[ Australia ][ Jun 11 02:47 GMT ]
Sri Lanka's Tamils are only one group that continues to suffer as a result of this embrace of violence as a tool of radical change. In South Africa, Jacob Zuma's celebration of the "machine-gun" may be symbolic, but points to a residual problem in the political and social culture. Northern Ireland's season of armed killings and sectarian murder expose another unresolved legacy. There is a lesson here too for elements of the global left that still romanticise or indulge the "armed struggle" of (usually) far-away others. The politics of violence are a path to failure and regression. The trouble with guns is that they make the road to real progress so much longer and more painful. [ full story]
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Crimes, dengue fever, attacks on journalists, problems of toilets and food and euphoric celebrations
[ AHRC ][ Jun 11 02:58 GMT ]
The constitution of Sri Lanka is based on the premise of the sovereignty of the people. All state authority is derived from the sovereignty of the people. But the sovereign people have no right to have the crimes done to them investigated or have journalists inform them of what is happening or even for people to complain about their toilet facilities and conditions of their food and clothing. All that the sovereign people are allowed to do is to stay in a state of euphoria and when the next elections come to not participate in it in any meaningful manner. [ full story
The constitution of Sri Lanka is based on the premise of the sovereignty of the people. All state authority is derived from the sovereignty of the people. But the sovereign people have no right to have the crimes done to them investigated or have journalists inform them of what is happening or even for people to complain about their toilet facilities and conditions of their food and clothing. All that the sovereign people are allowed to do is to stay in a state of euphoria and when the next elections come to not participate in it in any meaningful manner. [ full story
SRI LANKA: "Too many people" at huge IDP camp - UN
[ IRIN ][ Jun 11 15:07 GMT ]
Conditions at a huge government-run camp for internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Sri Lanka are still unsatisfactory, the UN’s top official in the country told IRIN, despite some improvements. “The fundamental issue is that there are too many people in too small a place,” said Neil Buhne, the UN resident coordinator in Sri Lanka, adding: “We think it is the largest IDP camp in the world.” [ full story
Conditions at a huge government-run camp for internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Sri Lanka are still unsatisfactory, the UN’s top official in the country told IRIN, despite some improvements. “The fundamental issue is that there are too many people in too small a place,” said Neil Buhne, the UN resident coordinator in Sri Lanka, adding: “We think it is the largest IDP camp in the world.” [ full story
On Sri Lanka, UN's Holmes Contradicts His Colleague's Caution, Sudan Double Standard?
[ InnerCity Press ][ Jun 11 17:00 GMT ]
During the bloody conflict and humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka this year, most often UN Headquarters, personified by humanitarian chief John Holmes, has sounded more cautionary notes about government conduct than has UN staff in Colombo, who face deportation or denial of visa renewals. On Thursday, however, Holmes was decidedly more pro-government than the UN's local spokespeople, at least Mark Cutts, who expressed concern that now people will be kept in the UN-funded internment camps for up to a year. [ full story
During the bloody conflict and humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka this year, most often UN Headquarters, personified by humanitarian chief John Holmes, has sounded more cautionary notes about government conduct than has UN staff in Colombo, who face deportation or denial of visa renewals. On Thursday, however, Holmes was decidedly more pro-government than the UN's local spokespeople, at least Mark Cutts, who expressed concern that now people will be kept in the UN-funded internment camps for up to a year. [ full story
Sri Lanka urged to allow international probe of human rights abuses
CBC ][ Jun 11 17:09 GMT ]
The Sri Lankan government's failure to seriously address reports of human rights abuses during 25 years of civil war is even more glaring in the aftermath of its victory over the Tamil Tiger rebels last month, Amnesty International said Thursday. "If communities that have been torn apart by decades of violence and impunity are to be reconciled, the Sri Lankan government should initiate internal reforms and seek international assistance to prevent ongoing violations and ensure real accountability for past abuses," said Sam Zarifi, Amnesty International's Asia-Pacific director. [ full story
The Sri Lankan government's failure to seriously address reports of human rights abuses during 25 years of civil war is even more glaring in the aftermath of its victory over the Tamil Tiger rebels last month, Amnesty International said Thursday. "If communities that have been torn apart by decades of violence and impunity are to be reconciled, the Sri Lankan government should initiate internal reforms and seek international assistance to prevent ongoing violations and ensure real accountability for past abuses," said Sam Zarifi, Amnesty International's Asia-Pacific director. [ full story
Japan urges Sri Lanka to engage international community
AFP ][ Jun 11 17:11 GMT ]
Japan on Thursday urged Sri Lanka to develop closer ties with the international community as Colombo tries to rebuild the war-battered north of the island after decades of bloody ethnic conflict. Yasushi Akashi, a peace envoy for Tokyo, Sri Lanka's largest aid donor, said the government in Colombo needed to engage in a "continuous dialogue with the international community". "Sri Lanka needs and deserves more fruitful two-way dialogue with the international community with as many countries as possible as well as with the UN and other organisations," he said. [ full story
Japan on Thursday urged Sri Lanka to develop closer ties with the international community as Colombo tries to rebuild the war-battered north of the island after decades of bloody ethnic conflict. Yasushi Akashi, a peace envoy for Tokyo, Sri Lanka's largest aid donor, said the government in Colombo needed to engage in a "continuous dialogue with the international community". "Sri Lanka needs and deserves more fruitful two-way dialogue with the international community with as many countries as possible as well as with the UN and other organisations," he said. [ full story
A Letter from German Professor Dr.John P.Neelsen to Kumar Rupesinghe on Aid
Dear Mr.Rupesinghe,
Allow me to reply to your appeal for financial contributions for the construction of 1000 latrins, and (earlier for) educational materials for Tamil youngsters in the camps in the Vanni. To state my position clearly at the outset: I am totally opposed to your proposal and hope to convince at least some of the other recipients of your appeal!
Only in passing, I like to remind you of the high sounding speeches, including yours, on peace, negotiations, and reconciliation at the April 2006 conference in Zurich/Switzerland ("Envisioning New Trajectories for Peace in SL") or your similarly titled volumes. With the armed resistance defeated, the LTTE decapitated, today these sentiments and arguments appear light-years away. I wonder how you (and the other, particularly Singhalese, participants) read -and defend - your respective contributions now...
Anyhow, today you are seemingly assuming a purely humanitarian viewpoint and, indeed, the door has been thrown wide open for all manifestly similarly minded people in NGOs and governments all over the world.
But, the plight of the Tamils is not due to a natural disaster, not another tsunami, but the result of the conscious policy of a government that had no calms of bombarding people that it claims as its own citizens with heavy artillery, according to some reports even illegal chemical weapons.
When even the then supporters of the GoSL in Berlin, Paris or London have demanded an enquiry into war crimes and violations of human and humanitarian law in view of the estimated 20.000 mostly dead civilians during the last few weeks, when even the established media question the internment of 300.000 Tamil IDP, there is no way for any self-respecting intellectual or the critical public in general in the country concerned to pretend that the only problem left to be tackled is "humanitarian".
Just the contrary! You speak -echoing the official government line - of '300.000 temporarily displaced Tamils being 'sheltered in welfare centres'. This is but typical Orwellian language trying to turn reality upside down in light of the razor sharp barbed wires surrounding these camps, of the military controlling all access to and exits from them, of the prevention of independent outside observers, journalists and NGOs from entering them, of official announcements that a new prolonged phase of "counter-insurgency".
The'welfare centres' are but internment camps, the 'rehabilitation in the camps' is but a racist policy of collective suspicion, intimidation, witchhunt, and impoverishment. When you talk of the "fear and anxiety of the people undoubtedly brainwashed by the LTTE" you seem to forget Bindunuwewa or Chemmani or the numerous reports by UN agencies and Human Rights organizations that have castigated the massive human rights violations, such as disappearances, extra-judicial killings, and torture committed for decades by the security forces especially against the SLT.
Apart from their own experiences, these terrified people may also have heard of the situation on the ground following the 'liberation' of the Eastern province in mid-July 2007. What the government euphemistically describes as a "Nagenahira Navodaya or Eastern Awakening" programme, has nothing to do with "post-conflict reconstruction" but is a nightmare of violence, political instability, repression, and land expropiration according to the International Crisis Group (Asia report No 165 of April 16, 2009 entitled "Development Assistance and Conflict in Sri Lanka - Lessons from the Eastern Province").
And this is only the tip of the iceberg when viewed against the appropriation of the state by the majority coupled with the systemic oppression, including pogroms, of the Tamil people and the minorities in language, education, public employment or land colonisation.
Against this background, your appeal is anything but well-minded and humanitarian, it is highly political, in fact legitimizing the racist policies of the GoSL. Instead of rising against the root causes, mobilizing the Singhalese public to fight against chauvinism, the security state, the dictatorship maskerading as democracy, for the rule of law and against the "culture of impunity", for a democratic, inclusive, participatory polity and society, you call for hand-outs, for charity implicitely justifying the present state of affairs.
As a former Dy.Director of SIPRI, Oslo and coordinator of the UN Programme on Conflict Resolution, you know that in a conflict each and every action can not be viewed in isolation, but has to be seen in its socio-political context. In the concrete situation: A camp is a camp, to put a whole people behind barbed wire is racism.
The unambigous struggle for the immediate dissolution of the camps and the return of the IDP to their homes must be the absolute priority, and not to make life somewhat easier for the inmates...
Such a political commitment is, by the way, also in the best long-term interest of the Singhalese and all the other people living on the island.
Sincerely,Prof. Dr.John P.NeelsenInstitute of SociologyTuebingen UniversityD - 72074 Tuebingen/Germany
Allow me to reply to your appeal for financial contributions for the construction of 1000 latrins, and (earlier for) educational materials for Tamil youngsters in the camps in the Vanni. To state my position clearly at the outset: I am totally opposed to your proposal and hope to convince at least some of the other recipients of your appeal!
Only in passing, I like to remind you of the high sounding speeches, including yours, on peace, negotiations, and reconciliation at the April 2006 conference in Zurich/Switzerland ("Envisioning New Trajectories for Peace in SL") or your similarly titled volumes. With the armed resistance defeated, the LTTE decapitated, today these sentiments and arguments appear light-years away. I wonder how you (and the other, particularly Singhalese, participants) read -and defend - your respective contributions now...
Anyhow, today you are seemingly assuming a purely humanitarian viewpoint and, indeed, the door has been thrown wide open for all manifestly similarly minded people in NGOs and governments all over the world.
But, the plight of the Tamils is not due to a natural disaster, not another tsunami, but the result of the conscious policy of a government that had no calms of bombarding people that it claims as its own citizens with heavy artillery, according to some reports even illegal chemical weapons.
When even the then supporters of the GoSL in Berlin, Paris or London have demanded an enquiry into war crimes and violations of human and humanitarian law in view of the estimated 20.000 mostly dead civilians during the last few weeks, when even the established media question the internment of 300.000 Tamil IDP, there is no way for any self-respecting intellectual or the critical public in general in the country concerned to pretend that the only problem left to be tackled is "humanitarian".
Just the contrary! You speak -echoing the official government line - of '300.000 temporarily displaced Tamils being 'sheltered in welfare centres'. This is but typical Orwellian language trying to turn reality upside down in light of the razor sharp barbed wires surrounding these camps, of the military controlling all access to and exits from them, of the prevention of independent outside observers, journalists and NGOs from entering them, of official announcements that a new prolonged phase of "counter-insurgency".
The'welfare centres' are but internment camps, the 'rehabilitation in the camps' is but a racist policy of collective suspicion, intimidation, witchhunt, and impoverishment. When you talk of the "fear and anxiety of the people undoubtedly brainwashed by the LTTE" you seem to forget Bindunuwewa or Chemmani or the numerous reports by UN agencies and Human Rights organizations that have castigated the massive human rights violations, such as disappearances, extra-judicial killings, and torture committed for decades by the security forces especially against the SLT.
Apart from their own experiences, these terrified people may also have heard of the situation on the ground following the 'liberation' of the Eastern province in mid-July 2007. What the government euphemistically describes as a "Nagenahira Navodaya or Eastern Awakening" programme, has nothing to do with "post-conflict reconstruction" but is a nightmare of violence, political instability, repression, and land expropiration according to the International Crisis Group (Asia report No 165 of April 16, 2009 entitled "Development Assistance and Conflict in Sri Lanka - Lessons from the Eastern Province").
And this is only the tip of the iceberg when viewed against the appropriation of the state by the majority coupled with the systemic oppression, including pogroms, of the Tamil people and the minorities in language, education, public employment or land colonisation.
Against this background, your appeal is anything but well-minded and humanitarian, it is highly political, in fact legitimizing the racist policies of the GoSL. Instead of rising against the root causes, mobilizing the Singhalese public to fight against chauvinism, the security state, the dictatorship maskerading as democracy, for the rule of law and against the "culture of impunity", for a democratic, inclusive, participatory polity and society, you call for hand-outs, for charity implicitely justifying the present state of affairs.
As a former Dy.Director of SIPRI, Oslo and coordinator of the UN Programme on Conflict Resolution, you know that in a conflict each and every action can not be viewed in isolation, but has to be seen in its socio-political context. In the concrete situation: A camp is a camp, to put a whole people behind barbed wire is racism.
The unambigous struggle for the immediate dissolution of the camps and the return of the IDP to their homes must be the absolute priority, and not to make life somewhat easier for the inmates...
Such a political commitment is, by the way, also in the best long-term interest of the Singhalese and all the other people living on the island.
Sincerely,Prof. Dr.John P.NeelsenInstitute of SociologyTuebingen UniversityD - 72074 Tuebingen/Germany
UN concern over Sri Lanka camps
[ BBC ][ Jun 11 11:49 GMT ]
Most of Sri Lanka's displaced people could still be kept in government-run camps in one year's time, a UN official has told the BBC quoting army sources. But the government rejected the suggestion, saying that it aimed to resettle most by the end of this year. About 250,000 people fled the final bloody phase of the civil war between the government and Tamil Tiger rebels. Meanwhile, a human rights group accused the government of failing to probe rights abuses during the conflict. [ full story
Most of Sri Lanka's displaced people could still be kept in government-run camps in one year's time, a UN official has told the BBC quoting army sources. But the government rejected the suggestion, saying that it aimed to resettle most by the end of this year. About 250,000 people fled the final bloody phase of the civil war between the government and Tamil Tiger rebels. Meanwhile, a human rights group accused the government of failing to probe rights abuses during the conflict. [ full story
UN concern over Sri Lanka camps
Most of Sri Lanka's displaced people could still be kept in government-run camps in one year's time, a UN official has told the BBC quoting army sources. But the government rejected the suggestion, saying that it aimed to resettle most by the end of this year. About 250,000 people fled the final bloody phase of the civil war between the government and Tamil Tiger rebels. Meanwhile, a human rights group accused the government of failing to probe rights abuses during the conflict. [ full story
New Amnesty report reveals inability of Sri Lankan government to deliver justice
The Sri Lankan government's failure to deliver justice for serious human rights violations over the past 20 years has trapped the country in a vicious cycle of abuse and impunity, according to a new report published by Amnesty International today. The report, 'Twenty Years of Make-Believe: Sri Lanka's Commissions of Inquiry', documents the failure of successive Sri Lankan governments to provide accountability for serious human rights violations, including enforced disappearances, killings, and torture. [ full story
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
22 elderly IDPs die in Cheddikul’am internment camp
Twenty-two elderly internally displaced persons from Vanni detained in Sri Lanka Army (SLA) internment camps in Vavuniyaa and Cheddikul'am died in two days. Fourteen died on Sunday and eight on Monday and all those dead were above seventy years of age, medical sources said. Magisterial inquests into the deaths were held in Vavuniyaa general hospital and verdicts of natural death were recorded. However, medical sources in the hospital said they died due to lack of proper care and attention in the camps.
57,293 children held in Vavuniyaa SLA internment camps
57,293 children from Vanni are presently detained in Sri Lanka Army (SLA) internment camps in Vavuniyaa, U. L. M. Haldeen, Secretary to the Ministry of Disaster Relief said to the media. 1,034 children among the above are orphans or separated from their parents while there are 7,894 widows and 3,100 pregnant mothers in Vavuniyaa internment camps.There are 11,873 detainees injured in the war and 3,968 maimed persons held in the above camps.Meanwhile, there are 3,689 government officers among those detained, the Secretary said.
SLA refuses to release 6 Catholic priests detained in Vavuniyaa SLA camps
Sri Lanka Army (SLA) High Command rejected a request made by Jaffna Bishop, Rt. Rev. Thomas Saundaranayagam, to release the six Catholic priests from Vanni held in one of the SLA detention centres in Vavuniyaa as they are suffering from illness, Jaffna Bishop House sources said. The Bishop had made the request to Defence Secretary to allow the six priests to get back to their parishes, the sources added. Rev. Fr. Francis Gnanarasa Cruz from Mannaar district and Rev. Frs. Edward Selvarajah Mariyarasa, Alfred Vijayakamalan, Anthonipillai Anton Amalraj, Anton Seevan and Edmond Reginald from Jaffna districts are the six Catholic priests detained in the internment camp.The above priests are in a poor condition of health due to lack of basic facilities and medical treatment.The priests, who had remained in Puthumaaththa’lan in Vanni with the people until the last, have expressed their desire to remain with the rest of the Vanni civilians despite the hardships, Jaffna Bishop House sources said.SLA authorities had turned down a similar request to release the Saiva priests held in the SLA detention centres in Jaffna.
Boyle, Fein charge Sri Lanka of Genocide in Chennai seminar
Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois College of Law, and Bruce Fein, a Washington D.C. Attorney, speaking at a seminar in Chennai organized by the International Tamil Center Monday, reiterated charges of Genocide against the Sri Lanka Government alleging massacre of more than 50,000 Tamil civilians, sources attending the event said. While Prof. Boyle urged India to file charges in International Court against Sri Lanka for violating Geneva conventions, and to stop Colombo "to cease and desist from all acts of genocide against Tamils," Fein stressed the urgent need for the Tamils to reach a "consensus on their political aspirations." The event was organized by Dr Panchadcharam, a consultant physician from New York.
Video: Boyle, Fein speechesFull text of draft of Prof. Boyle's talk at the seminar follows:
THE RIGHTS OF THE TAMILS LIVING ON THE ISLAND OF SRI LANKA UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRACTICEIntroductionThere are two basic points I want to make: First, the Tamils living on Sri Lanka have been the victims of genocide. Second, the Tamils living on Sri Lanka have the right to self-determination under international law and practice, including the right to establish their own independent state if they so desire. And the fact that the Tamils living on Sri Lanka have been victims of genocide only strengthens and reinforces their right to self-determination, including establishing their own independent State if that is their desire.GenocideArticle I of the 1948 Genocide Convention requires all 140 states parties to immediately act in order “to prevent” the ongoing GOSL genocide against the Tamils. One of the most important steps the 140 contracting states parties to the Genocide Convention must take in order to fulfill their obligation under Article I is to sue Sri Lanka at the International Court of Justice in The Hague (the so-called World Court) for violating the 1948 Genocide Convention on the basis of Article IX thereto: “Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfillment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in Article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.”Any one or more of the 140 states parties to the Genocide Convention (1) must immediately sue Sri Lanka at the International Court of Justice in The Hague; (2) must demand an Emergency Hearing by the World Court; and (3) must request an Order indicating provisional measures of protection against Sri Lanka to cease and desist from committing all acts of genocide against the 300,000 Tamils in Vanni. Such a World Court Order is the international equivalent to a domestic temporary restraining order and permanent injunction. Once issued by the World Court, this Order would be immediately transmitted to the United Nations Security Council for enforcement under U.N. Charter article 94(2). So far the member states of the United Nations Security Council have failed and refused to act in order to do anything to stop the GOSL’s genocide against the Tamils (1) despite the fact that the situation in Vanni constitutes a “threat to the peace” that requires Security Council action under article 39 of the United Nations Charter and (2) despite the fact that they are all obligated “to prevent” Sri Lanka’s genocide against the Tamils under article I of the Genocide Convention. This World Court Order will put the matter on the Agenda of the Security Council and force the Security Council to take action in order “to prevent” the ongoing genocide against the Tamils by Sri Lanka. Article II of the Genocide Convention defines the international crime of genocide in relevant part as follows:In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group such as:(a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;….Certainly the Sinhala-Buddhist Sri Lanka and its legal predecessor Ceylon have committed genocide against the Hindu/Christian Tamils that actually started on or about 1948 and has continued apace until today and is now accelerating in Vanni in violation of Genocide Convention Articles II(a), (b), and (c). For the past six decades, the Sinhala-Buddhist Ceylon/Sri Lanka has implemented a systematic and comprehensive military, political, and economic campaign with the intent to destroy in substantial part the different national, ethnical, racial, and religious group constituting the Hindu/Christian Tamils. This Sinhala-Buddhist Ceylon/Sri Lanka campaign has consisted of killing members of the Hindu/Christian Tamils in violation of Genocide Convention Article II(a). This Sinhala-Buddhist Ceylon/Sri Lanka campaign has also caused serious bodily and mental harm to the Hindu/Christian Tamils in violation of Genocide Convention Article II(b). This Sinhala-Buddhist Ceylon/Sri Lanka campaign has also deliberately inflicted on the Hindu/Christian Tamils conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in substantial part in violation of Article II(c) of the Genocide Convention. Since 1983 the Sinhala-Buddhist Sri Lanka have exterminated approximately 100,000 Hindu/Christian Tamils. The Sinhala-Buddhist Sri Lanka have now added another 300,000 Hindu/Christian Tamils in Vanni to their genocidal death list. Humanity needs one state party to the Genocide Convention to fulfill its obligation under article I thereof to immediately sue Sri Lanka at the World Court in order to save the 300,000 Tamils in Vanni from further extermination. Time is of the essence!Self-determinationThis gets into the second point that I want to make concerning the Tamils as a group of people living on the Island of Sri Lanka – their right to self-determination under international law and practice. And here I wanted to quote from an international treaty to which the government of Sri Lanka is a party, thus explicitly recognizing that the Tamils living on the Island of Sri Lanka have a right of self-determination. This is from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the government of Sri Lanka is a party. They are bound by their own treaty, which says quite clearly in Article One: “All peoples have the right of self-determination.” And clearly, the Tamils living on the Island of Sri Lanka are a “people.” The Tamils on Sri Lanka have a separate language, race, ethnicity, and religions, from the GOSL. The Tamils see themselves as a separate group of “people” and they are perceived to be such by the GOSL. For that precise reason the GOSL has attempted to exterminate the Tamils and ethnically cleanse their Homeland. So no better proof is needed than that. Both the objective criteria and the subjective criteria for establishing a “people” with a right of self-determination under international law and practice have been fulfilled by the Tamils living on Sri Lanka.Let me continue enumerating a few more of the most basic self-determination rights of the Tamils living on Sri Lanka under international law that are recognized by this International Covenant that the GOSL is a party to: “By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” Those are rights that the Tamils living on Sri Lanka have today even as recognized by the government of Sri Lanka. Those are group rights and not just individual rights. And those are group rights that must be protected because the government of Sri Lanka has attacked the Tamils as a group, not just as individuals. So, since Tamils have been victims as a group, they must be protected as a group. And one of the most basic rights of all that the Tamils have to protect themselves is this right of self-determination including determining their political status and pursuing their own economic, social and cultural development, as well as the establishment of an independent state of their own if that is what the Tamils decide is required for them to accomplish these objectives. Another component of this right of self-determination for the Tamils living on Sri Lanka is set forth in paragraph (2) of this Article One of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the government of Sri Lanka is a party. Notice here I am only using the treaties the GOSL itself is a party to, including the Genocide Convention. I am not citing any principles of international law that the GOSL has not already recognized and indeed violated grievously with respect to the Tamils living on Sri Lanka: “All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic cooperation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may the people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.”Yet we all know for a fact that the GOSL has done everything humanly possible to deprive the Tamil people of their own means of subsistence to a level that now constitutes genocide, in violation of that provision I quoted before from the Genocide Convention prohibiting inflicting on a group conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole or in part. Notice these economic and political rights are related to each other. Both elements of the right to self-determination must protect the Tamils since they have been victims of genocide. We must protect their political rights as well as their economic rights, to freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources. The Tamil people, not the GOSL, must control their traditional Homeland in the North and the East of the Island, their farms, their mines, their plantations, their forests, their waters, their beaches etc. This is critical. Yet today we know that the GOSL is currently in the process of stealing, destroying and negating all these economic and political rights of the Tamils in their traditional Homeland in the North and the East of the Island of Sri Lanka. The GOSL is currently inflicting ethnic cleansing on the Tamils living there. I have already established that the Tamil people living on Sri Lanka have a right of self-determination, even in accordance with the GOSL’s own treaties themselves. What are some of the other political consequences of their right of self-determination? These are set forth in what is known as the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (1971). The