Whatever cease fire was in place for 48 hours in order to observe the Sri Lankan New Year, it would appear to have now been broken and fighting resumed - so Tamil web sites report.
That the world sits back and watches the war continue with all that entails, is a disgrace. Protests, including hunger strikes, have brought the plight of the Tamils to the forefront of media attention. All to sadly, and predictably, Governments around the world have done little to stop the carnage presently going on in Sri Lanka. Now, it appears [below] that even the UN is complicit in its silence on the subject. For its part the Sri Lankan government bars journalists from entering the area in Sri Lanka where the fighting is underway. It is said that something like 300,000 men, women and children under effectively under siege.
Now Inter City Press reports in "In Sri Lanka, UN Staff Denied "Freedom of Movement" But UN Won't Name Them":
"The UN on Tuesday refused to confirm the names of UN staff members held "without freedom of movement" in Sri Lankan government camps, and refused to explain why the UN said nothing about their detention until asked about it by Inner City Press on April 13. UN Associate Spokesman Farhan Haq said that "while the government repeatedly assured" that freedom of movement would be restored, the UN "staff remain in the camps."
Inner City Press asked if this does not violate international law, in that UN staff have functional immunity. Haq did not answer this question, nor explain why the UN had said nothing. He began his reading of his response to Inner City Press' question by saying, "the UN does not disclose the name or location of its staff of their dependents."
But in other cases where UN staff have been detained -- while high profile, consider the UNHCR official taken in Pakistan -- the UN loudly demands their freedom of movement be restored, and in doing so provides their names if not locations. One reporter listening to Haq on Tuesday wondered if he was in fact saying that the UN fears that the Sri Lankan government would affirmative target it UN staff members it holds, if it were sure who they were."
That the world sits back and watches the war continue with all that entails, is a disgrace. Protests, including hunger strikes, have brought the plight of the Tamils to the forefront of media attention. All to sadly, and predictably, Governments around the world have done little to stop the carnage presently going on in Sri Lanka. Now, it appears [below] that even the UN is complicit in its silence on the subject. For its part the Sri Lankan government bars journalists from entering the area in Sri Lanka where the fighting is underway. It is said that something like 300,000 men, women and children under effectively under siege.
Now Inter City Press reports in "In Sri Lanka, UN Staff Denied "Freedom of Movement" But UN Won't Name Them":
"The UN on Tuesday refused to confirm the names of UN staff members held "without freedom of movement" in Sri Lankan government camps, and refused to explain why the UN said nothing about their detention until asked about it by Inner City Press on April 13. UN Associate Spokesman Farhan Haq said that "while the government repeatedly assured" that freedom of movement would be restored, the UN "staff remain in the camps."
Inner City Press asked if this does not violate international law, in that UN staff have functional immunity. Haq did not answer this question, nor explain why the UN had said nothing. He began his reading of his response to Inner City Press' question by saying, "the UN does not disclose the name or location of its staff of their dependents."
But in other cases where UN staff have been detained -- while high profile, consider the UNHCR official taken in Pakistan -- the UN loudly demands their freedom of movement be restored, and in doing so provides their names if not locations. One reporter listening to Haq on Tuesday wondered if he was in fact saying that the UN fears that the Sri Lankan government would affirmative target it UN staff members it holds, if it were sure who they were."
Comments