Soldiers’ killing over personal dispute - Army

It has now been revealed that a Soldier shot himself after killing two other soldiers over a personal dispute in Chavakachcheri, Jaffna, Military Spokesman Brigadier Nihal Hapuarachchi stated.

‘According to initial investigations, there is no third party involvement in this case, it was due to a personal dispute,’ the spokesman said.

Mean while the army Head Quarters said in a statement,

“Three soldiers who were on duty at Murugan Kovil, Chavakachcheri were killed due to a shooting incident last night. Initial inquiries have revealed that the shooting was due to a personal dispute among the three soldiers and that there was no third party involvement. Chavakachcheri Police is conducting further investigations.

Troops on their search and clear operations in the general areas of THIRUKETHISWARAM, PALAMPIDDI and MARATHODAI recovered twenty-five anti personnel mines on Thursday (8). 

Meanwhile, demining groups recovered one hundred and forty-two anti personnel mines, three anti tank mines and one jumping mine from MARATHAMADU, KANNADI and GAJABAPURA areas on the same day (8).”

Pro-Tamil groups target Lankan academic at Indian university seminar

Close on the heels of Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa writing to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh seeking to discourage frequent visits of Sri Lankan delegates to Tamil Nadu, activists of various pro-Tamil movements disrupted an international conference and forced the organisers to send away a Sri Lankan academic, on Thursday.

The members of Naam Tamizhar Iyakkam, May 17 Movement, Sri Lankan Tamils Protection Federation, as well as MDMK cadres barged into the conference venue at Manonmaniam Sundaranar University (MSU) and protested against the participation of Jeeva Niriella, faculty of law, lecturer, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka in the three-day international conference on ‘Exploring Linkage Between Drug Usage and Criminal Victimisation’ organised by the department of criminology.

This is the second such incident of a Sri Lankan visitor facing a protest by pro-Tamil outfits. In January this year, Thirukumaran Nadesan, husband of Nirupama Rajapaksa, niece of Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa’s suffered an even harsher treatment when slippers were hurled at him in Rameswaram where he visited to offer prayers in the temple.

This time around, the agitators, about 20 of them, entered the hall during the afternoon session of the conference posing as participants and started raising slogans against Sri Lanka. They also held placards demanding Jeeva to leave India as well as accusing Sri Lanka of genocide.

“Jeeva Niriella was visibly shocked by the sudden development. We were also taken aback. Since we though that the safety and security of the delegate was important, we took her out of the venue through another exit. We then told the protesters that she was sent and that she would not participate in any of the sessions for the rest of the conference,” said a faculty from the university. The protesters then left the spot. No police complaint has been lodged by the organisers, but disbelief and shock was writ large.

However, earlier in the day, Jeeva had addressed the participants of the conference on ‘Women and Justice’ and said that Sri Lanka was achieving a lot in women empowerment. Jeeva noted that Lanka had the first woman prime minister. She also said that the country’s present chief justice was a woman. Even during her address, she was confronted by a participant who questioned her claims of women empowerment by alleging that international NGOs have reported that crimes were perpetrated on women in large scale. While Jeeva maintained silence, another delegate came to her rescue and answered the query, Times of India reports.

‘UNHRC battle be fought to the very last minute’– Ambassador Tamara Kunanayakam

Question: What is the current situation in the Human Rights Council with regard to the debate on Sri Lanka?

Ambassador Tamara Kunanayakam: The present climate at the Human Rights Council is in Sri Lanka’s favor, but a lot of work still needs to be done. I have great confidence in the value of our arguments.

It is true that thus far we have been able to gather around us a number of developing countries, thanks to the principled stand of President and his Government, the support of our people who have rallied around us, the tireless efforts of our Foreign Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris, whose new Africa policy and his direct contact with his counterparts and Heads of State in Africa has brought us a number of allies in that continent, and, of course, thanks also to the work of the staff of our Mission, who have been working round the clock to keep the Missions in Geneva informed about developments in our country.

As I said, a lot of work still remains to be done to convince Council Members of the correctness of our position. It is far too early to venture a prognosis. We have convincing arguments based on principles and on the results of our policy of reconciliation. For those who know the UN System, nothing is won until the last minute and we cannot sit back on our laurels before the vote. Although, I’m reasonably optimistic about the outcome, we must remain vigilant and mobilized, and hard work on a daily basis is required.

