Sri Lanka – UNHRC’s Wartime Bias Exposed

 

 

Between 2006 and 2009, Sri Lanka carried out a decisive military campaign to defeat the LTTE—one of the world’s most lethal terrorist organizations. This operation, aimed at ending nearly three decades of terror, was conducted under international observation with humanitarian safeguards in place.

Yet, the United Nations and UNHRC failed to uphold their mandate of neutrality and justice. Instead of supporting a sovereign nation’s right to combat terrorism and rescue civilians, they distorted facts, omitted critical context, and vilified Sri Lanka based on hearsay, propaganda, and political pressure.

This article reveals how the UN system ignored LTTE atrocities, suppressed evidence, and later retrofitted a biased narrative to criminalize the victors while absolving the terrorists. In doing so, the UN betrayed both its Charter and the very civilians it claims to protect.

1. The Justification Behind Sri Lanka’s Military Action

Sri Lanka’s war against the LTTE did not begin in haste—it followed nearly 30 years of:

• Suicide bombings, assassinations, and ethnic cleansing,
• Countless failed ceasefires and peace talks used by the LTTE to rearm & regroup.
• The international community’s apathy despite mounting civilian casualties.

The final trigger came in July 2006, when the LTTE cut off water to 60,000 civilians by closing the Mavil Aru anicut—weaponizing a basic human need. This humanitarian crisis forced the state to act.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government launched a military campaign to:

• Eliminate terrorism – not Tamils
• Rescued over 300,000 Tamil civilians held as human shields & hostages by LTTE.

Unlike post-9/11 – a single event resulted in invasions led by Western powers without investigations, Sri Lanka’s actions were proportionate, targeted, and in response to sustained terror—not ideology or geopolitics.

2. UN/UNHRC’s Failure to Acknowledge Humanitarian Context

Despite the legitimacy of Sri Lanka’s objectives:

• The UN and UNHRC ignored the LTTE’s provocation and history of violence.
• They failed to acknowledge the world’s largest wartime civilian rescue: 295,000 plus civilians were evacuated and housed by the state.
• The ICRC and foreign military attachés acknowledged the army’s professionalism and the government’s humanitarian response—but the UNHRC remained silent.

UN Resident Coordinator Neil Buhne confirmed in 2009 that the government facilitated UN access and cooperation in the war zone.

“Neil Buhne, the UN Humanitarian and Resident Coordinator in Sri Lanka, is scheduled to travel to Jaffna in northern Sri Lanka today.”

https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/highlight/2009-04-24.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

3. Sri Lanka’s Civilian Protection Measures vs. LTTE’s Tactics

Government actions:

• Declared multiple No Fire Zones (NFZs),
• Airdropped leaflets, used loudspeakers to direct civilians to safety,
• Maintained supply chains to hospitals and IDP centers in war zones.

LTTE actions:

• Fired from within NFZs and civilian sites (hospitals, schools),
• Executed civilians trying to escape,
• Hid artillery among civilians to provoke return fire – blurring target.
• Recruited children and detained families in combat zones.

UN field staff and ICRC witnesses observed many of these atrocities—but their testimony was downplayed or excluded from post-war UN reports.

4. UN Complicity through Silence and Suppression

Throughout the final phase:

• The UN Secretary-General, diplomats, and humanitarian groups repeatedly called for the LTTE to release civilians—calls that were openly defied.
• The UN failed to escalate these violations into global action or condemnation.
• Civilian deaths caused by LTTE brutality were falsely attributed to the Sri Lankan military in post-war reports or rarely acknowledged as LTTE crimes.

Despite UN presence and data collection during the war, post-conflict reports disregarded this primary data and instead relied on diaspora narratives and unverifiable claims.

The UN internal panel (2012) criticized the Resident Coordinator for sidelining the Human Rights Adviser, highlighting operational bias:

“In early 2009 the senior UN official in Sri Lanka, Neil Buhne, ‘excluded his Human Rights Adviser from key meetings…’ and agency heads at UN headquarters ‘were not instructing them otherwise.’”

https://www.hrw.org/news/2012/11/14/un-act-failings-sri-lanka?utm_source=chatgpt.com

 

5. Ignored Forums and Consultations During Wartime

The Sri Lankan government held bi-weekly meetings through the Consultative Committee on Humanitarian Assistance (CCHA), attended by:

• UN agencies,
• The ICRC,
• INGOs and diplomats,
• Civilian and military officials.

No allegations of war crimes were raised during these sessions.

Yet, after the LTTE’s defeat, these same entities reversed course—leveling grave accusations based on post-war speculation, not real-time data.

6. Selective Condemnation: UN’s silence on LTTE War Crimes

The UNHRC has never formally condemned the LTTE for:

• Suicide bombings,
• Political assassinations,
• Use of human shields,
• Child soldier recruitment,
• Attacks on hospitals and civilian buses.

Despite being banned by over 30 countries—including India, the U.S., the U.K., and the EU—the LTTE was never sanctioned under UN resolutions like 1267 or 1373, which targeted similar groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIS.

7. UN Officials and the Problem of Manufactured Narratives

Post-war UN reports relied on questionable sources:

• Internal UN field data was ignored.
• Officials like Gordon Weiss inflated death tolls without evidence, later admitting the figures were speculative.
• Reports by the SLMM (Scandinavian truce monitors) documenting 3,800+ LTTE ceasefire violations were dismissed.
• Post-war, unverified claims by LTTE-linked INGOs and diaspora activists were cited as credible while wartime data and direct observations were erased.

“I (Gordon Weiss) was used as a tool to disseminate exaggerated casualty figures that were not based on evidence but on speculation and political agendas… The UN reports became weapons to discredit Sri Lanka rather than impartial assessments.”
— Confession on how UN reports became biased propaganda.

 

UN Internal Review Panel (2012): “The UN failed to meet its responsibility to protect civilians. It was unprepared, under-resourced, and politically compromised. The lack of coordination and effective leadership exacerbated civilian suffering.”
— Direct indictment of UN operational and moral failure.

8. Inaction on Global LTTE Networks

Even after the LTTE’s defeat:

• Its fundraising arms and front groups operated in Western democracies under humanitarian covers.
• The UN did nothing to dismantle these networks or prosecute those funding terror.
• LTTE diaspora members who celebrated terrorism now influence UN lobbying and media narratives.
• Post-LTTE defeat a former UNHRC head was seen attending pro-LTTE commemorations & making statements reversing her own official statements.

9. What did the UN do to Save Tamil Civilians?

Nothing.

• No diplomatic intervention,
• No peacekeeping initiative,
• No UN effort to demand LTTE release civilians – except the usual statements no one listens to.

Instead, the UN retrospectively blamed the government that rescued those very civilians—while the terrorist group that caused their suffering was never held accountable.

10. Legal misconduct by UNHRC

The UNHRC weaponized human rights law in a context where International Humanitarian Law (IHL) applied.

• The war was a non-international armed conflict against a banned terrorist group.
• Yet, the UNHRC selectively quoted human rights clauses to politically shame Sri Lanka—ignoring the rules of armed conflict under IHL.

Their statements during this period were overwhelmingly one-sided, exposing a political—not legal—agenda.

Conclusion: Institutional Betrayal

The UN and UNHRC’s role during Sri Lanka’s final war against terrorism stands as a case study in:

• Selective justice,
• Willful blindness to terrorism,
• Politicized post-conflict revisionism.

Key questions remain:

• Why was Sri Lanka denied the same rights other nations exercised in defeating terrorism?
• Why was LTTE brutality whitewashed while Sri Lanka’s sacrifices were criminalized?
• Why is the UN silent about its failure to save civilians or support their liberation?

Until these are answered, the UN’s credibility in conflict resolution remains not just compromised—but complicit.

 

Shenali D Waduge