New York Times Editorial of Oct 18, 2006

Dr. A. M. Ladduwahetty
Maryand, USA

Editor, LankaWeb
Dear Sir/Madam,
The response below to the editorial in the New York Times of October 18, 2006 titled "Monitoring a Little Noticed War" was not published by them. Perhaps Lankaweb can give it coverage.
Thanks.
Dr. A. M. Ladduwahetty
Maryand, USA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Editor, The New York Times

Your editorial in the New York Times of October 18, 2006 titled "Monitoring a Little Noticed War" refers.

While bringing well deserved attention to the on-going assault on democracy and human rights through the use of terror by the LTTE in Sri Lanka, your editorial has some factual errors/mischaracterizations that detract from its value, and brings into question the credibility of the rest of the editorial, as well as of your newspaper's analyses in general.

Let me address a few.

1. You refer to the conflict as "A Buddhist-led government battling a Hindu separatist group.." inferring that there exists a significance to this religious difference, i.e., that this is a religious war betwen Buddhists and Hindus. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is true that the Sri Lankan government is largely Buddhist. However, the Buddhists of Sri Lanka have no problem with the Hindus, and in fact many Buddhists worship Hindu gods and the Buddhist temples provide for this need. This has never been a problem.

This conflict is ethnic, NOT sectarian. (The problem, originally presented as being over the status of the Tamil language, has long been addressed, and is considered by many Tamils to be satisfactorily "resolved". However, it has now been transformed into a conflict for territory.)

2. Your information about the separatist LTTE being Hindu is wrong. The LTTE is led by Velupillai Prabhakaran who is a Catholic, and many of his followers and especially those in his elite suicide brigade are Catholics. Please see attached Reuters news report of 08/28/06 (attachment #1 - N.B. - highlighted para).

3. You have called for International Monitors to investigate crimes by the Army and Police against Tamil civilians. Your compassion should also be extended to an investigation of LTTE crimes against Sinhalese and Muslim civilians, including pregnant women and children who have been massacred in the most grotesquely inhuman ways by the LTTE. These macabre killings of the inhabitants of entire Sinhalese and Muslim villages have periodically taken place, and more are expected as the LTTE starts to see its territorial aspirations recede with the recent demerger of the Eastern Province, a region that they have been attempting to bring unsuccessfully under their control over the last several decades.

4. In calling for UN Monitors you make no mention that there are already in Sri Lanka, international monitors from European countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark) as part of the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM), put in place in 2002 after the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) was signed. They record and report on violations of the CFA and so far the violations by the LTTE have far exceeded those by the Government by a factor of ~300%.

It is pertinent to ask what special tasks you envision UN monitoris to be able to accomplish that the SLMM cannot.

4. Your editorial refers to abuses by Army and Police personnel. I am no defender of Army and Police abuses, but law enforcement authorities face uniquely difficult situations when called upon to protect the people from an enemy who is unrecognizable from the general population, takes refuge amidst them in cities and villages where they melt into the population, and are also protected by supporters within the population, although usually through fear and under duress.

These difficulties must be clearly understood when calling for international monitors who do not know the language and the culture, to be brought in for policing functions. The situation is complicated enough as it is, without adding further to it. The ongoing diffculties experienced by the US and its allies in Iraq must surely serve as a good example of what can happen in such situations

5. I am also attaching for your information (attachment #2), an editorial from the Washington Times of 10/18/06, the writer of which appears to have a much better grasp of the situation in Sri Lanka than the writer of your editorial.

My criticisms are made in the hope that writers at The Times, and editorial writers in particular, would better acquaint themselves with background facts before they write analyses. We cannot afford to have the newspaper relied upon as the best in the country to be sloppy in this regard.

Very truly yours,

Dr. A. M. Ladduwahetty
Maryland.