UN probe provides government with rallying point

by Jehan Perera

(July 06, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The decision of the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon to proceed with his decision to appoint a three member advisory panel on Sri Lanka has provoked an overwhelmingly negative response in Sri Lanka. The opposition to the UN panel is being led by the government which has already announced that it will not issue visas to the members of the panel. The panel members from Indonesia, South Africa and the United States are distinguished in their commitment to international human rights. But, the Sri Lankan government’s position is that it did not ask the UN for assistance in regard to the mandate of the panel, which is to look into the allegations of human rights violations in the closing stages of the war. The government has also pointed to its own Commission on Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation, which it recently set up with a mandate that includes the UN Secretary General’s concerns.

The government’s reluctance to accede to the UN Secretary General’s decision is not difficult to understand. Any future probe into human rights violations is almost certain to include top government members on the grounds that they were the decision makers and the chain of command principle needs to be followed. No government would wish to put its own members into such a vulnerable situation where they may even be called on to face the International Criminal Court. It is on this basis that the United States, which is itself a foremost proponent of human rights in the global arena, has refused to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the ICC. Its own judgments on issues of war and national security come first and it is not prepared to have international judges sit in judgment on those issues.

The US position that no international bodies will be permitted to override its national sovereignty raises the question of why it should be different for Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan government and most public commentators on the issue in Sri Lanka have referred to this as evidence of the inconsistency in the application of human rights criteria which ought not to be imposed on other countries on the grounds that they are smaller and less able to resist. The tragic fate that befell a large proportion of the people of Iraq when the US invaded it citing the dangers posed by its government’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction cannot be glossed over. Upwards of a hundred thousand civilians lost their lives due to the US military action that followed the invasion. Likewise there have been high levels of civilian casualties in conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir and Chechnya.

Singled out

The fact that the UN has failed to take comparable action with more powerful offender countries as it is proposing with Sri Lanka creates the impression that Sri Lanka is being singled out for punitive measures which erodes confidence in the UN Secretary General’s objectives in appointing the panel of experts. There is a suspicion that the Sri Lankan government’s recent history of being at loggerheads with the UN system on the issue of its final war against the LTTE has been the determining factor. The UN Commissioner for Human Rights Navaneethan Pillay was sharply critical of the Sri Lankan government which generated an equivalently negative response from Sri Lanka. At international forums such as the UN’s Human Rights Council, Sri Lanka had to defend itself from resolutions sponsored by several Western countries.

Although it was a member of the first Human Rights Council, Sri Lanka lost its place in the Council due to the campaign against it. In these circumstances, it is not likely that the government will wish to agree to do anything that will give the UN’s human rights mechanisms an independent entry into the country. The government reason to be concerned that even a preliminary visit by the UN panel would be the thin edge of a wedge that will penetrate further into the country’s internal governance. This may account for the government’s decision at the very outset itself to block the entry of the UNP panel into Sri Lanka by denying them visas without even giving them a chance to state their case.

The governments of China and Russia have criticized the decision of the UN Secretary General to escalate his human rights intervention in Sri Lanka. As both these countries have veto powers in the UN Security Council they are in a position to block a bid to take the matter to the International Criminal Court. In addition to supporting a friendly country, perhaps they see the danger to themselves for their own conduct in relation to ethnic minorities and dissenting sections of their populations. They may also be regretting the fact that they permitted the indictment against Sudan’s President Bashir in the light of the further hardships that accrued to the Sudanese people.

The case of Sudan is one that the UN needs to consider before seeking to escalate its intervention in Sri Lanka. The International Criminal Court received the authorization of the UN Security Council to file indictments against the Sudanese government leaders, including its President Omar Al Bashir. This was on account of the large scale killings and mass starvation that took place in that country’s civil wars. However, even after the indictment, President Bashir won re-election and continues to rule with a heavy hand. Also, as a result of the ICC indictment and other UN pressures, the Sudan government took on an even more nationalist and extreme anti- West stand. It expelled most of the Western humanitarian organizations that were delivering aid to the people, making the situation of the victim population even worse.

Reconsider Strategy

In view of the opposition by the Sri Lankan government, the UN Secretary General will need to reconsider his strategy and objectives that prompted him to appoint the panel in the first place. If the objective was to heal the wounds of war in Sri Lanka and to foster the reconciliation process, this has not happened. Instead what is to be seen is the mobilization of nationalist sentiment within the general population to the political advantage of the government. Articles and letters in the newspapers and on websites show a high level of popular support for the government in facing down the challenge posed by the UN and international human rights lobby. The issue of a political solution to the ethnic conflict that could best address the need for reconciliation and confidence building amongst the ethnic communities after years of war is glossed over. It again faces the opposition of re-mobilized forces of nationalism.

The appointment of the UN panel has also got coupled with the set of 15 conditions of the EU on the government in order to retain the benefits of the GSP Plus privilege. The EU conditions are about good governance that would benefit the general population and not about war crimes. Most Sri Lankans are also concerned about possible economic losses. But there is little public support that is openly expressed for the view that the EU conditions ought to be complied with. Those who have urged a positive engagement with the EU on the issue of the conditions are denounced as traitors and for giving priority to money over national sovereignty. Even those business chambers whose members are most likely to lose financially by the loss of GSP Plus are publicly backing the government in its defiant stand.

The continued mobilization of nationalism makes it difficult to promote values of reconciliation, which requires justice through political reform and good governance in addition to economic development. At the present time, therefore, the human rights-focused actions of the international community have given the government and nationalist sections of the general public yet another opportunity to marginalise those sections of the political opposition and civil society who urge dialogue, reform and accommodation as the path to reconciliation. The Sri Lankan government and the majority of the Sri Lankan people are on one side when it comes to resisting the intervention of outside powers. The international community needs to take note of this ground reality and seek to engage with the government with a different strategy.