- published: 07 Mar 2013
- author: RED PIX
Atrocities on Tamils by Sri Lankan Army. All these pictures were taken on MAY 18 and 19 of 2009 during the final battle in Mullivaikkal. We can see how Prabh...
War crimes are prohibited by the Geneva Conventions, of which Sri Lanka is a signatory. In 2002 the International Criminal Court (ICC) was created by the Rome Statute to prosecute individuals for serious crimes, such as war crimes. Sri Lanka is not a signatory of the Rome Statute. Therefore it is only possible for the ICC to investigate and prosecute war crimes in Sri Lanka if the UN Security Council was to refer Sri Lanka to the ICC, which is unlikely. However, individual countries may investigate and prosecute alleged culprits over whom they have jurisdiction, such as those with dual-nationality. In addition, a number of countries apply universal jurisdiction in respect of certain crimes, such as war crimes, allowing them to prosecute individuals irrespective of where the crime was committed, the nationality of the culprits and the nationality of the victims.
As the Sri Lankan military advanced further into Tamil Tiger controlled areas, international concern grew for the fate of the 350,000 civilians trapped. On 21 January 2009 the Sri Lankan military declared a Safe Zone north-west of Puthukkudiyiruppu, between the A35 highway and Chalai Lagoon. According to the Sri Lankan the purpose of the Safe Zone was to allow the trapped civilians to cross into territory controlled by the military. However, very few civilians actually crossed into the military territory. The Sri Lankan military, UN and human rights organisations accused the Tamil Tigers of preventing the civilians from leaving.
The fighting between the military and the Tamil Tigers continued, causing the civilians to flee from the Safe Zone to a narrow strip of land between Nanthi Kadal lagoon and the Indian Ocean. On 12 February 2009 the military declared a new Safe Zone in this area, north-west of Mullaitivu town. Over the next three months a brutal siege of the Safe Zone occurred as the military allegedly blitzed by land and air the last remnants of Tamil Tigers trapped in the Safe Zone. Satellite images of the Safe Zone publishes by the UN, foreign governments and scientific organisations showed heavy damage that could have only been caused by bombardment. Inevitably many thousands of civilians were killed or injured. The UN, based on credible witness evidence from aid agencies as well civilians evacuated from the Safe Zone by sea, estimated that 6,500 civilians were killed and another 14,000 injured between mid-January, when the Safe Zone was first declared, and mid-April. There are no official casualty figures after this period but a report in The Times claims that that civilian deaths increased to an average of 1,000 per day after mid-April 2009. The UN has refused to confirm the Times' allegations. Estimates of the death toll for the final four months of the civil war (mid-January to mid-May) range from 15,000 to 20,000. A US State Department report has suggested that the actual casualty figures were probably much higher than the UN's estimates and that significant numbers of casualties were not recorded. As the civil war edged towards a bitter end in late April/early May the number of civilians leaving the Safe Zone turned from a trickle to a torrent. On 19 May the Sri Lankan government declared victory.
After the end of the war a number of countries and human rights organisations called for an independent investigation into the final stages of the civil war.
The Sri Lankan government has furiously rejected all claims that its forces committed war crimes. In a June 2010 speech, President Rajapaksa insisted that his soldiers did not kill a single civilian. “Our troops carried a gun in one hand and a copy of the human rights charter in the other,” the president said. These statements are at odds with multiple independent sources; the United Nations itself has said that at least 7,000 ethnic Tamil civilians died in the first four months of last year, just before the government claimed final victory over the Tigers, and high-level United States officials have said, “The US has strong, credible allegations of evidence of atrocities during the prosecution of the war against the Tamil Tigers."
