by Satheesan Kumaaran
The views expressed at the author's own (September 18, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) If the US can deny a visa to undemocratic government officials in Iran, why cannot the US refuse a visa to Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa? Rajapaksa, considered a war criminal, is scheduled to take part in the United Nations’ annual general session which is to be held next week commencing September 20 in New York. The US itself has condemned the Sri Lankan government over the last week’s 18th constitutional amendment, as being a step towards dictatorship. So why should the US entertain him in their country?
The Sri Lankan parliament introduced the 18th amendment, giving greater powers to the President and enabling a third term of office, to its constitution on September 8th with little or no public discussion or debate. Even the judicial court said that the parliament could pass the 18th amendment as long as the parliament gets two third majority, and the government managed to get the two third majority with 161 MPs voted in favour while 17 members voted against it in the 225-member parliament.
President Mahinda Rajapaksa himself did not respect the 17th amendment which came into effect in 2001 following the 13th amendment, which was introduced with the India-Sri Lanka peace accord. However, the successive Sinhala government never fulfilled the clauses mentioned in 13th or 17th amendments. Now, Mahinda Rajapaksa adopted the 18th amendment, which could keep Rajapaksa in office until at least 2022. Other changes include a reform of various councils and commissions, such as Sri Lanka’s national police commission, an anti-briberies council, national human rights commission and electoral commissions.
Sri Lanka’s main opposition parties opposed the move by Rajapaksa, but he did not give much importance to them. The Opposition parties have accused the President of paying millions of dollars to some opposition MPs or got them threatened to vote in favor of adopting the constitutional changes.
After ending the 30-year old war with the Tamils by inflicting heavy casualties among Tamil civilians and after incarcerating tens of thousands of Tamils, and after introducing such an a authoritarian nature of amendment to the Constitution, and after challenging the UN over their move to investigate the human rights issues during the war times, President Rajapaksa is on his way to New York to take part in the UN session. This will legitimize the Sri Lankan President giving him credibility, who human rights activists feel should be investigated and prosecuted for the war crimes and other crimes against humanity.
Victory for Rajapaksa, failure of the international community
Heavy criticism from the international community, human rights activists and some western countries raising their voices to initiate an investigation into the numerous Sri Lankan human rights issues, with over 30,000 Tamils were murdered in matter of days during the final phase of Eelam War IV seem to be of no avail. During the final stages of the war, the Sri Lankan armed forces were given orders by the government leaders to shoot the LTTE political activists who surrendered with white flags after laying their arms down and “finish them off”. All these violations are against the UN Charter.
Despite allegations of war crimes, Sri Lanka’s government has managed to avoid an independent inquiry. But the evidence continues to mount. BBC Channel 4 News, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and dozens of other international groups are showcasing the nature of the war crimes with video footage and other evidence collected during the commission of these war crimes. But, Sri Lanka is doing its best to exert pressure upon the UN and other leading global powers, including the U.S. which were openly vocal in demanding an international investigation, to give up their demands to punish Sri Lanka. Rather, Sri Lanka is expecting the global powers to forget and forgive the past, and invite the international community to do business with Sri Lanka. Just to hoodwink the Tamils and human rights activists, Ban-ki Moon is meeting the expert panel this week, as this move would calm down the countries which are urging the UN to investigate the war crime charges.
A year has passed since the Eelam War 1V ended, and hundreds of thousands of Tamils had been incarcerated, and over 7,000 either former LTTE cadres or supporters are still detained in undisclosed locations under army controlled prisons. After hand-picking several Tamil youths, the government said that they are sending these youths for rehabilitation centers and later will be released. But, the news coming from the ground is totally contrary to what the government is claiming.
Sources on the ground say that, after releasing the Tamil youths, especially after providing photos to the media showing that these youths are being rehabilitated and released, they are again arrested by the Sri Lanka’s security forces and their whereabouts made unknown.
In this context, Rajapaksa’s visit to New York will definitely give credibility to a war criminal and others who are responsible for war crimes, and especially since he is now a dictator.
Ms Charu Lata Hogg, who works for Chatham House’s Asia Programme, said in regard to the 18th amendment that she is worried about Sri Lanka’s national commission for human rights violations: “It is supposed to document and investigate human rights violations against the people of Sri Lanka. But how effective will it be when the council will be appointed by the president himself? What happens if it is asked to investigate violations by the government or the president?”
She further said: “The international community seems to be reluctant in breaking ties with Sri Lanka ….The EU is quite firm in its criticism, but the US is not very clear. They’ve shown support in the war on the Tamil Tigers, but they have also criticized Sri Lanka’s poor human rights record.”
She further said: “The government is stirring up patriotism, saying the West is against the people of Sri Lanka…One example is the heavy protest after the UN announced an independent investigation earlier this year into possible war crimes during the final stages of the Tamil Tigers war…With Mr Rajapaksa’s current popularity, it’s not that difficult at all to mobilize the people.”
On September 2010 in Vienna (Austria) at a meeting at their Annual General Assembly, the International Press Institute (IPI) members unanimously adopted a resolution calling on the Sri Lankan President to restore press freedom to the country. Its members observed with concern recent constitutional amendments which would have adverse repercussions on the ability of the media to act in a free and fair manner. The unprecedented power which has been introduced through the amendments on the Executive would impact on the ability of free media in their work. The additional powers would allow the Executive to seek election to office for an unlimited time outside the two term period that was in force prior to the amendment is but one factor.
The IPI also said that the government's hostility to dissent and the impunity with which it operates by intimidating free media has led to self censorship. The recent spate of court actions and the use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act to incarcerate journalists has been condemned. The IPI is also dismayed by attacks and the murdering of journalists in Sri Lanka. None of these criminal acts have been successfully investigated. The murders of IPI World Press Freedom Hero, Lasantha Wickrematunge, and many others, are yet to be solved, although the government has pledged to do so. It is now more than 18 months since Lasantha’s murder took place. The disappearance of Prageeth Eknaligoda is another case that has not been investigated conclusively. The killers are obvious to any person with an iota of common sense.
Is it possible for the US to arrest or why didn’t refuse entry to Rajapaksa?
It is unlikely that the US will arrest and detain the Sri Lankan President unless he does not hold a green card or U.S. citizenship. When dealing with the citizens of other countries, the U.S. has the right to reject entry of Rajapaksa to New York. However, the U.S. is required to grant a visa to UN member states' officials to take part in UN meetings notwithstanding their political misdemeanors. A classic example is how the U.S. denied visas for the Iranian officials despite the requirement to issue visas for UN member states leaders to take part in the UN sessions. However, visas were denied to the speaker of the parliament of Iran and a number of Iranian officials who were invited by the U.N. to take part at the Speakers of Parliaments organized by the U.N. in New York which was held for two days from September 7, 2005. According to the State Department, the decision to deny visas was made on the grounds that Iran's 7th parliament was a non-democratic parliament.
In the aftermath of the Cold War, there were renewed calls for the UN to become the agency for achieving world peace, as dozens of military conflicts continue in the world. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. was left in a unique position of global dominance as a world police force, creating a unique, new challenge for the UN.
Since 1991, the U.S. has been the world's dominant military, economic, social, and political power. The UN was not designed for such a unipolar world with a single superpower, and conflict between rising U.S. and other UN members has increased. Conflict between the U.S. and the UN is not new. The first major defeat for the U.S. at the UN was Resolution 2758 - the admission of the People's Republic of China and removal of the Republic of China against U.S. desires in 1971. Since the U.S. changed its own China policy shortly after, however, this did not do lasting damage. Far more serious was the General Assembly Resolution 3379 of 1975 equating Zionism with racism, which caused great offense in the U.S. Resolution 3379 was eventually invalid in 1991 by Resolution 4686, but only after years of increasingly strained relations.
Under the Reagan administration, the U.S. withdrew from UNESCO, and began to deliberately withhold its UN dues as a form of demands on the UN. By far, the U.S. was, and continues to be, the state levied most heavily by the U.N. Therefore, U.S. policymakers considered this tactic as an effective tool to put forward conditions on the U.N.
If the Iranian parliament was non-democratic, then proponents of democracies argue that the 18th amendment in the Sri Lanka’s constitution constitutes a dictatorship. On September 11, 2010, the U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley called on Mr. Rajapaksa's government to take steps to strengthen independent institutions, increase transparency and promote national reconciliation. The U.S. has described the amendment as undermining democracy.
The 64 million dollar question is whether the US and UN member-states would speak out against one of the worst current war criminals of the world, President Rajapaksa, who should be held accountable for events during the final phase of the war at the UN meetings. Further, it is no doubt that Rajapaksa would be allowed to meet the leaders of UN member countries, further entrenching his appeal to be treated as a majority elected official and not the tyrant and dictator for which he is known by Tamils in Sri Lanka . Following the session in New York, he is scheduled to visit Mexico and Germany.
Canadian Tamils are holding protest rallies in front of the U.S. consulate office in Toronto and Montreal demanding the U.S. to take necessary steps to punish Rajapaksa, and urging Canadian and other leaders of the world not to interact with the war criminal as it would give credibility to the person whose hands were soaked in Tamil blood. Similar rallies are on the way in the U.S., too, including the supporters of Sarath Fonseka who is incarcerated by Rajapaksa’s government. Fonseka was once the army commander and after he contested against Rajapaksa in the presidential election and was defeated, and later on Fonseka was taken into custody with the charges that he was trying to create a military coup. So much for free elections.
Human rights activists and proponents of democracy expect the U.S. to take stern action against war criminals as the UN itself, led by Secretary General Ban-ki Moon, do not seem to be taking any actions to investigate the allegations of mass murders and other tortures in the last phase of Eelam War IV. However, as the U.S. has taken unilateral decisions without the knowledge of the UN and as the U.S. is the leading donor to the survival of the UN, the U.S. can and should take a leading role in bringing the Sri Lanka’s war criminals, including President Rajapaksa, to book. The coin is in the hands of the U.S. to discredit a war criminal at the UN session in New York.
(The author can be reached at e-mail: satheesan_kumaaran@yahoo.com)
Post a Comment