REFUGEE

The above proverb which might not appear to be very pleasant, speaks of a political reality capable of universal application to global situations even today though it may have been a down to earth observation made by an ancient community in the Orient based on their limited surroundings. It is more down to earth than Kautilya’s ‘Matsya Nyaya’ (the big fish devouring the small one) which he probably found in the Vedic texts as I did while reading the Vedas.

In an article entitled “The End of Exceptionalism in War Crimes” published in the Harvard International Review (Spring edition 2009), the authors argued that “Any claim that the US may have to moral high ground in foreign policy necessarily requires that the United States join the International Criminal Court (ICC) and do so relatively soon. The United States needs the ICC to help restore its global credibility, discipline its own decision-making, and strengthen judicial intervention against atrocity crimes…….”

“The crustacean carries his night-soil on its head as if to pronounce to the world that he is the cleanest” - An Oriental Proverb

Rejection of Rome Statute & Kyoto Protocol

The U.S.’s position was one of refusal to become a party to the Rome Statute and also to the Kyoto Protocol and multilateralism writ in general. But she had like in a number of other instances, contributed to the formulation of the Statute and then objected to its adoption in July 1988. U.S. was among the seven countries which opposed its adoption others being China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar and Yemen. So she was in congenial (read comradely) company with countries like China and Libya over that issue. Yet it was the actions of the U.S.

that surprised most people. The Harvard International Review commentary put it as follows:
“In recent years, the United States has lost not only its leadership in the field of international law but has also crippled its own national interests and foreign policy objectives. The descent into a yawning credibility gap can be traced back to 2001, even before 9/11, and the Bush administration’s rejection of the ICC, the Kyoto Protocol, and multilateralism writ large. These decisions were based on a mindset deeply skeptical and dismissive of international law”.

Bill Clinton seizes the opportunity

There is one opinion which says that President Clinton understood that it was in the best interest of the U.S. “to stay engaged in the negotiations as a signatory state, unintimidated by the process”. But others think he knew that signing the Rome Statute did not mean everything was lost as ratification by the US Senate would not happen during the remaining 20 days of his presidency and that years would probably elapse before Senate approval could be sought.” And it might never be ratified.

“One of President Bill Clinton’s final acts in office, therefore, was to authorize one of the authors, David Scheffer—who led the US delegation to the UN talks on the ICC— to sign the Rome Statute of the ICC on behalf of the U.S. on December 31, 2000.

Reject or Punish

Under President George Bush, U.S. not only “unsigned” the Rome Statue but the administration also threatened punitive measures against countries which joined the Statue by warning of withdrawal of military assistance and economic support.

U.S. enjoys “exceptionalism”

“The Bush administration’s punitive measures exacerbated the self-defeating results of exceptionalism,” the H/IR observed.

Another commented that in a further bid to place US officials and military personnel beyond the reach of war crimes prosecution, the Bush administration cut off military aid to about 35 countries that failed to meet a June 30 deadline for signing bilateral immunity agreements with the U.S. but the administration also issued “waivers” from signing the bi-lateral agreement for the 19 members of NATO as well as US-designated “major non-NATO allies,” including Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, New Zealand, South Korea and the Philippines. Also exempted was Taiwan.

“ This is not the first such case…… In 2003 Belgium was bullied into changing its law and procedure, following Israeli and US pressure about complaints brought against the former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon and ex-US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld. (The US threatened Belgium with moving NATO headquarters out of Brussels.) Since then, victims have been unable to initiate any judicial investigation; that is now the prerogative solely of the prosecution, which normally reflects government policy. This is a major obstacle to accountability under international law” wrote Sharon Weill who is a researcher at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, and lectures at Tel Aviv and Paris II Universities after commenting on U.S. withdrawing support for a Security Council Resolution against Israel which she herself cosponsored originally.

“The American Servicemen’s Protection Act of 2002, a measure passed by Congress, mandated the aid cutoff. The measure includes what some have dubbed the “Hague invasion clause,” a section that authorizes the US military to use every possible means to free any US citizen jailed on the orders of the ICC, which is based in The Hague.” The clause applies not only to armed forces personnel but also civilians in U.S. establishments overseas.

“The US action only underscores in the crudest possible fashion that the only form of international justice Washington will permit is that of the victor against the vanquished, of the major imperialist powers against the impoverished and oppressed nations”, wrote the observer.
This principle is already incorporated in the treaty governing the ICC’s jurisdiction, which allows any country to try its own citizens if they are accused of war crimes and reserves ICC proceedings for those cases in which a defendant’s country is unwilling or unable to do so.

Even if a US official or military officer were accused of war crimes before the tribunal, the case would immediately be referred to the American courts.

Washington’s belligerent attitude toward the international court is thus bound up with the unilateral foreign and military policy elaborated by the Bush administration. Its significance is not just its refusal to recognize any international tribunal to try U.S. citizens but also its refusal to recognize any international law or treaty that even suggests a limitation on the US “right” to carry out military actions, occupations and repression anywhere on the face of the planet.

The observation that Sharon Well made about Israel, i,e., that “…Yet awareness in Israel of the possibility of being held accountable abroad does not seem to influence the treatment of war crimes allegations, as was demonstrated by the Shehadeh case, or recent war crimes committed in Gaza……if Israel does not change its practice of impunity, this indicates its unwillingness, or inability, to prosecute war crimes allegations. If Israel is not able to prosecute its own war criminals and if the International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction, the only way to get justice is through the exercise of universal jurisdiction, an obligation for all states set in the 1949 Geneva Conventions” is equally well applicable to the U.S. as far as commitment of war crimes are concerned as seen in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, though the U.S. legal position may not be as offender-friendly as in Israel.

No stopping

Washington’s hostility towards the ICC did not prevent other nations from ratifying the Rome Statute. Others who were forced to sign the flawed non-surrender agreements with Washington did so “holding their noses [tight]” as they were pressured. A few obtained “waivers” from the “super power” as I said earlier. Many friends and allies of the U.S. however, opted for an active role for the ICC in confronting atrocity crimes rather than “buying into Washington’s exaggerated fears about the Court”. At present 104 nations are states parties to the Rome Statute; all of America’s major allies save Israel, Turkey, and Chile have joined the ICC.

Japan approved accession to the ICC in April and formal entry is expected by October of this year. Israel has rejoined critical talks on the crime of aggression as an active observer state.

States parties include Canada, Mexico, all of the EU nations, and the majority of African and Latin American-Caribbean countries. The Asia-Pacific region lags behind in terms of member states. Except for Japan Republic of Korea, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Jordan, other Asian countries have refrained from accession to the Rome Statute. In the Pacific, the Republic of Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the Marshall Islands are among 12 nations from the region that have joined the ICC. In large measure, the United States is now seen isolated in its opposition to the ICC and its influence on international justice is declining rapidly.

Why U.S. taking initiative to bring charges against Sri Lanka

Against the backdrop of U.S.’s constraints in signing the Rome Statue and the Kyoto Protocol, and the intimidation of countries which signed it rather than enter into bi-lateral obligations, i.e. “non-surrender agreements” with the U.S., how does one explain the U.S. trying to play a key role in bringing war offences charges against Sri Lanka? From a consideration of the overall principle which does not seem to apply breaks on U.S. personnel overseas in committing war offences, on what moral grounds could her actions be justified?

Hasn’t the U.S. lost its leverage to move in the matter (which Bill Clinton was after) as a result of the withdrawal of her signature to the Rome Statue - her opposition to the Rome Statute; delay in signing it, and ‘un-signing’ of it under President George Bush?

At the bottom of the U.S. trying to bring up “war crimes” allegations against Sri Lanka, there could be matters of self- interest arising from her refusal to be a party to the Rome Statue – wanting to prove to the world that she is a state which contributes to highest international norms in the conduct of wars/armed conflicts (The crustacean analogy applies here - but to one arising from a combination of several other reasons. These include the prospects it offers in ‘down-playing’ those war atrocities her forces have committed under the command structure in the recent past in Iraq like use of ‘excessive power’ to defeat a foe in Iraq which was outnumbered all round over which international attention is still focused ; and those of the past in Vietnam and Yugoslavia and the continuing situations in Afghanistan against Afghan civilians. (In the last two cases with the participation of her NATO allies are committing). The best description of the situation is again provided by another Sinhala saying where the burglar running away from the scene of burglary pretends as if he is chasing after the imaginary ‘burglar’ who had run ahead of him. That is shouting “onna hora, onna hora, allapiyaw” (There the thief, there he is, catch him!). All run with him while he escapes.

In other words, U.S. wanted the situation in Sri Lanka to continue to fester. That is despite listing the LTTE as a terrorist organization and prosecuting some illicit arms dealers. That was not because it was policy but because there were obligations under the U.S. law. The way the LTTE fund collecting mechanism survived and the present consultation with the Tamil Diaspora which comprises acknowledged LTTE and pro-LTTE groups expose the lie. To sum up, from the U.S.’s attitudes towards the issue of the LTTE it is clear that she wished to see the LTTE continuing as a countervailing political force with security dimensions, to serve its own interests not only in Sri Lanka, but also for its dirty work in South Asia. The net work that the LTTE had built up in South East Asia in countries like Myanmar, Thailand, Kampuchea was an advantage. This was the reason for pushing for a truce at the point the LTTE was cornered in the Nandi Kadol mangroves. There was even expectation that the U.S. marines might intervene. That was the LTTE expectation.

More importantly, in my view, there lies a far more important political reason behind the American move, namely a response to the growing Sri Lanka China relationship as I discussed in my article posted in the Asia Tribune recently. That is the need to ‘cow down’ an imbecile little fellow who is getting out of control, as it may appear to American eyes as having close dealings with America’s rivals/ enemies.

That observation has meaning when considered against what the former Swedish Prime Minister, Carl Bildt stated in July 1999 over NATO’s invasion of former Yugoslavia. He said: “the fact that Yugoslavia does not have a so-called "free market", and is today, the only European country to have a largely Socialist-based economy, is the main reason behind the deep-rooted hostility of NATO towards Yugoslavia. Like with Montenegro today, the plight of Yugoslavia's Albanian minority has been the pretext to destroy a country that refuses to accept the "free market" and thus its entrance into Europe's "nations of nations", as the EU has been referred to. It gave the NATO alliance the excuse to sidetrack the UN and launch a massive air bombing campaign. …..” Former Yugoslavia was the last Communist post in Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union and her satellites. It was then the only stumbling block for the expansion of Capitalist imperialism in Europe. That had to be destroyed to achieve the western (read American) goal.(more later).

How closely that observation fits into Sri Lanka’s situation today! America’s obsession today is Communist China not Cuba next door. China could cripple the U.S. economy if she withdraws the credit she has given to the U.S. [along with Japan]; but it is China’s growing military power that concerns her. China’s increasing blue-water capacity has become a problem for her so much so that she is drawing India’s attention to the prospects of the Chinese fleet and submarines getting favoured treatment for refueling at the Chinese financed new port at Hambantota. It is this growing close relationship between Sri Lanka with China and the countries like Iran and Libya (the U.S. considered the last two as ‘axis of evil’) that is at the bottom of U.S. action of trying to raise “war crimes” against Sri Lanka. (see my article: in Asian Tribune).

Serious flaw

However, if the U.S. thinks of absolving herself for those crimes and atrocities committed in Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan with NATO allies, while raising the issues of another country, that should be seen as a serious flaw in the interpretation of the present international regime concerning the conduct of war and the philosophy guiding it.

