Democracy despite strife

The Government's decision to allow an international human rights monitoring mission to investigate disappearances and extra judicial killings in Sri Lanka is, no doubt, a response to the increased pressure that is being exerted from the European Union and other donors.

The manner in which small Sri Lanka is brought to heel over the non-observance of human rights and humanitarian laws is contrasted to, for example, the arrogance with which great powers like the United States resort to practices of rendition and torture of prisoners in its 'war against terror.'

This is international realpolitik. That being said, it must also not be forgotten that the international human rights system is also slowly but surely holding the United States accountable for its actions. In the modern world, the powerless as well as the most powerful countries which sanction gross human rights abuses are called upon to rue their actions, at one point or the other. We cannot blind our eyes to the reality of obligations incurred through the signing of conventions and treaties on human rights.

And there is no doubt that while, terrorist groups such as the LTTE remain impervious to such international scrutiny in their killings of innocent civilians such as at Kebitigollewa and other instances too numerous to mention, the Sri Lankan State cannot descend to the levels of terrorists. Our security forces are understandably under pressure -- the terrorist always has the advantage of striking first; and not always wearing a uniform to wage war. They often hide behind civilians and take maximum advantage of the democratic political system where there is a need for politicians to be visible -- to strike. And no army in the world is disciplined enough not to indulge in human rights violations.

While this is so, effective and credible mechanisms must be in place to address human rights and humanitarian abuses and there must not be impunity attached to these actions. The question is whether our domestic legal remedies have failed to such an extent that international intervention is the only answer?

The experience that Sri Lanka has had with the Norwegian-led Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM) has been bitter. Its latest faux pas in hastily apportioning responsibility to government forces in the killing of 17 aid workers of the international non-governmental organisation, Action Contra L' Faim, has been counter productive to securing a reasoned judicial inquiry into the incident. Predictably, the Government response has been heated. In the process, the barbarous nature of the act itself and the resolve to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents have been accorded only a footnote.

Undoubtedly, the Government is under a stern duty to ensure that the judicial proceedings in relation to this case are allowed to function in an independent manner. Recent news reports were to the effect that the matter has been transferred from the Mutur Magistrate's Court to the court in Anuradhapura on the direction of the Secretary to the Ministry of Justice, as recorded in the order of the Mutur Magistrate himself. Such a direction is contrary to all norms of justice and assuredly is one that ought not to have been made. The Government and its ministry officials should refrain from engaging in any act that fosters the perception that justice is not being done in this case which has attracted unprecedented international attention as well as in other like incidents.

As much as the negative experience of the SLMM may not foreshadow wide public acceptance of international monitoring missions, we must remember that such missions have helped other countries in South Asia itself. One instance is Nepal where a mission established by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights did much to bring about the restoration of democracy. Such a mission ought to comprise persons with a long standing commitment and demonstrated courage in the international human rights field who would not allow themselves to become the mouthpieces of one or the other party to a conflict.

Of course, in the ultimate analysis, the country has to put its own systems of accountability in order rather than rely on international interventions. In the past decades of war, emergency laws and practices have terrorised the innocents as well as the guilty and created more terrorists in the process. This has to stop.

Political will to change the existing order must be demonstrated, starting from the resurgence of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, now conveniently forgotten in the frenzy of the conflict. Many sceptics look at the setting up of a Parliamentary Select Committee to fine tune this constitutional amendment as a pure holding exercise to stave off international and national pressure to activate the Constitutional Council. This is an impression that only encourages the perception that the rule of law is not implemented in Sri Lanka. It is similar to the impression that is created when the Secretary to the Ministry of Justice exceeds his authority to direct that a case be transferred from one court to another.

Indisputably, both are actions that ought not to take place if Sri Lanka is to claim the high moral ground of a country that is conforming to democratic principles despite serious internal strife. This is a simple but conceivably unpalatable home truth that we invite our rulers to reflect on at this point in time.