Video footage that appears to show Sri Lankan troops committing war crimes by summarily executing captured Tamil Tiger fighters on the battlefield was not fabricated, as claimed by the Sri Lankan Government, an investigation by The Times found.

The video of the alleged battlefield executions, which was aired on Channel 4 in August, shows a naked man, bound and blindfolded, being made to kneel.

Another man, dressed in what appears to be Sri Lankan army uniform, approaches from behind and shoots him in the head at point-blank range.

“It’s like he jumped,” the executor laughs. The camera then pans to show eight similarly bound corpses.

A 10th man was also shot in the same way towards the end of the video with men in the background gloating over the killings.

It is impossible to confirm when and where the filming occurred or the identities of the men shown, noted the Times.

Channel 4 stressed in its original report that it could not verify the authenticity of the video which it received from a group called Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka.

The group claims the video footage was taken in January by a soldier using a mobile phone.

The United Nations said at the time that it was viewing the footage "with the utmost concern" but could also not verify the video.

The Sri Lankan government has claimed that it has “established beyond doubt” that the footage was fake. It denies that the video shows soldiers shooting unarmed, naked men.

An analysis for The Times by Grant Fredericks, an independent forensic video specialist who is also an instructor at the FBI National Academy, suggests otherwise, the Times report said.

He found no evidence of digital manipulation, editing or any other special effects. However, subtle details consistent with a real shooting, such as a discharge of gas from the barrel of the weapon used, were visible, the report said.

“This level of subtle detail cannot be virtually reproduced. This is clearly an original recording,” said Mr Fredericks, who was previously the head of the Vancouver police forensic video unit in Canada.

There was also strong evidence to rule out the use of actors. “Even if the weapons fired blanks, the barrel is so close to the head of the ‘actors’ that the gas discharge alone leaves the weapon with such force it would likely cause serious injury or death,” Mr Fredericks told The Times.

The reactions of those executed was consistent with reality, he added. “The victims do not lunge forward . . . [they] fall backward in a very realistic reaction, unlike what is normally depicted in the movies.”

In Mr Fredericks’s opinion “the injury to the head of the second victim and the oozing liquid from that injury cannot be reproduced realistically without editing cuts, camera angle changes and special effects. No [errors] exist anywhere in any of the images that support a technical fabrication of the events depicted,” he said.

The Sri Lankan Government conducted its own investigations into the video in September and concluded that the footage was “done with a sophisticated video camera, dubbed to give the gunshot effect and transferred to a mobile phone.”

Mr Fredericks’s research showed that code embedded in the footage appeared to match with software used in Nokia mobile phones. He said: “The recording is completely consistent with a cell phone video recording and there are no signs of editing or alterations.”

The strong evidence that the footage does show real executions could reinforce international calls for an independent war crimes investigation, reported The Times — something that the Sri Lanka Government has resisted.

The Times UK report closely matches the key findings by the US Colorado-based Image and Sound Forensics (ISF) experts who performed the analysis on behalf of US pressure group Tamils Against Genocide (TAG).

Colorado ISF's report, parts of which appeared in the Sunday Leader, had previously confirmed, "[t]he video and audio of the events depicted in the Video, were continuous without any evidence of start/stops, insertions, deletions, over recordings, editing or tampering of any kind."

Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions had earlier declared the video investigations by the local 'experts' appointed by the Sri Lanka Government as "not impartial."

However, Philip Alston's assertion that UN will conduct its own investigations on the authenticity of the video has not materialized.

Meanwhile, TAG spokesperson when contacted by TamilNet said, "While we have published the summary of the findings, ISF is due to provide TAG a detailed technical report detailing the analysis carried out." 

Despite the mass human rights violations and war crimes the Sri Lankan government has committed and continues to commit, a new report published by a US senate committee suggests that the US should seek ‘warmer ties’ with Sri Lanka due to the geo-political significance of the island. Whilst rights organisations criticised the proposals, Sri Lanka welcomed it, declaring it as an indication of the US bowing to Sri Lanka.

The Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate, chaired by Sen. John Kerry published an 18 page report titled “Sri Lanka: Recharting US Strategy after the War”, on Monday December 7, for consideration of the US Administration.

According to the report the U.S’s reluctance to invest in the economy or the security sector in Sri Lanka has pushed Sri Lanka towards other powers more willing to invest and assist. The report further warns this strategic drift will have consequences for U.S. interests in the region.

"The challenge for the United States will be to encourage Sri Lanka to embrace political reform without pushing the country toward Burma-like isolation," the report says.

The report further claims that the U.S. policymakers have underestimated Sri Lanka’s geostrategic importance for American interests, and adds the United States cannot afford to ‘‘lose’’ Sri Lanka.

Further, it encourages the Obama administration to recalibrate its approach to post-war Sri Lanka to include more economic, political and security aid to protect U.S. interests.

"While humanitarian concerns remain important, U.S. policy cannot be dominated by a single agenda. It is not effective at delivering real reform, and it short-changes U.S. geostrategic interests in the region." according to the report.

The report comes amid growing concern among many activists that President Barack Obama’s policy of diplomatic engagement with abusive or authoritarian governments, such as China, Burma, Iran, Sudan, and Syria, is being pursued at the expense of human rights.

Rights organizations slammed the report labelling it as "incredibly shoddy" and produced by people who "don’t know anything about Sri Lanka."

"This report is an incredibly shoddy, ill-informed piece of work that grossly overstates the strategic importance of Sri Lanka to the United States and woefully understates the degree of abuses carried out by the government there," said Robert Templer, director of the Asia programme at the Brussels- based International Crisis Group (ICG), according a report on IPS.

"Maybe the people who wrote the report don’t know anything about Sri Lanka or maybe they’re of the school that says that everything on the planet is strategic," said Brad Adams, Asia director for Human Rights Watch.

"The huge human-rights and humanitarian problems that continue there are not small; they’re central to any principled diplomatic engagement with Sri Lanka at this point. So [the notion] that we are in a competition with China, which I think is driving this, is misplaced," he told IPS news agency.

Professor Francis Boyle of University of Illinois College of Law, commenting on the statement "[f]or their part, Tamil leaders have not yet made anticipated conciliatory gestures that might ease government concerns and foster a genuine dialogue," appearing in page 1 of the report said, "[t]his is a sick joke and a demented fraud."

