Will HRW and AI charge the US for war crimes ?

Simon Baker

9th May 2009

Will HRW and AI charge the US for war crimes ?

A probe confirms deaths due to American airstrikes in Afghanistan:

Afghan officials have estimated up to 147 people died in the battle in the western province of Farah on Monday.

U.S. coalition blamed Taliban militants Saturday for causing what Afghan officials say are dozens of civilian deaths during a prolonged battle that included American airstrikes. The U.S. said an unspecified number of civilians died but did not take responsibility for any deaths.  Why not?

Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton who tells that she is concerned about civilians in Sri Lanka has come under heavy fire from newspapers around the globe for simply saying sorry and doing nothing else after Americans killed of over 100 Afghan civilians including children.

Saudi Arabia’s leading newspaper The Arab News Said in an editorial, “stop killing and start caring about ordinary Afghans. Slaughtering them and then apologizing is contemptible.”
 
Aren’t civilians everywhere considered equal?

Will Human Rights Watch based in NY and Amnesty International based in London crucify us Americans for this?

What about war crimes? (Hope we get a free pass!)

A possible Commando Operation, and the doctored reports by the Amnesty International.

By Charles.S.Perera

19 April 2009
Is Holmes, Boucher, Miliband  trio,  unknown to the American President  Barrack Obama,   planning a American Commando Operation to save  Prabhakaran the terrorist leader ? L.Jayasooriya  in a message to Asian Tribune warns of a posssible Commando operation  to rescue Prabhakaran.  These three unscrupulous men make a big noise about violation of human rights but they will themselves resort to any atrocious methods to carry out their  own Agendas  what ever they may be. They seem to be in a bit of a hurry to save the terrorist leader Prabhakaran. 

Sri Lanka is a Sovereign State and it has the right to defend its territory and its people against terrorists or any foreign violators of its Sovereignty.  When the Somalian pirates defying President Barrack Obama’s warning against piracy, took  an  American cargo ship Captain as a hostage, the American Army promptly  acted  by killing the pirates by sniper fire to  rescue the Captain. No body intervened and the American Army was free to carry out its operation the best way possible.   

It should be the way with  the Sri Lanka  Government Armed Forces, who are planning a rescue operation to save the Tamil Civilians. The foreign Governments should keep away  to allow the Armed Forces to carry out its  military operations with discretion. The Sri Lanka Army with its experience knows how to plan and  carry out a rescue operation. Holmes, Boucher, Miliband and Blake intervening to  carry out a rescue operation of the terrorists is a violation of the rights of a Sovereign State. 

The Amnesty International the most incompetent and most interfering of Organisations  says that  the  official two-day ceasefire in Sri Lanka which ended on Wednesday has not helped to end the suffering of around 100,000 civilians trapped in the conflict zone.  It does not seem to  understand that  it was not due to any  fault of the government. It was the terrorists who would not allow the Civilians to budge.  

And this incompetent Organisations which has done nothing to ameliorate the situation in Gaza, Palestine, Iraq , Afghanistan, Burma or  Pakistan, tries to make out that the suffering of the 100,000 civilians( wrong figures) , trapped in the conflict Zone is the fault of the Government because the 48 hour ceasefire was not long enough.   

What is the guarantee that  even a month’s cease fire is going to ameliorate the condition of these people ?  The terrorists  do not keep their word  being  a ruthless blood thirsty group. The Amnesty International should inform the LTTE terrorists to release the people and ask the Tamil diaspora to stop their clamouring unnecessarily in the interest of the terrorists. 

How can one put into the heads of these activists of the Amnesty International that it is not a truce that is going to  help the suffering mass of about 50 to 70 thousand people in the  no fire Zone ?  It is the Sri Lanka Armed forces who could find a means to get these civilians released in its own way. For that the Armed Forces should be given time and left alone.   

It is not the Amnesty International that is going to risk their lives to save these people .  No amount of speaking to the terrorists will help to make them understand the necessity to release the civilians, because they are  the shield that protect them from being annihilated.  The government is aware of the  hardships and the desperation of the civilians.   The government has not turned away from its responsibility of  looking after its people  whatever are the difficulties, it has continued to provide food and medicine to the civilians , which are pilfered by the terrorists. 

However, the Amnesty International confess that, “All reports from the conflict zone are impossible to verify as the area has, in effect, been sealed off by the Sri Lankan government, denying access to aid workers and independent human rights observers.”.  Therefore, what they present  to the public  is based on third party reports which have not been verified.  The situation not as bleak as it claims.  It is not only the Amnesty International , even the UNHCHR, depends on the terrorist website for their information.   

The Human Rights Watch that toots the  exaggerated stories of the Tamil Diaspora are making their lopsided reports on unverified information on hear say evidence such as those from the “hospital workers” that gives  figures of civilians wounded by the shooting of Armed Forces into the  no fire zone, who had been treated in the hospital. The Amnesty International wails that “The human misery and desperation is rising and has now reached alarming proportion”.   

The Armed Forces are in place and hears and sees the reality and they have the answers. The only thing the Amnesty International could do for the good of the civilians if it really cares is to mind  its own business and let the Sri Lanka Armed Forces  do their duty.

AI Have you got any brains ? Open letter to AI

From Ben Silva UK

18 April 2009
Media reports indicate that you want a ceasefire in Sri Lanka.

The UN reports that Tamil Tiger fighters killed six civilians trying to flee the conflict zone. Evidence indicate that LTTE will kill any one that is trying to leave and they will force civilians to fight against their will. LTTE have planted booby traps and mines to prevent civilians escape their grip.

Have you thought of asking LTTE to surrender ? If they do, then there would be an automatic ceasefire. Is it too much for your tiny brain  to think ? Remember that LTTE is one of the deadliest terror groups in the world  and you want to give them a life line.

During the ceasefire that was implemented recently, the number of civilians that escaped was a minimum. The reason is, when the troops are not attacking LTTE, they have the time to stop civilians leaving. Not only that LTTE, has time to lay mines, lay booby traps, construct bunds and so on. As a result, each time there is a ceasefire LTTE gets stronger and it gets more difficult to dislodge them.

