Human Rights Watch: Vicious allegations, indiscriminate attacks
Ronnie
submission to the UN Human Rights Council in connection with the
Universal Periodic Review of Sri Lanka, repeats several canards that
have been refuted in the past, with no response from HRW to the
detailed rebuttal of their falsehoods. In particular it begins its
offensive by claiming that 'Sri Lanka security forces have conducted
indiscriminate bombing and shelling resulting in civilian
casualties'.
In August the claim was Security forces have subjected civilians to
indiscriminate attacks …. Both the government and the LTTE have shown
a brazen disregard for the well-being of non-combatants'. These were
conclusively refuted in the response of the Peace Secretariat entitled
'HRW's dirty war and the clean record of the Sri Lankan army', sent to
HRW. As yet there has been no response to this, nor rebuttal of the
arguments with regard to the Kathiravelli incident, the only one in
the military action in the East in which civilians were killed. It was
shown in the SCOPP response that that incident occurred because of
'mortar locating radar' so that the forces believed they were firing
on LTTE guns. In fact even the HRW report, as opposed to its
sensationalistic press release, revealed 'The LTTE had sentries in the
area of the camp, ostensibly to monitor the movement of displaced
persons' and that they were told that 'In the daytime, the LTTE didn't
carry weapons….When the LTTE has heavy weapons, they don't show them
because they're afraid someone will inform'. There were bunkers in the
camp, though HRW claims that these had been built by the displaced -
doubtless without the knowledge or support of the LTTE soldiers in the
camp.
Instead of responding to this evidence from their own report, HRW
merrily continues with the same vicious allegations, making clear
their determination to denigrate without looking at evidence. The same
goes for many of the old allegations that are repeated in this latest
report, as well as the new ones.
It is claimed for instance that, since the abrogation of the Ceasefire
in January this year, 'the fighting has claimed hundreds of civilians
lives, and tens of thousands more have been displaced'. This is
totally untrue. The total of civilian deaths related to the conflict
from the beginning of the year till the end of April amount to 325. Of
these 137 are due to terrorist attacks in districts in the south of
the country, including suicide bombings, with the highest number of
civilian deaths in a district being in Moneragala where terrorists not
only bombed a bus but shot survivors as they emerged.
The total number of civilian deaths in the Northern province, where
fighting is taking place, amount to 80. These include killings by the
LTTE, including by a suicide bombing and a claymore that killed five
soldiers plus eight civilians in a bus. There were 79 deaths in the
Eastern Province, a few of them being of candidates of the TMVP (the
former Karuna faction) related to the conflict. The rest were in other
southern districts, including in Anuradhapura bordering the North
where some of the killings were by the LTTE.
This figure is 325 too much, but when compared with the deaths of
civilians in other conflicts against terror, the actual figure of less
than a score in the course of fighting testifies to the regard of the
Sri Lankan forces for civilians. Conversely, during this same period,
as a consequence of LTTE bombs alone, 98 lives have been lost.
Similarly, the total of displaced has risen by just 149 between the
end of December and the end of March according to UNHCR figures. In
actual fact 2384 more people have been displaced, but 2235 have been
resettled in the Eastern Province. In the two LTTE controlled
districts, the increase has been 480 while in the four areas
controlled by the LTTE in three other districts, one has shown no
change, another showed an increase of 311, a third numbers going down
by 446 in two months before rising again by 2214, and the last a
decrease of 1156.
Despite all this, HRW has no qualms about asserting a figure of tens
of thousands displaced. This is of a piece when, irritated perhaps by
the comparatively low figure for displaced in the East within a few
months of it being liberated, it insisted that there had been forced
resettlement. Again the full report, as opposed to the aggressive
press release, recorded a UNHCR spokesperson saying 'Our staff
monitoring the situation on the ground say the majority of people are
eager to return home, the returns are voluntary and in line with
international protection standards …. UNHCR will continue to monitor
the returns and report directly to the government on any problems
regarding the voluntariness and any deviation from the civilian
characteristics of the move'.
