Sri Lanka – where do we go from here?

by Lynn Ockersz

(October 31, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Whither post-war Sri Lanka? This is the issue that most local minds are grappling with currently and it is only be expected that most Lankan eyes will be on the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), which was launched by the Lankan government subsequent to the conclusion of the 30 year anti-separatist war, with the prime intention of gleaning lessons and insights from local efforts at defusing the separatist conflict, for the purpose of national rejuvenation.

As could be seen, the LLRC exercise is proving useful in that a number of groups and persons with an interest in seeing Sri Lanka rising energetically from the ashes of war, have testified and made representations before it and no excuses could be trotted out by the state and other important actors on the local political stage, if they have been giving ear to the LLRC, that they do not have enough information and knowledge on the gut issues in our conflict to act on. It must accrue to the credit of Lankan Foreign Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris that he has lost no time in calling the attention of the international community to the importance of the work undertaken by the LLRC. The task before the Foreign Minister is quite onerous because a number of foreign actors, including human rights groups, have, with some justification, cried ‘foul’ at the Commission and have been constantly harping on its perceived inadequacies.

At this point in time it is important that both parties to this debate do not engage in destructive criticism of each other. While the Lankan state would need to ensure that the LLRC carries out its mandate impartially and even-handedly, by listening to all parties to the conflict, drawing the necessary inferences and if necessary coming down hard on any state agencies, actors or personalities who have been acting in violation of the laws of the land, the international community on its turn should sooner rather than later perceive the strengths of the Commission.

Numerous are the insights that are being thrown up at the LLRC sittings on how the Lankan situation could be changed for the better and it is the view of this writer that one of the most vital of such perceptions was voiced by no less a person than LLRC Chairman C.R. de Silva when he said that the need of the hour is equal rights among all Sri Lankan citizens. It is our hope that this crucial input would be acted on by the Sri Lankan government because ethnic conflicts basically derive from inequality of condition and opportunity among communities and if Sri Lanka is to enjoy a degree of domestic stability in future, equality in all its vital senses must reign in Sri Lanka.

It is important that the world community gives careful thought to Foreign Minister Peiris’ position that on the issue of resolving intrastate conflicts, there could be no uniformly enforceable solutions; that is, there could be no single conflict resolution formula that could be used in all such situations. The Minister has emphasized that these conflict resolution mechanisms should be in keeping with the ‘historical antecedents and cultural traditions of the respective societies’, and this needs to be taken into consideration by the international community because the specific features of each conflict situation vary widely from each other.

However, the foremost task before the Lankan government in this context is to ensure that justice will be meted out to all of Sri Lanka’s communities on the basis of the ‘lessons learnt’ by the Commission. In other words, the LLRC should not be allowed to go the way of most other local Commissions of Inquiry and prove a mere time- buying, sham exercise. There is no getting away from the need to ensure the dignity of all Sri Lankan citizens, and the LLRC, we hope, would make concrete recommendations in this direction which would be acted on by the government of Sri Lanka. It is then that the Lankan state would win the good will of all, including all sections of the Tamil Diaspora. For instance, concrete measures should be taken by the government to end discrimination in all its dimensions – ethnic, language, caste and religious - in the short and medium terms.

While ending discrimination of all kinds and ensuring the dignity of all is integral to national reconciliation and nation-building efforts, it is all too clear that Sri Lanka’s anti-terror war has raised some questions that go to the heart of International Law and practice. One of these relates to the ‘asymmetries’ that emerge in intrastate armed conflicts where states are compelled to take on non-state actors, such as separatist militant organizations, which are, of course, not obliged to observe laws of any kind, while it is incumbent on the state to do so. Thus, the state is forced to fight its enemy ‘with its hands tied’. Once again, the Lankan Foreign Minister has done well to keep this issue alive before the international community. While focusing on the changing nature of contemporary conflicts, he has drawn attention to the fact that today there are no inter-state conflicts as such but intra-state conflicts, where states are compelled to pit themselves against unrelentingly violent non-state actors which are ‘a law unto themselves’. How could International Law, the basic principles of which are based on the conception that the nation state is the basic unit of the international political order, be modified or reformed to deal with intra-state conflicts which are rampant in modern times?

While the above issue needs to be debated internationally, the reflection forces itself on the objective observer that in order of priority, states would do well to ensure that the conditions that lead to conflict and war are minimized within their borders first. If states are increasingly democratized and turned into inclusive ones where communities and individuals could realize their just aspirations and ideals, there would be no need for armed confrontation within states. This is all the reason why the Lankan state should now give priority to working out a political solution.

However, Prof. Peiris could be said to have gone the extra mile to enlighten the international community on some post-war features that could be said to be unique to Sri Lanka, which have gone unnoticed. While addressing a forum at the Centre for Security Analysis in Chennai recently, for instance, he drew the attention of his audience to the absence in Sri Lanka of what may be called the post-war proliferation of small arms. This is a problem among most countries in Asia, but Sri Lanka has ensured the non-proliferation of small arms after the war. This is due to the adept handling of the law and order situation, he said. Likewise, Sri Lanka is ensuring that IDPs, ex-combatants, the Diaspora and the like, do not take on the nature of unmanageable issues.

The Sri Lankan state, he said, has also not allowed armed groups to collaborate in the post war situation – something which most other states do not manage efficiently in this region. Besides, there is no outflow of refugees from Sri Lanka and the latter is ensuring the security of her sea lanes. There is no piracy, people smuggling and the like and this too is a feather in the cap for the Lankan state, he explained.

These issues, the Foreign Minister claimed, have been handled so effectively by Sri Lanka that there is no prospect of war erupting here. But an LTTE rump remains active abroad and these are continuing to take up the cause of Eelam. Such groups have been active in Canada, North America and Britain. These groups possess vast financial resources and wield a considerable communications network. Such groups could harm Sri Lanka’s interests and it is up to the international community to deal with them., the Minister said.

At a time when there is a widespread sense of complacency over the poverty issue, the Lankan Foreign Minister did well to also draw attention to the economic dimension in human rights. He did so during an address on the occasion of the 65th anniversary of the UN in Colombo recently. There has to be some resilience, he said, in adapting the ideals of the UN to suit the modern social and political context. Today it is necessary to reduce inequalities and to give full practical expression by emphasising the economic aspect. While engaging in the task of eradicating inequalities it is important to remember the words of Mahatma Gandhi that poverty is the worst form of violence. We have to ensure the flowering of the humanity of the people by ensuring that poverty is alleviated.

These are important words coming from the Foreign Minister in this era of economic globalization, when the masses are believed to be having better times. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Inequalities breed conflict and war and nothing could be more correct than to wage a war on want and thereby bring down the possibility of conflict and armed confrontation. In order of priority, poverty and want should be addressed by states, for, this is the path to internal stability.