United Nations double standards bared

Even before a week had elapsed after the Security Forces vanquished the top rung LTTE leaders and crushed terrorism, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) passed a resolution in favour of Sri Lanka on May 27, 2009.

The UNHRC rejected outright, the calls for an international investigation on alleged human rights violations during the final phase of Sri Lanka's relentless battle against terror - the world's largest human rescue operation.

The UNHRC held a special session on May 26 and 27 last year in Geneva on Sri Lanka's human rights situation and passed a resolution with 29 votes in favour of Sri Lanka. There were only 12 votes against while six members abstained from voting. The UNHRC largely commended President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his Government for its current policies and focused attention on human rights abuses committed by LTTE terrorists.

A majority of the Council members including China, South Africa and Uruguay, flatly rejected calls for an independent international investigation on the alleged violations of international human rights and humanitarian law during last year's battle against terror.

In mid-May last year, the UN Security Council (UNSC) accepted in principle, Sri Lanka's legitimate right to combat terrorism. A week prior to the eradication of terrorism from the country, the UNSC, in the strongest terms, condemned the LTTE for its acts of terrorism over a period of time. The UN Security Council also ruled that Sri Lanka has a legitimate right to eradicate terrorism in the country. At the request of the European Union members of the UNSC - the UK, France and Austria _ the Council held an informal meeting on May 14, 2009 in New York and vehemently condemned the LTTE for its acts of terrorism for so many years, and its continued use of civilians as human shields, and acknowledged the legitimate right of the Government of Sri Lanka to combat terrorism.

Barely a year after the UNHRC's resolution in support of Sri Lanka and the UNSC's acceptance of Sri Lanka's legitimate right to battle terror, Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon has taken a different stance.

He rushed into naming a three-member panel, chaired by Indonesia's former Attorney General, Marzuki Darusman, to advise him whether war crimes had been committed in the final phase of Sri Lanka's relentless battle against terrorism.

On Wednesday, Ki-moon said that there was no reason for the Sri Lankan Government's "angry reaction to the formation of a UN advisory panel" on alleged war crimes. We are certainly puzzled by the double standards adopted by the United Nations. The UN, which behaved like a toothless tiger against the human rights violations by the US-led NATO troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, now appear to act like a ferocious lion when it comes to human rights accusations against Sri Lanka.

Ki-moon's hidden agenda is abundantly clear since LTTE 'ghost' Rudrakumaran immediately responded to the UN decision and said that the LTTE's 'international network' would appear before the three-member committee to give evidence. On whose orders the UN has appointed such a controversial panel against the rulings given by the UNHRC and UNSC is anybody's guess.

Surprisingly, neither Ki-moon nor the UN has uttered a word on the gross human rights violations by the US and its allies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Amnesty International Report 2010 draws a bleak picture of human rights in Afghanistan as its people continue to suffer widespread human rights violations, apart from violations of international humanitarian law for more than seven years after the United States and its allies ousted the Taliban rule. Though the US-led international forces said that they had revised their rules of engagement to minimise civilian casualties, the number of civilian deaths as a result of operations by international and Afghan security forces increased in the first half of the year.

NATO and the US forces lacked a coherent and consistent mechanism to investigate civilian casualties, show accountability and provide compensation to victims. The UN officials have turned a Nelsonian eye to all such incidents.

The NATO air strikes near the village of Amarkhel in Kunduz province last September killed 142 people, of whom reportedly 83 were innocent civilians. Although it was in a position to do so, NATO failed to effectively warn civilians that they were to launch an imminent attack in the area.

The NATO forces, supporting Afghan army units, had later attacked a clinic in Paktika province, where a Taliban leader was reportedly being treated. The attack violated international humanitarian law which protects combatants no longer fighting due to injury from attack.

The infamous US air strikes in Bala Baluk district in the western province of Farah led to the deaths of more than 100 civilians. NATO and the US military officials reported that Taliban militants were hiding among civilian populations to instigate attacks and justify their actions against civilians.

These are only a few incidents among many such inhuman acts by the international forces. What action has the United Nations taken against these indiscriminate killings, widespread human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law?

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which had shown 'extraordinary concern' for displaced persons in the North, has seemingly forgotten the estimated 297,000 Afghans who were displaced. Is this the transparent manner in which the UN Charter guarantees equal status for all its member countries which are sovereign nations?

Former Prime Minister and current State Management Reforms Minister Ratnasiri Wickramanayaka has in no uncertain terms pointed out that the attempts by the UN to interfere in Sri Lanka's internal affairs is a violation of the UN Charter and that it should not be done in a decent society. The UN must follow its basic principles and refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of a member country. This is indeed one of the accepted principles of foreign policy.

The UN's interference in Sri Lanka's internal affairs is an obstacle to the progressive measures taken by the Government to develop the country and uplift the living standards of the people in the North and the East.