Tamil Nadu leaders have to understand the changes that have taken place in the political firmament of Sri Lanka

By Col. R. Hariharan


May Day celebrations in Sri Lanka this year saw an unusual sight. R Sampanthan, the septuagenarian leader fighting for Sri Lanka Tamil rights and president of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), standing shoulder to shoulder with the United National Party (UNP) leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, waved a Sri Lanka flag to the cheers of a massive crowd in Jaffna celebrating the May Day.




A few years back Sampanthan would have paid with his life for this act of “indiscretion” when he had to kowtow Prabhakaran and dance to the tune of the leader of the LTTE.


Sampanthan’s act was symbolic of the TNA’s moves to forge a political alliance with the UNP to press home their agenda for securing an equitable role for Tamils in the united Sri Lanka. Sampanthan’s show of unity with the UNP was in keeping with TNA decision taken after some deliberation. Even the two aspirants for the TNA leadership mantle – Suresh Premachandran and Mavai Senathiraja – are reported to have hosted a lavish dinner in Jaffna for the visiting UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe.


To quote from Lakbimanews, TNA MP M A Sumanthiran described the first ever joint May Day rally held in the Jaffna district, as ‘a resounding success.’ “We were able to join hands with the people from the South and hold a successful May Day rally in the North. We are also confident that the people of the North and the South would be able to walk together in the future by joining hands with each other. That was the loud message given to the rest of the country and to the world at this rally,” averred MP Sumanthiran. Are the Tamil Nadu leaders hearing this?


The report further said the MP observed that thanks to the Gurunagar May Day rally held jointly by the UNP and his party, they had also been able to highlight the pressing concerns of the Tamil people to the government and the outside world.


He added: “There are many issues that are plaguing the people here. The cost of living is very high and the salaries drawn by the masses are insufficient. There are scores of unemployed youths here, and the resettlement process is still not going ahead smoothly. Despite 3 years having lapsed, the situation in the North is yet to improve. So far the government is stalling in their bid to find a solution to the national issue.”


Sampanthan’s May Day political debut came even as M Karunanidhi, theoctogenarian leader of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and out of office Tamil Nadu chief minister, was flogging the issue of creating an independent Tamil Eelam as his latest political slogan. It illustrated how far removed are Tamil Nadu political leaders from their counterparts in Sri Lanka in understanding the ground realities in Sri Lanka.


When the Tamil Nadu leader who carries the sobriquet “Kalaignar” (artiste) dusted up the idea of supporting the cause of independent Tamil Eelam recently, in flowery statement he reminded everyone that the DMK had advocated the idea of a separate Tamil Eelam as early as 1983. He said the
DMK general council meeting of on August 27, 1983 had stressed that “a separate Tamil Eelam shall be the only remedy and permanent solution.”


“At a public meeting on the Marina sands the next day,” he said, “if Indian Army entered Sri Lanka to create a Tamil Eelam, the Congress could rule the State and the DMK would not make efforts to come to power for the next 10 years.”


What he forgot to mention was what he and the DMK did for furthering the cause of an independent Tamil Eelam in the 30 years thereafter, in which he was Tamil Nadu chief minister for five times (1969–71, 1971–76, 1989–91, 1996–2001 and 2006–2011).


His statement called for a referendum on Tamil Eelam on the lines of those held South Sudan, Bosnia, Montenegro and East Timor. And he wanted to further the cause of an independent Tamil Eelam through peaceful, democratic means. An astute politician, he must be fully aware of the impracticality of the suggestion as it comes after the failure of an armed struggle for thirty years in which thousands of lives were sacrificed.


So it is not surprising Vaiko, the leader of the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazagham (MDMK) and perennial supporter of the LTTE and Tamil Eelam in Tamil Nadu, questioned the competency of the DMK leader to talk of Tamil Eelam.


One needs to put Karunanidhi’s “independent Tamil Eelam” statements in perspective. The issue is the latest political ploy in his desperate political battles on two fronts: the internal battle of his siblings over leadership succession, and the battle of survival after the rout of his party at the hands of his bête noir Ms Jayalalithaa, leader of the rival All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) in the last Tamil Nadu state elections. Otherwise, it is difficult to understand the logic behind his Eelam call now, as it comes thirty years too late.


Even in playing up the Eelam card, the DMK leader is way behind Ms Jayalalithaa. Despite her avowed objection to Tamil terrorism, when news of the plight of Sri Lanka Tamils in war zones and allegations of atrocities committed on them started trickling during the run up to the parliamentary poll in 2009, Ms Jayalalithaa came out in strong support of Indian intervention in Sri Lanka.


She wanted India not only to halt the war, but to help Tamils gain Tamil Eelam. Speaking at a public meeting she said: “If a government that listens to me is formed at the Centre, I will take action for the despatch of the Indian army to the island nation and create a separate Tamil Eelam.” Since then she had been taking the lead in keeping New Delhi under pressure on Sri Lanka Tamil issues, particularly on hauling up Sri Lanka at the UN for alleged war crimes against Sri Lankan army.


However, it should be remembered that the late MG Ramachandran, the founder of the AIADMK and mentor of Ms Jayalalithaa, was the patron of the LTTE in the early days. But he took a hands on interest in the Sri Lanka issue and fully supported Indian intervention after the signing of the Rajiv-Jayawardane accord in 1987, though the LTTE was lukewarm to it.


But much water has flown in the Palk Strait and Kelaniya river since then. Decades of armed struggle waged by one of the world’s deadly terrorist groups led by Prabhakaran has failed. Sri Lanka’s Tamil leaders of ability and charisma have been eliminated in the fratricidal struggle of LTTE. The few leaders left alive have not been able to articulate in one voice either an agenda or leverage their political strength.


Given the changes in Tamil demography and spread within and without Sri Lanka in the last three decades, such unity cannot be expected. But the reality is that even after three years since the war ended Tamils affected by the war are yet to fully enjoy the benefits of peace. They are still undergoing the pains of rehabilitation and reconstruction. An independent Tamil Eelam is far from their minds; their immediate goal is to get back to a life of dignity, and make up for the years lost in the conflict.


The idea of an independent Tamil Eelam itself appears to have been shelved from the minds to Tamils in Sri Lanka. This was amply brought out by Rangarajan, CPI(M), a member of the Indian parliamentary delegation, which had met a cross section of Tamil leaders and war affected people during their recent visit to Sri Lanka. He said no Tamil leader or party expressed support for the idea of Tamil Eelam; on the contrary they wanted to be part of united Sri Lanka.


Somehow Tamil Nadu leaders particularly of the Dravidian parties, in their scramble for scoring political brownie points, appear to be oblivious to these problems faced by Sri Lanka Tamils. Their ideas appear to be frozen in post-1983 situation focused on creating a Tamil Eelam. They seem to think that their prescription for furthering their own agenda is also good for Sri Lankan Tamils. Actually the Tamil Nadu leaders’ pronunciations, which used to command a lot of respect among Sri Lanka Tamils, stand terribly discounted in the Island now because they are losing relevance for them.


The political fulminations on Tamil Eelam erupting from Tamil Nadu serve only the overseas remnants of the LTTE squabbling among themselves to recover their clout among the Diaspora. They also keep alive the Tamil Nadu bugbear in Sri Lanka politics to be effectively used by the ruling coalition and opposition parties in Colombo for their own ends. They provide legitimate levers for the anti-India lobby in Sri Lanka to stoke sentiments inimical to Indian interest.


Tamil Nadu leaders have to study and understand the changes that have taken place in the political firmament of Sri Lanka and adopt suitable strategies if they genuinely want to help Sri Lanka Tamils. If they cannot, they should confine their effort to consolidate and channelize the goodwill of the people in India to help speedy rehabilitation Sri Lanka Tamils affected by the war. Otherwise they will be distancing themselves further away from reality and that is not going to help Tamils of Sri Lanka.


Col. R Hariharan, a retired Military Intelligence specialist on South Asia, served as the head of intelligence of the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka 1987-90.He is associated with the South Asia Analysis Group and the Chennai Centre for China Studies.

INDIA SAYS NO BAN ON INDIAN DRUGS IN SRI LANKA

The Indian government denied media reports in Sri Lanka alleging supply of inferior drugs by Indian exporters and suspension of Indian companies by Sri Lanka for violation of tender terms, saying it has not been informed of such incidents.


“No report on banning of any Indian drug manufacturer has come to the notice of Government of India,” Press Information Bureau of India reported citing a reply by Shri Jyotiraditya M. Scindia, Minister of State for Commerce & Industry to a question in Lok Sabha on Monday. 


