Averting the bloodbath:

A combined national and international effort - Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe

By Manjula Fernando

In an interview with the Sunday Observer, the Chair of the Consultative Committee for Humanitarian Assistance (CCHA) which coordinated international humanitarian aid at the final stages of the humanitarian operation, Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe says, “We have largely achieved ‘freedom from fear’ due to the end of domestic terrorism; our next move must be towards securing ‘freedom from want’”.

“Human rights are supposed to be universal. A civilian death in the Pakistani tribal areas, Iraq, Yemen or Afghanistan is as bad as a civilian death in northern Sri Lanka. Redefining the rules to suit the powerful nations’ agendas does not make human rights violations acceptable.”

Excerpts of the interview:

Question: Sri Lanka is celebrating the fourth anniversary of its victory of the war on terrorism this month. You were the Human Rights Minister at the height of the humanitarian operation, one of the most difficult tasks considering the humanitarian catastrophe. What is your most fulfilling memory? Can you rest now that it is all in the past?

Answer: Obviously the most fulfilling recollection is the rescue of over 293,000 civilians from the clutches of the terrorists. That is what every Sri Lankan who supported the humanitarian operation in whatever way must have felt. Our determination to defeat terrorism was only matched by the desire to rescue those Sri Lankans, unify the country and march forward as one people.

My role then as Chair of the Consultative Committee for Humanitarian Assistance (CCHA) was to coordinate international programs of relief and humanitarian aid along with Basil Rajapaksa (as he was then) and Gotabaya Rajapaksa. The CCHA included agencies of the United Nations, bilateral partners and international/national non-governmental organisations.

It was our combined efforts in conjunction with a carefully conceived and implemented military strategy that helped avert the “catastrophe” or “bloodbath” predicted by our detractors and opponents. As current events demonstrate, we cannot rest on our laurels. There are many who, four years on, still cast aspersions on our achievement, make unfounded allegations against the military and the government, question our record and want some form of retribution for the defeat of one of the most ruthless manifestations of terrorism.

Our achievements since 2009, in resettlement, reconstruction, rehabilitation and reintegration are virtually downplayed; the reconciliation efforts through our domestic process – the LLRC – are largely ignored; the request for time and space to complete the work is treated with distrust and the demand for an impartial analysis and objectivity in viewing the Sri Lankan situation is overlooked.

In this sense, our victory of four years ago is just a starting point and we have many challenges to overcome on the national and international plane. However, we are confident that we are on the right track and we can deliver the pledge of unity, peace, development and national progress.

Q: Words cannot explain the relief the people felt when they heard that the war on terror is no more, the LTTE has finally been defeated and the people trapped for months as a human shield rescued. But now Human Rights keeps haunting Sri Lanka. Are we on the right track to defeat it?

A: The integration of human rights into governing norms of collective human interaction and existence is perhaps one of the greatest achievements of contemporary human history. The unequal use of these standards to target particular societies and countries by some powers must be strongly deplored.

Human rights, unfortunately, do not operate in a vacuum or in isolation of global trends. Geopolitical interests, domestic political compulsions and other factors impact the external perspectives and the projection of human rights promotion and protection in some countries only.

Human rights are supposed to be universal. A civilian death in Pakistani tribal areas, Iraq, Yemen or Afghanistan is as bad as a civilian death in northern Sri Lanka. Redefining the rules to suit powerful nations’ agendas does not make human rights violations acceptable. Our current initiatives are aimed at making the global community aware that double standards should not apply when assessing Sri Lanka’s victory over terrorism. Wherever credible evidence is advanced, we will investigate alleged violations. Our principal critics were invited to share their evidence with the LLRC. Regrettably, they were unwilling or unable to do so.

I will not speculate on the reasons why, but, if they had credible evidence, why did they refrain from doing so and limit their interventions to unfounded allegations in reports, videos and other publicity gimmicks, often coinciding with sessions of the United Nations Human Rights Council?

Q: Do you think using the same yardstick for Sri Lanka to assess its human rights record is fair by the country’s recent history?

A: The defeat of the military capability of the LTTE domestically does not mean the defeat of the separatist/secessionist project of the international rump of the LTTE and its fellow travellers – including some within our socio-political set-up. The guarantee of human rights must form an important facet of the overall strategy to combat this agenda.

