Premium
This is an archive article published on July 22, 2011
Premium

Opinion A video,an amendment — and a vote?

Pressured on human rights,Rajapaksa is adjusting Sri Lanka’s international allies and his domestic policies

indianexpress

Lal Wickrematunge

July 22, 2011 12:36 AM IST First published on: Jul 22, 2011 at 12:36 AM IST

The Sri Lankan government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa had drawn its own agenda for outreach since May 2009,when the war against the LTTE was ended with the killing of Prabhakaran and other frontline leaders. Plans were in place to showcase to the rest of the world how the tiny island defeated terrorism. It took a considerable amount of time for the Tamil diaspora to regroup and gather a fresh line of attack,which they did with the now infamous Channel 4 documentary. The first salvo came in the form of a trailer,much like one that would be shown in movie theatres of an upcoming film. The Sri Lankan government did summarily dismiss the authenticity of the initial visuals — but was quite unprepared,and taken by surprise,when Channel 4 aired the longer version.

The Secretary General of the United Nations,Ban Ki-Moon,set up a panel to advise him on the alleged war crimes and human rights abuses that may have taken place during the last stages of the war — but stopped short of stating what follow-up action he would take when the report was furnished. The report did eventually reach him,but not before parts of it were released,due to the diplomatic bungling of Sri Lanka. That the Channel 4 video,in its abbreviated form,was released contemporaneously led the Rajapaksa regime to believe that an organised effort was in place to haul Sri Lanka before the UN Human Rights Commission. That the UNHCR was preferred over the Security Council was another move that Sri Lanka did not anticipate at the outset. It is early days yet for any resolution — but these developments do forewarn of events that would occur by September 2011.

Advertisement

Ban Ki-Moon has yet to state whether he has viewed the Channel 4 video,but Martin Nesirky,the UN spokesperson has suggested that he may have. Sri Lanka had distanced itself from the Western powers prior to the end of the war,mainly to focus on the task of eliminating the LTTE in a single-minded fashion. The West preferred a negotiated settlement,and had reiterated that position time and again. Strangely,India did not interfere whilst the war was on,nor did it take up any visible position. It preferred to send emissaries for direct talks with Sri Lankan leaders — but with few official statements being made subsequent to these meetings,as is the usual practice.

India’s stance did change once the war was over. The 13th amendment to the Sri Lankan constitution was largely the brainchild of India during the tenure of President J.R. Jayawardene. The resultant provincial council system took root in all provinces — save for the north and east,where it was most needed. The Colombo-based governments have shown reluctance to abide by this piece of legislation. The excuse of not holding provincial polls in the north and east due to the problems caused by the LTTE does not hold currency any longer. Devolving police and land powers seem to be the sticking point.

Given the current situation,India has pushed Sri Lanka to address the grievances of the Tamil community,by insisting that full effect to the 13th amendment of the constitution be implemented within a stipulated timeframe. The Channel 4 video and the Darusman report,as it is called now,has given India an added fillip. The Indian deadline to give effect to these changes (the 13th amendment) seems to be September 2011.

Advertisement

There was a move by sections within the UN to take up the Darusman report at the last sessions,but one suspects that India did buy time for Sri Lanka to push through the 13th amendment,as a quid pro quo for support at the approaching UN sessions in September 2011,if war crimes allegations are brought up.

Meanwhile,the Channel 4 video,as stated earlier,has taken on a life of its own,being aired officially in many a nation.

Whether India has left it too late or abdicated its position of strength in as far as Sri Lanka is concerned to China,will be seen in the coming months. China has been the largest lender to Sri Lanka,by far,during the last year. Loans and grants have exceeded 50 per cent of all foreign funding to Sri Lanka during this period. Indian development loans,though at a more reasonable rate than China,have not taken off at the same pace. The western hemisphere prefers India to be the big brother in South Asia; but China has great plans for South Asia,though geographically removed from the area. Building ports,airports and other infrastructural projects have given it a presence with governments in this region that are seeking loans which come without strictures being attached. The West sees this as nursing corruption.

The Channel 4 video promises to become more of a political equation to be sorted out between Sri Lanka,India,China and Russia,though spurred on by the UN. With what is happening in the Middle East and the global economic meltdown,September seems a long way. Sri Lanka has no oil; yet it has China as a big lender. For India it’s as good as Sri Lanka striking oil. The veto powers vested with China and Russia have not been used at the UN in recent history. Will it be a first? Perhaps not.

The writer is managing editor of ‘The Sunday Leader’,Colombo