Full-scale war in Sri Lanka threatens civilians

The Sri Lanka government, which has announced the abrogation of a 2002 Norwegian-brokered ceasefire agreement with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), is planning a do-or-die military battle against the separatists in the politically-troubled northern and eastern provinces. Reacting to the announcement, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Jan. 3 he regrets the decision of the government to terminate the agreement but urges the warring parties to ensure the protection of civilians caught in the crossfire. He underlined the "urgent need to end the bloodshed in Sri Lanka through a political solution." But the underlying fear, according to one UN source, is that the government's renewed military campaign in a seemingly endless 20-year-old war -- and retaliation by the Tamil Tigers -- could result in civilian casualties and human rights transgressions by both parties. "We are fighting a war -- and nothing else matters," says a senior government official, whose views reflect the hardline thinking of the government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa. In a statement issued on Jan. 3, the National Peace Council of Sri Lanka said: "The danger inherent in the government's position, especially in the event of a total rejection of the past peace process with the LTTE, is that it is paving the way for a fight to the finish where the costs can be terribly high, success is not guaranteed, and no fallback position will be available." With fighting expected to escalate during the coming weeks, the government is readying to face accusations of human rights abuses -- primarily from the United States, the United Nations and the European Union. The charges of human rights violations both against the government and the LTTE have also come from several international human organizations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Minority Rights Group International. "What irks us most is the sanctimonious hectoring by those suffering from selective amnesia and, who until recently, massively violated human rights under various pretexts; advancing free trade, securing living space, defending empires and even protecting democracy," Sri Lanka's Foreign Secretary Palitha Kohona told IPS. "Let us not forget that 60 million died, and more were displaced in two World Wars waged for these very reasons," said Kohona, a former international civil servant who served as chief of the UN Treaty Section in New York. Defending the government, he said: "Sri Lanka would like to be identified with the best." To this end, the government will continue to work hard. "We have invited visits from a range of senior UN officials in the recent past, including the UN high commissioner for human rights. If there were things to hide, we would not have done so," Kohona said. In October last year, a senior UN under-secretary-general, John Holmes, warned that the government's attitude "appears to be that negotiations with the LTTE will only become possible once it has suffered further military defeat." Meanwhile, he said, the government of Sri Lanka continues to deny the existence of a humanitarian crisis or human rights violations. In a report released last month, the London-based Minority Rights Group International (MRGI) said that Sri Lanka's human rights situation is fast deteriorating. "There are daily reports of extra-judicial killings, disappearances and abductions," the report added. As Sri Lanka plans to celebrate its 60th year of independence on Feb. 4, the study said that "unless Sri Lanka urgently begins to steer out of its human rights crisis, the country's minorities will have little to celebrate." Asked why the Geneva-based Human Rights Council, the premier human rights body at the United Nations, has so far failed to even adopt a resolution against abuses by both warring parties, MRGI's Farah Mihlar told IPS: "It's partly due to the politics of the Human Rights Council, whose members are largely made up of countries from the 'southern block,' most of whom are allies of Sri Lanka." Hence, even if a strongly worded resolution is presented to the Council, there is no guarantee that a majority of countries will vote against Sri Lanka, she pointed out. The other reason, Mihlar said, is that sponsors of earlier proposed resolutions have tried to engage with Sri Lanka through the process. One of the main reasons the last resolution was kept on the sidelines was to await the outcome of High Commissioner Louise Arbour's visit to Sri Lanka. As she has in preliminary statements been critical of Sri Lanka's human rights records, "the time is now ripe for tougher action," Mihlar said. Asked how valid was the government's argument that neither the United States nor the European Union have a moral right to pontificate on human rights judging by their historical past, Mihlar said the human rights situation in Sri Lanka is at a crisis point, with large numbers of civilian killings and displacement due to the resurgence of the war. There are also daily incidents of killings, disappearances and abductions -- and almost all the victims are minorities. "You don't find these figures coming out of the US or of EU member states," she added. Mihlar said it is not just the United States and the EU that has to take the lead. Neighboring India also has a critical role to play. "India is very influential when it comes to Sri Lanka. If India very firmly tells Sri Lanka to let in UN human rights monitors to help assess the real extent of human rights violations and change the current climate of impunity, it is very likely the Sri Lankan government will pay serious attention," she added.