One of the more predictable aspects of the silly season, when Sri Lanka’s human rights record gets attacked in preparation for review in Geneva, is that the usual suspects should reiterate the old discredited stories. Certainly there are areas in which the human rights record can be improved, and the government has already taken steps to deal with issues raised by Special Rapporteurs such as Phillip Alston and Manfred Novak and Walter Kalin. But there are certain areas in which it could not agree with certain claims, concerning which it asked for evidence, only to be met with a deafening silence.

The most ridiculous of the claims was that of government complicity in the recruitment of child soldiers. This was not in fact asserted by the designated Rapporteur Radhika Coomaraswamy, who has refrained from finger pointing in that respect. The same was not however true of her colleague, Alan Rock, who published several unsubstantiated assertions which then had to be toned down in the report of the Secretary General. He has still not responded to requests for evidence.

UNICEF however, which also made some claims more circumspectly, did when asked adduce one case in which they could cite time and place in which some child soldiers had been waved through a military barrier. This was promptly inquired into, and it was found that the authorities had looked into the complaint and given a punishment transfer to the personnel concerned. UNICEF was asked for details of any further cases but provided none. Similarly, the SLMM, when it was reporting on the question of child soldiers, made it clear that it believed the LTTE was responsible for the vast majority of such recruitment, and the Karuna faction for a modicum, while there were allegations that the Sri Lankan armed forces were involved in some of the latter.

This was promptly blown up by the main opposition newspaper in Sri Lanka into the assertion that the SLMM had said the government was responsible for child abductions. A complaint to the Press Complaints Commission, which is in effect administered by the head of that newspaper group, was first refused, but members of the Complaints Commission insisted that the case be heard and the newspaper finally retracted. Unfortunately the damage had been done. So too, with the recent Watchlist report which, even though it is careful to talk only of allegations as far as recruitment of child soldiers is concerned, has led to reports that suggest the government is guilty of this as well as many other crimes.

This is scarcely surprising, for the sensationalist publicity produced by Watchlist to introduce its report carried the assertion that ‘Every day the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE), the Government armed forces, and paramilitary groups, such as the armed wing of the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal (TMVP), commit heinous crimes against children.’ This was very similar to what happened nine months ago, when Human Rights Watch issued a press release that was not borne out at all by its main report. So too this time round it is not likely that anyone influential, in the media or in other governments, will go through the dense verbiage of the report, instead they will simply parrot the publicity claim about the equal responsibility for horrors of the LTTE and the Government and what is termed the armed wing of the TMVP.

That of course was the point. To reinforce this, since Watchlist has to be careful with regard to allegations against the government concerning recruitment of children, it weighs in with others that have nothing to do with children, including the hoary assertion that ‘the GoSL has committed grave abuses of human rights, including indiscriminate shelling and aerial bombardment of LTTE-controlled areas, arbitrary arrests, extrajudicial killings, torture, forced returns of internally displaced persons (IDPs) to unsafe areas and forced evictions. More recently, Sri Lankan security forces have been accused of complicity in the recruitment and use of child soldiers by the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal (TMVP)/Karuna faction, a paramilitary group operating in the East’.

That ‘more recently’ is particularly rich, since such accusations date back to Rock’s 2006 visit, whereas the nonsense about ‘indiscriminate shelling and aerial bombardment of LTTE-controlled areas’ relates to the later resumption of hostilities – as to which, as has been shown elsewhere, out of 170 aerial attacks in the last 18 months, there have been a bare half dozen with regard to which civilian deaths were even alleged. In these few cases, it should be noted, comprehensive responses were given, as in the case of the Kathiravelli shelling, the only instance in which civilian deaths were alleged as a result of the operations to clear the East. Natually Watchlist too goes on about this, ignoring the evidence even within the HRW report about the LTTE presence in the camp and the bunkers that had been built, which is at least prima facie proof that the mortar locating radar used by the Sri Lankan army might have been accurate.

Watchlist also claims that ‘both the GoSL and the LTTE have restricted or denied the delivery of vital humanitarian aid to the Jaffna peninsula and the Vanni area in the North, certain areas in the East and GoSL-declared high security zones.’ This again is nonsense. Government has worked wonders to keep Jaffna well supplied, and with most foodstuffs not only available but affordable, according to the last UNHCR report on Welfare Centres. All but one of the primary level children in those centres were in school, so were most secondary level children, most had got the free uniforms the government supplies. Similarly, there were no shortages of most goods in the Wanni, and the government continued to maintain schools and hospitals, paying all salaries, even in LTTE-controlled areas. All this it should be noted is in spite of LTTE attacks on shipping, including a vessel carrying SLMM monitors, in spite of the attack in the guise of civilians on the checkpoint at Muhumalai, which led to the closure from the North of the A9 route, in spite of the failure to provide guarantees to the ICRC so that the shorter shipping routes the government wishes to open have to remain closed.

The Watchlist claim about forced resettlement repeats the earlier HRW claim, even though HRW also cited in the body of its report the UNHCR assertion that resettlement satisfied its standards. Indeed the resettlement programme in the East, which sent back to their homes most of those displaced by the 2006/2007 hostilities, was a unique achievement for countries in conflict. It is also noteworthy that, in citing figures for those who had been displaced before, Watchlist cites a date of April 2006, whereas the half a million displaced earlier it refers to had been displaced before the present government took office in November 2005. UN Rapporteur Walter Kalin has recognized the fact that this is the first government, since the ethnic cleansing of Muslims from the North by the LTTE in 1990, to try to address the problems of those earlier displaced.

The Watchlist claims as to sexual and gender based violence are what betray its determination to criticize against all evidence. It declares that ‘There is a dearth of information about conflict-related cases of gender-based violence (GBV) in Sri Lanka, which makes it difficult to assess the nature and scope of the problem. However, anecdotal information suggests that this lack of information does not necessarily reflect the reality of the situation. Rather, it is likely that incidents of GBV have increased due to the armed conflict, yet incidents are not reported or systematically documented due to survivors’ fear of stigmatization or retribution and the lack of access to adequate and appropriate legal, medical and social services for them.’ – i.e. we have no information, but there must certainly have been incidents, given how horrid the government is.

Watchlist, to justify its extrapolation of problems despite minimal reporting also introduces a communal interpretation that makes a nonsense of the plethora of reports we have in other areas. Its claim that ‘Tense inter-ethnic relations also pose an obstacle to reporting as Tamil or Muslim children are often hesitant to report cases of GBV to Sinhala caseworkers and vice versa.’ suggests sheer desperation to assert that the situation is worse than the evidence indicates. More of this determination to see doom and gloom anywhere, and in particular where sexual matters are concerned, though Sri Lanka unlike many other nations where intervention is endemic has a relatively good record in this regard, appears in its discussion of Aids. Despite the comparatively good record of HIV prevalence in Sri Lanka, Watchlist reaches a characteristically doleful conclusion – ‘At the end of 2005, the estimated national HIV prevalence rate among people between the ages of 15 and 49 was less than 0.1 percent in Sri Lanka, according to UNAIDS. Nonetheless, GoSL, international and national agencies warn that HIV may spread further among the population, particularly among older children, due to lack of awareness, stigmatization and unsafe sexual practices.’ Why Watchlist is so obsessed with seeing sexual problems where they do not exist is an interesting question, though perhaps the simple answer is not Freudian but Goebellsian, that the more dirt they can dredge up to fling, the greater the assumption that some of it might stick, at least in the minds of those who do not read the full report but simply look at a sensationalistic press release.

In short, one could go on rebutting almost all the allegations against the Sri Lankan government, whilst noting that with regard to problems that it is acknowledged exist the government has already planned remedial measures, as noted above. But rebuttals are available in plenty for those who care to read, rebuttals that have received no response, as with the detailed dissection of the last HRW report.

Instead of dealing therefore with yet more frivolous generalities, it may make sense to conclude with an account of perhaps the most serious charges in the Watchlist report, those against the former Karuna faction with regard to recruitment of child soldiers. This is part of the demonization of this former section of the LTTE which the LTTE engaged in almost as soon as it established itself, realizing that if it proved successful, that was the end of the terror the LTTE has employed so successfully for so long, principally against Tamils who disagree with it.

The LTTE first dealt with this breakaway by their Eastern members by killing the parliamentary candidates who supported them. One candidate was killed just before the election, another, who topped the poll, was forced to resign and then killed a few months later. Meanwhile the Karuna faction, which was on the defensive, disbanded 1800 of its cadres as UN figures reveal. Sadly neither the Sri Lankan government, still locked in 2004/2005 in a CFA with the LTTE and hoping for a resumption of formal negotiations, nor the international community, thought about rehabilitation for the former Karuna combatants. Those were the days when UNICEF still trusted the LTTE, handing over $1 million dollars for which no proper accounts have yet been shown despite repeated requests for them.

It was in such a context, with the LTTE still running riot in the east, and punishing or recruiting former Karuna cadres as statistics bear out, that the Karuna faction began reabsorbing some of these. Regrettable as this was, the alternative was death or forcible conscription by the LTTE. After the LTTE threat had ceased however, the government set itself the task of ensuring that no children would remain amongst former combatants. An initial attempt at taking custody of some youngsters, in November 2007, proved abortive, because UNICEF did not command trust, as was made clear recently in a public statement by the TMVP spokesman, the former Karuna faction having now metamorphosed with comparative success into a political party.

Government must therefore develop confidence as regards the future of children who suffered earlier, and it has also worked anxiously, in the light of new more capable personnel at UNICEF, to develop mutual trust. In this context it was heartening that 11 former combatants were released for rehabilitation recently, whilst many more will be restored to the custody of parents. This suggests that LTTE pressures are no longer feared, but vigilance continues essential.

It is sad then that Watchlist does not recognize the transformation that has taken place in the former Karuna faction, that the old order has now changed. Karuna himself deserves credit for having moved away from the most ruthless terrorist organization in the world, and for then having left when the movement was transforming itself into a democratic entity. Confirmation of this transformation came with the peaceful local government elections in Batticaloa in March, the best symbol of the new order being the lady who topped the poll in Batticaloa and became its Mayor. Her commitment to pluralist education is a sign of things to come, though one of the reasons for her election, the fact that her father was one of the Eastern politicians killed by the LTTE in 2004, is a reminder of the grim background to recent developments.