As
Sri Lanka Deports Canadian MP, UN Has No Comment, Controls Questions To
Be Asked
Byline:
Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis
UNITED
NATIONS, June 10 -- Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General who
declined to visit Sri Lanka until after the government's assault on
the "No Fire" Zone had been reached its deadly conclusion,
has said he is closely monitoring "post-conflict"
developments in the country. On June 10, Inner City Press asked Mr.
Ban's Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe if Ban or the UN had any
comment on the Sri Lankan government deporting a member of parliament
from Canada, Bob Rae.
Ms. Okabe said she and Ban have no comment.
"Again," she said, "I am not going to have reactions
to everything you read in the newspaper about Sri Lanka.." Video
here, from Minute 11:16. The question and non-answer are not included
in the UN's summary of the briefing.
This
new approach appears to be designed to have the Sri Lanka issue fall
off not only the radar of the UN Security Council -- a seemingly
final "informal interactive dialogue was held on June 5 -- but
of the wider UN. Journalists are allowed to ask persistent daily
questions
about many situations, without a similar reaction from Ban's
Spokesperson's office: for example on the Middle East, Sudan or
Pakistan. They try now however to make Sri Lanka off limits, to
discourage even any questions being asked.
Ms. Okabe went on to imply that rather than ask questions, the Press
should simply wait to see if and when Ban issues statements. "As he
sees fit, he will be responding," Ms. Okabe said. Ban chose in recent
days to comment on the death of Gabonese strongman Omar Bongo, and to
praise President Obama's speech (whether he will do that for the other
191 heads of state's speeches is not clear). But apparently he did not
see fit to respond to Sri Lanka extending anti-terror laws and
deporting a Canadian elected official.
UN's Ban in IDP camp in Sri Lanka,
response to deporting Canadian MP not shown
Later
on June 10, Inner City Press posed the same question to a senior
political adviser to Ban, who expressed frustration. He said, "we
had predicted what two things would be asked today, and we said it
would be the barring of Bob Rae" -- a longtime observers of Sri
Lanka whom the adviser called fair -- "and the extension of the
state of emergency anti terrorism laws."
About the latter,
Inner
City Press asked on June 9, and Ms. Okabe had no comment on that,
either. The Ban adviser told Inner City Press that he would have
said, of the blocking of Bob Rae, what while the UN usually does not
comment on such actions, "it is not helpful."
So
who is running the show at the UN? Does Ban Ki-moon's
Spokesperson's
Office actually speak for him? On June 11, Mr. Ban holds a press
conference, at which he will offer his own answers to the questions
which are allowed by his Spokesperson. While some questions are sure
to focus on a range of
initiatives and meetings
by Ban's highest
officials which many see as anti-press, the questions about Sri
Lanka
should, one imagines, be allowed. Watch this site.
* *
*
On
Sri Lanka, UN Has No Comment on Anti-Terror Law, Ban's
Freetown Rep Not Worried By Protest
Byline:
Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis
UNITED
NATIONS, June 9 -- As UN money supports internment camps in northern
Sri Lanka, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has said that he is closely
monitoring compliance with the Joint Statement he signed with
President Mahinda Rajapaksa.
But on June 9,
in a UN noon briefing
with no real time pressure and only three journalists in the room,
Ban's Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe first tried to shift directly
from a twelve minute read out of press releases to a guest about
Sierra Leone, then begrudgingly agreed to take Inner City Press'
"daily two questions."
Inner
City Press asked if Sri Lanka's extension of its anti-terrorism laws,
which allow detention with out charge and are directly
disproportionately against the Tamil minority, are consistent with
Ban's understanding of the Commitment, and with his call against
triumphalism and for reconciliation.
Ms. Okabe called
this a mere
"press report" on which the UN has no comment. For the sake
of time, she said, let's turn it over to the guest. Video here,
from
Minute 12:39.
First,
the extension of the anti-terrorism laws was extensively
reported, and
is a legislative fact. Any office closely monitoring developments in
Sri Lanka would be aware of it, and should be prepared to comment
hours later on it -- particularly since the detained doctors who
remained in the "No Fire" zone offering treatment and casualty figures,
about whom Ban has expressed concern, are being held under these laws.
Second,
there was no rush to get the guest, the representative in Sierra
Leone, on. The noon briefing had been reduced to a less than 15
minutes, more than 12 minutes of which consisted of Ms. Okabe reading
out loud UN press releases.
It appeared
clear that Ms. Okabe simply
didn't want to answer questions. To be so dismissive of Sri Lanka, a
topic the Secretary General is ostensibly monitoring closely, appears
to be inconsistent.
