Jun 6, 2011

UN advisory Panel Report and its fall out

The Report of the three-member UN  Panel of experts, set up to advise UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on allegations of war crimes and human rights abuse during the final stages of the Eeelam war, has found credible evidence of war crimes committed by both the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The Report released by the UN on April 25, has made the following recommendations to the Secretary General:-

a.       The Government of Sri Lanka should immediately commence “genuine investigations” into alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law committed by both sides involved in the armed conflict.

b.      The Secretary- General should immediately establish an independent international mechanism, whose mandate should include: monitoring and assessing the extent to which Sri Lanka is carrying out domestic accountability process and investigations and advising the Secretary General on its findings; and conduct investigations independently into alleged violations.

The recommendations were based on the findings of the Panel in the following five core categories of potentially serious violations committed by the Government of Sri Lanka:-

a.       Killing of civilians through large-scale shelling, at times with heavy weapons, such as Multi-Barrel Rocket Launchers (MBRLs) and other large bore artillery systems in No Fire Zones. Majority of civilian casualties in the final phases of the war were caused by Government shelling.

b.      Systematically shelling hospitals and other humanitarian structures on the frontline although their locations were well known to the government

c.       The Government systematically deprived persons in the conflict zone of humanitarian assistance, in the form of food and basic medical supplies.

d.      Human rights violations: The government subjected victims and survivors of the conflict to further deprivation and suffering after they left the conflict zone. These included detention in closed camps and screening for suspected LTTE without any transparency or external scrutiny. It also said some suspected LTTE cadres were executed and others disappeared. 

e.       Human rights violations outside the conflict zone: The Government sought to intimidate and silence the media and other critics through a variety of threats, including the use of white vans to abduct and make people disappear.

The Panel Report also found the LTTE had committed in the same period “potential serious violations” under the following six categories:-

a.       Using civilians as hostages and as a human buffer despite the grave dangers and terrible conditions in the conflict zone and refusing permission for them to leave the area and sacrificing them as dispensable "cannon fodder" while fighting to protect LTTE’s senior leaders.

b.      Systematically shooting and killing civilians attempting to flee LTTE control and escape the conflict zone from February 2009 onwards adding to their death toll in the final stages of the war.

c.       Firing artillery and storing military equipment in the proximity of civilians and IDP in No Fire Zone exposing them to retaliatory fire.

d.      Forcible recruitment of children throughout the war, and in the final stage of war forcibly recruiting people of all ages with great cruelty, regardless of the hopeless military situation.

e.       Forcing civilians to bolster LTTE defence lines through digging trenches and other emplacements, thereby exposing them to additional harm from shelling.

f.       Killing of civilians through suicide attacks. During the final stages of the war, the LTTE continued its policy of suicide attacks outside the conflict zone, including a suicide bombing at a screening centre in Mullaitivu.

The UN Panel Report confirmed that the Government of Sri Lanka co-operated with its activities. The Report notes "Because the Panel was unable to meet with the LLRC, it relied instead on the Government's written responses, prepared by the Presidential Secretariat, to the Panel's questions on the LLRC, as well as the views expressed to the United Nations by the Attorney General on these matters at the 22 February meeting."

It considered that the Government’s limited number of cases against military personnel since the conclusion of the armed conflict cannot amount to a serious attempt to hold military accountable for violations committed in the final stages of the war.

The Sri Lanka government’s response has been on the expected lines. The Minister of External Affairs Prof. G.L. Peiris addressing the diplomatic corps on the Report in Colombo highlighted “some of the fundamental deficiencies, inherent prejudices and malicious intentions” that characterized Report. He said the Report failed to recognise any of the positive actions taken by the Government.  Prof Peiris also questioned the fundamental legal basis of the conclusions arrived at by the Panel.

Terming the Report as violating principles of natural justice, he said its conclusions were “preposterous” as the sources and records of the Panel, classified as “confidential”, were not available for public or government scrutiny. He made it clear that the Government was strongly opposed to any recommendations for further action arising from such a flawed basis. He also considered the public release of the Report would obstruct and retard positive momentum, and create divisions while feeding into the political agendas of those who wish to “destabilize the country.”

The Minister also said the Government of Sri Lanka was concerned about current developments arising from the Panel Report. In particular he felt some Tamil groups “inflamed” by the Report, have expressed the view that there was no alternative to a separate State of Tamil Eelam. He also questioned political motivations of the Panel which had made allegations of nepotism against the President of Sri Lanka. The Ministry of External Affairs briefing on the Report summarised the Government’s comment saying it found “the processes adopted by the Darusman Report and the conclusions arrived at are biased and fundamentally flawed from every conceivable point of view. The Report is divisive and unhelpful at a time when Sri Lanka is engaged in the delicate task of dealing with post-conflict issues, reconciliation and progress.”

Though Prof Peiris had stated that it was not the Government’s intention to create any “mass protests” and agitation on the Report, the issue has whipped up nationalist sentiments. Anti-UN theme is likely to figure prominently in the May Day parades according to local media. Provincial Councils and local authorities are said to have been asked to adopt resolutions. Pro-government groups are busy collecting signatures to mass petitions.

The media have also said the Government was taking some damage control measures to ward off the impact of the Report. These include extension of the term of Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) by six months to consider some of the issues raised by the Panel Report and relaxing some of the provisions of Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). We can expect the Government to issue a formal rebuttal of the UN Panel Report after that.

The Government is said to have taken action to brief Non Aligned Movement (NAM) countries in a bid to challenge any move to discuss the Panel Report at the June session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva as recommended by the Panel.

The Tamil response is also on the expected lines. R Sampanthan, leader of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) which had been holding talks for reconciliation with the Government said the TNA had brought to the notice of the parliament and all concerned the extra-judicial execution and enforced disappearance of unarmed Tamil civilians and the scourge of the white vans that have continued unabated. The Panel had found credible allegations of many of them. The anti-Rajapaksa lobbies among Tamil Diaspora are upbeat over the Report. We can expect them to step up their lobbying and public protest in various international capitals for follow up action against Sri Lanka.

The Report is likely to adversely affect the relationship between Sri Lanka and the West, particularly the UK and the U.S. Early May, Robert Blake, the U.S. Assistant Secretary in the State Department is likely to visit and reiterate the call for credible investigations of the war crimes allegations. Already Sri Lanka is facing problems in doing business with European businessmen and attracting investments or to borrow money at reasonable rates from international money markets after the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has maintained the rating of 6 given to Sri Lanka (along with other countries like Angola, Kenya, Uganda, Zambia, Iran etc). With inflation reaching over 9 percent, the highest in 21 months, Sri Lanka could face mounting economic pressure if Western support diminishes.

Though both Russia and China have assured their support to Sri Lanka, India’s stance on the issue is likely to become crucial. India had not been happy with Sri Lanka’s delaying tactics in addressing Tamil grievances. India assisted projects to help internally displaced people in Vanni like the 100,000 houses scheme have not taken off so far.  We can expect President Rajapaksa to take remedial action to kindle positive response from New Delhi as it would be damaging for Sri Lanka if India adopts a neutral stance. How New Delhi responds would depend to certain extent upon the outcome of Tamil Nadu assembly elections, the results of which would be out on May 13.  

Overall, President Rajapaksa’s ability to steer through the self-created morass of war crimes related issue is likely to be tested severely over the next three months. Unless he takes measures to increase his government’s international credibility through positive action, the issue is likely to haunt his regime rest of the year.

 (Col R Hariharan, a retired Military Intelligence specialist on South Asia, served with the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka as Head of Intelligence. He is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the South Asia Analysis Group. E-Mail: colhari@yahoo.com   Blog: www.colhariharan.org )

The Report of the three-member UN  Panel of experts, set up to advise UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on allegations of war crimes and human rights abuse during the final stages of the Eeelam war, has found credible evidence of war crimes committed by both the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The Report released by the UN on April 25, has made the following recommendations to the Secretary General:-

a.       The Government of Sri Lanka should immediately commence “genuine investigations” into alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law committed by both sides involved in the armed conflict.

b.      The Secretary- General should immediately establish an independent international mechanism, whose mandate should include: monitoring and assessing the extent to which Sri Lanka is carrying out domestic accountability process and investigations and advising the Secretary General on its findings; and conduct investigations independently into alleged violations.

The recommendations were based on the findings of the Panel in the following five core categories of potentially serious violations committed by the Government of Sri Lanka:-

a.       Killing of civilians through large-scale shelling, at times with heavy weapons, such as Multi-Barrel Rocket Launchers (MBRLs) and other large bore artillery systems in No Fire Zones. Majority of civilian casualties in the final phases of the war were caused by Government shelling.

b.      Systematically shelling hospitals and other humanitarian structures on the frontline although their locations were well known to the government

c.       The Government systematically deprived persons in the conflict zone of humanitarian assistance, in the form of food and basic medical supplies.

d.      Human rights violations: The government subjected victims and survivors of the conflict to further deprivation and suffering after they left the conflict zone. These included detention in closed camps and screening for suspected LTTE without any transparency or external scrutiny. It also said some suspected LTTE cadres were executed and others disappeared. 

e.       Human rights violations outside the conflict zone: The Government sought to intimidate and silence the media and other critics through a variety of threats, including the use of white vans to abduct and make people disappear.

The Panel Report also found the LTTE had committed in the same period “potential serious violations” under the following six categories:-

a.       Using civilians as hostages and as a human buffer despite the grave dangers and terrible conditions in the conflict zone and refusing permission for them to leave the area and sacrificing them as dispensable "cannon fodder" while fighting to protect LTTE’s senior leaders.

b.      Systematically shooting and killing civilians attempting to flee LTTE control and escape the conflict zone from February 2009 onwards adding to their death toll in the final stages of the war.

c.       Firing artillery and storing military equipment in the proximity of civilians and IDP in No Fire Zone exposing them to retaliatory fire.

d.      Forcible recruitment of children throughout the war, and in the final stage of war forcibly recruiting people of all ages with great cruelty, regardless of the hopeless military situation.

e.       Forcing civilians to bolster LTTE defence lines through digging trenches and other emplacements, thereby exposing them to additional harm from shelling.

f.       Killing of civilians through suicide attacks. During the final stages of the war, the LTTE continued its policy of suicide attacks outside the conflict zone, including a suicide bombing at a screening centre in Mullaitivu.

