சனி, 29 மார்ச், 2014
Tamil civil society disappointed with UNHRC resolution, New Delhi's stand
Tamil civil society disappointed with UNHRC resolution, New Delhi's stand
[TamilNet, Friday, 28 March 2014, 12:10 GMT]
While expressing appreciation for those countries that voted for the resolution and expressing their disappointment on the conduct of India at the UNHRC, Mannaar Bishop Rt Rev Rayappu Joseph and Jaffna University law academic Kumaravadivel Guruparan, in a statement issued on behalf of the Tamil Civil Society Forum (TCSF) on Thursday, expressed their deep regret that the resolution does not provide for the establishment of a robust mechanism of international investigations in the form of an International Commission of Inquiry.
Full text of the TCSF follows:
The Tamil Civil Society Forum (TCSF) takes note of the resolution passed by the UN Human Rights Council on promoting accountability, reconciliation and human rights in Sri Lanka on 27 March 2014.
TCSF expresses appreciation for those countries that sponsored and voted for the resolution. We are extremely disappointed that India chose to abstain during the vote on the full text of the resolution and to vote for the motion that sought to delete the paragraph (Operative Paragraph 10) in the resolution authorising the OHCHR to undertake investigations.
We deeply regret that this resolution does not provide for the establishment of a robust mechanism of international investigations in the form of an International Commission of Inquiry. We are also concerned that the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner's mandate for investigations has been limited to the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission's time framework. The resolution does not explicitly provide her office the authority to investigate on going violations.
With regard to Operative Paragraph 6 of the resolution we reiterate that the 13th amendment provides no basis for a political solution of the Tamil question. The narrative of the preambular paragraphs, we note with regret, does not take into consideration the specificity of the problems faced by the Tamils.
We are concerned that despite the resolution and the debate leading up to it, the plight of the Tamils continue and continue to escalate. We wish to stress upon the International Community, the need to take bold, firm and decisive steps that will be necessary to address the ongoing suffering of the Tamils.
Rt. Rev. Dr. Rayappu Joseph (Bishop of Mannar) & Kumaravadivel Guruparan (University of Jaffna) on behalf of the Tamil Civil Society Forum
* * *
Meanwhile, New Delhi's envoy to UN, Mr. Dilip Sinha told NDTV on Friday that the introduction of the concept of international investigation in the resolution was the reason for India abstaining from the voting.
Mr. Sinha's statement means that Pakistan and India are together in denying international investigative justice to Eezham Tamils.
During the voting, Pakistan asked the UNHRC to remove the clause on OHCHR investigation from the resolution.
When asked by the NDTV whether India would have voted yes, had the clause been removed, Sinha said that there were other concerns too and he wouldn't speculate on what would have happened then.
"We encourage Sri Lanka to fulfill its own commitments and conduct its own investigations in such a way that they are credible and are looked upon by others as acceptable investigations," Sinha said.
In the same spirit, people of India, especially the people of Tamil Nadu, should see that the coming elections should pave way for conducting an investigation in India itself on the role of the Congress regime and its officials in the genocide of Eezham Tamils, commented Tamil activists for alternative politics in the island.
Chronology:
While expressing appreciation for those countries that voted for the resolution and expressing their disappointment on the conduct of India at the UNHRC, Mannaar Bishop Rt Rev Rayappu Joseph and Jaffna University law academic Kumaravadivel Guruparan, in a statement issued on behalf of the Tamil Civil Society Forum (TCSF) on Thursday, expressed their deep regret that the resolution does not provide for the establishment of a robust mechanism of international investigations in the form of an International Commission of Inquiry.
Full text of the TCSF follows:
The Tamil Civil Society Forum (TCSF) takes note of the resolution passed by the UN Human Rights Council on promoting accountability, reconciliation and human rights in Sri Lanka on 27 March 2014.
TCSF expresses appreciation for those countries that sponsored and voted for the resolution. We are extremely disappointed that India chose to abstain during the vote on the full text of the resolution and to vote for the motion that sought to delete the paragraph (Operative Paragraph 10) in the resolution authorising the OHCHR to undertake investigations.
We deeply regret that this resolution does not provide for the establishment of a robust mechanism of international investigations in the form of an International Commission of Inquiry. We are also concerned that the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner's mandate for investigations has been limited to the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission's time framework. The resolution does not explicitly provide her office the authority to investigate on going violations.
With regard to Operative Paragraph 6 of the resolution we reiterate that the 13th amendment provides no basis for a political solution of the Tamil question. The narrative of the preambular paragraphs, we note with regret, does not take into consideration the specificity of the problems faced by the Tamils.
We are concerned that despite the resolution and the debate leading up to it, the plight of the Tamils continue and continue to escalate. We wish to stress upon the International Community, the need to take bold, firm and decisive steps that will be necessary to address the ongoing suffering of the Tamils.
Rt. Rev. Dr. Rayappu Joseph (Bishop of Mannar) & Kumaravadivel Guruparan (University of Jaffna) on behalf of the Tamil Civil Society Forum
* * *
Meanwhile, New Delhi's envoy to UN, Mr. Dilip Sinha told NDTV on Friday that the introduction of the concept of international investigation in the resolution was the reason for India abstaining from the voting.
Mr. Sinha's statement means that Pakistan and India are together in denying international investigative justice to Eezham Tamils.
During the voting, Pakistan asked the UNHRC to remove the clause on OHCHR investigation from the resolution.
When asked by the NDTV whether India would have voted yes, had the clause been removed, Sinha said that there were other concerns too and he wouldn't speculate on what would have happened then.
"We encourage Sri Lanka to fulfill its own commitments and conduct its own investigations in such a way that they are credible and are looked upon by others as acceptable investigations," Sinha said.
In the same spirit, people of India, especially the people of Tamil Nadu, should see that the coming elections should pave way for conducting an investigation in India itself on the role of the Congress regime and its officials in the genocide of Eezham Tamils, commented Tamil activists for alternative politics in the island.
Chronology:
External Links:
NDTV: | India was never against Sri Lanka: Indian envoy to UN speaks to NDTV |
China-Russia bloc disappoints humanity
China-Russia bloc disappoints humanity
[TamilNet, Thursday, 27 March 2014, 18:39 GMT]
Whether armed or democratic, leaving Eezham Tamils to face struggle against genocide after tilting balance against them is the policy of the world Establishments, and that is evident in the latest resolution passed on Thursday at the UNHRC too. The resolution, without calling for removal of the occupying genocidal military, without recognizing the genocide and without recognizing the nation of Eezham Tamils, has called for a weak war crimes investigation, after binding the UNHRC with ‘united land’ of the genocidal State and the 13th amendment of its unitary constitution. But the stand repeatedly taken by China-Russia bloc and the ‘dog in the manger’ response of New Delhi, even at such a weak resolution, disappoint sensible humanity, commented Tamil activists for alternative politics.
If the China-Russia bloc and certain Islamic countries want to show their opposition to the US and the West, they could have come out with a better resolution or additions to the resolution that would have even exposed the US, UK and the West.
But the openly unjustifiable stand, talk and mobilisation led by the China-Russia bloc only push reasonably thinking humanity and sections of Tamils inescapably into the hands of the US and the West.
Knowing that the resolution would be passed, New Delhi, one of the main culprits of the genocide, Japan, which was a member of the Co-Chairs having responsibility to the genocidal process and South Africa that is now embarked on saving the Sri Lankan State and its regime through its own model of ‘reconciliation’ deception, have abstained from voting at the UNHRC.
They want to only retain their ‘leverage’ to negotiate their own interests with the genocidal State.
The Establishment in the Maldives, whether it was of Nasheed, Waheed or is of Yamin (supposed to be guided by Gayoom known for his tightrope walking in diplomacy), steadily backing the genocidal Sri Lankan State in the company of China has to be noted primarily by the people of the Maldives, as it is not going to help them in the long run.
The independence of Kosovo, facilitated by NATO, was opposed by Russia. Now the USA and the West oppose the secession of Crimea and its affiliation with Russia through a referendum.
It is an ostensible myth or opportunism if anyone says that secession is out of fashion or the world today has no ‘appetite’ for independence of new nations. They all take place when the high priests want them.
Many independent political observers in the world think that New Delhi’s lack of a proactive stand on what is righteous for the genocide-affected people in its backyard is the main impediment.
Prodding New Delhi in the right direction is the responsibility of the people of Tamil Nadu, as the coming times with a weak UNHRC resolution are going to be precarious.
Chronology:
Whether armed or democratic, leaving Eezham Tamils to face struggle against genocide after tilting balance against them is the policy of the world Establishments, and that is evident in the latest resolution passed on Thursday at the UNHRC too. The resolution, without calling for removal of the occupying genocidal military, without recognizing the genocide and without recognizing the nation of Eezham Tamils, has called for a weak war crimes investigation, after binding the UNHRC with ‘united land’ of the genocidal State and the 13th amendment of its unitary constitution. But the stand repeatedly taken by China-Russia bloc and the ‘dog in the manger’ response of New Delhi, even at such a weak resolution, disappoint sensible humanity, commented Tamil activists for alternative politics.
If the China-Russia bloc and certain Islamic countries want to show their opposition to the US and the West, they could have come out with a better resolution or additions to the resolution that would have even exposed the US, UK and the West.
But the openly unjustifiable stand, talk and mobilisation led by the China-Russia bloc only push reasonably thinking humanity and sections of Tamils inescapably into the hands of the US and the West.
Knowing that the resolution would be passed, New Delhi, one of the main culprits of the genocide, Japan, which was a member of the Co-Chairs having responsibility to the genocidal process and South Africa that is now embarked on saving the Sri Lankan State and its regime through its own model of ‘reconciliation’ deception, have abstained from voting at the UNHRC.
They want to only retain their ‘leverage’ to negotiate their own interests with the genocidal State.
The Establishment in the Maldives, whether it was of Nasheed, Waheed or is of Yamin (supposed to be guided by Gayoom known for his tightrope walking in diplomacy), steadily backing the genocidal Sri Lankan State in the company of China has to be noted primarily by the people of the Maldives, as it is not going to help them in the long run.
The independence of Kosovo, facilitated by NATO, was opposed by Russia. Now the USA and the West oppose the secession of Crimea and its affiliation with Russia through a referendum.
It is an ostensible myth or opportunism if anyone says that secession is out of fashion or the world today has no ‘appetite’ for independence of new nations. They all take place when the high priests want them.
Many independent political observers in the world think that New Delhi’s lack of a proactive stand on what is righteous for the genocide-affected people in its backyard is the main impediment.
Prodding New Delhi in the right direction is the responsibility of the people of Tamil Nadu, as the coming times with a weak UNHRC resolution are going to be precarious.
Chronology:
UNHRC passes resolution on Sri Lanka
UNHRC passes resolution on Sri Lanka seeking another UN report
[TamilNet, Thursday, 27 March 2014, 16:48 GMT]
The resolution on Sri Lanka framed by the United States and the UK with the backing of 36 other Member States of the United Nations, passed with 23 of 47 Member States of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) voting for the resolution, 12 voting against and 12 abstaining. The resolution has failed to call for a full fledged independent international investigations and to propose an international mechanism to put an end to the ongoing genocide against the nation of Eelam Tamils. India and Japan have abstained from voting. Pakistan and Maldives voted against and South Korea voted for the US proposed resolution.
The resolution in its operative paragraph 2 called upon the Government of Sri Lanka to conduct an independent and credible investigation into allegations of violations of international human rights law and in operational paragraph 10, took note of the recommendations and conclusions of the High Commissioner regarding ongoing human rights violations and the need for an international inquiry mechanism in the absence of a credible national process with tangible results, and requested the Office of the High Commissioner:
The resolution on Sri Lanka framed by the United States and the UK with the backing of 36 other Member States of the United Nations, passed with 23 of 47 Member States of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) voting for the resolution, 12 voting against and 12 abstaining. The resolution has failed to call for a full fledged independent international investigations and to propose an international mechanism to put an end to the ongoing genocide against the nation of Eelam Tamils. India and Japan have abstained from voting. Pakistan and Maldives voted against and South Korea voted for the US proposed resolution.
