Supporters of Sri Lanka’s ruling party United People’s Freedom Alliance carry portraits of presidents of Venezuela, Sri Lanka, Cuba, Libya, Russia and China during a May Day rally in Colombo, Sri Lanka, Sunday, May 1,2011. (AP)
Courtesy - The Island By Eymard de Silva Wijeyeratne
Reading the entirety of the Darusman/Moon report is like wading through a fen of fetid water. After going through this unpleasant experience I thought it would be best to concentrate my attention on those parts that reveal the pre-planned, diabolical design that the Panel was commanded to execute. I will highlight these lines for the benefit of readers. "The Panel observed that there were several other contemporary issues in Sri Lanka, which if left un-addressed, will deter efforts towards genuine accountability and may undermine prospects for durable peace in consequence. Most notably, these include: (i) triumphalism on the part of the Government, expressed through its discourse on having developed the means and will to defeat "terrorism", thus ending Tamil aspirations for political, autonomy and recognition, and its denial regarding the human cost of its military strategy…".
more It is evident that the three members of the Panel, leave alone being experts, do not even have the capacity to conceal, with a little bit of credibility, the sordid nature of the mission they had been asked to accomplish. One gets the clear impression that the contents of the report amounts to no more than a cut and paste job of what has been retailed by Diaspora malcontents and others who earn their living by maligning Sri Lanka. Readers will remember that many worshippers of terrorist idols stated that the government of Sri Lanka and its populace indulged in triumphalism after the LTTE was defeated. It was not a show of triumphalism but and expression of relief. Even Jehan Perera (JP), the peace councillor, whose views are usually a mirror image of the views of the international community, has described the atmosphere that prevailed after the war in the following terms. "There is today a dual reality in the country. To the majority of the people, the difference between the time of the war up to two years ago and the present is a very positive one. They are relieved that they can travel on buses without fear and enter into shopping malls without being worried. In their day-to-day operations in police stations across the country, the police act as family counselors and peace makers amongst the people". Even though JP talks of the metaphysics of a dual reality, (the positive one he has described and the negative one he chooses to describe as political dissent) he does not talk of post-war triumphalism. The members of the Moon Panel, on the other hand, talk of a pre-war triumphalism on the part of the government, which they say (to repeat) was "expressed through its discourse on having developed the means and will to defeat "terrorism", thus ending Tamil aspirations for political, autonomy and recognition, and its denial regarding the human cost of its military strategy…" I do not know whether it is ignorance, innocence, or the craven cast of their minds that has persuaded them, to accuse the government of Sri Lanka for ‘developing the will and ability to defeat terrorism’. Their argument is that Sri Lanka had and has no right to fight terrorism because it was and is a legitimate means for achieving the goals they have described, by ritually killing civilians outside combat zones (in buses, trains, shopping malls, schools and banks). It is abundantly clear that the practice of terrorism and foreign interventions like that of the Norwegians and the Co-chairs have only served to make that goal a perpetually receding horizon. In this context it would be useful to mention what Dr. John Gooneratne told the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) - that Norway had ignored the request of the then government that provisions be included in the CFA to prohibit smuggling of arms, ammunition and equipment, ensure freedom of movement for other political parties in LTTE-controlled Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu and prevent forcible conscription so that it could function as a sound basis for a negotiated solution. (The Island September 2010). What the Report refers to, as the human cost of a military strategy must be set against the human cost of terrorist activity that lasted nearly 30 years. This contrived argument clearly demonstrates the fact that the Panel was not directing its attention to the last days of the war but to the determined effort made by the government to exercise the military option; when all attempts at negotiating a settlement had failed. The devious intent implicit in the statements made by the Panel is a compensatory response to the rejection of the argument used by the Co-Chairs and other organisations, who repeatedly maintained the position that the LTTE was invincible and that therefore the armed forces of Sri Lanka were engaged in an un-winnable war. Add to this the last ditch attempts made by these same powers to rescue the terrorists. The views expressed in the report have also been preceded by the grand operatic chorus sung by organisations such as The International Crisis Group, Amnesty International, the Dublin Tribunal and many others that were spurred on by the gadfly-prodding of Robert Blake and others. The Dublin Tribunal that was headed by Francois Houtart also provided a theological veneer to this sinister effort. I am totally opposed to deriding and reviling persons however vile and devious their objectives may be and this would apply to Moon and the members of his Panel; because people have a fundamental right to be foolish when driven like heavily burdened work-horses to any destination chosen by the driver. The following statements are a clear indication of the moral depravity that sullies the report and therefore disqualifies it from being a product of the UN.
