The Sri Lankan Army has been teaching Sinhalese to children in Kilinochchi, boasted the Ministry of Defence earlier this week.

In an article entitled “Serving the People”, the Ministry of Defence wrote on how the Army was conducting Sinhala lesson to Tamil schoolchildren, as part of their “Scouting, Sinhala and Road Sign awareness programmes”.

The seminars were organised by the 5 Sri Lanka Armoured Corps troops and held in the Security Forces Headquarters Kilinochchi.

 See more of the Sri Lankan Army schooling Tamil schoolchildren in earlier post:

Only in Sri Lanka (28 October 2012)

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon receives a copy of a report on the actions of the United Nations in Sri Lanka on Wednesday morning. Picture courtesy of Inner City Press.

A report detailing the “grave failure of the United Nations” in Sri Lanka has been officially handed over to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, on Wednesday morning and released publicly later in the evening.

The full report can be downloaded here.

In a statement, the UN Secretary General said,

"I am determined that the United Nations draws the appropriate lessons and does its utmost to earn the confidence of the world's people, especially those caught in conflict who look to the organisation for help,"

"transparency and accountability are critical to the legitimacy and credibility of the United Nations".

Some UN staff in Colombo expressed to the UNCT leadership their dismay that the UN was placing primary emphasis on LTTE responsibility when the facts suggested otherwise, and urged a more public stance.

However, the briefing did not explicitly address Government responsibility for the situation or for shelling. The COG had prepared a casualty sheet which showed that a large majority of the civilian casualties recorded by the UN had reportedly been caused by Government fire, but the UN did not present this data. And when describing the lack of food and medicines, the briefing did not explain that the most immediate causes for the severe shortfall had been Government obstruction to the delivery of assistance, including its artillery shelling.

...and the RC all wrote to the OHCHR leadership urging that the statement be changed to exclude specific reference to the number of casualties and possible crimes and violations of international law by the Government

Throughout the final stages, the UN issued many public statements and reports accusing the LTTE of committing human rights and international humanitarian law violations, and mentioning thousands of civilians killed. But, with the above exception, the UN almost completely omitted to explicitly mention Government responsibility for violations of international law.

However, despite UN advocacy and its relative withholding of criticism, access to IDPs in camps outside the Wanni remained strictly limited by the Government and the UN never obtained the kind of humanitarian pause that would have allowed civilians to be moved to safety.

The UNCT had used its 9 March briefing and subsequent documents to inform the diplomatic corps of UN efforts to be present at screening locations, but did not mention the reports of people disappearing from other screening locations to which the UN had no access… The UN chose to support the camps.

The reaction of the UN system as a whole to the Government’s withdrawal of security assurances represented a serious failure.

But the UN did not confront the Government directly with the fact that obstructing assistance was counter to its responsibilities under international law.

The UN repeatedly condemned the LTTE for serious international human rights and humanitarian law violations but largely avoided mention of the Government’s responsibility.

Senior UN officials said this was because information could not be verified. In fact, information had been verified to a good standard; indeed UN statements on LTTE violations, including the killing of civilians and holding civilians hostage, were based on information verified in the same manner.

Numerous UN communications said that civilians were being killed in artillery shelling, but they failed to mention that reports most often indicated the shelling in question was from Government forces. The UN condemned the use of heavy weapons in general, and some officials appeared to believe that because such weapons were almost exclusively used by the Government that this was a sufficient means of raising Government responsibility.

The Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, who also has an international human rights and humanitarian law mandate, raised concern with the Government and the Secretary-General over the situation but favoured quiet diplomacy and told the Government he would “not speak out.”

Much of the information used in the film (Channel 4's 'Sri Lanka's Killing Fields') was obtained from, or had already been accessible to, the UN for some time previously.

Nevertheless, the Panel’s report concludes that events in Sri Lanka mark a grave failure of the UN to adequately respond to early warnings and to the evolving situation during the final stages of the conflict and its aftermath, to the detriment of hundreds of thousands of civilians and in contradiction with the principles and responsibilities of the UN.

