Darusman Report seeking to discriminate against Sri Lanka - Gomin Dayasri

CHAMIKARA WEERASINGHE

Following are the excerpts of the interview:

At a time when Sri Lanka is engaged in bringing the country’s communities together through a process of restorative justice, the controversial Darusman Report is intent on having retributive justice, to punish one party to the conflict. This is a discriminatory practice of targeting the victorious party, which is Sri Lanka. The Report has the potential of re-opening healing wounds and of gravely harming the reconciliation process, leading lawyer Gomin Dayasri told the Daily News in an interview

Question: Is it not Sri Lanka’s responsibility to take this Report on alleged human rights violations seriously?

Dayasri: It is not a UN report nor does it bear the stamp of the UN. It was not initiated by the members of the UN or its prime body the Security Council, but by a paid employee of the UN and not on directions from the members of the UN. Moon is on a solo run.

This appointment was made at the personal initiative of the UN Secretary General exercising his own personal discretion. The panel is his personal choice and it has no official UN sanction. He does not reveal who influenced him to take this route. Let him be transparent to say who motivated him.

UN has where necessary carried out inquiries on violations of human rights. But UN has made no decision to hold such an inquiry against Sri Lanka.

Q: It is assumed that human rights violations can take place during a phase of war. Is it wrong on the part of the UN Secretary General to appoint a panel of experts according to his discretion to make an accountability report on such violations?

Dayasri: In this 30 year long war the LTTE carried out such atrocities that it was internationally recognized as a terrorist organization.

But the SG never thought it necessary to ask for a report during the whole or part of the 30-year war when the LTTE leadership was alive and indulging in acts of terrorism. Moon was in office.

Instead, after the LTTE is no more and no accused of the LTTE could be found to fault for crimes against humanity, the SG determines a period that could target the Sri Lankan forces. Why did Moon not shine during a period the LTTE leadership was alive and could stand trial? Why these double standards?

Q: Does this have a negative impact on the task of reconciliation undertaken by the government?

Dayasri: It certainly does. Sri Lanka is engaged in restorative justice to bring the two communities together and uplift a backward community living under the yoke of terrorism for 30 years, yet Moon seeks retributive justice to punish one party to the war. This is a discriminatory practice of targeting only the victorious party to the war knowing the losing party is vanquished.

Reconciliation means bonding the two parties but if one party truly believes there is a witch-hunt against it, the old wounds will surface and trust and confidence will vanish and a thaw will develop in the reconciliation process. We must place the reconciliation procedure in a fast forward position. The future of Sri Lanka lies in reconciliation and we cannot let some interfering foreigners disturb the process.

Q: Can one consider the Darusman Report as a diplomatic blow to Sri Lanka’s sovereignty?

Dayasri: Not so much to the sovereignty, but more to the country profile. It dents the pride that comes after triumphing over one of the most vicious terrorist formations while the West with its sophisticated war machine is unable to achieve this distinction in the wars they are endlessly fighting. Now those hostile nations that are still engaged in countering terrorism in their back garden and invaded fields in faraway countries, are trying to shame our victory by picking holes. This is an attempt to penalize a victorious force after eliminating brutal terrorism and provided peace and democracy to an endangered community.

The Tamil diaspora living beyond our seas does not understand the hardship suffered by their brethren in the North and the present improvements to their way of life. They feel if the Sinhalese and Tamils live serenely together, the diaspora will go out of business. So to keep Sri Lanka divided, the diaspora with its vote power is making foreign governments greedy for that vote to confront Sri Lanka.

Q: What does the Report implicate as a whole?

Dayasri: Report is on a mission to discredit Sri Lanka and make it a rogue state. There is an attempt to make a limited regime change notwithstanding Blake’s denial - to dislodge the principal architects of the war victory - to displace the President and the Defense Secretary. Thereafter it matters not whether UPFA or UNP rules, to the foreign mercenaries.

The Darusman Report is the first small step in that long journey to effect a regime change. Our intelligence networks must be on alert.

Q: The government is yet to respond to the Report officially. How should it happen?

Dayasri: We still do not have an incisive road map to navigate the Report. We are acting ad hoc and in a contradictory inconsistent manner.

The answer is obvious. If we do not recognize this Report we must not respond to it. Otherwise we are recognizing it after unrecognizing it. We sure would look silly.

There are two steps we must take - (a) have a paper prepared showing the infirmities and weaknesses of the Report and the bias associated with the panel members. (b) prepare a report on how we conducted this humanitarian operation and steps we took to safeguard civilian life and restoring them to democratic normalcy. These two stand-alone papers should be circulated to relevant parties world over. If we reply to the Report, there will be responses to it that will require another paper to defend ourselves. It will turn it into a paper war. With all the paper work in circulation, people will believe the version they want to believe. No we must go for a frontal attack. That has instant impact.

Q: Is the report in violation of the UN mandate?

Dayasri: The Report is the private artwork of the Secretary General. It has nothing to do with the UN system and does not touch its mandate. You can treat it like the SG’s roll of washroom tissue paper. But the danger is some of the white European nations would recycle it. So we cannot flush it down the toilet.

Q: Is the report compatible with the UN’s current counter-terrorism policies?

Dayasri: I am afraid I am not aware of the counter terrorism policies of the UN? Is there one?

If there was one, certainly it was not visible when the LTTE was in full swing. I know of agreements dealing with terrorist financing and money laundering but nothing more.

Q: Why would the UN want to level allegations against a legitimate army that has successfully decimated a terrorist organization?

Dayasri: UN is not involved in this game. It is some countries where the diaspora vote works a magic spell and there are countries trying to please their Tamil constituents along with their acolyte satellite nations and there are a few countries under human rights regimes that are trying to blacklist Sri Lanka. Most of the countries including some enlightened European nations are in our corner. I feel our foreign office can lobby them diplomatically to provide results in our favour. But we must feed them with our pluses, such as, how democracy was restored, the holding of elections and TNA coming to power in the North to show a free and fair election, fact that all the terrorist groups, excluding the LTTE, came to the democratic wood work, child soldiers going to their parental homes, rehabilitation of the LTTE cadres and massive development undertakings. We hold the trumps in out hand but never play them.

Q: Any comments on Darusman Report’s recommendations. UN Secretary General had asked Sri Lanka to consider them seriously?

Dayasri: In the first place Darusman is disqualified from sitting because he has loads of bias acquired in the role he played as an IIGEP and withdrawing from the Commission of Inquiry. We must reveal the strong bias. (I have already done so). Secondly the Report is very faulty saddled with infirmities to which we must not respond to give it authenticity but circulate a paper on its shortcomings to media and embassies. There must be an exposure of the infirmities in this Report. It must be a logical presentation.

Q: What will be Sri Lanka’s role as a nation in facing the Darusman Report?

Dayasri: We must as one nation stand behind the country to defend it from foreign intervention. Forget differences, political or otherwise. The UNP fortunately seems to be coming on board. So seems the JVP. We have to save the President and Defense Secretary to show the gratitude of the nation for ushering peace. We had to face the onslaught of the terrorist and we overcame it; now it is even more dangerous, the threat of foreign intervention. We have the true grit to fight it.