There was no War in Sri Lanka therefore there were neither war crimes nor violation  of human rights.
Posted on July 5th, 2016

By Charles.S.Perera

The Prince Zeid bin ra’ad Al Hussain, as an intelligent man if using his unbiased mind may understand why Sri Lanka has neither committed war crimes nor violated human rights. It was because there was never a war in Sri Lanka. Wars are between countries and bombs and gunfire from the warring parties  may kill innumerable number of civilians and violate human rights. It happened in the World War I and World War II. It happened in USA and Iraq war.  There was a tribunal  in Nuremburg to  try the war criminals. In a war there are two sides or more countries may join one or the other. The warring parties of both sides kill civilians as well as the soldiers from each side.  Both warring parties are equally responsible for the deaths in war. Those killings are the war crimes and violation of human rights.

Sri Lanka never had a war.  War” is a wrong word to use in the military operations of Sri Lanka Armed Forces against the terrorists.  In Sri Lanka there was terrorism, the terrorists came from amoung its own people. They were  Tamil youth. These young people  were taken over by India and trained in the jungles of South India as terrorists and released later in the North of Sri Lanka to carry out terrorism to divide the country to establish a Tamil Eelam.

Sri Lanka used its Armed Forces to eliminate the terrorists. In this military operation it was fighting against the terrorists, not against the Tamil civilians, or not in a country away fro Sri Lanka. It was an internal military operation to stop continued ruthless terrorist activities for thirty years within the country .

Unlike in a conventional war, in a military operation by the armed forces of a country  against  terrorism within the country, it is to stop  crimes being  committed by the terrorists against its people. Therefore the Armed Forces of the Government were fighting to remove terrorism which was causing damage to human life and property.

The military operations of the Armed Forces of the Sri Lanka government was a means to protect its people and the country. If there had been deaths  to civilians,  it was in the course of eliminating a great danger to the country-terrorism, which would have  caused greater number of deaths in the future as it had  been in the past.

In a conventional war  there are certain regulations and agreed conventions such as the Geneva convention the breach of which would be interpreted as war crimes or violation of human rights. After the World War II there were military tribunals  held by allied forces for Nuremberg trials  for the prosecution of the members of  the political, military and judicial leadership of Nazi Germany who planned and carried out the Holocaust and other war crimes.

Sri Lanka needs no  tribunals in the lines of those established for Nuremberg Trials to try our soldiers and the political leadership that carried out the military operations to eliminate terrorism in Sri Lanka. Our soldiers  and those who gave leadership to carryout the military operations against the terrorists, did a necessary service to stop a thirty years of suffering  and massacres of innocent civilians by the terrorists.

If there were civilians deaths  in the course of those military operations it was unfortunate. They were  collateral and our Armed Forcers cannot be tried for war crimes for the deaths caused during the military operations, in the aftermath of the elimination of terrorism as it was in the course of carrying out their military duties in the protection of the country and the people. Such courts may be acceptable in a conventional war between countries and not in  military operations to rid the country of terrorism.

Prince Zeid bin ra’ad Al Hussain despite being the Commissioner of UN Human Rights Commission, should use the intelligence of the man he is,  to see through the ridiculous move of USA to pass a resolution against Sri Lanka for war crimes and human rights in the elimination of a ruthless group of terrorists.

If there had been deaths to  civilians caught in the cross fires between the government Armed Forces and the terrorists in the course of that military operation the responsibility for those deaths fall wholely on the terrorists who held the 300,000 Tamil civilians as a human shield for their own protection, and the Sri Lanka Armed forces cannot be called upon by any one to face a tribunal to answer for those deaths. The Armed Forces in fact saved the lives of those 300,000 Tamil civilians kept as human shields by the terrorists in a remarkable humanitarian rescue operation.

The Sri Lanka Armed Forces were carrying out their duties in the service of the country to bring peace and security for all communities in Sri Lanka including the Tamil Community which now take exception for the elimination of terrorism.