Given Sri Lanka and Argentina's then membership in the Non-Aligned Movement and gradual build up of support for the resolution, the Sri Lankan Government eventually agreed to negotiate a consensus resolution with the other commission members as a compromise, with mediation conducted by Senegal. The sessions proved incredibly heated in their exchanges, and at one stage co-sponsors Argentina, Canada and Norway threatened to abandon any negotiations and pass the original resolution. A Belgian delegate stated "We now know how Sri Lanka has been conducting negotiations with the Tamils on the ethnic problem". Eventually, the UNHRC passed Commission Resolution 1987/61 unanimously, a revised resolution of E/CN. 4/1987/L. 74/Rev. 1 on 12 March 1987 that called upon the government to intensify its cooperation with the ICRC in the field of dissemination and promotion of international humanitarian law but amended with criticism on torture and disappearances removed. Martin Ennals of International Alert stated in his intervening statement "....there can be no doubt that the security forces of the government of Sri Lanka have committed serious offences against civilians caught up in the internal conflict, that innocent civilians have been killed, not in the cross fire between factions but in the course of the day to day existence of family life..."
In May 2009 17 countries (Argentina, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Italy, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Korea, Switzerland, Ukraine, Uruguay, and the United Kingdom) attempted to get the 11th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to investigate war crimes in Sri Lanka. They put forward a resolution that deplored abuses by both the Sri Lankan government forces and the Tamil Tigers, urged the government to co-operate fully with humanitarian organisations and to provide protection to civilians and displaced persons, and made an appeal to the Sri Lankan government to respect media freedom and investigate attacks against journalists and human rights defenders. This was thwarted after the Sri Lankan government received support from China, Russia, India and developing countries.
The UNHRC instead passed resolution A/HRC/S-11/L.1/Rev.2 on 27 May 2009 which commended the Sri Lankan government's actions, condemned the Tamil Tigers and ignored allegations of violations of human rights and humanitarian law by government forces. This resolution was passed by 29 votes to 12 votes with 6 abstentions.
The UN expert panel report published in April 2011 has, based on its findings, recommended that the Human Rights Council reconsider resolution A/HRC/S-11/L.1/Rev.2.
Two last-minute changes to the resolution, pressed by India, made it "unobtrusive" in nature and "non-judgemental" in approach. These amendmnents gave the Government of Sri Lanka, a veto over any future recommendations by the OHCHR. There was no reference to alleged war crimes or an international investigation, as called for by human rights groups.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (24): Austria, Belgium, Benin, Cameroon, Chile, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Italy, Libya, Mauritius, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, United States and Uruguay.
Against (15): Bangladesh, China, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Indonesia, Kuwait, Maldives, Mauritania, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Thailand and Uganda.
Abstentions (8): Angola, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia and Senegal.
The Sri Lankan government reacted angrily to the panel's appointment, calling it "an unwarranted and unnecessary interference with a sovereign nation". It stated that the panel would not be allowed to enter Sri Lanka, a move criticised by Darusman. The panel's appointment was welcomed by the United States and EU but criticised by Russia and China. The panel met for the first time on 19 July 2010.
On 12 April 2011 the panel handed over its report, the Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability In Sri Lanka, to the Secretary-General who passed on a copy to the Sri Lankan government. The Sri Lankan government immediately rejected the report as "fundamentally flawed" and "patently biased". The report was not initially made public to allow the Sri Lankan government time to make a formal reply. On 16 April 2011 the report was published in The Island, an-independently owned nationalist Sri Lankan newspaper. It had been suggested that the Sri Lankan government leaked the report so that it can issue a full rebuttal before of the report is officially made public by the UN. The Sri Lankan government did not make a formal reply and on 25 April 2011 the UN published the full report.
The evidence obtained by the panel revealed a "a very different version of the final stages of the war than that maintained to this day by the Government of Sri Lanka". The panel found "credible allegations, which if proven, indicate that a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law were committed both by the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE, some of which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity". The panel concluded that the "conduct of the war represented a grave assault on the entire regime of international law designed to protect individual dignity during both war and peace".
The panel found "credible allegations" that the Sri Lankan military/government killed civilians through widespread shelling; shelled hospitals and humanitarian objects; denied humanitarian assistance; violated the human rights of civilians and Tamil Tiger combatants; and it violated the human rights of those outside the conflict zone such as the media. The panel found "credible allegations" that the Tamil Tigers used civilians as a human buffer; killed civilians attempting to escape Tamil Tiger control; used military equipment in the proximity of civilians; forcibly recruited children; used forced labour; and killed civilians using suicide attacks.
Specific findings of the panel:
The report states that the "credible allegations" demand a serious investigation and the prosecution of those responsible. If the allegations are proved senior commanders, military and political, on both sides are liable for prosecution under international criminal law. The panel noted the Sri Lankan government's attempt at accountability consisted solely of investigating the actions of the previous government and the Tamil Tigers, and not of the present government's actions during the final stages of the war. The panel concluded this is not in accordance with international standards and fell "dramatically short of international expectations". The panel found the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) established by the Sri Lankan government to be "deeply flawed" and not up to international standards of independence and impartiality due the "deep-seated conflicts of interests" of some of its members. The mandate of the LLRC, its work and methodology meant that it was incapable of investigating the serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law or of examining the causes of the civil war. The panel concluded that the LLRC could not satisfy the commitment on accountability given by President Rajapaksa and Bank Ki-moon.
The panel found that the Sri Lankan justice system was incapable of providing accountability. The independence of the Attorney General had been eroded and the continuation of Emergency Regulations and the Prevention of Terrorism Act precluded the judiciary from holding the government accountable on human rights issues. Military courts and other domestic institutions were also incapable of providing accountability. The panel found that the government's triumphalism and the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora's inability to acknowledge the Tamil Tigers' role in the humanitarian disaster also hindered accountability.
The panel criticised the UN for not protecting civilians. It's reluctance to release casualty figures undermined the call to protect civilians.
The panel a number of recommendations including that there be an independent international inquiry into the alleged violations of international law and that the Sri Lankan government carry out genuine investigations of the alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law committed by both sides.
The Sri Lankan government rejected the report but Stephen Rapp, the United States Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, subsequently called on Sri Lanka to investigate the allegations stating that sources used in the report "were credible and reliable and that allegations had been corroborated".
The tribunal found numerous instances of human rights violations committed by the Sri Lankan government. Violations between 2006 (end of the ceasefire) and 2009 (end of the war) included: bombing civilian objectives like hospitals, schools and other non-military targets; bombing government-proclaimed ‘safety zones’ or ‘no fire zones’; withholding of food, water, and health facilities in war zones; use of heavy weaponry, banned weapons and air-raids; using food and medicine as a weapon of war; mistreatment, torture and execution of captured or surrendered Tamil Tiger combatants, officials and supporters; torture; rape and sexual violence against women; deportations and forcible transfer of individuals and families; and desecration of the dead. Violations committed in the IDP camps included: shooting of Tamil citizens and Tamil Tiger supporters; forced disappearances; rape; malnutrition; and lack of medical supplies. There was also evidence of forced “disappearances” of targeted individuals from the Tamil population during the ceasefire (2002–2006).
The tribunal concluded that the human rights violations during the war (2006–2009) "clearly constitute war crimes committed by the Sri Lankan Government, its security forces and aligned paramilitary forces, as defined under the Geneva Conventions and in the Rome Statute (Article 8)." Sri Lanka is a signatory of the Geneva Convention but not the Rome Statute. The tribunal found that war crimes were committed irrespective of whether the civil war was considered to be an international conflict or as an internal armed conflict. The tribunal also found that human rights violations committed in the IDP camps and the forced disappearances during the ceasefire (2002–2006) "clearly constitute crimes against humanity" as defined under Article 7 of the Rome Statute. The tribunal could not find enough evidence to justify the charge of genocide but it requested that a thorough investigation be held as some of the evidence it had received indicated "possible acts of genocide". The tribunal could also not find enough evidence to justify the charge of crimes against the peace. The tribunal stated that the crimes committed by the Sri Lankan government against the Tamil Tigers could not be justified because "neither war crimes, nor crimes against humanity would be justified by any act committed by the victims". The tribunal found that the USA and UK undermined the ceasefire by pressurising the EU into designating the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist organisation. This allowed the Sri Lankan government to restart the war and thus commit the human rights violations.
