|
Allow unimpeded reconciliation:
A bold call for objectivity by Sri Lanka
 “In the light of this commitment by Sri Lanka, there is no
justification or urgency whatsoever in floating a resolution calling for
the implementation of the LLRC’s recommendations and engagement with the
High Commissioner, when this has already been effectively undertaken by
the government. What we now need from the international community is
objectivity in assessing Sri Lanka’s efforts.”
This was the key observation of Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, the
President’s Special Envoy on Human Rights to the United Nations Human
Rights Council, at the High Level segment of UNHRC’s 19th Session
earlier this week. It was a preemptive dismissal of the moves by the
United States, EU and other Western countries, who have taken on the
mantle of the ‘international community’ to wage new attacks on Si Lanka,
via the LLRC, which they were initially very sceptical about.
In a strong request to allow Sri Lanka’s efforts at reconciliation to
proceed unimpeded, Minister Samarasinghe said: “More than anything we
need to ensure that the process is allowed to advance unimpeded. We do
not need unwarranted incursions that will compromise successful
implementation. Such interference by way of redundant resolutions before
this Council, would only undermine the sentiments of this Council as
expressed in the decisive adoption of the Special Session resolution on
Sri Lanka in 2009”.
Commenting of the new trend of many voices in the West who are
unquestioningly following the ill-concealed propaganda trajectory of the
pro-LTTE Tamils, who are carrying on a concerted campaign against Sri
Lanka, he said: “Delivering homilies about human rights in Sri Lanka at
fora such as these would be much more meaningful if they were supported
by real and substantial cooperation and assistance in keeping with this
Council’s Resolution on Sri Lanka in 2009. Enabling a member state to
overcome the undoubted challenges it faces in reconciliation and
restoration of normality and productive civilian life - particularly
amongst those worst affected by the scourge of terrorism - would be much
more tangible and helpful to all concerned, rather than the mere
repetition of unsubstantiated allegations and unconscionable
finger-pointing directed at Sri Lanka”.
|
Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe |
With the latest figures on actual mortalities and casualties in the
North during the period of the armed terrorism by the LTTE and the moves
to defeat it, Minister Samarasinghe was emphatic in declaring that the
highly inflated figures that were being readily bandied about did not
bear any connection to the truth. He said that according to latest
scientific census reports “One thing is certain,” … “the story of ‘tens
of thousands’ of civilian deaths that supposedly occurred during the
final phase of the humanitarian operation, is very clearly proved to be
a gross exaggeration and a deliberate misrepresentation of fact.”
Darusman secrecy
As is necessary in view of the manner in which the Darusman report is
referred as the ultimate fact sheet on alleged war crimes and crimes
against humanitarian law by Sri Lanka, by those ranged against Sri Lanka
who refer to it as the ‘UN Experts Panel Report’ which it is not by any
measure of judgment, Sri Lanka’s Special Envoy made a compelling
comparison of the LLRC report and the tendentious ‘expertise’ of
Darusman & Co. ‘In our view’, he said, the LLRC report contains a
detailed and perceptive analysis of past errors, including those that
led to the failure of the peace process, and several recommendations for
the future. The report is comprehensive and contains detailed annexes,
compiled following interviews with over 1,000 persons who gave evidence
before the Commission, and over 5,000 submissions received. The
proceedings were largely open and persons testified freely and openly
before the Commission in public hearings unless exceptional
circumstances required in camera proceedings.
In sharp contrast the LLRC procedure “was quite different to the
Secretary-General’s Advisory Panel which held closed door hearings with
unnamed witnesses who were guaranteed 20 years anonymity to secure their
statements. This meant that the testimony could not be verified or
tested for its probative value. The LLRC report, on the other hand,
places before us material of the basis on which the Commissioners
arrived at their conclusions, which are substantive and verifiable. The
Commission has dealt with and made recommendations on a whole gamut of
issues including aspects of accountability - something which several of
our partners and interlocutors have failed to acknowledge; the
resettlement of IDPs; the rehabilitation and re-integration of
ex-combatants, the detention of suspects; bringing an end to the
possession of unauthorized weapons; the deployment of Security Forces;
land issues; issues with regard to restitution; implementation of the
language policy; socio-economic and livelihood development;
administrative issues; and on the need to arrive at a national consensus
with regard to fulfilling the legitimate aspirations of all communities
living in Sri Lanka.”
Clearly identifying the source of the pressure that is being faced by
Western governments to take strong anti-Sri Lankan positions, which are
contrary to their position on human rights and related issues in other
countries, Minister Samarasinghe said: “We categorically reject such
undue pressure from sections of the international community which have
fallen prey to the propaganda, coercive tactics and electoral pressures
of these elements. We are conscious of their need to portray a negative
picture of Sri Lanka and unreasoning pessimism in order to justify their
continued presence in these host countries. Instead of accepting our
President’s invitation to become constructive partners in development
and building a renewed Sri Lanka, it is most regrettable that these
elements devote their time, effort and resources in defaming their
motherland and denigrating the genuine efforts of the government to
consolidate peace, development and prosperity for all Sri Lankans.”
Immunity in Washington
|
People protesting against the anti-Sri Lanka resolution at the
19th UNHRC sessions in Geneva. Picture by Lalith C. Gamage |
As the debate in Geneva goes on with that city of diplomacy and
Western culture being transformed into a phony pilgrim centre for
pro-terrorist Tamil activists from many parts of Europe gathering there
to keep the pressure on Western leaders, a US federal judge has
dismissed a lawsuit filed against President Mahinda Rajapaksa, by
similar activists, noting that President Rajapaksa is immune from
lawsuits as a sitting Head of State.
The Associated Press report on the case by ABC News said a US judge
threw out a lawsuit Wednesday against Sri Lanka's President over
killings allegedly carried out by his Forces during the country's ethnic
civil war.
US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled that she must dismiss
the suit against President Mahinda Rajapaksa because the Obama
administration says he is immune from the litigation as a foreign head
of state.
"The court does not take this step lightly," Kollar-Kotelly wrote.
"The plaintiffs' complaint contains shocking allegations of human rights
abuses and violations of United States and international law. The
court's dismissal of this case is in no way a reflection of the merits
of plaintiff's claims or defendant's defenses. Rather, two centuries of
case law and basic constitutional and statutory principles prevent this
court from allowing plaintiff's complaint to move forward at this time."
The fact is that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is unable due to the
laws of her own country, which she has to respect and enforce, to
proceed with this case. Her personal opinion of the merits of the
allegations made have no relevance in this instance, because they remain
allegations, however serious they may seem, which have not been put to
the test of a trial with witnesses and other evidence.
What is significant about this move and the comments of this judge is
that it very easy for persons who can be well advised, even by a
partisan lawyer such as Bruce Fein, to string up a whole lot of
unfounded charges of the most serious nature and bring them to a court,
with maximum publicity, knowing very well that they will not be heard,
even at a preliminary level due to the law on immunity for heads of
state that prevails in the United States, and has been observed for more
than 200 years.
This is not dissimilar to the many charges brought against the Sri
Lankan Armed Forces and government by those who we are told had given
evidence before the Darusman Committee, but whose evidence cannot
questioned, verified or challenged for 20 years because of the guarantee
of anonymity for this period. Judge Kollar-Kotelly must surely be aware
of the possibility and reality of trumped up charges being brought to a
court where it cannot be heard, with even a little knowledge of
jurisprudence. |
