Indian role is decisive

Wasantha Priya Ramanayake -Translated by A. A. M. Nizam

We have respectability and attachment to the law of the country and to the international law. Our commitment to international law is proven by the international conventions we have signed. In the humanitarian field we have signed more prudent conventions than the United States of America. For example, the United States of America does not accept the rights of a citizen to appeal to the International Human Rights Commission. But we accept it.

Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe

Ban ki-Moon

Robert O Blake

In general, international law is considered as the law of the powerful. In other words it is also termed as the ideology of sprats and sharks. Whatever is mentioned in the conventions, the United Nations Organization functions in an atmosphere of injustice similar to this. It was because of this that countries like ours got together in the past and established the Non-Aligned Movement. One of the pioneers of this movement was Madam Sirimavo Bandaranaike. Following the collapse of the Soviet bloc the strength of the Non-Aligned Movement was also diminished. It has now become just a rubber-seal.

International community

We cannot indulge in politics as a country without understanding this international atmosphere. But since countries like India is closer to us and because India has become a powerful nation in the region, the devil is not that dark as we think. It is even not difficult to settle the account through a better management of international politics.

It is in such an international atmosphere that Sri Lanka completely defeated the world's most ruthless terrorist organization. Just after four months of this victory, a resolution favourable to Sri Lanka was approved in the United Nations Human Rights Council. That was approved because we defeated terrorism. Through this resolution our action of defeating terrorism was lauded by many countries. The Western international community did not like this resolution much. Some of them even opposed it.

A majority of the third world countries supported the resolution. The powerful Western countries said that the final stages of the humanitarian operation were questionable. It may be assumed that the propaganda in the Western media such as BBC and CNN and the ‘White Flag’ story of the journalist Marie Colvin who died recently also led to form this opinion.

In the meantime, it is not a secret to anyone that the Secretary General of the United Nations Ban ki-Moon visited Sri Lanka and signed a joint statement with President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Through this document the President agreed to investigate whether there were any human rights violations during the war period. Even based on the international human rights conventions we have signed, and as a country, there is nothing wrong for agreeing to such a commitment.

LLRC

However, there is no agreement in this statement that a special investigation will be carried on the final stages of the humanitarian operations.

It was in accordance with that joint statement President Mahinda Rajapaksa announced on June 16, 2010 the establishment of the Lessons Learnt and the Reconciliation Commission. In the same year on September 16, the United Nations Secretary General Ban ki-Moon appointed the Darusman Panel. Ban ki-Moon said that it was appointed for him to get advice. In the same vein he says that it was also in accordance with the joint statement signed with Sri Lanka. But what he says is not true. The fallacy of it becomes clear from the Darusman's statements itself.

What Darusman attempts is to investigate a chain of events purported to have occurred during the final stages of the war. There is nothing like that mentioned in the joint statement. What Ban ki-Moon says is a lie. This is a threat posed by Ban ki-Moon to our sovereignty. We do not know why we did not succeed in stopping the attempts being made by Ban ki-Moon through Darusman to investigate on the final stages of the war. It was in support of the actions of Darusman that Channel 4 television presented a documentary saying that it relates to incidents that took place during the final stages of the war.

Subsequently, the Darusman Panel expressed willingness to meet the members of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission appointed by Sri Lanka and others from outside that Commission. The Sri Lankan government vehemently rejected this request and told the Darusman Panel that if necessary they could visit Sri Lanka and give evidence before the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. Because of this there was no face to face meeting between the two parties. Both parties were encouraged to issue two separate reports.

Darusman report

Also, there was no shortage for exchange of letters between Ban ki-Moon's office and Sri Lanka's Ministry of External Affairs. It seems that at one stage we were very flexible.

It clearly shows our respect for international conventions and international laws. Because of this our Ministry of External Affairs agreed to respond to 15 questions presented by the Darusmans and Ban ki-Moon about the government stance and activities of the LLRC.

Some may see this as controversial. But we do not know whether it is correct to get the Presidential Secretariat connected to this exercise with the knowledge of the President. Also it may be argued by some that it is similar to opposing them initially and subsequently sending a response to Darusman's question by post. If our politicians are enthusiastic enough to be prudent in their handling of local and international politics, this type of suspicions and blames will not even surface from the Opposition. Nevertheless, because of this response the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission became internationalized even before the report was released.

Human rights laws

At the moment there is no validity for the Darusman report. It has got submerged among the documents of Ban ki-Moon's files. But can someone get the notion that the problem has been internationalized by providing a response to Darusmans in advance? But whatever it is, it seems that the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission report and its recommendations have come to our rescue at the moment.

Currently the United States and other Western countries are demanding to implement the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission which they rejected at the time when it was established. It is such a resolution that they are going to unveil at the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva in the forthcoming days. It is also a victory for us to find that the Western nations hanging on to the recommendations of the LLRC report when Darusmans have become outdated. It is a defeat for them.

Now Sri Lanka has an opportunity to say boldly; "You people did not listen to what we said then. You all hung on to Darusman and denigrated our Commission, even questioned about the integrity of our Commission.

Now you all are demanding to implement its recommendations. We were right then and we are right now also. What is the hurry you all have got now? We need sufficient time to implement the recommendations of the Commission. Be patient till then". It was this message that Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe diplomatically and suavely delivered to the international community. Minister Samarasinghe told the international community on behalf of Sri Lanka that day; "Be a little patient. We have already started the work".

"Attention has been focused on certain incidents about which evidence has been submitted to the Commission. It is the opinion of the Commission that these matters should be investigated further. The Attorney General is at present studying the recommendations relating to the charges of violating international human rights laws".

It seems that the international community needs such an assurance. It seems that yet the resolution has not been properly drafted. Even in the recent days the US Secretary of State for Asian Affairs Robert O Blake said that some points of the resolution is still being drafted. It may be that they are redrafting the resolution in accordance with our reaction. There is a possibility for a resolution to be submitted or not, and even if submitted not to hold a vote on it. It is clear that they want to get assurances on certain things. It is being done at the moment.

There is no doubt that India is playing a decisive role in this regard. Announcing in advance that India is on our side is also not a good diplomatic move. It is true that India is with us. Without announcing it in an ignoble manner it is better to place them in an honourable position on our behalf. India is like a relation of ours. They stand with us at all times. Neither the United States nor the Western countries attempt to do any harm to SAARC countries overriding India. This is how the international regions have been sliced and segregated.

At the same time our honesty and innocence should also be displayed. The report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission has carried out that task. It is because of that even India's role has become easier. Therefore, the Indian stance will become very decisive on a resolution being brought against Sri Lanka. Mostly it may be a resolution cut and chopped with the mediation of India and one that can be described in the context that the devil is not that dark as we think.