Internationalized Sri Lankan Crisis
Austin Fernando
I wish to deal with some aspects of ongoing internationalization of the Sri Lankan crisis. In the past there had been the likes such as the Ceasefire Agreement, Rajiv-JRJ Accord, etc. All these have created demands from Sri Lanka –then and now- for good governance, political solutions, adherence to humanitarian and human rights laws. Government spokespersons however react that Sri Lanka has not erred and need no international lessons for governance and rule of law. Concurrently, the government successfully, efficiently and effectively uses ‘internationalization demands’ to bolster its popularity, highlighting threats to sovereignty and West generated ‘regime change’.
Misinterpreted Joint Statement initiating internationalization
Let me start with the Joint Statement at the conclusion of United Nation Secretary General’s (UNSG’s) visit to Sri Lanka, (23-5-2009). It had eight main commitments. The last is the most quoted ‘agreement’ of Sri Lanka’s “strongest commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights in keeping with international human rights standards and Sri Lanka’s international obligations” for which the “UNSG underlined the importance of an accountability process for addressing violations of international humanitarian and human rights law.” The current outcomes in Geneva stemmed from this “agreement.”
Consequentially, the Panel of Experts (POE) was appointed and its Report is mandated by the UNSG. POE’s first Terms of Reference (TOR) says “The UNSG has decided to establish a POE to advise him on the implementation of the said commitment with respect to the final stages of the war.” But the Joint Statement does not speak anywhere of the “final stages of the war”. Was this deviation challenged by the Government? True, the POE was challenged on ‘content issues’, e.g. on numbers, events, personalities etc., especially by the Ministry of Defense (MOD), but, not on the unexplained deviation.
Taking this deviation the POE Report also repeats the narrowed down “final stages of the armed conflict” as inquiry focus (e.g. Paragraph 5 – 1 of the POE Report).
UNSG would not have deviated from an Agreement with a member country Head of State without due agreement of the latter. If the President has agreed for such time barring, crying for spilt milk is nonsensical. If not, challenging the very foundation of the POE Report should have started immediately. Who should be responsible for initiation of biased internationalization?
