World

Sri Lanka : Why is United Nations so inactive ?

by senthil5000 | April 22, 2009 at 05:53 pm

172 views | 8 Recommendations | 1 comment

In a press conference today 22-Apr-2009, a reporter from Inner City Press (ICP) asked United Nations as when NGOs are thrown out of sudan an enormous noise was made but in Sri Lanka which did the same thing and UN is quiet.
All United Nation did is
-> Requesting 'humanatarian pause' three times
-> Request not to use heavy artillery on Safe Zones (Meaning particular kind weapons can be used )
-> Requesting both sides to follow international humanatarian laws

Is it not the role of united nation to ask for ceasefire when civilians are being killed ?

United nation's answer to this question in simple words is, it is afraid that Sri Lanka will throw them out leading to a paralysis situation. It didn't want to loose the access, speaking out for the public.

UN now came up with the updated number of civilian casualties which is 4500 dead and more then double in number injured.

Watch the video footage on the conference session.

The lead-up to the "bloodbath on the beach" in Sri Lanka was the barring from the northern part of the country of not only journalists but also non-governmental organizations. Wednesday several prominent NGOs had a briefing at the UN, and they were asked why not only the UN but also they had not said more. Joseph Cornelius Donnelly of CARITAS International replied that fear of losing all access to the country, as with the UN, weighed on the side of keeping quiet

"I can give a very satisfactory answer," Traub said, because "I don't know the underlying facts you cited to me." He went on to muse that Ban's failure to call for a cease-fire might have been a question of "nomenclature," that he was willing to call for a pause but not a cease-fire. But why? While appropriately also laying blame at the feet of member states, Traub conceded that the UN "is too institutionally inclined to say yes to retaining access, and no to speaking out publicly."