The secretive anonymity of Human Rights Watch

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary General
Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process

01 March 2009
Human Rights Watch, standard bearers of what Michael Roberts has characterised as HRE – Human Rights Extremism – seems to have decided that it has a special relationship with me. I am the only person quoted by name in the presentation made by their Senior Researcher Dr. Anna Neistat to the US Senate Foreign Relations Sub-Committee that dealt with Sri Lanka.

Sadly, this anxiety to use my name in an attempt to shore up her case against the Sri Lankan government was not accompanied by any attempt to check with me as to my views on the matters on which they were pronouncing. This is of a piece with their previous dodging of any engagement with me. Eighteen months ago, HRW failed to respond when I proved, from their own report, that their sensationalistic release about the Sri Lankan forces indiscriminately targeting civilians was totally false. Even more tellingly, they cancelled a discussion on Sri Lanka that they had arranged in the British House of Commons, when they heard that the Foreign Minister had asked me to attend. The official from our High Commission who had been liaising with them, and found first Sir Nigel Rodley dropping out, and then Human Rights Watch abandoning the event, thought they feared I would be excessively critical.

Running away from discussion based on evidence seems a dubious practice for an organisation that claims the moral high ground, but an investigation of the way they present their opinions suggests that morality has nothing to do with it. They have a purpose, and if that purpose coincides with the purposes of terrorists, that means nothing to them, since they do not have to live with the effects of terrorism. So they produce what seem to be well researched papers, but singularly fail to substantiate any of the points they make.

In the case of Dr Neistat’s performance in the Senate, the one piece of verifiable evidence she produced was something she attributed to me, all her other quotations being from sources she would not name.  However, despite this use, or rather misuse, of my name, she did not bother to check her story with me, even though she claims to have been in Sri Lanka at the time the London Times cited the line she so triumphantly used.

That the line was misleading must of course have been obvious to anyone who understands English.  The London Times had claimed I said, ‘Of course, it will not be voluntary – we need to check everyone,’ which is tautologous because that is what the word ‘check’ means. Even in what is termed random checking, it is not those checked but those who check who decide who will be checked. I could only conclude then that Dr Neistat privileging me by citing a redundancy arose from a desire to score debating points, while fearing to see me face to face.

The fear is perhaps understandable, because her testimony is so full of falsehoods that she would have been extremely nervous to actually ask questions that would have upset her applecart. She starts by claiming that the Sri Lankan government is burying ‘the abuses’ by preventing people from gathering or disseminating information, and then immediately says that ‘we’, whoever that might be, managed to collect credible information. If she can achieve that in a short time, and so many others are purveying information they think credible, what on earth makes her think that the government is trying to stop information being collected, or believes that it is possible to succeed in such an endeavour?

Dr Neistat claims that the government and the LTTE are engaged in ‘a perverse competition to demonstrate the greatest disregard for the civilian population’. She conveniently thus ignores that the government expended much energy and money in providing high quality health and education to those under LTTE control for several years, and continued to supply them when the LTTE drove them from pillar to post as the forces regained more and more territory in the North.  She ignores forced conscription by the LTTE of one and then two children per family, the forced labour to build bunkers with all the cement the Sri Lankan government sent in for dwellings for civilians. And she will not admit that, if civilians are trying to get into government controlled territory, 35,000 of them succeeding despite being shot at in LTTE attempts to stop them, they obviously do not share her view that both sides are as bad as each other.

Dr Neistat claims that, following the fall of Kilinochchi, civilian casualties have skyrocketed. This is certainly true, but there is no mention of the fact that many of these were due to the LTTE firing on its own people, as indicated by the UN verdict (on the day on which TamilNet reported the greatest number of alleged deaths) that ‘we believe that firing this morning was most likely from an LTTE position’. Significantly the Human Rights Watch Extremism estimate of civilian deaths, up to 2,000, which they claim came from independent monitors on the ground, is almost the same as that propagated by TamilNet. However, HRW’s figure of other ‘civilian casualties’, 5,000, far exceeds what would otherwise have been thought the worst case scenario, that of TamilNet, which alleged fewer than half that figure over the last eight months.

Dr Neistat talks about insufficient food, medical care, and shelter in government-run internment camps, which are obviously a figment of her imagination, since no one from the UN or non-governmental agencies who has visited the welfare centres has made any such claim. However, Dr Neistat then pulls rank about her wide experience of ‘many conflict areas across the world’ to say that she has ‘rarely seen a humanitarian disaster of such scale’, which is a statement that cries out for that old examination rubric, ‘Name names’.

Dr Neistat then claims that Sri Lankan forces ‘have committed numerous indiscriminate and perhaps disproportionate attacks consisting of artillery bombardment and aerial bombing. These include attacks on the government-proclaimed ‘safe zones’ and on clearly marked hospitals. Statements by senior officials indicating that civilians who do not leave LTTE-controlled areas are subject to attack are indicative of an intent to commit war crimes,’ which is rich even for her. If she can name me, why can she not name these ‘senior officials’, and perhaps cite what they said to prove her point? Does she not see that talking of ‘perhaps disproportionate attacks’ reveals her prejudices? She does try to substantiate her claim regarding ‘clearly marked hospitals’ with a long list, dating only from December, which was after we had pointed out how careful the government had been in the preceding six months, since TamilNet had alleged hardly any collateral damage. And whilst it cannot be asserted that there has been no collateral damage since, there was only one allegation of a civilian death until January 22nd, when it was claimed that 30 people had died in an attack on Vallipuram hospital. When the doctor cited initially denied this, the claim was brought down to 5, while it is ignored by Dr Neistat that this was not a hospital marked by coordinates but a medical centre set up suddenly. Indeed, even the TamilNet claims about this, and the Udaiyaarkadu hospital, refer to them as ‘makeshift’ hospitals. It is therefore disingenuous of Dr Neistat to assert that ‘Deliberately attacking a hospital is a war crime,’ and use these instances to bolster her case.

With regard to violations by the LTTE, HRW quotes eyewitness accounts of particulars and, though there are no names, there is some description at least of the alleged eyewitnesses. Contrariwise, claims about excesses by the Sri Lankan forces are usually generalised and full of whims and wise sayings. What are claimed to be eyewitness accounts are sometimes at odds with the earlier TamilNet claims, as when an incident on January 24th is said to have taken place in a playground, whereas TamilNet mentioned a hospital. The number of deaths alleged is the same, 7, while HRW has 15 persons injured where TamilNet has 87. Whatever the number, these deaths and injuries are too many, but as the Bishop of Jaffna put it, the LTTE had positioned its guns amidst civilians, which HRW grants, though helpfully noting that they were ‘about two to four kilometers north of the playground’ and also that the ‘SLA was also not prohibited from attacking LTTE forces inside a safe zone.’Though obviously the obligations of a government are greater than those of terrorists, this incident, assuming the HRW account is accurate, does not justify the claim of ‘serious violations of international humanitarian law’ which ‘led to high civilian casualties’.

Dr Neistat then goes on to talk of what she calls lack of humanitarian access after September 2008, and repeats her charge of ‘shortages of water, food, medical supplies and other necessities’, none of which have been reported by others, with the UN indeed informing the Consultative Committee on Humanitarian Assistance after a monitoring visit in December that it was pleasantly surprised at the satisfactory levels of health (and also of education, with the government conducting the General Certificate of Education Ordinary Level Public Examination). Though things have got more difficult since then, this has finally prompted people who seemed to be hedging their bets before to categorically call upon the LTTE to let go of the civilians whom it was holding against their will. With the support of the Church, 35,000 did make their way out in February, and if there is no ambiguity about criticism of the LTTE for keeping the rest, it is likely that they too will soon be set free.

Then Dr Neistat, ignoring the fact that, despite the propaganda of both the LTTE and HRW, 35,000 people chose to make their way to what those two organisations described as internment camps, continues with the usual HRW diatribe about these. She sets up a Manichean dichotomy in claiming that ‘Instead of providing the internally displaced with the assistance and protection they are entitled to under international law, the Sri Lankan government continues to violate their fundamental rights’, forgetting that not only have physical needs been provided, but that education and vocational training have also commenced.

Dr Neistat talks of arbitrary detention during screening procedures as though she is the sole arbiter of the reasons the Sri Lankan government might have for particular security precautions. However, given that the government has only placed in judicial custody 32 of the 250 or so youngsters who confessed to being fighting cadres, and has allowed the others to remain with their families, its conduct can scarcely be described as arbitrary.

Dr Neistat then goes on to complain of conditions in the camps as well as the hospitals, obviously not aware that the UN had actually said it could not assist at the level the government had prescribed because it was beyond UN standards. The ICRC has consistently praised the efforts of the Sri Lanka Ministry of Health. Dr Neistat may have different ideas of a public health system, given her own experience, but she should read the plaudits the Sri Lankan system has received from international observers, and also register the comparative efficiency with which it has dealt with such a large influx of patients. And though she complains of security precautions, and that humanitarian assistance from outsiders is forbidden, she must recognise first the need to limit access given the reach and intensity of Tiger terrorism, and secondly the fact that many humanitarian workers, including indefatigable nuns, have been assisting the Ministry in its work. Besides, government has made arrangements for relations to accompany those being treated, even though that makes security precautions all the more difficult.

Dr Neistat cites some cases of what she claims are disappearances, but is extraordinarily coy about these. She may claim that she is silent because of fear for her informants, but since government has had cases of families who were separated in the trek to safety brought to its notice, and has sought and in many cases already achieved reunification, Dr Neistat should get over this particular neurosis if she is really anxious to help. She should also avoid sweeping generalisations such as ‘some detainees are children’ since government has been waiting anxiously for such victims of the Tigers, but has so far found none, though some of those who confessed to being cadres were former child recruits, though now over eighteen.

