On South Sudan, UN Still Murky On Who Shot Copter Down, Who Kidnapped Children as Soldiers; Inner City Press Asks

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 27 -- When a draft resolution was circulated on February 24 to the UN Security Council which would set up a South Sudan sanctions committee, wire reports focused on the views of the Western Permanent Three members of the Council -- the US, France and UK -- and did not make available to the public the actual nine-page draft.

   Inner City Press in an exclusive dispatch on the morning of February 25 published the full draft, here and embedded below.

  Now on February 27 after UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric read out a vague summary of the UN's investigation into the deadly downing of one of its helicopters in South Sudan last August, Inner City Pressasked for specifics:

Inner City Press: you said that they were unable to determine who did it, that it came from an area between In Opposition and the Government.  But there was this audiotape of Peter Gadet threatening the UN to shoot down helicopters that was… you know, days before it was shot down.  So, can you say or find out whether these Board of Inquiry people listened to the audio and whether they found it not credible or… why it's not part of the report?

Spokesman Dujarric:  They had all the information that was available to them.  As a general point, a threat is a threat.  I think what they were looking at is for hard evidence to figure out who had shot the helicopter, they were not able to come in with any conclusive information.

Inner City Press: Do they use a different standard of proof than even a court because usually like it seems like --

Spokesman:  A Board of Inquiry tries to establish what happened.  Obviously, they looked at the helicopter and all the information they had.  That's the conclusion they came up with. 

  But why? Beyond Gadet, the International Crisis Group, for example, implies that the government itself shot the copter down: 

"an UNMISS helicopter was shot down on 26 August, killing three. Although the results of its investigation have not been released, initial reports suggest this was done from territory controlled by the government and by a weapons system know to be in the hands of the government [n. 100:  Crisis Group interviews, UN officials, Nairobi, November 2014; defence and security adviser, Nairobi, December 2014.]"

  For UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous to remain silent is consistent with its approach to the Tabit rapes in Darfur, the Minova rapes in November 2012 by the DR Congo Army, and the shooting at unarmed protesters in Haiti (to say nothing of the killing by cholera there.)

  On the draft sanctions resolution, Inner City Press reported that that of the Elected Ten or E10, African members Chad and Angola, as well as Latin America members Venezuela and Chile, urged that the African Union and the regional body Intergovernmental Authority should take the lead before any Security Council’s decision.

  Sources tell Inner City Press that in this view, decision should only be taken on the draft after the Security Council meets with IGAD and the African Union Peace and Security Council, scheduled the sources tell Inner City Press for March 12 during a French-organized Security Council trip also including, the sources say, the Central African Republic and Burundi. We'll have more on this.

  On an abuse in South Sudan on which the UN was slow and partial in reporting, Inner City Press on February 24 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask first about South Sudan.  There was this very kind of high-profile kidnapping of dozens of children, and what I really wanted to ask you about is, although it was initially said it was unclear who did it, there are now reports that the militia that is responsible for it is basically part of the army of South Sudan.  And I wanted to know what Ellen Løj or the human rights component of UNMISS, what they say about those allegations that seem to be serious?

Spokesman Dujarric:  We’ve seen increased reports of kidnapping of children and forced enrollment into units, whether it’s the report you stated which our colleagues at UNICEF have flagged for us, or other reports, and I know it’s something that is of concern to all of us here.  It is being looked at both by the Mission and by different departments here.  But it’s obviously a big concern.  We have worked very hard to ensure that children are freed from such activity, and we will continue do so.

Inner City Press:  But do you expect the UN system to say who is responsible?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I know they’re looking into these — we’ve seen these reports.  We’re looking into them.

 Now Radio Tamazuj reports on this, citing Inner City Press' questions under the headline, "UN refuses to name abductors of 1000+ men and children in South Sudan."

  We'll have more on that, as well. Inner City Press has put the full text online here:

South Sudan Sanctions Draft Circulated in UN Security Council, Exclusive Reporting on Non-P3 Deferences to... by Matthew Russell Lee

  The full draft we are publishing, in the public interest, above.  Reuters typically said they "obtained" it but did not publish it; Voice of America said they saw it, and mechanically quoted HRW on Russia and China, with nothing about the view of the African and Latin American members of the Security Council. Watch this site.

   

On South Sudan, US Still Wants Uganda To "Begin Phased Withdrawal," Looks into Cluster Bombs and CAR Targeted Sanctions

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 19 -- With fighting resumed in South Sudan, in Malakal and elsewhere, and reports of cluster bombs on the road to Bor and now perhaps in Bentiu, some wonder what became of the US State Department's February 8 call for the "the redeployment or phased withdrawal of foreign forces" from South Sudan.

  When the State Department's deputy spokesperson Marie Harf held a press briefing by phone from the Iran P5+1 talks in Vienna on February 19, Inner City Press asked her for the US' position on the Ugandan army remaining, and about the reports of cluster bombs.

  Harf replied that the call for "the redeployment or phased withdrawal of foreign forces" from South Sudan" was tied to the cessation of hostilities agreement that had been signed in Addis Ababa. 

   That agreement is widely described as in tatters, or no longer relevant. Harf said "we have recognized the role the Ugandan forces have played."

  Still Harf said the US position remains they should "begin" phased withdrawal. She said she'd seen the cluster bombs reports and would look into what the US is doing. Ambassador Booth, she said, remains in Addis Ababa.

  On February 14 a number of non-governmental organizations including the International Crisis Group and the International Rescue Committee wrote to Secretary of State Kerry, as well as to the Office of Management and Budget, requesting "an explicit FY’15 budget request for a UN, or UN supported, peacekeeping mission in CAR – either under the Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account or under the Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) account with language calling for assessed expenses of the CAR mission to be paid out of PKO."

  Harf emphasized that the US has airlifted Burundian and Rwanda troops to the CAR, and is "developing target sanctions" as one option.  She said she wasn't yet aware of the letter -- again, she was in Vienna -- but would check if it has been received, and what the response is. Watch this site.

   

Human Rights Watch, Soft on UN, Puts Rwanda Peacekeepers in Somalia, Backstop for Ladsous' DRC Past

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 23 -- While even the normally oblivious UN has a debate about the non implementation of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's stated Human Rights Due Diligence Policy in the Democratic Republic of the Congoand elsewhere, the group Human Rights Watch issued a report on DRC on July 22 which did not even mention the UN's rights policy.

  HRW's focus was entirely on the M23 rebels, of which itsaid "M23 officers told Human Rights Watch that some of the Rwandan fighters in their units told them they had served in Somalia or Darfur as part of the Rwandan army’s peacekeeping contingent."

  Beyond HRW's increasing partisanship and softness on the UN, there may be a problem: it seems Rwanda never send peacekeepers to the AMISOM mission in Somalia. WhileHRW and its director Ken Roth have been typically one-way media since the release of the report -- triggering, after a delay, this follow up article -- maybe they will now explain this.

  What they should also explain is their omission and lack of work on the UN's own Human Rights Due Diligence Policy. As explained by Ban's outgoing chief lawyer Patricia O'Brien at a July 9, 2013 meeting on which Inner City Pressexclusively reported:

"First, the UN cannot provide support to non-UN security forces where there are substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of those forces committing grave violations of international humanitarian, human rights or refugee law. Secondly, where grave violations are committed by non-UN security forces that are receiving support from the UN, the UN must intercede with a view to bringing those violations to an end. And thirdly, if, despite such intercession, the situation persists, the UN must suspend support to the offending forces."

  At latest since the November 2012 mass rapes, as to the 391st Battalion of the Congolese Army there have been "substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of those forces committing grave violations of international humanitarian, human rights or refugee law."

  Ladsous tried to cover these grounds up, by refusing to disclose which FARDC units his MONUSCO mission was supporting, and which units were in Minova. He openly refused Inner City Press questions on this topic at stakeout after stakeout, video here.

  But when it came out, he claimed to "intercede with a view to bringing those violations to an end." This resulted in only two arrests, for 135 rapes, and the cited dozen "suspension."

It could have been foreseen that this low level of accountability would not bring violations to an end. And it did not: the same 391st Battalion, in July 2013, was involved in abuses including the desecration of corpses, which Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesperson Martin Nesirky about on July 16.

  Clearly stage three of the Policy has been reached: despite intercession, the situation has persisted. So the UN "must suspend support to the offending forces" -- but has not.

   The Policy has been killed by Ladsous and the 391st Battalion. Immediately, DPKO must be made to disclosure which units it supports, not only in the DRC but at least the two other countries the Security Council has applied the Policy to, South Sudan and Somalia.

But HRW is silent on this, choosing instead to be a backstop to Ladsous, who was unable in Security Council consultations to articulate any factual basis for what he had said, admitting that it was "based on rumors we've heard." From whom - HRW?

