After
Pillay
Tells ICP of
Concern on
Silva as
"Senior
Adviser,"
Ban Disagrees
With Her on
Vetting
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
February 13 --
For two
weeks, UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon
and his
spokesman have
responded to Inner City
Press'
questions
about the
selection as
"Senior
Adviser on
Peacekeeping
Operations" of
Shavendra
Silva, whose
Division 58 is
repeatedly
named in
connection
with war
crimes in
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
Panel of
Experts
report on Sri
Lanka, by
saying there
is nothing the
UN can do, the
selection
is entirely up
to member
states.
But
on February
13, when Inner
City Press asked UN
High
Commissioner
on Human
Rights
Navi Pillay
about Silva,
she replied on
camera and on
the record
that
"It's a matter
of concern.
The United
Nations has
very clear
policies on
vetting and
this is part
of the work
that my office
does.
We keep a list
of individuals
who are
suspected of
committing
human
rights
violations and
I have
addressed a
letter of
concern to the
secretary-general
about this
individual" -
that is,
Silva.
On
February 14,
Inner City
Press asked
Ban's
spokesman
Martin Nesirky
to confirm
receipt of the
letter, and to
explain why
the UN's
system of
"vetting,"
which for
example led
the UN to not
accept as a
peacekeeper a
Nepalese
military
official
charged with
war crimes,
wouldn't apply
to a UN
"Senior
Adviser on
Peacekeeping
Operations."
Nesirky
replied,
"yes a letter
was received,"
then again
said "it is a
matter for
member
states." Video
here, from
Minute 20.
Inner
City Press
again asked
how Ban could,
disagreeing
with the UN's
own High
Commissioner
on Human
Rights, not be
consistent and
use the
"vetting"
system
applicable to
officials sent
from
individual
member states
as
peacekeepers
to a Senior
Adviser on
Peacekeeping
that emerged
from
the Asian
Group (where,
as Inner City
Press first
reported,
there was
no election,
with Nepal and
Saudi Arabia
being
convinced to
stand
down).
(c) UN Photo
Ban looks at
Pillay but
does not
follow her
recommendation
on vetting
Nesirky
argued
that vetting
doesn't apply
because "there
is a General
Assembly
resolution."
But UN
Peacekeeping
itself is
governed by
General
Assembly as
well as
Security
Council
resolutions.
The
UN's
own in-house
News Center
reported in
2009
"While
noting the
important
contribution
that the Nepal
Army
has made to UN
peacekeeping
missions, [the
UN's] Mr.
Bennett stated
that until
an independent
and impartial
vetting
mechanism is
put into
place, the
promotion,
extension, or
nomination for
UN service of
individuals
alleged to
have committed
violations
should be
suspended."
Another
UN
system
document on
vetting says
"Under
circumstances
of limited or
delayed
criminal
prosecutions,
vetting
can also help
to fill the
'impunity gap'
by ensuring
that those
responsible
for past
abuses at
least do not
continue to
enjoy the
rewards and
privileges of
public
office."
So why
would Ban
Ki-moon be
exempting
Senior
Advisers, or
at least Sri
Lanka's
Shavendra
Silva, from
the vetting
applicable to
ordinary
peacekeepers?
We'll
see.
Footnote:
After
Ban
Ki-moon
himself
told Inner
City Press
that, on
Silva, it
was
decided by
member states,
and Inner City
Press reported
this, Sri
Lanka's
Mission to the
UN wrote a
letter of
complaint to
Inner City
Press, sending
a copy to
Ban's
spokesman as
well as to
some
in the UN
press corps.
Inner City
Press in less
than 24 hours
published
and responded
to the letter,
citing only
some of the
many
references to
Silva's
Division 58 in
the report.
Now, the
Mission has
taken to
issuing
statements to
UN
correspondents
who never
wrote about
the underlying
Silva
controversy --
while the
country seeks
to block media
websites.
Watch this
site.
, 