government of Sri Lanka approved this Declaration in the United Nations General Assembly -- so I am not quoting here any provision of law that the GOSL has not already approved. And from the Declaration let me state what are the political alternatives that are open to the Tamil people, and they are set forth as follows: “[1] The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, [2] the free association or integration with an independent State, or [3] the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute the modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.”So again, it is not for the GOSL to determine what might be the ultimate political outcome here. It is for the Tamil people living on Sri Lanka to determine which of those three options they desire. I also want to make it clear that it is not for me to tell the Tamils on Sri Lanka which of these three options they should choose. Moreover, it is not for the Tamils of India to tell the Tamils on Sri Lanka which of these three options they should choose. This is for them to decide pursuant to their right of self-determination under international law and practice. However I do want to note that historically the only way a people that has been subjected to genocide like the Tamils on Sri Lanka have been able to protect themselves from further extermination has been the creation of an independent state of their own. Indeed as the world saw for the last several months the government of Sri Lanka wantonly, openly, shamelessly, and gratuitously exterminated over 50,000 Tamils in Vanni; yet not one state in the entire world rose to protect them or defend them or help them as required by Article I of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Hence the need for the Tamils on Sri Lanka to have their own independent state in order to protect themselves from further annihilation by the GOSL. International law and practice establish that an independent state of their own is the only effective remedy as well as the only appropriate reparation for a people who have been the victims of genocide.Now the Indian government has basically argued that if it were to recognize the right of the Tamils on Sri Lanka to self-determination and an independent state of their own, then the 60 million Tamils in Tamil Nadu would also assert that same right and proceed to secede from India. I submit this is a false dichotomy under international law and practice. It must not be used as an excuse for inaction by the government of India when it comes to protecting the Tamils living on Sri Lanka.In this regard, let me return to the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States that was approved by both India and Sri Lanka and sets forth rules of customary international law interpreting the terms of the United Nations Charter itself as determined by the International Court of Justice in the Nicaragua case (1986). In particular let me draw to your attention the following language: “Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as described above and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour.”This paragraph of the Declaration sets forth the rules of customary international law when it comes to the right of a people to secede from another state by means of exercising their right of self-determination. As you can see from the above language secession is permitted only when a government does not conduct itself “in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples” and thus does not represent “the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour.” From its very foundation in 1948 the government of Ceylon/Sri Lanka has never conducted itself “in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples” with respect to the Tamils. Furthermore, the government of Ceylon/Sri Lanka has never represented “the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour” with respect to the Tamils. In fact the government of Ceylon/Sri Lanka has always discriminated against and persecuted the Tamils on grounds of race, creed, colour, and language. This endemic pattern of criminal behavior by the Sinhala has now culminated in wholesale acts of genocide against the Tamils being inflicted by the government of Sri Lanka. So of course the Tamils have the right to secede from Sri Lanka under international law and practice and especially under the terms of this Declaration. Conversely, the government of India does conduct itself “in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples” with respect to the Tamils in Tamil Nadu and is thus “possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour.” India just had elections where the Tamils in Tamil Nadu participated on a basis of full equality with everyone else. The Tamils in India have full legal equality with all other peoples in India and indeed have their own state here in Tamil Nadu. Therefore in my opinion, the 60 million Tamils in Tamil Nadu do not have a right of secession under international law and practice according to this Declaration, which sets forth the basic rules of customary international law on this subject. Conversely, however, the Tamils living on Sri Lanka do have a right of secession under international law and practice including this Declaration for which both India and Sri Lanka voted. So with all due respect to the position of the Indian government, it is a false dichotomy for it to assert that recognition of the right of self-determination with an independent state of their own for the Tamils living on Sri Lanka would lead to the same for the Tamils in Tamil Nadu. There is no basis in international law for this conclusion. Indeed, basic principles of international law including this Declaration would fully support the territorial integrity of India in the event the government of India were to recognize the right of the Tamils living on the Island of Sri Lanka to self-determination including an independent state of their own.ConclusionBe that as it may, even if out of an excess of caution the government of India is not prepared to go that far at this time, nevertheless at a minimum, since it is the original homeland for the Tamils, the government of India has the right, the obligation, and the standing under international law and practice to act as parens patriae for the Tamils living on Sri Lanka. Therefore, India must immediately sue the GOSL for genocide at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, demand an Emergency Hearing of the Court, and request that the World Court issue a Temporary Restraining Order against the GOSL to cease and desist from committing all acts of genocide against the Tamils living on Sri Lanka. The ghosts of Dachau, Auschwitz, Cambodia, Sabra and Shatilla, Srebrenica, Rwanda, Kosovo, and now Vanni demand no less!
Video: Boyle, Fein speechesFull text of draft of Prof. Boyle's talk at the seminar follows:
THE RIGHTS OF THE TAMILS LIVING ON THE ISLAND OF SRI LANKA UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRACTICEIntroductionThere are two basic points I want to make: First, the Tamils living on Sri Lanka have been the victims of genocide. Second, the Tamils living on Sri Lanka have the right to self-determination under international law and practice, including the right to establish their own independent state if they so desire. And the fact that the Tamils living on Sri Lanka have been victims of genocide only strengthens and reinforces their right to self-determination, including establishing their own independent State if that is their desire.GenocideArticle I of the 1948 Genocide Convention requires all 140 states parties to immediately act in order “to prevent” the ongoing GOSL genocide against the Tamils. One of the most important steps the 140 contracting states parties to the Genocide Convention must take in order to fulfill their obligation under Article I is to sue Sri Lanka at the International Court of Justice in The Hague (the so-called World Court) for violating the 1948 Genocide Convention on the basis of Article IX thereto: “Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfillment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in Article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.”Any one or more of the 140 states parties to the Genocide Convention (1) must immediately sue Sri Lanka at the International Court of Justice in The Hague; (2) must demand an Emergency Hearing by the World Court; and (3) must request an Order indicating provisional measures of protection against Sri Lanka to cease and desist from committing all acts of genocide against the 300,000 Tamils in Vanni. Such a World Court Order is the international equivalent to a domestic temporary restraining order and permanent injunction. Once issued by the World Court, this Order would be immediately transmitted to the United Nations Security Council for enforcement under U.N. Charter article 94(2). So far the member states of the United Nations Security Council have failed and refused to act in order to do anything to stop the GOSL’s genocide against the Tamils (1) despite the fact that the situation in Vanni constitutes a “threat to the peace” that requires Security Council action under article 39 of the United Nations Charter and (2) despite the fact that they are all obligated “to prevent” Sri Lanka’s genocide against the Tamils under article I of the Genocide Convention. This World Court Order will put the matter on the Agenda of the Security Council and force the Security Council to take action in order “to prevent” the ongoing genocide against the Tamils by Sri Lanka. Article II of the Genocide Convention defines the international crime of genocide in relevant part as follows:In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group such as:(a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;….Certainly the Sinhala-Buddhist Sri Lanka and its legal predecessor Ceylon have committed genocide against the Hindu/Christian Tamils that actually started on or about 1948 and has continued apace until today and is now accelerating in Vanni in violation of Genocide Convention Articles II(a), (b), and (c). For the past six decades, the Sinhala-Buddhist Ceylon/Sri Lanka has implemented a systematic and comprehensive military, political, and economic campaign with the intent to destroy in substantial part the different national, ethnical, racial, and religious group constituting the Hindu/Christian Tamils. This Sinhala-Buddhist Ceylon/Sri Lanka campaign has consisted of killing members of the Hindu/Christian Tamils in violation of Genocide Convention Article II(a). This Sinhala-Buddhist Ceylon/Sri Lanka campaign has also caused serious bodily and mental harm to the Hindu/Christian Tamils in violation of Genocide Convention Article II(b). This Sinhala-Buddhist Ceylon/Sri Lanka campaign has also deliberately inflicted on the Hindu/Christian Tamils conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in substantial part in violation of Article II(c) of the Genocide Convention. Since 1983 the Sinhala-Buddhist Sri Lanka have exterminated approximately 100,000 Hindu/Christian Tamils. The Sinhala-Buddhist Sri Lanka have now added another 300,000 Hindu/Christian Tamils in Vanni to their genocidal death list. Humanity needs one state party to the Genocide Convention to fulfill its obligation under article I thereof to immediately sue Sri Lanka at the World Court in order to save the 300,000 Tamils in Vanni from further extermination. Time is of the essence!Self-determinationThis gets into the second point that I want to make concerning the Tamils as a group of people living on the Island of Sri Lanka – their right to self-determination under international law and practice. And here I wanted to quote from an international treaty to which the government of Sri Lanka is a party, thus explicitly recognizing that the Tamils living on the Island of Sri Lanka have a right of self-determination. This is from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the government of Sri Lanka is a party. They are bound by their own treaty, which says quite clearly in Article One: “All peoples have the right of self-determination.” And clearly, the Tamils living on the Island of Sri Lanka are a “people.” The Tamils on Sri Lanka have a separate language, race, ethnicity, and religions, from the GOSL. The Tamils see themselves as a separate group of “people” and they are perceived to be such by the GOSL. For that precise reason the GOSL has attempted to exterminate the Tamils and ethnically cleanse their Homeland. So no better proof is needed than that. Both the objective criteria and the subjective criteria for establishing a “people” with a right of self-determination under international law and practice have been fulfilled by the Tamils living on Sri Lanka.Let me continue enumerating a few more of the most basic self-determination rights of the Tamils living on Sri Lanka under international law that are recognized by this International Covenant that the GOSL is a party to: “By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” Those are rights that the Tamils living on Sri Lanka have today even as recognized by the government of Sri Lanka. Those are group rights and not just individual rights. And those are group rights that must be protected because the government of Sri Lanka has attacked the Tamils as a group, not just as individuals. So, since Tamils have been victims as a group, they must be protected as a group. And one of the most basic rights of all that the Tamils have to protect themselves is this right of self-determination including determining their political status and pursuing their own economic, social and cultural development, as well as the establishment of an independent state of their own if that is what the Tamils decide is required for them to accomplish these objectives. Another component of this right of self-determination for the Tamils living on Sri Lanka is set forth in paragraph (2) of this Article One of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the government of Sri Lanka is a party. Notice here I am only using the treaties the GOSL itself is a party to, including the Genocide Convention. I am not citing any principles of international law that the GOSL has not already recognized and indeed violated grievously with respect to the Tamils living on Sri Lanka: “All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic cooperation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may the people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.”Yet we all know for a fact that the GOSL has done everything humanly possible to deprive the Tamil people of their own means of subsistence to a level that now constitutes genocide, in violation of that provision I quoted before from the Genocide Convention prohibiting inflicting on a group conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole or in part. Notice these economic and political rights are related to each other. Both elements of the right to self-determination must protect the Tamils since they have been victims of genocide. We must protect their political rights as well as their economic rights, to freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources. The Tamil people, not the GOSL, must control their traditional Homeland in the North and the East of the Island, their farms, their mines, their plantations, their forests, their waters, their beaches etc. This is critical. Yet today we know that the GOSL is currently in the process of stealing, destroying and negating all these economic and political rights of the Tamils in their traditional Homeland in the North and the East of the Island of Sri Lanka. The GOSL is currently inflicting ethnic cleansing on the Tamils living there. I have already established that the Tamil people living on Sri Lanka have a right of self-determination, even in accordance with the GOSL’s own treaties themselves. What are some of the other political consequences of their right of self-determination? These are set forth in what is known as the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (1971). The government of Sri Lanka approved this Declaration in the United Nations General Assembly -- so I am not quoting here any provision of law that the GOSL has not already approved. And from the Declaration let me state what are the political alternatives that are open to the Tamil people, and they are set forth as follows: “[1] The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, [2] the free association or integration with an independent State, or [3] the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute the modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.”So again, it is not for the GOSL to determine what might be the ultimate political outcome here. It is for the Tamil people living on Sri Lanka to determine which of those three options they desire. I also want to make it clear that it is not for me to tell the Tamils on Sri Lanka which of these three options they should choose. Moreover, it is not for the Tamils of India to tell the Tamils on Sri Lanka which of these three options they should choose. This is for them to decide pursuant to their right of self-determination under international law and practice. However I do want to note that historically the only way a people that has been subjected to genocide like the Tamils on Sri Lanka have been able to protect themselves from further extermination has been the creation of an independent state of their own. Indeed as the world saw for the last several months the government of Sri Lanka wantonly, openly, shamelessly, and gratuitously exterminated over 50,000 Tamils in Vanni; yet not one state in the entire world rose to protect them or defend them or help them as required by Article I of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Hence the need for the Tamils on Sri Lanka to have their own independent state in order to protect themselves from further annihilation by the GOSL. International law and practice establish that an independent state of their own is the only effective remedy as well as the only appropriate reparation for a people who have been the victims of genocide.Now the Indian government has basically argued that if it were to recognize the right of the Tamils on Sri Lanka to self-determination and an independent state of their own, then the 60 million Tamils in Tamil Nadu would also assert that same right and proceed to secede from India. I submit this is a false dichotomy under international law and practice. It must not be used as an excuse for inaction by the government of India when it comes to protecting the Tamils living on Sri Lanka.In this regard, let me return to the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States that was approved by both India and Sri Lanka and sets forth rules of customary international law interpreting the terms of the United Nations Charter itself as determined by the International Court of Justice in the Nicaragua case (1986). In particular let me draw to your attention the following language: “Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as described above and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour.”This paragraph of the Declaration sets forth the rules of customary international law when it comes to the right of a people to secede from another state by means of exercising their right of self-determination. As you can see from the above language secession is permitted only when a government does not conduct itself “in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples” and thus does not represent “the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour.” From its very foundation in 1948 the government of Ceylon/Sri Lanka has never conducted itself “in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples” with respect to the Tamils. Furthermore, the government of Ceylon/Sri Lanka has never represented “the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour” with respect to the Tamils. In fact the government of Ceylon/Sri Lanka has always discriminated against and persecuted the Tamils on grounds of race, creed, colour, and language. This endemic pattern of criminal behavior by the Sinhala has now culminated in wholesale acts of genocide against the Tamils being inflicted by the government of Sri Lanka. So of course the Tamils have the right to secede from Sri Lanka under international law and practice and especially under the terms of this Declaration. Conversely, the government of India does conduct itself “in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples” with respect to the Tamils in Tamil Nadu and is thus “possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour.” India just had elections where the Tamils in Tamil Nadu participated on a basis of full equality with everyone else. The Tamils in India have full legal equality with all other peoples in India and indeed have their own state here in Tamil Nadu. Therefore in my opinion, the 60 million Tamils in Tamil Nadu do not have a right of secession under international law and practice according to this Declaration, which sets forth the basic rules of customary international law on this subject. Conversely, however, the Tamils living on Sri Lanka do have a right of secession under international law and practice including this Declaration for which both India and Sri Lanka voted. So with all due respect to the position of the Indian government, it is a false dichotomy for it to assert that recognition of the right of self-determination with an independent state of their own for the Tamils living on Sri Lanka would lead to the same for the Tamils in Tamil Nadu. There is no basis in international law for this conclusion. Indeed, basic principles of international law including this Declaration would fully support the territorial integrity of India in the event the government of India were to recognize the right of the Tamils living on the Island of Sri Lanka to self-determination including an independent state of their own.ConclusionBe that as it may, even if out of an excess of caution the government of India is not prepared to go that far at this time, nevertheless at a minimum, since it is the original homeland for the Tamils, the government of India has the right, the obligation, and the standing under international law and practice to act as parens patriae for the Tamils living on Sri Lanka. Therefore, India must immediately sue the GOSL for genocide at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, demand an Emergency Hearing of the Court, and request that the World Court issue a Temporary Restraining Order against the GOSL to cease and desist from committing all acts of genocide against the Tamils living on Sri Lanka. The ghosts of Dachau, Auschwitz, Cambodia, Sabra and Shatilla, Srebrenica, Rwanda, Kosovo, and now Vanni demand no less!
Bob Rae denied entry to Sri Lanka - report
[TamilNet, Wednesday, 10 June 2009]Sri Lanka Wednesday denied entry to Bob Rae, a prominent Canadian politician outspoken in his criticism of Colombo’s military campaign and then Chair of the Forum of Federations, the constitutional NGO advising the Norwegian peace process during 2002 and 2003. Sri Lanka’s Immigration Commissioner P. B. Abeykoon said “intelligence reports” meant Mr. Rae should not to be admitted and was therefore detained when he arrived at Colombo airport and put on a leaving flight.
Former Ontario Premier Bob Rae
"We got some intelligence reports on this gentleman and the instructions were not to allow him into the country, so he is detained at the airport and he will be deported by the next available flight," Mr. Abeykoon told Reuters.Sri Lanka's intelligence services deemed Mr. Rae's visit "not suitable" and former Ontario premier was forced to leave on another flight, AP said.Mr. Rae said he was stopped on Tuesday night when he reached the immigration counter in the company of two Canadian High Commission officials."The government of Sri Lanka knew my views, and granted me a visa," he said in an emailed statement. "I have flown a very long way only to be told the door is firmly shut."In April, Mr. Rae had called on Canada to be more outspoken in its criticism of Sri Lanka's recent offensive against the Tamil Tigers that left 20,000 Tamil civilians dead.“The world can't just sit back and let this death and destruction happen,” he said in April as Sri Lankan artillery continued to kill and wound hundreds of Tamil civilians every day.“This is a humanitarian disaster and must be met with a concerted response.”Mr. Rae said in April Canada should be working with a group of like-minded countries to press for a complete ceasefire and a return to full-scale negotiations on the constitutional future of the country.According to his office, his recommendations included that the LTTE had to abandon terrorism and that the government of Sri Lanka had to accept the need for a political response to the crisis rather than a simple military one.Mr. Rae has advised and worked on federalism and constitutional matters in Sri Lanka, Sudan and Iraq.
Former Ontario Premier Bob Rae
"We got some intelligence reports on this gentleman and the instructions were not to allow him into the country, so he is detained at the airport and he will be deported by the next available flight," Mr. Abeykoon told Reuters.Sri Lanka's intelligence services deemed Mr. Rae's visit "not suitable" and former Ontario premier was forced to leave on another flight, AP said.Mr. Rae said he was stopped on Tuesday night when he reached the immigration counter in the company of two Canadian High Commission officials."The government of Sri Lanka knew my views, and granted me a visa," he said in an emailed statement. "I have flown a very long way only to be told the door is firmly shut."In April, Mr. Rae had called on Canada to be more outspoken in its criticism of Sri Lanka's recent offensive against the Tamil Tigers that left 20,000 Tamil civilians dead.“The world can't just sit back and let this death and destruction happen,” he said in April as Sri Lankan artillery continued to kill and wound hundreds of Tamil civilians every day.“This is a humanitarian disaster and must be met with a concerted response.”Mr. Rae said in April Canada should be working with a group of like-minded countries to press for a complete ceasefire and a return to full-scale negotiations on the constitutional future of the country.According to his office, his recommendations included that the LTTE had to abandon terrorism and that the government of Sri Lanka had to accept the need for a political response to the crisis rather than a simple military one.Mr. Rae has advised and worked on federalism and constitutional matters in Sri Lanka, Sudan and Iraq.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
On Sri Lanka, UN Has No Comment on Anti-Terror Law, Ban's Freetown Rep Not Worried By Protest
Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis
UNITED NATIONS, June 9 -- As UN money supports internment camps in northern Sri Lanka, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has said that he is closely monitoring compliance with the Joint Statement he signed with President Mahinda Rajapaksa.
But on June 9, in a UN noon briefing with no real time pressure and only three journalists in the room, Ban's Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe first tried to shift directly from a twelve minute read out of press releases to a guest about Sierra Leone, then begrudgingly agreed to take Inner City Press' "daily two questions."
Inner City Press asked if Sri Lanka's extension of its anti-terrorism laws, which allow detention with out charge and are directly disproportionately against the Tamil minority, are consistent with Ban's understanding of the Commitment, and with his call against triumphalism and for reconciliation.
Ms. Okabe called this a mere "press report" on which the UN has no comment. For the sake of time, she said, let's turn it over to the guest. Video here, from Minute 12:39.
First, the extension of the anti-terrorism laws was extensively reported, and is a legislative fact. Any office closely monitoring developments in Sri Lanka would be aware of it, and should be prepared to comment hours later on it -- particularly since the detained doctors who remained in the "No Fire" zone offering treatment and casualty figures, about whom Ban has expressed concern, are being held under these laws.
Second, there was no rush to get the guest, the representative in Sierra Leone, on. The noon briefing had been reduced to a less than 15 minutes, more than 12 minutes of which consisted of Ms. Okabe reading out loud UN press releases.
It appeared clear that Ms. Okabe simply didn't want to answer questions. To be so dismissive of Sri Lanka, a topic the Secretary General is ostensibly monitoring closely, appears to be inconsistent.
UN's Ban and troops during Africa trip, SLPP and doctors not shown
The Sierra Leone UN representative, Michael Schulenburg, is also accused of being too close to the country's president. Inner City Press asked Schulenburg to respond to a quote from the US representative of the opposition SLPP, that Schulenburg's and Ban's report "reads more like an eulogy to President Koroma than an objective, professional, and balanced report on the fair implementation of the very communique."
Schulenburg said that the criticism of his approach is only from "one journalist." Even Ban's high officials point the finger at three media organizations -- click here and here for that.
Inner City Press asked Schulenburg about reports that SLPP supporters may stage protests. I don't that, Schulenburg said. "I'm not worried about this at all." Video here, from Minute 32:51.
Schulenburg said he did not recognize the name of the US representative of the opposition SLPP. Outreach seems in order.
Footnote: In fact, with Ban Ki-moon slated to get another award, this time on June 17 at 630 p.m. at the St Regis Hotel in Manhattan, there is talk about a protest by people concerned with the UN's action and lack of action in Sri Lanka. Again, outreach -- and action, follow through -- seem in order. Watch this site.
* * *
In Sri Lanka, UN Pays for Camps But No Legal Protections, Nor for NGOs, Will Council Hear?
Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis
UNITED NATIONS, June 8 -- The outgoing chief justice of Sri Lanka, Sarath Nanda Silva, said before he left that those interred in the camps in Menik Farm have no legal protections, cannot get justice for their claims before the courts that he oversaw.
On June 8 in New York, Inner City Press asked UN Associate Spokesman Farhan Haq if this is the UN's understanding, given that the UN is largely paying for, and had just bragged about, the camps. Haq replied that the UN is pushing for freedom of movement, telling the government to speed up its "screening and registration."
The screening is, in essence, political screening, to gauge whether people support not only the LTTE but also the cause of Tamil rights. Since the UN is pay for this, it seems fair to ask what legal protections are in place.
Inner City Press asked again, in response to which Haq said, "I am not aware of the jurisdiction of the court system. I think that’s a national issue." Transcript here and below; video here, from Minute 16:38.
But if the UN pays to lock people up, the non-existence of safeguards cannot be considered only a national issue.
Inner City Press asked for the UN's response to the visas denied to international staff of CARE, Save the Children, NRC and others. Haq said, we continue to stress the need for humanitarian access. With whom? When NGOs were barred from Sudan, the UN Secretariat shouted. And now?
UN's Ban in Manik Farm, legal protections for IDPs not shown
While some reported that Ban Ki-moon on June 5 called for an investigation, his actual words were far more wishy -washy: if there were violations, they should be investigated. This allows the Sri Lankan government to claim there were no violations, just as they insist against all evidence that not a single civilians was killed by their assault on the "No Fire" Zone.
Nevertheless, when Inner City Press asked Rosemary DiCarlo of the U.S. Mission what may happen next at the UN about Sri Lanka, she said that she and the U.S. expect Ban to continue to brief the Council, on compliance with the Joint Statement he signed with President Mahinda Rajapaksa.
