http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20120305_04


A bold call for objectivity by Sri Lanka
By Lucien Rajakarunanayake
“In the light of this commitment by Sri Lanka, there is no
justification or urgency whatsoever in floating a resolution calling for the
implementation of the LLRC’s recommendations and engagement with the High
Commissioner, when this has already been effectively undertaken by the
Government. What we now need from the international community is objectivity in
assessing Sri Lanka’s efforts.”
This was the key observation of Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe,
the President’s Special Envoy on Human Rights to the United Nations Human Rights
Council, at the High Level segment of UNHRC’s 19th Session earlier this week. It
was a preemptive dismissal of the moves by the United States, EU and other
western countries, who have taken on the mantle of the “international community”
to wage new attacks on Si Lanka, via the LLRC, which they were initially very
sceptical about.
In a strong request to allow Sri Lanka’s efforts at
reconciliation to proceed unimpeded, Minister Samarasinghe said: “More than
anything we need to ensure that the process is allowed to advance unimpeded. We
do not need unwarranted incursions that will compromise successful
implementation. Such interference by way of redundant resolutions before this
Council, would only undermine the sentiments of this Council as expressed in the
decisive adoption of the Special Session resolution on Sri Lanka in 2009,”
Commenting of the new trend of many voices in the west who are
unquestioningly following the ill-concealed propaganda trajectory of the
pro-LTTE Tamils, who are carrying on a concerted campaign against Sri Lanka, he
said: “Delivering homilies about human rights in Sri Lanka at fora such as these
would be much more meaningful if they were supported by real and substantial
cooperation and assistance in keeping with this Council’s Resolution on Sri
Lanka in 2009. Enabling a member state to overcome the undoubted challenges it
faces in reconciliation and restoration of normality and productive civilian
life - particularly amongst those worst affected by the scourge of terrorism -
would be much more tangible and helpful to all concerned, rather than the mere
repetition of unsubstantiated allegations and unconscionable finger-pointing
directed at Sri Lanka”
With the latest figures on actual mortalities and casualties in
the North during the period of the armed terrorism by the LTTE and the moves to
defeat it, Minister Samarasinghe was emphatic in declaring that the highly
inflated figures that were being readily bandied about did not bear any
connection to the truth. He said that according to latest scientific census
reports “One thing is certain,” … “the story of ‘tens of thousands’ of civilian
deaths that supposedly occurred during the final phase of the humanitarian
operation, is very clearly proved to be a gross exaggeration and a deliberate
misrepresentation of fact.”
Darusman Secrecy
As is necessary in view of the manner in which the Darusman
Report is referred as the ultimate fact sheet on alleged war crimes and crimes
against humanitarian law by Sri Lanka, by those ranged against Sri Lanka who
refer to it as the “UN Experts Panel Report” which it is not by any measure of
judgment, Sri Lanka’s Special Envoy made a compelling comparison of the LLRC
Report and the tendentious “expertise” of Darusman & Co. “In our view”, he
said, the LLRC report contains a detailed and perceptive analysis of past
errors, including those that led to the failure of the peace process, and
several recommendations for the future. The Report is comprehensive and contains
detailed annexes, compiled following interviews with over 1,000 persons who gave
evidence before the Commission, and over 5,000 submissions received. The
proceedings were largely open and persons testified freely and openly before the
Commission in public hearings unless exceptional circumstances required in
camera proceedings.
In sharp contrast the LLRC procedure “was quite different to the
Secretary-General’s Advisory Panel which held closed door hearings with unnamed
witnesses who were guaranteed 20 years anonymity to secure their statements.
This meant that the testimony could not be verified or tested for its probative
value. The LLRC Report, on the other hand, places before us material of the
basis on which the Commissioners arrived at their conclusions, which are
substantive and verifiable. The Commission has dealt with and made
recommendations on a whole gamut of issues including aspects of accountability -
something which several of our partners and interlocutors have failed to
acknowledge; the resettlement of IDPs; the rehabilitation and re-integration of
ex-combatants, the detention of suspects; bringing an end to the possession of
unauthorized weapons; the deployment of security forces; land issues; issues
with regard to restitution; implementation of the language policy;
socio-economic and livelihood development; administrative issues; and on the
need to arrive at a national consensus with regard to fulfilling the legitimate
aspirations of all communities living in Sri Lanka.”
Clearly identifying the source of the pressure that is being
faced by western governments to take strong anti-Sri Lankan positions, which are
contrary to their position on human rights and related issues in other
countries, Minister Samarasinghe said: “We categorically reject such undue
pressure from sections of the international community which have fallen prey to
the propaganda, coercive tactics and electoral pressures of these elements. We
are conscious of their need to portray a negative picture of Sri Lanka and
unreasoning pessimism in order to justify their continued presence in these host
countries. Instead of accepting our President’s invitation to become
constructive partners in development and building a renewed Sri Lanka, it is
most regrettable that these elements devote their time, effort and resources in
defaming their motherland and denigrating the genuine efforts of the Government
to consolidate peace, development and prosperity for all Sri Lankans.”
Immunity in Washington
As the debate in Geneva goes on with that city of diplomacy and
western culture being transformed into a phony pilgrim centre for pro-terrorist
Tamil activists from many parts of Europe gathering there to keep the pressure
on western leaders, a U.S. federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed against
President Mahinda Rajapaksa, by similar activists, noting that President
Rajapaksa is immune from lawsuits as a sitting Head of State.
The Associated Press report on the case by ABC News said a U.S.
judge threw out a lawsuit Wednesday against Sri Lanka's president over killings
allegedly carried out by his forces during the country's ethnic civil war.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled that she must
dismiss the suit against President Mahinda Rajapaksa because the Obama
administration says he is immune from the litigation as a foreign head of state.
"The court does not take this step lightly," Kollar-Kotelly
wrote. "The plaintiffs' complaint contains shocking allegations of human rights
abuses and violations of United States and international law. The court's
dismissal of this case is in no way a reflection of the merits of plaintiffs'
claims or defendant's defenses. Rather, two centuries of case law and basic
constitutional and statutory principles prevent this court from allowing
plaintiffs' complaint to move forward at this time."
The fact is that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is unable due to
the laws of her own country, which she has to respect and enforce, to proceed
with this case. Her personal opinion of the merits of the allegations made have
no relevance in this instance, because they remain allegations, however serious
they may seem, which have not been put to the test of a trial with witnesses and
other evidence.
What is significant about this move and the comments of this
judge is that it very easy for persons who can be well advised, even by a
partisan lawyer such as Bruce Fein, to string up a whole lot of unfounded
charges of the most serious nature and bring them to a court, with maximum
publicity, knowing very well that they will not be heard, even at a preliminary
level due to the law on immunity for heads of state that prevails in the United
States, and has been observed for more than 200 years. This is not dissimilar to
the many charges brought against the Sri Lankan armed forces and government by
those who we are told had given evidence before the Darusman Committee, but
whose evidence cannot questioned, verified or challenged for 20 years because of
the guarantee of anonymity for this period. Judge Kollar-Kotelly must surely be
aware of the possibility and reality of trumped up charges being brought to a
court where it cannot be heard, with even a little knowledge of jurisprudence.
Courtesy : Government Information Center