The Tamils of Sri Lanka and their kith in the Tamil diaspora are under the delusion that they are not a minority Community in Sri Lanka,  despite they being just a 11 percent of the population as  against a 75 percent of the Sinhala population.  They presume they have the same rights as the Sinhala population. Not satisfied living in a Sinhala country as a minority they have even begun re-writing the history of Sri Lanka to claim that they had been in Sri Lanka even before the advent of the Sinhala.

USA seems to be giving credence to this false assertion of the Tamils as they the Americans in USA as well as Canadians, and Australians  have intruded into countries that did not belong to them and decimated  its original inhabitants –the Native Americans in USA, First Nation in Canada and Aboriginals in Australia, to claim ownership to those lands and now have become nations of their own of those countries.  Perhaps USA thinking of  its  own experience wants to establish the Sri Lanka Tamils as a Nation in Sri Lanka by decimating, weakening or  dispersing the Sinhala population, as they have done to the native Americans.

How else could we understand the willingness of USA and the West going all out to demand  the Government of Sri Lanka for reconciliation with the Tamils, accept even their terrorism in Sri Lanka justifiable, and call the Government of Sri Lanka to set up a Tribunal with foreign judges and prosecutors to put our Armed Forces on trial for war crimes as they did to the political, military and judicial leadership of Nazi Germany ?

Incidentally,  AlJazeera had a discussion with A Sri Lanka Minister D.M.Swaminathan, Sivanathan, Subramaniam Sentilkumar of the British  Tamil Forum and Bhavani Fonseka of Centre for Policy Alternative about  reconciliation and distribution of land occupied by the Armed Forces to Tamil owners. Thousands of acres of land that had been occupied by the Armed Forces have  already been given back to the people.  The British  Tamil Forum representative wanted more lands to be handed back to the people and claim that  about 150000 Army personal in the north should be removed.

This is how the Tamil diaspora is using the Western media for their purpose to  wrench off more benefits to the Tamil Community minimizing  the importance of all the benefits the Sri Lanka Government  had been giving to the Tamils of North and East since the elimination of terrorism. The Tamil Diaspora that creates most of the  problems feeding false information to the International Community has contributed  nothing  for the development or the welfare of the Tamil Community in Sri Lanka.

What prevents reconciliation of Communities in Sri Lanka is this interference of Western Media and the Tamils of the diaspora who are for the most part going on information received from third parties without having any idea about the ground situation.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid bin ra’ad Al Hussain should now evaluate the situation independently as he is the one who presented  the special report, titled “Promoting Reconciliation, Accountability and Human Rights in Sri Lanka”,   without first  discussing it  with the Government of Sri Lanka.

The matter as a whole should not be the concern of the UN as the elimination of terrorism cannot be considered a war. It is against the principle on which first the League of Nations and then the UNO was set up. UNO was set up to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war… to re-affirm  faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person,in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small….”

The most disastrous than war is terrorism, because terrorists show no respect to fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person…” No rules could be set as  to how to conduct terrorism.” And agreements cannot be entered into with terrorists as to how to carry out terrorism !!!

The  terrorism is  out side the Charter of UNO which came into effect in June,1945 , therefore it is wrong for the UNO to interfere in the settlement of terrorism  within  a country. The fundamental human rights referred to in the Charter of the UNO is in respect of breach of human rights in the conduct of wars and not terrorism.

The wars as referred to above are between countries, and terrorism is against governments by a group of armed men who act on their own. Therefore the UN should not  misinterpret the UNCharter to interfere into sovereign states  in the settlement of terrorism or to call for accountability for the consequences in the elimination of  terrorism  which is a sovereign State’s  internal problem.

Therefore, USA has no moral right to move a resolution against Sri Lanka calling for accountability and accusing its Armed Forces for war crime and violation of human rights, and the report of the UN Commissioner Prince Zeid is equally uncalled for .

The UN Commissioner for human rights Prince Zeid bin ra’ad Al Hussain, instead of calling the Sri Lanka Government to set up a hybrid court to prosecute the Armed Forces of Sri Lanka for war crimes, should point out to the USA and the countries that sponsored the resolution against Sri Lanka,  that no country or the UN has the right to question Sri Lanka on the elimination of terrorism, therefore the USA should withdraw its resolution even at this stage, and that he will himself withdraw the report he presented.