More skeptical observers opine that absent publicized event which shame the UN and Council into action, the agenda will continue to include Haiti and Burundi, and even Myanmar, but not Sri Lanka. We'll see.
From the June 8 UN transcript:
Inner City Press: on Sri Lanka, the Chief Justice there has been quoted as saying that the people that are in the camps, including the 280,000 people on the Menik Farm camps were outside of the protection of the law, that the Sri Lankan justice system has no jurisdiction over them or their claims. Is that the UN’s understanding, given that it’s paying in large part for the camps? And also, the NGOs -- CARE, Save the Children, NRC -- all have had international staff refused visas, and I wondered what OCHA is doing about that.
Associate Spokesperson Haq: Well, first of all, regarding the Chief Justice’s comments, the UN at the highest levels has been insisting on the need for freedom of movement for the people in these camps since the end of the conflict. Freedom of movement for people in the IDP camps is essential. The Government is trying to expedite the screening and registration of IDPs but this needs to be done faster. The Government must allow family reunification and the issuance of ID cards and facilitate freer movement in and out of the camps. The Government needs to facilitate early return and resettlement of IDPs, while ensuring the voluntary nature of such movements.
Inner City Press: [inaudible] does the court system have jurisdiction over their claims? Is that the UN’s understanding?
Associate Spokesperson Haq: I am not aware of the jurisdiction of the court system. I think that’s a national issue.
Again, if the UN pays to lock people up, the non-existence of safeguards should not be considered only a national issue.
At UN, "Last" Sri Lanka Meeting Is Closed, "Just a Briefing," Will Ban Finally Speak?
Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis
UNITED NATIONS, June 5, updated live blog -- As the UN Security Council assembled in the basement for what they say will probably be their last meeting on Sri Lanka, three representatives of the Sri Lankan mission slipped into Conference Room 6. Inner City Press asked U.S. Ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo if there is any chance of an outcome to the meeting, even a statement to the Press by the Council president, as April's president Claude Heller of Mexico did. No, Amb. DiCarlo indicted, "this is just a briefing."
Initially, Amb. DiCarlo asked the Press, "Is this about North Korea?" On that topic, considered upstairs in the Council chamber, Inner City Press was first to obtain and publish the new draft resolution, here.
Ban Ki-moon arrived at 3:15 p.m., flanked by his advisors Vijay Nambair, Kim Won-soo and his spokesperson Michele Montas. At Friday's noon briefing, Inner City Press asked if Ban would speak to the Press after his briefing. The question was not answered.
UN's Ban on "victory tour" in Sri Lanka
European Council sources told Inner City Press is was hard even getting this "unofficial" briefing. "The conflict is over," one said. But other say, the dirty war continues, now funded by the UN. Watch this site.
Update of 4:02 p.m. -- Russian Ambassador Churkin left the meeting, a crowd of Japanese media chasing him up the stairs to ask about... the North Korea resolution. Chinese Deputy Lui left, jaunty as ever, but had no comment. Mexican Ambassador Heller left, we're sad to say, to attend a movie in the conference room next door, "Between Fire and Water." The Mission of Mexico was the sponsor, so ...
Update of 4:32 p.m. -- France's Ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert left the meeting, heading straight upstairs as a reporter -- from Japnese media this time -- called after him, "On Sri Lanka?" Ripert did not stop. Some surmised that the Sri Lanka question was meant to lure Ripert in, to answer questions about North Korea....
Update of 5:04 p.m. -- one after the other, Ban Ki-moon, Japan's Ambassador Takasu and Sri Lanka's Ambassador came to the stakeout microphone. Mr. Ban said that he will push fro compliance with the Joint Statement he and President Rajapaksa signed. Inner City Press asked, what about reports of people being disappeared from the IDP camps (which are UN-funded), and about the three doctors who remained in the conflict zone offering treatment and casualty figures? Mr. Ban said he had raised the issue of the doctors to President Rajapaksa, and separately to Sri Lanka's foreign minister. Minutes later, Sri Lanka's ambassador said that while the ICRC has been allowed to visit the doctors, they will be subject to judicial process.
Sri Lanka's Ambassador said he didn't know the specifics of the expulsion of the head of Norway-based NGO Forut. When Inner City Press asked about the status of the Mememordum of Understanding with NGOs, about which John Holmes in a closed door meeting (the script for which Inner City Press obtained and put on line) said was a matter of concern and would set a bad precedent, Sri Lanka's Ambassador disagreed, saying Holmes had never said that, that the only concern is that NGOs which sign may have difficulty raising money.
Clarification should be given by Holmes. At the time, he declined to speak about the MOU, saying it had been put to the side. Apparently not anymore, according to Sri Lanka's Ambassador to the UN.
Japan's Ambassador said he would speak about North Korea, and proceeded to tell the press not to mis-report that agreement has been reached among the P-5 plus 2. For Inner City Press, which put online the P-5's most recent draft, not a problem: the draft was sent to capitals of the P-5 plus 2.
Inner City Press asked Amb. Takasu, "A question on Sri Lanka?" No, he indicated, he did not want to leave the Sri Lankan Ambassador waiting. And so the question would have been, why did Japan abstain on the Human Rights Council's resolution -- does Japan favor in inquiry into possible war crimes in Sri Lanka or not?
Watch this site.
Channel 4 in the UK with allegations of rape and disappearance
Click here for an Inner City Press YouTube channel video, mostly UN Headquarters footage, about civilian deaths in Sri Lanka.
Click here for Inner City Press' March 27 UN debate
Click here for Inner City Press March 12 UN (and AIG bailout) debate
Click here for Inner City Press' Feb 26 UN debate
Click here for Feb. 12 debate on Sri Lanka http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/17772?in=11:33&out=32:56
Click here for Inner City Press' Jan. 16, 2009 debate about Gaza
Click here for Inner City Press' review-of-2008 UN Top Ten debate
Click here for Inner City Press' December 24 debate on UN budget, Niger
Click here from Inner City Press' December 12 debate on UN double standards
Click here for Inner City Press' November 25 debate on Somalia, politics
and this October 17 debate, on Security Council and Obama and the UN
UNITED NATIONS, June 9 -- As UN money supports internment camps in northern Sri Lanka, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has said that he is closely monitoring compliance with the Joint Statement he signed with President Mahinda Rajapaksa.
But on June 9, in a UN noon briefing with no real time pressure and only three journalists in the room, Ban's Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe first tried to shift directly from a twelve minute read out of press releases to a guest about Sierra Leone, then begrudgingly agreed to take Inner City Press' "daily two questions."
Inner City Press asked if Sri Lanka's extension of its anti-terrorism laws, which allow detention with out charge and are directly disproportionately against the Tamil minority, are consistent with Ban's understanding of the Commitment, and with his call against triumphalism and for reconciliation.
Ms. Okabe called this a mere "press report" on which the UN has no comment. For the sake of time, she said, let's turn it over to the guest. Video here, from Minute 12:39.
First, the extension of the anti-terrorism laws was extensively reported, and is a legislative fact. Any office closely monitoring developments in Sri Lanka would be aware of it, and should be prepared to comment hours later on it -- particularly since the detained doctors who remained in the "No Fire" zone offering treatment and casualty figures, about whom Ban has expressed concern, are being held under these laws.
Second, there was no rush to get the guest, the representative in Sierra Leone, on. The noon briefing had been reduced to a less than 15 minutes, more than 12 minutes of which consisted of Ms. Okabe reading out loud UN press releases.
It appeared clear that Ms. Okabe simply didn't want to answer questions. To be so dismissive of Sri Lanka, a topic the Secretary General is ostensibly monitoring closely, appears to be inconsistent.
UN's Ban and troops during Africa trip, SLPP and doctors not shown
The Sierra Leone UN representative, Michael Schulenburg, is also accused of being too close to the country's president. Inner City Press asked Schulenburg to respond to a quote from the US representative of the opposition SLPP, that Schulenburg's and Ban's report "reads more like an eulogy to President Koroma than an objective, professional, and balanced report on the fair implementation of the very communique."
Schulenburg said that the criticism of his approach is only from "one journalist." Even Ban's high officials point the finger at three media organizations -- click here and here for that.
Inner City Press asked Schulenburg about reports that SLPP supporters may stage protests. I don't that, Schulenburg said. "I'm not worried about this at all." Video here, from Minute 32:51.
Schulenburg said he did not recognize the name of the US representative of the opposition SLPP. Outreach seems in order.
Footnote: In fact, with Ban Ki-moon slated to get another award, this time on June 17 at 630 p.m. at the St Regis Hotel in Manhattan, there is talk about a protest by people concerned with the UN's action and lack of action in Sri Lanka. Again, outreach -- and action, follow through -- seem in order. Watch this site.
* * *
In Sri Lanka, UN Pays for Camps But No Legal Protections, Nor for NGOs, Will Council Hear?
Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis
UNITED NATIONS, June 8 -- The outgoing chief justice of Sri Lanka, Sarath Nanda Silva, said before he left that those interred in the camps in Menik Farm have no legal protections, cannot get justice for their claims before the courts that he oversaw.
On June 8 in New York, Inner City Press asked UN Associate Spokesman Farhan Haq if this is the UN's understanding, given that the UN is largely paying for, and had just bragged about, the camps. Haq replied that the UN is pushing for freedom of movement, telling the government to speed up its "screening and registration."
The screening is, in essence, political screening, to gauge whether people support not only the LTTE but also the cause of Tamil rights. Since the UN is pay for this, it seems fair to ask what legal protections are in place.
Inner City Press asked again, in response to which Haq said, "I am not aware of the jurisdiction of the court system. I think that’s a national issue." Transcript here and below; video here, from Minute 16:38.
But if the UN pays to lock people up, the non-existence of safeguards cannot be considered only a national issue.
Inner City Press asked for the UN's response to the visas denied to international staff of CARE, Save the Children, NRC and others. Haq said, we continue to stress the need for humanitarian access. With whom? When NGOs were barred from Sudan, the UN Secretariat shouted. And now?
UN's Ban in Manik Farm, legal protections for IDPs not shown
While some reported that Ban Ki-moon on June 5 called for an investigation, his actual words were far more wishy -washy: if there were violations, they should be investigated. This allows the Sri Lankan government to claim there were no violations, just as they insist against all evidence that not a single civilians was killed by their assault on the "No Fire" Zone.
Nevertheless, when Inner City Press asked Rosemary DiCarlo of the U.S. Mission what may happen next at the UN about Sri Lanka, she said that she and the U.S. expect Ban to continue to brief the Council, on compliance with the Joint Statement he signed with President Mahinda Rajapaksa.
More skeptical observers opine that absent publicized event which shame the UN and Council into action, the agenda will continue to include Haiti and Burundi, and even Myanmar, but not Sri Lanka. We'll see.
From the June 8 UN transcript:
Inner City Press: on Sri Lanka, the Chief Justice there has been quoted as saying that the people that are in the camps, including the 280,000 people on the Menik Farm camps were outside of the protection of the law, that the Sri Lankan justice system has no jurisdiction over them or their claims. Is that the UN’s understanding, given that it’s paying in large part for the camps? And also, the NGOs -- CARE, Save the Children, NRC -- all have had international staff refused visas, and I wondered what OCHA is doing about that.
Associate Spokesperson Haq: Well, first of all, regarding the Chief Justice’s comments, the UN at the highest levels has been insisting on the need for freedom of movement for the people in these camps since the end of the conflict. Freedom of movement for people in the IDP camps is essential. The Government is trying to expedite the screening and registration of IDPs but this needs to be done faster. The Government must allow family reunification and the issuance of ID cards and facilitate freer movement in and out of the camps. The Government needs to facilitate early return and resettlement of IDPs, while ensuring the voluntary nature of such movements.
Inner City Press: [inaudible] does the court system have jurisdiction over their claims? Is that the UN’s understanding?
Associate Spokesperson Haq: I am not aware of the jurisdiction of the court system. I think that’s a national issue.
Again, if the UN pays to lock people up, the non-existence of safeguards should not be considered only a national issue.
At UN, "Last" Sri Lanka Meeting Is Closed, "Just a Briefing," Will Ban Finally Speak?
Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis
UNITED NATIONS, June 5, updated live blog -- As the UN Security Council assembled in the basement for what they say will probably be their last meeting on Sri Lanka, three representatives of the Sri Lankan mission slipped into Conference Room 6. Inner City Press asked U.S. Ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo if there is any chance of an outcome to the meeting, even a statement to the Press by the Council president, as April's president Claude Heller of Mexico did. No, Amb. DiCarlo indicted, "this is just a briefing."
Initially, Amb. DiCarlo asked the Press, "Is this about North Korea?" On that topic, considered upstairs in the Council chamber, Inner City Press was first to obtain and publish the new draft resolution, here.
Ban Ki-moon arrived at 3:15 p.m., flanked by his advisors Vijay Nambair, Kim Won-soo and his spokesperson Michele Montas. At Friday's noon briefing, Inner City Press asked if Ban would speak to the Press after his briefing. The question was not answered.
UN's Ban on "victory tour" in Sri Lanka
European Council sources told Inner City Press is was hard even getting this "unofficial" briefing. "The conflict is over," one said. But other say, the dirty war continues, now funded by the UN. Watch this site.
Update of 4:02 p.m. -- Russian Ambassador Churkin left the meeting, a crowd of Japanese media chasing him up the stairs to ask about... the North Korea resolution. Chinese Deputy Lui left, jaunty as ever, but had no comment. Mexican Ambassador Heller left, we're sad to say, to attend a movie in the conference room next door, "Between Fire and Water." The Mission of Mexico was the sponsor, so ...
Update of 4:32 p.m. -- France's Ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert left the meeting, heading straight upstairs as a reporter -- from Japnese media this time -- called after him, "On Sri Lanka?" Ripert did not stop. Some surmised that the Sri Lanka question was meant to lure Ripert in, to answer questions about North Korea....
Update of 5:04 p.m. -- one after the other, Ban Ki-moon, Japan's Ambassador Takasu and Sri Lanka's Ambassador came to the stakeout microphone. Mr. Ban said that he will push fro compliance with the Joint Statement he and President Rajapaksa signed. Inner City Press asked, what about reports of people being disappeared from the IDP camps (which are UN-funded), and about the three doctors who remained in the conflict zone offering treatment and casualty figures? Mr. Ban said he had raised the issue of the doctors to President Rajapaksa, and separately to Sri Lanka's foreign minister. Minutes later, Sri Lanka's ambassador said that while the ICRC has been allowed to visit the doctors, they will be subject to judicial process.
Sri Lanka's Ambassador said he didn't know the specifics of the expulsion of the head of Norway-based NGO Forut. When Inner City Press asked about the status of the Mememordum of Understanding with NGOs, about which John Holmes in a closed door meeting (the script for which Inner City Press obtained and put on line) said was a matter of concern and would set a bad precedent, Sri Lanka's Ambassador disagreed, saying Holmes had never said that, that the only concern is that NGOs which sign may have difficulty raising money.
Clarification should be given by Holmes. At the time, he declined to speak about the MOU, saying it had been put to the side. Apparently not anymore, according to Sri Lanka's Ambassador to the UN.
Japan's Ambassador said he would speak about North Korea, and proceeded to tell the press not to mis-report that agreement has been reached among the P-5 plus 2. For Inner City Press, which put online the P-5's most recent draft, not a problem: the draft was sent to capitals of the P-5 plus 2.
Inner City Press asked Amb. Takasu, "A question on Sri Lanka?" No, he indicated, he did not want to leave the Sri Lankan Ambassador waiting. And so the question would have been, why did Japan abstain on the Human Rights Council's resolution -- does Japan favor in inquiry into possible war crimes in Sri Lanka or not?
Watch this site.
Channel 4 in the UK with allegations of rape and disappearance
Click here for an Inner City Press YouTube channel video, mostly UN Headquarters footage, about civilian deaths in Sri Lanka.
Click here for Inner City Press' March 27 UN debate
Click here for Inner City Press March 12 UN (and AIG bailout) debate
Click here for Inner City Press' Feb 26 UN debate
Click here for Feb. 12 debate on Sri Lanka http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/17772?in=11:33&out=32:56
Click here for Inner City Press' Jan. 16, 2009 debate about Gaza
Click here for Inner City Press' review-of-2008 UN Top Ten debate
Click here for Inner City Press' December 24 debate on UN budget, Niger
Click here from Inner City Press' December 12 debate on UN double standards
Click here for Inner City Press' November 25 debate on Somalia, politics
and this October 17 debate, on Security Council and Obama and the UN
'Our hands are tainted with blood,' admits Suryanarayan
[TamilNet, Tuesday, 09 June 2009, 07:36 GMT]“Our hands are tainted with blood”, admitted professor V. Suryanarayan, a member of India’s national security advisory panel during Vanni war, in a conference organised by International Tamil Centre, Chennai, on Monday. He also implied the connivance of the Tamil Nadu government when he said in this context that “during the last two three years New Delhi will not take any action without consulting Tamil Nadu”. However, Tamil circles found his criticism of India’s Sri Lanka policy leading nowhere to justice but was harping only on Indian aid conditioning Sri Lanka so that “a Tamil can be a Tamil but at the same time a loyal Sri Lankan”. A diplomatic failure of India according to Suryanarayan was that the fear that India can intervene has been removed.
V Suryanarayan
“And the consequence of it took place in the human rights council when we were in the illustrious company of Pakistan and China. As an Indian I feel ashamed the voting behaviour of New Delhi. We should have abstained from voting”, he said.In the opinion of international observers it was India that orchestrated votes in favour of Sri Lanka in the human rights council.Many viewed it as an academic post mortem when Suryanarayan said, “I also express my feeling with a great sense of sorrow that there is no transparency in India’s policy towards Sri Lanka”. For many years now, people outside of India have been pointing out the handling of India’s Sri Lanka policy by a few, biased, extra parliamentary elements.Coming hard on Sri Lanka, Suryanarayan said, “Sri Lanka has the unique distinction of one of those countries, which bombs its own citizens. Not just bombing but savage bombing”.“And the bell tolls not only for Mahinda Rajapaksa, the bell tolls for all those who directly or indirectly helped in the most atrocious deeds that were happening in Sri Lanka for the last three months”, Suryanarayan said.A few days ago in an interview to The Week Magazine, Mahinda Rajapaksa said that he had fought ‘India’s war’.While observing that the military dimension of the conflict is over, Suryanarayan was harping on India using aid as leverage for the devolution of powers to Tamil areas. He criticized M K Narayanan and Shiv Shankar Menon offering 500 crores to Sri Lanka without conditions. The 20-member committee appointed by Colombo to spend the money has 19 Sinhalese, one Muslim and no Tamil, he pointed out.Suryanarayan also condemned further militarization of Sri Lanka and Tamil lands being brought under the control of the armed forces. What disappointed the Tamil circles was the professor with many years of Sri Lanka-watching still pinning hopes on the inclusiveness of the Sri Lankan state. Sincere implementation of 13th Amendment can lead to ethnic reconciliation and substantial devolution of powers, he said.However, later he expressed his own doubt about its implementation and said Sri Lanka should be asked to consider the constitutional proposals of 2000.How does he expect acceptance from Eezham Tamils for blood stained hands imposing a hated identity and further subjugation, asked a former Tamil militant.Meanwhile, Francis Boyle, an American expert on international law, addressing the same conference on Monday, asked India not to oppose the statehood claim of Tamils in Sri Lanka.It was a false assumption that if Tamils in Sri Lanka exercise their right to self-determination, including the right to establish a separate state, Tamils in India would also follow suit, he said.
V Suryanarayan
“And the consequence of it took place in the human rights council when we were in the illustrious company of Pakistan and China. As an Indian I feel ashamed the voting behaviour of New Delhi. We should have abstained from voting”, he said.In the opinion of international observers it was India that orchestrated votes in favour of Sri Lanka in the human rights council.Many viewed it as an academic post mortem when Suryanarayan said, “I also express my feeling with a great sense of sorrow that there is no transparency in India’s policy towards Sri Lanka”. For many years now, people outside of India have been pointing out the handling of India’s Sri Lanka policy by a few, biased, extra parliamentary elements.Coming hard on Sri Lanka, Suryanarayan said, “Sri Lanka has the unique distinction of one of those countries, which bombs its own citizens. Not just bombing but savage bombing”.“And the bell tolls not only for Mahinda Rajapaksa, the bell tolls for all those who directly or indirectly helped in the most atrocious deeds that were happening in Sri Lanka for the last three months”, Suryanarayan said.A few days ago in an interview to The Week Magazine, Mahinda Rajapaksa said that he had fought ‘India’s war’.While observing that the military dimension of the conflict is over, Suryanarayan was harping on India using aid as leverage for the devolution of powers to Tamil areas. He criticized M K Narayanan and Shiv Shankar Menon offering 500 crores to Sri Lanka without conditions. The 20-member committee appointed by Colombo to spend the money has 19 Sinhalese, one Muslim and no Tamil, he pointed out.Suryanarayan also condemned further militarization of Sri Lanka and Tamil lands being brought under the control of the armed forces. What disappointed the Tamil circles was the professor with many years of Sri Lanka-watching still pinning hopes on the inclusiveness of the Sri Lankan state. Sincere implementation of 13th Amendment can lead to ethnic reconciliation and substantial devolution of powers, he said.However, later he expressed his own doubt about its implementation and said Sri Lanka should be asked to consider the constitutional proposals of 2000.How does he expect acceptance from Eezham Tamils for blood stained hands imposing a hated identity and further subjugation, asked a former Tamil militant.Meanwhile, Francis Boyle, an American expert on international law, addressing the same conference on Monday, asked India not to oppose the statehood claim of Tamils in Sri Lanka.It was a false assumption that if Tamils in Sri Lanka exercise their right to self-determination, including the right to establish a separate state, Tamils in India would also follow suit, he said.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Up to 30,000 'disabled' by Sri Lankan shells
Dean Nelson The Daily Telegraph
Up to 30,000 Tamil civilians have been left severely disabled by Sri Lankan army shelling in the so-called 'no-fire zone', it has been revealed.
Aid workers said one in ten of the 280,000 civilian refugees who fled the Sri Lankan army's final onslaught against the Tamil Tiger rebels had either lost limbs or been so badly injured they urgently needed prosthetic limbs or wheelchairs to regain their mobility.
The scale of civilian casualties who have been maimed in the war was disclosed by the award-winning French charity Handicap International, which works with the victims of war throughout the world.
The charity, which has a small factory producing artificial limbs in Batticaloa in Sri Lanka's eastern province, has opened an emergency unit at one of the centres for people who fled the fighting, and is working with
other suppliers to meet what it described a "huge demand".
Aid workers said nearly all of the people had been the victims of relentless Sri Lankan shelling of the civilian safe zone, where the last of the Tamil Tiger leadership made its last stand before it was wiped out last week.
The disclosure of thousands of severely maimed and disabled civilian victims contradicts the claims of Sri Lanka's president Mahinda Rajapaksa, who has said his army rescued 280,000 "hostages" without any civilian casualties.
The injured are being held in hospitals throughout the country and camps in the north which are off-limits to journalists and open only to a small number of specialist aid workers.
Handicap International's Sri Lanka director Satish Misra said the number of maimed could be "about 25,000 to 30,000 people".
He said he had established an emergency centre at Vavuniya last year in anticipation of the demand, and that a team of specialist physiotherapists and occupational therapists were now working with the victims.
Their work has been hampered by a government ban on refugees leaving the camp which means the wounded cannot be taken to his factory in Batticaloa, on the eastern coast, where new artificial limbs are fitted and the patients are trained in their use.
"We can't start fitting the prosthetic yet because it's difficult while the people are not allowed out of the camps. The limbs must be fitting and people must be trained how to use them," he said.
One aid worker who has visited the refugee camps told the Daily Telegraph he had been shocked by the number of displaced civilians who had lost limbs in the recent fighting.
"We know of one person who lost his leg and his wife lost both her legs. They have an eight month old baby. They left the baby in the bunker to get food and were shelled when they came out. They are in Vavuniya camp," he said.
The conditions there and at other restricted camps in the north were the worst he had seen in a 20 year career of helping refugees in war zones around the world, he said.
