On
Sri
Lanka,
Malcorra
Explains Ban
Blacking Out
His Position
& Silva
Inaction
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
November
15,updated
with
transcript --
A day after
the UN
released a
partially
blacked out
report on its
actions and
inactions in
Sri Lanka, and
an
hour after
Inner City
Press published
material
deleted after
the
"penultimate"
version,
including the
removed
Executive
Summary, a
press
conference was
held by report
author Charles
Petrie
and Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
chief of staff
Susana
Malcorra.
Inner
City Press
asked about
the absence of
Malcorra's
predecessor
Vijay
Nambiar, who
was Ban's
envoy to Sri
Lanka and
coaxed out
surrenderees
who were
subsequently
killed, a
matter glossed
over in
Petrie's
report. Video
here from
Minute 10:53.
Malcorra
answered
that with a
question, why
Inner City
Press would
ask for
the presence
of Nambiar and
not other
officials.
Well, former
humanitarian
chief John
Holmes,
exposed in
redacted
portions of
the
report arguing
against using
the term war
crimes --
reminiscent of
the Clinton
administration's
hair splitting
on "acts of
genocide" in
Rwanda -- was
not there, but
he no longer
works for
the UN.
Nambiar does.
Inner
City Press
asked why
Holmes'
recommendation
to not use the
term war
crimes (and
not release
casualty
figures his
department had
collected) was
blacked out of
the report.
Malcorra
responded that
the
Secretary
General
decided that
some material
should be
redacted,
because it
concerned
confidential
cables or
meetings or
put staff
members in
jeopardy.
But
one sample
redaction, in
Paragraph
173, are of
Ban's own
comments,
that the Sri
Lankan
"Government
should be
given the
political
space to
develop a
domestic
mechanism"
of
accountability.
This
does not
concern staff
safety, and it
seems strange
to argue that
Ban
blacked out
his own
comments to
not chill his
own future
deliberation.
When
Inner City
Press got to
ask about this
redaction,
Malcorra
insisted
that it was
twisting what
she said. Video
here from
Minute 31:33.
But
how is this
redaction
justified?
In
fairness,
Malcorra
argued that
the UN's view
Sri Lanka as a
humanitarian
and not human
rights issues.
This is one
way to
describe the
UN keeping
silent to
retain access.
But the UN
under John
Holmes left
Kilinochchi in
2008. That was
not
humanitarian.
That was not
access.
In
self-criticism,
Inner City
Press vaguely
heard of the
pull-out in
2008 and asked
about it then,
but did not
follow through
with more
until early
2009. Bad
instincts;
efforts to be
redoubled.
But
when Inner
City Press did
follow
up, in March
2009 waving
around a
leaked OCHA
report of
2,683
civilians
killed in
northern Sri
Lanka,
the UN denied
the document
existed.
The Petrie
report, even
as
redacted and
"balanced,"
usefully
establishes
that was
false.
Charles
Petrie
said changes
were made to
make the
report "more
balanced." But
it was
supposed to be
an independent
report into
the UN's own
performance,
not to be
"balanced"
with
official's
desires to
conceal their
mistakes.
Petrie
said that
Malcorra is
"championing"
the report and
recommendations.
That is not at
all clear.
Inner
City Press
asked about
Ban having
accepted one
of the
Generals
associated
with the
killings in
Sri Lanka,
Shavendra
Silva, as a
Senior Adviser
on
Peacekeeping
Operations.
Malcorra made
the old
defense, that
member states
decided it.
But
a lesson of
the Ban's
UN's failure
in Sri Lanka
is that hiding
behind members
states is not
a sufficient
defense for a
UN Secretary
General. Silva
appeared with
Sri Lanka
Ambassador
(and former UN
official)
Palitha Kohona
at a war crime
defense film
screening
in the UN's
own Dag
Hammarskjold
Auditorium, fallout
written up by
the SLC, here.
There is more
to be
said on all
this. Watch
this site.
