One-Text Initiative

As usual Sri Lanka’s cosmopolitan liberals have it wrong and that includes its most prominent personality, Minister of External affairs Mangala Samaraweera. His embrace of the Diaspora is wrong, not because the Diaspora is diabolical but because Mr. Samaraweera’s embrace is indiscriminate.

Sri Lanka must welcome its Diaspora or Diasporas (plural). This is true of us as a country as well as of the Government of Sri Lanka. But the Diaspora is not a homogenous entity. I do not mean that the Sinhala Diaspora is good and the Tamil one is bad. What I do mean is that there are extremists in both the Tamil and Sinhala Diasporas, just as there are moderates. The Government and the country should open its doors and roll out the red carpet for the moderate, enlightened currents of both Tamil and Sinhala Diasporas. The Government should go beyond that and strive to promote a truly Sri Lankan, i.e. Tamil and Sinhala Diaspora, by building bridges between the moderates, the progressives, of both sides. (Indeed this is the policy I practiced with some success when I represented Sri Lanka in France.) Instead, what Mr. Samarawera has done is to embrace the anti-Sri Lankan element of the Tamil Diaspora.

By anti-Sri Lankan, I do not mean anti-Mahinda Rajapaksa, because that is a matter of democratic political choice. Nor do I mean by anti-Sri Lankan, a generally violent discourse or disposition. After all, Mr. Suren Surendiran is a civilized chap and Fr. Emmanuel is quite affable, even warmly so. By anti-Sri Lankan I refer to an objectively verifiable political stance against Sri Lanka’s national interest. The evidence is out in plain view in the interview that Suren Surendiran of the GTF gave the state-run Daily News, AFTER the conciliatory meeting with Foreign Minister Samaraweera and the resultant conversion to moderation on the part of the GTF. In it he spells out the four pillars of GTF policy. If I may mix metaphors, the smoking gun is in pillar number 3:

‘…Explaining the third pillar, he said: “The third is to actively lobby and create awareness within the international community, international institutions and governments regarding the injustices and alleged breaches of international laws, including international human rights and humanitarian laws that amounted to war crimes and crimes against humanity. Lobby for international independent investigations of both sides…Surendiran said the GTF intends to carry out the Four Pillar Strategy “with the help of the people of Sri Lanka, in the Diaspora and the international community including India.” He added that since 2011, the GTF has been progressing under this programme.’ (‘GTF to work on four pillar strategy’ Kathya de Silva-Senarath June 16, 2015)

The problem with the Ranil–Mangala–CBK model of reconciliation and peace-building is that they have learnt nothing from their unsuccessful efforts of the dismal Decade of Appeasement 1995-2005. This is not to say that the Mahinda Rajapaksa administration got postwar peace-building and reconciliation right. Far from it: the first mistake made in that realm was to abolish the Secretariat for Co-ordinating the Peace Process (SCOPP) headed at the time by Prof Rajiva Wijesinha.

The Ranil-CBK-Mangala troika made the gross mistake of thinking that peace could be arrived at without the total military defeat of the Tigers and more basically, the elimination of Prabhakaran. Given that peace could not be arrived at even during the much less intense JVP insurrection of 1986-1989 without the elimination of Wijeweera and the defeat of the JVP, it took a really high degree of obtuseness to assume that it would be different with a far more fanatical, successful and powerful LTTE.

For its part the Rajapaksa administration made the opposite error. Just as Ranil-CBK-Mangala failed to realize that peace could not be achieved without a successful war; that a victorious war was a necessary precondition for peace; the Rajapaksa administration whose great merit was to recognize as their predecessors did not, that military victory was both possible and necessary, made the opposite error of assuming that a necessary condition was a sufficient condition. It thought that the victorious end of the war was a sufficient condition of a sustainable peace. It failed to realize that a process of peace-building was necessary, and that this peace-building required not only material reconstruction and development, not only de-mining and rehabilitation; but also political negotiation. It failed to understand that political negotiation, while a discredited tactic of appeasement when practiced in wartime by Ranil-CBK, was however, a necessary postwar practice and prerequisite for a sustainable, durable peace.

Ranil-CBK-Mangala strove to achieve peace by talking to the wrong people: the fascist, fundamentalist Tigers and their fellow-travellers. They could and should have worked out a political project with the anti-Tiger/non-Tiger Tamil groups and caught the Tigers in a politico-military pincer, but they did not. They could have implemented the 13th amendment instead of wasting time and political capital with the union of regions packages of 1995 and 1997, the Liam Fox agreement and the CFA, the Solheim mediation, the PTOMS etc. They could have appointed an interim administration within the 13th amendment and installed a coalition of progressive anti-Tiger Tamil groups which had worked with the UNP earlier and knew CBK from her SLMP years. But they did not.

