The deliberate targeting of Sri Lanka:
How, why, and the use of Auxiliary Forces including Channel 4
Continued from March 20, 2012
Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, MP
Let me deal with what they have presented as their most damning
evidence, the pictures of the dead body of Prabhakaran’s son. The
killing of a child is always shocking and, unlike the celebrated Elie
Wiesel, who excused the killing of members of Osama bin Laden’s family
on the grounds that ‘it was bin Laden himself who placed them in harm’s
way’, I do not think that is in any sense an excuse. We must investigate
what happened, and take action if this was execution.
|
An Afghan man sits in the back of a
bus with the body of a person who was allegedly killed by a
US soldier in Panjwai, Kandahar province, Afghanistan on
March 11, 2012.- AP |
However the manner in which Channel 4 drums up evidence suggests that
they are more concerned with vindictiveness towards their enemies than
justice. In their anxiety to declare that the boy was tortured, they
claim that they have been told this by a Sri Lankan Army officer.
However, in the transcript they show, it appears that, when they asked
this officer how the boy had been treated, he simply responded ‘I got to
know at the latter stages that they found out where Prabhakaran is
through his son’.
Then there is a description from a pathologist about how he had been
killed, a description that uses the word ‘likely’ three times. This
uncertainty is compounded in the response to the question Channel 4
posed about torture, having declared that ‘clearly’ whoever killed him
was trying to get information.
The answer is categorical that ‘There is no evidence on the body of
physical torture’. However, the obliging expert then claims that ‘if we
can imagine the situation he was in’, since there were five others ‘who
may well have been killed before he was killed’, and (this is now
definite in what we can imagine), he was shot ‘by someone standing in
front of him with the end of the gun within a few feet of his body, that
would be a psychological torture in itself’. In this extraordinarily
tentative world in which the Channel 4 expert lives, the alleged torture
being characterized by a bizarre indefinite article too, this is enough
to claim that President Rajapaksa is guilty. The sequence ends with the
claim that, after several hypothetical steps, ‘the legal difficulties of
linking the top to the bottom are largely eliminated’.
I should add that this video does not seem, at first sight, to
contain many of the flaws of the previous video Channel 4 showed, which
was initially dated wrongly (with no explanation given when we showed
that the metadata indicated something else), with no editing of
fragments in the wrong order with the inclusion of one fragment filmed
at a different time and perhaps even a different place according to the
reports the UN commissioned, with no purportedly dead figure putting
down his legs which led one apparently eccentric expert to declare that
is was possible he was drunk or sleeping or playing dead while others
were being shot through the head around him. The video of Balachandran’s
body - not actual killing which was shown in the other video, which is
bizarrely now connected to this through claims of a pattern - does not
seem tampered with, which is why I believe the incident should be
investigated. In the other case, it is obviously the video that should
be investigated first, and for this we or the UN needs to have the
original videos Channel 4 showed, not a copy as happened with the first
video, when Channel 4 refused to give what they showed to us or to the
UN.
|
|
David
Miliband |
Osama bin
Laden |
Channel 4 claimed to have received the initial video from a body
called Journalists for Democracy, which is the same body that supplied
the UN with another copy of that video, but one that differed in salient
particulars that we had pointed out. And this time round, to strengthen
their case against the Sri Lankan government, it is of course a
representative of Journalists for Democracy who is trotted out. Those
who do not know the involvement of this group in making the film in the
first place would naturally be fooled, but it is sad that governments
also refer to Channel 4 approvingly, without bothering to study the
sleight of hand that is used.
Claims that civilians were knowingly targeted
The third case history, as Channel 4 terms the four charges that are
made, revolves around the claim that civilians were ‘knowingly
targeted’. No evidence for this is presented, but instead we have a lot
of emotive footage taken largely from Sri Lankan government footage, and
then some generalizations that do not mention the reasons for the claims
made. David Miliband asserts that ‘the fact that the LTTE were using
civilians as human shields which in some cases they were, is itself a
war crime, doesn’t justify the shelling of those sites and those
individuals’. Sam Zarifi claims that ‘The evidence that’s available
right now strongly suggests that war crimes occurred’, while William
Shabas, described as a Human Rights Lawyer, claims that ‘There are
strong presumptions, when these attacks took place, that they were
disproportionate, that civilians may have been or civilian objects like
hospitals may have been targeted’. No evidence is given for the claims
or what the lawyer describes, with great circumspection, as
presumptions.
The claims are strengthened by the assertion that the pro-government
media suggested no civilians had died in the offensive. On the contrary,
what government spokesmen were denying was that civilians were targeted.
As Shabas suggests, and as the United States and its allies have
manifested time and time again, collateral damage is inevitable when
targeting terrorists who live and work in the midst of civilians. The
question is whether the force used was proportionate. The Americans
always claim that the force was proportionate, by asserting that all
those who were killed were terrorists, even though the poor Pakistanis
and Afghans and others whose relations are killed think otherwise. But
they obviously do not have the technological and other skills the West
commands to identify as positively as the West does who is a terrorist,
and to ensure that that identification is accepted by Western media.
In Sri Lanka, we were faced with the fact that the LTTE deliberately
placed heavy weaponry amongst civilians and in and near ‘civilian
objects like hospitals’. This is clearly stated by those who cannot be
said to have been prejudiced in favour of government in any way. First
there is the letter from Chris du Toit to the Commander of the Security
Force Headquarters in the Vanni, dated January 20th, which was a few
days after Convoy 11 went in.
Du Toit wrote then, ‘It was reported to us that artillery and mortar
bases have been established in the general area of our communications
hub from where they deliver fire to your forces’. It must be remembered
that the convoy went in on January 16 and was meant to come out soon
afterwards, but stayed on. At the time we were told that it was because
they hoped to persuade the LTTE to let their staff in the North leave,
though it is now insinuated that there was heavy fighting during that
time. In fact fighting seems to have been limited, for in the four days
between January 16 - 20, TamilNet alleged altogether 42 deaths from what
they claimed were artillery barrages, in contrast to the large numbers
alleged afterwards, when two figure and then three figure numbers became
the norm.
Certainly the forces were very anxious for the convoy to leave,
precisely because of what du Toit reports. When however the convoy did
leave, part of it remained behind to continue to try to persuade the
LTTE to free local staff, an exercise that proved fruitless even though
we were told every day that success was imminent, and therefore declared
ceasefires, which proved fruitless, except perhaps to allow the LTTE to
redeploy its weapons.
This is what happened on the day we were accused of targeting the
humanitarian supply centre which forms the substance of Channel 4’s
first case history. On that very day the Bishop of Jaffna wrote to
government requesting it to enlarge the Safe Zone, and adding ‘We are
also urgently requesting the LTTE Tigers not to station themselves among
the people in the safety zone and fire their artillery shells and
rockets at the Army. This will only increase more and more the death of
civilians thus endangering the safety of the people. I insist that both
parties must observe the Safety zone strictly’.
This was a request that the forces made through the ICRC too, which
responded on February 20, in a letter headed ‘Complaints about LTTE
firing from the no fire zone’, welcoming the demarcation of a new ‘safe
zone’ It added however that ‘the ICRC would like to point out that not
having been agreed upon by both parties to the conflict with the aim to
shelter the wounded, sick and civilians from the effects of hostilities
or with the aim to demilitarize it, the zone as such is not specifically
protected under International Humanitarian Law’.
This is the crux of the matter, glibly ignored by those who sought
political advantage through speaking up in a manner that would have
helped the Tigers. David Miliband is right to say that ‘Democratic
governments are held to higher standards than terrorist organizations’,
though he was quite happy to connive in the programme of secret
renditions and torture that Craig Murray, the British ambassador to
Uzbekhistan who was dismissed for criticizing the excesses of New
Labour, reveals.
But it is also a fact that governments must defend their own
citizens, and they certainly cannot allow their own forces to be mown
down like flies, by refraining from firing on weapons which are
targeting them. I cannot therefore understand Chris du Toit’s request
‘that you inform your respective ground commanders and artillery
commanders not to deliver any artillery, mortar or small arms fire into
the general area of the hub’ since he had just said that the forces were
being fired upon ‘from artillery and mortar bases established in the
general area of the hub’.
The fact that not one single UN worker or member of a family was hurt
then, and indeed - though most had to stay on to the end - none even
thereafter, (except a girl who lost her leg because of a mine, if I
remember right, laid of course by the LTTE) is a tribute to the care
exercised by our forces, in the face of this ruthless use of civilians,
and even more prominently the UN officers who stayed on without proper
authorization.
The strange case of Peter Mackay
Perhaps the most telling perversions in the latest Channel 4 film
come with regard to what is termed its first case study. This ‘begins on
January 23 when UN personnel from the last overland food convoy into the
war zone became trapped in the fighting’. This is actually not quite
correct, because most of convoy 11 had gone back, but a few people chose
to stay behind, contrary to what had been agreed with government, in
order to try, it was claimed, to persuade the LTTE to allow UN workers
who had been in the Vanni to leave.
The account relies heavily on a man called Peter Mackay, expanding on
the names given in previous such descriptions, by the Darusman Panel and
by an Australian called Gordon Weiss, who referred by name only to a man
who was known officially to have been present, Colonel Haroun, who had
worked very well with his Sri Lankan counterparts. The name of Peter
Mackay, another Australian, does not figure in the manifests of UN staff
coming back to Vavuniya that are with the forces. I do not think this
was due just to carelessness, and I am sorry that, though I have
requested this, our Ministry of External Affairs has not got the real
story from the UN, whose trust Mackay seems to have betrayed - assuming
they were not aware of what he was up to, in contravention of his
supposed job description.
To be continued
|