KAMALIKA PIERIS

The government of Sri Lanka soundly defeated the LTTE on May 18. 2009.  Eelam War IV ended in victory for the government of Sri Lanka. LTTE accepted defeat and formally surrendered to the army. [1] It was a decisive victory    and a hard fought one.   

This victory is Sri Lanka finest post-independence achievement, said analysts.  A secessionist movement was defeated after a protracted war of 30 years. It stands in stark contrast to the conflicts fought by well-funded Western forces in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade. This victory is therefore unique in this century.

It was my singular privilege, said Mahinda Rajapaksa to have been the Commander in Chief of the Sri Lankan armed forces at the time of its greatest achievement in defeating LTTE terrorism. This is an achievement that will lie to the credit of the Sri Lankan armed forces not only locally but internationally as well, for decades to come.

Until we actually defeated them, very few people thought that was possible.  Foreign representatives who met me at that time, told me not to try to do the impossible. The lesson that we all have to learn from this is that nothing is impossible if you have confidence in yourself and are willing to take risks.

In the first three Eelam wars, Sri Lanka succumbed to international pressure   and the military offensive was stopped when the army was about to win. The first instance was Vadamarachchi in 1987 when JR Jayewardene was President.   But Mahinda Rajapaksa refused to do this in 2009. President Rajapakse firmly stated that he was not going to stop the war.

They were going to fight to the finish.  Nothing short of unconditional surrender could save the LTTE.  The UN was not needed. LTTE could contact the President through the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) if it wished. CA Chandraprema observed later, that in Sri Lanka every battle whether it is terrorists, the Supreme Court, or foreign powers, is fought to the finish.

  When they saw that Sri Lanka was winning, western countries, led by the EU made five attempts to table a resolution against Sri Lanka at the UN Security Council. China and Russia vetoed this on all five occasions.

However, on May 13. 2009, five days before the war ended, Security Council issued a press statement .The press statement said,the members of the Security Council express grave concern over the worsening humanitarian crisis in north-east Sri Lanka, in particular the reports of hundreds of civilian casualties in recent days, and call for urgent action by all parties to ensure the safety of civilians.

The members of the Security Council strongly condemn the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) for its acts of terrorism over many years, and for its continued use of civilians as human shields, and acknowledge the legitimate right of the Government of Sri Lanka to combat terrorism.

The members of the Security Council demand that the LTTE lay down its arms and allow the tens of thousands of civilians still in the conflict zone to leave. The members of the Security Council express deep concern at the reports of continued use of heavy calibre weapons in areas with high concentrations of civilians, and expect the Government of Sri Lanka to fulfil its commitment in this regard.

The members of the Security Council demand that all parties respect their obligations under international humanitarian law. The members of the Security Council call on the Government of Sri Lanka to take the further necessary steps to facilitate the evacuation of the trapped civilians and the urgent delivery of humanitarian assistance to them.

The members of the Security Council take note of the steps taken by the Government of Sri Lanka to address the humanitarian situation of displaced persons and call on the Government of Sri Lanka to ensure the security of those displaced by the conflict and to cooperate with the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and other international humanitarian organizations in providing humanitarian relief and access to them as soon as they leave the conflict zone.

The members of the Security Council reiterate support for the personal involvement of the UN Secretary General and urge the Government of Sri Lanka to extend full cooperation to the United Nations in order to resolve the humanitarian crisis.

The members of the Security Council, mindful of the necessity to find a long-term solution without the threat of violence, underline that the needs of all communities in Sri Lanka have to be addressed. (End of statement. )

Supported by this statement, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon arrived in Sri Lanka on 23^rd May 2009.  He spoke with the President and senior officials. He also ‘consulted other relevant stakeholders, members of international humanitarian agencies and civil society.  The Secretary-General visited the internally displaced persons (IDP) sites at Vavuniya and overflew the conflict area, near Mullaitivu that was the scene of the conflict.’

 President Mahinda Rajapaksa and Secretary General Ban Ki Moon then issued a joint statement. Rajiva Wijesinha said later that he had thought the joint statement might be used against Sri Lanka, specially the clause to address international concerns. Mahinda Rajapaksa had been warned but had signed anyway, thinking it an innocuous reference, said Rajiva.

Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena in Parliament in 2020 stated firmly that this statement was only a joint statement, not an agreement .No agreement had been signed by President and UN Secretary General. They had issued a joint statement which was now being dubbed as an agreement.

This joint statement   did not make any reference to the praiseworthy victory of the government of Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka was not congratulated on it. Instead, the statement spoke, inter alia, of violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. 

Following is the joint statement by the Government of Sri Lanka and the United Nations at the conclusion of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s visit to Sri Lanka on 23 May 2009:

• At the invitation of Mahinda Rajapaksa, President of Sri Lanka, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, paid a visit to Sri Lanka.  During the course of his visit, he held talks with the President, Foreign Minister as well as other senior leaders of Sri Lanka.  During his stay, he also consulted other relevant stakeholders, members of international humanitarian agencies and civil society.  The Secretary-General visited the internally displaced persons (IDP) sites at Vavuniya and overflew the conflict area, near Mullaitivu that was the scene of the conflict.

• President Rajapaksa and Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon agreed that following the end of operations against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Sri Lanka had entered a new post-conflict beginning.  In this context, the Government of Sri Lanka faced many immediate and long-term challenges relating to issues of relief, rehabilitation, resettlement and reconciliation.  While addressing these critical issues, it was agreed that the new situation offered opportunities for long-term development of the north and for re-establishing democratic institutions and electoral politics after 2 ½ decades.  The Government expressed its commitment to ensure the economic and political empowerment of the people of the north through its programmes.  

• The Secretary-General welcomed the announcement by the Government expressing its intention to dismantle the welfare villages at the earliest, as outlined in the Plan to resettle the bulk of IDPs and call for its early implementation.  

• President Rajapaksa informed the Secretary-General regarding ongoing initiatives relating to rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-combatants.  In addition to the ongoing work by the Office of the Commissioner General for Rehabilitation, a National Framework for the Integration of Ex-combatants into Civilian Life is under preparation, with the assistance of the United Nations and other international organizations.  

• Sri Lanka reiterated its strongest commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights, in keeping with international human rights standards and Sri Lanka’s international obligations.  The Secretary-General underlined the importance of an accountability process for addressing violations of international humanitarian and human rights law.  The Government will take measures to address those grievances.

Then in June, 2010 Ban Ki Moon appointed a three-member Panel of Experts to advise  him on the issue of accountability with regard to any alleged violations of international human rights and humanitarian law during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War. The   Panel would report directly to Secretary General.

The panel comprised of Marzuki Darusman, a former Attorney General of Indonesia, Yasmin Sooka, a high court judge from South Africa and Steven R. Ratner an American Professor of Law. The Sri Lankan government reacted angrily this panel, calling it an unwarranted and unnecessary interference with a sovereign nation”. The Panel was not allowed to enter Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka government refused to allow them into the country and refused to talk to them.

Their Report ,  known formally as the Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka” is  popularly known as ‘Darusman report’ or ‘PoE report. This report should have been confidential but it was published in 2011.

Sri Lanka rejected the Report. The Government of Sri Lanka said it does not consider the Darusman Report as a UN document, as it has not been mandated by the UN. The document is the product of a personal initiative taken by the Secretary-General.  However, the Report was eagerly picked up by the UN Office for Human Rights, its High Commissioner and by those NGOs set up to support Tamil Separatist Movement .They ran to the UNHCR with it.