As it has been correctly declared in the preamble to the constitution of UNESCO, since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed .  Hence it is  the Government  and the people of Sri Lanka that should search within themselves  the means to bring the Communities within the country together  to find a solution to create unity amoung themselves to usher in peace for social welfare and economic development of Sri Lanka.

UNO is not serving the purpose for which it was setup, but getting involved in internal affairs of Sovereign States which the UNO has no right to do unless invited by the Sovereign State.  In the case of Sri Lanka UNO interfered to accuse Sri Lanka and  appointed a committee to make a report on Sri Lanka which the Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said was for his personal use.

But the document called the Darusman Report was finally made official accusing Sri Lanka on the finding of the report.  The Darusman Report was not reliable as the report was made on evidence collected  from third parties and which were biased and accused without eye witness accounts atrocities supposed to have been committed by the Armed Forces. It was highly improper to have released the report which was prepared for the use of the Secretary General as an official report of the UN.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid bin ra’ad Al Hussain, should take note that under no circumstances a report should be accepted if  the names of witnesses who provided information for the preparation of the report has not been divulged as such a document is not legal and raises doubt about the honesty of its intention-its bona fides. The same can be said of the report of the UN Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid , Promoting Reconciliation, Accountability and Human Rights in Sri Lanka ”.

What is necessary is not to have hybrid courts to prosecute  the Armed Forcers of Sri Lanka for war crimes, but to tell the Tamil Community that reconciliation is not having separate rights within Sri Lanka according to the ethnicity of each community, but to live in communal unity with all Communities without segregation according to religion, language or race.

Minority and Majority Communities in other  countries of the world are not a new phenomenon.  But the minorities  in other countries respect  the rights, customs, language, laws and religion of the majority community, and accept  to live as citizens sharing the rights of the Majority without demanding the majority of that country to accept the language, laws and customs of the minority community. There is a mutual respect between the Majority Community and the minority community.  It is how it should be and it’s the role of the UNO and  the UN Human Rights Commission to make the Sri Lanka Tamil Community understand that fundamental conditions of living as minority in a country where the majority is not Tamil.

That is the role of the UNO, because we cannot accept the USA or the West to do it because they have political interest in dividing populations in countries either by war or by other subtle means using Human Rights as a tool for example to maintain their leadership.  It is for that reason the forefathers of UNO set up that august Institution, which today  has been made what it should not be-an institution to divide populations in the interest of more powerful member States.

It is perhaps now up to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid bin ra’ad Al Hussain, to call to order what is in disorder, and demand USA and the sponsors to withdraw  the  anti Sri Lanka resolution they presented and passed  at the UN HR Council. .  The whole resolution against Sri Lanka presented to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva by the USA as well as the report , Promoting Reconciliation, Accountability and Human Rights in Sri Lanka ” of UNHCHR Prince Zeid. are based mostly on the Darusman Report an unofficial report made official by the Secretary General Ban Ki Moon in the interest of USA and the West to make Sri Lanka what the USA , the West and the Tamils of the diaspora want it to be- a communally divided failed state, dependent on USA and the West with part of it separated in the interest of the Tamil Community.

24 Responses to “There was no War in Sri Lanka therefore there were neither war crimes nor violation  of human rights.”

  1. Cerberus Says:

    Thank you Charles for clearly stating what was evident to all unbiased people from the beginning. We all know that this whole war crimes effort was a drama enacted for the purpose of getting Sri Lanka to fall in line with the wishes of those who set up this Kangaroo trial.

  2. stanley perera Says:

    Charles, we are unable to convince the free loaders of Sri Lanka at least to read and understand the foregoing rationale as they are hell bent in pocketing the dollars and Indian perks. It that corrupt that they are not patriotic nor adopting the don’t care attitude. Can a beedi mudalali read and understand the language. Uneducated paharayos are only self serving Ba…rds. Even the big eyes of Matara is only capable in bum sucking the west and the Diaspora Tamils. We may be able to educate the president but president and the prime minister are playing the diplomacy as they fear to to tell the truth and get the Tamils backs up. God same my mother Lanka.

  3. Dilrook Says:

    Legally, if we follow this we land in very serious trouble. If there was no war (armed conflict) then the deaths become serious crimes. On the other hand if we accept there was a war (armed conflict), then the deaths are justified.

  4. Senevirath Says:

    බෙදුම් වාදය ත්‍රස්තවාදය පාතාලය රාජ්‍යවිරෝධී කැරලි මර්ධනය කිරීම යුද්ධයක් නොවෙය කොටින්ට විරුද්ධව කලේ ත්රස්ත විරෝධී සටනක් හිරවූ දෙමලු ඇතුළු ය බේරාගැනීමේ සටනක් ජවිපෙට විරුද්ධ මෙහෙයුමත් ඒවගේ . මුලදීම මෙය කලානම් කොහොමත් යුද්ධ කතාවක් එන්නේ නැහැ . යුද්ධයක් ගැන කියන්නවත් එපා .
    නලින්ද සිල්වා වසර විසිගණනක් තිස්සේ කිව්වේ එකය්

  5. Charles Says:

    Dilrook , I like your independent views. But some times it is better go a little further. Law cannot be treated as if it is within an airtight box. Law is often interpreted by judges and those intepretations become precedents in law. Terrorism is not defined as “war”. Those matters have to be argued in a court of law. It is only then that the judges will come to an agreement. In my view we have a case to argue that our armed forces did not fight a war but against a gang of criminals and only means to subdue was a military operations. …….there is much more to it but I will keep it short.

    following is an extract from a long article on the subject:

    “This briefing note has established that terrorism is a crime in Canada, UK, and the US. In addition, terrorism is not an act of war, as war is traditionally reserved for conflicts between two nation states, not nation states and non-state entities, like terrorist organizations. Following the definitional outline supporting terrorism as a crime, this briefing note explored the current domestic legal systems in the West, and how their shortcomings in combating terrorism outline the requirement of states to act outside of their own legal confines to achieve justice. The shortcomings of traditional domestic criminal justice systems is evidenced by the United States’ treatment of suspected terrorist Fawaz Yunis, where during his trial, the US violated its own constitution in order to manipulate the US legal system in order to bring Yunis to justice. After reviewing the flaws with the current Western criminal justice situation in the West, this briefing note explored the proposed use of international law as a means of trying terrorists in a more appropriate and inclusive jurisdictional environment. Unfortunately, although international cooperation is productive in theory, factors such as diversity, self-interest, and legal sovereignty make multilateral cooperation for criminal matters unlikely for the time being.”

  6. anura seneviratna Says:

    Agree with Charles that there was no war but an insidious invasive terror and an internal conflict which can be settled by the sovereign country. But due to fraudulent Tamil propaganda with open support by Tamil Nadu (Tamil country) plus huge world Tamil population due to the inability to free the original Tamil Nadu from the Indian subcontinent – they bluffed the world by calling it the Tamil national struggle. Our response to this claim is terrorism which is extremely weak in the eyes of the world at large who would approve any crime in a national struggle. The mysterious dumbness on our part in utilising the self evident truth that it’s only in one’s national country i.e. in Tamil Nadu where the Tamil national struggle should take place and what is happening in SL (Sinhela National country) is an undercover invasive attempt by the migrant community to convert SL into a second Tamil Nadu. The absence of this factual response from SL was exploited not only by the Tamil migrant community but the international agents too supported invasive Tamil terror thinking that Sinhela nation had given up their national rights and island country.

    ” Minority and Majority Communities in other countries of the world are not a new phenomenon. ”

    If not new, definitely the wrong expression which is abundantly exploited by our enemies. No indigenous national country refers to its nation as the “majority community” but the nation as a whole INCLUSIVE of migrant communities. Majority minority can be used in a settler country which is being robbed of an indigenous nation. Such giveaway statements which are often used by the srilankans is fodder to invasive migrant communities in SL.


    This man Charles calls intelligent has a part of his brain not developed. King Hussein wanted to kill him but he is a half brother of the king. During the up rising by Palestinians, in Jordanian refuge camps (6 day war) he organized and armed the tent city Palestinians to attach Royal Jordanian Army. Thousands of thousands of them were killed, but he escaped to UK and entered a hospital. From there he went to the UN backed by the CIA. When King Abdulla took the throne after his father’s death, he gave him a place and forgot about it. He was born without testicles. Bush family did not want to do any thing with him. When MUSLIM OBAMA came to power he used him to out set MR. OBAMA then appointed Atul Catsup as the US ambassador to SL. Obama is not going to last for ever. This Prince Al-Hussein has a very short life span because of his birth condition.

  8. Fran Diaz Says:

    Agree with Charles on his argument that it was a armed conflict against the terrorist outfit, the LTTE, lasting nearly 30 yrs.

    Some Points to Note :

    * Also want to know why it is that the International Community did nothing to stop the LTTE, or even condemn them, when the LTTE went on rampage killing innocent villagers, even decimating the UNP LEADERSHIP & Other leaders, and bombed the Central Bank, and did countless harm to the country for nearly 30 yrs.

    * Why is it that no fuss was made by the IC when the GoSL of those times did attack the LTTE from time to time. The fuss started when the LTTE was removed in 2009.

    * No acknowledgement that it was the Vaddukoddai Resolution of 1976 (put out by the Tamil Leaders of that time) which initially led Tamil youth to terrorism. NOTE ALSO that the Vaddukoddai Resolution came BEFORE the 1983 trumped up Riots, which enabled some one million Tamils to go abroad as REFUGEES and form the TAMIL DIASPORA.

    We, the Sinahala Buddhist majority of Lanka, were ignored by hte IC during the Cold War times, as TAMIL NADU, one of the breakaway states of INDIA, was featured with some prominance for the IC, and unfortunately, the JVP ran with Russia initially and later with Chinese thinking.

    Now, the Ranil led UNP which leads the Yahap folk, has Grand Plans to re-do Lanka according to some weird image from a foreign drawing board :

    – ETCA
    – Sea Tunnel to Tamil Nadu (INDIA)
    – 5,000 acre lots on 99 yr leases to foreigners
    – New Constitution (what might that bring ?)

  9. Dilrook Says:


    That is true. I have huge disagreements with the IHL and it badly needs updates to take into account the relatively modern threat of terrorism.

    However, the law is the law and we must follow it as we have signed and ratified it. I find most Sri Lankans falsely thinking that morality is law or morality is more important than law. Not true. For all matters earthly, law takes priority over morality.

    A simple example to illustrate this is the crime of theft. You commit theft if you take something from the possession (not ownership) of another without that person’s approval which means you can be found guilty of stealing what belongs to you! Morally, you are not doing anything wrong but in law you are guilty. Possession of narcotics in ASEAN countries carries similar laws. It does not matter you intended to carry it or someone slipped it to you. If found in your possession, you are guilty of it and in most cases the punishment is death.

    Mahinda’s government was fully aware (not that it matters) of legal implications of the IHL. One of the first laws his government passed was the Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Act to update our laws in line with the IHL.

    The only way Sri Lanka can escape from these allegations is to claim we had war (armed conflict) and therefore, the laws of war applies. Laws of war allows attacking and killing civilians, destroying hospitals, mosques, kovils, schools, etc. under many conditions. Those are not war crimes. However, if there was no war, these attacks are not just war crimes but also crimes against humanity.

    We must drop this morality based arguments on the war crimes issue and take up only the legal position. The war crimes issues is a legal issue. Otherwise we end up like Silindu’s son in law in the Village in the Jungle framed for a crime he never committed but unable to defend himself in a court of law.

  10. S.Gonsal Says:

    To add to what Dilrook said, morality, in fact is gradually influencing Law. For example more and more countries consider killing murderers as punishment is immoral and has thus become Law.
    We have been a country of highest moral traditions regardless of Law. Unfortunately those traditions have become something to mention as election “Gundu” only and both Law and morality has become values to be disregarded not only secretly but also in the open, even practiced by the government. Successive leaders have set up examples in showing how to keep the head straight even after unashamedly breaking the law.
    We should accept there was “WAR”. Only fools will say there was not war. Let it be “war against terrorism” or whatever it is, there is no escape by white washing, we should face the facts and get out of the accusation by ardently proving there were no war crimes.

  11. Charles Says:

    Dilrook I see what you mean. But in Sri Lanka the Judges do not go beyond the law to interpret it extensively to bring in matters perhaps not envisaged by the legislators. Like for insctance Lord Denning or Lord Russel of England who have some time almost changed the laws to apply beyond what it had originally meant. Terrorism was not included in the UN Charter because terrorism did not exist then as it does now. Therefore it depends on good lawyers to make Judges see the wordings of the rules of the law to give interpretations beyond the words. That is why I think we should not accept terrorism in Sri Lanka as war. It is because it has been interpreted as that the question of war crimes has been spelt out. Terrorism is out side the concept of war. We have to have good lawyers to make judges interpret the laws differently to introduce new concepts beyond the rules to apply to terrorism.

  12. anura seneviratna Says:

    The sad result of so called norms applied in all areas including laws has retarded mankind’s infinite potentiality to think outside the box!

  13. Charles Says:

    Dilrook please see the following:U.S. on Civilian Casualties: Inherent right of self-defense-national interest
    Mon, 2016-07-04

    Daya Gamage – Asian Tribune US National Correspondent

    Washington, D.C. 03 July (

    “U.S. policy on civilian casualties resulting from U.S. operations involving the use of force in armed conflict or in the exercise of the Nation’s inherent right of self-defense is based on our national interest, our values, and our legal obligations”, declares President Obama in an Executive Order of July 1 outlining the United States policy on civilian casualties as result of its current Global War On Terror.

    President Obama in his Executive Order further states that “civilian casualties are a tragic and at times unavoidable consequences of the use of force in situations of armed conflict or in the exercise of a state’s inherent right of self-defense”.

    However, the American president said “the U.S. Government shall maintain and promote best practices that reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties, take appropriate steps when such casualties occur, and draw lessons from our operations to further enhance the protection of civilians”……….

  14. Charles Says:

    SGonsul you are going a little far when you say “only fools will say there was not war……”. each one has his opinion and one cannot be a fool for having different views. Read Daya Gamage’s article in Asia Tribune. American’s have global war on terror because America is fighting terrorism in countries outside America.

  15. Fran Diaz Says:

    Thank you very much for getting to the bottom of the problem.

    That there are no laws in the UN re Terrorism is grave omission !
    Do we have to wait for the UN to come up with laws re Terrorism ?
    Lankans have waited 30 plus yrs for Justice – Justice delayed is Justice denied to Sri Lanka.
    Has Terrorism been purposely omitted to suit powerr blocs ?

    Should Lanka go for a Referendum to decide once and for all INTERNALLY WITHIN LANKA whether the LTTE was a Terrorist outfit of nearly 30 yrs and give our own verdict on the matter without getting bullied to death by the UN & the IC ?? !!

  16. Cerberus Says:

    Hi Charles, The way I see it there are two options for Sri Lanka. If we define the so called 30-yr Conflict in Sri Lanka as an action taken by the GoSL to defeat an internal Terrorist uprising, then there are no War Crimes charges. When there was a second JVP uprising the UNP Govt in power at the time (1988-93) crushed the uprising brutally. The present PM Ranil W was one of the main people who was involved in torturing and killing JVP members according to the Batalanda report. The Report recommended that his Civic Rights be removed. Yet today he is the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka! During the entire killing of almost 80 – 90,000 Buddhist Sinhala youth, there was no UNHRC, no Amnesty International, no human rights organizations, no reports from the UN Secretary to prevent this killing. Since they were voiceless poor Sinhala Buddhist youth were killed without mercy. Who spoke on their behalf ? Only former President Mahinda Rajapaksa went to the UN to speak on their behalf at risk to his own life from the UNP.

    On the other hand, if we define the Conflict as a War between Tamils and Sinhalese, then there are two parties involved. In this case both parties must be subjected to the same rules. The LTTE and all those who aided and abetted them such as the Catholic Church, Norwegians, India who trained and gave them bases to operate from, the TNA which passed the Vadukoddai Resolution in 1976, and was part of LTTE for a long time, UK and France who tried their best to stop the annihilation of LTTE must be investigated impartially just as they are investigating Tony Blair’s role in the Iraq war. We need to then investigate the war from the very beginning in 1983, or better still, earlier, and examine the actions of both parties including that of IPKF who came in the guise of peacekeepers and slaughtered the LTTE and the Tamil people.

    The current plan to investigate only the GoSL for only the last three years of the conflict is a joke, and it shows the extreme bias of the Western powers against the Sinhala Buddhist people. Just because the Tamil Diaspora with massive funding from crooks such as Raj Rajaratnam were able to lobby the US Congress and David Cameron, it does not mean that only their side of the story should be heard. If they go through with this plan as it is the whole world will watch this extreme unjust action by the UNHRC, India, and some of the Western powers who have set up this drama merely to get Sri Lanka Govt to do their bidding.

  17. Dilrook Says:

    Charles, President Obama’s speech clearly states war (armed conflict).

    [Quote] U.S. policy on civilian casualties resulting from U.S. operations involving the use of force in armed conflict or in the exercise of the Nation’s inherent right of self-defense is based on our national interest, our values, and our legal obligations. [Unquote]

    It only applies in war (armed conflict). If no war, the civilian and combatant casualties amount to not just war crimes but also crimes against humanity.

    What Sri Lanka had was war (armed conflict) and what President Obama said applies. If you argue Sri Lanka had no war, then all the casualties (civilian, armed forces and terrorists) amount to grave war crimes and crimes against humanity. We must accept there was war. Even if we don’t, it was war by definition.

    Lord Denning or Lord Russel never went beyond the law. They stayed well within but followed an appropriate interpretation of the law. When interpreting statutes, one has to seek the spirit of the law as well not just words. That is staying within the law.

  18. Dilrook Says:

    The government from 2009 to 2014 blundered the war crimes affair totally thanks to absolute fools advising it. Even after repeated appeals and LLRC submissions, the government flatly refused to include Tamil racist parties, Tamil Diaspora, Tamil Nadu politicians, NGOs and other connected entities in the investigation. Sir Desmond’s panel, LLRC, Paranagama Panel and Udalagama panel never investigated these entities.

    Now the country is in a very disadvantaged position with few options.

    At least now a comprehensive domestic war crimes investigation and trial must be done including all parties connected to the conflict. All these arguments on the Nation’s inherent right of self-defense is based on our national interest, our values, and our legal obligations can be made in it.

  19. S.Gonsal Says:

    Whether inside the country or outside, against own citizens or outsiders, when heavy artillery ,multi barrel rocket launchers, attack aircrafts and ships involving tens of thousands of combatants can one argue it is not war ?
    Whether war or not we simply have to prove no one purposely and deliberately killed innocent civilians. I too agree with Dilrook a comprehensive investigation would have been the right thing to do soon after war over.
    Time to identify the wrong steps taken since 2009 and correct them.
    Another way is to become another North Korea after developing some nukes,( if Chinese help us to do that) and then dismiss all the claims of the west , let children die in millions without medicine and let people suffer.

  20. Charles Says:

    Following is a comment made by Gamini Gunawardhana in a email Forum. I am publishing it here with his permission

    This matter needs to be examined at further depth.

    I believe the idea of ‘war’ here may be the work originally of the NGO and the IHR community intended to read a larger meaning to this conflict, in order to give this effort by the Tamils, a legitimacy. We have to bear in mind that from the inception, one of the basic strategy of the Tamils was to internationalize this issue.

