A successful political response to international pressure possible

by Jehan Perera

(June 22, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) 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 him that 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.