The right to equality and equal protection under the law in its broadest sense for all Sri Lankans, if safeguarded, will be the basis on which this invidious project can be beaten. We must ensure political, social and economic justice for all sections of the Sri Lankan community. We have achieved ‘freedom from fear’ due to the end of domestic terrorism; now the next move must be towards securing ‘freedom from want’. These two aspects of human security must be satisfied over time. Sri Lanka’s experience is unique in its defeat of terrorism. We must consolidate our gains and ensure a durable peace and a prosperous future for the people.

Q: We often find countries that accuse Sri Lanka of human rights violations engaged in more serious violations than us. Ignoring their own violations, these countries make very serious but unfounded allegations against Sri Lanka. How do you view this situation? What is the best way to counter such unbiased allegations?

A: Human rights, as I mentioned earlier, have become a tool for some powerful nations when they want to achieve collateral political objectives. Sometimes they are cynically used and initiatives pushed through in multilateral forums by the use of economic and other pressure tactics. As a smaller country we have to continue to build our relationships with like-minded nations, regional and cross regional groupings that are receptive, and get the message across effectively.

Of course, the basis for this must be our domestic improvement in the promotion and protection of human rights. This is why the National Human Rights Action Plan (NHRAP) and the initiative I have started to implement the recommendations accepted during the second Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Sri Lanka in 2012/13, are of utmost importance. Our best defence is a strong reply based on our domestic achievements.

Q: Channel 4 recently announced that it would release a new video, but did not do so. What’s stopping them? What’s Sri Lanka’s plan to face it and defeat their ulterior motives?

A: It is not for me to comment on the motivations of Channel 4 and its masters. Their videos are generally released to coincide with sessions of the UN Human Rights Council. When they showed a video in March on the sidelines of the Council sessions, we pointed out that it was merely a rebroadcast of the LLTE Propaganda Unit footage released at a strategic moment.

Unfortunately,there appears to be little accountability and responsibility when it comes to Channel 4. Since they have effectively refused to provide us with the original videos for analysis, we can only counter their allegations after they have been displayed.

Q: Are we on the right path to fulfil our international obligations, the commitments we have made in Geneva at the UPR and UNHRC?

A: As I explained on several occasions, our NHRAP is mostly based on the commitments made at the 2008 UPR and I have also initiated a process aimed at implementing the recommendations accepted – numbering 113 – during the second UPR of Sri Lanka in November 2012 and adopted by the UNHRC in March 2013. Of course we also have obligations under the 7 core human rights treaties to which we are a State Party. All these have to be worked out by the relevant domestic agencies.

Q: Are you satisfied with the progress or have you encountered challenges in the path to realising key milestones in the Human Rights Action Plan?

A: Of course there are challenges. The NHRAP was developed with the maximum possible consultation. However, since 2008 when we started the process, there have been many changes in the configuration and policy orientation of governmental agencies.

However, the Cabinet endorsed this Plan in December 2011 and our overall commitment to its implementation remains. I am reviewing the progress on a regular basis and will revert to the Cabinet to resolve any issues that may crop up. Overall, I am satisfied that there is general awareness and commitment to the NHRAP.

Q: What can you say about the progress of the implementation of LLRC recommendations?

A: The Action Plan to implement the LLRC’s recommendations is being overseen by the Secretary to the President, assisted by a senior public officer as Vice-Chair of the implementing task force.

The progress achieved to date is published on the internet. Anyone interested could have access to this information. Progress in implementation is the key to achieving genuine reconciliation and non-repetition of the armed conflict. While this is one of the most important programs of our domestic agenda, its successful implementation will help us to counter adverse criticism externally. Our only request is that we be allowed adequate time to bring these plans into fruition.

Q: The key member states in the Commonwealth, Australia and Britain have already said that their heads of state will be attending CHOGM defying boycott calls, and would make use of the meet as a forum to engage with the country constructively to address remaining human rights concerns. The Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr was quoted as saying some of the concerns here are not unique to SL or the Tamil issue, but rather common to many countries in South Asia. Your comments?

A: CHOGM will give Sri Lanka a chance to showcase our achievements. We have much to share with our friends and partners in the international community. Whatever issues may arise, we will be able to put them in context and share with our guests our unique experience in defeating terrorism, unifying the people and rebuilding the economy. We can demonstrate that human rights promotion and protection has been and is at the core of our efforts. We have never been opposed to constructive engagement but only wish for an objective and impartial assessment of the situation and plans for progress. Sri Lanka is a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-lingual and multi-religious society that has nurtured diversity for centuries. We are a mature democracy that fully embodies the Commonwealth’s spirit, values and principles.