Forty-five bodies of COVID-19 victims held in various parts of the island have been buried as per guidelines, Army Commander General Shavendra Silva said.
Accordingly, the issue of COVID-19 burials has now been completely resolved, he added.
There may be about one or two [bodies] remaining. They will be buried today or tomorrow once they are cleared. There shouldn’t be any bodies in Sri Lanka to be buried or request for remains after that.”
The burials are carried out at a high ground in the Ottamawadi area in the Batticaloa, the Army Commander said.
In
his wide-ranging autobiographical tale of his
numerous engagements in Sri Lanka
and for Sri Lanka Michael Lord Naseby has condemned the LTTE for its
deployment of so many Tamil civilians as a human shield” and bargaining
counter” during the last stages of Eelam War IV in 2008/09. Let me, here, endorse
the criticism and encompass the Western nations of Norway, USA, Britain and
France as well as the Secretariat of the UN under Ban Ki-Moon for becoming de
facto partners in this Tiger programme; while noting that several human
rights agencies in the West and a few in Sri Lanka became accessories in this
high level hostage enterprise.[1]
Concurrently, the Tigers ratcheted
up their propaganda picture of an impending humanitarian catastrophe.” The strategic
logic was simple: as the LTTE political
commissar Puleedevan informed some friends in Europe — just as in Kosovo
if enough civilians died … the world would be forced to step in” (a cat
let out of the bag by Frances Harrison 2012: 63). This programme was then
placed in the hands of Pirapāharan’s former colleague and master mind, KP
Pathmanathan, who came out of retirement at the end of 2008 to take control of
the Tiger international set-up from his locations in Thailand and Malaysia.
KP’s
involvement has been lucidly set out by DBS Jeyaraj in a subsequent pamphlet KP’ Speaks Out (2011). This
document and Mark Salter’s aggressive book indicate that a Western-and-Tiger
cabal assembled in Kuala Lumpur in February 2009 to work up plans that
would enable them to engineer the rescue (i.e. the escape) of the LTTE leadership
to either Eritrea, South Africa or East Timor in the course of a (so-called)
humanitarian operation directed to the rescue of the Tamil civilian ‘hostages’.
This cabal consisted of two Norwegian diplomats from Oslo, Tore Hattrem (the Norwegian
ambassador in Colombo) and two leaders of the Global Tamil Forum, V.
Rudrakumaran from New York and Jay Maheswaran from Sydney.
USA was
clearly party to this project because a Pacific Air Command recce team landed
in Katunayake airport in February on what was clearly a recce mission to work
on the logistics of an active US intervention.** Salter is quite arch in not
indicating precisely when this recce team visited Sri Lanka, while my inquiries
in Sri Lankan have yielded limited information. Bryson Hull, the Reuters man in
Colombo and an American, got a whiff of this event and was immediately summoned
to the Embassy,[2]where he discovered that the recce team had
concluded that the military situation was a non-permissive environment” for
forceful intervention – military jargon summarizing a dangerous task and a
perspective clearly guided by the memory of the debacle associated with Black
Hawk down” in Somalia in October 1993.[3]
This
caution did not prevent Robert Blake, the US ambassador in Colombo, from verbally
and politely brow-beating both Foreign Minister Bogollagama and Defence
Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa at different points of time in March and April
2009 (normally secret events but now known to us courtesy of Wikileaks).[4]
He demanded a stoppage of any military advances and indicated that war crimes
charges” would be the consequence arising from any failure to abide by this
command.
That line
or pressure was supported by other parties. In early March Pakiasothy
Saravanamuttu of the CPA had asked the Sri Lankan government not to direct
artillery fire at the territories held by the LTTE; while a whole line of UN
officials turned up in Sri Lanka in the period February to April to exert
pressure:
John
Holmes (Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator for the UN) visited
Sri Lanka on the 19-20th February 2009; Tamrat Samuel[5]a little later (date???) and Vijay Nambiar on the
17th April 2009 (with the latter visit probably timed to underline Robert
Blake’s veiled threat to Defence Minister Gotabaya a few days previously).
Nambiar’s visit was then backed up by the high-powered entry of the British and
French Foreign Ministers, Miliband and Kouchner on 29/31st April
2009.[6]
There is no
better illustration of this 21st century version of gunboat
diplomacy than the stern face of David Miliband throughout his visit. But he was
rebuked and rejected by President Rajapaksa[7]
…. and the combined forces of the Sri Lankan Army, Navy and Air Force went on
with their jobs and overwhelmed the LTTE in a series of operations in the first
half of May.
This
success should not blind us to the intent and machinations of the Western consortium.
Fortunately. Daya Gamage has unearthed
the thoughts of an American Under-Secretary of State, one Michael Owens, to
guide us in comprehending the reasoning behind the desire to rescue the LTTE
leadership. At a special
media briefing 06 May 2009” in Washington,
Owens indicated that USA was attempting to secure a surrender of arms by the
LTTE in return for a limited amnesty;” while grappling with the knotty
question of what to do with the Tiger leadership.[8]
This
disclosure has to be set alongside the evidence unfolded so clearly by KP: the
Tiger leaders were seeking a safe haven for themselves; while Pulidevan’s assertion
indicates that the Tamil people were manipulated towards that end – with the
humanitarian impulse of the West as one target of appeal. The degree to which
Eelam stalwarts in the Catholic Church such as Bishop Rayappu Joseph and so
many members of the Tamil intelligentsia spread across the globe – guided by
fervent Tamil Eelamist thinking — supported this callous project from 2008
right through to the climax is a tragic tale.
While
drafting this short essay I chanced upon a fuller account of KP Pathmanathan’s
efforts to salvage the LTTE enterprise made public by the efforts of the
redoubtable journalist DBS Jeyaraj. This account is pure dynamite that lays
bare the 21st century version of nineteenth century gunboat
diplomacy with the snow-white Norwegians working in tandem with Imperial USA to
impose their military might on Sri Lanka – ostensibly to save the Tamil civilians
deployed as hostages by the LTTE; but directed principally towards extracting
the LTTE leadership and placing them in their pockets within Eritrea, South
Africa or East Timor – no doubt as instruments in their larger plans for their
designs in and over Sri Lanka.
The most
striking dimensions of this recounting by KP and DBS in their Q and A Session
are as follows:
A = The
fact that the secret meeting took place in the last week of February 2009.[9]
B = The
Norwegian Ambassador Hattrem’s incisive and lucid summary of the battlefield
situation and his conclusion that the LTTE was in the process of being
overwhelmed. Mark this: He told us
clearly that the Sri Lankan army was right on top of the military situation.………….Speaking to the point the Norwegian envoy said that
the LTTE was being boxed into a small piece of territory and that it was only a
matter of time before the Army advanced further and annihilated the Tigers. He
pointed out that there was absolutely no need for Colombo to agree to a
ceasefire at a time when they were sure to defeat the LTTE.He
also told us straight that the LTTE was also responsible for the civilian
plight. He accused the LTTE of keeping the people as human shields and hostages
through force. Hattrem then said that the LTTE could not
expect a ceasefire without agreeing to a compromise.”[10]
C = The
continued determination of the Western conglomerate to intervene …. a
determination pursued even after a body of some 400-500 Tiger troops and key
commanders were annihilated at Aanandapuram in early April 2009.[11]
D = KP’s ingenuity in coming up subsequently
with a plan for the LTTE to lock-out their artillery and weaponry under the eye
of Western forces who would shepherd the civilians, sequester the Tiger
soldiers, and whisk the LTTE leaders away – with, apparently, the Sri Lankan
Army, its Navy and its Air Force rendered mute and armless by the superior
might and the elevated morality of the West.
Mind-boggling
this. Can humanitarian imperialism” be so blind to its own duplicity and
power-games? We know that the West and its interests are not purely directed by
a warm heart. The rambling bumbling media briefing served up on the 6th
of May 2009 by US Under Secretary of State Michael Owens provides us with a
glimpse of the American desire to impose a scheme of political devolution on
Sri Lanka on the lines envisaged by its local embassy personnel in the 1980s.[12]
Such aspirations simply ignored subsequent developments and the altered
character of Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism in its worldwide form under the
commanding genius of Pirapāharan and his aides.
Strategic
interests in the Indian Ocean must surely have guided these ambitious, incoherent
and bumbling American-Norwegian-Western endeavours to save the LTTE leadership.
We require American equivalents of Michael Lord Naseby to penetrate the portals
of the US civilian and military establishments and disclose their arcane
thinking as well as their machinations.
[1] This short article
was sent to some editorial personnel in the print and e-media in Sri Lanka on
the 3/4th April. They apparently have other fish to fry and are
‘corona-vided’ — unlike Colombo Telegraph which accepted the article in
its ‘nude’ form [without Endnotes and Bibliography].
[2] When I contacted Bryson Hull (in
retirement in New York) in 2018, I was under the impression that this set of
events was in April. I now realise that it was in February 2009. We can safely
assume that Hull met the Military Attache (presumably Col Lawrence Smith). In
what is pure guesswork, I suppose that that the PAC team in Katunayake had met
senior SL military men and received a briefing which underlined the
difficulties of forceful foreign intervention. For the US Ambassador Blake to
threaten the Minister of Defence with ‘war crime charges” in April 2009 and for a senior hand in the Washington secretariat
(Owens) to envisage a military intervention in May 2009 that could pluck out the Tiger leaders and
‘save’ the remaining civilian mass are instances of brazen bravado combined
with mind-boggling idiocy.
[3] The US
special forces team that attempted to give the Somali war lords a bloody nose
in October 1993 received a brutal lesson. Two Black Hawk helicopters were shot
sown by rocket-propelled grenades and an 18-hour
urban firefight, later known as the Battle of Mogadishu, left 18 Americans and
hundreds of Somalis dead. News outlets broadcast searing images of jubilant
mobs dragging the bodies of dead Army special operators and helicopter crewmen
through the streets of Mogadishu. The newly elected U.S. president, Bill
Clinton, halted the mission and ordered the Special Forces out by March 31,
1994” (Bowden 2019).
