UN
Report Says Sri Lanka Restricted Invitation then Took
Back, Despite Ban Claims
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
April 25 -- The Sri Lanka
war crimes report by the UN Panel
of Experts says that the government of Sri Lanka in Decmeber 2010
said the Panel could visit the country only to make representations
to the Rajapaksa appointed Lessons Learnt & Reconciliation
Commission, and then reversed even that invitation in January 2011.
From
Paragraph 21:
“The Panel notes that it reiterated its willingness to visit the
country even after the Goverment insisted in a letter in December
2010 that the Panel could only make 'representations' to the LLRC. Yet
the Government rejected this overture in a note in early January
2011 and never pursued the visit thereafter.”
What
then to make
of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's public statement in December
2010 thanking Mahinda Rajapaksa for his “flexibility” in allowed
the Panel to visit, and Ban in January 2011 repeating to Inner City
Press that the Panel could visit?
Ban and Nambiar, Sri Lanka report now
seen, no thanks to UN
The
Report in
Annex 2 makes clear that Sri Lankan ambassador Palitha Kohona set up
a February 22, 2011 meeting between Attorney General Mohan Peiris and
the Panel.
But Ban's
spokesman Martin Nesirky, when Inner City Press
asked if Mohan Peiris had met with the Panel, said you where there
with a camera, you saw it did not happen.
On
April 25, having
seen the whole report, Inner City Press asked Nesirky to now confirm
the February 22 meeting, and to explain why he had said it did not
happen.
I
give you the
information when I get it, was his response.
Inner
City Press
asked if he had not been told of this meeting when he answered Inner
City Press the first time.
I
give you the
information when I get it, he repeated.
But
what about
Ban's public claims in December and January that the Panel could go
to Sri Lanka? These don't square with the report, which Nesirky now
says will belatedly be released by the UN later on April 25. Watch
this site.
* * *
On
Sri Lanka, 216 Pg UN Report Obtained by Inner City Press, Annex Shows
Denied Meeting Took Place
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
April 25, updated -- With the
UN still
not having released its Panel
of Experts report on war crimes in Sri Lanka, Inner City Press on
Monday morning in the UN's North Lawn building obtained from two
separate sources identical scanned copies of the report, 216 pages
including the exhibits, and
as a public service put one online. One of the sources has asked that it be
removed, which it is for now.
At the UN noon briefing, spokesman
Martin Nesirky said the report will be released "today." Until then,
Inner City Press will be publishing pertinent portions of the report -
watch this site.
The
UN initially
gave the Sri Lankan government a 36 hours head start. This turned
into more than a week, during which time portions of the report
leaked to the pro-government newspaper The Island, and it was used
both for domestic politics within Sri Lanka, and to get Russia and
others to pressure the UN not to release or more importantly act on
the report.
Why
the UN
administration of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon withheld the report
for more than a week has not been explained. On April 21, the chief
of Ban's Department of Political Affairs Lynn Pascoe told Inner City
Press he had not been aware it would not be released at that day's
noon briefing.
Other
sources point
to the involvement of Ban's chief of staff Vijay Nambiar, himself
involved in the White Flag killings described in Paragraphs 171 - 172
of the report. This is a blatant conflict of interest, and may
explain the delay of, and prospectively the inaction on, the report.
The
exhibits show
that a February meeting between the Panel and Sri Lanka's attorney
general Mohan Peiris was arranged by Ambassador Palitha Kohona, whose
involvement in the White Flag killings and joint Australian
citizenship are the subject of a filing with the International
Criminal Court, with Pascoe.
There
is more to be
said about the report -- the scan as obtained lacks page 9, which
Inner City Press previously obtained and put online -- but for now we
publish it in advance of the UN's April 25 noon briefing.
Incredibly,
the UN
has scheduled and kept a presentation about malaria, by a businessman
who is a partial owner of the New Jersey Devils hockey team, as the
centerpiece of its April 25 noon briefing. But questions will be
asked. Watch this site.
* * *
Sri
Lanka
Report Held by UN's Ban & Nambiar Partially Describes White
Flag Killings Nambiar Involved In: Conflicts
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
April 24 -- With the UN still
withholding its Panel of
Experts' report on war crimes in Sri Lanka, The Island in its ninth
day of publishing portions of the reported that were leaked,
presumptively by the government of Mahinda Rajapaksa, has run the
“'White Flag' incident” section (see below).
This
section
raises questions about UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon not having
required the recusal of his chief of staff Vijay Nambiar, who was
involved in the incident -- about the the Panel of Experts itself.
The
Panel's report
as leaked to The Island describes part of the White Flag killings and
lists by name the involvement of Mahinda Rajapaksa, his brothers
Gotabaya and Basil and Permanent Representative to the UN Palitha
Kohona, against whom a filing has been made to the International
Criminal Court for his involvement in the presumptive war crime.
As
partially
described by the UN Panel of Experts, “Nadesan and Pulidevan, and
possibly Colonel Ramesh” conveyed a request to surrender to an
“official[] of the UN” and received assurances they would not be
killed through “intermediaries.” They were then killed.
While
the Panel's
reports, troublingly, does not disclose the involvement of Vijay
Nambiar, instead referring only to a UN intermediary as having
conveyed assurances that those surrendering would not be killed,
Nambiar has acknowledged being involved.
Inner
City Press,
which visiting Sri Lanka covering Ban's trip in May 2009, has
followed this issue closely, repeatedly asking for a statement by Mr.
Nambiar describing his role. Inner City Press was directed to a
single filmed interview Nambiar gave, in which he acknowledged a role
The
Panel of
Experts, named and essentially paid by the UN of Ban Ki-moon, was
remiss in not naming Nambiar. Given how and by whom the Panel's members
were named and paid, and their final work product, there was a conflict
of interest.
Ban
Ki-moon, many now conclude, has been remiss
in allowing Nambiar to remain involved in handling the report, even
inreviewing it for what the UN should do next. It is a blatant conflict
of interest.
Following
numerous
previous inquiries by Inner City Press into this, including Palitha
Kohona heatedly disputing the account that Nambiar gave, on April 12
and 19 Inner City Press again asked Ban's deputy spokesman Farhan Haq
if Nambiar would be involved or recused.
Haq,
who previously
denied the existence of the filing with the ICC which details
Nambiar's role in the White Flag killings, said that Nambiar is a
senior advisor and was involved in reviewing the report.
Other
leaked
portions describe Nambiar interfacing about the review with Kohona
and his Deputy, General Shavendra Silva, also reportedly involved in
war crimes at the end of the conflict.
Still
other leaked
portions allude to a February 22 meeting, which Ban's lead spokesman
Martin Nesirky in essence denied to Inner City Press took place,
between the Panel of Experts and Sri Lankan Attorney General Mohan
Peiris, in the office of another of Ban's advisers, Lynn Pascoe.
Late
arriving on
the scene, in Sri Lankan press accounts, is Ban's deputy chief of
staff Kim Won-soo, perhaps in belated acknowledgment that Nambiar
should never have been allowed to be involved in the report, which
partially describes the White Flag killings in which he was involved.
Now
it is said that
Ban will take a call from Minister G.L. Peiris. Even if the report is
released on April 25, along with a UN response in which Vijay Nambiar
has clearly been involved, it is too late, and poisoned by the
conflicted involved of Nambiar. This is all a new low for this UN.
Watch this site.
From
the
leaked Panel of Experts report:
The
"White
Flag" incident
170.
Various
reports have alleged that the political leadership of the
LTTE and their dependents were executed when they surrendered to the
SLA. In the very final days of the war, the head of the LTTE
political wing, Nadesan, and the head of the Tiger Peace Secretariat
Pulidevan, were in regular communication with various interlocutors
to negotiate surrender. They were reportedly with a group of around
300 civilians. The LTTE political leadership was initially reluctant
to agree to an unconditional surrender, but as the SLA closed in on
the group in their final hideout, Nadesan and Pulidevan, and possibly
Colonel Ramesh, were prepared to surrender unconditionally. This
intention was communicated to officials of the United Nations and of
the Governments of Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States,
as well as to representatives of the ICRC and others. It was also
conveyed through intermediaries to Mahinda, Gotabaya and Basil
Rajapaksa, former Foreign Secretary Palitha Kohona and senior
officers in the SLA.
171.
Both
President Rajapaksa and Defence Secretary Basil Rajapaksa
provided assurances that their surrender would be accepted. These
were conveyed by intermediaries to the LTTE leaders, who were advised
to raise a white flag and walk slowly towards the army, following a
particular route indicated by Basil Rajapaksa. Requests by the LTTE
for a third party to be present at the point of surrender were not
granted. Around 6.30 a.m. on 18 May 2009. Nadesan and Pulidevan left
their hide-out to walk towards the area held by the 58th Division,
accompanied by a large group, including their families. Colonel
Ramesh followed behind them, with another group. Shortly afterwards,
the BBC and other television stations reported that Nadesan and
Pulidevan had been shot dead. Subsequently, the Government gave
several different accounts of the incident. While there is little
information on the circumstances of their death, the Panel believes
that the LTTE leadership intended to surrender.
On
the morning of April 21, Inner City Press asked Ban's top two spokesmen
to "please
state
the role of Mr. Nambiar in reviewing the report." No response has yet
been received, more than 60 hours later.
We will have more on this. Watch this site.
