The challenge and opportunity at the UN meeting

"The President’s decision to go to New York with a large entourage was in character with the manner in which he has met challenges to himself and to his government headlong without too much concern about the costs. There are reports of lavish expenditures in New York, but the President may be assured that the gains will outweigh the costs."

by Jehan Perera

(September 21, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) There was speculation whether President Mahinda Rajapaksa would attend the UN General Assembly meeting this year. This was on account of the strained relations between the Sri Lankan government and the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on the issue of war crimes allegedly committed in the last phase of the war. Six months ago, following several strongly worded exchanges between the Sri Lanka authorities and UN officials, the UN Secretary General announced he would appoint an advisory panel to guide him with regard to the human rights situation in Sri Lanka. This was strongly resented by the Sri Lankan government as an unwarranted intrusion into the country’s internal affairs in a manner that other countries were not being subjected

There might have been another deterrent factor to the President making a visit to New York. In April and May of last year when the final battles were taking place, there were massive demonstrations by the Tamil Diaspora in several Western capitals that made it seem an inhospitable place for any Sri Lankan leader to visit. However, today, those demonstrations are but a memory, and those same Western capitals are no more subject to the organized strength of the Tamil Diaspora. Just as much as the defeat of the LTTE ended the violence and war within Sri Lanka, it appears that the capacity of the Tamil Diaspora to launch large scale street protests is also gone, at least for the time being.

The three member advisory committee that the UN Secretary General appointed has decided to begin its work in the shadow of the UN General Assembly at which President is billed to speak. It is unlikely to be a coincidence that the first meeting of the three member panel of advisors on Sri Lanka who were appointed more than three months ago should occur in New York during the period of the UN General Assembly which also meets in New York. This would compel the President to address the issues relating to human rights during his stay in New York. Human rights groups that use the occasion of the UN General Assembly to lobby international governments would be able to use the presence of world leaders to make their case against the Sri Lankan government.

President unfazed

The President’s decision to go to New York with a large entourage was in character with the manner in which he has met challenges to himself and to his government headlong without too much concern about the costs. There are reports of lavish expenditures in New York, but the President may be assured that the gains will outweigh the costs. The opportunity to meet with world leaders is an opportunity to build goodwill and strengthen relations, the value of which cannot be quantified in monetary terms. In a context in which there has been much criticism of the allegedly slow pace of resettlement of the war affected people, it will also be an invaluable opportunity for the government to make its case with regard to post-war developments and for more humanitarian assistance.

One of the government’s show cases will be the Commission on Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation which the President appointed over four months ago and which has been meeting regularly for the past several weeks. The Commission’s work been covered extensively by the media, especially the revelations of shortcomings in the Ceasefire Agreement and peace process. So far there has been less attention to the conduct of the war itself from the perspective of the affected civilian population or on post-war reconciliation measures. More recently, the Commission has begun its process of collecting facts and opinions directly from the people, and is going around the country to facilitate such meetings which is extremely positive.

The reported decision of the Commission to bar the international media from covering the hearings in Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu is an indication of the government’s sensitivity to human rights issues as they affected the civilian population. Kilinochchi was the LTTE’s administrative capital and Mullaitivu was the epicenter of the war where the LTTE’s last stand took place. The international media was permitted to cover the earlier proceedings of the Commission in Colombo, where the focus of attention was on the deficiencies of the Ceasefire Agreement and peace process. They were also given permission to cover the hearings in Vavuniya, which became host to most of the internally displaced population. The denial of permission to cover the hearings in Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu is an indication that the government feels uncomfortable with international media coverage about what the people trapped in the war went through.

What judgment

The question arises as to the standards by which countries that have experienced major wars where their survival was at stake should be judged by. It can be argued that it is still too soon for Sri Lankan society to take stock about what happened during the war. Other countries have taken decades before they finally admit what happened in wars they fought. Wars which are deemed to be crucial to the survival of the state are likely to be more hard fought than wars where the stakes are less important. Soldiers of every army are liable to commit human rights violations, but it requires a special commitment for an army or government to be willing to punish its own. This is especially the case when the war has been against a formidable foe that does not fight by the rules of the Geneva Conventions. In the aftermath of most wars, it is those who lost the war who have been punished, not those who have been victors.

Given this international practice, the UN Secretary General’s pursuit of a potential war crimes investigation against the Sri Lankan government has had two consequences. The first is that it has strengthened the government’s position with the Sri Lankan people that it is the victim of unjust prosecution by foreign agencies. As this pursuit comes in the close aftermath of a war in which nationalism was roused, the government has not needed much to keep this spirit of nationalism alive to further strengthen itself politically. The second consequence is the stress it places on Sri Lanka’s relations with those Western countries that are perceived to be supportive of the UN investigation. No country likes to feel that its leadership is being targeted for punitive actions by other countries especially when it is tinged with double standards.

The distancing that has taken place between Sri Lanka and the Western countries over the past several years since the accession of President Rajapaksa is unfortunate. These countries continue to be Sri Lanka’s main export markets and also gave a considerable amount of development assistance to the country in the past. At present Sri Lanka is receiving considerable economic assistance from China which makes up for the reduction in Western assistance. However, the more assistance that the country can obtain from development partners, the better it is for the people, if that aid is used for their benefit. Swedish assistance continued for over fifty years, and what it gave, such as to schools in the estate sector, is without a substitute today. Until recently Japan was Sri Lanka’s largest donor, and what it has given will be difficult for any other country to match. Special relationships like these that span the decades must not be lost. Despite the stresses of the present, these countries have been good friends too.