Colonel R Hariharan
Courtesy: South Asia Security Trends, April 2017 issue www.security-risks.com
President
Maithripala Sirisena must be a happy man after the United Nations Human Rights
Council (UNHRC) adopted a resolution to give two more years to Sri Lanka, to fully
implement all the commitments it made in the 2015 resolution to deliver justice
to thousands of people affected by the Eelam wars. By co-sponsoring the latest
resolution with the U.S., Sri Lanka had shown its readiness to positively
engage with the international community on fulfilling its commitment to reconciliation
and human rights, as pointed out by the U.S. head of delegation at the UNHRC. The Sirisena government can claim the adoption
of the resolution, without a vote, as a diplomatic victory of sorts; it showed
the UNHRC members have positively responded to Sri Lanka’s plea for extension
based on its performance so far, which had been recognized even by the not-so-kind
report of the UN Human Rights Commissioner presented at the session.
But,
the two-year reprieve provides only relief; Sri Lanka’s success in buying time
cannot hide its failure to take action on two basic requirements: ensuring
meaningful devolution and creating credible transitional justice mechanisms. Unfortunately,
these are stuck in the political logjam, perhaps aided and abetted by
bureaucratic indifference. However, the two-year extension shows that the
member-countries have some understanding of the limitations of the Sirisena
government in evolving politically acceptable solutions on controversial issues
like the inclusion of foreign judges in the transitional justice system or
prosecuting army officers suspected of committing war crimes.
But the moot
question is, can Sri Lanka fulfil its commitments to the UNHRC by 2019?
It will be difficult to wager on this, if we
go by the politically supercharged environment created by ‘patriotic citizens’
(whatever it means) raising the question of national sovereignty in accepting the
international dispensation on transitional justice. They seem to forget that
their own role model - President Mahinda Rajapaksa - had invited foreign
judicial luminaries to oversee inquiries of similar nature (though with
disastrous end results). But it is in the nature of politics to be short on
memories that do not suit the politicians.
Of
course, one way out for the Sirisena government is to fast track the “doable”
issues which can impart some momentum to the whole process. Two such issues are
the return all the remaining private land under military occupation and replacement
of the Prevention of Terrorism Act with human rights compliant enactment. These two issues have not been dealt with the alacrity to bring them to closure. The aftermath of the legislation on the Office
of Missing Persons, typically, shows the choke hold bureaucracy has in translating
good intentions to produce positive results. It has brought no relief to thousands, who are mourning the fate of their missing kith and kin.
Considering
the political paralysis affecting the government’s decision making process, it
appears doubtful whether it can come up with a “time bound implementation
strategy” to fulfil its outstanding commitments, as urged by the UK. The want
of desire to act, rather than strategic planning, seems to be the malady
affecting the government’s tardy performance. This is not merely restricted to human
rights issues, but, governance as a whole if we go by the slow speed at which it
produces results.
It
only proves that good intentions or political rhetoric of the government is not
enough. Even if the leaderships of both the main coalition partners are nervous
about the right wing backlash on some of the controversial issues like the induction of foreign
judges in the transitional justice mechanism, there is no reason for not acting
upon non-controversial doable issues. Unless, the government shows sensitivity
in acting upon these demands, its UNHRC reprieve will be a wasted one.
From
the political discourse, it appears President Sirisena would act upon the gritty
issues, only after consolidating his power base in the Sri Lanka Freedom Party
(SLFP) and gaining control of the ruling coalition, where the United National
Party (UNP) constantly seem to be outguessing the presidential mind. Though the
pro-Rajapaksa faction within the SLFP had been working against him, President
Sirisena being in power, should be able to take effective damage
control measures within the party. His appeals to the youth members of the SLFP
to rally in support have to be read in this context. However, the coalition contretemps are likely
to be there, because it is in the nature of the two astute political leaders –
Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe – to try and outmaneuver each other,
in the marriage of the convenience that the ruling coalition is.
In
this context, it is interesting to note the conduct of the so-called
Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE), made up of former LTTE overseas
representatives and pro-Eelam elements of Tamil Diaspora. The TGTE would not be
surprised that despite its plea to all members of the UNHRC “not to cave-in to a roll-over with an extension
of time”,
they did just that. The reason is simple: the rules of the game have changed. Unlike the Cold War days, the real world now has
little time to listen to political proxies of terrorist groups.
Col R Hariharan, a retired MI officer, served as the head of Intelligence of
the Indian Peace Keeping Force from 1987 to 90. He is associated with the Chennai
Centre for China Studies. E-mail: haridirect@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment