Human rights and double standards
Human rights have been an effective tool for different
purposes and different intentions. The definition for 'human rights' in
the latest edition of the 'Chambers Dictionary' is; "the right each
human being has to personal freedom, justice etc".
But is this the type of 'human rights' that some countries and
certain international organisations are preaching at present? Is this
the type of 'human rights' the so-called 'big' countries are practising?
Last week, the LTTE terrorists took many civilian targets, killing
over 50 innocent people, including four school children and ten farmers.
First they blasted a CTB bus in Okkampitiya, killing 26 civilians and
injuring 63 persons including 10 children in a claymore explosion.
The bus was packed with schoolchildren, office workers and farmers
from the area. After the blast, the Tiger terrorists fired at the
survivors running for safety. On the very next day, the LTTE terrorists
carried out a cowardly attack on civilians at Kalawalgala, a remote
village in Thanamalwila, massacring over ten innocent civilians.
Unconfirmed reports said the Tigers had butchered more villagers during
the inhuman night raid.
But there were hardly any countries or international organisations to
voice the human rights of those who were killed and injured in those
inhuman and merciless attacks. Even many of the few who issued the
so-called 'statements' to 'condemn' those attacks did so merely for the
sake of doing it. Most of those 'statements' were carefully worded ones,
putting the blame equally on the LTTE as well as the Government. This
has been the practice over the past several years.
Whenever the LTTE indulges in their terror acts targeting civilians,
the so-called 'international community' and most INGOs issue statements
in a "strategic way". The most common feature in those statements is a
sentence calling upon the "parties concerned in the conflict to respect
human rights and find a political solution to the conflict".
But the very same countries, INGOs and international bodies take a
different stand when similar attacks take place in the so-called
developed countries. An explosion in a western city or an attack against
foreign forces in Afghanistan are called terror attacks. But when it
comes to this part of the globe, such attacks are defined as separatist
or freedom struggles and the terrorists are often referred to as rebels,
insurgents or freedom fighters. How could a legitimate government and a
ruthless terrorist organisation be treated with the same yardstick?
Isn't this another form of promoting terror activities? The time is now
opportune for all nations to think seriously and identify the real
terrorists.
The Government informed the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR),
that the decision to end the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) with the LTTE was
taken after careful and serious consideration. This bold decision, which
protected the sovereignty and territorial integrity of our country, was
taken after considering effective measures required to protect the
island nation's independence in the backdrop of terrorist activities
perpetrated by the LTTE aiming to establish a mono-ethnic,
mono-political separate State in the North and East.
It is no secret that the LTTE terrorists surreptiously entered the
CFA and that the Tigers were not interested in resolving the problems of
the Tamils through a peaceful dialogue and acceptable political means.
Velupillai Prabharakan's unwavering intention of establishing a
separate State became even more evident in 2004 when the LTTE went back
on its post-CFA intention of seeking a solution to the ethnic conflict
within the framework of a Constitutional solution wherein the people of
the Northern and Eastern Provinces could enjoy the benefits of extensive
power sharing.
The LTTE leadership's decision to withdraw from this declared
intention clearly reveals the continued objective of the terrorist
organisation to create a separate State. It has been with that sole
intention that the LTTE continuously violated the CFA, causing great
loss and damage to civilians and endangering the security of the
country.
Though the LTTE now sheds crocodile tears on the abrogation of the
CFA, it was Prabhakaran who 'ordered' the ceasefire monitors from
Denmark, Finland and Sweden out after the European Union named the LTTE
as a terrorist organisation.
Since the LTTE merely used the CFA as a cover to gain international
recognition and kept away from peace talks, the Government had no option
but to abrogate the already defunct CFA.
The abrogation of the CFA does not mean that the Government has
forgotten the need to resolve the genuine problems of the Tamils through
political and constitutional means. The All Party Representatives
Committee (APRC) proposals would be out this week.
The UN should respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of
Sri Lanka and the Government's efforts to eradicate terrorism, in
keeping with international norms and standards including International
Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law.
While the Government has taken all meaningful measures to avoid
civilian casualties and hardships to the civilian population, the LTTE
used innocent civilians as human shields. Why doesn't the UNHCR see
those grave violations of human rights? Though the LTTE unlawfully holds
on to some areas in Mullaitivu and the Wanni Districts, the Government
maintains an uninterrupted supply of humanitarian aid and food supplies
to those areas as well. Though a considerable amount of those supplies
would be consumed by fighting LTTE cadres, the Government has fulfilled
its obligation. Hence, it goes without saying that Lewis Arbour's
statement is gratuitous and biassed. |