Talk:Mullivaikkal massacre

UN panel report on human shields accusation

Here is the verbatim quote from the UN panel report (page 65) which has more weight than the UN Human rights council statement which was politically motivated and not free of controversy:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/05/27/sri-lanka-un-rights-council-fails-victims

Therefore, it is controversial say the LTTE used human shields, and it should not be put in to the text as if it is a fact:

"1. Using civilians as a human buffer 237. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions: Credible allegations point to a violation of Common Article 3’s ban on the taking of hostages insofar as they forced thousands of civilians, often under threat of death, to remain in areas under their control during the last stages of the war and enforced this control by killing persons who attempted to leave that area. (With respect to the credible allegations of the LTTE’s refusal to allow civilians to leave the combat zone, the Panel believes that these actions did not, in law, amount to the use of human shields insofar as it did not find credible evidence of the LTTE deliberately moving civilians towards military targets to protect the latter from attacks as is required by the customary definition of that war crime (Rule 97, ICRC Study))".

https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/document/poc-rep-on-account-in-sri-lanka.php Oz346 (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The UN Panel report also doesn't say "large majority" of the civilians were killed by Government forces. It says "majority" of the civilian casualties were caused by Government Shelling. User Obi2canibe in this [[1]] used the same document I used to insert the "large majority" phrase which is a "politically motivated and not free of controversy" document according to you. You had no problem with that edit. But now, when I insert something using that same document, it is "politically motivated and not free of controversy" according to you. Therefore, I am removing the "large" word from the first paragraph and the reference as it is "politically motivated and not free of controversy" to maintain neutrality.

Moreover, the Human Rights Watch clearly say they LTTE used civilians as human shields. This HRW report talks about violations by LTTE and Sri lankan Armed forces

https://www.hrw.org/report/2009/02/19/war-displaced/sri-lankan-army-and-ltte-abuses-against-civilians-vanni JohnWiki159 (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The large majority being killed by government shelling is not controversial regarding the UN documents. The UN panel document does not contradict the petrie report claim. A large majority is still a majority. They are not mutually exclusive. The petrie report just gave more detail on the quantity. So your tic for tac edit is unjustified. However, the human shields claim is DIRECTLY contradicted by the UN panel report. The reality is human rights watch incorrectly used the term human shields, not being familiar with the precise legal definition (the UN panel report settled on the LTTE keeping the population hostage as opposed to human shields). So there is definitely a contradiction there between two reliable sources.Oz346 (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

"It is in this zone where it is believed up to 40,000 entrapped Tamil civilians were killed"

Illogical to use estimates that include deaths outside of Mullivaikkal in an article with the name "Mullivaikkal massacre".

For the period from 13 January 2009 to the end of the war, i.e. Approximately 5 months, the UN Panel report states, "A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths." and "Two years after the end of the war, there is still no reliable figure for civilian deaths, but multiple sources of information indicate that a range of up to 40,000 civilian deaths cannot be ruled out at this stage."

The final NFZ was set on/around the 8th of May 2009.

The following sources do not appear to claim that up to 40,000 civilians were killed in Mullivaikkal:

[1] https://www.channel4.com/news/sri-lanka-united-nations-justice-war-crimes-inquiry

No reference to 40,000.

[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-19843977

"A UN investigation said it was possible up to 40,000 people were killed in those five months alone. Others suggest the number of deaths could be even higher."

[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8016965.stm

No reference to 40,000

[4] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-20308610

"An earlier UN investigation said it was possible up to 40,000 people had been killed in the final five months alone. Others suggest the number of deaths could be even higher."

[5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/16/un-seeks-special-court-to-investigate-sri-lanka-war-atrocities

"An earlier UN report found that up to 40,000 civilians, almost all Tamils, may have been killed in a final army offensive ordered by Rajapaksa in the last months of the civil war, though the government disputes that figure."

[6] https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-n-report-urges-sri-lanka-to-set-up-war-crimes-tribunal-1442410248

Behind a paywall, only partially viewable. The viewable text does not mention 40,000.

[7] https://news.yahoo.com/tamil-leaders-honor-dead-sri-lankan-war-battle-114725796.html

"Hmmm... the page you're looking for isn't here. Try searching above."

[8] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/british-envoy-banned-in-war-without-witnesses-1609188.html

No reference to 40,000.

[9] https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/sri-lanka-massacred-tens-thousands-tamils-while-world-looked-away

"One UN report concluded that as many as 40,000 Tamils may have died, mostly as a result of government shelling."

--Jayingeneva (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jayingeneva: It is very disappointing, and very telling, that you are now going around claiming that the 40,000 figure to be false. Not only is this figure reliably sourced in number of Wikipedia articles, including Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka, War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War and Sri Lankan Civil War, it was provided with reliable sources in the WP:DRN and the mediator chose to include the 40,000 figure in the lede. Why are you doing this?--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: The name of the article is "Mullivaikkal massacre". Do you agree it is invalid to include deaths outside of Mullivaikkal? If you read and understand the UN documents, then you would know that the estimates by "credible sources" include deaths outside of Mullivaikkal. If you can find a WP:RS that states "up to 40,000 entrapped Tamil civilians were killed" in Mullivaikkal, please, go ahead and add the source to the Article. Introducing rigour into poor citation use in Sri Lankan Conflict articles need not invoke emotive terms like "disappointing" and "very telling". Please focus on the content. --Jayingeneva (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jayingeneva: Mullivaikkal massacre is the term used to describe the massacre of civilians trapped in the No Fire Zone. As with many incidents/battles, it was named after the main settlement, which in this case was the tiny village of Mullivaikkal. P.S. It is difficult to "focus on the content" when you go around trying to get editors whom you have disagreements with blocked.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: Do you agree it is invalid to include deaths outside of the Mullivaikkal No Fire Zone? If you can find a WP:RS that states "up to 40,000 entrapped Tamil civilians were killed" in the Mullivaikkal No Fire Zone, please, go ahead and add the source to the Article. Don't blame me if the WP:DRN mediators considered the conduct of editors abhorrent and decided a ban was required. --Jayingeneva (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

External links

There can be a number of other sources.....the war in Mullivaikkal was held without International media presence even after evacuating UN agencies by the Sri Lankan Government.....we need sources with local voicing at least at the article concerned.Lustead (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lustead: The given website doesn't provide information from a neutral point of view at all and is all one sided. Also it contains a lot of POV statements. This is like a personal web page. Also, this website contains petitions called "Petition for Tamil Genocide Recognition and Creation of Alternative, Parallel Justice Measures". These are direct violations of external link policies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. Also I have already provided an external link which provides information about the incidents in the final stages of the war without any bias.JohnWiki159 (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It is a collaborative project between the Adayaalam Centre for Policy Research, Tamil Guardian and 47 Roots and covers the entire Mullivaikkal massacre.Hence added it. With the large majority of these civilian deaths being the result of indiscriminate shelling by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces and it covers it and facts cannot be called POV.There is no violation of the external links policyPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Large majority of these civilian deaths being the result of indiscriminate shelling by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces doesn't mean war crimes by LTTE can be neglected. According to the UN Panel Report, LTTE used civilians as hostages and the LTTE's refusal to allow civilians leave the area added significantly to the total death toll in the conflict. The UN Panel Report further states that LTTE instituted a policy of shooting civilians who attempted to escape the conflict zone, significantly adding to the death toll in the final stages of the war.. Also Human Rights Watch has published a separate article describing the crimes of LTTE dusting the final stages of war. https://www.hrw.org/report/2008/12/15/trapped-and-mistreated/ltte-abuses-against-civilians-vanni. Brad Adams, Asia director for Human Rights Watch said that LTTE is responsible for much of the suffering of trapped civilians. The website you have provided contains a lot of POV statements such as "Genocide". There is even a petition called "Petition for Tamil Genocide Recognition" which doesn't even talk about the atrocities of LTTE. No one has even recognized this as a genocide. I have already provided report by US state department which provides information from a NPOV. Also, one cannot obviously expect neutral content from Tamil Guardian regarding the civil war who constantly publish news glorifying LTTE and LTTE attacks. eg - https://www.tamilguardian.com/content/remembering-black-tigers, https://www.tamilguardian.com/content/20-years-ltte-assault-katunayake-air-force-base, https://www.tamilguardian.com/content/remembering-colonel-kittu-2. JohnWiki159 (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you are biased in highlighting significantly towards LTTE though they involved in war crimes.

I have extracted the following from the Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka;

.....................

Specific findings of the panel:

• The Sri Lankan military used large-scale and widespread shelling causing large numbers of civilian deaths. This constituted persecution of the population of the Vanni.
• The Tamil Tigers kept hostage 330,000 civilians who were fleeing the shelling and trapped in an ever-decreasing area.
• The Sri Lankan government tried to intimidate and silence the media and other critics of the war using a variety of threats and actions, including the use of white vans to abduct and to make people disappear.
• The Sri Lankan military shelled on large scale the three Safe Zones where it had encouraged the civilian population to concentrate. It did this even after saying it would cease using heavy weapons.
• The Sri Lankan military shelled the UN hub, food distribution lines and Red Cross ships coming to rescue the wounded and their relatives. It did this despite having intelligence as well as notifications by the UN, Red Cross and others.
• Most of the civilian casualties were caused by Sri Lankan military shelling.
• The Sri Lankan military systematically shelled hospitals on the frontlines. All hospitals in the Vanni were hit by mortars and artillery, sometimes repeatedly, despite the Sri Lankan military knowing their locations.
• The Sri Lankan government systematically deprived civilians in the conflict zone of humanitarian aid, in the form of food and medical supplies, adding to their suffering. The government deliberately underestimated the number of civilians in order to deprive them of humanitarian aid.
• Tens of thousands of civilians were killed between January and May 2009. Many died anonymously in the final days.
• The Sri Lankan government subjected the civilians who managed to escape the conflict zone to further deprivation and suffering.
• Screening for Tamil Tigers took place without any transparency or external scrutiny. Some of those separated by the screening were summarily executed whilst women were raped. Others simply disappeared.
• All IDPs were detained in closed overcrowded camps where they were deprived of their basic rights. The conditions in the camps resulted in many unnecessary deaths.
• There were interrogations and torture in the camps. Suspected Tamil Tigers were taken to other facilities where they faced further abuse.
• The Tamil Tigers refused to allow civilians to leave the conflict zone and kept them as hostages. The civilians were sometimes used as human shields.
• The Tamil Tigers forcibly recruited members during whole civil war but this intensified during the final stages of the war. Some of the recruits were young as 14.
• The Tamil Tigers forced civilians to dig trenches, risking making them look like combatants.
• The Tamil Tigers kept on fighting even when it became clear they had lost in order to save the lives of its leaders. This futile prolonging of the conflict resulted many civilians dying unnecessarily.
• The Tamil Tigers shot at point blank any civilian trying to leave the conflict zone.
• The Tamil Tigers fired artillery from near civilians. They also stored military equipment near civilians and civilian structures such as hospitals.
• The Tamil Tigers carried out suicide attacks against civilians outside the conflict zone even during the final stages of the civil war.

The report states that the "credible allegations" demand a serious investigation and the prosecution of those responsible. If the allegations are proved senior commanders, military and political, on both sides are liable for prosecution under international criminal law. The panel noted the Sri Lankan government's attempt at accountability consisted solely of investigating the actions of the previous government and the Tamil Tigers, and not of the present government's actions during the final stages of the war. The panel concluded this is not in accordance with international standards and fell "dramatically short of international expectations". The panel found the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission established by the Sri Lankan government to be "deeply flawed" and not up to international standards of independence and impartiality due to the "deep-seated conflicts of interests" of some of its members. The mandate of the LLRC, its work and methodology meant that it was incapable of investigating the serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law or of examining the causes of the civil war. The panel concluded that the LLRC could not satisfy the commitment on accountability given by President Rajapaksa and Bank Ki-moon.

The panel found that the Sri Lankan justice system was incapable of providing accountability. The independence of the Attorney General had been eroded and the continuation of Emergency Regulations and the Prevention of Terrorism Act precluded the judiciary from holding the government accountable on human rights issues. Military courts and other domestic institutions were also incapable of providing accountability. The panel found that the government's triumphalism and the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora's inability to acknowledge the Tamil Tigers' role in the humanitarian disaster also hindered accountability.

The panel criticised the UN for not protecting civilians. Its reluctance to release casualty figures undermined the call to protect civilians.

The panel made a number of recommendations, including that there be an independent international investigation into the alleged violations of international law and that the Sri Lankan government carry out genuine investigations of the alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law committed by both sides.

...............

Sri Lankan Government is mostly responsible for the final phase of the well-planned war and should have expected LTTE would use civilians as human shields as last resort. Sri Lankan Government evacuated all the UN agencies and the international media in the war zone and is responsible for all the major atrocities. They never allowed a proper international investigation yet. That’s why we need additional external links (irrespective of their possible biased state) since they voice the local’s suffering which never investigated by a neutral international investigator by the blockage of Sri Lankan Government under various pretexts.Lustead (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Lustead, I don't see any problem with having that external link. It gives a grassroots perspective from the Tamil civilians on the ground. Oz346 (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

References