Sympathisers of LTTE ideology in Australia- highly organised:

War crimes case during CHOGM, a 'publicity stunt'

By Manjula FERNANDO

Australian Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland last week vetoed a war crimes case against the Sri Lankan President in Australia.

The case was filed by a retired Sydney Water Board Engineer Arunachalam Jegatheeswaran, 63, in the Melbourne Magistrate's Court. In the case he claimed he had been in the battlefront helping civilians escape during the final operations in the North, that wiped out the LTTE's military face, and there he allegedly witnessed Government forces deliberately bombing civilian targets.

Earlier Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard said the case cannot proceed without the AG's consent. President Mahinda Rajapaksa who was in Australia attending CHOGM enjoyed immunity as a visiting Head of State.

Later the Court case was viewed as a publicity stunt by the pro-LTTE elements in Australia was quashed by the AG.

The Sunday Observer spoke to Associate Lecturer Shanaka Jayasekara of the Centre for Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism (PICT) of Macquarie University, Sydney, on his take on the whole episode as a counter terrorism expert based in Australia and how he viewed the outcome of the case in the Netherlands where five LTTE activists were jailed. The excerpts from the interview:

Q: It is reported that a retired Tamil engineer has filed a case against President Mahinda Rajapaksa on alleged war crime charges. What are your thoughts about this case?

A: Whenever I read about people who live in a developed country spending extensive periods in a battlefield environment, and unless they are working with the protection of an international aid agency, to me it is simply reminiscent of people like Anwar al-Awlaki or Samir Khan who left the US to work with the terrorist group Al-Qaeda in Yemen.

Rather than speaking about one individual, there have been several overseas Tamils that have returned safely from the war zone. I think this is an important fact that so many were rescued by the Sri Lankan security forces and brought to safety without any harm. It clearly demonstrates that there was no deliberate targeting of Tamil people by the Security Forces.

Q: In your view what motivates such moves?

A: There have been several examples in past of publicity stunts, in October 2009 an attempt was made by Palestinian sympathizers to issue an arrest warrant on Israeli Minister Ehud Barak in London, again in December 2009 another attempt was made to issue an arrest warrant on Tzipi Livin the Israeli Foreign Minister on a planned visit to London. In my view these are publicity stunts, timed to coincide with a media focus on a visiting dignitary.

In Australia, a Falun Gong member filed a case against Chinese President Jiang Zemin in September 2004. As part of this case the Australian Foreign Ministry informed Court that the parties to the case were part of the government of a foreign State within the meaning of the Foreign State Immunities Act.

Q: It is evident that Sri Lanka is being discredited by Pro-LTTE sympathizers in international forums. We witnessed similar attacks at UN sessions in Geneva and New York. Your comments?

A: If you look at the countries making such allegations, they all have a large Tamil constituency base.

It is mainly constituency pressures and political imperatives that keep driving this issue. UK foreign Secretary, David Miliband, was quoted in a Wikileaks note that he spent over half his time in early 2009 dealing with constituency pressure on Sri Lanka.

Take a look at the counter terrorism offensives undertaken globally around the same period. The attack on the Hamas stronghold of Gaza in January 2009 by Israel; the offensive against the UNITA rebels in Angola in 2002 totally in breach of an arms embargo; the Turkish incursions into Kurdish Iraq in Operation Sun in February 2008; the Colombian offensive against FARC positions in Ecuador in March 2008. All these counter terrorism offensives had large casualty rates, but the only country perpetually criticized for successfully defeating a terrorist organisation is Sri Lanka.

You need to ask yourself why is the Sri Lankan conflict which ended in May 2009, being vilified while all others have moved on. It is the domestic constituency pressure that pushes political leaders in these countries to constantly make some noise about Sri Lanka.

Q: How strong is the support base for the LTTE ideology in Australia and their interactions with the political leadership?

A: There is a very vocal group of sympathizers of the LTTE ideology in Australia, but if you look at numbers they are a small percentage of the Tamil community.

A good indication was the elections to the TGTE held in April 2010 in which 8200 persons voted in Australia. If you compare that with the entire Tamil population in Australia which may be estimated around 40,000 or more, it is a marginal number. This is not to say the rest are supportive of the government, I think most Tamils are disillusioned by both the pro-LTTE lobbyist and the government. They don't want to be associated with either.

Q: A Court in The Netherlands convicted the Financial Controller of the LTTE international network to six years in prison. Does the pro-LTTE factions continue to raise funds around the world?

A: The methods of fundraising differ, in my view the collections from individuals has reduced significantly. But the LTTE invested large amounts of money in legitimate commercial activity, such as phone card companies, virtual mobile phone operators, management of Hindu temples and these continue to be key sources of funding.

The pro-LTTE factions are extremely asset rich and well-resourced across the world. Therefore, they are better organised with full-time staff, high profile lobbyists and regular apologists churning statements every two months.

The government is yet in the mindset of fighting the LTTE as a terrorist organisation. Unfortunately, the new threat from the international network is not military security at present, it is political security.

Sri Lanka needs to understand that the Tamil diaspora can be a formidable constituency pressure in domestic politics in many western countries. This will be the biggest security challenge to Sri Lanka in the future.

Q: The Court in The Netherlands stated that the LTTE was not engaged in terrorism, will this have an impact on the group's re-grouping?

A: The judgement in The Netherlands case defined the conflict in Sri Lanka as a Non-International Armed Conflict and not Terror. In my view the Dutch court wanted to make a political statement about the conflict in Sri Lanka, given that the Channel 4 documentary was also shown as part of the defence submission. The main argument of the defence attorney was the human rights situation in Sri Lanka.

The question now is what defines a non-international armed conflict. In Afghanistan, the Al Qaeda undertook international operations and can be categorised as an international group, but the Afghan Taliban is a domestic theatre armed group operating in only in Afghanistan, so will the definition of the Dutch Court be applicable to the Afghan Taliban as well.

Q: The LTTE too has been involved in international operations just like the Al Qaeda. The assassination of former Indian Prime Minister is a case in point. The group is involved in international crimes such as human smuggling, gun running, money laundering, extortion and credit card scams. In this light how judicious you think the ruling by the Netherlands court which fell short of calling LTTE a terrorist group?

A: The LTTE has undertaken terrorist support activity such as fund-raising and weapons procurement overseas, but its primary theatre of operations in domestic. As you point out there are anomalies such as the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. In my view the Dutch court has made a very simplistic determination on the type of lexicon to be used in the Sri Lankan conflict without even giving the Sri Lankan government a party to the conflict a hearing.

The evidence was presented by the Dutch prosecutor on the illegal activity undertaken by the accused and then the defence attorney attempted to justify these activities by listing human rights abuses by the Sri Lankan government.

The defence attorney is a leading Dutch lawyer and he was very emphatic about the human rights record of Sri Lanka. If there was to be a determination as to the type of conflict, then the court should have invited representations from the other party to the conflict. So the court made up its mind only based on information from the defence attorney. The Judges were making a political statement and had nothing to do with the violation of Dutch law that related to the case.

Q: How will this affect the LTTE case before EU Court of Justice?

A: The case at the European Union Court of Justice in Luxemburg is to determine if the LTTE which was militarily destroyed in May 2009 should continue to remain proscribed as a terrorist group in the EU Common list of terrorist organisations. It relates to the present status of the LTTE, the Dutch court determination refers to the LTTE activity prior to its defeat. While the Luxemburg court may be influenced by the Dutch court determination, they have to assess if the present LTTE activity is considered terrorist activity.

As I understand, a few European countries will make submissions seeking the continued listing of the LTTE. However, the Sri Lankan government needs to share information with European governments on current LTTE activity locally and internationally so that it feeds into these submissions. There is an urgent need to be proactive and work with our friends in Europe.

Q: How do you view the Australian PM's comments on the Sri Lankan issue?

A: During the conflict and after, the Australian government has always been a true friend of Sri Lanka.

You need to understand, the current Labour government is in coalition with the Greens Party and the Greens have been ardent supporters of the Tamil cause.

Added to that several constituencies in New South Wales and Victoria have a strong Tamil influence and several MPs regularly make statements in Parliament.

Given these imperatives, the Prime Minister has to walk a tight rope and she has been supportive especially with her commitment to holding CHOGM 2013 in Colombo.