On Sri Lanka Impeachment, Kohona Questions Value of Commonwealth, Says Silva "Traveling"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 16 -- As jurists' groups, bar association and the Commonwealth all criticize Sri Lanka's legislature and president Mahinda Rajapaksa for what they call the politicized impeachment of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, Inner City Press on January 15 asked the UN:

Inner City Press: first I had asked you when the legislature voted to impeach the Chief Justice, you said there was no comment. Now President Mahinda Rajapaksa has accepted that, the Chief Justice is out, there is a lot of unrest, the opposition leader is not going to attend the naming of a new Chief Justice who would be Mohan Peiris, who I know the Secretary-General has met with. Given his involvement in 2009 and the statement made at the time, any thoughts?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: Well, thank you for your questions, Matthew. No, we don’t have any comment at this time. We are obviously aware of the media reports, and if that changes and we have something to say, I’ll certainly let you know.

  Twenty four later later, at the January 16 noon briefing, there was nothing. In the interim, Inner City Press managed to put this question and others to Sri Lanka's Permanent Representative to the UN Palitha Kohona, after he delivered Sri Lanka's speech on counter-terrorism to the Security Council.

  When Inner City Press asked about the criticism of the impeachment by the Commonwealth, Kohona answered rhetorically, "What is the value of the Commonwealth?"

  Based on a media report from Colombo, Inner City Press asked if Kohona's deputy, General Shavendra Silva was out of New York, to deal with the push-back against the impeachment.

  "That's rubbish," Konoha said. He told Inner City Press Silva is out of New York, "traveling."

 Finally, Inner City Press asked about Saudi Arabia's beheading of Sri Lankan migrant maid Rizana Nafeek, if the Rajapaksa government had in fact pulled its diplomatic representative out from Saudi Arabia. No, Kohona indicated.

 In the Security Council's debate on counter terrorism, Saudi Arabia spoke last and said the fighting terrorism can never justify killing civilians. It seemed more than a little ironic. But Palitha Kohona was gone. Watch this site.

Asked If Ban Ki-moon's Panel Met Sri Lanka AG, UN Said “That Is Simply Not the Case" -- Misleading Report?

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.

On Sri Lanka, UN Denies “Secret” Meeting, Won't Say If Report Public

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 7 -- The UN's evasiveness on the meetings, travel and report of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Panel on Sri Lanka continued on March 7, with Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky telling Inner City Press that it is up to the Panel to speak for itself, even to decide if its report should be public.

Nesirky called “shaky” reporting that has suggested a secret February 23 meeting, telling Inner City Press “you know, you were there taking pictures, that was not the case.”

Inner City Press asked, were the members of Ban's panel in town, in New York? Even this Nesirky would not answer, saying it is up to the Panel to say. But where is the Panel?

Then Nesirky said that deadline is “this month.” Inner City Press asked, will it be public?

That will be up to the panel, Nesirky said, in consultation with the Secretary General.

Inner City Press covered a surprise meeting on February 23 between Ban and Sri Lankan officials including the Attorney General and ex-general Shavendra Silva, responsible for what UN officials called the “bloodbath on the beach” in May 2009.

At the time, Inner City Press repeatedly asked Nesirky what relation that meeting had with the work of Ban's panel and Sri Lanka's Lessons Learnt & Reconciliation Commission. Nesirky would not relate them in any way.

On March 6, the Sri Lanka Sunday Times reported that the Sri Lankan delegation on February 23, after the meeting exclusively reported by Inner City Press, met with Ban's panel, and that the panel's deadline was extended two or three weeks. Immediately upon seeing the article, Inner City Press sent questions by e-mail to Nesirky and his deputy Farhan Haq on the morning of March 6:

A UN source is quoted in the Sri Lanka Sunday Times that after the meeting between Messrs. Ban, Nambiar, Haysum, et al and Sri Lanka's Attorney General and External Affairs minister on February 23 which you have told me was about reconstruction and rehabilitation,

1) the two Sri Lanka official met with Mr. Ban's Panel -- true or false? If true, why kept secret, and does this replace the trip to Sri Lanka Ban has repeatedly said is allowed by Mahinda Rajapaksa's flexibility?

2) the deadline for the Panel, set for March 1, has been extended “two to three weeks” - true or false? If true, why was this not announced, and extended for what purpose?

Yes or no: will the report be made public?

Please provide a complete list of attendees of the Ban meeting, and of the reported meeting afterward with Mr. Ban's Panel.

Nesirky and his deputy Farhan Haq never answered or even confirmed receipt of these questions. More than 24 hours after submitting the questions, at the March 7 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Nesirky to answer them, to respond to the Sunday Leader story, and to state if Ban's Panel will travel to Sri Lanka (as Ban has repeatedly claimed).

Nesirky called the Sunday Leader's reporting “shaky” in suggesting a secret meeting, emphasizing to Inner City Press “you know, you were there taking pictures, that was not the case.”

Inner City Press asked, were the members of Ban's panel in New York? Even this Nesirky would not answer, saying it is up to the Panel to say. But where is the Panel?

Nesirky said that deadline is “this month.” Inner City Press asked, will it be public?

That will be up to the panel, Nesirky said, in consultation with the Secretary General. We'll see.

Meanwhile, former Sri Lanka UN ambassador HMGS Palihakkara, a member of Mahinda Rajapaksa's LLRC, was in New York at the same time, sources say, as part of Ban's advisory group on disarmament. So an LLRC member was in New York at the time -- were the members of Ban's panel? Watch this site.

After Ban Ki-moon Meets Sri Lanka AG & General Silva, UN Won't Say If First Time, No Trip or Panel in UN Read Out

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 24 -- After months of controversy regarding if Sri Lanka will allow UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Panel on Accountability to visit the country and interview officials like the Attorney General if not President, Ban himself met on February 23 with with Attorney General Mohan Peiris and the Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, former General Shavendra Silva.

But when Inner City Press asked on February 24 for a read out of the meeting -- and if this was Ban's first meeting with Silva, himself accused of war crimes -- Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky said the “courtesy call” was about “reconciliation and reconstruction efforts."

Inner City Press asked how it could be that Ban's Panel, President Mahinda Rajapaksa's Lessons Learnt Commission could not be in the read out -- was this, Inner City Press asked, a mutually agreed statement with the Sri Lankan government?

No, Nesirky insisted, he was providing a read out for the UN Secretariat.

When Inner City Press has asked Ban Ki-moon to explain why his Panel has not gone to Sri Lanka, despite his claim on December 17 that they could due to Rajapaksa's “flexibility,” Ban said that they still would go, adding confusingly that he was “still trying.”

But his read out of his meeting with Sri Lanka's Attorney General does not mention any trip, or even his Panel.

The Sri Lankan government, after denying Inner City Press' report that this meeting would take place, then called the Daily Mirror on behalf of External Affairs Ministry Secretary Romesh Jayasinghe to admit it took place -- and said it concerned “legal issues.” This is not a topic mentioned in the UN's read out.

Inner City Press asked Nesirky to confirm that the Panel's already extended deadline is the end of February, as had been reported. Nesirky replied that “the Panel will let us know when we can let you know.”

So when, Inner City Press repeated, is the deadline? Nesirky wouldn't say.

On whether this was Ban's first meeting with former General Shavendra Silva, described by widely read New York press as a war criminal, Nesirky said he has “no idea” - and wouldn't even say he would ask or find out.

This is the transparency and commitment to accountability for war crimes of which Ban has spoken?

Lanka 4 incl Silva, Ban & Nambiar, Panel not shown -or even mentioned? (c) MRLee

Also attending the February 23 meeting but standing off to the side during the handshaking was Ban's chief of staff Vijay Nambiar. Inner City Press nevertheless took a photograph of him standing by the side, and later sitting at Ban's right hand for the meeting.

In recent days, Inner City Press has asked Ban's spokesperson's office for a response to the inclusion of Nambiar in a filing with the International Criminal Court, which asserts

“a basis to question whether Vijay Nambiar was in fact an innocent neutral intermediary or in fact a co-perpetrator within the negotiation related community.”

The filing, which has been reported in the Australian press, recites that

"NAMBIAR again through the United Nations-24 hour dispatch center in New York. NAMBIAR replied to COLVIN that MAHINDA RAJAPAKSE, GOTABAYA RAJAPAKSE, AND PALITHA KOHONA had assured NAMBIAR that the LTTE members would be safe in surrendering to the SLA and treated like “normal prisoners of war” if they “hoist[ed] a white flag high.”

Ban's lead spokesman Martin Nesirky would not say he would seek a response from Nambiar or the Executive Office of the Secretary General to these descriptions.

Nesirky's deputy Farhan Haq issued an on the record statement to another journalist that “the Inner City Press story is inaccurate; there has been no complaint formally filed at the International Criminal Court.” On February 23, Inner City Press repeatedly asked Nesirky to explain the statement; he has thus far declined. Watch this site.

As Sri Lanka AG Met With UN's Ban, War Crimes Panel Unnamed for Six Weeks

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/lanka9unfollow042210.html

UNITED NATIONS, April 22 -- The UN's Ban Ki-moon has yet to name the panel of experts to advise him on accountability and war crimes in Sri Lanka which he announced six weeks ago as coming "without delay."

To determine what happened, Inner City Press on April 22 asked Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky to confirm Ban met with Sri Lanka's attorney general Mohan Peiris -- which Inner City Press exclusively reported three days ago -- and to explain the delay. Video here, at end.

Nesirky, who earlier in the briefing tried to ensure that Inner City Press could not ask more questions, said he would look into it. Later on April 22 his Office confirmed that meeting with Sri Lanka's attorney general. He did not, however, explain the delay.

At a UN reception thrown by Israel on April 20, Ban told Sri Lanka's Ambassador Palitha Kohona "I am not against your government," according to sources standing next to the two. Kohona has predicted that no panel will ever be named, quipping that the UN should instead investigate the Vatican for pedophilia.

Kohona to his credit is one of the more candid UN ambassador. Inner City Press has committed to try to write a non-conflict story, perhaps about the government's Memoranda of Understanding with non-governmental organizations.

Among Ambassador Kohona's honesties, reflecting the combativenature of his government, was his statement this week that Sri Lanka advocated against Ban Ki-moon's $3 million grant through the UN Peacebuilding Fund, which Kohona said went to UNDP. But UNDP still took it -- typical UN system arrogance, going for the money (but weak on human rights).

A senior UN official indicated to Inner City Press on April 22 not to expect any movement on Ban's six week old commitment to name a panel on war crimes on Sri Lanka, even just to advice him (Ban). But how can he back out of this? Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/lanka9unfollow042210.html