The value of face saving measures

by Jehan Perera

(July 13, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The events that took place last week outside and inside the UN office complex in Colombo reveal just how much the human rights advisory panel appointed by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has generated agitation within the Sri Lankan government.

From the outset itself, no sooner had the intention to appoint the advisory panel been announced, the governmentprotested against it as an unwarranted interference motivated by an antiSri Lanka agenda. The government’s fear has been that the advisory panel’smandate to look into human rights violations in the course of Sri Lanka’swar has an ulterior motive of being a precursor to the establishment ofa war crimes tribunal that will target them personally.

Last Tuesday the government’s conflict with the UN Secretary General took aturn for the worse when a popular government minister Wimal Weerawansa ledhis party supporters to demonstrate in front of the UN Office in protestagainst the setting up of the UN panel and demanding its abolition. Whenthese initial efforts obtained no positive response from the UN, he uppedthe stakes by announcing that he would fast unto death, and not take eitherfood or water, until the UN Secretary General agreed to abolish hisadvisory panel. For its part the government claimed that the Minister,although known to be very close to President Mahinda Rajapaksa, was actingindependently.

However, the government’s tacit consent for the demonstration was evidentin the demonstration being permitted within an area that was considered tobe high security. The government has not shown itself averse to breaking updemonstrations by opposition politicians. But on this occasion governmentspokespersons argued that peaceful demonstration was a right of people in ademocracy. The demonstrators may have exceeded their brief when they alsomade a forcible entry into the UN compound and kept the staff withinconfined for the better part of the first day. The police who came torestore law and order had to engage in scuffles with the demonstrators andthen beat a retreat at the behest of senior government officials.

The state media gave extensive coverage to the actions of MinisterWeerawansa. His were described as being as motivated by patriotism andself-sacrifice for the nation and for yet unborn generations. On the thirdday of the fast, it had become clear that there would be no favourabledecision by the UN or by other friendly countries that would lead to thedissolution of the UN Secretary General’s advisory panel as demanded by thefasting minister. This must have been disappointing to the Minister andhis party supporters who would have been mindful of the quarter of amillion votes he obtained at the last general elections which made him themost popular candidate from the Colombo district.

Government failure

There is a sense of insecurity that haunts the government. This is the spectre ofan international conspiracy against the government and its leadership thathas the backing of pro-LTTE sections of the diaspora Tamils. Despite theend of the war over a year ago, there has been no let up in theinternational pressure. UN Secretary General Ban Ki -moon and a plethoraof international human rights organizations make constant reference to theneed for Sri Lanka to deal with the issue of the past. The government hascome up with two responses to this international pressure. One is toaccuse the UN Secretary General of having a personal motivation. The otheris to keep nationalism alive in the country.

The acts of confrontation against the UN Office in Colombo might have hadthe support of nationalist sections of the population within Sri Lanka, butthey failed to win favour with any country in the world, not even Russianor China which have generally been sympathetic to the Sri Lankangovernment. There are also many others in the international community whomight agree with the Sri Lankan perception that the country has beenunfairly targeted for a human rights probe. But the Sri Lankan government’sfailure to even get the Non Aligned Movement of 170 countries to give astrong message of support to its position on the advisory panel is anindicator how far Sri Lanka has strayed from the mainstream.

Fortunately, Minister Weerawansa’s fate was unlike that of Bobby Sands inNorthern Ireland who was elected an MP. Instead of attending the BritishParliament which he was entitled to do and enjoying the perquisites of highoffice, he fasted for a hundred days till he died to protest againstBritish rule. When it became evident that the UN Secretary General was notgoing to disband his advisory panel at the behest of the Minister,President Mahinda Rajapaksa himself knelt on the platform on which theMinister lay and offered him a glass of water, which was taken. PresidentRajapaksa’s appearance on Friday at the site of the Minister’s fast, andthe offer of a glass of water, was a face saving way for him to come outof his predicament.

In a similar manner it is now within President Rajapaksa’s capacity toprovide UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon with a face saving way that he toocould end his controversial human rights initiative in Sri Lanka. Thiscould happen if the Sri Lankan government would itself investigate whathappened in the past in a credible manner, and also takes concrete steps toaddress the roots of the ethnic conflict that gave rise to the war throughpolitical reforms. Both these would, of course, require a considerableshift in attitude on the part of the government that has been acting as ifthe past can be blithely wiped out and forgotten and the present system ofgovernance is the best there is.

Enabling Environment

At present, it needs to be recognized that the issue of the UNadvisory panel on human rights has provided more fuel to the campaign ofnationalist sections of the polity who reject the notion of politicalreform to do justice by the ethnic minorities. It is therefore also likelythat the UN Secretary General now realizes better than he did before howhis notion of promoting accountability and reconciliation in Sri Lanka sosoon after the end of the war, and when the wounds are still fresh, hasfurther dimmed these prospects. The issue of inconsistent application ofstandards between big and small countries has also come to the fore.

The perception that the Western countries in particular have turned hostileto Sri Lanka, or at least to its government, has been used by both thegovernment and nationalist sections of the polity to persuade the generalpublic to be willing to make sacrifices for the country. During the periodof the war the government was able to induce the people to tolerate highdeath rates on the military battlefield and high rates of inflation inorder to achieve military victory over the LTTE. In the post-war periodwhen the LTTE is no more a threat, the attention of people has beendiverted to those actions of the international community which are aimed atpressuring the government to go in a direction it is not prepared to go.

It is on this ground of inconsistent and unfair targeting of Sri Lanka thatthe government has been able to mobilize the sentiments of the generalpopulation against the UN and international human rightsorganizations. Even that considerable section of the population who wouldbelieve that the government made a big mistake in permitting the incidentsat the UN office complex would hold the view that Sri Lanka’s leaders arebeing unfairly singled out for punitive action by the Western countries andnow by the UN itself. If the UN Secretary General is primarily motivatedby the desire to bring a genuine accounting for the past and reconciliationbased on it, he will be receptive to any positive initiatives by the SriLankan government in that direction.

An improvement in the human rights condition of a country can best comeabout when the majority of people and the government of a country are ableto deal with those issues themselves. Peace in a situation of conflict canonly come about through negotiations when the parties to the conflict areprepared for it and want it, as in the case of the Northern Ireland peaceaccord. The same holds true for human rights. There has to be internalagreement and willingness of the people of the country, and theirgovernment, to accept the applicability of international human rightsprinciples in governance. To the extent that the government can provide anenabling environment for the protection and upholding of internationalhuman rights, the UN and the international community will have no need tokeep on intervening in Sri Lanka’s internal affairs.