Address the past for Sri Lanka’s sake

Periodically there are strong statements made by members of foreign governments on the issues of war crimes and human

rights violations in Sri Lanka. But it ends there unless the Sri Lankan government chooses to answer. While the international rhetoric of war crimes and human rights abuses still prevails, there is little or no manifestation of that pressure in concrete terms. Now there are media reports that the UN Commissioner for Human Rights, Navaneethan Pillay, has decided to postpone her planned visit to Sri Lanka until after the public release of the report of the Presidential Commission on Lessons Learned and Reconciliation. At the present time this report is with the President.

In recent weeks the government seems to be dealing with issues of relating to the last phase of the war in a more confident manner. One reason may be the quality of the LLRC report, which Minister Basil Rajapaksa has said will be tabled in Parliament before the end of the year. Some of the leaked sections of the report indicate that it is not simply a whitewash of the government, with strong observations regarding some government practices that need to be changed. In addition the Commission appears to have acknowledged the credibility of what witnesses who appeared before it had to say about first hand experiences they underwent in the last phase of the war.

Another reason for the waning of the international pressure on Sri Lanka is the difficulty that human rights campaigners have in keeping international attention on Sri Lanka when the crisis has been over more than two and a half years ago. Whether it is the crisis of the European currency union or the breakdown in US-Pakistan relations, these are matters that have implications today for the world that far exceed any of Sri Lanka’s unresolved problems. This means that neither foreign governments nor inter-governmental bodies can be moved to take action. Whether at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting or the UN Human Rights Council, the majority opinion is to let Sri Lanka be.

CONTRADICTORY SITUATION

The effort to uphold human rights in the world takes place along with the effort of government worldwide to preserve stability and contain violence generated by internal and external factors. Many countries in the world, and especially those in Sri Lanka’s region, suffer from problems of terrorism and militancy. These problems have root causes within the

countries themselves, but most often there is an external agency also adding fuel to the fire. A major part of the response to these crises is to utilize the military to contain the problems. This is the case in India whether with regard to its Kashmir problem or its north-east, and in Pakistan with regard to the problems on its Afghan border.

Even countries like Norway which have a special commitment to using peaceful means of conflict resolution have got involved in global efforts that utilize military means to bring peace or eliminate those who are seen as a threat to their version of a just world order. Norway’s participation in NATO’s military campaign against Libya has been severely criticized by one of its leading academics, Professor Johan Galtung, who is often referred to as the father of peace studies. Shortly after the Libyan war and roadside execution of former Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi he wrote “Why Breivik and NATO have more in common than we can fathom .” Anders Breivik was the person who slaughtered young Norwegians for his own distorted version of a better world.

In this context, the strong resistance being put up by the Sri Lankan government to being accused of war crimes in defeating the LTTE is also having its effect in reducing international pressure. The recent revelations that a public relations firm in the UK, Bell Pottinger, had written some of President Rajapaksa’s speeches, along with their close relations with British political leaders, highlights the contradictory elements within the foreign policies of governments. The news report reveals how Bell Pottinger had written the President’s speech to the UN after the end of the war in 2009. During the address by the President last year the President suggested rules governing the humanitarian conduct of war should be re-examined.

LIVING TOGETHER

But regardless of international action or non-action on the issues, Sri Lanka must move on to reconciliation. The relaxation of international pressure cannot be a reason to put aside or forget the past. On the one hand, experience from different parts of the world make it evident that reconciling after war can take a very long time. Japan, which is a model of internal democracy and which respects the sovereignty of countries, still has a problem of the past with its neighbours, China and Korea, which it invaded prior to the Second World War. France still has a festering problem with Algeria over the alleged massacres of Algerians during the colonial period which it has not investigated to the satisfaction of the Algerians. Turkey continues to deny the alleged genocide of a million Armenians at the beginning of the last century.

The experience of other countries in which there were allegations of atrocities in the course of war indicates that memories do not die. These long unresolved issues continue to smolder beneath the surface and suddenly emerge in unpleasant clashes over territorial and other issues. The memory of injustice seldom fades from the victim. The problem is that the party that committed the atrocities tends to wish to bury the past and forget it. So it is hard for them to see the need for reconciliation as time passes. But without reconciliation there cannot be lasting peace. The challenge of reconciliation in Sri Lanka must be taken on by this generation, and not left for the succeeding ones. This is especially the case as Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims live together and have to continue to live together.

At least in the case of the Chinese and Koreans after the war, they were free of Japan and Japan was free of them. They could go their separate ways and govern themselves. The same is true of France and Algeria. But in the case of Sri Lanka, we cannot walk away and live free of each other. Sri Lankans of all communities have to live together, and this on a small geographical space, in which there is less separation and more inter-mixing. More than half of the Tamil population lives amongst the Sinhalese and Colombo, the capital city, has only a minority of Sinhalese. This is why the people of Sri Lanka need their government to deal with the past, with compassion to itself and to the victims, so that there can be reconciliation in closing that dark chapter and in opening a new one.

 

 

2 Comments to “Address the past for Sri Lanka’s sake”

• Address the past for Sri Lanka’s sake « Sri Lanka
  December 20, 2011 at 9:13 am

  […] Address the past for Sri Lanka’s sake LANKA Standard Dr. Jehan Perera | Published on December 13, 2011 Periodically there are strong statements made by members of foreign governments on the issues of war crimes and human Navi Pillay rights violations in Sri Lanka. But it ends there unless the Sri Lankan government chooses to answer. While the international rhetoric of war crimes and human rights abuses still prevails, there is little or no manifestation of that pressure in concrete terms. Now there are media reports that the UN Commissioner for Human Rights, Navaneethan Pillay, has decided to postpone her planned visit to Sri Lanka until after the public release of the report of the Presidential Commission on Lessons Learned and Reconciliation. At the present time this report is with the President. Full Story>>> Posted by Thavam Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]
• traitor
  December 19, 2011 at 11:37 am

  adoo, halfbreed niwata balla

  what else you can do except betraying your Saul

  dog barks,barks and barks

  for what?……..
  for bloody $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

  (parangiyangen pewatahgena ena awajathaka ballo lankawa hemadaama pawaladenawa)