The UN Panel Report confirmed that the Government of Sri Lanka co-operated with its activities. The Report notes "Because the Panel was unable to meet with the LLRC, it relied instead on the Government's written responses, prepared by the Presidential Secretariat, to the Panel's questions on the LLRC, as well as the views expressed to the United Nations by the Attorney General on these matters at the 22 February meeting."

It considered that the Government’s limited number of cases against military personnel since the conclusion of the armed conflict cannot amount to a serious attempt to hold military accountable for violations committed in the final stages of the war.

The Sri Lanka government’s response has been on the expected lines. The Minister of External Affairs Prof. G.L. Peiris addressing the diplomatic corps on the Report in Colombo highlighted “some of the fundamental deficiencies, inherent prejudices and malicious intentions” that characterized Report. He said the Report failed to recognise any of the positive actions taken by the Government.  Prof Peiris also questioned the fundamental legal basis of the conclusions arrived at by the Panel.

Terming the Report as violating principles of natural justice, he said its conclusions were “preposterous” as the sources and records of the Panel, classified as “confidential”, were not available for public or government scrutiny. He made it clear that the Government was strongly opposed to any recommendations for further action arising from such a flawed basis. He also considered the public release of the Report would obstruct and retard positive momentum, and create divisions while feeding into the political agendas of those who wish to “destabilize the country.”

The Minister also said the Government of Sri Lanka was concerned about current developments arising from the Panel Report. In particular he felt some Tamil groups “inflamed” by the Report, have expressed the view that there was no alternative to a separate State of Tamil Eelam. He also questioned political motivations of the Panel which had made allegations of nepotism against the President of Sri Lanka. The Ministry of External Affairs briefing on the Report summarised the Government’s comment saying it found “the processes adopted by the Darusman Report and the conclusions arrived at are biased and fundamentally flawed from every conceivable point of view. The Report is divisive and unhelpful at a time when Sri Lanka is engaged in the delicate task of dealing with post-conflict issues, reconciliation and progress.”

Though Prof Peiris had stated that it was not the Government’s intention to create any “mass protests” and agitation on the Report, the issue has whipped up nationalist sentiments. Anti-UN theme is likely to figure prominently in the May Day parades according to local media. Provincial Councils and local authorities are said to have been asked to adopt resolutions. Pro-government groups are busy collecting signatures to mass petitions.

The media have also said the Government was taking some damage control measures to ward off the impact of the Report. These include extension of the term of Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) by six months to consider some of the issues raised by the Panel Report and relaxing some of the provisions of Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). We can expect the Government to issue a formal rebuttal of the UN Panel Report after that.

The Government is said to have taken action to brief Non Aligned Movement (NAM) countries in a bid to challenge any move to discuss the Panel Report at the June session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva as recommended by the Panel.

The Tamil response is also on the expected lines. R Sampanthan, leader of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) which had been holding talks for reconciliation with the Government said the TNA had brought to the notice of the parliament and all concerned the extra-judicial execution and enforced disappearance of unarmed Tamil civilians and the scourge of the white vans that have continued unabated. The Panel had found credible allegations of many of them. The anti-Rajapaksa lobbies among Tamil Diaspora are upbeat over the Report. We can expect them to step up their lobbying and public protest in various international capitals for follow up action against Sri Lanka.

The Report is likely to adversely affect the relationship between Sri Lanka and the West, particularly the UK and the U.S. Early May, Robert Blake, the U.S. Assistant Secretary in the State Department is likely to visit and reiterate the call for credible investigations of the war crimes allegations. Already Sri Lanka is facing problems in doing business with European businessmen and attracting investments or to borrow money at reasonable rates from international money markets after the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has maintained the rating of 6 given to Sri Lanka (along with other countries like Angola, Kenya, Uganda, Zambia, Iran etc). With inflation reaching over 9 percent, the highest in 21 months, Sri Lanka could face mounting economic pressure if Western support diminishes.

Though both Russia and China have assured their support to Sri Lanka, India’s stance on the issue is likely to become crucial. India had not been happy with Sri Lanka’s delaying tactics in addressing Tamil grievances. India assisted projects to help internally displaced people in Vanni like the 100,000 houses scheme have not taken off so far.  We can expect President Rajapaksa to take remedial action to kindle positive response from New Delhi as it would be damaging for Sri Lanka if India adopts a neutral stance. How New Delhi responds would depend to certain extent upon the outcome of Tamil Nadu assembly elections, the results of which would be out on May 13.  

Overall, President Rajapaksa’s ability to steer through the self-created morass of war crimes related issue is likely to be tested severely over the next three months. Unless he takes measures to increase his government’s international credibility through positive action, the issue is likely to haunt his regime rest of the year.

 (Col R Hariharan, a retired Military Intelligence specialist on South Asia, served with the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka as Head of Intelligence. He is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the South Asia Analysis Group. E-Mail: colhari@yahoo.com   Blog: www.colhariharan.org )

Article by Same Author