H. L. D. Mahindapala

If there is one report that the Government of Sri Lanka must dismiss without batting an eyelid and summarily put through the nearest shredder in the office of the External Affairs it is Asia Report No 191 of 17 May 2010 produced by the International Crisis Group (ICG) headed by three Co-Chairs:ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  Lord (Christopher) Patten, Chancellor of Oxford University, Thomas R Pickering, Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN, and President and CEO, Louise Arbour.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ This report titled ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-War Crimes in Sri LankaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ carries the ICGƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s seal of approval with a huge claim to be ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-working through field-based analysis and high-level advocacy (listen to this!) to prevent and resolve deadly conflictƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  With all the impressive VVIP titles on its list of advisors (including Kofi Annan) the first question that comes to mind is: why is the ICG focusing with almost a demonic fervor on Sri Lanka, which has resolved its deadly conflict without the help of the ICG specialists on conflict resolution, when their ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-field-based analyses have failed to resolve so many deadly conflicts ( Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Palestine, Sudan etc) plaguing world peace and stability?

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The main thrust of the ICG report is to question the last days of the war when Sri Lanka rejected the interventions of David Milliband and Bernard Kouchener who, one fine day, turned up at the doorstep of Sri Lanka to tell the natives how to conduct their war against ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-the deadliest terrorist of the worldƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ (CIA report). This is an issue that should be dealt in some detail later. For the present, the focus should be on some of the motives of the latest attack on Sri Lanka by the ICG. Is its ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-field-based analysis and high-level advocacyƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ a genuine attempt to ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-prevent and resolve deadly conflictsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ or is the ICG another partisan agent acting in the name of peace, stability and morality to actually put maximum pressure on Sri Lanka to obey its political agenda? How can the latest report on Sri Lanka help to achieve the objective of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-preventing and resolving deadly conflictƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ when in reality it is stoking the embers and ashes of conflict?

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Sri Lanka is the only known nation in this age of terrorism age to have resolved a 33-year-old deadly conflict that began on May 14, 1976 with the declaration of the Vadukoddai War by the Tamil leadership of Jaffna. And yet the ICG report argues, in the main, that the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Sri Lankan optionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” i.e, the formula adopted to resolve the conflict ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” should not be followed by other nations. In fact, it is urging the international community to punish Sri Lanka for doing it the Sri Lankan way.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Referring to the Sri Lankan model as an ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-assault on international humanitarian lawƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ ICG states: ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Since the end of the war, a number of commentators and officials have expressed admiration for the way the government defeated the LTTE. ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-The Sri Lanka optionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” a tough military response, a refusal to countenance a political solution, the dismissal of international concerns and a willingness to kill large numbers of civilians ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” has been discussed as an answer to insurgencies and violent groups in a number of countries including Israel, Myanmar, Thailand, Nepal, Pakistan, India, Colombia and the Philippines. (p. 62).

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ First, the complaint about ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-a tough military response.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ Having failed in its soft military responses earlier what is wrong in Sri Lanka adopting a tough military response to end the war waged by the deadliest terrorist outfit in the world? Besides, has the ICG raised serious objections to the tough military responses of NATO and USA in Afghanistan and Iraq? Could it be that the ICG is under the impression that, unlike the Sri Lankan forces, the US/NATO forces are distributing sponge cakes and roses to the armed Talibans and not fighting with bullets, artillery, drones, air raids and helicopters? Furthermore, if it is moral for US/NATO forces to fight an enemy miles away from their home to capture of land which is not theirs, or for regime changes, why is ICG kicking up such a fuss about ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Sri Lankans soldiers defending their own territory, sovereignty and their own people, in the best manner they know? If US/NATO forces can fight the Talibans in all parts of the world using all available force why is it wrong for Sri Lankan forces to fight the Tamil Tiger Talibans terrorizing Tamils, Muslims and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka?

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Besides, since Lord Patten is so much concerned with the morality of fighting wars according to their morality and laws, can he tell the Sri Lankan the first or the last occasion when he lifted his voice against ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-the tough military responsesƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ of the NATO force recruited from the EU at the time when he was the European Commissioner for External Relations? If pursuing tough responses to subjugate foreign rebels is good enough for Lord Patten why is it bad for Sri Lankan lads and lasses to fight in defence of their own motherland land? If restoring democracy is the ultimate aim for US/NATO forces why is it wrong for the Sri Lankan forces to effect a regime change in the Vanni and restore democracy, however defective it may be?

Every item (except ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-the tough military responseƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚) listed by the ICG in ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-the Sri Lankan optionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ is a distortion of the realities faced by the Government of Sri Lanka. Put simply, the ICG is using disingenuous excuses to justify its doctored report driven by an agenda of its own. On what basis can the ICG claim that there was ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-a refusal to countenance a political solutionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ when the Sri Lankan government had accepted the political solution, first, by the Indians in the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement?

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Second, how can the ICG blame the Sri Lanka government when the international community negotiated, drafted and pushed the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) which was accepted willingly and subserviently by the Ranil Wickremesinghe government with hossanas sung in its praise by the NGOs and the INGOs? Was it Sri Lankan governments that refused to countenance political solutions or was it ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-the sole representative of the TamilsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚? Why blame the Sri Lankan government when the Tamil leaders sabotaged all the well laid plans of mice and men in the international community?

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ It is absolutely perverse for the ICG to accuse Sri Lanka of dismissing international concerns when, indeed, Sri Lanka had accepted the solution recommended by the international community and pursued every provision of he CFA. In fact the CFA was a blue print produced by the international community. It is after the failure of the highly recommended international interventions that the government opted for the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Sri Lankan optionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚. The only solution that worked ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” and also could have worked ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” was ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-the Sri Lankan optionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚, according to the best informed political and military analysts. The visible results in the post-conflict phase prove it beyond doubt. So what is the earthly purpose of ICG labouring to deny it unless it is to push its own political agenda which has no relevance to the current political landscape or to the future?

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The ICG, ignoring the repeated failures of the international community to bring about lasting peace, now turns around and complains that Sri Lanka has rejected the unrealistic and unacceptable solution proposed by the international community to stop the war when the Tigers were on the brink of defeat. This would be like Lord Patten recommending to Churchill to stop the war and give breathing space to Hitler when the Allied forces were advancing into Berlin.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Stopping the war at that critical moment, following the advice of Bernard Kouchner and David Milliband, without guarantees of the Tigers laying down their arms, would have been the most evil act that would have perpetuated the war in overt and covert ways, leading to more deaths and destruction. Besides, the international community was recommending to Sri Lanka what they had never done in any of their wars or will every do in their wars to come. This is another reasons why Sri Lanka should dispatch the ICG report to the nearest shredder.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Consider also Lord PattenƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s morality from his knowledge and experience of European wars. Has he ever protested against decorating ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-BomberƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ Harris with military and state honours for flattening Dresden and killing an estimated 300,000 German civilians in the last days of World War II, eh? Has American Ambassador Thomas Pickering condemned the inhuman bombing of Hiroshima (140,000 in one blast) and Nagasaki (85,000 in the second blast) when it was well known that there was no need to use the atom bombs as Japan was sinking on its last legs? That is how the pious moralists in the ICG ended their wars. So on what moral grounds can Lord Patten, Thomas Pickering, Louise Arbour point a finger at Sri Lanka for ending the war on questionable and unsubstantiated casualty figures? On this ground of hypocrisy alone Sri Lanka should have no hesitation in putting the ICG report through the shredder.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ On the balance of consequences, ending the war in Nandikadal is the best thing that happened to Sri Lanka since independence. It has put an end to the slaughter and terror perpetuated by the Tamil Tiger Talibans. Without mentioning that all other options ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” regional (Indian) solutions, international solution (Oslo Accord), a series of futile peace talks in various world capitals ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” had failed to produce the lasting peace for the war-weary Sri Lankan the ICG pundits harp only on the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Sri Lankan optionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” the only option that has saved lives, property and peace ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” as a formula that should be condemned and punished by the international community. This one-eyed and incongruous conclusion questions the ability, objectivity and the moral authority of the ICG to engage in ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-field-based analysis ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦..to prevent and resolve deadly conflict.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Finally, ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-willingness to kill large number of civiliansƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ is an unsubstantiated charge, made on hearsay evidence collected by ICG from anonymous sources, which violates its boastful claims to be transparent and accountable. Broadly speaking, there were three theatres of war in Sri Lanka. First was in Jaffna where the Sri Lankan forces moved in with the minimum of fuss and drove the Tamil Tigers out of the peninsula. Second was in the east where the Sri Lankan forces once again made the Tigers run with the tail between their legs with the least casualties.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ And the third was when the Forces advanced into Vanni, the last stronghold of the Tigers who were retreating hiding behind a human shield of 300,000 Tamil civilians. It was a deliberate tactic on the part of the Tigers to use the casualties to gain political mileage knowing that their last hope was to get international intervention to save their skins by invoking human rights violations. The use of the Tamil human shield was the most despicable criminal act next to shooting the Tamil children and elders who were making a desperate bid to escape the war and the fascist regime of Prabhakaran.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ What were the options open for the Security Forces at this stage? There were three: 1) fight the war to a finish without leaving room for Prabhakaran to fight another day; 2) yield to international pressure of David Milliband and Bernard Kouchner and stop the war without any credible guarantees of the Tigers agreeing to a lasting peace by surrendering their weapons and dismantling their military outfit and 3) return to a negotiations once again with Prabhakaran playing for time to recover and retaliate which, as demonstrated in past experiences, was a sure way of prolonging the agony of the Sri Lankans. .

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ By the time Milliband and Kouchner arrived in Sri Lanka the nation was tired not only of a 33-year-old war going nowhere but also of the futile negotiations sponsored by the West that was not taking peace anywhere. The time had come to end the miseries and agonies of a futile war. Fighting to a finish was the best option available in the overall interests of all concerned. As the results of the post-Vadukoddai War prove it has been the best and the only option that has worked.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ It was no different from the examples set by Churchill and Harry Truman. To accuse the Sri Lankans of not ending the way according to dictates of Milliband and Kouchner is to condemn Churchill and Truman for ending the suffering of the horrendous war of the 20^th century. Fighting fascist wars to a finish was the greatest victory which restored peace to the world. If ending World War II by throwing every available weapon against the fascist Germans and Japanese was good enough for Churchill and Truman why is it bad for Milliband, Koucher and the ICG?