Sri Lanka’s state run English language newspaper, Daily News, interpreted the proposed shift in U.S. approach as U.S. bowing to Sri Lankan President Rajapakse’s determination.

“The new approach to Sri Lanka also shows acceptance of the correct position that Sri Lanka took in not giving into the pressures of the West, as President Mahinda Rajapakse firmly rejected and resisted the joint moves by Western powers and associated organizations of the "international community" to force a ceasefire and a truce with the LTTE. It also recognized the value of the friendship that Sri Lanka maintained particularly with China, the good relations with Russia and also the important role that strong bonds forged with India played in bringing the protracted war against terror to an end.” said the Daily News.

The newspaper also took the opportunity to have a dig at the European Union stating: “The U.S. Senate Report also gives a shove to those in the European Union that seem determined to punish Sri Lanka for defending its sovereignty and territorial integrity from the menace of terrorism, and has indirectly endorsed the position of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva,, when it defeated the EU led move to bludgeon Sri Lanka over its success against the LTTE.”

Sri Lanka’s minister for disaster management and human rights, Mahinda Samarasinghe described the report as “quite positive” as U.S. sees Sri Lanka as strategically important.

 “It looks for more constructive engagement with Sri Lanka, which is exactly what we would like to have with the U.S.,” he said.

“It shows that the ‘naming and shaming game’ should not be the policy with Sri Lanka.”

The report states, thirty years of violence have taken a toll on the majority Sinhalese population, giving rise to a siege mentality toward the ethnic Tamil minority and laments Tamil leaders have not yet made any conciliatory gestures that might ease government concerns and foster a genuine dialogue.

Commenting on the report, Tamil political observers questioned the logic of trying to provide an excuse for the Sinhala peoples’ animosity towards the Tamils, when it is the Sinhala government that has oppressed the Tamils and unleashed a genocidal war resulting in tens of thousands of Tamil deaths in first few months of this year alone.

The political observers further questioned the judgement of report’s authors on expecting the Tamils, who have been subjugated as a population and incarcerated in concentration camps en masse, to make conciliatory gestures when the Sri Lankan government, which claimed to represent Tamils and claims to have liberated the Tamils from the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, have made not efforts in reconciliation.

Whilst the report, states that the ‘final stages of the war captured the attention of governments around the world, particularly the United States,’ it does not make any detailed reference to the horrendous war crimes the Rajapakse government presided over.

Instead the report details the significance of geopolitical position of Sri Lanka and recommends that the U.S. policy on Sri Lanka should not be focusing on the human rights violations but be broader and more robust approach that appreciates new political and economic realities in Sri Lanka and U.S. geostrategic interests.

“Sri Lanka is located at the nexus of crucial maritime trading routes in the Indian Ocean connecting Europe and the Middle East to China and the rest of Asia.” reports states.

“Take a broader and more robust approach to Sri Lanka that appreciates new political and economic realities in Sri Lanka and U.S. geostrategic interests. Such an approach should be multidimensional so that U.S. policy is not driven solely by short-term humanitarian concerns but rather an integrated strategy that leverages political, economic, and security tools for more effective long-term reforms.”

The report goes onto recommend the U.S government to expand its assistance to include all areas of Sri Lanka, particularly in the south and central areas so that Sinhalese and other groups also benefit from U.S. assistance programs and reap some ‘‘peace dividend and urges the Congress to authorize the U.S. military to resume training of Sri Lankan military officials to help ensure that human rights concerns are integrated into future operations and to help build critical relationships.

The report also made recommendations to the Sri Lankan Government including the commencement of a program of reconciliation between the diverse communities in Sri Lanka and engaging in a dialogue on land tenure issues, since they affect resettlement in the North and East.

Tamil political observers, commenting on the recommendations, questioned the rational behind peace dividend for the Sinhala populace in southern Sri Lanka, who are unaffected by the war, whilst hundreds of thousands of Tamils are internally displaced and forcibly held in concentration camps after losing all they owned due to the war.

They further noted that the report acknowledged the underlying root causes of the conflict persists even after the end of the war but did not make any recommendation to the Sri Lankan government to put forward a political solution or introducing any form of power sharing with the Tamils to address the root causes.

In addition to rights organisations and Tamil political analysts, the report also came under fire from Tamil groups.

Commenting on the report a spokesperson for Tamils for Obama, a US based Tamil advocacy group, said "The committee staffers who wrote the report seemed to focus on Sri Lanka's strategic location in the Indian Ocean and bury the inconvenient details of the Sri Lankan government's brutality to its Tamil population. They recommended that the U.S. take measures to make friends with the Colombo government and they ignore that government's role in causing the recent conflict there. Apparently, they just don't want to say anything that will make the Sri Lankan government look bad."

The Norwegian Council of Eelam Tamils (NCET) in statement released to coincide with U.S. President Barrack Obama’s visit to Oslo to accept his Nobel Prize expressed its deep concern about Senate committee’s recommendations seeking to strengthen Colombo and sidelining political solution to Tamils.

“USA has always been upholding a political solution to the crisis in the island than a military one. However, despite the wishes of Your Excellency, Eelam Tamils had the misfortune of experiencing the tragedy and trauma of a military solution. They are now puzzled how nullification or postponement of the long-due political solution appropriate for their national question would fetch durable geo-strategic objectives to anyone,” said the letter signed by Dr. Panchakulasingam Kandiah, president of the NCET.

Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department declined to comment on the report, noting that officials there had not yet had a chance to review it. A spokesperson, who declined to be identified, said U.S. policy remained unchanged.

"We continue to stress to the government of Sri Lanka the importance of ending human-rights abuses, including media intimidation; investigating and holding accountable those responsible for past abuses, and pursuing meaningful dialogue and co-operation with Tamil and other minority communities to ensure that there is no return to violence," she said.

Thousands gathered on Saturday, November 28, to commemorate Heroes Day 2009 in an outpouring of grief in Sydney.

A series of artistic and visual tributes, including a spectacular centre piece display carrying the symbols of Tamil Eelam set behind commemorative tombstones, illuminated Parramatta Park amid an atmosphere of reflection and resolve as over 2000 members of the Diaspora paid tribute to the fallen soldiers of the liberation movement and reaffirmed their commitment to the establishment of Tamil Eelam.

The sister of LTTE Political head B. Nadesan, along with family of Colonel Amuthap lit the flame of sacrifice to mark the event, which featured songs, poetry and a series of provocative dramas portraying the horrors of Mullivaiykal and the sacrifices made by the fallen soldiers throughout the struggle.

Organized by the Tamil Coordinating Committee (TCC), the event began at 6:30 with a minutes silence before an hour long anjali commenced as members of the public offered flowers and prayer to the fighters who have laid down their lives for the pursuit of freedom.

Tamil author and academic Murugar Gunasingham called upon global powers to recognize their complicity in the carnage and immense civilian casualties that took place during the final phases of the military onslaught, citing Pakistan, China, India and Iran as collaborators who "hastened the mechanisms of genocide upon the entire Tamil nation".

Bringing the Tamil liberation struggle into historical context, Gunasingham cited the redemption of Nelson Mandela in the eyes of the world from political antagonist to national hero, suggesting a similar reprieve awaited LTTE leader as the continued suffering of thousands of Tamil civilians detained by Sri Lankan armed forces becomes apparent.

Citing the formation of Israel and the role of the global Jewish Diaspora as the “building blocks of the nation’s success”, he reaffirmed the need for continued vigilance and commitment by the global Tamil community in the face of immense adversity.

An emotional 4 part drama portraying the level of sacrifice and bravery displayed by the liberation fighters amid the suffering and carnage was punctuated by large scale choreography and outdoor lighting that transformed the park into a living prop used to depict the Vanni landscape during the latter stages of the conflict.

Notable Tamil Nadu politician and president of the Tamil Nationalist Movement Nedumaran was scheduled to address the audience, however was denied a visa by the Australian Government at the last moment.

Over 99% of the voters voted in favour of Tamil Eelam at a referendum held across France on the weekend of December 12, 13.

Of the 31,148 eligible Eelam Tamil diaspora voters over 18 in France who participated in the referendum, 30,936 of them said yes to an independent and sovereign Tamil Eelam.

The postal votes permitted to interior areas of France are yet to be counted and the number is expected to be between 2,000 and 3,000.

In the absence of any official statistics, police estimates earlier placed the number of adult Eelam Tamils in France between 25,000 and 35,000.

The near total turn out of voters amidst an international campaign that Tamil Eelam had drowned in Mullivaaykkal has stunned observers, reported TamilNet.

The public spirit has made sections of Tamil media, initially engaged in vicious campaign against the referendum, to make a U-turn supporting it later, the website added.

One of the poll observers, Stephen Gatignon, Mayor of the City of Sevran in whose area around 1800 voters turned out, welcomed all democratic moves of Eelam Tamils.

In Paris, the booths in the area called '93 Department' alone polled around 12,000 votes. This is a locality where many Eelam Tamils live.

"Voters flocked in as families and we watched it with awe," said one of the French election officials.

Voters came with identities to prove their Eelam Tamil origin and their residential status in France.

Enthusiastic voters from neighbouring countries also tried to participate in the polling, but they were all turned back by the election officials as the poll was exclusive to Eelam Tamils of residential status in France.

Since the voting took place over two days, date of birth and place of birth details were entered in a centralised database to prevent duplication. Indelible ink that can stay for 48 hours was also applied to the hands of all voters.

The poll was officiated and supervised by independent French election officials drawn from the members of local government bodies.

Of the available accounts, 99.32 per cent said 'yes' to the following statement based on the main political principle of the Vaddukkoaddai Resolution of 1976 that was mandated by Tamils in the North and East of the island of Sri Lanka in 1977:

"I aspire for the formation of the independent and sovereign state of Tamil Eelam in the north and east territory of the island of Sri Lanka on the basis that the Tamils in the island of Sri Lanka make a distinct nation, have a traditional homeland and have the right to self-determination."

Only 43 voters said 'no' and 169 votes were invalid.

The grand success of the referendum was due to enthusiastic participation of all generations of Eelam Tamils, said the organisers.

Senior citizens and youngsters were in the forefront in organisation.

Braving harsh weather, many senior citizens took a special interest in distributing pamphlets and in door-to-door campaign, Mr. Thiruchothy, one of the organisers, told TamilNet.

The referendum was organised by the formation committee of the country council of Eelam Tamils called "The House of Tamil Eelam," supported by 61 Eelam Tamil organisations in France and two NGOs, Mouvement de la Paix (Movement for Peace) and Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l'amitié entre les peuples (Movement Against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples).

A top US envoy visiting Sri Lanka praised Sri Lanka for progress so far in its post war efforts but warned more needs to be done.

Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs Robert Blake who was on a three-day visit starting Monday December 7 to discuss political matters and reconciliation said the US was willing to extend more aid to Sri Lanka provided there was progress in political reconciliation and human rights.

"The United States welcomes the recent progress by the government of Sri Lanka," Blake said, referring to the return of hundreds of thousands of refugees from camps that drew international condemnation because people were not free to leave.” Blake told reporters in Colombo after meetings with the president and senior government officials.

"Everyone agrees that there is still a tremendous amount of work to be done,"

"Killings and abductions have come down. That is certainly welcome. We still need progress on press freedom and ... political reconciliation." Blake said.

Blake's visit came after the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee urged President Barack Obama not to "lose" its relationship with the strategically located island nation as China and India have gained increasing sway.

The report urged the Obama administration to not to focus on the human rights violations alone but recalibrate its approach to post-war Sri Lanka to include more economic, political and security aid to protect U.S. interests and offer incentives for Sri Lanka to improve its rights record.

However, Blake, who was the ambassador in Colombo until May, said he was not aware of the report's recommendations and made it clear that accountability was a key priority for the Obama administration, at least for now.

“An important element of reconciliation is safeguarding and protecting the rights of all Sri Lankans. In practice this means…people who have violated the rights of others should be held accountable for their actions.”

Also, unlike the Senate report which avoided any reference to a political solution for the Tamil National question or power sharing, Blake, told reporters that a power-sharing arrangement should be implemented to ensure that all Sri Lankans participate in the democratic process.

“In all my meetings with Government and non-governmental leaders, I expressed my country's hope that the Government and opposition will work together to develop a consensus on reconciliation and power-sharing arrangements that can be implemented to ensure that all Sri Lankans can participate fully in the democratic process and that democracy can be restored in northern Sri Lanka, so Tamils and others in the North can enjoy a future of hope, dignity, and opportunity.”

During his visit Blake, visited Manik Farm in Vavuniya, the largest camp for Internally Displaced People (IDPs) run by the Sri Lankan government, and met some IDPs who had recently returned to Mannar district in North-western Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka’s former Army Commander has claimed that his forces were responsible for

the killing of surrendering senior members of the Liberation Tigers in May this year.

Presidential candidate Major General Sarath Fonseka (retd) initially accused Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa and Shavendra Silva, commander of army’s 58th division as directly responsible for the assassination of LTTE’s political leaders Balasingham Nadesan, Seevaratnam Puleedevan and police chief Ramesh.

Fonseka claimed that the army was ordered to execute the surrendering LTTE leaders.

He also named presidential advisor Basil Rajapaksa, Norwegian minister Erik Solheim and various foreign parties as people involved in the episode, according to a story in the latest The Sunday Leader newspaper.

But the following day, he qualified the statement, taking responsibility, as the army chief, of what happened on the nights of May 16 and 17 on a patch of marshy land near the north-eastern coast.

Fonseka said he had been personally unaware of the Tamils' attempts to give themselves up, which included frantic last-minute appeals for help to a Norwegian minister, diplomats, journalists and UN and Red Cross officials.

"Later I learned that Basil [Rajapaska, a senior presidential adviser] had conveyed this information to the defence secretary, Gothabaya Rajapaksa, who in turn spoke with Brigadier Shavendra Silva, commander of the army's 58th division, giving orders not to accommodate any [Tiger] leaders attempting surrender and that they must all be killed," Fonseka told The Sunday Leader newspaper in Colombo.

Fonseka said Nadesan, head of the Liberation Tigers’ political wing, Puleedevan, head of the group's peace secretariat, and Ramesh had been assured through intermediaries by Basil Rajapaksa and Gothabaya Rajapaksa, brothers of the president, that they would be given safe conduct.

According to subsequent accounts, the men were advised: "Get a piece of white cloth, put up your hands and walk towards the other side in a non-threatening manner."

"It [the surrender method] was their idea," Fonseka told the newspaper, referring to Basil and Gothabaya Rajapaksa.

When the three men approached government lines some time after midnight on 17 May they walked into a trap, Fonseka suggested. Troops opened fire with machine guns, killing all three and a number of family members.

A Tamil eyewitness account said Nadesan's wife, a Sinhalese, called in Sinhala to the soldiers: "He is trying to surrender and you are shooting him." She also died in the hail of bullets.

The chief intermediary was Norway’s Erik Solheim, The Sunday Leader said, while including the ICRC too in the process.

Fonseka said that he came to know what exactly had happened after the event through journalists who had been with Shavendra Silva’s Brigade Command at that time.

These journalists were privy to the telephone message from Gotabhaya to the Brigade Commander, ordering the latter not to accommodate surrenders but to simply go ahead and kill them, Fonseka said.

The Sri Lankan government reacted angrily, denying the allegation.

Responding to Fonseka, Mahinda Samarasinghe, the human rights minister, said: "The government totally denies this allegation … We reject this malicious allegation against our heroic soldiers."

Offering yet another version of events, he said the senior LTTE cadres were carrying white flags in an attempt to fool the army and were not trying to surrender.

Basil Rajapaksa told the Sunday Leader he had not been contacted by a Norwegian intermediary over the surrender offer.

Gothabaya Rajapaksa and Brigadier Silva have not commented in public on Fonseka's claims.

The next day Fonseka appeared to qualify his statements.

At no point of the war any member of the Army violated internationally accepted rules of war, he said.

"They (army soldiers) never committed any criminal act. There was no attempt at surrender on May 17, 18 and 19," he said.

He would take full responsibility for any human rights violations during the final stages of the war, Fonseka further added.

Fonseka said he never said that defence secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa had ordered Silva to eliminate surrendered LTTE leaders.

Despite disavowing his earlier remarks, Fonseka's claims about the circumstances surrounding the three men's deaths resemble contemporaneous reports in regional and western media that were denied by the Sri Lankan government, reported Britain’s The Guardian newspaper.

There is little doubt that the three LTTE leaders were negotiating to surrender. Diplomatic sources had confirmed that S Pathmanathan – then LTTE’s international relations chief – called up top UN officials on the intervening night between May 15 and 16, telling them the LTTE was ready to lay down arms, reported the Hindustan Times.

Tamil news reports two days later said that Nadesan and Pulidevan were shot by the army dead while surrendering. “We were instructed to make contact with the 58th Division of the Sri Lankan forces in the war zone, un-armed and carrying white flags…They…were called on by the officers of the 58th Division to come forward for discussions. When they complied they were shot and killed,” KP said in a statement.

At the time, the Sri Lankan government vehemently denied this, saying they were killed by their own angry cadres.

Former foreign secretary, Palitha Kohona told AFP: “I told them to…take a white flag and walk slowly towards the army lines in an unthreatening manner. What I learnt subsequently is that the two of them were shot from behind as they tried to come out. They had been killed by the LTTE.”

Meanwhile, Tamil circles commenting on Fonseka's 'revelations', said both the SLA Commander Fonseka and Commander-in-Chief Mahinda Rajapaksa cannot explain away their involvement in war crimes and the crimes against humanity, reported TamilNet.

"The International Community has a responsibility to at least conduct an investigation on the last-minute facilitation to which it should have necessary evidences," the Tamil sources further told the news site. 

It was cold, misty, and miserably wet the day we visited Auschwitz-Birkenau, but no one wished for better weather. My companions -- mostly midlevel diplomats from more than a dozen countries around the world -- all seemed to agree that sunshine would have been almost offensive. We had come to this corner of Poland as part of a weeklong seminar on preventing genocide, which included such outings so that the participants could learn more about the details of the Holocaust. And yet, I wondered if this field trip was having its desired effect.

There is probably no more appropriate single location than Auschwitz-Birkenau for grasping the scope of the Nazi horror. But the unprecedented and unequaled nature of that horror makes it somewhat inappropriate as a useful lesson for preventing genocide today. When you're waiting for something that looks like Birkenau, it's almost too easy to say, "never again."

