23 September, 2019

Blog

Issues Of Truth And Accountability: The Last Stages Of The War In Sri Lanka

By Rajiva Wijesinha –

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha MP

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha MP

Let me start with a paradox. This is an extremely impressive book, but I find it woefully depressing. It has been put together, according to the introduction, by three patriots who are also strong adherents of pluralism and the rule of law. Godfrey Gunatilleka is, as Dayan Jayatilleka once described him, arguably the best intellect in public life, Asoka Gunawardena is the most balanced and practical of administrators, and Jeevan Thiagarajah combines unparalleled energy in the service of his country with wide ranging knowledge of what happened in various spheres during the conflict.

Why then am I depressed? There are several reasons for this. The first is very simply that it comes far too late. Second, it requires fleshing out through details which are only available with government. Third, it leaves unstated the need for immediate action by government in the spheres in which it is unable to refute allegations made against the country. Fourth – and I cannot believe that the main writers were responsible for this, given the very different perspective Godfrey put forward in the television interview – it seems to swallow wholesale the allegations against the UN leadership in Sri Lanka made by the Petrie Report. Finally, it leaves out one group of significant actors, namely those who have contributed heavily to the Darusman Report, if we are to believe Wikileaks: I mean the NGO representatives who produced evidence against Sri Lanka.

For these reasons, the fourth and fifth sections of this book are weak. The first two sections are very strong, and provide an object lesson to the Sri Lankan government as to how it should have dealt with the allegations in the first place. The third section is well argued, but its main point is weakened by the failure to affirm forcefully the need for a credible internal inquiry with regard to the treatment of surrendees. In this regard the book is less balanced than the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission Report, which is surprising since its rationale is that of a middle way between that and Darusman.

With regard to the first three worries I have, the first could be compensated for by prompt action now on the part of government. But given the hamfisted way in which government dealt with the Darusman Report in the first place, I do not think anything more will be done. It seems incredible now that the government responded to allegations against it by producing a narrative that did not address those allegations. But, pace the book’s erroneous claim that the Ministry of Defence’s account of the humanitarian operation preceded the Darusman Report, the fact is that, in its ostrich like view that hiding one’s head in the sand would get rid of threats, the Ministry produced a document that might have been useful had it been produced in 2009, but which meant nothing after Darusman.

At the risk of making myself even more unpopular with government, which cannot bear other people having been correct, I told the Secretary of Defence, when I was called in to help with editing of that account, that it did not answer the allegations. His answer was that that was not the purpose of the narrative he was preparing. When I pointed out that the allegations needed to be answered, he said that he had allocated that task to the Chief of General Staff, who was however given neither resources nor encouragement to proceed. My own view is that this unintelligent approach has done more damage to our forces than anything else, given how easy a defence would have been of the bulk of the charges made against the forces. At the very least, citation of claims made during the conflict would have made clear the absurdity of charges made afterwards.

But as it was, the only detailed defence was what I produced, which government ignored completely, except for the Governor of the Central Bank, who bought several of the books I produced. Whether they were distributed or not I do not know, but given the emulation of the Ministry of Defence, which seems to be the chief function now of the Ministry of External Affairs, I do not think it would have reached the audience that should have been targeted. So too another good defence that came out last year, ‘The Numbers Game’ by a thoughtful Sri Lankan expatriate, has also sunk without trace, as did the documentary by Daniel Ridicki, ‘Common Differences’, despite the President ordering that it be shown in Geneva. So I have little doubt that this book too will be buried as soon as possible by the powers that be – by which I do not mean the President, who has more sense, but seems to have abdicated the defence of the country to his two brothers, neither of whom has instincts nor intellect to match his.

So, where this book succinctly makes clear that, contrary to the claims of the Darusman Report, government provided supplies in accordance with requirements agreed with the UN to the people held by the LTTE, the Minister of Economic Development presided over the production of a book which was filled so full of unnecessary detail that it was unreadable. I was asked to assist at the beginning, and we produced a report that covered the basics, but then it was taken away and everyone put in their account of what a good job each of them had done, and it turned into a vast tome. What is now needed is a direct answer to Darusman, using the excellent basis this book has provided, but that will not be produced.

