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, July 18, 2017
Make a start with reparations to deal with the past
By Jehan Perera-July 17, 2017, 8:35 pm
The
visit of UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism
Ben Emmerson to Sri Lanka and his public comments indicate a visible
toughening of the stance of the international community with regard to
delivering on its promises on the reconciliation process to the UN Human
Rights Council. He said Sri Lanka could face a range of measures,
including a referral to the UN Security Council, if it fails to meet
commitments it made under the UNHRC resolution of 2015. He said that
there was little evidence that perpetrators of war crimes were being
brought to justice and that progress had come to a virtual halt. There
is a question of credibility of the UN system if countries can make
promises to the UN which they subsequently fail to keep.
The government’s decision to co-sponsor the UNHRC resolution in 2015 was
an expression of a policy shift which took the government away from
confrontation with the international community and with the Tamil polity
in the country. The previous government headed by President Mahinda
Rajapaksa began to treat the international community led by the Western
countries as a virtual enemy, and viewed the Tamil people with suspicion
even after the war ended. With the change of government in 2015,
however, the relationship of the government with the international
community and Tamil polity took an immediate turn for the better. Even
though the government has failed to keep its promises to the UN and to
the Tamil people, it is important not to lose sight of the policy shift
that has taken place.
However, the slow implementation of measures to address the legacy of
the past, as pledged by the government in the UNHRC resolution of 2015,
has been a major source of disillusionment to those who placed their
faith in the government. The UN Special Rapporteur said that ‘retrograde
elements in the security establishment and their allies’ in the
government were trying to undermine post-war reconciliation process and
attributed the inordinate delay in the implementation of the Geneva
Resolution 30/1 to them. The failure of the government to operationalize
the Office of Missing Persons, which was passed into law in August 2016
has been explained on the basis that it is being resisted by the
defense establishment. The government’s proposed reconciliation
mechanisms, including the Truth Commission, are also stalled on the
basis that they will provide evidence that can be used at war crimes
trials.
GOVERNMENT FEARS
The UN Special Rapporteur said that "Two years on and already four
months into a two-year extension granted to the government by the Human
Rights Council the progress in achieving the key goals set out in the
Geneva Resolution is not only slow but seems to have ground to a virtual
halt. None of the measures so far adopted to fulfill Sri Lanka’s
transitional justice commitments are adequate to ensure real progress
and there is little evidence that perpetrators of war crimes committed
by members of the Sri Lankan armed forces are being brought to justice."
He also noted that Sri Lanka had promised to discuss the proposed
Counter Terrorism Act (CTA) in place of the PTA and bring in required
changes before being presented for parliamentary approval. But this has
yet to happen.
The problem for the government in following the proposed course of
action spelt out by the UN Special Rapporteur is that it feeds into
opposition political propaganda. The opposition is claiming that the
government is caving into international pressure that will jeopardise
the gains obtained through the military victory over the LTTE and will
undermine the morale of the security forces and thereby weaken the unity
of the country. The unwillingness of the government to take on this
controversial issue is at the root of the blockage of the reconciliation
process. The government has stepped back from implementing the
commitments it made in Geneva in 2015 mainly for these reasons,
including the concern that expressed by the security forces that these
mechanisms will be used to gather information about the past that could
be used in future war crimes trials.
However, the course of action presented by the UN Special Rapporteur is
not the only one that is being pushed by the international community.
Last week the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) which is
the UN agency mandated to look into the issue of reparations in Sri
Lanka held a workshop on its work on reparations for victims of
conflict. During the meeting, IOM representatives discussed the key
points and future plans to support the national stakeholders toward the
development and implementation of a comprehensive reparations mechanism.
One of the commitments made by the government in Geneva in 2015 was to
establish an Office of Reparations. The ideal of reparation is to
restore victims to their original state as far as possible.
ALTERNATIVE COURSE
One of the points made by IOM’s experts on reparations was that
reparations is the most inclusive of all the reconciliation mechanisms
that the government has promised. Everyone who has been a victim is
entitled to reparations. Many people may not be willing to come and give
evidence before a Truth Commission or before a Special Court set up to
deal with war crimes. They may not be prepared, or be too fearful, to go
before those bodies and have to confront those who perpetrated crimes
against them as in the case of special war crimes courts. They may also
not be prepared to go before a Truth Commission and relive their past.
However, where reparations are concerned, the victims do not have to
confront those who did wrong by them. Nor will they be required to speak
up before the general public and before commissioners.
Victims can receive reparations on the basis of already existing
evidence. The advantage of reparations is that they can be determined
administratively, and not through a legal process where the burden of
providing evidence lies with the victim. A further advantage of
reparations is that they can be offered in multiple ways. Reparations
can come in the form of regaining access to their lost lands and
properties, houses, livelihoods, psychosocial support and information on
missing persons. They can be provided on a priority basis to war
orphans, female headed households and those who have been subjected to
torture and sexual abuse. The disproportionate expenditures on special
courts in comparison to providing compensation to victims is a factor to
be kept in mind. In Sierra Leone it cost USD 200 million over 7 years
to convict 24 persons. But the Sierra Leone government only paid out USD
13 million to 32,000 victims who were identified by its Truth
Commission.
Although the visiting UN special rapporteur emphasized issues of
accountability which fall within his mandate, it would be more practical
and beneficial to victims to start the process of implementation of the
UNHRC resolution through reparations. It is reported that drafts of the
mechanisms that the government promised it would implement to the UNHRC
in 2015, such as the Truth Commission and the Office of Reparations are
prepared. But they are not being presented to either Parliament or the
public. The paralysis that has set in is harming the government’s
credibility. The strictures passed on the government by the UN special
rapporteur is a clear indication that the international community wants
the government to act on its promises. The Office of Reparations can be
set up speedily to assuage the concerns that the government is
backtracking on its commitments.