Columns

The United Kingdom’s recent sanctions against four Lankan officials for alleged human rights violations during the civil war has stirred controversy within Sri Lanka. While hardline factions decry the move as an attack on sovereignty, the deeper issue lies in the failure of past governments’ longstanding failure to address allegations of war crimes transparently. This negligence has left the country vulnerable to international scrutiny and punitive actions.

The UK government stated that the sanctions aim to hold individuals accountable for serious human rights violations, prevent impunity, and uphold international human rights standards. These measures include travel bans and asset freezes. Among the sanctioned individuals are former military leaders and a former LTTE commander. The UK, however, has not clarified whether Vinayagamoorthy Muralitharan, alias Karuna Amman, was sanctioned for actions as an LTTE leader or his role in the pro-government paramilitary group after his defection. 

While these sanctions have diplomatic implications, they are administrative decisions rather than judicial verdicts. If any assets are frozen, the affected individuals have the opportunity to challenge the legality of the sanctions in British courts. The sanctions highlight the risk of universal jurisdiction being invoked against the accused individuals in a suitable judicial setting.

A fundamental reason for Sri Lanka facing such international action is the government’s consistent failure to conduct independent and credible inquiries into allegations of war crimes. Since the end of the war in 2009, no effective investigative mechanism has been established to examine the conduct of either the Sri Lanka military or the LTTE.

Despite their role in defeating a violent insurgency, the armed forces have faced accusations of indiscriminate shelling, extrajudicial killings, and enforced disappearances. While some allegations may be exaggerated or politically motivated, the government’s reluctance to investigate has allowed these claims to gain traction internationally. Had the state proactively addressed these concerns in a transparent and impartial manner, it would have been better positioned to counter external accusations.

Furthermore, failing to conduct credible inquiries has been unfair to soldiers who fought in accordance with the rules of war. Without a proper investigation, it is difficult to determine whether human rights violations occurred, who was responsible, and to what extent. Historical precedent in Sri Lanka and elsewhere suggests that excesses committed during conflict often remain hidden unless properly examined.

In the 1980s, human rights abuses were rampant in Sri Lanka’s armed conflict, but by the 1990s, improvements were made. Under President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, the government collaborated with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to enhance human rights awareness among the armed forces. Even during the final phase of the war, media coverage of soldiers aiding disabled and elderly civilians created a positive image, despite allegations of behind-the-scenes violations.

Beyond the failure to conduct inquiries, diplomatic missteps have further undermined Sri Lanka’s credibility. D B S Jeyaraj, a senior journalist who regularly writes on Tamil politics, in an article in the daily Financial Times on Friday refers to a particularly damaging episode involving Karuna Amman’s 2007 arrest in the UK. During questioning, Karuna Amman revealed that he had initially been denied a UK visa under his real name, leading the Sri Lankan government to issue him a diplomatic passport under a false identity using the name Kokila Dushmantha Gunawardene.

This revelation astonished British officials, who could not believe a legitimate government would engage in fraudulent passport issuance. Such actions reinforced perceptions of Sri Lanka’s disregard for international norms and provided further ammunition for its critics.

One of the Sri Lankan government’s most significant miscalculations was the then Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapakss’s decision to expel UN officials, international NGOs, and media from conflict zones during the final phase of the war. While the government justified this on security grounds, it led to long-term repercussions.

Unlike other war zones where journalists and humanitarian organisations document events firsthand, Sri Lanka’s war became a “war without witnesses.” This allowed various actors, including LTTE sympathizers and anti-Lankan lobbyists, to shape the global narrative. Allegations of systematic genocide and human rights violations, often lacking independent verification, gained traction in Western political and human rights circles.

Had international observers been present, Sri Lanka could have provided a more balanced account of events. Instead, the lack of transparency allowed critics to control the discourse, portraying the Sri Lankan state in a highly negative light.

Another critical factor in Sri Lanka’s current predicament is the role of the Tamil diaspora. Many diaspora organisations, particularly those sympathetic to the LTTE, have leveraged their influence in Western countries to push for international action against Sri Lanka.

These groups have consistently lobbied foreign governments, the UN, and human rights organisations, emphasizing alleged military atrocities while downplaying LTTE crimes such as suicide bombings, child soldier recruitment, and ethnic cleansing of Sinhalese and Muslims in the North and East.

Despite this persistent lobbying, successive Sri Lankan governments have failed to mount an effective diplomatic counter-campaign. Instead of proactively engaging with international stakeholders, Sri Lanka has remained largely reactive, allowing its detractors to dominate the narrative. This diplomatic inertia has led to one-sided findings and punitive measures such as the UK sanctions.

Within Sri Lanka, the UK sanctions have provided hardline political factions with an opportunity to exploit nationalist sentiments. Those sidelined in the country’s political landscape, particularly individuals linked to past administrations, are using this issue to regain relevance.

By framing the sanctions as an attack on Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and national pride, these factions aim to rally their base. However, the reality is that this crisis is not solely the result of foreign interference or diaspora activism — it is a self-inflicted crisis stemming from the government’s failure to establish accountability and reconciliation mechanisms.

Had Sri Lanka implemented effective domestic measures to address human rights allegations, external interventions like UK-imposed sanctions would have been far less likely. The international community often takes action when national governments fail to ensure accountability.

The path forward

Sri Lanka now faces a crucial choice: It can either continue its current approach of denial and defensiveness, or it can take meaningful steps to restore its credibility. A genuine commitment to truth, transparency, and diplomatic engagement is essential for the country to rebuild its international standing.

Some segments of the Tamil diaspora remain politically motivated, but there is room for engagement with moderate voices that seek genuine reconciliation. Bridging the divide between Lankan communities, both domestically and abroad, will be key to long-term peace and stability.

Additionally, Sri Lanka must engage in systematic diplomatic efforts to counter misinformation and present a fair representation of its post-war progress. Without proactive engagement, the government will continue to cede control of the narrative to those who seek to undermine the country’s reputation.

Conclusion

The UK sanctions against Lankan officials are not an isolated event but the outcome of years of state inaction. While external forces may be working against Sri Lanka’s interests, the primary responsibility for this situation lies with the Sri Lankan government. By failing to address human rights concerns effectively, Sri Lanka has made itself vulnerable to international scrutiny.

To move forward, Sri Lanka must prioritize accountability, transparency, and constructive diplomatic engagement. Only by doing so can it protect its sovereignty and regain