Sarath Fonseka is sliding fast to the dustbin of Sri Lankan history

by Ajit Randeniya
Philip Alston is a very busy man. Since 2004 he has been occupying one of the UN ‘Special Rapporteur’ positions, a la Radhika Coomaraswamy and other ‘pets’ of those who run the world from their US, EU and UN bases.

Alston’s job description emphasises the need for ‘visits’ to countries around the world to investigate allegations of all those horrible crimes the ‘non-white’ world is renowned for, and has to be saved from. He has been ‘crying out’ for a visit to Sri Lanka for quite a while; his latest plea was on 31 August 2009 when he called for the urgent establishment of an independent investigation into the authenticity of “a video alleged to show the extrajudicial execution of two naked and helpless men by the Sri Lankan army and the presumed prior execution of a number of others”- the fake.

Usually the allegations he ‘investigates’ are made by separatist movements and their backers in the developing world and all the western government-run INGOs ‘Without Borders’, and other operatives who have infiltrated the UN system, UNICEF in particular.

In Sri Lanka’s case, an ex-military commander who has been cultivated for a considerable time by the US embassy in Colombo, former Ambassador Robert Blake in particular, has greatly assisted Alston in planning the next trip. However, focusing on the American ‘tool’ that created the ‘stink’ is not worth its while because he will be in the dustbin of history following the announcement of presidential election result on 27 January 2010.

Judging by Alston’s most recent report of 27 October 2009 to the UN General Assembly’s Third Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee, he does not seem to have achieved much in terms of saving lives, or the rights of the dead, around the world. His recent visits to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Colombia, the United States and Kenya have all failed to yield any results. These countries have clearly and succinctly asked him where to deposit his reports; he was lucky that the reports are printed on A4 paper, and they can be rolled up easily!

However, the Sri Lankan government, may find some of the content of Alston’s report useful in responding to that ‘letter’. Alston reported that the United States, in response to his queries about the thousands of civilian deaths caused by the use of drones and “Predators” in Pakistan and Afghanistan, “claimed that the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, by definition, had no role in relation to killings that took place during armed conflict”. He went on to say: “that position is untenable, and would remove the great majority of issues that came before those bodies”.

Clearly, the US position Alston is complaining about is another example of the cynical, deceitful and shameless manner in which the corrupt US system distorts ‘the laws’ they themselves create, to justify their crimes; obviously, the laws are only for the consumption of the gullible. At a secondary level, most ex-bureaucrats would empathise with Alston’s consternation over the definite loss of UN paid first class travel and accommodation the US position will ensue!

Alston’s response to the (naked) emperor’s legal contention has been typically weak-kneed, and un-befitting of a supposed Australian professor of Law; he asked for the ‘legal basis’ on which it [the US] was operating, and indicate, in terms of domestic law, who was running the [drones] program, and what ‘accountability mechanisms’ were in place in relation to those organisations.

Alston is merely playing by the ‘rules’ of the Human Rights game; you don’t rigorously interrogate the self-appointed umpire. It is for the blacks!

However, the ‘kernel’ of the US position that any killings (proven, not ‘alleged’) that may occur during the course of armed conflict should not be treated similar to Human Rights violations that are perpetrated by oppressive regimes, or military men.

Notwithstanding Pawnseka’s hearsay based allegation, and his gutless retraction, even if the killings did actually take place, they clearly fall outside the substantive legal framework that defines “extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions” Alston is appointed to look in to. The focus of the legal framework that includes the Commission on Human Rights resolution 1992/72, the General Assembly resolution 45/162, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 6, 14 and 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is clearly distinct from the unplanned battle field actions.

This moral and legal argument however, should not apply to the US case because their atrocities in Afghanistan are occurring in the context of an illegal occupation and foreign war rather than an ‘armed conflict’.

What happened during the final stages of the war in Sri Lanka was that the Sri Lankan army took necessary action to eliminate mindless terrorism and its perpetrators; Alston has no business in Sri Lanka.


>> Full Story