moremore It is evident that the three members of the Panel, leave alone being experts, do not even have the capacity to conceal, with a little bit of credibility, the sordid nature of the mission they had been asked to accomplish. One gets the clear impression that the contents of the report amounts to no more than a cut and paste job of what has been retailed by Diaspora malcontents and others who earn their living by maligning Sri Lanka. Readers will remember that many worshippers of terrorist idols stated that the government of Sri Lanka and its populace indulged in triumphalism after the LTTE was defeated. It was not a show of triumphalism but and expression of relief. Even Jehan Perera (JP), the peace councillor, whose views are usually a mirror image of the views of the international community, has described the atmosphere that prevailed after the war in the following terms. "There is today a dual reality in the country. To the majority of the people, the difference between the time of the war up to two years ago and the present is a very positive one. They are relieved that they can travel on buses without fear and enter into shopping malls without being worried. In their day-to-day operations in police stations across the country, the police act as family counselors and peace makers amongst the people". Even though JP talks of the metaphysics of a dual reality, (the positive one he has described and the negative one he chooses to describe as political dissent) he does not talk of post-war triumphalism. The members of the Moon Panel, on the other hand, talk of a pre-war triumphalism on the part of the government, which they say (to repeat) was "expressed through its discourse on having developed the means and will to defeat "terrorism", thus ending Tamil aspirations for political, autonomy and recognition, and its denial regarding the human cost of its military strategy…" I do not know whether it is ignorance, innocence, or the craven cast of their minds that has persuaded them, to accuse the government of Sri Lanka for ‘developing the will and ability to defeat terrorism’. Their argument is that Sri Lanka had and has no right to fight terrorism because it was and is a legitimate means for achieving the goals they have described, by ritually killing civilians outside combat zones (in buses, trains, shopping malls, schools and banks). It is abundantly clear that the practice of terrorism and foreign interventions like that of the Norwegians and the Co-chairs have only served to make that goal a perpetually receding horizon. In this context it would be useful to mention what Dr. John Gooneratne told the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) - that Norway had ignored the request of the then government that provisions be included in the CFA to prohibit smuggling of arms, ammunition and equipment, ensure freedom of movement for other political parties in LTTE-controlled Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu and prevent forcible conscription so that it could function as a sound basis for a negotiated solution. (The Island September 2010). What the Report refers to, as the human cost of a military strategy must be set against the human cost of terrorist activity that lasted nearly 30 years. This contrived argument clearly demonstrates the fact that the Panel was not directing its attention to the last days of the war but to the determined effort made by the government to exercise the military option; when all attempts at negotiating a settlement had failed. The devious intent implicit in the statements made by the Panel is a compensatory response to the rejection of the argument used by the Co-Chairs and other organisations, who repeatedly maintained the position that the LTTE was invincible and that therefore the armed forces of Sri Lanka were engaged in an un-winnable war. Add to this the last ditch attempts made by these same powers to rescue the terrorists. The views expressed in the report have also been preceded by the grand operatic chorus sung by organisations such as The International Crisis Group, Amnesty International, the Dublin Tribunal and many others that were spurred on by the gadfly-prodding of Robert Blake and others. The Dublin Tribunal that was headed by Francois Houtart also provided a theological veneer to this sinister effort. I am totally opposed to deriding and reviling persons however vile and devious their objectives may be and this would apply to Moon and the members of his Panel; because people have a fundamental right to be foolish when driven like heavily burdened work-horses to any destination chosen by the driver. The following statements are a clear indication of the moral depravity that sullies the report and therefore disqualifies it from being a product of the UN.
1. The reference to war crimes committed by the LTTE is an effort to create a sense of impartiality after that outfit had been eliminated. What, may I ask, were the UN and the Co-chairs doing when the LTTE was killing civilians (Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims) outside the theatre of war?
2. The statement made in the Panel report that characterises the LTTE as "the most disciplined and the most nationalist of Tamil militant groups". (Quoted by Prof. G. L. Peiris’ in ‘The Island, 29th April, 2001).
3. "Some of those who were separated were summarily executed, and some of the women may have been raped" (from the Report). I have in other articles referred to the misapplication of the scientific method to what are called the social sciences. This is a classic instance of the use of a spurious theory of a non-numerable measure of probability. The statistics relating to civilian deaths too have been manipulated to the point of being ridiculous. We need to make several distinctions here. In the first place we need to make a distinction between the deliberate and therefore wanton killing of civilians and the unintended killing of civilians caught in crossfire, especially in a situation where the LTTE used hapless people, whom they claimed to liberate, as a human shield. We also need to bear in mind that a large number of LTTE cadres dressed in civilian clothes would have been among genuine civilians.
