08 Sep 2017
Sri
Lanka’s former military commander General Jagath Jayasuriya stands
accused of overseeing a litany of crimes during the island’s armed
conflict. The charges are grave. The lawyer who filed the case, renowned
prosecutor Carlos Castresana Fernandez, said the evidence is more
abundant than against Argentine General Jorge Rafael Videla and Chilean
General Augusto Pinochet. However, Jayasuriya’s hasty retreat to Sri
Lanka, where the government has offered him staunch protection from
prosecution, serves as a stark reminder that the island remains a haven
of impunity.
The case against the general is clear-cut. Detailed reports, from NGOs
and the United Nations, acknowledged that soldiers under his command
violated international law, systematically massacring tens of thousands.
Previously, he has repeatedly defended the military offensive and
claimed responsibility for orders to the frontline. Yet faced with the
lawsuits, Jayasuriya’s attempt to shirk responsibility for Sri Lankan
troops and reluctance to deny that any crimes took place indicate at the
very least that the general has serious questions to answer. His swift
return to Colombo speaks volumes of his confidence to answer the
charges.
The most worrying aspect of this case though is that Jayasuriya felt
that he could find safety from the charges in Sri Lanka, an island where
impunity continues to be the order of the day. As soon as he arrived,
he was welcomed by a fervent chorus of Sinhala nationalist voices
defending the general. It took just a matter of days for Sri Lanka’s
head of state Maithripala Sirisena to join it, reiterating his oft
announced pledge to never prosecute 'war heroes'. Sirisena was
unequivocal – no one, domestic or international, would be able to “to
lay a hand on General Jagath Jayasuriya or any other military
commander”.
Given the state’s long history of impunity, there is a justified
scepticism about the government’s willingness to reform amongst the
island’s Tamils. Jayasuriya was, after all, appointed as ambassador to
Brazil by the current regime. Sirisena’s comments will only add to the
disillusionment and resentment that has set in. The government’s refusal
even to investigate this one individual, especially with such ample and
compelling evidence, displays little confidence that it can
independently deal with the “widespread and systematic” crimes the UN
deemed to have taken place. It offers no hope to victims still seeking
justice in any other domestic mechanisms that Sri Lanka has offered.
Even if exercises such as the lauded Office of Missing Persons manages
to carry out credible enquiries and finds members of the military
responsible for enforced disappearances, the case of Jayasuriya shows
the government will remain unwilling to hold them to account. There is
simply no appetite for justice in the South.
However, the past week has revealed that when under pressure, cracks
will appear in the regime. Sarath Fonseka, the former head of the army
who himself bears command responsibility for the crimes committed,
stated he was willing to testify against his former colleague if legal
action were to take place. With the potential that the military may not
the stumbling block towards accountability that the government makes it
out to be, openings such as this should be capitalised on by the
international community. There is a clear avenue forward. When Sri Lanka
is under pressure, people will talk.
The backlash that Fonseka now faces showcases not only how deeply
Sinhala Buddhist nationalism is entrenched, but also the many ways in
which international pressure works. Civic legal action filed thousands
of miles away is enough to make the regime nervous and stoke Sinhala
Buddhist nationalism into a rabid defence of its military. Clearly,
international pressure pushes buttons in Colombo. But instead of
applying it on Sri Lanka forcefully, the international community has
chosen a path of polite engagement, hoping it will yield results.
Western nations, in particular, the EU, US and UK, must now admit that
the carrot before the stick approach has failed. It has led to faltering
on the path towards justice, a basic prerequisite to achieving
reconciliation, and instead bolstered the confidence of Sinhala Buddhist
nationalism. President Sirisena’s triumphalist comments last week,
bragging of GSP+ trade concessions and increased positive international
engagement, coupled with his stiff support for the military are a clear
marker of how emboldened Sinhala nationalists feel.
With frustration in the North-East growing, this failure to tackle
Sinhala Buddhist nationalism will only lead to more of the same
insecurity that fuelled the decades long ethnic conflict. The
international community must change tack and recognise that whilst Sri
Lanka’s apex political and military leaders remain unpunished,
instability will grow. Engagement with Sri Lanka should be on the basis
of forging a path towards justice. The massacres of 2009 were a defining
moment in the island’s history, and as the unfolding events in Myanmar
demonstrate, if left unchallenged they are an international blueprint
for committing mass atrocities without recourse. The crimes of
Mullivaikaal will not go away. They are too grave. And unless justice is
served, Sri Lanka’s ongoing lack of accountability will continue to be a
source of comfort for impunity around the world.