External Affairs Ministry Responds:
Petrie prejudiced
The Ministry of External Affairs refers to the ‘Report of the
Secretary General’s Internal Review Panel on UN action in Sri Lanka’ or
the ‘Petrie Report’ which was leaked to the media the day prior to its
being formally handed over to the Secretary General on November14, and
officially made public the same day.
While this Report is an internal review of the UN’s action in Sri
Lanka during the terrorist conflict, the Ministry’s attention has been
drawn to certain issues with regard to allegations directed at the
government of Sri Lanka, which are regrettably unsubstantiated,
erroneous and replete with conjecture and bias. The Ministry, therefore,
wishes to state the following:-
External Affairs Minister Prof. G L Peiris |
The Ministry, through its Permanent Mission in New York protested
against the leak of the Report on the very day after this questionable
action, to the Office of the Secretary General. The 'Petrie Report' is
an internal document to assess the working of the United Nations system
in Sri Lanka during a given period, following a recommendation in the
Report of the advisory Panel of Experts appointed by the Secretary
General, known as the 'Darusman Report'.
While noting that both these Reports are internal advisories to the
UN, it is disconcerting that the Darusman Report came into the public
domain initially through a leak, and in this instance of the Petrie
Report too, the unacceptable procedure of leaking has been resorted to,
establishing a disturbing pattern which brings into question the bona
fides of the authorship of the document and its underlying motivation.
UN Secretariat
It may be recalled that following the leak of the Petrie Report,
while the UN Spokesman took the position that he could not comment on a
leaked Report, the author stated to the media that the penultimate draft
'very much reflects the findings of the Panel'. Following formal
discussions on this issue by the Permanent Representative in New York,
with the UN Secretariat, the latter characterized the Report as a
document prepared by an independent body over which the Secretariat and
has no control. However the expectation of a sovereign government, quite
legitimately, is that the accepted procedure of first consulting with
the country concerned be rigidly adopted when commissioning experts. It
is pertinent to recall, in the context of a recurring pattern, that the
Darusman Report was formally made available by the UN to the public on
the basis that it first leaked through the media, and in fact the Petrie
Report also was formally released to the media the day after its leak.
The government of Sri Lanka does not intend to comment on the
entirety of its contents. However, some of the issues raised in the
Report are of grave concern to Sri Lanka, and should not be construed as
the accepted position.
This Report seems to seek to endorse the baseless and discredited
allegations in the Darusman Report, of an exaggerated civilian casualty
figure during the last stages of the terrorist conflict, which has not
been agreed upon even among the senior UN officials at the time, because
of the speculative nature of the information which could not be
verified.
The statistics in the Petrie Report are based on 'unnamed sources'
quoted in the Darusman Report and unsubstantiated allegations made by
NGOs and certain lower level UN officials. However, a censored section
of this Report refers to a meeting of the Policy Planning Committee to
discuss Sri Lanka where several participants including the then Under
Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and the Resident Coordinator
did not stand by the casualty numbers, saying that the data were ‘not
verified’ and questioned the proposal by the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights to release a public statement containing
references to the numbers and possible crimes. No mention has been made
of the intransigence of the LTTE which held the people as a human
shield, and even shot in cold blood those who tried to escape to gain
their freedom.
Humanitarian assistance
While the Report admits that the LTTE positioned its artillery among
civilians, the allegation of government shelling into civilian
concentrations does not take into account the principles of self defence
or reasonableness of retaliation, proportionality, or a technical
analysis of the trajectories of the shells allegedly fired, to determine
their source.
The allegation relating to the government deliberately restricting
food and medicine to the North is another unsubstantiated statement
which, as in the Darusman Report, is repeated in the Petrie publication.
The attempts of the GOSL to demonstrate the fallacy of this contention
from the time it emerged seem to have been dismissed in cavalier fashion
in the Petrie Report. It is a well known fact that food and medicine
sent to the North were monitored regularly by the Consultative Committee
on Humanitarian Assistance (CCHA), which comprised officials from the
government, the UN and other humanitarian agencies, and representatives
of the diplomatic community based in Colombo, including Japan, USA,
Norway and the European Union.
The efforts of successive governments to provide food and medicine to
the North, despite the definite knowledge that a major part of it was
ending up in the hands of the terrorists, have been appreciated from the
early stages of the conflict by the UN. This is amply corroborated by
contemporaneous statements by the UN in Sri Lanka at the time. Further,
the alleged intimidation of UN staff for delivery of humanitarian
assistance is completely baseless, a position which has been endorsed by
the former United Nations USG for Humanitarian Affairs and reported
widely at the time in the media.
Welfare villages
Repeated characterization of the welfare villages without any basis
as 'military run internment camps' demonstrate the ignorance on the part
of the author of the Report, as well as resolve to ignore the efforts
taken by the government to provide basic needs and essential services to
the thousands of displaced civilians who fled from the stronghold of the
terrorists to the government side.
Without the assistance of the military at that juncture, the GOSL
could not have handled the magnitude of the humanitarian task at hand.
The military’s role in responding to any humanitarian crisis is well
established the world over. It has been in this sense that the military
has been engaged in Sri Lanka to overcome the challenges of the
terrorist conflict.
Furthermore, while it refers to the military campaign to defeat the
LTTE, the Report makes scant reference to the long series of
negotiations engaged in by successive governments to arrive at a
peaceful settlement, while all those efforts and brief periods of
ceasefire were used by the LTTE to regroup and rearm, to be subsequently
unilaterally violated.
The Report appears to be another attempt at castigating Sri Lanka for
militarily defeating a ruthless terrorist group which has held the very
people it claimed to represent as human shields. The basis for blacking
out sections of the Petrie Report is unclear and it is left to the GoSL
to surmise that references which may serve positively are those which
have been censored. In this context, attention is drawn to the following
blacked out sections, inter-alia:-
The Policy Committee met two days later on March 12, 2012 to discuss
Sri Lanka. Participants noted variously that "this crisis was being
somewhat overlooked by the international community", the policy "of
incorporating a series of high level visits seem to have produced some
positive results", and that the possible involvement of the Special
Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide would not indicate a suspicion of
genocide but may add to the overcrowding of UN actors involved........".
On July 30, the Policy Committee met again at UNHQ to address
'follow-up on accountability' in Sri Lanka discussing whether or not the
Secretary General should establish an international Commission of
Experts, many participants were reticent to do so without the support of
the government and at a time when Member States were also not
supportive.....". The Secretary General said that the government should
be given the political space to develop a domestic mechanism........".
This practice of redacting clearly brings into question, yet again,
the sincerity and objectives of this entire exercise.
Finally, the Report, which is critical of the Member States, seems to
forget that the United Nations is an inter-governmental organization
whose members are equal in terms of sovereignty and dignity. We remind
the author of the Report that they must act within their given mandate
and the Charter, and be equal and fair in their dealings with all Member
States. A Report of this nature could serve to dangerously have the
statistics and unsubstantiated information acquire a life of their own.
In fact, the initial statements emanating from some countries seem to
disregard the fact that the basic purpose of the Report was to engage in
a critical appraisal of the UN system's performance. Ignoring this vital
aspect, they have taken the opportunity to resort to criticism of the
GoSL in a manner that reflects patent bias and unwillingness to examine
the developments with any degree of objectivity. |