UNSG’s panel has come up with their report. This report lacks basic ingredients of a balanced and honest examination of material presented to it as evidence. There are number of reasons for this grave deficiency that makes its conclusions invalid.
Posted on April 23rd, 2011

Dilrook Kannangara

Grave deficiencies in the evidence gathering process and the composition

 A. The UN panel consisted of a person prejudiced against Sri Lanka

The UNSG’s panel’s report is not independent. Marzuki Darusman, a panel member participated in an investigation about the deaths of a number of ACF workers. He came up with an absurd conclusion that was not supported by evidence. Sri Lankan government protested this which made this person to hold a predisposition against the Sri Lankan government. It was entirely wrong for the UNSG to pick him for the panel as it destroyed the objectivity and independence of the panel.

 It is ridiculous for the panel to call for an independent investigation when the panel itself is not independent!

 B. The panel only entertained anti-Sri Lankan allegations. Since the panel was objected to by Sri Lanka, the government of Sri Lanka and its authorized agents didn’t submit evidence. Therefore the panel violated the very basic concept of natural justice which requires that both parties to an investigation or adjudication be heard.

 The UN panel has shown how not to carry an investigation! This makes the panel’s material which it considers as evidence to arrive at its conclusions one sided. The Sri Lanka government must have been awarded an opportunity to counter allegations against it not after the production of the report but during the process of the panel’s investigations.

 The fact that Sri Lanka rejected to offer any material does not absolve the panel from its responsibility to follow the rules of natural justice. It must either take evidence from the Sri Lankan government as it did take material from various parties, or should not have drawn conclusions without such important evidence.

 The panel’s report has already concluded that international investigations are needed even without any evidence from the government of Sri Lanka.

 This again shows preoccupation, predisposition and prejudice against Sri Lanka by the panellists.

 C. The panel never visited Sri Lanka during the investigation. This is a severe limitation of its scope. All the material they consider evidence is hearsay with absolutely no collaborating evidence obtained by the panellists by visiting Sri Lanka.

 D. The panel has not taken into account the context within which the attacks took place. LTTE violated the No Fire Zones by moving in weapons, cadres and leaders. That made it legitimate to attack the No Fire Zone. LTTE hid artillery guns in the vicinity of hospitals which made these localities legitimate targets. The panel fails to recognize the context within which the war and battles took place.

 In addition there are bizarre conclusions and assumptions in the report.

 A. “Between September 2008 and 19 May 2009, the Sri Lanka Army advanced its military campaign into the Vanni using large-scale and widespread shelling causing large numbers of civilian deaths. This campaign constituted persecution of the population of the Vanni.”

 This is a totally absurd and unfounded assumption and certainly not a conclusion based on facts. There was no large scale and widespread shelling. Vanni area consists of close to 8,000 square kilometres and Sri Lankan troops were never in the possession of shells that can inundate at least 1% of the Vanni area. Therefore the allegation of widespread and large-scale shelling has no truth in it. LTTE attacked army positions with artillery and mortar shells and the army responded by attacking identified LTTE positions. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that Sri Lanka army shelling caused a “large number” of civilian deaths.

 There was no persecution of the Vanni population. During this time the government provided free medical facilities, free education facilities and free administration facilities to Vanni people clearly debunking any allegation of persecution. Vanni population started to run to the open arms of the Sri Lanka army and Sri Lankan government agencies for safety during this time.

 B. “The Government sought to intimidate and silence the media and other critics of the war through a variety of threats and actions, including the use of white vans to abduct and to make people disappear.”

 Absurd and unprofessional! These are cheap allegations leveled against the government without any evidence whatsoever. The absurdity of the allegation is so obvious that it has all the hallmarks of deliberate manipulation. With the absence of corroborating evidence, the panel has been fooled. Panellists must appreciate that most vans in Sri Lanka are white in colour and there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the government or any of its agent was into abducting and disappearing people.

 C. “The Government shelled on a large scale in three consecutive No Fire Zones, where it had encouraged the civilian population to concentrate, even after indicating that it would cease the use of heavy weapons. It shelled the United Nations hub, food distribution lines and near the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) ships that were coming to pick up the wounded and their relatives from the beaches. It shelled in spite of its knowledge of the impact, provided by its own intelligence systems and through notification by the United Nations, the ICRC and others. Most civilian casualties in the final phases of the war were caused by Government shelling.”

 There is no evidence to indicate that there was “large scale” shelling in No Fire Zones. LTTE violated all three No Fire Zones by moving its weapons, cadres and leaders into them. LTTE made use of all three No Fire Zones to attack Sri Lanka army. There are enough photographic material that show LTTE stationing various guns in the No Fire Zone.

 The following serious of videos show how LTTE used the No Fire Zone for military activities. It clearly shows how LTTE deployed artillery guns among civilians.

 http://wn.com/Wanni_Operation_LTTE_activities_inside_the_No-Fire-Zone

 Not all shelling is caused by heavy weapons. The word shelling has been manipulated to twist the truth. Small weapons (e.g. small mortar) can also be used in shelling.

 There is no evidence to show it was the Sri Lanka army or any other government unit that shelled the United Nations hub, food distribution lines and near the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) ships. LTTE could have done it easily. They certainly had the reach far better than Government troops as they were closest to these.

 The statement, “Most civilian casualties in the final phases of the war were caused by Government shelling”, is a total fabrication of the truth. There is absolutely no evidence to prove it. Making such unsubstantiated statements further proves the partiality of the panel.

 The following video shows how LTTE amassed civilians to provide cover for LTTE weapons and fighters.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTN6_pFNLoo&feature=player_embedded

 D. “The Government systematically shelled hospitals on the frontlines. All hospitals in the Vanni were hit by mortars and artillery, some of them were hit repeatedly, despite the fact that their locations were well-known to the Government.”

 This is a malicious statement to make. The statement “all hospitals in the Vanni were hit by mortars and artillery” is a blatant lie. Vanni comprise of Vavuniya, Mulaitivu, Mannar and Kilinochchi districts. Certainly not all the hospitals were hit by mortars or artillery. LTTE hid their artillery and mortar units near hospitals making them vulnerable.

 “The Government also systematically deprived people in the conflict zone of humanitarian aid, in the form of food and medical supplies, particularly surgical supplies, adding to their suffering. To this end, it purposely underestimated the number of civilians who remained in the conflict zone.”

 Humanitarian aid was robbed by the LTTE! There was certainly no systematic deprivation of humanitarian aid and surgical supplies by the government. Any war would hamper humanitarian aid and the supply of surgical supplies. There was no underestimation of the number of civilians who remained in the conflict zone. LTTE over estimated the number to be 800,000 but the government estimates came very close to the 330,000 figure contained in the UN report. However, it cannot be expected that supplies would flow seamlessly during a war into any conflict area anywhere in the world.

 E. “Tens of thousands lost their lives from January to May 2009, many of whom died anonymously in the carnage of the final few days.”

 There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate “tens of thousands” lost their lives from January to May 2009. Maliciousness and folly of this statement is apparent when the report states that “many of whom died anonymously in the carnage” to evade the need to give a number of casualties. If there were large casualties, there ought to be at least an estimate or names of the dead.

 No one lived in Vanni anonymously and therefore no one died anonymously. The inability to provide names clearly prove that the casualties were much lower than what the panel assumes or the casualties relate to known LTTE leaders and cadres; and if their names were given it would be obvious that it was LTTE leaders and cadres, not civilians, who died during the war.

 The following video shows how LTTE used civilians in military constructions and LTTE fighters wore civilian clothes in warfare.

 http://www.defence.lk/videos/Seized%20camera%20reveals%20dark%20secrets%20of%20LTTE.wmv

 F. “The Government subjected victims and survivours of the conflict to further deprivation and suffering after they left the conflict zone. Screening for suspected LTTE took place without any transparency or external scrutiny.”

 There was no deprivation and/or deliberate sufferings brought down upon the victims and survivours of the conflict. Facilities and aid provided to them were the best Sri Lanka could afford. Facilities were reasonably good. A delegation of Tamil Nadu politicians who visited these facilities commended the government effort. Panellists with total lack of knowledge of ground realities are making erroneous assumptions.

 Screening for suspected LTTE cadres is totally an internal matter for Sri Lankan authorities and there is no need for external scrutiny. No nation in the world allows external scrutiny of its strict internal security affairs.

 G. “Some of those who were separated were summarily executed, and some of the women may have been raped. Others disappeared, as recounted by their wives and relatives during the LLRC hearings. All IDPs were detained in closed camps. Massive overcrowding led to terrible conditions, breaching the basic social and economic rights of the detainees, and many lives were lost unnecessarily. Some persons in the camps were interrogated and subjected to torture. Suspected LTTE cadres were removed to other facilities, with no contact with the outside world, under conditions that made them vulnerable of further abuses.”

 There is no evidence to assert that some of those who were separated (from IDPs) were summarily executed. This is a false accusation made by groups sympathetic towards the LTTE around the world in their inability to come to terms with the massive defeat they suffered in the battle zone.

Panellists make a mockery of their own judgment when they say “some of the women may have been raped”. Even the panellists don’t seem to believe in what they say. The truth is there is no evidence that some of these women were raped. Faced with this truth but driven by their prejudices against Sri Lanka, the panellists indulge in wild speculation! This is further proof that the panel of three didn’t do an objective assessment.

 Mentioning of LLRC is contradictory with the views expressed by the panel in their report which states, “Nonetheless, the LLRC fails to satisfy key international standards of independence and impartiality, as it is compromised by its composition and deep-seated conflicts of Interests of some of its members.” If so why rely on material submitted to the LLRC?

 Wives and relatives of those who have allegedly disappeared are entitled to say anything they wish but their allegations are not backed by concrete evidence. There are no records to indicate that any of these individuals were present in IDP camps. Due to the mad rush of civilians towards the open arms of government troops, there was no time or facilities to maintain detailed records of them. Using this deficiency, wives and relatives of some of the dead make unfounded allegations.

 Overcrowding at IDP camps occur around the world during conflicts and natural disasters. It was not deliberate on the part of the government. LTTE suicide bomber terrorists infiltrated into IDP facilities and blew themselves during the final stages of the war. A number of IDPs died in these events. Government prevented its recurrence by closely monitoring IDP camps. No one died due to the conditions of IDP camps!

 There is no evidence to indicate anyone in the camps were tortured.

 Conclusions of this flawed process

 The report says, “the Panel found credible allegations that comprise five core categories of potential serious violations committed by the Government of Sri Lanka: (i) killing of civilians through widespread shelling; (ii) shelling of hospitals and humanitarian objects; (iii) denial of humanitarian assistance; (iv) human rights violations suffered by victims and survivors of the conflict, including both IDPs and suspected LTTE cadre; and (v) human rights violations outside the conflict zone, including against the media and other critics of the Government.”

 Each and every of these averments is wrong.

 (i) There was no widespread shelling that resulted in the killing of civilians. In all the wars of the past century and the new century civilians died. Sri Lanka is no exception. However, around the world the fact of civilian deaths didn’t give rise to the belief that they were killed deliberately or due to callousness. Why trying to make an exception in the case of Sri Lanka?

 LTTE cadres during the war wore civilian clothes. There is no need for a terrorist group to don a uniform to all its fighting cadre. In fact no terrorist group fights in a uniform at all times. LTTE sent untrained civilians with guns and bombs to the front line. There is enough evidence of persons wearing civilian clothes engaging in military activities. They deservedly died in the battlefield. A combatant who is not wearing a uniform is not entitled to what civilians are entitled to.

 (ii) As explained above, there was no shelling of hospitals deliberately or due to callousness. LTTE stationed weapons near hospitals and these were duly neutralised using minimum force needed to neutralise them. Mulaitivu hospital which was in the heart of the battle was wholly spared subject to a few damages. It is sufficient proof that hospitals were not shelled deliberately or due to callousness.

 Blaming government troops alone for the destruction caused in some hospitals and not the LTTE is further proof of the panel’s lack of objectivity.

 (iii) Humanitarian aid was not denied to anyone by the government. The conflict, just like any other conflict in the world, prevented an efficient humanitarian mechanism. There is nothing different about this conflict and there certainly was no deliberate disruption of humanitarian work.

 (iv) Human rights violations did happen as it would in any conflict. However, there were and are mechanisms in place for redress. Mere human rights violation doesn’t mean the panel can single out Sri Lanka and blame. The government was not solely responsible for all human rights violations that took place and there are mechanisms in place to address these issues.

 (v) There is no evidence to say the government had a hand in human rights violations outside the battle zone. In fact there was a functioning courts system and a human rights commission during this time. A large number of people sought the assistance of these proving there were no deliberate human rights violations committed, abetted, pushed under the carpet or tolerated by the government.

 Effectiveness of these mechanisms must be compared against other third world countries, not against ideal standards.

 Accountability

 “The Panel has concluded that the Government’s notion of accountability is not in accordance with international standards. Unless the Government genuinely addresses the allegations of violations committed by both sides and places the rights and dignity of the victims of the conflict at the centre of its approach to accountability, its measures will fall dramatically short of international expectations.”

 What are these international standards that are not in accordance with the government’s notion of accountability? The panel fails to mention any such “international standard”. These so called “international standards” must be clearly laid down before making this lame allegation which is not supported by anything specific. Further, these “international standards” must stem from conventions, agreements, etc. Sri Lanka signed. Rome Statue is irrelevant to Sri Lanka as the nation is not a signatory to it. The panel seems to be making yet another unsubstantiated and vague allegation here by claiming the Government’s notion of accountability is not in accordance with unspecified “international standards”.

 Vagueness continues as the report states, “Unless the Government genuinely addresses the allegations of violations committed by both sides and places the rights and dignity of the victims of the conflict at the centre of its approach to accountability, its measures will fall dramatically short of international expectations.” Instead of unspecified “international standards”, the report then talks of unspecified “international expectations”.

 There is no need for Sri Lanka to meet any “international expectations” in its accountability process. None whatsoever. It is an internal affair and must meet its own internal laws, internal requirements and international commitments it has assumed as per the conventions, agreements, etc. it has signed.

 Further, the victims-centred approach suggested by the panel is not what Sri Lanka should be taking. A nation centred and Sri Lankan people centre approaches to accountability is needed. All Sri Lankans are victims of the conflict. Isolating a few of them due to their ethnicity and place of residence is despicably discriminatory. This discriminatory demand of the panel must be rejected.

 Extreme Bias of the Panel in Excluding Tamil/Dravidian Racist Political Parties from All Accountability

 There is further proof of extreme bias of the panel. It has deliberately omitted the root cause of violence which is the conduct of Tamil racist political parties, namely, Illankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi (ITAK), Tamil United Liberation Front, All Ceylon Tamil Congress (ACTC), Tamil National Alliance (TNA), People’s Liberation Organisation of Tamil Elam (PLOTE), Tamil Elam Liberation Organisation (TELO), Western People’s Front of Mano Ganesan, Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (of Tamil Nadu), various other ancillary Tamil and Dravidian racist political parties and a few leaders of other political parties including Rauf Hakeem (of Sri Lanka Muslim Congress and Eric Solheim of Norway).

 They are the prime culprits of all violence that happened in the name of Tamil liberation. Had they not invested, initiated and instigated what they call the “ƒ”¹…”Tamil struggle’, there would not have been in any war.

 A. Every war has an ideology behind it. LTTE never had an ideological wing unlike Al Qaeda, IRA/Sinn Fein, Taliban, Vietcong, Che-Guvara or any other rebel group. The ideology which the LTTE followed was created and popularised by Tamil racist political parties especially the ITAK. In 1958 ITAK leaders carried out a campaign to tar brush Sinhala letters in the north and the east. ITAK leaders including SJV Chelvanayagam and A Amirthalingam personally participated in this campaign. This shows the extent of hatred they created by their own violent conduct. In 1976 most Tamil political leaders belonging to the ITAK and ACTC openly called for an armed struggle by way of their Vadukodai Resolution. It resolved to create a mono-ethnic Tamil only nation in Sri Lanka’s north and the east. It was this that the LTTE put into practice.

 The following link provides the original text of the Vadukoddai Resolution.

 http://www.sangam.org/FB_HIST_DOCS/vaddukod.htm

 Quoted from it: “And this Convention calls upon the Tamil Nation in general and the Tamil youth in particular to come forward to throw themselves fully into the sacred fight for freedom and to flinch not till the goal of a sovereign state of TAMIL EELAM is reached.”

 It is amply clear the war call to fight was made by Tamil racist politicians which the LTTE obediently followed.

 However, A Amirthalingam realized his mistake after 1983 but it was too late for him to stop the momentum he created with his colleagues. In 1989, he was gunned down by the LTTE but his family was saved by Sri Lankan government forces.

 A comparison of pre-Vadukodai Resolution and post-Vadukodai resolution (but before the war) ethnic Sinhalese population numbers of Tamil majority Jaffna district clearly indicate the culpability of Tamil racist political parties and their leaders.

 Sinhalese population of Jaffna district in 1971 (pre-Vadukodai resolution) – 20,402

 Sinhalese population of Jaffna district in 1981 (post-Vadukodai resolution but before the war) – 4,615

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffna_District

 LTTE had not started killing Sinhalese by then and they were terrorised to the extent of leaving the Jaffna district by Tamil racist politicians who endorsed the Vadukodai resolution according to which the north and the east of the country were to be turned into Tamil Elam. They are guilty of civilian killings and all other terrorist activities LTTE carried out with the shared objective of creating a Tamil nation.

