Many of those concerned are puzzled by the President’s remarks on international involvement in the proposed investigations
United Nations Human Rights High Commissioner Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein is to visit Sri Lankan tomorrow. Unlike during the visit by his predecessor Navanethem Pillay in 2013 there is no agitation by any group against Zeid’s visit, in spite of the fact that the possible agitators, the so-called patriots are in the Opposition now.
However, former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s group in the Parliament, the Opposition that opposes everything done by the government attempted to embarrass the government during the UN Human Rights Chief’s visit this time, using President Maithripala Sirisena’s remarks during a recent interview on the accountability issue, the main component in the resolution that was adopted last year by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). But their efforts seem to have been eclipsed by another matter that is more important to them, the arrest of the former President’s son Yoshitha over his alleged involvement in the CSN transactions.
In fact President Sirisena’s remarks on the international involvement in the proposed investigation into allegations on war crimes has puzzled many in the country as well as in many concerned circles abroad. The perception hitherto prevailed locally and internationally had been that the Sri Lankan Government was prepared to accept “Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers and prosecutors and investigators” as mentioned in the UNHRC resolution that was adopted last October.
On January 21, however, during an interview with the BBC Sinhala service, Sandeshaya, President Sirisena said “I will never agree to international involvement in this matter. We have more than enough specialists, experts and knowledgeable people in our country to solve our internal issues. This investigation should be internal and indigenous, without violating the laws of the country and I believe in the judicial system and other relevant authorities in this regard.The international community need not worry about matters of state interest”
The remarks were more perplexing as last year’s UNHRC resolution was not one that was rejected by the Sri Lankan government as in the case of the previous three resolutions adopted by the council, rather it was co-sponsored by Sri Lanka. Many thought that the President’s statement was a policy shift by the Sri Lankan government as it came from none other than the highest authority of the country. Also there were views that this was only for domestic consumption, keeping in mind the forthcoming local government elections, as happened during the Rajapaksa regime.
One can understand the pressure under which President Sirisena is handling the accountability issue. He is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and it is his responsibility to protect those forces from the allegations against them. After the 2015 UNHRC resolution adopted, former commanders of the army, navy and air force and those who were field commanders during the war against the LTTE met the President. He might have felt the heat of the resolution then, if he had not felt it earlier.
The response by the armed forces as well as the President’s political opponents in respect of the accountability issue could be inferred through the case with regard to the disappearance of journalist Prageeth Ekneligoda. The Magistrate hearing the case had to warn the army commander that he would order the arrest of the latter unless co-operation was forthcoming in arresting the suspects of the case, who happened to be army personnel.
And the Rajapaksa group has tied up the case with patriotism despite the matter seeming to be a far cry from the war related incidents.Therefore it is clear that the former president and his disgruntled group are eagerly awaiting legal actions against war related actions by the armed forces personnel.
On the other hand there is some truth in the allegation by the foreign leaders and the leaders of the UNHRC that the credibility of the local judiciary, especially of those mechanisms in respect of accountability for human rights violations during the war, was a matter to be concerned about. The withdrawal by the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP) appointed by former President Rajapaksa in 2006 for the monitoring process of a commission appointed by Rajapaksa himself to probe 17 incidents of serious human rights violations and the circumstances that led to the appointment of an experts’ panel by UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon in 2010 had been indictments against the country.
Therefore before last year’s resolution was adopted, Foreign Affairs Minister Mangala Samaraweera requested the UNHRC “Don’t judge us by broken promises, experiences and U-turns of the past.” And when the resolution was passed with the support of the Sri Lankan government it was described by the government leader and the government media as a measure to safeguard the dignity of the armed forces. The same sentiments had been expressed in the posters put up in many parts of the country when President Sirisena was returning from the United Nations General Assembly last year. And the government led by the President has been boasting about international support after the new government took office due to its commitment towards upholding human rights.
The President’s remarks remind us of the way former President Rajapaksa handled some of the issues involving foreign relationships. He appointed the IIEGP and his Attorney General clashed with them. A week after the war ended in May 2009 Rajapaksa issued a joint communiqué with the UN Secretary General pledging actions towards accountability with respect to the alleged human rights violations during the war and backed down later inviting several UNHRC resolutions on Sri Lanka. He also promised “13 plus” to Indian leaders and later denied doing so. He rejected international involvement in the accountability process, but later appointed foreign experts to advice the Paranagama Commission.
Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe seems to have tried to strike a balance between the President’s remarks and the government’s commitment towards the UNHRC resolution. When Jon Snow of the Channel 4 questioned in an interview about the President’s statement on the foreign involvement, the Premier told “We have not ruled that out… We are standing by our commitment on the Geneva resolution. Also he had told our sister paper Sunday Times “We are not departing from the Geneva resolution….We will have participation by foreign judges. That is nothing new.”
At the Commonwealth Asia Regional seminar for parliamentarians in Colombo on Sunday the Premier put his points clearer. “We have no provision here to have foreign judges as much as in your countries and there are no provisions for foreign judges. But that does not preclude Commonwealth judges from “participation” in the process” he asserted. It is the “participation” of the foreign judges that is mentioned in the resolution.
UN Human Rights Chief is to meet the President tomorrow and there is every chance of the matter to be taken up, which might alleviate the doubts.
