As
Human
Rights Groups Boycott Sri Lanka Panel, UN Ban's Panel
Invisible
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
October 15 -- The UN under Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is
slow in answering questions, particularly glaringly when it comes to
Sri Lanka.
On the morning of October 14, Inner City Press put three
simple questions to Ban's spokesperson Martin Nesirky, asking for
answers by the end of the noon briefing. None were provided until a
full 24 hours after that, and even then, the answers were evasive.
Since
so little
has been said about it of late, Inner City Press asked how the
members of Ban's panel of experts of accountability for the final
stages of the conflict in Sri Lanka are compensated, and why they
have no spokesperson, unlike Ban's under three member panel on the
referendum in South Sudan, from which Inner City Press just returned.
Twenty
four hours
after deadline, Nesirky responded that “These are two different
panels, one of which is advisory and reports to the
Secretary-General. The Spokesperson's office is in contact with the
Sri Lanka panel and will put out any messages that they would like to
convey.... The advisory panel on Sri Lanka, as we have made clear in
the past, is paid out of the regular budget, under 'unforeseen
expenses.'” But how much are they paid? And what are they
going?
Inner
City Press
also asked
On
Sri
Lanka's own panel, given the UN Secretariat's and Secretary
General's comments on it, please comment on the just announced
refusal
of HRW, Amnesty Int'l and ICG to participate since “the
commission would not operate independently because its members were
appointed by the government; moreover, the body had no real mandate
to probe alleged war crimes reported in the last stages of the war.
The commission also lacks any mechanism to protect witnesses and
falls short of minimum international standards of a commission of
inquiry.”
Nesirky
delayed 24
hours, and replied that “this was answered at the noon briefing
today.” Here's how:
“we’re
talking about a Sri Lankan commission, and that’s a matter for Sri
Lanka. So I am not going to comment on whether individual or
non-governmental organizations are cooperating with this commission
or not. What I can tell you is that the Secretary-General has his
Panel of Experts, which is there to advise him on accountability in
Sri Lanka. And that derives, as you know, from the agreement that
was reached between the Sri Lankan President and the
Secretary-General when he last visited... The Panel, the
Secretary-General’s Panel, is to advise him. It is not linked to
the national commission that you have just referred to. So whatever
the national commission is doing, and whatever interplay there is
between the non-governmental organizations that you are aware of,
whatever that interplay is, is nothing to do with the Panel, which is
set up to advise the Secretary-General. What I can say, of course,
is that the Panel has made clear that its expertise is available to
the Sri Lankan authorities if they request it. Their expertise is
available if the Sri Lankan authorities request it.”
But
the government of Mahinda Rajapaksa is highly unlikely to request any
outside help or review.
Ban and Rajapaksa, tete a tete and human rights not shown
Inner
City Press also asked Nesirky “does the
Secretary General agree with and will he now allowed to stand this:
'Attorney
General
Mohan Peiris has said that the United Nations Secretary General Ban
Ki-moon had expressed his satisfaction on the situation in Sri Lanka.
Peiris
had made this comment during a meeting with the Chief
Incumbent of the Getambe Rajopawanarama Temple in Peradeniya, Ven.
Keppitiyagoda Siriwimala Thero. Peiris had also said the UN Secretary
General was pleased with the activities of President Mahinda
Rajapaksa for creating a peaceful environment in the country. The
Attorney General had added that the international community was
pleased with the steps taken by President Rajapaksa to end the war in
the country and to bring permanent peace.'
Did
Mr.
Ban say these things? When? If not, will he let this stand?
I
am requesting response to these questions by email before the
conclusion of the noon briefing, four hours from now.
Nesirky
responded:
“We have put out our own readout of the meeting with the
President of Sri Lanka and stand by that readout. We do not as a
general rule comment on the descriptions of meetings provided by
Member States."
Ban, who
has
refused to describe his contacts and relationship with President
Mahinda Rajapaksa and his son-in-law Siddarth Chatterjee's connection
with Sri Lanka as an Indian military officer, is said by Sri Lankan
diplomats to have reached a separate agreement with Rajapaksa that he
could issue his own summaries of their meeting. But we will continue
to pursue the matters. Watch this site.
* * *
On
Ban's
“Abnormal”
Understanding with Sri Lanka's
Rajapaksa, UN Won't Answer
By
Matthew
Russell
Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
October
1, 2010 -- The UN's
stonewalling on Sri Lanka
expanded on October 1 with the Spokesman for Secretary General Ban
Ki-moon dodging whether Ban reached a private understanding with
President Mahinda Rajapaksa that Rajapaksa could represent what Ban
said in a one on one meeting about the limits of the UN war crimes
panel.
“It's up to
individual heads of state” to issue whatever summaries they want,
Spokesman Martin Nesirky said.
But
did Ban reach
an understanding with Rajapaksa, that he could say things not
included in Ban's own summary of their meeting? Nesirky did not
answer. Video here,
from
Minute 47:28.
Inner
City
Press
asked again, as it has for months, for a desciption of Ban's contacts
with Rajapaksa, including before and as Ban became Secretary General.
After
having
promised
already to provide the answer, Nesirky on October 1 said he
didn't understand the question: a list of meetings? Yes, of meetings
and topics and whether Ban considers Rajapaksa a personal friend.
How
else to explain
what Ban's adviser Nicholas Haysom called the “abnormal” summary
of the two men's meeting -- which unlike other UN summaries included
the President's as well as Ban's words -- and the separate
understanding about Rajapaksa issuing his own summary?
Nesirky
has
still
refused to explain how the “abnormal” summary of Ban's meeting
with Rajapaksa was produced. Hayson, for one, seemed surprised to see
its content.
That
Nesirky
couldn't
or wouldn't explain how it was produced implies that Nesirky
was not involved in his preparation. Who was, then?
On
the question of
Ban's son in law Siddarth Chatterjee's involvement in Sri Lanka, with
the Indian army force, Nesirky
deemed it “irrelevant” two weeks
after saying he would answer it. On October 1, Inner City Press asked
if Nesirky had even deigned to ask Ban or his Office about it -- that
is, whether Nesirky had the answer and wouldn't provide it, or didn't
even have the answer. Even this was not answered.
Nesirky
concluded
by
repeating that there are a lot of other issues than Sri Lanka: the
Middle East, Myanmar...
After Inner
City Press agreed but noted that Sri Lanka is the only
country in which Ban has been burned in effigy - and from which
people protested his speech at a midtown Manhattan hotel -- and that
an “abnormal” summary of his meeting with the President had been
issued, Nesirky asked if Inner City Press was saying that because of
the burning in effigy, the summary was different. Perhaps it was a
rhetorical question.
From
the
UN's
October
1, 2010 transcript:
Spokesperson
Martin
Nesirky:
Yes, Matthew.
Inner
City
Press:
Sure, I wanted to ask, this is on another inquiry war
crimes, the one in Sri Lanka. I have done a little bit more
reporting and can say that a Sri Lankan diplomat yesterday told me
that President Rajapaksa had an understanding with the
Secretary-General that he could issues his own summary of the
tête-à-tête meeting. That they violated no rules;
that that was
the understanding. I wanted to get your comment on that.
Spokesperson:
As
I said, it’s up to individual countries. If they wish to
provide a readout of a meeting, it’s for them to do.
Inner
City
Press:
Was there an understanding? That’s the word that he
used to me, that there was an understanding that would be done, but
it wasn’t done, and then the Secretary-General chose not to
comment. The understanding was that it would be done in that way.
Spokesperson:
Well,
as I said, this was tête-à-tête meeting. I
wasn’t in the
room. I assume that the diplomat that you refer to was also not in
the room, and I think I will leave it at that.
Inner
City
Press:
I want to ask, you’ve said that the information about
Ban Ki-moon’s son-in-law’s involvement in Sri Lanka is
irrelevant, although I would encourage you to just answer questions
rather than judge their relevance. But I do want to know whether you
are going to give an answer to this description of the
Secretary-General’s relationship with President Rajapaksa prior to
becoming Secretary-General?
Spokesperson:
It’s
really important to understand precisely: what do you mean by
that?
Inner
City
Press:
[inaudible]
Spokesperson:
No,
I mean what do you want? A list of the number of times they met
or what? I mean, it’s just not clear to me.
Inner
City
Press:
The times that they met; the terms on the issues on which
they met about, whether, you know, whether the Secretary-General
considers him a personal friend. All going to this point of whether,
in on extraordinary…, why this, there was an abnormal described by
Haysom as abnormal; and why the Sri Lankan Government is now saying
they had a special understanding with the Secretary-General that
apparently other Governments don’t get when the issue at issue is a
inquiry into war crimes and the killing of 40,000 people. It seems
relevant. But I mean, whether you think it is irrelevant, I have
asked you that. You’d said you’d get it and I don’t have it. And on the
question of the son-in-law, I don’t, have you been told? Have you asked
the Secretary-General’s Office for that information
or have you just not asked him? Do you have it but you don’t want
to tell me or you don’t have it? That’s what I want to know.
Spokesperson:
Well,
the logic of that is a little bit confused. On the question
of the Secretary-General’s meetings or otherwise with President
Rajapaksa, the Secretary-General, as you know, before he was
Secretary-General was the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea.
And I will need to check what meetings he may have had in that
capacity.
Inner
City
Press:
Check if he went on a visit with the President down to
the hometown of the President in southern Sri Lanka.
Spokesperson:
And
I
think we can obviously find that out. I mean, you are asking,
we can obviously find out. But I mean, there are a couple of things
here. One is that your focus is on this topic. There are many other
topics that the Secretary-General deals with, whether it’s Myanmar,
or the Middle East or, many topics. And it’s not about homing in
and singling out one particular topic.
Inner
City
Press:
No, no, Mr. Haysom himself said it was abnormal, and I
think if you look at the readouts that your office put out, there is
only one that has a representation of what the country said. It’s
also the only country that burned Ban Ki-moon in effigy since he’s
been in office. So, I don’t think it’s a random, it’s not a
country he picked at random. [inaudible]
Spokesperson:
So
you think that the readout was done like that because the effigy
was burned, is that what you are saying?
Inner
City
Press:
No, I didn’t say that. I said those are true facts that
make it significant, you can try to minimize it, but many people were
killed, he visited the country [inaudible].
Spokesperson:
It’s
not about minimizing, it’s not about minimizing. Don’t
put words into my mouth, Matthew, It’s not…
Inner
City
Press:
You said there are many other things.
Spokesperson:
Yes,
that’s not minimizing. That’s just saying that there are
other topics.
Inner
City
Press:
But I asked this question at the beginning of the year,
about his relationship with Rajapaksa, and I asked it two weeks ago
and you’d said you’d get it. So, I don’t want to belabour it,
I just want say…
Spokesperson:
Well,
now you’re belabouring it. And if I have something, I’ll
be happy to share it.
Inner
City
Press:
But it’s easy enough to get that. I mean, it’s not…
Spokesperson:
Well,
if it’s easy enough maybe you will have got it already.
Inner
City
Press:
No, but from the Secretary-General. You are his
Spokesman, I am not.
We'll
see.
Watch
this site.
* * *
, 
