asylum seekers
15 Oct 2009
Next Time Check Your Facts, Philip
As Rudd takes a hard line on Tamil asylum seekers, Philip Ruddock's recent claims that all is well in Sri Lanka couldn't be further from the truth, writes Jake Lynch
"The toilets are only less than five metres from my tent and the smell was strong when the emptying of the toilet pits is not carried out in time, which is always the case. When there is water shortage, which is frequent, concern about how one is going to use the toilet becomes the most serious problem of the day, surpassing the problems of food, health and other major issues".So says a former inmate of Menik Farm, the vast internment camp where the Sri Lankan Government is holding upwards of a quarter of a million Tamils against their will. They were herded away from their homes five months ago in the final deadly phase of the country's civil war, during which, according to unofficial UN estimates, as many as 20,000 people were killed.
Her eyewitness account, reported on Tamilnet, reached the outside world after she secured exit from the camp by what are euphemistically referred to as "other means": former detainees are known to have bribed the guards with their life savings to get away.
This is what desperation feels — and smells — like. Periodic visits by "dignitaries" were marked by handouts of bread, the eyewitness records, for which the inmates would scrabble pathetically. Rations were so poor that a man went around begging for sugar to sweeten the plain black tea he was feeding his newborn; the mother was so malnourished that her breast milk had prematurely dried up. Staff from the UN High Commission for Refugees were told that Tamils were not to be given vegetables unless they could buy them from Government-approved traders, who were busy leeching off the inmates.
These people are being persecuted, by any definition. Try this one, for instance, from Article 33 of the Refugee Convention of 1951:
"No Contracting State shall expel or return... a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion."
Refugees are people with a well-founded fear of such persecution, on any of the five grounds named. The Tamils are being kept in the camps — deprived of their freedom — solely on the grounds of their race. If they speak out about their treatment, to UNHCR staff, for instance, they risk joining thousands of others over the years who have simply "disappeared" with impunity for those responsible.
What this reading of the Refugee Convention means is that the Tamils of Sri Lanka are entitled to seek shelter in other countries, and to have the governing authorities make a proper assessment of their claims. Given their circumstances, they have what is likely in many cases to be strong grounds for obtaining asylum. And sure enough, Tamils have now acquired an obligatory matching accessory, like a badge of honour: the Philip Ruddock death rattle.
Such people are, the former Attorney-General intones, heading for our shores in greater numbers, not because of "push factors" but because the Rudd Government has "gone soft", notably by scrapping measures adopted by the Coalition such as naval interception of "people-smugglers", mandatory detention and the issuance of Temporary Protection Visas to successful applicants, rather than a "migration outcome", thus limiting "consequential family reunion".
This is the return of what Peter Manning, the former television journalist turned social researcher, termed "dog-whistle politics" with reference to the representation of Arabic speaking and Muslim people in the Australian media in the 12 months before and after 9/11. Its shrill blast is intended, not for the well-heeled residents of Ruddock's own electorate on Sydney's Upper North Shore, but for aspirational "hard-working families" in crowded marginal seats, who can, according to legend, be convinced that their space and their money are at stake in Australia extending a welcome to any new arrivals.
Base political calculations trump any semblance of evidence-based policy-making. "As an island continent, Australia is uniquely positioned", Ruddock avers, to stem the so-called tide of would-be refugees — conveniently ignoring the fact that the vast majority of asylum claims are lodged by people who have arrived by air.
Following the 9/11 attacks in the US, Ruddock's boss, former prime minister John Howard, went out of his way to tar asylum seekers with the brush of terrorism — supposedly a threat to the security of those crucial swing voters. And yet ASIO, who ran routine security checks on "boat people", never found a single terrorism suspect.
The Rudd Government stands accused of colluding with the Sri Lankans to keep the Tamils in the camps — anything to prevent them from reaching the airports. Bruce Haigh, the former Deputy High Commissioner in Colombo, says the Deputy Chief of the Navy went with this message, back in June, with Kevin Rudd's explicit endorsement: "His plea amounted to an endorsement of the continued detention of Tamils in appalling conditions", Haigh notes in a recent article. Perhaps inmates will find some distraction from the mosquitoes in the glossy ads the Australian Government is commissioning from Saatchi and Saatchi to discourage them from coming here to seek sanctuary.
The Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, has expressed concern over their plight, and called for full access to appropriate international humanitarian organisations, however, when opportunities have arisen to back this up with anything more than words, Australia has been notably backward in coming forward. It did not, for example, follow the lead of the US and UK in publicly abstaining from a vote at the International Monetary Fund on a loans package for Sri Lanka, thus losing the opportunity to exert any leverage in support of its concerns.
One of the factors supposedly preventing the return of detainees to their homes is the continuing danger from landmines in the Vanni region in the north east. There are also plans to install Sinhala populations in former Tamil areas in a scheme of ethnic cleansing, according to a Tamil National Alliance politician. To avoid collusion, Canberra is channelling Australian aid for the purchase of de-mining equipment through NGOs, not the Sri Lankan Government. That, at least, was the assurance given by DFAT to members of the Tamil community, but news then filtered through of officials flaunting Australian largesse as a direct handover to a Government-appointed taskforce.
Not the least concerning aspect of the situation in Sri Lanka is the continuing shroud of secrecy. Eyewitness accounts such as the one quoted above are routinely denigrated by Colombo as fabrications; pictures smuggled out are dismissed as fakes; monitoring groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are condemned as biased. James Elder, the courageous head of UNICEF, who spoke out about the dangers of child malnutrition in the camps, was promptly expelled.
Ruddock glibly suggests that Sri Lanka should now be regarded as a source of less well-founded asylum claims because its "Tamil insurgency ... appears to have been defeated militarily". That he can get away with such poppycock testifies to the lack of ventilation in public discourse for the real issues confronting hundreds of thousands of detainees, held in conditions that are worsening as the monsoon rains close in.
Australia has general responsibilities towards asylum seekers as a signatory to the Convention. Far from breaking the law, they are exercising a right under Australian and international law. And it has a special responsibility to provide for those fleeing a well-founded fear of persecution in Sri Lanka, given its complaisance in their predicament.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
There are in excess of 15m refugees in the world today and almost 1m asylum seekers, not to speak of displaced persons. Add those in, and the numbers swell to 35m plus - and they are varying all the time, usually upwards
Quite clearly, such massive numbers cannot be accommodated in western countries.
So, what then should we do? Is it right to take in a few thousand token people and let the rest live in misery? I don’t think so.
These problems have to be dealt with in situ, on location. They are partly created in the west, mainly the USA, because of meddling, eg in the Middle East.
The Sri Lanka situation I see as homegrown, age-old cultural and ethnic clashes, which would only continue in foreign countries if the two cultures should live there side by side.
(I remember how the Croats and Serbs went for each other in Australia when outwardly they were united under Jugoslavia).
I believe it to be best if we would leave these countries to their own devices, withdraw all troops, but let it be known to them that if they need our help - if they are prepared to open the cultural/traditional/spiritual windows and let in some fresh new air (modernity, democracy, secularity, equality)- then we will be waiting outside ready to assist unconditionally.
As far as the boat people and visa overstayers are concerned, I see them as selfish, abandoning their own country folks, definitely not the most deserving of the refugees.
What’s more: no matter how many excuses refugee advocates find for boat people, the fact remains that these asylum seekers knowingly seek, and pay for, the assistance of organized crime gangs who happen to be in the business of people smuggling. Just as knowingly receiving stolen goods can lead to indictment (aiding and abetting crime), so people-smuggled asylum seekers are participants in crime. Clearly, they should look for a more honest way of reaching the shores of their chosen destination.
And an economic question: where do all these people find the thousands and tens of thousands of dollars to pay the smugglers? How many ordinary Australians can afford that sort of money? And we are supposed to be rich compared to them. Being a very suspicious person I just wonder if that money does not also come from illicit sources, just as it goes to illicit sources.
I suppose it is good to get the facts right but I assume that if Ruddock opens his mouth it is to lie or confuse
Serious trouble in the Opposition camp. No policies. Rampant discord. Solution? Call "Children Overboard" Ruddock and "Mohamed Haneef" Andrews and whip up the issue of boat people and "border protection". What else? Yesterday’s men with their rusty dog whistles!
No matter that temporary protection visas created human misery and death (on SIEV X). No matter that the "Pacific Solution" solved nothing. No matter that what Ruddock touts as "humane mandatory protection" has now been soundly exposed as shamefully inhumane.
In fact little has changed under the Rudd government. The latest from-the-hip tough-talk sadly reflects a failure to exercise strong moral leadership on the issue. But Australians applaud the humane treatment of asylum seekers after a decade of immigration policy, led by Ruddock, Vanstone and Andrews, which maximised human suffering to deter a relatively small number of people from fleeing for their lives in boats in our direction.
Betty
Until the time of Howard Government Australia had good standing with the UN as a country that abided by International Law. Both LP/ANP and ALP governments have signed and ratified UN treaties, conventions, covenants and Australia was very involved in the preparations for such e.g. Universal Declaration of Human Rights chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt and supported by Doc. Evatt from Australia. Particularly war and post war ALP leadership would all be turning in their graves to hear PM Kevin Rudd say that asylum seekers arriving by boat are ILLEGAL immigrantswhen under International law that we are signed and ratified party to THEY MOST DEFINITELY ARE LEGAL! It makes me shudder where Australia is going to send a boat load back to a developing country like Indonesia. Other countries are dealing with THOUSANDS of these people fleeing from war and persecution. Why should other countries be required to feed and water thousands of displaced souls while we are so particular and greedy??
Marga,
You wrote, "I believe it to be best if we would leave these countries to their own devices, withdraw all troops, but let it be known to them that if they need our help - if they are prepared to open the cultural/traditional/spiritual windows and let in some fresh new air (modernity, democracy, secularity, equality)- then we will be waiting outside ready to assist unconditionally."
I think maybe, in the best of all possible worlds, you may have a point. But I would like you to elaborate - just how is this to happen and then how will we respond unconditionally?
My own belief is that we simply don’t know how to behave as global citizens - either in our expectations about the lifestyle we should presume in the face of the utter devastation other people are experiencing - or as Australians in the face of the degradation experienced by many of our own citizens.
What I do know, despite the Rudd/Brumby rhetoric, is that resources, and therefore goodwill, are finite. And when resources are finite there are winners and losers. In Australia, in the next few years, we will be wearing this in our faces in a much greater way than now - and it is even now in our face except to the degree the Ruddocks, Howards, Rudds and Wongs shave off the degree of our own disgrace.
Adumbrate on your theme that I might learn [and I say this kindly]. Christopher
As in all things there is a spectrum of meaning to the term refugee.
Doubtlessly the term is well defined by the U.N. But Australia despite general accordance with the U.N. spirit has always assumed a political path that it deems proper for its own end.
Rightfully so.
‘Refugee’ - In the extreme case are those persons who flee imminent if not immediate critical danger to themselves because of what they are in the eyes of some persecuting authority or force.
To the other extreme are those who just arn’t to happy the way things are, and seek a new life, with hey what the?
A bloody decent standard of living would be nice too.
The Afghani illegals by-pass not only Pakistan, India, Malaysia, Myanmar & Indonesia in their desperate attempt to save their souls! Afghanistan refugees to Australia, travel at least 8000 kilometers to get to Darwin - as the crow flies. That radius applied to Kabul includes all countries in Europe, Asia and (but for one or two of the most west African countries) most of Africa. These illegals are not fleeing Afghanistan in a last ditch attempt to save themselves into one of Afghanistan’s five neighbouring countries.
Afghanis are of the poorest people on the planet. The average income per person per annum is about US $700. Whereas the unofficial fee per people smuggler = approximately US $9 200 per person to buy a share of an Indonesian fishing boat to make the final lemming run to Western Australia.
So the guys making this trip are the Afghani upper class?
Surely?
In a country where more than 60% (so it goes) of the national GDP is attributed directly or indirectly to the trade of heroin - these illegals are highly likely to have associations with the industry. Do we want them running franchises to their trade here?
These illegals are forcing the Australian hand and will perforce paint a fairly dour picture of their circumstances. But are they really the most worthy cases? Why can not Australia decide of its own as to where it seeks to offer its charity to the world’s most worthy causes and cases?
There are 100 000’s of Australian with skills needed in this country taking a legitimate approach to entering this great land. Imagine the insult these illegals are to those who have legitimately arrived, and those many, many in waiting.
Rudd what you have caused to happen - sucks.
….Sucks bigtime! dunno4sure¿
A refugee is someone who is poor and has no home.
An asylum seeker is someone who had a home, but is forced to leave it for political reasons. They are often middle class or even wealthy people.
However, due to Tamil persecution in their own homeland, (which often means lack of proper access to government services and no ‘queue’) they have found a means to escape their misery by booking an illegal journey to the ‘free and developed world’.
To some they may be seen as queue jumpers, but to others they may also be seen as a persecuted people, desperate to escape their misery.
I do believe Australia, according to Article 33 of the Refugee Convention is responsible to accept them and protect them from further dangers and persecution.
They are intrepid escapees who have made a hazardous journey, only to be denied refugee and/or asylum seeker status and treated like criminals.
That’s pathetic, heartless and cruel, especially as there are children involved.
If the current Australian government policy is to offload what has now become ‘en situ’ - our problem - then it sounds like this government’s actions are in breach of Australia’s international responsibilities.
To phermon:
Christopher - I am not so sure you will learn from what I have to say, but it is always good to have a debate.
Quite clearly, what the US and allieds are doing now, is not working. The horrendous civilian deaths, the destruction, the unnecessary loss of life, mutilation and traumatisation of soldiers is simply unacceptable. In my view, US et al cannot win this, and therefore they should withdraw and leave it to the locals to rebuild their lives.
Now, the locals are not stupid. They may not like western values, but they readily accept and adopt western technology and science, where it is of advantage to them. I am sure their intellectuals have studied western philosophy and can separate the good from the bad. So, maybe they can see some good in western values, and are prepared to moderate their ways and let go of fundamentalism as long as they feel they take the initiative and are not being imposed on by US et al.
If then they need our help and ask for it, it should be extended without asking for anything in return. As things are now, assistance is conditional or at least they perceive it to be that way. We may want their loyalty, their resources, access to strategic points, access to their markets, and more. And yes, I don’t think the US has ever done anything out of pure altruism. It was always about ‘I, me and myself’.
Now, conflicts and wars have always been fought over resources, even though wars were camouflaged by ideology and religion. And as you quite rightly say, resources are finite, in a world where we behave as if consumerism and population growth can be infinite.
You extend that to goodwill also being finite. But I think we should extend goodwill as long as it is ‘fair’. There must not be exploitation, or the perception of exploitation. In fact, that is the most important aspect to me: no exploitation, yet exploitation is all around us. We must not exploit, but we must also not condone to be exploited.
All this may sound utopian, but only because people are unwilling to change, not because it is impossible to change.
The Enlightenment, as I see it was the apex of human intellectual and cultural development; there we established lofty ideals, but we moved away from them. We turned individualism into selfishness, accepted ‘rights’ but forgot to include the ‘responsibilities’, ignore that as individuals we live in a greater society to which we must contribute, a society that one cannot readily see, unlike a tribal society that is right before one’s eyes.
In my submission to whether or not we should have a Bill of Rights, I pleaded for also having a Bill of Responsibilities alongside it.
I stop here. You may, or may not, want to explore these themes more. Marga
Marga your ignorance would be irritating were it not so unoriginal and banal
""What’s more: no matter how many excuses refugee advocates find for boat people, the fact remains that these asylum seekers knowingly seek, and pay for, the assistance of organized crime gangs who happen to be in the business of people smuggling. Just as knowingly receiving stolen goods can lead to indictment (aiding and abetting crime), so people-smuggled asylum seekers are participants in crime. Clearly, they should look for a more honest way of reaching the shores of their chosen destination.
And an economic question: where do all these people find the thousands and tens of thousands of dollars to pay the smugglers? How many ordinary Australians can afford that sort of money? And we are supposed to be rich compared to them. Being a very suspicious person I just wonder if that money does not also come from illicit sources, just as it goes to illicit sources.""
Almost ALL Australians could find a few thousand dollars if they sold everything they possessed, if their families ALL sold everything they possessed in order to get a couple of people on a boat.
They wouldn’t need to resort to the illicit activities you hint at, I can bet that were it your family, your children facing persecution and death you’d be able to scramble together enough coin to get them to safety.
If it were YOUR family YOUR children who had no option you don’t think you’d be willing to deal with a smuggling network? Most people would deal with werewolves if it provided a chance for their loved ones to survive.
Besides the law does not define a refugee as someone who has to be dirt poor, it’d be nice if before wading into the debate people had the first clue about that which they speak.
MissnOmar - emotional outbursts are unhelpful.
To infer that Afghan refugees are connected in some way to the heroin trade in their country would be the same as saying that if you are Italian you must have a connection with the mafia, which is of course absurd. Arguments of this nature do not add anything constructive to the discussion and border on xenophobia
Regards, Liam
Marga,well said.
The bottom line is that we have far too many people in this country now - in excess of a 100% overshoot of a sustainable population.
We should introduce a zero immigration policy now. This will send a clear message to the illegal hopeful tryhards.This should be backed up by a comprehensive border protection policy with emphasis on coast and territorial waters patrols and enforcement.
All people attempting to enter Australia illegally should be deported immediately to their country of origin.If this means abrogating the refugee treaties,so be it.
Too hard,too tough for all the bleeding hearts? Well blossoms,just watch this problem escalate.Maybe you need to volunteer to go work in the camps etc.Just forget to come back.You are not needed in Australia.
Marga, Thanks, I’ll get back to you after more consideration.
Thirra, have you ever considered taking a job as the little boy with his finger in the dike.
We are talking about a global problem and if you think that Australia can be jingoistic and buck the trend, take a long cold shower.
Everyone, everywhere must aim for a sustainable population and there is no way the concept of border protection will have any meaning for more than the next few years. [It’s already meaningless for people arriving by air which is the vast majority]
No doubt though, Howard-lite will pander to the tastes of the likes of you while denying every other patent political truth at the same time.
Grab a good Ben Elton and enjoy. Christopher
Internal Colonialism(=political and economic oppression + state-sponsored anti-Tamil pogroms) + geography of an island (with hostile Navy intercepting Tamils fleeing to India) + conflict-insensitive foreign aid + expert damage control exercise at the UN for decades by successive Sri Lankan governments + draconian PTA?ER + ignoring recommendations of UN, ICJ, IBA, ICG,… by successive Sri lankan governments + lack of international mechanism for representation of the oppressed at international platforms + geopolitically sensitive geographical location of Sri Lanka + ”war-on-terror” =
61-year disintegration and decay of socio-economic-environmental fabric of Tamils.
Nearly a million Tamils have been fleeing the island over the last 55 yrs.
In the last four years Northeast of Sri Lanka(traditional homeland of Tamils) has been cut off from the rest of the country and aerial bombing has been driving hundreds of thousands who have been languishing in camps all over the Northeast.
Even aid agencies have been prevented from helping the IDPs. Media has been barred from the Northeast and journalists have been murdered in Colombo and the Northeast for criticising the government.
Nearly 2,000 Tamils(and some Muslims) have been abducted and murdered. NO INVESTIGATIONS. Prof Ivan Shearer(of Australia) was one of the 12 members of International Group of Eminent Persons who went to Sri lanka in 2007 to oversee investigations and left Sri lanka in 2008 saying that there is no political will to solve crimes. This absence of justice for Tamils is the very basis of the conflict.
Australia should have been raising its voices for Sri lanka at international platforms. Instead it sent envoys to Sri Lanka asking it to block any tamils coming over to Australia. In the last three years it has been difficult for Tamil youths to leave Sri Lanka even on study visas - they’re abducted before they come to the airport or if they mange to come to the airport they are arrested (and will never be seen again). Thousands of Tamil youths arrested in the last few years have not yet been charged and tried in the courts. They’re languishing in the prisons. Last week their was a report that a Human Rights body found 29-yr old in the prison without trial for 15 years!!
Mass murders of Tamils have happened in Maximum security prisons and NONE punished. ICJ reports in the last thirty years have been saying how Tamils don’t receive justice from the politicised judiciary.
Australia, please raise the issue at the UN and the Commonwealth and bring justice to the Tamils in Sri lanka. Then none will come in boats to you and beg for asylum.
Democracy in Peril: Sri Lanka a Country in Crisis, Report to Law Asia Human Rights Standing Committee, 7 June 1985:
‘’There was a general consensus that within Sri Lanka today the Tamils do not have the protection of the rule of law, that the Sri Lankan government presents itself as a democracy under crisis, and that neither the government, nor its friends abroad, appreciate the serious inroads on democracy which have been made by the legislative, administrative and military measures which are being taken. … An examination of the proposed legislation reveals that it is too far removed from conferring any real devolution of power to ever had any prospect of being acceptable to the Tamil people. It is urged that immediate consideration be given to the provision of genuine regional autonomy.”
Sri Lanka - camps, media…genocide? Opendemocracy, Martin Shaw(Professor of Political Science, Sussex University), 30 June 2009: ‘’The interned Tamils don’t have the mobile-phone access that (in the early post-election stages at least) so embarrassed the Iranian regime.’’
If there are mines, how come hundreds of thousands trekked through the area in the last stages of the battle? Why aren’t independent media let in to see what’s happening? it is reported locally that the aid is used to build numerous military complexes, monuments for dead soldiers and Buddhist shrines and not for de-mining.
The international community should demand to see what’s going on in Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu districts.
Tamils fleeing those areas either left thier jewellery and savings in their homes or buried them and these are being dug out by the army and it has been reported that many soldiers were caught by the Police in towns outside these districts with hordes of money and jewellery.
A state that has been oppressing its ethnic minority for 61+ years cannot be relied to serve justice to the Tamils now. A state that didn’t invest in economic development of Northeast for six decades didn’t eben share the tsunami aid(UN-sponsored research and UK Bradford University research and many other pieces of research) cannot be relied to use the aid for development of the war-torn Northeast. The state that tried to prevent the release of reports(East-West Centre, New York) on economic embargo on Northeast leading to its economic decay cannot be relied to look after the IDPs. That’s why they forced ICRC to close down its offices in the East where the IDPs have been dumped in jungles against their will.
http://www.thesundayleader.lk/20090111/editorial-.htm
And Then They Came For Me(Editor Lasantha Wickrematunga’s self-obituary), 11 January 2009:
‘’ No other profession calls on its practitioners to lay down their lives for their art save the armed forces and, in Sri Lanka, journalism. …. Sri Lanka is the only country in the world routinely to bomb its own citizens. Violating the rights of Tamil citizens, bombing and shooting them mercilessly, is not only wrong but shames the Sinhalese, … I also hope it will open the eyes of your President to the fact that however many are slaughtered in the name of patriotism, the human spirit will endure and flourish. Not all the Rajapakses combined can kill that.’’
The Netherlands and Sri Lanka Dutch Policies and Interventions with regard to the Conflict in Sri Lanka, Georg Frerks Mathijs van Leeuwen: ”For a long time, the Dutch government accepted the official Sri Lankan interpretation of the situation, namely that its military response concerned a struggle against a separatist rebel movement, taking up arms against a legitimate and democratically elected government. The Dutch position was for a long time to accept the viewpoints of the subsequent Sri Lankan governments unquestioningly. Moreover, the Dutch government did not envisage any viable alternatives at the time, be it an independent Tamil state or mutually acceptable forms of regional autonomy. The Dutch also kept quiet about the deteriorating human rights situation in the country. It was only in the 1990s that political and diplomatic consequences were drawn in relation to the continuing reports on human rights violations.”
The Culture, Politics and Economics of Peace in Sri Lanka(2004), Jonathan Spencer(who went to live in Sri lanka in the early 80s), University of Edinburgh, UK: ”On the whole aid was given in a politically or ethnically blind way …. Not much was built in the North or the East…. In the 1980s the major donors grew itchy about the country’s appalling reputation for human rights’ violations, but never so itchy as to cut off the funding that kept the regimes going A thoroughgoing and critical analysis of the political consequences of donor interventions in Sri Lanka since the 1970s would make interesting reading, and it is a genuinely open question whether in the long run more has been gained politically from donor pressure on human rights, than was lost in bankrolling an increasingly bloody regime …..”
Fourth World Colonialism, Indigenous Minorities And Tamil Separatism In Sri Lanka, Bryan Pfaffenberger (Virginia University), Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, Vol. 16, 1984:
”Despite the withdrawal of colonial power from Third World countries, forms of oppression that might well be termed "colonial" still persist in many of them — the oppression wrought by nationalist Third World governments whose regimes fail to respect the rights of indigenous minorities. For ethnic and regional minorities in many Third World countries, the arrogance and injustice of these governments matches — and often exceeds — those of the departed European colonial regime. The island nation Sri Lanka presents a case in point. Little public investment appears to reach the Tamil lands………”
International Dimensions of the Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka, John P. Neelsen(Tuebingen University, Germany), 20th European Conference on Modern South Asian Studies, 8-11 July 2008: ”A shortcoming in international law as to internal colonialism and the right to self-determination renders the current types of international intervention not just inadequate to contribute to a negotiated solution of ethnic conflicts, but tends to inflame them.”
Prof Frances Stewart, Director, Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity(DfID-funded body to research into policies to reduce, and to deal with, brutal ethnic conflicts), University of Oxford, UK in an interview with Michael Deibert(IPS), 3 July 2008: ”Inequalities in political power where one group may have total dominance of the political system, and another group does not have any access, is the situation more or less in Sri Lanka”.
Australian Senate Hansard, 13 March 1986 Senator A.L.Missen, Chairman, Australian Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International:
"Some 6000 Tamils have been killed altogether in the last few years…These events are not accidental. It can be seen that they are the result of a deliberate policy on the part of the Sri Lankan government…Democracy in Sri Lanka does not exist in any real sense…"
Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions, UNHRC Seventh session, 3 June 2008 : ”"In 2005 I sounded the alarm. I said that Sri Lanka was on the verge of a major crisis and I indicated to the General Assembly how to avoid the crisis. But nothing was done. The Sri Lankan government did not try and discuss the recommendations with me and it has not made any serious effort to resolve human rights problems. It only acted in Geneva to avoid the Council taking any measures against it".