Though Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) has given its report which more or less gives a clean chit to the President and the Sri Lanka army, the Rajapakse government still faces the prospect of a UNHRC resolution calling for a full-fledged war crimes investigation. Last year too this prospect loomed large over Colombo but the on-going probe by LLRC provided the shield, which is no longer the case, particularly as the LLRC report has not silenced the critics.
In fact, sections of the local media and the Human Rights groups see the LLRC report, published on December 16, as a transparent whitewash of the Sri Lankan military and government. Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, for instance, said that the LLRC report doesn’t fully address the grave accusations of serious human rights violations that had occurred towards the end of the Wanni War. He renewed the call for an independent investigation.
In a statement issued on Jan 11, the Canadian Minister said “Canada remains concerned that the report does not fully address the grave accusations of serious human rights violations that occurred toward the end of the conflict. Many of the allegations outlined by the UN Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka have not been adequately addressed (by LLRC report). We continue to call for an independent investigation into the credible and serious allegations.”
The UN Panel, Baird was referring to, was headed by a noted Indonesian jurist Marzuki Darusman (Yasmin Sooka of South Africa and Steven Ratner of the United States are the other members).and it reached the conclusion that there is ‘credible evidence’ of war crimes by the Sri Lankan military during the final months of the war. It also spoke of evidence that showed deliberate targeting of hospitals. Based on these observations human rights groups and their sympathizers in the west have been making out a strong case for ‘going ahead’ ahead with an international inquiry despite Sri Lanka’s resistance.”
There is gain saying the fact that the US and other powers have exploited the issue as a means of pressuring Sri Lanka to distance itself from China, whose influence in Colombo grew under the Rajapakse government particularly during the final phase Wanni War. India is also concerned over increasing Chinese presence and interest in the island nation. Shortly before Krishna arrived in the Sri Lankan capital, the Chinese started work in Colombo of the region’s tallest telecommunication tower.
Delhi is equally concerned over the Pakistani factor in Sri Lanka as well in the context of Pakistan’s export enterprise of Islamic fundamentalism. But it has not allowed these concerns to cloud its relations with Colombo and largely because of this approach the relations have not suffered despite enough provocations from the other end. The continued targeting by Sri Lankan navy of unarmed Indian fishermen is a highly emotional issue in Tamilnadu, the South Indian state which shares history with the island nation.
Krishna’s visit was marked by the inauguration of a new railway line from the southern city of Galle and a housing project of 50,000 units in the war ravaged North. The Indian minister held discussions with President Rajapakse and his Sri Lankan counterpart, G.L. Peiris. Expectedly, the discussions focused on a political solution to the vexed ethnic issue, which saw the country plunge into civil war for three decades plus. “The President assured me that he stands by his commitment to pursuing the 13th amendment plus approach,” Krishna told the media.
The 13th amendment to the Sri Lankan constitution was adopted as part of the Indo-Lanka accord signed in 1987. It sought the devolution of limited powers at the provincial level, and a unified northern and eastern province. Both goals are far from a reality. In fact, the plan for merging north and eastern provinces was stuck down by the apex court and the government has not taken any steps to go against the verdict, not even an appeal for review.
And the Indo-Sri Lanka accord, also known as Rajiv-Jayewardene collapsed even before it could be implemented fully. It became a victim of Sinhala chauvinism, which is articulated as the Southern Consensus. Amongst the Tamil parties and groups also, there is no consensus on the devolution package per se but there is agreement that the 13th amendment could be the starting point for addressing the basic concerns of the Tamils and giving them a better, if not effective, say in local governance. On its part, India holds the view that whatever be the ifs and buts, the two communities – the Sinhala majority and the Tamil minority should live in harmony and that the minority should not be made to feel alienated. A power sharing arrangement will therefore go a long way to remove the sense of alienation and anger among Tamils, particularly the youth who are disillusioned by the LTTE ideology.
The Tamil youth are also becoming increasingly disillusioned by Colombo’s reluctance to walk the talk on political solution. Having defeated the LTTE, the Rajapakse government has been unwilling to make any concessions; it has virtually pushed the 13th amendment to the backburner notwithstanding the renewed public commitments. And, like in the past, now also it has been made a hostage to the majority chauvinism; the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) and National Freedom Front (NFF) are a part of the ruling coalition.
Both JHU and NFF used the Krishna visit to whip up anti-Indian sentiment by accusing Delhi of dictating terms to the Sri Lankan government on the devolution issue. Activists of Rajapakse’s Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and the opposition Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) joined the protests signaling there by that Sri Lanka is no more near to a solution to the ethnic divide even after so many years.
When the Darusman panel was appointed on June 22, 2010, much against the will of President Rajapakse, UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, B. Lynn Pascoe, visited Colombo and held talks with Rajapakse, senior Government officials, Opposition leaders and representatives of the Tamil and Muslim communities and civil society groups. He also visited conflict-affected areas where IDPs are being resettled. In all his interactions, Pascoe said political solutions that tackle the underlying grievances which fuelled the conflict were necessary to heal the wounds left by the civil war.
Put differently, Colombo has made no forward movement on resolving the basic issue. And President Rajapakse has not lived up to the promises he had made to the North while seeking a second successive mandate in 2010. As a ‘commoner’ politician, and human rights campaigner, he is in a position to rewrite the history of his country and in the process realize his dream of making Sri Lanka the new Singapore in the Indian Ocean.
To dream is easy. Living a dream is not. It demands political will and foresight – in short, statesmanship. Well, President Rajapakse has the opportunity to act without tying himself into knots in Geneva.
