Giving the middle finger: Sri Lanka’s conflicting responses to war crimes allegations
Mr. A Nawan, Deputy Solicitor General of Sri Lanka
This symbolic screen grab is from a short video on Channel 4′s website, on the occasion of screening in Geneva a one-hour documentary into the denouement of the war in Sri Lanka. As Channel 4′s website notes,
“Disturbing footage in the film includes the apparent extra-judicial massacre of prisoners by government forces, the aftermath of targeted shelling of civilian hospitals and the bodies of female Tamil fighters who appear to have been sexually assaulted. Also examined in the film are atrocities carried out by the Tamil Tigers, including the use of human shields, and footage depicting the aftermath of a suicide bombing in a government centre for the displaced.”
The Deputy Solicitor General of Sri Lanka notes in response to the screening of the documentary,
“We have already made a preliminary investigation on the video and we have scientific material established that this particular video is not authentic.”
Clearly he knows something our Attorney General Mohan Pieris does not. Just days before, speaking to the same gathering of people in Geneva, our Attorney General noted,
“…the Government had been precluded from making a full assessment of the Channel 4 video because of the blurred quality of the images”
This fiasco again captures so well the Sri Lankan government’s deranged diplomatic and domestic responses to serious war crimes allegations. Our Foreign Minister contradicts himself daily and as we have carefully documented has no coherent response to the UN Panel’s report. Worse, he seemingly lies in and misdirects parliament. The government organised seminar on how to defeat terrorism, but didn’t address serious human rights concerns captured most recently by the UN as well as in the explosive book by former UN spokesperson Gordon Weiss, The Cage. Plus there is the no civilians killed party line. Finally, there are even those who believe that even if the Channel 4 video is true, it is “unrepresentative and irrelevant”.
We didn’t in fact publish the video Channel 4 first broadcast it in 2009. It was too gruesome for a start. The shock factor for British and foreign audiences would have been tasteless and counterproductive to feature on a site read mostly by those who are no strangers to violent conflict. Secondly, it was when first broadcast, by Channel 4′s own admission, unauthenticated video. While Channel 4 and Journalists for Democracy may have had good reason to believe the video was true, we had no way of ascertaining this since no one else had seen or examined it. We did however have some extremely interesting debate and discussion around the video at the time. A video of shame and outrage: Responses, positions and clarifications captured some of the best comments. At the time, because Channel 4 said that they could not verify the authenticity of the video, many commentators like Observer parroted the line of the Sri Lankan government as well the High Commissioner in London, calling the video “an unbelievable fabrication”.
The government hasn’t changed its tack, but the video continues to haunt it. It refuses to go away because in 2010 and again this year, under two consecutive UN Special Rapporteur’s on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution, the authenticity of the video has been established. In 2010, Philip Alston’s investigation held the video was authentic. In 2011, the investigation into the longer version of the video by Professor Christof Heyns concurred. Back in 2009, the government tried and failed to convince OFCOM to take action against Channel 4 for broadcasting this video. Human Rights and Disaster Management Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe said in September of that year that the Government would call for the retraction of video from Channel 4, as comprehensive investigations and analysis conducted by four experts commissioned by the government had provided scientific evidence to prove that it was a fake and a heavily tampered video. Minister Samarasinghe also said legal action against Channel 4 was being considered.
Is this the scientific evidence being quoted now by the Deputy Solicitor General of Sri Lanka? But if the Attorney General is to be believed that the video is too blurred to assess accurately, what then of this ‘scientific evidence’? What happened to the legal action against Channel 4? Where are the government experts, two in fact from the Sri Lankan army, today?
The government’s response (or more accurately, conflicting responses), much like the Deputy Solicitor General’s involuntary yet hugely symbolic gesture, is sadly very far removed from what even some of its most senior diplomats suggest is a better way forward. Truth, it seems, is not just a casualty of war, but remains hostage to our government’s notion of peace.
23 Comments
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to Content Updates
iPhone app
I watched that video. Really embarrassing.. Argh, his sentence doesn’t even make sense.
Sir,
The third para from bottom shows that the vedeo had been proved as authentic by UN .Thats all,naturaly since Sri Lanka is accused they will try to twist it in their favour.It is left to the International community and UN to decide and take action.Tamils are like orphans ,they dont have a recognised Govt. to protect them.
Will the conscientious Sinhalese do something to halt the atrocious crimes that have been going on in the Northeast from May 2009? Are we going to have another inquiry into this phase?
clearly the guy felt under immense pressure – the whole room’s eyes and world media were on him and since English isn’t his first language, he flagged and was inarticulate… not that it’s a good excuse.
after being very much engaged/interested in srilankan affairs i think it’s fair to say that apart from dayan jayatilleka and a couple of others, srilanka doesn’t have a very good team of diplomats internationally or generally public facing individuals who can effectively defend srilanka.
its clear that there are people hell bent on what seems to be destroying srilanka. firstly, let me say i’m not really a fan of the current srilankan regime however in terms of what we have now there isn’t a viable alternative and unfortunately there is not much (possibly no room) room for progressive forward thinking aspiring politicians (if there are any which I’m sure there are) who ultimately will help shape srilanka’s future positively.
if at a bare minimum srilanka had a solid diplomatic strategy and worked hard to win the peace as it were, stupid documentaries such as this, whose sole purpose is to destroy srilanka as it were and possibly pave the way for an eelam would be easily be rebuffed. the amnesty international guy and the anchor dont open debate on the issue, they just lead you to a conclusion, i.e., its one of those things that you learn at A-Level psychology: show disturbing footage and then have someone tell you what to think instead of questioning the video’s origin or semiotics or opening genuine debate, on this case on whether the video is representative of srilanka (as is being made out) and whether genuine steps towards addressing minority grievances are being made.
The way events have unfolded since may 2009 for me are somewhat reminiscent of documentaries (i think zeitgeist is one of them) i have seen in the past where a western actor attempts to create a coup and destabilise a region in order to install a puppet regime. now i’m not saying thats the case with srilanka but the way events are unfolding seems somewhat similar… anyway those are just my thoughts now i need to go eat some breakfast.
It is interesting that you chose to single out our dear Dr. Dayan Jayatilleke as the most capable of diplomat to defend SL.
On a recent suggestion that the US allegations need to be verified, here is what he had to say about his and the majority Sri Lankan’s response “would be the same as Rhett Butler’s in Gone With the Wind –” Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn”– or, to cite a more contemporaneous source, what Arnie Schwarzenneger (said to a devil) in ‘End of Days’ : “I don’t give a rat’s ass!”.
That is the best diplomat we have?
Here is the link: http://groundviews.org/2011/04/14/accountability-reconciliation-democracy/
His rest of the diatribe in that response chain is also interesting, for its absurdity as well as the length he is willing to go for nonsensical obfuscation – worth a read.
since this article insists on picking on sand grains, let me point out an inaccurate interpretation made in this article.
the following two views are not inconsistent;
“We have already made a preliminary investigation on the video and we have scientific material established that this particular video is not authentic.” (HAVE)
“…the Government had been precluded from making a full assessment of the Channel 4 video because of the blurred quality of the images” (HAD)
what the two statements, if read in their real context means is that
1. at first the govt was precluded from making a full assessment
a. because of the poor quality of the video
b. because Channel 4 did not provide GOSL with a copy of the video.
2. that later when the GOSL received the video it investigated and the investigated showed that the videos were fabricated.
But I think everyone is missing the most important truth here, which is that “if the video is real” the person making it is at the very most complicit in the crimes or at the very least knows the identities of those who committed the crimes. Channel 4 are the people who will have the most information that will identify the alleged perpetrators of this alleged crime.
So rather than barking on the GOSL, why doesn’t the channel 4 do some research and give some names. then we can really know if the videos are genuine or not
This is spurious logic.
Where is your evidence that the government got the C4 video in Geneva between the time the AG made the statement and the Deputy Solicitor General making his? If according to the AG, the video was too blurred for analysis, it obviously follows that any ‘scientific’ material establishing its inauthenticity is impossible to come by, so what is the DSG referring to?
The video’s been around for months, since C4 first published it last year around the time of the President’s monumentally disastrous last visit to the UK. What if anything was the government doing from then to the sessions in Geneva last week? Is there any documented record of requesting the UN or C4 for the video? Did either refuse? We do not know, and we think not.
If all this is unclear, what exactly is the blurred video the AG refers to? Surely it clearly cannot be the one the four government appointed experts explicitly dismissed after forensic analysis, when C4 broadcast it in late ’09? If not that, then what?In fact, the longer video now in question is by the Sri Lankan High Commission’s own admission ‘an elongated version‘ of the video broadcast in ’09. If so, it can’t then be too blurred for analysis can it?
Much confusion then reigns in government. But we give you this, spin of the sort you parade is precisely that which the government employs to filibuster its way through assembly’s that call for a more robust response. Sadly, more will believe in this spin than ask to hold accountable a government that can’t even get its diplomacy in order.
I am not working for the government and never has. nor am I a spin-doctor for the government. The observation I made was that you have misinterpreted two statements made by two individuals. It would be helpful to see the explanation addressing the issue I raised.
You are trying to argue that the two people of the govt are saying two different things. and the truth is yes they are. but the two things they are saying do not conflict.
for example; “I have read the newspaper I don’t believe its true” “I had not been able determine its truthfulness because I didn’t get a newspaper.”
I can say both these sentences, one after the other or one before the other. according to you they would conflict. i.e. if one is true the other cannot be true. that is simply not the case. because at one point I had not read the newspaper and later on I had read it. and similarly at one point the govt was not able to analyse the video and later they could.
And again what you missed is that; Channel 4 is protecting the criminals by not revealing its source, because who ever shot this video, if its genuine knows the perpetrators. If truth and justice is what they claim, name names and tell the govt to prosecute.
the govt is on record saying that Channel 4 refused to provide a copy of the video initially. if you want evidence, do some research, I am not claiming to be a journalist, you are.
Policyminded
“But I think everyone is missing the most important truth here, which is that “if the video is real” the person making it is at the very most complicit in the crimes or at the very least knows the identities of those who committed the crimes. Channel 4 are the people who will have the most information that will identify the alleged perpetrators of this alleged crime.”
Unfortunately I think this larger point of yours has been missed. I too had made the same argument in response to the videos. For example, the UTHR had released the names of those believed to be responsible for the Trinco 5 and ACF 17 killings, but for some reason the human rights industry is not focussing on those!
Another strange aspect is that the govt itself is not relying on this argument, but instead is desperate to claim that the video is doctored, even when experts claim otherwise!
Are you guys kidding (Policyminded, Wijayapala)!
A presumably soldier-of-conscience releases this video (you haven’t considered the possibility that the video could have been subsequently copied from a computer by some one else known to the soldier!).
If so this soldier is a hero! But his life may be in danger. He may have already been whisked away to a foreign country or hiding in SL.
Whatever the case, unlike in SL, the identities of witnesses are usually protected in Western countries, because this is part of the process of witness protection and presumably important in keeping the process of court procedures intact.
Furthermore, the fact that GoSL has not taken any action about individuals whose names have been released indicates that it has abrogated its responsibility to the people repeatedly, thus the only option for justice in SL are International Mechanisms. (SL must be one of the few countries in the World where journalistic discretion is taken to the point at which, evidence is deliberately tainted so that no Jury could be appointed. OTOH perhaps UTHR(J) believe it might might as well release info in public domain, like Assange, because nothing would be done about it any way)
To say that it is the work of “enemies of SL” as one commentator has said may have worked 2 years ago. I myself questioned the validity of the video because of the well established penache of the LTTE for spreading lies (the doctored photo of a “live” Prabhakaran was a clear example among others). However, further release of segments of the video and another of a Tamil (I presume because he is looking perplexed in the way a man who does not understand the language would) man tied to a tree with blood over his chest and face while soldiers speak in clear sinhala began to cast doubts about claims of GoSL and its propaganidists (in a metaphoric parallel to this there is also a video of a so-called Sri Lankan minister tying a Muslim man to a tree).
The conduct of the Government of Mahinda Rajapakse (Government of Rajapakse, by Rajapakse and for the Rajapakses) in the past 2 years leaves little doubt about its duplicity in everything it has touched.
We have to hope that Sarath Fonseka is prepared to set the record straight. In this context there are only two men in the political scene of Sri Lanka capable of possibly rescuing the tarnished reputation of Sri Lanka and Sri Lankans. They are Fonseka and Jayatilleke. One has indicated that he has evidence to this effect and the other has the intellectual capacity to communicate it to the World.
People other than Jayatilleke do exist amongst the expatriate population, but will only place their efforts in the service of SL when the Rajapakse’s have finally met their verdict in the hands of the people and Fonseka is released to set the record straight.
Don’t get me wrong. Sarath Fonseka will also be on notice if he is ever in such a position, as we expect acknowledgement of the suffering of the people of the north in the hands of the Defence Forces (LTTE were much worse but those on a moral high ground must of necessity be contrite and humble in order to retain that ground- for those who do not understand that it is a bit of “white man speak”).
For now, General Sarath Fonseka is the last best hope for the future of the country. With or without him the Sri Lankan Diaspora (Tamil and Sinhala) are ready to join hands with those of SL to use International Mechanisms (Truth and Reconciliation Diaspora style, International Judiciary) to bring criminals to brook or shame so that Sri Lankans can truly move forward.
If the cardboard patriots want to prevent this inexorable process, then they must sacrifice the Rajapakses and have Fonseka released with the intent of bringing forth a believable accountability process within Sri Lanka.
One way or another, this will happen. Decide which side of the fence you are on.
I only wish that the mobile phone technology was existing at the time the mass of Sinhala youth were being exterminated by the Sri Lankan state. The paradox is that, it would have given ammunition for MR as a Human Rights layer to take the matter to Geneva! If that had happened, MR would not have presided over a repeat of that. If no action taken on this occasion, I believe that the history will repeat itself purely because, SL cannot break away from the past as a new.
There is another aspect of this issue to consider. Some external powers (e.g. the USA, UK, EU, Norway, India), or rather certain agencies within those powers, do NOT want the war crimes allegations thoroughly investigated, especially by Sri Lanka itself. Why? Because if they were investigated some of the most important allegations would be discredited and doubt would be thrown on the allegations as a whole. That would then remove one more weapon which they can use to try to discredit & undermine Sri Lanka.
For example, since the Israelis began investigating & discrediting key allegations in the Goldstone Report dealing with Israel’s conduct in Operation Cast Lead against Hamas, the report’s chief investigator, Goldman, has dissociated himself from many of his original findings. The result is that the entire report is now discredited & few now refer to it as a credible report. If the Darusman Report & the UK’s Channel 4 program are shown to be seriously flawed, even in only some respects, that would remove some powerful ammunition from the arsenal of those who are trying to undermine Sri Lanka’s unitary status, its recent achievements & its future development. This is because at present the threat of external investigation is continuously being used by some Western & other powers to try to force Sri Lanka to try to comply with their demands in other totally unrelated areas such as trade and aid. They call it “bringing pressure to bear on Sri Lanka to comply, etc, etc.”
Those who want to defend the Sri Lankan people & state and strengthen them in the international arena perhaps might benefit from seriously considering how the Israelis & other Western powers have successfully dealt with similar allegations. They also might pay heed to what Dr Kilcullen implied at the recent seminar about the benefits of states carrying out the own investigations into serious war crimes allegations.
Dear ravana,
“A presumably soldier-of-conscience releases this video”
I had presumed he would have been a soldier-of-fortune, given the funds that the LTTE supporters have access to.
“Furthermore, the fact that GoSL has not taken any action about individuals whose names have been released”
Whose names? Those listed in the UTHR report?
“In this context there are only two men in the political scene of Sri Lanka capable of possibly rescuing the tarnished reputation of Sri Lanka and Sri Lankans. They are Fonseka and Jayatilleke.”
LOL you really are a comedian aren’t you. The first had claimed that Sri Lanka is a Sinhala country, and the second (I presume you’re referring to Dayan) is currently employed by the “tarnishers.”
LOL you really are a comedian aren’t you. The first had claimed that Sri Lanka is a Sinhala country, and the second (I presume you’re referring to Dayan) is currently employed by the “tarnishers.”
This is exactly an example of taking things out of context practiced by many.
The first claim you make comes from an interview SF had given to a Canadian Journalist in which states “Historically, Sri Lanka belonged to the Sinhalese… later he goes on to say that minorities should be reasonable in what they ask for…”
In context SF does not appear a racists; simply not a very clever PR man. In the awkward language he used what he would have been conscious of is that the country/nation which the King/Emperor considered was his domain was called Sinhale. Majority of people spoke Seehala Basa or Siyabasa. They were subsequently identified as Sinhalese. There were also others whom the King would have considered as people but spoke a different language “Taymoli”.
Now, I cannot expect SF to be able enunciate all that unless he had been educated in that way. You just chose to cast him the light of a racist, which is the most stupid thing that the LTTE supporters of the west did. Because they discredited the one man who could now bring some justice to any Tamil victims of War.
The other claim of yours which is taken out of context is from my own comment:
“In this context there are only two men in the political scene of Sri Lanka capable of possibly rescuing the tarnished reputation of Sri Lanka and Sri Lankans. They are Fonseka and Jayatilleke. One has indicated that he has evidence to this effect and the other has the intellectual capacity to communicate it to the World.”
There is nothing funny about suggesting that Dayan Jayatilleke is capable of rescuing the reputation of Sri Lanka. What Fonseka lacks (a silver tongue) Jayatilleke has. The fact that he is on the wrong side (I have made enough comments elsewhere to indicate that) does not mean that he is not potentially useful in future. Jayatilleke has no evident political loyalty.
When credible evidence such this emerges, to distract from it by attempting to smear the messenger (the soldier who made the images) is very crass. Some times, being too intellectual can make you sound simply Aspbergerish.
Dear ravana,
“In the awkward language he used what he would have been conscious of is that the country/nation which the King/Emperor considered was his domain was called Sinhale.”
Could you please quote anything from Fonseka’s overall speech that day that placed that racist statement in the context of ancient history- as opposed to the war against the TAMILS which actually was the real context of his speech?
I think the GoSL’s “zero-tolerance” attitude to all allegations is unfortunate. While the debate goes on about the technical authenticity of the video, with the GoSL seeming to be just in denial mode, there are much easily defended areas that the GoSL is overlooking.
Let’s for a moment take it for granted that the video is authentic (in that it is actual footage of a group of armed men executing prisoners by gunfire); and from my experience, I think it is authentic. However, there is no challenge on the audio component. At least one commenter on this site has linked to the same footage where Tamil voices can be heard instead of Sinhalese. There is also no challenge by the GoSL as to the general claim that the video shows SL Army soldiers shooting Tiger POWs; in spite of the fact that there is no evidence of that in the video. The shooters’ features are South Asian, possibly Sinhalese or Tamil, and the same goes for the POWs. The shooters wear US woodland pattern camouflage uniforms with no badges or patches, and while this pattern is common in the SL Army, the Tigers have also been known to wear them. The weapons are T56s or AK-47s (almost indistinguishable from each other), weapons used by both sides.
Instead of challenging all these (IMO far more important) areas, the GoSL still continues to challenge the technical authenticity of the video.
Well said David. Although I would not be as kind to GoSL. It may have “zero tolerance” but it certainly has “zero credibility”. This will be an important point keep in mind when future events unravel.
Wijayapala,
“Could you please quote anything from Fonseka’s overall speech that day that placed that racist statement in the context of ancient history- as opposed to the war against the TAMILS which actually was the real context of his speech?”
Did Fonseka ever say that it was a war against TAMILS? Can you please provide the EVIDENCE for your ALLEGATION.
I have already said that Fonseka would not have the training to make such a statement. I object to it being used as evidence of racism. Lack of sophistication in PR may be.
The entire world is missing something here. The whole accusation to the Srilankan government is based on the fact that the soldiers speak in Sinhalese.
It is a known fact that most of the Srilankan Tamil population can speak Sinhalese very fluently, which means that a large number of LTTE members could in fact could speak Sinhalese as well. Therefore now the channel 4, Amnesty International and the UN have to prove that indeed the soldiers in the video are of the srilanka army and not Tamil tigers wearing army uniforms and the victims are surly Tamils but not the captured military personal.
Now lets see who would have taken this video during the killing. If the government soldiers did the killing, it is hard to believe they want to keep a record of their act. Because, they know that it would have dare consequences if it gets revealed. But if LTTE did the killing, their intention is to kill the army personals and in the same time use it as material for false propaganda to turn the international community against SriLanka.
Unfortunately, the Sri Lankan government is not handling this matter correctly. While they investigate the authenticity of the video, they should also try to identify the people in it to see whether they are actually the captured soldiers.
Hi Hemal,
I am glad you are supporting the need for independent verification, so as to find the truth.
If, as you say, it is those LTTE hoodlums and deceivers who planned these video, then only an investigation can bring it to light – and then we can calm all the international attention on our cherished government. If we don’t allow independent investigation then our puritanical regime will always be under a rather dark cloud, and the country faces unending humiliation. You and I don’t want that – right?
Ever wonder why the Government is so adamantly opposed.
So, I hope more of the patriotic Sri Lankans will think like you, express your wisdom to the Government and call publicly for an independent verification.
Thanks Hemal.
What about over 01 million killied in Iraq, What about thousands dead in Afghanistan and what about thousands die even today in Libya? Where are the panels investigating those crimes? Ah yes its done by US and Nato! So there would be no so called “panels” They are only for third world countries! Dirty UN!
I think you’d better listen to Hemal and Sarath above. The reason the UN is paying attention is that hundreds of thousands of expatriate and ex-Sri Lankans are expressing their concern. They may be mostly Tamil but there are perhaps just as many other Sri Lankans wanting to know the truth about what happened.
It is us you have to convince. The rest of the World simply don’t care that much. You can bet your bottom dollar, that this time we are not going to let another 87-89 slip by. So I would suggest that you stop braying at the Moon and start stepping carefully around your own droppings! We are watching you and will see you slipping.
There is no purpose for the Army to record if they have killed. But, LTTE has a purpose to get the International attention. So, don’t you think this is the work of LTTE?