SEARCH

Opinion » Comment

Updated: September 11, 2013 00:23 IST

A trip over its own feet

Nirupama Subramanian
Comment (5)   ·   print   ·   T  T  
MUCH TO DO: While Sri Lanka has taken some steps towards reconciliation, which Ms Pillay noted, it still has a long way to go.
AP MUCH TO DO: While Sri Lanka has taken some steps towards reconciliation, which Ms Pillay noted, it still has a long way to go.

It is in Sri Lanka's own long-term interests to engage constructively with the many concerns raised by Navanethem Pillay during her recent visit there

As the U.N. Human Rights Council meets once again in Geneva this month, the portents for Sri Lanka are not promising. Later in this session (which began on September 9 and will run until September 27), U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanethem Pillay will make an oral presentation on Sri Lanka’s human rights situation based on her recent visit to the country. She is to make a written submission in March 2014.

Some credit

Ms Pillay undertook the visit on an invitation from the Sri Lankan government to see for herself the progress that the country has made on post-war reconciliation. The invitation was made against the background of two resolutions on Sri Lanka in the HRC in two successive years. At the end of her week-long visit, she acknowledged the government’s “excellent co-operation” in the planning and execution of a “complex mission,” her longest in any country, and praised it for honouring its commitment that she could go anywhere and meet anyone.

Most of her other observations, though, were nowhere near as complimentary. In a statement to the media in Colombo at the end of her visit, the U.N. official gave more than a hint of what her presentation in Geneva might contain. Ms Pillay’s bombshell conclusion from her week-long visit was that Sri Lanka was moving in an “increasingly authoritarian direction.”

Overreach

Sri Lanka, which has been urged by the HRC to carry out a credible investigation into allegations of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in the final stages of the war against the LTTE in 2009, has chosen to respond officially by accusing the U.N. of bias, denouncing Ms Pillay for making “political statements” and accusing her of mission overreach.

Foreign Minister G.L. Peiris dubbed Ms. Pillay as being “unfair, wrong and biased,” and said her statement showed a “disturbing absence of balance.” After a meeting between her and Mahinda Rajapaksa, a statement from the President’s office said many Sri Lankans thought of the U.N. as a “pessimistic organisation,” and that Ms Pillay’s report would contain “prejudged matters.” And in a speech to constituents not long after her departure, Mr. Rajapaksa said he wondered how anybody could describe a country that holds elections regularly — a round of provincial elections is being held on September 21, in the north-western, central and for the first time, in the Tamil Northern province — as authoritarian.

Ms Pillay’s concern though was not about the regularity of elections, but, as she made amply clear, with the governance deficit that directly and adversely affects or violates people’s rights. And it was not as if she had to put herself out to find the evidence — even while she was in Sri Lanka, the military questioned several people she met and spoke to in Trincomalee and Mullaithivu. Describing such surveillance and harassment as unacceptable conduct at any time and “extraordinary” while a U.N. rights official was visiting, she was clear she would report the matter to the HRC. Sure enough, in her opening speech at the 24th session on Monday, she flagged her concern about this.

Differing only in the details and emphasis, her overall message to Sri Lanka was no different from what even friends of the Rajapaksa government at home and abroad have been saying in more diplomatic language since 2009: the end of the war is an opportunity; use it wisely — as Ms Pillay wished Sri Lanka had done — to construct a new “all-embracing” state.

This was also the message in the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) that President Rajapaksa appointed in 2010, and whose report the government commendably made public. Notably, both the 2012 and 2013 HRC resolutions praised the LLRC’s recommendations as constructive, though they stressed that it did not go far enough in recommending actions for transitional justice.

Not enough

Sri Lanka has implemented some of those recommendations, and Ms Pillay noted that, but not enough for substantive progress. It was only a week before the U.N. official’s mission that the government finally appointed a presidential commission to investigate disappearances in the North and East; some land the military had taken over for its high security zones more than two decades ago has been returned to owners; and the Northern province is all set to get its first elected provincial government later this month. But there is no move to investigate allegations that the military deliberately bombed civilian safe havens in the final days of the war. The military still retains an overwhelming presence in the North and East. And the government is seriously considering diluting devolution of powers to provinces, which will undermine what little autonomy provincial assemblies in the Tamil areas are granted by the Constitution’s 13th amendment.

Aside from this, the government has been at best an observer to new emerging fault lines between the majority community and religious minorities even as old ones wait to be addressed. The media feels intimidated after killings and disappearances of journalists; the “white van” phenomenon, long associated with disappearances, is back in southern Sri Lanka even as families in the North and East still cope with a missing son, husband or father.

Ms Pillay made the point that roads and other post-war reconstruction of physical infrastructure, and the resettlement of people on the scale that the Sri Lankan government undertook are commendable achievements, but cannot by themselves bring reconciliation or lasting peace.

Dismissing such concerns as the creation of a biased international system, or of the “LTTE’s agents” within it, has been Sri Lanka’s standard response to any criticism from within or outside the country.

In this instance, Ms Pillay’s Indian Tamil heritage became a point of debate and suspicion. The highly respected 72-year-old South African jurist was accused of being a “Tamil Tigress,” a “tool” of western powers, and an agent of India’s Research & Analysis Wing. One minister was crass enough to declare he wanted to marry her so that he could take her on a trip around the country to teach her Sri Lanka’s history.

Usually, those targeted in this manner have preferred to shrug it off diplomatically. Unexpectedly, in her official statement, Ms Pillay hit out at the aggressive personalisation of her mission as “deeply offensive”; and disappointingly for her detractors, described the LTTE as a “murderous” organisation whose acts the Tamil community should not glorify.

The best course for Colombo would be to understand and address the range of concerns expressed by Ms Pillay. True, the U.N. is not the most perfect organisation, and the international order is stacked against weaker nations. But that does not mean the issues she raised do not exist. Indeed, it is in Sri Lanka’s own long-term interests of reconciliation and lasting peace that it deals with these issues — the earlier, the better. The first step in this would be the conduct of a free and fair election in the Northern Province later this month, and thereafter, allowing the elected government to function without attempts to undermine its powers.

nirupama.s@thehindu.co.in

More In: Comment | Opinion

Even if someone from totally different ethnic origin had been the UN representative, Sri
Lankan government would have rejected the report; so it is not surprising that they take
refuge in blaming her Tamil ethnicity in damning her report as biased. If their stance continue s
to be recalcitrant refusing freedom of speech, imposition of surveillance and denial of
devolution power, they are doing so at their own peril. The uprising in the first place started
with the rejection and purging of Tamils systematcally from the mainstream administration
and denial of their merit based representation in government after SriLanka's independence.
Improving the physical amenities, but suppressing their self esteem and intellectual and
emotional aspirations is nothing but shackles, as indicated by Navi Pillai. The embers of
humiliation suffered both before and after the civil war, need to be quenched by policies of
equality and recognition and not oxygenated with 'apartheid' like policies.

from:  M.R.Sampath
Posted on: Sep 13, 2013 at 16:32 IST

Ms.Navi Pillay with his rich Truth and Rconciliation background of South Africa is a right person to offer wise counsel to Sri lanka.If she failed in her peace and reconciliation efforts in Srilanka, it is beacause of failed indian diplomacy there.Sri lanka is not willing to treat her tamil citizens on par with their fellow singalese brethern.If Sri lanka persists in her policy, the division of the Island is inevitable in course of time.Sri Lanka belongs to Tamils as well.Tamils in Sri lanka should live in peace with their fellow singalese like in India, Malayasia and Singapore,where different ethnic groups live in peace and involved in the progress and development of them.Wisdom should dawan to them before late.

from:  Balasundaram
Posted on: Sep 11, 2013 at 16:21 IST


There is a raging debate going on in Sri Lanka about the parting
statement made by Ms. Pillai. Rational discourse has taken a back seat
while most of the responses have been coloured by emotional reactions.
Ms. Pillai has described the LTTE as a murderous and that the diaspora
should not be glorifying it. will the diaspora take note? There is a
crucial election taking place in Northern Sri Lanka which could change
the trajectory of politics in the country if the TNA plays its cards
well instead of acting in a typically jingoistic manner as it did
during the course of the war. The Rajapakse government faces its real
test this time for in the Southern parts of the country it has faced
no real opposition and has had its way - a cake walk all this time.
Now there is a real opportunity to build a credible opposition to its
rule and challenge its authority as well as highlight the needs of the
Tamil community who have for over 3 decades been mired in darkeness.

from:  K. Vareeswaran
Posted on: Sep 11, 2013 at 14:21 IST

Good to hear such bold statements from Sri Lanka. If it is so confident, let it come out with a clear transparent way to showcase that no war crime happened in its regime. Let it open its door for a mutually agreeable international panel to probe this matter.
Its women and Children who suffer the most in any war. This inturn reflects in the future society. It is v important the UN takes note of this and act. I wish Obama gives importance to this matter first before going to Syria.

from:  Ansari
Posted on: Sep 11, 2013 at 12:01 IST

Navi Pillai was invited by Srilankan Government to see the progress the country has made in post-war reconciliation. Probably Srilankan Government has meant materialistic progress and not progress in free speech, equality and fair play. Next time if Navi Pillay makes her visit she should unserstand the scope of the invitation in order not to get disappointed as this time.

from:  Syed
Posted on: Sep 11, 2013 at 10:19 IST
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor


O
P
E
N

close

Recent Article in Comment

THINK BIG: With a reinvigorated level of ambition and greater confidence, India and the U.S. can go beyond modest and conventional goals.

Forward and together in progress

Narendra Modi and Barack Obama talk about a renewed U.S.-India partnership for the 21st century »