2013-08-05 பிரித்தானியாவின் கொள்கை நிலைப்பாட்டில் மாற்றம்!

I, the undersigned constituent of Harrow hereby declare my support for the following request made to the United Kingdom Foreign Affairs Select Committee by the democratically elected Tamil diaspora political formation, the Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam.

The Foreign Affairs Select Committee is requested to take into consideration:

·         Britain’s colonial past on the island of Sri Lanka, including the unification of the Tamil and Sinhala kingdoms and traditional homelands in 1833.

·         The raison d’etre of Section 29 of the Soulbury Constitution which, in the words of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, “entrenched [equality] in religious and racial matters” and represented “the solemn balance of rights between the citizens of Ceylon [and] the fundamental conditions on which inter se they accepted the Constitution…” and the unilateral abolition of Section 29 by the Sinhala majoritorian Government of Sri Lanka in 1972.

·         The first 30 years of non-violent Gandhian political struggle of the Tamil leadership and the acts of violence perpetrated by the state and its actors in response to that non-violent struggle against the Tamil nation and the resultant loss of lives, dignity, property, identity and demographic position since 1948 when the island was granted Independence by the United Kingdom.

·         The political mandate for the Vaddukoddai Resolution given by the Tamil nation in the 1977 elections.

·         The burning of the Jaffna Public Library – at that time the largest in Asia – in 1981 by the armed forces of the Sri Lankan government.

·         The 2013 Resolution on Sri Lanka passed by the Tamil Nadu State Assembly representing 70 million Indian Tamils.

·         The recognition of the merged northern and eastern province in Sri Lanka as the historical Tamil homeland in the 1987 international treaty between India and Sri Lanka known as the Indo-Lanka Accord.

·         156 anti-Tamil racial programs from 1948 to 2006, as documented by the North East Secretariat on Human Rights (NESoHR).

·         The unimaginable atrocities committed during the final stages of the armed conflict between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians and the maiming of many more.

·         The findings of the Dublin Permanent People’s Tribunal concerning the end of the war inter alia:

“The atrocities carried out by the military relate particularly to civilians, and there is evidence of cluster munitions being dropped by warplanes. Some witnesses reported that white phosphorous was used in violation of international law. Several witnesses had seen burn marks on wounded civilians. Others believed that indications of napalm were apparent, and evidence of other incendiary devices has been confirmed by doctors who had cared for hundreds of Tamil civilians wounded in this manner”

 Further inquiry is warranted with respect to the claim of genocide

 ·         The observations of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s Panel of Experts concerning the end of the war inter alia:

“The Government systematically shelled hospitals on the frontlines. All hospitals in the Vanni were hit by mortars and artillery; some of them were hit repeatedly, despite the fact that their locations were well-known to the Government. The Government also systematically deprived people in the conflict zone of humanitarian aid, in the form of food and medical supplies, particularly surgical supplies, adding to their suffering. To this end, it purposefully underestimated the number of civilians who remained in the conflict zone. Tens of thousands lost their lives from January to May 2009, many of whom died anonymously in the carnage of the final few days.”

 There is credible evidence that 40,000 civilians were killed.

 The lack of political environment to mete out justice. 

·         The Nov. 2012 United Nations Internal Review Report on the failure of the UN in Sri Lanka – known as the Charles Petrie Report – concerning the end of the war inter alia:

“The Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, who also has an international Human Rights and humanitarian law mandate, raised concern with the Government and the Secretary-General over the situation but favoured quiet diplomacy and told the Government he would “not speak out.” When his office later tried to issue a public statement this was not supported by UNHQ”

“It is nevertheless clear that there can be no lasting peace and stability without dealing with the most serious past violations and without a political response to the aspirations of Sri Lanka’s communities. The UN cannot fulfill its post-conflict and development responsibilities in Sri Lanka without addressing these fundamental concerns; and the UN should continue to support implementation of the recommendations of the Panel of Experts on Accountability.”

There is credible evidence that 70,000 civilians were killed during the final stages.

“The LLRC was fundamentally constrained by a mandate that did not focus on actual accountability and by the lack of an enabling environment for judicial follow up.” (Emphasis added)

·         The efforts of the UK United Nations Representative during 2008-2009 during the peak of the conflict.

·         That according to the Catholic Bishop of Mannar, the Rt. Rev. Dr. Rayappu Joseph in his submission to the Lesson Learnt and Reconciliation Commission [LLRC] 146,679 people are unaccounted during the final stage of the conflict.

·         According to the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office on Human Rights and Democracy. (May, 2012) 90,000 Tamil war widows now live in the North and East and what international assistance they are receiving.  

 ·         The three Channel 4 documentaries, ‘Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields’, ‘War Crimes Unpunished’, ‘No Fire Zone’ and related video evidence of war crimes committed by the armed forces at the end of the war.

·         The analysis and recommendations made to the United Kingdom and the international community by the International Crisis Group in its report of 20 December 2011 titled “Sri Lanka: women’s insecurity in the North and East” – Asia Report No. 217 and the subsequent reports:-

–       “Sri Lanka’s North I: The Denial of Minority Rights” – Asia Report No.219

–       “Sri Lanka’s North II: Rebuilding under the Military” – Asia Report No.220.

–       “Sri Lanka: Tamil Politics and the Quest for a Political Solution”, Asia Report No. 239, 20 Nov 2012

–       Sri Lanka’s Authoritarian Turn: The Need for International Action, Asia Report No. 243, 20 Feb 2013

·         The UK Immigration Upper Tribunal country guidance determination on Sri Lankan Tamil asylum seekers – July 2013 Appeal Number: AA/12647/2011

·          –       The observations made in the recent ‘American Journal of International Law’ inter alia:  

“The LLRC was fundamentally constrained by a mandate that did not focus on actually accountability and by the lack of an enabling environment for judicial follow up.” [UN Internal Review Panel Report].

Nearly four years after the war, the Sri Lankan accountability process has finally been set in motion, but in a sense it has barely begun. The majority within the Human Rights Council that the United States cobbled together for the March 2012 resolution may dissipate over time. In the end, states may emphasize other important aspects of national reconciliation within Sri Lanka and may no longer push the question of accountability. It may well be that a full and fair examination by the Sri Lankan government of the state’s own conduct and that of its adversary will need to await electoral developments some years down the road. [Accountability And The Sri Lankan Civil War By Steven R. Ratner- The American Journal of International Law. Vol. 106.778]

availability of oral evidence that could be provided by MPs of TGTE, Tamil Human Rights entities, international legal experts on genocide and human rights agencies.

–        ·         That the Prime Minister of Canada Rt Hon Stephen Harper has publicly stated that he will not attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) 2013 meeting in Sri Lanka if the Sri Lankan government does not show substantial progress in accountability in investigating the numerous allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity that occurred during the conflict as alleged in the UN Panel of Expert’s report on Sri Lanka.

·         Sections 2 and 5 of the CHOGM 2011 communiqué.

·         The advice made by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee to the Government of the United Kingdom against attending CHOGM in the report on the Commonwealth in Nov 2012.

And to inquire into the t of the United Kingdom Government policy towards Sri Lanka with respect to the long standing Tamil national question, the issues of accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity and the attending of CHOGM in Sri Lanka by a high level delegation consisting of the current UK Prime Minister and the potential effects on integrity and the reputation of the Commonwealth if Sri Lanka assumes the leadership of it for the next two years.

I further strongly request that the UK refrain from attending CHOGM in protest to the lack of accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity during and after the war, and the ongoing lack of respect for Tamil rights and identity in Sri Lanka.