So what exactly is the reason to ask for a ceasefire ? Is it because your pay master LTTE can plant more mines and booby traps ?

 Because of that, LTTE will do more killing and unnecessary lives will be lost. To minimize loss of life, LTTE has to be eliminated firmly, as soon as possible. If not, no one in Sri Lanka would be safe.

LTTE would have been strangled if their funds were cut off. You never lobbied to stop funding for LTTE. Instead you were hounding the democratically elected government of Sri Lanka and behaved like a puppet of LTTE, controlled by the pay master LTTE. Remember your cricket ball stunt,  where you behaved like the god father of LTTE ?

London MPs again on the rampage

Prof Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary General
Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process

Sunday, 12 April 2009
With my adoration of things British, I had always thought of British Parliamentarians as splendid creatures. And I suppose they are, in a way, in that the latest set of effusions puts any exaggerations our Parliamentarians can manage in the shade. Of course the poor creatures are suffering from that well known disease of Parliamentarians, the need to hang on to one’s seat, and some British Labour MPs have a heightened form of this, given the proximity of the next election and the current state of Labour in the polls. But even so, the hysterical exaggerations they have engaged in recently deserve our deepest admiration, and perhaps emulation, if Sri Jayewardenepura is ever to match up to Westminster. And since it seems that some releases from the Peace Secretariat have contributed to the mania, I suppose we can also take some credit for these latest examples of the bludgeoning that has replaced the cut and thrust of an earlier age.

We begin with Siobhain McDonagh, from Mitchum and Morden, in South London. She declares that ‘Every day 150,000 people are being shelled in the Sri Lankan government’s designated no-fire zone, and tens of thousands more are trapped in a thin strip of land – just 13 square miles – where the battles are taking place.’ The woman is obviously completely crackers, since the thin strip of land was in fact the no-fire zone, and by the date she spoke most commentators had agreed that 150,000 was a maximum for those still under Tiger control. And Siobhain naturally made no mention of the fact that civilians were trapped because the Tigers had trapped them – but such niceties are beyond an Irish colleen full of emotion.  

Before she could finish, up jumped a Liberal Democrat from neighbouring Carshalton and Wallington, to mark his sympathy. Siobhain concurs and takes the opportunity to say how much she admires Tamils for bringing the problems in Sri Lanka to her attention. At her back she doubtless hears the voice of Mr Iddaikader, threatening some of her colleagues with losing their seats if British Tamils change their votes, but of course she would not dream of mentioning that. One characteristic of MPs anxious for votes is that they always find good reasons for the positions they take to win votes. It is not possible to be a successful politician without this capacity for self deception.  

Siobhain, obviously not intending to, then wins several brownie points with her Tamil constituents by mentioning how committed they are to education, and to elitist education too, which she simperingly notes causes her ideological problems. Andrew George, who has actually been to Sri Lanka, then intervenes to make the sensible point that the problem requires a political situation, gently pointing out that he is perhaps exceptional in not having many Tamils in his Cornish constituency. Siobhain rises to the bait magnificiently, and says of course she is involved because of her constituents.  

Simon Hughes, another Liberal Democrat from London, is not quite so transparent, and says that he has got involved not because of his Tamil constituents, but because he has seen the problem coming for a long time. Obviously not aware of what happened in the eighties, to drive so many of his constituents safe into his arms, he says the situation in Sri Lanka has got worse and worse for Tamils. Siobhain agrees, and asks that the British government call for Sri Lanka to be suspended from the Commonwealth. And then she goes on the rampage again, talks of genocide, and cluster bombs, and a thousand amputees who are desperate to be evacuated ‘but the Red Cross cannot get to them’. No one has told her that, over the last few weeks, the Red Cross has evacuated about 3500 patients, and more bystanders, the latter obviously being carried in the absence of more people requiring medical treatment. If they are there, and not allowed out, it is because the LTTE will not allow them out, being in control of the area which Siobhain had so dramatically described. Siobhain perhaps does not know, and if she did she would never mention it, that the Red Cross functions on ships supplied by the Sri Lankan government.  

Then, to add to the cluster bombs and even phosphorous weapons, Siobhain talks of the civilians being ‘pummeled by artillery fire’. She then quotes the UN High Commissioner’s concern for civilians trapped in the Safe Zone, and conveniently omits that lady’s plea to the LTTE to allow them to leave. Significantly, Siobhain at no point in her diatribe asks the LTTE to release the people over whom she instead sheds copious crocodile tears at the expense only of the Sri Lankan government.  

This is the cue for Andrew Pelling, he who was accused of beating not one wife but two, to weigh in. He represents an electorate in Croydon, near Siobhain’s, and is now an independent after the Conservative Party sacked him after his last little brush with the law. Since then he turned bulimic, but is now evidently hale and hearty enough to toss Siobhain a compliment for her hard work on this issue, which she promptly returns to him. Such mutual adulation seems thick, but if they keep on saying such things and popping up in turn, surely they will all win even more adulation from the voters they are trying to impress. It must be granted though that Siobhain does cite an old UNHCR report which has some criticism of the Tigers, but she scrupulously fails to endorse this. Significantly, much of what UNHCR says there is no longer applicable, but its criticism of LTTE recruitment still stands, even though Siobhain does not seem to think this important.  

Then comes a Liberal Democrat from another London suburb, who seems not to have strayed very far from that suburb, for he worries about the extreme cold at night that those under tarpaulins suffer, on the Sri Lankan coast. He then talks about bunkers to withstand the bombs of the Sri Lankan army, something he has never heard of previously in an ‘intended encampment’, which allows Siobhain to talk of the videos of these bunkers taken ‘by very brave people in the area’. Interestingly, the MPs later complain of the propaganda of the Sri Lankan government, never for a moment wondering whether the material presented to them might also be propaganda of sorts.  

Siobhain then quotes Amnesty International as though it were an undisputed authority, and harks back to its cluster bomb caper regarding the Puthukkudiyirippu hospital to make allegations of war crimes. Her Liberal neighbour then breaks in to mention a war crimes tribunal, trusting that the Sri Lankan High Commission will not ‘misinterpret what Members are saying’. Siobhain seizes the opportunity to claim that many Members ‘have been abused and insulted by the Sri Lankan High Commission in the UK’. As an example of this she claims that ‘it recently suggested that my hon friend Mr Dismore has a drug problem’. 

Andrew Dismore it seems shares this delusion, and evidently sought to ‘sue the Sri Lankan government for libel’ but found he could not because of ‘sovereign immunity’. This is another example of delusion, since the reference must be to the Peace Secretariat release that suggested he was overdosing ‘on imagination’. Similarly Mr Pelling claimed to a Croydon newspaper that he was thinking of legal action against the Peace Secretariat, but we have since heard nothing of that grandiose claim. One somehow gets the impression that these preposterous creatures are touchy enough to run to a lawyer – who swiftly enough disabuses them – when they think their rather tawdry honour has been questioned, but meanwhile think it perfectly all right to make claims about genocide and war crimes and such serious life threatening matters. Ridiculously, Andrew then asks the government to ‘bring pressure to bear on the Sri Lankan High Commission to make sure that it stops these attacks on Members when we are simply doing our job’, i.e. trying desperately to hold their seats, and hitting out at the Sri Lankan government and forces in order to do this. 

Siobhain then returns to the fray, with her call for Sri Lanka to be suspended from the Commonwealth, and goes on to say that there is an ‘opening for a truce’ because ‘the political leader of the Tigers has called for a ceasefire and said that the Tigers would negotiate ‘without pre-conditions’. Obviously ignorant of the previous history of ceasefires, and the Tiger refusal to negotiate for years, she demands that, ‘If Sri Lanka does not take this opportunity, it will need to be forced to the negotiating table through diplomatic means’. The poor woman obviously does not understand English, if she thinks such force possible, but more depressing is the fact that she never thought, over the last five years, to even ask the Tigers to negotiate. She also, like a good Labour MP, thinks the powers of the British government infinite, since she says that they should ‘simply state that Sri Lanka should be suspended from the Commonwealth and the process of suspension should commence’.  

Siobhain then declares that hardly anyone is interested in Sri Lanka except British MPs. She believes most outlets print ‘public relations material for the government there’, obviously having read nothing of the critiques of the Sri Lankan government and forces that have formed the staple of most British reporting on the country in recent weeks. She makes an exception of Marie Colvin, who she claims lost an eye when she was attacked by Sri Lankan government forces, and now evidently spends her time talking to the LTTE and attacking Sri Lanka, if Siobhain’s account of her recent activities is to be believed.  

She then complains about an article in the Times as evidence for her generalization, and declares that Sri Lanka has ‘done a brilliant PR job around the world’, which is news to most of us, and most readers of at least British newspapers.  

Andrew George then makes the salient point that negotiations should include all Tamils. Siobhain blithely agrees, but shows no awareness that the Tigers had opposed this tooth and nail for several years, and indeed killed other Tamils who had a different view. She also claims, giving Mr Nadesan an even more exalted rank which indicates she is completely clueless about how the Tigers work, that the Tigers would abide by a referendum, information to which she seems privy even though it was not in the article. Whether she is privy to why the Tigers avoided elections in the past is doubtful.  

A junior Minister from West London is then sarcastic about Sri Lankan government propaganda, but Siobhain misses the point and bewails the fact that most MPs are not interested in her campaign to have Sri Lanka suspended from the Commonwealth, an attitude for which, myopic as she is, she blames the propaganda put out by the High Commission.  

Joan Ryan, she who initiated the last debate on the subject, then raises an objection about Sri Lanka’s position on a Commonwealth committee, but Siobhain misses that point too, and instead, in noting that she and Joan had worked together on this matter, makes clear why she was the wrong person to initiate this debate. With a naivete that would be charming, were it not so readily placed at the service of terror, she declares, ‘During the 11 years I have been in the House, I have never spoken in a debate on an international issue. I am not somebody who would ever regard themselves as a House of Commons person. I find the environment quite pompous, and I think that people speak for too long – just as I am currently doing.’ One can only hope, despite this desperate attempt to hold onto her votes – as the last sentence of her speech again suggests – that the voters will put her out of her misery and release her from the Commons at the next election.  

Siobhain’s speech was followed by that of a Conservative called Lee Scott, who was far less emotional, but also seemed to think that the propaganda of the High Commission had succeeded in suppressing the issue, and it was only the British House of Commons that would save the day for the concerns of their constituents. Sadly, though he did not make wild allegations, he too believes that ‘Everyone is calling for a ceasefire’, which suggests he knows little about the history of the conflict and about the position of countries more closely concerned with this particular terrorist threat than Britain.  

Joan Ryan then comes back into the fray and asserts that it was the British who first called for a ceasefire. Interestingly, the Deputy British High Commissioner insisted that it was not a ceasefire the British wanted, but a cessation of firing to let the trapped civilians out, but I pointed out to him that that was not what was said publicly. Now I have no objection to British leaders playing to a gallery, but they should not do so at the expense of a friendly government. Keeping Joan Ryan happy may be important, but a principled approach when dealing with terrorism is much more important, and I hope the High Commission in Colombo will point out how much damage is done to what should be very positive relations by such loose talk, which creatures like Joan pounce on so avidly.  

Joan then refers to a UN report which she grants was leaked. This is another example of ambiguity that we need to be careful of. When the existence of that report was first made known to us, we challenged the figures, and the UN in Colombo agreed to withdraw the report. However, we have since found the figures quoted widely all over the place. The UN has not bothered however to check on who did the leaking, or to publicly repudiate the false figures, based on extrapolations that we were able to show were quite fanciful. Meanwhile Joan actually claims that the figure is now conceded to have been an underestimation, not the overestimation we proved it was.  

Joan then adds her voice to that of Mr Nadesan, to ask for a ceasefire, and says as though it were a great concession that the Tigers are offering this without preconditions. The woman must be mad, unless she is very evil indeed, not to understand that it is through this type of ceasefire that the Tigers were able on several occasions to rearm and renew their terrorist activity. And then the woman goes on to ask that India join her in her crusade, ignoring how much India suffered when they tried to deal with the Tigers.  

