Actually, Raja, the more the tactics of HRW, AI & ICG are examined, the closer they resemble political blackmail & extortion: “do what WE say you should do, or we’ll keep making these allegations suppported by anonymous victims, back-of-an-envelope estimates & cleverly crafted shock-horror videos.” The telling point was when they were given the opportunity to present their allegations & evidence to Sri Lankan’s LLRC panel but refused to do so. At that point they really gave their game away because the truth was that they had nothing to say that would stand up to serious scrutiny.

What HRW is engaged is despicable propaganda campaign that goes on to only antagonist even people who sit on the fence. I guess in hindsight these decisions taken will reflect upon the current directorship of HRW later on. That’s a matter for history to decide.

btw, Mr Obama is no better to GW Bush when it comes to gross human rights violations. Drone attacks have actually increased under his watch which are notorious for collateral damage. I don’t see the same tenacity prosecuting Mr Obama by HRW! The point remains violent conflict is a fact of life. And it is never fair for those on the receiving end. America & NATO is the biggest example of this. Long as HRW underhandedly shield them, they have no credibility in the civilised society! Shame on you Mr Adams for your whitewashing deceit. For trying to destroy developing countries with lies and unfair bullying.

Observer,
You may have made a slight and understandable mistake. Sudath Silva is a photographer completely unrelated to the author, Brad Adams of HRW. I don’t believe that Brad has ample evidence given the refutations provided by sources such as David Blacker. At least not until May 2009. No one has irrefutably provided evidence for shelling after May but there have been claims that the President himself gave such an order whilst General Fonseka was in China. Again evidence need to be provided to support this claim. Given the nature of the 2nd NFZ, I except satellite based evidence should be available, if such an event actually occurred.
It’s a pity that people like Brad Adams make claims without good evidence (even if it is circumstantial good evidence would be acceptable). It is important that good organisations like HRW and AI do not reduce their credibility by buying into propaganda from sources with vested interests. The World needs to be able to rely on what they say. On this context it would have been better to stick with the white flag claim alone if other claims could not be substantiated. GoSL has always had a very good legal team and it appears that HRW and AI have fallen into the trap of their own prejudices (e.g. thinking that Colombo would be equivalent to Port Moresby- actually, from a distance it could be considered similar to Kandy!). Wijayapala has quite aptly illustrated the sort prejudice I speak of.

Having said all this Sri Lankans should denounce any crimes no matter who has committed them. Not because HRW says so. But it is the correct and dignified thing to do. Sri Lankans also owe it to the million or so Tamil and Sinhala people (mostly poor) who have suffered under the various conflicts the Sri Lankan state has had with its own citizens.

Sudath, can you please show this evidence (verified) other than quoted anonymous sources?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/09/london-riots-bbc-interview_n_922857.html

Let’s see Channel 4 or BBC for that matter doing a hard hitting interview on police brutality in their own backyard! Not talk down the people!

Let’s see how HRW address UK riots… hypocrites!

1 – Why has it taken Human Rights watch 8 years to formulate allegations of war crimes against members of the former George W Bush administration?

2 – Is it not because huge numbers of people world-wide have pointed out the hypocrisy of HRW and similar organisations in concentrating their efforts on allegations against relatively poor & weak countries such as Sri Lanka, while making only vague gestures regarding allegations against rich & powerful western countries such as the USA & UK?

3 – Why has the HRW not taken up the overall issue of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, led by the US & the UK governments, being an illegal act of war in itself, and why have they not demanded an international independent investigation into the many credible allegations into the roles of George W Bush (then US president)and Tony Blair (then UK prime minister)and other instigators of that invasion? That war ended 6 years ago (according to Mr Bush) while the war against the Tamil Tigers ended barely 2 years ago.

4 – How does Brad Adams (the American director of the Asian section of HRW) explain these matters?

Pitastharaputhraya,
Wow! adulation of Fonseka. My rating of Fonseka has been above 0 for most part in the past two years but has fluctuated, going to negative momentarily after the first Ch-4 video. I am surprised that you see adulation at Fonseka being called General (a deliberate defiance of the Rajapakses) and “innocent” (based on current evidence).

If you want examples of adulation of General Fonseka here are some comments from LEN:

“Api paramparaawenma SLFP awun.Ath General nisa jeewithaye kisidaaka chandaya nodunna UNP yata chandaya dunna.”

” rata LTTE mineemaruwangen beraa gattha,Awanka, Jathihithaishi wirodhaara athi garu Sarath Fonseka mathi thumaa witharai ratata ithaamath awashya,mema wadagath deya karanna puluwan naayaka kenekuta inne”

“SF kiyanakota munge kakul patalenawa, Diva patalenawa kotinma kiyanawanam bola dekath patalewenawa”

“SF kiyanne jaathika weerayek.Awrudu 30 ka saapayen rata nidahas kara gaththu Sinha Puthrayek.Wupadinna enna daruwange Devi kenek.Awani sreestha Naayakayekuta kala sakkili wada walata mun denna athuluwa Mahinda+Gotata daduwam labenaamai”

When one compares SF to MR I have to say that current evidence point to SF being the better of the two. If on the other hand Lakshman Kadirgamar was alive there would be no contest as to who the preferred leader would be. I doubt that SF would even consider putting his hat into the ring if Kadirigamar was alive.

You believe that I admire SF (to an extent that is true) and presumably that makes it difficult for me to be broad-minded. I believe that you also have a surprising venom towards SF notwithstanding your correct analysis of military dictatorship being undesirable.

I would suggest that we debate the pros and cons of the thesis that “the megalomanic as he is, there would have been a danger of Sinhalese Buddhist Army Dictatorship in the country, which would have been much worse than the Rajapaksha oligarchy”.

I would be arguing for the negative in regard to the above assertion but would be very interested in the evidence you can bring to bear on the matter. I have studied both SF and MR as carefully as I can in the past 2-3 years and would welcome an interaction with you (GV permitting).

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/10/27/legacy-abuse-sri-lanka

“has Sri Lanka discovered the magic formula for brazenly ignoring meddlesome Western countries and getting away with it?
“But now the government seems to have discovered that ignoring the strongly held opinions of powerful Western partners has consequences that might not be in the long-term interest of the country or its ruling elite after all.
“The Sri Lankan government, however, gambled on the idea that no matter how upset the West may be, nobody would judge the “winners.” It dismissed all criticism out of hand. It attacked Western governments for their own human rights practices, calling the pleas for civilian protection “hypocrisy and sanctimony.”
“Sri Lanka’s hardnosed response to its Western critics may have worked in the short term but it may not be, after all, sustainable.”

Is it the official position of HRW that Western governments are the sole arbiter of what is acceptable and what isn’t, and that non-Western governments are obliged to do what the Westerners tell them? Was there anything in Dr. Neistat’s article urging Sri Lanka to uphold human rights for the sake of human rights, rather than for the sake of diplomatic relations with the West?

I do not adulate Fonseka but I do respect the professionalism he has displayed. Further, the point I make is that Sarath Fonseka is almost certainly innocent of any War Crimes and certainly innocent of trumped up charges levelled against him so far.

From a moral perspective I reserve my judgement even though you make a valid point. We may never know if your point is correct or not. I completely agree that the military cannot in any way be permitted to have a say in the politics of the country.
We have to keep in mind that SF was a civilian and is certainly one now. In terms of him spending Gaol time, it is probably something he welcomes. I would welcome it in his shoes for one reason. As a military man I would be responsible for much misery even if that misery was actioned legally. So, in order to balance things I would accept suffering personally on my part. Even, having my rank and awards rescinded would be welcome. I would attempt to avoid greatness at the expense of others. All this has to be balanced against doing what is right and what is my duty.

If I do the above, then I can rest easy that the most precious things in my life, my children would be free of my Kamma. I would certainly no bring them in to politics.

Reading between the lines of what has happened in the past two years, I don’t believe we have seen Fonseka’s final play yet. This is not because of adulation but because I think he has an innate intelligence far above that of his adversaries.

One caveat. I think he made a mistake in talking about Sri Lanka historically belonging to singhalese. He clarified this comment later and attempted to retract the meaning it appeared to convey. Unfortunately for him, the label of racist was already on him. I don’t believe that he is a racist any more than MR is. He is certainly not in the ilk of JHU. I think the Tamil Diaspora need to make peace with him in order to achieve a higher goal. I think they are capable of it.