Acknowledgment

Many persons, who are deeply concerned about the questionable nature of charges brought against the Sri Lankan forces that vanquished the powerful LTTE, saving almost 300,000 Tamil civilians marooned at the Nandikadal lagoon in the process, have helped me in making this monograph possible. The chief contributor is Dr. Sarath Weerasekera ( retd. Rear- Admiral), formerly of the Sri Lanka Navy, and the former Director of the Civil Defense Force contingent. He made his compilation of “In Defense of the Armed Forces of Sri Lanka’ available to me and initiated me to take up this task.

In addition, I must acknowledge with gratitude the assistance rendered to me by Mr. Rathnapriya Wickremesinghe, Director- Department of Census and statistics- Sri Lanka, and the Former Director-General of the department, Mr. D. C. A. Gunewardene, for their valuable input in the area of Sri Lankan census, at different stages of the conflict and its aftermath.

Former Sri Lanka Navy Commander, Commander of the Fleet. Wasantha Karannagoda made his invaluable contribution by providing first-hand published information on the number of civilians the SL Navy rescued off the Nanthikadal lagoon during the stages of this human shielding exercise by the LTTE: type of information that no other tendentious writer on the narrative have bothered to look for. The ICRC has confirmed all those civilian numbers with accolades to the SL Navy for their dedication. The Commander was of further assistance when he introduced a worthy candidate to dedicate this monograph posthumously. 

Mr. Prashanthalal De Alwis contributed with his legal counseling to this work, and Brigadier (retd.) Hiran Halangoda also made available compilations, including the ‘Numbers Game’- authored by the Sri Lankan Diaspora. Mr. Ranjith Soyza of the Sri Lankan Diaspora (SPUR) also is mentioned for his kind assistance and encouragement at all times.

Mr. Daya Gamge, formerly of the US Department of State, has generously acceded to write a Foreword, having proofread the work, despite his status as a person domiciled in the United States.

Acknowledgment is also due, last but not least, to Mr. Keerthi Jayasuriya, of the F R Jayasuriya Foundations, for his kind assistance and continuing support in making this effort see the ‘light of day’.

 

Author

 

This book is dedicated to the memory of

 

SL Navy Commander Lalith Prasanna Edirisinghe

Dedication

After the Indian Peacekeeping Force opted to leave Sri Lanka during 1989/1990, the greater part of the Northern and Eastern provinces fell under LTTE control, courtesy Premedas Peace talks that followed. In 1997/1998, however, the SL army made a concerted effort and liberated the Jaffna peninsular from the LTTE. Still, the LTTE  held sway at Kilinochchi and the Vanni, and that prevented access from the mainland to the peninsular, necessitating the use of the sea to transport supplies and personnel to and from the peninsular.

During these logistical missions, these supply vessels and trope carriers often experienced attacks from the LTTE, and hence all these missions were accompanied by  SL Navy’s fast attack crafts (FAC)s.

On the 6^th April 2006, a period where a peace agreement between the SL government and the LTTE was in force, a ship, PF. Pearl- Cruz was engaged in transporting personnel returning to their duty after vacation. PF. Pearl- Cruz was a trope carrier, and there were 710 soldiers on board this vessel that took off from Trincomalee to the KKS port in the Jaffna peninsular and was escorted by the two SL Navy FACs, P 419 and P 497.

While the ship was passing Point- Pedro, the attack crafts observed LTTE boat activity, i.e. about 15 LTTE improvised boats accompanied by suicide crafts, making a bee-line towards PF Pearl Cruz. The two Navy attack crafts engaged the LTTE boats, but then they realized that the strategy of the LTTE at that moment was to ram the ship Pearl- Cruz with the suicide crafts while the rest of the LTTE boats engaged the two escorting navy FACs.

The time was running out, and the Navy had to do something fast to save Pearl-Cruz with 710 soldiers on board. At this ‘spur of the moment’ situation, Lt. Commander Lalith Prasanna Edirisinghe, who was in charge of P418 FAC, decided to make his craft into a suicide craft. The only option, he thought, was to ram the LTTE suicide boats heading towards Pearl-Cruz. Thus, with 2 offices and 15 sailors, he steered his FAC towards the LTTE suicide boats and destroyed all the 4 LTTE suicide boats.

The mission was successful, but Lt. Commander Lalith Prasanna Edirisinghe and 17 navy personnel made the supreme sacrifice in the process, encountering the most brutal and treacherous terrorist movement the world had seen. 

Lt. Commander Lalith Prasanna Edirisinghe was 32 years old at the time of his death, and he was married and was the father of a son and a daughter. He had joined the SL Navy in 1994. The government posthumously promoted Lt. Commander Lalith Prasanna Edirisinghe to the post of Commander in the SL Navy.

The significance of this event was that it was the time that the  LTTE and their worldwide Diaspora were trying to provoke the newly elected government of Sri Lanka into a war that the LTTE Diaspora believed they could win. Had the SL army lost 710 soldiers at that crucial stage, that certainly would have affected the morale of the SL army, making a critical difference in the war that ensued.  

 

 

 

 

Foreword

By

Daya Gamage – (rtd) Foreign Service National Political Specialist

Of the

U.S. Department of State

 

 

The Western political-diplomatic hegemony – especially the influence wielded by Washington – has driven Sri Lanka’s domestic scenario very much in disarray. The West, led by the United States, has dragged Sri Lanka’s domestic issues to the global arena, giving a special place to the remnants of the defeated and annihilated Tamil Tiger’s powerful international agitators. This monograph’s many arguments finally rest on the West-US maneuvers to bring discord and chaos within the borders of the Sri Lankan state, and disrupt her dealing in the international sphere. Having had a long association with U.S. Government’s diplomacy and Washington’s foreign policy-diplomatic approaches to other nations, I endeavor to present to the readers why and how Sri Lanka faced the wrath of the United States, while it faced indiscriminate, brutal terrorism for 33 years, when it was ending in the Year 2009, and thereafter.

 

This is the case of the U.S. reaction to Sri Lanka’s long war against militant Tamil separatists, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). I served in the U.S. Department of State in Colombo during that civil war and have observed the policy and its consequences at first hand.  I did endeavor to argue that the U.S. policy was based on an inadequate understanding of the underlying causes of the civil war—an understanding that did not include, inter alia, inter-caste tensions within the Tamil community; the political obduracy of upper-caste elites, unwilling to adapt to the post-independence democratic order; the origins and dynamics of two competing nationalisms; demographic and economic pressures in an island state; and the imperatives in a young democratic state to expand economic opportunity to the disadvantaged Sri Lankans, Sinhalese, and Tamils. 

 

The problem, as rightly exemplified in this monograph, is that the U.S. policymakers were influenced by the aggressive propaganda and lobbying arms of the international ‘Tamil nationalism’, which not only made the LTTE become as lethal and resilient, but spawned it in the first place. The bilateral policy was driven astray also by the common narratives of well-meaning but naïve international organizations and human rights ideologues that seized on the Sri Lankan conflict to burnish their credentials as arbiters of international morality.  Ironically there had been a perverse lack of appreciation internationally, for the threat that a dictatorial, criminal terrorist organization posed to the security of the great majority of Sri Lankans, including Tamils. Thus, the U.S.’s simplistic perception of an ethnic majority oppressing a righteously rebellious minority prolonged the bloodshed alienated a historically reliable partner, weakened a beleaguered democracy, and strengthened the influence of U.S. antagonists in the region. It is with this background that this monologue should be read.

At the outbreak of ‘civil war’ in the early 1980s, Washington made two policy decisions in 1984 and 1986 that shaped bilateral relations for years to come.  The first was that the only solution to Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict was to devolve power to the Tamil-majority North-East Provinces             (Directorate of Intelligence (CIA) and the Department of State, “Sri Lanka: The Challenge of Communal Violence, “June 1984 (now declassified) (https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP85T00314R000200010004-6.pdf). The State Department and the Intelligence Community had determined to their satisfaction that the government lacked the capacity to impose a solution by military force. 

The second decision was that the U.S. Government would not extend military assistance to Colombo despite intensifying hostilities because the arms “may be used against the Tamils.”(Directorate of Intelligence (CIA) and the Department of State, “Sri Lanka: Will Jayewardene Again Seek U.S. Arms?“September 1986 (https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP86T01017R000303130001-0.pdf)

Given Sri Lanka’s democratic institutions, the history of US-Sri Lankan cooperation, its designation of the LTTE as a terrorist organization in 1997, and the U.S. preoccupation with its “war on terrorism” after 2001, it might be supposed that the U.S. would have supported successive governments in Colombo in their struggle against an internationally recognized terrorist organization.  Instead, the U.S. opted to withhold much of the assistance it could have provided and to censure and sanction the island’s political leadership.  This apparently was done in an effort to burnish the U.S.’s credentials as a champion of minority human rights, with the encouragement of pro-LTTE lobbyists.   As early as 1984, a year after the civil war began, the joint CIA/State Department report, noted above, articulated the rationale for targeting Colombo for human rights violations.  According to the document (since declassified), “Increased [U.S.] identification with Jayawardene [president during 1977-1989] at this time could damage U.S. prestige in the region and in parts of the Third World.  It could be perceived by other small ethnic groups as acceptance by the United States of the use of suppression against minorities.”

If the U.S. were truly concerned about the welfare of citizens in a war-torn county or of the health of its democracy, it could have maintained, or even ramped up, its various development assistance programs as the conflict intensified.  This might at the same time have preserved the credibility of the U.S. as an ally and augmented its influence in shaping how the war was waged.   The U.S. could have been more concerned, in other words, about strengthening its reputation as a reliable ally of friendly democracies threatened by terrorist insurgents rather than as a champion of restive minorities. 

Explanations of the Sri Lankan civil war that shape the analyses of many NGOs, international organizations, and Western governments lay the blame largely at the door of the Sinhalese majority.   In essence, these narratives argue that the Sinhalese, through a series of ill-considered and invidious majoritarian policies, provoked the Tamil minority to be an understandable, and even inevitable rebellion.  More specifically, discriminatory policies regarding language, university admissions, and education, and public sector employment are said to have driven the Tamils to attempt through force to establish their own state.  These explanations, backed by incessant propaganda, may appear to explain the situation, but they are over-simplified interpretations of complex situations that unspooled over decades, if not centuries.  None of the conventional histories traced advocacy of Tamil secession to the pre-independence period when the upper-caste Tamils were a privileged community.

In September 1947, five months before Ceylon gained Independence, Tamil leader S.J.V. Chelvanayakam stated in the First Parliament, “If Ceylon is seceding from Great Britain, the Tamil Nation too can secede from Ceylon,”sowing the initial seed of separatism at a time the Tamil minority(12% ) had over 40 percent of share in the public sector in finance, banking, commerce, and administration.

Policymakers and lawmakers in major Western nations had no knowledge – doubt if they are aware even now – that at the time the Eelam War IV was concluded in May 2009, there were over 40 percent of Tamils living outside the North-East, in the South among the Sinhalese with gainful employment. Now that figure has risen to 52%.

The British colonial administration, having overcome the local rebellion in 1815, made English the only official language of the island and established English language schools. In doing this, however, they were careful to establish these schools exclusively in the Tamil north (Only 26Kms South of Tamil Nadu). It was only 20 years after that the capital of Ceylon, Colombo, received its first English education institute, the Royal College (1835).

One other factor that needs to be highlighted here is that Sri Lanka is: 19 percent Urban, 77 percent Rural, and 5 percent Plantation. The Urban Sector, though inhabited by all three ethnic communities – Sinhalese, Tamil, and Muslim – has the minorities disproportionately outnumbering the majority. This sector, even at present, enjoys the most advanced education system that the Rural Sector – somewhat homogenous– never enjoyed. Further, the Urban Sector at all times had and have upward mobility in the society, due to the central government’s patronage. Reforms (post-independence) were designed to correct such anomalies, and hence the almost homogenous but backward Sinhalese districts of Monaragala and Kegalle in the South, as well as the Tamil districts of Kilinochchi and Vanni in the north, benefited from these reforms.

These facts are either unknown to the West or simply ignored. The activists within the Tamil Diaspora never allow the West to have access to these facts, and to date, successive Sri Lankan governments have made no attempt to make these facts known to the West.

Having demurred in helping Sri Lanka defeat brutal domestic terrorists, the U.S. persisted in using international organizations to harangue the Sri Lankans into confessing their abuses and punishing the offenders.  From 2012 through 2015, Washington ratcheted up its diplomatic pressure, sponsoring four resolutions at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) calling on the GSL to account for the behavior of its troops during the final five months of the war.  A UNHRC resolution passed in October 2015 called for the establishment of an investigative commission composed of foreign and Sri Lankan jurists.  These jurists were to investigate “credible allegations” of human rights violations and possible war crimes.  This resolution, which many Sri Lankans consider a humiliating foreign diktat, was renewed with U.S. backing in 2017 and 2019.   These resolutions repeated the clause advocating a hybrid judicial process to investigate alleged violations of international humanitarian law.    Ironically, the U.S. at the same time defended Israel against unbridled international criticism in the UNHRC for abuses of Palestinians(an ethnic minority), calling the UNHRC “cesspool of politics.”

This monologue could be better understood if the readers are able to focus some attention to the above factors. The scenario of outside influence by major Western powers with no understanding of Sri Lanka’s history, national character, internal ethnic formation, and demography, has brought disadvantageous results to Sri Lankans of all communities domiciled in the country is analyzed well by the author. Ironically, the international forces are leveraged into this task by a non-domiciled but nostalgic Tamil diaspora, that used and continues to use this propaganda for their economic benefit.

The author’s message is that- all Sri Lankans, including the government, should realize that it is only the armed wing of this internationally powerful ‘Tamil Nationalist’ movement that the SL forces defeated in 2009 and that they still have to contend with the propaganda wing of this movement, that is more potent. A battle may have been won, but the propaganda war is still on!

The author is a Chartered Accountant by profession, but he has rightfully decided to become a writer, having realized the importance of a nation’s quest for peace and harmony. 

 

 

 

 

 

Prologue

 

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam (LTTE) not only posed a tangible threat to the lives of every Sri Lankan during the 33 years of its operation, but also portrayed the potential, with its powerful international links, to bifurcate the island nation. India, whose Tamil Nadu province originally provided succor to the terrorist outfit, eventually intervened to offer ‘political reforms’ in exchange for terrorism, but failed. The political reforms India proposed could not be implemented due to overbearing LTTE activity, and in the end, India lost its debonair leader Rajiv Gandhi and over 1100 of its soldiers. The LTTE became robust, proclaiming that having defeated the Indian (4^th Largest in the world) Army, that they were now invincible. Talks were also held, between successive SL Governments and the LTTE, commencing from 1983, five rounds in all, but the LTTE refused to give up arms and join mainstream politics. The worst part was that, after every round of talks in earnest, the LTTE emerged militarily and diplomatically stronger, and that made the prospect for peace through negotiations rather glum. 

Sri Lankan citizens continued to get blown out in public transport, the country’s economic nerve centers were targeted, and the police and forces personnel were killed at civilian functions. Since members of the Tamil community resided in all parts of the country, the LTTE members operated throughout Sri Lanka, feigning as civilians. The human rights of all Sri Lankan civilians continued to be violated with impunity, and the country as a whole suffered due to the absence of peace. People of Sri Lanka waited in bated breath with no hope in sight, but ironically the international community advocated ‘peace only through negotiations.’

Then, at the elections in 2005, the LTTE and the TNA contrived to have Mahinda Rajapakse as the country president as Ranil Wickremesinghe, the favored candidate, was more experienced and had Western support. They envisioned that, if Mahinda, a novice to this game of war and peace was elected, they could win over the SL army and establish their state, fulfilling the conditions stipulated ‘as required to be recognized as a state’ at the Montevideo conference, with all that support they already enjoyed with the Western countries. Thus, they advocated a boycott of that election for Tamil voters, and the ploy worked, and Mahinda was elected as the President.  TNA and the LTTE rejoiced with the thought that the first part in their ‘separate state strategy’ had worked.

Thereafter, the ‘provocation game’ started in inveigling the new President to a full-scale war and then to stall a march to the expected military victory. Thus, despite the ongoing peace process and the peace talks, the LTTE killed 142 forces and police personnel attending civilian duties during the first 6 months of 2006. The Government was perplexed, not knowing how to respond to all that animosity while a peace process was in force. Then, in a climax of all that aggression, the LTTE closed a sluice gate that supplied water to about 6000 families in the Eastern province, prompting the SL army to use force to restore water. This effectively was the declaration of Ealam War 4 by the LTTE, and the SL army had to respond. Up to this point, nearly 100,000 Sri Lankans had perished in flesh and blood due to this conflict between the LTTE and the SL forces over a period of 33 years.

Thus, the Ealam War 4 commenced in May 2006 and ravaged the country for 3 years. The LTTE started its usual strategic activity of targeting crucial sites and critical personalities of the Government in Colombo. Accordingly, the attempts at the Defense Secretary and the Army commander, fatefully, failed by whiskers. The LTTE thereafter found the going difficult, and to the surprise of everybody, including the ‘international community,’ started retreating. They lost control of the 4 districts they commanded (courtesy- Peace talks), out of the Island’s 22 districts and eventually got pushed to its headquarters in Kilinochchi where they had been holding sway for 27 years. Yet this time, the SL army captured the LTTE Headquarters and its adjoining main auxiliary camp in Mullaitivu in January 2009, completing the war victory and the Government thereafter offered amnesty to the remaining LTTE’ers.

However, in order to avoid capture, the LTTE leadership then retreated to the strategic Nandikadal lagoon with a mass of civilians and staged a humanitarian crisis expecting the ‘International community’ to rescue them. In that hostage situation, the Sri Lankan Government supplied the basic needs of that populace while the forces intervened to save the civilians. The LTTE evidently started shooting the escaping civilians and planted suicide attackers to prevent the security forces from overwhelming them, while expecting an international intervention.

In the end, the Sri Lankan Army rescued 298,000 civilians from the throes of the LTTE jackboot, thereby ending a potential humanitarian disaster in May 2009. The UN, US, and the British military attaché’s who were present at the site during this rescue reported that about 8,000 civilians, including LTTE members, had perished during this rescue. The SL army paid a heavy price, subjecting itself to a record loss of personnel (2,126 dead and 10,679 wounded) during this delicate humanitarian operation.

The international community and the UNHRC were just spectators when all these ‘criticalities’ took place and Sri Lanka that faced the prospect of being declared a failed state, came out of this situation, practically, on its own strength. However, after the elimination of the LTTE in May 2009, the United Nations Secretary-General appointed a fact-finding commission for his own education to ascertain the  ‘atrocities’ committed by both parties; the SL forces and the LTTE, during the last stage of the war, tendentiously interpreting the rescue operation of civilians as the ‘last stage of the war.’ This report blames the LTTE and the SL Forces equally for alleged atrocities claiming a casualty figure of 40,000 civilians, for which no basis had been ascribed, and then concludes that the SL army is responsible for those deaths, contradicting the very ‘findings’ their own report has revealed in its 221 pages.

Since this report however, many parties in this ‘international community’ who lost the advantage of keeping Sri Lanka besieged in terrorism, have come out using ‘violation of human rights’ as a propaganda tool against Sri Lanka. What is even ironic is that the very parties, who financed and justified the LTTE war crimes for 33 years, have now come up claiming ‘victimization’ by the Sri Lanka state. Nobody, however has ventured to take the Sri Lanka forces to the International tribunal in Haig for these alleged atrocities, and that exposes this UNSG’s ‘personal’ report as only a scheming propaganda exercise, in the absence of evidence worthy of prosecuting the Sri Lankan forces. This makes it clear that those who call themselves the ‘International community’ are interested indubitably, not in the violation of human rights but in keeping Sri Lanka at their behest.

Sri Lanka’s case, therefore, will go down in the annals of world history as a typical case where truth and justice was submerged by power diplomacy and the tendentious use of propaganda to serve the needs of world powers. The current world powers, who have appointed themselves as the arbiters of the modern world’s justice and fair play, paradoxically, are the very powers who amassed wealth by engaging themselves in slave trade and colonialism that plundered and pillaged small nations for centuries. Even at present, these international powers make enormous profits from the armament trade by enacting conditions within less powerful states to spawn internal conflicts and wars.

Thus, it needs little explanation as to why the current world scenario experience so much misery, day in and day out, defaulting on all forms of human values modern civilization has striven to establish. In today’s world order, few enjoy the bounties while the majority continues in want, and then this marginalized majority is made to believe this situation is of their own making.

Prior to World War 11, the majority realized that they were subjected to slave trade and colonialism because they had no powerful arms and armies to stand up to world powers. Yet in these modern times, it is not the absence of arms that keep the majority in want, but the absence of ‘human rights,’ they are told. This makes the situation glummer for the majority while making things easy for the world powers to control the majority as they convince the majority that it is ‘all their fault.’

Modern civilization has invented a modern weapon for world domination, i.e., propaganda. With propaganda around, you could not only use arms to kill and maim people but also could justify, or at best sanctify, the use of arms. Propaganda is a unique weapon for it makes killers appear saints, and what is necessarily inhuman as humane.

 

Thus, the old world order of colonialism, imperialism, and slave trade will continue, but now not just with conventional arms, but with this new weapon; propaganda.

Thus, ironically, at this rate and phenomenon, ‘the more humankind becomes ‘civilized,’ the more it will be the rule of the jungle; survival of the fittest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter I

British and US Concerns for Human Rights Violations                 in Sri Lanka

In January 2021, UN Human Rights High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet released a report titled, ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability, and HR in Sri Lanka.’ The key accusations against Sri Lanka in this report are, Militarization of Government Functions, Reversal of Constitutional Reforms, Political Obstructions, Majoritarian and Exclusionary Rhetoric, Surveillance and Intimidation, and, Exacerbating Human Right Concerns. The current Govt. of SL, while pointing out that the statement is ultra-vires the UN’s mandate to interfere in the internal administration in a country, had its explanations to these allegations. However, the UNHRC viewed those explanations as ‘irregular.’

It is not very clear what M/s Bachelet meant by these particular terms she had used in her statement. Still, her reference to ‘Militarization of Government functions’ could be directed at the SL Government’s recent deployment of the military to control the spread of the Covid 19 virus in the country. As Covid 19 was a pandemic that endangered the whole nation, the Army Commander General Shavendra Silva was appointed to provide intelligence and logistical support to the health sector. This proved to be effective as the Army had a penetrative intelligence unit and plenty of manpower, and thus Sri Lanka was able to control the extraordinary situation with only thousands infected and a few hundred deaths during the first wave. Accordingly, in a worldwide survey carried out by the Australian institution on the control of Covid 19, Sri Lanka registered the 2^nd place, next to New Zealand in the first wave and the 10^th place during the second wave. Therefore this allegation by the UNHRC High Commissioner is completely out of context and amounts to the interference in the internal administration of a UN member state, which is not consistent with the UN charter.

Further, it should also be mentioned that Sri Lanka has had democratically elected Governments for the past 73 years, and that gave the option for the people to change the Government if necessary, every 6 years. The current Government came to power in late 2019 with an overwhelming mandate as the previous one was found wanting in national security. The 2019 Presidential poll was ratified at the Parliamentary poll 9 months later because it was widely felt that the people of Sri Lanka agreed with how the Government,  with the country’s health facilities adequate only to handle normal health concerns, has dealt with the Covid situation. This makes M/s Bachelet’s statement not only highly inappropriate but a statement that questions the sovereignty of Sri Lanka and its people’s right to be governed by a Government they elect.

 It should also be considered that successive post-independent Sri Lanka Governments initiated many people-centered policies making education and Health-care completely free to their fellow citizens. Sri Lanka also achieved the millennium goals set by the WHO in advance, and the country’s health sector was always viewed as a ‘model for a developing country’ by the WHO. Thus, in such a context, the comments by the UNHRC High commissioner appear not just preposterous but belligerent. It certainly is not a statement issued in the interest of the people of Sri Lanka on whom M/s Bachelet has self-appointed herself to be the arbiter of what is good and bad for the people.     

Then on March 23^rd, 2021, the UNHRC adopted Resolution, A/HRC/46/L.1 on Sri Lanka at its 46th session. The resolution was presented by the United Kingdom sponsored by a core group of Western countries, and the contents of that resolution was in line with the statement High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet released in January 2021. The real motive of this resolution is to prevent Sri Lanka from clearing the shackles of the previous resolution 30/A brought against Sri Lanka in 2015 by the United States for alleged Human rights violations by the SL forces at the last stages of its war against the LTTE. The US is no longer a member of the UNHRC as it had left the UNHRC, calling it a ‘Cesspool of politics’ in 2017. This exit of the US was due to the 47 member council’s continuing rapprochement of Israel for its aggression against the people of Palestine and Gaza. 

Of the 47 members of the UNHRC, 22 members voted in favor of this resolution with allegations against Sri Lanka; i.e. Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bahamas, Brazil, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Fiji, France, Germany, Italy, Ivory Coast, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland, South Korea, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Uruguay. Eleven countries voted against this resolution, and those included China, Russia, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Poland. This resolution is for the UN to establish an office with an annual budget of USD 2.8 million to collect information about war crimes and crimes against humanity alleged to have been committed in Sri Lanka. Although it does not impose any sanctions on Sri Lanka, this could be seen as a step to take Sri Lankan forces before an international tribunal.

 

However, the irony is that all these resolutions by US and Britain for alleged ‘Human rights violations’ against Sri Lanka are propping up only after it wiped out LTTE terrorism from Sri Lanka in May 2009. Until then, the country suffered from terrorism for well over 33years, with civilians of all communities being subjected to the jack boot of the world’s most ruthless terror outfit, the LTTE. The average rate at which the Sri Lankans had got killed during this whole period was approximately 14 people a day. That however was the average but this rate registered an increase since 1989 after the Indo-Lanka Accord, when the LTTE become robust and confident with Indian and Western support and sympathy.

Successive Sri Lankan Governments had 4 rounds of ‘Peace Talks’ with the LTTE during this period, and the last of these ‘Talks’ were sponsored by the US, European Union, and Japan as Co-Chairs, with Norway as the Monitor. In each of these talks, the LTTE laid a pre- condition for attending talks and that was that the talks should not be aimed at disarming the LTTE. Although that was not a positive pre-condition for peace within a country, Sri Lanka was so desperate for peace that the Government of the time had no alternative but to negotiate under conditions laid down by the LTTE. This is mainly because the US and the European Union insisted that ‘talks were the only way out of the situation.’ 

However, ironically, in the end, years of negotiations made the LTTE into a set of ‘freedom fighters’ with some international recognition. This was truly an achievement for a movement that started as a nascent criminal organization in the 1970s. LTTE leader came to lime light by killing the popular and elected Mayor of Jaffna, Alfred Duraiappa, in 1975. Despite all that mayhem, the LTTE had been recognized in the West as ‘freedom fighters’, right up to the time of its demise in 2009, even though they had not compromised on a single of its criminal activities, including the indiscriminate killings of thousands of unarmed civilians in Sri Lanka. The following documented events (for the period January to October 2009) exemplify the wonton nature of civilian killings by the LTTE that compelled the Government to launch its military response, eventually, in defense of the Sri Lankan people.

On January 1^st, 2008, – A Member of Parliament representing Jaffna district in the United National Party, Mr. T Maheshwaran, a Tamil by ethnicity, was gunned down at a Hindu Kovil in Kotahena Colombo.

On 2^nd  January 2008– An army bus taking wounded soldiers was attacked in Colombo. The attack killed 5, including 2 soldiers, 3 pedestrians, and wounded 28.

On 6^th January 08  – A Seaman on a tip-off discovered 8.72 kgs of C4 Explosive material and 1kg steel balls in the ‘Crow Island’ boat yard, north of Colombo. The material had been brought to Colombo by the LTTE to trigger explosions in 4 different public places during rush hour in Colombo.

On 8^th January– A claymore attack was directed at the convoy of Government Minister, Hon Mr. D.M Dassanayake at Thudella, Jaela in the western province of Sri Lanka. The attack killed two, the Minister and his bodyguard.

On 15^th January 2008 – The claymore attack and shooting of the public passenger bus at Weli-ara took the lives of 30 (13 men 14 women, and 3 children) and injured 62, some seriously.

On 16^th January 2008– The nightfall attack of the Eastern village Kalawegala village killed  11 civilians, including 2 members of the Civil Defense force.

On 1^st of February 2008 – A time bomb exploded at the Dehiwala Zoo, in the vicinity of Colombo, targeting school children. The bomb missed its target and exploded, injuring only 6 students.

On 2^nd February 2008 – The Anuradhapura-bound passenger bus explosion at Dambulla killed 19 civilians and wounded 75. 

On  2^nd February 2008 –  At Padaviya, a claymore attack on a passenger bus on Welioya- Athawetunuwewa road killed 12 passengers, injuring17

On 3^rd February 2008 (Sunday) – A passenger train in Maradana, in the heart of Colombo, was attacked, killing 16 civilians and injuring 22.

February 23– A bomb went off in a bus in the suburban town of Mount Lavinia, 10 KMs south of Colombo, wounding at least 18 people, including seven women and an 8-month-old infant.

February 23–  In Batticaloa (eastern province), a suspected Tamil Tiger suicide bomber blew himself up on Sunday, killing two members of a regional political party.

February 29 –  In Colombo, a man believed to be a suicide bomber exploded himself, wounding seven, including three police officers and four civilians, when Sri Lanka Police attempted to search his house, during a cordon and search operation by police, aimed at flushing out Tamil Tiger rebels.

March 2 – Vavuniya, a roadside bomb exploded, wounding four police officers and six civilians in a northern city of Sri Lanka.

March 10– Colombo, a bomb hidden in a roadside flowerpot in Sri Lanka’s capital exploded, killing one person and injuring six others, including four children who were on their way to school.

April 6: 2008 – Colombo, a suicide bomber, killed 14 people at an opening ceremony for a marathon on Sunday, including cabinet minister Jeyaraj Fernandopulle,  former Olympian K.A. Karunaratne, and the national athletics coach Lakshman de Alwis. The incidents wounded more than 90 others.

April 25: 2008 Piliyandala bus bombing– a parcel bomb explodes inside a bus in the residential suburb of Colombo, killing 24 and wounding 52.

May 16 – Colombo, an LTTE suicide bomber on a motorcycle packed with explosives rammed into a bus carrying a police riot squad, killing 13 people, including 11 police personnel and 2 civilians, and wounding 95.

May 26: 2008 Dehiwala train bombing–  A bomb exploded inside a crowded train in Dehiwala station, killing 8 people and wounding 67 at a location close to the LTTE’s 1996 Dehiwala train bombing that killed 64 and wounded 400.

June 4; Wellawatte,- A bomb exploded between the railway tracks and hit a packed commuter train at 07.10 local time between Dehiwala and Wellawatte railway stations, injuring at least 24 people.

June 6^th2008 Moratuwa bus bombing–  A roadside bomb exploded, targeting a passenger bus during rush hour, killing 23 civilians and wounding 80 more.

une 6^th2008 Polgolla bus bombing: Pollgolla, Kandy – a bomb blast occurred in a passenger bus, killing 2 civilians and wounding 20.

June 16, 2008: Vavuniya – A suspected LTTE suicide bomber on a motorcycle detonated explosives in front of the Police station killing 12 police officers, including 4 female police constables, and wounded 40 others, including school children

6 October 2008 Anuradhapura– an LTTE suicide bomber detonated in front of a UNP political rally, killing the UNP Leader of the Opposition for the North Central Provincial Council, Mr. Janaka Perera, and 20 other civilians.

 

These are the LTTE activities in the 10 months that preceded the war, and this had been going on for the preceding 33 years, irrespective of whether the LTTE had consented to a temporary truce with Government forces or otherwise. The nonchalant explanation of the LTTE for attacks against civilians when there was bipartisan truce was that ‘it is not the LTTE but the Tamil civilians who carry out these operations as they are not happy with certain security censures.’

 

This way, the Sri Lankan community, up to the end of 2008, had been at the receiving end of these LTTE activities for 33 long years, and this had cost the lives of nearly 90,000 civilians in Sri Lanka. In addition, the people in Sri Lanka lived in constant fear and uncertainty all their lives; schools often had ‘bomb scares’, and both parents of the family never traveled in the same bus, fearing that their children would be ‘parentless’ if the bus is bombed.

 

In such a context, the point that needs emphasis here is that, while all this mayhem and murder was taking place in Sri Lanka, the international community, including the UK and the USA, were just passive spectators, and their admonitions once in a way, did not go beyond some cautious counseling to the SL Government that, ‘the only option for peace was to talk to the LTTE’. The western press and the news channels, however, did enjoy the drama with sensation, reporting the lurid details of ruthless LTTE violence. Whenever the LTTE attacked a Sinhala village in the north or east of the island, the LTTE made sure that the attack was ruthless enough to get the message across to the rest of the villages, so that the remaining would pack and leave the area on their own.

 

The LTTE had the required funds, not just for such activity, but even to wage war against the SL forces. Not just ground forces, the LTTE had a trained Navy of their own with improvised boats/ equipment and they were making preparations to add an Air Wing to their ‘forces contingent’ towards 2007. They also had the most organized propaganda network globally for a terrorist organization. All that was readily funded and the funds for the movement came from their diaspora that is resident in the western countries. The western Governments had no scruples about this LTTE diaspora operating within their countries, even though they knew that the funds sent to the LTTE was used for terrorism, to kill civilians indiscriminately. Ironically, not a single western state that accommodated this LTTE diaspora ever did apply pressure on this Tamil network to desist from funding violent terrorism.

 

These countries just ignored the happenings in Sri Lanka and, when confronted, provided the standard excuse that the LTTE atrocities were due to ‘grievances the Tamils had to bear after independence was granted to the Island nation.’  These grievances, however, were never specified and were just echoed after the LTTE propaganda wing. Neither these Western nations nor the Tamils themselves have convincingly established these ‘grievances’ but have just used that position for argument’s sake.

 

The Sri Lankan Government had granted concessions from time to time as per the opinions expressed by parties such as India and the West to ameliorate these ‘non-specified grievances,’ but the reality is that whatever the concessions granted, it may not be adequate in the context where these grievances continue to remain unspecified. The broader question is, ’What do Tamils lack in Sri Lanka as against minority communities enjoy in other countries?’

 

That question will never receive a direct and simple answer from the current (or past) Tamil leaders in Sri Lanka, and instead, they will come out with the notion that the Tamils in Sri Lanka are not a minority but a ‘nation of their own’. Thus, they will argue that the SL Tamils, being a nation of their own, are entitled to determine their own course of future activity and thereby their destiny.

 

Now, this is a position that is not tenable because the world body, UNO, has 198 nations as their members, and Sri Lankan Tamils do not enjoy membership there (not even Indian Tamils who are 150 times the Sri Lankan Tamil population). However, the reality is that the Tamils in Sri Lanka could argue on such untenable stands against the SL Government because they know that they have the backing of India and the West. They are aware that India and the western countries will support them on whatever stand they take, just as they have done on ‘unspecified grievances.’ Therefore, in Sri Lanka, we have this position where a section of the national community is refusing to assimilate into the Sri Lanka mainstream because they could continue to be belligerent as they have the support of powerful nations.

 

The proof of this support to the LTTE Diaspora is quite apparent when you consider the support the West and India extended all these years, amidst this terrorism with impunity. And in 2015, the US brought a resolution against Sri Lanka for ‘violating the human rights’ when Sri Lanka wiped out terrorism, salvaging 298,000 Tamil civilians that the LTTE had been using as a human shield. The resolution currently presented by Britain, the staunches US ally, is an extension of this support. Thus, Sri Lanka is now faced with this ironic situation where the US and Britain have expressed concern about ‘alleged human rights violation’ accusing the Sri Lankan forces of ‘civilian killings’, only when the Sri Lankan forces have brought to an end the killings and mayhem that existed for years.

 

The basis of this accusation is the report called Darusman Report, prepared by a 3 member panel appointed by the former UN Secretary-General  Mr.Banki Moon ‘for his own personal knowledge of the conflict’ with no mandate from the UN General body. The resulting report the panel produced was essentially based on the material the panel collected from outside Sri Lanka, as the panel had no UN mandate to visit and collect evidence. This means that their material is essentially based on the propaganda material of the LTTE diaspora living outside Sri Lanka. This report however, concluded that both, the SL forces and the LTTE, have violated human rights during the ‘last phase’ of the conflict. 

 

The UNHRC’s stand too, is that crimes had been committed by both parties but however, there are no indications of UNHRC’s willingness to take action against those responsible for crimes committed by LTTE. With the defeat of the LTTE, the LTTE front organization formed into an umbrella association called TGTE (Trans National Government of Tamil Ealam) with Rudra Kumaran as its head. Even though the main sources of evidence for the Darusman report is this TGTE, the US and Britain have not even bothered to mention these LTTE front organizations in their resolutions. To add insult to injury and in a show of impunity, Ms Adele Balasingham, the wife of the LTTE theoretician Late Anton Balasingham, who played a key role in the women’s military wing of the LTTE, is allowed to live in Britain without even the bother of being questioned for her role in training female child soldiers. This is evidence enough to portray that neither the UNHRC nor the proposers of this resolution are impartial and have the interest of the Sri Lanka public when they brought these resolutions.

 

Therefore, it is in this perspective that these resolutions against Sri Lanka, for alleged ‘human rights violations’ have become questionable in the eyes of the Sri Lanka public. What is even worse is that these allegations are based on this Darusman Report, whose conclusions are derived from questionable facts, and those contravene the ground reports on this ‘last stages’ of the conflict by the UN, US, and British military attaches of the time. Further, these conclusions of the Darusman report have also been found to be inconsistent with the results of post-conflict population survey reports of the Department of Census & Statistics of Sri Lanka that have based their surveys on the births, deaths, and ‘missing’ categories of Sri Lankan citizens in the North and East provinces during the subject period.

 

This particular Darusman Report is the subject matter of this book as it had portrayed Sri Lanka and its forces as the perpetrators during this so-called ‘last stage of the war’, when in reality the SL forces were endeavoring their best to bring this hostage-taking to an end. However, the position now is that, before Sri Lanka question the contents of that report, the people of Sri Lanka are compelled to question the bona fides of these resolutions that have been brought against it, at a time when it has experienced peace for 12 years after the demise of the LTTE, with no public killings. The stark reality is that, had the LTTE not been done with, killings in Sri Lanka since 2009 up till now, may have exceeded another hundred thousand civilians.

 

However, it is not just the number of deaths but the instability and the uncertainties of a continuing conflict situation that must be considered. That, coupled with the military expenditure, would have brought immense difficulties to the people of Sri Lanka during the past 12 years, as it brought Sri Lanka to the verge of a ‘Failed state’ during the 33 years of the LTTE operation.

 

Even from the standpoint of Tamils living in Sri Lanka, as against those domiciled in the west, these resolutions brought before the UNHRC could not seem to serve a useful purpose, other than to create some friction between the communities. During the conflict, Tamils living in Sri Lanka had to give their children to the LTTE for their ‘Baby Brigade’, and no businessman could carry out business in the north without offering handouts to the LTTE. No schools were functioning without hindrance, and trading between the north and south too was not possible. But today, things have changed, and the fact that a Tamil student from the north, named Dhanaraj Sunderabawan of Chvakachcheri Hindu College Jaffna, has scored the highest marks at the 2020 University entrance examination in the mathematic stream stands as evidence of this positive change. 

 

In addition, the times that we go through right now are trying times where Covid 19 second wave is making human life extremely vulnerable, with the developing countries having an extremely difficult time as they do not produce the vaccine against the pandemic. Especially the situation in India, with a population of 1.4 billion people, warrants concern from the developed countries that make vaccines. However, according to the recent international news, of the major vaccine manufacturers, only China and Russia have exported part of their produce (40 % of their produce) to developing countries. In contrast, the other two major manufacturers, the US and Britain, have not exported their vaccines to any other country. This indeed is a poor show from super power countries that point fingers at developing countries only when those countries face internal turmoil.

 

The above facts should expose these powerful nations masquerading as ‘advocates of human rights’ in a world overwhelmed by conflicts. Thus, there should be little doubt that these resolutions against Sri Lanka are not brought with any sanguine intentions but with ulterior motives. Britain has a special relationship with Sri Lanka, being its former colonial master. It ruled over the island for 145 years, converting the island into a plantation land to cultivate raw materials required for British industries. In doing that, successive British governors changed practically everything about the island, including the land ownership of the natives, their indigenous cultivation patterns, and their economy. They also brought indentured Tamil labor from India as the natives resisted to labor for them and then brought police offices from Java as they did not trust the rebelling natives. After having accomplished all that, Britain ruled the island with a policy of ‘Divide and Rule’, where they administered the natives with the help of their foreign inputs, thereby changing the island’s demographic composition for good.

 

After the World War 11, Britain was bankrupt and hence was forced to renounce its colonial policy of conquering smaller countries, as that was rightly identified by the world community to be the conflict among nations. Therefore Britain, bankrupt after the WW11 and faced with the communist and socialist resurgence of smaller nations all over the world, granted independence to India, and with that Sri Lanka and other nations in Asia also became independent. However, after independence Sri Lanka experienced a new order in everything compared to the times  prior to colonization. A new economic order based on imports and exports, a new administrative structure where the minorities administered the majority, a new social order with English speaking elitism, and most of all a new demographic composition where the majority; powerless Sinhalese, and minority; powerful Tamils, viewed each other with suspicion

 

This division was the result of years of the ‘Divide and Rule’ policy of the British that favored the minorities in any country, over the majority, for administrative expediency. The majority in any country rebelled over the existing colonial rule, and hence the colonial administration invariably felt comfortable with the minorities of the colony.

 

After independence, however, nation-building became a pre –requisite and this proved to be a difficult task for Sri Lanka with the privileged minority viewing any reforms aimed at national integration with suspicion. Mindful of their vulnerability with limited numbers in a democratic setup, the Tamils were never willing to compromise on their privileged status. Thus, every attempt at national integration became a ‘grievance’ of the Tamils and in order to ensure that their position is not threatened, the Ceylon Tamils, the most educated and the elitist Tamils anywhere in the world, kept their father (India) and God father (Britain) well informed of how their privileges (not just interests), could be threatened in an independent Ceylon.

 

Since independence, Britain offered ‘favored’ status to Ceylon Tamils who claimed victimization to enter Britain. Now, this was the opportunity that all privileged Ceylonese (Sinhalese as well as Tamils) dreamt at the time, because the working conditions, living conditions and the education in a developed country was all that they would wish for, as against the conditions in a poor country that has just been made independent. This ‘asylum’ certainly was a Gymkhana for the Tamils and thus, the more grievances they manufactured, the brighter were their opportunities of entering Britain!

 

Birth of the Tamil Homeland

Thus, the Tamils in Ceylon continued to enjoy the benevolence of Britain, and as a result, even those Tamils resident in Ceylon enjoyed a high standard of living with goodies and monies sent from their kith and kin from abroad, compared to the rest of the Sri Lankans. Thanks to the arrival of American missionaries, at Britain’s request in the mid–1800s, coupled with the Colonial Government’s policy before Independence to provide higher educational facilities that 77% Rural Sector were deprived of, the Tamil Vellalas in the Northern District reaped almost total benefits.

 

The Vellalas ( high caste Tamils) observed the Tamil caste system to the letter, and as a result, their leaders always sprang from the Vellala caste. However, being rich, educated, and with international clout, they detested being governed by the Singhalese majority, which they considered to be ‘not so educated’ and ‘not well off’ but only strong in numbers.

 

It was at this stage that the Tamil leader, SJV Chelvanayagam, toured the whole of Europe and Africa and canvassed the support of the Tamils for the ‘Tamil cause’. It was at these discussions that the Tamil community, dispersed all over the world, courtesy British colonialism, formed into an umbrella organization called the World Tamil forum’ to work towards a Land for themselves, and they chose the north of Ceylon for the purpose as that was the home to the most privileged members of their community. In September 1947, five months before Ceylon gained Independence, Chelvanayakam stated in the First Parliament of Ceylon, “If Ceylon is seceding from Great Britain, the Tamil Nation too can secede from the rest of Ceylon,” sowing the initial seeds of separatism. It should be noted that, though there are about 78 million Tamils living all over the world, with 70 million in Tamil Nadu in India, the Tamil community did not have a country to call their own, and they were quite mindful of this lacuna.  

 

This was in the 1950’s and at that time, Ceylon Tamils had much less to do with Indian Tamils because they considered even the Indian Tamils to be of a lesser class than them. But when terrorism started in the 1970s, Tamil Nadu in India, which is only 26 Km away, became their logistical and training hub. Initially, the Indian support was covert but when JR Jayawardene, who was known as ‘Yankee Dikie’ for his pro- western policies, came to power in 1977, Mrs Indira Gandhi with her Russian leanings at the time, openly supported the LTTE, providing training to the LTTE members in Dehra Dun, India’s military training site.

 

This, in a nutshell, was how the ‘Tamil Grievances’ were born and their biggest grievance was anything but not having a country to call their own, and for this the powerful Ceylon Tamils spearheaded the ‘Tamil cause’ with funds and propaganda. Therefore, when Britain and US articulate about ‘Tamil grievances’ and ‘violations of Human rights of Tamils’ in Sri Lanka at International forums, it would be naïve to assume that they are doing so because they too are just victims, like so many in the world, of the propaganda of this Tamil Diaspora. Britain knows this history, and they also know that they owe a debt of gratitude to Ceylon Tamils for aiding and abetting their colonial rule in Ceylon. As for the US, their intelligence findings were smart enough to name the LTTE as the ‘most organized and ruthless terror organization in the world’   (FBI fact book – 1997). Therefore, this British and the US ‘build up’ on the ‘Tamil grievance’ theory to malign Sri Lanka, certainly has more than what meets the eye.

 

Divide and Rule in the current context

Britain is just continuing its colonial policy of ‘divide and rule’ in exile to prevent Sri Lanka from becoming a prosperous and independent nation. Today, 73 years after it was forced to renounce its colonies, Britain, no longer ‘Great’, appears to indulge in some nostalgic glory, turning a coveted eye at its former colonies in the South Asian continent, which was once the ‘jewel of the Imperial crown’. Many centuries ago, Britain did invade these countries to ‘civilize’ them and profited enormously. Today, in a more sophisticated world scenario, it may well try its hand so subtly to impose ‘Human Rights’ on these very same countries!

 

Yes, Britain is telling the people of Sri Lanka, that the Government that Sri Lankans elected is violating the electors’ human rights, and such has been their ‘love’ for people living in small Asian nations. This ‘pretext’ would have been convincing at the time Britain washed its hands off Ceylon back in 1947 when the literacy rate of the Ceylonese was only 6 %, but now with the country’s literacy rate at 90%, this British stance may hardly be convincing.

This, however, reminds us of similar European colonial acts of ‘charity’ towards small nations in the history of human kind, as they offered to educate Aborigine children in Australia, to civilize Maoris in New Zealand and to provide accommodation to Inuit people in Canada. However, it was the offer to distribute blankets to the Red Indians ‘to save them from the extreme climatic conditions’ that take the cake – all the Red Indians who used blankets died as the blankets were infected with the small pox virus!

Today, all these communities, having availed this charity of Britain and its ‘core’ group, belong to world history. Thus, US and Britain, having committed genocide on Aborigines, Maoris, Intuits, and Red Indians, are accusing Sri Lanka today of the genocide of Tamils when there are 70 million Tamils in India, as against 2 million in Sri Lanka.

The theory is that, at medieval times, one human tribe always judged another tribe by its own whimsical standards as it has not experienced a different culture and values, and hence accepts its own culture, temperament and aspirations to be common to all humans, is a psychologically verified fact. While we could explain the US and British apprehensions on the Sri Lanka’s post conflict scenario in that light, another tenable explanation is that, Britain and the US may be insinuating about ‘human rights violations’ in Sri Lanka, just as they opined that there were ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ in Iraq, only as a ‘ruse’ to interfere and enter a sovereign nation.

Britain claim that they are concerned about the minority Tamils in Sri Lanka, the same Tamils they brought to Sri Lanka as ‘indentured labor’ to then Ceylon, en mass in shiploads under conditions akin to the transport of cattle. This indentured cargo, once unloaded in Ceylon’s north western coast, were made to travel to the country’s highlands, a distance exceeding 200 miles, through the jungle, by foot, and those who die of exhaustion and ill health in the process were thrown to the wolves. Then, their new aboard in Ceylon was a line room of 10 feet by 20 feet for each family unit with a common toilet for 20 family units.

This import of mass labor was the result of Britain’s failure to convert the indigenous population of Ceylon into slave labor for the estates they started in Ceylon. Having destroyed the indigenous cultivations and the livelihood of the native Sinhalese, British rulers imposed Pol tax and Dog tax on the natives. The brutal atrocities committed on the Sinhalese by the British, led by British Governors, Brownrig, North and Torrington in the 19^th century is well documented even in the US archives. They deprived the natives of their staple diet, rice, and ordered ‘every tree that bore fruit’ in populated areas like ‘Welllassa’, to be chopped down. That is not all, and they lynched the death sentence on every able male in those rebel areas.

The colonial masters also realized the threat of Ceylon’s traditional irrigation system of water tanks and irrigation channels. Thus, they dumped dead bodies into tanks to poison those while also converting those to be sources of malaria to contain the rebelling Sinhalese. 

Gun powder was first discovered by the Chinese in the 9^th century but it was not called ‘gun powder’ then as the Chinese used it only to make fire crackers. The moment it was brought to the West by Arab traders, the fire cracker powder was made in to ‘Gun powder’ by the west and that was the beginning of colonial inquisition in to peaceful and idyllic small nations by the western powers.

Thereafter, the West obeyed the ‘Bulls’ issued from the Catholic Church to ‘civilize’ all nations that did not believe in the GOD of the Catholic Church. Thus, they not only ‘civilized’ those nations but converted their lands to be sources of raw materials for the West’s industrial revolution. 

‘Divide & Rule’ is not a policy to administer colonial properties only, but it will just as well suit the maintenance of the post-war status quo in world affairs. There are very few homogenous countries in the world and hence the best way to keep these ‘up and coming’ nations at bay is to decimate them by inveigling the minorities in every country with ‘human rights violations.’ That way, the big powers could prevent their nation-building and then continue to make their development only a dream, ensuring the continuation of the post WW11 world status quo into the future.

Today’s challenge is to prevent the ushering of the ‘Asian century’ as predicted by many experts on world evolution. What would be the status of Europe and its access to world raw materials if the middle classes in China, India, and the rest of Asia achieve similar standards of living? Therefore, exacerbate their differences and create new ones, where needed, and ‘violations of human rights’ is just the modus operandi for all that. Bifurcating Sri Lanka could be a water shed event that will disintegrate India, and with that, there will be no more Asian century to usher in.

Thus NATO’s humanitarian wars across Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria,, and Ukraine are just designed in decimating nations. Keep them small and manageable to prevent those from threatening mega countries. That is why a few hundred Uighur Muslims in China are more important than millions of Muslims killed in Iraq; a few thousand privileged Tamils in Sri Lanka deserve attention over thousands of women and children continuing to be killed in Yemen.

Britain’s economy today, devoid of its ‘commonwealth’ plunder, no longer enjoys the manufacturing status it once did. Currently major part of the British economy is from the service sector and that is, thanks to tourism as there are still people who like to see the splendor of their once colonial nerve center. Britain’s economy in world rankings today is behind its former colonial subject, India. However, the British economy leap frogged the Indian economy in 2020, and that is mainly due to its war supplies to Saudi Arabia to kill Yemeni women and children. Britain is the chief armament supplier in the war against Yemen. Doesn’t Britain see Yemenis as human beings?

WW11 Propaganda

To use the term ‘free world’ to describe the victors of WW11 is a euphemism. Germany and Japan fought against the colonizing of Asia and Africa. The eventual victory, however was claimed by US and Britain, even though it was the Soviet Union that defeated the powerful German forces. However, in the post-WW 11 scenario, the victor’s ‘spoils’, in its entirety, were claimed by the US and Britain, prohibiting even the manufacture of arms to Japan and Germany. Had Japan and Germany made arms, US and Britain would not have enjoyed the world arms monopoly today. The true nature of these ‘victors’ of WW11 was that they were the ex-Slave Traders and the ex- Imperialists. The US became rich by engaging slave labor in their plantations for a whole century, and as Nikita Khrushchev rightly said, ‘if not for African slave labor, the US would be a cock without its plumage’. Thus, the world today is run according to the wishes of the ex-slave traders and ex- imperialists, those with a genealogy of exploiting other humans, brutally and limitlessly, for their material gains. 

 

There is enough evidence to state that the Bihar famine in India that accounted for a few million Indian lives in the 1940s, was staged by the British administration to weaken India’s independence struggle. As Shashi Tharoor, the Indian Congress MP, maintains, every time deaths were reported in Bihar to the British Government, Churchill would inquire whether ‘why hasn’t Gandhi died yet? Churchill was quite open with his belief that ‘the colonized people did not deserve to be free’. Therefore, had Germany and Japan won the war instead of Britain and the US, Churchill, and not Hitler, would be the villain today. There is a widespread belief that ‘the only thing wrong Hitler did in the WW 11 was, losing it’! 

World history would certainly be different had Hitler not decided to attack Russia before Britain. German air power was three times that of Britain. Any British historian will agree that Britain, despite Churchill’s rhetoric, had little chance of defeating Germany in a face-to-face confrontation. Soviet Russia lost millions of its citizens when Germany attacked their country but marched across Siberia to create East Germany. Thus, Britain owes an enormous debt of gratitude to Russia for bearing the brunt of WW11 and preventing German forces from attacking Britain. However, the irony is that in today’s international politics, Russia is projected as the villain by NATO. It is Britain that leads this propaganda and acts as the forerunner in imposing security measures to censure Russia.

Human Rights bringing human catastrophes

It is certainly not a good omen for a country and its people to earn the concern of Britain and the US for alleged ‘human rights’ violations by that country’s government. For it is for these same allegations that the US, with its NATO allies, invaded Iraq, Syria and Libya recently? All those countries today stand devastated, with many of those countrymen becoming refugees. The case of Libya indeed is a special case because by invading Libya they not only destroyed Libya but destroyed the prospects of African revival as well.

 

Libya was an African country that maintained “high levels of economic growth”, as documented by the World Bank in 2010. Its GDP rose 7.5% a year, demonstrating “high human development indicators” with access to primary and secondary education with a 40% university attendance rate. About two million immigrants from other African countries found work in Libya. The Libyan state, which possessed the largest oil reserves in Africa, in addition to natural gas, ceded limited profit margins to foreign companies, and the Libyan balance of trade was in favor of Libya to the tune of $27 billion USD every year.

Libya had invested $150 million USD in other African countries, played a decisive role in the African Union’s creation of three financial organizations: the African Monetary Fund, the African Central Bank, and the African Investment Bank, in Cameron Nigeria and Tripoli, respectively. The mission of these organizations was to create a common market and common currency in Africa. In this light, NATO’s war to destroy Libya, barely two months after the rise of the African Union, could not have been a coincidence. This is also proven by emails written by the Obama Administration’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, later released by WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks also made it public how the United States and France wanted to eliminate Qaddafi before he used Libya’s gold reserves to create a pan-African currency as an alternative to the dollar and the CFA franc- the currency France imposed on 14 former colonies, including Libya.

In the aftermath of these invasions, ‘post-human rights’ Libya, energy export revenues are hoarded by different power groups and multinationals amidst the chaos of continuing armed conflicts. African immigrants accused of being “Qaddafi’s mercenaries” have been imprisoned in zoo cages, tortured, and killed. Libya has become the main transit route for human traffickers in a chaotic wave of migration towards Europe that has taken the lives of more victims than the 2011 NATO’s human rights war.

The reality is that you could find disenchanted persons or communities in any country, whether the country is a democracy or otherwise. It is the degree of inveigling from outside the country that this section receives that will eventually blow them out into a popular uprising. In the case of many countries, like in Libya, the US had created rebel groups and offered them money and arms to fight the existing regimes. The US has a vote in its annual budget to ‘manufacture unrest in other countries’. It is easy for a powerful country to create chaos in small countries because their journalists, and even politicians, could be bought. Still, on the other hand, it is not so easy to manufacture unrest in a developed country because the price could be high and it is also difficult to hold out hope and prospects to entice people. The Black community in the US knows to what extent racism is institutionalized in the US system, and had the ‘Black lives matter’ movement received some foreign support; it would wreak havoc in the US system and in its day-to-day living.

Therefore the US is not really interested in the human rights of any nation but only in maintaining its hegemony throughout the world using various pretexts like ‘human rights’, ‘dictatorial governance’, ‘lack of freedom of speech’, ‘lack of religious freedom’ etc.. Quite hypocritically, their ‘human rights’ never consider the freedom to live and the freedom to be entitled to the basic needs in life. Consequently, they invade small nations on account of these pretexts such as ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘freedom of worship’ and kill millions and make more into refugees.

Breton Woods; the colonial baton change

Breton Woods Conference was held in the US after WW11 to regularize the world currencies, and the proposal was to have Gold reserves to back every national currency. But after a few years, those disciplines and laws failed or were made to fall, and the world was made to adopt the US dollar as the basis of world currency. This gave the US the freedom to print US dollars ad-lib, and with that US’s monitory power ensconced the whole world. It is a law in economics that if a country publishes more money notes exceeding its national productivity, the value of its notes will fall, leading to inflation and economic failure. Therefore, every country in the world has to control its expenditure by limiting the production of paper notes. But the US today, being the printer of the world currency, could print its dollars ad-lib, and that confers the US, a monetary clout that no other country in the world enjoy.

There were 5 leaders who advocated the need to have a common currency for oil transactions and those are Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Hugo Chaves, Ayatollah Kumeni and Eva Morales. Today all these leaders have been either killed or expelled from power by covert and overt operations. The countries that were not in favor of that proposal, headed by Saudi Arabia, have been supported to the hilt with no questions on their atrocious human rights records.   

Thus, the big powers have money and arms at their disposal to maintain world hegemony but, how do these big powers create conflict within small countries and make such conflicts appear as genuine internal conflicts to the rest of the world? This is by activating their propaganda machines. Propaganda is the forerunner to any serious conflict in today’s world. Britain made the English language to be widely spoken in many parts of the world with their colonial expeditions, and the US today is making use of that facility to make their propaganda arms reach every remote corner of the world. With modern communication facilities and unlimited funds, the US propaganda machine, aided by Fleet-street moguls, make any unreasonable conquest, in any part of the world appear quite reasonable and just. The ones who control the world media control the world opinion. 

When it comes to reporting the events in non-western countries, the western press has an unethical and self-serving policy. The following example will show to what extent the western press would stoop down to, when reporting world matters. The following is from the Indian Governments Bureau report dated 13^th May 2021 titled, “Besides COVID–19, India is also fighting with vulture journalists, who are spreading more panic and despair than the pandemic”.                                                                                                                             

The NEW YORK POST used a photo of a gas leakage incident in May 2020.    

To sensationalize the deadly second wave of Covid–19 in India, NEW YORK POST used a heart–wrenching picture—which had an unconscious woman lying on the street, while another woman, appeared to be her daughter, trying to wake her up. This is to show the tragedy of the second wave of Covid–19 in India. What is shocking is that the picture is of the Gas Leakage incident, which took place at LG Polymer chemical plant in a village in Visakhapatnam on 7^th  May 2020. NEW YORK POST ran the story with a misleading picture under the headline of “COVID surge swallowing people in India, the footage shows people dead in streets” on 26^th  April 2021. It is to be recalled that the particular unfortunate incident led to Gas leakage causing breathing problems to people over a radius of 3 KM in the surrounding area in May 2020. 

However, when NY POST was slammed by netizens, they changed the feature image, but the article and headline remained the same. Why did NEW YORK POST go into overdrive to sell tragedy in India by using fake pictures? Do they wait for tragedies in other countries to blow those out of proportion with fake pictures?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter II:

Reporting the Presidential Election in Sri Lanka

 

Sri Lanka held its 9^th Presidential election on 16^th November 2019, and the SLPP candidate Gotabhaya Rajapakshe comfortably won the election, polling 6.9 mn. votes against his UNP rival Sajith Premadasa who managed only 4.4 mn. votes. There was an assortment of reasons behind this victory, such as the disunity between the President and the Prime Minister of the then-incumbent UNP Government, the country’s GDP hitting a new low at 1.6 % (which used to be over 6% during the previous regime) and the security situation that failed to prevent Islamist extremism that killed 262 persons, wounding and maiming another about 500 on Easter Sunday, 21^st April 2019. Political victimization of the opposition through a newly formed extra-judicial Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) was another factor that contributed to this defeat of the UNP Government.

 

However, the Western press reported this event in the following manner, and the full reports are reproduced here to show how ‘balanced’ their reporting is. 