The second area in which government needs to act is that of a credible internal inquiry. Now that the ice has been broken, as it were, ice in this case being the intransigence of the Secretary of Defence, by the expansion of the mandate of the Disappearances Commission, and the appointment of internationally respected advisers, it should be a short step to dividing the job up to produce swift and useful results. The business of the Disappearances Commission should be Restorative Justice, as recommended by the LLRC. But there is also a need for thorough investigation of possible crimes by individuals, and government must follow the recommendations of the LLRC in this regard, where it diagnosed a prima facie case. Of course there may be mitigating circumstances, but assuming those without investigation is as bad as what seemed blanket denials originally.

I have no doubt, given the generally compassionate way the forces fought, for which there is much evidence that this book cites, we will find no question of a genocidal or even callous policy. But this, for which I believe the Secretary of Defence deserves much credit, needs confirmation, which requires establishing that the few cases of aberrations that occurred were the result of individual passions, not general policy. If the Secretary of Defence is not made to realize this, he will bring upon the forces a greater disaster than they deserve, after fighting a hard war in comparatively exemplary fashion. The book makes clear the difficult circumstances in which battles were fought, and establishes conclusively the responsibility of the LTTE for the collateral damage that did occur. But unless the few cases of extra-judicial killing that are alleged – not of civilians, it should be noted, but of suspected if not proven terrorists – then the care to avoid civilian casualties that the forces evinced will remain in doubt.

So much for what government needs to do. But there is also more that government should do to make clear where responsibility lies for the tragedy that occurred. The book makes clear the culpability of the LTTE. It is also harsh on the UN, whereas I believe more thorough analysis, based on facts that Jeevan is aware of, and which I have recorded in many instances, would make clear who the real villains are in the international community.

It is not the Americans, which is what the fourth section of the book suggests. That indeed makes clear how confused the Americans were, and I think what seems the schizophrenia of Robert Blake can be understood when one realizes that, as he himself put it to an interlocutor who asked why his line seemed to have hardened, he was in 2009 serving a different administration. That explains the different emphases of the different Americans cited in the book, and it is a pity that we allowed extremists to treat all Americans as hostile when there were several less devious types, even under the Obama administration with its strange morality that we now find productive of even more tragic outcomes in the Middle East than the blunderbuss of George Bush.

Where blame should lie becomes clear when we consider the first error in the book, namely its claim that ‘during the Eastern Operation, there were no complaints that the military caused harm or killed civilians’. On the contrary, in August 2007 Human Rights Watch released with much fanfire a report in which it claimed that our forces had engaged in indiscriminate attacks on civilians.

I read through the Report and confronted HRW with the fact that there was only one instance cited in the whole Report about civilian deaths. There was much blustering then on the part of Brad Adams, but he could not deny that the publicity HRW had engaged in was belied by the Report. That one instance, which the forces did not deny, was the result of mortar locating radar. But though HRW granted that the LTTE had indeed taken weaponry into a refugee centre, they claimed that these were not heavy weapons.

This was casuistry of the highest order. But worse, it also indicated to the LTTE that they could get away with murder. If they fired from amidst civilians, they could either do so with impunity or else they could claim that the Sri Lankan army was deliberately targeting civilians. Thus it was the gullibility, or the wickedness, of HRW that encouraged the LTTE to employ the strategy that led to so many civilian deaths. And the book does not cite the most telling evidence for this, namely the plea of the Bishop of Jaffna to the LTTE, when the First No Fire Zone was declared, not to take weapons into the Zone.

This is the type of information the government of Sri Lanka should have deployed when allegations were first made. But given the lack of institutional memory, given that the person they sent to the site when the Darusman Report came out was a hawk who probably thought the army had used insufficient force, given the incapacity of most of those in government after the war to use English effectively, the allegations have through default turned into gospel truth as far as world opinion is concerned. This is a very far cry from the effectiveness of our defences in 2009, but since the Secretary of Defence, under Israeli pressure, got rid of our best spokesman, and since then relied on a man who, as the President put it, kept chasing after women, it is not surprising that our forces are being sacrificed on the altar of defiant incompetence.

A more sensible strategy would also have pieced together the evidence for collusion by some elements in the international community – not the Americans, I hasten to add, who were on the straight and narrow in 2008 as far as terrorism was concerned – with the LTTE. This book does not mention culpability with regard to the barriers the LTTE constructed, and I have seen no mention of this by government in recent years, but back in 2008 the manner in which Solidar allowed heavy vehicles to be used by the LTTE and did not report this to government was outrageous, and contributed to the deep suspicions that developed with regard to the international community, a factor the book registers. Unfortunately the EU, despite being misled by Solidar – they claimed at the CCHA that there were no internationals in Vavuniya, which was simply not true – granted them impunity for this aberration. And I fear the stupid Sri Lankans who talked about the event blamed the Norwegians, because it was the Norwegian component of Solidar that was in place in Kilinochchi. The truth however was that it was a shady group of Britishers who were responsible, and the head of Solidar was Guy Rhodes, whose connections should have been investigated more carefully – especially after the Wikileaks revelation that much evidence against Sri Lanka was provided by him subsequently.

Interestingly, Rhodes was part of the UN Security Committee which seems to have been busy collecting evidence against the country from early days. The Darusman Report revealed that the UN had networks of observers in LTTE controlled territory, but this was not known by government, and the Ministry of External Affairs failed to clarify who these were, and to whom they answered, after the Report came out. Indeed the failure of the Ministry to ask the questions I suggested to them, and to allow so much criticism to go by default, whilst also not pre-empting the Petrie Report by working together with the UN officials who did their best according to UN norms, is grossly culpable.

So too there has been no attempt to establish the manner in which the UN decided to leave Kilinochchi as a whole in September 2008. The book, in its strange chapter on the UN, swallows wholesale the assertions of the Petrie Report, which it cites endlessly. It never once references the narrative I prepared while at the Peace Secretariat as to what really happened, even though it mentions it to indicate that there was a very different version of what happened.

The fact is that, given that they were not doing much good, other agencies were asked to leave, but government specifically exempted the ICRC and WFP and UNHCR. The first of these stayed on, giving the lie to the claims made subsequently that we wanted a war without witnesses. It was the UN that chose to withdraw everyone, and this decision by the UN Resident Coordinator, Neil Buhne, was based on misinformation, for he was told that government had only allowed WFP to stay. He subsequently told me that, had he known it was the UNHCR also, he might have decided differently.

We will not be able to find out now who fed him wrong information, which I believe was part of a plan to dragoon the UN out because the NGOs had been asked to leave. And what is astonishing is that those NGOs made no fuss about the fact that their local employees were not permitted to leave. Nor did the UN demand that their own local employees leave. Instead they engaged in a covert operation to get them out, which is one reason why Convoy XI as a whole, and then a couple of its members, stayed on for so long, and in effect destroyed the system that had been in place to deliver supplies.

I remember asking the NGOs why they did not speak out about the fact that their employees wanted to leave, and were being kept forcibly. Some I think wanted to do this, but like sheep they went along with the dominant characters who included Guy Rhodes. The claim was that they did not want to jeopardize their safety, but this was clearly nonsense, since obviously the LTTE was not going to harm them as a result of such claims. Rather, it was because they wanted to perpetuate the myth that people stayed on willingly, whereas open assertions that people were being kept forcibly would have given the lie to this.

There was one area in which the NGOs as a whole resisted another insidious ploy of Guy Rhodes. Government had made it clear that they could continue to work in the area, through the administration we still had in place, led by Government Agents and Divisional Secretaries, but Guy claimed that this would not be proper because their donors had conditions that could be met only if international staff were in place. He backed down however when I asked how there could be conditions in agreements between NGOs and the Sri Lankan government which the government was not aware of, and the others agreed to continue with their work. Whether this was ultimately beneficial however is not certain, given the sleight of hand that followed with regard to the equipment that these NGOs left behind. Jeevan is aware of the details, and of how much of this fell into the hands of the LTTE, but I suppose this book is not the place for an account of this. But it should be written down elsewhere.

