Allegations - display of open partisanship

by Raj Gonsalkorale

The International Crisis Group, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are relentlessly pursuing Sri Lanka about alleged human rights abuses by the military during the final phase of the war against the LTTE last year. If what they say is true, it would have been an appalling situation for those civilians who were caught in the crossfire during those final days of the war.

The veracity of allegations or findings made by these three institutions hinge on one key phrase, “if what they say is true”. There are serious doubts about the truth of their allegations as there are question marks about the “eyewitnesses” they have purportedly interviewed, the authenticity of the photographs they claim they have, and other witness accounts they claim they have.

If so many innocent civilians died during the last days of the war, and Louise Arbour is reported as having said that the number could be as high as 30,000, then the question as to how that many bodies were disposed also comes into question. Besides, if the number is that high, there are potentially 30,000 families who may have lost someone in the family if we were to assume a family lost one person.

There should be at least 10,000 families if we assume each family lost three persons. Surely at least one family out of these thousands would have mentioned deliberate killings to someone in Sri Lanka? How come Channel 4 from the UK and these institutions got some information and not a single media person or politician or a civil society person from Sri Lanka managed to find even a single instance of deliberate killings?

If one were asked whether that many or more or less LTTE cadre died during the war, one could say that possibly that many or even more did die, and the Government would be able to provide some information about the number of combatants who died during the war. If asked whether there were some civilians among these casualties, the answer sadly would be yes. If we then ask the question, who was responsible for such deaths, surely it would be obvious that it is the LTTE, as they chose to wage a war against the Government, and forcibly take Sri Lankan territory. Who would then be responsible for the civilians caught in the crossfire? Surely, the LTTE must take full responsibility for that.

It is a well-known fact that the LTTE used tactics that heartless and gutless combatants use, in operating with human shields, innocent men, women and children, and firing at the Armed Forces from among them. After all, it must not be forgotten that the LTTE took in excess of 300,000 innocent men, women and children as human shields with them to the last battle site. What these institutions conveniently choose to ignore is the fact that the Sri Lankan Forces while beating the daylights out of the LTTE, took enough precautions to save the lives of almost all these people and take them to safe zones and eventually to refugee camps.

If the LTTE fired at the Armed Forces from among civilians, and they did this all the time, naturally, the Armed Forces would have fired back, not knowing there were civilians among those who were firing at them.

Unfortunately, in firing back, as anyone in that situation would have done, some innocent people would have died along with LTTE cadre. This is surely not deliberate targeting of civilians or callously firing at civilians? Again, who was responsible for such deaths? Why are these institutions trying to portray the LTTE as the innocents and painting the Sri Lankan Armed Forces as murderers?

The humanitarian mission

Sadly, these institutions have acted deliberately to tell the world anything but the truth, and they themselves have made finding the truth a casualty of open partisanship towards the LTTE and their backers, sections of the Tamil Diaspora.

Their partisanship is clear from the fact that none of these organisations and the likes of Louise Arbour were ever there to condemn the brutal atrocities of the LTTE prior to this war. One cannot recall a single statement made by her or any of these organisations condemning the LTTE outright, without reservation, when they massacred innocent Buddhist priests in a place of worship, or hundreds of policemen who had surrendered to the LTTE and when hundreds of Muslims were massacred when they were praying in a mosque. The list of massacres goes on and on, but no condemnations.

Were any of these condemned by these three institutions? Or by Louise Arbour?

The partiality of these three institutions towards the LTTE therefore is clear, and nothing new, and their bias towards abuse has always been selective. They have been influenced by powerful and influential and rich sections of the Tamil Diaspora, and sadly, these links have rendered these valuable organisations useless and impotent and their call for independent investigations a joke.

Then, one has to examine the spark that triggered all these investigations by these institutions. Although the sections of the Tamil Diaspora were always carrying fire under water and lighting sparks all the time, the unexpected bonus they had was the spark lit by none other than Sarath Fonseka when he said a journalist had told him that he overheard an order being given by the Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa to kill LTTE cadres who were carrying white flags and surrendering to the Sri Lankan Armed Forces.

This story was given wide publicity by the Sunday Leader newspaper. Although Fonseka later tried to retract his statement saying he was misquoted, the Sunday Leader editor maintained that she stood by her story that the retired General had indeed told her about the journalist and what he had overheard.

If not for the seriousness of this revelation, one could have thought this is a joke and had a good laugh as to the mental health of the Defence Secretary to have given such an order, if indeed he had given it, in the presence of anyone, let alone a journalist!

Although Fonseka has now denied any deliberate targeting of innocent civilians, and must be congratulated for finally thinking about the country and not himself, analysts say that his political ambitions, his hatred of the Rajapaksa clan and his vituperative attacks on them, and his careless, unsubstantiated statements accusing the Defence Secretary of giving orders he never gave, possibly opened avenues for these institutions to tailor evidence to support the conclusions they had already drawn, holding the Sri Lankan government guilty of deliberate killing of civilians.

On the heels of winning the war, opportunists in the UNP, more so the sinking JVP, thought it fit to have the former Army Commander who was part of that victory on their side and make use of the euphoria surrounding those who had a hand in winning the war. If they thought that Fonseka’s war hero image would give them the Presidency or the Government or both, the UNP and the JVP learnt to their dismay that Fonseka had no political following in the country, especially judging by the results of the general election.

A wounded man was further insulted and if one were to believe some press reports, Fonseka continued to feed some sections of the Western media and some international organisations with information (or misinformation) damaging to the Sri Lankan Government, and more specifically to the Rajapaksas.

By attacking the Defence establishment, Fonseka has done irreparable damage to Sri Lanka and tarnished its good name. Besides his reported supply of information, the veracity of which must be questioned judging by his faux pas, vis-a-vis the Sunday Leader episode, Fonseka also damaged the one institution that had remained free of politics till then; the Army. He divided the Army by identifying two camps, one that was loyal to him and another not loyal to him.

It is well within the realm of possibility that some misinformation that has been fed to the three institutions that are hounding Sri Lanka, aided and abetted by the UK’s Channel 4, has been done by Army personnel loyal to Fonseka. For all these people, it appears that taking revenge on the Rajapaksas has and still is a greater priority than the preserving the good name of Sri Lanka.

Little do they realise that the Rajapaksas are a passing phenomenon, as would Fonseka be had he won the Presidency, or for that matter any other President or Prime Minister of the country. What is not a passing phenomenon is the good name and reputation of Sri Lanka.

It is this good name and reputation that these miscreants have been trying to tarnish and are still trying to tarnish.

Such acts amount to treason as it is a crime against the country to provide misinformation to external sources with the motive of harming the country.

All those who are doing this should know that the law of the land will catch up with them sooner or later and that they will be dealt with according to the law.

The Reconciliation Commission appointed by the President is bound to uncover the sources of misinformation that have contributed to tarnishing the reputation of the country. Sri Lanka will have the opportunity then to know who the traitors are and who have sold themselves for a few pieces of silver.

Courtesy: Asian Tribune