News
Ex-UN Assistant General Secretary won’t comment on ‘confidentiality clause’ preventing verification of war crimes allegations
By Shamindra Ferdinando
AFormer UN Assistant Secretary General and the author of ‘the report of the Secretary-General’s Internal Review Panel on UN action in Sri Lanka’ Charles Petrie has declined to explain why the UN deliberately thwarted verification of unsubstantiated allegations against Sri Lanka by way of a controversial confidentiality clause.
The Island raised the issue at a webinar titled ‘Sri Lanka: Quest for Justice, Rule of Law and Democratic Rights’ co-hosted by the Global Tamil Forum (GTF), Centre for Human Rights and Global Justice – New York University, Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice and the Canadian Tamil Congress (CTC). The webinar was part of a campaign against Sri Lanka undertaken by interested parties ahead of the 46th sessions of the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) scheduled to commence on Feb 22. The sessions will continue till March 23.
Asked whether the panelists could explain why a UN confidentiality clause prevented verification of war crimes allegations till 2031 and why a UN report prepared with the support of ICRC and Vanni based NGOs in 2008-2009 hadn’t been considered, former British diplomat Petrie said: “Just…the confidentiality issue… I’m not very…I would not be able to address.
Having declined to respond to the query, Petrie said that he would like to follow up on what former US Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice A said in response to The Island query. Rapp who first responded to the query posed to the panelists through moderator Melissa Dring of Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice conveniently refrained from at least referring to the UN confidentiality clause or UN report that placed the number of persons killed at 7,721 (August 2008-May 13, 2009)
Petrie said that there were a lot of documents pertaining to war crimes accusations, including those of the UN. Petrie, one-time investment banker alleged that the then Sri Lankan government exploited an incident involving a UN convoy to set up No Fire Zone in the Vanni east region.
The group of panelists included Pablo de Greiff, a former UN Special Rapporteur, M.A. Sumanthiran, PC, MP, attorey-at-lawBhavani Fonseka of the Center for Policy Alternatives (PTA), Ameer Faaiz, Director of International Affairs of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress, Ambika Satkunanathan, a former Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka and Shreen Saroor, a civil society activist.
Melissa Dring interpreted The Island query as denial of war crimes accusations, a strategy similar to that of the government of Sri Lanka.
According to the Panel of Experts’( Kangaroo court in any reasonable person’s rule book as Sri Lanka is prevented from, leave alone cross examining the accusers, but even to see their faces) Report released on March 31, 2011 even after the mandatory 20 year prohibition (2011-2031) on the releasing of material received of an assurance of absolute confidentiality, relevant information couldn’t be released without declassification review.
The following is the full text of the question forwarded to Dring: The alleged killing of 40,000 civilians (PoE report/137 paragraph/March 2011) remains the primary accusation against GoSL. The AI placed the number of deaths at 10,000 (a few months after PoE report), In between PoE report and the AI report, the UK Parliament was told 60,000 LTTE cadres and 40,000 civilians perished in the final phase of the assault ( Siobhain McDonagh, MP). In addition to those reports and various other claims, a UN study (Aug 2008-May 2009/POE/paragraph 134) estimated the number killed at 7,721 and wounded at 18,479. Can you please explain why UN failed to verify various reports/claims particularly against the backdrop of Lord Naseby’s disclosure in Oct 2017 (Lord Naseby’s claim was based on British HC diplomatic cables)
The following question addressed to Pablo de Greiff was not answered at all: You addressed issues relating to monitoring of international action and accountability. Can you, please explain the status/outcome of UN fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict (Goldstone report) against the backdrop of the head of the mission contradicting his own report?
UK based Amal Abeywardena asked the panel about Sri Lanka not having confidence in the UN inquiring into LTTE atrocities and how could the international community probe violations on all sides, including those committed during JVP uprisings as well as the IPKF period and investigating the role of the supporters of the LTTE who supplied material resources to the Tigers when Human Rights violations were committed. Rapp who responded to the query conveniently side-stepped the accountability issues pertaining to the deployment of the Indian Army in Sri Lanka (1987-1990). A full recording of the live webinar can be found in this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0muPVjyF7E8
News
Ambassador of the UAE to Sri Lanka meets with the Prime Minister
[Prime Minister’s Media Division]
Latest News
Prime Minister joins Gandhi Jayanti Commemoration
[Prime Minister’s Media Division]
News
Unions resist tripartite EPF management plan
… warn of dire consequences
A group of trade unions and civil society groups has requested President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to abandon his government’s controversial plan for the proposed tripartite management of the EPF.
The group has told the President: “We strongly object to the government’s plan to transfer the EPF to a tripartite board—jointly promoted by the Employers’ Federation of Ceylon (EFC), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Labour Organisation (ILO)—and to increase the investments of those funds within private equity and debt markets.
“While the EFC and the government jointly project this plan as a ‘modern governance framework’, it poses a serious threat to the EPF’s financial stability, fiduciary conduct, and returns to workers’ life savings, with severe consequences for broader macroeconomic stability. Rather than replacing the corruption existing in the public sector, this tripartite framework paves the way for a corporate takeover of the EPF. Through this, the fund is exposed to unlawful business practices such as insider trading using internal information of EPF investments, conflicts of interest and corporate bailouts of unstable private companies.
“Sri Lanka’s corporate sector has a tremendously negative track record, which you alluded to during your victorious election campaign in 2024. This was recently unravelled by the multi-billion-dollar illicit capital flight through trade misinvoicing, which your administration is now actively working to curb in the imports sector.
“The recent banking sector fraud exceeds Rs. 13 billion; widespread corporate tax evasion destabilised the fiscal position (Sri Lanka Auditor General’s Department Annual Reports) and consequently inflated the tax burden on the general public. The EFC has found it convenient to remain silent about these crimes, possibly assuming that their silence would preserve their social standing. Considering this inherent corruption within Sri Lanka’s corporate sector and its disregard to the living standards of the general public, there is no realistic basis to integrate corporate interests to actively manage the EPF. The corporate sector of Sri Lanka has not developed sufficiently on technical and ethical grounds to safely entrust the largest retirement savings pool in the country. The EPF is a captive fund that has no mechanism for the owners to divest if the management is corrupt. This further increases the possibility of corporate fraud when the management of the fund is jointly held with the corporate sector.
“Furthermore, during the recent public discussion with trade unions, Deputy Minister of Finance Dr. Anila Jayantha pointed out that the domestic debt restructuring (DDR) would inflict a loss of Rs. 600 billion to the EPF. Our independent calculations—formally submitted as an affidavit to the Supreme Court approved by the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations in 2024—reveal that nominal loss alone is Rs. 634.4 billion. When factoring in foreclosed reinvestment returns, the true loss skyrockets to Rs. 1,711 billion, wiping out 48% of the fund’s projected gross income for the 2023 – 2028 period. Under the pretext of safeguarding the banking system, this colossal robbery preserved high yields on government bonds held by commercial banks and high-net-worth individuals, subsequently reaping them astronomical profits. Now, the exact same plunder is rearing its head again disguised as a tripartite committee.”
“The main arguments supporting our resistance and viable alternatives for optimising EPF management directly under the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL), are outlined below.
“Objections to the government’s tripartite proposal:
1. The “International best practice and conflict of interest fallacies”
The government holds that tripartite management of pension funds is the “international best practice” and that there is a “conflict of interest” in CBSL managing the EPF. They are key pillars justifying government’s tripartite proposal.
These two positions are shockingly misleading given that four of the five largest pension funds in the world, in Norway, Japan, the U.S., and Singapore, are managed directly by state bodies or central banks. Therefore, ‘international best practice’ in pension fund management is the exact opposite of what the government and the IMF are proposing. We hence reject these baseless positions.
2. Corporate captivity and bailouts
It is clear that the EFC is desperately pushing for this proposal at a time of global uncertainty, to cushion the effects of the crisis and maximise gains. Under corporate influence within the proposed tripartite board, the private conglomerates can use the multi-trillion-rupee EPF to continue their unstable commercial operations without having to risk their own capital or savings to do so. This will severely erode the financial stability of the EPF and its returns.
3. Risk of front running
“Because the EPF is a colossal fund, its investment decisions can alter asset prices. This creates immense monetary value for the information generated by its investment decisions. Corporate representatives on the proposed tripartite board will be perfectly positioned to use this information to trade ahead of the EPF (front-running), buying assets cheaply and dumping them onto the EPF at inflated prices for guaranteed corporate gain, resulting in a reduction of returns to the EPF.
4. Unavoidable loopholes
“Presence of a separate group of investment analysts, trade union representatives and government officials within the proposed tripartite structure cannot prevent pre-market corporate access to EPF’s investment decisions. Investment proposals made by the analysts has to be first approved by the proposed tripartite committee, making it impossible to prevent corporate access to insider information on EPF investments.”
-
Editorial7 days agoBirth of a bad law
-
News5 days agoPolice remove Thileepan statue in Jaffna
-
News7 days agoTIN mandatory for key transactions from Nov. 1
-
Features5 days agoThe 22nd Amendment, constitutional recovery and illiberal slippage
-
Features5 days agoOf foreigners as CEOs of Lankan ventures
-
Latest News3 days agoGold winner Tharanga gets brand-new Honda Vezel from SLAAJ
-
News5 days agoSajith rejects Jt. Opp. protest sabotage claim; SJB TU chief demands remedial action
-
Features4 days agoThailand’s biggest new global star …