One other example of sleight of hand should be investigated, but the Ministry of External Affairs has ignored this matter despite my drawing attention to this. I refer to the identity of the two individuals left behind by the UN when Convoy X! finally left the Wanni. For several days the LTTE played with them, pretending that they would allow the local UN employees to leave, which meant the Sri Lankan forces were requested day after day for CeaseFires, which doubtless the LTTE used to redeploy its own forces. Finally, realizing what was happening, the Bangladeshi Colonel in charge decided to head back and he brought with him a convoy of patients which the ICRC had organized.

With him was a Sri Lankan employee from the Colombo office, but there was no trace of Peter McKie, just as there is no trace of when and how McKie had gone into the Wanni. Government has not tried to find out what he did while he was there, but relatively recently it has been revealed that he was perhaps the principal source of information later used against us. I am sorry that no one else in government is indignant about this, that the UN should have been engaged in covert operations when it is supposed to work with governments which are the owners of the UN, rather than a few countries with agendas of their own and much money. But instead of coming out straight with complaints, those in charge of Foreign Policy in Sri Lanka have allowed deep distrust to build up, which affects relations with the less shadowy players in the UN, who are generally decent and proper.

I hope then that government will even now take its cue from this report, flesh out the narrative of the war with clear and convincing citation of evidence, and also make clear the underhand work of a few elements. But at the same time it must deal with anything underhand that our own people were engaged in, which is why investigation of the matters the LLRC noted is essential. Without that, we too would have sunk to the level of Guy Rhodes and Peter McKie, whereas we owe it to our own people to affirm convincingly that we did our best in a difficult situation, and that there will be no impunity for egregious violations of national and international norms.

*Prof Rajiva’s presentation on Issues of Truth and Accountability; the last Stages of the War in Sri Lanka – Narrative iii – MARGA & CHA Colloquium

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 9
    3

    This man Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha MP is stupid, a liar or pretending to be one of the two.

    He must be keeping his eyes and ears closed to what a lot of atrocities going on right now in Sri Lanka as far as non- Sinhala Buddhists are concerned.

    These actions are going on with the full knowledge, facilitation and blessings of the regime, the state and its security forces including the police. The pliant judiciary will go along with these crooks.

    Please don’t think that the readers are fools or idiots to believe what you say as truth: After all your singing for the supper from the most corrupt and immoral regime in the world.

    • 3
      3

      .
      There are many Prof’s, PhD’s, Dr’s like this….. must have entered through ‘standardization’ policy.
      :-)

      • 4
        7

        Standardization? Really? Rajiva’s degree and PhD are from Oxford, which he entered at age sixteen. He was in the same batch as Benazir Bhutto.

        • 4
          1

          Academic brilliance alone is not suffice to do good or prevent harm to others. Most of our scholars including those from Oxbridge worked to preserve the privileges of either their cast or race or promote their selfish interests. Brilliance was used to destroy the country from the Citizenship Act, through Sinhala Only Act, Republican Constitution, genocidal killing of innocent Sri Lankans and 18th Amendment, to name a few. The so-called leftists are not an exception, who have been supporting this ultra nationalist government by issuing statements now and then to create an impression that they still stand for justice and equality.

          Lee Kuan Yew is also a Cambridge scholar who single handedly turned a resourceless multi-lingual country into a haven for peaceful, prosperous and true multicultural state.

          • 2
            0

            Yes, funnily enough Lee was not even born in Singapore, yet his love and desire to serve his adopted land far exceeded that of some of those privileged to be born in Sri Lanka. In fact quite a few turned out to be positively traitorous and attempted to destroy the Sri Lankan economy over a thirty year period.

            • 2
              2

              Ram, Dayan,

              Ram talks nonsense, while Dayan thinks Oxford graduates are honest and think straight: All are all Sinhala Buddhist supremacists. A thin line separates them from Gnansara.

              Look at what SWRD Bandaranayake the opportunist Oxford genius did to Sri Lanka: He wanted to get power quick and took the racist short cut of Sinhala only in 24 hours and started the ethnic crisis in earnest and is the architect of all the chaos that followed and continuing.

              You can flaunt your degrees like red rags that doesn’t mean a thing: It’s the integrity that matters, and that is lacking in the ‘educated’ lot.

