UN
Sri
Lanka Report Mistakes Basil for Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Stonewalling
Continues
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
April 25 -- While the UN still
has not released its Panel of
Experts report on war crimes in Sri Lanka or committed to make the
Panel members available for questions, the leaked copy obtained by
Inner City Press has given rise to a sample question which
exemplifies why a press conference is needed.
The
Report at
Paragraph 171 states that “Defence Secretary Basil Rajapaksa
provided assurances that their surrender would be accepted...
following a particular route indicated by Basil Rajapaksa.”
Inner
City Press
has asked the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary General,
Ban Ki-moon, the following:
-Since
Gotabaya
Rajapaksa was and is the Defense Secretary, is this just a
typo?
-Who
is
the Panel saying indicated the route: Basil or Gotabya Rajapaksa?
-Again,
what
was Mr. Nambiar's precise role in the assurances?
-And
when
specifically did the OSSG know about the Feb 22 meeting between
Mohan Peiris and the Panel, as set forth in Annex 2 of the Report?
Previously,
Ban's
spokesman Martin Nesirky when Inner City Press asked if a meeting
between Sri Lanka attorney general Mohan Peiris and the Panel had
taken place said, you were there with a camera, you saw that it
didn't.
Nesirky
has said,
When I get the information, I give it to you.
How
about Nambiar's
responses then? Watch this site.
Footnote: The Office
of the Spokesperson has told select journlaists that the report would
go on the UN website at 3:30. This is published past 4 pm, and it is
not up.
* * *
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.
