Panel report was meant to gather information for Ban's own views -
External Affairs Minister
Ravi Ladduwahetty
The question of publishing the panel
report authorized by the United Nations Secretary General does not arise
since the UNSG, in appointing the panel, 'was motivated exclusively by a
desire to gather information, and insights for his own views', External
Affairs Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris told the Daily News in an exclusive
interview.
'Sri Lanka cannot be singled out for
discriminatory treatment because this would be tantamount to cynical
violation of the doctrine of sovereign equality of states, which is one
of the core values embedded in the UN Charter. If this is allowed to
happen, it would have distressing implications for the UN as well', the
External Affairs Minister said.
The observations of the Minister:
The position of the Government of Sri Lanka on matters connected with
the report submitted by the United Nations Secretary General's panel is
very clear. This position has been articulated to the diplomatic corps
in Colombo as well as to the local and international media.
![](z_p08-Panel.jpg)
Minister Prof G. L. Peiris |
We believe strongly that the publication of the report is basically
wrong and contrary to the principles underpinning the United Nations
Charter.
It must be remembered that the panel comprising three persons -
Marzuki Dharusman, Yasmin Sooka and Stephen Ratner was never appointed
by any United Nations organ, such as the United Nations Security
Council.
The Secretary- General repeatedly assured the Government of Sri
Lanka, both orally and in writing, that the panel that he was appointing
was entirely of an advisory character. This was stated to us both orally
and in writing.
Probe allegations
The Secretary-General maintained consistently that the sole purpose
for which the panel which was appointed was to advise him on
international best practices and process related issues.
He further stated categorically that the panel was not a fact finding
body and not invested with an investigative role, specifically, he
insisted that the panel will not have authority to probe allegations
against any persons at all.
These assurances were given in explicit terms not only to the
government of Sri Lanka but to other governments as well. It is
therefore wrong for the panel to unilaterally convert it self from an
advisory role to an investigative body. This is a total distortion of
its mandate derived from the United Nations Secretary General.
LLRC
It follows that the panel had no authority whatsoever to examine the
allegations made in respect of the conduct of the war, or indeed in
regard to any other matter, credible or not.
If the panel was to examine the evidence with the view to determining
the credibility of the allegations, it is perfectly clear that it is
performing an investigative function.
What is more, grave potential consequences could follow from findings
of this nature which the panel purports to arrive at. This is entirely
contrary to the principle and altogether unacceptable.
Two things are clear from what I have
said so far:
? The United Nations Secretary General, in appointing the panel, was
motivated exclusively by a desire to gather further information and
insights for his own views from a panel of persons in whom he reposed
confidence. Since that is the case, the question of the publication of
the report, does not arise.
? The panel has clearly acted in ways beyond its mandate by refusing
to confine itself to offering advise to the United Nations Secretary
General and assuming for itself a function which involves the
adjudication of a kind, suggestive of a quasi-judicial role. This was
never contemplated as a part of its mandate.
It is indeed astonishing that the panel thought that it was deemed
fit and proper to reach conclusions on a wide range of matters currently
being examined by the Lessons Leant and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC)
appointed under the provisions of Sri Lankan Statue Law.
The appointment of the committee was universally acclaimed. Foreign
governments expressed confidence in the Commission and conferred their
good wishes and felicitations on the Commission's good work.
The Commission had held its sittings in not only in Colombo, but in
the Northern and the Eastern Provinces and has already submitted a
series of interim recommendations of the LLRC.
This committee is headed by the Attorney General and comprises
Secretaries to seven ministries which are actively involved in the
implementation of the recommendations.
In these circumstances, it is quite bizarre that the Secretary
General's panel should take upon itself to treat the Sri Lankan
statutory body as through it did not exist, to dismiss it in the most
cavalier fashion imaginable and to formulate its won recommendations
while the Sri Lankan Commission is continuing its work.
Representatives of western governments have had no difficulty in
accepting that the position of the Government of Sri Lanka that they
should await the publication of the report of the Sri Lankan Commission
and assess it objectively and dispassionately.
When I recently visited a western capital, the representatives of the
Government in question, clearly articulated this position and that no
prejudgment was permissible. However, the attitude of the panel has been
the opposite. There has been absolutely no justification for the
insensitivity and arrogance with which the Sri Lankan Commission has
been ignored.
It is indeed our view that this approach is totally indefensible.
National reconciliation
International mechanisms are no means a substitute of local
justifications which are engaged in deriving solutions in keeping with
national culture, values and traditions.
It is indeed most distressing that the work of the panel, and the
manner in which it has approached the task allotted to it present great
obstacles to the central objectives of the Government of Sri Lanka in
working towards national reconciliation in the post conflict phase. This
is, without, question, the need of the hour.
The Government is trying with all its energy to engender an
environment in which all communities who regard Sri Lanka as their home,
are able to develop a concept of mature nationhood irrespective of any
distinctions as to language, religion and cultural background.
It is much to be regretted that the panel, far from helping to
accomplish this aim, has chosen to hinder the progress towards this goal
by aggregating the tensions and accentuating divisions.
It is also unacceptable that the panel should take the liberty of
traveling far beyond the mandate by seeking to offer the gratuitous
advice to the Government of Sri Lanka on a cluster of issues relating to
its internal, constitutional, legal and administrative structures.
The functions attached to certain public offices, including that of
the Attorney General and other matters, which are indisputably the
matters of domestic policy to be determined by the Government and the
people of Sri Lanka.
It is for these reasons that the Government has declared its
opposition to the publication of this report and to any form of action
intended to give effect to the findings and recommendations contained in
the report.
This report consists of advise given to the Secretary General by his
nominees. This is a matter between the Secretary General and his
advisors.
If this document is published, it would constitute a very unsound and
indeed dangerous precedent.
United Nations system
It would also mean that any advise given to the Secretary General of
any other official within the United Nations system in the contexts of
the fiduciary relationships can be published as a result of the
pressures exerted by third parties.
This represents nothing less than a complete subversion of the proper
procedures within the United Nations system.
What is sought to be done in respect of Sri Lanka, on this occasion,
will have to be done in future in other situations as well.
Sri Lanka cannot be singled out for discriminatory treatment because
this would tantamount to cynical violation of the doctrine of sovereign
equality of states, which is one of the core values embedded in the
United Nations Charter.
If this is allowed to happen, it would have distressing implications
for the United Nations as well. |