LLRC Report: reason, reform, roadmap
Dr. Dayan jayatilleka
Dr Dayan Jayatilleka
|
Though not without flaws and lacuna, the long awaited LLRC Report
does not disappoint, and reaches high standards, ranking with the best
reports emanating over the decades from official and
semi-official/autonomous Sri Lankan commissions, reviews and probes. It
is a serious, thoughtful, carefully written and constructed text,
striking in its fair-mindedness and balance. It deserves constructive
engagement with, by all concerned Sri Lankan citizens and those in the
world community who are concerned about and with Sri Lanka.
Let us first dispense with the flaws and gaps, of which there are
chiefly two.
Firstly, the Report echoes the conventional wisdom, as does the
Norwegian (NORAD) post-mortem, that the CFA was the result and in the
context of the military weakness of the Sri Lankan state. This is
factually incorrect since it ignores the chronology of events, in which
the deadly LRP missions which were taking down the Tiger command
structure, followed and not preceded the disastrous Agni Kheela
operation and the devastating raid on Katunayake airport. Thus the
lopsided character of the CFA which heavily favoured the LTTE did not
reflect the real balance of forces and was not inevitable. Secondly, the
LLRC Report draws a veil of silence over the even more lopsided
post-tsunami relief mechanism, the PTOMS, which was negotiated at the
tail end of the Chandrika presidency and was frozen in its dangerous
middle tier, by the Supreme Court, responding to a petition by the JVP.
These errors and omissions should not, however, detract from the
essentials merit of the Report.
War crimes
One of the LLRC sittings |
The Report is Janus-faced in the best, original sense of the term. It
looks back at the war and the context of the conflict and provides a
perspective of the kind of society we need. It constitutes the only
roadmap so far, to a durable peace and a better future. It does not stop
at a vision, sometimes more implicit than explicit, but pinpoints wrongs
and shortcomings that require rectification while listing reforms that
cry out for urgent implementation.
Responses to the LLRC Report have been of two sorts. One is that it
is basically laudable and balanced, containing recommendations which
should be promptly acted upon. This response then subdivides between
those who are hopeful of action and others who are pessimistic or
cynical. The second response is that the LLRC Report is far from
satisfactory, and is a whitewash or to change the metaphor, a sweeping
under the carpet of war crimes and accountability issues.
Humanitarian law
To my mind the first response - with its optimistic and pessimistic
subsets - constitutes a reasonable reaction, while the second does not.
I say this because those who dismiss the report as His Master’s Voice
make the fundamental mistake of being teleological in their approach.
Having concluded a priori, that the Sri Lankan state and armed forces
were guilty of war crimes and/or crimes against humanity, they fault the
LLRC Report for not having arrived at the same conclusion, and dismiss
it out of hand, echoing calls for an international inquiry.
These critics overlook or fail to undertake at least five basic
tasks. They fail to grapple or even make reference to the rigorous
reconstruction and argumentation that leads the Report to conclude that
despite episodic crimes, civilian casualties were not, for the most
part, intentional. They ignore the fact that this finding is the same as
that which was arrived at by at least two impeccably non-state,
independent sources, the oldest civil society think tank in Sri Lanka,
the Marga Institute and its respected founder and outstanding liberal
thinker Godfrey Gunatilleke, as well as a joint commission of three
private sector business confederations. They fail to examine and
disprove the extensive and solid argument on international humanitarian
law in the LLRC Report. They disregard the listing of specific cases,
based on testimony, which require independent investigation. They ignore
the chapter on Human rights, which, unlike that on international
humanitarian law, is quite critical of the status quo.
The Report also cuts like a surgeon’s knife through the old questions
as to what the grievances of the Tamil community are, which of them are
genuine and legitimate and how they differ from the grievances of the
Sinhala community. This is done in excellent segments entitled
‘Grievances of the Tamil Community’ ‘The Historical Background relating
to Majority-Minority relationships in Sri Lanka’ and ‘The Different
Phases in the Narrative of Tamil Grievances’ (pp291-294, 369-370).
Perhaps the single most important contribution of the LLRC Report is
its clear and unambiguous identification of the causes of the Sri Lankan
conflict and crisis, the resolution of which remains the central
challenge before the country. The LLRC has, in short, undertaken a
diagnosis and provided a prescription.
Political leaders
“The Commission takes the view that the root cause of the ethnic
conflict in Sri Lanka lies in the failure of successive governments to
address the genuine grievances of the Tamil people. The country may not
have been confronted with a violent separatist agenda, if the political
consensus at the time of independence had been sustained and if policies
had been implemented to build up and strengthen the confidence of the
minorities around the system which had gained a reasonable measure of
acceptance. A political solution is imperative to address the causes of
the conflict...” (p 291, articles 8.150, 8.151)
The LLRC Report justifies its most ambitious claim, which is to
provide a post-war programme and pathway.
“... To this end, the success of ending armed conflict must be
invested in an all-inclusive political process of dialogue and
accommodation so that the conflict by other means will not continue...
However, if these expectations were to become a reality in the form of a
multi-ethnic nation at peace with itself in a democratic Sri Lanka, the
Government and all political leaders must manifest political will and
sincerity of purpose to take the necessary decisions to ensure the
good-faith implementation of the Commission's recommendations... While
not being an exhaustive agenda to address, let alone cure, all ills of
post conflict Sri Lanka, the recommendations of the Commission could
nevertheless constitute a framework for action by all stakeholders, in
particular the Government, political parties and community leaders. This
framework would go a long way in constructing a platform for
consolidating post-conflict peace and security as well as amity and
cooperation within and between the diverse communities in Sri Lanka.”
(Preamble, pp.1-2)
Overall, perhaps the most vital contribution of the Report is its
potential to re-balance the Sri Lankan policy (and political) discourse,
re-constituting a tragically vacated middle ground or centre space.
Indeed, the LLRC report is that rarity: a welcome example of an
enlightened Middle Path, at a time of strident affirmations of dogmatic
fundamental positions. |