At
UN,
Weakness on
Rights Enabled
by HRW &
Scribes, Sri
Lanka's Silva
Push
By
Matthew
Russell Lee,
Media &
NGO Watch
UNITED
NATIONS,
February 22 --
How can it be
that Sri Lanka
thought that
the UN of Ban
Ki-moon and
those who
surround and
enable it
would accept
as
a member of
the UN "Senior
Advisory Group
on
Peacekeeping
Operations"
Major General
Shavendra
Silva,
whose Division
58 is
repeatedly
named in
connection
with war
crimes in
Ban's own
Panel of
Experts report
on Sri Lanka?
The
answer
is
multifaceted.
Ban has shown
himself weak
when faced
with the
pushback of
even small
states like
Sierra Leone
and Sri Lanka,
if he is not
being pushed
forward and
given scripts
by Western
powers. (Even
then he is
sometimes
silent.)
Non-governmental
organizations
which should
be critiquing
him, like
Human Rights
Watch, have
decided to go
silent and
even offer
praise and
excuses, in
exchange for
access.
Much
of
the press that
covers the UN
simply takes
press releases
or spin or
"leaks" as
news, happy to
be able to
take credit
for stories
they did no or
little work
on.
Into
this
morass, four
weeks ago Sri
Lanka launched
Silva as a
Senior Adviser
to Ban on
peacekeeping,
after getting
Saudi Arabia
and Nepal to
stand down as
candidates.
Inner
City
Press, which
covered Ban's
trip to Sri
Lanka in May
2009 when
while Tamil
children at
gunpoint sang
Ban's name,
Ban waved a
blue baseball
cap,
immediately
began to
question Ban's
spokesman and
then member
states and
other UN
officials
about how this
could be
accepted.
Sri
Lanka
responded with
a letter
of complaint,
with copies to
Ban's
spokesman and
to UN
Correspondents,
who made no
reaction,
having invited
Silva and
Palitha Kohona
to screen in
the UN their
rebuttal to a
war crimes
documentary
which was not,
itself, shown
in the UN. But
clearly the
Sri Lankan
Mission and
Silva thought
the cc's would
help them.
Then
Inner
City Press
asked High
Commissioner
for Human
Rights Navi
Pillay about
Silva, and get
her on camera
to say she was
concerned, and
had written to
Ban Ki-moon.
Quickly,
some who had
done no work
on the issues
tried
to grab it, to
save face.
But even then
Human Rights
Watch argued
that it was
not Ban
Ki-moon's
fault.
We
disagree:
Sri Lanka only
had the hutzpa
to submit
Silva because
Ban had shown
himself so
weak, had in a
closed door
meet with
Mahinda
Rajapaksa
berated his
own staff, as
exclusively
reported by
Inner City
Press.
But
Human
Rights Watch
some time ago
decided to go
soft of Ban,
refusing even
to summarize
the topics of
director's Ken
Roth's meeting
with Ban.
HRW's new UN
representative,
a French
former UN
correspondent,
selectively
doled out
information to
old office
mates, and
directly
refused to
tell Inner
City Press the
topic of the
meeting with
Ban he
attended, or
even to send
HRW's press
releases.
His
predecessor,
who moved on
to Amnesty
International,
was quite
different. Is
it
personalities?
Is it the
downside of
accept a huge
contribution
from a single
donor? Would
donors be told
the topics of
HRW's meetings
with Ban?
Even
when,
after Inner
City Press got
on the record
quotes of
concern about
Silva from the
Permanent
Representatives
of Bangladesh,
Pakistan and
the US, and
Senior
Advisory Group
chairperson
Frechette
belated said
Silva could
attend but not
participate,
the spin game
continued,
with HRW
doling out a
quote that media which never worked on the issue
dutifully ran.
Silva
shakes with
enabled Ban,
"member states
made me do it"
(c) MRLee
This
is why Ban's
UN for now
continues as
it does. And
it should
change. Watch
this site.
Update:
in interviews
conducted
Wednesday
evening, a
range of
diplomats
predicted
"this is not
over." A South
Asian DPR
argued that
Sri Lanka will
push through
the Asia Group
for Silva. A
Western
diplomat said,
they'll fight.
Another said,
the best thing
for
accountability
is that Ban
Ki-moon is out
of town. It's
in this
context that
this analysis
is written -
and will be
pursued.
, 
