LLRC will not cow down to intimidation

The 18th regular sessions of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations (UNHRC) are due to commence in Geneva tomorrow and will continue till September 30. Surprisingly, during the past five years, an identical and well-orchestrated drama leads up to every UNHRC session.

This time around too, there is no exception and the same action plan has been set in motion to discredit Sri Lanka and exert pressure on the Government.

The cat was out of the bag when a few days before the latest UNHRC sessions, Amnesty International (AI) released its latest controversial report. AI has earned notoriety for this kind of preposterous acts. Over the years, AI made a desperate attempt to discredit Sri Lanka with concocted stories, projecting a gloomy picture on Sri Lanka. This is farthest from the truth and the sole aim of the so-called human rights watchdog is to destroy Sri Lanka's image and its valiant Security Forces in the eyes of the world so that they could exert undue pressure on the island nation.

It was only last week that AI issued a 69-page report which no doubt was a calculated move to undermine the progress of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC). It is abundantly clear that AI has made yet another well-planned attempt to belittle the Herculean and landmark achievements of Sri Lanka's Security Forces, prior to the forthcoming meeting of the UN Human Rights Council.

Citing so-called eyewitnesses' testimony and information from aid workers, the AI report says that at least 10,000 civilians were killed in the final military onslaught to vanquish the LTTE in May 2009. The AI report titled "When will they get justice?", makes a despicable attempt to undermine the progress of the LLRC, set up by the Government. Can AI or any other organisation for that matter, make their own assumptions even before the LLRC issues its final report?

With no clue whatsoever on the exact findings of the LLRC, AI has drawn its own conclusions and added that the "international community must not be deceived into viewing the LLRC as a credible replacement for an international inquiry". This is yet another shameful act of AI which continues to weep buckets of crocodile tears against war crimes and crimes against humanity.

It is inconceivable that AI and several other international organisations, which project themselves as the godfathers of human rights and democracy, turn a blind eye on gross human rights violations in the so-called big countries.

The successive drone attacks on Pakistan and Afghanistan under the guise of crushing international terrorism have been a regular feature where hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed. However, none of these so-called champions of human rights have ever uttered a word against these gross human rights violations and moreover, the violation of international law by forcibly entering the territory of another country to carry out military operations.

The LLRC will by no means be deterred to respond to such a controversial AI report. As an international non-governmental organisation (INGO), AI is free to put out any report it wishes. It could dance the fandango around anyone, be it the ghouls of the now defunct LTTE or those countries which attempt to take Sri Lanka to task solely for the 'sin' it had committed by becoming the first country to eradicate terrorism.

Had AI been equipped with such concrete evidence, it should have exploited the Government's offer to present it before the LLRC. Since AI had not responded to the LLRC's invitation to give evidence before the Commission, cooked up statements by the so-called international human rights group are irrelevant and immaterial to the Commission.

The LLRC invited AI to testify before the Commission at the beginning of the public sittings. Regrettably, AI declined the LLRC invitation and continued to condemn the Commission at every stage. Hence, neither the LLRC nor the Ministry of External Affairs is obliged to comment on any report published by AI.

On the other hand, responding to such a baseless report would only distract the LLRC from its primary objectives. The LLRC should not be distracted from its initial task at this crucial juncture. The LLRC is now formulating its comprehensive final report, based on the findings of the sittings and conclusive evidence. The LLRC would in no way deviate from this sacred task by responding to various reports or by engaging in ancillary debates.

This high-handed act and release of a report before the UNHRC sessions at this juncture gives rise to reservations about AI's accountability, professionalism and motivation. At a time the world mourns the 10th anniversary of the unfortunate 9/11 attack in the United States, any peace-loving person would not brook AI's nonsense against a country which has achieved a historic milestone of becoming the first country to eradicate terror.

The need for a global battle against terror has become increasingly important. The recent bomb attacks in Mumbai and New Delhi are a pointer to the necessity of a concerted effort worldwide to counter terrorism. While unreservedly condemning the terror attacks in India, Norway, Pakistan and Afghanistan, we call upon the international community to spare no pains to curb terrorism, rather than permit some superpowers to meddle in the internal affairs of sovereign states.

In this context, Sri Lanka's expertise and skills in dealing with the most ruthless terrorist organisation in the world are worthy of emulation. Such first-hand experience could be used effectively in vanquishing terrorism from the face of the earth.

Sri Lanka values UNHRC's original objectives. Those goals and objectives should not be changed under any circumstances to pander to the whims and fancies of the so-called big nations. In the event AI or any other international organisation for that matter, is sincerely interested in protecting human rights, it should strongly voice against human rights violations both in the West and the East alike. Are there two types of definitions for human rights?