DHARSHAN WEERASEKERA

‘- What dost thou take me for?

‘- A knave, a rascal, an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundred pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave;  a lily-livered, action-taking whoreson;  glass-glazing, superserviceable, finical rogue’ (King Lear, 2:2)

Subinay Nandy, the United Nations Country Representative for Sri Lanka, is being transferred to the UN’s head office in New York, effective February 2016.  He has penned a farewell note titled, ‘Saying Goodbye to Sri Lanka and Her Resilient People,’ and had it published in The Island of 19^th January 2016.

The gist of the note is that for the past four years since his arrival in 2011 he has been privileged to work in this country and to contribute what he can towards its progress, development and peace.  He says, inter alia,

‘As I worked closely with the UN Country Team in supporting the development and rebuilding of Sri Lanka in the post-war era, I noticed more and more the striking beauty of the country through its people.  My colleagues in the UN family in Sri Lanka are testament to this.  During my term in this beautiful island, I worked closely with the team in delivering a program aimed at promoting durable peace, stability and prosperity in a reconciled Sri Lanka.  The program we delivered, and continue to deliver as one family, has proved to me the commitment of my team, for the people of Sri Lanka.’

What exactly is this ‘program’ that Mr. Nandy and his ‘team’ have delivered to Sri Lanka over the past four years?  Perhaps he has forgotten the following details:  In 2012, 2013 and 2014 respectively, three unprecedented resolutions were adopted against Sri Lanka at the United Nations Human Rights Council, resolutions that increasingly encroached on areas traditionally understood as falling within the domestic jurisdiction of States.

The said encroachment was so blatant that, at the March-2014 sessions of the Human Rights council, when the third resolution in the series was presented, the head of the Pakistani delegation to the Council, Ambassador Zamir Akram, called it ‘a crass example of hypocrisy and double-standards.’ (‘Why Pakistan opposed the US sponsored resolution on Sri Lanka, 27 March 2014, www.ft.lk.)

Meanwhile, on the same resolution, the head of the Indian delegation is on record as saying, among other things, ‘It has been India’s firm belief that an intrusive approach that undermines national sovereignty and institutions is counter-productive.’ (Explanation of vote,’ 27 March 2014, www.mea.gov.in)

So in essence for three consecutive years the Human Rights Council, an organ of the UN, of which Mr. Nandy was the official representative in Sri Lanka, engaged in a course of action that amounted to intervening in the internal affairs of this country (i.e. an approach that undermined national sovereignty and institutions, as recognized by no less than India).  Was there a single whimper of protest about any of this by Mr. Nandy or any other member of his vaunted ‘team’?  To my knowledge, ‘no.’

Mr. Nandy says further,

‘I was also fortunate to have been working with the UN in Sri Lanka during the last year when the Government re-affirmed its commitment towards meeting its international obligations to the UN system.’

Let us suppose for a moment that there was a need for the Government to re-affirm its commitment towards ‘meeting its international obligations to the UN system.’  Given what I have described above as the UNHRC’s conduct towards Sri Lanka over the past four years, it is remarkable that Mr. Nandy forgets to ask the following related question:

‘What about the UN’s obligations to Sri Lanka, and in fact to international law in general—isn’t there a need for the UN to reaffirm its commitment to those obligations?’

Allow me to point out just one such obligation.  It’s actually in the UN Charter, Article 2(7) to be precise, and is as follows:

‘Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter.’

It is impossible to suppose that Mr. Nandy is unaware of the aforesaid injunction.  If the UNHRC (an organ of the UN) has for the past four years been interfering in the domestic affairs of Sri Lanka, it necessarily follows that the UNHRC has been abusing and making a mockery of the UN Charter for the past four years also.  And yet, has Mr. Nandy done anything about this matter, for instance, by a word of protest, or a request to his bosses in New York to look into the matter?  To my knowledge, ‘no.’

This is the man, then, who is mouthing platitudes about how beautiful Sri Lanka is, how resilient her people, and so on.  I can only say this:  ‘Nandy! Sri Lanka is indeed beautiful, and her people resilient, and in the coming weeks and months, devas willing, we will show you just how resilient, particularly at surviving the destruction wrought by persons such as yourself.’

I hope Mr. Nandy’s successor takes to heart a line from the Hippocratic Oath, that doctors are obliged to take before they begin practice (and perhaps ought to serve as a general motto for today’s UN officials also: ‘First, do no harm!’

Dharshan Weerasekera is an Attorney-at-Law.  He is the author of two books:  The UN’s Relentless Pursuit of Sri Lanka (2013), and, The UN’s Subversion of International Law:  The Sri Lanka Story (2015)