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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sri Lankan government reacted angrily, denying the allegation.

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

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

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

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

The next day Fonseka appeared to qualify his statements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consider the latest piece of propagandistic spin emerging from the Sri Lankan government after the just-ended Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Trinidad and Tobago. Ever since 2007, the GoSL had been lobbying Commonwealth countries for Sri Lanka to be designated as the host of the next CHOGM in 2011. Heading to Trinidad, Sri Lanka's diplomats had the wind at their backs after, earlier this year, marshaling the votes in the UN Human Rights Council to transform a condemnatory resolution into a resolution that in effect praised GoSL.

In the result, Sri Lanka emerged as a future host, but for 2013 not 2011. To judge by GoSL's version of events, the UK and Prime Minister Gordon Brown was Sri Lanka's biggest ally. In a November 30 media release entitled "Britain proposes Sri Lanka to host CHOGM 2013," the Sri Lanka Ministry of Foreign Affairs reports as follows: "Since Australia and Mauritius had also offered to be host, [UK] Prime Minister (Gordon) Brown had pointed out that all three countries are equally qualified and it was decided by the Commonwealth Heads of Government that they host the 2011 and 2015 CHOGMs respectively. The endorsement of Sri Lanka by the entire membership of the Commonwealth singularly demonstrates the recognition of Sri Lanka's adherence to the Commonwealth values and principles with the country being one of the most vibrant democracies."

Has the world's triumph-over-terror poster boy pulled off another victory akin to that at the UN Human Rights Council, in the process compromising the integrity of the British Prime Minister? Only, it turns out, if you live in 1984 and not 2009. For the truth is that Gordon Brown was far from Sri Lanka's patron saint in Trinidad.

On the eve of the conference, the UK made clear that it opposed the 2011 CHOGM taking place in Sri Lanka. On November 27, The Times of London reported two senior UK diplomatic sources as saying, in tandem: "(T)he UK will not support a Sri Lankan bid. Their conduct of their military campaign ...had a massive impact on the civilian population (and) was rightly condemned around the world...At the time, the Prime Minister urged President Rajapaksa to ensure further suffering was minimised and that the UN had full access to those affected and displaced by the conflict. ...(A) clear consequence of what happened earlier this year is that we are not in a position to support a bid by Sri Lanka to host CHOGM. We want the next host to reflect the full range of Commonwealth values - and particularly respect for human rights. As it stands, 150,000 internally displaced persons remain in closed camps. We are urging the Sri Lankan government to allow them freedom of movement. The Prime Minister has real concerns about Sri Lanka's bid. We simply cannot be in a position where Sri Lanka ... is seen to be rewarded for its actions."

According to the Guardian, Mr. Brown persuaded Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to join Britain in taking a stand. The Brown-Harper strategy was clearly stick (no to 2011) followed by carrot (2013). At the end of the CHOGM on November 29, Prime Minister Harper held a news conference at which he focused on the future. He presented the awarding of the 2013 CHOGM to Sri Lanka as an incentive for Sri Lanka to do right: "[2013] should give Sri Lanka plenty of time to get on a path towards genuine political reconciliation and broad-based multi-ethnic participation in their democracy. I think we all understand Sri Lanka has had enormous challenges with security and the civil war..., but at the same time there are deeper issues of political division, of political estrangement, of estrangement from the political system, of ethnic division that the government of Sri Lanka is going to have to address, if it wants to move forward in a positive direction."

Against this reality, GoSL has the temerity both to make it look like Gordon Brown was lauding its record and to claim the UK was in effect sponsoring Sri Lanka's candidacy. In the weeks, months and, indeed, years ahead, Sri Lanka's government must begin to earn the trust of both its citizens and the international community by relegating this kind of shameless truth-distorting conduct to the past, if the agenda described by Mr. Harper is to have any chance. But we can expect little to change without the blend of external pressure and watchfulness we saw in Port of Spain.

As such, the Commonwealth should follow both the moral example of Mr. Brown and the logic of Mr. Harper's soft, but clear, ultimatum. If, by the time of the 2011 CHOGM in Australia, trendlines point to 2013 likely to be remaining 1984 in Sri Lanka, then Canada and other Commonwealth member states must decide to withdraw the government of Sri Lanka's unearned privilege of hosting the 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government.

Craig Scott is Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, and Director of the Nathanson Centre on Transnational Human Rights, Crime and Security, York University (Toronto). He is also a member of the Council of Advisors to the Campaign for Peace and Justice in Sri Lanka.

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

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

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

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

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

As a growing number of Tamils take to rickety boats and risk death to flee Sri Lanka, international observers have raised concerns about the lack of international concern shown for these people and the factors that drive them out of the country. 

The international community should be more involved in finding a safe home for Sri Lanka's Tamils says Irene Khan, the secretary-general of Amnesty International, the London-based human rights group.

"These people are in search of protection, the international community is doing very little," she told Al Jazeera.

"There isn't any resettlement of refugees taking place, refugee protection is very weak and, therefore, people are taking the situation into their own hands to desperately find a place where they can have safety.

"It is not people smuggling. I would call it a flow of asylum-seekers."

According to Khan, asylum seeking is a growing trend.

"The numbers of people seeking asylum are going up precisely at a time when borders are closing, which creates a very serious humanitarian situation," she said.

"For example, these people on rickety boats are putting their lives at risk to find safety. If they are not rescued at sea many of the boats will flood, if they are rescued at sea, they are then stranded as a lot of bargaining goes on as to where people can be disembarked."

Khan said the Australian authorities should speed up the processing of refugees for resettlement in the country and increase the number.

"There is a lot of fear and negative propaganda about refugees and asylum-seekers - that these are people looking for a better life, when really, in effect, they are fleeing to save their lives," she said.

"There has to be a change in public opinion. Political leaders, and governments in particular, need to take charge to change the way in which refugees and asylum seekers are viewed - these are desperate people in need of protection and it should be provided to them."

Chris Lom, a regional spokesman for the International Organisation for Migration, repeated these views.

"Sri Lanka has been going through a very bad period over the last 30 years of conflict that has impacted the economy quite seriously,” he told Al Jazeera.

"Consequently, not only have there been a diaspora of Sri Lankans travelling to other countries around the world, but there's also been a fundamental lack of jobs and lack of economic growth that, we hope, will come to an end with the end of the civil war earlier this year."

In contrast to Khan, who says this is not a case of people being smuggled but a case of flow of refugees, Lom believes "this is a mixed flow of genuine refugees and economic migrants who are coming for a variety of reasons, but primarily economic reasons such as finding better jobs; supporting their families; getting better education for their children - which are all things they expect to find in Australia.

"But what they don't necessarily take into account when coming to that decision is that the streets of industrialised countries are not necessarily paved with gold and that they are probably taking serious risks by putting their lives in the hands of people smugglers".

At least 9,612 Sri Lankans applied for asylum in developed countries last year.

However, they are part of a far wider problem. The UN says more than 839,000 people worldwide went through legal channels to gain refugee status in 2008.

By contrast, an estimated four million migrants resorted to smugglers and traffickers, according to AI.

In Asia-Pacific, Australia is a prime destination for asylum-seekers - at least 13,000 refugees from across the world re-settled in the country last year.

That is an increase from just over 10,000 in 2007 - owing to conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Sri Lanka.

More than 4500 asylum-seekers arrived by air and were granted temporary status, which allowed them to live in the community while their applications were processed - compared to 161 people who reached Australia by boat.

Immigration figures suggest "boat people" are the ones with more genuine claims to refugee status. But in the period their claims are under consideration, they are kept in detention.

The Norwegian Council of Eelam Tamils (NCET) attracted enough number of participants in the poll that took place Sunday November 15 in 16 centres of the different regions of Norway, in which 2767 voters turned out to elect 5 members under a national list and 10 under regional lists.

Noticeable of the results was Mr. Bjønar Moxnes topping the national list polling 1864 votes. Mr. Vijayshankar from Tamil Nadu is elected to the Council topping the list of Western Region.

Considering the electoral history of Eelam Tamils, who have hitherto been imposed with constitutions and were voting in elections conducted by others, this is their first ever country-wide elections, conducted by them on their own, to form a political body of their own, based on their own constitution. The eight-member Election Commission performed the task with professional perfection, observers said.

The five members elected under the national list were Bjønar Moxnes with 1864 votes, Panchakulasingam Kandiah with 1767 votes, Jeyasri Balasubramaniam with 1483 votes, Athithan Kumarasamy with 1287votes and Tharmaseelan Tharmalingam with 1243 votes.

Under the regional list, the ten members elected were Sivaganesh Vadivelu, Rajendhram Ponnuthurai, Sivarajah Vallipuram, Kannan Nagendram, Mary Florida Judin Francis, Rajaratnam Veluppillai, Rasakumar Kumarasamy, Vijayshankar Asokan, D. Reggie and Ruben Ayathurai.

Participation of non Eelam Tamils in the elections for the cause of Eelam Tamils is an encouraging phenomenon, as any democratic struggle addressing ‘state fundamentalism’ has to be waged internationally, inside each and every state of today, commented Tamil circles in Norway.

Meanwhile, institutions of Eelam Tamils functioning in Norway elected five members to the second chamber, House of Eelam Institutions in Norway. At the polls which took place on November 8, Kailainathan Ambalavanathan, Luxshjeha Sri, Nirmalan Selvarajah, Suthakar Kumarasamy and Varaluxmy Vasanthan were elected.

The constitution requires minimum 30 percent Eelam-Tamil voter turnout for any decisions on it, which has been accomplished in the present elections. The number of voters of the origin of the island of Sri Lanka including Sinhalese, obtained from Statistics Norway, is 8772.

The estimation is that the polling centres roughly covered 74 percent of the voting population, i.e., 6512 voters and the voter turn out was roughly 43 percent.

In a press statement released before the polls, Prof. Ilango Balasingam, a member of the Election Commission, said that it is the first time a Tamil diaspora body is being formed through country-wide democratic elections and he was hopeful that the efforts would set an example for the global organisation of Eelam Tamil polity.

Nine candidates contested for the five seats of the national list and 28 candidates entered the fray for the 10 seats under the regional list. Three native Norwegians and one Tamil of Tamil Nadu were among those who contested for the seats.

The NCET constitution, while permitting vote only to people of Eelam Tamil descent above 16, allows even others to be elected provided they accept the principle of the Council advocating independent and sovereign Tamil Eelam in the island of Sri Lanka.

Another feature of the candidates list was that many of them are highly educated professionals in various walks of life. Seven on the list were women, eight were under 35 and two over 60.

5574 voters said yes to Vaddukkoaddai Resolution in May 2009. The Council is now formed based on the principle of this resolution. Roughly 50 percent of the number that stood for the principle now participated in the electoral process.

More than 50 percent of the number of voters, who said yes to the Vaddukkoaddai Resolution have participated in the formation of NCET in all the regions of Norway, except in the Western Region (Bergen). The voter turn out was also less than 30 percent in Bergen.

While the historic exercise of the election goes on record and the Council has now come into effect through a totally peaceful ballot, the reactions the efforts faced directly and indirectly, from inside and outside of the society, also go on record.

