The Darusman Report - bristling with inaccuracies

S S Sahabandu PC

On June 22, 2010, the Secretary-General of the UN announced the appointment of a Panel of Experts to advice him on the issues of accountability with regard to alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law during the final stages of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka.

He selected three persons for this purpose: Marzuki Darusman (Indonesia) Chair, Steven Ratner (USA) and Yasmin Sooka (South Africa). They commenced work on September 16, 2010. He had carefully selected the period to be covered, that is the final stages of the armed conflict.

In his selection of the panel of experts he has not adequately considered whether they have any conflict of interest or bias towards the subject matter that they have to deal with.

The report that they submitted has reference to the members of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission and is critical of some of them stating that they have a conflict of interest and are not suitable to sit on such a Commission.

If they look at themselves, the suitability of the members of the UN Panel can be questioned. Why has he chosen only the ‘final stages’ of the war when this armed conflict has gone on for almost 35 years? During that period the LTTE, one of the combatants, had an Indian Prime Minister-Rajive Ghandi a Sri Lankan President R Premadasa, 600 policeman brutally killed and thousands of civilians, men, women and children massacred all in the name of creating a separate state.

Final stages of war

The terms of reference of the established Commission were as follows:

(1) The Secretary-General has decided to establish a panel of experts to advise him on the implementation of the said commitment with respect to the final stages of the war.

(2) The purpose of the panel shall be to advice the Secretary-General of the modalities, applicable international standards and comparative experience relevant to the fulfillment of the joint commitment to an accountability process, having regard to the nature and scope of alleged violations.

(3) The panel shall submit its report to the Secretary-General within four months of the commencement of its work.

(4) The panel shall be funded from the Secretary-General’s unforeseen budget.

The panel itself states that the ‘Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka is an island state situated in the Indian Ocean, 18 miles off the South-Eastern coast of India.’ How is it that the Secretary-General found it important to appoint such a panel to advise him on a conflict that has been concluded as they report on May 19, 2009?

Tamil diaspora

The Secretary-General is the main international civil-servant and his appointment is political based on the power-brokers of the UN at the relevant time. By convention it being Asia’s turn in the selection of a Secretary-General, the present Secretary-General was selected and is due for re-election, and this would greatly depend on the powers that have the veto in the Security Council viz USA, UK, France, Britain, China and Russia.

Therefore, his actions would be political, as his appointment is also political depending as it does on the power structure in the world at that time. What are the factors that led him to appoint such a commission and make Sri Lanka accountable?

It is indeed a fact that certain countries who are powerful on the world stage wanted a ceasefire during the last stages of the war and this was quite rightly refused by the Sri Lankan government.

There is also the Tamil diaspora who, smarting under the 1983 riots agitated for a ceasefire during the last stages of the war. They staged demonstrations and lobbied foreign governments in this regard.

Many foreign dignitaries came to Sri Lanka and requested for a ceasefire on the basis that civilians were trapped in the war zone.

The Sri Lankan government went ahead with one determination on the premise of zero civilian casualties. They realized that a ceasefire would only meet with the same fate of earlier ceasefires by the two combatants.

The Commission itself states this, “the first was a short lived peace process which commenced in 2000. The government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE requested Norway to serve as facilitator.

The parties agreed to a ceasefire in February 2002 and undertook a number of confidence building measures .... The LTTE unilaterally abrogated the CFA in April 2003. After that the CFA existed only in name”. The experiences of the ceasefire with the LTTE were that a ceasefire is only for a further revamping of its military machine.

International community

The report comments about the Tamil diaspora as follows: “the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora with a population of close to one million scattered across the globe, has grown since the 1980s, as large numbers of Tamils sought refuge abroad from violence and repression by the state, whilst others sought better economic opportunity.

The diaspora has played a crucial role throughout the war, with segments providing uncritical support to the LTTE, through crucial funding and advocacy, consistently denying any wrong doing by the LTTE throughout the conflict.”

Now, did these two forces, a section of the international community and the powerful Tamil diaspora encourage the Secretary-General to appoint this panel? If so is this not an attempt to tarnish the image of Sri Lanka and its government which took on the most ruthless terrorist organization in the world, the LTTE which is banned in 32 countries.

Many are the inaccuracies in the report. In one instance, Minister Basil Rajapaksa is referred to as the Defence Secretary.

LTTE had come by September 2008, with its military capabilities severely diminished. It was a guerrilla organization at the beginning, being the author of the modern suicide bombing. It had now to defend territory in the “state of Eelam and therefore had to resort to conventional warfare and by that it could not match the Sri Lankan armed forces with superior fire power and large numbers.” Therefore, the defeat of the LTTE was a question of time.

Many international actors tried to stop the fighting and give the LTTE enough oxygen to fight, regroup and remain in the theater of war. The LTTE threw away all opportunities of a negotiated settlement over and over again. It killed the author of the Indo-Lanka Agreement, Prime Minister Rajive Gandhi who wanted to bring about a lasting solution to the Tamil problem. It left no alternative to the Sri Lankan government except a military solution.

Military records

The government of Sri Lanka with the available military records, affidavits and all necessary primary evidence could rebut these allegations of a disgruntled diaspora and an enraged section of the international community.

The worldwide war against terror which started with 9/11 and is still going on with trials in the USA on 26/11 is supported by Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka and its government has made a significant contribution to the war against terror by defeating the LTTE and its ruthless terror machine. Without putting Sri Lanka in the dock, the international community should commend the government of Sri Lanka on its victory over terrorism.

Sri Lanka could say the same thing that it said on 18.05.2010, on the first anniversary of the war, on its second anniversary. “We declared no-fire zones. We also adopted a self-imposed ban on air bombing, artillery and mortar fire, whenever we were confronted with battle zones which were home to civilians. Our field commanders were very mindful of this and restrained themselves often .... Also at every stage of the battle we made certain that food and medical supplies reached trapped civilians through the World Food Programme, the Red Cross and the UN.”

The report seems to blame Sri Lanka and the Sri Lankan government for an attitude of ‘triumphalism’. This is a natural phenomenon of a population of all communities who wanted an end to the war. The LTTE atrocities committed against all ethnic groups, are only known to those who encountered them. The Tamil diaspora did not encounter the brutalities of LTTE living as they do in safe havens abroad. The recent scenes outside the White House when Osama-Bin-Laden was killed were also symptomatic of triumphalism. Has this death not helped President Obama to improve his image and succeed in his election bid? All politicians who head governments get political mileage from their victories. Is not the Secretary-General trying to get some mileage by publishing this report for his own re-election bid?