, Nesirky also refused to answer the outstanding question about Ban's relations with Rajapaksa. The questions continue to mount. Watch this site.

* * *

UN Ban Confined Mention His Sri Lanka War Crimes Panel to Secret Unsummarized "Tete a Tete" Meeting with Rajapaksa

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, September 29, 2010 -- Five days after UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa met and then issued different summaries of their meeting, Inner City Press asked Ban adviser Nicholas Hayson to explain the discrepancy.

Haysom admitted that after the “open” meeting between the two men, which included advisers including Haysom, there was a “tete a tete” meeting, one on one, which the UN did not include in its purported summary of the meeting(s).

Inner City Press asked how many of Ban's bilateral meetings include separate one on one discussions. One in ten, Haysom estimated. Inner City Press asked, why not include the contents or at least topics of these rare addendum to meetings in the UN's summaries? Haysom defended the omissions, saying that these tete a tete meetings often included “staff issues” or other private issues.

While Ban's Spokesman Martin Nesirky pointedly cut off follow up questions, it is amazing that the UN would now claim that the issue, even the name, of its panel on accountability in Sri Lanka is a private or secret issue.

The "open" meeting

And if it is so secret, why allow Rajapaksa to publicly make representations about the “private” portion of the meeting, and then have no response? Inner City Press wrote about the discrepancy over the weekend, and asked about it on Monday, September 27. Nesirky declined to comment on what the President said, despite the fact that it calls into question the completeness and even accuracy of the other summaries his Office has issued -- or at least one tenth of them. Watch this site.

* * *

As Sri Lanka Quotes UN Ban Undermining His Panel on War Crimes, UN Questioned

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 26 -- Shortly after the spokesman for UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued a “read out” of Ban's September 24 meeting with Sri Lanka's Mahinda Rajapaksa which did not mention the UN panel on war crimes in Sri Lanka, Rajapaksa issued a statement that Ban told him the UN panel is “in no way empowered to investigate charges against Sri Lanka.”

Three obvious questions at least arise. First, if Ban did in fact say this to Rajapaksa about the UN panel, why did Ban's read out mention only Rajapaksa own commission, and not the UN's? Can one believe in and rely on the UN's summary of Ban's meetings?

Also, if Ban said what Rajapaksa attributes to him, isn't this totally undermining any power the panel had?

Third, if Ban didn't say this, when is the UN going to request a retraction or correction from the Sri Lankan government?

As Inner City Press reported on September 24, the UN's summary of Ban's Sri Lanka meeting took significantly longer to issue than their summary of their meeting with the President of Nigeria, Ban's meeting just before Rajapaksa.

Inner City Press' understanding of the process, from the shifting explanations given by UN officials, is that if a summary only includes what Ban said, it is issued without conferring with the government he met with.

If the summary, like the September 24 UN summary of Ban's meeting with President Rajapaksa, includes something that the President said, it is a “joint” statement, negotiated and agree to with the government. In these cases, both sides -- UN and government -- are supposed to issue the same agreed to statement.

But as it has done before, Sri Lanka got Ban to issue an inordinately positive, some think inaccurate “joint” summary -- and then nevertheless issued their own summary, including a quote in which Ban undermines the mandate of his own panel.

How will the UN respond? Watch this site.

Compare this

to Ban's own summary:

Subject: Readout of the Secretary-General's meeting with President Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply <unspokesperson-donotreply@un.org>
To: [Inner City] Press
Date: Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:42 PM
Subject: Readout of the Secretary-General's meeting with President Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka

Readout of the Secretary-General’s meeting with President Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka

The Secretary-General’s discussion with President Rajapaksa focused on the need to move forward expeditiously on outstanding issues covered in the joint statement of May 2009, particularly a political settlement, reconciliation and accountability. The Secretary-General underlined that the President’s strong political mandate provided a unique opportunity to deliver on his commitments to address these issues. The President underlined that development and education in the North were integral to national reconciliation. He gave examples of progress made on reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts in this regard.

The President updated the Secretary-General on the work of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission.

And what about the answers promised long ago by Ban's spokesman Nesirky about Ban's personal relationship with Rajapaksa, including prior to becoming Secretary General? Watch this site.

* * *

As Ban Meets Sri Lanka Rajajaksa, UN War Crimes Panel Not Mentioned

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 24 -- When Mahinda Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka met with the UN's Ban Ki-moon on Friday morning, Ban did not raise the slow starting UN panel of experts on war crimes in the country.

Five hours after the meeting, the UN issued a terse summary of what was discussed. It mentions only Rajapaksa's own “Lessons Learnt” panel, and not the UN's.

Inner City Press, covering the meeting on Sudan later on Friday with a “free range” UN pass, noted Sir Lanka's Minister of External Affairs G.L. Peiris seated on the North Lawn's second floor, reading.

In his previous trip inside the UN, Peiris refused to take any questions from the Press. In Washington, he walked out of a session at the National Press Club when he thought tough questions might be asked.

Neither he nor Rajapaksa have scheduled any press availability at the UN, unlike, only on Friday, the Presidents of Bolivia, Cyprus and Nigeria, to all of whom Inner City Press asked questions.

While Ban met with Nigeria's Goodluck Jonathan before he met with Rajapaksa, the UN's summary of the Nigeria meeting was issued hours before the Sri Lanka one. Does this reflect greater checking with or push back by Sri Lanka? Or, some ask, ineptitude in the UN's Sri Lanka team?

Its last read out about Sri Lanka came out at 10 p.m. When Inner City Press asked if it had been checked with the government, spokesman Martin Nesirky said no, there had just been a technical snafu. But how come a snafu on Friday as to Sri Lanka, and not Nigeria? Watch this site.

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

Click here for a Reuters AlertNet piece by this correspondent about Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army. Click here for an earlier Reuters AlertNet piece about the Somali National Reconciliation Congress, and the UN's $200,000 contribution from an undefined trust fund. Video Analysis here

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

Inner City Press -- Investigative Reporting From the Inner City to Wall Street to the United Nations