[5] Tamrat Samuel was South Asian Affairs
Officer at the UN and happens to be of Eritrean background. The LTTE had
secured some of its arms in the past from Eritrea – indeed, If memory serves me
right, KP’s ability to secure a shipment from Eritrea andit land it on the
shores of Tamilnadu in the mid-1980s provided the LTTE with an edge in its
competition with TELO. EPRLF and other militant organisations who were
dependent on Indian arms
Former President Donald Trump was often accused of having a complete disregard for the truth. Yet some of his predecessors’ falsehoods ranged from the bizarre to the horrifying. So how does Trump truly compare?
When Saddam Hussein invaded the oil-rich emirate of Kuwait in August 1990, President George HW Bush snarled: “This will not stand.”
But as US troops were scrambled to the Gulf, the American public was dubious about the justification for military action.
The Kuwaiti government-in-exile promptly hired a US public relations firm, Hill & Knowlton, whose Washington DC office was run by Bush’s former chief of staff.
The PR firm coached a purported witness, introduced as a 15-year-old girl called “Nayirah”, to tearfully tell US congressmen in October 1990 that Iraqi soldiers had entered a hospital in Kuwait, removed babies from incubators and left them to die on the cold floor.
Nayirah, reporters were assured, was using an assumed name for fear of reprisals against her family back home.
Only after the war would it emerge she was the daughter of Kuwait’s ambassador to the US. And her story was completely baseless, as John MacArthur details in his book, Second Front, Censorship and Propaganda in the 1991 Gulf War.
Bush is recorded as having publicly touted this tall tale at least six times as he blew the bugle of war.
“Babies pulled from incubators and scattered like firewood across the floor,” the president said on one occasion during a speech to US troops in Saudi Arabia.
MacArthur writes that the hoax helped rally the American people behind calls for military action.
In January 1991, Bush’s war resolution narrowly passed the Senate. Six senators cited the incubators story as justification for authorising the conflict, notes MacArthur.
Operation Desert Storm launched days later.
The irony is that it seems babies actually did perish after being removed from incubators during Gulf War One. Only it reportedly happened in a massive US-led allied air raid.
On the first night of bombing, as electricity failed amid the explosions, panicking mothers took their newborns from the machines at a paediatric hospital in Baghdad and sheltered in a cold basement where more than 40 of the infants died, according to a contemporary New York Times report.
They were among thousands of civilians estimated killed in the 42-day conflict.
While it has never been established that Bush knew the incubators story he repeatedly told was unfounded, the White House is generally expected to verify claims made by the president – especially one so horrifying.
American journalists failed to debunk the Nayirah testimony until after the war. The controversy was omitted from a recent admiring biography of Bush, and from glowing coverage of his presidency when he died in 2018.
Allegations of presidential dishonesty, however, greatly exercised media fact-checkers during the tenure of Mr Trump.
The Washington Post maintains a database of Trump statements – over 30,000 of them – that it claims are false or misleading.
Many of these utterances, such as about golf or his wealth or whether it snowed at one of his rallies, sound relatively trifling.
Others, such as claims he deliberately misled the American people about the severity of coronavirus, or his unfounded assertions that the 2020 White House election was rigged, would be much more damaging.
Benjamin Ginsberg, author of The American Lie: Government by the People and Other Political Fables, says that when it comes to presidential falsehoods, some are much more consequential than others.
He cites deceptive statements by Bush’s son, President George W Bush, as he sold a sequel war on Iraq to the US public.
These included downplaying intelligence doubts that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, and implying he might even have a nuclear weapon, and asserting he was an ally of al-Qaeda.
Prof Ginsberg says “whoppers” that lead to military action are the most harmful of all, and that Trump is not as blame-worthy as some of his predecessors in this respect.
The political science lecturer at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore adds: “The problem is the American presidential selection process is fundamentally flawed and produces monsters.
“It requires years of campaigning, and only the most arrogant, ambitious and narcissistic individuals would possibly be willing to do such a thing.”
Once upon a time Americans placed an almost childlike trust in their commanders-in-chief.
They were venerated as demigods.
When did it change?
Many historians date this rupture to Lyndon Baines Johnson, though he was far from the first president to deceive.
JFK’s brother, Robert Kennedy, once said of LBJ: “He just lies continually about everything. He lies even when he doesn’t have to lie.”
Johnson’s falsehoods on the Vietnam War included using an August 1964 naval attack that never happened in the Gulf of Tonkin to dramatically escalate the conflict.
“We are not about to send American boys nine or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves,” he told voters two months later in Akron, Ohio.
After being elected, LBJ quietly sent the first US combat forces to the jungles and rice paddies of the war zone, eventually deploying more than half a million troops.
Johnson’s constant dissembling about this foreign policy disaster envenomed American political life and led journalists to coin a euphemistic term about his administration: the credibility gap.
His successor, Richard Nixon, ran for office pledging to bring an “honourable” end to the carnage in Vietnam, before expanding the conflict by secretly carpet-bombing neutral Cambodia.
Yet it was another cover-up – the Watergate scandal, a botched burglary by his henchmen to wiretap their political opponents – that destroyed Nixon’s presidency.
American children were once taught to tell the truth with the aid of a morality tale on presidential honesty that was itself untrue.
“I can’t tell a lie, Pa,” is the well-known line from the story about the young George Washington confessing to his father that he had split his cherry tree with a hatchet.
It was entirely invented by the president’s first biographer.
The father of the nation was in fact not above the odd fib himself.
In 1788, he attempted to rewrite history by claiming he had been the strategic visionary behind the victory over the British at Yorktown seven years earlier during the Revolutionary War.
But it was actually his French allies who masterminded the decisive battle in Virginia.
Washington had been stubbornly arguing instead for an attack on New York City, as Ron Chernow notes in his 2010 biography of the first US commander-in-chief.
Here was the original sin, if you will, of presidential duplicity.
Some lies told by occupants of the White House have been utterly bizarre.
Thomas Jefferson told a European naturalist who had disparaged the New World’s fauna that woolly mammoths roamed the unexplored American West.
In 1983, President Ronald Reagan claimed he had filmed the atrocities of the Nazi death camps while serving as a US Army Signal Corps photographer in Europe.
He told this story to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir at the White House.
Reagan never left America during World War Two. Few remember this mind-boggling lie.
Many of Trump’s comments in the Washington Post catalogue will no doubt prove equally forgettable.
However, one historian argues that the recent tenant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, by the sheer volume of his mendacity, has destroyed the very idea of shared truth in American politics.
“We’ve tolerated presidential lies ever since the beginning of the republic,” says Professor Eric Alterman, author of Lying In State: Why Presidents Lie – And Why Trump Is Worse.
“But Donald Trump is the Frankenstein’s monster of a political system that has not merely tolerated lies from our leaders, but has come to demand them.”
Prof Alterman says the Capitol rioters, radicalised by conspiracy theories about stolen elections and satanic cabals, underscore the extent to which Trump inspired the “creation of an entire world of unreality”.
A useful civics lesson on how a president who has been caught dissimulating reacts away from the cameras may be found in William Jefferson Clinton.
In January 1998 he indignantly denied to reporters having had any sexual relations with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky.
But an investigation into whether he had lied under oath heard graphic evidence of their frolics, including that the president used a cigar with her as a sex toy after inviting the 22-year-old into the Oval Office.
Instead of feeling shame for deceiving the nation, Clinton privately expressed relief, according to John F Harris’ biography, The Survivor.
Even as he prepared to go on television in August 1998 and express contrition, the president told a close friend: “The lie saved me.”
Clinton reasoned that the drip-drip of prurient allegations had allowed the American people to gradually come to terms with his antics, ultimately sparing his political neck.
It’s all a rueful reminder of the blessing carved into the mantel of the White House State Dining Room:
“May none but Honest and Wise Men ever rule under This Roof.”
“If you like your healthcare plan, you’ll keep your healthcare plan, period” – Barack Obama in 2013, rated Lie of the Year by PolitiFact
“We’ve removed an ally of al-Qaeda and… no terrorist network will gain weapons of destruction from the Iraqi regime because the regime is no more” – George W Bush in 2003
“A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that’s true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not” – Ronald Reagan in 1987 on the Iran-Contra scandal
“No-one in the White House staff, no-one in this Administration, presently employed, was involved in this very bizarre incident” – Richard Nixon in 1972 on Watergate
Dwight Eisenhower approved statements claiming an American U-2 spy plane shot down by the Soviets in 1960 was just a weather research aircraft, later acknowledging this was a lie and his “greatest regret”
“The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base” – Harry Truman in 1945, but the target was actually a city and most of the 140,000 or so people who died were civilians
“Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt to voters in 1940, even as he flexed his political muscles to confront Nazi Germany
Mexico “has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil” – James Polk in his 1846 war message to Congress, about an attack he had provoked in what was actually disputed territory
New Delhi, March 13 (Hindustan Times): Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa on Saturday discussed cooperation at multilateral forums, days ahead of an expected vote on Sri Lanka’s human rights record at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC).
Modi and Rajapaksa reviewed topical developments and the ongoing cooperation between both countries in bilateral and multilateral forums”, the external affairs ministry said in a readout on the phone call between the two leaders. It didn’t give further details.
The leaders agreed to maintain regular contact between relevant officials, including in the context of the continuing Covid-19 challenges”.
Modi also reiterated Sri Lanka’s importance to India’s Neighbourhood First” policy.
The UNHRC is expected to vote on March 19 on a resolution critical of Sri Lanka’s failure to address human rights violations that occurred during the island nation’s war with Tamil Tiger rebels. India has not yet indicated whether it will back Sri Lanka in the crucial vote.
The resolution was framed by a group of countries, including the UK and Germany, in response to a report released by the office of the UN high commissioner for human rights in January.
The Presidential Secretariat yesterday (12) handed over the remaining 22 volumes of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) report, hitherto declared sensitive and withheld from Attorney General Dappula de Livera, PC.
The delivery of those volumes which dealt with some aspects of the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage took place close on the heels of an unprecedented meeting between the Archbishop of Colombo Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith and the AG on March 8 at the Bishops’ House. In separate statements issued following the March 8 meeting, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference in Sri Lanka and the AG De Livera called for release of the report in its entirety.
President Gotabaya Rajapaksa received the PCoI report on Feb 1, 2021.
Authoritative sources yesterday told The Island that there was absolutely no basis for claims that the PCoI advised the Presidential Secretariat not to release a section of the report. Sources emphasized that the PCoI had nothing to do with the move to deny the AG access to a set of volumes.
Supreme Court Judge Janak de Silva functioned as the Chairman of the PCoI. Other members of the PCoI are Court of Appeal Judge Nissanka Bandula Karunaratne, retired Supreme Court Judges Nihal Sunil Rajapaksha and A. L. Bandula Kumara Atapattu and former Secretary to the Ministry of Justice W. M. M. R. Adhikari. H. M. P. Buwaneka Herath functioned as the Secretary to the PCoI.
The AG has formed a 12-member team to examine the report.
In addition to the PCoI, the AG Department would examine the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) report on the Easter Sunday attacks.
The AG is on record as having said that the final report of the PCoI he received several days ago did not shed light on the Easter Sunday mastermind, conspirators and those involved directly and indirectly. The AG’s Department said that moving court was the prerogative of the department and it was not bound by the recommendations of the P CoI.
The parliament debated the PCoI report this week. The debate on the same is expected to be scheduled for two more days in the third week of this month.
Legal and political sources told The Island that the examination of the whole set of volumes was of utmost necessity against the backdrop of accusations and counter accusations over the alleged involvement of various political parties and individuals. Some of those named and referred to in the PCoI report are members of political parties represented in parliament and outside the House, sources said.
The advertisement on the sale of non slip doormats with the print of Sri Lanka’s national flag has been removed from the Amazon site after the Embassy of Sri Lanka in Beijing informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China on the matter.
The Embassy of Sri Lanka in Beijing had informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China and requested it to take action to stop the production of door mats and any such products, misusing the Sri Lanka flag.
The company which marketed the product on Amazon was requested by letter from the Embassy to immediately cease selling the door mats and any such products, misusing the Sri Lanka flag.
The Sri Lankan Embassy said it is closely monitoring this matter and will take appropriate action through the relevant authorities in China to stop the production and selling of any product with the image of Sri Lankan flag.
It is China’s consistent stand that the national flag is a country’s symbol that must be fully respected, the Chinese Embassy in Colombo stressed in a statement published on Friday (March 12).
Carpets and footwear displaying the Sri Lankan national flag had been made available for sale on Amazon, one of the world’s leading online consumer goods retailers.
The ‘Sri Lanka Flag Non-Slip Doormat’ had been priced at USD 12 close to Rs. 2,400, while the slippers made using the Sri Lankan national flag, were also on sale on several websites including Amazon.
Foreign Secretary Admiral (Retired) Prof. Jayanath Colombage had later informed the Embassy of Sri Lanka in Beijing to contact the manufacturer concerned in China.
In response, the Embassy said it is aware of some concerns about inappropriate advertising of Sri Lanka national flag on Amazon, which has been conveyed to the related Chinese authorities for investigation and necessary measures accordingly.”
It is also learned that thousands of similar products with flags of various nations, manufactured by sellers from different countries, are available on this global online retailer, for which Sri Lankan side is approaching the platform for direct action, the statement read further.
The Embassy would like to emphasize that as an all-weather friend and a closest partner, China has been respecting and supporting Sri Lankan for its peace, prosperity and dignity for decades, no matter in bilateral fields or international fora.”
Minister of Public Security Rear Admiral (Rtd) Sarath Weerasekara says he has signed the Cabinet paper banning the burqa in Sri Lanka.
His remarks came during an event held at Munasinghe Aramaya in Kalutara today (March 13).
Explaining the reason for the move, the Public Security Minister said the burqa directly affects the national security of the country.
We had a lot of Muslim friends when we were little. But Muslim females did not wear the burqa back then.”
Minister Weerasekara stressed that burqa is a symbol of religious extremism that came to Sri Lanka quite recently. So, it will definitely be banned.”
Speaking on the regulation of Madrasas, he said there are more than 2,000 such schools in the country.
Minister Weerasekara said: No one can arbitrarily open a school and teach the students whatever they want. All children aged from 5 – 16 years must study under a national education policy. We will take measures to ban more than 1,000 Madrasas which have not been registered under a national education framework.”
A man has been arrested by the Terrorism Investigation Division (TID) for promoting Wahhabism and Jihadist ideology in the country.
As per reports, the arrest was made in the area of Dematagoda on Friday (March 12).
The suspect has been identified as Rasheed Hajjul Akbar who is a resident of Mawanella area, Police Spokesperson DIG Ajith Rohana said.
It was revealed that he had served as the chairman of Jamaat-e-Islami Organization for many years.
The 60-year-old is also a close relative of one of the suspects who was taken into custody over the Buddhist statue vandalism incident in Mawanella.
The TID plans to obtain a detention order on the suspect under the provisions of Prevention of Terrorism Act in order to carry out further investigations.
Secretary to the Ministry of Finance S.R. Attygalle has insisted that there is no such thing as revenue loss in a tax deduction scenario.
His remarks came during a media briefing convened earlier on Friday (March 12).
The import tax on sugar was reduced from Rs. 50 per kilogram to 25 cents last year and people are claiming there was a revenue loss to the tune of Rs. 15.9 billion, Mr. Attygalle added.
Some revenue will be, in a way, reduced because of this action. But we are looking at the bigger picture. So, in a tax deduction scenario, I don’t think revenue loss could be talked about. But if you do a simple arithmetic, somebody can say there is a revenue loss. But we don’t interpret it as a revenue loss. Then we can’t do any reduction.”
Mr. Attygalle added that the retail price of sugar was Rs. 135 when the tax levied on sugar was reduced to 25 cents.
He went on to explain: The tax-free or the CIF (Cost, Insurance, Freight) price was Rs.72 and including taxes it was Rs. 121. Starting from October to December, the CIF price of Rs. 72 increased to Rs. 85. However, the sugar prices fell from Rs. 135 to Rs. 114. It was possible due to the tax reduction. The CIF value which was at Rs.72 before, now stands at Rs. 90. Had there not been a reduction, the price of sugar would have increased to nearly Rs. 175. The price of sugar today is Rs. 115 and people have received the benefits.”
Mr. Attygalle added that the newly amended tax concessions with the aim of boosting certain industries will be gazetted next week.
Another coronavirus infected death has been reported.
Accordingly, the total death toll has increased to 526. The deceased has been identified as a 48 year old female residing in the Kanaththewewa area.
She was transferred from the Kurunegala Teaching Hospital to the Homagama Base Hospital after being identified as Covid 19 infected. She died while receiving treatment yesterday.
The leading causes of death were acute bronchopneumonia and blood poisoning.
A South African variant of COVID-19 known as B.1.351 has been detected from a patient in a quarantine center in Sri Lanka for the first time, Director of the Department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine of Sri Jayewardenepura University, Dr. Chandima Jeewandara said.
Five more COVID-related fatalities have been reported in Sri Lanka, Director General of Health Services confirmed today (March 12).
The new development has pushed the death toll from the virus to 525.
According to the Government Information Department, four of the death were reported in Western Province while the remaining death was from Eastern Province.
One of the deceased is a 72-year-old female from Akkaraipattu in Eastern Province. She was transferred from Akkaraipattu Base Hospital to Mulleriyawa Base Hospital after being diagnosed with novel coronavirus infection. She passed away on Thursday (March 11) due to shock caused by blood poisoning, respiratory tract infection, COVID pneumonia and acute kidney infection.
A 75-year-old male from Moratuwa died on Thursday (March 11) while receiving treatment at Infectious Disease Hospital (IDH). He was initially under medical care at the Colombo South Teaching Hospital. The cause of death was cited as blood poisoning, COVID infection and acute kidney infection.
A 72-year-old female from Wattala area fell victim to blood poisoning, multiple organs dysfunction and COVID pneumonia on Thursday (March 11). She was moved to the IDH from Colombo North Teaching Hospital after testing positive for the virus.
Meanwhile, a 65-year-old male from Walpola in Ragama area died on Wednesday (March 10) due to COVID pneumonia and shock due to blood poisoning. He was under medical care at the Homagama Base Hospital at the time of his death. He had been transferred from Colombo National Hospital after testing positive for the virus.
The final victim is a 73-year-old male from Polgasowita area. After being diagnosed with novel coronavirus infection, he was moved to Homagama Base Hospital from Colombo South Teaching Hospital. The cause of death was reported as heart disease, acute kidney disease, COVID pneumonia and acute diabetes.
Hitler rose to power through the Nazi Party, an
organization he forged after returning as a wounded veteran from the
annihilating trench warfare of World War I. He and other patriotic Germans were
outraged and humiliated by the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles, which
the Allies compelled the new German government, the Weimar Republic, to accept
along with an obligation to pay $33 billion in war reparations. Germany also
had to give up its prized overseas colonies and surrender valued parcels of
home territory to France and Poland. The German army was radically downsized
and the nation forbidden to have submarines or an air force. We shall squeeze
the German lemon until the pips squeak!” explained one British official. The National World War 11 Museum, New Orleans.
Those who still
hold the view that Hitler did the Germans a lot of good probably remember the
above excerpt from the National World War 11 Museum, and not what is noted
below by the same entity.
Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of
Germany in 1933 following a series of electoral victories by the Nazi Party. He
ruled absolutely until his death by suicide in April 1945. Upon achieving
power, Hitler smashed the nation’s democratic institutions and transformed
Germany into a war state intent on conquering Europe for the benefit of the
so-called Aryan race. His invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, triggered
the European phase of World War II. During the course of the war, Nazi military
forces rounded up and executed 11 million victims they deemed inferior or
undesirable—life unworthy of life”—among them Jews, Slavs, homosexuals, and
Jehovah’s Witnesses
Reading through
many articles written on the heels of the UNHRC Core Group attempt to blackmail
Sri Lanka, and that is a word used by most writers, the opinion held by most
Sri Lankans appears to be that despite the viciousness and brutality of the
LTTE, and the thousands they killed, ordinary people, not just Sri Lankan or
Indian soldiers, and politicians both Sinhala,
Tamil and Muslim, and two Heads of State, and the gruesome practices
they employed like using animals as fodder for their land mine target prices,
it is the Sri Lankan government that is on the dock for defending its people
from these vicious monsters masquerading as freedom fighters.
No self-respecting
and decent Tamil could condone the atrocities committed by the LTTE in their
name, as they were not even remotely acceptable as what genuine freedom
fighters would engage in. It is unlikely that most Tamils condone the
activities of the LTTE, but perhaps are silent on them due to pressure exerted
on them by the power groups within the Diaspora, encouraged, supported and
funded by some countries, and their agents in Sri Lanka. This enforced silence
has contributed in a large measure to the inability of all communities to be
more trusting of each other, and to engage in confidence building activities.
In saying this,
Sri Lankan governments, past and present, religious leaders, civil society
leaders, and the people at large, cannot be excused for not giving the empathy
and the action that was needed when governments failed the Tamils, and in some
instances, Muslims.
The worst mass
scale pogrom conducted against the Tamil people in 1983, planned and executed
by sections of the then government, was never investigated fully, and no one
was brought to justice for that abhorrent crime against the Tamil people.
It took 21 years
for a Sri Lankan government, and finally, the one led by President Chandrika
Kumaratunga to extend a long overdue apology in 2004 to the Tamil people and
others who suffered on account of this horror that has blackened the name of
the so called Buddhist nation. It is
sickening that it took that long when it should have been done in 1983 itself. To
date, no enquiry has been held and no one held accountable for this gruesome
event, although many were and are aware that the planning and execution of that
event was led by a senior minister in the then government who was very close to
the then President himself.
So, while it is
a civic duty on the part of all Sri Lankans to defend itself against the
planned UNHRC action as it is not based on facts, and it is based on innuendo
and hearsay, and as it is being orchestrated to punish Sri Lanka for its
friendship with China, Sri Lankans cannot overlook and pretend that as a
country, its leaders and its people failed the Tamil people in 1983.
This goes for
the enquiries launched after the war against the LTTE, the reports submitted
and action begun in some cases, and nothing done in other cases. The LLRC
report, its action plan begun during the Mahinda Rajapaksa Presidency, then
aborted by the Sirisena/Wickramasinghe government in 2015, the Paranagama
report on Missing Persons, and its recommendations, again thwarted by Sirisena
and Wickramasinghe, does not give confidence to the Tamil people that Sri
Lankan governments are serious about addressing the trials and tribulations
faced by them.
Those of us who
are defending Sri Lanka’s right to defend itself against the bogus, self-serving
interests of the Core Group and its sponsor, the US, cannot and should not
pretend that the country has addressed the depravations heaped on the Tamil
people by governments elected by the people to safeguard all people, not a
section of them. Condemning the LTTE is one thing, but not condemning Sri Lankan
governments and its leaders for their inactivity is not another thing. It is
the same side of the coin, not the other side of the coin.
The Core Group
of the UNHRC, directed by the US and UK, and aided and abetted by pseudo human
rights champions like the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet who has
no clue of what happened in Sri Lanka and is relying on questionable ‘hearsay’
evidence” as a senior lawyer stated in an article published in the LankaWeb, are hell bent on punishing Sri Lanka for its
independence and defence of its sovereignty.
The duplicity
of these countries is clearly exposed when someone who was integral to the LTTE
and its monstrous activity, and who led thousands of innocent Tamil children to
slaughter, Adele Balasingham, roams free in the UK, protected by the UK. No
charges have been laid against her by them. One wonders how Adele Balasingham
sleeps in the night with such gruesome memories.
A person of
eminence like Lord Naseby is not given even a scant hearing by the British
government as he has chosen to see both sides of this issue and chosen to
defend Sri Lanka’s right to defend itself against vile terrorism, and against
highly inaccurate and exaggerated reports authored by people who had not even set
foot in Sri Lanka.
To make matters
worse, Sri Lanka also appears to be heading back into a Wolves den by calling
on India to help defeat the motion before the UNHRC. India, the one country
most responsible for the advent of Sri Lanka’s own Nazi party, the LTTE, and
which again stood in the way of arresting LTTE Leader Prabakaran in 1987, and
calling an end to a mindless war that then went on for another 21 years, is now
called upon to assist Sri Lanka. It is a black joke.
It is India
which violated Sri Lanka’s sovereignty by dropping food parcels without any
contact or reference or sanction from Sri Lanka in 1987. As mentioned in the
Wikipedia, STEVEN R. WEISMA, New York Times, in a report titled India airlifts aid to Tamil rebels stated that on 5 June 1987, the Indian Air Forceairdropped food parcels to Jaffna while it was under siege by Sri Lankan forces. At a time when the Sri Lankan
government stated they were close to defeating the LTTE, India dropped 25 tons
of food and medicine by parachute into areas held by the LTTE in a direct move
of support toward the rebels. Further, the Sri Lanka government accused
that not only food and medicine but weapons were also supplied to the LTTE”
Amateur foreign
affairs officials and even a government that freed the country from this Nazi
party and which should have learnt some lessons from the dark past, seems to be
living in a cuckoo land if they seriously think India will provide support
without extracting a huge price.
Sri Lanka’s
future is with other countries and other alliances. It is not with the US, UK,
and India. Their duplicity is surpassed only by their arrogance. Sri Lanka is
vulnerable to these countries because of its geographical position. For this
very reason, it should sign a defence pact with China, its friend, so that if
ever threatened by this duplicitous trio, China will come to Sri Lanka’s aid.
The time for pussyfooting is over, and talking nonsense like ‘we must be
neutral” is over. No country is neutral” in any sense of the word.
The price these
three countries will extract for Sri Lanka’s neutrality” will defeat the whole
idea of neutrality. Sri Lanka will be beholden to them forever. Sri Lanka can
be more neutral in reality by working with non-aligned countries and other
friendly nations.
The US tried
their best to intrude in Sri Lanka’s sovereignty through the MCC, ACSA and
SOFA. Some are of the opinion that these are still very much alive and their objectives
are being achieved by other means and with intrusive projects with other
acronyms. It is an open secret that India is very much part of this trio and
are doing their bidding surreptitiously and with cunningness that India is
noted for. Despite the risks, it is time to end this game of Poker and called
their bluff.
By Uditha Devapriya/Ceylon Today Courtesy NewsIn.Asia
Colombo, March 11: Partly in spite of and partly because of the political leadership, Sri Lanka never got to evolve a foreign policy of its own in the first ten years of its independent statehood. Scholars are divided on why exactly this was so, with some pointing at the indifference of the first two UNP regimes to the country’s external relations and others arguing there was no need for the country to think about external relations just yet.
However, it must be borne in mind that far from feigning indifference, the first two Prime Ministers – D. S. Senanayake and Dudley Senanayake – placed special emphasis on the issue of foreign policy in their opening addresses to the nation. One can argue that these statements lacked depth and solidity, and that they were couched in vague abstractions which were never translated into action. But this is different from saying that these governments didn’t think much about foreign policy.
An Occam’s razor explanation of the supposed indifference of these administrations would be that they did not have to bother about foreign policy, owing to a series of agreements in 1947 that brought Sri Lanka within British jurisdiction. Most accounts of the transfer of power that the Ceylon National Congress and the United National Party oversaw in that decade tend to oversimplify how foreign policy (along with defence) was handed over to Whitehall, with K. M. de Silva claiming it was a pragmatist pincer move against a perceived security threat from India. Even Shelton Kodikara, in his excellent book on Indo-Lanka relations, posits that these perceptions, entertained by the UNP, seemed real. Once we accept that premise, it becomes easy to legitimise the decision to relegate the country’s foreign affairs to Britain.
However, the truth was far more complicated than that, and ironically, it is to foreign historians, not local writers, that we must resort to here. James Manor’s study of S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike (The Expedient Utopian, 1989) is more than just a biography of a Prime Minister; it is a sociological treatise on the colonial elite in Sri Lanka, indeed on how different that elite was to its counterparts in much of the Afro-Asian world. Of particular interest is its discussion of how the very character of this milieu had a hand in shaping the external relations of the country: a point seldom delved into, much less appreciated, by mainstream local historians.
Both K. M. de Silva and, to a lesser extent, Shelton Kodikara argue that statements made at various times by various Indian officials, diplomats, and leaders – even the great Nehru himself – pushed the country’s leaders to build a working relationship with Britain as far as defence and external relations went, even after independence. We know now that this is the reason the UNP trotted out to rationalise its decision to cede these twin matters to Whitehall, as evidenced by D. S. Senanayake’s claim (one he made repeatedly) that he could not think of the country’s interests as long as it did not have a standing army of its own. To the extent that his fears about aggression and intervention from abroad were moulded by the lack of a proper army, his decision to bandwagon with Britain can be viewed as a precautionary measure taken against the possibility of Indian interference.
I believe it was James Manor who first chose to depart from this reading of the 1947 Defence Agreement. Pointing to a colonial despatch (D. S. Senanayake to the Secretary of State, 28 February 1947, CO 882/30), Manor concluded that D. S. and the UNP were eager to show themselves to the British as their true heirs. Given that Britain desired governments friendly to it in its former colonies, the ruse worked sufficiently well to persuade colonial officials not just to opt for the UNP, but also prefer Senanayake to the other aspirant to the proverbial throne, Bandaranaike. They viewed the latter in a rather negative light, even if they saw him as a more suitable successor than the alternative to the UNP: the Marxist Left.
In his work on Indo-Lanka diplomacy Shelton Kodikara outlines three factors that influenced Sri Lanka’s immediate relations with the rest of the world: the Defence Agreement of 1947, the Soviet Union’s decision to veto the country’s attempt to enter the United Nations the following year, and the linkage between foreign and domestic politics. Regarding the latter point, Kodikara identifies the then regime’s antipathy to the Left as a major factor, yet he fails to place it in its proper historical context. Since he has not done so there, it is imperative that we try to do so here.
Nehru with D.S.Senanayake and other Ceylonese leaders Sir Baron Jayatilake, SWRD Bandarnaike and Dudley Senanayake: An uneasy relationship.
For the then government to have preferred the West over India owing to the Marxist opposition and the fact that the latter courted, and won, the Indian Tamil vote – a fact that, incidentally, compelled the D. S. Senanayake regime to disenfranchise vast swathes of the estate population with absolutely no regard for their civil liberties – its ideology would have had to be the direct opposite to that of the forces it contended, almost to the point of obsession, on the domestic and foreign policy front. It is this ideology, of the ruling party and elite, that neither Kodikara nor de Silva discusses. That, in my view, is an inexcusable omission.
Inexcusable, because no proper overview of the foreign policy of the first 10 years of the country’s post-independence period can be made without factoring in the way the leaders of the time thought, both amongst themselves and in opposition to forces the elite to which they belonged sought to combat. The late Vernon Mendis went as far as to justify the measures taken by these leaders against the Marxist opposition on the grounds that certain figures on the Left (such as S. A. Wickramasinghe) made statements that could, at one level, be construed as invitations to the Communist bloc to interfere in the country’s affairs. It is regrettable that an entire generation of diplomats interpreted these incidents while laying aside, or choosing to ignore, what obviously were flagrant violations of civil liberties committed by then government against the opposition. One can only say that most textbooks on foreign policy – excluding Kodikara’s book – tend to present a revisionist history, painting the Left in a negative light while choosing to ignore the reactionary ideology of the government. We need go beyond this.
As James Manor has shown us only too clearly, mainstream historians and even constitutional lawyers allied with the then government (like Ivor Jennings, to whom the disenfranchisement of the Indian Tamil population did not seem to constitute an aberration in a supposedly democratic polity) idealised the likes of John Kotelawala as strongmen, forgetting the state resources they utilised and the paramilitary groups they formed to keep what Judy Waters Pasqualge characterises as an imagined threat on the Left at bay. In Sri Lanka’s post-independence history only once did an elected leader sanction the burning of books and the deportation of an expatriate from the country, and that was Kotelawala, under whom Sri Lanka came close to siding with a Cold War power, almost as close as it would under J. R. Jayewardene.
The truth of the matter was that, as scions of a rightwing rentier elite, the colonial bourgeoisie in Sri Lanka differed in degree and substance from that of not just India, but also much of the rest of the Afro-Asian world, to such an extent that by 1948 they had come to prefer Dominion status to the prospect of what K. M. Panikkar, soon to be the Indian Ambassador to China, saw as a federation between India, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar. In later years, Jayewardene was to claim that it was the Soviet Union’s vetoes of Sri Lanka’s efforts to enter the UN that fuelled the government’s antipathy to the Communist bloc. While the distinction the D. S. and the Dudley governments drew between Stalinist Russia and Maoist China – by Sir Lalitha Rajapakse, Robert Senanayake, and D. S. himself – and the recognition Sri Lanka afforded to the latter in 1950 can be construed as evidence for this, it does not explain the tortuous route the 1951-1952 regime took to ink the Rubber-Rice Pact with Beijing and the efforts it made to distinguish between trade and diplomacy with the Iron Curtain, a distinction Kotelawala epitomised when he established trade links with Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Romania without opening as much as a single Embassy.
Simplistic explanations will thus not do if we are to historicise foreign policy. What do we need then? We need an account of foreign policy that cuts through the rhetoric of personalities, political parties, and political systems, and identifies why decisions were taken and policies were enacted. I may be overstating it when I say that none of the books and essays written on the subject, particularly on the period discussed in this piece, has, barring a few exceptions, presented a comprehensive overview of the way foreign policy came to be crafted in Sri Lanka.
But then such a statement is not wide of the mark. Ideology is an important internal determinant when it comes to foreign policy formulation, and yet historians, in their quest to absolve leaders from their own actions, indeed from history itself, appear to have failed to factor in and account for it. Hence we need an alternative history, one that can go a long way in helping us understand not just our past, but also our future.
Sri Lanka’s foreign policy is not in the best of shape. Understanding the past is a first step towards ameliorating that. A vital, and necessary, first step.
Colombo, March 11 (Economy Next): The People’s Bank of China has confirmed that a 1.5 billion dollar equivalent swap arrangement had been approved, State Minister for Capital Markets and Money, Nivard Cabraal said.
He said Sri Lanka could draw down the swap at any time but it will be kept as a buffer.
By P.K.Balachandran/counterpoint.lk Courtesy NewsIn.Asia
Colombo, March 11: With the date for voting on a resolution on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) nearing, the scenario is grim. Diplomatic sources say that given the reality of international politics, the vote is most likely to go against Sri Lanka.
But Sri Lanka is unfazed by this prospect as it has taken a clear and resolute stand that the resolution is unacceptably intrusive, biased, selective in its choice of data, unethically equating a democratically elected government with a ruthless terrorist group, and is driven by ulterior motives.
On other hand, the Core Group led by the UK and backed by the US, is equally convinced that Sri Lanka has brazenly violated human rights and deserved to be investigated, admonished and proceeded against under universal jurisdiction.
Diplomatic sources believe that given the most likely line up at the time of voting, defeat stares in Sri Lanka’s face. India and Japan have not taken a decision and are watching the proceedings carefully to gauge the mood of the Council it appears. As on date, the dice is loaded against Sri Lanka, and the most likely decision by New Delhi and Tokyo would be abstain.
India has certain issues with Sri Lanka which had arisen in the recent past such as the one relating to the East Container Terminal. Sri Lanka had reneged from a bilateral agreement on it, without so much as a prior warning, leave alone prior consultation. However India did not raise any bilateral issue at the Council but spoke about the importance of implementing the 13 th.Amendment (13A) of the Sri Lankan constitution which is meant to devolve power to the provinces, especially to the Tamil speaking provinces in the North and East. This issue is about the larger question of democracy and ethnic reconciliation and not a narrow one relating to a bilateral project. Since there is no firm commitment yet from Colombo about implementing the 13 A and there is still talk of a dilution of devolution, India does not have the required incentive to vote for Sri Lanka.
However, since India has a great and enduring stake in Sri Lanka being its only neighbor, New Delhi will not oppose Sri Lanka outright but play it safe by remaining neutral. Japan has asked the Council to be more understanding and accommodative towards Sri Lanka, but Japan too has issues as in the case of the ECT in which it was to be a stakeholder. Thus, Tokyo could follow India and be neutral at voting time.
The Core Group’s revised draft (it is still being revised with inputs from the members of the Council) has made significant concessions to Sri Lanka. For example it does not directly demand the setting up of an international judicial mechanism to try war crimes allegations and other allegations of Human Rights during and after the war. But it prepares the ground for such a mechanism when it says that it: Recognizes the importance of preserving and analyzing evidence relating to violations and abuses of human rights in Sri Lanka with a view to advancing accountability and decides to strengthen the capacity of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to consolidate, analyze and preserve information and evidence and develop possible strategies for future accountability processes for gross violations of human rights or serious violations of international humanitarian law, to advocate for victims and survivors, and to support relevant judicial proceedings in Member States with competent jurisdiction.”
More broadly it says: it has serious concern over emerging trends over the past year, which represent clear early warning signs of a deteriorating human rights situation in Sri Lanka, including the accelerating militarization of civilian government functions, erosion of the independence of the judiciary and key institutions responsible for the promotion and protection of human rights, ongoing impunity and political obstruction of accountability for crimes and human rights violations in emblematic cases”, policies that adversely affect the right to freedom of religion or belief, surveillance and intimidation of civil society and shrinking democratic space, arbitrary detentions, allegations of torture and other cruel, inhuman degrading treatment or punishment and sexual and gender based violence, and that these trends threaten to reverse the limited but important gains made in recent years and risk the recurrence of policies and practices that gave rise to the grave violations of the past.”
The Core Group called upon the Government of Sri Lanka to ensure the prompt, thorough and impartial investigation and, if warranted, prosecution of all allegations of gross human rights violations and serious violations of international humanitarian law including for longstanding emblematic cases.”
It called upon the Government of Sri Lanka to ensure the effective and independent functioning of the National Human Rights Commission, the Office on Missing Persons and the Office for Reparations; to protect civil society actors, to investigate any attacks and ensure a safe and enabling environment in which civil society can operate free from hindrance, insecurity and reprisals.”
It requests the Government of Sri Lanka to review the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and ensure that any legislation to combat terrorism complies with its international human rights and humanitarian law obligations.”
Finally, it requests the Office of the High Commissioner to enhance its monitoring and reporting on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, including progress on reconciliation and accountability, and to present a written update to the Human Rights Council at its forty-ninth session, and a comprehensive report including further options for advancing accountability at its fifty-first session, both to be discussed in interactive dialogues.”
Sword of Damocles
Therefore, the UNHRC’s attempt will be to force Sri Lanka to proceed along the lines suggested by the Core Group even at the cost of its sovereignty and independence. Colombo will have to accept UN investigators again, as if the earlier reports of the Rapporteurs were not damaging enough. The Sword of Damocles will be hanging over Sri Lanka’s head constantly diverting its attention from its other tasks like economic development.
President Gotabaya Rajapaksa believes that real ethnic reconciliation will be achieved only through equitable social, educational and economic development and not through judicial mechanisms and other accountability measures urged by the UNHRC. President Rajapaksa believes these will only foment ethnic animosities by raking up old issues without seeing the past in a correct and unbiased perspective.
Sri Lanka also believes that the Core Group is not motivated by a genuine concern for ethnic reconciliation in Sri Lanka but by a desire to use the issue to browbeat and dominate Sri Lanka and also use it in its fight against its rivals for geo-political domination.
Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena has more than once rejected the Core Group’s resolution, amended or otherwise, and has urged Council members to vote against it. The stage is set for voting. And as far as Sri Lanka is unconcerned, it cares little for the consequences backed as it is by China and Russia, both with a veto in the UN Security Council.
… directs IGP to probe four persons including Sara
Attorney General Dappula de Livera, PC, has informed the Archbishop of Colombo Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith that it is futile to proceed with the 2019 Easter Sunday case unless he receives access to all volumes of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) report, and the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) completed its investigations into the attacks.
The AG met the Archbishop on Monday (8).
The meeting took place against the backdrop of the PCoI decision to deny the AG access to 22 volumes out of 87 on the basis that they contained sensitive information, the disclosure of which could be detrimental to national security.
Coordinating Officer to AG State Counsel Nishara Jayaratne yesterday revealed that the AG had told the Cardinal that as the final report received by him didn’t provide any specific information or evidence regarding the Easter Sunday mastermind, conspirators and those directly or indirectly involved, the need to examine all volumes was of pivotal importance.
The meeting led to an extraordinary gathering of the Catholic Bishops Conference of Sri Lanka the following day and public demand for the immediate releasing of what the P CoI called sensitive documents. The Island learns that each volume consists of approximately 600 pages.
State Counsel Jayaratne said that the AG had also instructed IGP C.D. Wickremaratne to investigate four persons, including Sara Jesmin, the wife of Katuwapitiya bomber Hastun. And the others referred to in the final report of the PCoI namely Abu Hind, Lukman Thalib and Abu Abdullah Rimzan.
In spite of claims that Sara Jesmin managed to flee the country and perhaps now living in India, the government hadn’t been able to trace her whereabouts.
The AG had assured the Cardinal that he would do everything possible to bring the proceedings to a successful conclusion. However, the success of the investigation and the subsequent legal proceedings very much depended on his department receiving access to all documents, he stressed.
The AG, in respect of the writ application filed by the Cardinal, has directed the IGP to conduct a thorough investigation into the importation of swords, daggers and similar weapons into the country before and after the Easter Sunday attacks.
State Counsel Jayaratne said that the AG had briefed the Cardinal on the status of ongoing investigations.
-Ibrahim brothers and several int’l orgs funded Thawheed Jamaath
-Save the Pearl” had provided legal assistance to Zahran and his group
-Wearing of the Burqa will be banned in public places.
-Eleven extremists organisations to be banned
The intelligence services have identified Naufer Moulavi as the mastermind behind the Easter Sunday terror attack while Ibrahim brothers and several international organisations have funded the Thawheed Jamaath to carry out the attack, Public Security Minister Sarath Weerasekara said today.
He told Parliament that it was revealed that Naufer Moulavi, who was based in Qatar, had provoked Zahran and his followers to carry out the attack by brainwashing them.
He said it was also revealed that two Sri Lankan born Australian nationals Lukman Thalib and his son Lukman Thalib Ahmed had facilitated Zahran to meet four religious extremists in the Maldives.
The Minister said according to intelligence information, these extremists had met Zahran on several occasions from 2016 till the attacks took place and added that Lukman Thalib Ahmed had facilitated the meetings in Sri Lanka.
He said an international organisation called Save the Pearl” had provided legal assistance to Zahran and his group.
The Minister said 99 suspects have been arrested in Sri Lanka and 35 suspects overseas for directly and indirectly supporting the Easter Attack, under this Government.
He also said 54 Sri Lankan suspects have been arrested in five countries and added that 50 of them have been brought down to Sri Lanka. The other four will be brought back after legal procedures in those countries are completed,” he said.
The Minister said 35 suspects have been arrested in connection with the incident where 1,440 swords were brought to Sri Lanka from China. Cases have been filed against seven of them,” he said.
He said legal action would be taken against all those who were involved in the attack and added that several actions will be taken to prevent such incidents in the future and ensure national security in the country.
Wearing of the Burqa will be banned in public places. Eleven extremists organisations have been identified and steps will be taken to ban them. Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act will be amended in coordination with the Justice Ministry. Madrasas will be regulated,” he said. (Yohan Perera and Ajith Siriwardane)
Wahabbism and Quasi Courts should be banned in Sri Lanka as it is recommended by the report of the Presidential Commission which probed the Easter Sunday attacks, MP Venerable Rathana Thera told Parliament yesterday.
The Thera said those organisations which embrace Wahabbism, such as All Ceylon Jamiyyathul Ulama should be probed and banned.
The PCOI probing the Easter Sunday attack has revealed that the Jamiyyathul Ulama Organisation had embraced Wahabbism,” the Thera said. All politicians and even Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith should support the move to ban Wahabbism and quasi Courts. Quasi Courts had prevented Sinhalese who had married Muslims to seek legal redress from normal courts,” he said. The Thera also opposed the recommendation made by the Presidential Commission to ban Bodu Bala Sena. No Sinhalese organisations staged violence in this country to date,” he said. (YOHAN PERERA)
SLMC Leader Rauff Hakeem and ACMC Leader Rishad Bathiudeen have been associated with the Easter Sunday attackers, Minister Mahindananda Aluthgamage told Parliament yesterday.
Minister Aluthgamage said both Mr. Hakeeem and Mr. Bathiudeen visited those who were wounded in some incidents which took place prior to the Easter Sunday attacks.
Mr. Hakeem went to hospital to visit a member of Zahran’s group who was injured in an attack. Even Bathiudeen visited a person who was injured in an attack. Asath Sally got those who were arrested for the attack on the Mawanella Buddha statue, released. These are all allies of SJB,” he said.
SLMC leader had a electoral pact with Zahran in 2015,” he also said. Meanwhile State Minister Arundika Fernando said Archbishop of Colombo Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith should be patient until the Government identifies and punishes those who are responsible for the attack. (YOHAN PERERA AND AJITH SIRIWARDANA)
The Director General of Health Services has confirmed 05 more Covid-19 related deaths, increasing the death toll due to the virus in the country to 520.
01. The deceased is a 56-year-old female resident from Nawalapitiya. She was diagnosed as infected with Covid-19 virus while undergoing treatments at District Hospital Nawalapitiya and transferred to Base Hospital Theldeniya and again to the District Hospital Nawalapitiya where she died on March 08. The cause of death is mentioned as pneumonia and Covid infection.
02. The deceased is a 63-year-old female resident from Angulana. She was diagnosed as infected with Covid-19 while undergoing treatments at General Hospital Colombo and transferred to Base Hospital Mulleriyawa where she died on March 09. The cause of death is mentioned as blood poisoning shock, heart disease and Covid infection.
03. The deceased is an 80-year-old female resident from Maththegoda. She died on March 11 while undergoing treatments at Base Hospital Homagama. The cause of death is mentioned as Covid-19 pneumonia.
04. The deceased is a 67-year-old male resident from Bibila. He was diagnosed as infected with Covid 19 while undergoing treatments at Base Hospital Hambanthota and transferred to Base Hospital Homagama where he died on March 11. The cause of death is mentioned as pneumonia and Covid infection.
05. The deceased is a 68-year-old male resident from Dehiwala. He was diagnosed as infected with Covid 19 while undergoing treatments at Colombo South Teaching Hospital and transferred to IDH hospital where he died on March 11. The cause of death is mentioned as Covid-19 pneumonia.
Samagi Janabalavegaya MP Ashok Abeysinghe today expressed his regret before the CID over the statement made regarding the Easter attack.
After failing to appear on the two previous occasions when he was called, he was at the CID for nearly five hours providing statements today.
The Leader of the Samagi Jana Balawegaya and leader of the Opposition Sajith Premadasa, General Secretary Ranjith Madduma Bandara and several others accompanied him.
After giving a statement before the CID, MP Ashok Abeysinghe stated that the case has now become a legal matter. Meanwhile hsi lawyer said that the video was edited.
Police Media Spokesman DIG Ajith Rohana expressed his views to the media this afternoon regarding the statements obtained from MP Ashok Abeysinghe. He stated that the MP could not present any facts to substantiate his statement.
The Police Media Spokesman also stated that he regretted the opinions that developed in this regard. He stated that further steps will be taken on the advice of the Attorney General.
Does the UNHRC have a mandate to judge international humanitarian law in an armed conflict?Sri Lanka’s conflict is defined as a non-international armed conflict where governing rules are IHL. Why is the UNHRC taking Sri Lanka to task based on human rights alone and that too human rights that are outside of the conflict. When the UNHRC attempts to cunningly use human rights over IHL, the Global South nations of the UNHRC must realize the dangers for their own countries by the intrusive resolutions being passed which in turn can be applied to their countries by the precedents being created. Why has Sri Lanka’s Foreign Ministry & Legal Advisors not demanded UNHRC or the international community stick IHL and bring forward allegations of violations with facts & evidence instead of plucking non-conflict related human rights issues which can easily be taken up at universal periodic reviews of UNHRC.
Human Rights Law is displaced by International Humanitarian Law during an Armed Conflict. This does not mean human rights law is invalidated within the zone of an armed conflict. What it does mean is that where rules of war are concerned the applicable laws are IHL which follow the maxim lex specialis derogate legi generali (where norms deal with the same subject, priority is given to the norm that is more specific – which is IHL and not IHR) Thus, lex specialis is humanitarian law. ICJ accepts this too. Human Rights Law is applicable in an armed conflict but it cannot conflict with IHL. Wherever there is a conflict, IHL prevails.
What are the LAWS applicable to a Non-International Armed Conflict?
LTTE recruitment of children as child soldiers –
LTTE violated fundamental rights of a child to education/violated Article 26 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights / Geneva Convention IV Article 50/ Additional Protocol I of 1977 Article 77(2) / Additional Protocol II of 1977 Article 4(3)(c) / Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 Article 38(3) /
LTTE violated Principle of Distinction (Rule 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Rule 1 LTTE had a civilian armed force & combatants fought in civilian clothing & herded civilians with purposeful intent to put civilian life at risk & as a defense.
Rule 2 LTTE fired at fleeing civilians and fired from among civilians
Rule 5 LTTE herded civilians with them knowing they were putting civilian lives at risk
Rule 6 LTTE did not protect civilians against attack and forced civilians to engage in hostilities by forcibly recruiting civilians and giving them short training & sending them to the war front (such civilians engaging in hostilities do not qualify to be classified as civilians as LTTE were using them as a military objective)
Rule 7 LTTE herded civilians into the safe zone demarcated for only civilians and fired from among civilians. LTTE even fired at civilians fleeing LTTE
Rule 8 LTTE fired from among civilians inside the safe zone which was not meant for LTTE. Sri Lanka Armed Forces had every right to return fire because LTTE was prohibited to fire from among civilians.
