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

UN Undermines Justice Celebrating in Sudan While Soliciting Funds for Cambodia Court

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/sudan5progov052510.html

UNITED NATIONS, May 25 -- With two senior UN officials set to attend the inauguration of indicted war criminal Omar al Bashir on May 27, the UN's approach to international criminal justice is being called into question.

Yet without irony on May 25 the UN's top lawyer Patricia O'Brien told a largely empty conference room of delegates they should fund the UN-assisted Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia because "we cannot contemplate the possibility of the trails faltering for want of financial support, that would strike a blow not only to the ECCC , but also to international criminal justice more broadly."

Having Haile Menkerios, recently named by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, attend a ceremony celebrating Omar al Bashir, changed by the International Criminal Court with crimes against humanity and war crimes, strikes a blow to international criminal justice.

Inner City Press last week asked who if anyone would attend Bashir's inauguration for the UN, and the next day was told Ibrahim Gambari and Haile Menkerios. On May 25, Inner City Press asked

Inner City Press: ... particularly for Mr. Menkerios, who is solely a UN not AU employee, was this, did the Office of Legal Affairs, who essentially sort of authorized what seems to many to be a change of policy, even going back as far as, I mean, to have UN officials engage with an indicted, someone indicted for crimes of war is something new. And who signed off on that?

Spokesperson Nesirky: It’s just not true that it’s new. It’s just not true. The point is that both these gentlemen, Mr. Gambari and Mr. Menkerios, are appointed by the Secretary-General under a Security Council mandate to carry out a job in Sudan — in the case of Mr. Gambari jointly under the African Union, as you pointed out. Their job is to interact with the Sudanese Government. That’s their job, to ensure that the missions, the important missions, the large missions trying to do the work that you mentioned in the previous question; they interact. That’s obvious.

Nesirky: And as the Secretary-General said yesterday, this is no more, no less than their participation in an event that carries political significance as well as being a ceremony. It has political significance, but crucially, they have a mandate to be there and to interact with the Sudanese authorities.

Inner City Press: [inaudible] keep contact at the high level such as the Secretary-General, I would assume Mr. Menkerios to a minimum necessary to carry out the operational functions, because, I mean, Human Rights Watch has said this is legitimizing, or really, minim… making a mockery of the fact that if somebody is indicted for war crimes and yet can meet openly and be celebrated by UN officials. Is that, what’s the Secretary-General’s response to that?

Spokesperson: Well, first of all, Human Rights Watch are entitled to their view, and they do extraordinary work. The second thing is they have a job to do, large missions to run. They need to be able to interact with the Sudanese authorities and they have a mandate to do so.

Nesirky then refused Inner City Press' follow up question, turning to another reporter, who asked about... Bashir. The questions will not go away.

Footnote: Also on May 25, Inner City Press asked staff of the US Mission to the UN if anyone would attend Bashir's inauguration for the US. When US Permanent Representative to the UN Susan Rice appeared at the Security Council stakeout position, Inner City Press waited while she made statements about North Korea and Iran, when asked loudly, On Sudan, will anyone from the US attend Bashir's inauguration? Video here, from Minute 6:32. Ambassador Rice walked away, and the question has yet to be answered. Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/sudan5progov052510.html

NPT Draft Obtained Though Restricted to Member States, Western Dips Deceive

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/npt1draft052410.html

UNITED NATIONS, May 24 -- Despite promises of transparency for the Non-Proliferation Treaty conference this month, the distribution of the President's Draft of the Final Declaration on Monday night was laughable.

Inner City Press showed up at midnight at the Philippines Mission to the UN on Fifth Avenue and 45th Street, where it was said the draft would be released. A banner was unfurled, along with torches, for a New Zealand nuclear free zone.

But when the Philippines Mission opened the doors at midnight, only state parties were allowed in, and each that appeared was given only a single copy. The Mission had more than enough copies -- Inner City Press witnessed a stack being carried in -- but an attempt was made to exclude the Press and civil society.

After much complaining and persistence, a consultant to a Mission that will remain unnamed agreed to give Inner City Press a copy, a scan of which we are exclusively putting online here.

There has been much posturing. A Sudanese diplomat last week complained that "Western powers" were trying to divide the Non Aligned Movement, portending a total breakdown of the NPT.

On Monday a self-described Western diplomat, high above Manhattan, told the assembled Press that something would pass, but it would be weak. Inner City Press asked about China's nuclear deal with Pakistan. "That is academic," the Western diplomat responded. "Pakistan is not ripe for IAEA inspections."

Later on Monday, among the NGOs, it was said that this Western diplomat's country was in fact the problems. "We lack a solid US commitment," an NGO leader told Inner City Press, "unlike in 2000. It's that Obama has other priorities."

In any event, here as a public service is the draft. Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/npt1draft052410.html

As Palau and Pew Fight To Save Sharks and Tuna, Japan Counters with Sushi and Conditional Aid

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/iuu1fish052410.html

UNITED NATIONS, May 24 -- When nations and activists met this year about endangered species of sharks and Atlantic blue tuna, Japan lobbied against protections with conditional financial aid to small island states, and even sushi and shark fin soup receptions.

These stories were told Monday evening in the UN's new North Lawn building, as Jacques Cousteau's grandson spoke about seeing fewer and fewer sharks during his dives. . "We protect what we love," he quoted. But with sharks, given the perception of them as people killers, the phrase may not be helpful.

The event was sponsored by Palau, which had declared itself a shark sanctuary. A speech was given by its Permanent Representative to the UN, Stuart Beck, who is decidedly not from Palau. But as his deputy later explained to Inner City Press, he was Palau's lawyer even before it became independent.

Beck testified that Palau "championed adding four sharks to the CITES list of endangered species. Despite winning the majority of votes on all four, we could not overcome the obstructive super majority requirement."

Experts in the crowd uniformly trashed the role of Japan. It was ironic, as elsewhere in the North Lawn building Japan was presenting itself as an anti-nuclear hero. Janus face, forked tongue, one said.

Earlier on Monday, the Pew Environment Group held a press conference urging Regional Fisheries Management Organizations to do more about illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing. Inner City Press asked about such fishing off the coasts of Somalia and Western Sahara.
Pew's Kristin Von Kistowski cautioned against excusing piracy in terms of illegal fishing. She added that international fleets harm coastal communities in Western Africa.

Susan Lieberman of Pew said that European Union fleets are overfishing, and the the depletion of fish stock off Somalia may have played a role in driving former fishermen to piracy. Video here, from Minute 36.

This stood in welcome contrast to the commander of the EUNAVFOR ships, who earlier this month was dismissive of Somali claims about illegal fishing. Click here for that.

Footnote: weeks ago, Inner City Press asked a spokesman accompanying Japanese Foreign Minister Okada to the UN a series of simple questions, and has twice been promised answered. But none have arrived. Watch this site -- or CITES.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/iuu1fish052410.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 Somalia, UN Ban's Ould Abdallah "Takes All the Money," Bumbles in Politics

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/los9somalia052210.html

UNITED NATIONS, May 22 -- At the conference on Somalia in Istanbul, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon read out an unequivocal call for funding and support for that country's Transitional Federal Government, whose control over a few square blocks of Mogadishu is only maintained by Ugandan and Burundian troops shooting wildly including into civilian areas.

What Ban did not mention was even the Somali Parliament's opposition to UN Special Representative Ahmedou Ould Abdallah, who most recently bumbled by issuing loud support to a move by Somali's president which was nearly immediately reversed as illegal.

The UN often says it will not comment on internal legal matters of sovereign states. But Ould Abdallah is allowed by Ban to do whatever he wants, including having called for a moratorium on media reporting of the killing of civilians by the Ugandan and Burundian troops.

Inner City Press has been told by sources in the meeting that when the TFG contingent met with Ban last week, they complained about how Ould Abdallah is taking all the funding, leaving them with nothing.

He gets $25 million, they said, while they get less than a million dollars. Ban said he'd never heard of this. Perhaps this explains his Turkey call for more funding to the TFG?

At the UN's May 18 noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky:

Inner City Press: Yesterday there was a statement put out about the UN – let me see how to put it — backing the President of Somalia’s sacking of the Prime Minister of Somalia. It was put out in your Office that the UN supported the move by the President to fire the Prime Minister. Now the Prime Minister is saying that that was illegal under the Somali Constitution and that the President had no right to do it. What I am wondering is [Ahmedou] Ould-Abdallah essentially taking sides in an internal dispute of Somalia, is it something he did based on legal advice from OLA [Office of Legal Affairs]? Was it his reading — apparently it was — that this was a legal move by the President? And what does the UN say now that many in Somalia dispute the right of the President to make that move?

Spokesperson: First of all, Mr. Ould-Abdallah is well briefed — it’s his area of expertise. As you know, he was here and spoke to you last week. He will be present at the conference in Istanbul on Somalia this coming weekend, and I am sure at the latest at that meeting there will be a chance to discuss this particular matter. I do not have any further comments to add to what we have from yesterday.

