How the United Nations failed Sri Lanka: DiManno

On Sri Lanka, the UN was notoriously deaf, dumb and blind. It stood down, more preoccupied with not aggravating the governing regime in olombo.

HANDOUT / REUTERS Injured civilians are seen in a make-shift hospital in this photograph released by the pro-Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) group "Mercy Mission to Vanni" April 20, 2009 showing what they say are wounded that were fleeing from an area still controlled by the LTTE in the "No Fire Zone" near the village of Putumatalan in Puthukkudiyirippu, northeastern Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly accused the LTTE and its sympathisers of trying to manufacture a civilian crisis to build international pressure on a cease-fire, especially when the Tigers are suffering military defeats. The military have repeatedly denied shelling the "No Fire Zone". By: Rosie DiManno Columnist, Published on Mon Nov 04 2013

The Toronto Star !he United Nations had a pretty clear idea of what was happening in the killing fields of Sri Lanka during the bloody clima" of civil war. #et it suppressed or diluted that information, utterly failing in its core mission of protecting civilians. $any highly respected human rights agencies have levelled that damning accusation at the organi%ation. &ut the UN itself made the admission a year ago. On Sri Lanka, the UN was notoriously deaf, dumb and blind. It stood down, more preoccupied with not aggravating the governing regime in olombo. 's a result, tens of thousands died in a vacuum of international ignorance. (hile the !amil !igers took an entire population hostage in the combat)scorched north * and their war crimes cannot be underestimated * olombo effectively took the UN hostage, too, with a weird twist on Stockholm Syndrome resulting. onfronted with a humanitarian crisis, and admittedly hamstrung by special interests among the most powerful members of its Security ouncil, the UN+s limp approach to an unfolding horror was, in the words of the internal review+s author, ,a grave failure.(rote harles .etrie, head of the internal review panel of e"perts, established belatedly by Secretary /eneral &an 0i)moon1 ,!he UN+s failure to ade2uately respond to events like those that occurred in Sri Lanka should not happen again. (hen confronted by similar situations, the UN must be able to meet a much higher standard in fulfilling its protection and humanitarian responsibilities.Instead, the UN * unlike the International ommittee of the 3ed ross * had abandoned the 4anni region as the war escalated, and purposely avoided revealing casualty figures collated by its staff in olombo. 5ven when issuing the woefully minimi%ed numbers, it deliberately omitted mentioning what it incontrovertibly knew1 the ma6ority of civilian casualties were caused by Sri Lanka+s military forces, primarily inside government)declared safe %ones, as well as attacks against hospitals. &ut the UN cast blame solely on the !igers. !he UN has now acknowledged that it withheld releasing the more accurate numbers, e"trapolated from dispatches received from domestic !amil staff, doctors and civil administrators in !iger)held territory, and data collected by diplomatic corps in the country, all while the death toll rose to at least 78,888 within a mere five months. !he report tacitly accepts the 78,888 figure, and a further 9:;,888 estimated missing. hurch leaders who stayed behind, working from census statistics for the area, have calculated the deaths at nearly 9:7,888. Silence by the UN, self)gagging, sheltered olombo from global criticism and allowed the regime to continue apace, unobstructed by international conventions * the

mandate of proportionality * in the waging of war, as it wiped out the remnants of the Liberation !igers of !amil 5elam <L!!5=. Calls for inquiry Some have called it a genocidal campaign under the guise of a ,war on terror.- 't the very least, the UN, with its selective dissemination of facts * and its 2uashing of facts * inadvertently collaborated with the regime in what many have since decried as war crimes, with an ever)increasing collection of human rights authorities demanding that a credible formal in2uiry be established. In >898, 6ust a year after the war ended, Louise 'rbour * former Supreme ourt of anada 6ustice, former UN ?igh ommissioner of ?uman 3ights, former chief prosecutor of the International riminal !ribunal for #ugoslavia and 3wanda, now president of the International risis /roup * claimed the UN+s subdued approach on Sri Lanka ,verged on complicity.!he UN internal report makes e"cuses for the agency+s miscarriages in Sri Lanka. olombo withheld and withdrew visas for foreign staff as a means of controlling the message@ several resident co)ordinators * the UN+s senior officials in the country * were either declared persona non grata or were threatened with it. /overnment) friendly media published ,false and intimidating allegations- against staff. ,$oreover, the UN+s computer system, emails and telephones were understood to be entirely compromised by e"ternal surveillance.&ut it was the UN that decided to pull its staff from the 4anni as the fighting intensified in >88A, only its domestic workers were left in place because the !igers would not permit them to leave. (ith the shelling of a BA)truck UN food convoy in Canuary >88D, they had first)hand evidence that the army was firing into designated no)fire %ones. In Eebruary, the resident co)ordinators sent a mealy mouthed letter to the government estimating that a minimum of F,788 civilians had been killed or in6ured inside the 4anni pocket over 6ust two weeks, probably from fire originating from both sides, ,despite the best efforts of the government.Erom the internal review1 ,'ccording to the UN+s data, most casualties were caused by government fire and included attacks on UN premises and hospitals@ however, a letter <from the 3 to the olombo government= did not say this and did not mention international human rights or humanitarian law, which appeared to have been violated in many attacks that killed civilians.In early Eebruary, a political affairs staffer arrived in Sri Lanka 6ust as newly collated data on casualty figures was being discussed and, the report says, ,was very sei%ed by the information . . . and said we would be complicit if we do not act on it.!he government re6ected the figures at a subse2uent meeting. $eanwhile, some UN staffers in olombo were e"pressing dismay that the UN was publicly placing primary blame on the L!!5 when all the facts indicated otherwise. !he review continues1 ,Erom as early as ; Eebruary >88D, the <Sri Lankan 'rmy= continuously shelled within the area that became the second <no)fire %one=, from all directions, including land, sea and air. It is estimated that there were between F88,888 and FB8,888 civilians in that small area. !he SL' assault employed aerial bombardment, long)range artillery, howit%ers and <unguided missile systems= as well as small mortars, <rocket)propelled grenades= and small arms fire.-

War violations (ith only one e"ception in the following three months, ,the UN almost completely omitted to e"plicitly mention government responsibility for violations of international law.!he UN+s rationale was that it didn+t want to imperil humanitarian access by critici%ing olombo, a position it maintained even though access to the 4anni pocket was almost non)e"istent. Erom the review1 ,&y 9A $ay >88D most of the remaining L!!5 leadership was reported killed. !he government claimed they died in armed engagements, possibly at the hands of other L!!5 fighters. Other credible sources said many were e"ecuted, including some who on the morning of 9A $ay had crossed into government)held territory unarmed and with white flags.Cust a week afterward, the war over and olombo declaring victory, the UN ?uman 3ights ouncil * despite everything it knew from the inside * issued a resolution that praised the Sri Lankan defeat of the L!!5 and critici%ed the !igers+ war crimes. &ut it made no mention of war violations by the military * not the bombing of hospitals, not the interdiction of food and medicine, not the internment of >A8,888 civilians in s2ualid camps under army guard. Instead, the special sessions resolution welcomed ,the conclusion of hostilities and the liberation by the government of Sri Lanka of hundreds of thousands of its citi%ens that were kept by the L!!5 against their will as hostages, as well as the efforts by the government to ensure safety and security for all Sri Lankans and bringing permanent peace to the country.-