Lessons to be learnt and unlearnt

By Col R Hariharan

(May 21, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) President Mahinda Rajapaksa has appointed the much awaited ‘Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’ (LLRC). The Island newspaper in its editorial ‘Some V-day thoughts’ voiced the pertinent question, “Why should we expend our time and energy to reinvent the wheel?”

The appointment of the commission had been in incubation for nearly a year. Actually Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative in the UN had spoken about his government initiating a mechanism for fact finding and reconciliation at the UN Security Council Interactive Briefing in June 2009. And after taking so long, why did President Rajapaksa choose the ‘Victory Day’ eve to appoint the commission?

Apparently, Sri Lanka after trying other methods to ward off the flak at the UN on the issue of Sri Lanka’s human rights violations during the war for more than a year has adopted the face saving way of appointing the LLRC. Things came to a boil when the UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon persisted with his proposal to appointment a panel of experts to look at the issue. Of course, Sri Lanka had tried all means including a botched attempt at getting the NAM representatives to pass a resolution against the UN Secretary General’s move. Significantly, India -Sri Lanka’s closest ally in the sub continent – did not vote for Sri Lanka at the NAM representatives meeting. Did Sri Lanka take a hint? I do not think so.

Since it went to war Sri Lanka government had tied itself in knots over issues of violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. This had been cause of great concern to civil society both at home and abroad. The state of emergency and the Prevention of Terrorism Act energized during the war came down heavily on any criticism of the government. The sentencing of veteran journalist and columnist J.S. Tissainayagam, sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment under the anti-terror law was a typical act that put Sri Lanka in the black book of global media. The case attracted so much attention that even the U.S. President Barrack Obama had expressed his concern about it.

The adverse international reaction became worse when the issue of war crimes, particularly as allegations of death of thousands of civilians in the closing stages of war due to army shelling, gathered more mass. The voices at the UN became more strident and critical of Sri Lanka. And Ban ki-Moon’s move was the culmination of these rumblings in Sri Lanka.

Logically, immediately after the victorious war with the elimination of the Tamil Tigers leadership, Sri Lanka should have unshackled all the restrictions imposed during the war. That would have partly met the just demands of civil society; it would have had the advantage of improving the credibility levels of Sri Lanka. But it has not happened so far.

However, it appears President Rajapaksa is trying to tackle this issue by taking small measures to reduce the pressure at a time of his choosing. Tissainayagam was released on bail on the eve of the recent elections. And after the return of the President from the SAARC Summit at Thimphu, early this month the newly appointed Minister of External Affairs Prof GL Peiris announced the President had pardoned the journalist. Did his talks with the Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh during the Summit influence the decision? To be charitable to India, we can think so. If we look at the timing of the appointment of the LLRC it would appear to be so as coincidentally India’s Secretary for External Affairs Ms Nirupama Rao had touched upon the fringe of issues in Sri Lanka that are of concern to India.

If local and international political expediency was behind the appointment of the Commission, it is a little too late as the issues have been ignored for over a year and the critics have gained considerable mileage. In any case, a UN official in New York has clarified that it was not going to stop Ban ki-Moon from appointing an expert panel. According to a media report, the UN official said President Rajapaksa’s commission and the UN Chief’s expert panel were two different concepts due to which Ban Ki Moon would not reconsider appointing his panel. And the UN Secretary General would send his Under Secretary General for Political Affairs Lynn Pascoe to Sri Lanka as soon as clearance is given by the government there.

The UN official’s observations appear correct if we look at the terms of reference of the Commission given in media reports. These are to examine and report on the following aspects:

(a) The facts and circumstances which led to the failure of the ceasefire agreement and the sequence of events that followed thereafter up to May 19 2009

(b) Whether any person, group, or institutions directly or indirectly bear responsibility in this regard.

(c) Lessons learnt from these events in order to ensure that there will be no recurrence.

The wording of the terms of reference is vague and general, rather than specific and pointed. So even if the commission completes its job, it provides sufficient room for endless legal quibbling to delay any action. They will be subject to interpretation whether they cover major issues of civil society concern.

The International Crisis Group has just come out with a detailed report on the war crimes committed by the armed forces and the LTTE. Channel 4 has kindled the fire of war crimes with more inputs. And General Fonseka had brought parliamentary focus on the issue of war crimes. Sri Lanka has to face these issues and take action. International donors who had been supporting Sri Lanka are already weary of its attitude. According to the UN, the country has received only 24% of the total funds ($ 337 million) required for continuing the humanitarian operations. So the appointment of the LLRCis not going to quell strident voices against Sri Lanka. Nor is it going to improve Sri Lanka’s international credibility.

The Commissioners appointed under provisions of Section 2 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act (Chapter 393) has eight prominent personalities as members including at least three with Foreign Service background. Among them is HMGS Palihakkara, former foreign secretary, considered a man of high integrity.

But the issue here is not much as what the LLRC does or finds, but whether its efforts would produce useful results to increase the credibility of the President and the government. After all there had been many commissions in the past which had faced endless obstacles and delaying tactics from the administration. So we can expect the LLRC to make only limping progress in the coming years as every point is debated.

Such squabbling is not unknown. Statutory commissions like the Election Commission, Public Service Commission, Police Commission, Human Rights Commission and the Bribery and Corruption Commission have suffered as appointments to them were mired in political controversy. This has literally ground them to halt and the President is likely to propose amendment to the constitution to enable him to go ahead with the appointment of chairmen and members of these commissions.

Sri Lanka government should ponder over the Island’s original question: “Why should we expend our time and energy to reinvent the wheel?” The newspaper has justified its question aptly:

“Lessons that all of us have already learnt and have yet to learn from thirty years of fighting are fairly well known. Some of them are: no community can or must try to suppress another; violence does not pay; this country does not belong to any particular community; all communities belong to it; it is too small to be divided among different communities but certainly large enough for all communities to live in peacefully.”

What has been happening in Sri Lanka brings to mind what Arthur Miller said in The Crucible: “a political party is equated with moral right, and opposition to it with diabolical malevolence. Once such an equation is effectively made, society becomes a congerie of plots and counterplots, and the main role of government changes from that of the arbiter to that of the scourge of God.”

Time is an irredeemable resource and Sri Lanka has already wasted over 20 precious years in debating what was obvious. Why waste time on more meaningless commissions? It is time to get on with positive action, now that the war is over. And to get going Sri Lanka needs an attitudinal change. That is the lesson number one to be learnt.

(Col R Hariharan, a retired Military Intelligence specialist on South Asia, served with the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka as Head of Intelligence. He is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the South Asia Analysis Group. E-Mail: colhari@yahoo.com Blog: www.colhariharan.org)