Here's
from
the UN's
November 15,
2012,
transcript:
Spokesperson
Martin
Nesirky: Okay,
questions
please? I
wanted to see
if there’s
someone from
[United
Nations
Correspondents
Association]
who wishes
to ask a
question on
behalf of the
Correspondents
Association.
That’s the
usual
tradition.
Question:
On behalf of
[United
Nations
Correspondents
Association],
Madame,
thank you for
coming here.
My question
would be — the
report is
very critical
of the
Security
Council as it
is as well of
the United
Nations
Secretariat
system. What
can the
Secretary-General
do about
them to change
their
attitude....
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
Matthew, yes?
Inner
City
Press: Sure, I
wanted to ask
you. I’ve seen
a list of
things
that were
taken out of
the report
between the
penultimate
version and
the final
version. A lot
of them have
to do with
concealing the
number of
casualties. It
seems like
this was a
decision that
was
made at
Headquarters.
I was sitting
in room 226, I
remember with
an
[Office for
the
Coordination
of
Humanitarian
Affairs]
document
saying
that there
were 2,683
people killed
in a certain
timeframe in
2009
and the then
Spokesperson
so oh that’s
not a real
document. And
the redacted
portions of
the report
revealed that
there was some
tension in
Headquarters,
whether it
revealed
numbers. So, I
wanted
to know, what
have you
learned from
that, in terms
of actually
revealing
numbers. And
also, one of
the redactions
actually has
the
Secretary-General
himself saying
let’s give the
Rajapaksa
Government
more time to
bring
accountability.
And I wanted
to know
if either of
you think that
there has been
accountability.
There
is
also, since
this time
General
Shavendra
Silva, one of
the
participants
in the
military
campaign, was
named as a
senior advisor
on
peacekeeping
operations. In
fact, he was
standing right
where you
are in an
[United
Nations
Correspondents
Association]
screening of a
film denying
war crimes.
So, what I’m
wondering is
when you say
what have you
learned, what
have you
learned given
that there
were
sort of
excuses made
for accepting
one of the
alleged
perpetrators.
And
the
last question
I want to ask
is why Mr.
Nambiar, there
is a
mention twice
of the white
flag killings
in the report.
It says that
Mr. Nambiar
received
assurances
from the
Government
that people
that
surrendered
wouldn’t be
killed. But,
there is an
enormous
amount
of
controversy,
whether he
personally
should have
spoken out
after
these people
were killed.
And some
people don’t
believe that
he
got the
assurances or
that, but what
I’m wondering
is, was that
appropriate?
And in terms
of
accountability,
he’s a senior
UN
official, why
isn’t he here?
Ms.
Malcorra:
First of all,
let me divide
your
questions. If
I
understood
correctly, you
referred to
the
penultimate
version versus
the last
version?
Inner
City
Press: Yes.
Ms.
Malcorra:
I cannot talk
about that. I
didn’t see the
penultimate
version. I
only saw the
last version.
So, I will ask
Charles to
refer to that
and to some
other specific
requests on
the report.
And
then I will
take up the
rest.
Mr.
Petrie:
I think,
Matthew, you
are talking
more about the
redaction
because
between the
penultimate
version and
the final
version
actually there
was no
substantive
difference in
terms of facts
and
even argument.
What we were
trying to do
is to find
language that
would make the
report more
balanced and
more
acceptable in
terms of
the message
that we were
trying to
give. Your
point on Mr.
Nambiar
and the white
flags
incident, we
actually went
through it and
went
into it in
great detail
and talked to
a number of
people
involved. And
the report
sort of
presents our
assessment of
the event and
the
fact that the
[Liberation
Tigers of
Tamil Elam]
undertook
these
discussions,
or this
request, at
the very, very
last minute.
And
it
was almost
physically
impossible for
Mr. Nambiar to
get there. In
terms of the
efforts with
the Government
and with the
discussions,
our sense is
that there was
an honest
attempt to try
and get the
Government to
accept the
surrender of
the
[Liberation
Tigers of
Tamil
Elam]. But, it
just didn’t
work. It
failed. But I
do think, in a
way, I would
say your
questions for
me seem more
linked, less
to the
penultimate
version, and
more linked to
the redaction
issue.
Ms.
Malcorra:
Which I will
take up myself
because that’s
not… that
was not on
you, it was on
us.
Inner
City
Press: And the
Silva issue?
Mr.
Petrie:
And…?
Inner
City
Press: And the
Shavendra
Silva issue?
Ms.
Malcorra:
I will get to
that, yeah, I
hear you.
Inner
City
Press: Okay.
Ms.
Malcorra:
On the
redacted
version, there
was a decision
taken after
a discussion
with the
Secretary-General
regarding how
is it that we
are going to
make this
report public.
The report has
references to
documents
related
particularly
to the policy
committee
meetings and
the
deliberations,
but also to
some of the
code cables
that are of a
strictly
confidential
nature. The
Secretary-General
felt, and I
fully share
his view, that
there was
nothing that
will change
the
transparency
to show the
report if we
took out those
aspects that
have a clear
relation to
documents of
internal use
that were
fully
available to
the Panel,
which only
indicate how
open and
available
every single
person and
every single
document was,
but didn’t
necessarily
add any value,
but also put
the
Organization
at risk by
sharing
publicly in
such a short
term internal
documents.
You
all
know for sure
that
Governments
have normally
a time-bound
limitation on
accessibility
to certain
documentation
and that time
is
normally quite
long. Most
Governments
have 30 years
or so. We
don’t
have that in
the United
Nations. But,
we decided
that it was
only
reasonable to
mark out those
references to
exchange of
documents like
code tables
that had very,
very specific
information of
a
confidential
nature that
was used by
the Panel to
make its
assessment,
but it was not
necessarily
something that
we want to
make
to be public.
The
other
thing that we
did, also, is
look to some
cases where
there were
references to
a staff that
even though
the staff
member may not
be
there, the
name, it could
put that
person in
jeopardy
vis-à-vis
his
or her
personal
safety. So
that you may
find a couple
of markers on
that. We feel
that this is a
responsible
way to be
transparent.
We
feel about
this very
strongly and
we would like
to have a
shared view
with you all,
because as
much as we
want to push
the envelope
of
transparency
as the
Secretary-General
does, we also
need to be
responsible
vis-à-vis
the ability of
the
Organization
to handle and
manage its own
internal
affairs. So, I
will pose this
to you. That
was the
criteria; it
was an
internal
decision taken
by the
Organization,
and we stand
by that.
On
the
question of
the General
and him being
part of the
[specialized
agency], that
is my
understanding;
first of all
the decision
on the
[specialized
agency] was
not something
that the
Secretary-General
took. The
process was
very clear. He
requested the
different
regional
groups to
propose names,
and the
Secretary-General
only
transferred
that as a
convenor of
the
[specialized
agency]. Then,
as
you well know,
there was a
very, very
strong
discussion
within the
[specialized
agency] which
left the
situation in a
way that the
General did
not
participate in
the
deliberation
of the
[specialized
agency]. So,
again, we have
worked in a
very
transparent
and open
way, and it
was left to
the members of
that group to
take a
decision
on how they
will operate
themselves.
On
why
is it that Mr.
Nambiar is not
here — well,
here’s not
here as
no one else
who has been
involved in
the review is
here. I don’t
know why you
point out Mr.
Nambiar, but
no one from
that review is
sitting here.
The ones who
are sitting
here are the
Chair of the
Panel and the
Chef de
Cabinet on
behalf of the
Secretary-General
and
this is, we
believe, the
way to put
before you the
conclusions.
The
one
last thing I
want to make,
just to make
it clear, is
that the
panel review
is a review
that takes
stock of what
the experts
did in
their own
report and
takes it from
there, so this
is not, the
Panel
did not [do]
an assessment
of the
findings of
the expert
panel. They
just used
their findings
to make their
own assessment
of the
internal
management and
internal
handling of
the system.
