LLRC’s mandate is very limited. Within its limited instruct, it has still not made any effort to reach the involved parties in its process from February 21, 2002 to May 19, 2009 authorised by the President.
by Rajasingham Jayadevan
Hon Chitta Ranjan Silva ,
Chairman,
Lesson Learnt and Reconciliation Commission,
24 Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute for International Relations and Strategic Studies,
Horton Place,
Colombo 7
Sri Lanka
Dear Sir,
(September 19, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) After considerable thought and with the dejected innermost feelings, I address this open letter to the Lesson Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC).
I write this as a Sri Lankan Tamil living in the Diaspora, who experienced the fair share of the failings of the state of Sri Lanka to recognise me as a citizen of the country. The culpability of the failures must be heavily rested with the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) that led to the appointment of your Commission in a chaotic hurry, I believe, to manufacture a doctored post-mortem report from the conditioned LLRC it mandated to undermine the international outcry over the war crime claims against Sri Lanka.
Unfortunately, your mandate is very limited, is politically motivated to teach lessons to the opponents of the government and to bury the ‘whole truth’ of war crimes under the euphoric victory over the LTTE and systematic cover-ups.
The unfolding events of over sixty years that led to the bloody massacres of thousands of civilians in the final onslaught of the government forces against the Tamil Tigers will never be unravelled and the victims of the failures of the government will not be given the opportunity to breast beat and cry to discharge their hurts and pain.
It is open knowledge that the LLRC was evidently formed in a hurry to jettison the effort of the UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon appointed a panel of experts to advise the world body on ‘accountability issues’ relating to possible human rights abuses in Sri Lanka.
When I did my research a month ago to find the terms of reference of the LLRC, I was taken on the rollercoaster by the state media publications. The first reference I found was of Minister Keheliya Rambukawella published in the much read government’s Defence Ministry website stating that ‘LLRC would find the root causes of the terrorist problem and what happened during the last three decades which would be helpful for reforms that would go hand in hand with constitutional reforms too’. I got some comfort, though Keheliya Rambukawella in his usual bullish upbeat branded the end result as a ‘terrorist problem’. Fortunately he gave some comfort that ‘root causes’ will be dealt by the LLRC.
When I traced the terms of reference of the LLRC which stated: ‘The Commission on Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation appointed by President Mahinda Rajapaksa under Section 2 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, to inquire and report on matters that took place between February 21, 2002 to May19, 2009……’This is totally different to what Minister Rambukkawela asserted that gained so much publicity in the media.
I questioned myself as to why the scope has to be limited from February 21, 2002 to May 19, 2009? I contended, it is clearly a cynical move to officially castigate the opposition United National Party for signing the Ceasefire Agreement in 2002 and of course to elongate the President for defeating the LTTE in the battle in May 2009. After all, it is a Commission appointed by the President, who is being accused of committing war crimes as the head of the arms forces of Sri Lanka. LLRC is also clearly an effort to give him the clean bill of health on his horrible mission to militarily punish the Tamil people unwholesomely to vanquish the LTTE.
LLRC’s mandate is very limited. Within its limited instruct, it has still not made any effort to reach the involved parties in its process from February 21, 2002 to May 19, 2009 authorised by the President.
 |
| Even the panel members of the LLRC could be beneficiaries of the decades old state sponsored marginalization policy against the Tamils. They may have achieved their status by entering the state universities following the introduction of the standardization policy against the Tamils that significantly scaled down the Tamil entries and seeded the Tamil militancy that lead to the full scale war in the country. |
Who are these involved parties falling within the mandate of the LLRC?
1. The mandate of the LLRC is clearly aimed to discredit the opposition UNP. The Ceasefire Agreement was signed between the then Prime Minister Ranil Wickramasinghe and the LTTE and there is no report that such an important person like Ranil who is a party to the CFA is not giving evidence to the LLRC.
Judging from the terms of reference of the LLRC, Ranil will be foolish to give evidence as the outcome of the LLRC is a foregone conclusion, irrespective of him presenting his case. The LLRC shadowed by the Defence Ministry is conditioned by its tainted appointments to the panel and the mandate given to exercise judicial or moral far-sight to make fair decisions.
Evidently, it is a fact that the Attorney Generals of Sri Lanka are petty parochial politicians. One has to follow the political role played by the present Attorney General who whips up the failures of the state to the international audience without any scruples of holding an esteemed legal position of a state institution.
2. Norway that brokered the ceasefire agreement on 21 February 2002 has not appeared before the Commission so far and whether the Norwegian Minister Eric Solheim has been invited to give evidence is not known. Even if he is invited, it will be a good guess of even a beggar in the streets of Colombo that he will not attend and it is knowledge even if Norway attends or not the LLRC process and outcome will be all out to discredit the Norwegians as a mouth piece of the LTTE.
3. The LTTE is a party to the Ceasefire Agreement. The top leaders of the LTTE are no more to give evidence or even the few surviving will not consider appearing before the LLRC. Some of the involved persons in the Ceasefire Agreement have been killed during the final confrontation including those killed whilst carrying the white flags and some killed in the torture chambers of the military, post 19 May 2009 victory.
The LTTE negotiator Anton Balasingam too is not here to give evidence. He passed away well before 19 May 2009. The only person remaining now is Anton’s wife Adale who could unravel her side of the facts of the LTTE on the failures of the ceasefire agreement. She too will not attend the LLRC inquiry due to constraints faced by the Commission.
The behaviour of the government officials at the peace talks since Mahinda Rajapakse came to power was acrimonious. At the final rounds of talks, it was Anton Balasingam who pleaded with the government to offer something to present to his leader Pirabakran, but the war-minded government disregarded the plea and snubbed him and walked away from the talks. There are many stories like this the LLRC will not hear from the Norwegians, LTTE or even the observers at the peace talks.
4. There is also a government custodian Vinayagamoorthy Muralitharan alias Col Karuna still to give evidence before the LLRC. He participated in the peace talks. He got huge stories of his own to tell until he broke way from the LTTE. He is being accused of swimming in the pool of alcohol and devil dancing with women provided by the GoSL and whether he is in a fair state of mind to give credible evidence before the LLRC is a trillion dollar question only the Defence Ministry can answer.
5. We have not heard the evidence of the Former Foreign Secretary Dr Palitha Kohane. He has not told his side of the story about the killing of white flag carrying LTTE men on his advice to the international players. Equally stand with him, is the UN Secretary-General’s Chief of Staff Vijay Nambiar. He too has volumes to unravel.
6. Then the there are also evidences stacked up against Dr Palitha Kohana and Vijay Nambiar. There are Tamils in the Diaspora who were involved in the arrangement for the surrender of the slain white flag carrying LTTE men. Apart from their lack of enthusiasm to appear before the limited LLRC mandate, they can be easy prey to be branded as the ‘mouth pieces of the LTTE’ by the state machinery of Sri Lanka.
7. I also have credible information that a leading international journalist played an important role on the attempted surrender of the white flags carrying LTTE men. This credible witness account is only valuable to an independent international inquiry on war crimes in Sri Lanka.
8. The LLRC has not created the conditions for the Diaspora Tamil witnesses who survived the military onslaught whilst they were engaged in community service in the war region to appear. Their experience in the battle front published in the respectable media is crucial, as the mouth strapped Tamils in Sri Lanka will not have the courage to unravel their experience due to fear of the military and the paramilitary forces.
9. British Channel 4 TV produced firsthand evidence of the war crimes perpetrated by the Sri Lankan forces which internalised the cry for a global War Crimes Inquiry. LLRC is not the right forum for them or their contacts to give first hand evidence on the stories.
10. Then the LLRC appears to be prevented from hearing the evidence of the former General of the Army Sarath Fonseka. He has publicly affirmed that his subordinates have committed war crimes and also implicated the Defence Secretary of complicity in war crimes. In the evidence much publicised of the Defence Secretary when he branded the Army General a traitor wanting him to be hanged for his revelations was not questioned in the LLRC proceedings.
So far the evidence given before the Commission is limited to the agents of the government who had benefited from the six decades long disempowering of the Tamils from the mainstream. Even the Tamils who came forward before the LLLRC are messengers of the government who live on the pittance dished out by the state and some of them even do not fear robbing the very people whom they claim to represent.
Even the panel members of the LLRC could be beneficiaries of the decades old state sponsored marginalization policy against the Tamils. They may have achieved their status by entering the state universities following the introduction of the standardization policy against the Tamils that significantly scaled down the Tamil entries and seeded the Tamil militancy that lead to the full scale war in the country.
The interesting of the evidences given so far was that from the government Minister and Tamil paramilitary leader Douglas Devananda. He went outside the mandate of the LLRC to publicly apologise over his conduct when he was a warring gun man fighting against the government. What he failed to testify was his paramilitary rule post the defeat of the LTTE that is holding the vulnerable Tamil people at gun points to extend his deceptive democratic crusade to replace him as the alternative leader to Pirabakaran.
When I read that the BBC was barred by the Defence Ministry from attending the LLRC hearing of the victims of the war in the north, it spoke of volume of the Defence Ministry’s agenda and its influence to produce a very favourable report to denounce the demand of justice by the right thinking people of Sri Lanka and the international community.
Well! The LLRC process is proving to be façade- a façade that the government will attempt to prop-up to undermine its responsibility to be accountable.
I hope and pray the LLRC process will not become a blot in the catalogue of spoils stacked against Sri Lanka.
Yours sincerely
R Jayadevan
Post a Comment