UNHRC resolution against Sri Lanka – US and the UK leads serious disruption to peace and reconciliation

Fri, 2014-02-14

By Raj Gonsalkorale

The post war reconciliation process in Sri Lanka is very fragile. It may have flaws. It may be incomplete. It is however a process based on restorative justice and not retributive justice. This process has created a peaceful atmosphere in the country not witnessed for many decades. It has spurred huge infrastructure developments in all parts of the country and it has created conditions for substantial investments that will advance Sri Lanka’s status in the developing country index.

These conducive conditions are for all communities in the country and not for any particular community or for any particular geographical area of the country.

In furthering reconciliation the Sri Lanka way, very serious attempts are being made to breakdown language barriers by introducing a language policy that will see all students acquiring proficiency in Sinhala, Tamil and English over a period of time. All government institutions are required now to offer bilingual services (Sinhala and Tamil) to the public. No doubt administrative challenges will remain in enforcement of these policies.

For the first time since the advent of LTTE terrorism more than 30 years ago, the North and the East of the country is seeing huge investments in infrastructure, education, health, industry, agriculture, and resettlement and rehabilitation activities.

In the midst of all this, the US and the UK are leading a process to reverse the scope of this reconciliation process from a restorative model to a retributive one. This is likely to exacerbate the divisions that may still exist amongst sections of the Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim communities in the country.

When this happens, whatever government in power in Sri Lanka will find it extremely difficult to re-engage the reconciliation process as they will be confronted by extreme elements within the communities who would have assumed an ascendant position as a consequence of the division being orchestrated by the US, UK and Sri Lanka’s own Tamil Diaspora. The end result will be the shattering of the fragile and delicate peace the country enjoys now, and a set back to the economic development that is benefiting all communities and all parts of the country now.

Considering that it does not make any sense for anyone to disrupt the ongoing reconciliation process that is meant to benefit all communities in the country, it is possible that the real strategic objective of the US and the UK is in fact to disrupt it deliberately and make Sri Lanka an unstable country into which they can walk in to usher reconciliation and peace, as per their terms and conditions.

As moves to introduce the US/UK sponsored resolution against Sri Lanka gathers momentum, and the likelihood of it being passed increases, Sri Lanka needs to consider alternative options to defeat this motion, and also the fall out if the resolution as it stands is passed.

Firstly, if the resolution is passed, from all accounts, the UNHRC cannot institute an international enquiry into possible war crimes and crimes against humanity unless such an enquiry is sanctioned by the UN Security Council. This needs to be verified. If indeed UN Security Council sanction is required, it is unlikely that such sanction will be granted considering the veto powers enjoyed by China and Russia who are likely to veto any moves to institute an international enquiry against Sri Lanka.

The possible outcome in such an event could be unilateral sanctions imposed on Sri Lanka by some or all of the countries sponsoring the resolution. Besides the ignonimity Sri Lanka will face in the international community as an unproven criminal and a pariah, such sanctions could have a devastating impact on the Sri Lankan economy and on its fragile peace and on its fragile reconciliation process.

If such a UN Security Council sanction is not required, Sri Lanka will have to face the prospect of an international enquiry into the last phase of the war against the LTTE, and whatever the findings of such an enquiry. A one sided enquiry, considering that the focus of the resolution is Sri Lanka and not the LTTE, will affect the fragile peace and the fragile reconciliation process. An enquiry will also open old wounds and will exacerbate divisions that still persist between sections of the communities.

Either way, this UNHRC resolution is not going to benefit the country and a majority of its communities. It may satisfy a small section of the Tamil community in the country who are supported by a very active and powerful Tamil Diaspora that has a symbiotic relationship with a powerful section of the international community. The Sri Lankan Tamil community little realizes that they have become a pawn in the hands of this symbiotic relationship.

Sri Lanka now has to decide whether they will behave wisely, bravely and strategically, or foolishly and impulsively. They could be the angry Lion, or the meek Cat, or a wise Owl.

Sri Lanka could move a counter resolution at the UNHRC extending the proposed enquiry into all terrorist / war activities since 1975, direct as well as indirect, when the first political murder related to the armed conflict, the murder of the Mayor of Jaffna, Mr Alfred Duraiappah by LTTE leader Prabakaran occurred.

Such a resolution will have to look into the activities of all State as well as non-State players, those who directly or indirectly supported them including countries like India and Norway.

As a counter to the proposed US/UK resolution, this would be a very fair one as it will investigate the activities of all those who had a hand in the conflict, politically and militarily and identify who may have committed possible war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Its negative aspect would be the opening of old wounds and the reversal of the steps that have been taken not to do so, and to move on with reconciliation.

However, even the proposed US/UK resolution will do the same and therefore both resolutions will reverse the gains made and both will be retributive in nature.

The advantage with the counter resolution will be that it will be wider, fairer and more inclusive of national and international elements that may have been equally or even more culpable than the players directly involved with the conflict, the Sri Lankan Armed Forces and the LTTE.

If the US and the UK, supported by the EU are genuinely interested in pursuing those possibly culpable of war crimes and crimes against humanity, then there cannot be any reason why they should oppose this counter resolution, and why in fact they should not withdraw their resolution and support this counter resolution.

The second choice for Sri Lanka is to set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission that is based on restorative justice, as done in post-apartheid South Africa, where all players since 1975 could front the Commission and confess their crimes. In an armed conflict, a State soldier killing an LTTE combatant and vice versa, cannot be considered a war crime or a crime against humanity. However, if either of these commits acts of violence against innocent unarmed civilians, then that would constitute crimes against humanity.

The litany of such crimes committed by the LTTE is well documented. The political murders they committed are well documented and there are plenty of eye witnesses who could vouch for these crimes.

If the LTTE and those who supported them financially and morally admits to these, including India which trained and financially supported the LTTE in the early 1980s, then they may be forgiven for their crimes. Similarly, if verifiable evidence and eye witness accounts of similar crimes committed against innocent civilians by Sri Lankan Forces is produced and proven, then they too could be pardoned.

If it is the wish of the Tamil Diaspora and the US, UK and the EU to open old wounds and take the reconciliation process backwards, they could support the proposed counter resolution or accept a Truth and Reconciliation Commission as an alternative.

Sri Lanka genuinely would not want either as neither of them would help the country to move on and reconcile in their own way and strengthen steps that have been taken to ensure the implementation of laws and regulations relating to equality that have been in place for a long time to guarantee such equality, although they may have not been implemented as desired.

What Sri Lanka does not wish the international community to do is to make her a pawn in the geopolitical games that are being played behind a façade of human rights and war crimes abuse allegations. What it wishes the international community to do is to work with her to advance the reconciliation process and strengthen its fragile peace and help all communities to better understand each other.

I t would welcome assistance to improve human rights if the international community feels they need improvement, and it would welcome assistance to strengthen governance and law and order if they are perceived to be needing improvement.

Sri Lanka will also be willing to accept the irony that those who are lecturing her on human rights, and crimes against humanity are some of the worst offenders of such crimes although they have, on account of their economic and military might, become the lecturers and not the lectured.