Syrian Refugees Cites by IRC's Miliband With ISIS Not Mentioned, Sri Lanka Echo

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 6 -- Former UK foreign secretary David Miliband appeared on both ABC This Week and NBC Meet the Press on September 6, talking about refugee flows from Syria only in term of Assad, with no mention at all of ISIS. Even when Miliband cited Aylan Kurdi fleeing from Kobane, he blamed it on barrel bombs.

  Looking back to Miliband's time as UK foreign secretary, one couldn't help noting for example that if he'd put even deployed even half of this advocacy during the slaughter in Sri Lanka in 2009, lives might have been saved.  The argument that he, and Kouchner for example, were constrained on Sri Lanka due to terrorism is put to the lie but Miliband's airbrushing of ISIS now.

  ABC This Week did not asked Miliband about Gulf states taken no refugees, nor about the UK's policies under David "Swarm" Cameron; neither US Sunday show asked about Corbyn and the UK Labor race.

 Last month on the UN Security Council's Syria Presidential Statement,  adopted “unanimously” with Venezuela disassociating itself as Lebanon when it was a member of the Council did on Syria, an issue still unaddressed is the exclusion of Elected Ten members from negotiations.

  Inner City Press asked Nigeria's Ambassador Joy Ogwu about this on August 14, if the Elected Ten members of the Security Council should  be brought into negotiating documents earlier, Video here, from 2:43.

   Ambassador Ogwu said, on UNTV camera, “That’s an aspiration of the ten elected members. There should be more participation.”

  In this case, until Venezuela objected, they were given a mere 18 hours. What is the point of running for a seat on the Security Council if rubber stamping is all that's expected of you?

  This paragraph, and its compliance or non-compliance with Syria's constitution, was and is at issue:

“10. The Security Council demands that all parties work urgently towards the comprehensive implementation of the Geneva Communiqué, aimed at bringing an end to all violence, violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law and the launching of a Syrian-led political process leading to a political transition that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people and enables them independently and democratically to determine their future, including through the establishment of an inclusive transitional governing body with full executive powers, which shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent while ensuring continuity of governmental institutions.”

  Disassociation, allowing it to be adopted as unanimous while a member can disavow it, may solve a problem for this particular text. But other ongoing dysfunctions of the Security Council continue. Watch this site.



Back on August 7 the Security Council on August 7 a resolution to establish a so-called accountability mechanism for the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Outside the Council before and after the unanimous vote on August 7, Russia's ambassador Vitaly Churkin referred to a Presidential Statement he said may be adopted early next week, to support UN envoy Staffan de Mistura's work.

  Inside the Council after the vote, Syria's Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari began his speech with a reference to the 70th anniversary of the US dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. He went to to say the UN never investigated the use of chemical weapons, by rebels he said, in Khan al Asal.

   In its resolution the Security Council “recalls that in its resolution 2118, it decided that the Syrian Arab Republic and all parties in Syria shall cooperate fully with the OPCW and the United Nations.” It seems doubtful that ISIS will cooperate.

   Churkin in his post-vote speech inside the Council said that “the existing mechanics of the UN and OPCW do not have a mandate to identify those participating in such acts. Moreover, we became witnesses of the many politicized statements in this regard, which were clearly meant to be propaganda. It was necessary to eliminate this gap, which was done with the adoption of today’s resolution... Any efforts in the Syrian area must be in line with assisting a search for a political solution to the conflict.”

   Inside the Council, US Samantha Power delivered this speech. At the stakeout, questions were given to Reuters, Al Hurra (really, France 24, by mistake), and Voice of America. (We'll have a separate piece on Power's response to the Press' final question about Burundi. For now, here's previous stakeout, sit-down.

   After the meeting ended, on the steps leading out from the UNSC stakeout, Churkin said “I hope it will translate into our continued joint work on the political front. We are working, I think very well, on a PRST [Presidential Statement] in support of Staffan de Mistura’s efforts. I hope it will be adopted...” More on InnerCityPro.com.
   

Syria Road Show Moves to Munich, SNC's Jarba Takes No Questions, Of Miliband & Guehenno

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 31 -- In the Syria roadshow, both Lakhdar Brahimi and Ahmad al Jarba appeared Friday night at the Munich Security Conference, after a week of talks in Geneva. Brahimi took questions but Jarba did not, instead being allowed a statement in which he cited Ban Ki-moon's invitation and then walking off the stage.

  Thus he took no question, for example, on the now UN reported use of child soldiers by the Free Syrian Army, on which Inner City Press reported here.

  From the audience, moderator Anne-Marie Slaughter gave a question to former UN Peacekeeping official Jean-Marie Guehenno. As Inner City Press reported, Guehenno previously said the UN should come clean about having brought cholera to Haiti. Then quickly, apparently under pressure, he reversed himself and said that countries should pay money, that should be the focus. These are the insiders' views.

   Emma Bonino, foreign minister of Italy, laid the blame at the feet of Russia and Iran, and told Saeb Erekat not to "preach to the converted." David Miliband, formerly UK foreign secretary, was called on as a humanitarian, but his one example was of targeting by the Syrian "regime." 

  Brahimi has proposed that the Syria talks resume on February 10 in Geneva; he said the SNC agreed but the Syrian delegation said they had to consult.  

   On January 30, the SNC's vaunted social media team (or "Official account of the Syrian National Coalition Media Unit in Geneva process")tweeted that "this morning in Geneva 2 our delegation asked that meeting start with a minute’s silence for the victims of Assad." 

  Hours later in Washington, US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki spoke of this as a good sign, then quoted Brahimi as the basis of her statement. (That the US shows more respect to Brahimi than Ban Ki-moon, whom they successfully ordered to UN-invite Iran, is another story).

  That the Syria government side agreed to the moment of silence would seem to indicate they didn't agree to silence for "Assad's victims." A reporter asked that if there is a communique on January 31, it be put out in writing and in the afternoon, before the "radios shut down." A bit behind the times, but hey - this is the UN.

  In New York on January 29 Inner City Press asked Iran's Permanent Representative Khazaee about missing anything at the talks in Montreux, from which the UN dis-invited Iran.

  It worked out better this way, Khazaee told Inner City Press, on his way into the Security Council to give a speech on War and Its Lessons.

  On January 27, Inner City Press asked why journalists were being banned from filming near the entrance to the Syria talks. Haq said, Ask Geneva, but the spokesperson there did not answer. So the Free UN Coalition for Access raised the issue, as a negative precedent.  The belated answer that came was that the two delegations, government and SNC, had requested it. Still, what about the precedent? Asked another way, can Jarba limit freedom of the press INSIDE the UN?

  After current UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon invited and then UNinvited Iran to the Syria talks in Montreux, former Secretary General Kofi Annan announced he and three other Elders would visit Iran.

 On January 27, Inner City Press asked Ban's acting deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq if Annan's talks in Iran are coordinated in any way with Ban or Lakhdar Brahimi, and why journalists covering the talks in Geneva were banned from filming or photographing the Syrian or opposition delegations entering or leaving the UN. Video here.

  Haq replied, We don't speak for the Elders, and said to put the media access question to his counterpart in Geneva. Inner City Press did, on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, so far without answer. 

  On January 27, Brahimi said that SNC would "try to" produce a list of people kidnapped or detained by armed groups in Syria. But then he admitted the obvious: there are armed groups the SNC doesn't control or have contact with. 

  An obvious question would be: what percentage of armed opposition in Syria does the SNC represent? But no one asked it. Instead, Agence France Presse asked Brahimi about Srebrenica, why a list of males in Old City Homs would be produced.  

  Did AFP raise this when the UN in South Sudan separated Dinka from Nuer? When France in Central African Republic disarmed the predominately Muslim ex-Seleka and left Muslim communities to be attacked by Christian anti-Balaka, as even Navi Pillay has said?  AFP serves not only France -- pass through on Francois Hollande's break-up note, for example -- abut also the UN, giving easy interviews to the UN's envoy on cholera in Haiti, where the UN introduced the disease.

   Brahimi said he is going day to day; on January 27 he will meet with the two sides together, speaking through him, then separately. Why aren't the Kurds of Rojava, for example, represented in the talks?

  Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, as well as Martti Ahtisaari, Desmond Tutu and Ernesto Zedillo, will be in Iran from January 26 to 29, to discuss among other things "mutual respect" and peace in the region: that is, Syria.

  This comes after current UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on January 20 reversed his "decision" of the previous day of inviting Iran to the Syria talks in Montreux. The contrast, some say, couldn't be clearer.

   (Among those not making the obvious comparison was Reuters editor in chief Stephen Adler, bylined on a dispatch from Davos identifying Annan as "Ex-Syria Envoy." Under Adler's watch, Reuters at least through its UN bureau has degenerated into a pass-through for Western missions, alsoseeking to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN then mis-using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to try to cover it it: that is, censor it from Google's Search. Click here for that story. DMCA filing here, via ChillingEffects.org).

   Now in Geneva Syria's Permanent Representative to the UN Bashar al Ja'afari is speaking for the government. In New York, Ban's spokesperson's office has refused to answer a detailed "note verbale" from the Syrian mission about inaccurate answers to Press questions about who attack UN peacekeepers in the Golan. 

 On January 20 in the Security Council, Ja'afari complained again of inaction on complaints by Herve Ladsous, the fourth French head of UN Peacekeeping in a row. This is why the UN is not even the lead mediator on South Sudan, much less the Middle East or Syria.

Ending the Syria speeches in Montreux on January 22, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called them "productive." Then his spokesperson accused some non-Western media of being "disrespectful of the Secretary General of the UN," after he gave the last two questions to Bloomberg and NHK.  How was it productive?

   Even before the afternoon session began, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius took to the Montreux stakeout to say Syrian foreign minister Moallem was "aggressive." This is the same Fabius who in September at the UN declared Ahmad al Jarba the leader of the Syrian people, and refused to take critical questions from the media including about his country's practices.

   Australia was represented not by foreign minister Julie Bishop but rather its Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Peter Woolcott (who also chairs a humanitarian high level group on Syria, it's been pointed out to Inner City Press.).  Bishop is on Washington, and soon New York. 

   Ahmad al Jarba spoke next to last, thanking Saudi Arabia, viewed as his sponsor, as if in an Oscars speech. Ban Ki-moon wrapped up, calling it productive and asking the assembled (hand-picked, without Iran) minister to "wish [him] luck" as he went to speak to the media. 

  There, the questions were chosen much as they are at the UN in New York, as documented and critiqued by the Free UN Coalition for Access -- but in Montreux, this was actively protested. (FUNCA also questioned the UN citing Ban's press conference as a basis to cancel its noon briefing in New York, on South Sudan, Central African Republic, Mali and other countries in which the UN is at least somewhat less marginal or US dominated.)

  When John Kerry held his press conference, only four questions were taken: CBS, a Turkish media, BBC and Al Hurra, on whose Broadcasting Board of Governors John Kerry himself serves. Freedom of the press at today's US State Department we covered yesterday, here.

After the UN's craven reversal on including Iran in the Syria session in Montreux, it has turned out to be a series of speeches mostly by countries significantly less important to that conflict and the region.

   In the morning session on January 22, Italy and Spain spoke and Japan offered money. Turkey spoke without mentioning the Kurds -- but neither did supposed representative of the range of Syrian opposition Ahmad al Jarba.

   Since Jarba's Saudi-sponsored, Saud al Faisal called him "Excellency," pomp like Jarba's faux "UN briefing" with Gulf and Western media in July.

   Using his PresidentJarba Twitter account, on which Inner City Presspreviously reported, Jarba repeated his own speech. Turns out he follows Anonymous, among only 51 follows. Who knew?

   The UK's William Hague's microphone went dead; when it came back on he bemoaned the lack of a women's delegation to the talks. The UN did not push for this on Syria, nor on South Sudan - but Ban Ki-moon highlighted that for a moment, how ever brief, there was a woman in both the Syria and (Jarba) Syrian National Coalition seat. Call it a photo op.

  Behind Hague was a UN alumni, the UK's former political coordinator in the Security Council David Quarrey. His Russian counterpart Vladimir Safronkov was also there, in Sergey Lavrov's delegation.

  Ban Ki-moon announced a lunch break until 2:45 pm, to be followed by 18 more speakers, then the Syria and SNC speakers like rights of reply. What did people think these speeches would accomplish. We'll have a separate story on that soon.

  At the UN on January 21, Inner City Press asked Haq for the UN's response to Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif saying "Ban Ki-moon contacted me several times last week and I stated to him explicitly that we don’t accept any preconditions for participating in the meeting. We regret that Mr. Ban Ki-moon has withdrawn his offer and believe that such an attitude is not appropriate for the status and dignity of the Secretary-General."

  Haq said Ban believed he had "oral understandings" with Zarif. 

  Inner City Press asked Haq, since the Geneva I Communique requires a commitment to a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms, how are Qatar and Saudi Arabia, both of which are among those still providing weapons and more to armed groups in Syria, invited to Montreux? Where's Ban's dismay at that?

   Haq said that Ban is dismayed at the militarization of the conflict. Video here. 

  Earlier on January 21, Inner City Press spoke with Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN Vitaly Churkin about Ban Ki-moon about-face.

  Churkin told Inner City Press, exclusively, "some people let him down, and not necessarily the Iranians."

  Others have analogized Ban to the American Charlie Brown, kicking at empty space when the football is taken away at the last second. Was Ban Ki-moon set up?

   Since the Geneva I Communique requires a commitment to a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms, how for example are Qatar and Saudi Arabia, both of which provide weapons and more to armed groups in Syria, invited to Montreux?
 
   Also, where are the Kurds?  Those who actually control territory in the north, Rojava, are not part of Ahmad al Jarba's turkey-based Syrian Coalition, and were not separately invited to the talks. What about theirdismay? We'll have more on this.

   On January 20, Inner City Press asked Iran's Ambassador about Ban's dismay or disappointment. Video here.

 Outside the UN Security Council later on January 20, Inner City Press asked Iranian Permanent Representative to the UN Khazaee about Ban having been "dismayed" by the Iranian foreign ministry's spokesperson's comments.

  Kazaee replied, "I think all of you are very well aware about the consistency in our position about G2, so the high political officials are expected to act based on realities."

   Yes, realities: minutes after Ban's spokesperson's disinvitation announcement, Jarba's Syrian Opposition Coalition returned to the position voted on with 44 members absent: they will attend the talks in Switzerland.

  Earlier, after Ban's spokesperson's statement Iran's Khazaee said (and his spokesperson sent to Inner City Press) --

"The   Islamic Republic of Iran appreciates the efforts of the UN Secretary General and his special envoy, Mr. Brahimi in finding a political solution for Syrian crisis. Iran has always been supportive of finding a political solution for this crisis.  

"However the Islamic Republic of Iran does not accept any preconditions for its participation in Geneva II conference. If the participation of Iran is conditioned to accept Geneva I communique, Iran will not participate in Geneva II conference."

  After that arrived, Inner City Press asked Syrian Permanent Representative Bashar Ja'afari about Iran's statement. He replied, "My sincere advice, don't waste your time on this issue -- they will be there."  Then he went into the Security Council, where Syria is listed as the 35th of 47 speakers on the Middle East, with Iran 39th.  What will they say? Watch this site. 

 At 12:30 pm on January 20, Inner City Press asked Nesirky if Ban is equally dismayed at the Syrian National Coalition's spokesperson calling Ban's bait and switch invite "immoral, even in politics."  Nesirky declined to specifically express dismay at this comment, only saying that a number of comments have been disappointing.  "This one?" Nesirky would not answer.

  Given the SNC's 2 pm ultimatum on Ban to disinvite Iran, Inner City Press asked Nesirky if the invitation to the SNC was the only one to non-Assad Syrians, or if for example Kurds could be invited. Nesirky said: one unified delegation. Hardly -- 44 members of the SNC already dropped out before the vote to attend. What would the vote count be now?

Before the Middle East meeting of the UN Security Council on January 20, the Permanent Representatives of France, the UK and Russia spoke to the press about Iran being invited to the Syria talks beginning in Montreux January 22.

  Ambassador Gerard Araud of France, which Bashar Assad called a proxy state of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, said the ball is in the court of Iran, to explicitly accept Geneva I. The UK's Mark Lyall Grant said the UK position is that Iran must clarify, publicly, that it accepts Geneva I.

  Others ask why should Iran accept a communique of Geneva I to which it was not invited. Others say Iran does in its way accept the communique - it just interprets it differently.

  Russian Permanent Representative Vitaly Churkin said "of course" the US had been consulted before Iran was invited. If the SNC now does not attend, Churkin said, it would be a "big mistake."

   Ban Ki-moon went into the Security Council suite with a big entourage; there was a time he was not on UNTV in the chamber. Inner City Press can report that UNTV technicians were asked to pipe in a feed of the public meeting into a side room. There was talk of Ban's selective meetings, using the code name EU P2. 

  The Istanbul based Syrian National Coalition set a deadline of 2 pm in New York on January 20 for the invitation to be rescinded. 

  Soner Ahmed, an SNC spokesman, said Ban "waited to invite Iran until after the coalition’s decision to attend the conference. That is immoral, even in politics."

    Ban previously met with the SNC's Ahmad al Jarba in Ban's UN provided residence; when the Free UN Coalition for Access asked why it had not been on his schedule, the meeting was called personal.  Now, things have really gotten personal.

  Among UNanswered questions is whether the SNC would or would have brought any Kurdish representatives, and why or whether the Kurds will not now be invited.

  Saudi Arabia shot back at the invitation of Iran by saying they should not attend because it "has military forces in Syria." But doesn't Uganda have fighting forces in South Sudan, while being a member of "mediator" IGAD? UN-consistency.

   Ban made his Iran invitation announcement in a hastily thrown togetherpress conference held Sunday evening in an nearly empty UN building, on barely an hour's notice.

Nevertheless, Ban's spokesperson automatically gave the first question to the United Nations Correspondents Association, a partisan group which for example held a faux "UN briefing" for Ahmad al Jarba of the Turkey-based Syrian Coalition. Click here for Inner City Press story on that.

Ban Ki-moon dodged and did not answer on the weakness of Jarba's Coalition, from which over 40 members decided not to attend the vote approving attended at the talks in Switzerland. Nor until the end of this press conference did Ban mention the inclusion of women. Has he asked Jarba about that?

  Ban said he spoke with Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif, who "committed to play a constructive and positive role." Ban repeated this line when asked about the litmus test of accepting that Geneva II is about Geneva I which was about "establishing a transitional governing body with full executive powers" -- on mutual consent, whatever that means.

  Ban also announced supplemental invitations to Montreux for, among others, Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands and, yes, South Korea.

  It was at 4:21 pm that the UN sent out an email that Ban would appear for a "brief and important statement" in the UN at 5:30 pm. When that time arrived, the so-called UNCA chair (or "Holy Seat") on which the UN has affixed a metal tag was filled -- and from that seat a complaint was made to try to get another correspondent moved. 

  UNCA's president Pamela Falk of CBS was not there; nor was her first vice president, who nonetheless was heard to call into the room. It is time to end the practice of the UN automatically giving the first question toUNCA - a group of which executive committee members tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN (and to get leaked documents removed from Google's search under a specious DMCA filing by Reuters' bureau chief) and which has not reformed in any way since then.

The Free UN Coalition for Access additionally asks why this announcement was made this way. There is more and more staging at the UN, faux Q&A and UNTV footage put out hoping it will be used as B roll. The UN should be more transparent, less of a scam. We'll have more on this.

   

Sri Lanka and the UK: Too Little, Too Late, Between Libya, Somalia Journalists and Selling Weapons in the Gulf?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 17 -- Certainly the authoritarian nature of the Rajapaksa government in Sri Lanka became apparent to more people during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. Click here for longer analysis of the CHOGM from this reporter, on Beacon Reader,focused on the UN Secretariat's silence. 

  But can it be said that the UK government, for example, was unaware of that government's slaughtering of civilians in 2009? At the UN in New York, Inner City Press repeatedly asked then Ambassador John Sawers, and when he came to the UN, foreign minister David Miliband. 

  Then as now, the UK controlled the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs; Inner City Press put the question to John Holmes (who, during Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's "victory tour" to the north in May 2009 vowed to never speak to Inner City Press again due to itreporting his on the record comments about deleting emails from Tamils.)

  And so now when David Cameron and William Hague say they are shocked and will belatedly push for an investigation of the 40,000 deaths before March, how should it be interpreted? As a Permanent Five member of the UN Security Council, the UK is in the position to have done something - and didn't -- and to do something now. Will it?

  The UK's use of its P5 seat, even on agenda items on which it "has the pen," seems politicized. It has not drafted or proposed press statements when journalists have been killed in Somalia (compare to the recent rapid statement on journalists killed in Mali). This has yet to be explained.

This weekend, it has apparently not moved for a statement on the killing of civilians in Libya, on which it also has the pen. This also has not been explained; it goes beyond, and is more recent then, the cited Bloody Sunday.

Cameron left Sri Lanka and went directly to try to sell UK attack aircraft to the United Arab Emirates; some in Bahrain find the UK comments for human rights defenders in Sri Lanka belied by the treatment of similar defenders in Bahrain.

Will Sri Lanka, or the UK, act on this before or during March? Watch this site.

   

On Syria, Aid as Politics: UK Valerie Amos Letter Promoted by UK Reuters, IRC Brag Not Mapped by OCHA

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 8 -- Humanitarian aid is supposed to be impartial and non-political but here is how it works at the UN these days.

  The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which as Inner City Press has covered ignored just such impartiality questions raised by Doctors Without Borders in Eastern Congo, wrote a "confidential" letter to the UN Security Council about access in Syria.

  The head of OCHA is Baroness Valerie Amos of the UK. Mysteriously, Reuters had the "confidential letter," most say, from the UK Mission to the UN. (While noting that Reuters' UN Bureau demonstrably leaks TO the UN, here.) Soon, Reuters' re-type job was re-tweeted by WFP's spokesman... in the UK.

  Meanwhile in the UK, there's been an expose of outrageous salaries at the big aid NGOs, but nary a word from Amos' OCHA. Nor any similar listing of the tax-free compensation of UN aid big wigs.

  On August 7, OCHA in Syria put out a map of UN agencies and international staff in the country, which included the International Organization on Migration -- which is NOT a UN agency. The Free UN Coalition for Access asked, why was IOM included?

  A techie working for OCHA, more responsive than most of the UN's UNsocial media, replied that the footnote says IOM is in the UN County Team. Is any other group? Apparently not.

  Then on August 8, OCHA put out a map of NGOs in Syria. Earlier in the day, the International Rescue Committee, run by former UK politician David Miliband, teased a press call featuring its "team inside Syria." But IRC is not mentioned in the OCHA map. They brag of a visit by new US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power - and replied about where the cited refugees were from (including Syria).

   It's all good - but why is IRC, not on the UN's map, bragging of its team inside Syria? Watch this site.

   

As UK Film Shows Sri Lankan General Silva Bragging of Killing 1500 Civilians, What Will UN &Ban Ki-moon Say?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 15 -- During the killing of tens of thousands of civilians by the Sri Lankan government in 2009, the UN withheld its own count of casualties, withdrew its international staff and even played a role in luring to surrender people who were then summarily executed.

The UN Secretariat never called for a ceasefire, and the UN Security Council never had a formal meeting on the mass killings. Now one of the military leaders of the campaign, Brigadier General Shavendra Silva, has been made a part of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Senior Advisory Group on Peacekeeping Operations, and Ban has had nothing to say beyond "it's up to member states."

Silva appears in UK Channel 4's "Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields: War Crimes Unpunished," which premiered last night on television in the UK, and re-appeared overnight on YouTube. Click here to view, for Silva from Minute 21:56.

The documentary focused on four particular war crimes, including an assault on Putumattalan which killed at least 1,500 civilians.

The direct assault was carried out by the 58th Division under the command of Shavendra Silva, who appears on screen describing it as "very successful."

While the Sri Lankan Mission to the UN has in a letter sent to Ban's spokesman's office and select UN scribes attacked Inner City Press for writing about Silva, claiming as subsequently did some in the UN Asia Group that Silva's 58th Division is not directly indicted in the UN Panel of Experts report, this new footage including Silva's bragging should put an end to that.

With so much talk at the UN about accountability, how can the general who led and bragged about the killing of 1,500 civilians continue as an adviser to the UN on peacekeeping? We'll see.

The documentary also has former UK foreign minister David Miliband and former UN humanitarian chief John Holmes taking positions much more protective of civilians than what either did when they had power. Holmes, for example, resisted calling for a ceasefire.

On the May 2009 trip to Sri Lanka with Ban Ki-moon and his outgoing political chief Lynn Pascoe, which Inner City Press went on and covered, Holmes on the record on the plane bemoaned all the e-mail pleas he was receiving from Tamils, saying "I just delete them."

After from Colombo Inner City Press reported the quote, Holmes demanded that it be removed, using other journalists from UK-based media organizations to pressure Inner City Press. Maybe he misspoke. Now in a cushy academic job, Holmes says Sri Lanka got away with it. Yes: with the UN's and OCHA's help.

Holmes refusal in 2009 to call for a ceasefire stands in contrast to his successor Baroness Valerie Amos' stance on Syria. But is this a personal or political difference?

Inner City Press asked the UK Mission to the UN "does the UK have a position on if it is appropriate that Sri Lankan Brigadier General Shavendra Silva serve on the UN Senior Advisory Group on Peacekeeping Operations, given the way he and his 58th Division are depicted in the S-G's Panel of Experts' Report on Sri Lanka, and in UK Channel 4 films, past and to be broadcast in the UK tomorrow night?"

Midday on March 14, UK Mission spokesman Daniel Shepherd replied that the UK "highly values the Senior Advisory Group, and our own representative on it will work to help the Group come up with the best possible recommendations on the issues they are addressing. The Chairperson of the SAG has, following consultation with other SAG members, advised Major General Shavendra Silva that his participation is not appropriate or helpful for the purposes of the Group. We understand that he will not participate in its deliberations."

That is still by no means certain. Inner City Press covered the Asia Group meeting at which Sri Lanka tried to rally other countries in the Group to the defense of Silva; Ban Ki-moon has not spoken in support of Frechette.

Despite the harrowing footage and the high number of civilians killed, the Sri Lanka issue does not have the traction of Syria, or even #Kony2012. As viewers, mostly in the UK, tweeted about the film on Wednesday night, many expressed disgust at Ban's UN and said that if Sri Lanka had a lot of oil, the West would have intervened as it did in Libya.

But there are others not directly interested in oil who have held back on Sri Lanka, perhaps due to the specter of terrorism. To a three organization panel at the UN on March 14, Inner City Press asked if Silva's position as UN adviser on peacekeeping, and Ban Ki-moon silence, were appropriate.

The representative of Amnesty International said that advisers should be "vetted" for war crimes. But the representative of Human Rights Watch, when asked Wednesday on UN TV, had nothing to say on the topic. Video here, at end. HRW has previously refused to even summarize its boss Ken Roth's meeting with Ban Ki-moon, saying that to do so might undermine HRW's "access." Access for what?

There are many for whom it is convenient that the killing of tens of thousand of civilians in Sri Lanka in 2009 slip into the past without accountability.

There is a weak resolution pending in the Human Rights Council in Geneva; there are suggestions at the UN that l'affaire Silva can be solved by substituting Palitha Kohona, who was also involved in the so-called White Flag killing of surrenderees and has overseen the Sri Lankan Mission's vituperative defense while not producing Silva to answer questions.

Kohona and Silva appeared together at the UN to show a government film purporting to rebut the first Killing Fields documentary, which itself was not screened in the UN. As exposed by Inner City Press in video, Ban Ki-moon made time to watch the government "rebuttal" before he ever watched Killing Fields I. What will Ban say about Killing Fields II?

Ban Ki-moon shook Silva's hand, and berated his own staff in front of Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa. War crimes unpunished, indeed.