Colombo Correspondent, South Asian Monitor February 27, 2019
Prior to Sri Lanka’s case to be taken up in the UN Human Rights Council sessions in the days to come, the United Kingdom told the 40th Session of the UNHRC in Geneva Monday that they welcomed the decision of Sri Lankan Government to return more land to its people, and to establish an Office for Reparations.Foreign Office Minister Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon said his country encouraged Sri Lanka to implement in full the commitments made to the UN Human Rights Council to secure long-term reconciliation.The comments come as diverse views are expressed regarding alleged war time crimes in Lanka amidst almost zero attention and analysis on the crimes of the LTTE such as firing from near orphanages and schools so that military retaliation could be showcased as ‘crimes.’ Little or no importance has been paid to the fact that the LTTE followed the consistent strategy of locating its key military bases amidst civilian settlements so that the Air Force would not be able to bomb them because of civilian casualties.
Amongst this lack of rationality and impartiality in assessing the Lankan war and post war contexts, there is one voice of sanity from the international domain, that of Michael Morris, Baron Naseby PC. Lord Naseby who started the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sri Lanka in 1975, who after extensive impartial investigations on the final phase of the Lankan war that ended in 2009 and post war contexts, publicized the view that the West, particularly the US and the UK, must remove the threat of war crimes and foreign judges that complicates post war reconciliation in Sri Lanka. Naseby’s conclusions are based on the highly confidential documents he obtained such as the 39-page confidential dispatches by Lt. Col. Anton Gash, Defense Attaché at the British High Commission in Colombo in 2009, during the final stages of war.
Read Also: Sri Lankan military and Tamils apprehensive before UNHRC sessions in March
This document helped him to shed light on the matter of civilian casualties especially the 7,000 and 8,000 civilian death during the last days of the conflict. He pointed out that around a quarter of them were LTTE cadres in civilian clothing and stated that there was a lack of evidence that the government military deliberately targeted civilians. Citing evidence, he had pointed out that there was no proof that civilian casualties were 40,000 as stated by some Western lobby groups. In 2017 Lord Naseby told the British Parliament that he hoped Britain will recognize the truth that no one in the Sri Lankan Government ever wanted to kill Tamil civilians.
“Furthermore, the UK must now get the UN and the UNHCR in Geneva to accept a civilian casualty level of 7,000 to 8,000, not 40,000. On top of that, the UK must recognize that this was a war against terrorism, so the rules of engagement are based on international humanitarian law, not the European Convention on Human Rights,” Lord Naseby told the British parliament in a debate on Sri Lanka on October 2017. Ironically, Lord Naseby’s report has not been used by the Sri Lankan government in a comprehensive manner to defend itself where needed and justified.
On Tuesday the Daily FT newspaper in Colombo carried a response from Lord Naseby to an article the paper had published written by an American freelance writer, Taylor Dibbert titled ‘On Lord Naseby’s Sri Lanka whitewash.’In Lord Naseby’s response, he takes on the stance of Taylor Dibbert that Sri Lanka’s civil war ‘ended tragically.’
States Lord Naseby: “There was nothing tragic about the annihilation of the LTTE Tamil Tigers; terrorists proscribed in 32 countries who had plagued the life of Sri Lanka for nearly 30 years, killing thousands of innocent civilians across all ethnic groups let alone tens of Ministers, a President and former Prime Minister.”He further points out: “There was no massive slaughter of an alleged 40,000 civilians in the period 1 January to 18 May 2009. Indeed, the opposite with close on 300,000 Tamil civilians who had been used as a human shield fleeing to the safety of the Sri Lanka armed forces.”
He adds: “Of course, there were deaths in the fighting but after exhaustive research I stick to my figure of about 6,000 of which about 1,500 were Tigers, many of whom threw away their uniforms. I have used many sources, but the most convincing is the Department of Census report of 2011 on the deaths and missing persons in the Northern Province carried out by Tamil enumerators. Their figure for civilian deaths including those Tigers who came from the Northern Province is for Mullaitivu and Kilinochchi Districts net of normal deaths, i.e. 4890 plus 1,442 untraceable at the point of census.”
He also points out that: “Reconciliation has already been helped by the restoration of the infrastructure in the north with the rebuilding of the railway, the A9 road and most importantly getting Jaffna on the electricity grid. Of course, more has to be done particularly with the Missing Persons Commission, a revised Prevention of Terrorism Act and a Truth and Reconciliation Commission with Sri Lankan judges perhaps similar to the UK Chilcot enquiry.”
Naseby’s response comes in the backdrop of Western writers and activists often taking a complete non objective one sided approach. This approach gets legitimized because of the Sri Lankan government’s lack of sensitivity, consistency and genuineness in post war trust building and their lack of taking needed steps to heal a war-scarred nation. Even basic aspects such as ensuring equality in language rights and giving Sinhala and Tamil equal recognition as per the present constitution is not carried out, aggravating the sentiments of the Tamils. One key need the government has to address is those who disappeared during the war, where relatives who giving evidence have pointed out that some (not all) of those missing were last seen either surrendering or being handed over by kith and kin to the military. Analysts point out that even the LTTE should be held accountable for the war disappeared as needed by certain circumstances.
What is pointed out is that investigations should not be against an entire military which had largely adhered to international rules of war but on particular individual based cases. However, other argue that despite the Sri Lankan government’s overall actions on war time accountability being largely ad hoc, there has been over the past few years steps taken to make arrests that are high profile and allegedly connected with human rights issues.
While the legitimacy of the cases are yet to be proven, last Friday, former Navy Chief Wasantha Karannagoda’s passport was impounded by the Colombo Fort Magistrate, after the Criminal Investigations Department CID named him as the 14th suspect in a high profile abduction and murder of 11 young men in 2008-2009. The CID told Court that the Attorney General was planning to indict Karannagoda and 13 others on several charges that included the conspiracy to murder. Meanwhile former Navy Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda has filed a Fundamental Right (FR) petition before the Supreme Court seeking an Interim Order to prevent his arrest, stating that he is being victimised for political reasons and that it is he who made the initial police complaint about his Personal Security Officer Sampath Moonesinghe, now named as the first suspect in the case.
Meanwhile, the conduct of Tamil diaspora which consist mostly of Tamil privileged families who left during the war to foreign countries and thereafter lived life far removed from war realities, further inflame the post war scenario in Sri Lanka.On Tuesday it was reported in the Harrow Timesthat the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora community in Harrow, London are calling upon the Mayor of Harrow, Kareema Marikar, whose origins are from Sri Lanka, to resign after she was pictured with senior Lankan military personnel during a visit to Sri Lanka in 2018. A petition with 49 signatures was handed to Harrow Council calling on Councillor Marikar to step down from her role. It said: “Most Tamil residents in Harrow escaped the war and came to the UK as refugees, and they still carry the scars of that war which killed many of their kith and kin in their former home country.
Read Also: President Sirisena’s pledge to re-introduce the death penalty faces many hurdles
Lankan analysts point out the irony of the entire Lankan military being treated as war criminals when all they did was fight a war created by politicians and defeated a terrorism that was started because of lack of wise leadership in the country.
“The Lankan military did their duty. A soldier anywhere in the world fights a war not because they want to kill but to do their duty. Sri Lankan soldiers did not go about committing ‘genocide’ as sensationalized internationally. Such accusations, unless there is specific individual evidence of individual action, do only one thing. They minimize chances of Sri Lanka’s reconciliation process because it gives both Sinhala and Tamil hardline politicians enough opportunity to promote racism for the sake of votes,” one observer pointed out.