Countering terrorism, countering othering
Prof Rajiva Wijesinha, MP
The recent seminar on countering terrorism was a rich and
enlightening experience. It helped me to understand further the deep
sense of hurt that our military and political officials feel about the
swarm of attacks they now have to face with regard to allegations of war
crimes. I had known earlier from the statistics I collected from daily
TamilNet reports that we had done our best to fight a clean and careful
war. Until the end of 2008 we had succeeded, in the Eastern Province,
and also during the whole operation to retake the Western part of the
Wanni. Even then though, we had to face allegations that had no basis
whatsoever in fact, as with the Human Rights Watch claim that we had
engaged in indiscriminate attacks on civilians in the East.
Human Rights Watch
The Report that accompanied this assertion, which hardly anyone read
in full then, which has now been forgotten though the sensationalistic
claim still reverberates, makes it clear that there had been only one
incident in which civilians had died. That had been caused by mortar
locating radar, with the LTTE having been proved to have been inside a
refugee centre, bearing weapons and with bunkers having been prepared.
Barack Obama |
David Miliband |
Osama bin Laden |
Human Rights Watch grants this but claims that there is no evidence
that the LTTE used heavy weapons. Sadly, in their zeal to target the Sri
Lankan government, they omitted to put on record the obvious demand,
that the LTTE should not use refugee centres as places from which to
fire. The stunning silence of the now hysterical international community
seems to have encouraged the LTTE to use this tactic with impunity again
and again.
That is obviously what happened in 2009, so that obviously there were
civilian casualties. This does not take away from the government policy
of trying to ensure zero civilian casualties, though obviously they did
not succeed in this. But, with clear evidence that the LTTE fired from
amongst civilians and from near hospitals and other centres of
humanitarian activity, with clear records of civilians having been
killed by LTTE fire in such situations (as witnessed by the UN Resident
Coordinator in January 2009) and also through deliberate targeting when
civilians tried to escape, with multifold incidents of exaggerated
claims that were later toned down, we still face a situation in which
government is declared guilty with no sifting of the facts to attempt to
understand the real situation.
Pro-LTTE diaspora
This is a tribute to the skill of those in the pro-LTTE diaspora who,
though I believe a small minority of the Tamils abroad, have the money
and the contacts to get their message across. But unfortunately the
current spate of attacks seems to have coincided with geopolitical
concerns, so that Sri Lanka seems to be facing a barrage of hostility.
In some quarters this is seen as legitimate pressure on a country that
has developed links with other countries that are too close for the
comfort of those now applying these pressures.
It is assumed by many in Sri Lanka who have an inbuilt hostility to
the West that it is the United States of America that is currently
leading the pack snapping at Sri Lanka’s heels. I believe this is
unfair, because there is ample evidence of sensible elements in the
United States suggesting that an alternative strategy is preferable. I
refer in particular to what might be termed the Kerry Report, that came
out I believe towards the end of 2009, suggesting that excessive
pressure might well drive Sri Lanka to exclusive dependence on other
countries. That Report assumed, rightly, that while Sri Lanka would
uphold its old position of Non-Alignment, to assume that meant, as was
gospel in the old Cold War days, that it was an enemy, was absurd.
Combat power
Unfortunately that old Cold War position has been reinforced by what
might be termed the bleeding heart syndrome, those members of the
Democrat party who wore their hearts on their sleeves before the 2008
election with regard to American involvement in places such as Iraq and
Afghanistan. Since they had to put up with President Obama’s decision
that a sudden change of policy there was unwise, they therefore salved
their consciences, as an old Republican friend told me, with attacks on
Sri Lanka.
Sadly, these have now got more shrill. But we should remember,
without assuming that the United States as a whole has now adopted the
David Miliband mantle, that there are still sensible voices there. This
came out most obviously in the contribution to the seminar by the US
Defence Attache, who intervened when a question had been raised about
Sri Lankan responses to possible surrender by the LTTE leadership.
Earlier one of the foreign speakers had suggested that Sri Lanka had not
been prepared to accept any surrender, and Rohan Guneratne had noted
that, while unconditional surrender had always been acceptable, it was a
Ceasefire or conditionalities that Sri Lanka rejected, given the manner
in which the LTTE had previously made use of such concessions.
A more focused question prompted the Attache to say, ‘Regarding the
various versions of events that came out in the final hours and days of
the conflict - from what I was privileged to hear and to see, the offers
to surrender that I am aware of seemed to come from the mouthpieces of
the LTTE - Nadesan, KP - people who weren’t and never had really
demonstrated any control over the leadership or the combat power of the
LTTE. So their offers were a bit suspect anyway, and they tended to vary
in content hour-by-hour, day-by-day. I think we need to examine the
credibility of those offers before we leap to conclusions that such
offers were in fact real.’
Geneva Conventions
I was surprised by this, not least because I believe that this is the
one incident as to which we have specific allegations, and therefore I
think we should investigate further and try to establish what really
happened, and if necessary take action if there were any breaches of
law. This will not be at all embarrassing, in particular because we now
have the example of what happened to Osama bin Laden.
While it might be argued that he was not carrying a white flag, the
UN Special Rapporteur Heyns has drawn attention to the general principle
enshrined in ‘article 3 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions which prohibits
‘violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds” of
persons taking no active part in the hostilities or who have been placed
hors de combat, including by detention.’
On at least one version of events regarding the LTTE, some of its
leadership were in the same position as bin Laden, namely taking no
active part in hostilities, when they were killed - though in both
cases, given past records, there was fear, rational or otherwise,
clouded or not by perceptions of what they had done previously, of what
they might do next.
The Attache however provided yet another mitigatory factor when he
went on to say, 'I think the same is true for the version of events.
It's not so uncommon in combat operations, in the fog of war, as we all
get our reports second, third and fourth hand from various Commanders at
various levels that the stories don't seem to all quite match up.'
Unfortunately everyone seems to believe the version they want to
believe, that fits in with their predilections. And sadly the Attache
seemed to be aware that he could be at risk from what might be termed
friendly fire, when he added, 'And I think I better leave it at that
before I get into trouble.'
Needless to say, he did get into trouble, from those who would like
to present the position of the United States as monolithically critical
of Sri Lanka. But that requires an article to itself, to show how those
who see themselves as furthering the agenda of what they see as the
international community dislike interventions such as this that go
against their promotion of confrontation. |