Jill goes down the genocidal hill

by H.L.D. Mahindapala

(December 12, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) Angry Sri Lankans have protested to the New York-based Genocidal Project which has placed Sri Lanka on the “Red Alert” with Rwanda and Darfur as a likely place for genocidal attacks. Sri Lankans have accused the project organizers of basing their conclusions on inaccurate data and political biases. In the following letter sent to Ms. Jill Savitt, Director, Genocidal Project, it has been point out that the last inter-racial conflict took place in 1983 and since then there has been relative ethnic peace. Even in 1983 the official figures vary from government quoting 300 and BBC quoting 500., though Tamil propagandists claim it it be in the region of 10,000. Thee figures are guess work as no one has officially counted the total amount of victims.

Jill Savitt has not replied to accusations of bias and misleading predictions of genocide. Here is an open letter sent to her exposing the unsubstantiated accusations which the Melbourne-based Society for Peace Unity and Human Rights (SPUR) says will bring discredit to the INGO headed by Jill Savitt.

Ms. Jill. Savitt,
Director
Genocide Project
Dear Ms. Savitt,

“Red Alert” on Sri Lanka

As we inch our way into the 21st century the hopes of ending the violence that plagued the previous century seems to be diminishing with armed groups and states engaging in recurring cycles of unending violence. The furies of nature and man-made disasters point increasingly to a bleak future. What is equally alarming is the fact that the agencies assigned to manage these crises facing humanity are either impotent or incompetent. Their political agendas, weighted excessively with either biases or self-imposed blindness, refusing to recognize the hard realities on the ground, are becoming a serious threat to global peace and stability. In the current state of the impotence and/or the unwillingness of the international community to take prompt and effective action to deal with Rwandas and Darfurs, naming and shaming these states is an alternative instrument adopted to deter violators of international humanitarian law. We wish to thank you for taking the lead on this front, emphasizing that it should be used judiciously and cautiously not to exacerbate the efforts of legitimate forces to restore normalcy, democracy and justice to all communities – not just to armed groups trapped intransigently in their own mindless political violence.

It is critical that we should avoid the pitfalls in this process of naming and shaming. To begin with, any assessment should be based on credible primary evidence, without biases distorting the realities on the ground. The proliferation of violence in various corners of the globe needs accurate and objective mechanism for gathering, dissemination and assessment of data to develop and implement the necessary responses to meet the challenges posed by armed groups, whether state or non-state actors. It is in this respect that we are concerned about your April 2008 report. Much as we appreciate the general thrust of the report that is being prepared by your organization we are dismayed by the decision to place Sri Lanka on “Red Alert” on “a composite” assessment of indices drawn by several INGOs, some of which, we regret to say, are flawed.

We wish also to stress that the reporting mechanism to assess and evaluate the possible threats to humanity from state and non-state actors needs to be fine tuned maximally to avoid exacerbating the ground situation. Any deviation from the ground realities, you will agree, can be counter-productive to the commendable aims of preventing war crimes and crimes against humanity. Also any judgment must be (1) based on just criteria derived from accurate data (2) on principles of proportionality, especially in the use of force; (3) in fairness to all parties involved in the conflict situation, particularly in the case of democracies forced to combat internationally banned terrorist groups ; and, last but not the least, (4) with a view to advance the cause of peace, stability and the further prevention of war crimes or crimes against humanity.

As stated earlier we are in general agreement with the broad scope of your report but we regret to state that it has failed to meet the requirements stated above in dealing with Sri Lanka. We also note that you have added a caveat to your statements emphasizing that your conclusions are neither “definitive” nor “predictive”. We believe that this is the very reason why your organization should have taken extra care in listing a country like Sri Lanka on “Red Alert” along with Darfur and Rwanda. They are worlds apart in every respect and your attempt put the sheep and goats together is not helpful in any way to achieve the objectives stated in your report or to bring relief to the war-weary peoples of Sri Lanka.

Your report covers a wide range of crises in various conflict zones. We will confine our comments only to Sri Lanka, the area of our competence.

We find that the criteria, the facts and figures used to arrive at “a composite evaluation” of the Sri Lankan situation are neither fair nor accurate.

According to your report Sri Lanka has been listed among the first ten nations most under threat in 2008. We do not have the full four indices on which you based your “composite” evaluation. But going only on the assessment of the Minority Rights Group (MRG) Sri Lanka ranks as the 11th. If you scrutinize the details of MRG you will find the causes, the figures and the descriptions do not conform to the known facts.

Take the following table presented by MRG:

Nation: Sri Lanka
Episode: 1983 – present
Death toll: 100,000s, Tamils and Sinhalese civilians
Killers: anti-Tamil mob – Tamil Tiger rebels
Divisions: Ethnic, national, political, religious
Stage in 2008: Politicide, genocide, massacres.

Comments: Please note that anti-Tamil Sinhala mobs have not gone mad since 1983 and, despite many provocations by the Tamil Tigers to provoke anti-Tamil riots, the Sinhala community has refrained from any violence. So if any “predictive” trends are to be deciphered then it must be on the positive side that should forecast a Sri Lanka free from ethnic violence. However, it is safe to predict that the primary source of political violence will come from the Tamil Tigers who continue to go on the rampage with impunity.

The table cited above, however, has, for reasons best known to the authors, conveniently omitted the worst ethnic cleansing of the Muslims of the north (75,000 evicted overnight in 1995) by the Tamil Tigers and genocidal attacks on the Muslims of the East (over 300 Muslims civilians killed) by the Tamil Tigers. These displaced Muslims have been given refuge in the Sinhala-dominated areas by the Sri Lankan state. So there are no genocidal or other atrocities threatening these communities except from the Tamil Tigers.

The current military offensive, however sensitive one may be to it, is to eliminate these threats from the Tamil Tigers. The Sri Lankan government is acting in accordance with R2P which gives the first right to the state to deal with issues of protecting its citizens. It should be noted that the majority of the Tamils live with the Sinhalese in areas under state control as they find greater security and stability for their future than under the areas controlled by the Tamil Tigers. Based on the outcome and the experiences of civilians who have escaped the jackboot of the Tamil Tigers after they were driven out of the Easter Province by the Security Forces the Muslims, Tamils and the Sinhalese have had relative freedom to even hold elections and elect their representatives to the Eastern Provincial Council. Any prognosis of the current trends should lead to the conclusion that the threats “predicted” in your report can be eliminated only if the Security Forces finally disarm the Tamil Tigers.

Besides, the International Crisis Group, headed by Gareth Evans, has declared that Sri Lanka is not a case for R2P action by the international community, Francis Deng, appointed to head the OSAPG by Un Secretary General, is on record saying that Sri Lanka is a unique case where rebel held territories are supplied with food, medicine and other essentials. When the tsunami hit Sri Lanka it was the Sinhala villagers who rushed to the Tamil victims in the east with food and other provisions needed for immediate relief. The NGOs and the stage agencies came in later. “Some four hundred international relief agencies descended on Aceh and Sri Lanka in the month after the tsunami. Jan Egeland, then UN Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affair, calls this “perhaps two or three hundred too many.” (p. 39 - New York Review of Books, June 26, 2008).

Please note that the corruption and the incompetence of some of these do-gooders have been exposed by authoritative sources that monitored the actions of these NGOs which had failed to deliver the promised aid to the victims. The role of NGOs, especially the politicized ones who are in he forefront of reporting, have also been exposed for their biases, incompetence and extravagant life style funded by foreign agencies. This is a common feature in all crisis-ridden countries. NGO and INGO agents riding in luxury cars fall on victims of man-made and nature-made crises like vulture feeding on carcasses. In Sri Lanka one obscene case is that of peace activist drawing a salary of Rs. 1,000,000.00, plus other perks, just for writing reports to his global network of NGOs who in turn produce negative reports on Sri Lanka. The failure of INGOs and NGOs to provide viable solutions to the crises of the world is a subject that has been neglected. War-weary citizens of Sri Lanka are questioning the validity of negative reports in solving their crises. The report writers thrive while the victims sink deeper into the crises for which the INGOs and NGOs have no viable solution.

