Geneva Summit and domestic inquiry

On Wednesday the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights Said Al Hussein presented the Report on Sri Lanka entitled  “Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka”, in pursuance of its resolution in March 2014 on alleged human rights violations in the country during the war.

 

The Human Rights Council is due to discuss the report and pass a resolution calling for the implementation of its recommendations. It has recommended inter alia the creation of a hybrid court comprising international and Sri Lankan judges to investigate identified patterns of human rights violations. Given also are a series of recommendations on strengthening the judicial system in the country, witness protection and repeal of draconian laws such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

The UN Report on Sri Lanka is the result of the protracted efforts by the last Government to hoodwink the international community by false promises and subsequent failure to live up to them. We saw how the majority that was in favour of Sri Lanka in 2009 in the Human Rights Council turned into a minority by 2014.

 

Earlier Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera addressing the Human Rights Council on Monday promised to establish a domestic inquiry mechanism and called upon the international community to support it. He said the mechanism would have a dual structure, one being a Truth Commission similar to what was established in South Africa after the end of the civil conflict there. The other would comprise religious dignitaries of all denominations and would be called a “Sympathetic Council”. Besides, he also outlined proposed changes to existing legislation. Reports of Udalagama and Paranagama Presidential Commissions would also be published, he added.

 

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights too has noted palpable changes for the better that has taken place with the election victories of January 8th and August 17th and has promised to cooperate with the new government in its effort to ensure accountability and rule of law. The Human Rights Council will deliberate on the Report and the plea of Sri Lanka and pass a resolution on the tasks ahead in implementing the recommendations of the Report.

 

There is no recommendation for an international tribunal. It is quite probable that no international tribunal will be set up by the Council, The Report has also refrained from naming persons responsible for war crimes, though it has identified incidents. Re is no possibility of the former President being charged in an international tribunal and electrocuted as he complained throughout the period since 2009 at every election platform. Actually, there was no such threat. The recommendation in the Report is to form a hybrid tribunal. Whether the Council will give Sri Lanka another chance and accept the Sri Lankan proposal for a domestic inquiry is for the Council to decide.

 

It is quite probable that Sri Lanka would be given another chance to rectify whatever mistakes that may have happened in the past through a domestic inquiry with assistance from the international community. This would be largely a result of the diplomatic successes of the new government and the emergence of Sri Lanka from the seclusion it had fallen into during the last regime. Whatever it is the Geneva decision will have a strong impact in the country. Already forces are aligning themselves for and against whatever outcome. For example. We see that some who opposed an international tribunal in favour of a domestic one are now opposed to a domestic inquiry too. Meanwhile, a section of the Tamil community are seeking an international tribunal. Whatever view one holds one must acknowledge the right of others to have a dissenting opinion. The issue has to be discussed and canvassed among the public. There would be enough volatile material which could be used by chauvinist forces to create disharmony among national communities. That is what we should be apprehensive about.

 

Human rights violations during wars is not a new phenomenon or an isolated one. That is why Rules of War were developed on the initiative of the International Committee of the Red Cross by the international community after the Second World War, especially to protect civilians during conflict. Subsequently, similar rules were accepted for internal armed conflicts too. Accepting the possibility of human rights violations is no scar on the dignity of a nation. What would be a scar is an attempt to reject the possibility of such violations of human rights and the rejection of all demands for a probe on possible violations. On this issue, the behaviour of Sri Lankan politicians has been without transparency, as if they are guilty-conscious. It is time that the truth be faced.

 

The proposal for a Truth Commission is a positive one. The need for such a Commission arises not simply because of the demand of the international community but because of the need to ascertain what actually happened and take measures not to allow any repetition of past mistakes in the future. It is a sine qua non for national reconciliation and the latter is an imperative of development.

 

The international community was promised an inquiry by the former President in May 2009 when he issued a joint declaration with UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. If the demand for a probe is a conspiracy of the international community it would be the former President who would be among the first conspirators. It is necessary to compensate the victims of human rights violations. Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera promised to do so addressing the Human Rights Council We hope that this and other promises will be kept unlike he former times when such promises were not kept. Honouring promises is much more difficult than making them. Often they come across various obstacles including one’s own reluctance to do so on account of possible political repercussions. A necessary condition for keeping the promises is to take into confidence the people and ensure transparency in all actions in this regard. It is necessary to bear in mind that Parliament or political leaders alone would not be able to do so without mobilising the masses in their support.

 

The unity and collaboration of the two main parties is a great positive factor that would be beneficial in seeking national reconciliation. It is the basis on which a wider consensus could be built.  It would also isolate the reactionary forces that would try to sabotage any solution to the problems arising from the long drawn out conflict between the Sinhala and Tamil national communities.