There is a proposal to break free from and reorganise the commitments made by the government to the international community with regard to issues of war time accountability for serious human rights violations. It was in October 2015 the newly elected government eased tensions that had been growing between the previous government and sections of the international community. This dispute had contributed to the imposition of economic sanctions.
The European Union had withdrawn the GSP Plus tariff concession and there were indications of further sanctions to come. But by co-sponsoring UN Resolution 30/1 at the UN Human Rights Council, the government pledged to embark on a wide ranging series of actions that would deal with the past and pave the way for national reconciliation.
However, the issue of accountability for war crimes and human rights violations, claimed as a result of international pressure, has been condemned by the racist fascist Mahinda clan supported by a section of Sri Lankan Security Forces and some groups within Sinhala majority nationality. Recently there were suggestions from the government side stating that it could amicably propose alternatives to the commitments that the Mahinda government made in Geneva.
International community
The most controversial of those has been to have the participation of the international community in the establishment of a special judicial mechanism to look into questions of accountability. Both President Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe have clarified that this international participation does not amount to the setting up of hybrid courts in which international judges sit in judgment alongside national judges.
There is a suggestion for yahapalana leaders to go before the UN General Assembly to urge, in an amicable manner that the resolution on Sri Lanka co-sponsored by the government should be amended, as it had led to the perception that the Sri Lankan Security Forces were being unfairly targeted for punitive action. Government will submit these proposals to the United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres as well as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bache let. It is expected that the proposals aim at solving issues and providing relief without causing harm to the pride of the security forces or endangering Lanka’s independence while providing autonomy of expression to minority nationalities.
The yahapalana is today under criticism for many reasons. Many dissatisfied due to social and economic reasons clamour for relief. Trade unions who expected yahapalana to give immediate relief to their injustice issues go for trade union action.
In rural areas there is pressure to boost the economy and ensure adequate trickle down to the masses. But for fascistic opposition the major criticism is for having respected, the co-sponsored UNHRC resolution 30/1 of October 2015 which set out ambitious targets to be achieved within a two year framework. The delay and nature of the government’s approach in implementing this “Geneva Resolution” becomes clear in the absence of support from some section within the ranks of government for its implementation. Though implementation moved forward every reform has been contested, including the establishment of the Office of Missing Persons. It was therefore no surprise that in March 2017, the Sri Lankan government requested a further two years to implement the transitional justice agenda set out in UNHRC resolution 30/1.
UNHRC resolution
Last week, Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, who commanded the army in the concluding phase of the war, and is a Cabinet minister, claimed that some Cabinet of ministers were unaware of the contents of UNHRC resolution 30/1, at the time it was signed by the government. Even today it would not be too surprising if knowledge of what that resolution contains is a haze to these members of the government. In these circumstances, it is to the credit of President Sirisena, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, and ministers such as Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera (who signed UNHRC resolution 30/1 on behalf of the government as Foreign Minister) that the transitional justice process is moving forward at all. They have accepted the need to reach international standard. The question is how to accommodate those standards to national political realities.
The Office of Missing Persons (OMP) is the first of the transitional justice mechanisms to be established in keeping with the pledges of UNHRC resolution 30/1. Last week it issued its interim report. This is a comprehensive document with strong recommendations. The question is how much can and will be implemented. The OMP recommended the publication of a full list of all detention centres as well as detainees and ensure that persons are not detained in any unauthorized detention centres. However, there is a fundamental problem that the OMP will need to deal with. The racists in and out of military establishment are against, looking back and search for what happened. How can this be a process, with every effort to dig into the past, an insidious attempt to find evidence that will one day incriminate those who won the war, in a court of law? No; truth will only bring peace and justice. These are the words of the Buddha.
Despite these contrary pressures, the government is still pushing ahead, even if slowly. The second transitional justice mechanism, the Office for Reparations, has recently been approved by the Cabinet of Ministers and is now to be placed before Parliament to be passed into law. The third mechanism, the Truth seeking Commission is on the drawing board. In the context of Sri Lanka’s divided polity and opinion on the issue of transitional justice there will be a need for more time, more wisdom and more political will to find the way forward. In other parts of the world, these processes have taken decades to unfold. However, it will be important for the yahapalana government to be mindful that UN institutions such as the UN Human Rights Council have their own mandates and autonomy.
Human rights
In the globalized capitalism HR campaigns shows the power of the international working class. We must remember that men such as Beanie Saunders and Jeremy Corbin stand for HR in the world political arena.
The UN Human Rights Council, which co-sponsored UNHRC Resolution 30/1 is not under the direct control of the UN General Assembly.
This explains why even the United States, under Donald Trump, though arguably the most powerful country in the world was unable to influence the UNHRC and has withdrawn from that institution while denouncing it. Therefore, it is not reasonable to believe that the international community, especially those whose mandate is to protect human rights, will be prepared to negotiate and water down the need for accountability as measured by international standards as against Sri Lankan standards.
Any independent actions are also likely to come at a political cost to the government as they will not be acceptable to the Tamil people and to their elected representatives.
Recent interventions in regard to a case involving military officials who are wanted by the Criminal Investigation became a discussion subjected to international judicial establishments. Jaffna District MP and TNA spokesman M A Sumanthiran has told media that interference by ‘highest authorities in the country’ could be interpreted as that the victims could not expect justice through domestic judicial process. There is a need there for more and more leaders within the government to understand the complex elements of transitional justice that need to be followed for Sri Lanka’s transition to a reconciled society.
Add new comment