After the Darusman Report came out, with its excessive attack on the manner in which Sri Lanka had dealt with LTTE terrorism, I thought it necessary to warn the . Sri Lankas Failure To Respond Darusman Report Did the Panel consult the heads of UN agencies in Sri Lanka with regard to the various. 25 May , Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Centre for Policy content in the LLRC’s final report more widely known and accessible, and thereby.
|Published (Last):||14 March 2012|
|PDF File Size:||16.2 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.8 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The failure of government to respond sensibly to the Darusman report and the unfair attacks on the Sri Lankan and UN leadership during the conflict.
Given the various responses being now made, officially and unofficially, to the appointment by Navi Pillay of a panel to look into Sri Lanka, I thought it would be useful to look at how we got ourselves into this mess. Instead of reading it carefully, understanding what precisely was going on, rebutting the many falsities and exaggerations in it, and dealing ourselves with the few items of substance, we engaged in indiscriminate aggression combined by sanctimoniousness that never seemed sincere.
What we should have done instead was deal with the issue forthright. The President realized when Darusman came out that sensible responses were needed, and immediately put me on the team to negotiate with the TNA, as well as on the Inter-Ministerial Committee to implement the interim recommendations of the LLRC.
However, as noted previously, when negotiations were proceeding more successfully than previously, it was made clear that I was not welcome on the team.
Even more seriously perhaps, the then Attorney General, who was supposed to chair the Inter-Ministerial Committee, objected to my being appointed to it. However they included in my mandate as Adviser on Reconciliation that I should monitor the work of the Committee — it took six months for the Attorney General, who kept assuring me that he wanted to have a meeting of the Committee, to confess that the Secretary of Defence did not want the Committee to meet.
Below I give the salient extracts from the letter I sent to the Ministry of External Affairs in July in an effort to introduce some clarity into the debate on the Darusman Report, and also to coordinate better with the elements in the UN system which had also been attacked in that Report.
I believe that we should ensure correction of those aspects that are clearly misleading of what is erroneously referred to as a UN report. At the same time, we should treat seriously aspects that are not inaccurate and that create an adverse impression. This can be done more easily if we have made sure that errors are eradicated and clarification provided with regard to matters that are obscure or suggest inadequate understanding of realities.
I have in several publications drawn attention to errors, and I believe a summation of these should be brought to the attention of the UN Secretary General.
At the same time he should be asked to respond to the queries on the attached page, since they bear on the credibility of the report as it has been compiled. I have several others, following close scrutiny of the report, but these will be enough for the moment.
I raise these because I believe we have not responded effectively to slurs that can irretrievably damage the reconciliation sijhala if allowed to go unchecked. At winhala we simply react to relentless criticisms, without addressing its root causes. While I can understand reluctance to respond to the substance sinhaala an inappropriate report, there is nothing to prevent us questioning the methodology used. Did the Panel consult the heads of UN agencies in Sri Lanka with regard to the various allegations contained in the Panel report, and in particular those concerning.
In particular the UN Secretary General should be asked to share with the panel the reports of the various protection agencies that functioned during this period. Did the Panel consult the head of the ICRC with regard to the various allegations contained in the Panel report, and in particular those concerning. Were there reports prepared by the UN or the ICRC which were shared with the panel, but which un not provided to government?
With sinhalaa were its reports shared? How did these fit within the UN mandate? If these reports were intended to improve the condition of affected Sri Lankans, why were they erport shared at the time with government?
Were they aware that he visited Sri Lanka three times during this period? Will the Panel explain errors such as the attribution to government of actions relating to the LTTE Footnote 92the attribution to government of an inappropriate response at the end of January to an ICRC statement issued on February 1st, the assumption that food was only sent to the conflict zone through the ICRC, the attribution though obscurely to the terrorist associated Tamil Rehabilitation Organization of the claim that individuals died of starvation, the claim that Manik Farm did not have its own water source, the claim that psychological support was not allowed by the Ministry of Social Services, etc?
Will the Panel study the analysis of its claims with regard to attacks on hospitals, in the light of claims made at the time, and on the context of official ICRC documentation of what was conveyed to government? Will the Panel explain its selective characterization of participants in the conflict, including its description of the LTTE as disciplined, while bribery is attributed to the military as a whole, with positive actions being attributed to individuals?
Darusman, LLRC and Petrie conundrum
Will the Panel provide sources for the various estimates mentioned in Paraas well as all alternative estimates with regard to the given figures? Has the Panel studied the reports of UN committees which make clear the reluctance of agencies entrusted with funds for the benefit of Sri Lankan displaced citizens to upgrade facilities at Manik Farm despite numerous requests, as well as the manner in which funding was squandered on international personnel who were unable to ensure adherence to national and international standards with regard to sanitation?
This was copied to the Attorney General at the same time, given his responsibilities with regard to the Interim Recommendations of the LLRC, with the following covering letter —.
I hope you will appreciate the points raised in the letter, and in particular the need to take remedial action so as to ensure that the reconciliation process continues.
Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka – Wikipedia
In this context I would like to suggest some positive measures that could be taken immediately to address some of the concerns raised in the Panel report, which I am aware you too share. I believe we have not promoted the provision of information that would alleviate some suffering.
Though there seems to be exaggeration with uncertainty, any uncertainty can cause anxiety and then resentment, so we should do our best to minimize this. I would suggest that we establish in every GN division an agency that will collect statistics with regard to those missing, and collate them with appropriate investigation to ensure fuller information with regard to previous activities.
This should lead to the formulation of a data base that can be used to provide precise information as possible. We know that of course some of those dead will not be identified, and also that some have made their way to other countries, or have taken on a new identity in this country. While making allowance for these, I am sure we will be able to establish that the number of those dead or missing is much smaller than is sometimes bandied around.
I hope very much that we can take action in this regard, and in other areas mentioned in my letter to the Secretary to the Ministry of External Affairs, and make it clear that the Government of Sri Lanka is more concerned about its own citizenry than external agencies. Nothing was done, and soon it became clear that those behind the Darusman report were out for blood, not only ours but that of those who had worked in accordance with UN principles and whose support would have enabled us to make it clear that by and large we and they had done our best in the context of the ruthless Tiger use of hostages — including UN workers, the appalling treatment of whom by the Tigers is hardly addressed by Darusman.
Instead we had the spectacle of further attacks on the leadership of the UN in Colombo through another report by a youngster that we should have studied and dealt with. The events of the last week, and the document I shared with you that had been prepared by a Ms Vigo, prompted reflections on the absurd way in which we have been conducting our foreign relations, and in particular our relations with the United Nations.
I am aware that the President has been sharply critical of the UN, and seems to think that all efforts to work positively with it would be vain, but this flies in the face of all evidence. The Vigo report makes it clear how many UN agencies and their heads worked well with us during the difficult days of conflict, despite external pressures and pressures from their younger members of staff — a phenomenon that occurred also with several ambassadors who have confided in me about this.
Meanwhile, as you are aware, Dayan Jayatilleka in Geneva did a fantastic job of making sure that we received solid support from the UN system. He understood the need for numbers, and worked with influential ambassadors in each regional group, so that we had a large coalition supporting us.
This was promptly frittered away by his successor. Meanwhile in Sri Lanka we ceased to work together actively with the UN.
Because of anger, understandable enough, at the appointment of the Darusman Panel, and its report, we assumed that the UN was complicit in the injustice that was being done to us. We failed to read the report carefully and intelligently, and understand that senior UN officials also were being criticized. I told the Ministry at the time that we should communicate with those officials and develop a common response, but I do not think the Ministry even understood what I meant, nor the potential danger.
As I have noted recently, following the visit of Robert Blake, which local politicians and foreign ambassadors have told me was worrying, I was told by the Ministry that all had gone very well, and newspaper reports were simply designed to create trouble. By changing the title of the report does he believe he could change the content.
I am told he was a professor in one of our universities. I am worried about his students. Does this stupid third world professor understand that it is the truth and not just the report that matters:. Truth has a habit of bursting out of all barriers, denials and cover ups, eventually: That time is around the corner.
All these professors and doctors are paper tigers compared to the the real ones out there in the first world. U have to omit tamils from above sentence…. Killing of thousands of innocent Tamils, if that happened, would have been done by Tamils Terrorists themselves. Its not how we got into this situation that is important at this point of time, it is how we can get out. Since the Commander of the Army is no more in his postion and the next person who was responsible for the war and who still holds the position, the Defence Secretary should be removed from his post immediately.
There after an independent commission should be appointed to investigate the acts during the war. This should be done in a public manner and these actions would save us. When he claimed that The Government of Sri Lanka punished some of the perpetrators who committed crimes against Tamils during the war, the host challenged him again and again. Everybody knew that there were no such punishment, but the name he mentioned pointed to Iniyabharathy.
Iniyabharathy is a well known thug, who worked under Karuna and Pillaiyaan. This Iniyabharathy is the main culprit in the capture and murder of Taraki Sivaram. The Tamil National Alliance said, there was clear evidence that Iniyabharathi committed some serious human rights violations.
Affected families gave evidence before the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission LLRC at its sittings in Ampara on that Iniyabharathi was responsible for the abductions and disappearances of their husbands, wives and children.
But, LLRC did not properly document his involvement in human right abuses.
Sri Lankas Failure To Respond Darusman Report – Colombo Telegraph
This suspected war criminal has been appointed for Eastern Provincial Council https: Shame on you Rajiva. If you had any element of shame, if you have a backbone, you would not be keep singing for supper. But the president appears not to have been bothered. Could MR have refused the request? He occasionally makes comments to justify his backdoor entry to parliament. What a waste of time by one who has missed the bus trying to justify the miseries of victims. If you knew all this, you shopuld have taken up independently or with the GOSL and acted.
They are the people who use such words because they are not as intelligent as you are. You have now gone to the kopikade level professor. Prof if the Rajapajse regime had co operated with the Panel appointed by the SG, you could have raised with them all the issues you refer to in your article You must at least admit that it was grave error on the part of the Rajapakses, not to have co operated with Panel. I totally agree with Rajiv on his views. FOUR weeks before the release of the Darusman Report a colleague of mine who worked with me in the UN wrote to me e-mail that the Darusman report is coming out in 4 weeks time and the report is not goof for Sri Lanka, unless address the report well with people familiar with the issues.
He further wrote to get the GOSL to answer the questions and all requirements and then the issue will go off from the agenda. Do you think an unemployed Darusman got up one day from the wrong side of his bed and decided to write this report? You say you have worked for the UN. If what you say is true as past international civil servant you should know better. Why we call this report Darusman Report because it is the name given by the SL government and associates who condemn the report.
But as you said the report is having a very specific name, it may the same name or some thing similar to what you refer. This report was complied with evidence collected from IDP Tamils who was helped by a certain Politician and his supporters to escape and according to the AG of NSW Australian Government and other Governments collection of statements contains the views of the Tamils who left the Sri Lankan shore and most may be not the truth.
The “Darusman Report”
If we answered the report with good faith then we should have seen the statements complied by the UN Team and should have taken action in an appropriate manner. But as the Politician was a very close relation of MR he refused to entertain the report even without checking it for facts. If the GOSL answered the report today UN may not come after anyone as they got a very truthful report for what ainhala were searching weather it is the accountability or the verification of the information they gathered dadusman the IDP Tamils who,m paid money to leave the SL shores.
Dear rajiv i have some regard for you for the reason you are sam s son. Can your government dispute siinhala of the wrong doings an the finding of darusman commitee report.