The plot against the President Mahinda Rajapakse, and the Government Armed Forces, fizzled out at the special meeting of the UN Human Rights Council held in
The Western countries remained isolated with 29 countries standing fearlessly against the arbitrary decisions the rich countries of the West think they have a right to take against developing countries.
The voting at the council meeting shows how the countries of the West stood feebly before the massive vote demonstrating to the world that they are fake democrats, without principles.
The breakdown of May 27 voting on the HRC resolution concerning
In favour: Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Uruguay, Zambia (29).
Against: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Chile, France, Germany , Italy , Mexico, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia , Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (12).
Abstaining: Argentina, Gabon, Japan, Mauritius, Republic of Korea, Ukraine (6).
The out come is a lesson, (if they would learn from lessons) to the West, that they are no more the Nations that dictate terms to the developing countries. They should learn from this that it is best for them to leave alone the developing countries to organise their internal affairs without being interfered into by the rich countries .
They should also understand that it is far better to give the developing countries unconditional assistance in their development, which would be a show of real generosity for which they will receive the affection and the gratitude of the people of the developing countries..
The West has not realised that the development of poor countries would help the rich countries to benefit from their wealth, and be free from internal political problems But yet having not learnt any lesson from the voting at the Council meeting of the 27 May, they now speak offensively of the countries that voted in favour of the resolution as not real democracies.
The West is still living in the Colonial past, refusing to wake up to the 21st century. In this century they should learn to speak differently , and adopt a different mental attitude in dealing with other less fortunate nations.
In order to accuse
“War crimes”, is an undefined term. It comes from the Geneva Convention which in itself is not a legal document being only a basis for International Law. The word “War crimes” is interpreted differently by different systems of military law. However, “war” in a legal sense is a state created by a “declaration of war” in which case certain international rules of war are applied. The word “War” itself is also differently defined.
But Geneva convention and the rules pertaining to “war” or “armed conflicts” are not directly related to “ terrorism” and a government’s “military operations against terrorism”. None of the Governments or heads of States so far charged for war crimes by the International Criminal Courts, had been accused for terrorism and military operations against terrorism. If the Geneva Convention is to be applied to terrorism it would only be a means to encourage terrorism in the world. That would be a danger to the peaceful existence of humanity.
What is the greater danger today to the civil society and peace in the world. The greater danger is undoubtedly terrorism. Terrorism what ever name one would give it such as “rebels”, “freedom fighters” or “ armed conflict “ is violence, coercion or intimidation of the civil society a danger to the human existence. It is going back to savagery and primitive barbarism.
Terrorism may take an international dimension, or confined to a small country. But in either case terrorism is terrorism. There is no terrorism of the rich and terrorism of the poor. This is what the West have yet to understand. Even if they have understood what it is , they pretend not to have understood, because they are pre-occupied with their own selfish existence. They interfere into the affairs of the poor nations not to help them, but to divide and disunite them to maintain their leadership over them. That is also a form of “terrorism” they try to exercise over the poor nations.
The judicial decisions on cases for “war crimes” so far brought before the International Criminal Courts cannot even be cited as precedents, if there were to be a case against
If it is the shooting and killing or wounding civilians by the Government Armed Forces on which the West and UNHCHR are seeking to accuse Sri Lanka Government for “war crimes”, that too is outside such accusations as it could be pleaded as collateral damages, which were accidental and not deliberate.
In that situation Navi Pillay a lawyer herself going all out to accuse Sri Lanka Government and its Armed Forces is attempting to make a travesty of International Law. Of course she would say that the Government of Sri Lanka and its Armed forces will be tried for “War Crimes” in the use of fire arms in the no-fire zone and deliberately shooting to kill Civilians and the terrorists. That would be stretching the law to deliberately accuse
Terrorism has no parallel to a “declared war” to apply the Geneva Convention. One is different from the other. Terrorists do not terrorise according to “rules” and in fighting terrorism there is a necessary derogation of rules as may be applied in a declared “war”.
Therefore, there is no possible grounds for Navi Pillai to accuse the Government Forces of Sri Lanka for “war crimes”.
But she little realises that she is being used as a pawn by the West probably led by David Miliband with whom she had recently posed for a photo. We can see how various actors had played their part to prepare the ground to accuse the SL Government Forces for war crimes.
It is stated that, “ according to the International Criminal Court war crimes include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other serious violations of the laws and customs that can be applied in international armed conflict, and in armed conflict "not of an international character", as listed in the Statute, when they are committed as part of a plan or policy or on a large scale.” It goes on to mentions eight serious violations which could be considered as “war crimes”.
What the West had been doing in the past as it has been mentioned earlier is to collect evidence, by using the media, journalists, human rights activists, UK nationals planted in the no-fire zone, Doctors Working in the conflict zone, and the TV Channel 4, to one day accuse the Government of Sri Lanka and its Armed Forces for “war crimes.”
Let us take one by one the eight serious violations of the law mentioned by the International Criminal Court, and the scenario Navi Pillay along with the West, hope to set up, having cooked possible “evidence”.
1. Violence to life, health and physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular murder as well as cruel treatment such as torture, mutilation or any form of corporal punishment
The SLArmed Forces cannot be accused on this, but Navi Pillay will argue that violence to life had been committed, possibly producing the UK Citizen Damilvani Gnanakumar who was hiding in the no-fire zone as an eye witness. With regard to the “ violence to health and physical or mental well being of persons……..” She may have Anna Niastat of the HRW, who had been making accusations that the ID camps with barbed wire around is a concentration camp and the people kept inside without allowing them to go out is violation of mental well-being.
HRW and the AI had been complaining, without substantial evidence, that the people in the no-fire zone had no medical facilities and food. They also have the two Doctors who had been giving false information with regard to directing heavy fire at hospital.
2. Collective punishments.
Here she may try to get the specialist to interpret the aerial photos to say that there were heavy weapons used by the Army in the no-fire zone. But will the ICC accept it as a collective punishment ?
3. Taking of hostages
She might make out that the separation of those IDPs who had terrorists connection and keeping them separately is taking hostages. But it was a necessary security measure for the safety of the IDPs themselves
4. Acts of terrorism.
Here we do not know how Pillay will interpret it . She may probably say that attacking the terrorists when they had been cornered without any place to go, is terrorism against the terrorists !!!
5. Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, rape, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault
It is for this that the UK Television Channel 4 had been brought in. They have already made innuendos about rape and the three dead bodies of women found in the bathing area. It gives credence to the fact that all these had been according to a plan arranged by the West to go with the “war crimes” defined by the International Criminal Court.
This she will have to invent, with the help of Anna Niestat perhaps.
7. The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples
This she will have to skip, unless the West have some special cases to point out.
8. Threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.
Besides these there is another important item that the West tries hard to impose. It is about the two terrorists Balasingham Nadesan and Puleethevan who wanted to surrender when they were killed. Pillay has none other than Vijay Nambiar the Chief of Staff of Ban Ki Moon who says he had received a telephone call from Nadeson minutes before he was killed , saying that he wanted to surrender and that he was carrying a white flag.
The above item too had been carefully prepared to bring it as another violation under the Geneva convention which states “ …includes failures to adhere to norms of procedure and rules of battle, such as attacking those displaying a flag of truce, or using that same flag as a ruse of war to mount an attack.”
But the second part “…using that same flag as a ruse of war to mount an attack” will ,not be suitable for Navi Pillay’s purpose of accusing the SL Government Forces for war crimes, as that may just be what Nadeson was trying to do , to use the white flag as a ruse to mount an attack.” You can never say with the terrorists, though Navi Pillay has given different values to them.
In any case there would be no eye witnesses to the shootings of the civilians. Even if the British citizen had been planted inside the no fire zone to furnish an eye witness account it would not be credible in a court of Law. In the small space crammed with more than 50 000 Tamil civilians and the terrorists among them with their heavy weapons shooting at every thing moving, there would have been complete pandemonium making it difficult to identify who did what.
Hence the courts will have to be satisfied with circumstantial evidence supported by corroborating evidence. Circumstantial evidence by itself would not be a poof, but it would help investigations. But even with eye witness accounts or circumstantial evidence it has to be shown that the person or persons shot at the people purposely to kill them knowingly that they will be killed in the shooting.
The definition of war crimes by the International Criminal Court very clearly states that they are “war crimes” only when they are committed as part of a plan or policy or on a large scale.
No body with an iota of intelligence will believe that the Armed Forces had a plan or policy to shoot at Civilians with the intention to kill them. From the beginning to the end the military operations of the Government Armed Forces had been against the terrorists, and not at all against the TAMIL CIVILIANS.
Even the three Doctors the West is making a furore to protect, getting the President Barrack Obama to pronounce their names, could only give hearsay evidence, which has no great value.
Now we see how the West had been working to implicate
West swears that they will not negotiate with terrorists. But this very same West kept on asking the Government of Sri Lanka to negotiate for a peace settlement with the terrorists, knowing very well that the
Even Barrack Obama who cried high and low for a “ Change, Yes, We Can” has not been able to change this Western attitude to terrorism. It is only the person who has the wound that feels the pain.
The countries of the West with their misplaced concern for human rights, not accepting terrorism in developing countries as part of the “ international terrorism “, are themselves the terrorists of the developing countries,.
Jayam veram pasavati
dukkham seti parajito
upasanto sukham seti
Victory begets enmity; the defeated live in misery; the peaceful live happily having renounced victory and defeat.( Dhammapada 201)