By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, April 12 -- To prepare the UN report on accountability for presumptive war crimes in Sri Lanka, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon claimed in December and January that his panel could travel to Sri Lanka due to the “flexibility” of President Rahinda Rajapaksa, who along with his brothers is accused of the war crimes at issue.
Once Rajapaksa blocked the announced trip, talk turned to sending Sri Lankan officials including Attorney General Mohan Peiris to New York to meet with Ban and his Panel.
On February 23, Inner City Press photographed the beginning of the meeting between Ban and Mohan Peiris and others including another accused of war crimes, General Shavendra Silva. Click here for Inner City Press report on that meeting, which had been denied.
Before and after, Inner City Press asked if Ban's panel would meet with the Sri Lankan officials, but no answer was given.
On March 7, Inner City Press directly asked Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky about “a report in Sri Lanka quoting UN sources, saying that after a meeting between the Attorney General of Sri Lanka and Mr. Ban and other officials, there was another meeting with, in fact, the Secretary-General’s Panel. That, I just want you to either confirm or deny that.” Click here.
Nesirky replied that “the reporting over the weekend suggested that there was a secret meeting with the Secretary-General, and you know as well as I do, because you were there, that that is simply not the case. You were there taking pictures, so the reporting may be a little bit shaky.”
So, Inner City Press asked if there was a meeting of the Sri Lankan officials “with, in fact, the Secretary-General’s Panel” -- and Nesirky's answer was “that is simply not the case.”
Inner City Press published an article on March 7 that the UN was denying the occurrence of a meeting with Ban's Panel -- which is what Inner City Press asked Nesirky about, even as transcribed by the UN.
On March 28, after even a high South African official spoke of the Sri Lankans' meeting with Ban's Panel, Inner City Press again asked Nesirky
“the Vice-President of South Africa, in a formal address to and Q and A with the Parliament, said that he understands that the panel, Ban Ki-moon’s panel, met with the Sri Lankans here in March... did the panel meet that day, that mysterious day, or some other day in March with Sri Lankan officials?”
Nesirky did not answer that question, and after Inner City Press' next question, Nesirky left the briefing room. Since then he has tried to block Inner City Press from asking follow up questions, and has even told Inner City Press in advance that he won't answer its questions. Why, one wonders, go to a briefing where questions are responded to in this way?
On April 12, for the noon briefing at which Ban's receipt -- but not release to the public -- of the Sri Lanka Panel report was to be announced, Nesirky did not appear. He sent his deputy Farhan Haq to deny that he has been misleading:
Inner City Press: from this podium, I don’t know if it was only Martin or if it was you as well, it was said that there was no meeting in March when the Attorney General of Sri Lanka came, no meeting… there was a meeting with the Secretary-General, but no meeting with the Panel.
Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: No, no, Matthew; you’re mischaracterizing. He said that the Secretary-General met with the Panel. He said that he did not comment on what the Panel did.
Inner City Press: I saw the briefing. So are you confirming now that there was a meeting between the Attorney General…
Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: Matthew, I saw the exact same briefing. Like I said, the work of the Panel will be detailed in the report and you can see for yourself what they’ve done.
Inner City Press: But this is important, though. Can you say for yourself that the meeting took place? I mean, we can go over the transcript, but it seemed pretty clear that this meeting was not disclosed.
Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: Go over the transcript. I remember this. You tried to put some words into his mouth, in which you said he denied there was a meeting, and which he explicitly did not [deny].
This last shows at Ban's spokesman's office feels free to add words to its transcriptions. But even as it has transcribed it, the answers on Sri Lanka are troubling. And now what of the report? We will have more on this.
