Sri Lanka Mirror
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
Five policemen from Kirindiwela Police had visited him to obtain a statement on a charge of contempt of court.
As they were obtaining the statement, police have shown him the warrant and arrested him.
Mr. Wijesuriya is due to be produced before the Pugoda courts tomorrow (Apr. 26).
© Sri Lanka Mirror
Monday, April 25, 2011
SRI LANKA: WEB JOURNALIST ARRESTED
Monday, April 25, 2011
'UN's Chief of Staff arranged the surrender of senior rebels' : Former UN Spokesman
Photo courtesy: UN News & Media
BBC Sinhala
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
Gorden Weiss, the UN spokesman in Colombo during the peak of the conflict, said the UN should have exerted pressure on the Sri Lankan government to stop attacks on civilians.
"I believe that the UN should have used greater pressure in order to assuage the kind of assaults that it seems was made on civilians," he told BBC Sinhala service, Sandeshaya.
"Certainly, casualty figures from a part of that armoury."
The report by the UN expert panel appointed by the secretary general, leaked by The Island newspaper, has made highly serious accusations against the Sri Lanka military, as well as the Tamil Tigers.
It has found "credible allegations" in five core categories of potential serious violations committed by the government.
"Killing of civilians through widespread shelling; (ii) Shelling of hospitals and humanitarian objects; (iii) Denial of humanitarian assistance; (iv) Human rights violations suffered by victims and survivors of the conflict, including both IDPs and suspected LTTE cadre; and (v) Human rights violations outside the conflict zone, including against the media and other critics of the Government," the report said.
India 'was aware'
Mr Weiss says he "completely agree" with the panel's findings.
However, the UN was not in a position to stop the final assault against the Tamil Tigers apart from trying to minimise civilian casualties, according to Gordon Weiss.
The former UN spokesman said the Indian government which wanted to "see the Tamil Tigers destroyed" was "fully aware" of the real situation in the battle zone, including the civilian casualties.
"I believe that Indians were aware of the civilian casualties that were happening, because they had pretty good intelligence inside the siege zone."
He admitted that Ban Ki-moon's chief of staff, Vijay Nambiar, made an agreement between the LTTE and the Sri Lanka authorities to arrange the surrender of senior Tamil Tiger leaders including B Nadesan and Pulithevan.
White flag surrender
"That surrender happened and those people were allegedly executed," Mr Weiss told BBC Sandeshaya.
"I think there was an inducement by the Sri Lanka government for the remaining Tiger leadership to surrender."
The Sri Lanka government is accused of killing and threatening dissenting voices including journalists during the height of the conflict.
Gordon Weiss says the UN humanitarian agencies were also threatened.
"Like the judiciary and the press, the UN was also under pressure from the Sri Lankan government."
Secretary general's advisory panel has also made recommendations to the United Nations.
"The Secretary-General should conduct a comprehensive review of actions by the United Nations system during the war in Sri Lanka and the aftermath, regarding the implementation of its humanitarian and protection mandates," it said.
It also recommended the Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to be invited to reconsider its May 2009 Special Session Resolution regarding Sri Lanka.
The UNHRC's attempts to pass a resolution against Sri Lanka have been unsuccessful after Sri Lanka lobbied the support from India, China and Russia among others.
© BBC Sinhala
Monday, April 25, 2011
Sri Lanka report held by UN's Ban & Nambiar
Photo courtesy: UN News & Media
By Matthew Russell Lee | Inner City Press
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
This section raises questions about UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon not having required the recusal of his chief of staff Vijay Nambiar, who was involved in the incident -- about the the Panel of Experts itself.
The Panel's report as leaked to The Island describes part of the White Flag killings and lists by name the involvement of Mahinda Rajapaksa, his brothers Gotabaya and Basil and Permanent Representative to the UN Palitha Kohona, against whom a filing has been made to the International Criminal Court for his involvement in the presumptive war crime.
As partially described by the UN Panel of Experts, “Nadesan and Pulidevan, and possibly Colonel Ramesh” conveyed a request to surrender to an “official[] of the UN” and received assurances they would not be killed through “intermediaries.” They were then killed.
While the Panel's reports, troublingly, does not disclose the involvement of Vijay Nambiar, instead referring only to a UN intermediary as having conveyed assurances that those surrendering would not be killed, Nambiar has acknowledged being involved.
Inner City Press, which visiting Sri Lanka covering Ban's trip in May 2009, has followed this issue closely, repeatedly asking for a statement by Mr. Nambiar describing his role. Inner City Press was directed to a single filmed interview Nambiar gave, in which he acknowledged a role
The Panel of Experts, named and essentially paid by the UN of Ban Ki-moon, was remiss in not naming Nambiar. Given how and by whom the Panel's members were named and paid, and their final work product, there was a conflict of interest.
Ban Ki-moon, many now conclude, has been remiss in allowing Nambiar to remain involved in handling the report, even inreviewing it for what the UN should do next. It is a blatant conflict of interest.
Following numerous previous inquiries by Inner City Press into this, including Palitha Kohona heatedly disputing the account that Nambiar gave, on April 12 and 19 Inner City Press again asked Ban's deputy spokesman Farhan Haq if Nambiar would be involved or recused.
Haq, who previously denied the existence of the filing with the ICC which details Nambiar's role in the White Flag killings, said that Nambiar is a senior advisor and was involved in reviewing the report.
Other leaked portions describe Nambiar interfacing about the review with Kohona and his Deputy, General Shavendra Silva, also reportedly involved in war crimes at the end of the conflict.
Still other leaked portions allude to a February 22 meeting, which Ban's lead spokesman Martin Nesirky in essence denied to Inner City Press took place, between the Panel of Experts and Sri Lankan Attorney General Mohan Peiris, in the office of another of Ban's advisers, Lynn Pascoe.
Late arriving on the scene, in Sri Lankan press accounts, is Ban's deputy chief of staff Kim Won-soo, perhaps in belated acknowledgment that Nambiar should never have been allowed to be involved in the report, which partially describes the White Flag killings in which he was involved.
Now it is said that Ban will take a call from Minister G.L. Peiris. Even if the report is released on April 25, along with a UN response in which Vijay Nambiar has clearly been involved, it is too late, and poisoned by the conflicted involved of Nambiar. This is all a new low for this UN.
© Inner City Press
Monday, April 25, 2011
'Slain LTTE leaders wanted to surrender'
Espress News Service
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
“While there is little information on the circumstances of their death, the panel believes that the LTTE leadership intended to surrender,” the report said, according to an extract appearing in The Island on Saturday.
The UN is yet to release the panel’s report officially, though The Island has been publishing extracts on a daily basis, and the Lankan government and other organisations have been commenting on them.
Giving the background to the incident, popularly known as the “White Flag” case, the UN panel said that in the very final days of the war, the head of the LTTE political wing, Nadesan, and the head of the Tiger Peace Secretariat, Pulidevan, were in regular communication with various interlocutors to negotiate surrender.
It was reported that they were accompanied by about 300 civilians. “The LTTE political leadership was initially reluctant to agree to an unconditional surrender, but as the SLA (Sri Lankan army) closed in on the group in their final hideout, Nadesan and Pulidevan, and possibly Colonel Ramesh, were prepared to surrender unconditionally.”
“Their intention was communicated to officials of the UN, and the governments of Norway, the UK and the US, as well as to representatives of the ICRC and others.”
“It was also communicated through intermediaries to Mahinda, Gotabaya and Basil Rajapaksa, former Foreign Secretary Palitha Kohona and senior officers of the SLA.”
“Both Rajapaksa and Defense Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa provided assurances that their surrender would be accepted.”
“These were conveyed by intermediaries to the LTTE leaders, who were advised to raise a white flag and walk towards the army, following a particular route, indicated by Basil Rajapaksa.”
Third Party Barred
“Requests by the LTTE for a third party to be present at the point of surrender were not granted.”
“Around 6.30 am on May 18, 2009, Nadesan and Pulidevan left their hideout to walk towards the area held by the 58th Division, accompanied by a large group, including their families. Colonel Ramesh followed behind them, with another group.”
“Shortly afterwards, the BBC and other TV stations reported that Nadesan and Pulidevan had been shot dead.” “Subsequently, the government gave different accounts of the incident.”
“While there is little information on the circumstances of their death, the panel believes the LTTE leadership wanted to surrender.”
Lankan Case:
It has been the Sri Lankan government’s contention that these leaders of the LTTE were killed in a shootout. When the former Commander of the SLA, Gen Sarath Fonseka, told The Sunday Leader newspaper that he had been told by journalists embedded with the troops that Gotabaya Rajapaksa had ordered the killing of the surrendering leaders, the government took him to court for uttering a falsehood.
© Express Buzz
Monday, April 25, 2011
‘Lankan military targeted civilians, bombed UN hub’
By Sutirtho Patranobis | Hindustan Times
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
The government has rejected the report as biased and flawed and asked the UN chief not to publish it, as it could hurt post war reconciliation.
However, the report, already leaked in parts, said "tens of thousands of civilians" were killed in the final stages of the war that ended in May, 2009. In its entirety, the report gives details about the bloody fighting that took place between January and May that year.
The first barrage of shells hit the temporary UN hub within days of the military demarcating a NFZ on January 20, 2009. The report said UN members, including two international staff, set up a temporary centre near Suthanthipuram, near the final theatre of battle. This was after Tamil Tiger rebels didn’t allow a UN convoy to proceed to the safety of a town outside the battle zone because of "the presence of national staff".
"During the day (January 23) shells fired from the government-controlled areas in the south started landing occasionally in the NFZ. In the evening, shells fell on the food distributing centre, killing and wounding a large number of civilians," the report said. It turned out to be just the beginning.
"In the early morning of January 24, hundreds of shells rained down on the NFZ. The UN security officer, a highly experienced military officer and others present discerned that the shelling was coming from the south, from SLA (Sri Lanka army) positions… Heavy shelling continued over night and shells continued to hit the UN hub and the distribution centre, killing numerous civilians," the report said.
"When UN staff emerged from the bunker in the first morning light…mangled bodies and body parts were strewn all around them, including those of many women and children. Remains of babies had been blasted upwards into the trees…" it added.
© Hindustan Times
Monday, April 25, 2011
Panel report only for Ban’s info - External Affairs Minister
By Ravi Ladduwahetty | Daily News
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
“The panel has clearly acted in ways beyond its mandate by refusing to confine itself to offering advice to the United Nations Secretary General and assuming for itself, a function which involves adjudication of a kind, suggestive of a quasi-judicial role.
“This was never contemplated as a part of its mandate,” External Affairs Minister Prof G L Peiris told this newspaper in an exclusive interview.
He expressed his surprise and that of the government on conclusions made in the panel report released April 12.
“It is in need astonishing that the panel thought that it was deemed fit and proper to reach conclusions on a wide range of matters currently being examined by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) appointed under the provisions of Sri Lankan Statute law,” Prof Peiris told the Daily News yesterday. Earlier, Media Minister Keheliya Rambukwella said that the government would tread with extreme caution and gradually map out a strategy, both locally and internationally, to counter the allegations in the panel report.
He said the report has ingredients of the LTTE rump and those of the Tamil diaspora.
“The appointment of the LLRC was universally acclaimed,” the External Affairs Minister said.
“Foreign governments expressed confidence in the Commission and conferred their good wishes and felicitations on the Commission’s good work. The Commission had held its sittings in not only Colombo, but in the Northern and the Eastern Provinces and has already submitted a series of interim recommendations of the LLRC,” he said.
