Response To Dr Nalaka Godahewa’s Speech At The UNHRC In Geneva
[Part 9 of this series was published on Monday, the 11th of December 2017]
Conclusion
Successfully addressing the national question lies in attaining genuine equality of opportunity and equity of access between peoples of different ethnicities. The existing national inequality is a consequence of historically conditioned economic inequalities and the national perceptions such inequalities generated. A major condition required for the solution of the national problem is to give effect to equality of all citizens in a practical sense, as enshrined in the country’s constitution. Many countries including Sri Lanka have proclaimed such political and judicial equality, but that proclamation in itself is insufficient to resolve the national problem. Those proclamations as provisions of the constitution need to be concretely and effectively enforced through subsidiary legislation and regulations.
In October 2015, Sri Lanka co-sponsored a resolution and pledged at the UN Human Rights Council to undertake human rights reforms to address the burning question of transitional justice. It promised to establish four transitional justice mechanisms including a special court with an independent investigative body with prosecutorial powers, an office on missing persons, a mechanism to establish the truth regarding claims of alleged war crimes, and a mechanism to guarantee non-recurrence and reparations. So far, the government has established only the Office of Missing Persons. Yet, the government has failed to improve the human rights situation, reform the police and security sector, and release political prisoners, and returned only a fraction of private lands the military has acquired during the war.
Globally, neo-liberalism has led to reviving nationalist and religious preconceptions by spreading bourgeois nationalism and pitting diverse peoples against each other. Attempts at spreading or whipping up ethno-religious nationalism are an integral part of their strategy. The main purpose of such attempts is to divert the attention of working people from their class positions, to differentiate national and class attitudes, and to present bourgeois class interests as the national interests of the whole society.
Torture is found to be endemic throughout Sri Lanka. Those arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) even after the end of the war, have provided accounts of torture and mistreatment, forced confessions, and denial of basic rights such as access to lawyers or family members. For example, following the discovery of suicide vests in the north, security forces reportedly arrested 11 men in April and May this year, but many of these arrests went undeclared. Their families reported that security forces had abducted them and only under pressure security forces admitted to holding them under the PTA. The UN special rapporteur on torture has called for the repeal of the PTA expressing particular concern about the detainees held under it.
Meanwhile, spokespersons for the regime continue to issue contradictory and confusing statements regarding their UN commitment. The government had to withdraw several drafts of the new Counter Terrorism Act (CTA) as these drafts apparently expanded police powers and failed to meet international standards[1]. The Cabinet approved the third draft of the CTA last May, for which no parliamentary vote has yet been set. The new Bill will not protect one from wrongful, prolonged detention without charge. What constitutes a “terrorist act” remains vague and its scope could be extended to also include peaceful political activity in the name of threatening the unity, territorial integrity, sovereignty, national security or defence of the country.
The main political parties, when in opposition, have almost always included in their election manifestos that when they achieve power they will work towards a solution to the national question through consultations and negotiations. But when they come to power, like the current government, and make some attempt to negotiate or propose alternative solutions of their own, the new opposition, abetted by the extreme nationalists, obstruct such attempts.
Even in the Presidential election manifestos presented by the former President Mahinda Rajapaksa (Dr Godahewa’s leader) in 2005[2] and 2010[3], he pledged to negotiate on constitutional matters by consulting political and civil society organisations and individuals to build consensus. In 2015[4], his election manifesto pledged to convert the Parliament into a Constituent Assembly; appoint a Citizens’ Advisory Council, present a draft constitution to the Parliament and submit it to a referendum for peoples’ approval. The same manifesto also pledged to bring constitutional amendments to the executive presidency, electoral system, rule of law, and good governance. Even this manifesto pledged to appoint a fully powered committee, led by a retired magistrate, to urgently act on prisoners detained under the PTA – with the aim to either file cases against them or release them expeditiously. In addition, it pledged to complete the returning of buildings and lands the military acquired during the armed conflict to the original owners.
It is too early to pre-judge the level of devolution that would have been offered by the government, but the draft Constitution presented by Professor G L Peiris under former President Chandrika Kumaratunga’s constitutional reform programme in 2000, was the broadest and the most effective constitutional proposal placed on the table in our country’s history. The devolution offered in the Professor G L Peiris version went much beyond the scope proposed in the current interim report. And yet, G L Peiris and his party now oppose any devolution of power even to the provinces. Their henchmen also talk about causing death to anyone advocating power devolution to peripheries, despite some powers being already devolved to the existing provincial councils. Another even talk about bombing the Parliament in a jovial mood!