Conversely, they inveigh against a return to one area in the East
being prevented because of the creation of a High Security Zone,
ignoring the fact that alternative lands in close proximity have been
found for all displaced families. In fact, taken as a whole, the
achievement of the Sri Lankan government in resettling most of the
displaced and restoring normalcy to the Eastern Province is a lesson
for all conflict affected countries. The fact that local government
elections were held there last month, to the satisfaction of the
internationally recognized monitoring group PAFFREL, is testimony to
this success, as is the Provincial Council election being held now,
which has attracted the two largest opposition parties which had
boycotted the earlier election.
The argument that the former Karuna group, now a political party known
as the TMVP, is 'routinely visible' bearing arms in the East may be
correct if the term 'routinely' is interpreted very loosely, since
given clandestine activity by the LTTE, they need to defend
themselves. However, the government has made it clear that the weapons
should not be used or displayed, so that, as an NGO hostile to the
government put it in asking that elections be cancelled - 'Though
weapons are currently only visible in Batticaloa in the hands of the
military, there is a deep, widely held conviction that armed groups
have not permanently disarmed but only put their weapons out of sight
for the moment'. Fortunately the government did not give in to such
specious logic, and went ahead with the election, and normalcy is
rapidly returning.
Another subject used to demonize the TMVP is that of child soldiers
and HRW duly claims that the government has 'been complicit in the use
of child soldiers by nonstate armed groups'. The government is still
waiting for evidence to conduct investigations in this respect.
Queries to Alan Rock, who first made this claim, have fallen on deaf
ears. The one instance cited by UNICEF was looked into, and it turned
out that personnel involved, soldiers at a checkpoint who had passed
through a truck with armed personnel including children, had been
given a punishment transfer. UNICEF was asked for information about
any other incidents, but could provide none.
On the contrary, it should be noted with regard to allegations of
recruitment by the Karuna group (the only one cited in this regard
except for the LTTE), an estimated 1,800 children were released by
them after they split from the LTTE in 2004. However, this led to
widespread re-recruitment of these children by the LTTE and the Karuna
faction then claimed that it was forced to take in children who were
otherwise in danger. UNICEF figures indicate 351 children recruited by
them as opposed to the 453 claimed by HRW and, now that the East is
free of LTTE control, release of these soldiers has begun, as noted
and welcomed by UNICEF. It should be noted that previously, as
indicated in a recent press statement, the former Karuna group was
wary of UNICEF because of what seemed undue indulgence to the LTTE,
exemplified in the handing over for rehabilitation purposes of $1
million dollars to an LTTE front. Accounts of this grant are still
awaited, despite having been requested from UNICEF nine months ago.
HRW then raises the old chestnut about the national Human Rights
Commission, both querying how it was appointed and its efficacy. This
ignores the fact that the government agrees it could be made more
efficacious, but that its pleas for assistance were ignored by those
who now complain. In particular, the suppression of the UNDP
stocktaking report on the HRC, which established that the questions
about the appointment of the HRC in no way vitiated its standing or
the integrity of those appointed, suggests a determination to condemn
almost worthy of HRW. Now at last UNDP has begun to develop 'a new
framework for UN support to the HRC.'
This charge is of a piece with the claim that there is impunity in Sri
Lanka. This is absurd since, though it may be complained that the Sri
Lankan government is slow or inefficient in punishing such activities
- a trait it shares with all governments - it has never sanctioned
them. Indictments have been issued for some killings, and most
recently, with regard to indictments, an indictment has been issued on
persons arrested some months ago, but then released following a court
ruling. HRW may see it as a problem that the courts in Sri Lanka are
independent and tend, as in jurisdictions similar to ours, to acquit
without evidence that may seem impossible to collect - but in the long
run we should be glad of this, and indeed many activists have been
pleased recently about several decisions in which the Supreme Court
has ruled against measures taken for security reasons. Whether the
citizenry are happy about this when bombs enclosed is another
question, but that is not a reason to complain about the rule of law.
Finally, given its categorical refusal to accept UN reports, it is
astonishing that HRW adds its voice to the chorus demanding a UN
monitoring mission. At least it would be astonishing were it not clear
that the determination to establish such a mission, with its lucrative
jobs for footsoldiers in the Human Rights army, had been rife even
before what was supposed to be a survey by the UN High Commissioner
for Human Rights. Certainly Sri Lanka will not be dragooned into
submitting to decisions taken on the basis of falsehoods, and prefers
to concentrate on strengthening its own national institutions, which
belatedly the UN has now agreed to think of doing.
Sri Lanka is also worried about continuing denigration of the country
in the claim that HRW forwards, that its government 'publicly labeled
senior UN officials as "LTTE supporters" and "terrorists" because they
highlighted "disappearances" or other rights violations'. The
reference is to a criticism by the Government Chief Whip, Jeyaraj
Fernandopulle, of a statement by Sir John Holmes, who is in charge of
Humanitarian Affairs for the United Nations., because he made a
statement that has since been used by the LTTE and other forces to the
government to claim that Sri Lanka is the most dangerous place in the
world for humanitarian workers.
What Minister Fernandopulle had meant was quite clear, in that he had
indicated that he thought Sir John was helping the terrorist cause by
describing Sri Lanka as the second most dangerous place in the world
for aid workers. And he was correct, in that that phrase has been
quoted time and again by terrorists, their supporters, and Sri Lankans
who oppose the government, whether or not they support the LTTE or its
cause. Jeyaraj Fernandopulle knew what would happen as a result of Sir
John's loose talk, and it is a pity that he then became the butt of
criticism, without Sir John feeling obliged to explain publicly the
circumstances under which he had made his faux pas.
Later it was revealed that Sir John had broken an agreement he had
with the government which had invited him to Sri Lanka, that he should
not give any private interview to the media while he was in Sri Lanka.
It has not as yet been explained why he broke his agreement, nor who
in his or the UN office made the arrangement. Significantly, Louise
Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, had made a similar
agreement, and again her office or the office in Sri Lanka had
arranged an interview in violation of this agreement. It was only just
in time, when she was being taken away for the interview, that the
Minister who had invited her found out what was happening and
suggested she stand by the agreement. To her credit, she agreed.
Though Sir John later regretted what had happened in a letter to the
Minister concerned, and indicated that his statement had been taken
out of context, the damage had been done. His remark as quoted has
reverberated since in reporting about Sri Lanka, transformed now into
being the most dangerous place in the world for aid workers.
Elsewhere the incident which contributed to this remark has been
discussed at length, and it has been pointed out that, in terms of the
UN manual on safety, the agency which sent 17 workers to their deaths
had been in gross breach of its obligations. Though those responsible
for the murder should be sought and tried, the culpability of the
agency cannot be forgotten. But it has been forgotten, despite a Sri
Lankan reporter bringing the question up when the bodies were found.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that international agencies have
impunity in such matters, from the international media, as well as
their own governments.
So there has been no question of finding out who advised Sir John to
breach his agreement. He doubtless had no idea of what would result
from his indiscretion. Having spent the last few years in Paris and
London, doubtless he assumed that people played by the rules, so it
did not matter if he himself broke them.
Even now, when he sees his remark quoted all the time - assuming that
is, that he has time to think of Sri Lanka - he doubtless does not
think of his own culpability, but bristles with indignation that he
was called a terrorist.
That Mr Fernandopulle died in a suicide attack last month did register
with Sir John, but he scrupulously avoided any criticism of terrorism,
and instead took the opportunity to mention 'the rising toll that
fighting in Sri Lanka is having on civilians'. In strongly condemning,
not a terrorist attack targeting a democratically elected Minister,
but 'all violence and indiscriminate attacks against civilians', Sir
John was again playing the LTTE game, of suggesting that terrorism can
be justified. The implication is that the Sri Lankan government also
engages in indiscriminate attacks on civilians, as asserted by HRW
too.
This does not make them terrorists. Complex language is necessary to
show that, without being terrorists themselves, they are playing into
terrorist hands. In Sir John's case it may be appreciated that this
was unwitting, but as HRW goes on and on with the same vicious
chestnuts, one begins to wonder whether they are really quite as
innocent as they seem.