Col R Hariharan
President Mahinda Rajapaksa confronted his moment of
truth at Geneva on February 27 when the 19th meeting of the UN Human
Rights Council (UNHRC) started discussing Sri Lanka. It was third time Sri
Lanka’s accountability issue had figured at the 47-member body. This time it is
going to be difficult for Sri Lanka to ward off discussion as the U.S. has
circulated a draft resolution that questions Sri Lanka’s accountability during
the last days of Eelam War in May 2009.
Allegations about Sri Lanka’s conduct in the last
stages of war had been haunting President Rajapaksa after his spectacular
victory over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the Tamil insurgency
outfit that had terrorised the country for nearly three decades. However,
Rajapaksa had chosen to defend his conduct even when it became indefensible
after UN Secretary General’s experts panel of advisors found the issue needed
further probe.
Every time the UNHRC meet wanted to put Sri Lanka on
its agenda it had triggered national passions in Sri Lanka as its detractors
also have their own baggage of human rights aberrations. Almost all political
parties of Sri Lanka have voiced their objection to the UN body taking up the
Sri Lanka issue. Even those who had criticised Rajapaksa for the very same
issues contained in the U.S. draft resolution have joined the protests or are
silent. The Tamil National Alliance (TNA), which continues to raise issues of
human rights violations, has avoided the temptation to send its representative
to Geneva to garner full propaganda value against Rajapaksa.
Their response is based on average Sri Lankan’s
reaction: his national pride, boosted up by military victory, has been hurt.
Political parties and leaders have reacted with political pragmatism, than
principles, as their relevance is local rather than international. To this end
President Rajapaksa has successfully sold his “nationalist” card (that had even
shades of xenophobia) to rally support for his approach to the whole gamut of
issues germane to the discussion at the UNHRC. The whole political machinery
was at work to prove the people are behind the President.
Rajapaksa’s orchestration of public rallies and
protests does not address the core issues at discussion in the UNHRC meet. This
time around, it looks serious as many nations are losing their patience with
Sri Lanka’s prevarication. The U.S. draft appears to have been worded
cautiously with some understanding of the national sensitivity. And the U.S.
had told Sri Lanka well in advance of its intentions so that Sri Lanka could
take follow up measures on the recommendations of the LLRC report on its
own.
The international dimension of the issue at the UNHRC,
despite lofty words about defending human rights, is not wholly about it.
Cynically viewed, all UN forums are conditioned by issues of diplomacy, real
politick, political horse trading, and inter-power and inter-regional politics.
But that would be trivialising the core issue of “accountability” which Sri
Lanka government had been evading – whether it is the reconciliation, denial of
fundamental rights, or aberrations of governance, Sri Lanka has consistently
gone back on its promises.
In the Cold War period, nations could get away by
cocking the snook at other nations. Now it is not so easy; nations are
networked in multiple modes. Even the U.S. has discovered this, just as its
detractors are doing. North Korea, world’s number one loose cannon, striking a
compromise with the U.S. is a very recent example of this.
The allegations of war crimes and human rights
violations have provided a convenient rallying point for international
community (and in English speaking world it means the U.S. and the West) to
take Sri Lanka to task for going back on many a promise made to them both
publicly and privately by President Rajapaksa and his government.
The issues before the UNHRC only reflect this. Sri
Lanka also appear to have realised this only after the issue figured at this UN
forum twice and threatened explode for a third time; rather late in the day as
its army has ordered a court of inquiry to look into the allegations of war
crimes screened by Channel 4 videos. Surprisingly, this positive action is
tucked in the generalities of its legalistic argument that had been repeated
any number of times.
Dispassionately viewed, the U.S. move has strengthened
the voices of civil society that Rajapaksa regime had relentlessly tried to
stifle before, during and after the War. It has brought international focus on
the voiceless victims – both Tamil and Sinhala – who have been left in
political wilderness in the aftermath of war. It has shown that
regardless of the despicable acts of terrorism perpetrated by insurgents or the
State, the government has to be accountable for its actions in peace and war.
And that is what good governance is all about.
Even Mahinda Rajapaksa would agree that he was the
chief architect of ending Tamil insurgency by militarily eliminating the LTTE
as a viable threat to national unity. This has helped him to emerge as a
national hero of unmatched popularity – a modern day Dutta Gamanu, the
legendary Sinhala warrior who routed his Tamil foe in battle. In the triumphant
days after the war, President Rajapaksa was in a unique position to push
through any legislation or Constitutional amendment he wanted to put an end to
Tamil grievances festering for five decades. But unfortunately, he used
his popularity solely for his ends – to crush political opposition, strengthen
his power base, and to delay the process of reconciliation.
Why are the U.S. and the West hell bent on throwing
the book at Sri Lanka? It is simplistic as Sri Lanka leaders often say that
they were “jealous” of Sri Lanka’s victory over LTTE as they have not been able
to tackle Jihadi terrorism so effectively. Equally facile will be the
explanation that they were pandering the Tamil Diaspora for their votes.
This is not wholly true; western nations have continued to bring to book
elements of LTTE embedded overseas as part of their commitment to prevent
terrorism of the LTTE-kind staging a comeback. Even UK, which repeatedly
figures in Sri Lanka’s black book, has deported large number of dubious asylum
seekers back to Sri Lanka lest fresh blood is pumped into resurrect the LTTE.
Even if Sri Lanka fights the war of words in Geneva successfully,
respite for Rajapaksa will only be temporary both locally and internationally.
Already the main opposition United National Party (UNP) is speaking about the
President blowing the UNHRC meeting out of proportion to divert peoples’
attention from the enormous price hikes the government has imposed.
The ethnic reconciliation process is still being
subject to political acrobatics, as Rajapaksa is trying to promote yet another
committee solution – this time with a parliamentary select committee. His
tactics are patently to buy time rather than go through a slightly painful
reconciliation process. This is not surprising because he has wished away the
existence of a Sinhala-Tamil divide long ago in his vision statement - Mahinda
Chintanaya.
But delay switches have a nasty habit of exploding in
the face. Though it may not happen immediately, but “the Rajapaksa approach” is
paving the way for resurgence of the call for independent Tamil Eelam.
Otherwise it is difficult to explain how the LTTE’s overseas remnants, who were
running for cover after the slaughter of their leadership at Mulliyavalai in
May 2009, are slowly staging a comeback once again.
President Rajapaksa can be a man of action, not words,
when he wants. He proved this during the Eelam War. So it is not too late even
now for him to take remedial action to regain lost ground. And the first step
would be to implement the recommendations of the LLRC report, complete the
reconciliation process on a time bound plan and restore security and trust in
his regime both at home and abroad by toning up governance. There need be no
loss of face because this is what democracies do all the time – correcting
their actions to improve the nation’s prestige and peoples’ sense of
security.
Courtesy: South Asia Analysis Group Paper No 4946, March 6, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment