United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in an interview with Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on a wide-ranging issues, last month in New York, touched on Sri Lankan crisis when WSJ asked him what he accomplished on Sri Lanka.
Mr Ban discussed on wide-ranging issues with WSJ, including the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs, his relations with the Obama administration, UN reform, his own public image and the role of the secretary-general in the modern era.
When WSJ asked him why he didnot make any public statement on high civilian casualties, while the killing was going on, he said: Whatever the number may be, it was totally unacceptable. Unfortunately there was a high number of civilian casualties. At this time I would like to make it quite clear that there were some allegations that the United Nations closed our eyes to this [reported figure of] 20,000 civilian casualties and tried to underestimate this number. First of all that is totally not true. We have never done that.
He said "I should not be responsible for that, it's totally not true."
"Whatever the number might be, this is an unacceptable one. In these extreme conditions, it was not possible to know the exact number of people who had been killed. That is what I can tell you at this time," he told WSJ.
Here is an edited transcript of the interview:
WSJ: Many of your critics say you travel too much, that you are not in New York enough and delegate too much in New York on management issues and not enough to your representatives abroad. And that by traveling too often you are devaluing the impact of a Secretary General visit. Also that your timing is off, in Sri Lanka you arrived after the fighting, almost putting a seal of approval on what the Sri Lankan government had done.
SG: I am aware of that kind of sentiment, even criticism. I have been on the road maybe average one-third of my time trying to attend multilateral meetings or very crucial events where I can really send out some messages. But when you have 192 member states who want to invite me to their events, I have been refraining from meeting on a purely bilateral purpose. I try to be more often in headquarters. However I delegate my authority, the tendency is for people looking to the head, of course. But they know what they should do, all these under-secretaries general or assistant secretaries-general. So it doesn't involve me much in my direct intervention in the daily activities. With global communications I can be reached wherever I am.
WSJ: But on Sri Lanka. I'd be interested to hear your view about what you accomplished on Sri Lanka.
SG: If you look at my timing of my visit to Sri Lanka you may argue that I was there after everything had finished. A long time before this crisis began I have been urging the Sri Lanka government to protect the civilian population, not to use heavy weapons. I have been talking to them all the time. Sometimes I issued a strong statement, urging and criticizing them. On my visit, first of all I called for unimpeded access to internally displaced camps. That has been done. Then [the Sri Lankan president] assured me that 80% of these people would be resettled by the end of this year. It was very difficult to agree with him on a joint communique. I conveyed the importance of full accountability, taking into consideration the view of the international community and non-governmental organizations. I strongly urged them that before there was an external imposition on them to be committed to accountability. In the end [the Sri Lankan president] agreed to full accountability and I am sure he will take action soon.
WSJ: At least 10,000 civilians died. Wouldn't it have made a difference if you had made public statements while the killing was going on as opposed to a joint communique after the fact?
SG: That's what I said. Whatever the number may be, it was totally unacceptable. Unfortunately there was a high number of civilian casualties. At this time I would like to make it quite clear that there were some allegations that the United Nations closed our eyes to this [reported figure of] 20,000 civilian casualties and tried to underestimate this number. First of all that is totally not true. We have never done that. I should not be responsible for that. It's totally not true. Whatever the number might be, this is an unacceptable one. In these extreme conditions, it was not possible to know the exact number of people who had been killed. That is what I can tell you at this time.
No comments:
Post a Comment