Darusman trio's op-ed attack on Lanka

The trio who formed the UN Secretary General's Panel of Experts - Indonesia's Marzuki Darusman, South Africa's Yasmin Sooka and the United States' Steven Ratner - have written an op-ed piece for the New York Times this week.

Their signed article comes, neatly timed as a Us-backed resolution at the UN Human Rights Council is in the air. Clearly, the trio have now transformed themselves from inquirers to prosecutors. They also make a pitch for their report vis-à-vis the Sri Lankan LLRC report, which they, in bad taste, foul-mouth. Here are extracts: "…… even as the government's military campaign was under way, it became clear that the cost in civilian lives from its attacks on the Tigers was enormous."

" ……. In our report, we found credible evidence that both sides had systematically flouted the laws of war, leading to as many as 40,000 deaths - many multiples more than caused by the strife in Libya or Syria."

Here, it seems the trio are maintaining that 40,000 civilians died though they do not say how they came to that figure.

Then, they go on to say; "The bulk of that total was attributable to deliberate, indiscriminate, or disproportionate governmental attacks on civilians, through massive shelling and aerial bombardment, including on clearly marked hospitals."

After which, they take on the LLRC report, which even foreign governments, including the US have not dismissed. "Rather than tackling these allegations head-on through a truth commission or criminal investigations, Sri Lanka created a 'Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission,' whose mandate, composition and methods all cast serious doubt on its willingness to uncover what really happened in those fateful months.

"When the commission issued its final report last November, it ignored or played down our report's conclusions and characterized civilian deaths as stemming from the army's response to Tamil Tiger shelling or cross-fire - as sporadic, exceptional and mostly inevitable in the heat of battle."

Not satisfied with running down their 'competitor', the LLRC, the trio say; "When it came to proposing next steps for the government, it called for investigations by the same entities - the army and the attorney general - who have a track record of ignoring governmental abuses for decades."

Finally, they ride on the favourable (to them) side of the LLRC report and have this to say; "The report had some welcome elements, too. It recognized some of the root causes of the war, as well as the responsibility of both the government and Tigers for civilian casualties. And it endorsed our view that Sri Lanka had a duty to provide truth, justice and reparations to victims; release detainees; and protect the state's besieged journalists. Yet the fact is that numerous recommendations of prior commissions of inquiry have not been implemented by the government".

The Darusman trio have also praised the US for initiating a move to have a resolution at the UNHRC, just about letting the cat out of the bag as for their impartiality.

Now, for the New York Times to ask the LLRC members to send a signed piece for its op-ed page in the name of balanced reporting, what say?