Rule 9 LTTE used civilians as objects
Rule 10 LTTE did not protect civilians against attack.
LTTE violated Principle of Indiscriminate attacks (Rule 11, 12, 13)
The safe zone was meant for civilians. It was not an official demarcation but the SL Armed Forces dropped leaflets in Tamil and spoke over loudspeakers advising civilians to seek shelter in the safe zone. Knowing this, LTTE committed a grave violation by not only entering the safe zone with the civilians but firing from among civilians putting civilians on the line of fire.
LTTE violated Principle of Proportionality in Attack (Rule 14-24)
Rule 14Sir Geoffrey Nice QC & Rodney Dixon QC international terrorist experts concluded in their report that applicable legal standards did allow Sri Lanka Armed Forces to attack the LTTE & its military locations. Under IHL civilian casualties are allowed though to precise number but requiring to be commensurate to the aim of defeating LTTE. Such an assessment should be by independent top-level military personnel (not NGO panelists like Sooka)
Not only did LTTE use civilians in hostilities, LTTE had a trained armed civilian force, it kept civilians as human shields and hostages and fired from among civilians. On 27 January 2009 US envoy Robert Blake publicly stated LTTE must immediately desist from firing heavy weapons from areas within or near civilian concentrations”. This clearly exposed LTTE.
Then there was the US cable with ICRC Head of Operations for South Asia, Jacques de Maio stating that ‘LTTE commanders objective was to keep the distinction between civilian and military assets blurred”
LTTE did not fire wearing uniforms further confounding distinction.
IHL requires parties not to target civilians but military objectives can be attacked.
In creating a safe zone and asking civilians to move into it – the Sri Lanka Army did its part to safeguard the civilians.
Rule 15– In joining the civilians inside the safe zone and firing from inside the safe zone – LTTE were violating the rule of IHL. Collateral damage is allowed. If by the statistics of dead which was below 8000 including LTTE, this loss is certainly acceptable considering Sri Lanka Armed Forces saved 300,000.
Rule 16The LTTE violated this principle that requires it to verify targets as military objectives – LTTE fired at fleeing civilians and killed them. No one knows how many civilians LTTE killed in this manner.
Rule 17LTTE violated this principle by not taking precautions to avoid, minimize, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
Rule18The Sri Lanka Armed Forces took every precaution to avoid incidental loss of life to civilians. However, LTTE broke all rules.
Rule 19Firing from among civilians knowing Sri Lanka Armed Forces had every right to return fire, by LTTE was with purposeful intent of putting civilians lives in jeopardy.
Rule 20LTTE violated this principle of not giving advance warning of attacks affecting civilian population because LTTE was firing from among civilians.
Rule 21Again LTTE was in violation of this principle as LTTE chose to fire from among civilians expecting the Armed Forces to return fire and thus cause civilian casualties.
Rule 22LTTE was in violation of this principle that required it to take all precautions to protect civilians under its control – LTTE was actually putting civilians in harms way and even firing at fleeing civilians.
Rule 23LTTE violated this principle that required it to avoid military objectives within or near densely populated areas – LTTE fired from inside the safe zone and LTTE fired from hospitals and schools keeping civilians with them
Rule 24LTTE did not remove civilians under its control from vicinity of military objectives – instead LTTE used civilians and kept them in the line of fire.
LTTE violated Principle of Protecting Special Persons & Objects – medical & religious (Rule 25-30)
Rule 25LTTE violated this principle by forcing doctors working in the hospitals to lie and give false figures
Rule 26 In all probability LTTE violated this principle too as the doctors working in the conflict zone were not allowed to follow medical ethics.
Rule 27This principle required religious personnel to be respected and protected – they however lose that protection if they commit anything outside their humanitarian function. It is good to evaluate the religious personnel who were with LTTE during the conflict & their conduct. No such religious persons were with the Sri Lanka Armed Forces.
Rule 28LTTE did not allow medical units to function as per their purpose.
Rule 29LTTE forced medical transports to be used for its advantage – even essentials sent for civilians were confiscated and given only to LTTE & their families.
Rule 30LTTE did attack UN convoys and even ship carrying medical and essentials to the conflict zone.
LTTE violated Principle of Humanitarian Relief Personnel & Objects (Rule 31-32)
Rule 31 LTTE did not respect humanitarian relief personnel nor protected them
Rule 32 LTTE was using hospitals and schools to nurse LTTE while the same venues were used for civilians while LTTE fired from these places
LTTE violated Principle of Personnel & Objects in Peace Keeping Mission (Rule 33)
Rule 33 – LTTE fired at convoys carrying relief, including ships
LTTE violated Principle of Journalists (Rule 34)
Rule 34 – there were no journalists with LTTE unless they were part of LTTE, while the journalists with the armed forces were given fullest protection by the troops
LTTE violated Principle of Protected Zones (Rule 35-37)
LTTE violated these principles
LTTE violated Principle of Cultural Property (Rule 38-41)
This violation occurred across the 3 decades of conflict, where LTTE stands guilty of attempting to destroy Sinhala Buddhist cultural heritage to secure their argument for an exclusive Tamil Eelam.
Principle of Works & Installations Containing Dangerous Forces (Rule 42)
Avoiding installations containing dangerous dams, dykes, nuclear etc to be avoided to prevent loss of civilian life.
This would need to be further investigated.
LTTE violated Principle of Natural Environment (Rule 43-44-45)
LTTE destroyed natural environment not only during the final phase of the conflict but throughout its terror rule. Imagine constructing a swimming pool in the middle of the Vanni jungles!
Principle of Special Methods of Warfare – No Quarter Given (Rule 46)
Meaning no survivors is regarded a war crime. The rule may be applicable where LTTE shot dead Tamils attempting to flee them which was a violation of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention guaranteeing prohibition of murder.
LTTE violated Principle of Attacking persons recognized as hors de combat (Rule 47)
LTTE violated this rule by not only attacking Tamil civilians some who were injured but also attacking injured soldiers/unarmed soldiers.
Principle of Attacking persons parachuting from aircraft in distress (Rule 48)
There are enough of instances that LTTE have violated this fundamental principle
LTTE violated Principle of destruction & seizure of property (Rule 50)
Enough of instances prevail where LTTE has seized property belonging to adversary
LTTE violated Principle of access to humanitarian relief (Rule 52-53-54-55-56)
This is an area that UNHRC has purposely omitted from investigation as the essential relief sent to the Tamil civilians were not only inflated in numbers but were confiscated to be given only to LTTE combatants & their families. That Tamil civilians were in starvation was apparent from interviews given by them revealing the manner essentials were stolen by LTTE and not given to them.
LTTE thus stands guilty of attempting to starve the civilian population which was a violation of Rule 53 Customary IHL.
LTTE also broke Rule 54 of attacking & rendering useless objects indispensable to the survival of civilians
LTTE also broker Rule 55 as the humanitarian relief sent to civilians was denied to them
LTTE violated Rule 56 as civilians were denied freedom of movement to access the humanitarian relief sent to them.
LTTE violated Principle of International Humanitarian Law (Rule 57)
As is clear, LTTE violated all international humanitarian law –but the question is why were none of these taken up by the OISL or even UNHRC or those drafting resolutions against only the armed forces of Sri Lanka?
Principle of While Flag (Rule 58)
The military attaches of the UK and US embassies in their secret memos to their governments clearly have debunked the myths surrounding the white flag, another ruse unfairly used against Sri Lanka Armed Forces.
Principle of Improper use of Distinctive Geneva Emblems (Rule 59-60-61-62-63)
This would require to be further investigated
Principle of Concluding agreement to suspend combat with intent of surprise attack (Rule 64)
This would require to be further investigated
LTTE violated Principle of killing, injuring, capturing adversary for perfidy (Rule 65)
The best example of this was the killing of 600 policemen by LTTE, as they were asked to surrender and instead ended up being slaughtered one after the other. Enough of occasions, LTTE has violated this Rule.
Rule 66, 67, 68, 69 – cover Communication with the Enemy
Rule 70 – cover Principles on the use of weapons
Rule 72 – cover use of poison or poisoned weapons
Rule 73 – cover use of biological weapons
Rule 74 – cover use of chemical weapons
Rule 75 – cover use of riot-control agents
Rule 76 – cover use of herbicides as a method of warfare
Rule 77 – cover use of bullets which expand/flatten in the human body & is prohibited
Rule 78 – cover use of anti-personnel bullets which explode in human body & is prohibited
Rule 79 – cover use of weapons which are not detectable by x-ray in the human body
LTTE violated Principle of using booby-traps (Rule 80)
LTTE’s use of suicide human beings put civilian life in jeopardy when LTTE disguised as a civilian blew herself up at a civilian-refugee receiving centre killing scores of Tamil civilians and Army personnel
LTTE violated Principle of Landmines (Rule 81-82-83)
There are enough of examples of LTTE using landmines on civilians across 3 decades of terror.
The recently released video-footage of LTTE experimenting land mines using dogs was also shocking. This was the first time a terrorist organization was using animals for its terror experiments.
It must be noted that the Sri Lanka Armed Forces applied Rule 83 in ensuring the areas occupied by LTTE were free of landmines before settling people back to their homes. However the international community insisting that IDPs return home before such landmine checking makes any to wonder what the real intent was in their demand!
LTTE violated Principle of Incendiary Weapons (Rule 84-85)
LTTE took no care to protect civilians whom they herded to be used as human shields and hostages and even shot at them for trying to flee. These civilians were even used to engage in hostilities and many would have lost their lives as a result. However, LTTE must be faulted for violating of this Rule of IHL.
LTTE violated Principle of using blinding laser weapons (Rule 86)
this would need to be further investigated
LTTE violated Principle of Treating civilians & injured persons (Rule 87-88)
LTTE has violated this fundamental Rule as civilians were used in hostilities, given only basic training and injured combatants were put into buses and these were blown up. How many combatants LTTE killed in this manner is not known and UNHRC is obviously not interested to find out.
