SL on remarkable recovery track - Part II:

LLRC critics and ‘goal post-shifting’

Continued from Saturday (28)

Statement by Ravinatha Aryasinha,
ambassador of Sri Lanka to Belgium,
Luxembourg and the EU, at the European Parliament South Asia Delegation’s
discussion on Sri Lanka on April 24, 2012

b)The multitude of voices that earlier questioned the credibility of the LLRC and expressed doubts as to whether the report would ever see the light of day, who are ironically now asking that the LLRC report be implemented, are only exposing their previous poor judgement and re-affirming their practice of constantly shifting goal posts.

C)The suggestion made in some quarters, that the LLRC report does not address accountability issues in the last phase of the conflict is without basis. What those who make this charge seem to be really saying is simply that the authors of the LLRC report have not arrived at the same conclusions that these elements who obsessively wish to see Sri Lanka being made a scapegoat had wanted them to.

On the contrary, the LLRC report offers us detailed observations and recommendations on International Humanitarian Law issues relating to the final phase of the conflict.

* It clearly accepts the position that the protection of civilian life was a key factor in the formulation of policy for carrying out military operations and that the deliberate targeting of civilians formed no part of this policy.

* The report notes that military operations were conducted professionally, but if there is evidence of transgression by individuals, this of course should be examined.

* On the basis of evidence placed before them, the LLRC also points to several specific episodes which, in their view, warrant further investigation. These episodes are referred to in the report, in a variety of settings.

I might add here, that the government of Sri Lanka has not contested the conclusions of the LLRC, unlike NATO, which is strongly contesting the position taken by Judge Philippe Kirsch in the COI report on Libya with regard to the need to further investigate NATO operations in Libya. We have yet to see Western countries critiquing NATO's position on this matter, which is a clear application of double standards on their part, when compared to the strident calls being made in relation to alleged events in Sri Lanka based on the flimsiest of evidence.

In fact the Leader of the House Nimal Siripala de Silva was to observe in tabling the LLRC report in Parliament on December 16, 2011 "It is a matter of the greatest importance to the government to have the truth relating to each of these matters established in a manner that puts controversy to rest for all time. The government has asserted clearly on many occasions that, if reliable evidence is available in respect of any contravention of the law, the law of the land will be set in motion". The Leader of the House was also to note that "the government, of its own accord, has already carried out a series of measures including a comprehensive census in the Northern Province, which will enable firm and verifiable conclusions to be arrived at on issues involving accountability, without any element of conjecture or speculation".

Channel 4 video footage

Following up on this pledge, already two Courts of Inquiry and a Board of Inquiry have been established by the Sri Lanka Army and Navy respectively and have commenced investigations into specific incidents identified by the LLRC.

The mandate of the Court of Inquiry is to investigate, inter alia, civilian casualties and the Channel 4 video footage; including whether any deliberate and international attacks were made by the Army on civilians, with a view to causing them harm or damage, or on any hospitals or no-fire zones.

If so, the persons responsible for any such activity and to make recommendations with regard to the measures that should be taken with regard to such persons. In respect to the controversial Channel 4 footage, the Court of Inquiry has been specifically mandated to ascertain whether any member of the armed forces was involved in the events depicted, authentic or otherwise and to recommend the measures to be taken.

d) On the implementation of the LLRC report, sound prioritization no doubt is an essential aspect of a practical strategy for implementation of these recommendations, where it is important to distinguish between measures addressing humanitarian needs as a matter of urgency, and longer term initiatives. As External Affairs Minister Prof. G. L. Peiris was to observe recently, "We will move forward at our own pace and our policy will be determined by the interests of the people in this country. The LLRC is our own Commission, so to implement the LLRC recommendations we do not need any external pressure. We will do it anyway and of course we will keep the international community informed".

e) We must remember that there are many issues on which recommendations have been made in the LLRC report - such as demining, IDP re-settlement, ex-LTTE combatants, de-militarization, socio-economic and livelihood development - which as I have already observed is at an advanced stage of implementation.

f) Additionally,

* GOSL has also taken steps to disarm the so-called 'paramilitary groups'. In order to bring about an end to the possession of unauthorized weapons, an institutionalized process with legislative oversight has been set up to record specific details on weapons recovered, and also setting a deadline for surrendering of illegal weapons, as was done in the Eastern Province.

* The National Human Rights Action Plan for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights developed through a participatory process between government and civil society and approved by the Cabinet in September 2011, is presently being implemented. The Action Plan presents a structured framework to monitor the implementation of existing laws, policies and practices and to enhance a better understanding and respect of human rights.

* GOSL has also taken steps to establish normalcy and re-democratise the Northern and the Eastern provinces, including through the full participation in Presidential and Parliamentary election, the holding of Provincial Elections in the Eastern Province, and Local Government elections. Local Government elections have been held in all areas of the North with the exception of two local authorities in the Mullaitivu district, namely Puthukudiruppu and Maritimepattu. LG elections in these two local authorities which were scheduled for March 24, 2012 were postponed due to an Interim Order issued, as two petitions are pending before the Court of Appeal.

* In order to evolve a multi-party consensus with respect to constitutional changes, the government has sought the appointment of a Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC), while being also engaged in bilateral discussions with Tamil political parties, as well as Muslim representation in furtherance of this objective.

The government has already nominated its members to the PSC and is awaiting the nomination of members representing the Opposition, especially from the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), after which sittings can commence.

* Development related work in the Northern and Eastern Provinces, which during the conflict situation and immediately thereafter came under the purview of the Presidential Task Force for Resettlement, is now carried out under the supervision of the relevant line ministries, in coordination and consultation with the provincial and local government representatives.

* Following its launch in January 2012, the government is also effectively implementing the Trilingual Policy aimed at enabling Sinhala, Tamil and English competence to Sri Lankans. The 10 Year National Plan for a Trilingual Sri Lanka provides the blueprint for the first determined effort by any administration since 1987 when Tamil was made an official language, to seriously implement the provisions for a Trilingual Sri Lanka already available in the law with the passing of the 13th amendment to the constitution. Already more than 1,600 Tamil speaking Police officers have been recruited and the Civil Service in the North and East is largely composed of members of the Tamil and Muslim communities.

* GoSL has established a specialized institution for Rehabilitation of Persons, Properties and Industries Authority (REPPIA), responsible for providing compensation for the persons who have suffered loss/damage due to terrorist violence.

* A Land Task Force has been established at provincial and district level to deal with land issues. The government has also begun a process to revise laws to enable considering claims for immovable property including land of the displaced or disadvantaged persons. To any objective observer, the steps I have outlined above would have constituted a sufficient body of evidence of both the GOSL's intent and the commitment to deliver in just under three years since the ending of the terrorist conflict to ensure that Sri Lankans

* cutting across ethnicity, religion, regional and class differences, could move forward towards peace, reconciliation and development, in a spirit of inclusivity.

HRC resolution on Sri Lanka

It is in such context that GOSL believes that the resort to action on Sri Lanka through a resolution within the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva last month was unnecessary and unwarranted, and could in effect negatively impact the ongoing reconciliation process. First, the resolution ignored the significant steps taken and results shown by GOSL over the past near three years since the ending of LTTE terrorism in Sri Lanka - action which has few precedents and which will be hard to replicate in comparable situations.

Second, it prejudged Sri Lanka’s intention to implement the recommendations of the LLRC, less than three months since this domestic mechanism put in place by GOSL was made public, and the time-bound National Human Rights Action Plan, which has many synergies with the LLRC, has commenced implementation in a structured manner. In doing so, it also undermined the well-entrenched rule of international law, that domestic remedies must first be exhausted, and amounts to an undue interference in an internal process.

Third, given that Sri Lanka would in any case come up for comprehensive discussion during the HRC’s second cycle of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in October this year, the haste with which this resolution was sought to be imposed, brings into serious question the motivations of its proponents, who seem to disregard the principles upon which the HRC was founded, as a forum to address developments concerning human rights of all countries, in a cooperative, non-selective, and impartial manner.

Fourth, it also underlined the continuing prejudice against Sri Lanka prevalent among sections of the international community, who regrettably continue to be manipulated by INGOs and particularly the rump elements of the LTTE living abroad and their sympathizers, which are intent on vilifying Sri Lanka. It is this self-seeking vociferous minority living in greener pastures overseas, and continue to advocate mono-ethnic separatism in Sri Lanka while espousing the ideology of the LTTE, using its resources and being manipulated by its surviving military leaders, who would prefer to see Sri Lanka remain locked in the past. With 15 countries voting with Sri Lanka, and eight countries abstaining, the final result in Geneva was that 23 countries, out of a total of 47 members of the Human Rights Council did not support the Resolution, while 24 supported it. Many countries which voted with Sri Lanka were acutely conscious of the danger of setting a precedent which enables ad hoc intervention by powerful countries in the internal affairs of other nations. The eight abstentions also reflected clear resistance of pressure by powerful countries to support the resolution by less powerful developing countries on a matter of principle. The resolution therefore finally became an example of a highly selective and arbitrary process within the Council not governed by objective norms or criteria of any kind, the implications of which were not lost on many countries.

As far as Sri Lanka is concerned, our policy in respect of all matters will continue to be guided by the vital interests and well being of the people of our country, in keeping with accepted legal norms. Sri Lanka remains confident, that as we have done in the past, over time, we will be able to prove to all, including the present day ‘prophets of doom’ who continue to shift goal posts and apply double standards when it comes to Sri Lanka, that they were wrong.

Concluded