@ Nihal/Heshan,
The “big names” have given the LLRC qualified approval. The UK, US, EU have adopted a ‘wait and see’ policy. China, Russia, India and others have been broadly supportive.

International ‘humanitarians’ have predictably dismissed most of it out of hand, but their craven whining can be ignored, given that AI in particular now get financial support from pro-LTTE front groups. It’s now up to MR & co to make a complete hash of implementing even some of the basic recommendations of the LLRC.

Odd that you were too principled to testify before the LLRC, yet hundreds of ordinary Tamil civilians did so, despite instances of intimidation setting a wonderful precedent that you were unwilling or unable to emulate. Vacation days are in short supply in the US, no?

The Lankan Armed Forces were NEVER mono ethnic.
Never in the past and not at the present.
It will not be so in the future either.

Nihal/Heshan, the TRC and the LLRC were set up with completely different objectives in mind. The TRC was part of the deal offered by the winning side (the blacks) to the losing side (the whites) to ensure they stepped down and didn’t prolong the conflict. Ie it was to achieve final victory over the Apartheid state. The sweetener in the TRC was that it offered a way out for the Apartheid government which feared its agents would be prosecuted/persecuted for what they had done in defence of the state. The TRC guaranteed that those coming before it would be free of punishment in exchange for full disclosure and contriteness (except in extreme cases of multiple murders, etc). So to say that amnesty was given out of over-eagerness, as you claim, is to reveal that you haven’t understood the purpose of the TRC; amnesty was always what it was offering the perpetrators.

On the other hand, the LLRC wasn’t set up as a means to achieve victory over the Tigers. That victory was complete. It is in fact a method to get at the truth and bring about reconciliation.

Not surprising to see that you fail to see any connection between the LLRC and the TRC. I have come across similar arguments for devolution. That you fail to see why the LLRC was a failure is not at all important; all the big names in the business have dismissed it. And the usual rogues – Russia, India, Ambassador Jayatillake – have unanimously endorsed it. I would point out, however, that in terms of precedent , the LLRC Report sets a very bad example. Of course, I don’t expect someone such as yourself to understand that point either, so I will not elaborate.

P.S: I have no connection to “Heshan” (in another thread I was labelled “Tamil”… you nationalists ought to take a vote!), and I do not wish to testify before a band of bigots.

@ Nihal (aka Heshan)
The LLRC will only be a waste of time depending on the degree of implementation of its recommendations. Comparisons with the TRC really are a waste of time. Different conflict, a different country, political situation etc. The TRC was good for South Africa, but Sri Lanka isn’t South Africa.

Reconciliation to be accompanied by threats of war-crimes trials, aided and abetted by the usual suspect? You must be delusional. India and Russia have already indicated their pro-GoSL position vis-à-vis the LLRC, so I can confidently predict more gnashing and wailing by the human rights overseers in Geneva or wherever else they happen to congregate.

p.s. I applaud your obvious concern for all of Sri Lanka’s citizens’ human rights and well-being. So what prevented you from coming to Colombo, Boosa or Puttalam to testify before the LLRC? Lack of vacation time in the US ?

You are correct, the LLRC was a waste of time. This was supposed to be Sri Lanka’s version of a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” but it failed miserably. Compare with the South African version, which is superior on all accounts:

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was a court-like restorative justice[1] body assembled in South Africa after the abolition of apartheid. Witnesses who were identified as victims of gross human rights violations were invited to give statements about their experiences, and some were selected for public hearings. Perpetrators of violence could also give testimony and request amnesty from both civil and criminal prosecution.

The TRC, the first of the nineteen held internationally to stage public hearings, was seen by many as a crucial component of the transition to full and free democracy in South Africa. Despite some flaws, it is generally (although not universally) thought to have been successful.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission_%28South_Africa%29

The TRC was so eager to get to the truth that it went to the extent of granting amnesty to some perpetrators, in exchange for their testimony. On the TRC website, http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/reparations/index.htm, it says that many victims were offered 30,000 Rand compensation. You can also see that the TRC interviewed a much wider spectrum of society than did the LLRC: http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/special/index.htm.

p.s. If you feel so strongly about it, why didn’t you to come to Colombo and give these submissions directly to the commissioners?

The LLRC was headed by a panel of so-called judicial experts. Their objective was to determine whether the LTTE and Sri Lankan armed forces had broken certain laws , both domestic and international, based on the evidence. This kind of investigation is part of any judicial process. The fact that these legal experts chose to selectively ignore key pieces of evidence and exonerate the military of any wrong-doing when it came to the worst violations, is not coincidental, but endemic to the Sri Lankan judicial process, which is plagued by political interference. It is true that the LLRC did not have the power to convict; but that should not matter, as their “politically favorable” verdict is as clear as broad daylight. The evidence presented by certain Tamils that chose to testify is also questionable in certain respects – compared to the evidence given presented by the BBC, Wikileaks, the 3 Tamils doctors who were forced to retract their statements by GOSL, the Darusman Report, and the CH4 tape – numerous contradictions arise. For example, Gothabaya Rajapakse is on record saying that hospitals are a legitimate target. Then you have reports of PTK hospital being shelled, with 67 dead, a claim supported by the UN and a Tamil doctor on the scene. The LLRC avoids this issue, which is equivalent to exonerating the government of a war-crimes charge:

“Although the commission is not in a position to come to a definitive conclusion in determining responsibility that one party or the other was responsible for the shelling, nevertheless given the number of representations made by civilians that shells had in fact fallen on hospitals causing damage to the hospitals and in some instances loss or injury to civilian lives, consideration should be given to the expeditious grant of appropriate redress to those affected after due inquiry as a humanitarian gesture which would instil confidence in the reconciliation process.

If you admit that witnesses were threatened, then it doesn’t matter whether Amnesty is biased or not, unless you also presume that Amnesty is the one that did the intimidated. If witnesses were threatened, then it means that they were unable to tell the whole truth, that other potential witnesses would have been discouraged from testifying, and that the conclusions drawn by the LRRC are skewed.