WHO SAYS WE HAVE TO IMPLEMENT ‘OUR OWN LLRC REPORT’ IN FULL?
Why isn’t your government implementing its own LLRC recommendations?
That’s the refrain of those who have made the Geneva UNHRC sessions an
article of faith, to coax the Sri Lankan nation to take cognizance of
reconciliation issues after the war.
In pursuance of that task, they say that there are so many
recommendations in the LLRC report which have been itemized in the
National Action Plan, that have not been implemented.
UNHRC session in progress. File photo |
The LLRC report happens to be one that went far beyond the
‘reconciliation’ mandate. Well and good. It appears to have been a
well-intentioned document that included a recipe for action on all of
the issues that came up in the lengthy public representations that were
made before it.
The LLRC document made recommendations on the Freedom of Information
Act, and on discontinuing recourse to the Vagrancy Ordinance, to arrest
women indulging in prostitution, for example.
LLRC recommendations
These recommendations are in the main, forward looking to a great
extent -- and are ideal for an ideal situation.
But, the LLRC recommendations were supposed to be those that
concerned reconciliation and lessons learnt. Then there were
recommendations that were supposed to deal with human rights in a post
war context.
One of the LLRC sittings. File photo |
It is not to speak pejoratively of the LLRC to say that some of its
recommendations had little or nothing to do with these aspects of Sri
Lanka’s post war reality, however. What really does Vagrancy have to do
with the post-war reconciliation process?
The Freedom of Information Act? Does the UN Human Rights Council for
example, agitate for enacting a Freedom of Information Act in Singapore,
for instance?
Simply put, the bulk of the LLRC recommendations in the National
Action Plan that have not been implemented, are those that have little
or nothing to do with the issues of reconciliation or human rights, in a
context of global oversight.
Press freedom
If there was international oversight over issues such as a Freedom of
Information Act, there would have been sanctions on Singapore now for
instance, due to the regular and institutionalized repression of press
freedom in that country.
So why has Sri Lanka then been singled out for international
oversight, on what are essentially evolving domestic governance issues?
To some extent the LLRC report has given the misguided sections of
the international community, the license to do this.
Day-to-day governance issues have been ceded out to the UN and its
agencies, making use of the false premise that the Sri Lankan government
-- post war -- is beholden to implement all provisions of the LLRC
report.
However, the pressure to implement the LLRC report in full is
something that should alert the international community to the dangers
of intrusive international oversight.
Governance issues
It sets a dangerous precedent for future interference on basic
governance issues --- for instance.
Take the Indian government, for example. There are several security
related factors that make it mandatory that in India, certain rights are
kept in abeyance to tackle the problem of Kashmiri resistance for
instance.
Imagine India being asked by the UN Human Rights Council to implement
countrywide, to the last letter, all constitutional provisions that deal
with detention for instance, without exception?
National security imperatives aside, imagine if India is asked by the
UN Human Rights Council to legislate on issues such as surrogacy, or
rape, as per the UNHRC diktat -- i.e.; on the basis of a council
resolution stating that the provisions of a certain document be
implemented.
The problem about the LLRC is that it has been sold to the UN by
interested parties – INGOs, NGOs - - as a post-war document dealing with
war related issues of trust and accountability between communities after
years of conflict.
But the document is something else. It is akin to a seminar report on
democracy and governance -- and ‘reform’ in general.
Those are things that have to be done in a democracy with public
assent through legislative process. Governance cannot be outsourced to
the UNHRC.
International community
Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekera is therefore not wrong when he compared the
LLRC to something akin to the Kandyan Convention by which -- through
consenting behaviour -- the elites of this country willingly ceded their
sovereignty to a foreign power. It was all done on similar lines. They
said it was ‘our document,’ and that it was for ‘our own good.’
The only thing that can be done to disabuse the international
community of the notion that the LLRC is a governance document and
cannot and should not be implemented in full is to say so loud and
clear, and stick to our guns.
For that, we have to say it as it is -- the government of Sri Lanka
is not going to outsource legislation to the international community.
Neither is it going to outsource legislative initiative to the LLRC for
that matter!
Of course the sleight of hand and trickery involved in the UN
agencies repeating that the LLRC is a human rights document, and
post-war reconciliation article of faith and has to be implemented in
full, has to be exposed.
Yes, the government appointed the LLRC. But what the commission came
out with constitutes a set of recommendations.
It is a given that all of these provisions do not have to be
implemented in full. That will be akin to asking the moderator to take
over the debate! |