From March 1942 to late 1944, Birkenau was the largest factory of mass murder in wartime Europe. Every day, trains arrived carrying thousands of people -- mostly Jews, but also Poles, Roma, and others -- and apart from a limited number deemed fit for slave labor, they were sent immediately to their deaths in massive, purpose-built gas chambers. At its peak, Birkenau could kill as many as 20,000 people a day, and in the end, this place was the worst of the extermination camps: The Nazis are estimated to have murdered over a million people here.

It was the mechanization of murder on a scale never before seen, and it stretched far beyond the grounds of this camp. With victims shipped in from all across Europe, this was an integrated system of collection, transport, and execution that covered a continent. It was precisely that sort of industrialization that I feared might inhibit an understanding of mass atrocity among the participants. Walking around Birkenau with these diplomats, some of whom represent states on the edge -- a few perhaps even over the edge -- of mass atrocities right now, I got the feeling some might have missed the point.

The Holocaust was a minutely organized and completely structured -- not to mention disturbingly well-documented -- genocide, miles away from the messy realities of their countries. They could look at the camp and the gas chambers and recognize nothing familiar. In fact, the visit may have only confirmed their belief that their countries were incapable of mass atrocities, when all they are really incapable of is the industrialized method.

The passage of time and the different cultural context of mid-20th-century Central Europe only added to the distance, making the events of that era seem even less familiar to African, Latin American, and Asian participants living in 2009. It is harder to identify parallels with one's own culture, harder to see the signs and harder to admit any similarities. It allows a psychological distance from anything that might occur in their countries.

Of course, this is not the intention of the seminar organizers, the Auschwitz Institute for Peace and Reconciliation's Raphael Lemkin Center for Genocide Prevention and the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum. The goals of this unique and admirable project were, first, to train government policymakers in the latest genocide and conflict prevention and intervention strategies. Second, the organizers are seeking to help these participants build an international network of diplomats and others who understand the warning signs and can act to help halt disaster before it strikes.

Seminar instructors, like me, deliberately pointed out the universal potentials, stressing the similarities between the Holocaust and later genocides and other mass atrocities. Still, I sensed both organizers and speakers had a bit of a tough time reaching some participants. Perhaps it is simply too hard to compete with the place-specific impressions one gets upon visiting Auschwitz-Birkenau. I did naturally talk to some participants about this -- about how what they saw resonated with them and their own countries' situations and potentials -- but it was rather unsatisfying.

This issue goes far beyond a couple dozen participants in a seminar in Poland. I suspect too many people in the wider international community still only recognize genocide in this one most specific sense. They are always looking for Birkenau -- expecting industrialized killing rather than seeing genocide the way it unfolds today. They ignore the evidence that in the right environment, simple machetes can be just as effective as rail networks and gas chambers.

"Genocide" is too limiting a term in any case. In recent years, governments have not necessarily been exterminating entire subgroups en masse with crystal-clear intent. Yet some governments show no qualms about shelling huge numbers of ethnic minority civilians trapped in confined war zones, as we saw in Sri Lanka earlier this year. More common still are governments that kick one ethnic group off its land and force the people into displacement camps where they become permanent wards of international humanitarian agencies -- think Darfur, for example, to mention just one place commonly labeled a "slow-motion genocide."

To get hung up on definitions of "genocide" -- or "war crimes," "crimes against humanity," or "ethnic cleansing" for that matter -- is to miss the point entirely, and the possibility of prevention, almost certainly. Arguing over the fulfillment of categories wastes valuable time better spent saving lives.

Some have suggested separating the legal definitions of these atrocities, which are needed by lawyers arguing the case long after the fact, from the political definitions, which would require a simpler burden of proof to encourage swift, preventive action by the international community. But even if you could get beyond fears of a "hair-trigger" approach, you are still more or less where you started: Definition is held to be paramount, when the real issue is political will.

Washington's stance toward Rwanda and Darfur illustrate this perfectly. In the former, the Clinton administration went through various contortions to avoid calling it a genocide, while in the latter, the Bush administration took a long look and declared it a genocide. But whether or not the G-word was used, the result was the same: The White House did exactly what it wanted to do or thought it could do to stop the killing -- conscience-salving quick fixes and half-measures with little or no effect.

Expanding the focus from strictly genocide to "atrocity crimes" may seem an improvement, but it still sets up definitions that have to be evaluated and can anyway be ignored whether the definitions are fulfilled or not. In other words, it all comes down to politics anyway, so fooling around with definitions seems pointless at best, and deliberate and deadly delay at worst.

If generating political will is the only issue, then the organizers of this seminar have the right idea to establish a network of career diplomats who have some knowledge of genocide and the techniques employed to try to prevent it. And they do see the importance of cultural context in expanding sympathy for the victims and the need to stress that atrocity crimes can emerge anywhere: The next seminar will be in Latin America.

Theirs is long-term work, to be sure, but if they can get enough diplomats and government officials through a program that stresses the universal potential of atrocity crimes and the possible steps for their prevention, then it might just have some positive effect on establishing political will in future cases of mass murder, when nothing will look remotely like Birkenau.

Over 99% of the voters voted in favour of Tamil Eelam at a referendum held across France on the weekend of December 12, 13.

Of the 31,148 eligible Eelam Tamil diaspora voters over 18 in France who participated in the referendum, 30,936 of them said yes to an independent and sovereign Tamil Eelam.

The postal votes permitted to interior areas of France are yet to be counted and the number is expected to be between 2,000 and 3,000.

In the absence of any official statistics, police estimates earlier placed the number of adult Eelam Tamils in France between 25,000 and 35,000.

The near total turn out of voters amidst an international campaign that Tamil Eelam had drowned in Mullivaaykkal has stunned observers, reported TamilNet.

The public spirit has made sections of Tamil media, initially engaged in vicious campaign against the referendum, to make a U-turn supporting it later, the website added.

One of the poll observers, Stephen Gatignon, Mayor of the City of Sevran in whose area around 1800 voters turned out, welcomed all democratic moves of Eelam Tamils.

In Paris, the booths in the area called '93 Department' alone polled around 12,000 votes. This is a locality where many Eelam Tamils live.

"Voters flocked in as families and we watched it with awe," said one of the French election officials.

Voters came with identities to prove their Eelam Tamil origin and their residential status in France.

Enthusiastic voters from neighbouring countries also tried to participate in the polling, but they were all turned back by the election officials as the poll was exclusive to Eelam Tamils of residential status in France.

Since the voting took place over two days, date of birth and place of birth details were entered in a centralised database to prevent duplication. Indelible ink that can stay for 48 hours was also applied to the hands of all voters.

The poll was officiated and supervised by independent French election officials drawn from the members of local government bodies.

Of the available accounts, 99.32 per cent said 'yes' to the following statement based on the main political principle of the Vaddukkoaddai Resolution of 1976 that was mandated by Tamils in the North and East of the island of Sri Lanka in 1977:

"I aspire for the formation of the independent and sovereign state of Tamil Eelam in the north and east territory of the island of Sri Lanka on the basis that the Tamils in the island of Sri Lanka make a distinct nation, have a traditional homeland and have the right to self-determination."

Only 43 voters said 'no' and 169 votes were invalid.

The grand success of the referendum was due to enthusiastic participation of all generations of Eelam Tamils, said the organisers.

Senior citizens and youngsters were in the forefront in organisation.

Braving harsh weather, many senior citizens took a special interest in distributing pamphlets and in door-to-door campaign, Mr. Thiruchothy, one of the organisers, told TamilNet.

The referendum was organised by the formation committee of the country council of Eelam Tamils called "The House of Tamil Eelam," supported by 61 Eelam Tamil organisations in France and two NGOs, Mouvement de la Paix (Movement for Peace) and Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l'amitié entre les peuples (Movement Against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples).

The Advisory Committee for formation of the Provisional Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (PGTGE) held an awareness day in London on Sunday December 4 to meet with the Tamil media and Tamil community organisations in the UK to provide an overview of the progress made by the committee in defining the organisational structure and interact with British Tamil organisations.

The London event follows two similar public events held by the organisers of the PGTGE in Osla, Norway and Zurich, Switzerland.

The awareness day consisted of a press meet held at the Radisson Edwardian Hotel in Heathrow followed by an interactive session with the British Tamil organisations.

Professor Rev A.J.C Chandrakanthan from Canada, Professor Nadaraja Sriskandarajah from Australia, Ms Karen Parker from USA, Prof. Peter Schalk from Sweden, Dr N Jeyalingam from USA, Dr A.L. Vasanthakumar from UK, Professor M Sornarajah from UK from the Advisory Committee who were in London for consultation sessions attended the awareness event whilst the Coordinator of the Advisory Committee Mr. Visuwanathan Ruthrakumar participated in the press meet through a video link.

Prof. Sriskandarajah welcoming the guests to the event said the PGTGE is being formed to give voice to the Eelam Tamils who have been made voiceless and added since its formation the advisory committee has made significant progress and are on target for presenting their proposals to Mr. Ruthrakumar in the first week of January 2010.

Prof. Chandrakanthan introducing the committee members said whilst the war is over the struggle continues. He further said the PGTGE is the need of the hour and is based on the principles of 1976 Vaddukottai resolution.  

Commenting on the strength of the Diaspora community, Prof. Chandrakanthan said in 1976 there wasn’t a large Tamil Diaspora community but today the Tamil Diaspora spread across the globe is one million strong. As host countries of the Diaspora community upholds and respects democracy, we the Tamils also should follow this norm.

Prof. Chandrakanthan added that the PGTGE is a people’s effort for the people and will act as a proxy for the people of Tamil Eelam who are prevented from thinking, speaking and moving freely. 

He concluded his introductory speech declaring PGTGE as an effort by the people for the people to form a secular state of Tamil Eelam.

Prof. Sornarajah in his speech said the PGTGE has precedence and cited the British East India Company as an example of a transnational organisation ruling over territory and cited the Jewish, Kurd, and Palestine Diasporas as examples of a community in exile striving to establish a state from outside.

Prof. Sornarajah then provided an overview of some of the guiding principles of the PGTGE.

The PGTGE, according to Prof. Sornarajah, will have two chambers, a Senate and an Assembly with elected members.

The Assembly members from the Tamil Diaspora spread across the globe will be elected through a proportional representation system, with the country hosting the largest Diaspora Community sending the highest number of Assembly members.

The Senate will be tasked with upholding the guiding principles og PGTGE including the Vaddukottai resolution – the founding principle of PGTGE; equality for all people; welfare of the Eelam Tamils, Diaspora Tamils and global Tamils; Provision of health facilities for Tamil Eelam people; Promotion of Tamil Eelam economy and development of industry and infrastructure through transnational organisations; Forming and promoting foreign relations between Tamils and other Nations to build a climate  that is conducive to Tamil Eelam; Setup a think tank to develop strategies to assist in the formation of Tamil Eelam; Prosecution of war crimes; prosecution of any persons or organisations transgressing Tamil Eelam people; empowerment and betterment of Tamil Eelam women;

Prof. Sornarajah also stated a permanent secretariat will be setup to coordinate all activities of the PGTGE.

According to Ms Karen Parker who provided overview of PGTGE election process, elections for assembly members will be conducted nationally in all countries with a significant Tamil community presence and Country Working Committee announced by the PGTGE will coordinate all logistical process relating to the election in their host country.

This would include formulating of the electoral process such as deciding between a filing fee or minimum signature for candidates; ensuring the candidates meet the required criteria; organising of electoral observers to ensure credibility and transparency; ensuring voter confidentiality and adhering to the Advisory committee guidelines.

Prof. Peter Schalk in his speech highlighted the plight of Tamil children in Sri Lanka’s concentration camps. Describing the detention of children in camps as a human rights issue that requires the urgent attention of the world, Prof Schalk said he has compiled a list of 1172 children with names and camps where they are detained.

The list has the details of 536 girls and 636 boys of which 300 are under 5 years old and the youngest just 1 month old. 

Mr. Ruthrakumar in his speech said the Tamils have faced untold suffering and unprecedented losses this year, with tens of thousands of people killed by the Sri Lankan security forces in the space of few months, 30,000 according to international sources and 50,000 according to Tamil sources.

Mr. Ruthrakumar further said the whereabouts of 20,000 who surrendered, after trusting pledges by the international community, is unknown and no international rights or relief agency has access to these people.

Whilst the Tamil military power has been weakened, Mr Ruthrakumar said the Tamil Diaspora is strong and in the political space they will be operating they have advantage of setting their own rules.

Mr Ruthrakumar concluded his speech urging all Tamils to strengthen the PGTGE and to continue to work together to create a independent Tamil Eelam, a task the Tamil National Leader Hon. Velupillai Pirapaharan and the history has placed on the shoulders of the Diaspora Tamils.

The Tamil Diaspora in several Western states is presently conducting or planning referenda on the question of Tamil Eelam. Whilst the precise wording varies, in essence, Tamils are voting on the simple question: do we want an independent sovereign state of Tamil Eelam or not? Why, three decades after the Tamils voted overwhelmingly for the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) on the basis of its single issue manifesto - 'an independent Tamil Eelam' – are these referenda being held?

The answer is simple: ever since 1977, this collective demand and popular mandate has been studiously ignored and instead all kinds of voices - including the Sinhala state, marginal Tamil actors and important members of the international community - have simply asserted that 'the majority' of Tamils reject independence. Crucially, they have done so whilst simultaneously lending tacit or overt support to the systematic and forcible denial of any space for the Tamil people to freely express their views on this core issue.

In short, whilst being prevented from speaking openly, the Tamils have been spoken for. Those Tamil actors - such as the Liberation Tigers - who articulated the popular demand independence - and even those who talked about self-determination - were both denounced (as 'terrorists',  'nationalists', 'extremists', even fascists') and punitively targeted. The international community banned the LTTE and, having armed the murderous Sinhala state, encouraged it to attack - ostensibly so that the Tigers 'may be brought to the table' (it is worth noting, for those who point to the LTTE's violence, that this is no different to that of the Kosovo Liberation Army, the Jewish militants who created Israel or the host of anti-colonial liberation movements of the 20th century).

It is worth noting how, even during the Norwegian peace process, the abduction and murder by the Sinhala state of hundreds of journalists, writers, civil society and political activists advocating the cause of Tamil self-determination, drew little criticism from the international community - despite the investigative presence of EU ceasefire monitors.

Meanwhile, it is notable how the circumstances and results of the 1977 election are rarely taken up, let alone taken seriously, in the now voluminous, if largely not rigorous, academic, policy and media analysis of Sri Lanka's ethnic question, politics and conflict. This is despite the central Tamil demand for three decades being that of their right to self-determination. Instead, the strident assertion by most international actors has been that 'most Tamils' don't want independence. Whether this was genuinely felt by them, or cynically deployed to justify self-serving projects is irrelevant. For all the lecturing and moralizing about 'democracy' and 'pluralism', all those who called for Tamil Eelam were marginalized, pilloried and punished.

The space thus naturally opened for all manner of marginal Tamil actors to adopt the label of 'moderate' and ingratiate themselves into the structurally impossible, but what was for them wholly self-serving, international project of 'transforming Sri Lanka' into a liberal democracy. Even when the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) - amongst whose ranks are some of these 'moderates' - emerged on a platform of endorsing self-determination as well as the LTTE, and received a thumping endorsement in the 2001 and 2004 elections (which, in comparison to most Sri Lankan polls had a greater degree of being 'free and fair'), it was consistently dismissed as an 'LTTE-proxy'.

Meanwhile, the Liberation Tigers' assertion they were the sole, authentic representatives of the Tamil people -enshrined in the TNA's 2004 manifesto - was vehemently rejected, not only by the Sinhala ethnocracy, but also the international community and some Tamil actors. None of these critics engaged with the rationale behind the LTTE's assertion: that the majority of Tamils want Tamil Eelam and the LTTE was the only actor articulating this stance. Instead, on the assertion that the Tamils don't want Tamil Eelam, a catastrophic war was unleashed again on our people. In the name of our political preferences, our homeland was laid waste to, our people slaughtered and the entire population of Vanni incarcerated.

Since 1977, the Tamil people's views have only been sought through the tightly circumscribed, corrupt and murderously dangerous space of the Sri Lankan political system. During the last round of Norwegian-facilitated direct talks between the LTTE and the Sinhala state, the government challenged the movement's claim it spoke for the Tamils. In response, the LTTE's Political Head, S. P. Tamilselvan, challenged Colombo to allow a United Nations-run referendum of the Tamil people. He was met with silence. The referenda on Tamil Eelam being organized by the Diaspora are an effort by Tamils to speak over those speaking for us.

The United Nations and its Secretary General are said to be strong advocates for countries to become parties to the Mine-Ban Convention. But when it comes to Sri Lanka, which has refused to join the Convention and which states openly that it uses land mines, it is unclear what the UN is doing to urge the country to stop using mines.

The UN is paying for removal of mines laid by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Meanwhile, in a debate in the UN General Assembly's Fourth Committee on October 30, Samantha Jayasuriya of the Sri Lankan Mission argued that "for legitimate national security concerns, Sri Lanka had not become a party to the Mine-Ban Convention... Land mines were used by security forces 'always for defensive purposes' and mainly to demarcate the limits of their military installations."

This statement, more than five months after the Rajapaksa government declared final victory over the LTTE or Tamil Tigers, went uncommented on by the UN. At a press conference on November 17, Inner City Press asked Dmitry Titov of UN Peacekeeping and Maxwell Kerley, Director of the UN Mine Action Service, about Sri Lanka's statement and continued use of land mines.

Mr. Titov replied that the Secretary General is in strong support of the Mine Ban Treaty. But when Inner City Press asked if Ban Ki-moon, in his many bilateral talks this year with President Mahinda Rajapaksa, has ever directly asked that Sri Lanka join the Mine Ban Convention, Mr. Titov passed the question to Mr. Kerley, who described UNDP's work removing LTTE mines.

With the LTTE defeated, the Sri Lankan government's justification for using land mines is gone. But it was repeated on October 30 at the UN.

Sri Lanka announced last week that Tamil civilians still held in internment camps in Vavuniya will be allowed out for short periods from next month.

However, the government has failed to make adequate welfare provision for the 136,000 Tamil civilians it plans to release from internment camps, rights activists and opposition parties said.

An aide to the president also confirmed a pledge to close the facilities, reported BBC Online.

This follows earlier promises by the Sri Lankan government to free at least 80% of the population of the camps within 6 months of the end of the war. It has been over 180 days and less than half the detainees have been released.

International pressure is mounting to release the remainder from what rights groups are calling a form of collective punishment.

The latest government announcement was made by the special adviser to President Mahinda Rajapaksa, his brother Basil, on a visit to the largest camp, Menik Farm.

Addressing a group of ‘displaced’ people, Rajapaksa said that from 1 December the camps would no longer be closed sites.

“We will allow complete freedom of movement,” he told those held in the Menik Farm camp.

People will now be free to leave them for a day or two at a time, to visit friends and relatives, for example, he said.

Although they will not be able to leave permanently, he reiterated the government's pledge to resettle those displaced by the end of January.

Rajapaksa said the military had agreed that the detainees could be released because they no longer posed a security threat.

"The decision was taken as part of government moves to improve the rights and privileges of internally displaced people," said a statement posted on the government's website.

While observers welcomed the announcement, they warned the government that it must organise a structured resettlement programme.

"We are insisting that the International Committee of the Red Cross or the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) should be present when people are resettled," Nimalka Fernando, spokeswoman for the Democratic People's Movement, was quoted as saying by AFP.

She said the government's plan to "haphazardly" send the civilians back to their villages was "seriously flawed".

The main opposition United National Party (UNP) said no long-term help in providing themselves with food or rebuilding their homes and livelihoods was being offered to the civilians who had already left the camps, let alone those still waiting to leave.

"People are to be moved out without proper welfare facilities," UNP general secretary Tissa Attanayaka said in a statement.

The camps were set up to contain the Tamil civilians who fled the war zone during the last stages of the war with the Liberation Tigers.

Those displaced by the fighting were forced into the hastily built camps, with the funding for the camps coming from international aid.

Sri Lanka has drawn strong international criticism for holding people in the camps against their will, but the government insisted incarceration was necessary while the refugees were being screened for possible links with the LTTE.

The barbed wire enclosures at Menik Farm, which are guarded by the Army, have been among the most controversial aspects of the government’s dealings with the Tamils.

Sri Lankan authorities insist the camps meet international standards, but they have refused to allow reporters access — except on brief tours organised by the Army.

Many of those interred in the camps complained about poor food and sanitary conditions, reported the BBC.

Human rights groups criticised the detention, claiming it was an illegal form of collective punishment for Tamils.

There was also heavy criticism of the limited access permitted to the camps, with media heavily restricted and even aid agencies having problems gaining admittance on some occasions.

The UN, diplomats and charities have criticised the screening process, saying it is not transparent.

The government has also said that more than 1.5m mines must be cleared and basic infrastructure needs to be in place to allow people to return home.

Opposition parliamentarians in Sri Lanka have also protested about not being allowed access to the camps. 

The promise to free the remaining detainees was cautiously welcomed by some Western governments and international organisations, which have been providing most of the funding for the camps.

However, many expressed concern that the Government had not shared details of its plans to resettle the detainees, or allowed international organisations to observe or assist.

“Granting genuine freedom, to decide their own future, will be a major relief for those still trapped in the camps,” said Mike Foster, Britain’s Minister for International Development.

“Humanitarian agencies must now be allowed to give them the help they need, in all the places they return to.”

Mr Foster visited Sri Lanka last month and expressed disappointment at the pace at which detainees were being released, warning that British funding for the camps would be withdrawn.

In Brussels, the European Union said it remained cautious despite Colombo's announcement that the camps would be closed.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon welcomed the announcements, but also called for support for the displaced.

The government is urged "to improve the quality of the returns process, including through consultation with the IDPs themselves, and to ensure the best possible assistance and services to returnees", said Ban in a statement on 21 November.

Rene De Vries, country director for Oxfam in Sri Lanka, said allowing freedom of movement was a "good step forward from closed camps", but it was unclear to what extent the IDPs would move freely.

"We'll just have to see how far this will be implemented ... As far as we understand now, it's not total freedom," De Vries told IRIN.

"It will be a pass system where people will be allowed to leave for a fixed period of time ... but then will have to return to the camp."

The decision received a qualified welcome from the humanitarian agency Unicef, whose spokeswoman Sarah Crowe said it was "to be welcomed without any doubts" but cautioned that those who had been locked up for months would need time to adjust.

"It means people now have a chance to live a normal life and it must be a huge relief to them," she said.

"But the next step will be reunification. That clearly has to happen and there is a need for trauma counselling, particularly for children who have lived through horrid, horrid times and seen things they should never see, really the stuff of nightmares, that will live with them for a very long time."

A top United Nations humanitarian official has welcomed the recent releases of internally displaced persons (IDPs) from camps in northern Sri Lanka, and underscored the need to ensure full freedom of movement for those remaining.

John Holmes noted in particular that the Menik Farm camp contains only half the number of displaced now than it did at the end of May, when the Government declared an end to its military operations against the Liberation Tigers.

Holmes said he hoped to see continued progress in allowing people to leave the camps and restore their lives during a joint press conference with Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama in the capital, Colombo, on Thursday November 19.

He underscored the fundamental need for full freedom of movement for IDPs who remain in camps, an issue that he hoped could be rapidly resolved.

He hoped to see continued progress in allowing people to leave the camps and restore their normal life and dignity.

Holmes, the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, also noted that the returnees he met during the course of his three-day visit were pleased that they could return home.

At the same time, he added that the returns process could be improved, particularly through better consultation with IDPs and more timely information sharing with humanitarian partners on return plans.

Holmes reaffirmed the UN’s commitment to working with the Government to improve the returns process, and to ensure satisfactory conditions in areas of return, especially in the fields of shelter, basic services and livelihoods.

Demining and mine-risk education were also important to ensuring the safety of returnees, he added.

“Both UN organizations and NGOs [non-governmental organizations] are ready to continue to help support IDPs in camps and assist returnees with their humanitarian needs, especially in terms of food, shelter, basic services, and livelihoods. The UN is also keen to support longer-term recovery and reconstruction,” Holmes said.

He also emphasized the need to build confidence between communities with a view to ensuring a just and sustainable peace and long-term political reconciliation.

In this regard, he welcomed not only the recent progress in facilitating returns but also increased government flexibility in terms of postconflict normalization, for example the recent opening of the A9 road which links northern and southern Sri Lanka.

Part of this confidence building and reconciliation needs to be a genuine accountability process dealing with the consequences of the conflict and possible violations of international humanitarian law by both sides, he said.

In addition to visiting the camps and meeting with IDPs and returnees, the UN humanitarian chief also met with government officials, including President Mahinda Rajapaksa, as well as other parliamentarians during his mission – his fourth to the country this year.