The government headed by President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe scored a major diplomatic victory last week, with the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) extending the timeframe granted to Sri Lanka by another two years to meet its obligations under a resolution passed by the Council.
These obligations relate mostly to answering allegations of war crimes during the Eelam war with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and to setting up mechanisms for ethnic reconciliation. Previously, under the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime, Colombo contested the resolutions adopted by the UNHRC- but the resolutions were still adopted, primarily because they were being sponsored by the United States.
The present government has however engaged with both the UNHRC and the US and has opted for consultation and compromise rather than confrontation, choosing to co-sponsor the resolutions along with the US.
As a result, UNHRC last Thursday adopted without a vote the consensus resolution on Sri Lanka which proposes to give two more years beyond 2017 to Sri Lanka to fulfil its commitments for reconciliation and transnational justice. The resolution was submitted by the United States with Montenegro, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland being the main sponsors with Sri Lanka a co-sponsor.
Foreign judges
There was some concern in Colombo as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein had made several comments to the effect that foreign judges would still be desirable in any war crimes probe that was to be conducted in Sri Lanka. Hussein has commented many times that the Sri Lankan judiciary had lost its credibility.
Hussein succeeded Navanethem Pillay as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Pillay was known in political and diplomatic circles for her unwavering anti-Sri Lankan stance. Although Hussein has not been as harsh or outspoken as Pillay, there was concern that he too appeared to be giving the benefit of the doubt to the Eelamist lobby.
In the lead up to the UNHRC resolution, Hussein expressed concern over Sri Lanka’s slow progress in establishing transitional justice mechanisms to address accountability and emphasized the need for an agreement on a comprehensive strategy, with a time-line and detailed benchmarks.
Nevertheless, a successful dialogue primarily with the United States resulted in agreement being reached about an extension being granted to Colombo for two years. Colombo is now required to present a written update on the progress it is achieving to the UNHRC next year and fulfil obligations by 2019.
Eelamist lobby
The government’s stance of agreeing with the US and the UNHRC comes with some domestic political consequences, with the Joint Opposition (JO) screaming that it is a ‘sell out’ to the Eelamist lobby. The JO’s Sarath Weerasekera also made representations in Geneva. Weerasekera, a former Member of Parliament and an ex-Navy officer was heckled as he presented his point of view but soldiered on, nevertheless. He was also provoked by some in the Eelamist lobby, to which he responded defiantly.
While Weerasekera handled a difficult brief reasonably well, it seemed that his appearance in Geneva was more for domestic political consumption, so the JO could gain some political mileage. Its activists were quick to post clips of his presentation on social media, hailing him as a ‘war hero’.
It was curious that the JO chose Weerasekera to be its emissary in Geneva, when it could have dispatched former Minister G.L. Peiris to perform the same task. Peiris certainly has the better credentials for the task but perhaps has bitter memories of Geneva, where, as Minister of External Affairs in the Rajapaksa government, he watched resolutions against Sri Lanka being adopted year after year, so much so that he became known as ‘Geneva Losing’ Peiris.
Of course, on the other side of the divide, the Eelamist lobby was not happy with what transpired in Geneva either, alleging that the grant of a two year extension will encourage more dilly-dallying by Colombo on the vexed issue of probing alleged war crimes.
Overall, however, the government will be satisfied with the outcome in Geneva. That is not merely because of the two year extension of the deadline it was granted to meet its obligations. It is also because the crucial issue of involving foreign judges in any war crimes inquiry has been all but shelved by the UNHRC.
This must come as a huge relief to the government because, had it been compelled to carry out a probe with foreign judges, there would have been a huge political fallout. The JO would have naturally cried foul, but it would have been a cry that would have found resonance with a significant proportion of the electorate, especially within the majority community.
The government realised these implications well before the sessions in Geneva. That is why President Maithripala Sirisena was to publicly declare that he would not allow foreign judges in any war crimes inquiry. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe was also of the same opinion, pointing out that such a move would not be consistent with the Constitution.
The minister doing the spadework for the Government, Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera, has often been vilified by the JO as working to appease the UNHRC and Eelamist lobby rather than confronting them. However, after the passage of the resolutions was negotiated successfully in Geneva, Samaraweera was to clarify Colombo’s position.
Credible judicial process
The inclusion of foreign judicial personnel in a domestic process was not the sole obsession of the government or the international community, Samaraweera explained. The government’s main concern was establishing a fair, independent and credible judicial process that will address the needs of all stakeholders, the Minister said.
Though the events of last week will bring much needed respite to the government in Colombo, it does come at a price. That is because the deadline granted to the government expires in 2019. This necessarily means that, given the tight time frames with which Colombo is struggling, matters related to the UNHRC will come to the forefront in 2019.
This is the year before the next national elections which are due in 2020. Whether a presidential election will be called for will depend on when an elected Executive Presidency remains in the Constitution at that stage. A general election will certainly be due in 2020.
It is difficult to predict whether the same political alliances will remain in 2019, but if they do, it doesn’t take a genius to predict that the JO will attempt to gain maximum political advantage of any inquiry that is held on alleged war crimes, foreign judges or not. This is a factor which the government needs to be mindful of.
It must also note with concern that it has been in office for more than two years now and while some progress has been made on the issue of ethnic reconciliation, if events are to proceed at the same pace for the next two years, there wouldn’t be many achievements to showcase.
Therefore, it will be very much in the government’s interest to expedite ethnic reconciliation and any inquiries into alleged war crimes as soon as possible. This would ensure that it is able to front up to the UNHRC in 2019 and assure the Council that it has fulfilled all its obligations.
More importantly though, if it can dispose of the issue of alleged war crimes by 2019, it could stand before the Sri Lankan electorate with confidence, not fearing a backlash from any community.
That, perhaps more than anything else, should motivate those walking the corridors of power to act decisively- and to act now.
Add new comment