Ladsous' admission about rumors is ironic given that he has justified his refusal to answer Press questions by calling reporting on his statements as France's Deputy Permanent Representative at the UN during the Rwanda genocide "innuendo."

   But Ladsous' statements, and a memo, are matters of record. And they should have precluded the UN, or really France, from installing him atop thousands of soldiers and now drones and an Intervention Brigade in the Eastern Congo.

Footnote: HRW's July 22 missive listed three contacts, on two continents: Carina Tertsakian, Ida Sawyer and Sarah Margon. It's understood they were only doing the job they have taken. But others have noted the International Crisis Group advertising for a "Congo analyst" -- maybe a good spot for "refugees" from HRW's increasingly embarrassing one-sided (and soft on UN) approach?

   

Amid Sudan Aid Blockage, No Ladsous Stakeout Despite Killed Peacekeeper, Censorship Circus

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 20 -- The UN Security Council was briefed Thursday about Sudan and South Sudan, by both Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous and his UN Humanitarian counter-part Valerie Amos.

  Despite a UN peacekeepers have recently been killed in Kadugli, pretty clearly by shelling by the SPLM-North rebels, Ladsous went he emerged with a big entourage did not speak at the stakeout. 

 His predecessors Alain Le Roy and Jean Marie Guehenno always spoke after such a death. But Ladsous has contempt for the Press.

  Amos, by contrast, took at least four questions on Sudan. Inner City Press asked about the SPLM-North's insistence on cross border aid from South Sudan: was that humanitarian or political, as some say it is in Syria? Video here from Minute 6.

Amos said the parties don't trust each other, that they may meet in Addis Ababa by the end of the month to talk at least about a vaccination program.

Inner City Press asked about a recommendation in Amnesty International's new report on Blue Nile state, that aid NGOs and UN agencies like Amos' document diversions of aid by SPLM-North and report to the Secretary General. Video herefrom Minute 3:58.

  Amos said she'd have to know more about the recommendation, where the aid that's be referred to is. There's slated for the UN at 10:15 am on Friday a press conference sponsored by Norway, that it seems like address this report. Sudan wasn't aware of the press conference and didn't think it could get into it. 

Footnote: Meanwhile, the UN's Censorship Alliance has scheduled a private session, only for its members, with incoming PGA John Ashe for the same time.

  The UN gives UNCA a big space and even a locked pantry to store their wine glass -- UNCA president Pamela Falk's wine cellar it's been dubbed -- and in turn has briefing about topics like Sudan undermined by private insider schoozefests. Meanwhile the UN has tried to take down even the sign of the alternative Free UN Coalition for Access. Have they stopped a campaign that even many in the UN have called absurd and inappropriate? Who knows. Welcome to the UN and its Censorship Alliance. Watch this site.

On Murders after Surrender, UN's Nambiar Muses on Crossfire, Speaking With Kohona

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/sri1nambiar052510.html

UNITED NATIONS, May 25 -- Beyond the allegations of the UN being complicit in war crimes in Sri Lanka, made by the International Crisis Group, there is an additional question about UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's chief of staff Vijay Nambiar role in convincing Tamil Tiger leaders to surrender, which led to their summary execution.

Mr. Nambiar's belated defense is that they may have been killed in crossfire or by the Tamil Tigers. He says he was given assurances of "normal" treatment by Mahinda Rajapaksa, Gotabaya Rajapaka and Palitha Kohona -- to whom Mr. Nambiar continues to communicate on the very topic and composition of the group of experts on accountability in Sri Lanka. This is a total conflict of interest.

On May 24, Ban Ki-moon reacted "angrily" when Inner City Press asked about this and three ICG allegations, saying, "I totally reject all that kind of allegations." Video here, from Minute 38:07.

Two minutes later, in response to a second question from Inner City Press about the ICG report, Mr. Ban said, "I rejected it? I don't know I ever said I reject it." Video here, from Minute 40:07.

On May 25, Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky said that Ban was rejecting the allegation that went beyond the ICG report: the question about his chief of staff Vijay Nambiar. So Inner City Press asked:

Inner City Press: Philip Alston has said that a number of LTTE [Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam] leaders who were, came out to surrender after having spoken with Vijay Nambiar, the Chief of Staff, were in fact — he believes, Alston believes — summarily executed by the Sri Lankan Government. So the question is... what was Chief of Staff Vijay Nambiar’s role in encouraging them to come out?

