INDIA-SRILANKA-MALDIVES

Unclear path for Sri Lankan war probe

Even after the March 27 resolution of the UNHRC in favour of an international probe in Lanka war crimes, there are some advocates in Sri Lana, who are in favor of a domestic probe; their stand is vehemently opposed by some other activists. On its part the government of President Rajapaksa is in no mood to oblige the UNHRC; all this has resulted in an unclear path for the proposed probe, says the analyst.

Days after the UNHRC has called for an international probe into war crimes committed during 2002-2009 (the period covered by Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission), human rights activists and academics in Sri Lanka remain divided over how best to proceed in the investigation.

The three – decade long war mounted by Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) ended in April-May 2009 with the killing of insurgent leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran, who at one time had held sway over large tracts of Tamil speaking areas in Northern Sri Lanka. The Tiger’s supremo was known for his ruthlessness in crushing his critics within and outside the group; his armed cadres always carried a cyanide capsule to die as martyrs rather than get caught.

It was on May 27 that the Geneva based UN body charged with protecting and furthering human rights adopted a US-sponsored resolution. This was third resolution that had sough to censure Rajapaksa regime in as many years. India which voted with the West on a similar resolution a year ago, abstained from voting this time. So did 11 other nations. The vote was 23 in favour, and 12 against. The countries which abstained were Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Morocco, Namibia, Philippines, and South Africa.

The UNHRC also called upon the Government of Sri Lanka to implement effectively the constructive recommendations made in the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission; it asked Colombo to release the results of investigations into alleged violations by security forces, including the attack on unarmed protesters in Weliweriya on Aug 1, 2013, and the report of the 2013 Court of Inquiry conducted by the Sri Lanka Army.

There are still some advocates who are in favor of a domestic probe; their stand is vehemently opposed by some other activists. On its part the government of President Rajapaksa is in no mood to oblige the UNHRC.

Jehan Perera, who heads National Peace Council (NPC), is amongst the advocates of Colombo-led inquiry. “I think right now there is still room for a robust national inquiry that meets international standards,” he told IRIN.

Jaffna based intellectuals and academics like Kumaravadivel Guruparan, however, donot share Perera’s view.  Their contention is simple. All local mechanisms have failed and this is the reason why international pressure had built up on Colombo, they aver. “Let me make it very clear – domestic incentives for change are close to nothing”, Kumaravadivel, a lecturer at the Faculty of Law at Jaffna University, says.

There is no precise number of ethnic Tami civilians killed by the Sri Lanka Army. Rights groups put the number at over 40,000. Officials in Colombo dispute this number, and according to them the last phase of the war against Tamil Tigers was conceived and executed as a humanitarian operation in order to minimize casualties.

As pointed out at the outset, the Sri Lankan government is refusing to cooperate with or recognize any investigation launched by Navi Pillay, the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). If Colombo doesn’t’ cooperate, it will be difficult to gather evidence and access witnesses.

“We will not submit to any investigation by the Office of the High Commissioner”, Foreign Minister Gamini Lakshman Peiris said on April 7. His contention is that the Rajapaksa government is taking follow up action on the LLRC recommendations.  

The eight –member Commission headed by jurist Chitta Ranjan de Silva, “Bulla” to his friends and admirers, submitted a 407-page report in November 2011.It was constituted in May 2010 – a year after the war ended, and faced criticism that it was a toothless wonder since its recommendations were not binding on the government.

Peiris maintains that Sri Lanka will not participate in the UNHRC mandated inquiry.  He nevertheless adds that his government will continue cooperating on a joint needs assessment with the UN in the former conflict zone. Also with the International Committee of the Red Cross in carrying out a nationwide survey of the families of the missing persons.
 
These ministerial assertions are no sweet music to ethnic Tamil leaders, who have mixed feelings about the UNHRC effort. A Sunday Leader report says that the Tamil National People’s Front is not impressed by the Geneva resolution. In fact, the TNPF thinks that giving a mandate for the High Commissioner of the Human Rights is “the weakest form of investigation”.

TNPF President Gajan Ponnambalam gives four reasons for their disappointment with UNHRC resolution.

One the Tamils are not being mentioned in the resolution. Two the dynamics of the conflict have been changed from an ethnic conflict in which Tamil people are being penalized or oppressed to one of state created problems and to a problem of religious minorities.  Three there is a problem with the mandate that has been given to the Human Rights High Commissioner’s office, which is placing all Eelam war crimes under the International Humanitarian Law and not under the Human Right Law. Four for reconciliation, the resolution talks about the LLRC and the 13th Amendment, which we reject completely.

In an interview to Sunday Leader, Ponnambalam elaborated their stand on reconciliation thus: “As far as we are concerned, for reconciliation, there has to be accountability. The crimes we are concerned here are the worst crimes known to man. These are not minor human right violations or minor crimes. To sweep such crimes under the carpet is unacceptable and by doing that there will never be reconciliation. Without addressing the real issues, there will be no reconciliation”.

On the proposed investigation through the High Commission of the Human Rights, the TNPF President has an interesting take. 

“We have a problem about what is given to be investigated. Without addressing the International Humanitarian Law, giving a mandate would not make a difference. Giving the responsibility to the High Commission to investigate is actually the weakest form of investigation that can take place under the UN system. There need to be a Commissioner of Inquiry with a mandate given by the UNHCR”, he said while sticking to the stand that no domestic process can be credible in Sri Lanka at all.

Since the government in Colombo is the number one accused of certain crimes, acing the very same government to investigate is ludicrous, according to him. “Even if there is a different government (in Colombo) the domestic mechanism will not work because what are asked to be investigated are military actions. The military is an accused party which is beyond political parties. Even if a new government comes to power, the military will have their loyalties to the new government. If we are looking for the investigations to be neutral and independent, it necessarily has to be international”, he avers.

Activists like Jehan Perera, believe that international pressure has not lost meaning. “International pressure is important. But for it to have real change it needs to address the underlying structural problems that plague this country”, opines Perera. He believes some countries that had abstained from the UNHRC vote, or voted against it, might eventually come out in favour of an international probe, while others will remain steadfastly against it.

“In the case of India, given that it does not want the precedent of an international inquiry, it will do everything it can to help Sri Lanka get out of this situation either by slowing down an international inquiry or helping (Sri Lanka) to set up its own inquiry with some kind of international aegis”, he opined, according to IRNA.

Going a step forward, Jaffna University’s Guruparan argues that all those in favour of the international investigation need to mount pressure beyond their votes. “Half-baked (international) interventions will only embolden Colombo”, he argues, and criticizes that there is no political will with the international community for strong actions.

As if responding to such criticism, the US Ambassador to Sri Lanka Michele Sison said that right now international backers of the UN resolution were not contemplating punitive actions against Sri Lanka. 

“We are not at this point discussing sanctions”, she told Foreign Correspondents Association (April 3), adding that Washington would wait for (UN High Commissioner for Human Rights) Navi Pillay’s oral report.   The report is due to be published in August, followed by a full report six months later, as per the mandate given in March 27 resolution.

Excerpts from Ambassador Sison’s presser

“To those who have accused the U.S. over the past few months of “targeting” Sri Lanka, I want to point out that this was only one of numerous multilateral responses at the UN Human Rights Council to the human rights situation in a particular country. The United States also led 41 states in expressing concern at the situation in Ukraine, and we joined a cross-regional statement on Egypt. As we do at every UNHRC session, the United States expressed concern about human rights issues all over the world, including Venezuela, China, and Cuba.
 
“There has been criticism that this resolution is somehow “against’ (quote/unquote) the Sri Lankan people. It most certainly is not.

“The end of the conflict presented an unprecedented opportunity to move past the divisions that have existed in this country for far too long, and to bring people together to heal the wounds of war.  In fact, an independent and credible investigation into all actions, by all parties, for the entire period of the conflict would be good for Sri Lanka.

“There has been an alarming surge in attacks against members of religious minorities in Sri Lanka.  For example, an incident which occurred on March 9 at the Good News Church in Mahiyangana in Badulla District is similar to dozens of others that have been reported by the National Christian Evangelical Alliance of Sri Lanka. While services were in progress, a mob gathered outside the pastor’s premises and began interrogating him. Although the police were alerted, officers arrived at the scene only after the pastor had been physically assaulted and the mob had dispersed.

“And just last week we heard reports that on March 26, two petrol bombs were thrown at the Dambulla mosque by unknown persons. Although the police took statements, no one has been arrested in connection with the attack.

“I also note our serious concern about reprisals against those who meet with visiting diplomats and UN officials, or those who traveled to Geneva to meet with various delegations during the month of March.

“It is disturbing to see this targeting of human rights defenders who have devoted their careers and lives to promoting and defending the rights of their fellow Sri Lankan citizens.”

-Yamaarar

Sharing:

Your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *