An umbrella body named the Group of Concerned Citizens (GCC), representing fifty-one NGOs based in India, has urged Malaysia to support a resolution on war crimes committed by the Sri Lankan security forces.

In a statement, GCC's coordinator, K Arumugam said that Malaysia should not support Sri Lanka as it did in 2009.

Highlighting Malaysia's role in condemning human rights violations in Bosnia, Palestine, Southern Thailand and Philippines, the GCC coordinator said,

"Why the double standard in our foreign policy when it came to Sri Lankan Tamils?"

"If Malaysia votes against the resolution, it’ll be tantamount to supporting the brutal killings and the sexual abuse and rapes committed by Sri Lankan security forces."

Writing in the Independent, Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields Director Callum Macrae has revealed some of the new evidence of summary executions that they have uncovered whilst making their follow up documentary, “War Crimes Unpunished”.

Extracts have been reproduced below. See the full piece here.

For more information on the upcoming documentary “Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields: War Crimes Unpunished”, see here. It will be broadcast on Channel 4 this Wednesday the 14th of March at 10.55pm.

“A 12-year-old boy lies on the ground. He is stripped to the waist and has five neat bullet holes in his chest. His name is Balachandran Prabakaran and he is the son of the LTTE leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran. He has been executed in cold blood. Beside him lie the bodies of five men, believed to be his bodyguards. There are strips of cloth on the ground indicating that they were tied and blindfolded before they were shot – further evidence suggesting that the Sri Lankan government forces had a systematic policy of executing many surrendering or captured LTTE fighters and leading figures, even if they were children.”

“In one incident, legally significant because it is well documented, two international UN workers leading the last UN overland food convoy became trapped near a temporary hospital in a village primary school in Uddiyakattu, in the first of the government's No Fire Zones.”

“With the help of other civilians they began to dig bunkers to provide some protection from incoming shellfire. As was standard practice, one of the UN workers, an Australian called Peter Mackay, took precise GPS co-ordinates of the site, and these were supplied to the government. But if that had any effect, it was certainly not the desired one. Over the next couple of days the camp was subjected to a massive, sustained barrage of incoming shellfire, much of it falling directly on or near to the UN bunker. Dozens were killed – and many more horrifically injured. It was all photographed by the UN workers.”

“In a sense, it was just one relatively small incident in the ongoing carnage of the war, but it is potentially significant because it provides specific evidence linking the Sri Lankan government's chain of command to knowledge of targeted attacks on civilians – attacks that appear to constitute war crimes.”

“As the barrage continued, the UN workers took turns to stand clear of the bunker where they could get line of sight to make frantic sat-phone calls to the Australian High Commi-ssion and other UN officials in the Sri Lankan capital, Colombo, pleading with them to get the government forces to stop the shelling. They were told these requests were passed on directly to both the then Sri Lankan army chief, General Sarath Fonseka, and the Defence Minister.”

“Shortly after these phone calls, the shelling shifted slightly away from the UN bunkers. But it continued to rain down on the No Fire Zone. In a sworn statement about the incident, Mr Mackay describes how the shelling was re-targeted: "Now the closest shells landed 100 metres from us, indicating that they could control the fire when they wanted to."”

“That is likely to be significant in any future legal proceedings over command responsibility for war crimes because it amounts to specific evidence suggesting the Defence Minister and army chief had now at least a direct knowledge of the shelling of the No Fire Zone, and that while shelling was then ordered away from the actual UN bunkers, it continued to rain down on the No Fire Zone. It also represents evidence that the attacks killing civilians were accurately targeted.”

“In addition to the footage of the boy's dead body lying beside his slaughtered bodyguards, Channel 4 has obtained a series of high-resolution stills of the scene. These have been analysed by a respected forensic pathologist, Professor Derrick Pounder, to assess the cause of death. It is possible, he suggests, that the boy may have been made to watch the execution of his bound and blindfolded guards before the gun was turned on him.”

“Professor Pounder believes he has identified the first of the shots to be fired at the boy: "There is a speckling from propellant tattooing, indicating that the distance of the muzzle of the weapon to this boy's chest was two to three feet or less. He could have reached out with his hand and touched the gun that killed him."”

States debated the draft resolution on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council on Thursday, during an informal session chaired by the US ambassador, Eileen Donahoe.

Rejecting the consultation as a "farce", Sri Lankan officials refused to engage in any dialogue on it.

Whilst alliances such as the European Union, represented by Denmark, and states such as France, the UK, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Switzerland, Hungary, Poland, Germany and Norway welcomed the initiative, states including China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Philippines, Algeria and Egypt on behalf of the states of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) challenged the resolution.

A Geneva based NGO, UN Watch, noted that the heated debate took place with a UN security guard positioned by the entrance.

"There were 102 cases of sexual abuse reported in Jaffna in 2010 and it has increased to 182 in 2011."

“Girls as young as 7-8 years have been being sexually abused in Jaffna and abuse of girls before they reach puberty is very dangerous."

"Recently doctors have conducted one and half hour surgery to save the life of a 12-year old girl who was sexually abused in Delft island." 

"Sexual abuse and violence against women in on the increase but cannot see any deterrent mechanism to prevent children and women being abused this way.”

“allegations of perhaps the most serious war crimes and crimes against humanity committed this century.”

“The England players management, and the journalists following the team will find it difficult to talk openly about these subjects in the country, let alone report them; the country has one of the worst records in the world for press freedom and does not tolerate criticism.”

“This morning they seemed perturbed again when questioned by Jonathan Miller about the allegations of war crimes in Sri Lanka.”

"As I understand it, those investigations by the UN are still on-going, it is certainly not my position here to take a political stance.

"I know yours is a human rights question, but it's my position here not to take a political stance.”

“as a man who made a brave and principled stand he is unlikely not to think long and hard about this issue, and whether England should be touring Sri Lanka at this time.”

Writing  in the Indian Express, Maja Daruwala, director of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, has called on India to assert leadership at the UN Human Rights Council and call for accountability in Sri Lanka.

Extracts have been reproduced below. See the full piece here.

"The time has come for India to be bolder and more confident on human rights at the international level. Its growing stature in international affairs demands this leadership position. The current session of the UN Human Rights Council presents India with an excellent opportunity to move towards a foreign policy that truly befits the world’s largest democracy. It should seize the opportunity and vote in favour of accountability in Sri Lanka."

"Unfortunately, the proposed resolution does not go far enough. It will not immediately call for direly needed international investigations — a bitter disappointment. In this context, the proposed resolution must not preclude future UNHRC efforts that demand justice, accountability and international investigations in Sri Lanka. The resolution should be voted on only as a first step in the right direction, and not as a final step to water down scrutiny or as a tactic to delay urgently needed justice in Sri Lanka."

"From India’s point of view, the resolution is saying nothing that India has not ostensibly been asking of Sri Lanka both publicly and privately — real accountability and soon. A stable, well-governed neighbour is in India’s interest as a regional power. Stability requires that alienated populations experience justice for the past and in the future. Denials, diplomatic spin and cosmetic efforts that paper over past misdeeds cannot achieve this. Today, only a negative peace exists in Sri Lanka."

"India has two other considerations in Sri Lanka — the need to retain its influence in the country as China forges ahead with economic aid and investment, and the need to be sensitive to the aspirations of the Sri Lankan Tamils , who have strong ethnic and kinship links with India’s own 70 million plus population in Tamil Nadu. Support for accountability in Sri Lanka may serve both interests equally well. In the long run, especially as the world’s largest democracy, it is India’s ability to take the moral high ground that will prove to be advantageous against China’s economic influence in Sri Lanka. In the short run, accountability in Sri Lanka will bring justice closer to its disaffected populations."

"India’s response may have been couched in diplomacy, but the message was clear: the Sri Lankan government had to go further and establish an independent and credible mechanism to investigate human rights abuses in timely manner."

"That Sri Lanka wants to keep accountability and international opprobrium at bay is clear from its foreign minister’s recent whistle-stop tour of Africa and Latin America, during which he tried to persuade the world not to vote against Sri Lanka at the UNHRC. As the big fish in the region, India also has the potential to sway votes, as it did in 2009. This time, its stature would be greatly enhanced if it could sway them in favour of accountability." 

"We will not allow any Sri Lankan to be hauled before a war tribunal at any time."

In a joint statement published Wednesday, four leading Tamil diaspora groups working together in Geneva at the 19th session of the UN Human Rights Council - British Tamils Forum (BTF), Canadian Tamil Congress (CTC), Tamil Youth Organisation UK (TYO UK) and US Tamil Political Action Council (USTPAC) - welcomed the draft resolution tabled on Sri Lanka as a "glimpse of hope". 

Full text reproduced below: 

Tamils Welcome the Proposed US Resolution on Sri Lanka

Joint Statement by British Tamils Forum (BTF), Canadian Tamil Congress (CTC), Tamil Youth Organisation UK (TYO UK) and US Tamil Political Action Council (USTPAC)
March 7th, 2012 - Geneva, Switzerland

We welcome the proposed resolution by the Government of the United States of America at the 19th Session of the UN Human Rights Council towards holding all parties to the conflict accountable during the last phases of the war in Sri Lanka. The resolution offers a glimpse of hope for those affected by the conflict and sets in motion appropriate steps that could assist in long term peace and reconciliation in post-war Sri Lanka.

Three years after the end of the bloody civil war, Sri Lanka has failed to establish the necessary preconditions for reconciliation to occur. While the government appointed Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) has been held out as the cornerstone of Sri Lanka’s accountability and reconciliation strategy, it falls short in addressing critical issues of accountability. Sri Lanka has been given the appropriate time and space to offer a path towards peace and reconciliation, but has failed to do so.

Whilst we have serious concerns regarding the independence of the LLRC and its failure to address the credible allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the implementation of the LLRC’s constructive recommendations, as detailed within the tabled resolution and in accordance with the specified timelines, would be a step in the right direction.

The members of the Human Rights Council should seize this opportunity and contribute towards building on the proposed resolution by incorporating the implementation of the Secretary General’s Panel of Expert report into the draft text. British Tamils Forum, Canadian Tamil Congress, Tamil Youth Organisation UK and US Tamil Political Action Council will continue to engage with the international community to ensure that long term peace and stability is attained on the island of Sri Lanka.

The Sri Lankan government organised a series of Buddhist religious poojas across the country on Wednesday, in order to ward off a prospective resolution against Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Ranjith Siyambalapitiya, Deputy Finance Minister, said,

"We have organised simultaneous 'adhistana poojas' today at most leading Buddhist temples."

"We will face the international challenge with determination."

Sri Lanka has rejected a draft resolution tabled at the UN Human Rights Council.

Tamara Kunanayakam, Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, criticised the move by the US.

Ms Kunanayakam said that Sri Lanka is working hard to convince the Human Rights Council to vote against the resolution.

"A lot of work still remains to be done to convince Council Members of the correctness of our position. It is far too early to venture a prognosis," the Ambassador said in an interview.

"What, in fact, are the US trying to tell us with their draft resolution?

"They are not saying that our LLRC report is bad. They are not saying that there are gross and systematic violations of human rights in Sri Lanka. What they are saying is that they don't have confidence that we will implement the recommendations.

"They are judging our intentions, not the ground reality!"

Water Supply Minister Dinesh Gunarwardene said they are confident the resolution will be defeated.

"This resolution is ill-timed, ill-conceived and borne out of ignorance," Gunawardena, who is also the chief government whip in parliament, told reporters.

He accused the US of ignoring Sri Lanka's reconciliation moves.

“The UK sees a political settlement, respect for human rights and accountability for alleged war crimes as being essential elements in post-conflict reconciliation in Sri Lanka.

The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), which was appointed by the Sri Lankan Government to examine events relating to the civil war from 2002 to 2009, published its report on 16 December. We believe the report contains many constructive recommendations for action on post-conflict reconciliation and a political settlement. But we were disappointed by the findings and recommendations on accountability.

We encourage the Sri Lankan Government to move quickly to implement the LLRC report's recommendations.”

As Sri Lanka struggles to fend off a critical resolution at the UN Human Rights Commission, international pressure on Sri Lanka is coalescing on three key demands.

International actors are demanding that Sri Lanka implements reforms to usher in good governance, credibly investigates and prosecutes those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity and finally meets Tamil demands for meaningful self government.

While the substance of these demands is entirely reasonable and plausible, the presumption that Sri Lanka might somehow meet these expectations is not.

For if Sri Lanka really was capable of such enlightened behaviour then why has its post independence history been one of relentlessly escalating ethnic antagonism and brutality, culminating in the bloodbath of May 2009? What explains the ongoing militarised repression of the Tamil speaking regions?

The very need for such overt international insistence on measures that are patently necessary reveals precisely why all such pressure is futile.

The reasonable is impossible

The three key demands made by the international community cannot be met because they all in some way challenge the foundations of the island’s post independence political order; namely a Sinhala first ethnocracy.

The first demand, namely that Sri Lanka takes concrete steps to implement administrative and legal reforms – including some that are set out in the LLRC – is in effect a demand to radically transform the nature of the state.

For if Sri Lanka were to meet this demand it would stop being a centralised, autocratic and ethnically politicised state and become instead an inclusive polity bound by the rule of law in which public authorities delivered a reasonable standard of governance to all citizens regardless of their ethnicity.

Crucially it is only if Sri Lanka can meet this seemingly prosaic first demand for good and ethnically neutral governance would it be able to meet the second two. After all if a state is incapable of implementing the rule of law it would also be incapable of investigating and prosecuting grave allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Similarly if Sri Lanka remains incapable of equitable governance it will also remain incapable of delivering a political solution that would end Sinhala domination over the Tamils.

There is therefore nothing objectionable in the demand that Sri Lanka reforms. If Sri Lanka were to meet this demand it would instantly embark on a path to political stability and prosperity ending decades of ethnic polarization, state violence and economic dysfunction.

The will to power

So while there is nothing objectionable in the substance of international demands, what is objectionable is any easy presumption that Sri Lanka is capable of such reform.

In the words of the political scientist Neil De Votta, Sri Lanka’s current state formation can be described as an ‘illiberal, ethnocratic regime bent on Sinhalese superordination and Tamil subjugation.’ (2004; 6)
The emergence of this violently ethnocratic state formation did not happen by accident. Instead, it has emerged from a long historical process driven by Sinhala Buddhist majoritarianism.

Prof. Mick Moore writing in 1985 states that:

‘The use of state power for the benefit of ordinary Sinhalese has been, and remains, the primary legitimation, implicit or explicit, of all governments elected since 1956 at least, and arguably since 1931.’ (29)

He adds that successive Sri Lankan governments have consistently,

‘..pursued policies which have been designed for, and have largely succeeded in, establishing the symbolic supremacy of the Sinhalese and Buddhism; enforcing the use of Sinhala as the official language; and stripping the various minorities of their privileged positions in public sector employment, commerce and higher education.’ (Ibid)

Furthermore in relation to Sri Lanka’s well established policies of state sponsored colonisation in the Tamil speaking areas, he writes:

‘.. not only have large-scale irrigation schemes intruded Sinhalese settlers into areas formerly occupied mainly by Tamil speakers – Sri Lanka Tamils and Muslims – but this has been the conscious and admitted intention. There is thus a territorial dimension to what has been termed, in relation to Sinhalese political and cultural resurgence, “The Myth of Reconquest.” Land policy, and the ideologies which support it, have in general focused much more on the control of land than on the cultivation or use of land.’ (46).

Understanding refusal

It is not that the Sinhala polity and political establishment have collectively failed to understand the principles of the rule of law, accountability or a condition Tamil Sinhala political equality. These things are clearly understood. Indeed they have been lavishly promoted by donor funded programmes and studies for several decades.

The problem is not one of understanding but one of will. All these good things are clearly understood by the Sinhala polity and its leadership and have been resisted for several decades on the basis of this clear understanding. Everybody knows that establishing the rule of law, accountability for war crimes and political reforms to end Sinhala domination of the Tamils would also effectively end the Sinhala ethnocracy.
The Rajapakse government, the main opposition parties – the UNP and JVP - as well as the vast majority of the Sinhala electorate see nothing wrong in the present state of overwhelming Sinhala military, political and economic domination over the Tamil speaking population.

Quite the reverse, it is the ideal and expected outcome of the Sinhala military’s victory of the LTTE.

Reason and force

Rajapakse’s apparent solid grip on power has on occasion been challenged by vociferous protests in the Sinhala areas that at times have successfully overturned specific economic or fiscal decisions. In May last year for example the government’s plans to reform garment workers’ pension entitlements were overturned by sustained protests.

In contrast, Rajapakse’s concerted efforts to violently impose a Sinhala first political and economic order in the Tamil speaking areas has consistently won at least tacit approval and more usually enthusiastic support from the Sinhala electorate and the main opposition Sinhala parties.

It is for this reason that the international community’s exhortations will be entirely futile unless backed with the possibility of enforcing change from without.

In the decades since independence Sri Lanka has effectively become a state that exists to secure the domination of the Sinhala people. It will take more than international exhortation alone to overturn this historically established and entrenched reality.

References:

Neil De Votta (2004), Blowback: Linguistic Nationalism, Institutional Decay and Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka. Stanford, Stanford University Press

Mick Moore (1985), The State and Peasant Politics in Sri Lanka. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

"Regarding other parts of the world, I have once again been alerted that should human rights defenders in Sri Lanka seek the protection of my mandate, they, their families and colleagues may be subject to reprisals. This ongoing situation, combined with smear campaigns against defenders in national media, is of great concern to me."

"Legislative moves and increased enforcement of existing laws have led to increased criminalization of human rights work in different countries. This is an issue of great concern, which I will look closely into and raise awareness about this year."