The current state of Human Rights in Sri Lanka - June 2008
Prof Rajiva Wijesinha
A recent article by the Asian Human Rights Commission had some
characteristic critiques of the requests for assistance in strengthening
Human Rights in Sri Lanka made in our submissions during the Universal
Periodic Review.
Having heard from Basil Fernando, in a moving private missive, about
the fears he entertains, and recognising that he had some justification
for those fears in the experiences he underwent in the seventies and
eighties, I will not critique his critique, since it was doubtless
advanced in all sincerity.
However, it does highlight some of the problems we in Sri Lanka face
in trying to address human rights issues whilst refusing to be
browbeaten, by more insidious forces than Basil, into acquiescing in the
claim that we cannot deal with our own problems.
In order to look into the situation as it was a year ago, when
various elements in various anti-government institutions launched their
attack, and as it is now, we should begin by considering the various
charges laid against Sri Lanka, viz
1. a. Civilians are killed in the course of military operations
b. Sri Lanka forces indiscriminately target civilians.
2. a. Sri Lanka has a number of internally displaced persons.
b. Sri Lanka treats internally displaced persons appallingly, including
through forcing some to go back to their places of residence when they
are unwilling, while not permitting others to go back when they want to
because of attempts to manipulate ethnic ratios in particular districts.
3. a. Some groups associated with the government engaged in
recruitment of child soldiers.
b. Sri Lankan forces were complicit in the recruitment and use of child
soldiers.
4. a. There are questions as to the constitution and the
effectiveness of the National Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka.
b. The National Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka is beyond
redemption.
5. a. Torture occurs in Sri Lanka
b. Torture is systemic in Sri Lanka
6. a. Journalists run risks, including killing, in Sri Lanka
b. The situation of journalists in Sri Lanka has become ever more
dangerous.
7. a. Enforced disappearances and extra-judicial killings occur in
Sri Lanka
b. There has been an alarming increase in enforced disappearances and
extra-judicial killings in Sri Lanka in 2007 (and 2008)
8. a. Offenders are not readily brought to book for human rights
offences in Sri Lanka.
b. There is widespread impunity in Sri Lanka.
9. a. Sri Lanka needs better witness protection.
b. Sri Lanka is not interested in witness protection.
Now if we look at all those charges, it was the second of each pair
that had widespread provenance in the run up to the meeting of the Human
Rights Council in Geneva last September, when there were open attempts
to bring a resolution against Sri Lanka.
As a result of the strenuous defence put up by the country, with
Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe leading a delegation in the early part of
the month, with Minister G L Pieris later engaging in scholarly
refutation of the view that the situation demanded external
intervention, we now have to deal only with the first of each pair, or
rather with the first of each of the last six sets.
Thus, when it is claimed that Sri Lanka was in a state of denial, it
certainly denied the latter of each set of propositions. It also denied
the former of the first three sets, and was able to show with evidence
that charges in those respects were misplaced.
This was not to deny that there had been civilian casualties, but the
proportions were minimal in comparison with such casualties in other
battles against terrorism, and this has now been recognised.
Again, the attempts to demonize the Karuna faction, aided and abetted
by those UNICEF employees who demonstrated against the Government for
their own political preferences, have now been laid to rest. We can now,
having got over that carefully manipulated distraction, get back to the
real business of rescuing the hundreds of children still held in
military servitude by the LTTE in the Wanni.
So too UN evidence itself shows that the third charge was
nonsensical, and indeed the Sri Lankan record of dealing with IDPs is
one of the best in the world.
This of course applies only to recent IDPs, and we have much to be
ashamed of in the treatment of the old IDPs, in particular the Muslims
chased out of Jaffna by the LTTE in 1990.
But at least this government is trying to address that problem, which
was ignored by successive governments previously. And perhaps most
remarkably, we have now got back on the table the UNDP Stocktaking
Report about the National Human Rights Commission which had earlier been
suppressed.
The readiness of the UN to help in that respect now is a marked
change from the hell or high water approach which an earlier Senior
Human Rights Adviser had advocated, to the extent of failing to use
funding provided by sympathetic donors to strengthen the HRC.
With regard to torture, it is well known that it exists all over the
world, and as the recent death in Britain of a young soldier punished to
death shows, it is not only in a context of ‘othering’, as in Abu Ghraib
and Guantanamo Bay that such horrors occur.
It is of course the duty of any country to put a stop to such
occurrences, through training and education, but also through punitive
action. In this regard it has been noted that Sri Lanka has issued
indictments, but the conviction rate is low.
The UN Special Rapporteur has suggested that one reason for this may
be a mandatory high sentence, and this should perhaps be adjusted. But
it is also necessary to improve our investigative techniques and
prosecution skills, and these are now being addressed.
There is certainly no need to feel ashamed of seeking expert
assistance in these areas, and indeed it is unfortunate that the
so-called international Police Support Group failed in its several years
of existence to deal with the problems more systematically.
With regard to the last four problems, Sri Lanka has recognized that
there have been serious deficiencies, though these are not unusual in a
state fighting against terror.
The last of these has been addressed through an Act now before
Parliament, and even though some may claim this is not ideal, it is the
first of its kind in the region.
It should be noted that, again, assistance in promoting this was not
forthcoming from the Senior Human Rights Adviser, while his sidekicks
who were assistants to the International Independent Group of Eminent
Persons actually tried to sabotage training in this area which the Legal
Director of the Peace Secretariat had initiated.
The IIGEP, it should be noted, has as yet failed to reply to the
objections which were made to this high-handed conduct.
With regard to the dangers to journalists, as with disappearances and
extra-judicial killings, there were certainly grave problems in 2006
when the LTTE domination of particular areas, with its severe repression
of other Tamil groups, was coming to an end.
However, that period of open season, before the government was able
to conclusively establish its writ in the East as well as parts of the
North, has been brought to a close. Abuses still occur however, and it
is essential to stop them.
But it must be noted, as with the latest killing of journalists in
the Jaffna peninsula, that the LTTE is also responsible for such threats
to stability, and while it is still insidiously powerful there will
necessarily be unacceptable but understandable reactions.
It is in such a context that the government determination to put a
stop to terrorism is so important because, with the best will in the
world, unless that happens abuses will necessarily occur.
Of course government too has an obligation, to expedite
investigations, to issue indictments, to hone its prosecuting skills,
although finally decisions as to guilt or otherwise lie with the courts.
In these respects there is much to do, but it would help if deficiencies
in these areas were recognised as such, and not characterized as part of
a master plan to suppress human rights entirely.
Obviously, where charges on the lines of the latter part of each set
above were freely flung, a confrontational approach is encouraged, which
will not benefit anyone.
Instead of that, it would be useful if what are termed advocacy
groups, instead of engaging in sensationalistic reporting that serves to
raise their profiles, concentrated on identifying individual cases and
working together with government to remedy problems.
(The writer is Secretary General Secretariat for Coordinating the
Peace Process and Secretary, Human Rights Ministry) |