On
Sri
Lanka, UN Claims Inaccuracies in Press Freedom Groups' Petition, Passes
Buck
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
March 9 -- The UN of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, so
tongue tied about Sri Lanka and whether its Panel on Accountability
will as claimed travel there, on March 9 confirmed receiving a
petition from press freedom groups about disappeared Sri Lankan
journalist Prageeth Eknelygoda,
a day after Inner City Press asked
about the
letter.
But
UN spokesman
Martin Nesirky said that the groups' letter contains “inaccuracies.”
Inner City Press asked Nesirky to explain. Nesirky pointed to a part
of the letter that states to Ban:
“On
February 18, only after public pressure, did your office say it had
received her letter. U.N. spokesman Martin Nesirky told a press
conference in New York that 'letter is now being reviewed. We've
asked for an update on this, and will let you know when we have it.'”
The
"inaccuracies"?
Nesirky's quote was from the UN noon briefing of February 16, not
February 18. And, Nesirky argued on Wednesday, even though he had
initially said the UN system had not received a request for
assistance from Prageeth's wife, his deputy Farhan Haq corrected that
on February 1.
“You reported
about that on February 1,” Nesirky told Inner City Press, “then
you asked me on February 16 again.”
On
February 16,
Inner City Press assumed that Nesirky would explain what had been
done with and on the letter. Instead he said that Prageeth's wife's
letter had not been received, then issued the later correction,
saying that the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary General
“asked for an update on this, and will let you know when we have
it.'”
But
no update was
provide from mid February until Inner City Press asked about it again
on March 8.
Lanka 4 incl AG, Ban & Nambiar, Prageeth
not shown -or even mentioned? (c) MRLee
Even now, the
answer is that the buck is being passed to
the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNESCO, an
agency which tried to give an award to Equatorial Guinea strongman
and practitioner of censorship Obiang.
On
March 9, Inner
City Press asked Nesirky if the Secretary General or his Office would
do anything on the requests from Prageeth's wife and the press
freedom groups, given that Mr. Ban has a direct line for example with
Sri Lanka's Attorney General, with whom Ban met on February 23.
Instead,
it seems
that Ban and his spokesman will wait for some report back from Navi
Pillay in Geneva -- Nesirky made a point on Wednesday of saying that
the press freedom groups' letter “was received in Geneva, that's
another interesting factor.” Interesting indeed. Watch this site.
On March 8
Inner City Press asked
Nesirky:
Inner
City
Press: the Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters Without
Borders, and IFJ said, among two other groups, have said that they
have written a letter to the Secretary-General about this case of
Prageeth [Eknelygoda], a journalist in Sri Lanka that disappeared
about a year ago — their letter actually quotes you, from this
briefing on 18 February, but they are saying the UN should get
involved in finding out what happened to this journalist; they are
saying that the letter was given to Neil Buhne and they said no
replacement has been named. I guess I wanted to know, can you, you
know, they are pretty, I would think they would know how to deliver
the letter; has this letter been received and is the UN and actually
as it’s been asked now for some time by the wife of the journalist,
going to get involved in looking into this matter, and who will
replace Mr. Buhne?
Spokesperson:
Well, I am sure that international non-governmental organizations
with the strong track records as the ones you have mentioned know how
to deliver a letter. The United Nations also knows how to receive a
letter. And it may or may not be that that letter has been received
yet; I am going to check. As for the need to intercede, I understand
that this is something that is being actively looked at by colleagues
in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. But this is
not something that I think we would have further details on at the
moment. As for the replacement, as and when a replacement is named,
I am sure that we will say. I don’t have anything on that at the
moment.
* * *
On
Sri
Lanka,
UN Denies “Secret” Meeting, Won't Say If
Report Public
By
Matthew
Russell
Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
March
7 -- The UN's evasiveness
on
the meetings, travel and
report of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Panel on Sri Lanka
continued on March 7, with Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky telling
Inner City Press that it is up to the Panel to speak for itself, even
to decide if its report should be public.
Nesirky
called
“shaky” reporting that has suggested a secret February 23
meeting, telling Inner City Press “you know, you were there taking
pictures, that was not the case.”
Inner
City Press
asked, were the members of Ban's panel in town, in New York? Even
this Nesirky would not answer, saying it is up to the Panel to say.
But where is the Panel?
Then
Nesirky said
that deadline is “this month.” Inner City Press asked, will it be
public?
That
will be up to
the panel, Nesirky said, in consultation with the Secretary General.
Inner
City Press
covered a surprise meeting on February 23 between Ban and Sri Lankan
officials including the Attorney General and ex-general Shavendra
Silva, responsible for what UN officials called the “bloodbath on
the beach” in May 2009.
At
the time, Inner
City Press repeatedly asked Nesirky what relation that meeting had
with the work of Ban's panel and Sri Lanka's Lessons Learnt &
Reconciliation Commission. Nesirky would not relate them in any way.
On
March 6, the Sri
Lanka
Sunday Times reported that the Sri Lankan delegation on
February 23, after the meeting exclusively reported by Inner City
Press, met with Ban's panel, and that the panel's deadline was
extended two or three weeks. Immediately upon seeing the article,
Inner City Press sent questions by e-mail to Nesirky and his deputy
Farhan Haq on the morning of March 6:
A
UN
source
is quoted in the Sri Lanka Sunday Times that after the
meeting between Messrs. Ban, Nambiar, Haysum, et al and Sri Lanka's
Attorney General and External Affairs minister on February 23 which
you have told me was about reconstruction and rehabilitation,
1)
the
two
Sri Lanka official met with Mr. Ban's Panel -- true or false?
If true, why kept secret, and does this replace the trip to Sri Lanka
Ban has repeatedly said is allowed by Mahinda Rajapaksa's
flexibility?
2)
the
deadline
for the Panel, set for March 1, has been extended “two
to three weeks” - true or false? If true, why was this not
announced, and extended for what purpose?
Yes
or no: will the report be made public?
Please
provide a complete list of attendees of the Ban meeting, and of the
reported meeting afterward with Mr. Ban's Panel.
Nesirky
and his
deputy Farhan Haq never answered or even confirmed receipt of these
questions. More than 24 hours after submitting the questions, at the
March 7 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Nesirky to answer
them, to respond to the Sunday Leader story, and to state if Ban's
Panel will travel to Sri Lanka (as Ban has repeatedly claimed).
Nesirky
called the
Sunday Leader's reporting “shaky” in suggesting a secret meeting,
emphasizing to Inner City Press “you know, you were there taking
pictures, that was not the case.”
Sri Lanka officials, Ban, Nambiar et al - Ban's left not ID-ed (c) MRLee
Inner
City Press
asked, were the members of Ban's panel in New York? Even this Nesirky
would not answer, saying it is up to the Panel to say. But where
is the Panel?
Nesirky
said that
deadline is “this month.” Inner City Press asked, will it be
public?
That
will be up to
the panel, Nesirky said, in consultation with the Secretary General.
We'll see.
Meanwhile,
former
Sri Lanka UN ambassador HMGS Palihakkara, a member of Mahinda
Rajapaksa's LLRC, was in New York at the same time, sources say, as
part of Ban's advisory group on disarmament. So an LLRC member was in
New York at the time -- were the members of Ban's panel? Watch this
site.
And
watch the
end of this
debate, about Sri Lanka.
* * *
After
Ban
Ki-moon
Meets
Sri Lanka AG & General Silva, UN Won't Say If First
Time, No Trip or Panel in UN Read Out
By
Matthew
Russell
Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
February
24
-- After months of controversy regarding if Sri
Lanka will allow UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Panel on
Accountability to visit the country and interview officials like the
Attorney General if not President, Ban
himself met on February 23
with with Attorney General Mohan Peiris and the Deputy Permanent
Representative to the UN, former General Shavendra Silva.
But
when
Inner
City Press asked on February 24 for a read out of the meeting -- and
if this was Ban's first meeting with Silva, himself accused of war
crimes -- Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky said the “courtesy call”
was about “reconciliation and reconstruction efforts."
Inner
City
Press
asked how it could be that Ban's Panel, President Mahinda Rajapaksa's
Lessons Learnt Commission could not be in the read out -- was this,
Inner City Press asked, a mutually agreed statement with the Sri
Lankan government?
No,
Nesirky
insisted,
he was providing a read out for the UN Secretariat.
When
Inner
City
Press has asked Ban Ki-moon to explain why his Panel has not gone to
Sri Lanka, despite his claim on December 17 that they could due to
Rajapaksa's “flexibility,” Ban said that they still would go,
adding confusingly that he was “still trying.”
But
his
read out
of his meeting with Sri Lanka's Attorney General does not mention any
trip, or even his Panel.
The
Sri
Lankan
government,
after denying Inner City Press' report that
this meeting would take place, then called the Daily Mirror on behalf
of External Affairs Ministry Secretary Romesh Jayasinghe to admit
it
took
place
-- and said it concerned “legal issues.” This is not a
topic mentioned in the UN's read out.
Inner
City
Press
asked Nesirky to confirm that the Panel's already extended deadline
is the end of February, as had been reported. Nesirky replied that
“the Panel will let us know when we can let you know.”
So
when,
Inner City
Press repeated, is the deadline? Nesirky wouldn't say.
On
whether
this
was
Ban's first meeting with former General Shavendra
Silva, described by widely read New York press as a war criminal,
Nesirky said he has “no idea” - and wouldn't even say he would
ask or find out.
This
is
the
transparency and commitment to accountability for war crimes of which
Ban has spoken?
Also
attending
the
February 23 meeting but standing off to the side during the
handshaking was Ban's chief of staff Vijay Nambiar. Inner City Press
nevertheless took a photograph of him standing by the side, and later
sitting at Ban's right hand for the meeting.
In
recent
days,
Inner City Press has asked Ban's spokesperson's office for a response
to the inclusion of Nambiar in a filing with the International
Criminal Court, which asserts
“a
basis to question whether Vijay Nambiar was in fact an innocent
neutral intermediary or in fact a co-perpetrator within the
negotiation related community.”
The
filing,
which
has been reported in the Australian press, recites that
"NAMBIAR
again
through
the
United Nations-24 hour dispatch center in New York.
NAMBIAR replied to COLVIN that MAHINDA RAJAPAKSE, GOTABAYA RAJAPAKSE,
AND PALITHA KOHONA had assured NAMBIAR that the LTTE members would be
safe in surrendering to the SLA and treated like “normal prisoners
of war” if they “hoist[ed] a white flag high.”
Ban's
lead
spokesman
Martin Nesirky would not say he would seek a response from
Nambiar or the Executive Office of the Secretary General to these
descriptions.
Nesirky's
deputy
Farhan
Haq issued an on the record statement to another journalist
that “the Inner City Press story is inaccurate; there has been no
complaint formally filed at the International Criminal Court.” On
February 23, Inner City Press repeatedly asked Nesirky to explain the
statement; he has thus far declined. Watch this site.