Old people had died because they had lost their families and could not fend for themselves in the camps, while many children were alone without relatives to care for them. Many children were emaciated, he said, and skin diseases were widespread.
"There are 6,000 people in Polmoddai Camp. They're destitute, arrive in just the clothes they're wearing and put in tents which are excruciatingly hot. The camp is in the jungle, and there have been five people bitten by snakes. The camps at Vavuniya have open sewers, and have become a marshy mass of excrement.
"There are seriously injured people sent to camp in these unhygienic crowded conditions," he said
Up to 30,000 Tamil civilians have been left severely disabled by Sri Lankan army shelling in the so-called 'no-fire zone', it has been revealed.
Aid workers said one in ten of the 280,000 civilian refugees who fled the Sri Lankan army's final onslaught against the Tamil Tiger rebels had either lost limbs or been so badly injured they urgently needed prosthetic limbs or wheelchairs to regain their mobility.
The scale of civilian casualties who have been maimed in the war was disclosed by the award-winning French charity Handicap International, which works with the victims of war throughout the world.
The charity, which has a small factory producing artificial limbs in Batticaloa in Sri Lanka's eastern province, has opened an emergency unit at one of the centres for people who fled the fighting, and is working with
other suppliers to meet what it described a "huge demand".
Aid workers said nearly all of the people had been the victims of relentless Sri Lankan shelling of the civilian safe zone, where the last of the Tamil Tiger leadership made its last stand before it was wiped out last week.
The disclosure of thousands of severely maimed and disabled civilian victims contradicts the claims of Sri Lanka's president Mahinda Rajapaksa, who has said his army rescued 280,000 "hostages" without any civilian casualties.
The injured are being held in hospitals throughout the country and camps in the north which are off-limits to journalists and open only to a small number of specialist aid workers.
Handicap International's Sri Lanka director Satish Misra said the number of maimed could be "about 25,000 to 30,000 people".
He said he had established an emergency centre at Vavuniya last year in anticipation of the demand, and that a team of specialist physiotherapists and occupational therapists were now working with the victims.
Their work has been hampered by a government ban on refugees leaving the camp which means the wounded cannot be taken to his factory in Batticaloa, on the eastern coast, where new artificial limbs are fitted and the patients are trained in their use.
"We can't start fitting the prosthetic yet because it's difficult while the people are not allowed out of the camps. The limbs must be fitting and people must be trained how to use them," he said.
One aid worker who has visited the refugee camps told the Daily Telegraph he had been shocked by the number of displaced civilians who had lost limbs in the recent fighting.
"We know of one person who lost his leg and his wife lost both her legs. They have an eight month old baby. They left the baby in the bunker to get food and were shelled when they came out. They are in Vavuniya camp," he said.
The conditions there and at other restricted camps in the north were the worst he had seen in a 20 year career of helping refugees in war zones around the world, he said.
Old people had died because they had lost their families and could not fend for themselves in the camps, while many children were alone without relatives to care for them. Many children were emaciated, he said, and skin diseases were widespread.
"There are 6,000 people in Polmoddai Camp. They're destitute, arrive in just the clothes they're wearing and put in tents which are excruciatingly hot. The camp is in the jungle, and there have been five people bitten by snakes. The camps at Vavuniya have open sewers, and have become a marshy mass of excrement.
"There are seriously injured people sent to camp in these unhygienic crowded conditions," he said
National Sovereignty and UN baloney?!
By Janaka Perera
"A Gallup Poll conducted from February 9-12 of this year, found that 65% of Americans believe that the UN is doing a poor job. Under his tenure as Secretary-General, Kofi Annan was blamed for many of the UN's problems and failures. Unfortunately, under the leadership of Ban Ki-moon, nothing has changed. He did promise reforms with a new era of transparency, accountability and better governance. The UN cannot be truly reformed as it is rotten to its very core. It is a bureaucratic nightmare, a cesspool of waste, mismanagement and corruption. More importantly is the danger it poses to American sovereignty." - OpEdNews.com
What about Sri Lanka’s sovereignty? This is what really concerns us. A thug has no sense of shame because he is a thug. However much you insult him citing his past and present global criminal records he does cares not a hoot.
"What I do in any part of the world is my business. But when it comes to you, I am the arbiter. You have no right to challenge me. This is the message that Western governments and their bootlicking Asians have been conveying to us mostly through the UN since the last days of the LTTE."
Despite Sri Lankan Government repeatedly rejecting calls for probing alleged human rights violations and war crimes in the process of crushing the Tiger terrorists the suave, neat dressed thugs keep on coming back to us like bouncing rubber balls – all the while turning a blind eye to the endless human rights violations being committed in Afghanistan, the Afghan-Pakistan border and in Iraq.
Assisting these international hoodlums are Sri Lanka's spineless cowards and traitors to whom what matters is garment export quotas given to us by Europe not the nation’s dignity or sovereignty. The many countries that backed us on the UN human rights issue and militarily helped us to win the war against the LTTE is not their concern. Their political mentors worshipped the former colonial powers even years after 1948. Their latter-day political heirs are now repeating the same in a different form – not recognizable at a first glance. They will continue to repeat it for another 50 years if possible. To them the 'international community' is only USA, Canada and Europe. Please note it is this kind of shameless mentality that led the J.R. Jayewardene Government to support Britain in the Falklands (Malvinas) issue in 1982 involving Argentina when virtually all other Asian countries, the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe treated the British action as a crude imperial military adventure. The reason for Sri Lanka's support was British aid to Mahaweli Development Scheme and the Victoria Dam.
Regardless of the antics of the so-called international community Sri Lanka’s Environment and Natural Resources Minister Patali Champika Ranawaka told the country’s national broadcasting corporation (SLBC) last week that the island’s military victory over LTTE had inspired South Asian countries in dealing with terrorism.
"Today Pakistan is fearlessly waging successful campaign against the Taliban terrorists," he said an interview with the SLBC’s Subharathi programme.
According to press reports it was Pakistan which warned Sri Lanka that UN member states – especially the Afro-Asian countries - were being pressured to vote against Sri Lanka’s proposal at last month’s special session of the United Nation’s Human Rights Council.
This recalls that it was only the Pakistani Defence Attaché in Sri Lanka who had the guts and honesty out of the seven Defence Attaches who visited the Wanni battle front on December 15, 2008 to boldly congratulate Sri Lankan troops and, wish them all success in defeating the LTTE. The others, especially the Attaches from the United Kingdom, the USA and Japan had remained largely 'neutral' and focused mainly on humanitarian issues and internally displaced people (IDP).
Why they were deafeningly silent over the velour of armed forces is revealed in the West’s condemnation of the Sri Lankan Government after its military victory. It may be summed up thus.
"You did not stop the war when we told you to do so. You ignored our requests to allow the Tiger leaders to surrender to a third party (so they can live to fight another day). Now you have to pay a heavy price for disobeying us."
Responding to a question on arm twisting by these sanctimonious hypocrites over alleged human rights violations during the anti-LTTE offensive, Minister Ranawaka asked why should Sri Lanka having sacrificed the lives of thousands of her soldiers, sailors and airmen to free the country of Tiger terrorism, should listen to the dictates of Western Embassies and Tamil Nadu politicians.
Sri Lanka’s military victory confirms the myths and half-truths about successful insurgencies and terrorist movements in the world that people have been clinging to for decades. One myth is that overwhelming public support alone was their springboard to victory.
The Tigers and their sympathizers had been assiduously fostering this fiction for over 25 years to justify LTTE‘s claim of being the Tamils’ sole representatives, whereas in fact they were intimidating many ordinary Sri Lankan Tamils and holding them hostage.
The other myth is that the emergence of terrorism and separatist violence everywhere was always the result of socio-economic injustices and/or failure to devolve power.
It is therefore necessary to examine fact and fiction in the context of global events in order to have a proper perspective of the Sri Lankan situation.
In former Malaya (now Malaysia) the British were able to crush within 12 years a communist guerilla movement comprising mainly ethnic Chinese, who had virtually no assistance from any foreign government, except perhaps moral support. They were never able to terrorize the government, despite having killed thousands of civilians, police and military personnel.
The same fate befell Sri Lanka’s two JVP uprisings of 1971 and 1987-89, although the issues were not linked to ethnicity. In both instances, the JVP had neither strong material nor moral support from any foreign government or a Sinhala Diaspora. The North Korean connection with the uprising had little impact. The only arms these Sinhala guerillas had were some crude homemade bombs, shotguns, pistols and (especially in 1988-90) stolen automatic weapons.
No NGO or foreign power urged the then Sri Lankan governments to stop fighting the JVP, come to the negotiating table and conclude ceasefire agreements. There were no calls for foreign peace facilitators and ceasefire monitors. No one urged peace talks in Colombo, Thimpu, Geneva or elsewhere. Instead in 1971, India even sent warships and an Army (Gurkha) unit to help the Sirima Bandaranaike Government if the need arose.
So it was only a matter of time before the Sri Lankan State crushed the two Southern insurgencies. Few foreign governments (if any) or organizations raised a hue and cry over the human rights violations that occurred in the process. It was mostly local rights groups that took up the issue.
Contrast this with the endless allegations of human rights violations made against Sri Lanka every time she used military force against the LTTE. The global media paid little or no attention to the atrocities that the Tigers committed in the course of their so-called liberation war, no matter that among their victims were many Tamils.
In Afghanistan and Pakistan, Washington and London wants military solutions to terrorism. In Sri Lanka they wanted the government to go for a ‘political solution’ despite the Tigers being hell-bent on a military solution. Why this duplicity? The only plausible answer is that all this is part of an international double game.
In Pakistan we do not hear UK and US governments expressing concern over the plight of civilians caught in the West's war on terror in Afghanistan – a war that has spilled over to Pakistan. The reason, according to Peter Hopkirk, author of The Great Game, Washington sees the (Central-South Asia) region as an extension of the Middle-East.
These antics repeatedly remind us that in contrast to the 'insignificant' Sinhalas the Tamils are a convenient political tool for the dubious `peace’ makers to impose their will on a small nation like Sri Lanka. The covert military assistance and training that India gave the LTTE to become the world’s most dreaded terrorist organization clearly proves it. Delhi had no other reason to intervene and prevent the Sri Lankan Army from giving a military solution to the LTTE terrorist problem at Vadamarachchi in 1987 when the Tigers were mere cubs.
However when Sri Lanka twice found military solutions to the Southern rebellion in the short term, the world was least concerned since the insurgents and their sympathizers were belonged to community that mattered little to the big powers and had virtually no political clout in the international sphere. It is only when the rebels became Tamil Tigers the call for military solutions really perturbed some big powers and their NGO lackeys. They were desperate to project the LTTE as politically superior to the JVP. Yet it is the latter that entered the political mainstream and faced several elections. Obviously Prabhakaran and his thugs had neither confidence nor courage to do so. They imagined that the bullet and not the ballot would be their only means of survival.
Tiger sympathizers often defended LTTE actions with the hackneyed praise "one man’s terrorist is another’s hero" or "there’s no clear definition of the term terrorism." Whether or not a terrorist is somebody’s hero, the fact is that the deliberate and well-calculated killing of non-combatants, civilians and even military personnel (in non-military situations), holding such persons hostage and intentionally depriving a population of their basic needs are without question terrorism. It always thrives on foreign funding and international arms smuggling networks. (The Provisional IRA’s terrorism in Northern Ireland was considerably weakened when funds from Irish-Americans dried up).
It is for this very reason that the LTTE leadership was desperately trying to get into the good books of India and the West, even during their last hours on this earth.
Since independence India has devolved administrative power in fair measure while safeguarding its territorial integrity. Yet this devolution did not prevent a section of the Sikh community from trying to create a Khalistan out of the Punjab - one of India’s most prosperous states. But Sikh separatist terrorism received no foreign backing. So, not surprisingly the Indian armed forces were able to quell the rebellion in a few years, although it cost Prime Minister Indira Gandhi her life. It also proved to the world that federalism based on ethnicity does not necessarily prevent separatist terrorism.
The worst example of this is former Yugoslavia.
After 1945 the Federal Republic of Germany built a model democracy that bestowed political freedom and economic well being upon its people. Their standards of living nearly surpassed even that of the United States. Yet it did not prevent the creation of anti-establishment terrorist cells such as the Baader-Meinhof gang though their life span was short.
