UNHRC fails to appreciate steps taken:

LTTE spin doctors clutching at straws - Admiral Thisara Samarasinghe

By Ranil WIJAYAPALA

Admiral Thisara Samarasinghe, who commanded the Sri Lanka Navy immediately after Sri Lankan Security Forces achieved victory against the LTTE, is now the Sri Lanka High Commissioner for Australia and also the Sri Lankan envoy to New Zealand. As a former military Commander turned diplomat Admiral Samarasinghe says that it is unfortunate to see the US sponsored resolution being passed at the 19th session of the UNHRC on Sri Lanka without a single sentence to welcome the steps that have already been taken by the Government of Sri Lanka to promote and protect the human rights of all its citizens.

In an interview with the Sunday Observer via e-mail, Admiral Samarasinghe says that, those who proscribed the LTTE are now under immense pressure from the pro-LTTE lobbies to investigate the last stage of the conflict because that is the only part which is unclear. “That is the last straw they are left with and they are clutching to it, spinning stories of horror and torture. However, the Government has stated that they will respond in due course to all these allegations. What we require is time”, the Admiral said.

Following are excerpts of the interview the Sunday Observer had with the Sri Lankan High Commissioner for Australia and also the Sri Lankan envoy to New Zealand:

Question: The US sponsored resolution on Sri Lanka was adopted at the 19th session of the UNHRC in Geneva on March 21 urging Sri Lanka to investigate alleged war crimes and implement recommendations of the LLRC. As a former Commander of the Navy and now as a diplomat representing Sri Lanka what do you think of this situation?

Answer: It is indeed unfortunate that such a resolution was initiated by the US and passed by the UNHRC, considering the very same Council in 2009 barely days after the end of the conflict passed a resolution at its 11th special session welcoming the end of the conflict and the steps taken by the Government of Sri Lanka to provide for those affected by the conflict. Particularly given the fact that enormous progress has been made since that time by the Government in the areas of resettlement, rehabilitation and reconciliation.

In addition to which the Government had already undertaken to implement the recommendations of the LLRC prior to this resolution being mooted. It is clear therefore that the motivations behind the resolution were political.

What is of significance in this resolution is that there is not a single sentence to welcome the steps that have already been taken by the Government of Sri Lanka to promote and protect the human rights of all its citizens. I say this because the Government, by defeating terrorism restored the democratic and human rights of all its citizens.

Today, citizens of Sri Lanka can live without fear of terrorist attacks. Not only that, the Government keeping its promises, resettled within the space of 2 years over 260,000 displaced persons and rehabilitated over 11,600 ex-combatants. These are significant achievements for a country coming out of 30 years of conflict. Just because it has been done, does not mean it was done easily. The Government spent significant resources and efforts to make these achievements possible together with assistance from friends in the international community. The Government also made meaningful efforts regarding reconciliation, as seen through the appointment of the LLRC and the release of its Report and also through discussions it initiated with the TNA and the appointment of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Reconciliation.

The Government has also consistently stated that if there have been any violations of any laws by Government troops, those responsible would be held accountable as per the laws of the land.

Unfortunately, without evidence which is acceptable in a court of law, we cannot prosecute those alleged of committing crimes merely because the allegations are made. These allegations must be substantiated by evidence in order to bring legal action against these individuals.

There was absolutely no need for such a country-specific resolution to be brought into the UNHRC at this time as steps that need to be taken had already been taken by the Government of Sri Lanka on addressing issues related to accountability and reconciliation.

Q: What are the consequences Sri Lanka may have to face following the adoption of the US sponsored resolution by the UNHRC ?

A: Well, as for Sri Lanka the resolution has already been passed. I presume the UNHRC in keeping with the resolutions may decide to take steps under the special procedures to investigate allegations which are being made by various quarters in relation to the end of the conflict.

The Government will decide in the future how they will deal with such moves, as it will be the Government of Sri Lanka who will decide what type of action/procedures are to be permitted.

What I think is of concern is that, this process clearly demonstrates how the UNHRC is being used by certain powerful countries as a political tool. This also sets a precedent for similar resolutions to be brought against other countries of the world where they would seek to interfere into the internal affairs of sovereign nations.

This type of unfair accusations and resolutions will obviously provide oxygen to those terrorist front organisations to continue their efforts to meet the vested interests.

Q: As a former military Commander you may have a better understanding about the countries emerging from conflicts. Compared to those situations similar to Sri Lanka, do you think that Sri Lanka had got enough time to recover from its conflict and settle everything that went wrong during the two and half decade long conflict ?

A: Absolutely not. The Sri Lankan conflict was a long and protracted one. Unfortunately, certain sections of the international community seems to be in an inordinate hurry for Sri Lanka to settle all things that went wrong in the space of 2-3 years. What is worse is, they seem to want to dictate to us the solutions we must adopt.

Many of these things relate to nation-building and internal matters which are of no concern to the world community at large and should be decided upon domestically. We have told time and again we are working on domestic solutions which are acceptable to our people that should be respected. Sri Lanka should be given adequate time and space to find its own solutions.

What I find very disturbing is the lopsided focus on the last phase of the conflict. It is as if the preceding 30 odd years there were no problems in the country which are of significant concern.

It also appears the international communities focus is on the human rights of those that died in the last phase of the conflict and not on the human rights of all the citizens of the country whose human rights were affected by the conflict on a daily basis for three decades.

This clearly demonstrates where all these allegations are stemming from.

These allegations are emerging from a segment of diaspora, disgruntled by the defeat of the LTTE and hell-bent on exacting revenge from a democratically elected government for putting an end to their dream of carving out a separate State of Tamil Eelam.

If one studies carefully the LTTE and their supporters, they have been very effective at evolving their cause so that it is more palatable to those in the international community who are sympathetic to what they may perceive as “freedom fighters” or “insurgents”.

It was this romantic view of the LTTE which made the LTTE’s fund-rasing and arms procurement so effective overseas. Don’t forget, the Sri Lankan conflict was funded by resources procured overseas. These days the LTTE supporters and LTTE fronts are donning the robes of “human rights activists” and “refugee rights activists” because they are quite aware that affiliation with the LTTE would immediately make those in the international community perceive them as supporters of terrorism. So now they go about stating that “both sides” of the conflict should be investigated knowing full well that one side was eliminated in the last phase of the conflict.

In comparable situations (although no situation is alike in every sense) in the world even domestic inquiries took many years to establish; as an example we can cite the Iraq Inquiry which was established in 2009, to investigate events that occurred during the Iraq war including the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

One highlight of the US sponsored resolution at the UNHRC is that the very same countries which came forward to ban the LTTE as a terrorist organisation has urged Sri Lanka to probe into the incidents that may have occurred at the final stages of the humanitarian operation.

Q: What do you think of this situation where they gave the green light for Sri Lankan Government to defeat terrorism first and finally ask to probe into those incidents?

I think countries that proscribed the LTTE were aware of the dangers this terrorist group caused not only to Sri Lanka but also to regional security. Which is why the proscription was done. We are thankful for that support which assisted in making the LTTE’s operations more difficult. It didn’t stop them completely but it made things more difficult for them.

What is clear is that the LTTE trained a group of youngsters to travel into the Vanni during the last stages of the war to come up with stories of violations of human rights.

These were all tactics to keep alive the reasons why people were fighting for Eelam. These individuals who have appeared on international media have all now been found to have been members of the LTTE. They wanted to portray the Sri Lankan military as barbaric and that the Tamil people were being tortured and systematically discriminated against.

However, the humanitarian operation and the rescue of approximately 300,000 civilians and 11,500 ex-combatants and their subsequent resettlement in record time made it very difficult for the LTTE diaspora to continue to claim that the Government was holding Tamil civilians behind barbed wires in “concentration camps”. If you look at international media reporting at the time following the end of the conflict, you will see all sorts of accusations against the Government which were all proved to be false in the end. For example there were stories that there was no access to NGOs and UN agencies to the welfare camps, 1,000 people were dying a day, no access to media, women were being raped. None of these things were true and the people have been resettled. The only delays were due to the huge de-mining effort that the Government had to undertake which delayed the process of resettlement.

Those that proscribed the LTTE are now under immense pressure from the pro-LTTE lobbies to investigate the last stage of the conflict because that is the only part which is unclear. That is the last straw they are left with and they are clutching to it, spinning stories of horror and torture. However, the Government has stated that they will respond in due course to all these allegations. What we require is time.

A responsible Government cannot make statements and respond to allegations without inquiring into matters comprehensively which requires time. Steps are being taken. For example a Census has been taken to ascertain the number of persons that died in the last phase of the conflict. The LLRC has made several recommendations to investigate certain allegations.

All these matters will be attended to. The Government promised resettlement and rehabilitation and it has delivered on these promises. The Government promised reconciliation and steps have been taken in this regard but the process has not been completed.

As I said before, nation building does not happen overnight or as per the whims and fancies of others, but must be done right. We cannot afford another 30 years or more of conflict.

Q: As a developing nation we cannot ignore the international community. But there may be lessons we can learn through these events. In your opinion what kind of lesson can Sri Lanka learn from this episode?

A: The primary lesson for us all is Sri Lanka needs to spend some time telling the world what it has done. We have not been doing that as well as we should have. We have done so much in a few years but not many people know about it.

That is our drawback. In my view it portrays essentially a Sri Lankan trait. We attend to our tasks and forget about it without thinking it’s important to get the message to the world we are doing all these things. In particular, our resources are limited and our focus is to get the job done rather than market what we have done. Sri Lanka should not be punished for that.

Q: It is after an aggressive campaign by the pro-LTTE Tamil Diaspora and the international media that the US sponsored resolution on Sri Lanka was passed in the UNHRC. What do you think about the campaign against Sri Lanka?

A: It is quite disturbing to see the pro-LTTE lobby still wielding so much power. The campaign was unwarranted on a country which is just emerging from 30 years of conflict. It detracts from the enormous task that is ahead of the country as all Sri Lanka’s resources were concentrated on meeting the challenge at the UNHRC instead of at home being focused on real issues of concern to the nation.

Q: Australia and New Zealand apparently did not play a key role in this move since they have no voting right at the UNHRC. Do you have any idea about their opinion through your close interactions with them ?

A: Both Australia and New Zealand co-sponsored the resolution along with many other countries.

The Australian authorities have always maintained that the resolution is in keeping with comments made by former Foreign Minister Rudd on the LLRC Report which was made public on March 13 2012. Effectively, what they feel is that while they welcome the positive elements of the LLRC Report they feel more needs to be done in addressing issues of accountability.

Q: You also made a tremendous effort in Australia to counter anti Sri Lanka campaign by the pro-LTTE organisations there. What kind of response did you get from the Sri Lankan community there for your efforts and how did those efforts contribute to counter those allegations?

A: The Sri Lankan expatriate community has responded very positively. In addition to countering pro-LTTE propaganda, I have also launched reconciliation fora in all the states and these efforts have assisted in bringing the two communities closer to each other. There are obstacles thrown out by the pro-terrorist groups and their sympathisers. Progress is slow, but it is moving ahead. We need to be committed to the task of telling the truth.

It is critically important that the youth who have not been exposed to the reality in Sri Lanka be educated and appraised of the history of the conflict and true facts on ground of defeating a ruthless terrorist organisation which attempted to divide the country at gunpoint. This is more significant and important because there are terrorist sympathisers who are making attempts to distort facts and corrupt the innocent minds of the youth who are ignorant of the ground realities.

I believe my effort was to get the truth across to decision-makers about the elements in the pro-LTTE diaspora and activists who were spreading misinformation on the country and its leaders. We will continue to do that with all stakeholders.

Q: As a former Commander of the Sri Lanka Navy and also as a senior Navy officer who commanded the Navy during the humanitarian operation in the North and East of Sri Lanka, what do you feel about the humane approach made by the Sri Lankan troops during those operations and finally facing unfounded allegations from the international community?

A: It is quite disheartening to hear these allegations. We know what happened and how the personnel in the Sri Lankan forces sacrificed their own lives to save the lives of civilians while fighting a brutal terrorist force. When accusations are made it is as if the soldiers were on a mission to finish off whatever was in their path.

This is a blatant distortion of the truth. The soldiers were well aware of the task they had to perform which was to eliminate the LTTE and rescue the civilians. Our efforts were commended by many international organisations including the ICRC.

What needs to be remembered is that the Sri Lankan troops were in a very difficult situation.

They had a terrorist threat to fight. In the last stages LTTE combatants had shed their military fatigues and were in civilian clothing. A fact that was proved by the fact that 11,500 LTTE combatants crossed to welfare camps and surrendered.

The troops had to discern between combatants and civilians first. Then they had to rescue civilians while fighting the LTTE. It was a very complex situation and cognizance should be taken of the fact that the troops were fighting a terrorist outfit with conventional military capability, a group that was using child soldiers, and were willing to use suicide methods to achieve their ends.

In all the unfounded allegations being made, it is as if the Sri Lankan troops went into the last phase to kill civilians and rather than save them.

This is not the training of our military which has been trained with the best in the rest of the world and certainly not in our cultural ethos. What is even more ridiculous is the accusation that the Government in its urgency to end the conflict did not care if civilians died just as long as the LTTE was eliminated.

If that were true, what was the purpose in saving approximately 300,000 lives? What was the purpose for which over 6,000 soldiers laid down their lives and approximately 23,000 were injured? If we wanted to finish the conflict no matter the consequences we would have certainly had fewer troops dead and more civilian casualties.

I reject these allegations, they are unfounded and untrue.

Q: In a recent address to the Federal parliamentarians of the Australian government, you have mentioned that some LTTE and LTTE front organisations similar to the LTTE organisations set up in early 1980s, are engaged in fund-raising campaign to establish a separate Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka. Can you elaborate on this statement? What kind of organisation have they set up at present and don’t you think that necessary action should be taken to expose them?

A: These organisations are working in the guise of protecting the rights of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you analyse what is being said on community radio channels in Australia, they are still agitating for a separate State and working towards that goal.

The organisations they have set up are associations or limited liability companies. They have begun a campaign to collect A$ 1 a week in Australia last November.

Their aim is to collect approximately 1 million dollars a week from the estimated 1 million Tamil diaspora across the globe. The question being, why they require that kind of funding.

I have taken steps to keep the relevant authorities informed of their activities.

Q: You have handed over credentials to the Governor General of New Zealand apart from your posting as Sri Lankan High Commissioner in Australia. What kind of response do you get from the New Zealand government about Sri Lanka’s efforts to rise from the conflict? And what kind of efforts are you taking to improve the bilateral relationship between Sri Lanka and New Zealand?

A: The New Zealand Government has given assistance to Sri Lanka over the years, particularly in the post-conflict phase despite the fact that there is no dedicated bilateral aid program for Sri Lanka.

I have had a very productive visit to New Zealand where I had the opportunity to meet with the Prime Minister and hold extensive discussions with the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Immigration.

All these individuals were very keen to see Sri Lanka move forward from the conflict and provide a solution that would make reconciliation a reality.

The high level interaction afforded to me by the officials of the New Zealand Government during my visit there and their enthusiasm, gave me the impression that they were keen to strengthen our relationship.

We continue to engage with New Zealand authorities to improve our bilateral relations.

In particular we are looking forward to an exchange of high level visits and expanding areas of cooperation in Trade, Education and immigration.

Q: In the backdrop of this UNHRC resolution, do you think that there would be a change in their relationship with Sri Lanka?

A: Well, it was disappointing that both Australia and New Zealand co-sponsored the resolution.

The bilateral relationships with both countries have been extremely strong and our engagement has expanded over the years.

In particular we value the fact that these countries took a very balanced view of the conflict in the lead up to, during and following the end of the conflict and if there were any issues of concern they raised it bilaterally rather than at international fora.

They have continued to raise concerns regarding accountability and reconciliation with us on a bilateral basis and we welcome that engagement. It is unfortunate therefore, that they have, in this instance, decided to engage with Sri Lanka through international mechanisms rather than bilaterally.I have had several discussions with Australian Government officials and we will continue to work together on matters of mutual interest. I can’t say it has not affected the relationships that we share because this was an issue of vital interest to Sri Lanka.

However, we are countries which have had long-standing friendly relations, and as friends we will continue to discuss how matters should be sorted out in an amicable manner.