[1 September, 1996]
As an expatriate organisation which has been involved with combating the propaganda of the Tamil separatist lobby abroad our Organisation the Australian Centre for Sri Lankan Unity (ACSLU) is addressing this Memorandum to the Government of Sri Lanka to express its point of view on several matters relevant to the current stage of the separatist terrorist insurgency in Sri Lanka.
We understand that the issue of the banning of the LTTE in now engaging the attention of official and unofficial circles in Sri Lanka. As an expatriate organisation we have in the past been hampered in our representations to the authorities in this country about the activities of the Tamil separatist groups operating here by the fact that the LTTE is a legitimate political organisation in Sri Lanka. It was originally banned when it commenced its open terrorist activity but this ban was lifted by the Premadasa Government when it commenced negotiations with the LTTE in 1987.
The failure of successive Sri Lankan governments to ban the LTTE despite the monstrous nature of their crimes against ordinary Sri Lankans is one of the extra-ordinary aspects of the separatist conflict. This is particularly ironic given that the LTTE is banned in neighbouring India which has suffered to a very small extent by the activity of the LTTE. In several other countries like Canada the LTTE is subject to a measure of legal disability greater than currently in force in Sri Lanka. There is therefore absolutely no reason why Sri Lanka should not ban the LTTE. We urge you to do so without further hesitation.
You must be aware that banning carries with it certain legal obligations. One is not to negotiate with the LTTE until the ban is lifted. The lifting of such a ban should not take place until the LTTE is forced to face the full consequences for the crimes they have committed in the past decade. The practice of the previous UNP governments and the present Government of taking the word of the LTTE as a basis for negotiations on vital aspects affecting the Sri Lankan nation must cease. ACSLU was one of the few organisations which protested the commencement of negotiations with the LTTE in December 1994. Nothing came out of these negotiations except providing time for the rebuilding of the LTTE and the attacks which took place since July 1995.
Of course banning the LTTE in itself will not do much to diminish the power of this terrorist group. The military offensive against them should be carried out with full vigour until they have been completely eliminated. Banning will be a help in that it will rule out the possibility of "negotiations" which have only resulted in the destruction of the morale of the Sri Lankan armed forces not to mention, the opportunity it has afforded to the LTTE, and the excuse for foreign governments not to hinder the LTTE in its activities abroad.
Quite apart from the LTTE there are several other groups which are promoting the notion of separatism with impunity. These include the Tamil Eelam Liberation Organisation (TELO), the Eelam Revolutionary Organisation of Students (EROS), the Peoples' Liberation Organisation of Tamil Eelam (PLOTE), the Eelam Peoples' Democratic Party (EPDP) and the Eelam Peoples' Revolutionary Liberation Front (EPRLF). You will note that all these bodies sport the word "Eelam" in their very names. The concept of Eelam involves the creation of a "homeland" for Tamils in the sovereign territory of Sri Lanka. Many nations would consider such a demand as a treasonable one giving adequate justification for the banning of these bodies.
But more compelling that this argument is that these bodies too have in the past acted as terrorist groups. They have not been punished for their terrorist activity which has resulted in the death of scores of Sri Lankans. To allow such groups to operate with full immunity, and indeed under the protection of the Sri Lankan government is a serious anomaly. The fact that they are have still not abandoned the potential of resuming terrorist activity can be seen from that fact that some of these groups have not been disarmed. Indeed it has been claimed that they have supplied officially with arms under the belief that they are allies in the fight against the LTTE. They would be strange allied indeed because they all subscribe to the ultimate objective of the LTTE which is the creation of a racist Tamil state on the soil of Sri Lanka.
We have been surprised to learn that far from condemning the separatist objective of these racist groups the Government has recently entered into a dialogue with these groups. We hope that if the Government is not willing to go so far as to ban separatist political parties they will at least not negotiate with them on the future nature of the Sri Lankan state.
As a democracy Sri Lanka should facilitate only those parties that are not exclusive to a particular religious or ethnic group. Indeed many countries regard political parties whose objective comprise only one racial or religious group as basically anti-democratic parties which have no useful role to play in a democracy.
Another area in which urge the Government is to regulate the activity of NGO allegedly concerned with "human rights" and the provision of "humanitarian assistance" to so-called refugees and the like. On the human rights front the activity of bodies like Amnesty International have been openly partisan, even though of late they have made the occasional condemnation of terrorist activity. Such condemnation should not hide the fact that a consequence of the activity of these groups has been to hinder the fight against terrorism. They adopt a peculiar definition of "civilians" according to which terrorists who do not don uniforms are regarded as civilians. Any action to curtail these terrorists in civilian garb is severely hampered. There is evidence that the SL Government in an attempt to curry the favour of these so-called human rights groups have failed to take timely action against potential terrorists with the result that needless lives have been lost to the terrorist gun and bomb.
While the human rights groups seek their task as principally hindering the action of Government against the terrorists there are other "humanitarian" groups who provide material assistance to the terrorists. This aid ostensibly goes to the civilian population in terrorist controlled areas, but it is terrorists who first get their hands on the food and other aid provided. They also provide medical assistance, and indeed can be construed as providing field hospitals to the armed terrorist cadres.
Prominent amongst the humanitarian groups are the Red Cross and the Medecins sans Frontieres. In many parts of the world the Red Cross is banned **and humanitarian assistance provided by other groups like the Red Crescent in Muslim countries. Sri Lanka should also follow their lead and provide humanitarian aid to groups who have an interest in not letting the food and medical assistance to fall into terrorist hands.
Finally ACSLU must comment on the Government response to the Mullaitivu which saw the slaughter of some 1400 soldiers. This is truly one of the great calamities of recent times and ranks amongst the activities of terrorist groups like the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
ACSLU has issued a publication The Aftermath of Mullaitivu in which some of the incorrect lessons drawn from the Mullaitivu disaster are analysed. This argument will not be repeated in this letter. Instead we urge the Government to revise completely its strategy against the terrorists.
It has been pointed out in several ACSLU publications that the correct political solution is not to proceed on the path of "devolution" but to adopt an opposite strategy, viz to increase the centralising of power by abolishing the Provinces altogether and by making the existing Districts the units for the exercise of purely local government powers. These are explained in detail in the aforementioned publication of ACSLU which is being forwarded to you.
These notes have not been included in above Memorandum
and are provided for the information of Readers
The refusal of the SL Government to ban the LTTE does not arise from the difficulty of enacting such a regulation as there is amply constitutional provision for it. Even while it was tolerating the LTTE the SL Government had banned the JVP even though JVP terrorism was conducted on a lower level of intensity than that of the LTTE. The JVP could not boast of triumphs like the Central Bank bombing or the Mullaitivu massacre. The sole reason for not banning the LTTE is the delusion that negotiations with the LTTE is the only way to peace in Sri Lanka. No government in SL has entertained this delusion more strongly than the present Government.
Banning the LTTE should close the door to such delusions. As a policing or military measure it will have virtually no effect on LTTE activity. But it does bind the Government to do many things such as bringing the perpetrators of the terrorist crimes (for which presumably the group has been banned) to justice. Already there is an international tribunal supposed to be hearing cases relating to ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. Sri Lanka should not rely on such foreign courts but establish its own courts to punish those guilty of ethnic cleansing and other terrorist crimes in Sri Lanka. It is a supreme irony that despite the magnitude of terrorist crimes no terrorist has been brought to justice. India has issued a warrant for the arrest of Prabhakaran. But not Sri Lanka despite a string of crimes going as far back to the assassination of the Mayor of Jaffna Mr Alfred Duraiappah in 1975.
Throughout the LTTE insurgency NGOs allegedly concerned with "humanitarian activity" and "human rights" have played an important role. The former played an insidious role by placing every obstacle the Government rapidly eliminating terrorism. The latter played an even more insidious role by providing material succour in LTTE controlled areas.
Of the "humanitarian" groups the Red Cross has been the most prominent. Its role is coming to be questioned. Recently the Brisbane Courier Mail (31/7/96) highlighted the use made by Hitler of the Red Cross during the 1930s and 1940s. It is in the same tradition that Prabhakaran and the LTTE have used the Red Cross. It is well-known for a long time the Red Cross had been operating in Jaffna (when it was under LTTE control) distributing food and medicines, providing communications, etc. While the fiction was maintained that these services were only for "civilians" anybody knows that the LTTE did not permit anything in Jaffna that did not benefit it. Under the LTTE dispensation the borderline between civilians and military was blurred. Indeed without the help of the Red Cross it is questionable whether the LTTE would have been able to run their much vaunted "parallel Government" in the Jaffna peninsula for any length of time. Running a government implies the obligation to provide food and medicine to the people under its control. If an external body or NGO does these tasks which the de facto administration should provide then that body is actually assisting the de facto body and should be considered as an accomplice of that administration. It cannot shirk responsibility for its actions and it must be held responsible as an active ally of the illegal administration
After its expulsion from Jaffna the LTTE moved to Killinochchi and controls territory in the Vanni and the East. The Red Cross has followed them there. It seems to have expanded its activity in the LTTE controlled regions. Recently it announced that it was conducting school examinations in LTTE territory. This must surely exceed any mandate that it has. It is the SL Government that must conduct school examinations, for which the children must be freed from the LTTE terror. The LTTE uses school children as canon fodder and suicide bombers after indoctrinating them with its poison of racial hatred. Any NGO that assists in school activities in the LTTE region must be considered as being co-responsible for the criminal misuse of children by the LTTE.