Columns

Come March, come September Sri Lanka sends a flock of supplicants on pilgrimage to quaint Geneva where, nestled at the foothills of the Alps, lies the Temple of Human Rights.

This twice-a-year journey to perform ritualistic worship to the presiding goddess Nemesis, found incarnate in sterile alpine air, is for those held to have ventured beyond the pale of human redemption, warring in the field of human conflict without the Queensbury Rule Book in hand.

Only by proving their innocence by bringing the dead to life and making them talk or atoning for their sins with reparation and by repenting and reconciling with their erstwhile foe, can the nation these chosen set of pilgrims represent, hope to escape divine retribution which Nemesis holds in suspense and threatens to unleash on final judgement.

It’s a journey successive Lankan Governments, perforce, have made for the last ten years. They have grudgingly scaled the alpine steeps manacled to a past regarded by the majority of its citizens as the crowning glory in the list of their nation’s recent achievements. But after eleven years of ending the brutal reign of Tamil Tiger terrorists, the shadow still falls on Lanka’s chalice of victory and darkens it.

Where eliminating the scourge of terrorism that had stalked the island for thirty years in pursuit of setting up a separate utopian state of Eelam on sovereign Lankan soil; where successful ending a brutal terror war which had brought gruesome slaughter, unimaginable bloodshed and untold misery in its  bloody wake, should have been attended with applause and accolades; Lanka, instead, had been placed in the dock of human rights and condemned by those sinister powers which had planned a different outcome advantages  to their own interests.

Much water has flown under the bridge since the day the Sri Lankan was hauled before the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and asked to account for the allegations levelled against it. By 2014 it seemed the tribunal had come to the end of its tether with Rajapaksa regime’s delaying tactics and it was only the advent of the Maithri-Ranil government striking a more accommodating note that probably saved Lanka from having embargoes slapped on it.

This last minute reprieve came with a heavy price tag attached. It entailed Lanka, along with the USA, to ironically become the co-sponsor of the resolution of which it was the subject matter.

But with a change in the executive presidency last year there has also been a dramatic change of attitude. Instead of being the malleable pussycat Lanka has been for the past five years of the Maithri-Ranil combo to be tossed about and played around with at UNHRC will, the new regime decided to adopt the posture of the unbending, unyielding, untamable lion. And it was its roar Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena was charged with to echo when he rose to address the UNHRC on Wednesday.

In his speech at the 43 session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, the leader of the Lankan delegation, Dinesh Gunawardena, boldly declared Sri Lanka’s unilateral decision to withdraw forthwith from being the co-sponsor of the resolution presently before the Human Rights body.

Listing out the reasons why Sri Lanka had reached its decision, he stated that the commitments made by the previous government had contributed to the lapses that resulted in the Easter Sunday attacks in April 2019.

He said: ‘The dictated changes in the country pursuant to Resolution 30/1, undermined the national interest and compromised national security, including weakening national intelligence operations and related safeguards, which are deemed to have contributed to the lapses that resulted in the Easter Sunday attacks in April 2019, which targeted churches and hotels, resulting in loss of life, including those of foreign nationals, which poses challenges to our government to restore national security.”

Referring to the aftermath of the Eelam war, the new Foreign Minister said that Sri Lanka never had any illusion that the end of the conflict against the LTTE terrorists, will overnight convert to a lasting peace.

“Although Sri Lanka was not a case of nation building,’ he said, ‘like many conflict situations that this Council is dealing with, we were mindful that Sri Lanka needed certain reviews and strengthening of existing structures, as part of a sustainable peace and reconciliation programme.

‘’The government led by the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa, of which the current President Gotabaya Rajapaksa was the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, initiated a sustainable reconciliation process in Sri Lanka to bring about ‘healing and peace building’, taking due cognizance of the ground realities at that time. This was viewed as an incremental and inclusive process, as it had taken even better-resourced countries several decades to address and achieve.’’

Then Minister Gunawardena spelt out the achievements the then Rajapaksa Government had made until its fall in 2014.  On the list were de-mining, resettlement, the return of land used by the security forces, the reduction of military presence in the former conflict areas, the rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-LTTE combatants including child soldiers, the rapid infrastructure development, the restoration of the right to franchise in the former conflict affected areas, and the establishment of domestic mechanisms to address issues related to accountability, the rule of law and human rights.

DINESH GUNAWARDENA: At the 43rd session

Then the Foreign Minister turned his guns on the SLFP-UNP coalition government.  He charged that the previous government in 2015 had ‘jettisoned this home-grown reconciliation process which was bearing fruit. In an unprecedented move in the annals of the Human Rights Council, and contrary to Sri Lanka’s stance on country specific resolutions, the government at the time co-sponsored the UNHRC resolution 30/1 on Sri Lanka.’

Minister Gunawardena continuing his indictment of the Maithri-Ranil Government charged:  “Substantially, ‘the previous government ‘noted with appreciation’, the much flawed OISL Report, which was used as the basis not only for Resolution 30/1, but also to unjustly vilify the heroic Sri Lankan security forces, possibly the only national security establishment that defeated terrorism in recent times. This was despite there being an abundance of evidence to the contrary, contained in domestic reports such as the LLRC and the ‘Paranagama Commission, information presented before the UK House of Lords by Lord Naseby, challenging among other things the vastly exaggerated civilian casualty figures, other reports from the UN and international agencies including the ICRC as well as exposed diplomatic cables.”

“Constitutionally,” the Minister claimed, “the resolution seeks to cast upon Sri Lanka obligations that cannot be carried out within its constitutional framework and it infringes the sovereignty of people of Sri Lanka and violates the basic structure of the Constitution. This is another factor that has prompted Sri Lanka to reconsider its position on co-sponsorship.”

The indictment of the ‘Yahapalanaya’ Government of 2015 was made complete on this international podium when Dinesh Gunawardena hammered home the last nail and claimed:

“Procedurally, in co-sponsoring Resolution 30/1, the previous Government violated all democratic principles of governance.”

And it was not a mere unsupported claim he made against the rival party back home but one seemingly substantiated with the following reasons:

• it declared support for the resolution even before the draft text was presented.
• it sought no Cabinet approval to bind the country to deliver on the dictates of an international body.
• there was no reference to Parliament on the process, undertakings and repercussions of such co-sponsorship.
• more importantly the Resolution itself included provisions which are undeliverable due to its inherent illegality, being in violation of the constitution the supreme law of the country.
• it also overruled the reservations expressed by professional diplomats, academia, media and the general public.
• the then President Maithripala Sirisena also stated that he was not consulted on the matter at that time.

“It remains to date a blot on the sovereignty and dignity of Sri Lanka,” present Foreign Minister Gunawardena added for good measure.

Then coming to the present, to the purpose of his mission to the UNHRC forum which was to seek without much ado Sri Lanka’s withdrawal from being co-sponsor of the resolution pertaining to it, Minister Gunawardena explains the current situation. He says: “With the election of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa with an overwhelming majority, the people of Sri Lanka have given a clear signal for their wish for a different path forward for the country.”

He underscored the pressing need of the country ‘to find home-grown solutions to overcome contemporary challenges in the best interest of all Sri Lankans.’

He proceeded to assure the UNHRC that ‘Notwithstanding withdrawing from co-sponsorship of this Resolution, Sri Lanka remains committed to achieving the goals set by the people of Sri Lanka on accountability and human rights, towards sustainable peace and reconciliation.’

He said the Government will remain committed to  achieving sustainable peace ‘through an inclusive, domestically designed and executed reconciliation and accountability process, including through the appropriate adaptation of existing mechanisms, in line with the Government’s policy framework.

The Government will also appoint ‘a Commission of Inquiry headed by a Justice of the Supreme Court to review the reports of previous Sri Lankan Commissions of Inquiries which investigated alleged violations of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, to assess the status of implementation of their recommendations and to propose deliverable measures to implement them keeping in line with the new Government’s policy.’

The Government, the minister assured, will also address other outstanding concerns and introduce institutional reforms where necessary, in a manner consistent with Sri Lanka’s commitments and it will continue to remain engaged with, and seek as required, the assistance of the UN and its agencies, including the regular human rights body.

But, sad to say, for all Dinesh Gunawardena’s bravura performance at his maiden outing as foreign minister at an international podium, it cut no ice with the unbending, unyielding, unflappable United Nation’s Human Rights High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet.

Addressing the Human Rights Council session the following day she gave short shrift to Gunawardena’s suggestion to establish a Committee of Inquiry. Disparagingly she said, she didn’t believe that appointment of yet another Commission of Inquiry by the Sri Lankan government would address impunity for past violations.

Speaking from her high horse on alpine heights, UN Human Rights High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet declared: “The fundamental problem remains that Sri Lanka has still not addressed impunity for past violations, nor undertaken the security sector reforms needed to address their drivers and enablers. Systemic barriers that continue to exist within the criminal justice system remain an impediment to real justice. Domestic processes have consistently failed to deliver accountability in the past and I am not convinced the appointment of yet another Commission of Inquiry will advance this agenda. As a result, victims remain denied justice and Sri Lankans from all communities have no guarantee that past patterns of human rights violations will not recur.”

She expressed regret at the new Government’s approach to the commitments previously made. “This change risks setting back efforts to advance reconciliation, accountability and human rights,” she observed.

She said that the State should work for all its people and the needs of all communities, particularly the minorities, should be acknowledged and addressed.  “I urge the Government to preserve and build upon the gains which have been made over the last few years. In particular, I encourage the Government to ensure the Office on Missing Persons and the Office of Reparations are provided with political and resource support. The families of missing persons from all communities deserve justice and redress.”

Bachelet also took the opportunity to use the UNHRC platform to express her concerns that Sri Lanka’s independent institutions, strengthened under the 19th Constitutional Amendment, had come under attack under the current administration and added that she was troubled by the recent trend towards moving civilian functions under the Ministry of Defence or retired military officers. Renewed reports of surveillance and harassment of human rights defenders, journalists and victims also troubled her, she said.

And she was not slow to plunge the knife either. Winding up her speech she noted that “the increasing levels of hate speech, and security and policy measures appear to be discriminately and disproportionately directed against minorities, both Tamil and Muslim. I urge the Council to remain alert to this situation in terms of prevention and to explore all possible avenues for advancing accountability.”

Meanwhile, on Friday evening, Minister Gunawardena issued a written update where he also stated, “To those who have expressed disappointment on Sri Lanka’s decision to withdraw from co-sponsorship of Resolution 40/1, despite the Government’s re-assurance to this Council of our commitment to achieving the goals set on accountability and human rights, towards sustainable peace and reconciliation, it is clear that they are privileging a superficial facade which has failed to deliver for four and half years, over the genuine possibility of reconciliation, underpinned by a people’s mandate.”

Though Minister Gunawardena failed to bring the Golden Fleece home, he should take heart. His brief appearance in Geneva and his brief experience at the Human Rights body would have well provided him with the opportunity to get a first hand reading of the minds of Commissioner Bachelet and members of the Council.  And that they, like every other nation and international body, consider the Government of Sri Lanka as a continuing legal entity, no matter which local party presently holds the reins. The slate is not erased at a change in regime.

If there is one consolation for the Lankan Government, it is that it has six months’ time to devise new strategies before another delegation sets off on anther pilgrimage to Geneva-based Temple of Human Rights come September, when the real McCoy is scheduled to be held.

156 new political parties seek registration A flood of applications has streamed in to the Election Commissioner’s office from new political parties seeking registration, elections boss Mahinda Deshapriya announced on Thursday. The number of new applications is a whopping 156. According to the Elections Chief, there are already 70 registered political parties. So why the glut? If all the new applications meet the eligibility requirement, this will total a record breaking 226 political parties in the country where the maximum number of seats in Parliament is 225. One man, one party, one vote plus one more political party to spare. It also indicates how politics have become a lucrative industry. And having a political party under your belt with you as leader gives you an elevated level. Your views are suddenly blessed with gravitas. Take for instance the following two sentences. a) Mr. Hathelawwe Bakamuna told the Times ‘the price of red onions were unbearable.’ b) Mr. Hathelawwe Bakamuna , leader of the Pody Mahajana Eksath Jathika Samagi Bala Peramuna Party, told  the Times ‘the price of red onions were unbearable.’ Doesn’t b) have a certain impressive ring to it? A certain air of importance about it? And the oportunities to be invited to chat shows due to the power of the new tag or be asked to give voice cut on every subject under the sun. Udaya Gammanpila with his one-man party, the Pivithuru Hela, is a prime example of this new trend.

Military Police as traffic cops UNP MP Ajith P. Perera: It is illegal The government on Monday announced plans to deploy the Military Police on the roads and, joining forces with traffic cops, to help ease the city’s mass traffic congestion. But is this move wise? The task of the military police is, as the name suggests, to police the military.  They are the long arm of martial law. The guardian of the Tri Forces law which exclusively governs the conduct of its personnel. It is the military wing specifically set  up to check indiscipline in  the forces; and no matter the highest degree of discipline currently prevailing in the Tri Forces, it is an indispensable arm of internal military law and order to ensure no breaches occur. It is the Forces’ watchdog trained to sniff out the rotten apple in its own basket. Hardly the military corps, trained and charged with maintaining discipline in the military forces and to act as a deterrent against any lapses in the fighting ranks, to be taken from its military pond and, like a swordfish out of water, placed on the roads overnight to instill discipline into motorists and by waving hands manually to and fro to direct traffic, now is it? Especially, when the activity they are required to perform, at the expense off their duties in the military world, is now mainly automated with colour signals? And what’s the point of this exercise? Will a few more white sheathed arms to assist the khaki clad corps with the experience to gauge the unexpected tide of vehicular traffic that suddenly bursts like a freak flash flood in drought onto the main roads without rhyme and similarly ebbs without reason, serve to ease the ‘sardine-packed’ congestion to such a considerable extent to justify the sacrifice the Tri Forces perforce must make in releasing men and women from its own police squad to trudge the civilian field and lend a helping hand to the Police in their civilian duties? Especially, when such unsolicited help maybe considered an insult to the dignity of the policeman’s Sam Brown uniform. Furthermore, apparently, there is legal hitch to deploying the military police to carry out traffic duties. According to UNP MP Ajith P. Perera it is illegal to do so. And they have no power to even issue a ticket to fine an errant motorist. Addressing a press conference at the Opposition Leader’s Office in Colombo Mr. Perera said on Tuesday: ‘The deployment of military policemen on roads is illegal. If the army is to be deployed to do the duties of the police, the government should amend the relevant laws. “The military policemen have no power to enforce laws concerning civilians. This is going to be a problem for everyone involved. How can they enforce traffic laws? The government must also think about the professional dignity of the policemen. The army and police were trained to play different roles.” But even if the present laws permit the deployment of the military police to be used in civilian activity in exigencies of a dire sort, shouldn’t the novel decision to use the military police as traffic cops be reviewed after a reasonable period testing its efficacy? If only to spare the military personnel ending up at the butt end of jokes and ridicule and hate by an army of motorists even as the traffic cops have for long become their vexatious target.   THE RIGHT OF WAY: Military Police sharing the traffic beat with Traffic Police