Shoddy and suspicious details in UN Panel Report
Prof Rajiva WIJESINHA, MP
I have not yet seen the full report issued by the panel appointed by
Ban ki Moon, but the Sunday Island of the 17th carries a fascinating
extract -
“In the early morning hours of January 24, hundreds of shells rained
down on the NFZ. Those with access to the United Nations bunker dove
into it for protection. But most IDPs did not have bunkers and nowhere
to take cover. People were screaming and crying out for help. The United
Nations security officer, a highly experienced military officer and
others present discerned that the shelling was coming from the South
from SLA positions...Heavy shelling continued overnight and shells
continued to hit the United Nations hub and the distribution centre
killing numerous civilians...When United Nations staff, emerged from the
bunker at first morning light at the first opportunity, mangled bodies
and body parts were strewn all around them, including those of many
women and children. Remains of babies had been blasted upwards into the
trees. Among the dead were people who had helped dig the bunker the
previous day...”
Prof Rajiva Wijesinha, MP |
Security services
This particular attack on us is not unexpected. The security officer
who is mentioned is Chris du Toit, from a very distinguished South
African family that had been involved in military activity during the
apartheid regime too. He was responsible for the initial claim of around
I think 2000 civilian deaths, which some people in the UN system began
to circulate in February 2009.
We found these figures excessive and called him in to the Ministry of
Disaster Management and Human Rights and questioned him about the basis
of the figure. Nishan Muthukrishna, adviser to the Minister, was with
me, and we questioned him in detail. He said that there were three
elements taken into consideration, first the dead bodies they had
themselves seen by UN staff, secondly reports they received, and thirdly
extrapolation. Pressed on the number of those seen by the UN, he said it
was something like 39, over the previous month.
UN system
Given what he then said about the numbers calculated on the other
methods, I believe the figure that was being floated around was
excessive. The implications of the methods he employed, for speculation
that is now treated as gospel by the panel, need to be reviewed in
greater detail, with I shall do shortly, along with a more realistic
assessment of actual casualty figures.
Du Toit had been in Mullaitivu recently as the Report notes, staying
on without the permission of the Sri Lankan government, which had caused
considerable heartache to his boss Neil Buhne as well as us. Nishan, who
had known him previously, with an agenda that went beyond simple
security services to the UN. When he left, it was under a cloud, with
audit queries about misuse of funds, though I do not think there was any
suggestion that he was himself guilty of peculation. Unfortunately there
is no transparency in the UN system about such skimming of funding that
in theory was part of the Humanitarian Action Plan, and I fear that we
simply do not question enough about such improprieties. Nishan was of
the view that Chris Du Toit was part of a group trying to build up a
case against Sri Lanka, though the excuse offered for his staying on in
Mullaitivu was that he was trying to negotiate the release of the local
UN staff and their families whom the LTTE was holding hostage. Needless
to say, he was not successful. Worse, his return was delayed day after
day, with the LTTE seeming to agree to stop firing to let him and his
colleague move, and then welshing on the agreement. This meant that, the
Sri Lankan army having been asked to suspend hostilities, found that
this had been in vain (and doubtless the LTTE had taken advantage of any
lull to strengthen their own positions).
No fire zone
When this happened for the umpteenth time while he was with us (at a
meeting at the Ministry of Rehabilitation and Disaster Relief Services,
on January 28), I asked Neil Buhne, the UNDP Head, whom I rather liked
and trusted, though I felt he was in some awe of Du Toit, why they did
not make public the double dealing of the LTTE. They would certainly
make a song and dance if we did anything even remotely similar, to which
his reply was, ‘But you guys wouldn’t...’ He paused, and I finished the
sentence for him, ‘kill you’, which he seemed to grant though he did not
say it himself.
Du Toit then, while ensuring that our progress was slowed down, was
busy counting. However, under close questioning, he had to admit that,
while there had been firing on areas near where he had been sleeping, he
could not say with any certainty from which direction the firing had
come.
He had brought with him large pictures of craters caused by shells,
and he took out one and said that was the only shot the direction of
which they could be certain of, and that had come from the direction of
the LTTE forces.
The passage cited in the Sunday Island then is utterly misleading and
mischievous. There would obviously have been firing from Sri Lankan Army
lines, since we were fighting a war with a strong enemy, but Du Toit did
not at the time suggest he had any evidence for the impression the UN
Report seeks to give. Indeed, a few days earlier, while Neil Buhne had
initially called up my Minister, to say he had information that we were
firing into the no fire zone, he ‘sent a text message at the end of the
day to say that he believed most of the firing came from the LTTE’, as I
wrote in a Peace Secretariat press release. Indeed I kept the message on
my phone for some months, and showed it to those who had been taken in
by propaganda from the LTTE (and I fear Du Toit behind our back, though
he did not dare to make such allegations when we questioned him).
Lack of coordination
I should note too that there are strange discrepancies between the
story told by Du Toit in the UN Report, the much more circumspect
reports of allegations made in the US State Department Report of late
2009, and the allegations on TamilNet made at the time of the supposed
incident. The Sunday Island draws attention to discrepancies between the
first two, Du Toit talking about deaths in Suthantirapuram because of
hundreds of shells raining down in ‘the early morning hours of January
24’, with no figures given though the language implies lots of
casualties. He had also said that a shell had fallen the previous day on
a food distribution point, ‘killing and wounding a large number of
civilians’. The US report talks of 11 killed on January 24, though it
does not give the location. In addition it talks of 8 people killed on
January 25 by ‘shelling in the area allocated for the United Nations’
with many people, including ‘35 residents of an elders’ home’ being
present ‘when the first shell hit at 8.30 pm’.
TamilNet on the contrary, which one knows would have presented the
worst case scenario, claims 11 people were killed on January 22, but
transfers an alleged incident near a supply centre to January 25. It
mentions no elders’ home, but rather an institution for disabled
children at Val’llipunam which was ‘targeted’ on January 22. This
discrepancy suggests good training in pressing the right buttons to
attract sympathy, but a lack of coordination as to which particular
button to press at which moment.
It could be argued that such discrepancies are minor, but it does
raise questions about the method employed by the compilers of the UN
Report. The Panellists seem to have succumbed to a mechanism that we
were aware Chris Du Toit was setting in motion two years ago. It is a
pity that we could not follow up on the questioning Nishan and I engaged
in then, and that we did not reply promptly to the US State Department
Report a few months later, since trawling back through documents and
memory is more difficult now. But clearly we need to make the effort
thoroughly. |