On
N. Korean Ship in India, UN Sees No Evil, Hears No Evil, as on Afghan
Black Out
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, August 19 -- As a North Korean ship is being searched in the
India port of Kakinada, in New York the chairman of the Council's
Sanctions Committee Fazli Corman was asked by Inner City Press about
the ship and searching. "That information is not available to
me," Ambassador Corman said. Video here,
from Minute 8:05.
This
lack of
knowledge seemed strange since the ship, the MV Musen, was seized on
August 6, and is being searched under the UN
Security Council's
sanctions resolution. Inner City Press followed up and asked, to
whom
would India then report? Corman replied that "they might be
doing it under the resolution, and if they come up with a conclusion
that it is a case that should be reported to us, it would be the
committee... But this is something I have not received yet... it is
the obligation of each member state to interpret and implement the
resolution." Video here,
from Minute 10.
There
is something
strange about this ship, which stopped near India's Andaman Islands.
The
claim is that the stop over involve the price of sugar. But why
would the Security Council's committee know nothing about it? Inner
City Press observed India's permanent representative to the UN coming
out of the Secretariat Building at 10 a.m., just before the Security
Council meeting began. Watch this site.
Turkey's Fazli Corman, information about N. Korean
ship not shown
Footnotes:
Also on the Council's agenda Thursday morning were Sudan, Lebanon and
Afghanistan. Sudan's permanent representative to the UN is, according
to his deputy, still in India. Sources tell Inner City Press that
during the Council's closed door consultations on Sudan on Thursday,
while China and Russia praised Obama's envoy to Sudan Scott Gration,
the U.S.
Mission did not. Sudan and others see, and perhaps exploit, this as
an almost comical split in U.S. Administration policy.
As
she exited the
Council chamber, Susan Rice was greeted by outgoing French Ambassador
Jean-Maurice Ripert, who told the Press this was his last Council
meeting, "unless something happens before I leave." He will
be thrown a party Thursday night.
When
Council
president John Sawers emerged, Inner City Press asked if there had
been any discussion of the media blackout imposed by Afghanistan's
Hamid Karzai. Video here,
from Minute 4:45. "No, we didn't hear
discussion of that," Sawers said. Perhaps as with the North
Korea ship: see no evil, hear no evil.
* * *
As
UK Questioned on Arms Exports to Sri Lanka, No Action at UN on
Flooded Camps
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, August 19 -- As in London a House
of Commons report zeroed
in and requested answers on UK licensed arms sales to Sri Lanka in
the run-up to this year's bloodbath on the beach, at the UN in New
York UK Ambassador John Sawers emphasized that he would only take
questions, including on Sri Lanka, in his capacity as the president
of the Security Council for this month.
Inner City Press asked Ambassador Sawers, since the Council earlier
this year held meetings about Sri Lanka
without putting it on the Council's formal agenda, about the flooding
on the UN funded internment camps and the call by various human
rights groups that those locked up in the camps be allowed to leave.
Video here,
from Minute 3:29.
"There
is no
request for a meeting on Sri Lanka in any format," Sawers said
adding that Sri Lanka is of concern "to a number of Council
member" and will be kept "under review." But how? The
lack of action by the UN at any level, even as the government in
Colombo blames it for the breakdown in sewage systems in the camps,
highlights the effect of the UK not having called a procedural vote
to put Sri Lanka on the Council's agenda.
If the
situation in Manik
Farms camps were to be happening in the camps in Darfur, the Council
it seems clear would consider and speak on it. But since the UK, by
Sawers' own account, chose Council unanimity over a split but
winning
vote to put Sri Lanka on the agenda, now ongoing abuses there are not
being considered.
It appears
that Council members, even those who expressed concern earlier this
year, are not even staying informed on the situation. Inner City Press
asked Mexico's Ambassador Claude Heller about the flooding and he said
he was not aware of it, but would look into it. While that's to be
commended, is it any surprise then that Sawers replied that no request
for a meeting on Sri Lanka has been made?
After
Sawers'
answer, Inner City Press asked a spokesperson for the UK Mission to
the UN about the House of Commons report, Scrutiny
of Arms Export Controls (2009). Sawers had
emphasized he
would only answer as Council president, and so this troubling but UK
specific report could not be asked about.
Later on
Wednesday the UK
mission responded to Inner City Press that there is a review of the
licenses for exports to Sri Lanka ongoing, that some licenses might
be revoked. The spokesperson noted that some licenses were rejected,
for example for weapons or ammunition, and said that those grants
were mostly for "humanitarian or dual" use.
Inner
City Press
asked how the UK could verify how the items were used, if its
personnel along with all independent media were excluded from the
northern part of Sri Lanka as now from the camps. The spokesperson
said that the UK wouldn't reply on the media for verification anyway.
But how then is the
verification done?
Behind barbed wire in the Manik Farms, sewage not shown
The
spokesperson
said that there has not been any discussion within the UK Mission to
the UN about the situation in the camps, that such discussion might
take place in London, mostly because of the Tamil diaspora there. But
given the UK Mission's publicly stated decision not to call what they
say would have been a victorious but split vote to put Sri Lanka on
the Council's agenda, some expect a more robust response from the UK
when the internment camps it is is part funding, including through
the UN, become threatened by epidemics and the people not allowed to
leave. We'll see.
From
the House of Commons' Scrutiny
of Arms Export Controls (2009)
Sri
Lanka
123.
In the course of our evidence sessions, we raised our concerns with
witnesses on the
subject
of Sri Lanka. On 11 March 2009, we asked representatives of the
Export Group for
Aerospace
and Defence (EGAD) to what extent they saw similarities between
exporting
arms
to Sri Lanka and Israel. David Hayes, Chairman of EGAD, told us that
an embargo
would
be “a matter for Government, not for industry”.180 However, Nigel
Knowles, Vice
Chairman
of EGAD, felt able to offer an argument against an embargo, citing
the leverage
generated
by trade. He suggested that it was sometimes necessary “to take a
little grief in
order
to keep a friendship”.181 We were not persuaded either by the
leverage generated in
this
case, or indeed the general principle. Indeed, the Campaign Against
Arms Trade notes
in
its written memorandum that the Defence Industrial Strategy concluded
that “the
balance
of argument about defence exports should depend mainly on
non-economic
considerations”.182
124.
We pursued the issue of Sri Lanka with Bill Rammell at our session on
22 April
2009.183
He told us that the FCO’s judgment was that an embargo, or the
threat of one, was
not
the best vehicle for trying to secure a ceasefire.184 Using an
embargo signalled “the end
of
the diplomatic road” and demonstrated that a lot of influence had
been lost.185 The
Minister
told us that few licences had been granted for exports to Sri Lanka
since the
beginning
of 2007 which he cited as evidence of procedures being effective.186
125.
The issue of Sri Lanka illustrates the difficulties faced by the
Government, and by
those
who, like us, scrutinise the licensing decisions made by Government,
in assessing
how
exports of arms might be used by the destination country at a future
date, particularly
if
political situation in the country at the time of the exports appears
stable. Bill Rammell
told
the Committees that licensing decisions were based on evidence from
FCO posts,
from
NGOs, newspaper and media reports and a variety of other sources.187
He said that
“you
make judgments based on the situation at the time; you do not make
judgments for
ever
and a day.”188 In its submission to us, Saferworld listed the type
of weapons that had
been
licensed for export to Sri Lanka from 1997 onwards, including the
period of the
fragile
ceasefire starting in 2002.189 During the ceasefire, a wide variety
of military
equipment
and weapons were exported to Sri Lanka, and, due to the extremely
limited
access
of international observers to Sri Lanka, it is impossible to be
certain how many of
those
weapons were used subsequently against the civilian population when
hostilities
began
to escalate again in 2006. Bill Rammell argued that few licences had
been issued for
Sri
Lanka since 2007, but accepted that the international community had
not focussed
enough
on what had been happening in Sri Lanka.190 We note the fact that in
the period 1
April
2008 to 31 March 2009, 34 licences were issued for export to Sri
Lanka, and we will
be
keeping a keen eye on all future exports.
126.
We conclude that the policy of assessing licences to Sri Lanka on a
case-by-case
basis
is, in our opinion, appropriate. However, we recommend that the
Government
should
review all existing licences relating to Sri Lanka and provide in its
Response an
assessment
of what implications the situation in Sri Lanka will have on how the
Foreign
and
Commonwealth Office judges the possible future use of strategic
exports by that
country
and the risk that the export licensing criteria might be breached. We
further
recommend
that the Government provide in its Response an assessment of what UK
supplied
weapons, ammunition, parts and components were used by the Sri Lankan
armed
forces in the recent military actions against the Tamil Tigers.
, 