This committee is headed by the Attorney General and comprises secretaries to seven ministries which are actively involved in the implementation of the recommendations.
“In these circumstances, it is quite bizarre that the panel should take upon itself to treat the Sri Lankan statutory body as though it did not exist, to dismiss it in the most cavalier fashion imaginable and to formulate its own recommendations while the LLRC is continuing its work, Prof Peiris noted.
“Representatives of western governments have had no difficulty in accepting the position of the Sri Lankan government that they should await the publication of the report of the Sri Lankan Commission and assess it objectively and dispassionately.
Prof Peiris said that when he recently visited a western capital, the representatives of the government in question, clearly articulated this position and that no prejudgment was permissible.
However, the minister said, that the attitude of the panel has been the opposite. There has been absolutely no justification for the insensitivity and arrogance with which the Sri Lankan commission has been ignored, he remarked.
Commenting on the reaction of the panel on Sri Lanka vis-a-vis a probable backdrop of similar situations that could arise in other parts of the world, he said: “What is sought to be done in respect of Sri Lanka, on this occasion will have to be done in future in other situations as well.
Sri Lanka cannot be singled out for discriminatory treatment because this would tantamount to cynical violation of the doctrine of sovereign quality of states which is one of the core values embedded in the United Nations Charter”.
”If this is allowed to happen, it would have distressing implications for the United Nations as well,” he added.
© Daily News
Monday, April 25, 2011
Report of the UN Panel: Rajapakse under siege
By Dr. Kumar David | South Asian Analysis Group
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
". . (T)he Panel found credible allegations, which if proven, indicate that a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law were committed both by the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE, some of which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity. Indeed, the conduct of the war represented a grave assault on the entire regime of international law designed to protect individual dignity during both war and peace".
The reference to LTTE leaders is but posthumous; however the leaders of the war on the side of the state, Mahinda and Gothabaya Rajapakse and General Sarath Fonseka, are very much alive, though the last named is a guest of the Superintendent of Prisons thanks to his conflicts with the other two. The integrity and independence of the three members of the panel, Marzuki Darusman (former Indonesian Attorney General), Yasmin Sooka (former commissioner of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission); and Steven Ratner (US academic) are not questioned by anyone except hard apologists for GoSL. Notwithstanding its crimes the now defunct LTTE is not going to be in the dock. The response of Colombo to the Panel report and the events that will follow, regardless of where they lead, ensures that Colombo will be the focus of attention of the world insofar as repression, HR violations and war crimes go. What happened in April 2011 makes it inevitable that the rest of the world will see Colombo and only Colombo as culpable. This scenario is a game changer.
Defiance in depth
GoSL is not going to curl up and play dead; it is accustomed to artifice, defiance and tactical dissimulation which have served it well for the last six years and it is already mobilising its stratagems in defence. The success of the regime in thumbing its nose at the world is in part a gift from the international community, particularly Delhi which has played dumb, if not quite brain dead and let Colombo get away with this (nothing in the Panel Report is news to Delhi) and renege on a string of promises on a much rumoured political settlement of the national question. An interesting question is how much further Delhi, Beijing and Moscow can go in protecting GoSL? What rationalisation can the proffer? It is difficult for these patrons to echo the shrill voice of Colombo and assert that the findings of the Panel are fabrications worked out in cahoots with the LTTE rump in the diaspora. Nonetheless, since nothing is impossible in this age of Goblesian disinformation by state actors one will have to wait and see how the cookie crumbles. Still, this is a hard one, and GoSL’s primary champions India, China and Russia may retreat somewhat to the sidelines.
Sensing international isolation GoSL is preparing a diplomatic offensive sending delegations led by retired senior civil servants to "neutral" capitals. There are two lines they can opt for: (a) the findings of the report are pure fabrications, or (b) terrible things did happen but were an unavoidable consequence of fighting a ruthless enemy under painful circumstances. The more intelligent defence would have been (b), whether true or false – one can quote Hiroshima, or the fire bombing of Dresdenmand Berlin, or Kashmir, or the Maoist red belt in India, can’t one – but GoSL has shot itself in the foot by its previous stance. President Rajapakse is on record that not a single civilian was killed by the military in the Vannie, that there was nil bombing or artillery shelling of civilian zones, and there is zero state involvement in the 50 or so journalists abducted or murdered. Having said this to win support locally, it becomes imperative for GoSL to assert defence (a) in the main, supplemented by (b). With this methodology GoSL will have considerable difficulty sustaining international credibility. Either the rest of the world - or at least the North Atlantic nations - have gone collectively mad, or something is rotten with the state in Lanka; this dissonance cannot survive long given economic dependence and a thousand strings and the umbilical cord binding Lanka to the countries of the Anglophone West.
GoSL will then have to turn to whipping up support internally by mobilising emotions at home to make up for a possible shortfall in international sustenance. The President has issued a call to make May Day 2011 a day of defiance against the UN Panel and for sure there will be a substantial response from the Sinhalese community which sees the war as a struggle against terrorism and counts the victory as a great triumph against a historical enemy achieved by a heroic army. The community cannot therefore psychologically countenance the possibility that the government or the armed forces engaged in war crimes or crimes against humanity.
It is of vital importance to watch to what degree irrational emotions are whipped up in the coming weeks. The UN has issued a warning to GoSL to guarantee the safety of its staff; excessesagainst minorities or foreigners could become flashpoints. Obviously government leaders don’t want this but emotions on the street once ignited are difficult to control. Lanka has a cabinet minister who led an attack on the UN Headquarters in Colombo some months ago and another who tied a public servant to a tree for dereliction of duty; these are not ordinary times. A worst case scenario that one must hope GoSL will have the sense to avoid is the exacerbation of xenophobic ultra nationalism. It would be helpful if Indian public opinion speaks up at an early stage to discourage such trends.
Rational voices
It is heartening that strong voices have been raised in Sri Lanka against irrational behaviour and emotional outbursts. The most important objection has come from the trade union movement refusing to acquiesce in the government’s bid to "hijack" May Day, workers day, for political ends. The trade unions of the LSSP and CP (both member parties in the government) have insisted that there are more important issues facing the working class such as the pro-IMF economic policy. M.S. Rasdeen leader of the LSSP’s largest private sector union, the Ceylon Federation of Labour, has gone public expressing his dissent with the plan to use May Day as a day of defiance aimed at the UN.
Anik Pittuwa (The Other Page) a monthly supplement issued with the pro-left Ravaya newspaper by a group which includes the leading figures of the LSSP left-tendency made a statement in their May Day issue which, in rough translation reads as follows.
"The findings of the report released by Ban Ki-moon’s investigation panel are shocking to any right minded person. Although most of these allegations were known before and the Tamils have been insisting in private that they are true, their endorsement by an international panel is a matter for further dismay. The government is seeking to use the report to drive the country further down an ultra nationalist path. The Report is equally critical of both sides to the conflict since it is as scathing about the war crimes of the Tigers as it is about the behaviour of the state’s forces. This state of shock and disbelief in Sri Lanka is not unusual; to this day the Japanese people are in psychological denial of the massacres and brutality of the Japanese Army against civilians in China and SE Asia. Most Americans still hide from the truth about the carpet bombing of civilians in Laos and Vietnam that left tens of thousands dead and maimed. Serbians and Croatians are bitter about the war crimes of the other side but cannot accept that their own forces acted similarly".
"It is necessary now for Sri Lankans to remain calm and to consider with a clear mind all the evidence in the report, the government’s denials, and the large amount of other material that is now surfacing. Right understanding is what we need; it is a precept of the Noble Eightfold path. People must not allow themselves to be incited to irrational emotions, or to rash acts against minorities, foreigners, the United Nations, journalists who criticise the government, or the political opposition".
It is also encouraging that the JVP, although it was a shrill champion of the war is now holding fast to its new role as the strongest opponent of the government and a campaigner fordemocracy. It is pleased by the embarrassment of the Rajapkse brothers and has adopted a conciliatory tone towards the Panel report. Interestingly the part of the Report it has sought to highlight is the criticism of the UN itself for failure to act during the war and to contain humanitarian disasters in late 2008,the first months of 2009 and thereafter. Here is another extract from the Reports Executive Summary.
"During the final stages of the war, the United Nations political organs and bodies failed to take actions that might have protected civilians. Moreover, although senior international officials advocated in public and in private with the Government that it protect civilians and stop the shelling of hospitals and United Nations or ICRC locations, in the Panel’s view, the public use of casualty figures would have strengthened the call for the protection of civilians while those events in the Vanni were unfolding. In addition, following the end of war, the Human Rights Council may have been acting on incomplete information when it passed its May 2009 resolution on Sri Lanka".
This stricture of course is also applicable to India, China and other supporters of GoSL in the UN Human Rights Council though in the case of India it would be far fetched to suggest that it was not fully aware of what was going on in the Vanni.
© SAAG
Monday, April 25, 2011
India playing double game: Sri Lanka
By P.K.Balachandran | Express News Service
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
The belief stems from the fact that India has been observing an intriguing silence on the issue when the UN, backed by the US and its Western allies, seems to be bent on pillorying Sri Lanka on war crimes charges.
The silence intrigues Sri Lankans because India has greater political, strategic and economic stakes in here than any other country. Lankans contrast India’s silence with Russia’s open support for the island nation in its hour of crisis. Although China is yet to make its views known, Lankans are sure of its support.
Calls Manmohan
Top government sources confirmed that President Mahinda Rajapaksa had spoken on the phone to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh about the report. Lakbimanews even said that Colombo sent a copy of the report to Singh for perusal and appropriate action. But, Singh gave Rajapaksa no assurances.
India privy to contents
An official in the top echelons of the Lankan government told Express that India’s man in the United Nations, Hardeep Singh Puri, had met the panel before the latter finalised its report, suggesting that New Delhi had known the panelists’ mind and had a fair of idea of what their report might be like, but had done nothing to prevent it from taking the vituperative form it did.
“The feeling in government circles is that India is playing a double game,” the official, who did not want to be identified, said.
Bid to dominate
It is felt here that India may be wanting to use Lanka’s discomfiture to extract concessions from it as it did at the time of the India-Sri Lanka Accord in 1987.
“Big Brother has always wanted to dominate us,” the Lankan official said, pointing out that India’s Permanent Representative at the UN now, had cut his teeth in diplomacy in 1987 in Colombo under the tutelage of the then Indian High Commissioner, J N Dixit, who, according to the Lankans, thought and acted as if he was a “Viceroy”.
Disillusioned with Prez
The Sunday Times has said that New Delhi’s silence has to be seen in the context of the problems India’s projects in Sri Lanka are facing under the Mahinda Rajapaksa’s regime. The paper noted that New Delhi had been pressuring Rajapaksa to address the Tamils’ grievances.
© Express Buzz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
This site is best viewed with firefox
Visit the JDS New Website
Read the urgent alerts - act now!
Sri Lanka's Killing Fields
No Impunity for Enforced Disappearances
UN REPORT ON SRI LANKA
where is prageeth?
Amnesty: Failures of Sri Lanka's LLRC
Permanent Peopls's Tribunal on Sri Lanka - Final Report
Sivaram: A walk down memory lane
Remembering Lasantha
Subscribe to JDS newsfeeds
UN EXPERTS conclusion backs the JDS video
SL Execution Video : The truth comes out
A legacy unforgotten
Post-war justice in sri lanka : International Commission of Jurists
Evidence of Police Brutality in Sri Lanka
A Study of Police Torture in Sri Lanka