Inner City Press: In the briefing that he gave with Mr. Pascoe, there was this question of 300 parliamentarians saying that Ould-Abdallah should in fact — that the UN should look into his actions there and should fire him — that is what they called for. He was the one that responded, and he said that was just a website. I mean, it’s Associated Press which does have a website. But I wondered, I’d wished Mr. Pascoe — and I guess I am asking you now on behalf of the Secretariat — what is the Secretariat’s response to a host country — 300 parliamentarians of a host country — saying that the SRSG should not be in the job? What is the procedure? I mean, I know that Mr. Pascoe said he is well seasoned or whatever he said, but what is, we often hear that the UN can only do things with the consent of a host country and a host Government, so what is the response to a complaint of the host Government in this case?

Spokesperson: As far as I know, there is a difference between the Government and Parliament in a country.

Inner City Press: Could it just be the President? As long as President Sharif… I mean, I am just wondering.

Spokesperson: I think you know how Parliaments and Governments work. There is a distinction between the two. But what is more important here is that Mr. Ould-Abdallah is the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and, therefore, clearly is there doing that job, not in Somalia itself as you know, posted in Somalia, but covering that topic because the Secretary-General wants him to.

But then, the President's move was reversed as illegal. The BBC cites experts that it undermine the credibility not only of the president but also of the UN. Inner City Press sought comment from Ban's Spokesperson and Deputy Spokesperson, but none has been received.

Rather, just before Ban and his Spokesman Martin Nesirky headed to Istanbul on May 20, Inner City Press asked:

Inner City Press: Just one more on Somalia since you’re going to Turkey... Yemen…

Spokesperson Nesirky: Yeah, I am just about to run.

Inner City Press: Absolutely. Yemen has announced the death penalty against six Somali pirates. Given, you know, the role of the UN and of OLA [Office of Legal Affairs] and Patricia O’Brien and sort of suggesting to Member States how pirates should be addressed, what does the UN, does the UN Secretariat, OLA or Secretary-General, what do they think of these death sentences recently announced in Yemen?

Spokesperson: Well, there are two points. You are quite right that this is a topic — not the specific case, but the question of piracy — this is a topic that is clearly part of the agenda at this conference on Somalia in Istanbul on Saturday. The second point is, as you well know, the United Nations speaks out quite clearly on the use of the death penalty, namely that it should not be used.

Inner City Press: So, this is the speaking out clearly about these death sentences?

Spokesperson: I beg your pardon?

Inner City Press: I mean, is this the speaking out clearly about these particular death sentences?

Spokesperson: The use of the death penalty anywhere is something that the United Nations would not be in favour of. I am going to hand over now to Mr. Adlerstein with apologies for being slightly late. And also Marie, very kindly, is going to moderate. Okay, thanks very much.

Then neither Nesirky or Marie Okabe answered for two days this question:

"Now that the President of Somalia has reversed his firing of the Prime Minister after being advised it was illegal, and with the BBC reporting "Analysts say the row has severely weakened the president's credibility, and the UN's, which had backed him" (see below) - I want to reiterate my question from Tuesday, now on deadline:

was 'Ould-Abdallah essentially taking sides in an internal dispute of Somalia, is it something he did based on legal advice from OLA [Office of Legal Affairs]? Was it his reading — apparently it was — that this was a legal move by the President? And what does the UN say now'?"

If and when an answer is provided to this question, we will publish it. Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/los9somalia052210.html

UN's Gambari, Menkerios to Attend Inauguration of Bashir, Who Supports UN's Radio

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/sudan4progov052110.html

UNITED NATIONS, May 21 -- When indicted war criminal Omar al-Bashir holds an inauguration on May 27 for having won the recent fraud and violence plagued election, two senior UN official will be in attendance: Haile Menkerios and Ibrahim Gambari, Inner City Press was told on Friday.

On May 20, Inner City Press asked the Spokesperson for UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon:

Inner City Press: who from the UN system if anyone will be attending the inauguration of Omer Al-Bashir on 27 May? There has been a call by some human rights groups that various world leaders should not attend. Who is attending for the UN? Mr. Menkerios? Do you know?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: I’ll find out who has the invitation card.

Question: [So the UN is going to] go, I mean, there is no question?

Spokesperson Nesirky: That’s not what I said. I said I’ll find out where the invitation card, who received the invitation card. Those cards usually have an RSVP on them, and we can let you know how, whether there has been an RSVP.

On May 21 Nesirky's deputy Marie Okabe responded that both Menkerios and Gambari will attend, calling them "the senior UN officials on the ground... in contact with the host government regularly to ensure that their missions are able to function effectively." Video here, from Minute 5:16.

While the International Criminal Court makes UN interaction with Bashir controversial, this phrasing about contact necessary to run the UN missions is rationale for contacts. But how is attending the inauguration necessary?

Also on May 21, Inner City Press asked the UN's Nesirky:

Inner City Press: The Minister of Communications of the South Sudanese Government, Paul Mayom, has criticised UN Radio Miraya for putting on rebel General [George] Athor and he said not only that he was wrong, he said I can stop it. He closed down the radio station for undermining stability in South Sudan. What does the UN think of his statement?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, we’re aware of the statements, and I know that my colleagues there on the ground have indeed been speaking to the Ministry concerned. It was the Regional Coordinator for Southern Sudan from UNMIS who had a meeting with the Minister of Information, and I am informed that they discussed, in a constructive manner, matters of mutual interest. And the Minister of Information expressed concerns about Radio Miraya and its coverage. And I am advised that these concerns are being addressed by the radio station. The point about this radio station is that it is committed to promoting the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the culture of peace in Sudan with objectivity and professionalism.

Inner City Press: When you say it’s addressed, does the UN agree that it should not put on rebel, you know, renegade Generals like Mr. Athor, or are they going to continue to…?

Spokesperson Nesirky: What I said is that it’s being addressed.

Inner City Press: Oh, okay.

Spokesperson: Not that it has been addressed. Apologies if I misspoke. I thought I said these concerns are being addressed by the radio station.

Inner City Press: [inaudible] in terms of what the editorial policy of the UN radio station is to put on rebel…

Spokesperson: Well, this is a UN-sponsored radio station, not a UN radio station, as I understand it. But the point is that the coverage of the elections just as one example — but an important example — was marked by neutrality and professionalism, and as I have mentioned just now, a commitment to the spirit of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.

While Ms. Okabe did not provide any further information on this on May 21, at the previous evening's reception for Cameroon's 50th anniversary of independence, Sudan's Permanent Representative to the UN told Inner City Press that the UN should put this anti-South Sudan government on the air.

And so the government of Omar al-Bashir, usually critical of the United Nations and of freedom of the press, is ironically supporting UN-affiliated Radio Mireya in its dispute with Southern Sudan for putting renegade general Athor on the air. And the UN's two most senior officials in Sudan will attend an indicted war criminal's inauguration. And so it goes.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/sudan4progov052110.html

On Sri Lanka, IMF Calls War Crimes Report Of Concern, Tranche Turns on Budget?

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/imf1lanka052010.html

UNITED NATIONS, May 20 -- Asked about Sri Lanka, IMF spokesperson Caroline Atkinson on May 20 said, "on the war crimes report, yes of course we're aware of that, and that's something that's of concern and interest."

Inner City Press had asked about the IMF's current visit to northern Sri Lanka, the status of the delayed third tranche of the IMF program, and this week's International Crisis Group report on war crimes.

Despite predictions that the third tranche will not be disbursed any time soon due to the policies of the Rajapaksa government, Ms. Atkinson on Thursday deferred answering, stating that "we have a mission in the field and that will conclude soon... by the end of the week so that means probably tomorrow."

She said a press release would issue. But one wonders if the IMF will seek as it has in the past to limit questions and answers to friendly reporters. We'll see.

"The travel to the North," Ms. Atkinson said, was "part of our usual practice of we go outside of the capital and meet with regular people." One wonders if the IMF met any of the people still in the IDP and "transit" camps.

From press reports, the meetings were with government officials like "the Governor of Northern Province, G.A. Chandrasiri and the Government Agent/District Secretary for Jaffna K.Ganesh," who gave the IMF cost estimate of funds they want for the controversial camps.

If the IMF has in fact read the ICG report, it will note the call for an international investigation of the UN's support for "internment camps." Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/imf1lanka052010.html

Amid Protests, IMF Says Wage Cuts Were Romania's Choice, IMF for Vulnerable

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/imf2romania052010.html

UNITED NATIONS, May 20 -- With Romania wracked by the most serious protests since its 1989 revolution, Inner City Press on May 20 asked International Monetary Fund spokesperson Caroline Atkinson if the IMF would consider re-negotiating the 25% pay cut to public sector employees portrayed by the government as a condition for receiving a Greece-like bailout.

On May 6 when Inner City Press asked about Romania, Ms. Atkinson said there were negotiations going on. On May 20, Ms. Atkinson's lengthy answer denied IMF responsibility for the cuts, saying they were choices of the government.

Ms. Atkinson of the IMF said:

"This gives me an opportunity to clarify that the IMF did not specify or insist on any wage cuts with Romania... we did agree with the Romanian government that some further fiscal tightening would be needed in order to put their program back on track .. the goal is to have sustainable public finances that will allow for a recovery and there are of course different combinations of expenditure cuts and tax increases..

"The government chose to focus on the expenditure side in particular on wage cuts. That was the government's decision. Of course there are no easy options when there are budget cuts. We have been clear that we want to protect the most vulnerable and to have measures that limit the impact on society and can get the most ownership within society."

Tell that to the tens of thousands protesting in Romania's streets. Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/imf2romania052010.html