MR group absent at airport welcome for Prez:

Navigating Geneva with local polls in mind

Navi Pillay unhappy:

Prince Hussein doubtful:

The grand reception organized to welcome President Maithripala Sirisena at the Bandaranaike International Airport, (BIA) Katunayake, on his arrival from Geneva was certainly a throwback to the Rajapaksa era. For instance, when former President Rajapaksa arrived from an official visit to Jordan, on May 17, 2009 – a day before the end of the final phase of the war – the parliamentarians of his party arranged a grand reception for him at the airport.

Maithripala Sirisena, who was the Acting Minister of Defence in Rajapaksa’s absence, warmly welcomed him at the airport for giving ‘political leadership’ to the military victory over the LTTE ending one of Asia’s longest running insurgencies.

The circumstances leading up to the grand reception at the airport on Friday afternoon, however, tell a story.

It was SLFP Parliamentarians holding ministerial portfolios in the national unity government who organized the reception for President Sirisena and, it was in appreciation of Sri Lanka’s performance at the 30th session of the UNHRC where a consensus resolution was presented on Sri Lanka’s efforts towards reconciliation and accountability.

The Resolution adopted a domestic inquiry instead of the previously western-touted ‘international probe’. The SLFP Ministers and MPs who organized the BIA reception attributed what they termed as a ‘Geneva victory’ solely to President Maithripala Sirisena.

The SLFP politicos were clearly attempting to politicize the outcome of the UNHRC session, probably targeting the forthcoming local government elections scheduled for next March. At that election, the party will have to rely on the individual popularity of President Maithripala Sirisena. The reception, the party organized at the airport was a strong indication in this regard.

The airport welcome carefully avoided giving any credit to Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and External Affairs Minister Mangala Samaraweera who played key roles, alongside the President, in building the consensus among the member nations of the UN Human Rights Council with regard to the resolution on Sri Lanka.

MR group absent

Notable absentees at the airport welcome on Friday afternoon were the group of SLFP MPs supporting former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. They, for some reason, stayed away from the entire drama probably fearing a backlash from the grassroots level voters of the party.

Party top-rankers who noted the absence of the MR group, suggested that the support base of former President Rajapaksa, within the rampart of the SLFP, is eroding. The former President, supported by only a handful of SLFP MPs, may soon turn out to be a non-entity within the SLFP, according to insiders.

Popularizing the unpopular

There is a flip side to this whole drama too. Over the past 10 years, the SLFP, a party that strongly gravitated towards ultra-nationalism under Rajapaksa’s leadership, staged many a drama to pander to the chauvinistic sentiments among the Sinhala-Buddhist electorate.

This time round, by idolizing President Sirisena, the party is attempting the reverse - to popularize the setting up of a domestic inquiry mechanism on war crimes, an idea that is hardly sellable to the majority of the Sinhala-Buddhist electorate, especially at the grassroots level.

As part of this propaganda, a group of SLFP politicians put up thousands of cut-outs in and around Colombo, to pay tribute to President Maithripala Sirisena.

Among them were Deputy Speaker Thilanga Sumathipala, Ministers Faizer Mustapha and A.H.M. Fowzie and, several MPs representing the Colombo district. It was similar to the behaviour they showed during the tenure of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa when one’s loyalty to the party was measured by the number of cut-outs he or she displayed in support of the party leader.

It was clear that some key members of the SLFP had no qualms about deviating from President Sirisena’s vision of ‘yahapalanaya’ in their pursuit of power. The President, on numerous occasions, has requested the party rank and file to stop idolizing him and work for the betterment of the party. Obviously, old habits die hard.

President sets example

President Sirisena, when he addressed the media at his residence just hours after his arrival from New York, set a great example to his own party. While he gave the press conference, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and several other key figures of political parties representing the national unity government sat alongside him.

The President invited MPs from both parties to accompany him to the place where he addressed the reporters. The President never attempted to hide the fact that it was a team effort. He showed that he was a politician who could transcend party politics to address core issues faced by the country.

Commenting on the implementation of the Geneva Resolution, the President said he would convene an all-party conference, and a council consisting of representatives of all religions in the country, to discuss this matter and enact the mechanism to bring about lasting reconciliation. He also added that he would convene a forum for Sri Lankan scholars and professionals to share their views on the matter.

Susil and Nimal pass the buck

As reported by this column last week, the Presidential Commission’s investigation on the non-payment for election advertisements on the State-run ITN has now turned to former UPFA General Secretary Susil Premajayanatha.

It was a direct result of the statement made by former Presidnet Mahinda Rajapaksa before the Commission, where he said he had nothing to do with the non-payment for election advertising as he was only the candidate fielded by the UPFA. Therefore, he said, the party had to take responsibility for non-payment of bills.

Following this statement , the Presidential Commission summoned former UPFA General Secretary Susil Premajayantha to record a statement from him in connection with the matter.

Premajayantha, now a Minister of the national unity government and a backer of President Maithripala Sirisena, was present before the Commission on Wednesday evening.

In his statement before the Commission, Premajayantha distanced himself from any responsibility over the non-payment of bills.

His justification was that he had nothing to do with the issue, as he was not the ‘authorized agent’ who handled the elections ads of the former President during the last Presidential election.

In Rajapaksa’s case the ‘agents’ who handled his election propaganda during the Presidential election was the committee which overlooked the media and propaganda affairs of the party.

In his statement before the Presidential Commission of Inquiry to Investigate and Inquire into Serious Acts of Fraud, Corruption and Abuse of Power, State Resources and Privileges (PRECIFAC), Premajayantha said the responsibility for the outstanding bills to the ITN should be borne by the committee that handled the media and propaganda affairs of the party, and not by the General Secretary of the party.

“According to the Presidential elections law, I had only to look after the legal matters of the election propaganda,” Premajayantha told the Commission.

However, commenting on the matter, several lawyers told the Sunday Observer that the former chairman of the party, who was also the Presidential candidate, would not be in a position to distance himself from the controversy.

Meanwhile, a journalist, on the sidelines of a SLFP press conference last week, asked former Opposition Leader Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva whether the latter was aware of the non-payment of bills.

De Silva was a stalwart of former President Rajapaksa’s campaign in January. In an interesting turn of events, the Minister said he was not aware of any such issue as he was not a member of any ‘relevant committee’.

“I was not even the Treasurer of the party. All the party funds were managed by the Treasurer,” the seasoned politician said, dodging the question posed by the journalist.

However, the next stage of this investigation is the public hearing of the case. Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa will be summoned before the Presidential Commission again on October 15, 16, 29 and 30, to obtain another statement on the same matter.

Sources said the former President would be summoned along with another five persons namely former Mass Media and Information Minister Keheliya Rambukwella, former ITN Chairman Anura Siriwardena, ITN General Manager Aruna Wijesinghe, ITN Deputy General Manager (Marketing) Upali Ranjith and ITN Assistant Manager (Marketing) Dilip Priyantha Wickremasinghe.

Prince Zeid Hussein

The outcome of the 30th session of the UNHRC in Geneva, was a significant victory for Sri Lanka as the session ended with a consensus on Sri Lanka’s efforts towards reconciliation and accountability. All major international stakeholders of Sri Lanka’s problem, including the US, the UK, India, China and Russia, were on the same page about the matter and they all encouraged the government of Sri Lanka to adopt comprehensive measures to address accountability issues.

The majority of member nations of the UNHRC did not support the much talked about ‘hybrid’ probe proposal made by the OHCHR report on the final phase of the war.

However, there was heavy lobbying from pro-LTTE Tamil diaspora groups who called for an international investigation on Sri Lanka’s conduct.

The statement by UN Human Rights Chief Price Zeid Hussein, a day before the adoption of the Resolution came as a disappointment for Sri Lanka as it had some strong remarks about the accountability process within the country.

Many were under the assumption that the UN Human Rights Commissioner would compromise on his call for a ‘hybrid tribunal’ after Sri Lanka and the key member nations of the council arrived at a consensus on a Sri Lankan owned process supported by international stakeholders. However, the speech by the UNHRC chief demonstrated that he was not willing to let go of the term ‘hybrid court’ easily!

Hussein said, “I welcome the Government’s commitments, made before this Council, to investigate these violations and ensure accountability, despite the opposition of some political parties and sections of the military and society. The unfortunate reality is, however, that Sri Lanka’s criminal justice system is not currently equipped to conduct an independent and credible investigation on allegations of this breadth and magnitude, or to hold accountable those responsible for such violations, as requested by the Council in resolution 25/1.

First, Sri Lanka lacks a reliable system for victim and witness protection, particularly in a context where the risk of reprisals is very high. A long-pending law was recently passed, but it is not yet operational.

I note the Government’s commitment to further review and strengthen the law to address various shortcomings that could compromise the independence and effectiveness of the new system.

Secondly, the domestic legal framework is inadequate to deal with international crimes of this magnitude. When Sri Lanka has prosecuted conflict-related cases, it has relied on offences in regular criminal law, such as murder.

This approach fails to recognize the gravity of the crimes committed, their international character, or to duly acknowledge the harm caused to the victims. To fully reflect their gravity and bring redress to their victims, international crimes must be charged as such.

Thirdly, the State’s security sector and justice system have been distorted and corrupted by decades of impunity.

The independence and integrity of key institutions such as the Attorney General’s Office and the Human Rights Commission remain compromised. The security forces, police and intelligence services have enjoyed near total impunity and have not undergone any significant reform since the armed conflict.

A full-fledged vetting process should be designed to remove from office security forces personnel and public officials suspected of involvement in human rights violations.”

Hussein’s remarks will not make an immediate impact on Sri Lanka’s accountability and reconciliation process. On the accountability front, the country will have to proceed with the outcome of the Resolution unanimously adopted at the 30th session of the UNHRC.

If the Sri Lankan government manages to convert the content of the Resolution into a fresh opening and conduct the domestic inquiry in a credible and independent manner, the country will be able to prevent the possibility of a fully fledged hybrid tribunal to investigate into war crimes.

What the UN Human Rights Chief indicated in his last speech was the ‘risk’ of a fully fledged hybrid court or an international tribunal if the Sri Lankan government fails to deliver a credible domestic mechanism.

Navi Pillay back

Meanwhile, former UN Human Rights Chief Navi Pillay, who was instrumental in setting up a panel of experts to investigate alleged war crimes, expressed her views on the ongoing process of accountability in Sri Lanka. Unshackled from diplomatic niceties, Navi Pillay, a staunch critic of Sri Lanka when the Rajapaksas were in power, said, “there can never be immunity for these very serious crimes,” (committed in Sri Lanka.)

In an interview to Thanthi TV last week, Pillay, the predecessor of Prince Zeid Hussein, said “the law is clear, nobody can grant amnesty, no government can grant amnesty for these serious crimes.”

Interestingly, the veteran South African lawyer of Tamil origin also lashed out at India for its failure to stop what she termed as serious atrocities committed during the final phase of war in Sri Lanka “When these serious crimes and atrocities are taking place right next door in Sri Lanka, it is their responsibility to intervene to protect people.

You know that is what sovereignty means, each government should protect their own citizens and when they fail to do so it’s the responsibility of other government to intervene to do so. So, international law is very clear on universal jurisdiction.”

“India in my view failed to intervene in the early stages when they could have taken very firm steps to ensure that there is a process of justice and reconciliation. It could have helped to prevent the deaths of almost 40,000 people.

The argument that I find completely disappointing and invalid is the argument raised by India and even South Africa that these are internal matters.”Be that as it may, the Resolution that was unanimously passed at the UNHRC session has given a new lease of life to the Sri Lankan government to embark on a fresh journey while allaying the fears of the international community.

The biggest challenge for the government at this point is striking a balance between the aspirations of the majority Sinhala-Buddhist, grassroots level voters and those of the international stakeholders of Sri Lanka’s human rights issue.