 

By BBC– Monitoring the world through its media

 

‘Gotabaya Rajapaksa: Sri Lanka’s powerful new president’                                                    

Sri Lanka’s new President Gotabaya Rajapaksa is a man who divides opinion. On one hand, he is hailed by supporters for playing a crucial role in crushing the Tamil Tiger separatist rebels and bringing Sri Lanka’s long–running civil war in 2009 to an end, when he was the defense secretary. But he is also accused of committing human rights violations in the crackdown. He denies any wrongdoing.   Inevitably his return to power after Saturday’s election has also caused frictions. Some analysts worry it may escalate ethnic tensions, while others hope his promises on security will bear fruit as Sri Lanka looks for calm as it recovers from the Easter Sunday bombings by Islamic State militants this year, which killed more than 250 people.                                                                                                                                              Mr. Rajapaksa is part of one of Sri Lanka’s most powerful families: his father was an MP and cabinet minister, while his elder brother Mahinda was Sri Lanka’s president twice, and another two brothers have held high–ranking positions in previous administrations. The fifth of nine children, he was born in 1949, and belongs to Sri Lanka’s majority Sinhalese community.

He joined the army in 1971, training at the Sri Lanka Military Academy (SLMA). For the next 20 years, he worked his way up the ranks, receiving a number of awards for gallantry, before leaving to work in IT. Then, in 1998, Mr. Rajapaksa and his family moved to the US – returning in 2005, the year his brother Mahinda became president. Under his brother’s presidency, Gotabaya Rajapaksa was appointed the defense secretary in 2005 and again in 2010 – a role which would see him play a key part in Sri Lanka’s history. The brothers oversaw the military operation which ended the Tamil separatist conflict in 2009. It had lasted more than 25 years and is estimated to have claimed some 100,000 lives. The end of the war was a moment to celebrate for most Sri Lankans, but questions remain to this day. During its final stages, thousands of people disappeared – many are said to have been tortured or killed. The enforced disappearances continued into the years after the war ended, when businessmen, journalists and activists seen as opponents of the Rajapaksa were rounded up and never seen again. The Rajapaksa government denied any role in the disappearances. Mr. Rajapaksa, however, has been directly accused of violating human rights.

Sri Lanka’s sinister white van abductions

Sri Lanka’s war 10 years on: Finding Father Francis

The broken survivors of Sri Lanka’s civil war…….But it is also his perceived tough stance on security a decade ago which may have given him a boost in the polls in 2019. “We guarantee that there won’t be room for extremist terrorism in this country again, just as we ended the terrorism before,” he said on the campaign trail, adding he was the “only” one “capable of ensuring 100% security in the country.

  ….Alleged war crimes are not the only time Mr. Rajapaksa has made the headlines for the wrong reasons. Ahead of the 2019 election, questions were raised by political opponents over his eligibility but he has repeatedly maintained that he has given up his US citizenship. He was charged with corruption involving the illegal transfer of state–owned weapons. He denied any wrongdoing.                                                                                                                        

 

Fears for the future

Sri Lanka election: Ex–defense chief Rajapaksa wins the presidency                                                                 

Sri Lanka’s former wartime defense chief Gotabaya Rajapaksa has won a presidential election that has split the country along ethnic lines. Official results showed Mr. Rajapaksa took 52.25% of the vote. His rival Sajith Premadasa had already conceded. Analysts say Mr. Rajapaksa was the clear victor in Sinhalese majority areas while Mr. Premadasa scored better in the Tamil–dominated north. The election is Sri Lanka’s first since a deadly terror attack in April. Militants linked to the Islamic State group targeted churches and high–end hotels across the island on Easter Sunday, killing more than 250 people. Mr. Premadasa publicly conceded when partial results showed Mr. Rajapaksa was certain to emerge the winner. “It is my privilege to honor the decision of the people and congratulate Mr. Gotabaya Rajapaksa on his election as the seventh president of Sri Lanka,” Mr. Premadasa said. In a statement on Twitter, Mr. Rajapaksa made a call for national unity saying “all Sri Lankans are a part of this journey“.

 

London’s Daily Telegraph 

 

“Former defense chief who led brutal suppression of Tamil Tigers wins Sri Lanka presidential election.”                       

“Sri Lankans on Sunday elected a former defense chief who led a brutal crackdown on Tamil Tiger separatists as president, raising fear among the country’s religious and ethnic minorities. Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, 70, who served as defense secretary during his brother Mahinda’s 2005–15 presidency, clinched 52.25 per cent of the votes after a campaign that focused on security in the wake of the deadly Easter Sunday attacks. The election was seen as a popularity test of the United National Party (UNP) government of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, which has been accused of ignoring intelligence that could have helped prevent the April attacks. Mr. Rajapaksa beat rival Sajith Premadasa, the son of a former prime minister who was assassinated by a Tamil Tiger suicide bomber during the country’s civil war. Mr. Rajapaksa faces a series of international war crimes charges for his role in crushing the Tamil insurgency, and has been accused of torture and abduction of rebels and civilians, including journalists and rights activists during the civil war which ended in 2009. He is also accused of condoning sexual violence and extrajudicial killings – claims he has denied. His campaign promises of a strong national security policy boosted his popularity amongst the Sinhala Buddhists population, following the Easter Sunday bombings by a homegrown Islamist group that killed 259 people, including eight Brits”.

“ Mr. Rajapaksa is revered by Sri Lanka’s ethnic majority for his role in ending a bloody civil war but feared by minorities for his brutal approach Credit: AP                                                

 He is also hailed as a war hero by most Sinhalese for ending a three–decade bloody war against the Tamil Tigers, together with his brother. The country’s majority Sinhala Buddhist population comprises about 70 percent of the island, with ethnic Tamil Hindus at 12.6 percent, Muslims at 10 percent, and Christians at 8 percent. But the divisive politics of the Rajapaksas, who are backed by extremist Buddhist clergy who have been responsible for past attacks on minority Muslims and Christians, has raised fears of a Rajapaksa dynasty comeback. Mahinda is expected to become prime minister under a new constitution which would grant him greater powers.                                                                                                                                            As Mr. Rajapaksa prepared to be sworn in as the island’s new president on Monday in the ancient kingdom of Anuradhapura, the minority communities in the North and East who voted for Mr. Premadasa said they were fearful for the future. The usually vibrant northern city of Jaffna was eerily quiet on Sunday, with Tamils openly saying they were “scared.” “The elected president makes us uneasy. We don’t know what will happen. We expected Mr. Premadasa to become president. This is the first time in history the Tamil people have voted for a Sinhalese candidate in such overwhelming numbers,” said Ramakrishnan, a 65–year–old retired teacher from Jaffna.

Mr. Rajapaksa won support after a nationalist campaign with a promise of security and a vow to crush religious extremism Credit: Reuters                                                                                    

 In Jaffna, the former capital of the Tamil Tigers, Mr. Premadasa garnered 83 percent of the Tamil votes in the hopes of halting a Rajapaksa victory, while a native Tamil candidate gathered less than 2 percent.                                                                                                                  

Sathya, a 40–year–old mother of two said the future of the Tamils was “very uncertain.” “Not that we hate Gota, but our past experiences have made us Tamils scared. If something good happens, we will be very happy, but considering our past experiences with the Rajapaksas, we don’t expect any miracles. We just want peace,” she said. Similar sentiments continued to haunt the Tamils of northern Vavuniya, where less than two percent of the population voted for Mr. Rajapaksa. “We are afraid of the repercussions now because we didn’t vote for the Rajapaksas,” said Anu, a government servant. “Our future will be tremendously affected.”                 

 However, speaking at the elections commissions’ office soon after the results were officially released, Mr. Rajapaksa assured fair treatment for all. “I understand I am not only the president for the people who voted for me, but also for the people who voted against me,” said Mr. Rajapaksa. “Therefore, I will serve you as a Sri Lankan disregarding race and religion.” Political analysts however remain skeptical of a sudden policy change in the Rajapaksa regime. “Is it going to be a return to the past, or is it going to be a fresh mandate as far as the Rajapaksas are concerned still remains to be seen,” said political analyst Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu. “We have to come together and heal before we move forward… and we need someone who will bring it together. Mr. Gotabhya Rajapaksa certainly hasn’t proved to be that person according to his past record.”

 

 

London’s Guardian

 

‘The Terminator’: how Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s ruthless streak led him to power.’         

 ‘Victory for nationalist ex–army general raises fears over rights and religious harmony. Sri Lanka’s former wartime defense chief Gotabaya Rajapaksa, part of the country’s most powerful political dynasty, has been elected president, raising fears about the future of human rights and religious harmony in the region. Rajapaksa, the candidate for the SLPP, the Sinhalese–Buddhist nationalist party, claimed an easy victory in the election on Saturday, which took place against a backdrop of some of the worst political instability and violence the country has seen since the end of the civil war a decade ago.                  

                                                                                              ……. Before even half of the votes were in, the Rajapaksa camp were claiming victory. The candidate for the ruling UNP party, Sajith Premadasa, quickly accepted defeat and congratulated his rival. According to the election commission’s final count, Rajapaksa took 52.25% of the vote and Premadasa got 41.99%. Rajapaksa will be sworn into office on Monday.

“I am grateful for the opportunity to be the president, not only of those who voted for me but as the president of all Sri Lankans,” Rajapaksa said in a conciliatory tweet. “The trust you have invested in me is deeply moving and being your president will be the greatest honor of my life.” The vote was divided down ethnic lines, with the majority Sinhala Buddhist community overwhelmingly backing Rajapaksa while minority Muslims and Tamils favored Premadasa. The election of Rajapaksa could be a decisive moment for Sri Lanka. Referred to as “the terminator” by his own family, Rajapaksa is known for his nationalistic and authoritarian leanings and is still facing allegations of corruption and torture. “It is all our worst fears realized,” said Hilmy Ahmed, the vice–president of the Sri Lanka Muslim Council. “Sri Lanka is totally polarized by this result and we can see through the votes there is now a clear divide between the Sinhala Buddhist majority and the minorities. It is a huge challenge to see how the country could be united.”  The election took place seven months after the Easter Sunday attacks, in which self–radicalized Islamist extremists bombed hotels and churches, killing more than 250 people.

Rajapaksa, a former army colonel who served as secretary of defense when his brother Mahinda Rajapaksa was president between 2005 and 2010, played on fears stoked by the attacks and put security at the forefront of his campaign agenda. He and Mahinda Rajapaksa are credited with ending the 26–year Sri Lankan civil war, which took more than 100,000 lives, but their legacy is tarnished by grave human rights abuses and oppression. As de facto head of the army during the end of the civil war between the majority Sinhala–Buddhist government and minority Tamil separatists, Gotabaya Rajapaksa has been accused of creating military death squads who hunted down Tamil fighters and any critics of the government. He has already said he would repeal Sri Lanka’s commitment to a UN human rights agenda for reconciliation and accountability for atrocities committed in the civil war, describing it as illegal. Under Mahinda Rajapaksa, all dissent was crushed and journalists and campaigners were routinely attacked. The police and the judiciary were also under the control of the Rajapaksa family. Minorities in Sri Lanka were alarmed at the divisive Sinhala–Buddhist nationalist agenda that the Rajapaksa campaign was seen as promoting. 

 

‘There will be no hope’: Muslims fear Rajapaksa win in Sri Lanka election’.          

The Muslim community, in particular, having faced violence and boycotts since the Easter Sunday attacks, had expressed concern about the prospect of Rajapaksa’s election. He had the backing of the nationalist Buddhist groups responsible for stoking anti-Muslim sentiment and violence in recent years. The election had a turnout of more than 80%, one of the largest in Sri Lanka’s recent history. It was relatively peaceful, although there were incidents including a shooting attack on buses carrying Muslim voters in the northeast, which were stopped by a roadblock and fired upon. There were no casualties”.                                                                   

New York Times   

Gotabaya Rajapaksa Wins Sri Lanka Presidential Election         

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka — ‘Gotabaya Rajapaksa declared victory on Sunday in Sri Lanka’s presidential election, signaling the return to power of a divisive family credited for ending the country’s long civil war through brutal means                                                                            …….. Mr. Rajapaksa defeated his closest opponent, Sajith Premadasa, by about 10 percentage points, according to an official tally from Sri Lanka’s election commission. His party expects him to be sworn into office early this week.                                                                                                 ……… “As we usher in a new journey for Sri Lanka, we must remember that all Sri Lankans are part of this journey,” Mr. Rajapaksa wrote on Twitter in his first remarks about the victory. “Let us rejoice peacefully, with dignity and discipline in the same manner in which we campaigned.”                                                                                                          During the election, Mr. Rajapaksa, 70, a former wartime defense chief nicknamed “Terminator” by his family, capitalized on public outrage at the current Government’s  mishandling of intelligence reports warning of terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka, a lush island at the foot of India. In April, a Muslim militant group claiming loyalty to the Islamic State killed hundreds of people in coordinated suicide bombings at churches and hotels on Easter Sunday…..’

 

Washington Post               

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka (AP) – Gotabaya Rajapaksa, a former defense official revered by Sri Lanka’s ethnic majority for his role in ending a bloody civil war but feared by minorities for his brutal approach, registered a comfortable victory Sunday in the nation’s presidential election.                                                                                                                                  Elections chief Mahinda Deshapriya announced the official results that Rajapaksa won more than 6.9 million votes in Saturday’s election, 1.3 million votes more than his closest rival, Housing Minister Sajith Premadasa. Rajapaksa’s percentage of the vote was 52.25%, well above the 50% plus one vote needed for victory. Premadasa conceded defeat to Rajapaksa, saying he would honor the decision of the people. Rajapaksa, the campaign front–runner and former defense secretary under his brother, ex–President Mahinda Rajapaksa, pledged to restore security to the Indian Ocean island nation still recovering from Islamic State–inspired attacks last Easter that killed 269 people. The results showcased deep ethnic and religious polarization in a country that has seen decades of conflicts and bloodshed since independence from the British in 1948. Minority Tamils and Muslims voted overwhelmingly for Premadasa, largely to stopaRajapaksavictory. President–elect Rajapaksa appeared to try to allay minority skepticism in his speech after the official announcement of results. “I have fully understood that I am the president of all citizens not only of those who voted for me but also all those who voted against me,” he said.

“Therefore, I am well aware that I am bound to serve every Sri Lankan irrespective of race or religion.”Rajapaksa’s party headquarters in Colombo erupted with applause when the commissioner delivered the result on live TV. His victory marks the return of a family ousted from power in 2015 elections amid constant reports of nepotism, skimming off development deals with China and alleged human rights violations during the end of the decades–long war with the Tamil Tiger rebels in 2009. The election also mirrors the global trend of populist strongmen appealing to disgruntled majorities amid rising ethno–nationalism. Flanked by Buddhist monks at campaign events, Rajapaksa focused his message on Sri Lanka’s majority Sinhala Buddhist population, who comprise about 70% of the island’s citizens. The second–largest group are ethnic Tamil Hindus at 12.6%, while 10% are Muslims and 8% are Christian. He accepted support from Buddhist nationalist clerics who demanded the resignation of Muslim Cabinet members and governors they said were interfering with the investigation of the Easter attacks. The Muslim politicians temporarily stepped aside.                                                   

 The campaign said Rajapaksa’s swearing–in ceremony would take place at Anuradhapura, a city about 200 kilometers (124 miles) from Colombo and the seat of the first Sinhalese kingdom known for a sacred tree that is said to be the southern branch of the Bodhi tree in India under which Lord Buddha attained enlightenment. The result reflected voting along ethnic lines, showing “a badly polarized country” that will embolden right–wing Buddhist clerics, said Kusal Perera, a political analyst and independent journalist.

“A Sinhala Buddhist theocratic state has been given a people’s mandate now,” he said.  Premadasa swept the majority Tamil and Muslim districts in the country’s north and east, winning as much as 80% of the vote. In majority ethnic Sinhala areas, Gotabaya secured around 60%. Sinhala Buddhists votes usually don’t vote as a bloc, unlike Sri Lankan minorities who have supported whatever party espoused policies comparatively favorable to them. Rajapaksa’s victory will also be a blow to the post–civil war reconciliation process and truth–seeking on alleged wartime abuses by both government troops and the Tamil Tiger rebels. In the lead up to the election, Rajapaksa said that he would not honor a United Nations human rights resolution to investigate alleged abuses.                      

“He has won the war, but Sri Lanka is yet to win the peace and 10 years after, this is how the north and east reacts to the war victor,” said M.A Sumanthiran, lawmaker and spokesman for Tamil National Alliance, the country’s main Tamil party. Rajapaksa pledged to appoint as prime minister his brother Mahinda Rajapaksa, who was briefly installed as prime minister last year, when outgoing President Maithripala Sirisena fired the sitting prime minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe, over political differences. The Supreme Court ruled Sirisena had acted unconstitutionally, and restored Wickremsinghe to power. Rajapaksa has also promised to release military personnel detained for running an abduction ring for money in the pretext of counterterrorism, leading some to fear that the ethnic tensions that fueled the Tamil struggle for an independent state will only grow during his administration. During the war that ended in 2009, Rajapaksawas accused of persecuting critics and overseeing squads that whisked away journalists, activists and Tamil civilians suspected of links to the Tamil Tigers. Some were tortured and released, while others simply disappeared. The Rajapaksa brothers are also accused of condoning rape and extrajudicial killings and deliberately targeting civilians and hospitals during the war. They deny the allegations. The Rajapaksas did not lift emergency law even after the war ended, curtailing civil and media freedoms. Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government accepted Chinese loans for white elephant projects in the family’s home district of Hambantota, including to build a big commercial airport that is only being sparsely used.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter III:

Review of the Reports

 

People in the western world, who read the above news reports, disseminated by these ‘reputed’ newspapers and news channels, may form the impression that the Sri Lankan people, especially the Sinhalese majority in Sri Lanka, have elected a criminal as their Executive President to govern the country for the next 5 years. Quite to the contrary, Sri Lanka’s election laws prevent persons charged under the penal code from standing in for the country’s elections.  What is so deplorable about these news reports is that they contain quite an amount of fabrications, falsehoods, logical inconsistencies, misleading and prejudicial statements that are not in keeping with the high standards and unbiased reporting the western countries always claim to espouse and often find fault with the rest of the world for their lacuna. The reports, in no uncertain terms, expressed their political bias and malice, stooping down to the level of mere propaganda, violating all the tenets of news reporting ethics.

 

Falsehoods;

According to the Telegraph, ‘Mr. Rajapaksa faces a series of international war crimes charges for his role in the crushing the Tamil insurgency’. The readers would expect a responsible newspaper like The Daily Telegraph to have a sense of responsibility in their news. This statement is a downright falsehood as Mr. Rajapakse has not been charged by any international or national law enforcement body, as stated above.

The Guardian report states that ‘Before even half of the votes were in, the Rajapaksa camp was claiming victory.’ Nothing of the sort took place while the counting was on, and if such a thing happened, the rival candidate could call the results null and void as the elections in Sri Lanka are conducted by an Independent Election Commission. Hence, nobody in their right mind would think of claiming victory before even half the votes are in, especially in a country where the areas and communities are so diverse.    

The BBS report maintained that ‘ Gotabhaya Rajapaksewas charged with corruption involving the illegal transfer of state–owned weapons. He denied any wrongdoing’.  This appears to be some new charge the BBC has invented because the previous UNP Government, in their quest to tarnish the political image of Gotabhaya, brought various untenable charges against him unsuccessfully, but even they too had not brought such a wild charge against Gotabhaya Rajapakse.

The Telegraph report states that Rajapakse was backed by ‘extremist Buddhist clergy who have been responsible for past attacks on minority Muslims and Christians.’  In the aftermath of the Easter bombing, some persons who targeted Muslim places of business were arrested by the security forces, but there were no members of the Buddhist clergy among those. Recently a member of the Buddhist clergy was sentenced to jail, but that was not for attacking minorities but for misconduct in the Court premises. Therefore, this newspaper has either been irresponsible in not sourcing correct news or has been deliberate in its attempt to project a twisted image of the Buddhist clergy in Sri Lanka.

 

Fabrications;

The London Guardian opts to call Gotabhaya Rajapakse ‘a terminator’ in its caption and justifies that by stating that he is known as the ‘terminator’ among his family circles. However, as far as the Sri Lankans who know him closely is concerned, it is news to them that Gotabhaya Rajapakse is called the ‘Terminator’ among his immediate family circles. Since this report, we have made special inquiries on this and found that no such sobriquet on Gotabhaya is known to the family circles of Rajapakses. This probably is the reporter’s own way of putting his own ‘innocent’ spin to make the reputation of the subject (Gotabhaya) questionable at the family level.                    

 

All the above news channels maintain that Rajapakse has been accused of violating human rights and BBC states that he had been ‘directly’ accused, and the Telegraph states that a series of charges have been brought’ against him. They do not specify by whom and when these accusations have been made, ‘for his role in the crushing the Tamil insurgency’. These reports also state that he has also been accused of torture and abduction of rebels and civilians, including journalists and rights activists during the civil war, which ended in 2009, without specifying such accusations. An ‘accusation’ is a legal term, and only a legally recognized body can make an accusation. Neither the UN nor the ICJ has accused Rajapakse of international war crimes committed at ‘the last stages of the war’ for the past 11 years, since the end of the war in 2009.The Sri Lanka judiciary system, despite the fact that Rajapakse political opponents have been in power for the past 5 years, have not brought any tenable accusations against Rajapakse, leave alone charges.

 

All that is there on this subject of ‘war crimes’ is an unofficial status report on the SL Army’s last stages of the war with the LTTE, commissioned by the previous Secretary-General of UN   Mr. Ban-Ki Moon ‘for his own personal knowledge.’ This report is euphemistically called the UNPOE (UN Panel of Experts) report. It makes allegations against both the warring parties, the LTTE and the Sri Lanka Army, for excesses during the last stages of the war. This report is sanctioned neither by the UN Security Council nor by the General Body but made purely for the knowledge of the then Secretary-General, and hence it should be called the UNSG’s POE report. Based on this report, the United States has brought a resolution against Sri Lanka at the UNHRC in Geneva in 2015 and has secured the co-sponsorship of the then Sri Lankan Government (UNP) for this resolution.  The resolution calls the Sri Lanka Government to introduce certain reforms in line with the demands laid down by the Tamil leaders. The important thing, however, is that neither this UNPOE report nor the UNHCR resolution makes reference to Gatabhaya Rajapakse in person, or to the office he held during the time of war.

 

Logical Inconsistencies;

The news channels, especially the three British channels, while maintaining that Gotabhaya was responsible ‘for bringing terrorism to an end, gave wide coverage to alleged apprehensions of the Muslims and Tamils. Well, terrorism prevailed mostly in the North and east, where a majority of the Tamils and Muslims lived and hence for 33 years, they had to live under the jackboot of the ‘world’s most ruthless terror organization in the world’ (US State dept. factbook). Their children were conscripted to the LTTE Baby brigade, living under crossfires; their lives were at risk, they had to change their abode constantly, had no power and essential supplies, etc., etc. 

 

On the other hand, now the schools in the north and east provinces are functioning again, essential supplies have been restored, army camps have been withdrawn, no checkpoints, and life has become normal with peace. In such a context, if these minorities who live in these areas are expressing ‘fears,’ such people have to be either LTTE supporters or those extremely prejudiced towards a united Sri Lanka. In the end, such comments imply selective reporting.

 

The Washington Post quoting M A Sumanthiran, maintains that “He has won the war, but Sri Lanka is yet to win the peace.” The question is, what does M.A Sumanthiran mean by ‘peace’? The LTTE enacted mayhem and made war, destabilizing the country for 33 years. But since the demise of the LTTE, there have been no victims of war, be it Sinhala, Muslim, or Tamil. Tamils enjoy language rights and all other rights enjoyed by other citizens in the country. Tamil children are now attending school, and Tamils and Muslims in the North and east could engage in their livelihood without a hindrance either from the LTTE or from the Army. Tamils come to the south, and Sinhalese visit the north, and everything is normal, like in any other country. Economy, too, is now improving without the burden of a war budget. Thus, what more is peace? 52% Tamils live outside the North and East among the Sinhalese population gainfully employed with no interference whatsoever by the Sinhalese in their daily living.

 

This ‘M.A Sumanthiran’ is a TNA member and an inveterate separatist. Peace to him is separating Sri Lanka into two states, but the majority in Sri Lanka know that such a separation will lead to a permanent war! Therefore, peace in Sri Lanka does not mean the type of peace advocated by the likes of M.A Sumanthiran.

 

London Guardian states that ’Under Mahinda Rajapaksa, all dissent was crushed, and journalists and campaigners were routinely attacked. The police and the judiciary were also under the control of the Rajapaksa family’. This had been corroborated by the Washington Post to some extent. Well, these news channels should realize that Sri Lanka’s opposition, and it’s judiciary and the police, consist mainly of the Sinhalese Buddhist community and therefore, it is not likely that they would vote so overwhelmingly to Gotabhaya if those institutions had been brought under the type of pressure described by these reports. Yes, in 2015, when the West, led by US, engineered a regime change in Sri Lanka, quite a lot of allegations were dished out to this effect by the UNP during the campaign but all that has been now proved false with the lapse of time making that , mere propaganda.

 

Sri Lanka is a democracy, and hence elections are the means by which its public offices are elected. However, the denigrating way the above news reports claim about a ‘Rajapakse family dynasty’ gives the impression that Sri Lanka still has a feudalist system of Government. In Sri Lanka, the professions are often handed over from father to son to ensure that the professions move forward without the loss of experience. Thus, there are families of lawyers, engineers, doctors, and political families. There may be a few brothers in the Rajapakse family, but they all have to be elected by the people to hold public office. Further, in the case of the Rajapakse family, many Sri Lankans believe that it is the close coordination between the brothers that won the war, and hence their family bonds are perceived in a positive vein. Therefore, why do these ‘reputed’ newspapers of the democratic world have to describe the democratic choices of the Sri Lankan majority in pejorative terms?

 

 

 

Bias & Malicious Reporting;

Further, the reports have been presented in an extremely biased manner. For instance, if the Easter attack on Christian Churches is the most recent event that contributed to the downfall of the previous regime, the event had been reported rather casually describing the perpetrator of that crime as ‘homegrown Islamist group’ by the Telegraph and ‘Islamist State Militants’ By the BBC. This particular suicide attack killed 262 persons, mainly women and children, and maimed and wounded another 500 + persons while they were at their Easter prayer. Yes, the Buddhist clerics and the Catholic clergy denounced this and called for proper investigations. However, these reports opt to describe the perpetrators of this heinous act as just ‘militants’ and an ‘Islamist group’ while implying those who demanded investigation and punishment for this act as ‘extremist.’ The use of adjectives here certainly betrays the malicious intentions of these news channels.

 

The other important point is that these reports quote 6 persons, who they name as Ramakrishnan, Anu- the Government servant, Parkiasothy Saravanamuttu, Hilmy Ahamed, M A Sumanthiran, and Kusal Perera.  All these people have given very negative views about the election victory. Judging from what they have said, it is obvious that they have all voted for Mr. Premadasa, the losing candidate.  Why do all these reports have to publish quotes from the voters who voted for Premadasa, who polled 41 % of the vote, when the balance 59% voted against him? Is this the type of ‘balanced’ reporting the western news agencies claim they vow to follow in the name of democracy and ‘freedom of expression?

Universal Declaration on Freedom of Expression states that ‘Freedom of expression is the right to express one’s ideas and opinions freely through speech, writing, and other forms of communication but without deliberately causing harm to others’ character and reputation by false or misleading statements. Freedom of the press is part of freedom of expression.’ Even the US bill of Rights that is so Liberal in its 1^st Amendment that guarantees freedom of expression maintains that defamatory falsehoods published about public officials are not protected by the First Amendment and can be punished if the offended official can prove that their accuser published the falsehoods with “actual malice” — that is, with the “knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not’.  UK have their own laws on libel. In Sri Lanka, there is the National Press Commission that entertains complaints on false newspaper reports, but the unfortunate thing is that there is no mechanism internationally, to the best of the writer’s knowledge, to contain the type of reporting indulged in by these news channels. Thus, this reporting of the Sri Lanka election by the western press is clearly a case of the Western media juggernaut disseminating malicious news by the strength of its might, overpowering truth and justice on a ‘democratic event’ in a small country.

However, apart from what is just in the face of the law, do these news channels that pontificate as the arbiters of freedom of expression consider it their primary duty to stand by the ethics and morals of their profession? Instead, they seem to seek cover under freedom of expression and pick and choose news items and distort those to suit their agenda? Aren’t all these reports designed to give a negative image of the Sri Lanka’s election victor, simply because that victor is not as servile to the west as the previous Mr. Ranil Wickremasinghe was? The fact that these reports carry quite a number of allegations that the UNP carried in their campaign in 2015 shows that these reports are not news items but just propaganda for the current Sri Lankan opposition.

All these news channels, in general, had lamented that democracy in Sri Lanka is now in peril again, but the irony is that they are expressing these sentiments against an election result that the majority of Sri Lankans have overwhelmingly endorsed. Does that mean that these news channels are more concerned about the Sri Lankan society than the Sri Lankans themselves are? Or is it that these news channels have no sense of decency to respect the democratic choice of another nation?

This, in the end, proves the fact that the western press wishes that other countries, especially those in the developing world, to have Governments that the western media prefer and not a Government that people in those countries want to have; a Government that panders to the west’s liberal ideology. Thus, the western press, with sweet talk of democracy, is attempting to impose a Government against the will of the people in the country, contravening the basic principles of democracy.

All these ‘concerns’ about the ‘minorities’ in Sri Lanka are not a matter that could be discussed without recourse to the country’s colonial subjugations, as mentioned in the previous chapter. The colonial powers, Portuguese, Dutch, and the English occupied the Island nation for 400 years in that order of succession. During these years these successive colonial rulers created and fostered these pockets of minorities to facilitate them in their colonial administrations, as the Sinhalese majority constantly rebelled against them. They imported white-collar officers from Europe, blue color workers from India, and Police officers from Java. Finally, the British, having established commercial plantations, brought in shiploads of indentured Tamil labor from India. All these created minority pockets under successive colonial administrations that reciprocated their needs but stood alienated in the post-independent Ceylon.

In contrast to this situation, if a country or nation evolved on its own, over a period of time, that evolution would have taken care of the minorities, as the process of time would have assimilated those into the mainstream. In such a context, the mainstream too, would have accommodated the minorities giving rise to an eclectic society where the minorities will cease to exist, as they would become part of the majority. The ‘Sinhalay’ in the 17^th century (baptized CEYLON by Europeans),in fact was such an eclectic nation as they had embraced inputs from neighboring countries.  Therefore, colonial inquisitions not only prevented assimilation but also created new ‘independent minorities’, spawning social, religious and cultural issues that eventually graduated to be conflicts in the post-colonial era.

 

However, the most malevolent aspect of the colonial inquisition is not in adopting minorities who migrated from other lands but in spawning an ‘own minority’ within the country; i.e in adopting a set of indigenous people by making them stakeholders of their rule, converting them religiously and indoctrinating them culturally. In the case of Sri Lanka, this is the English educated Catholic/Christian population that comprised 11 % of the people at the time of independence. Although they numbered only 11 % in demographic strength, their influence in every area of the post-independent society is far out of proportion because they were the heirs to the administrative, professional and commercial setup the British left behind. Thus, this minority category, with all that power at their command, was more averse to the national reforms compared to other minorities, as they had a stake in continuing with the colonial status quo.

Therefore, it is this segment of the ‘minorities’, that had been the most regressive and sabotaging force in the newly independent Ceylon. They opposed the Free education bill in 1946 and the Swabasha bill in 1958. Catholic Church spearheaded the opposition to the Free education bill at that time, and the Church monopolized the education, especially English education, in the country. Then when the Swabasha Language bill came, this elite minority faced the prospect of losing the monopoly on education and the language. The ruse they put forward was that switching to Sinhala language, the language of pre-colonial Ceylon, will impinge on the rights of Tamils who comprised 12 % of the population. 

Thus, they baptized the Language Bill as ‘Sinhala only’ even though the bill provided for the reasonable use of the Tamil language in the North and East. The term was obviously coined to imply that the bill was belligerent and non- inclusive. As a result, the propaganda the English press carried out against the language bill was such that even today, the language bill is considered by many to be the cause of the 33- year war in the country, even though the bill made it possible for the first time in the history, for ordinary Tamil children to be educated in their language. The English press, patronized by the country’s literati, had no ethical grounds to obstruct the language bill. Hence, they took a common cause with the high caste Tamils, instigating them against the new liberated majority. With the English language and international media connections,  they internationalized the ‘Sri Lanka’s minority problem.’

This painted a warped picture of Sri Lanka’s post-independent national reforms to the international, and if not for the propaganda they carried out, the Sri Lankan war of the LTTE would never have dragged on for 33 years. The Catholic Church was unstinted in their support to the Tamil Tigers with all the broadcasts of the Vatican justifying the ‘Tamil cause’ to the end and even today, the news going out of Sri Lanka is twisted against the majority as it has to go through the established news channels manned by either Catholics or Christians.

However, it could be unreasonable to castigate all the Catholics and Christians with this same brush, because even the Buddhists, when they are English speaking, tend to take the anti-majority stand on national issues. The alienating factor then is the cultural indoctrination and not just the religion.

One factor needs to be highlighted here: Sri Lanka is 19 percent Urban, 77 percent Rural, and 5 percent Plantation. Within the Urban Sector, the minorities are in the majority, while the rural sector is more homogenous (either Sinhala or Tamil). With Sinhalese being the majority, a higher percentage of them lived in rural areas. The Urban Sector, due to the patronage of the central government, enjoyed better education and upward mobility in the society while those in the Rural Sector – about 78 percent of the nation’s population – had marginal facilities in education and other economic facilities. What the Bandaranaike government since 1956 did was to break this disparity in extending those facilities to the Rural Sector. In fact, the almost exclusive Sinhalese district of Monaragala in the south, as well as the homogenous Tamil district of Kilinochchi in the north, were both benefited by the education, social and language policies introduced with the Swaasha Act. since 1956.

The Muslims, though Tamil speaking with Indian descent (majority),  remained more aligned with the Singhalese than with the Tamils over the years as they were persecuted during the Portuguese rule. However, with the oil price boost in the 1970’s, they were offered employment in the Middle- East and with that came neophyte religious indoctrination and extremism. That economic influence,and the increase in numbers, coupled with constant religious prodding by the new rich Middle-Eastern fraternity, the Muslims took a leaf from the Tamils and started forming their own racial/ religious parties and started demanding special concessions.

Another significant factor in this is that the Muslims and Tamils both were aware that the Sinhalese, though a majority in Sri Lanka with 74 percent of the population, is an internationally isolated nation, with Tamils supported by India and Europe and the Muslims supported by the Middle East.  Even the international press reporting cited here stands in evidence of this fact. Sinhalese are a unique set of people with a civilization of their own. Yet, the Sinhala leaders continue to gloss over this aspect, and with the Sinhala majority vote split between the two main (non-communal) political parties, United National Party and The Sri Lanka Freedom Party, they often had to woe one minority or the other to form a Government with a workable edge in Parliament. In doing this, they had to concede to the excessive demands of these minorities, such as ‘peripheral governments’ and ‘Halal tax’, making the minority communities more and more regionalized and powerful over the years. Thus, the minority strategy of encompassing Sri Lanka then became ‘little now and more later’ as advocated by S J V Chevanayagam back in 1940s.

Therefore, these minority grievances in Sri Lanka, hyped by the western press, may give rise to an interesting phenomenon as to how small nations could always be kept at bay; i.e. during the 18^th/ 19^th centuries, you subjugated them and spawned privileged minorities through ‘divide and rule’, and then after independence, you support and inveigle those same minorities preventing their assimilation and thereby nation-building. This way the west, while preaching the virtues of good governance and democracy, could undermine that very democracy by championing the cause of the minority. Further, it could also be a matter of interest to study the west’s means of domination during different times.  Subjugation during the 19^th century was with arms-and then during the 21^st century, ostracizing and dividing the independent nations with propaganda. We could now see that with the ‘new world order, ’ subjugation has not changed, but only the means of domination has, from arms to propaganda.

As a result, Sri Lanka had to suffer at the hands of the most ruthless and organized minority terror group in the world, named the LTTE, for 33 years, and now even Islamist extremism is casting its shadows. This situation necessitates a strong majority leadership, and that exactly is what the Sinhalese majority did in voting Gotabhaya Rajapakse to power in 2019 November. The Sinhala majority has now realized that splitting of their votes between the two political parties has contributed to the Tamil and Muslim extremism in the country and that is the reason why they have now decided to vote the less opportunistic political party into power, en block, this time. This has happened even in India, where they have now brought the Bharathiya Janatha party into power.

The attitude of the western press has always been hostile to the Sinhala Buddhist majority because they know that to be the ‘galvanizing’ force and weakening that factor is the best way to destabilize the country and thwart development. Although the western press uses words like ‘extremist’ against Buddhist monks, no Buddhist have carried out organized attacks or terrorism against minorities. There have been sporadic attacks but such attacks have always been triggered in response to minority extremism i.e. as reactions. The western press is well aware of these events, and therefore, they also know that encouraging the minorities by deeds or words is the best way to destabilize Sri Lanka. They now cite the Sinhala majority vote as a ‘polarization on communal grounds’ but gloss over the fact that the minority vote had always been polarized all these years, and that in fact prompted the Sinhalese to vote en block to save the country from minority extremism.

Destabilizing small and developing countries with negative news is the contribution western press makes to help their governments maintain the current social and economic status quo of the world so that the west could continue to rule the world keeping the developing countries ‘developing’ forever.

The 17^th century was known as the enlightening period of the European civilization because philosophers like Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire enlightened the world community with contributions through freedom of speech. The thought at the time was that human thinking was the way forward for the advancement in human civilization, and thus, progressive communities will do well to foster freedom of speech to bring out new thinking.  But today, the dichotomy of this same Western thinking is that ‘ensuring the presence of a free press in a developing country is pivotal to disseminate neo-liberal ideas, influencing the way people think and their values, thereby undermining the power of that country’s government at the time.’

 Therefore, if you have a juggernaut that dishes out propaganda, that is the first requirement in controlling a country in particular or the world in general. For instance, if you wish to kill a dog, you need not kill it yourself. You just give a bad name to the dog (say it has rabies), so that somebody else will kill it for you.

Propaganda is the ugly twin sibling of freedom of speech, and it could achieve exactly the opposite effect of the virtues of ‘freedom of speech as advocated by Voltaire & co.  However, since it is difficult to tell these twins apart, today’s western media dishes out loads of propaganda in the name of freedom of speech.

‘Freedom of the Press’ is so free and Omnipresent today that it leaves very little room for the truth.’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter IV:

More Western Intrusion

General Shavendra Silva replaced Lt. Gen. Mahesh Senanayake, who duly retired from the office of Sri Lanka’s Army Commander, as the next in line of seniority, on the 18^th August 2019. This appointment was made by the then President Maithripala Siriena, as the Commander in chief of the Armed forces of Sri Lanka.

The US Embassy in Colombo, headed by Ambassador Alaina Teplitz, issued a statement on the 19^th of August 2019 expressing reservations on the appointment of Shavendra Silva as the new commander of the Sri Lanka Army. Tiplitz statement said, “The allegations of gross human rights violations against Shavendra Silva, documented by the United Nations and other organizations, are serious and credible. This appointment undermines Sri Lanka’s international reputation and its commitments to promote justice and accountability, especially at a time when the need for reconciliation and social unity is paramount.”

Subsequently, after the Presidential elections in November 2019, the US Embassy issued a travel ban on Mr. Shavendra Silva and his family members, barring entrance to the United States.

The Sri Lanka Prime Minister, Mahinda Rajapakse issuing a statement on its aftermath, strongly criticized the US decision to impose a travel ban on Army Commander Lt. Gen. Shavendra Silva and his family members, based on unfounded allegations. He also stressed that his Government has decided to withdraw from the process of co-sponsorship in relation to Resolution 30/1 at UNHRC, as was the case with the previous Government. The Prime Minister’s statement further said that, ‘Even though we are now in the 21st Century, even members of his family who have not been accused of any wrongdoing, have been subjected to a collective punishment reminiscent of the practice in medieval Europe. The people should be the judge of how fair this is. Even though this collective punishment has been meted out on the grounds that the Army Commander had committed violations of human rights, no one knows what these allegations are. Our government has already conveyed our displeasure in this regard to the government of the United States in the strongest possible terms’.

In addition, the PM statement also mentioned, “It is because of the historic betrayal committed by the previous Government, formed by the United National Party, the Tamil National Alliance and the JVP in co–sponsoring the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 30/1 in 2015, those other countries are able to name members of our armed forces as ‘violators of human rights. The first operative paragraph of that Resolution had taken note ‘with appreciation’ the September 2015 Report of the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, which accused the Sri Lankan armed forces of human rights violations. This report was based on the previous 2011 unofficial report prepared by a three–member committee appointed by the then UN Secretary–General outside the established procedure of that organization. In this manner, the UNP–TNA–JVP combine ended up accepting all the unfounded allegations made against our armed forces by various interested parties.

Ironically the PM has stopped short of naming the ‘interested parties’ as those are the same parties that supported the LTTE  for the past 33 years to kill and maim almost 100,000 Sri Lankans; Sinhalese, Tamils, and Muslims in this country.

Since this is an issue of international proportions, a media discussion was held on this matter by the local media channel ‘Derana’ under its program ‘Get Real’ anchored by program director Mahieash Johnney and it was attended by the Island newspaper’s News Editor Mr. Sharmindra Ferdinando and the Executive Director of the National Peace Council (NPC) Dr. Jehan Perera. At this discussion, Dr. Perera was quite adamant that the Army Chief of Staff, Maj. Gen. Shavendra Silva, in spite of being next in line for the top post, shouldn’t have been appointed as the Commander of the Army. He said that ‘It is not only just by the US, but also the EU and Canada have objected to this appointment and therefore the government ‘should have been mindful of the grave consequences of such an appointment’, asserting that ‘the government couldn’t afford to accommodate Shavendra Silva at the expense of the country’s international standing!

Mr Shamindra Ferdinando, however, pointed out that this objection to an internal appointment amounts to interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign country. Therefore, it is in violation of article 41 of the Vienna convention that stipulates diplomatic conduct, rights, and duties in a host country. He said that no government with a sense of self-respect would submit to such an intrusion.

The argument that Mr. Ferdinando brought was that the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) should have no moral right to maintain that the SL army committed war crimes because the TNA voted for Sarath Fonseka, the ex- Army commander, who commanded the Army at that time, when he contested Mahinda Rajapakse for the Presidency in 2010. Therefore, if any crimes had been committed during the war, it was the Army Commander at the time (Sarath Fonseka) who should have been held responsible. The TNA campaigned for the wartime ex-Army Commander in 2010.

 Jehan Perera tried to maintain that Sarath Fonseka was out of the island for some time during the last stages of the war, and it was at that stage that the army was alleged to have killed 40,000 Tamils. Ferdinando then countered and said that these 40,000 deaths were the biggest lie the US is trying to cling to because the US Security Attaché at the time, Lawrence Smith, in his report, had stated that only 7700 Tamils had perished and that included LTTE fighters. This officer, Mr. Lawrence Smith, was thereafter transferred out of Sri Lanka’s US embassy, and his report never played a part in subsequent discussions.

Ferdinando further said that Jehan Perera was well aware that it was the US embassy that summoned TNA in 2010 and told them to campaign and vote for Sarath Fonseka. He said that it is a fact admitted by John Kerry, former US Secretary of State, that the US tried to engineer regime changes in Sri Lanka in 2010 and 2015, but only succeeded in 2015.

The above discussion, to some extent, explains the sheer political nature of the objection made by the Unites States on the appointment of Shavendra Silva as the new commander of Sri Lanka Army. As the Prime Minister too made it very clear in his statement, ‘Nobody knows what the charges and who made those against Shavendra Silva’. The controversial United Nations Panel Of Experts (UNPOE) report, which is the basis of all these ‘charges’ against the Sri Lanka army, only makes general allegations without specifying individual officers or brigades.

Shavendra Silva led the 57^th Brigade during the war. This brigade commenced its operations from the Madhu area, in the western part of Sri Lanka and the LTTE, after losing in that area, retreated to Kilinochchi, which is in the eastern part of Sri Lanka. Mullaivaikkal is the sliver of land the LTTE took the civilians at the last stages and that too is in the eastern coast. Therefore, it is strange that Shavendra silva should be singled out, out of about 60 or 70 officers of the forces that took part against the LTTE in this operation. 

However, Shavendra Silva’s brigade engaged the LTTE very tactically from the beginning of the operation and drove them away inflicting heavy losses. Thus, it could be said that his brigade made the ‘Invincible’ LTTE looked very ordinary and thus at the initial stages set the tempo of the war. Therefore, one would wonder whether this is the reason the US embassy is so angry with Shavendra Silva. Further, when the former Army Commander Sarath Fonseka decided to contest Mahinda Rajapakse, he was able to take some senior officers from the SL army to support him but Shavendra Silva was not among the ones who supported him. Given the disclosures made now by the Island news editor as above, that the US embassy campaigned for Sarath Fonseka, this refusal of Shavendra to support Fonseka could be another reason why the US embassy is ‘mad’ about Shavendra. It is not due to human rights violations but purely due to politics.

As pointed out by Mr. Shamindra Ferdinando, the politics of Sri Lanka’s ‘human rights violations’ had been made plain and obvious by the way the Tamil community voted during the two elections that followed; 2010 and 2015. The alternative political camp, the UNP knew that they had no chance of defeating the incumbent in 2010 and hence they lured Sarath Fonseka, the retiring army commander (who had then come to national lime light) into their camp, offering him the Presidential candidature. The Tamil National Alliance that belonged to that camp canvassed for Fonseka in the North and voted for him with their supporters ‘to drive Mahinda out’ in 2010. The point here is, if these crimes against humanity really took place, it would have happened under the directions of Sarath Fonseka, who commanded the troops at the time and claimed all the credit for winning the war.

It is the political leaders of the country that generally take decisions at the national level, such as, whether to wage war or not, and it is the troops then under the Commander that will plan and execute the war. Therefore, by voting for the ex-Army Commander so overwhelmingly, the TNA and its supporters have expressed their approval of  Sarath Fonseka and his actions during the war. This also applies to the US embassy in Sri Lanka that organized the canvassing for Sarath Fonseka, even by directing the TNA to support him.  

Then again in 2015, the TNA and the US Embassy supported Mr Maithripala Sirisena at the Presidential elections against Mahinda Rajapakse. Maithripala Sirisena was the Deputy Defense Minister in 2009. When Mr Rajapakse left for China in early May 2009 on a state visit in his capacity as the President, it was Mr. Maithripala Sirisena who took up the Defense portfolio in the absence of the President.  President Rajapakse returned to the island on the 21^st May 2009, two days after the end of the rescue operation on the 19^th May 2019. Therefore, if any war crimes took place, as alleged, during this ‘last stages of the war’,such crimes should have been perpetrated under the direction of General Sarath Fonseka, guided by the political leadership of Mr Mathripala Sirisena. Therefore, the US embassy and the TNA, having supported the very people who conducted the war against the LTTE, are now petitioning themselves against the Sri Lanka army, alleging that they committed war crimes!

At the 2015 elections, the propaganda unleashed by the UNP camp, which adopted Maithripala Sirisena as their Presidential candidate, was quite considerable, and John Kerry, the then Secretary of State for the US, is on record admitting at a few occasions that they had to spend US $ 500 million to ‘save democracy’ in  3 countries including Sri Lanka.

Now having supported both these candidates, who conducted the offensive against the LTTE, in their Presidential ambitions in 2010 and 2015, the US Embassy and the TNA is now complaining that war crimes had been committed during the last stages of that same offensive that ended on the 19^th May 2009. Therefore, any person with an iota of sense should understand that it is not war crimes that they are after but the political leadership of Mahinda Rajapakse and his party.

The antipathy of these two parties(US Embassy and the TNA) towards Mahinda Rajapakse could be due to two different reasons, but in the long run, both these parties aspire to have a fractionalized and a week Sri Lanka for their own benefit.  The TNA is obsessed with having a country for themselves (Tamils), and thus, they could achieve this ambition by weakening and bifurcating Sri Lanka. This is the history of Sri Lanka’s communal politics as the Tamil leaders formed into a party called ITAK (Illangey Tamil Arasu Kachchi), meaning the Party for the Tamil State, back in 1946, before SL independence in 1948. This party was formed in Sri Lanka after the Tamil leaders in India failed in 1940’s to have a compromise with the Indian Central Government to form a ‘Dravidasthan’ (Tamil State) in India by bringing in Tamil Nadu, Andra Pradesh, and Karnataka under one administration. India eventually banned the ‘We Tamils’ organization and passed the death sentence on people who advocated separatism of India.

The most emotional issue for any member of the Tamil community is, ‘although their community is spread over 68 countries in the world (it is the British again who internationalized them as ‘coolies’), they do not have a country to call their own. Their strategy now in accomplishing this in Sri Lanka is, as Chelvanayagam advocated, ‘by and by’ or ‘little now and more later. Since the 1940’s they thought they could succeed this venture in Sri Lanka as the SL Tamils were more educated and the Sinhalese leadership is disoriented and liberal. Ranil Wickremesinghe had always suggested that he is prepared to grant the Tamil separatist demand in return for their political support, whereas Mahinda R and the camp have been against separatism in no uncertain terms.  In any case, the Tamils and Muslims both always prefer a fickle-minded and weak leader to a strong and principled leader in Sri Lanka.   

The US embassy’s problem with Rajapakse is that he is leaning more towards China than America, whereas Ranil Wickremesinghe of the UNP is a 100 % Uncle Sam’s boy. With their time in Diego Asia ticking in and their relations with the Philippines not so favorable under the current regime, the US is desperate for a base in Asia.  What is worst is that, if the Chinese ‘Silk Road’ initiative works, China will dominate Asia on trade making inroads to Europe as well. The US’s current hold on India may not mean much if Sri Lanka is taken over by China. Therefore, America is desperate to sabotage the Chinese Silk Road and thereby in preventing them from becoming the world’s no. 1 economic power in the near future. 

It should be noted here that during the Eelam War IV – 2006–2009 – Washington totally cut or drastically reduced military assistance to Sri Lanka, permitting only maritime surveillance. Even economic support too was drastically cut. Both were in keeping with the Leahy Amendment (1998) to the Foreign Assistance Act, which stated that no U.S. military or economic assistance should be extended to countries that violate human rights. Washington decides the standard of human rights in connection to the Foreign Assistance Act. It was the Peoples Republic of China that stepped in to provide military and economic assistance to Sri Lanka during the war.

However, Rajapaksa’s China leaning inclination is neither an accident nor a choice. Sri Lanka, with its 400-year Europen colonial occupation with an influential westernized elite, has always been more west-oriented than anything else in its outlook. When Sri Lanka’s then pro–U.S.-conservative government turned to Washington in 1953 during the Korean War to sell her rubber stock and find rice, the U.S. turned a blind eye. The then UNP government had to turn to China for assistance, and the latter willingly helped Sri Lanka sign the Rice–Rubber Pact. Sri Lanka didn’t even have diplomatic relations with China at the time due to the UNP’s anti–communist policy.

But the west’s step-motherly treatment during the LTTE operation, including their bankrolling of the LTTE and telling Lanka to negotiate, thereby allowing LTTE to become an insurmountable force, pushed Sri Lanka to look for alternative friends in the international. Propaganda of the 300,000 strong Tamil Diaspora in the west also made things worse for Sri Lanka. However, either because the western countries were misled by the propaganda or because it is their attitude towards the developing countries, it appeared that the west was not just nonchalant but also patronizing the plight of the Sri Lankans. Thus, when Sri Lanka was pushed to a position where it had to choose between its own demise and survival, China stepped in and helped Sri Lanka. The truth is, if China did not come to Lanka’s rescue, it would well have become a failed state with LTTE holding sway. Therefore, Rajapaksa’s China leaning is due to the country’s need to survive in overcoming ruthless terrorism.

Coming back to the issue of appointing an Army commander, does Alaina Tiplitz, the US ambassador, know why a country should have an Army Commander? The main consideration in appointing an Army commander is that the candidate should be capable of ensuring the internal security of the country protecting its people, and the appointment plays no part in its foreign policy of pleasing the big powers in the international. Sri Lanka is a country that suffered in the hands of the most organized and ruthless terrorist organization in the world for 33 years. It was only after Osama Bin Laden started committing suicide attacks in the United States and the West, that the western countries thought of banning the LTTE (The US, of course, had banned the LTTE before but there was no meaningful action). This was evidently because Osama Bin laden employed all the terrorist suicide tactics he learned from the LTTE to create mayhem in the US on 9/11.

A small country like Sri Lanka is bound to have constant threats to its security. Now that Sri Lanka has defeated the LTTE, despite the west, it is now facing terrorism again in the form of Islamist extremism with the Easter attack on Christian churches and Hotels. On 19^th April 2019, terrorists carried out a suicide attack and killed 262 persons again and maimed another 500+, mainly women and children, at their prayer. The post-attack investigation has now revealed that, had the Government (the Govt. that the US helped install) followed intelligent reports, the attack could well have been averted. In this situation, the question is, will the US ambassador M/s Alaina Tiplitz take over the responsibility of the security function in Sri Lanka, just as they maneuvered the regime change in Sri Lanka in 2015?

The primary need of a responsible and peace-loving Government is to protect the right to life of its citizens than to please the world powers. Although we do not condone terrorism, it is a fact that Osama Bin Laden has helped Sri Lanka(in a rather indirect but ironic way) more than Alaina Tiplitz because it is Osama who gave the West a taste of terrorism that Sri Lanka endured for 33 years. For if not for Osama Bin Laden, Canada and the EU would never have banned the LTTE to this day.

The Trojan horses of ‘Peace.’

However, this writing about international intrusion in the Sri Lankan war will not be complete without mentioning certain of these newfangled western NGO’s that operated in Sri Lanka during the war period, adding the word ‘Peace’ into their name boards, pontificating that their intention is to bring peace to the troubled island.  National Peace Council is one such organization, and this Dr. Jehan Perera is the Executive Director of that organization. This name NPC itself is a fraud because there is nothing National about this organization as the term National is attributed to something that is to do with the Sri Lankan nation. NPC is only an NGO funded by the Norwegian Government, and this organization, contrary to what its name denoted, promoted putative peace, thereby undermining the true initiatives for peace. Also, there is no ‘council’ in this NPC as such but only a few people who work for it under this person Jehan Perera. Thus, it is an anti-national and anti-peace clique that is operating in subtle ways to prevent Sri Lanka from achieving lasting peace with, or without, the knowledge of the Norwegians, but nevertheless with their funds.

This organization was first set up in the mid-eighties when the LTTE started its mayhem in the north & at the time, Jehan Perera was a journalist who contributed to the ‘Ceylon Daily News’ newspaper published by the Lake House, the oldest newspaper publication institution in the country. After the NPC was established, Jehan Perera’s main job was to write to the national newspaper justifying the terrorist activities of the LTTE, saying that they have a ‘grievance’ and, therefore, that those should be addressed instead of fighting them. Jehan Perera propounded the theory that the LTTE problem in Sri Lanka needed a ‘political solution’ and not a ‘military solution’. He advocated this very strongly and justified his theory by saying that the people in Sri Lanka wished for peace and not war. He conducted surveys with programmed questions to the public where he would ask whether they preferred a peaceful solution or a military solution. The people will naturally say that they want peace. Then he would publish the results and tell the political leaders of the country, ‘According to our extensive survey carried out among a cross–section of the SL population, the majority prefer a political solution and not a military solution’.  This way, he pulled the wool over the leaders of the country to a point where they viewed the security actions of the country’s armed forces in a negative vein, taking the position that ‘negotiation, as the one and only road to peace. 

The NPC also invented a new vocabulary when describing the country’s problem. They called the country’s problem ‘a civil war,’ distorting its true character. A civil war is where two communities fight, whereas the fight in Sri Lanka was essentially between the Sri Lanka Army and the LTTE. This is because when you say that there is a ‘civil war’ in Sri Lanka, it is logical that we bring in a negotiated settlement. In contrast, if we say that there is an armed gang holding part of the country to ransom, the solution should necessarily be, either to disarm or to eliminate them by force. The NPC advocated negotiations and called them ‘Peace Talks’ to impress that the only way to peace is to talk. The fact, however, is that during the five rounds of talks the successive Governments had with the LTTE, no peace was discussed and the LTTE laid the condition at the very beginning that nothing about disarming the LTTE could be discussed during these talks. The LTTE always demanded concessions and withdrawals of barriers during these talks. Whenever the country’s armed forces responded to LTTE’s armed operations, the NPC would call a halt, stating that a military solution was unacceptable. They would call those who advocated the elimination of the LTTE ‘jingoist’ or ‘extremists.’ This position taken by this NPC could be verified by the many writings of Jehan Perera to the English dailies in the ’80s and ’90s.

The other prominent organization involved in this ‘peace’ activity was the ‘International Alert’ funded by the Swedish International corporation Agency and managed in Sri Lanka by Mr Kumar Rupasinghe. Mr Rupasinjghe is an influential person in the Sri Lanka political firmament as he was identified with the Bandaranaike family through marriage. The activity of IA mostly was in the form of holding demonstrations against the activities of the security forces and against those organizations that advocated that terrorism should be eliminated to bring peace to Sri Lanka. The paradox here is that all such activity on ‘stop the war’ was carried out in areas where there was no war, and they never entered the area where the war was raging. Just as the NPC, the IA too, advocated that the Tamil community had a ‘grievance’ and that had to be addressed first to neutralize the LTTE.

The irony, however was that both these organizations, when confronted, could not come out with a tenable answer to their ‘grievance theory’ and their vague responses ranged from ‘Settlement of Sinhalese in Tamil areas’ and ‘Standardization of University entry marks’. These, however are just excuses to wage war because if you consider Sri Lanka in terms of ‘Tamil areas’ and ‘Sinhala areas’, more Tamils have come to live in ‘Sinhala areas’ than vice versa. Standardization of University entry marks is a practice adopted all over the world and specially in Sri Lanka where education is non-fee levying, the Government has to ensure that the benefits of free education is distributed throughout the country equitably.

In the author’s previous book “Sri Lanka –the war fueled by ‘Peace”, published soon after the war was over, the role of these peace merchants has been described as similar to those of mosquito coil manufacturers. This is because the mosquito coil manufacturers also call for the control and eradicating of the effects of mosquitos but they never would want to eliminate the mosquitos, fearing the eventuality of going out of business in such a situation.

In the end, it was the LTTE that benefitted immensely by these ‘Peace’ activities. They continued to bring arms into the country, recruited cadres, including children whom they made into a ‘Baby Brigade’, and disseminated their propaganda worldwide. The worst part of this putative peace activity was to project the LTTE as an ‘invincible military’ organization blowing the LTTE’s military capability out of proportion while inferring that the SL forces could never overcome the LTTE militarily. The LTTE funds continued to flow in from where the Tamil Diaspora is stationed; Britain, EU, and Canada.

It is either a myth or sheer asininity to believe that an organization like LTTE, whose laurels have been in the area of terrorism, brutality, and subversion, would respond to a call for peace and normalcy. Especially a man like Prabhakaran, whose glory, and sometimes ‘divinity’ was associated with killings, would feel a ‘fish out of water’ in a normal law and order situation. He had been used to solving problems swiftly and completely with the gun for 33 years, and hence negotiations, Court conduct, and due process would be simply unacceptable to him. On top of that, he had been venerated by some sections, even by Tamils in India, as the only person who could get them a separate state, and even the TNA, the so-called democratic representatives, openly admitted that LTTE is the ‘sole representative’ of the Tamil people. Therefore, why should such a person accept a Chief Minister’s post and share power with the Central government and other elected representatives of the Tamil community when he is more powerful, as it is, now?

Actions of these western funded ‘Peace’ organizations during the conflict is no aberration from the overall policy of the west towards developing countries experiencing such problems, because even when Sri Lanka consulted the Western powers at state level, the advice Sri Lanka received was that ‘negotiations were the only option’. The hypocrisy here again is that why should the West insist that Sri Lanka should achieve peace ‘at any cost’ only through negotiations, when the west, confronted with terrorism, have never even considered negotiation as an option. Therefore, the west stands culpable in practicing double standards in terrorism; i.e. ‘terrorism against us is not justified, but terrorism against you is justified’.

It should be stated here that one of the policy planks of Washington’s foreign policy is to use INGOs and NGOs to further its overseas political agenda, thus providing millions of funds to such organizations to either promote its foreign policy or even undermine policies that those countries consider are of national interest.

