WORLD AFFAIRS

A plea to the LTTE

In an unprecedented step, Amnesty International urges the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to spare the lives of those who may be on the terrorist organisation's hit-list.

D.B.S. JEYARAJ

AMNESTY International, the London-based human rights organisation, issued in August a direct appeal to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), that has acquired over the years a reputation of being one of the most ruthless guerilla organisations in the world. The appeal was extraordinary in three respects.

First, it was unusual for Amnesty to direct such an appeal to an organisation that has no legal basis to be considered a de jure entity. Usually Amnesty's appeals pertain to alleged human rights violations by sovereign states and their duly consti tuted governments. Basically a guerilla outfit, the LTTE is at best a sort of non-governmental organisation that is entitled to certain "belligerent rights" as a consequence of its protracted military campaign, during the course of which it established t erritorial control over certain parts of Sri Lanka.

Secondly, the appeal was in essence a pre-emptive move against the LTTE. It was not a case of Amnesty merely reacting to a past event; the appeal was based on a prognosis for the future. The Amnesty communique highlighted the civilian status of certain T amil politicians, mentioning them by name, and of other unnamed persons falling under that category, and appealed to the Tigers not to assassinate them. Taking into account the record, Amnesty is clearly trying to prevent further such incidents - again a n unusual move.

Thirdly, Amnesty expanded the scope of its appeal by not restricting it to just the LTTE's international secretariat based in Britain but extending it to several other branch and front offices of the Tigers - in France, Canada, Denmark, Switzerland, Norw ay, Australia, Germany and the Netherlands. Amnesty issued the appeal as a proactive venture and as a means to exert pressure on the LTTE on as many fronts as possible. Since the Tiger hierarchy in the Northern mainland of the Wanni was neither visible n or accountable for incidents, pressure was being exerted on the more vulnerable Tiger agencies in the west.

V. Prabakaran, the LTTE supremo.

AS is the consequence of most such appeals issued by Amnesty, the LTTE addresses mentioned are receiving a flood of letters from members of the Amnesty's network living in many parts of the world. This is perhaps the first time that the overseas branches of the LTTE are being subjected to humanitarian pressure inspired by Amnesty. Usually, Tiger propagandists use Amnesty appeals concerning human rights violations by the Sri Lankan state and its organs for their own purposes.

Whenever charged with human rights violations, it has been a routine ruse for the LTTE to condone itself on the grounds that it was a government in the making and that having to conduct a liberation struggle against overwhelming odds, it was not always p ossible to adhere to human rights tenets. While disclaiming any responsibility to adhere to the principles of human rights on those grounds, the Tigers, on the other hand, insist that they and they alone should be recognised as the sole representatives o f Tamils and that Tamil Eelam was already a de facto reality. The killing of perceived opponents and dissidents from the Sri Lankan Tamil community is a brutal manifestation of this objective. The LTTE has for quite some time gotten away with such dual conduct, and the Amnesty appeal in a way attempts to check that. The LTTE is forced to accept the reality that there are some universal rights it must recognise if it wants the civilised world to accept its bona fides.

That the overseas branches of the LTTE are feeling the pressure inspired by the Amnesty seems evident from the reaction of some of its minions. The Tiger weekly Eela Murasu and fortnightly Ulagathamilar, published from Paris and Toronto res pectively, have written editorials criticising the Amnesty appeal. A website maintained by N. Satyendra in Britain has launched a frontal assault on Amnesty International. Satyendra was the Tamil Eelam Liberation Organisation (TELO) representative at the Thimphu talks of 1985. His abrasive behaviour at the talks contributed greatly to its collapse, and later Satyendra was issued a deportation order by New Delhi. But he had left India before it could be served on him. Now he is an LTTE supporter, and in a bid perhaps to outlive his TELO past, Satyendra at times is more strident than LTTE supremo V. Prabakaran himself.

The Amnesty appeal to the LTTE is based on the premise that owing to their civilian status most of the Tamil non-LTTE political leaders are entitled to full protection under international human rights laws. Of its own volition, the LTTE had agreed to adh ere to the Geneva Convention, which among other things has set down rules regarding the treatment of civilians in troubled situations. Although the LTTE runs neither a de jure nor a de facto government, it had in February 1988 unilaterally announced and given guarantees to relevant institutions that it would abide by the provisions of the Geneva Convention, as also its optional protocols one and two. The LTTE engaged in this manoeuvre during the height of its confrontation with the Indian Peace Keeping Force for reasons unknown. Nevertheless, it is now bound to that commitment in the international perception.

Even as Amnesty condemned the executions and is now trying to prevent further killings, it is clear that this stance is based upon its principled opposition to the death penalty, whether officially or unofficially imposed. When death sentences were passe d on five soldiers convicted for the rape and murder of the 19-year-old Jaffna schoolgirl, Krishanthy Kumaraswamy, and the killing of her mother, brother and neighbour, Amnesty promptly issued an appeal against the death sentence. Since the penalty itsel f was reintroduced in Sri Lanka, Amnesty also lodged a public appeal urging that it be repealed. Amnesty secretary-general Pierre Sane wrote directly to Chandrika Kumaratunga, imploring her to revise the position. Sane also pointed out that it was not p ossible "for a government to respect human rights and execute prisoners at the same time."

THE Amnesty appeal is based on Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, 1940, that enshrines the protective principles of individuals in a conflict situation. Article 3 forbids governments and armed opposition groups from indulging in torture or killing of ci vilians not taking part in hostilities. It is in this context that Amnesty has mentioned the names of certain individual Tamil politicians and Tamil political leaders in general as perceived targets of the LTTE. It has also made clear that its initiative should in no way be interpreted as an endorsement of them or their parties. Amnesty believes that the LTTE's attacks are in clear violation of international human rights laws against killing anyone not directly involved in hostilities.

In the Sri Lankan context, there are certain difficulties in trying to define who a "civilian" is. For instance, President Chandrika Kumaratunga as head of the armed forces or other ministers participating in National Security Council meetings may not pa rticipate in active combat but are they strictly "civilians"? Also some Tamil political party members also double up as paramilitary or auxiliary soldiers. Some politicians are former guerillas and carry personal weapons. Many have armed bodyguards. Defi ning these "civilians" is an intricate exercise.

Yet, the fact that some elected officials or office-bearers of political parties carry arms or possess bodyguards is not a criterion for negating civilian status, Amnesty feels. A clear distinction, however, has to be drawn between "combatant leaders" su ch as Manickathasan of the People's Liberation Organisation of Tamil Eelam (PLOTE) and Razeek of the Eelam People's Revolutionary Liberation Front (EPRLF) as opposed to the patently non-violent Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) and other "non-combatan t", political wing leaders such as Siddharthan of the PLOTE and Suresh Premachandran of the EPRLF. In any event, Amnesty has gone ahead with its proactive initiative because it discerns a clear pattern in the LTTE's killings that show no signs of stoppin g and because it feels it is imperative to prevent them rather than issue condemnatory statements.

The recommended action is to send telegrams, telex and fax messages and express and airmail letters to the LTTE offices abroad. Amnesty has proposed that certain provisions be included in the recommended missives. They are:

(a) Explaining that Amnesty's action on behalf of the persons allegedly under LTTE threat conforms to obligations under international humanitarian law;

(b) Condemning the deliberate and arbitrary killing of political leaders;

(c) Expressing concern for the lives of N. Raviraj of the TULF (Acting Mayor of Jaffna), R. Sambandan (the TULF MP for Trincomalee), Y. Balachandran (the PLOTE MP for Wanni), K. Sivajilingam (the TELO chairman for the Velvettithurai Urban Council), V. An andasangari (acting president of the TULF) and other politicians reportedly under LTTE threat;

(d) Urging the LTTE leadership to issue a clear statement condemning the deliberate and arbitrary killings of all civilians including politicians not taking part in the hostilities;

(e) Appealing to the LTTE for an immediate halt to attacks on people taking no direct part in hostilities by the LTTE or by forces under the LTTE control. The latter clause has been necessitated by the fact that in many cases the LTTE claims non-involvem ent in an attack while the foul play is conducted by satellite outfits such as Sangilian, Ellalan and Pandara Vanniyan "Padaigal". It is well known that these names are bandied about by the LTTE in a puerile attempt to absolve itself of any blame.

Ingrid Massage, the Amnesty International official in charge of the Sri Lanka desk in London, when contacted said: "There is a grave concern in the international community about the continuing, deliberate and targeted attacks on civilians like Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam or the local councillors in Jaffna. There is no way that the LTTE can commit such killings and at the same time maintain that it abides by the Geneva Convention."

AMNESTY'S immediate concern for the lives of certain Tamil politicians has been necessitated by the prevailing circumstances. The LTTE has been issuing notices calling on these politicians to resign or face the consequences. Many of them have received th reatening letters and telephone calls in the name of the LTTE or its fellow travellers. Neelan Tiruchelvam, who was killed on July 29, was under a threat too. Amnesty appears to be building up pressure on the LTTE in order to deter possible plans to exte rminate these people.

Although many prominent political leaders, including Chandrika Kumaratunga and Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, are under continuous threat, the current political situation makes lesser politicians, mainly Tamils, imminent targets. According to poli tical analysts, the LTTE is perhaps in its most virulent phase. The brunt of their violence would seem to be directed at fellow Tamils rather than the so-called main enemy, the Sinhala state.

The LTTE finds that in spite of years of fighting and innumerable losses, it is nowhere in sight of its political objective. What is more, it finds itself increasingly alienated from international opinion. The territory controlled by it in Sri Lanka has shrunk considerably. Although by no means a spent force, the LTTE is certain that the process of decline has begun. Furthermore, there is a possibility that the devolution package may be implemented bypassing the Tigers. Under these circumstances, the r esulting political frustration seeks to target perceived scapegoats for this state of affairs. The tradition in Tamil politics has been to blame forces or individuals among the community or the internal enemy as the source of all troubles. Therefore, the LTTE has apparently turned its wrath on Tamils who are a hindrance to their goal. After all, Prabakaran had his baptism of fire by gunning down former Jaffna Mayor Alfred Duraiappah on July 27, 1975. Tamil killings have continued for nearly two decades.

The LTTE has its own motives for targeting Tamil political parties. According to the Editor of Lanka Guardian, Dayan Jayatilleke, "the LTTE's plan is to monopolise the Tamil nationalistic space and present the Colombo-Delhi-Washington axis with a fait accompli and force the latter to arrive at a modus vivendi with it. The LTTE's goal goes beyond the limited objective of monopolising the Tamil political space ahead of any talks with the Sri Lankan Government."

Jayatilleke, in a newspaper interview, went on to say: "The killings are a signal to Colombo to stop propping up the TULF, the EPDP, the EPRLF, the PLOTE and the TELO as alternative Tamil formations to work its devolution and other political plans for th e Tamils in the face of the LTTE's hostility. As regards New Delhi, the LTTE thinks that the BJP-led government is friendly, but South Block's powerful bureaucracy is highly suspect in its eyes. It is to Indian officialdom that the LTTE attributes the ro utine extension of the ban on it. The LTTE is trying to make India see the futility of propping up groups like the TULF and the EPRLF. To the U.S., the assassinations are a signal to suggest that the LTTE cannot be rejected and ignored but has to be cons tructively engaged."

If the prognosis about the LTTE's current hostility is correct then some more killings can be expected. In that context, Amnesty's appeal is a desperate measure enacted under desperate circumstances to mobilise international opinion against the LTTE and prevent a bloodbath of Tamil innocents. What is further needed is for the Amnesty initiative to be supported by other human rights and non-governmental organisations too. Only a world wide campaign of great proportions can possibly contain the bloody str ategy. Though some would say that the neo-fascist LTTE would not respect even international opinion, it does seem worthwhile to make such an attempt, however quixotic it may appear.

There are two other issues in this regard. One, the Sri Lankan government must wake up to the imminent danger most Tamil politicians are in and provide them adequate security. The TULF with its "unarmed democracy" policy is particularly vulnerable. The s econd issue relates to developments in India, notably Tamil Nadu. The Tamil Nationalist Movement led by P. Nedumaran, a long-time supporter of the Tamil Eelam and LTTE cause, is currently engaged in a campaign to get the death sentences imposed on four p ersons convicted in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination stopped. As part of this campaign, Nedumaran and other like-minded persons have been arguing strongly against the concept of capital punishment. In that process, some eloquent and emotional points have b een made regarding the sanctity of human life, how no one has the right to deprive a person of life and how killing someone does not deter the cause and so on. Now, the life and death question before these people is whether the same yardstick does not ap ply to the LTTE. If death sentences imposed after due process are a matter of objection, then what is to be done in the case of Tiger killings that are arbitrarily executed? If the supporters of the LTTE who are clamouring for eradication of capital puni shment in India can prevail upon the LTTE too to implement a moratorium on civilian killings, then it would provide a reprieve for many beleaguered persons on the brink of death in Sri Lanka and elsewhere.