What were they thinking in the EU?

by Rajpal Abeynayake

(June 28, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) These developments were perhaps not wholly unexpected, but when the European Union issued a list of conditions last week for the grant of GSP, nobody expected this intensity of detail.

For example, the EU has called for legislative steps necessary to allow individual citizens to submit complaints to the UN human rights committee, under the first optional protocol to the ICCPR, and to the UN committee against torture, under article 22.

Now, this is more than curious. The UK, for instance, has not signed one of these documents, and individual citizens in UK have no right to submit complaints to the UN human rights committee on issues coming under the purview of that document.
The EU obviously wants Sri Lanka to submit to protocols that are observed in the breach in member countries.

The EU for instance, calls for the repeal of ouster clauses in section 8, and the immunity clause in section 9 of our public security ordinance — or amendments so as to a make them clearly compatible with the ICCPR.

The ouster clauses deal with immunity from prosecution for officers of the armed forces and police who prosecute terrorism related violence for instance. Doing away with these clauses would make officers liable for “offences’’ deemed to be committed in the line of duty.

Obviously, the Sri Lankan government was not pleased with the EU’s demands, which mostly have to do with purported human rights related post-war legal issues and constitutional matters.

Prompt in condemning

The Ban-ki-moon UN panel was appointed almost simultaneous with the issuance of this list of conditions—and the Sri Lankan government was prompt in condemning the panel, and stating that none of the panel members will be allowed to step onto Sri Lankan soil.

The Sri Lankan policymakers insist that the appointment of an advisor panel is much less than what nations inimical to Sri Lankan interests in the UN initially wanted—which was a war crimes tribunal.

From there to mere ‘advisory panel’’ they say, is a climb down of immense proportions.

However, the advisory panel was also rejected in no uncertain terms by the Sri Lankan government, making clear to all concerned our current foreign policy trajectory, in the face of what are now clearly very concrete attempts by sections of the international community to intervene in the post war reconciliation process.

This means that the government’s Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission is not trusted by these international forces to do a thorough investigation into the alleged human rights violations during the final phase of the war.

This situation is especially rankling to the president and his government. Last week it appeared that the president set the tone for the country’s response to the EU conditions and the appointment of the UN panel.

The plan is to talk tough—brook no nonsense, and make it clear to all parties concerned that no interference will be tolerated on issues related to post war reconciliation. The government’s position is clear—we shall not be punished for waging a just war on terror.

However, the gist of the EU document seems to be that the war on terror is now over, which is why the country must revert to democratic governance.

This is why the accent is on the so called draconian law— the emergency laws and the other clauses such as the immunity clauses regarding security forces personnel etc. There is special mention made about taking steps to ensure ‘journalists can exercise their professional duties without harassment.’

The government is epically peeved about the EU condition that all persons detained under emergency regulations should either be released or brought to trial.

There is no doubt about it—the government considered the war on terrorism a military exercise that called for extra judicial methods—and now needs the application of continuing extra judicial methods. The UN secretary general and the EU do not necessarily agree, and calls upon the government to do away with the extraordinary measures that are in place to deal with terrorism and possible lingering after-effects

Audacious

No doubt the EU document was audacious in that the call to fully implement the 17th amendment for instance, is a clear conditional directive on what is purely an internal constitutional matter. What the Sri Lankan opposition and media should be interested in has apparently become the purview of the EU.

It is why many are of the view that if the EU wants to govern Sri Lanka, the EU countries would have to invade and colonize—they wouldn’t otherwise get their wish on a platter.