All these western intrusions, however, were in the background when the Sri Lankan population was subjected to terrorism, and Sri Lanka has now come out of terrorism despite all these intrusions. However, the people of Sri Lanka now have to face a new trepidation in the form of international diplomacy where the country’s security forces, who brought them peace, sacrificing nearly 35,000 of its members, is accused of ‘violating human rights’ by a motion moved by the US and Britain before the UNHRC. This makes the total picture of the Sri Lanka conflict as under,

Though the United States Department of State designated the LTTE as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) in 1997, soon after the Patriot Act was enacted following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the American soil, the LTTE was taken out of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) group that al Qaeda was in as the U.S. decided that the LTTE never will be an obstacle to American interests anywhere in the world. Further, according to a ‘Policy Documents’ drawn jointly by the CIA and State Department in 1984 and 1986, Washington is unable to assist militarily to suppress the LTTE as it could be known as suppressing the minority Tamils. It is this policy that kept Washington to have discourses with pro–separatist elements within the Tamil Diaspora.

The West accommodated the Tamil Diaspora to – bankroll terrorism in Sri Lanka

The Western state Governments– all these years entertained a slighted view of terrorism in Sri Lanka

The West funded organizations – that promoted putative peace amidst terrorism in Sri Lanka

The West’s free media – ridiculed the attempts to eliminate terrorism in Sri Lanka.

And now

The West interpreted the elimination of terror in Sri Lanka as ‘violation of human rights’-.

 

These facts pose the question,

Whether it was the LTTE and its diaspora, or the powerful might of the West, that Sri Lanka was fighting for the past 33 years?

 

This thinking inevitably leads to the question why the US and the West are so concerned about the Tamils in Sri Lanka? Sri Lanka has only 2 million of these nearly 75 million Tamils inhabiting this world, with 70 million alone in India, where they originated. Of all these Tamils, the Sri Lanka Tamils are the most educated and influential, and they serve as professionals in many Western countries. On the other hand, many Tamils in South India are so poor that they probably have no idea where their next meal is going to come from. Thus, if the West and US hope to lift the ‘lot of the Tamils’, India should be a more appropriate center, comparatively, than Sri Lanka.

 

On the other hand, on various ruses, the US and the West have conducted operations in different parts of the world and killed millions of 3^rd world citizens over the past 70 years (after the UN was formed). These have been in countries like Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Angola, Somalia, Haiti, Colombia, Granada, Rep. of Congo, Honduras, Chile, Guatemala, Sudan, Afghanistan etc. Even right at this moment US and Britain are aiding and abetting Saudi Arabia to kill civilians in Yemen, including women and children, indiscriminately.

 

Then why is this sympathy on a questionable allegation of 40,000 Tamils said to have taken place during eliminating terrorism in Sri Lanka, the country that had to deal with the most ruthless terrorist organization of the world for 33 years?

 

However, since this allegation of killing 40,000 civilians by the SL forces originated from a report that the former UNSG initiated for his own ‘personal knowledge’, let us now analyze this report, popularly known as the Darusman report, from the next chapter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter V:

UN Fudged Lankan casualty figures– Lord Naseby

On 1^st November 2017, Lord Naseby, a member of the British House of Lords, moved a resolution in the British Parliament to state that the number of civilians killed in the final stage of the Sri Lankan conflict is around 7,000 and not 40,000 as believed by the United Nations. Accordingly, he suggested to the Parliament that Britain should change its perspective towards the Sri Lankan issue before UN Human Rights Commission. In a sharp rebuke to this assertion, Hon. Theresa May, the Prime Minister of Britain, averred, “That does not mean that they could shell the ‘No Fire Zone’ and shoot those who came with white flags to surrender.” This was carried in the BBC news report under its WION news with the caption “UN fudged Lankan casualty figures”.

 

This incident, in a nutshell, epitomizes Sri Lanka’s position under a UNHRC resolution, in the eyes of many a western country leader, with regard to the allegations of human rights violations claimed to have been committed by its forces during the ‘last stages of its conflict’ with the LTTE. The majority of the leaders of western countries believe that the Sri Lankan forces committed war crimes in the last stages of the conflict, where they confronted a situation of battling the LTTE, which ensconced itself among 300,000 civilians hurled in to a sliver of land in a lagoon, that was to be the last bastion of the LTTE in the northeastern strip of the country.

 

Even though Lord Naseby’s assertion is based on the reports of the Defense Aattaché of the British Embassy in Colombo at the time of the war, it needs loads of optimism to expect that the British Government will accept these statistics and change its official position towards Sri Lanka at international forums, especially at the UN Human Rights Council where they have co-sponsored the US resolution against Sri Lanka. Lord Naseby, subsequently airing his views to Mandy Clerk of the British media, stated, “I went into the civilian factor of this war because the figures I had did not add up to the official figures. So, I applied under the freedom of information, requesting the reports of the Defense Attaché of our embassy in Colombo at the time of the war. I received 26 reports, but that did not include the final few days of the war situation. So, I made another appeal, and there I received a further 12 reports. These reports had enough evidence to prove that nobody in the Sri Lankan government ordered to kill people and that was not the intention. The reports said that the casualty figure is around 7,200 civilians and the report further mentioned that a quarter of those casualties could be the LTTE cadres because they did not wear a uniform towards the last stages of the conflict. Then I went to the University Teachers of Jaffna, which is a professional organization of Tamil University teachers, and they said, ‘it is about 7000’.  In further verification, I requested for reports from Blake, the US ambassador at the time, and I was told that the figure was about five thousand with two weeks of the war still to go.”

 

International Opinion

However, what is of significance here is the response this new information yielded from of the British Prime Minister with the mention of ‘ No fire zones’ and the ‘surrenders’ because shelling a No Fire Zone is a war crime and shooting those who surrendered is also a crime against humanity under the UN treaty law and international common law.

 

Now let us take up these allegations of ‘shelling the No Fire Zone’ and also of’ ‘shooting those who surrendered’ by the Sri Lankan forces, which appear to be embedded in the minds of leaders of the international community. 

Of these, the first allegations of shelling the No Fire Zone first emanated from the written complaints made to the UN Secretary-General by the Priests of the Catholic Church in Jaffna, and then this information was picked up by the Tamil-Net, the world-wide Tamil propaganda arm that supported the LTTE up to then, and also by the Non-Governmental Organizations who have been inveterate ‘white washers’ of the LTTE and also by those who claim to be sympathetic to the ‘Tamil cause’. The Catholic Church (Jaffna Church) had been a consistent supporter of the LTTE for the past 30 years and for reasons best known to them, they have stridently glossed over the human right violations and crimes against humanity of the LTTE in the process.

 

These complaints, made by the Catholic Church, at the ‘losing hope’ stage of the war, appeared to be more emotional than factual, and the Tamil-Net propagations and the NGO outreaches could also be considered as tendentious even though the extent of their dissemination has the effect of creating an international opinion against the government of Sri Lanka and its armed forces. In this age of propaganda, what matters is not whether a report is true or not, but the circle of its outreach without being countered.

 

However, what is significant in this midst is the Report by the Panel of Experts appointed by the UN Secretary-General that bestowed credibility on these allegations. The UN Secretary-General, in his personal capacity ‘to advise him on the implementation of appropriate accountability measures in the wake of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka that ended in May 2009’ appointed a ‘Panel of Experts.  This report in its conclusions, confirmed the attacks on the No Fire Zones by the SL forces. It would even quote eyewitness reports to this effect and mentions this fact in incontrovertible terms in the ‘conclusions’ of the report. Thus, it has now become a fact that the Sri Lankan forces attacked civilians sectionalized into these ‘No Fire Zones’; a crime that certainly warrants an international outrage! 

However, this report that was popularly known as the Dharusman report was made without visiting Sri Lanka, and its findings were based on the strength of information collected from the Tamil- Net reports and the evidence collected from the Tamil community resident in the west.  Thus, this report again is based on the information that was provided by the very people that supported the LTTE for 33 years.

 

The circumstances/Was there a ‘No Fire’ zone?

However, the Sri Lankan forces, having countered the LTTE propaganda all these years, were aware of the circumstances that led to these incidents that could be interpreted as attacking a NFZ and hence, the government of Sri Lanka appointed an international military expert, Sir John T. Holmes DSO.OME.MC., an international military expert, by Presidential proclamation to enquire and report on this situation. Sir John T Holmes had been the UN Under-Secretary for Humanitarian Affairs during 2007-2010.

 

According to the report of Sir John T. Holmes ( Sir JTH report), after the LTTE took the position in the Nandikadaal lagoon in the Mullaivaikal area among the estimated 300,000 civilians, the Sri Lankan security establishment, considering the safety of the civilians, had declared NFZs  on 5 occasions as follows,

 

NFZ 1 letter dated 19^th January 2009 

NFZ 2 letter dated 19^th January 2009 

NFZ 3 letter dated 19^th January 2009 

NFZ 4 letter dated 11^th February 2009 

NFZ 5 letter dated 19^th May 2009  

 

“The first two letters came from the Army HQ signed by Brigadier KAD Karunasekera, addressed to the Head of the delegation ICRC and the third letter, from the Military Intelligence Directorate, with ICRC being informed by SFHQ Wanni. Trapped civilians were informed of the NFZs by leaflet drops, loudspeakers and wireless. According to the Rules of Engagement of the Geneva Convention 1V, on the protection of civilian persons in times of war, a NFZ only becomes effective if all warring parties agree to its details. The LTTE did not endorse any of the NFZs, neither officially nor by its conduct. From the moment the NFZs were created, they (LTTE) fired artillery and mortars at the SLA from inside the NFZ, sometimes from close to the hospital.”²

 

This position has not been contradicted by any other report, including those of the ICRC, US embassy and even the Darusman Report( UNPOE) of the UN Secretary-General.  On the other hand, this position is further corroborated by the ‘findings’ by this very Darusman report that states,

 

“The LTTE also fired mobile artillery from the vicinity of the hospital but did not use the hospital for military purposes until after it was evacuated”³

 

This hospital is within the declared NFZ and therefore it confirms the position of the Sir JTH report, but the Darusman report does not elaborate as to what it meant by ‘Military purposes’. Firing artillery from the vicinity is a good enough military purpose and under the circumstances there simply could not have been any other activity that could be termed as a ‘military purpose’.

 

Then the report of the US Embassy too, confirms this position as it states,

“The LTTE is now widely recruiting from among the trapped civilian population, forcing both young and old to fight and is positioning its artillery within civilian concentrations.”⁴

 

Apart from these corroborative statements on the legality of the NFZ, the following information in the Darusman (UNPOE) report recognized that the LTTE tried to blur the distinction between combatants and civilians and then resorted to their customary inhuman tactics in desperation.

 

“LTTE cadres were not always in uniform at this stage”⁵

 

“Beginning in February, the LTTE commenced a policy of shooting civilians who attempted to escape, and to this end, cadre took up positions where they could spot civilians who might try to break out” ⁶

Thus, do we need any more statements to imagine what could have happened in that sliver of land, the lagoon, the last bastion of the LTTE, from January to June 2009?

 

The fact then is, even though the Darusman report maintained that the SL forces shelled the NFZ in its ‘conclusions’ it appears that these conclusions have been arrived at with no regard to its own findings of the circumstance that led to these attacks. Further, the Darusman report does not appear to have been written with any knowledge of the legal implications of the activities that have taken place on the ground.

 

Thus, we have already caught a glimpse of what the LTTE is capable of; the LTTE not only had total disrespect for human life, but it took advantage of every civilized human value and norm to further its military aspirations and sustenance!

 

Shooting those who surrender

Let us now take the case of this allegation that claims that the Sri Lankan forces shot those who came with white flags to surrender.

In January 2009, after having pushed the LTTE to a limited area of land beyond its Head Quarters in Kilinochchi, the Sri Lanka security establishment found itself in a rather difficult situation. This is because the LTTE is now in the midst of a large civilian population, and that made it difficult for the forces to continue their operation to see an end to this operation. Having known the LTTE tactics over the years, the SL forces were expecting the LTTE to use the civilian population they brought all this way, dispassionately for its defense. Thus, if the SL Forces attack, that would create a humanitarian crisis, and if it did not, the hardcore LTTE, now trapped, will escape either through sea or land.

 

On the other hand, the SL government now came under pressure from LTTE sympathetic western countries and also from the UN and other humanitarian organizations, just as expected by the LTTE leadership, to stop the operation on humanitarian grounds. In this situation, the SL forces offered amnesty to all in general and dropped leaflets to this effect, asking the LTTE cadres to surrender from January 2009.

 

The following is from the Darusman report.

 

‘The situation would clearly present tactical challenges if the fighting was to continue. On 2^nd January 2009, the SL President called upon the LTTE to lay down arms and discuss the terms of surrender. The LTTE did not surrender’. ⁷

 

‘The presence of civilians lent legitimacy to the claim for a separate homeland and provided a buffer against SLA offensive’⁸

 

Thus, the LTTE had no intention to surrender but were rather comfortable in the situation of their own making. To the SL security establishment, it appeared as if the LTTE’s strategy was to ‘hold-on’ till the international community intervened on humanitarian grounds. This had happened in so many instances in the past, and their record of taking civilian hostages and forcing a cease-fire when they were cornered had been a litany during the 30 years of this conflict.

 

What is even more intriguing is the deployment of the suicide attackers by the LTTE in this midst leading to the final stage, which the media reported as follows.

 

09/02/2009 Mullaitivu– LTTE woman suicide bomber mingling with a group of displaced civilians

blew herself up, killing 28 people and injuring more than 60 others. Among the dead were 20 Special Force personnel and eight civilians. 24 soldiers were among the 60 injured persons.

 

16/03/2009 Puthukkudiyiruppu – LTTE suicide bomber, clad in Army-type uniforms as a Sergeant, blew himself up while trying to infiltrate the Sri Lankan Forces-held areas in the area west of Puthukkudiyiruppu.

 

20/04/2009 Puttumatalan – At least 17 civilians were killed and over 200 injured when three  LTTEsuicide bombers rammed into civilian gatherings and blew themselves up inside the NFZ in the Puttumatalan area.

 

29/04/2009 – The Military spokesman said that “The LTTE had made seven suicide attempts to recapture the earth bund using three human bombs, one explosive-laden truck, three motorbikes, and a double cab, during 24 hours ending Wednesday.

 

15/05/2009 Vellamullivaikkal -An explosion in the area targeting the 58th Division troops at the Frontal defense positions failed to damage SFs as the red-colored LTTE double cab prematurely exploded and went up in flames.

 

This position was confirmed by various reports even, including the Darusman report appointed by the UN Secretary-General as under,

 

“It is also reported that the LTTE continued to pursue its policy of using suicide bombers to target the civilian population during the conflict and after it had ended’. ⁹

 

It is in this atmosphere that the Sri Lankan forces had to contend with these alleged  ‘surrenders’ of the LTTE and the stakes were high mainly because the suicide bombers always disguised themselves as ‘surrenders’.

 

This whole thing about the SL forces shooting the surrenders first erupted in the Sinhala media when Nadesan’s (LTTE’s IGP, a former constable in the SL police) wife blurted out that Nadesan was hoping to surrender at the last stages and thus had walked towards SL forces with a white flag on the 18^th May with Pulidevan, the LTTE Batticaloa leader.  Nadesan was married to a Sinhalese lady, and in the aftermath of the war she had given vent to her emotions in the press. However, it was a fact that the SL security establishment did not wish to take chances with surrenders other than those who showed- up through acceptable channels with prior communication.

 

What added further speculation to this allegation is the statement said to have been made by the SL Army commander Gen. Fonseka at the Non-Aligned Summit in Egypt on 10^th July 2009, “Our soldiers had seen the destruction those people caused before they decided to come carrying a white flag. Therefore, we destroyed anyone having LTTE connections.”  Tamil-Net carried this statement and broadcast to the whole world that the SL Army Chief had said this, and to give it an emotional twist, they carried photographs of the 13-year-old son of the LTTE leader Prabhakaran, who was killed during the fighting. However, the issue only managed to vent the feelings of a few who are LTTE sympathizers.

 

In 2010 Presidential elections, Sri Lanka’s main opposition party, the UNP, now in the political wilderness after the ruling SLFP led coalition eliminated terrorism, decided to offer its candidature to General Sarath Fonseka as a political strategy. The UNP knew that it had no chance of coming even closer to the SLFP candidate Mahinda Rajapakse, who was at the zenith of his popularity after resolving the problem that Sri Lanka was saddled with for so long. Thus, enticing the next best man of war to their side was the UNP’s way of robbing the fruits of victory.

 

The ambitious army commander, egoistic in his own way, thought that he had a chance of becoming the President of Sri Lanka and accepted the offer! This naturally, given the level of acrimony in Sri Lanka politics, eventually ensued a bitter rivalry between Fonseka and the security establishment that defeated terrorism. Gen. Fonseka lost the election, but his now ‘turn-around’ rivalry with SL forces was a victory to those waiting to denigrate the Sri Lankan forces. With a considerable number of army offices supporting Gen. Fonseka, the Government felt that he was hatching a military coup against the elected Government and thus, the post-election period enflamed and enlarged the bitterness and suspicion between the two parties. Fonseka, now minus the trappings of the ruling elite, became extremely bitter and sought refuge not only in national and international media but also in the Tamil Diaspora that financed the LTTE for 33 years.

 

A leading English newspaper, The Sunday Leader of the 13^th December 2009 carried the headline “ Gota Ordered them Shot,” quoting Gen. Fonseka on the surrender of Nadesan and Pulidevan but certain disclosures in this report were later denied by Fonseka himself, creating a credibility crisis within the newspaper. Then, during a visit to the US, Gen. Fonseka, in response to a question raised at a press briefing, maintained that the SL Army was instructed by the state leadership to shoot Pulidevan and Nadesan, even if they come with a white flag to surrender. To give some legitimacy to this, he further maintained that this surrender was brokered by the embassies of US and Norway. This amounted to a war crime implication and the target appeared to be the then-Defense secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakshe, the very person who recommended Gen. Fonseka to the post of Army Commander in 2005.

 

Gen. Fonseka was later Court marshaled by the SL Army for his baseless allegations against the security forces, but now with the two main political parties in the country supporting and opposing the issue, the ‘white flag incident’ assumed national and international proportions making a pugnacious item of news available to the Tamil propaganda machine. The end result of all this, however is that, due to the opportunistic nature of the Sri Lankan politicians in the opposition, the man who helped defeat terrorism has today become the biggest articulator of ‘war crimes against the very army he commandeered!

 

In the light of this controversial issue, it is pertinent to mention here that Mr. Eric Solheim, the Norwegian Minister who brokered the peace agreement in Sri Lanka, had denied any knowledge of the intention to surrender by Pulidevan and Nadesan. He had made this very clear in his book, published in 2015 on the Sri Lankan conflict. On the US involvement, the then Defense attaché of the US embassy Lt. Col. Lawrence Smith, also denied this alleged US involvement at a seminar held in Colombo in June 2011. Lt Col Lawrence smith was answering a specific query by the retired General Ashok Metha of the Indian Army on the massacre of surrendered persons by the Sri Lankan forces. It should also be mentioned here that, according to the Rules of Engagement (ROE) of the Geneva Convention on ‘Crimes of war’, the act of surrender by warring parties should be communicated prior to the very act of surrender. Further, in that perspective, it should be noted that the Geneva Conventions became law in 1949, 60 years before the LTTE invented the tactic of attacking the opposition with suicide cadres feigning surrender. Therefore, Geneva Convention could be 60 years too late now when the very people who expected to take refuge in the convention’s laws chose to abuse those very laws to commit humanitarian catastrophes of much greater proportions!    

 

It should also be mentioned here that there is a very potent international dimension in Sri Lankan politics with regard to ‘war crimes’ that may warrant a detailed discussion in a later chapter. On the other hand, let us now consider here how this very LTTE that claims ‘victimization’ on surrenders treated some SL Police personnel who surrendered to the LTTE at an earlier stage of this same conflict.

 

How the LTTE would treat the Sri Lankan security personnel who surrendered

 

Although there were numerous accounts of brutal torture and killings by the LTTE whenever members of SL forces were either captured by, or surrendered to the LTTE, as delineated by the ICRC, we would only discuss one particular issue here that portrayed to the world LTTE’s policies and its respect to International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

 

The Sri Lankan government of President R. Premadasa commenced its second round of peace talks with the LTTE in April 1989. The ostensible purpose of these talks was to achieve a negotiated settlement between the conflicting parties but the real intention that brought the LTTE to the table was their need to get rid of the Indian army that was present in the north and east of the country at the time. The Indian army was facilitated to the country by the regime, previous to R. Premadasa, and Premadasa, then the Prime minister remained a virulent critique of this decision. The LTTE and their supporters lit firecrackers when the Indian forces (arrived) in Sri Lanka, but they eventually fell out with the Indian Peace Keeping Force ( IPKF) due to their need to control the North and East on their own. Premadasa’s endearment to the LTTE was based on this common interest, and in any case, Premadasa, being a man from the downtrodden, empathized that the rise of the LTTE was the result of cast discrimination in the Tamil society.

 

However, the Sri Lankan government in their obsequious quest for peace, bent over backward, as usual at that time, to bring the LTTE to the mainstream society and to bring peace to the country. Accordingly, the Premadasa government gave arms to the LTTE to fight the Indian forces and finally managed to get Mr. Vishvanath Prathap Singh, then Indian Prime Minister, to withdraw the Indian forces, in early 1990. This was all that the LTTE required, and after this, the Peace Talks initiated between LTTE and Premadasa Government were meandering along on unspecific and irrelevant issues.  The LTTE, in the meantime, became a potent fighting force with heavy recruitment, modern arms and more control over the North and East areas.

 

On the 11^th June 1990 a tailor was arrested by the Batticaloa police for an alleged crime on a complaint made by a civilian. This tailor happened to be the one who tailored uniforms to the LTTE in the East, and thus, by noon, the LTTE cadres surrounded the police station and demanded the release of the tailor. The police stood their ground, not knowing the significance of the tailor’s arrest, but this ensued a situation where the LTTE eventually threatened to overrun the police station. By nightfall, not only the Batticaloa Police station but also another 7 Police stations found themselves under siege by the LTTE. The LTTE that had done their homework and empirical studies during ‘peace talks’ is now ready to overpower the police stations and take law and order into their hands. They demanded the surrender of all police officers in the eight police stations and assured them safe return to their home areas if they complied.

 

The Government was caught unawares, and in any case, the unfolding events did not offer much time to reason things out. The Government’s main peace envoy, Foreign Minister Shaul Hameed, made a valiant effort to come to some understanding with the LTTE leadership but was not successful.

Thereafter the government, in its helpless position and still wanting to avoid a confrontation with the LTTE, ordered the police offices to surrender to the LTTE. The OIC Kalmunai, Mr. Ivan Boteju, refused to surrender and thus fought the LTTE for 6 hours into the night and requested support from the Government. The Government refused to support him, and the then IGP, Mr. Earnet Perera, contacted Mr. Boteju and assured him of a safe return if he surrendered. Accordingly, 899 police officers from 8 Police stations in the East; Baticoloa, Kalmunai, Akkaraipattu, Samanthurai  Vellaveli,  Valachenai, Kalawnchikudi, and  Eravur, surrendered to the LTTE on the 11^th June 1990.

 

The unarmed police officers were taken in busloads to the Thirukkovil jungles by the LTTE, but 125 offices had escaped during this process of transport. Those who were taken to the jungles were blindfolded with their hands tied behind and were shot dead in cold blood and dumped into a mass grave by backhoe machines. Only two of these 774 offices lived to tell the tale, and one had jumped into a buffalo hole in the darkness, and the other had feigned death after receiving serious head injuries. The two offices who escaped are, Abdul Latiff Najimudeen of the Kalmunai police and Tennakoon Banda of the Batticaloa Police station.

 

Up to date, the Sri Lankan government had not commissioned an inquiry into this mass murder, but there had been still more rounds of peace discussion with the LTTE (Ex: – with Chandrika Kumaratunge in 1994, Ranil Wickremesinghe 2000 and Rajapakse in 2005). Similarly, no SL Government took steps to propagate this incident to the international community to expose the LTTE and its crimes against humanity. For the partial Tamil-Net and the dollar-hungry NGOs, a single Tamil death is enough to blow human rights out of proportion, but 772 deaths of surrendered security personnel were not even newsworthy.

 

Lord Naseby has been in Sri Lanka during his youth, and therefore he knows the country and the two communities, Sinhalese and Tamils, well. Thus, it is this familiarity and the inconsistency of the events described that prompted him to make his own inquiry and reveal to the British Parliament the facts about the events, distorted by interested parties to suit their agendas. The reality, however is that majority of the leaders of the west only believe in what is made available by the din of constant propaganda and they chose to stand in judgment without bothering  to be a  Lord Naseby!

 

All that the Sri Lankan security establishment request, from the likes of Hon. Theresa May is empathetic.  M/s May has been recently on record, ruling out the necessity to subject the British forces that were engaged in Afghanistan to investigations on excesses of war. This may be because M/s May is empathetic of the practical situation in a war. Yes, a war may be a win or lose game for the country or the group at war, but for the individual soldiers, it certainly is not a game but a matter of life and death. Therefore, every country has a manual on the Rules Of Engagement (ROE) for the soldiers.

 

The UK definition of ROE, from the staff offices handbook 14 is at annexure M. Note the penultimate sentence. ‘The UKs inherent right to self–defense, however, will always apply.’ Similar wordings are used in almost all international ROEs seen by the author”.¹⁰

 

Therefore, it would indeed be a tragedy if the world powers elect to deny this basic right for self-defense to the Sri Lankan soldiers who fought the ‘most ruthless terror organization’, renowned for its capacity to carry out suicide attacks at will. Again double standards; the West does not treat the others with the same empathy they readily extend to their own forces!

 

In the final analysis, the two questions before the international community in respect of these popular charges against the Sri Lankan forces are,

How could the SL forces shell No Fire Zones when no such zones existed in the first place?

How could SL forces shoot those who surrender with white flags when there was no acceptable arrangement to surrender, amidst suicide cadres feigning surrender?

 

2. 2. Sir JT Holmes report –para 39
3. 3. UNPOE( Darusman) report –para 94
4. 4. Wiki Leaks; US ambassador Blake’s report to State Dept. dated 19^th March 2009
5. 5. UNPOE report –para 97
6. 6. UNPOE report –para 99
7. 7. Sir JT Holmes report- para 18
8. 8. UNPOE report -para 70
9. 9. UNPOE report -para 117
10. 10. Sir J T Holmes report –para 43

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter VI:

The Darusman ( UNPOE) Report

The Secretary-General of the United Nations at the time Mr Banki Moon, appointed a commission called Panel of Experts, with the declared intention of gathering information in the form of a report on the Sri Lanka conflict for his personal knowledge. This commission included 3 persons, and they are

Marsuki  Darusman – Indonesia

Steven Ratne            –  United States

Yasmin Sooka           –  South- Africa

 

This indeed is a rare incident where the Secretary-General of UN has commissioned an inquiry on an event for his personal enlightenment and the report that this commission generated was popularly known as the Darusman Report.

 

The Opening Paragraph of the Darusman Report says,

‘On 22 In June 2010, the Secretary–General announced the appointment of a Panel of Experts to advise him on the implementation of the joint commitment included in the statement issued by the President of Sri Lanka and the Secretary–General, at the conclusion of the Secretary–General’s visit to Sri Lanka on 23 May 2009’

Well, this statement in itself is inconsistent and therefore fraudulent because there was no joint commitment in that joint statement (Appendix) but only a commitment by the President of Sri Lanka to ‘look in to the accountability of International humanitarian law, after the Secretary–General underlined the importance of the accountability process. Therefore, the Secretary-General, in this instance, is acting beyond that statement due to some interest that he was made to have, in appointing a Panel of Experts in his personal capacity, going out of his way to investigate into the Sri Lankan affair. Normally, a resolution to investigate the HR events in a member country has to generate, either from the UN General Body or from the Security Council. Still, in this case, the UNSG has shown some personal interest suggesting that the UNSG was keen to make Sri Lanka and its Government accountable as against the joint statement that proposed that, ‘the President of Sri Lanka to look into the persons who committed excess should be made accountable’.

 

What is the ‘final stage’, and why only that matter?

Darusman report in its first paragraph further states that its mandate is to advise the Secretary-General ‘of an accountability process, having regard to the nature and scope of alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law during the final stages of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka’.

Now, this is the ‘point’ around which this whole affair revolves because nowhere in this joint statement has any reference been made to the final stage of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka. Having gone through this agonizing process of the LTTE for so long, there was no need on the part of Sri Lanka to agree to an accountability process regarding the final stage and to call for such accountability. Therefore, this statement in the final stage is untoward and expressly malicious in its intent.  This is because the whole process of the LTTE activity starting from 1976 was a criminal process, and you do not investigate the actions only at the final stage for accountability of a process where you eliminate criminality. Thus, if you call for accountability only for the final stage of a criminal process, out of context to that entire process, it would be the stage in which the perpetrator is punished for the crimes committed. This means that we may have to punish those who met out punishment for criminals. Therefore, this sheer absurdity of this ‘investigating the final stage’ factor is not only a travesty of justice but a perversion of social ethics on which the very foundation of punishment for wrongs injustice rests.  If justice is to be meted out this way, not only every person who kills in self-defense but even the official hangman who performs his duty should be punished. This is because at the final stage you only see this criminal being hanged. On the other hand, who decide what this ‘final stage’ is and from where does this final stage start and where does it end?

The question therefore is; why only the final stage? Is it because at that stage the LTTE was getting annihilated while the SL forces were concluding that long operation with relief? Although this was the only instance where the SL forces beat the LTTE unequivocally, all this while for 33 years, the LTTE was playing hide and seek, peace & war etc., and always ended triumphantly and continued its heinous lifestyle, killing innocent people blithely. It had killed more than 100 democratically elected politicians (Sinhala and Tamil), 54 Government officials, more than 30 Tamil academics, and had carried out 137 registered attacks on unarmed civilian targets, 109 ethnic cleansing of vulnerable Sinhala villages, 22 attacks on the country’s vital economic installations, 49 attacks against VVIPs of India and Sri Lanka. It had slain two national leaders, Shri Rajiv Gandhi of India and R. Premadasa of Sri Lanka, causing the deaths of nearly 100,000 persons in the process.

At the final stage, however, the LTTE had to meet retributive justice.  Therefore, it appears that this idea to take the ‘final stage’ out of context is an attempt to make the LTTE look innocent and helpless while making the SL forces ruthless terminators.  This, in short, is the type of ‘international justice’ the UNSG’s POE report appears to be tasked with, as far as the Sri Lankan conflict goes.

What International law applies to the Sri Lankan situation?

This ‘international perversion’, however, does not end there. The report, in its mandate, further maintains that its task is to look into the ‘accountability to the International Humanitarian and Human Rights law, about the final stages of the Sri Lankan conflict’. This again is twisted advocacy to suit one’s agenda as what logically applies to the current situation is only  international humanitarian law and certainly not Human Rights law. This applicability and its relevance could be explained as follows.

It is an accepted fact that the LTTE was the most organized terrorist unit globally, with an Army, a Navy, and an Air force of its own. This fact signifies that the conflict in Sri Lanka was an armed conflict between two sets of forces, namely the SL forces and the LTTE forces. In such a context, the international law, as spelled out by the ICRC statute, is very clear in stating that the law that applies to an armed conflict is International humanitarian law and not International Human Rights law. The following advocacy extracted from the ICRC will make this clearer,

‘International humanitarian law distinguishes between international and non–international armed conflicts. Non–international armed conflicts are those restricted to the territory of a single State, involving either regular armed forces fighting groups of armed dissidents or armed groups fighting each other. A more limited range of rules apply to internal armed conflicts and are laid down in Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions as well as in Additional Protocol II. It is important to differentiate between international humanitarian law and human rights law. While some of their rules are similar, these two bodies of law have developed separately and are contained in different treaties. In particular, human rights law – unlike international humanitarian law – applies in peacetime, and many of its provisions may be suspended during an armed conflict.’

It is despite such unambiguity in law that the Darusman report evaluates the events of this conflict against the IHL and IHRL both. Then in practice, the panel appears to apply IHL during the conflict per se and then immediately after the conflict resorts to IHRL, maintaining that the housing of IDPs at Menik farm amounts to a violation of IHRL as it constitutes an ‘illegal arrest’. This is an extremely untenable position in the context of the applicability of international law and is yet another instance where the malicious intent of the panel is ‘let out of the bag’.  Providing shelter to the internally displaced persons was a part of the rescue operation the SL Government carried out, and such activity was necessitated by this armed conflict and was an immediate throwback activity. Now, to maintain that what applies from the 20^th May is IHRL because the conflict was over on the 19^th May, is to take an extremely un-empathetic stand with regard to the International law, and such a stand is only possible with a panel whose only intention is to make the Sri Lankan state culpable than to look into the accountability of any HR violations at any stage of the conflict.

However, given these allegations by the UNSG and his ‘experts’, the Sri Lankan Government hired a team of independent experts whose expertise in international conflicts and international law is beyond question. This team comprised of,

Professor DM Crane

Sir Desmond De Silva QC

Rodney Dixon QC

Professor Michael Newton -Professor of the Practice of law, Vanderbilt University School of

Law.

Major General Sir John Holmes DSO OBE MC-  UN Under-Secretary for Humanitarian Affairs

                                                                                2007-2010

 

The above well-known personalities have served in various international conflicts and also have been tasked with assignments in making their observations and opinions with regard to those conflicts in relation to the International laws. They have issued their reports to the Government of Sri Lanka. In those reports, they all are in agreement that the Sri Lankan case should be viewed under International Humanitarian Law and not under International Human Rights law. Therefore, this again shows that this panel, which was called a Panel of Experts, is either not worthy of this attribute ‘Experts’, or they were tasked with a malicious assignment of ‘finding fault with only the SL forces’.

 

What is UN’s stand on terrorism within democratic member states?

Then, in the next paragraph of this report, the panel members add their own ‘logic’ to make things worse by stating, ‘Neither the publicly expressed aims of each side (combating terrorism, in the case of the Government, and fighting for a separate homeland, in the case of the LTTE), nor the asymmetrical nature of the tactics employed affects the applicability of international humanitarian and human rights law’.This sounds very impartial but is it what a member state like Sri Lanka, with a democratically elected Government and placed in a desperate position, would expect from a world body, having fought its way out of terror that stalked the country for 33 years?

Article 51 of the UN Charter recognizes a State’s right to use force to defend itself. Under this provision Sri Lanka is justified in using necessary and proportionate force to defend itself from terrorists and insurgents.

Further, the UN has passed the following resolution (Res. 60/288) at its General Body on the 8^th September 2006,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming its role under the Charter, including on questions related to international peace and security, Reiterating its strong condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes, as it constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security……..

Issues guidelines to establish a workshop to counter terrorism……’

The important point here is that the resolution admits that terrorism in any form committed by whomever, wherever, and for whatever purpose is against the UN Charter. But then now we have a Panel of Experts who calls themselves the representatives of the UNSG declaring that the ‘intension to eliminate terrorism within a member state is inconsequential to their assignment’ when evaluating allegations of HR violations with regard to that member state.   In that light, doesn’t this report of the Panel of Experts violate the basic principles of the UN Charter?

 

Practically, the presence of terrorism within a member state could entail quite a few complications, especially involving the very act of maintaining law & order and human rights.  When terrorism strikes, the Government will naturally bring new laws, and this could have a cyclical effect destabilizing law and order until normalcy is restored. Further, the terrorists always adorn themselves with a ‘cause,’ and that could be fighting for new laws, religious discrimination or fighting to establish a separate state etc. Whatever the cause may be, a group of people who resort to terrorism to achieve their ends and to be successful at that, they necessarily have to be despotic and cruel. In the case of Sri Lanka, we are dealing with the most brutal and organized terrorist group in the world, and the country and its public have suffered in their hands for 33 years. They caused the deaths of almost 100,000 persons, and just imagine the economic cost during those 33 years. No organization helped the country to come out of it, and HR organizations operated, alleging the Country’s Government for violations when it was obvious that the situation was abnormal and the terrorist too sought refuge in those HR bashings to strengthen their positions.

If Sri Lanka had an autocratic government, the fight against terrorism might not have been that difficult and therefore, the world bodies should appreciate the difficulties democratic governments face in fighting terrorism.

 

From the 195 countries that hold the membership of the UN, there are very few homogenous countries such as North Korea, Japan, Poland, and some small states in the African continent. The balance, about 160 countries have racial, communal, and religious diversities in differing degrees. When diverse socio-religious groups share a single country, such countries would always be vulnerable to some friction, but the extent to which such friction manifest in the form of terrorism will depend on the ready succor and the moral available across the border. Such as in Sri Lanka, where Tamil Nadu, home to 72 million Tamils, is just 18 miles across the sea. In such situations, there is potential for terrorism to get rooted and persist, but their success rate in bringing relief to their people, as evidenced in world affairs, is nil, and they often end up as a parasite on the people they took arms to fight for. And nowhere in the world have racial or religious-based terrorist organization achieved their avowed objectives. In such a scenario, if the only international body, the UN, continues to handle racial and religious terrorism with kid gloves undermining the suzerainty of its member states, that could be the biggest threat to world peace in the current world scenario.

The chances of a big country or world power, such as US, UK, Germany, Russia or even China, experiencing protracted terrorism is rather remote because they have sizeable defense budgets, the right world connections, and bargaining chips to thwart such efforts. But small countries in Asia and Africa may not have such resources and hence may stand extremely vulnerable.

 

Darusman on Sri Lankan demography

Darusman report, in its ensuing chapter, discusses Sri Lankan demography, and in doing so, it states thus,

‘Sri Lanka is an ethnically, linguistically, and religiously diverse country of 21 million people, of which 74 percent are Sinhalese and are overwhelmingly Buddhist; 18 percent are Tamil,  mostly Hindu (comprised of Sri Lankan Tamils and Indian Tamils, 13 per cent and 5 percent respectively); 7 percent are Muslim, comprised of Moors and Malays who practice Islam and are largely Tamil–speaking; and 1 percent belong to small ethnic communities including the Burghers and Veddahs, among others.⁵ Christians account for a small percentage of somecommunities’¹.

 

Well, this account needs correction and, in a way, reflects the credibility of the research they have carried out. Sri Lanka never had more than 12 % Ceylon Tamils, and that too was at the time of independence in 1948. At the time of this report, with migrations (1million Ceylon Tamil Diaspora) and the war, the Ceylon (Sri Lankan) Tamil Population as per the estimates of the Department of Census & Statistics, is 10.5 %. According to the census (2012) the Muslim population is 9.7 %. The gravest error in this statement, however, is in presenting the Christian population of Sri Lanka. The country has a prominent and influential Christian population of about 9% made up of both Sinhalese and Tamils. Even though it comprises a mere 9 % of the population, it is the most influential segment of the SL population, having had the privilege of English education. At the time of independence, the literacy rate in Sri Lanka stood at only 6 % of the population, and that 6 % was exclusively from this segment of the population. Even today, it is this segment of the population that controls the country’s private sector, its English media, and most importantly, international news that flow out of the country. Glossing over this segment of the population, inferring that it is an insignificant percentage, is a serious error on the part of this report, especially in the context that some members of this segment played a very crucial role in this Sri Lankan conflict, perceived as an ‘ethnic conflict’.

Sri Lanka’s Department of Census & Statistics produce and make available to the public, periodic statistics on the country’s demographic, economic, social and educational sectors and hence this omission on the part of this panel report is another instance where it sets a precedent in exhibiting poor understandings of the basic characteristics of the subject matter of their investigation.  A report that is expected to discuss an ethnic conflict of a country has not even got the ethnoreligious composition of that country right, in the first place!

However, the report further observes that,

‘Sri Lanka possesses Strong indicators of democracy, including universal franchise, a multi–party system and a vibrant electoral process, combined with important human development achievements, such as high literacy rates, both for men and women, and low infant mortality, contrast sharply with Sri Lanka’s long history ofwar’².                                                             

This is a fact about Sri Lanka that no observer who wishes to report matters in a negative vein could overlook. By 1980, 30 years after the country was granted independence, Sri Lanka was able to achieve 90 % literacy rate and 74 years in life expectancy, thereby establishing a record as the country that has made the best Human development index for a developing nation.

On the other hand, the report makes its tendentious intentions clear, when mentioning,  in paragraph 45, about the ‘Peace Process’ that preceded these hostilities, stating that ‘both the parties are responsible for the break down in peace’.

 

‘ After the 2005 elections, both the Government and the LTTE had promised to honor the terms of the CFA; nonetheless, both Parties continued their military provocations until a full–scale armed confrontation began again in August 2006’

 

This statement attempts to apportion blame on both parties to suggest that they are both warmongers, not worthy of peace. The truth, however, is that by June 2006 as per the SL Monitoring Mission (independent international observers) report, immediately before the hostilities broke out, the LTTE had violated the Peace process 3830 times against the 351 violations of the SL forces. This 3830 was the number of violations investigated and entertained by the SLMM, whereas the total number of complaints against the LTTE had been 5431. The number of security personnel killed by LTTE ambushes during this period is 1369 and the LTTE always maintained that these assassinations were carried out, not by them, but by civilians.  This peace agreement was drafted by the LTTE ideologue, Anton Balasingham, and was presented to the Government of Ranil Wickremesinghe through Norwegian facilitation in February 2002.  Despite all that, even if only the confirmed cases are taken in to account, the LTTE had violated the peace process, at the rate of 80 times every month, or 3 times every day, during the period of this peace process. That, in other words, is to say that the LTTE did not give a damn about peace but behaved and acted, as they would in their usual self, during this so-called ‘peace process’.

 

Then commenting on the history of this conflict, the panel report comments as follows,    

‘After independence, political elites tended to prioritize short–term political gains, appealing to communal and ethnic sentiments, over long–term policies, which could have built an inclusive state that adequately represented the multicultural nature of the citizenry. Meanwhile, Sinhala–Buddhist nationalism gained traction, asserting a privileged place for the Sinhalese as the protectors of Sri Lanka, as the sacred home of Buddhism. These factors resulted in devastating and enduring consequences for the nature of the state, governance, and inter–ethnic relations in Sri Lanka³.

The above statement, in no uncertain terms, suggests that this ‘Expert Panel’ is either a willing corroborator or a victim of the Tamil and Sri Lankan elitist propaganda. Quite a number of students on this  Sri Lankan  conflict have been misled by the Tamils, the Church and the English speaking elite in this country who always maintain that, it is after independence that the ‘rot has set in’*. This is another myth about this conflict. It may be that the conflict started to manifest after independence but the environment and the pre requisites for the conflict were present well before the time of independence in 1948. 

Note: The most reputed Sri Lanka historian Prof. K.M. De Silva, writing in his book ‘History of Sri Lanka’, in page 398, last paragraph notes as follows:

‘Throughout the last quarter of the nineteenth century, and in the 1^st decade of the twentieth century, there are frequent references in published official reports to famines, conditions of near–famine, chronic rural poverty, destitution and, above all, starvation in many parts of the country, especially the dry zone. After a century of rule, the British Colonial administration had not succeeded in improving the living standards of the rural population in most parts of the country’.

‘Divide and rule’ (Divide et impera) is a basic tactic adopted by the European colonials to administer the colonies. In Malaysia, the British did it successfully to control the indigenous Malays by the ethnic Chinese. However, the closest parallel to Sri Lanka in this regard could be found in the Belgium colonization of Rwanda, where the 10% Tutsis (who were originally from Burundi) administered the majority Hutus. When Belgium finally left in 1962 after years of colonial exploitation, the Tutsis were 100 % in charge of the country with a marginalized majority Hutu population. But the Tutsis realized the danger of having themselves outnumbered so badly by the Hutu majority in the country and hence started carrying out organized ethnic cleansing of Hutus since independence. Rwanda has been often featured in global news for its communal strife and even today it remains a country of volatile communal relations with frequent reports of communally motivated mass murder.

 

Similarly, in Sri Lanka, the British had established an education hub back in 1824 in Jaffna (North) to cater to the blue-collar and white color needs of the South Asian part of their empire consisting of Malaysia, Singapore, and South India. The British, however, had insufficient missionary workers in Britain and had to seek the help of the Anglican Church of America to commence missionary schools. These schools were the first and the oldest English education institutes in modern Sri Lanka, and they changed the existing education in Ceylon based around the Temples and Buddhist monasteries. They made English the official language of the country in 1818 but there were no facilities in the rest of the country for the people to learn English.  Thus a privileged Tamil minority was born in Ceylon with the patronization of the British to rule over the majority.

 

As a result of this, within a couple of generations, this minority became so powerful in every social and administrative functions of the country, but they notably lacked a sense of lineage to the country’s history. It is in this context that a prominent leader of this Tamil community, Sir Ponnambalam Arunachalam declared in 1931, ‘It is Tamils who built the civilization in this Island thousand of years ago. Therefore of all the communities inhabiting this Island today, it is the Tamils who should be singled out as the true heirs of this Island. This has been proved by the writings of Sir John Marshall and Dr Saize, among others. They have proved that the Tamil land is the cradle of world civilization.”¹

When the British Government first proposed the universal franchise for Ceylon, to appoint members to the proposed State Council in 1935, as a prelude to independence, the Tamil leaders vehemently opposed this move, stating that the franchise should be granted only on the grounds of education and wealth. Notwithstanding this, the State Council elections were held on the 13^th of June 1931. Still, the Tamil leaders boycotted the elections, and no nominations were received for the four constituencies in the North.

Prior to this however, an election was held in 1910 under the Crewe–McCullum reforms to elect 4 representatives, and under those reforms, the eligibility to vote was based on Education and Wealth for males of age 21 and over. The 4 elected members were 1 representative for the Educated Ceylonese, 2 for Europeans, and 1 for Burghers. The member elected to represent the educated Ceylonese was Sir, Ponnambalm Ramanathan, and he was to represent the Tamils and Sinhalese both. This was because at the time, Tamils were the most educated in the country, with Singhalese only making up for the numbers. Therefore, the Tamil leaders were always conscious of the fact that, in a situation of ‘one man one vote system,’ the Sinhalese numbers will just overwhelm the Tamils. Thus the Tamil leaders made various attempts, running up and down to England, to prevent the introduction of the right to vote in 1931 but were not successful with the British who were in the mood to ‘wash their hands off’ with India also destined to gain independence at the time².

 

1. 1. Tragedy of Errors -S L Gunesekera page 31
2. 2. Tragedy of Errors -S L Gunesekera page 37

 

Incidentally, the birth of communal politics in Ceylon was the establishment of the Tamil Congress by the Tamils in 1931. However, Mr. Ponnambalam, the leader of the TC, became a member of the first Cabinet of Ministers formed in 1948 under the UNP Government. Then his deputy in the Tamil Congress, SJV Chelvanayagam, calling this act of  Ponnambalam ‘ a betrayal of the Tamils’ revived his own party ‘Illankey Tamil Arasu Kachchi’ meaning ‘Party for a Tamil state’, which he founded in 1947.  Chelvanayagam making his contribution in Parliament during the throne speech of the independent Ceylon, commented, ‘if Ceylon could secede from Britain, why can’t we the Tamils secede from the rest of Ceylon’. It is also an often-quoted statement attributed to Chelvanayagam that, ‘We Tamils should have our own state instead of living on the benevolence of the Sinhalese’.³

 

3. 3. Tigers, Moderates & the Pandora’s package S L Gunesekera page 98

Therefore, it is evident that these separatist aspirations are not the result of marginalization of Tamils after independence but rather an innate desire of the Tamils, given the confidence and privileges they enjoyed vis a vis Sinhalese under British rule. Note the use of the word ‘benevolence’ indicating the fervent Tamil wish at the time of independence for a separate state, irrespective of how the Sinhalese majority would eventually treat them.

 

It is in this historical context that the Darusman report call the taking over of the country by the 74 % majority Sinhala Buddhist after independence as ‘Sinhala Buddhist nationalism’. Well, if the hitherto suppressed majority was not to take over the country, then what does this panel mean by ‘granting of independence’? However, the post–independent Ceylon did not enact ‘Boomi puthra’ laws like in Malaysia to give an edge to one community over the other, though it was clear that, for 400 years, the Sinhala Buddhists were clearly discriminated and suppressed. Even the language bill introduced in 1956 had provisions to enable Tamils to have their education and administration in their own language.  The irony, however,  in the post–independent Ceylon was that when the Tamils started to complain of their lost privileges, the Eurasians, the local Christians, and even the English educated Sinhalese, started to justify them because they felt that their own interests too were at stake if ‘the hoi–polloi’ take over the country.  As a result, in February 1962 an unsuccessful ‘coup de et’ was staged by the senior police and Army officers, who were mainly elitist Sinhalese but Christians, to imprison the elected leaders and take over the country. However, this anti–national power of this Christian minority is quite evident even today when you read some of the English newspapers published in Sri Lanka.

The Church was at the forefront of this crusade to denigrate the post–independent governments. In very subtle and subliminal ways, the Church tries to promote the idea that, had Sri Lanka remained a colony, the country would have reached the standard of development reached by countries like Singapore. This is despite the fact that post–independent Sri Lanka made education and health free, enabling the people to achieve such high standards in literacy and in life expectancy. The likes of Jehan Perera, that we came across in a previous Chapter, is a good example of how some of the Sinhala Christians supported the LTTE during all those 33 years. In fact, the fact that the Christian/Catholic Church overwhelmingly assisted the LTTE in its separatist struggle is well documented. The conflict is 33 years old and not 26 years as the propagandist (including this Darusman report) tries to maintain. It was in 1976 that the LTTE killed the democratically elected Tamil mayor of Jaffna Alfred Duraiappah and the very professional Tamil Police officer Bastianpillai. Since then, it was a case of killings and mayhem. Riots of July 83 were the result of terrorist attacks since 1976, but the LTTE apologist writers made that into a ‘cause’, paving the way for the LTTE to commit more atrocities continuously. These propagandists claim that the conflict is 26 years old because they wish to make 1983 as the beginning of the conflict to place the blame on Sinhalese whereas LTTE terrorism started its manifestations in the most brutal of forms even in 1976.

 “Grievance theory’ is another popular propaganda tool the Tamils. Sinhalese scholars have often challenged this theory and have demanded that the Tamils list down the grievance they undergo by being a Tamil in Sri Lanka. Such challenges were often met, with either evasive statements or hyperbolae or, are often ignored by Tamil Leaders to save exposure. However, the Tamils very productively employ this theory to project victimization to the international for two purposes. On the one hand, it makes the Tamils eligible for entry to the UK and other European countries and on the other, it justifies the atrocities committed by the LTTE against Sinhala villages and the Government. One of the main grievances of the Tamils is the decline in education opportunities since independence, and let us consider this case here.

As per the published reports, Up to the time of independence in 1948, 68 % of Sri Lanka’s professionals; Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, Surveyors, Accountants etc., were from this 12 % Ceylon Tamil population.  But the Sri Lankan education system was opened up in 1945 (after Dunmore universal Franchise) and this resulted in wider educational opportunities with non–fee levying public schools.  The Catholic Church did everything possible within their means, including an international campaign, to stop this move, but the determined Minister of Education C WW Kannangara implemented the scheme. As a result, by the 1970’s, more Sinhalese entered the universities proportionately outnumbering the Tamils.  Tamils, however, took this as a grievance and demanded the government of Mrs. Bandaranaike that the same quota of Tamil students should be admitted to the Universities. 

Former Sri Lanka PM, Ranil Wickremesinghe and former President Chandrika Kumaratunga could be termed as Sinhala elites who supported the LTTE. They came from families that enjoyed privileges under British rule and attended Schools created by the British to further their occupation in Ceylon. It is only their names that sound Sinhalese but in everything else, and especially in thinking, they were English. They both were of the opinion that LTTE was a result of ‘Tamil grievances’, and hence they had no political will to fight the LTTE. In contrast, Mahinda Rajapaksa, being a member of the post independent generation, with his family from a non– English speaking background and having attended non–colonial schools, had no such scruples and that certainly was the secret that made him overcome the LTTE.   

The Sri Lankan leaders often talk about ‘winning the independence from Britain without bloodshed’ as in India. Still, in actual fact, there is no record in the history of any country where the privileged class in that country has surrendered their privileges without a fight. Thus, it is obvious that the blood bath that was due before independence took root in the country after it gained independence. In other words, the LTTE shenanigans were not the result of Tamil grievances in the post–independent Sri Lanka but the result of the ‘privileges lost’ of the minorities that did not wish Sri Lanka to be independent.  In the same breath, this conflict that ended on the 9^th May 2009 could be described as the ‘de facto struggle’ by the majority of Sinhala Buddhist in the country to meaningfully free themselves from the last vestige of colonialism after getting putative independence 61 years ago (1948– 2009). Thus, in the opinion of the author, the country should celebrate independence on the 19^th of May 2009 and not on 4^th of February 1948 as is normally done.

 

All this writing is to impress upon the reader the significance of Sri Lanka’s minority Christian Catholic population to this conflict, which this so–called ‘Panel of Experts’ (Darusman) report has totally ignored, without even an acknowledgment of the existence of this demographic character. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter VII:

Darusman Report– the Conclusions

Having considered the preliminaries of this report, let us now consider the ‘credible allegations’ (Conclusions) made therein. The irony again is that these conclusions are not in keeping with their ‘findings’ recorded, as pointed out by the specialist on international law consulted by the SL Government. However, since the ‘worth’ of any report is in its conclusions, the conclusions are considered here. The report in section 421 states,

‘Both parties to the armed conflict in Sri Lanka conducted military operations with flagrant disregard for the protection, rights, welfare, and lives of civilians and failed to respect the norms of international law. There is a reasonable basis to believe that large–scale violations of international humanitarian and human rights law were committed by both sides. As a direct consequence, up to tens of thousands of Sri Lankan civilians were killed, and hundreds of thousands suffered immensely, including through the loss of loved ones, serious injuries, displacement, and loss of homes and livelihoods. In the aftermath of the armed conflict, many were forced to endure further hardships and humiliation.‘ ¹

 

‘The credible allegations involving conduct by the Government of Sri Lanka fall into five core categories of potential serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law: (i) killing of civilians through widespread shelling; (ii) shelling of hospitals and humanitarian objects; (iii) denial of humanitarian assistance; (iv) human rights violations suffered by victims and survivors of the conflict, including both internally displaced persons (IDPs) and suspected LTTE cadre; and (v) human rights violations outside the conflict zone, including against the media and other critics of the Government’ ².

 

‘The credible allegations involving conduct by the LTTE associated with the final stages of the war reveal six core categories of potential serious violations: (i) using civilians as a human buffer; (ii) killing civilians attempting to flee LTTE control; (iii) using military equipment in the proximity of civilians; (iv) forced recruitment of children; (v) forced labor, and (vi) killing of civilians through suicide attacks.‘³

 

Let us now consider these allegations made against the S.L. forces one by one,

1. I) Killing of civilians through widespread shelling,

At the very outset, it is necessary to bring the following facts to the attention of the public in this regard. It was a Catholic Priest from the Church of Jaffna that first reported to the U.N. that the S.L. Army was shelling the civilians in the No Fire Zone in early January 2009, bringing the events of this so-called ‘final stage’ of the war into international focus. This was typical of the Catholic Church in Jaffna as it has been a long-standing supporter of the LTTE for the past 30 years, at times being complicit to the LTTE occupation of the Madhu Church located in the north, but revered by catholic all over the island.  The Catholic Church had been giving vent to LTTE propaganda internationally through its information outreach in the Vatican, and the former Bishop of Jaffna Rev. Rayappu Joseph is a leading member of the Tamil Diaspora that justifies LTTE atrocities; propounding the ‘Grievance theory.’ Following these events, the current Bishop of Jaffna Rt, Rev. Dr. Thomas Saundrenayagam, wrote to President Rajapakse in late January 2009, and that letter was released to the public press. It stated,

‘We are urgently requesting the Tamil Tigers not to station themselves among the people in the safety zone and fire their artillery– shells and rockets at the Army. This will only increase more and more the deaths of civilians, thus endangering the safety of the people.

This implies that even the good Reverend has accepted that it is the LTTE firing from civilian areas that have prompted the S.L. Army to fire in self-defense.

Further, this report makes its credibility questionable by attributing all that shelling to the Government forces. At the same time, Gorden Weisse, the U.N. representative stationed in the conflict area, had admitted that ‘there is good evidence that the LTTE fired artillery shells at their own people as a method of causing international outcry against the Government’ ⁴.

Through years of experience, the S.L. army knew how fragile the situation was at the time. Hence, the Government and the Army were both aware of the adverse publicity it has been receiving about the ‘human rights violations’ during this entire 33 years of this conflict. Further, the Government was extremely apprehensive of the criticism and the pressure the Government may have to face from India on the grounds of ‘civilian killings’ when the fighting intensified.  This has happened on so many an occasion in the past, and it was this factor of international pressure that saved the LTTE all this while. The talk in the Sri Lankan army was that ‘1 Tamil death is equal to 1000 Sinhalese deaths’ because the international media always reacts, out of proportion to a Tamil death. In contrast, the Sinhalese killed by the LTTE hardly gets reported.

Therefore considering these recurring charges of H.R. violations against the S.L. army by the western H.R. organizations, the Sri Lankan Government established a Directorate of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law within the S.L. Army in 1997. Its role was to improve and educate the S.L. Army’s record on H.R., international Humanitarian law, and also to report and handle the likely transgressions.  This unit also taught the S.L. army personnel on the H.R.’ traps’ the LTTE is expected to lay during armed operations.  Similar units with the power of the Directorate were established within the S L Navy and the S.L. Air force, as well, in 2002. In this context, it is better if this rationale follows this comment on the previous para, which I am copying here,  “it is difficult to believe that the Sri Lankan Army could be guilty of civilian killings to the extent the report is trying to make out”

Accordingly, H.R. training was made compulsory for all the recruits, and their competency in the subject was tested at different stages at training and promotions; whenever other skills were tested.  Especially this time, the Army was trained and prepared well in advance for the Ealam War IV, as the Government knew by past experiences that the peace talks’ that were in progress would invariably be followed by war where the LTTE could be more threatening. Therefore the ‘Humanitarian Operation- Factual Analysis,’ a publication by the S.L. Ministry of Defense, details the H.R. education the S.L. army had been subjected to in preparation of the impending war. The S.L. army had been warned that ‘it is not their fighting spirit but their naivety when faced with LTTE tricks’ that would be their undoing. Further, the S.L. Army always believed that they should not allow this cruel war to be the legacy of their children.

There are also allegations of torture and rape of civilians by the S.L. army in the panel report, but this could be the result of the Darusman Panel’s exposure to one-sided information related emotionally by the members of the Tamil Diaspora. The SL army also has graduated well above that level where warring foreign troops subject the civilians to torture and rape because, on the one hand, the soldiers are not ‘homesick’ as in foreign armies ( Only a few miles away from home) and also due to admonishment that excesses on civilians are ‘The Thing’ to be avoided at all cost.  Further, Buddhism is a religion that teaches its followers that ‘Enmity can never be won through enmity but only through compassion.’  Buddhism outlaws cruelty, even to animals, and the majority in the SL army are Buddhists.

However, even though the Darusman Panel could be excused for some exaggeration of ‘violations’ on the part of the S.L. army due to the limited and partisan nature of their sources, the standard of knowledge the panel members have exhibited on International law in drafting the report is extremely disturbing.  The International Humanitarian Law is clear as to who could be considered as a ‘civilian’ in the theater of war in circumstances similar to those that took place during this ‘last stage’ in Sri Lanka.    

Customary IHL rule 5- law on civilians

Under the law of war, the term “civilian” is a person who is not a combatant and is not a member of the military. It is slightly different from a non–combatant, as some non–combatants are not civilians (for example, military chaplains attached to the belligerent party).  No contrary official practice was found. Some practice adds the condition that civilians are persons who do not participate in hostilities. This additional requirement merely reinforces the rule that a civilian who participates directly in hostilities loses protection against attack (see Rule 6). However, such a civilian does not thereby become a combatant entitled to prisoner–of–war status and, upon capture, may be tried under national law for mere participation in the conflict, subject to fair trial guarantees (see Rule 100).

