Whither reconciliation in the light of withdrawal from Resolution 30/1?

Sri Lanka withdrew from the 2015 UN Resolution it co sponsored with US and eleven other countries. The Foreign Minister in his speech informing the international community of the withdrawal referred to the fact that some of the commitments made through the Resolution could not be achieved through the constitutional framework currently existent in Sri Lanka and that there were issues affecting the sovereignty of the people of Sri Lanka.  

The Sri Lankan government has said it will no longer be cooperating with the UNHRC’s landmark resolution 30/1, which the previous government had co-sponsored, to promote reconciliation, accountability and human rights in the country. 

Election promise   
Some of the international media had reported the withdrawal as a measure of retaliation against the US banning the Army Chief Shavendra Silva and his immediate family from entering American soil in view of the human rights and war crime charges that US has raised against the army Commander who was one of the leading military figures of the 2009 defeat of the Tamil separatist outfit LTTE. Yet on a broader perspective it was a step taken in pursuance of an Election promise given by the Present President Gotabaya Rajapaksa in his bid to become the President in November 2019. With the withdrawal most of the accountability measures that have had some amount of success, though falling way short of what was expected and committed by the resolution are now in jeopardy, many who have stood and lobbied for reconciliation argue. This is of particular relevance to the some judicial proceedings that have been instituted during the last regime to look in to abductions and disappearance of persons during and after the final phase of the civil war.   

Sri Lanka had made some headway in the reconciliation, reparation and accountability process initiated by the UNP led regime such as releasing land held by the military in the North, releasing suspects against whom no definite charges had been raised, instituting criminal proceedings against members of the security forces , including the top brass , accused of grave acts of human rights violation and war crimes. Legislative measures such as the creation of the Office on Missing Persons. 

Commitments   
UNHRC Resolution 30/1 of 2015 on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka committed Sri Lankan authorities to investigate in to serious crimes against humanity which the international community claim to have been committed during the civil war. It had stated that it “welcomes the initial steps taken to return land” and the efforts at reconciliation, and stands by encourages the “promotion and protection of human rights.”  

Disappointment, dismay and consternation has been the response by many UN and international bodies over the Sri Lankan governments decision to back pedal on the commitments made to the UNHRC by Resolution 30/1. But many on the other side of the spectrum, specially those representing the Sinhala Buddhist nationalist ideology that became a dominant topic during the Presidential Election have hailed the decision as one regaining the sovereignty back and protecting the dignity of the security forces, who it is conceded by all and sundry, fought a dedicated, gruelling and most of the time disciplined battle against an enemy which violated all norms of armed battle using child soldiers, keeping civlillians as human shields, using hospitals and public places as operating bases etc.  

Add to that the fact that the commitment to the co sponsorship was never put to the parliament or the cabinet as the Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena observed, and which had prompted the question whether the government had the mandate to commit itself internationally to a process which compromised its right to manage its own affairs. Yet in the eyes of the coalition government that co sponsored it, reconciliation and reparation as well as accountability was an exigency that had to be addressed in earnest after the conclusion of the civil war in 2009 but which the Mahinda Rajapaksa-regime had failed to do despite having full support of the parliament at that time. It was such inaction that had resulted in mounting pressure on Sri Lanka from UN and other international bodies as well as powerful stakeholders such as US, Canada, UK and Australia. 

Disappointment, dismay and consternation has been the response by many UN and international bodies over the GoSL’s decision to back pedal on the commitments made to the UNHRC by Resolution 30/1

Standing on a landmine   
As Dr. Dayan Jayatilake puts it, Sri Lanka was standing on a landmine with regard to accountability issues ever since the conclusion of the civil war. But the safest way to save yourself when faced with a such situation is not to jump off the landmine but to painstakingly deactivate it from underneath. As flawed and unwarranted the co sponsoring of 30/1 might have been that was what the previous government was trying to do. The logic is that implications of withdrawing from the Resolution are going to come our way for sure and the inevitable result will be more international pressure on Sri Lanka and more dissatisfaction and agitation on the part of the Tamil minority who now would feel hard-done by the Sinhala majority led government in terms of issues such as disappeared persons, reparation, rights violations etc.   

We do not criticize the move to withdraw from the Resolution as it was an act of exercising sovereignty that Sri Lanka enjoys as a nation state and fashioned by the political will of the new President. Yet the apprehension is whether the entire concept of reconciliation which is a must and which is now long over due, too will be thrown out of the priority list of a new government that is expected to come to power in the upcoming elections. The twists and turns the ongoing criminal investigations and judicial proceedings have taken after the Presidential election do not augur well for those kith and kin who expect justice for those who have disappeared. It there was a straw that they could hang on to by way of hope was the government’s commitment and answerability pursuant to the commitment to the UNHRC. Now even that gone, the future of those truth finding processes do look bleak. 

Failure of the judicial process
Sri Lanka is notorious for disappearances, abductions, extrajudicial killings and the failure of the criminal justice system to address, punish culprits and compensate victims and loved ones. Witness protection until very recently was simply non- existent. It was barely two weeks ago that his Eminence Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith expressing dissatisfaction over the investigation process in to the Easter bombings stated that Sri Lanka had failed miserably to administer justice for those who have been killed and disappeared during armed conflict including the insurgencies of the South. And such inability and callousness do remain part of the modus operandi of state agencies when dealing with 
such exigencies.   

Now the move have already been made, what is there for us to hope for? Well, it is hoped against hope that the government will ensure the investigations in to those alleged violations will continue and proceeded with will and vigour. That land still held by the military will be released to the northern Tamil and reparation be done for those who have disappeared. It is also hoped against hope that the judicial process, which is now under a heavier cloud of suspicion in terms of integrity and impartiality, will, for a change, deliver justice for those victims.   

If not, there will be more implications internationally for Sri Lanka, a country in foreign debt to its neck.