Navineetham Pillay’s services as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights should be terminated for being a racially prejudiced person.

Navineetham Pillay a Tamil, has already taken her stand on the issue with regard to Sri Lanka Tamil terrorists, and therefore she cannot be objective, and cannot act as an Independent Commissioner of  the UN Human Rights Commission.

When I recently read in an article that, «…….. Navi Pillai, ….started a “Tamil EELAM in Ceylon” movement, in South Africa when she was a teenager at high school.  »  I was hesitating  to quote it  as there was no mention of the source  of  the information.

But reading  the following reports  the extracts of which I have given below, I think I have reason to believe that she was as a poor school going teenager victimised for her poverty and the colour of her skin  was a « fan » of the Sri Lanka terrorists  :

Recently at a press conference,

« ………….. Pillay was asked by blogger Mathew Lee of Inner City Press what she thought about General Silva's appointment. "It's a matter of concern," Pillay said in response. "The United Nations has very clear policies on vetting and this is part of the work that my office does," she added.

"We keep a list of individuals who are suspected of committing human rights violations and I have addressed a letter of concern to the secretary-general about this individual," the human rights chief said. »

I thought that it is most reprehensible  that a person who is the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights  makes such a seriously disrespectful statement  about, (i)  a Deputy Ambassador of a Member State of the United Nations, and  (ii) who is also a person selected to serve in the UN Secretary General’s Advisory Panel on Peace Keeping, by the Asia Group of countries.

She  has to be cautious about statements she makes in her position as the UNHCHR., and not make statments like Sampanthan of the Tamil National Aliance. After all General Shavendra Silva had been selected to the UNSG’s Advisory Panel by the UN Asia Group Member Sates.  Her irreverent  or more appropriately the « stupid »comment is an insult to the Asia Group of Countries who are Member States of the UN.

Navi Pillay spoke of United Nations having “very clear policies on vetting”.  But it is regrettable that these clear policies on vetting do not seem to have been followed in her appointment  to her position as the High Commissioner for the UN HRC.

Then examining precisely where this deep seated  prejudice  of this woman, which is almost a hateful obsession against  Sri Lanka Sinhala Community and every one connected to Sri Lanka other than Tamils, could have come from, I found that this  depraved psychological  hatred is embedded in her mind as she had been from her childhood a victim of strong rabid apartheid of the South African Government and its Adminstration.

She has in many interviews mentioned difficulties she had as a Lawyer in the apartheid regime into which she was born, but nothing of her anti apatheid activities and thoughts about racism and apatheid prior to that.

In order to understand Navi Pillay’s  hatred towards Sri Lanka and her all out  efforts as the UNHCHR  to incriminate the President and the Armed Forces of Sri Lanka for violation of human rights and war crimes, we have to go into her past beyond her legal professional period.

She also has misunderstood terrorism for apartheid.  Apartheid is defined as  a social policy or racial segregation involving political and economic and legal discrimination against people who are not Whites.  In Sri Lanka there is neither apartheid nor racism.

She was born to a poor Tamil family of Indian origin in Clairwood  Durban, South Africa, in 1941.  Her  father was a bus driver  whose entire monthly wage was R5.  It was her neighbours who contributed for her studies. They were Tamils and therefore she has a duty by them if not to them all Tamils in general. That may be part of her prejudiced agains the Government of Sri Lanka thinking it is against Tamils, whether those Tamil be terrorists or not.

In an interview to  Vino Reddy on 11 August, 2002 she had said, “  We lived in Clairwood …… a victim of race riots in 1949 and that’s what caused the fear on part of the residents of Clairwood, including my parents. With me, firstly, when I was six-years old I was the victim of robbery. My mother had given me my father’s entire monthly wages, which was R5 to take to him. He was a bus driver I was supposed to meet him at the corner and hand this money to him. Meanwhile he had not asked for the money it was his conductor who had planned that ruse and he grabbed the money from my hand off he went.

My mother beat me up for that. I don’t know why the victim gets beaten. Anyway, and I ended up giving evidence in court at the age of , (seven) six in the same Durban High Court where I many years later sat as a judge. And this individual was sentenced to three months imprisonment. But what really bugged me is that we didn’t get the R5 back and I felt so guilty as a child that I had caused the loss to my parents. “

That is when seeds of racial hatred germinated in her.  She could not distinguish apartheid and racial difference.  In her mind as a six year old she despised the idea of being treated differently.  When she was old enough to understand  the terrorism in Sri Lanka of which she had heard , she understood it in personal terms as the Sinhala majority government a regime of apartheid and the Tamils, like she is in Durban , were victimised by the Sinhala Government and its Armed Forces.  That became therefore another cause she would be fighting later on in her life.

Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, an independent human rights group wrote after an interview with her : « While understandably cautious on her first day in the job, Ms Pillay says she sees her new role as returning to that of being an advocate.

"This is the only office at the UN to be fiercely uncompromising and independent about human rights standards. The commissioner is the voice of the victim everywhere."

“ So when human rights groups and some American officials expressed scepticism before her appointment on Thursday, she said she was used to it. As a member of a minority from a poor Indian neighbourhood in apartheid-era South Africa, she was long kept from becoming a judge by the colour of her skin. For years, although she was a lawyer, she could not even sign a contract without her husband’s consent. »

She grew ap constatnly being a victime of the South African apartheid regime and this made  her a fanatic Tamil swearing to defend her people victimised by any one she thought was racists, « The commissioner is the voice of the victim everywhere. »

Hence Navi Pillay’s statement to the press, « she had informed U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of her misgivings about General Shavendra Silva, Sri Lanka's deputy U.N. ambassador, who commanded the Sri Lankan army's 58th Division during the final assault against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in 2009 »

Navy Pillay because of her intense racial prejudice cannot look at a problem independent from her personal experience, and therefore she does not fit into the role of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

If we were to look further into her past through her own words in the interview to Vino Reddy as far back as 11 August, 2002,

(http://scnc.ukzn.ac.za/doc/Audio/VOR/PillayNavi/PillayNavi%20transcript.htm)

we will understand better why she is not fit to Serve as the High Commissioner  in the UN Human Rights Commission.

She tells Vino Reddy :

«  I married Gaby Pillay. His full name is Paranjothi Anthony Pillay, and his background is he grew up in the Hlobane Mines, the colliery; so of course, his favourite food was the hard porridge that the miners used to eat. He spoke absolutely fluent, beautiful Zulu. And he was at the university with the help of his brothers because he was an orphan. And he started teaching and later became a lawyer and we ended up as partners in the same law firm. So we married in January 1965, he started teaching and I served two years of Articles with Mr NT Naicker who was the secretary-general of the African National Congress, here in Durban. »

Her life was thus shaped according to the circumstances that prevailed under apartheid. Her short stint working for the ANC further shaped her mind against apartheid and every form of  racial discrimination.  It is that which has stopped her from making a distiction between terrorism and a government’s inherent duty to use its Armed Forces to eliminate terrorists if they  do not agree to any approach for a peace settlement, and continue with   determination to win the cause for which they fight through use of « arms » and terrorising the country.

Then she goes on to say how she acquired experience in her work as a Lawyer, and found that suffering of people  and everything  boils down to   politics : « Mr NT Naicker who was the secretary-general of the African National Congress, here in Durban. And he was banned and house-arrested, he could not leave his home, which meant that he sent me to cases in, outside Durban and to the rural areas. And I then picked up experience from day one, but also learnt firsthand the suffering of people and how everything was political. »

In her understanding that people’s suffering  is basically political, she  also understood terrorists Tamils in Sri Lanka  subjected to suffering by the « apartheid »  Sri Lanka Goverment as mere political victims.  That comes closer to US State Department’s view repeated by Robert O.Blake that there is no military solution to terrorism, but a political solution.

Again she says ,

« I learnt many lessons from the clients themselves. These rural farmers would explain to me why, on principle grounds, they would refuse to have their cattle dipped because I would say, "Why don’t you just dip your cattle in there and then you are over with this case."And they would say no they would rather go to jail because the political movements had taken a stand on these issues and these poor farmers were paying huge sacrifices to stand by that principle.”

She had never heard that the Tamils in Sri Lanka were never ever treated differently from others, be it  by the Sri Lanka Government or by the Ordinary people from different Communities.  It was only the terrorists who  were « created » by the Indian RAW and let loose in the North of Sri Lanka that were  treated “differently” as terrorists.

She explains her utter disappointment  being a  coloured Tamil growing up in apartheid South Africa.  Perhaps assuming all the Tamil people who are a minority in a country have the same problems as those she had  to suffer in apartheid South Africa.

« At high school some teachers discouraged me and they said you know "You can only become a lawyer if your father is very well to do; or if there are lawyers in your family. But you are a bus driver’s daughter you shouldn’t even think about that." And when I completed my Articles under Mr NT Naicker then, of course, nobody would employ a young woman. And so I had triple burdens I was a woman, I was black, and I was poor. And so that’s why I started my own law practice. And I know that some colleagues said, “She’s very presumptuous to start a law practice.” So mainly, I think, what motivated me, and most of the other law students, is this injustice that we saw all around us. All the laws, which we regarded as immoral and unjust laws and that, we had to defend our people against those laws » 

The Tamils never suffered that much in Sri Lanka and Navi Pillay cannot assume that their suffering was equal to her’s, though the Tamils in the terrorist controlled areas had to suffer the most under terrorists. Now three years after they may  perhaps say that they were better off with the Terrorit Prbhakaran than  being a free people in  a peaceful Sri Lanka under the the Govrnment of the President Mahinda Rajapakse . 

At least that is what the TNA Tamil MPs are trying to put into the minds of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka.  There is nothing new in that,  in the West there are those who believe that  there was no hollocaust under Hitler and the Auschwuitz is a fabrication.

Then she speaks of her husband who was detained under the South Adfrican Terrorism Act of 1967 :

“My husband Gaby Pillay was detained and so I went as a wife to the Security Police, shivering and weeping like any other wife, shocked by these events. Suddenly your husband is detained and the Security Police, I said to him, "Under what law are you detaining him?" Because as far as we knew, a person could only be detained for 48-hours and has to be brought to court after that. And the Security Policeman said to me: "You call yourself a lawyer, and you don’t know which law." And then he wrote it down for me, that it was the Terrorism Act of 1967 or something. And as far as we were concerned that law was passed in Parliament - they said at the time in Parliament "to arrest infiltrators at the borders." And here it was being used for ordinary people. It was first used to detain Winnie Mandela and a whole lot of people who had held meetings or called a street march, or something. Shanthi Naidoo, Winnie Mandela, all these people were detained and this was the second incident where the act was used for people who had held meetings. ”

So much for the reason of her prejudice against Sri Lanka coming from her battle with apartheid in South Africa, and living with that prejudice accepting any one who goes against Tamils even if they are terrorists as a  case she should defend prosecuting even  governments that eliminate Terrorists who are  of Tamil origin, as war criminals.

Then there are criticism  of her  questionable sense of priorities as the High Commissioner for UNHuman Rights Commission,  investigated  and highlighted by the  UNWatch an Independent Human Rights group .  I give bellow  some of the  findings.

(http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2011/06/07/study-un-rights-chief-navi-pillay-turned-blind-eye-to-worlds-worst-abusers/)

Ms. Pillay turned a blind eye to most of the world’s worst abusers. She made no statement on the human rights situations of 146 countries. She failed to voice any concern for victims in 34 countries rated “Not Free” by Freedom House—meaning those with the worst records, and the most needy victims. She failed to criticize another 50 countries rated “partly free” and 63 countries rated “free.” Among the countries not criticized: Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Brunei, Cambodia, Cameroon, Congo (Brazzaville), Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Mauritania, North Korea, Oman, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.

There were 21 statements on countries in the Middle East and North Africa. However, of these, 9 were on Israel, the only democracy in the region.

In an “unprecedented effort to engage” with the Arab countries, Pillay made a 10-day tour of the six Arab countries comprising the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) from April 17, 2010 to April 26, 2010.  Public statements during or in reference to this tour were largely positive and benign. While the High Commissioner did raise some human rights concerns, the discussion of human rights situations in those countries was largely muted. In instances when Pillay raised a human rights concern, she favored praising the country’s progress over naming recorded abuses or highlighting ongoing violations.

********

 In view of this scandalous attitude of  Ms.Navi Pillay the UNHCHR,  the Secretary General of the United Nations in order to re organise the Adminitration of the UN to provide a justifiable Forum which evaluates  the activities of its Member States not with preconceived opinions , but with objective  investigations in dialog between  member states, not taking  instructions or unsubstantiated evidence from outside organs and individuals who have their own Agenda. It was abject injustice an irreverent act contrary  to the Principles of the United Nations Organisation to call the UK Channel 4 to provide  evidence against a Member State. UK Channel 4 is neither a member state nor  a representative of a member State .

In order to do that the UNSecretary General should in the first instance terminate the Services of Ms.Navi Pillay as the Commissioner of UNHuman Rights Commission for her evident prejudices with which she had grown up , which  continue to cloud her objective decision making capacity.

Whatever the sufferings she had undergone for being different through racism and apartheid, as the High Commissioner of  the august body of the UNHuman Rights Commission, she has to forget that past and perceive  world problems objectively without allowing them  to take the colour of her inner prejudices.  If she is unable to do so she should tender her resignation which is the most noble thing for her to do.

Sri Lanka was not playing any games with the Tamil terrorists.  Unknown to Navi Pillay, the terrorists of Sri Lanka had caused immense suffering to Tamil people of Sri Lanka themselves and the people of other Communities. 

The Tamil Alliance MPs who go round demanding retribution against  the Government of Sri Lanka for eliminating Sri Lanka terrorists, were the group of Tamils selected by the Sri Lanka terrorist leader Prbhakaran to represent not the TAMILS but the TERRORISTS in the Parlaiament to help the terrorists to partition Sri Lanka to form a separate Tamil Eelam State.

It is this  very same dream of the terrorist leader Prabhakaran that the TNA MPs lead by Sampanthan are trying to realise by putting the International Community against Sri Lanka.

The Armed Forces of Sri Lanka with Generals like Shavendra Silva did not fight poor unarmed Tamil rebels or freedom fighters.  General Shavendra Silva and the Armed Forces led by him were fighting trained well armed terrorist forces in a terrain  well known to them,  but unknown to the Sri Lanka Armed Forces who were  risking their lives every minute of their  Armed Operations . 

No military operation  is clean and beautiful.  No military operation against terrorists, or a conventional war between armed forces of Sovereign States are free from deaths to civilians. That is why war is called “dirty”.  And victory depends on the number of deaths .  But exaggerating numbers of deaths is to cloud the issue and blame the winner without taking into account to defeat what sort of an enemy the war was fought.

No body can give the exact number of deaths. Why diminish the importance of victory , if through that victory peace has dawned and the people are gathering force to reap the benefit of victory which is to unite and swear never again to have another war ?

Therefore, Navi Pillay should take note  before pointing her finger at General Shavendra Silva as “ this individual”, that for the Armed detachment led by General Shavendra Silva  the elimination of terrorists in Sri Lanka  was not a joyful walk over well define territories  shooting at pleasure killing unarmed terrorists and civilians. 

Today General Shavendra Silva undoubtedly regrets all those deaths as any one else,  but he was only doing his duty to protect his country and his people against a ruthless group of TERRORISTS.

But Navi Pillay through her prejudice using the position as the High Commissioner of the UNHRC, to take revenge against a heroic Soldier who helped to eliminate terrorism  from Sri Lanka, and accuse Sri Lanka Armed Forces for war crimes, she is failing in her duty as the High Commissioner of the UNHRC, which is a highly esteemed position which should remain unspoilt by personal prejudices of any sort of its holder. 

Therefore, she should resign to keep intact the halo of the Noble Institution that is United Nations Organisation.

To Stephen Rapp, Robert O Blake and Marie Otero and all those who ask accountability from Sri Lanka.

Stephen                                  Blake

Otero Blake

On the 27 February,2012  in Geneva Sri Lanka is to be “hanged by the neck until dead”

The  “prosecution” lead by Navi Pillai, UNCHRC, has presented the case against Sri Lanka, with the key witnesses lead by Stephen Rapp the USA Ambassador at Large for war crimes, Robert O Blake a longtime sympathiser of the Sri Lanka terrorists, and Ms Marie Otero US latest  recruit to Civilian Security, democracy and Human Rights.   Even if they were not be physically present in Geneva they hope to influence many members of the  UNHRCouncil vote to “pin ” Sri Lanka.

Then of course there are the British, Canadian, Australian and Swedish Foreign Ministers and their friends, Ban Ki Moon and UK Channel 4 which is even seeking nomination for a “nobel prize”. They have all been briefed by the Sri Lanka terrorist Front Organizations of the Tamil Diaspora in their respective countries.

They have presented the case against the “ accused “ beyond reasonable doubt, that is what they presume. In the circumstances, it is to be found the accused guilty of the  crimes committed in elimination of a group of ruthless terrorists that terrorized Sri Lanka, but remained harmless to the International Community.

With regard to Navi Pillai the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, a  last minute surprise witness discloses a well kept secret that Navi Pillai as a teenager hero worshipped Sri Lanka terrorists and started a fan Club in their honour.  In the light of that evidence the  question arises  whether she should continue as the Chief Prosecuter against Sri Lanka.

Navi Pillai in a hurry to have the accused hanged has already put up the scaffolds. The prosecution has now closed its case.

But the defendants have yet to show cause why the case for the prosecution is full of loop holes and therefore cannot stand on its two feet. 

The defendant rises to point out that the prosecution has depended on the  evidence of interested parties whose evidence is not acceptable. The Prosecution has not presented  direct evidence. The evidence provided are hearsay, conjectured or assumed. The digital evidence does not show actual process of war but scenes of killing  that had been rehearsed outside the field of action, which are therefore not even remotely related to the restricted period  that is under investigation “the last phase of the military operations against the  terrorists.” 

Further more the Video clip presented by Channel 4 is fictitious, imagined depending on photographs of earlier  scenes of massacre- most of them by the terrorists, put together to make a “horror film” of sorts.  The video clip had not been certified as authentic  by an independent expert.  The Prosecution has not allowed the defendant to examine the video clip and verify its authenticity.  It is evidently a  video put together by an amateur film maker with fictitious scenes.

The Physical evidence  which  are in this case the testimony of the so called witnesses cannot be accepted as they are closely related to terrorists, their evidence is  not direct evidence,  or the witnesses have come forward to take revenge from the defendant for depriving the chance they had  in a war situation to enhance their personal and professional situations and loss of financial benefits through elimination of terrorism..

The video scene of naked men seated on the ground  with their arms tied behind  and  men  in  army fatigue holding guns in  the  action of shooting  has no relation what so ever to the last phase of  the elimination of terrorism.    

The prosecution depends on circumstantial evidence, but in accepting circumstantial evidence .  The court has to be very objective not to accept the prosecutions version of the allegation as they have presented only the negative aspect which is  more advantages for them to win the case against the accused- Sri Lanka

Then with regard to the  Chief witnesses the defendant has the right to impeachment of witnesses.

The  United States envoys Stephen Rapp , Robert Blake, and Marie Otero ,the under secretary for civilian security, democracy and human rights, represent the USA. USA had in many of its “theatres of war”  overseas  in foreign countries like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya worked  along with the rest of the Witnesses to the prosecution  namely, UK, France, Canada, Germany, Netherlands and  Australia. 

They are therefore collectively responsible if they have committed  War Crimes individually or collectively. Therefore the  defendant could demand the impeachment of these witnesses. 

Impeachment is processed in cross examination. But if that is  not  possible.  Their votes against the defendant should not  be counted, as these witnesses  represent countries against whom war crimes have been proved .They should not be allowed the right of their vote unless they are willing to accept accountability for their crimes.

The word “war crimes” have more to do with America than Sri Lanka and one wanders what Stephen Rapp  is doing here.  Of course finding  witnesses and investigating war crimes in Sri Lanka may be a  much more convenient exercise  without risk, than it would be in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya or even in Vietnam. But apart from direct war crimes, USA had aided and abetted war crimes in Chile, Vietnam, Cuba, Iran of Mossadeq, Panama  and so on and so forth .

USA has also  committed crimes by imposing murderess trade embargoes. In Iraq, Cuba.  And the proposed sanctions against sale of oil from Iran will cause further violation of human rights of many developing nations. 

In Sri Lanka Mr.Stephen Rapp will of course be well entertained and carry out all his investigations without any fear as Sri Lanka has cleared the country of terrorists.  He need not fear about  claymore bombs, sniper attacks or suicide bombs.  The environment is safe and pleasant for investigations and Mr. Rapp may meet the Tamil Alliance who represent no one; least of all the Sri Lanka Tamils despite their having been voted into Parliament.  What TNA wants is political power to “lord over” the low caste Tamils in the North and the East.

Mr.Stephen Rapp may be reminded that Tamils as the TNA MP Sumanthiran says, want to be  a “distinct people. A distinct people in international law have certain rights called self-determination.”  It is that sort of ideas that make it difficult to work with these Tamil MPs of the Tamil Alliance.  Sri Lanka has just come out of a terrorist” war” waged by a ruthless  group of terrorists to separate  Sri Lanka on this same  “ idea” of being a distinct people.

It want work any more in  Sri Lanka,  which is now working to unite the communities  to build a true Nation of Sri Lankan people.   This is the difference with the Tamil Community in Sri Lanka … their thinking that they are distinct and therefore different.  They are distinct and ungrateful, you give them a finger they will want the whole body. Therefore it is impossible to reconcile the communities with these fanatics of the TNA. 

If Mr. Stephen  Rapp were to go to the North and East he may see the tremendous development works that had been carried out by the government, while Sunanthiran and the TNA had been talking about their “distinction” and going around the world to bring disrepute to the Government of Sri Lanka and keep the people apart.

Any thing is possible in Sri Lanka and any one can put their unwanted noses into the Affairs of Sri Lanka. Mr. Stephen Rapp apparently is interested in former Army Commander Sarath Fonseka.  It is good America is showing interest because some say that Sarath Fonseka decided to stand for Presidential Elections after Coming from a visit to USA.  That had gone into his head and with two Sri Lanka political parties the UNP and JVP who wanted  to use him to defeat the President Mahinda Rajapakse’s  Election campaign and make political mileage, made use of  Sarath Fonseka.

Now he is in the prisons on a decision of a legal court of law and therefore  it does not give any “legal” right for America through Mr.Stephen Rapp to interfere in to the Justice of Sri Lanka.  Mr. Sarath Fonseka has no problem he has only to meet the President of Sri Lanka and tell him that he is sorry that he brought disgrace to Sri Lanka by accusing the Armed Forces as having given orders to murder some terrorists carrying a white flag. A story fabricated by him like the video fabricated by the UK Channel 4. 

