federalidea.com

By Dr. S. Narapalasingam

Sri Lankan government decided unilaterally on January 2 to formally withdraw from the 2002 Cease-Fire Agreement (CFA), after months of escalating violence and military successes that made the political and military leaders believe that the LTTE could be vanquished by continuing the ongoing offensive in the North. Written notice of abrogation was given on January 3 to the Royal Norwegian government. Norway brokered the deal in 2002 and has been the intermediary and facilitator of the peace talks. The Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama in his January 4th statement said: “Accordingly, the Status of Mission Agreement (SOMA) on the Establishment and the Management of the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM) dated 18th March 2002 between the Royal Norwegian Government and the Government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka will also stand terminated with effect from 16th January 2008″.

The SLMM that monitored the truce violations reported more than 3000 violations by the LTTE and about 300 by the security forces during 2002-2005, before the resumption of hostilities early 2006-Eelam war IV. The fatalities during the period when the truce was holding were mostly fellow Tamils targeted by the LTTE to consolidate their position as the sole representatives of the Tamil people and remove the perceived hinderers to the realization of their ambitious political goal. There were no direct clashes between the LTTE and government forces during the period 2002- 2005. From the viewpoint of easing the suffering of the people caught up in the war, this was a positive outcome of the ceasefire. There was the feeling among some ‘no war’ situation was better than fighting that result only in more loss of lives and livelihoods and unbearable suffering. The removal of the security barriers in Colombo and blockades elsewhere that obstructed free travel and transport between South and North were welcomed by all citizens. Indeed, many expatriates were also able to visit their relatives in the North-East. The euphoria of most Sri Lankans at home and abroad in 2002 was based on the assumption that the end of the agonizing war and dawn of lasting peace was at hand. Although, this turned out to be a mirage, people longing for peace did not lose hope, because of the special interest taken by the international community in the peace process initiated in early 2002.

Flawed CFA.

[Internally Displaced Persons from Mullikulam at Murungan Maha Vidyalayam, near Mannar-Sep 2007]

The CFA was flawed in many respects and this has been pointed out by the critics, increasingly after the buildup of LTTE’s military strength during the truce became quite apparent. The warmongers used this to justify their demand for its abrogation. Nevertheless, the foreign ministers of five Nordic countries-Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and Finland-which had contributed truce monitors, in a joint statement issued in Oslo on January 4 said: “The ceasefire agreement had a number of positive consequences. During the first three years, conflict-related casualties dropped to almost zero, which means that as many as 10,000 lives may have been spared”. Apparently, the casualties referred relate to the conflict between the LTTE and the security forces and not to the internecine feud. According to them, the CFA also helped economic development and “improved the human rights situation and protection of civilians”. The latter is not entirely correct. There were demands for a separate international mission to monitor human rights violations during the ceasefire, as the SLMM was preoccupied monitoring the truce and its main focus was not on ‘human rights situation and protection of civilians’. It did not have the mandate and the capacity to monitor human rights violations. Nevertheless, indirectly their presence gave some protection to civilians. With the abrogation of SOMA, the protections for the civilians have been completely removed.

The Nordic foreign ministers acknowledged that truce violations had been “particularly numerous and increasingly serious” during the past two years following the resumption of hostilities in early 2006. After the EU banned the LTTE in 2005 because of their continued adherence to ‘terrorist’ activities, the total number of monitors was down to 30 (Norway 20 and Iceland 10) compared with 60 from the 5 countries. The monitors from the EU countries had to leave because of the LTTE’s objection to their presence. The SLMM has been unable to issue rulings on violations since July 2006. Nevertheless, like many others the Nordic countries are also deeply concerned about the worsening situation in Sri Lanka with the prospect of the rise in civilian casualties and human rights violations. Understandably, the Royal Norwegian government was swift in conveying regrets at the Sri Lankan government’s decision to abrogate the CFA. The CFA also provided a comfortable pretext for the international community to remain on the periphery and repeatedly call for a negotiated political settlement. Now that it has gone, the international community has no reason to just wait hoping the warring parties will soon stop fighting and start talking.

The CFA was also the basis for international interest in and support for the Sri Lankan peace process, which the Sinhala ultra nationalists detest now as they consider any foreign involvement compromises sovereignty and ‘national’ interest. The JVP that has been in the forefront of the campaign to abrogate the CFA and send home the Nordic truce monitors has asked the government not to seek any foreign mediators. A statement from the new head of LTTE’s Political Wing B. Nadesan January 10 said: “The LTTE wishes to state that even at this juncture, it is ready to implement every clause of the CFA agreement and respect it 100%.” At this juncture this is not going to be taken seriously when the CFA has been widely acknowledged as deeply flawed and against ‘national interest’. If the LTTE is really concerned about the plight of civilians they should unilaterally declare ceasefire and announce their willingness to negotiate. The international community will then have to press the Government to stop the war.

Reaction of the international community

On January 3, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said he is ‘deeply worried’ about the withdrawal from the accord, as it has come amid intense fighting in the North and increasing violence across the country including Colombo. He emphasized the need for a political solution to end the bloodshed in Sri Lanka. His spokesperson said: “The Secretary-General urges all concerned to ensure the protection of civilians and enable humanitarian assistance to be provided to affected areas.” The United States, Canada, Japan, France, Britain, Australia and others also expressed deep concerns over the decision. Their immediate reactions are in the Appendix to this paper.

Their comments and suggestions are useful to grasp fully the correct way to settle the conflict and achieve lasting peace. All countries are convinced there is no military solution and a political solution must be sought through joint effort that is fair and convincing to all communities as suitable for allaying their concerns and meeting their basic needs and legitimate aspirations. This is the sure way to achieve unity in diversity and lasting peace. At present there is neither the commitment nor the unity of all parties to resolve the national problem. Protection of civilians too is not considered by the bickering parties as a national responsibility.

Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama announced Government’s appreciation (Daily Mirror January 9) on India’s avoidance to express any comments on the abrogation of the CFA. He lauded India for its consistent policy on the conflict in Sri Lanka. The Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said India expects the Sri Lankan government to resolve the conflict through dialogue and implementation of a devolution formula. He also said there could be no military solution to the island’s problems which have to be addressed by fulfilling the ”legitimate aspirations” of ethnic groups. During an interaction with PTI Editors in New Delhi he said India condemned terrorism, for which it has a policy of ”zero tolerance”. A spokesman for the Indian External Affairs Ministry said they were acutely conscious that what is required in Sri Lanka is “a settlement of political, constitutional and other issues within the framework of a united Sri Lanka”. The practical problems thwarting such a settlement are simply ignored. Now, particularly India as a concerned neighbour has no valid reason to ignore the heightened danger facing the civilians. India’s responsibility to protect them is now great and any reasonable move in this regard cannot be construed as extending support to either the Government or the LTTE.

Human Rights watchdogs

Although foreign governments have expressed deep concern for human rights and protection of civilians following the abrogation of the CFA, it is the human rights organizations like the New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW), London-based Minority Rights International (MRG) and Hong Kong-based Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) that are vigorously pressing for a UN human rights monitoring mission. Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia director at HRW said on January 3: “The Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission was deeply flawed, but its monitors helped to minimize abuses against civilians. Now the need for a UN monitoring mission is greater than ever.” Even at full strength, the Nordic mission (SLMM) never had the appropriate mandate or capacity to play a strong protection role. Both the government and the LTTE frequently ignored its recommendations, and its monitors were often denied access to areas where serious incidents had occurred (including, for instance, to Muthur in Trincomalee district, after 17 humanitarian workers were murdered in August 2006). Pearson also said: “Nonetheless, individual monitors often showed initiative at the local level that provided some measure of protection for those at risk Civilians caught up in the fighting will have a harder time finding safety once the monitors have withdrawn.”

MRG in a statement issued on January 4, expressed deep concern over the unilateral decision of the Sri Lankan government to formally withdraw from the 2002 cease-fire agreement (CFA). It will “lead to more human rights abuses against minority Tamils and Muslims.” MRG’s Director, Mark Lattimer said: “There is now going to be a greater void in monitoring and reporting of human rights abuses in the conflict zone. The need for international human rights monitors is now ever more crucial.” In December 2007 MRG released a briefing paper which indicated Sri Lanka’s minority Tamils and Muslims were worst affected by increasing human rights abuses following the promulgation of tough anti-terror laws.

The report stated: “Counter-terrorism laws are used to arrest and detain hundreds of Tamils, to cordon, search and harass minorities, and to create High Security Zones (HSZs) claiming vast areas of minority lands, thereby affecting livelihoods”. The report also said government’s continuing violations of human rights in the guise of “war on terror” deserves serious attention, despite the presence of several other types of violations. The paper also highlighted the increasing number of killings of minority human rights activists, religious leaders and journalists in Sri Lanka.

It also accused the LTTE for being “responsible for widespread abuses including killings of opponents and child abductions. The LTTE also has a reputation for using civilians as human shields and obstructing civilians trying to flee battle zones.” The report stated forthrightly that the actions being taken to counter terrorism also have elements of terrorism. This too makes it imperative to have an independent mission like the terminating SLMM with a wider mandate and capacity to protect civilians.

Executive Director of Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) Basil Fernando said that the state sponsored human right organizations have ceased to be effective. “Human rights violations could be properly investigated only if there is space for free and fair investigations. There is no guarantee in Sri Lanka that the very basic institutions to safeguard human rights such as the police are doing a proper job. International monitoring interventions will bring about a momentum that will energise the local human right organizations”

Asian Human Rights Commission in its Human Rights Day statement on December 10 says a phantom limb is the sensation that an amputated or missing limb is still attached to the body and is moving appropriately with other body parts. And the Sri Lankan government’s pronouncement that it has adequate local mechanisms to deal with investigations into human rights violations reflects a similar mentality. This claim is to counteract any calls for assistance to the Sri Lankan government by the international community by way of human rights monitoring through the United Nations.

In December 2007 the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (ICC)-the international body that regulates national human rights institutions-downgraded Sri Lanka’s NHRC to “B” status that is of an “observer” because of government encroachment on its independence. This relegation means the Sri Lanka’s Human Rights Commission has lost its right to vote at the UN Human Rights Council and had no bearing on the full membership of Sri Lanka in the Geneva-based Council. There is now no internationally accredited independent body in Sri Lanka that can deter the violations of human rights by both the security forces and paramilitary groups

AHRC says the phantom limb mentality prevents the finding of real solutions to the real problems that make Sri Lanka one of the most lawless places in the world. As long as this situation remains, life will remain a nightmare to all civilians in the country. To this civilian nightmare is now added the targeting of civilians by the LTTE, the government and other paramilitary groups which operate freely in the country. This climate is also unscrupulously used naturally by the criminal elements who try to profit from this situation by way of all sorts of crimes including kidnapping for ransom. AHRC emphasized that it is not possible to protect the people with a phantom limb. The sooner this illusion is demolished the better it will be for all the people of Sri Lanka. The culture of impunity that prevails now is the result of turning a blind eye to various unlawful acts, including those committed by the gangsters with the connivance of politicians.

Colombo-based independent National Peace Council in a press release January 3 said: “Although the international monitors of the SLMM were unable to prevent acts of war and human rights violations from taking place, they were able to be physically present in the conflict zones and record incidents and report them to the conflicting parties and the international community. The Government’s rejection of a UN Human Rights field presence, the inability of the Commission of Inquiry (COI) and the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP) to make meaningful progress in discharging their mandates, and the recent downgrading of the National Human Rights Commission, combine to place respect for human rights in Sri Lanka in further jeopardy”.

Sri Lanka is now among the most dangerous countries for media personnel, according to the Paris based Reporters Without Borders (RSF) an international media watchdog. 86 journalists were killed worldwide in 2007 in 21 countries. Sri Lanka is the fourth most dangerous country for journalists, after Iraq, Somalia and Pakistan. RSF statement said during 2007 troops and paramilitary forces waged a dirty war on Tamil journalists, especially in Jaffna. Earlier, the Geneva based media watchdog Press Emblem Campaign (PEC) said at least nine media personnel were killed in Sri Lanka last year and was third dangerous country for media personnel. Sri Lankan government challenged this statement claiming all killed were not accredited journalists. These findings of the media watchdogs do not reflect the degree of intimidation by the State on media personnel which is quite high in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka’s Free Media Movement (FMM) deserves high praise for exposing promptly and impartially all cases of intimidation by the State.

The dilemma

Under the cover of the ‘war on terror’ and sovereignty of democratic Sri Lanka the government is giving scant values for human rights. Criticisms by foreign governments and international organizations are set aside as undue interference in Sri Lanka’s internal affairs. The government under the influence of Sinhala ultra nationalists has not taken seriously the speeches of the British High Commissioner and his counterpart the US Ambassador and the statements of United Nations and the European Union. There has also been strong condemnation of the countries advocating a reasonable settlement that also satisfies the aspirations of the ethnic minorities by the majoritarians within and outside the ruling coalition.

Lionel Bopage a former General Secretary of the JVP who left the radical party in 1984 after 16 years of involvement has observed (January 2, 2008):

“Any government genuinely looking after the interests of its people would stand for pluralism and the fundamental democratic and human rights of its people. Thus that government will be obliged to take all the necessary steps to uphold the rule of law and to establish and maintain appropriate mechanisms to prevent the abuse of power and protect the life and liberty of every individual. This includes the right to life, freedom of movement, freedom of speech and assembly, freedom from torture, arbitrary arrest and unlawful detention”.

All sensible persons will agree wholeheartedly with Lionel Bopage. But in Sri Lanka, the vast majority of persons responsible for deciding legislations and policies as well as their implementation are in a different world, where decisions are made according to their own immediate needs and priorities. These in most cases are for strengthening the power acquired by questionable means or gaining power by discrediting the political opponents in the government. The abhorrent political culture may, hopefully, shrink in due course but the problem now is how to protect civilians when the warring parties have little concern for the safety of all the defenseless people even outside the war zone.

A moralist has questioned the right of those countries violating Human Rights in their own territories to preach others of the need to respect HR. The occupation of foreign lands centuries ago, the violation of treaties entered with local rulers there and the denial of basic rights to the natives have also been cited in questioning the right of the powerful countries in the West to demand the developing sovereign countries to respect HR. The challenger has ignored that the world is now different from the past colonial period and is changing fast giving meaning to the concept of global village. Moreover, many countries like Sri Lanka depend on foreign aid from the same countries that preach about Human Rights, pluralism, democracy, rule of law, equity and political settlement of internal problems giving due consideration to the legitimate rights and aspirations of the ethnic minorities. Importantly, a nation that wants to be recognized as a blessed, peaceful and promising country with diverse features should consider Human Rights as a virtuous concept that should be embraced as a sacred doctrine. Can extra judicial killing and torturing fellow beings be justified because some others have or are resorting to such abhorrent practices elsewhere? If lawlessness becomes pervasive, what kind of society can one expect?

The British High Commissioner Dominick Chilcott in his recent candid speech has pointed out the true meaning of sovereignty and the conditions when the responsibility to protect (R2P for short) falls on the international community. To quote: “The idea of the responsibility to protect emerged from the work carried out by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. The authors argued that sovereignty needed to be reassessed in the light of today’s greater sense of the commonality of humankind. Sovereignty should be firstly about responsibility rather than power”. He said in the report’s own words: “The starting point is that any state has primary responsibility to protect individuals within it. But that is not the finishing point:
where the state fails in that responsibility, through either incapacity or ill will, a secondary responsibility to protect falls on the wider international community.”

It is too much to expect this responsibility from a guerrilla movement that has no regard for laws and rights but if a democratically elected government justifies the defiance of human rights and national and international laws then sovereignty and humanity lose their true meanings. Incidentally, Sri Lanka is not the only country needing international intervention to save lives. The recent tragic happenings in Kenya following the disputed Presidential election result are an instance where the people need protection and the calamity has been described by UN envoys as genocide. In other parts of Africa many lives were lost because of the neglect of the secondary responsibility of the international community to protect civilians caught up in internal strife in which the government is involved directly or indirectly.

Related article: Sri Lanka’s clash with UN and other envoys

Appendix

Disappointed with the abrogation decision

The United States has said it is ‘troubled’ by the abrogation. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said that ending the cease-fire agreement would make it even more difficult to achieve a lasting, just and peaceful solution to Sri Lanka’s conflict and called upon the government and the LTTE to avoid an escalation of hostilities and more civilian casualties. He said: “All parties to the conflict share the responsibility to protect the rights of all Sri Lankans. We urge them to work towards the goal of a just, political solution that ensures the rights of minority communities and benefits all Sri Lankans. Only a peaceful political solution, not a military one, offers a way out of the current cycle of escalating violence”.

Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier in the statement issued on January 3 said: “Canada deeply regrets the decision of the Government of Sri Lanka to withdraw from the 2002 Ceasefire Agreement. Withdrawal from this important agreement will make the search for a durable political solution more difficult, and only increases the likelihood that the incidents of violence being carried out by both sides will increase. We remain deeply concerned about the impact of the escalating violence on civilians, humanitarian workers and human rights defenders. Violence will not produce solutions; it will only bring more tragedy to the people of Sri Lanka. We call on all parties to respect human rights and to work urgently toward political solutions that will bring peace to Sri Lanka.”

Japan also expressed concern over the Sri Lanka’s decision to abrogate the CFA. In a statement Japanese foreign minister Masahiko Koumura said that the Sri Lankan government’s decision may lead to the escalation of the conflict by way of increased level of violence and greater civilian casualties and leave the peace process at a standstill.

The statement said: “The conflict in Sri Lanka cannot be solved by military means.

The Government of Japan calls on the parties concerned to reach a solution not by violence but by political means through negotiation. The Government of Japan strongly hopes that necessary steps will be taken for the development of the peace process, such as early submission of a devolution package”.

Australia’s Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said in a statement, Sri Lanka was taking a backward step by withdrawing from its ceasefire agreement with the LTTE. He was concerned over the decision as this “could lead to further escalation of violence, including against civilians”. He appealed to all parties to the conflict to “protect the human rights of all Sri Lankans”. He also said, “Military action against the rebel group was not the best course of action. Sri Lanka’s conflict cannot be resolved militarily”.

French Junior Minister for Foreign Affairs and Human Rights, Rama Yade, told Mahinda Samarasinghe, the Sri Lankan Minister for Human Rights and Natural Disasters on January 4 when she received him for talks on France’s dissatisfaction with the termination of the CFA. Yade also expressed French ‘concern’’ over the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and “called for increased cooperation by the Sri Lankan authorities with the mechanism of the United Nations.” Yade also expressed French ‘concern’ over the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and “called for increased cooperation by the Sri Lankan authorities with the mechanism of the United Nations” A French Foreign Ministry statement said, “dialogue and a political solution is the only option capable of guaranteeing a fair and lasting peace in Sri Lanka”. The statement added, Sri Lanka being a democratic country must carry out the fight against terrorism with full respect for internationally-recognised norms and the established rule of law in the island nation.

British Foreign Office Minister Lord Malloch-Brown regretted the lack of a genuine commitment to peace from the LTTE and the Sri Lankan Government. The British Government urged Sri Lanka to live up to its commitment to address the grievances of Tamil people. In this regard Lord Malloch-Brown said: “There can be no military solution to the conflict. It is vital now that the Government lives up to its commitment to address the grievances of Tamil people.” He added: “We look to the political parties in Sri Lanka to place the need to work together for peace above their narrow self-interests”

[The writer is Former Additional Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, Sri Lanka and UN Advisor, Development Economics/Planning]