Sri Lanka signs UN resolution on combating terrorism, bans 16 LTTE organizations

ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.




Apr 01, Colombo: Sri Lanka today in a decisive measure signed the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, which sets out strategies to combat terrorism and to control terrorist financing.

With the signing of the Resolution 1373, the Sri Lankan government has banned the Tamil Tiger terrorist organization, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and 15 other Tamil diaspora groups that are alleged of having terror links and involved in reviving the terrorist movement in the country.

Prof. G.L. Peiris, Minister of External Affairs signed the order and it will be published in the Government Gazette shortly, the External Affairs Ministry said in a statement.

According to the Ministry statement, the order is based on the recommendation by the Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Urban Development, as the Competent Authority regarding the identification of persons, groups and entities, believed on reasonable grounds to be committing, attempting to commit, facilitating or participating, in the commission of acts of terrorism.

Under the Regulation all funds, assets and economic resources belonging to or owned by the designated persons or entities will remain frozen until the organizations are removed from the designated list.
In terms of the Regulation moving, transferring or dealing with frozen assets without the permission of the Competent Authority are prohibited and any person who fails to comply with an order to freeze assets is liable to heavy penalties.

Any contact with the proscribed organizations is a violation of the regulation.

The government's move comes in the wake of UN Human Rights Council adopting an intrusive resolution to investigate alleged human rights violations only during the last seven years of the government's war against the Tamil Tiger terrorists. The resolution effectively eliminates the investigations into the major crimes committed by the LTTE prior to 2002 in the 30-year long war. The Sri Lankan government recently revealed foreign attempts to revive the defeated terrorist organization in the North with the support from the diaspora funds.
According to Sri Lankan defense authorities K.P. Selvanayagam a.k.a. 'Gobi', an LTTE cadre escaped after the end of the war and fled overseas, has returned to the island to lead the revival of the terrorist organization.

Among the organizations proscribed are the LTTE's Trans National Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE) headed by New York lawyer Visuvanathan Ruthirakumaran, Global Tamil Forum (GTF), which is headed by Fr.SJ Emmanuel and active in Europe, and the UK-based British Tamil Forum (BTF).

The 15 organizations proscribed are controlled by four individuals, Defense Ministry spokesman Brigadier Ruwan Wanigasooriya said. The organizations are functioning in several countries including USA, Canada, UK, Australia, Norway, Italy, Switzerland, and France.

The other organizations banned are Tamil Rehabilitation Organization (TRO), Tamil Coordinating Committee (TCC), World Tamil Movement (WTM), Canadian Tamil Congress (CTC), Australian Tamil Congress (ATC), National Council Of Canadian Tamils, Tamil National Council (TNC), Tamil Youth Organization (TYO), World Tamil Coordinating Committee (WTCC), Tamil Eelam Peoples Assembly, World Tamil Relief Fund and Headquarters Group.

.......................................................
SL bans LTTE fronts

By D.B.S. Jeyaraj
March 31, 2014

The Sri Lankan government has in a decisive move with far reaching implications proscribed as foreign terrorist entities, several overseas organizations suspected of being fronts of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

The government banned the organizations as “foreign terrorists” utilising the UN Security Council Resolution 1373 which was brought about by the USA on September 28, 2001 after the attack on World Trader Center in New York on September 11, 2001.

It is expected that External Affairs Minister Prof. Gamini Lakshman Peiris will announce details of the proscription imposed on such foreign terrorist entities later this week.

The report said:
“It is learnt that the Sri Lankan ministry of External Affairs has gazetted legislation outlawing several organizations reportedly functioning in several countries including the USA, Canada Britain, Norway, Italy, Switzerland, France and Australia.

“Among organizations proscribed are the Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE) headed by New York lawyer Visuvanathan Ruthirakumaran,Global Tamil Forum headed by Catholic Priest Fr.SJ Emmanuel,the LTTE group led by Perinbanayagam Sivaparan alias Nediyavan and the tiger group led by Sekarampillai Vinayagamoorthy alias Vinayagam.

It is expected that External Affairs minister Prof.Gamini Lakshman Peiris will announce details of the proscription imposed on such foreign terrorist entities later this week.

The proscribed entities listed in the Gazette consist of the main LTTE and 15 other alleged front organizations of the tigers.The proscribed organizations are as follows-

01. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam a.k.a LTTE a.k.a Tamil Tigers.
02. Tamil Rehabilitation Organization a.k.a TRO.
03. Tamil Coordinating Committee a.k.a TCC
04. British Tamil Forum a.k.a BTF
05. World Tamil Movement a.k.a WTM
06. Canadian Tamil Congress a.k.a CTC
07. Australian Tamil Congress a.k.a ATC
08. Global Tamil Forum a.k.a GTF
09. National Council Of Canadian Tamils a.k.a NCCT a.k.a Makkal Avai
10. Tamil National Council a.k.a TNC
11.Tamil Youth Organization a.k.a TYO
12. World Tamil Coordinating Committee a.k.a WTCC.
13. Transnational Government Of Tamil Eelam a.k.a TGTE
14. Tamil Eelam Peoples Assembly a.k.a TEPA
15 .World Tamil Relief Fund a.k.a WTRF
16. Headquarters Group a.k.a HQ Group

According to authoritative sources the organizations listed as suspected terrorist entities functioning on foreign soil fall under four broad categories reportedly under the overall control of four key individuals.
They are the organization/s under-

1. Perinbanayagam Sivaparan alias “Nediyavan”;
2. Rev.Fr. SJ Emmanuel
3. Visuvanathan Ruthirakumaran
4. Sekarampillai Vinayakamoorthy alias Vinayagam

Explaing further the rationale behind such proscription at this juncture, informed sources stated that the fundamental objective was to appraise foreign countries, particularly Western nations of how LTTE fronts existing amidst members of the Tamil Diaspora resident on their soil were now financing the revival of LTTE activity in Sri Lanka.

The Government is concerned about the recent attempt to revive the LTTE in Sri Lanka. All evidence unearthed so far indicate that funds, support and assistance from LTTE front organizations are primarily responsible for the attempted tiger renaissance in Sri Lanka.

Since the UN resolution 1373 expects countries to assist one another to combat terrorism, Sri Lanka will request the host countries to investigate the activities of such organizations and key members on their soil and take appropriate action.

Sri Lanka will provide particulars about such key activists as authorities in Sri Lanka are in possession of the entire data base of former LTTE senior leader Veerakathy Manivannan alias Castro who was in charge of the LTTE international secretariat which directed and coordinated overseas LTTE activity until early 2009.

Castro simply abandoned his office in Pudukudiyiruppu and escaped when the Sri Lankan armed forces advanced thereby letting the data base with particulars of overseas LTTE activity fall easily into the lap of the security forces.

The Government is also likely to obtain cooperation from these Western countries to proclaim LTTE activists abroad as offenders” listed as Wanted or to be watched through related INTERPOL notices.