It is said our old friend “the hypocrite from the land of vanity” Robert O Blake is also come to Sri Lanka along with Marie Otero, the under secretary for civilian security, democracy and human rights.  So with Stephen Rapp, US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes, it will be quite a crowd of Americans come to investigate “we do not know what” in Sri Lanka.

If it is accountability they are after,  there is not much that  Stephen Rapp the US Ambassador-at-large for War Crimes  in the Obama Administration could keep him occupied here in Sri Lanka, but  he will  have his hands full if he were to seriously start investigating  the war crimes of USA Armed Forces in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Libya.

Because in Sri Lanka the Armed Forces did not have to go to other countries to hunt for terrorists, they were fighting their own terrorists in their own country.  That is the difference with the  Sri Lanka Armed forces  and the  Armed Forces of USA  which killed the terrorists and the civilians “collaterally”, fighting terrorism,   as President Barack Obama put it, where ever it is found.

Perhaps USA  and  Mr.Stephen Rapp the Ambassador-at-large for War Crimes, are probably of the view that  if there were any war crimes in fighting terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya they were committed outside USA and therefore not accountable.  Do such deaths in fighting terrorism become war crimes if they were committed in fighting terrorism in one’s own country as it was in Sri Lanka ?

What clever logic Mr.Stephen Rapp, perhaps that is why you are  called the Ambassador at Large for war crimes. 

And then what is the other one Ms.Marie Otero the under secretary for civilian security, democracy and human rights going to do in Sri Lanka ?  What is her job, is it to investigate  about Civilian Security, Democracy and human rights in Sri Lanka or does it include Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya ?

However if Mr.Stephen Rapp is of the opinion that  war crimes had been committed in Sri Lanka in fighting and eliminating  terrorism , we would like to ask him what he thinks  the USA and its  Army did in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and  Libya and many other countries in the world.  Mr.Stephen Rapp do you think  that  there is no question of accountability  for these Crimes committed by the USA Army ?

If the Sri Lanka terrorists who did not commit terrorism in USA are accepted by you as rebels and their elimination is considered an accountable  war crime, is it correct for Sri Lanka to accept Al Qaeda  as nationalist not terrorists as they did not commit any terrorism in Sri Lanka ?

USA Before trying to become the Policeman of the World should put some order in its own house.

The War Crimes Committed by the USA Armed Forces are two gruesome to recount. Nevertheless, as Mr. Stephen Rapp is investigating war crimes committed by Sri Lanka soldiers in the last phase of  the military operations to eliminate terrorism, it seems appropriate to recount those most inhuman war crimes Committed by the USA Army. Without giving too many details.

American War Crimes In Vietnam:

My Lai Massacre

On the morning of March 16, Charlie Company landed following a short artillery and helicopter gunship preparation. Though the Americans found no enemy fighters in the village, many soldiers suspected there were NLF troops hiding underground in the homes of their wives or elderly parents. The US soldiers, including a platoon led by Second Lieutenant William Calley, went in shooting at what they deemed to be an enemy position.
Once the first civilians were wounded or killed by indiscriminate fire, the soldiers began attacking humans and animals alike, with firearms, grenades and bayonets. The scale of the massacre grew, the brutality only increasing with each killing. BBC News described the scene: "Dozens of people, herded into an irrigation ditch and other locations, were killed with automatic weapons."
 A large group of about 70–80 villagers, rounded up by the 1st Platoon in the center of the village, were killed on an order given by Calley, who also participated. Calley also shot^] two other large groups of civilians with a weapon taken from a soldier who had refused to do any further killing.
Members of the 2nd Platoon killed at least 60–70 Vietnamese, as they swept through the northern half of Mỹ Lai 4 and through Binh Tay, a small subhamlet about 400 metres (1,300 ft) north of Mỹ Lai 4. The platoon suffered one dead and seven wounded by mines and booby traps.
After the initial "sweeps" by the 1st and 2nd Platoons, the 3rd Platoon was dispatched to deal with any "remaining resistance." They immediately began killing every living person and animal they could find. This included Vietnamese who had emerged from their hiding places as well as the wounded, found moaning in the heaps of bodies. The 3rd Platoon also rounded up and killed a group of seven to twelve women and children.
Over the following two days, both battalions were involved in additional burning and destruction of dwellings, as well as mistreatment of Vietnamese detainees. While most of the soldiers did not participate in the crimes, they neither protested nor complained to their superiors.^[

Between 347 and 504 unarmed civilians in South Vietnam was killed on March 16,1968, by US Army Soldiers of “Charlie” Company.

De Classified papers show US atrocities went far beyond My Lai : Nick Turse and Deborah Nelson reports to The Times  on August 6,2006

The men of B Company were in a dangerous state of mind. They had lost five men in a firefight the day before. The morning of Feb. 8, 1968, brought unwelcome orders to resume their sweep of the countryside, a green patchwork of rice paddies along Vietnam's central coast.
They met no resistance as they entered a nondescript settlement in Quang Nam province. So Jamie Henry, a 20-year-old medic, set his rifle down in a hut, unfastened his bandoliers and lighted a cigarette.

Just then, the voice of a lieutenant crackled across the radio. He reported that he had rounded up 19 civilians, and wanted to know what to do with them. Henry later recalled the company commander's response:

Kill anything that moves.
Henry stepped outside the hut and saw a small crowd of women and children. Then the shooting began.
Moments later, the 19 villagers lay dead or dying.
Back home in California, Henry published an account of the slaughter and held a news conference to air his allegations. Yet he and other Vietnam veterans who spoke out about war crimes were branded traitors and fabricators. No one was ever prosecuted for the massacre.
Now, nearly 40 years later, declassified Army files show that Henry was telling the truth -- about the Feb. 8 killings and a series of other atrocities by the men of B Company.
The files are part of a once-secret archive, assembled by a Pentagon task force in the early 1970s, that shows that confirmed atrocities by U.S. forces in Vietnam were more extensive than was previously known.
The documents detail 320 alleged incidents that were substantiated by Army investigators -- not including the most notorious U.S. atrocity, the 1968 My Lai massacre.
Though not a complete accounting of Vietnam war crimes, the archive is the largest such collection to surface to date. About 9,000 pages, it includes investigative files, sworn statements by witnesses and status reports for top military brass.
The records describe recurrent attacks on ordinary Vietnamese -- families in their homes, farmers in rice paddies, teenagers out fishing. Hundreds of soldiers, in interviews with investigators and letters to commanders, described a violent minority who murdered, raped and tortured with impunity.
Abuses were not confined to a few rogue units, a Times review of the files found. They were uncovered in every Army division that operated in Vietnam.
Retired Brig. Gen. John H. Johns, a Vietnam veteran who served on the task force, says he once supported keeping the records secret but now believes they deserve wide attention in light of alleged attacks on civilians and abuse of prisoners in Iraq.

"We can't change current practices unless we acknowledge the past," says Johns, 78.

American soldiers Killing Iraqi  Civilians  in Haditha.

Haditha Massacre

By James M Skelly a senior fellow at the Baker Institute for Peace & Conflict Studies, Juniata College, Pennsylvania

The complicity of senior United States military leaders in the killing of Iraqi civilians at Haditha and elsewhere should be investigated, says James M Skelly.

Why do American and British soldiers in Iraq kill innocent Iraqi civilians? To understand properly how massacres like those in the Iraqi town of Haditha in November 2005 can occur, it is important to appreciate how the stresses that soldiers experience are playing out in Iraq. It is true that soldiers suffered post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and committed war crimes in Vietnam, but one of the differences between Vietnam and Iraq is in the nature of the collapse of the armed forces: in Vietnam this was ultimately because of combat refusals, whereas in Iraq it tends to be more profoundly psychological in nature.

(http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/iraq_warcrimes_3627.jsp)

American Soldiers killing Afghan Civilians for pleasure.

