|
Stand taken by Moon’s panel:
Brutal misuse of hospitals by LTTE
Contradictory reports:
Claims of Forces’ systematic shelling not
substantiated:
By Prof. Rajiva WIJESINGHE
|
Civilians being led to safety by Security Forces
|
Over the last couple of years we have had repeated assertions that
Sri Lankan forces attacked hospitals with heavy weaponry. This is taken
up in a very strong statement by the Panel, appointed by the United
Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, which states that “The Government
systematically shelled hospitals on the frontlines. All hospitals in the
Wanni were hit by mortars and artillery, some of them were hit
repeatedly, despite the fact that their locations were well-known to the
Government.” It goes on to claim that this is one of the five core
categories of potential serious violations committed by the Government
of Sri Lanka.
This exercise began in a big way in February 2009 with a report by a
Dr. Nueustat of Human Rights Watch (HRW) to the American Senate. At the
time I wrote that the lady who quoted only me by name in her report,
everyone else she cited, good or bad by her standards, being anonymous
tried to substantiate her claim regarding ‘clearly marked hospitals’
with a long list, dating only from December, which was after we had
pointed out how careful the Government had been in the preceding six
months, since Tamilnet had alleged hardly any collateral damage. It is
outrageous therefore that the Panel should talk of systematic shelling
of hospitals.
Of course I have not read the whole report yet, but the one incident
I have seen mentioned, that 16 patients were killed at Putumattalan
hospital on February 9 by falling shells, is exactly as was reported by
Tamilnet two days later. Surprisingly, having failed to mention this
incident on the 9th or 10th, they then cited an ICRC report on the 11th.
The US report simply said “A source reported that the makeshift hospital
was hit by shelling, killing 16 patients.” The next time that Tamilnet
reported shelling with regard to the hospital, it was “targeting the
environs of the Mattalan makeshift hospital”. This was on March 3, and
the US also duly reports ‘shelling in the area of the Mattalan
hospital’. On the next two days again there was firing in the vicinity
of the hospital, and then we get shells hitting the area ‘close to the
makeshift-hospital’, causing injuries to four already wounded patients
on March 13. It is almost two weeks later that Tamilnet next mentions
the hospital, though the US report cites HRW for the hospital being hit
by a shell on March 16th, killing two people.
The March 26th attack on the hospital alleged by Tamilnet was not
mentioned by the US report, which instead mentioned that one of the
entrances to the hospital was hit, and a child was killed by a shell
which landed 10 metres in front of the hospital. The Panel however
states baldly that RPGs were fired at the hospital around March 27,
killing several civilians. In addition to civilian casualties, the
operating theatre, makeshift ward and roof all sustained damage.
“Tamilnet, which had put the number of deaths at five, all patients ‘who
were being treated at the Intensive Care Unit’, dwells rather on the
fact that the attack “also destroyed part of the medicines recently
brought to the hospital”. The Panel does not refer to this, perhaps
because it would take away from its claim that “The Government also
systematically deprived people in the conflict zone of humanitarian aid,
in the form of food and medical supplies”.
Medical centres
There were no further allegations that the hospital was attacked
until April 20, and in the interim Tamilnet reported large numbers of
patients being admitted to the hospital.
This was not reported in the US Report. On the 22nd, Tamilnet
reported that shelling killed a doctor and eight persons at a makeshift
medical centre in the same area, but this does not seem to have been a
hospital, and it was not mentioned in the US Report.
On May 2nd, there was an allegation of attacks on the makeshift
hospital at Mulli-vaaykkaal, the only remaining makeshift hospital. This
again was not mentioned in the US Report though on the 4th it was said
that civilians were not being properly treated because of attacks and
non-availability of essential medicines. Patients however continued to
go to the hospital for the next 10 days, but there were allegations of
attacks on the hospital again on the 12th and the 13th.
Even supposing these allegations were true, it is a perversion of
language to claim that the government systematically shelled hospitals.
The insidious use of the word ‘systematically’ twice in the same
paragraph, usage not borne out at all by details supplied, indicates a
determination to insinuate that war crimes were committed, when in fact
all that the narrative substantiates with regard to hospitals is that
some collateral damage probably occurred.
The Panel however insists that “All hospitals in the Wanni were hit
by mortars and artillery”. This is a complete falsehood, though perhaps
it can be explained by sheer ignorance rather than viciousness, the
members of the Panel perhaps not understanding what the term Wanni
means.
For the fact is, the collation of Tamilnet complaints in the last six
months of 2008 shows mention of hospitals on just four occasions, once
on October 2 when the building of the Kilinochchi hospital was shaken
due to blasts, another on the 25th when a shell destroyed the front wall
of the hospital though there was no damage to the buildings, another on
the 31st when shells exploded close to the wall of the hospital.
After that, on December 21, Mullaitivu Hospital was claimed to have
come under artillery fire, with two patients sustaining injuries and two
medical staff wounded. On this occasion the building sustained damage,
something that did not happen to any other hospital in the Wanni in 2008
according to Tamilnet.
It is possible that Tamilnet did not report damage that occurred, and
it is possible that my staff failed to monitor Tamilnet properly. But we
know that Tamilnet generally put forward the worst possible case
scenario. I know that the Al-Jazeera journalists, looking at my records,
said they accorded pretty well with their own.
It is also possible that, in running my eye through my records to
respond on the day it appeared to the allegation cited, I missed
something but the records are available for inspection by more precise
and careful persons. Somehow, though, I do not think members of the
Panel will be among them.
Alleged shelling
In looking at what happened in 2008, and what happened after the
alleged shelling of February 9, I have thus far omitted events in
between. In this period there are more allegations, and indeed they form
the bulk of the allegations recorded by the Panel, but the confusion is
also more apparent. The US Report claims that a foreign government
reported that civilians were killed because of heavy shelling at the
Puthukkuiyiruppu Hospital on January 2, but Tamilnet only spoke of two
persons accompanying an ambulance convoy being wounded at a point en
route.
There was no mention on Tamilnet of any hospital being hit over the
next few days, though there was mention of shells hitting a settlement
behind the PTK hospital and then exploding near it. But the US Report
says that, according to a ‘source in the NFZ’ on the latter occasion,
January 12, shells fell into the premises of the hospital. The Tamilnet
statement of January 13, that a woman was killed and six persons wounded
when PTK hospital premises and its environs came under artillery fire,
has changed in the US Report to HRW reporting that the hospital was hit
by shells. These shifts suggest that, by the time reporting was done
with a view to systematic allegations of war crimes, stories were
changed so as to suggest that hospitals were deliberately targeted and
hit.
The Panellists have not mentioned these incidents as far as I can
see, but they have dealt at length with what happened between January 19
and February 4. The story now seems to have changed from what was
mentioned in the summary, about all hospitals being hit, the allegation
now being “Throughout the final stages of the war, virtually every
hospital in the Wanni, whether permanent or makeshift, was hit by
artillery”.
The account begins with the allegation that the Vallipuram Hospital
was hit on or around January 19 to 21. The US Report has shells landing
in the yard of the hospital on January 19 and hitting the hospital on
the 21st with no reported casualties, both these statements provided to
them by HRW. HRW then added that on the 22nd the hospital compound was
hit, killing five people. This, the only one of these incidents Tamilnet
reports is transformed in their account, into the hospital being damaged
and five civilians killed. Interestingly, the Tamilnet report declares
that the RDHS had confirmed that the Sri Lankan military had been sent
the coordinates of the hospital, which was a ‘makeshift’ one. It is
interesting that Tamilnet stresses ‘civilians’ whereas the Panel claims
that “Particularly those (hospitals) which contained wounded LTTE were
hit repeatedly”.
The US Report notes an HRW allegation on January 26 that the
Udayarkattu hospital was hit, killing 12 and injuring 40. Tamilnet also
had 12 dead, on January 24, but mentioned only that shells had exploded
inside the hospital premises, with the deaths evidently outside.
On the 26th they claimed 10 patients were killed in the hospital,
with four ambulances damaged.
Satellite imagery
The Panel ignores the HRW reports that the PTK hospital was hit
earlier in January, sensibly so inasmuch as the US Report that
“According to satellite imagery taken on January 28, the
Puthukkuduyirippu Hospital did not appear to show visible damage and
appeared to be functioning”.
The Panel however asserts that in the week between January 29 and
February 4, PTK hospital was hit every day by MBRLs and other artillery,
taking at least nine direct hits. Extraordinarily, this was not
mentioned by Tamilnet, which only claimed that 10 civilians, including
ICRC and SLRC staff stationed in the vicinity of PTK were wounded
(though it claimed that a nurse was killed when three shells hit the
Udaiyaarkadu makeshift hospital). Though it claimed that hospital
authorities were unreachable to verify the details, it added later that
both hospitals had been hit by the shelling. Yet another Tamilnet report
on the 2nd referred to the PTK hospital being shelled on the previous
night, “killing nine civilians, including patients and their family
members in the ward”.
What is fascinating about this is that the Panel indicates it
understands what the LTTE was up to. After noting that the LTTE had a
sizeable presence in the PTK area and maintained a separate ward for
wounded cadre in the PTK hospital, but they were not armed, the Panel
notes that “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.” This sounds a bit like the extraordinary
assertion of HRW 18 months earlier concerning the episode which led them
to declare in a sensationalistic press release that ‘Security forces
have subjected civilians to indiscriminate attack’.
The whole report, which was introduced by this release, had only one
instance in which civilians died, and that was the episode at
Kathiravelli school which the army took responsibility for, but said
that they used mortar locating radar to hit LTTE gun positions. HRW
however claimed that while the LTTE was frequently milling about the
area, no LTTE fighters were located in or adjacent to the IDP camp at
the time of the attack or directly before.
I can only comment on this vicious irrationality by citing what I
wrote in 2007, after which HRW failed to answer letters, and ran away
from a meeting that was scheduled in London.
However, HRW also notes that “The LTTE had sentries in the area of
the camp, ostensibly to monitor the movement of displaced persons”. A
man in the camp added that “In the daytime, the LTTE didn’t carry
weapons. When the LTTE has heavy weapons, they don’t show them because
they are afraid someone will inform.” Another woman added that about 15
LTTE fighters stayed in some huts about 6000 metres from the school.
“They had rifles, but no heavy guns,” she said. The report also notes
the many bunkers in the school grounds, but says that the displaced
persons dug bunkers so as to ‘protect their families from government
shelling’.
Heavy weapons
Whilst this last phenomenon may seem only strange, the conclusion is
inescapable that there were at least at some times LTTE members with
heavy weapons in the camp. This does not in any way justify the killing
of civilians but, combined with the initiation of an artillery attack,
and what would probably have been the radar discovery of weapons, the
shelling of the camp is understandable. The consequent deaths of
civilians was a tragedy that every Sri Lankan should mourn. It should
also be noted however that no similar incident had occurred after that.
I suspect then that, given that much of the information about the PTK
hospital was given to the US State Department by HRW, they are the
source too of all this perversion with regard to PTK. The facts however
are clear, that the LTTE used the area as a military base and ‘fired
mobile artillery from the vicinity’. We are expected to believe the
Panel’s assertion that the LTTE “did not use the hospital for military
purposes until after it was evacuated”, just as we were expected to
believe HRW’s assertion that “no LTTE fighters were located in or
adjacent to the IDP camp at the time of the attack or directly before
even though we are told that the LTTE were sometimes in the camp with
heavy weapons which they did not show.
So, what we are really told is that if an army has knowledge of heavy
weapons being used in the vicinity of a hospital, they should continue
to let them be used. Now, while it would be marvellous if Mr. Darusman
and his crew were sent to lecture to those fighting terror elsewhere, we
know that this is unlikely to occur.
What is more remarkable is that they seem quite happy with
denigrating our soldiers whose record is comparatively good, while
recording that ‘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.
What this means is that the LTTE deliberately killed civilians. Once
you start on that road, obviously you do not worry about numbers. The
Panel however does not engage in estimates of how many deaths the LTTE
inflicted, though it is quite happy to do so in passages that criticise
the Sri Lankan government.
Win-win situation
Secondly, it knows that the LTTE deliberately endangerd IDPs and
hospitals. Does the Panel not understand that this is a brilliant
perversion of a win-win situation? If the enemy then withholds fire, you
can continue to attack them with impunity. If they return fire,
targeting your weapons, and civilians die, you can declare that this is
not collateral damage, but deliberately inflicted and then you can find
people to pontificate about how appalling this is, people who say
nothing about more careless activities if the perpetrators are powerful
(though they may excuse themselves on the grounds that they are not paid
for that, whereas the UN has hired them only to pronounce against Sri
Lanka).
The extract I saw from the Panel report concludes with a description
of truly upsetting scenes at the Mullivaikkal hospital, culminating in
shelling of a second hospital at Vellamullivaikkal, which was set up
because the first had been hit often. The Tamilnet reports of attacks on
the first hospital claims they happened on May 2 after the military was
provided with exact coordinates of its premises, but six days later the
hospital was still being used. On the next day it seems a new hospital
was established at a junior school, which suffered attacks three days
later.
All this was pretty awful, but it does not substantiate the claim of
systematic shelling. Nor does it take into account the evidence recorded
in the US report “the IDPs to whom the organisation spoke were uniformly
emphatic that the SLA shelled only in reply to the LTTE’s mortar and gun
fire from among the civilians. Civilians also said that on May 15 the
SLA stopped shelling when the LTTE began destroying its own equipment.
It would be nice to think that the members of the Panel were simply
gullible. After all, we too suffered from gullibility. I remember how
worried we were on August 8 when Tamilnet reported that an artillery
barrage killed an 18-month-old baby and caused injuries to 16 civilians,
including the GA Ms Imelda Sukumar, who was at her official residence.
Ms Sukumar was GA at Mullaitivu, a difficult position to occupy given
that the LTTE was in control of the district for many years. We called
round frantically to find her, and be reassured that her condition was
not serious, only to discover that she had gone to Vavuniya on official
business.
Sadly, given the political agenda exuded by the Panel report, I do
not think sober discussion of facts will cure, not their gullibility,
but their determination to ensure that no small country dares to succeed
against the wishes of the more powerful. |