For their part, the Rajapaksa administration could have done what President Putin successfully did in Chechnya with Ramzan Kadyrov, and empowered their ally Douglas Devananda in 2009, as the war was won and before the TNA recovered. Instead it opted for a (hyper-securitized) developmentalist strategy which had as a political component, a vain effort to rebuild the SLFP in the North and East.

Interestingly, CBK and MR administrations had the same option and made the same mistake: they both had an anti-Tiger, anti-secessionist Tamil partner which they had inherited from the Premadasa–Ranjan Wijeratne years, but they failed to play that card. CBK preferred to talk to the fascist Tigers (through the Norwegians) even after they tried to kill her and instead, blinded her in one eye.

The Rajapaksa administration correctly understood the fascist character of the Tamil Tigers and defeated them, but having done so it strove in the postwar phase, to operate politically in the North without any identifiable Tamil partner and strategic ally. Having made that mistake, the Rajapaksa administration compounded it by allowing the default option to fail, in that the dialogue with the TNA broke down and stayed suspended.

Mangala Samaraweera has picked up where Ranil, CBK and he left off. If the GTF is “moderate” according to Mangala, we can imagine what his idea of radicalism is. What the Sri Lankan government—any Sri Lankan government—should do, is to adopt, in its Diaspora outreach, a policy of concentric circles, which privileges the anti-Tiger, anti-secessionist elements of the Tamil Diaspora before reaching out to those who were Prabhakaran’s fellow travellers, and still refuse to criticize him or the LTTE. No Government should embrace those who, even after dialogue, boast that one of the pillars of their policy is to lobby the international community including governments, for international investigations into ‘war crimes’ and ‘crimes against humanity’.

The basic task of any Foreign Minister and Foreign Ministry should surely be to oppose, refute, rebut and defeat those Diaspora elements who threaten our national sovereignty by lobbying for international war crimes inquiries against Sri Lanka (and in a fraudulent even-handedness, the dead Tigers). If only in his capacity as this country’s Minister of External Affairs, Mangala Samaraweera should be far more discriminating in whom he chooses to partner with in external affairs.

By : Dayan Jayatilleka

Source:https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/mangala-the-diaspora-postwar-peacebuilding/

While claiming that the human rights situation in Sri Lanka has not improved during the past three months and placing Sri Lanka as country of concern, the 2013 Human Rights and Democracy Report, released by the Foreign Commonwealth Office said there was some progress in the investigation into the 2011 murder of British national Khuram Shaikh.

“The human rights situation in Sri Lanka has not improved during the past three months. Reports from the north of detention and harassment of activists continued,” the report said.

Foreign Secretary William Hague officially released the report on Thursday.

“Positively, there was some progress in the investigation into the 2011 murder of British national KhuramShaikh. The trial commenced in the Colombo High Court on 26 March and is due to continue in the coming months,” it said.

There was also no improvement in the situation for freedom of expression during the last three months. Sri Lanka dropped three places to 165 out of 180 in the 2014 World Press Freedom Index.

Provincial elections were held in the western and southern provinces on 29 March. Elections were generally peaceful, despite one fatality following an inter-party clash. Local election observers monitored the elections, and we will study their report closely.

http://www.dailymirror.lk/news/45758-uk-says-sl-a-country-of-concern.html

Hugo Swire, the British Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in a Twitter interview said the US-backed resolution of which Britain was a co-sponsor, was a result of negotiations and added that the text of the present resolution has impact and calls for an international inquiry.

WILLIAM HAGUE

It will be highly difficult for Sri Lanka to establish long-term peace without fixing accountability for the war crimes

During the week of March 24, the U.N. Human Rights Council countries will be asked to show where they stand on a resolution on Sri Lanka. That resolution seeks to support the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights’ call to establish an international mechanism to investigate alleged violations and abuses of international human rights and humanitarian law by both sides during Sri Lanka’s war. The resolution is also expected to ask the government of Sri Lanka to address human rights concerns, make progress towards a political settlement and support reconciliation for all Sri Lankan people.

I believe that there is only one course of action for countries that care about Sri Lanka’s future stability and prosperity, and that is to vote in favour of the resolution. Let me explain why.

Subject of reconciliation
First, it will be highly difficult for Sri Lanka to establish long-term peace without accountability. Seeking the truth and justice helps to put countries on the right track toward reconciliation. Sierra Leone is a good example. Special Court convictions drew a definitive line under a tumultuous period of Sierra Leone’s history and addressed impunity in response to victims’ needs to promote healing. Sri Lankans wanting to understand what happened amongst the bloodshed should not be deprived of answers, and those responsible should be held to account to heal the wounds of a long and bitter war.

Second, the Sri Lankan government has failed to take action itself despite two previous resolutions calling for an independent, credible domestic investigation and offers of technical support from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Sri Lanka’s own domestic Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission established in 2010 fails to adequately address this matter. If it did and if Sri Lanka was making tangible progress, we would not be where we are today. Instead of calling for international action, we would be congratulating Sri Lanka’s own efforts to address past violations.

Third, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights is calling for the international community to act and establish an international mechanism. She is supported by multiple, independent voices including the powerful peace advocate, Archbishop Desmond Tutu as well as groups in Sri Lankan society and the main Tamil party, the Tamil National Alliance. There is an additional, compelling body of evidence collected through the work of non-governmental organisations and journalists that further supports this call.

Fourth, there is no doubt that tackling impunity for violations and crimes committed during the war will strengthen the rule of law in Sri Lanka. The international community must send a strong message that everyone has a right to feel safe and secure, and that no one should be above the law.

Those arguing against the resolution say that Sri Lanka’s domestic processes need time, that a solution is best found within Sri Lanka, that we should constructively engage Sri Lanka and not criticise, and that the Sri Lankan government has every right to take steps to stop the return of Tamil Tiger (LTTE) terrorism.

Of course, much of this is true. It does take time to heal from the wounds of war. Comprehensive, independent and transparent home-grown solutions can be highly effective. Constructive engagement is essential, including through the Human Rights Council. And no one wants to see terrorism take root again.

But this is not about needing more time; it is about the government of Sri Lanka not showing political will to back a transparent, thorough and credible process that delivers the truth to those people that seek it. Sri Lanka has failed to deliver the promise it made to address accountability in a joint statement with the U.N. Secretary-General in 2009.

The international community has a responsibility to encourage Sri Lanka to make progress across a range of issues that will strengthen Sri Lanka as a nation. Reconstruction has been important but this alone is not enough to secure Sri Lanka’s future. There needs to be meaningful progress on a political settlement, accountability, human rights and reconciliation.

The fight against terrorism requires a careful balance. We know this in Britain, and we sympathise with all those Sri Lankans who suffered at the hands of the brutal Tamil Tigers. No one regrets that they were defeated. But responses to any believed terrorist threats should be proportionate to avoid fuelling the fires of extremism. This means ensuring inclusive governance, minority rights, stopping sexual and other abuses and justice for all which is why we must encourage Sri Lanka to bring these values to all Sri Lankan people.

The British government explored many of these issues during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Sri Lanka last year in discussions with the Sri Lankan government, including with President Rajapaksa.

I conclude that the time has come for the Human Rights Council countries to stand together and put firm support behind the next Sri Lanka resolution to be voted on in Geneva later this month. It will not only seek to establish an international mechanism to address past violations of international law but seek a better future for all Sri Lankans. We must all do the right thing by Sri Lanka.

(William Hague is the Foreign Secretary of the U.K.)
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/healing-the-wounds-of-a-bitter-war/article5792963.ece

A Tamil National Alliance (TNA) delegation led by R. Sampanthan met US and British envoys in Colombo on Monday and discussed the US-led resolution to be submitted at the ongoing United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) sessions in Geneva, informed sources said.

The resolution calls for an international inquiry into alleged war crime allegations against Sri Lanka.

The TNA delegation comprising parliamentarians Mavai Senathiraja and M.A Sumanthiran on two separate occasions met British High Commissioner John Rankin and then the US Embassy Chargé d’Affaires William Weinsteinin in Colombo.

“Yes we met the British High Commissioner and the Deputy Ambassador and a US embassy official and discussed the ongoing UNHRC sessions,” Mr. Sumanthiran told Daily Mirror but he declined to comment further about their meetings with the envoys.

Informed sources said TNA held lengthy discussions with the envoys about the US-sponsored proposal to be presented at the UNHRC session on war crime allegations.

Earlier, the TNA had welcomed the US-sponsored draft resolution that seeks an international probe led by the High Commissioner for Human Rights and said it looked forward to a stronger resolution after revisions ahead of the voting at the Human Rights Council in Geneva. (Sunil Jayasiri)

http://www.dailymirror.lk/news/44332-tna-meets-british-and-us-diplomats.html

David Cameron’s office says decision taken after Sri Lanka failed to conduct its own inquiry into civil war

Britain is to join the US and three other countries in pushing for a full international inquiry into alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka after the government there failed to satisfy international calls for a such an inquiry, Downing Street announced on Sunday.

Speaking last November at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Colombo, David Cameron gave Sri Lanka four months to conduct “a credible, thorough inquiry” into crimes alleged to have been committed during Sri Lanka’s 26-year civil war.

The prime minister’s office said on Sunday that Sri Lanka had failed to do so and the UK had joined four other countries in tabling a motion at the UN human rights council. It supports the call by the UN high commissioner for human rights for an international, independent investigation into violations of human rights and related crimes by both sides during the war.

A vote on resolution will take place at the end of this month. […]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/09/britain-un-alleged-war-crimes-sri-lanka