America’s confused policy on “ war crimes” issues relating to other countries, as much as on terrorism, is also seen in the case of UN’s refusal to carry out an investigation into Israeli attack on the Jenin Palastinian refugee camp in 2002 where Israel was accused of committing “war crimes”. U.S. refused to support the UN action after having sponsored the original Security Council Resolution. U.S. Ambassador to U.N., John D. Negropnte said:” U.S. is opposed to the Jenin war inquiry. Though the U.S. was the original sponsor of the Security Council Resolution endorsing the Jenin investigation American diplomats have come to view the U.N. inquiry “a divisive and potentially dangerous distraction.”

It was not a change of mind as it may appear. Even a child would know today the U.S. would not take any steps that put Israel against the wall. These are the diplomatic games that America plays as we who are familiar with their strategies in diplomacy know. That was part of the U.S. policy of “staying engaged,” (as in the case of the Rome Statute) so that she could finally withdraw support after having weakened the opposition [to Israel - read watered-down the resolution]. That is exactly what U.S. did in that case. That was not the only occasion when the U.S. went against the international law.

In the eight day bombing of the Gaza strip by Israeli in January 2009 when many including Nizzar Ghayan, a Hamas senior official, and his family member were killed and many were injured and much property including media installations were destroyed, the U.S. was criticized for the slowness of her response. France stole the initiative after noting U.S.’s slow reaction. Even the UN Secretary General complained about the lack of inadequacy of response from regional and international players. U.S. only joined in a four-party (US,UN,E/U and Russia)urging an immediate truce.

The case of Madrid trials of Israeli seven Israeli political and military officials for allegedly committing a war crimes by dropping a one-tonne bomb on the al-Daraj district of Gaza City, one of the most densely populated areas in the world, around midnight on 22 July 2002 which killed the Hamas leader Salah Shehadeh, and 14 civilians, most of them children, and injured 150 people were injured and damaged or destroyed nearby houses on the basis of ‘universal jurisdiction’ is another case in point. The Israeli government remained silent over submitting information until the Court issued its judgment. “Politicised reactions in Israel showed how states perceive the separation of powers doctrine in reaction to accountability for international crimes”.

Under political pressure from Israel, China and the US, the Spanish Congress agreed to amend the law on universal jurisdiction, limiting it to cases with Spanish victims, or suspects present on Spanish soil. On 30 June the Court of Appeal ordered the closure of the investigation.

ICC investigations

For those who are concerned over this inequity in the application of the principles of the international regime in this situation, it might appear as a matter for some consolation that the chief prosecutor of the ICC is collecting evidence against alleged war crimes committed in Afghanistan by NATO troops as well as Taliban. The dispute over whether U.S. soldiers could be tried under the ICC in view of “The American Servicemen’s Protection Act of 2002” is also under examination by the ICC. That should not be taken too seriously because the Statute provides for allowing any country to try its own citizens if they are accused of war crimes and reserves ICC proceedings for those cases in which a defendant’s country is unwilling or unable to do so. Even if a US official or military officer were accused of war crimes before the tribunal, the case would immediately be referred to the American courts. The U.S. would fight tooth and nail to uphold the jurisdiction of U.S.coutrs over her nationals overseas.

The fact the ICC is conducting investigations, however, might give some satisfaction if the countries concerned conduct their own investigations and prosecute the culprits under transparency.

The chief prosecutor of ICC is not altogether sure if preliminary investigations could lead to instituting prosecutions though he has presently listed Afghanistan (NATO and Taliban), Georgia, Colombia, Kenya and the Israeli forces in Gaza for preliminary investigation. His first problem as he says, is collecting evidence which is not easy in some cases. That could leave the investigations in a place like Afghanistan out of question. He has several other situations in mind which he has not disclosed. Though the ICC set up courts for the prosecution of former Yugoslav leaders and those responsible for genocide in Rwanda, yet the ICC mechanism lacks strength.

