GOVERNMENT HAS MECHANISMS TO TURN INTERNATIONAL OPINION AROUND

by Jehan Perera

Implementing reforms in a time of war when the pre-occupation is with issues of both physical and political survival is a difficult task,
especially if those reforms are of a self-critical nature. In these
circumstances it is not surprising that the fate of two major reforms
of the government that can impact upon the longer term prospects of the country hang in the balance. Both of them are connected with the government's ability to address the challenges presented by the ongoing war.
These reforms are the implementation of the 13th Amendment to the
Constitution and obtaining justice through the Presidential Commission of Investigation into Serious Human Rights Violations.
The government has pledged to implement the 13th Amendment which became part of the country's supreme law in 1987 in response to an interim recommendation of the All Party Representatives Committee to find a solution to the ethnic conflict. The implementation of this reform reached a high point with the conduct of the Provincial Council election for the Eastern Province in May of this year. On the other hand, the appointment of the Presidential Commission of Investigation into Serious Human Rights Violations by President Mahinda Rajapaksa took place in November 2006 in the aftermath of several incidents of human rights violations that shocked the conscience of the nation and were flashed in the local and international media.

The future of both reforms has come to a critical juncture. They could take the country into a positive direction in respect of conflict resolution, or they could fall into the limbo of good intentions that failed to materialize. The conduct of the Eastern Provincial Council election in terms of the 13th Amendment was fraught with controversy, charges of large scale pre-election intimidation and election-day rigging. But to their credit, the opposition appears to have reconciled itself to its loss at those polls. The opposition members of the Eastern Provincial Council belonging to the main opposition coalition gave their support to the newly appointed Chief Minister's first policy statement.

Chief Minister Chandrakanthan, better known as Pillayan, won the election pledging to make a difference to the war weary people of the east.
There appears to be a sense in civil society that he is serious about
rebuilding the torn fabric of communal harmony in the region, though he faces enormous challenges. His senior advisor Dr K Wigneswaran is a former government administrator, was a member of the Panel of Experts that was commissioned to come up with an acceptable political package to resolve the ethnic conflict by the All Party Committee, and a political activist with an unblemished reputation for non-violence, who could provide a counterpoint to Pillayan, with his background as a former LTTE military commander.


TIGHT CONTROL

The question is whether the government will honour its promise to fully implement the 13th Amendment that would devolve the necessary power and resources to the provinces. The new eastern administration's ability to provide a viable alternative to the LTTE's rejection of a united Sri Lanka would hinge on the government's willingness to place it trust in the system of devolution. It is an international phenomenon that countries that devolve power to restive regions are less likely to break up than countries that seek to centralize powers against the wishes of the people in the regions. The problem is that the government's nationalist allies, and
sections within the government itself, are mistrustful of the devolution of powers to the Tamil-majority areas, and fear that devolved power to subjects such as police and land, could be misused to further the separatist agenda.

Unfortunately, the government's mistrust of systems and its preference to tightly control matters from the centre is also evident in its second major reform programme. The Presidential Commission of Inquiry into Serious Human Rights Violations is currently in the midst of a two-fold crisis. The COI was set up with a mandate to look into 16 serious incidents of serious human rights violations, in which the government's team of lawyers from the Attorney General's Department had not been able to do any successful prosecutions. Impunity cannot be accepted in any country that claims to be a democracy that is ruled by law. The COI was initially given a year in which to report its findings. Although its term was subsequently extended for a further year, it has been able to make considerable progress in two cases, which are now threatened by negative government action.

The two cases that the COI focused its attention upon relate to the
killing of 17 aid workers in Muttur and 5 students in Trincomalee. The key witnesses in both cases are abroad as they have had death threats leveled against them and their families. The COI was using modern techniques of video conferencing to elicit important evidence from these witnesses. Some of the initial testimony that was given was extremely powerful and moving. Some witnesses were seen weeping as they spoke about the killing of their children and the harassment they subsequently underwent. The government is now refusing to provide funds for the video conferencing. The government's argument is that video conferencing from
abroad, without government representatives being present, can lead to abuses such as the coaching of witnesses.

It is reported that some of the countries that earlier provided members of the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons to assist the COI have offered to pay for the video conferencing to take place, but the government has declined this offer. Instead the government has said that the issue of video conferencing can be resolved once a new law regarding Witness Protection is passed by Parliament. The new law would permit video conferencing only if government representation is provided at the site of the video conferencing. But one consequence of this course of action is that the obtaining of critical evidence by the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into Serious Human Rights Violations has been crippled at the present time.


ADDRESSING CONFLICT

Another unfortunate action of the government is to call for the
suspension of participation in the Commission of Inquiry with regard to the Muttur and Trincomalee cases of one of its commissioners, Dr Devanesan Nesiah.
This is on the grounds of conflict of interest, as he has been associated with the Centre for Policy Alternatives which is intervening on behalf of victims. Any independent assessment would reveal that Dr Nesiah's association with the NGO is not a major one, and he is not known to speak or act on behalf of the NGO. However, nationalist groups have seized upon this relationship to seek to discredit Dr Nesiah and block his participation in the present inquiries.

Ironically, the government itself has been accused of a more serious
conflict of interest. This is on account of the central role played by
the Attorney General's department in the conduct of the investigations by the Commission of Inquiry. This point was highlighted by the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons who were appointed to advise the COI. It was the AG's department that was responsible for investigating the cases of serious human rights violations that are now before the COI, and which it is now assisting the COI to investigate again.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa has complaiened to the international media that Sri Lankan has not been faring too well in the propaganda war with the LTTE. The proper implementation of the 13th Amendment and expediting the work of the Commission of Inquiry would be positive evidence to the international community that the government is serious about long term conflict resolution. The goodwill towards the country could multiply into tangible benefits if the government is able to show its commitment to the
devolution of powers and to the protection of human rights. The government needs to rethink its approach to the 13th Amendment and to the Commission of Inquiry to obtain justice that is seen by the world.

The recent decision of the World Bank to provide the country with significant economic assistance over the next three years, the repeated visits by EU delegations who are tasked with ascertaining whether Sri Lanka qualifies for the tax concessions of GSP+, and the most recent visit by a very high powered Indian delegation suggests that the international community stands ready to assist the government. The manner in which the government deals with the two issues of a political solution and the human rights crisis is most likely to be the criteria by which the international community would measure Sri Lanka's progress in terms of conflict resolution. The ability to turn international opinion around is within the power of the government.