    Having said that, let us consider this. When the JVP rose up in violence against the government, we called it JVP Insurrection.Whatever the government did to put it down at that time was nowhere defined as ‘ war crimes’ though there may have been violations of Human Rights etc. When it came to violence by the LTTE and the other Terorist groups, we called it Terrorism. The Westerners came to call it ‘war’ at some point. They also referred to it as a ‘civil war’ which is unwarrented because the challenge of the LTTE was against the government. It did not mean that the Tamils and the Sinhalese got into two sides and started to fight each other. They also started referring to the areas held at one point by theLTTE esp. during the CFA, as Eelam country. This gave the idea of the ‘war’ a still lager dimention.

    They had a “Civil War’ in the US. How do we compare that with what happened in S.Lanka? Is what happened in Bangladesh before India entered into the conflict between East Pakistan and Pakistan Government, a ‘war’ or ‘ Terrorism’ or a ‘revolt’? Is what happenerd in Cambodia under Polpot an insurgency or a war or a civil war? Thus we need a deeper analysis of these aspects to determine whe. what happened in SL was Terrorism, insurrection, revolt or a ‘war’.? What are the avantages of such definitions in countering the current allegations made against SL by the so called International Community?

    Gamini G

  21. Charles Says:

    Those who wants to call terrorism war let them call it so. But I would not as the whole world knows that Sri Lanka had terrorism. There was nothinbg else to do to get rid of that cancer that ate into the body of Sri Lanka ,butto get the Armed Forces to carry out a military operation to mop out terrorists. It may have taken the proportion of a war because the terrorists were armed by the Tamil diaspora; but nevertheless it was a ruthless terrorism that did not follow the rules of a war and it had to be handle as the terrorists expected it to happen. In Syria the Nato forces bombed the Syrian Army standing along side the Syrian terrorists -the rebels as the West did not want to call them terrorists. Innumerable number of civilians died but America is not made accountable.

    Now President of America does not call fighting against terrorrists a war either. He calls it, ” use of US Operations involving the use of forces in armed conflict.”

  22. Charles Says:

    America does not want terrorism put into the slot “war”. America does not agree to define armed conflict as war. They would call it counter terrorist operations or use of operations involving use of force.

  23. Dilrook Says:

    Armed conflict is war. The two words are one and the same.

    USA’s armed conflict against terrorism is also known as war on terror!
    That is exactly what Sri Lanka had – war on terror.

    The war crimes issue will not go away just because the term “war” is not explicitly used. War crimes are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. The real issue is from a legal point of view, did Sri Lanka commit grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions? Did any other party commit or abet the commitment of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions? That is all.

    It is clear uniformed military personnel didn’t do any war crimes and never exceeded orders received from the chain of command. Everything done were done according to the instructions received from the chain of command. Therefore they have nothing to hide. The long due investigation (a domestic one) must be held soon. Had we done a domestic investigation in 2009, we won’t be facing threats of international war crimes investigations or hybrid investigations.

  24. Fran Diaz Says:

    An Opinion on Internal Conflicts:

    Were the Govts of Sri Lanka at ‘war’ with the JVP ?

    In that case, why were the JVP ‘wars’ called ‘insurrections’ and dismissed as ‘trivial’ ? No one at that time ever labelled the JVP uprisings as ‘war’; no International Community raised a whisker about it, even though some 80,000 plus Sinhala Youth perished in these ‘uprisings’.
    Whatever conflict happens in Sri Lanka, it is the Sinhala Buddhist sector that pays a very heavy price in terms of lives, funds and reputation. Why is that ? Is it merely because they are in the majority, whatver negativity comes from
    others ? The intent here is not to ‘divide’ communities, but to find answers to all types of conflict.

    Whether ‘war’, ‘insurrections’ or any other serious conflict internally, what measures can be taken to AVOID such conflicts and serious loss of life in the future ?


    PS: Just the other day, on the 4th of July, Americans celebrated INDEPENDENCE DAY, from being a Colony of Britain.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.



Copyright © 2021 All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress