|
|
|
Saturday 30 June 2001 |
|
EDITORIAL, DAILY NEWS Destabilization
conspiracy Thus the vital interests of the State would be tamely bartered for a few anti-government votes at the UNP sponsored no confidence motion which will be taken up in parliament later in July. The plan to defeat the motion to extend the state of emergency is reportedly a sequel to the initial conspiratorial agreement between the UNP and the TULF and TELO to pool their votes against the Government when the no-confidence motion is taken up, provided the UNP concedes some key demands of the LTTE. One of these is the de-proscription of the LTTE. The same considerations seem to be playing a prominent role in the tripartite plan to defeat the motion to extend the emergency. It must be stated right away, that the imposition of the state of emergency is not a measure the Government happily undertakes. Committed as it is to a just solution to the ethnic conflict, the Government knows fully well the fundamental weaknesses of a law and order approach to resolving the problem. The imposition of a state of emergency is part of this law and order approach, as opposed to the political approach. But what choice has a government when the LTTE fights violently shy of entering the political process and negotiating peace on mutually-acceptable terms? The Government is compelled under these circumstances, to meet the military threat posed by the Tigers and the extension of the state of emergency is an unhappy option that is forced on it. However, emergency rule is necessary for governance as long as the LTTE keeps away from negotiations and insists on using the military option. All this the UNP knows fully well but it is guided by only power considerations. It would prefer to defeat the motion to extend the state of emergency to placate the parties supporting it, rather than keep the interests of the State at heart. The UNP wouldn't care a straw if the law and order situation crumbles and national security is compromised as a result of the lifting of the emergency as long as it gets into the seats of power. At this juncture it is important to consider the dangerous consequences, which would flow from an effort to lift the emergency. As we pointed out yesterday, military operations against the Tigers will cease and the law and order machinery will have to be relaxed. Detainees will be released from jails and the law will be applied with less rigidity. Consequently, the law and order situation would crumble and a security crisis would be created for the country. The move to defeat the motion to extend the state of emergency could therefore be considered an anti-national act, which takes no cognizance of the interests of the people and the country. It is apparently part of a major conspiracy to destabilize, the State and hand it over to the enemies of peace.
The Milosevic extradition His wife and daughter were unaware of him being extradited. The people of Serbia too were unaware of it and when they realized he had been taken away thousands of Milosevic’s supporters took to the streets in protest. They cried: ‘Betrayal’ and beat up journalists. The western media and leaders hailed the extradition as a ‘triumph for international; justice’. Yugoslavia’s Constitutional Court, however, hours before the spiriting away of Mr. Milosevic, issued an injunction against any move to extradite him but the Serbian Cabinet, which met immediately after the decision of the Constitutional Court, decided to extradite him. The next day (yesterday) international donors were to gather in Brussels to discuss ways and means of resurrecting the Yugoslav economy, the country having been ‘bombed back into the Stone Age’ by the United States and Britain on the Kosovo issue. The United States had by itself offered a billion dollars but said in very plain language that no aid would be forthcoming if Milosevic was not extradited to stand trial in the so-called International Court of Justice. While the West is jubilant on the ‘triumph of international justice’ by bringing Mr. Milosevic before this tribunal, there will be others asking: Is this international justice or international blackmail? The issue we are raising is not whether Slobodan Milosevic was guilty of Crimes against Humanity and Violations of the Laws and Customs of War, which he is accused of. The question is whether a former president of a sovereign state should have been extradited against the decision of the supreme tribunal of his land and brought to a foreign country to stand trial before a foreign tribunal, even if it has the imprimatur of the United Nations. The moral issue involved is that the government of Yugoslavia had no other choice but to extradite Mr. Milosevic, when the other alternative was to forsake the aid its tottering economy urgently needed. Milosevic may have been guilty of the crimes he is accused of and he was rejected by the people at the recent elections but no citizen of a sovereign country would want to see a former leader tried by a foreign court in this manner. We will be told that this was done under the aegis of the UN Security Council and in accordance with international law but Security Council decisions since the end of the Cold War have been one sided and rarely gone against the wishes of the United States. The curious feature about war criminals is that they are found only among the vanquished in war and not among the victors. The end of World War II saw the trials of war criminals at Nuremberg and Tokyo. We are to believe that the Allied Forces had no such criminals during the entire period of the war! The two biggest ever mass destruction of humans, Nagasaki and Hiroshima, are not considered war crimes and are glossed over. The half-century after the Second World War had many who could have been put in the dock for war crimes as well as gross violations of human rights but no attempt was made. Even Pol Pot who is now considered to have committed genocide of the biggest scale since the end of the last war was not threatened to be brought before a war crimes tribunal. The converse happened with the stout defenders of human rights – including Sri Lanka – fighting tooth and nail at the United Nations to secure a seat for Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge as against the pro-Soviet Vietnamese regime. The extradition of Milosevic also brings into question the attitude of some nations now calling for his head, on the recent Pinochet affair. A Spanish Court wanted to try Augusto Pinochet for the crimes committed during the period he ruled Chile with an iron fist. Torture, killings and mass disappearances were some of the accusations made against him. But powerful nations who now want to see justice meted out to Mr. Milosevic did not evince a modicum of enthusiasm now on display, in bringing Gen. Pinochet to justice. The extradition of Milosevic raises the issue whether the world is witnessing the beginning of the dispensation of a new form of international justice. Under the system that has come into being, will justice be dispensed impartially to all nations? Will it be possible to have a person charged before such an international tribunal against the will of a big power and the superpower? Poor nations should be concerned on whether the Milosevic extradition is another erosion of the sovereignty of small nations in the emerging New World Order.
Together
against torture This gang rape perpetrated on a young married woman allegedly by three reserve constables on duty was indeed a grim reminder to all and sundry the grave danger that ordinary people are exposed to as a result of the fast deteriorating discipline among security services personnel. What sort of security that innocent people expect, when those charged with the task of ensuring it to the people have themselves turned out to be parasites preying on helpless persons? A national seminar on “Together Against Torture” organised by the Family Rehabilitation Centre was held and the usual newspaper supplements on the practice of torture were published on June 26, to mark the day. Commendably, these exercises have spotlighted the inhuman nature of this crime identified as one of the gravest crimes and stressed the need for collective and determined action to eliminate it. These efforts are solidly backed by international covenants and bodies formed to implement them. The UN Declaration of Human Rights in Article 5 says, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” And Article 7 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (1966) says, “No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific, experimentation.” Guided by these international declarations and conventions, governments throughout the world have nationally adopted measures and framed legislation to implement these provisions. Sri Lanka’s constitution provides in Article II that “No person shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Sri Lanka is also among the 119 countries that have ratified the 33-Article UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The collective force of these international and national, efforts, no doubt, has contributed to a reduction in the incidence of torture around the globe. The awareness, vigilance and concern generated against the perpetration of this crime by those efforts have to some extent succeeded in restraining the potential perpetrators of this crime. But the crime continues with devastating effect causing concern especially to those having access to places and institutions where this crime against humanity is widely committed. The Hong Kong based Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) recently cited three cases of torture and extra-judicial killings allegedly carried by the police and said that the law enforcement agencies here have acquired a very low reputation nationally and internationally. Giving details of these cases of two young men killed while in police custody and another being assaulted, the AHRC has urged President Kumaratunga and the Police Chief to bring the offenders to book. The commission has also pointed out that official interference has thwarted efforts to investigate these crimes to ensure justice to victims. These cases represent only the tip of the iceberg. Only the more serious among these cases receive public exposure. Judging from the low standard of discipline prevailing today among armed forces and police personnel resulting from the failure to recruit educated and suitable persons to these forces and the failure to provide adequate and proper training to them, one can imagine the torture and harassment caused to persons in their custody for various reasons. Persons are often subjected to torture to elicit information, to obtain confessions or merely as a form of punishment. Apart from state agencies at whose hands innocent persons suffer torture, there are numerous private sector institutions and homes in this country where thousands of innocent adults and children suffer both physical and mental torture unnoticed and undetected by anyone. Of course, more serious cases where masters and mistresses inflict torture and other degrading punishment on their domestics get exposed in the media. Here too, the vast majority of them suffer in silence a wide variety of indignities without being able to relate their tales of woe to any authority. If is here that public vigilance and cooperation are vital in eliminating this crime.
|
 Daily News
|
Contact Information: Send
mail to