Inner City Press: Investigative Reporting from the United Nations

On Sri Lanka, Araud of France Says Accountability Is Up to Locals, Unlike in Libya

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 3 -- After the UN belated published its Panel of Experts' report on war crimes in Sri Lanka, Inner City Press asked the French Mission to the UN in writing for a comment on the report and what should happen next.

While the French mission never answered in writing, a spokesman told Inner City Press that a response would take time, and would come from Paris.

But French ambassador Gerard Araud, taking over the UN Security Council presidency for May, brought up Sri Lanka during his beginning of the month press conference. Explaining that the Security Council often chooses not to get involved in bloody conflicts, he referred to 30,000 dead in Sri Lanka, and the Council choosing not to get involved.

During what even the UN called the “bloodbath on the beach” in April and May 2009, Araud's predecessor as Permanent Representative, Jean-Maurice Ripert, was often ambiguous on whether France wanted the Council to consider the conflict, which had regional dimension.

Ripert would refer to Bernard Kouchner traveling to Sri Lanka with “water bladders” and other humanitarian supplies, but never called for a ceasefire. Click here for an Inner City Press piece from that time.

Inner City Press on May 3 asked Araud what France thinks should be done about the UN Panel of Experts report, which Araud himself summarizes as detailining 30,000 killings in Sri Lanka.

Despite Araud having pushed this year to refer for example Libya to the International Criminal Court on a decidedly smaller death count, and has called for the same in former colony Cote d'Ivoire, Araud on May 3 said that investigation is up to the Sri Lankan authorities, as something they should do to “improve the reconciliation process.”

Araud & John Holmes, accountability for bloodbath on the beach not shown

Ironically, the Sri Lankan authorities -- the Rajapaksas -- speak loudly about a Western conspiracy. If one exists, France is not a part of it, at least not in Sri Lanka.

Despite France's rhetoric about the primacy of the protection of civilians, Araud relegated accountability for 30,000 deaths to the sole responsibility of the Sri Lankan authorities, and only because it might improve reconciliation. Perhaps this seeming incongruity will be further explored this month. Watch this site.

* * *

On Sri Lanka, As G.L. Peiris Riffs on 10 Day Old Call with Ban, Kohona Comes Calling at UN: War Crimes Response?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 3 -- After in Sri Lanka external affair minister G.L. Peiris told Parliament he had spoken with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon by telephone and would be formally responding to the UN Panel of Experts' war crimes report, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky about the referenced call.

Three hours later Nesirky said that Ban's last telephone call with G.L. Peiris was on April 23 -- before the report was belated published by the UN.

Nesirky at Tuesday's noon briefing said that the UN had not been informed by Sri Lanka that it would respond.

But late Tuesday afternoon, Inner City Press learned of a meeting in the UN's North Lawn building with Sri Lanka's Permanent Representative Palitha Kohona, who is himself described in the war crimes report, along obliquely with Ban's chief of staff Vijay Nambiar, in regard to the White Flag killings.

Inner City Press has asked Nesirky to confirm and for a read out of the meeting with Kohona.

Ban taking hand off from Kohona, response still not shown

From the UN's May 2 noon briefing transcript:

Inner City Press: I wanted just know if whether in the course of his 1 May protests in Colombo, Sri Lanka, the President, Mahinda Rajapaksa, was… is described as being quite critical of the report and as saying basically it’s the product of money or bribery on the part of the writers. And I just wondered, what’s the UN’s response both to the demonstrations, and is it the UN’s understanding it’s going to get a written response from the Foreign Ministry, or is that the response?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, first of all, it’s everybody’s right to demonstrate and to do so peacefully. That appears to have been the case on 1 May, yesterday. We’ve said repeatedly that we have heard what’s being said publicly, that we have offered on more than one occasion for the Government’s response — formal response — to be published alongside the report. And that offer still stands. Should we receive an official response, we’ll distribute it in the same way that we did the report of the Panel of Experts. All right?

Watch this site.

* * *

On Sri Lanka, Ban Claims UN Couldn't Assess Casualties, Leak Shows UN Did

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 27 -- On Sri Lanka, UN “staff were not in the position to assess” the number of casualties in 2009, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky told the Press on April 27, as they had to withdraw because the Government said security could not be guaranteed.