The resolution in its operative paragraph 2 called upon the Government of Sri Lanka to conduct an independent and credible investigation into allegations of violations of international human rights law and in operational paragraph 10, took note of the recommendations and conclusions of the High Commissioner regarding ongoing human rights violations and the need for an international inquiry mechanism in the absence of a credible national process with tangible results, and requested the Office of the High Commissioner:
- To monitor the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and to continue to assess progress on relevant national processes;
- To undertake a comprehensive investigation into alleged serious violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes by both parties in Sri Lanka during the period covered by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, and to establish the facts and circumstances of such alleged violations and of the crimes perpetrated with a view to avoiding impunity and ensuring accountability, with assistance from relevant experts and special procedures mandate holders;
- To present an oral update to the Human Rights Council at its twenty-seventh session, and a comprehensive report followed by a discussion on the implementation of the present resolution at its twenty-eighth session;
The result of which would be another report by the OHCHRC, but an endorsed report with a mandate from the Human Rights Council.
23 Member States that voted for the resolution: Argentina, Austria, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Macedonia, Mexico, Montenegro, Peru, Republic of Korea, Romania, Sierra Leone, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America.
12 Member States that voted against the resolution: Algeria, China, Congo, Cuba, Kenya, Maldives, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela and Vietnam.
12 Member States that abstained from voting: Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Morocco, Namibia, Philippines and South Africa.
The resolution was endorsed by the following countries:
Albania,* Austria, Belgium,* Bulgaria,* Canada,* Croatia,* Cyprus,* Denmark,* Estonia, Finland,* France, Georgia,* Germany, Greece,* Hungary,* Iceland,* Ireland, Italy, Latvia,* Liechtenstein,* Lithuania,* Luxembourg,* Mauritius,* Montenegro, Netherlands,* Norway,* Poland,* Portugal,* Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis,* Sierra Leone, Slovakia,* Spain,* Sweden,* Switzerland,* the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America.
(* Non-Member State of the Human Rights Council)
Chronology:
SL military detains 28 Tamils in 2 weeks
SL military detains 28 Tamils in 2 weeks
[TamilNet, Thursday, 27 March 2014, 11:00 GMT]
The occupying Sri Lankan military, launching house-to-house search in the North and East has targeted former LTTE members, has detained at least 28 Tamils within the last two weeks. The Sinhala military, unfolding a concocted scene of regrouping of the LTTE, initially ‘abducted’ two persons in Pazhai on charges of distributing leaflets and later arrested a mother and daughter on 13th March in Tharumapuram in Ki'linochchi. Several arbitrary ‘arrests’ have been made since then. While pro-Sri Lankan groups were projecting so-called 'LTTE terrorism’ as the key issue in Geneva as a smokescreen to deviate the global focus, the SL military intelligence operatives have been deployed in an unprecedented terror operation after 2009, as a tactic to support their ‘Geneva strategy’, Tamil rights activists in Ki'linochchi said.
Sri Lankan military intelligence operatives, appearing as ‘Terorrist Investigation Division’ initially ‘abducted’ two persons in Pazhai earlier this month on allegations that they were in possession of ‘leaflets’.
Former LTTE members, who are already subjected to various harassments, are facing an unprecedented campaign of terror as the SL military has summoned them to their camps and divisional secretariats issuing threats of white van abductions and disappearances if they were identified as associating themselves with the ‘regrouping LTTE’.
The SL military has carried out massive house-to-house search operations summoning former LTTE members, their families, friends and relatives.
To intensify the operation, a gunfire incident was staged, targeting the activist Jeyakumari, who was voicing for her missing son when Human Rights High Commissioner and British Prime Minister visited the island.
The terror campaign, targeting Tamil activists, was intensified in Thu'nukkaay, Mallaavi, Akkaraayan in Vanni, Valikaamam North, Thenmaraadchi and Vadamaraadchi in Jaffna district and the Trincomalee district in the East.
On Tuesday 12 Tamils from Jaffna, staying in Dehiwale in Colombo, were arrested by the notorious TID operatives, according to a complaint lodged with the SL Human Rights Commission office in Jaffna.
Two of the 12 detained were taken to the 4th floor in the TID headquarters and the others are remanded at Boosa.
In the meantime, a 28-year-old man from Vanni, Thurairasa Amuthakaran, working at Kommaanthu'rai in Uduppiddi in Uduppiddi has been summoned to TID interrogation office in Jaffna on Wednesday.
In Thenmaraadchi, the SL military is harassing Tamil businessmen, who have given employment opportunities to former LTTE members.
On Tuesday, former LTTE members were summoned to military camps and divisional secretariat offices where they were warned by the SL military officers.
In the meantime, sources in Vavuniyaa said that the 13-year-old Vibooshika is still being regarded still regarded as a “Terrorist” suspect in the records by the Terrorist Investigation Department, which maintains that she should be investigated.
In the meantime, a letter written by Vibooshika in Tamil has been sent to journalists by NGO activists in Vavuniyaa.
The letter in her own handwriting is produced below:
The occupying Sri Lankan military, launching house-to-house search in the North and East has targeted former LTTE members, has detained at least 28 Tamils within the last two weeks. The Sinhala military, unfolding a concocted scene of regrouping of the LTTE, initially ‘abducted’ two persons in Pazhai on charges of distributing leaflets and later arrested a mother and daughter on 13th March in Tharumapuram in Ki'linochchi. Several arbitrary ‘arrests’ have been made since then. While pro-Sri Lankan groups were projecting so-called 'LTTE terrorism’ as the key issue in Geneva as a smokescreen to deviate the global focus, the SL military intelligence operatives have been deployed in an unprecedented terror operation after 2009, as a tactic to support their ‘Geneva strategy’, Tamil rights activists in Ki'linochchi said.
Sri Lankan military intelligence operatives, appearing as ‘Terorrist Investigation Division’ initially ‘abducted’ two persons in Pazhai earlier this month on allegations that they were in possession of ‘leaflets’.
Former LTTE members, who are already subjected to various harassments, are facing an unprecedented campaign of terror as the SL military has summoned them to their camps and divisional secretariats issuing threats of white van abductions and disappearances if they were identified as associating themselves with the ‘regrouping LTTE’.
The SL military has carried out massive house-to-house search operations summoning former LTTE members, their families, friends and relatives.
To intensify the operation, a gunfire incident was staged, targeting the activist Jeyakumari, who was voicing for her missing son when Human Rights High Commissioner and British Prime Minister visited the island.
The terror campaign, targeting Tamil activists, was intensified in Thu'nukkaay, Mallaavi, Akkaraayan in Vanni, Valikaamam North, Thenmaraadchi and Vadamaraadchi in Jaffna district and the Trincomalee district in the East.
On Tuesday 12 Tamils from Jaffna, staying in Dehiwale in Colombo, were arrested by the notorious TID operatives, according to a complaint lodged with the SL Human Rights Commission office in Jaffna.
Two of the 12 detained were taken to the 4th floor in the TID headquarters and the others are remanded at Boosa.
In the meantime, a 28-year-old man from Vanni, Thurairasa Amuthakaran, working at Kommaanthu'rai in Uduppiddi in Uduppiddi has been summoned to TID interrogation office in Jaffna on Wednesday.
In Thenmaraadchi, the SL military is harassing Tamil businessmen, who have given employment opportunities to former LTTE members.
On Tuesday, former LTTE members were summoned to military camps and divisional secretariat offices where they were warned by the SL military officers.
In the meantime, sources in Vavuniyaa said that the 13-year-old Vibooshika is still being regarded still regarded as a “Terrorist” suspect in the records by the Terrorist Investigation Department, which maintains that she should be investigated.
In the meantime, a letter written by Vibooshika in Tamil has been sent to journalists by NGO activists in Vavuniyaa.
The letter in her own handwriting is produced below:
UN Special Tribunal can deliver justice
TNPF: Only a UN Special Tribunal can deliver justice to Sri Lanka's genocidal criminality
[TamilNet, Wednesday, 26 March 2014, 19:39 GMT]
During the General Debate on the United Nations Human Rights High Commissioner's report on Sri Lanka, 26th Wednesday, the President of Tamil National People's Front [TNPF], Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam, while concurring with the People's Tribunal that there is on-going genocide of Tamils in Sri Lanka, said that "the remedy for violations at the level of gravity that occurred ultimately, cannot be anything short of a judicial process through the ICC [International Criminal Court] or an Ad Hoc special tribunal," adding, "[a]nything less would undermine the concept of international justice and the application of humanitarian law." Selvarajah Kajendran, General Secretary, TNPF, and Visvalingam Manivannan, National Organiser, TNPF, also spoke on the other weaknesses in the UN resolution.
Full text of the speeches by the three officials of TNPF, a registered political party in Sri Lanka, follow:
Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam:
International Educational Development has been involved in the situation in Sri Lanka since 1983, and has submitted many written statements – the latest of which is A/HRC/25/NGO/136 where we set out the finding of the December 2013 Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal that genocide against the Tamil people occurred during the conflict and is on-going since the end of hostilities.
We have studied with great attention the Report of the High Commissioner (A/HRC/25/23) and comment on the three main topics.
Regarding recent developments, we concur with the Permanent People’s Tribunal that there is an on-going genocide whose goal is the de- Tamilisation of Sri Lanka.
Regarding reconciliation, this issue is a non-starter. Any reconciliation project has to include the Tamil nation - numerically smaller in number on the island - and the Sinhala nation - a majority within the current configuration of the Sri Lankan state. The Sinhala nation has no intention of “reconciling” with the Tamil nation and wants it to assimilate into its vision of a Sinhala Buddhist Sri Lanka. Indeed, the only “remedy” with the Tamil people in Sri Lanka is fleeing or assimilation.
Regarding accountability, the remedy for violations at the level of gravity that occurred ultimately cannot be anything short of a credible international investigation and a judicial process through the ICC or an Ad Hoc special tribunal. Anything less would undermine the concept of international justice and the application of humanitarian law.
* * *
Selvarajah Kajendran:
We welcome the High Commissioner’s conclusion at para 72 of her report that national mechanisms have consistently failed to establish the truth and achieve justice in Sri Lanka. We further welcome the High Commissioner’s conclusion that this can no longer be explained as a function of time or technical capacity, but that it is fundamentally a question of political will.
We wish to emphasise that the lack of a political will is not just a feature of the present government but a general characteristic attributable to the Sinhala nation that forms a majority of the Sri Lankan state. We reiterate that it will be futile to expect any future Government belonging to any political formation to provide for a domestic process to achieve justice in the island.
We however express our disappointment with the High Commissioner’s report wherein she has thought it fit to continue to recommend the implementation of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’s report as the solution to the problem of ‘reconciliation’. The current state of relationship between the Tamil and Sinhala nations is configured in a hierarchy where the Sinhala nation continues to pursue its policy of assimilation by inter alia criminalizing Tamil self determination politics, colonizing the Tamil homeland through land grab and by perpetuating a general environment of repression including through sexual violence, rape and torture.
The language of reconciliation for the Tamils sounds hegemonic. The only way in which normalcy can return to the lives of the Tamils is by recognizing their right to self determination and by establishing self-government wherein they can take control of their own affairs.
* * *
Visvalingam Manivannan :
While welcoming the High Commissioner's recommendation for the establishment for an international independent and credible investigative mechanism we are disappointed that this council will this week debate a resolution wherein the strongest possible mechanism that this council could establish will not be provided for.
We are concerned that the time frame work envisaged in the draft resolution does not cover the entire scope of the conflict and more importantly that it does not provide the high commissioner's office the mandate to investigate the ongoing genocide being perpetrated against the Tamil people. We are further concerned that the relevant operative para 8 (b) in the draft resolution does not make any reference to investigate violations of international humanitarian law.
We are also concerned that operative para 6 and the High Commissioners reference to the provincial council system in her report, perpetuates the myth that the 13th amendment to the Sri Lankan constitution can provide for a starting point to a political solution. We believe that a solution that recognises the right to self determination, nationhood and the territorial homeland of the Tamils resulting in a new socio-political contract for the different constituent nations of Sri Lanka is the only means to a political solution.
Our most pressing concern is that the High Commissioner's report or the draft resolution say nothing to halt the ongoing genocide against the Tamil Nation. We are of the opinion that this can only be achieved through the establishment of a UN sponsored transitional administration established through the aegis of the UN Security Council. This council if its serious about preventing the ongoing genocide against the tamil people should recommend the UN Secretary General to invite the UN Security Council to consider such a move.