It is nevertheless clear that there can be no lasting peace and stability without dealing with the most serious past violations and without a political response to the aspirations of Sri Lanka’s communities. The UN cannot fulfil its post-conflict and development responsibilities in Sri Lanka without addressing these fundamental concerns; and the UN should continue to support implementation of the recommendations of the Panel of Experts on Accountability.

"Several participants noted the limited support from Member States at the Human Rights Council and suggested the UN advocate instead for a domestic mechanism, although it was recognized that past domestic mechanisms in Sri Lanka had not led to genuine accountability. One participant said that “[i]t was important to maintain pressure on the Government with respect to recovery, reconciliation and returns and not to undermine this focus through unwavering calls for accountability ...” "

""The references to possible war crimes will be controversial … I am not sure going into this dimension is helpful, as opposed to more indirect references to the need for accountability, in this conflict as elsewhere.” "

"Discussing whether or not the Secretary General should establish an international Commission of Experts, many participants were reticent to do so without the support of the Government and at a time when Member States were also not supportive. At the same time, participants also acknowledged that a Government-led mechanism was unlikely to seriously address past violations. The Secretary-General said that “the Government should be given the political space to develop a domestic mechanism” and that only if this did not occur within a limited time frame would the UN look at alternatives."

"the UN struggled to exert influence on the government which, with the effective acquiescence of a post 9/11 world order, was determined to defeat militarily an organisation designated as terrorist".

“many senior U.N. staff simply did not perceive the prevention of killing of civilians as their responsibility and agency and department heads at UNHQ were not instructing them otherwise".

"I believe we should have gone further north, not evacuate south, and basically abandon the civilian population with no protection or witness. As a humanitarian worker, questions were running through my mind 'what is this all about? Isn't this what we signed up to do?'"

We’re here to protect and witness these things. And then having to drive out of there, past these people wearing a helmet, wearing a flak jacket and all the protection that we had because we’re international... was... I’ve never been so ashamed of the colour of my skin..."

“I kept sending messages, photos of civilian casualties, reports of hospitals bombings, to my contacts in Tamil media. And I requested they spread the word and tell the world to intervene and stop the war.

They (the UN) did help the people in the camps by supplying food and other essential items, but that’s not very helpful because we were kept there as prisoners of the government. It’s almost like someone visiting a prison and supplying sweets to the prisoners.

It wouldn’t save our lives and they didn’t guarantee any protection for us."

"Such reports will only hold any weight if the UN acts to ensure that it redeems itself from its colossal failure in protecting the Tamil people."

“The UN’s attempt to appease the Sri Lankan government while it was committing mass atrocities against its own population proved to be a deadly mistake,”

“The UN’s failure to learn from Rwanda shows that a mere report won’t solve these deep-seated problems unless there is the necessary political will and commitment to implement the report’s recommendations.”

Head of Amnesty International’s UN New York office, Jose Luis Diaz, commented on the report, stating,

“The report is also a wake-up call for UN member states that have not pushed hard enough for an independent international investigation into alleged war crimes committed by both Sri Lankan government’s lack of will to protect civilians or account for very serious violations. There is no evidence that has changed”

See our post:'Wake-up call for member states' - Amnesty International (15 November 2012)

“Sadly, the Sri Lankan government continues to fail victims and survivors alike. The measures it has taken to date simply do not go far enough, as this report clearly lays out.

“Canada also notes the Secretary General’s comments and will work with the international community to ensure mistakes made in Sri Lanka are not repeated.”

See our post: Canada welcomes UN report (15 November 2012)

several USG participants and the RC did not stand by the casualty numbers, saying that the data were ‘not verified’. Participants in the meeting questioned an OHCHR proposal to release a public statement referencing the numbers and possible crimes.

Several participants noted the limited support from Member States at the Human Rights Council and suggested the UN advocate instead for a domestic mechanism, although it was recognized that past domestic mechanisms in Sri Lanka had not led to genuine accountability. One participant said that “[i]t was important to maintain pressure on the Government with respect to recovery, reconciliation and returns and not to undermine this focus through unwavering calls for accountability ...”

The Policy Committee met two days later, on 12 March, to discuss Sri Lanka. Participants noted variously that “this crisis was being somewhat overlooked by the international community”, the policy “of coordinating a series of high level visits seemed to have produced some positive results”, and that the possible involvement of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide (SAPG) would not indicate a suspicion of genocide but may add to overcrowding of UN actors involved. Participants acknowledged the apparent need for a Special Envoy but noted this “did not seem politically feasible”. It was suggested that “the Secretary General’s [public] statements may have appeared a bit soft compared with recent statements on other conflict areas [and it] was suggested [he] cite the estimated number of casualty figures ….”. OHCHR said it would be issuing a “strong” statement which would include indicative casualty figures and raise the issue of possible crimes under international law by both sides.                                                       

Several participants questioned whether it was the right time for such a statement, asked to see  the draft before release and suggested it be reviewed by OLA. There was a discussion on “balancing” the High Commissioner’s mandate with other UN action in situations requiring the UN to play several different roles. The meeting led to the adoption by the Secretary-General, through the Policy Committee, of several decisions, including: continued engagement on “the immediate humanitarian, human rights and political aspects of the situation”; “system-wide advocacy” to press the LTTE to allow safe passage for civilians and UN staff; pressing the Government on protection and assistance to IDPs; inter-ethnic accommodation and reconciliation; political advice to Sri Lanka; child protection; transitional justice; demining; reconstruction; disarmament, demobilization and rehabilitation; political solutions to the underlying causes of the conflict; and renewed efforts to establish an OHCHR field office. 

At today’s Policy Committee meeting,

The references to possible war crimes will be controversial … I am not sure going into this dimension is helpful, as opposed to more indirect references to the need for accountability, in this conflict as elsewhere.”

Members agreed to: urge the Government to ensure protection and assistance for IDPs in accordance with international law; continue dialogue toward a durable political solution and reconciliation; seek a principled and coordinated international approach to relief, rehabilitation, resettlement, political dialogue and reconciliation; and pursue a “principle-based engagement by UNHQ and RC/HC/UNCT, with the Government, International Financial Institutions, and other partners on early recovery …”. It was agreed that the UNCT would engage with international partners and develop principles of engagement, and a monitoring mechanism to ensure adherence to these principles.

Members of the Policy Committee also noted “politically, there was little to show for the UN's engagement with all stakeholders” and that the President was “not receptive to the Secretary-General's suggestion to appoint an envoy.”

“The Government has not agreed to proposals for the establishment of a body involving donors and the UN which would facilitate humanitarian and recovery coordination.”

albeit with considerable disagreement on what action should be taken. In the 23 June Policy Committee meeting in New York

One participant said that “[i]t was important to maintain pressure on the Government with respect to recovery, reconciliation and returns and not to undermine this focus through unwavering calls for accountability ...”  OHCHR was tasked with preparation of a UN strategy and position on justice and accountability issues, including the possibility of an international investigation.

Discussing whether or not the Secretary General should establish an international Commission of Experts, many participants were reticent to do so without the support of the Government and at a time when Member States were also not supportive. At the same time, participants also acknowledged that a Government-led mechanism was unlikely to seriously address past violations. The Secretary-General said that “the Government should be given the political space to develop a domestic mechanism” and that only if this did not occur within a limited time frame would the UN look at alternatives.

A critical report by the Foreign Affairs Committee on the Commonwealth, which slammed the Commonwealth's decision to hold the 2013 Heads of Government Meeting in Colombo as "wrong", has received a dismissive response from the UK FCO.

A spokesperson for the UK Foreign Office said it was "too early" to talk about Britain's presence at the meeting, reported the BBC.

He is reported to have said:

"We will look to Sri Lanka to demonstrate its commitment to upholding the Commonwealth values of good governance and respect for human rights,"

"A key part of this will be to address longstanding issues around accountability and reconciliation after the war."

The Foreign Affairs Committee concluded in its report released Wednesday:

"We conclude that continuing evidence of serious human rights abuses in Sri Lanka shows that the Commonwealth's decision to hold the 2013 CHOGM meeting in Colombo was wrong."
 
"The UK prime minister should publicly state his unwillingness to attend the meeting unless he receives convincing and independently verified evidence of substantial and sustainable improvements in human and political rights."