The question now is, despite all that hyperbolae in the report of civilian killings, whether any of those people found in that area of conflict could be termed as ‘civilians’ in the eyes of International law. International law further states that ‘It is the responsibility of the belligerent party to ensure the distinction between the civilians and combatants in their area of operation.’ In that light, we have to question the status of all these persons found in the conflict zone, because of the facts revealed by this very Darusman report in its executive summary, which states,

‘Despite grave danger in the conflict zone, the LTTE refused civilians permission to leave, using them as hostages, at times even using their presence as a strategic human buffer between themselves and the advancing Sri Lanka Army. It implemented a policy of forced recruitment throughout the war, but in the final stages greatly intensified its recruitment of people of all ages, including children as young as fourteen. The LTTE forced civilians to dig trenches and other emplacements for its own defenses, thereby contributing to blurring the distinction between combatants and civilians and exposing civilians to additional harm. All of this was done in a quest to pursue a war that was lost; many civilians were sacrificed on the altar of the LTTE cause and its efforts to preserve its senior leadership.⁵

 

Then the report in its descriptive body under section 66, further states,

 

66. 66. Retaining the civilian population in the area that it controlled was crucial to the LTTE strategy. The presence of civilians both lent legitimacy to the LTTE’s claim for a separate homeland and provided a buffer against the SLA offensive. To this end, the LTTE forcibly prevented those living in the Vanni from leaving.²⁷ Even when civilian casualties rose significantly, the LTTE refused to let people go, hoping that the worsening situation would provoke an international intervention and a halt to the fighting. It used new and poorly trained recruits as well as civilians primarily as “cannon fodder” in an attempt to protect its leadership until the finalmoments.‘

 

Given these statements, which are part of the Darusman (Panel of Experts) report, it is apparent that this population had been used by the LTTE to either assist them in the use of arms and ammunition, digging trenches, making earth bunds and most of all as a ‘strategic human buffer.’ It is indeed strange that the Expert Panel, having made it a point to include these facts in their report, as those have been well documented in all previous international reports, have not extended their ‘Expertise’ to examine how these facts stand in the light of a ‘civilian’ as recognized by the international law.

 

Even if you leave the law entirely aside, any panel of investigation with some common sense should realize that when a terrorist organization such as the LTTE, which has brought so much misery to the country for 33 years, is cornered in a sliver of land, it obviously will be the intention of the S.L. forces to eliminate it. In that situation, it is the LTTE, in their quest to avoid being capitulated, that has created all these civilian complications.  On the other hand, if the S.L. forces had any intention of targeting the Tamil civilians deliberately, as alleged by the LTTE and its sympathizers, why did the LTTE, after they lost their Headquarters in Kilinochchi, create a situation where it offered a convenient excuse to the S.L. forces to target the civilians in the process of eliminating terrorism?

 

Further, the report uses the term ‘No Fire Zone’ umpteenth number of times throughout its writing as if oblivious to the fact that, legally and practically, a No Fire Zone did not come into existence as the LTTE did not agree to such an arrangement. We have discussed the legality and the practicality of these ‘No Fire Zones’ numbering from 1 to 4 in Chapter IV with the commentary of Lord Naseby’s findings. The Darusman report itself admits the unilateral nature of these No Fire Zones under section 80 of the report thus,

80. 80. ‘On January 20 2009, the Government unilaterally declared a No Fire Zone (NFZ); Commander for the Vanni, Major General Jayasuriya announced by a notice that “the Army Headquarters has demarcated this safe zone, as the Security Forces are fully committed to providing maximum safety for civilians trapped or forcibly kept by the LTTE in the un–cleared areas of Mullaittivu.” ³⁷ Maps of the NFZ and its coordinates were disseminated by the Government Agents (G.A.s). The LTTE did not accept the NFZ as binding. The rationale for the location of the NFZ, which encompassed the LTTE’s western and southern defensive lines, and the boundary of which along the A35 was only 800 meters north of the advancing SLA frontline, was not clear.

This makes it clear that the LTTE was not in favor of having an NFZ anywhere in this area, whereas the S.L. forces had been declaring NFZ’s to which the LTTE did not even respond. If the LTTE did not agree to the demarcated area, they could have communicated through the ICRC and made an alternative offer, which they did not. However, as described in this report, the LTTE had taken advantage of this declaration to mount their artillery in this area employing the very civilians that the Government sought to protect. This way, if the S.L. forces did not retaliate the LTTE fire, the LTTE’s guns would have continuously attacked the S.L. army hiding among the civilians. On the other hand, if the S.L. army retaliated even in self-defense, then they could join the chorus, complaining that the S.L. forces were attacking the NFZ.  This is the paradoxical ‘no win’ situation that the S.L. army always confronted in its fight against the LTTE. It appears that the Darusman ‘Expert Panel’, too, is adding mileage to this strategy and propaganda of the LTTE, knowingly or unknowingly, by the use of this term NFZ throughout their report.

 

This glossing over of the relevant and applicable sections of the international law is a serious lapse on the part of this Darusman ‘Expert Panel,’ and such is the seriousness of that lapse it makes one wonder as to in which field of specialization the expertise of the members of this panel lay; whether it is in the area of International Human Rights or in the field of making a targeted party culpable. 

 

1. II) Shelling of hospitals and humanitarian objects;

Places like hospitals, schools, places of worship, and homes for the aged, are sensitive places in the reckoning of the international laws of conflict, and the LTTE is well aware of it through years of being in combat with the ‘Human Rights’ shield. At the initial stages of this conflict, when the LTTE was targeting public servants and politicians in the north for being ‘informants,’ the S.L. army was sent to the north to bring the situation under control. This was a new experience to the S.L. army, and when the LTTE carried out ambushes against the Army and killed its members, the Army became very emotional in its reactions. Seeing their colleagues bite the dust of death so suddenly, with their body parts in smithereens, made them react to the situation equally brutally, and the fact that the enemy was not in sight at the time made their retaliatory actions indiscriminate.

 The LTTE, having observed this phenomenon, made sure that their ambushes of the S.L. army always take place near civilian concentrations so that when the Army returns fire, more civilians will die, giving the LTTE propaganda mileage. Similarly, quite recently, the Army accosted some Catholic priests in Mannar when their convoy was targeted with sniper fire from the vicinity of the Church. There are enough and more incidents of this nature that this narrative will deal with in a future chapter to show how the LTTE used civilians as an integral part of their combat warfare. Therefore this Darusman Panel though said to comprise of experts, is yet to reach the level of expertise LTTE demonstrates in terrorist war, retaliatory action, and in exploiting international empathy and sympathy. However, the report, in its executive summary, reveals information that could have a mitigating effect on this S.L. army’s alleged attack on the subject hospital,

‘From February 2009 onwards, the LTTE started point–blank shooting of civilians who attempted to escape the conflict zone, significantly adding to the death toll in the final stages of the war. It also fired artillery in proximity to large groups of internally displaced persons (IDPs) and fired from or stored military equipment near IDPs or civilian installations such as hospitals. Throughout the final stages of the war, the LTTE continued its policy of suicide attacks outside the conflict zone. Even though its ability to perpetrate such attacks was diminished compared to previous phases of the conflict, it perpetrated several attacks against civilians outside the conflict zone.^{‘ 6}

Having mentioned the above in the executive summary, the report concludes blaming the S.L. forces exclusively for attacking the hospital, demonstrating the panels’ bias in drawing conclusions that are not consistent with their reported findings.

Further, in this regard, it is pertinent to bring to the notice of this Panel that there is an abundance of information that held the LTTE responsible for this attack on the hospital as they used the hospital premises to position their armory.  Jacques De Maio is the ICRC Head of Operations for South Asia. The U.S. embassy’s cable to the State Department dated January 27, 2009, as quoted in the report of Legal Expert Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, states as follows,

‘De Maio said the LTTE commanders’ objective was to keep the distinction between civilian and the military assets blurred. They would often respond positively when ICRC complained about positioning weapons at the hospital; for example, the LTTE would move the asset away, but as they were constantly shifting these assets, they would just show up in another unacceptable place, shortly after that’.

On July 9, 2009, the then U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues – Ambassador John ClintWilliamson – while collecting information concerning a U.S. Congressional reporting requirement, met and discussed the recent fighting in Sri Lanka with several INGO heads in Geneva, Switzerland. One of these heads was Jacques de Maio, the ICRC’s Head of Operations for South Asia. While discussing potential violations of International Humanitarian Law, Jacques de Maio noted (as revealed in Wikileak 09GENEVA584):

He (Jacques de Maio) said that the Sri Lankan military was somewhat responsive to accusations of violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and was open to adapting its actions to reduce casualties. He could cite examples of where the Army had stopped shelling when ICRC informed them it was killing civilians. The Army actually could have won the military battle faster with higher civilian casualties, yet chose a slower approach, which led to a more significant number of Sri Lankan military deaths.

 

In the same cable, Jacques de Maio had this to say about the LTTE and its strategies:

On the LTTE, de Maio said that, ‘it had tried to keep civilians in the middle of a permanent state of violence. It saw the civilian population as a “protective asset” and kept its fighters embedded amongst them’. De Maio said that the LTTE commander’s objective was to keep the distinction between civilian and military assets blurred

 

The question now is, if the Darusman Panel of experts were keen in presenting a comprehensive report, why they did not access these documents or establish contacts with Jaques de Maio of the ICRC for his input?

 

On the question of the use of artillery by the S.L. forces, the Professor of Law of Practice of the University of Vanderbilt, Prof. Michael Newton, a law expert GOSL has retained to obtain an opinion, has expressed his opinion as follows. In his report, he has exonerated the S.L. forces of deliberate intentions in killing the civilians by use of shelling as there were much more massive armory in possession of SLA if they intended to go on a ‘killing spree.’ In the final paragraph of his report, he mentions thus,

“In the circumstances prevailing at the time, it is my unqualified opinion that the overarching necessity of ending the multi–generational struggle against the LTTE, permitted Sri Lanka commanders to consider means of attack that accomplish the vital goal of ‘final victory,’ even if they sought to protect their forces. It would be ludicrous to suggest that there is some precept of international law that required them to send ground forces into the affected area to respond to the LTTE artillery fire. I cannot imagine an expert in my field that would suggest otherwise.” -Page 15

III) Denial of humanitarian assistance;

From the time, this civilian concentration was forced to move to this narrow stretch of land in the northeastern area of the island, comprising the villages, Vellamulivaikkal, Karaliyamulivaikkal, and Vellamulivaikkal in early January 2009, and the responsibility of providing food and shelter to these captive civilians became the implied responsibility of the S.L. Government. The ICRC undertook the transporting of the goods and also helped arrange for supplies and also was the World Food Program. Despite that help, the primary responsibility of keeping this mass of civilians fed and sheltered fell on the Sri Lanka government. Here again, on the humanitarian ground, the S.L. government arranged the supplies, but those were coordinated through a body called the CCHA, Consultative Committee on Humanitarian Assistance.  This CCHA comprised representatives from the U.N., U.S., U.K., and from other critical international NGOs operating in the country at the time.  The CCHA kept minutes of its meetings, and if there had been complaints against the supplies, such claims should have got recorded in those minutes. In any case, the responsibility for such shortfalls should be the responsibility of the CCHA and not the Sri Lankan Government or the SL Army.  If there were deliberate attempts to withhold supplies, the members of the CCHA could have complained, and therefore this Darusman  Panel report also should quote the members of the CCHA who complained, for their allegations to be credible.

The first CCHA Consultative Committee on Humanitarian Assistance was set up in October 2006 at the height of the Sampur operation. It was chaired by the Minister of Disaster Management, Hon. Mahinda Samarasinghe on behalf of the Government and included representatives from all Aid agencies. The first meeting of this CCHA was attended by the Head of European Union Delegation, Julian Wilson – Ambassador for Germany, Jürgen Earth – UN Resident coordinator Humanitarian affairs, Amin Award – UN High commissioner for Refugees, Toon Vandernhove- Head of the country World Food Program, Valentine Gatzinski-UN Head of Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs,  Ms Joanna Van Gerpen and UN Country security Advisor Chris Du Toit.   As per the minutes of this meeting, one of the issues discussed was the chartering of a ship to ferry relief supplies to the conflict area by sea. Toon Vandenhove, the ICRC head, had said that they were trying to charter a ship for the transport of relief supplies and passengers and was appreciative of the Government’s efforts to assist them in this matter. Minister Samarasinghe said that the cabinet had decided to charter 3 ships. But the Deputy Commissioner of essential services, who was present, said that only one ship had agreed to sail to Jaffna due to security concerns. This ship had sailed under the flag of the ICRC but the LTTE had refused to guarantee the safety of the international and national crew. The ICRC had a cause to be concerned. The LTTE had a history of having deliberately targeted ships transporting food to the north.

It was this same CCHA that was in charge of supplies to the conflict area till the end of the conflict. However, as the LTTE’s naval power was brought to naught by January 2009, they were not able to create problems for the humanitarian supplies after January 2009.  M/s Angela Cane – the UN Assistant Secretary-General for Political affairs, who attended a CCHA meeting in March 2009, had complimented saying she was indeed impressed and that the CCHA mechanism was an example of how practical humanitarian issues could be solved through dialogue and co-operation.  The minutes quote her saying that ‘this experiment in Sri Lanka, with international aid agencies working together with the Government in areas where a fully–fledged war was in progress, was probably unique in the world’.

The CCHA ensured that the captive civilians were kept sheltered and fed, preventing a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions.  However, in practice, this CCHA faced many difficulties in providing supplies and coordinating the dispatches, and the main issue among these is the absence of proper communication with the receiving end.  There was no direct communication as to whether, a shipment was received, the number of people in that restricted area, and when the goods were needed again, etc. until after a day had lapsed; especially the absence of the correct number of people to be served was the main issue and the ICRC also quoted different figures at different times, compounding the situation.

In the meantime, there were reports, as stated in the Ministry of Defense’s publication ‘Humanitarian Operation’ that the LTTE was using sacks of rice, sugar, and flour sent for civilian consumption to construct bunkers for the LTTE, and hence more and more of bags had been requested inflating the numbers in the restricted area. Knowing the LTTE, this could well be believed, and even reports of surveys of the city, post- evacuation, confirmed that the LTTE bunkers in the subject area had been made, using sacks of sugar and rice.  Therefore, if the civilians were starving and also had there been rampant malnutrition among the population, it should again be the LTTE, that is to be blamed and not the SL Government as implied in the Darusman report.

On the other hand, this indeed was a unique situation where the Sri Lanka government had to feed and shelter the very enemy that had unleashed a brutal war against it, for humanitarian reasons. Even during the ‘Peace process’ that commenced in 2002 and continues till now, it was the Sri Lanka Government that paid the salaries of all the government servants in this so-called ‘LTTE area’ and also ensured the supply of food. The irony of this situation now is that the S.L. Government, not only had to supply provisions to the human shield created by the LTTE, but was also made to contribute towards the other objective of the LTTE, in prolonging of a situation to invite foreign intervention. This is because the longer the civilians remain in this ‘hold up,’ the higher the chance of an international intervention that will pave the way for these cornered LTTE leaders to escape.  But having understood the humanitarian dimension of the situation where thousands of people could die due to sheer starvation, the SL Government continued its supplies through the CCHA.

However, the fact that this complaint has been made against the S.L. Government by the Darusman (Panel of Expert’s) report suggests that they were not aware that these supplies were made through an international consultative committee called CCHA. They probably thought that they could hold the S.L. Government accountable for this type of humanitarian lapses. Hence, they have collected these complaints from the Tamil diaspora and have put them down in black and white in their report in an attempt to make the S.L. Government culpable again.

1. IV) Human rights violations suffered by victims and survivors of the conflict, including both internally displaced persons (IDPs) and suspected LTTE cadre;

 This allegation is a result of the ‘out of context’ interpretation the Darusman ‘Experts Panel’ has attributed to the applicable international law; either because it lacked the expertise that is claimed to possess, or because of its sheer bias in its need to make the Sri Lanka  Government and SLA culpable.

These Panel members do not seem to have exercised their simple human empathy. The practicalities that any ordinary person would surmise (leave alone being an expert) in that complicated situation by taking the stand that the application of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is only during the conflict and therefore since the battle was over on the May 19^th, from May 20^th onwards International Human Rights Law (IHRL) should apply. This is a conflict that has taken a generation in Sri Lanka, and these rescued people are members of the ‘Mahaveer’ families (Privileged families) that the LTTE nurtured over the years to act as their civilian front. Apart from this, most of them had been sick or wounded, and the Indian Government had dispatched medical supplies and a team of doctors to attend to these ex captives.  There is also a legal aspect in this since these members acted as a buffer in the LTTE rescue and also that it is from among these refugees that  12,000 LTTE cadres were identified and subsequently rehabilitated.  These 12,000 combatants are categorized as POW(Prisoner of war) in the war language and hence deserve to be treated accordingly.

Therefore, the position taken by the ‘Experts Panel’ on this is not at all acceptable in the eyes of the applicable law and therefore, is hardly worthy of dwelling into. Their ‘out of context’ attitude on this  IHRL violations, is further confirmed by the fact that the U.S. resolution tabled against Sri Lanka at the UNHRC in 2005 (A. HRC/30/L.29) also mentions only about ‘serious violation of the International Humanitarian Law’ in its opening paragraphs referring to the conflict, while the violations of the IHRL is discussed only in general situations outside the conflict.    

1. V) Human rights violations outside the conflict zone, including against the media and other critics of the Government.

Having stated in its opening paragraph that its mandate is to advise the Secretary-General ‘of an accountability process, having regard to the nature and scope of alleged violationsof international humanitarian and human rights law during the final stages of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka’ the Panel of experts seems to believe that they are expected to comment on human rights violations outside the conflict zone as well. In such an event, however, the Panel should discuss H.R. violations outside the conflict zone only during the last stages of the conflict, for if not, they will exceed their mandate.  However, their reported findings and the conclusions in this regard indicate that they have made common and general allegations that have been made against the S.L. government throughout the conflict by various human rights activists.

‘The human rights of all citizens have suffered as a result of almost three decades of war, the degradation of independent institutions, and the weakening of the rule of law. As the Government prepared for its final offensive against the LTTE, there was a further erosion of human rights, and several measures led to greater limitations on the space for independent news coverage, dissent, and even humanitarian action.¹³ Beginning in 2006, the Defense Secretary issued increasingly restrictive guidelines for journalists reporting on military operations, making it an offense to depict operations in negative terms. Further pressures on the media, including several high profile assaults, disappearances, and killings, led to greater self–censorship’.

When terrorism strikes a country, particularly an organization as brutal as the LTTE, the Government would also be compelled to go to extremes in preserving law and order. The Government’s standing, in the eyes of the people, will suffer when a village with unarmed farmers, women, and children have been mercilessly massacred, when a passenger train of office workers have been bombed or when a principal place of worship has been attacked. The Government has to respond to the situation naturally, and that would be by bringing more stringent laws. The nature of terrorism is also such, especially the LTTE variety; it will be difficult to distinguish between the civilian and the terrorist. Hence, the law enforcement officers under such circumstances are vulnerable, ending up as victims often, and in such a context, with their lives at stake, they will want to be safe and thus be ‘tough’ in the process than to take a chance.  Thus more stringent laws will be introduced that may impinge on the rights of citizens, vis a vis, a normal situation. The officers are also likely to commit excesses in the process of enforcing such laws.

On the other hand, the terrorist, as they are now ‘in it,’ will find ways and means of circumventing those new national security laws and continue with their ‘terror deploying’ sophisticated tactics. This will have a cyclical effect, and in that context, it is indeed a surprise that how Sri Lanka, having to deal with the worlds’ most organized terror outfit for 30 years,, remained a democracy without becoming a military state. In between four full-scale wars, the LTTE and its propaganda branches carried out a war of attrition continuously against successive S.L. Governments during this entire 33 years.

Therefore during these 30 + years of this conflict, ‘ violation of human rights’ is a constant issue that the successive governments had to face at national and international forums. The degree to which these allegations were leveled at successive Governments, making matters embarrassingly enough with entailing consequences, made the respective governments devote extra efforts to counter these charges going out of the way. As a result, as years passed, Sri Lanka, with the help of western funded NGO propaganda, became a well-known violator of ‘human rights.’ With this, the international community ( particularly the west) imposed formal and informal proscriptions against Sri Lanka. This, in turn, gave some legitimacy to the LTTE. There was a time that the LTTE propaganda wing operating under the Tamil Diaspora eagerly awaited the annual and quarterly reports of various human rights organizations, like the Human rights watch and Amnesty International, only to gather what they have said against the Sri Lankan government, so that they could add that to their propaganda, to justify their next round of violence. 

However, just as LTTE’s un-empathetic and brutal ways gave them military results to crow about, those very ways started to backfire on the organization soon enough. Rajini Thiranagam was the author of the book ‘Broken Palmyra.’ Rajani was a Doctor in medicine and a lecturer in anatomy at the University of Jaffna. She was murdered by the LTTE in 1989. The Palmyrah tree is the symbol of the Ceylon Tamil society. The tree can absorb external threats or even explosions by bending over, but when there is something rotten inside it, it will not last long. Hence Rajani Thiranagam’s book ‘Broken Palmyra’ signified the current degradation (in 1989) within Tamil society, the LTTE, and its fascist ways. The Thiranagama family migrated to Canada in exile, and they formed the first anti-LTTE Tamil lobby in Canada. In Sri Lanka, the murder of Rajini Thiranagama led to the activation of an organization called the University Teachers for Human Rights(Jaffna), comprising of university teachers in the Jaffna University. Thus, UTHR (J) is an acronym for ‘University Teacher for Human Rights (Jaffna).’ It was founded in 1988, the worst period Jaffna has been through in its entire existence, with tension and thousands of Tamils being killed in the course of fighting between the LTTE and the Indian Peace Keeping forces, IPKF.

The UTHR J group, believed that human rights violations, irrespective of the community, should be reported and condemned.  They were based in Colombo for security reasons but gathered first-hand information through their network of informants in the North and East and compiled their reports on the actual situation in the north. They genuinely felt for the average Tamil and knew that things had gone haywire in Tamil society and created an information base to correct it. The UTHR (J) received the Martyn Ennals award for Human Rights Defenders for the year 2007, and their reports reached the international media, highlighting the atrocities of the LTTE.

 

The UTHR (J) however, faced intense criticism from the ‘Peace lobby’ comprising the National Peace Council, the H.R. watch, and Amnesty International, especially after the Cease Fire Agreement in 2002. According to the UTHRJ’s Rohini Hensman (Island 10^th Dec.2007), the UTHR J was accused of Tiger bashing and not being even-handed, not only by some in the Tamil community but even by the Sinhalese of the UNP and Ranil W. She argued, “How could you be even–handed in your criticism when one party is violating the ceasefire many times more than the other party? If the LTTE is conscripting child soldiers and if the Government is not, how can you criticize the Government for it? There were Human rights seminars conducted by the ‘Peace lobby’ where no mention was made of the Muslims being evicted from Jaffna and the killings of Sinhala villages by the LTTE. The deafening silence maintained by the NGO’s is because they did not want to rock the peace boat by highlighting them. But the UTHRJ believed that such abuses must be highlighted with the same vigor since such atrocities have the potential to destroy the Tamil society more than anything inflicted on them“.

 

Such arguments confirm the fact that, even though the University teachers realized, rather late, the sinister nature of the LTTE and its adverse impact on the Tamil society through their genuine concern for the Tamils, the ‘Peace lobby’ did not do so because their plan was to destroy both these communities, Sinhalese and Tamils, and make a lot of money in the process.  It is these one-sided reports of these H.R. organizations against the Sri Lankan Government that this Darusman ‘Panel of Experts’ are quoting in their stories in a quest to make allegations against the S.L. government. And this certainly is going beyond the terms of reference they were tasked with by the UN Secretary-General

 

The UTHR(J) in its special report no. 32  dated 10.6.2009 has placed the matter in a nutshell by stating,

‘The upshot was the LTTE, whose astounding military success was found on despoiling the social fabric of Tamils and making everything from childbearing to education, creatures of its military needs. Even as the LTTE leaders were discussing surrender terms, they were sending out very young suicide cadres to ‘martyrdom’ to slow down the Army advances.‘

 

Therefore, it is visible now as to what the LTTE has been fighting for. It was not fighting for any community’s rights but for an area of land where they could make Prabhakaran, its despotic leader. To this end, the LTTE will use any means that it could lay its hands-on, be it Tamils, Sinhalese, or the International community!

 

The POE report also makes strident allegations about killings of journalists and curtailing the freedom of the press.’ Lasantha Wickremetunge’s name has been singled out as an example of such killings. Lasantha is a Christian Sinhalese who managed the Leader group of newspapers. It is a national newspaper group with a range of English, Sinhala, and Tamil newspapers. He adopted a style of investigative news reporting, thereby sensationalizing the media and achieving a reasonable percentage of patronization among the readership. He was particularly harsh on the Government and its armed procurement practices alleging corruption, and this made him very popular in the camp opposing the Government. He became an adviser to the UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe.  Lasantha sought refuge under ‘Press freedom’ to indulge in most of these campaigns that bordered on personal vilification and vendetta, and with time he changed his line of criticism from anti- Government to pro-Tiger. Thus, he was able to influence the thinking of the legitimate opposition of the country to a point where they saw no difference between being anti- Government and in being pro-LTTE.

 

Lasantha Wickremetunge took part in the Geneva peace talks held under the Rajapakse government as a Sri Lankan journalist. But he dined, wined, and stayed with the LTTE during his stay in Geneva. He had such a rapport with Anton Balasingham, the LTTE Chief negotiator, that he rattled on the table and raised his thumb every time Anton Balasingham scored a debating point over the Sri Lankan delegation during the talks. He was so blind in his hatred; he even cheered the LTTE when they steadfastly refused to acknowledge the sovereignty of Sri Lanka as a nation. Lasantha Wicremetunge was killed in 2009, and the popular opinion is that he was killed after he published an editorial criticizing the then Army Commander Maj. Gen. Sarath Fonseka. It is on record in the Hazard that the then Leader of the opposition Ranil Wickremesinghe made a serious allegation that ‘Sarath Fonseka was personally responsible for Lasantha’s death’.

 

Thus, that was the period of war, and in a way, it was natural justice that those who played with violence and extremism would be caught in that cycle sooner or later.  However, this crime remained unsolved to date, and with Sarath Fonseka changing political loyalties, the successive Government of Ranil W took no interest in the case during their tenure.

 

Another notable feature of the press in Sri Lanka, especially the English media that provides news to the international is, that it is incredibly hostile to the national mainstream and the aspirations of the Sinhala Buddhists. The reason for this is that the English-speaking fraternity in the country is made up of Tamils and Christians. They dominated the education sphere in Sri Lanka for decades, and hence they detested the surge of Sinhala Buddhist influence in the country. Even the Sinhala Christians counted themselves among the minorities as they could not enjoy the privileged status they once did under the British. Thus, the news that came out of the country to the international press always had a tinge of ‘grievance’ and was therefore twisted accordingly.

 

Further, there was also this dimension of ordinary characters or even terrorists disguising themselves as a journalist when they need to commit a crime or to collect intelligence information. Since journalists are allowed to enter any public event, this modus operandi worked well, and sometimes when they are questioned or arrested, they readily provide a NIC of some media organization.  Unless they are caught in the very act, they continue their work, and when they are arrested on suspicion, it is charged that the Government is harassing the journalist. 

In addition to all this, when a conflict lingers on for a period, as long as 33 years, with the LTTE and the Diaspora waging a focused war of attrition with an administration that alternates with politicians of antagonistic policies, certain venal practices are bound to creep into the media and other institutions that matter.  For instance, some Peace NGOs had reserved specific newspaper columns in public papers by making payments. This is also true concerning journalists who are not always well paid, and often these gratifications came in the form of foreign travel, part-time work, and sometimes even in the form of asylum in developed countries. Therefore, in such a milieu, the Sri Lanka media willingly or unwillingly had become a hostage of individual schools of thought, and principal among those had been that ‘the war is terrible and peace is good. The only way to peace is through negotiations.

 

In short, the war in Sri Lanka was more of a media war, and its passive advocacy has had a seriously detrimental effect on the country’s forces and on any government that entertained the thought of overcoming LTTE by military means. Thus, the media made ‘freedom fighters’ out of serial killers and invented ’causes’ out of little effects, and the country’s soldier was always viewed as ‘not as heroic as the LTTE’ or as a waste of public funds. This was the principal reason why this conflict took so long to see its end, and in that situation, any Government at the time that has realized the futility of talking to the LTTE had little choice but to take a long and hard look at the country’s media. This is because no Government can win a war, internal or external, without the support of the country’s press.

 

This situation was made worse or impossible by the presence of so many NGOs that advocated ‘Human rights’ and ‘democratic freedoms’ with links to international media organizations, making any attempt to straighten out media as ‘anti-freedom of the Press.’

 

Therefore, the Sri Lankan conflict certainly provided some new insight into the limitations and strengths faced by democratic governments when they have to face profound terrorist organizations like the LTTE with the backing of a diaspora that has a kitty of U.S. $ 300 million every month. The irony, however, is that though the LTTE claimed to fight for the rights of Tamils, it respected the rights of nobody, including their own fellow Tamils. From the commencement of their killing campaign, they killed innocent Sinhala and Muslim villages in the north and east of the country to create a homogenous Tamil land, and then innocent Tamils in those areas for going against their avowed intention of creating a separate state. After that, they went after the ‘informants’ who were Tamils and Muslims.

The Darusman report at some point opines that one of the reasons for the alienation of Tamils could be that the country’s police and Army are staffed exclusively with the Sinhalese. The fact, however, was that there were enough and more good police and army officers from Tamil and Muslim communities in the 1980 s in North and East, but they were pushed to a point where they had to choose between their duty and bidding for terrorism, by the LTTE. Quite a few police officers were murdered for being ‘informants to the Government’. Therefore, since the eighties, very few Tamils and Muslims came forward to join these services.

In conclusion, it should be stated that there could be little debate on the postulation that human right is a welcome feature of modern civilization but still, when its international advocates do not have the capacity to empathize its relevance to a particular situation, such advocates will end up, not just making a bad situation worse, but also in inviting a situation, an antithesis of all what Human Rights should stand for.

In listing the LTTE violations in the Darusman report, the Darusman Panel obviously had little choice because most of those atrocities have been reported in the popular press, as and when those events took place, and that is before Darusman Panel was tasked with the assignment. For instance, the U.N. Secretary-General Banki Moon had made a request to the LTTE on April 3, 2009, calling on the LTTE to allow civilians to leave the conflict area of their own free will. In that, he expressed his sincere regret over continuing reports of civilians being kept at extreme risks and against their will and with heavy casualties in a minimal area by the LTTE. The U.N. Secretary-General also deplored the forced recruitment of civilians, particularly the children, stating that the restrictions imposed on their movement by the LTTE violated international law. This was widely reported in the international press. Further, there are eyewitnesses ‘ accounts, such as Gordon Wiese, the U.N. representative, Jacques De Mio, the ICRC representative, and the U.S. Embassy records of the violations by the LTTE. Therefore, the Darusman panel has not found anything of their own but parroted in their repot all that that was reported by those sources.  The claims made against the LTTE by the POE Darusman Panel report are, 

(i) Using civilians as a human buffer

(ii) Killing civilians attempting to flee LTTE control;

(iii) Using military equipment in the proximity of civilians;

(iv) Forced recruitment of children;

(v) Forced labor; and

(vi) The killing of civilians through suicide attacks. ³

 

As we proceed, however, we may see whether the LTTE is guilty of only these, or more.

1. 1. Section 421 of the report
2. 2. Section 422 of the report
3. 3. Section 422 of the report
4. 4. U.N. Report Gorden Weisse. Page 16
5. 5. Executive summary page 111 of the report
6. 6. Executive summary page 111 of the report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter VIII:

The Game of the Numbers Killed

 

The number of people killed as collateral in a national or international conflict is of critical significance to the application of laws, especially the loss of civilian (as defined by the law) lives. The international law, however, does not hold the loss of civilian lives as a crime against conflicting/warring parties but instead stipulates that the loss of civilian lives has to be proportionate to the military advantage the forces are expected to achieve in pursuance of that particular military target. Therefore, the SL forces cannot be held guilty for the mere loss of ‘civilian lives’. Still, if they could build a case that the deaths are disproportionate to the military advantage that was to accrue to the SL army, as a result of a particular offensive, then a case could be built up against the SL forces.

 

As the coalition of experts on international law retained by the GOSL has pointed out, “Customary International law in conflicts is binding on all states regardless of agreement or otherwise because customs emanate from universal norms of behavior among states. Applicable customary law here includes Articles 4.6,9.and 13. all of Common Article 3. International law provides civilian protection while simultaneously allowing for military objectives to be fulfilled, and it is the central goal of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The death of civilians during a conflict, no matter how grave or regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. In particular, the three principals

1. 1. Distinction
2. 2. Military necessity and
3. 3. Proportionality

should guide the legality of action under IHL.

Distinction means that no civilians should be targeted intentionally, Military necessity means that targeting of the particular object should be necessary for the advancement of  the troops, and Proportionality is that, the collateral damage (civilian and property) should be justifiable to the military advantage anticipated to be achieved ’ – Sir Desmond de Silva QC Page 23

 

Therefore, if SL forces are to be made guilty of war crimes, charges may have to be brought either,

on the grounds of,

 intentionally targeting civilians,

attacking with no military necessity, or

for disproportionate killings, over and above the military advantage.

 

From these, since the military need is a foregone conclusion, it is either on intentional targeting of civilians or on unnecessary civilian deaths that allegations could be brought against the SL army. The Darusman report alleges the SL army of killing civilians through widespread shelling in its conclusions. This statement is clearly in contradiction with the ground evidence available from independent sources such as the ICRC, the UN  Country team leader at the time, and thus is beyond proof.

 

However, in addition to this, the Darusman report, although not mentioned in its conclusions, implies that the number of civilians in their estimates, to include the number killed during this Nanthikadal operation called the ‘last stage of the war.’ This is mentioned in the Darusman report in paragraph 137, and it is stated thus,

137. 137. In the limited surveys that have been carried out in the aftermath of the conflict, the percentage of people reporting dead relatives is high. The number of credible sources has estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths. Two years after the end of the war, there is still no reliable figure for civilian deaths, but multiple sources of information indicate that a range of up to 40,000 civilian deaths cannot be ruled out at this stage. Only a proper investigation can lead to the identification of all of the victims and the formulation of an accurate figure for the total number of civilian deaths.

 

Now, this is the figure that is widely quoted all over the world, making the type of exclamation that is necessary to point fingers at the SL forces. Tamil Diaspora propaganda arm, with its broad outreach, has given this piece of information the most extensive possible publicity seizing the opportunity they had been waiting for. The irony is that this figure is not substantiated in any way and is not sourced from any identified party. Yet this is the report of Darusman or the UNSG’s Panel of Experts, and when such a ‘reputed’ report makes a suggestion to that effect, it will carry all the weight that is necessary for the propagandist to ‘make hay.’  Since this report was published, what is in the news would be that ‘According to the UN report, 40,000 civilians have died during the last stages of the Sri Lankan conflict’. The broadcasters will not bother to use terms like ‘cannot be ruled out’ or ‘only a proper investigation can lead to the formulation of an accurate figure.’ A third party that is at the receiving end of this propaganda will not have the privilege to, or may not be bothered to, refer to the subject UN report and therefore what gets registered internationally, is the news that ‘SL army has killed 40,000 civilians according to the UN report’.

Now, this is the same report that stated, in its Executive summary on page 111. that ‘the LTTE implemented a policy of forced recruitment throughout the war, but in the final stages greatly intensified its recruitment of people of all ages, including children as young as fourteen. The LTTE forced civilians to dig trenches and other emplacements for its defenses, thereby contributing to blurring the distinction between combatants and civilians and exposing civilians to additional harm’.

Now having mentioned this, the report states that a casualty ‘of 40,000 civilians cannot be ruled out’, as if the Panel is oblivious to the fact that according to the international law the civilians lose their civilian status when they are being engaged in the type of assignments the report claims. Therefore, these people had been made to lose their civilian status, by the LTTE. 

Again, all that the report maintains is that there are ‘several credible sources,’ but none is identified. The report fails to give any breakdown or description of the circumstances of these deaths and, more particularly, as to who is responsible for these deaths. Thus the report presents this figure with absolutely no basis when there are other reports in circulation, giving totally different figures as the number of casualties. For instance, the US state department report states that the number of deaths is 6710 from January 2009 to April 2009, and the UN’s Country team report prepared by Gordon Weise, the country team leader, states that the figure of casualties is 7714 from January 2nd to May 13th, 2009.  The last two reports have a basis on daily counts, and they were prepared on the current basis while the conflict was raging, whereas this Darusman, or the Panel of Expert’s report, having come after two years since the end of the battle, presents a figure of 40,000 casualties without a basis or naming a source for the same.

Here is how the Panel justifies its reasons for sideling the first COG (UN Country team) figure:

135. 135. The number calculated by the United Nations Country Team provides a starting point but is likely to be too low for several reasons. First, it only accounts for the casualties that were observed by the networks of observers who were operational in LTTE–controlled areas. Many victims may not have been observed at all. Second, after the United Nations stopped counting on May 13th, the number of civilian casualties likely proliferated. Due to the intensity of the shelling, many civilians were left where they died and were never registered, brought to a hospital, or even buried. This means that, in reality, the total number could easily be several times that of the United Nations figures.

Now, for this panel report to just dismiss the UN country team’s dead numbers, in their report so casually, gives the impression that the panel members, who are only hand–picked by the Secretary–General for this assignment outside the normal UN mechanism, have absolutely no confidence in the work of the permanent staff of UN.  The country team was stationed in the fighting area to prevent and record violations of the international laws of conflict, and the most crucial in that operation was the recording of the number dead in fighting. It is they who should know best how to ascertain the number of dead, taking into account the circumstance under which the fighting rages and the possible scenarios where the death of civilians could occur in that situation. They were indeed not expected to record only the deaths that were reported or witnessed by them, and if that was the case, the country team members would have used only their ears and eyes and not their brains. In other words, the Darusman  Panel report is inferring that the Country team members who were stationed there for that specific purpose had been reporting only what they could hear and see like a set of zombies while they were expected to use their intelligence to record the actual number of deaths during the fighting, in the way the fighting was taking place.

Therefore the members of this Panel, before they cast aspersions on the quality of the information found on the Country  Team report, should do well to re–examine the authenticity of their own information sources because their sources such as the Tamil Diaspora and the ‘Peace’ NGO’s, could be extremely partisan since they have lost their relevance (and also contributions) since this conflict came to an end. The time factor and the integrity of this information collection should also be taken into account because, at the time the UN country team recorded these deaths, they were not recorded with the idea of making allegations against the SL government because the outcome of the fighting was not known with the LTTE placing their hopes on international community intervention,  whereas when the Darusman Panel collected the information, after two years from the end of the conflict, the necessity to make a case against the SL, government and forces had arisen as otherwise, the drama of the Sri Lankan conflict would be over for good.

Another excuse the panel report is using to take advantage of, to justify its excessive number of deaths is the fact that the Country report had recorded the number of deaths only up to the May 13th and ‘hence since there had been heavy fighting in the last few days the number has to be many times more.’ This stand again is not backed by situation reports because, according to the SL defense publication, there had been a lull in fighting on the 14^th and 15^th May due to the LTTE’s overtures in ‘preparation to surrender.’ This was a very dicey period of the conflict as the LTTE, by now having lost all their hopes of international rescue, was in a situation that they had never been and hence was not able to contemplate their next move. It was on the 15^th May the LTTE had blown off their ammunition dump together with other information and equipment, signifying ‘LTTE’s end of hope’ of a rescue.  The fire made an extraordinary glow, and it kept burning for about three days, and even that too was picked up by the international media as fighting and bombing in the ‘No Fire Zones.’

As far as the fighting was concerned, by this time, the 55^th, 56^th divisions of the army had moved southwards from the Mullaithivu area, and the 59^th division was moving northward to link up with the other two divisions. Hence with three divisions moving into the conflict zone, the SL army had seized the use of heavy weapons in self-defense, as there was no fire from the LTTE, and the fighting was essential with small arms. On the other hand, the LTTE was in a desperate and hopeless situation with the cadres having no instruction from their leaders, either because the command leaders did not know what to say or they were exploring the ways as to how they could escape by themselves.

To get some idea of the situation that prevailed in this Nanthikadal area during the last days of the conflict ( 14^th to 17^th May), we could review some extracts from the book Thamaleeni Jayakumaran has written about this stage of the conflict. This is a first-hand account of the last few days of LTTE’s existence at Nanthikadal. The report is an extract from the book ‘My Revolt under the Shadow of a Damocle’ by Thamalini Jayakumaran (pages 212 to 228). She served as the Women’s wing political Leader of the LTTE and  was a front- line member of the LTTE. She played a prominent role, holding press conferences when the last peace agreement was signed between the SL government and the LTTE in February 2002. Although written from the LTTE perspective, it gives a good account of the events of the Nanthikadal operation, including the last few days at Mullaivaikkal, where the final phase of the rescue operation took place. She gave herself up and was imprisoned from June 2009 till June 2012 and rehabilitated and released in June 2013.

 

‘With all combatants and the people increasingly losing their hope now, a day in March, Colonel Vidusha, who was experiencing an immense pain of mind, broke into a wail the moment she saw me.     “The organization has come to a level where we can hardly think about it without a sense of shame.”  “I am lost for answers to the questions my junior comrades pose at me,” she said in a somewhat depressed tone that was never the case with her generally. “People are now going towards the army because they have no alternative now, and the organization is ordering to shoot such crowds that move out, below their knee.”

With a moment’s pause, she continued, “Oh God! how can I issue orders to shoot people? Yet, I explained the position to my brigade and mentioned the position taken by the organization. They confronted me, asking, ‘How could we shoot our fathers, mothers, sisters, and brothers who have started to leave now?”   “They wail  and say, ‘we might as well shoot ourselves and die.” 

“That is correct, isn’t it?” “What a shame that our organization had to come down to this level!” and then she broke into a sob. I could still imagine that scene where her face depicted utter hopelessness even to this day. When I took leave of her that day, I felt as if my whole body was becoming numb with terror.

The next day when I met her, she said that “The leader says, it is only if we have 25,000 trained fighters with cannon fire to compliment, that we could recapture Kilinochchi” in a rather indifferent tone. “Pottu Amman is just driving me nuts with what he says. He seemed to be talking without realizing the situation”. Then she paused as if she said all that had to be told at that moment, and her prolonged silence proclaimed her sense of desperation about the situation at hand and horror about the difficulties people were undergoing in that sliver of land. I took her message; all this time, our comrades died, and our struggle brought immense problems upon people, but that was all for a purpose, and we had hope. But now, the situation is different, and we had to move about like zombies without a concern! Then she took a deep breath and said,” Oh these people, what a tragedy!” That incidentally was my last meeting with Colonel Vidusha, the Brigade commander of the Female Tiger Brigade.

It was clear now that most of the Brigade Commanders disapproved of , the way Pottu Amman was trying to handle the final stages of ‘waiting to be rescued.’  The commands issued by him without realizing the shortcomings in the Brigades made the Brigade commanders very angry.  He had proposed the idea that disabled fighters should be placed around Puthukudierruppu with explosives. He had ordered that they should explode themselves when the army tried to enter the area. He had also said that the Black Tigers should now go towards the military with explosives and blow themselves. Accordingly, many fighters went towards the front and sacrificed their lives for a cause, that is all but lost now!  The Leader had once said that ‘I am creating Black Tigers as the most powerful weapon to a nation that is so powerless.’  A group of the remaining Black Tigers loaded themselves with explosives and proceeded in a truck to destroy an army checkpoint on the Koppapilau road and exploded themselves.  None of these attacks were strong enough to stop the advances of the army, and hence most of these suicide attempts of the cadres are increasingly proving to be sacrifices of no value.

The international community may indeed view the demise of the mighty Tiger movement with skepticism and disbelief. Still, in my view, I often wondered whether our Leader started the last phase of the war with the international community in mind. However, it is now clear that while many persons had been giving life to the organization with their blood, sweat, and tears, the organization, by succumbing solely to the whims and fancies of a single individual, had brought about this terrible disaster upon those very people.

In the third month of 2009, Pottu Amman summoned a meeting of all the responsible officers of the LTTE in a camp in Puthukudierruppu. The meeting that day was very brief and abrupt. “ Unless a miracle takes place, it is no longer a valid premise to think that the organization could save themselves. Those who own important documents of the organization should destroy those now. People will start to move towards the army now, and at the final stage, the fighters also will have to mingle with people and move towards the army. Then they will say, ‘stand up if any tigers are there,’ and when you stand up, they will shoot you to your death. That is what will happen. The leadership is trying his best to create a turning point in this war, but I must stress this point again; unless a miracle takes place, we have no hope of salvation. I summoned this meeting today to tell you all to destroy the documents you may have in your possession.”

The session just ended then. There was no talk about those fighters who have been wounded or even about those who stay in houses under the control of the organization. Members dispersed in a disposition where they were not prepared to discuss the current situation with each other.  

After the fall of Kilinochchi, the area surrounded by people became our only hope. All the combative activities of the organization took place amidst the population. Enrolment for fighting for the organization was carried out with a maximum degree of compulsiveness right up to Mulleyvaikkal. Basic training was given to the recruiters at Thal Ruppawal in the area. They were given just enough training to raise the weapon and let go of the trigger. However, in my view, it appeared as yet another pointless and obdurate exercise in futility to gamble with innocent lives. This type of activity earned the rage of the civilians and the fighters. After mingling with the crowds, even the soldiers started to leave with the masses. At this stage, the organization announced that the death penalty would be imposed on those members who do not fight for the organization at this time. Accordingly, we knew that two members of the Sea Tigers wing had to go through this experience. However, the question now is, did we fight for a land of our own or to die fighting for the sake of fighting?

The voice of Tigers, in the meantime, announced the hopeful news of the impending arrival of the ship  ‘Vannak Garmen’ with the sponsorship of the Tamil Diaspora with food and relief to the people.  In this desperate hour, the Voice of Tigers broadcasted a few programs to give hope and lift the morale of the people now sandwiched between the sea and the forces. People were jostling each other to make an application to go onboard the ICRC ship that was to arrive to take the wounded and the sick. 

Civilians broke into the organization’s stores and started to take away various goods and equipment by force, and persons who had treated us with awe and respect up to then have now started to quarrel with the members. “Yes, we are getting ready to go to the army, but what can you do? We trusted you and came all this way, and where else more do you want us to come? What else is that the Leader of yours is planning to do now?” We were experiencing the hot air of people breathing down on us. Fair enough, because they, like us, have lost their sense of hope and security.

People pulled out their children from among our members, stating, “Your God forsaken struggle! Now enough of it, and let’s get on with this”, demonstrating their anger. It was dull and clear by now that the organization is made to look entirely impotent. Still, yet the organization appeared unwilling to give up its efforts in preventing the people from crossing over to the mainland.  However, despite all those blockades and threats to shoot, the people continued to take their children and escape through sea and land routes.

On May 9th, 2009, we were summoned for an emergency meeting by the Head of the Political Wing, Mr. Nadesan, and we had that meeting in the night around 7 p.m. under a tree in Mullevaikkal beach. Moonlight was making things quite bright that night. Mr. Nadesan advised us to stay among the crowds and be vigilant as there was the possibility of the forces infiltrating the group on foot petrol without launching significant attacks.  While we were having the meeting, we noticed big flames coming out of a nearby pit and realized that the army had attacked the oil storage pit of the LTTE. As the fire gathered momentum, it made things very uncomfortable to us though we were quite a few meters away. Some of the equipment lying about also caught fire. As the fire spread, we adjourned the meeting.

On May 13th, I met the Chief political wing, incidentally, for the last time.  That day Mr. Nadesan did not talk about obtaining help from the Tamil Nadu province or the international community,  with the hopefulness he displayed last time.  He was silent for a long time, and judging from the expression on his face; I felt that he was trying to say something severe but was grappling, not knowing how to come out.  Then suddenly, some ammunition fell on the ground nearby, and with that, he asked us to take cover. That was the end of my last meeting with the organization.

On May 14th, I tried to contact Mr. Nadesan, and failing, I tried all other responsible personnel, but my efforts bore no fruit. However, I met the Leader of the Sea Tiger Women’s brigade, Purnie, that day, and since she and I had joined the movement at the same time, there was a close bond between the two of us. When she saw me, she said that she had to confide in me.  Then she disclosed to me that the Leader and some senior commanders were planning to leave the area. However, since the sea area is heavily guarded by the SL Navy, she said that the plan is to go in small boats through the Nandikadal lagoon, attack the army checkpoint stationed at Koppapilaw and then go through the jungle and reach the beachfront. She said that she got to know this from her boyfriend, who is serving in the Imran– Pandian brigade.  This news, though reliable or not, started to inculcate a sense of betrayal in me since up to then, nobody had informed us about the future course of action of the organization in the current context, especially regarding the wounded and remaining living members.  Purnie and a few other members of the organization were in a position where they had zero ideas what to expect next, just like all the rest of us members.  Thus, we seemed to have reached a consensus of ‘waiting for things to happen.’ But then ‘waiting for what to happen when we know the inevitable’. We then got to know that Susai, the Sea Tiger commander, is available in a particular area, and Purnie said that she was going to see him. After Purnie left, I made inquiries from a few LTTE cadres who were accessible, and their view was that the high command of the organization is now irrelevant. The only alternative now is to proceed with the people leaving towards the forces.

On May 14th afternoon, the road to Mullevaikkal was teeming with people ready to proceed towards Mullaitivu.  In a situation where it is not known what the top command of the organization meant to do in this situation, the fighters felt deserted and abandoned to a fate of their own. The bodies of the ones killed lay about, and it was a situation where no help was available even to the wounded and the sick. The fighters were faced with two options; either to commit suicide and die or to mingle with the civilian crowd and proceed towards the army. Thousands of soldiers were prepared to leave with the civilians, and even the majority of people showed benevolence. They accommodated the fighters among them and also carried some of the wounded warriors. However, some soldiers expressed apprehension as to what would be their fate when it is discovered that they were LTTE members.

Just as the people were about to leave, the news came that Commander Susai had ordered that people should be retained till tomorrow and that he had placed some fighters on the road to make sure that nobody left. When people decided to go arrived, the crowd build–up was such that the few soldiers stationed could not do anything to stop the deluge. In the milieu, they just got pushed aside with their guns, and the people proceeded ahead. That scene of people flowing down the road taking with it everything on its way convinced me that whether you accept it or not, the armed struggle of the LTTE had come to a disastrous and humiliating end. 

All these activities now spawned in my mind the most significant debate of my life. My brain refused even the thought of going before the SL army and surrendering, after all the hostility that prevailed between us. In my view, it was the tradition in the LTTE to embrace a passionate death. But then the question now is, where is the LTTE? Had I died during a combat operation, I could die in peace, like many others who died that way, with the thought that I was sacrificing my life for the sake of my community. But now, how could I console myself to embrace death knowing very well that it is an utterly useless exercise?

Thus, in that battle between passion and wisdom within me, I finally chose wisdom for the simple reason that to be cowardize at this moment would be to run away from the situation at hand, and bravery would be to face life as it is and fight for right and justice. Therefore, I made up my mind on May 16th, 2009, to go and surrender o the SL Forces!!! 

The point to note here is that Thamalini does not relate a single account of indiscriminate killings of civilians by the SL forces between 13^th May to the time she surrendered on the 18^th. However, an allegation to that effect  was subsequently made against the SL forces at the UNHRC by way of resolution A/HRC/30/L.29 moved by the United States of America.  Thamalini’s book had been first published in Tamil in the year 2014, and that is before the US resolution in 2015. It was translated into Sinhala in 2015. From the above account, it is clear that during the last stages of this rescue mission, a lot of LTTE members would have died as they did not wish to surrender to the SL army, that they had been taught to hate all that while.

Further, the issue they had during the last few days was not of shells falling but of the army infiltrating the civilians on foot patrol. In a further account, Thamaleeni says how surprised she was to see the SL army soldiers attending to sick civilians and helping them to come out of the lagoon. This is another first-hand account of how life was in Nanthikadal during those last days, and not an account compiled after years, with the view of hauling the SL army before the UNHRC.

The vital point to note here is that it is not during the real rescue operation that this high number of deaths had been recorded. This ‘accretion’ in deaths with no substantial evidence has taken place every month, and by every year that passed since the conflict was over, making the number of fatalities increase exponentially with time.  For instance, all the records available such as the US military attache, the British army attache ( as quoted by  Lard Naseby), the UN Country Team, the UTHR J report, the ICRC report, all gave the number of dead in the range between 7,000 to 9,000. That number included the LTTE combatants as well.  Yet this number seemed to increase as the time lapsed as follows,

1^st Darusman Panel report – after two years of the conflict – claimed 40,000 deaths.  

 2^nd Darusman report – after two and a half years of the conflict- quoted 75,000 deaths.

Rev. Rayappu Joseph -giving evidence before the LLRC after 4 years claimed  147,000 deaths.                         Frances Harrison, the BBC correspondent, in‘Still Counting the Dead’, claimed 147,000 deaths.                                                                                                         M/s Yasmin Sooka,( Panel) – ‘The Unfinished War’, after 5 years- claimed 200,000 deaths.                                                                                     And  the latest is that Tamils in Canada commemorating May 19^th as the day 300,000 Tamils died.

Thus, we could now observe a phenomenon where there is a correlation between the numbers the Tamil propaganda machine claimed died during Nanthiladal operation and the lapse of time from the conflict. Therefore, it is very probable that a few years from now, the Tamil  Diaspora will be commemorating the death of about a million Tamil civilians during this operation on May 18th, every year. Strangely enough, these numbers today are being promoted by the same set of people, some media men and NGO’s, who spoke in gloving terms of the heroism and the invincibility of the LTTE and its leader Prabhakaran.

The Sri Lanka Independent Diaspora Analysis Group ( mainly Sinhala expatriates) has carried out their survey into the deaths at Nanthikadal in 2012 in the face of these conflicting numbers.  They published their report called the ‘Numbers Game’ in 2014. In this survey, they uncovered that the LTTE had maintained a close relationship with the Grama sevaka ( Village Administrative officers) of all the areas under their control since 2002 Peace accord and the Grama Niladharis had carried out the orders given by the LTTE concerning the Government support scheme;( the Government subsidize poor families below a certain income level). These Grama Niladharies maintain the voters’ list for each of their areas listing all the houses in the area, and hence it is easy for the LTTE to control the area when you bring the GN’s under them with their information. The fact, however, is that the North and the East provinces of the country had not been subjected to the surveys by Sri Lanka’s Department of Census and Statistics, which normally verify the population every 10 years, for the past 30 years. The last survey held for the Northern and Eastern provinces had been in 1981, and since then, the two surveys due in 1991 and 2001 had not been held due to LTTE threats. In fact, this had been deliberately done by the LTTE as in the absence of these verifications, the administration had to rely, solely on the Grama Niladharies to ascertain the area population for administrative purposes. In such a situation, the Grama Niladhareis could inflate the population figures at their will to receive the Government subsidies and also the population numbers for voting purposes at the elections. Therefore this had ben happening in the whole of North and in  some areas of the east, that were under the LTTE control (courtesy 2000 peace accord).

As a result of this situation, the Grama Niladhaties and the AGAs ( Assitant Government Agents) have been the ‘sole authorities’ for population figures for different areas whenever such figures are decided. Accordingly, even in this instance of the Nathikadal operation, there had been an AGA named Partheepan who had claimed that there were 330,000 persons in the Nanthikadal lagoon at that time as per the population figures of the areas from where people have been brought to Nanthikadal. This figure, however, contradicts the UTHR J report no. 32 that states in its introduction, ‘ Militarily stymied, LTTE took physical hostage of 300,000 people in its final stages’. Darusman Panel report has, however, opted to rely on the higher figure that is of AGA Partheepen and it is on those records that they have compiled the figure of 40,000 as missing people; i.e since 290,000 people have been rescued, AGA Partheepen has maintained that accordingly, 330,000 – 290,000= 40,000 have to be missing or dead. It is according to these figures that Darusman report is stating in its paragraph 70 that,‘ Around 330,000 civilians were trapped into an ever decreasing area, fleeing the shelling but kept hostage by the LTTE’.

The reality, however, is that these figures of AGA Parthepan are all estimates made to claim Govt subsidies and to show an inflated number in the voters’ list and have not been verified since 1981, i.e 28 years. Thus those figures are not reliable in the first place. Then, even if these figures are taken as reasonably correct, the question is how could a person give any certification about the numbers of people who have gathered under war conditions into such a perilous area and maintain that they have remained there till the end while various unofficial reports claimed that the people have escaped from this hostage area continuously since February 2009?

This is how the UTHR(J) Report no. 32 states about the movement of people in the hostage area, ‘People were constantly on the move: many were taking every opportunity to leave the conflict zone to safer areas. Anecdotal evidence from the UTHR(J) team shows that this was in the order of a few hundred to a thousand a day: ‘During March, an average of 1,000 persons escaped daily because there were more escape routes. When confined to Putumattalan, an average of 700 persons escaped daily. Even during May, when desperation contended with difficulty, an average of 800 persons a day made their escape”. People were dying: either killed by the LTTE while attempting to escape or through incidents of collateral damage as a result of shelling’.

Then we come to the next estimate made by the Darusman supplementary report that followed the first report six months after in September 2011, where it is mentioned that  ‘credible sources estimate the number died to be 75,000’. Again these ‘reliable sources’ have not been named, and the statement is qualified again with the ‘need to have a detailed investigation’.

Thereafter, we come to the next controversial claim of the number who died at Nanthikadal as claimed by the BBC correspondent Frances Harrison in her book, ‘Still Counting the Dead.’ Since she gives no basis for her figures but writes using emotional phraseology, moving the reader with the sob- stories of the population that spent four and a half months at Nanthikadal, the book is full of pathetic personal incidents and accounts with a lot of gossip thrown in. She quotes several anonymous sources for her information, and even the number she claims, ‘died at Nathikadal’ is also based on anonymous ‘reliable sources’ in Sri Lanka. By the description of this reliable source she gives in her book, it is evident that she has received these estimates from Rev. Rayappu Joseph. Rev, Rayappu Joseph first quoted this figure of 147,000 deaths in a document handed over to the LLRC in January 2011 as part of his testimony to the commission. He claimed:

‘Based on information from the Kachcheris of Mullaitivu and Killinochchi about the population in Vanni in early October 2008 and the number of people who came to government–controlled areas after that, 146,679 people seem to be unaccounted for. According to the Kacheries, the population in Vanni was 429,059 in the early part of October 2008 (Refer Annex 4 and 5). According to UNOCHA update as of July 10th, 2009, the total number of people who came out of the Vanni to government–controlled areas after this, is estimated to be 282,380(Ref. Annex6).As is evident from the text, the figure of 147,000 is derived by (429,059– 282,380 = 146,679).

This is a testimony given by a Catholic Bishop, and therefore people will have some respect for what he is saying under oath wearing a Catholic Priest’s cloak. The reality, however, is that the essential contents of every statement he makes are questionable because it is not possible for him to obtain the Vanni population (even estimates) from the incubators of Mullaitivu and Kilinochchi. After all, Vanni is made up of  4 districts, namely Kilinochchi, Mullaitivu, Vavuniya, and Mannar. Each district kachcheri(AGA office) maintains the population estimates for the own area only. Therefore, there is no way Rev. Rayappu Joseph could obtain the population estimates of Mannar and Vavuniya from the Kachcheries of Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu.

Further, this Catholic Bishop has the audacity to take the entire Vanni population into account as if it is homogenously Tamil. Vavuniya district, which is part of the Vanni, is multi-ethnic, and it is a fact that even a child would know. Hence, this Bishop had deliberately erred in his eagerness to inflate the death figures, to assume that the Vanni population is homogenously Tamil and therefore has taken that entire population as having been subjected to the hostage-taking by the LTTE at Nanthikadal. 

Population Census by the Department of Census & Statistics                                                         The Department of Census and Statistics performs their customary population survey for the whole of Sri Lanka every 10 years, and accordingly, it was in 2011that the census was due. However, since there was some delay in performing the countrywide survey due on 2011, and also as it is not possible to postpone the study for the northern province, given the conflicting claims made by interested parties on account of the numbers in the Northern population, the Department commenced an exclusive survey for the northern province in June 2011.  This survey was specially designed to ascertain, with verification, the number of people living as well as those who have died, especially during 2009 so that death certificates could be issued on account of them to their next of kin.

Those who collected data for this survey in the North are the same Grama Niladharies that have given estimates for the respective Kachcheris. Still, this time they had been detailed to visit each house as enumerators and verify and declare the number of people with other customary particulars too, on this verification. This is how the Department carries out its census surveys, customarily every 10 years, throughout the Island.

However, often, as the number of Grama Niladhsries alone are not sufficient to carry out the enumeration within the stipulated time, the department also hires and trains school teachers in the area, jut as they do in general surveys, as enumerators under the coordination of the Grama Niladharies. In this situation,  no single Grama Niladhari or an AGA in the northern province could declare one figure, unilaterally, as dead or missing for the Vanni or the whole of the northern region as the collation and coordination were done by the department of census and statistics. The individual Grama Niladharies could only submit the verified population figures for every Grama Nilahari division. This survey, however, revealed that there are 21,860 Sinhalese and 32,659 Muslims in the Vanni population, making up for a Non-Tamil population of 54,519 persons.

In the light of this information, for Rev. Bishop Rayappu Joseph to take the entire Vanni population, and then subtract the numbers that came back to the camp, rescued, at Manik farm ( Government control), to arrive at the death figure, he is suggesting that these non-Tamils in the Vanni population, numbering 54,519, too may have gone to Nanthikadal to rescue Prabhakaran! And since these people have not been recorded in the Manik Farm camp as survivors, that should mean that they, too have been killed?  However, the fact that these people are living is shown as per the general survey of 2011 June. Still, the Bishop has ‘killed’ these people in his quest to declare inflated figures on the Vanni population to the local and international sources.

The verified population figures get more interesting as we peruse this report further and realize that this 54,519 is not the only population this Bishop has ‘killed’ in his interest to inflate the number missing. The report gives the following verified living population figures for the Vanni area as of June 2011,

Kilinochchi                        103,717                                                                                                                                    Mulaitivu                            66,526                                                                                                                                      Mannar                               95,430                                                                                                                                      Vavunia                             164,852                                                                                                                                           Total Vanni Population   430,525.    

Now, what does Rev. Rayappu Joseph has to say about these verified data? He testified before the LLRC and possibly disclosed to the BBC and M/s Frances Harrison, the local correspondent, that the Vanni population is 429,059, and the number rescued is only282,380, and therefore the missing (suspected killed) is  = 146,679.

This, however, is still not the full population that lived and would live in the Vanni, as the verified census figures of 2011 disclosed that 14,761 IDPs are yet to be settled and also people who migrated out of the Vanni area during the disturbances are also still to be resolved.

Then came the general census of the whole island conducted in 2012.  By this time, almost all the population that had got displaced has got settled, and accordingly, the 2012 census (as per the Department of Census)gave the following verified population figures for Vanni.

Kilinochchi                         113,510                                                                                                                                    Mulaitivu                             92,238                                                                                                                                      Mannar                                99,570                                                                                                                                     Vavunia                              172,115                                                                                                                                            Total Vanni Population   477,433.         

 Anybody could now observe the extent of this Bishop Rayappu Joseph’s fabrication when there are 477,433 peoples living in flesh and blood in the Vanni, as its population as at June 2012, and this Bishop had fraudulently declared a registered population of  429,059 and then claimed that, of this population, only 282,380 are now surviving, arriving at the number dead as 146,679.  Any international body who is interested could visit Vanni now and verify the presence of this population that has been the point of contention of the Anti Sri Lanka propagandist since this long-drawn-out conflict came to an end.  This Bishop, who pontificate as a ‘religious dignitary,’ has lied to the Government and the International community, in a testimony, in his interest to mislead, betraying the dignity of his religion and the image of his country. Shouldn’t this Bishop be arrested immediately and charged for perjury under Sri Lankan law?

This gives some idea as to how the Catholic Church conducted its affairs during the 33 years of this conflict, deceiving the world with vicious and disdainful lies about the LTTE and the conflict in Sri Lanka, using and misleading the news outreach available to them at the Vatican.

Further revelations of the Census of population survey                                                             Having discussed all these fabricated lies and gossip about the number died at Nanthikadal; we could now examine the number killed as per the study conducted by the Department of Census & Statistics. The Department of Census & Statistics in Sri Lanka has been carrying out a census on Population and Housing in Sri Lanka every ten years, and the LTTE did not allow a population survey to be carried out for 30 years since 1981. Therefore this survey was the most important survey conducted by the department in 2011. On this, the numbers died during 2009 was detailed every month as death certificates have to be issued for those who died, for legal requirements allowing the remaining kith and kin to get on with their lives.  The survey was based on the vital documents( Births, Marriages, and Deaths) raised during these 30 years through the normal administrative channels, verified against the voter registration maintained by the Grama Niladhari and the AGA.  It was based on this voter registration that AGA Partheepan claimed that 330,000 civilians were present at the Nanthikadal during May 2009  and then published in the Darusman Panel report. However, nobody knew, not even the Darusman panel, the areas AGA Partheepan attributed this population to have resided.

On the other hand, this 2011 survey was done, house to house, armed with the voter list of the GN, and also accompanied by the GN. Generally, these surveys are conducted during the weekends, and if any person is not in the house at the time of the visit, such absence has to be explained by the Householder and certified by the GN.  This applies only to absentees and not for people who have permanently migrated, out from, or into the household, as such numbers are recorded under the Inward Migration and Outward Migration schedules that are separately compiled during the survey that forms part of the publication. Thus this survey was comprehensive and was in such detail that it gave the population by district, by Resident tenure, by Gender, by Age, by Ethnicity, by Religion, and by Rural & Urban sectors. The Department has local statistical officers attached to the AGA divisions, in each of the districts, and accordingly, this survey was spearheaded by the following officers(all Tamil) for each of the regions as follows,

Jaffna              Mr. S Udayakumaran                 Head of the District Statistics office

Mannar           Mr. M. Vithiyananthaneshan    Head of the District Statistics office

Kilinochchi     Mr. K.Velupillai  Head of the District Statistics office

Vavuniya         Mr. M. Thyagalingam   Head of the District Statistics office

Mullaitivu       Mr. N. Gangatharan      Head of the District Statistics office   

Following are the results of this survey.

Table 3.1.1: Population by Ethnicity and District ( Northern Province) – 2011

 

District	Total		Ethnicity
			Sinhala		Sri Lankan Tamil		Indian Tamil		Muslim		Other
	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%	Numb er	%	Numb er	%	Numb er	%
Total	997,754	100.0	21,860	100.0	934,392	100.0	8,432	100.0	32,659	100.0	411	100.0
Jaffna	567,229	56.9	746	3.4	560,905	60.0	3,550	42.1	1,874	5.7	154	37.5
Mannar	95,430	9.6	455	2.1	77,653	8.3	1,136	13.5	16,130	49.4	56	13.6
Vavuniya	164,852	16.5	16,555	75.7	134,709	14.4	1,956	23.2	11,491	35.2	141	34.3
Mullaithivu	66,526	6.7	3,966	18.1	59,540	6.4	596	7.1	2,390	7.3	34	8.3
Kilinochchi	103,717	10.4	138	0.6	101,585	10.9	1,194	14.2	774	2.4	26	6.3

 

The number of persons enumerated as dead and untraceable during the period from 1982 to 2011 is given as under. 

Table 4.11: Deaths and Untraceable persons by District and DS/ AGA division– since 1982 – 2011

			Status
District and DS/ AGA division	Total	Dead	Untraceable	Not stated
Total	71201	61651	6352	3198
Jaffna	42410	38006	2539	1865
Island North (Kayts)	1190	1090	77	23
Karainagar	943	841	54	48
Valikamam West (Chankanai)	2173	1968	106	99
Valikamam South -West (Sandilipay)	3152	2869	154	129
Valikamam North	2441	2207	123	111
Valikamam South (Uduvil)	3700	3367	145	188
Valikamam East (Kopay)	4933	4398	277	258
Vadamaradchi South-west	4674	4348	197	129
Vadamaradchi East	1308	1109	136	63
Vadamaradchi North (Pointpedro)	4491	3983	276	232
Thenmaradchi (Chavakachcheri)	5198	4592	400	206
Nallur	4252	3835	230	187
Jaffna	2753	2400	216	137
Island South (Velanai)	880	721	124	35
Delft	322	278	24	20
Mannar	4912	4144	551	217
Mannar Town	1969	1662	203	104
Manthai West	1062	856	169	37
Madhu	555	458	76	21
Nanaddan	1067	944	82	41
Musalai	259	224	21	14
Vavuniya	7925	6567	999	359
Vavuniya North	1167	986	141	40
Vavuniya South	707	663	29	15
Vavuniya	4232	3477	544	211
Vengalacheddikulam	1819	1441	285	93
Mullaithivu	6346	5229	799	318
Thunukkai	699	544	123	32
Manthai East	637	545	83	9
Puthukudiyiruppu	708	563	100	45
Oddusuddan	1624	1308	235	81
Maritimepattu	2678	2269	258	151
Kilinochchi	9608	7705	1464	439
Pachchilaipalli	947	812	125	10
Kandavalai	2213	1801	304	108
Karachchi	4683	3654	785	244
Poonakary	1765	1438	250	77

 

Those stated as dead have been issued with the death certificate during the normal course of the administration during the period and hence have nothing to do with the conflict situation.  Then, the most crucial schedule, the number of persons recorded as dead from January 2009 to May 2009 district wise, is presented as under,

Table 4.13: Deaths by district, month and causes of death – Jan – May 2009

District* and month death occurred	Total	Causes of death
		Old/ Sick	Natural disaster	Accident, Homicide, Suicide	Other	Not stated
Total	8998	1067	35	454	6858	584
January	889	180		42	612	55
February	1758	176	5	95	1369	113
March	3066	205	20	147	2514	180
April	1991	251	7	101	1514	118
May	1294	255	3	69	849	118
Jaffna	2344	740	9	204	1273	118
January	276	124		22	111	19
February	422	141	2	42	217	20
March	670	145	6	48	442	29
April	558	158	1	48	327	24
May	418	172		44	176	26
Mannar	446	68	2	16	348	12
January	64	16		1	46	1
February	83	8	1	2	70	2
March	134	13		6	112	3
April	108	14	1	4	85	4
May	57	17		3	35	2
Vavuniya	1286	121	5	51	1047	62
January	108	24		10	69	5
February	231	13		8	203	7
March	391	22	4	13	337	15
April	341	38		12	276	15
May	215	24	1	8	162	20
Mullaithivu	1872	56	10	82	1576	148
January	154	5		4	129	16
February	344	8		21	283	32
March	751	10	7	35	657	42
April	389	15	2	18	320	34
May	234	18	1	4	187	24
Kilinochchi	3050	82	9	101	2614	244
January	287	11		5	257	14
February	678	6	2	22	596	52
March	1120	15	3	45	966	91
April	595	26	3	19	506	41
May	370	24	1	10	289	46
* Resident district of respondent

 

The above schedule gives the numbers dead as enumerated on this house-to-house survey with the cause of death. Death certificates were issued on all persons in this schedule and even those that did not explain their cause of death and stated as ‘Not stated.’ People do not disclose the cause of death for various reasons, and most of such undisclosed deaths fall into the category ‘Other,’ meaning deaths due to terrorism.  Therefore, it is very probable that the number enumerated as dead due to the conflict situation is 7442 ( 6858+ 584). The Census report gives this population recorded as dead also by district and by Age.

A separate census was conducted for the untraceable persons during 2009 and published as under.

Table 4.19: Untraceable persons by Age and district during the year 2009

 

				District
Age group (Years)	Total	Jaffna	Mannar	Vavuniya	Mullaithivu	Kilinochchi
Total	2635	651	164	378	488	954
Less than 10	73	17	3	13	15	25
10 to 19	699	117	39	118	156	269
20 to 29	1085	257	88	137	197	406
30 to 39	344	123	13	44	55	109
40 to 49	97	30	10	18	14	25
50 to 59	52	16	4	12	8	12
60 to 69	36	10	2	6	5	13
70 or more	52	15	1	8	12	16
Not stated	197	66	4	22	26	79

 

An untraceable person does not necessarily mean that he is dead because some persons had traveled by boat to India during the conflict situation, and these numbers above could also include the persons who moved to Australia by boats during the year 2009. It is also reported that a group of persons numbering close to 600 has traveled to UK and Canada with the help of the Tamil Diaspora immediately after the rescue operation came to an end on May 19th, 2009. Despite all that, however, a certain number from this untraceable category could also have died during the conflict period.

 

The above is a verified record of all persons born in Sri Lanka, and to whom a National Identity card, a Driving license, or possibly a National Passport has been issued by the Sri Lankan Government. On the strength of these enumerations, the Sri Lanka  Government should take to an international tribunal, the Darusman Panel, M/s Frances Harrison- the BBC correspondent, and M/s Yasmin Sooka- a member of the Darusman Panel, on charges of libel. Yet the reality is that this information was not even presented to the UNHRC that have brought charges against Sri Lanka for allegations of War crimes suggesting that several civilians, out of proportion to the military objective, have been killed during the Nanthikadal operation. 

 

However, this analysis should put to rest the ‘Game of the numbers dead at the final phase of the rescue operation’ played by the Tamil nationalist and their international friends.

 

In conclusion, it is perhaps worth quoting a former NATO spokesperson on how the West has always justified significant civilian casualties during their military operations. During a press conference in May 1999, the NATO spokesman (Jamie Shea) during Operation Allied Force – NATO’s military operation against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo war, responding to criticisms of civilian deaths due to NATO airstrikes, responded with the following:

There is always a cost to defeat evil. It never comes free, unfortunately. But the cost of failure to defeat a great evil is far higher.   

He insisted NATO planes had bombed only “legitimate designated military targets,” and if more civilians had died, it was because NATO had been forced into military action.

What needs to be noted here is that the forces of former Yugoslavia that the NATO forces fought have never been described as the ‘most brutal and organized terror outfit in the world’ as the LTTE was, by the American FBI.

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter IX:

LTTE’s War Crimes & the ‘Last Stage’ of the War?

 

The inconsistencies in the Darusman report, legal opinion expressed on its findings and conclusions by the legal experts consulted by the SL Government and verifications of populations by the Department of Census & Statistics, in the preceding chapters, make a strong case to exonerate the Sri Lankan forces of all the allegations made in the Darusman panel report. All those allegations made against SL forces, in the Darusman Panel report, however,  are made without relativity to the tactics and strategies used by the adversary of the SL forces, the LTTE, during this conflict, and the fact remains that the Darusman report places blame on both parties to the conflict equally, for violating the International laws of conflict. Now that we have proved that the Darusman report is factually flawed in their allegations against SL forces, what now remains to be considered is the extent of the violations of international HR practices by the LTTE as alleged in this report. 

 

When did the conflict end?

The vital turning point in this evaluation of the violations by the LTTE is to determine when this conflict ended; is it on 19th May 2009 when the SL forces rescued all the civilians from Nanthikadal or on the 2nd January 2009 when the SL forces defeated the LTTE in its headquarters, Kilinochchi?

 

When the Ealam war 1V that started in 2006 was raging, and when the SL forces scored decisive victories pushing the LTTE eastwards initially, the talk was that Kilinochchi, in the east, would turn out to be the ‘Stalingrad for the SL forces.’  The term ‘Stalingrad’ was used to imply that the Russian forces, after being pushed all the way by German forces, staged its comeback at Stalingrad and thereafter went on to defeat the German forces decisively. The opinion of the LTTE watchers was that Prabhakaran, the LTTE leader, was fortifying Kilinochchi to inflict the turning point in the war, causing the maximum humiliation for the SL forces. Many did believe in this because the western opinion-makers and the NGO’s always maintained that the LTTE was invincible as a fighting force. This position was even acknowledged by the Darusman report when it commented on its Para 46 thus,

‘Specifically, of the four districts in the Vanni region, the LTTE was in full control of Kilinochchi, which was its de facto capital, and also Mullaittivu. It also controlled the northern part of Vavuniya, north–western Mannar, and small strips in the Jaffna peninsula’.

 

Thus, for 22 years, Kilinochchi had been the administrative capital of the LTTE, and in that context capturing Kilinochchi should be the end of this war! This position was confirmed even by empirical evidence that, after the SL forces overran Kilinochchi, the LTTE did not have a place to station themselves and their records, vehicles, communication center, ammunition store, and practically everything was exposed and was under the control of the enemy, the SL forces. What remained with the LTTE afterward was only what they hot-footed out of Kilinochchi.

 

The Second World War was considered over, the day Russian forces overwhelmed the German forces in Berlin and created what was then considered East Berlin, and not the day Adolf Hitler committed suicide in his hiding place with his mistress. Simultaneously the day Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed beyond recognition, killing more than 100,000 civilians by the Americans, the Japanese operation of WW11 to was brought to a halt. There was no question of capturing Emperor Hirohito, who lived for 57 years after the end of that war. Similarly, the Iraqi war was considered over the day American forces captured Bagdad and not the day Saddam Husain was captured in ad-Dawr in Tikrit, in an underground bunker, about a year later. Therefore, logically the end of the Sri Lankan conflict was on 2nd January 2009 and not on 19th May 2009.  The Darusman report also commented as follows on the activity during January, including 2nd January 2009.

 

77. 77. In January 2009, the Government scored several highly significant victories. In November 2008, the SLA had captured the strategically important Pooneryn and the bulk of the west coast, reopening the A32. Then on 2nd January 2009, the 57^th and 58^th Divisions of the SLA captured Kilinochchi.³² Thereafter,both the SL President and the international community urged the LTTE to lay down its arms.³³ On 9th January 2009, the SLA 53^rd and 55^th Divisions captured the Elephant Pass. It freed the A9, bringing the entire highway under government control for the first time in 23 years. Later that month, on 25th January, the 59^th Division captured Mullaittivu, another substantial LTTE base. These events marked a new stage in the acceleration and intensification of the armed conflict, one in which the ultimate defeat of the LTTE was imminent.

Although the report is stating about a ‘new stage of the conflict in which the defeat of the LTTE was imminent,’ the defeat of the LTTE was all but confirmed by then. Mullaitivu was an LTTE camp east of Kilinochchi, and overrunning that camp was not a decisive activity once Kilinochchi had fallen because it was the Mullaitivu cadres that were defending Kilinochchi.

The Sri Lankan President too considered the fall of Kilinochchi as the end of the war, and this was quite evident in the press report the Government issued on the 2nd January after the fall of Kilinochchi, which stated,

‘The President said that the fall of Kilinochchi “should not be interpreted as a defeat of the North by the South” but “a victory for our entire nation and country.” (Sri Lanka Government website, http://www.priu.gov.lk/, under “Archives,” “Kilinochchi is captured – President tells the nation,” 2nd January 2009’. )

This leaflet that was dropped by the SL Government had been quoted in the Darusman report in its page 28 under references, and it read,

‘Dear Vanni Citizen: We are conducting a final war to liberate the people who have been suffering due to the LTTE’s ruthless terrorist acts in Vanni. In this war, the LTTE is being defeated in many places. We, the Government of Sri Lanka, are doing our best to avoid human casualties in the war. Therefore, we are requesting you – the beloved Tamils– to come immediately to the liberated government areas to protect yourself before this disaster.”

The Darusman report describes further the period that ensued after the fall of Kilinochchi, in its Executive Summary in page (iii), under ‘Allegations found credible by the Panel’, thus,

‘In spite of the futility of their military situation, the LTTE not only refused to surrender but also continued to prevent civilians from leaving the area, ensuring their continued presence as a human buffer. It forced civilians to help build military installations and fortifications or undertake other forced labor. It also intensified its practice of forced recruitment, including of children, to swell their dwindling ranks.⁵¹ As LTTE recruitment increased, parents actively resisted, and families took increasingly desperate measures to protect their children from recruitment. They hid their children in secret locations or forced them into early arranged marriages.⁵² LTTE cadre would beat relatives or parents, sometimes severely, if they tried to resist the recruitment. All these approaches, many of them aimed at defending the LTTE and its leadership, portrayed callousness to the desperate plight of civilians and a willingness to sacrifice their lives.’

What is the impression any reader, who goes through all these narratives, would form in his/ her mind about the status of this conflict by then?

Is it that the LTTE withdrew to Puthukudierruppu ( which was their last hiding place ) and beyond to fight another day, or is it that the LTTE, in retreat, sought salvage in a sliver of land beyond Puthukudierruppu, ensconced by a mass of civilians for its protection?

The impression, very obviously, would be the latter, as even the Darusman report has implied. Therefore, it should now be clear that the conflict between the SL Army and the LTTE, for all intents and purposes, was palpably, technically and morally, over by January 2009. The question then is, what is the activity that ensued after January 2009, of this conflict?

What followed after that, was holding civilians to ransom by the LTTE to find a way for its escape and that of its leadership.  According to the narrative given in Kamalini’s ( LTTE Political Wing Leader) book, which was given in the last chapter, what ensued after January was the period where the LTTE expected them to be rescued, either by India or by the International community. The SL army was on the LTTE trail not because it wanted to defeat an already defeated enemy but because, on the one hand, the LTTE leadership should be made to account for its crimes and on the other, all those people, women and children confined to a sliver of the land of a few square km, would mean a humanitarian disaster in the making!

 Even the Tamilnet and the LTTE friendly media started to talk about the ‘humanitarian disaster’ and not about how the LTTE will come fighting out of the situation. Therefore, what ensued after January 2009 is not ‘the last stage of the conflict’ even though some media men who define things for their advantage did start to parrot it as such, oblivious of the international connotations of the term. From February onwards, what happened was that the LTTE was firing from amidst civilian population to prevent the SL forces from evacuating the civilian population and catching the LTTE leadership. This was nothing but ‘Human Shielding,’ and ‘Human Shielding’ is a war crime under the laws of international and national conflicts (IHL).

The following News and Press reports will give some idea as to how the international community reacted to the situation in Sri Lanka from February to May 2009.

31^st Jan.2009- UN Secretary-General commends Sri Lanka on efforts to obtain civilians released from LTTE custody.

16th February – Indian External Affairs Minister P. Chidambaram tells LTTE to disarm and surrender.

17th February- The EU condemns the appointment of a special representative for Sri Lanka by Britain.

17^th February- UN says the LTTE should stop recruiting civilians to fight.

17^th February – World Children’s fund stresses that LTTE should stop conscripting children

19^th February – UN Under-Secretary on Humanitarian affairs says that LTTE should release civilians.

20^th February – UN representative satisfied with facilities for IDPs.

23^rd February – Japan slams LTTE for using humanitarian issues to promote military offensive.

24^th February – UN, and EU call LTTE to disarm and renounce violence.

28^th February – UN Security Council Ambassador states that the LTTE should free the civilians with no ceasefire.

1st March – British MP Kieth Vaz pledges not to speak for LTTE in the future.

11th March – Britain condemns the LTTE suicide attack in southern Sri Lanka.

13th March – EU Parliament condemns LTTE violence and intimidations.

16th March – UN accuses LTTE of conscripting UN staffers.

21st March – Australian Foreign Minister condemns LTTE’s terror tactics.

23rd March – The majority of UN members are against throwing a lifeline to the LTTE.

24th March – UN Security Council says that the LTTE should disarm and perish.

4th April – UN Special envoy Walter Kalin lauds IDP facilities and issues an ultimatum to the LTTE to free civilians.

5th April – Peace Co-Chairs UN, Norway, Japan, and EU order LTTE to free civilians.

15th April – The Hindu says that the LTTE should not enter the No Fire Zone.

16th April – UK and France says that the LTTE should give up human shields immediately.

18th April – UNHCR calls LTTE to release civilians.

23rd April – President of the UN Security Council Claude Heller demanded that the LTTE release human hostages immediately.

29th April – British and French Foreign Ministers meet the President to discuss the safety of the civilians in LTTE custody.

3rd May – Japan’s special envoy Yasushi Akashi expresses willingness to support Sri Lanka in future efforts.

27th May – Sri Lanka Prevails at UNHRC- UN Human Rights Council at its 11^th Special Session adopted a Resolution on Assistance to Sri Lanka in Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Encouraged GOSL to continue to pursue existing cooperation with relevant UN organizations essential humanitarian assistance; safe drinking water, sanitation, food, medical, and health care services to IDPs

 

The above reports make it clear that what prevailed, from 2009 February to 2009 May, was not a war as such but an attempt to free civilians held hostage by the LTTE. It should also be noted that the international community is blaming the LTTE and empathizing with Sri Lanka on this issue.  It did not appear that any party in the international community considered the civilian- issue to be a problem with the Sri Lankan army, but a hostage-taking issue with the LTTE.

 

Therefore, establishing the correct position of this conflict is, that it was over by  January 2009 and what ensued after that was a rescue operation, would exonerate the SL forces of all that happened from February till May 2009, and places the primary responsibility for all that activity squarely, on the LTTE. Therefore, this period was the ‘Rescue operation stage of the conflict’ and not ‘the last stage of the conflict’ as popularly believed.

The fact, however, is that this narrative started to change soon after Sri Lankan forces wrapped up the whole thing on the 18th of May 2009, rescuing 290,000 civilians. Wiping out the most ruthless and organized terrorist organization in the world, considered ‘Invincible’. Also, rescuing 290,000 civilians held hostages by them did not go well with certain big powers in the ‘international’.  This is an accomplishment even the most powerful and trained US forces have not achieved with all that fighting all over the world, and hence this indeed was unthinkable. Still, it is now the ground reality, and therefore, the international community probably thought that it was too much of a credit to the security forces of Sri Lanka that were placed at the mercy of the LTTE all this while. Therefore, it is now a whole new ball game of international politics and diplomacy that the SL forces have to contend with.

The question before some members of this ‘international community’ by then was: Are we prepared to let Sri Lanka off the hook with this unfriendly Rajapakse regime in power? Certainly not, because the Rajapakse regime will contribute to strengthening the forces against us waiting to undermine our world domination, and therefore Sri Lanka should be kept under some form of lien!

The reality is that the international goodwill for a country like Sri Lanka always comes with a price, and that price is the country’s independence in international politics. Despite all that talk about modern civilized values and ‘humanitarian concerns,’ what matters, in the end, is which political camp you are on? What is right and wrong, what is good and evil and what is just and unjust or even what is human and inhuman are all secondary and dispensable at the altar of world politics because it is world politics that enable ‘world domination’.

The LTTE is no more, and therefore it matters little what you call them now. The way out is to call that rescue operation ‘the last stage of the war’ and place the blame on both sides for the atrocities committed! The paradox in this, however, is, if both sides committed war crimes amid this civilian population as alleged, how come that 290,000 civilians, over 90%, were rescued, and who rescued them?

Nobody doubts that the LTTE was holding the civilians as hostages by killing those who fled because that fact is documented all over, in black and white. The task at the hands of the opposing party was to rescue these civilians.  When the Israeli forces rescued those 102 hostages in that Air France flight at Entebbe in 1970, three hostages died in the rescue operation. Still, France did not blame Israel for accidentally killing three but thanked them for rescuing 102. When German guards attempted to rescue 11 Israel athletes held hostage by Palestinians at the Munich Olympic village in 1972, all athletes were killed at the rescue attempt.  Israel, however, did not hold the Germans accountable for the deaths. Instead, they later settled their scores with the Palestinians.

In the Sri Lankan case, however, those who rescued 290,000 civilians have been held accountable for killing a dubious amount of people with no credit for saving 290,000 who would otherwise have perished through hunger or lack of proper shelter or in trying to escape from the LTTE custody, drowned in the lagoon. Sri Lanka is undoubtedly on the wrong side of world politics!

Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission ( LLRC) was a mechanism established by the Sri Lanka Government after the war to facilitate communal reconciliation. According to the LLRC  reports, confirmed by the Defense Ministry publications, the total casualties the SL army experienced during the Ealam War 4, which commenced in July 2006 and ended with the capture of Kilinochchi on 2nd January 2009, is 3,430 deaths, 169 missing and 17,735 wounded. However, since capturing Kilinochchi and then during the rescue operation that ensued, the SL army had lost a further 2126 men with 10,679 wounded.  Thus, when you consider results achieved per army life, the rescue operation has been costly.  If the army had stood still and just shelled the hostage area in response, the task would have been more comfortable with fewer army casualties. The SL army, however, recognized the humanitarian significance of the situation that confronted and accordingly acted with utmost consideration and purposefulness to stage the most significant humanitarian rescue operation in the history of a national conflict anywhere in this world. The extraordinary number of wounded in the SL army (10,679) would signify the extent to which the army had to stretch itself to accomplish this humanitarian operation.  But ironically, they are all WAR CRIMINALS in the eyes of some members of the ‘International community’.

In contrast, the only elite force guard killed during the Israeli Entebbe operation in Uganda, Yohanath Nethanyahu, is commemorated even today as a national hero, and his younger brother, Benjamin Netanyahu, became the Prime Minister of Israel, necessarily due to the heroic act of his brother.

Gordon Weise, the UN Country team leader who was stationed at the scene of war, makes the following point on page 216 of his book ‘The Cage.’

‘ It remains a credit to many of the front line SLA soldiers that, despite odd cruel exceptions, they so often seemed to have made an effort to draw civilians out from the morass of fighting ahead of them in an attempt to save lives.’

Major General Sir John Holms, former UN Under-Secretary for Humanitarian Affairs, makes the following comments in Para 22 of his report,

‘In military terms, the tactical options were stark. Field commanders would have been well aware of the past SLA casualty numbers, and it is generally acknowledged that soldiers become less prepared to put their lives in the line towards the end of a campaign that was moving toward a successful conclusion. As it was and according to SLA official figures, a total of 2126 members of the security forces were killed and 10,679 wounded from 1^st Jan. to 19th May 2009’

 

What is called a ‘war’ is a fight between two belligerent armies, but this is an odd situation where one party is clearly in pursuit of the other. In contrast, the other party anchors itself in a lagoon ensconced by a mass of civilians at gunpoint and declares that ‘now we are under watch by the international and so, get me if you can!’ What type of war is this? Have we heard of such a war in the history of humanity? Yes, we have heard of such situations, but those have been called ‘Human shielings’ and not WARS. Therefore, whoever decided to call this stage of this operation the last stage of the war either has no sense of what war is, or are essentially in pursuit of placing the blame for this human shielding on the SL forces.

 

This Ealam war 4 commenced in May 2006; it lasted till January 2009 when the SL forces captured the LTTE capital Kilinochchi. No UN member or no foreign power alleged the Sri Lankan army of killing civilians up to that point in January 2009. There is a Viki-leaks cable to the State Department by the US Ambassador, where he has complemented the SL force for conducting a disciplined campaign with negligible collateral damage. Then what happened after January 2009? How did this change? The difference was that, from July 2006 to January 2009, there were no human shields, whereas from January 2009 till May 2009, there was this civilian human shield. Then who was responsible for this human shield? Is it not the LTTE that is the causal factor of all these deaths at the so-called ‘last stage’?

 

The vital necessity of having a human shield for the LTTE leader’s protection was also confirmed by  Prabhakaran ‘s successor, the former de-facto leader of the group from May 2009 to August 2009, Kumaran Pathmanathan (KP). In an interview in 2011 with the respected Canadian Tamil Journalist, D.B.S.Jeyaraj, KP who dealt with the international parties while stationed in Singapore in May 2009, confesses about the group’s raison d’etre for holding the civilian population hostage:60

 

DBSJ: Did you not try to save the civilians by getting the LTTE to release them?

KP: I did try at the start. There was even an offer by the Americans to transport them by sea to Trincomalee. But the LTTE hierarchy was not agreeable. This attitude was most unfortunate and may appear as inhuman. I am not trying to condone or justify this action, but when I reflect upon the past, I think the LTTE leadership also had no choice. If they released the people first, then only the tigers would be left there. After that, all of them could have been wiped out’.

 

There, however, is more than what meets the eye in this human shielding by the LTTE as revealed by specific sources within the LTTE itself. The first example comes from the late Seevaratnam Pulidevan, a senior official in the LTTE’s political wing (Head of the LTTE Peace Secretariat) in 2009. The confession, found in Frances Harrison’s new book “Still Counting the Dead,” comes in the form of an account of a conversation in early 2009 between Seevaratnam Pulidevan and a Sri Lankan Tamil supporter in Europe. In it, the head of the LTTE Peace Secretariat clearly outlines the organization’s thinking during this stage of the conflict:59

They [LTTE] hoped for humanitarian intervention. Puli had been quite open about this approach. He told European friends that, ‘just as in Kosovo if enough civilians died in Sri Lanka, the world would be forced to step in.’

This position was also corroborated by the UN Country team Leader in his book ‘The Cage’- page 219,

‘There were numerous accounts of brutal forced recruitment of children in the final days, including the daughter of one UN staff member, who eventually managed to desert and escape the siege. More ominously of all, there is good evidence that at least on some occasions, the Tamil Tigers fired artillery into their people. The terrible calculation was that, with enough dead Tamils,  all would eventually reach a point that would lead to international outrage and intervention’.

The conclusion then is the LTTE planned this human shielding and carried it out, albeit with deliberate intentions of exacerbating the death toll, to survive until some world power intervened.  The LTTE had many friends, and that included the USA, Norway, UK, India, EU, etc.  Come to think of it; the LTTE would never have held on to this human shield and caused all these deaths if it did not have such influential friends on the world stage.  Thus, it then becomes logical to deduce part of the responsibility for these deaths on these international friends of the LTTE.  The irony, however, is that it is these very same international friends of the LTTE that is now alleging Sri Lanka of war crimes for rescuing all those civilians the LTTE wanted to massacre to justify an intervention by their friends.

 

Thus, all what we now have to tell the Darusman Panel who surmised that the death count at Nanthikadal could have been 40,000 – 75,000, Bishop Rayappu Joseph who swore that it was  147,000, Frances Harrison, the BBC correspondent, who maintained the same number and Yasmin Sooka who said that it should be over 200,000, is that ‘ please revisit your figures because your exaggerations may cause embarrassment, not to the SL army as you expected, but to your friend, the ‘invincible’LTTE and those who aided and abetted it, because  all those deaths were the result of human shielding by the LTTE.

 

Professor Michael Newton, Professor of the practice of law, Vanderbilt University School of Law, had made his legal opinion succinctly when he made the following statements in pages 5 & 6 of his report.

‘ If the law is warped to permit the enemy to exploit human shields with no possibility of recourse unlawfully, then the law becomes irrelevant and essentially obsolete. Good faith application of the law of proportionality is the only way to balance these competing but equally important priorities. The laws and customs of war cannot countenance that undue military leverage to the side that willfully ignore the reciprocal obligation to protect innocent civilians in so far as possible’.

‘ Thus, the LTTE bears the responsibility for civilian deaths because their conduct was the causal factor in such deaths and because only the LTTE was properly positioned to accurately assess the precise likelihood of death or injury to civilians located in the area.’

 

 

The allegations against the LTTE as per the Darusman Report

The panel report, however, having developed an agenda of its own that obviates the need to  analyze the conflict in its entirety, with its implications on the country and its citizens go by the thinking that, the events that took place at al Nanthikadal was the ‘last stage of the conflict’.It should be noted that this ‘last stage was a term introduced by this Darusman panel as it claimed that it was tasked to investigate into the ‘last stage’ by the UNSG in its terms of reference.  Thus, after having introduced a ‘last stage’ which is quite out of context to this conflict, and by that, having shielded the LTTE of its principal war crime of ‘Human shielding,’ the Panel report makes the following six war crimes allegations against the LTTE in Para 177.

• Using civilians as a human buffer.
• Killing civilians attempting to flee LTTE control.
• Using military equipment in the proximity of civilians.
• Forced recruitment of children.
• Killing of civilians through suicide attacks.

 

 

Using civilians as a human buffer.

The Darusman report noticeably fails to identify the particular international laws of conflict under which this violation has taken place, but technically, the allegation ( a) appears to come under ‘Human Shielding’ in International law.  The use of human shields by parties to a conflict is prohibited explicitly under International Humanitarian Law. Article 51 (7) of additional protocol 1 provides that,

’The presence or movement of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render specific points or areas from military operations in particular, in attempts to shield military objectives or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The parties to the conflict shall not direct the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations’.

 

However, the Report of this so-called ‘UNSG’s Panel of Experts’ ( Darusman) has, yet again has run into an inconsistent state. Instead of holding the LTTE responsible for ‘human  shielding,’ it is making a contradictory statement in its para 237, to exonerate the LTTE of this offense,

237.Typical Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions: Credible allegations point to a violation of Common Article 3’s ban on the taking of hostages insofar as they forced thousands of civilians, often under threat of death, to remain in areas under their control during the last stages of the war and enforced this control by killing persons who attempted to leave that area. (Concerning the credible allegations of the LTTE’s refusal to allow civilians to leave the combat zone, the Panel believes that these actions did not, in law, amount to the use of human shields in sofar as it did not find credible evidence of the LTTE deliberately moving civilians towards military targets to protect the latter from attacks as is required by the common definition of that war crime (Rule 97, ICRCStudy).

 

Professor Michael Newton, Professor of the practice of law, Vanderbilt University School of Law, was consulted by the SL Government on this point of Human Shielding, and he has expressed his legal opinion;

‘The element of the crime for the Rome statute which is adopted with wide international consensus on 30th June 2000 is clear that any action by a perpetrator, committed with the intent to ‘shield a military objective from attack ‘ or to take advantage of one or more civilians to ‘shield, favor or impede military operations’ completed a war crime. Against that backdrop, the UNSG’s Panel of Experts suggests ( T 237) that the war crime of using ‘Human shield requires credible evidence against the LTTE deliberately moving the civilians towards targets to protect the letter from attacks’ is unfounded as a matter of law.  The crime of ‘Human shielding’ is committed by a perpetrator who intentionally moves or otherwise took advantage of the location of one or more civilians.’ Page 2

 

Also, however, the fact that the Panel report states that. ‘it did not find credible evidence of the LTTE deliberately moving civilians towards military targets’  indicate that the ‘Panel of experts’ (Darusman) is not aware of the ‘full story’ of how these estimated 330,000 civilians were found in this conflict area. They seemed to be under the impression that this population is the population of the conflict area in the Nanthikadal lagoon, and the LTTE moved in there for their protection, and then the army started to shell the area to get the LTTE. Further, the Panel report in its conclusions sets out in its executive summary the charges against the LTTE, and in that list, the following allegation has been made against the LTTE in para 70,

70. 70. Retaining the civilian population in the area that it controlled was crucial to the LTTE strategy. The presence of civilians both lent legitimacy to the LTTE’s claim for a separate homeland and provided a buffer against the SLA offensive. To this end, the LTTE forcibly prevented those living in the Vanni from leaving.²⁷ Even when civilian casualties rose significantly, the LTTE refused to let people go, hoping that the worsening situation would provoke an international intervention and a halt to the fighting. It used new and poorly trained recruits as well as civilians necessarily as “cannon fodder” in an attempt to protect its leadership until the final moments.

In this, the Panel report states that the LTTE used the civilian population as a buffer against the SLA offensive. Still, then in para 237 of the same report, the Panel provides an excuse for not bringing in the war crimes allegation of Human shielding against the LTTE.

It is a fact that the SL Government had no faith in this Darusman Panel report from the day the idea was conceived by the UNSG. However, apart from the questionable agenda of this Panel report, it is difficult to believe that the Panel would put down in writing, such contradictory and inconsistent statements had they been aware that this population that encapsulated the LTTE at Mullaiwaikkal was not the population of the area but moved in there by the LTTE as a strategic buffer for their protection?

This position of the Darusman Panel, not having done its ‘homework’ before publishing the report, is apparent from this statement they have made in para 177 above. Para 177 states that ‘the LTTE forcibly prevented those living in the Vanni from leaving.’This confirms that the Panel is of the view that this population that was there ( 330,000) was the population living in Vanni and that this particular area of about three square Kms at Mullaivaikkal is the area called Vanni. If not, they will not refer to this population as those living in Vanni.

 

Vanni is a large area comprising four districts, Mullaitivu, Kilinochchi, Mannar, and Vavuniya, and in extent, it is 7419 square km. These four districts are the most sparsely populated in Sri Lanka, and they were in that ‘LTTE controlled area’ as per the 2002 peace agreement. It is part of the population in these four districts that the LTTE marshaled into that sliver of land in Nanthikadal called  Mullaivaikkal, which is about 3 square km. in extent.  Nanthikadal lagoon separates the mainland from this sliver of land, and there is a solitary bridge at karayamulivaikkal that connects this sliver of land to the beach. Mullaivaikkal is located beyond this bridge, and when the LTTE and its support population crossed this bridge and cut across to Mullaivaikkal, it is tough for an army to reach them except through the lagoon. If the military attempted to cross the lake, they would be sitting ducks for the LTTE cannon fire. Therefore Mullaivaikkal is the safe heaven the LTTE chooses as the last resort to salvage itself till international help arrives.

 

Mullaivaikkal comprises 2 GN divisions called Mullaivaikkal West and Mullaivaikkal East and is a part of the Maritmepattu DS division, which is within the Mullaithivu district. The population of Mullaivaikkal is only a few thousand, and this population was not mentioned in the 2012 National census as the area by then had not fully recovered from being the epicenter of that rescue operation in May 2009. Presently in May 2020, the population of the 2 DN divisions of Mullaivaikkal is available as per the kachcheris, and it is as follows,

 

Mullaivaikkal East            1502 persons

Mullaivaikkal West           1048 persons 

Total population                2,550

Therefore, now the question we have for the UNSG’s Panel of Experts who compiled this Drusman report is; if the LTTE did not marshal part of the Vanni population into this sliver of land, how could there be 330,000 persons as claimed by the report in this venue called Mullaivaikkal, the scene of the final operation?

 

This panel of experts appointed by the UN Secretary-General, like so many others in the ‘International community’ seemed to have believed that the LTTE ran off to Vanni and logged themselves among the Vanni population and the SL army started shelling Vanni to catch the LTTE and killed civilians in the process. We could excuse the ‘international community’ in general for their ignorance in the face of all that Tamil propaganda, but a Panel of Experts who are expected to do a report for the UN on war crimes committed in a long drawn out national conflict in a member state, cannot be pardoned for such a cavalier approach.

 

A probable reason for this state of affairs is that the Panel of Experts, ensconced in the air-conditioned comfort of a room in the UN building in Washington DC located about 15,200 km away from the sweltering heat of the conflict zone, was given an advance schedule to blame both sides to the conflict. This obviated the need to research deep into the events but just to brush on the surface and reach conclusions to blame both; the LTTE( that is no more anyway) and the Sri Lankan Government that needs to be kept under the control of this ‘international community.’

 

Finally, the Darusman Panel report, in its Conclusions, gives the following details in support of its charges against the LTTE.

177. 177. ( a).’ Using civilians as a human buffer. Despite the grave dangers and terrible conditions in the conflict zone, the LTTE refused civilians permission to leave, using them as hostages and at times using their presence as a strategic human buffer between themselves and the advancing SLA. Civilians were increasingly sacrificed as dispensable “cannon fodder” while the LTTE fought to protect its senior leadership. The LTTE’s refusal to allow civilians to leave the area added significantly to the total death toll in the conflict.’

In these conclusions, the Darusman Panel states about a ‘ human buffer’ and the LTTE holding civilians as ‘hostages.’ Doesn’t holding civilians as hostage amounts to Human shielding?  But not according to the Panel of Experts as Para 237 precedes Para 177 in the report. If this is not ‘Human Shielding,’ then what is the term by which the Panel may describe this situation?

Sir Geoffrey Nice QC and Rodney Dixon QC, in their report of Review of the Panel report state,  

‘Former American Ambassador in Sri Lanka, Robert O’ Blake spelled it out eloquently, when he stated, ‘As the SL Army was pushing North into the Tamil Area, the predominantly Tamil areas that were controlled by the LTTE for more than two decades, they displaced. Sri Lankan army displaced a large number of Tamil civilians, and they all began to move northwards. The LTTE systematically refused international efforts to allow those internally displaced persons to move south, to move away from conflict areas, where they could have been given food and shelter, and so forth. So they systematically, basically refused all efforts and, in fact, violated international law by not allowing freedom of movement to those civilians.’  Page 14

 

However, as a matter of logic, it is extremely unlikely that some 20,000 cadres of LTTE, at that stage, could have taken up all those people numbering about 330,000 or thereabout as hostages against their will. Therefore, it is very probable that a large section of the civilians went on their own accord with the LTTE to play a part, albeit passive, in the LTTE’s rescue operation. Especially in the light of seeking international help by staging a humanitarian crisis to sabotage the SL army getting hold of the LTTE leadership. As Thamalini has disclosed in her book, the LTTE was expecting help from India as the Indian elections were to be held in April 2009, and hence Tamil Nadu State could have leverage over the Indian Central Government to intervene in Sri Lanka as it has done in the past.

 

It should also be noted that the LTTE followed a rigorous war-focused code of conduct where they had a system of preferred treatment to ‘Mahaveer families’, families whose members have sacrificed their lives for the war effort.  On the other hand, there was no room in the LTTE controlled area for those who did not contribute to the LTTE war effort, and as all these people are from the LTTE controlled areas, they probably would have known the repercussion they would have to face if they did not co-operate with the LTTE.  On the other hand, people had so much confidence in the LTTE because, since 2002 (7 Years), the LTTE had their administration in their area (courtesy of the SL Government of Ranil W). The ‘international community’, too, treated the LTTE as an invincible military force, and Prabhakaran was considered a military genius. Tamil nationalist propaganda, too, was rife in this LTTE area, and they just built on the Tamil nationalist propaganda introduced since the 1940s by Ponnambalam/ Chelvanayagam & co.

 

Judging the situation in that background, the chances are that the Tamil population, initially, went on their own, and this probable fact even brings into question the American Ambassador’s statement that the Sri Lanka army displaced the civilians. The Sri Lanka army has been fully conscious of its role in this operation as they always knew that it might not be the fighting strength that may save the LTTE in the end, but the international pressure, like in past instances. However, since Tamil nationalism is at the core of this LTTE terrorism and its sustenance, it is necessary to understand the mindset of Tamil nationalism to understand why the ordinary Tamils held the LTTE in such ‘Awe’ despite LTTE’s proven callous and dispensable treatment towards civilians.

 

From the international law of conflict, one may argue that if the civilians accompanied the LTTE on their own, all that happens is that the civilians may lose their civilian status without making the LTTE liable for a war crime. The reality, however, is that, though they may have come voluntarily, as subsequent events revealed, the LTTE used force, often brutal, to retain the civilians within that state, making the LTTE liable for Human shielding.  

 

Professor Michael Newton has expressed his opinion on page 4 of his report on this,

‘Rome statute in both international non–international Armed conflicts ( Article 8 (2) (a) (VIII) and 8 (2)(c)(III) respectively),  as well as in article 4(2)(c) of protocol; II Additional. The blaskic, 24 Trial Chamber reiterated the importance of the prohibition against the taking of hostages: the taking of hostages is prohibited in Article 3(B) common to the Geneva Conventions, which is covered by Article 3 of the statute. The commentary defines hostages as follows,

‘Hostages are nationals of a belligerent state which, of their own free will or through compulsion, are in the hands of the enemy and are answerable with their freedom or their life for the execution of orders and the security of armed forces.’

 

Article 1 of the UN International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages (1st December 1979) states,

‘ Any person who seizes or detains and threaten to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person to compel a third party, namely, a state, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or judicial person, or a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage, commits the offense of taking hostages.’

 

The legal experts retained by the SL Government have not only cited the applicable International laws of conflict but have also mentioned how the code has been applied in practice; the latest instance where such provisions have been applied is in the Kosovo conflict where the NATO forces used force, to evict the troops of former Yugoslavia from Kosovo. In this regard, Professor D. M Crane & Sir Desmond De Silva QC have expressed the following opinion on page 8 of their report.

In both international and non–international armed conflicts, international law prohibits the use of civilians to shield military objectives and operations. The practice known as ‘human shielding’ is held as a ‘grave breach’ and violation of the law or customs of war. There are a few examples of this law in practice in the International Criminal Tribunal of former Yugoslavia ( ICTY) cited as follows.                                                                                

‘In1996 ICTY determined that the facts contained in the indictment against Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic were sufficient to constitute the crime of ‘Human Shielding.’ According to the indictment, the accused had captured at least 248 UN personnel and ordered their subordinates to place the hostages at several potential NATO air targets, such as ammunition bunkers and military communication centers, to make it difficult for NATO to target those sites.’                                                                                                             ‘Furthermore, there are numerous reports of LTTE holding UN personnel and their families hostage, in the NFZ to prevent  or make any counter–attacks by the SLA; facts which are nearly identical to those which the ICTY of Mladic Court relied upon in its determination of sufficiency for the  indictment.’                                                                           

It should be noted that in the recent history of the international tribunal, two persons, Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, have been indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal. The charge of Human shielding had been a principal charge, among other charges, for both of them.

Why do Tamil civilians volunteer with the LTTE?

The history of the LTTE is replete with instances where they have used civilians, rather dispassionately and lackadaisically, to advance their military campaign and also to negotiate difficult situations in that campaign. In a number of instances when they were cornered by the SL army they sought the help of the Indian Government to pressurize the SL Government. Finally, when India sent its forces, putting the SL forces in their barracks, the LTTE fought with the Indian forces and accused the Indian Peacekeeping force of killing civilians and pressurized President Premadasa to send the IPKF back to India. Therefore, it had been the standard practice with the LTTE to play this ‘civilian game’ whenever it gets into a tight situation in their fighting campaign. There is overbearing evidence to show that this time too, they had planned it well in advance. The LTTE took advantage of, not only the Tamil pride and their nationalism but also the norms of modern civilization, including international laws of conflict, to be the fighting force that it was.

Accordingly, the LTTE has been exploiting the ‘Tamilness’ among the Tamil Nadu politicians in India that could make a definite impact, with their 72 mn. Vote- bank, on the Indian Central Government. Time and again The Tamil Nadu has got the Indian central Government to intervene in the Sri Lankan conflict and that in fact is the reason why the LTTE survived this long. Further, the ‘humanitarian concerns’ of the ‘International community’, namely the west, have been used to the maximum by the LTTE and the Tamil diaspora. The projection of the SL Government as oppressors and chauvinists served the LTTE and the Tamil community in two ways. On the one hand, it justified the heinous LTTE atrocities on innocent people, and on the other, it opened up an avenue for Tamils to migrate to the west. For instance, it is said that Canada had a mere 183 Tamils way back in 1982, but after the July 83 disturbances, which the LTTE was responsible for triggering, the ensuing propaganda opened up migratory opportunities, and today the Tamil population in Canada is said to be 300,000.

After independence, when you compare the economic and social conditions in Sri Lanka, it was the dream of most Sri Lanka to be able to migrate to a developed country in the west and especially to the UK. Quite a few elite Sri Lankan families were able to win this privilege, but it was extremely difficult for an average Sri Lankan professional to work things out.  As a result, they used education, paying considerable sums to the UK Universities to create openings, while others used blood relationships of those already there to apply for entry visas. In that restrictive milieu, July 83 became a watershed event for the Tamils, who stood to be among the ‘most preferred communities’ to enter western countries. This indeed was a windfall for the Tamils, and every Tamil knew that the credit for getting this preferred status finally belonged to the LTTE because it was the LTTE’s terrorism since 1975, culminating in the killing of 13 Sri Lankan soldiers in an ambush in July 1983 that triggered the eruptions in Colombo.

Since then, the LTTE was not just a fighting force for the Tamils but also an avenue of employment to the west. The LTTE, in turn, continued to get their contributions(some voluntarily and others by compulsion)from those who migrated, stating that,‘ you people who could not get a clerks job in Sri Lanka are now employed as specialists in trades in the UK due to our efforts’. Thus the LTTE was funded for its 33 years of terrorism in Sri Lanka by those who managed to migrate to the west.

The Western nations, especially the UK, for their part, had a special place for the Tamils and the LTTE in their country. This was either because they believed that the LTTE represented Tamil grievances or because it was cheaper to hire an English educated Ceylon Tamil. Thus for the past 35 years, Tamils have been making asylum seeker applications vilifying the country that gave the free education to them to migrate to western countries.  The problem now, however, since 2009, is that the LTTE is not present anymore to create all that sensational news about Sri Lanka to the west. Does this explain why the LTTE, despite its brutalities, was so popular among the Ceylon Tamil community? 

The problem is, that western nations headed by the UK will believe all that is said about Sri Lanka from the Tamil perspective. The Tamils claim they suffer from ‘minority grievances,’ but up to now, they have not spelled out these grievances, a Tamil will face for being Tamil in Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka is a country that has the highest number of public holidays because every Christian, Hindu, and Islam holy day are declared holidays, though 74 % of the country’s population is Buddhist. The truth is that the Tamils in Sri Lanka have lost some of the privileges they enjoyed under the British after independence. At the time of independence, the majority of the country’s judges, senior police officers, Lawyers, Doctors, Civil servants, and Engineers were all Tamils, as the country’s education was concentrated in the north.  It was a case of divide and rule under the British, where 74 % of the population was ruled by 12% of the population. When the Universal franchise was introduced to Ceylon in 1935 the Tamil leaders objected, stating that ‘uneducated may takeover’ the country. Then when free education was introduced to Ceylon in 1945, the Tamils with the Roman Catholic Church objected to that too.

In the final analysis, judging by the antipathy with which the western world, led by the UK, viewed independent Sri Lanka, there is a strong possibility of the presence of neo-colonial shadows behind these HR violation allegations against Sri Lanka. Since the UN was borne originally as the League of Nations with a Winston Churchill initiative, and as it is now controlled by the US after the ‘Bretton woods baton- change’, it may not be surprising how a ‘Humanitarian Rescue operation’ could become the ‘Last stage of war,’ and why the UNSG was prompted to initiate war crimes charges against  SL forces,for rescuing hostages, that would have perished otherwise!   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter X:

Other Serious LTTE Crimes & the UN’s Agenda

We have discussed the international war Crime of ‘Human shielding’ by the LTTE in the previous chapter. What now remains is to discuss the rest of the LTTE crime as could be viewed from both the Common law and the ‘International laws of conflict’ perspectives. Although the Darusman Panel Report has not placed these charges in line with the prosecuting context, this chapter will consider the evidence, including what has been mentioned in the Panel Report, to place the crimes committed by the LTTE in the correct legal context.

The murder of Unarmed civilians

When civilians get killed during the fighting, in a national or international conflict, such deaths are considered ‘collateral damage’, provided those deaths fall within the three situations considered acceptable by international law. Those situations, as already discussed and elaborated by the team of legal experts are,

 Distinction,

Military necessity and

 proportionality.

Therefore, any killings that do not qualify under these conditions could be nothing but plain MURDER.  There is overbearing evidence to prove that the LTTE shot civilians as they wanted to flee the conflict area once it became clear that their friends in the ‘international community’ were not rescuing them.  Now, these point-blank shootings and killings by the LTTE is an act in complete contradiction of this law of ‘Distinction’, which states that the warring party should draw the distinction between the combat forces and civilians. In this case, instead of making a distinction of identifying the fighting cadres and targeting them, the LTTE has acted the other way around, where they have identified the civilians and have targeted them.  Thus, they have clearly violated the distinction principle where civilians have been deliberately targeted. Further, the LTTE’s ‘military necessity should be to kill opposing forces to advance their war and not civilians who accompanied them for their own protection.  Therefore, the ‘military necessity’ principle has also been observed in the obverse, thereby violating the same, too. When these two conditions are violated, the ‘proportionality’ condition will have no applicability because even if they kill a single civilian violating the first two conditions, the killings should amount to murder! This is because you cannot kill civilians deliberately unless it is by accident when pursuing a military target. 

Let us now consider the evidence present that could make the LTTE culpable in this respect. To start with, the Darusman  Panel report states as follows in its Para 99

99. 99. Nonetheless, as the situation in the second NFZ worsened, growing numbers of civilians sought to escape LTTE–controlled areas. Civilians’ waded long distances, through the lagoons or across the mine–ridden territory, often in the dead of night. Inevitably people stepped on landmines and lost their limbs or were fatally injured.⁵³ Beginning in February, the LTTE commenced a policy of shooting civilians who attempted to escape, and, to this end, cadre took up positions where they could spot civilians who might try to breakout.

Darusman Panel report in its Para 112 states,

‘As the situation in the second NFZ worsened, large numbers of civilians tried to escape LTTE–controlled areas, but the LTTE sought to prevent this with increasing brutality. Some LTTE cadre would let fleeing civilians through, but others opened fire on them with AK47s, killing men, women, and children alike. The IDPs, who attempted escape, desperately tried to run away and to reach SLA lines, carrying their children or luggage or dropping them in their panic. Some were killed on the spot; others flailed in the shallow water or incurred terrible injuries from stepping on landmines. Small children and others drowned in the lagoon. While it is not known precisely how many people died this way, the number was significant and rose as the armed conflict progressed.

Darusman Panel report in its Para 238                                                                                                        

238. 238. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions: Credible allegations point to a violation of Common Article 3 (murder) in that the LTTE deliberately shot at and killed civilians, including women and children, trying to leave the conflict zone, notably in the second and third NFZs, in an attempt to maintain the civilian population forcibly on the LTTE’s side of the frontlines.

Darusman Panel report in its para 252                                                                                                          

252. 252. ‘With respect to the LTTE, the credible allegations and violations above point to a widespread or systematic attack on the civilian population of the Vanni during the final stages of the war, insofar as there was a consistent and widespread practice of holding civilians against their will and killing some of those who tried to leave. As for the particular acts constituting crimes against humanity, the Panel concludes that credible allegations point to the commission by the LTTE of the crime against humanity of murder, according to the definition above, based on the LTTE’s killing of those seeking to flee as well as its use of suicide bombers against civilians during thewar’.

There have been narratives about the fighting tactics of rebel movements, insurgencies, and even terrorist outfits, but it is extremely rare and almost unheard of would be the instances where such movements resort to killing their own kind unless such killing is required to put those out of mortal pain and wounds.  The LTTE, however, is an organization that treated human life as ‘dispensable’ for the purpose of achieving victory or for obtaining the upper hand in a military pursuit. What is even more amazing is the degree of cruelty with which these crimes have been perpetrated. It appears that all that mattered to the LTTE was to achieve their goal, often ephemeral, and the means of achieving it matters little.

Darusman Panel report in its conclusions in para 177 (b)                                                            

177 (b) Killing civilians attempting to flee LTTE control:- ‘ From February 2009 onwards, the LTTE instituted a policy of shooting civilians who attempted to escape the conflict zone, significantly adding to the death toll in the final stages of the war. It positioned cadre along with points where civilians were trying to escape and shot at groups of men, women, and children who, in their desperation, were prepared to wade through the lagoon or cross minefields to try to reach Government–controlled areas. Some drowned in the panic as they tried to escape the shooting’.

 

In addition to the above, one of the most prominent single incidents of an eyewitness account of killing civilians occurred on May 14. Extracts taken from UTHR(J) reports No.32 and No.34 give details of this incident:¹⁹⁸

 

‘[w]e relate the story as told by a family in a large group of an estimated 60,000, who in the desperation of their plight, decided to make the journey across the Nanthikadal lagoon. Herded together, they trekked north along the coast of the lagoon towards a point in the NFZ where the crossing was shallower. A group of LTTE cadres moved into the crowd cutting it in two, and started firing and chasing back south the section of the crowd that came behind. The section at the front ran forward along the lagoon coast towards the intended crossing point. Having driven back one section, the LTTE shelled the lagoon beach, where those who moved forward were gathered for the crossing. Many of the civilians perished.

   [w]e reported in Special Report No.32 that a large group of civilians, who went to a palmyra nursery near   Nanthikadal Lagoon before dawn on the 14th to cross to the other side or to Vattuvakkal to the south, were shot at by the LTTE killing about 500 of them. We have had further confirmation of this.’

The US State Department report to the Congress too noted that, towards the end,  based on IDP accounts regarding events on May 17/18, a vast majority of the civilian deaths during the last few days of the conflict were caused by LTTE artillery and mortar fire:

‘An organization reported accounts from IDPs of heavy fighting from the night of May 17 into the morning of May 18. The IDPs were certain, based on the direction from which the shells were coming, that a large number, perhaps the majority, of those killed in the NFZ during the previous 12 hours of fighting were killed by LTTE forces.- ¹¹⁹ U.S. Department of State, Report to Congress on Incidents During the Recent Conflict in Sri Lanka, 2009, page 44

The above version of events appears to be corroborated by the UTHR(J) interviews published as follows:

‘The night of the 17 saw heavy fighting going on into the 18^th morning. Some reliable witnesses and other IDPs who were present when the Army entered are certain that a large number, perhaps the majority, of those killed in the NFZ during the last 12 hours were killed by LTTE shelling. Shells were falling into them, and from the direction they are certain that they were fired by the LTTE –¹²⁰ UTHR(J) Special Report 32

 

The above, and other numerous statements by the Darusman report, the statements made by Gordon Wiese, the country Team Leader of the UN who was stationed in the war zone, UTHR ( J) reports, and other numerous accounts published and unpublished prove beyond doubt that the LTTE intentionally killed civilians, either because they were deserting the human shield the LTTE created, or more ominously because the LTTE wanted a higher casualty number to cause an international outrage and then an intervention ‘like in Kosovo’. In this situation, to hold the LTTE responsible for these murders, we may not need the finer points of the international laws of conflict because this is, simple and plain murder, in the eyes of the common law that prevails in any state.  Therefore the LTTE, and those who financially supported, aided, and abetted them ideologically and otherwise, should be held responsible for these murders.

 

There is a statement attributed to Joseph Stalin that ‘when you kill one, you become a murderer, but when you kill many that becomes a statistic’. Whether this statement was true about Stalin or whether it was cynically attributed to Stalin because the west wanted to portray him as mass murderer, is a matter of international politics. The reality, however is that this applies to the LTTE in every inch of the way.  The LTTE, during its 33-year operation, was responsible for almost 100,000 deaths before the final Elam war 4 that started in June 2006, and this included members of all three communities in Sri Lanka; Sinhalese, Tamils, and Muslims. There were politicians, University lecturers, police personnel, security forces personnel, poor unarmed villages, bus and train commuters, employees of the Sri Lanka Central bank, Buddhist priests, Hindu priests, devotees, members of other Tamil armed groups, Indian army personnel, LTTE cadres and cadres of PLOT, TELO, EPRLF, etc.  These deaths are not based on hearsay or estimates like those given in the Darusman report but are deaths that could be backed by the names and addresses of every individual killed. Then during the final war, the LTTE killed 5725 SL army personnel and caused the death of another about 7000 LTTE cadres and around 8000 to 10,000 civilians in total. These figures could be even higher if you go by the numbers brandished by the Tamil Diaspora propagandist such as Ven. Rayappu Joseph, Yasmin Sooka or Frances Harrison.

 

This is a number of deaths exceeding 120,000 committed with impunity in the course of an attempt to create a homogenous Tamil state.  Do these become just statistics because they are committed with a racialist motive?

 

 

The War Crime of Perfidy

This is Rule 65 under IHL that prohibits killing, injuring or capturing an adversary by resort to perfidy, a customary international law applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts. A long-standing rule of customary international law is already recognized in the Lieber Code, the Brussels Declaration, and the Oxford Manual and codified in the Hague Regulations. It is also outlined in Additional Protocol I. Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court,

“killing or wounding treacherously, individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts. In a more simpler language , it is a war crime for a combatant of one party, to feign as a civilian, a wounded person, a war surrender ere, or in any other helpless capacity to take advantage of a situation and then to kill a combatant of the opposite party. This law is mainly constituted to prevent the combatant from feigning as otherwise, thereby endangering the lives of non–combatants and other helpless persons”. 

 

The LTTE is the master of disguise and the ‘Guru’ or the modern mastermind of world suicide bombings.  The LTTE has feigned, not only as a civilians but also as bus commuters, train commuters, fish vendors, journalists, Go- cart sellers, a boat in  distress, and even as pregnant women to get near to its pray to cause the deaths of thousands, mostly civilians as given in the numerous Sri Lanka press reports that reported the litany of their killing. In the case of Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination, the feigning was as a Congress party loyalist who wished to garland the leader, and in the case of the killing of Sri Lankan President Premadasa, the assailant infiltrated the inner circle of the Presidential staff as a party loyalist and a chef. The hallmark of LTTE invention is the suicide kit, and today this kit is widely used by other terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda. When the Muslim extremists carried out a series of suicide attacks in Paris a few years ago in retaliation for ‘defaming the prophet’ they traced the suicide kits used to the LTTE invention.  The LTTE has carried out more than 400 suicide attacks against military, economic, and civilian targets in Sri Lanka during its 33-year war, and in all those cases, the suicide bomber feigned in a manner appropriate to the situation without arousing suspicion.

 

Come to think of it; the LTTE has been committing war crimes from day one of its operations when it killed the popular Tamil Mayor of Jaffna, Alfred  Duraiappa, in 1975, feigning as a devotee of the Hindu temple  (considered the first prominent victim of Prabhakaran) and thereafter a litany of SL soldiers, also feigning as civilians, in its war of attrition with the SL forces. The paradox, however, is, that none of these western funded  Human Rights organizations has pointed out this HR violation of the LTTE in their numerous periodic reports during these 33 years. The Government of Sri Lanka and its security force were always in a dilemma as to how they could counter LTTE attacks when the LTTE adopted feigning tactics. In such situations, the security forces had to act rather sternly with civilians and even with journalists, suspecting them to be potential human bombs.

 

Ironically, however, when caution was exercised, the HR organizations had been extremely critical of the Sri Lanka government, calling it names like ‘authoritarian’, ‘anti-freedom press’, ‘anti- democratic’ etc. as if they were not aware of the circumstances that led to the security forces to be extra vigilant. Such was the extent of the crisis that this feigning practice of the LTTE created in Sri Lankan society that it undermined the basic civilizational norms of the society where at one stage, no person would take a seat in a public transport next to a pregnant lady!

 

When questioned on this, the HR organizations sometimes came out with the excuse that the ‘LTTE is a non-state member’.  By that statement, they portray their ignorance in the ‘International law as  IHL covers even nonstate members as long as they are an organized arms group. The LTTE was the most armed and organized terrorist group of the world!

 

Now let us see what the Darusman report has to say about this war crime of Perfidy by the LTTE. Para 31 of the Darusman report;

 

31. ‘The LTTE pioneered modern suicide bombing, which it used against military, political and civilian targets. LTTE suicide bombers, both men and women, were responsible for the deaths of Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi (1991) and Sri Lankan President Ranasinghe Premadasa (1993) as well as numerous Sri Lankan ministers and members of parliament, and moderate Tamil political leaders. It also carried out suicide attacks, often with large numbers of civilian casualties, on economic and religious targets. The LTTE pursued exclusionary politics, expelling Muslims from their homes in the north in 1990 and massacring Sinhalese and Muslims living in villages bordering areas it controlled. Violence, threats and fear were increasingly used by the LTTE to control the Tamil population. The LTTE was also known for its forced recruitment and use of child soldiers, including boys and girls. Its tactics led to the organization’s proscription in numerous countries, including Canada, the European Union, India, the United Kingdom and the United States; its proscription intensified after 11 September 2001’.

 

With regard to the proscription of the LTTE by the Western countries, it should be pointed out that although the LTTE was in business in Sri Lanka since 1975 with their usual tactics endangering human life, it was not until Al- Qaeda became active in the west that the Western nations gave some thoughts to proscribing the LTTE. As a result, USA proscribed the LTTE in 1997 and the rest of the west, including the European Union, banned the LTTE only in 2001 after the World Trade Center was attacked by Saudi-led suicide bombers. Up to that point, the LTTE was drawing its wherewithal from the Tamil Diaspora stationed in the west. Even after this so-called proscription, however, the LTTE and its front organizations were operating quite freely, collecting funds in western capitals for its war efforts in Sri Lanka. The West, therefore, has been the LTTE’s sole source of succor during the 33 years of its operation.

 

The Darusman report in its para 242,

242. ‘Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions: Credible allegations point to a violation of Common Article 3 (murder) insofar as the LTTE are credibly alleged to have perpetrated a number of suicide attacks, both in and outside of the conflict zone, against civilians. Outside the conflict zone, the LTTE perpetrated a number of suicide attacks during the final stages of the war, including attacks that killed large numbers of civilians, such as at a screening center in Mullaittivu on 9^th February 2009, or as part of the attack on Minister Mahinda Wijesekera on 10 March 2009. The Panel notes that these attacks constitute a clear violation of the ban on intentional or indiscriminate attacks on civilians discussed above. Suicide attacks were a common practice of the LTTE throughout its existence and the fear of suicide attacks may have contributed to – though did not and could not justify – violations perpetrated by the Government.’

 

The above statement, to some extent, betray the prejudice the Darusman Panel has entertained against the SL forces as they, in that last sentence, make it a point to warn the SL government forces against reacting to the crimes of the LTTE. What the Darusman report seemed to suggest is that while the LTTE carried out their own atrocities of murder and killings, the Sri Lankan forces should stretch themselves to accommodate the LTTE war crimes. Similar to what happened in Nanthikadal when the LTTE staged ‘Human shielding’ and used heavy arms against the SL forces when the SL army was expected to use only small arms, as per the panel dictates, thereby increasing its own casualties.

 

However, there had been instances where the SL army personnel had maintained their composure and discipline in the face of LTTE cruelties and  feigning tactics, as explained by the following excerpt from an anecdote from a witness, recorded by the UTHR(J) team in their Report 32,

 

‘Ganeshapillai was among civilians advancing towards the army line in Iruddumadu. Four LTTE cadres joined the civilians and kept firing, deliberately provoking the Army. A group that had gone ahead of them had told the Army that more civilians are following along the road. The Army kept shelling but was then careful not to shell the road. As they got close, the four cadres ran back and turned into snipers. As the Army was receiving the civilians, the snipers opened fire killing four soldiers. But the other soldiers betrayed no signs of reacting against the civilians. They calmly carried their dead, loaded the civilians into tractor–trailers and sent them on’.

The LTTE seemed to pin their hopes on ensuring maximum civilian casualties in the hope that The then US Secretary of state, Hilary Clinton, messenger channel would intervene at this last stage.  The LTTE had reasonable grounds to expect such intervention considering the diatribe she unleashed to the American and international press from time to time throughout this conflict.

Now let us see what the Darusman report states in its conclusions in para 177 (f), 

177 (f) Killing of civilians through suicide attacks. During the final stages of the war, the LTTE continued its policy of suicide attacks outside the conflict zone. Even though its ability to perpetrate such attacks was diminished compared to previous phases of the conflict, it perpetrated a number of attacks outside the conflict zone, including a suicide bombing at a screening center in Mullaittivu on 9 February 2009, in which around 30 people died and  at Akuressa on 10 March 2009, killing around 15 people.

This Darusman panel, however, seemed to suffer from a serious lacuna in their expertise in the International war crimes law. This is because in spite of the fact that perfidy has been so well documented and recognized as a war crime by international and national laws of conflict, Darusman report does not use even the word ‘ Perfidy’ in their report. 

Let us now observe what the War crimes law experts, consulted by the SL Government, have to say about the significance of this situation. Professor D. M Crane, Professor of law & Sir Desmond De Silva QC makes the following observations in their joint report in the respective paragraphs listed as below,

 

56.’ An adversary commits a crime of perfidy, when he engages in an act that is intended to make the other party believe that it deserves protection under IHL, in order to obtain a military advantage. There is an overwhelming consensus that simulating a civilian status with the intent to defeat the enemy and obtain a militancy advantage is sufficient as to constitute the crime of perfidy’.

 

57. 57. ‘ICTY has made it clear that IHL strictly prohibits the feigning of civilian status in an internal armed conflict under the rule against perfidy. State practices have also shown that those who conceal themselves as civilians in order to conduct an attack are to be engaging in perfidious conduct. In the case–law of the US Vs. Jawad, a military commission judge, found that the Government could prosecute an individual as an unlawful combatant for perfidious conduct as a result of feigning the civilian status. In that case, the accused had dressed in civilian attire in order to approach US military personnel and kill them with a grenade that he had concealed.”

 

58. 58. ‘US also utilized the principle that suicide bombing is sufficient to constitute the crime of perfidy in the Al Nashiri case where the accused was charged with the perfidious and treacherous conduct in the 2000 bombing of US’s s.s.Cole. The Government alleged that the attacker had masterminded in which the attackers approached US Cole in a civilian vessel, in order to get close enough to detonate its bombs’.

 

59. 59. ‘Under the facts of the instant case one could find that the action of the LTTE amounts to perfidy. It is alleged that the LTTE has a long history of engaging in perfidious conduct throughout the 30 year conduct with GOSL. For years it allegedly disguised its attackers as civilians to obtain better access to SL forces and then kill them by the use of suicide bombs. In 2002 LTTE suicide bombers accounted for over 1/3^rd of the suicide bombing in the world’

.

60.’ In the report of the UNSG’s Panel of Experts (Darusman) report on the conflict, the LTTE continued this practice during the last three months of the conflict by conducting numerous suicide missions against SLA forces which resulted in the deaths of civilians as well. These allegations of suicide attacks represent a clear illustration of perfidy because the LTTE allegedly disguised themselves as civilians in order to get better access to GOSL forces, in order to increase the effectiveness of the attack’.

 

61. 61. ‘The UNSG’s POE( Darusman) report further maintains that the LTTE cadres were not in uniform at the last stages, thus blurring the difference between LTTE cadres and civilians (112). This is an act of feigning civilian status for gaining an undue advantage in a conflict that amounts to the war crime of perfidy. This fact could potentially exonerate the SL forces from any liability, if at all, from their failure to distinguish between civilians and combatants’.

 

Was this Darusman Report commissioned with a Predetermined Agenda?

Considering the surfeit of evidence available against the LTTE, it is indubitable that the LTTE is primarily guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, namely, Human Shielding, Deliberate murder of civilians, and Perfidy. However, there are no charges spelled out in the Darusman report but only stated as  ‘potential credible charges’ despite all the ‘findings’ the report itself has disclosed.This is the view of the Panel of War Crimes experts consulted by the SL Government who studied this controversial report. Therefore, in the final analysis, the Darusman Report ends up bringing out some serious allegations against the SL forces that are not substantiated by findings disclosed, and on the other hand the report discloses some serious findings against the LTTE but do not succinctly conclude those in to allegations.

 

In the end, the stark reality of this report is that its conclusions are not in keeping with its findings, and that makes one think that these ‘findings’ have been listed only to impress the reader of the comprehensive and unbiased nature of the panel’s work.  However, having been educated through press reports and circumstantial evidence, the panel dismisses such overbearing evidence as just ‘behavior not amounting to war crimes’. This could be attributed to, either a serious lacuna in their acclaimed expertise on laws of international/ national conflicts or their need to draw conclusions to suit a pre-determined agenda that they have been tasked with. 

 

Let us now view what the War Crimes Legal Experts consulted by SL Government have to say about the UNSG’s Panel of Expert (Darusman) report.

Sir Geoffrey Nice QC and Rodney Dixon QC, in their joint report of ‘Review of the Panel report’ makes the following comments,

 

‘The Panel notes that a ‘number of credible sources’ have estimated there to have been as many as 40,000 deaths but none of these sources have been named in the report. Yet the figure is used in the report and has been relied on repeatedly after the publication of the report as the correct figure with which to accuse the SL Government.  This is despite the fact that there are other sources that estimate the figure to be much lower but these are not mentioned in the report. At the very least, it would be expected to set out the UN report that deals with the same issue for competing accounts.The panel has acknowledged that the civilians in the area were hostages of the LTTE, were used by them as human shields and as combatants against the SL army and were also targeted by the LTTE including in the very areas and hospitals that the government is accused of shelling. In these circumstances how is the panel able to conclude that the Government is nevertheless responsible for killing those same ‘civilians’ unlawfully or to make any distinction between who could have been criminally responsible under international law that render military attacks unlawful.

 

The panel also assumes that all those killed (whatever the number) were civilians in the eyes of the international law despite all what the panel itself has said contravening their status as civilians. An obvious lacuna in the report is that how it could determine that all these deaths are of civilians entitled to full protection under international humanitarian law? There is no analysis of this vital issue which would plainly have to be at the center of any assiduous investigation’ – Page 14

 

The issue the UNSG panel faced in compiling the report is that, prior to they being tasked with making this report, there were many press reports and reliable accounts that carried the incidents on this conflict on a day-to-day basis. For instance, the UNSG himself personally condemned the LTTE tactic of the use of civilians and appealed to them to allow their free movement on 4^th April 2009. Therefore, that has placed the panel in a position where they could not just ignore such publicized reports making it necessary for them to state those as ‘findings’ in their report. However, no previous press report, or even Tamilnet, did not publish or claim a figure of 40,000- 75, 000 as an estimate of civilian deaths that the Panel claimed in their two reports, apparently based on second-hand information, two years after the conflict is over. This gives the impression that the Panel had been tasked to place the blame on the SL forces and Government for killing an ‘extraordinary number of civilians,’ but in achieving that task, they only found a number but not enough evidence to justify and to make it consistent with their ‘findings’.  This certainly appears to have placed this panel, comprising Marsuki Darusman of Indonesia, Steven Ratner of US, and Yasmin Sooka of South Africa, in a difficult situation when compiling their report to get at the conclusions they were told to arrive at.

 

The following is what Sir Geoffrey Nice QC and Rodney Dixon QC have to say in concluding their joint report of ‘Review of the Panel report’.

 

‘It would be naïve not to recognize that in such times it is easier to advance conclusions in line with publicity without proper essential support, but in the hope and with a reasonable expectation, of a busy world accepting what is asserted. A Cornucopia made of insubstantial material in itself is insubstantial’.  – Page 14& 22 emphasis added

 

Further, the two experts maintain that they have formed no conclusions by their review on matters central to this report noting the incompleteness of the report and finally expresses their dismay by commenting that,

 ‘the report, in short, is attempting to be what it cannot be’. Page 31 

 

Professor Michael Newton, Professor of law, makes the following observations on UNSG’a Panel of Expert report ( Darusman Report) in his report to SL Government,

 

 ‘ If the law is warped to permit the enemy to unlawfully exploit human shields with no possibility of recourse, then the law becomes irrelevant and essentially obsolete. Good faith application of the law of proportionality is the only way to balance these competing but equally important priorities. The laws and customs of war cannot countenance that undue military leverage to the side that willfully ignore the reciprocal obligation to protect innocent civilians in so far as possible’. Thus the LTTE bears the responsibility for civilian deaths because their own conduct was the causal factor in such deaths and because only the LTTE was properly positioned to accurately assess the precise likelihood of death or injury to civilians located in the area’. – Page 10

 

He further opines as follows,

‘Asymmetrical situations have important effects on propaganda. The insurgent, having no responsibility, is free to use every trick; if necessary, he can lie, cheat, exaggerate. He is not obliged to prove; he is judged by what he promises and not by what he does.” Page 1

 

Professor D M Crane QC and Sir Desmond De Silva QC, in their conclusions, states as follows, 

‘With such threats continuing to present themselves, Sri Lanka and the situation it faced in the recent past should help pioneer thinking in this regard towards a favorable resolution of the existing lack of consensus in the areas of international law. At the end of the day, the rule of law should govern the battlefield, and the unarmed civilians who are not a part of the conflict should be protected’.

 

A salient feature that could be readily observed with this UNSG’s Panel (Darusman) report is that the report is taking two incompatible stands at different stages. On the one hand, it admits that it has not had the capacity to conduct a full investigation by stating at every point that ‘a further investigation is necessary’ against their findings. On the other hand, in the conclusions of the same report, the panel goes on to make pronouncements with all the responsibilities they carry as if their conclusions were full and final. Thus in the end the work of this panel report becomes neither a prelude to an inquiry nor a final of an inquiry. However, such inconsistencies may go unnoticed to a reader who goes through a myriad of findings, statements, observations, counter observations, and judgments in a report that is 241 pages long.

 

Thus, in the end, the report has ended up saying nothing credible or of worth but rendering itself as a tool of propaganda, with its UN seal, serving those who wish to hold the Sri Lankan state under continued pressure. 

 

Ten years after the end of this exercise, no aggrieved party has gone before the International Criminal Courts against the Sri Lankan forces, and that indicates that there is no substantial criminal case against the SL Forces.  On the other hand, there has been enough and more publicity against the Sri Lankan forces, as evidenced by these press reports of the west when Gotabhaya Rajapakse was elected as the country’s President. This means that the Darusman (UNSG’s Panel) report has achieved what it desired by commissioning this propaganda exercise, especially because it also served as a basis to bring charges against Sri Lanka By US and UK at the UNHRC sessions.

 

However, there is more to these ‘War Crimes allegations’ as subsequent developments have now revealed.  Kumaran Pathmanathan ( KP), who took over the LTTE leadership after Prabhakaran’s demise, revealed during his many interviews with Canadian journalist DBS Jeyaraj that the US and Norway initiated an operation to rescue the LTTE leadership during February 2009 but were compelled to abandon it as Prabhakaran did not agree to release the civilians in return. The truth behind this however was, as Professor Michael Roberts ( A Sri Lankan-born Australian ) in his book  ‘The Westerns World’s complicity in LTTE hostage strategy’ has revealed, is that the US gave up the operation because of security concerns. The following is an extract of Professor Michael Robert’s publication.

 

‘KP’s involvement has been lucidly set out by DBS Jeyaraj in a subsequent pamphlet. 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 EastTimor in the course of a (so–called) humanitarian operation directed towards  the rescue of the Tamil civilian ‘hostages’. This cabal consisted of two Norwegian diplomats from Oslo, Torre 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 a party to this project because a Pacific Air Command recce team landed in Katunayake( Colombo) 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 the island; while my inquiries in Sri Lanka 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, where he discovered that the recce team had concluded that the military situation was “ä 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 a few years previously.

 

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 known to us, courtesy of Wikileaks). He demanded a stoppage of military advance inNanthikadal and indicated that “war crimes charges” would be the consequence arising out of any failure to abide by this command’.

 

Therefore, it is now clear that these War Crime Charges against Sri Lankan forces are not due to the crimes committed by its members at Nandikadal but due to the crimes that the Sri Lankan Government refused to commit by giving in to the dictates of the US.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter XI:

The Responsibility for the LTTE Crimes

At the outset, it makes it very clear that this Darusman report, a.k.a UNSG’s Panel of Experts report, was initiated and designed to blame both parties so that it either pleases or displeases both parties, avoiding controversy. The hidden agenda, however is that since the LTTE is no more, it matters little what you say about them now, but on the other hand, the report will place the Sri Lankan Government under pressure preventing it from chartering an independent political course in its foreign relations.  Considering the help China extended to Sri Lanka during the war, it is necessary to keep the Asian Island under check with allegations leveled at them. 

The reality, however is, though the LTTE may be no more, in common law- those who are responsible for conceiving, creating, and sustaining the LTTE-are responsible for the actions of the LTTE. Therefore,  this makes it necessary to identify the parties behind the LTTE and the factors that motivated these parties to mount this massive military and propaganda campaign against Sri Lanka.

The Tamils and the Tamil Nationalism

Tamils are a race that has a numerical strength of about 75 million in the world today and their community is spread over about 40 countries, due mainly to the British Empire’s requirement of menial labor during the 19^th century.  The origin of Tamils is in Tamil Nadu (Coromandal coast then), in India. The Tamils, however, believe that all African languages have their origins in the Tamil language and also that the ancient Mayans in South America to be Tamils. Tamil culture is believed to be ‘as old as human civilization’ and as the Tamils are mainly Hindus, the Tamil society is heavily cast structured with the belief that God Siva, in creating the Human race, spawned different casts of humans from different parts of his divine anatomy. 

Of the 75 million Tamil living in the world today, India accounts for 68 million, with Sri Lanka 3.1 million, Malaysia 1.5million and South Africa .35 million, making up for the major countries of residence.  In addition, Canada, the UK, Singapore, USA, and Mauritius also have a sizeable population of Tamils. Although India has 68 million Tamils, the 3.1 million Tamil in Sri Lanka appears to be more influential because the 68 million comprises only 5.9 % of the Indian population, whereas 3.1 million in Sri Lanka constitute 15.3 % of the Sri Lanka population. Sri Lanka has about 800,000 of its Tamil population living in the west, USA & Canada and a distinctive feature of this expat Sri Lankan Tamil population is that they are educated and are often professionals, unlike the bulk of the Tamils that have migrated from other countries. 

However, a problem that all these Tamils with a 75 million population strength have, is not having a country to call their own.  There was an attempt to realize this lacuna back in 1917 when Tamils formed a political party called the Justice Party under the leadership of E V Ramasamy in Inia. In 1921 this party came to power in Tamil Nadu (Known as Madras Presidency at the time). Thereafter, the party campaigned to establish a separate province for Tamils and accordingly obtained approval from the colonial office in London to rename Madras Presidency as Tamil Nadu.  After forming Tamil Nadu, their next goal was to bring all the provinces of Dravida origins like Kerala, Karnataka, Andra Pradesh and some parts of Orissa and create a Pan Dravida state that included parts of Malaysia and Sri Lanka as well. In December 1938, the Justice Party Convention passed a resolution stressing Tamil people’s right to a separate sovereign state within India, under the direct control of the Secretary of State for colonies in London.

In a speech on 17^th December 1939, E.V.Ramasamy raised the slogan “Dravida Nadu for Dravidians”, which replaced the earlier slogan “Tamil Nadu for Tamils”. In 1940, the South Indian Liberal Federation  (Justice Party) passed a resolution demanding a sovereign state for ‘Dravida Nadu’ with the right to secede from India. The other names attributed to this Tamil country by that time had been ‘South India’, ‘Deccan Federation’, and ‘Dakshinapath’.

In the wake of this nationalism, a radical youth wing was borne, and that named itself ‘We Tamils”. They imbibed nationalism with the glory stories of the Vijaya Nagar Empire of the 10^th century that reigned over a sizeable part of India and invaded  Sri Lanka as well. ‘We Tamils’, however, turned out to be militantly nationalist than even their mother organization, and they carried a flag that has a prowling tiger crossing with two swords.  30 years later, the LTTE copied the same flag with two rifles crossing instead of the swords.

By 1944 E V Ramasamy renamed his party as Dravida Kasagam Party and appealed to the other Dravida states to work towards independence. The other states, such as Kerala, Karnataka, and Andrapradesh, however, did not show the same degree of enthusiasm for separation, and hence the ‘Pan Tamil state’ did not work out. The Dravida Kasagam (DK) Party carried out its campaign for independence for Tamil Nadu and established links with the Sri Lanka Tamils as well. In 1931, the senior Tamil leader in Ceylon Ponnambalam Arunachalam renounced his Presidency of the Ceylon National Congress and formed the Tamil Congress hoping that the British will permit northern Ceylon to be amalgamated with South India.

Ceylon National Congress is a political party ( multi-ethnic & indigenous) the Ceylonese leaders formed in 1928 in line with the Indian National Congress to fight for independence, and the Ceylonese elite, including the Sinhalese, made Ponnammalam Arunachclam ( a Tamil) its President at that time. However, Ponnambalam, on the instigation of Tamil Nadu and Ceylonese Tamil leaders, broke away and formed the Ceylon Tamil Congress in 1931. Tamil Congress, incidentally, was the first communal political party to be formed in Sri Lanka.

However, Ramaswamy of the DK Partyin India was succeeded by Annadurai, who was more radical and vocal. As a result, in 1956, then Indian Prime Minister Shri Nheru’s Government passed legislation to give language rights to Andra, Kerala and Karnataka and that dealt a blow to Tamil Nadu’s regional ambitions.  Taking a step further, the Indian Government of Sri Nehru out-lawed separatism in 1963, naming it a ‘crime punishable by death. This made Annadurai call off his separatist campaign.

Separatism and Tamil Hubris in Ceylon

Although that put an end to Tamil separatism in India, separatism continued in Ceylon, whose Tamil community was more educated and enjoyed a better standard of living compared to other communities in Sri Lanka. Jane Russel( a British research graduate), in her account of ‘Communal politics in Ceylon’ attributes the following statement to, A Ramanathan ( Arunachclams’ son) on the issue of granting the universal franchise to Ceylon in 1931. “They are counting people just the way they count cattle. 60 to this side and 40 to the other side! How could you possibly treat the educated and cultured Village Headman and the man on the road who cannot read or write on an equal basis for their entitlement to vote? This will cause the power of governance to be transferred to the hands of uneducated criminals and thugs. This will also cause the downfall of the Hindu civilization.”  

 

The Donoughmore Commission, despite all those objections, recommended universal franchise to the Ceylonese males above 21 years and females above 30 years of age. Their recommendations however, included the granting of voting rights to the migratory labor that arrived in Sri Lanka on a contract basis from India for various menial jobs, including estate work. This was deliberately done to please the Tamil leaders to comply with their call to reduce the proportionate voting power of the Sinhalese and effectively it was reduced from 74 % to 69 % as a result of this inclusion.  Thus, the migratory Tamil laborers from India, a category of people whom the British never considered worthier than the sleeping space in a lined room, became entitled to the right to elect the Government of Ceylon by just the stroke of an Irishmen’s pen; a right they did not enjoy even in their native India.

 

Again in 1945, when nonfee levying education was proposed in the State Council by CWW Kannangara, the Education Minister, the Tamil leaders joined the Catholic Church in a protest against the proposal. It was the Catholic Church that monopolized the education in the country at the time, and the irony, however, was that the Tamil leaders, who maintained that the majority in Ceylon was not educated enough to govern the country in 1931, should object in 1945 to a bill to educate the people of Ceylon.

 

The first election under the Donoughmore constitution was held in 1931, and the Tamils boycotted the election as a mark of protest for introducing a ‘one man, one vote’ system. Ever since then, the Tamil leaders kept complaining to the Colonial Office about the injustices brought upon the minorities after the introduction of Donoughmore reforms. As a result of these relentless complaints, the British appointed Lord Soulbury to look into these grievances and enact a new constitution to grant Dominion status to Ceylon. Lord Soulbury first took up the question of minority grievances. It should be noted here that even though the British treated them as ‘minority grievance’, the Tamils never called them minority grievances for the simple reason that they were not prepared to be just a minority in Ceylon. For them, their complaints were ‘communal injustices’.  After having studied the complaints extensively and comprehensively, the Soulbury commission drew the following conclusions in its ‘Minority Grievances’ section of the Report of the Commission on Constitutional Reform – Sept.1945.

 

“We do not consider the policy of the State Assembly to be divisive because we have not observed such a divisive trend in the expenditure of funds for public development. The Northern and Eastern provinces have been developed well even before 1931. But even afterward, when you take the total expenditure for each province and calculate the expenditure per head in each of the provinces, the per head expenditure in Northern and Eastern provinces still remain high in comparative terms”.( Pages 43- 47)

 

GG Ponnambalam, a leading lawyer and the leader of the Tamil Congress, is now the leading Tamil figure in politics. At this stage, he brought the 50-50 proposal before the Soulbury Commission. The essence of this proposal had been conveyed to Lord Soulbury even before he left England on this mission. Ponnambalam addressing the commission, explained his proposal “In short, our demand is to limit the representation of the Sinhalese who make up for 69% of the population to 50 %. The best legacy our community (Tamil) has is the extensive representation our members enjoy among State sector services. We will have to preserve that position too for the future.”(Page 43-47).

 

The 50- 50 proposals, however, were rejected by the Soulbury Commission, and further, they were described by Sir Ivor Jennings, a member of the Soulbury Commission, as “an attempt to create a majority into a minority and thereby to have a South African type of situation in Ceylon”. The point to note here is that the Tamil elite that opposed democratization on the grounds of awarding voting rights to the ‘low castes and the Sinhalese have now altered their policy position and have taken a pure racialist position against the Sinhalese.

 

Thus, independence was ushered in Ceylon in 1948, but the Tamils continued to complain. SJV Chelvanayagam making his contribution to the first throne speech of independent Ceylon, posed the question,’ If Ceylon could secede from Britain, why cannot we the Tamils secede from the rest of Ceylon? By then, however, Chelvanayagam had formed his own communal political party in 1947 and named it ‘Illankei Thamil Arasu Kachchi, which means Party for a Tamil State in Lanka and fraudulently called it the ‘Federal Party’ in English and Sinhala.

 

All this history needs to be considered to debunk the myth created by Tamil propaganda that the Tamil grievances in Ceylon commenced after Independence due to Sinhalese domination.

 

Tamil Army

 

As per the accounts given in the ‘Bandaranaike Transformative Era’ by Wilson Appuhamy, it was in the early ’50s that SWRD learned that the Tamil leaders were contemplating launching an armed struggle to capture power in Ceylon. Tamil MP Waniyasingham always maintained in private that ‘if they can build a disciplined Tamil army of 5000 cadres, they could always take over the country by force’. At that time the Army commander was Anton Mutukumaru, a Tamil, and the Secretary of defense was also a Tamil. It was when the Sri Lankan Army had a few thousand soldiers, and its activities had been only ceremonial. In fact, prior to 1971, any suggestion to make the Sri Lankan security forces more combative would have been met with arguments like, ‘whom are we going to fight with, is it India?’ Hence the feeling was that, there was hardly any need for the Sri Lankan Government to have a professional fighting army because we had no neighbors to fight with, and if at all if we had to fight with our only neighbor, India, that in any case, would turn out to be a ‘no fight’ situation, due to the sheer size of India!

 

Chelvanayagm recruited young people to his ‘volunteer force’ called ‘PulipPadey’ (meaning Path of the Tiger) under the banner of ITAK and it was this volunteer force that started to tar the Shri number plates of vehicles in 1958. Shri number plates to the vehicles were introduced by the 1956 Bandaranaike Government replacing English number plates.

 

As described in K Narayan Swamy’s(Indian author) ‘Boys to Tigers’, detailed plans were made in the mid-sixties to lay a foundation for this army. They realized the need to have a shipping fleet to bring the arms and ammunition. They studied how armed struggles were launched to success in other countries like Cuba, China, Korea etc.  As an initial step, a decision was made to register a shipping company in the name of a Tamil businessman in 1961.

 

Chelvanayagam was arrested in 1962 when riots broke out after a series of separatist protests in Colombo and in Jaffna. After he was released from remand custody, he took off to England on the pretext of obtaining medical treatment.  It was during this stay in England that Chelvanayagam, an Anglican, took the initial steps in organizing the Sri Lankan Tamils in London into a Diaspora. He also had a number of audiences with Anglican Church leaders in England and what he told them was that the Anglicized Tamils were being victimized after independence in Ceylon. After he returned to Sri Lanka, he addressed the Jaffna public and said that ‘there is hope for Tamils because not only Sri Lankan Tamils but even other Tamils living all over the world have realized the need to have a country for the Tamils’.

 

Chelvanayagam finally realized his dream of a Tamil army when a militarized outfit was created by Prabhakaran in 1976. Therefore, this idea of the ‘Tiger Path’, the making of a Tamil army, importing arms, organizing the Tamil Diaspora, winning the sympathy of the western Churches, owning a shipping fleet, were not Prabhakaran’s ideas but ideas of the Tamil separatist lobby that contemplated the capture of Ceylon from the 1950s. Therefore, the arrival of a Prabhakaran on the Tamil racist platform was not an accident or an event necessitated by circumstances. A vacancy for a militant leader was created by hubristic Tamil separatism and they were waiting for a suitable person to take over.

 

In the 70’s, Sri Lanka had stringent import controls, and hence import of Gold and Indian Sarees was not permitted. As a result, there was an army of ‘illegal boats’ that operated between India and Sri Lanka and their hub in Sri Lanka was Velvettithurai. Velvettithurai was the backyard of Prbhakaran’s house, and as a result, he, a small boy at that time, made friends with these smugglers and familiarized himself with their tactics and detection evading methods. He was called ‘Thambi’( fondly called ‘younger brother’) by the Velvettithurai smuggling mob and Prabhakaran ran errands for these smugglers.

 

Indian author Narayan Swamy, in his book “Boys to Tigers’ describes that Prbhakaran enjoyed decimating insects to death in his childhood and fantasized acting like a cowboy imitating Clint Eastwood in films. It is this Prabhakaran who walked in to the vacancy for a militant that existed in the Tamil racist movement, Chelvanayagam and Amirthalingam nurtured.  Thus, Prabhakaran commenced his criminal career by killing the sitting and elected Mayor for Jaffna Alfred Duraiappah in 1975, knowing well that he would not be handed to the Police due to the mood of the racial fervor that prevailed in Jaffna at the time. Appapillai Amirthalingam, who was considered the most militant of the Tamil leaders, had taken over the leadership of the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) by then, and having emboldened Prabhakaran & Co. organized the Vadukkodai (a town in Nothern SL) conference and passed the infamous Vadukkodai resolution pledging to take to arms against the state and openly invited the Tamil youth also to do so.

 

These facts need to be stated to debunk another myth created by the Tamil Diaspora propaganda that Tamil violence, including Prabhakaran was the result of July 83 Tamil pogrom in Sri Lanka.

 

The truth, however is, that by July 83, Prabhakaran and the other Tamil militant organizations such as TELO had killed 28 Police officers, 18 military personnel, 6 Tamil politicians, 4 bank employees, 2 traders, a Tamil teacher and 15 unarmed civilians.-( Tigers, Moderates & Pandora’s Package – SL Gunesekera, page 41)

 

 

The Grievance Theory

Another central myth that is popularly held is, that Tamil violence is the result of Tamil grievance that has been brought about by ‘Sinhalese nationalism’ post-independence. The unwarranted nature of this argument becomes so clear when you read the Soulbury Commission report. Lord Soulbury was sent to Ceylon by the London Colonial Office to investigate the complaints made by Tamil against discrimination by the new State Council elected on a democratic basis. The fact, however, is that after independence, the legislature had not passed single legislation that benefitted the Sinhalese or the Buddhists. Sri Lanka is a country that has too-many holidays because, unlike other countries, Sri Lanka has holidays for Christian, Muslim, and Tamil Holy- days.

Malaysia passed the ‘Bumiputra laws’ to uplift the indigenous population after many years of disadvantaged colonialism, and Sri Lanka has no such laws favoring the majority even though the country underwent 440 years of colonialism.  Official language bill benefitted all communities to have education and administration in their own language. Standardization of University entry was introduced to give a fair opportunity to all students to have a university education which is offered free.

However, all these progressive legislation introduced after independence have been interpreted by the Tamil politicians as being unfavorable to them because they wanted to preserve the privileged position they enjoyed before independence. Although the Tamil propaganda flaunts this grievance theory so often, no Tamil has given an adequate answer when posed the question as to what are the disadvantages that a Tamil has to undergo in Sri Lanka for being a Tamil?

On the other hand, there are laws that have been passed particularly for the benefit, and upon request, by the Tamil and Muslim communities. Those are, the Thesawalamey law that gives special rights to Tamils on land transactions and Muslim marriage law- 1951 that is specific to Muslims granting them privileges in marriage. Despite this situation, however, the Tamil Grievance theory is a never-ending shackle that the successive SL Governments have had to contend with since one man one vote was introduced to Sri Lanka. You initiate a dialogue with Tamil leaders on this much flaunted ‘Grievance theory’ and they will come out with various issues which have been interpreted by the Tamils as grievances. In this situation, for a person not aware of the background of these issues, the arguments could be convincing. On the other hand, if a knowledgeable person reasons out with them, the Tamils will realize the un-tenability of their arguments but finally, they will end up with the absence of devolution of power as their grievance.

Devolution is a tricky word and what the Tamil mean by devolution is the separation of powers.  Such separation of powers in a small country like Sri Lank without demarcated ethnic identities will end up in chaos and, on the other hand, will make things still worse. The primary issues that stand against even a reasonable degree of devolution are- the inveterate separatist mentality of the Tamil leaders, the diaspora power, and the proximity of Tamil Nadu just across the sea.

It should now be clear that the reason for Sri Lankan strife is not Sinhalese nationalism as the world is made to believe but Tamil nationalism that is looking for a place to establish their own country. The Sinhalese often entertained fears of being overwhelmed by the 70 million Tamil population, just 18 km away, and as a result, they have reacted, and may react, to these shenanigans in an apprehensive way.  The Tamil propaganda machine has portrayed these events as the cause of this conflict and thus, events such as July 83 has been made in to a blessing in disguise.

 

 

Brutality – the nemesis of Grievances

Describing LTTE violence in statistical language does not do justice to the organization’s proven capacity to be destructive and cruel. Up to the time, the Sri Lankan Government commenced the final military operation in 2008; this conflict had cost the country 100,000 human lives and collateral worth over the US $20 billion. The hallmark of the LTTE is their capacity to be cruel and brutal but often, when this issue is discussed, the NGO’s and the English-speaking elite propounded the argument that the LTTE is so brutal because ‘their brutality is a reflection of the grievances their community had to undergo’.  This is the argument of ‘brutality being the nemesis of grievances’ and this argument is made very popular in Sri Lanka, especially by the western NGO’s. This is because the Tamils have constantly been staging protests, demanding this or that, and the Church and the English media too, had been patronizing these demands. Even the former Sri Lankan President Chandrika Kumaratunga is a big believer of this theory and she quite often articulated this in her speeches. As a result, there is a generation in Sri Lankans born post-independence that is made to believe this theory whenever the LTTE committed a brutal act. This indeed is a very asinine position for a leader to take since it encourages the LTTE to be more and more brutal in their activity.

 

The improvidence of this belief has to be viewed in the light that the US Federal Bureau of Investigation in a report released on the 12^th January 2008 described the LTTE as ‘The most dangerous and deadly extremist outfit in the world’.  Therefore, if the LTTE is the most brutal terrorist outfit in the world, then by this theory of ‘brutality being the nemesis of grievances’ the injustices they underwent must correspond to the worst injustices in the world!

 

Then, how do these alleged unspecified grievances stand against the treatments meted out to the Blacks in South Africa who were subjected to apartheid laws in their own land by the invading whites? What about the grievances of the Blacks that were transported to the USA under conditions suitable for cattle and treated as property in bondage for centuries by the European white settlers? What about the grievances of Sinhalese themselves, who had been subjected to colonial servitude for 443 years by three European colonial powers who killed a score of them by shooting down and planting pandemics like Malaria? What about the so-called ‘Indian Tamil’ families in Sri Lanka who were made to live for generations in open-lined rooms (6’X10’) with a common toilet for 12 lined rooms by the British planters?

 

We could go further and empathize with the plight of the Red Indian community in the USA; the Maoris in New Zealand, the Aborigines in Australia: the Mayans in South America, who have all been subject to genocide by the European invaders. These communities have experienced inhumanity at its worst and colonialism at its zenith. But then, why didn’t these communities give rise to the worst terror organizations in the world; if violence/brutality is the nemesis of the grievances a community had to undergo?

 

The blacks in USA, though liberated from slavery in 1860, were not entitled to exercise their franchise fully even in the 1960s. However, the Indian Tamil contract labor that came to Sri Lanka for a period of 5 years in the 1940s with no citizenship were offered full voting rights by the SL Government.  Even if you leave all that aside, South Africa, being the country with apartheid law that subjected the indigenous population to discrimination officially by white settlers, should give birth to the most brutal and deadly terrorist outfit, instead of Sri Lanka.

 

How would one then explain this scenario where a comparatively poor developing country, left to be free from colonial shackles only about 25 years ago, and that has since introduced vernacular language rights to its people and welfare measures like free education and free health, spawn the most brutal and organized terror outfit in the world? We could go a step further and ask; how did the most educated and privileged Tamil community, of all the Tamils in the world, gives rise to the deadliest terrorist outfit in the world?

 

When you place that question in that perspective, it sounds logical that we are now getting closer to a logical answer. If the Sri Lankan Tamil were the most educated and privileged Tamils in the world, it is simple and plain that their strength could bring about the most powerful and organized terror outfit for the purpose of creating a separate state for their race. Further, it is not just the power of the Sri Lankan Tamils and their Diaspora but also the power of 75 million Tamils in India and through that the power of the Indian Central Government that has the 4^th largest army in the world. That’s not all, because you then have the power and blessings of the colonial Godfather of Ceylon Tamils, the United Kingdom, and through them the power of the whole of Europe and the US. Then you have the World Tamil Forum stationed in 41 countries.  This indeed is an ominous combination of power to be backed by!

 

Against this ominous power combination of the Tamil community, how does Sri Lanka, or more particularly the Sinhalese, the majority in Sri Lanka, fair? The Sinhalese population number only 14 million. There are some members of the community living in western and other developed countries but there is no organized Diaspora. There is no sizeable Sinhalese population anywhere in the world, either. Even though the Sinhalese are Buddhist, there is no Buddhist- country grouping in a political entity to influence global issues. Since it is not a communist country, it is not in comradeship with other communist countries either. Thus, the Sinhalese are an isolated community, even though they form the ’majority’ in Sri Lanka. 

 

This then, is the truth about this conflict in Sri Lanka. Tamils staged the most brutal and organized terror outfit, not because they had grievance but because they had a better equation of power vis a vis Sinhalese in the international context.

 

The fact that some Sri Lankan leaders argued in favor of ‘LTTE brutality being the nemesis of its grievances’ speaks more of the caliber of the leaders of Sri Lanka, particularly the Singhalese had during these years; implying that they are not a solution to this problem but part of the problem itself. Leaders like Chandrika Bandaranaike, bred in colonial style in the ’40s and ’50s, despised all that is vernacular and was elected mainly due to her family genealogy.  With such leaders in office, Sri Lanka in general and Sinhalese in particular did not need enemies like Prabhakaran to suffer amidst all that brutality!

 

Tamil Genocide in Sri Lanka?

In Canada, there is a Tamil Genocide Museum, and they commemorate the Tamil Genocide day there on every 19^th May, the day Prabhakaran was killed in action, and the day terrorism was brought to an end in Sri Lanka.

The term ‘Genocide’ was coined by Polish writer and attorney Raphael Lemkin in 1941 when Polish and Armenian communities were threatened in the hands of Hitler’s expansionist war activities. It is a combination of the Greek word ‘genos’ (race) with the Latin word ‘cide’ (killing). Generally, it is meant to signify the acts committed with intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group in whole; to eliminate that kind from the face of the earth. This is what the Americans have done to Red Indians, the New Zealanders to Maoris, Australians to Aborigines and Spanish to Mayans.

 

In Sri Lanka, the Tamil has no cause whatsoever for an allegation of genocide because only 3.1% of the total Tamil population of the world live in Sri Lanka as against 91 % in India from where the Tamil community originated. Thus in any case genocide of ‘destroying in whole’ does not apply to Sri Lanka as the Tamil community, whole of it, does not live in Sri Lanka, in the first place. However, let us now consider the population position of the Tamils who live in Sri Lanka. From the official statistics with Sri Lanka’s Department of Census and Statistics, the growth of the Tamil population is as under,

Table 9.2 of Sri Lankan census 2012 (in 1000’s)

Census Year              1911    1921    1931    1946    1953     1963       1971      1981       2012   

Sri Lankan Tamils     528.0   517.3  598.9   733.7   884.7   1,164.7  1,424.0  1,886.9  2,269.1

Indian Tamils            531.0   602.7   818.5   780.6   974.1  1,123.0   1,174.9    818.7     839.5           

(in thousands)

There are two types of Tamils in Sri Lanka called the ‘Sri Lankan Tamils’ and ‘Indian Tamils’. This division again was made because the Sri Lankan Tamils did not want to be identified with the Indian Tamils as they considered their community, Ceylon Tamils, to be a separate community. As depicted above, there is a drop in the so-called ‘Indian Tamil’ population as about 450,000 of them have been repatriated to India in 78/90 in terms of the Sirima- Shasthree Pact. Other than that, you could observe that both these communities have thrived in numbers, especially after independence availing the favorable conditions like free health and sanitary facilities post-independence. 

On the other hand, since the LTTE started its ethnic cleansing in the 1970’ the population ratio of the Sinhalese who lived in the North and East provinces, all along, have come down while the Tamil population ratio, outside the North and East provinces, have increased.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kilinochchi is a new district carved out of the Jaffna district in 1991, and hence the Jaffna population is split between the two districts. The important thing to note is that outside the north and east provinces, the Tamil population has increased in excess of the average population ratio in 18 out of the 21 districts. On the other hand, the Sinhalese population has recorded a decrease in all the North and east districts except in Ampara and Trincomalee. Ampara is a Singhalese majority area, and the increase in Trincomalee does not correspond to the overall rise (over the years) in the population ratio. 

 

Since the ugly incidents in July 1983 by those who associated with the then Jayewardene administration who happened to be Sinhalese, there was not a single incident against the Tamils in Sri Lanka. Although the Tamil Tigers penetrated the southern districts, massacred 160+ Buddhist monks in Anuradhapura, bombed and destroyed several busloads of school children in the Central Province, seriously damaged the sacred Temple of the Tooth in Kandy and many other massacres against the Sinhalese, the Sinhalese never retaliated. In fact, by the time the war was concluded in 2009, 45% of Tamils were living in southern Sinhalese–majority districts, and at present, in 2021, there are over 50% of minority Tamils living among the Sinhalese – away from the north–east provinces – gainfully employed with absolutely no harassment.

 

These statistics present a clear case of ethnic cleansing of Sinhalese in the north and east while the Tamils have been free to settle in the district of their choice.  The truth, therefore, is that the Tamils with the violent LTTE have been committing genocide on the Sinhalese while proclaiming to the world that they have been subject to genocide in order to earn the favor of the western countries. Has the west been naïve enough to believe them? In fact, this truth is fairly unknown to Western policymakers and lawmakers, but they continue to ignore it for reasons best known to them.

 

 

The Tamil politics and the TNA

 

Granting independence with one man one vote exposed the Tamils, who opposed the introduction of the universal franchise to Ceylon. Their alternative proposals also did not find favor with the departing British. Thus, the Tamil leaders who aspired to step into the shoes of the British in the event of British colonial renunciation were left high and dry. However, G. G Ponnambalam, the leader of the Tamil Congress, became a Cabinet minister in the first independent government of Ceylon, but SJV Chelvanayagam had other ideas and therefore broke away and formed his own party ITAK (Party for a Tamil State in Sri Lanka).  This party formed in 1947 had no other policy but to form a separate state for the Tamils.  Therefore, he only spoke about the ‘Great Tamil nation’ and preached separatism to attract a following. Tamils who formed a majority in Sri Lanka’s civil service, Universities, medical profession, law, police, and judiciary also were not prepared to accept the changes that would take place eventually. Therefore, the average Tamil did not see beyond communal politics. Thereafter, they viewed every new legislation, every new economic measure, and every new policy from a racial perspective. 

 

Racialism eventually blossomed out into militancy and then terrorism, but then the resultant unbridled terrorism took away even the lives of the very Tamil politicians who ushered in racial politics. Yet the communal river was flowing down with the blessings of the west and India, mayhem and murder.

The TULF (Tamil Political Party) always defended and justified the LTTE’s ways and was playing second fiddle even though they were the democratically elected leaders. Initially in secrecy, but from around 1996 quite openly, they announced the LTTE as the ‘sole representative’ of the Tamil community. With that declaration, the Tamil politicians, in effect, made the entire Tamil community into a bunch of ruthless terrorists.  Thereafter the democratically elected Tamil leaders became only receivers of salary from the Parliament. If the state had to negotiate any issue about Tamils, it had to be the LTTE.  The Tamils, as told by their political leaders, pinned their hopes on the LTTE to get their separate land. The LTTE surreptitiously used peace as the modus operandi to get there, even though they were aware that in true peace, they would be like a fish out of water.

 

By 2004, the LTTE was in charge of ‘their part’ of the country after the peace they negotiated with the UNP government, touring many capitals in the world, including Tokyo, Bangkok, and Oslo. Norwegians were facilitating the peace process, and the TNA was waiting in the wings, hopefully. All what they wished was a separate Tamil state by terror or by horror. Then came the elections of 2005, where the UNP candidate Ranil Wickremasinghe and the S LFP candidate Mahinda Rajapaksa contested. It was a tight race in the rest of the country, and many expected the north and the east vote to give the decisive edge to the eventual victor.

 

Then suddenly, the LTTE announced that the Tamils should boycott the election, and the TNA and the diaspora fell in line.  This was the result of a discussion between these three separatists; the TNA, the Tamil Diaspora, and the LTTE. The strategy of that consensus was simply to make Ranil Wickremesinghe lose the election. The thinking was that if Ranil won they will be locked in peace since Ranil had the backing of the west. On the other hand, they opined that the LTTE now has a good chance to get a separate state by defeating the SL forces as the LTTE is now strong, after 4 years of peace, fortified them with arms and manpower.  If Mahinda comes, the west will back the LTTE, and winning the war will be a cakewalk for the LTTE. Further, since Mahinda is new to this game with the LTTE and the international, he is bound to make a lot of mistakes which will be for the LTTE’s benefit.

 

After helping Mahinda at the elections, now the next part is to provoke Mahinda with violations of the Peace accord that was in force at the time. The Diaspora commenced their propaganda calling Mahinda the ‘Sinhala hardliner’ while the LTTE flexed its muscles with the full blessings of the TNA.  As planned, the LTTE violated the peace accord 231 times within 2 months, killing 62 SL forces personnel. They even refused to attend the next session of peace talks in Geneva, placing conditions. Finally, they went to Geneva at SL expenses and, instead of attending talks, started collecting money from the Diaspora for the impending war. Thereafter, the LTTE returned to Sri Lanka and closed the Mavil- Aru waterway depriving water to about 6000 villages inviting SL forces for conflict.

 

In the end, the LTTE got eliminated, and the TNA and the Diaspora survived after causing the deaths of about 20,000 during Ealam war 1V, which included LTTE combatants, SL forces personnel, and civilians.  Thus, on logical analysis, who then is responsible for these human deaths, even though the LTTE is no more?  

 

 

The Tamil Diaspora

In principle, the term Diaspora relates to the settling of the Jewish people outside of Palestine after the Babylonian exile ordered by King Nebuchadnezzar around 600 BCE. The term Tamil Diaspora however does not describe an exiled group of people, but those who migrated willingly to developed lands to enjoy the fruits of development.

Let us see what the UNSG’s Panel (Darusman)report has to say about this Tamil Diaspora.

 

417. 417. It is to be expected that the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora, large parts of which provided vital moral and material support to the LTTE over decades, continues to harbor grievances about the plight of Tamils and to protest the actions of the Government during the last stages of the conflict. However, significant elements of the diaspora create a further obstacle to sustainable peace when they fail to acknowledge rights violations committed by the LTTE and its role in the humanitarian disaster in the Vanni.

 

418. 418. During the last stages of the war, many in the diaspora remained silent in the face of numerous LTTE violations, including holding tens of thousands of Tamils hostage in the Vanni, using violence to prevent their escape, and forcibly recruiting children into their ranks. In the end, parts of the diaspora appeared more concerned about preserving the political State of “Tamil Eelam” than about the suffering of the civilian population trapped between two fighting forces.

 

419. 419. The LTTE engaged in mafia–style tactics abroad, especially among expatriate Tamil communities, to generate funds for their cause. Significant parts of the Tamil diaspora, who were supportive of the LTTE, played an instrumental role in fuelling the conflict in this way. It is reported that former front organizations for the LTTE continue to operate through private businesses and to control some of the temple incomes. Activities of these organizations should be monitored. In addition, funds acquired by the LTTE from the diaspora and elsewhere, and which still exist, should be secured for the purpose of making reparations to those in the Sri Lankan Tamil community who were victims in the conflict.

 

420. 420. Members of the Tamil diaspora, through their unconditional support of the LTTE and their extreme Tamil nationalism, have effectively promoted divisions within the Sri Lankan Tamil community and, ironically, reinforced Sinhalese nationalism. A stable future in Sri Lanka demands that all of its ethnic communities, including those living abroad, recognize and respect the rights and interests of others with whom they share a common homeland. The diaspora, which is large, well–educated, and with considerable resources, has the potential to play a far more constructive role in Sri Lanka’sfuture.

 

In this, the panel report has said a mouthful, but these however are established facts that the panel cannot afford to overlook in compiling a report on terrorism in Sri Lanka. How did the LTTE become this invincible force with a Navy, Airwing, and an Infantry that could fight the forces of a state for 33years? Where did all that money come from? Or, in other words, who financed the most brutal and organized terrorist outfit known to the world in Sri Lanka?

Obviously, it has to be a set of people very inhuman and ambitious beyond any standard of human civilization.

Recently there was a video in circulation in social media with its origin in Canada where two Tamil Diaspora children, a girl, and a boy, are partaking cunjee.  While partaking cunjee for everybody to see, they are announcing that, ‘today is the 19^th May, the day our brethren in Sri Lanka was made to live in a congested piece of land in a lagoon with only cunjee for their survival.  Therefore, our parents said that today we must drink only cunjee in memory of thousands of people who died in that piece of land at the hands of the Sri Lankan forces’.

Now, who brought all those civilian people there? Is it the SL forces or the LTTE for their survival?  Then who financed the LTTE all this time; is it not the parents of these two children who have told them to have only cunjee in memory of those who died? It is not only that, these two children should realize that thousands of children like them have been used as cannon fodder by the LTTE all these years with the money their parents sent to the LTTE.  Therefore, this is a case of sheer hypocrisy where the Diaspora children are enjoying the lap of luxury while poor Tamil children in Sri Lanka is in untold misery. Can propaganda reach a more ironical depth of hypocrisy than this?

Maybe, the Tamil children in Sri Lanka do not realize this, or they do realize but continue as if they do not, thinking of the day they get their own chance to go to Canada.  It is only when you have an LTTE among you that you could continue with terrorism and get the NGO’s to call it a ‘civil war’ and then apply to the western countries on the grounds of discrimination to seek asylum. How many have the LTTE sent this way since the 1980s and continued to send till they were done?

Tamil Chelvam, the former political wing leader of the LTTE was in charge of LTTE fund collection at one stage. He was quite open in his admonitions to the Tamil Diaspora on the need to be prompt in sending their dues when he stated, ‘You people who were getting underpaid in Rupees are now earning in Euros and Dollars.  Remember that quite a number of people have sacrificed their lives to ensure that some of you have a life of luxury abroad. We are not asking you to come and fight here, but only asking that you send your contributions in time so that we can continue the fight weakening the Sri Lankan state on the one hand and strengthening our community by helping more of them to find employment abroad!’ Wages of Sin – S L Gunesekera. Page 103

Therefore, this relationship between the Tamil Diaspora and the LTTE has been a vicious cycle where they serve each other’s interests symbiotically. It is the Sri Lanka state that is caught in this lewd self-serving cycle because, on the one hand it has to fund the education of the people, and on the other it has to maintain forces to fight the terrorists, funded by those who go to the West after obtaining free education here!

The Panel report has ‘let the cat out of the bag’ when it maintains in para 419 that the Diaspora funds should be made to make ‘reparations to those in the Sri Lankan Tamil community who were victims in the conflict.  Why only the Sri Lankan Tamil community when the bulk of the damages caused by the LTTE had been borne by the SL Government and the Sinhalese community? Aren’t these Experts aware that the LTTE bombed most of Sri Lanka’s economic nerve centers, including its Central Bank, Main fuel distribution center, all the airports etc. The majority of the people killed by the LTTE belonged to the Sinhalese community when they exterminated villages full of people, trains, and busses. Then why suggest that the Diaspora funds should compensate only the Tamil victims? Does not this Panel report betray their bias against the SL government and the Sinhalese people by making such partisan suggestions?

However, the most interesting point about this Tamil Diaspora fund that the Panel says ‘is still being collected’ is the fact that these funds are now being used to fund the propaganda campaign to lobby the UNHRC against Sri Lanka state. When there were 290,000 IDPs who needed re-settlement, it was the Sri Lankan state that took the full responsibility and bore the brunt of the expenses, and there was no record of even of a personal contribution by this Diaspora.  The Panel report, despite exhibiting their knowledge on the subtle practicalities of this conflict, draws no benefit from such knowledge when they conclude their report, blaming the SL government for the shortcoming in the facilities at Manik Farm camp where the IDPs were housed in 2009.  Therefore, since this Diaspora has been helping only the LTTE and not the ordinary Tamil people, it is more appropriate to call it the ‘LTTE Diaspora’ instead of the Tamil Diaspora. 

These LTTE Diaspora funds that are still being collected in the western countries, including UK and Canada, indeed is a serious issue that the SL Government has not paid adequate attention to up to now, having rested on its laurels after defeating the LTTE.  This is because the SL government should realize that its true adversary was not the LTTE but this LTTE Diaspora that is still waging a war of attrition internationally against the SL state.

Ms. Yasmin Sooka, who is a member of this ‘Panel of Experts’ appointed by the UNSG has now turned out to be a full-time propagandist of the Tamil Diaspora, publishing numerous reports on the Sri Lankan situation. In one of the reports, published with the sponsorship of the UK Bar association, known as the ‘Sooka Report’, she brings out a host of serious charges against the current Sri Lankan state. The report states that the identity of all the witnesses who have disclosed the information is being withheld as their lives, living in Sri Lanka, could be endangered. This report and its attendant comments were apparently aimed at the Rajapaksa regime, which was in power at the time (2014). The irony is, by the time the report was published, the UNP Government, the diaspora-friendly regime, had come to power in Sri Lanka. As typical of SL politics, the UNP Government tried various means to implicate the Rajapaksa’s for war crimes for eliminating the LTTE. Yet this Yasmin Sooka did not disclose her anonymous witnesses to the new Government either. It was plain knowledge; had she disclosed those witnesses (If there were, as she claimed), the new SL Government would have gratefully accepted such material to bring charges against Mahinda Rajapaksa and thereby to end his political career. This exposes the credibility of Ms. Yasmin Sooka’s findings that are only propaganda that cannot be substantiated. 

Therefore, judging the unbending enthusiasm Ms. Yasmin Sooka has portrayed in smearing the name of Sri Lanka, in recent times, one could always suspect that there could be a relationship between Yasmin Sooka’s recent work and the LTTE Diaspora’s funds. This has led to a situation where those who funded the LTTE’s war crimes are now funding to falsify the investigation against such crimes by the world body! 

Therefore, in concluding this discourse, even though the LTTE is no more as a party to this issue, the following parties with their actions, are viewed as parties obligatory for the war crimes committed by the LTTE.

1. 1. The Racialist Tamil political party the TNA for, conceiving, initiating, and promoting racialism among the Tamil community from 1931 and for advocating arms struggle against the state from 1972, and for declaring the LTTE as the ‘sole representatives of Tamils, with a genealogy that stretches back through TULF to Illankai Tamil Arasue Kachchi or the Federal Party. Currently, this party is represented by R Sambanthan, M A Sumanthiran and V Senathirajah etc.
2. 2. The LTTE Diaspora stations in Europe, Canada, and the USA, including the World Tamil Movement, for financing terrorism in Sri Lanka for a period exceeding 30 years and carrying out propaganda throughout the world, including in Sri Lanka, justifying arbitrary killings, enrolment of child soldiers and damaging state property. Two prominent persons who now organize this Diaspora, which is harmful to the Tamils in Sri Lanka and to the Sri Lankan state are, T Rudrakumaran, stationed in UK/USA and Suren Surenthiran stationed in the UK.
3. 3. Britain, Europe, and the USA for accommodating economic refugees from Sri Lanka on the grounds of preferred treatment and permitting the remittance of funds to promote terrorism in a friendly country with whom they maintain diplomatic relations. Sri Lanka has not demanded reparations from Britain for the 145 years of colonial rule, as it is part of history now. However, a continuation of that colonial policy to the present, is a situation that undermines the post-colonial Government of the country, leading to destabilization after independence. These may be powerful and rich countries that offer aid to less developed countries, but there is hardly a point in handing out aid when they do not heed our need to live in peace.

 

My friend Daya Gamage, in his book ’ Tamil Tigers debt to America’ sets out in detail how the activities of the LTTE and their inveterate supporters, the LTTE Diaspora, could be brought under the prevailing international criminal justice system in an 11–page analysis. This analysis is of prime importance, and the Sri Lankan government should pay attention and follow the dictates to get the likes of T Rudrakumaran and Suren Surenthiran behind bars. Currently, these LTTE Diaspora members travel around the world, hobnobbing with world leaders trying to solve their ‘Tamil problem’ when in actual fact, they are criminals who have helped kill more than 100,000 people, getting their own Tamil brethren to suffer under the jackboot of the LTTE for years. In view of the importance of this analysis,  this book has brought this vital piece of writing as an appendix at the end.

In my view, no one, including those in the Sri Lankan foreign service, has done this type of comprehensive study on how the LTTE and its global acolytes could be tied to international laws enlightening the global media in the process.  This is also an area that Sri Lanka could go offensive against the International players who are endeavoring to break Sri Lanka’s neck using IHL, war crimes, accountability etc.

 

The problem with the Sri Lankan Foreign Ministry, however, is that their foreign posts are given to the party supporters who helped them at the last elections, and those, in turn, have no knowledge, nor interest in, of the country’s international issues but are only serving their time making the personal best out of the posting they have received (with the palpable thought of the time– serving nature of their appointments).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter XII:

Saving the Sri Lankan Tamils?

 

Mr.S. Sunderalingam (Tamil) is a native of Jaffna and a retired DIG of the Sri Lanka police. He had left Ceylon in 1972, for better climes in Australia. He had returned to the Island in 2006 after long years to attend a wedding function of a relative and wrote to the SundayIsland of 25^th March 2007 reminiscing the life and times of Jaffna back in the early 1970’s captioned “Jaffna I knew”. This article of one complete newspaper page is of pleasant reminiscence and nostalgic indulgence of a very senior policeman, for whose life and career this land had been so much part and parcel. Yet what prompts him to recount all this is the fact that Jaffna today is exactly the opposite of what it was or what it was intended to be just 34 years ago. In Mr. Sunderalingam’s own words, “Law and order were at its very best during this period, and the Jaffna man then was a peace–loving reticent personality. The Northern Province then recorded the lowest crime rate for the country. The average homicide rate was 32 for the year, and this was mainly over land disputes or domestic discord. Whatever disputes there were, were confined to minor pockets arising out of localized issues centered on caste–based temple entry and related biases”. “I recall with pride that during this period, there were little or no premeditated crimes and the use of firearms was a rarity. The crime was largely petty and not serious. Interestingly it was cycle thefts that predominated in a region where sometimes a family owns as much as three cycles. The only crime necessitating security force counter was smuggling which was taking place in Velvettithurai.”

 

 Velvettithurai incidentally is the birthplace of V Prabhakaran.

 

So this then is the Jaffna peninsular the Tamil militants and the LTTE were able to convert in to a killing field after their activities commenced in the late 1970’s. Mr. Sunderalingam, in his writings, was describing the situation in Jaffna in 2006, as against the 1970’s, as he could observe it from a police officer’s perspective. The political situation at the time he left (1972)was undergoing a transformation with Mr.V. Amirthalingam,  known for his militancy and understanding with the ‘boys’      (the LTTE), was elected as the Youth wing leader of the TULF, the racial- political party of the Tamils. This election was said to be an unqualified endorsement by all the separatist Tamil politicians of the time ‘that the Tamils should adopt a more militant approach in their relations with Colombo’.

 

Mr. Amitalingam and his TULF moved the Vadukkodai resolution in 1976calling Tamil youths to take to arms and during the 1977 election campaign, Mrs. Amirthalingam was attributed with that famous statement where she is supposed to have said that, ‘I will not rest until I drink the blood of the Sinhalese and make shoes out of their hide’.

This was the bloody depth that Amirthalingm’ militancy brought communal relations between the two communities. The Tamil youths did take to arms as advocated by the TULF, and in 1990, 13 years later, Mr. Amirthalingam and his Deputy in TULF Mr.Sivasiththamparam were assassinated by those very youth who took to arms. This was because the LTTE wanted the Indian Peace- Keeping forces out of the country, whereas TULF supported their presence. 

 

Presently, the poverty among the once-prosperous Ceylon Tamils have increased and their level of education, used to be the best in Sri Lanka, is nowhere near the national average today.  The population percentage of the Ceylon Tamils too, had come down from what it was at 12 .7 % in 1981 to 11.2 % as per the census of 2012. With the Sri Lanka Muslim population currently at 9.3% and with their rate of population growth, it will soon overtake the Ceylon Tamil population percentage, replacing them as the second-largest community in Sri Lanka.

 

Jaffna used to be the 2^nd commercialized city (only next to Colombo) in post-independent Ceylon.  The situation today is very much different, with almost all the cities in the south overtaking Jaffna in terms of their commercial prosperity. Crime in Jaffna and the rest of Tamil areas also has taken a turn for the worse, compared to the situation in 1970, which retired SP Sunderalingam described. Violence and thefts have become part of everyday  living, and the prevalence of drugs has increased.

 

Jaffna Tamils generally were considered intelligent, and they were purposeful workers. They were are also considered principled and honest in their dealings. In Sri Lankan society, even the Sinhalese consider the Tamils to be the best businessmen in the country since they are fair in their trade and honest in transactions. On the whole, considering the ingenuity and the resourcefulness shown by the Tamil youth at large during the LTTE insurrection, the chances are that they could prove to be an asset in the country’s future development.

 

It is a fact that the Tamil population in Sri Lanka suffered immensely during the past 30 years, and this suffering is reflected in the results discussed above. They have been living a precarious life with guns and violence. The Jaffna population, about 500,000, got displaced in 1996 when the LTTE was evicted from Jaffna, and now in2009, around 330,000 persons of the Vanni population went through a ‘hell on earth’  for five months in that sliver of land in a lagoon.  The Sri Lankan state has to help these people to join the mainstream of the country and get on with their lives instead of dreaming of an unattainable and non-practical separate state. Now it is clear that the Sri Lanka Tamil population has experienced a downward trend in everything ever since they started dreaming of this ‘separate state’. The Sri Lankan state definitely has to help them come out of this predicament, but the issue is, how could the Sri Lankan state do this considering the fact that they have to be helped from their own chauvinist leaders, their own diaspora that plans for a country of their own, in which they will never come to stay, and then the international community who has appointed themselves as the arbiters of human rights with no regard for inhuman circumstances that prevent human rights being established in this country.        

Therefore, salvaging the ordinary Tamils in Sri Lanka is a complex problem, but as that famous philosopher Rayne Descartes has said, ‘complex issues need to be broken down into simple segments to understand the different ramifications of the issue’. Thus, let us now consider the positives and negatives faced by the Sri Lankan state in making the Ceylon Tamils assimilate into Sri Lankan mainstream.

General Characteristics 

That great patriotic writer and lawyer, SL Gunesekera once argued that, as human beings, the Sinhalese and the Tamils have the same physical needs and social aspirations, and hence these needs and aspirations cannot be separated on communal grounds. This is quite the case with any community, and in the case of Tamils and Sinhalese, the religious and socio-cultural traits could be considered more similar than dissimilar. This is particularly so between the Sinhala Buddhists and the Tamil Hindus, as their religions and cultures have common links with India. Approximately 95% of the Sinhalese are Buddhist, whereas among the Tamils, the Hindu population percentage could be around 65 %. Buddhists and Hindus both believe in rebirth, and the Buddhists believe the Hindu deities to be potential Buddhas in waiting, whereas Hindus believe the Buddha to be an Avatar of God Vishnu. There are shrines for Hindu deities in most Buddhist temples.

In family and social conduct, both these communities are conservative but the Tamils probably may have an edge in this conservativeness. Tamils are also considered more calculating and thrifty compared to the Sinhalese. Hindu texts generally patronize heroes who conquer tribes and areas, whereas Buddhist teachings advocate ahimsa as the survival factor among humans. A Hindu educationist once said that ‘For a Hindu vengeance is mine, whereas for a Buddhist vengeance is thine.’ Buddhism advocates that vengeance can only be overcome by compassion whereas Tamil films often have heroic characters who follow the perpetrator of a foul act, even a lifetime, to exact revenge at the end.

On the whole, however, the differences between the Sinhalese and Tamils are not so serious to prevent the two communities from living together and also when two cultures blend for some time, they naturally begin to share and appreciate the different values.  The following characteristics/ realities stand out as major irritants in bringing the two communities together, and these may continue to create friction in the future as well. 

The Hubristic Caste Culture among the Tamils

Caste systems in Sri Lanka is a facilitating social system found among the communities of the island since ancient times. The difference in the practice of caste between the Sinhalese and the Tamils is that the Sinhalese system is mainly centered on the professions the Kings bestowed on each community during feudal times, and Buddhism is a religion that eschews caste system, the degree of disparity (highness or lowness) in the Sinhalese caste system is not materially acute. On the other hand, the caste system among the Tamils, being Hindus, emanates from their religion which believes that the creator of the world, God Brahma, spawned the different caste from different parts of his divine anatomy when he created the world. Therefore, the Tamils are generally caste conscious, but the Sri Lankan Tamil do not practice caste to the extent the Tamils in India do. The caste system among the Tamils in Sri Lanka also has some relationship with their ancient professions, maybe due to the Sinhalese influence.

Incidentally, Sri Lanka is considered a casteless or caste-blind society by Indians, and that is mainly due to the practice of Buddhism by the Sinhalese. Hinduism has certain castes declared as untouchables, and these are also called ‘the Dalit’ castes. Due to social pressure, these Dalit castes have converted themselves to Buddhism, and therefore in India, Buddhism is generally associated with low castes.

Sri Lankan Tamils practice the caste system even today, and Vellalar is the caste that dominates the Sri Lankan Tamil society.  The hierarchical practices were comparatively more pernicious during the colonial times, and even after independence, the society retained these characteristics.

Mr. C .Suntheralingam was a professor of Mathematics and a lawyer. He was the Minister of Trade & Commerce of the first post-independent Cabinet of Ceylon. He was of the Vellelar cast, as most of the Tamil politicians at the time were, but during his tenure, he became more famous for his caste consciousness than for his ministerial activities. Among his other cast-based activities, the campaign he staged against the entry of depressed caste communities to the Mavaddipuram Kovil made headlines. He was not very happy about his inability to bring legislation to legitimize the cast practice among the Tamils, and as a result of that and other reasons, he eventually fell out with the Prime Minister and joined SJV Chelvanayagam. Having joined SJV, they advocated the protection of Tamil culture and traditions.  Since caste issues often cropped up among the Tamils, the Sinhalese leaders often spoke in pejorative terms about this ‘protection of Tamil culture’ to mean the protection of the Tamil caste system.

Chauvinism however was very much part and parcel of the Tamil society then, and even when the Indian Tamil contract labor was awarded the citizenship, the Ceylon Tamils were very particular that they be called ‘Indian Tamils’ to maintain the distinction between the two communities. Therefore, it is evident that the Tamil community, by tradition and also by their religious beliefs, carry a divisive mentality.      

The first Cabinet of independent Ceylon comprised 14 Ministers. After the first parliamentary general election ended on September 20, 1947, the leader of the political party with the highest number of seats, D. S. Senanayake of the United National Party (UNP) was invited to form the government by the Governor-General Sir Henry Monk Mason Moore.

.

Macabre Tamil Nationalism

There are no instances in the history of humankind where a group of people has just compromised their privileges for a more equitable social order. Often such transformations have been bloody and macabre. Therefore, the situation in Sri Lanka is no exception.

Even the current Tamil leaders, of whom only a handful of the pre-independent generation still remain, are not capable of visualizing an egalitarian Sri Lanka where racialism would be a thing of the past. Despite all that has happened during the past 70 years the indications are that the Tamils are still prepared to gamble with death to rescue their racial aspirations.  The following example will present some ideas of the thinking of these leaders in the current context of things. 

Ms. Viyayakala Maheshwaran was a UNP Member of Parliament representing the Jaffna District and was also the Deputy Minister of education in the former UNP regime. At a Government meeting held at the Jaffna Municipal Council in June 2018, she made a public statement expressing the need to ‘rekindle the LTTE in the present context of things’. Whatever the reason that made her make this utterance, the statement created a hornet’s nest in the country and especially among the Sinhalese community that views the LTTE as a brutal racial and terrorist outfit that killed people indiscriminately, wiping out Sinhala villages in Toto.  Since the LTTE targeted Sinhalese and promoted Tamil chauvinism, this statement put whatever efforts that were made towards reconciliation years behind to the time the LTTE held sway. It was not just the chauvinist aspect of this statement that was injurious but the fact that LTTE was the cause of Sri Lanka’s economic depravedness during the past 35 years. 

To add insult to injury, the Chief Minister of the Northern Province, Mr. CV Vigneshawaran issued an official statement a few days after,  defending  the beleaguered MP stating that ‘Vijayakala Maheshwaran should not be penalized for telling the truth’. 

Now, M/s Vijayakala Maheshwaran made her entry into politics after her husband T Maheshwaran, himself a UNP MP, was killed at a Temple ceremony by a lone gunman on 1^st January 2007. The inquiry into the killing of Mr. T Maheshwaran revealed that the LTTE had hired a contract killer as the popularity of bilingual Maheshwaran, sitting MP at the time, was not to the liking of the LTTE who sought to be the ‘sole representative’ of the Tamils in Sri Lanka. The irony here is that the widow of a politician assassinated by the LTTE could advocate the rekindling of the LTTE, and that, to some extent, explains Tamil nationalism that stands taller than family values, the rule of law, and the general wellbeing of society. What is even more striking is the subsequent official statement issued by the Chief Minister of the Northern Province, Mr. CV Vigneshwaran, a former judge of the Sri Lankan judiciary. He obviously knows that the system of justice they had in the north under LTTE was the Kangaroo Court justice, and it is indeed anachronistic to observe a senior learned judge making statements in preference of the Kangaroo Court dispensation of justice.

What is even more incomprehensible is the fact that justice was not the only casualty of LTTE rule as it had no respect for democracy and human rights in Tamil society. The LTTE leader made his entry into Tamil jingoism by assassinating the elected popular mayor of the Jaffna Municipal Council, Mr. Alfred Duraiappah, back in 1975. Since then, the LTTE killed two elected mayors of the Jaffna MC in the ’90s making democratic politics not possible in Jaffna and the north. This had been so since the LTTE scuttled the District Development Council elections in 1981. Further, even though the Indo- Lanka accord brought about Provincial councils,the PCs functioned in all provinces except in the North and East as the LTTE prevented members from being elected to those councils in the North and East.  Thus, it is an undeniable fact that both the MP Vijayakala and the current Chief Minister C V Vigneshwaran owe their present political positions to the ‘absence of the LTTE’. However, despite this reality, when persons in responsible positions in the Tamil society makes such utterances, it indicates the extent to which this Tamil jingoist nationalism has got in to the Tamil system. 

In addition to Vijayakala Maheshwaran and CV Vigneshwaran, there are two more vociferous Tamil politicians who openly eulogize the LTTE today. Those are Mavey Senathirajah and  M Sivajalingam, members of the TNA.  The backgrounds of these two politicians also reveal that they also have had close ‘near death’ encounters with the LTTE in the past. Mavey Senathirajah is a close associate of late Mr Amirthalingam, and he had been at Amirthalingam’s house at the time Amirthalingam was assassinated by the LTTE. M Sivajalingam had been a TELO member, and he had had a narrow escape when the LTTE killed Shri Sabaratnam, the TELO leader, during the LTTE quest that physically eliminated all other pro-Tamil militant movements in 1987 to become the ‘sole representative’ of the Tamils. However, today these two politicians commemorate 19^th May every year and eulogize the LTTE in no uncertain terms whenever they get an opportunity.  The other Tamil leaders,, too, even though they are not as vociferous, are supporters of the LTTE in various ways despite the fact that none of them would be in active politics today if the LTTE was present. This, in short, is the macabre irony of Tamil politics today, and it signifies that Tamil politicians value Tamil nationalism even above their own existence. This mentality is the biggest obstacle any movement that advocates co-existence and secularism faces in Sri Lanka. 

This is not to talk about the recruitment of thousands of child soldiers by the LTTE as fodder for the war over a period of 30 years, exhorting Tamil commercial enterprise and the rich at will, arbitrary occupation of schools and hospitals ostensibly for a ‘national struggle’ and other exigencies associated with the absence of peace.  Any visitor to the north, soon after the end of LTTE rule, could witness huge holes on the building walls and roofless buildings in schools, offices and residencies, a hallmark of LTTE rule in the area.  It is despite this reality that these so-called Tamil leaders are paying homage to the LTTE and its rigid rule. The LTTE no doubt is the biggest violator of human rights in Sri Lanka, and the Government had to pass extra-ordinary laws that impinge on Human- Rights after the LTTE started its terrorist acts abusing civilized social practices.  However, the irony here is that all these Tamil politicians are today grand advocates of HR violations by the Sri Lanka army!!  The tragedy then is that the International Community and the UNHRC have willingly accepted this position.

30 years of jingoism by the LTTE massaged the Tamil ego to no end, providing a case for the claim of racial superiority. They saw Prabhakaran as a military genius who wiped out Government military camps with 1200 soldier strength.  The Tamil politicians led by Vijayakala, Vigneshwaran, Senathirajah, and Sivajalingam had no words for the brutality of the LTTE when they massacred innocent unarmed civilians in 236 instances, targeted purposely at unarmed civilians because such cruelties get buried in the egoistic superiority demonstrated by the LTTE in wiping out army camps. Therefore, until and unless the average Tamil man breaks the genealogical shackles of racial superiority and accepts humanism or Sri Lankanism, the Tamil politicians will ignite the flames of communalism, preventing progress and peace not only at the national level but also within the Tamil society.

Fascist Aspirations

The present generation of Tamils, as evident by their continuous election of these separatist leaders, show signs of being victims of separatist propaganda for years to a point where they prefer even a fascist regime under a Tamil to that of a democratic regime.  The LTTE, in its nascent stages, was only a killing machine with no political inclination whatsoever. It was Mr. A Amirthalingam, the TULF leader who introduced Umar Maheshwaran, a politically educated surveyor, to Prabhakaran to be the co-leader of the LTTE to make the LTTE  more acceptable to the Public.  However, Prabhakaran eventually killed not just Uma Maheshwaran but also Mr. Amirthalingam and his Deputy in the TULF, Mr. V.Sivasiththamparam as well. Prabhakaran also killed his own Deputy for years, Mahendrarajah (Mahattaya), who spearheaded the LTTE attacks during the IPKF period after having held him incommunicado for months. His Eastern Commander Karuna escaped assassination by a whisker. This way, considering the number of Tamil leaders who had some stature in the Tamil society, it is only SJV Chelvanayagam, the father of separatism, and Anton Balasingham , the LTTE theoretician, are the only ones who escaped Prabhkaran’s wreath. That, too, was because SJV was too frail to be of ‘assassination value’ to Prabhakaran, and Balasingham lived mostly abroad beyond Prbhakaran’s reach.

Rajiv Gandhi rescued Prabhakran when the SL force surrounded him at his hometown in 1986 by endangering the Indo Lanka relationship and violating the Lankan airspace. Prabhakaran paid him back by assassinating him when he was just about to win his second term as India’s Prime Minister. President Premadasa earned the wreath of the Sinhalese and India when he gave arms to the marooned LTTE to survive the IPKF operation, and Prabhakaran again paid his gratitude by planting a suicide bomber amongst Premadasa’s staff.

Even before Prabhakaran arrived on the Tamil racialist platform with his exceptional killing talents, there were three Tamil militant organizations that had been trained, under the PLO and also in India, in the late 1970s, and those are the Tamil Elam Liberation Organization ( TELO), Elam People’s Revolutionary Liberation Front (EPRLF), Elam Revolutionary Organization of Student( EROS). TELO was prominent among them and had by then staged attacks against police stations and Banks. Prabhakaran, in his quest to become the ‘sole representative of the Tamils’, eliminated all these organizations killing their leaders and members with a ruthlessness not deserving of fellow fighters. It was the 4^th attempt on the life Sri Sabaratnam of TELO that succeeded. These are only some examples that prove the talents of this  LTTE leader, whom some of them consider being their liberator and the upholder of Tamil dignity and rights.

Unlike other organizations, the LTTE had a cult-like following, and Vellupillai Pabhakaran demanded absolute loyalty and following from its members. The LTTE oath even mention Prabhakaran by name,

‘I hereby affirm sincerely to toil to redeem our motherland from the oppressors or atrocities and to establish the lost sovereignty and uphold the dignity of our race, under the leadership of our Hon. Leader V. Prabhakaran  and dedicate myself to the liberation of the nation and fight against all suppressions’. 

While a new member is taking this pledge, a senior LTTE member will tie a cyanide capsule around his/ her neck with a thread long enough to bite the capsule in case of capture; a method of subservience that would make Nazism primitive and a death culture that will put ‘Heaven’s Gate Cult’ members a few shades behind. The hypocritical irony, however, of this ‘God-like’ leader was that, when Prabhakran was killed by forces gunfire in the Nanthikadal Lagoon, they did not find a cyanide capsule around his neck. 

Benito Mussolini once observed ‘It is a humiliation to remain with our hands folded while others write history. It matters little who wins. To make people great, it is necessary to send people to battle even if you have to kick their asses. That is what I shall do.’

That is exactly what Prabhakaran did as well.

Divine Intervention

Since the Tamils believe that Tamil culture is the ‘cradle of world civilization’ it is a common belief that a Tamil who dies for the ‘cause of his/ her race and culture’ is borne in Heaven. Therefore, for a Tamil, his/her race is not just the number one priority in this life but also in the afterlife. This belief, to a great extent, explains the 300+ suicide missions carried out by the LTTE during their 35- year existence.  Such beliefs, however, could pose an altogether new dimension in the area of human rights. We have a similar situation even in Islam where those who die for their religion is said to get an audience with God with 72 virgins. These beliefs certainly make things difficult for the Human Rights crusaders because when Tamils and Muslims kill others for the sake of their race or religion, those are divine rights that would make the violation of human rights irrelevant!  

Hinduism is a religion with a plethora of Gods who are dedicated to different spheres of living. Therefore, other than God Brahma , the creator, there is Shiva; the God of energy, power, and destruction, Vishnu for the protection of cosmic order, Goddess Laxmi for prosperity, Goddess Sarasvathi for Arts & music, Goddess Ganga for lakes & rivers etc. They also believe that these Gods appear in the form of Avatars to salvage that area of human living when required. Going by this belief, some extremist Tamils believe that Prabhakaran is an Avathar of some such God that has descended on earth to salvage the Tamils.  If at all, if that belief is to hold right, what should be the specialty of that God that Prabhkaran represented?  That God, without a doubt, should be the God for brutality and killings.

There is another cultural dimension that paved the way for the LTTE to recruit suicide attackers to its cadre, and this dimension is indicative by the fact that the majority of these suicide attackers deployed by the LTTE had been young girls.  Tamils believe in the virginity of young girls to the point that the loss of virginity is not only a disqualification to enter wedded life, but it is also considered an unpardonable sin. Tamils cremate the dead ( by burning) because they believe that burning a dead person is the way to redeem whatever sins he may have committed in his lifetime.  Thus, having accepted burning as the way to redeem sins, it is held that a young girl who has committed the crime of losing virginity before marriage should appropriately burn herself to death if she is to redeem that sin in this life. Therefore, suicide bombing, being a way of burning and blasting ones physical self, becomes very appealing to girls who have lost their virginity because that provides and avenue to burn the sin of losing your virginity on the one hand, and an opportunity to reach heaven by dying for your race on the other.

It is indeed strange to think that these fanatical beliefs remain hardcore in this 21^st century when reason and palpable evidence has well surpassed mysterious divinity.  However, humans have again and again proved their fanatical proclivity and the destruction that accompany as a result of being brainwashed with fanatical religious beliefs during young ages. Crazy and ambitiously dominant religious beliefs that plainly threaten to destroy civilization are very largely begotten by the religious dignitaries and teachers in their religious lessons. They take the growing mind at a naturally barbaric phase and inflame and fix its barbarism to extraordinary heights. This is naturally done in a captive context to imbibe sectarianism so that the particular religion will have a following without which that religious dignitary and the particular Sect may not have an avenue to survive.              

Catholic Church

There is a considerable percentage of Tamils who are Catholics and Christians in Sri Lanka. Although the population census does not give the religion on the basis of ethnicity, it could be estimated that about 35 % of the Tamils are Christians, mainly Catholics. An extraordinary feature of this 34 year LTTE war against the Sri Lankan state has been the staunch support the LTTE received during this period from the Catholic Church. Catholic priests have been apprehended in the acts of providing means of support to the LTTE violence and it is also rumored that during the height of war, a type of biscuits that help combatants to nourish themselves in the jungle were distributed by the Church.

Madhu is a shrine venerated by all the Catholics, Sinhalese, and Tamils, with miraculous powers attributed to the statue of Our Lady in Madhu. This shrine is located in Mannar, bordering the area Tamils claim to be part of their separate state. Madhu Church premises has been used practically as an LTTE logistic center for a long time, and this created a special problem for the SL security forces in dislodging the LTTE from the area. This is because if the forces attacked the Church, the international news is bound to attribute an anti-Catholic character to this war. Also, in quite a few other ways, the Catholic Church has been providing protection to the LTTE. Finally, when the forces waylaid the LTTE combatants and liberated the Church premises, Rev. Rayappu Joseph ordered that the statue of Our lady be brought out of the Church premises into the remaining LTTE area. Such has been the belligerent nature of the support the Church extended to the LTTE during this conflict. In contrast, there is no record of such overzealous support by the Hindu priests for this ‘LTTE cause’

Prabhkaran had killed Hindu priests for betraying the’ Tamil cause’ but never a Catholic priest in the entirety of the conflict. Catholic priests were present in large numbers at the Nadikadal lagoon when the LTTE was marooned in its last stage, and also, it was a Catholic priest who was first to petition the UN Secretary-General in April 2009 about indiscriminate civilian killings by the SL forces.

Vatican News reports have been the best propaganda channels for the LTTE, and the degree of bias it had shown in reporting the Sri Lankan conflict was certainly not what we could be expected from a religious organization that claim to follow the gospel of Jesus whose hallmark had been compassion. Catholic Church was founded in Ceylon by the Portuguese who invaded the country in 1505, and its history in Ceylon has been characterized by coercion and violence. When non-fee levying education was introduced to Ceylon, the Catholic Church opposed the move vehemently and even brought priests from India for canvassing against educational reforms.  They tried to prevail on the then Prime Minister Mr. D S. Senanayake against the Minister of Education Mr. CWW Kannangara and finally managed to unseat him at the general election that followed.

Such has been the symbiotic relationship that existed between the LTTE and the Catholic Church that the Hindu religious organization in India, the JSS, named the LTTE war as a religious ‘(Catholic) war’. Some even surmised that Prabhkaran had been converted to the Catholic religion, and this certainly earned credence when he named his only son as Charles Anthony.

Therefore, the Catholic Church, over the years has been adding fuel to fire in this conflict, contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ they profess to follow.

Indian Interest

India’s interest in the Tamil community in Sri Lanka has been the biggest stumbling block towards any move to assimilate the Tamils into the Sri Lankan mainstream. When a journalist once asked the late Mr. S.L. Gunesekera how best the Tamil problem in Sri Lanka could be solved, the answer was that it could never be solved unless and until we take Sri Lanka away from its present location adjacent to India.  

The majority of the Indian population does view the Sri Lankan issue with some understanding but the Central Government, being dependent on Tamil Nadu political support, have to ‘give an ear’ to the Indian Tamils when the situation demands. Thus the Tamils in Sri Lanka will always run to India and relate their grievance to them and also to the leaders in Tamil Nadu, and this will place the Central Government of India in an awkward position.

The other side of all this is, what is India’s interest in this conflict and should India take sides in an ‘ethnic issue’ in a neighboring country with which it had complex historical, linguistic and cultural relations? In Sri Lanka, there is an ethnic minority called ’Indian Tamils’ and they get on well with the majority and today they have reached certain social heights having come to Sri Lanka as indentured labor during the colonial times. On the other hand it is with this group called ‘Ceylon Tamils’ that this whole question of a ‘Sri Lankan Tamil issue’ revolves. These two groups never join on each other’s issues. The ‘Ceylon Tamils’, claim that they had been in Sri Lanka for 3000 years, a period that exceeds the documented Sinhala history in Sri Lanka. Recently a Tamil leader, C. Vigengeshwaran claimed in Parliament that the Tamil language is the language spoken by the oldest inhabitants in Sri Lanka. This claim is in contrast to all the evidence available, even in India, and thus infuriated the Sri Lankans.  Thus, Tamils have created their own history on Sri Lanka, just as Goebbels did in Europe when Hitler wanted to justify his invasion of Europe.

Despite all those claims of being the oldest inhabitants of Sri Lanka, it is these strong and close affinities these so-called Ceylon Tamils have with their Indian counterparts that stand as the strongest collaborative evidence in disapproving this mythical ‘3000 year’ history. K. Narayan Swamy, the Indian author who authored 3 books on the LTTE, with all that research, maintains in his books that living in Northern Sri Lanka, in terms of culture, cuisine and music, is akin to living in Tamil Nadu.  Therefore, it is not logical that two communities that have lived apart for 3000 years could retain the same traits and mores to be identical. Therefore, that exposes the false history that the Tamils try to establish. However, Ceylon Tamils have been having the cake and eating it as well because they claim to have lived in Sri Lanka for 3000 years to stake a historical claim for a separate state, while running to their kith and kin in India, every time this claim gets rejected.

Terrorism in Sri Lanka would never have reached the heights it did if not for the overt support they received from the Indian Central Government and the covert support from Tamil Nadu, just 18 miles away from Sri Lanka.    Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s overt help was directed at the policies of Mr. J R Jayawardena of the UNP in the 1980’ due to differences in political ideology as JR was identified as an ‘American agent’.  The covert help from Tamil Nadu was to see a separate state for Tamils, at least in Lanka; a realization the Tamils could not bring to reality in Tamil Nadu in the 1940s as the Indians should recollect.

However, the Indian Central Government of Rajiv Gandhi honestly believed that the Tamils have some legitimate grievance, and intervention from India could solve this problem for good. This resulted in the official Indian intervention in 1987, and when that happened the Indian army received the warmest of welcomes from the Tamils. Thereafter, legislatively, the Lankan Government granted all the privileges that India wished for the Tamil community, but despite all that, the Indian Peace Keeping Force found themselves steeped in the most brutal of fights with the very people they came to protect.

After two years of operations in Sri Lanka, the Indian army left the country, not after bringing Tamil terrorism to an end but only becoming wiser of the true nature of this ‘Tamil cause’. 1100+ Indian soldiers lost their lives in this operation, and it is just not the loss in manpower, but  India lost more in terms of its reputation. However, according to the LTTE, IPKF was the worst army that ever operated in the north of Sri Lanka, and to prove that the LTTE authored a book on the IPKF operation in Sri Lanka and titled it, ‘The Satanic Forces’ and distributed it all over the world through the LTTE Diaspora.

About 20 years after the IPKF operation, in 2010, the Sri Lankan Government decided to erect a memento in honor of the IPKF, as they lost 1100+ men trying to bring peace to Sri Lanka. The Sinhalese, though they knew that the Indian intervention was totally unnecessary, did not object to the move, but the Tamils totally opposed the proposal, citing the alleged atrocities committed by the Indian army.  Tamils finally realized that the SL army was better than the Indian army, and India realized, the hard way, that to liberate the Tamils, you have to fight the LTTE  and not the Sri Lankan army. These facts will reveal that the reality of the Tamil problem in Sri Lanka is just the opposite of what Tamil propaganda makes it appear.

The Tamil Diaspora

When people go abroad and work with foreigners, they become more patriotic towards their mother country. This is because they feel the need for identity. Since they work under some pressure, they always dream of eventually retiring to a place where they can live in dignity and practice the type of nostalgic life they remember. Therefore it is not just the Tamils, but even the Sinhalese become more patriotic when abroad. Sinhalese patriotism, however, has always been in the form of contributing to a worthy cause or a similar event, and it is always voluntary. On the other hand, Tamil patriotism had been bogged down in violence from day one, and their contributions also have been mandatory.

The educated Tamils, like the University Teachers for Human Rights ( Jaffna) who knew the ground situation of the LTTE were always against the violent ways as they observed this manifesting as cancer in the Tamil society. The Diaspora, however kept sending money to the LTTE, expecting them to win the war and create that ‘separate state’. The fact was that even if the LTTE created a separate state, that would not have been a state where a decent man with wealth and professionalism could come and stay, as the LTTE state would have been fascist and belligerent.

Had the diaspora funds been channeled to building a University in the north affiliated to a reputed university in the west and then for the uplifting of agriculture and industry in the north, the Tamil community in Sri Lanka would today have been the most prosperous and educated community in Sri Lanka. That way they could have continued preserving their privileged position also with good Government positions thereby controlling the affairs of the country. Isn’t it unfortunate that the pride of a lost culture and sickness to have things ‘separate’ has today pushed the Tamil community to be the worst off among the communities in Sri Lanka?          

Sinhalese Psyche

Sinhalese are a small nation confined to an Island since it was communally formed, mainly due to its ‘islandic’ isolation from the rest of the world. They have been an eclectic nation with a known history dating back to 6000 years, but the recorded history delineates inputs from many Asian and oriental countries, with the main input coming from India. Sinhalese civilization stands unique with its incomparable systems of irrigation, and in this, there is no known parallel to the Sinhalese civilization anywhere in the world. However, with such limited numbers and vulnerability, their survival to date has depended very much on their habitat being an island. Sinhalese had their own system of plant-based medicine, temple-based education, and environmentally friendly customs and traditions. Buddhism, with its absence of a creator, advocates coexistence with nature and its laws.  With these, the Sinhalese as evident by the historical monuments that survive up to this day has maintained a unique civilization second to none.

Sinhalese history records numerous invasions of their island by the ‘Chola’ and ‘Pandya’ kingdoms of South India, who had inflicted tremendous damage upon the evolving Sinhalese civilization. Whether these invaders are actually Tamils or otherwise, they have been termed ‘Damila’, which is tantamount to ‘Tamil’.  Therefore, the Sinhalese consider Tamils as a party that owes reparations for the destruction caused over the years. However, the 17^th and 18^th century Portuguese and British invasions have changed the demography of the island. These invasions established not just minorities that refused to assimilate but  also instilled differences among the Sinhalese themselves with a category of elites that look up to anything colonial and look down upon anything indigenous. It is this category of elites that took over the leadership since independence, and as a result, the majority in the independent Sri Lankan nation suffered from an inferiority complex for not knowing English, the language of governance and education.  Thus, even after 70 years of independence, Sri Lanka as a state remains somewhat divided and struggling to find its feet amidst all the complexities of ex-colonial rule. The international influence, either due to misleading propaganda or to neo-colonial interests, has not been helpful and, on the contrary, has made things worse!

Buddhism is the least ambitious of the organized religions, and it often advocates Ahimsa and Renunciation even to the point of self-destruction. Therefore, the Sinhalese Buddhist are, generally compassionate, non- racialist, and often judge others too, by their own standards. For instance, they expect the Tamils to be a compassionate as themselves and the Muslim religion to advocate kindness to all like in Buddhism. But when they realize that such notions are not the reality, the Sinhalese feel betrayed and may react in a violent manner, as in July 83. July 83, however, is the effect of Tamil terrorism that commenced in 1976, but the Tamil propaganda made it into a cause to get foreign employment.  To add to this, the Sinhala culture does not espouse communalism, and therefore the average Sinhalese is poorly educated on world communal conflict and their political connotations.

Even today if you speak to ten Sinhalese, five of them will agree that the Tamils have a cause, especially the Sinhala elites who have a common cause with the Tamils for the loss of privileges will be in agreement with Tamils. Politically, the Left movement in the country, comprised mainly of Sinhalese, always attempts to portray the current rulers as ‘racialist’ in their political rhetoric.  Cyril Mathew is a politician who went out of the way to point out the unfair deal the Sinhalese have received in a Tamil-dominated education system. Still, there are Sinhalese who call Cyril Mathew a ‘racialist’. Moreover, in a politically divisive scenario, as Sri Lanka is with a ’two-party system’, the opposition often champion the Tamil grievances, as it is in their interests to oppose the Government in power in every way. Therefore on this point of racialism, however much the Tamil politicians may try to portray Sinhalese as ‘racialist’, the fact remains that, even in the face of LTTE terrorism, it had been difficult to organize the Sinhalese in to a cohesive communal party.  Thus, this lacuna of ‘Sinhalaness’ among the Sinhalese, in the face of  Tamil mechanizations that is  in motion to take over Sri Lanka,is simply a form of stupidity than a form of magnanimity in the current world scenario.

Therefore, if the Sinhalese are called STUPID there will be no argument, but to call them ‘racialist; is unrealistic by the strength of events that have taken place in Sri Lanka since independence.  Hence this un- organizable nature and the inveterate ‘softness’ or nonchalant nature of the Sinhalese prevents an organized resistance effort, and that reality probably is adding hope to the Tamil ambition that; Sinhalese are an easy community to walk through to a finish and achieve their separate state. Therefore,  if Tamils are to be saved from this mindset, the Sinhalese have to create an impression of unity among them and impress the Tamils that the Sinhalese community will not provide an environment to breed separatism within Sri Lanka, whatever the differences the stakeholders may have.

Sinhalese Leadership

Unlike in India, the Sri Lankan independence came without a struggle. Since independence,, the people have been having the choice between two organized political parties for Governance, and therefore,, they have been electing one party or the other with little choice in how they should govern.  In any case, after 440 years of colonialism,, there wasn’t a single, well-to-do Sinhalese family that had not been influenced by colonialism. Thus, all the ‘well to do’ families that aspired for leadership knew that they had to tread a different path now in a complex social and political milieu.   To add to that, there was this ‘new world order’ with the establishment of the UN, dominated by the western system. 

In any event, the post-independent Sinhala Leadership cannot be discussed without the democratic politics that ensconced the right to govern the country in the era. The Sinhalese were democratic, and hence they formed into political parties, whereas the Tamils, who carried the heavier colonial baggage, formed into racial parties. This led to a situation where the non-racial vote got split between the two main parties, often leaving them unable to form a Government without the help of racial parties. At that point, racial Tamil parties placed their racial demands, and those naturally were steps leading to a homogenous Tamil state. The Sinhala leaders thus became political opportunists invariably in the game of political bargaining to form the government.  When one party resists the racial demands, the other party opts for those just to have the political edge.  Thus the two political parties have been pandering separatism, taking turns.

The majority of the Sinhalese leaders in the post-colonial era had this ‘Pukka- Sahib’ mentality of identifying with colonial values, discounting the indigenous values.  Most of them have been the products of suave English-speaking schools and Ranil W and Chandrika Kumaranatunge have been the worst offender in this category despite the political patronage they received from the ordinary Sinhalese. It was fashionable for them to sit with the western leaders and talk about a ‘political solution to the ethnic problem’ without coming to grips with what is behind this so-called ‘ethnic problem’. If we are to discuss the damage these two have done to the country in the name of offering a ‘Political solution to the ethnic problem’, such work may require authoring a full volume.

This should not imply that the other leaders who ruled the country from 1948 have not been guilty of conceding to Tamil separatism but their concessions were based on the need to form a Government under the circumstances, whereas Ranil and Chandrika have been fervent believers of this ‘Tamil grievance’ and federalism as a solution to this incessant demand. Generally, all the Sri Lankan politicians, especially Sinhalese, popularly flaunt the theory that ‘In politics, there are no Permanent Friend and no Permanent Enemies’ to justify their political coalitions from time to time. Yet this theory, if you analyze closely, is tantamount to stating that, ‘Politicians have no principles and policies and all that they care for is forming a government for power’. 

Thus, successive Sri Lankan Governments had no clear policy on national security, and in a scenario where Prabhakaran,  with the help of the LTTE diaspora, became strong enough to devour the Sri Lankan nation, the Sri Lanka leaders were debating among themselves on how to respond; should the strategy be Peace or War, without realizing that peace cannot prevail when the national security was endangered.

Summary

Therefore, in the final analysis, if the Sri Lanka Tamils are to be saved and made to be a part of Sri Lanka’s mainstream, they will have to be saved

1. a) from their cultural caste bigotry that carries division and distinction that is socially negative.
2. b) from highly irrelevant divine beliefs that have not brought any benefit to them in this world.
3. c) from India whose perception of the Tamil issue in Sri Lanka is proved wrong and has led to disaster.
4. d) from the LTTE diaspora that seeks only an identity in a nation but will not come to stay.
5. e) from the ‘international community’ that is exerting pressure to split small countries and destabilize to

    ensure their own powerful global positions.

1. e) from the Sinhalese psyche that gives hope to separatism with their ‘accommodation at any cost’ policy.
2. f) from the Sri Lankan politicians who are dictated more by ‘democratic opportunism’ over long-term national interest.

 

The above indeed is a tall order, but it definitely got to start somewhere.  The initiative has to be taken by a strong Sri Lanka leader who will keep India, the LTTE diaspora, and the International community in place and create opportunities for the Tamils in particular and for the whole country in general. Tamil separatism has been the bane of Sri Lanka since independence, but if a strong leader could place communalism and religion in the back seat and develop the country, you could find the caste culture, divine power, and Tamil nationalism falling into place.  It may be that Sri Lanka gained independence without spilling blood, but enough blood has been spilled since independence because in a nation, things have to fall into their places, either before or after.

 

 

Benedict Arnold was considered the worst traitor ever by the Americans because he, being an American general,  defected  to  British during America’s freedom struggle from Britain in 1775.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter XIIl:

Human Civilization; Truth / Justice Vs. Interests/politics!

“Truth, like gold, is to be obtained, not by its organized production, but by washing away all that is not gold.”   Leo Tolstoy – Writer and Philosopher (1828 – 1910)

 

“Justice to others and contentment with self is the basis of peace whereas unbridled avarice, and ego feeding is the basis of constant conflicts” – Lord Buddha

Humans have been fighting each other and in groups from time immemorial due to avarice and ego, inviting death & destruction upon themselves. Thus, over the years, fighting has been the mode of survival, and dominance has been the mode of peace. This, however,  placed human survival and peace at the mercy of the particular group’s capacity to fight and to dominate. Further, such survival and peace were ephemeral as subjugation and domination are relative, and their oscillations only ensured permanent war with temporary peace.

British Philosopher Bertrand Russell once maintained that ‘Even after thousands of years of civilization, humans have not been able to rid themselves of that basic characteristic inherited from their ancestors, primates, and that is the need to dominate. First, it was food, and then it was women. But now the ‘civilized’ man has added two more to this list, and those are, human ego and power’

Thus human race experienced continuous wars, with peace being the exception throughout human civilization as man failed to realize that it is his own avarice that prevented him from attaining peace. However, historians with their own need to be attractive in their historical essays have only recorded the victories and their glories with no accounts of defeats and consequent misery.  If the term civilization is to be of any meaning, humanity should realize the need for permanent peace instead of being locked in this conflict between the sane need for peace and the inherent insanity for conflicts.

At the dawn of the 20^th-century, world leaders of the time, having realized the degradation war brings, explored ways and means of avoiding wars. Accordingly, the League of Nations, originally formed in 1918 and the Atlantic Charter proclaimed in 1945, could be viewed as attempts made in that regard. However, no concrete agreements were realized, and that placed the human civilization at crossroads. Consequently, 15 million lives were lost in the course of World War I (1914-18), and the loss of life in the Second World War (1939-1945) was on a much large scale: 60 million lives, both military and civilian, were lost during World War II. This was practically a ‘Dead end’ for all the world powers, despite their continuous efforts to maintain the ‘upper hand’ with competitive scientific inventions in armament’s to beat each other at war.

The reasons or these wars had been the jingoism of world powers in their quest to control areas and resources of the world. Physical control of areas and resources being the main avenue of world domination at the time, the world powers like Britain, Spain, France, Italy and Holland had invaded less powerful countries and were clashing among each other for more spoils. After these wars passed their climax,  making these powers lick their wounds, they probably realized that subjugation through arms last only till, a power greater than self, emerges. This, in fact was the law of the jungle, and it indeed was a pity that these ‘powerful and advanced’ nations had not come to grips with this simple reality much earlier.

Finally, unbridled disasters of war brought wisdom to the world leaders and they realized that forming a World Body was inevitable for human survival and advancement. The likes of Sir Winston Churchill declared in his characteristic manner that, ‘Jaw, jaw is better than war, war!’ implying that it is better to discuss problems than to fight over them. Thus, the United Nations was formed in 1945 with its main purpose as the change in the moribund world order that prevailed at that time. The broader purpose of the UN was declared as the maintenance of ‘Peace, Dignity, and Equality on a Healthy planet’ and those are to be achieved by,

1. 1. Maintaining International Peace and Security
2. 2. Protection of Human Rights
3. 3. Providing Human Aid
4. 4. Promoting sustainable development &
5. 5. Upholding International law.

 

These are noble ideals, no doubt, and their right observance would certainly make this world a better place to live in. However, ideals, devoid of their honest applications, will only lead to a state of hypocrisy, and therefore, considering the present chaotic state of the world, it may be necessary to take a hard look at how the UN has fared in achieving or working towards, the above goals since it was formed in 1945.

True, that the world has not experienced another World War for the past 75 years after the birth of the UN. Yet it is also the opinion of leading scientists, such as Albert Einstein, that the world cannot afford another war with the enormous destructive capacity it possesses. That means that another war would well be the end of mankind! In that perspective, the deterring factor of another war (WW111) could well have been the fear of total annihilation of mankind rather than the presence of the UN. Therefore, let us not attribute the success of avoiding another war only to the UN and examine how far the UN has been meaningfully effective in world affairs against its declared objectives. Since proof of a pudding is said to be in the eating, the proof of UN’s achievements should also be the state of world affairs during the past 75 years, after it was formed. The two world wars and the destructions that ensued also confirmed that the man’s capacity to destroy and kill for his own avarice could stretch even to the point of self-destruction. Thus, having stretched himself to the brink, has the man finally adopted peace and co-existence in place of war and destruction?

However, if we are to judge the conduct of world affairs, by the acerbity with which the United States and the United Kingdom, two world powers, hauled Sri Lanka before the UNHCR, in their third attempt, in pursuance of the alleged violation of human rights by SL forces, it is logical for a person to assume that ‘if that is the rigorous standard they apply on HR violations among world nations, then there must be hardly any violation of human rights, even by oversight,  in this world!

Therefore, in such a context of very strict advocacy by these international powers, let us now see what is happening around the world today.  The hard reality about the current state of world affairs is that things remain not only far from being ‘acceptable by any civilized standards’ but leave very much to be desired. The global position today is, that many persons in this world are dying of starvation while trillions of dollars are being expended in developing and amassing weapons of human destruction.  There are ‘operations against terrorism’, ‘liberation struggles’, ‘restoration of democracy’ and ‘springs’ of various hues, in every nook and corner of the world, killing scores of humans. Millions of refugees are running helter-skelter right at this moment as we write this, for want of a safe place to eke out their living.

 

The conflict in Palestine is 70 years old and has cost an estimated 250,000 lives with an equal number injured, but the killings and mayhem continue. Syria’s seven-year war has cost 400,000 lives, making 6 million of its 22 million population refugees, with no end to the conflict in sight. In Iraq, the conflict continues into the 15^th year with a million deaths and another one million displaced, again with little optimism.  Libya wobbles along with instability continuing with infighting and death in an anarchic situation, also with little hope. South Sudan, after achieving separatism (considered a panacea of its ills), finds itself in a worse situation with thousands dead and many more displaced. In Somalia, the conflict enters into the 30^th year with 400,000 to 900,000 dead and more displaced. Afghan war appears never-ending, with its 18-year history causing 180,000 deaths and an equal number displaced. The Nigerian state is threatened with marauding terrorism, and so are 12 other countries in the world confronting internal terrorism in different degrees and intensities.  As if Al-Qaida is not enough, the world power rivalry has resulted in the making of a belligerent ISIS that stalks the world with macabre designs of death and destruction.

 

Yemen is the most recent addition to this cycle of death, and the once-prosperous nation is today experiencing the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, driven by conflict, disease, and poverty. After five years of continuous war that has killed almost 80,000 persons, mostly women and children, millions of people are hungry, ill, poor and are in an extremely vulnerable situation. Many people don’t have the essentials that they need to survive, like food, water, and shelter. Hunger and malnutrition bring suffering to the entire population, and the rate of child malnutrition in Yemen today is one of the highest in the world. As things continue to deteriorate, children continue to die of preventable diseases.

 

These are all conflicts, spawned and perpetuated by man against man, in the name of either, political, communal or religious interests!

 

On the economic front, the situation does not appear any better either.  Today nearly one-half of the world’s population, more than 3 billion people, live on less than $2.50 a day, and of these, more than 1.3 billion live in extreme poverty earning less than $1.25 a day. One billion children worldwide are living in poverty. According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. The World Bank and WHO state in their latest news report that at least half of the world’s population cannot obtain essential health services, and therefore, each year, 100 million families are pushed into poverty because they have to spend their own money on health care.

This current situation is not the result of extraordinary circumstances, such as natural disasters that are particular to the times. Still, ironically, this has been the case for the past 75 years, even after the UN was formed. Let us, therefore, place this situation in a historical perspective to see what has been happening for the past 75 years since the UN was formed.

Investigative journalist James A. Lucas, documents in a carefully researched article published in the Global Research Center, states that more than 20 million lives have been lost in 37 victim nations due to US led wars, military coups and intelligence ops carried out in the wake of what is euphemistically called the “post-war era” (since1945). The extensive loss of life in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Libya are not included in this study. These victim nations, with their years of conflicts and the estimated numbers killed, are given as follows.

Afghanistan              1979-1989                         1,000,000

                                  2001 -2020                           180,000

Angola                       1986-2001                           350,000- 750,000

East Pakistan             1968-1971                        1,000,000- 2,000,000 

Cambodia                  1962-1979                        2,500,000

Chad                          1982-1992                             40,000

Chile- Allende           1970-1973                             30,000

         -Pinochet          1973-1992                              45,000 

China                         1950- 1953                           900,000   

Colombia                   1967-1980                              67,000                

                                   1980-2000                              24,000   

Cuba                           1961-1991                                5,800

1. D. Rep. of Congo 1961-1979 300,000

(Former Zaire)

Dominican Republic    1963                                        3,000

East Timor                   1975-1976                           200,000  

El Salvador                  1981-1993                             75,000

Grenada                        1979                                           300

Guatemala                    1951-1999                           200,000            

Haiti                             1957- 1986                           100,000

                                     1990-1999                              30,000

Honduras                     1980                                             400

Hungary                       1956                                             300           

Indonesia                     1965-1997                             500,000- 3,000,000

Iran                              1980-1988                             262,000    

Iraq                              1980-1988                             105,000

                                     1990-2003                             760,000

                                     2003-2020                             267,000              

Palestine                      1950-2020                              250,000             

Korea(North & South) 1950- 1953                         5,000,000

Laos                              1965-1993                            200,000

Nepal                            1990                                        12,000                         

Nicaragua                     1981-1990                               25,000-50,000

Panama                         1989                                          4,000  

Philippines                    1969-1989                            100,000  

South America)

Brazil              )

Bolivia           ) Condor 1975-1983                              13,000

Argentina       )

Uruguay         )

Sudan                            1998                                        10,000

Vietnam                        1954- 1975                         3,100,000  

Yugoslavia                    1990-2004   Bosnia                250,000                     

                                                          Krajina                  20,000-30,000

                                                          Croatia                  15,000

                                                          Kosovo                   5,000 

 

The 20 million human lives lost up to this point will soon become still more by a few million when deaths from the combined US/UK/Saudi Arabian operations in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, and the balances of Iraq and Palestine are added up. Therefore, this period since 1945 has not really been a ‘Post War’ period because wars have been continuing even after 1945 killing scores of people. The number killed since 1945 is well over the number killed during the First World War. Thus, in the final analysis forming of the UNO has not really helped.

 

However, the wars that have been continuing after 1945 have had a marked difference compared with WW1 and WW11. This difference basically has been that those who died during the 2 World Wars were soldiers and civilians of the developed countries, whereas those who died during the wars since 1945 have been people in developing countries with only a handful of soldiers from developed countries.  In the ‘post- war’ era, the initiators of war on all these occasions, had been the developed countries such as US, the UK and to some extent the USSR. Thus, forming the UNO in 1945 may have helped the big powers, but it certainly has not helped those who need help after being exploited for centuries by these same big powers. Does this mean that the exploitation that was there in the form of colonialism is still continuing in the form of ‘New World Order?  

 

Most, or all of these wars, were initiated allegedly due to differences in political and economic ideologies; either to prevent the ‘spread of communism’, ‘to bring democracy’ or ‘to dethrone dictators.’ The two main political ideologies in the world today, communism and capitalism, both aim at human wellbeing and prosperity in the end, and the difference is in the means by which you try to get there. Capitalism believes that lazier-fair and liberalism are the means, while communism believes state control and regulations to be the means. The point then is, why should these two parties fight for their self -destructions just because they believe in different means while the ends remain the same? If an enemy of ours is taking a wrong course of action, should we bother correcting him? On the other hand, if a friend is taking the wrong course, we may advise him, but do we try to correct him by force?

There are hardly 100% communist countries in the world today because everybody knows that the correct path for human wellbeing lies neither in capitalism nor in communism but in between. Thus, communism has ceased to be the bogeyman today. But even in such a reality, you still want a regime change in some country because you do not like the face of that ruler or what he says. The United States, the only Super Power, claims that they demonstrate exemplary human values, but they have declared their foreign policy to be dictated by that simple motto, ‘Either you are with us or against us’, implying that no country in the world community is entitled to be independent. 

Accordingly, when communism ceases to be the bogeyman, you find some reason or another to fight, and that could well be anything, including ‘eliminating a dictatorship’ in one country and ‘installing human rights’ in another. It all depends on where you stand in your alliances; if you are with us, encouraging terrorism is interpreted as supporting human rights (Yemen,) but if you are independent, then eliminating terrorism is a violation of human rights (Sri Lanka). Therefore, in the new world order, the world powers, just as they have massacred thousand during colonialism, will continue to massacre people in developing countries on some pretext or the other in their quest to dominate the world.

 

The irony of this situation is that when you view all these wars since 1945 now in retrospect, what have they done to these developing countries that have borne the brunt of these wars? And, these perpetrators, do they even have a ‘fig leaf’ of a reason to defend what they have done? What has the Vietnam War done to Vietnam? An argument could be that it was designed to save Vietnam from becoming communist! But didn’t they become communists when the war ended after 21 years? Ho Chi Ming’s men took over South Vietnam after American forces were driven out in 1975 and Vietnam was unified. Thereafter, Vietnam followed its own political course, and now after 40+ years since the end of the war, Vietnam’s system of governance and economy is neither capitalist nor communist. It is a system that suits the country, and Vietnam today is one of the prosperous countries in South East Asia. It has good relations with the US and balances its relations with China and USSR as well.

 

Vietnamese Communist Party General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong, seen here with the US. Vice-president Joe Biden during his visit to the United States in 2015.

Therefore, what was America doing in Vietnam from 1954 till 1975, killing more than 3million people in Vietnam and pushing its economy back by a few decades? The US Lost 58,000 soldiers and a few billions of $’s in the war.

If Korea remained as one country, that too would have followed the same political and economic course as Vietnam. What has the US or the world has gained by the Korean war at the cost of 5 million Korean lives and 36,000 young US lives? Doesn’t all this appear maddening?

The above, however, are two cases where the damage is limited to the damages proper of the war, with little impact on world peace. On the other hand, in certain military exercises such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US has bequeathed new developments that threatened world peace.  In Afghanistan, when the US aided mujahedeen against the Government of Babrak Karmal in the early ’80s, the Mujahedeen eventually took over the Government and declared fundamentalism in the form of Al-Qaeda. Then what Al-Qaeda did to the US and the world is world history today.

Again, in Iraq, when the moderate Government of Saddam Hussein was replaced on a fabricated charge of WMD’s by the US and the UK, it paved the way for the fundamentalist to hang on to pockets of power, forming themselves into ISIS.  Further, many of these regime changes in developing countries, engineered by NATO and the US, have brought about worse regimes compared to the one that they replaced. Take the case of Salvador Allende in Chile and Jean Bertrand Aristide in Haiti.

Therefore, it is plain and evident that all these wars invariably bring misery and destruction to the developing countries while many have been even counter-productive to the wider global interest. Then why are these world powers initiating and continuing these wars?

This is the question of the current time, and even as we write this, petty and purposeless wars are being patronized by world powers in many corners of the world. This shows that forming the UNO has not helped, and the world leaders do not seem to have learned, from the destruction and loss of life, their hunger for power has brought about in the past. If the new human civilization is based on discussion, consensus, and compromise, the world powers do not seem to be a part of this civilization. Does that mean that we need to civilize these world powers, including the ones that are represented in the Security Council of the UN; the supreme body that is responsible for world peace?

Is world peace in the hands of hypocrites who combine the smooth appearance of virtue with the solid satisfaction of vice?

A Closer examination of this paradox should make us open our eyes wider to what is really behind this. First, let us examine the global arms manufacturing industry and see who makes money by making arms that are purchased by various parties to fight these wars. Then we see the socio-economic setbacks these wars will subject these developing countries to, preventing them from advancing their economies and societies forward.

World Powers and the Arms Trade                                                                                              

It is a fact that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China are the world’s largest arms exporters. According to the British House of Commons library report published in June 2016, the US accounts for 41.5 % of the world export trade in arms while France 16.3 %, UK 12.8 % Russia 10%, China 4.8 % follows. This position should make the rest of the world question the bona-fides of these countries as to their wish to keep this world free of conflicts, as conflicts are the markets for this particular industry of theirs. Without continuing conflicts, how could the global arms industry carry out its business on a continuing basis paying their staff while bringing a return on investment to their shareholders? They have no other avenues of sale and may have to declare bankruptcy if not for the conflicts between nations on a continuing basis. The fact that the Arms industry is the number one industry in the world, in terms of profit, is a public secret today. When the Government enters in to a war it is the tax payer’s money, they pay for arms but even then it is still worth for the US Government to pay these industries, buy arms and conduct wars, because that means employment and profits to the corporations which  ensure the continuity of the industry. 

The human race considers itself to be civilized and takes pride and comfort in the thought that modern human society, away from the jungle, is safe and sound. Yes, beasts do kill when they are hungry- but only when they are hungry, and ironically, they do not kill to satisfy egoist, political, sectarian, and religious desires through such killings like the humans! Then what do we mean by being ‘human’ and more so by ‘Human Rights’?  If wars are what humans desire, then human rights should mean the right to kill and maim one another? It is a fact that the capacity to kill and destroy among humans is far greater than that of non- humans.  Whichever way you see and interpret this , and whatever the restrictions, they say are applicable to sale of arms, at the end of the day it is these arms manufactured in these countries, that claims to be the guardians of human rights, that fight these wars.  It is said that when India and Pakistan start their skirmishes, old arms factories in England are re-commissioned to supply arms. Some developed countries like the UK may run into Balance of payment problems if they do not have enough orders for their arms.

 

In a recent publication by the University of California Press, 2020, authored by David Vine titled ‘A Global History of America’s Endless Conflicts, from Columbus to the Islamic State’, the author gives a full account of American military bases throughout the world. The estimated eight hundred US bases in more than seventy countries around the world are a massive military presence unlike anything else seen today, yet rarely acknowledged in the US political discourse. These bases around the world, from Diego Garcia to Djibouti, are the nuts and bolts in the war machine providing the logistical and combat support that has allowed the United States to turn the whole world into a battlefield. They make conflict more likely, and then more wars lead to more military bases, creating a vicious cycle to expand their warring empire.

 

The case of the fate of Diego Garcia, an island in the Indian Ocean, spotlights the remarkable cruelty of the United States in their military expansion, where they established control over the small, strategic island. After making a secret agreement with Britain in 1966 to purchase basing rights, the US and UK governments expelled the residents, Chagossians, of this island between 1967 to 1973, leaving them trapped in Mauritius and Seychelles, without jobs or homes, many of their possessions lost to them forever.

