Tilak Marapana’s efforts should not go waste

On the face of it, the intervention by Minister of Foreign Affairs Tilak Marapana in the Geneva sessions of the UNHRC, appears apt and even laudable. He has stated, on behalf of the Government, certain incontrovertible truths pertaining to the post-conflict situation in Sri Lanka. Naturally, he’s bound and even hindered by the relevant protocols, most seriously by what the Government has agreed to in its wisdom (or lack thereof) or servility (more likely) on previous occasions. This is understood and commiserations are in order.

The session itself had an interesting title, ‘Interactive dialogue with the High Commissioner for Human Rights on ‘Promoting Reconciliation, Accountability and Human Rights in Sri Lanka’. One wishes that words had better function than lip-serving. The lack of interactive dialogue, in fact, has been the problem. Indeed Sri Lanka’s position post-2015 has been one of being snug with monologue; in other words, a yes-sir mode of ‘interaction’.  It is in light of all this that Marapana’s statement deserves some applause.

Take the following for example: ‘You would agree, that the post-conflict milieu of each country is unique. We can learn from other experiences, but our own path to reconciliation will be primarily driven by the domestic context in which we function underpinning the primacy of state obligations.’ Correct. This naturally makes us wonder if those who agreed to the joint resolution on (read, ‘against’) Sri Lanka were absolute babes in the matter of diplomacy. They don’t seem to have had the intelligence of an OL student. Marapana’s predecessors (and today’s cabinet colleagues) were silent at the time. Indeed they acted as though the opposite was true; i.e. all post-conflict milieus of all countries are similar and perforce pathways to reconciliation must necessarily follow (some kind of) universally applicable blueprint while state obligation are irrelevant! 

Marapana then read out the have-done list, almost as though to say ‘please, ma’am, we are doing our best, cut us some slack!’ This is in relation to the ‘musts’ of the resolution such as setting up the Office of Missing Persons, and legislation to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act with something that the UNHRC will be happy with. He has even had the guts (so lacking in his predecessors) to point out the errors of the High Commissioner’s report and even gently rap her knuckles over her unwarranted and tendentious assumptions regarding the ‘Mannar Mass Graves’. Perhaps that’s as far as he could go given diplomatic protocol.  

In the area of Truth Seeking, the Office of Missing Persons (OMP) established by law is being fully operationalized with necessary allocation of resources while the Cabinet of Ministers is currently considering draft legislation to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

In the area of Justice, review of cases under the PTA have taken place and trials under the PTA have been expedited, while consultations are ongoing in Parliament to replace the PTA with proposed legislation for counter terrorism ensuring its conformity with international standards and best practices.

He claims (and we believe him) that the Government has explained to the UNHRC the constitutional and legal challenges ‘that preclude it from including non-citizens in its judicial processes’. That’s about hybrid courts. He has also explained, referring to statements by Colombo-based foreign missions, US agencies, INGOs and others, that the charges against the security forces are unfair. He has insisted that the numbers tossed around have no base in reality.  

Clearly Marapana’s predecessors had made no such assertions when in charge and had they, indeed, we might not be in the situation we are in now.  Marapana could have used the opportunity to call for the release of all relevant missives from diplomatic missions and UN agencies during the contentious ‘last days of the war’ (why not the entire war, indeed?) in the interest of truth and reconciliation. He did not. He could have because the allegations were hasty and haste is something he has questioned with respect to the High Commissioner’s note of the Mannar Mass Graves. He did not. 

The ‘logic’ of servility evident in previous engagements with the UNHRC has been one of embracing the give-and-take principle, i.e. conceding the lie of allegations to obtain economic relief. The hurrahs that came in anticipation and celebration of the restoration of GSP Plus clearly indicates the thinking of the government. If this is true (and it probably is), then it simply means that the entire doctrine of human rights in multilateral outfits such as the UNHRC is an absolute sham. And we bought into it, to boot!  

Even if we went along with the we-don’t-have-a-choice argument, then the need to extricate ourselves from the reality of being subjected to arm-twisting that has nothing to do with human rights should have been a top priority for any government that knows anything about ‘state obligations’. But no, we’ve not seen any of that from the current regime.  This is the sensible way to proceed since we cannot force others to be nice, civil or honorable. What we’ve done is to reconcile ourselves to endorsing the ugly, the uncivilized and dishonorable. 

Marapana, to his credit, has detailed what’s possible and what’s not. He has corrected, as mentioned above, the errors in the High Commissioner’s report.

The Government of Sri Lanka believes that it is indeed erroneous that more attention has not been paid to the above mentioned information, by agencies including the OHCHR, which is required to seek the truth. In stressing uniqueness, he has also pointed out the ‘unevenness of standards of proof applied to the Government of Sri Lanka, compared to those applied to the unsubstantiated allegations made against Sri Lanka.’ He could have, diplomatically and without naming names, alluded to the post-conflict thinking, policies and implementation of some of the countries arrayed against Sri Lanka in Geneva. He has not, but that’s not a major crime. Indeed he has batted doggedly and not thrown his wicket or even colluded with bowler, wicket keeper, umpire and match referee to rule Sri Lanka out LBW to a no-ball that pitched outside the leg stump and was anyway sailing over the wickets, according to Hawkeye technology.  

Marapana has pointed out the disingenuous character of the entire process: ‘At the same time, as stated earlier, when evidence surfaces, which contests the culpability of the Sri Lankan security forces and police in having deliberately caused civilian casualties during the last phase of the conflict, this evidence is summarily disregarded.’

That’s the story. That’s the script. All we’ve got is a leash that’s two-years long, so to speak. The question is, what are we going to do about it? When is the Government going to get serious about building on the admirable stand taken by Marapana (probably thanks to the intervention of President Sirisena who in turn is pressured politically by his new found political allies if not the sentiments of the people which are clearly not laudatory of how the Government has handled things internationally)? Is ‘The Plan’ nothing more than a once-every-two-years trek to Geneva to beg and plead ‘for time’? 

The point that needs to be made is that if truth is to be fiddled with (as the UNHRC and especially the present High Commissioner have) then we will not have reconciliation. The bottom line is constitutional reform but if Sri Lanka is to be railroaded to a particular kind of constitutional reform based on lies, deceit and arm-twisting, we will not get reconciliation. Bloodshed, yes, but we can forget about reconciliation. Marapana has given the Government an opportunity to redeem itself (even for reasons of political expedience) and has made people like Mangala Samaraweera and Chandrika Kumaratunga eat their words. Not quite like Kusal Janith Perera against South Africa, but still! Three hearty cheers are in order!

malindasenevi@gmail.com. www.malindawords.blogspot.com

Read more

Balachandran’s killers (the long-list)

It is claimed that there is new footage about terrorist leader Prabhakaran’s younger son’s last days.  There’s nothing ‘new’ though.  A photograph of the 12 year old Balachandran ‘surfaced’ just before the UNHRC Sessions in Geneva in 2012 and now, just weeks before the 2013 Sessions, another picture has ‘surfaced’.  The ‘new’ photograph shows Balachandran alive in a bunker.  The jury is out on whether or not this was an Army bunker or an LTTE bunker.  There’s nothing to show that the man who pulled the trigger was a soldier or if the boy was captured and shot dead. 

We do know that the environs of the Nandikadaal Lagoon were certainly not a place where anyone would loiter around.  Only a fool would set up a holding-facility anywhere close to where bloodthirsty terrorists were holed up.  We do know that people died.  We know that there was a lot of gunfire.  We know that when the US targets a Taliban or Al Qaeda hideout, there is no consideration of whether there are non-combatants, children included, in the vicinity.  We know that the LTTE was holding hostage hundreds of thousands of civilians. We know that the LTTE fired at civilians who tried to flee.  We know that families get separated. We know how Balachandran died, but we don’t know where and under what exact circumstances except that this was the end-point of a 30 year struggle against a brutal, merciless terrorist outfit.

There is speculation though.  There is treatment of speculation as established fact. There is a politics of ‘revelation’, evidenced by the strange coincidence of surfacing and UNHRC sessions.  There is also the larger issue of the politics of proportionality and selectivity. The accusers (who would censure Sri Lanka in Geneva once again) are guilty of established (not speculated) crimes against humanity and in particular ‘targeted killing of children to the tune of 4000 plus!’ There is also the silence about context, especially the contribution of the LTTE to the circumstances, before ‘Nandikadaa’ and during ‘Nandikadaal’.

The following extract from a Facebook exchange would throw light on the relevant politics.  It is between Rasika Jayakody, well-known journalist, Kath Noble, a political commentator and Rifkha Roshanaara, a student of international politics.

Rasika: Clinically speaking, is there a way of substantiating that Balachandan, Prabhakaran's son, was in military custody when the leaked pictures were taken? The same picture could also have been taken at a tiger camp/bunker, prior to his death in a cross-fire during the final stage of the battle.

Rifkha: Simple logic, but some are blind, that they cannot see the 'other' side or they simply refuse to use their common sense. And my question is why do they come up with such pictures and videos only when UNHRC sessions are round the corner? Have they able to prove the credibility of the videos they have come up with on previous instances.

Kath: They say that on the basis of the claim that the two pictures were taken with the same camera.

Rasika: There are truths, half-truths and lies. In the same way, there are facts, factoids and fabrications. But any allegation should be proven beyond reasonable doubt before prosecution.

Rasika (to Kath): Claims who?  Is the person who took the pictures willing to give evidence?

Kath: Claim those journalists.

In the end, we are left without source (like the claims made by Channel 4, the International Crisis Group, the Darusman Committee and such, and regurgitated by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch regarding 40,000-80,000 having being killed in the last days of the battle). 

But a little boy did die.  A little boy was in fact shot dead.  Few would not be moved by the photograph of this chubby, cuddly, little boy with bullet holes in chest, dead.  Few fathers and mothers would not look at those eyes and that still body and not have their thoughts stray to their own children.    A little boy the photograph of whose dead body is bandied in international forums but the hundreds of little boys and girls his father kidnapped and turned into child-soldiers are un-remembered, just like the hundreds of little boys and girls slaughtered upon the same father’s directive.  Or the boy who was sent to an Army ‘Receiving Center’ loaded with explosives in order to dissuade the Army from ‘receiving’ and hostages from escaping.  That’s politics.  But that politics doesn’t make his death any less tragic.  He need not have died and need not have died in this manner.

Who killed Balachandran? 

First: The person who pulled the trigger, either directing gun at the boy or spraying a larger target (fleeing civilians or terrorist hideout).    AS YET UNIDENTIFIED, in terms of name and group.

Second: The person who have the order to shoot. AS YET UNIDENTIFIED, in terms of name and group.

Third: All those who by errors of omission and commission did not allow the terrorist menace to be eradicated by arguing that the LTTE was invincible, that ‘the economy cannot handle it’, that ‘the international community will not allow it’ and so on, and thereby sped things along to Nandikadaal by May 2009.  IDENTIFIED: India (from dropping Dhal and giving Prabharakan a lease of life in 1987 with the Indo-Lanka Accord), Norway (bending over backwards to give the LTTE parity of status vis-à-vis the Government of Sri Lanka, USA (doing their utmost to evacuate Prabhakaran even at the last minute), I/NGOs, ‘journalists’, ‘academics’, ‘priests’ and others who consistently gave the LTTE the benefit of the doubt and tried to undermine military efforts.

Fourth: All those who directly or indirectly helped the LTTE by way of providing funds, arms, training and legitimacy through comprehensive white-washing or downplaying of crimes against humanity.  IDENTIFIED:  India, first and foremost. IDENTIFIED: pro-LTTE sections of Sri Lankan Tamil expatriates, including current chest-beaters who pump ignorant/pernicious human rights outfits (AI and HRW) and unscrupulous media outfits (Channel 4) with tall stories. IDENTIFIED:  Successive Governments that believed the LTTE could be talked out of war, most significantly, the Ranil Wickremesinghe regime of 2001-2004.    

Fifth:  All those who failed to listen to Tamil leaders when they first articulated grievances and made claims regarding traditional homelands, those who could have said ‘prove what you can and we’ll redress’ but did not.  All those who did not have the heart, wisdom and guts to acknowledge that every citizen belongs to this land and vice versa.  All those who refused to treat query with respect that demands answer.  All those who responded to chauvinism with chauvinism and those who did not need chauvinism to be chauvinistic.  IDENTIFIED: That’s us, all of us, folks.  We couldn’t save Balachandran. We couldn’t save Mahinsa.  We failed.

Sixth.  This is long.

The man who deliberately dragged the boy along, when the wives and children of other terrorist leaders such as Thamilselvan and Soosai were allowed to flee into the safety of the Sri Lankan security forces.  The man who put every civilian, every man, woman and child not engaged in battle, at risk by holding them hostage as per the need for a ‘human shield’.  The man who on countless occasions refused to engage in dialogue for conflict-resolution, banking on military capability to deliver the impossible.  The man who killed so many Tamils, Sinhalese and Muslims in cold blood that it would be a tall order for any soldier who has seen comrades die and children slaughtered to show any mercy if he was chanced upon (not to mention the fact the practical stupidity of taking the risk of believing him to be unarmed).  A man who made it impossible to see any Tamil child anywhere close to LTTE fighters in anyway other than a ‘child soldier’.  IDENTIFIED: VELUPILLAI PRABHAKARAN.

 

 

Read more