RIGHT OF REPLY: Allegations without Factual Basis Drive Anti Sri Lanka Campaign

• Opinion by Dr Palitha Kohona - Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations (new york)
• Wednesday, July 27, 2011
• Inter Press Service

The Ch 4 video makes serious allegations of human rights violations and war crimes against the Sri Lankan authorities. Let me assure you that Sri Lanka has always been strongly committed to the advancement of human rights, both domestically and internationally and compliance with accepted standards is important to it.

Sri Lanka was an early party to 7 key human rights treaties and the Geneva protocols, while some of those pointing fingers at Sri Lanka still remain outside some of these regimes. President Rajapaksa himself developed his political career as a Human Rights activist and led delegations to Geneva to advocate human rights causes. A number of special representatives of the High Commissioner for Human Rights have visited Sri Lanka on invitation. The High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Navi Pillay, has been invited to Sri Lanka and will undertake a visit in 2012.

The Ch 4 video and its sponsors patronisingly suggest that the events close to the end of the conflict must be investigated through an external entity, specifically to prevent Sri Lanka becoming a model in similar conflict situations. Sri Lanka prides itself on being governed by the rule of law and is influenced by a long and well established legal tradition and is fully capable of dealing with any infractions of accepted standards on its own. It entertains no burning ambition of being a model to anyone else. It has persistently endeavoured to subscribe to global standards.

For example, following complaints about breaches of the UN code of conduct by some of its troops in Haiti, 110 were recalled immediately and investigated and many were punished. In this regard the UN itself holds Sri Lanka as a model to other troop contributors.

For any matter to be taken before the judicial system in Sri Lanka, like in other similar countries, credible evidence is required. Unsubstantiated allegations, convenient insinuations and videos of doubtful authenticity can not be the basis of judicial action.

In any event, Sri Lanka has acted much faster in establishing its own domestic mechanism, the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), with a mandate which would encompass accountability issues, than Western countries who have confronted similar situations.

Sri Lanka contends that the Channel-4 video, and the Darusman Report, were seriously flawed and were replete with serious inaccuracies, relied on unsubstantiated allegations, suspect (doctored?) footage, and simplistic interpretations, some of it clearly taken from the Tamil Net, the propaganda arm of the LTTE.

While capable of arousing humanitarian passions and rekindling ethnic divisions, it was highly doubtful that the Channel-4 footage offered the kind of credible evidence that would stand scrutiny before the courts.

Equally importantly, given the country’s limited resources (Sri Lanka is, after all, a poor developing country emerging from 27 years of conflict) and the urgency of addressing other pressing issues, it was simply wrong and unethical to pile up pressure only in one area.

These included providing urgent humanitarian assistance to the IDPs, (food, clothing, shelter, medical care etc.), returning IDPs to their villages and homes, many of which were in a dilapidated condition, rehabilitating former child soldiers and adult cadres, clearing land mines, restoring damaged infrastructure, and ensuring the uninterrupted provision of basic services (schools, clinics, extension services) to facilitate the speedy return to normalcy.

Many of these challenges have been addressed with remarkable speed and at significant cost. As a responsible democracy and a caring administration, prioritisation was essential. Accountability issues are also being addressed through a domestic process, the LLRC, which has the mandate to deal with infractions of domestic and international standards. It was Sri Lanka’s sovereign responsibility to address such issues itself in the first instance.

The UN SG and the international community have acknowledged this. A Special Unit has been established in the Attorney General’s Department for the purpose of investigating matters referred to it by the LLRC.

What the LLRC, needed now was time and space and internal stability to deal with these issues, not relentless and undue external pressure. The country and the people were going through a healing process and there was widespread domestic resentment of perverse external prescriptions.

The questionable nature of the Channel-4 footage is highlighted by many a frame revealing what were clearly enacted scenes filmed for propaganda purposes. For example, the images of the crowds at the gate of the UN Office in Killinochchi, described with such gut wrenching eloquence by John Snow, appeared to be from two different films; the girl with sad eyes seems to be wearing a LTTE neck scarf; the blade used in the alleged killing of the tied Tamil combatant did not have any blood on it; the title of the video 'Killing Fields' has been plagiarised from John Pilger’s 1970’s documentary on the Khemer Rouge and used for its emotion provoking effect; the scenes of terrified civilians fleeing an alleged aerial bombardment, in the original LTTE footage contained camera persons and smiling onlookers; the shells that allegedly landed among the IDP tents somehow left the flimsy tents unscathed; the original of the execution video had people speaking in Tamil.

Organisations such as Amnesty International (AI), Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the International Crisis Group (ICG) which essentially depend on public contributions, place their credibility at risk by endorsing dubious and propagandist material manufactured from suspect sources and by manipulating evidence.

Sri Lanka valued the honour of its security forces, it did not wish to see its security forces which numbered over 200,000 honest and decent men and women and who fought a brutal terrorist group bravely and at immense cost in lives to achieve peace impugned in this manner.

Judging by the vigour of the Channel 4 campaign and actions of its co-sponsors, the over riding aim appears to be to discredit Sri Lanka. This was also a goal consistent with the aims of the rump LTTE.

Sri Lanka had not intended to end the conflict through military means but was compelled to do so after being rebuffed repeatedly in its efforts to negotiate a peaceful end to the conflict. While Sri Lankan delegations had attended negotiations three times in 2006, the LTTE had persisted with a relentless terrorist offensive.

Certain developed countries, despite being better resourced, had taken much longer to address alleged infractions of international standards. Sri Lanka, with its limited resources, was now being relentlessly pressured to do the same things much quicker compared with others despite having to address a much more complex range of issues.

The LLRC will conclude its work in accordance with its mandate but Sri Lanka needed space and time to deal with these issues. AI and the other INGOs are invited to stay engaged in an open and honest dialogue with Sri Lanka.

One would have thought that AI would want to advocate change for the better rather than engage in an all holds barred vendetta.

© Inter Press Service (2011) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

Where next?

Advertisement