A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Search This Blog
Back to 500BC.
==========================
Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Nations
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Tuesday, June 27, 2017
OMP passage revives hope of reconciliation process
By Jehan Perera-June 27, 2017, 12:00 pm
The
unanimous passage through Parliament of the amendment to the law that
establishes the Office of Missing Persons has revived the hope that the
government will give priority to inter-ethnic reconciliation. The
formation of the Government of National Unity has provided an unique
opportunity to obtain a bipartisan political consensus that encompasses
the two main political parties in the country, and indeed the larger
polity, to deal with the country’s longest standing unresolved
problem—its ethnic conflict. The Office of Missing Persons (OMP) was one
of the four reconciliation mechanisms that the government promised to
the international community in Geneva in October 2015. This was the
landmark event that turned the international community from being a
critic of Sri Lanka’s reconciliation policies to being a supporter.
The political significance of the passage of the OMP amendment bill
unanimously in Parliament is two-fold. It shows that when the UNP and
SLFP together decide on a course of action, the rest of the polity will
tend to fall in line. Although the Joint Oppositions is opposed to
virtually everything that the government does in a knee jerk manner, it
too went along with the OMP amendment bill. This indicates that it is
not opposed in principle to the first of the reconciliation mechanisms.
This promises that the passage of the other reconciliation mechanisms in
parliament in a consensual manner will not be impossible. On the other
hand, the long delay since August last year to get the amendment passed
shows that obtaining consensus takes time. But when this consensus is
achieved the objectives can be achieved too.
The passage of the OMP bill in August 2016, which was to establish the
first of the reconciliation mechanisms was a controversial political
event. It took place amidst an uproar in Parliament where the opposition
denounced the proposed law as paving the way for information collection
that could be used in future war crimes prosecutions of the country’s
security forces. Amidst the controversy the bill was passed without the
opposition getting the opportunity to vote on it. They were more
preoccupied in creating disturbance in Parliament than in the process of
voting, knowing that they would be outnumbered by the coalition of UNP
and SLFP members from the Government of National Unity. However, the
willingness of the Joint Opposition to go along with the OMP amendment
bill suggests that they too now accept the need for this reconciliation
mechanism.
JVP SUPPORT
The government’s failure to operationalise the OMP law and set up the
institution has led to a loss of confidence in the government on the
part of the Tamil community. The problem however arose when in the
government’s hurry to push through the legislation in August 2016, it
overlooked an amendment that had been proposed by the opposition JVP.
After the passage of the OMP bill in August 2016, the government faced
two problems. The first was that the JVP which had been supportive of
the idea of an OMP was not willing to accept the fait accompli. They
insisted that their amendment which sought to deny the OMP of forging
agreements with foreign entities be incorporated into the OMP law.
Although the JVP has been very critical of the government with regard to
issues of corruption and the economy, it has been a valuable ally to
the government in terms of dealing with the past human rights
violations.
The JVP has helped to legitimize the concept of an OMP amongst the
people by reference to the fate that their own members suffered in the
context of the two abortive JVP insurrections of 1971 and 1988-89. As
the victims in those two horrific episodes were Sinhalese the JVP has
performed the task of helping the general population see the OMP in a
non-ethnic light. The major sources of popular skepticism with regard to
the four reconciliation mechanisms that the government promised is the
feeling that it is for the Tamil people rather than for all the people
in the country.
At the UN Human Rights Council the government promised to set up a truth
commission, an Office of Missing Persons, an Office of Reparations and a
special judicial accountability mechanism. So far the farthest that the
government has gone in terms of the four reconciliation mechanisms it
has promised has been to pass legislation on the Office of Missing
Persons. The other reconciliation mechanisms are reported to be in a
final draft stage, but have not yet surfaced. Discussions at different
levels of society reveal that those from the Sinhalese community feel
that the reconciliation mechanisms are for the Tamil people and not for
them. This is felt especially with regard to the proposed special
judicial mechanism to look into war crimes. The sentiment expressed by
Sinhalese participants in awareness programmes on the reconciliation
mechanisms is that they target the Sri Lankan security forces and do not
deal with what the LTTE did.
PRESIDENT’S CONCERN
This brings to focus the second reason why the implementation of the OMP
law remained in a state of limbo after the law was passed in August
2016. The OMP needed to be gazetted and to be assigned to a specific
government ministry. However, the signature of President Maithripala
Sirisena was not forthcoming. As the commander-in-chief of the Sri
Lankan armed forces an as the Minister of Defence, the President has a
direct relationship with the security forces. Their concerns were
expressed in a 14 page document submitted to the President by the
Ministry of Defence which was strongly critical of the OMP and its
consequences. The president was unwilling to gazette the OMP in these
circumstances.
The main concern of the security forces is that the OMP will turn out to
be a fact finding body which would collect information that will be
utilized for purposes of war crimes trials. The issue of anticipated war
crimes trials has taken the center stage in the discussion on the four
reconciliation mechanisms. Whether it is the OMP, Office of Reparations,
Truth Commission or Special Court they are all seen as collecting
information that will be used to humiliate and punish the security
forces. The unwillingness of the government to engage in a public
education campaign on what the four reconciliation mechanisms entail has
led to all sorts of fears about war crimes trials.
The stories of widows of armed forces personnel expressing fears that
they will be denied their widows pensions, and of children of soldiers
being teased in school that their fathers will be arrested has led to
widespread antipathy amongst the Sinhalese people to the reconciliation
mechanisms. On the other hand, if Sinhalese people are given an
explanation of the reconciliation mechanisms, and are assured it will
not target the Sinhalese only as perpetrators, and that the Sinhalese
also have been victims, they will be willing to be supportive of the
reconciliation processes. This is why it is important that all
reconciliation mechanisms should have a longer time frame that spans the
different conflicts rather than a shorter time period. A longer time
frame will better show that all communities have been victims at
different times, of the state and of the rebels.