During the General Debate on the United Nations Human Rights High Commissioner's report on Sri Lanka, 26th Wednesday, the President of Tamil National People's Front [TNPF], Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam, while concurring with the People's Tribunal that there is on-going genocide of Tamils in Sri Lanka, said that "the remedy for violations at the level of gravity that occurred ultimately, cannot be anything short of a judicial process through the ICC [International Criminal Court] or an Ad Hoc special tribunal," adding, "[a]nything less would undermine the concept of international justice and the application of humanitarian law." Selvarajah Kajendran, General Secretary, TNPF, and Visvalingam Manivannan, National Organiser, TNPF, also spoke on the other weaknesses in the UN resolution.
Full text of the speeches by the three officials of TNPF, a registered political party in Sri Lanka, follow:
Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam:
International Educational Development has been involved in the situation in Sri Lanka since 1983, and has submitted many written statements – the latest of which is A/HRC/25/NGO/136 where we set out the finding of the December 2013 Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal that genocide against the Tamil people occurred during the conflict and is on-going since the end of hostilities.
We have studied with great attention the Report of the High Commissioner (A/HRC/25/23) and comment on the three main topics.
Regarding recent developments, we concur with the Permanent People’s Tribunal that there is an on-going genocide whose goal is the de- Tamilisation of Sri Lanka.
Regarding reconciliation, this issue is a non-starter. Any reconciliation project has to include the Tamil nation - numerically smaller in number on the island - and the Sinhala nation - a majority within the current configuration of the Sri Lankan state. The Sinhala nation has no intention of “reconciling” with the Tamil nation and wants it to assimilate into its vision of a Sinhala Buddhist Sri Lanka. Indeed, the only “remedy” with the Tamil people in Sri Lanka is fleeing or assimilation.
Regarding accountability, the remedy for violations at the level of gravity that occurred ultimately cannot be anything short of a credible international investigation and a judicial process through the ICC or an Ad Hoc special tribunal. Anything less would undermine the concept of international justice and the application of humanitarian law.
* * *
Selvarajah Kajendran:
We welcome the High Commissioner’s conclusion at para 72 of her report that national mechanisms have consistently failed to establish the truth and achieve justice in Sri Lanka. We further welcome the High Commissioner’s conclusion that this can no longer be explained as a function of time or technical capacity, but that it is fundamentally a question of political will.
We wish to emphasise that the lack of a political will is not just a feature of the present government but a general characteristic attributable to the Sinhala nation that forms a majority of the Sri Lankan state. We reiterate that it will be futile to expect any future Government belonging to any political formation to provide for a domestic process to achieve justice in the island.
We however express our disappointment with the High Commissioner’s report wherein she has thought it fit to continue to recommend the implementation of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’s report as the solution to the problem of ‘reconciliation’. The current state of relationship between the Tamil and Sinhala nations is configured in a hierarchy where the Sinhala nation continues to pursue its policy of assimilation by inter alia criminalizing Tamil self determination politics, colonizing the Tamil homeland through land grab and by perpetuating a general environment of repression including through sexual violence, rape and torture.
The language of reconciliation for the Tamils sounds hegemonic. The only way in which normalcy can return to the lives of the Tamils is by recognizing their right to self determination and by establishing self-government wherein they can take control of their own affairs.
* * *
Visvalingam Manivannan :
While welcoming the High Commissioner's recommendation for the establishment for an international independent and credible investigative mechanism we are disappointed that this council will this week debate a resolution wherein the strongest possible mechanism that this council could establish will not be provided for.
We are concerned that the time frame work envisaged in the draft resolution does not cover the entire scope of the conflict and more importantly that it does not provide the high commissioner's office the mandate to investigate the ongoing genocide being perpetrated against the Tamil people. We are further concerned that the relevant operative para 8 (b) in the draft resolution does not make any reference to investigate violations of international humanitarian law.
We are also concerned that operative para 6 and the High Commissioners reference to the provincial council system in her report, perpetuates the myth that the 13th amendment to the Sri Lankan constitution can provide for a starting point to a political solution. We believe that a solution that recognises the right to self determination, nationhood and the territorial homeland of the Tamils resulting in a new socio-political contract for the different constituent nations of Sri Lanka is the only means to a political solution.
Our most pressing concern is that the High Commissioner's report or the draft resolution say nothing to halt the ongoing genocide against the Tamil Nation. We are of the opinion that this can only be achieved through the establishment of a UN sponsored transitional administration established through the aegis of the UN Security Council. This council if its serious about preventing the ongoing genocide against the tamil people should recommend the UN Secretary General to invite the UN Security Council to consider such a move.
புதன், 26 மார்ச், 2014
UN resolution neither prevents nor punishes GoSL genocide, says Boyle
UN resolution neither prevents nor punishes GoSL genocide, says Boyle
[TamilNet, Wednesday, 26 March 2014, 03:18 GMT]
While noting that "“investigation” by the UNHCR is better than nothing—with all due and sincere respect for the UNHCR," Professor Boyle, an expert in international law, said, dissemination of that “investigation” will be subject to the control of the UN Human Rights Council for political reasons and the dissemination of that UNHCR “investigation” will be dragged out for as long as possible by the Human Rights Council, thus enabling the GOSL to continue its campaign of ongoing genocide against the Tamils despite the requirement of article 1 of the Genocide Convention that every UN Human Rights Council state member is obligated both “to prevent and to punish” the GOSL genocide against the Tamils," Boyle said.
Pointing to the following text in the UN resolution
While noting that "“investigation” by the UNHCR is better than nothing—with all due and sincere respect for the UNHCR," Professor Boyle, an expert in international law, said, dissemination of that “investigation” will be subject to the control of the UN Human Rights Council for political reasons and the dissemination of that UNHCR “investigation” will be dragged out for as long as possible by the Human Rights Council, thus enabling the GOSL to continue its campaign of ongoing genocide against the Tamils despite the requirement of article 1 of the Genocide Convention that every UN Human Rights Council state member is obligated both “to prevent and to punish” the GOSL genocide against the Tamils," Boyle said.
Pointing to the following text in the UN resolution
-
...requests the High Commissioner to
...
b) to undertake a comprehensive independent investigation into alleged
serious violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes by both
parties in Sri Lanka, during the period covered by the Lessons Learnt
and Reconciliation Commission, and establish the facts and circumstances
of such alleged violations and of the crimes perpetrated with a view to
avoiding impunity and ensuring accountability, with input assistance
from relevant experts and special procedures...
Professor Boyle, in a note sent to TamilNet, said:
"After five years we are still not going to get an outside, independent commission of inquiry into GOSL atrocities committed during the genocidal massacre at Vanni against the Tamils. Instead of that we are going to get an “independent investigation” by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
"Notice the verbal chicanery involved here that reduces an “independent commission” to an “independent investigation” by the UNHCR, which are not the same thing. One would expect any “investigation” by the UNHCR to be “independent, ” so the language is redundant.
"I guess the Americans figure they can placate us with this obfuscatory language. Obviously, an “investigation” by the UNHCR is better than nothing—with all due and sincere respect for the UNHCR.
"Meanwhile the dissemination of that “investigation” will be subject to the control of the UN Human Rights Council for political reasons and the dissemination of that UNHCR “investigation” will be dragged out for as long as possible by the Human Rights Council, thus enabling the GOSL to continue its campaign of ongoing genocide against the Tamils despite the requirement of article 1 of the Genocide Convention that every UN Human Rights Council state member is obligated both “to prevent and to punish” the GOSL genocide against the Tamils.
"This third draft American resolution neither “prevents” nor “punishes” GOSL genocide against the Tamils. It is simply part of a Stall And Delay Strategy by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry going back to his infamous Report in Support of the GOSL against the Tamils when he was Chair of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that I have already previously commented upon and will not repeat here again but can be found in the archives."
Related Articles:
12.04.13 Joke and a fraud, Boyle slams Kerry's New Year message
"After five years we are still not going to get an outside, independent commission of inquiry into GOSL atrocities committed during the genocidal massacre at Vanni against the Tamils. Instead of that we are going to get an “independent investigation” by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
"Notice the verbal chicanery involved here that reduces an “independent commission” to an “independent investigation” by the UNHCR, which are not the same thing. One would expect any “investigation” by the UNHCR to be “independent, ” so the language is redundant.
"I guess the Americans figure they can placate us with this obfuscatory language. Obviously, an “investigation” by the UNHCR is better than nothing—with all due and sincere respect for the UNHCR.
"Meanwhile the dissemination of that “investigation” will be subject to the control of the UN Human Rights Council for political reasons and the dissemination of that UNHCR “investigation” will be dragged out for as long as possible by the Human Rights Council, thus enabling the GOSL to continue its campaign of ongoing genocide against the Tamils despite the requirement of article 1 of the Genocide Convention that every UN Human Rights Council state member is obligated both “to prevent and to punish” the GOSL genocide against the Tamils.
"This third draft American resolution neither “prevents” nor “punishes” GOSL genocide against the Tamils. It is simply part of a Stall And Delay Strategy by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry going back to his infamous Report in Support of the GOSL against the Tamils when he was Chair of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that I have already previously commented upon and will not repeat here again but can be found in the archives."
Related Articles:
12.04.13 Joke and a fraud, Boyle slams Kerry's New Year message
நன்கறிந்து எழுதுக! - இதழுரை
இணையப் பயன்பாடு நமக்கு உதவியாகவும்
உள்ளது; தக்கார் பயன்படுத்தும் பொழுது பெருநன்மை விளைவிக்கின்றது. அதுவே
அல்லார் கையில் அகப்படும்பொழுது நல்லவற்றைத் தொலைக்கும் தீய உருவாய்
விளங்குகின்றது. இணையம் இதற்குப் பொறுப்பேற்க இயலாது. ஆனால், இதனைப்
பயன்படுத்துநர் தங்களுக்குள் கட்டுப்பாடு வைத்துக் கொண்டு மனம் போன
போக்கில் எழுதுவதை நிறுத்த வேண்டும். “கற்றது கைம்மண்ணளவு கல்லாதது உலகளவு”
என்பதை உணராமல் முற்றும் அறிந்த முனைவராகக் கருதுவது ஏனோ? ஏதேனும்
சிறிதளவு அறிந்திருந்தாலும் முற்றும் முழுமையாக அறிந்தது போலும், தாம்
அறிந்ததே அல்லது அறிந்ததாய் எண்ணி்க் கொண்டதே – அது மிகப் பெரும் தவறாக
இருந்தாலும் – சரியென எண்ணிக் கொண்டும் பதிவதையும் பகிர்வதையும் நிறுத்த
வேண்டும்.
“தீபத்தை வைத்துக்கொண்டு திருக்குறளும் படிக்கலாம்!
தீயைக்கொண்டு மூட ரெல்லாம் ஊரைக் கூட எரிக்கலாம்!”
என்பது பழந்திரைப்பாடல். பயன்பாடு என்பது
பயன்படுத்துவோரைப் பொறுத்தததே! இணையமும் அப்படித்தான்! இணையத்தின் மூலம்
ஒரு புறம் தமிழ் வளர்ந்து கொண்டுள்ளது. மறுபுறமோ இணையத்தைத் தமிழின்
அழிவுக்குச் செலுத்துகின்றனர் சிலர்.
தமிழ் நெடுங்கணக்கின் செம்மையை –
வரிவடிவங்களின் உயர்வை உணராமலும் உணர்ந்தும் தீங்கிழைக்கும் நோக்கிலும்,
‘ணகர, நகர, னகர’, ‘லகர,ழகர,ளகர’, ‘ரகர, றகர’, வேறுபாடுகள் தேவை இல்லை எனத்
தவறாக எழுதுவோர் ஒருபுறம் உள்ளனர். வல்லினம் மிகுதல், மிகாமை முதலான
புணர்ச்சி விதிகள் தேவையில்லை எனத் தப்பும் தவறுமாக எழுதுநர் மறுபுறம்
திகழ்கின்றனர். கடந்த நூற்றாண்டில், வையாபுரிக் கூட்டத்தார் தமிழ்ச்
சொற்கள் குறித்தும் தமிழ் இலக்கியக்காலங்கள் குறித்தும் மறைத்தும்
திரித்தும் எழுதினர்; அவற்றிற்குத் தமிழ்ப்போராளி பேராசிரியர்
இலக்குவனார், தமிழ் ஞாயிறு தேவநேயப் பாவாணர் முதலானோர் தக்க
ஆராய்ச்சியுரைகளை அன்றே எழுதி அவற்றைப் புறந்தள்ளி யுள்ளனர். ஆனால்,
இவற்றை எல்லாம் அறியும் ஆர்வமின்றித் தங்களைச் சொல்லாய்வுப் புலவர்களாகக்
கருதிக் கொண்டு தமிழ்ச் சொற்கள் பிற மொழிச் சொற்களில் இருந்து வந்தன
போன்றும் காலத்தால் தமிழ் இலக்கியங்கள் பிந்தையன என்பன போன்றும் குப்பை
கொட்டுவோர் பெருகி வருகின்றனர். கலந்தாடல் குழுக்கள் மூலமும் முகநூல்
முதலான தளங்கள் மூலமும் தவறான கருத்துகளைப் பரப்புவோருக்குப் பஞ்சமில்லை.
