The cry of “never again,” raised by so many in the years after the end of the Holocaust 1945, has rung increasingly hollow with the passing decades, Kofi Annan, former secretary general of the United Nations, protested in an op-ed Friday in the International Herald Tribune. “The Holocaust remains unique … but instances of genocide and large-scale brutality have continued to multiply — from Cambodia to the Congo, from Bosnia to Rwanda, from Sri Lanka to Sudan,” he said. “It is surprisingly hard to find education programs that have clearly succeeded in linking the history of the Holocaust with the prevention of ethnic conflict and genocide in today’s world.”

Mr. Annan is honorary president of the advisory board for the Holocaust Education and Genocide Prevention Program at the Salzburg Global Seminar

The full text of his op-ed, titled “Myth of ‘never again’”, follows:

Many countries in Europe and North America now require all high-school pupils to learn about the Holocaust. Why? Because of its historical importance, of course, but also because, in our increasingly diverse and globalized world, educators and policy-makers believe Holocaust education is a vital mechanism for teaching students to value democracy and human rights, and encouraging them to oppose racism and promote tolerance in their own societies.

That was certainly my assumption in 2005 when, as U.N. secretary general, I urged the General Assembly to pass a resolution on Holocaust Remembrance, which included a call for “measures to mobilize civil society for Holocaust remembrance and education, in order to help to prevent future acts of genocide.”

Indeed it might seem almost self-evident that Holocaust education would have that purpose, and that effect. Yet it is surprisingly hard to find education programs that have clearly succeeded in linking the history of the Holocaust with the prevention of ethnic conflict and genocide in today’s world.

Of course, prevention is always difficult to prove. But the least one can say is that the cry of “never again,” raised by so many in the years after 1945, has rung increasingly hollow with the passing decades. The Holocaust remains unique in its combination of sophisticated technical and organizational means with the most ruthlessly vicious of ends, but instances of genocide and large-scale brutality have continued to multiply — from Cambodia to the Congo, from Bosnia to Rwanda, from Sri Lanka to Sudan.

Few countries at present, even among those that require their teachers to teach the Holocaust, give them any specific training or guidance on how to do so. And few teachers in any country have the knowledge or skills to teach the Holocaust in a way that would enable today’s adolescents, who often represent within a single classroom a wide variety of ethnic and cultural backgrounds, to relate it to the tensions they encounter in their own lives. More and better teacher training is surely needed.

But do we know what the content of that training should be?

If our goal in teaching students about the Holocaust is to make them think harder about civic responsibility, human rights and the dangers of racism, then presumably we need to connect the Holocaust with other instances of genocide, and with ethnic conflicts or tensions in our own time and place. That would enable students not only to learn about the Holocaust, but also to learn important lessons from it.

The time has surely come to ask some hard questions about “traditional” Holocaust education, and perhaps to rethink some of the assumptions on which it has been based. Are programs focusing on the Nazi system and ideology, and particularly on the horrendous experience of their millions of victims, an effective response to, or prophylactic against, the challenges we face today?

It is easy to identify with the victims. But if we want to prevent future genocides, is it not equally important to understand the psychology of the perpetrators and bystanders — to comprehend what it is that leads large numbers of people, often “normal” and decent in the company of their own family and friends, to suppress their natural human empathy with people belonging to other groups and to join in, or stand by and witness, their systematic extermination? Do we not need to focus more on the social and psychological factors that lead to these acts of brutality and indifference, so that we know the warning signs to look out for in ourselves and our societies?

Do current education programs do enough to reveal the dangers inherent in racial or religious stereotypes and prejudices, and to inoculate students against them? Does the teaching of the history of the Holocaust at classroom level sufficiently link it to the root causes of contemporary racism or ethnic conflict? And shouldn’t the Holocaust be studied not only in Europe, North America and Israel but throughout the world, alongside other tragic instances of human barbarism?

Such questions will be at the heart of a conference this month at the Salzburg Global Seminar, in Austria, on “The Global Prevention of Genocide: Learning from the Holocaust,” held in cooperation with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Organizers hope this will lead to an annual program for teachers from around the world.

This is certainly not a problem with a “one size fits all” solution. Teaching the Holocaust to a class in Ukraine is obviously different from teaching it in Israel, and indeed is likely to vary widely even between different districts of a European city. But insights and examples can surely be shared with advantage, and it seems fitting that Austria — which provided both victims and perpetrators of Nazi atrocities in abundance — should be hosting such a program.

The redevelopment of the North is a major focus of all international efforts to rebuild Sri Lanka now that the war has been deemed over, but the Sri Lankan approach to development has been the also termed exploitation.

The resources of the North are being exported to enrich the south, at the expense of the Tamils, reports of activities from the region said.

The Manniththalai sandbar is being demolished as sand from the region is exported, to the benefit of Sinhalese operators from the South.

Manniththalai, a roughly 25 km long sandbar, extends towards the Jaffna Peninsula from Poonakari in the main island.It was a major route of communication between the Peninsula and the main island since ancient times until early 19th century and is dotted with archaeological remains ranging from microlithic / megalithic times to the times of the Dutch, covered by huge sand dunes.

As sand deposits in the Jaffna peninsula in places such as Mankumpaan, Ariyaalai, Manatkaadu are depleted the Manniththalai sandbar is targeted now, reports suggested.

Each lorry load of sand costing 11,000 rupees is sold for 44,000 in the black market. As an average, 40 lorries are engaged each day in the business in the Manatkaadu in Vadamaraadchi.

In early June, Namal Rajapaksa, son of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, along with a Hindi film actor Vivek Oberoi and Minister Douglas Devananda, visited the sandbar, and announced the opening of a communication route through the sandbar.

Namal Rajapaksa is keen in generating income through ferry services to the sandbar, earlier news reports said. He is also now deligated to receive all illegal income locally generated in Vanni.

The sand trade in Jaffna is dominated by a leading businessman associated with Douglas Devananda.

In addition to sand, pre-historic layers of gravel deposits in the Vanni region are also scooped out indiscriminately. The natural resources indiscriminately exploited are also used in the 'construction' works of the Sri Lankan military in Vanni and in Vavuniya, TamilNet reported.

Meanwhile, limestone quarried in the Jaffna peninsula, seriously threatening the groundwater and environment, is sent to the cement factory in Galle in the South.

Threatening the entire groundwater and fragile ecology of Jaffna peninsula, a private Sinhalese company is engaged in the illegal excavation of limestone in the High Security Zone (HSZ) in Valikaamam North while the Rajapaksa government refuses to reveal details of this enterprise.

This is occurring in the area from Maaviddapuram to Keerimalai where the uprooted residents have not been allowed to resettle for the past twenty years.

The indiscriminate excavation of limestone in a 4 sq km area at depths of nearly 40 feet has already caused seepage of sea water and it is feared the area is becoming submerged, press reports said.

The Jaffna Peninsula depends largely on the limestone bed for the preservation of rainwater into groundwater.

The underground channels that bring in freshwater to the innumerable aquifers of the peninsula, have an underneath entry into sea adjacent to the locality of the quarries and indiscriminate quarrying and the possibility of seawater coming inside can affect the potable water of the masses.

Reports suggest that 30 percent of the groundwater in the peninsula has become saline in recent times due to various reasons.

A private company, ‘V. V. Karunaratne’ from the South, has installed heavy machinery including crushers in the above militarised HSZ where limestone is dug out, crushed and sent to a cement factory in Galle in South.

Hundreds of Southern Sinhalese labourers are engaged in excavating lime stone in Valikaamam North where its residents had been evicted by SLA, Jaffna MP, Appathurai Vinayagamoorthy who visited the place said in a press meet held in Jaffna 27 May 2010.

The excavated limestone is taken to the cement factories in Galle in ships and via A9 road.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) is providing Sri Lanka with financial assistance to rehabilitate roads in the conflict-affected northern region, which will help spur inclusive growth and new economic opportunities in one of the poorest regions in the country.

In mid June, the ADB Board of Directors approved loans of $154.4 million from ADB's ordinary capital resources and concessionary Asian Development Fund for the Northern Road Connectivity Project. It will also provide a technical assistance grant of $500,000 to support agencies that manage and maintain the roads.

During nearly three decades of civil conflict, Northern Province was one of the worst affected regions, with its road network falling into total disrepair as a result of damage and neglect. People were unable to get goods to market, or access basic social services, and long travel times have seen the region become increasingly isolated from the south of the country.

The project will carry out civil works on 140 kilometers of provincial roads in Mannar and Vavuniya districts, including those linking settlements to markets, as well as major feeder roads connecting towns and villages. Another 170 kilometers of national roads will be rehabilitated, helping link the north to city centers in the south. The improved surfacing and widening will help cut travel time and costs, revitalizing travel between the north and south.

“The project is targeted to meet one of the most urgent needs of the conflict-affected population in the north – connectivity and mobility. It will facilitate access to essential social services, help resume livelihood activities, and revitalize transport of goods and peoples between the country's northern and southern regions,” said Dong-Kyu Lee, Transport Specialist in ADB’s South Asia Department.

Of the two loans, ADB will provide $130 million from its ordinary capital resources with a 25-year term, five-year grace period, and interest determined in accordance with its LIBOR-based lending facility. The Asian Development Fund loan of $24.4 million equivalent has a 32-year term, including a grace period of eight years, with interest charged at 1% per annum during the grace period and 1.5% for the rest of the term. The government will provide assistance of $18.6 million, for a total project cost of $173 million.

The grant of $500,000 from ADB’s Technical Assistance Special Fund will be used to strengthen the capacity of the Northern Provincial Council-Northern Provincial Road Development Department to manage and maintain the road network. Additional technical assistance support of $60,000 equivalent will come from the two provincial agencies.

The Ministry of Highways for the national roads component and the Ministry of Local Government and Provincial Councils for the provincial roads component, respectively, are the executing agencies, for the project which is due for completion around June 2015.

Sri Lanka has refused to comply with European Union conditions for the extending of GSP+ trade concessions, calling them ‘insulting’.

The EU had called on Sri Lanka to provide written confirmation by July 1 that the country was willing to comply with 15 human rights related conditions in order for the trade concessions to be extended by another 6 months.

Sri Lanka criticised the EU's warning to withdraw the trade benefits, with the foreign ministry in Colombo complaining that Europe was setting "unattainable targets".

Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa is reported to have rejected the demand at a Cabinet meeting, saying he would not compromise the country’s sovereignty for the sake of the US$ 150 million by which amount the country would benefit under the GSP + facility, reported the Daily Mirror.   

The President stated that the EU had no right to interfere in the matters of a sovereign state, reported the Sunday Leader.

He is reported to have declared the conditions to be related to “internal political matters” with “no relevance whatsoever to international trade”. 

"This is more dictatorial than how the colonial rulers of the past treated us," said Economic Development Minister and Senior Presidential Advisor Basil Rajapaksa.

"We cannot be bullied into submission. We can stand on our own and resist these conditions," he told the Sunday Times.

The President was also quoted as having told the Cabinet that Sri Lanka does not need the GSP+ concession, even though it is estimated that 100,000 workers will be directly affected if the agreement is not extended.

External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris echoed the President’s reassurance that Sri Lanka could manage without the concession. “The garment industry is strong. When the quota period ended, many speculated that this would be the end of the industry. But, we were resilient. We have creativity and entrepreneurship; the resilience to adapt and create ways in which we can increase productivity and revenue,” he told a press conference.

Government spokesman Keheliya Rambukwella said the government would arrange an alternate scheme to ensure Sri Lankan exporters do not lose competitiveness.

Peiris also informed a press meet that it was not the role of the EU to interfere in the sovereignty of Sri Lanka and that the country cannot accept the conditions put forward by the EU.

“To fulfill the conditions they are asking of us, we would have to change the constitution and brush aside the decisions of the highest court in the country,” he was quoted by the Sunday Leader as saying. “We cannot surrender our decision making power to a foreign government. I don’t think even the public will agree to this or ask us to fulfil these conditions”.

"These conditions are unacceptable. They are an insult to every citizen of this country," Rambukwella told reporters in Colombo. "We must put the EU demand in the dustbin."

The EU wanted Sri Lanka to relax some of the provisions of its draconian Prevention of Terrorism law, which was not possible, AFP quoted Rambukwella as saying. He reportedly added that the EU conditions affected internal security.

Peiris reportedly told the Sri Lankan Cabinet that Denmark and Spain took a rigid stand against Sri Lanka while Italy supported the country on this issue at the EU, the Daily Mirror said.

According to the paper, the German Ambassador and the British High Commissioner had informed Peiris that their countries were not in favour of the EU decision. 

Initially, media reports in Sri Lanka, citing government sources, in mid June claimed that the European Union had agreed to extend the GSP+ tariff concessions for a further 6 months beyond the initial cancellation date of August 15.

The reports drew a strong response from the EU, which said, "contrary to these articles, the date of 15 August on which Sri Lanka would cease to benefit from GSP Plus will not be extended unconditionally."

The EU's executive arm, the European Commission, insisted on "significant improvements on the effective implementation of the human rights conventions" for the island to continue enjoying the trade benefits.

Sri Lanka had sent two senior delegations to Brussels in March and May this year to try and negotiate the EU decision to withdraw the GSP+ concessions. While the delegations had had several meetings with EU representatives, they were unable to get the decision changed.

Following the delegations, EC Vice President Catherine Ashton wrote a two page letter to Peiris, saying "……following an assessment of the meeting with Attorney General Peiris on May 20-21 and of the further information which your Government has supplied, it is not yet possible to conclude that Sri Lanka is, at this time, effectively implementing the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Convention against Torture."

The letter adds, "The European Commission notes the clear willingness on the part of Sri Lanka to take further additional steps to address without delay outstanding human rights issues and stands ready to work with you on this. We are prepared to propose to the Council of the European Union that it decides to maintain GSP Plus preferences for a limited additional period subject to a clear commitment by your Government to undertake the actions listed in the annexe to this letter within a six months time frame beginning July of this year.

The Generalised System of Preference (GSP) is a trade agreement in which the European Union gives 176 countries and territories, preferential access to the EU market.

By reducing the tariff on goods entering the market, the EU’s main priority is to reduce poverty and promote sustainable development and good governance. There is no expectation or requirement that this form of access is reciprocated.

Under GSP+, Sri Lanka receives, among 15 other countries, additional benefits, which can be withdrawn if the EU finds that the country does not respect the criteria for eligibility.

The agreement, which is subject to renewal every three years, places emphasis on human rights and labour laws within the country.

Sri Lanka has hugely benefited by the opportunities offered by GSP+, especially in the clothing and fisheries sector. In 2008, the imports to EU from Sri Lanka totalled 1.24 billion Euros.  

Sri Lanka gains about 150 million dollars annually due to preferential tariffs, according to business estimates.

These benefits will be withdrawn on August 15 unless Sri Lanka makes a written commitment by July 1, according to the EU. 

Despite Sri Lanka’s vehement objections, the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has appointed a trio of international experts to examine reports of widespread war crimes during Sri Lanka’s war against the Liberation Tigers.

Although UN spokesman Martin Nesirky emphasised the panel had a mostly consultative role and that "primary responsibility for investigating rests with the authorities of Sri Lanka," many diplomats in Colombo see the move as a precursor to a full-blown war crimes investigation, AFP reported.

Sri Lanka responded with fury to the UN announcement, vowing to deny the experts access and rejecting the accusations by the Tamils and international human rights organizations.

Sri Lanka accused the UN of a "hidden agenda" behind its plans to investigate reports of atrocities by soldiers in the final months of the island's savage civil war, and has encouraged Sinhala protests outside the UN offices in Colombo.

The head of the UN panel, Marzuki Darusman, a former Indonesian attorney general, has in turn criticised Colombo's decision to ban him and colleagues from the country.

"Everybody loses out if we cannot go to Sri Lanka, it will make it harder for the truth to be unearthed," Mr. Darusman told the BBC, describing the ban as "most unfortunate".

His remarks came after Sri Lanka's External Affairs minister, Prof. Gamini Lakshman Peiris, said Colombo would not grant visas to members of the panel, which he described as "totally unnecessary".

The United States backed the UN move and urged Sri Lanka to cooperate. But Russia, also a permanent UN Security Council member, raised concerns about the appointment of the panel in the first place.

“The United States supports a robust accountability process that will provide a durable foundation for national reconciliation and the rule of law in the aftermath of Sri Lanka’s decades-long conflict,” US Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Susan Rice said.

“The government of Sri Lanka should give serious consideration to its Commission’s recommendations. We strongly urge the Government of Sri Lanka to take advantage of this UN Panel’s expertise,” she added.

The other two members of the UN panel are human rights expert Yasmin Sooka from South Africa and Steven Ratner, an expert in international law of war from the United States. Mr. Ban launched the investigation "to advise him on the issue of accountability with regards to any alleged violations of international human rights and humanitarian law during the final stages of the conflict in Sri Lanka."

The panel will have support staff, to be based in New York, press reports filed by reporters based in the UN’s headquarters said.

Ms. Sooka joined the Foundation for Human Rights in 2001 and serves as its Executive Director. She practised as a human rights lawyer during the apartheid era. In 1995, she was appointed as a Commissioner on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and was responsible for the final report.

Prof Steven Ratner is a Professor of Law at University of Michigan Law School and in 1998-99, was appointed by the UN Secretary-General to a three-person group of experts to consider options for bringing the Khmer Rouge to justice.

Apart from heading the UN panel on Sri Lanka, Mr. Darusman is also the UN's special rights investigator for North Korea.

According to the BBC, Mr. Darusman was part of an international team appointed to observe proceedings on a previous Sri Lankan commission on atrocities - but he and other members of the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP) resigned saying that commission did not meet basic minimum standards.

In rejecting international investigations, Sri Lanka claims its own panel, set up earlier this year to look into the ‘causes of terrorism’ in Sri Lanka, is adequate.

Peggy Hicks, global advocacy director with Human Rights Watch, warned it has "long been abundantly clear that the Sri Lankan government is unwilling to seriously investigate wartime abuses."

"Secretary-General Ban's new panel will only be of value if it can quickly produce a roadmap for an independent investigation that the secretary-general implements," she told AFP.

On Monday, monks and lay members of a Buddhist nationalist party protested outside the UN offices in Colombo.

"The UN has no right, authority or mandate to appoint a committee. It's an interference with Sri Lankan affairs," party leader Rev. Omalpe Sobitha told the gathering. "The UN is acting as an agent of terrorism."

Ban Ki-moon's appointment of the panel was "an attempt to provide oxygen" to the defeated Tamil Tigers, Sri Lankan government spokesman Keheliya Rambukwella has also said.

The International Crisis Group said last month the Sri Lankan government had killed thousands of its civilians by shelling "no-fire zones" in the last months of the war.

The ICG said the military encouraged hundreds of thousands of Tamil civilians to move into government-declared "no-fire zones" and then subjected them to "repeated and increasingly intense artillery and mortar barrages."

"This continued through May despite the government and security forces knowing the size and location of the civilian population and scale of civilian casualties," the ICG reported.

The group said it had collected eyewitness statements as well as hundreds of photographs, videos, satellite images, electronic communications and documents from multiple sources to support the charges.

Sri Lanka has reacted with characteristic hostility to the most recent international efforts to compel its Sinhala nationalist government to conduct itself in accordance with accepted international norms. Colombo’s vehement and vitriolic response to both the appointment of a UN advisory panel on the horrific war crimes in Sri Lanka and the EU’s offer to extend the GSP+ subsidy conditional on specified actions on human rights and political freedoms was, of course, utterly predictable.

However, this is not merely a peculiarity of President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government, but a consequence of the Sinhala supremacist logic embedded in the very fabric of this post-colonial state. It is clear, after all, that the international community is, through its myriad actions, seeking to create the space for the peaceful and secure flourishing of the island’s long-suffering non-Sinhala communities. As such, the world is now gradually discovering what the Tamils have been experiencing for six decades: that Sinhala supremacy, not equitable governance, is the central register for Sri Lanka’s strategic decisions.

At the same time, for all the bluster and histrionics from Colombo, some international levers are discernibly disciplining the Sinhala state. For all the talk of sovereignty (and the hype of competing external donors), the IMF is slowly but steadily effecting the restructuring of the state required of economic globalization. The state has also had to accede to important, if very basic and preliminary, international steps to connect the Tamil homeland with the rest of the world. There is no doubt that the Sinhala state will vehemently resist, actively subvert and seek to rollback such changes - the defiant nationalization detailed by the island’s Sunday Times this week makes that quite clear.

What is at stake here is the very nature of the future Sri Lankan state. As several scholars have detailed over the decades – in arguments largely ignored amid the ideological blindness that infused international efforts since the mid-nineties to produce liberal democracy and market economics in Sri Lanka and elsewhere – the post-independence state has entrenched, fostered and defended a Sinhala ethnocracy. It has done so before and after the Cold War, during both war and peace. During the war, however, Sri Lanka was able to adopt the rhetoric of market democracy, without actually having to adopt it. The lack of progress could be blamed on ‘the war’ and, by extension, the Tamil armed struggle, and in this way, the active support of the international community could be secured to destroy the most potent resistance to Sinhala hegemony: the Liberation Tigers.

This Sinhala-Buddhist utopia, pursued through genocidal military violence and racist persecution, is not merely about the Sinhalese people building a bastion for Buddhism (in keeping with a self-claimed divine mandate), but the construction of a specific form of state, one dedicated primarily to fostering the wellbeing of the Sinhalese and Buddhism, at the deliberate expense of the non-Sinhala - who in this logic pose the greatest threat to this vision.

As the state protects, it must provide: the taken-for-granted state subsidies and patronage to the Sinhala majority goes hand-in-hand with the denial of economic and social space for the Tamils. The logic is evidenced in the state’s privileging of the South over the Northeast in the distribution of developmental aid, humanitarian relief and so on (the only exception, of course, has been state-funded colonization of the non-Sinhala areas.). The point here is that the Sinhala majoritarian logic that has increasingly driven the state’s economic, political and social policies since independence will readily accept international assistance when it benefits the South, but resist when it’s directed at the Northeast. The state’s sullen resistance to resettling the hundreds of thousands of displaced Tamils is a case in point.

As we have argued before, the Tamil struggle for independence is not about isolationism and exclusion, but the exact reverse: the bypassing of the Sinhala domination by the Tamil-speaking people to integrate with the rest of the rapidly globalizing world, and thereby flourish. Conversely, this is exactly what the Sri Lankan state has viciously sought for so long to prevent, actively restructuring the island’s economy, political apparatus and even infrastructural architecture to privilege South over Northeast.

However, as the dynamics of the past twelve months make clear, the Sinhala nationalist project is now being confronted by the challenge of global liberalism – and vice-versa. This is why Sri Lanka, on the one hand, seeks to replace the bogey of the LTTE with that of the Diaspora and, on the other hand, sees every international effort to compel adherence to international norms as “supporting the LTTE’s agenda”. It remains very much to be seen if the international community can indeed transform the Sinhala state. But its active efforts of late have certainly raised hopes that Sinhala supremacy can yet be denied.

Amnesty International has criticised the politicisation of international justice in general.

In Sri Lanka, the organisation called for the United Nations to immediately set up the independent inquiry that the UN Secretary General has been promising.

On the first anniversary of the end of the war in Sri Lanka, Amnesty International repeated its call for the United Nations to set up an immediate and independent investigation into human rights violations committed during the final phase of the war.

The failure to act by the UN has left victims with no access to justice, truth or reparations, the rights organisation charged.

“The UN never revealed what it knew about the final days of the conflict, acknowledged the scale of the abuse that took place, or pushed for accountability,” charged Madhu Malhotra, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for the Asia-Pacific.

“At the end of the war, atrocities against civilians and enemy combatants appeared to be fueled by a sense that there would be no real international consequences for violating the law,” she said.

Separately, in its annual report Amnesty criticised the increased ‘politicisation of international justice’.

It accused powerful governments of giving more importance to political interest than to the safe guarding of justice and human rights.

With respect to Sri Lanka, the report repeats the allegations of war crimes committed during the final stages of the war and slams the UN for its inaction.

Amnesty claims "power plays" at the UN Human Rights Council led to member states approving a resolution drafted by the Sri Lankan government, complimenting the state on its success against the Tamil Tigers, instead of passing a resolution condemning the Sri Lankan Government.

"By the end of the year, despite further evidence of war crimes and other abuses, no-one had been brought to justice," Amnesty's Secretary General Claudio Cordone said.

"One would be hard pressed to imagine a more complete failure to hold to account those who abuse human rights."

China and India are part of a “coalition of governments” that chose not only to ignore the Rajapaksa Governments targeting of Tamil civilians, but also “passed a [U.N] resolution congratulating the Sri Lankan Government” amid attempts to block “efforts at seeking justice,” Amnesty International Asia Pacific director, Sam Zafiri said in an interview with Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

“Unfortunately in 2009, we witnessed one of the worst human rights crises of recent times in Sri Lanka where nearly 300-thousand civilians were caught between the retreating Tamil Tiger and the Sri Lankan armed forces,” Zafiri said.

“Most reports indicate that at least 10-thousand people were killed. There are very credible reports that just may be twice as many if not more than that were also killed” he added.

He pointed out that the international community failed in its obligation to call for accountability with some states even aiding and abetting Sri Lanka’s attempts at ignoring the allegations made against its armed forces.

This highlights the failure of the United Nations as a human rights watchdog, he said.

“When the events in Sri Lanka were playing out, the Human Rights Council, which is the UN body tasked with looking at these issues simply failed to take action” he added.

Tamils across the globe commemorated the first anniversary of the end of the Mulliyavaikkal massacre and marked 18 May as ‘War Crimes Day’.

In the US, more than four hundred Tamils held a remembrance rally in Washington D.C. "We had the event at the very heart of the Nation built on promise of freedom and justice; we demonstrated first in front of the White House, and after a one mile procession, at the reflecting pool adjoining the Lincoln memorial to symbolize and demonstrate our resolve that we will never forget this atrocity, and that until we bring the perpetrators of this dastardly crimes, we will not rest," Dr Jeyarajah, the main organizer of the event said.

"Today we stand united as one community remembering the Tamils of Sri lanka who were massacred by evil. What kind of evil murders over 40,000 civilians in one weekend? Over 100,000 Tamils in the last 20 years," Dr. Ellyn Shander, a key member of the US Tamil Political Action Group (USTPAC) who spoke at the event asked.

"Before their deaths, many of the murdered people begged, "Help us, save us, tell our story.”

"They sent their messages out in eyewitness videos, through the brave doctors during the siege, and through the occasional Tamil who escaped from the fighting. They wanted the world to know about their suffering, their horror and their sacrifice.. They held the hope until the very end that the civilized world would somehow come to their rescue. The truth of the premeditated genocide was inconceivable.

"They believed that the United States or India would stop the carnage.. But sadly no one came.. No one helped. No one responded to their pleas. And no one stopped the Sri Lankan government from burning their bodies and hiding the evidence," Dr Shander said.

Jan Jananayagam, British representative of US-based group "Tamils Against Genocide (TAG)" and who contested as an independent candidate in the the 2009 European Parliament, speaking to the attendees, noting that Vanni has represented to Tamil people "hope and freedom," said: "[i]n the final years as the Sri Lankan army came North, tens of thousands of Tamil people fled to Vanni, converging from every direction into this symbolic centre of Tamil Eelam.

"They too chose the hope of freedom over the certainty of repression. But the promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has been cruelly betrayed,” Jananayagam said.

Dr. Ilangkovan, a retired physician, also appealed to Tamils in Tamil Nadu to join in masses to take the struggle forward.

While the conventional war has ended, the next phase of struggle has just begun in the many lands across the seas from the shores of Sri Lanka where the Tamils were treated worse than animals, Jeyarajah told TamilNet.

"The psychological trauma of witnessing their own relatives, friends and neighbors suffering, will linger for generations in Tamils' psyche and, the State's attempts at erasing the physical evidence will only firmly imprint the horrific images in expatriates' minds. We hope, this will propel all expatriate Tamils to unite and work towards exposing Sri Lanka State to international justice.

"Tamil expatriates should shun talks of development and reconciliation, which some of the powers are attempting to do, until accountability for the genocidal crime is established," Jeyarajah said.

In Norway, representatives of political parties participated and spoke in the gathering organized by the Norwegian Council of Eelam Tamils (NCET). The commemoration event took place on 18 May in Oslo, beginning at 18:00 with silent prayer in remembrance of those killed in the war on Vanni, followed by speeches on behalf of NCET on the needs of Eelam Tamils, the victims of an ethnic genocide.

In Canada, more than 15,000 people gathered in Toronto in front of Queens Park Parliament, where representatives of several humanitarian organizations pledged their support to the Tamils’ cause.

In Italy, a 25 km demonstration march commemorating the massacre began around 8:00 and ended at 17:00. More than 10,000 handbills were distributed during the march, which was organized by Italy West Region Tamil Youths Organization. Representatives of UN humanitarian organizations, Amnesty International, political parties, unions and other humanitarian organizations participated in the meeting that followed the march.

In France, a similar march organized by France Tamil Rehabilitation Organization (TRO) started at 15:30 and terminated at Humans Rights Square around 17:30. In the public meeting which followed the march political leaders Vovard Jacques, Jacques Fabres, Capitano and TRO coordinator spoke.

In Switzerland, more than 1,500 Tamils took part in the remembrance event named "Chivantha" May (Blood-soaked May), organized by the Switzerland Council of Eelam Tamils (SCET).

Switzerland representative of the Sudanese political movement voicing against the genocide in Darfur and Green Party politician Zefari Zidun, explained how his people experienced the genocide in Darfur and said there was no struggle that has been won without experiencing major political setbacks. Mr. Zidun underlined the significance of the awareness work engaging the global community in solidarity action.

A dance theatre presented the geopolitical injustice experienced by Tamils, depicting how the war against Tamils was abetted by the powers of the world.

Christoph Wiedmer, the project director of the Swiss based international human rights organisation, Society for Threatened Peoples (STP), addressed the gathering.

Twenty-six democratically elected members of the SCET took oath in front of the masses, who gathered at Helvetia in Zurich in an emotional remembrance event. The president of the SCET, Tharsika Pakeerathan, a computer science student coordinated the joint remembrance and inauguration event, concluded emotionally with the reggae song by Bob Marley: "Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights."

The decision to hold this year’s International Indian Film Academy (IIFA) awards in Colombo was clearly a political, even geopolitical, calculation. Whereas the previous award ceremonies - held in UK (twice), South Africa (twice), Singapore, Malaysia, Dubai, Holland, Thailand and Macao, China, were meant to bring India ‘to the world’, this year’s event was intended instead to bring the world to Sri Lanka – or, more precisely, to the Sinhala south. It has done that, but in ways unintended.

The controversy that has rightly erupted was inevitable. Few decisions can be more dismissive of human suffering than to hold three days of glamorous celebration amid the horrors consequent to Sri Lanka’s frenzied slaughter last year of forty thousand Tamil civilians and its continued repression of the Tamils. The outraged Tamil Nadu film industry is staying away, and in the wake of public protests in India, there are doubts over the attendance of several Bollywood personalities. The clumsy rush to whitewash the regime in Colombo has thus, perversely, served to focus attention on, and further highlight, Sri Lanka’s grotesque past and present.

The hosting of IIFA event in Colombo is, however, symbolic of a much deeper dynamic; the nature of the linkages between the Tamils and the rest of the world. Whilst Sri Lanka and its allies try to project the illusion of ‘post conflict revival’ or an ‘Emerald Island’, hundreds of thousands of people, on account of their ethnicity alone, continue to suffer all manner of deprivation. In other words, while the Sinhala south is showcased and touts for economic inflows, the Northeast is isolated, hidden and scorched. This is not a mere legacy of protracted war, but of a long institutionalised, racial logic.

Before Sinhala domination began in the late 1940s, the Tamil homeland had been connected in myriad ways to global flows for millennia. Quite apart from the time of South India-based imperial networks, even during Western colonial rule the Northeast was well connected to the rest of the subcontinent and other parts of the world. Since the island’s independence from Britain, however, the Sinhala-dominated state has sought not only to concentrate power in the South, but also to isolate the Northeast, making Colombo the sole gateway between the world and the Tamil homeland.

Amid the international community’s efforts today to bypass Sinhala state’s obstructions and secure access  to the Northeast, what is often missed is how the Sinhala state’s denials of visas and travel permits to the Northeast, or ‘clearance’ to invest in, develop or otherwise link the Northeast to the world, is part of an inherent racialised logic. The point is illustrated, for example, by the state’s violent disruption in 1974 of the World Tamil Research Conference when it was hosted in Jaffna. The Sinhala regime had demanded the event be held in Colombo, not Jaffna, but when the organisers refused, Colombo belatedly despatched a police force to disrupt it. Eleven people died when the police stormed the venue.

For several decades - and from well before the war started - the Sinhala dominated state has systematically diverted international aid, investment and trade access to the South while excluding and marginalising the Northeast. What happened to international humanitarian assistance after the 2004 tsunami is a case in point. The only exceptions, meanwhile, have been Sinhala colonisation projects in the Northeast. (Ironically, it was Sri Lanka’s brutal pursuit of Sinhala domination that, apart from tearing up the social fabric of Tamil life in the island, triggered the refugee flows that generated today’s Diaspora and thus reconnected, in a fashion, the Northeast with the rest of the world.)

Unless the Sinhala stranglehold on the Northeast is first broken, the Tamils will continue to be largely – and deliberately - excluded from global economic flows. It is in this context that the growing call by the Tamils and others for an international boycott of Sri Lanka must be understood. Moreover, until there is a radical restructuring of political power on the island – and thus the ending of Sinhala sovereign control over all facets of Tamil life – the global flows which can help regenerate and rebuild the Tamil homeland and foster the thriving of the Tamil nation will be thwarted and blocked.

This, consequently, is the central logic of the Tamils’ continued insistence on the primacy of their right to self-determination. It cannot be forgotten that the demand for Tamil Eelam arose in the mid-seventies from the need to escape Sri Lanka’s stifling of Tamil social, economic and social life and to reintegrate with global community, free of the vagaries of Sinhala rule.

The Sri Lankan government has issued furious denials against allegations of war crimes committed by their forces during the final phase of the war last year.

After a week which saw various reports released by multiple sources with evidence of war crimes against security forces and individuals further up the command structure, senior representatives of the Sri Lankan government have denied any wrong doing.

The testimony by two members of the Sri Lankan forces, broadcast by Britain’s Channel 4, in which they claimed that civilians and surrendering LTTE fighters and their families were tortured and killed, were dismissed as “fabricated” by Media Minister Keheliya Rambukwella.

“They [Channel 4] have once again brought up this sordid story just when a Sri Lankan delegation is to attend crucial trade talks in Brussels with the European Union. I categorically deny these allegations of war atrocities said to have been committed by our armed forces,” he said.

Rambukwella stated that legal action would be filed against Channel 4.

Sri Lanka’s ambassador to the UN, Palitha Kohona had agreed to appear on the Channel 4 news program, but despite repeated, desperate attempts by the Channel 4 team to contact him, he failed to uphold his commitment to attend. However, the Sri Lankan High Commission in London

Meanwhile, the International Crisis Group (ICG) report which called on the international community to push for an independent international inquiry  was also dismissed.

Sri Lanka’s ambassador to Canada has dismissed claims her government committed war crimes.

“…there were no war crimes. We have been handling this conflict, so let us handle this,” Chithranganee Wagiswara said, speaking to The Globe and Mail.

She claimed that any concerns about the war will be addressed by the commission set up by the President Mahinda Rajapakse.

But the ICG report states that any investigations spearheaded by the Sri Lankan authorities are not going to be impartial, “given the entrenched culture of impunity” in Sri Lanka, which expelled foreign journalists and aid workers during the war’s final months.

That impunity, Ms. Arbour said in an interview, was bolstered by an international community eager to see the end of the ruthless Tiger movement and happy to look the other way “to give [the Sri Lankan government] a chance to finish it off for good” last May.

Meanwhile in Sri Lanka outrage is growing at what is perceived as western interference in domestic matters.

Accusations of human rights groups such as ICG, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International being on the payroll of the LTTE have been made in several Sinhala media outlets, including newspapers and on blog-sites.

“It would have been surprising indeed if there were no such moves to mark the end of terrorism in Sri Lanka, and the restoration of peace after 30 long years,” claimed the state run Daily News newspaper.

“It is a trend in some quarters of the West, that help keep the LTTE flag flying after the rout it suffered in May last year, and keep finding new evidence to suit their ends,” the paper reported.

An international rights group has called for sanctions to be imposed on Sri Lanka if it doesn’t submit itself to an independent international probe into war crimes allegations.

The Brussels based International Crisis Group (ICG) has claimed it is in possession of evidence which suggest that tens of thousands of civilians were killed in the months from January to May 2009.

In a report released to coincide with the first year anniversary of the end of the conflict, the organisation details allegations of war crimes committed by the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE.

The report accuses government forces of intentionally targeting civilians by forcing “hundreds of thousands of civilians to move into ever smaller government-declared No Fire Zones (NFZs)” and then subjecting them to “repeated and increasingly intense artillery and mortar barrages and other fire”.

“Evidence gathered by Crisis Group provides reasonable grounds to believe that during these months the security forces intentionally and repeatedly shelled civilians, hospitals and humanitarian operations,” the report said.

The report alleges the government knew the number and location of civilians and deliberately targeted them. The ICG claims to be in possession of credible evidence of the Sri Lankan Army’s deliberate targeting of hospitals and humanitarian operations.

“It also provides reason to believe that senior government and military officials were aware of the massive civilian casualties due to the security forces’ attacks, but failed to protect the civilian population as they were obliged to under the laws of war,” said the report.

During these incidents “medical staff, the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and others continually informed the government and security forces of the shelling, yet they continued to strike medical facilities through May forcing civilians to abandon them” the report charges.

The ICG is currently led by former head of the UN Commission on Human Rights, Louise Arbour.

The ICG claims to have collected substantial amounts of evidence, including eye witness accounts, satellite imagery, photographs and video, electronic communications and documents from several credible sources.

It stresses that this evidence only covers a small number of violations and that further investigations are warranted to uncover the actual extent of atrocities committed.

The international community is accused of “turning a blind eye” to the occurring atrocities, even though they were fully aware of the violations.

The United Nations credibility has been undermined and “further entrenched bitterness among Tamils in Sri Lanka and elsewhere” the report says.

The report recommends the UN to conduct an internal enquiry into its conduct from the controversial withdrawal from Kilinochchi to the involvement in funding the IDP camps.

The report claims that other countries are now considering dealing with their respective insurgencies using the “Sri Lanka option”, which is defined as “unrestrained military action, refusal to negotiate and a disregard for humanitarian issues”. This is due to the relative impunity Sri Lanka enjoyed while conducting its offensive and the notion that they “got away with it” in the months since the war ended, which must seem like a very attractive option to other states dealing with troublesome insurgents, such as India and Burma.

The report pushes for a concerted effort to investigate war crimes committed by both side and calls on members of the international community to vigorously pursue investigations, especially if foreign nationals are involved, as in the case of Defense Secretary Gothabhaya, who is a US citizen.

Non compliance with the investigations should be met with targeted sanctions until the Sri Lanka government cooperates with international efforts at uncovering the truth about these allegations, the ICG recommends.

Executions of Tamil civilians and surrendered LTTE fighters and their families were carried out under orders ‘from the top’, Sri Lankan Army soldiers have claimed.

"Yes, our commander ordered us to kill everyone. We killed everyone," claimed on frontline soldier.

"Definitely, the order would have been to kill everybody and finish them off,” a senior Sri Lankan army commander said.

"I don't think we wanted to keep any hardcore elements, so they were done away with. It is clear that such orders were, in fact, received from the top."

The allegations were made in a report on Britain’s Channel 4 TV station, which broadcast two interviews with Sri Lankan Army soldiers.

The soldier confirmed he took part in the killing of innocent civilians. Surrendering LTTE fighters and their families were also tortured and executed, he said.

Several photographs were shown on the extended segment shown on Channel 4’s news programme.

Pictures were taken by soldiers on the frontline of the war zone and showed piles of bodies, lines of corpses and civilians in ditches with their hands tied behind their backs, including children.

They also broadcast pictures of the bodies of young women who had their hands tied behind their backs, suggesting that they were detained and executed.

The program quoted a soldier as saying that Pirabaharan’s youngest son, Balachandran (13), was shot dead after surrendering to the forces with his bodyguards.

One of the civilians in the photographs was subsequently identified by his wife, a displaced person currently living in Jaffna, TamilNet reported.

The unidentified woman claims her husband was a former member of the LTTE but was staying with his family after leaving the organisation.

He disappeared in April 2009, and has since been reported dead by villagers who saw his body together with bodies of LTTE fighters massacred by the Sri Lankan forces.

This raises the question whether all those who were pictured as detained by the army have been executed, said local reports from Jaffna.

Louis Arbour, head of the International Crisis Group and former Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, who was also interviewed by the program, slammed the impunity Sri Lanka enjoyed throughout the conflict.

She said there was no possibility of Sri Lanka holding a proper inquiry into the war crimes, noting that since the conflict began there had been impunity.

A senior Amnesty International official told Channel 4 News his organisation had this week launched a world-wide campaign to highlight the need for an independent international investigation into war crimes in Sri Lanka.

London-based Amnesty International and New York-based Human Rights Watch have joined Brussels-based International Crisis Group in this regard, Channel 4 said.

The Sri Lankan ambassador to the UN, Palitha Kohona had agreed to appear on the show to do the increasingly difficult task of defending his government, but news anchor Jon Snow revealed, despite desperate efforts to locate him, he failed to show up.

The Sri Lankan High Commission in London meanwhile issued a statement totally rejecting all accusations.

“All internationally accepted standards and norms of such operations were followed in the prosecution of the humanitarian operation by the security forces which were under strict orders to follow a zero civilian casualty policy,” the High Commission statement claimed.

LITTLE Sri Lanka is rarely a model of anything. But since it crushed the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam its government has found itself in an unfamiliar position. Some of the world’s less savoury regimes are beating a path to its door to study “the Sri Lanka option”.

Last November, Myanmar’s military dictator, Than Shwe, who rarely travels abroad, visited the island “so that his regime can apply any lessons learned to its efforts against the ethnic groups in Burma,” says Benedict Rogers, a biographer of General Than. In May last year at a meeting of regional defence ministers in Singapore, Myanmar’s deputy minister made the link explicit, saying the world had witnessed a victory over terrorism in Sri Lanka but had forgotten about the insurgency in his country.

In October Thailand’s prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, held talks with his Sri Lankan counterpart about the lessons of the Tigers’ defeat (for handling a Muslim insurgency in southern Thailand, not the protests cleared this week in Bangkok). In March a military delegation from Bangladesh met Sri Lanka’s army chief, to swap notes on what he called Sri Lanka’s “successful completion of the war for peace”. Behind the scenes, hawkish generals and politicians from Colombia to Israel seem to be using Sri Lanka’s experience to justify harsher anti-terror operations.

Louise Arbour, head of the International Crisis Group (ICG), says the Sri Lanka model consists of three parts: what she dubs “scorched-earth tactics” (full operational freedom for the army, no negotiations with terrorists, no ceasefires to let them regroup); next, ignoring differences between combatants and non-combatants (the new ICG report documents many such examples); lastly, the dismissal of international and media concerns. A senior official in President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s office, quoted anonymously in a journal, Indian Defence Review, says “we had to ensure that we regulated the media. We didn’t want the international community to force peace negotiations on us.” The author of that article, V.K. Shashikumar, concludes that “in the final analysis the Rajapaksa model is based on a military precept…Terrorism has to be wiped out militarily and cannot be tackled politically.” This is the opposite of the strategy America is pursuing in Afghanistan. It is winning a widespread hearing.