Sri Lanka responses to Amnesty
International statement
SECRETARY GENERAL
Secretariat for Co-ordinating the Peace Process
10th September 2007
Peter Splinter
Amnesty International
Geneva
Dear Peter,
I am writing in response to your press release of September 4th, which
raised a number of issues that we also dealt with in our discussion
of September 5th. I am sorry that you released the document before our
discussion, which had been arranged beforehand, since you were therefore
not able to incorporate the matters we discussed.
At the same time, your release was more temperate than most in the
campaign of finger pointing that some NGOs have engaged in, and our
discussion confirms a more nuanced approach in which Human Rights issues
are the principal concern rather than other agendas. Thus, while we
continue to regret the rather silly campaign against our cricket team,
we hope that we can continue to discuss issues with you productively.
We were happy that the government had already initiated some of the
measures you recommended. We hope that you will urge the UNP opposition
to respond to government attempts to amend the 17th amendment so as
to ensure that the Constitutional Council is in place. As the Attorney
General explained, HE the President cannot take unilateral action as
suggested, with regard to a body that comes under the purview of the
Legislature, with the Speaker being its head.
The Minister has as mentioned taken steps with regard to making public
reports as you suggest, while the police have been requested to implement
the provisions regarding public awareness as to detainees. We have also
made suggestions regarding strict adherence to regulations as to arrests
and other police activity, and the IGP has been most responsive. However
implementation requires better training, as does careful maintenance
of records, and in this respect assistance would be welcome. We have
already made suggestions to interested donors as to more effective methods
of assistance. Sadly the Peace Secretariat is not always invited to
conferences concerning aid, and some NGOs who are more concerned with
theory rather than practice tend to call the shots, whereas programmes
that involve simulation for instance might be much more effective.
With regard to witness protection, regarding which I too urged swift
action almost as soon as I took office, much progress has been made,
and you may find out more from our Legal Director and members of the
Attorney General's Department who have pushed things forward in this
respect, when they are in Geneva next week.
With regard to the eviction of Tamils from Colombo, the government
has made it clear that there had been serious flaws in the implementation
of an operation necessitated by a plethora of explosions that had led
to considerable civilian casualties in the preceding period. As is apparent
from the numbers given, both the thousands of Tamils resident in Colombo,
and the small proportion of them, all temporary visitors, also extending
into thousands, who were investigated, only a few were treated badly.
The Supreme Court put a stop to that and the Prime Minister apologized,
which indicates that the internal systems we have can deal with abuses
that do occur. Whilst your own concerns are legitimate, you may wish
to consider whether there is a precedent for a similar apology in any
other country where abuses in the course of the war against terrorism
may have occurred.
With regard to child soldiers, the practice is of course abhorrent
and the government policy on this is very clear. Again the Peace Secretariat
has been devising programmes to ensure effective rehabilitation with
socialization, and it is sad that many groups who raise the issue are
not contributing actively to constructive rehabilitation.
With regard to recruitment of child soldiers by the Karuna faction,
the figures are much exaggerated, for obvious reasons. This does not
mean that it has not occurred, and it is incumbent on us all, and in
particular the government, to prevent this. However, I believe all concerned
parties should study reports of actual incidents. For instance the UN
Secretary General's report last year gives some interesting statistics
based on reports of the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (widely believed
in Sri Lanka to be unduly supportive of the LTTE, though this seems
to have changed in recent months).
According to the SLMM, during a particular reporting period, there
were 117 complaints against the LTTE of which 37 were ruled against
them; 105 against the Karuna faction of which 6 were ruled against them;
and 15 complaints against the government (presumably of aiding the Karuna
faction, since there has never been any allegation of the government
using child soldiers) of which 3 were ruled against them.
I should note that, when UNICEF raised this question at one of my
early meetings with them, I asked for concrete charges. One was sent
soon after, concerning what seemed child soldiers on a transport that
was not stopped at an army checkpoint. When I investigated, the report
was that the CO had been informed and had transferred the army personnel
on duty at the checkpoint to a more difficult area. I have asked for
further complaints to investigate, but none have reached me.
Conversely, I have had to take UNICEF to task for what seemed undue
indulgence to the LTTE. Its representative told me that the LTTE was
better now and did not recruit anyone under 17, which seemed to me unacceptable
since 18 should be an absolute limit.
She also said that the LTTE had told her it needed legislation to set
the position right, which seemed to me more unacceptable since the LTTE
is not a sovereign state that legislates, and changing abhorrent practices
in a totalitarian dispensation does not require formal procedures.
She did apologize for the use of the term, but my point was that UNICEF
should be much firmer about such nonsense.
I believe that, by continuing to raise the Karuna issue, the LTTE
has managed to divert attention from its own practices - and indeed
its own carrying and use of arms for nefarious purposes. Whilst the
government now has an obligation to ensure that the Karuna faction,
imbued initially with an LTTE mindset but now changing, abandons unacceptable
practices, it would help if the international community were much clearer
in its condemnation of the LTTE reliance on child soldiers and the forced
recruitment from every family that it has engaged in in areas under
its control.
I am also concerned about your suggestion that civilians have been
deliberately targeted by the security forces. The HRW report, which
uses much less temperate language about this issue, in fact records
just a single incident, as to which the Sri Lankan army has provided
ample explanation. The fact that the LTTE had attacked from that area
is not in dispute, and the army response was due to motor locating radar.
In a context in which the LTTE has been well known to use human shields,
it cannot even be categorically stated that the radar was not accurate.
Given the vast numbers of civilian casualties in other wars against
terror, it is sad that there has been no international commendation
of the care and concern displayed by Sri Lankan forces, using tactics
that prevented the LTTE from deploying the human shields that were anticipated
in particular areas.
With regard to displacement, I am sorry that you have not noted the
swiftness of the resettlement programmes, so that now in the Eastern
Province just about 50,000 remain displaced even though the operations
caused by the unprovoked LTTE attacks last August displaced many times
that number as you note.
Again, while you note that over 30 humanitarian workers have been killed,
the use made of this statistic to claim that Sri Lanka is a dangerous
place for workers, raised in LTTE communications to 'the most dangerous',
is inappropriate given the circumstances in which 17 of them were killed.
I am sorry that no international organization has noted that, while
of course those responsible for the killings should be sought out and
brought to trial, the agency responsible sent its workers into a dangerous
area from which all other aid workers were being withdrawn.
According to the Jaffna University Teachers for Human Rights, 'The
local staff members who were to go to Mutur on Monday 31st July did
not want to go. We are told that two of them applied for leave and were
turned down. About 5 food security workers were sent to Mutur on Monday.
One supposes that instructions to go were routed through Colombo. Some
who were sent expressed a wish that evening to get back……..
As for ACF, we learn that WS had second thoughts about sending his staff
to Mutur on 1st August, but was persuaded to send them by the fact that
FS's staff was already there the day before. ACF also had a coordinator,
a local man, but he does not seem to have applied himself effectively
in ensuring the security of the staff, or was it that those above him
did not heed his advice? We do know that the families of the local staff
who got stuck in Mutur were very worried by 2nd August.'
Despite all this, when others were pulling out, the ACF staff were
kept on, though recently it has begun to issue contradictory stories
about this. I hope Amnesty at least will look into this matter and suggest
means whereby, as UTHR put it, local staff do not suffer from 'the pressures
they face because of their national origins, the fear of saying no to
instructions that carry unreasonable risk, and the fear of being accused
of underperformance and losing a job that does not come easily to nationals
of third world countries.'
Finally, while I accept that problems remain and it would be good to
work together with an organization like Amnesty as represented by you
and the researcher we met, I would urge you to be careful about one
conclusion expressed in your press release, which may be one of the
tactics used against the Sri Lankan state in its long standing fight
against terrorism. Such relatively peaceful means of attempting to undermine
the elected Sri Lankan government are preferable to the attacks on military
and economic targets that the LTTE has engaged in for so long. However
we believe that you would not want to be part of the assault force,
and would therefore appreciate knowing that these widely circulated
documents have already been presented by the Sri Lankan opposition as
achieving the required purpose.
I attach in this regard a translation of a recent press report which
claims that the opposition has said 'that the UN Human Rights Commission
headquartered in Geneva decided to ask an explanation regarding the
escalating human rights violations in Sri Lanka and that the Sri Lanka
affair has been accorded priority in the agenda for the Human Rights
Commission meeting scheduled to be held next month'…Sri Lanka could
be exorcized internationally'.
We have no doubt that there are many who are genuinely concerned,
whilst supporting us in our war against terrorism, about possible violations
of human rights. We share their concerns and are happy to discuss such
issues frankly. However we believe it important that institutions refrain
from allowing themselves to be used as pawns against us in this war,
and we believe it important that they dissociate themselves from the
disingenuous efforts of anti-democratic forces.
Yours sincerely
Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary General
Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process
|
