World backs Sirisena, storms lurk in Lanka

Tamils And Sinhalese Unhappy With UNHRC Resolution; Army Apprehensive

Col R Hariharan

Sri Lanka agreed at the 30th session of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) at Geneva last week to what it had resisted for six years: International intervention in investigating alleged war crimes and human rights excesses committed during the Eelam War.  But handing over the whole process to international judges and staff in a hybrid international court as suggested by the UN human rights chief Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein would be politically suicidal for the Sri Lanka’s ruling duo – President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.

Their government used the international goodwill accrued from their actions to improve governance and accountability since coming to power, which was favourably referred to by the UN human rights chief in his report, to get the US draft resolution modified by bringing the international judicial involvement within Sri Lankan judicial jurisdiction and process. US secretary of state John Kerry expressed “US support for a credible domestic process for justice and reconciliation in Sri Lanka — one that is led and owned by the Sri Lankan people and is conducted in cooperation with the UN and with international support.”

Sirisena had the difficult task of repairing the damage done not only by the scathing UN’s official investigation on Sri Lanka (OISL) report presented at the UNHRC meeting but also the erosion of Sri Lanka’s credibility during President Rajapaksa’s regime. He had failed to convincingly respond to international concerns on Sri Lanka’s human rights aberrations and alleged war crimes repeatedly expressed in the UNHRC sessions since 2009. Instead Rajapaksa tried short-term stratagems like forming the Lessons Learnt and Reconstruction Commission (LLRC) and army commission to inquire into war crimes etc which bombed due to lack of credibility.

Not only that, Rajapaksa had also damaged Sri Lanka’s equation with influential nations like the US by calling the allegations an international conspiracy to tarnish his victory in the war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) terrorism. This triggered a strong response from the US and its allies that culminated in the UNHRC creating the OISL. Rajapaksa shot himself in the foot when he failed to gauge the international mood and did not cooperate with the OCHR in both letter and spirit.

The passing of the modified US draft resolution by consensus showed the UNHRC members would like to give Sri Lanka an opportunity to redeem itself under the new dispensation and if they lean on Sri Lanka too much it would be politically counter-productive. President Sirisena has the unviable task of completing the process envisioned by the UN body within a period of 18 months -- March 2018. Given the pulls and pressures of national and international politics and judicial interventions by Sirisena’s detractors to delay the implementation, it is doubtful whether Sri Lanka would be able to meet the deadline.

There are a few other bottlenecks.  Neither Sinhalese nor Tamils seem to be happy with the resolution in its present form. High expectations of Tamils after hearing the OISL recommendations for full international enquiry have been belied.  Even others, like Tamil National Alliance chief R Sampanthan who supported it because it addresses both the issues of accountability and reconciliation, have sounded skeptical about a credible domestic process coming through.

On their part, Sinhala nationalists and even some liberal sections consider the resolution as an affront to Sri Lankan sovereignty thrust upon them by the machinations of the US and other external powers. They feel the US had been selective in picking on smaller countries to task for human rights transgressions, while it carries its accumulated own baggage of such allegations of war crimes in its war on terror in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Syria. The stark reality was brought out a day after the UNHRC resolution was passed when the US acknowledged its fighter aircraft had by mistake struck a hospital in Afghanistan, killing patients and staff.    

The two-lakh Sri Lanka army has earned a pride of place in the nation by putting an end to Tamil separatist insurgency. Though Sirisena had discussed the issues with the top brass of the army and the police before the resolution was passed, the rank and file may not take kindly to their decorated heroes of war being hauled up for war crimes.

Lastly, there is Mahinda Rajapaksa, Sirisena’s bête noir, waiting in the wings to pull him down. Any slip-up by Sirisena would be costly. Yet, if the resolution is not implemented honestly, then it would leave all the stakeholders including India with a bad taste. 

(Col R Hariharan, a retired military intelligence specialist on South Asia, served with the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka as head of intelligence 1987-90. He is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the South Asia Analysis Group)

Courtesy: Times of India, Chennai edition, October 6, 2015

Sri Lanka security perspectives: September 2015

Col R Hariharan                                                

Sirisena consolidates his power

President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe consolidated their hold on power by luring some of the senior members of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) to join the national unity government. This had dissipated the effectiveness of SLFP to function as the main opposition party. As a result, the speaker nominated the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) leader R Sampanthan as the opposition leader in a welcome gesture to the Tamil minority.

The President’s political exercise has created a jumbo cabinet with 47 members of cabinet rank (including the president and the prime minister), 19 state ministers and 23 deputy ministers. Thus out the 225 members of parliament, as many as 88 members are occupying ministerial chairs! Though the Sirisena regime has ensured its stability by accommodating various political and regional interests within the power structure, its adverse effects on the quality of governance remains an open question.

President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and their loyalists are controlling the portfolios like defence, finance, home affairs, external affairs and policy planning. This would  enable them to continue with the reform agenda. However, the presence of some of the tainted SLFP members facing corruption allegations in ministerial appointments has clouded the sincerity of the government’s promise to get rid of corruption and take action against the corrupt.  

In yet another step to improve governance, the government announced the formation of the Constitutional Council (CC). This was in accordance with the 19^th Amendment of the Constitution which was adopted in the parliament to ensure transparency in appointing members for nine independent commissions (i.e., electoral commission, bribery commission etc). However, the first meeting of the 10-member CC on Septemebr 10, 2015 was attended only by six of the seven members of parliament (including the speaker, the prime minister, leader of the opposition and three ministers). The other four members expected to join the CC shortly include the nominee of the opposition Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and three civil society nominees – Dr AT Ariyaratne, former UN Under-Secretary General Ms Radhika Coomaraswamy and President’s Counsel Shibly Aziz.

Sri Lanka PM’s visit to New Delhi

Prime Minister Wickremesinghe after assuming office made his maiden visit to New Delhi from September 14 to 16. During the visit he met with his counterpart Narendra Modi, external affairs minister Ms Sushma Swaraj, President Pranab Muhkerjee and minister for road transport, highways and shipping Nitin Gadkari.

The two prime ministers are believed to have discussed issues related to bilateral trade and defence cooperation. Addressing a joint press conference after their talks, Modi described it as a historic year for India-Sri Lanka relations because “Sri Lanka has voted twice this year for change, reforms, reconciliation and progress.” He assured India’s full support to Sri Lanka’s new government. Modi added “we recognize our closely aligned security interests and the need to remain sensitive to each other’s concerns. We both reaffirmed our commitment to deepen our defence cooperation.” Wickremesinghe reciprocating the sentiments said the two countries had to improve trade and increase security forces cooperation in the Indian Ocean. 

Though they made no specific reference to Tamil minority issues or to the forthcoming UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), probably both issues figured in their talks. Sri Lanka media went on overdrive after Indian minister Gadkari spoke of discussing a proposal to construct a land-tunnel link between India and Sri Lanka with the Sri Lankan prime minister; however, Colombo denied holding any talks with India on this issue.   

Sri Lanka resolution at the UNHRC

The UN Human Rights Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein presented the report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OCHR) on the follow up action on the UNHRC resolution Sri Lanka’s 2012 at the Council meeting. The OCHR report was based on the “principal findings of the OCHR investigations on Sri Lanka (OISL)” which were included in the report.

The report was a scathing indictment of the conduct of both the Sri Lanka government and the LTTE during the years preceding, during and after the Eelam War resulting in gross violations of human rights, killing of innocent civilians and prisoners, enforced disappearances and alleged war crimes by Sri Lanka army and the Tamil Tigers. However, the report recognised the cooperative attitude of the Sri Lanka government to the UN efforts and the series of actions it had taken to improve governance overcoming the aberrations of the past. Pointing out the failure of the Rajapaksa government to conduct an impartial investigation into the allegations, Prince Zeid recommended the setting up of an international hybrid mechanism to investigate the allegations and monitor further action. Both foreign and local judges would participate in the hybrid court.

In Sri Lanka, the proposed hybrid mechanism drew a lot of flak on the constitutional impropriety in having foreign judges presiding over domestic courts as well as on the issue of violation of Sri Lankan sovereignty. Not surprisingly, former president Rajapaksa came out strongly against the revised draft.

Sri Lanka would prefer to have a purely domestic process due to political sensitivities in international involvement in such a process. It would also pave way for former president Mahinda Rajapaksa to whip up nationalist sentiments and use them as a ploy to come back to power. However, the Sirisena government knows it has to agree to an internationally acceptable inquiry as Sri Lanka’s credibility both at home and abroad on this issue has been eroded. So its stand had been to agree for holding an internationally acceptable domestic inquiry and not any international inquiry.    

After hectic diplomatic parleys, in a bid to evolve a consensus last week the US presented a fresh draft resolution co-sponsored by Sri Lanka. The revised US draft tones down the exact nature of foreign participation while retaining it in a domestic mechanism, though it recognizes the serious nature of the allegations as well as the failure of Sri Lanka to act upon them as required by earlier UNHRC resolutions.

The TNA chief and opposition leader Sampanthan, acting with pragmatism rather than playing for the gallery, has welcomed the draft. In an interview to The Hindu he said the draft addressed the main issues of accountability and reconciliation. The involvement of Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence counsel, prosecutors and investigators would give the judicial process much greater credibility, he added. Tamil Diaspora has been divided over the US resolution. Though some of the diehard erstwhile supporters of the LTTE have criticised it, many agree with Sampanthan that this was the best possible resolution that could have been achieved. And only a consensus resolution could make its honest implementation possible.

Not unexpectedly, Tamil Nadu political parties have demanded a purely international investigation to do justice to Sri Lankan Tamils. However, Indian external affairs ministry spokesman Vikas Swarup has made clear that India would support the revised US draft. This was expected as India had always been on principle opposed to the role of foreign judges in internal conflicts.

The spokesman commenting on the issue  after Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Sirisena met on the sidelines of the UN general assembly meeting in New York, said “Our position is very clear. We stand for justice and at the same time we are respectful of the Sri Lankan sovereignty issues to the extent the Sri Lankan government is comfortable with the formulation that marries the two.”

Written on September 30, 2015

 [Col R Hariharan, a retired Military Intelligence specialist on South Asia, served with the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka as Head of Intelligence 1987-90. He is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the South Asia Analysis Group. E-Mail: colhari@yahoo.com   Blog: http://col.hariharan.info]

Courtesy: South Asia Security Trends, October 20015, Volume 9 No 10               www.security-risks.com