Calls for probe as UN delaying

The United Nations actions during and after the brutal war in Sri Lanka has been questionable and now the International Crisis Group (ICG) has called for an investigation into the world body's own behaviour in relation to Sri Lanka and Tamils.  

Delay

Despite calls an enquiry, the world body continues to inactive when it comes to matters relating to Sri Lanka.

A prime example of UN inaction is the appointment of a panel of experts to advice the Secretary General on Sri Lanka.

On March 5, 2010 Ban announced he would name a panel "without delay", however ten and a half weeks later, he has not done so.

This has led political observers to question how long it takes the UN to name a panel of experts.

However, the UN Secretary General is still going ahead with the appointment of an expert panel on Sri Lanka, according to UN spokespersons.

Changing remit

In addition to the delay, it appears the remit of the panel has also been reduced.

Initially when Ban announced his plan to set up an expert panel, he stated: "I made clear to President Rajapaksa that I intend to move forward on a Group of Experts which will advise me on setting the broad parameters and standards on the way ahead on establishing accountability."

However, according to latest media reports, quoting a spokesperson for Ban, the expert panel will now only advice the UN Secretary General himself  on the standards are for a credible domestic investigation or inquiry.

"The panel will address the question of accountability that's been discussed very often. So it has the very specific aim to advise the Secretary-General on the extent to which a domestic Sri Lankan inquiry will meet widely held standards for that kind of inquiry," the UN Chief's spokesperson Martin Nesirky said.

Sri Lanka's commission

With the UN taking its time on naming a panel, Sri Lanka announced its own ‘Commission on Lessons Learned and Reconciliation’ to examine key aspects of the conflict. 

The delay in the UN Secretary General announcing a panel and the change in remit has led to questions on whether it related to Sri Lanka's belated unveiling of its own "mechanism."

According to a UN spokesperson, the setting up of a commission by President Mahinda Rajapaksa to investigate alleged incidents which took place during the war would not substitute the need for a panel of experts to brief the UN Chief on accountability issues relating to Sri Lanka.

She also said President Rajapaksa’s commission and the UN Chief’s expert panel were two different concepts due to which Ban would not reconsider appointing his panel.

“President Rajapaksa can appoint whatever he wants. His commission has nothing to do with Mr. Ban Ki-Moon’s panel,” she said.

However, political observers questioned how the UN panel would have nothing to do with Rajapaksa appointed commission when the new remit of UN panel is to advice on standards for a credible domestic investigation.

New York based  Inner City Press which has been following UN's role in Sri Lanka in one article questioned "How could a panel named by Mahinda Rajapaksa investigate war crimes claims made against his own brother?"

"Would the UN accept, for example, Sudan's UN Ambassador investigating claims against Omar al-Bashir?" it further asked.

Probe not panel

If and when appointed, the UN experts’ panel is not expected to be effective as the panel would only "advise the Secretary General on the extent to which a domestic inquiry in Sri Lanka would meet normal standards."

So, the delayed UN panel would not even be responsive to the calls for investigation made by ICG, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and others.

Considering the nature and scale of the human suffering that unfolded in Sri Lanka, the UN should have appointed an independent international probe to investigate any possible crimes against humanity.  

When 150 people were killed in Guinea, the UN Secretary General setup an international probe to look into it, however after the death of over 50,000 Tamils and incarceration of 300, 000 more he is only setting up a panel of experts, charge observers.  

UN conduct

With actions, that are in best case seen as incompetent and worst case seen as blatantly biased, Ban Ki-moon and the UN have justifiably come under attack by rights groups, with the ICG calling for a probe into UN's conduct in Sri Lanka.

In a report published on May 17, the ICG called for an inquiry into the UN's own behaviour.

Specifically, the organisation wants an investigation into "the conduct of the UN during the last year of the conflict, examining the UN’s September 2008 withdrawal from Kilinochchi through to its ineffectual attempts to push for a ceasefire and its involvement in Sri Lankan government internment camps."

"The scale of civilian deaths and suffering demands a response. Future generations will demand to know what happened, and future peace in Sri Lanka requires some measure of justice." according to ICG's President Louise Arbour.

No confidence

Tamils inside and outside Sri Lanka lost confidence in the UN when it pulled out of Kilinochchi in September 2008. Nothing the UN has done since then has helped rebuild that broken confidence.

"Tamils who are following the Ban Ki-moon's expert panel drama should not hold their breath hoping for justice from the world body", was the advice of a Tamil political commentator  from the Diaspora.

"The UN, is a place filled with member states engaged in horse trading and officials looking after their self interests", the commentator added.

An Inner City Press comment on UN behaviour relating Sri Lanka reinforced this view: "The UN and Ban backed down, in the view of many, in the face of push back by Sri Lanka and certain of its allies which have a say in Ban Ki-moon's second term."