I have left out Killing of Civilians in Afghanistan by American Soldiers and cutting off fingers as trophies. As a detail account is provided at the following  blog page.

( http://pereracharles.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2011-03-30T10:42:00-07:00&max-results=7)

American Soldiers Urinating on dead bodies of Talibans

American Soldiers urinqating on dead bodies of Talibans

In Afghanistan the American Soldiers killing  Talibans and Urinating on the bodies.

American Soldiers torturing Iraq Prisoners in Abu Ghraib Prison

Americans humiliated and Torture  the Iraq prisoners in the Prisons of Abu Ghraib:

Please see the following blog page for details;

(  http://pereracharles.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2010-10-12T15:28:00-07:00&max-results=7)

Torture in Guantanamo Camps

The torture of Prisoners  in Guantanamo Camp which the President Barack Obama said he would stop are still being carried out.

********

Following is what a Sri Lanka Pro terrorist group of the Tamil Diaspora had said when an American Law court had dismissed a legal action against the Sri Lanka Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nation Major General Shavendra Silva

“Interpreting the law to provide a diplomatic ‘cloak’ of protection to Silva—who is seen as a war hero in Sri Lanka, but as a war criminal by the United Nations Panel of Experts—contravenes the U.S. Congress’s intent behind the law,” said Ali Beydoun, co-director at SPEAK and director of the UNROW Human Rights Impact Litigation Clinic.

The USA State Department should stop taking information from this type of Tamil Front Associations in America to discredit Sri Lanka, as acting to please a terrorist rump in USA is not keeping with country that boasts of a healthy democracy.

I will hoist a black flag the day Robert Orris Blake comes to Sri Lanka.

In the last phase of  the war against terrorism no one counted the bullets, and none the dead so from whom can one demand  accountability?

We burst out in joy when Barack Obama was declared the 64^th President of United States of America.  He was a black man from the poor state of Illinois, having worked for the  underpriviledged Communities we believed he was doubly suitable to be the President  of America. 

We expected him to take the Administration of the USA in a different direction from that which had been traced by the  previous war mongering Presidents who tried to drive the priviledge of being the rich and a powerful country to keep the poor developing countries  among others, supportive of their foreign policies  without asking questions.

But how soon these expectation turned into bitter disappointment.  Referring to the changes people expected of  him the slogan of Barack Obama’s  election campaign  was “Yes We Can”.  But what happened to that firm assertion of change in the American Administration.

George Bush last President was the greatest of war mongers among the all previous Presidents.  But today the President Barack Obama is on the verge of breaking that record, to became the worst of all war mongering Presidents of America willing  to sacrifice many more young American live as “canon fodder”. 

He declared with great fanfare that he will withdraw the American troops from Iraq, and Afghanistan , and hardly before the sound of those words were lost in the ears, he joined France, UK, Germany etc. to bomb Libya along with the NATO Forces and killed Colonel Gaddafi.  Colonel Gaddafi  may have been a dictator to his people, but he developed his country, built homes and provided social welfare  to his people. Now Barack Obama threatens Iran and  readies his Armed Forces to declare war in Iran, while he tries to get the UN Security Council to sanction a war in Syria.

But America along with the NATO forces turned once prosperous landscape of Libya  into ruins with only few building still standing with shattered windows damaged roofs , walls pockmarked in  gun fire.

Writing on “ America’s Secret Libya war” in Daily Beast.com, John Barry says, “The U.S. military has spent about $1 billion on Libya’s revolution, and secretly helped NATO with everything from munitions to surveillance aircraft.”  He continues his article, “But behind the scenes, the U.S. military played an indispensable role in the Libya campaign, deploying far more forces than the administration chose to advertise. And at NATO headquarters outside Brussels, the U.S. was intimately involved in all decisions about how the Libyan rebels should be supported as they rolled up control of cities and oil refineries and marched toward the capital, Tripoli.”

He further adds, “• An international naval force gathered off Libya. To lower the U.S. profile, the administration elected not to send a supercarrier. Even so, the dozen U.S. warships on station were the biggest contingent in this armada. In the opening hours of the campaign, an American submarine, the USS Florida, launched 100 cruise missiles against Libyan air defenses, crucially opening an entry corridor for the airstrikes that followed.” (thedailybeast.com)

That is what became of President Barack Obama who gave so much of hope not only to the American people  but also to the world which expected  a changed American  Foreign Policy.  What more is in store to destabilize the world  at great cost to small nations ?
 Already the proposed sanctions on sale of Iran oil put many developing countries into financial difficulty, causing many development projects to be abandoned. America plans another war in Iran. Alastair Crooke writes in guardian.co.uk, under « Syria and Iran : the Great Game »
 “……….nothing would weaken Iran more than losing Syria…….This is today's "great game" – losing Syria. And this is how it is played: set up a hurried transitional council as sole representative of the Syrian people, irrespective of whether it has any real legs inside Syria; feed in armed insurgents from neighbouring states; impose sanctions that will hurt the middle classes; mount a media campaign to denigrate any Syrian efforts at reform; try to instigate divisions within the army and the elite; and ultimately President Assad will fall – so its initiators insist.”
It will be the same any where America and the Western forces intervene to settle matters calling terrorist the “rebels”. All the countries where they intervened ended up in  ruins.  They do not help to build the cities that they bombed, houses that they destroyed.  It was so in Vientnam, so in Iraq, so in Afghanistan, so in Libya, and  it will be so in Syria, or in Egypt or in Iran.  Once their job of bringing to the knees the governments and  killed and tortured the leaders their “job “ is done.

The question is who walked the good man President Barrack Obama down the war path.  It must have been his worst choice to get Hillary Clinton to lead the US State Department.  She made the wrong choice in selecting the wrong team.  Take for instance Central Asian Desk, it is headed by none other than Robert Orris Blake, who was  the American Ambassador to Sri Lanka under the Bush Administration when the Sri Lanka terrorist were very strong and active. 

Blake enjoyed the hospitality of the Sri Lanka Government and the people in the South, but he befriended the terrorists and wined and dined with them and was secretly helping the terrorists to break away Sri Lanka to form their own Tamil Eelam Homeland.  Blake was against a military solution and kept on parroting that there should be a political solution.  Robert O Blake is  “a hypocrite from the land of vanity.”

Despite the fact that the terrorists have been eliminated  Robert Orris Blake has not changed his stance and his allegiance to the dream of his friend the Sri Lankan Terrorist leader Prabhakaran.
Those who spoke about human rights, have now come out with another absurdity “ accountability”.   

Accountability is what they demand  of Sri Lanka just for the last phase of  military operations against the terrorists, of which the God only knows  what happened and no man or woman will be able to say what exactly went on  during 12 or 20 hours of that terrible  “last phase”.

But why don’t  they  demand an accountability for whole of 30 years of terrorism ?

Who can say exactly what happened except conjecturing “wizards” like the UK Channel 4 had done. No body had collected the bullets , and none had counted the dead ?

The Sunday Times Political Editor another local news paper noty too friendly to Sri Lanka, wrote:
« United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton issued a virtual 'ultimatum' to the government of Sri Lanka this week. In essence, it is a call to address accountability issues relating to the final stages of the separatist war in May 2009 or face a resolution at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva in the coming weeks. »

Now it has been announced that Robert O Blake is due to visit Sri Lanka with a delegation. I wonder what further information he  could collect to accuse Sri Lanka further.  The Agence France Press reports that, “Three American diplomats will travel to Sri Lanka for talks about alleged killings of civilians by government troops in their campaign to defeat the Tamil Tigers, an official and report said Sunday.” 

After three years most of the people have even forgotten that episode of the “ last phase of military operations to eliminate terrorism in Sri Lanka.”  It is these “do gooders” who carry the problem on their backs.  Robert O Blake cannot do any further damage  than what he has already done to Sri Lanka.

When Sri Lanka Armed Forces were engaged in a “live or die” war with the ruthless terrorists to finish with them after thirty years of  terror, Robert A Blake went to Tamil Nadu State  and delivered a  lecture in the Madras University, stating that Sri Lanka should stop military operations against the terrorists as there is no military solution to the problem but a political solution.

But he knew very well that the President of Sri Lanka did all he could to bring the terrorists  around a table for a peace negociation.  It was the terrorists that foiled all those attempts.

The Western Governments  say that they are supporting the people of the countries  into which they interfere, against the Governments in place, because government change is their priority to set up West friendly puppet governments, the welfare of the people is the last of their concern. 

The people in  manifestations get into a mental “riot mode”  and in that situation they move with the crowd imitating the rioters.  They are not then thinking of democracy or setting up a new government .  They break, burn , destroy and even kill.  That is what the  West wants to happen. That is when the  CIA agents get down to work amoung the rioters, no one will know who is doing what.   In such a situation can any intelligent man call for an accountability of what went on ?          

AlJaseera reported today that 400 odd NGOs have been brought before the Egyptian criminal courts  accused of  inciting the “rebels” in Egypt. That coincides with the scenario described above.

Blake comes to see how things are progressing towards his “pet idea” of a separate Tamil Eelam .   Blake  has no good intentions for Sri Lanka’s development and progress as a one Nation State.  If he had any such “good intentions” he would not have taken the American State Secretary Hillary Clinton to visit Jayalalitha of Tamil Nadu. Instead he would have arranged her to meet the President of Sri Lanka and evaluate for herself the ground situation  Sri Lanka.  He would not do it because it is not in his secret Agenda.

Blake’s informants , other than the pro terrorist front organizations of the Tamil Diaspora in America are Pakiasothy Saravanamutta and Jehan Perera who are  known as supporters of terrorism.

Robert O Blake is the one who has influenced the American State Department against Sri Lanka.  The President Barack Obama should at least now in retrospect try to understand how he could  take America from confrontational politics, to more peaceful dialogue based political method to settling issues. It is enough that he has listened to Hillary Clinton with Robert O Blake to advice her. 

It is now time for him to trace a different line of approach to American foreign policy.  Interacting with countries is  like building personal relationships, if you speak”down” at a person with force of strength, the other will try to react equally, but if you build a more cordial relationship and speak like to an equal, the  other would be more  willing to listen and accept suggestions. 

President Barack Obama speaks beautifully, but does he act “beautifully” as he speaks his words ?

Well it is time for  President Barack Obama to  change his ways without blindly following what others tell him to do.  What America should do now with Iran, Syria, China, or Sri Lanka is to talk to them like equals and discuss with them their political problems. 

Robert O Blake should also remember when he comes to  Sri Lanka, that Sri Lanka is a country that had gone through bitter times, and it is  now that it has begun to relax , breath and hope for a peaceful existence.

It is therefore time that all these questions of violation of human rights, war crimes and accountability are dropped and allow Sri Lanka to solve its problems the way it is doing without bothering any one outside or any one inside.

In the last phase of  the war against terrorism no one counted the bullets, and none the dead so how can one  ask for accountability.

Resolution presented to UNHR Council Geneva, and absurdity of accusing Sri Lanka the Victim of Terrorism.

Salle XX in UNHRC where  absurdities may take place 

Sri Lanka has just escaped from the tiger jaws of terrorism to fall amoung a group of vultures praying on carcasses  calling them selves defenders of human rights, despite the fact that their governments are the worst of violators of human rights.  But Sri Lanka is still not dead but breathing and living  though it lived facing “ death “ for thirty years, without no one of these numerous Human Rights activists to accuse  the ruthless group of terrorists for the violation of its rights to exist as a unitary state, in peace without fear and stress.

Today Sri Lanka which removed the gruesome terrorism from its soil, has become the target of the pseudo defenders of human rights.  These defenders of human rights coming with different labels  Human  Rights Watch,  Amnesty International, International Crisis group and so on are led by educated men and women. 

The fault of the educated men and women of the West,  who have taken up defence of human rights is that they take themselves to be  some sort of angels  sent to save the “decadent” developing Nations. Therefore they assume to be omniscient and have the solution for all the ills of the developing Nations. But what they do not know is that they are robotics unable to think.  They are brain dead. 

Ever since Sri Lanka successfully eliminated a ruthless group of terrorists that terrorised the people of the whole country for thirty years the Western Countries, the Western Media and the Western Human rights activists  that have sprung like mushrooms after a heavy rain, not to mention Navi Pillai, Ban Ki Moon , Robert Orris Blake, and Hillary Clinton  etc., have all gathered in numbers  to  accuse Sri Lanka and its armed forces for war crimes.

Why ?

Apparently because this little country of  coloured  people which is Sri Lanka has eliminated terrorism,  which even the most powerful of their Nations with ultimate of  military equipment and technology failed to do.  But these great democratic nations did not have the political generosity  to congratulate the Armed Forces of Sri Lanka for a unique achievement 

This most reprehensible  and blame worthy attitude of the West has another reason, which  is the appeasing of  the  pro terrorist front agencies of the Tamil diaspora living abroad, who contribute lavishly for their active support to discredit, destabilize  and accuse Sri Lanka for war crimes, and also give in return for such support, their votes in the elections of these countries.

These terrorist front Agencies of the Tamil diaspora who after the defeat of the terrorists are left with  huge sums of  money they had collected from the Tamil diaspora for terrorist activities in Sri Lanka, do not know what to do as the their principle partners the Sri Lanka terrorists have been eliminated.   The money had been collected for the special purpose  of allowing Prabhakaran and his terrorists to continue their terrorist “war” to divide Sri Lanka and set up a separate Tamil Homeland. 

Now with the principle players of their terrorist game  having been eliminated these terrorist Front Agencies of the Tamil diaspora do not want to use these money they had collected  to help the Tamil civilians who are their “kith and kin” now living  in the North and East of Sri Lanka who suffered under terrorism.

But instead, they want to use this load of money now to fulfil the dream of the dead terrorists to set up a separate Tamil State in Sri Lanka, not with arms and ammunitions but by using the foreign Governments and Human rights activists carry out a different sort of “terrorism” to realize their object-a Tamil Eelam State.  These educated wise guys of the  West have fallen into the “money trap” of these terrorist front Agencies of the Tamil diaspora who are the supporters of terrorism in Sri Lanka

Therefore, they are carrying out a massive campaign to get the support of the influential persons among the  educated class of the Western countries, to support the cause of the Tamils the minority community in Sri Lanka to break up Sri Lanka and form a separate Tamil Eelam State, as it had been  thwarted  by the  “unexpected” elimination of the whole lot of terrorists in Sri Lanka. 

These terrorist Front Organizations have become the contributors to these Humanitarian Activists of the  West who  among them  Louise Arbour has organized her own Group, the ICG.  They have paid millions to hire Attorneys like Bruce Fein to prepare a brief to file action against the President and the Government of Sri Lanka  for  violation of human rights and  genocide.

As it was pointed out these Human Rights activists of  different denominations act for the money, and the Western Politicians both for money and their votes at elections.  It has been said that these front Agencies have formed a separate group called the Tamils for Obama which contribute large sums for the Presidents election campaign.  Hillary Clinton who had also received a considerable sum of money for her Presidential election campaign had apparently refunded the amount when she was informed that the “contribution” was from the Sri Lanka Terrorist Front Organizations.

That is how these Humanitarian Activists most of them in their real life would not have much to do with the coloured people of any ethnic group other than a “Good Morning” or  a“Good Evening” , have become very sympathetic  active defenders of violation of human rights in Sri Lanka and the elimination of the Sri Lanka terrorist which vexed them most.  Sri Lanka terrorism is  a “duck laying golden eggs” for them , after their eliminations “the duck has not stopped laying its  golden eggs”.  The other terrorists in the rest of the world will not be so generous as those of Prabhakaran.

These “brain dead” Humanitarian activists act issuing press reports , getting  Television reports  with “cooked up” stories like those of the UK Channel 4 to discredit and destabilize Sri Lanka which  remained without social progress and development during the  thirty years of  terrorism.

Sri Lanka  after elimination of  the terrorists begun vast development projects to counter the 30 years of loss in social and economic  progress through terrorism, and to take Sri Lanka forward to a brighter and a happier future despite the  residue of the terrorists still lurking in the form of  a  Tamil National Alliance and the Pro terrorist Tamil diaspora , poking sticks through the spokes of political sanity,  causing  all possible damage to Sri Lanka and its development projects,  coordinating with the greedy, brain-dead, dumb Humanitarian Activists of the West  gathering to collect their handsome hand outs.

When in participating members of the Geneva HRCouncil are presented with the resolutions against  Sri Lanka,  they should  see the resolutions with an absolutely non-committal attitude.  They should be able to leave out the  details that shroud the real issue to be absolutely certain to see the core of it .

In other words  they should be able to remove complementary issues arising out of the  basic factual problem presented to them or purposely included to hide the “reality” to make the “accusation of war crimes” seems an acceptable proposition . They should then separate the “basic factual issue” to see clearly the  “truth” as to what actually happened at the crucial stage before casting their vote one way or the other.

If they can see clearly the main issue on which they are to debate they  will see the key issue is an evident out come of the thirty years of suffering of a people.  The peace  has no value if how ever hard it had been  some have sacrificed for its realization.  It is only those who cannot understand this reality that accuse the Government Forces of Sri Lanka for war crimes.  

What is this “key issue “ in the heart of the  presentation  of the resolution accusing Sri Lanka  for violation of human rights, and war crimes , demanding an accountability  ? 

In order to understand that one should clearly the bare facts of the case. In Sri Lanka there was a group of terrorists and against the terrorists was the Government.  The terrorists  do not follow accepted norms, they have no moral concerns, they are not concerned with ethics, they are no respecters of life, they are uncivilized savages, they have no compunction about the flow of  human blood in massacres and assassinations  in  arriving at their objective.  Opposed to them are the Government Armed Forces, they have considerations for human life , they have moral principles, they have a “civilized method” of attaining their objective.

When these two groups confront each other the terrorists  to use perhaps an inappropriate idiom are like  the proverbial  “ bull in a china shop”.  They shoot at every one they think are against them.  In an armed  confrontation the terrorists have no respect to life , they know that to live to continue terror, they have to kill the opponents .

 In killing the opponent, it is immaterial to the terrorist who else gets killed as they are not fighting according to any rules.  But it is the Armed Forces that fight according to the rules and the Armed Forces  respects life, therefore ,when they kill the enemy it will do its best to see that there are no “collateral deaths or damages” to persons or material.  But in the heat of the fight, in the cross fires , stray bullets , bullets that  ricochet may kill or damage unexpected  persons or destroy material.  These are unavoidable .  

Therefore in a military operation against a group of ruthless terrorists, could  the Army of the Government be held responsible for  such “collateral” deaths and damages ?

It is worse when the confrontation is the final show down where the terrorists on one side and the Government Army on the other are engaged in a fight unto death, could the army be held responsible for any violation of human rights  because others besides the terrorists had been killed or wounded ?

Here the key word is “human rights”;  This would be  what is put forward to cloud the real issue if some one wants to blame the Army.  The terrorists cannot be blamed for violation of human rights.  Because they have no sense of morality, no would they accept responsibility  to loss of life, they have no rules  they shoot to kill no matter who gets killed.

In such a situation  can “human rights” be broached to accuse the Sri Lanka Armed Forces because “human rights” do not apply to terrorists , as already pointed out “ human rights “ is not the primary pre-occupation of  the terrorist. The terrorists  do not understand “human rights” and even if they understand,  they simply do not care they are violating “human rights.”

I think the most absurd  issue to have introduced in any confrontation with terrorists on one side and  Government Forces on the other  is  whether there had been  “violation of human rights”.  There are humans rights being violated every were, such as in work places, schools, villages, in transport,  in homes, and also by soldiers not engaged in military action.

But violation of human rights in “military action” is the most foolish possible accusation  to be brought against an Armed Force whose duty is to fight the enemy to protect the country and its people.

In conventional warfare  there are rules, and certain  methodology to be respected which  are agreed by the warring parties, and laid down in Conventions.

There are no such agreements in military operations in fighting terrorism. Because the Conventions had been entered into  when terrorism had not still raised its head. And we cannot adopt the Conventions to suit the out come of terrorism.

There is another very relevant fact  to be taken into consideration by the members of the UNHRCouncil in Geneva when they meet to pass “sentence on Sri Lanka” for violation of human rights and accountability.

The  honourable Members of the UNHR Council  should know the history of the Sri Lanka’s terrorism that led to the final show down in 2009. It is only in understanding that most painful period of the history of Sri Lanka that the honourable Members of the UNHRC will be able to see the absurdity of the  call for an accountability for the end of terrorism that brought  to Sri Lanka peace and possibility to develop the Country which for thirty years lived in fear and uncertainty. 

It is in knowing this “history” that the honourable Members of the HRCouncil would be able to garner the “key issue” under deliberation, that was mentioned before.

The terrorism in Sri Lanka began in 1970s. Thereafter for well over  a quarter century , the terrorists killed, massacred, assassinated thousands of civilians, assassinated using Human Suicide bombs a president of Sri Lanka, a Prime Minister of India , Maimed  a President and an Army Commander  of Sri Lanka,  and  assassinated using suicide bombs  Several Ministers of Sri Lanka, Army Officers and Soldiers, Naval Officers, Police Officers and policemen.   Some of these crimes were committed when there was a Foreign Monitoring Mission  stationed  in Sri Lanka and under their surveillance.

When all attempts for  a political settlement by the President Mahinda Rajapakse had failed, Sri Lanka Armed Forces were deployed for military operations against the terrorists for a military settlement of the 30 years of suffering under terrorism , and after a hard battle against the well equipped terrorist force with heavy artillery and modern small arms, in which  tens of thousands of the members of the Armed Forces (without speaking of the deaths of terrorists) lost their lives  while some were maimed for life, the Armed Forces brought victory of the ruthless terrorists  who were eliminated. 

After this great victory over “evil” there appeared  all types of so called Human rights activists under different labels  such as the Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International or the UNHCHR etc., who had never intervened  to accuse the terrorists for “violation of human rights”, and stop the regular massacres of innocent people through out the thirty years of terrorism, to accuse the Government of Sri Lanka and its Armed Forces  for war Crimes , demanding accountability for violation of human rights at the end phase of military operations to eliminate terrorism.

Most of these Human Rights Activists were former NGOs, who were working in the Terrorist controlled areas maintaining a very high life Style.  They had befriended the terrorists in the course of their work as NGOs . It is perhaps that  relationship which they had  developed with the terrorists, that  drove them to take vengeance from the Government of Sri Lanka for eliminating the terrorists who were their friends.

These Sri Lanka terrorists  were directing their terrorism only to the Sri Lanka Government, its Armed Forces and its people.  They had nothing to fear from the Sri Lanka terrorists. Therefore these NGOs also regret the loss of that life style which they  enjoyed,  and which  they could  not have even dreamt of in their own countries.

The other fact that the honourable members of the UNHRCouncil in Geneva should pose is why the UN Commissioner of Human Rights is restricting violation of human rights and accountability to the last phase of military operations against the terrorists? 

The terrorism in Sri Lanka lasted thirty years causing terrible disaster to human lives and destruction of  material , nevertheless, the UNCHRCouncil has been convened to look only into a few hours of fighting in the climax to the end of terrorism for which the accusers  demand  accountability. 

This has been done purposely to make it easy for  the anti Sri Lanka forces to  accuse the Armed Forces of Sri Lanka for war crimes.   There is no point in accusing the terrorists who are the real perpetrators of crime, because they are no more there. 

Because in the frenzy of that last ditch battle for life by the terrorists, and to defeat the terrorists saving their own lives as far as possible,  and the lives of tens of thousands of Tamil civilians running away from the terrorists who had kept them as their human shield by the Armed Forces, who can say for sure who killed whom and how many were killed ?

Is that a reason to ask for  an accountability? 

It could be understood if an accountability is called for the 30 years of the confrontations with terrorism.

But as the terrorists are the main violators of human rights and they are responsible for assassinations, massacres and murders which the Monitoring Mission is quite aware of, and could be summoned  to substantiate incidents of massacre and assassinations as witnesses, it is more appropriate that the terrorist Front Organisations in the Tamil Diaspora and the Tamil National Alliance who were the spokesmen for the terrorists are accused for aiding and abetting terrorism in Sri Lanka

Its is paradox  why the Tamil National Alliance is  not accused  for aiding and abetting terrorists and a resolution  presented at the UNHRCouncil in Geneva against them to first revoke their immunity as Parliamentarians , and  demanding their arrest and brought before a criminal court of law , instead of accusing  the Government of Sri Lanka which was the victim of terrorism.

Therefore this exercise of presenting  resolutions  to the Human Rights Council by the UNHCHR Navi Pillai to accuse the Government of Sri Lanka for violation of human rights and accountability  in the last phase of its military operation against terrorists, is an absurd effort to discredit the Government of Sri Lanka for doing what it had to do in the interest of the country and its people.

Therefore, if the Members of the HRC understand the implication will see through the facts that some one is  placing before them this resolution to accuse the Sovereign State of Sri Lanka, not because any violation of  human rights  could be positively proved against it, but because they are acting for certain parties who want to take revenge from Sri Lanka for the elimination of terrorism from Sri Lanka.

Therefore if the members of the HRC are wise and honourable men they will reject the resolution outright. They will without resting at that call upon the UNHigh Commissioner for Human Rights to present a resolution accusing the Tamil National Alliance of Sri Lanka  to bring them before a tribunal for aiding and abetting terrorism in Sri Lanka and therefore responsible for thousands of death through terrorism.

 

Any more takers for Sri Lanka bashing at the UN Human Righs Council Geneva this 27 February ?

The infamous anti Sri Lanka DBS Jeyaraj introduces  his latest Sri Lanka Basher , Louise Arbour,  describing her as, «  the distinguished Canadian whose name is not unknown to many in Sri Lanka”.

Of course Sri Lanka has not forgotten the  dubious role  she played as the UNHigh Commissioner for Human Rights, in which she failed to give a proper bashing to Sri Lanka and when she finally  left as a failed UNHCHR  formed with the help of the Terrorist Front Organisations of the Tamil Diaspora, her own International Crisis Group to champion the Human rights issues, separate from the Human Rights  Watch and the Amnesty International, to “ … constantly focus on the Sri Lankan Human rights situation…..” 

There being a human Rights Watch  and the Amnesty International already on the prowl to accuse Sri Lanka for human rights violation, her ICR  it appears is an unnecessary  appendage that has been set up by her  ( with the help of the Anti-Sri Lanka Tamil Diaspora), to discredit the Human Rights Watch and the Amnesty International  for their inefficiency in not  giving a proper bashing to Sri Lanka.

Perhaps she thinks she  is  amoung them a “dressing”- the icing on the cake, for the job of Sri Lanka Bashing and  taking up the issue of war crimes in her prestigious role, as DBSJeyaraj  mentions making great effort  paying tribute in all servility  to her, as,  “……..chief prosecutor who indicted Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes. It was the first time a serving head of state was called to account before an international court.” 

DBSJeyaraj perhaps thinks that she is “the” person who can finally bring Sri Lanka onto its knees accused for violation of human rights and war crimes.  DBS of course know that she is not a new comer to accuse Sri Lanka for eliminating terrorism from Canada.  There is also her Prime Minister calling high and low for an International Investigation into how a small country like Sri Lanka, could have wiped out a Group of terrorists, they the West- Canada, UK, US, Germany , Netherland and a whole lot of others enriched and  encouraged and believed invincible, managed to eliminate the whole bunch of terrorists during the last phase of its military operations.

They have nothing else to do other than interfering into Sri Lanka demanding  investigations as to  what happened more than two years ago, in eliminating a group of terrorists , despite their Armies collected into NATO are violating human rights, “right  and left” in different places in the globe , killing soldiers, civilians, killing Talibans and urinating on them, killing an unarmed “terrorists” in front of his wife and daughter and sniffing like mad dogs  to find out where they could  find a place to set on fire, without still winning any of their wars against terrorists

They collect false information to open battlefronts to kill multitudes of innocent civilians, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now such false information is collected  by NATO that bombed Libya and Killed its Leader, about Pakistan supporting the Talibans, and American forces are gathering force  threatening Iran eyeing Iran as its next theatre of war. They are itching to bomb Syria to settle scores rather than help the people to organize themselves and start a dialogue with the government for the settlement of issues.

No one understands the mentality of the Western Governments which  has mismanaged their economies and pushed their countries to face a bleak future, with number of the unemployed on the increase. War it appears is for them the only possibility of survival. In order to solve unemployment they sacrifice  generations of youth to die in wars, while accusing other countries for war crimes.

Democracy for the West is just another word, which  has now lost its original  meaning.  Now it is the armed power that rules the world.  

How much of time will be  wasted in Geneva, with all unsubstantiated accusations just to prove that Sri Lanka which suffered  thirty years under a ruthless terrorism has in eliminating terrorism  during the last phase of its military operations violated human rights.

What if there had been unavoidable deaths  ?  It is like amputating a leg where gangrene had set in.  To make the patient live his leg has to be sacrificed and some parts of unaffected limb will also go with the part amputated.  The  wars are dirty and in war one cannot account for the deaths because it is the victory that count.  It is only in victory or in defeat that wars end. In Sri Lanka it ended in Victory.  Is that a Crime ?

It is so in all wars, the West, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, International  Crisis Group of Louise Arbour, UK Channel 4, Navi Pillain ,Ban Ki Moon , none of them can deny that reality.

Take the World War I and then the World War II. And nearer in time what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, the  wars continue as no one  had  won. They have to continue until the final battle, and it becomes meaningless counting deaths before it ends. If there is any morality,  the number of possible deaths should be counted  before a war begins. Because at the end  it serves no one , except for those who live to learn from the past nightmares, or not to learn and start yet another spree of deaths.

What does these Anti Sri Lanka lobby in Geneva, going to gain from finding out how many civilians were killed at the end of the “terrorist war”.  They cannot give back life to them, nor does the satisfaction of knowing the numbers that died help the living. 

The deaths , there would have been many whether civilians, soldiers or terrorists which should teach us a lesson not to accuse and inculpate any one , but not to wage  any more wars,  but find  other methods of making people realize the wars  are wrong. 

That is the way to establish peace in the world.  That was the reason why the elders of the past set up the League of Nations which was later expanded to be the UNO.  The original intentions was for all Nations to have a forum to straighten out their differences in discussion setting aside the guns of war.  They did not want another world war.  But it did not mean that  there  may still be small wars.

It is time to stop this smallness of mind, accusing one Nation for war Crimes while other  Nations seem to have a license to start wars  anywhere they want, conduct their wars  any way they want, and not be answerable to any  number of deaths, which are nevertheless “war crimes” according to their own definitions.