UN's
Post
Sri Lanka
Failure Rights
Up Front
Leaves Complacency
in Place
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
December 19 --
The UN says it
has learned
from its
"systemic
failure" in
the final
stages of the
conflict in
Sri Lanka, and
has announced
a "Rights
Up Front"
action plan.
Perhaps the
UN will
improve.
But
the UN does
not seem to
have faced the
problems that
led it to be
silent, and to
partner with
silencers, on
the war crimes
in Sri
Lanka.
When
UN Deputy
Secretary
General Jan
Eliasson
presented
"Rights Up
Front" in the
UN Press
Briefing Room
on December
19, he said
very little
about Sri
Lanka.
Since another
participant in
the plan,
UN Human
Rights
official Ivan
Simonovic,
recently spoke
at more
length and
said the UN
stayed silent
in order to
retain access,
Inner
City Press
asked Eliasson
about this.
In
2008, UN
humanitarian
staff left
Kilinochchi.
Residents said
then, we
will now be
killed in a
war without
witnesses. And
that is what
happened. But
since the UN
no longer even
had access to
the north,
why did the UN
stay silent?
Not
able to be
asked about at
Eliasson's
December 19
press
conference was
that the UN
actively
CONCEALED the
death
statistics it
had in early
2009. Inner
City Press was
leaked a copy
of a UN OCHA
estimate of
over 2000
civilians
killed and
asked then-UN
Spokesperson
Michele
Montas about
it. She denied
the document
existed. But
it had the
OCHA
letterhead.
This
is the
performance
that should be
addressed. If
not, as
happens so
often, the UN
will keep
congratulating
itself and it
will happen
again.
A
smaller but
telling
example: it is
public record
that the UN
Secretariat's
"partner" (or
Censorship
Alliance) the
United
Nations
Correspondents
Association
actively
ordered Inner
City Press
to remove
from the
Internet a
story about
how UNCA
screened
inside
the UN a Sri
Lanka
government
film denying
war crimes
after UNCA's
president had
a previous
financial
relationship
with Sri
Lanka's
Permanent
Representative.
But
ironically the
UN
automatically
gave the first
question to
Eliasson
on December 19
to this same
UNCA; there
was mutual
congratulation
about the
previous
night's
Censors' Ball.
While one of
Eliasson's
staffers -
departing,
we're sad to
hear - came
over to
whisper "We
thank FUNCA
too"
(referring to
the new Free
UN Coalition
for
Access),
that's not the
point.
And
in fact, when
the UN put out
its transcript
of Eliasson's
briefing,
they omitted
the words
"Free UN
Coalition for
Access,"
while leaving
in, more than
twice, UNCA:
the UN's
Censorship
Alliance.
Compare transcript
to (UN)
video, here,
from Minute
22:06.
This is the
second time it
happens with
an Eliasson
briefing. What
does it mean?
What
does it mean
that later on
December 19 in
a UN seminar
on UN Peacekeeping,
Sri Lanka's seat
was occupied
by military
figure
Shavendra
Silva? Photo
here.
The
very same
complacency
that existed
in 2009
remains
intact, or
nearly
intact, in the
UN today. So
will this UN
put "Rights Up
Front"?
Watch this
site.
Here's
UN
transcription,
from which
they cut out
the "Free UN
Coalition
for Access," video
at 22:06
Q:
I wanted to be
sure to ask,
to try to
figure out
what the UN is
actually
learning from
its systemic
failure in Sri
Lanka. I have
heard Ivan
Simonovic say
that the UN
stayed silent
in order to
keep
access in the
country, but
in fact in
late 2008 the
UN left
Kilinochchi
and other
parts of the
north,
essentially
having no
presence
there. So, I
am wondering:
why, if you
can say more,
why
did the UN
stay silent,
and even
today, I mean
this month,
there was
a protest in
Trincomalee,
there was a
crackdown by
the Government
-
and I am
wondering was
it raised with
Gotabaya
Rajapaksa when
you met
with him? What
is the ongoing
role of the UN
in Sri Lanka?
And
on
South Sudan,
can you
confirm that
the UN has
asked Uganda
to
mediate
between the
two sides?
They have
given a
readout of a
call,
and I wondered
if the UN has
reached out to
Riek Machar
and if not,
is the UN too
close to the
Government in
South Sudan to
reach out to
its opponents?
Thank you.
DSG:
When
it comes to
what happened
in the last
phase of the
horrible
conflict in
Sri Lanka in
2009, I want
to refer to
reports that
were
made at that
time and to
Charles
Petrie’s
report. When
he talked
about systemic
failure, he
meant not only
the
Secretariat,
but also
Member States.
There was a
responsibility
not least from
the Security
Council’s
side. And we
decided to
accept those
observations
on the
failures; I
will not go
further into
that because
we saw as our
major
task to take
this very
seriously and
to take it one
step further
and
draw lessons
from Sri
Lanka, but
also Rwanda
reports,
military
reports of the
past, and say
‘how can we be
more
concrete?’ and
really, make a
serious
attempt to
make sure that
we send a
message to
Member States
that we now
have to
increase the
level of
attention on
situations
that will
arise in the
future, out of
this
frustration of
saying “never
again”. Just
the fact that
you say “never
again”
and have done
so a number of
times shows
that we have
failed, we
continue to
fail. So
actually, this
is a pretty
forward-looking…
we
haven’t spent
more time than
the earlier
inquiries on
what happened
in Sri Lanka.
We have said
we accept
those reports
and then:
‘what
can we do to
make sure that
we do it
better if it
happens
again?’
DSG:
I
forgot to
answer your
question on
the South
Sudan. I know
of no
requests from
the United
Nations side
to Uganda. I
know that
President
[Yoweri]
Museveni plays
a very
important
role. The
Secretary-General
and President
Museveni have
talked and I
am sure
that President
Museveni, like
other African
leaders with
influence on
the Government
of Sudan and
other
political
personalities
in Sudan
will use their
influence in
the direction
that I just
pointed to.
But, I know of
no request for
mediation. Our
own Special
Representative
will do her
best to be in
contact with
of course the
Government
primarily, but
also if
possible, with
the other
side. We
are certainly
only
interested in
one thing, and
that is to
stop this
very dangerous
crisis to turn
into an even
deeper crisis.
[DSG
takes
copy of UN
Charter from
his pocket]
It’s in my
pocket, you
know.
, 
