no, that too is incorrect. the LLRC was appointed by MR on the strength of his joint statement with the UNSG after Ban Ki-moon visited SL in 2009, in which MR agreed to take measures on accountability for any violations. this was in fact during the period when the Tamil diaspora and many NGOs were accusing the GoSL of running concentration camps. this was the reason for Ban’s visit. it was only after the concentration camp nonsense fizzled out that the war crimes issue was raised for want of any other cause. the UNSG almost simultaneously appointed the Darusman Panel in an advisory capacity, and not in an investigative one. MR had no reason to worry about action by the UNSG as the latter can’t take unilateral action of an investigative nature. he must act through one of the UN councils such as the UNSC (pretty much wrapped up by SL diplomats), UNHRC (permanently stalled by Russia and China), etc. there was also no reason to fear the Darusman Report because it was never meant for public consumption, and only became public because of a leak, some say by elements within the GoSL itself.

certainly, the GoSL seems generally uninterested in conducting an investigation or in accountability as a whole, that’s not a great revelation, but to attribute anything to the Darusman Report beyond its original brief is wishful thinking. the only reason the report even received any of the spotlight is because the Tamil nationalists attempted to use it as evidence of war crimes, when it was never meant to be that. as pointed out many times already to you and others, subsequent UN resolutions made no reference at all to the report.

i agree that ignoring the Darusman Report was very costly, and that was precisely what Marga said; that the GoSL needs to engage with the allegations and lay them to rest. to the contradiction of what you are saying it is in fact you that has failed to comprehend what the Darusman Report is, as well as what Marga was trying to do. there was no reason to discredit the Darusman Report as an advisory report to the UNSG because the latter was already engaged with the UN’s focus on SL. the Marga Report was to critique the Darusman Report as an investigative report; which it was never meant to be, but which it was being used as by those desperate to show nonexistent evidence of genocide.

again, i hope you’re clear about this too now and that we can move on.

Sorry for the belated response. I concede that on the face of it, LLRC was not mandated as a result of the Darusman Panel. However, MR’s appointment of the LLRC panel was precipitated by the impending action from the UNSG. MR thought that his action would delay/deter the UN action. MR’s intention was not genuine predicated on his subsequent listless attempt of implementing the recommendations of the LLRC. However one looks at it, the Drausman Report plays a crucial role in all UN subsequent actions as far as UN is concerned.

I refer you to an article published on CT by Prof. Rajiva Wegisigne stating that, ignoring the Drausman report was very costly to Sri Lanka. May I remind you that, you endeavoured to discredit the Drausmen report without comprehending it’s credence and implications.

primarily, i believe that a sovereign nation should manage itself and there should be external interventions only when that nation is a danger to the world or to its own helpless people. if that is indeed the situation, there would be evidence that such a situation is in existence or has occurred. for examples of the need for an intervention look at the former Yugoslavia, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the Rwandan genocide; for an example of a wrongful intervention, look at the Coalition invasion of Iraq. in the SL case, there is no evidence of the need for an investigation, never mind intervention.

however, i believe that the GoSL should have engaged with the allegations (in spite of the lack of evidence), conducted its own reasonably transparent investigation, and played the game that the UN requires it to. the fact that there was no genocide would have been plain and the allegations weak. because the GoSL has instead behaved like a stubborn child (or like Saddam Hussein, who also could have avoided intervention), the UN has been forced to act, and countries like the US and India are finding it hard to argue against such action.

now that the GoSL has lost the battle at the UNHRC, it should at least at this late stage cooperate with the investigation so that its findings will be credible and possibly acceptable. but i am still against the external investigation for the same reason i always was; that it is unnecessary.

by facts, i assume you mean statistics. it isn’t about the numbers, and if you read my response to Alex, you will see my view on the matter. if you prefer to view things according to the numbers, go for it. i couldn’t really care less.

Whatever it is, this tack of his appears to be fast losing currency among fair minded readers of reasonable intelligence. This is a pity for DJ’s inherent talents and ability to convince are quite unmistakable. It is however the price one pays when attempting to dress up the truth in another colour.

Strangely, DJ has been extremely silent in the aftermath of Aluthgama, and that could be not for nothing?

I was just skimming through and the line “as i have repeatedly told you, i am against an external investigation aimed at punitive action” caught my eye. Can you explain why David? What is wrong with an external investigation?

How about a direct answer David? Unless you are having difficulty backing up your claim with facts?

it was an example, not a windmill. take a break, Don.

my point about racism being prevalent throughout all the communities is not being used by me to justify Sinhalese chauvinism, i have already told you unambiguously that i believe it to be unjustified, wrong, and sometimes criminal. perhaps you dozed off again at that point. the fact of widespread racism is being used by the GoSL and other elements to justify Sinhalese violence, yes, but that isn’t my fault, nor does it change the facts. you can’t simply deny facts just because someone is making use of them to forward unacceptable agendas.

i didn’t say anyone was implacably racist; please don’t make stuff up. i do believe peoples can be transformed if those who are interested work hard enough.

Singapore is not a partitioned state. what on earth are you talking about??? Singapore is a dictatorship where the Chinese ethnicity dominates everything and other ethnicities have a second class status.

you start off the paragraph promising to discuss the Muslims, but then talk about partitioning SL into a Tamil area where liberal Sinhalese can also live, with no mention of the Muslims. isn’t that your real agenda, here, Alex — separatism 😉 so what about the Muslims — you propose they be uprooted from all over SL if they wish to get away from Sinhalese racism and go live in a Tamil area where they have been historically massacred and driven out of? that’s your plan? lol.

again, in reference to your theory on intervention-ala-Serbia, you seem incapable of looking beyond the Tamils. this post and this discussion is primarily about violence against the Muslims, not the Tamils. and yes, the western world had indeed realized it needed to destroy the Tigers, which added to the unlikeliness of intervention, but today the world is decidedly opposed to Islam, and it is unlikely to intervene on behalf of Islam, even if there is violence on the level of 2008/9, which anyway didn’t bring intervention, and which is unlikely to be repeated. which is why i told you weeks ago that the argument must only be a moral one, and not one based on the likelihood of intervention, which is extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future. yes, i know there are many like you who are hoping and praying for large scale violence against the Tamils after which an international Messiah will storm the beaches and save the Tamils, but that’s not likely to happen. so what’s your plan if there is no large scale violence?

thanks again for also confirming with regard to my hypothetical (not rhetorical) scenario that liberal space has nothing to do with your interventionist agenda, but simply to do with investigation and punishment. i had already pointed this out to you, i just wanted confirmation, and was forced to use a hypothesis since you seem curiously incapable of grasping abstract theory.

i had already explained to you the part about there being no big western conspiracy, but rather many interest groups. i’m not sure what you hope to accomplish by rewording what i said and retyping it here.

i’m glad you feel that there is no urgency for intervention, because i can assure you that the current intervention will be mostly the same old same old. hopefully you won’t be too disappointed at its lack of progress then. the path was not inevitable; it just seems inevitable to those like you who have already concluded that there was genocide in spite of the lack of evidence.

love for a country doesn’t mean one must agree with everything the country does. that would have made the black soldiers in Vietnam unpatriotic. but let’s move on, your latest bit of rhetoric has little to do with the actual discussion.

i didn’t say anyone must suffer in silence, but yes there will be suffering before things get better. since you are only interested in the Tamils, i think things can only get better. they already have Tamil rule in both the Northern and Eastern provinces, which is a historical first and a good start. there will be incremental gains and slow progress, and if there is no urgency (as you vouch) there shouldn’t be too much to worry about long term.

But the Muslim issue is a different one and one which you seem neither interested in nor have a solution for, like most Tamil nationalists.

my position remains the same, and my tone changes when i am insulted and attacked by people who can’t conceive of an argument themselves. many people prefer to pretend their anonymity is for safety when in reality it is simply to protect their reputations. either way, it doesn’t bother me if you don’t have the courage to put your name where your mouth is, but i find it cowardly to use that anonymity to then attack someone who isn’t hiding on a personal level. sort of like hiding behind a wall and throwing stones at people on the street.