By Jehan Perera –

Jehan Perera

Since the war ended bloodily on the military battlefield in 2009, Sri Lanka has been subjected to repeated and increasingly intrusive scrutiny by the international community that has rankled successive governments and induced them to react defensively. This year’s UN Human Rights Council session is no different, with fresh emphasis on accountability and reconciliation. Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath will be representing Sri Lanka at the UNHRC’s 60th session that commenced this week. The government will be calling on the international community to give it the space to continue with its programme to advance the rights and wellbeing of all Sri Lankans.

The government takes its mandate for “system change” seriously. This may be why it is so reluctant to consult other stakeholders, whom they probably see as either failures or tainted by the past, and seem to be making their decisions after internal consultations only. This has given the impression of a unilateral and top-down decision-making style. The government’s ideological position is that all citizens are equal and will be treated equally by the state. Resolving the ethnic conflict is among its top three priorities, together with reviving the economy and improving people’s living standards, and putting an end to impunity, corruption and mismanagement of resources.

In the run up to the UNHRC session, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake spent two days in the northern capital of Jaffna. The media showed images of warm interactions he had with the people of the north, including students and families, and he announced several development initiatives. These included new investments in fisheries, infrastructure and higher education. Such projects have the potential to improve livelihoods in a region that has lagged behind for decades. In general, any form of developmental initiative that creates employment and wealth would be welcomed by the people of the north, as it would by people anywhere in the country. Yet, development alone has never been enough to address the core grievances of the Tamil people. Unless development is accompanied by political inclusion and justice, it risks being dismissed as tokenism or worse, as imposition.

Alienated North

The neglect of the north and east in terms of development has long figured in the sense of alienation of the Tamil people from the Sri Lankan state. However, the choice of Mandativu island for the proposed international cricket stadium and of Kachchativu island for tourist development has proved problematic. There may be more suitable sites for a stadium in Jaffna that is nearer to the main highway that connects Jaffna to the rest of the country and with better supporting facilities than Mandativu, which is an island with mangroves and shallow seas with seaweeds that are considered to be ecologically valuable. Kachchativu, being a place of religious worship and very small in size, may not be suitable for tourism promotion. The Catholic Bishop of Jaffna has pointed this out saying that Kachchativu “should remain a place of pilgrimage and prayer, not of commercial tourism.”

The controversy over these projects shows why consultation is critical. For local communities who have endured decades of displacement, militarisation and poverty, the right to decide on the future of their lands and livelihoods is dearly sought. By bypassing consultation, the government appears to be repeating the centralising tendencies of past governments that left Tamils and Muslims feeling excluded from national decision making. This is also the reason why the devolution of power is important, as is the appointment of Tamil and Muslim government officers to high administrative posts in the north and east. It enables people of the area to be their own decision makers rather than those far away and from different backgrounds. The government needs to consult with other stakeholders, and not just its members, before making decisions. This is especially true when decisions made concern the ethnic and religious minorities.

Another important issue that the president’s goodwill mission to Jaffna did not touch in a positive way was the issue of mass graves. There are reports of more and more mass graves being unearthed in the north and east. The evidence that is emerging is that the people who are buried in them died horrific deaths, at least many of them. There is a need for revulsion to be displayed when adults and children are discovered huddled together in death or a person buried in a sitting position. Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara visited one of the newly discovered mass graves in the east. However, President Dissanayake appears to have decided against doing the same in the north. The symbolism matters. A visit by the president would have been seen as a gesture of empathy, even if investigations are slow and contested.

Consultations needed

The issue of war crimes in the north is controversial in the south among the Sinhalese majority who tend to see war victory as one of the best things that happened in the country despite its cost. They also tend to see the soldiers who won the war in a positive light with the description of “war heroes,” which makes it challenging for any government, democratically dependent on Sinhalese votes, to address the issue of war crimes. The government’s approach to the issue of mass graves is to provide the necessary financial and human resources to enable the relevant authorities to act independently and continue with the excavations, while ensuring that the evidence that is gathered is not tampered with.

Successive Sri Lankan governments have long argued that an international inquiry would violate sovereignty. Sri Lanka’s response to the UN High Commissioner’s report that called for international action states, “External initiatives will only serve as a hindrance to the ongoing national efforts and serve to polarise the population.”  However, due to their past experience of commissions of inquiry being appointed one after the other, but nothing happening as a result, the Tamil people have little or no faith in domestic mechanisms where it concerns the government dealing with the war-winning military and war crimes. Their ideal is an international inquiry. In the past a hybrid mechanism, the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP), a group of individuals nominated by the international community and the government of Sri Lanka in 2006, also failed in their mission because there was no real desire to involve them in the truth seeking process.

The gap between the two positions remains wide. Unless this gap is bridged, the people of Sri Lanka will remain polarised regardless of what the government says and does. There are also a lot of vested interests in the form of political parties and politicians concerned about their personal futures working as spoilers. The government needs to consult the Tamil people both through their elected representatives and directly. It needs to explain its position to the rest of the people too. Top-down decision making will not be successful in winning sustainable reconciliation. A process of dialogue that is transparent and inclusive can build confidence not only among Tamils and Muslims but also among the rest of the population to overcome the polarization that the government seeks to prevent.