H. L. D. Mahindapala

Tensions between Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary General (UNSG) and Sri Lanka are rising. Consequently, the gulf between the two is also widening. Ban, in particular, is hardening his stand hoping to impose his will on Sri Lanka. Publicly he claims that the UN has the expertise to handle conflict situations but his actions reveal that he is as incompetent as some of his predecessors in handling simple issues that confront the UN.

Take the current situation in Colombo. Reacting to public protests at the UN office in Colombo Ban declared that he has decided to (1) recall the United Nations Resident Coordinator, Mr. Neil Buhne, to New York for consultations and (2) close the UNDP Regional Centre in Colombo. Then, climbing the pedestal of a morally righteous preacher, he added: ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-The Secretary-General calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka to live up to its responsibilities towards the United Nations as host country, so as to ensure continuation of the vital work of the Organization to assist the people of Sri Lanka without any further hindrance.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚

After creating the problem in the first place of appointing a three-man panel against the will of the Sri Lankan people and the government, he now claims that his intention is ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-to assist the people of Sri Lanka.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ Leaving aside the public protests against the UN in Colombo, the general public opinion in Sri Lanka is decisively against interference in the domestic affairs by any foreign agents. This was public knowledge and if Ban was a competent peace-maker, genuinely trying to cool down feelings instead of inflaming them, he should have known not to provoke and exacerbate the political environment of a sensitive nation trying to recover from a 33-year-old war ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” a war perpetuated mainly by foreign funding, foreign interference and bogus theories promoted by I/NGOs and foreign offices. .

There is no doubt that the current impasse was created by Ban. The UN would not be facing any confrontation from the Sri Lankan public if Ban knew his limitations and stuck to the provisions in Chapter XV of the UN Charter which deals with the functions of the Secretariat. Sri Lanka has no problems with any other branch of the UN. Sri Lanka is needled and harassed only by the anti-Sri Lankan Secretariat headed by Ban. The inevitable tensions were created by the confrontational action of Ban who had no authority from the UN, Security Council or the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to appoint a panel to dabble in Sri Lankan affairs. The UNHRC, which dealt with the last stages of the Vadukoddai War launchedƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  by the political class of Jaffna Tamil elite, told Ban Ki-Moon and Navi Pillay, the UNHRC Commissioner to mind their own business as far back as June 2009.

In fact A. Gopinath, the Indian delegate to UNHRC, told Navi Pillay in no uncertain terms that her duty was to carry out the decision of the UNHRC. It was a clear mandate given to the UN. The voting was 29 ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” 12 against. What better advice and expertise could there be for Ban and Navi Pillay? So why has Ban decided to over-rule UNHRC and the will of the Sri Lankan people? What is he after? WhatƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s his agenda?ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  He is bent on having his way and decided to confront Sri Lanka with a panel of his own to get ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-adviceƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” advice for what? Is it advice to find an excuse to take Sri Lanka before an international tribunal? He knows that 29 nations at the UNHRC have told him to back off. But he decided to confront Sri Lanka and now he has to face the music.

His unwarranted intervention has made him an additional part of the escalating problem and not the solution. As he can see with the emerging developments, he has worsened the Sri Lankan situation by going down his path of confrontation. Instead of preaching to Sri Lanka that it should live up ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-to its responsibilities towards the United Nations as a host countryƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚, he should first live up to his responsibilities of adhering to the expressed wish of his own UN body, the UNHRC which explicitly told him to get lost

The calculated machinations of Ban Ki-Moon to appoint a three-man panel to probe the last days of the Vadukoddai War in Sri Lankan came after the West manipulations to take punitive action against Sri Lanka for refusing to obey their orders failed at the Security Council and at the UNHRC. The West could not win at the Security Council because China and Russia, who had stood steadfastly by their position that it is purely a domestic affair. Knowing that they canƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t get far with the vetoes of Russian and China at the Security Council they shifted the battle ground to UNHRC where they were beaten to their knees by a majority of the member states. When the only two options available to get even with Sri Lanka closed they took the backdoor route through Ban Ki-Moon, a willing collaborator who was ready to go beyond his boundaries to initiate a panel of inquiry that will provide a report conducive for his political agenda and that of the West.

What will this panel achieve? It is neither going to provide the war-weary Sri Lankans a chance to work out their own solutions for reconciliation norƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  provide any legitimate or credibleƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  report that can guide Ban for any further action. All what he has done so far will add up to one huge problem that will land on his desk confusing him more than ever: he will be faced with two reports, perhaps one contradicting the other. For the Sri Lankans what matters is not what Ban thinks about the reports but which one will provide a useful map for reconciliation, peace and stability for them to leave the bitter past behind.

But Ban is not seeking a smooth way out for the Sri Lankan people who are sick of the war and the legacies and the bitter memories left behind by it. He is after a report that will take him to the next level of arraigning Sri Lanka before and international tribunal for war crimes. This is his agenda and the panelists are expected to provide a report (written without moving out from New York) that will give him the ammunition to call for an ad hoc international tribunal.

Even before this panel sits down to make their first move one thing can be predicted without fear of being contradicted: they will produce a report that will fit into the political agenda of Ban Ki-Moon which, as everyone knows now, is anti-Sri Lankan. Besides, the panelists themselves have reason to take an anti-Sri Lankan stand. Steven Ratner (USA) has written that the Tamils represented by theƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (Tamil Tigers) are an oppressed minority. More than his ignorance this reveals his bias when he calls the most privileged Jaffna Tamils ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-the oppressed minorityƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚. What expert knowledge, based on objectivity, can he give when he comes out with this kind of ill-informed punditry? This statement itself should have disqualified him instantly. The leader of theƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ panel,ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Marzuki Darusman, (IndonesiaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s former Attorney General) who was a member of an international team appointed to observe proceedings of a previous Sri Lanka commission, left in a huff squabbling over fees with strong anti-Sri Lankan feelings. So one does not have to be an Einstein to know what the contents of the report will be. ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

Sri Lankan has come along way having braved the anti-Sri Lankan fire directed at it from diverse foreign sources. Sri Lanka is a battle-hardened nation. They know that these anti Sri Lankan tactics will not solve their problems. First hand experience during the 33-year-old war has convinced the Sri Lankans that the foreign agents have only exploited their plight to meddle in their domestic affairs ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” all in the name of peace, human rights and reconciliation that never materialized with their fake formulas. Whether it is Indira Gandhi who mothered the Tiger terrorists in military training camps in India, whether it is David Milliband rushing to garner the Tamil votes in Labour electorates in UK, or whether it is Ban Ki-Moon hoping to get an extension with the backing of the West for a second term, the general trend indicates that foreigners had their own personal and political agendas. It was the Sri Lankans who had to pay for it.

Now itƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s time to say: Enough is enough! Sri Lankans cannot rely on any of these political humbugs, mouthing pieties of holy human rights, to resolve their problems of the past or future. ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Sri Lanka will have to evolve its own solutions. It is also invested with the sole responsibility ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” not Ban Ki-Moon or any other meddlesome interloper in the West — for restoring normalcy and security for its own people. Ban, however, will be trapped inside the predictable anti-Sri Lankan report of his three-man panel which he canƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t reject. So where does that leave him? HasnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t he painted himself into a foolish corner of his own making? How competent is he in handling international issues, particularly issues that does not come within his province?

Of course, he will hide behind the cover of pretending to own the exclusive expertise of handling conflict crisis more than the member states. The least said about the competence of the UN in handling critical international issues the better it is for the image of the UN and its CEO. Though there are some rare successes it is obvious that the world would not be in this mess if the UN has been successful in peace-building, peace-making, peace-keeping and peace-promoting objectively, without dabbling in partisan politics.

Take the glaring instance of where the UN-sponsored naval cordon was thrown round Iraq. This prevented medicine and other essential supplies reaching the Iraqis. UNICEF figures claim that 600,000 children died as a result of this naval blockade. Why did UN allow such a crime against humanity to occur under its watch? ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Why was no action taken against Kofi Anan, predecessor of Ban Ki-Moon, who was overseeing this criminal operation? What is more, wasnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t AnanƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s son involved in the scandal of oil-for-food deal in Iraq? How did he and his son get away with so many questions hanging over their heads? Is this the great mark of the competence of the UN in handling international crises, war crimes and crimes against humanity? On any scale of justice or morality, can Ban compare the 600,000 deaths of children to whatever figure he has in mind about the last stages of the Vadukoddai War in Sri Lanka?

