The Sri Lanka Democracy Forum's own Documents

SLDF Condemns Attempts by the Government to Suppress “Truth”: COI’s Work to Address Impunity and Media Freedom are Critical

As Sri Lanka is thrown further into war, the siege against independent attempts to bring out the “truth” grows tighter. The suppression of “truth” has led to the deterioration of political culture and the criminalization of the State. It applies to those concerned with the “truth” about human rights abuses, the “truth” in relation to the suffering of civilians affected by the war or for that matter safeguarding the very institutions including the media that are responsible for unearthing “truth” that is essential for a democratic and just society.

SLDF is deeply distressed by the President’s interference in the working of the Commission of Inquiry (COI) set up by the President himself to address sixteen cases of grave human rights abuses in 2005 and 2006. Even as the COI was beginning to show some progress, the President and some of the officials in government have interfered and introduced delays, including the suspension of video conferenced testimony of witnesses who have found refuge abroad. The resignation of veteran public servant and Commissioner, Dr. Devanesan Nesiah, is reflective of the loss of credibility of the COI.

SLDF is outraged by the brazen attacks on journalists. An open and democratic society can not compromise on the question of media freedom. The brutal physical attacks on Keith Noyahr and Namal Perera along with Mahendra Ratnaweera have to be condemned in the strongest terms. Given the circumstances surrounding these attacks, the government should take responsibility to find those guilty of these reprehensible attacks. The continuing detention without charges of journalist J.S. Tissainayagam, printer and manager Jaseharan and his partner Valarmathi is also of serious concern, and it is yet another act to intimidate journalists into silence.

There are sections both in the government and the public sphere who claim that the war effort, and particularly a “war against terrorism”, should freeze certain rights and delay the deliberations seeking “truth” until after the war. SLDF strongly disagrees with such a claim. The LTTE has consistently suppressed “truth” over the last twenty years, including by systematically eliminating dissent and opposition to is fascist agenda. There is no recourse to justice for the hundreds of thousands of people living under the jackboot of the LTTE. However, a government that claims to be democratic should never descend to such levels, and if the war and militarization entails suppression of the “truth”, the legitimacy of the government itself is necessarily at risk. The commissions and omissions of the current government are doing irreparable damage to the confidence of the minorities in the Sri Lankan State and their rights as citizens.

The Work of the COI and Interference

A year ago, in July 2007, SLDF wrote in a statement [1] on the COI and IIGEP that: “SLDF believes that the COI and the IIGEP have the potential to make a vital contribution towards addressing the culture of impunity. At a minimum, the COI could provide recommendations for the reform of the criminal justice system, highlight lapses in investigations, and provide evidence to revitalize efforts to bring justice to victims and families of a few of the worst human rights abuses committed during the last two years.” And SLDF went on to raise further concerns about the conflict of interest of the Attorney General’s department, the need for effective witness protection, issues with funds for the COI and the importance of ‘timeliness and speed’ in concluding the work of the COI. Those concerns remain the same, if not accentuated by the recent interference by the President on the work of the COI.

Indeed, the COI was beginning to make progress in unearthing the “truth”. Much of the testimony on the case of the extrajudicial execution of five students in Trincomalee and further video conferencing testimony on the ACF case would have possibly revealed important evidence on the perpetrators of the cases relating to the five students and the ACF massacre. As highlighted in the reports of the University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna), these two cases reveal State complicity in grave human rights abuses, and the COI in making progress on these two cases would have made a significant step in addressing the prevailing culture of impunity in the country.

Suspension of Video Conferencing and the Witness Protection Bill

The recent interference by the President’s Secretary to suspend testimony through video conferencing is a major blow to the functioning of the COI. The suspension of gathering evidence through video conferencing from witnesses outside the country by the COI was carried out under a directive from the President citing future witness protection laws. For the COI to function properly, it should be driven by a moral ethical spirit as much as by legal technicalities. In this context, SLDF is seriously concerned about the suspension of the use of video conferencing to gather evidences from witnesses living outside Sri Lanka. We acknowledge that such evidence when gathered in the absence of well defined procedures can be vulnerable to undue influence and corruption, which is the main reason attributed for the suspension of video-links. However, SLDF believes that even if this was true, the decision regarding the validity of the evidence obtained should have been taken by the COI and not by the government. Furthermore, the proposed witness protection bill is fraught with problems; it is vague in its definitions, depends too much on the executive branches, particularly the police and the Attorney General (AG)’s department for implementation and may take many more months before it is passed and ratified. The intimidation of witnesses in Sri Lanka is now well established. The suspension of video-links in this context, on the sole instruction of the President, can only be interpreted as an attempt to suppress “truth” by keeping out witnesses who are beyond the reach of intimidation. Furthermore, the provisions in the new witness protection bill which calls for a role for the police and the AG’s department, raises concerns about the position of witnesses who flee the country due to lack of confidence and fear of the criminal justice system.

