|
|
|
Wednesday, August 06, 2008 - 6.56 GMT |
|
SCOPP objects to ACHR generalisations |
|
|
|
Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, Secretary –General
of the Secretariat for Coordinating the
Peace Process (SCOPP) in a press release in
response to the categorization of Sri Lanka
by the Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR)
as the country with the worst human rights
record in Asia takes serious objection to
“blanket generalizations” and “interminable
lists” that “depend on the whim of the list
maker’.
In response to ACHR allegation about
indiscriminate attacks on civilians in the
course of military operations, he says that
it is just plain false and challenges anyone
to provide any evidence to the contrary.
The Press Release:
The Peace Secretariat notes with sadness an
effusion from the
so-called Asian Centre for Human Rights,
which asserts that 'With 52 points, Sri
Lanka is South Asia's worst human rights
violator.' This is yet another example of a
game that has now become fashionable, to
develop lists which show how bad particular
countries are. Sri Lanka has figured
prominently on such lists recently, though
it is interesting that it seems to depend on
the whim of the list maker how many years
are taken into consideration in making the
list.
Thus, Human Rights Watch, which earlier
presented records of a year, has decided to
extend these to two year terms, thus
allowing for the desired denigration of Sri
Lanka. Thus, what was undoubtedly a bad
period, in 2006, for reasons which are
readily comprehensible, is used to
perpetuate the attack on a country everyone
now seems, also for comprehensible reasons,
given the political use made of these lists,
to want to place in the pillory.
This does not mean that Sri Lanka does not
have problems with regard to the protection
of Human Rights. These are exacerbated by
the difficulties of dealing with a
particularly ruthless and insidious
terrorist outfit, but that does not make it
any less important to reduce them. That is
why we engage with institutions that can
assist us, that is why we have set up Task
Forces on the subject, that is why we try to
clarify and deal with particular situations.
For this reason, we have no quarrel with for
instance the Asian Human Rights Commission
when it draws attention to particular cases,
it is then the duty of officials to
investigate these and take remedial action
as possible.
What is objectionable is blanket
generalizations, and these interminable
lists. Sadly too there is confusion which
takes attention away from the real problems.
For instance, ACHR renews the canard about
indiscriminate attacks on civilians. If it
is talking about problems with regard to
abductions, or attacks on journalists, it
has a point, but here it suggests that these
attacks occur in the course of military
operations (a canard first spread by HRW),
and that is just plain false, as any
analysis of the operations of our forces
will show. Their record is excellent, not
only in comparison with that of other forces
engaged in struggles against terrorism, but
in absolute terms too, and we can challenge
anyone to provide any evidence to the
contrary.
Again, we have again the old story about
child soldiers, so assiduously spread by the
LTTE after 2005. This time ACHR even brings
the EPDP into it, though this has not
figured in previous allegations. Rather, it
has been shown clearly that the Karuna
faction released its cadres in 2004, the
LTTE then began killing them or
re-recruiting them, and the Karuna faction's
recruitment was claimed to have been in
response to this. Whether that is wholly
credited or not, all those with them have
now been released, and UNICEF has been
invited to check on the accuracy of this
assertion.
ACHR's extrapolations are quite
extraordinary in their fraudulence. They are
said to claim that an entire ethnic group is
excluded from the nation's capital, obviously not knowing
that minorities constitute over half the
population of the capital, and that security
checks are of those travelling to Colombo.
Given the number of incidents of terrorist
attacks, it is understandable that those
unable to give good reasons for their
presence are checked carefully, and in any
case, the Supreme Court ruling when this was
not done appropriately makes clear that
there is recourse to judicial review when
obvious violations of rights occur.
Sadly, it is this type of generalization
that will catch the eye of
the media, and be avidly disseminated by the
LTTE and its surrogates, as well as other
political forces within Sri Lanka that
resent the strategy of the current
government in dealing firmly with terrorism
whilst encouraging democratic pluralism
through political interaction with moderate
Tamil forces. Whilst assistance would be
welcome in helping Sri Lanka deal with all
its problems, terrorism as well as
violations of human rights, indiscriminate
attacks on all aspects of government can, at
this juncture, only contribute to
self-justificatory pronouncements by
terrorists as well as more naive
organizations.
|
|
|
|
Contact Information: Send
mail to