News
Ban’s bombshell compares Lanka with Rwanda and Srebrenica
View(s):By Our Diplomatic Editor
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon caused controversy this week by categorising Sri Lanka alongside Rwanda and Srebenica to make a case for increased intervention by the United Nations in internal conflicts.
Ban Ki-moon addressing a media conference just before his departure. Pic by Indika Handuwala.
Mr Ban’s comments were a departure from the prepared text of his speech ‘Sustainable Peace and Achieving Sustainable Development Goals’ delivered in Colombo at the invitation of the Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute. It is widely accepted that the massacres that took place in Rwanda in 1994 and in Srebrenica the following year were genocides: the first targeted against the Tutsis by Hutus and the other against Muslim Bosnians by the Bosnian Serb Army.
The conflict in Sri Lanka has never been categorised as genocide (for obvious reason), despite a vehement campaign by fringe, pro-LTTE diaspora and Tamil extremist groups to have it defined as such. Some are now using the Secretary-General’s remarks to validate their claims of ethnic cleansing in Sri Lanka.
Looking up from his speech, Mr Ban told the audience that, “Something more terrible, serious happened in the past. In 1994, in Rwanda, there was a massacre. More than one million people were massacred. United Nations felt responsible for that.”
“Of course,” he continued, “it was their war and massacres. But the United Nations was not able to act on it. We said repeatedly, ‘Never again, never again’. It happened just one year after in Srebrenica. Again, many people were massacred when they were not fully protected by the United Nations Peacekeeping Operations. So we repeated again, ‘Never again’.”
“How many times should we repeat never, never again? We did again in Sri Lanka. We have to do much more not to repeat such things in Sri Lanka, Yemen and elsewhere.”
The comments, which were tweeted out by audience members while the speech was in session, caused glee among pro-LTTE campaigners who have long pressed the UN to categorise the military defeat of the terrorist group as “ethnic cleansing”.
But others pointed out that the massacres in Rwanda and Srebrenica were in no way comparable to what had happened in Sri Lanka. They predicted that the UN Secretary-General’s comments will only strengthen the voice of extremists in the North and South of Sri Lanka as well as abroad.
Mr Ban also called for a reduction in the size of the military in the North and East, rather than urging demobilisation and security sector reform. And he said that Sri Lanka was still in the early stages of “regaining its rightful position in the region and the international community”–implying that the country remained a pariah State.
It is not the first time Mr Ban has caused controversy by going off-text or at press conferences. Earlier this year, there was a huge backlash after he used the word “occupation” in reference to Morocco’s annexation of Western Sahara. In response, the incensed Moroccans threw out the UN Peacekeeping Force and the UN Secretary-General’s office later said he regretted what he said.
“His use of the word was not planned, nor was it deliberate. It was a spontaneous, personal reaction. We regret the misunderstandings and consequences that this personal expression of solicitude provoked,” his spokesman said of that incident.
Mr Ban said that the United Nations had made mistakes in Sri Lanka, especially during the last months of the war against the LTTE. “We made big mistakes,” he said. “We learned very hard lessons on the part of the United Nations. I established internal investigations into what had happened, into what our people of the United Nations mission had been doing at the time.”
“We found serious mistakes in activities,” he confessed. “Had we been more actively engaged, we could have saved much more, many more human lives.” He was, in effect, calling for the UN to take lessons from Sri Lanka, to be more intrusive in internal conflicts–intrusiveness it had failed to use in Aleppo (Syria) or in Yemen–the UN dare not exercise because its the West waging war against terrorists there. All Mr Ban could concede was that the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals ring “hollow” in those countries when there is the “fog of war”.
The Secretary-General said Sri Lanka’s new regime had made significant progress in implementing an ambitious reform programme. He congratulated the Government on the passing of the 19th Amendment and the Right to Information Act; commended efforts to move forward on transitional justice and constitutional reform; and welcomed symbolic steps such as the singing of the national anthem in Sinhala and Tamil on Independence Day.
But much needs to be done to “redress the wrongs of the past and to restore the legitimacy and accountability of key institutions, particularly the judiciary and the security services”. He pushed for a speedier return of land to displaced persons.
Mr Ban also hosted a press conference on Friday evening that can only be described as a sham. Just four journalists were permitted to ask questions during the 30-minute press conference. Even of these, he pointedly evaded a direct question on whether there was a presumption on his part that war crimes had been committed at the end of the war in 2009.
He rejected that the UN had double standards. And he supplied a convoluted reply when asked what he felt regarding Sri Lanka’s position that there will be no international judges in any war crimes court that is set up. The country will have to work together with the international community and the United Nations on a transitional justice mechanism, he said, before launching into practised jargon about credibility.
Still, he was candid about problems with the former administration of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, admitting that, even for him, it had been “rather difficult” to speak with the former Government leadership.
The press conference was held in the ballroom of a Colombo hotel and attended, not only by a large number of journalists, but by some diplomats and others. Mr Ban acknowledged a huge difference between now and the situation he had encountered during his last visit in 2009, shortly after the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. This change was brought about with the active involvement of the international community, particularly the United Nations through the Human Rights Council.
“That means you are receiving recognition and appreciation, unlike in the past,” he said. “It had been rather difficult sometimes, even for me, to talk with the Government leadership. There was some gap between expectations of the international community and the level of what the Government had been doing.”
Mr Ban admitted that reconciliation may take longer than expected. “But that does not mean that you have to take as long as you want,” he stressed. The only time the Secretary-General alluded to LTTE atrocities (and that, too, obliquely) was when he read from his prepared statement that reconciliation required Sri Lankans to “overcome all the harm done, the torture, the murders and extrajudicial executions, the suicide bombings, the disappearances and forced recruitments, the suffering and violence, to transcend your grief and your pain.”
Other highlights of Mr Ban’s trip was a visit to Galle to attend an event titled ‘Reconciliation and Coexistence: Role of Youth’ participated by 100 young Sri Lankans. All are engaged in projects relating to peace, unity, reconciliation and coexistence.
“Young people around the world are often depicted as potential terrorists and easy prey for recruitment by violent extremists,” he said, in an address. “But this distorted picture ignores the reality that the vast majority of young people want to be part of the solution to violent extremism.”
The Secretary-General later went on walkabout on the ramparts of Galle Fort with his wife, Yoo Soon-taek, and happily posed for cameras, even snapping “selfies” on mobile phones. Indeed, handshakes and the taking of photographs received considerable priority throughout his visit.
Mr Ban also went to Jaffna where he met the Tamil National Alliance for a discussion at the historic Jaffna National Library. He held talks with Northern Province Governor Reginald Cooray and had a brief chat with Chief Minister C V Wigneswaran who had initially been invited to join the TNA discussion but was granted a separate appointment after complaining loudly about this apparent indignity.
The most notable aspect of the Jaffna leg was the gathering of protesters outside meeting venues in the hope of having a word with the Secretary-General. They had to make do with Juan Fernandez, the UN’s Colombo-based senior human rights adviser.
Mr Ban met President Sirisena on Thursday. The President later told media that he had asked the Secretary-General for more time for reconciliation efforts. It remains unclear what prerogative Mr Ban has to set such timelines. He also said that the UNSG did not bring up matters related to the UN Human Rights Council resolution. “I, too, did not talk about it,” he said. But other reports attributed to the TNA said Mr Ban had taken up the implementation of the resolution with the President.
Politically, it remains a question why Mr Ban, an outgoing Secretary-General, was invited to Sri Lanka and what national interest has been served. The Government might have hoped for international mileage and currency but that has never been its problem.
The main challenge of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe coalition remains delivering at home and Mr Ban has made that task even more difficult by providing ammunition to extremists in all parts of the country. There were organised demonstrations against his visit in Colombo and Jaffna, for different reasons, opening up old wounds.
Mr Ban–who hasn’t denied media speculation that he wants to be South Korea’s next President–has not learned the lesson of sticking to his job. As far back as 1999, Lakshman Kadirgamar, the late foreign minister assassinated by the terrorists that Mr Ban did not speak a word against, said the UN should concern itself with malaria and mosquitoes without trying to expand its mandate. This was after the UN chief in Sri Lanka said in a statement that it was deeply concerned about extensive civilian casualties during a spike in fighting in Sri Lanka.
Mr Kadirgamar also said he would not tolerate UN officials commenting on domestic issues; and that, apart from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the UN’s mandate only allowed them to be involved in social and economic development.
And it is not only Mr Ban that needs castigation for overstepping his boundaries. Will incumbent Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera–who often cites Mr Kadirgamar as role model–now tell the UN where to get off?