The U.N.'s chief human rights official, Navi Pillay, advised U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon earlier this month to seek the removal of a former Sri Lankan officer from a top peacekeeping advisory committee because soldiers under his command may have committed abuses during the bloody, final months of the country's 28-year-long civil war, according to a confidential account obtained by Turtle Bay.

Major Gen. Shavendra Silva, who currently serves as Sri Lanka's deputy U.N. envoy, was selected last month by the U.N.'s Asia Group, which consists of all the U.N.'s Asian member states, to serve on the U.N. secretary general's senior advisory panel. The 20-member panel was established to examine the prospect of awarding pay increases to U.N. peacekeepers. 

But his appointment has drawn intense criticism from Pillay and human rights advocates, who claim that his role as a military commander of Sri Lanka's 58th division, which faced allegations of rights abuses, should make him ineligible.

In a confidential letter to Ban, excerpts of which were reviewed by Turtle Bay, Pillay wrote that Silva's appointment threatens to harm the reputation of the U.N.'s peacekeeping division. She appealed to Ban and other top U.N. officials to ask the Asian Group to reconsider its decision, and select a replacement.     

"I am seriously concerned that were Mr. Silva to assume this senior position related to U.N. peacekeeping the damage to the reputation and integrity of the organization will be serious and sustained," Pillay wrote. "His appointment runs directly counter to long-standing efforts ... to move peacekeeping operations away from previous incidents of serious mismanagement and abusive conduct on a stronger, more professional and more respected footing."

In response to Pillay's criticism of the appointment, Sri Lanka's mission to the United Nations issued a statement this week saying Pillay's demands are "unfair and unethical."

"Nowhere in the world, certainly not in this country, do you convict a person on the basis of allegations; nor do you besmirch a person's reputation by repeating allegations," Sri Lanka's U.N. ambassador Palitha Kohona, told Turtle Bay. "I think it is not only improper but unfair and unjust.

Kohona said his government has formed a committee to investigate allegations of human rights abuses detailed by a Sri Lankan lessons learned panel. "They will investigate every single allegation highlighted in the lessons learned report," said Kohona.

The U.N.'s secretary general's office declined to comment on Pillay's letter. But Martin Nesirky, Ban's chief spokesman, told reporters in a recent press briefing that Ban had no authority to reverse the appointment. "The selection of the members of the group is beyond the secretary general's purview," Nesirky said. "It's a matter for member states."

Human Rights Watch countered that, while the U.N.'s Asian governments are to blame for the appointment, the U.N. chief bears responsibility for fixing it.

"The responsibility for this puzzling appointment lays squarely with the Asia Group, but ultimately Ban Ki-moon established the panel and has to safeguard the reputation and credibility of the United Nations," Philippe Bolopion, the U.N. representative for Human Rights Watch, told Turtle Bay. "He was not part of the problem, but he need to be part of the solution."

The U.N. General Assembly asked Ban to assemble a senior advisory group to "consider rates of reimbursements" for U.N. peacekeepers. The rate of peacekeeping pay has been a source of mounting resentment among troop-contributing countries because the standard rate has not changed in many years.

The General Assembly mandated that the advisory group be comprised of "five eminent persons of relevant experience" appointed by the secretary general, five representatives from major troop-contributing countries, five representatives from major financial contributors to peacekeeping missions, and one representative for each of the U.N. regional groups.   

The panel includes several prominent former U.N. officials, including Louise Frechette of Canada, a former U.N. deputy secretary general, and Jean Marie Guehenno of France, who previously served as the U.N.'s top peacekeeping official. Silva was selected by the Asia group.

In 2008-2009, the Sri Lankan government launched an all-out offensive against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam (LTTE), one of the world's most violent and ruthless insurgencies.

The operation, which centered on a Tamil stronghold in the Vanni region of Sri Lanka, succeeded in wiping out the armed movement in May 2009.

But the operation took a devastating toll on ethnic Tamil civilians, who were largely trapped between the rival forces. As many as 40,000 civilians died, most of them victims of indiscriminate shelling by Sri Lankan government forces, according to a U.N. panel established by the secretary general.

Silva commanded Sri Lanka's 58th division, which was directly involved in the final push to crush the LTTE. The panel does not specifically accuse Silva of engaging in atrocities, but it raises concern about the conduct of his troops. 

"It is thus a reasonable conclusion that there is, at the very least, the appearance of a case of international crimes to answer by Mr. Silva," Pillay wrote. "I would this strongly encourage you and senior colleagues to convey as a matter of urgency the organization's request to the Asian Group that this nomination be reviewed.... Should diplomatic engagement fail to bear fruit, further steps may need to be considered."  

"Peacekeeping service is a privilege attracting a heavy protection responsibility, rather than amounting to any form of entitlement or political reward, and credibly alleged human rights violations are sufficient basis to justify denial or termination of mission appointment of peacekeeping persons," she added. "The integrity of this principled position would be substantially undercut by the appointment of Mr. Silva."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

India is preparing to withdraw its four remaining Mi-35 attack helicopters from the U.N. mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo early next month, ending years of Indian air superiority in the war-wracked Central African nation, and depriving the U.N. of its most vital military asset as the country heads into a landmark presidential election.

The Indian drawdown will deal a blow to the U.N. mission, known by its French acronym MONUSCO, which has depended on Indian troops and aircraft to ensure it can protect civilians and conduct humanitarian operations in a sprawling nation the size of Western Europe, and one with few roads.

But it also points to a growing reluctance by states to supply complex U.N. peacekeeping missions in places like Congo and Sudan with necessary and costly combat aircraft and other advanced logistical and communications equipment .

As the United States and other Western powers have retreated from U.N. peacekeeping over the past decade, India and a handful of other developing and emerging powers have filled the gap, supplying the U.N. with the bulk of its more than 100,000 peacekeepers needed to run the world's second-largest expeditionary force, after the U.S. military. India, however, has stood apart from other developing countries because of its capacity to deploy combat helicopters and other advanced military gear in Africa and the political will to use them.

India's decision to scale back its military commitment in Congo comes as France is preparing to introduce a Security Council resolution calling on the U.N. peacekeeping mission there to play a greater role in ensuring the protection of civilians in the months leading up to the election. But the absence of combat helicopters will limit the mission's ability to carry out such responsibilities, and may even force the U.N. to close some of its more remote outposts in eastern Congo, according to human rights activists and U.N. officials.

"I am obliged to note that [the U.N.'s] military operations are being negatively impacted by the shortage of military helicopters," Roger Meece, the U.N. Special Representative in Congo warned the Security Council last week. "This problem will become worse absent new contributions."

India's international identity has long been shaped by its role in U.N. peacekeeping, with more than 100,000 Indian troops having served in U.N. missions during the past 50 years. Today, India has over 8,500 peacekeepers in the field, more than twice as many as the U.N.'s five big powers combined. In supporting India's bid for a permanent seat on an enlarged Security Council last November, President Barack Obama cited "India's long history as a leading contributor to United Nations peacekeeping mission."

For now, New Delhi remains committed to keeping more than 4,000 uniformed personnel in Congo through the November election. But Indian officials has bridled at the lack of influence its contributions have been able to purchase at the United Nations, where its bid for a permanent seat on the Security Council appears stalled and where traditional powers like the United States, Britain, and France make all the important decisions on peacekeeping missions and get the most influential U.N. jobs.

Earlier this month, India rejected a request by Meece to extend the helicopter contract when it expires on July 4. U.N. officials said India has claimed it needs the helicopters to battle a resurgent Maoist guerrilla movement in eastern India.  "India cannot be the only place in the world with attack helicopters," Manjeev Singh Puri, India's deputy ambassador, said in an interview. "We have capacity restraints."

The Indian drawdown comes as a gathering of large troop contributors, including Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Uruguay, have reached a deadlock with the world's wealthiest donors over how much money is needed to run the U.N.'s 15 peacekeeping operations.

The budget standoff threatens to upend an informal arrangement that requires rich countries to pay most of the costs of peacekeeping, while poorer countries supply the troops. Uruguay, which already withdrew one CASA-212 fixed-wing airplane from Haiti in April, has threatened to withdraw nearly 1,300 troops from Congo, according to Security Council diplomats and U.N. officials.

"There is a huge mismatch between the mandates the Security Council gives the peacekeeping missions and the resources they are willing to provide: the rich countries are the worst offenders," Anneke Van Woudenberg, the senior Congo researcher at Human Rights Watch, told Turtle Bay. "Where are the Europeans? Where is the United States? Where are the Canadians?"

The Non-aligned Movement (NAM), which represents the vast majority of troop-contributing states, is suggesting that countries that supply peacekeepers receive more money in the 2012 peacekeeping budget, including a 57 percent increase in peacekeepers' salaries. The increase, they note, would essentially reflect the increase in inflation since 1991, the last time peacekeeping rates were raised

But they have confronted resistance from industrial powers who say that the financial crisis has strained their national treasuries, making it impossible to consider raising salaries. The Europeans in particular have complained that emerging economic powerhouses like Brazil and India, who pay respectively 1.6 percent and .5 percent of the U.N.'s administrative budget, and even less for peacekeeping costs, should pay more.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, has sought to address Indian demands for more influence in top decision-making positions. One of his first appointments was the former Indian diplomat, Vijay Nambiar, as his chief of staff. More recently, the United Nations has appointed an Indian force commander, Lt. General Chander Prakash, to lead the mission in Congo; Indian Maj General Abhijit Guha was made the U.N.'s second rank military advisor; and a former Indian diplomat, Atul Khare, was promoted to spearhead the U.N.'s reform agenda. Ban also appointed an Indian national, Lakshmi Puri, a well-regarded U.N. veteran who is also the wife of India's U.N. ambassador, Hardeep Singh Puri, as deputy executive of the U.N.'s new super agency for women's rights.

The story of India's drawdown in Congo, documented in a series of previously unpublished U.S. diplomatic cables obtained through WikiLeaks, displays the newly ascendant power's heightened diplomatic sensitivity. India believes it is not accorded the respect it deserves on the world stage, and thinks its reputation has been tarnished in the Congo mission.

Indian troops in Congo have been accused of corruption, sexual misconduct, falling short in their obligation to protect civilians from violent militias, and showing favoritism towards anti-government rebels, according to the U.S. cables.

India's mission in Congo hit a low point in 2008, when a tipsy Indian military colonel, at the end of his deployment in the country, was tape-recorded delivering a farewell toast to Laurent Nkunda, commander of a rebel force that had repeatedly trounced government troops, but had been badly bloodied in confrontations with the Indian peacekeepers.

"Clearly elated over his return home (a state of mind undoubtedly made more intense by the many drinks he imbibed at the event) the colonel lauded Nkunda in his good-bye statement as a worthy opponent," according to the U.S. cable.

When the Security Council voted to increase the number of U.N. peacekeepers in Nov. 2008 -- a period marked by an upsurge in violence around the eastern Congolese city of Goma -- the Congolese government said it didn't want any more Indian peacekeepers, according to another U.S. cable and an Indian official.

Infuriated at the slight, India threatened to pull out all of its troops, as well as 23 transport and attack helicopters, a move that would have crippled the mission. The rift played into the hands of Congolese hardliners who used the controversy to try to force the U.N. out of Congo. At one stage, government officials paid crowds to hurl stones at the Indian peacekeepers, according to a U.S. cable.

"It seems the [Government of India] has determined it has no desire to continue placing its troops in harms way in a country where they are not wanted," said one U.S. cable "A withdrawal of Indians troops and helicopter assets would be absolutely devastating to MONUC ability to carry out its mandate."

In early 2009, the United States tried to coax the Congolese leadership to patch up relations with India, and to offer public expressions of appreciation for the role the Indians were playing in Congo. Finally, President Joseph Kabila wrote a letter to the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh thanking India for its contribution to peace and asking it to stay.

New Delhi dropped its plans to withdraw its troops, but Indian diplomats put the U.N. on notice that it would gradually withdraw its helicopters. Several countries, including South Africa, Ukraine, and Argentina, have expressed interest in providing replacement aircraft. But the U.N. has been unable to secure firm commitments, leaving the U.N. mission without its most powerful military asset.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna's visit last week to the United Nations was supposed to provide New Delhi with an opportunity to shine on the world stage, to show that India is a serious emerging power that deserves to sit with other world powers. It didn’t quite turn out that way.

Krishna, in his first appearance before the U.N. Security Council since his country began a two-year stint in January as a temporary member of the U.N. security body, read the wrong speech. For three minutes, Krishna read from the official statement of the foreign minister of Portugal, Luis Amado, noting with a gracious smile his "satisfaction regarding the happy coincidence of having two members of the Portuguese speaking countries" addressing the 15-nation council." (See the video: Krishna begans at 1:08:10)

The gaffe has fueled calls from India's opposition politicians to have Krishna step down, saying his mistake has brought "shame" to India at a time when it is trying to prove to the world that it is a serious player on the world stage.

The mistake occurred after Amado, who spoke before Krishna, decided to ditch his speech in favor of extemporaneous remarks on the theme of the council debate: the connection between social development and security. Copies of his official speech, however, were circulated to the council's members, including one copy that landed on top of Krishna's speech.

In all fairness, it is often tough to tell the difference between the standard speeches delivered before the U.N. Security Council. The Portuguese statement sounded off familiar themes that could have been read by virtually any delegation. For instance, it noted that it "is impossible to implement effective poverty reduction strategies" in a place wracked by political chaos and violence. It underscored the importance of meeting the Millennium Development Goals -- a series of internationally accepted health and poverty benchmarks aimed at eliminating poverty -- in order to spur economic development in the Third World.

It was not until Krishna highlighted the importance of coordination between the United Nations and the European Union that the Indian delegation grew suspicious. India's U.N. ambassador, Hardeep Singh Puri, approached Krishna, slid the Portuguese text off his pile of paper, and instructed him to read the Indian statement buried beneath it. "OK," a puzzled Krishna said before asking: "I have to start all over again?" Without so much as a pause, or a recognition of the gaffe, Krishna started again, beginning with a reference to Mahatma Gandhi's famous line "poverty is the worst form of violence." You'd think -- that if he had taken the time to glance at his speech before reading it -- he would have noticed the omission.

As for Krishna, he suggested the slip-up could have happened to anyone. "There was nothing wrong in it," he told the Press Trust of India. "There were so many papers spread in front of me, so by mistake the wrong speech was taken out."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

*Update, 11:37 a.m., Feb. 14, 2011: This quote was corrected along with corrections of misspelled names and typographical errors.

Haiti: U.N. Cholera Probe

The United Nations will establish an "independent" panel to try to determine the source of the cholera epidemic in Haiti, Bloomberg reported. The U.N. has resisted such a probe, arguing that it is more important to focuses resources on preventing the spread of cholera, which has already killed more than 2,000 people and hospitalized more than 44,000. But the organization has faced criticism that it is seeking to cover up possible links to a Nepalese battalion of U.N. peacekeepers.

Ivory Coast

The United States, France and African governments have warned Ivory Coast's long time ruler, Laurent Gbagbo, that he must step down from power within days or face stiff sanctions, Reuters reported. Western and African governments believe that opposition leader Alassane Ouattara won the country's recent election. The ultimatum comes as government and rebel forces clashed today.

Indigenous Rights

President Barack Obama on Thursday reversed course and endorsed the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, which recognizes the cultural and property rights of native Americans and other indigenous communities, the Associated Press reported. The U.S. voted against the declaration when the U.N. General Assembly adopted it in 2007, arguing that it was incompatible with U.S. laws.

Sudan

The U.N. Security Council met to register their concern about the prospects for violence in the upcoming independence referendum in South Sudan, according to the Voice of America, while the U.N.'s top peacekeeping official, Alain Le Roy, said that the U.N. peacekeeping force would not be enough to protect civilians in the event of a resumption of civil war.

Promotion

The White House today announced that Brooke Anderson, the U.N.-based U.S. ambassador for special political affairs, will serve as new chief of staff for the national security council.

Anderson previously worked as the chief of staff for Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, before being promoted to the U.N. ambassadorial post, which bears responsibility for Security Council affairs, U.N. peacekeeping and non-proliferation matters.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

In July, Lakhdar Brahimi, the former Algerian foreign minister and U.N. trouble-shooter in Afghanistan and Iraq, returned for the first time in several years to Kabul, where nearly a decade earlier he had helped establish a government after the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban.

This time, Brahimi was part of a private, high-level delegation, which included Thomas Pickering, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and Jean-Marie Guehenno, the French former chief of the U.N. peacekeeping department, that is preparing a weighty study for the Century Foundation on the end-game to the current conflict in Afghanistan. They also visited other key countries, including India and Pakistan.

Brahimi's return to the scene comes as the United States, Afghanistan and some factions of the Taliban have discussed commencing talks that might eventually strike a peace deal. The timing has fueled speculation that Brahimi, who lives in Paris, might be pulled from retirement to again become a U.N. envoy to Afghanistan to help mediate a political settlement between Karzai's government and the Taliban, a pact that would set the stage for a U.S. military withdrawal from the country.

One U.N.-based official said that Brahimi had been approached by the Americans and asked whether he might consider a U.N. role in Afghanistan. He responded that he would only entertain the prospect of a mediation role if he was confident he had the full backing of the U.S. government -- something he apparently doesn't have, the official said.

In fact, U.S officials have never really stopped seeking Brahimi's counsel on Afghanistan. Bob Woodward, in his book Obama's Wars, wrote that top U.S. officials were mulling the possible need for a prominent foreigner -- a "philosopher king," in Woodward's words -- to help mediate a political deal. "One possible candidate was Lakhdar Brahimi, the elderly United Nations diplomat who had helped engineer Karzai's rise to power after the U.S. invasion in 2001," Woodward wrote. "Could he deliver this? Brahimi was 76, perhaps too old for the monumental diplomatic mission."

But some seemed to take the prospect very seriously. Staffan di Mistura, the Italian-Swedish diplomat who currently heads up the U.N. mission in Afghanistan, traveled to New York during the U.N. General Assembly debate in September to kill off any idea of appointing an independent envoy to Afghanistan to lead the U.N. mediation efforts, according to three sources familiar with the visit.

Di Mistura said that he didn't oppose the appointment of a U.N. mediator, the three sources said, but he wanted it to be someone who served under his own instructions.

"Staffan is naturally concerned about a unified line of command as long as he is SRSG [the Secretary General's special representative]," according to a U.N. official. He also raised concerns that the Taliban would not accept Brahimi as an interlocutor, according to one of the U.N.-based sources.

Sources close to Brahimi said that the aging diplomat has no ambitions to return to Afghanistan, but that he might serve if he felt his services were needed, and he felt confident about the prospects of a deal. They said that his work on behalf of the Century Foundation is not aimed at positioning him to play a role in Afghanistan.

For the time being, Di Mistura seems to have prevailed -- in part because Richard C. Holbrooke, President Obama's envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, and Gen. David Petraeus, who has worked closely with Di Mistura in both Iraq and Afghanistan, are not keen on relinquishing control of political talks to Brahimi, according to U.N. officials.  

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

Last week, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon took Pakistan to the diplomatic equivalent of the woodshed, organizing a high-level New York disarmament conference where foreign ministers and other dignitaries excoriated Islamabad for blocking international negotiations aimed at banning the production of nuclear weapons fuel.

Ban's decision to convene the conference reflected widespread frustration that Pakistan has paralyzed one of the world's principal arms control forums, the U.N. Conference on Disarmament, at a time when the United States is showing a renewed interest in striking new disarmament deals there. Pakistan, which did not speak at the New York meeting, maintains that it needs to reserve the right to produce nuclear weapons fuel to catch up with its atomic rival, India, which it believes possesses a larger stockpile.

In response to Pakistan's blocking action at the Conference on Disarmament (CD), the United States and several other states said last week that it may be time to bypass the Geneva-based arms control forum, which has negotiated some of the most important arms control treaties, including the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.  The disarmament conference, which has 65 member states, has not held formal negotiations in 12 years. But in his landmark April, 2009, Prague speech on nuclear disarmament, President Obama sought to revive the negotiating forum, calling for the resumption of negations on a Fissile Material Cut Treaty (FMCT).

A month later, the conference approved a work program in May 2009 to begin negotiations on the FMCT, and to begin talks on other issues including nuclear disarmament, the prohibition of nuclear weapons in outer space, and on the provision of assurances not to launch a nuclear strike against non-nuclear powers. But Pakistan has single-handedly blocked negotiations.

"We were ready to roll up our sleeves and get to work on the complicated and difficult negotiations for an FMCT," Gary Samore, President Obama's special assistant on nuclear disarmament, told the U.N. conference Friday. "Unfortunately, it was not to be. Instead, a single country -- a good friend of the United States -- changed its mind and has blocked the CD from implementing its work plan."

The idea of a treaty banning the production of fissile material -- or nuclear weapon fuel-- dates back to the early days of the U.S. and Soviet atomic arms race. The United States, Russia, Britain and France have already announced that they have stopped the production of fissile material, according to Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. Kimball said that China, and Israel, are also believed to have stopped production of fissile material, but have not announced it. But Pakistan and India are believed to be continuing their production of it. "Pakistan is adamant. They continue producing fissile material because they feel they are behind the Indians," he said.

The advantage of negotiating a treaty within the U.N. Conference on Disarmament is that it is the only arms control body that brings together all of the world's nuclear powers. But ten states -- Australia, Austria, Norway, Japan, Canada, Mexico, Ireland, the Netherlands, the United States, and Uruguay -- have said publicly that the time is nearing to try something new, either by abandoning the conference's current form or beginning negotiations in the U.N. General Assembly.

"If we cannot begin these negotiations in the CD, then we will need to consider other options," Samore said. "In any event, it is time to get back to work. The treaty is too important to allow the CD's dysfunction and the interests of one state to dictate the pace of progress on disarmament."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

The Obama administration has decided to press for the establishment of a U.N. commission of inquiry to probe allegations of human rights abuses by Burma's military regime, marking a retreat from earlier American efforts to engage the reclusive government.

The decision reflects mounting frustration that nearly two years of diplomatic outreach, including several visits by senior American diplomats to Burma, have failed to persuade the country's military ruler, Senior Leader Than Shwe, to release Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi, from house arrest or to allow the political opposition to participate in the country's upcoming election.

Two senior U.S. officials said the Obama administration reached its decision following a lengthy internal review of U.S. policy toward Burma. They also insist that the move is consistent with the U.S. policy of engagement with Burma. "We don't see diplomacy as a reward: it's a tool that we hope will have results," according to one of the officials.

The official said the decision to push for a commission of inquiry reflects a judgment that there is merit in allegations of mass crimes by the Burmese military, that Suu Kyi's political party supports such a commission, and that the Burmese government failed to "come forward with steps to bring progress towards democracy." It also reflected mounting Congressional calls for tougher action against the Burmese regime.

Burma, which is also known as Myanmar, has announced a November 7 date for the country's first election in 20 years. But it has ignored appeals from the United States, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, and others to release Suu Kyi and more than 2000 other political prisoners and to allow the country's political opposition leaders to vie for votes. Critics say that the election will consolidate military rule in Burma.

At least 40 political parties have registered to participate in the elections, although several are believed to represent the interests of the military. The National League for Democracy, which was founded by Suu Kyi, who won a landslide 1990 victory that was annulled by the military, will not take part in the elections. It was not allowed to participate in the election unless it agreed to expel Suu Kyi from the party, a step it refused to take.

The move comes several months after the U.N.'s special rapporteur for Burma Tomas Ojea Quintana of Argentina, issued a highly critical report of Burma's human rights record in March, citing evidence of the mass killing, torture, forced displacement, rape and displacement of Burma's ethnic groups over the past decades. "The U.N. institutions may consider the possibility to establish a commission of inquiry...to address the question of international crimes," according to his report.

The Obama administration initially indicated it would consider lending U.S. support for a resolution in the U.N. Human Rights Council establishing such a commission. But it has now decided to actively support the initiative, according to an official familiar with the deliberations. One source briefed on the deal said that the Obama administration had not abandoned its engagement strategy against Burma, but that it had decided to provide the regime with an incentive to reconsider its position.

There are various options for setting up a commission of inquiry. The United States could introduce a resolution establishing such a commission before the U.N. Human Rights Council, which will convene next month. Washington could also press the U.N. General Assembly to pass a resolution establishing it, or it could appeal to Ban Ki-moon to do it under his own authority. Such inquiries can often lead to war crimes prosecutions.

"We have been disappointed in the results of the dialogue to date," according to the administration official. The Burmese government "has very clearly chosen to proceed ahead with an election we feel lacks central ingredients that would lead to international legitimacy."

The officials said that they would begin a long consultation with European and Asian governments to determine what the next steps should be, but they cautioned that the pursuit of justice in this case could play out for years, citing the case of Cambodia, where war crimes prosecutions were carried out decades after Cambodia's Khmer Rouge carried out mass killings.

The official believes there is "merit" in Quintana's allegations of "repeated and very serious allegations of internal actions that require further investigation." It's an early stage of inquiry, the official said, but he said they would examine "persistent chronic incidents and outrages that have spread over the course of a generation."

"The problem with the engagement strategy is not that it's the wrong strategy it's that the Burmese haven't shown much interest in engaging back," said Tom Malinowski, the advocacy director in Human Rights Watch's Washington office. The plan here is to "give people around [Than Shwe] reason to question his defiance of the international community, and whether his might not be serving their interests."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch.

The U.N. Security Council has removed five former Taliban members, including two dead men and the Islamic movement's former ambassadors to Pakistan and the United Nations, from a U.N. terrorist blacklist, a move aimed at signaling to Taliban insurgents that they will be rewarded for putting down their weapons.

The action represents a modest diplomatic achievement for Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who has pressed the international community to lift sanctions on 137 members of the former Taliban government in an effort to prod the insurgents into peace talks with the government. It also reflects willingness by Russia, which opposes any role for the Taliban in a future government, to lift travel and financial sanctions on former Taliban leaders who have put down their arms.

It was more than a decade ago that the U.N. Security Council first imposed sanctions on members of the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan at the time, for refusing to surrender Osama bin Laden to U.S. authorities in connection with al Qaeda's role in the August 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa. In January 2001, more than 100 Taliban leaders were added to the list. The list was expanded after the September 11, 2001, attacks, to include al Qaeda members and their supporters. The measures include a travel ban, an arms embargo, and a prohibition on the direct or indirect provision of funds or economic resources.

The move follows a major U.N. review of the sanctions list, which after today's action includes 489 individuals and entities, including 257 al Qaeda members and backers.  It also comes weeks after Richard Holbrooke, President Obama's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, traveled to New York to meet with diplomats from Russia and Austria, which oversees the Security Council committee responsible for delisting Taliban members. Holbrooke urged them to make progress on the delisting process in order to help boost peace prospects in Afghanistan.

The Security Council lifted an asset freeze and travel ban on Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad Awrang, who served as the Taliban's ambassador before the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, and Abdul Salam Zaeef, the public voice of the Taliban in the months leading up to the U.S. invasion. Zaeef, who was serving as the Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan, was handed over to American authorities and transferred to Guantánamo Bay detention facility, where he stayed until 2005.

In his memoir, My Life with the Taliban, Zaeef, a 42-year-old founding member of the Taliban, recounts a life of militancy dating back to the Soviet resistance in 1980s. He claims that he was sold by Pakistani intelligence officials to U.S. operatives in 2002. He was released in 2005 without being charged with a crime. He has since lived in Kabul under government protection.

Mujahid Muhammad Awrang , the Taliban's former U.N. representative, served as the movement's main contact with the United States and other western governments. Operating out of an office in Queens, Mujahid met frequently with the Clinton administration's under secretary of state for South Asian affairs, Rick Inderfurth.

Three remaining former Taliban taken off the list include Abdul Satar Paktin, and two dead men, Abdul Samad Khaksar and Muhammad Islam Mohammadi. The presence of dead people on the list has long been a source of embarrassment to the council. In December, the council passed a resolution that encourages states to report on the newly dead and encourages the U.N. committee responsible for overseeing the sanctions "to remove listings of deceased individuals where credible information regarding death is available."

Please follow me on Twitter @columlynch.

Richard C. Holbrooke, the White House's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, will travel to New York on Tuesday to help Afghanistan negotiate the removal of select Taliban members from a U.N. anti-terror blacklist, according to senior U.N.-based officials.

Holbrooke's decision to visit New York comes weeks after Afghan President Hamid Karzai appealed to the U.N. Security Council to drop Taliban from a list of individuals targeted with travel and financial sanctions, a first step in an effort to convince Taliban militants to end their insurgency and strike a peace deal with the government. The Afghan government's June 6 "peace jirga" on June 6 called for taking steps towards reconciliation with the Taliban, including the removal of former Taliban officials from the U.N. blacklist.

The Security Council is now reviewing the status of 15 former Taliban members on the watch list, including a former Taliban education minister, Mullah Arsala Rahmani, who is currently serving in the Afghan senate. According to council diplomats, President Karzai is expected to present the council's sanctions committee with a letter arguing that the 15 former Taliban have renounced terrorism and are no longer involved in the violent overthrow of his government.

The Afghan effort has been stalled by Russia, which has maintained that Karzai's government has provided insufficient evidence to remove the Afghans from the list.  Russia made it clear that it takes a very hard line on the removal from the blacklist of Taliban who are still engaged in terrorist or military activities. On March 22, Russia's U.N. ambassador, Vitaly I. Churkin, told the council "that dialogue is possible only with those who have laid down arms, recognized the government and constitution of Afghanistan, and broken their links with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups."

But U.S. and Afghan officials hope that Russia, which agreed to delist a smaller group of five former Taliban officials in January, will be willing to at least let a limited number off the list, sending a signal to other Taliban fighters that it is possible to achieve relief from the U.N. measures. Council diplomats say the names under consideration do not include the Taliban's leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, or other combatants currently participating in the insurgency.

In advance of the talks, the United States made an important concession to Moscow. Last month, the State Department designated a Chechen separatist commander, Doku Umarov, a terrorist. Umarov and his followers have claimed responsibility for a number of violent actions, including a suicide bombing in Moscow's subway system. The decision, which was announced on the eve of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's White House summit with President Barack Obama, marked a shift in standard U.S. protocol. The U.S. usually places an individual on the U.S. terror list before pressing for his or her inclusion on the U.N. blacklist, but in this instance that was not the case. But U.N.-based officials said it was unclear whether the United States received assurances that Russia would respond by yielding ground on the Taliban sanctions.

The U.N. Security Council first imposed sanctions on the Taliban government in October 1999 for harboring Osama bin Laden, and refusing to surrender him to U.S. authorities for his alleged role in masterminding the August 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa. More than 100 Taliban leaders were added to the list in January 2001.

After the September 11 terror attacks, the United States ushered through resolutions that added al Qaeda members and their supporters to the sanctions list. The measures included a travel ban, an arms embargo, and a prohibition on the direct or indirect provision of funds or economic resources. To authorize the removal of someone from the list, the resolution requires evidence that Taliban members have renounced violence, expressed support for the Afghan government and its constitution, and severed their links to al Qaeda. But efforts to reward individuals who break ranks with the Taliban and rally behind Karzai's government have run up against resistance from Russia.

"The Russian position is perfectly reasonable," said Richard Barrett, who oversees a committee responsible for monitoring implementation of the sanctions against the Taliban and al Qaeda. "People should not come off the list just because there is a political process. Mullah Omar and others aren't prevented from participating in the political process even though they are on the list."

But Afghanistan has increased pressure on Russia and other council members to reverse course, arguing that the sanctions list is an impediment to prospects for a peace settlement with the Taliban. Karzai met with a visiting delegation of Security Council members last month and appealed to them to remove names from the list. Some officials indicated that Karzai and his advisors had requested that the entire list of 137 Taliban be eliminated. But others challenged that account, saying that Karzai only asked that some Taliban officials be delisted.

In January, Russian government lifted its objection to delisting Wakil Ahmad Mutawakkil, a minister of foreign affairs in the former Taliban government, and Abdul Hakim Monib Muhammad Nazar, another former Taliban official who broke ranks with the movement and served as Karzai's governor in Uruzgan. Russia has also agreed to delist Fazl Muhammad Faizan Qamaruddin, Shams-us-Safa Aminzai, and Muhammad Musa Hotak Abdul Mehdi.

The Afghan leader is seeking to make progress on reconciling with the Taliban in advance of a major international conference in Kabul on July 20 aimed at supporting the stability of Afghanistan. Among the strongest advocates are Afghan politicians, like Mullah Rahmani, who stand to benefit directly from the delisting. Rahmani claims to have links to the Taliban and to have established indirect communications to Mullah Omar.

"The blacklist will be a start," he told the New York Times. "It is symbolically very important. Even if they only move 60 or 70 names, that would be enough. The next stop could be talks between government and Taliban representatives in some neutral country."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch.