This month has seen an increase in the level of international activity
with regard to Sri Lanka and concerns about its human rights record.
Sri Lanka figured once again in the UN’s Human Rights Council with
several European countries calling for an investigative mechanism to
be set up with regard to human rights violations. The Sri Lankan
situation was also debated in the British Parliament. The most recent
international interventions have been the visits to Sri Lanka of
Japan’s special envoy Yasushi Akashi, the US President’s advisor on
multilateral affairs Samantha Powers, and UN Under Secretary General
Lynn Pascoe. Instead of declining with the passage of time, the
international interest in Sri Lanka’s war time record of human rights
appears to be increasing.
The significance of Ms Powers visit was that it was for five days, and
included field visits to Jaffna and Batticaloa, and also that she was
accompanied by the director of the war crimes and atrocities section
of the US National Security Council David Pressman. The most positive
of these visits was that of the Japanese special envoy who announced
the delivery of a Japanese aid package for reconstruction amounting to
Yen 39 billion. Mr Akashi also made public statements of support for
the Sri Lankan government’s sovereignty. He said that he was happy
with the progress made by the Sri Lankan authorities in the
resettlement process, but added that it had to be speeded up.
Mr Akashi also addressed the controversial issue of the anticipated UN
panel of experts to advise the UN Secretary General on the human
rights situation in Sri Lanka and said that the panel could provide
experiences and insights but without interfering in local processes,
such as the government appointed Commission on Lessons Learnt and
Reconciliation. At the same time he called for more flexibility and
openness on the part of the government to reconcile all communities
after the end of the war. These statements would have to be assessed
in the context of the very tactful Japanese approach to diplomacy.
The more blunt public statement came from the visiting UN Under
Secretary General whose visit to Sri Lanka had been delayed owing to
government reluctance to deal with the issues that he was going to
raise. Prior to his departure Mr Pascoe confirmed that the UN
Secretary General Ban Ki Moon would indeed be appointing a panel of
experts to advise him on human rights issues relating to Sri Lanka.
The government had been resisting this move very strenuously and even
argued that the UN Secretary General was exceeding his mandate. The
government’s concern is that the issue of war crimes in particular
should not get into the UN system because once it is in it will be
difficult to get out of it without an investigation that could set the
stage for further actions. However, the legal line of argumentation
does not appear to have succeeded.
NATIONAL AUDIENCE
So far one governmental response to the international pressure in the
form of statements critical of the government’s human rights record
and fact finding visits has been to send its diplomatic and legal
teams to various foreign capitals to deny the allegations against it
and to point to the successes of the government’s ongoing efforts to
achieve reconstruction and reconciliation. This approach has been
partly successful as witnessed in the decision of the EU to further
extend the GSP Plus concession for goods exported to the EU for a
further six months. Another response has been to appeal to the
nationalism of the country’s own people. In his speech on the
occasion of the first anniversary of the victory over the LTTE,
President Mahinda Rajapaksa was strong in his condemnation of those
countries that had double standards on terrorism. He also spoke
strongly against those who would betray the country and its armed
forces
He said, “We are aware that some countries being battered by terrorism
have taken strength and courage from these victories won by Sri Lanka.
It is time for the countries facing the terrorist attacks to look back
and see where they have gone wrong. It is a grave error of judgment to
think that while being opposed to terrorism targeting you, to believe
that terrorism that is no threat to you is good. The world has so far
trod on this wrong path. Terrorism remains unvanquished because of
this incorrect thinking. I must state that the countries that show
sympathy towards terrorism and separatism will be the victims of
terrorism. This is the lesson of the history.”
There is no doubt that the President’s words would evoke strong public
support for the government within Sri Lanka. The government’s
military victory over the LTTE would be judged by most people in the
country to have been worth the cost, despite it being high in human
and material terms. The repeated failure of successive governments to
reach a negotiated settlement with the LTTE seemingly left no other
option. Until the defeat of the LTTE there was a widespread belief
that terrorism would exact its toll on the country for an indefinite
period into the future. In addition, the government has shown itself
to be adept at keeping the memory of its war victory alive in the
people’s minds.
Winning and keeping the support of the majority of Sri Lankan people
is a protection to the government in keeping outside powers at bay.
Foreign governments are generally deferential to governments that have
their people’s electoral backing. The problem for the government is
that taking this path implies winning elections continuously in order
to remain in power. It is possible that the government’s
determination to remove the two term limit on the Presidency is at
least partly driven by the need to protect the government leadership
from the possibility of having to face international tribunals. It
has generally been the case that those brought before international
tribunals have been former government leaders who are out of power.
VIABLE OPTION
However, there are two sources of international pressure that will
continue regardless of the government’s ability to win elections. The
first of these stems from the lobbying efforts of the Tamil diaspora
and international human rights organizations which put pressure on
Western governments. This in fact was stated by the MP who opened the
debate on Sri Lanka in the British Parliament. The other is the
agitation within Tamil Nadu that puts pressure on the Indian
government. In addition, the government will find it increasingly
difficult to continue to win elections if its strategy of resisting
international human rights pressure leads to economic sanctions. In a
situation of growing economic hardship the government’s ability to
keep the electorate united behind it will become more difficult.
The sustenance of nationalism as the main political agenda in the post
war era will be undermined by economic difficulties that people
experience. The high defence budget of Rs 200 billion this year
dwarfs the Rs 39 billion that Japan is providing as its aid package.
The area in which the government’s response to its international
critics needs further strengthening is its political response that is
convincing in its promise to create a future based on political
pluralism and inter-ethnic justice that is unlike the past. The
success of the government in retaining the GSP+ tariff concession for
a further six months shows the possibilities of changing the dynamic
with regard to human rights violations as well. The EU said that this
decision was made after considering the programme launched by the
government to uplift the lives of the people in the North and East and
several other factors.
Prior to his departure from Sri Lanka, Mr Akashi stated that the
government had assured himthat the devolution of powers under the 13th
Amendment would take place. He said that President Rajapaksa had also
stated that the controversial issue of police powers being devolved to
the provinces would only be finalized after further consultations
amongst all stakeholders. The problem with this formulation of the
government’s intentions is that they reflect the present reality of
devolution, which is far from satisfactory. The 13th Amendment by
itself, and as implemented today, fails to convince those interested
in seeing progress in the evolution of a political solution that
anything new is on the table. Due to the excessive centralization of
government, the Provincial Councils are disempowered, bereft of both
financial resources and decision making powers.
The irony is that the government does have a political formula that
could form the basis for a political solution that has the acceptance
of all ethnic communities in the country. Prof. Tissa Vitarana who
headed the All Party Representatives Committee that was mandated by
President Rajapaksa in 2006 to work out a political solution to the
ethnic conflict has referred to a public opinion poll carried out by
Dr Colin Irwin of the University of Liverpool. Dr Irwin carried out
three surveys on the APRC proposals in March 2008, 2009, and 2010.
According to the March 2009 survey only 59% of the Sinhalese were
supportive of the proposals, while in March 2010, after the end of the
war, the percentage was 80%. During those two periods over 80% of the
Tamils and the Muslims were supportive. Those sections of the
international community that are interested in justice in Sri Lanka
ought to be no less supportive.