Incompetence, wastage and perversity overcome at Menik Farm

Prof Rajiva Wijesinha, MP

As Secretary to the Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights, which was responsible for coordinating humanitarian assistance in 2009, I am astonished at the effrontery of the Darusman Panel. Perhaps the biggest lie was the assertion that ‘Conditions in Menik Farm did improve over time after much protest from the international community and threats from donors to cut off funding.

On the contrary, conditions improved after we kept demanding better use of the funds that had been collected on behalf of the Sri Lankan people, but which were being squandered. The most obvious instance of this was the manner various agencies constructed exploding toilets in violation of national guidelines.

In checking on my correspondence at the time, I found many more instances of efforts to ensure greater accountability. I thought it might be useful therefore to go in detail into some of the allegations made. I have also looked at what are termed protection concerns, and will indicate how, from the very start it seemed, some people in the UN were using funds allocated for this purpose, not to report on problems so that they could be solved, but to stockpile allegations. Sometimes this was in direct contradiction of what we were told on the record at the time.

International organizations

The claims of the Panel are given in italics with the relevant paragraph number, with my comments afterwards. Citations from letters written at the time will be highlighted.

156. At Menik Farm, severe restrictions prevented international organizations from doing protection work or speaking to the IDPs in private. ICRC initially had access to Menik Farm for a short period, but was soon excluded. The restrictions suggest an attempt by the Government to prevent those who came out of the conflict zone from relaying their experiences to international agencies and NGOs.

The absence of external and independent monitoring also increased the vulnerability of IDPs to violations in the camp, including exposure of women without male relatives and unaccompanied children to sexual and other forms of violence. 89 In the chaos of the early days, some zones were established before the barbed wire was erected, allowing some people to leave the camp. 90 Landmines were removed by the SLA outside of the public eye, in a process that may have resulted in the destruction of evidence.

Monitoring work

The restriction made sense, because government knew the utter failure of agencies that had claimed to do protection work but had allowed the people of the Vanni to be ruthlessly abused in the past. The general view in which they were held became clear when a couple of youngsters were questioned who had not gone back when universities had started, but had been hidden by their parents to avoid conscription. When asked why they had not appealed to UN or NGO officials, they said that they did nothing to help.

It should be noted that what was termed protection had been consuming funds with no liaison with government, and it took some months for the UNHCR officer responsible for protection to share with government the regular reports of the many agencies involved in protection. This would have seemed a basic requirement if the purpose of all this funding was to ensure remedies for those adversely affected, rather than to fun friends or else for other purposes.

The incompetence of the agencies involved can be seen in the failure to provide answers to the many queries raised during the period in which the reports were supplied, often outrageously late, suggesting that UNHCR did not take seriously its responsibility of monitoring work in this area. Conversely the approach of some UNHCR officials suggested another agenda, as I pointed out repeatedly to Elizabeth Tan, who was supposed to be in charge of Protection, and even to her boss, Michael Zwack.

‘I wrote yesterday to Elizabeth about the amateur nature of the reports and explanations we are receiving with regard to Protection concerns. We recognize that there are problems and we need to work together to resolve these.

However, whilst I am sure this is the aim of most UN staff, I continue shocked by what seems the agenda, doubtless of just a few, of engaging in relentless criticism of the Sri Lankan government without any sense of honesty and transparency. The contradictory statements we are getting about responsibility for yet another harsh critique to the UN Security Council seems just the tip of a very nasty iceberg.

Since UNHCR is supposed to be the lead agency on Protection issues, I hope you will assist us to get to the root of all this (assuming icebergs can have roots), and ensure that positive work for the future is not continuously being stymied. ‘The letter to Elizabeth Tan is given as an annexe to this article, as is yet another instance of hysteria, which I reported to the Head of UNHCR on December 28, again receiving no reply as to the markings in the background.

Sexual violence

The last statement above in the Darusman Panel report is also tendentious, especially when there is no allegation elsewhere in the report about sexual or other violence used against children.

There are no allegations too about sexual violence with regard to women in the camps, nor any other violence with regard to women in particular, and the general claims about sexual abuse are thin and unsubstantiated.

157. Prior to the establishment of Menik Farm, international agencies, including the International Organization for Migration (IOM), UNHCR, UNICEF and others, debated amongst themselves about conditioning their provision of humanitarian assistance on the Government’s meeting international standards with regard to the camps. Several communications on the applicable standards were sent to the Sri Lankan Government by agencies, such as UNHCR, and by NGOs. However, when IDPs came out in larger numbers, the international agencies failed to take a common position on the pre-conditions. Many international agencies continued to provide assistance, in spite of the dramatically sub-standard conditions that prevailed at Menik Farm.

This misrepresents the situation. The government had been asking for good conditions for the displaced, most notably at a planning meeting held on January 29, 2009 at the Intercontinental Hotel.

The communications, and the pronouncements, mainly from NGOs, were on the closed nature of the camps, whereas in this respect Government believed it was acting within the guiding principles, given the grace security situation.

It was to check on this and on what alleviatory measures should be taken that the Government engaged so actively with Prof Kalin, whereas some NGOs were unwilling to considered security concerns and were agitating for measures that would have replicated the unfortunately situation of the past, which had led to several displaced persons being badly treated and not considered for resettlement or return for decades.

Ensure accountability

The manner in which government had to agitate to improve the sub-standard conditions, in spite of the large amounts of funding available, will be detailed elsewhere. Here let me just draw attention to my letter at Annexe 3 to the Head of what was supposed to be the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which did not seem to understand what coordination meant. It should be noted though that, as I said in an earlier letter of October 16, there had been some improvement from previous years, in which the LTTE seemed to have made hay - and bought guns with funds intended for humanitarian purposes -

Dear Zola ....It was felt that, as we have discussed earlier, there has been insufficient transparency with regard to the CHAP in the past. There may have been reasons for this, but we need to ensure at least proper sharing of information regarding the current CHAP and due consultation so as to respond helpfully to any sudden needs that may arise. We also need to ensure full consultation for the 2010 CHAP, and mechanisms to ensure accountability and the necessary flexibility to deal with unexpected situations.

...It will also be essential to ensure value for money, and I would therefore urge limits on overheads that will unnecessarily limit funds available for actual support to the displaced. Please discuss all proposals with line ministries before incorporating them in any initial drafts, and ensure benefits to the actual targets for assistance to the greatest possible extent. I should note that, despite some worries, there was appreciation of the improvement in administration and accountability of the CHAP this year, and I hope very much that we will be able to produce even better results in 2010. It was good that, with CHAP assistance, we were able to provide comparatively good services and support to the large quantities of displaced, and I hope very much that, with the funds and materials that still remain we shall ensure minimum discomfort to them during the next few months before they can all be resettled.

158. The detention of the IDP population lasted for months or in some cases, years.

By December 2009, around 149,000 IDPs had been released, with another 135,000 remaining in the camps. By September 2010, the Government said it had released 242,741 IDPs, with 25,795 still waiting to be released.

To be continued