Dr Neistat claims that ‘Several sources reported to Human Rights Watch the presence of plainclothes military intelligence and paramilitaries in the camps. A UN official in Vavuniya told Human Rights Watch that she and colleagues have seen members of paramilitary groups in different camps.’It is astonishing that this has not been conveyed to government, since the forces, who are present in uniform too to help as necessary, have made it a point to prevent any such incursion. Indeed, when I checked a claim that the USAID sponsored agency Internews had reported something of the sort, they denied it – but clearly HRW has its own special sources, none of which will actually make any clear allegation.

HRW also goes on at length about restrictions, without any recognition that, with 35,000 people arriving suddenly and the Tiger practice of deathly infiltration, security precautions are essential, at least until the Tiger command structure is dismantled. HRW also ignores that restrictions on outside access were intended to prevent exploitation of those who had been previously exploited by the Tigers, and that aid agencies, once they had committed to particular acts of assistance, have been granted access. Journalists too now visit, though the salacious reporting of HRW makes one realise why some precautions are still necessary, since the Tiger propaganda wing is now its most efficient component and will take ruthless advantage of anything critical of the government.

Sadly, so systematic has HRW been in its critiques of the Sri Lankan government, that one begins to wonder whether it thinks such grist to the terrorist mill to be no bad thing. Certainly its reliance on simply one-sided information, and its refusal to even attempt to engage with government, indicates a deviousness that does no credit to the ideals it professes.

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary General
Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process

Bring back the clowns – Human Rights Watch returns to the ring

By: Prof Rajiva Wijesinha

26th February 2009
Human Rights Watch has once again dropped a beautifully timed cluster bomb on Sri Lanka. Often these explosives coincide with the sessions of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, and this year is no exception, though we can also detect a tendency to try to prevent the Sri Lankan Forces from dealing conclusively with a terrorist threat.

This practice commenced in 2007 when, following the quick and effective operation to liberate the East from the Tigers, HRW delivered a diatribe in which it accused the Government of conducting a Dirty War (a phrase successfully calculated to hit the headlines), of indiscriminately attacking civilians, of ruthlessly displacing people and also of forcibly resettling them.

Human Rights Watch has once again dropped a beautifully timed cluster bomb on Sri Lanka. Often these explosives coincide with the sessions of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, and this year is no exception, though we can also detect a tendency to try to prevent the Sri Lankan Forces from dealing conclusively with a terrorist threat.

We gave the lie to all these allegations, using evidence gathered not only from the actual Human Rights report (which recorded for instance only one instance of allegations of civilian deaths, which HRW itself granted occurred in a place where the LTTE was present and where bunkers had been dug), but also from the UNHCR certification that ‘the returns are voluntary and in line with international protection standards’.

HRW failed to respond to our letters, sent direct to their plenipotentiaries in the capitals, as well as to the delightful Ms Zulueta, who could not respond to our queries at the meeting to which we had invited her, as she was new to the job.

Placatory Falsehoods

Her promise to look into the matter and get back to us seems to have been yet another of those placatory falsehoods that HRW uses when in a tight corner, as when they cancelled the meeting in the British House of Commons after they heard that I would be there to respond to their allegations.

I will not be so presumptuous as to assert there was a causal connection, even though the representative of the High Commission who had secured my attendance after the Foreign Minister requested it thought the cancellation was not entirely a coincidence.

Searching for landmines

Despite running away then, HRW like the Tigers came back to fight another day, and renewed its charges, without any evidence, of ‘indiscriminate bombing and shelling’.

We were able to show that this was arrant nonsense, since even adding up all the allegations on TamilNet, obviously not the most objective of sources, the figure cited of civilian casualties was not more than a hundred, in the last six months of last year.

Perhaps as a result of our citation of this fact, there have been many more allegations of civilian deaths this year, and the TamilNet allegations amount to 2000 over January and February.

The figure HRW cites is exactly that and, though they claim they have independent sources, it would require excessive credulity to believe that the two sets of figures were entirely unconnected.

HRW sadly seems to believe that, apart from the LTTE, they are the only people concerned about these civilians.

They forget that these are Sri Lankan citizens, who are the responsibility of the Sri Lankan Government, which has fed and educated them over several years, and kept them healthy with medical services provided with a dedication that all international observers have commended.

Civilian Casualties

At the Peace Secretariat we monitor all allegations of civilian casualties, and seek explanations of what happened. The reasons for allegations may not always be clear, but we have had the utmost cooperation, for instance, receiving a detailed explanation of the allegations of civilian deaths in just the one air raid in November out of a total of forty that took place in that month.

We were told what the target was, and while there could be no guarantee that there had been no collateral damage, it was explained that this was because the LTTE sometimes forced civilians into close proximity to military installations.

Certainly the inconsistencies in the TamilNet account of the incident, bombs from planes turning over a couple of days into cluster bombs made in Russia dropped from Russian planes shows very clearly how cleverly the LTTE tries to manipulate the Western opinion whose indulgence it craves.

After we had published our detailed analysis of figures last December, the LTTE evidently decided that it had to make more dramatic allegations. So the numbers have increased by leaps and bounds, to be dutifully taken up by HRW.

They also evidently decided that, since the Sri Lankan forces were careful about such casualties, they had better contribute to this themselves.

Thus we see that, on the day, January 26, on which TamilNet claimed the largest amount of civilians casualties, 300, the UN finally decided that the firing had come from the LTTE.

Just in case this sounds incredible – and a reporter I was explaining it to was actually convinced only when he saw the message, with sign off, that had been forwarded to me on my telephone – the exact words used were ‘For info we believe that firing this morning most likely was from an LTTE position’.

Clear Evidence

Earlier in the day the UN had wondered whether the firing had been by the Sri Lankan army. But we have got used to this. When it is clear the LTTE has fired, the claim is that nothing can be said for certain. When nothing can be said for certain, the claim is that the Sri Lankan Forces did it.

Fortunately, as clear evidence mounts that the LTTE is not only quite happy for civilians to die, but actually unashamedly promotes this through suicide bombing and grenades and direct firing aimed at those trying to get away, that particular canard is being slowly but surely laid to rest.

Hence the second canard that was first assiduously pushed by HRW, which introduced the term internment camps to describe the centres in which civilians who escape from the LTTE into Government controlled territory are kept.

HRW started this several months ago, in an obvious attempt to justify the LTTE claim that no one really wanted to get away, and thousands of people were actually delighted to be herded into ever smaller spaces.

Surely HRW must realise that this is not a question of internment, which is what the British did to the Boers, the Germans to the Jews, the Americans to the Japanese (though this lasts without the starvation and death the British and Germans had inflicted, as the London Times so graphically described it), collecting people from their homes and herding them together against their will.

Further Mayhem

We are talking here of people who have of their own volition, and with incredible courage, got away from the LTTE. But we also know that among them there could be suicide bombers and snipers, so as in the case of all refugees, there needs to be checking and careful attention to security requirements.

These after all are our people, and as we have seen the bombs are aimed at civilians too.

We will not take the chance of further mayhem, but meanwhile we will ensure that, subject to security needs, these are people who will have all comforts possible, not only the basics that are the norm by international standards, but even more – so much so that the UN has told us that they cannot provide funding for conditions that are better than what they are mandated to provide.

The latest Human Rights Watch is replete with insinuations that Orwell’s Ministry of Truth could have studied to refine its Doublespeak.

The displaced persons who ‘escape to what they hope is safety’ are “instead put in internment centres masquerading as ‘welfare villages’.”

That ‘instead’, aided and abetted by the HRW masquerade, does yeoman service for the LTTE as well as HRW, since it implies that they might as well stay in Mullaitivu.

However, in spite of HRW assiduously making such a point for months now, 35,000 of the displaced finally managed to make their way to safety, in spite of the LTTE even murdering some to try to stop this.

HRW claims that the Government is ‘secretly taking away apparent LTTE suspects to arbitrary detention or possible enforced disappearances’. This too is arrant nonsense, based as it is on what TamilNet is claiming.

Again the use of doublespeak – ‘apparent…. suspects’ and ‘secretly…..possible enforced disappearances’ – is designed to denigrate a perfectly decent procedure whereby even of those who confess to being cadres, only a few have been committed formally to rehabilitation centres, the others being allowed to stay with their families in the welfare villages.

This may not be entirely wise but it is the humane thing to do, since doubtless many of these have been forcibly conscripted – but it also reinforces the need for constant vigilance, since the chances are that one of them may be a sleeper waiting to commit mayhem.

The majority should not suffer because of worries about one, but if that one succeeds, it will be one disaster and many deaths too many.

Human Rights Watch describes a visit to a hospital, without explaining who had made the visit, and whether it was another case of the false pretences under which it had produced its previous report.

Not unsurprisingly, where Human Rights Watch can see only problems, a lack of materials such as sheets and a paucity of personnel, more responsible international observers such as the ICRC and the UN have remarked on the dedication of those who are working and the quality of the care bestowed under difficult circumstances.

HRW, which was conspicuously silent last March, when other Human Rights organisations issued a joint statement on an earlier incursion into Gaza, is obviously incapable of giving credit to a country which is so dedicated, despite limited resources, to looking after its own.

The care taken of these patients gives the lie to the HRW assertion that the Government has claimed that those who were trapped in the war zone ‘can be presumed to be siding with the LTTE and treated as combatants’.

What prompted this perverse interpretation should be examined in details, but it must be noted that the Government has continued to provide food for these people with the assistance of the ICRC, and to get them away for required medical treatment, prompting a recent acknowledgment by the ICRC, that it ‘is supporting the Ministry of Health in Trincomalee district as it provides care for this exceptional influx of patients’.

