Ban
Ki-moon Tells
Press Alleged
War Criminal
as UN Adviser
Was "Decided
by States"
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
Feb 8, updated
Feb
10 and UN
killed link updated
24 Sept 2019
by now-banned
Inner City Press
-- Twelve days
after Inner
City Press
began
reporting on
Sri Lankan
alleged war
criminal
Shavendra
Silva joining
the "Senior
Advisory Group
on
Peacekeeping
Operations" of
UN Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon, on
Wednesday
evening the
question was
finally put to
Ban Ki-moon
himself. He
said, "Sri
Lankan
mission? It
was the member
states that
decided."
Inner
City Press had
tried to ask
the question
during Ban's
stakeout
session
outside the
Security
Council but
was not
permitted to.
An hour later,
Ban again
passed by the
Council
accompanied by
his Deputy
Spokesman.
Inner
City Press
asked, "What
about
Shavendra
Silva?
Even
as Ban slowed
down, his
deputy
spokesman
tried to avoid
any answer.
But Ban asked
in return,
"Sri Lankan
mission?"
Inner City
Press said
yes. Ban
delivered the
excuse that
his primary
spokesman
Martin Nesirky
has repeatedly
used: "It was
the member
states that
decided."
It
is not that
simple, and
many have
questioned
whether for
the
credibility of
the UN the
Secretary
General should
adopt a
position of
powerlessness
about all such
decisions. In
this case,
there was no
election;
Inner City
Press has
learned that
Sri Lanka got
Saudi Arabia
and Nepal to
stand down.
This
week, a major
Asia Group
Permanent
Representative
told Inner
City Press
he'd had no
idea what Sri
Lanka was
putting Silva
in the post.
For
the record,
acts of
Shavendra
Silva's
battalion in
2009 are
described in
the UN's
own Panel of
Experts report
on Sri Lanka
-- for example
in paragraphs
62,
90-92
and 171,
shelling
hospitals and
killing those
seeking to
surrender --
and lawsuits
have been
filed against
Silva for war
crimes. In September 2011,
Inner City
Press asked
Silva about
them, click
here for that
story.
Earlier
on Wednesday,
Inner City
Press asked
Herve Ladsous,
the head of
Peacekeeping
that Ban
selected as
the fourth
Frenchman in a
row in the
job, if Silva
having the
post impacted
DPKO's
credibility.
Ladsous
said, "this
was a decision
by the Asian
group,. a
decision to
appoint this
person which
became known
to all,
including to
us, the very
day the group
met for the
first time. We
had nothing to
do with the
selection of
the
individual."
Inner
City Press has
reported that
Ladsous'
fellow Under
Secretary
General Susana
Malcorra, now
slated to
become Ban's
deputy, in
fact met with
member states
to give them
criteria for
people to
serve on the
Senior
Advisory
Group,
including that
they be
Permanent
Representatives
and not
Deputies, like
Silva. She
apparently
neglected to
say then, or
since, that
alleged war
criminals
should not be
made advisers
to UN
Peacekeeping.
When
Pressed about
Silva and the
UN's
credibility,
Ladsous said
"the matter is
being
considered
further."
According
to Ban's pat
and prepared
answer later
Wednesday --
it was the
member states
that decided
-- it is
unclear if the
matter is
being further
considered by
Ban.
Ban shaking
heads with
Silva, (c)
MRLee: it was
a slippery and
fast slope
What
Inner City
Press has been
told by a
number of
member states
is that Sri
Lanka is being
talked to, but
is demanding
in return for
possibly
switching
Deputy Silva
for Permanent
Representative
Palitha Kohona,
also involved
along with
Ban's chief of
staff Vijay
Nambiar in the
so called
white flag
killings of
surrendering
prisoners,
that Sri Lanka
not be pursued
at the Human
Right Council
in March or
afterward.
(The fig leaf
that the
switch would
only be for
seniority,
though, is
undercut by
Japan naming
its Number
Three
diplomat, Jun
Yamazaki, to
the Senior
Advisory
Group.)
So
Sri Lanka
would be
allowed to
benefit, even
in this
scenario, from
putting an
alleged war
criminal as a
Senior Adviser
to Ban Ki-moon
on
Peacekeeping.
Some say, the
person who
should speak
out is Ban
Ki-moon
himself. But
all he's said,
after 12 days,
is "It was the
member states
that decided."
Quiet
diplomacy,
indeed. Watch
this site.
, 
