UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ON DEMOCRACY

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ON DEMOCRACY
Declaration adopted without a vote* by the Inter-Parliamentary Council at its 161st session
(Cairo, 16 September 1997)
The Inter-Parliamentary Council,
Reaffirming the Inter-Parliamentary Union's commitment to peace and development and convinced that the strengthening of the democratisation process and representative institutions will greatly contribute to attaining this goal,
Reaffirming also the calling and commitment of the Inter-Parliamentary Union to promoting democracy and the establishment of pluralistic systems of representative government in the world, and wishing to strengthen its sustained and multiform action in this field,
Recalling that each State has the sovereign right, freely to choose and develop, in accordance with the will of its people, its own political, social, economic and cultural systems without interference by other States in strict conformity with the United Nations Charter,
Recalling also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted on 10 December 1948, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted on 16 December 1966, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination adopted on 21 December 1965 and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women adopted on 18 December 1979,
Recalling further the Declaration on Criteria for Free and Fair Elections which it adopted in March 1994 and in which it confirmed that in any State the authority of the government can derive only from the will of the people as expressed in genuine, free and fair elections,
Referring to the Agenda for Democratisation presented on 20 December 1996 by the UN Secretary-General to the 51st session of the United Nations General Assembly,
Adopts the following Universal Declaration on Democracy and urges Governments and Parliaments throughout the world to be guided by its content:

FIRST PART - THE PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY
1. Democracy is a universally recognised ideal as well as a goal, which is based on common values shared by peoples throughout the world community irrespective of cultural, political, social and economic differences. It is thus a basic right of citizenship to be exercised under conditions of freedom, equality, transparency and responsibility, with due respect for the plurality of views, and in the interest of the polity.
2. Democracy is both an ideal to be pursued and a mode of government to be applied according to modalities which reflect the diversity of experiences and cultural particularities without derogating from internationally recognised principles, norms and standards. It is thus a constantly perfected and always perfectible state or condition whose progress will depend upon a variety of political, social, economic, and cultural factors.
3. As an ideal, democracy aims essentially to preserve and promote the dignity and fundamental rights of the individual, to achieve social justice, foster the economic and social development of the community, strengthen the cohesion of society and enhance national tranquillity, as well as to create a climate that is favourable for international peace. As a form of government, democracy is the best way of achieving these objectives; it is also the only political system that has the capacity for self-correction.
4. The achievement of democracy presupposes a genuine partnership between men and women in the conduct of the affairs of society in which they work in equality and complementarity, drawing mutual enrichment from their differences.
5. A state of democracy ensures that the processes by which power is acceded to, wielded and alternates allow for free political competition and are the product of open, free and non-discriminatory participation by the people, exercised in accordance with the rule of law, in both letter and spirit.
6. Democracy is inseparable from the rights set forth in the international instruments recalled in the preamble. These rights must therefore be applied effectively and their proper exercise must be matched with individual and collective responsibilities.
7. Democracy is founded on the primacy of the law and the exercise of human rights. In a democratic State, no one is above the law and all are equal before the law.
8. Peace and economic, social and cultural development are both conditions for and fruits of democracy. There is thus interdependence between peace, development, respect for and observance of the rule of law and human rights.

SECOND PART - THE ELEMENTS AND EXERCISE OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT
9. Democracy is based on the existence of well-structured and well-functioning institutions, as well as on a body of standards and rules and on the will of society as a whole, fully conversant with its rights and responsibilities.
10. It is for democratic institutions to mediate tensions and maintain equilibrium between the competing claims of diversity and uniformity, individuality and collectivity, in order to enhance social cohesion and solidarity.
11. Democracy is founded on the right of everyone to take part in the management of public affairs; it therefore requires the existence of representative institutions at all levels and, in particular, a Parliament in which all components of society are represented and which has the requisite powers and means to express the will of the people by legislating and overseeing government action.
12. The key element in the exercise of democracy is the holding of free and fair elections at regular intervals enabling the people's will to be expressed. These elections must be held on the basis of universal, equal and secret suffrage so that all voters can choose their representatives in conditions of equality, openness and transparency that stimulate political competition. To that end, civil and political rights are essential, and more particularly among them, the rights to vote and to be elected, the rights to freedom of expression and assembly, access to information and the right to organise political parties and carry out political activities. Party organisation, activities, finances, funding and ethics must be properly regulated in an impartial manner in order to ensure the integrity of the democratic processes.
13. It is an essential function of the State to ensure the enjoyment of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights to its citizens. Democracy thus goes hand in hand with an effective, honest and transparent government, freely chosen and accountable for its management of public affairs.
14. Public accountability, which is essential to democracy, applies to all those who hold public authority, whether elected or non-elected, and to all bodies of public authority without exception. Accountability entails a public right of access to information about the activities of government, the right to petition government and to seek redress through impartial administrative and judicial mechanisms.
15. Public life as a whole must be stamped by a sense of ethics and by transparency, and appropriate norms and procedures must be established to uphold them.
16. Individual participation in democratic processes and public life at all levels must be regulated fairly and impartially and must avoid any discrimination, as well as the risk of intimidation by State and non-State actors.
17. Judicial institutions and independent, impartial and effective oversight mechanisms are the guarantors for the rule of law on which democracy is founded. In order for these institutions and mechanisms fully to ensure respect for the rules, improve the fairness of the processes and redress injustices, there must be access by all to administrative and judicial remedies on the basis of equality as well as respect for administrative and judicial decisions both by the organs of the State and representatives of public authority and by each member of society.
18. While the existence of an active civil society is an essential element of democracy, the capacity and willingness of individuals to participate in democratic processes and make governance choices cannot be taken for granted. It is therefore necessary to develop conditions conducive to the genuine exercise of participatory rights, while also eliminating obstacles that prevent, hinder or inhibit this exercise. It is therefore indispensable to ensure the permanent enhancement of, inter alia, equality, transparency and education and to remove obstacles such as ignorance, intolerance, apathy, the lack of genuine choices and alternatives and the absence of measures designed to redress imbalances or discrimination of a social, cultural, religious and racial nature, or for reasons of gender.
19. A sustained state of democracy thus requires a democratic climate and culture constantly nurtured and reinforced by education and other vehicles of culture and information. Hence, a democratic society must be committed to education in the broadest sense of the term, and more particularly civic education and the shaping of a responsible citizenry.
20. Democratic processes are fostered by a favourable economic environment; therefore, in its overall effort for development, society must be committed to satisfying the basic economic needs of the most disadvantaged, thus ensuring their full integration in the democratic process.
21. The state of democracy presupposes freedom of opinion and expression; this right implies freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
22. The institutions and processes of democracy must accommodate the participation of all people in homogeneous as well as heterogeneous societies in order to safeguard diversity, pluralism and the right to be different in a climate of tolerance.
23. Democratic institutions and processes must also foster decentralised local and regional government and administration, which is a right and a necessity, and which makes it possible to broaden the base of public participation.

THIRD PART - THE INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION OF DEMOCRACY
24. Democracy must also be recognised as an international principle, applicable to international organisations and to States in their international relations. The principle of international democracy does not only mean equal or fair representation of States; it also extends to the economic rights and duties of States.
25. The principles of democracy must be applied to the international management of issues of global interest and the common heritage of humankind, in particular the human environment.
26. To preserve international democracy, States must ensure that their conduct conforms to international law, refrain from the use or threat of force and from any conduct that endangers or violates the sovereignty and political or territorial integrity of other States, and take steps to resolve their differences by peaceful means.
27. A democracy should support democratic principles in international relations. In that respect, democracies must refrain from undemocratic conduct, express solidarity with democratic governments and non-State actors like non-governmental organisations which work for democracy and human rights, and extend solidarity to those who are victims of human rights violations at the hands of undemocratic régimes. In order to strengthen international criminal justice, democracies must reject impunity for international crimes and serious violations of fundamental human rights and support the establishment of a permanent international criminal court.

U.S wants an action plan

July 1, 2012 The United States says the government has to have an action plan that deals with reconciliation issues.
During a live video online chat with journalists from around the world including Sri Lanka, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Michael Posner said that as far as the U.S is concerned there is a big unfinished agenda in Sri Lanka.
“We are going to continue to raise those issues with the government,” Posner said in response to a question raised by a Sri Lankan journalist.
The online discussion was mainly focused on the U.S State Department’s annual global human rights report released recently.
Posner recalled the discussions he and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had with External Affairs Minister G.L Peiris in Washington recently.
He said that a range of issues were discussed including issues which continue to be of concern and the U.S government will continue to push on those issues.
“We are happy that there is a Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission but the government has to have an action plan that deals with reconciliation issues, deals with the issues of discrimination still going on in the north and a range of other things to incorporate the Tamil population into the life blood of Sri Lanka,” he said.
He also said that the U.S has not singled out Sri Lanka and that U.S will apply the same standard under the universal declaration to Sri Lanka as is applied with other countries.
Posner meanwhile rejected the characterization that the US has become an arbitrator to human rights around the world.
Asked if the human rights report can be used as a tool to take action against Sri Lanka or any other country, Posner said that the purpose of the report is to give the US a baseline of information on what’s going on in every country in the world.
“Every country is evaluated by the same set of standards or criteria. It gives us a basis for making policy but it’s not a policy making document.  It’s a tool for diplomats on how to deal with a country,” he said.