Spokesperson Nesirky: The Chef de Cabinet has talked about this publicly and made clear that this was, that he had no direct contact with the people who were being asked to surrender. He had no direct contact with them. He spoke to the Sri Lankan leaders and was conveying a message that was relayed to him not by someone from the Tamil community. I will be able to give you the exact ins and outs if you need it, but he has spoken publicly about it.

Inner City Press: I really try to cover it very closely. I’m not, I’m not…

Spokesperson: Yes, yes he has. He did so quite recently in an interview with Al Jazeera.

Thereafter, Nesirky declined to summarize what Nambiar had said, or to make Nambiar available for questions. He said, "Ask Al Jazeera." So Inner City Press did.

What follows is a transcription sent to Inner City Press on this point. We will have more on this.

Q: ...role you played in negotiations for the surrender of many of the Tamil leaders at the time. What was agreed?

Mr. Nambiar: As you know both in April and May of last year the UN had made strenuous efforts in order to try and see that the civilian population would be safeguarded from some of the difficulties, the tragedies of the conflict that was taking place. Now, when I went in May during my second visit, the extent to which I was involved in this was a telephone conversation, a telephone message I got from a Sunday Times correspondent through the UK Foreign Office and through the UN headquarters where I was asked to check with the Sri Lankan authorities regarding the possible protection could be given to two of the Tamil leaders... When I received this call, I said that I will make an effort and contact the government authorities, which I did, the same day that is I think it's the 17 and 18 of May. I went and I spoke to the foreign secretary at that time, Mr. Palitha Kohona, the defense secretary, and subsequently I spoke to the president also. So, I raise this question …the Sunday Times correspondent talked about their wanting to surrender…they may want to do it to a third party…afraid for their lives…so I raised this with them and suggested …the response from them was that they would be treated likes normal prisoners of war, if they raised the white flag they would be allowed to surrender. Now that is the extent to which I was involved.

Q: This is what President of Sri Lanka told you..

Nambiar: Yes…the president also in response to my statement, he said the same thing, as did the foreign secretary and the Defense Secretary.

Q: They specifically said they would treat them…

Nambiar They just made…they just responded in the manner, they would be treated like ordinary prisoners of war.

Q: Since you spoke to so many people and parties that were involved, why do you think things went wrong?

Nambiar: I might add that this is only one of the issues that I raised…discussing a whole…the question was that the what happened in the heat of the war I am not aware of, it was something which we had no first hand knowledge about…there have been discussions of this in the press and subsequently there have been some comments make by the Sri Lankan leaders also about whether or not they could have been killed in the crossfire, there was one person who also suggested they said perhaps he could have been killed by LTTE themselves who were not interested in their people surrendering..it could have been killed by the Sri Lankan forces, we are not in a position to make any assessment, certainly I am not.

Q: Also speculation …coordinated execution while trying to get rid of other remaining leaders of Tamil Tigers…

Nambiar: I am not in a position to comment on that, because I don’t have any independent knowledge.

Q: All these are possible…

Nambiar: I don’t have any information on that…

Q: Maybe then investigation is necessary?

Nambiar: This is of course not for me to mention, there has been calls for this kind of investigation and it's for the member states to decide…

There is more. For now it should be noted that a television interview is not an investigation. It is easy to say that they were "killed in the cross fire" or by the LTTE.

This is what an investigation is for -- also, to determine how Mr. Nambiar conveyed back the assurances he received from Mahinda Rajapaksa, Gotabaya Rajapaka and Palitha Kohona -- to whom Mr. Ban continues to converse, as does Mr. Nambiar, on the very topic and composition of the group of experts on accountability in Sri Lanka.

This is a total conflict of interest. An external, independent investigation is needed. When Mr. Nambiar says "it is up to the member states," it is in the context of confidence that those who threatened to veto putting the Sri Lankan "bloodbath on the beach" on the Security Council's agenda could likewise block any Council action. This is known as impunity. More to follow, watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/sri1nambiar052510.html

On UN Role in Sri Lanka War Crimes, Ban Rejects Then Denies Rejecting Allegations

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/sri1banreject052410.html

UNITED NATIONS, May 24 -- "I totally reject all that kind of allegations," UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told the Press on Monday, responding to a question about the UN's involvement in war crimes in Sri Lanka. Video here, from Minute 38:07.

Two minutes later, in response to a second question from Inner City Press, Mr. Ban said, "I rejected it? I don't know I ever said I reject it." Video here, from Minute 40:07.

