Participants at the 16th Session of the UN Human Rights Council
Amnesty International is an organization with a large budget. People like George Soros who donated US$ 100 million to Human Rights Watch had also made large donations to Amnesty International . There are so contributions made to it by individuals and groups.
It is probable that the LTTE terrorist front organizations of the Sri Lanka expatriate Tamils too have contributed heavily to the Amnesty International. Therefore, AI has to work to justify receiving these funds, and the only work they seem to be doing is issuing reports on developing countries creating most often imagined situations to justify a report as in the case of Sri Lanka .
But what has Amnesty International really done to improve the condition of the people who had been victimized by terrorists for instance other than issuing reports condemning a country based on hearsay evidence ? The Sri Lanka Armed Forces apart from eliminating the terrorists also rescued 300,000 Tamil civilians kept as a human shield by the terrorists. This the Amnesty International is very slow to admit, if not at all.
These reports are at least what they could show as their contribution for work- to protect human rights, to justify the heavy funds in collects. AI of course uses these money to pay handsome salaries to its own staff and apparently there are Confidential Agreements between the AI and its staff to pay heavy sums of money as gifts on their leaving the organization. That was revealed in the case of the payments to Irene Khan its former Secretary General.
It was revealed in February, 2011 that the out going Secretary General of AI, Irene Khan received a payment of UK £ 533,103 from the AI following her resignation from the Organization. The Deputy Secretary General Kate Gilmore also received an ex-gratia payment of UK £ 320,000 on her retirement. It is reported that Irene Khan was paid such a large sum of money by the International Executive Committee of the AI as she was reluctant to retire at the end of her second term. That was therefore an inducement for her to retire.
The new Secretary General and his staff are therefore working hard to preserve their very handsome salaries and a possible gift of a substantial sum of money on their retirement. It is for that purpose that they have to issue at least a report to justify the existence of Amnesty International with a considerable sum of money to spend. Hence the reports they issue from time to time which are absurd and have no value.
Once the President Bush commenting on one of its reports had said, ''It seemed like (Amnesty) based some of their decisions on the word and allegations by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people had been trained in some instances to disassemble (sic) -- that means not tell the truth'', Bush went on. ''And so it was an absurd report. It just is''.
The President George Bush had said a “mouthful” and what more can one add about Amnesty International’s latest report on Sri Lanka issued to coincide with the United Nations Human Rights Council session scheduled to begin on September 12 in Geneva ?
The Report of the Amnesty International is absurd and not worth the paper on which it has been written as it has made unsubstantiated allegations against the LLRC a committee appointed by the Government of Sri Lanka with a sufficiently extensive mandate to make a complete investigation in to the terrorism and the military operations to eliminate the terrorists in Sri Lanka. The report of the Amnesty International is as unreliable as the Darusman report to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon.
LLRC as mentioned above was a committee appointed by the President of the Government of Sri Lanka to go in depth to the period of terrorism and examine exactly what happened and to what extent Armed Forces, the terrorists or others were responsible for any condemnable actions and violations of rights.
It consists of very qualified persons who are highly respected by the people , independent of political affiliations or personal relationships to any one in the Government. They are all Sri Lankans and are therefore coloured persons.
The Amnesty International being mainly made up of White persons of the Western Community have their prejudices against coloured people. Therefore naturally they will look at the LLRC with their prejudices and will have nothing but criticism against it, caring less about qualifications and the social status of the persons, but judging them from the colour of their skin.
The other point one should take into consideration is that the Amnesty International was invited by the LLRC to present their case against the Government of Sri Lanka or against its Armed Forces. But this invitation the Amnesty International totally refused to accept as evidently they had no substantial information to present before the LLRC. A false report is far more effective even if it were to be challenged as it has been written down and brought to the notice of the public.
Like the UK Channel 4 Video which was evidently faked and had no eyewitness accounts to substantiate the scenes it depicted and statements made by anonymous witnesses. But even the US House representatives like Howard Berman were gullible enough to accept it and take action detrimental to Sri Lanka.This is what Sam Zarifi its Asia Pacific Director says in the report:
“The Sri Lankan government has, for almost two years, used the LLRC as its trump card in lobbying against an independent international investigation. Officials described it as a credible accountability mechanism, able to deliver justice and promote reconciliation. In reality it’s flawed at every level: in mandate, composition and practice,”
How can this man Zarifi make a judgement of the LLRC other than from what he has heard from some one, if he did not have the “guts” to present himself before the LLRC when he was invited. That was an occasion for the Amnesty International to have seen for itself if the LLRC was “fundamentally flawed and provides no accountability for atrocities ». That they failed to do.
Why does AI now make this « absurd » report other than to mislead the members of the United Nations Human Rights Council ?
This report of the Amnesty International like the Video of the UK Channel 4 is made up of reports they have read in the internet, information collected from the terrorist front Agents the expatriate Tamils of Sri Lanka, the Global Tamil Forum and those in UK, Canada , USA and Germany.
Further more the report of the LLRC has still not been released, and therefore what is the basis on which the Amnesty International make such drastic uncalled for criticism of a Committee appointed by the Government of Sri Lanka ?
Knowing what the West are capable of doing to the developing countries, and reading the absurdity of the “flawed” report the AI has issued, we in Sri Lanka cannot and will not consider an International Committee of Investigation will do any thing better than what our own LLRC is able to do.
We rely on the LLRC and we will accept their report and not a report of an International Committee composed of persons who would be strangers to our way of thinking, our culture and our language. We saw it in the Darusman Panel report to Ban Ki Moon.
The Amnesty International report says the LLRC ‘s mandate is far short of international standards for such inquiries. How could they make an issue of the mandate given to the LLRC ?
If there is a standard mandate in keeping with international standard for investigations, such a mandate cannot be extended to any situation in any country. A mandate should be given relevant to the issues to be investigated, and respectful of the cultural and national values. What is justifiable in the West according to their justice are not applicable to India, Sri Lanka or China
As President Bush had said once in relation to a report of the Amnesty International the present report of the Amnesty International is based on the imagination of Sam Zarifi and his colleagues.
Therefore as President Bush said ''It seemed like (Amnesty) based some of their decisions on the word and allegations by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people had been trained in some instances to disassemble (sic) -- that means not tell the truth'', Bush went on. ''And so it was an absurd report. It just is''.
This « absurd report » of the Amnesty International against the LLRC, states that “ A UN Panel of Experts’ report on Sri Lanka submitted to Ban Ki-moon on 12 April 2011 found credible allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by both government forces and the LTTE, and recommended establishing an “independent international mechanism” to investigate allegations.
This itself shows the AI has put together in a hurry this absurd report which criticises a still unreleased report of the LLRC and accepts a very much flawed report issued by the Darusman Panel of which the Secretary General of UN himself seems to have doubts . As a report on what happened on Sri Lanka during the final phase of the military operations to eliminate terrorists the Darusman Panel report is full of unverifiable statements and had been made depending solely on the reports in the websites of Sri Lanka terrorists and their supporters, and information received from the pro- terrorist expatriate Tamils. The panel never stepped into Sri Lanka at any time to verify facts or incidents it had written about.
How can the Amnesty International level any criticism at the LLRC and its mandate before the report of the Committee has been released, or having had no direct contact with the LLRC to see how it works ?
This shows beyond any doubt that the object of this precipitation to release a report is to mislead the UN Human Rights Council and get it to pass a resolution demanding an International Independent Investigation in place of the LLRC. They are undoubtedly wanting to be a part of it and spend a well paid holiday in Sri Lanka !
The report of the AI had been written without having a glimmer of information about the LLRC and how it conducted its investigations, but with the sole intention to mislead the UN Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva in mind, and with a view to high light what is in the following two paragraphs of their absurd report :“The international community must not be deceived into viewing the LLRC as a credible replacement for an international inquiry – this would allow war crimes and crimes against humanity to go unchallenged,” said Sam Zarifi.
“Only an international, independent investigation can deliver justice to the thousands of victims of Sri Lanka’s brutal conflict. Only then will the voices of victims really be heard. And only then can the process of post-conflict reconciliation begin to move forward”
It is well known that certain Western Countries spearheaded the demand to take the Government and the Armed Forces of Sri Lanka before a tribunal accused of war crimes. It was primarily because the Government of Sri Lanka did not agree on a political solution with the terrorists demanded by these Western Governments, but decided on a military solution and succeeded in eliminating terrorism militarily.
Amnesty International acts in concert with other agents and Governments. In the present case the Amnesty International seems to act in concert with those Western Governments and perhaps also acceding to the demands of the Terrorist Front Organizations of the expatriate Tamils in UK, USA , Canada, Germany and Norway.
The fact that the Amnesty International does not act independently is seen from the following extract taken from the Wikipedia.“ University of Illinois professor of international law Francis Boyle, who was a member of the board of Amnesty International USA at the end of the 1980s/early 1990s, claims that Amnesty International USA acted in ways closely related to United States and United Kingdom foreign policy interests. He stated that Amnesty, along with other human rights organizations in the US, failed to criticise sufficiently the Sabra and Shatila Massacre in Lebanon.
Boyle stated his suspicion that the International Secretariat of Amnesty International, based geographically in London, UK, was also subject to this bias. He attributes the alleged links between Amnesty International and US and UK foreign policy interests to the relatively large financial contribution of Amnesty International USA to AI's international budget, which he estimated at 20%.”