Government Must Keep Its Promises – To India, Japan, The UN And To US
Jehan
Perera
The bitterness of the pill that the government was
forced to swallow once again at the UN Human Rights
Council in Geneva was assuaged somewhat by the support that Sri Lanka
received from significant parts of the world. Despite eloquent speeches by the
Sri Lankan representatives and supportive countries such as Pakistan, Sri Lanka
lost the vote by an increased margin of 25 to 13 compared to the previous
year. But Japan broke ranks with its fraternal Western allies to abstain from
the vote. The government has also been able to take consolation from the 13
countries that voted along with it in opposition to the resolution titled
“Promoting Reconciliation and Accountability” sponsored by the United States.
The government has much to be grateful to the Muslim countries that voted along
with it.
Pakistan’s
representative in Geneva is reported to have actively lobbied with other member
countries on behalf of Sri Lanka. His speech also brought out the inequitable
treatment being meted out to Sri Lanka. He pointed out that the UN High
Commissioner’s report went beyond the scope and mandate of last
year’s UNHRC resolution and therefore any action based on it could not be
conceived as “a reasonable basis for a further engagement of that country in a
constructive manner.” The last resolution of March 2012 only called on Sri
Lanka to implement effectively the constructive recommendations made in the
report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, and to take all
necessary additional steps to fulfill its relevant legal obligations and
commitment to initiate credible and independent actions to ensure justice,
equity, accountability and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans.
The
present resolution signifies a hardening of the international community’s stance
on human rights issues in Sri Lanka. In comparison to last year’s resolution
there is a shift away from a focus on reconciliation to a focus on
accountability for past human rights violations and war crimes. The resolution
noted the call made by the UN High Commissioner for an independent and credible
international investigation into alleged violations of international human
rights law and international humanitarian law. The resolution also stated
that it “Encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations
made in the report of the Office of the High Commissioner, and also calls upon
the Government to conduct an independent and credible investigation into
allegations of violations of international human rights law and international
humanitarian law, as applicable.”
PROMISES
MADE
The
countries that voted against the resolution, particular those from the Muslim
world, would have noted that the preamble to the US-sponsored
resolution affirmed that “States must ensure that any measure taken
to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law,
international human rights law, international refugee law and international
humanitarian law as applicable.” The Muslim countries would be most aware of
how these obligations are being violated internationally when anti-terrorist and
regime-change actions are taken in their parts of the world. The Sri Lankan
government has taken the position that it ended the scourge of terrorism that
had plagued the country for three decades in the only way that was possible. It
further argues that this involved less civilian casualties than some of the
international operations against terrorism by countries that are calling it to
account.
By
and large the majority of the Sri Lankan population would also view the UNHRC
resolution as being against Sri Lanka and meant to punish it for defeating
the LTTE in
battle. This is the interpretation that is dominant in the country’s media and
intellectual discourse. A very large proportion of Sri Lankans would see the
elimination of the LTTE as being in the national interest and they would validly
say that life in the country has improved dramatically as a result. Those who
take their memories back to 2006, and to the first few months of the Rajapaksa
presidency, would remember how the LTTE created a situation in which war became
the only option. The watershed came earlier during the Norwegian-facilitated
peace process when the LTTE rejected it, walked out of peace talks and rejected
even the bold offer of federalism made by the previous government.
However,
what is now lost sight of in Sri Lanka is that the elimination of the LTTE was
not only due to the efforts of the Sri Lankan people, the valour of the soldiers
and the leadership of the President and the Rajapaksa family as is claimed on
political platforms. The war victory was also made possible because of military
support given to the government by the international community, the intelligence
they shared with it and sanctions they adopted against the LTTE especially after
it walked away from the Norwegian-facilitated peace process. The entire
spectrum of the international community, including the countries that now seem
to oppose Sri Lanka, supported the government’s war effort on account of the
government’s promises and commitments regarding post-war reforms and
solutions.
JAPAN’S
SUPPORT
The
UNHRC resolution contains the promises and commitments that the government made
to the international community and to its own people during the war. These
include the devolution of power to the provinces, ensuring the rule of law,
putting an end to extra-judicial killings and disappearances, resettling and
rehabilitation of all displaced persons and ending military interventions in
civil administration. It is unfortunate that these promises and commitments
have not been kept. The most obvious failure has been with regards to the
devolution of the power which was made repeatedly in person by the President
himself especially to Indian leaders including Indian Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh and then subsequently denied in cavalier fashion. This has
been most deplorable and would account in substantial measure for the Indian
decision to vote against Sri Lanka.
It
is important that Sri Lanka does not repeat this mistake with Japan, whose
abstention from the vote in Geneva has been most gratifying to the government.
The Japanese support followed President Rajapaksa’s
visit to Japan in the immediate run up to the Geneva vote where he met with
Japanese leaders including its Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Once again the
President gave a series of promises to his Japanese hosts which have been
documented in the official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Japan. In particular, the President made four promises. The first was to
continue to implement the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and
Reconciliation Commission; the second was to hold elections to the Provincial
Council for the Northern Province in September this year; third was to commence
the political dialogue on constitutional reforms through a Parliamentary Select
Committee process; and fourth to take necessary measures regarding human rights
and accountability.
The
special relationship that Sri Lanka enjoys with Japan is also evident in the
Japanese foreign ministry communiqué. It mentions that the Prime Minister
Shinzo Abe’s grandfather, Prime Minister Nobushike Kishi, visited Sri Lanka on
his first official tour abroad after World War
2. To this day the Japanese political leadership has warm memories
of Sri Lanka’s intervention on their behalf after the end of World War 2 when
the Soviet Union and other countries were trying to punish Japan. Instead Sri
Lanka’s representative J R
Jayewardene asked for magnanimity towards the defeated and renounced
Sri Lanka’s claim for compensation. The spirit of magnanimity that the then Sri
Lankan government showed to Japan has been paid back manifold as the eternal
spiritual and moral teachings have promised. It is very important that this
goodwill must not be lost, and the promises that President Rajapaksa made during
his visit to Japan are kept.
Likewise
the other countries of the world that the Sri Lankan government now sees as its
enemies have been its good friend in the past, donating much aid and also
sharing warm human memories. What they are all looking for are promises that
are kept. We too, as Sri Lankan citizens, must look to our government to keep
its promises which are for the good of all Sri Lankans.
