UNHC For Human Rights A Convenient Scapegoat To Side Track The Unwillingness To Act
( March 6, 2013, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Minister Samarasinghe's reluctant address to the UNHCR was a pathetic apology and a series of confessions on the failure of the Sri Lankan government to forge ahead with any progress in the area of genuine reconciliation between the Sinhalese and the Tamil people for any further progress, aptly described by AHRC'S Basil Fernando as the "catch us if you can" attitude. The only positive claim to any reconstruction in the north, it appears was the reconstruction of the northern railway with Chinese aid involving kick backs to members of the Rajapaksa clan, reflecting GDP growth with no immediate or tangible benefit to the affected Tamil people . In actual fact, the railway tracks have been bare with no trains running on them. Evasively, he says: "Reconstruction includes restoration of physical and social infrastructure, strengthening of civil administration, provision of livelihood support and housing." A few miles of railway lines do not constitute development for a set of people requiring much more important attention in the very basic aspect of their lives.
There has been a deliberate attempt to ignore the basic needs of the Tamil people in the disregard for rehabilitation in the areas of physical and mental health, secondary education to children, housing and above all the need to afford them with access to their lands and housing, the denial of which are a denial of their basic human rights. Instead, what is being pursued is a scorched earth policy to keep the future generation as second class citizens denying them good health, decent education and exposure being part of a process of slow genocide. There has been a deliberate attempt to ignore also the basic needs of the Tamil people in the disregard for rehabilitation in the areas of physical and mental health.
Fundamentally, while there has been absolutely no attempt to either placate or appease the Tamil people in the recognition of their traditional home lands let alone their own little parcels of land as important economic units, to recognize them as a distinct nationality and instead to delay or deny them even the least opportunity to determine to conduct their own affairs. When displaced Tamils attempt to enter their land they are told that these have to be de-mined while the army occupy and cultivate these very plots of land while the never ending canard of the need for demining goes on.
There could be no greater lie than: "The resettlement of the final batch of IDPs marks a day of historic significance as the resettlement is now complete and there are no more IDPs or IDP camps in the island." ...."At the conclusion of resettlement, 7,264 IDPs had left the camps on various grounds and did not return while a further 1,380 sought admission to hospitals". The farcical ceremony to mark resettlement does not in any way complete the resettlement with the thousands of IDPs left to languish in the squalor of temporary shacks "houses" made of tin sheets called houses.
There could not be a greater lie than: "The resettlement of the final batch of IDPs marks a day of historic significance as the resettlement is now complete and there are no more IDPs or IDP camps in the island." ...."At the conclusion of resettlement, 7,264 IDPs had left the camps on various grounds and did not return while a further 1,380 sought admission to hospitals". The question is why. Further "While every effort was being made to resettle persons in their original habitat, in instances in which this is not possible, they were given alternate land". This is not true as the government had usurped their lands for use by the military, to construct army barracks or Buddhist temples, for cultivation of crops for the needs of the military or for the establishment of tourist resorts. The government has alienated and antagonised the Tamil people including the Diasporas to the extent that any pretentious claim of integrating them into the Sri Lankan society is looked upon with hostility. No evidence of meaningful development for the affected Tamil people is evidenced in his speech. The aspirations of the Tamil people for any meaningful reconciliation are in the exploration of avenues of self reliance in the areas of micro and macro economic development especially in the areas of agriculture fisheries and small businesses.
Samarasinghe's story of the entire north having come under civilian administration is complete falsehood. There is one army personnel for every five Tamil civilians. In fact the General in charge of civil and military administration in Jaffna, it is said was handpicked for his record of racist violence coming down from the 1983 pogrom. Of rehabilitation that Samarasinghe talks of, it is relevant to quote the words of the Tamil Member of Parliament Sumanthiran who recently stated:"... a set of new regulations was introduced under the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act. The most obnoxious of these is the regulation that enables the security establishment to incarcerate any person under the guise of ‘rehabilitation' without even producing him/her before a court of law, on the pretext that such person had ‘surrendered'. Many are being so incarcerated now: about 40 from Jaffna, another dozen or so from Trincomalee and a few more from Batticaloa....."
Talking in platitudes Samarasinghe further says: "Sri Lanka needs adequate time and space to resolve such deep-rooted and wide-ranging issues. Undue pressure exerted by external parties on this one aspect is not helpful in the resolution of these issues". The question is how long and what positive steps have been taken so far. Pre-requisites for any reconciliation is to appreciate and respect their attachment to their homelands, language and culture. Tamils are a secular society with a linguistic and cultural identity.
Bluffing further, Samarasinghe says: "Provincial elections are envisaged to be held within the course of this year for the Northern Province in keeping with the Provincial Councils Elections Act and relevant judicial pronouncements interpreting the provisions of the law". The question is how can this be done when the chief justice was removed on the issue of her verdict in favour of this.
In relation to the killings of 5 students in Trincomalee and the 17 ACF workers, as referred to by Samarasinghe, finality will never be reached having deliberately missed all the opportunities for a fair trial with international supervision which dissolved itself through disgust and frustration. It would be recalled that the internationally independent eminent group of persons, the IIEGP disbanded themselves in disgust at the deplorable manner in which the Inquiry was being conducted thanks to the then attorney general who was to become the chair of the LLRC.
Questioning the administrative strategies adopted by the High Commissioner of the UN HRC, Mrs Pillai and her prerogative to change some of her decisions as the most expedient way to get at the real truth and her references to disappearances which are real, Samarasinghe says: "......... the bona fides of the High Commissioner's objectives may be called into question, by virtue of her shifting the goalposts and seeking to impose new conditionalities".
Defending war crimes and crimes against humanity, he further says: "It is our position that it is the Government's primary responsibility to resolve domestic issues. Unwarranted internationalization of such issues would only undermine the local reconciliation process in Sri Lanka; a process that is still ongoing, impacting adversely on the people in the former conflict- affected areas in their efforts to reap the dividends of......"
He further states: We also note that an inordinate amount of attention is paid to Sri Lanka in the High Commissioner's statements within and outside UN forums". Insulting the intelligence and the sense of discernment of member countries Samarasinghe says: "Her frequent comments to the media, some in close proximity to sessions of the Council, could well have the effect of influencing delegations, especially when there are Resolutions contemplated". Further casting judgement on her conduct pertaining to her legitimate duties and responsibilities of her office he says: "This runs counter to the detachment, objectivity and impartiality expected from the holder of such an exalted office. Sweeping generalizations using such terms as "massive violations" of human rights and the constant targeting of Sri Lanka - based on unsubstantiated evidence founded on conjecture and supposition only supports the impression of a lack of objectivity".
Samarasinghe further blames Navi Pillai for not visiting Sri Lanka to observe firsthand the "developments" taking place. It is possible that she chose not to do so for very good reasons while a resolution of such a nature was pending. Given the track records of perhaps Vijay Nambiar and Dr. Knowles one can understand her prudence in avoiding a visit to Sri Lanka at this juncture. It is possible that she was advised against it by the advance group from her office that visited Sri Lanka.
Samarasinghe at one stage in desperation takes refuge under the rock containing the "Ashokan Rock Edicts of the 3rd Century before the Christian era, societies in our region have been guided by values underscoring good governance and human rights. We do not need to be told". If these rock edicts are anything to go by in the 21st. century then one could understand the kind of human rights principles that the Sri Lankan government adheres to.
( The writer is the editor of the Eealam Nation, an online journal, where this piece was originally appeared)
 ...){kind=link}