 

The current US foreign policy defined itself by its ‘War on Terror’ ethos making the whole world a US battlefield and granting itself a broad latitude to wage pre-emptive war. George W. Bush talked about the importance of having a military “ready to strike at a moment’s notice in any dark corner of the world’. But the US’s declared official policy on terrorism is that ‘The US will not fight terrorism unless its own interest is threatened by such terrorist activity’. The question then is why, in that case, this blanket policy of ‘War on terror’? The answer obviously is that the US has an interest in all terrorist activity in the world; eliminate terrorism where it threatens US interest and encourage same where it threatens the interests of US’s political and economic enemies.

Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers, or the LTTE, was designated by the U.S. Department of State in 1997 as an FTO. Soon after 9/11, the U.S. Congress enacted Patriot Act, in the month Islamists attacked America. Washington declared Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) to include in this global list al Qaeda and other global terror organizations, including the Tamil Tigers. Before September (2001), the LTTE was taken out of the list. The reason was that the LTTE had never been a threat to American interests. It was this move that facilitated Washington to effectively participate in the Norwegian–sponsored 2002–2004 Peace Talks between the LTTE and the GSL, and to maintain discourses with representatives of many global Tamil Diaspora organizations whose prominent activists were once advisors to Tiger leader Prabhakaran.

 

 

 

Are current world conflicts based on human ethics and meant to establish peace and prosperity?

Recently the UK government announced that it was to recommence arms sales to Saudi Arabia, despite acknowledging that the kingdom could be using these arms to commit war crimes in Yemen. Humanitarian groups and the UN have accused Saudi-led forces of breaching international humanitarian law, including bombing schools, hospitals, weddings, and public infrastructure in Yemen since the start of the war with Houthi rebels in 2015. However, in a written statement published subsequently, UK’s International Trade Secretary, M/s Liz Truss confirmed that the UK would resume trading militarily with their key ally in the Gulf region. Truss said they had concluded that, while some “credible incidents of concern’ had been recognized as possible breaches of international humanitarian law (IHL), the UK government saw these as ‘isolated incidents.”

The Yemen conflict has cost an estimated 100,000 lives, with 80 percent of the Yemeni population requiring humanitarian assistance. The United Nations International Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has described the situation in Yemen as a crisis of “cataclysmic proportions.” If this is a case of Yemenis fighting among themselves, then the UN may rightly send a Peace Keeping Force, but this is a conflict created by Saudi Arabia, a third party, and another third party, the UK,  a member of the UN Security Council, is making a ‘packet’ out of this conflict.

Britain’s biggest arms manufacturer, BAE Systems, recently tweeted a video in which their chief executive Charles Woodburn gleefully revealed that 2019 had been a “good year” for the world’s fourth-largest defense company. In response, one person simply tweeted: “Death dividend,“ while another sarcastically wrote: “So glad killing people have brought you a nice dividend.”

 Globally, the UK military has a presence in 145 sites in 42 countries, and that amounts to the second-largest military network in the world after the United States, and Cyprus remains the Uk’s favorite with 17 military installations. British personnel can be found in five countries in Asia, including Brunei and Bhutan, and in Africa, the British forces are present in Kenya, Somalia, Djibouti, Malawi, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, and Mali.  Then comes these ever-dubious ties to Arab monarchies. As could be seen, the majority (90 %) of these countries are ruled by despots, despite pronouncements by British policymakers that they take issue with authoritarian rulers. Closer looks at such relations usually reveal the same factors: capital, commerce, perceptions of military necessity.  The relations with Oman, a state marked by absolute rule, is a case in point.  

Oman’s Sultan, Qaboos bin Said, who passed away in 2018, was genuinely mourned in British political circles.  Prime Minister Boris Johnson called him “an exceptionally wise and respected leader who will be missed enormously.”  British Papers wrote in praise of a reformer and developer.  “The longest-serving Arab ruler,” observed the Guardian, “Qaboos was an absolute monarch, albeit a relatively benevolent and popular one.”  The same Sultan, it should be said, had little fondness for freedom of expression, assembly, and association, arrested and harassed government critics, and condoned sex discrimination. But he was another big-time customer of the British arms industry and that is what mattered in the end.

The World Policeman exempts itself from International Law.                                                 

In June 2020, the international press widely reported that US President Donald Trump’s administration is prepared to impose economic sanctions on International Criminal Court officials who are engaged with “any effort to investigate or prosecute US personnel for war crimes’. In a statement, following the above declaration, the White House press office said that President Donald Trump has also authorized the ‘expansion of visa restrictions against ICC officials and their family members’. This is hardly the first instance where the US, which identifies itself as ‘the World Policeman’ has refused to subject itself to a judicial inquiry from the only international arm of global justice. The US has repeatedly threatened to impose sanctions on the Hague-based court and asserted that it has no right to investigate or prosecute US personnel without Washington’s consent.

In such a situation, the attitude this ‘World Policeman’ has developed towards International law, as demonstrated above, is not just incongruous but homicidal. Even in underdeveloped societies, people know that a country cannot go forward when it has only police officers and no judiciary. The job of the Police in any country is to arrest the wrongdoer and forward that alleged offender before the country’s court. It is the judiciary that then calls for the evidence and determines on the state of guilt of the suspect, and punishes accordingly. Therefore, it is only in cannibalistic vandal societies that policing and punishing are done by the same authority.

Therefore, this is what the global justice situation has petered down to; the world policeman has taken the law into his hands, making the world community into a society of cannibalistic vandals!!

Taking the cue from this reality that the west and the US place their interest above everything else, including international law,  it is clear that they plan to continue their economic imperialism throughout the world, supported by their power of arms. In that situation, they churn out loads of twisted advocacies in their western ‘democratic’ propaganda that the less developed states should do well to guard against.

 

A democratic form of government, compared to an autocratic rule, in a less developed or small country, always stands vulnerable to world powers as the democratic system itself enables such interference by world powers. This is because a democratic country will have a government as well as an opposition, and hence if the big power finds the current government to be hostile towards its interest, it could always side with the opposition and engineer a regime change. This could be accomplished, with the help of NGOs or the press, which again is not a part of the Government, in a democracy. The big power could always influence the press through various gratifications and other methods.  Therefore, these big powers would always want these small and underdeveloped countries to remain democracies, not so much because democracy aids their development, but because such countries could easily be influenced by big powers.

 

This also helps the big powers to maintain their economic superiority because small and underdeveloped countries naturally will have instability with a democratic form of government preventing their economic progress due to conditions described by Lee Kwan Yew in his many writings. This is because being economically ahead, and being strong on arms, is what matters at the end of the day to these big world powers. Hence, it appears that it is to maintain that state of vulnerability, that all these advocacies on ‘democratic values’, ‘freedom’ ‘Liberty’, and ‘human rights’ are advocated.  

 

Freedom of speech and the Press

According to the West, this is the most sacrosanct feature in a democracy and hence the ‘Free world’ has established an INGO called ‘Reporters Sans Frontiers’ with headquarters in France to monitor the progress of this democratic principle. It was Voltaire, the French philosopher, who first laid the foundation for freedom of expression by stating that, ‘ I do not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to my death, your right to say that’. Voltaire was a free thinker, and he said that in 16^th century which was considered the ‘Age of enlightenment of the world’.  It did have a wide connotation at the time because that advocacy brought forward all the goodness in human thinking, not just on governance and ethics but also on other spheres, including science and technology. Therefore, there is little debate on the fact that freedom of expression is a universal right of progressive human civilization.

 

The universal reality, however, of human life and its interactive features is, that everything in this world is good when used in a benevolent manner. That same could be equally counter-productive when deployed in a malevolent manner. The experience Sri Lanka went through with this particular freedom of expression could be a case in point to describe how malevolently this universal human freedom could be used to destabilize developing and small nations in the world.

 

The first questionable attitude these countries of the ‘free world’ adopted through their NGOs in developed countries is to treat the freedom of speech as so sacrosanct that any attempt to curtail its freedom, whatever the circumstances, is taken as a breach of democracy and a step in the direction of authoritarian rule. Then standing on this ground, these agencies of the free world, having become the arbiters of human rights and human goodness, dictate terms to the Governments of developing countries to a point where this advocacy impinges on actions, the country’s government is required to take in the broader national interests.

 

In the Sri Lankan experience of the 33-year war, this freedom of expression was used to such a malevolent height that it would not be an exaggeration to state that the LTTE terrorism certainly would not have been this bad had it not been supported by the country’s established media. The NGOs had practically bought the media institution to drive home their point in English and Sinhala media with that subtle journalist style of writing. For instance, they made the unfortunate events of July 83 into a ‘cause’ when that was definitely the effect of terrorism by the LTTE since 1975. Thus, having convinced that July 83 was the cause, they whitewashed the continuation of LTTE violence, stating that ‘July 83 triggered off all this, and violence once started has to be reaped with interests’. Therefore, the country experienced an unending cycle of violence, placing the country at the mercy of this organized violent movement that reached the most ruthless heights of violence with impunity.

 

The other strategy was to push for ‘Peace Talks’ knowing well that LTTE was just not capable of surviving in a peaceful atmosphere and also that with every effort at ‘Peace Talks’ the LTTE came back strong and hard as a contender in war. They invented arguments to ask people whether they needed a ‘peaceful solution’ or a ‘military solution’ to this conflict. Naturally, no civilized man will want a military solution if a peaceful solution is possible and hence would suggest a ‘peaceful solution.’ With such results, these NGO’s will go to town stating that the majority in the country wanted a ‘Peaceful solution’ and hence all army activity should be discontinued.

The LTTE, too, used this majority apathy to the maximum to further their terrorist interests. They established quite a few media organizations with dubious identities and issued passes to the terrorist as ‘Journalist’ so that they could access any part of the country, even high-security zones, with their identity cards & cameras. Any effort to curtail their freedom would be instantly reported to the NGO s and through them to the western embassies which will issue statements criticizing the ‘Defense ministry’s efforts to stifle the freedom of the country’s press.

 

The biggest issue the SL Defense ministry faced during this entire period of war was the projection of the country’s forces in a negative light by the media, especially the English media that had been practically bought over by the ‘International community’. This was adversely impacting on the morale of the country’s forces, and therefore in order to correct this situation, at a crucial stage of the war, the Sri Lanka Ministry of Defense issued a circular stating that the Ministry ‘would not hesitate to act against media institutions that report falsehoods and the anti–terrorist operation in a negative light.

 

No sooner was this circular issued than the Headquarters of Journalist Sans Frontiers issued a statement warning that such action against journalists will entail international repercussions for the SL Government. This shows that Freedom of the Press is more important to the west than the elimination of terrorism in a country whose citizens suffered from terrorist violence for three decades.    

 

The point, however, is while the west advocates Freedom of Press with such veneration, does the west and the US really enjoy this freedom in their societies? The popular media institutions of all western countries belong to a few corporations that are owned in turn by a handful of wealthy individuals or families. They are ‘hand in glow’ with big business and Governance and hence will not jeopardize the system that benefits them. They may criticize their current  Government or the opposition on mundane matters but never the international system that is to the advantage of them and their country. Not for a moment and not even by mistake will their journalism leave room for the reader to think that developing nations continue to be ‘developing’ because the exploitation still continues, in other ways. In their picture, all the developing nations remain that way because their leaders are either corrupt or apathetic, lacking in proper values, justice, and fair play.

 

The difference here is that these journalists from powerful countries cannot be bought by a developing nation to write against their countries because it would be too expensive, whereas journalists in developing countries could be bought by powerful countries through the NGOs for a pittance.    

However, the hypocrisy of these superpowers who advocate press freedom even to dying nations suddenly stood exposed in a noteworthy manner when the Wikileaks issue hit the international scene.  WikiLeaks is an international non-profit organization that publishes news leaks and classified information on sensitive world issues provided by anonymous sources. Its website was initiated in 2006 and, up to 2015, in its first 10 years of operation, has released 10 million documents online, mainly on the US wars and their collateral damage. The group has released a vast number of prominent document caches, including documentation of equipment expenditures, soldier casualties, corruption investigations, operations at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay- Cuba, Collateral Murder footage of the 12 July 2007 Baghdad airstrike in which Iraqi journalists were among those killed etc. Wikileaks are activists who advocated the use of citizen journalism as a way to protect the public against abuses of power.

Thus, naturally, the world powers, especially the UK and US, whose abuse of power was exposed, have been offended by WikiLeaks disclosures. Hence, they have imprisoned Jullian Assange for allegedly endangering their ‘national security. The hypocrisy here is that it is not the strength of the US/UK forces or their defensive security plans that Wikileaks exposed but the wonton acts of these super powers that amounted to war crimes against developing countries. In effect, it is not the national security of big powers that Assange exposed but the international insecurity of powerless nations in the world. However, Julian Assange, despite agitations by many journalists and those who truly believe in the freedom of the press, is languishing in British jail charged with a rape allegation and security offenses.

Ironically the mainstream world media today do not take up Assange’s case but subtly denounce the Wikileaks initiator, as such exposure would entail a sense of cognitive dissonance that would threaten their allegiance to status quo narratives that just happen to justify the world they know and love.

In a wide-ranging dismantling of mainstream media reporting on Julian Assange, award-winning journalist John Pilger blasted the Guardian for its recent editorial diatribe on the WikiLeaks founder. The Guardian editorial made a case for not extraditing the Australian to the US, where he could face 175 years behind bars for possession and dissemination of classified information. Pilger took aim at Guardian, offering his interpretation of what the editorial actually meant. “What the Guardian was really saying was this: ‘We are the fourth estate, the bearers of true liberal principles, the guardians of sacred rights. Such as, the right to suck up to power, the right to invade countries and the right to smear those who expose our double standards and, if necessary, the right to destroy them,’ he said. 

Jamal Khassogi is a reputed Saudi journalist who was once an adviser to the Saudi government. He fell out with the Saudi Royal family, for obvious reasons, and took residence in America in 2017. There he worked for the Washington Post. However, Khassogi had to visit the Saudi Consulate in Turkey in Istanbul on 28 September 2018 to obtain a Saudi document stating that he was divorced, enabling him to marry his Turkish fiancée, Hatice Cengiz. After this visit, the Saudi Authorities informed him that he would have to return to pick up the document and arranged to come back on 2^nd October.

Ms. Cengiz accompanied him to the entrance of the consulate on 2^nd October. He was last seen alive on CCTV footage entering the building on that day.”He did not believe that something bad could happen on Turkish soil,” Ms. Cengiz wrote in the Post.

In October 2020, Turkey’s Anadolu Agency released gruesome never–before–seen footage related to journalist Jamal Kassogi’s brutal murder to mark the second anniversary of his killing at the hands of a hit team sent by crown prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on October 2, 2018. No less than 15 men were sent to kill one individual who ran afoul of MbS, and the equipment they had carried included a bone saw to dismember his body. Mr. Kassogi, who was officially summoned to the Saudi Consulate to do paperwork related to his impending marriage, disappeared, never to be seen again. Now for the first-time, police footage has been published of Turkish forensics investigators with a document they found following the murder.

Tissaweerasinham is a Tamil Sri Lankan journalist prosecuted by the Sri Lanka government for publishing lies about the country abroad, and thus he operated from France for some time, continuing to publish his tendentious work. This work of Tissaweerasingham, warranted President Obama to honor him in his annual honors list for his service to journalism. The American Government, however, has not taken any notice of Jamal Khashoggi, whose murder by the Saudi regime is well-published all over the world.

Saudi Arabia is a country ruled by a family dictatorship, and there is no freedom of expression, no religious freedom, no gender equality and no other freedoms that are advocated to the rest of the world by the US and west with punitive repercussions. Yet Saudi Arabia is a VIP when it comes to the sale of Arms by the US, the west, and in earnest by the United Kingdom.

Propaganda; the new means of conquest.                                                                          

Propaganda, without a doubt, is the most significant word around which the contents of this book revolve because PROPAGANDA is the modern weapon of conquest by big powers and that, to a great extent, has replaced arms. The power of arms in the end, defines the ‘World domination status’, but propaganda is the forerunner to the use of arms, and it sets the stage. This is because the current times are considered ‘civilized times’, and propaganda makes the most uncivilized of acts appear civilized. Such is the power of propaganda that it will help the ordinary public determine whether a particular act is ‘civilized’ or ‘uncivilized’ depending on the party that commits that act. Accordingly, acts perpetrated by these world powers and their allies are depicted in a civilized vein, while the most benevolent commitments by those ‘ who are not with us’ are destined to be labeled  ‘ contraptions’.

People may be intelligent and educated, but you need more to be non-gullible. If you wish to kill a particular dog, don’t bother doing it yourself! Convince the people in the area that the particular dog is afflicted with rabies, and then the chances are that the people who live around will get together and kill that dog.  That is the power of propaganda and that has been used to the maximum by these world powers with the powerful and encompassing media organizations they have under their command. 

Bertrand Russell once posed the question, ‘Why is propaganda so much more successful when it stirs up hatred than when it is used to bring out friendly feelings,’ and that question remains un- answered even today. Mark Twain’s advice on the use of propaganda, on the other hand, has been very practical when he said, ‘Get your facts right first and then you can distort them as much as you want’.

Colonialism made the English language the most widely spoken language globally while imbibing English values in the subjects in colonies and especially among the ruling elites. This has now created the platform for neo-colonialism enabling English-speaking world powers to just steamroll and subjugate the post- colonial world with sheer propaganda. Propaganda is the single most enemy of truth as it could make an innocent party guilty and a guilty party innocent or victimized. It creates opinions and builds up images that are difficult to dispel and correct.

For instance, many people in the world believe that it was Churchill’s war rhetoric and the British army that saved the world from Hitler when the reality is, that it was Stalin’s army that defeated the Germans and drove into Berlin’s heartland, separating the country. Hitler made the crucial mistake of thinking that he could take over Russia before taking up Britain, and if not for that mistake, there was no way Churchill’s rhetoric could save England, and it certainly would have been a case of ‘God couldn’t save the Queen of England’. World history too, would certainly have been different because Britain at the time was not equipped to face Germany’s war might.

Further, WW11 was not merely a result of hunger for power on the part of Adolf Hitler and Japan. What motivated Hitler to conquer the world was the fact that there was no free trade in the world based on technical excellence and fairness. Britain’s technology was nowhere near that of Germany, but more British goods were traded throughout the world because Britain enjoyed the monopoly in their colonies. That was when Britain was known as the ‘Empire where the sun never sets’ and thus, imagine the outreach of Britain’s commerce.  Even in the case of Japan, they only attacked British colonies in Asia as Emperor Hirohito wanted to see an Asia free of colonialism.

Therefore, when you now see, it had been the activities of Britain and other colonialists across the globe that invited the WW11 in the first place, and Hitler’s German forces were vanquished by Russians. But thanks to the wide use of the English language Britain was projected as the ‘victimized hero’ during the war and in the end, emerged as the leader of the ‘free world’. This then is the power of propaganda.

Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister of England, was an articulate speaker. How well did he convince the world that Saddam Hussein of Iraq was in possession of Weapons of Mass destruction, knowing the contrary to be true, and then prompted the UN and the ‘international community’ to invade and destroy Iraq.  In the end, Iraq did not possess such weapons, and the whole thing was British propaganda aimed at destabilizing Iraq and destroying Saddam Hussein!

Recently, a swath of internal UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) files have exposed the covert ways in which London sought to both propagandize Syrian children and turn them into weapons in a vast, long-running information warfare campaign at home and abroad. The office had used cartoons and children’s comic books as propaganda material; against Bashir Al Assad’s Government. The documents are just some of the bombshell papers released by ‘Hacktivist collective Anonymous’, outlining a variety of cloak-and-dagger actions undertaken by the UK government against the Syrian state over the years. The overriding objective behind them all was to destabilize the government of Bashar Assad, convince Syrians, Western citizens, foreign governments, and international bodies that the Free Syrian Army (FSA) was a legitimate alternative, and flood media the world over with pro-opposition propaganda. Children figured prominently in a number of plans, in more ways than one. ARK, a shadowy firm headed by veteran FCO operative Alistair Harris, was central to many of these covert efforts, which may have cost the FCO many millions in total.

We in Sri Lanka however, may not need to go that far because Shashi Tharoor, the Indian Congress Party MP has made it clear, with facts and figures, in his famous Oxford Union speech how Britain destroyed India by bringing down its economy from 23 % of the world to just 4 % under colonial rule and also by killing scores of people including women and children with man-made famines. Every time people got killed in India, Churchill would pose the question, ‘Is Gandhi still alive?’

Yet even today, you talk to 10 Indians, and 7 of them may say that ‘invasion by Britain is the best thing that happened to India’. Isn’t propaganda the most powerful weapon in the modern world?

Timothy Alexander Guzman, writing to the November 2020 issue of Global Research network, describes modern mainstream journalism thus. ‘‘Yellow Journalism’ was associated with various major newspapers that held little respect for journalistic principles or truth.  “Sensationalism” or “eye–catching headlines” was the only truth that mattered for newspaper owners that exaggerated stories to sell newspapers and fill their pockets. Today they sell you lies to support the agendas of major corporations and the Military–Industrial Complex because corporate interests pay the Main Stream Media handsomely to sell their wars, drugs, and propaganda. The three giant media outlets in America, CNN, MSNBC and Fox News employ a long list of liars and state propagandists who were in previous administrations that offer their one–sided analysis and reports in domestic and foreign issues presented to the viewer.  In an important note, all of the MSM networks are on board, and all agree that no matter who is president, they know who their foreign enemies are when it comes to war because they all work for the same US war machine’.

 

Americans are bombarded with non-stop news on Hong Kong and Moscow rallies, but how come mass protests in Honduras and Brazil are not even mentioned. American journalist Lee Camp looks at why the US corporate media are keeping mum on the subject. ‘Honduras, a Latin American nation of nine million people, has been hit by massive unrest, with people venting anger at pro–US President Orlando Hernandez. The wave of violent demonstrations saw the US diplomatic mission attacked by protesters – but the American mainstream media didn’t say a word about it’, Camp pointed out, speaking on Redacted Tonight, “Protesters are literally burning the US embassy because we installed a f******d [Hernandez] rule over them, how is that non–news?” he wondered. “Hondurans are rightfully furious about the neoliberal austerity measures supported by our country and the IMF. It caused massive layoffs, increased costs of basic goods and essentially made their lives suck down there”, Camp reminded viewers.                  

 

Brazil recently has been rocked by a massive strike led by trade unions. Over 45 million people there (Can you imagine 45 million Americans agreeing on anything?), are protesting against the right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro and his controversial pension reform. But this is “not a story your corporate media will cover,” and for obvious reasons, Camp offered, ‘On the one hand, it may not look good because the American workers might think, ‘what if WE have a general strike?’

 

According to figures compiled by the Campaign Against Arms Trade, the United Kingdom has supplied the Saudi government with approximately £5 billion (US$6.38 billion) worth of arms – weapons, fighter jets, and even air strike training – since the war in Yemen began in March 2015. The UK government sells more arms to Saudi Arabia than any other country in the world.     A spokesman for the Campaign Against Arms Trade, Andrew Smith, told RT News that “UK fighter jets and bombs have played a central role in the ongoing destruction“ and called for a full investigation.

Long before the Trump administration took office, Samantha Power enabled and supported the “horrifying” Saudi-led attack on Yemen during her time as the Obama administration’s top diplomat at the UN. Using her seat on the UN Security Council, Power backed a comically prejudiced UNSC resolution which essentially placed the blame for the conflict on the Houthi rebels for resisting the Saudi-led invasion, imposing an arms embargo on the Houthis while failing to do the same for the US-supplied Saudi military. The Atlantic magazine reported that the “unrealistic and one-sided resolution” had been “drafted by the Saudis, introduced by the British and passed with US support.” ‘Power exemplified Washington’s startling silence in the face of increasingly concerning attacks carried out by Riyadh in Yemen’, Politico magazine reported in 2016. “Ambassador Power even found herself defending an intervention in Yemen that has killed thousands of civilians” and “coincided with the spread of Al Qaeda,“ the Politico piece noted.

Thus, US and UK are buried to their neck in the sectarian wars of Muslim countries. Saudi Arabia is a Sunni Muslim country with Wahabi leanings, whereas Iran, Syria, and Yemen are Shia Muslim countries. The religious vendetta between Sunnis and Shias is such that they would attack one another first before attacking a non-Muslim country. Ironically, Sunni Muslims are the more extremist and have been responsible for Al- Qaeda, 9/11 and ISIS.

Incidentally, it was this same Samantha Power who is responsible in drafting the 30/A resolution against Sri Lanka and judging by her parallel projects, it would not be a surprise if we find that this resolution is drafted by the LTTE diaspora who engineered this conflict in Sri Lanka, in the first place. 

 

Therefore, the significance of propaganda to the narrative of this book cannot be overemphasized because it has enabled the world powers to use their power of propaganda to use the very human values and principles of the modern world (post-war world) in a course contrary to what those principles and values were originally intended for.  

 

LTTE Diaspora’s propaganda potential and hopes on the ‘international community.’                          

Similarly, analysis of the ‘findings’ and ‘conclusions’ of the Darumsn report indubitably confirms that propaganda is what is at the heart of ‘Human rights violations of by Sri Lankan forces’.All that the SL forces did was to eliminate the most organized & sophisticated terrorist outfit in the world that even used Human rights spy-ops in their inhuman combat.  This is also the case with the ‘grievances’ of Sri Lanka’s Tamil community because what the Tamil lost, post-independence, are the special privileges enjoyed under the British. They claimed to be the most aggrieved when in reality, they were one of the most privileged and resourceful minority groups anywhere in the world.

The LTTE Diaspora is a master of this modern imperial tool propaganda, very effectively over the years. Thus, it is not difficult for them to propagate that ‘there is a community called Sinhalese in Sri Lanka who discriminate against the Tamils in that country’, to the average Westerner who does not even know where Sri Lanka is in the world map. Then there is ‘lobbying’, especially in the US, that the LTTE diaspora has been ‘quite smart’ in availing. The case of Mr. Bruce Fein is an example of the LTTE diaspora’s capacity to lobby.

Bruce Fein is the former Attorney General of the USA under President George W. Bush and is a person with Harvard credentials. He had been quite open in his criticism of the LTTE for a long time, and in a column, he wrote to the Washington Post on 3^rd February 2004, he unequivocally defended the then secretary of State, Madeline Albright for declaring 30 organizations as ‘Foreign Terrorists organizations’ under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty act of 1996. This list included, quite prominently, Sri Lanka’s Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. He further said that ‘the designation pivoted on the indiscriminate use of violence by the Government PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party in Turkey) and the LTTE to intimidate civilian populations and to cow the democratically elected Governments in Turkey and Sri Lanka to capitulate to their secessionists’ demands. The Tamil Tigers seek a secessionist state in the northern and eastern provinces of Sri Lanka through terrorism. Characteristic of like organizations, the LTTE undertakes auxiliary activities that strengthen its terrorist torso and sweeten its public face; political organizing, advocacy; diplomacy; social service and humanitarian aid etc.”

 

He even opposed the medical assistance program provided by international organizations to the LTTE, stating, ‘medically assisting the LTTE, however, facilitates terrorist abominations. Its injured members more quickly return to terrorists’ duties’. He concludes his article by saying, ‘If the law sustains a constitutional right to assist foreign secessionist terrorists’ organizations against countries with which we are at peace, then the law is an ass, an idiot.”

 

Now, upon his retirement, Mr. Fein engaged himself as an American lobbyist. On the 22^ndJan. 2008, issuing a statement four years later, this same Bruce Feign criticized the FBI story, titled ‘Taming the Tamil Tigers’, challenging the legitimacy of the State Department’s listing of the Tamil tigers, as a ‘Foreign Terrorist Organization’. He also advocated independent statehood for Sri Lanka’s Tamils through legal channels, based on the United States ‘Declaration of independence, Natural and International Law and Historical practice’. Mr. Fein, having got himself into completely reverse gear, now in 2008, goes to the extent of stating that, ‘ The Sri Lankan Government is a terrorist state’.

 

This is a case in point that proves that some reputed western personalities support the LTTE, not because they have been told only one side of the story, but because they understand quite well what is happening in Sri Lanka but like the American foreign policy their ‘gains’ are more important to them than truth, justice and ethics. The LTTE Diaspora, as acknowledged by the American intelligence, has the most organized propaganda network for a terrorist organization with their worldwide collection of US$ 3 million every month. Considering the fact that the LTTE diaspora had to justify the heinous atrocities of the LTTE, and then project their privileged community as ‘marginalized and discriminated’, it was natural that they had to have the most sophisticated propaganda network, with the widest of outreach.

 

However, if this LTTE diaspora is of the impression that, this UNHRC resolution 30/A is a result of the US’s and the UK’s interest in protecting the human rights of Sri Lankan Tamils, such reasoning could only come from the mental imbalance they suffer as a result of their deep sense of misplaced pride in their ‘Great Tamilness’ and their covetous eye at Sri Lanka, to have a country of their own. The absurdity of such thoughts is evident when you consider that America and the west have been instrumental in getting engaged in many national and international conflicts in the post WW11 era, only to end up in situations worse than when they first entered.  The hard reality is that there isn’t a single country in the world that has benefitted from these ‘well intended’ American operations.

 

If America wishes to help the Tamils, then why choose Sri Lanka? There are 75 million Tamils in India as against this 2 million ‘Ceylon Tamils’ in Sri Lanka, and of those mainly poor Indian Tamils, nearly 1/3^rd is said to ‘not know’ where their next meal will come!

 

This logic will make it plain and clear that the American intention is not to help those who are in need but to fish in troubled waters and create more wars destabilizing countries. They cannot fracture India by helping the poor Indian Tamils. Still, by helping the morale of the powerful Sri Lankan Tamils, they could not only split Sri Lanka but also make inroads into fracturing and destabilizing India as well. America is very badly in need of a military base in South Asia in view of their impending exit form Diego Asia and the affairs in Sri Lanka, while the LTTE was in operation, offered prospects and hope to the American CIA.

 

 

Human Rights and Inhuman wrongs

Human Rights are the result of human race reaching a point in its civilization where it is able to ensure the basic rights; every human being requires to lead a life with freedom and dignity. These rights, however, for that matter all the rights in human society, entail corresponding responsibilities, on the part of individuals or nations, the right discharge of which alone will ensure the empowerment of those rights. This responsibility requires some compromise that may not have warranted up to then on the part of these individuals and nations. Therefore, any nation or individual that upholds its own interests, disregarding the responsibility to concede that part of its activity warranted for the greater good of the community, is in violation of basic human rights. This is the core position on which peace within a nation and then peace in the world rests.  In that context, it is the US, with its indomitable course of global action, that has emerged as the worst violator of human rights in the modern world.

 

It was the unbridled wars of the early 20^th century, bringing in their wake the destruction and loss of life, that drove the human society to take this Human rights stand.  Therefore, in that respect, the violators of human rights during the period that preceded have been the colonialists, religious persecutors, slave traders, and authoritarian rulers. Colonialism was led by the British, Spanish, French, Belgians, Hollanders and Portuguese while the slave trade was led by the Americans and the Europeans. Religious persecution and propagation were the work of the Vatican and the Arabs, who considered their faiths to be all-encompassing. Therefore, if human rights are to be enshrined in this world, it is these nations who have carried out these acts of colonialism, slave trade, and religious persecutions that should be sidelined and told to compromise. Unfortunately, however, it is these very nations, being world powers, who have become arbiters of overseeing the administration of these rights. With developed resources at their command and pillage and exploitation in their DNA, these world powers naturally are in for a situation similar to where; the elimination of crime had been entrusted to the very criminals!

An outstanding characteristic of the Western human rights industry has long been the way it politicizes its activities to serve the foreign policy needs of its countries’ governments. To that end, corporate and government investors fund leading industry producers like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House or the International Federation for Human Rights. The formal reports and social media content of these producer organizations downplay abuse and violations by governments supported by NATO and allied country governments. By contrast, these Western NGOS exaggerate or even invent human rights abuses in countries targeted by their country’s government.

In Latin America, widespread abuses under right-wing regimes in, for example, Colombia, Honduras, Haiti or Brazil get mentioned in low key terms, if at all, while false claims by US-funded opposition groups in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela are amplified and broadcast with minimal or zero effort at responsible corroborations. Neither the human rights industry itself nor the communications media and academic industries, which are its main consumers, make any serious effort at investigation because they too are often funded by the same corporate and government investors as their human rights industry brand name suppliers.

When in 2018 Nicaragua’s Vice–Foreign Minister, Valdrack Jaentshcke, inquired from the then head of the Inter American Commission for Human Rights delegation to Nicaragua, Paulo Abrao, why the IACHR refused to investigate opposition killings of police officers and government workers, Abrao replied that they fell outside the IACHR mandate because IACHR doctrine was that human rights can ‘only be violated by States’. Later, when the Nicaraguan authorities defeated the terrorist coup attempt and applied the due process to prosecute those guilty of the opposition’s violent crimes, the IACHR and the rest of the Western human rights industry rose up and accused Nicaragua’s government of mounting political prosecutions.

America launched a ‘war on terror’ after it experienced 9/11. Yet their pronounced anti-terror principle was limited to those terrorist organizations ‘that threatened the US interests’. This is equivalent to stating loud and clear that ‘terrorism is ok as long as it did not affect the US interest’.

The situation in Sri Lanka was similar, if not worse.  The LTTE was on the rampage, killing persons of all communities with a pledge on a racialist war, but no HR organization criticized the most organized brutal terror outfit, and instead they criticized successive SL Governments for introducing measures to contain terrorism, as those measures impinged on day-to-day human activity in some ways. The primary cause of all those Government measures, the LTTE, the HR organizations maintained, were beyond them as the LTTE, a non-state party, cannot be prosecuted. Yet they were critical of the countervailing effects, thereby strengthening the cause i.e, the LTTE. This led to a 33-year war where all communities suffered from with the country having no hope at development. Finally, when Sri Lankan forces eliminated terrorism, an outcome that surprised the ‘International community’, they brought charges of HR violations against the SL forces in an effort to prevent the conflict from reaching its desired end.

They manufactured evidence against SL force, suppressing the true situation, and notwithstanding the fact that the LTTE staged a ‘human shielding’, a war crime by all international standards. If the LTTE was not eliminated in 2009 they would well have accounted for another 100,000 Sri Lankan lives by now. All that however, is immaterial to these well–intentioned ‘international community’ who have now lost their opportunity to interfere in the SL affairs, ensuring that the country is prevented from reaching any standard of development.  This is because every underdeveloped country that developed is a threat to those that called themselves the ‘international community’; the ex–colonialist and the ex– slave traders.

The claim of ‘genocide of Tamils’ is being echoed from the western capitals accusing the Sri Lankan Government, and such claims are patronized, directly and indirectly, by those Governments and their mainstream media. Yet the Mayan civilization faced genocide in the hands of Spanish, Red Indians in the hands of the new colonizers of America and the Aborigines and the Maoris in the hands of British. It was Shashi Tharoor who aptly said that, ‘Britain was called the Empire where the sun never set because, God never trusted the English in darkness!’  

The world status-quo should not be allowed to change as that may cause the current powers to lose their world domination in terms of economic and arms power.  In October 2020 the US slammed the UN Human Rights Council for holding a vote on a resolution that criticized America’s record of police brutality and racism, saying the vote demonstrated “hypocrisy” and showed why the US quit the body. The UN rights body “has long been and remains a haven for dictators and democracies that indulge them,” Secretary of State Michael Pompeo said in a statement.“If the Council were honest, it would recognize the strengths of American democracy and urge authoritarian regimes around the world to model American democracy and to hold their nations to the same high standards of accountability and transparency that we Americans apply to ourselves,” he added. The rebuke comes in response to the said resolution, which denounced the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, and called on the UN high commissioner on human rights to prepare a report on “systemic racism, violations of international human rights law against Africans and people of African descent by law enforcement agencies in the US”.

Now it would be interesting to inquire into these values of the ‘American democracy’ that Pompeo is lauding here; the very values that an American professor has aired in his recent opinion. 

 ‘Three essential components of democracy are economic equality, social unity, and a government that acts in the interest of the people. America lacks all three of those components’, says Vanderbilt University Law School Professor Ganesh Sitaraman. ‘In study after study, political scientists have shown that our government is responsive primarily to the wealthy and interest groups, not to ordinary people, a system of government that is mostly unresponsive to the people is not a democracy by any stretch of imagination.’ Sitaraman argues that the neo-liberal era is what divided America and continues to prevent the country from realizing a true democracy. In the subject video, Prof. Sitaraman explains the problem with neoliberalism and how a new agenda could create far better opportunities.

 

Nearly 250 years ago, American President Abraham Lincoln gave us the most concise and succinct definition of what democracy is, and he made that statement in the aftermath of the American civil war, lauding those who gave their lives for the country’s democracy.

He maintained that,

‘Democracy is, the Government of the people, for the people and by the people’

 

However, Abe Lincoln would turn in his grave if he realized that the current leaders of the American empire had given a new interpretation with their current conduct of the American democracy to say that,

“Democracy is the Government, of the Wall Street, for the corporate world, by the peoples’ legitimacy.’

The current American Government is for the Corporations, and it is well defended by the propaganda of Wall Street and finally, legitimized by people at elections

 

It must be making the Indian leaders very happy when American propaganda, day in and day out, lambast China of being a human rights violator while calling India ‘the largest democracy in the world’. The reality, however, is that China has lifted 700 million of its population out of poverty during the last two decades while half the Indian population, about 500 million, still languish in un-hygienic dwellings eking out a living ‘ just for their next meal’.

 

Therefore, in western standards, if there is poverty, lack of education, decease and unhygienic accommodation, or even an on-going conflict, such issues are not so serious in the violation of basic human rights of the citizens of that country. But on the other hand, if there is no elections and no ‘free press’, then those are serious violations of human rights by the Government of that country!

 

The Current crisis in ‘Modern Human Civilization.’

 “Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom.”  Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) Principal author of the Declaration of Independence, 3rd President of the United States (from 1801 to 1809)

When we were children, our parents always told us to be truthful and fair in our dealings. Our childhood fables were also replete with characters that stood for what is right/ just and who, in the end vanquish evil and accomplish greatness.  Our school teachers, too, were not much different and amidst their duty of having to follow a curricular, considered it their duty to impart discipline and common virtues in us.  Further, it was the science lesson that instilled in us the need to be honest and truthful about facts because all scientific theories first emerged as hypotheses and became universally accepted theories only after being subjected to rigorous and equally honest examinations. Such is the degree of honesty and truthfulness warranted in verifying a hypothesis in science that any deviation from the in-depth and honest verification would render that theory untenable and unscientific. 

As we reached adulthood, our rights and wrongs tended to focus more on what is just and reasonable, and in our youthful exuberance, it appeared that the best social order is the one that revolves around what is just and fair. Then in our chosen careers, we were exposed to professionalism, and in that, we learned to pursue ethics of a certain discipline with dedication and honesty. Therefore, we now realize that the driving force of modern civilization and human development rests in being truthful and honest.

 

However, when we start our life as matured adults exposed to the vagaries of personal and social realities, we soon realize that society, and for that matter the whole world, is not what it should ideally be and that there is this element of ‘interest’ that warps our sense of truthfulness and honesty. This interest element can manifest in personal, social, and political forms, and tangibly it could present itself in the form of ‘more money’, ‘social enhancement’ or ‘political security’. Thus, we often find ourselves in a conflict between ‘what we ought to be’ and ‘what we are lured in to’.

 

This is where integrity matters. The best social order, in the long run, is where facts are observed, justice is upheld, and professionalism is pursued, resisting falsehood, injustice, and time-serving conduct. That is the best formula for a reasonable and just society, for a balanced and prospering nation, or in the end, for the right world order that creates fewer international chores and conflicts.

 

This then is the crisis we face in modern human civilization. The current world leaders are hypocrites and have double standards in everything they do. For instance, America as the current world leader, has one standard for their internal administration and another when they handle world affairs. That explains why President Clinton almost faced impeachment for the ‘Monica Lewinsky affair’ whereas President Bush was not even considered for impeachment after all the killings of civilians he commissioned in Iraq and other countries. The leaders, with the help of their mainstream media, convince the public that all the wars they are engaged in are necessary for the security of their country and to uphold the cherished beliefs of man, such as freedom and liberty. Therefore, to view them critically would be to be ‘Unpatriotic’. Mohamed Ali (Cassius Clay) was stripped of his world title because he refused to serve the US army in the Vietnam war! But what did the Vietnam war accrue to the US; loss of 56,000 young lives and billions of dollars in national wealth. That is not all; the ignominy of being defeated by a rag-tag army and the penance of causing the deaths of 3 million Vietnamese.

Aging American boomers are living a lifestyle reminiscent of Florida, Nevada and Arizona, but in Vietnam,” the Los Angeles Times reported in July 2020. “Monthly expenses here rarely exceed $2,000, even to live in a large unit…including the help of a cook and a cleaner.” That just might be the mother of all ironies. Retired US soldiers and average American retirees would rather take their chances living abroad among their erstwhile enemies than trying to make ends meet on their pensions back home in the US. That doesn’t really reflect in favor of the condition of capitalism in America. Indeed, let’s not forget that Vietnam is socialist, which is about as close to a four-letter swear word in the US as you can get. Yet none of that seems to matter to the current US holiday makers, some of whom may have been lost in those Asian jungles many years ago to help eradicate the ideological convictions of Washington’s sworn enemy.

Therefore, unless and until the world leaders come out of this Hippocratic stance driven by their primate instincts to dominate the world, the world has little hope of healing itself. There is no argument that the westerners and the Americans are talented, adventurous, and intelligent, as they have demonstrated through technology and progressive ways of administering their countries. Modern human civilization owes much to the West for the giant strides we have made in these fields. The United States of America is a country founded by great men who believed in the very principle of human freedom and liberty that unleashes the best potential of humans. American leaders were mainly from Europe that witnessed the worst forms of religious wars and hence brought no religious dogmas to America with them. They had the dream to lead a free world with faith only in the human spirit. But unfortunately, by and by, and in a few generations, this ‘American dream’ has turned out to be a ‘Nightmare’ for the rest of the world.

 

The US and the West lack empathy and compassions for the rest of the world. They believe that arms are the necessary prerequisite in controlling and dominating the world when justice should be the real basis of lasting peace that could ensure human sustainability. If nations still need competition as a means of self-enhancement, the modern world has better and harmless criteria’s in pursuits such as commerce, sports etc. of establishing superiority.

As for the UN and its record in maintaining justice as the basis of world peace, a Peruvian diplomat, Dr. Victor Andres Belaunde, characterized the United Nations as a politically wobbly institution that survives only at the will– and pleasure– of the five big powers. In more realistic terms, he said: “When a great power and a small power are in conflict, the small power disappears. When two small powers have a dispute, the dispute disappears. And when two great powers have a dispute, the United Nations disappears.”

The former UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold maintained that ‘UN was not created to take mankind to heaven but rather to save it from hell!’ This was in 1954, in the early days when UN portrayed hope and optimism.  However, Mr. Hammarskjold would not have expected this organization, the only hope for universal justice and national unity, to work against those very ideals for which it was established, to ensure that the ‘armed and unjust’ continue to enjoy in heaven while the unarmed and marginalized languish in hell. 

Yasmin Sooka

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter XIV:

SL’s Human rights; Violated or Over–Stretched?

Apart from the political connotations and the dubious inclinations of these charges of violations of International Human Rights laws against Sri Lanka, it would be interesting to examine the case of Sri Lanka that portrayed a significant advancement in certain fields of human wellbeing of its citizens on the one hand, and monotony of youth rebellions on the other. The crux of the LTTE rebellion was the youth unrest among Sri Lanka’s main minority, the Tamils. While the LTTE’s ravaged the country with a war for 33 years, the country’s youth in general (mainly Sinhalese), also staged two country-wide rebellions, albeit of a shorter duration, but nevertheless with equally devastating consequences.

 

These rebellions were associated with a considerable loss in young lives together with billions worth of losses in assets. Although there was no propaganda machine and the support from the ‘international community’ and the NGO’s for this country-wide rebellion, that also accounted for a loss of almost 80,000 young lives when it struck in 1971 and 1989.  These losses in life and property should be taken together with the loss of opportunity the country had to undergo in terms of international and national investments and development that would have otherwise taken place post-independence.

 

At the time of independence in 1948, the literacy rate among Sri Lanka’s citizens was a mere 6%, and the life expectancy, in general, was only 45 years. The child mortality rate at the time was also high, well in excess of 100 deaths per 1000 born. Even though the country as a whole enjoyed a stable foreign exchange reserve, the level of poverty and the quality of living among the general populace left much to be desired. There was also wide social disparity with the English-speaking elite setting the norms on everything, in industry and social life, making the masse non- inclusive. 

 

To correct this, the much-needed social reforms were introduced even before independence was formally declared,  by the elected representatives of the State Council, as the country enjoyed the Universal franchise as early as 1935; the first to be endowed with the responsibility in the South Asian continent. Free education at all levels, from Kindergarten to University, was introduced in 1945 by the then education Minister CWW Kannangara in an attempt to educate the populace, with the view of obtaining the services of an educated populace providently. Free health services, protective and curative, were also introduced in 1951 with the idea of improving the nation’s health. The fact was that the people, in general, were so poor that they could not afford health facilities even though the Government was considered rich at the time.  These measures appear quite appropriate, given the state of general education of the masses and the state of health vis a vis the level of poverty at the time.  If those facilities were not afforded free, the SL population hadn’t a hope in hell of availing those. 

 

The results bore fruit as anticipated, and towards the 1980’ Sri Lanka reported impressive health indicators with the lowest maternal mortality ratio in the South Asian region: 30 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births,  as compared with Bangladesh (176), India (174), Maldives (68), Nepal (258) and Pakistan (178). In 2019, the child mortality rate for Sri Lanka was 7.1 deaths per 1,000 live births, while other countries in the region recorded two-digit child mortality rates. In addition, Sri Lanka has achieved the elimination status in the control of several intractable communicable diseases, including poliomyelitis, malaria, and, most recently, measles. In 2018, WHO chose to celebrate World Health Day in Colombo in recognition of the country’s accomplishments in healthcare. Sri Lanka also performed well in attaining the health-related Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) set by WHO for the year 2015 well in advance. Those incidentally included child mortality, maternal mortality, reproductive health, and eradication of malaria. All in all, so impressive has been Sri Lanka’s record in the health sector, the WHO often cited Sri Lanka’s example as a case study for developing countries.

 

In the education sphere, too, the country yielded record returns, with the general literacy rate shooting up to 90 % by the 1990s. University education became ever so competitive, with University entrees having to obtain many times more marks than the stipulated entry standards.  This is despite the fact that the country established 13 more Universities regionally in many parts of the country, bringing the total number of Universities to 15, as against 2at the time of independence. Such has been the demand on higher education, the Government in its inability to fund the same out of public funds granted private sector permission to establish, in the midst of vehement opposition from free educated University student unions, to establish fee levying universities. In addition to all this, the Government also established a fund to subsidize those Government universities entrees considered to hail from rural and poor backgrounds.

 

The question then is, with such impressive gains in the spheres of health and education, how did Sri Lanka manage to have a series of youth unrests (Sinhala as well as Tamil) culminating in high costs to the country, in terms of many young lives, billions in property damages and an even bigger loss in the form of lost opportunities?

 

The answer in general lies in the country’s inability to match all these facilities with a complementary level of development that would absorb the aspirations of the country’s budding young population. Being a country with limited resources, this high allocation of funds to education and health, on the one hand, left development activities constrained and, on the other, and more malevolently, spawned a young population whose minds were fertile grounds for rebel activities. The country’s population also steadily grew and by 1980 stood at 17 million from the 7.1 million at independence in 1948. This certainly tilted the balance towards disenchantment, with too many persons vying for too few opportunities.

 

Having recognized these simple realities and related statistics, what is perplexing, however, is to note the degree of aggression with which these young rebellions launched on their supposed causes, far in excess of successive Governments’ myopia in failing to accommodate the needs of its liberated aspirants!  

 

The Education Minister of the Government formed on the threshold of Independence, Mr. C.W.W. Kannangara, making a speech introducing the free education reforms in 1945, aired his honest national expectations. The theme of his speech was that when a new nation is equipped with education, that educated young generation would eventually bring rich dividends of development in every sphere of activity, pushing the nation to new vistas of development! That, however, proved to be hope only in ‘good faith’.  There definitely is some incendiary that ignites rebellion in this ‘all free education system’ and that especially, at the university level.

 

A young mind, they say ‘is apt enough to think that it is wise enough, as drunken mind think that it is sober enough’, and also that the youth in a man ‘makes him feel that he could last forever, outlast the sea, the earth and all men’.

 

Many psychological studies have been carried out to analyze the potentialities and the vulnerabilities of young minds, and the consensus is that youth is the most malleable stage of a person’s life, and thus, it could be chiseled into a course that is either benevolent or malevolent. Whatever the degree of a person’s education is, youth undoubtedly is a stage where a person’s emotions incessantly eclipse his/ her rationality, and the Sri Lanka case – with free education up to university level- stands unique in this respect.

 

The Tamils were the most educated community in independent Ceylon and the Tamil leaders, faced with the democratic juggernaut in the post-independent scenario with ‘one man one vote system’, was running out of ideas as to how they could maintain their racial superiority. Their immediate audience was the university students, of which they had a majority. ‘The great Tamil nation’ in the words of S JV Chelvanayagam, ‘that hitherto held sway in Ceylon, will soon be downgraded to the position of an insignificant minority’.  He continued with his racist rhetoric as the leader of the ITAK ( Party for a Tamil State in Sri Lanka), mobilizing youth to the Party’s youth wing. Then came the Vadukkodai conference in 1976, where the Tamil leaders collectively advocated the youth to take to arms ‘if they desire to preserve the past glory of their race, culture, and traditions’. Simultaneously, the LTTE leader Prabhakaran was introduced to the University students by these separatist politicians, as a hero who killed a ‘traitor’ to the Tamil cause. He killed the elected Mayor of Jaffna, who supported the Government at the time, in 1975. Prabhakaran, whose only qualification at the time was only his criminal record, was given an audience in the Jaffna University in 1976 where he said, ‘The problem with you, the educated lot, is that you can’t see blood. But you have to kill if you desire to turn things around. Spill the blood first, and politics will follow’.

 

Up to that time, however, the Tamil University students and professionals were debating politics in their efforts to salvage things, but there was no consensus and unity as to how they could set about. However, after this speech, which brought a group of people ready to sacrifice their lives for the ‘cause’, the whole thing turned out to be one hell of an arms struggle with politics following behind.

 

Since the University education and lodging were free, the students had all the time in the world to concentrate on the arms struggle, and just as Prabhakaran predicted, the politics got polarized, and now there appears to be some consensus. This made the students form into EROS (Elam Revolutionary Organization of Students) and they were the go-between that introduced Prabhakaran to the Tamil Diaspora. Thereafter, the EROS did the organizing and justifying ( the propaganda part) while Prabhakaran carried out the killing in the name of their cause.

 

The issue here is that in other countries, where there was no free University education, the students had to do part-time work, mostly teaching or other mundane work, to find their where-withal to support University life. But in Sri Lanka’s case, there was no such need and that allowed them to stray their minds to readily available nationalistic emotions. On the other hand, since the Universities were public property, there was no risk of them closing down either. Free life in the Universities provided the youth the freedom to indulge in nationalism ( or communalism), and also to form into the youth organizations needed for the activity to follow.

 

While this was happening in the North, the situation in the South became still worse and there the students tended to treat free education as a birthright instead of a privilege. While racialism was taking over the northern campus, the campuses in the south became infected with a worse type of political virus; Marxism. The Marxist JVP, the Peoples Liberation Front, found the Universities, a veritable heaven for their politics. Thus, free education started to be treated as an inalienable right of the educated, and that made the rulers appear as the Czars who ruled Russia, necessitating a proletariat revolution. In that perspective, everything the rulers did was ‘bourgeois,’ and the students felt that the rulers, no matter what party is in power, were not doing enough for education in general and University education in particular.

 

Now, this is the country’s cream of youth and its intelligentsia and therefore, the ordinary public and even the politicians treated these students with awe.

 

There is this famous quote, ‘If you are not a leftist when you are 20, you have no heart, and if you are still a leftist when you are 40, you have no brains.’ The situation in Sri Lanka proved this statement to the very letter because the Leftist parties never appealed to the country’s polity, and hence they never came to power through the ballet, not even to be the third force in politics. Yet take the Universities- the leftist student unions were in full control of the University students! Thus, the JVP was not a popular political force in the country, but they held sway in the Universities. However, the JVP, making the maximum use of the only avenue of politics they had, did grave damage to the country by instigating the students. Their one-sided advocacy on students’ rights projected the education system to appear depraved and similar to the education system of czarist Russia. They always discussed what is lacking in education without appreciating what is being given free. The JVP staged one insurrection in 1971 that lasted for about 4 months and another in 1989 holding the entire country in a siege for about a year. 

 

The most inimical aspect of all these insatiate demands of the JVP-led students was their demand that, fee levying higher education institutes should not be permitted in the country.  This is an attempt to monopolize higher education in a country where only about 10 % of the university aspirants get selected to Universities due to the acute competitiveness of the entry system. In 1989 the JVP-led students union performed ‘sathyagraha’ on public roads against the establishment of the Colombo North Medical College for one full year. Even today, it would not be surprising to observe University students demonstrating on Colombo roads demanding something or the other for their education. Such is the monotony of these demonstrations, recently a friend who arrived from abroad waiting impatiently in a traffic jam, quipped ‘It is time the country decided to save its roads from Free Education”.

 

Further, as a result of the JVP’s political domination of the country’s Universities, the ‘ragging’ of fresher students has reached inhuman proportions. The psychology of this is that the JVP activists in these student unions treat the fresher students who are not JVP oriented as ‘privileged’ and  ‘bourgeois mentality’ persons, who are political reactionaries requiring to be taken to task. Thus, ragging in national Universities today in Sri Lanka has become a malady of national proportions causing a few deaths of young students, and over the years, the attempts to arrest these practices by successive Governments’ have proved futile.

 

Further, as a result of these incessant JVP demands that prevented foreign universities from establishing their campuses on Sri Lankan soil, Sri Lankan students of wealthy parents go abroad for their higher studies and that costs the country millions of foreign exchange. The irony of this situation is that back in 1970’s Malaysian students came to Sri Lanka to follow various professional study courses at the Aquinas University College in Colombo, but 30 years hence Malaysia established the most advanced Asian higher education hub in Kala-Lampur, making the Sri Lanka students travel to Malaysia. Malaysia must be relieved that though they introduced ‘Bumi-puthra’ laws post-independence, they did not introduce education at public expense to expedite the country’s education.  

 

Therefore, considering the fact that the LTTE and the JVP have caused the greatest damage to the Sri Lankan economy and social life since independence, the Sri Lankan leaders should revisit their policy on Free education, especially at the university level because reaching the country’s educational and development goals need much more deliberations than mere sanguine hopes.

 

The correct policy should have been to let education go hand in hand with development instead of hoping education to lead development, the ultimate index of a country’s progress and its survival.     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Epilogue

Albert Einstein opined that modern human civilization can no longer afford a 3^rd World War because the destructive capacities the warring factions possess could eliminate humanity from the face of the earth. This, in other words, is to say that ‘modern human civilization is not a civilization in the true civilized sense but rather a platform that has the potential to end human civilization on earth. This foreboding, coupled with the traumatic experience of the two World Wars, made the War Victors to form the United Nations Organization with the ostensible objective of establishing ‘Peace, Dignity and Equality on a Healthy planet’.

There was hope all around that UN would mean the epilogue of wars and the prologue of peace on earth. However, the War Victors had other ideas as they were bent on maintaining the post WW11 status quo. The position is that they could not continue overtly with what they did before, the slave trade and colonialism now because the UN has established universal values that they believe are pivotal to world peace. Therefore, they had to adopt new strategies and develop new weapons, to go with these new developments.

Paul Joseph Goebbels committed suicide after poisoning his wife and six children in his bunker to avoid the advancing War Victor armies in April 1945. However, those who wanted him dead did not allow his advocacies to die. The War Victors soon realized that Goebbels was right when he said, “It is not impossible to prove, with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people targeted, that a square is in fact a circle. These are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe truth and disguise.”  Thus, all that the War Victors, ex-imperialists, now have to do to maintain their world status quo is to cover their imperialist acts with the clothes of propaganda to project those to be the cherished human values enshrined in the UN charter.

That is not altogether a difficult task considering the media apparatus under their command. Besides, years of colonial expeditions have spread their languages, English, French, and Spanish, to every nook and corner of the world, providing the basis for their propaganda. The convincing strength of a piece of propaganda lay, not in its truthfulness, but in its outreach coupled with the helplessness of the victims to counter the same. Thus, thanks to Goebbels, the War Victors now found the strategy of subjugating the rest of the world without spending a single bullet. Thus, global conflicts have now been transformed from, Powerful Vs Powerful in the pre-war era into Powerful Vs powerless in the post-war era. That way, the War Victors maintained their world status by keeping the new nations at bay, restricting their use of world resources and the decision-making power.

In a way, with the modern world’s capacity of transmission, the power of propaganda comes naturally to powerful nations and communities. The more power you have, the more command that will accrue to you to convince the rest of the world, even with a grotesque picture. The power of propaganda nevertheless proved to be so lethal with its capacity to make a criminal in to an ‘innocent’ and an innocent into a ‘criminal’, in the eyes of the general public.

The LTTE diaspora did just that. They made Prabakaran, who caused the deaths of 100,000 Sri Lankans into a ‘freedom fighter’ and the Sri Lankan army that rescued 290,000 civilians from the throes of death, risking their lives, into ‘human rights violators’. To do that, they had the most sophisticated and widely spread propaganda network supplemented with ‘lobbying’ and venality. Naturally, they needed a lot of cloth to cover all those crimes the LTTE was committing. There is an English proverb that says, ‘He that has the worst cause makes the biggest noise’. Accordingly, with sheer propaganda, the LTTE diaspora made,

• the most privileged minority community in the world; Tamils in Sri Lanka, to be the most aggrieved in the world and the one with the biggest ‘cause’.
• the most ruthless terrorist outfit that used 300+ suicide attacks, and caused the deaths of 100,000 Sri Lankans of all communities, to be heroic ‘freedom fighters’.
• the Sinhalese; one of the most stolid communities in the world, small in numbers and diplomatically marginalized by the international, to be the most racialist of communities in the world.
• the democratic social reforms in a newly independent country that had been subjected to 131 years of colonialism, to appear discriminatory, and then to make that a modus operandi to find employment in developed countries.
• the degree of brutality the LTTE portrayed as a nemesis of the ‘Tamil grievances’.

That simply is the power of propaganda. Goebbels also maintained ,“If you repeat a lie often enough, not only that people will believe it as the truth, but you yourself will cease to doubt it.”

Minority problems usually do not crop up in developed countries, and that is not because there are no issues there, but because the prospects of minorities fighting such issues to a finish is rather glum. However, the recent case of George Floyd in the US, flew out of the window to show how superpowers look after their minorities. You could imagine the pressure under which the blacks in US live when you note that they developed all that courage to revolt against the no. 1  military and diplomatic power of the world. The size of a country is associated with its power and ‘minority grievances’ appear a tenable cause to decimate countries to make them small and manageable.

When the Sri Lankan Defense Ministry tried to set guidelines for the press during the war, Journalist Sans Frontiers from France cried ‘violation of freedom of expression’, but in the USA it is an established fact that the CIA monitors the American press as to what they tell the American public about its on-going wars. It is Goebbels again,“During a war, news should be given out as instructions rather than as information.”

However, the Sri Lankan army fought in self-defense and finished their war, paving the way for normalcy enshrining human rights. On the other hand, the US army has to fight forever because they have to establish ‘human values’ in the rest of the world.  In Sri Lanka the public was apprehensive that the war would not end, but in America, the Fleet-street is apprehensive that their wars will end! 

America enshrined ‘human values ‘ in Korea by killing 5 million Koreans and did the same to Vietnam by killing 3.2 million Vietnamese using even the napalm bombs. The list continues with 1.4 million civilians in Iraq, 1million in Afghanistan and with 200,000 each in Haiti and Guatemala.  This list is in-exhaustive, and it is estimated that these imperialist wars have now killed 20 million people in developing countries in this so-called ‘post- war’ era. Thus the US and its allies, including Britain, have now proved to be the best servants of their War Corporations, ushering democracy, human rights, and freedom of expression to the developing world.

In modern times, dominant nations do not have to use weapons to subjugate others. They could just as well ‘Weaponize human rights’ to achieve the same end. That way, they could wear the cloak as the champions of Human rights hiding their true characters as killers, decimators and dominators.