Sins of war: the ball is in Sri Lankas
court
2015-09-18
International judges in a local mechanism - hybrid or not - does not make
sense At a meeting on Wednesday (16) in Myanmars new capital Nay Pyi
Taw with the countrys Minister of Information U Ye Htut, who had been a
friend of mine for the past several years, inquired after the developments in
Sri Lanka.
In our discussion on Geneva and the OHCHR report, the minister made an
interesting remark:
You are trying to correct mistakes of ten years, but we are trying to correct
those of fifty years. Imagine our plight and the challenge.
When you embark on a change, the expectations both locally and
internationally expectations are high and it is a real challenge to meet
them at the desired speed within the existing mechanisms and systems,
the minister explained. People expect changes on a daily basis but it is a
nightmare to meet them. Of course the current changes in Myanmar and Sri
Lanka are entirely on different platforms and paradigms, the minister said.
In Myanmar the military leaders who ruled the country for fifty years
decided on their own to make a change and embarked on a vigorous
democratisation process in late 2010. The same military rulers who were
accused of human rights violations and curtailing democracy became the
leaders of the change and champions of that process.
Minister U Ye Htut was a Colonel of the former military regime but became
a strong advocate of freedom of expression and democratic values. His
ministrys Permanent Secretary U Tint Swe was the countrys chief censor
for seven years until it was abolished in August 2012. But then Tint Swe
became a leading figure in state media reforms.
Importantly, they welcomed international assistance but were extremely
selective and careful in choosing partners.
By adopting a policy of engagement, Myanmar walked a long way in
democratisation in a considerably short period of time. It had adopted many
new laws with sound international standards and the country is due to have
its first free and fair polls on November 8.
Combined with the countrys political changes, Myanmar has become one
of the fastest developing economies in Southeast Asia today.
The former military leaders who were outcasts of the international
community became role models of democratisation within a matter of a few
months. If not, there could have been a series of OHCHR reports against
them as well. Thus, the minister was perfectly correct when he said they
were in the process of correcting (their own) mistakes of fifty years. Of
course, mistakes are natural but admitting them in a transparent way and
taking measures to correct them in an acceptable manner is the most
pertinent matter. And Myanmar adopted this bold path.
Look at South Africa. Immediately after the end of apartheid, the visionary
leaders led by Nelson Mandela adopted a policy of correcting mistakes and
embarking on a reconciliation process. All parties admitted their own
mistakes and agreed on a process of compromise through unity and
solidarity.
Sri Lanka, though the context was different from that of Myanmar or South
Africa, policywise it was following an entirely different procedure; a path of
duplicity.
It was a ruthless war of thirty years a battle between a formidable
terrorist organisation with a strong international network and a
conventional army. The war took the worst turn of its entire history in its
last leg. Who on earth can claim there had not been any breach of
international norms and practices of war when both sides used heavy
artillery and human shields? Probably this bitter reality could have been the
reason behind President Mahinda Rajapaksas agreement with UN Chief Ban
ki-moon to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the alleged incidents. He
promised total transparency and accountability in the process by appointing
several commissions the LLRC, Paranagama and Udalagama et al. Almost
all these commissions spoke a common language and in a common tone,
which the then regime was not comfortable with. Thus many reports were
not made public or tabled in the House.
The ground reality was entirely contradictory to what has been pledged to
the international community. Thus, trust and confidence were lost and a
hostile environment was in the making against Sri Lanka internationally.
Mostly the politics of duplicity was clearly visible as the regime had two
different messages one to the local audience and an opposite one to the
international community.
What were the immediate necessities in the aftermath of the war? Apart
from the most important process of reconciliation, establishing law and
order; releasing the judiciary from the clutches of politics and making it
independent; strengthening democratic institutions such as Parliament and
independent commissions and establishing freedom of expression and basic
democratic norms took precedence.
These were the essence of all commissions report recommendations, and
mind you the commissions were appointed by President Rajapaksa
himself. But, at the end of the day he did not like what these professionals
stated and recommended in their reports.
When an army officer was accused of shooting a group of protestors who
demanded pure drinking water in Rathupaswala, he was appointed to a
diplomatic posting in Turkey.
When the IGP resigned after a civilian was killed in a Police shooting
incident in Katunayaka, he was appointed ambassador to Brazil.
When the then deputy minister Mervyn Silva created mayhem at the state
run Rupavahini Corporation, he was promoted to the rank of a Cabinet
Minister to handle public relations.
The list can continue with hundreds of such case studies. These issues
should not be considered as confined to the domestic theatre, but
destroying a system of governance deliberately.
Now the cat is out of the bag; the expected UN report is out and the ball is
in Sri Lankas court and the name of the game will be Winning Trust. It
seems that the policy of the new government has diluted the tone of the
report and the new regime should get the entire credit for converting the
international inquiry proposal into a domestic mechanism. This is a major
leap forward when rebuilding the lost reputation of the country. Still the
existing mechanisms within the country are not sufficient to handle an issue
of such magnitude says the UN in its report. True enough; a lot has to be
done in strengthening democracy in the country and the clock is ticking.
However, the international community should understand that the
mechanism needed cannot be established in a haphazard manner,
Speaker Karu Jayasuriya announced that ten independent commissions will
be established within a month; candid measures in establishing democracy
and winning trust. Appointing international judges to a locally driven
mechanism - hybrid or not - does not make sense. For me it is like
parachuting experts for a particular task without strengthening the local
systems. One could easily classify it as typical UN way of handling matters
through highly paid consultants. The local mechanism should be locally
handled through a well-established international observation procedure.
Such observation should not be viewed as foreign intervention but
technical assistance to correct ourselves. That does not mean we have to
obey all those recommendations but we need a good mechanism of
reviewing these suggestions and adopting suitable ones for a locally driven
process.
I cannot finish this piece without mentioning about the time frame of this
report, which is 2002 to 2011 confining it to the last decade of the war
between the government and the LTTE. But what about the crime against
humanity during 88-89 period, or even in the early 70s?
Is this particular time frame the result of heavy lobbying by diaspora
groups?
If we were talking about serious human rights violations and crimes against
humanity, there are plenty of them that took place at other times in Sri
Lanka. Whether they are North or South issues we need permanent
solutions not permit repetitions of the same catastrophes.
Posted by Thavam
