Political Commentary

Sri Lanka ended its first week after coordinated terror attacks in six locations left more than 250 killed and 500 injured without any further attacks.  But the country remained in a state of semi-paralysis with people fearful about going to their workplaces in urban areas and to crowded places such as shopping centres and markets.  Schools also remain closed.  Some foreign embassies even ordered the evacuation of children and asked their staff not to report to work.  After churches and hotels were attacked people do not know what the next target will be.

The series of bombings that took place in Sri Lanka on Easter Sunday in the morning hours as the Christians prepared to celebrate this day came as a terrible shock.  When the first reports came in of churches being attacked and then the hotels it came seemed like a bad dream.  Although the country had experienced some significant anti-Muslim rioting in 2014 and 2018, the previous ten years since the end of the war had been free of terror attacks.  Besides the death toll in those incidents had been small, no more than four or five.  The scale of the attacks in this case was unprecedented.  Not even during the country’s three decade long war had coordinated and deadly attacks taken place simultaneously in so many different locations with such a high level of casualties.  So far about 300 people have been reported to have died and 500 injured.

The cloud of accountability that has dogged Sri Lanka since the end of the war has begun to spread. There was warning of this reality when the UN Human Rights Commissioner in her March 2019 report on Sri Lanka made a recommendation that the international community should utilize the principle of universal jurisdiction to bring to book members of the Sri Lankan state who had allegations of serious human rights violations against them. The High Commissioner justified this recommendation on the basis that Sri Lanka had not taken sufficient action with regard to resolving any of the emblematic human rights cases, including the assassination of former newspaper editor Lasantha Wickremetunge. There was also a list of about twenty other cases that she listed, including ones in which there were multiple victims.

The appointment last week of commissioners to the Office for Reparation, an independent authority created by the Office for Reparations Act passed in parliament on 9 October 2018, has been the second step of the transitional justice mechanisms for reconciliation process agreed upon by the government and international community.  It took place shortly after the conclusion of the UN Human Rights Council session in Geneva, and is an indication of the government’s continued commitment to the implementation of the resolution of the UNHRC that it agreed to in October 2015 and co-sponsored at the cost of much opposition criticism. The responsibility of the Office for Reparation is to identify aggrieved victims qualified for reparation and provide appropriate compensation individually or collectively to them.  The office will commence its functions with the appointment of Commissioners.

When President Maithripala Sirisena first took up the challenge of tackling the country’s drug problem its critics saw it as an idiosyncratic exercise that would soon fizzle out. The president’s championing of the death penalty made it seem to be more an individual rather than as a collective position of the government. Although Sri Lanka has had the death penalty in its laws, and public opinion surveys show popular backing for it, the death penalty has not been implemented for over four decades. The Buddhist ethos that is dominant in the country is one in which the taking of life is not condoned. In addition, the country has ratified international agreements in which the spirit is to protect human life under all circumstances.

When President Maithripala Sirisena first took up the challenge of tackling the country’s drug problem its critics saw it as an idiosyncratic exercise that would soon fizzle out. The president’s championing of the death penalty made it seem to be more an individual rather than as a collective position of the government. Although Sri Lanka has had the death penalty in its laws, and public opinion surveys show popular backing for it, the death penalty has not been implemented for over four decades. The Buddhist ethos that is dominant in the country is one in which the taking of life is not condoned. In addition, the country has ratified international agreements in which the spirit is to protect human life under all circumstances.

As anticipated, the latest UN Human Rights Council Resolution on Sri Lanka, 40/1 of March 2019, was a rollover of Resolution 30/1 of 2015. Sri Lanka was given its second two year extension, the previous extension having been given in March 2017. The latest extension contains appreciation for what Sri Lanka has achieved since it committed itself to implementing the pledges made in October 2015. The resolution recognizes and welcomes “the strong role played by democratic institutions in Sri Lanka in the peaceful resolution of the political situation that arose in Sri Lanka from October to December 2018…the establishment of the Office on Missing Persons in September 2017 and the appointment of its commissioners in February 2018, and the assumption of its work to fully implement its mandate” and notes other steps taken “including the progress made towards establishing an office on reparations and the submission to cabinet of a concept paper on a bill to establish a truth and reconciliation commission.”

The presentation of the Report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka’ will take place at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) on 20 March 2019. Some of the recommendations contained in this report are contentious ones. They will not be viewed favourably by the majority of people in Sri Lanka. One of these calls for the setting up of a hybrid court to look into war crimes allegations. Such hybrid courts, which include international judges, are set up where the justice system (and the country itself) has largely collapsed, which is not the case in Sri Lanka. Another recommendation calls on the international community to apply the principle of universal jurisdiction on Sri Lankans accused of crimes such as torture, enforced disappearance and war crimes.

The report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights would give an indication of the forthcoming decision of the UN Human Rights Council with regards to its resolution on Sri Lanka. The report is primarily a fact based one. Almost every assertion made is backed by evidence. Particularly damning are the large number of cases given in which serious human rights violations and crimes took place, but which have got stalled somewhere or other in the legal system. Examples would be the murder of Wasim Thajudeen, Sri Lanka’s Rugby captain, and Lasantha Wickrematunge, the editor of the Sunday Leader newspaper. There are some assertions however that can be contested. One such is the assertion that the security forces, when they withdraw from land they have occupied, destroy the buildings of the people and leave behind only a flattened landscape for the people to return to.

Although decisive presidential elections are only nine months away political mobilization is not taking place at the mass level at the present time. This accounts for the fact that the main sideshow for the past several weeks is about the detection of large consignments of narcotics and the arrest of drug dealers, most of whom appear to be the agents of others who have still to be apprehended. There is the added distraction of a parliamentarian going public and alleging that several of his fellow parliamentarians are themselves taking drugs. Instead of mass mobilization for political victory, the political meetings being organised are on a small scale and meant for party cadres who will take the propaganda messages to the people when the time comes.

The commencement of the UN Human Rights Council session this week has prompted the government to give renewed attention to post-war issues to which the international community has given its attention. President Maithripala Sirisena has said that Sri Lanka is considering withdrawing its co-sponsorship of the October 2015 resolution at the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council which wants the government to address accountability issues, including alleged violations of human rights during the final phase of the military operations to defeat the LTTE. The president had earlier promoted the idea prior to attending the UN General Assembly last September that Sri Lanka should withdraw from its commitments to the UNHRC resolution that was co-sponsored by the government. On the other side of the divide, a hartal and shutdown of Tamil areas in the North and East is taking place to protest against the government’s delay in implementing its Geneva commitments.

President Maithripala Sirisena has been joined by former president Mahinda Rajapaksa and by other opposition members in denouncing the institution of the Constitutional Council and the independent commissions established under the 19th Amendment. They have attributed many ill effects as flowing from these institutions. These include repeatedly defying the president’s wishes, being corrupt, creating chaos, being partial to members of minority religions and even of being culpable for the death of Sri Lankan soldiers on a peacekeeping mission on behalf of the UN. Underlying these criticisms is their frustration that the power of elected politicians is being restricted.

One of the fallouts of the political crisis that occurred towards the end of last year in October was the mobilization of civil society groups that engaged in discussion and debate about the constitutional propriety of the president’s decision to sack the prime minister and dissolve parliament. As the new prime minister and his government took swift action to take control and oust their rivals from all official positions, the president’s decision seemed irreversible in political terms, but was reversed by the judiciary through reference to the constitution. This created a new interest in the constitution and its importance in the governance of the country. This interest continues four months later.

Sri Lanka enters its 71st year of Independence with political uncertainty in the air. The only certainty is that 2019 will be a year of elections. Presidential elections have to be held in November. There is a likelihood that provincial and general elections will be held either before or soon after the presidential elections depending on the calculations of the government that is in power.

The issue of the Leader of the Opposition’s position once again came to the fore when it was brought up in parliament last week by TNA leader R Sampanthan. This issue seem to have been resolved when Speaker Karu Jayasuriya issued a ruling earlier this month that the UPFA’s Mahinda Rajapaksa would be the opposition leader. Parliament, the media and majority opinion seem to have taken this decision in their stride as the right and proper one. Certainly the UPFA is much larger in numbers than the TNA, both in parliament and outside parliament, and more vociferous in their opposition to whatever the government is doing.

In March this year Sri Lanka will report back to the UN Human Rights Council on its implementation of Resolution No 30/1 which it co-sponsored in October 2015. This is not going to be an easy session for the country as there is a considerable amount of international dissatisfaction with the slow pace of progress. This report back will be important as it will determine whether or not international scrutiny of the country on human rights issues will continue or come to an end. However, during the past three and a half years the government has implemented several of the commitments it made in terms of the resolution it co-sponsored. These include establishing an office of missing persons, legalizing the international conventions against torture and enforced disappearances and returning military occupied land to the civilian population.