Response to “Sri Lanka’s Conflict, Peace, and the American Myth” by Mr. William Martz

by Neville Ladduwahetty

This is in reference to Mr. Martz’s article cited above (Sunday Island, November 27, 2016). Referring to my article titled “Need to rebrand SL conflict” (The Island, 21 and 24, October 2016) Mr. Martz states: “He criticizes the west most notably the US — as overtly sympathetic to the Tamils and thus as a friendly supporter of the LTTE”.

For the benefit of readers what I stated was “…the Tamil community and in particular those in the diaspora, have succeeded in portraying the LTTE as ‘freedom fighters’ engaged in the task of establishing a separate state, as resolved in Vaddukodai in 1976. This has enabled the LTTE to gain the sympathy of the International Community, a.k.a the West, to the extent that the West sees them as victims and not as terrorists…”.

There is no doubt that the West is sympathetic to the Tamils; a fact reflected in Mr. Martz’s article as well. However, sympathy is one thing but support implies how that sympathy is materially manifested. Therefore, for Mr. Martz to extend my comment about sympathy of the West to include “friendly supporter of the LTTE”, is his own interpretation.

The extent of this sympathy is evident from the comment by a Federal Judge in Brooklyn NY while reducing the sentences by 10yr. of three persons convicted by the US for providing material support to a terrorist organisation per UN Resolution 1373. He stated: “I just believe in my heart of hearts that an injustice has been done and I can’t correct it…Now that we’ve become a little bit more sophisticated in our thinking about what is and is not terrorism, now that we know a lot more about the conflict in Sri Lanka and the horrors visited upon these people, perhaps there’s a way to provide a fair measure of justice to all without condemning these men to essentially a life behind bars” (Daily Mirror, October 14, 2016).

For Mr. Martz, as an intern in a law firm, the question that needs then to be asked and answered is whether it is judicially correct for a judicial ruling to be influenced by a Judge’s personal feelings in his “hearts of hearts”. Here in Sri Lanka and elsewhere, the expectation is that Judges apply or interpret the law independent of personal feelings and opinions.

In contrast, the opinion of Chief Justice John G Roberts Jr. of the US Supreme Court in the case Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, is revealing. Conveying the 6 to 3 opinion, the CJ wrote: “…those challenging the ban simply disagree with the considered judgement of Congress and the Executive that providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization — even seemingly benign support — bolsters the terrorist activities of that organization… (the law) is on its face, a preventive measure it criminalizes not terrorist attacks themselves, but aid that makes the attack more likely to occur… All can agree that money is Fungible… funds sent to groups for humanitarian aid could free up money that could be used for violent ends. But he said the same is true of ‘material support’ It also importantly helps lend legitimacy to foreign terrorists groups legitimacy that makes it easier for those groups to persist, to recruit members and to raise funds. —all of which facilitate more terrorist attacks … under material support statutes, plaintiffs may say anything they wish on any topic. They may speak and write freely about the PKK and LTTE, the governments of Turkey and Sri Lanka human rights and international law. They may advocate before the United Nations. But they may not coordinate the speech with the groups in the terrorist list, he said” (The Washington Post, June 22, 2010).

This ruling makes abundantly clear, the distinction between sympathy and support, and furthermore that material support could even extend to speech coordinated with the LTTE or any group designated as terrorist, in which event such support would amount to the violation of Security Council Resolution 1373.

I am taking the liberty of including some comments on other conflict related issues raised by Mr. Martz in his article.

He questions: “are governments not always held to higher standard than terrorist organizations”?

While this is so in the case of an insurgency, it does not apply when rebel groups challenge the authority of a government, as with the conflict in Sri Lanka which is acknowledged by the United Nation’s Panel of Experts, by the OISL of the UNHRC and other International agencies as a Non-International Armed Conflict as defined by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol 11 of 1977. It makes the LTTE and the Security Forces of Sri Lanka equal parties to the conflict. Consequently, the applicable law is International Humanitarian Law which incidentally was the main thrust of my article. Per Mr. Martz’s contention, the applicable law would be Human Rights Law. The difference needs to be understood and appreciated. A fact that should NOT be ignored is that if the LTTE did succeed in establishing separate State militarily, the question of governments being held to higher standards than a terrorist organization would not arise.

I sincerely hope that Mr. Martz is objective enough to realize that sympathy, could cloud a Judgement, as it did with the Federal Judge in Brooklyn. When Mr. Martz maintains that Tamil areas in the North and East of Sri Lanka “have been economically neglected and politically depreciated”, objectivity should make him explore whether it was deliberately orchestrated or whether the Tamil leadership was partly responsible as it was with their objections to development of agriculture in these areas on grounds that it would alter demographics. (Refer “THE BROKEN PALMYRA” by 4 Tamil academics of Jaffna University, p.2).

That same objectivity would make him realize that what Sri Lanka and most other colonial countries are engaged is the daunting legacy of having to reconcile the divisions deliberately created and left behind by colonial powers. That same objectivity should make him realize that the Union Army was stationed in the US South for 13 years after the Civil War, and that it was when they withdrew that all the horrors of Jim Crow started. For Mr. Martz to suggest that the SL Army be withdrawn from the North may lead to a repetition of US history in Sri Lanka.

607 Viewers