தமிழன்பர்கள் வேண்டுவது ஒன்றே ஒன்றுதான்! அறிவை வெளிப்படுத்துங்கள்! அறியாமையை எடுத்துரைக்காதீர்கள்!
உங்களுக்குச் சொல்லாய்வு, கால ஆய்வு,
இலக்கிய ஆய்வு முதலானவற்றில் ஈடுபாடு இருப்பின் அவை குறித்த முன்னோர்
கருத்துகளை முதலில் அறிவதில் கருத்து செலுத்துங்கள்! அவற்றின் அடுத்த
நிலைக்கு மக்களை அழைத்துச் செல்லுங்கள். அவற்றில் குறை இருப்பதாக
எண்ணினால், தக்க ஏதுக்களுடன் விளக்கி உரையுங்கள். ஆம், எதையும் நன்கறிந்து எழுதுங்கள்! இணையம் வழித் தமிழ் அறிய வரும் புதிய தலைமுறையினரைத் திசை திருப்பாதீர்கள்!
“சொல்லுக சொல்லின் பயனுடைய! சொல்லற்க
சொல்லில் பயனிலாச் சொல்”
என்னும் தெய்வப்புலவர் திருவள்ளுவரின் திருக்குறளைக் கட்டளையாக ஏற்று எழுதுங்கள்!
ஆன்றோர் கருத்துகளை அறியாமலும் அறியும் ஆர்வமின்றியும் மனம் போன போக்கில் எழுதித் தமிழுக்குத் தீங்கிழைக்காதீர்! அதுவே தமிழுக்கு நீங்கள் செய்யும் அரும்பணியாகும்! அறப்பணியாகும்! ஆதலின்,
என்றும் எழுதுக நன்கறிந்த பின்பே!
பங்குனி 9, தி.ஆ.2045 / மார்ச்சு 23,2014Activists from homeland, diaspora address UNHRC
Activists from homeland, diaspora address UNHRC
[TamilNet, Tuesday, 25 March 2014, 15:34 GMT]
The Deputy Chairman of Valikaamam North Piratheasa Chapai (PS) and the president of Vali North Displaced Peoples Rehabilitation Organisation, S. Shageevan spoke at UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on Tuesday demanding global focus on the ideology-driven genocide against Tamil people in the North and East of the island. In the meantime, Tamil diaspora activist Krisna Saravanamuttu from the National Council of Canadian Tamils (NCCT) addressing the Council on the same session said that Tamil people are enduring a slow, but relentless, genocide. “The Tamil struggle today is about the survival of our people against genocide by the Sri Lankan state to destroy our sovereign national existence in the island’s NorthEast,” Krisna Saravanamuttu said.
The Tamil activists were addressing the Council under General Debate on Agenda Item 9 on Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance.
Shageevan’s address:
The Deputy Chairman of Valikaamam North Piratheasa Chapai (PS) and the president of Vali North Displaced Peoples Rehabilitation Organisation, S. Shageevan spoke at UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on Tuesday demanding global focus on the ideology-driven genocide against Tamil people in the North and East of the island. In the meantime, Tamil diaspora activist Krisna Saravanamuttu from the National Council of Canadian Tamils (NCCT) addressing the Council on the same session said that Tamil people are enduring a slow, but relentless, genocide. “The Tamil struggle today is about the survival of our people against genocide by the Sri Lankan state to destroy our sovereign national existence in the island’s NorthEast,” Krisna Saravanamuttu said.
The Tamil activists were addressing the Council under General Debate on Agenda Item 9 on Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance.
Shageevan’s address:
S Shageevan
I stand here representing victims
of racism and a long-term genocide in my homeland in the North and East
of the island of Sri Lanka.
Tamil people are subjected to a long-term genocide.
After the end of genocidal war, many places of worship have been attacked and destroyed in the Tamil homeland.
In those places, icons and temples of a different religion, not found among the people, are installed by the military. After this, a systematic colonization is carried out.
A genocidal land grab is going on in the Tamil homeland. I represent thousands of families who are still IDPs as the military has taken over their lands.
There is an ideology behind this on-going genocide.
We seek the global community to focus on this serious issue.
Krisna Saravanamuttu’s address:
Tamil people are subjected to a long-term genocide.
After the end of genocidal war, many places of worship have been attacked and destroyed in the Tamil homeland.
In those places, icons and temples of a different religion, not found among the people, are installed by the military. After this, a systematic colonization is carried out.
A genocidal land grab is going on in the Tamil homeland. I represent thousands of families who are still IDPs as the military has taken over their lands.
There is an ideology behind this on-going genocide.
We seek the global community to focus on this serious issue.
Krisna Saravanamuttu’s address:
Krisna Saravanamuttu
Over the last three years there’s
been a debate in the halls of Geneva about Sri Lanka, reconciliation and
accountability. Unfortunately, this official narrative, as far as the
Tamil Nation—the aggrieved party in the conflict—is concerned, ignores
the actual nature of our problem.”
The charge is genocide; the struggle is for liberation.
Sri Lanka’s brutal violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law—before, during, and after— the height of the island’s war in 2009 emerges out of a historic, systemic oppression against the Tamil Nation in the NorthEast of the island. But let me be unambiguously clear: the Tamil struggle today is about the survival of our people against genocide by the Sri Lankan state to destroy our sovereign national existence in the island’s NorthEast.
Our problem, then, is not exclusively with the current Sri Lankan government of Mahinda Rajapaksa, but rather, with the unitary Sri Lankan state structure itself.
Every single government since independence committed genocide through the appropriation of land, discriminatory and exclusionary policies, and organized state violence.
Today our people are enduring a slow—but relentless—genocide.
The 2009 massacres in the Vanni were carried out to kill civilians, cause serious bodily and mental harm, and impose conditions of life that produce partial and gradual physical destruction — all with little meaningful opposition from global capitals.
It is within this context that we ask the international community and the Human Rights Council to recognize our sovereign nation’s right to self-determination and the problem in Sri Lanka for what it is: genocide.
Chronology:
The charge is genocide; the struggle is for liberation.
Sri Lanka’s brutal violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law—before, during, and after— the height of the island’s war in 2009 emerges out of a historic, systemic oppression against the Tamil Nation in the NorthEast of the island. But let me be unambiguously clear: the Tamil struggle today is about the survival of our people against genocide by the Sri Lankan state to destroy our sovereign national existence in the island’s NorthEast.
Our problem, then, is not exclusively with the current Sri Lankan government of Mahinda Rajapaksa, but rather, with the unitary Sri Lankan state structure itself.
Every single government since independence committed genocide through the appropriation of land, discriminatory and exclusionary policies, and organized state violence.
Today our people are enduring a slow—but relentless—genocide.
The 2009 massacres in the Vanni were carried out to kill civilians, cause serious bodily and mental harm, and impose conditions of life that produce partial and gradual physical destruction — all with little meaningful opposition from global capitals.
It is within this context that we ask the international community and the Human Rights Council to recognize our sovereign nation’s right to self-determination and the problem in Sri Lanka for what it is: genocide.
Chronology:
21.03.14 Abductions, arrests spread to Jaffna
Guruparan addresses de-Tamilization, dichotomization in Geneva narrative
Guruparan addresses de-Tamilization, dichotomization in Geneva narrative
[TamilNet, Tuesday, 25 March 2014, 04:44 GMT]
“Unless we take a critical stance in terms of what is happening in Geneva and unless we move away from the approach that all roads lead to Geneva in terms of how Tamil problems are going to be looked at, we are not going to identify the alternatives,” Tamil civil society activist and Jaffna University law academic Kumaravadivel Guruparan said while discussing whether the resolution to be tabled in Geneva is part of solution or problem. On the question, if not for this resolution what is the alternative, he said: “If we approach the resolution critically and people are made to understand what the resolution is about, at least the space of identifying the alternative will come about. It is that creation of that space for looking for alternatives that I am arguing for. That will come about only by taking stock a realistic, pragmatic and honest take over this resolution.”
Guruparan was addressing the Geneva discourse from a Tamil perspective, looking at both the resolution-process and the OHCHR-process.
Explaining what he termed as “de-Tamilisation” of the Sri Lankan narrative, he argued that the narration is deeply problematic.
“Even if people are to argue that this resolution, in some way, makes a shift on the accountability question, in that there needs to be some international oversight or international involvement towards accountability process, after making the so-called dichotomization between accountability and reconciliation, both the resolution and the High Commissioner’s reports, still say that the domestic process can be trusted towards to the end.
The Tamil Civil Society Forum (TCSF), of which Mr Guruparan is a founder member, had sent a complete model resolution to the drafting nations almost a month ago. That document serves as a blueprint for comparison in judging where the resolutions being tabled in Geneva stand, a section of Tamil activists in Geneva said.
Transcribed text of Kumaravadivel Guruparan’s address follows:
Thank you very much. My name is Kumaravadivel Guruparan. I am a lecturer in law at the University of Jaffna, Sri Lanka, currently started doing my PhD in law in the University of London. I am also a founder member of the Tamil Civil Society Forum in Sri Lanka, which is a network of 100+ civil society activists from the North East of Sri Lanka.
I want to make some preliminary remarks before I talk about the resolution itself.
Mr. Ponnambalam has already given you a sort of synopsis of in terms of why the Tamils might feel that this resolution does not reflect their interest.
Before I get into the substantive questions as to why the Tamils feel so; or why members at least on this podium feel so; let me say a few things about what our criticism is about; and what it is not about.
There are those who would like us to think, and I think this is part of a systematic smear campaign, who suggest that to be critical about this resolution, is to be pro government of Sri Lanka. I think that is the most cynical and convoluted thing that can be said of people, who are very responsible in terms of their commitment to the Tamil people’s cause, who have stood up, criticize not only this government, but successive governments in the way in which they have conducted what we consider to be the genocide of Tamil people and an ongoing genocide.
And to suggest, that to be critical of the resolution to be pro government, is deeply offending and something that the Tamils do not take easily.
* * *
“Unless we take a critical stance in terms of what is happening in Geneva and unless we move away from the approach that all roads lead to Geneva in terms of how Tamil problems are going to be looked at, we are not going to identify the alternatives,” Tamil civil society activist and Jaffna University law academic Kumaravadivel Guruparan said while discussing whether the resolution to be tabled in Geneva is part of solution or problem. On the question, if not for this resolution what is the alternative, he said: “If we approach the resolution critically and people are made to understand what the resolution is about, at least the space of identifying the alternative will come about. It is that creation of that space for looking for alternatives that I am arguing for. That will come about only by taking stock a realistic, pragmatic and honest take over this resolution.”
Guruparan was addressing the Geneva discourse from a Tamil perspective, looking at both the resolution-process and the OHCHR-process.
Explaining what he termed as “de-Tamilisation” of the Sri Lankan narrative, he argued that the narration is deeply problematic.
“Even if people are to argue that this resolution, in some way, makes a shift on the accountability question, in that there needs to be some international oversight or international involvement towards accountability process, after making the so-called dichotomization between accountability and reconciliation, both the resolution and the High Commissioner’s reports, still say that the domestic process can be trusted towards to the end.
The Tamil Civil Society Forum (TCSF), of which Mr Guruparan is a founder member, had sent a complete model resolution to the drafting nations almost a month ago. That document serves as a blueprint for comparison in judging where the resolutions being tabled in Geneva stand, a section of Tamil activists in Geneva said.
Transcribed text of Kumaravadivel Guruparan’s address follows:
Thank you very much. My name is Kumaravadivel Guruparan. I am a lecturer in law at the University of Jaffna, Sri Lanka, currently started doing my PhD in law in the University of London. I am also a founder member of the Tamil Civil Society Forum in Sri Lanka, which is a network of 100+ civil society activists from the North East of Sri Lanka.