UN's Ban and troops during Africa trip, SLPP
and doctors not shown
The
Sierra Leone UN representative, Michael Schulenburg, is also accused
of being too close to the country's president. Inner City Press asked
Schulenburg to respond to a quote
from the US representative of the
opposition SLPP, that Schulenburg's and Ban's report "reads more
like an eulogy to President Koroma than an objective, professional,
and balanced report on the fair implementation of the very
communique."
Schulenburg
said that the criticism of his approach is only from "one
journalist." Even Ban's high officials point the finger at three
media organizations -- click here
and here
for that.
Inner City
Press asked Schulenburg about reports that SLPP supporters may stage
protests. I don't that, Schulenburg said. "I'm not worried
about this at all." Video here,
from Minute 32:51.
Schulenburg
said he did not recognize the name of the US representative of the
opposition
SLPP. Outreach seems in order.
Footnote:
In fact, with Ban Ki-moon slated to get another award, this time on
June 17 at 630 p.m. at the St Regis Hotel in Manhattan, there is talk
about a protest by people concerned with the UN's action and lack of
action in Sri Lanka. Again, outreach -- and action, follow through --
seem in order. Watch this site.
* * *
In
Sri Lanka, UN Pays for Camps But No Legal Protections, Nor for NGOs,
Will Council Hear?
Byline:
Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis
UNITED
NATIONS, June 8 -- The outgoing chief justice of Sri Lanka, Sarath
Nanda Silva, said before he left that those interred in the camps in
Menik Farm have no legal protections, cannot get justice for their
claims before the courts that he oversaw.
On June 8 in New York,
Inner City Press asked UN Associate Spokesman Farhan Haq if this is
the UN's understanding, given that the UN is largely paying for, and
had just bragged about, the camps. Haq replied that the UN is pushing
for freedom of movement, telling the government to speed up its
"screening and registration."
The screening is, in essence,
political screening, to gauge
whether people support not only the LTTE but also the cause of Tamil
rights. Since the UN is pay for this, it seems fair to ask what legal
protections are in place.
Inner City Press asked again, in response to
which Haq said, "I am not aware of the jurisdiction of the court
system. I think that’s a national issue." Transcript
here
and below; video here,
from Minute
16:38.
But if the UN pays to lock people up, the
non-existence of
safeguards cannot be considered only a national issue.
Inner City Press asked for the UN's response
to the visas denied
to international staff of CARE, Save the Children, NRC and others.
Haq said, we continue to stress the need for humanitarian access.
With whom? When NGOs were barred from Sudan, the UN Secretariat
shouted. And now?
UN's Ban in Manik Farm, legal protections for IDPs
not shown
While some reported that Ban Ki-moon on June
5 called for an
investigation, his actual
words were far more wishy -washy: if there
were violations, they should be investigated. This allows the Sri
Lankan government to claim there were no violations, just as they
insist against all evidence that not a single civilians was killed by
their assault on the "No Fire" Zone.
Nevertheless, when Inner City Press asked
Rosemary DiCarlo of
the U.S. Mission what may happen next at the UN about Sri Lanka, she
said that she and the U.S. expect Ban to continue to brief the
Council, on compliance with the Joint Statement he signed with
President Mahinda Rajapaksa.
More skeptical observers opine that
absent publicized event which shame the UN and Council into action,
the agenda will continue to include Haiti and Burundi, and even
Myanmar, but not Sri Lanka. We'll see.
From
the June
8 UN transcript:
Inner
City Press: on Sri Lanka, the Chief Justice there has been quoted as
saying that the people that are in the camps, including the 280,000
people on the Menik Farm camps were outside of the protection of the
law, that the Sri Lankan justice system has no jurisdiction over them
or their claims. Is that the UN’s understanding, given that it’s
paying in large part for the camps? And also, the NGOs -- CARE, Save
the Children, NRC -- all have had international staff refused visas,
and I wondered what OCHA is doing about that.
Associate
Spokesperson Haq: Well, first of all, regarding the Chief Justice’s
comments, the UN at the highest levels has been insisting on the need
for freedom of movement for the people in these camps since the end
of the conflict. Freedom of movement for people in the IDP camps is
essential. The Government is trying to expedite the screening and
registration of IDPs but this needs to be done faster. The
Government must allow family reunification and the issuance of ID
cards and facilitate freer movement in and out of the camps. The
Government needs to facilitate early return and resettlement of IDPs,
while ensuring the voluntary nature of such movements.
Inner
City Press: [inaudible] does the court system have jurisdiction over
their claims? Is that the UN’s understanding?
Associate
Spokesperson Haq: I am not aware of the jurisdiction of the court
system. I think that’s a national issue.
Again, if the UN pays
to lock people up, the non-existence of
safeguards should not be considered only a national issue.
, 
