Why it is unwarranted!

The detractors of Sri Lanka have found a new peg to hang their antipathies and cast aspersions on the country and the Government. This time it is the refusal of the Government to accommodate the panel of advisors that the UN Secretary General has appointed to advise him on ‘matters of accountability on war crimes during the last stages of the war’. ‘If the Sri Lankan forces have not committed war crimes’ they ask, ‘then why this reticence to allow the UN to investigate?’

Well, let us illustrate this point as to why Sri Lanka considers this attempt as ‘unwarranted’ and ‘unwelcome’, by way of an example. If Moon had a long drawn out dispute in his family and if they were finally able to solve it on their own, will Moon welcome his best friend’s offer to enquire in to how he overcame his problems, even if that offer from the friend is made with best intentions? He certainly would not, because such regurgitation of past events will not only bring unpleasant memories but most importantly such activity would be a drawback on the reconciliation and post conflict consolidation process. Similarly, the Lankan Government has realized the unnecessary and unwarranted nature of this investigation and hence is opposing it in its interest. Just as the family is a sovereign unit in a society a country is a sovereign unit in the world community.

Further, when UN, shows interest only in the final phase of a conflict that subjected the country’s people to the cruel ways of terrorism for 30 years, the picture it creates is the UN’s agenda is to embarrass the Government for eliminating terrorism that cost the country so much for so long. All this while the Government has already expressed its willingness to appoint a commission that would unearth the cause of the conflict as well as ways and means of avoiding a repetition in the future.

Apart from the unwarranted nature of this action with questionable intent, there is a more than a reasonable doubt as to whether the UN Secretary General has the authority to order a fact finding mission in to a Member State on a controversial issue of this nature. The UN has the General Assembly that debates and votes on general issues while it has the Security Council to take action on world peace and security.

Therefore as Russia has pointed out if Sri Lanka has violated universal humanitarian norms, it is a matter for the Security Council to evaluate rather than for the Secretary General to act on his own.

There is yet another consideration in this where we have to evaluate the status of the UNO for what it is. Although it was meant to be the World Government by those who originally conceived this idea, subsequent chiseling by the world powers has made UN fall far short of that envisioned status. It lacks proper empowerment from its member status and it is not democratic in electing its administration. It lacks a judicial mechanism in the accepted sense, to pass judgment on contested issues and that makes its judgments on global issues questionable. This has made the UN a waste paper making factory over the years as its actions are often found to be devoid of transparency, truthfulness and balanced judgment.

Perusing some all records about the ideas expressed on the formation of UN, I came across a Reuter report that carried the views by Gen Smuts at a conference on world peace held in Pretoria way back in 1935.

Gen Smuts was the South African Prime Minister at the time and he successfully fought British Forces to liberate South Africa from colonialism. Even though he was part of the apartheid Government his views on world peace and global politics may be just as relevant to the present times.

The subject views were expressed by him in the context where Italy invaded Abyssinia (present day Ethiopia) in 1935.

“If the original intent with which the League started could not be carried out, it would be far better to scrap it, rather than leave it as a snare and delusion to those nations still believing in its efficacy. If the League were bankrupt, or a fraudulent Insurer, it was an even greater danger than war itself, as it would prevent the nations from taking precautions for their own security and thus contribute to their undoing”.

The UN, with its uninformed decisions, partial judgments, and selective actions today is increasingly living up to the reservations expressed by Gen Smuts 75 years ago. Credibility is what governments and leaders require to prevail over the people they rule and if that credibility is punctured with that goes their right to remain leaders. If UN fails to live up to the credibility of the world community it will no longer be regarded as the world body capable of delivering world peace and equity. Therefore, it would indeed be a tragedy if the UN, that was initially formed to prevent future wars and consolidate world peace, peters out to be a device that works exactly against its founding principles, in the hands of the world vested interests. Its presence certainly would be a greater danger to world peace than its absence.

[email protected]