(The advisory note prepared by the group commissioned by the United Nations Secretary General (UNSG) has stirred much comment. Writing in such an environment is difficult since the expectation is expression of partisan views. This is an effort at a commentary.)
Observations on the note
(May 19, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The advisory panel looked at steps taken thus far and to be taken in terms of the Joint Statement of 23rd May in Sri Lanka between the SG and the President but was neither a fact finding nor an investigative effort. It characterized the final stages of the war as between September 2008 and May, 2009. It was aided by a pre existing reference group from within the UN Secretariat and met with UN officials and other organizations. The report was written in a manner that makes it suitable for publication. Written submissions were sought and those individually verified were used as direct sources if it led to a belief that underlying acts or events had occurred. The engagement with the LLRC was thought to be not what it had sought. The conflict was characterized as a struggle for existence of Sinhala and Tamil people. The nature of territorial control and elements of the LTTE operational organs was set out. The assassination of the Foreign Minister is considered a serious development as is the Mavilaru closure. The push on Kilinochchi in September 2008 is thought to be the beginning of the final push. The panel had carefully examined and weighed allegations. An elite Police unit reportedly ran white van operations. The LTTE proscribed in 32 countries was reportedly not larger than 20,000 with perhaps 5,000 as core fighters using civilians as cannon fodder. The threat to the UN in Kilinochchi was thought to be from the Army who could not guarantee their security. Limitation on supplies is elaborated. LTTE presence in the NFZ is acknowledged as is artillery fired in proximity of IDP’s , storage of military equipment near IDP’s or civilian installations such as hospitals. UN documents reportedly refer to 300,000 civilians with close on 40,000 dying and 290,000 + 35,000 reportedly coming out. Low estimates reportedly had impacted on in bound supplies. Firing had reportedly killed many while shortages impacted on health and lives of people.
It was Francis M. Deng, who became Representative of the Secretary-General on IDPs in 1992, who put forward the concept of sovereignty as responsibility as the most appropriate protection framework for people displaced inside their countries. The concept posits primary responsibility for the welfare and safety of IDPs with their governments. The concept of the responsibility to protect (R2P) was developed further from efforts to design an international system to protect internally displaced persons (IDPs). Like its antecedent, R2P places primary responsibility on the state to protect its population and calls on the international community to support states in discharging that responsibility if states fail in that obligation.
In 1993 Francis Deng visited Sri Lanka and reported close on 1.8 Mn were affected and cared for by Sri Lanka then. Since 1983, when displacement assumed significant proportions, displacement focused institutional mechanisms have been consistently used by the Chief Executive in Sri Lanka. Likewise a plethora of UN agencies including the FAO, UNDP,UNFPA, UNHCR, UNICEF,WFP,WHO, UNAIDS,UNOPS, UN HABITAT, World Bank and OCHA have been working since in addition to frontline INGO’s. This highlights a situation in which national and international agencies worked for the protection needs of affected civilians where resources are administered by international agencies and national entities are subcontracted.
The advisory panel while noting its independent style of working has embarked on a separate path of examining the details of the last stages of the conflict. In theory a non-paper, with the contents written for public reading (explicitly stated), the writers have without doubt acted as an investigative panel. The document is replete with such details. Communication between the secretariat and a member state once it takes this form and content inevitably leads to an impasse while the panel has been dismissive of much of details provided by the government the reverse is likely from Colombo.
The document recognizes the post 9/11 world view on terrorism including acts which some states would characterize as acts of war, identifies the captivity of civilians caught up, but fails to mention key moments during which civilians were prevented from moving to safety. These are documented in a CCHA minute and later on another occasion in a reported cable to the State Department on 19thMarch which states (leaked in Wikileaks) : Mission recommends the USG ask the UNSYG to issue a public statement calling on both sides to allow a humanitarian pause in fighting for civilians who want to leave. The LTTE maintains the fiction that civilians do not want to leave. All evidence points to the contrary: several civilians have been shot trying to escape, many others have escaped. We need to call the LTTE´s bluff. The SYG could reassure civilians they will be well treated, recalling Holmes, statement to the UNSC. To give added credibility to his assurances, he should coordinate in advance with the GSL so he can announce that the GSL has invited UN Special Rapporteur for IDP Issues Walter Kaelin to work with GSL to resolve remaining issues in the camps. The ICRC confirms it could then work in the safe zone to determine who actually wants to leave. If the LTTE refuses to cooperate, the UN can say so publicly which would likely cause the LTTE significant problems with its paymasters in the Tamil Diaspora. Ambassador has discussed the outlines of this proposal with the UN, ICRC and Foreign Minister, all of whom believe it is worth trying.
The UN was in 2007 preparing for significant returns during 2008, alongside displacements similar in scale to those in 2007 on the assumption that as the Government acts on its stated intention to disarm the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the conflict in Sri Lanka will continue and intensify, and even if it were to slow down or end during the year, there would remain very significant humanitarian needs to be met in the areas of conflict. The CHAP called for a preparedness level for up to 500,000 conflict-affected individuals comprising IDPs, returnees and economically-affected persons. In effect the UN led by John Holmes through the CHAP donors supported an effort against terror. If an organisation proscribed in 32 countries was to be disarmed the scale and nature of that effort would have been unmistakable.
Key UN agencies took primary responsibility for protection in areas such as Food Aid continued provision of food assistance for IDP and other vulnerable populations; Shelter/NFRI/Camp Management; Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH); Protection Sector to Promote access to justice, registration and civil documentation, physical security of IDPs/returnees, including prevention and response to GBV and strengthening of community-based protection networks and GBV networks. Given these leadership roles assumed by UN agencies, notwithstanding national capacities, serving indictments on welfare conditions for those who fled seems somewhat misdirected given the evidence and related details.
The government in the face of criticism arising from the advisory note may consider placing the Operations in the Vanni in its factual and legal context; its rights and an obligation to take military action against the LTTE to free civilians; efforts of the LTTE to work against the exercising of state responsibilities; Non-military approaches to resolution of conflict before operations were launched; Principles of distinction and proportionality and its uses in response to LTTE strategies; LTTEs violations of international law; Dilemmas faced in confronting an adversary using its own civilian population as a shield; Detailed account of efforts to coordinate and facilitate humanitarian relief and assistance and the responsibility and the right under international law to defend its civilians from intentional terror attacks as Israel did in response to the Goldstone Report of the UN.
The panel has assembled a document for publication while calling for further inquiry and has prosecuted the government. These are measures allied with R2P a political norm -- and politics, in a far-from-perfect world, will never be free of double standards. What is needed, then, is consistency in the application of R2P -- a benchmark for judging both the actions of states against their citizens, and the actions of powerful states against others. It is said in the context of Libya where Colonel Gaddaffi accepted an African Union peace plan led by President Zuma that would have led to a ceasefire and the suspension of NATO air strikes. The rebels rejected the plan.
The fighting continued. So does NATO intervention -- till presumably, regime change takes place. When the rebels rejected a solution that would have ended the horrors, wherein lies the purpose of continuing R2P? (Edited text written by the director of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. He is also Singapore's Non-Resident Ambassador to Jordan). The South African government of President Zuma has come out in support of the panel document even while it remains a non-paper which is R2P through an advisory panel. Ultimately the enterprise of healing and reconciliation must be nationally driven.
The writer is Executive Director, Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies
 has stirred...){kind=link}
Post a Comment