NATO’s illegal action in former Yugoslavia ignored

The NATO invasion of former Yugoslavia has brought international law concerning war under severe strain. The handling of the allegations against NATO in former Yugoslavia does not also give much credit to the ICC. A report entitled “Lawyers serve indictment on NATO leaders for war crimes” written by Sean Mac Mithuna observed:

“In June 2000, the Russian and Chinese representatives on the United Nations Security Council sharply criticized The Hague tribunal, accusing it of "being politicized, one-sided and biased". At a council session, the two ambassadors severely criticized the tribunal for failing to open an investigation against NATO for crimes committed in bombing civilians in Yugoslavia. Russia accused the court of having political ambitions and practising an anti-Serb policy, and stated that "Everything indicates that the Hague tribunal has in advance determined the guilty parties in the Yugoslav tragedy by closing its eyes to crimes committed by Croats and Muslims . . .".

“Now the war is over, and NATO troops are in occupation of Kosovo-Metohija on behalf of the UN, the genocide continues: According to the UNHCR, almost 250,000 Yugoslav citizens of Montenegrin, Roma or Serb origin have fled the province. By September 2000, the Yugoslav government has documented over 1000 murders alone believed to have been carried out by the CIA-supported KLA, whom, many observers in the Balkans believe, will be installed in power in Kosovo-Metohija, once the province is detached from the Yugoslav Federation by NATO. The subversion of Yugoslavia continues with political assassinations of key officials in the government and economy, and support given by NATO to political parties in Montenegro which favour separation from Yugoslavia…..”

“In the interests of justice and international law the International War Crimes Tribunal (IWCT) should bring these indictments against those named below, so they can be brought to justice in The Hague for their alleged involvement in genocide and the sanctioning of crimes against humanity during the NATO assault on Yugoslavia. Failure of the IWCT would allow NATO leaders to assume that they will never be challenged legally and that they could attack other countries - such as Cuba for example - using the same pretext that they attacked Yugoslavia, further undermining international law and the role of the United Nations in resolving conflicts by peaceful means between states.]

Others like the NATO's foreign affairs select committee of the British parliament said that the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia was illegal under international law. It also concluded that as NATO is a "defensive alliance" and had no power under its treaty to launch a war against Yugoslavia without the specific authority of the United Nations (UN). The overwhelming mass of evidence given to the committee ruled that the bombing of Yugoslavia was illegal under international law. Emyr Jones Parry, the Foreign Office political director, insisted the NATO aggression was legal, but admitted in evidence to the committee that "normally" the UK has one of three legal justifications for military action against a country, namely, 1) UN Security Council resolution specifically authorising it; 2) Being invited in to do it; 3) In self-defence. None of these criteria actually pertained in this case to justify NATO aggression against Yugoslavia.

“It is clear now that both the U.S. and the UK governments deliberately waged war against Yugoslavia without the authority of the UN because it knew at best both Russia and China (and possibly France) would use their veto on the UN Security Council to prevent any military action without specific UN approval. At worse, it also refused to recognise its authority in this matter because both governments knew their version of events in Kosovo would not stand up to independent scrutiny - i.e., the persistent claims and propaganda by both British and U.S. government ministers of widespread killings - one British government Defence minister - without any proof, claimed that some 10,000 Albanians had been killed - some in the U.S. speculated that it could be as high as 100,000.

“Apparently, during the NATO air-strikes the then British government's attorney general, John Morris, questioned the legality of the bombing. The foreign affairs select committee also queried whether the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was a genuine mistake.
The members of the committee also conclude that the Contact Group, led by the Americans, placed "unreal demands" on the Yugoslavs during the negotiations at Rambouillet near Paris, including the requirement that NATO troops be allowed "free movement" inside the whole of Yugoslavia.”

That was not the only occasion the U.S. went behind international law. The situation in the Jenin refugee camp and the eight day bombing of Gaza in January 2009 by Israel were refereed to earlier. These show that U.S. responses are very selective and not principled in her approach to questions “war crime” allegations. Self interest alone and supporting her friends like Israel dominate her decisions.

Collecting information

The U.S. system of collecting information comes under close review from time to time. The Asian Tribune filed a report recently which quoted a Task Force Report now before the Obama administration and Clinton’s State Department pointed out. The sum total of that was, as quoted from the recent Task Force report cited by A/T on how Washington was left to make judgments from ambiguous and frequently conflicting information and assessments. It was noted that the tendency of U.S. missions had been to report on developments in the capital rather than more remote rural areas, if only because of resource constraints. Cases were cited.

…….a crucial and difficult task for analysts was to distinguish systematic killing of civilians from more generalized background violence, as most if not all mass atrocities occur in the context of a larger conflict or a campaign of state repression. When the diplomatic and intelligence reporting from the post is inadequate, analysts in Washington are left to make judgments from ambiguous and frequently conflicting information and assessments”.

As evidence to build up allegations of war crimes, there has to be proof of a systematic, policy oriented, and command directed atrocities of genocide, killings, torture, incidents of rape, child recruitment et al. For example, in the case of the trial of Leut. Gen(Rtd) Moshe Ya’alon in the District Curt of Clumbia, under a private plaint the law suit alleged, among other things, it was taken into account that abuses were part of a pattern and practice of systematic human rights violations which were designed, ordered, implemented and directed with the participation of Lt. Gen. Ya'alon and carried out by military personnel acting under his command and at his direction. (Ya'alon is currently a "Distinguished Military Fellow" at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy).

Besides the above more documented instances could be quoted. For example, the whole affair of looking for WMDs in Iraq was based on such misguided information. That is if the alleged presence of WMDs was not cooked up in order to finish up Saddam Hussein’s regime and Iraq with that for several generations to come, if not beaten down to the stone age. The result was worth it as Madeleine Albright pronounced without any compunctions. The question now is whether or not any morality is left in a country which pursued such policies at which the whole civilized world held their noses hard has any grounds to point the finger at any other country over ‘excessive use of force’ in war including human right violations, absence of regard for humanitarian considerations.

In this context, it was not surprising that South and Central Asia Division in the State Department under Assistant Secretary, Mr.Blake, sought to consult the Tamil Diaspora for the preparation of the Report for the Congress.

Game of numbers

The game of numbers plays a significant role. The numbers killed in aerial bombing and staffing in Afghanistan are in hundreds or less at a time. That is forgetting thousands who were killed in each of the heavy bombing of population centres in Iraq causing also much damage to cultural properties in that country.

These could appear insignificant if the numbers in other theatres like for example, Sri Lanka, where the U.S. is not involved, could be exaggerated to thousands or even tens of thousands. Pro-terrorist information links and pro-terrorist INGOS and NGOS whose role in supporting the terror outfit is now being increasingly exposed, provide the grist for the mill.

In such a circumstance, the contrast itself will lead to lesser public attention to the numbers affected by U.S. and allied action in Afghanistan. It is a more devious way – a subtle one indeed – of meeting the situation than Medline Albright’s ‘no-repentance’ over millions dying in Iraq, including children and mothers.

There should be the same transparency and publicity to this process as now applied to the process the U.S. is following in respect of Sri Lanka. One advantage for the U.S. and others interested is the relatively higher transparency allowed by the Sri Lankan government where many INGOS and NGOS were present on the war scene and there are people who are invited to the U.S. to provide information as one recently witnessed. The ICC may not have that advantage in places like Afghanistan so that the claimed investigations in those places where NATO forces are involved could end up as damp squib.

How the game of numbers is used to create sensational situations was seen from the disparity of figures of Albanians killed in Kosovo from 10,000 claimed by the Defence Secrtary of the British government to a figure of 100,000 in U.S. estimates. Adding another digit was not a problem! “Both figures would not stand to scrutiny”, observed Mac Mithuna, Editor of ‘FLAME.’.
Background to the Report to the Congress.

