December 2012 | Erudition
In
early November a damning internal United Nations report into the organisation’s
actions at the end of the Sri Lankan Civil War was leaked. The document, in
uncharacteristically unequivocal terms, stated that the UN had shown “a grave
failure” in its mandate to protect the lives of civilians as the conflict
trudged towards its appalling climax.
For
more than a quarter of a century the island nation found itself crippled by war
as the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) fought for independence in the north and east of the
country. Over this 25-year period the war is estimated to have claimed far in
excess of 100,000 lives and it is widely believed that the final death toll
will significantly eclipse this. Some recent estimates suggest that as many as
50,000 people died in the final months of the war before the cessation of
hostilities midway through May 2009.
In spite of the self-deprecation of the UN, the
underlying concerns of international human rights groups remain unanswered
Since
then human rights groups have highlighted accusations of crimes against
humanity that occurred on both sides of the conflict. Both Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch have drawn attention to the aerial
bombardment of hospitals by government forces and to the use of civilians as
human shields by the LTTE. Such actions occurred in contravention of the laws
of war, while a seemingly redundant United Nations failed to stop these
tragedies. A well-publicised Channel 4 documentary entitled ‘Sri Lanka’s
Killing Fields’ sought to raise public awareness of such issues drawing both
praise and criticism for the manner in which it depicted executions and the
shelling of supposed ‘safe zones’.
Yet
in spite of the self-deprecation of the UN, the underlying concerns of
international human rights groups remain unanswered. As Sri Lanka is not a
signatory to the statute of the International Criminal Court it remains highly
unlikely that any representatives of either of the combatants will be duly
referred and therefore held accountable. Instead, the report has descended into
the customary flurry of bickering, riposte and counter-riposte that has become
all too synonymous with United Nations crises.
Instead
of becoming a symbol of an organisation willing to learn, develop and improve
as it faces future challenges, immediate responses were largely exercises of
blame exoneration. Former humanitarian chief John Holmes pointed to the
“difficult dilemmas” that the UN faced, arguing that the nature of the conflict
was such that it would have been impossible for the situation to be ameliorated.
Meanwhile the Sri Lankan government rejected the accusations of human rights
abuses made in the report as both folly and unsubstantiated.
With an abundance of crises currently unfolding
around the globe the UN must seek a means of being able to effectively address
the ensuing humanitarian challenges
Whilst
all these reactions are typical of the post-crisis rhetoric that tends to
engulf the UN, the severity of the report was far less expected. The report
lays bare the fundamental flaws of an organisation that seeks to offer hope in
conflict situations but all too often finds itself rendered redundant. It
suggests that the UN not only failed in its duty to protect civilians from the
perils of conflicts but that there were also “systematic” failures in the
organisation of UN operations in Sri Lanka.
All
of this has wide-reaching consequences for the future. With an abundance of
crises currently unfolding around the globe the UN must seek a means of being
able to effectively address the ensuing humanitarian challenges. As conflicts
such as those currently on view in Syria and the Democratic Republic of the
Congo continue to manifest, the organisation requires a method of learning from
the lessons of past failures. A key part of this is its capacity to adapt, both
on a practical and policy level. There are merits to publishing a scathing
report, however, if this descends into the usual games of blame and denial,
long-term progress will become blurred with political gesturing.
The
Sri Lankan Civil War is one of several notable failings of the UN and in order
to maintain any form of legitimacy the incidence of such shortcomings must
decrease. The primary obstacle to this is that it will also be constantly
restricted by the power of its member states. In the absence of an army, the UN
will ultimately be powerless to stop such atrocities. Similarly in the absence
of universal legal authority no action can be taken against a multitude of war
criminals. Evidently the establishment of either of these are beyond the realms
of possibility and consequently the UN is forced to operate in a state of
ambiguity. On the one hand it has a mandate to protect civilians yet on the
other it can never realistically protect every civilian on the planet. As a
result, the best that there is to be hoped for is that the body steadily learns
to maximise its own utility. Under the current system this is the only way to
prevent 40,000 more civilians losing their lives in a four-month period.
