Amid
Filipino Peacekeeping Scandal, UN in Manila Says HQ Is On It, But HQ
Denies It, As Did Sri Lanka Petition
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
February 1 -- With scandals in the Philippines brewing about
the skimming of UN salary payments to peacekeeping troops and a $5
million payment from the UN gone missing, the UN in New York on
Monday told Inner City Press is it a local Filipino matter.
Then
the UN's
resident coordinator in the Philippines Jacqueline Badcock on Tuesday
was quoted
that the issue was "not something the UN deals with
locally but at the level of the UN headquarters" and that she
was "following up the matter with the UN headquarters."
It
seemed clear
that “UN headquarters” should then have an answer. But on Tuesday
in New York when Inner City Press asked deputy UN spokesman Farhan
Haq about Ms. Badcock's buck passing, he insisted that Monday's
written answer is “the line” and remains the case: it is purely a
Filipino matter.
So
was Ms. Badcock
lying? Or will we be hearing more from the UN?
On
Monday, Inner
City Press submitted a written question to the UN Department of
Peacekeeping Operations in New York:
“a
news magazine in Phillipines uncovered a UN-related scam by the
Philippines military:
'The
magazine
has also reported
on a practice by the military of skimming
a certain percentage off the salaries being paid by the United
Nations to Filipino soldiers sent on peacekeeping missions to other
countries. Officials in 2006 defended the practice, saying that it
was meant to recover the expenses incurred by the military in sending
these troops to peacekeeping missions.'
Question:
Do
DPKO, Alain Le Roy and the UN think that the practice by the
Phillipines military of skimming a certain percentage off the
salaries paid by the UN to its solders is appropriate, yes or no?
The
answer came
not from DPKO but from Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Office of the
Spokesperson Martin Nesirky:
Regarding
your
questions to DPKO, we have the following to say:
On
your
question about Filipino troops: This is a national matter. The
UN reimburses governments, not soldiers, and we rely on the Member
States to disburse the funds in accordance with their national norms
and standards.
This
seemed a
strange answer, in light of the scandals being discussed in the
Filipino House, where "$5 million from the
United Nations remains unaccounted for, according to former government
auditor Heidi Mendoza who testified yesterday before the House
committee on justice."
So
rather than immediately write an article with
this UN answer, Inner City Press asked a follow up at the UN's
February 1 noon briefing, citing a Filipino
article reporting that
“MANILA,
Philippines—The United Nations office in Makati City on Tuesday
said it was taking up the alleged UN fund misuse issue with the
agency's headquarters in New York City. UN resident coordinator
Jacqueline Badcock on Tuesday told the INQUIRER the issue was 'not
something the UN deals with locally but at the level of the UN
headquarters.' Badcock said she was following up the matter with the
UN headquarters.'”
But
deputy
spokesman Farhan Haq insisted that yesterday's answer is “still the
line,” that it is a local matter.
UN's Ban & Pedrito
Candungog, Filipino Air Force Commanding General, $5 million not shown
So
in another
example of UN buck passing, the local office “on the ground” says
the scandal has been referred to UN Headquarters, then UN
Headquarters denies it, and refers back to the local office. Which is
it?
Footnote:
another
example took place this week when on January 31, Inner City
Press was told by
Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky that “we
are not aware” of the receipt of a petition about a disappeared
journalist in Sri Lanka, Prageeth, about which Inner City Press had
been asking for a week.
Then
the UN
in
Colombo told the local press the letter had already been received.
On
February 1, Haq said the letter had “now” been received. But did
the Spokesperson's Office even check before its January 31 denial?
Or
did the UN in Colombo, headed by Neil Buhne, not tell headquarters
about the petition's receipt? It was reported on January 24, but
denied in UN Headquarters on January 31. It take a week for the UN to
tell the truth? And how long now on the Philippines? Watch this site.
* * *
As
in
Sri Lanka Media Is Burned Down, UN “Is Not Aware” of Petition
about Disappeared Journalist, Silent for 1 Week
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
January 31 -- As in Sri Lanka the office of Lanka-e-News was
burned down and the UN had no comment, nor would the UN on January 31
even confirm receipt of a petition from the wife of journalist
Prageeth Eknaligoda, disappeared on January 24, 2010.
A
year after the
disappearance, January 24, 2011 Inner City Press asked UN Secretary
General Ban Ki-moon's spoksman Martin Nesirky
“What
is the UN's response to
this -
'The
wife
of a Sri Lankan journalist believed to have been abducted a year
ago has urged the United Nations to help trace him, saying she
believed the government was complicit in the crime. Prageeth
Ekneligoda was critical of the government's conduct during its civil
war with the Tamil Tiger rebels, who fought for 25 years for an
independent homeland. Prageeth's wife, Sandya, handed a letter to the
world body's office in Colombo on Monday that accused the government
of having no interest in finding her husband.'
Will
the
UN help? Does the UN have any response to this case, or the other
unresolved attacks on journalists in Sri Lanka, including those Ban
commented on but some say did not follow up on?”
For
an entire
week, Ban's spokesperson's office refused to even confirm receipt of
the question, which Inner City Press re-submitted each day. On the
morning of January 31, Inner City Press asked:
“What
is the UN's comment and action on this
- 'the arson attack on Lanka-e-News
office located in Malabe, Colombo district... Benet Rupasinghe, news
editor of lankaenews.com, said his office was set on fire at around
2.00 a.m. by a group of unidentified persons who destroyed everything
in the office...“It is not in a possible state to continue website
operations,” he said. Last week priests and journalists appealed to
the United Nations to find Prageeth Ekneligoda, a Lanka-e-News
journalist who disappeared on Jan. 24 last year.'
Still
requesting
UN confirmation of receipt, and response to, this petition
to the UN about the case of disappeared Prageeth Ekneligoda.”
Still
having no
answer or confirmation of receipt, Inner City Press asked the
questions in person at the January 31 UN noon briefing. Ban's
spokesman Martin Nesirky said “both are questions you sent by
email.” Yes -- but they were never answered or even acknowledged.
Earlier this
month Nesirky ended a briefing (on January 21) by saying
it would only take questions from Inner City Press if it “acted
appropriately” -- apparently meaning, no questions about compliance
with UN rules. Nor about Sri Lanka?
One year after Prageeth was disappeared, UN not shown
On
January 31,
Nesirky said he would see if there's anything further on the burning
down of Lanka-e-News, that freedom of the media is vital, and that
“we're not aware of a petition being handed in.”
The
petition was
reported
in Columbo, in the Canadian
Press and elsewhere. Major
press freedom organizations have spoken of it, just as another
belatedly prepares to speak out on the burning of Lanka -e-News. So
the UN under Ban Ki-moon is not aware of it? Watch this site.
* * *
UN
Belatedly
Re-Confirms
Ban
Panel
Blocked by Sri Lanka, Is Not Asked
About Ban's Claims: No More
Questions
By
Matthew
Russell
Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
January
22
--
The
UN, after moving to refuse to
answer any
Press questions about Sri Lanka, has decided to publicly
re-confirm that
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Accountability Panel is no longer
slated to travel to Sri Lanka.
As Inner City Press reported on January 18, this is contrary to
Ban's December 17 praise of President Mahinda Rajapaksa's "flexibility"
in allowing the visit, and to Ban's January 14 answer to Inner City
Press. But the UN does not want to explain, or even be asked about,
these accumulating discrepancies.
On January 18,
based
on
multiple
conversation
with
UN insiders who insisted they not
be named because if so they would be fired or further marginalized,
Inner City Press reported
that
“insiders
late on January 17 told Inner City Press that despite Ban's
statement, his Panel will now probably NOT visit the Island. Despite
Ban's December 17 announcement praising President Mahinda Rajapaksa's
'flexibility,' since then Rajapaksa's government has written to the
UN to say not only that the Panel should not come, but that neither
the government nor its Lessons Learnt & Reconciliation Panel will
speak with the UN Panel of Experts. It is expected now that
representatives of the Rajapaksa government will, in New York only,
speak with Ban Ki-moon's Office, not his Panel.”
Alongside
publishing
this
news, Inner City Press publicly
asked
Ban's
Spokesman
Martin
Nesirky
about it at the January 18 UN noon briefing:
Inner
City
Press:
...the
Panel
does
not go to Sri Lanka. That in fact
letters have been exchanged and that a letter from Sri Lanka says
that there’s no intention to speak to the Panel.