But as Inner City Press reported and published on March 27, 2009, a detailed UN document it obtained reported that the "minimum number of documented civilian casualties since 20 January 2009, as of 7 March 2009 in the conflict area of Mullaitivu Region [is] 9,924 casualties including 2,683 deaths and 7,241 injuries.”

Click here for the leaked document, and here for Inner City Press' report which exclusively published it.

Ban's UN refused to confirm its own Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs casualty figures. It now appears, including based on statements by staff who have since left the UN, that Ban's UN consciously decided to withhold and once leaked deny the casualty information it WAS in the position to compile.

Nesirky on April 27, when Inner City Press followed up on questions it put to Ban the previous day, said that this topic and others will now be reviewed by the UN, by Ban and his senior advisers.

Inner City Press asked Nesirky if Ban's chief of staff Vijay Nambiar, who was involved in the White Flag killings which appear in the UN report at Paragraph 171, will be one of the senior advisers involved in the review.

“There are many senior advisers,” Nesirky said, adding that the review “will look at the full range of topics contained” in the report.

The question remains: should a senior adviser like Nambiar be allowed to play any role in the review of an incident he was involved in? The answer should have been, and should be, no -- but hasn't been.

Inner City Press asked if this review will be made public. Nesirky would not say, but acknowledged that there is a public interest in it. With 40,000 civilians reportedly killed, yes there is a public interest.

Amazingly, after Ban said he “is advised” that the report's recommendations can only be investigated if the Rajapaksa government consents or members states vote for it in an intergovernmental forum, Ban when he reported on Sri Lanka to the UN Security Council on April 26 did not even ask them to schedule a vote on the recommendation for an investigation of war crimes. We'll have more on this.

From the Panel of Experts report:

The "White Flag" incident

170. Various reports have alleged that the political leadership of the LTTE and their dependents were executed when they surrendered to the SLA. In the very final days of the war, the head of the LTTE political wing, Nadesan, and the head of the Tiger Peace Secretariat Pulidevan, were in regular communication with various interlocutors to negotiate surrender. They were reportedly with a group of around 300 civilians. The LTTE political leadership was initially reluctant to agree to an unconditional surrender, but as the SLA closed in on the group in their final hideout, Nadesan and Pulidevan, and possibly Colonel Ramesh, were prepared to surrender unconditionally. This intention was communicated to officials of the United Nations and of the Governments of Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as to representatives of the ICRC and others. It was also conveyed through intermediaries to Mahinda, Gotabaya and Basil Rajapaksa, former Foreign Secretary Palitha Kohona and senior officers in the SLA.

171. Both President Rajapaksa and Defence Secretary Basil Rajapaksa [sic?] provided assurances that their surrender would be accepted. These were conveyed by intermediaries to the LTTE leaders, who were advised to raise a white flag and walk slowly towards the army, following a particular route indicated by Basil Rajapaksa.[sic?] Requests by the LTTE for a third party to be present at the point of surrender were not granted. Around 6.30 a.m. on 18 May 2009. Nadesan and Pulidevan left their hide-out to walk towards the area held by the 58th Division, accompanied by a large group, including their families. Colonel Ramesh followed behind them, with another group. Shortly afterwards, the BBC and other television stations reported that Nadesan and Pulidevan had been shot dead. Subsequently, the Government gave several different accounts of the incident. While there is little information on the circumstances of their death, the Panel believes that the LTTE leadership intended to surrender.

On the morning of April 21, Inner City Press asked Ban's top two spokesmen to "please state the role of Mr. Nambiar in reviewing the report." No response has yet been received, more than 60 hours later. We will have more on this. Watch this site.

These reports are usually also available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis.

Click here for a Reuters AlertNet piece by this correspondent about Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army. Click here for an earlier Reuters AlertNet piece about the Somali National Reconciliation Congress, and the UN's $200,000 contribution from an undefined trust fund. Video Analysis here

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

Inner City Press -- Investigative Reporting From the Inner City to Wall Street to the United Nations