The tribunal made a number of recommendations to the Sri Lankan government, UN and international community, including that a UN special rapporteur be appointed to "investigate and identify responsibilities for human rights violations, violations of humanitarian law and war crimes committed by all parties in conflict". The tribunal's findings were completely rejected by the Sri Lankan government.
The report found credible evidence of intentional shelling of civilians by the Sri Lankan armed forces; intentional shelling of hospitals by the Sri Lankan armed forces; intentional shelling of humanitarian operations by the Sri Lankan armed forces; deliberate obstruction of food and medical treatment for the civilian population by the Sri Lankan armed forces; intentional shooting of civilians by the Tamil Tigers; and intentional infliction of suffering on civilians by the Tamil Tigers. The report found evidence that suggested that during 2009 tens of thousands of Tamil civilians were killed, countless wounded and hundreds of thousands deprived of basic food and medical care which resulted in further, unnecessary deaths. The report suggested that the actions of some members of the international community produced conditions which allowed war crimes to be committed.
The report made a number of recommendations, particularly that there should be an international investigation into alleged war crimes. The report stated that it was impossible for any domestic (Sri Lankan) investigation into the government/security forces to be impartial "given the entrenched culture of impunity". The report noted that although Sri Lanka was not a member of the International Criminal Court and the UN Security Council was unlikely to refer Sri Lanka to the ICC, individual countries may investigate and prosecute alleged culprits over whom they have jurisdiction, such as those with dual-nationality. Sri Lanka's Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa holds dual US-Sri Lankan citizenship and Sarath Fonseka, commander of the Sri Lankan armed forces during the final months of the war, has a US Green Card .
In January 2011 the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, a German human rights group, sent a dossier detailing alleged war crimes committed by the 57 Division to the German Federal Foreign Office The ECCHR followed the military offensives as described by the Sri Lankan military, examined reports produced by the Sri Lankan government and NGOs, and talked to eyewitnesses present in the conflict area. The dossier concluded that many violations of international law were committed by the Sri Lankan military and the Tigers, particularly war crimes. The dossier supports the view of the US embassy in Colombo that the senior military and civilian leaders were responsible for these crimes. The dossier urges the German government to investigate Dias' individual criminal responsibility, withdraw his diplomatic visa and declare him persona non grata.
In August 2011 the Society for Threatened Peoples and TRIAL - Swiss Association against Impunity filed a criminal complaint with the Public Ministry of Switzerland against Dias for alleged war crimes. Dias dismissed the war crimes allegations as "baseless, unfounded and non-substantiated allegations. Fictions, not facts". The Swiss government subsequently confirmed it had distressed the alleged war crimes with Dias. On 14 September 2011 Dias was recalled to Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan government claimed that he was returning to Sri Lankan because his two-year term had come to an end but reports in the media suggested that he had been stripped of his diplomatic immunity and the recall was to prevent war crimes charges being filed against him. The Swiss federal prosecutor has announced that a criminal investigation against Dias would commence if he ever returned to Switzerland.
A confidential UN report dated 26 April 2009 comparing UNOSAT images of the Safe Zone taken between 5 February 2009 and 19 April 2009 was leaked the media. The images showed numerous craters caused by shelling. The main finding of the report was that "there are new indications of building destruction and damages resulting from shelling and possible air-strikes". The report found that 60 main buildings had been destroyed to date in the Safe Zone but this excluded temporary structures erected by the IDPs as it was not possible to identify damage to these using satellite images. Over 5,000 IDP shelters had also been relocated during April 2009 due the shelling and bombardment. There was evidence of hundreds of craters and heavy damage to buildings outside the Safe Zone. The report concluded that damage estimates were a minimum and that the "actual damages are likely to be greater". The accuracy of some of the damage suggested that it could only have been done by air-dropped bombs. Although the report not apportion blame, given that Tamil Tigers' air wing had been destroyed in early 2009, this damage could only have been caused by the Sri Lankan Air Force. After being confronted with the UN satellite images during an interview with Al Jazeera Sri Lankan Foreign Secretary Palitha Kohona admitted that the Sri Lankan armed forces had carried out shelling and air raids in the Safe Zone. This contradicted the statements by the Sri Lankan government and President Rajapaksa, and an earlier statement by Kohona himself, that there was no shelling by the Sri Lankan armed forces in the Safe Zone.
Following a request from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch the American Association for the Advancement of Science compared commercial high-resolution satellite images of the Safe Zone taken on 6 May 2009 and 10 May 2009 to evaluate the impact of heavy fighting on 9/10 May. They found evidence of significant removal of IDP shelters, artillery and mortar emplacements, destroyed permanent structures, bomb shell impact craters and 1,346 individual graves. By calculating the trajectory of the shells which caused the craters the AAAS was able to conclude that the shells came from Sri Lankan Army territory.
US government satellites had been monitoring the war zone secretly. In April 2009 the US State Department released two satellite images of the Safe Zone showing 100,000 civilians trapped in area. The State Department report to Congress (above) included a number of images taken by US government satellites. The images showed that Puthukkudiyiruppu Hospital had been heavily damaged between 28 January 2009 and 16 March 2009.
On 25 August 2009 Britain's Channel 4 News broadcast mobile phone video of gunmen alleged to be Sri Lankan soldiers apparently summarily executing eight bound and blindfolded Tamil men at point-blank range in January 2009. The video was alleged to have been taken by a Sri Lankan government soldier and to have been circulating amongst soldiers before Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka, a group of exiled Sri Lankan journalists, obtained it.
The Sri Lankan government rejected the video footage, calling it a fabrication. It established a four-member panel of Sri Lankan experts (Siri Hewawitharana, Chatura Ranjan de Silva, Brigadier Prasad Samarasinghe and Major P. A. Bandara) to investigate the authenticity of the video. This panel produced a technical analysis of the video in early September which concluded that the video was fake. The independence of the Sri Lankan panel was questioned as two of the panel worked for the Sri Lankan military.
An investigation by a UN commissioned panel of independent experts (Peter Diaczuk, Daniel Spitz and Jeff Spivack) found that the video was authentic. In a point-by-point repudiation of the Sri Lankan government's assessment, the experts concluded that the reaction and movement of the victims' bodies and blood evidence were consistent with being shot; the movement of the weapon and the shooter and the gases expelled from the muzzle were consistent with live ammunition firing, not blank cartridges; there was no evidence of breaks in continuity in the video, no additional video layers; and no evidence of image manipulation; and that video had been filmed on a mobile phone, not a camcorder, as the Sri Lankan government's analysis had maintained. The experts were unable to explain 17 frames at the end of the video but this did not invalidate its authenticity.
The independent experts' findings led Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, to call for "an independent inquiry to carry out an impartial investigation into war crimes and other grave violations of international humanitarian and human rights law allegedly committed in Sri Lanka."
In response to the video, the Sri Lankan government questioned Channel 4's "standards and fairness".
Criticism has been levelled at the program from many parties. A. A. Gill of The Sunday Times wrote "Not a second of this has been shot by Channel 4; none of the eyewitness accounts comes from journalists" and said "Jon Snow's commentary was intemperate and partisan, and it was all held together by assumptions". Sri Lanka's permanent representatives to the United Nations highlighted what they claimed were inconsistencies in the documentary. Ofcom investigated Channel 4's documentary after more than 100 complaints were received saying that it was misleading and misrepresentative. However, Ofcom found the documentary to be 'not in breach' of any regulations.
In July 2011, Channel 4 exclusively revealed two individuals who witnessed the final violent stage on May 2009 who claimed a military commander and Sri Lanka's defence secretary ordered war crimes. One stated "They shot people at random. Stabbed people. Raped them. Cut out their tongues, cut women's breasts off. I saw people soaked in blood."
On 10 November 2010 Al Jazeera broadcast photographs that appeared to show the aftermath of Sri Lankan Army soldiers massacring civilians and executing Tamil Tigers in the final stages of the civil war. The graphic images showed dead bodies piled on top of each other, often naked. One of the photos showed what is believed to be the dead body of Prabhakaran's son. Some of the photos showed naked bodies with blindfolds and hands tied behind their backs. They appear to have been executed. Al Jazeera could not verify the authenticity of the photographs. It had obtained them from Tamils who said they had obtained the photos from someone in the Sri Lankan military. The Sri Lankan government reacted by calling the photos lies and fabrications. It claimed that some of the photos were the same as those broadcast by Channel 4 News in May 2010. Amnesty International reacted by stating that the photos were evidence that there needs to be an independent international investigation into what happened in the final stages of the civil.
On 18 May 2010 Channel 4 News broadcast interviews with two people who claimed they were Sri Lankan soldiers and who made the allegation that they had been given orders from "the top" to summarily execute all ethnic Tamils, civilians as well as fighters. A senior commander claimed "the order would have been to kill everybody and finish them off..It is clear that such orders were...from the top". Sri Lankan Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, President Rajapaksa's brother, was said to have given direct orders to army commanders at the battle front. It was also claimed in the story that Velupillai Prabhakaran's 13-year old son Balachandran was interrogated by the Sri Lankan military before being shot. A front line soldier said "our commander ordered us to kill everyone. We killed everyone". The soldier claimed that the Tamils were tortured before being executed. Numerous photos taken by Sri Lankan soldiers showing dead bodies and Tamil prisoners were also shown in the broadcast. No audio of the actual commander or the front line soldier making the claims were aired to protect their identity, a standard practice.
There was uproar in Sri Lanka when the "Sunday Leader" article was published. The government's Human Rights Minister, Mahinda Samarasinghe, said General Fonseka's statements were lies that had damaged the image of the country, and characterised them as the biggest betrayal of its kind in Sri Lanka's history. As an apparent consequence of the "Sunday Leader" article, and just twelve days after his evident defeat in the Sri Lankan presidential election, General Fonseka was arrested by military forces on February 8, 2010. The military based the arrest, it said, on allegations of "committing military offences", but it offered no details. The director general of the government's Media Centre for National Security told state TV that Fonseka will be tried by a military tribunal. His ongoing detention was subsequently attributed to civil and criminal charges including inciting the public against the government. During the previous month's run-up to the presidential election, Fonseka and his aides had moved into a luxurious Colombo hotel on January 26, 2010, election day. According to Time magazine, "The hotel was soon surrounded by military. Fonseka complained that there was a threat to his life and that the government was limiting his movements. Authorities claimed that security had been increased around the hotel as a precaution, although several former military officers working on the Fonseka campaign were arrested as they left the hotel."
On May 12, 2010, after three months in military custody, the general said, according to the BBC, that the "Sunday Leader" newspaper had misquoted him, that he was innocent of any attempt to incite the public, and that the case was part of an attempt to silence him. Then, while still in military custody, Fonseka seemed to downplay his earlier claim that Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa had ordered the killing of Tamil Tiger rebels as they were trying to surrender in May, 2009. The BBC's Charles Haviland in Colombo noted, however, that Fonseka did not make a blanket denial that no war crimes had been committed, but rather stipulated that no war crimes took place to his knowledge. Next, in a June 7, 2010 interview with the BBC's Hard Talk programme Defence Secretary Rajapaksa threatened to execute Fonseka if he testified at an independent war crimes investigation, stating "He can't do that..That is a treason. We will hang him if he do that." The next day, June 8, 2010, General Fonseka denied having told lies or having committing treason when speaking of the possibility of war crimes being committed during fighting against Tamil Tiger rebels.
