‘Unacceptable loss of life is taking place’

“There is a horrendous and unacceptable loss of life taking place in the theatre of war. We as a global society are beginning to agree that there are certain limits to what can and cannot be done even in the heat of war,” said Country Director, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Douglas Keh in an exclusive interview with The Sunday Leader where he commented at length on the current stance of the UN in Sri Lanka and the situation in the north. Excerpts;

By Raisa Wickrematunge

Q: What is the UN stance on the situation in the north?

A: The UN’s stand on the current situation is that there is a horrendous and unacceptable loss of life taking place. Those who have influence on how the conflict is managed have been urged to do all they can to minimise the loss of civilian life.

Q:  The government has been accused of war crimes against civilians in the conflict zone.  What is your view?

A: I have no basis to make a judgment on that – but I do have views on the international legal framework for war crimes.  The international system for prosecuting war crimes has taken a big step forward over the past few years, first with the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and, most recently, with the first indictment of a standing head of state in Sudan. 

Regardless of how it may pertain to Sri Lanka, this heightened level of accountability is a good thing because it suggests that maybe, just maybe, we as a global community are beginning to take seriously that there are limits to what can and cannot be done even in the heat of war.

Q: What does the UN suggest to resolve the current situation?

A:  International calls to the government for a ‘humanitarian pause’ or to the LTTE to ‘unconditionally release the civilians’ or to both sides to ‘lay down arms’ have proven unsuccessful so far and we have to ask ourselves why.  Maybe we need to give more thought to how best to package these requests in a palatable manner that is acceptable to, and actionable by, the parties concerned.  

In such a position of strength, the government is now well-placed to take the moral high ground.  It is arguably in the government’s long-term interest to support a cessation of military hostilities. For one, this would eliminate lingering questions about who is bombing whom.  Claims that it is in fact the LTTE who is responsible for the attacks could be substantiated. But no-one can be 100% sure until the government takes that type of decision. 

I don’t think anyone wants to see this decades-long conflict continue in any form. It is therefore unfortunate that the conduct of the war is exacerbating factors that could prolong tensions. Take the LTTE supporters who are following events from abroad, who are increasingly agitated by what’s going on here.

Those in the international diaspora who have an influence on funding LTTE decisions will only be emboldened to continue their support if the war ends in such a horrific manner.  There might be some logic — aside from the immediate humanitarian imperative — for the government to be the self-enlightened side and cease hostilities, because this might mitigate the factors that end up fueling the flames from abroad.

Such a gesture would lead to returns domestically as well  — everyone, including the Tamil population in Sri Lanka, will have to acknowledge that the government did the right thing.  If the LTTE wants to continue to hold the civilians against their will, so be it, but the world and Sri Lankans themselves will see more clearly who bears the responsibility for such a situation. 

I’m not talking about a humanitarian ceasefire; what I’m suggesting is a ceasefire for longer-term strategic and political reasons.  A unilateral ceasefire action could be accompanied by the military cordoning off the no-fire zone, given that it can now effectively control and monitor what goes in and out of the final contested areas. 

The government could reap political gains by allowing food and medical supplies in – even at the risk of allowing these supplies to reach the LTTE remnants. At this point in time, there is little risk that under such a monitored – and monitorable – situation, the LTTE will regenerate.  

In such a context, with a ceasefire established, with food and medical supplies allowed to enter without hindrance, with some calm restored, the government could call on the international community to play a mediation role, urging the LTTE to lay down their arms and surrender.  Time is now on the side of the government.  It might take weeks, but the government’s standing would improve by the day, and the LTTE would be exposed.

With this approach, the chances would improve that donor funding will come in more genuinely, not just for humanitarian imperatives but because the international community accepts the way the war was brought to conclusion by the government. 

Q: Does the UN agree with the allegation that the LTTE has been using Tamil civilians as human shields?

A: Yes. It is clear that they are effectively holding civilians against their will, primarily for their own survival.

The use of civilians in this manner will ultimately prove to be a tremendous miscalculation by the LTTE. At the same time, we have to be realistic about whether the LTTE is just going to release the civilians.   The link between the civilians and the physical survival of the LTTE should not be ignored.  If the government were to commit to halting military operations, there could be a dialogue started – via international mediators — with the LTTE remnants, with the aim of bringing about their peaceful surrender and the release of the civilians. 

There could be some realistic possibility that the LTTE will release the civilians if it is part of an overall package that ensures that the LTTE will be treated according to the law, as combatants of war, in line with the Geneva Conventions.  We need to incentivise the LTTE to release the civilians – we can’t just say “release them” and hope for the best.  

Q: How much money is available with the UN system for the immediate needs of the Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in the north?

A: On May 5, the UN launched an emergency appeal for the immediate needs of IDPs, costed at 50 million dollars, and the UN itself came up with 10 million dollars of its own funding to contribute to the appeal. The 50 million dollars is part of a broader appeal of 150 million dollars made in March, which is about one third funded in different forms. 

There have been a number of bilateral commitments by Australia, Canada, and USAID to meet spiraling humanitarian needs. In the last two months there has been about 50 million dollars in various bilateral commitments, mainly channeled through UN humanitarian agencies. These past couple of weeks, there have been new pledges, I could guess about 100 million dollars. This is good, but not enough.

It is important to make the link between the government’s tactical and strategic decisions now and the longer term recovery process and the willingness of donors to support it.   The humanitarian imperative will not be there once the humanitarian phase is over; it will be all the more important that there be a generally harmonious partnership between the Government of Sri Lanka and the international community. 

Q: How much money is available for the resettlement of IDPs?

A:   It’s too early to tell, since there is no large-scale resettlement yet. The government has said it aims to resettle 80% of the civilians by the end of the year, and we are very encouraged by this statement.

There are useful lessons to be learned from the east with regard to what should happen and what shouldn’t when the IDPs return to their places of origin in the north.

One key lesson is that humanitarian and reconstruction aid is not enough: aid, in itself, is not a guarantee of success during the recovery process. Security and safety are key.  So are transparently-elected, and financially-empowered, local government structures. 

With regard to the election of a Northern Provincial Council, will the electoral process be transparent? Will all parties be allowed to campaign on a level playing field? What powers, legislative and fiscal, will the Northern Provincial Council have in the end? How will they meet their constituents’ needs?  It will also be interesting to see how the government addresses the security needs in the Wanni.  And of course, restoring the administrative foundation for basic service delivery will be a big step to successful recovery.

Q: How much money goes to the IDPs out of every dollar spent by the UN? Is it true that in some countries only 10 cents from every dollar reaches recipients?

A: Any support we provide targets an administrative programme ratio. For most contributions we provide for a 7% overhead, which covers cost recovery. So 93% goes to programme related activities. For every dollar there’s planning, budgeting, audit requirements. Donors expect and deserve their progress reports and audits. This takes time, and time is money. The safety of the staff is important too, and we have standards to meet — all of which takes money. However our benchmark is 7% overhead, leaving the rest for programme. That said, we can always be more efficient.

I have not heard of any UN figures where only 10 cents out of the dollar reached the recipients. That would be a sign of serious inefficiency with funds.  As I mentioned, our target is to limit overheads to 7% of the overall cost of a programme.  At times, costs are higher but never so high that only 10 cents of every dollar reaches the recipient. That would be an outrageous failure. 

Q: How many foreign consultants/ experts will the UN system hire for these projects?

A: Given the tremendous capacity in Sri Lanka, the need for foreign consultants is negligible. The UNDP has seven field offices, all headed by national staff.  There is also a small contingency of international professional staff at the UNDP country office in Colombo, around eight people. There is a good reason for UNDP to have an international component, as the international staff can help introduce insights and adapt approaches that have worked in other places. We don’t come to the table with huge amounts of resources.  Our real value added consists of the ideas, best practices, and lessons learned from other parts of the world. 

Q: How long will it be before the IDPs will be resettled in the Wanni, according to UN estimates?

A: The target set by the government, which they have committed to, is to resettle 80% of civilians by the end of the year. We welcome this and look forward to working closely with the government to see that the target is met.  Key steps have to be taken during and before resettlement, specifically regarding mine action. We are encouraged that the government has released a growing number of areas to be demined. We are awaiting similar authorisation from the armed forces to start work in many of the areas. The key first step is survey work but until the areas are released, we can’t start.  And this takes time. 

Q: What current action is being taken by the UN to prepare for the recovery process?

A: Firstly, as we look ahead to early recovery, it is crucial that there be a healthy relationship between the government and international partners, based on mutual trust and respect.  The government should be directing us on how to proceed, and at the same time, Sri Lanka’s partners should be able to voice their preferences for how to do business, as well as their concerns. 

Communication is very important.  So next Thursday, May 21, the government and the UN will jointly organise a meeting of the Early Recovery Cluster Group (ERCG).  UN agencies, NGOs, and the Government of Sri Lanka will address things like mine clearance as well as how best to support recovery in the north. There is a lot at stake. I hope we can turn things around sooner than later.

“Talk of APRC finding a solution to the
ethnic conflict is a mirage” 

Dismissing the claim of the All Party Representative Committee (APRC) Chairman Prof. Tissa Vitharana, that the proposals of the committee would be finalised and submitted within the next one month, the Leader of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress and Parliamentarian Rauf Hakeem told The Sunday Leader that through personal experience he knew for certain that this was only a mirage and nothing tangible would happen even after the next presidential election. “Frankly, I do not expect President Mahinda Rajapakse to publicly take a position, until and unless he gets a fresh mandate in an islandwide presidential or parliamentary election,” Hakeem stated. Excerpts: 

By Nirmala Kannangara

Q: How soon can we expect a political solution to the ethnic conflict?

A: The All Party Representative Committee (APRC) has deliberately failed to bring a political solution up to now. However according to the Chairman APRC, Prof. Tissa Vitharana, 95% of the work has been completed and only a few areas remain to be worked out. But yet my experience is, whenever the APRC managed to reach a broader agreement, intervention from above has prevented such consensus from getting government approval.

Though the government is a coalition of many parties, it is up to the SLFP to give leadership and introduce a final package to parliament. Unfortunately they have been inhibited by the fear of certain extremist elements undermining the survival of the government, which appears to be a convenient excuse to escape from their responsibility.

Frankly I do not expect this President to publicly take a position, until and unless he is able to seek a fresh mandate in an islandwide presidential or parliamentary election.

Q: Isn’t the APRC currently like a snake with no teeth?

A: Perhaps it is only the SLMC from the opposition parties that participates in the APRC now. The major opposition party, the UNP and parties like JVP and TNA are also out of the APRC while the JHU and MEP appear to dictate terms to the APRC from outside. In that sense as you described, the APRC could be described as a snake with no teeth.

Many in the international community do not trust the pronouncements by the government that it would now come out with its final proposals after bringing the war to an end. The government’s sincerity in solving the problem would appear only if they had the courage of their conviction to come out with a set of proposals perusing their efforts to defeat the LTTE militarily.  In the aftermath of a triumphal military victory, the minorities now have only a remote chance of getting any closer to their aspirations.

  Q: What type of parliamentary system will the APRC recommend for the future of this country?

A: The APRC and the parliamentary select committee on electoral reforms have quite unwillingly failed to look at issues like abolishing the executive presidency which was a pledge given by the current incumbent to the nation when he contested last time.

In addition, either the abolition or reform of the executive presidency and an introduction of a second chamber or some departure from the current Westminster model of parliament all remain mooted. However in the meantime some key asymmetrical structural changes to accommodate specific concerns in the north and the east relating to the provincial council system too have been proposed. 

But the government appears to be only interested in peace building electoral reforms thereby maximising their gain in the next general election rather than any meaningful devolution to the minority.

Q: How could Tamil aspirations be accommodated?

A: The government has gone on record as having said that they would be willing to consider the implementation of the 13th Amendment in full where as parties such as the TNA have rejected this idea and are insisting that the structure of the state should be changed from unitary to federal in the least and that devolution must go beyond the 13th Amendment.

Obviously this demand emanates from their perception that the government which is not even prepared to confer land and police powers to the east cannot be trusted to share meaningful powers with the minorities under a unitary system.

Q: Will the APRC propose that Tamil be made an official language?

A: Tamil has already been made an official language by the 13th Amendment though the terminology used is that Tamil also shall be used, as an official language, which appears to get a lesser privileged position.  Practical experience has been that the government has not yet translated into action its professed commitment to enforce parity of status with both the languages all throughout the country. Still, Tamil speaking minorities in many parts of the country are forced to transact business with the government only in Sinhala due to lack of manpower and constitutional constrains.

Q: What is the time frame we are looking at in terms of when these proposals will be finalised and submitted?

A: The government has been perpetually buying time and the latest pledge appeared in last Thursday’s newspapers stating that they would come out with the proposals within a month. Experience tells me that this is only a mirage and nothing tangible will happen at least even after another presidential election.  

Q: Why are the main opposition parties including the UNP, JVP and TNA no longer a part of this committee?

A: TNA was never invited from the outset though of late there was some hope of their participation which emanated from the government.  The JVP withdrew after the so-called majority report was submitted and the UNP too withdrew after the President accommodated the rebel faction in violation of the understanding reached with the Opposition Leader.

Q: Do you believe that the proposals put forward by Prof. Tissa Vitharana will be considered with any sincerity?

A: I have emphasised this in one of my earlier answers.

Q: Although the aim of the APRC is for a good cause, does not prolonging of its proceedings for years without reaching any solution show that it is going to be a futile exercise? 

A: It is crystal clear that the APRC has been conveniently used as a tool to satisfy members of the donor community keen to see a negotiated settlement to this contracted quarrel. However disregarding their own pledge given to the people, they still continue to damage the goodwill shown by the well meaning members of the international community. As I said, prolonging the APRC proceedings for years without bringing any solution shows that it is going to be a futile exercise.