West Europeans Have forgotten 9-11 terror attack and defends terrorists of other nations

18th March 2008

How best to combat terrorism? What is permitted and what is not, in counter-terrorism? With the negative experiences of Western military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially the former, the hitherto dominant doctrine of counter-terrorism, that of neo-conservatism, has been badly damaged and discredited both intellectually and as a policy discourse.

by Dayan Jayatilleka

The struggle against terrorism has an intellectual dimension. How does one distinguish between legitimate struggles for liberation, and terrorism? Terrorism strives to hide behind the mask of legitimate liberation struggles. Conversely, liberation struggles are sometimes demonised by being dubbed terrorist. Some liberation struggles and movements (such as those resisting Zionist occupation) also erode their legitimacy by resort to terrorism. Hence the need for conceptual clarity on these different, yet sometimes intersecting, forms of the political violence of non-state actors.

How best to combat terrorism? What is permitted and what is not, in counter-terrorism? With the negative experiences of Western military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially the former, the hitherto dominant doctrine of counter-terrorism, that of neo-conservatism, has been badly damaged and discredited both intellectually and as a policy discourse. This is deservedly so. It has been replaced by two theoretical frameworks: a resurgent liberal democratic discourse and a resurgent Realist discourse.



On Tuesday, March 11th at the Auditorium Jacques-Freymond, rud de Lausanne, Geneva, an outstanding British scholar delivered a prestigious lecture which set out with great lucidity, the liberal democratic outlook and policy framework. Prof. Vaughan Lowe, Chichele Professor of Public International Law and Fellow, All Souls College, University of Oxford delivered the Europaeum Lecture entitled The Double Helix of Terrorism and Tyranny: Can Civil Liberties survive the "War on Terror?"

According to this framework, there are two attitudes a society may have: to focus on what someone does or to focus on what someone is. If what one does is the key criterion, then one is innocent until proven guilty. Criminal law is then the guiding framework. If one the other hand, one is guided by the notion of "the enemy", then it is the law of war that becomes the operative framework. This latter approach is damaging to the social fabric and social life of democracies. The repressive measures that are taken during the conflict, award a victory to the terrorists because it is exactly the kind of polarising reaction they are hoping to trigger off. Terrorism and tyranny interact and create a downward spiral. The repressive measures are rarely rolled back and continue to weigh upon society down the decades.

This distinguished scholar also drew a distinction between separatist movements – and the necessary treatment of movements – that have little chance of success, such as the Basque ETA, and those that control territory and "maintain a perimeter". The dangerous implications of such an approach for Sri Lanka, especially after Kosovo, are obvious. This was one of the reasons (apart from my own intellectual specialisation) that led me to articulate a critique and suggest a counterview.

The following points were made by me as a verbal response to Prof. Lowe, to whose lecture I was an invitee.
The lecture was organised by the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies of the Graduate Institute, Geneva.

1) Terrorism is defined by method, not objective, however laudable the goal, if the method included the witting targeting of unarmed civilians, then that movement or state is engaging in terrorism. If the recourse to this tactic is widespread, then the movement concerned is describable as terrorist. Thus, Sendero Luminoso in Peru was terrorist while Fidel and Che’s guerrilla army in Cuba was not.

2) Terrorism is not defined by feasibility of objective. The Basque ETA has no realistic chance of success, but that is not what damns it as terrorist. The secessionist movement in Chechnya had a greater prospect of success, which did not however, make it less of a terrorist movement.

3) Representative character or feasibility of success do not warrant a less warlike or repressive response from the state. The secessionist project in America in the 1860’s displayed a distinctive territory and conventional army. In response, Abraham Lincoln, one of the greatest, if not the greatest democratic leader, defended the union with a war that approached its "absolute form".

4) It is questionable that counter-terrorist military measures inevitably result in an irreversible change in the nature of the state and public life in the direction of greater authoritarianism. India, the world’s most populous democracy, had to wage a harsh struggle involving army and police, against a bitter campaign by separatist terrorism, without any long term adverse effects after that terrorist insurgency was defeated.

5) As for the distinction between two ways of treating with terrorism: one, as a problem of criminal law, the other as a problem of the law of war, that policy choice is not a "free" one. It depends on the scale and scope of the terrorist threat. If it is a small terrorist group, a matter of terrorist cells, then it is a challenge that can be dealt with by the police, under criminal law. However, if it is a challenge against the military, waged by relatively large units, then it has to be dealt with by the armed forces. The Taliban, al Qaeda, the Chechens, Sendero Luminoso and the Tamil Tigers fall into this category. In such situations, the more profitable theoretical framework would be the Just War tradition and its recent refinement by Michael Walzer.

At the conclusion of the exchange, Professor Lowe and I agreed on one of each others’ central points. He said that the approach suggested by me was the more appropriate one for situations of "internal war" such as that threat which is posed by the Taliban and the Tamil Tigers. I agreed with him that the criminal law approach, in which the Police should be the main instrument, was more appropriate for the Western liberal democracies and the relatively low level of the terrorist threat faced by them.

Prabhakaran: the setting of the Sun God

Monday, 25 May 2009

by Dayan Jayatilleka

In this handout photo taken Tuesday, May 19, 2009, and released by the Sri Lankan Army, the army claims to show the body of Tamil Tiger rebel leader Velupillai Prabhakaran in Mullaittivu.

The degree of denial of Prabhakaran’s death within the expatriate Tamil consciousness is the best evidence of the pathology of Tamil ultra-nationalism. Rohana Wijeweera’s followers were fanatics, but when their leader was gone, they did not go into mass denial. The hardcore elements of the Tamil Diaspora really have to get their heads around it: Elvis has left the building. The Sun God has set, and his son won’t be rising either.

The Tigers were among the best known brands in the terrorist universe and by defeating them so completely and utterly Sri Lanka and its armed forces have made a contribution to regional and global security and stability. They have made an example of the Tigers and thus made the world a safer place. Precious little thanks we have got for it.

In the movie ‘Lethal Weapon’, when the villains take his partner’s family hostage and he plans to rescue them, Mel Gibson (playing Martin Riggs) tells Danny Glover (playing his cop partner Roger Murtaugh) "we’re going to get bloody on this one – you know that don’t you?". Well, we were always going to have to get bloody on this one, the final battles to destroy Prabhakaran, and that’s the way it played itself out. From Berlin to Grozhny, such endgames are anything but pretty but that’s the way it goes when the enemy is fascist or simply fanatical. We did it much better than most – no extensive use of airpower and no antipersonnel bombs – and the only ones I can think of who have done better, were lead by someone that the UN General Assembly President Miguel D’Escoto has recently called "a saint": Fidel Castro. Fidel is an exception. (But let me not mount my favorite hobby horse – my views on Fidel’s ethics of violence are critically discussed in the current issues of Radical Philosophy and the ‘International Journal of Zizek Studies’).

Prabhakaran was a monster who laid waste to the land and tormented its people, and he was slain, as monsters should be. It will be argued that Prabhakaran was made into a monster by the Sinhalese. That’s a cop out. As I told an audience at Jaffna university in 1982, which almost certainly included LTTE cadres, the National Guard of Nicaraguan dictator Somoza was in the habit of applying lard on the genitals of political prisoners and unleashing attack dogs on them – and yet, the Sandinista guerrillas were among the most humane and discriminating in their use of violence, which greatly contributed to their victory. Furthermore, the nature of Sinhala oppression does not in any way explain Prabhakaran’s war against the IPKF and the Indo-Lanka accord, followed up by the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. In a Karmic cyclical coincidence, Prabhakaran paid the price as Rajiv’s family was swept into office and that too, just days before Rajiv’s 18th death anniversary. (By the way, the humanistic Sandinista revolution crested with the bazooka shell fired by Gorriaran Merlo, the leader of the Argentinean ERP, destroying exiled dictator Somoza in his armored Mercedes in the capital of Paraguay a year later.) Prabhakaran had piled up too many blood debts, in more than one party, community and country, and his fanatical fans overseas had made too much of what he and his core cadre would be capable of when they slipped the Sri Lankan cordon, for things to end in a less complete and final manner.

The call for "humanitarian access" must not be a cover for peaceful R2P or incremental "humanitarian interventionism," achieving through the back door that which was repelled at the front gates. Those who dream and conspire of war crimes tribunals, which would punish Sri Lanka for having decapitated their favorite terrorists, have to dust off their political science (or at least in one case simply consult their illustrious father). Such international kangaroo courts succeed with defeated states and leaderships, or leaders of fragmented, failed or failing states – not a strong successful unified one like Sri Lanka, which has just won a war, exhibiting steely determination. Sri Lanka is also in the wrong continent and the wrong neighborhood for vicious nonsense of this sort to have more than nuisance value and prove anything much beyond a heuristic device to educate a nation. How can one describe and define the friends of our mortal enemy the Tigers?

So where are we now? Forget the grudging assessments of wiseacres that it is only the "conventional war "or "territorial war" that is over. The national territory of Sri Lanka has been reunified after a quarter century or more, but that is not all. The Tiger army lies destroyed on the battlefield (the stragglers are being hunted down) and the Tiger leadership has been eliminated even more thoroughly, than the JVP’s was.

In 1988, I published a series entitled ‘Unfinished War, Protracted Crisis’, in the ‘Lanka Guardian’, which reappeared as a book, Sri Lanka: ‘The Travails of a Democracy’, published by Vikas, New Delhi in 1995. In it I made the basic point that while Prabhakaran always fought a total war, his enemies, the Sri Lankan state and the Indian state fought a limited war. For me, this was the secret of Prabhakaran’s success and the central weakness that we had to overcome. In these writings, and in commentaries over the last 10 years in the (now defunct) ‘Weekend Express’ and ‘The Island’, I drew attention to three other points: though tactically and organizationally brilliant, Prabhakaran, when viewed from a comparative international and historical point of view, was a strategic failure even in comparison with the Hezbollah, let alone the Vietnamese; the need to follow General Giap in privileging the "annihilation of the living forces of the enemy," over territorial acquisition; and the fact that Prabhakaran had never really faced simultaneous offensives on several fronts.

With the Rajapakse administration it all came together and fused: a leader and commander in chief with the requisite political will; a recomposed power bloc with a hegemonic fraction that had a strongly nationalist and even a martial tradition and came from a province with a patriotic-martial heritage and consciousness; the leadership in all three services, especially the army, which had joined a military in combat and had matured in war; public opinion that rejected appeasement and had learned the hard way that only the military defeat of the Tigers would set the nation free at last.

Prabhakaran’s monstrosity had its roots and sources and these are not located in Sinhala oppression but closer home. When an authentic reformist option is proffered (and in September 1987, after the Thileepan fast, the LTTE was conceded seven out of 12 seats including the chairmanship, of an interim council of a merged Northeast, with the Sri Lankan army confined to barracks), fanatics tend to reject these and continue the struggle for the original maximum objective. However, they lose the support of the bulk of the people who then shift to the side of the ex- terrorist militants striving to work the system. The most revealing moment of Tamil ultranationalist consciousness came when the LTTE fought India and later, murdered Rajiv Gandhi. Prabhakaran was not marginalized within the Tamil community. The ultranationalist Tamil mainstream stuck by him and the Tigers in a war that was not against the Sinhala foe but against a secular quasi federal democratic republic, in which Tamils had a linguistic region.

That takes us to the heart of the problem. The self image of Tamil ultra-nationalism is such that it is hostile to India when the latter does not simply forgive and forget the Rajiv murder and extend unconditional patronage to the Tamil secessionist cause. This is clear from the demonstrations in the Diaspora to the street attack on an Indian army truck in Tamil Nadu. What the Indian people in general and the Tamil Nadu people in particular thought about it is evident in the voting patterns in the recently concluded Indian elections.

It is the hubristic arrogance of Tamil ultra-nationalism that saw demoniac incarnation in Prabhakaran, and brought on itself crushing defeat under the guns of the Sri Lankan armed forces.

The truth is that Tamil ultra-nationalism (even in the peaceful form of the TNA) is rejectionist, in that it rejects the limits of the possible as defined by the Indo-Lanka consensus: "maximum devolution within the Sri Lankan constitution," (as Pranab Mukherjee puts it), starting with the reactivation of the 13th amendment. Thus, there is a contradiction between Tamil ultra-nationalism and the existing state system of South Asia. The former demands a rupture of and with the latter, but has no capacity of enforcing it, while the sole realistic option is the reform of and within the existing state system.

For their part, the Sinhala nationalists and ultra-nationalists must know that the joint Indo-Lanka press statement of May 21, 2009, which must be prudently read as almost a coda or annexure to President Rajapakse’s May 19th and 22nd speeches, also represents the minimum commitment that has to be kept, the lowest price that has to be paid, for the assurance of neighborhood and regional support without which Sri Lanka cannot offset Western pressure and the Western-Tiger Diaspora bloc.

Tamil nationalism has failed in its successive projects: 50:50, federalism and nonviolent agitation, full-on secessionist war, incarnated in the Tamil Congress, the Federal party and the TULF, the Tamil Eelam armed movement and the Tigers. No return to any of these is going to work. Even decades down the road, any attempt to revive terrorist or guerrilla war will result in a swift and decisive State response informed by the lessons of temporizing that cost us dearly. The Sri Lankan armed forces is saturated with officers and men steeled in the experience of successful warfare, and this will give us a formidable military machine for many years, even decades, to come.

This leaves the famous Diaspora option. While the Tiger army has been decimated, the Tiger movement still exists, is global, and has a higher profile than ever before. It is a threat to the Sri Lankan state and society but it cannot deliver Tamil Eelam because a small minority really cannot carve out a separate state on a small island on which the vast majority is unalterably opposed to the idea, is willing pay a heavy price and wage war to prevent such an outcome, and will always throw up a leadership capable of doing so. If there is another Prabhakaran, as some portentously claim there will be, there will also be another Mahinda Rajapakse, another Gotabhaya Rajapakse and another Sarath Fonseka.

The details are now beginning to leak (see reports in the ‘Telegraph’, UK and the ‘Weekend Australian’) of last ditch, high level efforts in certain Western quarters to save the Tiger leadership. These pressures and conspiracies probably sealed the Tigers’ fate ever tighter. They give us a glimpse of the networks out there and the games some people play. The external danger should neither be underestimated nor overestimated. Prabhakaran’s Tigers could not prevail but they damaged our country and its prospects; distorted our lives. So also the globalized Tiger movement: it cannot prevail but it must be combated and defeated. The crisis of Sri Lanka’s external relations is a post-Kadirgamar crisis. The external threat to Sri Lanka will require the maturation of conditions and consciousness to the precise point that it did in the case of the military threat posed by Prabhakaran, which led to the evolution and emergence as a vanguard, of the most able elements available.

External pressure, especially extra-regional pressure (involving or based in ex-colonial states) hardly ever causes the widening of political space in a Third World country. In most Asian contexts, it generates a backlash and de-legitimizes the cause it espouses, discrediting perhaps unfairly, the minorities and minority politicians as allies of hostile external forces. Even where the context is not one of ethnic polarization, patronage from adversarial external sources only de-legitimizes local actors.

If the Tiger Diaspora wants a separate state or a confederation, it had better seek it in one of the countries in which they are concentrated, because it is certainly not going to be achieved either on the island of Sri Lanka or the soil of India. If any elements in the West sympathize or support such a cause they had better grant it on their soil, because it ain’t gonna happen anywhere in South Asia. Overseas Tamil secessionism and its neo-imperialist patrons will find that Asia is a continent too far.

(The writer states these are strictly his personal views)

The British baying for blood

24 May 2009

The last week has seen a spate of articles alleging atrocities in the welfare camps in which most of those rescued from the LTTE are now housed. The most recent of these is by someone called Gethin Chamberlain, who has claimed that 'Detainees in one of the camps told this reporter that a number of women Tamil Tigers have been murdered after surrendering to the authorities. The bodies of 11 young women were allegedly found with their throats cut outside the Menic Farm camp near the town of Vavuniya, according to people being held behind the razor wire perimeter.'

This implies that Mr Chamberlain did have access to the camps, though he later claims that the allegations could not be confirmed because 'access to the camps is restricted.'

The story then is embellished with a quotation from an 'official who has visited the camps recently... "A couple of weeks ago, 11 bodies were discovered. All these women had short hair. This is a tell-tale sign of women newly recruited to the LTTE. According to unconfirmed reports, these women had their throats slashed," the official said.

Mr Chamberlain then quite unashamedly writes, 'Speaking through a third party with access to the camps, a number of those detained said they had heard about the discovery of the bodies.'

Such relentless affirmation of the allegation is particularly bizarre, because on the day the story broke I had, as Secretary to the Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights, chaired a meeting of all the agencies involved in protection issues. UNHCR and UNICEF have received the bulk of the funding for protection under the Common Humanitarian Action Plan, but they have subcontracted to a number of Non-Governmental Organisations, National and International, and the room was absolutely full.

I did not actually ask whether any of them had heard of eleven women with their throats slashed, since I did not know of this particular story then, but I asked whether any of them had any serious issues to report. This was in the context of the story put out by Charu Latha Hogg that youngsters were being abducted from the camps. Not one had heard of anything of the sort.

I asked too about the allegations of rape, which had been aired over Channel 4. Again, no one reported any rapes except of the sort that had been brought to our attention earlier, of a man abusing his niece when her mother was away. Such incidents sadly take place all over the world, though the excessive proximity necessitated by camp conditions may give rise to them more often. That is precisely why the government engages in greater protection programmes in the camps along with its partners.

With regard to the Sri Lankan military, which is what sensationalist media has tried to project, there were no allegations at all of rape, though the senior UNHCR officer mentioned allegations of prostitution. Again, prostitution is not unheard of elsewhere in Sri Lanka though, given the greater negative incentives life in a camp might provide, there is even greater onus on government and its partners to guard against this and protect those who might be propelled towards such activities by deprivation.

UNHCR did note the allegation about the deaths of three women the previous month, reported to government in a briefing note on May 11th, which I had checked on previously when I visited the camps on May 2nd. I was told that the only woman under 60 amongst them had been in the Vavuniya hospital first and, after having been discharged from there, had died after suddenly having to enter one of the field hospitals.

Apart from that, the UNHCR note of May 11th was concerned mainly with issues of release and family reunification, specific needs and the screening of former combatants. In all of these the suggestions made, for greater speed and transparency, are in accordance with government policy, but the great influx of displaced has slowed things down and disrupted the setting in place of the required systems. It was however heartening that UNICEF reported that the government had now provided ICRC with lists of those who had been placed in rehabilitation centres.

On the issue of transfers from the conflict zone, the earlier allegation about abuse had now reduced to 'reports by IDPs that there may be some abuse of persons during the screening'. The earlier allegations had been checked on and, while they were refuted, there were commitments for even greater care to prevent any individual cases of abuse. Significantly there were no reports of any abuses in the intervening period.

Why then the sensational reports that have burst out all over the world in the last few days? Is it that not only the Sri Lankan government but also the UN and the numerous agencies working in the camps are all in a state of denial about the horrors that intrepid British investigators have laid bare?

The answer to this conundrum lies precisely in the very British character of the allegations. Those about abduction of children was first made by Charu Latha Hogg, reportedly with connections to British Intelligence, who had also been the first to allege indiscriminate attacks on civilians by the Sri Lankan forces. This was way back in 2007 when, masquerading as a tourist, she had produced a report for Human Rights Watch that was the first salvo in the battle to attack the integrity of the Sri Lankan government. This was shortly after the then British High Commissioner, Dominic Chilcott, began the campaign against Secretary of Defence Gothabaya Rajapakse, by lending credibility to reports that he had threatened the editor of a newspaper.

Ironically, he seemed to concur when it was pointed out that it was unlikely the editor, a young lady, would have telephoned the Secretary when the call was cut off, if indeed she had been threatened. Charu Latha Hogg however demurred, and declared that of course a good journalist would have called back - i.e., she knew the young lady was not frightened but was determined to have a good story.

Recalling that conversation two years later, I realise now that from that period, when first the Sri Lankan forces had shown they were able to take on the Tigers militarily, the British (even or perhaps specially so in the Hogg incarnation) were unduly antagonistic towards the Secretary of Defence. And, obviously, they were right to be thus antagonistic if their aim were, not the triumph of the Tigers, because even the British could not have been so silly seeing what happened with the Taleban, but their survival, so that the South Asian pot could be kept boiling.

Am I being unduly imaginative? Possibly, but I have lived too long with the British, read too many of their brilliant analyses of their own foibles, to underestimate their infinite complexity. And I have learned too not to think of the British as a mass, for most of them are in fact extremely nice and sensible and sane, but they do have a tendency to be led astray by their more adventuristic elements, Jameson in fact, Merrick in fiction, mad General Gordon in Khartoum, where fact and fiction blend in an analysis that only the British could themselves produce.

So, whilst we should always remember that British policy is soon likely to change, and we can return to a much more trusting relationship, for the moment indications are that relentless denigration will continue. On the one hand we have the outrageous allegations that are spreading in the international media, all of them with British origins, the Hogg, the appropriately named Chamberlain, given associations with Nazism, either appeasement (Neville) or support (Houston Stewart), the relentless diatribes from the Times (Page and Bosleigh), Channel 4 and its rapes, these last not even bothering to ask for a Sri Lankan perspective on the propaganda they churn out.

On the other hand we have the British driven determination to convene a special session on Sri Lanka of the United Nations Human Rights Council, a determination that has outlasted its original ostensible rationale, the safety of the civilians caught up in the conflict zone. Fortunately the British and their few close allies were not able to get enough signatures in time to hearten the Tigers (and thus cause even more suffering to the civilians, who were instead rescued en masse by the Sri Lankan forces).

Nevertheless the campaign continued, ostensibly to address human rights issues and ensure a sustainable political solution. That certainly is the intention of the European Union, in talking about the Special Session, and Sri Lanka can have no quarrel with such intentions, though there are less aggressive ways of achieving this. But the intention of the British themselves is laid bare in David Miliband's speech in the House of Commons in which he declares that the post-conflict reconciliation process could be helped by investigation into alleged violations of international law. That innocuous statement was duly translated into simple English by the suspiciously well informed Page of the Times who asserted that 'Britain, the EU and the UN rights chief are calling for an investigation into whether Sri Lanka committed war crimes by firing on civilian targets, including hospitals. They won an early victory yesterday by persuading the necessary one third of the 47 members of the UN Human Rights Council to convene a special session next week.'

In short, the British want Sri Lanka investigated for war crimes, a continuation of the process they began two years ago with the Hogg allegations and the Chilcott campaign against the Secretary of Defence. They also wanted then a resolution against Sri Lanka at the Human Rights Council, and were bitter when this was prevented. Now, after terrorism has been destroyed in Sri Lanka, they have returned once more to the chase.

This is upsetting, because it is precisely the encouragement required by those elements in the Tamil diaspora which want the Tiger ethos revived. There are few of these, and the majority of overseas Tamils will gladly assist Sri Lanka, provided the present government moves swiftly towards reconciliation and rehabilitation, with remedies for the type of assault the Tamils suffered in the early eighties under a very different sort of government (beloved of course of the British).

India, which stood steadfast against terror, whilst making clear its concern for Tamils, has already begun to work productively with the government to ensure a rapid return to normalcy. The United States, which also was forthright in its opposition to terror, whilst upholding the need for human rights, seemed to wobble under British pressure and even suggest negotiations with the Tigers, but it seems now to have returned to a less antagonistic posture and made clear its satisfaction that terrorism has been destroyed. Assistance therefore with positive measures to improve aspects that are unsatisfactory would be welcome, and we can hope soon to escape from the corrosive effects of terrorism that all countries recognise can detract at times from their own idealism too.

In such a context it is hard to see a witch hunt as being only for the purpose of pressurising Sri Lanka to move towards reform, which seems to be the viewpoint of the more decent amongst the British. They should realise that such pressures rarely work, and can only lead to other pressures of a more dangerous sort. And most worrying is the message to the Tiger rump that all manner of things will be well, and they have only to continue with their own pressures to receive positive answers to their requests.


Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary General
Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process

Sri Lanka yet to get ‘congratulatory message’ from U.S. leadership: War crimes charges against Sri Lanka under review says Blake

Thu, 2009-05-21 14:14
Daya Gamage – US Bureau Asian Tribune Political Note

Washington, D.C. 21 May (Asiantribune.com): While foreign
US Ambassador Robert O. Blakeministers and leaders of many nations extended congratulatory messages to the Government of Sri Lanka for its historic military victory over the most ruthless terrorist outfit LTTE the United States which was entangled for many decades in a mixture of fact and fiction about the political scenario in Sri Lanka has so far failed to sent a positive congratulatory note from the highest level.

The congratulatory messages have been reduced to the level of an assistant secretary of the U.S. Defense Department telephoning Sri Lanka envoy in Washington and U.S. envoy to Sri Lanka Blake on his final call on President Rajapaksa before he departs for Washington to assume another position in the State Department.

Robert Blake in his final audience with the Sri Lanka media gave two hints: The charges brought by pro-LTTE lobby led by former U.S. assistant attorney general Bruce Fein against the Government of Sri Lanka of war crimes is under review. And, Blake indicated to the Sri Lanka media that it is not an easy task for the Rajapaksa administration to obtain the $1.9 Billion credit facility from the IMF.

Sri Lanka’s Defense Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa who led the military campaign against the LTTE and General Sarath Fonseka who effectively spearheaded the onslaught have been targeted by the pro-LTTE lobby in the United States because of their civil status in U.S. Rajapaksa is a citizen of the U.S. and Fonseka is a Green Card Holder or has the status of Resident Alien.

The Tiger lobby has been tying its 'war crime' allegation to a U.S. Federal Legislation that has provisions for the U.S. to bring its own citizen living abroad for war crime tribunals.

Ambassador Blake was aware of this when he briefly said that it is under review.

The United States strongly believed in the late eighties and onto the new millennium that Tamil Tigers are invincible and that any solution to Sri Lanka’s national issue cannot be fruitful without the participation of the rebel group. The Foreign Service Officers of the State Department who served in Colombo during this period were directly and indirectly canvassing the successive Sri Lankan governments to evolve a national agenda that reflect the sentiments of the Tamil Tigers. The FSO strongly believed that there is compatibility between the goals and aims of the LTTE and the aspirations of the 12% minority Tamil community.

Buried in fact and fiction the United States Department of State, to some extent, was of the opinion that the total annihilation of the LTTE amounts to the silencing of the minority Tamil voice in Sri Lanka, in the belief of the U.S., will further consolidate the hegemony of the majority Sinhalese in the governance of the nation.

It is this scenario that the United States (and Ambassador Blake) does not want to absolve Sri Lanka of the war crimes allegation and does not want to commit itself tothe IMF loan. The U.S. has 16.9% stakes in the IMF to influence the governing board to suspend the loan.

And this development has led to the devaluing of the congratulatory message to low level USG officials.

As recently as 2007 the State Department officials believed that the 12% minority Tamils could win a ‘homeland’ short of a separate state.

Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher expressed this sentiment to the Sri Lanka media in one of his visits to Colombo. He said that any solution to Sri Lanka’s national issue needs to revolve round the 'Homeland Concept'.

The mindset of Washington State Department officials closely reflecting the sentiments of the LTTE can be attributed to the political advice and position reports forwarded by the Foreign Service Officers stationed in Colombo during the eighties to the new millennium. They were greatly influenced by a group of Tamil politicians and activists who believed in the message disseminated by Tiger leader Pirapaharan and his London-based ideologue Dr. Balasingham.

During U.S. ambassador Jeffrey Lunstead’s tenure in Colombo (2002-05) the United States was seen encouraging Sri Lanka to adopt a federal system, a system majority Sri Lankans believed would establish a stepping stone for Pirapaharan’s separate Eelam state.

Engulfed in this scenario the Foreign Service Officers in Colombo were largely responsible for the Washington State Department to get lost in a combination of fact and fiction hardly knowing to separate the two to the delight of the pro-Tiger lobby among the Tamil Diaspora in the West which was strategically successful in further consolidating the ‘mindset’ for the U.S. to dictate and lecture the Government of Sri Lanka what course it should take completely ignoring the this South Asian nation was engaged in a serious battle with a ruthless terrorist outfit that even the FBI likened it to al Qaeda.

If Ambassador Blake could not rule out the war crime charge against Sri Lanka and was vacillating on the IMF loan this South Asian nation needs to seriously assess and scrutinize her relations with the United States.

In fact, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing in February this year to discuss the situation in Sri Lanka. Those hearings help the USG, State Department and the Congress to formulate policy plans on Sri Lanka. The time has come for Sri Lanka to closely scrutinize her bilateral relations with the United States to develop a better footing, understanding and an open relationship with that country. The relationship between the two countries needs to be in a spirit of openness, transparency and accountability.

Sri Lanka’s leader Mahinda Rajapaksa was knowledgeable and erudite enough to tell this writer in August 2007 in Los Angeles that the West especially the United States has no affinity toward him because the U.S. bet on Ranil Wickremasinghe at the November 2005 presidential election. He was bitter at that time that the U.S. policies toward Sri Lanka were developed based on pro-Tiger lobby of misinterpretations, misrepresentations, half truths and diabolical falsehood.

The United States economic assistance to Sri Lanka had a steep decline since 2006. Sri Lanka was removed from the 16-nation list of the State Department for the Millennium Account Grant. At the behest of Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, U.S. military aid to Sri Lanka was suspended. And, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton opposed the IMF loan declaring that "this is not the appropriate time for it to be considered."

And, the defeat and total annihilation of the ruthless Tamil Tiger terrorists after 25 years is a side story for the United States.

Following is a quote from a Sri Lankan newspaper that carried Ambassador Robert Blake’s replies to the most current and vital issues:

"Asked whether the US subscribed to the charges of so-called war crimes against Sri Lanka Blake said the matter was under review. He avoided elaborating on the issue.

"Asked whether at least now the US would stop blocking the IMF loan facility to Sri Lanka, he answered evasively: He said that the US had already provided US$ 21 million for the welfare of the IDPs and more funds for resettlement and rebuilding would be forthcoming from the US.

"Asked when the US$ 4.5 billion pledged by the Tokyo co-chairs for rebuilding and resettlement would be released, the Ambassador resorted to prevarication again. He said US had already provided US$ 21 million and each of the co-chairs would also assist in this endeavor."

- Asian Tribune -

KP, the LTTE's new chief negotiator with EU, USA, is a terrorist wanted by Interpol, FBI

(By: Shanika Sriyananda)

The military has unveiled a secret plan of the LTTE to shield the identity of the LTTE's international arms smuggler, popularly known as KP (Kumaran Pathmanadan). The disguised KP has been designated as the LTTE's chief negotiator and the international spokesman under the name Selvarajan Pathmanadan(also by Selvarasa Pathmanathan), recently. The LTTE is apparently trying to camouflage the identity of KP in an effort to conceal his previous arms rackets. " He has been instructed to procure arms and ammunition for the LTTE using his new designation as international spokesman as a cover", the informed sources said.

According to sources, the LTTE leader has urged Selvarajan Pathmanadan to use his new credentials to visit all countries and procure arms and ammunitions to the LTTE which is facing its final battle. Earlier, the LTTE's international spokesman was Anton Balasingham.

KP alias Kumaran alias Selvarajan Pathmanadan is a most wanted person by the Interpol and several intelligence agencies including the FBI for his involvement as the LTTE's key arms smuggler. According to sources, KP who has been blacklisted as a key procurement agent of the LTTE operates from Thailand. "He has been all over South East Asia procuring arms and ammunition for the LTTE. These procurements range from small arms and ammunition to Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMS), Chinese built 130mm, 152mm artillery pieces, and several cargo ships and Czech built Zlin 143 aircraft", they said.

Informed sources said that several countries have refused to accept KP as the LTTE's chief negotiator and international spokesman despite the LTTE's repeated requests. Meanwhile, the Norwegians have assured of the custody of Selvarajan if he is caught by the international intelligence agencies, sources claimed.

According to sources the LTTE has a strong international procurement link to smuggle arms and ammunition into the country and operates a shipping network in international waters. "These ships are used as `floating warehouses' to carry large stocks of arms and ammunition. The LTTE shipping network has operated in Indonesian, Malaysian and Chinese waters and largely in the Bay of Bengal carrying arms and ammunition. In 2006 and 2007, the Sri Lankan Navy managed to destroy several LTTE floating warehouses operated in the Bay of Bengal", they said.

Courtesy - Daily News

---------------------------------------------------------------

KP the LTTE Arms Procurer Chief Remains Elusive

September 16th, 2007
By D.B.S. Jeyaraj

“They seek him here;they seek him there; they seek him everywhere”.

These lines from a doggerel about the scarlet pimpernel perfectly sums up the life and times of KP - the elusive chief procurer of arms and armaments for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The latest round of excitement is over the reported arrest of the man in Thailand. New Delhi and Colombo are supposedly requesting Bangkok to extradite KP to their respective countries. But there is a hitch. Despite the initial blaze of publicity about KP’s arrest the Thai authorities are now denying that the arrest ever took place. Obviously there is something here that just does not seem “right” but as Andy Warhol observed famously every one is entitled to fifteen minutes of fame. Now KP is having more than fifteen minutes of fame or is it notoriety?

But who is this man and what has he been doing?

The man known as KP was born on on April - 6th - 1955 in the northern coastal town of Kankesanthurai (KKS). His name was Pathmanathan and his father’s name was Selvarajah . Though he was known by a number of names and aliases in later life KP’s real name was Selvarajah Pathmanathan. KP though born at the KKS hospital was a native of Myliddy also a coastal area in the Valigamam north region.. Myliddy was essentially an agriculture cum fisheries area but also had a proud tradition of rearing the finest racing bulls. Myliddy carters used to win almost all “vandil chavaris” (cart races) held in Jaffna during more peaceful and prosperous times. Myliddy was one of the earliest places in Jaffna to be affected by the escalating ethnic crisis. It is adjacent to Palaly - Vasavilan on one side and on the other to Thaiyiddy - Oorany - KKS. During peaceful times the army and air force stationed at Palaly enjoyed a friendly relationship with Myliddy people. Young Pathmanathan himself was a frequent visitor to Palaly base as one of his first cousins was an airman. But all this changed after 1983 and Myliddy people being neighbours of the Palaly base found themselves prone and vulnerable to suspicion, danger and harassment. The people started leaving slowly and by 1985 it was virtually deserted. Later it was annexed as part of the high security zone. Currently the Palaly - Myliddy - KKS “triangle” area serves as the main base complex of all three defence services.

Pathmanathan was one of eight children. His father Selvarajah was a fisherman from Veeramanickthevanthurai in Myliddy. The traditional occupation of the people here was fishing but they were originally not of a fishing caste. The place derives its name from a Maravar chieftain named Veeramanickathevan from Ramanathapuram in Tamil Nadu , who settled in Myliddy with his clan centuries ago. The Maravars are of the Mukkulathor warrior caste and the people of Veeramanickathevanthurai also trace their lineage as being Kshatriya. Pathmanathan had his education at Nadeswara College, KKS and Mahajana College, Thellipalai. He was involved in the politics of the Federal Party(FP) and later the Tamil United Liberation Front(TULF). Pathmanathan’s radicalisation was mainly through another native of Myliddy Pushparajan who succumbed to cancer some months ago. Pushparajan was one of those who pioneered the Tamil Ilaingar Peravai or youth front in the seventies and was detained without trial for many years then.

Pathmanathan’s pet name at home was Kutty (pup or cub). This was the name most Myliddy people called him also.During his childhood he was very thin and so nicknamed “oosi” (needle) in school.. Pathmanathan was not a very bright student and required more than one attempt to qualify for his OL and AL. He entered the Jaffna university in his twenties. He followed a BA course with political science and history as main subjects. It was during his campus days that the letters “KP” attached on to him. Apparently there were two Pathmanathans in the same batch and in order to differentiate he became KP. Since he was also known as Kutty the K in Kutty and the P in Pathmanathan became KP.The tall, light - skinned , hansome KP was a big hit with the girls.

While at the Jaffna campus KP was attracted to Tamil militancy. Initially he joined the Tamil Eelam Liberation Organization(TELO) led by the legendary Thangathurai and Kuttimani. KP doubled up as a TELO militant while being an undergrad. His nom de guerre in the TELO was “Kumaran”. Kumaran participated as a look - out in the Thinnevely bank robbery where 10. 8 lakhs was robbed. There was a major split in the original LTTE in 1980. Kandiah Umamaheswaran broke away with a large number and formed the Peoples Liberation organization of Tamil Eelam (PLOTE). The residual cadres under Velupillai Prabakharan were a dejected lot. For about two years the LTTE under Prabha tied up with the TELO under Thangathurai - Kuttimani. It was then that KP began interacting with Prabakharan.

The Neervely robbery on March 25th 1981 was a watershed in the history of the Tamil militant movement. The peoples Bank van was collecting hard cash from the branches in the Vadamarachy sector and returning to Jaffna along the Jaffna - Point Pedro road. It was waylaid at Neervely and a massive sum of 8. 1 million rupees robbed. This was a combined TELO - LTTE operation.. KP’s role in this was to ride a motor cycle behind the Peoples bank van and its escort police vehicle. There were no walkie - talkies or cellular phones then. At one point KP had to speed up ahead of the vehicles and alert the militants lying in wait that the target was approaching. KP did his part and sped away. He did not participate in the robbery directly.

But suspicious officials had noted the motor cycle number down. Actually it did not belong to KP but to a fellow undergrad Wimalaraja who had absolutely no idea that KP had borrowed it to use it for a robbery. The motor cycle was traced and the innocent Wimalaraja arrested. This led to a massive varsity demonstration demanding his release. But KP had flown. In what was perhaps the first of his many escapes from the law KP simply abandoned everything and fled to India. He was then staying at 180 KKS rd in Jaffna. KP was then in theBA final year but was compelled to give up studies. He never completed his degree.

After fleeing to India KP dropped out of Tamil militancy for a while. He teamed up with “vakeel” Kandaswamy a smuggler cum racketeer on the fringes of the Tamil militant movement. Some other militants like Sellakkili also joined “Vakeel” as helpers. One motivating reason was survival as they had no funds. KP worked for Vakeel in Bombay now Mumbai and also on the Indo - Pak and Indo - Nepal borders. He also undertook smuggling trips to Singapore and back on false passports. This life came to an end after the July 1983 pogrom.

Sellakili had returned earlier to LTTE folds and was killed in the Thinnevely attack on Julky 23rd that triggered off the Island - wide anti - Tamil violence. KP went down to Madras now Chennai and enlisted himself in militant ranks again. This time he joined the LTTE and not his former outfit the TELO. Since Thangathurai and Kuttimani were no more and the TELO was under Sree Sabaratnam so KP preferred to join the LTTE as he had struck up good rapport with Prabakharan.KP had once come down to Madurai in 1982 with Sellakili and stayed for some days with Prabakharan during which period the LTTE leader had invited him to join the tigers whenever he wanted.

After inducting KP into the LTTE , Prabakharan did not make him take up formal arms training. Prabakharan recogized that KP’s talents lay elsewhere. KP was asked to use the contacts and experience he had gained through the “Vakeel” Kandasamy connection to raise funds and buy arms for the LTTE.This he began doing and soon “vakeel” himself became KP’s unofficial deputy. Together with helpers from the LTTE as well as the Indian underworld KP began acquiring arms and equipment for the LTTE. Some of these clandestine acts were done without even Indian authorities knowing. Some of KP’s original aides in India were Vakeel, Radha, Thavam, Eesan, Kumar, Ranjith and Shankar. As time progressed KP’s duties began expanding. He was required to travel to many countries in the middle - east, Africa, Europe, Australia, North America and South - East Asia and meet Tamil expatriate groups to mobilise funds. This was a time when several Tamil militant groups were active and competing for expatriate funds so it was indeed a formidable task to generate funds.

The overseas fund raising also involved the setting up of LTTE branches and appointment of tiger representatives abroad. This responsibility too became that of KP’s. In the eighties and early nineties it was KP who controlled and co-ordinated the LTTE overseas branches. His objective was to garner as much funds as possible and utilise it for purchase of arms.In addition to raising funds and administering the overseas branches KP also had the daunting task of scouring the international illicit arms bazaar and do shopping. He travelled to many parts of the world and bought up arms and armaments. He also had to make arrangements to ship them clandestinely to India first and later directly to North - East Sri Lanka..

There was no beaten track or set procedures. It was a case of playing it by ear.KP was a pioneering pathfinder as he had to improvise and evolve on the job.Much of the early accomplishments was through trial and error. In 1983 KP himself was arrested in Mumbai when coming from Singapore with 4 million worth of gold. Again in 1984 he was arrested in Chennai in possession of smuggled gold. In both instances KP was out in a jiffy as the LTTE was then in the good books of India.

KP was also arrested at Heathrow in 1989 when travelling on a false Indian passport to London. He was detained for 10 days and deported to India. But he was back in the UK within weeks. He was detained in 1990 in Penang when Malaysian authorities seized the LTTE ship “Sunbird”. But thanks to efforts of Malaysian Tamil nationals the man was out quickly. KP also has had some narrow shaves. He was detained and quizzed on suspicion at least on three occasions in Europe . The suspicion was not over his arms dealings but over his travel documents. This happened in Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam in the late eighties.Apparently KP had exploited the relaxed EU procedures of the time and made refugee claims under different names in different European countries and obtained travel documents valid in Europe then.

KP also spent six months as “Rajan” in Canada in 1988. During this time he frequently visited the USA. KP re- structured and re - organized the LTTE outfits in Canada during this time. He also did much fund raising in the US and Canada and purchased much technological, electronic, aeronautical and communications equipment during this time. It was after KP left that Canadian officials became aware of his true identity. A few years ago the Pakistani authorities were tipped off that KP was travelling by plane from Karachi. When the officials swooped on the aircraft they found one seat vacant. KP travelling on a false alias had simply not boarded the plane. It was like a scene from a movie. It is said that KP had another escape recently when LTTE linked arms smugglers were arrested in Indonesia.

In the early days KP travelled on a Sri Lankan passport numbered J - 803500. His national ID card number was 550971231 - V. Later he used two Indian passports. One was E - 277582 under his own name Selvarajah Pathmanathan. The other numbered E - 432432 under his well - known alias Tharmalingam Kumaran Shanmugam which many think is his real name. But nowadays KP does not use these out - dated , worthless documents.It is said that KP has around 35 - 40 travel documents from many countries under 20 - 25 different names. Indian officials were fuming a few years ago when it was belatedly discovered that KP had been at Navrang Hotel in Delhi under an alias Venkatraman from Chennai.

KP was not involved in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination directly. His name is not included in the 41 name charge sheet. But he was staying in Mumbai on May 21st 1991 and left India on May 26th. The CBI thinks that the 2.4 mm SEG pellets in the Suicide killers explosive belt and also the 9mm pistol in Sivarasans hands were supplied by KP. There is also a belief that KP financed the assassination squad. So they want to question him and have got Interpol to issue an alert. The CBI also sent rogatory letters to law - enforcement authorities in 19 countries seeking assistance to apprehend KP. Indian officials have also toured 23 countries for the purpose of tracing Pathmanathan.

Incidently the Indian investigation revealed that KP was living with a beautiful Indian woman in Bombay. It appears that KP had a soft spot for pretty women. Though the LTTE leader is a stickler for puritan discipline he seems to have been quite tolerant of KP in this respect due perhaps to the importance of his work. KP’s greatest achievement has been his ability to raise funds, acquire arms and then transport them to the LTTE in the Island. He is a globe - trotter in this regard having garnered armaments from diverse sources such as Maronite Christian groups in Lebanon. Eritrean rebels, ex - Mujahiyadeen from Afghanistam, KPNLF circles in Kampuchea , the underworld in Marseilles and arms dealers in Ukraine, Russia and Georgia etc.

The extensive range of arms in quality and quantity that KP has bought and shipped is mind - boggling. What is remarkable is that this supply of arms has been steadily flowing despite the overwhelming odds against such a perlious exercise. Sri Lanka being an Island is obviously dependent on the sea for many things. For a guerilla movement like the LTTE sea transport has been of crucial importance. A continuous supply of arms and ammunition is essential to keep fighting. For this Soosai’s sea tigers and KP’s overseas purchases dept have been of great service. KP has been single - handedly responsible in providing constant and consistent supply of arms.

KP is also responsible for setting up the elaborate world - wide shipping network of the LTTE.He was helped to a great extent in this by Tamils involved in shipping as ship captains, chandlers and freight insurance. The first known company was registered in Singapore as Arasu maritime pvt ltd. It was this firm that leased the first LTTE ship “MV Cholan”. KP himself was a director and provided the paid up capital. A second Shipping firm Plymouth shipping co was started later in Singapore. The heads of both firms were Tamil ship captains. Another shipping firm was Vikram Holding pvt lts registered in Kualalumpore with three Malaysian Tamils as partners with KP. Later another company Point Pedro shipping was registered in Panama. KP also had dealings with Orient Shipping in Germany.

Since the names of these firms became public knowledge the LTTE does not use them anymore. The LTTE ships whose names are known are also not in visible use now. But the LTTE shipping fleet has grown and is a viablecommercial entity on its own apart from its original mission of ferrying arms. The fronts, owning, leasing or chartering the ships are unknown. The companies are registered in one country while ships fly flags of convenience from other countries.The captains and crew are mainly from non - Tamil communities though a few Tamils may be part of the crew.

But when armaments and equipment is shipped to the LTTE in Sri Lanka the crew and captain are Sri Lankan Tamils posing as nationals of South Asian countries. The names of the ships are also changed during the mission. KP has established worldwide contacts not only with arms dealers and the underworld but also with legitimate officials. He is known under different names to many customs, immigration and Police officers of different countries. He is also well known in shipping circles. Apart from some diplomastic contacts KP is also believed to be in touch with intelligence operatives of some powerful western nations after Sep 11th 2001.

The tried and tested modus operandi in the dangerous game of arms running has been the appropriate usage of bribes, political influence and coercion to achieve results. These methods had their roots in the smuggling ethos of Prabakharan’s native place Valvettithurai. KP perhaps taking a cue from VVT smuggler methodology had perfected the art over the years. He always carried a bundle of notes to bribe minions. The big shots were entertained lavishly and presented expensive gifts. Local politcians with some clout in Police, Customs, immigration and shipping circles were assiduously cultivated. Where necessary thuggery and intimidation was deployed.

There was a time when KP was in charge of three important functions in the LTTE. The first was overseas fund raising and investment.The second was macro - supervision of LTTE branches anroad. The third was of course acquisition of arms , armaments, ammunition, and transport . But after the ceasefire came into force in 2002 Prabakharan has re- vamped the LTTE. KP was relieved of two duties namely overseas finance management and general administration. This was because the work involved had become too much for one man and the LTTE leader wanted KP to focus on what was most important to the tigers.

Overseas finance management was entrusted to “Aiya Annai” and administration to Castro. Aiya being a KP disciple follows in his mentors footsteps and performs his duty without much hassle. But Castro in his vanity discontinued all the people installed by KP in the overseas branches and appointed his lackeys. Today the tigers abroad are in vast disarray and a far cry from the times of KP. with different people jockeying for control. Factionalism is rampant. Fund raising as opposed to financial management was put under Financec chief Thamilendhi’s control. This too has resulted in confusion.When KP was in charge things ran smoothly.

But KP’s sphere of control known by the euphemism overseas purchasing dept or simply as KP dept continues to function efficiently. Until recently KP’s ships were discharging cargo at midsea without mishap. But this streak of good luck seems to be running out if recent claims of success by the navy are any indication. KP himself does not travel much these days due to ill - health (diabetes , blood pressure, cardiac trouble etc) and also because he is a much wanted man in many countries.

But KP’s deputies trained by him are doing the filedwork now though KP directs and supervises. Interestingly his seconds in command are changed frequently for security reasons. But whoever is no 2 to to KP at any given time is always given the nom de guerre “David”. Though he is “officially” a citizen of at least four countries KP in recent times has confined himself to Scandinavia and the ASEAN nations. He is married to a Thai woman who worked at the export firm “palmax”run by KP in Bangkok. It appears that the LTTE too relies much on Thailand as a logistical base. A recent Janes Defence weekly report highlights this -

“While Cambodia is the hub of the LTTE East Asia Network, Thailand continues to serve as the most important country for trans-shipment of munitions and coordination of logistics… its excellent communications infrastructure, proximity to former war zones in both Cambodia and [Burma] and its western coastline facing the Bay of Bengal and Sri Lanka beyond have made Thailand the ancient interface between the LTTE’s war zone.” the Janes report says.
KP has been known to have set foot in Sri Lanka through the Katunayake International Airport only twice after 1981. The first was in 1987 after the Indo - Lanka accord and the second was in 1989 after the Premadasa talks. At that time he returned with Prabakharan’s wife Mathivathany and the elder kids Charles Anthony and Thuvaraga staying in Denmark.

KP kept away from Sri Lanka even when his mother and sister died when the boat they were travelling capsized at sea. But he is known to have made several trips clandestinely by sea to Mullaitheevu coast. Selvarajah Pathmanathan is now widely known as KP. But within the upper echelons of the LTTE there is another name for him. It is “Kazhuthai” or Donkey. This was a name bestowed affectionately by Prabakharan himself. The donkey is an animal that carries loads on its back. KP is a man whose efforts result in loads of arms being supplied to the LTTE. Hence the name donkey to KP.

It is astounding that Selvarajah Pathmanathan a man of humble origins from Myliddy is has metamorphosed into KP the transnational purchaser and transporter of arms.It is amazing to think that this arts undergrad is now dealing successfully with dangerous arms merchants in many parts of the globe. The chief procurer of arms for the LTTE is a man who has made himself almost indispensable for the LTTE. He like Prabakharan is very much responsible for the growth of the LTTE. KP is a man whose knowledge and information would be of great value not only to Sri Lanka but to intelligence agencies of several countries.

If KP has really been arrested by Thai authorities then that could be the single biggest blow received by the LTTE supremo in recent times.The truism about no man being indispensable may be correct but as far as the LTTE is concerned KP is simply not dispensable. While Sri Lanka was reportedly sending a top police team to interrogate KP in Thailand Indan Foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee was already in Bangkok an a pre-arranged official visit. He sought clarification with Thai authorities on KP . This is what a PTI report datelined Bangkok said

“LTTE leader K Padmanathan, an accused in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, has not been detained in Thailand, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said here today. “We have been informed that the person (Padmanathan) is not yet detained,” the Minister said when asked about reports of the LTTE leader’s detention here this week.

This information was conveyed by the Thai government to the Indian mission in Bangkok and “we are depending on that”, he said.” If this PTI report is correct about what was told to Mukherjee that means KP remains as elusive as ever. If so it is once again a case of “catch me if you can”

sc: http://transcurrents.com/tamiliana/archives/369

How the West was sidelined (for the moment)

From left: Dr. Dayan Jayathileka, Charm Ceremony; President, Prime Minister, commanders of Security Forces in Sri Lanka .

Monday, 18 May 2009

A couple of years back, in Geneva, the British ambassador tried to have a resolution critical of Sri Lanka passed in the United Nations Human Rights Council. The previous year such a resolution had been proposed, and after negotiation, as I understood, it was kept on the table, so that it could be taken up if agreed.

In 2007 Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka decided that he would not accept a resolution. He also refused to negotiate on the terms of a Presidential Statement, which was then proposed by the British ambassador. He refused even to accept a draft text, since that would have been tantamount to agreeing that some sort of action was necessary.

Dr. Jayatilleka’s view was that there was no need of any action with regard to Sri Lanka, but he also recognised that, with the adverse publicity against the country coming from various quarters, it was necessary to make our position clear. He therefore ensured that a delegation from Colombo briefed regional groupings as well as individual states on the actual situation. The result was that many, who had previously heard only one side of the story, understood the efforts we were making, and agreed that any action against the country would be inappropriate.

The danger passed, though we had to deal with repeated criticism of Sri Lanka, from a few countries and from a plethora of Non-Governmental Organisations. Some of these were international ones, such as Human Rights Watch, which had fired the first salvo in the attack on Sri Lanka when, fraudulently, it accused us of indiscriminate attacks on civilians. There were also some local ones, though we found out soon enough that many of them were funded precisely by those countries that wanted us subject to criticism. The most appalling example of this came to my notice when the head of the Berghof Foundation, Norbert Ropers, informed me that they had funded one such organisation, which they recognised was a surrogate for the LTTE, but this had been done in good faith when they thought that the LTTE could be democratised. My understanding was that they had now ceased to fund this organisation though, when I found out later that this was not the case, Mr. Ropers wrote to me from abroad to say that I had misunderstood him.

Those were the days when the anti-Government press in Colombo was claiming that the Government was about to be defeated on the budget, and when it was declared that the whole world was against Sri Lanka. When there was no motion in the Human Rights Council against us, it was claimed that we had been saved by rogue states. Those were days when the opposition claimed that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights was going to insist on a UN Monitoring Mission in Sri Lanka and nothing would stop this, when her sidekick tried to persuade me that the UN would do a better job than the Scandinavians, and when a very sweet Amnesty International worker in fact told us that she had been asked by UNOHCHR in Geneva to pack her bags and prepare to come to Sri Lanka to be part of the UN Mission. Entertainingly, Amnesty, in asking that a delegation be allowed to come to Sri Lanka now, suggested that that lady be part of it, though unfortunately their London office had meanwhile sought a visa for the much more prejudiced Yolanda Foster.

When it became clear that there would be no resolution against Sri Lanka, and that the attempt to denigrate the Government through this manoeuvre had failed, the British ambassador told me that our ambassador thought he had won, but we should wait and see. He did agree with my suggestion that, since we did want to improve our Human Rights situation, the British should help positively instead of simply pointing fingers, and promised to tell the High Commissioner in Sri Lanka to look into the matter. Those however were the days of Dominic Chilcott, who ignored my requests, and tried to tell me that, while he thought some elements in the Government were sincere, others were dreadful.

But Dominic Chilcott went away, to Washington and the Human Rights paradise of the Bush Presidency, and there was a new British ambassador in Geneva too, and it seemed things were better. 2008 passed without incident, except for a few squawks in the British Parliament, and we thought that in fact the British were now more genuine in their dealings with Sri Lanka.

We were wrong. Perhaps because of the determination of David Miliband to stamp his mark upon British Foreign Policy, we had a flurry of adverse commentary, with what seemed avuncular encouragement of Tiger demonstrators in London. And the determination to break loose from the international consensus that the Tigers surrender, exemplified in the Miliband refusal to answer the question put to him twice by the BBC, was accompanied by more plotting in Geneva.

Dr. Jayatilleka discovered early in May that the British, together with some other Western nations, were trying to invoke a special session of the Council on May 14th, to discuss the Sri Lankan situation. Whether they were genuinely concerned was a matter for doubt, since the Western Europeans alone of the regional groupings had refused to meet with the Sri Lankan delegation in March, when we offered briefings on the current situation and the opportunity to ask questions. It should be noted though that some European countries did give us the opportunity to discuss matters with them, and we were able to disabuse them of some of the more extreme examples of Tiger propaganda.

The European masterminds behind the move were very secretive, and went ahead without initially consulting the other regional groupings. They must have assumed they would have no difficulty in getting the 16 signatures required, since they had about a dozen themselves, and had managed to persuade one Asian country to commit itself.

But Dr. Jayatilleka then went into action, and convinced all the other groupings that the Western European move was manifestly unfair. As happened in Sri Lanka, where briefings were held with relevant diplomats, one obvious question was the timing of the move, which seemed obviously designed to assure the Tigers, fighting what should have been their last battle, that they had world sympathy. Mr Miliband’s failure to insist on a Tiger surrender, which had been remarked upon also by others, gave credence to the view that the whole move was disingenuous, nothing to do with humanitarian concerns but rather an obvious political ploy.

How intense the effort was became clear when hosts of NGOs, many of them funded by the countries most keen on the move, weighed in with their requests, and when Special Rapporteurs who had not been especially interested in Sri Lanka previously, issued a press release calling for an independent inquiry into the situation in Sri Lanka. One of them claimed this had been done because they had not had a response to their letters, but since the letters had been sent in the last few days in May, and the reply went ten days later, their haste in issuing a damning release on May 8th seemed positively indecent – recalling a similar release by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, sent out when some Western Europeans were canvassing for a Presidential Statement on Sri Lanka at the ordinary session of the Council in March.

Meanwhile the campaign of the Tigers was reaching fever pitch all over Europe and in America. Following the successful escape of nearly a thousand civilians on the 9th of May, the Tigers shot at those trying to follow on the next day, but the deaths were then used for intense propaganda that attributed responsibility to the Sri Lankan forces. Simple induction was beyond all those implacably opposed to the Sri Lankan state, the fact that we had got out over 100,000 with minimum civilian casualties in April, that the flood had been dammed until we succeeded again on May 9th in getting people out without civilian casualties, and it was precisely to claim a catastrophe that the Tigers had kept these civilians for so long.

The self-righteous Europeans must have thought then that their campaign could not fail.

They could not believe that the efforts of Dr. Jayatilleka and his dedicated team at the Mission in Geneva would turn back the combined efforts of so many wealthy and determined countries. Knowing the trust his colleagues in Geneva had in him, they raised the matter in capitals all over the world, only to find that the ambassadors in Geneva had very different advice to offer.

Dr. Jayatilleka was helped in this by the work he had done with the other regional groupings over the last couple of years. In particular, the Non-Aligned Movement proved a rock of strength, with both its current Chairman Cuba, and the next Chairman Egypt, being categorical in their view that this singling out of what seemed vulnerable individuals was contrary to the spirit in which the Human Rights Council had been established. But the support of our immediate neighbours, Indian and Pakistan, and also Bangladesh, all of them respected members of the Council, also proved invaluable, along with the positive input of Russia and China, with their added prestige as permanent members of the Security Council.

There was a briefing on the 12th on the humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka, arranged without reference to Sri Lanka, though fortunately Dr. Jayatilleka had been working late in his office on May 8th, and had received the notice before he went home, so that he was able to ensure input from Sri Lanka. Otherwise it is possible that the session would have been used for critical comments, as were made by the British, based on the visit of their beloved Miliband, but apart from that we had only very generous inputs from the Japanese and others.

At a dinner that evening, even though there was still a danger that the Western Europeans would continue with their hunt for signatures, a number of ambassadors made it clear that they would not stand for this type of selective criticism. It was also understood that, even though the Europeans would not get the sort of resolution they craved, it would not do to be passive, because then the media would present a Western viewpoint, to the effect that Sri Lanka had been saved from condemnation by just a few countries who could conveniently be demonised. Any session for which signatures were obtained would then have to lead to a resolution, which would make clear the determination of the world at large to deal firmly with terrorism.

On the 14th a number of what seemed LTTE surrogates were seen coming into Geneva, perhaps having relied on assurances that they would get their lifeline that day, with a jamboree which would have been widely reported as proving how inhuman the Sri Lankan government and forces had been. But, though the quest for signatures continued, with more statements piling in, the week ended with the real international community resoundingly rejecting those who had tried to dragoon it into selective criticism.

A number of lessons should be learned from the whole episode. Firstly, making the West the cornerstone of our foreign policy is clearly a mistake – or at any rate the old West about which we still continue sentimental. If for instance we had voted not for Britain (which we did unconditionally last year) but for Spain, the latter would have been elected to the Council instead of Britain and we would not have had so many headaches. Secondly, whilst of course we must still continue good relations with the West (for they too have decent politicians, who will not all promote terrorism for political considerations), we must work more concertedly with our neighbours and also the regional groupings which share our interests.

Thirdly, we must also endeavour to satisfy the idealistic expectations of these our friends. All of them asked about the intended political solution to the political problem and, while they were steadfast in accepting that terror had to be dealt with militarily, and dealt with conclusively, they will also all expect a decent package that exemplifies the pluralistic nature of Sri Lankan society. They could understand delays while the terrorist sword hung over us but, now that is no longer a major threat, we must fulfil their expectations about the essentially democratic dispensation our government has defended so ably.

But at the same time there are also lessons the West should learn. The anger at obvious double standards was palpable amongst all our friends. Obviously we do not expect even the most idealistic country to abandon its own interests. But in sticking to them ruthlessly, the use of sanctimonious pronouncements to reach other ends is abhorrent. It is especially important that the Obama administration, which came in with such high hopes, should not be seen as just another cynical mixture as before.

Secondly, the West should not take the rest of the world for granted. Its failure to consult at all was surprising; its failure to consult neighbours who obviously have a stake in a stable neighbourhood was astonishing. The impression could have arisen that stability in our areas is not to the interest of the West, which would prefer a plethora of weak states, to allow it to maintain more easily its current hegemony, political as well as economic.

And thirdly, the West should think about the message it is sending, in seeming to want the Tigers to survive in some form or another, particularly in the light of its past blunders. After all the horrors we are witnessing now, which are attributed largely to the West, spring from its own encouragement of Taliban terrorism during the Cold War. Whatever its purposes then, there is no doubt they could have been achieved without worrying consequences had there been at least a modicum of adherence to basic principles.

Sri Lanka may for the moment have escaped the worst the West could do to it. But we need to be constantly vigilant for the future. We should do this with greater dialogue and discussion with our friends, and more forthright discussion with the West to enable them to achieve their own goals without irritating so much of the rest of the world. And we should use the intellectual and social capital of Dr. Jayatilleka and his staff in Geneva to develop solid guiding principles for international relations in the current world context.

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha

Secretary General

Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process
(Texts highlighted by "NoEalamInSL")

Courtesy: SCOPP

Let us salute the great nations that genuinely helped us fight terrorism

Let us salute our friends who accepted the truth and are bold enough to stand by us at our moment of need.

The people of Sri Lanka are grateful for the wholehearted support given to them by India, Pakistan and the rest of the South Asian countries, China, Russia, Pakistan, Japan, Iran, Libya, Vietnam, Mid-East, African and Southeast Asian countries. But for their understanding on our plight and the trust they placed on us, we would never be able to come this far in our battle against terrorism. It seems the international community has become more independent and therefore safer for poor countries like Sri Lanka to stand up for their rights. At least, the people living in poor war affected countries like ours can now have hopes for achieving peace if their leaders are genuine enough to take appropriate action.

It is worthwhile recalling how the civilians, whose safety the Western powers are so worried about, were driven to their current situation. It was the LTTE terrorists who took hold of these civilians at gunpoint and held them as a protective shield during the last three years. As troops gradually liberated the territory held by the LTTE, the terrorists forcibly took most of these civilians with them in order to protect their leaders. All the human rights champions now blaming the government were brazenly silent on this blatant atrocity against our citizens, despite the government's untiring efforts to convince them about the looming humanitarian situation. All they did was trying to corner Sri Lanka in the international community, with their usual "warnings", "urges" "concerns", etc.