Eelam Tamil diaspora all over the world, aspiring organisation of its own polity, has to carefully make its own judgements by deducing motives behind personalities, sections of media operating in the diaspora and imperceptible approaches of powers to certain exerting sections of the society - all that caused a political discourse in the last couple of months about the formation of the Council, commented political observers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amnesty International has written to the Commonwealth heads of state, drawing attention to the human rights violations in Sri Lanka and urging them to raise their concerns about these with their Sri Lankan counterparts.

The letter also encourages them to support the calls for “greater accountability for abuses of human rights”.

The letter was written as the heads of commonwealth countries gathered at the Commonwealth Heads of Government (CHOGM) meeting at the Port of Spain in Trinidad & Tobago.

“In particular, we wish to alert you to continuing serious problems affecting the safety and dignity of Sri Lankans displaced by armed conflict,” the letter said.

It goes on to describe the situation in Sri Lanka, since the end of the war and describes the various violations of the liberty of the Tamil civilians that have allegedly been carried out by the Sri Lankan Government.

“...six months after the end of the war, Sri Lanka continues to confine people who fled fighting in closed displacement camps in uncomfortable and sometimes hazardous conditions,” the letter says.

“Camp shelters have deteriorated as Sri Lanka has entered the rainy season, and the UN reports that funds for shelter repair are running out,” the letter notes.

The London-based NGO also describes its own “Unlock the Camps” global campaign, which aims to end the arbitrary detention of the Tamil people.

The letter sets out the conditions of restricted movement for the people remaining in the camps.

“The camps remain military in nature. The military controls all decision-making related to management of the camps and the fate of displaced people in those camps; the military severely restricts the residents from leaving the premises even to seek medical care, and denies the displaced population basic legal safeguards,” the letter said.

Citing the widespread government reports that people have been released from the camps, Amnesty International raises its concerns.

“Amnesty International has received reports that displaced people have been subjected to rescreening by local authorities to determine whether they had links to the Liberation Tigers,” the letter said.

“There are also reports that some people who have been released, have been denied necessary documents to ensure that they are safe from re-arrest,” Amnesty noted.

“The Sri Lankan government has prevented humanitarian organizations from talking to displaced persons, and obstructed their ability to conduct crucial human rights protections activities, such as providing legal aid or assisting with family reunification,” the letter notes.

The letters also raises concerns about the screening process set up to identify Tiger cadres from among the detainees.

“Amnesty International has received repeated, credible reports from humanitarian workers about the lack of transparency and accountability in the screening process, which is conducted outside of any legal framework and the increased dangers to detainees when they are held incommunicado,” said the letter.

The letter raises the need for investigations into war crimes committed by both sides during the conflict. It also raises concerns about the Sri Lankan government’s attacks on critics and the continuing reliance on special security legislation.

“Special security legislation ... remains in place and grants extraordinary powers to the authorities to arbitrarily arrest and detain individuals almost indefinitely,” the letter notes.

It points to the “chilling” effect on freedom of expression the targeting of journalists, lawyers, witnesses and human rights defenders.

Amnesty International ended the letter by arguing that the Heads of Government should use this meeting as an opportunity to discuss this situation with their Sri Lankan counterparts and convince them to address the “urgent concerns” brought up.

Saying that the “time to act” is now, the letter concludes by calling on the CHOGM representatives to act on these concerns and encourage Sri Lanka to restore liberty, allow access and end arbitrary detention. It also calls for their support in ensuring accountability and accomplishing the needed reforms, including bringing about an international mandate for investigations and prosecution. 

The scars in Kumar’s hands are zipped-up wounds. Though the flesh is repaired, the marks are alive. You could almost reach out and open them, see the blood trickle out softly to tell a story.

He moves in the kitchen like a predatory tiger: swift, hungry and unnoticeable. I worked with him years ago in a tiny-but-charming restaurant in Toronto, where his performance was formidable: quick-tempered and precise.

He used to address my co-workers in confident broken English, and if you didn’t understand his machine gun of words, you were asked, “Do you speak English?!” He came from Russia. From England. From Sri Lanka.

I later learned that he owned the place. He was 26 years old. Kumar* began his work in the kitchen before he knew what onion was in English. To him, cooking knows no language, anyway. It’s all movement and instinct.

One day, while I was waiting on a dish he was cooking, I asked him where his scars came from. I waited for small stories; wounds acquired in the kitchen.

“From the war. Oh, and refugee camp.” He brought a calendar to work one day. It had lovely, balletic Tamil lettering and a group picture of scowling army soldiers in full military

regalia.

There’s an eerie feeling about their collective expression, quite implacable.

He proceeded to show me a community newspaper. Casualties littered the pages, but none of the images were as concrete as the last page, that of a Tamil family lying scattered in a raided house. There was blood everywhere, but that was no longer unusual.

The story was in the mother’s skirt: blood below the waist, confined.

Kumar asked me to imagine the soldiers in the calendar, their lives after the camera flashed. He said he forgot most times, but the slightest ponderous gaze in the distance charged his face.

The calendar, he later told me, commemorated the lives of suicide bombers.

An August 2006 BBC headline, “Dispute over Sri Lanka air raids,” hinted at the two disagreeing sides of the story, but the verified facts painted the picture with frightening clarity:

planes roaring over the heads of teenage girls, about to explode inside an orphanage.

BBC admitted the difficulty in reporting the truth about the Sri Lankan civil war.

