A friendly response to Alistair Burt:
What's so independent about the Chilcot inquiry?
"The
UK and the world watched in agony as Sri Lanka suffered over 25 years of
civil war. The barbaric tactics of the LTTE, who pioneered modern day
suicide bombing and forcibly recruited child soldiers, were brought to
an end. The plight of many thousands of displaced people after the war
reminds us of the human cost of such conflicts. It is because of the
strength of relations between our two countries that we care so deeply
about events in Sri Lanka. This relationship has been forged over many
years and spans not just history, but also areas such as trade,
education, family and sporting links. Only this month our cricket teams
are competing against each other in a spirit of friendly sporting
rivalry."
Women suicide cadres
This is what Alistair Burt UK's Foreign Office Minister for South
Asia, said in an Opinion Editorial on the Sri Lankan situation titled
'Honest Friends' published in 'UK in Sri Lanka', the official website of
the British High Commission, Colombo.
Maj. Gen. Shavendra Silva |
Burt is profuse in his expressions of friendship towards Sri Lanka,
with lots of syrupy observations as seen in the paragraph above. The
wordy declarations of friendship are not anchored in fact. Just one
example: UK did not watch in agony as Sri Lanka suffered over 25 years
of 'civil war'. First, there was no civil war in Sri Lanka, not by any
definition of such a conflict. What we had was a confrontation with a
terrorist organization determined to use terror to dismember the Sri
Lankan state. No community in Sri Lanka took up arms against another,
which is what a civil war is. The very use of this phrase shows
something other than friendship in looking at Sri Lanka.
As for 'watching in agony' it was certainly not agonizing for the UK
to allow Anton Balasingham, the theoretician of the terrorist LTTE, and
his wife Adele, who trained and built morale among the LTTE's women
suicide cadres, to function freely in the UK for so many years, while
Sri Lanka was bleeding from the LTTE's terror. It was we who suffered in
agony, as Balasingham and others, sheltered in the UK, organized the
forces of terror, broke up peace talks, and raised funds for the huge
military strength of the LTTE, that had to be subdued by the Sri Lankan
armed forces, without the help of any British weapons or military
advisors, as happens when the UK claims to fight terror in Afghanistan
and Iraq.
Is it the agony the UK underwent watching the tragedy of Sri Lanka
being bled by LTTE terror that made the UK wait till 2001 to ban the
LTTE as an international terrorist organization, when the US took this
step in 1997, and others too did it before 2001, without all those
historic friendly relations with Sri Lanka, that you speak of?
If, as you state, the strength of relations between our two countries
has made the UK care so deeply about the events in Sri Lanka, those same
relations should urge you to be more understanding of the actual
developments in this country, that necessitated the defeat of the LTTE,
about which you are crying so loudly today, couched in alleged
satisfaction in its defeat, but warning us of consequences if we are not
'accountable' as Alistair Burt would want us to be.
In fact when Alistair Burt makes such expressions of friendship, and
honest friendship at that, one is reminded of the adage about the need
for enemies when having such friends - I mean the likes of Alistair
Burt, David Campbell, and William Hague.
Gordon Brown |
The sting comes later in the expression of honest friendship. "We
have seen allegations of war crimes in the detailed accounts in the UN
Panel of Experts Report, and in documentary footage authenticated by
independent experts. The former indicates that civilians lost their
lives through widespread shelling by the Army of hospitals and
humanitarian objects and that the LTTE used civilians as a human buffer
and killed those who attempted to flee. The UK government is deeply
concerned about these allegations.
"The evidence which has so far come to light is enough to lend
credibility to the claims that war crimes were perpetrated by both sides
in the conflict in those difficult days. It is not for me to judge where
this evidence should lead: that is for the full and independent inquiry
that I and Sri Lanka's other friends have been calling for."
Video footage
Despite his knowledge of jurisprudence obtained at Oxford, Alistair
Burt is satisfied that the "detailed accounts in the UN Panel of Experts
Report", and "in documentary footage authenticated by independent
experts" are enough to lend credibility to the claims of war crimes
perpetrated "by both sides in the conflict in those difficult days". He
is not bothered by the 'UN Panel of Experts' stating that nothing in its
reports has been authenticated or verified. He is also not bothered by
the views of experts, other than those independent experts who have
authenticated the documentary footage, who have been emphatic that there
is much to be questioned in technology and desired in the standards of
truth and veracity, in the said video footage that has impressed him so
much.
Not all of his expressions of friendship and concern for Sri Lanka's
agony in bloody crisis, helps dispel the belief that Alistair Burt has
been very well approached or lobbied by those who did the pre-publicity
for the Channel 4 video telecast, and must also have read every word of
the messages sent to him as an MP, by those who used the Tool Kit
provided by the Global Tamil Forum, for influencing UK MPs on the issue.
And, what does this 'Honest Friend' want? He is modest, and does not
want to judge where this evidence would lead. What a good friend. He
leaves that "for the full and independent inquiry that I and Sri Lanka's
other friends have been calling for." It is necessary to state that Sri
Lanka has many friends that do not share such views, and do not as good,
honest friends make such calls.
Tony Blair |
LLRC
Apart from friendship, whether honest or not, it is necessary to ask
what exactly Alistair Burt means by an 'independent inquiry'. He is
aware of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) already
sitting in Sri Lanka, and of its mandate. He refers to it and has advice
for it too, but thinks it is not independent. What should it be
independent of? This is the important question that has to be asked from
him and all other 'friends', honest or not, who crave for such
independence.
It is not out of place to remind Alistair Burt, and other such
friends, of what is known as the Chilcot Inquiry, appointed by the
former Labour government led by Gordon Brown, to probe into the merits
or otherwise of the UK's entry into the Iraq War to carry out regime
change in that country, and also study the record of British military
activity in that war, that continues to bleed Iraq.
British Intelligence Services
Chaired by Sir John Chilcot, the probe team was appointed in late
2009, full six years after the UK-US invasion of Iraq, unlike the LLRC
that was appointed less than two years after the defeat of the LTTE. Now
who the hell is Chilcot and how independent can he be? Alistair Burt
must surely know that Sir John Chilcot, retired in 1997 after decades
long career in the UK Civil Service, no doubt with faithful and
dependable service to governments and ministers of different political
parties in Britain. Following retirement he dealt with British
Intelligence Services. Does this career record make him in any way
independent of the UK government whether Labour or Con-Dem, because it
was Labour that ordered UK troops to invade Iraq, and the Conservatives
very strongly supported that move.
Who are the others in the Chilcot team? The record is very
interesting for those who seek independent inquiries. They are Sir
Lawrence David Freedman (Falkland War historian and one who publicly
approved of regime change in Iraq), Sir Martin Gilbert (historian who
openly backed regime change in Iraq), Sir Roderick Michael John Lyne
(ex-diplomat subsequently involved in major British firms involved in
Iraq) and Usha Kumari Prashar aka Baroness Prashar (top private and
public sector executive). Interestingly, Prashar had been a
non-executive director of Channel 4, which is a British public service
broadcaster operative since November 1982.
Alistair Burt |
Doesn't Alistair Burt find it surprising that no HR groups such as
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and International Crisis Group
et al and the major Western media have never challenged or even queried
the 'independence' of the Chilcot Inquiry? Or is it that they are too
honestly friendly with the UK as to make such embarrassing calls for
independence?
Western forces
I owe it to Sri Lanka's Deputy Representative at the UN, Maj. Gen.
Shavendra Silva, for the information that the same Sir John Chilcot
served on another five-member inquiry appointed in February 2004 to
study the failure of Western Intelligence Services in relation to false
intelligence. Although Western forces invaded Iraq citing intelligence
reports of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein having a mega programme to
produce weapons of mass destruction, the invaders never found anything.
Those who investigated the intelligence failure included Lord Butler of
Brockwell (served three Prime Ministers as Cabinet Secretary), Field
Marshal Lord Inge (ex-Chief of Defence Staff), Sir John Chilcot (now
heads Iraq Inquiry) and two Labour and Conservative MPs, Ann Taylor and
Michael Mates, respectively, who supported the invasion of Iraq. Indeed
an outstanding example of 'independence' in inquiry. All members of both
inquiries are solely British, and were largely supportive of the Iraq
invasion, so by what stretch of imagination could they be independent?
It is also necessary to remind Alistair Burt of two other important
matters regarding the invasion of Iraq by the UK (whether it was Tony
Blair playing poodle to George W. Bush or not). The present Deputy Prime
Minister of the UK, the Liberal Democratic Leader Nick Clegg, said in
the House of Common on July 2, 2010, that the invasion of Iraq by the UK
was illegal. At the end of a heated exchange with Jack Straw, Foreign
Secretary at the time the invasion was launched, Clegg said: "We may
have to wait for his memoirs, but perhaps one day he will account for
his role in the most disastrous decision of all: the illegal invasion of
Iraq".
He made this statement from the dispatch box of the Commons as the
Deputy Prime Minister.
British troops
There were more things that Nick Clegg said that would require
inquiry. Referring to WikiLeaks reports about torture and abuse in Iraq,
in October 2010, the Lib-Dem leader told BBC 4: "We can bemoan how these
leaks occurred, but I think the nature of the allegations made are
extraordinarily serious. They are distressing to read about and they are
very serious. I am assuming the US administration will want to provide
its own answer. It is not for us to tell them what to do."
Asked by BBC 4 if there should be an inquiry into the role of British
troops, Clegg said: "I think anything that suggest that basic rules of
war, conflict and engagement have been broken or that torture has been
in any way condoned are extremely serious and need to be looked into...I
think people will want to hear what the answer is to what are very, very
serious allegations of a nature which I think everybody will find quite
shocking."
Is it the extremely warm friendship, whether honest or not, between
the UK and US that has not made Alistair Burt to call all for an
independent inquiry to the charges about US troop activity in Iraq and
Afghanistan? Also, is it a not so honest friendship with Nick Clegg or
too much of an honest friendship with the British people that Alistair
Burt has not sought any independent inquiry into the charges about
British troops?
Independent inquiry
Just for the record, is Alistair Burt not aware of the Labour Leader
Ed Miliband's statement that Blair was wrong to take Britain to war in
Iraq, in his acceptance speech at the Labour Party conference last year,
which made his brother, the hugely pro-LTTE David Miliband, to walk out
of the conference? Here is what Ed Miliband said: "I criticize nobody
with making the toughest decisions and I honour our troops who fought
and died there. But I do believe that we were wrong. Wrong to take
Britain to war and we need to be honest about that...Wrong because the
war was not a last resort, because we did not build sufficient alliances
and because we undermined the United Nations."
Does Alistair Burt not want any inquiry, whether independent or not,
to inquire why Britain was taken to war in Iraq, in a manner that
undermined the United Nations? Or is he too much of an honest friend
with Ed Miliband to make such a call?
To get back to the question of an independent inquiry, one must not
forget that the war in Iraq was fought in a foreign land. The majority
of victims were Iraqi civilians. Several thousands of them were killed.
Many more were gravely injured. The country was pushed into sectarian
violence. Those who were displaced by this 'illegal' war that
'undermined the United Nations' became refugees by the millions in
Syria, Jordan and other neighbouring states. Does the Chilcot Inquiry
into the Iraq War have a single Iraqi as a member, to represent the very
theatre of war? Is there any Syrian or Jordanian or any other
representative from a country that received that exodus of Iraqi
refugees. Regrettably, there is no such representation. It is a British
Inquiry into an international operation by Britain that took place in
another land, and caused (and still causes) untold misery to those
people. But the inquiry remains wholly British.
On the other hand the Sri Lankan crisis and armed conflict was
entirely local. There were no foreign boots on our soil. True there were
people who left Sri Lanka, seeking refugee/ asylum status abroad, but
many of them are now returning, and Britain itself is sending back those
who failed to fulfill the requirements of refugee/asylum status, with no
fear for them when they return.
LTTE terror
So why can't we conduct our own inquiry, by our own persons of
eminence - public officers with good records, senior diplomats and
professionals - to look into a crisis within our own borders, without
having the so-called 'independence' of foreign inquirers, who are not
probing what needs to be probed in their own countries?
There is another matter that honest friends such as Alistair Burt
never raise. It is the oft stated position "that war crimes were
perpetrated by both sides in the conflict in those difficult days." It
is an easy way of shrugging off the responsibility of the LTTE because
it has been defeated, and all the better for it as they all say. There
is also the oft stated charge that "the LTTE used civilians as a human
buffer and killed those who attempted to flee".
How is it that an honest friend of Sri Lanka, who must have
humanitarian feelings, can ignore the role of those who still peddle the
LTTE line abroad, and are straining every nerve and muscle to level
charges of alleged war crimes against Sri Lanka, not ask one word about
their own responsibility to these horrendous crimes of the LTTE? Why not
appoint an independent inquiry if you wish, to find out what role the
members of the Global Tamil Forum (GTF), the Transnational Government of
Tamil Eelam (TGTE) and such groups were doing by supporting the terror
of the LTTE, including its use of human shields, child soldiers and
suicide killers? How is it that any call for an independent probe can
ignore the work of such people, only because they happen to be non-state
actors, despite the fact that they were the strongest contributors to
and diehard activists in the cause of LTTE terror, and still seek to
subvert democracy to achieve their goal that was denied by Sri Lanka's
defeat of terrorism? Is this not a matter of interest to any honest
friend, who dares to point the finger only at the Sri Lankan state.
The sting of friendship is in the tail, when Alistair Burt defines an
honest friend as one who "would not stand aside and remove the need for
difficulties to be confronted." He should know it as a twist of honest
friendship to lacerate wounds already in the process of healing, and
claim it is because the UK wants an open and honest relationship with
Sri Lanka.
Friendship, especially one that is described as honest, requires
respect for the integrity of one's friend, be it a person or a state.
Honest friendship does not suggest or call for interference in the
affairs of a friendly nation, especially with warnings of drastic action
to follow if the friendly admonitions are not followed. It is good for
the UK to be a friend of Sri Lanka. Let's keep it at that. Honest
friendship of the type that Alistair Burt offers lacks the very warmth
and spirit of true friendship. |