UNHRC – IS IT ABOUT TO CAVE IN TO THE CUNNING TACTICS OF SRI LANKA
The Tamils in Sri Lanka face the gravest survival threat with many players associated with the UNHRC downplaying action on the human rights and war crimes issues and shifting the focus to accountability and reconciliation measures. This concedes SL time to complete the genocide of Tamils in SL. The Tamils facing a serious survival threat need a committed and capable team to cope with the wiles and ruthlessness of the SL Sinhala leadership. The Tamils by a historical accident are today relying on the remnants (the Sumanthiran/Sambandan) (Sum/Sam duo) of the TULF who surreptitiously usurped a leadership role in the dysfunctional TNA.
These usurpers in the TNA are without the credentials of a SJV Chelvanayagam, a Vanniasingham, an EMV Nagana than and others (pre-eminent leaders) in the original ITAK. The usurpers are struggling to convince the Tamils population to follow the policies of the ACTC (G G Ponnambalam) of merely placating the Sinhala UNP leaders. This led the Tamils into the quagmire of massive violence. Tarzie Vittachi’s ‘The Emergency’ epic narrates how an unchecked mob violence culture enthused by the Sinhala UNP leaders led to more and more mob violence leaving the Tamils to bear untold sufferings.
The ‘Sinhalese Only’ measure led to Sinhala violence big and small, specifically the notorious ‘Black July’ (1983) violence, and the horrific 2009 Mullivaykkal massacres that is awaiting UNHRC’s disposal. The UNP leader JR Jayawardena (JR) admitted that the “Black July” violence had ‘a pattern of organization and planning’, unlike the Welikade prison killings, in more and more riots in response to the Tamils calling for an independent state. JR accepted the state’s complicity in the violence … (to proudly proclaim) “I am not worried about …Tamil people, not about their lives ..if I starve the Tamils, Sinhalese people will be happy.’ JR’s policies produced killings, assaults, destruction of Tamil property especially homes, industries, mass internal displacements….for whom PM Premadasa organized..the feeding for …20 000 homeless Tamils and ….transportation North (by ship) of over 50 000 (refugees) North…with the help of India. For more gruesome eye witness testimonies graphically portraying the scale of Sinhala atrocities please see Wiki leaks for classic documentary evidence on the genocide of the Tamils that continues to this day.
The Tamils today facing a far more serious crisis with the Sum/Sam duo graciously urging the Tamils to accept all the cruelty Tamils they suffered and still suffering besides the horrors of the Black July (1983), and the far more serious massacres of the 2009 Mullivaykkal. The misplaced trust the leadership of ACTC G G Ponnampalam subjected the Tamils to all the violence that the Sinhala leaders continued to use more and more violence against the Tamils its ‘Sinhala measures’ as listed by the NBBC.
Would the Tamils welcome the Sum/Sam duo’s recent urgings that the Tamils to try out the ACTC’s 1950s first experiment of trusting the Sinhala leaders after the horrific and the sufferings they were subjected to? In the very first year after independence in 1949 the Sinhala UNP leadership legislated to disenfranchise the Tamil plantation workers effectively reducing the strength of Tamil political representation in SL by half. The violence unleashed over the up country Tamils’ protests over their dis-enfranchisement led to violence; even street assaults on Tamil leaders like Thondaman.
Reacting to the disenfranchisement, the top Tamil ACTC leaders, S J Chelvanayagam, Vanniasingam, … promptly left the ACTC to form the FP/ITAK to whom the Tamils entrusted the Tamil leadership role. The Sinhala leaders were prone to instinctively break all rules and or written agreements (Pacts), with the objective of erasing all traces of Tamil habitation in SL. Section 29 of the Soulbury constitution meant for minority protection was torn up in the very first year after independence. The intent of the Sinhala Only Act of 1956 was to impoverish the Tamil community depriving them of most job opportunities. The condescending approach of ACTC Tamil leaders led to the leadership both of the UNP and the SLFP to respond to Tamil protests against any anti-minority measures with instant brutal Sinhala violence on Tamils inhabiting in various parts of SL, creating massive refugee in flows to the Tamil homelands in the North and East and refugee flows overseas.
SL Sinhala leadership has by its wits achieved so much that today the Tamils driven out (as refugees overseas and/or displaced internally) leave a depopulated North and East attractive for permanent SL military occupation and Sinhala colonization of the areas developed by the Tamils reducing them into a landless and homeless community in their homelands.
For the UNHRC to take a softly approach towards the Rajapakse violence though that curbed separatist tendencies it produced the saddest consequences for the Tamil minorities. Encouraged by the perceived passivity of the Tamils the Sum/San class supported SL and urging the UNHRC to focus on ‘reconciliation’, ‘accountability’, ‘transitional justice’ measures though the Sinhala leaders would instinctively break all rules and or written agreements (Pacts), if that was needed to erase any trace of Tamil habitation in SL. Section 29 of the Soulbury constitution meant for minority protection was torn up in the very first year after independence. The Sinhala Only Act of 1956 to impoverish the Tamil community depriving them of most job opportunities. The condescending approach of Tamils of suspect quality assisted SL to bury in the backyard the customary human rights and war crimes justice that victims of genocide expect the UNHRC to deliver.
Hillel C.Neuer Executive Director of HRW on 17 May 2016 highlighted the major failures of the UNHRC specifically its failure to address the human rights issues it is mandated to address as they occurred and deliver deserving redress. Instead at most times the UNHRC granted immunity to the vast majority of human rights abusers. Sri Lanka now joins the rights abusers club who according to Hillel constitute 62 % of the current Council membership; the highest in history.
The deceptive melo drama staged of key Council players lead persceptive analysts to bluntly question “whither the UNHRC?” The Tamils are to face the horror of the final stage of the SL genocide, about to swallow the now vulnerable, depleted and scattered Tamil areas. Tamils involved in the debate on the implementation of the Council’s September 2015 resolution take the view that it is weak enough for SL to continue with the genocide and for the UNHRC to remain as a passive observer of the sufferings of the Tamils.
The missionary zeal of Navaneethapillai is now required to replace the ‘softly..softly’ “Save the Rajapakses” approach of the UNHRC that even countries like India would jealously not call the massacre of over 40 000, a genocide. This means there will be no justice for the victims of SL‘s continuing genocide.
Independent human rights observers are disappointed that the nature of the debate in the UNHRC dominated by high powered and closely associated bureaucrats from the US, India and SL closely collude to hijack the Council away from the original mission. The voices heard in the Council meetings are the “Save the Rajapakses“ chants; vehemently encouraging the continuance of the SL genocide on the Tamils. These high officials involved in the Council proceedings are especially those holding important positions in the foreign services of the key UNHRC members interact closely enough to gang up that the impartiality of the UNHRC policies becomes suspect. The result the desperate victims of the SL genocide are orphaned.
The “Save the Rajapakses’” club became powerful once Sonia joined to belatedly avenge for Tamil killing of Rajiv to ensure that the South Block, the RAW and MEA be actively involved “in the loop” SL war. Fearing Gothabhaya responding to initial adverse reaction brandished the Sonia and South Blocker in ‘in the loop’ role in the Mullivaykkal and other massacres. The Sonia UPA and NDA/BLP actively support SL in the UNHRC proceedings. This involved the South Block to support SL diplomatically, militarily, arms, and intelligence including RAW and services, all involvement the massacre of over 40 000 civilian Tamils. SL’s Defence Secretary Gothabaya realising seriousness of the war crimes desired that was opportune to implicate all those involved ‘in the loop’ role including high ranking South Block MEA bureaucrats and politicians. From then on SL used the “Save the Rajapakses’’” mantra to prevent any Indian support for any UNHRC investigation and or acting against SL in UNHRC proceedings. Sonia (and Modi) had the politics to justify Delhi’s the “Save the Rajapakses” horrific project. For Ban there was the Nambiar (factor) whom Ban sent to SL to ensure that the killings of surrendering insurgent leaders a serious war crime did not occur.
Council members and observer countries that backed the consensus in October 2015 resolution made it clear that foreign participation in judicial proceedings is not subject for renegotiation. However the SL Foreign Minister called the UNHRC to trust and accept its promise to being accountable as it ((SL) sees fit’’. But analysts were of the view that “trust must be earned in ..SL’s ability to deliver justice without a significant international role.’ However the SL President and PM openly declared to UNHRC that foreign judges are totally unacceptable to SL; one more SL veto of UNHRC’s serious proposals. Such vetoes are bound to under-mine the standing of UNHRC that has been entrusted a noble world role to play. SL even vetoed UNHRC AL Hussein’s hybrid court suggestion.
Ban’s contribution as Secretary General to resolve the SL’s human crisis was most disappointing. SL is able to withstand pressure of the UNHRC’s findings when the sheer deceptions of Ban, Nambiar, Sonia, the South Blockers, RAW and Sum/Sam duo who in close association are colluding to make SL’s ‘save the Rajapakses’ project , a success.