"Lots of the worst things that happen go on well away from the eyes of independent journalists,” BBC’s South Asian editor, Bernard Gabony, stated. “In other words, a lot of lying goes on, but unless you have the proof of who is lying, all you can do is report what the different sides say.”

Kumar’s friend, Siva*, 33, had one such story. When he was 16 or 17, Siva went to school at St. Patrick’s College in Jaffna, taking shelter under a tree when he heard the all-too-familiar roaring plane overhead, felt the tremor of the blast and saw the dust, rising. A few kilometers away, people ran to take cover inside St. Joseph church, thinking it a godly shield.

But this time, the air raid didn’t target a school. The pilot of the plane could see where the people were taking cover. The sacrilegious bomb found them there.

And the caved walls of St. Joseph church became flesh.

Instinct told survivors to run, lest they find themselves eclipsed by a creeping airborne shadow-bearing fire. A stronger instinct told them to dig.

“There was no time to be emotional. Your brain tells you to find people who are still alive,” Siva said.

Passing vehicles took those injured by flying debris to the nearby hospitals. Siva? He shoveled dead bodies into a truck.

When he was 17, Siva, would disappear for days, not out of teenage rebellion but out of the government’s fear that he was connected to the Tamil Tigers, a declared terrorist organization, according to the Stephen Harper government back in 2006. If Siva was connected to the Tamil Tigers, the Sri Lankan government wanted to know.

The military took him, blindfolded and hands tied, to a remote place two to three hours away. There, they fed him gruel. “Sometimes I’d find a rusty nail in it,” he said.

But that was the least of his worries.

The interrogations were the main event. They would involve a bowl of boiled chilli pepper and, later, a bucket of gasoline.

“They make you breathe it,” Siva recalled. “My eyes and throat burned from the chilli, and the gasoline made me pass out, but not for long. They hit me to wake me up, then they continued with the questions.”

Siva’s mother, who made only 3,000 rupees a month, was extorted 50,000 rupees in exchange for her son’s freedom. “My mother had to sell our land to pay them off,” said Siva.

After two incidences of these days-long questionings without a warrant, Siva ran away to Batticaloa to live with his uncle, then to Colombo, then to Canada.

Siva told me the worst stories. “I know someone who almost died,” he said, adding that these kinds of torture happened on a regular basis in Sri Lanka during the civil war.

“They hung my cousin Kamma* from his thumbs, with just his toes touching the floor. Then they hung him upside down from one ankle and beat him with PVC pipes filled with sand,” Siva continued.

 “They do that so that you don’t get scars. You just bleed inside.” Kamma was hospitalized for three months and, to this day, still gets chest and back pain from the beating.

When asked about the validity of these claims of torture by the Sri Lankan government to the Tamil people, Toronto consulate general of Sri Lanka Bandula Jayasekara defended

his country.

“I deny these claims,” Jayasekara told Excalibur. “People can say anything.

They can show scars, but that’s not a solid proof. They could’ve gotten that anywhere.” Jayasekara said that, with the civil war ending last May, there is now peace in Sri Lanka.       “We have defeated the rebels, and child soldiers are now being rehabilitated. It’s now safe there.”

Jayasekara further emphasized the optimism he has for achieving unity between the two ethnic groups, and ensured that Tamil-Canadians will be met with equality if they decide

to go back to Sri Lanka.

“I don’t like saying ‘Sinhalese’ and ‘Tamils,’” he added. “We’re all Sri Lankans. We have to move forward. We need to forgive and forget.”

Some Tamils in the York community are not as optimistic as their consulate general. Vithu Raman, president of the York University Tamil Students Association, told Excalibur about his hesitation to go back to Sri Lanka, even now that the civil war is over.

“When a Tamil activist goes back, anything can happen. I feel terrified,” said Raman.

Raman further stated that, though the violence between the government and the rebels is over, the cause of the conflict is far from resolved. “I would love to hope that there would be peace now, but displaced victims of the war will be resettled away from their original homes and still stripped of rights,” he said.

“I think it’s going to take decades because the problems are not solved. Until all the voices in the country are heard, true peace can’t be achieved.”

*Names have been changed to protect identity  

Factors affecting my retirement from the regular force of the Army

1. Various agencies misleading Your Excellency by stating a possible coup immediately after the victory over the LTTE which obviously led to a change of command in spite of my request to be in command until the Army celebrated its 60th Anniversary. This fear psychosis of a coup is well known among the defence circle.

2. Appointing an officer pending a disciplinary inquiry who performed duties only as a holding formation commander in the final battle as my successor, disregarding my recommendations to appoint Major General G A Chandrasiri as the Commander of the Army who was the then Chief of Staff and an officer with an exemplary service as the Security Forces Commander in Jaffna for over 3 years. This has already led to a deterioration of the high standards I was capable of introducing to the Army, to my bitter disappointment.

3. Appointing me as the Chief of Defence Staff, though a senior appointment to that of a service commander, with basically no authority, except for mere coordinating responsibilities in a manner which mislead the general public of the country and most members of the Armed Forces. In that the Secretary Defence pushing me to vacate the post of the Commander in just two weeks after the victory and Your Excellency insisting me to hand over duties in less than two months depriving me of my moral obligations in revamping the welfare and providing a sound administration to the men who fought a gallant battle. Due to this action you also denied me of my desire to streamline the career planning of Common Stream Officers whom I wanted to ensure that they are given with career prospects of becoming experts/specialist in their fields.

4. Further, prior to my appointment I was misled on the authority vested with the CDS. I was made to understand that the appointment carried more command responsibilities and authority than earlier over all three services, but subsequent to my appointment a letter by the Strategic Affairs Adviser to the Secretary Defence indicated that my appointment was purely to coordinate the services and not that of overall operational command. The letter is attached herewith for Your Excellency's information. Such actions clearly defines Your Excellency's and the Governments unwillingness to grant me with command responsibilities which leads to believe in a strong mistrust in me, which is most depressing after all what was performed by me to achieve war victory.

5. During a subsequent Service Commanders Meeting, the Secretary Defence was bold enough to state an unethical and uncalled statement by mentioning that "if operational control of all three services is granted to the CDS it would be very dangerous", which indeed was a loss of face to me in the presences of subordinate services commanders.

6. Your Excellency, you too made a statement at the very first security council soon after the 18th of May 09 when the battled was declared over, to the extent that "a strong public opinion is in the making to say that the Country is in possession of a too powerful army, which will lead Sri Lanka to another State like that of Myanmar". It was surprising to hear such a comment from Your Excellency in spite of your repeated praise and boast of the war victory brought about by the same Army. I personally felt that Your Excellency has commenced mistrusting your own loyal Army which attained the unimaginable victory just a week ago. You again repeated the same statement even after I handed over the command. Over these comments I felt disgusted as these comments indirectly insulted those who made the supreme sacrifice during the war victory.

7. The present Army Commander immediately on assuming duties commenced transferring senior officers who immensely contributed to the war effort during my command tenure including those junior officers working with my wife at the Seva Vanitha Army Branch which was involved in looking after the welfare of the troops, was clearly to challenge the loyalty of officers and most discouraging to the officer corps of the Army, with a wrong signal being transmitted on my authority.

8. Your Excellency, I wish to remind you that whilst the Eelam War IV was being fought I repeatedly requested to increase the compensation paid to those Next of Kin of the officers and men killed in action from Rs.150,000.00 which was the amount sanctioned in year 1985, to Rs.500,000.00 as the approved amount is grossly insufficient in the present context. This request was not considered favourably thereby I feel extremely guilty that the Army and the Government at large has not looked into the welfare of those who paid the supreme sacrifice.

9. With a pain of mind it was noted that the same Army which gained victory for the Nation was suspected of staging a coup and thereby alerting the Government of India once again on the 15th of October 2009, unnecessarily placing the Indian Troops on high alert. This action did tarnish the image and reputation gained by the Sri Lanka Army as a competent and professional organization who was capable of defeating a terrorist group after the Malayan Emergency, in the eyes of the World. This suspicion would have been due to the loyalty of the Sri Lanka Army towards me as its past Commander who led the Army to the historic victory.

10. During my absences from the Country (23 Oct 2009 to 5 Nov 2009) being on overseas leave, the Army Headquarters was bold enough to change the security personnel deployed at the AHQ Main Entrance and the Ministry of Defence emphasizing the withdrawal of the Sinha Regiment troops who were attached to me, as you are aware is my parent regiment and supplementing them with other regimental personnel. The Sinha Regiment troops were good enough to provide security to the Ministry of Defence for 4 years and it is surprising to note how the combat efficiency of the said troops supposed to have dropped overnight as per Secretary Defence's opinion.

Further the Sinha Regiment troops numbering a mere 4, non combatants, deployed for vehicle checking duties at the AHQ Main Entrance, were replaced by 14 armed Armoured Corps personnel, whilst a further two platoons were brought in to prevent the 4 non combat Sinha Regiment personnel performing duties, creating a mockery to the general public. This clearly indicates a questionable loyalty of troops good enough for duties for over four years purely due to the fact that the troops were from my Regiment. This also indirectly reflects mistrust on me or an indication that the persons concern wish to keep a tab on my movements and visitors to my HQ/residence which is a clear display of suspicion created on me.

11. Further on instructions of the Secretary Defence, troops from the Gajaba Regiment was brought in to the MOD complex to remove the Sinha Regiment troops which indicated the creation of divided loyalty within the Army and reasons to believe that the Army now being politicized. This is being encouraged by the Army Commander too who thinks that the Armoured Corp troops should over power Sinha Regiment troops again in the Army HQ complex which includes my office and residence.

12. Instigating malicious and detrimental news items and rumors by interested parties including several senior government politicians which led to identify me as a traitor in spite of my personal contribution of the government to change the history of our country.

13. It is with pain of mind that I note that the ordinary Army which I toiled to transform into a highly professional outfit is now losing its way. Increased desertions, lack of enthusiasm to enlist (A drop in enlistment rate by 50% is recorded), disciplinary problems on advocating divided commands indicates an unprofessional organization in the offing. During the last two months the members deserted are higher than the recruitment.

14. Resettlement process of the IDPs was also a point of concern. The IDPs are resettled in an ad hoc manner without proper infrastructure facilities to the dismay of most inmates. The Government has resorted to this course of action merely refusing to incur an additional expense for the betterment of the IDPs. This is indeed a short term remedy to get rid of the IDP issue. I strongly advocated that the resettlement should commence only after proper demining, providing necessary infrastructure facilities and on confirming of the identity of any infiltrated terrorists, thereby ensuring 100% safety and security to the younger generations among IDPs.

15. The conditions in the IDP centers is also a point of great concern to me. Thousands of valiant soldiers including members of the Navy, Air Force, Police and the Civil Defence Force sacrificed their valuable lives to liberate these unfortunate civilians from the brutality and tyranny of the LTTE in order that they could live in an environment of freedom and democracy. Yet, today many of them are continuing to live in appalling conditions due to the lack of proper planning and the reluctance to incur expenditure on the part of the Government.

16. The troop requirement for the resettlement is grossly insufficient and cannot sustain the demanding needs in the resettled areas, thus placing the innocent people in turmoil. Your Excellency's government is yet to win the peace in spite of the fact that the Army under my leadership won the war. There is no clear policy to ensure the security of the Tamil people thereby leaving room to ruin the victory attained, paving the way for yet another uprising in the future due to lack of security arrangements in the resettled areas.

17. Sri Lanka Army ensured the safe custody of approximately 10,000 surrendered LTTE cadres. But it is regrettably noted that so far no constructive action has been taken to methodically rehabilitate them in order to ensure that they get back to the society as properly rehabilitated law abiding citizens.”

General Sarath Fonseka, Sri Lanka Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), sent his letter of resignation to the Sri Lankan President, Mahinda Rajapakse on November 12. His letter was accompanied by a 17 point Annex setting out the factors that led to his resignation.

These factors included his dissatisfaction at being stripped of his position as Army Chief to be appointed CDS with fewer powers and responsibilities, as well the government allegedly putting Indian troops on high alert about the possibility of a coup in Sri Lanka.

The body of his letter, as published in the Sri Lankan Guardian, is reproduced below. The annex is reproduced separately on this page.:

Request to retire from the regular force of the Sri Lanka Army

1. I, General G S C Fonseka RWP RSP VSV USP rcds psc presently serving as the Chief of Defence Staff, was enlisted to the Ceylon Army on 05th Feb 1970 and was commissioned on the 01st June 1971. On the 6th Dec 2005 due to the trust and confidence placed on me, Your Excellency was kind enough to promote me to the rank of Lieutenant General and appoint me as the Commander of the Sri Lanka Army in an era when the Country was embroiled with the menace of terrorism and was in a stalemate state after having toiled for a solution politically or otherwise for over 25 years without a success.

2. During my command of 3 years and 7 months, the Sri Lanka Army managed to eradicate the terrorist movement having apprehended an unbelievable stock of arms and munitions and decisively defeating the LTTE and its murderous leadership which Your Excellency is obviously aware of. I would not be exaggerating to state that I was instrumental in leading the Army to this historic victory, of course with Your Excellency's political support, which helped to materialize this heroic action. Though the field commanders, men and all members of the Army worked towards this common goal, it is with my vision, command and leadership that this yeomen task was achieved. I was determined to achieve this victory as I wanted to ensure that there is permanent peace and security for the future generation of the motherland.

3. I do appreciate the fact that the Country and Your Excellency did recognize my services which led to me being promoted to the first ever serving four star general to command the Army, nevertheless the courses of action which initiated subsequently greatly depressed me which I have enumerated in the Annex hereto.

4. Considering the facts mentioned in the Annex and more which I am privy to withhold, I am compelled to believe that Your Excellency and the Government has lost your trust and faith bestowed upon me for reasons only known to Your Excellency. Hence as the senior most serving military officer in the Country with 40 years of service, such a situation does not warrant a continuation of my duties any longer, thereby I have the honour to request that I be permitted to retire from the Regular Force of the Army with effect from 01st December 2009.

5. Furthermore I have the honour to request that on retirement Your Excellency would be kind enough to grant me sufficient security which includes trained combat soldiers, a suitable vehicle with sufficient protection (Bullet proof), escort vehicles and dummy vehicles for my conveyances due to the fact that I am considered as one of the highest priority targets by the LTTE, which they are yet capable of achieving. Also, I wish to bring to Your Excellency's kind notice that over 100 men, six escort vehicles and a bullet proof vehicle have been placed at the convenience of the former Commander of the Navy who recently retired. Your Excellency, I do further request that a suitable protected government resident be made available for me to live in. Also it is requested that approval be granted for me to continue occupation of the present official residence of the Commander of the Army - "The General's House" in Bahudhaloka Mawatha until I am provided with a suitable married quarter. I presume that such arrangements would be made available to me, considering the threat factor I am facing, which Your Excellency is well aware of.

6. I would also wish to quote an example in the case of the former Indian Chief of Army Staff General A S Vadiya, instrumental in leading the Indian Army in Operation Blue Star against the Sheiks at the Golden Temple, Amristar in 1984, was assassinated whilst on retirement in 1986 purely in revenge of his victories achieved. I do not wish to experience a similar incident as I have already sustained serious injuries after the attempt on my life by a suicide cadre of the LTTE, in spite of I being injured twice previously during military operations. Though during the operations I conducted myself in a daring manner disregarding threats to my life, on conclusion of the war I have absolutely no intention to endanger my life. Thereby, I am compelled to entrust you with my security which is requested for life.

7. Furthermore, I would like to emphasis on a statement made by me during my tenure as the Commander of the Army. In that, I mentioned my dislike to be in command forever and also I would ensure that my successor would not be burdened with the task of fighting the same war, which I abided with. Hence, as I have already overstayed my retirement date by 4 years, I wish to proceed on retirement without further delays.

8. Forwarded for Your Excellency's kind consideration please.

A Tamil Canadian protester chokes back tears as she recalls a cellphone conversation she had several days ago with a cousin detained in a Sri Lankan camp holding Tamils displaced during the country's civil war.

"She doesn't know where her husband is. Her children have had no school for the past six months. There is no food or medication," said Uthayakumary Prapaharan, one of the roughly 600 people who gathered Saturday (November 21) to protest in front of the Sri Lankan consulate.

Prapaharan, a native of Sri Lanka who has lived in Canada for 23 years, said more than 60 of her relatives have spent time in the camps since the civil war ended in May.

"Some of my relatives have left the camps, so we know they are alive," said Prapaharan.

"Some are lost or have died already. But about 20 of my cousins and their kids are still inside the camps."

Tamil Canadians and their supporters, including Liberal MP Bob Rae and NDP Leader Jack Layton, expressed skepticism at Saturday's rally over the promises by Sri Lanka to not only allow the refugees to leave the camps but also to resettle the displaced Tamils.

"They are allowing some people to leave, but there's a question of where they are going," said Rae.

"There is a lot of talk of people being allowed to leave the big camp but there is a question of where they are being moved to and where they are being allowed to settle."

The rally included repeated calls for non-governmental organizations and independent news media to be allowed into the camps.

"International observers don't really have full access to the camps, so we can't know for sure what's going on. That has to change," said Layton.

"The Canadian government has to insist that international observers be permitted."

So far, information has been sketchy.

"We only know a little bit through people who have been allowed to visit their relatives," said Ranjan Sri Ranjan, president of the Canadian Tamil Congress, which represents roughly 300,000 Tamils living in Canada.

"Even then, the people cannot touch their relatives. They have to stand behind barbed-wire fences and talk from several feet away."

The turnout was smaller than the 2,000 protesters anticipated by organizers. It was also a fraction of the up to 4,000 who stopped traffic on University Ave. in March.

"A lot of people are disillusioned. They don't know what to do," said Raj Thavaratnasingham, a member of Canadians Concerned About Sri Lanka, one of the organizers of the event.

"I have talked to so many people who are upset that nothing is happening to change things."

(Edited)

General Sarath Fonseka resigned from the Sri Lankan Army on November 12, and in doing so, fuelled speculation that he intends to run for President at the next election.

Officially stepping down from his post on November 16, Fonseka said he would announce his decision on whether to enter politics soon.

“I gave my retirement papers,” Gen. Fonseka told the media at a Buddhist temple at Keliniya on the outskirts of Colombo in the evening after sending in his resignation letter.

“I have been serving my country in the past and I will serve the country in future as well.”

Asked whether he would join politics, the General said: “I can’t comment as I am still in uniform. I will decide my future once my retirement comes into effect.”

Soon after signing the official document to quit as Sri Lanka's top military officer, he repeated his statement.

"I expect to announce my future steps in two or three days. I will be serving the country in the future," he said.

“He is certainly entering politics. It is an irreversible process for him now," Sumanasiri Liyanage, a political science professor at the University of Peradeniya, told AFP.

“For the first time in 15 years, political developments have unfolded that threaten the dominance of Sri Lanka’s ruling party, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party,” reported The National newspaper. 

“Mr Rajapakse has until now faced little serious resistance from an opposition that has struggled to find ways of countering him. But this political hegemony has shown unprecedented cracks with the emergence of a new leader for opposition forces to rally around,” the paper commented.

Fonseka is widely credited to be one of the three players in defeating the LTTE, along with Mahinda Rajapakse, and Gotabaya Rajapakse, Ashok Mehta, a political analyst who once led the Indian peacekeeping forces in Sri Lanka, told Al Jazeera.

If he decides to run for president, Fonseka could split Rajapakse’s voter base by giving voters another contender who also represents winning the war, said analysts.

The incumbent president had been expected to capitalise on the defeat of the LTTE and announce a quick poll.

At his Sri Lanka Freedom Party's annual convention, Rajapakse, said only that he would decide "in due course" after more than 100,000 party stalwarts urged him to call the presidential poll before the parliamentary elections due in April 2010.

Human rights activists have condemned the conduct of the last days of the war, alleging gross abuses of human rights and the commission of war crimes.

A US State Department report on possible war crimes in Sri Lanka criticised Fonseka in particular for having “overlooked the rules of war”.

Since the end of the war, the Sri Lankan government has been criticised by international community and human rights organisations for failing to resettle the hundreds of thousands of Tamils locked up in camps surrounded by barbed wire.

In Fonseka’s letter of resignation, which reads like an election manifesto, he adds his voice to the criticism.

“Your Excellency's government is yet to win the peace in spite of the fact that the Army under my leadership won the war,” he said. “There is no clear policy to ensure the security of the Tamil people thereby leaving room to ruin the victory attained, paving the way for yet another uprising in the future due to lack of security arrangements in the resettled areas.”

Rights activists reacted with disbelief.

"It is an irony of ironies that Fonseka is talking about human rights when he was our target of attack in the past," Nimalka Fernando, a human rights activist told the media.

Following the victory against the LTTE, Fonseka is rumoured to have clashed with the Rajapakse brother over who should take the credit for winning the war.

Since Fonseka’s resignation from of the office, many posters of Fonseka around Sri Lanka have allegedly been ordered to be removed.

“Fonseka says politicians are taking credit for a war won by the soldiers while Rajapakse [and his brothers] say it is the Rajapakses that won the war,” opposition politician Wijedasa Rajapaksa (not related to the President), told the National.

“People now have realised who the real hero is … and that’s Fonseka”, he said.

It is not clear yet which party Fonseka may join in the presidential election, with some speculation of a three-way contest between incumbent President Mahinda Rajapakse, main opposition leader Ranil Wickremesinghe and Sarath Fonseka.

Wickremesinghe was considering contesting as the UNP candidate while Fonseka could be a candidate from the opposition People’s Liberation Front (JVP), the National cited local newspaper reports as saying. 

The scars in Kumar’s hands are zipped-up wounds. Though the flesh is repaired, the marks are alive. You could almost reach out and open them, see the blood trickle out softly to tell a story.

He moves in the kitchen like a predatory tiger: swift, hungry and unnoticeable. I worked with him years ago in a tiny-but-charming restaurant in Toronto, where his performance was formidable: quick-tempered and precise.

He used to address my co-workers in confident broken English, and if you didn’t understand his machine gun of words, you were asked, “Do you speak English?!” He came from Russia. From England. From Sri Lanka.

I later learned that he owned the place. He was 26 years old. Kumar* began his work in the kitchen before he knew what onion was in English. To him, cooking knows no language, anyway. It’s all movement and instinct.

One day, while I was waiting on a dish he was cooking, I asked him where his scars came from. I waited for small stories; wounds acquired in the kitchen.

“From the war. Oh, and refugee camp.” He brought a calendar to work one day. It had lovely, balletic Tamil lettering and a group picture of scowling army soldiers in full military

regalia.

There’s an eerie feeling about their collective expression, quite implacable.

He proceeded to show me a community newspaper. Casualties littered the pages, but none of the images were as concrete as the last page, that of a Tamil family lying scattered in a raided house. There was blood everywhere, but that was no longer unusual.

The story was in the mother’s skirt: blood below the waist, confined.

Kumar asked me to imagine the soldiers in the calendar, their lives after the camera flashed. He said he forgot most times, but the slightest ponderous gaze in the distance charged his face.

The calendar, he later told me, commemorated the lives of suicide bombers.

An August 2006 BBC headline, “Dispute over Sri Lanka air raids,” hinted at the two disagreeing sides of the story, but the verified facts painted the picture with frightening clarity:

planes roaring over the heads of teenage girls, about to explode inside an orphanage.

BBC admitted the difficulty in reporting the truth about the Sri Lankan civil war.

"Lots of the worst things that happen go on well away from the eyes of independent journalists,” BBC’s South Asian editor, Bernard Gabony, stated. “In other words, a lot of lying goes on, but unless you have the proof of who is lying, all you can do is report what the different sides say.”

Kumar’s friend, Siva*, 33, had one such story. When he was 16 or 17, Siva went to school at St. Patrick’s College in Jaffna, taking shelter under a tree when he heard the all-too-familiar roaring plane overhead, felt the tremor of the blast and saw the dust, rising. A few kilometers away, people ran to take cover inside St. Joseph church, thinking it a godly shield.

But this time, the air raid didn’t target a school. The pilot of the plane could see where the people were taking cover. The sacrilegious bomb found them there.

And the caved walls of St. Joseph church became flesh.

Instinct told survivors to run, lest they find themselves eclipsed by a creeping airborne shadow-bearing fire. A stronger instinct told them to dig.

“There was no time to be emotional. Your brain tells you to find people who are still alive,” Siva said.

Passing vehicles took those injured by flying debris to the nearby hospitals. Siva? He shoveled dead bodies into a truck.

When he was 17, Siva, would disappear for days, not out of teenage rebellion but out of the government’s fear that he was connected to the Tamil Tigers, a declared terrorist organization, according to the Stephen Harper government back in 2006. If Siva was connected to the Tamil Tigers, the Sri Lankan government wanted to know.

The military took him, blindfolded and hands tied, to a remote place two to three hours away. There, they fed him gruel. “Sometimes I’d find a rusty nail in it,” he said.

But that was the least of his worries.

The interrogations were the main event. They would involve a bowl of boiled chilli pepper and, later, a bucket of gasoline.

“They make you breathe it,” Siva recalled. “My eyes and throat burned from the chilli, and the gasoline made me pass out, but not for long. They hit me to wake me up, then they continued with the questions.”

Siva’s mother, who made only 3,000 rupees a month, was extorted 50,000 rupees in exchange for her son’s freedom. “My mother had to sell our land to pay them off,” said Siva.

After two incidences of these days-long questionings without a warrant, Siva ran away to Batticaloa to live with his uncle, then to Colombo, then to Canada.

Siva told me the worst stories. “I know someone who almost died,” he said, adding that these kinds of torture happened on a regular basis in Sri Lanka during the civil war.

“They hung my cousin Kamma* from his thumbs, with just his toes touching the floor. Then they hung him upside down from one ankle and beat him with PVC pipes filled with sand,” Siva continued.

 “They do that so that you don’t get scars. You just bleed inside.” Kamma was hospitalized for three months and, to this day, still gets chest and back pain from the beating.

When asked about the validity of these claims of torture by the Sri Lankan government to the Tamil people, Toronto consulate general of Sri Lanka Bandula Jayasekara defended

his country.

“I deny these claims,” Jayasekara told Excalibur. “People can say anything.

They can show scars, but that’s not a solid proof. They could’ve gotten that anywhere.” Jayasekara said that, with the civil war ending last May, there is now peace in Sri Lanka.       “We have defeated the rebels, and child soldiers are now being rehabilitated. It’s now safe there.”

Jayasekara further emphasized the optimism he has for achieving unity between the two ethnic groups, and ensured that Tamil-Canadians will be met with equality if they decide

to go back to Sri Lanka.

“I don’t like saying ‘Sinhalese’ and ‘Tamils,’” he added. “We’re all Sri Lankans. We have to move forward. We need to forgive and forget.”

Some Tamils in the York community are not as optimistic as their consulate general. Vithu Raman, president of the York University Tamil Students Association, told Excalibur about his hesitation to go back to Sri Lanka, even now that the civil war is over.

“When a Tamil activist goes back, anything can happen. I feel terrified,” said Raman.

Raman further stated that, though the violence between the government and the rebels is over, the cause of the conflict is far from resolved. “I would love to hope that there would be peace now, but displaced victims of the war will be resettled away from their original homes and still stripped of rights,” he said.

“I think it’s going to take decades because the problems are not solved. Until all the voices in the country are heard, true peace can’t be achieved.”

*Names have been changed to protect identity