But the HRW technique is to ignore everything positive that those who actually work in the Vanni say, and instead assert abstract principles that go against the policies and practices of a Government providing and coordinating more humanitarian assistance than any other country in such a conflict situation.

So HRW talks of Government efforts being insufficient, but it ignores the fact that food was supplied throughout in massive quantities, so that even the Americans have now realised that the LTTE used to help themselves liberally to what the UN took in. Significantly, though HRW talked constantly, in the days in which the LTTE was herding people along with them, of impending epidemics, it has not acknowledged the sterling work of the Ministry of Health in preventing this, through the dedication of its personnel and the constant supply of drugs.

While the release is replete with false and malicious assertions about the Sri Lankan Government and forces, HRW masks its dependence on Tiger propaganda for such claims by expressing the usual reservations about the Tigers too. But these refer to diabolical actions that are well known, and ignore the more recent excesses of the Tigers in deliberately targeting civilians and humanitarian workers such as the nun who is now recovering in a Government hospital from LTTE shooting.

Of the 14 paragraphs in the release, eight are categorical condemnations of the Government, three blame both ‘sides’ and three criticise the Tigers.

Vituperation

The release is headlined ‘Army Shells and Detains Displaced Persons, Tamil Tigers Prevent Their flight’, a use of verbs that Orwell would have relished, since the army is prevented as actively wicked, the Tigers only passively so.

The first para of the release, which HRW is too skilful not to know is the most important one, reinforces this vituperation against now not just the army but the Government, in saying that it ‘should immediately cease its indiscriminate artillery attacks on civilians in the northern Vanni region and its policy of detaining displaced persons in internment camps’.

The only silver lining in this cloud is that HRW now seems to have realised that the ‘indiscriminate bombing’ it alleged in May is simply untrue.

Writer is Secretary General, Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process.

http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items09/260209-10.html

SHAME ON YOU ANNA NEISTAT & BOB DIETZ FOR BOMBARDING US FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE HEARING ON SRI LANKA WITH LIES

Shripal Nishshanka Fernando

26th February 2009
Few minutes ago, the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations adjourned hearings on ‘Recent Development in Sri Lanka’ and three persons comprising two liars who unfairly criticize Sri Lanka were called as witnesses at the hearing.

The three persons called as witness were the former U.S. Ambassador to Sri Lanka, Jeffrey Lunstead, Dr. Anna Neistat of human Rights Watch (HRW) and Bob Dietz of Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).

The hearing was presided by the Democratic Senator from Pennsylvania, Robert P. Casey, Jr. and chaired by John Kerry of Massachusetts.
As there was no representative from the Sri Lankan government or the international aid organizations currently assisting the trapped civilians, the one sided hearing was seen as a competition for the best liar.

Anna Neistat, Senior researcher of HRW and Bob Dietz, Asia Program Coordinator of CPJ accused Sri Lankan government of killing Tamil civilians and journalists in the guise of fighting terrorism. Ms. Neistat said that the Sri Lankan forces are shelling hospitals and so-called safe zones and slaughtering the civilians by using rockets and bombs. She informed the committee that the SLG forces are killing these civilians by hundreds everyday.

Bob Dietz giving details of the assassination of Lasantha Wickramathunga said that Wickramathunga’s assassination had taken place closer to a Sri Lankan forces camp and the assassins had gone towards the camp after the assassination. He said that there exists credible information that the ‘Sirasa’ attack was also committed by the Sri Lankan government and most of the journalists in Sri Lanka are living with fear for their lives. He also said that Lasantha Wickramathunga had predicted his own death in one of his articles. He requested that the US should take necessary actions to provide security and necessary welfare to the journalists who leave Sri Lanka and said that steps should be taken for them to return back to Sri Lanka and live there without any fear.

These witnesses were competing with each other with full of baseless lies to discredit the Sri Lankan government and requested the committee to recommend US not to provide any kind of aid to Sri Lanka as the government is massacring Tamil civilians. Anna Neistat said that calling for a special UN Security Council meeting to discuss the situation in Sri Lanka will not be fruitful, because of the possible objections from China and Russia.

When asked by the president of the committee what they would predict as a possible outcome of the present situation, Anna Neistat said that all the present refugees will be move to confined camps later on and they will never be released by the forces but systematically kill them. She said that Sri Lankan forces had been abducting Tamil civilians for a long time and they had been disappeared without any track.

The question is how much Anna Neistat and Bob Dietz were paid by the terrorists and the Tamil Diaspora to present this heavy bunch of lies to accuse Sri Lankan government. These kinds of dramas may take place internationally in the near future by the organizations supporting the terrorists and Sri Lankan government should implement effective counter measures to overcome these threats.
The Sri Lankan Ministry of Foreign Affairs shall handle the situation occurred today in the US Foreign Relations Committee with utmost urgency and summon the Sri Lankan diplomats to brief how to prepare for future situations, specially as most of the current Sri Lankan diplomats in foreign missions seem to be good for nothing.

http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items09/260209-3.html

LTTE Terrorists propaganda by Human Rights Watch

John MacKinnon

21st February 2009

To: Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch

Once again the Human Rights Watch has allowed themselves to be taken for a ride by the LTTE Terrorists by falsely claiming that the Sri Lankan armed forces have attacked civilians. In fact the armed forces have protected and cared for the civilians and there is plenty of evidence to prove that.

Please visit these Web sites for the truth: Google “LTTE Terrorists human shield”. Tigers killing civilians fleeing Sri Lanka war zone: UN http://www.priu.gov.lk/news_update/Current_Affairs/ca200902/UN_Sri_Lanka.pdf
Civilians seek protection with security forces in Mullaittivu http://www.sinhala.net/LocalNews/SinhalaNet_Full_News.asp?ID=4594#NewsViewBM
Rescuing Tamils from human shield http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20090208_02
Civilians flee from LTTE attacks to seek protection with security forces http://www.sinhala.net/LocalNews/SinhalaNet_Full_News.asp?ID=4612#NewsViewBM
Sri Lanka’s humanitarian campaign to save civilians http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20090218_10

What you see at the HRW site are images provided by Tamil Tiger Terrorists holding civilians hostage. In those images staged for dramatic effect, there is absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing by government forces. In fact the armed forces have rescued many civilians from the clutches of the terrorists and cared for them as indicated by the above links. The Sri Lankan government and the international community have asked the LTTE Terrorists to release these hostages to safer areas. But the Tamil Tiger Terrorists need to use the civilians as a human shield to slow the liberation of terror-held areas. In addition to that, several countries have informed the LTTE Terrorists to lay down their arms to stop the bloodshed. Not a word from HRW to that effect. Then Tamil Tiger Terrorists holding these innocents against their will got the HRW involved in their criminal plan to cause outrage. That is shameful, unethical and fraudulent.

On Feb 10 2009, the Tamil Tiger Terrorists killed 19 civilians fleeing from terror-controlled areas. We expected the international community to respond with outrage. But there was no response from HRW or other concerned western nations. Now with the prodding of the LTTE, HRW is erroneously accusing the Sri Lankan government that has cared so much for these civilians. How can we ever trust these so-called human rights organizations when they are influenced by the most vicious terrorists who have violated human rights of millions for the past 30 years?

The Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch should consider this: during their campaign of murder, over 10,000 Sinhalese were killed by the Tamil Tiger Terrorists. Tamils live and work in peace in all parts of Sri Lanka. They own over half of the businesses, run political parties and publish newspapers freely in Sri Lanka. On the other hand, only a Tamil can live in the North or North-East of the island. All other ethnic groups live in fear of death or were systematically murdered by LTTE. This is genocide caused by the Tamil Tiger Terrorists. Where was HRW during this time? Where is the outrage by the international community? Where is equality & integrity? Why would we ever trust these so-called human rights organizations to represent the civilians mentioned above?

I am extremely disappointed by this misguided attempt by the HRW. Now the Amnesty International is silent since we exposed their agenda to be also run by the same LTTE Terrorists who operate a base in London, UK. I think it is time we asked our lawmakers to investigate these illegal activities of HRW and their connections to Tamil Tiger Terrorists who are on the US State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. There is nothing wrong with working for the oppressed. But no human rights group should be driven covertly by terrorists to further their terror agenda as shown above. When was the last time HRW and AI called on the LTTE Terrorists to lay down arms, stop their terror and did anything significant to put these brutal human rights violators out of business? Answer: never!

John MacKinnon

http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items09/210209-1.html

Signs of the Times

Prof Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary General
Secretariat for Coordinating the
Peace Process

 19th February 2009
Yet another splendid example of the misuse of the English language emerged last week with an article in the Times (in the UK) headlined ‘Barbed wire villages raise fears of refugee concentration camps’. The first line of the article was in the passive voice – ‘Sri Lanka was accused yesterday of planning concentration camps to hold 200,000 ethnic Tamil refugees from its northeastern conflict zone for up to three years — and seeking funding for the project from Britain.’

A careful reader of the article would have noticed that only two persons made that particular accusation, both of them anxious to secure votes of those who support the LTTE. The more prominent was Robert Evans who, when in Sri Lanka last year, sabotaged a visit of European Members of Parliament to the Eastern Province, and then submitted a report claiming that the visit was aborted by the Sri Lankan government. The EU Parliament, after an inquiry, accepted that the Sri Lankan government was not to blame.

Meanwhile Evans announced to a pro-LTTE audience in London that he had not gone to the East because he did not want to shake the hand of the Eastern Province Chief Minister. The Chief Minister is a Tamil politician who, having been a child recruit of the LTTE, left them and took to democratic ways. Evans knows that the LTTE refused the opportunity to have elections even at their point of greatest influence during the Ceasefire period. But once you have taken hold of the tail of a Tiger, you cannot afford to let go.