The Secretary General presented the report to Security Council, though the report did not have a Security Council mandate.  It was not welcomed by China and Russia. Russia objected, saying that it was not a UN report. It was not done in accordance with the regulations and the procedures of the UN.  The report was a private one for the Secretary General

The Russian ambassador to Sri Lanka told the media (Sunday Times) in May 2011 that Russia had oppose the project from the start.  When the panel was appointed Russia had issued a statement saying that ‘the UN Secretary General as Chief Administrative officer of the UN should have asked the opinion of the Security Council or the General Assembly before embarking on this project.”

From the very beginning we were skeptical of the panel, the Ambassador said. We were assured by the Secretary General and his staff that this was not a fact finding mission,   the task was not to investigate but only to advise the Secretary General. But what we saw later was very different.

Russia also opposed the publication of the report and heavily criticized its content. To describe the last stages of the war as a ‘tragedy ‘cannot be accepted. For whom was it a tragedy? The end of the war should be welcomed by the international community. To describe the LTTE as a highly disciplined nationalist group of Tamils and not a terrorist group is unacceptable,

Allegations are made against the government of Sri Lanka. The allegations are not proved. The Report says the conclusions were made based on the evidence of individuals and groups that were considered ‘reliable’ by the panel itself which means they were choosing who was reliable and who was not.

There are too many questions about the Report. The authors of the report were far from objective. The report cannot be grounds for any further action. Russia will oppose any such attempt at the UNSC, concluded the ambassador.

Critics point out that the Secretary General cannot intervene in the internal affairs of   member countries. Section 7   of the UN Charter says 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; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.”

It is the Security Council, not Secretary General that is granted powers of intervention under Chapter VII.   This Chapter too, supports the right of a country to protect itself. Article 51 speaks of the inherent right of self-defense of a member state.

The post of Secretary General is not as   powerful as people seem to think it is, said analysts. The Secretary General of the UN is not equal in rank to a Head of State. He is subservient to the Heads of state and ambassadors accredited to the UN, said Thalif Deen.   He is simply the CEO of the UN.

When told that the Secretary General had banned smoking in the UN building, Russia’s foreign minister Lavrov lit a cigarette and replied that this building does not belong to the Secretary General it belongs to the member states.  The Nigerian ambassador said the Secretary General is not my boss, I am his boss, reported Thalif Deen. 

Article 100 of the UN Charter says  in the performance of their duties the Secretary-General and the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority external to the Organization. But today, it  is difficult for the Secretary General to follow this.

Instead of keeping the UN as a  skeleton organization servicing the needs of member states and acting as a meeting place for them, the western powers have piled more and more tasks on the UN system and then funded these activities, creating a great dependency on  them to keep the system going.

The UN  now depends on ten to 15 western countries,  for  funds and these countries have turned this dependency to a handle to make the UN further their foreign policies, said analysts.  They use  their money to make the UN system  do as they wish. There is at least one document that admits that this distorts the priorities of the UN system.

In order to retain their jobs the UN officials, starting from the UN Secretary General , have to please these donors. The Secretary General plays a subservient role to the big powers, but asserts his authority to the rest of the member states,  said Thalif Deen .

While all member states in the UN rank equally  in the UN, the money contribution to the UN varies. Some countries pay large amounts. The dominant country in the UN is at present the USA. It is the largest donor to the United Nations, contributing  $10 billion in 2018, slightly less than one-fifth of the  total budget.

USA  does not want a strong independent Secretary-General. Boutros Boutros Ghali,  Secretary-General from 1992 to December 1996 was denied a second term due to a US veto. He had 14 of 15 votes. Ghali wrote a book where he gave an insider’s view of how the UN and it s Secretary-General were manipulated by  the USA. He said US Secretary of State,  Madeline Albright  demolished Ghali’s authority in the UN and tarnished his image with a smiling face and expressing admiration. ( Continued)

---

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-srilanka-war/sri-lankas-long-war-reaches-climax-tigers-concede-idUSTRE54D1GR20090517 We have decided to silence our guns,” statement, posted on the www.TamilNet web site.  May 17.2009