The Resignation of Commissioner, Dr. Devanesan Nesiah

At the outset, SLDF supported the work of the COI based on the reputation of the leading civil society figures, some who had many years in public service and for their contributions to issues of justice and society more broadly. Dr. Nesiah’s position on other commissions in the past and his public service over a number of decades, including as Government Agent in a number of districts were all characteristics that provided legitimacy to the COI’s work. The pressures exerted by the Counsel to the Security Forces, the letter by the President’s Secretary and the public vilification of Dr. Nesiah prior to his resignation point to not only the lack of seriousness on the part of the President to address impunity, but also collusion between sections of the State, and is a dangerous development in the country suggestive of unwillingness to face up to the revelations of a government-sanctioned investigation.

The COI’s recommendations do not necessarily lead to prosecutions and as such it is mainly a body that was meant to carry out inquiries, in the context of which legalistic arguments whether right or wrong about conflict of interest with respect to Dr. Nesiah’s relationship to the Centre for Policy Alternatives do not hold much water. Indeed, if there is any serious conflict of interest, it continues to be the role of the Attorney General in the COI, whose reluctance to move on the investigations and prosecutions through the criminal justice system necessitated the need for the COI in the first place. SLDF recognizes the contribution of Dr. Nesiah in the proceedings of the COI thus far, and believes the resignation thrust upon him, is a loss not only to the work of the COI, but also to the cause of fighting impunity in the country. When a prominent Tamil Commissioner is pushed out of the COI, it does not bode well for witnesses from the minority communities willing to come forward.

We quote below at length from the letter of resignation by Dr. Nesiah on 24 June 2008, as it clearly outlines what is at stake with the COI:

“There were many difficulties impeding the Commission but progress was made, albeit slowly. One of the difficulties was in respect of witness protection and another in respect of gaining access to witnesses who had gone overseas. The scope of witness protection that the Commission has been able to extend to witnesses resident within Sri Lanka is very limited in respect of both degree and duration. However, several key witnesses have gone overseas and the introduction of video conferencing opened the possibility of access to several of them. Accelerated progress was made and it appeared that the new momentum could be sustained. Since then, with the suspension of video conferencing and with the requirement imposed on the Commission to await the new legislation governing witness protection, those prospects have receded. In my view, some of the provisions in the draft legislation may deter several critically important witnesses from testifying. In consequence the Commission might not be in a position to arrive at a robust conclusion in any of the 16 cases assigned. That would be a disaster for the Commission, for the victims who seek justice, and for our national reputation – a fundamental indictment of our nation's ability to deliver truth and justice to the victims of serious violations of human rights.”

SLDF calls on the COI to complete its work in a timely manner, and to come out with the “truth” about these cases and with recommendations for the reform of the criminal justice system. SLDF further demands that the interference by the President into the work of the COI is stopped forthwith and provisions are made to immediately resume video-linked testimony.

War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity and International Processes

SLDF is perturbed by the lack of seriousness both on the part of the government as well as the commentators in the public sphere about the seriousness of the massacre of the ACF aid workers and other such grave human rights abuses. Many such crimes are internationally recognized as war crimes and crimes against humanity, and may in the future come under universal jurisdiction for prosecution in courts internationally. The work of the COI was meant to redress the flaws in the criminal justice system and strengthen national institutions to address impunity. The failure of the COI as a credible domestic process, particularly through continued interference and lack of cooperation from government officials, could well pave the way for an international process to address such war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Attacks on the Media

SLDF is outraged by the brazen attacks on the media. The abduction and brutal attack on Keith Noyahr on 22 May 2008 and the attempted abduction and brutal attacks on journalist Namal Perera, along with British High Commission official Mahendra Ratnaweera on 30 June 2008, reflect the culture of impunity that has taken hold over the country. The circumstances surrounding both attacks point to State complicity in these attacks and the patent cynicism of statements by government officials alluding to conspiracy theories only reinforce the arguments pointing to complicity at the highest levels of the State. The continued detention without charges of Tamil journalist J.S. Tissainayagam, printer and manager Jaseharan and his partner Valarmathi since 7 March 2008 reflects another line of attack on media freedom by the State. Related to such repression, and as a reminder that the repression will not stop with the media, there are recent reports of inquiries being carried out by the police into the activities of the four human rights organizations, Right to Life Centre, Law and Society Trust, Janasansadaya and Civil Monitoring Commission.

While concerns of leaking vital military information through the media is a serious issue, even those incidents should be addressed through the rule of law and not vigilante action by State-linked actors. However, the current attacks on media freedom stem from a deliberate conflation of military information with that of genuine criticism of the military efforts including issues such as corruption in the military.

The work of journalists and media freedom are fundamental for an open and democratic society. These attacks, detention and intimidation of some journalists can necessarily lead to self-censorship by other journalists.