The Indian Minister says that discussions were held with concerned authorities in Sri Lankan Government through the High Commission of India in Sri Lanka and also during a visit of the Sri Lankan Health Minister to New Delhi during July-August in 2011, “wherein the need for clear technical specifications in the tendering process was stressed so as to prevent entry of sub-standard and low quality drugs in Sri Lankan market.” 


However on December 23, 2011 Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Health had temporarily suspended the use of the drug cyclosporine, manufactured by an Indian company. 


The Ministry had stated that the drug, widely used by kidney patients, was suspended at government and private hospitals due to “suspicion over its quality”. 


In August last year the Health Ministry, while announcing that over Rs.50 million were fined from suppliers who had not delivered drugs on promised dates, had said assured that strong legal action will be taken against suppliers violating the tender terms. 


Reports had however claimed that Sri Lanka would not blacklist the Indian drug suppliers, over instances of supply of low-standard medicines and delay in supply of key medicines, and instead the errant companies will have to forego the cash bond furnished in terms of the supply contract. 


The firms will accordingly be asked to forfeit the cash bonds between 5 to 10 per cent of the contract value, reports had said.


Drugs and pharmaceutical products are exported only after meeting stringent regulatory requirements prescribed by the regulatory authorities in various countries. Besides, Indian exporters have to comply with quality norms prescribed for manufacturing of drugs and pharmaceuticals in India by Drug Controller General of India under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Shri Jyotiraditya M. Scindia said. 


“Any reported violation is viewed seriously and is dealt with as per prescribed procedure under Drugs and Cosmetics Act,” he said in the written reply. 

Heavy mix of crime and politics in India

by Nirmala Ganapathy

The Straits Times/ANN

Local mafia dons, strongmen and criminals have always been prominent in Indian politics

In February, Indian anti-corruption activist Arvind Kejriwal stirred up a hornet’s nest by calling the country’s parliamentarians criminals.

Politicians erupted with fury, with one MP, Mulayam Singh Yadav, saying it was the anti-corruption crusaders who were a den of criminals.

Now, Yadav’s son Akhilesh has reignited the debate by appointing politicians with criminal records as ministers in his Samajwadi Party government in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh.

Eleven of the 47 ministers in the new Cabinet have criminal cases pending, inviting criticism of 38-year-old Akhilesh Yadav, who swept to power a month ago promising to rid the state of crime.

Perhaps the most controversial is the appointment of the infamous Raghuraj Pratap Singh as prisons minister.

Popularly known as Raja Bhaiyya, Singh spent 26 months behind bars some years ago on charges of terrorism, after assault rifles and explosives were found in his house. He also has eight other criminal cases pending against him, ranging from murder to extortion.

Singh, who won as an independent, has played a crucial role in helping the young Chief Minister garner votes from his Kunda constituency in western Uttar Pradesh. He maintained that his prison stint made him the right person for the job.

"My first-hand experience will help me usher in jail reforms," the 42-year-old told an Indian newspaper.

Since taking office about two weeks ago, Singh has started work on improving the lives of prisoners, asking one prison chief to improve the quality of jail food.

Local mafia dons, strongmen and criminals have always been prominent in Indian politics. Their wealth and influence have served political parties looking for support across multiple castes and religions. Most of them, like Singh, maintain that they have been framed by their political rivals.

A study by the Zee Research Group found that in four out of seven states that got new governments in the past year, politicians facing criminal charges have control over the departments of law, justice and prisons.

Uttar Pradesh is not the only state with the dubious distinction of having Cabinet-ranked ministers with criminal records or facing criminal charges. For example, there is Moloy Ghatak from the eastern state of West Bengal, where he is in charge of the Law and Judicial Department. He has six criminal cases against him.

Then there is the southern state of Kerala’s Chief Minister Oommen Chandy, who heads the Department of Criminal Justice and Vigilance, and has one criminal case against him.

Jharkhand Chief Minister Arjun Munda, who also heads the Vigilance, Law and Justice Department, is facing six criminal charges.

Analysts said the problem is that political parties choose candidates with criminal backgrounds because they have influence in their areas and can get votes from their communities.

