Arbour’s Harbour
H.L.D. MAHINDAPALA
How competent is Ms. Louise Arbour to protect human rights in Sri
Lanka? At a politically sensitive time, when the Sri Lankan Forces are
advancing successfully into Tiger-held territory without deviating into
the horrors of Kosovo, or Iraq, Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner
for Human Rights, has issued a statement on human rights violations in
Sri Lanka, warning that violations of the rules by any party “could
entail individual criminal responsibility under international criminal
law, including by those in positions of command.”
Louise Arbour |
Gareth Evans |
Stating that all parties are obliged to protect civilians without
discrimination she lists the following as crimes punishable under
international law: (1) the arbitrary deprivation of life, (2) arbitrary
detention, (3) forced displacement, (4) enforced disappearances, (5)
torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
and (6) the recruitment and deployment of children as soldiers.
Every one of these criminal acts violating international humanitarian
law has been committed by Velupillai Prabhakaran from 1975 - the year in
which he personally shot dead the unarmed, mild-mannered, Tamil Mayor of
Jaffna, Alfred Duraiyappah.
Ms. Arbour has allowed him to get away with it. His national and
international crimes have been documented by independent NGOs.
All this and more, including the ethnic cleansing of Muslims from
Jaffna in 1990 and the forced exodus of Tamils from Jaffna later, would
have come under the scrutiny of Arbour because she could not have issued
a warning without knowing who is doing what to human rights in Sri
Lanka.
Though she has issued a bland statement referring to “those in
positions of command”, the contest in the field of human rights in Sri
Lanka is between Arbour and Prabhakaran.
Arbour, who earned her spurs as the prosecutor of Serbian criminals,
will agree that others are minor fry compared to Prabhakaran an
“individual (whose) criminal responsibility under international criminal
law” is beyond any doubt.
He is also the sole commander of the Tiger cadres who swear loyalty
to him and him alone and not to a constitution, or any other democratic
symbol like the Queen of England, or an institution. This places the
entire responsibility of the crimes committed by the Tigers directly on
the shoulders of Prabhakaran.
In short, he is the LTTE and the LTTE is Prabhakaran. All authority
and power, especially for committing war crimes and crimes against
humanity, flow from him. There is no separation of powers in his one-man
regime.
Being an authoritarian regime, where no dissent is allowed, he rules
his Terroristan with an iron fist.
The New York Times has branded him as “the latest Pol Pot of Asia”
incarcerating Tamils who even dare to crack a joke about him. Decisions
of life and death - from Rajiv Gandhi to President Ranasinghe Premadasa
- issue from him. Indian and Sri Lankan courts have sentenced him for
being “in the position of command” (Ms. Arbour) to commit crimes.
V. Prabhakaran |
As he wields total and unquestioned power there is no legal
provision, either in international or national laws, to exempt him for
all the crimes committed in the name of the LTTE by the LTTE cadres.
At this point the focus shifts from Prabhakaran to Ms. Arbour, the
Chief Prosecutor of political criminals. If, as stated by Ms. Arbour,
violations of international humanitarian law “could entail individual
criminal responsibility under international criminal law, including by
those in positions of command” what has she done so far to bring those
responsible to book?
For instance, she can’t miss Prabhakaran even if she tries to. He
stands out as the Himalayan mountain of crimes compared to the other
anthills in the same category. If she is serious about protecting human
rights in Sri Lanka she has to begin with Prabhakaran. This is obvious
even to those who do not have a law degree. So why is Ms. Arbour
fighting shy about naming, shaming and prosecuting Prabhakaran?
She is empowered with the necessary legal force to deal exactly with
criminals like Prabhakaran. She will also have international backing. So
is her failure to take the next logical step a reflection of her
competency? Should she not bear total responsibility for her failure so
far to take the legal measures available to her to indict Prabhakaran?
Having failed in her responsibilities to prosecute the world’s
deadliest political criminal for decades why is she now issuing vague
threats aimed at all and sundry without specifically targeting the prime
offender of human rights in Sri Lanka?
As a distinguished professor of law and a judge of the Supreme Court
of Canada she should know that justice delayed is justice denied. All
these years she has never threatened or taken meaningful action against
Prabhakaran who continues to this day to commit one of the gravest of
war crimes: abducting children and forcing them to fight in his brutal
war.
Why is she so backward in coming forward to fulfil her moral and
legal duties ? How can she abandon her responsibilities to the Tamil
children who cannot go to school, or even live in the homes of their
Tamil parents, for fear of being abducted forcibly by Prabhakaran’s
terror cadres to fight in a needless war?
She is known for brushing aside facts which are unpalatable to her.
She is known to be very selective in picking facts, figures and issues
that are favoured by her. At a press conference in Colombo she brushed
aside questions that were embarrassing.
Of course, it must be admitted that given the gross disregard for
human rights by numerous regimes and armed groups, including her own
country Canada (example: treatment of the indigenous peoples of Canada),
her task is not easy. It is certainly not possible for her to take on
the whole world.
