28 January 2019
Who are true Peacekeepers? They are of two kinds – internal and external. Internal Peacekeepers influence quietly and often through common belief. They do not need arms. They share Peace naturally and often prevent wars. External Peacekeepers are those who have to show outcomes to wider world. Hence they often carry arms. As per the Daily Mirror article ‘UN Chief condemns attack on Sri Lankan troops in Mali’ :
[The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, strongly condemned the attack which led to the deaths of two ‘blue helmets’ from Sri Lanka and injured six others.
Mr Guterres conveyed his “deep condolences to the Government of Sri Lanka, and the families of the victims”, and wished a speedy recovery to those injured.]
The UN-Sri Lankan Government partnership in terms of the attack on Tamils without clearing civilians – in 2009 has been a bitter experience for us Tamils. That was wrong kind of partnership so far as we are concerned. To the extent the UN was part of that operation UN’s karma in terms of Peacekeeping is negative. Why did the UN not distance itself expressly from the Sri Lankan government when the Sri Lankan government declared that it was not responsible for the safety of the UN staff? It pulled out its own staff in September 2008 but failed to replace them with UN’s armed Peacekeepers into the combat zone to protect war-ethics. Their mere presence would have prevented the war-crimes shame that both sides to the Sri Lankan war and therefore Sri Lanka now suffers.
UN has very much been ‘external’ in Sri Lanka. An internal elder would have disciplined quietly. UN would have stayed on within the war zone in 2009 and endured the pain as if it were part of Sri Lanka. Without such participation it was not ‘common’ but outsider without experience from the victims’ side. This makes them ‘tellers’ when they do participate in the happenings through theories and resolutions.
To be ‘common’, one needs to become one with others concerned. When we stay within our true ability to provide services we would identify with the true needs of others in a common interest group. Thus we develop the common ‘customer/citizen/victim’ naturally as per our own true ability to serve naturally. Obviously such ‘common customer’ was not in the mind of the UN in Sri Lanka.
To the extent war crimes were committed in Sri Lanka due to such withdrawal by the UN, the UN carries negative karma in terms of peacekeeping. Likewise at the local level – the Sri Lankan government whose troops are unable to identify with the true needs of the victims in war-affected areas. Those who do not feel such commonness would need strong commitment to laws that would act as scaffolding until we develop such commonness. Sri Lankans who failed to use their own laws – including the laws of Buddhism which is part of the Constitution of Sri Lanka – to discipline themselves in Sri Lanka – would carry such wrongs as negative energy / sins – outside Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan armed forces are taken as One institution and hence the sins of few would naturally be shared by others.
Undertaking such global missions is not for Sri Lankan Government soldiers. Recruiting them was the mistake that UN made – while preaching Accountability, Reconciliation and Improvement of Human Rights to the very same government that these soldiers represent. Unless Mali was considered to be less sovereign than Sri Lanka by the UN’s calculated measures it was wrong of the UN to use Sri Lankan armed forces in Mali. If the UN had sought and discovered the Truth in the Sri Lankan war – and included that Truth when including Sri Lankans in its staff and armed forces – those who died would have been honoured as heroes and there would have been no reason for the UN chief to condole. Such deaths release the heroic spirits upwards so they would bless their heirs with positive energy.
The UN’s role is to facilitate Sovereignty of the People by the People for the People. If one side or the other ‘wins’ and the UN was part of the Government – then the UN failed in its core mission.