SCOPP suggests Govt. probe into Muttur aid workers’ deaths

Blames ACF for negligence:

COLOMBO: The Secretariat for Co-ordinating the Peace Process (SCOPP) yesterday called on the Government to initiate an independent inquiry to ascertain the circumstances of the death of the 17 aid workers in Muttur.

SCOPP also listed eight points highlighting the negligence and irresponsible conduct of the Action Contre la-Faim (ACF) in exposing the aid workers to danger wanting this too to be probed in the inquiry.

In a letter addressed to Human Rights and Disaster Management Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, SCOPP Head Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha squarely blamed the ACF for endangering the lives of the 17 aid workers by dispatching them to Muttur at a time intense battles raged in the areas.

He charged ACF with “utter irresponsibility” in putting such workers at risk.

“Workers were sent to a danger area where violence was already taking place,” said Prof. Wijesinha.

He also queried as to why as many as 17 aid workers were sent when according to his information from another NGO worker this was unprecedented.

The SCOPP Secretary General also queried as to why the ACF had failed to suitably compensate the victims based on European norms given its negligence if not callousness in exposing these workers to danger.

The letter: “I write with reference to the interview granted by Sir John Holmes to Reuters, in which several issues were raised in an irresponsible fashion. I believe many problems have arisen with regard to the killing of the 17 Aid Workers in Muttur, and the international community has seen this as a licence to criticise Sri Lankan Forces and Sri Lankan officials without any regard for truth or objectivity.

I have argued before that we have not dealt firmly enough with the original reason for the tragedy, which was the utter irresponsibility of the ACF organisation in putting such workers at risk. I would therefore respectfully request that the Government ask that an independent inquiry be conducted into the circumstances under which:

a) Workers were sent on August 1, 2006 into a danger area where violence was already taking place

b) Why as many as 17 were sent in when, according to my information from another NGO worker, this was unprecedented

c) Why they were not withdrawn (as for instance ICRC workers were) when, as reported by the University Teachers for Human Rights, some of them begged to be rescued

d) Why they were advised to stay in their headquarters despite repeated efforts by government officials and religious leaders to get them to move to a safer location

e) Why ACF representatives are quoted (by the New York Times) as claiming that the Government prevented them from going in to the rescue, when the ACF official position has been that indeed they had decided the workers would be safe if they stayed in their compound wearing ACF t-shirts

f) Why ACF, contrary to the request of the Sri Lankan ambassador in Paris, invited the former Head of the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission, who had already ruled against the Sri Lankan Forces on this issue without any real evidence, to make further public pronouncements, contrary to his contract, against the Sri Lankan Forces at an ACF organised commemoration

g) Why, despite the perceived urgency, ACF failed to reach the compound as soon as possible, so that it was left to another agency to discover the bodies

h) Why the compensation paid to the families of such workers is nugatory, given the danger to which ACF, by its irresponsibility, had exposed them, and from which it had failed to take appropriate action to rescue them as outlined above.

If ACF is unwilling that such an inquiry is conducted, they should hold an internal inquiry subject to monitoring by independent observers.

I believe the Government should insist on this, and also on proper compensation being paid to the families of the workers given the original responsibility of ACF for the tragedy. There is no doubt that such negligence, if addressed in a European Court of Law, would have resulted in the award of massive damages to the grieved families, rather than the puny amounts that I gather from NGO sources have been awarded.

ACF has expended much energy on focusing attention on the assumed culpability of Sri Lankan Forces. Most regrettably they invited Gen Henricsson to attack the Forces at what was supposed to be a commemorative event, despite the advice of our ambassador in Paris that he was not a suitable participant.

Such emotional propaganda, including the advertisements it takes out at great expense in France, are no substitute for the compensation, based on European norms, owed to these victims of negligence if not callousness.

I believe the Sri Lankan Government has an obligation to the victims and their families and we should insist on their behalf that ACF follow international norms in this regard.”