Russia and China have learned a bitter lesson for supporting IC against Sudan.
Posted on July 8th, 2010

Herold Leelawardena

At its 5040th meeting on 18 September 2004, under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the Security Council had adopted the resolution 1564 by 11 votes to none, with 4 abstentions on 18 September 2004.

 The resolution 1564 requested, inter alia, that the Secretary-General “ƒ”¹…”rapidly establish an international commission of inquiry in order immediately to investigate reports of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur by all parties, to determine also whether or not acts of genocide have occurred, and to identify the perpetrators of such violations with a view to ensuring that those responsible are held accountable’.

 That was the proper manner to establish a commission by the UN. And the Commission so established had submitted a full report on its findings to the Secretary-General on 25 January 2005.

 Anyway, on the strength of the findings of that commission, the Current phase of UN involvement in Sudan was initiated on 4 March 2005. And subsequently, war crimes charges against President Al-Bashir of Sudan and former Sudanese Minister of State for the Interior and now the Minister of State for Humanitarian Affairs, Ahmad Harun was initiated. And arrest warrants were issued against Al-Bashir in March 2009 and Harun in May 2008.

 In a recent visit to north Darfur, special envoy of the Russian President to Sudan, Mikhail Margelov affirmed that he saw stability there and Darfur problem was exaggerated. He also said; “My impression is whenever I visit Darfur I compare between what I hear, see and feel it now, and what I saw in 2006. I can definitely say the situation has improved now.” No wonder, Al-Bashir even contested a multiparty election on 26th April 2010 and won with 68% of the votes. To say the least for the arrest of Al-Bashir and Harun.

 Coming to the point now; on the 25th May 2009, Switzerland submitted a resolution to Human Rights Commission (HRC) against Sri Lanka on sixteen counts. The following day, High Commissioner for HR Navi Pillay and representatives of twelve countries that supported the resolution exaggerate d how ten thousand civilians have been killed since December, and hundreds of thousands are in dire need. They pushed for a commission of inquiry to assess the human rights violations of both the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lankan government. They wanted to do Sri Lanka what they did to Sudan. They forgot that there are no tigers left and they didn’t do anything while the tigers were kicking and well.

 Arab and Muslim countries spoke aptly about the double standards by the sponsors of the resolution. The Libyan-sponsored group “Nord Sud 21″³ argued that only countries “from the region” should be entitled to call a session and not Western states. India said; by “forcing” a special session on this council, HR has become “politicized.” China said; the council should “respect the sovereignty of Sri Lanka.” Russia said that it “welcomes the end of the bloody conflict.”

 On the 22th co-sponsored by twelve other countries Sri Lanka proposed a five point plan to “Assist Sri Lanka in the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.”

 · Reaffirms “the principle of non-interference in the matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of States”; (Ed. note: Funny, this principle never stopped Sri Lanka from voting for 26 UNHRC anti-Israel resolutions”¦)

· Welcomes “the liberation by the Government of Sri Lanka of tens of thousands of its citizens that were kept by the LTTE against their will as hostages”;

· “Commends the measures taken by the Government of Sri Lanka to address the urgent needs of the internally displaced persons”;

· “Welcomes the continued cooperation between the Government of Sri Lanka and the relevant UN Agencies and other humanitarian organizations in the provision of humanitarian assistance to the affected people”; and

· Calls on the international community to increase financial aid to Sri Lanka.

 That Sri Lanka proposal was approved by China, India, Egypt, Cuba and 29 developing countries. All the EU members that were there, Switzerland, Bosnia Herzegovina, Canada, Chile and Mexico voted against Sri Lanka. Now we have come to know who our friends are.

 As the chief administrator of UN, the Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon should have implemented what was resolved at HRC Geneva on May 27th 2009. Instead Moon resorted to appoint a commission to witch hunt on Sri Lanka affairs illegally with the backing of losers and the US, the EU, NGOs and Tamil Diaspora. Predictably, Russia and China objected to Moon’s illegal act in harsh words.

 Authority of the Secretary General is described in Chapter XV and in Articles 97 and 98 of the UN Charter. As far as we know of, this is the first time a UN Secretary General appointed a commission of his own in an arbitrary manner. We must ascertain whether the Secretary General has over stepped his authority. Why does Moon tried to fall back on to an agreement he signed with our President is a pertinent question.

 Leave that agreement aside, the question we patriotic Sri Lankans should ask ourselves is whether we would accept Moon’s traps lying down or let him know we disapprove his conduct. What conduct? Moon is now known to be employed as the bottle-washer of the IC, NGOs and Tamil Diaspora. This we must let the world at large know loud and clear, ideally through agitation or peaceful protests.

 We should not take this lightly because behind Moon there lurk the so-called IC in the shadows. So we must clarify whether Moon is the sole decision making factor of the UN or he is an implementer of the decisions by the UN committees. This we have to do through legal and diplomatic channels. Thereafter, we should seek the support of the two permanent members Russia and China, and all other friendly member organisations and move a resolution to reprimand the secretary general Moon for initiating an illegal act.

 Russia and China had learned a bitter lesson for supporting IC against Sudan. They will never do that mistake again. They now know that IC had taken them for a ride by raising their favourite humanitarian issues. They know that IC had other motives. We should reminiscent Russia, China, India, NAM and as much regional groups as we can what IC tried to do in Geneva in May last year. We should explain them that Tamil separatists are their erstwhile servants of neo-colonists. They are known to be better Anglophiles than the British. We should explain them that if separatists succeed, US will have land and sea bases in the North and the East of Sri Lanka.

One Response to “Russia and China have learned a bitter lesson for supporting IC against Sudan.”

  1. douglas Says:

    Good work. These facts must be brought to light and expose these “Internationally Displaced”, so called intellectuals who work behind the scenes making a living by being in the “pay-roll” of various groups who have infiltrated into organizations like UN and its affiliated institutions. The Secretary General, if he had any concerns in regard to the matters under consideration, should have consulted the Security Council. Also, if it was deemed appropriate to go into the matter further, he should have been extremely cautious in the selection of the particular individuals who would provide advice. It is no secret that some or all of these individuals are bias in their opinion in regard to issues connected with the case in point in S/L. He failed to take any of these initial steps. It is, therefore correct to initiate action against the Secretary General for over stepping his authority and bringing the UN to disrepute. This is the norm in any organization where dicipline is of utmost importance. Hope the members of this organization which is daily getting criticized for lack of its “good governance” and credibility take up the matter seriously and put the house in order.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.



Copyright © 2019 All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress