President and the Tamil Diaspora

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa seems to have kept in mind the threat posed by the resolution on Sri Lanka passed by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in March, when he met UN Secretary General (UNSG) Antonio Guterres on September 19 in New York and during his speech at the 76th United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on September 22.

And it is not clear as to how the nationalistic leaders of the government and the ruling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) digested some of the points the President made such as his intention to engage with the Tamil Diaspora, during his meeting with the UNSG. They did not utter a word about them, leave alone protesting against, despite them being a far cry from their professed stand. Those statements prompt us to ask if he and his party, the SLPP have changed their stance on many issues pertaining to the ethnic problem in the country. 

The Diaspora’s political initiatives, and public statements on behalf of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka must not negatively affect the situation here; they must not prove to be obstacles to our efforts here

The President favourably spoke about releasing of LTTE cadres detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), releasing of lands occupied by the security forces in the North and the East during the war, compensating the war victims and interestingly engaging with the Tamil Diaspora in order to resolve the internal issues through an internal mechanism. When the former government expressed the same sentiments on these issues the SLPP viewed them as a threat to the national security and betrayal of the country.

During his speech at the UNGA as well as the discussion with the UNSG, the President stressed the need to have this internal mechanism. It was obvious that he stressed this point to diplomatically counter the accountability process initiated by the UNHRC in respect of human rights issues in Sri Lanka. Internal mechanism for internal issues had been the stand maintained by the government and political parties led by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Ironically, the very acceptance of a local mechanism by the successive governments signifies the acceptance of human rights violations in the country.

It might be easier for the government to arrive at agreements with the local Tamils who by now have openly abandoned the concept of separate Tamil State, whereas the Diaspora groups still stick to the Tamil Eelam demand or closer to it by varying degrees

In fact, the UN and the UNHRC too initially wanted the Sri Lankan government to resolve the accountability issue through a local mechanism. Hence, the first US sponsored resolution on Sri Lanka adopted at the UNHRC in 2012 demanded only the implementation of the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) appointed by President Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2010.

Yet, that government failed to convince the international community including the UN agencies that Sri Lanka can resolve the accountability issue through an internal mechanism. Hence the UNHRC under a resolution passed in 2014 had conducted an international investigation and concluded that both the armed forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) had violated human rights violations which sometimes could amount to be war crimes.  

The President, if he is serious on engaging with the Tamil Diaspora, would have to arrive at a consensus first on it within the political coalition under his watch

Then the former government led by President Maithripala Sirisena and prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe agreed with the UNHRC to institute a hybrid mechanism of local and Commonwealth stakeholders to deal with the human rights issues. With the same leaders of the former government backtracking on that agreement and the Rajapaksas ascending to power again, the UNHRC has decided to carry forward its course of action. 

Accordingly, as an extension of the accountability process implemented by the UNHRC, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet in her report submitted to the world’s human rights body in March requested the member countries to take legal action and impose economic and travel restrictions against those who have violated human rights in Sri Lanka. And the UNHRC resolved to establish a data base to collect evidence against the perpetrators of human rights violations to support those legal actions.

One cannot contest the president’s professed intention to engage with the Tamils Diaspora to resolve the “internal issues.” However, the statement prompted mixed reactions from the Tamil political parties and the Diaspora groups with some welcoming and some others casting doubts on the sincerity of it. Tamil National Alliance (TNA) spokesman and Parliamentarian M.A.Sumanthiran hailed the President for his statement while suggesting to speak to the TNA, what he called the representatives of Tamils in Sri Lanka first. That is again suggesting to resolve the issues internally. 

Sumanthiran had said that the President had invited the TNA on July 16 for discussions and later put it off. He said that despite Mr. Rajapaksa having sent two letters saying that the TNA would have discussions with him very soon, his party was still waiting for it. While calling the president’s statement a progressive move, the UK-based Global Tamil Forum (GTF), one of the premier Tamil Diaspora groups questioned the rationale behind the proscription of Diaspora groups by the government in March this year. 

It is not clear as to why the President has turned to the Tamil Diaspora to resolve Tamil demands apparently ignoring the local Tamil leaders. It might be easier for the government to arrive at agreements with the local Tamils who by now have openly abandoned the concept of separate Tamil State, whereas the Diaspora groups still stick to the Tamil Eelam demand or closer to it by varying degrees. Many Tamil Disapora groups still use the Tiger flag of the LTTE during their demonstrations. 

There seems to be a clash between the interests of the local Tamil leaders and the Tamil Diaspora as well, despite both groups raise similar issues at various political fora. This was clearly manifested by the speech made by the TNA leader R. Sampanthan at the 14th annual convention of the ITAK held in Batticaloa in May, 2012. He said “The Diaspora must respect the political thinking of those living here. They must respect the courage with which they make decisions, and their ability to determine their own political destiny. The Diaspora must trust in these capabilities of the Tamil people living here. The Diaspora’s political initiatives, and public statements on behalf of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka must not negatively affect the situation here; they must not prove to be obstacles to our efforts here. It is the efforts that are made by the people in Sri Lanka, which are made in accordance with the situation in Sri Lanka, and with sensitivity to this situation that will finally bring about concrete results for the Tamil Nation.” 

However, the President, if he is serious on engaging with the Tamil Diaspora, would have to arrive at a consensus first on it within the political coalition under his watch.