Speaking further authoritative sources said that as a result of the proscription coming into force Sri Lankan nationals in the Island will be forbidden to maintain contact or links with members of the proscribed organizations. This would prevent Sri Lankan political parties and leaders from obtaining funds from such entities for undertakings in Sri Lanka. This move is likely to affect several members of Tamil political parties in Sri Lanka.

This would also forbid Sri Lankan politicians and Non –Governmental Organization (NGO) activists being in contact with representatives of such entities either in Sri Lanka or during trips abroad.

Sections of the media in Sri Lanka giving wide coverage to statements and interviews given by officials of such organizations will also be restricted from doing so.

Furthermore, the proscription will also render members of these proscribed entities liable for arrest under the Prevention of Terrorism Act(PTA) if and when apprehended while visiting Sri Lanka.

It is learnt that extensive dossiers of key individuals from these proscribed organizations and their activities abroad would be provided to the respective countries concerned in due course.

Sri Lankan authorities are expected to strictly enforce provisions of the proscription under UN resolution 1373 after the Sinhala –Tamil New Year in April this year.

Lest We Forget in 2014: Reflections on the Tigers

By Sergei DeSilva-Ranasinghe

TheDiplomat.com

May 21, 2010

A year after the LTTE’s defeat, evidence shows criticism of Sri Lanka’s army is misplaced, says Sergei DeSilva-Ranasinghe.

A year ago this week, the Sri Lankan government officially declared victory over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in one of the most extraordinary counter-insurgency campaigns in recent times.
The endgame of the conflict, particularly from January to May 2009, saw the bloodiest fighting, often with the presence of tens of thousands of civilians that the LTTE desperately used to fend off its inevitable defeat. Since then, new evidence has become public that offers further insights into the final months of Sri Lanka’s secessionist civil war.

For decades, the jungle-laden Mullaitivu District, located in Sri Lanka’s northeast, served as the LTTE’s main stronghold. However, under significant military pressure from the Sri Lankan Army during the final stages of the conflict, the LTTE conducted a fighting retreat towards its last bastion astride the Mullaitivu coastline.

As it did so, the LTTE used all means at its disposal to inflict casualties to delay, halt or even push back the Army’s advance. For example, the LTTE constructed a series of embankments between two and three metres high, also known as earth bunds, which proved to be formidable defensive obstacles. Assault troops also encountered camouflaged LTTE armour plated bunkers.

According to one frontline Army officer from the time: ‘You don’t know where they are, and you can’t even see them until your right on them…The first you know is when you are wounded in the leg. All we can do is to fire towards the sound, throw grenades and send off RPGs [Rocket Propelled Grenades] in the general direction.’

In addition, frontline infantry often confronted elaborately laid LTTE minefields that required field engineers equipped with Bangalore torpedoes to clear pathways. Similarly, the LTTE cleverly utilised booby traps made of discarded rubbish and metal that were tied to hidden explosive caches dispersed over a wide area that when triggered caused multiple and devastating explosions.

Each passing month saw increasingly fierce combat. Reports suggested that the Army absorbed anywhere between 10 and 20 fatalities per day—sometimes more—while the Army claims that the LTTE suffered average losses ranging from 25 to 40 combatants per day. Due to high levels of attrition and the need to augment its depleted conventional formations, the LTTE had little choice than to continue to rely heavily on forced recruitment of civilians, a practice that it revived full-scale in late 2007.

To ensure a ready supply of civilians, the LTTE adopted a series of coercive measures such as that reported in one Sri Lankan newspaper which quoted a 14-year-old female child soldier saying the LTTE had warned her that her family would be punished if she didn’t join. Indeed, the Army confirmed that an increasing number of conscripts were seen at the frontline, notably child soldiers. ‘It’s like looking at your own child. Quite large numbers [of the LTTE fighters killed or captured] are under 16,’ one Army Brigadier told the Telegraph. ‘They grab them from their parents and [when] they try to pull them back they [the parents] get shot. These children have dog tags and cyanide capsules.’ Indeed, it was later revealed, according to the independent Sri Lankan daily, The Island, that in the final months of the war the LTTE planned to carry out a massive offensive against the Army with 300 suicide bombers, but was forced to cancel it as many suicide bombers were either killed in action or deserted to government-controlled territory.

The incidence of civilian casualties was low prior to the commencement of the Mullaitivu campaign, as combat was essentially between two conventional armies in the field, and civilian concentrations were situated far from the fighting.

However, as the territory controlled by the LTTE rapidly contracted, the density of trapped civilians increased rapidly, meaning civilians were often being caught in the crossfire. In an effort to provide safe passage from the combat zone, the Sri Lankan government declared two limited ceasefires, which saw civilian safe zones created at Vishwamadu and Oddusudan. However, such measures were doomed to failure when the LTTE rejected them and chose not to offer any alternative locations.

According to Tamil journalist DBS Jeyaraj: ‘The Sri Lankan government had…declared two limited ceasefires. But the LTTE imposed further restrictions and the number of civilians coming out dropped during ceasefire days…the LTTE exploited the ceasefire in February to mount a very effective counter strike…The April ceasefire was used to construct several new “trench-cum-bund” defences.’

Meanwhile, the LTTE positioned its artillery and mortar assets near or amidst civilian concentrations, tactics confirmed by a range of media outlets including Reuters India in February 2009, which quoted a 74-year old Catholic nun as claiming: ‘The LTTE fired from close to civilians. We had objected, but that didn’t work.’
Out of desperation, thousands of civilians defied the LTTE edict, forbidding any civilians from leaving LTTE-controlled territory, and attempted to escape under cover of darkness and brave crossfire from running battles, LTTE-laid minefields and LTTE fire targeting escaping civilians.

At a press conference in Colombo last July, Dr. Shanmugaraja, a former LTTE physician who surrendered in the final weeks of the war, said: ‘Many civilians were killed and wounded as the LTTE opened fire at them when they tried to flee from the Tiger’s grip…Their strategy was to keep the civilians around them and survive. That was why they came along with civilians once safe zones were demarcated for the civilians by the Security Forces.’

In addition, there’s ample evidence to suggest that civilians in LTTE-controlled territory were integrated into the LTTE military-logistical system and war effort. For example, Sri Lankan-Australian scholar Michael Roberts, an expert on Sri Lankan politics and anthropology, wrote in his article, Dilemma’s at War’s End: ‘All young people seem to have been inducted as auxiliaries. As they lost territory, the LTTE also used heavy machinery and marshalled labour to build ditches and embankments…a task that clearly involved massive logistical operations.’
 

He added: ‘In effect, over the last year or so, many able-bodied people in the LTTE command state have been rendered into an integral part of their logistical support for war, being more or less part of the frontline. In such circumstances, of course, the category “civilian” is an ambiguous category.’