The Asian Tribune report observes that Stephen Rapp who heads the Office of War Crime Issues is one of the offices of the U.S. State Department that reports directly to the Secretary of State and that his office advises the Secretary of State directly and formulates U.S. policy responses to atrocities committed in areas of conflict and elsewhere throughout the world. This office coordinates U.S. Government support for war crimes accountability in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Iraq, and other regions where crimes have been committed against civilian populations on a massive scale. This office works closely with other governments, international institutions, and non-government organizations, and with the courts themselves, to see that international and domestic war crimes tribunals succeed in their efforts to bring those responsible for such crimes to justice.

The Ambassador-at-large for War Crimes Issues heads this section. A range of diplomatic, legal, economic, military, and intelligence tools are available to this position to help secure peace and stability, ensure accountability, and build the rule of law in the world. Current Ambassador-at-large for war Crimes Issues is Stephen Rapp.

In 2005, Mr. Rapp became the Chief of Prosecution at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda located in Arusha, Tanzania investigating violations of international criminal law in Rwanda during 1994.

Meeting with the Diaspora

It is over the preparation of the Report for Senator Leahy’s office that Mr.Robert Blake’s name has figured prominently and he has attracted much flak from Sri Lankans, though the government itself seems to have made no comments about Mr.Blake’s role specifically. It was Mr.Blake’s meeting in the course of the preparation of the Report for the Congress with the Tamil Diaspora representatives in the U.S. which first attracted attention of the Sri Lankans.

What was of major concern was firstly, not the U.S. administration officially meeting members of the Tamil Diaspora but the fact that among them were exponents of LTTE ideology like Rudrakumar and a number of LTTE organizations masquerading under other names. Secondly, it was the fact that there had been no similar consultations with the Sri Lankan government against which the report was being collated. So it looked a clandestine affair with no transparency except for the fact the Sri Lankan Ambassador was informed that such a report would be submitted by a fixed date in September.

The issue about the meeting is that while questions may be raised about the composition of the groups consulted and their bona fides, and why there had been no such consultations with the Sri Lankan government which is the accused party to figure in the Report. That lack of such consultation also point to the prospects of the LTTE which engaged in terrorism over three decades not figuring in the Report –an asymmetrical evaluation as such.

Who were present?

According to the same investigation report, the person at the bottom of those past decisions was none other than Tim Reiser. The crux of the matter is that Mr. Reiser has been heavily under the influence of the Tamil Tiger lobby in the U.S. Five pro-LTTE organizations in the United States which are identified as his close information sources:

These are:

(1)Tamil Sangham (2) Tamils Against Genocide (3) Tamils For Justice (4) Tamils for Peace headed by Dr. Elias Jeyarajah, and (5) PERL. (Ms. Tasa Manoranjan, the daughter of once head of the US Justice Department-proscribed Tamil Foundation in Maryland, is now a principle officer in the Peace for Equality and Relief in Lanka (PERL). The last named organization was among others that met Robert Blake, Richard Boucher and others in the State Department several times this year to lobby against Sri Lanka.

Scepticism

Though initial reports indicated that the Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs in the U.S. State Department, Robert Blake was claimed to be compiling the Report for the Senate and expected to submit it to by the third week of September, it was reported that he himself has since shown reservations over filing a report of alleged war crimes and mass atrocities by Sri Lankan armed forces with conflicting information and assessments at his disposal because the material and data he has received so far are one-sided and that if his office used such material/data to fill a report he may not be able to maintain transparency and credibility of his office as well as tarnish his personal image.

So, for all intents and purposes, it is going to be a one sided Report which would expose the weakness in the U.S’ system of information gathering and approach to international problems as well as the hypocrisy of a country which for its part seeks exclusiveness in respect of war crimes committed by its own armed forces; and what seems like the” ‘right’ to carry out military actions, occupations and repression anywhere on the face of the planet.”

- Asian Tribune -