Said Anil Bairwal, national coordinator for the Association for Democratic Reforms, an advocacy group: "I don’t think people want this type of candidate to represent them, they just don’t have a choice. There are so many allegations that tickets (for contesting elections) are given to candidates with muscle power or money."

Milan Vaishnav from the University of Pennsylvania wrote in a recent article on Uttar Pradesh: "Voters are not ignorant or uninformed...They are simply looking for candidates who can best fill a perceived representational vacuum."

In many remote areas, it is the local mafia dons and strongmen whose influence remains the strongest.

In India’s Lower House of Parliament, 162 of the 545 members are facing criminal charges, compared with 128 in the previous parliament. After the recently concluded elections in Uttar Pradesh, 143 members of the 403-seat assembly have criminal backgrounds.

Akhilesh Yadav, who took pains to change the image of his Samajwadi Party from a party of goons to a progressive one, has himself struggled since taking power. In the past month alone, more than two dozen violent incidents involving his own party workers have been recorded.

These include incidents of party workers shooting at government officials, firing guns in the air in celebration, illegal tax collection, and attacking and holding journalists hostage.

Spokesman Rajendra Chowdhary said the party is taking action in all the cases.

"Some 25 people have been kicked out of the party for these incidents. In two to three months, you will see a change in the state," he said.

Karunanidhi can have Eelam in India: Gota

Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa yesterday said if DMK Leader and former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi’s unfulfilled dream was a Tamil Eelam, he should work for it in India because the largest population of Tamils live in the Tamil Nadu state of India and not in Sri Lanka. 


 “A much bigger population of Tamils live in Tamil Nadu in India than the Tamil population in Sri Lanka. If Karunanidhi wants a Tamil Eelam he can have it in Tamil Nadu. He should not come to make Eelams in Sri Lanka. This is a sovereign country.  We consider those who talk about Eelam as terrorists,” the Defence Secretary told the Daily Mirror. 


The Defence Secretary expressed these views responding to a statement made by india’s DMK party President and former Tamil Nadu chief minister M. Karunanidhi to the effect that India should urge the United Nations to bring pressure on Sri Lanka to hold a referendum regarding Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka. Karunanidhi wields significant political power with the Indian Central Government as his political party is a significant constituent of the Indian Congress led ruling alliance – the UPA. 


 “There is no war now in Sri Lanka. There exists ethnic harmony and every one lives peacefully. Karunanidhi should not attempt to arouse the Tamil people in Sri Lanka. Karunanidhi is also one among the many Indian politicians who are bent on destroying our country by making controversial statements. It is a pity that they are adopting to such low political tactics. Karunanidhi should realize that ours is an independent country and should not attempt to establish Eelam, and if he wishes he could do so in Tamil Nadu where a larger concentration of Tamil people live,” the Defense Secretary further stated. 

The failures of the Ministry of External Affairs – encroachment or sheer incompetence?

by Prof.Rajiva Wijesinha M.P.


The recent intrigues by the nastier elements in the Ministry of External Affairs have prompted some thought about the confused and confusing nature of the diverse elements that make up the current government. The need to examine this in greater detail has been made clearer by the strange affair of Mr Gunaratnam.


The implications of what occurred there have been explored carefully in a thoughtful article by Laksiri Fernando, through analysis of the statement issued by the Ministry of External Affairs.


I believe that article should be studied carefully by all those concerned with the continuity and success of this government, which is I believe the perspective from which Prof Fernando has written


There are some related considerations that I think should be explored further, given the statement by the Ministry, which in fact exposes its complete incompetence in this regard.


Prof Fernando suggests that the statement indicates that ‘the “security establishment” has encroached into other ministries and in this case the Ministry of External Affairs’ but I think what it also indicates is that that Ministry has completely abandoned its responsibilities in dealing with international issues.


The government has after all argued that the Australian High Commission was remiss in failing to provide information about Mr Gunaratnam’s arrival in this country, whereas its reactions to his abduction made it clear that they knew all about him. It is claimed that the High Commission had not responded to an inquiry, but surely the correct thing to do when information is required, and there is reason to believe that any delay is detrimental to the national interest, is to call in the Australian High Commissioner and explain the situation and request active cooperation.


Unfortunately such calling in does not occur. Our Ministry of External Affairs had proved singularly incompetent in dealing with the international community, whether diplomats of Non-Governmental Organizations, despite the powers it has. I can think of several instances in which it should have called diplomats or others in and, very politely, indicated the serious implications of what was happening.


I first advised the Ministry to do this when the former Canadian High Commissioner threatened a local NGO because she was concerned about questions that had been raised about the financial improprieties perpetrated by Rama Mani. It may be remembered that the latter trying to ‘make waves’ as she herself put it in Sri Lanka by suggesting that the Responsibility to Protect doctrine should be implemented here.


Subsequently I pointed out that, in dealing with NGOs, frank discussions were better than what seemed irrational attacks, and that regular meetings to ensure that they used funding to promote the welfare of our citizens was better than hysterical reactions when something went wrong.


I suspect that it was for this reason that the Secretary to the Ministry in charge suggested I request to be appointed to monitor NGO work and ensure better coordination in accordance with national needs, but given the total dysfunctionality of the system, the letter I received was total rubbish, suggesting I be invited to discussions which I knew never took place, given the incapacity of the officials concerned to participate actively and constructively in discussions.


But if an incapacity to ensure adherence by NGOs to the agreements according to which they work in this country is incurable as far as the Ministry is concerned, more serious is its failure to discuss matters constructively with diplomats. I have noted before the absurdity of Paul Carter being allowed to continue with his poisonous efforts to suborn military personnel, and I believe that, had this matter been raised with the American Ambassador as it occurred, with no suggestion that she was in any way responsible, we might have ensured better relations, instead of the current situation.


The same could have been done when she, improperly in my view, held a discussion on the Darusman Report that included junior officials of the UN without clearance from the UN leadership. While she had every right to discuss matters with fellow ambassadors, her involvement of the UN without any formal approach was improper.


And while of course she can invite whatsoever Sri Lankans she chooses to, it could have been pointed out to her politely that it seemed strange she should have only invited NGOs thought hostile to government – whereas the previous week, in an effort to indicate a more pluralistic approach, she had entertained the Secretary of Defence along with a more healthy cross-section of NGOs.


Similarly, the Gunaratnam phenomenon should have been dealt with transparently, through open discussions with the Australians to ensure that they fulfilled their obligations to a friendly nation by revealing what they knew about the gentleman’s entry into this country, and any change of name that might have occurred while he was in Australia .


Such discussions would need to be recorded and a letter sent confirming what had transpired, so that our position, and our belief that Australia too had our best interests at heart, would be established. In such a situation, any intervention by the Australian High Commission indicating knowledge that had not been shared with us would obviously have been inappropriate.


None of this takes away of course from the fact that, if government knew Mr Gunaratnam was overstaying his visa, he should have been openly taken into custody, allowed free access to lawyers, and charged with whatever crime had been committed. I know myself that, when I had once entered Thailand illegally – having happily walked across the border from Cambodia, not knowing that this was a privilege allowed only to Cambodians, and not having been challenged – I was told by the Australian diplomat with whom I was staying in Bangkok that I had committed a serious offence, and I should hoof down to the Immigration Office and clear myself as soon as possible.


The official there, having initially told me that I would have to go to prison, in time registered my innocence and put the matter right through what I recall as a hefty fine


That is how Mr Gunaratnam should have been dealt with, the Australians being left to decide if they wanted to intervene had they not supplied us with information as requested following a meeting at the Ministry of External Affairs. Instead, although it would seem that he was guilty of an offence, what has happened allows him to seem innocent and the whole Sri Lankan government to be brought into disrepute.


Unfortunately, there is simply no understanding, as I have realized during my various interactions with the Ministry, of either principles or practical procedures amongst the officials who make decisions there.


My offer to help with training, based on the universal appreciation expressed by the officials of the Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights who had not heard of basic principles of administration until I became its Secretary, have been turned down.


It is in despair about continuing incompetence that I have suggested a more formal role, but obviously I do not need to be insulted with the assumption that I am simply seeking positions like everyone else.


But some changes need to be made there soon if this country is not to become a plaything of more powerful nations.

Unconstitutional immunity conferred on unscrupulous persons

By Milinda Rajasekera


The constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka gives immunity from law suits under Article 35 only to the President of the country. But now it appears that there is a lot of politicians and others enjoying this privilege with protection and patronage offered by institutions and individuals wielding power. This privileged category of people operating in various fields of activity in this country indulges in all sorts of illegal and unethical activities with impunity. They commit crime, misuse state property, abuse power, defame and threaten people, humiliate and ridicule opponents, market drugs and indulge in unfair trade practices. In short, they have become a law unto themselves.  


There is a combination of forces that permits, connives or assists them in conducting themselves in this contemptible manner. Political protection comes first. It is under the protective political umbrella they generally operate. This protection is not offered by any political party as such but by certain powerful persons in political parties who extend such support to these unscrupulous persons in return for assistance they get from them particularly for their political activities. The other supportive force is the police. The police provide this immunity either at the behest of political authorities or on their own volition for various favours received by them. It is the political power they depend on for obtaining undue promotions and unfair transfers.     


Sections of the public come next to lend support for such unprincipled persons. These sections support either because they are genuinely impressed by constructive work they do or because of personal favours received from them.  Even sections of religious leaders tend to support these politicians ignoring all the illegalities they indulge in. This tendency indeed is very unfortunate and ironical because it is the religious leaders who should be in the forefront to eradicate evil in society. Whatever good these delinquent politicians do cannot absolve them from punishment for committing acts against society. The fair-minded sections of the public often refrain from acting or making their voice heard against them for fear of reprisals.  


Some sections of the public believe that it is necessary to give the devil his due. These devilish politicians, either because of their genuine concern for the people’s problems or for the purpose of getting public support for their wrongdoing come forward to intervene on behalf of the people. They often pose as people’s heroes by sponsoring public causes. They try to give the impression that they are determined to wipe out fraud and corruption. They sometimes succeed in nabbing wrongdoers left undetected by the police.

Apart from politicians there are public officers holding responsible positions that enjoy immunity. They, not only refrain from carrying out their assigned duties but make use of their office for personal gain. No arm of the law is long enough to reach them. Warrants and orders issued by courts for their alleged offences have no effect. Their circle of guardians ensures that any move against them is thwarted. Wide cover of immunity seems to be in operation for those responsible for disappearances and killings that have reached scandalous proportions.  


Fraudulent and deceptive persons exploiting religious and superstitious beliefs of the people are operating freely in all parts of the country. Some of these humbugs are protected by powerful persons and institutions deriving benefits from their activities. For instance, recently a media institution exposed the corrupt and deceptive manner in which a certain ‘religious’ place was operating. But the place thrives to this day with patronage and support from another media institution that provides wide publicity for the ‘meritorious and charitable’ deeds of the person who runs the place. Several similar exposures of deception were made by the Neth FM radio channel in its popular ‘Belungala’ programme. Lack of response from the authorities to such exploitation, prompted people to stage protests and compel authorities to bring the frauds to justice. 


The great harm and inconvenience caused to the public by unfair and unethical trade practices of the business sector is clearly evident. Some sections in this sector that provides essential goods and services to the people show no concern for the need of the people to get safe and quality goods and services. In their desire for maximizing profits they indulge in several unfair trade practices.   Hotels, restaurants, eateries, snack bars and other places that provide food for the people show scant regard for the health of the consumers.  They resort to various methods to increase their margins of profit. While some of these places are raided others are left alone as they enjoy unofficial immunity.  


Manufacturers of goods, even medicinal items, supply shoddy and substandard products. They carry on with these unethical and illegal activities because they have the ability to keep law enforcement sections at bay through the patronage obtained from powerful persons occupying important positions.  


It is therefore the responsibility of the authorities to take quick and meaningful steps to end this system of conferring unconstitutional immunity to unscrupulous persons. The people, meanwhile, have to be so vigilant and careful as to avoid falling prey to machinations of these persons and institutions. They should also assist the authorities in whatever way possible to bring the knaves to book.

Govt must clarify its stand on implementing the LLRC Report Recommendations

By Javid Yusuf


It would be unwise to brush aside the resolution adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Council last month in Geneva as being of no consequence to Sri Lanka. We could choose to ignore it only at our own peril.


The attempt to paint it as an innocuous resolution with the sole objective of ‘encouraging us to implement the LLRC recommendations’ was belied by the vigorous nature of the campaign that was carried out by the sponsors of the resolution and its supporters not only in Geneva but also in several capitals with high officials of the US and the European Union visiting such capitals.


The high powered nature of the campaign was totally disproportionate to the ‘innocuousness’ of the resolution and should alert us to the fact that there may be more to it than meets the eye.


Be that as it may, on the face of it, the resolution has succeeded in keeping Sri Lanka under international scrutiny at least until March next year. With the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights mandated by the resolution to submit a report to UNHRC next year and the Universal Periodic Review on Sri Lanka scheduled for the latter part of this year, Sri Lanka will remain in the international spotlight for sometime longer.


While it was legitimate for Sri Lanka to argue that it was premature to bring a resolution relating to the implementation of the LLRC a few months after the handing over of the report to the President, now that the resolution has been adopted we cannot continue to rely on that argument in the future. Nor can we rely on the argument of double standards and selective targeting of Sri Lanka by the US and the West. We have to accept that in international politics there is no level playing field and have to factor in such handicaps when dealing with the world.


Equally, we cannot be overly reliant on countries that are well disposed towards Sri Lanka, like India, Russia and China, to bail us out of difficult situations given the framework of operation of nations in a system of international politics. Illustrative of the trappings of international politics and relations is the recent decision that precluded India from supporting Sri Lanka (due to domestic pressures from Tamil Nadu) in Geneva.


Hence, it is apparent that countries the world over, and quite understandably, support another country or countries only to the extent that it will not hurt their own interests, internally and internationally. For instance, Russia and China’s approach to non interference coincided with Sri Lanka’s stand in this instance, yet putting all our eggs in the Russian/Chinese basket on every occasion is not prudent.


An encouraging feature of the vote in Geneva was the fact that out of the 15 countries that voted for Sri Lanka, seven were from the Islamic bloc with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar even attempting to persuade the US to withdraw the resolution against Sri Lanka while four others from the Islamic bloc abstained from supporting the US resolution.


The Foreign Ministry will also have to reflect on why the United States which welcomed the LLRC as ‘showing promise’ (Hillary Clinton) changed course to put pressure on Sri Lanka within a few months of the completion of the report.


The Government must also take note of the fact that a substantial section of the international community (the 24 who voted for the resolution together with the co-sponsors) has a particular perception of Sri Lanka. What needs to be done to clear the misconception is a speedy effort on the domestic front to make National Reconciliation a reality; inevitably our image will improve internationally.


This should spring from a genuine desire to improve the lot of our people who have suffered the consequences of a debilitating war rather than an effort to respond to the UNHCR resolution. Such a ‘home grown’ approach will be more sustainable, help heal the wounds of conflict and provide dignity to the Tamil and Muslim communities living in the North and East.
Post-Geneva, the National Interest demands that the Government clarify its stand vis-à-vis the implementations of the LLRC recommendations.


A lack of uniform positions and public statements has left the public confused. The first step towards implementation would be a clear pronouncement on the official stand of the Government on the matter. Further, this would be invaluable to our diplomats abroad to take up a consistent position and keep the international community briefed.


The Government’s achievements in the field of reconstruction, rehabilitation and resettlement have been commendable, though not sufficient to rebuild the lives of the victims of the conflict. Specific efforts to provide healing, dignity and equality are critical to ensuring that the dividends of post-war efforts materialize in the lives of all Sri Lankans.


The LLRC recommendations address many of these needs. Speedy implementation in the firm knowledge that the majority of the Sri Lankan people will render their support is possible for most of the recommendations. Other recommendations calling for political reform might need more time but the process needs to be activated without delay.


As pointed out by the LLRC ‘the critical importance of making visible progress with regard to this subject cannot be overemphasized.


The process of implementing the National Human Rights Action Plan needs to be done parallel to the process of implementing the LLRC recommendations, as it carries the potential of significantly improving the lives of victims of conflict.


Another aspect requiring immediate attention is the strengthening of the Rule of Law. Such will provide confidence in the citizenry of legal redress within the legal system, while contributing to the positive image that Sri Lanka wants to build for itself internationally.


There is a reason for the Government to give priority to the implementation of the LLRC recommendations. This year is likely to see many challenges for the country on the economic front, many of which, like the world oil prices, result from situations not within our control. It will require all the skills of governance to meet such challenges.


Hence, before the country is confronted with a set of challenges not within its control, it is prudent that the issues of governance which are in fact within the control of Government be addressed. Reconciliation and healing is the case in point