        • 3
          1

          the seats at oxbridge have always been reserved when they are born or by high fling pandan karayas in government service. eg Anura too.

        • 9
          1

          Dr Dayan Jayatilleka

          “Rajiva’s degree and PhD are from Oxford, which he entered at age sixteen. He was in the same batch as Benazir Bhutto.”

          There is consensus among Oxbridge graduates that these two institutions are recruitment agencies for potential spies.

          He studied at old colonial masters’ uni, I am glad he did. However what is most annoying is you are proud about his colonial connection.

          Oxbridge qualifications are important for any aspiring upwardly mobile “Hooray Henry”.

          Those qualifications do not make them wise.

          There are others who not only entered Oxford when they were many years younger than Rajiva but also completed their degree before reaching 16.

          Ruth Lawrence entered Oxford at the age of 12, completed her degree at 14, before her 17th birth day she had already bagged a degree in physics and D.Phil in mathematics.

          William Pitt the younger entered Cambridge at the age of 14, in 1773.

          Sufiah Yusof a celebrated prodigy who entered Oxford University at the age of 13, had become a prostitute, new paper alleged.

          I can see the connection between prostitution and Rajiva’s education.

          • 4
            1

            NV,

            Your comment on Rajiva’s education and prostitution brought to mind the old adage “birds of a feather flock together” — Remember MR, in his Aljazeera interview, accused Dayan of practicing that same profession?

        • 0
          0

          So did the scheming SWRD! For all his supposed erudition. it didn’t stop him from joining the scrum to promise the Sinhala-Buddhist voter the earth, the moon and stars, and set us down the road to perdition with his insane promises of overnight nirvana.

        • 1
          0

          And yet look where he and for that matter you have ended up..prostituting yourselves for an uneducated buffoon…life is sad

    • 1
      2

      Rajiva Wijesinha –

      RE:Issues Of Truth And Accountability: The Last Stages Of The War In Sri Lanka

      “Why then am I depressed? There are several reasons for this. The first is very simply that it comes far too late. Second, it requires fleshing out through details which are only available with government. Third, it leaves unstated the need for immediate action by government in the spheres in which it is unable to refute allegations made against the country. Fourth – and I cannot believe that the main writers were responsible for this, given the very different perspective Godfrey put forward in the television interview – it seems to swallow wholesale the allegations against the UN leadership in Sri Lanka made by the Petrie Report. Finally, it leaves out one group of significant actors, namely those who have contributed heavily to the Darusman Report, if we are to believe Wikileaks: I mean the NGO representatives who produced evidence against Sri Lanka.”

      Then Thiru Says:

      “This man Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha MP is stupid, a liar or pretending to be one of the two. “

      Looks like he is a Sinhala “Buddhist”. How different is he from the other Sinhala Buddhist Mental patients?

      Sinhala “Buddhists” are liars, Para-Liars who came illegally to Lanka, the Land of Native Veddah Aethho, illegally.

      The are the curse of Lanka.

      The go by the lies and imaginations written by monks, in the Dipawansa and Mahawansa, also known as Pacha-Wansa.

      Well, Well, the core problem is the Para-Sinhala-”Buddhism”, Racism and Chauvinism, in the Land of Native Veddah Aethho. This was aided and abetted by the Dipawansa and Mahawansa. This is the Core sickness of the Para-Sinhalese “Buddhists”.

      Isn’t the Nationalist a Mental Patient?

      http://groundviews.org/2013/10/09/isnt-the-nationalist-a-mental-patient/

      Reproducing historic article by Dr E W Adikaram

      At a time when few practice what they preach, Lankan scholar, writer and social activist Dr E W (Edward Winifred) Adikaram (1905-1985) was an illustrious exception. As a public intellectual, he had the courage of his convictions to speak out on matters of public interest — even when such views challenged widely held dogmas or went against populist trends.

      As a sceptical inquirer as well as a spiritualist, he always ‘walked his talk’. He never hesitated to take the often lonely (and sometimes bumpy) high road.

      Read on the link….

      • 0
        0

        There are many Buddhists who do not believe the myths and legends of the Mahavamsa.