Evans claimed about the places where those fleeting from the Tigers were to be housed that “These are not welfare camps, they are prisoner-of-war cum concentration camps.” The best comment on that emotional outburst was provided by a subsequent Times editorial that began, ‘It was one of the 20th century’s most bestial images, and one that was invented by the British. The concentration camps set up by Lord Kitchener to intern Boer women and children were officially intended to shelter civilians while the British Forces conducted a scorched-earth policy to deprive Boer combatants of food and shelter. In fact, they were places of brutality, hardship and death. More than 26,000 people died in some 50 makeshift camps across South Africa.’

British bestiality is not something we in South Asia should hold against them, because it is relatively rare, and on the whole it can be recognized for what it is. Hypocrisy is something else, since its ill effects can be pervasive. Thus it is unfortunate that even the Times cannot understand that the whole point about ‘concentration’ camps was that they were places of internment, where whole groups of people were placed forcibly, having been taken away from their usual homes. The British started it in South Africa, the Germans did it to the Jews and, as the Times put it, ‘copied the brutal regime of starvation and death’. By then the British were more civilized, as they rounded up Germans in Britain, as were the Americans with the Japanese, and they did not starve and kill.

In the Sri Lankan case, what happened was that the Tamils of the Wanni were forced to leave their homes when the LTTE was defeated, and they were dragooned into moving into ever smaller areas. Nobody cared except the Sri Lankan government, which appealed to the LTTE to let our people go. The appeal fell on deaf ears, as did the appeal to the international community at large to ask the LTTE to allow freedom of movement for these Sri Lankan citizens.

It is only in the last month or so that even the United Nations has begun to say clearly that the LTTE must release these suffering people. It would be nice for the international community to think that finally their pronouncements have had an effect, but it may also have been that the situation had become intolerable, with the LTTE taking to firing indiscriminately and killing civilians even in the safe areas the government had designated. At first they had hoped that the world at large would assume this was the Sri Lankan army, but with the UN saying clearly ‘we believe that firing this morning most likely was from an LTTE position’, most people (except Robert Evans and his ilk) understood what was really happening.

So firstly it should be noted that these civilians have made their way of their own volition to refuge in areas controlled by the Sri Lankan government. Secondly, far from engaging in the British or German practice of starvation and death, the Sri Lankan government is feeding and sheltering these people, providing health facilities (recognized as being amongst the best in the world in terms of the provision of universal health care), and ensuring education. These last it provides free of charge to all its citizens, so there is nothing to be amazed at, except perhaps to those now used to the recent erosion of basic services in Britain. But it should also be noted that we will be supplying vocational training to older people, and have begun classes already. Perhaps the British will now understand why many of the Boers they forcibly transported to Sri Lanka chose to stay on.

To get back to the misuse of English, in a manner that George Orwell would have found characteristic of what he termed ‘doublespeak’, Jeremy Page who wrote the Times article puts the government term ‘welfare villages’ in inverted commas, while omitting these for terms he privileges, such as ‘concentration camps’ and ‘barbed wire villages’. The latter term springs it seems from a long conversation Page had with me, in which he asked repeatedly how the perimeter of the camps would be protected.

Interestingly enough, I had an Indian correspondent in the room while I took the telephone call, and the journalist, who had made a prior appointment, agreed to listen in on my answers to the Britisher, since both were interested in the same matter. The Indian article shows the difference between what might be termed disinterested journalism, and the interpretations of a man with a cause.

The Indian article, which appeared in the Deccan Herald on the same day as the Times piece, quoted me as saying, “There will be no steel walls and no Alsatian dogs, so don’t worry. But since safety of the residents is paramount, there will be proper screening of the people before admittance and adequate guarding while at the village, without compromising on their dignity.” Unfortunately, a man from a cold climate does not realize that, in the sub-continent, barbed wire is the most common material to establish secure boundaries, to permit ventilation as well as views. Of course barbed wire would be ghastly if it were the only protection available in Europe, or even in South Africa, which is doubtless why the British and Germans used it against people they saw as alien. But where security is necessary, the type of material people are used to in their own environment is much better than the high walls and mastiffs beloved of the more bestial Anglo-Saxons.

As to whether security is necessary or not, Page trots out the terrible twins, Yolanda Foster and Charu Hogg, who have begun now to interchange staff as well as opinions. The general impression is that they represent Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch respectively, but it is now clear, the one having taken Sam Zarifi from the other, that these institutions are a bit like the voices in the ‘Waste Land’, which all ended up being the same voice.

Both of them condemn what is described as ‘arbitrary’ detention and clearly do not believe that the exceptional circumstances exist under which international norms accept detention for a reason. They have obviously not heard of the suicide bombing that the Tigers have used against those trying to cross over, they are not aware that several of those who were housed in the camps admitted after some time that they had been trained by the LTTE, they have never heard of sleeping cadres such as have recently engaged in violence in the East – in short, they think that risks are worth running since, if lots of people die, that is a small price to pay provided the standards of the terrible twins are upheld.

Yolanda, who declared recently that suicide bombing was wrong because it violated international legal provisions and exposed civilians to danger (not because it actually killed people), went further and said, in the cadences she has now perfected, that ‘The Government wants international assistance but not international standards.’

Such effortless rhetoric deserves applause, even if it detracts from that fact that what the government wants is security and prosperity for these our people. It will do its best to satisfy the concerns of those who wish to help us, but it will not compromise on security so as to obtain help. If people wish to be dogmatic, or to impose conditions that go against the interests of the country, nothing can be done. But obviously many of those concerned about these our people who have suffered for so long will appreciate the situation and assist, and indeed many have begun to do so already.

The Times however seeks to convey the impression that Sri Lanka is seeking funding for the project from Britain. Page claims, falsely, that I said the government circulated the proposal ‘to foreign embassies and aid agencies to raise funding.’ I said nothing of the sort. The proposal had been given to various NGOs because they wanted to know what was happening, and had expressed interest in assisting. It was distributed at a meeting which they attended doubtless because they wanted to assist. United Nations Agencies asked later for copies of the plan, and seemed disappointed that they had not received it till they asked, which would scarcely have happened had the purpose of the plan been to raise funds.

After all the UN provides much more aid than international agencies, many of whom are simply implementing agencies for UN funds, a practice that has developed after the tsunami – so that it can be claimed twice over that Sri Lanka has benefited from aid. Indeed, the so-called donor community has now brought munificence to a fine art, with donors giving to the UN which then sub-contracts aid agencies, so that three separate sets of fairy godmothers can claim, for the same initial donation, that without them Sri Lanka would sink.

Page claims that I said that access for these NGOs to the camps would be limited because ‘international aid agencies are prejudiced towards the Tigers’. That again is nonsense. I said that the government would allow such agencies access to the camps if they were really prepared to assist, in accordance with the government plan, with proper transparency and accountability. The government could not allow funds intended for our citizens to be spent on projects about which we knew nothing; though many agencies have done a lot, in some cases there seem to be no visible outcomes of the work they are supposed to have done.

The NGOs have registered our concerns, and have now signed the letter of intent that was drawn up. Many of them have now begun to work in the Centres, and we are grateful to them, but we are even more grateful to the national NGOs who began to work in these Centres when there were far fewer escapees than at present – and also to UNHCR which began some months back to assist with Confidence Building and Stabilization Measures, even while the Hoggs and Fosters of this world were bleating that the Centres did not measure up to what they claimed were international standards.

Page also seems to suggest that the figure I mentioned in connection with the British was part of our attempt to raise funds. That again is sleight of hand. He kept asking whether the British had offered aid, and if so how much, and I said that there had been talk of an offer, in connection with a proposed visit by a junior British Minister. I had been asked by my Minister to meet him, since the President was not available, nor were the two Ministers with whom he had sought appointments, scarcely surprisingly since the British government had announced his visit with a day’s notice.

I was due to dine that evening with the head of UNHCR, but said that if I had to I would meet him earlier, and it was in that connection that I was told that there was talk of a couple of million pounds. Whether that was in any way connected with the request for meetings with Ministers I have no idea, but certainly it did not seem a reason for the Minister to change his schedule.

The Times claimed that Britain’s Department for International Development, to which the junior Minister is attached, denied ‘that’, which was another absurdity since, whether they liked it or not, there was talk of such an offer. The talk may have been erroneous, but I don’t think my Minister made it up in an attempt to persuade me to give up my time to see the young man, since he knows that I always find it fun meeting Britishers.

This meeting would have been even more pleasant, given the prospect of dinner with the UN to follow, but sadly the young man failed to turn up. About the time we should have met, his Ministry told the Times that ‘Prolonging the displacement of this vulnerable group of people is not in anyone’s interests. There is no UK government money going into the camps.’ Why, his High Commission evidently having got the plan, the poor junior Minister for what amounts to Aid Assistance was initially being packed into a plane to come to Sri Lanka remains a mystery. It could not have been to discuss matters not connected with his portfolio since, around that very time, Britain had decided to appoint a Special Representative for Sri Lanka, who was doubtless supposed to discuss everything else.

But the British move in mysterious ways, and we have learned over a couple of centuries that it is not ours to wonder why. We continue to love them dearly, knowing that very few are really bestial, and that their bark is much worse than their bite. And even if the London Times is no longer what it used to be, and the intellectual rigour of an Orwell or even a Levin sorely missed, any colonial must be grateful for so much space in its columns. With a Sri Lankan MP and a local worker for UNHCR also permitted a couple of sentences each in an article on Sri Lanka, alongside one Indian, four Britishers and the British Department for International Development, our cup truly runneth over.

http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items09/190209-10.html

“Concentration Camps” cry the Subversive Terrorist “Tabloids” Shifting gears from last week’s “Genocide”

by Hela Puwath

17th February 2009
Now that the escaping civilians are coming out with true stories about terrorist atrocities of how they were held against their will, forced labor, forced conscription, shooting of catholic nuns, and shooting of helpless women and children trying to escape the misery. That section of terrorist supporting international (and some local) media are already shifting gears from last week’s “Genocide”, to “Concentration Camps”.