I want to make some preliminary remarks before I talk about the resolution itself.
Mr. Ponnambalam has already given you a sort of synopsis of in terms of why the Tamils might feel that this resolution does not reflect their interest.
Before I get into the substantive questions as to why the Tamils feel so; or why members at least on this podium feel so; let me say a few things about what our criticism is about; and what it is not about.
There are those who would like us to think, and I think this is part of a systematic smear campaign, who suggest that to be critical about this resolution, is to be pro government of Sri Lanka. I think that is the most cynical and convoluted thing that can be said of people, who are very responsible in terms of their commitment to the Tamil people’s cause, who have stood up, criticize not only this government, but successive governments in the way in which they have conducted what we consider to be the genocide of Tamil people and an ongoing genocide.
And to suggest, that to be critical of the resolution to be pro government, is deeply offending and something that the Tamils do not take easily.
* * *
The second thing, which falls out
from that first statement that I may want to make it clear is that just
because of the government of Sri Lanka is also against this resolution
is not the reason why the Tamils should be for this resolution. That is
not an easy equation you can translate Tamil support for anything to be
about.
This is something that is also made out about the 13th amendment of the provincial government system, a completely useless system of “devolution of power” that you find within the constitution of Sri Lanka.
They say that the current government of Sri Lanka does not intend to provide all powers under the 13th amendment, and hence the Tamils should be asking for those powers to be implemented, and should subscribe to the 13th amendment as a basis resolution.
We believe that Tamils position as with regard to what their substantive political position should evolve from a consideration of what the Tamil issues are, what Tamil people are facing, and based on an analysis, is the way in which we prescribe what solutions would address those problems.
If the problem is one of ongoing genocide, of ongoing oppression, of ongoing systematic oppression of the Tamil people which we call genocide, then we believe that we need to be prescribing solutions that match the diagnosis and we should not be looking at, Tamils shouldn’t be forced to take up positions, just binary to the government of Sri Lanka.
One should allow for space where Tamils take up these positions based on probably, this the least that we can do to recognize the self-determination of Tamils that the Tamils should be allowed to state.
* * *
I will be very open. We have just had an experience this morning. Just because we – I am talking of ‘we’ meaning Mr Ponnambalam and myself – we were to address a group of States as to our thoughts on t the present resolution. Just because we were critical of the resolution, there were people, who were supportive of this resolution, who kicked us out of the meeting saying that we can’t address those states.
I mean, that is the kind of space that we are talking about that exists for Tamils within the UN human rights council. And this is a problem. And I think People need to read, people need to give Tamils a space to articulate for themselves as to what they feel the solutions what would address their problem.
This is not to say that we are being unilateral about how we proceed with these things. We want to have a dialogue with the international community. We want to have a dialogue with the States. We want to have a dialogue with all concerned. We are neither pro of a particular State nor against a particular State.
Our position is that we will engage with anyone based on Tamil national interest. And for any Tamil party, any Tamil group to assume that to go along with what is being suggested by the powers that be, is the best way that Tamils are going to be liberated is a complete mistake, we feel so.
I think these points need to be kept in mind, in terms of how you read the criticism that I am going to put forward with regards to the resolution.
* * *
The first thing that I want to acknowledge is that we do understand. I mean, Tamils are sometimes demonized – not demonized they are degraded – there is a bit of a condescending approach that people like us who criticize the resolution, don’t understand UN mechanisms. We have no experience with how these things work. And that we need to be told as to how these UN mechanisms work.
I am always willing to listen. We are always willing to listen to people who would have things to say in terms of concrete action. But the point that I want to make is that we are very well aware of the limitations of the UNHRC as a mechanism.
We are aware that the UN Human Rights Council, for example, cannot set up a judicial process towards international criminal prosecutions. The only body at the moment within the UN system that can have a judicial process in terms of how you run an international criminal investigation is the International Criminal Court.
We are very well aware that a judicial process with regards to the international criminal investigation, meaning the ICC starting a prosecution, will only happen if the UN Security Council refers Sri Lanka to the ICC, that is the only option available, because, Sri Lanka’s former PM and current opposition leader Ranil Wickramsinghe keeps saying – boasts about – during his time when he was asked to sign up to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, they refused to sign up to it.
Mind you, that Sri Lanka was asked to sign up to the Rome Statute during the so-called peace process time.
If you were involved in a peace process, if you were serious about a peace process and genuine about a peace process, why is this so-called democratic star of the Sri Lankan Establishment now, I mean people are talking about Ranil Wikramasinge would do things differently, why did he not sign up to the ICC statute in 2003?
Coming back to the point. We are very clear. We are not [un]aware of the fact that the maximum contribution that the UN human rights council can make is to call for an investigation either through a directly appointed Commission of Inquiry or through the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights to set up a stand-alone investigation, or the Office of High Commissioner herself to appoint relevant experts in the field to come with an investigative report.
What is going to be produced? Whether it is CoI, whether it is a stand-alone investigation of the High Commissioner’s Office or whether it is an investigation that is led by the High Commissioner’s office itself, is a report.
It is a report that is going to say, as if we don't have enough reports [already] to say.
Probably, there is more that the report can say.
But, let us not forget that the UN Secretary General’s Panel of Experts have come up with conclusions about what has happened in Sri Lanka.
We have had the US State Department that actually produced a report in terms of what they think had happened during the last phases of the war.
We have UN Secretary General having appointed Charles Petrie to look into the UN’s own conduct during the last phase of war, which has revealed a lot
And we have the Permanent Peoples Tribunal – I know a lot of people's eyebrows will go up regarding the credibility of the PPT. But, we believe that people's organizations are also important in terms of how these things are unraveled. This is a Permanent People’s Tribunal, where serious experts of International Law have gone into the question of what has happened in Sri Lanka and they have even concluded genocide recently. So, there are number of reports that are there already.
The argument is made that these are not legitimate, that these are not produced by legitimate actors, and that somehow that the High Commissioner’s report would be considered to be legitimate by the international community per se, and hence you can increase the momentum towards an international investigation.
I am not saying that might not happen. But the question that we have, as that Mr Ponnambalam stressed in the beginning, is that the point of departure of our analysis of what this resolution would contribute towards, is not just about what happens to past violations.
It’s about how we are contributing towards change at least at a very minimum level to the systemic oppression that our people are undergoing, at the moment.
* * *
How is the resolution, I ask, going to respond to problems of people like Jeyakumari?
Jeyakumari and Vibooshika, mother and daughter are campaigners for their disappeared son. Jeyakumari's husband was killed in the war. Her sons lost their lives in the liberation struggle. Now, she has a son, who has disappeared during the last stages of the war. She has been campaigning actively for his release.
Now the government of Sri Lanka is portraying a picture of Jeyakumari as a part of a big process of [LTTE] regrouping.
The question that we ask is – I can get into the details if there are question of Jeyakumari's case – but the question we have is that Jeyakumari is just one example among many number of Tamils who are lingering in prison.
For us, the people who face the trauma of the people who interact with people who go through this oppression on a daily basis, the question that we ask is – what is the solution that is being presented – at least an indicative solution that is being presented – by the present resolution in terms of their lives being any different?
In the next year to come as the High Commissioner deliberates over what investigation needs to be done, calls upon witnesses, I am sure that the Sri Lankan government won’t allow the High Commissioner to come inside the State. The High Commissioner will try to conduct an investigation outside. What is going to change in terms of what is happening [on the ground].
As the resolution itself is being debated, we see a situation where the Tamil people are being targeted and other civil society activists also, who worry about Tamil issues, are also being targeted.
I am quite sure of this that particularly when even Sinhalese civil society activists, who belong to the South, take up matters with regard to Tamil issues, they are branded as people who ‘contribute to communal disharmony’.
This was what suggested when Ruki Fernando was arrested along with Fr. Praveen quite recently that their campaign for the Tamil peoples human rights issues, oppression of Tamil people, is contributing to ‘communal disharmony’. This is how the State has done it.
It is the same thing that happened with the case of journalist Tissainayagam, where he wrote a piece saying that Tamil people are being deprived of necessary supplies and that is how the war was being staged in the East in 2006. He was charged with ‘contributing to communal disharmony’ and sentenced for 20 years and then released on ‘presidential pardon,’ after some late intervention on the part of the international community.
The question that we ask is, how are things going to change?
I am not saying that the resolution needs to do wonders. We are not naïve people who would expect the resolution to do wonders.
The question is whether it is at least taking stock of what is happening?
And that is where we have problem in terms of the narrative.
* * *
Why do we have problem with the narrative?
This has already been mentioned. I call this the “de-Tamilisation” of the Sri Lankan narrative.
I must say that the High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillai has done some very good progressive work with regards to certain aspects on the Sri Lankan question.
For example, in conclusion of her report, recently submitted on 17th Feb to the UN Human Rights Council, that the problem with regard to Sri Lanka, with regard to the accountability, is not one of technical capacity of the Sri Lankan government to launch an accountability process, but it is an issue of political will, is very important.
But, even the high commissioner makes a dichotomization of accountability and reconciliation being two different things.
She thinks that with regards to accountability there needs to be an international inquiry process. But, with regards to reconciliation, her suggestion – after acknowledging that there hasn’t been much done with regards to the implementation of the recommendation of the so-called wonderful Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission report – is to further suggest, like the present resolution does, that ‘please implement the recommendations of the LLRC’.
It is still relying on the Sri Lankan government to say ‘implement the LLRC’, ‘implement the LLRC’ and ‘implement the LLRC’.
So, even if people are to argue that this resolution in some way makes a shift on the accountability question, that there needs to be some international oversight or international involvement towards accountability process, after making the so-called dichotomization between accountability and reconciliation – I say dichotomization because I think reconciliation if ever possible is deeply linked with the accountability – both the resolutions and the High Commissioner’s reports, still say that the domestic process can be trusted towards to the end. That narration is deeply problematic.
Again, a problem with both the resolution and the High Commissioner, after her visit to Sri Lanka, identified the problems in Sri Lanka as one of authoritarianism, as one of lack of rule of law or lack of good governance.
I don’t have the doubt that these are true. But, the problem is that narrative misses out the fact that when it comes to the Tamil people in particular, in specific, the problem is that it is about structural issues, it is about the Sri Lankan State, it is a 60-year and 30-year question.
We heard enough from Professor Sri Ranjan in terms of the historical material that supports this argument.
There is a complete denial of the fact that the issues that are faced by the Tamil people are much more structural in nature.
It is not about this recent authoritarian term that was taken. It is not about this recent rule of law or its collapse by this particular regime. It is not the question of just a simple collapse of good governance, but more a fundamental question with regards to the character of the Sri Lankan State. All the three resolutions so far have failed to acknowledge this.
You have a trajectory in the international human rights process as mediated by the UN Human Rights Council that doesn’t want to take cognizance of this process.
* * *
Let me now turn to the final point I want to make. This resolution talks about a political solution that needs to take shape in Sri Lanka. The operative paragraph 6 – I will skin through this.
If you look at preambular paragraphs 13 and 14 of the current resolution, preambular paragraph 13 gives you a list of the problems.
It is nowhere mentioned that Tamils have a particular problem.
Yesterday, we heard from Yasmin Sooka, as to how this is a systematic targeting of the Tamil people. Yasmin Sooka was on the Panel of Experts report.
The resolution doesn’t want to acknowledge it.
We heard Yasmin Sooka from a side event of the UN Human Rights Council.
Paragraph 14 however, talks about recent attacks on religious minorities. And, we heard from a western country, in an informal discussion on the draft resolution, actually say that the Muslims are the main target now, the Christians are second and third are Hindus.
The Tamils are completely lost of the narrative and maybe are fitted into the whole dimension of Tamils being Hindus, which is a complete convoluted take of what is the problem in Sri Lanka. This is a major issue.
* * *
Now, I want to come back to what I started on, which is the political solution.
If you look at the operative paragraph 6 of the resolution, it is calling upon the government of Sri Lanka to help the Northern Provincial Council to function effectively inline with the 13th Amendment of the Constitution of Sri Lanka. The Tamils have taken a consistent stance, including the Tamil National Alliance, I must say.
The mandate given by the Tamil people to the Northern Provincial Council, in the recently held elections of September 2013, was based on the manifesto of the TNA and on the speeches that were delivered from the electoral platforms where people gathered in mass numbers to listen to TNA members of parliament call for a vote for the Northern Provincial Council. They called for vote with a clear rejection of the 13th Amendment!
The resolution now calls for the 13th Amendment to be implemented to diagnose the Northern Provincial Council.
The NPC would become effective if the 13th Amendment is implemented and that the Constitution is implemented in line with the 13th Amendment is to suggest that the 13th Amendment in some way can provide for an effective political mechanism to solve the problems of the Tamil people. This is deeply objectionable.
Why is it objectional?
I think and I use these words in utmost responsibility because if we look at the larger conversation beyond the resolution on a political solution question and here I am talking about India and the US and the powers aligned with these two that they have made post May 2009, the 13th Amendment the center piece of the discourse of a political solution. This [UNHRC] resolution is reflecting that. We say no.
You can’t force on the Tamil people something they have rejected and something that have proven, repeatedly, as not addressing the problems of the Tamil people as a solution. I think that the operative paragraph 6 is deeply problematic in that sense.
* * *
One final point: People keep talking about the LLRC. Restoration of normalcy in the North East is not going to happen unless the Prevention of Terrorism Act is repealed.
The recent arrests of Ruki Fernando, Fr. Praveen, Jeyakumari, the number of people languishing in jail, the lack of process in PTA towards a real sort of process through which you can demand your rights. As long as the PTA is there, the normalcy is not going to be returned. It suffocates space. Along with the sixth amendment, it suffocates space for the expression of Tamil political opinion in the North East.
The LLRC doesn’t even call for the repeal of the PTA. This resolution, despite, as the debate happens – we have raised it with the States who are bringing this resolution.
Despite the fact that arrests are happening in Sri Lanka under the PTA as this resolution is being passed, this resolution doesn’t even want to make mention of it.
Now, people might say that the UNHRC cannot tell a State what law to have and what law not to have. But, there are number of prescriptions that have been already made to Sri Lankan government. Can’t we say that the Prevention of Terrorism act is at least problematic towards achieving ‘reconciliation, accountability and return of normalcy’? Even that is not mentioned.
* * *
In what way, then are the Tamil people to identify with this resolution, or for Tamil representatives to recommend this resolution as the basis for moving towards a solution to their problems?
And this is where the question arises. This does not mean that the Tamil people learnt a hard lesson in May 2009, if not before, as to what happens if you rely purely on international community processes the problems you are having.
We as Tamil representatives are aware that there needs to be much done on the ground to move towards resolving the problems of the Tamil people. But, if is being suggested that this is being done for the Tamil people, that this will be good for the Tamil people, our question is what is it going to do to us, explain it to us. We are saying in the form it is, that it doesn’t make a change on the ground. Immediately this question is being put to us: Are you rejecting the Resolution? That is what all people are interested in!
When we criticize a resolution, immediately the only question that people are interested in is, does it mean that your are rejecting a resolution that has taken so much of a pain despite the composition of the Council problem, China is there, Russia is there, Pakistan is there. They are not going to allow. The only question they are interested in asking us is whether we are rejecting the resolution. I am saying, let us not get into that “Yes” or “No” answer binary of how we state Tamil issues.
We say that this resolution does not contribute to changing things on the ground. That we can’t recommend to the Tamil people, saying that you can wait for Geneva to deliver on your problems. This is the other problem for us.
Waiting for the international community that ‘all roads lead to Geneva’. This is the other problem within the Tamil community. That our advocacy, look at all diaspora organizations, most of them. Look at the main Tamil political parties, the Tamil National Alliance: ‘Wait for Geneva’, ‘Geneva is going to do wonders.’ NO.
We have a responsibility. The Tamil Civil Society Forum has taken the difficult responsibility of trying to manage the expectations of our people that is both created by the international actors and by our own representatives and by the own diaspora organizations. It is my appeal to political parties, particularly the TNA and these mainstream diaspora organizations that unless we take a critical stance in terms of what is happening in Geneva and unless we move away from the approach that all roads lead to Geneva in terms of how Tamil problems are going to be looked at, we are not going to identify the alternatives.
Finally, on the question that people might raise. If not for this resolution what is the alternative? I say, if we approach the resolution critically and people are made to understand what the resolution is about, at least the space of identifying the alternative will come about.
It is that creation of that space for looking for alternatives that I am arguing for.
That will come about only by taking stock a realistic, pragmatic and honest take over this resolution.
Thank you very much.
Chronology:
This is something that is also made out about the 13th amendment of the provincial government system, a completely useless system of “devolution of power” that you find within the constitution of Sri Lanka.
They say that the current government of Sri Lanka does not intend to provide all powers under the 13th amendment, and hence the Tamils should be asking for those powers to be implemented, and should subscribe to the 13th amendment as a basis resolution.
We believe that Tamils position as with regard to what their substantive political position should evolve from a consideration of what the Tamil issues are, what Tamil people are facing, and based on an analysis, is the way in which we prescribe what solutions would address those problems.
If the problem is one of ongoing genocide, of ongoing oppression, of ongoing systematic oppression of the Tamil people which we call genocide, then we believe that we need to be prescribing solutions that match the diagnosis and we should not be looking at, Tamils shouldn’t be forced to take up positions, just binary to the government of Sri Lanka.
One should allow for space where Tamils take up these positions based on probably, this the least that we can do to recognize the self-determination of Tamils that the Tamils should be allowed to state.
* * *
I will be very open. We have just had an experience this morning. Just because we – I am talking of ‘we’ meaning Mr Ponnambalam and myself – we were to address a group of States as to our thoughts on t the present resolution. Just because we were critical of the resolution, there were people, who were supportive of this resolution, who kicked us out of the meeting saying that we can’t address those states.
I mean, that is the kind of space that we are talking about that exists for Tamils within the UN human rights council. And this is a problem. And I think People need to read, people need to give Tamils a space to articulate for themselves as to what they feel the solutions what would address their problem.
This is not to say that we are being unilateral about how we proceed with these things. We want to have a dialogue with the international community. We want to have a dialogue with the States. We want to have a dialogue with all concerned. We are neither pro of a particular State nor against a particular State.
Our position is that we will engage with anyone based on Tamil national interest. And for any Tamil party, any Tamil group to assume that to go along with what is being suggested by the powers that be, is the best way that Tamils are going to be liberated is a complete mistake, we feel so.
I think these points need to be kept in mind, in terms of how you read the criticism that I am going to put forward with regards to the resolution.
* * *
The first thing that I want to acknowledge is that we do understand. I mean, Tamils are sometimes demonized – not demonized they are degraded – there is a bit of a condescending approach that people like us who criticize the resolution, don’t understand UN mechanisms. We have no experience with how these things work. And that we need to be told as to how these UN mechanisms work.
I am always willing to listen. We are always willing to listen to people who would have things to say in terms of concrete action. But the point that I want to make is that we are very well aware of the limitations of the UNHRC as a mechanism.
We are aware that the UN Human Rights Council, for example, cannot set up a judicial process towards international criminal prosecutions. The only body at the moment within the UN system that can have a judicial process in terms of how you run an international criminal investigation is the International Criminal Court.
We are very well aware that a judicial process with regards to the international criminal investigation, meaning the ICC starting a prosecution, will only happen if the UN Security Council refers Sri Lanka to the ICC, that is the only option available, because, Sri Lanka’s former PM and current opposition leader Ranil Wickramsinghe keeps saying – boasts about – during his time when he was asked to sign up to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, they refused to sign up to it.
Mind you, that Sri Lanka was asked to sign up to the Rome Statute during the so-called peace process time.
If you were involved in a peace process, if you were serious about a peace process and genuine about a peace process, why is this so-called democratic star of the Sri Lankan Establishment now, I mean people are talking about Ranil Wikramasinge would do things differently, why did he not sign up to the ICC statute in 2003?
Coming back to the point. We are very clear. We are not [un]aware of the fact that the maximum contribution that the UN human rights council can make is to call for an investigation either through a directly appointed Commission of Inquiry or through the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights to set up a stand-alone investigation, or the Office of High Commissioner herself to appoint relevant experts in the field to come with an investigative report.
What is going to be produced? Whether it is CoI, whether it is a stand-alone investigation of the High Commissioner’s Office or whether it is an investigation that is led by the High Commissioner’s office itself, is a report.
It is a report that is going to say, as if we don't have enough reports [already] to say.
Probably, there is more that the report can say.
But, let us not forget that the UN Secretary General’s Panel of Experts have come up with conclusions about what has happened in Sri Lanka.
We have had the US State Department that actually produced a report in terms of what they think had happened during the last phases of the war.
We have UN Secretary General having appointed Charles Petrie to look into the UN’s own conduct during the last phase of war, which has revealed a lot
And we have the Permanent Peoples Tribunal – I know a lot of people's eyebrows will go up regarding the credibility of the PPT. But, we believe that people's organizations are also important in terms of how these things are unraveled. This is a Permanent People’s Tribunal, where serious experts of International Law have gone into the question of what has happened in Sri Lanka and they have even concluded genocide recently. So, there are number of reports that are there already.
The argument is made that these are not legitimate, that these are not produced by legitimate actors, and that somehow that the High Commissioner’s report would be considered to be legitimate by the international community per se, and hence you can increase the momentum towards an international investigation.
I am not saying that might not happen. But the question that we have, as that Mr Ponnambalam stressed in the beginning, is that the point of departure of our analysis of what this resolution would contribute towards, is not just about what happens to past violations.
It’s about how we are contributing towards change at least at a very minimum level to the systemic oppression that our people are undergoing, at the moment.
* * *
How is the resolution, I ask, going to respond to problems of people like Jeyakumari?
Jeyakumari and Vibooshika, mother and daughter are campaigners for their disappeared son. Jeyakumari's husband was killed in the war. Her sons lost their lives in the liberation struggle. Now, she has a son, who has disappeared during the last stages of the war. She has been campaigning actively for his release.
Now the government of Sri Lanka is portraying a picture of Jeyakumari as a part of a big process of [LTTE] regrouping.
The question that we ask is – I can get into the details if there are question of Jeyakumari's case – but the question we have is that Jeyakumari is just one example among many number of Tamils who are lingering in prison.
For us, the people who face the trauma of the people who interact with people who go through this oppression on a daily basis, the question that we ask is – what is the solution that is being presented – at least an indicative solution that is being presented – by the present resolution in terms of their lives being any different?
In the next year to come as the High Commissioner deliberates over what investigation needs to be done, calls upon witnesses, I am sure that the Sri Lankan government won’t allow the High Commissioner to come inside the State. The High Commissioner will try to conduct an investigation outside. What is going to change in terms of what is happening [on the ground].
As the resolution itself is being debated, we see a situation where the Tamil people are being targeted and other civil society activists also, who worry about Tamil issues, are also being targeted.
I am quite sure of this that particularly when even Sinhalese civil society activists, who belong to the South, take up matters with regard to Tamil issues, they are branded as people who ‘contribute to communal disharmony’.
This was what suggested when Ruki Fernando was arrested along with Fr. Praveen quite recently that their campaign for the Tamil peoples human rights issues, oppression of Tamil people, is contributing to ‘communal disharmony’. This is how the State has done it.
It is the same thing that happened with the case of journalist Tissainayagam, where he wrote a piece saying that Tamil people are being deprived of necessary supplies and that is how the war was being staged in the East in 2006. He was charged with ‘contributing to communal disharmony’ and sentenced for 20 years and then released on ‘presidential pardon,’ after some late intervention on the part of the international community.
The question that we ask is, how are things going to change?
I am not saying that the resolution needs to do wonders. We are not naïve people who would expect the resolution to do wonders.
The question is whether it is at least taking stock of what is happening?
And that is where we have problem in terms of the narrative.
* * *
Why do we have problem with the narrative?
This has already been mentioned. I call this the “de-Tamilisation” of the Sri Lankan narrative.
I must say that the High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillai has done some very good progressive work with regards to certain aspects on the Sri Lankan question.
For example, in conclusion of her report, recently submitted on 17th Feb to the UN Human Rights Council, that the problem with regard to Sri Lanka, with regard to the accountability, is not one of technical capacity of the Sri Lankan government to launch an accountability process, but it is an issue of political will, is very important.
But, even the high commissioner makes a dichotomization of accountability and reconciliation being two different things.
