Thursday, 8 July 2010
Ban Ki Moon, Oh ! Ban Ki Moon.
Ban Ki Moon was the Minister of Foreign Affairs of South Korea when he presented his candidature to the post of Secretary General of the United Nations. He was not the only candidate, and was not also the best candidate even among those who had presented their nominations. His election followed intense lobbying.
South Korea was a comparatively junior member of the UNO and Ban Ki Moon’s candidature for the post of the Secretary General of UNO was supported by the West and its allies, seeing him a wedge against the North Korea’s influence in the region as a nuclear power.
When the nonaligned Nations’ requested the Security Council, to propose three names of candidates to the post of Secretary General, was rejected for “some reason” , Shashi Tharoor candidate presented by India, who had the experience to lead the Organisation having already served as the UN’s Under Secretary General for Communication, resigned. That was how “miraculously” the path was cleared, with the remaining candidates resigning, for Ban Ki Moon to be elected the UN Secretary General.
Ban Ki Moon, despite a long list of posts he held in South Korea and several of his assignments abroad, had no special reason that merited his being appointed to lead the UNO. At a press conference when questions were put to him on North Korea he was compared to a “slippery eel”- so imprecise, evasive and noncommittal were his answers.
Being forthright and speak fearlessly is not his forte. After the execution of Sadam Hussain, when Ashraf Qazi of Pakistan pointed out that the UNO has condemned capital punishment, Ban Ki-Moon said “…that the question of capital punishment depends on the decision of each of the member state ”, without mentioning the position of the UNO on the capital punishment. He was already “batting” for the West.
Even before the appointment of the committee to advise him on “war crimes committed by Sri Lanka ”, on its military operations against the terrorists ( military operations, was what it was and not a war against terrorists). He was issuing contradictory statements, once expressing his satisfaction of the handling of the situation by the Sri Lanka Government, and next to warn against excesses and violation of human rights. He has shown himself to be a man who cannot chew his gum and walk strait at the same time .
Being the Secretary General of the United Nations he should know to take decisions that do not contradict with the history of the Organisation and its charter.
He as the Secretary General of the Organisation set up to avoid conflicts among Member Nations, now picks up a small member Nation- Sri Lanka, which has a conflict with the Nations strangely in association with “feared terrorism” , not to douse the flames of conflict but to add oil to the fires of conflict.
What is Ban Ki Moon’s real role as the Secretary General of United Nations, is he with the member Nations without distinction , or against some, and in favour of others ?
If his object at the moment is to feather his nest looking forward to be elected for a further term in office as the Secretary General, leaving aside the principles for which the Organisation stands, he will go down history as the man who lost an opportunity to imprint his image as a great humanist who was objective and independent, and sacrificed a lucrative and a prestigious position for the cause of bringing all Nations big and small into forming a big brother hood of friendly Nations without conflict.
But reality is far from what it should be. Ban Ki Moon despite his impressive CV has not
Studied the history and the charter of the Organisation , and therefore an ambitious man who is unable to evaluate a situation and take a decision himself depends on Commissions and Panels to do the hard work and take decisions for him. The high office of UN Secretary General has therefore fallen down to the bottom of the pit , that any “Simpleton” could handle.
The United Nations Organisation has a long history. It was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue.
The world was not infested with terrorism when the UN was set up and its charter does not include the ways and means to deal with terrorism and how to eliminate terrorism. As Ban Ki Moon had said when he was elected as the UN Secretary General, that “ capital punishment depends on the decision of each member state”, what action should be taken to eliminate terrorism, and how such action is pursued depend on the decision of a member state.
It had been observed by pronouncements often made by the Heads of rich and powerful Nations on several occasions, that terrorism is understood differently by different Nations. The West including USA tend to take for granted that only armed resistance by any organised group against a government of the West is terrorism. Any such organised terrorism against the government of any developing country is not terrorism but liberation movements.
But a developing country as a Sovereign State has to protect its people and its territory. Therefore any organised group causing terror, death and assassination in that country is terrorism, and the perpetrators of terror are terrorists. It is only a simple minded goon, who will not understand that simple fact.
Terrorism is defined as, “ The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear ” Hence any group showing these tendencies in their activities for the furtherance of their “goal”, it is simply terrorism whether it happens in Washington or Timbuctoo.
Now, if that three man panel appointed by the “goon” Ban ki Moon, comes to differentiate between terrorism in the West and terrorism in the developing country as two different “things” they will also fall in to the category of goons and their findings will have no what ever validity.
War is defined as , “ A legal state created by a declaration of war and ended by official declaration during which the international rules of war apply”.
No where is terrorism compared to “war”, therefore a Government using its Armed Forces to fight terrorism, is not engaged in a war, but conducting military operations to disarm and subjugate terrorists and if they resist eliminate them in military operations.
Of course there is then the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention , which provides limited application of the provisions in cases of armed conflict. This article too does not refer to terrorist. But refer to conflicts between government and rebel forces. And rebels are defined as , “ persons who take part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions) “.
The rebels in terms of the definition “seek improving conditions ”. They do not demand to break away a territory of the country to form a separate State for the “rebels”. Interestingly “conflict is defined as,“ A hostile meeting of opposing military forces in the course of a war. ”
Rebels would take up arms against the government not to over throw the government or demand a territorial division to accommodate them in a separate State. Therefore they will be willing to lay down arms and negotiate a peace settlement.
That is the difference Ban Ki Moon could not understand. He thinks the sum total of the Geneva Convention or a larger part of its provision could be applied to military operations against terrorists. By definition the terrorists are different from rebels mentioned in the Convention.
With terrorists it was a question of “live or die ”. They were not ready for peace negotiations and wanted their Eelam State carved out of Sri Lanka, and nothing less and “perhaps” nothing more. Therefore, with terrorists there was one possible solution and that was a military solution.
America and its western allies have understood this with regard to Al Qaida. That is why they are conducting wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are using all possible means to eliminate at least the leadership, so that the rest of their followers withers out.
Ban Ki Moon is under orders from interested Governments and persons who wanted to keep alive terrorism in Sri Lanka, to discredit the government of Sri Lanka, and bring back the terrorist sympathising Tamil expatriates to set up a Tamil Eelam State in Sri Lanka.
A divided Sri Lanka would be a boon to the West, living in the fear of expanding popularity of China and Russia among the developing Nations. A divided Sri Lanka may allow the West to place its foot in one part or the other to keep an “ eye” on China and Russia.
Ban Ki Moon’s part along side the Tamil Terrorist Sympathisers is evident, from the language he uses with regard to Sri Lanka Governments and it’s elimination of terrorism, which is the same as the language used by the Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Navi Pillai, Hillary Clinton, Channel 4, Tamil Net, and Sri Lanka Guardian Website and several other Sri Lanka terrorist sympathisers.
Under normal circumstances one would expect the UN Secretary General to consult the Government of Sri Lanka before appointing a Panel of investigators, and obtain the agreement of the Sri Lanka Government.
Ban Ki Moon should have also seen that the Government of Sri Lanka itself had appointed a Commission of Investigation to look into how the Sri Lanka Army carried out its military operations in the no-fire Zone. And Ban Ki Moon appointing a Panel of his own for the same purpose is not diplomatically correct to say the least.
He should not have doubted the honesty , and objectivity of our Institutions, Judges and appointed members of Commission. If the Western countries cannot honour the honesty and objectivity of our Institutions , Judiciary, or Commissions , we cannot honestly trust or have confidence in theirs’ any more than our own Institutions, Judges and Commissions.
We know how Bishop Desmond Tutu dared support the terrorists blaming our government for its justifiable solution to terrorism. The Sri Lanka terrorist Sympathisers come out in numbers from the west, and how can we place trust and confidence in any one of them ?
Ban Ki Moons’ interest in Sri Lanka’s military activities leading to the elimination of terrorists is dubious, that is the obvious the reason for his appointing a panel to see whether there was no violation of human rights during the closing face of Sri Lanka Government Forces’ military Operations against the terrorists.
Last phase not only in military operations against terrorists, but also in a “wedding” party, there is confusion and disorder.
Therefore, Ban Ki Moon and his panel of advisers should place themselves, in the patch of land where the terrorists were cornered along with a human shield of three hundred thousand civilian, and shooting with their heavy artillery at the Sri Lanka Armed Forces.
The terrorists determined to fight to the very end were willingly taking risks, caring less for the safety of the Civilians they had had brought along with them for this very purpose of providing them cover while they shoot at the armed Forces. The Sri Lanka Armed Forces were carrying small arms doing their best to save themselves and the civilian, while shooting at the terrorists.
Even if the Soldiers carried a copy of the Geneva Convention, they would not have the time to turn the pages and read the “rules” before they kept shooting towards the barrage of blasts coming from the terrorists’ artillery. In the mean time the fear stricken civilians were running away from the terrorists towards the Sri Lanka Armed forces seeking safety. The soldiers despite the risks to their lives had to attend to evacuation of the civilians to safety. In that situation who could have surveyed who was shooting and who was getting killed.
It is a situation that was taking place for first time in the whole world, and yet the Government Soldiers did a commendable job of work, putting their lives into risk.
Every thing that was happening during that last phase of fighting until the people were settled in temporary safety areas was a “do and learn “ process. It is easy for Ban Ki Moon to now start investigations, but it is sad that he cannot realise the tremendous task the Sri Lanka Government Forces had undertaken while eliminating terrorism to accommodate and take care of the thousands of Tamil civilians who were made to suffer by the ruthless terrorists who did not understand the value of a human life.
In that situation where no body could remain a spectator to what is happening, civilians running away for their lives amidst, shouts, cries, bullets swishing past them, and in the din of the fire of artillery and guns, would not have seen any thing, running away where their feet carried them. They may now, restored to normal life, thanks to the Soldiers and the Government, imagine stories, fabric falsehoods, and spin tales which have little relations to reality of what had been going on in that mad fearful confusion..
It is from these stories that the Western media writes their own stories, capping it all off with Amnesty International’s award winning Channel 4 ‘s cooked up realistic looking photos, video clips, write ups, for a fist of Dollars from the terrorist front organisations in UK and USA.
Therefore, was it really necessary for Ban Ki Moon to appoint a Panel to investigate into human rights violations during the last phase of Sri Lanka Armed Forces military operations against the terrorist ?
No, Ban Ki Moon, that was really not necessary. But if it makes you happy, you may have the report printed even on toilet paper…..