 B. Tamil racist political parties concurred with the LTTE on wide ranging issues. LTTE killed the leader of the TULF in 1999 thus making his position vacant. Unashamedly R Sambandan assumed the leadership role of the new Tamil grand alliance named Tamil National Alliance with the backing of the LTTE. No politician of the TULF condemned the LTTE assassination.

 Leaders of Tamil racist political parties including Mano Ganesan participated in LTTE organised “ƒ”¹…”Pongu Thamil’ cultural ceremonies which were aimed at instigating war and violence to create a Tamil-only nation. In doing so they directly contributed to LTTE activities aimed at creating a Tamil-only nation. They are guilty of war crimes committed by the LTTE.

 The following link provides indisputable evidence of Mano Ganesan’s complicity in LTTE crimes.

 http://www.srilankanstube.com/index.php?id=6245&option=com_seyret&task=videodirectlink

 Rauf Hakeem and Ranil Wickramasinghe personally met the LTTE leader in 2002 and 2003 and signed various agreements. The LTTE leader was continuing civilian killings during this time. By their conduct, they assented to and concurred with the LTTE conduct. They are guilty of civilian massacres of the LTTE.

 This link provides a vivid image of Rauf Hakeem’s complicity in participating in LTTE crimes.

 http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.slnewsonline.net/Hakeem_Prabha.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.slnewsonline.net/Presidential_Commission_to_probe_those_who_helped_LTTE.asp&h=243&w=420&sz=19&tbnid=DR4-WiPc097CRM:&tbnh=72&tbnw=125&prev=/search%3Fq%3Drauf%2Bhakeem%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=rauf+hakeem&hl=en&usg=__DqbL-HBNSz_tez9V9ILe4Xh9BhE=&sa=X&ei=HqyuTZGdCo_uuAOG-pGQDw&ved=0CCAQ9QEwAg

 C. Certain Tamil politicians openly participated in the LTTE campaign. They donned the LTTE uniform and visited LTTE leaders in Vanni. Vai Gopalsamy (also known as Vaiko) is known to be a supporter of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) which is banned as a terrorist organization in 32 countries including India and as a result he was arrested under the Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act (POTA) in 2002 and once again on 23 October 2008 for sedition.

 The following photos show Vaiko mixing with LTTE terrorists.

 http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20090301_02

 He is guilty of all the crimes LTTE committed with the objective of creating a Tamil nation.

 D. Eric Solheim of Norway engaged himself in a mediator role between the GOSL and the LTTE. However, he was blamed for his bias towards the LTTE. He refrained from condemning LTTE terrorist activities including the assassination of Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister “”…” Hon Lakshman Kadirgamar who was a Tamil “”…” during the “ƒ”¹…”ceasefire’ period. Due to his complacency and omission, Eric too is guilty of all the crimes committed by the LTTE in pursuing the objective of creating a Tamil nation.

 E. Despite them representing the Vanni and Jaffna districts, TNA MPs did absolutely nothing to ease, prevent, reduce or avoid the deaths of people during the war. This shows utter irresponsible conduct of these Tamil politicians. They have participated in LTTE activities by grave omission and consenting silence. They did nothing to persuade people to break free from LTTE human shields and come to government controlled areas. They didn’t request the LTTE to release people either.

 At the subsequent election, people punished them by not electing some of them and voting less for the others. But this is not sufficient for the crimes they committed by commission and omission.

 F. A Tamil journalist who used his writings to instigate racial hatred was found guilty of inciting racial hatred. His name is J Tissanayagam. However, instead of condemning his criminal act, the UN, HRW, AI and a number of NGOs criticised punishing him! Similar acts by a large number of mostly Tamil journalists who spread racial hatred must be charged for the crimes armed Tamil groups committed driven by hatred.

 By not recognizing these obvious crimes of Tamil racist politicians and political parties, and, connected others, the panel has shown its extreme bias.

 The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC)

 The report says, “The work to date demonstrates that the LLRC has not conducted genuine truth-seeking about what happened in the final stages of the armed conflict, not sought to investigate systematically and impartially the allegations of serious violations on both sides of the war, not employed an approach that treats victims with full respect for their dignity and their suffering, and not provided the necessary protection for witnesses, even in circumstances of actual personal risk.”

 These are based on presumptions and prejudices panel members hold against Sri Lanka. In fact, the LLRC has already received statements, etc. alleging various abuses during the last stages of the war. It is in the process of investigating these. The absence of fabricated material which the panel has received does not mean there is no process to investigate. Unlike the panellists, the LLRC travels around the country and gets down various witnesses for its process. It does not go by prejudices and guesswork which the panel seems to use to find its way. Outright lies and fabrications are easily detectable by the LLRC due to their well grounded approach whereas the panel with no experience in conducting its investigation in Sri Lanka has made absurd assumptions.

 The report further alleges that, “[the LLRC has] not employed an approach that treats victims with full respect for their dignity and their suffering, and not provided the necessary protection for witnesses, even in circumstances of actual personal risk.”

 This is a malicious and arrogant assumption with no factual basis. The LLRC treats everyone including victims with full respect and dignity! There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the LLRC has not employed an approach that treats victims with full respect for their dignity and their suffering. This assertion once again proves how the panel pathetically lacks objectivity.

 Witnesses are protected and there is no credible evidence of witnesses were attacked, abused or otherwise handled against their will. A very large number of persons have made presentations to the LLRC and they are protected very well by the nation’s defence mechanism.

 Other domestic mechanisms

 The report states, “In particular, the independence of the Attorney-General has been weakened in recent past, as power has been more concentrated in the Presidency. Moreover, the continuing constitution of Emergency Regulations, combined with the Prevention of Terrorism Act in its present form, present a significant obstacle for the judicial system to be able to address official wrongdoing while upholding human rights guarantees. Equally, the Panel has seen no evidence that the military courts system has operated as an effective accountability mechanism in respect of the credible allegations it has identified or other crimes committed in the final stages of the war.”

 There is no way the Emergency Regulations, combined with the Prevention of Terrorism Act is an obstacle to for the judicial system. They are part of the judicial system! Laws in Sri Lanka are strictly an internal matter for Sri Lanka. UN or any other external body has absolutely no authority over what laws Sri Lanka should keep or adopt.

 Sri Lanka has a very effective legal system commensurate with its economic strength, much better than most developing countries. The panel has no expertise in assessing the effectiveness of the legal system. Panellists’ desire to discredit Sri Lanka in whatever way they can is what transpires from these petty unsubstantiated allegations.

 The panel has no evidence that the military courts system hasn’t operated as an effective accountability mechanism. It is just guessing that the panel has indulged in deciding otherwise.

 Other obstacles to accountability

 The report continues, “the Panel observed that there were several other contemporary issues in Sri Lanka, which if left un-addressed, will deter efforts towards genuine accountability and may undermine prospects for durable peace in consequence. Most notably, these include: (i) triumphalism on the part of the Government, expressed through its discourse on having developed the means and will to defeat “terrorism”, thus ending Tamil aspirations for political, autonomy and recognition, and its denial regarding the human cost of its military strategy; (ii) on-going exclusionary policies, which are particularly deleterious as political, social and economic exclusion based on ethnicity, perceived or real, have been at the heart of the conflict (iii) the continuation of wartime measures, including not only the Emergency Regulations and the Prevention of Terrorism Act, mentioned above, but also the continued militiarisation of the former conflict zone and the use of paramilitary proxies, all of which perpetuate a climate of fear, intimidation and violence; (iv) restrictions on the media, which are contrary to democratic governance and limit basic citizens’ rights;”

 (i) Defeating terrorism is indeed a matter of triumphalism! No one can deny Sri Lankans the joy of that victory. It means a lot for the people of Sri Lanka. It means there are no suicide bombings anymore, no more bus bombs, attacks on villages, abduction of children to be trained as suicide bombers and the absence of many more undesirable things in the society. The UN panel has no right whatsoever to look down upon Sri Lankans’ triumph over the most ruthless terrorist group in the world.

 (ii) There are absolutely no exclusionary policies in Sri Lanka. Everyone has equal rights irrespective of ethnicity. The reason for the panel to make such absurd assumptions is related to the panelists’ total lack of knowledge about Sri Lanka.

 (iii) Sri Lanka, just like all other UN member nations, have the right to determine its military strategy and the panel or the UNSG have no authority whatsoever to question that.

 (iv) There are restrictions in the media. All countries have a legal framework within which media should function. Sri Lanka is and should not be the exception.

 Other rubbish recommendations are irrelevant at best and dictatorial at worst.