At a time when the minorities, and particularly the Tamil community, are under siege by both parties to the war, the media has an important role in bringing out the “truth” about civilian suffering and bridging the communities toward inter-ethnic co-existence. However, for the media to be effective in this task, it should be allowed to function without fear, to be able speak out not only about the need for state reform, or the need to address human rights, but also about the prosecution of the war. Any democratic society needs the check of the media, to ensure the government is accountable to its citizens.

Seeking “Truth” and the Role of Civil Society

In a time of war, more than at any other time, the government should be under greater scrutiny, both through government appointed bodies such as the COI as well as a vibrant and free media. The absence of such checks is leading to the State losing the minorities confidence and could have long-term repercussions of polarizing the communities beyond repair. This has been one lesson from the last twenty five years of the conflict, which the current government seems to disregard. Precisely when the State lacks the commitment towards minorities and its citizens at large, civil society needs to act; the religious clergy, academics, trade unions, professional organizations, the NGOs and the business community should take on the formidable responsibility of defending the “truth”.

[1] SLDF Supports the Work of the COI and IIGEP and Calls for Greater National and International Support to Address the Culture of Impunity, 11 July 2007: http://www.lankademocracy.org/documents.html#07july11

18 May 2008, For Immediate Release:

SLDF Condemns the Brutal Murder of Maheswary Velautham

The Sri Lanka Democracy Forum (SLDF) unreservedly condemns the LTTE for the brutal assassination of Maheswary Velautham on 13 May 2008.

Maheswary Velautham was killed in a hail of bullets fired at point blank range by LTTE gunmen when she was caring for her bedridden ailing mother in her home village in Navundil in northern Jaffna in the presence of her family members. Writ all over this cruel episode of murder, and the manner and circumstances in which it was carried is not an iota of the self-proclaimed heroism of the LTTE, but its unrivalled depravity and cowardice.

Reputed for her long years of sustained, dedicated and exceptional work on behalf of displaced people, refugees and those languishing in long term detention without trial, Maheswary displayed enormous courage and leadership in negotiating her role in the service of her people in the whirlpool of violent Tamil politics. At a time when many Tamils took the easy way out by going abroad seeking comfortable lives, it was her commitment to serve her people that made her to remain in the island exposing her to the ever present danger that eventually ended her life.

A pioneering woman activist from the days of the incipient Tamil national movement in the seventies, Maheswary belonged to the generation of Tamil activist women who had to tread a lonely path to carve out a space for themselves in a male dominated world of Tamil politics. No matter what her political alliances were Maheswary was single minded in her non partisan commitment to all those she served, and to the Tamil community in general.

The LTTE has been singularly responsible for the physical elimination and silencing of a whole generation of Tamil political leaders, intellectuals, academics, human rights activists and humanitarian workers. Now Maheswary Velautham joins this long list of persons who have fallen victims to the bombs and guns of the LTTE.

What this latest killing of a 54-year-old unarmed woman demonstrates is that the LTTE under V. Pirapaharan is incapable of transforming itself to accept a multiplicity of political views and practices and deviating from its relentless campaign of murder of each and every Tamil, whether young or old, male or female, who dares to think and act differently.

SLDF calls upon all those who condemn this wanton killing of a dedicated public figure to redouble their efforts in fighting for democracy, justice and dignity for the minorities, in particular, the Tamil community that Maheswary served.

10 April 2008, For Immediate Release:

SLDF Called on APRC Delegation to Release an Interim Report on Consensus Arrived at Within the APRC

The Sri Lanka Democracy Forum (SLDF) held a discussion with the visiting delegation of the All Party Representative Committee (APRC) including APRC Chairman Professor Tissa Vitarana and eight other delegates on 6 April 2008, which followed a meeting of SLDF’s international Steering Committee and an SLDF sponsored day long conference the previous day.

The meetings took place in the shadow of escalating violence in Sri Lanka, surrounding the Madhu Church in Mannar and the brutal assassination of Minister Fernandopulle and fourteen others by an LTTE suicide bomber in Weliweriya. SLDF unreservedly condemns these and other acts of violence which target civilians.

The conference on 5 April 2008, attended by SLDF activists and other activists from Europe, addressed issues relating to a political solution, democratization, concerns of minorities, the politics of human rights, diaspora activism and the impact of the upcoming Provincial Council elections. The conference was followed the next day, by a meeting of SLDF’s international Steering Committee to arrive at decisions relating to SLDF’s work over the next six months.

On the evening of 6 April 2008, SLDF Steering Committee members and a few other observers held a three hour long discussion with the visiting delegation of the APRC. SLDF reiterated that there was no military solution, and that the only way forward was through a just political process that addressed the grievances and aspirations of the minority communities leading to State reform within a united Sri Lanka. SLDF expressed concern that recent developments and the delays and deflection of the APRC process have shattered the confidence of the minority communities. SLDF called on the APRC Chairman Prof. Vitarana and the APRC representatives to immediately release at least an interim report of the ninety percent consensus that had been arrived at within the APRC process. Given the divided and polarized positions within Parliament, further progress with respect to a national consensus will be difficult to achieve unless all communities participate in a national debate on State reform.

