Sri Lanka: Why the Silence?

A month after the release of the UN panel report into 2009 atrocities in Sri Lanka [pdf], the leading players continue to stall on implementing the panel’s recommendations.

The Sri Lankan government has yet to provide an official response, despite an initial statement condemning the report. This week, a spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appeared to evade questioning on the next steps. Victims groups increasingly voice their frustration, urging the international community to act against efforts of the Sri Lankan government to block the establishment of an international inquiry.

It is time for the UN Secretary-General to move forward in his commitment to justice and accountability.

On April 26, 2011, the UN released the report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts on accountability for the civil war between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) which examined the intensification of fighting during 2009.

The report found there were credible allegations of potential war crimes committed by both sides to the conflict, including the killing of up to 40,000 non-combatants by the Sri Lankan national army, and the use of civilians as human shields by the LTTE. The report also found that local attempts to investigate these allegations were not sufficient. As a result, it recommended that if the Sri Lankan government did not conduct genuine investigations, the Secretary-General should establish an independent international investigation. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights pointed out that, given the governments denial of wrong-doing, “a full-fledged international inquiry will clearly be needed.”

But there are no signs that such an international investigation is forthcoming. Why not? The UN Secretary-General states he is still awaiting the official response of the Sri Lankan government to the report. He also states that he is reviewing the report, although it was submitted to him on March 31, 2011, allowing for internal assessments before it was publicly released a month later.

A UN spokesperson added this week that the Secretary-General can only act based on the direction of one of the organs of the UN. However, there is precedent for the Secretary-General proceeding in the absence of such a direction, as in the case of the conflict mapping report in the Congo.

Should the Secretary-General remain fixated on receiving a direction from another UN body, a prime candidate could be the Security Council. The Security Council can refer cases to the International Criminal Court, as it did for the Libya situation, resulting in the ICC arrest warrant applications last week against Colonel Gaddafi and two of his aides.

Days after the ICC Prosecutor’s news conference announcing the developments in the Libya case, hundreds of Tamil protesters gathered outside the ICC demanding justice for the 2009 atrocities. However, an investigation through the ICC can only take place after a referral by the Security Council since Sri Lanka is not a State Party to the Court. Given the immense political challenges moving matters through the Security Council, this option does not seem likely.

Chief among the challenges to an ICC investigation through a Security Council referral is the Chinese support of the Sri Lankan government. Chinese representatives have stated that Sri Lanka has “the ability to handle internal affairs”. China, Sri Lanka’s largest bilateral donor, is a permanent member of the Security Council and could veto any Security Council resolution on Sri Lanka.

Meanwhile, an official with the Sri Lankan government states he has a petition of over a million signatures against the report, and this week the government made steps to increase the militarization of its population by ordering 22,000 university entrants into compulsory military-led training. Although not directly connected to the UN report, these developments add to the appearance of a stalemate tilted in the favor of the Sri Lankan government.

The solution is to speak up. The UN Secretary-General need not hold back based on the official silence of the Sri Lankan government or the silence within the UN system. At the very minimum, the Secretary-General should articulate the framework, particularly a timeline, for the next steps in implementing the report.