On
Murders after Surrender, UN's Nambiar Muses on Crossfire, Speaking With
Kohona
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, May 25 -- Beyond the allegations of the UN being complicit
in war crimes in Sri Lanka, made by the International Crisis Group,
there is an additional question about UN Secretary General Ban
Ki-moon's chief of staff Vijay Nambiar role in convincing Tamil Tiger
leaders to surrender, which led to their summary execution.
Mr.
Nambiar's belated defense is that they may have been killed in
crossfire or by the Tamil Tigers. He says he was given assurances of
"normal" treatment by Mahinda Rajapaksa, Gotabaya Rajapaka
and Palitha Kohona -- to whom Mr. Nambiar continues to communicate on
the very topic and composition of the group of experts on
accountability in Sri Lanka. This is a total conflict of interest.
On
May 24,
Ban Ki-moon reacted "angrily" when Inner City Press
asked about this and three ICG allegations, saying, "I totally
reject all that kind of allegations." Video here,
from Minute
38:07.
Two
minutes later,
in response to a second question from Inner City Press about the ICG
report, Mr. Ban said, "I rejected it? I don't know I ever said I
reject it." Video here,
from Minute 40:07.
On
May 25, Ban's
spokesman Martin Nesirky said that Ban was rejecting the allegation
that went beyond the ICG report: the question about his chief of
staff Vijay Nambiar. So Inner City Press asked:
Inner
City Press: Philip Alston has said that a number of LTTE [Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam] leaders who were, came out to surrender after
having spoken with Vijay Nambiar, the Chief of Staff, were in fact —
he believes, Alston believes — summarily executed by the Sri Lankan
Government. So the question is... what was Chief of Staff Vijay
Nambiar’s role in encouraging them to come out?
Spokesperson
Nesirky: The Chef de Cabinet has talked about this publicly and made
clear that this was, that he had no direct contact with the people
who were being asked to surrender. He had no direct contact with
them. He spoke to the Sri Lankan leaders and was conveying a message
that was relayed to him not by someone from the Tamil community. I
will be able to give you the exact ins and outs if you need it, but
he has spoken publicly about it.
Inner
City Press: I really try to cover it very closely. I’m not, I’m
not…
Spokesperson:
Yes, yes he has. He did so quite recently in an interview with Al
Jazeera.
Thereafter,
Nesirky
declined to summarize what Nambiar had said, or to make Nambiar
available for questions. He said, "Ask Al Jazeera." So
Inner City Press did.
What
follows is a
transcription sent to Inner City Press on this point. We will have
more on this.
UN's Ban and a pensive Nambiar, transcription now shown
Q: ...role you played in negotiations for
the surrender of many of the
Tamil leaders at the time. What was agreed?
Mr.
Nambiar: As you know both in April and May of last year the UN had
made strenuous efforts in order to try and see that the civilian
population would be safeguarded from some of the difficulties, the
tragedies of the conflict that was taking place. Now, when I went in
May during my second visit, the extent to which I was involved in
this was a telephone conversation, a telephone message I got from a
Sunday Times correspondent through the UK Foreign Office and through
the UN headquarters where I was asked to check with the Sri Lankan
authorities regarding the possible protection could be given to two
of the Tamil leaders... When I received this call, I said that I will
make an effort and contact the government authorities, which I did,
the same day that is I think it's the 17 and 18 of May. I went and I
spoke to the foreign secretary at that time, Mr. Palitha Kohona, the
defense secretary, and subsequently I spoke to the president also. So,
I raise this question …the Sunday Times correspondent talked
about their wanting to surrender…they may want to do it to a third
party…afraid for their lives…so I raised this with them and
suggested …the response from them was that they would be treated
likes normal prisoners of war, if they raised the white flag they
would be allowed to surrender. Now that is the extent to which I was
involved.
Q:
This is what President of Sri Lanka told you..
Nambiar:
Yes…the president also in response to my statement, he said the
same thing, as did the foreign secretary and the Defense Secretary.
Q:
They specifically said they would treat them…
Nambiar
They just made…they just responded in the manner, they would be
treated like ordinary prisoners of war.
Q: Since you spoke to so many people and
parties that were involved,
why do you think things went wrong?
Nambiar:
I might add that this is only one of the issues that I
raised…discussing a whole…the question was that the what happened
in the heat of the war I am not aware of, it was something which we
had no first hand knowledge about…there have been discussions of
this in the press and subsequently there have been some comments make
by the Sri Lankan leaders also about whether or not they could have
been killed in the crossfire, there was one person who also suggested
they said perhaps he could have been killed by LTTE themselves who
were not interested in their people surrendering..it could have been
killed by the Sri Lankan forces, we are not in a position to make any
assessment, certainly I am not.
Q:
Also speculation …coordinated execution while trying to get rid of
other remaining leaders of Tamil Tigers…
Nambiar:
I am not in a position to comment on that, because I don’t have any
independent knowledge.
Q:
All these are possible…
Nambiar:
I don’t have any information on that…
Q:
Maybe then investigation is necessary?
