|
CANARD ON DISAPPEARANCES IN REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES
Explanations
repeated by way of propaganda are often treated as truth even
after close inquiries have proved them to be untrue. The view
that the disappearances of Sri Lanka (about 26,935 cases
according to official records) were resulted in a necessary and
unavoidable measure taken by the ruling regime at the time for
counter-insurgency is such a view. This view is repeated
constantly not only in local records but also in international
ones. It is a notwithstanding fact that the three Sri Lankan
Presidential Commissions of Inquiry into the Involuntary Removal
or Disappearance of Persons, which inquired into 16,800 cases,
have come to conclusions to shatter such view.
In brief, the
findings of the commissions are:
* That most of
the disappearances were killings that happened after arrests
(abductions by State agents and their collaborators);
* That before
being killed those persons abducted were kept in detention
centres, interrogated and tortured;
* That in such
arrests and interrogations those persons were killed;
* That in most
cases the bodies were destroyed in order to erase all traces;
* That some were
buried in unmasked mass graves, others disposed of in rivers or
burnt at roadsides with tyres in their necks;
* That legal
provisions were made to avoid any form of keeping of records;
* That the
jurisdiction of courts to inquire into the matter was limited by
legal provisions;
* That the
highest level of political leaders and decision-makers were
involved in making and carrying out the system which caused to
these disappearances;
* That the whole
process was systematic and planned; and
* That about 15
per cent of the total number of disappearances were of persons
below 19 years of age.
Once it becomes
possible for a State to arrest any person, the State loses any
right to kill that person except by due process of law. Once
disappearances are shown as killings after abduction (preferred
way of arrest by the State to avoid records of arrests) as the
commissions' reports has done, any form of legitimisation of the
State's activity comes to an end. It destroys the claim that the
State was in such a danger that it could not have itself except
by causing such disappearances.
While the regime
at the time coulhave controlled the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna
(JVP, or People's Liberation Front) without causing the mass
disappearances, it has also become clear that there were other
plausible reasons to causing such mass killings. The legitimate
period of the regime's rule had come to an end in 1982. However,
the regime did not hold elections as due. Instead, it held a
referendum asking the people to allow the same parliament to
continue another term of six months. The referendum, according to
the elections commission's own report, had not been held in a
fair manner. If similar things happened in Britain, the United
States, India or any country where the electoral process is well
established, what might be the results? Surely a mass upsurge is
unavoidable in such circumstances. Sri Lanka is a country where
electoral process is well established. To remain in power after
pursuing such a course of action the regime needed to carry out
mass intimidation. This it did by way of mass killings. Mass
disappearances were thus not a necessary action of a legitimate
government, but a survival tactic of the government which had
ended its democratic legitimacy.
Whatever the
actual reasons were, the commissions' findings have confirmed
what every person in Sri Lanka knows: That after a cruel massacre
a false explanation has been spread.
It is time to
re-examine all reports including those of international agencies
on this matter. Otherwise it will be the perpetrators' view that
will prevail as the explanation of these large-scale killings.
Such a re-examination can make a significant difference to the
outcome at the 55th session of the United Nations Commission on
Human Rights that is due to meet soon on this issue.
Posted on 2001-10-29
|