Children as young as 7 years were taken as child soldiers – how many such children met their sad death is also not known.
The elderly were also handed guns & ordered to shoot – how many such died engaging in hostilities is also unknown.
However, none of these deaths qualify as civilian deaths if they were engaged in hostilities.
LTTE violated Principle of Murder (Rule 89)
LTTE not only murdered fleeing Tamil civilians, LTTE also murdered injured LTTE combatants
LTTE violated Principle of Torture, Inhuman treatment (Rule 90)
The manner that children & elderly were forced to take up arms and fight has to be condemned as an act of torture and inhuman treatment and degradation. Why is the UNHRC and international community silent about this?
LTTE violated Principle of Corporal Punishment (Rule 91)
How many LTTE combatants, child soldiers did LTTE punish for not following orders and injuring them for life?
Why doesn’t the UNHRC investigate into this?
Principle of mutilation, medical/scientific experiments (Rule 92)
Principle of rape & sexual violence (Rule 93)
There are allegations that LTTE female combatants to sexual misadventure by LTTE male combatants and this has been hushed up without investigation.
LTTE violated Principle of Slavery (Rule 94-95)
LTTE forced combatants to dig the bund that was to protect LTTE from the Sri Lanka Armed Forces. Throughout LTTE rule, whether LTTE combatants were paid or were looked after is unknown.
It’s surprising that the OISL and UNHRC never raised this too.
LTTE violated Principle of Taking hostages /human shields(Rule 96-97)
This was a very clearly violated principle by LTTE having herded almost 300,000 people to be used as hostages and human shields and was the reason for collateral damage of civilian lives. Again why OISL, UNHRC or the international community ignore this important Geneva Convention violation is baffling.
LTTE violated Principle of Enforced Disappearances (Rule 98)
Both LTTE and the Sri Lanka Armed Forces are accused of this violation & require to be investigated with facts and evidence.
LTTE violated Principle of Arbitrary deprivation of liberty (Rule 99)
By denying Tamil civilians their right to seek shelter and safety, LTTE violated this principle. Again why UNHRC and IC are not bothered about these violations is also baffling.
Principle of fair trial (Rule 100-101)
The kangaroo court that the UNHRC is advocating, based on hearsay from LTTE remnants living overseas and parroted by NGO heads on payroll is being used to put a national army on trial without presenting facts & figures with evidence. The People of Sri Lanka stand up in unison against this blatant violation of Customary IHL.
Rule 101 declares that no one can be accused or convicted of a criminal offence or an act of omissionwhich did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law – therefore, it is wrong for the UNHRC to judge the national army of Sri Lanka on hearsay only.
Rule 102 – declares that no one may be convicted of an offence except on basis of individual criminal responsibility– the allegation of 40,000 killed comes with no proof of names, dead bodies or even skeletons but the UNHRC wants an entire army to be declared war criminals
Rule 103 – declares collective punishment as prohibited
This is exactly what the kangaroo court of UNHRC via its resolutions is aiming at.
Rule 104 – convictions and religious practices of civilians and injured must be respected
LTTE violated Principle of respecting Family Life (Rule 105)
LTTE violated this by kidnapping even children – breaking up homes, denying fundamental rights to education for children, freedom of movement or even peace of mind to Tamils
LTTE violated Principle of Combatants & Prisoners of War (Rule 106-107-108)
Prisoner of War status is only applicable to International Armed Conflicts not NIAC
Rule 106 requires combatants to distinguish themselves from civilians – LTTE violated this fundamental rule. LTTE fought in civilian clothing and LTTE had a civilian trained unit. None of these fighters can claim to be a civilian if shot at.
LTTE violated Principle of wounded, sick, shipwrecked (Rule 109-110-111)
LTTE attacked ships carrying essential items for civilians. LTTE sent its sea tigers to attack such vessels carrying relief. LTTE even sent a suicide bomber to a relief centre accepting IDPs many of whom were elderly and injured.
LTTE violated Principle of evacuating dead (Rule 112-113-114-115-116)
LTTE attempted to destroy evidence of its combatants by blowing them up while living
Enough of LTTE video footage show how inhumanely LTTE treated dead Sri Lanka Army soldiers.
LTTE violated Principle of Missing Persons (Rule 117)
LTTE and LTTE fronts are claiming 40,000 dead/missing but is unable to provide even the names of the supposed dead, or even family members of the supposed dead.
LTTE violated Principle of Depriving Liberty (Rule 118-119-120-121-122-123)
LTTE denied Tamil civilians food, water, clothing, shelter and medical attention. It is mind boggling that the OISL and UNHRC ignore this fact revealed even by the IDPs.
LTTE also denied women their right to liberty by forcefully turning them into fighters
LTTE denied children their right to liberty by turning them into child soldiers and even training them to commit suicide by biting cyanide capsule.
Rule 121 requires Tamil civilians to have been kept separate from the combat zone – LTTE actually herded them as hostages and human shields and denied them basic health & hygiene.
Rule 122 required LTTE to refrain from pillage of personal belongings – LTTE stole house, property and lands of Tamils including writing their deeds in LTTE names. These need proper investigation.
LTTE violated Principle of Non-International Armed Conflict (Rule 124)
ICRC was in the conflict zone throughout and ICRC communiques reveal in detail their role.
But, on many occasions ICRC was not allowed by LTTE to inspect
Rule 125 – persons deprived of liberty allowed to correspond with families – LTTE did not allow such
Rule 126 – An allegation against the Sri Lanka Armed Forces is that civilian IDPs were held in internment camps and not allowed out and did not have access to relations. This was not true and can be proven with facts. The initial stages no one was allowed out until screening process was complete as well as the clearance of land mines etc.
Rule 127– Personal convictions/religious practices respected – the IDP centres all catered for this
Rule 128– No sooner that it was safe for the IDPs to return to their homes, they were released. Within months of the conflict ending, IDPs were able to return to their homes or to relations. World IDPs that run into millions are still to return home!
Rule 129– In a NIAC, the GoSL had every right to put up IDPs in centres to protect them from the conflict until such time alternatives were prepared for their return. The security and safety of the civilians were taking into account
Rule 130– applies to only IAC
Rule 131– The GoSL took every measure to provide the basic facilities to the IDPs and these were inspected by the ICRC and the UN officials arriving. All of them praised the efforts in Sri Lanka but returning to Geneva years later, they tell a different story. Wonder why?
Rule 132– Displaced have a right to voluntary return to homes – this was allowed once land mining was cleared
Rule 133– Property rights of displaced. It is important to note here that simply claiming entitlement to a land area without proof and carrying out media campaigns is not the best way to claim land. But this is the path being opted unfairly.
LTTE violated Principle of Special protection for needs of women (Rule 134)
LTTE used women even grandmothers when fighters were in want. Where’s UNHRC about women’s rights?
LTTE violated Principle of Children entitled to special respect & protection (Rule 135-136-137)
LTTE violated this principle by having an entire unit of child soldiers trained to kill. Where was UNHRC?
LTTE broke Rule 136 in recruiting children – what did UNHRC do about this?
LTTE broke Rule 137 in putting children to engage in hostilities – what did the UN do about this? 1/3 of LTTE comprised child soldiers
LTTE violated Principle of elderly / disabled and infirm given protection (Rule 138)
LTTE violated this Rule by putting the elderly in harms way, not feeding the elderly, not allowing the elderly to leave, and even engaging elderly in armed hostilities.
LTTE violated Principle of Compliance with IHL (Rule 139-140-141-142-143)
LTTE may be a terrorist organization. LTTE may not sign conventions or treaties. But LTTE was bound to comply with international humanitarian laws. LTTE flouted all of these Rules.
It is questionable why Sri Lanka’s legal advisors did not take the violations of IHL and the requirement to be judged by violations of IHL to argue one’s case against the bogus charges being cooked up by NGO’s lobbied by LTTE fronts.
Rule 143 requires teaching of IHL to civilians and this must be included as a special subject in Sri Lanka.
Rule 144 – requires States must not encourage violations of IHL
Rule 145 -146-147 – applicable to IAC
Rule 148 – Parties in a Non-International Armed Conflict cannot resort to belligerent reprisals.
Rule 149 – A State is responsible for violations of IHL whether state or non-state. If a State is responsible, then the State is permitted to take action to ensure IHL is not violated. In so doing, Sri Lanka cannot be found fault with.
Rule 150 – State is responsible for violations of IHL to make full reparations for loss or injury
Rule 151 – Individuals are criminally responsible for war crimes they commit. Therefore the question is why have LTTE combatants not been charged?
Rule 152 – Commanders and other superiors are criminally responsible for war crimes committed pursuant to their orders.This has to be proved with facts & evidence, not on hearsay by LTTE runaways and their NGO heads!
Rule 153 – Commanders & superiors are criminally responsible for war crimes committed by subordinates if they knew, or had reason to know that these were to be committed and no action was taken to prevent such.
Rule 154 – Combatants can disobey a manifestly unlawful order
Rule 155 – Obeying superior order does not relieve subordinate of criminal responsibility if subordinate knew act ordered was unlawful.
Rule 156 – Serious violations of IHL constitute war crimes
Rule 157 – States have right to vest universal jurisdiction in national courts over war crimes
Rule 158 – States must investigate war crimes committed by nationals or armed forces on their territory and prosecute suspects – evidence must prevail
Rule 159 – at end of hostilities authorities must grant broadest possible amnesty in a NIAC – the GoSL gave a presidential pardon to 594 child soldiers of LTTE treating them as victims.
Rule 160 – Statutes of limitation may not apply to war crimes
Rule 161 – States must make every effort to facilitate investigation of war crimes and prosecution of suspects. The problem we have is that we do not wish to have UNHRC create kangaroo courts where the national army are given retributive justice while LTTE terrorists are given restorative justice.
Why does Sri Lanka not demand the UNHRC to present with facts& evidence Sri Lanka’s violations of IHL during the final phase of the conflict instead of meekly accepting the cooked up human rights allegations most of which do not even cover the conflict but are seeking war crimes charges quoting the final phase of the conflict.
