Briefing Paper on Sri Lanka
Presented to British All Party Parliamentary Group
by Karen Parker, JD, June 18, 2007
In my view, the Tamil people have a far greater right to self-determination than the Kosovans - who according to the UK, should be granted independence from Serbia. In the case of the Kosovans,
they do not have the 2000- year presence in that area that the Tamils have had in the Tamil areas of the island of
Ceylon. Further, the Kosovans have not suffered years of atrocities, massacres, and denial of rights that the Tamil people have suffered since independence from
the British.
BRIEFING PAPER ON SRI LANKA
Presented to
ALL PARTY PARLIAMENTARY GROUP
By Karen Parker, JD [1]
Summary of concerns
1. The labelling of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Eelam (
LTTE) [as a terrorist group] is both legally and
factually incorrect. In fact, such labelling flies in
the face of existing humanitarian law. The fact that the UK and EU have been persuaded by the US and Sri Lankan governments to `list` the LTTE is a major reason that the peace process broke down and that the Tamil people currently face genocidal policies. The label has also served to demonize the Tamil people in Sri Lanka as
well as in the diaspora.
1. While useful to `de-list` for the practical reason
that to do so would facilitate negotiation, `de-listing`
should occur to bring proper review of the war under applicable humanitarian law norms.
1. Humanitarian aid access to those affected by the
armed conflict and the Tsunami must be ensured at once.Argument The war in Sri Lanka is between the government`s armed forces and those of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The LTTE are a military force, with an identifiable chain of command and territory under their command. The LTTE combatants are in military uniforms, and carry out military operations on land, at sea and in the air that under international rules are legal military operations. The
LTTE is fully entitled to combatant status under humanitarian
law.
The war may be characterized as a civil war or a war of national liberation in defence of the right to self-determination. In my view, the Tamil people have a far greater right to self-determination than the Kosovans -who according to the UK, should be granted independence fromSerbia. In the case of the Kosovans, they do not have the 2000- year presence in that area that the Tamils have had in the Tamil areas of the island of Ceylon. Further, the
Kosovans have not suffered years of atrocities, massacres, and denial of rights that the Tamil people have suffered since
independence from the British. Even if, for political or other
considerations,governments will not recognize this clear right, these governments must at least recognize that the armed
conflict is a civil war. This `civil` war is not directed at
overthrowing the GOSL. Rather, this `civil war` is directed at freeing the Tamil areas from Sinhala military occupation. In this
sense,the `civil war` is not akin to that in El Salvador or
Nicaragua, where the warring parties sought full control
of the whole of the territory of the State. Rather, it is
akin to the civil war in Pakistan that resulted in the
establishment of Bangladesh as a separate State, or that in the former Yugoslavia, that resulted in the establishment of a
number of independent States.The area under the control of the LTTE is a de jure State. It is de jure because the Tamil people have
the right to self-determination, actually occupy part their
territory, and in that part of the territory have a civilian
government. The government of Sri Lanka has de facto control
over those areas of the traditional Tamil area under its control, but does not have the legal right to govern that area, so the de facto control cannot ripen to sovereignty.
To label the LTTE as a terrorist organization also
defies reason and grossly impairs the possibility of a peaceful resolution to the long conflict. It also provides a
free ride to the government in regards to humanitarian law, as
it shifts analysis of the conduct of the conflict away from
humanitarian law and into a `no man`s land` of counter-terrorism operations.
To label the LTTE as a terrorist group defies reason because
terrorist groups are not in uniform, do not have the
traditional material de guerre, and do not carry out
traditional military operations as does the LTTE. `Terrorist`
organizations are clandestine, and carry out criminal
acts because they are unable to form as military forces.
[2] This is not to say that there is not terrorism IN armed
conflict. This is defined in the Geneva Conventions as acts
intended to generate terror in the civilian population. While
war itself is `terrorizing`, terrorism in armed conflict is
usually limited to acts such as `shock and awe` by the US
military in Iraq, the brutal maiming of civilians such as has
occurred in certain conflicts in Africa, and purposeful
targeting of civilians, forcing them to flee and then blocking
off access for humanitarian aid such as is occurring in
Sri Lanka by the government forces. In fact, blocking access
of food and medicine, such as occurring in Sri Lanka due to the
government`s closure of the
A9 highway into the Tamil areas,
is listed as an element of the crime of extermination under
the Statute and Elements of the International Criminal Court.
(ICC, Rome Statute, Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(2)(b) ICC,Elements, Article 7(1)(b).
The statement by the Foreign Minister Howells that the UK might reconsider `delisting` the LTTE if the LTTE renounces `violence` is absurd. Such a renunciation would be
tantamount to surrender. I note that the Foreign Minister did not
urge the Government forces to stop `violence.` This implies
that the government of the UK actually sides with the Sinhala
to the detriment of the Tamils. A war is, of course,
violent, but is not `violence` under criminal law nor is it terrorism.Further, the Foreign Minister and other officials of the
UK have identified certain military operations of the LTTE
as `terrorist`, when humanitarian law rules allow such
military operations. One example of this is the LTTE attack on the
Sri Lanka government`s air base in the South. Such military operations are clearly legal under humanitarian law
rules.
It is a fact that the listing of the LTTE as a terrorist organization by the UK and the EU has severely curtailed international surveillance of the conflict and has
emboldened the government of Sri Lanka to carry out military
operations, which, as they announce, are to defeat the
LTTE in all areas and to ignore the cease fire agreement. From
the US perspective, this is positive, as the US wanted to reduce
the Sri Lankan Monitoring Mission (
SLMM) substantially,
leaving only a relatively weak Norway and Iceland rather than the
entire Nordic bloc. Delisting, of course, would broaden
the purview of the war by third-party States, all of which
have an obligation under the Geneva Conventions to `ensure
respect for(them) in all circumstances.` The Sinhala/Tamil war is
one of those circumstances. Thus delisting would have a
practical effect.
However, I think that delisting should be accompanied
with a disclaimer asserting that the listing was, in fact, a legal
mistake in contravention of humanitarian law. This would
reinforce the UK`s commitment to humanitarian law, and its
rejection of the geopolitical interests that have
resulted in the total defiance of humanitarian law. Surely the UK
does not want to be viewed as furthering the US interests in Sri
Lanka,
especially when there would be no positive pay-off for
the UK.
In this regard, the UK could be viewed as aiding and
abetting the genocide of Tamils to further US interests in
securing `outbases` around the world. As the Diego Garcia
situation is tenuous at present, the US has only Sri Lanka, and
regrettably the Tamil areas (Trincomalee Harbour and Palaly Air
Field) for its `outbases` for the whole sub-Continent area, all the
war over to Burma and the Malay peninsula. [3]
The most important outcome of your Parliamentary group is, of
course, the `delisting`. This could lead to the second
most important outcome, the opening of land routes and access
routes for the provision of humanitarian aid to the Tamil
areas. As you must be aware, the World Food Programme is
retreating from Sri Lanka due to the difficulties and
restrictions of their work to provide the Tamil and Muslim
populations in the North East with subsistence food. This will
leave only the ICRC, which has already left key areas dueto
restrictions by the Sri Lanka authorities and the assassination of Red Cross workers. There is a major humanitarian catastrophe in store, compounded by the fact that so many Tamils are still displaced from the Tsunami and have been denied any equitable allocation of post-Tsunami aid. Surely you must be aware that the US administration told the American Red Cross that it could not distribute post-Tsunami aid to the Tamil areas, even those under Sinhala control.
This is in total violation of the rules of humanitarian
relief, and, besides being racist, also is a genocidal act. If
your group does nothing else, you should be forthright in the
need to open land routes for the provision of humanitarian
aid. Besides preventing the starvation of Tamil civilians,
this could help generate conditions to reopen the discussions
between the parties to the conflict regarding the
implementation of the Cease Fire Agreement, which could then
lead to discussions about resolving the conflict.
The All Party Parliamentary Group could play a major rolein
ensuring that this armed conflict is reviewed under
humanitarian law and in preventing the ...