Inner City Press had initially asked Mr. Ban about the International Crisis Group report, which even in the Executive Summary calls for "an independent international inquiry into... the UN’s September 2008 withdrawal from Kilinochchi through to its ineffectual attempts to push for a ceasefire and its involvement in Sri Lankan government internment camps."

Would the group of expert Ban committed eighty day ago to name to advise him have jurisdiction over the UN's own actions and inactions?

Beyond "totally reject[ing]" ICG's criticism of the UN's and Ban's performance on Sri Lanka, Ban said that his panel would only address "international standards" applicable to the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission belated announced by President Mahinda Rajapaksa.

To some, there was a parallel: Rajapaksa rejected any allegation that his soldiers killed civilians, before conducting any investigation. And at Monday's press conference, Ban Ki-moon totally rejected ICG's call for an "inquiry into... the UN’s September 2008 withdrawal from Kilinochchi through to its ineffectual attempts to push for a ceasefire and its involvement in Sri Lankan government internment camps."

To these, Inner City Press added the issues raised by Ban's chief of staff Vijay Nambiar's still murky role in encouraging the surrender of rebel leaders who were then summarily executed. Video here, from Minute 37:16. In fairness, this may have thrown Ban off and led to the rejection then non-rejection.

But the UN's own Special Rapporteur Philip Alston has asked the Rajapaksa government about this -- presidential brother Gotabaya Rajapaksa has been accused of ordering the killings -- but has yet to ask the UN's own Vijay Nambiar. Alston's mandate expires in June. So who will investigate? Especially after Ban's "total reject[ion of] all that kind of allegation"?

After Ban announced his intention to name a group of experts "without delay," the Rajapaksa government protested, including seeking and obtaining -- albeit in a late, "non-objection" portion of a NAM meeting in New York -- a letter from the Non Aligned Movement that told Ban he had no jurisdiction over human rights.

While some Ban advisors have said they disagree with the NAM letter's logic, the Ban Administration never publicly rebutted the reasoning. And now eighty days have passed without Ban naming even the group of experts.

On Monday, Inner City Press asked Mr. Ban why he has delayed these eighty days to pass. With Ban slated to meet with Sri Lanka's Minister of External Affairs G.L. Peiris later on May 24, he said that the delay was "not based on pressure of Sri Lanka."

Reading from notes, Ban said he would discuss "accountability.. reconciliation... and improving the conditions" for people, nearly entirely Tamils, in the UN-funded camps. Ban and his advisors should know the G.L. Peiris has publicly refused to provide any timeline for resettling the people still in the camps, and he said that Ban should not even name his group of experts. Some ask where does Ban Ki-moon stands, does he reject or not remember rejecting?

Footnote: Inner City Press, which covered Ban's trip to Sri Lanka last May and has asked follow up questions at the UN since, had its request to Sri Lanka's Mission to pose questions to Minister Peiris ignored and thus denied. It was sent to Permanent Representative Palitha Kohona, a former UN staffer, but was not responded to. A Mission staffer said arrangements, including invitations to journalists who have never written about or been to Sri Lanka, were coordinated by Kohona's Deputy, who now sends Inner City Press repetitive and abusive e-mailed every day before the UN noon briefing. Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/sri1banreject052410.html

On Sri Lanka, UN Can't Say How Many Died, Nor If Ban Called for Ceasefire

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/sri7unfollow051710.html

UNITED NATIONS, May 17 -- With the UN accused in Sri Lanka of funding prison camps, ineffectual efforts at a ceasefire and leaving civilians to fend for themselves, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky faced and dodged questions on Monday. He did not say how much the UN spent on the internment camps, nor explain the UN's silence after its estimate of civilians deaths was leaked to Inner City Press in March 2009.

Nesirky said that Ban "made energetic efforts" to protect civilians. Inner City Press asked if that included calling for a ceasefire, and if not, why not. Video here, from Minute 20:23. Nesirky simply repeated the line about energetic efforts.

Asked another question about establishing an inquiry as he did after the killing of 150 people in Guinea, Nesirky insisted that Ban has been pursuing accountability since his trip to Sri Lanka, and will "soon" named a panel to advise him. But the trip was a full year ago. Only on March 5, 2010 did Ban say he would name a panel "without delay -- and ten and a half weeks later, he has not done so.

Nesirky repeatedly insisted there is no way to know how many civilians were killed. But Inner City Press reported, and reminded Nesirky, that a leaked Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs document counted 2,684 civilians deathly only between January 20 and March 7, 2009.

Inner City Press asked if the UN has other similar documents in its possession, if so why they have not been released and will they be released? Nesirky said he would look into it, but insisted that body counts are almost impossible.

Inner City Press asked, if the UN produces casualty figures in for example Sudan and the Congo, why not Sri Lanka? Video here, from Minute 36:25.

Nesirky said you cannot compare, it "depends on the circumstances." One wanted to ask, depends on the political circumstances?

Footnote: the UN and Ban backed down, in the view of many, in the face of push back by Sri Lanka and certain of its allies which have a say in Ban Ki-moon's second term. Recently Sri Lanka's Mission to the UN has taken to trying to intimidate journalists, e-mailing abusive letters even during the middle of the UN's noon briefings.

One wonders if the Mission will do the same to all those journalists who asked about Sri Lanka killing civilians during Monday's briefing: from France, Lebanon (comparing Sri Lanka to Sudan) and the Balkans (comparing Sri Lanka to Srebrenica). We'll see.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/sri7unfollow051710.html

On Sri Lanka, ICG Calls for Investigation of UN Inaction, Ban Panel Still Delayed

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/sri6unfollow051610.html

UNITED NATIONS, May 16 -- At the one year anniversary of Sri Lanka's bloodbath on the beach, the UN which pulled out of Kilinochchi before the slaughter, then funded internment camps for Tamils after Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's "victory tour," has come under questioning.

Inner City Press on May 14 asked UN spokesman Martin Nesirky when Ban would follow through on his intention, announced on March 5, to name a panel of experts to advise him on the issue, and whether Ban's delay was now related to Sri Lanka's belated unveiling of its own "mechanism."

Nesirky called the mechanism -- dismissed by a slew of human rights groups -- an "interesting development," but said that Ban is independent.

Now, the International Crisis Group is calling for an inquiry into the UN's own behavior, for an inquiry into "the conduct of the UN during the last year of the conflict, examining the UN’s September 2008 withdrawal from Kilinochchi through to its ineffectual attempts to push for a ceasefire and its involvement in Sri Lankan government internment camps."

This is from an early copy of ICG's report to be released on May 17. [Full disclosure - the ICG report cites to Inner City Press.] ICG's President Louise Arbour said, "The scale of civilian deaths and suffering demands a response. Future generations will demand to know what happened, and future peace in Sri Lanka re-quires some measure of justice." Amnesty International has damning findings, though unlike ICG, under embargo until May 17.

Meanwhile Sri Lanka's Mission to the UN attacks Inner City Press -- click here for coverage in Sri Lanka of the first leter of new Deputy Permanent Representative Bandula Jayasekera -- as Perm Rep Palitha Kohona lounged around in the General Assembly on May 14 waiting to speak about Somalia piracy. THe air was of impunity, as both Ban and GA President Ali Treki offer assurances of inaction to Kohona and the Rajapaksa administration. One can ask the UN to investigate Sri Lanka -- but who will investigate the UN?

From the UN's May 14 transcript

Inner City Press: A week ago, you’d said that the wheels were, are turning and fully, well-oiled for this visit by Mr. Pascoe to Sri Lanka. Has there been any progress on that? Because the most recent reporting from Colombo is that he won’t be going until June, and there seems to be a controversy of whether now Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General, will now await to see how this mechanism, late announced mechanism by the Rajapaksa Administration, how that works out before he moves forward and names his own panel. Is that, that seems to be inconsistent with this idea of no delay. Can you say if there is any relation between the mechanism announced last week by the Rajapaksa Administration and the Secretary-General’s 5 March stated goal to name his own panel?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: The Secretary-General remains committed to the panel of experts and setting it up without delay. That remains the case. And as for Mr. Pascoe’s visit, that’s being worked on. I can’t say exactly when it will be, because that’s still being worked on. But it’s in the works.

Inner City Press: And [inaudible] without delay is not changed by this announced mechanism? It’s not that it will be delayed until the mechanism is established?

Spokesperson Neskirky: Obviously, that is an interesting development. But it doesn’t impinge on the Secretary-General’s own stated aim of setting up a panel of experts which would report to him. It’s a separate matter. But, obviously, it’s an interesting development, the news that we’ve heard from Sri Lanka in the last few days on this separate internal, if you like, domestic undertaking. But the Secretary-General’s is a separate matter, as we have said.

We'll see. Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/sri6unfollow051610.html