In a more than 40-minute interview with Ada Derana, during which the issues of accountability and justice in Sri Lanka were repeatedly raised, how many times did the United Nations Resident Coordinator in Sri Lanka, Marc-André Franche, say the word “Tamil”?
Given that it was Tamils who were targeted by Sri Lankan bombs, Tamils who were herded into the world’s largest concentration camp in 2009, and Tamils who continue to demand justice for decades of atrocities, you would have thought that, at the very least, the name of the group that suffered would be mentioned.
The answer is: none. Not a single time did Franche utter the word “Tamil.” Not when talking about the victims of Sri Lanka’s past crimes, not when highlighting those demanding justice today, and not when discussing the path forward.
The failure to do so is emblematic of Franche’s, and indeed the United Nations’, approach to Sri Lanka. It is a wilfully ignorant attempt to cover up the suffering of victims and whitewash the perpetrators of atrocities. His interview, drenched in diplomatic niceties, offered a hollow defence of the new Sri Lankan regime. It exposes not only the weakness of the UN’s position, but its dangerous complicity in the ongoing denial of justice.
What is the vision?
.jpg)
Franche alongside Türk and other Sri Lankan government officials last month.
Reflecting on the recent visit of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk last month, Franche praises the “vision” of Sri Lanka’s new government, claiming it offers “a certain sense of hope” for peace and reconciliation. But what vision, exactly?
Since taking office, this government has flatly rejected UN Human Rights Council resolutions. It continues to deny the scale of wartime atrocities. There is no blueprint for justice that meets victims’ demands, no timeline, and certainly no acceptance of responsibility. Yet Franche lauds the government's “openness” - a laughable claim when the only things Sri Lankan authorities have been consistently open about are their disdain for international scrutiny and their contempt for Tamil demands.
Franche himself plays into the government’s refusal to co-operate with any international accountability mechanism, as he repeatedly called for the process to “be led nationally,” claiming there are no relevant international models. This is flatly untrue. The International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda (ICTR) and the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) were not birthed from polite conversations. They were the result of international will, pressure, and recognition that mass atrocity crimes require extraordinary accountability. States that commit mass atrocities do not politely invite the world in. They are held accountable when the world insists.
Franche’s remarks also fly in the face of years of victims’ demands and repeated UN Human Rights Council resolutions that have been explicit in their call for international involvement in an accountability mechanism. Türk was repeatedly told as much by the numerous memoranda he received from Tamils across the North-East during his visit. From banners and placards to letters and direct conversations with UN officials, the demands could not have been clearer.
But if the global body’s representative on the island is so flimsy on the core tenets required for justice to be served, what hope is there for reform from Colombo?
A grave failure of the UN
Throughout the interview, at no point does Franche acknowledge the gravity of the crimes committed in 2009. He speaks of “war,” “tragedy,” and “suffering,” but never calls out the specific nature of the violence inflicted on Tamil civilians. There is no mention of the indiscriminate shelling of hospitals, food queues, or designated no-fire zones. By avoiding the term “war crimes”, let alone “genocide”, he reinforces a culture of denial.
It is even more stark given how the UN’s top humanitarian official, Martin Griffiths, repeatedly invoked Sri Lanka just a few months ago, alongside Srebrenica and Rwanda, when discussing the global response to the atrocities in Gaza. This is the seriousness of the crimes that took place on the island. That cannot be played down.
Indeed, his remarks are all the more disappointing given the UN’s own role in the crimes that took place. “Events in Sri Lanka mark a grave failure of the UN,” concluded the 2012 Petrie Report. In 2016, then-Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon admitted the global body made “big mistakes” and could have saved “many more human lives.”
Yet Franche shows no remorse. He does not address this institutional failure or demonstrate how the UN has since changed its approach. Instead, it appears the UN is repeating the same mistakes - choosing proximity to state power over principled action.
Tired domestic mechanisms
Instead of pushing a narrative that empowers victims, Franche reverts to parroting state narratives. His reference to “some progress on demilitarisation” is, frankly, insulting.
Across the North-East, the military continues to occupy vast swathes of land and intrude into everyday civil life. Uniformed soldiers are a regular presence at community events, places of worship, and even schools. Last year, reports that one army base in Jaffna would be demobilised did not materialise. To date, not a single military camp has closed. Meanwhile, land grabs continue, aided and abetted by the occupying military.
What progress is Franche referring to? There has been none.
The Resident Coordinator’s reference to domestic institutions like the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) is also deeply misplaced. Tamils have been unequivocal in their rejection of such sham processes. Despite functioning for years, the OMP has not provided an iota of relief for families of the disappeared. The time for domestic mechanisms has long passed. And still, the word “Tamil” remained conspicuously absent. Who are the victims? Who are the grieving families? It is not “Sri Lankans” in the abstract. It is the Tamil people. The refusal to name them is part of a broader denial that underpins Sri Lanka’s post-conflict narrative. And the UN, too, is guilty of propagating it.
Franche repeats this same mistake on the issue of enforced disappearances, calling it a “national issue.” This is a dishonest equivalence. There can be no denying the scale of suffering in the Sinhala South. But since at least 2017, it has been Tamil families protesting daily on the streets of the North-East. There is no national campaign in the South. No protests. No demands for further investigations or international accountability. While there are shared commonalities, namely Sri Lankan state–perpetrated violence, there is a qualitative difference in the demands. That must be acknowledged.
No commitments, just clichés
Franche admits that there are “no time-bound commitments,” and instead defaults to vague notions of “momentum” and “moving forward.” More than 16 years on from the massacres at Mullivaikkal, the refusal to adhere to any timeline is bitterly frustrating. How can any society “move forward” without a roadmap? Justice is not a feel-good sentiment. It is concrete action. And action requires deadlines, mechanisms, and enforcement. The UN’s meandering approach only emboldens impunity.
Franche’s praise for domestic institutions that have delivered nothing substantive offers them a veil of legitimacy. The UN provides Colombo with a shield to delay, deflect, and deny. By painting a picture of progress and suggesting the island is on the right path, he is effectively normalising Sri Lanka’s persistent impunity. There is a clear danger in this. It seeks to dissipate international pressure for accountability, disregard victims’ demands for justice, and paves the way for the re-legitimisation of a state apparatus responsible for atrocity crimes.
The Tamil people do not need lectures on “momentum” or “encouraging speeches.” They need concrete action. And they need the UN to stop treating Sri Lanka like a misunderstood student and start treating it as what it is - a serial violator of international law.
Until then, Franche’s optimism will remain as misplaced as the UN’s credibility in Sri Lanka.