4. I will not dwell on the violations of the terms of the UN Charter, because experts like Neville Laduwahetty and others have expressed their opinions on this subject. There is one wayward element in Moon’s conduct, which needs censure and condemnation. He insisted that the Panel was not directed to investigate but to advise him on what steps, if any, he should take in the legitimate exercise of his functions as UNSG. In the final analysis the report is devoid of investigative rigour as well as sound advice. He had therefore no right to publish the report, which amounts to no more than baseless slander. Mr. Moon and his Panel would do well to organise a video conference to justify the deliberate bombing of Muammar Gaddafi’s residence and the killing of his youngest son and three grandsons; in the sacred cause of fighting terrorism. Were the grandsons to be regarded as civilians forming a human shield in the heat of battle?
Accountability
Accountability is a concept that is often reduced from the sublime to ridiculous. As far as the sublime is concerned; in Christianity or any theistic religion, man is deemed to be accountable to God for his deeds and misdeeds. In the secular world, a girl or boy is accountable to his parents and to the school authorities for his conduct till he/she reaches responsible adulthood or leaves school. A company is accountable to the shareholders for the management of its business. A wife and a husband are mutually accountable to each other, negatively in the matter of observing fine-tuned fidelity and positively in the matter of intensifying and maintaining natural affection for each other. NGOs on the other hand want others to be accountable to the international community and to the norms they set out without being accountable to the society of which they are a part. Sri Lanka and its people have no obligation to be accountable to the UN or to foreign powers.
The government needs to be accountable to its people in terms of the Rule of Law, and in doing so be also guided by the judicial review of proposed legislation and by dialogue with genuinely motivated organisations like CIMOGG and other informal citizen groups (I agree with Haris de Silva’s assessment of the opinions expressed in Dr. A. C. Visvalingam’s book ‘Good Governance and the Rule of Law’ – The Island, Wednesday, 20th April). Political dissent is a vital element of democracy but this does not mean that it should be pursued at the cost of justifiable national interests. One important element in the path to good governance is that the Opposition should act sensibly and responsibly, without reducing its function of offering valid and constructive criticism to the level of abject Alimankade/Pamankade mockery. Above all it must bear in mind that its electorate is in Sri Lanka and not in Europe or America.
The Panel
One important principle that Mr. Moon has failed to observe is that he should have appointed regular employees of the UN if he intended to use the material they produced, for publication and action. This is because regular employees would have been accountable to the UN and therefore to the UN membership. Though I will not engage in directing any taunts at them, I must stress that Moon should have realised that they were free-wheeling consultants, who were not accountable to anyone. Two of them have an established record of being involved in public criticism of Sri Lanka. Darusman had walked out of an assignment that was entrusted to him as an eminent person. Steven Ratner on the other hand was a compulsive anti-Sri Lanka essayist. Madame Yasmin Sooka was a member of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa that was chaired by Bishop Desmond Tutu. The role of the Commission may have been noble, but the clergyman who chaired the Commission had made disparaging remarks in 2008, regarding Sri Lanka’s suitability to be elected to the UN Human Rights Council. It is therefore not unlikely that a member of this Commission would have been influenced by this clergyman’s opinion. On the other hand it is likely that a member of that Commission would have been habituated to look at Sri Lanka’s face-to-face battle against a deadly terrorist outfit in the same light as that of the abominable policy of Apartheid where the irreconcilable trichotomy of black, white and coloured was officially recognised. We need to bear in mind that neither the blacks in South Africa or the US used ruthless terrorism in order to regain their rights. Mr. Moon, as well as the members of the Panel, would do well to meditate on President Obama’s official comment on Osama Bin Laden’s killing. "Justice has been done"; especially in the eyes of those, who lost their loved ones on 11th September 2001. Though the methodology used by each of them in two significantly different situations is entirely different, no one would dispute Mr. Obamastatement, because he like the President of Sri Lanka had to protect his own nation and nationals. Therefore, since thousands lost thousands of civilian loved ones in Sri Lanka, we too can say that justice has been done. Mr. Moon and his Panel have no right to say that the bereaved ones in Sri Lanka should have waited for justice till they met their loved ones in Paradise.
Conclusion
The Darusman Report has only served to heighten tensions and harden attitudes in a manner that would make reconciliation an impossible dream. The TNA has contributed to this end by making the ridiculous allegation that India too is guilty of war crimes. The seminar culture of talking endlessly about abstractions like ‘multiculturalism’, ‘pluralism’, ‘majoritarian lust’, ‘power-sharing’ or amending the Constitution at regular intervals will not bring forth peace or economic stability. The determination to live together and the ability of people to cope with the hard realities of life is the only way out of the predicament. It would be more rewarding to share a cup of tea rather than trying to share power. A frightening aspect of Sri Lanka and the world at large is that the number of formally educated men and women, who can engage in productive work in the private or government sectors, is declining as a ratio of all formally educated persons. Therefore, it is only natural that the surplus finds employment in UN agencies or NGOs. The only alternative available to them is to be drowned in the Pierian Spring of knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister killed by the LTTE in Colombo on 12th August 2005
