Dr. Chandana Jayalath

The Congress, British Parliament and the US State Department will continue to push for the international process in Geneva to probe the final months of the battle ‘that sealed the fate’ of the Tamil Tigers. Those who operate locally in parallel with international groups also demand that the Sri Lankan government should show how it will meet the international desires. Some believe, it will at least ease out if the Sri Lankan government makes a genuine effort to implement the 13th amendment. Some even say there will be no question if the Sri Lankan government simply followed the wining proposal in Geneva by 2009.

 Apparently, the idea behind these pressures is to persuade the Sri Lankan government to a local process capable of meeting their ultimate aspiration of a separate land. However, the very purpose behind this so-called local process is to exert a continuing pressure in form of a converted international persuasion. As what Dr. Wasantha Bandara of the Patriotic National Front exactly said, a one group lays the trap and another group pushes the government towards that trap.

 Anyway by the Northern Provincial Council, the government has already stepped one foot on the trap and they now attempt to push the other foot also on the trap. What is apparent is that the concept of separatism is not yet set aside.  In retrospect, asking why the international community is silent on LTTE atrocities is a metaphorical question, as its answer is well known to everyone. Some members of the world community do not give a tinker`s damn about investigating those crimes simply because that does not serve their purpose.

 Sri Lanka is in the present dilemma in Geneva because its incumbent government is not in the good books of the West. Most of its critics are the worst perpetrators of war crimes who are ably assisted by the international media. Sri Lanka is not considered pro-western enough to be of any use to the capitalist bloc in the throes of a mega politico-economic crisis vis-a-vis an emergent bipolar world where China and Russia is acting as a countervailing force in the new world order. However, the end of Sri Lanka`s armed conflict has put paid to the efforts by some meddlesome western governments to remain actively engaged in the affairs of this country, thereby looking to have a strong presence in the region.

 On the other hand, one need not be surprised that in Geneva a concerted global effort to defend human rights is conspicuous by its absence. Instead, various countries and strategic alliances are abusing the UNHRC and human rights to promote their own interests or to acting in line with what the West wants. The US, which is all out to have allegations of war crimes against Sri Lanka probed, has no qualms about defending Israel to the hilt or carrying out drone attacks on civilians in Afghanistan or using torture as an interrogation method. It has even gone so far as to dash UNHRC efforts to call Israel for example.

 It must not be bewildering to say that the UN has no right to bring a proposal of war investigation if it is dead silent on the US actions in Iraq or Afghanistan or even Pakistan right now. Under circumstances, it is important that the Sri Lankan government makes the other countries fully convinced that it will do, and indeed has been doing, the needful in accordance with the constitution, law and order of the country.

Unlike Israel, Sri Lanka has no strength to implore a face to face fight for such a cause and there must be diplomats to take up this challenge. It would have been accepted by now if it were meticulously seen to be done since 2009. The next step available would be to exhibit the victories so far gained and confirm the bona-fide actions in time to take. Meanwhile, it must disprove the facts and analysis put forward by the US related to the final stages of the war, and must also induce the other countries that any such pressure would undoubtedly affect the process of building up the national integrity and reconciliation. Actually this option is something that cannot be demonstrated only by surrounding the Geneva Summit. It should have been the ‘government position’ that should have maintained since 2009. To do that, our country, I believe, has the sufficient potency to exert an advanced international process. Unfortunately the government went by poor figures for a poor quality process. However, encircling the Sri Lankan government once again insisting an investigation to proceed will ne never ending and there is no doubt that such a pressure would accompany with economic embargoes.

The next choice would be to avoid bringing a resolution by joining hands with the international community and accepting for a combined mechanism as exactly what the separatists and their agents have been saying. However, it cannot be interpreted if not that this option would hang itself simply because the possibility for embargoes once again in case of a deadlock. Indeed, it will not happen if legitimacy is given for so-called war allegations. The resultant effect would then be a report of a combined effort to the Security Council. In turn, China and Russia will face a severe problem of how to oppose such a report. Especially, it is vulnerable when an agenda to change the Sri Lankan government concurrently operates along with the agenda for a war tribunal.

Let me quote a few lines of a previous article in Sinhala by Dr. Wasantha Bandara. According to him, the chances to survive on the basis of ‘half obedience and half ascendancy’ will be too remote to speculate. Half obedience will definitely end with full obedience. Along with the change of government or a regime change in aptly speaking the jury of war crimes will be at its foot front. However, the opposition’s recent argument that the Sri Lankan government cannot be brought before a war tribunal since it has not signed the Rome Accord is a fallacy.  According the 7th constitution of the UN protocol, there is a possibility of suing any government on war allegations even against the non-signatories. It is how Al Bashier, the President of Sudan was brought to courts of law. Also, the Security Council has the power to institute war tribunals aside the Rome Accord such as for example Rwanda and Yogoslovekia.

The intended effect would be to change the government backed by a series of economic embargoes. Historically the Mahinda Rajapaksha government has enough immunity to face such an upheaval of that kind. However, it is doubtful that the government can practically dissolve its full potential while in today’s ‘dress’. Therefore, one of important conditions for the government to abide by is to show the public the genuinity of its choice going to be made at Geneva is not for its survival but for the country. It will indeed help building up a local mass power in addition to the international coverage. 

However, it alone will not fully suffice for building up a local mass power. The government has to show that it is honestly geared towards its choices and, it is possible only when a new constitution that is bountifully oriented towards the masses. The government will have no room to any longer bamboozle the pubic by adulterated constitutional amendments from time to time. The government will have no space to fight alone with this biggest menace and will have no mid way tilting side by side. Rather, it must work for winning the hearts and minds of the masses via showing its genuine efforts in tackling with the issues.

As Dr. Wasantha Bandara says, it will soon be realized that, it is a myth if the government go by plastered schemes on part by part basis. Whatever merits it deserves, after March, the history will force the political figures in Sri Lanka to stand on their own feet.  The public masses too will have the time to take the rod. How far the general public would harness this opportunity would decide the future destiny of the country.