On
Sri Lanka, UN
Pays Petrie
Part-Time, No
Review of
Others'
Payments
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
October 19 --
In September
2011 UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon
announced that
UN official
Thoraya Obaid
would
investigate
the UN's acts
and omissions
during the
killing of
thousands of
civilians in
Sri Lanka in
2009 and issue
a report in
four months
time.
Nine
months later,
no report was
issued and
Inner City
Press asked
why
not. Ban's
spokesman
Martin Nesirky
said for the
first time
that
Obaid had not
been able to
do the report,
but that
another
on-again
off-again UN
official, Charles
Petrie,
was now on the
case and would
issue a report
shortly.
While
Inner City
Press has
heard that the
report is
finished --
being
buried? -- it
has not been
released. And
Inner City
Press learned
that Petrie
has another
job, with the
Norway
government
funded
Myanmar Peace
Support
Initiative
(MPSI), which
is also
controversial.
It
made Inner
City Press
wonder: how
could Petrie
do two jobs at
once?
How he work
for the UN
and,
essentially,
for the
Norwegian
government
at the same
time, in
seeming
violation of
Article 100 of
the UN
Charter?
Inner
City Press first
wrote about
this; then
when the Irrawaddy
asked Petrie
he answered
that he
supervised
three other UN
officials --
which ones?
Were they
full time? --
and was paid
"When Actually
Employed."
This has been
noted in Sri
Lanka's Nation
on Sunday
and Daily
Mirror.
Inner
City Press
asked, on October 11
and then again
on
October 12:
Inner
City Press:
Something I
have been
looking more
into what I
asked you
about
yesterday,
this
Norwegian-Myanmar
peace
initiative.
There is
controversy
around it,
about whether
it should
continue to
fund the
project when
some are
saying it’s
sort of taking
sides within
the
Karen area.
What’s the
role of the UN
in this
project, and
what is
Charles
Petrie’s
status with
the UN? Is
there a
precedent for
working for
the aid
initiative of
a Government
and also being
a UN
official at
the same time?
Spokesperson
Martin
Nesirky: I
think I
addressed this
yesterday and
if I have
anything
further, I
will let you
know.
Inner
City Press:
No. I guess
you said he is
still ongoing.
That implies
to me he is
still working
for the UN,
but he is also
working for
the
Government of
Norway. So how
is that
consistent
with Article
100 of
the Charter?
Spokesperson:
As I said to
you, I did go
into this
yesterday. If
I have
anything
further, then
I will let you
know.
For
nearly a week,
Inner City
Press heard
nothing back.
Then on the
evening of
October 18,
the UN
Spokesperson's
office sent
this:
Subject:
Your
question on
Charles
Petrie.
From: UN
Spokesperson -
Do Not
Reply [at]
un.org
Date: Thu, Oct
18, 2012 at
7:40 PM
To:
Matthew
Russell Lee
[at]
innercitypress.com
Mr.
Petrie was
appointed by
the
Secretary-General
to undertake
an
internal
review of UN
actions in the
final stages
and aftermath
of
the conflict
in Sri Lanka,
a review
recommended by
the
Secretary-General's
Panel of
Experts on
Accountability
in Sri Lanka.
Mr. Petrie
agreed to
conduct this
internal
review on a
part-time
basis, with
the
understanding
that he would
continue to
serve on a
part-time
basis as
Coordinator of
the
Norwegian-led
Myanmar Peace
Support
Initiative.
Under
the terms of
his contract,
Mr. Petrie is
employed part
time - on a
"when actually
employed"
basis - as a
United Nations
staff
member.
Accordingly,
the
Organization’s
Staff
Regulations
and Staff
Rules are
applicable
only during
the days of
his service.
When he is
actually
employed by
the UN, he is
not performing
other
functions.
There
is a problem
with this
answer -- it
implies that
as long as a
person
doing work for
the UN is
called "When
Actually
Employed" --
even if
reviewing the
UN's own
inaction
during a
country's
presumptive
war crimes --
there is NO
review by the
UN of possible
conflicts of
interest in
the person's
other work.
That is, by
this
logic, the
person could
be employed by
the country
itself, during
the days or
hours the UN
is not paying
him.
Beyond
this
structural
problem, more
concretely and
pressingly,
where is the
report on the
UN in Sri
Lanka?
On
October 16,
Ban met with
Sri Lankan
President
Mahinda
Rajapaksa's
special envoy
on human
rights Mahinda
Samarasinghe,
and afterward
issued a
read-out that
he "noted the
Government's
latest efforts
on
accountability."
Inner
City Press covered
the photo-op
of the meeting
and asked
Nesirky
about it
afterward,
and again on
October 17:
what did Ban
mean by
accountability?
Thus far, the
definition
offered by
Ban's UN has
been "not
letting deeds
go unmarked,
unnoticed, sot
there is no
impunity, so
you can move
on to
reconciliation."
It means
"different
things in
different
contexts."
Some
call
this
"different
things in
different
contexts" a
DOUBLE
STANDARD. Some
continue to
wonder, for
example, what
accountability
"steps...
taken by the
Sri Lankan
authorities"
Ban is
referring to
-- and whether
he will make
public the Charles
Petrie
report on the
UN's own acts
and omissions
during the
final stages
of
the conflict
in Sri Lanka.
Watch this
site.
, 
