After
Ban
& HRW
Silent for 3
Weeks, Face
Saving
on Silva of
Sri Lanka
By
Matthew
Russell Lee,
Analysis
UNITED
NATIONS,
February 16 --
How could it
be that UN
Secretary
General
claimed for three weeks
he could do
nothing to
stop the appointment
as
a his "Senior
Adviser on
Peacekeeping
Operations" of
General
Shavendra
Silva, whose
Division 58 is
repeatedly
named in
connection
with war
crimes in his
own Panel of
Experts report
on Sri
Lanka?
While
Ban was at
times under
fire for being
being lax on
human rights
in his first
term, in the
last year he
tamed critics
such as Human
Rights Watch.
For example,
when HRW boss
Ken Roth met
with Ban, and
Inner City
Press asked
for a mere
summary of
issues, HRW's
representative
at the
UN, a French
former
journalist,
said that
secrecy had to
be preserved
in order to
maintain
access,
replying that
"To
preserve our
ability to
have frank
discussions
with UN
officials and
advance our
advocacy
goals, we
don't
typically
communicate on
the content of
discussions we
have with
them."
This
came after
Inner City
Press quoted
a well placed
Ban
administration
source as
saying that
Team Ban
blamed Roth
for an NYT
editorial, and
threatened
to cut him off.
And
so going
forward, HRW
praised Ban,
and kept their
meeting topic
secret.
Ironically,
after this HRW
did issue a
read out of
Roth's meeting
with Joe
Biden. What's
the
difference?
Now
for example
for three
weeks Inner
City Press has
asked Ban and
his spokesmen
how
they can
accept a
person named
in Ban's
report on Sri
Lanka in
connection
with war
crimes. During
all this time,
not a peep
from HRW
(nor, as we'll
see, from
affiliated
media).
Ban's lead
spokesman
Martin Nesirky
repeatedly in
televised UN
noon briefing
said that Ban
can do
nothing, and
that Inner
City Press
should "ask
the
Asia group."
Prior
to this
development,
the Sri Lankan
Mission's
action was to
sent 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.
These offered
no push back
at
all -- in
fact, several
took the SLAPP
letter
seriously, or
claimed
to.
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.
Then,
after UN
High
Commissioner
for Human
Rights Navi
Pillay told
Inner City
Press
on February 13
she had
expressed her
"concern"
about Silva
to Ban, the
Sri Lankan
mission issued
a statement --
not to Inner
City Press --
calling the
concerns
"unethical,"
and got it
reported.
Another even
slower
journalist
heard or
learned of the
exchange on UN
television,
and sought to
claim and
shape it.
On
February 13,
Bangladesh's
Permanent
Representative
Abulkalam
Abdul Momen
exclusively
told Inner
City Press
that "we were
surprised they
sent a
controversial
participant...
it's not
fair." Adding
that
Silva
"individually
is not
acceptable,"
Abulkalam
Abdul
Momen told
Inner City
Press, "I,
India and
Pakistan, we
have
requested Sri
Lanka to fix
it up."
On
February 14,
Inner City
Press asked
Ban's deputy
spokesman
Eduardo Del
Buey about
this, and was
again told
that Ban can
do and has
done nothing
on
this.
Outside
the UN
General
Assembly
meeting about
Syria on
February 15,
the statement
of
Bangladesh's
Momen was
multiply
confirmed to
Inner City
Press.
Pakistan's
Permanent
Representative
Haroon told
Inner City
Press, we
hope
something
beneficial can
happen, we
will meet
about that
tomorrow.
This
appears to
be a meeting
smaller than
the Asia group
as a whole, as
another Asia
group member
told Inner
City Press
that "it
should be Sri
Lanka
that fixes it,
then the group
will affirm
it."
Now
and only now
did HRW give a
quote about
the issue, to
its UN
representative's
former office
mate, who made
no mention of
the weeks of
other work
previously
done on the
story. It's a
form of face
saving. Watch
this site.
(c) UN Photo
Ban,
Kim and team
meet HRW's
Roth and team
May 2011,
Silva, praise
&
read out not
shown
Footnote:
the Turtle
re-posted a
report of the
Arab League
observer
mission to
Syria four
full days
after Inner
City Press published it,
yet labeled it
on FP as an
"exclusive."
Even when an
unaffiliated
reader
directly
raised and
challenged
this
"exclusive"
mislabeling,
nothing was
changed, for
weeks and
counting. This
is how it
works?
, 