 Is this Concentration Camps?

 In order to save this Genocidal Terrorist Organization from extinction, this terrorist promoting lobby of “Tabloids” and the pseudo-peace-activist and their subversive-partners are carrying on an unrelenting campaign to tarnish the image of the Sinhela people. The Tamil Terrorist Diaspora with the help of their colonial masters are now hell-bent on tarnishing the image of the Sinhela people crying “Genocide”, Concentration Camps”.

 These “Tabloids” are forgetting that “Genocides” was committed by their British colonial masters (and Crusading Spanish/Portuguese Empires) against the Sinhela people, and other peoples around the world, during their “Land-Grab”.

 These “Tabloids” are forgetting that the Jewish genocide took place in Europe, in Germany, by the Germans, — not in Asia, NOT in SRI LANKA, not by the Sinhela people.

 These “Tabloids” are forgetting the “Genocide” that’s going on in Tamil Nadu (Tamil Homeland) against the Dalit caste, and the tribal people in Tamil Nadu/Homeland. They are forgetting the “dowry-murders” in Tamil Nadu/Homeland. Where are the bleeding-heart Human-Rights Watch, and Amnesty International?

 Instead, these “Tabloids” and the bleeding hearts get extra mileage out of this Concocted-Sensational-Terrorist-Propaganda-Story.

 They are feeding terrorism!

 It is very clear that the “Tabloids” distort and pervert the truth about Sri Lanka, for it benefits the World Tamil Terrorist Diaspora – all that, to save the terrorists. Their goal, at this stage of the game, is to whip up “international hysteria” crying “Genocide!” and “Concentration Camps!”. The Tamil Terrorist Propaganda Machine is desperate, and is inciting colonial intervention (invasion).

 The Diaspora Tamils and Tamil Nadu Homeland have tried every trick in their book to get India to intervene (invade), again. But India is wiser now, they see through Tamil Naud’s “cry-wolf!”; for they know “whose-next!”. So now they try Gordon Brown – their Colonial Master.

[Now Gordon Brown is trying to send Desmond Browne - don’t they realize that we have enough “browns” already – a 21 million? One Les Brown won’t matter!! – did we get that right?]

 Sri Lanka, after 60 years of so-called “Independence” from the European-land-grabbers, have endured 30 years of terrorism. A terrorism fed by the same European Masters in Europe.

 Last week the “Tabloid” news was about the “genocide” – the hospital bombing by the army, and the shooting of escaping civilians.

 Ant this week, in spite of all the pictures of military personnel helping the escaping civilians, and the stories from the civilians of how they were shot by the LTTE, and even the statement from a Catholic nun saying that she was shot by the LTTE, the “yellow” journalists have turned to:

“Concentration Camps”.
SL government seeking funds from the British government to set up these “concentration camps”.

The fact is, Sri Lanka didn’t set up “concentration camps” in the East after clearing out the terrorists there. Look at how many civilians were resettled within a short few months; look at how an election was held within a few months; look at the development of roads, bridges, and waterways that are going on.

 The North however is different, and the task will be more challenging, with more committed LTTE supportersamong the mostly innocent civilians.

 But why would the government be planning ‘CONCENTRATION CAMPS” for 250,000 people? Can the government afford to keep 250,000 people in camps? Look at the East, the population there are already contributing to the national economy, which means less burden on the central government. Similarly, the North will contribute to the national economy and be less of a burden on the government.

 Are these terror supporters still saying the Sri Lanka government is stupid?

 We must find out more about this “Terror Support Propaganda Network” and their Training Programs]

The Cluster Bomb Game

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary General
Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process

09 February 2009

I was deeply shocked by news on Friday that stones had been thrown at the office of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The day before it had been the Indian cricketers, an appalling departure from our usual civilised behaviour as spectators. Such violence must stop, and I hope that message will go out loud and clear.

With regard to the ICRC indeed it is suggested that the violence was organised, and connected with criticisms made of the organisation by government. That is even worse – if there are problems, they should be settled through discussions and clear instructions to the ICRC as to the parameters within which they are expected to act.

I had myself noticed a change in the ICRC approach some weeks back, and written accordingly to the new Head of Delegation, suggesting that he work more on the lines established by his predecessor, one of the most respected expatriates to head a mission in this country in recent years. I pointed out that this did not mean compromising on his views, which he always expressed forthrightly, but he did so in a manner that was effective.

Since his departure, things have changed. We are no longer getting regularly the information we need as to areas in which violations of human rights might be occurring, instead there seems to be concentration only on the conflict areas, with regular statements that are then made use of by less scrupulous forces.

The Head of Delegation however did answer my plaint, to say that this was a conscious policy decision, and that it had been implemented after ‘face-to-face meetings with our key contact persons’. He did not tell me who these were, but presumably, now that the new policy seems to have led to abuse, with the ICRC being cited as authority for criticism of the government, obviously the contact persons should ensure that the policy is changed. It is wrong to assume that the ICRC intends to bring the government into disrepute, but if its statements have this effect, then some changes are in order. Indignation should not lead to violence, and any who practice this in the belief that they are standing up for Sri Lanka should be swiftly disabused of the notion that this is acceptable.

At the same time the ICRC too should respond swiftly to criticism. When this is direct, as when I wrote to the ICRC in Geneva, after a particularly unfortunate statement, they should reply promptly, as the Head of Delegation in Colombo did. When indignation is expressed verbally, they should seek a meeting to clarify the situation and indicate what remedial action should be taken.

All this is the more urgent, inasmuch as ruthless use is being made of any loose statement by internationally respected agencies. Unfortunately even in these agencies there are loose cannons and what these fire off is taken to represent the considered opinion of the entire body.

In this regard the UN has been particularly unfortunate recently. Not entirely coincidentally, I suspect, it has been used regularly in recent months by Amnesty International, which for some reason has decided it has to stop the Sri Lankan military offensive, while at the same time doing its best to justify the Tiger refusal to allow free movement to Tamils trying to get away to government controlled territory.

This phase in the Amnesty operation began with Yolanda Foster being part of the plot of what is termed the Coffee Club to send a petition to the UN Secretary General. The strategy was to have this signed by several Sri Lankan NGOs, but the moving spirits, apart from Yolanda and some members of the Coffee Club, were Alan Keenan of Gareth Evans’ International Crisis Group and Peter Bowling who the High Commission in London told me was very close to the Tigers.

The Coffee Club meanwhile derived its authority from the UN system, or rather from one of the new UN players on the scene after the tsunami, namely the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance (OCHA). This body, in 2006, set up without proper authorisation something it termed the Inter Agency Standing Committee, which took upon itself even tasks such as monitoring the various projects developed under what was termed the Common Humanitarian Action Plan. Somewhere along the way the UN lost sight of the fact that its partner in Sri Lanka was the government, and actually functioned as though the IASC were there to hold the balance between government and terrorists.

Thus, though only the UN had been permitted entrance to the Wanni, as recently as last month it claimed that there had been an IASC monitoring mission. When this was pointed out to the UN Resident Coordinator, Neil Buhne, he said that that was a mistake, of a sort that he has all too often had to apologise for recently.

Such mistakes are serious, because they add to the belief that we need external monitoring of our situation. And they are doubly serious when we have what seems a symbiotic relationship between ostensibly independent agencies such as Amnesty International and the UN and what passed for its partners.

So, after Yolanda’s little flirtation with the forces determined to complain to the UN, forces that were simultaneously claiming to be UN partners, we had the Amnesty representative in Geneva, a usually sweet little man called Peter Splinte, taking a former UN employee around various missions to complain about the Sri Lankan government. The UN in Colombo apologised again, and put a stop to that, but they did not as promised issue a formal letter regretting the abuse of his UN position that this former employee, Benjamin Dix, had perpetrated.

Amnesty meanwhile had picked up another passionate opponent of Sri Lanka, Sam Zarifi, who earlier worked for Human Rights Watch (and has an impeccable American accent). Meanwhile they did not show the highly respected Head of Amnesty, Irene Khan, my letter of complaint. I was astonished by this, because Splinte had first explained her failure to respond by saying that she was away; he then promised to make sure that she got my letter when she returned, but when I met her in December, she had still not seen it. Splinte assured me that he had asked someone in London to get it to her, and had to confess that this had been ignored. He refused to answer me when I asked whether this was Yolanda.

In short, while Irene Khan expressed her willingness to engage, and to discuss issues, her underlings who are following their own agenda obviously will not allow this. As I have indicated before, their aim is to stop the Sri Lankan military, and if to achieve this they have to sacrifice the Tamil civilians, by only ambiguously asking that they be let go, they will have no qualms about this. I asked Splinte recently -

‘Will Yolanda and Sam grant that their attacks on the camps in Vavuniya were exaggerated, and that the people suffering in the Wanni (and now coming in larger numbers to government controlled areas) would have suffered less if encouraged and allowed to leave months ago?’

I have yet to receive a reply.

Meanwhile UN embarrassments continued, when one of its security staff, a former British serviceman it seemed called John Campbell, declared to the BBC that Sri Lanka was like Somalia. Again Neil Buhne apologised, and tells me now that the offending creature is no longer in Sri Lanka, but again there was nothing in writing, and no formal rebuttal of the story on BBC.