She thinks that with regards to accountability there needs to be an international inquiry process. But, with regards to reconciliation, her suggestion – after acknowledging that there hasn’t been much done with regards to the implementation of the recommendation of the so-called wonderful Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission report – is to further suggest, like the present resolution does, that ‘please implement the recommendations of the LLRC’.
It is still relying on the Sri Lankan government to say ‘implement the LLRC’, ‘implement the LLRC’ and ‘implement the LLRC’.
So, even if people are to argue that this resolution in some way makes a shift on the accountability question, that there needs to be some international oversight or international involvement towards accountability process, after making the so-called dichotomization between accountability and reconciliation – I say dichotomization because I think reconciliation if ever possible is deeply linked with the accountability – both the resolutions and the High Commissioner’s reports, still say that the domestic process can be trusted towards to the end. That narration is deeply problematic.
Again, a problem with both the resolution and the High Commissioner, after her visit to Sri Lanka, identified the problems in Sri Lanka as one of authoritarianism, as one of lack of rule of law or lack of good governance.
I don’t have the doubt that these are true. But, the problem is that narrative misses out the fact that when it comes to the Tamil people in particular, in specific, the problem is that it is about structural issues, it is about the Sri Lankan State, it is a 60-year and 30-year question.
We heard enough from Professor Sri Ranjan in terms of the historical material that supports this argument.
There is a complete denial of the fact that the issues that are faced by the Tamil people are much more structural in nature.
It is not about this recent authoritarian term that was taken. It is not about this recent rule of law or its collapse by this particular regime. It is not the question of just a simple collapse of good governance, but more a fundamental question with regards to the character of the Sri Lankan State. All the three resolutions so far have failed to acknowledge this.
You have a trajectory in the international human rights process as mediated by the UN Human Rights Council that doesn’t want to take cognizance of this process.
* * *
Let me now turn to the final point I want to make. This resolution talks about a political solution that needs to take shape in Sri Lanka. The operative paragraph 6 – I will skin through this.
If you look at preambular paragraphs 13 and 14 of the current resolution, preambular paragraph 13 gives you a list of the problems.
It is nowhere mentioned that Tamils have a particular problem.
Yesterday, we heard from Yasmin Sooka, as to how this is a systematic targeting of the Tamil people. Yasmin Sooka was on the Panel of Experts report.
The resolution doesn’t want to acknowledge it.
We heard Yasmin Sooka from a side event of the UN Human Rights Council.
Paragraph 14 however, talks about recent attacks on religious minorities. And, we heard from a western country, in an informal discussion on the draft resolution, actually say that the Muslims are the main target now, the Christians are second and third are Hindus.
The Tamils are completely lost of the narrative and maybe are fitted into the whole dimension of Tamils being Hindus, which is a complete convoluted take of what is the problem in Sri Lanka. This is a major issue.
* * *
Now, I want to come back to what I started on, which is the political solution.
If you look at the operative paragraph 6 of the resolution, it is calling upon the government of Sri Lanka to help the Northern Provincial Council to function effectively inline with the 13th Amendment of the Constitution of Sri Lanka. The Tamils have taken a consistent stance, including the Tamil National Alliance, I must say.
The mandate given by the Tamil people to the Northern Provincial Council, in the recently held elections of September 2013, was based on the manifesto of the TNA and on the speeches that were delivered from the electoral platforms where people gathered in mass numbers to listen to TNA members of parliament call for a vote for the Northern Provincial Council. They called for vote with a clear rejection of the 13th Amendment!
The resolution now calls for the 13th Amendment to be implemented to diagnose the Northern Provincial Council.
The NPC would become effective if the 13th Amendment is implemented and that the Constitution is implemented in line with the 13th Amendment is to suggest that the 13th Amendment in some way can provide for an effective political mechanism to solve the problems of the Tamil people. This is deeply objectionable.
Why is it objectional?
I think and I use these words in utmost responsibility because if we look at the larger conversation beyond the resolution on a political solution question and here I am talking about India and the US and the powers aligned with these two that they have made post May 2009, the 13th Amendment the center piece of the discourse of a political solution. This [UNHRC] resolution is reflecting that. We say no.
You can’t force on the Tamil people something they have rejected and something that have proven, repeatedly, as not addressing the problems of the Tamil people as a solution. I think that the operative paragraph 6 is deeply problematic in that sense.
* * *
One final point: People keep talking about the LLRC. Restoration of normalcy in the North East is not going to happen unless the Prevention of Terrorism Act is repealed.
The recent arrests of Ruki Fernando, Fr. Praveen, Jeyakumari, the number of people languishing in jail, the lack of process in PTA towards a real sort of process through which you can demand your rights. As long as the PTA is there, the normalcy is not going to be returned. It suffocates space. Along with the sixth amendment, it suffocates space for the expression of Tamil political opinion in the North East.
The LLRC doesn’t even call for the repeal of the PTA. This resolution, despite, as the debate happens – we have raised it with the States who are bringing this resolution.
Despite the fact that arrests are happening in Sri Lanka under the PTA as this resolution is being passed, this resolution doesn’t even want to make mention of it.
Now, people might say that the UNHRC cannot tell a State what law to have and what law not to have. But, there are number of prescriptions that have been already made to Sri Lankan government. Can’t we say that the Prevention of Terrorism act is at least problematic towards achieving ‘reconciliation, accountability and return of normalcy’? Even that is not mentioned.
* * *
In what way, then are the Tamil people to identify with this resolution, or for Tamil representatives to recommend this resolution as the basis for moving towards a solution to their problems?
And this is where the question arises. This does not mean that the Tamil people learnt a hard lesson in May 2009, if not before, as to what happens if you rely purely on international community processes the problems you are having.
We as Tamil representatives are aware that there needs to be much done on the ground to move towards resolving the problems of the Tamil people. But, if is being suggested that this is being done for the Tamil people, that this will be good for the Tamil people, our question is what is it going to do to us, explain it to us. We are saying in the form it is, that it doesn’t make a change on the ground. Immediately this question is being put to us: Are you rejecting the Resolution? That is what all people are interested in!
When we criticize a resolution, immediately the only question that people are interested in is, does it mean that your are rejecting a resolution that has taken so much of a pain despite the composition of the Council problem, China is there, Russia is there, Pakistan is there. They are not going to allow. The only question they are interested in asking us is whether we are rejecting the resolution. I am saying, let us not get into that “Yes” or “No” answer binary of how we state Tamil issues.
We say that this resolution does not contribute to changing things on the ground. That we can’t recommend to the Tamil people, saying that you can wait for Geneva to deliver on your problems. This is the other problem for us.
Waiting for the international community that ‘all roads lead to Geneva’. This is the other problem within the Tamil community. That our advocacy, look at all diaspora organizations, most of them. Look at the main Tamil political parties, the Tamil National Alliance: ‘Wait for Geneva’, ‘Geneva is going to do wonders.’ NO.
We have a responsibility. The Tamil Civil Society Forum has taken the difficult responsibility of trying to manage the expectations of our people that is both created by the international actors and by our own representatives and by the own diaspora organizations. It is my appeal to political parties, particularly the TNA and these mainstream diaspora organizations that unless we take a critical stance in terms of what is happening in Geneva and unless we move away from the approach that all roads lead to Geneva in terms of how Tamil problems are going to be looked at, we are not going to identify the alternatives.
Finally, on the question that people might raise. If not for this resolution what is the alternative? I say, if we approach the resolution critically and people are made to understand what the resolution is about, at least the space of identifying the alternative will come about.
It is that creation of that space for looking for alternatives that I am arguing for.
That will come about only by taking stock a realistic, pragmatic and honest take over this resolution.
Thank you very much.
Chronology:
21.03.14 Abductions, arrests spread to Jaffna
UNHRC resolution with weak mandate will not help Tamils, says Gajendrakumar
UNHRC resolution with weak mandate will not help Tamils, says Gajendrakumar
[TamilNet, Monday, 24 March 2014, 23:58 GMT]
Noting that the Resolution tabled at the UNHRC Geneva meeting falls short in establishing a required accountability mechanism through a UN-controlled transitional administration that has the capacity to create an environment to gather evidence of what happened during the war, Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam, the president of the Tamil National People’s Front, said in a press meet held in Geneva on Friday that the weak mandate of the resolution will not only fail to bring about positive changes to Tamil people on the ground, but will also encourage the Sri Lankan government to continue to carry out the sort of actions that they have been carrying out.
"To call for an investigation to be conducted by the High Commissioner’s office, in our view, falls well short of the sort of accountability mechanisms that are required," Gajendrakumar said, adding that the resolution addresses not Tamil or ethnic conflict but problems faced by "religious minorities."
"There has never been a religious minority problem as such. It has always been an ethnic problem. It has always been an issue where the Sinhala nation has been systematically undermining and trying to destroy the identity of the Tamils as a nation. That has always been the accepted conflict. This resolution doesn’t talk about that," he further said.
Transcribed text of Mr Gajendrakumar's address follows:
Noting that the Resolution tabled at the UNHRC Geneva meeting falls short in establishing a required accountability mechanism through a UN-controlled transitional administration that has the capacity to create an environment to gather evidence of what happened during the war, Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam, the president of the Tamil National People’s Front, said in a press meet held in Geneva on Friday that the weak mandate of the resolution will not only fail to bring about positive changes to Tamil people on the ground, but will also encourage the Sri Lankan government to continue to carry out the sort of actions that they have been carrying out.
"To call for an investigation to be conducted by the High Commissioner’s office, in our view, falls well short of the sort of accountability mechanisms that are required," Gajendrakumar said, adding that the resolution addresses not Tamil or ethnic conflict but problems faced by "religious minorities."
"There has never been a religious minority problem as such. It has always been an ethnic problem. It has always been an issue where the Sinhala nation has been systematically undermining and trying to destroy the identity of the Tamils as a nation. That has always been the accepted conflict. This resolution doesn’t talk about that," he further said.
Transcribed text of Mr Gajendrakumar's address follows:
My name is Gajendrakumar
Ponnambalam. I am the president of the Tamil National People’s Front,
which is a Tamil political party based in the Tamil homeland in Sri
Lanka. I am also a former member of parliament for 8 years right up to
2010.
The purpose of my intervention will be to restrict my comments purely to what is happening on the ground at the moment and what our expectations are with regards to processes that should take place in places like the UN Human Rights Council.
All what I say comes from a perspective of needing – action being taken – to have a distinctive change on the ground, a positive change on the ground.
That is the only criteria by which, as far as the Tamil people are concerned, we should judge whether any particular act that is being done on our behalf, is a positive step or whether it is a negative step, or quiet simply whether it is irrelevant to us.
As far as what is happening on the ground I think Prof. Sri Ranjan went into great detail with regards to the history.
If we take immediate past, if we look at what happened during the war, I think we all know the sort of horrendous crimes that have taken in place.
The fact that war crimes and crimes against humanity have taken place is not something that is being contested. I think that no party today will contest the fact that war crimes and crimes against humanity took place against the Tamil people.
We, as people who lived in the land and who actually faced it and who are witnesses to actually what has happened take the very firm position that this goes beyond war crimes and crimes against humanity and that it is a systematic genocide that took place and is on-going.
When we use the term genocide, I am not talking about purely the loss of life. That happened. During the war, there were several incidents of genocide that we believe can be proved. Some of us here are witnesses to that. I am personally a witness to that.
* * *
But, we also believe that when we use the term genocide, it is not merely the loss of lives, but also the very systematic dismantling of the Tamils as a nation. It is that identity of a nation that is being systematically dismantled. The loss of life is just one aspect of that nationhood that is being dismantled.
* * *
What do we mean by this nationhood? What are the criteria that are relevant to qualify for nationhood?
If a people who have a distinct identity, distinct language, a distinct culture, who live in an identifiable territory, who have their own indigenous economy that can sustain their way of life and when such a people have these composite criteria, they qualify for nationhood. When you qualify for nationhood, you legally also qualify for the right to self-determination.
That is the cornerstone of the peoples right to self-determination. That certain people qualify for their ability to be able to govern themselves, to have the ability to exercise sovereignty.
As far as the Sinhalese nation is concerned, the fact that the Tamils exist in the island of Sri Lanka with these relevant criteria that make us qualify for nationhood, is a problem for their own ideology.
Sinhala Buddhist nationalism has always viewed the entire island as a Sinhala Buddhist country.
It sees the existence of the Tamils that can qualify for nationhood, and therefore self-rule, as a threat to that very identity of Sri Lanka being a Sinhala Buddhist country.
And systematically over last several decades, they have been systematically trying to dismantle that identity.
So, it is not just merely killing, they dismantle it by undermining the economy, they dismantle it by carrying out land grabs, they dismantle it by making sure that a Sinhalicisation project is taken forward in what is essentially Tamil areas.
Each of those pillars that make us qualify for nationhood is being undermined and destroyed. That is what is happening right now.
Just because the war has stopped five years ago, and the tremendous loss of life has greatly reduced, that does not mean that the conflict has stopped. It is actually on-going.
* * *
If you actually look at what is happening in Sri Lanka at the moment, land grab is at the phase.
Everyone – we might come from different political backgrounds, we come from different political view of points – but we are all in agreement with regards to what is happening. There is not a single Tamil political party, regardless of our differences politically, who will come here and tell you that our identity is being systematically destroyed even today. That is the reality.
When we look at the international community, we expect this reality to be brought to a stop. That is what is relevant. That is what is needed. And, for those actors that actually committed these crimes to be brought to book. When we talk in terms of accountability, we believe that is fundamental.
From a perspective coming from the ground, firstly we expect that at the UN, there must be a call for an independent international investigation at the very minimum that not only look into war crimes and crimes against humanity but also genocide. We are asking for an investigation of these crimes.
I don’t think there should be any problem with regards to investigating these crimes. The only way that we can actually find out as to what actually happened is to be prepared and go in and actually understand what really took place.
The fact that if we are going to start restricting, even with regards the sort of investigation that must take place, then I think there something radically wrong.
An international independent investigation that looks into the crimes of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide is fundamental. The second aspect is with regards to how are we going to get that evidence out.
* * *
Today, as far as the Tamil people are concerned, there is no safe environment for people to actually come out and talk.
There are few individuals, like may be us in this podium and who attend the Human Rights Council, who are prepared to take their risks. But, the reality is that the evidence vests in the people and it is in that soil. If you want to get to the truth, you have to create an environment that is safe for that evidence to be gathered. We believe that it can only happen through a formation of a transitional administration that is essentially taken control of by the UN or any other international body that has the capacity to provide that sort of protection.
If that does not happen, you are not going to be able to get that evidence out.
So, if we are talking about the accountability, the environment in order to get the evidence out is crucial.
When that is actually the expectations on the ground, there is a resolution that is being tabled in the UN Human Rights Council, as we speak.
That resolution, very unfortunately, does not address these issues.
* * *
If we look at the way in which that resolution is actually addressing the conflict, the word ‘Tamil’, as Prof Sri Ranjan has already mentioned, is not even mentioned.
So who are the targets? The targets are religious minorities, we are told. It is not Tamil, it is not an ethnic conflict, it is religious minorities.
There has never been a religious minority problem as such. It has always been an ethnic problem. It has always been an issue where the Sinhala nation has been systematically undermining and trying to destroy the identity of the Tamils as a nation. That has always been the accepted conflict. This resolution doesn’t talk about that.
* * *
Secondly, when we have always recognized, and I don’t think there is anyone anywhere that will say that war crimes, crimes against humanity did not take place. That is the sort of offences that has to be looked at. This resolution does not talk of any of that.
This resolution talks about human rights violations and related crimes. There is a big difference.
Thirdly, once again this resolution gives a tremendous importance to the government itself to investigate itself.
To call for an investigation to be conducted by the High Commissioner’s office, in our view, falls well short of the sort of accountability mechanisms that are required.
So, the worry here is that as the resolution stands in its current draft, the real concern that we have, is that we are going to have another year and another report, as supposed to actually having genuine movement on the ground that will have a positive impact and that will prevent it in some way that deter Sri Lankan government from carrying out the sort of actions that they have been carrying out.
* * *
As far as I am concerned – and as far as our party is concerned – we believe the Human Rights Council is a legitimate venue. We have in fact been campaigning that the resolutions must be brought in the Human Rights Council and in fact must go beyond.
We are also fully aware that the Council has severe limitations. That is why we say that it has to go beyond. There has to be a will that is created to go beyond.
There is no question with regards to the fact that we want a resolution being passed.
* * *
The issue is with regards to the mandate that is going to be given with that resolution.
If that mandate, as its stands, is going to be what it eventually passes on whatever date that passes, we believe that it is so weak, that it will embolden the current regime to carry on with its actions. It will create a sense of impunity that is so great that people like us, will not even be allowed to come here the next year.
The urgency is there. I say this with utmost responsibility at the rate at which the identity of the Tamil nation is being dismantled. If we continue with this rate, for the next two to three years, there is absolutely no point for us in coming back here, that is the sense of urgency that which we want to see changes been made.
We believe that the time has not passed. There is still a few days that we can use to strengthen this resolution to a point quite actually is relevant and that actually can make a difference. If that does not happen, then all this resolution is going to do, is embolden a government that is already on the rampage, and it is going to weaken to an unbelievable level the capacity of the Tamil people to resist.
Thank you very much.
Chronology:
The purpose of my intervention will be to restrict my comments purely to what is happening on the ground at the moment and what our expectations are with regards to processes that should take place in places like the UN Human Rights Council.
All what I say comes from a perspective of needing – action being taken – to have a distinctive change on the ground, a positive change on the ground.
That is the only criteria by which, as far as the Tamil people are concerned, we should judge whether any particular act that is being done on our behalf, is a positive step or whether it is a negative step, or quiet simply whether it is irrelevant to us.
As far as what is happening on the ground I think Prof. Sri Ranjan went into great detail with regards to the history.
If we take immediate past, if we look at what happened during the war, I think we all know the sort of horrendous crimes that have taken in place.
The fact that war crimes and crimes against humanity have taken place is not something that is being contested. I think that no party today will contest the fact that war crimes and crimes against humanity took place against the Tamil people.
We, as people who lived in the land and who actually faced it and who are witnesses to actually what has happened take the very firm position that this goes beyond war crimes and crimes against humanity and that it is a systematic genocide that took place and is on-going.
When we use the term genocide, I am not talking about purely the loss of life. That happened. During the war, there were several incidents of genocide that we believe can be proved. Some of us here are witnesses to that. I am personally a witness to that.
* * *
But, we also believe that when we use the term genocide, it is not merely the loss of lives, but also the very systematic dismantling of the Tamils as a nation. It is that identity of a nation that is being systematically dismantled. The loss of life is just one aspect of that nationhood that is being dismantled.
* * *
What do we mean by this nationhood? What are the criteria that are relevant to qualify for nationhood?
If a people who have a distinct identity, distinct language, a distinct culture, who live in an identifiable territory, who have their own indigenous economy that can sustain their way of life and when such a people have these composite criteria, they qualify for nationhood. When you qualify for nationhood, you legally also qualify for the right to self-determination.
That is the cornerstone of the peoples right to self-determination. That certain people qualify for their ability to be able to govern themselves, to have the ability to exercise sovereignty.
As far as the Sinhalese nation is concerned, the fact that the Tamils exist in the island of Sri Lanka with these relevant criteria that make us qualify for nationhood, is a problem for their own ideology.
Sinhala Buddhist nationalism has always viewed the entire island as a Sinhala Buddhist country.
It sees the existence of the Tamils that can qualify for nationhood, and therefore self-rule, as a threat to that very identity of Sri Lanka being a Sinhala Buddhist country.
And systematically over last several decades, they have been systematically trying to dismantle that identity.
So, it is not just merely killing, they dismantle it by undermining the economy, they dismantle it by carrying out land grabs, they dismantle it by making sure that a Sinhalicisation project is taken forward in what is essentially Tamil areas.
Each of those pillars that make us qualify for nationhood is being undermined and destroyed. That is what is happening right now.
Just because the war has stopped five years ago, and the tremendous loss of life has greatly reduced, that does not mean that the conflict has stopped. It is actually on-going.
* * *
If you actually look at what is happening in Sri Lanka at the moment, land grab is at the phase.
Everyone – we might come from different political backgrounds, we come from different political view of points – but we are all in agreement with regards to what is happening. There is not a single Tamil political party, regardless of our differences politically, who will come here and tell you that our identity is being systematically destroyed even today. That is the reality.
When we look at the international community, we expect this reality to be brought to a stop. That is what is relevant. That is what is needed. And, for those actors that actually committed these crimes to be brought to book. When we talk in terms of accountability, we believe that is fundamental.
From a perspective coming from the ground, firstly we expect that at the UN, there must be a call for an independent international investigation at the very minimum that not only look into war crimes and crimes against humanity but also genocide. We are asking for an investigation of these crimes.
I don’t think there should be any problem with regards to investigating these crimes. The only way that we can actually find out as to what actually happened is to be prepared and go in and actually understand what really took place.
The fact that if we are going to start restricting, even with regards the sort of investigation that must take place, then I think there something radically wrong.
An international independent investigation that looks into the crimes of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide is fundamental. The second aspect is with regards to how are we going to get that evidence out.
* * *
Today, as far as the Tamil people are concerned, there is no safe environment for people to actually come out and talk.
There are few individuals, like may be us in this podium and who attend the Human Rights Council, who are prepared to take their risks. But, the reality is that the evidence vests in the people and it is in that soil. If you want to get to the truth, you have to create an environment that is safe for that evidence to be gathered. We believe that it can only happen through a formation of a transitional administration that is essentially taken control of by the UN or any other international body that has the capacity to provide that sort of protection.
If that does not happen, you are not going to be able to get that evidence out.
So, if we are talking about the accountability, the environment in order to get the evidence out is crucial.
When that is actually the expectations on the ground, there is a resolution that is being tabled in the UN Human Rights Council, as we speak.
That resolution, very unfortunately, does not address these issues.
* * *
If we look at the way in which that resolution is actually addressing the conflict, the word ‘Tamil’, as Prof Sri Ranjan has already mentioned, is not even mentioned.
So who are the targets? The targets are religious minorities, we are told. It is not Tamil, it is not an ethnic conflict, it is religious minorities.
There has never been a religious minority problem as such. It has always been an ethnic problem. It has always been an issue where the Sinhala nation has been systematically undermining and trying to destroy the identity of the Tamils as a nation. That has always been the accepted conflict. This resolution doesn’t talk about that.
* * *
Secondly, when we have always recognized, and I don’t think there is anyone anywhere that will say that war crimes, crimes against humanity did not take place. That is the sort of offences that has to be looked at. This resolution does not talk of any of that.
This resolution talks about human rights violations and related crimes. There is a big difference.
Thirdly, once again this resolution gives a tremendous importance to the government itself to investigate itself.
To call for an investigation to be conducted by the High Commissioner’s office, in our view, falls well short of the sort of accountability mechanisms that are required.
So, the worry here is that as the resolution stands in its current draft, the real concern that we have, is that we are going to have another year and another report, as supposed to actually having genuine movement on the ground that will have a positive impact and that will prevent it in some way that deter Sri Lankan government from carrying out the sort of actions that they have been carrying out.
* * *
As far as I am concerned – and as far as our party is concerned – we believe the Human Rights Council is a legitimate venue. We have in fact been campaigning that the resolutions must be brought in the Human Rights Council and in fact must go beyond.
We are also fully aware that the Council has severe limitations. That is why we say that it has to go beyond. There has to be a will that is created to go beyond.
There is no question with regards to the fact that we want a resolution being passed.
* * *
The issue is with regards to the mandate that is going to be given with that resolution.
If that mandate, as its stands, is going to be what it eventually passes on whatever date that passes, we believe that it is so weak, that it will embolden the current regime to carry on with its actions. It will create a sense of impunity that is so great that people like us, will not even be allowed to come here the next year.
The urgency is there. I say this with utmost responsibility at the rate at which the identity of the Tamil nation is being dismantled. If we continue with this rate, for the next two to three years, there is absolutely no point for us in coming back here, that is the sense of urgency that which we want to see changes been made.
We believe that the time has not passed. There is still a few days that we can use to strengthen this resolution to a point quite actually is relevant and that actually can make a difference. If that does not happen, then all this resolution is going to do, is embolden a government that is already on the rampage, and it is going to weaken to an unbelievable level the capacity of the Tamil people to resist.
Thank you very much.
Chronology:
21.03.14 Abductions, arrests spread to Jaffna
இதற்கு குழுசேர்:
இடுகைகள் (Atom)