Channel- 4 paid to tarnish Sri Lanka’s humanitarian rescue operation

What is the aim of Channel 4 and its persistence to tarnish the image of a sovereign Government? LTTE is an internationally banned terrorist group and a sovereign Government has all the right to militarily eliminate it for the protection of its citizens.

It was after 30 years of endless peace negotiations and ceasefires that served to only equip the LTTE to carry out daring attacks that finally resulted in the decision to militarily take on the LTTE while rescuing all Tamils kept as human shields it.

Anyone has a right to produce documentaries and it is the moral right of the production house to first realize and understand the message they aim to convey in airing the programs that are being sponsored. It takes more than a program to understand the reasons for LTTE to prevail, the “real” aspirations of majority Tamils and how they connect with the politics in Sri Lanka.

Let’s sift the facts from fiction. The accusation against Sri Lanka’s military is that it has killed an “X” number of people for there are inconsistencies in the number and contradictions by various organizations. At the bottom scale it is 7000 a figure given by Gordon Weiss the UN Spokesman in Sri Lanka but overruled by UN Under Secretary for Humanitarian Affairs – Sir John Holmes for UN did not have ground presence. At the top end the killings are supposed to cross 40,000.

Anyone can give casualty figures and accuse the military but it is proof that matters and during a military operation against a terrorist movement it behoves the accusers to explain why Sri Lanka’s military had saved over 11,000 LTTE cadres (without killing them which Sri Lanka’s military had all the right to do as they were terrorists)  and instead put them through rehabilitation to reintroduce them into society without keeping them in Guatanomo styled prison camps?

Accusers must also answer why a batch of these LTTE cadres were even given away in marriage through a wedding ceremony organized by the military with many sponsoring their outfits  and the wedding ceremony itself? Accusers may also like to answer why Sri Lanka’s military would spare the spouses of Tamil leaders who are today scared of how the Tamil people are likely to treat them more than fearing the Sinhalese. Accusers may also like to answer why the military would even care to remove the ailing parents of Prabakaran to safety whose lives were at risk inside the refugee camps by Tamils angered at how much they had suffered as a result of the LTTE.

If orders had been given to kill, would there have been 6000 soldier casualties? A former TNA parliamentarian has commented that these Tamil people were treated like “stray dogs, shot  and killed mercilessly by the LTTE. If orders had been to kill why would the Government carry out a humanitarian rescue operation  and save 294,000 Tamil people?

That soldiers perished during the rescue operation is evident by the fact that the LTTE had moved their heavy artillery into the “no fire zone” and positioned them within hospital compounds. There is sufficient satellite evidence to prove this. Tamil people had to either corroborate with the LTTE or face death as some did. Did Channel 4 care to logically think of these areas before coming to a conclusion that clearly spells of bias?

Sri Lanka also remains the only country to have supplied food and provisions to the North despite its 30 year terror campaign. Even during the height of the conflict food provisions were distributed and these were all confiscated by the LTTE and what was given free by the State was sold to the Tamils by the LTTE. Interviewing a man held as a human shield in December 2010 by the LTTE he had bought a kilo of rice for Rs.2500 from the LTTE to feed his family.

Obtaining “eyewitness” accounts is no arduous task. The question is why would they remain “anonymous’. Just as many have been paid to remain mum over LTTE atrocities, it is easy to take “eyewitness accounts” for a payment, but if they are being protected by this private television channel  and even the country that this television channel is located in, why would there be any reason to remain anonymous? Obviously with pro-LTTE videos already supplied all that was needed was the presentation by a C4 journalist  and aired over C4. First it was supposed to be images taken from a mobile phone then it turned out to be from a video camera. Taking clippings from pro-LTTE website does not constitute evidence for war crimes especially when the narrator is herself an LTTE cadre. These are factors that C4 executives should have taken into account before allowing their name to be used to give credibility for a terrorist group to continue to prevail when it has been eliminated through some utopian unit called a transnational government trying all the tricks in the world to politically stay alive  and instill fear amongst the Tamil people. 

Channel 4 needs to first understand that of the two protagonists in the documentary it aired one was an internationally banned terrorist organization (LTTE)  and therefore a Government has every right to protect its citizens from a terrorist organization.

Shenali Waduge

Leave a Reply