And then, last week, Amnesty struck again with a diatribe about cluster bombs. I saw it first in an e-mail from Splinte, who clearly thought he had struck gold, and wrote to me, ‘I don’t expect you to do anything publicly other than continue to defend the often indefensible, but I do hope that you are speaking out within your government to temper the savagery. As you have so often reminded me, the people under the bomb are Sri Lankans.’

What has apparently moved him to tears and to talk of savagery was a release authored it seems by the indefatigable Zarifi, which began ‘Amnesty International has denounced the reported use of cluster bombs in a civilian area by the Sri Lankan military as a serious violation of international humanitarian law. According to a UN spokesperson, the main hospital in the town of Puthukkudirippu was hit by cluster bombs and had to be evacuated.’ The statement went on to quote Zarifi doing his Bruce Fein impersonation – ‘The use of cluster bombs in such circumstances could constitute a war crime’.

I got this message late at night, having just come back from Manila from what should have been an intellectually stimulating workshop but which was full of media requests for information and clarification. Just before getting to sleep I saw Splinte’s message and also a news flash which said ‘The UN in a statement to foreign media accepts Sri Lankan government’s assurance that it does not have facility to fire cluster bombs’.

I responded to this effect to Splinte, and then called the UN the following morning to be assured by Buhne that the original statement had been a mistake. I asked for copies of this and the retraction, but did not receive them, only to be told later that some of the various assertions had been merely verbal. My staff tried to trace any releases on the website, but could not find anything on which the Amnesty claim could have been based, though they thought that something might have been deleted.

That whole day the story reverberated, with several media outlets calling for clarification, including Al Jazeera which interviewed me from Malaysia as well as Doha. The UN had agreed to issue a written retraction, and I reminded Buhne of this as urged also by Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, but nothing was forthcoming. Finally I got through on the Saturday, and late at night he obliged and sent me a correction.

This seemed even madder, an attempt at self-justification rather than an apology. Instead of simply admitting the mistake and suggesting Amnesty retract, the letter, from their spokesman, Gordon Weiss, explained that ‘United Nations staff, who had the previous night endured 16 hours of constant bombardment in areas adjoining the hospital grounds where they were sheltering, confused the explosion of cluster munitions with air-burst fragmentation munitions, which deliver shrapnel over a wide area and which have a similar loud explosive report, followed by many smaller reports’.

All this sounded wonderfully erudite, and remarkably precise for people who had spent a 16 hour night under constant bombardment (though suffering no casualties whatsoever, which suggests the bombardment was not so near – the ICRC incidentally said that ‘The PTK Hospital was shelled several times especially from 5.30 pm on Tuesday up to 4.30 am yesterday’, expanding this in a later statement to 24 hours). When I commented on this to Buhne, and asked who these munitions experts were, he said it was their local staff who had described the noises. These were the people the UN had hoped to bring out the previous week with their families, only to be rudely rebuffed by the LTTE – the foreign staff who had gone in to ensure their safety had left the previous week, perhaps realising that they could do nothing, thus leaving the local staff to the mercy of the LTTE.

The conversation had taken place on the phone, and Buhne must have realised that it may well have been in the presence of LTTE operatives. What had happened, over the phone line, was that the local staff had described what they heard, and according to Buhne the UN Security Staff had deduced the type of munition used. These Security Staff, to which category John Campbell belonged, had jumped to the conclusion that cluster bombs had been used, and Gordon Weiss had pronounced accordingly.

Amnesty had promptly picked up that pronouncement, but a few hours later Weiss made a different sort of statement. According to a local paper, ‘Cluster bombs yesterday hit the vicinity of the Puthukkudiyirippu (PTK) Hospital, the United Nations (UN) said, adding that the government had meanwhile assured that it does not use such weapons. However the UN later said it accepted the government’s assurance that it did not have the facilities to fire cluster munitions. UN spokesman Gordon Weiss told Daily Mirror that based on information received from UN ground staff the bombs hit the area surrounding the hospital; the extent of the damage caused or of casualties if any were however not known’.

The use of ‘However’ and ‘later’ there is masterly, but that may have been journalistic interpretation rather than the tireless Weiss. He must however be a complete idiot if he does not realise that, if according to the UN cluster bombs hit the vicinity of the Hospital, but the UN accepted the government assurance it did not use such weapons, the culprits in the UN view must be either the LTTE or the UN itself. Since neither of these as far as we know now has aerial bombing capacity, someone must be lying. To us it is obvious that it is either the LTTE (speaking through the poor UN staff) or those staff on their own, whether the local ones in PTK or the foreign ones here. However the impression the statement creates is that it is the Sri Lankan government that is lying.

Three days later Weiss puts all the blame on the confused local UN staff in PTK, omitting to say that the diagnosis was not those abused and now abandoned Sri Lankans but rather the UN Security Staff in Colombo. He also now says that ‘The United Nations at no time stated that the munitions in question on that particular occasion struck the hospital’. Again that ‘on that particular occasion’ is masterly, and perhaps lends some weight to the impression his original statement had on Amnesty, an impression that Buhne at least was honest enough to admit was a mistake. Weiss’s first correction however claimed that the vicinity of the hospital was hit by cluster bombs. Now, having granted that UN staff were in that area, he claims that all they heard was noise, which was obligingly interpreted for them by the eager beavers in Colombo.

Buhne, helpfully, while out jogging, assured me that the munitions which his Security Staff now claim were used are not illegal.  Buhne’s technological expertise is to be admired, but it is not likely to be shared by most people around the world.  Even the statement that sounds were heard in the area surrounding the hospital by frightened Sri Lankans who then described them to UN Security Staff who jumped to the conclusion that cluster bombs had been used either on the hospital or on areas surrounding the hospital, and then decided that these were not cluster bombs but munitions that deliver shrapnel over a wide area and have a loud report followed by many smaller reports, quite unlike the sound of shells (since they were able to make the distinction after listening to a description given by exhausted Sri Lankans over a telephone), is likely to be leapt on with glee by Amnesty, which seems to have immediate access to the murkier employees of the United Nations and their reports.

In short, Buhne’s management style is not quite in the league of his technological expertise. I realise that he is under much pressure, not least from the Coffee Club, some of whom think they are his main partners, not the government, but it is imperative for him now to give a clear message to his staff that they are not here to hold a balance between the government and the LTTE.

We have at the same time to recognise that there may be genuine fears. After all a respected Canadian journal quoted a diplomat, who ‘is not authorised to speak on the record’ saying ‘The government says all the right things but they speak with forked tongues. They just want the Tamils crushed and wiped out’. This may be nonsense, but people are capable of believing nonsense. After all, as a distinguished diplomat once told me himself, we have to remember that most countries – India, as the recent record of those posted here shows, being an outstanding exception, though we can see something of the sort with Russia and China too – do not send their brightest and best to Colombo.

People tend to be Pavlovian in their reactions – as we saw with the Canadians and Rama Mani for instance – and we have to remember that these are conditioned by the appalling behaviour of the Jayewardene government in the eighties. The fact that the West in those days seemed to condone that sort of behaviour has not affected subsequent generations into registering distinctions between then and now, whether it be current decision makers in the West or the members of the diaspora who fled after the racist government sponsored attacks of 1983. The fact that no government since has even dreamed of the excesses of Cyril Mathew, that no one with similar influence in government has similar views, that this government has moved for more empowerment and integration for minorities than any other since independence, is forgotten in the face of emotional outbursts.

We have to be aware of this and respond sensitively and without violence to understandable concerns. Getting rid of terrorism is one priority, ensuring that the benefits of this liberation accrue to all our people is another. But in the process we must insist that our partners also behave with sensitivity and without making allegations that can then be used against us, in a way that will allow the Hydra to raise again its innumerable heads.

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary General
Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process

Human Rights Watch Report “Trapped & Mistreated”

By Malin Abeyatunge

24th Decenber 2008
Human Rights Watch latest 17 page reports titled “Trapped and Mistreated” (as per extract reproduced by print media) shows at last they now see LTTE terrorist outfit in its true colors. It is pleased to learn that HRW has at last made some endeavour to see the LTTE’s human rights violation in its true perspective. If one peruses HRW’s previous Media Releases or reports, there was tendency of showing complacency on LTTE’s gross human rights violation but was only critical of the operations of GoSL against LTTE. GoSL. It became a norm to place LTTE Tamil Tiger Terrorists on par with GoSL when it reported the terrorist conflict in Sri Lanka. Certain HRW reports were targeted in tarnishing the image of Sri Lanka whilst totaling ignoring the atrocities and human rights violations committed by LTTE. There had been instances that HRW was very critical of GoSL when one or two civilians getting called in cross fires (collateral damage) but dumb founded when 74 innocent Afghan civilians who were having a wedding ceremony were killed by the Allied forces. That was HRW’s stance up to most recent times.

This is what HRW said in their last annual report “says thus re Sri Lanka “More than 1100 new disappearances or abductions were reported in Sri Lanka between January 2006 and 2007 with the vast majority of victims being Tamils. In the continuing conflict between the Sri Lankan Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) both sides show little regard for the safety and well being of civilians”.And this is what HRW reports today in their 17 page report titled “Trapped and Mistreated”.

 ” In the report “Trapped and Mistreated,” the HRW called upon the LTTE to allow civilians leave areas under its control; to respect the right to freedom of movement and the right to move to government-controlled territory for safety; Stop all forced recruitment; end all abductions and coercion; end all recruitment of children under the age of 18; cease the use of children in military operations; release all its child combatants including those recruited when children but were now over the age of 18; to stop all abusive or unpaid forced labor, including what it characterizes as voluntary; cease demanding that all families provide labor to the LTTE; stop forcing civilians to engage in labor directly related to the conduct of military operations, such as constructing trenches and bunkers; Provide humanitarian agencies and UN agencies safe and unhindered access to areas under its control, and guarantee the security of all humanitarian and UN workers, including Wanni residents working as humanitarian or UN staff.”

 The recent trend in seeing things in its true perspective is pleasing and most welcome and hope that HRW will continue to issue balanced reports in future without just quoting crap information extracted from Tamil NET or other LTTE propaganda websites.

 There were hundreds of letters, articles, media releases by various organizations and individuals both in Sri Lanka and outside, continuous editorials in local papers (not all) have been written about the atrocities and human rights violations committed by LTTE over the last 25 years but the so called humanitarian monitors and observers never paid any attention to them but instead relied only on false propaganda disseminated by LTTE ‘s global propaganda network in preparing their reports.

 The atrocities and human rights violations committed by LTTE were brought to the notice of the HRW, Amnesty International, UN Bodies and other humanitarian organizations in the world, heads of countries not once but umpteen number of times by the above mentioned groups and thro various government sources. It’s heartening to note that almost the same human rights violations committed over the years by LTTE and brought to the notice of the International Community have finally come to the light of HRW’s latest report “Trapped and Mistreated” report appearing to look like their newest findings…

 Prof Rajiva Wijesinghe Secretary General, Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process comments in Daily News (17/12/2008) in respect of HRW’s report thus;.

“ Human Rights Watch, though it had been critical of the LTTE previously, had seemed over the last twelve months to aim for some sort of spurious balance in soft-pedalling its criticism of the LTTE whilst engaging in emotional and sometimes totally fraudulent attacks on the Sri Lankan Forces.

Now however the suffering to which the LTTE is subjecting Tamils seems to have got the better even of HRW’s ambiguities. The latest pronouncement on Sri Lanka says ‘Sri Lanka’s separatist Tamil Tigers are subjecting ethnic Tamils in their northern stronghold, the Vanni, to forced recruitment, abusive forced labour, and restrictions on movement that place their lives at risk… The LTTE has a long history of forced recruitment”

 It is also pleasing to note that the latest HRW reports emphasized the latest human rights violation by LTTE on the trapped innocent Tamil civilians in the Wanni by holding them back forcibly and placing restrictions on their free movement into government-held territory. However HRW has also missed one point here that LTTE is using older men as human shield by forcibly conscripting them and prohibiting their move to safer areas under government control. Whether HRW has mentioned in their 17 page report of LTTE’s looting of essential foods, medicines and other basic material meant for the IDP’s I don’t know.

 However, it’s never too late than never. HRW has finally come to learn the true nature of LTTE and its brutal human rights violations and it will be appreciated if HRW continues to report balanced view on the whole issue in future.

http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items08/241208-3.html

The systemic abuses of Human Rights Watch, the individual aberrations of Amnesty International

by Prof Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary-General
Secretariat for Co-ordinating the Peace Process

09 September 2008

The moral authority that we would all like NGOs concerned with Human Rights to exercise has sadly been eroded in recent years. This has coincided with the apotheosis of such organizations into recognized players on the world stage. Unfortunately a mechanism designed to enhance their stature has led in many cases to their being prey for skilful lobbyists, anxious to bend their pronouncements to purposes that have little to do with Rights. Countries that can influence such organizations, through funding or more subtle means, have also got into the act, and we find that increasingly organizations that should look after the Rights of all are selective about their pronouncements. Not entirely surprisingly, such selectivity is often at the expense of countries that strive to remain independent of the dominant consensus.

Perhaps the most obvious example of selectivity in pursuit of a particular agenda is that of Human Rights Watch. Its recent simplistic pronouncements with regard to South Ossetia were of a piece with the failure earlier this year to join other NGOs in their critique of what was going on in Gaza. Mulling over the reasons for these idiosyncrasies can however be left to other commentators. This article will be confined to the HRW lack of objectivity and balance in its comments on Sri Lanka, and particularly its constant disparagement of the Government of Sri Lanka regardless of facts or the context in which Sri Lanka maintains a better record than that of any other country struggling against terrorism. Whilst comparisons would be odious, it is obvious, given the constant deaths of civilians in other theatres, deaths that are swiftly forgotten, that focusing attention on comparatively minor tragedies in defenceless states like Sri Lanka allows greater problems to be forgotten. So, while Lanka is pilloried with epithets such as ‘indiscriminate attacks on civilians’, there is no challenge from the favoured agencies to the barrage of excuses that the dominant consensus trots out relentlessly for their own mistakes, viz hardly anyone died, and in any case those who died were terrorists (well, all but a few), and only terrorists were targeted (well, all but a few), and any mistake was the fault of certain individuals, who will be duly tried (after some years, and then they will all be acquitted, except one or two), not part of the system, which is obviously beyond question and would certainly never deceive its own people.

HRW has often in the last fifteen months pedaled stories on Sri Lanka meant to orchestrate adverse media coverage about alleged human rights violations on the part of the Government of Sri Lanka. These have little relation to ground reality. HRW has blown stories out of proportion to fact, striven to seek newspaper publicity with sensational headlines and aired blatantly false interpretations about the movement of the internally displaced seeking refuge in Government controlled areas.

In maintaining its campaign of denigration and condemnation of a sovereign state battling terror almost single handedly, Human Rights Watch has generated not only strong criticism of its conduct but also raised legitimate questions about its own background, its objectives, both overt and covert, and its double standards when approaching similar conflicts in different parts of the world. Human Rights Watch appears to be guided as a matter of policy by a strong desire to push to their limits the elitist views of the more patronizing amongst Western political and social activists, whether dealing with national security and foreign policy, or resolution of conflict, including intervention, whilst using the disarming rhetoric of Universal Human Rights.

This article, in looking at specific examples of misinterpretation and exaggeration, will raise the question whether the subject of Human Rights has been hijacked by bodies such as HRW to isolate and demonise countries that resist external influence or control, with the ultimate aim of using ‘human rights violations’ as an excuse for political operations against such countries. It is manifestly clear that ‘Human Rights’ has now replaced earlier catch phrases as the justification for intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states and the subsequent overthrow of governments.

Human Rights Watch Canards:

• Internment of Displaced Person

HRW released a statement at the beginning of July 2008, that Sri Lanka should end what it referred to as ‘internment of displaced persons’. This resort to sensationalistic language was highly unwarranted as the uninitiated reader might have been inclined to equate the conduct of Sri Lanka with that of the excesses perpetrated against the Japanese in America during the Second World War, or the forcible detention of Jews in Concentration Camps in many countries of Nazi occupied Europe. ‘Internment’ is a term that is applied to situations where people are taken forcibly from their homes and placed in forcible detention or prison camps. The Sri Lankan Government adopts no such policy towards the people, overwhelmingly Tamil, fleeing Tiger controlled areas to the safety of Government controlled areas. In LTTE controlled areas there is forced recruitment of children and young adults, extending now to two per family, and cancellation of marriages with a view to forced recruitment of the parties to the dissolved marriage. Interestingly, even now NGOs, possessed by a love that dare not speak its name, keep quiet about such matters, circulating them only privately, fearful of LTTE retribution in the face of overt criticism. Not only from the complaints of idealists sick and tired of the pusillanimity of their bosses, the Sri Lankan Government is well aware of the tyranny imposed by the LTTE on Tamil people in uncleared areas and the reasons for their flight from despotism. The Government, which continues to provide food, health and education facilities to people in LTTE controlled areas, will also, with the assistance of the UN and other agencies that are not frightened to transfer their operations to government controlled areas, provide shelter, food, medicine and security, in welfare centres, to people who manage to escape.

Freedom of movement during the day for refugees in welfare centres is generally permitted, but whatever restrictions that are imposed at other times are to prevent terrorists, who infiltrate government controlled areas by taking cover behind genuine refugees, from engaging in acts that may cause severe damage to both life and property of civilians. This is current LTTE strategy: to inflict maximum damage on the people in the south through terrorist bombings and provoke a repetition of events that occurred in July 1983 in Sri Lanka.

Both the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement and comments of the UN Special Rapporteur Walter Kalin make it clear that precautionary steps can be adopted by a State under ‘exceptional circumstances’. Any restrictive steps taken by the authorities are because of the absolute necessity to curtail terrorist bombings and the resulting loss of lives of innocent civilians.

• Indiscriminate Bombing and Shelling resulting in Civilian Casualties

In a Report on Sri Lanka submitted to the UN Human Rights Council in May 2008 in connection with the Universal Periodic Review of Sri Lanka, HRW again resorted to canards beginning with the baseless charge that ‘Sri Lanka security forces have conducted indiscriminate bombing and shelling resulting in civilian casualties’ In August 2007, HRW in a statement claimed that ‘Security forces have subjected civilians to indiscriminate attacks …. Both the government and the LTTE have a shown a brazen disregard for the well being of non –combatants’

The Peace Secretariat has emphatically refuted these allegations in a response entitled ‘HRW’s dirty war and the clean record of the Sri Lankan army’, which was sent to HRW. There has so far been no response to this piece, nor a rebuttal of the arguments presented with regard to the Kathiravelli incident, the only one in the military action in the East in which civilians were killed. SCOPP was able to show that this particular incident had occurred because of ‘mortar locating radar’ which had led the forces to believe that they were actually firing in the direction of LTTE guns. In fact even the HRW report concedes that ‘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. It is doubtful whether the displaced could have built such structures without the knowledge or support of the LTTE cadres living in the area of the camp.

In another section HRW says 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 simply not true. According to available figures, the total number of civilian deaths caused by the conflict from the beginning of the year until the end of April amounted to 325. Of these 137 were the result of indiscriminate LTTE terrorist attacks including suicide bombings in regions in the south of the country. The highest number of civilian deaths recorded in a district was in Moneragala where terrorists not only bombed a bus but shot the passengers as they were rushed out from the bombed vehicle.

The total number of civilian deaths to the end of April in the Northern Province which is a conflict zone amounted to 80. The figure of 325 is certainly excessive, but in comparison to the deaths of civilians in other parts of the world in conflicts against terror, the actual figure of less than a score of civilian deaths in the actual course of fighting is proof of the precautions taken by the forces out of concern for the civilians. Indeed the Bishop of Mannar singled this aspect out for praise, in a recent discussion concerning the situation of IDPs. In contrast, during this same period, as a consequence of LTTE bombs alone, 98 lives were lost.

The total number of internally displaced had risen by 149 between the end of December and the end of March 2008 according to UNHCR figures. In actual fact 2384 more people were displaced, but 2235 have been resettled in the Eastern Province. In the two predominant LTTE districts the increase was 480, while in the four areas under LTTE dominance in three other districts, one has shown no change, another indicates an increase of 311, a third area shows the numbers declining by 446 in two months before rising again by 2214, and the fourth area a decrease of 1156.

Disregarding these figures, HRW resorted to a sensationalistic style in asserting a figure of tens of thousands displaced. Again its fuller Report, in contrast to the flamboyant press release, recorded a UNHCR spokesperson saying of those displaced in the course of 2006 and 2007, ‘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’.

Given all this high drama in May, to divert attention from more serious issues, HRW has indeed found itself having to cry ‘Wolf’ all the louder when serious IDP problems began in the North, with the recent offensives. Had it studied the past seriously, without basing its critiques on its knowledge of countries where IDP problems have gone on for years, it would have realized that it should strive to replicate the success story of the Eastern IDPs by urging the LTTE to release into government controlled territory the displaced it is hoarding in the North. After all, those who harp on the prevention of returnees to one area in the East, because of the creation of a High Security Zone, ignore the fact that alternative lands in close proximity have been found for all displaced families, and except for a few areas where demining still has to be concluded, the situation in the East is almost back to normal as far as displacement goes.

Given the complexity of the situation in the conflict areas, the conduct of the Sri Lankan government in resettling most of the displaced and restoring normalcy to the Eastern Province should be commended. It should serve as a role model for good governance in all conflict affected countries, but since HRW cannot really insist on durable solutions to many of the displaced in the world, it chooses to ignore the achievements of a country which has succeeded better than most in dealing with this problem.

• HRW Press Release regarding the arrest of Journalist J.S. Tissainayagam

HRW released a statement entitled ‘Free Journalist and other Critics’ on August 08, 2008 giving the erroneous impression that the Journalist Mr. J.S. Tissainayagam was arrested because he has been a critic of the government.

This is another false insinuation on the part of HRW. The factual position is otherwise. Mr. Tissainayagam was taken into custody because of his suspect connections to the LTTE, and the Tamil Rehabilitation Organisation (TRO), two terrorist organizations banned in several countries. TRO was blacklisted when it became clear that its funding was used for terrorist activities. Mr. Tissainayagam had developed connections to both the LTTE and TRO during the period of the ceasefire, and had actively colluded with his other business associates to disparage the Government through false accusations via their publications. An example of his false accusation that has been published reads as follows: ‘Such offensives against the civilians are accompanied by attempts to starve the population by refusing them food as well as medicines and fuel, with the hope of driving out the people of Vaharai and depopulating it. As this story is being written, Vaharai is being subject to intense shelling and aerial bombardment’.

Mr. Tissainayagam has now been indicted for violating the law. The charge sheet contains the above passage, among a series of other charges. The law in Sri Lanka as in many other civilized countries presumes a suspect to be innocent until he is found guilty by a court of law. Mr. Tissainayagam still enjoys this presumption of innocence. The matter is before the courts. Due process will be followed. He will be freed if the prosecution fails to establish its case.

The Strange Case of Yolanda Foster, and Amnesty International

Meanwhile, Amnesty International, which had generally shown itself as more balanced in its general approach, has over the last month taken the lead in attacking the Sri Lankan government. This is in the form of releases issued by a young lady called Yolanda Foster, who spent many happy years in Sri Lanka when she was even younger, and is a wonderful example of what Paul Johnson would have called the bane of the 21st century, the professional do-gooder (even more irresponsible than his bane of the 20th century, the professional politician).

Young Yolanda, on behalf of Amnesty International, issued a sharp rebuke to the Sri Lankan government with regard to the situation of the internally displaced, though also recognizing the contribution of the LTTE to the problem. A response to Irene Khan, the Head of Amnesty International, has not as yet had a response, whilst a reminder to the generally conscientious Head of Amnesty in Geneva has prompted the excuse that the Head has been away from Headquarters in London.

Obviously no one is in charge in London, because Yolanda has returned to the charge with another couple of statements, each one more shrill than the earlier one. Whether Irene Khan will take command responsibility for all this remains to be seen. What I hope she will definitely disown is the attempt of Yolanda, along with her sisters and her cousins and her aunts to write to the Secretary General of the United Nations, badmouthing Sri Lanka. She was working on the letter along with an elderly gentleman called Peter Bowling of something that terms itself the International Working Group on Sri Lanka, based in London and believed to be close to LTTE networks; and also another youth who works for Gareth Evans’ International Crisis Group. Gareth, who seems to relish his new role as the Tailor of Panama, has floated yet another version of the Responsibility to Protect, which he hopes will allow him to pull rabbits out of a hat in Georgia or wherever he can strike gold.

It is surely a legitimate question to ask whether Yolanda Foster’s networking is part of her Amnesty International responsibilities, or whether she has another agenda. It certainly seems improper that AI should permit her, even while plotting with suspected LTTE supporters, to throw spanners in AI’s name into the works of the Sri Lankan government as it conducts a remarkably successful operation, successful most obviously in terms of the absence of civilian casualties, against the last bastions of terrorism in the North.

The Human Rights Watch Syndrome

Communications Division
Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process Sri Lanka

26 November 2008
Some people really seem to delight in recounting our problems. Instead of appreciating progress, they bash us over the head with still to be obtained goals. And at considerable length. The situation is never improving in their eyes. We are either already bad or getting a lot worse, and no practical suggestions are offered to help us recover. Rhetorical flourishes are the only things we are given by these characters. They love nothing better than wallowing in a bit of good old misery.

Human Rights Watch demonstrates this syndrome perfectly in its latest press release on the situation in the Eastern Province. To summarise, life is bad and blame lies with the Government.

The Eastern Province isn’t a utopia. There have been a number of killings and abductions in recent days, and these are clearly issues on which law enforcement agencies need to work harder until such crimes are totally wiped out from society. Nobody should have to face threats of violence as they go about their everyday business.

But it isn’t always easy. A significant extent of the area in question was under the control of a terrorist group for several years. Human Rights Watch doesn’t find anything positive to say about the liberation of the Eastern Province. It rather mocks the achievement, in fact. Reading its statement, we might almost think Human Rights Watch didn’t know there had ever been such a problem.

The LTTE wouldn’t allow dissent. Democracy had absolutely no place in territory over which that organisation held sway. Abductions were how it filled its vacancies. Even with children. And killings were commonplace. Let’s not forget it so quickly. Indeed, we can’t. For the LTTE is still around.

The Eastern Province has been set free, but there are still a fair number of individuals who are committed to working for the LTTE. They are responsible for some of the abductions and killings. What’s more, the suspicion that these elements are at large and attempting to infiltrate the organisation of their former comrades is fuelling the problem. Killings and abductions within that organisation and between them and the LTTE take place as a result. It is an unhappy situation, but one that has not been engineered by anybody other than the participants themselves.

The Government supports the TMVP. Human Rights Watch appears to regard this as an appalling development, for they believe that the party is responsible for many of the killings and abductions. Whatever the truth of those allegations, trying to help the party move into the political mainstream has to be the correct option now. Only a few years ago, the TMVP were part of the LTTE. They fought against the Government. Blew up innocent people in buses. Assassinated politicians. The LTTE haven’t seen the error of their ways as yet, but the TMVP have. They want to change. But transformation of such an organization isn’t a simple matter. Leaders cannot just decide to do it. The TMVP has a difficult task on its hands and the Government is determined to help them see it through to the end.

Human Rights Watch urges steps to be taken to improve the human rights situation. It’s a good idea, but let’s think about how that is going to be achieved. Just saying it isn’t any use.

The Eastern Province needs development. We have to provide jobs for those who have known only fighting as a means of survival. Former cadres need training. They and other Tamil speaking people will have to be brought into the law enforcement agencies, with proper oversight. Infrastructure has to be rebuilt after years of neglect due to the fighting. Health and education services need to be brought up to scratch again. Business has to return and invest in the area. And the list goes on.

This is exactly what is happening now. The Government has been engaging with international agencies to find money to fund projects in all these sectors, and progress is quickly being made. The collaboration at the highest levels between members of the different communities in the Eastern Province has been very encouraging. They are elected representatives too.

But it isn’t enough. The Eastern Province can never be the environment that we all hope for while there is still a threat from the LTTE. Human Rights Watch sometimes appears to be rather pleased that this is the case. That we still have a bitter conflict going on in this country, even though this is now some distance away from the Eastern Province. But we can’t be. The LTTE has to be convinced to follow the path set down by those who are now on the road to the political mainstream. The Eastern Province may not be a utopia, but it is in a far better situation than most places in the Vanni.

The Government has chosen a practical approach. Improvements are being made, and on an urgent footing. We do still have a way to go. But there is no greater priority than putting an end to the conflict that has dogged our country for so long to create a peaceful and prosperous society. We don’t always spend time explaining our efforts to the world. But things are happening. Let us keep in mind what has already been overcome and look forward to building on this as we move forward.