Spokesperson:
Well,
what
I
can
tell you is that Ms. Bragg’s visit it obviously a
humanitarian visit. It is not related to work of the Panel. It is
not. And I think that’s quite clear.
Question:
What
happens
now?
What
will she do with it, as a humanitarian
individual?
Spokesperson:
She
will
be
talking
about humanitarian matters.
Question:
Only
about
the
rains,
not about what caused the need to return?
... there’s some question about
the visas for an accountability purpose, what the relation of this
visa would be…
Spokesperson:
As
I
said,
the
two are not connected. This is clearly a
humanitarian matter. Last question.
Apparently
Nesirky
is
trying
to
carry
this out, making that the “last
question.”
UN's Ban & Nesirky in 2011: no questions allowed
The
next day on
January 19, Nesirky twice cut off Inner City Press from asking
questions at the UN noon briefing, claiming he would answer questions
put to him in writing.
Inner City
Press posed a number of Sri Lanka
questions about the visas and Ban Ki-moon, none of which Mr. Nesirky
answered.
On January
20,
Nesirky walked out of the briefing room while Inner City Press was
still posing questions about the white flag killings in connection
with an
article including the role of Ban's chief of staff Vijay
Nambiar, who has said he got assurances from Sri Lanka Permanent
Representative Palitha Kohona that those with white flags would not
be killed.
Nesirky spoke
of a reply from Mr. Nambiar, which has yet
to be provided.
Finally
on
January
21,
Nesirky
told
Inner City Press at the noon briefing that
“I will take questions from you when you behave in an appropriate
manner,” and refused to take any more of questions Inner City Press
had prepared, including Sri Lanka and Ban's statements about his
Panel. Colloquially, this "sucked,"
and
Inner
City
Press
quickly wrote about it.
Later
on
January
21,
in what is still labeled an “exclusive,” FP ran this quote:
“'The
Sri Lankan mission had initially indicated they would be amenable to
the panel meeting with it to make whatever representations it may
wish to make, but it seems now that such a visit has still not been
decided,' said a senior U.N. official. 'I am not sure if this is a
simple matter of the Sri Lankan side prevaricating. The panel is
nevertheless open and keen on any appropriate interaction with the
LLC. The Sri Lankans have sought to keep their interaction through
the secretariat, specifically the EOSG [the executive office of the
secretary general],' the official said. 'We have, however, been
asking them and the panel to deal with each other directly and shall
continue to do so.'”
This
is
how
Ban's
UN,
especially
but not only Ban's Spokesperson's Office, operates.
A
major question
still unanswered, but repeatedly asked by Inner City Press publicly
in the noon briefings at which Nesirky on January 21 said he will
take no more questions from Inner City Press, is why Ban Ki-moon
claimed on December 17 that his Panel would go to Sri Lanka.
At
that time, Ban
went out of his way to praise President Mahinda Rajapaksa's
“flexibility.” Nesirky has repeated refused to answer Inner City
Press' factual questions about Ban's, his entourage and family's
contacts with Sri Lanka and Rajapaksa.
After
Ban's
January
14
“monthly”
press
conference, at which Nesirky did not
take any questions from Inner City Press, Inner City Press waited at
the entrance to the briefing room and asked Ban why his panel wasn't
going to Sri Lanka, and minutes later published
Ban's answers:
“Mister
Secretary General, you said your Panel is going to Sri Lanka,”
Inner City Press asked, “what happened?”
Ban
Ki-moon replied, “They are now working very seriously on finalizing
the dates of visiting Sri Lanka.”
Inner
City Press asked about “the government has said they can only talk
to the LLRC, that they can't investigate anything.”
Ban
Ki-moon replied, “They will be able to... They are now discussing
that.”
Now,
after
Inner
City
Press
publicly
asked and wrote about the letters between Sri
Lanka and the UN which contradict what Ban has said, and after
Nesirky said he will not take any more questions from Inner City
Press, a “senior UN official” issues the above-quoted, without
any reference to Ban's December 17 (and January 14) claims. Watch
this site.
, 