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon receives a copy of a report on the actions of the United Nations in Sri Lanka on Wednesday morning. Picture courtesy of Inner City Press.

A report detailing the “grave failure of the United Nations” in Sri Lanka has been officially handed over to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, on Wednesday morning and released publicly later in the evening.

The full report can be downloaded here.

In a statement, the UN Secretary General said,

"I am determined that the United Nations draws the appropriate lessons and does its utmost to earn the confidence of the world's people, especially those caught in conflict who look to the organisation for help,"

"transparency and accountability are critical to the legitimacy and credibility of the United Nations".

Some UN staff in Colombo expressed to the UNCT leadership their dismay that the UN was placing primary emphasis on LTTE responsibility when the facts suggested otherwise, and urged a more public stance.

However, the briefing did not explicitly address Government responsibility for the situation or for shelling. The COG had prepared a casualty sheet which showed that a large majority of the civilian casualties recorded by the UN had reportedly been caused by Government fire, but the UN did not present this data. And when describing the lack of food and medicines, the briefing did not explain that the most immediate causes for the severe shortfall had been Government obstruction to the delivery of assistance, including its artillery shelling.

...and the RC all wrote to the OHCHR leadership urging that the statement be changed to exclude specific reference to the number of casualties and possible crimes and violations of international law by the Government

Throughout the final stages, the UN issued many public statements and reports accusing the LTTE of committing human rights and international humanitarian law violations, and mentioning thousands of civilians killed. But, with the above exception, the UN almost completely omitted to explicitly mention Government responsibility for violations of international law.

However, despite UN advocacy and its relative withholding of criticism, access to IDPs in camps outside the Wanni remained strictly limited by the Government and the UN never obtained the kind of humanitarian pause that would have allowed civilians to be moved to safety.

The UNCT had used its 9 March briefing and subsequent documents to inform the diplomatic corps of UN efforts to be present at screening locations, but did not mention the reports of people disappearing from other screening locations to which the UN had no access… The UN chose to support the camps.

The reaction of the UN system as a whole to the Government’s withdrawal of security assurances represented a serious failure.

But the UN did not confront the Government directly with the fact that obstructing assistance was counter to its responsibilities under international law.

The UN repeatedly condemned the LTTE for serious international human rights and humanitarian law violations but largely avoided mention of the Government’s responsibility.

Senior UN officials said this was because information could not be verified. In fact, information had been verified to a good standard; indeed UN statements on LTTE violations, including the killing of civilians and holding civilians hostage, were based on information verified in the same manner.

Numerous UN communications said that civilians were being killed in artillery shelling, but they failed to mention that reports most often indicated the shelling in question was from Government forces. The UN condemned the use of heavy weapons in general, and some officials appeared to believe that because such weapons were almost exclusively used by the Government that this was a sufficient means of raising Government responsibility.

The Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, who also has an international human rights and humanitarian law mandate, raised concern with the Government and the Secretary-General over the situation but favoured quiet diplomacy and told the Government he would “not speak out.”

Much of the information used in the film (Channel 4's 'Sri Lanka's Killing Fields') was obtained from, or had already been accessible to, the UN for some time previously.

Nevertheless, the Panel’s report concludes that events in Sri Lanka mark a grave failure of the UN to adequately respond to early warnings and to the evolving situation during the final stages of the conflict and its aftermath, to the detriment of hundreds of thousands of civilians and in contradiction with the principles and responsibilities of the UN.

It is nevertheless clear that there can be no lasting peace and stability without dealing with the most serious past violations and without a political response to the aspirations of Sri Lanka’s communities. The UN cannot fulfil its post-conflict and development responsibilities in Sri Lanka without addressing these fundamental concerns; and the UN should continue to support implementation of the recommendations of the Panel of Experts on Accountability.