In fact, the presence of more than 280,000 civilians in LTTE-controlled territory served a clear and diverse purpose, which was highlighted in their use as military labour to build fortifications; porters shuttling food, ammunition and supplies to frontline LTTE units; of manpower to augment the LTTE’s military strength; human shields that gave the LTTE significant bargaining power with the international community to call for a permanent ceasefire; and the maintenance of its supply lines.

In effect, the LTTE depended indirectly almost entirely on regular Sri Lankan government convoys to areas under enemy control for food, medicine and essential items—an extraordinary situation. Another former LTTE physician, Dr. Vardharaja, elaborated on this exploiting of civilians by the LTTE to ensure supplies kept coming in, when he said: ‘The problem was that the LTTE took medicine from us to treat their injured. They asked us to tell the media that we don’t have medicine. There was as a shortage of medicine because LTTE took the whole stock.’

By mid-April 2009, the Army had successfully repulsed all LTTE counterattacks and finally cornered the group on a sliver of territory along the coast, 13 kilometres long and just 3 kilometres wide. The LTTE decided to stage its last stand in its coastal stronghold with an estimated 240,000 civilians still present, leaving the Army facing an unprecedented difficulty of capturing the last patch of land while ensuring civilians’ safety.

It is this reality that underscores how misplaced the international criticism of the military’s conduct in the final stages of the civil war was. On February 9, for example, a suicide bomber reportedly infiltrated an internally displaced persons registration camp and detonated her suicide jacket, killing 8 civilians and 24 soldiers. On April 20, 3 LTTE suicide bombers infiltrated and detonated their suicide jackets, killing 17 civilians and injuring 200. The LTTE shrewdly used tents, make-shift shelters and bunkers to conceal snipers, machine gun nests and artillery/mortar emplacements, which were often merged with civilian dwellings. Given this, assault troops had no choice but to systematically clear tens of thousands of tents, makeshift shelters, bunkers and trenches, which left them exposed to LTTE ambushes laid inside tents, makeshift shelters or subterranean bunkers. As such, in an attempt to mitigate the incidence of civilian casualties, the Army relied heavily on dozens of trained snipers to great effect in neutralizing LTTE combatants.

In the final weeks of the war, the LTTE continued to aggressively conscript civilians who were given crash training and assigned to scratch units at the frontline. For instance, in a now public April 2009 report, Rajan Hoole, who heads the dissident Tamil University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna) and who is known for his criticism of both the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE, pointed to conversations with civilians who fled LTTE controlled territory.

‘The LTTE has recently started the practice of sending out teams of 6 cadres with instructions for each team to return with 30 conscripts,’ Hoole wrote. ‘If they fail they are reportedly subject to heavy and often lethal punishment.’

However, the LTTE’s efforts were in vain. After bitter fighting on May 16 and 17, the last civilians were extracted from the combat zone, leaving 400 hardcore LTTE leaders and fighters exposed. By the morning of May 19, the LTTE lay defeated and its leaders eliminated, bringing a decisive end to the nearly three decade long Sri Lankan civil war. The Army’s final operation involved 4 weeks of heavy fighting and the loss of over 500 soldiers.

The evidence revealed by the LTTE’s own former sympathisers indicates the lengths the group was willing to go to and the difficulties facing conventional militaries confronting a fanatical adversary that conducts itself with impunity. Under such circumstances it’s unrealistic to believe civilian casualties can be avoided. Indeed, the very success of the Army in extracting more than 280,000 civilians from the combat zone from January to May 2009, despite this effort contributing to it suffering heavy casualties in process, is an indication of the complexity of conducting military operations in an environment where an enemy is willing use civilians as a key element of its military strategy.

Civilian casualties are, of course, tragic. But the endgame of Sri Lanka’s civil war requires a much more in-depth and nuanced understanding of the dilemmas that faced the Army before any conclusions can be drawn.

Sri Lanka’s Growing Links with China

By Jack Goodman

TheDiplomat.com

March 06, 2014

 Trade, investment and a strategic Indian Ocean location bring the two countries closer together.

 

“We love this country,” declared a Chinese Foreign Minister on a state visit to Sri Lanka in 1971, China “was ready to give its fullest co-operation to speed up the socialist march of Ceylon.”
Sri Lanka’s socialist “march” didn’t ever quite catch up with China’s, but since the first Rubber-Rice pact was signed in 1952 China-Sri Lankan relations have been a source of unity and continue on an upward trajectory today.

As China’s economic power has grown, investing overseas has been a tactic used across the world by China to help bolster the national interest. Its financial foreign policy rests on two strategies: “accumulating foreign currency reserves and sending money abroad in the form of FDI, aid, assistance and loans,” wrote U.S. economic advisor Ken Miller in Foreign Affairs.  Sri Lanka is a model for the latter part of this strategy.
The statistics alone indicate the inexorable rise of China’s financial stake in Sri Lanka.

Impending confirmation of a free trade agreement (FTA) between the two countries is symbolic of the tight-knit relations between Beijing and Colombo in 2014. Bilateral trade exceeded $3 billion for 2013 and China is Sri Lanka’s second largest source of imports behind India.

Despite the symbolism, China will profit more from the generous new tariffs of the FTA. Sri Lanka has a growing trade deficit with China that stood at approximately $2.4 billion in 2012. China is the destination for less than 2 percent of total Sri Lankan exports.

However, concerns over trade deficits for South Asian nations like Sri Lanka are “outweighed by overall economic benefits and political support,” wrote India’s former Special Envoy to Southeast Asian countries on UN Security Council Reforms, Professor S D. Muni.

China is Sri Lanka’s biggest source of foreign direct investment (FDI) as well as providing development loans for projects such as the $500 million new Colombo Port Terminal, Hambantota Port, Sri Lanka’s first four-lane expressway, and a new National Theatre, among others. These lucrative benefits for Sri Lanka have played a pivotal role in building the current relationship.

The recent commitment from Sri Lanka to join the Maritime Silk Road (MSR) indicates the proximity of the two states’ strategic aspirations and is a reflection of the assimilation of national interests. The Indian Ocean ports of Gwadar in Pakistan, Hambantota in Sri Lanka and Chittagong in Bangladesh have all benefited from Chinese investment and account for 30 percent of global trade, according to Indian Ocean Rim Association.
The MSR is a vital strategic project for China in the Indian Ocean, and will increase China’s presence in South Asian shipping routes. Sri Lanka can be seen as a gateway port up the western coast of India and further west to Iran, a vital exporter of oil to China. The brand new port of Hambantota, 85 percent of it paid for with a Chinese loan, is located on the south of the island, historically not a traditional shipping route. However, it is the perfect location to meet the strategic objectives of the MSR.

Supplementing the impact of economic relations, the political consequences of this month’s United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) decision over the U.S.-led resolution that calls for an independent investigation into the end of the Sri Lankan civil war could be significant. The Indian External Affairs Minister Salman Kurshid delivered a warning to Sri Lanka, calling on it to find “possible ways to avoid an hostile attitude towards people and countries that matter.”

In face of these Western-led accusations, Sri Lanka have found a political ally in China through a shared policy of non-interference in internal affairs. This translates as China’s view that issues in relation to human rights are the prerogative of the sovereign state to deal with internally. China’s soft power in Sri Lanka will grow, almost unintentionally, if Colombo’s disenfranchisement with the West continues over the matter of an independent investigation. Despite a recent “curveball” in the form of a comment from the Chinese Foreign Ministry, China has always pledged support for Sri Lanka:
“China opposes some countries’ interference in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka under the pretext of human rights issues,” Foreign Minister Wang Yi told his Sri Lankan counterpart G. L. Peiris in Beijing recently.
Chinese influence in Sri Lanka is clearly growing, but the possibility that Colombo is driving this relationship can’t be overlooked. Noises from Sri Lankan government and other figures suggest that they are fully in control of what is officially known as a “Strategic Cooperative Partnership.” In this context China is playing a pivotal role in Sri Lanka’s regional development in South Asia.

At the heart of this is Sri Lanka’s objective to fulfill its commercial potential as the country at the geographic center of the Indian Ocean. Former Sri Lankan Ambassador to China Nihal Rodrigo, speaking at a South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) event last year, didn’t express concern over China’s naval expansion and development of South Asian ports, but rather claimed that it “provides it (China) easier connectivity across the Indian Ocean which benefits South Asia.” Both governments therefore have something to gain from Hamantota Port, described as one aspect of Sri Lanka’s “five-hub” growth strategy, which aims to position and build the island as a global naval, aviation, commercial, energy and knowledge center.

Hamantota Port was “commercial in nature” and not to be “misconstrued as fitting the string of pearls paradigm,” said Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa at the 2012 Galle Dialogue. This countered accusations from some American scholars that China had intentions to encircle India beyond innocently increasing trade links.

The Maritime Silk Road is therefore perceived as critical for Sri Lanka to become a leading player in the development of Indian Ocean trading ports, which China has more or less augmented itself. Sri Lanka also has an opportunity to build favorable ties with both the region’s superpowers, India and China, as well as the emerging Southeast Asian nations.

There is evidence to suggest that Colombo and Beijing now share policies on a whole range of issues, political and economic. This is in part a reflection of Chinese influence, but it is also attributable to Sri Lanka’s ability to manipulate the relationship in its favor.

China’s role in Sri Lanka should be viewed within a regional South Asian context and not just unilaterally. For now at least, Indian and American fears appear to have little credence.

Jack Goodman is a visiting researcher at the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka: What after India's UNHRC-3 - Analysis

 By Ananda-USAMatch 30, 2014


Sri Lanka should IGNORE India's Pretensions to Regional Hegemony .... it DOES NOT SERVE Sri Lanka's National Interests to pander to India's sensitive ego.
Sri Lanka should kick India OUT OF ANY and ALL INVOLVEMENT in Sri Lanka's internal affairs: governance, economy, diplomacy and defence, and put the necessary Safeguards and  Alliances in place to ENSURE our Security in the Future.

Don't let India creep back into Sri Lanka's Favor just because it "Abstained" from the UNHRC-3 vote; their stabbing Sri Lanka in the back in the UNHRC-1 and UNHRC-2 votes, and complicity in the entire process,  is REASON ENOUGH  never to trust India again.

Are we suffering from INCURABLE AMNESIA? Have we forgotten that India initiated and fostered this plague of Tamil Terrorism and Separatism in Sri Lanka from the very beginning? Why are we even DEBATING this Issue?

KICK THESE BUGGERS OUT OF Sri Lanka for GOOD!
 
...................................
Sri Lanka: What after India's UNHRC-3 - Analysis
By N Sathiya Moorthy
EurasiaReview.com
March 30, 2014

In the past two years, the Indian vote against Sri Lanka may have done the trick for the passage of the US-led western resolution at the UNHRC - more than in numerical terms, that is. This time round, the Indian 'abstention' may have done even more. In a way, it has tilted the scales in real terms.

With India abstaining, those not in favour of the Anglo-American resolution totalled 24 against 23 for the motion.

In super-power terms, the Anglo-American 'victory' is no victory and the Sri Lankan 'defeat' is no defeat. In real terms, too, the support for the US resolution in the 47-member UNHRC has come down to 24 from last year's 25, which again was a significant improvement from the 23 votes in 2012. Sri Lanka too needs to note that the opposition to the US move has also been sinking, from 15 in 2012 to 13 last year, to 12 at present. The aggregate is to the number of abstentions. The figure has gone up by half, from eight in the previous two years, to 12 now. In 2012, Gabon 'absented' itself from the voting process, but this time, it 'abstained'.

It's not about victory and defeat, however. It is about post-Geneva retrieval of the lost ground in Sri Lanka, where 'accountability' issues have to give place to 'political reconciliation', which the former had left hanging two-plus years ago. The logic of the Indian neighbour, that the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) should be talking to the Sri Lankan Government for New Delhi to exert the required pressure on the latter, was outlined by External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid at London during the run-up to the Geneva vote. The abstention now means that India has re-positioned itself to re-engage the Sri Lankan stake-holders in a constructive way.

Officials, both in Geneva and New Delhi, have explained the logic behind the Indian decision. As they have pointed out, by proposing an 'international investigation' of the UNHRC kind into 'accountability issues', the 'intrusive' resolution sought to infringe upon the 'sovereignty' of the Sri Lankan State. Worse still, it sought to set at naught the work already done by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) and the Sri Lankan Government's promised follow-up of the same through the 'National Action Plan'. Inadequacies, if any, cannot justify 'international investigation' of any kind. Inputs, specifics and clear, bilaterally or multilaterally without resorting to coercive measures of the UNHRC kind, could instead have done the trick.

Taking India for granted

India's problems with this year's resolution may not have stopped with 'sovereignty' issues per se. It was about 'sovereignty', yes, as it's the scale that India had applied, elsewhere, too. Jammu and Kashmir and the rest of India's HR concerns viz the international community may have been incidental, if at all. In specific terms, India had voted for the two earlier US resolutions only after they had cited the LLRC report as the bench-mark and purpose. The original US draft in 2012, as may be recalled, did not refer to the report of the LLRC, a creature of the Sri Lankan State and hence did not impede/impinge on 'sovereignty' issues.

Only after the LLRC became the sole reference-point, did India reportedly vote for the US resolution in 2012. It remained so in 2013, and India had no cause  or, justification - for a re-think of this year's kind. In a way, it was the Anglo-American resolution going back on the past commitments to the world - though made possibly with India in mind -on the LLRC-linked 'sovereignty' front that New Delhi may have thought it fit and justified to go back on its own commitments from the past. Clearly, the change in the tone and tenor of the US draft also meant that the western movers behind the resolution had begun taking India for granted and possibly did not deserve the kind of political consideration that New Delhi may have found fit to extend in the past.

This 'taking India for granted' may have begun with the 2012 resolution, when the 'US friend' was seen as unilaterally intervening, though only in political and diplomatic terms, in India' s 'traditional sphere of influence'. Simultaneously egged on by an surprising and unprecedented political pressure from Tamil Nadu in 2012, New Delhi could do little about it. An otherwise acceptable US draft did the rest.

Going beyond bowing to pressures from Tamil Nadu per se in 2012, New Delhi may not have also wanted to precipitate an internal chasm in the name of an external issue for the time. Relations between nations, particularly neighbours bound by geography, culture and history, and in that order, go beyond the realms of domestic politics, moods and methods. Yet, at times they are dictated by domestic compulsions. The Sri Lankan side was both aware and appreciative of India's circumstances. To this pan-Tamil political pressure, both from inside the Government at the Centre and otherwise, was added the unexpected 'student power' this time last year, nearly 50 long years after the anti-Hindi agitation of the Sixties.

American unilateralism

On the side, the US was similarly taking unilateral political positions in and on Maldives, and elsewhere in the immediate neighbourhood of India. In the case of Maldives, for instance, it was also negotiating what New Delhi possibly perceived as a military-related deal in SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement). The US dismissed it as a routine affair unrelated to security issues and concerns of the 'Indian friend' cum ally. The fact that the US was reportedly negotiating SOFA with Maldives, almost behind the back of India, too might not have gone well with New Delhi.

This would have been more so, considering that the incumbent Maldivian Government of then President Mohammed Waheed Hassan Manik was at best a 'lame-duck' affair, after his controversial, if not wholly questionable ascendancy to power following the momentous resignation of President Mohammed Nasheed. With a weakling in office thus requiring heavy doses of external help of the non-Indian variety, thanks to the 'GMR row' that the whole world knew, New Delhi could not have been expected to take kindly to the American overtures to and from Maldives at the time. So much so, the perceptions of altruist American intentions on the Sri Lankan 'accountability' issue would always have been peppered with possible Indian apprehensions about the 'real' intentions and motives of the US in the immediate southern neighbourhood.

Unintended fulcrum

UNHRC's pro-West chair in Navaneetham Pillay ends her mandated two-term upper-limit in August this year. In a way, the second sitting in September would be chaired by a new head in her place. It is not unlikely that the US and the rest of the West may have the final say in the choice. It is still not unlikely, if one reflected on the current UNHRC vote, and made projections based on the same, a compromise candidate might emerge and some balance, sense and sensibility might prevail. Such a course could help ease the pressure of the past two years on Sri Lanka. Learning from the past experience, which might not be worth re-living, the Government in Colombo might consider it wise to revive the political process that it had left hanging past the quarter-way mark in 2011 when the UNHRC threat began appearing in the horizon.

In its turn, India belongs to the 'Group of 2014′ at the UNHRC and its second three-year term ends this year. It should relieve New Delhi of the burden of 'political pressures' emanating from southern Tamil Nadu, to address issues of mutual concern with Sri Lanka, of which the 'ethnic issue' has remained the unintended and unwelcome fulcrum for long. Post-poll, whichever party comes to power, and whoever becomes the prime minister, a new government in New Delhi can usher in new thought processes to enhance bilateral relations and cooperation, starting with the 'ethnic issue'.

It may be easy now for India to approach Sri Lanka, after the UNHRC vote this time round. It may be difficult for India to make the TNA accept the realities. Post-UNHRC, the TNA has been careful not to hurt Indian sentiments. "India may have valid reasons of its own to abstain," TNA leader R Sampanthan said after the vote. Whatever other TNA leaders may, or may not, say in the days to come, Sampanthan's should be considered the official reaction of the TNA to the Indian abstention. However, that by itself does not make things easy for India viz TNA. It will be even more difficult for the TNA to convince the second-line and more so, over the head of the omnipresent Sri Lankan Tamil Diaspora, which keeps looking over the TNA's shoulders all the time.

As India seems to have concluded, and also implied in its response at Geneva, 'accountability' mechanisms of the kind being thought of by the West can only divide Sri Lanka further, not unite it. And the TNA is on record that they are all for a political solution within a 'united Sri Lanka'. Saying is one thing and doing is another. It is true of the Sri Lankan Government, too, when it comes to the issues and solutions flagged by the LLRC Report and otherwise, too.

Colombo also seems to have understood that 'development' and 'democratisation' that the UNHRC resolutions too have consistently appreciated over the past three years is no substitute for 'devolution'. But in a domestic atmosphere vitiated also by the UNHRC process, particularly after the external stimulus in the 'Tamil Nadu factor' was found wanting, the Government is going to find it difficult to convince itself and elements within that it's still no harm trying. After all, the US draft has kept 'de-militarisation' out of the ambit despite loud protests from the SLT Diaspora and the peace-time 'HR industry' in Sri Lanka. Colombo needs to acknowledge that it's no licence for over-securitisation, either.

'Strategic asset', not just strategic waterway

In the weeks and months to come, India will have its hands full first explaining itself to constituents nearer home, and then to elements elsewhere, starting with the TNA. As was the case during the past years of UNHRC, the TNA seemed to be a reluctant partner initially to was essentially looked like an SLT Diaspora project, initiated with, if not, for the West. That over, a new Government in New Delhi would have to take a hands-on approach to problem-solving in its own interest apart from protecting the interests of the Tamils in Sri Lanka within that country, and the interests of Sri Lanka in the regional and global level.

After all, at a time when a 'neo Cold War' is threatening to haunt the world, post Ukraine-Crimea, India cannot have its flank unsettled and eternally unstable, if not wholly unfriendly whether or not the 'String of Pearls' makes sense. In the contemporary context, over-zealous extra-regional players have over-imagined the Indian Ocean as a 'strategic asset', going beyond the traditional reality of it being a strategic waterway. India as the rightful guardian angel of the Ocean in these parts cannot look the other way, and let others dance their well-choreographed dances, and expect India too to dance to their tunes, all the time!

There should be NEVER BE RECONCILIATION with Eelamist Terrorists and their Supporters!

 By Ananda-USA
March 27, 2014

I have ALWAYS opposed "RECONCILIATION" as PREACHED by the Jaundiced West.

How can you "RECONCILE" with the Nazis of Sri Lanka who murdered innocent people by tens of thousands in their quest of a SEPARATE RACIST APARTHEID State?

They do not deserve any pity or compassion, and the heroic patriotic people of Sri Lanka have NOTHING to atone for or be forgiven by these murderers. We don't want their "Forgiveness", they are simply NOT QUALIFIED TO FORGIVE any of their victims. They began their murderous RAMPAGE in Sri Lanka and were deservedly CRUSHED utterly by their victims.Instead, they should beg forgivness from the people of Sri Lanka, and ATONE for their sins the rest of their lives.

Did the Victorious Allies "Reconcile" with the Nazis of Germany or the Wormongering Military Leadership of Japan? Did they "Rehabilitate" and whitewash their crimes and turn them into acceptable citizens. In fact, they were executed whenever they could be found, their political parties and idealogies were permanently PROSCRIBED, new constitutions were IMPOSED on those nations to forever preclude them from returning to power, and laws were instituted to prevent their immigration into Allied nations such as the USA and the UK. Even today, naturalized American citizens who were former Nazis who lied on their immigration application to get into the United States, are IMPRISONED, PROSECUTED and DEPORTED to their countries of origin when they are discovered. Nearly 80 years have elapsed since the end of World War II ... but there has been NO RECONCILIATION with those murderers, and there NEVER WILL BE.

So then, WHY IS IT that these very same countries who nwill NEVER RECONCILIATE with their murderous enemies of 80 years ago, COUNSEL RECONCILIATION to our Nazis ... the Tamil Eelamist Terrorists ... and THRUST them upon long suffering Sri Lanka as people who should be forgiven? Is it because the lives of their white people are INTRINSICALLY more VALUABLE than  the lives of our Sri Lankan citizens? Their appalling HYPOCRISY and DOUBLE STANDARDS know no BOUNDS, no INTROSPECTIVE evaluation, no sense of JUSTICE and FAIR PLAY.

We should not FORGIVE the Eelamists, nor should we RECONCILIATE with them. We should offer no FIG LEAF for them to hide their crimes behind, and POSE as innocent wailing victims demanding compensation and special rights; they should be made to live with the HAUNTING memory of their atrocities  and ATONE for them.

The GOSL should fund a separate Government Department to keep alive the memory of the Holocaust perpetrated by the Eelamists, and require every visiting diplomat to pay homage to our Honoured Dead, and hold exhibitions in foreign countries EVERY YEAR to keep the memory of their atrocities alive in defense of our Motherland. Our MULTITUDE of Hounoured Dead ... parents, siblings, adults, children, neighbors,  officials, teachers, doctors, policemen, soldiers, sailors and airmen should be remembered: They are GONE but should NEVER be FORGOTTEN!

The Jewish people who NEVER let the Nazis bury the memory of the Jewish Holocaust and make them ATONE for it  FOREVER ... have it absolutely right! NO RECONCILIATION WITH NAZIS! NO RECONCILIATION with EELAMISTS either!

The GOSL should follow the example set by the Jewish People and Israel: Never let the atrocities Eelamists inflicted on Sri Lanka and its people be whitewashed and forgotten in the name of this atrocious policy of "Reconciliation"! NEVER!

Final draft of the resolution on Sri Lanka tabled at UNHRC, eliminates India’s complicity in war

ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.

Mar 25, Geneva: The final draft of the resolution on Sri Lanka sponsored by the United States, the United Kingdom and three other countries was submitted to the 25th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva this morning .

The sponsors submitted the revisions and amendments to the resolution HRC25 “Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka” before today’s deadline. The Council will vote on the resolution Wednesday, March 26.

The draft of the revised resolution, which specified a time period to investigate the alleged human rights violations, was circulated among the member states of the UNHRC Monday.

The revised version requests the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to undertake a comprehensive independent investigation into alleged serious violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes by both parties in Sri Lanka, during the period covered by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), and establish the facts and circumstances of such alleged violations and of the crimes perpetrated with a view to avoiding impunity and ensuring accountability, with assistance from relevant experts and special procedures.

The revised draft limits the time period for the OHCHR to conduct the investigations to the period covered by the LLRC which investigated the incidents from February, 2002 to May, 2009.

The more recent time period specified by the resolution means the numerous suicide bombings, massacres and other atrocities committed by the Tamil Tiger terrorist organization Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) before 2002 during the three-decade long war, as well as the violations by the Indian Peace keeping Force (IPKF) in the late 80s will not be investigated.

The Sri Lankan government has stressed that it is grossly unfair to investigate only the last phase of the war and constantly called for a comprehensive investigation during the whole three decades of war if an international inquiry were to be conducted.

However, the text of the final version of the resolution formulated with the help of India effectively eliminates any probe on India’s complicity in Sri Lanka’s terrorist war.

Following is the text of the revised draft resolution HRC#25.

Draft resolution HRC 25 24 March 2014 25/1. Promoting reconciliation, accountability, and human rights in Sri Lanka

The Human Rights Council,
1. Reaffirming the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

2. Guided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights and other relevant instruments,

3. Bearing in mind General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006,

4. Recalling Human Rights Council resolutions 5/1, on institution-building of the Council, and 5/2, on the code of conduct for special procedures mandate holders, of 18 June 2007,

5. Recalling also Human Rights Council resolutions 19/2 of 22 March 2012 and 22/1 of 21 March 2013 on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka,

5 bis. Reaffirming its commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka,

6. Reaffirming that it is the responsibility of each State to ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms of its entire population,

7. Reaffirming also that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights law, international refugee law and international humanitarian law, as applicable,

8. Recognizing the Human Rights Council’s support of Reaffirming that all Sri Lankans to are entitled to the full enjoyment of their human rights regardless of creed, faith religion, belief, or ethnicity, in a peaceful and unified land,

9. Welcoming and acknowledging the progress made by the Government of Sri Lanka in rebuilding infrastructure, demining, and resettling the majority of internally displaced persons, but noting nonetheless that considerable work lies ahead in the areas of justice, reconciliation, land use and ownership demilitarization, the resumption of livelihoods and the restoration of normality in civilian life, and stressing the importance of the full participation of local populations, including representatives of civil society and minorities, in these efforts,

Welcoming the announcement made by the Government of Sri Lanka that elections to the Provincial Council in the Northern Province will be held in September 2013,

10. Welcoming the successful holding of Provincial Council elections held on September 21, 2013 and in particular the high turn-out and participation in all three provinces, but noting with concern reports of election-related violence, as well as voter and candidate intimidation,

11. Expressing appreciation for the efforts and cooperation of the Government of Sri Lanka in facilitating the visit of a technical mission from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and providing her with open access, and encouraging the Government to increase its dialogue and cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner, and welcoming the visit of the High Commissioner to Sri Lanka in August 2013,

12. Expressing deep concern over reported intimidation and retaliation against civil society members who engage with UN human rights mechanisms including those who met with the High Commissioner during her visit,

13. Expressing serious concern at the continuing reports of violations of human rights in Sri Lanka, including sexual and gender-based violence, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, torture and violations of the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, threats to judicial independence and the rule of law, as well as intimidation of and reprisals against human rights defenders, members of civil society, lawyers and journalists,

14. Alarmed at the significant surge in attacks rapid rise in violence and discrimination on the basis of religion or belief, particularly against members of religious minority groups in Sri Lanka, including Hindus, Muslims and Christians,

15. Calling upon the Government of Sri Lanka to fulfil its public commitments, including on the devolution of political authority which is integral to reconciliation and the full enjoyment of human rights by all members of its population,

16. Taking note of the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission of Sri Lanka, its findings and recommendations, and acknowledging its possible contribution to the process of meaningful national reconciliation in Sri Lanka,

17. Recalling the constructive recommendations contained in the Commission’s report, including the need to credibly investigate widespread allegations of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, demilitarize the north of Sri Lanka, implement impartial land dispute resolution mechanisms, re-evaluate detention policies, strengthen formerly independent civil institutions, reach a political settlement on the devolution of power to the provinces, promote and protect the right of freedom of expression for all persons and enact rule of law reforms,

18. Taking note also of the national plan of action to implement the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission of the Government of Sri Lanka and its commitments as set forth in response to the findings and recommendations of the Commission,

19. Noting Reiterating Noting that the national plan of action does not adequately address all of the findings and constructive recommendations of the Commission, and encouraging the Government of Sri Lanka to broaden the scope of the plan to adequately address all elements of the Commission report,

20. Noting Also reiterating Noting with concern that the national plan of action and the Commission’s report do not adequately address serious allegations of violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law,

21. Emphasizing Emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive approach to transitional justice incorporating the full range of judicial and non-judicial measures, including, among others, individual prosecutions, reparations, truth-seeking, institutional reform, vetting of public employees and officials, or an appropriately conceived combination thereof, in order to, inter alia, ensure accountability, serve justice, provide remedies to victims, promote healing and reconciliation, establish independent oversight of the security system and restore confidence in the institutions of the State and promote the rule of law in accordance with international human rights law, with a view to preventing recurrence of violations and abuses

22. Underlining underlines that truth-seeking processes, such as truth and reconciliation commissions, that investigate patterns of past human rights violations and their causes and consequences are important tools that can complement judicial processes and that, when established, such mechanisms have to be designed within a specific societal context and to be founded on broad national consultations with the inclusion of victims and civil society, including non-governmental organizations,

23. Recalling Reaffirms the responsibility of States to comply with their relevant obligations to prosecute those responsible for gross violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law constituting crimes under international law, with a view to end impunity;

24. Recallingthe High Commissioner’s conclusion that national mechanisms have consistently failed to establish the truth and achieve justice, and her recommendation that the Human Rights Council establish an international inquiry mechanism to further investigate the Noting the call made by the High Commissioner for an independent and credible international investigation into alleged violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law and monitor any domestic accountability processes,

25. Encouraging the Government to increase its dialogue and cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner, including with regard to technical assistance,

1. Welcomes the oral update of 25 September 2013 and the report of 24 February 2014 of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on advise and technical assistance for the Government of Sri Lanka on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka and the recommendations and conclusions contained therein, in particular including on the establishment of a truth-seeking mechanism and national reparations policy as an integral part of a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to transitional justice;

2. Calls upon Encourages the Government of Sri Lanka: to implement the recommendations made in the reports of the Office of the High Commissioner, and also calls upon the Government to conduct an independent and credible investigation into allegations of violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, as applicable; to hold accountable those responsible for such violations; to end continuing incidents of human rights violations and abuses in Sri Lanka; and to implement the recommendations made in the reports of the Office of the High Commissioner;

3. Reiterates its call upon the Government of Sri Lanka to implement effectively the constructive recommendations made in the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, and to take all necessary additional steps to fulfil its relevant legal obligations and commitment to initiate credible and independent actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans;

4. Urges the Government of Sri Lanka to investigate all alleged attacks, by individuals and groups, on temples, mosques, and churches and to take steps to prevent future attacks; and calls on the Government of Sri Lanka to investigate and hold accountable perpetrators of attacks on places of worship, journalists, human rights defenders, members of religious minority groups, and other members of civil society, as well as on temples, mosques and churches, and further urges the Government of Sri Lanka to hold perpetrators of such attacks to account and take steps to prevent such attacks in the future;

5. Calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka to release publicly the results of its investigations into alleged violations by security forces, including the attack on unarmed protesters in Weliweriya on August 1, 2013, and the Army Court of Inquiry report of 2013;

6. Encourages Encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to provide ensure that all Provincial Councils, including the Northern Provincial Council, and its Chief Minister with the resources and authority necessary to govern, as required by are able to operate effectively, in line with the 13th Amendment of Sri Lanka’s constitution;
7. Welcomes the visit by the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons in December 2013, and to issue an invitation to the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants; and calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka to facilitate the effective implementation of durable solutions for IDPs, including the long-term displaced

7 bis. Further welcomes the invitation to the Special Rapporteurs on the Human Rights of Migrants and the Right to Education;

7 ter. Encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to cooperate with other special procedures mandate holders and to respond formally to their outstanding requests, including long standing requests;

8. Welcomes Takes note of the High Commissioner’s recommendations and conclusions regarding ongoing human rights violations and on the need for an independent and credible an international inquiry mechanism in the absence of a credible national process with tangible results, and requests the Office of the High Commissioner:

a) to monitor the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and continue to assess progress toward accountability and reconciliation on relevant national processes;

b)to undertake a comprehensive independent investigation into alleged serious violations and abuses ofhuman rights and related crimes by both parties in Sri Lanka, during the period covered by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, and establish the facts and circumstances of such alleged violations and of the crimes perpetrated with a view to avoiding impunity and ensuring accountability, with input assistance from relevant experts and special procedures special procedures mandate holders as appropriate,;

c) to present an oral update to the Human Rights Council at its twenty-seventh fourth session, and a comprehensive report followed by a discussion on the implementation of the present resolution at its twenty-eighth fifth session.

9. Encourages the Office of the High Commissioner and relevant special procedures mandate holders to provide, in consultation with and with the concurrence of the Government of Sri Lanka, in consultation with and with the concurrence of the Government of Sri Lanka, advice and technical assistance on implementing the above-mentioned steps;

10. Calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka to cooperate with the Office of the High Commissioner concerning the implementation of this resolution.

UNHRC - Part I: Navi Pillay Faulted For Abuse Of Power

By Kalinga Seneviratne

InDepthNews.info

 

SINGAPORE (IDN) - UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) head Navi Pillay’s current campaign against Sri Lanka over alleged human rights violations – along with similar campaigns against Libya and Syria earlier – could jeopardize the cause of human rights around the world, analysts say.

Pillay released a report in February calling for an international investigation into alleged war crimes when the Sri Lankan armed forces crushed the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in a final battle in May 2009.

Sri Lanka’s Permanent Envoy in Geneva conveying the Sri Lankan Government’s response to Pillay’s report stated that the UN High Commissioner’s recommendations, “reflect the preconceived, politicised and prejudicial agenda which she has relentlessly pursued with regard to Sri Lanka”, and in a 18-page document pinpointed her double standards accusing her of giving “scant or no regard to the domestic processes ongoing in Sri Lanka”. 

The Sri Lanka government has also criticized the report for arriving at conclusions in a “selective and arbitrary manner” and ignoring requests from the Sri Lankan government to provide factual evidence to substantiate allegations and to refrain from making general comments.

