Despite
Hearing
of Death in Sri Lanka, UN Bragg Says No Contact with
Ban's Panel
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
January 26, updated -- Hours after the UNbelatedly told Inner
City Press that
its humanitarian
deputy Catherine Bragg had no restrictions on her
recent visa and trip to Sri Lanka, Ms. Bragg said that she has and
apparently will have no contact at all with Ban Ki-moon's Panel on
Accountability for war crimes, despite people in Northern Sri Lanka
telling her about relatives killed in the war.
Inner
City Press
had put questions in writing to Ms. Bragg, including
“How
much of the aid you are requesting would be distributed by or through
the government? Did you hear anything about unfair distribution of
aid? About why and how the IDPs / returnees were displaced? Will you
pass any of this information to any other part of the UN -- the
Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, or the Secretary
General's Panel on Accountability in Sri Lanka? When did you apply
for a visa, how long was it for, and where there any conditions,
explicit or implicit? Were there any negotiations (and if so, what
was said)?”
Some
but not all of
these questions have now been answered, in a way that reflects the
fragmentation of the UN system. Ms. Bragg and her spokesperson have
for now declined to answer them in writing.
But the
question remains
to be answered: how could a high UN official like Ms. Bragg listen to
people's stories about murder in a place like Northern Sri Lanka and
not share the information with the Office of the High Commissioner on
Human Rights, or in this case the Secretary General's Panel on
Accountability in Sri Lanka?
UN's Ban and his Panel: Bragg of OCHA & what
she heard not shown
Even
on the
questions about disparities in aid distribution, Bragg's spokesperson
provided an answer on Wednesday morning that the UN wouldn't “second
guess the government” on aid distribution.
And
Ban Ki-moon's
UN apparently won't “second guess” on war crimes, either --
except for example by second guessing the International Criminal
Court judges who have indicted Sudan's Ahmed Haroun for war crimes.
The UN Mission in Sudan used a UN plane to provide transportation to
Haroun to convene a meeting of the same type of nomadic tribes he
organized in Darfur to burn villages down.
The
UN is subject
to second guessing for this, and now for listening to people in
Northern Sri Lanka and then just sitting on the information. Why
Ban's Spokesperson Martin Nesirky sat on Bragg's office's answers such
as they were
to Inner City Press' January 17 questions still remains unresponded
to, as do numerous other factual questions submitted by Inner City
Press.
On Wednesday
he said that Ban's Panel's plan are still "under
discussion.” Where -- in meetings of the UN alone in the North Lawn
Building?
Nesirky said
that the
panel continues to discuss its interaction with
Sri authorities. But Sri Lanka under
Mahinda Rajapaksa has made it clear it will
not deal with Ban's Panel, despite Ban having praised Rajapaksa's
“flexibility.” Watch this site.
Fast
transcript:
Bragg:
During
my visit, the panel never came up.
Ban
Spokesman
Martin Nesirky: As we've said, this is something under
discussion, and the panel continues to discuss its interaction with
Sri authorities. As you know, the panel said from the outset that a
visit to Sri was not essential for the work it's carrying out, but it
does seek to have interaction with various Sri Lankan actors.
Journalist:
Do
you have any plans to meet with the panel to talk about your trip?
Bragg:
There
has been no discussion so far about my meeting with them.
* * *
On
Sri
Lanka, UN Says Bragg Had Visa Without Restriction, Unlike Ban's
Panel
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
January 26 -- On Sri Lanka,
Inner City Press has belatedly
gotten some UN answers to questions about humanitarian issues it
asked more than a week ago.
The UN Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs in the answers it provided today says it “cannot
second guess the government” on the fairness of aid distribution,
and won't comment on the government ordering the International
Committee of the Red Cross out of Northern Sri Lanka, or imposing a
burdensome registration process on other NGOs in the country.
The
questions OCHA
provided answers to today were a subset of the Sri Lanka questions
Inner City Press initially asked the Office of the Spokesperson for
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, OSSG.
Days
before Ban
Spokesman
Martin Nesirky said he wouldn't answer any more questions
from Inner City Press unless it acted “appropriately,” apparently
meaning not asking about compliance with UN rules, he said “ask
OCHA.” So on January 17, Inner City Press emailed the questions to
OCHA's spokespeople.
Hearing
nothing
back from OCHA or Nesirky and his Deputy Farhan Haq to whom Inner
City Press reverted with the questions, on January 26 Inner City
Press asked OCHA deputy Catherine Bragg and them her spokespeople.
OCHA said it had given answers to the OSSG. But, perhaps in
implementation of Nesirky's threat, the OCHA answers were never given
to Inner City Press.
Finally
OCHA
re-sent its capitalized answers directly to Inner City Press:
What
does
[the UN] say to the protests in east Batticaloa about allegedly
inequitable distribution of aid?
WE
CANNOT
SECOND GUESS THE AID PROVISION OF THE GOVERNMENT, PARTICULARLY
AS IT IS PULLING TOGETHER A COMPREHENSIVE POST DISASTER NEEDS
ASSESSMENT. IN MAJOR DISASTERS, IT IS NOT ABNORMAL FOR SOME OF THOSE
AFFECTED TO WISH AID PROVISION WOULD OCCUR IN A DIFFERENT MANNER THAN
IT HAS DONE.
OCHA's Bragg, second guessing of Sri Lanka aid
distribution not shown
Also,
as
previously asked-- Does the UN have any comment on Sri Lanka's
government ordering the International Committee of the Red Cross out
of Northern Sri Lanka?
http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportID=91160
WE
UNDERSTAND
THAT ICRC IS CURRENTLY DISCUSSING THE FUTURE OF ITS
OPERATIONS IN SRI LANKA WITH THE AUTHORITIES, AND HAVE NO FURTHER
COMMENT AT THIS TIME. PLEASE REFER TO ICRC FOR MORE INFORMATION ON
THIS.
Or,
as
previously requested, on the new rules requiring NGOs and INGOs
tonregister with the Department of Defense, etc
A
GOVERNMENT
HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW WHICH NGOS ARE OPERATING WITHIN A
COUNTRY, AND TO REQUIRE REGISTRATION. OUR CONCERN HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE
ABILITY TO ACCESS POPULATIONS IN NEED OF HUMANITARIAN AID.
When
did
Ms. Bragg apply for a visa to Sri Lanka, when was it granted and
are there any conditions on the visa, regarding where to travel, whom
to speak with, etc?
I
AM
NOT AWARE OF ANY DIFFICULTIES IN OBTAINING THIS VISA NOR OR ANY
TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS ON IT.
Ban's
Spokesperson's
Office, despite Ban's December 17 and January 14
statements that Ban's Panel on Accountability in Sri Lanka could
travel to the country due to President Mahinda Rajapaksa's
“flexibility,” has been unwilling to answer specific questions
about visas for the Panel and conditions the government would impose.
Now they have been asked other questions. Watch this site.
* * *
UN
Belatedly
Re-Confirms
Ban
Panel Blocked by Sri Lanka, Is Not Asked
About Ban's Claims: No More
Questions
By
Matthew
Russell
Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
January
22
--
The UN, after moving to refuse to
answer any
Press questions about Sri Lanka, has decided to publicly
re-confirm that
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Accountability Panel is no longer
slated to travel to Sri Lanka.
As Inner City Press reported on January 18, this is contrary to
Ban's December 17 praise of President Mahinda Rajapaksa's "flexibility"
in allowing the visit, and to Ban's January 14 answer to Inner City
Press. But the UN does not want to explain, or even be asked about,
these accumulating discrepancies.
On January 18,
based
on
multiple
conversation
with UN insiders who insisted they not
be named because if so they would be fired or further marginalized,
Inner City Press reported
that
“insiders
late on January 17 told Inner City Press that despite Ban's
statement, his Panel will now probably NOT visit the Island. Despite
Ban's December 17 announcement praising President Mahinda Rajapaksa's
'flexibility,' since then Rajapaksa's government has written to the
UN to say not only that the Panel should not come, but that neither
the government nor its Lessons Learnt & Reconciliation Panel will
speak with the UN Panel of Experts. It is expected now that
representatives of the Rajapaksa government will, in New York only,
speak with Ban Ki-moon's Office, not his Panel.”
Alongside
publishing
this
news, Inner City Press publicly
asked
Ban's
Spokesman
Martin
Nesirky about it at the January 18 UN noon briefing:
Inner
City
Press:
...the
Panel
does not go to Sri Lanka. That in fact
letters have been exchanged and that a letter from Sri Lanka says
that there’s no intention to speak to the Panel.
Spokesperson:
Well,
what
I
can tell you is that Ms. Bragg’s visit it obviously a
humanitarian visit. It is not related to work of the Panel. It is
not. And I think that’s quite clear.
Question:
What
happens
now?
What will she do with it, as a humanitarian
individual?
Spokesperson:
She
will
be
talking about humanitarian matters.
Question:
Only
about
the
rains, not about what caused the need to return?
... there’s some question about
the visas for an accountability purpose, what the relation of this
visa would be…
Spokesperson:
As
I
said,
the two are not connected. This is clearly a
humanitarian matter. Last question.
Apparently
Nesirky
is
trying
to
carry this out, making that the “last
question.”
UN's Ban & Nesirky in 2011: no questions allowed
The
next day on
January 19, Nesirky twice cut off Inner City Press from asking
questions at the UN noon briefing, claiming he would answer questions
put to him in writing.
Inner City
Press posed a number of Sri Lanka
questions about the visas and Ban Ki-moon, none of which Mr. Nesirky
answered.
On January
20,
Nesirky walked out of the briefing room while Inner City Press was
still posing questions about the white flag killings in connection
with an
article including the role of Ban's chief of staff Vijay
Nambiar, who has said he got assurances from Sri Lanka Permanent
Representative Palitha Kohona that those with white flags would not
be killed.
Nesirky spoke
of a reply from Mr. Nambiar, which has yet
to be provided.
Finally
on
January
21,
Nesirky
told Inner City Press at the noon briefing that
“I will take questions from you when you behave in an appropriate
manner,” and refused to take any more of questions Inner City Press
had prepared, including Sri Lanka and Ban's statements about his
Panel. Colloquially, this "sucked,"
and
Inner
City
Press quickly wrote about it.
Later
on
January
21,
in what is still labeled an “exclusive,” FP ran this quote:
“'The
Sri Lankan mission had initially indicated they would be amenable to
the panel meeting with it to make whatever representations it may
wish to make, but it seems now that such a visit has still not been
decided,' said a senior U.N. official. 'I am not sure if this is a
simple matter of the Sri Lankan side prevaricating. The panel is
nevertheless open and keen on any appropriate interaction with the
LLC. The Sri Lankans have sought to keep their interaction through
the secretariat, specifically the EOSG [the executive office of the
secretary general],' the official said. 'We have, however, been
asking them and the panel to deal with each other directly and shall
continue to do so.'”
This
is
how
Ban's
UN,
especially but not only Ban's Spokesperson's Office, operates.
A
major question
still unanswered, but repeatedly asked by Inner City Press publicly
in the noon briefings at which Nesirky on January 21 said he will
take no more questions from Inner City Press, is why Ban Ki-moon
claimed on December 17 that his Panel would go to Sri Lanka.
At
that time, Ban
went out of his way to praise President Mahinda Rajapaksa's
“flexibility.” Nesirky has repeated refused to answer Inner City
Press' factual questions about Ban's, his entourage and family's
contacts with Sri Lanka and Rajapaksa.
After
Ban's
January
14
“monthly”
press conference, at which Nesirky did not
take any questions from Inner City Press, Inner City Press waited at
the entrance to the briefing room and asked Ban why his panel wasn't
going to Sri Lanka, and minutes later published
Ban's answers:
“Mister
Secretary General, you said your Panel is going to Sri Lanka,”
Inner City Press asked, “what happened?”
Ban
Ki-moon replied, “They are now working very seriously on finalizing
the dates of visiting Sri Lanka.”
Inner
City Press asked about “the government has said they can only talk
to the LLRC, that they can't investigate anything.”
Ban
Ki-moon replied, “They will be able to... They are now discussing
that.”
Now,
after
Inner
City
Press
publicly asked and wrote about the letters between Sri
Lanka and the UN which contradict what Ban has said, and after
Nesirky said he will not take any more questions from Inner City
Press, a “senior UN official” issues the above-quoted, without
any reference to Ban's December 17 (and January 14) claims. Watch
this site.
, 
