Inner City Press: Investigative Reporting from the United Nations

UN Won't Confirm Weerawansa of Sri Lanka Here, Calls His Blockade Legitimate

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 16 -- Last June UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said it as “unacceptable that the Sri Lankan authorities have failed to prevent the disruption of the normal functioning of the United Nations offices in Colombo as a result of unruly protests organized and led by a cabinet minister of the Government.”

That minister was Wimal Weerawansa. On May 16 it was reported that Weerawansa was inside the UN in New York, speaking at an event with Ban Ki-moon.

And so at the UN's noon briefing Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky to confirm or deny that Weerawansa was at the event.

Rather than answer, Nesirky asked his own question to Inner City Press: “What would be your problem with” Weerawansa being there?

Inner City Press explained the seeming incongruity between this and Ban's condemnation, then again asked for a simple yes or now, was Weerawansa there?

“I have no idea,” Nesirky said, “if you'd gone you'd know there were a lot of people. I suspect the Secretary General moved on.”

A senior adviser to Ban, back in July, called Weerawansa's tactics “Gandhian.” And despite or subsequent to Ban's July 8, 2010 condemnation, that seems now to be the view.

Nesirky told Inner City Press, “As we've said, peaceful demonstrations are legitimate... If the authorities take action, that's a different matter.”

At the Wimal-organized protest, staff blockaded in, UN flip flop

Actually, the Sri Lankan authorities in the form of Presidential brother Gotabaya Rajapaksa ordered that Weerawansa not be hindered in any way.

Using the stance of a government's “authorities” as the test for the UN's position is ludicrous, as seen in Libya and now Yemen and Syria.

Why such a different stance on Sri Lanka? Elsewhere in the briefing, Nesirky chided Inner City Press, “you try to draw parallels between different topics, it's not particularly helpful.” Not helpful to whom?

Inner City Press finally just asked Nesirky to check with UN Security to see if Weerawansa was issued the ID pass he'd need to come into the building. Nesirky said, as your dutiful servant I will try to find out. But three hours later and counting, there was no answer. Watch this site.

* * *

At UN, Meeting of Sri Lanka PR With Ban Belatedly Confirmed, White Flag Testifying?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 4, updated -- Sri Lanka's Ambassador to the UN Palitha Kohona did meet with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday afternoon, Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky belatedly confirmed to Inner City Press when ask at Wednesday's noon briefing.

Inner City Press had learned of the meeting and asked Nesirky, in writing, to confirm and summarize it on May 3. Neither Nesirky nor his deputy Farhan Haq responded. But when asked in person on May 4, Nesirky read from a statement that

“the Secretary General did meet yesterday afternoon with the Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka. In that meeting the Secretary General reiterated two points. First, that... it would be good for Sri Lanka to seriously consider the recommendations of the Report... particularly with regard for the need for an accountability process.”

The role of Kohona, as well as Ban's own chief of staff Vijay Nambiar, in the so-called White Flag killings of surrenderees is alluded to in the UN Panel of Experts report, in Paragraphs 170 - 171.

Inner City Press asked if the meeting with Kohona had ever been disclosed on Ban's scheduled as made available to the media. Nesirky said it was not when the schedule was put together.

But in other circumstances, Ban's Spokesperson's Office distributes revised and updated version of the schedule. As with the meeting on February 22, set up by Kohona, between Sri Lankan Attorney General Mohan Peiris and the UN panel, it seems that Ban and his senior adviser(s) want to keep their dealings with Sri Lanka secret.

Ban previously taking hand off from Kohona, response still not shown

Sri Lankan external affairs minister G.L. Peiris, meanwhile, has in an interview confirmed the previously denied February meeting with the Panel, but has gotten the date and sequence wrong, perhaps intentionally, saying that officials (including Kohona and General Shavendra Silva) and

“the Attorney General were sent to New York to brief the secretary General about the work of the LLRC. After this meeting they met with Under Secretary General of Political Affairs Lynn Pascoe along with the Panel.”

In fact, as arranged by Kohona in a letter appended to the Report, the meeting with the Panel was requested for and held on February 22, following by a meeting with Ban, Nambiar and others on February 23, complete with a photo op.

When Inner City Press asked Nesirky if the meeting with the Panel had taken place, he said you were there with a camera, you saw that it did not take place. When asked later to clarify, he said he provides information when he gets it. Watch this site.

Footnotes: Inner City Press asked if the three authors of the Report would be willing to testify in the trail of General Sarath Fonseca in Sri Lanka, to which the author never traveled despite Ban's repeated statement that they could. Nesirky called this hypothetical.

He said Ban also raised to Kohona the responsibilities of Sri Lanka for the safety of UN staff and premises. The responses of Kohona and the Rajapaksa government to any of these secretive reminders is not yet known.

Update of 1:39 pm -- Inner City Press has spoken with Sri Lanka Permanent Representative Palitha Kohona, less than an hour after publication of the above. He says he told the Secretary General that “Sri Lanka has never allowed a UN staff member to be harmed, in sixty years” - he asked that Inner City Press report this. Inner City Press asked, what about for example the UN national staff members who were detained and, for a time, disappeared? There has as yet been no answer on this. But we will report any responses. Watch this site.

* * *

On Sri Lanka, Ban Claims UN Couldn't Assess Casualties, Leak Shows UN Did

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 27 -- On Sri Lanka, UN “staff were not in the position to assess” the number of casualties in 2009, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky told the Press on April 27, as they had to withdraw because the Government said security could not be guaranteed.

But as Inner City Press reported and published on March 27, 2009, a detailed UN document it obtained reported that the "minimum number of documented civilian casualties since 20 January 2009, as of 7 March 2009 in the conflict area of Mullaitivu Region [is] 9,924 casualties including 2,683 deaths and 7,241 injuries.”

Click here for the leaked document, and here for Inner City Press' report which exclusively published it.

Ban's UN refused to confirm its own Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs casualty figures. It now appears, including based on statements by staff who have since left the UN, that Ban's UN consciously decided to withhold and once leaked deny the casualty information it WAS in the position to compile.

Nesirky on April 27, when Inner City Press followed up on questions it put to Ban the previous day, said that this topic and others will now be reviewed by the UN, by Ban and his senior advisers.

Inner City Press asked Nesirky if Ban's chief of staff Vijay Nambiar, who was involved in the White Flag killings which appear in the UN report at Paragraph 171, will be one of the senior advisers involved in the review.

“There are many senior advisers,” Nesirky said, adding that the review “will look at the full range of topics contained” in the report.

The question remains: should a senior adviser like Nambiar be allowed to play any role in the review of an incident he was involved in? The answer should have been, and should be, no -- but hasn't been.

Inner City Press asked if this review will be made public. Nesirky would not say, but acknowledged that there is a public interest in it. With 40,000 civilians reportedly killed, yes there is a public interest.

Amazingly, after Ban said he “is advised” that the report's recommendations can only be investigated if the Rajapaksa government consents or members states vote for it in an intergovernmental forum, Ban when he reported on Sri Lanka to the UN Security Council on April 26 did not even ask them to schedule a vote on the recommendation for an investigation of war crimes. We'll have more on this.

From the 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 [sic?] 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.[sic?] 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.

These reports are usually also available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis.

Click here for a Reuters AlertNet piece by this correspondent about Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army. Click here for an earlier Reuters AlertNet piece about the Somali National Reconciliation Congress, and the UN's $200,000 contribution from an undefined trust fund. Video Analysis here

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

Inner City Press -- Investigative Reporting From the Inner City to Wall Street to the United Nations