Sri Lanka and the UN Security Council

Diplomats from 8 members of the UN Security Council met informally yesterday to ask the Security Council to address the crisis in Sri Lanka. Unfortunately, the issue is not on the agenda of the 15-member council as some members, including China and Russia, are opposed. They argue that the matter is an "internal" one.

The video below is from a UN Dispatch post, and it includes comments from Foreign Ministers David Millibrand of Britain, Michael Spindelegger of Austria and Bernard Kouchner of France.




A previous post on the UN Security Council's failures in Sri Lanka is here.

The Security Council's Failures in Sri Lanka

Gareth Evans, President of the International Crisis Group and author of The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and for All, says the UN Security Council dropped the ball on Sri Lanka.

And the tragedy is that they [both LTTE leadership and the Colombo government] have now been joined in this abdication by the Security Council itself, notwithstanding the unanimous resolution of the General Assembly, meeting at the heads of government level in 2005, that it should take "timely and decisive" action when "national authorities are failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity."

To their credit, France, the United States, Britain, and a number of other proactive Security Council members have ratcheted up pressure in recent weeks. They have pushed -- albeit cautiously -- for the council to review Sri Lanka as an official agenda item, and carefully negotiated a series of informal remarks on behalf of the council.

But because of consistent obstruction by a handful of member states, the issue continues to be relegated to informal statements and unofficial meetings -- not in the Security Council chamber -- but in the basement of the U.N. building. Those signaling varying degrees of opposition to council engagement have been China, Russia, Libya, Vietnam and --most surprisingly and disappointingly, given its role in advocating human security generally and civilian protection specifically -- Japan. While the tacit approval of a military endgame against a terrorist group is understandable enough, looking the other way as tens of thousands of innocent civilians are imperiled in the process is indefensible.