SLDF appreciates the participation of the APRC delegation in constructive engagement with the critical concerns raised at the meeting. The meeting also provided the opportunity for Mr. Devadas of the Europe based Sri Lankan Dalit Social Development Front to make submissions to the APRC on a political solution that addresses the concerns of Dalits, who face caste oppression within the Tamil community.

7 March 2008, For Immediate Release: Concerns of Minorities and Civilians Should be Debated at the UN HRC: SLDF Urges Human Rights Mechanisms to Address Impunity and Protection

The Sri Lanka Democracy Forum (SLDF) calls for local and international pressure to halt the severe escalation of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. The country is mired in another brutal cycle of war, the effect of which is particularly made worse by the scuttling of the political process to address minority grievances. The rampant killings, abductions, enforced disappearances, and attacks on the media -- all have worsened the prevailing climate of fear and the culture of impunity; these developments, coupled with the government’s increasing authoritarianism, debilitate democratic institutions and the democratic fabric of society. President Rajapakse’s interference in the political process has undermined the All Party Representative Committee’s efforts to produce credible proposals for a political solution, which would have also provided the opening to address broader concerns of human rights and rule of law in the country. Instead, the escalation of violence inherent to a military approach, the targeting of civilians and the virulent nationalist rhetoric espoused by both the State and the LTTE are further polarizing the communities and eroding the possibility of a sustainable and just peace.

SLDF calls on local and international actors to take a principled stand backed up by concrete action to ensure that both the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) and the LTTE respect international human rights and humanitarian laws. SLDF reiterates that a UN human rights field operation can contribute significantly to the protection of civilians. The targeting of civilians during armed conflict and the commission of other grave human rights abuses constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity, and perpetrators of such crimes should be brought to justice.

Targeting of Civilians by the LTTE

Following LTTE leader Prabhakaran’s Heroes Day speech, the LTTE has been escalating violence against the civilians in bombings and claymore mine attacks, leading to death and injury to hundreds of civilians. This targeting of civilians, in effect, forecloses the possibility of the LTTE participating in any political process in the future. The LTTE’s agenda seems to be one of further polarizing the communities, including the instigation of a backlash against the Tamil community, as a way of gaining legitimacy for its bankrupt separatist politics. The reports coming out of LTTE-controlled territory in the Vanni also point to horrific repression of the civilian population there. These attacks on civilians by the LTTE should be condemned in the strongest terms and warrant the further isolation of the LTTE.

The UN and the Debate on Human Rights in Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka has a long-standing tradition of progressive legal and human rights activism which in addition to building a rich human rights culture in the country, has also contributed to the development of international human rights law and UN mechanisms. The Civil Rights Movement, did path breaking work with litigation in the Supreme Court following the first JVP insurgency and its brutal repression in 1971; the University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna), began their work in the late 1980s combining human rights reporting with political critique, and were one of the pioneers internationally, in highlighting the abuses of non-state actors, particularly the abuses of the LTTE. Given this tradition, SLDF encourages the GOSL to raise concerns about the abuses of all states and non-state actors in UN forums, including Western states, responsible for human rights abuses against civilians. At the same time, SLDF urges the GOSL to adhere to its international and national obligations to protect human rights, including through support of UN mechanisms, rather than deflect international concern and condemnation as Western interference. SLDF calls on government officials and actors in civil society, to recognize the suffering of the civilians affected by the conflict, and refrain from reacting to criticism and pressure on human rights as anti-national, and not become mere apologists for the Sri Lankan State. The intellectual honesty and ethical responsibility of all actors are at stake, as we face another cycle of brutal repression. Furthermore, greater attention on human rights will reflect a political commitment towards justice for the minority communities.

Dayan Jayatilleke, Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to the UN in Geneva assures us, “human rights violations will drop off drastically when the war is over, when the enemy has been defeated – just as human rights violations in the South of Sri Lanka dropped off sharply when the JVP had been militarily defeated” (The Island, 25 December 2007). The LTTE’s position is identical – human rights certainly, once the war of liberation ends. There is an eerie similarity between the two positions and a callous disregard of civilian suffering. Both positions treat civilian life as an expendable commodity valuable only as a means towards the objective of winning the war. This perspective is in direct contradiction of the “laws of war” or better known as international humanitarian law, the violation of which is a war crime.

Impunity

There has been no progress with regard to impunity in Sri Lanka. Necessary legislative provisions do not exist to prevent impunity; the criminal justice system lacks independence and competence; investigations continuously fail; there is no witness protection legislation or policy; the Attorney-General is failing in his responsibility to prosecute those responsible for human rights abuses; and there is a failure to provide compensation to victims of human rights violations. The IIGEP, mandated to monitor the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (COI) into 16 serious cases, has issued a statement this week stating it will terminate its operations without the COI completing even one case, with both mechanisms failing to serve as a deterrent against serious human rights abuses. Indeed the IIGEP statement reflecting on the process of finding justice says “underlying it all was the impunity … there is a climate of threat, direct and indirect, to the lives of anyone who might identify persons responsible for human rights violations, including those who are likely to have been committed by the security forces.” The lack of an effective mechanism to check perpetrators of human rights violations is all the more worrying given concerns raised by UTHR(J) in their recent report released on 21 February 2008, about death squads functioning with impunity and sanction from the highest levels of the State.

Disappearances, Abductions and Killings

There have been over a thousand cases of disappearances, abductions and killings in Sri Lanka over the last two years. Human rights groups claim that in Jaffna alone there have been over 700 cases of killings, abductions and disappearances by the State and State-linked actors, during 2006 and 2007. Human Rights Watch in a press release to an extensive report on enforced disappearances released this week claims, “In 2006 and 2007, the United Nations Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances recorded more new ‘disappearance’ cases from Sri Lanka than from any other country in the world.” MP Manoganesan, who himself is at risk for the important work that he is doing as convenor of the Civil Monitoring Commission, claims there has been a resurgence of abductions in February 2008, including in Colombo.

Governance, Authoritarianism and the Constitutional Council

Ultimately, human rights, democracy and pluralism in Sri Lanka will only be as strong as its institutions and political culture. An emerging authoritarianism reminiscent of earlier decades of the conflict, and the undermining of institutions responsible for governance, have raised concerns about the state of democracy in Sri Lanka. President Rajapakse continues to violate the constitution despite the nomination of the tenth candidate by the political parties represented in parliament, which was his pretext for not convening Constitutional Council earlier. The current wave of authoritarianism is characterized, under the guise of national security, by the abuse of power, the misuse of the police and security apparatus against political opponents, targeting of minority communities, the intimidation of the media, and attacks on international and local NGOs.

Press Freedom

The recent attacks on the press and intimidation of journalists are very alarming because a free press is the foundation of any democratic society. Senior officials in the GOSL have unashamedly called for censorship of the press and warned individual journalists about their reporting. The Tamil media has been for long intimidated into towing the LTTE line, and now other armed groups such as the TMVP and the EPDP, are adding to the terror prevailing on the Tamil public sphere. The killings of journalists, the greater surveillance and intimidation of journalists, and the attendant climate of fear, have also led to increased self-censorship by journalists in all three languages. In the absence of an independent and effective human rights reporting mechanism, the press in Sri Lanka are tasked with the important work of reporting on human rights abuses and the humanitarian situation in conflict affected areas. As such, the climate of fear in which they operate stifles one of the few avenues to channel the concerns of civilians.

Election Violence

With local government elections scheduled for 10 March 2008 in Batticaloa, there are increasing reports of election-related violence. Furthermore, holding elections while the TMVP continues to function as an armed group undermines the possibility of free and fair elections. The climate of fear and the continuing killings in the East raise concerns not only about the democratic process, but also the impact on civilians who are bound to face both intimidation and violence perpetrated by armed groups including the LTTE and TMVP, in the lead up to, during and following the elections. Most people in the East believe that the election result is a foregone conclusion, determined by those who wield guns, rather than at the ballot box. The elections and the result will have no legitimacy or credibility, and as such is an “inauspicious” beginning for local democratic governance in the East.

Rhetoric of “Terrorism”

The rhetoric of “terrorism” and the “war on terror” has been used by the GOSL and Sinhala Buddhist nationalists to attack anyone critical of the GOSL or the war effort as sympathizers of the “terrorists”. SLDF has consistently challenged the fascist political culture of the LTTE and has had no compunctions about challenging the acts of terror perpetrated by the LTTE, the State or State-linked armed groups. The conflict and the problems facing the Sri Lankan State cannot be reduced to one of terrorism. Instead, the GOSL has to acknowledge that it is essentially a political problem that requires a just political process to reverse not only the escalation of the conflict but also the grievances of the minority communities since Independence. Furthermore, responding to “terrorism” with counter terror, resulting in grave human rights abuses including the targeting of civilians, cannot be justified. Such grave abuses are crimes against humanity and war crimes, and as such should be brought to account by the courts, and where necessary international courts.

Dissent

With the onslaught of the war, the war mongering propaganda and the centre stage being given to the nationalist extremes, dissenting political opinion from both Sinhala and Tamil nationalisms, supporting a pluralist democracy in Sri Lanka is again under attack. Indeed, even raising genuine concerns about the predicament of civilians has increasingly become the function of dissenting voices. With the climate of fear, dissent in Sri Lanka has the formidable task of debating the concerns relating to human rights, raising the concerns of minorities, challenging the polarization of communities, preserving the democratic space and campaigning for a just political process.

Protection of Civilians and a UN Human Rights Field Operation

With the escalation of the war, domestic mechanisms have failed to protect civilians and State-linked forces have been responsible for human rights abuses against the minority communities. In this context, SLDF believes that only a UN human rights mechanism will enjoy the confidence of minority communities to arrest impunity and serve as a deterrent against future abuses. SLDF supports calls by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, to establish a UN Human Rights Field Operation in Sri Lanka. Such a field operation, to be effective must have full access to the entire country including territory controlled by the LTTE; and through a mandate of protection, monitoring, investigation and reporting can empower local structures to ensure the independence of the judiciary and freedom of the press, stimulate discussion on human rights issues and enhance the space for humanitarian work.

The UN Human Rights Council (UN HRC)

SLDF calls upon the UN HRC to consider and debate the human rights and humanitarian concerns of the civilians in Sri Lanka, and condemn the abuses by all armed actors, be they the security forces, the State-linked armed groups or the LTTE. The UN HRC, as the ultimate multi-lateral body responsible for human rights, has an important role in debating the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, notwithstanding the GOSL’s assertions about interference. The ongoing March session of the UN HRC and Sri Lanka’s Universal Periodic Review in May 2008, provide opportunities for a vibrant debate. A principled resolution at the UN HRC, including credible recommendations, is in the interest of those individuals and communities in Sri Lanka that have been the most affected by the ceaseless onslaughts of human rights abuses.

24 January 2008, For Immediate Release: SLDF Rejects the Interim Report of the APRC Calling for an Interim Arrangement

SLDF rejects the APRC’s announcement of the 13th amendment to the Constitution as the interim arrangement, at the personal behest of President Rajapakse who has deflected the announcement of the conclusions reached by the APRC over eighteen month long deliberations, which may now never see the light of day. This undemocratic act by the executive presidency is a travesty of all efforts aimed at according justice to the minority communities, who have consistently suffered discrimination and persecution at the hands of successive Sri Lankan governments over the last sixty years.

The President and the ruling party have singularly failed to show even a semblance of leadership and have sought to hide behind extreme Sinhala Buddhist nationalist forces to railroad the APRC’s mission to find credible proposals for a just and sustainable political solution to the national question. There is absolutely no doubt among those who have been following the APRC proceedings, that it is the President who has scuttled the APRC process having more recently given assurances of a final set of APRC proposals by the end of January 2008. The ruling party’s claim that they are being held to ransom by extreme Sinhala chauvinist elements is disingenuous to say the least. Such claims only reinforce minority fears that they will never be treated as equal citizens in this country by the political parties representing the majority community.

The APRC process which progressed over 18 long months despite serious setbacks and obstacles thrown in its path by Sinhala chauvinists, the ruling party and the opposition UNP, produced important principles and conclusions through the Majority Report of the Panel of Experts consisting of experts from all three communities in December 2006 and the proposals delivered by the Chair of the APRC, Tissa Vitarana in January 2007. All political parties were invited to participate in this process in a robust manner and contribute to this important national debate. The process itself had potential to build consensus, through compromise and negotiation. However, some of the parties chose to stay on the sidelines, waiting for an opportune moment to sabotage the process. Despite these attempts, those who were active within the process, in particular, the minority parties soldiered on.

While we hoped that the APRC would find important principles and conclusions to delineate a clear road map for a political solution, it was clear to the country at large that the APRC process was only the beginning of the long road to peace. The conclusions of the APRC would have had to be taken to the Parliament and the country at large for discussion, negotiation and amendment. This would have been a healthy process for the country to undergo, healing the rifts between communities and ameliorating their differences. The ruling party and the President and their Sinhala chauvinist allies have scuttled such a national debate. If the government cannot even brook such a transparent democratic debate on the national question then it only exposes the sorry state of democracy in this country.

If the President wanted to simply implement the 13th amendment there was no need to set up the APRC process. The 13th amendment was on the statute book already, and all that was required was to implement it. This attempt to debate the ‘national question’ through an all party process need not have been enacted, if the President did not have the integrity to stand by the conclusions of the APRC.

The 13th amendment has been part of the Constitution, for over 20 years, and had been allowed to fall into disuse. There again government abuse of power, of procedure and undue interference which was possible because of the structural flaws and inadequacies of the 13th amendment were important contributing factors for its non-implementation and failure. The APRC process took bolder steps, and sought to democratize governance in the whole country and in the context of which the issues of discrimination and justice for the minorities were going to be met. The government is resurrecting the 13th amendment now only as an administrative sop, so that it would be possible to scupper the APRC process.

Even though the 13th amendment is ostensibly intended as an interim measure, SLDF reiterates there ought to be no interim arrangement without a final vision. The 13th amendment is no interim stage of any roadmap to a sustainable peace. It has no organic connection to the discussions within the APRC. If this announcement of the implementation of the 13th Amendment was intended as a confidence building measure by the government, it will only achieve the contrary, as it will certainly shatter the confidence of the minority communities. Furthermore, the attempt at interim arrangements through the implementation of the 13th Amendment without a substantive vision towards a political solution and credible political process, will only entrench repressive and undemocratic forces in the North and East. The only matter that the government seems to be committed is the war and its attendant militarization.

When the President set up the APRC process 18 months ago, he claimed that this process would put an end to the “dashed hopes and aspirations, not to mention lost opportunities.” With his current action to undermine the APRC process the President has contributed to yet another lost opportunity which will exacerbate the divisions in the country.

It is imperative that the legacy of the APRC process, the Majority Report and the Vitarana proposals and the momentum they created for discussion on the national question be taken forward. If the minority parties, the progressive Southern parties, including APRC Chairman Tissa Vitarana, are genuine in their commitment towards justice to the minority communities, they should immediately make public the consensus they had reached, even if this means a dissenting report that will not have the backing of the major political parties or the government. A discussion on the basis of such a dissenting report ought to be held, nationally, to arrive at credible proposals for a political solution within a united Sri Lanka. The political process must continue, but given the loss of credibility suffered by this government, the political process and the national debate on a just and sustainable political solution should continue outside the auspices of the Sri Lankan state, and in particular, the patronage of this government.

14 January 2008, For Immediate Release: SLDF Demands Completion of the Work of APRC and Progress with the Political Process

The Sri Lanka Democracy Forum (SLDF) demands that the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) facilitates the completion of the APRC process and the prompt announcement of its conclusions arrived at through its inclusive, transparent and democratic deliberations. SLDF demands that the GOSL no longer impedes the natural progression of the APRC deliberations set up to explore solutions to the issue of justice for minority communities that has been festering for 60 years, since independence. Recent news reports suggest that the APRC is being subjected to intense pressure by the ruling party and its Sinhala Buddhist nationalist allies, the JVP and the JHU, to abandon the conclusions reached through discussions over 18 months. Instead, the APRC appears to be under pressure to announce proposals that do not go beyond the twenty year old 13th amendment, which disregards the debates over the last two decades and the discussions that have taken place within the APRC.

SLDF regrets that the President has decided to take this arbitrary and undemocratic step to undermine the satisfactory conclusion of the APRC deliberations, much against his original stated aims for the APRC. The imposition of any formula outside of the APRC deliberations is undemocratic, an attack on the inclusive character of the APRC, and exhibits total disrespect to the parties involved, particularly those parties representing the interests of the minority communities. SLDF regrets that the ruling party has descended to such deplorable levels of political expediency and opportunism at a time of serious political and security crisis when courageous leadership and political integrity ought to be shown by the country’s political leaders.

For sixty years, the minority communities have faced discrimination and ill treatment at the hands of the Sri Lankan State and Sinhala Buddhist nationalists. The Sri Lankan State’s failure to resolve the concerns of minorities has dragged us into a thirty year civil war and the accompanying devastation to all communities. Unless the State makes its commitment to arriving at serious proposals for constitutional reform that would guarantee a just and equitable political solution, the country will remain in turmoil, despite the military gains the government has made over the LTTE.

SLDF reiterates that the only way out of the current debacle is for the GOSL to meet the demands of the minorities and the democratic forces in the country and offer substantial devolution to the regions, power-sharing at the centre, and institute far reaching state reform, as proposed by the Chair of the APRC and the broad agreement reached over the last eighteen months of APRC deliberations.

The LTTE and the war

The LTTE, which claims to be the sole representative of the Tamil people having wiped out almost all of its parliamentary leadership, has waged a war for an independent state for nearly thirty years. The armed campaign for secession was begun challenging the parliamentary path as being too moderate and as not yielding any results. A settlement through negotiations has been anathema to the LTTE till now. There are no signs that it will change its view in the near future. Despite its claims the LTTE has not been able to achieve anything for the Tamils, and indeed has set the community back in its quest for equality and justice. It has depleted the numbers of the Tamil community, exacerbated divisions within the Tamil community that will take a long time to heal, and has also set the Tamil community at loggerheads with the Muslim community. Today the LTTE suffers from total political bankruptcy and isolation, and is in no position to lead or represent the Tamils.

War propaganda, ethnic polarisation and the imperative of a political solution

The government’s unashamedly jingoistic campaign over the war has unleashed Sinhala Buddhist extremist forces, and has polarised the communities more than ever. The Sinhala Buddhist nationalist leadership, which conflates the Tamil people with the LTTE, is representing every LTTE military set back as a political and ideological blow against the claims of Tamils and Muslims to live in the country as equal citizens. This is no recipe for a sustainable peace.

