This rejoinder is to expose HRW’s attempt to conduct a fishing expedition to see which option will succeed in bring the GOSL to a kangaroo court of their liking.
In the absence of any other global issues like in Gaza or Darfur, HRW is calling for a “United Nations commission of inquiry to investigate violations of international humanitarian law by both Sri Lankan government forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) during the recent fighting.”
HRW confesses that “many people have criticized the UN Security Council for focusing its international justice efforts on African and Arab parties.” Therefore, HRW considers it is timely for them to render balance to this inequality by bringing out charges against GOSL to appease this constituency.
In order the drum-up potentials charges whether by a state ("fighting terrorism") or an armed group ("ethnic homeland") HRW cites the following:
“By Government forces: indiscriminate use of weapons such as heavy artillery in densely populated areas; and enforced disappearances of suspected LTTE fighters.
By LTTE: using civilians as human shields or otherwise placing them at unnecessary risk; deliberately firing on civilians seeking to flee the conflict zone; and the use of child soldiers.”
HRW acknowledges that “LTTE used the civilian population as human shields and government forces firing heavy artillery indiscriminately into populated areas,” and claim ownership to first-hand accounts and photographs from Sri Lankans trapped in the government-declared "no-fire zone" paint a grim picture of death from combat.
Rejoinder
When the GOSL has prevented media and NGO’s getting into the conflict zone, its only source for this “evidence” can come from the TamilNet, who masterly had still-photos and videos ready exclusively for HRW.
There is ample evidence to support this collusion by associating TamilNet’s propaganda claiming civilian casualties that coincided with flash HRW reports using the same casualty figures and also making references to detail photo imagery of shelling (without locations/dates/time) by the SLA from on-the-spot video cameramen.
However, when interviewed by ITN and Rupavahini, Tamil civilian accounts exposed that it was often the case LTTE shelling them to (1) implicate the SLA and (2) instil fear to stop civilians leaving the No Fire Zone.
Despite the absence of independent verifiable data that HRW could have produced, now they attempt to assign the entire UN estimate of about 6,400 civilian deaths solely to SLA shelling. Worse, no one in the battlefield ever did a body count, except the SLA of their own since LTTE deaths cannot be verified.
Rejoinder
What proof that HRW has or even the UN for that matter, if all these deaths were caused by the SLA?
In its preamble, HRW attempts to remind us that “international treaties and rules of customary international humanitarian law apply in any conflict.”
Claiming it is in possession of ‘facts and figures,’ HRW says it is “unaware of any efforts by the LTTE to investigate and appropriately punish individuals within its ranks who have violated international law. Its long history of serious abuses, including numerous attacks on civilians, strongly indicates that it has not.”
Rejoinder
If so, why is LTTE excused from similar charges against them?
LTTE as the other party to the conflict, either through its unwillingness to investigate or do not the have judicial capacity to do so clearly indicates that LTTE is a terror outfit dedicated only to death and destruction. Moreover, they neither have the command of the rule of law nor the capacity to exercise the rules of engagement.
In its quest for justice, HRW’s first option is to use the International Criminal Court (ICC) as the most acknowledged mechanism to bring suspected perpetrators from citizens of a state that is party to the ICC treaty.
However, fortunately for Sri Lanka, it is not a party to the ICC. HRW then argues that “ICC can assume jurisdiction if the UN Security Council refers a situation to the court, as it did in 2005 when it referred the situation of Darfur to the court even though Sudan had not ratified the ICC treaty.”
Rejoinder
In the case of, Sudan, the Security Council action had a positive vote by nine of the 15 council members and with no negative vote, or veto, by any of the five permanent members (China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States).
Regrettably for HRW, Sri Lanka has friends in the UN SC in China and Russian Federation to prevent a vote going through.
Undaunted, HRW presses the UN to “investigate Sri Lanka, given the “poor record” of Sri Lanka with regard to conducting impartial and timely investigations into serious violations of the laws of war by its security forces.”
Rejoinder
HRW should know that a “poor record” is alone not sufficient to cause an investigation by the UN. If this is carried out, then the UN is burdened with bringing other nations, for example, like Pakistan or Russia (in Chechnya or Georgia conflicts) and looks like a weak argument based on hearsay and allegations, instead of eye-witnesses to collaborate HRW’s charges.
Realizing this, HRW then seeks another approach by suggesting that “it is possible to have an international tribunal to investigate and prosecute individual Sri Lankans implicated in serious crimes committed in Sri Lanka.”
However, HRW stops talking about bringing the leadership LTTE or its criminal elements to the ICC or to an international tribunal to investigate war crimes against them.
Rejoinder
Then, why not bring similar charges against the LTTE since HRW does not need the sanction of the UN SC unlike the case for GOSL?
At this juncture HRW seems to run out of legal instruments and finally admits that “even the existing international or mixed international/national criminal tribunals have no jurisdiction over crimes committed in Sri Lanka.”
Rejoinder
The critical question is what is the point of making all these allegations if HRW cannot get the attention of the world? Then, why waste our time?
Summary:
It is important to recognize that HRW reports are distributed widely, regardless of their truthfulness, in the West for political consumption to raise hell. Western Govts and media use them for convenience to escape from any blame in the event of inaccuracies or unsubstantiated charges. It is unfortunate that we have allowed the Eelamists lobbying to contribute to this mess. It is all about headlines for politicians, NGO’s and the media.
HRW’s inability to separate the actions of a state to defend and protect its citizens from terrorism, and a terror group that causes mayhem indicates its lack of knowledge of addressing national security needs raises serious questions about its hollow statements. What is lost in HRW’s position is that it is always a difficult balancing act to weigh consequences of preserving human rights vs. national security. The most notorious is the US Govts claim to defend its interests at the expense of the lives of foreign nationals i.e. in Iraq and Afghanistan where scores are detained and civilians are killed. Those incidents typically go under HRW’s radar and finds a small island nation like Sri Lanka is an easier target to bully.
Finally, HRW’s own statements fail to recognize that every war has casualties, and during the WWII millions where sacrificed to give birth to the freedom we have today. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka is experiencing the same in smaller scale.
· Nevertheless, it is highly recommended that (a) GOSL abide by international humanitarian law, no matter what circumstances dictate to take measures to ensure public safety and (b) to form a team of legal experts instantly to challenge and resist any move to implicate GOSL and individuals of war crimes.
No comments:
Post a Comment