 International role in the protection of civilians

 The international community was fully aware of the ground situation during the war. That was why the international community didn’t have to intervene. The war ravaged for 26 years killing a large number of people and displacing even more. The ending of the war means no more deaths and displacement.

 Recommendations of the panel are aimed at violating and interfering in Sri Lanka’s sovereignty, UN membership privileges, peoples’ mandate for government policy and subjugation of Sri Lankans using dictatorial conduct of the panel. None of these recommendations should be implemented and each and every one of them must be rejected.

 Recommendation 1: Investigations

 A. The panel recommends Sri Lanka commence investigations alleged violations of the international humanitarian and human rights law. LLRC is already active and it should be allowed to continue its process. Sri Lanka’s courts system is sufficient to take on any legal matter and there is absolutely no need for any more investigative processes to look into the same allegations.

 B. The panel also recommends Sri Lanka come under the guidance and monitoring of the UN Secretary General. This is outrageous and it must be rejected outright.

 Recommendation 2: Other measures to advance accountability

 The report lists down the following.

 (i) End all violence by the State, its organs and all paramilitary and other groups acting as surrogates of or tolerated by, the State;

 (ii) Facilities the recovery and return of human remains to their families and allow for the performance of cultural rites for the dead;

 (iii) Provide death certificates for the dead and missing, expeditiously and respectfully, without charge, when requested by family members, without compromising the right to further investigations and civil claims;

 (iv) Provide or facilitate psycho-social support for all survivors, respecting their cultural values and traditional practices;

 (v) Release all displaced persons and facilitate their return to their former homes or provide for resettlement, according to their wishes; and

 (vi) Continue to provide interim relief to assist the return of all survivors to normal life.

 There is no violence continued by the state or any other group in the country and therefore the recommendation has no validity. There is no need to recover any human remains. A proper burial was given to everyone with religious observances. There is no need to repeat these.

 Providing death certificates for the dead and missing when requested by family members is not the correct process. This is a shrewd attempt to collect bogus names of war casualties which will be used to further manipulate the truth. It must not be done. No displaced persons should be allowed a home according to their wishes. A planned resettlement scheme must happen. Almost all the IDPs have been resettled and there is no need for further relief to them at the expense of taxpayer funds.

 The recommendations section of the report is a repetition of the same thing over and over again which shows there has not been proper co-ordination within the panel. Each panelist seems to be trying to impose his/her dictatorial views on Sri Lanka.

 Recommendation 3: Longer term accountability measures

 Further recommendations include the following.

 “A. Taking into account, but distinct from the work of the LLRC, Sri Lanka should initiate a process, with strong civil society participation, to examine in a critical manner: the root causes of the conflict, including ethno-nationalist extremism on both sides; the conduct of the war and patterns of violations; and the corresponding institutional responsibilities.

 B. The Government of Sri Lanka should issue a public, formal acknowledgement of its role in and responsibility for extensive civilian casualties in the final stages of the war.

 C. The Government of Sri Lanka should institute a reparations programme, in accordance with international standards, for all victims of serious violations committed during the final stages of the war, with special attention to women, children and particularly vulnerable groups.”

 LLRC should be allowed to do its work unhindered. The root cause of the conflict is Tamil racist aspirations including the Tamil racist desire to create a Tamil only mono-ethnic nation called Tamil Elam. That must be accepted and acknowledged by the government.

 There is absolutely no need to acknowledge government’s role and responsibility for civilian casualties. It was all the doing of the LTTE. Just because the LTTE is no more there is no need for the government to assume responsibility for LTTE crimes.

 Since there were no serious violations committed by the government forces there is no requirement for any more reparation programmes.

 Government should initiate a process of dismantling and erasing all LTTE monuments and constructions used to indoctrinate, brainwash or otherwise induce people to engage in violence. These include all LTTE cemeteries that are maintained as monuments without any burials therein, suicide bomber training facilities, erections to commemorate fallen LTTE cadres and leaders, and, LTTE artwork and carvings.

 The UNSG’s panel’s report is nothing about human rights, rebuilding lives or reconciliation. The word reconciliation appears only once in the report apart from the mentioning of the LLRC! This shows the extent of disregard for national reconciliation. The UNSG’s report is all about cashing in the dead and buying Tamil Elam from the proceeds.

 Reject the report, its recommendations and the rejuvenated Tamil racist demands after the report. Amass support from sane members of the UN Security Council in case these rubbish allegations are taken to the UN or the UN Security Council. Highlight the progress made in Sri Lanka especially in war ravaged areas to the UN membership. Convince them the need to allow Sri Lanka rebuild after 26 years of war. Remind the UN members, not its lousy employees the danger in allowing the UN interfere in internal affairs of one nation which will set a bad precedent. Invite the UNSG’s panel to give evidence to the LLRC and not the other way around. Cross examine their evidence and proof them wrong.

 Once again India has not come to Sri Lanka’s rescue when absurd allegations are made discrediting Sri Lanka’s good name. Even when the panel was appointed, India failed to criticise it. India that went to bed with the Soviet Union (SU) and armed the LTTE during the Cold War is now in bed with the United States (US) to divide Sri Lanka. India should not be allowed to interfere with Sri Lanka securing its sovereignty with the help of sane members of the Security Council that can stand on their own feet, take bold decisions and veto insane decisions.

8 Responses to “UNSG’s panel has come up with their report. This report lacks basic ingredients of a balanced and honest examination of material presented to it as evidence. There are number of reasons for this grave deficiency that makes its conclusions invalid.”

  1. Dham Says:

    India will never come to rescue. India wants to bully all neighbours. India is a rogue country.
    We must act against India.
    No Bajajs. No TATAs, No rubbish . How good the country will be.

  2. Rohan Says:

    Abolish the UN! Its a criminal organisation. Sri Lanka and the rest of the world should boycott the UN in everything they are much better off without this criminal world body. UN = Nazis.

  3. Susantha Wijesinghe Says:

    Rohan, it is waste of time making an effort to abolish UN. I have suggested in this forum, the formation of SEAN (SOUTH EAST ASIAN NATIONS ) Please see whether you could concur with my proposal. It is reflected in one full article under the caption, and also here and there as comments. Lets get together to impeach Ban Ki Moon.

  4. Fran Diaz Says:

    Was this loosely arranged Panel by Mr Ban Ki Moon whose Report is full of errors, set up to attract world attention to the so called ‘Tamil grievances’ of Tamils in the N&E ?

    We suggest that a group of Concerned Citizens (Tamils, Sinhalas, Muslims, & Others including Clergy from all religions, especially Poosaris), meet with Tamil people of the N&E to talk about the need for Integration into mainstream life in Lanka, and
    point out that if they do not integrate that the loss is for the Tamils of the N&E. Talks/Debates etc. on the need for Integration can be transmitted to the Tamil people of the N&E via Radio & tv too.

  5. Fran Diaz Says:

    It is imperative that all Concerned Citizens and others point out to the Tamils of the N&E the GAINS THROUGH INTEGRATION with mainstream of life in Lanka.

  6. cassandra Says:

    This is a third grade report produced by a third grade panel. Symptomatic of the report’s poor quality is its reliance on ‘credible ALLEGATIONS’ – not credible EVIDENCE. Allegations, whether they are regarded as credible or not, are still only allegations, and it is a poor judge who will seek to express an opinion based on mere allegations. In basing its report largely on unproven allegations, the panel has shown an appalling lack of professionalism.

    Those of us born and bred in Sri Lanka, where the rumour mill is a flourishing institution, know only too well how to not trust all we hear. We constantly hear all manner of allegations – some of them sounding very credible – but know to treat these with caution and never to accept them as true until they are proved.

    Incidentally, the TNA leader is reported as saying the report confirms what the TNA has been saying in parliament. This is not the case. What the report has done is to only repeat the allegations that the TNA has been making – not to validate them.

  7. Terry Says:

    Further “allegations” to be aired by C4.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/apr/26/channel-4-sri-lanka-footage

    Channel 4 to air ‘horrific’ Sri Lanka footage.

    Why is’nt GOSL seeking an injunction against C4

  8. Fran Diaz Says:

    Biggest mistake by Lankan governments was to turn a blind eye on Tamil Illegal migrants since Lanka got Independence in 1948. We think there are many thousands of illegal migrants in Lanka from Tamil Nadu, fleeing the Caste (Dalit) System & poverty in Tamil Nadu. Would not this have made Tamil leaders of Lanka think that the flood of illegal migrants would go on forever and the formation of Eelam would be an easy matter ?

    At present, we hear that the Rama/Sita Trail brings thousands of “Indian” tourists to Lanka. Do these tourists go back to India ? Who is checking this ?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

 

 


Copyright © 2019 LankaWeb.com. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress