The Economist article, titled "Sri Lanka's war - Out of the Tiger's  cage" (April 8, 2009) states: "Tigers will not let them (the trapped  civilians) leave.  A few would-be fugitives have been shot dead". In point of fact, many more than "a few" have been shot, and the  bodies put on display by the LTTE in order to deter other would-be  fugitives; and fathers have been shot for resisting conscription of  their children.  To the LTTE, civilians serve as a human shield whose  protection enables them to carry out artillery fire while compelling  the security forces to restrain responses.  Therefore, they would do  everything in their power to prevent this human shield from being  removed.  Given this reality, "to hold fire until the civilians are  removed" as advocated by UN, India, America and other countries  reflects an astonishing level of unawareness of the real plight of the  civilians.

For the LTTE to use the safe zone to carry out military offensives  from within it, jeopardising the safety of civilians is an abuse of  the very purpose for which the safe zone was set up.  Accepted  convention entitles the security forces even in this situation to meet  challenge in a proportionate manner, meaning, e.g., meet artillery  fire with artillery fire.  Despite this entitlement, the decision by  the security forces to desist use of artillery fire has not elicited  any positive comment from the media and Human Rights organisations.   The suggestion by the UN Human Rights Commissioner that "both sides  may be guilty of war crimes" reflects a bias that is not in keeping  with the neutrality expected of a UN official.

While The Economist concedes that the camps could be breeding grounds  for future underground activities and therefore "understandable that  the government will monitor them", you state that the Government's  initial plans regarding their release "showed a stunning disregard for  its Tamil citizens".  Such a characterisation ignores realities  associated with conflicts.  Besides, the comment of Mrs.  Balasubramaniam who arrived from London to join a Tamil diaspora team,  was: "I totally reject the LTTE's stance that the Government, in the  guise of running welfare camps in Vavuniya is resorting to slavery.  I  visited these camps and realised they were better maintained than such  welfare camps in South India".  This report states: "She also warned  government authorities that there could be LTTE cadres among those who  live in welfare camps and therefore it is the duty of the government  to prevent away occurrence of events of the past" (The Island, April 9,  2009).  Measures to identify LTTE operatives from the rest may appear  as a "disregard of the Tamil citizens", but the relative humaneness of  the measures adopted under extraordinary conditions has to be  recognized and duly acknowledged, considering practices in other  conflict zones.

You also state that the government seems to worry about a "bad press"  concerning the camps. To refer to these camps as places where  thousands are "corralled" knowing full well that they also harbour  LTTE cadres means that security measures of one kind or another that  entail confinement are needed until they are screened.  The cause for  worry is because comment is made in the case of Sri Lanka, but  accepted as necessary in other theatres of conflict.    Bad press also  results from reports by INGOs who use source material furnished by  LTTE, such as bombing of hospitals and doctored evidence of civilians  killed when in fact such accusations have turned out to be untrue.   All Sri Lanka expects from the press is fairness and accountability.