Sri Lanka: Uncertain future despite the costly military victory

By Dr. S. Narapalasingam
The focus of the Sri Lankan government soon after annihilating the LTTE in mid-May 2009 has been on provincial and local government elections. Now it is on the forthcoming parliamentary and Presidential elections. The latter is not due until November 2011 but the Constitution permits it to be held any time after the incumbent completes 4 years in office. There are many provisions in the present Constitution that serve narrow political and the personal objectives of those in power. Although there is widespread recognition for the need to reform the inapt constitution, short-term political interests have prevented this. The weaknesses in the system are allowed to continue for exploitation by self-seeking political leaders.
Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa gestures as his brother and Defense Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, wearing spectacles, looks on during the National War Heroes Day celebration in Colombo, Sri Lanka, Sunday, June 7, 2009-AP pic
The Daily Mirror editorial 9 November gives a clear idea of the muddled state of Sri Lanka just a few months after the government declared the dawn of peace following the crushing defeat of the LTTE, branded as terrorists by many countries including the USA, India, Canada and the EU. The power struggle that has replaced the ‘war on terror’ is useless from the standpoint of improving the welfare of the people and the country. Both sides to this post-war conflict have been blamed; “one for its self-centric politics, nepotism and attempts to claim ownership for military victory and the other for putting the lives of 20 million people at risk just to come into power”. In this regard, the following editorial comment is also noteworthy. “If hubris or excessive pride in oneself is the cause for one’s downfall, chances are there for both to fall or one, with less pride, to be left with a limp. And the fate of those who triggered the mess, no one would know. What one only knows is that the establishment would try all the tricks in the book to ensure that the new entrant to politics would not have a smooth sailing. There will be legal and political blockages setting off a wave of disillusionment among military and a large section of voters at the turn of events. The obvious knee-jerk reactions including visits to camps and sudden army pay hikes have been viewed with disdain and the changes in the security arrangements would not be to the liking of the Sinha regiment. On the other hand many hold the opposition, the creator of the imminent calamity for playing with fire and putting the lives of everyone including their own in jeopardy”.
According to this editorial, the prospect of “a violent clash between the country’s political and military leadership” has emerged recently. What it has failed to mention is the neglect of the apt move to transform the military victory into real peace that does not give opportunities for power hungry political leaders to exploit the ethnic, religious, regional and other divisions in the society for seizing power. The suspicion and fear of the different ethnic communities would have also vanished, if the peace was genuine and believed by all to be durable. The key to this lies in the realization of unity in diversity. Had meaningful peace been achieved in this manner, the triumph of the military would have been really beneficial to the present and future generations, besides giving a pride of place to the security forces in the annals of the post-war island nation. Disappointingly, the government’s actions and inaction are in conflict with these noble aims.
In fact, there is no action plan for achieving lasting peace, progress and prosperity for all citizens. The government has been concerned particularly about sustaining the popularity gained from defeating the LTTE, with no inclination to shift the emphasis from militarism to political reforms needed to prevent internal conflicts. But this popularity is not going to last long, despite the posturing as the people expect significant improvement in their living standard awfully affected by the dire conditions caused directly and indirectly by the prolonged war. The losses and sufferings have been extensive not only in terms of destruction of human lives and property but also lack of improvement in social and economic welfare. The annual economic growth has been much lower (by about 3%) than achievable under normal conditions. Not only Tamils but also many Sinhalese had emigrated because of the poor conditions in their motherland. Surprisingly, there are some top Sinhalese officials in the present government with dual nationalities.
Continuing deceptions
The undisclosed ways the resounding military victory was achieved have now become contentious and hindrance to the government in proceeding with its hidden political agenda. Basically, the intent of the present leadership is to keep the present unitary structure which ensures Sinhala majority rule over the entire island and institute some superficial changes to show off that all citizens regardless of their distinct ethnic, religious and regional identities have equal rights and security. Soon after the military victory, President Mahinda Rajapaksa declared from now on there are no minorities in Sri Lanka! He did not elaborate how the majority-minority division that dominated the political scene since independence has or will vanish.
The fierce war waged by the military against the heavily armed Tamil Tigers was also said to be a humanitarian operation to free the trapped people from the clutches of the ruthless Tamil Tigers, who had killed many civilians and politicians in the democratic mainstream and forcibly recruited children to boost the strength of their armed cadre. The stories narrated recently by the ex-child soldiers reveal the nature and extent of their bitter experiences during the war. The claim that the government acted from a humanitarian consideration has proved to be untrue from the forced detention of civilians in prison-like camps. They were in desperate need of liberation from their oppressed and tormented life in Vanni. The need to sustain the fear of possible resurgence of the terrorizing Tigers is also for gaining political mileage.
The government with the successful conclusion of the separatist war synonymous with ‘war on terror’ claims peace has now dawned in Sri Lanka and it is the duty of both the government and all peace loving people to safeguard this hard earned peace. According to the government leaders, the root cause of war was the demand for independent Tamil Eelam and the ruthless LTTE’s armed struggle for achieving this goal. Both the Eelam goal and its diehard violent seekers, who sought to achieve it by intimidating and killing the opponents, have been thoroughly defeated. In short, the government’s perception of the national problem is this violent conflict. But this is not the view of the moderate Sri Lankans as well as the international community including those members who supported the government’s military campaign against the LTTE. They have all made a clear distinction between the ethnic problem and LTTE’s Eelam war.
On May 23, soon after the end of the war, the Sri Lankan president, Mahinda Rajapaksa, and Secretary-General Ban issued a joint statement that promised there would be credible national investigations on human rights violations. But the government did not take any step to open an investigation until recently following the release of the US State Department damning report. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights also issued a statement on October 23 calling for an independent international investigation. A spokesperson for the office told reporters: "We still believe that something like the Gaza fact-finding mission is certainly warranted given the widespread concerns about the conduct of the war in Sri Lanka." Following international pressure, President Rajapaksa announced on 26 October that he would appoint a committee of experts to "examine carefully" allegations of violations of the laws of war. Given the past dismal record of such domestic investigations, many are not convinced of the real usefulness of the proposed committee. Recently Brad Adams, Executive Director, Asia division Human Rights Watch said: "The government's committee is merely an effort to buy time and hope the world will forget the bloodbath that civilians suffered at the end of the war". He also said. "Pretending that this is a serious attempt to investigate would betray the memory of the victims of war crimes and other abuses."
It is the failure to fulfil the promises given to the international community on the political settlement of the ethnic problem that has led to the surge in international pressure on the Rajapaksa regime. Actually, the alleged war crimes would not have become a major issue, if the government had proceeded swiftly with the move towards an equitable power-sharing and devolution reform within a national structure that protects the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka. The climate for this change was favourable soon after the war. Real peace must come from the unity of all ethnic, religious and regional groups, which in turn depends on the sincere feeling of the majority of the members in all the diverse groups that there is no racial discrimination by the State with regard to political and human rights, safety, security, justice, regional development and opportunities to prosper. Sadly, the government did not act compassionately even after destroying the LTTE leadership.
It is the total neglect of the basic principle of equality of all citizens regardless of their diverse ethnic origin by successive governments since independence that caused internal disturbances and ultimately the breakup of the nation. The useful role of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in uniting the bitterly divided South Africa because of apartheid is noteworthy. The country was fortunate to have had Nelson Mandela as the first post-apartheid leader. The forthcoming Presidential election in Sri Lanka too focuses on internal power struggle and not on the pressing national issues. The political factors that caused the division and the violent struggle that destroyed many lives and damaged terribly the nation’s culture need to be addressed early. Recent horrid post-war incidents illustrate the culture of inhumanity that has evolved along with the culture of impunity that grew as a result of the abuse of power by egoistic political leaders. Another outcome of the excessive politicisation of the administration is the uncontrolled rise in widespread corruption. Thus, the general Sri Lankan culture which had close links to civil and religious principles has degraded terribly because of dirty politics.
Disturbing cultural change
The editorial in the Sunday Island 8 November on the Bambalapitiya beach horror has said that “this seeming indifference to brutality among the general citizenry is in itself troubling and a subject worthy of further scrutiny and study. Violence is so deeply entrenched in the life of the people that it deadens the conscience on the one hand and erodes the will to be virtuous and conscientious, on the other. The end result could be an alarmingly dehumanized people. This tragic trend needs to be arrested immediately. It is a matter over which all need to agonize. What compounds our sense of disquiet is the seeming religiosity of our people. Is religion also impotent in the face of this crisis?”
According to the popular Tamil magazine ‘Ananda Vikatan’ published in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, Mr. T. Velupillai (76) and Mrs. Parvathiammal (71), parents of the LTTE supremo V. Prabhakaran have been detained in the notorious "Fourth Floor" of the detention centre of the army and police in Colombo. The old couple were picked up from the now well known Manik Farm internment camp after the death of their son who believed blindly in the violent way of achieving political goals and taken to the dreaded detention centre in Colombo, where they are being kept in separate cells for the last 4 months. The magazine has explained the disapproval of the father, who was a government servant when his son Prabhakaran took up arms for the Eelam cause at the age of 17. He had no influence over his son and there are no reports that he had any role in encouraging his son to embrace violence.
In the final phase of the war, when the distressed Vanni residents moved into army controlled areas, Prabhakaran's parents also moved out and stayed in Manik Farm. When the army was searching for them, the two came forward and surrendered. The magazine also said, “contrary to the convention that those above 60 should be allowed to have a care-giver, the army refused to allow any relative to be with them even when their health deteriorated. It even denied them medical care”. The reason for mentioning specifically the harsh way of treating innocent Tamils just because they happen to have lived in the LTTE-controlled areas and in the case of the medical doctors who were forced to act and speak as instructed by the LTTE leadership is to point to the rancorous way the government treated non-combatants who lived under a repressive rule. If honourable peace was the goal sought after the military victory as is normally the case even in fiercely fought wars, the victors try to win the hearts and minds of the distressed people through compassion and magnanimity. This is very much in line with Buddhist philosophy. It is unfair to assume all Tamils even those who were forcibly recruited by the hardcore Tiger cadres as criminals or willingly acted violently. It is unclear whether the harsh collective punishment is revenge or for portraying the victor as formidable power capable of crushing any future Tamil uprising.
Sri Lankan prison guards escort ethnic Tamil journalist J.S. Tissainayagam out of the High Court premises in Colombo, Sri Lanka, Monday, Aug. 31, 2009-AP pic.
The August 31 verdict of the Colombo magistrate court sentencing the veteran journalist and columnist J.S. Tissainayagam to 20 years rigorous imprisonment under the anti-terror law has raised concerns across the world on the state of freedoms in Sri Lanka. Tissainayagam, an ethnic Tamil who wrote in English and a regular Sunday Times columnist was arrested by an anti-terrorism division of police in March 2008. He was not formally charged or produced in court until August 2008, when he was indicted under the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).
The Indian daily ‘The Hindu’ in its editorial 9 September 2009 opined: “The court made a determination that his column (North-Eastern monthly magazine), which was a mere expression of opinion on the government strategy in the war against terror, was intended to cause racial or communal disharmony. His raising money to run his magazine was construed as raising funds for the promotion of terrorism. The shock over the judgment is understandable as it is the first case in which a journalist had been charged and convicted under the PTA of 1979 and has come in the post-Prabakaran Sri Lanka that eagerly awaits reconciliation, after the military defeat of the LTTE in May this year”. The use of PTA to curtail media freedom is also one factor that is inhibiting the extension of GSP+.The editorial in Sri Lanka Guardian 1 November has also highlighted the terrible happenings in the name of combating terrorism. It has opined, “State terror is substituting the terror of the Tigers!” The following comment is very apposite.
“A country that is embedded in the just preaching of Lord Buddha failed to follow his guidance of truthfulness, love and non-violent conduct and sunk into irredeemable guilt that will haunt the country for decades. Whatever the compulsion for an all out war, the forces should have mitigated themselves from prosecuting an unjust battle on the section of people, leaving aside the brutal LTTE. They should have been guided by the Buddhist Dharma, the rules of the Kurukshtra War of Mahabaratha and also by giving some respect for the modern international covenants Sri Lanka has subscribed to. Brutality inflicted on the innocent civilians and surrendering enemies horrifies the conscience of the right thinking people who want Sri Lanka to be a self respecting nation giving credence to values”.
International dissent
The post-war acts of commission and omission of the government have also raised many crucial questions about Sri Lanka’s political future. Now the war is over, is there a real need to sustain the Emergency Regulations and the Prevention of Terrorism Act? On 7 November French Ambassador for Human Rights, Francois Zimeray asked Sri Lanka to end its state of emergency and probe war crimes ahead of a key European Union ruling on the extension of trade concessions under the GSP+ to Sri Lanka. "Ending of the emergency should have been the first consequence of ending the war", he is reported to have said at the end of three-days of talks with key Sri Lankan leaders on the island's human rights situation. Both the ER and PTA now serve to safeguard the political power of the government.
The absolute military victory was possible mainly because of the extreme methods like those used habitually by the ruthless Tamil Tigers, disregarding the safety of civilians. Many Sri Lankans have not realised that this victory has been secured at a price that is now hurting the government and the people. The fact is both sides used harsh methods that violated international laws, particularly during the final stages of the war. For instance, the safety zone was established to provide temporary shelter to the civilians fleeing from the fighting areas. The safety zone too came under attack after the rebel fighters moved there. The civilians were used throughout as human shields by the Tigers. Without an independent Truth Commission it is difficult to establish what exactly happened during the final stages of the war, particularly January – May 2009.
Despite the efforts to conceal the hideous happenings, some official statements have exposed the violation of accepted rules of warfare. For example, the Tamil Tigers who went to surrender carrying white flags were mercilessly shot and killed. Many violations by the Tamil Tigers were done openly disregarding the condemnations by human rights organizations and foreign governments. The rebel leaders responsible for the violent crimes that breached international laws were not immune to prosecution. What plan the LTTE leader had to evade retribution is not known. The violation of the internationally acknowledged rights of children is also a grave crime. Moreover this is unethical not permitted in any civilised society. There is no doubt their rights have been blatantly violated since the beginning of the Eelam war. But the government leadership conscious of the adverse international reaction to indiscriminate attacks had planned in advance to conceal its violations, which the Western bloc based on their own assessments considers them as war crimes and crimes against humanity.
On the international front, the emergence of two reports, almost simultaneously has caused much concern to the Government. One is the report submitted in October by the US State Department to the Congress on the disturbing incidents that occurred during the (Eelam IV) war in Sri Lanka. This report is not biased as both the warring parties are alleged to have committed war crimes. The other is the European Union report based on the findings of an independent expert team set up for "the investigation with respect to the implementation of certain human rights conventions in Sri Lanka." The EU probe has found Sri Lanka in breach of international human rights laws. The findings are in the way of getting an extension of the preferential trade scheme known as GSP+ which benefits immensely Sri Lanka’s garment exports to EU member states.
In respect of the US report, Sri Lankan Foreign Ministry hurriedly ruled in a statement that it "appears to be unsubstantiated and devoid of corroborative evidence." The Ministry announced, "There is a track record of vested interests endeavouring to bring the Government of Sri Lanka into disrepute, through fabricated allegations and concocted stories…." On the other hand the Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa responded in the customary way, He has set up an expert committee to look into the allegations in the US report. The recent inconclusive record of the outcome of Presidential Commissions and Expert Committees is widely known and the aim here too is to give the impression that the Sri Lankan government is not rejecting the damning offhand but taking it seriously.
The US House of Representatives on November 4 urged the Sri Lankan government to guarantee the safety and quick release of the Tamils currently held in camps. By an overwhelming 421-1 vote, lawmakers approved a non-binding resolution that called on the authorities in Colombo to help the detainees in “the tightly guarded camps return to their homes”. The Sri Lankan government was urged to turn over the operation of the camps to civilians, and allow day-to-day access to the camps for the Red Cross, non-governmental groups, and others who care for internally displaced people (IDPs). It also called on the government to allow an independent assessment of charges of large numbers of deaths, rampant disease, poor sanitation and poor health care in the camps and a plan to remedy the issues. The proposal urges the Tamil people "to continue to be patient while the government re-establishes normalcy" and calls on the government to make headway on political reforms to address the Tamils' "political concerns." (Source: AFP report 5 November 2009).
Government supporters have used the international dissent to spread the notion of conspiracy being hatched against the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime. The intent is to gain popular sympathy and support for the latter in its determination to resist foreign intimidations in the same way the military success boosted its popularity.
The way the government has reacted to queries and requests by concerned foreign governments and the UN has reinforced the perception that there have been some nasty happenings in the targeted areas that the government wants to conceal. The latest is in respect of the pre-arranged ‘voluntary meeting’ of the Chief of Defence Staff, General Sarath Fonseka with the officials in the Department of Homeland Security in Oklahoma, United States for clarifying certain issues relating to the ‘war on terror’ in Sri Lanka. On this matter, Minister Keheliya Rambukkwella is reported to have told Lankapuvath November 02 that “this is nothing but a despicable plot being hatched at the expense of the entire country”. The General is a US ‘green card’ holder and has permanent resident status in America. The purpose of his visit was to renew the green card, which is a precursor to US citizenship.
The problem with dual citizenship
The Sunday Times 8 November in its political column has given a detailed account of the General’s visit to the US, the drama there and the arrangement made with the US authorities by Sri Lanka for his return to Colombo without attending the ‘voluntary meeting’ on November 4 at the Department of Homeland Security. His private trip to renew the Green card was “linked together with official engagements arranged at the Sri Lanka Defence Ministry's request by the US Government. The official invitations were later withdrawn, days ahead of his departure. This was in the light of the 'war crimes' report by the US Department of State to the Congress. The US Government officials said it would be untenable to host him in the light of that report. That changed the character of the trip to an entirely private one. ... He has a residence in Oklahoma where his two daughters and son-in-law live. Sri Lanka Army commandos protect them there”.As stated by D. B. S. Jeyaraj in his ‘Twitter pages’, US officials have every right to question persons having US citizenship & permanent residency. Sri Lanka’s Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa is a US citizen and the voluntary interview arranged with General Sarath Fonseka present Chief of Defence Staff and former Army commander was reported as for finding the exact role of the Defence Secretary in the conduct of the war. Two pertinent questions raised in connection with the alleged war crimes are: (i) If no war crimes were committed by Sri Lanka in the war against LTTE then why panic about US quizzing the US green card holder Gen. Sarath Fonseka? (ii) If zero civilian casualty policy had been followed as claimed then by Sri Lanka, why bother about the allegations in the 68-page report submitted to the Congress by the US State Department? According to latest information, General Sarath Fonseka who returned to Sri Lanka on 5 November without being questioned by the officials of the US Department of Homeland Security submitted his resignation as Chief of Defence Staff on 12 November. The vacation of post is effective from the end of November.
The full letter setting out the reasons for retirement is in ‘Lanka Truth’ 13 November. One reason given is – “The peace dividend the whole country expected at the conclusion of the war has yet to materialize. The economic hardships faced by the people have increased while waste and corruption have reached endemic proportions; media freedom and other democratic rights continue to be curtailed. The many sacrifices the army made to end the war would not have been in vain, if we can usher in a new era of peace and prosperity to our motherland”. Samantha Vidyaratne MP told parliament on November 4: "In the same way this brave soldier rid the country of terrorism, he is now on his way home without betraying the nation." JVP Kurunegala MP Bimal Ratnayake told Parliament the same day that President Rajapaksa’s two brothers Basil and Gotabhaya must give up their US citizenship in the interest of their motherland, The former is an appointed (non-elected) MP and senior adviser to the President. According to the aforementioned Sunday Times report, “the Defence Secretary is already in receipt of a letter from the US asking him if he, as a US citizen is involved in any policy matters that compromise with Human Rights violations in any other country. This same letter has been received by his brother, Basil Rajapaksa and current Justice Minister Milinda Moragoda, both US citizens as well. They have also been asked if they wished to pursue with their US citizenship, to which all of them have answered in the affirmative as far as is known, and they have received a formal response that they can continue with their US citizenship”.
The Sunday Times of 8 November in its editorial has opined that “questions have been justifiably raised whether it is even proper for people who have dual-citizenship to sit in Cabinet - or hope to sit in a future Cabinet and to decide on the state policy of one nation. One day, the concept of national sovereignty may be a thing of the past; but that day is not today, yet”. A Sri Lankan acquiring citizenship of a foreign country is committed to be loyal and act in the interest of that country. In fact he or she must take a solemn of oath of loyalty to qualify for citizenship. The conflict of interest comes in when a dual citizenship holder returns to function as a Cabinet Minister or an influential government official in his/her motherland.
No true national leaders
Whoever is the next head of State he must be one capable of leading the country sensibly from a wide national (not just the Sinhala but all inclusive nation) and long-term perspective for Sri Lanka to re-emerge as a peaceful and promising nation.Rienzie T Wijetilleke, chairman of Hatton National Bank is reported to have told senior corporate leaders at the recent LBR-LBO CEO Forum in Colombo that Sri Lanka’s political leadership has been a failure. He said: “Sri Lanka should consider importing people with proven track records to run government as native leaders have consistently failed to deliver and develop the country after independence”. Wijetilleke also told the managers: "I told this, 10 years ago and even endorse that proposal now. That's what's required in this country as all leaders from independence have failed us." He also said that he had “even suggested getting Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore or Nelson Mandela from South Africa and giving them the power to govern the country for 10 years with parliamentary sovereignty. Sri Lanka was a stable country, ahead of most of Asia, when it got independence from Britain in 1948. But today it is lagging behind other nations, though it has made some progress after the economy was re-opened in 1977. ....Mandela took South Africa from a white-run government to a black-run government but did not oppress the minority. In sharp contrast neighbouring Zimbabwe collapsed under money printing and state action against its white minority.” There is now a move to impose further trade sanctions on Zimbabwe because of extensive human rights violations.
The extent of the disappointment of the distinguished entrepreneur on the failures of Sri Lanka’s political leaders is evident from his extreme suggestion to find a proven foreign political leader to pull Sri Lanka out of the deep hole and guide the country towards stability and prosperity. Although this is not realistic, the message is clear. The intrinsic problem lies in the national politics of Sri Lanka. It is not national at all in the true all inclusive sense. To some Sinhala nationalists, the island is a Sinhala nation because of the sheer size of the ethnic Sinhala majority compared with other ethnic minorities. The latter should not place undue demands but must live amicably with whatever granted benevolently by the ethnic majority Sinhalese.
The fundamental reason for the many problems confronting Sri Lanka is politics has focused unduly on gaining and retaining power to rule rather than on serving all the people and the country usefully. Short-term political gains were sought at the expense of long-term benefits to the people and the country as a whole. This is precisely the case now after the costly military victory. The high level of corruption and the abuse of power for personal or immediate political advantage reflect the lack of true commitment to the progress and well-being of all the people. Patriotic slogans have a politically slanted meaning useful in the muddled political environment to deceive the people for achieving the narrow aims of the power-hungry politicians. Unless there is a new beginning with broad forward-thinking approach in national politics, the future of Sri Lanka will remain uncertain.
[The writer is Former Additional Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, Sri Lanka and UN Advisor, Development Economics/Planning]