SLDF demands that the political process, which requires compromises on all sides so that each community can come out a winner, is given primacy. The discourse around the war and excessive militarization portrays the interests of the majority as being diametrically opposed to the interests of the minority communities, suggesting that minority interests somehow will have to be met at the expense of the majority, which is not the case. Only an immediate and sincere commitment to the APRC - the only political process in motion - and its due completion will take the country away from this destructive and polarising logic of war.

Senior government officials and their political supporters within the Sinhala Buddhist nationalist lobby are presenting a two stage formula to resolve the ethnic crisis: the demise of the LTTE first, and addressing the grievances of the minorities later. This relies on the stereotypical Sinhala Buddhist nationalist slogan that all problems of the minorities began with the advent of the LTTE. There is no acknowledgement of the historic injustices meted out to the minorities which continue till today, and that the State has the fundamental responsibility to address minority grievances, war or no war with the LTTE. This is essentially a political problem that has given rise to a crisis of serious proportions that threatens the country. Such developments cannot be neatly compartmentalised and dealt with schematically into military victory first and political process later. The only way the LTTE’s fascist politics can be totally defeated is if the political process is taken forward.

The government claimed that the APRC process would be finalized once the budget was passed in December 2007. The budget has been passed in the government’s favour, but we see no genuine movement. Many fear that the obstacles created by the government and its hard line Sinhala Buddhist chauvinist supporters will make the APRC process fail, and then the government would rely upon this to scuttle the political process altogether in the interest of a purely military approach. If the government is to inspire confidence amongst the minority communities, it has to take immediate action to prove that this is not the case. A credible outcome of the APRC process will make minority communities see that there are possibilities in negotiating with the State, despite the belligerence of Sinhala Buddhist nationalists. The majority community will perceive that it is possible to bring the minority communities on board, and assist them to disavow their ties with extremist forces such as the LTTE.

State reform and devolution

The APRC deliberations have been conducted in the context of an ever-deepening crisis of democracy in constitutional and political terms. It is looking into the question of overall state reform that could set off processes of democratisation, that our deeply divided and militarised country needs. The fundamental reform of the state and changes to the system of governance being proposed by the APRC would serve the whole country well for the 21st century.

The APRC is not simply proposing piecemeal reform that would be put together to satisfy the Tamil community’s concerns alone. It is envisaged that addressing minority grievances and devolution from the centre to the regions, particularly to the North and East, ought to be couched within the overall reform of the State. This kind of reform will not benefit one community’s interests at the expense of the other. It is only through an inclusive political process of give and take, where everyone benefits, that a lasting peace could be achieved.

Over the last year and a half, even in the face of manipulation by the President and his Sinhala Buddhist nationalist allies, the APRC was moving towards consensus on important issues. These features, which were also articulated in the Majority Report of the Experts Committee in December 2006 and the Vitarana Report of January 2007, should be addressed in the final APRC proposals if it is to have the necessary legitimacy and acceptance among the minority communities. We summarize below some of these crucial issues:

The structure of the state to ensure a united Sri Lanka, without emotive labels such as “federal” and “unitary”.
Substantial devolution of power to the provinces without a concurrent list of powers.
A bicameral legislature with greater representation for the minorities and the provinces.
The abolition of the executive presidency and a combination of Proportional Representation with the Westminster-type parliamentary system of government.
Implementation of bilingualism, proportional employment of minorities in the public sector, and adequate education facilities for minorities.

Interim administrations without a final vision

SLDF demands that any interim administration should be set up only after the conclusions of the APRC are made public and a clear path is delineated to progress towards state reform. Any interim arrangement should be one phase of an overall process, with a final objective to achieve state reform and devolution. Otherwise it is likely that an interim administration will help entrench structures of power that are deeply undemocratic and unaccountable. SLDF fears that the setting up of interim arrangements that are not democratic, and lack legitimacy and accountability with the people living in the regions, could prove to be disastrous for the future of a just peace in Sri Lanka.

International consensus and support

There is a growing consensus within the international community both in the West and in Asia that progress with the APRC and the announcement of credible proposals for state reform will enable them to assist with reconstruction and development processes. The Government, having abrogated the CFA, has a duty to expedite the internal political process through the APRC. While there was much that was wrong with the failed Norwegian peace process, the Sinhala Buddhist nationalists cannot continue to rely on their portrayal of the international community as the bogey man to renege on their obligations to the minority communities of this country.

On 21 October 2003 the joint statement between India and Sri Lanka asserted:

“India supports the process of seeking a negotiated settlement acceptable to all sections of Sri Lankan society within the framework of a united Sri Lanka... It believes that an enduring solution has to emerge purely through internal political processes. … India will maintain an abiding interest in the security of Sri Lanka... Any interim arrangement should be an integral part of the final settlement and should be in the framework of the unity and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka.”

Such concerns four years ago gained further credence in an EU-India Joint Statement on 30 November 2007:

“There is no military solution to the conflict in Sri Lanka. A negotiated, political settlement, acceptable to all communities within the