By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/untrip6may3srilanka071409.html
UNITED NATIONS, July 14 -- With even the funders of Sri Lanka's camps for Tamils now calling them prison-like places of internment, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has been quoted about Sri Lanka that "I should not be responsible for that." But what about the continued detention of the UN's own staff? Two UN system employees have grabbed up by plain clothes police in unmarked vehicles and have yet to be released: Kandasamy "Saundi" Saundrarajan and N. Charles Raveendran.
On July 10 the UN Staff Union called on Ban "to demand the Sri Lankan Government to release all UN staff members held without charge [and] not to restrict the movement of UN personnel."
The Staff Union alleges a pattern: "The recent action of Sri Lanka to detain two national staff appears to be a campaign against UN personnel, which is illegal under international law. Authorities have been arresting, without explanation, UN staff members, initially refusing to provide access to them by UN officials." Click here to view the Staff Union statement.
Before issuing their statement, UN Staff Union officials expressed outrage at quotes by the UN's Country Representative in Sri Lanka, UNHCR's Amim Awad, that "the UN acknowledges without reservation the right of the security services of Sri Lanka to investigate any allegations of criminal wrongdoing, including by UN staff members, and will cooperate fully to support due process."
Whatever happened to the UN's claims, for example in Sudan, that its staff members are immune, at least in the scope of their work?
In fact, the UN on Sudan was taking a contrary position, that immunity extends to national staff:
"In New York, U.N. spokeswoman Marie Okabe said U.N. officials in Khartoum had contacted authorities about Hussein to ensure a U.N.-Sudan agreement on the status of the mission was respected 'and that basic human rights are upheld in the context of national laws governing such issues.' U.N. officials said the United Nations interpreted the agreement to mean that members of the mission were immune from judicial proceedings."
Why are the UN's positions in Sri Lanka and Sudan so different? Watch this site.And see, www.innercitypress.com/untrip6may3srilanka071409.html