Consider, for instance, the figure of 100,000s killed in the table above. This is inaccurate. Presumably it has been provided by an NGO who had written a report for your organisation. All known figures, including those killed in the war of nearly three decades, indicate that it is in the region of 75 – 80,000. Besides, leading Tamil political figures, including UN peace-prize winner, Mr. V. Anandasangaree, agree that Velupillai Prabhakaran, the leader of the Tamil Tigers, has killed more Tamils than all the other forces put together – and this includes the Indian Peace Keeping Force. Politicide, mass massacres (including 600 policemen who surrendered to the Tamil Tigers) have been attributed to the Tamil Tigers by NGOs. And yet Sri Lanka is placed under “Red Alert” implying that the democratic state of Sri Lanka is primarily responsible for these crimes and that Sri Lanka is a nation more dangerous than, for instance, the authoritarian state of N. Korea, a rogue state, armed with weapons of mass destruction.

We also find the criteria under which you listed Sri Lanka on “Red alert” along with Sudan, Pakistan, Myanmar, Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan totally unacceptable and incomprehensible. As pointed out earlier the facts and figures on which you put Sri Lanka under “Red Alert” are inaccurate. This questions the primary evidence on which you placed Sri Lanka on “Red Alert”. Besides, you had in your report mentioned the critical conditions of countries like Rwanda and Sudan. You say: “Rwanda genocide may flare up again.” And “Sudan has spilled into Chad and Central African Republic.” Quite correctly, you have not “predicted” Sri Lanka going through such horrors in the future. You depend entirely on other sources to come to this conclusion. Nevertheless, you have placed it on “Red Alert” as needing “urgent, meaningful, diplomatic peace-making and civilian protection strategies” without referring in any way to the Tamil Tigers who are the primary source of violence in Sri Lanka.
As you would notice the arbitrary indices drawn by various INGOs differ from each other. Your organisation has stepped in with a “composite” assessment drawn from these arbitrary indices, some of which are flawed. As you know, it is possible to draw up a composite assessment to put America or any other country engaged in wars also on “Red Alert.” Leading and respected political analysts like Noam Chomsky, John PIlger have drawn up their own indices to place America on the top of “Red Alert”. It all depends on how one approaches the crisis. This is the reason why we advocate that the principles of proportionality should be applied to assess each crisis. The crisis of a democratically elected government combating the most ruthless terrorist group in the world, while taking appropriate care to protect civilians, cannot be compared to the so-called state of a “Pol Potist” regime in the Vanni, in Sri Lanka or even a rogue state like Korea. We admit that the unintended consequences of a war (also called “collateral damage”) do occur in the war waged against the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. But there is no officially pursued policy of the state to attack civilians. On the contrary, Bishop Thomas Savundranayagam of Jaffna has appealed to the international community to put pressure on the Tamil Tigers to release these civilians held captive by the Tamil Tigers. The government has opened “humanitarian corridors” for the captive civilians to escape. If there are suspicions or doubts about the capabilities of the Sri Lankan government the Churches and other NGOs can be appointed to care for the IDPs, if they are allowed to go free by the Tamil Tigers. But they are not.

In the light of the ground realities we fail to see how the situation in Sri Lanka can be remedied by placing a “Red Alert” without addressing the basic and persistent problem of getting rid of the Tamil Tigers? And if the current thrust of military offensive is to rescue the Tamil civilians, based on the principles of R2P, how can your organization place Sri Lanka on “Red Alert” when it is applying the first right of the state to deal with violence threatening the right to live peacefully, within a democratic framework, however imperfect it may be? Will not an international R2P force too be compelled to take similar action if it is to rescue the Tamil civilians held captive by the Tamil Tiger terrorists? How do you propose to stop the Tamil Tigers from forcibly recruiting two children from each family if you do not eliminate them from the political equation? They have reneged on every agreement made with the UN on his issue from 1995. The Tigers have been reported to the Security Council three times for committing this war crime. Their military plight is such that they are compelled to recruit children forcibly. How can your organization save the victims of the most ruthless terrorist organization committing war crimes and crimes against humanity by placing the only democratic institution battling to end these crimes on “Red Alert”? How pragmatic and useful is this to the victims of Tamil Tigers?

You will, no doubt, come up with the standard argument that the moral standards of those who seek to end the obscenities of violence should not use violence. That is well and good for writing reports and scoring points. But the UN itself has agreed on developing rapid responses and other military responses to eliminate or prevent evil. This is the reason why R2P grants the first right to the states to combat the evils of violence. Our argument is that the Sri Lankan government is exercising that right to restore the fundamental rights of all the communities to co-exist in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society without carving out mono-ethnic enclaves for one community now dominated by “the latest Pol Pot of Asia”. So on what moral grounds are you placing Sri Lanka on “Red Alert”?

To place Sri Lanka for exercising its right to enforce R2P (as did the Indian Peace Keeping Force when they were invited to restore peace and stability in Sri Lanka) on “Red Alert” is a negation of the basic principles of the UN Charter. Is it only big powers that can exercise R2P (example: India in Sri Lanka.) Is regime change to eliminate war criminals a privilege granted only to big powers (Example: Sadam Hussein?

It is sad to record that UN itself is guilty of committing crimes against humanity without INGOs and NGOs putting it on “Red Alert”. It is necessary to remind that 600,000 Iraqi children died of starvation and malnutrition as a result of the UN-imposed naval cordon thrown round Iraq just to punish Saddam Hussein. (UNICEF figures). Taking into consideration the overall picture, it is apparent that your move to place a “Red Alert” on Sri Lanka questions your standards more than that of Sri Lanka. We would urge you, therefore, to desist from bringing down your credibility and integrity in the eyes of the world by hastily placing a “Red Alert” on Sri Lanka.

Perhaps, the reason that has prompted you to place Sri Lanka on “Red Alert” is to urge the international community to intervene in the current crisis. You have mentioned that explicitly in your report. You state that your “Red Alert” is for the international community to “implement urgent, meaningful and effective diplomatic, peace-making and civilian protection strategies.” This is commendable if the international community has the valid answers to the crisis. India tried its own version of R2P by first dropping some lentils over Jaffna and then marching in to tame the Tamil Tigers. They failed. In fact, the Tamil Tigers retaliated by assassinating the Prime Minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi, who sent in the IPKF. Second, the international community led by Norway intervened and produced the Ceasefire Agreement. According to Scandinavian peace monitors, 95% of its terms and conditions were violated by the Tamil Tigers. They, in short, shot it to pieces.

So what is the rationale for placing Sri Lanka on “Red Alert”? Are you aiming at the correct target? Why are you targeting the democratically elected government implementing R2P (following the example set by the India) and not the political criminals wanted by Interpol, India, Sri Lanka and also banned by 33 democracies?

We know that your report, if published as it is, will draw some headlines. This in itself is not bad for you as it would raise your profile. But pray tell us how is this going to save the Tamil children from being thrown into a futile war in Sri Lanka? Are you willing to take full responsibility for the consequences of dragging this war as a result of your pressure to tie the hands of the Security Forces who are on the brink of ending the war with the Tamil Tigers?

Morality in a crisis is not enhanced by claiming to be moral for the sake of being moral. In a situation like Sri Lanka, where one intransigent party refuses to compromise and work within a democratic framework for peace, morality gains credibility and validity invariably by being pragmatic than being theoretically correct. We urge you to be pragmatic and reconsider your decision to place Sri Lanka on “Red Alert” .

We have not dealt with all aspects of the four conditions outlined above to keep this appeal short. We also hope they are self-explanatory.

We trust that you give your serious consideration to review your decision and act morally to protect the interests of all communities and not the interest of only armed group.

Your sincerely,
H. L.D. Mahindapala
Editor, Sunday Observer, (1990 -1994)
President, Sri Lanka Working Journalists’ Association (1991 -1993)
Secretary General, South Asian Media Association (1993 – 1994)
Emeritus Prof. W. Dantanarayana
Dr. Olga Mendis. Order of Australia Medal (OAM)- Sri Lanka Guardian