In Japan, post-World War II economic miracles and prosperity could not stop the formation of the Sekigun or the Japanese Red Army, which served as hired guns for several Middle-Eastern terrorist gangs. However Japan’s healthy balance of payments, smoothly humming industries and bountiful life style helped to virtually isolate this group of fanatics, who are no longer active. Italy’s Red Brigade terrorists too ended up the same way. It was easy for governments to seal their fate since they had no NGO 'peace' humbugs to inject lifeblood to them.
Such groups, like the LTTE, can never be pacified with a solution that may sound very reasonable to everyone else. Peace will always have to be on their own terms since they can no longer be part of civilized society.
"A Gallup Poll conducted from February 9-12 of this year, found that 65% of Americans believe that the UN is doing a poor job. Under his tenure as Secretary-General, Kofi Annan was blamed for many of the UN's problems and failures. Unfortunately, under the leadership of Ban Ki-moon, nothing has changed. He did promise reforms with a new era of transparency, accountability and better governance. The UN cannot be truly reformed as it is rotten to its very core. It is a bureaucratic nightmare, a cesspool of waste, mismanagement and corruption. More importantly is the danger it poses to American sovereignty." - OpEdNews.com
What about Sri Lanka’s sovereignty? This is what really concerns us. A thug has no sense of shame because he is a thug. However much you insult him citing his past and present global criminal records he does cares not a hoot.
"What I do in any part of the world is my business. But when it comes to you, I am the arbiter. You have no right to challenge me. This is the message that Western governments and their bootlicking Asians have been conveying to us mostly through the UN since the last days of the LTTE."
Despite Sri Lankan Government repeatedly rejecting calls for probing alleged human rights violations and war crimes in the process of crushing the Tiger terrorists the suave, neat dressed thugs keep on coming back to us like bouncing rubber balls – all the while turning a blind eye to the endless human rights violations being committed in Afghanistan, the Afghan-Pakistan border and in Iraq.
Assisting these international hoodlums are Sri Lanka's spineless cowards and traitors to whom what matters is garment export quotas given to us by Europe not the nation’s dignity or sovereignty. The many countries that backed us on the UN human rights issue and militarily helped us to win the war against the LTTE is not their concern. Their political mentors worshipped the former colonial powers even years after 1948. Their latter-day political heirs are now repeating the same in a different form – not recognizable at a first glance. They will continue to repeat it for another 50 years if possible. To them the 'international community' is only USA, Canada and Europe. Please note it is this kind of shameless mentality that led the J.R. Jayewardene Government to support Britain in the Falklands (Malvinas) issue in 1982 involving Argentina when virtually all other Asian countries, the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe treated the British action as a crude imperial military adventure. The reason for Sri Lanka's support was British aid to Mahaweli Development Scheme and the Victoria Dam.
Regardless of the antics of the so-called international community Sri Lanka’s Environment and Natural Resources Minister Patali Champika Ranawaka told the country’s national broadcasting corporation (SLBC) last week that the island’s military victory over LTTE had inspired South Asian countries in dealing with terrorism.
"Today Pakistan is fearlessly waging successful campaign against the Taliban terrorists," he said an interview with the SLBC’s Subharathi programme.
According to press reports it was Pakistan which warned Sri Lanka that UN member states – especially the Afro-Asian countries - were being pressured to vote against Sri Lanka’s proposal at last month’s special session of the United Nation’s Human Rights Council.
This recalls that it was only the Pakistani Defence Attaché in Sri Lanka who had the guts and honesty out of the seven Defence Attaches who visited the Wanni battle front on December 15, 2008 to boldly congratulate Sri Lankan troops and, wish them all success in defeating the LTTE. The others, especially the Attaches from the United Kingdom, the USA and Japan had remained largely 'neutral' and focused mainly on humanitarian issues and internally displaced people (IDP).
Why they were deafeningly silent over the velour of armed forces is revealed in the West’s condemnation of the Sri Lankan Government after its military victory. It may be summed up thus.
"You did not stop the war when we told you to do so. You ignored our requests to allow the Tiger leaders to surrender to a third party (so they can live to fight another day). Now you have to pay a heavy price for disobeying us."
Responding to a question on arm twisting by these sanctimonious hypocrites over alleged human rights violations during the anti-LTTE offensive, Minister Ranawaka asked why should Sri Lanka having sacrificed the lives of thousands of her soldiers, sailors and airmen to free the country of Tiger terrorism, should listen to the dictates of Western Embassies and Tamil Nadu politicians.
Sri Lanka’s military victory confirms the myths and half-truths about successful insurgencies and terrorist movements in the world that people have been clinging to for decades. One myth is that overwhelming public support alone was their springboard to victory.
The Tigers and their sympathizers had been assiduously fostering this fiction for over 25 years to justify LTTE‘s claim of being the Tamils’ sole representatives, whereas in fact they were intimidating many ordinary Sri Lankan Tamils and holding them hostage.
The other myth is that the emergence of terrorism and separatist violence everywhere was always the result of socio-economic injustices and/or failure to devolve power.
It is therefore necessary to examine fact and fiction in the context of global events in order to have a proper perspective of the Sri Lankan situation.
In former Malaya (now Malaysia) the British were able to crush within 12 years a communist guerilla movement comprising mainly ethnic Chinese, who had virtually no assistance from any foreign government, except perhaps moral support. They were never able to terrorize the government, despite having killed thousands of civilians, police and military personnel.
The same fate befell Sri Lanka’s two JVP uprisings of 1971 and 1987-89, although the issues were not linked to ethnicity. In both instances, the JVP had neither strong material nor moral support from any foreign government or a Sinhala Diaspora. The North Korean connection with the uprising had little impact. The only arms these Sinhala guerillas had were some crude homemade bombs, shotguns, pistols and (especially in 1988-90) stolen automatic weapons.
No NGO or foreign power urged the then Sri Lankan governments to stop fighting the JVP, come to the negotiating table and conclude ceasefire agreements. There were no calls for foreign peace facilitators and ceasefire monitors. No one urged peace talks in Colombo, Thimpu, Geneva or elsewhere. Instead in 1971, India even sent warships and an Army (Gurkha) unit to help the Sirima Bandaranaike Government if the need arose.
So it was only a matter of time before the Sri Lankan State crushed the two Southern insurgencies. Few foreign governments (if any) or organizations raised a hue and cry over the human rights violations that occurred in the process. It was mostly local rights groups that took up the issue.
Contrast this with the endless allegations of human rights violations made against Sri Lanka every time she used military force against the LTTE. The global media paid little or no attention to the atrocities that the Tigers committed in the course of their so-called liberation war, no matter that among their victims were many Tamils.
In Afghanistan and Pakistan, Washington and London wants military solutions to terrorism. In Sri Lanka they wanted the government to go for a ‘political solution’ despite the Tigers being hell-bent on a military solution. Why this duplicity? The only plausible answer is that all this is part of an international double game.
In Pakistan we do not hear UK and US governments expressing concern over the plight of civilians caught in the West's war on terror in Afghanistan – a war that has spilled over to Pakistan. The reason, according to Peter Hopkirk, author of The Great Game, Washington sees the (Central-South Asia) region as an extension of the Middle-East.
These antics repeatedly remind us that in contrast to the 'insignificant' Sinhalas the Tamils are a convenient political tool for the dubious `peace’ makers to impose their will on a small nation like Sri Lanka. The covert military assistance and training that India gave the LTTE to become the world’s most dreaded terrorist organization clearly proves it. Delhi had no other reason to intervene and prevent the Sri Lankan Army from giving a military solution to the LTTE terrorist problem at Vadamarachchi in 1987 when the Tigers were mere cubs.
However when Sri Lanka twice found military solutions to the Southern rebellion in the short term, the world was least concerned since the insurgents and their sympathizers were belonged to community that mattered little to the big powers and had virtually no political clout in the international sphere. It is only when the rebels became Tamil Tigers the call for military solutions really perturbed some big powers and their NGO lackeys. They were desperate to project the LTTE as politically superior to the JVP. Yet it is the latter that entered the political mainstream and faced several elections. Obviously Prabhakaran and his thugs had neither confidence nor courage to do so. They imagined that the bullet and not the ballot would be their only means of survival.
Tiger sympathizers often defended LTTE actions with the hackneyed praise "one man’s terrorist is another’s hero" or "there’s no clear definition of the term terrorism." Whether or not a terrorist is somebody’s hero, the fact is that the deliberate and well-calculated killing of non-combatants, civilians and even military personnel (in non-military situations), holding such persons hostage and intentionally depriving a population of their basic needs are without question terrorism. It always thrives on foreign funding and international arms smuggling networks. (The Provisional IRA’s terrorism in Northern Ireland was considerably weakened when funds from Irish-Americans dried up).
It is for this very reason that the LTTE leadership was desperately trying to get into the good books of India and the West, even during their last hours on this earth.
Since independence India has devolved administrative power in fair measure while safeguarding its territorial integrity. Yet this devolution did not prevent a section of the Sikh community from trying to create a Khalistan out of the Punjab - one of India’s most prosperous states. But Sikh separatist terrorism received no foreign backing. So, not surprisingly the Indian armed forces were able to quell the rebellion in a few years, although it cost Prime Minister Indira Gandhi her life. It also proved to the world that federalism based on ethnicity does not necessarily prevent separatist terrorism.
The worst example of this is former Yugoslavia.
After 1945 the Federal Republic of Germany built a model democracy that bestowed political freedom and economic well being upon its people. Their standards of living nearly surpassed even that of the United States. Yet it did not prevent the creation of anti-establishment terrorist cells such as the Baader-Meinhof gang though their life span was short.
In Japan, post-World War II economic miracles and prosperity could not stop the formation of the Sekigun or the Japanese Red Army, which served as hired guns for several Middle-Eastern terrorist gangs. However Japan’s healthy balance of payments, smoothly humming industries and bountiful life style helped to virtually isolate this group of fanatics, who are no longer active. Italy’s Red Brigade terrorists too ended up the same way. It was easy for governments to seal their fate since they had no NGO 'peace' humbugs to inject lifeblood to them.
Such groups, like the LTTE, can never be pacified with a solution that may sound very reasonable to everyone else. Peace will always have to be on their own terms since they can no longer be part of civilized society.
S Lanka turns away Tamil aid ship
Sri Lanka has turned away a ship which came from Europe carrying aid for Tamil civilians displaced in the final months of the civil war, officials say.
Late last week the Sri Lankan navy intercepted the vessel, which was sent by Tamil expatriate groups.
But a navy spokesman told the BBC that the vessel, the Captain Ali, had been ordered to clear Sri Lankan waters.
A UK-based spokesman for the group which sent the ship, described the move as "disheartening".
The navy spokesman said the vessel had been ordered to clear Sri Lankan territorial waters and not come to Colombo harbour or unload anything.
Asked whether this was not a waste of the hundreds of tonnes of food and medical aid on board, the navy spokesman said he could not comment as the decision had been made by the defence ministry.
No defence official was immediately available for comment.
The spokesman for the Tamil expatriate group said the government could have used the ship to engage with the Tamil diaspora as a move towards reconciliation.
He said the emergency aid on board was desperately needed by refugees in the north.
The defence ministry here earlier described the Captain Ali as a Tamil Tiger vessel, but the defence secretary said on Sunday that the ship "did not have any dangerous intentions".
Late last week the Sri Lankan navy intercepted the vessel, which was sent by Tamil expatriate groups.
But a navy spokesman told the BBC that the vessel, the Captain Ali, had been ordered to clear Sri Lankan waters.
A UK-based spokesman for the group which sent the ship, described the move as "disheartening".
The navy spokesman said the vessel had been ordered to clear Sri Lankan territorial waters and not come to Colombo harbour or unload anything.
Asked whether this was not a waste of the hundreds of tonnes of food and medical aid on board, the navy spokesman said he could not comment as the decision had been made by the defence ministry.
No defence official was immediately available for comment.
The spokesman for the Tamil expatriate group said the government could have used the ship to engage with the Tamil diaspora as a move towards reconciliation.
He said the emergency aid on board was desperately needed by refugees in the north.
The defence ministry here earlier described the Captain Ali as a Tamil Tiger vessel, but the defence secretary said on Sunday that the ship "did not have any dangerous intentions".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
