By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/un2uighurs122509.html
UNITED NATIONS, December 25 -- As China in the past two days has sentenced five Uighurs to death and Liu Xiaobo to 11 years in prison for writing about political change, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has said nothing.
On Christmas Eve at UN headquarters, Inner City Press asked Mr. Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky if Ban had any comment at all on the executions of Uighur and the trial of Liu Xiaobo. Nesirky replied, "I’ll see if I can get something for you. I don’t have anything now."
More than twenty four hours later, and after the announcement of the 11 year sentence for Liu Xiaobo and the repression of protests, still nothing from Mr. Ban. By contrast, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in response that the Chinese government "still massively restricts freedom of opinion and of the press."
Perhaps Ban and the UN are cowed by Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu characterization of "outside" discussion of Liu Xiaobo's case as "a gross interference of China's internal affairs."
But Ban is not even consistent in ignoring "internal affairs" and human rights. With small or African countries, the statements are churned out without hesitation. But in the case of China and other Permanent Five members of the Security Council -- any one of which could veto a second term for Mr. Ban -- there is silence.
This has led even some of Ban's closest advisers to tell Inner City Press that the UN Secretary General should serve only a single term. Watch this site.
The theme of Ban's and the UN's view of human rights and what are "internal matters" arose again in Thursday's briefing, about Nepal:
Inenr City Press: in Nepal, I previously asked you about this return of Colonel Basnet who was charged with torture. The army has now said that he will not be turned over to a civilian court, that he won’t be put on trial at all. They have also named Major General Singh who was charged by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights with torture, as the number two in the army, leading me to ask, either has the Secretary-General any comment on this or whether the UN will continue… at what point does the UN, in terms of using peacekeepers, I understand that their position seems to be as long as they return somebody everything is fine, but if the army from which they’re receiving peacekeeping troops names a UN-accused torturer as the number two in the army, does that have any impact on the use of troops or does, do things continue unabated?
Spokesperson Nesirky: There are a lot of questions packed in there and so I’ll try to unpack it if I can. The major you mentioned was repatriated from the UN Mission. He was sent back as soon as it became clear that there were these allegations or accusations or charges. He’s now back in Nepal. And as I’ve said here before, and others have also said, once the person has returned, it is a matter for the national Government, for, in this case, the Government of Nepal to handle. It is for them to deal with. On the question of the other appointee, that is not something that I can get into here.
Inner City Press: I’m sorry, and thanks for indulging me, I guess my question becomes, I mean, in Nepal there is a national commission on human rights which has said that he should be, this Major Basnet, should be put on trial. I mean, is the UN saying basically that it is an internal matter to countries and no matter how a military is run. I guess I’m just wondering, is there a point at which a military thumbing its nose not only at Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, but its own National Human Rights Commission, what are the standards for DPKO? Will they accept soldiers from any military in the world or what standards do they apply? Or is it purely an internal matter how a military runs itself?
Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, first of all it’s clearly, it’s… a national Government is responsible for national armed forces.
Just as, in Ban's apparent view, a national Government is responsible for imposing long sentences on its peaceful disadents: internal matters, all.And see, www.innercitypress.com/un2uighurs122509.html
