The attention of the Peace Secretariat was recently drawn to a statement by the LTTE Spokesperson for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs regarding Jaffna civilians and the transport of Sri Lanka military to and from Jaffna.
The writer, Ms N Selvy, and the Development Spokesperson to whom she had initially sent the statement, Mr V Bavan, are – especially the latter - amongst the brighter sparks in the LTTE. They were comparatively good students in the heady days of optimism, when Bradford University and the Social Scientists Association ran a Conflict Resolution Course up in Kilinochchi. If and when the present intransigent blight in the LTTE is lifted, such educated individuals will we hope be part of a cohesive Sri Lanka.
The present statement however shows a startling ignorance or perhaps ignoring of the need for consistency and evidence for pronouncements. It claims that the ‘Geneva II talks in October 2006, between the LTTE and the Government of Sri Lanka, broke down because the Government of Sri Lanka refused to open the A9 route to allow Jaffna civilians land access to the rest of the island and the world. Prior to the permanent closure of this A9 route, it served as a life line to the people of Jaffna as well as Vanni. Seriously ill medical cases from Vanni were taken in ambulances to the Jaffna hospital. Every day ambulances plied seven to eight times a day, carrying around six patients in each trip. This is necessitated by the poor medical resources in Vanni. Even the Jaffna hospital resources are very poor in comparison to what is available in the south of island. Many very seriously ill patients were taken to Colombo for treatment through the A9 route.’
There are several problems with these assertions. Firstly, talks between the government and the LTTE have broken down on several occasions simply because the LTTE decided they would break down. Shakespeare’s rather unfair characterization of women – I have none other but a woman’s reason. I think him so because I think him so – would have been far more appropriate for the LTTE, even if Ms Selvy is the specific exponent of this school of non-thought in this instance. In short, the particular pretext advanced by the LTTE at any stage is not the reason for anything because, as we have often seen, the reason changes each time.
In 2003 the LTTE withdrew for the reasons given in Mr Balasingham’s long letter. In June 2006 they did not even start talking, for reasons which are not clear, except perhaps in the revelation of the Norwegian Ambassador that Mr Thamilselvam ‘had insisted that the issue of child recruitment does not fall within the parameters of the CFA’. The Norwegian Ambassador had very properly disagreed with this and pointed out that the CFA did mention abductions, and also that ‘continued recruitment was extremely damaging to the image of the LTTE at the international level’. The LTTE may have finally understood this, when Ms Radhika Coomaraswamy spoke up boldly against their violation of national and international laws. Having run circles round the last UNICEF Head in Sri Lanka, they have finally said that ‘by the end of this year LTTE will announce that there are no more under-18 persons in the organization’.
Prevarications regarding child soldiers
Entertainingly, according to the LTTE, ‘The UNICEF Head said that his visit was an introductory meeting with the Political Head. Among the topics discussed were the work of United Nations in general in the Tamil homeland and the program of releasing under-18 persons in the LTTE….Pointing to the delay by UNICEF in completing its part in this program, Nadeson called on the UNICEF Head to ensure that UNICEF carry out its part in verifying the under-18 persons released by the LTTE and also in doing its part to reunite the released children with their families….UNICEF must be ready to do its part to complete its role in this program so that it too can remain in sync in its statement. The children being killed and injured by the aerial bombing and claymore attacks of the Sri Lanka were also discussed at the meeting.’
Such a release by the LTTE is understandable, though it is sad that the UN has not as yet seen fit to dissociate itself with the claim that there is ‘work of United Nations in general in the Tamil homeland’ or ‘claymore attacks of the Sri Lanka’. But perhaps the UN has even now realized how serious is the issue of child soldiers and, in welcoming the declaration that the excuses offered to the previous UNICEF head will now cease, perhaps it has forgotten all its other obligations.