With the news out of Sri Lanka getting worse by the day - for example, see a Washington Post piece "UN says nearly 6,500 civilians killed in Sri Lanka" here] Joseph Traub a director of policy at the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, writing an op-ed piece in The Age "Sri Lanka a problem for us all" [reproduced from the Washington Post] says:
"When we think of mass atrocities, we think of regimes, or their proxies, massacring defenceless citizens, as in Rwanda or Darfur. The situation in Sri Lanka is more complicated, morally and legally: this is a situation of armed conflict in which both parties are acting in ways that pose a grave risk to innocent civilians. The rebels answer to no one and the Sri Lankan Government has been able to operate with virtual impunity because it is fighting "terrorists". Even Western states that usually condemn violations of international law have given the situation a wide berth.
But states engaged in combat do not have the right to perpetrate atrocities; nor does the cruelty of opponents absolve states of their responsibility to protect citizens. And there is no one better equipped than the US to recognise the cynicism behind the language of the war on terror, which allows states to do as they wish in the name of defeating supreme evil."
And:
"There is widespread agreement about what must be done: the LTTE must allow civilians who wish to leave to do so; the Government must agree to observe a more extensive cease-fire, guarantee the safety of those civilians and treat them according to international standards governing internally displaced peoples. The Tigers might refuse to release civilians, whom they view as the only thing standing between themselves and annihilation. But the army must not use this as a pretext to resume hostilities: the rebels no longer represent a threat to the state.
The time for behind-the-scenes diplomacy has passed. The UN Security Council must take up the issue and remind both sides that there will be consequences, in the form of prosecutions for crimes against humanity. The council should also demand that the Government grant humanitarian groups and the media access to the conflict zone, send a special envoy to the region, and consider imposing sanctions. Ultimately, it must help bring about a durable political solution to the fighting. In 2005, the world accepted the obligation to protect civilians at risk of atrocities. The moment has come to redeem that pledge."
"When we think of mass atrocities, we think of regimes, or their proxies, massacring defenceless citizens, as in Rwanda or Darfur. The situation in Sri Lanka is more complicated, morally and legally: this is a situation of armed conflict in which both parties are acting in ways that pose a grave risk to innocent civilians. The rebels answer to no one and the Sri Lankan Government has been able to operate with virtual impunity because it is fighting "terrorists". Even Western states that usually condemn violations of international law have given the situation a wide berth.
But states engaged in combat do not have the right to perpetrate atrocities; nor does the cruelty of opponents absolve states of their responsibility to protect citizens. And there is no one better equipped than the US to recognise the cynicism behind the language of the war on terror, which allows states to do as they wish in the name of defeating supreme evil."
And:
"There is widespread agreement about what must be done: the LTTE must allow civilians who wish to leave to do so; the Government must agree to observe a more extensive cease-fire, guarantee the safety of those civilians and treat them according to international standards governing internally displaced peoples. The Tigers might refuse to release civilians, whom they view as the only thing standing between themselves and annihilation. But the army must not use this as a pretext to resume hostilities: the rebels no longer represent a threat to the state.
The time for behind-the-scenes diplomacy has passed. The UN Security Council must take up the issue and remind both sides that there will be consequences, in the form of prosecutions for crimes against humanity. The council should also demand that the Government grant humanitarian groups and the media access to the conflict zone, send a special envoy to the region, and consider imposing sanctions. Ultimately, it must help bring about a durable political solution to the fighting. In 2005, the world accepted the obligation to protect civilians at risk of atrocities. The moment has come to redeem that pledge."
Comments