Sri Lanka’s criticism of Pillay is not new. But, commentaries in both mainstream and online media in Sri Lanka indicate a hardening of attitudes in the island state against Pillay’s perceived bias and alleged abuse of power as head of UNHRC. She is said to have got away with it in the international media because the western media apparently tended to believe – and continue to – most of the propaganda put out by the LTTE supporters in the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora over the past 30 years.

At the twenty-fifth session of the UNHRC from March 3 to 28 in Geneva, Pillay’s report is due to be officially tabled, and she has refused to entertain a request from the Sri Lankan government that its response to the report be attached as an appendix. The United States has indicated – supported by EU and India – that they may table a resolution at the meeting to establish an independent international investigation into alleged war crimes and human rights violations in Sri Lanka, which the government is sure to reject.

“How many of the bullying countries accusing Sri Lanka of crimes against humanity and war crimes have clean hands or a flawless record?” asks Senaka Weeraratne, a Sri Lankan lawyer and international affairs analyst.
“What we see today in western dominated international organisations such as the United Nations related bodies such as the UNHRC, ICC and the like are proceedings conducted on an Inquisitorial footing i.e. witch hunts aimed at devastating the target country or individual usually of non–European descent thereby perverting the course of justice. No quarter is given to the other party until it submits to the political will of the bullying nations,” argues Weeraratne.

“It is a shameless display of brute power making a mockery of institutional rules and procedures. The targeted country is assumed to be guilty right from the start ruling out any mitigating circumstances. It is virtually a re-enactment of the Inquisition under the auspices of the United Nations rather than the Catholic Church as in the days gone by.”

It is not only Sri Lankans that are complaining about the UNHRC and Pillay’s tactics. Anti-war activists in the West and supporters of the former Libyan regime and that of Syria have also pointed out how these UN agencies, and particularly UNHRC under Pillay, are practicing double standards to promote Western imperial designs.
Veteran Canadian antiwar activist Ken Stone writing for the website ‘Syria 360’ argued in an article written last year that Pillay has abused her power to facilitate western military interference in Libya and Syria to change regimes. He argues that the western media, and CNN in particular, have used interviews with Pillay to promote military intervention in Libya and Syria, where she relates the actions of these regimes to defend their country from rebel forces, to human rights violations and crimes against humanity.

In the name of humanitarian intervention

“Two very useful precedents for illegal, but so-called ‘humanitarian’, intervention by NATO were set by the United Nations in regards to Libya,” argues Stone. “The first was that the doctrine of the responsibility to protect (R2P) was successfully invoked, for the very first time, as a legal ground for over-riding the fundamental principle of national sovereignty as the basis of international law.”

R2P holds that, if a government cannot protect the human rights of its own citizens, the international community may step in to do so. In the case of Libya, R2P was used to justify United Nations Resolution 1973, the motion that authorized NATO to create a no-fly zone over Libya.

“Resolution 1973 was perverted by NATO within hours into a full-blown military intervention for regime change in Libya that resulted in the deaths of thousands of Libyans, pogrom against black persons resident in Libya, the assassinations of Muammar Gaddafi and members of his family, massive infrastructure damage, the de facto partitioning of the country, and a failed state machine,” notes Stone.

He argues that the first precedent (above) could not have been realized without the fancy legal footwork executed in advance by the nimble Pillay in demonizing Mouammar Gaddafi and his son, Saif, at the UN. “The second precedent, then, was the initiative taken by the UN Human Rights Council, chaired by Pillay, in calling for an international inquiry into violence against civilians in Libya,” he says.

Stone goes on to detail how Pillay has been playing a similar role in appearing in the international media accusing the Syrian government of crimes against humanity and calling upon the ICC to mount a war crimes investigation against President Assad, while ignoring the role played by foreign-funded mercenaries in the civil war.  “Humanitarian intervention is a powerful tool in the West, where even people on the ‘left’, who should know better, fall for it,” notes Stone.

Libya is the real tragedy of the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ that has turned into an ‘Arab Winter’. This brings into question the real motives of those International NGOs who promote human rights with an evangelical zeal.
Libya under Gaddafi may have been an authoritarian state in terms of freedom of speech (not any worse than U.S. allies in the region such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait and UAE), but, was a success story in human development. In Gaddafi's Libya, the right to free education for everyone from elementary school right up to university and post-graduate studies at home or abroad were implemented with government subsidies; there was free health care with 1:673 doctor-patient ratio; free electricity for all citizen; interest-free housing loans; and free land for farmers.

Libya had no external debts and its reserves amounted to $150 billion. Today we have a Libya that is ruled by warlords and terrorists and human rights campaigners are silent about the human rights abuses taking place today in Libya and no one is asking the question what is happening to Libya’s huge financial reserves and its oil? Who is benefiting from it?

What happened in Libya amounts to a war crime for which both NATO and International Crisis Group (ICG) that came up with the R2P formula should be held accountable, analysts say. But, UNHRC is muted about it. Instead, a report will be tabled at the current session titled “Technical assistance for Libya in the field of human rights”.
The report does not discuss accountability issues with regards to human rights in the implementation of the R2P formula nor does it address in any serious manner the problem of the anarchy created as a result of regime change. It assumes that there is a regime in charge, when there is not.

A question often asked by Sri Lankans is why Pillay is not calling upon President George W Bush, Tony Blair, David Cameroon and ICG to account for the war crimes USA, UK and NATO forces have indulged in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya?

During her visit to Sri Lanka last year, at a press conference, she said that UNHRC has indeed questioned these countries on certain human rights issues and they have responded. But, what the Sri Lankan journalist didn’t press her on is why she cannot do the same with Sri Lanka, rather than indulge in a public spat and witchhunt?

Opening up old wounds

Most people in Sri Lanka believe that what she is trying to do is to open up old wounds and it is completely counter productive to promoting reconciliation between the Sinhalese and Tamil communities. Nor is it helping to improve human rights in Sri Lanka, where a government that is threatened by what they see as an international conspiracy to change regime, has cracked down heavily on internal dissent and freedom of expression.

Weeraratne argues that Pillay’s methods are harming human rights and increasing the credibility gap of UN agencies in the eyes of the international community (which is not just the U.S., EU and its allies). Instead he argues that UNHRC should adopt the Japanese model of solving a post-war crisis.

“The Japanese approach advocated by the Buddhist Prince Shotuku to use the method of consensus and dialogue, and not allow the accused party to lose face is a far more enlightened approach to resolution of complex human rights issues than the ‘ burning at the stake’ inquisitorial approach of the West” notes Weeraratne.

“It is the employment of double standards and devious methods to achieve ulterior political ends of powerful Western actors that have resulted in the moral collapse of the UN and related agencies.”

*Kalinga Seneviratne is IDN Special Correspondent for Asia-Pacific. He teaches international communications in Singapore. [IDN-InDepthNews – March 3, 2014]