Inner
City
Press: I
wanted to
bring this…
Maybe at the
end.
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
I’ll come back
to you....
...Spokesperson
Nesirky:
Matthew?
Inner
City
Press: I
wanted to ask
you about the
redactions
because I take
staff safety
as one of the
things you
cited
seriously. As
you
probably know,
the way it was
put up, it was
possible to
see behind
the redactions
and,
therefore, if
I can, in
paragraph 173,
what was
taken out was
a direct quote
from the
Secretary-General,
not about
staff members,
him saying the
Secretary-General
said that “the
Government
should be
given the
political
space to
develop a
domestic
mechanism.”
That’s why I’m
asking you, do
you think that
that
mechanism has
come to
anything?
Another
redaction has
Mr. Holmes
saying that we
shouldn’t call
it a war
crime, and
it’s taken
out. That
doesn’t seem
to be about
safety. It
really does
seem to be
just what you
said about
kind of
self-serving.
So, I’ve seen
the
executive
summary as
well, and it
seems it’s
nothing about
staff
safety. It’s
just a harder
hitting
version. Why
did you take
it
out?
Ms.
Malcorra:
Because I used
two arguments
and you took
only one,
Matthew. This
is a typical
situation,
Matthew, that
where I like
to
be very
straight with
you. I said to
you that there
were two
issues. One
was documents
of internal
purview that
were strictly
confidential.
I said that
was the first
issue and the
second one was
staff safety.
Didn’t I say
that?
Inner
City
Press: If a
major failure
is the head of
[Office for
the
Coordination
of
Humanitarian
Affairs]
saying let’s
not call it a
war crime, why
would you
redact that?
Who does that
protect?
Ms.
Malcorra:
Because,
because as a
general
proposition
what we are
saying there
is a principle
that
discussions
that are
reflected in
the policy
committee
papers should
be of a
strictly
confidentiality.
You will argue
that that is
something that
should not be
the case. Then
how do you
have senior
managers
coming
together to
have a very
straight
conversation
and be
reflected if
this is not of
a
confidential
nature? The
important
point I would
like to make,
and I
would
appreciate you
making, is
that this
documentation
was fully
available to
the panel and
the panel was
able to make
its assessment
based on the
documentation.
So why do you
always twist
things in a
manner that
doesn’t
recognize the
huge, huge
attempt to
make sure
that all the
available
information
was ready to
be reviewed by
the
panel, and you
just twist
that in a
manner that
only makes the
point
that we are
trying to
protect
ourselves.
It’s just
really
something that
disturbs me
profoundly.
Mr.
Petrie:
There is
nothing in the
executive
summary that
is not in the
report, and
the reason it
was taken out
was the
question of do
you
need to have a
four-page or
five-page
executive
summary when
you have
a 28- or
30-page
report. So, in
terms of
trying to hide
or take out
information
from the
penultimate
report, it
didn’t happen.
I mean,
you will find
everything in
the executive
summary in the
report. So,
that’s
definitely not
an issue.
Again, I
think, as I
was saying
before, it’s a
very hard
report and
it’s an
incredibly
unpleasant
report to
read. It was a
very difficult
report to
write as a UN
official,
former UN
official. Very
difficult
report to
read, which
meant that we
did spend a
lot of time on
language to
try and get as
careful a
balance as
possible to
ensure that
the essence of
the
message was
understood and
not sort of
lost through
language.
I
think what’s
remarkable
about what
we’re seeing
right now is
the
fact that I’m
saying very
little, and I
am the chair
of the panel,
and the fact
that it’s
actually Mrs.
Malcorra, the
UN, that is
actually
championing
the report.
And I think
for us that’s
a clear
demonstration
of having
accomplished
the task; it’s
sort of an
additional
dimension of
having
accomplished
the task that
we were
asked to
accomplish
about six
months ago or
eight months
ago.
, 
