1 June, 2020

Blog

Centre for Policy Alternatives on LLRC

By Centre for Policy Alternatives –
The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) welcomes the release of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) Report, its analysis of the root cause of the conflict, the cataloguing of the atrocities of the LTTE, recommendations in respect of governance – especially the de-politicisation of existing institutions, the introduction of Right to Information legislation, militarization, attacks on the freedom of expression, language rights, reconciliation and the investigation of the allegations contained in the Channel Four documentary as well as the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for disappearances and civilian deaths . We also welcome the LLRC recommendation that named individuals and organizations associated with the government be investigated for human rights violations and para-military activity, and its recommendations in respect of the Northern Muslims evicted by the LTTE and the Up Country Tamil population.  The attention accorded by the LLRC to the situation of these two communities strengthens the coherence of this report on the pivotal issue of reconciliation for the peoples of Sri Lanka.  We strongly urge that the testimonies and record of the proceedings of the LLRC be preserved for posterity.

Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu - Director, Centre for Policy Alternatives

CPA did not go before the LLRC because of reservations about the mandate and composition of the commission, the past record of presidential commissions, specifically the non- release and non-implementation of their recommendations –a point also made in the LLRC Report.  We note however that a number of the observations and recommendations made by the LLRC reiterate those made by CPA and other civil society actors regarding the state of governance, the culture of impunity and human rights protection in Sri Lanka, in particular. The endorsement of these views by a presidential commission reinforces this civil society critique and underscores the importance of the credible and effective implementation of the LLRC recommendations in the areas mentioned above as a matter of the utmost national priority.  This in turn, as also highlighted by the LLRC, is underscored by the failure of the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) to implement in full the interim recommendations of the LLRC.

Following the release of the UN Secretary General’s Advisory Panel Report and the calls for international investigation of the allegations of war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) made against the LTTE and the GOSL, the GOSL has maintained that the LLRC Report would answer its critics. Central to this is establishing what happened in the last phase of the conflict and the issue of accountability.   At the outset it needs to be noted that the LLRC was not mandated to investigate human rights or IHL violations but was tasked to examine the collapse of the ceasefire agreement of 2001. The LLRC has concluded that in certain cases the truth is near impossible to ascertain given the information presented to the commission and more importantly, the information that at this point can be obtained.
Notwithstanding the issue of the limitations of the information available to it, the LLRC categorically states that it was not the intention of the GOSL to target civilians at any point.  The LLRC also concludes that in certain cases further investigations are  is warranted to establish the responsibility of members of the armed forces for civilian deaths, war crimes and violations of IHL, though it maintains, “this may not have been with an intent to cause harm”.
This is a conclusion that echoes the testimonies of senior officers and officials in the political and security establishment.  It has been arrived at through a process in which there was no witness and victim protection mechanism to facilitate further civilian testimony and thereby, a comprehensive account of what happened in the last phase of the war. In this connection it is pertinent to note the hardship and subsequent harassment faced by civilians who testified before the commission and the insufficient time allocated to civilians to make oral submissions before it. Most importantly, that so many family members of the disappeared and killed came before the commission, regardless of the difficulties and dangers they faced, attests to the dire need for affected communities to be heard as well as to the urgent need for justice and accountability at the community level.
CPA finds the conclusion about the intentions of the armed forces disappointing. We firmly believe that it reinforces the demands for an international investigation rather than addresses and lays them to rest. These demands are further augmented by the critique of the LLRC of the current state of governance and the rule of law, the need to delink the police force from the defence establishment and the need in effect to restore the Seventeenth Amendment and independent commissions for the police and public service amongst others.  The state of governance and the rule of law described by the LLRC, begs the question as to how the investigations it recommends can be conducted nationally, given the erosion of the integrity of the institutions that will be involved in such investigations. Explicit guidelines from the LLRC for these “independent” and “proper” “investigations” it recommends, would have made these recommendations more robust and meaningful.
Our disappointment extends to the commission’s treatment of the issue of the number of civilians in the Vanni during the last phase of the war and the provision of food and medical supplies to them. In this regard we are concerned that information from actors in international governmental and non-governmental organisation in direct contact with civilians on the ground, may not have been sufficiently sourced. This concern includes the population data available from the civilian administration in the region. The “White Flag incident” involving the killing of surrendering LTTE officials, the legality of High Security Zones, and the incarceration of almost 300,000 civilians in the Menik Farm and other sites complex in violation of their fundamental rights are some issues that, as well as the recent Land Circular, should have been dealt with, given their impact on reconciliation and the allegations of war crimes.
These reservations apart, we call on the GOSL to implement the LLRC recommendations without delay and with sincerity and commitment to the cherished goal of a truly plural and united Sri Lanka.  We note that the LLLRC report is the initiation of a process of reconciliation; not the end of it.  Furthermore, the LLRC clearly states that it is the GOSL that has to take the lead in the process and in particular, in arriving at a political and constitutional settlement based on devolution of “the ethnic problem as well as other serious problems that threaten democratic institutions”.  In this regard as in all others, we also note that the implementation of the LLRC recommendations necessitate a major paradigm shift by the GOSL.
We strongly urge that this be undertaken as a matter of national priority, and look forward to solid, demonstrable progress in reconciliation, accountability and human rights protection in 2012 and beyond. This is vital to the necessary transition from a post-war to post conflict situation and the enduring peace and unity the latter entails.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 0
    0

    This man is a fraud. Nothing but a bloody fraud.

    • 0
      0

      Talk the facts man, not the man!

  • 0
    0

    This is encouraging news. I do, however wonder how much better the result would have been if there had been a mechanism for witness protection and some form of amnesty to the perpetrators. Bearing in mind that both sides committed atrocities (allegedly), this should have been not too difficult to do.

    As the South Africans found to their benefit, their Truth and Reconciliation Commission enabled both victims and perpetrators to speak publicly and commence the healing process.

    Although an independent international enquiry would tread on the toes of Sri Lanka’s sovereignty, the hanging threads left by the LLRC will continue to be an open sore that may hinder healing.

  • 1
    0

    Why does Dr Pakayasothi urge attention to certain matters (missing parts and dissapointments) after LLRC report is released and NOT before when he had opportunities to tell at LLRC commission? He says “because he had some reservations about mandate and composition of LLRC commission (and he had NO RESERVATIONS about mandate and composition of UN Ban Kimmon’s panel). If he trully want to have justice, he would have gone any commission. He wanted to boycott LLRC and prepare grounds for an International War crimes tribunal for Sri Lanla. He is dissapointed about the success of the LLRC and fears that there would be no interntional investigations if international community would satisfy by LLRC report and refuse an internnational investigation. Frankly said, these NGOs and human rights organizations must be held accountable for civillian casualties (in any conflict). They encouaged LTTE terrorists to use civillians as human shileds to avoid a defeat o LTTE (lose two state option). They never said LTTE tol ay down arms or surrender in oder to avoid casualties. These HR orgs are like maggots, they live in carnages. They are like foxes sniff for conflicts and dead bodies. Their cash inflows increase when dead bodies are pilling up.

  • 0
    0

    This Pot-Calling-The-Kettle-Black defence is pathetic to the point of embarrassment. This is like two little boys being naughty. When a mother admonishes one, he points to the other and says: “Ammi, stop him throwing stones at other children and I will stop setting fire to our house”.

    You may not agree, Gona, but there have been many open and fair enquiries and trials, ranging from Nuremberg to the International War Crimes tribunals for Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Rwanda and others. It is also a complete fallacy to assume that Britain, the USA and the rest of Europe are somehow one sided. The Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse and the My Lai Massacre trials in the USA are two examples. Yes, Bloody Sunday is an open sore for many in Britain, but that does not put this Sri Lankan government above Britain by a long way.

    The scale of the problems in Sri Lanka and her history of unresolved ethnic issues all point to an urgent need to be open and honest about our problems. Remember 1958? Nothing was done then. The war in 1983 was very different, it lasted longer, but had exactly the same root causes. You don’t have to be a mathematics or history professor to work out that repeating what went wrong after the 1958 attrocities will result in something much worse the next time.

    When our house is on fire, brother. Let’s focus on putting the fire out instead of bothering about the neighbour who may be doing things that are less important.

    • 0
      0

      The British and Dutch colonial leaders were given an equal or more representation than the sinhalas thus creating the present problem, The tamil leaders always fought for the so called equal representation with the help of english governers and officials. The former went further before the notorious commisions appointed by the english on constitutional amendments to argue in essence that the sinhalas should not given the opportunity of becoming the majority in the legislature. That is what TNA try to do now.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 7 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.