"Several participants noted the limited support from Member States at the Human Rights Council and suggested the UN advocate instead for a domestic mechanism, although it was recognized that past domestic mechanisms in Sri Lanka had not led to genuine accountability. One participant said that “[i]t was important to maintain pressure on the Government with respect to recovery, reconciliation and returns and not to undermine this focus through unwavering calls for accountability ...” "

""The references to possible war crimes will be controversial … I am not sure going into this dimension is helpful, as opposed to more indirect references to the need for accountability, in this conflict as elsewhere.” "

"Discussing whether or not the Secretary General should establish an international Commission of Experts, many participants were reticent to do so without the support of the Government and at a time when Member States were also not supportive. At the same time, participants also acknowledged that a Government-led mechanism was unlikely to seriously address past violations. The Secretary-General said that “the Government should be given the political space to develop a domestic mechanism” and that only if this did not occur within a limited time frame would the UN look at alternatives."

"the UN struggled to exert influence on the government which, with the effective acquiescence of a post 9/11 world order, was determined to defeat militarily an organisation designated as terrorist".

“many senior U.N. staff simply did not perceive the prevention of killing of civilians as their responsibility and agency and department heads at UNHQ were not instructing them otherwise".

"I believe we should have gone further north, not evacuate south, and basically abandon the civilian population with no protection or witness. As a humanitarian worker, questions were running through my mind 'what is this all about? Isn't this what we signed up to do?'"

We’re here to protect and witness these things. And then having to drive out of there, past these people wearing a helmet, wearing a flak jacket and all the protection that we had because we’re international... was... I’ve never been so ashamed of the colour of my skin..."

“I kept sending messages, photos of civilian casualties, reports of hospitals bombings, to my contacts in Tamil media. And I requested they spread the word and tell the world to intervene and stop the war.

They (the UN) did help the people in the camps by supplying food and other essential items, but that’s not very helpful because we were kept there as prisoners of the government. It’s almost like someone visiting a prison and supplying sweets to the prisoners.

It wouldn’t save our lives and they didn’t guarantee any protection for us."

"Such reports will only hold any weight if the UN acts to ensure that it redeems itself from its colossal failure in protecting the Tamil people."

“The UN’s attempt to appease the Sri Lankan government while it was committing mass atrocities against its own population proved to be a deadly mistake,”

“The UN’s failure to learn from Rwanda shows that a mere report won’t solve these deep-seated problems unless there is the necessary political will and commitment to implement the report’s recommendations.”

"If the words “never again” are to be more than an inscription on the gravestones of new victims, the UN must pursue this shameful episode to its roots."

Head of Amnesty International’s UN New York office, Jose Luis Diaz, commented on the report, stating,

“The report is also a wake-up call for UN member states that have not pushed hard enough for an independent international investigation into alleged war crimes committed by both Sri Lankan government’s lack of will to protect civilians or account for very serious violations. There is no evidence that has changed”

See our post:'Wake-up call for member states' - Amnesty International (15 November 2012)

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird also released a statement on the 15th of November, stating,

“Sadly, the Sri Lankan government continues to fail victims and survivors alike. The measures it has taken to date simply do not go far enough, as this report clearly lays out.

“Canada also notes the Secretary General’s comments and will work with the international community to ensure mistakes made in Sri Lanka are not repeated.”

See our post: Canada welcomes UN report (15 November 2012)

See reaction from Sri Lanka's Ambassador to the UN in our post:

Kohona dismisses reports of intimidation as ‘absolute nonsense’ (15 November 2012)

Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, who is also Sri Lanka’s envoy to the UN Human Rights Council also responded. See our post:

No, no, no! (14 November 2012)

"Nothing can bring back the estimated 30,000 civilians who died in 2009 in the closing months of the war in Sri Lanka, but if the UN is to learn from its shocking failure to protect those civilians it must do more than mouth regrets and resolutions."

"Hypocrisy is never attractive. Hypocrisy with lethal consequences is abject moral failure."

"They failed to publicise the details of the crimes and the government’s responsibility for them and to galvanise international opinion. They stood by as hospitals and refugee camps were shelled, civilians massacred and humanitarian aid withheld. They failed to fulfil the most basic requirements of their mandate."

"If the words “never again” are to be more than an inscription on the gravestones of new victims, the UN must pursue this shameful episode to its roots. Its failures have enabled a triumphalist narrative  that the government of Sri Lanka continues to broadcast. Other regimes will draw satisfaction from the “success” of these scorched-earth tactics."

"In 1999, the then Secretary General Kofi Annan resolved to ensure the UN never again failed to protect a civilian population, as it had in Rwanda. But failure was replayed in Darfur and Sri Lanka. The first step to restoring the UN’s credibility is to be implacable in holding the government of Sri Lanka to account. "

"It must use it to oblige the government of Sri Lanka to acknowledge its crimes and to punish those responsible. It must pursue justice and redress for the victims. And from the top to the bottom of the organisation, the commitment to protection, whatever the circumstances, must be paramount. Without that, it risks once again acting as window dressing to horror."

Amnesty International indicated that the self-critical United Nations report, released yesterday, further authenticates calls for an independent international investigation into war crimes in Sri Lanka.

The report of the UN Secretary-General’s Internal Review Panel on focuses on the UN’s failures during a period of conflict in Sri Lanka where effective UN action might have prevented some of the worst human rights violations to be witnessed in modern society.

The report detailed how the United Nations suppressed information and humanitarian law violations, particularly those committed by Sri Lankan forces.

Head of amnesty International’s UN New York office, Jose Luis Diaz, commented on the report, stating,

“Unfortunately this report confirms the many troubling allegations of UN failings we have heard since the May 2009 end of conflict.”

“We hope that the report’s strong findings will help improve the way the UN and the international community protect civilians in times of conflict and reform errant relief systems.”

“The report is also a wake-up call for UN member states that have not pushed hard enough for an independent international investigation into alleged war crimes committed by both Sri Lankan government’s lack of will to protect civilians or account for very serious violations. There is no evidence that has changed”

Speaking in an interview on TamilNet's Palaka'ni channel, TNPF leader Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam asserted that Eelam Tamils were a nation and asserted their right to sovereignty, and outlined the Tamil National People Front's position as:

"The existence of the Tamil nation must be secured. The recognition of Tamil nationhood and its distinct sovereignty is non-negotiable, that is our party's position. As to how that status is going to exist, whether it is going to exist within a larger state, or within a larger country, so as in the country being a multi-national state, or whether the Tamil nation is going to exist as a nation state, is something the eventual peace process will decide. But our view, what is fundamental, is the recognition and the safe-guard of the Tamil nation."

See full video here.

Asked for his comments on the terminology used to describe Eelam Tamils as either a minority or nation, Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam said,

"The question is not whether in fact Tamils are a nation, they are. Under international law itself they qualify for nationhood. Everyone knows that, that's a fact in existence, but politically - here's the difference, not legally, but politically - not that many people would want to recognise that because there are serious consequences to such a recognition."

"So in reality we all know that international law is there on paper, but in practice it is international politics."

Speaking on the aspirations of the Tamil nation and the TNPF's view on proposed devolution of power within a Sri Lankan state, he asserted that devolution could not take place within a state that was apparently intent on the opposite, with increasing centralisation of power.

"[Sri Lankan state] is not going to devolve power. It is a complete opposite that's happening. The [Sri Lankan] state is centralising more and more power, and it is becoming more and more Sinhala Buddhist in character. If you look at since the time the British left the island of Sri Lanka, constitutionally this process has been taking place, as well as administratively it's been taking place. So the direction in which the current Sri Lankan state is transforming, is towards more centralisation and more Sinhala Buddhisation. That is the only transformational project that is taking place today."

"In that context to ask for devolution, that is asking this centralising state to devolve power, in my view, is ridiculous. I mean that means we are not learning anything from history. And it is this centralising and Sinhala Buddhisation process that is resulting in the genocide of the Tamil people. That is the only way, it is through the systematic, structural genocide of the Tamil people, that they can actually ultimately achieve that goal of a highly centralised Sinhala Buddhist state."

"So devolution is never going to happen."

Addressing the international community's opposition to a separate state, in favour of a federal structure, he commented:

"Even if we are to commit to a federal arrangement, you are not going to achieve that federalism through a process of devolution. Because the state is transforming in the opposite direction, so the existing state is non workable."

"You will have to have a clean break, and you will have to start afresh. Where you recognise the existing units - which is the Tamil nation which is sovereign in its own right, and the Sinhala nation which is sovereign in its own right - and the peace process is where these two negotiate to try and find a way which is mutually beneficial to both, to co-exist. That would be the solution."

"Today they [Sri Lankan state] have carried out a war, to the extent of being accused of genocide, not because they want to share power, but for completely the opposite reason. To make sure they dismantle the existence of the Tamils as a nation, so they don't share power."

"The existence of the Tamil nation must be secured. The recognition of Tamil nationhood and its distinct sovereignty is non-negotiable, that is our party's position. As to how that status is going to exist, whether it is going to exist within a larger state, or within a larger country, so as in the country
being a multi-national state, or whether the Tamil nation is going to exist as a nation state, is something the eventual peace process will decide. But our view, what is fundamental, is the recognition and the safe-guard of the Tamil nation."

Dismissing the notion that the LTTE were in any way a justification for the Sri Lankan state's genocide of the Tamil nation, he said:

"In fact the LTTE were the problem, there is no LTTE today. But three years down the road, the Tamil people continue to not only be oppressed, but systematically there is a structural genocide that is taking place."

"The international community is struggling to try and explain what is happening. They are desperate to a point where they have to pass  resolutions that purportedly address Tamil issues on the ground, when in fact none of this is happening. But they have to carry out this façade, because they can't explain this. If they are to explain this they will have to accept the truth, which means there are serious consequences that they have to take. There are serious consequences to accepting that truth."

"I think the party that actually has to get its act together here - there is no point in blaming the international community - is the Tamil people themselves. That is fundamental. If we don't do it, no one else is going to do it for us."

"As far as the international community is concerned, I don't think there it is necessary to educate them... They know exactly what's happening to the Tamil people, to the Tamil nation. The question is whether it is in their interest. And I think that is where we are at loggerheads."

Asked to justify condemnation of Sinhala colonisation of the North-East, in the face of Tamils residing in Colombo, Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam said:

"Sinhalese settling in the traditional Tamil homeland, have traditionally been state aided colonisation projects, so they are state aided settlements. And they have been done in a systematic way in order to change the demography of the region."

"It is not a natural change in demography. It is a systematically enhanced colonisation project in order to change the demography, deliberately."

"Tamils settling in the South, any where in the South - it is not state aided, for obvious reasons. And at no time have the Tamils gone to the South, with the intent of changing the demography, or for that matter, with the intent of essentially claiming some part of the south. Or denying the Sinhalese of their claim to the South. That is a completely different scenario."

"But today, we are in a slightly different position. After the war, we are in a slightly different position. The Tamil economy is down in its doldrums. We are scraping the barrel... And in such a scenario, we are unable to compete on any front - trade, business, in any way, savings wise."

"When the population and the entire Tamil homeland is vulnerable, when you take of all the stops, who are effectively allowing for an almost a voluntary Sinhalisation, given through consent, simply because you cannot compete."

"And this scenario where the Tamil people are being kept in such a vulnerable position is being sustained three years after the war. It is deliberately being done. Our opportunities to actually move forward is limited. That vacuum is filled up from outside."

"So in principle, we are not opposed to a Sinhalese who willing comes and settles in the North-East because he likes it. We can't be opposed to it. You know we are not racist to the point where we don't want to co-habit with anyone else, that has never been the issue. The problem is with regards to the demography. But as of now, even a voluntary person coming into the area is a danger, for the simple reason that our own power to compete is non-existent. At least if you create the conditions where the Tamil people can compete, and they can have some sort of equality or parity in buying power and all of that, economic power, then it is a different matter."

“So the state uses this, in a very sophisticated way to push forward their Sinhalisation even more. I mean the most apparent thing is not individuals buying land, but the very apparent thing, is businesses taking over Tamil businesses that just can't compete."

“This report details a litany of human rights violations endured by the Sri Lankan people.

“Sadly, the Sri Lankan government continues to fail victims and survivors alike. The measures it has taken to date simply do not go far enough, as this report clearly lays out.

“The Prime Minister and I take every opportunity to raise Canada’s concerns with respect to the need for progress on reconciliation, accountability and respect for human rights in Sri Lanka.

“Canada calls on the Sri Lankan government to finally put the people of that country first.

“Canada also notes the Secretary General’s comments and will work with the international community to ensure mistakes made in Sri Lanka are not repeated.”

“That’s absolute nonsense.... To say that Sri Lanka was intimidating the United Nations, a very small country, and the United Nations being what it is, I think that’s absolute rubbish.”

"I think that you are talking nonsense again. Sri Lanka was... There were hundreds of UN staff in Sri Lanka at the time. They were given visas to come into the country I don’t think any UN staff member who applied for a visa at the time was refused admission."

"Q: Do you know that for a fact?"

"As I said, I do not THINK that they were refused admission."

"Q: Do you believe the decisions taken at the time of the Sri Lankan conflict by the Sri Lankan Government were the right ones? Today, do you believe that is the case?"

"Absolutely... The decisions made at the time were the best decisions for all the people in the country."

The Tamil National Alliance said it demands an international investigation into the crimes committed by the Sri Lankan government, after the UN accepted it failed to protect Tamils.

Spokesperson MA Sumanthiran told AFP on Thursday that the TNA wanted immediate action.

"Now that the UN has come with this report we want action."

"There should be an international inquiry. The government as the main accused party cannot be involved in the investigation."

"We would like to see reparations, restitution and justice for the people who suffered," he added.

"No one can say that these allegations should not be investigated."

Tamils in South Africa have condemned the appointment of Sri Lanka's Major General's Shavendra Silva's appointment as the Deputy Ambassador to South Africa.

In a joint statement released on 9th Novemeber, the South African Tamil Federation (SATF), Solidarity Group for Peace and Justice (SGJP), and other groups, highlighted Silva's leadership of the 58th Division of the Sri Lankan Army and said his appointment was “an insult and an assault on our democratic foundation and principles … It is further a serious indictment on all peace loving South Africans if this appointment is not rescinded.”

The organisations vowed to continue to mobilise and “to reject with contempt the appointment of Major General Silva”. They called on the South African government to deem him 'persona non grata' and refuse him entry into South Africa.

The Secretary of the SGJP, Preggy Padayache said, 'they were perturbed at South Africa’s continued support of the government of Sri Lanka, despite growing international sentiment for an independent investigation into credible allegations of war crimes against that government and its top leadership.'

What's Sri Lanka’s response to the forthcoming UN internal review, which is to state that under intense pressure from Sri Lankan authorities, the UN concealed its knowledge that “a large majority” of civilian deaths in the closing months of war in 2009 were caused by government shelling?

Denial, of course. See AFP’s report here. 

This is what Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, who is also Sri Lanka’s envoy to the UN Human Rights Council, told reporters Wednesday:

“Maybe this (leaked) report is a fabrication.”

He added that Colombo had a good rapport with humanitarian agencies, including UN workers and that they had held regular meetings during the war.

“I chaired those meetings at the defence ministry and we addressed many issues and found answers,” he said. “We worked closely with the UN and others.”

On the report’s account of the Sri Lankan government's “stratagem of intimidation” - including control of visas for critical UN staff - prevented the UN from protecting civilians in the conflict zone, Samarasinghe had this to say:

“There was no intimidation … No such thing. How can you intimidate them? They don't get intimidated by anyone.”

On Sri Lanka’s ordering UN aid workers out of Vanni in 2008, ahead of the massive military onslaught on the region, Samarasinghe said:

"I have not heard anyone say that we asked them to go out (of the conflict zone)."

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, has slammed the state of Australian offshore asylum camps.

Refugees arriving in Australia are now processed in camps in Nauru, where several detainees have conducted hunger strikes in protest at the conditions.

Speaking to ABC Radio, Navi Pillay said the hunger strikes were an "indication of the unbearable conditions under which they're being held".

She said she was “alarmed” about the strikes, adding that "it would be a blight on Australia's good human rights record if it doesn't respect the rights of asylum seekers".

"I fear that this is another road to indefinite detention," she said, pointing out that "detention of asylum-seekers should be the last resort, not the first".

Most of the asylum seekers in the camps are from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan.