There is a perception within Sri Lanka that the UN, Western countries and international human rights organizations have been unfairly targeting the government leadership on the issue of war crimes.
by Jehan Perera
(September 28, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s participation at the UN General Assembly gave him a special opportunity to inform the world how his government dealt with war and is now dealing with post-war issues. At the General Assembly the President delivered a well crafted speech with aplomb.
At the UN General Assembly the President adopted an internationalist approach that also drew upon Sri Lanka’s own experiences of the recent past. He opined with textbook precision that the UN was "an important mechanism in ensuring cooperation between states and a forum for discussion between sovereign states." The point was made that there was a limit to the extent that non-governmental groups could put pressure on the UN to take action against a sovereign state. There is no doubt the President was hinting at the considerable pressure brought to bear on his government by non-governmental groups. These groups utilized their relationships with various UN agencies to highlight various alleged shortcomings in Sri Lanka’s commitment to the UN Charter.
However, the President’s endeavour went beyond merely bringing a stop to non-governmental organizations getting involved in UN affairs at the level of sovereign states. He also challenged other international governments to adhere to "the principle of equal treatment of countries, big and small" on which the UN Charter was based. The President was thereby amplifying the sentiments of many in Sri Lanka who see the double standards that are inherent in big power politics. It would rankle that the civilian toll in Sri Lanka’s war merits international and UN investigation when other countries are locked in conflicts in which human rights violations may be worse, but are left alone.
There is a perception within Sri Lanka that the UN, Western countries and international human rights organizations have been unfairly targeting the government leadership on the issue of war crimes. Referring to the LTTE in his speech to the General Assembly, President Rajapaksa pointed out that "the Tamil community of Sri Lanka was as much victims of its terror as the rest of the population in our country." Most Sri Lankans, especially from the ethnic majority, see the war that resulted in the elimination of the LTTE as justified, as all communities suffered from their terror. Therefore, any attempt made to punish the government leadership will result in continuous waves of public support and sympathy for them.
International Law
President Rajapaksa sought to use the platform of the UN General Assembly to also reform the way that international law operates. He argued that international humanitarian law "evolved essentially in response to conflicts waged by the forces of legally constituted States, and not terrorist groups." He further pointed out that "the asymmetrical nature of conflicts initiated by non state actors gives rise to several problems which need to be considered in earnest by the international community." The President was not specific as to what those problems were, but to those in the international community who had covered the end phase of the government’s war with the LTTE the meaning would have been clear.
In the last phase of the war the LTTE took a population of about 300,000 people who lived in the territories they had controlled in the North as virtual hostages. This made it difficult for the Sri Lankan armed forces to get at the LTTE. The evidence from people who testified recently before the Presidential Commission on Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation bears this out. Witnesses have said that the LTTE had forcibly prevented the people from fleeing the war zones in which they had been trapped, while they also faced fire from the Sri Lankan military when they observed movements from the LTTE lines, which meant they could not escape.
The most recent evidence given before the Presidential Commission gives an indication of the terrible plight of the civilian population that was trapped in with the LTTE. It shows the cost of a war that the government wished to be a humanitarian operation to save the hostages and with zero tolerance for civilian casualties. There was evidence given before the Presidential Commission that give graphic detail about the horrific incidents that arose from this hostage taking.
During President Rajapaksa’s meeting with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon the fact that the UN panel had no legal status to investigate these incidents was reportedly acknowledged by the UN Secretary General, which said that its panel was only an advisory one. However, the UNSG also urged the President to continue on the path of "a political settlement, reconciliation and accountability." The first step to achieving this would be to acknowledge what happened rather than to seek to deny it or down play it. The fact that the Presidential Commission on Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation has been conducting public hearings in the worst affected war zones and permitting the national media to attend them is a positive action which the media has professionally reported on.
Showing goodwill
While delivering his speech at the UN General Assembly, President Rajapaksa made a moving declaration that if acted upon could resolve the ethnic conflict in the country for all time. He said, "Let me be clear, no nation on earth can wish Sri Lanka’s Tamil community more good fortune than Sri Lanka itself." This can be a renewed commitment to rebuild the lives of the war displaced civilians who continue to live in pathetic conditions in the North of the country. The President took comfort in the fact that "Sri Lanka has already returned over 90 percent of the internally displaced people to their original villages that were previously riddled with landmines and provided the essential infrastructure necessary to resume normal life."
However, on the ground there still remains much to be done for the displaced people. Many of them still live in huts of tin sheet and tent material with barely any infrastructure to support them. Many of them haves not even received the Rs 25,000 promised to resettling families. In addition, much remains to be done in order to work out a political solution that could bring the Tamil community into the mainstream of political life in the country. Disappointingly the President had nothing to say about a political solution, nor about the final report of the All Party Conference that he established four years ago to find out such a solution. This is not to say that the President and key members of his government, such as Minister of External Affairs Professor G. L. Peiris, who accompanied the President to the UN General Assembly, are not aware of what needs to be done. They have chosen to do otherwise, such as by recently passing the 18th Amendment to the Constitution that further centralized power rather than decentralizing it.
In an address delivered at the China Institute of International Studies, Beijing, on 12th August 2010, where he was elected a Distinguished Fellow, Prof. Peiris, said, "In Sri Lanka within one year, we have made very substantial progress in getting to grips with this problem. Of course, other Governments have helped. Your own government, the Government of China, has helped us with demining. You have sent us pre-fabricated housing. All that has been done by the Government of China. This is one part of it resettlement, but the Government of Sri Lanka is firmly convinced that this is not a matter of mere physical relocation. It is our responsibility to ensure that these people are relocated in an environment that is pervaded by economic satisfaction. In other words, people who are relocated must have access to sufficient incomes, so that they can live their lives with dignity and self respect, without being a burden on society and without being angry, bitter, indignant individuals."
Prof. Peiris also said, "President Rajapaksa does not believe for a one moment that a military victory, by itself, will provide us with a durable and lasting solution. I would say a military victory is a necessary condition, but Mr. Chairman, it is by no means a sufficient condition. There must be other requirements to be satisfied. In other words, a military solution has to be supplemented by political initiatives. That means that you must put in place arrangements for redistribution of power, empowerment of minority communities, all of which would require vigorous consultation with minority groups. You have to talk to them. It cannot be a top down solution. You cannot decide unilaterally and impose that decision on all communities in the country. It must emanate spontaneously from all the groups that inhabit the Island." It is to be hoped that Mind being the forerunner of all states of being, and the recent experience of the 18th Amendment notwithstanding, the Words spoken would be made Flesh.
Post a Comment