But she has the capacity and the duty to confront unrepentant and
notorious recidivists like Prabhakaran. Why hasn’t she done so ? What is
holding her back ? Whom is she protecting the Tamil children or
Prabhakaran?
He has been an incorrigible offender. His repeated crimes have
provided many opportunities to take him to Hague. For instance, the UN
Human Rights Commission could have done it in the 90s when Prabhakaran
reneged on the agreement with the UN not to recruit children. But this
Commission has allowed him to get away with this war crime for decades.
Why ? Turning a blind eye to Prabhakaran’s crimes against humanity
and war crimes is an unpardonable dereliction of her sacred duty to
protect helpless Tamil children and Tamil parents. Besides, had she
taken timely action and put Prabhakaran in the dock she could have
helped to cut short this futile war by years. But she sat on her
French-Canadian bottom doing sweet nothing.
Considering her responsibilities to the victims of Prabhakaran, is it
wrong then to accuse her of dereliction of duty? Perhaps even a
complicit partner in the crimes of Prabhakaran ? She may have all the
glitter of academic qualifications and legal attainments.
But what are they worth if she cannot act on the plain evidence that
is there under her judicial nose ? She had known the crimes committed in
the Pol Potist regime in the Vanni and she had done nothing about it.
The colossal and inhumane crimes of the 20th century were committed
with the full knowledge of the Western powers and their moralising busy
bodies.
In most instances they, in fact, compounded these crimes by
pretending that no such crimes exist.
For instance, they refused to believe what was going on in Hitler’s
Germany and when the Jews were pleading for help the Western powers went
into a state of catatonic denial.
To their everlasting shame, they stepped in only when Hitler
threatened their interests. Earlier the persecution of Jews and other
victims of Nazi fascism were dismissed or ignored as inconvenient truths
that do not concern them. By the time they established the Nuremberg
trial it was too late.
This post-mortem was to prove how morally superior they were, not to
admit their guilt in not doing what they ought to have done at the time
it was required. Arbour is going down that track. Her legal pieties have
not brought any relief to the victims of Prabhakaran’s fascist regime.
T.S. Eliot’s line in Gerontion, “After such knowledge (in her
possession), what forgiveness?” applies directly to Arbour. Her job as
the prosecutor is to act on the evidence without bias. And the evidence
against Prabhakaran has been mounting daily with Arbour sleeping on the
job. Is this what she’s paid for? When the policewoman is sleeping at
the gate guarding the premises of human rights doesn’t it make the job
easier for criminals like Prabhakaran to get away with impunity?
Despite her transparent failure to fulfil her duties, she has been
noisily running around insisting that a branch of her UN office should
be established to monitor human rights in Sri Lanka. Why should the Sri
Lankans trust her to do a fair and objective job of work when she has
failed to lift a finger against the prime offender of human rights
violations in Sri Lanka - Prabhakaran?
What good can her office do in Colombo which she can’t do from her
office in Geneva ? Before she steps in to play any interventionist role
in protecting Sri Lankan human rights she has to prove her bona fides
first by acting decisively to put an end to the war crimes and the
crimes against humanity committed by Prabhakaran.
Any other side issue taken up by her in the interim would not enhance
her stature as credible defender of human rights. If she side-steps this
central issue she would be confirming that she is no better than the
other interventionists like Alan Rock (her pro-Tiger compatriot), John
Holmes, or Gareth Evans who stepped in with their hidden agendas to tie
the hands of the Sri Lankan Government whilst giving full rein to
Prabhakaran to ride rough shod over human rights.
The latest strategy, manipulated by the NGOs and INGOs funded by
foreign powers, is pretty obvious: Alan Rock, John Holmes and Gareth
Evans, the big preachers of the West propounding their holier-than-thou
political pieties, have been visiting Sri Lanka to dictate how the
native should behave to appease the foreign gods disbursing aid. Arbour
is the latest to join this bandwagon.
Gareth Evans, for instance, came in waving the R2P with the sole
intention of threatening the Sri Lankan Government with the reserve
power held by the ex-colonial masters to intervene if the natives do not
act according to the commands of the neo-colonialists.
Arbour is now aiming at the same Sri Lankan target from a different
angle, pointing out “the criminal responsibility under international
criminal law, including by those in positions of command.” It is a
catch-all statement without being specific.
If she is genuinely intent on enforcing international humanitarian
law then she has to be precise and initiate action against Prabhakaran,
as the first move. Or could it be that she is making a broad statement
aiming at others “in positions of command”, leaving out Prabhakaran?
On the available mass of evidence she has no option but to try
Prabhakaran. The bombs planted and triggered by the Tigers are going off
again in Sri Lanka, killing unarmed civilians. No one needs to point out
to her the commander who is behind it all. Her duty now is not to debate
the politics of the Ceasefire Agreement. Sri Lanka has gone past that.
Her duty is to work within her legal parameters and go for the
commander behind it. Her competency as protector of human rights,
particularly the rights of the helpless Tamil children in Sri Lanka,
depends on her next move.
The eyes of the children of Sri Lanka are on you, Madame Arbour. Are
you awake or asleep? |