02 March 2021
One lead member of the Tamil Diaspora stated in his communication :
[There is no Tamil government. There is no legitimate place in an international formal fora for Tamils, as Tamils don't have a government.]
If the above were true as in Ultimate Reality – then there is no Tamil Nation either. I however believe that there is a true Tamil Nation developed by every true Independent Tamil of Sri Lanka. But towards this the boundaries through which we became self-governing need to be Sri Lankan due to the fact that this realisation happened due to fellow Sri Lankans becoming our other side and therefore our Opposition. If we are not two sides of the same coin, then we are withdrawing.
Let us take for example some points from the Draft Report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, headed:
‘Promotion reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka’ and analyse in the consciousness Mrs Ambihai Selvakumar of the UK, director of the International Centre for the Prevention of Genocide (ICPPG) who has declared that she would fast unto death, as she demands that the UK government refers the Sri Lankan government to the International Criminal Court.
1. Item 7 of the said report:
[7. Sri Lanka’s armed conflict emerged against the backdrop of deepening discrimination and marginalisation of the country’s minorities, particularly the Tamils. The 30-year war between the Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), as well as earlier insurgencies in the south, were marked by persistent and grave human rights violations and abuses by both parties, including extrajudicial killing, widespread enforced disappearances, arbitrary detention, torture and sexual violence that affected Sri Lankans from all communities. Thousands of children were systematically recruited and used as fighters and in other roles by LTTE and other armed groups, Muslim and Sinhala communities were forcibly expelled from the North, and civilians were indiscriminately killed in terrorist attacks on public places and transport by the LTTE. Successive High Commissioners have consistently condemned these acts. ]
The rebellion in South was NOT due to minorities but was against Communists. Hence the Human Rights violations were due not to race but against Communists who resorted to armed rebellion. Mrs Ambihai Selvakumar’s claim that it was Genocide applies to armed Communists who waged war against the elected government. Mr Sinnathurai Srivas makes a more valid connection:
[Tamils had a chance at least to sit at a table to negotiate solution in Oslo. But the Chines infiltrators amongst us made sure it was a failure.]
2. Item 9 of the said report:
[9. During the final stage of the conflict with the LTTE in 2009, there were credible allegations of indiscriminate shelling by Government forces, including in the densely populated ‘No Fire Zones’, and of attacks on protected objects, resulting in massive civilian deaths and casualties. The LTTE prevented civilians from leaving the conflict area. Strict controls over humanitarian supplies by the Government caused additional deaths and suffering. LTTE cadres and their dependents are believed to have been extra-judicially executed after handing themselves over to Sri Lankan armed forces. More than 250,000 people were detained for months in military-run closed camps for internally displaced persons.]
The above confirms that the actions by the government were against the LTTE. Given that the LTTE killed Tamil Political leaders it was Genocide of Elected Politicians.
That being the case, the recourse is indicated by the report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into Easter Sunday bombings.
Ms Kishali Pinto Jayawardene who is a highly respected Sri Lankan legal analyst discusses the possibility of bringing legal action against former President in her Sunday Times article ‘The Easter Sunday commission and the indictment of a president’:
[No bar to legal action against a former President
Article 35 (1) is clear on this point. It states that, ‘while any person holds office as President, no proceedings shall be instituted or continued against him in any court or tribunal in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by him either in his official or private capacity.’ Thus, the legal position that a former President may be liable for such acts upon leaving office is firmly settled in our law and it does not really need grandstanding by party lawyers before television cameras to stress the point. This is evidenced on first principles, going by the literal meaning of Article 35(1) of the Constitution.
……Presidential immunity was also discussed more recently in the notable Dissolution Judgment of the Supreme Court (Rajavarothiam Sampanthan and Others v. Attorney General and Others, 2018), where the Court reiterated that, Article 35(1) only protected ‘..a President [so long as he holds office] from being sued in respect of any act or omission done by him in his official capacity qua President or in his private capacity.’
The Court went on moreover to note the signal change brought about by the 19th Amendment where even a sitting President may be liable to a fundamental rights challenge. That, as we may recall, was retained in the 20th Amendment following a not inconsiderable struggle. So while this point surely needs no belabouring, we are on a more contested question here, namely whether criminal liability follows, inter alia, from the fact that the former President knew of a possible terrorist threat but “proceeded to India and then Singapore from April 16 to April 21 without making any acting appointment for the post of Minister of Defense.”]
As highlighted yesterday through my article headed ‘LTTE LEADER LACKED INTUITION TO PROTECT HIS GROUP?’, the Sri Lankan government then headed by Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa also knew about what they were going to do. :
The Sydney Morning Herald article ‘World's Tamils can only watch as Sri Lanka edges closer to war’ (https://www.smh.com.au/world/worlds-tamils-can-only-watch-as-sri-lanka-edges-closer-to-war-20080112-gdrwj7.html ) was published on 12 January 2008 – more than a year before the Mullivaikal attack which ended in May 2009. As per that presentation:
[Schalk's research on the 17,000 Tiger "martyrs" should also caution Western politicians who try to lump them with al-Qaeda as suicidal terrorists. Although the Tamils are mostly Hindu (against the majority Buddhists backing the Government) their struggle has no religious character. They are buried, not cremated. They are not promised any glorious afterlife.
Dr Kohona said it was popular outrage at Tiger ceasefire violations that had forced the Government's hand. But he also made it clear that Colombo thought the Tigers were now beatable, and dismissed fears Sri Lanka was heading for an all-out war with massive civilian casualties.
"The LTTE doesn't have the capability to launch an all-out confrontation any more. It's seriously lacking in cadres, and we also believe its levels of ammunition are very low since the sinking of the four supply ships," he said. In his last annual "Great Heroes' Day" address on November 27, the Tigers' supremo, Velupillai Prabhakaran, himself seemed to strike an unintended note of desperation when he railed at the international community for moves to isolate his movement.
Colombo hopes that a "moderate" Tamil majority outside the Tiger zone of control in the north-east will accept a proposal for devolution within a unitary state that a constitutional review committee will publish in coming weeks.
But this raises the question why Mr Rajapaksa could not wait these few weeks to publish his proposals for a political solution and assess the reaction. Instead he has chosen the path of military conquest, one on which many of his predecessors have been bloodied before.]
As per the above article:
[Australia's help for the Colombo Government against the Tigers may go further than financial sanctions. In Canberra this week, its visiting Foreign Affairs Secretary, Palitha Kohona, was appreciative of the intelligence support Colombo has been getting from "friendly governments".
An improved flow of intelligence, including local tip-offs, had helped pinpoint key Tiger figures such as Thamilchelvan or last week an intelligence chief known as Colonel Charles. With the interception of four Tiger supply ships last year by the Sri Lankan Navy, "we did work in close contact with friendly governments", Dr Kohona said.
Including Australia? "I wouldn't want to name the governments but we did have considerable help," he said.
As per Wikipedia, Dr Kohona was Member of the Sri Lankan delegation to the UN GA, from 2006 - 2014
Is it therefore not essential that UNHRC question Dr Kohona through an internal process and also find out why the Australian government of that time headed by Mr Kevin Rudd did not heed the warning ?
Above all else, now that Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa is no longer President – he needs to be questioned in a court of law along the lines proposed by the Easter Sunday commission. It is also possible to sue the current president along the lines as Rajavarothiam Sampanthan and Others v. Attorney General and Others, 2018 .
A true Tamil governor would do that before begging foreign governments. I did that against many – including Mr Howard when he was Prime Minister. When Mr Howard lost his seat – I knew that my belief based action had also joined others belief that Mr Howard had failed us in terms of racial equality. THAT is the way Natural Justice delivers to true seekers. In contrast a professional Tamil who to my mind was by effect an LTTE supporter wrote as follows:
[….Or as I said there is some sort of phobia. You see things are wrong everywhere, be it NSW uni or courts in Jaffna or even in Thunaivi. This is something unusual. The fault is with you or the rest of the world. ]
If the above is also belief based – then a UNHRC resolution against the Sri Lankan Government will be hijacked to be in favour of alleged Tamils of Sri Lanka and the likes of me would be disenfranchised because we are Sri Lankan Tamils and not Eelam only Tamils.