Obviously deciding that the Sri Lankan government will not fall for her blandishments, Joan then goes on to the war crimes tune, with allegations about cluster bombs and white phosphorous. She also ignores the evidence of the recent ICRC evacuation of bystanders along with the injured and, building on a BBC report that was shown to be false and was repudiated by the ICRC, she engages in a graphic description of the aid agencies able to operate having ‘to choose between the most severely injured and the badly injured, and have to leave the badly injured lying on the beach. That cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered humane treatment’. Sadly, the only imagination being stretched is that of Joan Ryan, and despite the elasticity of the stretching I hope she will not jump to the conclusion that we think she is hallucinating.  

Joan Ryan then talks about a Security Council resolution, and raises the hoary chestnut that Russia might be responsible for preventing this. Fascinatingly, she thinks that the claim of the mid-Western American Prof Boyle, who has taken up Bruce Fein’s genocide baton, will provide evidence for Russia to change its mind. Given the British position on Iraq, and the fact that there was no majority anyway for an invasion of Iraq at the time but there was an attempt to blame Russia and China alone for opposing this, Joan Ryan at least should know better than to talk such nonsense. But, after an intervention which indicated the uselessness of her attempt to have Sri Lanka suspended from the Commonwealth, Joan declares that ‘the UN seems to have been cowed’. One wonders when the British, or at least a solid left wing MP from what obviously is still thought to be the capital of the world, will learn that the UN should not necessarily be assumed to be deficient if it will not follow the will of the Head of the Commonwealth.    

But Joan would do credit to Winston Churchill at his most bulldoggish. She declares that Sri Lanka has just ‘attempted to reject a special representative appointed by our Prime Minister’. She claims that the reason given, that Sri Lanka was not consulted, is nonsense in that Sri Lanka is not consulted about the Prime Minister’s other appointments. Evidently the woman is not only hysterical, she is also stupid, since obviously a special representative needs to be accepted if he is to do any good. More tellingly, even the British government claims that it did consult, and it is conceivable that there was misunderstanding about whether the appointment had been accepted or not. Joan, ignoring all this, declares instead that the Sri Lankan government’s argument is outrageous, ‘We have seen them do that and the UN needs to take steps’, it now evidently in her book being the business of the UN to ensure that Sri Lanka accepts poor Des Browne.  

Joan then asserts, lying through her teeth, that the Sri Lankan government ‘have accepted that there is no political solution’. That sort of outrageous claim would lead one to suggest that she be asked to wash her mouth out with soap and water, were she not a member of the Mother of Parliaments. Certainly the rhetorical questions she then indulges in suggest hysteria, as do her ‘four immediate goals’ – suspension from the Commonwealth, a ceasefire, a UN monitoring mission and a resumption of peace negotiations. In short, the woman obviously sees herself as a nanny, wagging her finger while hoping anxiously that the bosses, the UN and India, will keep her in employment.  

Simon Hughes then engages in his usual confusing performance, claiming to cite a message from the Bishop of Mannar which was ‘passing on a message from a parish priest in Northern Sri Lanka who said that the bishop requested me to communicate the message to you’, ie it is not clear whether this is the Bishop’s message or that of an unknown individual claiming to speak for the Bishop. The message is also confusing because it talks of Tamils being mutilated and thrown into camps, which must be a claim about the government controlled areas, but then it seems the informant is in the Tiger controlled area. Similarly, Simon’s quotations from the UNHCR, which he grants is selective, also confuses the two areas. In short, Simon is up to his usual game of deliberate obfuscation, though thankfully he then goes on to worry about the Commonwealth and what he sees as British governmental inadequacy in putting the case there.  

Then we have Andrew Dismore, who at least noted that the LTTE was holding people trapped. He then complains about being libeled, suggesting that he too cannot understand English and thinks an overdose of imagination refers to some exotic drug. He then goes on to criticize the Conservative spokesman Dr Fox, evidently ignoring the possibility that Dr Fox is as concerned about humanitarian issues, but is much more consistent about the dangers of terrorism.  

Andrew was interrupted by a Labour Minister who is also obviously ignorant, because he has no idea about the political solution that was shattered by the LTTE in 1987, and he talks of a recent political solution, whereas the LTTE withdrew from negotiations. He also claims that there was ‘a multi-party, multi-faith, multi-ethnic Government in place and that it was the deeply regretted rise of Sinhala nationalism that shattered that consensus’. It is that type of ignorance from a government Minister (and gratuitous and meaningless insult) that makes it so difficult to trust either the bona fides or the seriousness of the British government. Fortunately Dismore does not take that bait, and instead refers to the need for a political solution, obviously unaware that that is precisely the government of Sri Lanka position too.  

Andrew was followed by a Conservative, Stephen Hammond, from yet another London suburb, who again was misled by the fraudulent BBC report that the ICRC repudiated. He also talks about a mercy ship, obviously unaware that this was arranged by the London head of the TRO, who has now taken on another avatar, following the British discovery that the TRO was a front for the Tigers. Then, while he is quite right to talk about a political solution, Stephen confuses this with a ceasefire, as the British following Tiger imperatives tend to do, and declares that the British must impress on Sri Lanka that the ceasefire ‘must include not only the LTTE, but all sections of the Tamil community’. The man obviously does not know that it is the Sri Lankan government that has all along been pressing for inclusiveness, and that the LTTE not only decimated other groups during the last ceasefire, but has continued to insist that it is the sole representative of the Tamil people. Once again, one realizes that a little learning is a very dangerous thing, especially when accompanied by British pomposity.  

The Liberal Democrat from next to Siobhain said much the same as the rest, with greater emphasis on the need for UN action, this time pointing a finger at China as well as Russia, but actually claiming that Britain too had opposed the matter being placed on the agenda. This is strange, because the general assumption was that Britain had in fact been behind the move, but perhaps a British MP who knows little about Sri Lanka at least knows his own country better, and we need not be quite so worried about the British approach. Joan Ryan, however, seems to have disagreed with him, as part perhaps of her new found adulation of the Prime Minister.  

Finally, after some largely sensible remarks by a Conservative Shadow Minister, Bill Rammell, the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, himself representing a London constituency, responded. Rammells’ comments were on the whole unexceptionable, though some of the statistics he used were misleading, and he was ambiguous about some of the allegations made against the government. However he was unambiguous about the crimes of the LTTE, and seems finally to be inclining to the position, the obvious unquestionable position, that the civilians now in the safe zone would be out of danger if the LTTE released them.  

That is as much as can be expected now from the British, but it is a pity that a less equivocal approach was not attempted, so that Britain could profitably exploit the enormous goodwill for that country that we still cherish, despite the silly MPs who persist in lies for their own benefit, and convince themselves withal that they are being altruistic. It is no coincidence after all that those who are most desperate about this matter come from London constituencies. But induction was never something the British were very good at, and the House of Commons, given political priorities, can be much less rational than most when national interests are not at stake.

http://www.lankamission.org/content/view/1946/49/

Tamil Protestors Breathing Life in to the LTTE , Not To The Civilians

By: Dr. Chandrani Gunaratna

12th April 2009
News reports from London said at least 100,000 people marched in London on Saturday to demand an immediate end to Sri Lanka ‘s military offensive against the dying terrorist organization, LTTE that is holding over 70,000 men, women and children as human shields.

Waving the red Tiger flag of LTTE, a banned terrorist organization in Britain, and crying about an invented genocide, protestors demanded an end to the offensive and called for a ceasefire while their brethren, being held as human shields by the very same outfit languished in a hot sandy strip of land fearing their so-called saviours’ wrath and guns if they tried to leave the desolate land and seek life elsewhere.

Why does the Tamil Diaspora call for a ceasefire now?

According to the FBI Tamil Tigers are among the most [http://www.fbi.gov/page2/jan08/tamil_tigers011008.html] dangerous and deadly extremists in the world. The LTTE was never interested in peace but craving out a mono ethnic separate homeland that bows down to the cult of its leader’s personality. They used each and every ceasefire in the past 25 years to build up their outfit. Every ceasefire ended with a new attack on the Sri Lankan people or with a new military offensive.

During the Norwegian government brokered ceasefire period from 2002 -2007 Tigers used billions of dollars, about 200- 300 million dollars a year according to Jane’s Defence Weekly, funnelled willingly or unwillingly by the sections of Tamils living outside Sri Lanka, to procure sophisticated lethal weapons including artillery guns, surface-to-air missiles, RPGs, anti-aircraft guns, to build extensive underground facilities and earth bunds, to acquire aircraft and submersible vessels and to set up high-tech communication facilities.

LTTE’s intent to use the ceasefire, from its inception, to strengthen their outfit was clear when they prevented the Tamils in the Northern region from voting in 2005 presidential elections. Blessed with the leeway given to it by the ceasefire LTTE was sufficiently armed and manned and ready for the Eelam War I . It had no interest in continuation of the peace process.

Since the election of the new government, LTTE escalated ceasefire violations and boldly forced the government into the war by closing the Mavil Aru sluice gates that supplied water to 15,000 families and damaging over 30,000 paddy lands in Eastern Province. LTTE unfortunately miscalculated the Rajapaksa government’s resolve and finally faced a humiliating loss which freed the Eastern region from the Tiger terror and went downhill since then to the 20 square kilometre land of sand in the north-eastern coast now they are boxed in.

Every time they get weakened the LTTE calls for a ceasefire and they are calling for a one now as they are decimated to less than 500 cadres, cornered in a strip of land surrounded by the Sri Lankan Army and the Navy and running out of ammunition while all their sophisticated weaponry purchased with the billions extorted money from Tamils around the world, are in the possession of the Sri Lankan Army.

Sections of the Tamils sympathetic to the LTTE living outside Sri Lanka (Diaspora Tamils) who funded the LTTE with their hard-earned money is in panic now as their dreams of a homeland lay shattered with no hope of reviving unless of course they can save the remaining leaders from annihilation by the Sri Lankan forces. They need the ceasefire so badly, not for the sake of their people who are trapped but for the sake of resurrecting the organization which is on the death row now.

If it is the people they care then the LTTE can let them leave on their own free will and the conflict would be over within a day. But that would be the end of the LTTE too and the Diaspora has to cling on to the separate homeland dream and cannot let that happen. The moment the conflict zone is devoid of civilians the Sri Lankan forces are ready to finish off the terror that plagued the country for three decades. The LTTE and the sympathetic Diaspora are fully aware of the outfit’s fate and by all means fighting to stop the demise.

The call for ceasefire does two things. It encourages the LTTE to hold onto the civilians so that it can buy the time to form strategies, as they know that the Sri Lankan Army will not be launching offensives for the fear of hurting civilians. The ceasefire ruse along with the make-believe genocide story, the Diaspora and LTTE believe, can hoodwink the international community further into supporting their goals and to impose restrictions on the Sri Lankan government’s effort to free the civilians and finish the war.

There is another hidden motive in the Diaspora’s efforts to stop the war against the LTTE terror. A substantial number of Tamils living in Canada, Britain and other European countries are asylum seekers. They live in these countries on the pretence that the conditions in Sri Lanka are dangerous for their lives. If the Sri Lankan government finishes the LTTE terror and establishes the democracy in the North as it did in the East these asylum seekers will lose their asylum status and have to repatriate. That is a stronger motive for their outcry against the Sri Lankan government than the plight of the civilians.

The latest tactic of the LTTE is to scream that hundreds of civilians are killed daily by the Army shelling, a charge that Sri Lankan army vehemently denies. In fact, the Army has not fired any shells since they captured Puthukkudyiruppu and entered into the narrow land strip, as it was logistically impossible to fire heavy weaponry in the short range.

Certain humanitarian organizations and news agencies citing the so called government health officials, who, while shells are falling within few meters of them, provide daily phone updates on civilian casualties in the no-fire zone, have given credibility to the LTTE’s misinformation campaign which is geared to agitate the international community including officials of Western governments against the Sri Lankan government.

If the LTTE was genuinely concerned about the civilians why did they herd the civilians like cattle to wherever they went in the first place? LTTE had so much time and opportunity to set the civilians free before they were forced into the government declared no-fire zone. Even now the LTTE can simply allow the people to seek the safety in the government-controlled areas instead of hiding behind civilians. LTTE does not need a ceasefire to do that. The Sri Lankan Army has opened up several safe routes for the civilians to enter into the cleared areas.

What international community, especially Western governments should realize at this time is, a ceasefire, even temporarily, would prolong the misery of the civilians. Instead of a call for ceasefire, if the genuine concern is for the people, the LTTE should be urged to free the civilians as the United Nations and the United States have done. They should be urged to lay down their arms and surrender. Even if a ceasefire is declared there is no guarantee that LTTE would allow the civilians out of its grip. As long as the Diaspora is chanting the ceasefire and genocide mantras the civilians will suffer at the hands of the LTTE.

Nearly 60,000 Tamil men, women, and children have braved the LTTE fire and already walked into the government controlled areas. They would not have made that trip if there were genocide as LTTE and the Diaspora claim.

 http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20090412_05

An Amnesty for the Tigers

by Rajiva Wijesinha  Secretary General, Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process

Wednesday, 08 April 2009
 Amnesty International, with pertinacity worthy of the LTTE, has once more returned to the charge against the Sri Lankan government. As usual it begins its diatribe with affirming its principled balance between an elected government and terrorists, between legitimate armed forces who do not attack civilians and terrorists who do this as a matter of principle, between those who are seeking to free the trapped people Amnesty purports to care about and those who are entrapping them.

Its first sentence then talks of people at increased risk from the ‘escalation in attacks’ by the LTTE and the Armed forces. It does not mention here that those people have been deliberately attacked by the LTTE whereas there has been no evidence of this on the part of the armed forces.

Amnesty then goes on to call for a humanitarian truce to allow aid to reach the civilians, ignoring the fact that the government has ensured that such aid has been flowing to them continuously, for the last several years. It does say that the truce is also needed to ensure safe passage for those who wish to leave, ignoring that what is needed for this is that the LTTE permits this. And, since this must by now be obvious to anyone, Amnesty goes back to its insidious balancing act by asking for pressure on Sri Lanka to ensure unimpeded humanitarian access to camps for the displaced people in the region.’

This is followed by the customary quotation from Sam Zafiri, whose particular words of profound wisdom are thought by Amnesty enough to shore up the generalizations which he is also responsible for. As usual, he opens his mouth to imply a falsehood. “The deliberate firing on civilians by either side constitutes a war crime,” is another example of his misuse of language, since the war crime is deliberate firing on civilians by any side. By introducing the word ‘either’ he seeks to imply that both are doing this, a claim for which he has no evidence at all.

But that has never stopped Sam, who goes on to reassert the need for pressure on both sides. He makes no apology for the fact that Amnesty releases encouraged the Tigers to continue to hang onto their civilian shields, whereas less equivocation on the part of Amnesty might have prevented what he calls a ‘major humanitarian catastrophe.’

Amnesty then, in its little Jack Horner pulling out a plum tone, claims that it ‘has received credible and consistent reports that the LTTE has forcibly displaced civilians and pushed them into areas under their control in the Wanni, where they are effectively held hostage and used as a buffer against the Sri Lankan armed forces – a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law….The LTTE is also reported to have deliberately attacked civilians that have tried to escape from areas under their control.’

Such an admission has to have its counterpart, so the government is immediately condemned as having cut off international humanitarian assistance. This is itself is nonsense, since the government has been sending in much aid together with the ICRC, and even if Amnesty does not believe the government, it has had full access to ICRC reports. Equally significantly, there is no redeeming reference in this para to ‘reports’, since Amnesty evidently takes pleasure in criticizing the government direct, whereas it has to soothe the Tigers by referring to third party reports when it dares to say anything about their behaviour.

Then Amnesty does its usual dance about the facilities given to those seeking refuge, with three full paragraphs devoted to attacks on these, the last another citation of the eloquence of Sam Zarifi. The thrust is to suggest that perhaps the people would be far better off with the Tigers, which is precisely what the Tigers want. Thus, having devoted one sentence to simply reports of the Tigers keeping people hostage and using them as human shields, and an even more cursory sentence to what are simply described as attacks on civilians seeking to escape (no mention of the suicide bomb, the grenade, the shooting, the landmines and the obvious evidence of people dying as a result of these), Amnesty belittles all this brutality by saying that those who ‘risk their lives and flee face further ordeals when they enter government-controlled areas.’

Sam Zarifi, from his cosy little nook in Hampstead, or wherever it is Amnesty International types now hang out, obviously has no idea what an ordeal is. Everything he says about the arrangements for those seeking refuge, despite his propaganda and that of the Tigers, is totally mistaken. He obviously does not know that Sri Lanka has welcomed over 60,000 such persons in the last couple of months, so of course there is overcrowding, but does he really expect us to turn these people away, and ask them to go back to the Tigers and come back when we have more spaces ready to receive them?

It is the transit camps, which he does not mention, that are overcrowded, whereas the welfare villages are well laid out, though there is still much work to be done on them. He is also infinitely stupid about the military presence, which he thinks puts civilians at risk, whereas it was the military that detected a suicide bomber recently near one of the camps, and made sure, at risk to themselves, that the bomb went off away from the camp. He is also obviously completely crackers if he thinks that the Sri Lankan government rejects international scrutiny, since it has recently hosted the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator, John Holmes, and the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons, Walter Kälin.

If by international scrutiny however Sam Zarifi means simply Amnesty International, which has long been requesting permission for a visit, he really must do better to convince us that Amnesty abides by international standards as far as the repudiation of terrorism goes. One paragraph about Tiger brutality and several paragraphs that the Tigers use to justify this brutality suggest a blatant disregard for humanitarian and human rights norms that is quite disgusting. It is not surprising that the latest Tiger propaganda exercise uses Amnesty pronouncements. What is surprising is that decent human beings like Irene Khan and Peter Splinter continue to associate with liars and apologists for terror.

Courtesy: Island.lk

 http://www.lankamission.org/content/view/1935/49/

Ceasefire would not help save the civilians

By Neville Ladduwahetty Courtesy The Island 

BBC, Aid Agencies and Sri Lanka

 Dr. P.A.Samaraweera

Tuesday, 17 March 2009
Today more than half the world is fighting terrorism in one form or another. Some of the countries directly involved are the US, the UK, Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan. Sri Lanka has been fighting terrorism for nearly three decades at a high cost-human and financial.

With the recent developments in the conflict the international media have been keeping a close tab on the events in Sri Lanka. Of all, the most popular of them which is the BBC has been supplying inaccurate reports relayed by the LTTE and their sympathisers.  

For example, on March 8th, BBC South Asia reported that, “…A senior Health Official working inside Tiger held areas has told by telephone that shells by artillery from security forces fell inside Government designated safe zones causing civilian casualties and 15 deaths…” When the Health Ministry verified this with the Health Official he had categorically denied making a phone call. It is obvious that anyone can make a fake call and this confirms that the BBC does not check the authenticity of statements made to them.  

In their report of the conflict, there was no mention of the civilians forcibly held by the Tigers as human shields and preventing them from leaving the combat zone. The BBC did not refer to the fact that the Security Forces had toned down the pressure on the Tigers by not using heavy weapons.  

In contrast, the Tigers have accelerated attacks by taking cover behind civilians. This was clearly indicated by the Disaster Management and Human Rights Minister during the interview for “HardTalk” on March, 2. The BBC reporter at the interview pointed the finger at the Government Security Forces treating the Tigers as ‘freedom fighters’ despite the fact that they are ruthless terrorists banned in so many countries.  

Further on March 5, the BBC World News reported that the ICRC had warned of an impending humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka. But when the Secretariat for Coordinating Peace Process in Sri Lanka checked this with the ICRC, there had been no such assertion.  

Thus it appears that the BBC reports are based on hearsay evidence, distortions and propaganda by the LTTE. If the ‘Al Qaeda’ were cornered by the US and the British forces in Afghanistan and there is an end in sight, will the BBC try to bail them out as they try do to the Tigers now in Sri Lanka?  

During recent times the role of Aid Agencies as well had come under greater scrutiny. For instance, the question has come up as to how the LTTE possessed heavy machinery for the construction of earth bunds and bunkers. On March 10, an English Daily reported that the 55 Division of the Army made a startling revelation of a possible flow of ‘Combat Rations’ to the LTTE.  

A high protein “BP-100″ packet of biscuits had been in the possession of an LTTE cadre killed in combat. What is astonishing is that last year a police check point had apprehended a lorry destined to Vavuniya with a stock of 39,000 Kg’s of “BP-100″ compact therapeutical, high protein biscuits sent by the World Food Program.  

The activities of the Aid Agencies have been closely investigated by other countries as well. An extreme case is Sudan, where last week the Aid workers from the International Rescue Committee, Oxfam and Amnesty International were taken to task and asked to cease functioning. Thus the credibility of these organisations has been eroded due to their dual role in developing countries.

Courtesy: dailynews.lk

http://www.lankamission.org/content/view/1794/49/

SCOPP Secretary General responds at UN dialogue on Displaced Persons

 Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, Secretary General of the Peace Secretariat and Secretary to the Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights

Monday, 16 March 2009

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, Secretary General of the Peace Secretariat and Secretary to the Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights, spoke in the debate on the report of the Special Representative on the Rights of Displaced Persons in Geneva today. His comments in response to interventions by states and non-governmental organisations are carried below.

Sri Lanka is grateful to those countries and non-Governmental Organisations that raised questions about the situation of the internally displaced in Sri Lanka, since it enables us to provide further information on the situation. I am grateful myself, Mr President, since though I was complaining earlier about having to stay on, in a cold and comfortless Geneva, the independent Sri Lankan press reported yesterday that the Peace Secretariat is amongst the targets of the 25 or so LTTE suicide cadres that have infiltrated the capital. It is therefore a relief to linger here to deal with the verbal pyrotechnics of Amnesty International et al, rather than face the real thing.

Mr President, Amnesty International at least had the courtesy to have a discussion with us, and I am sorry that the countries of the European Union which raised queries turned down our invitation to discuss issues of concern. Sweden was an honourable exception, and I was happy to inform its representatives that the figure they are working with is now generally recognised as exaggerated. If I might quote from the minutes of the UN Protection Group, held on February 25th – Update on Humanitarian Situation in the Vanni, IDP exit numbers and possible scenarios.  

In a daily meeting of Security Operations Information Centre comprising UNDSS, UNOCHA, SOLIDAR and UNOPS, analysis of satellite imagery and other information is being used to try to identify numbers and locations of IDPs in the Vanni and in particular in the no-fire/safe area. The number of civilians in safe area is thought to be between 70,000 to 100,000 individuals.

You may well wonder, Mr President, why the UN did not share this figure with even the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who claimed over two weeks later that ‘According to UN estimates, a total of 150,000 to 180,000 civilians remain trapped in an ever shrinking area’, but we have grown so used to incompetence and a lack of coordination amongst our undoubted superiors that we no longer suspect forked tongues, but have learnt simply to grin and bear it.  

Forked tongues are however apparent in the information conveyed by an NGO very keen on what it terms access, which had informed a Swiss parliamentarian that the Sri Lankan government was opposed to a plan to evacuate these suffering people. This, we have pointed out several times, is what we want, whereas the LTTE and its fronts have made clear their opposition to this. That particular NGO however is active in work amongst the displaced who did manage to escape, having swept up much UN and other funding, in the new game of three administrators for most tranches of assistance, with concomitant multiple overheads, so that our poor citizens do not benefit as much as the generous taxpayers in rich countries think they do.

This confirms the point we made in response to other interventions under this Agenda item, Mr President, concerning the need for transparency amongst non-Governmental organisations. One of those which pronounced here last week had never presented audited accounts, and had a treasurer who died five years ago. The source then of the funds for its regular excursions to Geneva should either be suspicious or the object of suspicion.  

Mr President, NGOs who have committed to practical work are in the camps amongst the displaced, along with UN agencies. The allegations of sexual violence, of a lack of process to link families, of the presence of other armed Tamil groups, are nonsense, and would certainly have been brought to our attention by UN agencies had they even been conceivable. The sub-committee on psychosocial welfare is working with religious groups, and is now considering proposals, including one from the ICRC, for a large scale project in this area. I should note that I had in fact discussed work in this field with WHO as long ago as last September, because we actually anticipated then the problems that had to be faced.

With regard to the old IDPs, consultations on amendments to the Law on Prescription will lead soon to action on Resettlement, whilst the authority is due to meet today. Progress however has been slower than we had hoped during the Special Representative’s last visit to Colombo, but when we met last week he expressed his understanding of this given the other emergency situations we have to face. We are delighted however to continue to work with him, since his whole approach is so refreshing, in comparison with those who seek merely to criticise but refuse to engage and discuss. Their reasons for this may be political or melodramatic, but we would suggest that genuine humanitarian concern would be preferable.

http://www.lankamission.org/content/view/1786/49/

Amnesty International bombs South Asia

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary General
Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process

Friday, 13 March 2009
Amnesty International’s resident Cluster Bomb Specialist Jim McDonald has gone on another of his shooting sprees. Over the weekend he sent out releases targeting both the Sri Lankan and the Pakistani governments.

The first concerned the Sri Lankan journalist J S Tissainayagam, who has now been charged, on the basis of a confession which a court has ruled admissible. It is therefore strange that Amnesty should call for his release, since presumably it would be highly irregular for government to release without reference to a court people who have been duly charged.

Amnesty may well believe Tissainayagam to be innocent, but since it has not been suggested over the last couple of decades that the Sri Lankan judicial system is not independent, it should surely leave this decision to the courts. If it believes the Sri Lankan court system is not fair, it should say so. Amnesty could also urge for a swift trial, but it should bear in mind that the delays in this case are not exceptional. Finally, since there are clear charges issued, it is absurd that Amnesty should claim that ‘statements by senior governments (sic) have indicated that the main reason for his arrest is because of his writing in the Sunday Times newspaper’. 

The Sunday Times, owned by the uncle of the leader of the opposition, continues to be published, and continues to criticize the government. As far as I know, Tissainayagam’s articles in the Times did not upset anyone, and they were very different in tone from the articles in another newspaper that seemed much more tailored to Tiger predilections, and which form the subject of the charge. 

Old McDonald claims too that ‘The writing and publication of the magazine occurred during the period of the Ceasefire Agreement, where the Government made a commitment not to detain or arrest anyone under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. On this basis alone, the indictments should not have been served.’ It was precisely because the LTTE abused that Agreement, and expanded its terrorist activities and its arsenal during that period, that the Government abrogated the Agreement well before Tissainayagam’s arrest.  

In short, since Amnesty wants Tissainayagam released, it trots out every conceivable reason why this should happen. And to strengthen its case it trots out no less an authority than its own resident Sri Lankan expert, Yolanda Foster, who declares that ‘Sri Lanka’s climate of impunity for attacks on the media has made it impossible to get an accurate impartial picture of what is happening in the country.’ She should read the Sunday Times. 

But if Sri Lanka is attacked irrationally, Amnesty goes berserk in attacking Pakistan with regard to the terrorist attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in which several Pakistani policemen lost their lives. Firstly, all this is the fault of the Pakistani authorities, a concept expressed in the usual wonderfully illogical prose that has now possessed Amnesty – “The Pakistani authorities have a responsibility to prevent armed groups from posing a threat to the life and safety of its population and foreign nationals. Any attack aimed at civilians, including sportspeople, cannot be justified.” 

Amnesty may not understand that all governments have the responsibility to protect all people. If governments had a responsibility to prevent armed groups posing threats, then all governments in the world have clearly failed, and should immediately be replaced by the less irresponsible denizens of Old McDonald’s farm. Secondly, Amnesty is once more playing the game of terrorists in declaring only that any attack aimed at civilians cannot be justified, and twinning that with its blame of the government for not fulfilling its responsibilities. 

This is of a piece with its earlier assertion that the Pakistani authorities failed to protect the right to life of civilians – foreign and national. Do policemen also not have a right to life? The point about terrorism is that it also attacks servicemen in underhand ways which are very different from what might be termed the standard risks servicemen are contracted as it were to face by virtue of their profession. If Amnesty does not realize that it must condemn all terrorist acts, whether aimed at servicemen or civilians, it goes far to justifying the rationale for terrorism, that any servant of a dispensation it opposes is a fair object of attack. 

The double standards Amnesty adopts are clear when we consider its failure to condemn the British government for failing to protect the servicemen who were killed recently in Northern Ireland. Does it really think those poor men were fair game? Does it think that the British government has no responsibility to prevent armed groups posing threats to the lives of its population, but the Pakistani government does? 

Interestingly, in an appendix to its diatribe, Amnesty asserts that the ‘February truce between the government and Taliban militants in Malakand and Swat valley, only served to emboldened militants.’ This may or may not be true, but it comes oddly from an organization that has been urging the Sri Lankan government to have a Ceasefire with the Tigers, who have not only been emboldened by previous Ceasefires, but used them to slaughter democratic Tamil forces whilst building up their own terrorist capacity. But doubtless Amnesty, like so many in the West, thinks Islamic terrorists are incorrigible, whilst Tigers and others are little lambs waiting to be cuddled.  

Amnesty ends its diatribe by calling on the Pakistani government to conduct an ‘independent and impartial investigation’ into the attack, doubtless believing that without this exhortation there would be no such effort. Of course it is conceivable that the Pakistani government wanted this attack and will do its best to conceal the identity of the perpetrators, just as it is conceivable that Tissainayagam is responsible for the latest terrorist bomb in Sri Lanka. But anyone who indulges in such conceptions would be better off in the funny farm into which Old McDonald seems, with a little help from Young Yolanda, to have converted Amnesty International.

 http://www.lankamission.org/content/view/1765/49/