After his arrest Fonseka was charged with a number of civilian and military offences. On 13 August 2010 Fonseka was found guilty of engaging in politics while on active service by a court martial. He was stripped of his rank and medals. On 17 September 2010 Fonseka was found guilty of breaching arms procurement guidelines (corruption) by a court martial. He was sentenced to 30 months rigorous imprisonment and stripped of his parliamentary seat. Fonseka is currently being tried in a civilian court on accusations of spreading public disaffection in respect of the "white flag" case.
During a counter-insurgency seminar conducted by Sri Lanka Army in June 2011, Lawrence Smith - an attaché of the American embassy in Sri Lanka from 2008 revealed "...from what I was privileged to hear and to see, the offers to surrender that I am aware of seemed to come from the mouthpieces of the LTTE -- Nadesan, KP -- people who weren't and never had really demonstrated any control over the leadership or the combat power of the LTTE. So their offers were a bit suspect anyway, and they tended to vary in content hour by hour, day by day. I think we need to examine the credibility of those offers before we leap to conclusions that such offers were in fact real..." However the US State Department characterized the statement as "personal opinion".
By early May, when the war was ending, the United Nations estimated that some 7,000 civilians had died and more than 10,000 had been wounded in 2009 as the army’s noose was being drawn tight around the remaining rebels and hundreds of thousands of noncombatants, who could not escape government shelling. The final two weeks likely saw thousands more civilians killed, at the hands of both the army and the rebels.
In April 2009, we travelled together as foreign ministers to Sri Lanka, as 25 years of fighting between the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil Tigers neared its end.
The remaining fighters were trapped in the northernmost part of the country — along with large numbers of civilians. U.N. estimates put the numbers of civilians there in the last few months of the war at over 300,000.
We visited refugee camps that had been created to house Tamil refugees from Jaffna. Their stories were brutal and shocking. Random shelling in areas of fighting — including after the government had announced an end to fighting. Men and boys taken away from refugee camps — and now out of contact. Tamil life treated as fourth or fifth class. If foreign policy is about anything, it should be about stopping this kind of inhumanity.............Restrictions on journalism meant that there was a war without witness in Sri Lanka.............It seems to us essential that this process is taken forward. As the report says, accountability is a duty under domestic and international law, and those responsible, including Sri Lanka Army commanders and senior government officials, would bear criminal liability for international crimes.............Kofi Annan has said that the international community cannot be selective in its approach to upholding the rule of law. We therefore call on our governments to set a deadline, soon, for satisfactory response from the Sri Lankan government, and if it is not forthcoming to initiate the international arrangements recommended by the report.............Reports like the one compiled for the secretary general must not stand on the shelf. They must be the basis of action. Or the law becomes an ass."
The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed unanimously a resolution on 8 June 2011 which, based on the report, accused Sri Lanka of: failure in constitutionally resolving the righteous demands of Tamils since independence; working for complete extermination of Tamils in the island; mass killings of innocent Tamils, other atrocities and failure in humanitarian action during the war; continued human rights abuses after the war; and human rights abuses on media persons and others outside of the war zone. The resolution urged the Indian central government to impose economic sanctions against Sri Lanka until Tamils are given equal rights and to press the UN to declare as “war criminals” those who committed alleged war crimes during the conflict in Sri Lanka.
In an official state visit to Chennai, Hillary Clinton discussed the Tamil situation at length with J. Jayalalitha, contrary to claims beforehand from India's Central Government that the matter would not be broached. Clinton stated that the United States was looking at "creative and innovative ways" to break the impasse over Sri Lanka.
..."What happened in Sri Lanka was a major Rwanda-like atrocity, in a different scale, where the West didn't care. There was plenty of early warning. This [conflict] has been going on for years and decades. Plenty of things could have been done [to prevent it]. But there was not enough interest."Chomsky was responding to a question that referred to Jan Egeland, former head of the UN's Humanitarian Affairs' earlier statement that R2P was a failure in Sri Lanka.
"The targeting of civilians is a war crime. If proved, these charges go right up the chain of command of Sri Lanka's military and government. If Iran stands condemned for killing hundreds in the wake of the June 2009 election, if Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic now face justice in The Hague, if Bashar al-Assad faces UN sanctions for an assault that has killed 1,300 Syrians, how it is that President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his brother, the defence secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa, escape all censure, after over 40,000 civilians were killed?
That the LTTE assassinated presidents and invented the suicide belt, that the Tigers used civilians as human shields, is no defence from the charge that Sri Lankan soldiers summarily executed prisoners in their custody. Sri Lanka is trying to pretend these events are history, as the economy and tourism pick up. They are not. This evidence has to be faced."
"President Rajapaksa would be well advised to distance himself swiftly from his brother's stream-of-consciousness on sensitive issues that are not his business. This includes an outrageous comment that because a Tamil woman, an “LTTE cadre” who was a British national, interviewed in the Channel 4 documentary was “so attractive” but had been neither raped nor killed by Sri Lankan soldiers, the allegation of sexual assault by soldiers could not be true. For this statement alone, Mr. Gotabaya Rajapaksa must be taken to task."
The World News (WN) Network, has created this privacy statement in order to demonstrate our firm commitment to user privacy. The following discloses our information gathering and dissemination practices for wn.com, as well as e-mail newsletters.
We do not collect personally identifiable information about you, except when you provide it to us. For example, if you submit an inquiry to us or sign up for our newsletter, you may be asked to provide certain information such as your contact details (name, e-mail address, mailing address, etc.).
We may retain other companies and individuals to perform functions on our behalf. Such third parties may be provided with access to personally identifiable information needed to perform their functions, but may not use such information for any other purpose.
In addition, we may disclose any information, including personally identifiable information, we deem necessary, in our sole discretion, to comply with any applicable law, regulation, legal proceeding or governmental request.
We do not want you to receive unwanted e-mail from us. We try to make it easy to opt-out of any service you have asked to receive. If you sign-up to our e-mail newsletters we do not sell, exchange or give your e-mail address to a third party.
E-mail addresses are collected via the wn.com web site. Users have to physically opt-in to receive the wn.com newsletter and a verification e-mail is sent. wn.com is clearly and conspicuously named at the point ofcollection.
If you no longer wish to receive our newsletter and promotional communications, you may opt-out of receiving them by following the instructions included in each newsletter or communication or by e-mailing us at michaelw(at)wn.com
The security of your personal information is important to us. We follow generally accepted industry standards to protect the personal information submitted to us, both during registration and once we receive it. No method of transmission over the Internet, or method of electronic storage, is 100 percent secure, however. Therefore, though we strive to use commercially acceptable means to protect your personal information, we cannot guarantee its absolute security.
If we decide to change our e-mail practices, we will post those changes to this privacy statement, the homepage, and other places we think appropriate so that you are aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it.
If we make material changes to our e-mail practices, we will notify you here, by e-mail, and by means of a notice on our home page.
The advertising banners and other forms of advertising appearing on this Web site are sometimes delivered to you, on our behalf, by a third party. In the course of serving advertisements to this site, the third party may place or recognize a unique cookie on your browser. For more information on cookies, you can visit www.cookiecentral.com.
As we continue to develop our business, we might sell certain aspects of our entities or assets. In such transactions, user information, including personally identifiable information, generally is one of the transferred business assets, and by submitting your personal information on Wn.com you agree that your data may be transferred to such parties in these circumstances.