|
On
Sri Lanka, UN Did Not Recuse Nambiar, UK Supports Ban Panel,
Peiris Waits
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, May 26 -- As questions mount about the role in
crimes of war
in Sri Lanka of both Vijay Nambiar, the chef de cabinet of UN
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, and Sri Lankan diplomat Palitha
Kohona, the UN on Wednesday said that in setting up the long
promised
UN group of experts, "it’s not as if it’s simply the Chef de
Cabinet. And it’s not something that involves directly -- the
setting up of that panel clearly does not directly involve the Sri
Lankan Mission itself."
But
when Inner City
Press earlier asked what steps had been taken toward actually setting
up the group of experts that Ban announced back on March 5, the
answer was a meeting between Nambiar and Kohona. Asked if there are
any UN provision for recusal from setting up a panel to investigate
deadly incidents by those involved or witness to the events, the UN
spokesman did not describe any safeguards.
Meanwhile,
the UK
Mission has provided the following read out that Inner City Press
requested:
I
asked the Ambassador for some feedback on his meeting with the
Secretary-General regarding the issue of Sri Lanka which you had
mentioned to him when you saw him earlier in the week.
He
did raise the issue of Sri Lanka in his discussion with the Secretary
General and assured him that the UK Government fully supported his
proposals for an accountability process to look into allegations of
breaches of international humanitarian law and this included the
proposed panel of experts.
Inner
City Press had asked Ambassador Lyall Grant if there was any change in
position on Sri Lanka as power shifted from Gordon Brown and his
Foreign Secretary David Miliband to Cameron, Clegg and Hague. Miliband,
now running to replaced Gordon Brown as head of the Labour Party, has
Tweeted that the new government should act on the International Crisis
Group report. We'll see.
Sri Lanka's
Minister of External Affairs G.L. Peiris continues his war crimes
defense tour, now in Washington waiting to meet with Hillary Clinton
on Friday. Since the Sri Lankan Mission's read out of his meeting
with Ban cited US Ambassador Susan Rice as supporting the Rajapaksas'
mechanism over any outside one, what Hillary Clinton will say is a
matter of some interest.
UK's Lyall Grant and US' Susan Rice, UN Sri
Lanka panel positions not shown
From the UN's
May 26 transcript, video here
from Minute 12:40
Inner
City Press: yesterday you repeatedly said to me, “check, listen to
Al Jazeera” on the question I was asking about what the
Secretary-General — what, you know, what he rejected and what Mr.
Nambiar, that the allegation that he said he totally rejected. So, I
did, I did, it wasn’t easy, but I’ve listened to what Mr. Nambiar
said. And I have to say it still gives rise to questions. There are
two, and I’ll just, there are two that really come to mind. He
acknowledges that he was contacted, he says through UN Headquarters
by a Sunday Times correspondent, through the UK Foreign Office and UN
Headquarters of the desire to surrender of these LTTE [Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam] leaders. And he says he spoke with the
President, the Defence Secretary, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, and Palitha
Kohona, who is now the ambassador here, and that they said that they
would be treated like normal war criminals. I mean, excuse me, they
will be treated like normal prisoners of war – I want to be clear
on that. He doesn’t say how this was conveyed back to the people
who surrendered. He doesn’t say, and I think it would be important
to know who in the UN Headquarters was part of this chain of
communication and it’s unclear to me why, given both Mr. Nambiar
and Mr. Kohona were the ones discussing the accountability panel that
Ban Ki-moon is setting up if they, at least, you know, again without
casting aspersion on them, there are factual questions about a
possible problem, that Philip Alston is looking into. So, how is it
not a conflict of interest to have Mr. Nambiar or Mr. Kohona being
the ones to discuss the composition in terms of reference of a panel
that is dealing with exactly the incident in which they were involved
by Nambiar’s own statement to Al Jazeera? Sorry.
Spokesperson:
What do you mean, “sorry”?
Inner
City Press: No I’m sorry to put those all together; I just wanted
it sort of a package question.
Spokesperson:
It’s okay, it’s okay. Firstly, there are a lot of very specific
questions that I do not have the answer to. So I can seek those to
the best of my ability and the ability of my colleagues. The second
is that the panel of experts that’s being put together, this is not
simply in the purview of the Chef de Cabinet. Of course, there are
other people involved in this, and not least the Secretary-General
because it is the Secretary-General’s panel of experts. So it’s
not as if it’s simply the Chef de Cabinet. And it’s not
something that involves directly — the setting up of that panel
clearly does not directly involve the Sri Lankan Mission itself. This
is the Secretary-General’s panel of experts.
Inner
City Press: Are there any provisions for sort of recusal? In the
case of, sort of, at any type of UN inquiry, if — and again, I’m
trying to be very careful here, I am not trying to say that — I am
just saying that this is an incident that would fall within the
purview even of the lessons learned in the reconciliation commission
of Sri Lanka, this incident that Alston has asked about in which
prisoners who surrendered with white flags ended up dead. If, as Mr.
Nambiar — I had never heard of Mr. Kohona being involved and giving
the assurances — but if he is, it just seems that there should be
some, you see, this is the type of thing that, for example, [Luis
Moreno] Ocampo [Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court]
has criticized Sudan for — allowing those accused of crimes to be
involved in Sudan’s own inquiry. He said that’s laughable. But
it seems here, and I don’t want to be, it’s a, there obviously,
it’s apples and oranges, but just in terms of involvement in the
incident to be looked at, and involvement in setting up the inquiry
to do it, I just wonder if you are… comfortable…
Spokesperson:
As I’ve said, it’s not as if this is being somehow done in
isolation. There are other people involved within the United Nations
to establish that panel of experts. But the other questions, I’ve
heard them and we’ll see what we can find out.
Watch
this site.
* * *
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.
* * *
As
Sri Lanka Names Its Own Palihakkara as Investigator, UN Panel Would
Not Look at UN's Role in War Crimes
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, May 19 -- As witnesses testify
that orders to execute
prisoners came from the top of Sri Lanka's government, the UN on
Wednesday couldn't confirm it is even following the issue. Inner City
Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky
about the much
publicized report
on UK Channel 4. "I would have
to check with colleagues if they are aware" of the report,
Nesirky said.
Inner
City Press
asked if the panel that Ban said ten and a half weeks ago would be
named without delay would have jurisdiction to look into the UN's
own
role, described by the International Crisis Group, in war crimes in
Sri Lanka. Video here,
from Minute 11:12.
No,
Nesirky in
essence replied. He said the panel would only "advise the
Secretary General on the extent to which a domestic inquiry in Sri
Lanka would meet normal standards." Thus, the delayed Ban panel
would not, even if named, be responsive to the calls for
investigation made by ICG, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch
and others.
On
BBC, Louise
Arbour of ICG said the government violated the laws of war by
blurring the line between combatants and civilians, and that its
killings of civilians were not accidents. Palitha Kohona, Sri Lanka's
Number One Ambassador to the UN who is apparently letting his Number
Two run wild or play bad cop, said he had read the ICG report -- the
UN has apparently not finished it -- but that any outside,
independent investigation would be "colonial and paternalistic."
But
how could a
panel now named by Mahinda Rajapaksa investigate war crimes claims
made against his own brother? On the panel is
Kohona's predecessor as Sri Lanka's Permanent Representative to the UN,
H.M.G.S. Palihakkara, who defended the blood bath on the beach as
it took loomed and took place. See video here
(March 26), here
(April 22, and Inner City
Press' Q&A report), and here
(June 5).
Would
the UN accept, for example, Sudan's UN Ambassador investigating
claims against Omar al-Bashir?
UN's Ban and Palihakkara-
credible investigation not shown
Against
this
backdrop, Nesirky has in two days not provided any of the answers he
promised on Monday, including how much the UN spent on Sri Lanka's
internment camps, and with what safeguards if any. There has still
been no
response from the IRIN or Ban's office to what's described as
censorship of the ICG report by the UN's IRIN news service.
From
the UN's
May
19 transcript:
Inner
City Press: on Sri Lanka, I wanted to ask, there is a report since
our last interchange on Channel 4 in the United Kingdom, citing
senior military commanders, that there were orders from the top to
kill surrendering soldiers or hardline elements of the Tamil Tigers,
saying these orders came from the top, that “we were to leave no
one alive”. What I am wondering is, in light of this still either
delayed for 10 and a half weeks — however you characterize it —
appointing of a panel to advise Ban Ki-moon on accountability in Sri
Lanka, are they aware of this report? Does it make it go faster, and
would that panel have jurisdiction to advise the Secretary-General on
the UN’s own role in, as we discussed, leaving Kilinochi, an
ineffective call for a ceasefire, and funding internment camps as ICG
[International Crisis Group] has alleged?
Spokesperson:
On the specific news report that you are referring to on Channel 4,
I would have to check with colleagues whether they are aware of it. I
do not know the answer to that right now. On the broader question,
the Panel of Experts will have the role to advise the
Secretary-General on what the standards are for a credible domestic
investigation or inquiry. In other words, to address the question of
accountability that has been discussed very often. So it is a very
specific aim, to advise the Secretary-General on the extent to which
a domestic inquiry — meaning in Sri Lanka — would meet normal
standards, widely-held standards, for that kind of investigation. So
it is fairly specific.
Inner
City Press: And if you don’t mind, since on Monday, I think, you
had said that the Secretariat was going study this International
Crisis Group report, which actually made some allegations or called
for an international inquiry into the UN’s own conduct. What is
the UN’s response to that? Do they think that is appropriate? Given
that this Panel would not even do that if named, what is the
UN’s response to Louise Arbour and the ICG’s call for an inquiry
into the UN’s own actions in this matter?
Spokesperson
Nesirky: As I mentioned, and as you have pointed out, we said that
it is being studied in some detail and that remains the case.
Watch this site.
Click
here
for an Inner City Press YouTube channel video, mostly UN Headquarters
footage, about civilian
deaths
in Sri Lanka.
Click here for Inner City
Press' March 27 UN debate
Click here for Inner City
Press March 12 UN (and AIG
bailout) debate
Click here for Inner City
Press' Feb 26 UN debate
Click
here
for Feb.
12 debate on Sri Lanka http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/17772?in=11:33&out=32:56
Click here for Inner City Press' Jan.
16, 2009 debate about Gaza
Click here for Inner City Press'
review-of-2008 UN Top Ten debate
Click here for Inner
City Press' December 24 debate on UN budget, Niger
Click here from Inner City Press'
December 12 debate on UN double standards
Click here for Inner
City Press' November 25 debate on Somalia, politics
and this October 17 debate, on
Security Council and Obama and the UN.
* * *
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
Feedback: Editorial
[at] innercitypress.com
UN
Office: S-453A, UN, NY 10017
USA
Tel: 212-963-1439
Reporter's
mobile (and
weekends):
718-716-3540
Other,
earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available
in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright
2006-08 Inner City Press, Inc. To request
reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com -
|
, 