Nambiar:
This is of course not for me to mention, there has been calls for
this kind of investigation and it's for the member states to decide…
There
is more. For now it should be noted that a television interview is
not an investigation. It is easy to say that they were "killed
in the cross fire" or by the LTTE.
This is what an investigation
is for -- also, to determine how Mr. Nambiar conveyed back the
assurances he received from Mahinda Rajapaksa, Gotabaya Rajapaka and
Palitha Kohona -- to whom Mr. Ban continues to converse, as does Mr.
Nambiar, on the very topic and composition of the group of experts on
accountability in Sri Lanka.
This
is a total conflict of interest. An external, independent
investigation is needed. When Mr. Nambiar says "it is up to the
member states," it is in the context of confidence that those
who threatened to veto putting the Sri Lankan "bloodbath on the
beach" on the Security Council's agenda could likewise block any
Council action. This is known as impunity. More to follow, watch this
site.
* * *
On
UN Role in Sri Lanka War Crimes, Ban Rejects Then Denies Rejecting
Allegations
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, May 24 -- "I totally reject all that kind of
allegations," UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told the Press on
Monday, responding to a question about the UN's involvement in war
crimes in Sri Lanka. Video here,
from Minute 38:07.
Two
minutes later, in response to a second question from Inner City
Press, Mr. Ban said, "I rejected it? I don't know I ever said I
reject it." Video here,
from Minute 40:07.
Inner
City Press had initially asked Mr. Ban about the International Crisis
Group report,
which even in the Executive
Summary calls for "an
independent international inquiry into... the UN’s September 2008
withdrawal from Kilinochchi through to its ineffectual attempts to
push for a ceasefire and its involvement in Sri Lankan government
internment camps."
Would the group of expert Ban
committed
eighty day ago to name to advise him have jurisdiction over the UN's
own actions and inactions?
Beyond
"totally reject[ing]" ICG's criticism of the UN's and Ban's
performance on Sri Lanka, Ban said that his panel would only address
"international standards" applicable to the Lessons Learnt
and Reconciliation Commission belated announced by President Mahinda
Rajapaksa.
To
some, there was a parallel: Rajapaksa rejected any allegation that
his soldiers killed civilians, before conducting any investigation.
And at Monday's press conference, Ban Ki-moon totally rejected ICG's
call for an "inquiry into... the UN’s September 2008
withdrawal from Kilinochchi through to its ineffectual attempts to
push for a ceasefire and its involvement in Sri Lankan government
internment camps."
To
these, Inner City Press added the issues raised by Ban's chief of
staff Vijay Nambiar's still murky role in encouraging the surrender
of rebel leaders who were then summarily executed. Video here,
from
Minute 37:16. In fairness, this may have thrown Ban off and led
to the rejection then non-rejection.
But the UN's own Special Rapporteur Philip
Alston has asked
the Rajapaksa government about this -- presidential brother
Gotabaya
Rajapaksa has been accused of ordering the killings -- but has yet to
ask the UN's own Vijay Nambiar. Alston's mandate expires in June. So
who will investigate? Especially after Ban's "total reject[ion of] all
that kind of allegation"?
UN's Ban and Mahinda Rajapaksa, united- in "total
rejection of allegations"
After
Ban announced his intention to name a group of experts "without
delay," the Rajapaksa government protested, including seeking
and obtaining -- albeit in a late, "non-objection" portion
of a NAM meeting in New York -- a letter from the Non Aligned
Movement that told Ban he had no jurisdiction over human rights.
While
some Ban advisors have said they disagree with the NAM letter's
logic, the Ban Administration never publicly rebutted the reasoning.
And now eighty days have passed without Ban naming even the group of
experts.
On
Monday, Inner City Press asked Mr. Ban why he has delayed these
eighty days to pass. With Ban slated to meet with Sri Lanka's
Minister of External Affairs G.L. Peiris later on May 24, he said
that the delay was "not based on pressure of Sri Lanka."
Reading from notes, Ban said he
would discuss "accountability..
reconciliation... and improving the conditions" for people,
nearly entirely Tamils, in the UN-funded camps. Ban and his advisors
should know the G.L. Peiris has publicly refused to provide any
timeline for resettling the people still in the camps, and he said
that Ban should not even name his group of experts. Some ask where
does Ban Ki-moon stands, does he reject or not remember rejecting?
Footnote: Inner City Press, which covered
Ban's trip to Sri Lanka last
May and has asked follow up questions at the UN since, had its
request to Sri Lanka's Mission to pose questions to Minister Peiris
ignored and thus denied. It was sent to Permanent Representative
Palitha Kohona, a former UN staffer, but was not responded to. A
Mission staffer said arrangements, including invitations to journalists
who have never written about or been to Sri Lanka, were coordinated by
Kohona's Deputy, who now sends Inner City Press repetitive and abusive
e-mailed every day before the UN noon briefing.
On Monday, two Mission staffers shepherded G. L. Peiris
around the UN on Monday, from BBC to Reuters, and then on to Ban
Ki-moon. There is a 3:15 "photo opportunity" and Inner City Press has a
right to be there. Watch this space.
* * *
, 
