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!
0 comments:
Post a Comment