Going deeper into the history of UN, one of the degrading episodes that blackened the office of the UNSG is the appointment of Kurt Waldheim, a lieutenant in the high command of German Army Group E, whose commander, General Alexander Loehr, was later hanged for atrocities. Jewish hunters of Nazi war criminals exposed that that Waldheim had served in Yugoslavia and Greece at a time when reprisals, deportations, and other war crimes were being carried out by the German Army. After examining the records of the War Crimes Commission in the UN archivesƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  the US Justice Department, placed Waldheim on a watch list in 1987. If pursued further there was a possibility of US refusing entry to Waldheim.

Lieutenant Waldheim must have left some of his Nazi legacy behind because when Kofi Annan visited Sri Lanka during the tsunami, he went out of his way to offer condolences to lieutenant Kausalyan, a low-ranking fascist terrorist, who was killed in an internecine clash between the LTTE of the north and Karuna AmmanƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s group in the east. What purpose did AnnanƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s condolence serve other than to boost the morale of the Tigers committing war crimes and crimes against humanity? Is it the function of the UN Secretary General to condole with war criminals? When did a UNSG offer condolences to high-ranking officers of the Sri Lankan forces killed by the Tamil Tigers? How come this overly sympathy was offered selectively by Annan for an insignificant Tiger lieutenant, knowing that he was a criminal in the terrorist outfit of the Tigers?

Annan would have been influenced by the advice given to him by UN officials in Colombo. This clearly reveals the lack of judgment both by Annan and his officials located in Colombo office. What was the necessity to offer condolences to a petty apparatchik in a terrorist outfit banned by the international community? IsnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t Ban exhibiting the identical lack of balance, judgment and competence in rushing to appoint a panel which is not going to advance peace, reconciliation or stability? What is necessity for this unwanted, meddlesome panel when the Sri Lankans are heading nicely and smoothly, at their own pace, with their own mechanisms, solutions and strategies towards a future that is growing brighter with each dawn? ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Do we need to go down BanƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s way to find reconciliation? IsnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t reconciliation a positive move to advance into the future than to go into the negative past?

The moral, legal and political aspects of an investigation into a violent past are highly controversial and there is no concrete evidence to prove that reconciliation depends on crying over the bitter past. Nor is there a prescribed formula for reconciliation. Each nation has its own formula and, according to international norms, that right must be first given to each state before any international busy body decides to step in. So why is Ban Ki-Moon violating accepted international norms and rushing hastily to appoint a panel of his own and that too without authority from the UN?

Besides, there are other international practices that serve the needs of peace and reconciliation. In Australia, for instance, where the British settlers ran amok, grabbing land on the fictitious legal theory of terra nullis, abducting Aboriginal children to civilize them according to superior values of the White settlers, decimating the Aboriginals (from an estimated 300,000 to 60,000), infecting them Western diseases, depriving them of their culture and their rights for 222 years there was no commission of inquiry ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…”national or international — into the past. In fact, John Howard, a former Prime Minister, dismissed such claims as a ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-black arm band view of history.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ Eventually, there was, quite appropriately, a march for reconciliation over the Sydney Harbour Bridge in 2000 and in 2010 an apology from the Prime Minister. So what is the hurry and the necessity to appoint an international panel to look into what happened in the last three months of the 33-year-old Vadukoddai War?

Leaving aside all other applicable principles, it was incumbent upon Ban Ki-Moon to go with the elementary principle of proportionality before embarking on an imaginary and exaggerated notion of conditions that prevailed in the last stages of the Vadukoddai War. As in all other wars, violations of human rights were bound to occur from both sides, as acknowledged by another anti-Sri Lankan critic like Louise Arbour, the CEO of the International Crisis Group. Invariably most violations take place in the last stages of any war where the victors go on the rampage seeking revenge on the defeated. In the case of World War II the highly righteous West, now preaching human rights from even toilet seats, never hesitated to drop atom bombs on Hiroshima (140,000 instant civilian deaths) and Nagasaki (80,000) solely to save the lives of their soldiers in a long drawn war.

The British carpet bombed Dresden (300,000) again to cut short the stiff resistance of the Nazis in the last stages. There was no commission of inquiry into the war criminals who deliberately decided to slaughter the civilians to grab a quick victory to save the soldiers of the Allies. Examples: No inquiries into ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-BomberƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ Harris who flattened Dresden and later knighted by the Queen, and Prime Minister Churchill who was at the top of he chain of command endorsing the bombing. They are treated as war heroes and not war criminals. Compared to this scale of war crimes does Sri Lanka come anywhere near it? Where is the principle of proportionality?

Apart from all these issues, right now the critical issue that surpasses all other consideration is to examine how an international panel of inquiry can help reconciliation ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” an outcome that can be achieved only through peace and stability. Will not two inquiries conflict with each other and exacerbate the wounds of the past? Also, when there is already an internal inquiry probing the past and the future what is the necessity to duplicate the process by initiating another inquiry from outside to go over the same grounds? What purpose will two inquiries serve? Is pleasing the fancies of Ban Ki-Moon the criteria for achieving peace and reconciliation in Sri Lanka?

Besides, unlike the wars waged by the West, the last stages of the Vadukoddai War did not result in vindictive reprisals against the Tamil civilians. Nor was the war prosecuted to end it in a hurry. On the contrary, the last stage of the war was temporary slowed down for the Indian government, facing an election, to appease the Tamil Nadu politicians who were whipping up the issue of the Sri Lankan war to gain political mileage. Furthermore, ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-No Fire ZonesƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ were set up to open up space for the Tamil civilians to seek refuge. It was the Tamil Tigers who shot the fleeing Tamil civilians and also fired from the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-No Fire ZonesƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ to provoke counter-attacks on civilian targets. This was a deliberate tactic adopted to push the David Millibands, Erik Solheims and Richard Kouchner to intervene on their behalf.

In any case, the casualty figures, in the last stages of the war are highly contradictory and unreliable for any verifiable assessment of the scale of deaths, or to pass any serious judgment on the conduct of the Sri Lankan Forces. For instance, Mr. Gordon Weiss, the UN representative in Colombo, said initially (when he was located in Colombo), that 7,000 died in the last days of the war. Mr. Weiss, an Australian citizen, changed and exaggerated his figures to 40,000 after he arrived in Australia. The London Times quotes a figure of 20,000 not from a body count but from aerial photographs! Prof. Francis Boyle, a pro-LTTE academic in USA quoted a figure of 50,000 without providing any proof. At the last count, pro-Tiger sources quoted a figure of 70,000.

On the other hand, the Tamil doctors who were quoted as authorities for the original figure of 7,000 told a different story when they got out of the clutches of the LTTE. They admitted at a press conference that they were under pressure from the LTTE to exaggerate the figures. Quite accurately (and also quite cynically too) an official source said that they would have had to postpone the ending of the war by another three months at least because that is the time that was required to bury the unspecified ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-tens of thousandsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ quoted by Louis Arbour of the ICG.

Separating fiction from fact is a basic task facing any commission of inquiry. Since the UN and other international agencies do not have the means of verifying the ground realities it is best that the Commission of Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation should be allowed to look into the issues facing them, not so much to find fault as to achieve the primary goal of reconciliation. The growing trend in the post-war period Sri Lanka is to move slowly but surely towards reconciliation that is emerging out of a determined awareness to avoid going back to the violent past.

Where does Ban Ki-Moon fit into this scheme of things He has picked a panel to please his anti-Sri Lankan coalition of the West and, of course, himself. How is this going to help the Sri Lankans yearning for peace, stability and reconciliation? The last thing Sri Lankans needs is a busy body like Ban Ki-Moon who seems to have nothing better to do than poke his unwanted fingers in Sri Lankan affairs. He also lacks credibility when he poses as the dove of peace in Sri Lanka when he is in reality flying on the wings of American eagle armed with deadly arrows. He is doing a disservice to himself and the reputation of the UN by going down this doomed path.

Anyway, since Ban is strapped for cash he has two choices left now: 1. scrap the panel as a cost-cutting exercise or 2) issue his panel with some recycled paper as their predictable report is destined to end up in the nearest waste paper basket.