Question: UK Foreign Office Minister Jeremy Browne developed the argument that Sri Lanka is a “failed State” and called on UN institutions to “support change.” In her Report, Navi Pillay, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, also used language that describes “failed States”. What do you think?

Ambassador Tamara Kunanayakam: Like “terrorist States” or “rogue States”, the notion of “failed States” is part of a repertoire that, is used to justify interference in the internal affairs of sovereign States, but under an angelic and moralizing appearance.

Anyone with any knowledge of the ground reality will know that this description does not fit Sri Lanka!

UK Foreign Office Minister Jeremy Browne’s reference to Sri Lanka as a “failed State” is direct. The High Commissioner for Human Rights uses apparently innocuous language, but punctuates the section dealing with Sri Lanka with terminology associated with that dangerous concept. She suggests that Sri Lanka is unable or unwilling to protect its citizens, that its institutions are incapable of implementing the recommendations of LLRC, and that it refuses to engage with UN institutions.

As you know, the West has been developing this argument to justify and legitimize interventions in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria. Their real objective is “regime change”! Many Ambassadors in Geneva have been telling me that this is also what they want to achieve in Sri Lanka, so we take it very seriously. Over the past 10 years, the US has sought to impose the concept “responsibility to protect” or “R2P” to justify military interventions in countries where, according to them, the Government is unable to protect its own citizens!

Both the UK Foreign Office Minister and Navi Pillay advocate support for “change” in Sri Lanka. I wonder what kind of change they have in mind? Regime change? Their position reflects the singular reasoning of John Stuart Mills who said that the British invasion of India and China was “in the service of others” with “no benefit to itself … blameless and laudable” in everything it did!

Clearly, we cannot accept such intervention in our internal affairs. That would be tantamount to surrendering our sovereignty and our independence. The right of peoples and States to protect their own citizens, without foreign intervention, is entrenched in the Charter of the United Nations and in every single international instrument that has been adopted ever since ! Article 56 of the UN Charter clearly stipulates international cooperation as the means by which there is international engagement in the promotion of human rights.

The motivations and bona fide of those seeking to characterize Sri Lanka in such terms are questionable! Many of our friends from Africa, Asia and Latin America are not dupe! They are talking of an “anglo-saxo alliance” against a small developing country! Let’s not forget that countries part of this alliance are also some of the largest contributors to the voluntary fund of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which pays for the salaries of the majority of its staff and its human rights programme. The atmosphere in the Human Rights Council is such that our friends in the developing world are beginning to associate the onslaught against a small country like ours with a witch hunt, which has nothing to do with actual guilt or innocence!

“It is common knowledge that certain Western countries never really digested their 2009 defeat, when, for the first time in its history, a Special Session of the Council adopted a resolution that was contrary to their objectives! The West never forgave us for that! By “us” I mean Sri Lanka and the like-minded countries, which, together, succeeded in defeating the might of the West! That victory also won us the admiration of other developing countries that realized that a small country can, if united on principles, defeat even the most powerful!”

Question: Can we reduce the challenge faced by Sri Lanka at the Human Rights Council to a problem between Sri Lanka and the US/EU alliance?

Ambassador Tamara Kunanayakam: In my opinion, no!
The real interests of those who want to move a resolution against Sri Lanka have nothing to do with human rights in Sri Lanka, whether of Tamils, Sinhalese, or any other community. It lies elsewhere!

There is a lot of hypocrisy and double standards being played out at the Human Rights Council, and the objective of the big powers is to turn the Council into yet another weapon at their disposal for use against developing countries. With the growing global crises, especially at the centre of their own economies, they are becoming increasingly aggressive to gain control over the wealth and resources of their former colonies, in the hope that they can postpone the political crisis that will inevitably follow the present multiple economic, financial, environmental and social crises. That is why we have so much support from the developing countries and the emerging economies.

There is general recognition that Sri Lanka has made significant progress since the end of the conflict and that the LLRC report is a good one and that it contains very important recommendations. It is also seen as exemplary in its engagement with the international community, sending high level delegations to the Council sessions. Why then, they ask, is Sri Lanka being singled out so unfairly?

What, in fact, are the US trying to tell us with their draft resolution? They are not saying that our LLRC report is bad. They are not saying that there are gross and systematic violations of human rights in Sri Lanka. What they are saying is that they don’t have confidence that we will implement the recommendations. They are judging our intentions, not the ground reality!

This is unacceptable to most countries, because it gives a role to the Council that was never intended. Moreover, there is a general feeling that Sri Lanka is being punished for cooperating. If the reward for cooperation is punishment, then why, they ask, should anyone cooperate with the Council?

Not only developing countries, but also European countries feel that Sri Lanka is being unfairly targeted.

Many say that the outcome of the battle at this Session will be a litmus test, the real issue being the survival of the multilateral system. Whereas the US seeks to convert the system into an instrument in the service of its foreign policy goals, based on confrontation rather than cooperation, developing countries and other emerging economies are fighting to maintain its multilateral character. A resolution on Sri Lanka will, many feel, be the ultimate test of the Council’s politicization. It will make it or break it.

In her statement to the Human Rights Council, the US Under Secretary of State, Maria Otero, unilaterally outlined the values which, she said, would guide their work within the Council, totally disregarding the principles that the UN General Assembly has determined and which the US accepted when taking its oath as member of the Council! “Cooperation”, which is embedded in the UN Charter and a duty incumbent on all States, is replaced with “dialogue”; “impartiality” and “non-selectivity” replaced with the vague and subjective values, “principle” and “truth”!

It is common knowledge that certain Western countries never really digested their 2009 defeat, when, for the first time in its history, a Special Session of the Council adopted a resolution that was contrary to their objectives! The West never forgave us for that! By “us” I mean Sri Lanka and the like-minded countries, which, together, succeeded in defeating the might of the West! That victory also won us the admiration of other developing countries that realized that a small country can, if united on principles, defeat even the most powerful!

Let us also not forget that the US is vying for re-election to the Human Rights Council in May this year. The problem is that the Western Group has fielded 5 candidates for only 3 seats. It is believed that by revising the 2009 Council resolution that is favorable to Sri Lanka, adopted when the US was not a member, it is trying to show its allies that the Council cannot function without it.

Developing countries fear that such a decision would set a precedent giving an historic character to the Council permiting a powerful country, for reasons of its own, to reopen a dossier that has been closed to examine past violations.

Many countries are also concerned that the US is trying to undermine the internationally recognized principle of “exhaustion of domestic remedies.” The International Criminal Court has focused exclusively on Africa, even filing cases against individuals from countries that have not signed the Rome Statute, when they have their own legal systems.

In addition to what I’ve already said, the West also has a problem with our example that a small developing country, with the political will, can defeat even the most ruthless terrorist group alone and without their help, when the West itself has failed to do so, despite its modern weapons and the combined might of NATO !. That is a strong message we have sent to the developing world!

Moreover, the geostrategic importance of our country is well known. Certain countries also appear concerned about the quality of our relations with our Asian neighbours and our ability to mobilize support of countries in Africa, Asia and even Latin America, which are our natural allies.

Many people have difficulties understanding US impatience for accountability on the part of Sri Lanka not even three years after the end of the conflict. They point out that there has been no accountability on the part of the US authorities for abuses in the Guantanamo detention centre, Abu Ghraib, conditions under which Fallujah was captured, the use of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, double standards in its treatment of Palestine and Israel, etc., etc.

The selective targeting of Sri Lanka does not augur well for the future of the Council. The US think tank Fund for Peace, which is an organization that serves as a reference for the US Secretary of State and the US Secretary of Defense, has placed Sri Lanka on the Alert List of its Failed States Index. Thirty-five (35) of the 47 Member States of the Council are also on its Alert List or its Warning List; all 35 are developing countries or emerging economies. The divine surprise is that the 12 Council members that not on the list are all from the West !

It is certainly true to say that much may have changed since the days of Adam Smith. But, the standard he called “the vile maxim of the masters of mankind: all for ourselves, and nothing for other people”, continues to flourish!

Question:What are your plans now? How will you proceed?

Ambassador Tamara Kunanayakam: There’s still a lot of work to be done! We must be lucid! We must not underestimate or overestimate our capacity! To claim victory at this stage would be a grave error. First of all, we cannot speak on behalf of sovereign States. Each State will take a sovereign decision, and it will not have spoken until it casts its vote. States can change their position at any time, even at the last hour, depending on national interests. Therefore, the battle will have to be fought to the very last minute. Nobody has the right to anticipate the vote of another country. It is a matter of respect, respect for the sovereignty of other nations and peoples.

Question:Do you think that it will be important for Sri Lanka to seek a compromise?

Ambassador Tamara Kunanayakam: It is not a question of seeking compromises. We are defending principles and nothing justifies compromising on principles! If we do that, we will lose our allies. This battle is not over, we can foresee others in the near future. Whether or not we compromise, they will return in June, then in September, with another and stronger resolution. Look at the example of Yemen. In June last year, when the West had a draft resolution against Yemen, developing countries were ready to support it, but then Yemen decided to accept a compromise, because the US promised that there would be no outcome. In September, the West broke its promise and returned with a stronger resolution, but this time the developing countries refused to come to the aid of Yemen.

The other day, immediately after my right of reply to US Under Secretary Maria Otero, when I exposed the real intentions of the US to unilaterally replace the values on which the Human Rights Council was set up, a number of developing country delegates came up to me and thanked us for speaking up for all developing countries. They were grateful that we were not only defending Sri Lanka, but our collective interest.

A frank look at Lankan girls’ issues

Early marriage is a universal issue but it is widely practised in countries in the South Asian region. Every year, millions of girls, even before their teenage years, are given in marriage to older men. Young girls, most of whom are still children, are forced to take on the role of wives and mothers and are denied their fundamental rights. Early marriage often results in early pregnancy and social isolation. There is very little or no room for personal development drives, such as, education and vocational training. Thus, the girls are naturally driven to poverty and at times are driven to sell their bodies to feed their families. They are expected to perform heavy domestic work, demonstrate their fertility and often face issues which demand serious decision-making.

Addressing this serious problem the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and United Nations (UN) Sri Lanka held a panel discussion on the study of 'Early Marriage and Statutory Rape' conducted by the Centre for Women's Research (CENWOR) in partnership with the Justice Ministry to coincide with International Women's Day theme 'Connecting girls, inspiring futures'.

The research was carried out by Prof. Savithri Goonesekera and Dr. Harini Amarasuriya. It was organized by the team to raise the question on how to motivate girls through education and to inspire their future if there is high incidence of rape, incest and violence in society. The research was backed by UNICEF.

Research sites

The study is based on seven research sites in seven districts in Sri Lanka. There were two phases of study. The first chapter comprises interviews with the service providers, including state and non-state officials, a secondary data survey where they looked at Police and court records and newspaper articles. Phase two includes a more indepth study where 10 cases of early marriage or statutory rape were chosen from each district. Around 71 case studies were conducted with 81 interviews with the children, their families and service providers involved with the cases.

There were 49 cases of statutory rape. Fourteen to 15 year olds were the most vulnerable cases, though there were victims as young as four years. There were six cases of early registered marriage prior to the girl turning 18. In three cases the couple waited till the girl turned 18 years to marry. Twenty one cases were early cohabitation where the girl and partner were living together prior to the girl turning 18. This was recognized as marriage in the community though they were not registered.

A majority of the perpetrators were over 18 years. The oldest was about 65.

“This study originated in some of the research that we did to indicate that even in the area of early marriage, there were new concerns surfacing in some areas and a growing incidence of teenage pregnancy connected to sexual violence. We had certain perceptions when we got into this research.

We thought that there is pressure for early marriage but interestingly our research did not surface that. We have to question why decades go by and these stubborn areas continue to be cause of concern in a country which has done so well for women,” Prof Goonesekera said.

Sexual abuse

She said that Sri Lanka has successfully created an ethos unlike in the rest of South East Asia where it is recognized that early marriage below the minimum age is a violation of law.

“It is a response to teenage sexuality, sexual abuse and freedom to move around. This is in a sense a legitimization of sexual abuse, an acceptance that it is ok to have sex even with an underage child. It is a matter of serious concern,” she said.

Though the initial plan was to involve Muslim communities because of the differences of the implemented laws, they were unable to get access to those cases.

“One of the difficulties we faced was accessing some of the records. Most service providers were reluctant to share confidential documents relating to these cases. Often we had to go through contacts and field researches to tap these cases. We tried to interview the perpetrators as well but often this proved to be difficult. We could not contact 33 of the men involved”, Dr. Amarasuriya said, adding that the study looks at the experiences of early marriage and statutory rape and projects a picture of what it is like for the girls and their families.

Another limitation was the time frame. The sensitive nature of the study means that ideally it should be conducted long term to build close relationships so that in depth data could be accessed.

“We were constantly aware of the very ethical issues that are involved in doing this kind of research. Many of the girls and families that we met were still undergoing difficulties. We had to make sure that our research was not going to further traumatize them. We tried to link them up with existing services whenever possible,” she said.

Early marriage is not considered a traditional practice in Sri Lanka as it is in some parts of the world. There is a high level of awareness in families in communities about the law relating to marriage. Families were often unhappy that girls had to get married at 18 years.

They often regretted the situation which lead to early marriage or early cohabitation but it was the only option available to them in the circumstance. None of the marriages could be termed as 'forced marriages'.

Young girls

Interestingly the research uncovered that early marriage and early cohabitation was primarily a response to managing the teenage sexuality of young girls. The dominant law states that sexual relations for girls can take place only within the institution of marriage. Even if there is a hint of a sexual relationship between a girl and man, the only way the girl can regain her status in the community is by entering into a long term relationship with the perpetrator. Men who had even committed statutory rape were summoned to the Police station and got to promise to marry the girl.

Often the early marriage or early cohabitation was not in the interest of the girl though families and service providers believed that it provided her with security. Apart from a very few cases most girls faced severe financial, emotional and other stresses. The girls’ natal family was very much involved in cases of domestic violence or because the men were often unemployed or later deserted the girl.

Often families and service providers would say that the statutory relationships were consensual. Out of 49 cases, 21 cases were of forced sex while 28 cases involved a prior relationship between the girl and the perpetrator. Unlike in early marriage, there were very little awareness about the laws relating to statutory rape within the community.

Families did not always report the cases and the circumstances leading to the incident such as a prior relationship between the girl and the man was a deciding factor on whether to report the incident or not because of the mistrust they had about the law enforcement authorities.

The status and position of the perpetrator also had an impact on the family’s decision.

“A problematic area was the attitudes of the service providers. They try to analyze the girls’ behaviour in terms of what it was about her that led to the situation.

Often they were critical of the girl or her family background. Instead of trying to find out what made the perpetrator act in that manner. The interest was more on trying to rehabilitate the girl", Dr Amarasuriya said.

Under the Penal Code of Sri Lanka, until 1995, the general age of consent for sexual relations was 12 years. In 1995, the Penal Code was amended and the age of statutory rape was raised to 16 years unless the person happens to be the perpetrator's wife and they are not judicially separated. Age of marriage was raised to 18 except for the Muslim community.

"Having done that there was no effort to publicize the law and this is why we found that a serious dysfunction between the law and the statistics. People who are aware of the minimal age for marriage falsify birth and marriage registers and register the marriage. Even Police are not making it clear that if you have sexual relations with a child below the stipulated age, it is child abuse. You cannot justify the case by taking in terms of marriage of the perpetrator," Prof. Goonesekera emphasized.

Speaking about the problems relating to this issues: the lack of understanding of why girls should not marry young, why it is referred to as sexual abuse and the scenario of legitimizing child abuse, she said that though the law is in place it is not understood by the democracy or authorities.

"There has to be a public campaign to make these statistics public and get public support for the reason and the rationale on why these practices should not be carried out.

We need to create an awareness of gender sensitivity among service providers so that they know not to look at the girl as someone who had been exploited and needs aid.

The strengthening of the system of registration of marriage is also important. The age of marriage needs to remain at 18 and that of statutory rape needs to be 16 despite the fact that some service providers try to lower the age of marriage because we think it is counterproductive regarding all the implications in the international standards of child marriage.

"Creating awareness among teenagers and youths about reproductive health and responsible sexual behaviour is important. That has to be carried through the schools.

Even during the period that I was on the National Education Commission, we have probed the topic and we were given various excuses like it is not cultural or suitable. Here is a study which indicates very clearly the problem of teenage sexuality. We want interventions to recognize the reality and address the issues," she noted.

US submits draft resolution on SL

The United States today submitted the draft resolution against Sri Lanka to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).


Welcoming the constructive recommendations made by the LLRC in its report but, the resolution also notes with concern that the report does not adequately address serious allegations of violations of international humanitarian law.


It also stated that the report of Sri Lanka's domestic Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) and its findings and recommendations while acknowledging its possible contribution to the country's national reconciliation process.
The full draft resolution:


Draft Resolution: Promoting Reconciliation and Accountability in Sri Lanka (3/6/12)


Guided by the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights, and other relevant instruments,


Reaffirming that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, as applicable,


Noting the Report of Sri Lanka’s Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) and its findings and recommendations, and acknowledging its possible contribution to Sri Lanka’s national reconciliation process,


Welcoming the constructive recommendations contained in the LLRC report, including the need to credibly investigate widespread allegations of extra judicial killings and enforced disappearances, de-militarize the north of Sri Lanka, implement impartial land dispute resolution mechanisms, reevaluate detention policies, strengthen formerly independent civil institutions, reach a political settlement involving devolution of power to the provinces, promote and protect the right of freedom of expression for all, and enact rule of law reforms,


Noting with concern that the LLRC report does not adequately address serious allegations of violations of international law,


1. Calls on the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the constructive recommendations in the LLRC report and take all necessary additional steps to fulfill its relevant legal obligations and commitment to initiate credible and independent actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans,


2. Requests that the Government of Sri Lanka present a comprehensive action plan as expeditiously as possible detailing the steps the Government has taken and will take to implement the LLRC recommendations and also to address alleged violations of international law,


3. Encourages the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and relevant special procedures to provide, and the Government of Sri Lanka to accept, advice and technical assistance on implementing those steps and requests the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to present a report to the Council on the provision of such assistance at its twenty-second session.

Not too late for President Rajapaksa to take remedial action

by 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.

The US draft resolution calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the constructive recommendations in the LLRC report and additionally to take immediate steps to fulfil its relevant legal obligations.

It also expresses concern that the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) report relating to human rights does not adequately address serious allegations of violations of international law. It also highlights international disappointment that Sri Lanka had not fulfilled its own stated commitment to initiate credible and independent investigations and prosecutions of those responsible for such violations.

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.

(Col R Hariharan, a retired Military Intelligence specialist on South Asia, served with the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka as Head of Intelligence. He is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the South Asia Analysis Group. E-Mail: colhari@yahoo.com Blog site: www.colhariharan.org )

Jayalalitha asks to discourage frequent visits by Lankan VIPs to TN

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa on Wednesday asked the Centre to “discourage” frequent visits of Sri Lankan VIPs to the state as the people were “greatly exercised” over the island government’s conduct on the Tamils issue.

In a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Jayalalithaa also said the Sri Lankan VIPs be allowed to the state only after consulting the state.

Noting that Sri Lankan VIPs and other dignitaries come on private visits without informing the state government, she wanted such trips to be allowed only after consulting the state.

Jayalalithaa said the difficulties faced by her government due to the frequent visits of officials and VIPs from Colombo without informing the state government had already been brought to the notice of the Ministries of External and Home Affairs.

“As you are fully aware, the people of Tamil Nadu are greatly exercised over the conduct of the Sri Lankan government while dealing with Sri Lankan Tamils and their rights,” the Chief Minister said in the letter.

The people’s perception here was that Colombo had “completely failed” to ensure the Tamils rights “to live with dignity, self-respect and equal constitutional status on par with the Sinhalese,” she pointed out.

“In view of the prevailing situation, it would be appropriate if the state government is given prior information about the visits”, the chief minister said.

“It would also be appreciated if the Government of India discourages such frequent visits to Tamil Nadu and allow such visits only after consulting the government of Tamil Nadu in the future,” she said. (PTI)