        The Veddha people also came to Sri Lanka when it was still joined to India (till about 8000 BC). There is also lots of archaeological evidence of settlements in Sri Lanka (including the town of Anudadhapura) long before the legendary arrival of Vijaya in 543 BC. Also, the Veddha people interbred with successive waves of migrants from south India and further afield to produce the Sinhalese (and many of the Tamils) in Sri Lanka.

        The Tondeswaram temple in Trincomalee and other Hindu temples in the north, south, east and west of the island were said, by the respected archaeologist Paul E Pieris in 1917 to predate Vijaya’s supposed arrival.

        • 1
          0

          Dr Romesh Senewiratne-Alagaratnam

          “There is also lots of archaeological evidence of settlements in Sri Lanka (including the town of Anudadhapura) long before the legendary arrival of Vijaya in 543 BC”

          Here is further evidence:

          Archaeological findings open new chapter: Prof. Somadeva
          BY PUSHPA WEERASEKARA AND LASANTHA NIROSHAN
          Sept 2, 2014

          Turning a new chapter in the pre-historic Balangoda era, evidence of a more than 2000-year-old well developed human habitat has been discovered by archaeologists during the ongoing excavations in Kirimakulugolla in the Kaltota plateau in Balangoda.

          Prof. Raj Somadeva of the Faculty of Archaeology of the Kelaniya University, who heads the team of researchers, said the excavations had been going on for about two weeks in a stateowned land, which is of archaeological importance. “The most important find is a house which has a history of more than 2000 years. We examined the debris of rock pillars lying at the site to find an inscription that bared the fact that Buddhism had been practised even before the advent of Ven. Arahath Mahinda. We discovered tools and equipment used by them.

          The house we found is a circular building with a grinding stone, debris of several tools and equipment, and a place of worship. I am of the opinion that, it would have been the residence of a leading personality of the race. We discovered an inscription in a rock cave and found the word “Yakka” in the inscription, and it is a clear indication that the area would have been inhabited by the ‘Yaksha’ clan. Obviously a well organised society had prevailed in the country before the advent of Vijeya and Buddhism had been practised even before the advent of Ven. Arahath Mahinda,” he said.

          Prof. Raj Somadewa stressed that the continuous research will bring to light many historical facts that would mark a turning point in the history of Sri Lanka and open up vast new fields in archaeological research.
          Source: Daily Mirror – Sri Lanka
          http://www.infolanka.com/news/IL/dm989.htm

  • 2
    0

    Why all these Commissions year after year, govt after govt, UPR, UNHRC, …….?

    A noble farmer and a civil servant say the same thing about the easiest and most reasonable way of getting a solution:

    ”…. The farmer who objected to this generosity was persuaded to support the plan after a young farmer,Narangoda, took him by bicycle down the long and bumpy canal road to see what conditions were like at the end. The dissenting individual came back quite moved by what he had seen, reporting that the tail-end farmers did not have enough water even for drinking and bathing, let alone for growing a crop of rice. The Gonagolla farmers tried to save donate two and even three days’ of their five days water allotment once they became more conscious of how the drought was affecting othersothers down stream. ….Several Sinhalese farmer groups told me that they had an informal understanding with Tamil communities downstream….” – Chapter5: Ethnic Co-operation in Sri Lanka by Norman T.Uphoff in Carrots, Sticks and Ethnic Conflict(Ed MJ Esman and RJ Herring 2003)

    ” I am asking President Mahinda Rajapaksa the same question that I put to Mrs Bandaranaike 50 years ago –
    “Excellency! Don’t you think that you should finally heal the wounds inflicted on the Tamil people and effect a total reconciliation? Even seven years into your administration, your support amongst the Sinhala people seems intact and no other head of government is ever likely in the foreseeable future to have the same support among the Sinhala people as you still have. Why don’t you convert that support base into a springboard for putting through painful but long overdue measures and finally raise a new nation?” – Will President Rajapaksa Expand Horizons For The Tamil People? Neville Jayaweera, 3 November 2013, https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/will-president-rajapaksa-expand-horizons-for-the-tamil-people/

  • 2
    1

    Dear Professor
    The problem with the UN is that the oppressed don’t have any representation at the UN while the oppressor lies through the teeth as successive governmets have been doing at the UN (and other inter intergovernmental platforms):

    List of Commissions of Inquiry and Committees Appointed by the Government of Sri Lanka (2006 – November 2013), Centre for Policy Alternatives, January 2014, http://f.cl.ly/items/2c0m2i0Y3V2A2D2X052C/A%20list%20of%20Commissions%20and%20Committees%20appointed%20by%20GoSL%20since%202005%20_December%202013.pdf

    Sri Lanka: Twenty years of make-believe. Sri Lanka’s Commissions of Inquiry, Amnesty International, 11 June 2009, https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA37/005/2009/en

  • 0
    0

    Who needs R2P if the ethnic majority Sinhalese governments listen to conscientious Sinhalese who keep writing in the media and some went up to LLRC to lodge their appeals:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/104705097/Conscientious-Sinhalese-Tell-LLRC

  • 2
    1

    Hope UNHRC doesn’t forget evidence of the people who were left on the ground and who kept tugging at the feet of those who were shuffling past them speedily or dragging themselves tediously out of the warzone which was closed to the public including ICRC from 19 May 2009 onwards – A9 and the whole of the Vanni was closed to the public. Part of the evidence of war crimes shut off from the world. Oops of course the armed forces detected metals and scooped up lorryloads of gold and silver buried by the fleeing public and the war ”memorials” built and opened by the Rajapakses while the detainees at Menik farm and the various sectors of national and international populace struggled to sort out a lot of things:

    http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20091209_06

    http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20100430_09

    http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20100506_05

  • 5
    1

    The ego’s of Dayan and Rajiva…mind boggling !

  • 7
    1

    “At the risk of making myself even more unpopular with government, which cannot bear other people having been correct”…

    Where are you going with this, Rajiva? You are a wordsmith, who tries to confuse everyone. You cannot fool all people all the time. Your judgement day will also be there soon.

  • 1
    0

    Godfrey Goonetilleke recruited an army deserter as “defence analyst” for the Seminar on the Darusman report held by his organisation.
    This is not expected of a ‘intellectual’.

    After the reports of the 20 commissions quoted above,the repression of tamils kept getting worse.

    Those citizens who were present and able to testify about the last stages of the war need “witness protection” to testify – but this is being denied.

    • 3
      1

      Dear justice,

      Note that the best Rajiva could find to attest to Godfrey’s intellectual is Dayan!

      That alone tells quite a lot about Godfrey, about Dayan and of course about Rajiva!!

      Is it a wonder then that the once “pearl of the Orient” and the “pride of the Indian ocean” has to now hunt down friends and allies in Timbuktu’s neighbourhood?

  • 1
    1

    Professori: you write “””It never once references the narrative I prepared while at the Peace Secretariat as to what really happened, even though it mentions it to indicate that there was a very different version of what happened.””” aah Professori, those Peace Secretariat days when you bullshitted for the Regime. How can we ever take seriously what you twist, contort, rinse and serve to us now?

  • 2
    1

    The author tries his best to discredit the report of the UN Secretary General’s Panel of Experts on Sri Lanka. He calls it Darusman Report disregarding the UN Chief Ban Ki Moon.

    He claims “.. there is much evidence that this book cites, we will find no question of a genocidal or even callous policy”. Has anyone explained how could the government that had access to District Offices that kept records of population within their boundaries adamantly insisted only 70,000 people lived within the war zone when in fact 300,000 came out towards the end of the war after an estimated deaths of 40,000 to 146,000 leaving those maimed out. This was with the callous policy of starving or forcing them out. This is worse than the allegation on LTTE that it used them as human shields. Another inhuman and callous policy was to separate tormented wives and husbands that escaped and interned them within barbed wires.

  • 1
    0

    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our Comment policy.For more detail see our Comment policy https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/comments-policy-2/

  • 1
    0

    Rajiva:[Edited out]

  • 0
    0

    I agree that the government should implement its own LLRC recommendations without delay. Otherwise it should be voted out of office. What is the attitude of the opposition to the LLRC recommendations?

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 300 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically shut off on articles after 10 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.