The UNO according to its Charter is to develop good relations with its member states, to develop, peace and security. UNO is to harmonize the actions of its member states to solve their common economic, cultural or humanitarian problems. It accepts the equality of all states without consideration of their economic or political status. Every one working in the UN System from the Director General to the junior most staff member should be an embodiments of the noble principles laid down in the UN Charter.
All members of the UN System should perform the duties allocated to them without bias, or prejudice towards any
and with absolute impartiality. They
should extend that impartiality not only to the Member States, but also towards
Communities within Member states without
being favourable to one, and biased against another. Member State
These are the noble principles of the UN Charter that should be emulated by every member of the UNSystem. Therefore in Selecting a Professional Staff Member as a Head of a UN Commission, those who are responsible for such appointments should be careful to select a person who could stand upto those noble principles of the UNCharter, against whom no finger could be raised for partiality, bias, or prejudice.
Has the UNO selection board In the appointment of Ms. Navi Pillai as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights investigated her suitability in terms of the Noble Principles of the UN System laid down by the founding fathers of UNO ?
Even though the predecessor of the Present UN Commissioner for Human Rights , the Canadian Ms. Louise Arbour, lacked impartiality due to her being influenced by the Tamil Community in Canada, Navi Pillai the Present UN Commissioner for Human Rights is on the other hand pro-Sri Lanka Tamils by being herself a Tamil, and suffered for being a Tamil. Therefore she is biased against the Government of Sri Lanka on the question of Sri Lanka Tamils.
Hence her suitability to present a report on how
Lanka eliminated Tamil terrorists, and how it affected
the Tamil people in is
not acceptable. The Secretary General of UNO should not have allowed her to
investigate and present a report on Sri Lanka as there is an
evident conflict of interest. Sri Lanka
The Board of Selection of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, should not have gone by her qualifications alone, but should have examined her background and her psychological suitability to hold this very high post in the UN System, as she has to work with countries having Tamil Communities, to which she herself belongs.
She belonged to the South African Tamil Community. She was born and brought up in a poor ghetto of the South African Tamils in
. She suffered under South African
apartheid system from her birth, and throughout
her growing years. She suffered
because she was a Tamil. Durban
She recounts her child hood in her own words, “ We lived in Clairwood… a victim of race riots in 1949 and that’s what caused the fear on part of the residents of Clairwood, including my parents. With me firstly, when I was six years old I was the victim of robbery. My mother had given me my father’s entire monthly wages, which was Rs.5 to take to him. He was a bus driver I was supposed to meet him at the corner and hand his money to him. Meanwhile he had not asked for the money it was his conductor who had planned that ruse and he grabbed the money from my hand off he went.
My mother beat me up for that. I don’t know why the victim get beaten. Anyway,and I ended up giving evidence in court at the age of seven in the same Durban High Court where I many years later sat as a judge….. but really what bugged me is that we didn’t get the Rs.5 back and I felt so guilty as a child that I had caused the lost to my parents.”
The seeds of racial hatred was thus born in her from her very tender age of six years. The Registrar of the
had advised her against studying law as it was not imaginable that a non-white
lawyer gives instructions to white secretaries.
However she overcame difficulties opening her own law practice, as
nobody would employ her, and becoming in 1995 to be the first coloured lawyer
to appear in the South African Supreme Court. Natal University
It had been a continuous struggle against discrimination by the White apartheid South African Government because of her being a Tamil. Thus she went on to become an anti apartheid activist. These are remarkable achievements, but they also resulted in her becoming a staunch defender of those who are discriminated against for being Tamils. In the mean time LTTE had infiltrated into the South African Tamil Community in
and organised a series of LTTE Front
Organisations. They come in contact with
the ANC Leaders and organised training Camps. Durban
The LTTE carried out propaganda in
Africa for the Tamils in . They began drawing parallels with Sri Lanka Sri Lanka and South
Africa, equalling the treatment of Tamils in Sri Lanka to
that of the blacks in .
They drew parallels between British handing of South
Africa South Africa to Boers with to the Sinhalese. Sri Lanka
They claimed that in
the Sinhalese have occupied the lands of
the Tamils, and made Tamils foreigners in their own homelands. They did not hesitate to compare Mandela to
Prbhakaran. The LTTE front organisations
started working with the South African Parliamentarians, and began collecting
funds for the LTTE to campaign against the Government of Sri Lanka. Sri
The anti-apartheid activist that was Navineethan Pillai was certainly in contact with some of these LTTE Front Organisers as she was sympathetic to the cause of the Tamils. Having met these sympathetic LTTE agents in South Africa Navi Pillai had no reason to believe that the Tamil were terrorists. They were only fighting to free themselves from the anti Tamil Sinhala government. This must have been driven deep into her mind having herself suffered from apartheid because she was a Tamil.
Her appointment as the UN Commisioner for Human Rights, was for her an occasion to defend also the rights of the Tamils discriminated against by any government in the world. But that regrettable psychological bias against any government which is claimed to have discriminated against Tamils would not allow Navi Pillai to investigate such a problem impartially and objectively. This is what has happened to Navi Pillai in investigating the problem of Tamils with the Government of Sri Lanka.
The problems of the Tamils in
have become her problem, and therefore she is out to take revenge from Sri
Lanka Sinhala Government, as she was taking revenge from the apartheid
that discriminated against her for being a Tamil. South Africa
Navineetham Pillai is therefore not suitable to have been appointed as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Her background had not been sufficiently investigated and her psychological make up after having been born and brought up in a brutal apartheid surrounding , and suffered for her accident of birth as a Tamil which would remain a prejudice which will blind her to objective evaluation of political issues involving Tamil people, had not been taken into consideration in selecting her to such a high post in the UN System.
Jiddu Krishnamurthy, the well known mystic philosopher had said that each one of us is a fractioned being. An individual is therefore fractioned. One fraction is of the nationality, one of the religion, another of the social status, another of the profession, and so on. Hence when one looks at a problem it will be with the fraction that is concerned most with the problem. That does not allow one to see the whole of the problem. Only way to be impartial and objective in looking at a problem is therefore to look at the it as an un-fractioned whole.
Navi Pillai is therefore looking at the Tamil problem in
the fraction of her Tamilness because of which she herself suffered. In such a situation Navi Pillai Sri Lanka
will never see the reality, and understand the truth of terrorism in
. Sri Lanka
She will not see that Sri Lanka government and its Armed Forces after elimination of terrorism is not discriminating against the Tamil Community, but treating the people of all Communities as citizens of one Sri Lanka, without differentiating the people as belonging to a minority Community or a majority Community.
In what ever way it is explained, for Navi Pillai the problem is how she sees it.
In that situation the honourable Delegates at the present session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva should reject the report present by the UN High Commissioner Navi Pillai, and consider her unsuitability to hold the post of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and investigate into the problem of Sri Lanka as there is an evident conflict of interest.