Columns

Had the soothsayer who predicted a sticky end for Julius Caesar been as inaccurate as the one who pronounced an early end for President Sirisena this year, he might have suffered a harder time than an appearance in court.

The political drama that will be played in some Geneva ‘amphitheatre’ will certainly lack the dramatic features of early Roman tragedy though there will be many bit players in the wings anxiously waiting to wrap a toga round Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera’s head to remind him that others have designs too but not necessarily from the world of fashion.

As it turned out the soothsayer was correct and Julius did go down without a fight. He was the victim of a political game that has been played for centuries and is still played with great gusto and even more venom in our own political playing fields as the tussle for power, influence and money-making gathers momentum with the yahapalanites sharpening their knives to stick into each other.

Unlike the one-time naval rating, whose rating as an astrologer was no better than that of the one that predicted Mahinda Rajapaksa’s election victory two years ago, the Roman soothsayer either knew his job or had insider information like some players in the bond market we hear of these days.

Anyway now that Julius is long gone and President Sirisena is very much with us, the ides of March Sri Lanka needs to worry about is the one that will be around next month. The political drama that will be played in some Geneva ‘amphitheatre’ will certainly lack the dramatic features of early Roman tragedy though there will be many bit players in the wings anxiously waiting to wrap a toga round Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera’s head to remind him that others have designs too but not necessarily from the world of fashion.

It has all to do with that October 1st Resolution at the UNHRC two years ago that Sri Lanka co-sponsored in a moment of diplomatic idiocy and which our so-called leaders are relegating to the back- burner of yahapalana priorities as they try to sort out conflicting views and policies and inconsistencies that make governance the tangled web it is today.

So when the UNHRC sessions begin later this month on the agenda will be a written report on Sri Lanka by UN Human Rights chief Prince Zeid Al Hussein and a council discussion on the progress made by the Colombo government to carry out what it promised to do by joining the sponsors of the resolution.

At a recent meeting in Davos with Prime Minister Wickremesinghe, the Human Rights Commissioner had expressed concern at the “slow progress” especially in relation to accountability.

“I informed the prime minister that this and other issues of concern will be reflected in the report I will be presenting to the Human Rights Council in March”, Zeid Hussein has said. The Council had asked the High Commissioner’s Office in September 2015 to continue to assess progress and implementation of the recommendations.

Therein lies the rub. It might be recalled that the US-led resolution that Sri Lanka’s diplomatic maestro co-sponsored to the surprise of many of this country’s friends in the Council who on principle reject country-specific resolutions unless the country referred to agrees, recommended having a foreign judicial presence in the courts and other mechanisms that were to examine allegations relating to human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law and other breaches.

Ignoring more experienced counsel, the foreign minister had decided to co-sponsor the resolution perhaps to satisfy his friends in the US State Department. If he had in fact cleared this position with the president and prime minister it only makes the matter worse.

Having perhaps gone through the resolution with a fine tooth-comb (though I know of nobody who actually combs his teeth!) the president seems to have had a sudden bout of apoplexy. For foreign judges to sit on our tribunals – even if the constitution did permit it – would be considered an affront especially by ultra-nationalist blowheads who see every individual in uniform as a national hero.

Speaking to foreign correspondents some 10 days ago Minister Samaraweera assured that the government will not go back on its pledge to investigate war crimes and that there will be no u-turn on accountability and reconciliation. But, he said, the country needed more time to set up judicial mechanisms.

Asked by some correspondent how much more time, Samaraweera did a quick step like on the dance floor and said sagely “not forever”. If Samaraweera thinks he can sound bite Sri Lanka out of this quagmire he is surely mistaken.

From the post-war days of Mahinda Rajapaksa when pressure was being mounted against the government by western powers egged on by the Tamil diaspora and human rights bodies, the plea has been for time and space to sort things out in the early days after the military victory.
This plea for time is wearing particularly thin as the world watches the antics of this two-headed government trying to find common ground. The same day that Samaraweera was wrapping his tongue round such vague and unctuous promises, President Sirisena was reported as having told senior officers of the tri-forces that not even a corporal would be touched during his watch.

The senior officers had met him to request the President “to immediately intervene with regard to the arrests of members of the defence establishment in the course of investigations into human rights violations, abductions, extortion and disappearances during the war.”
If the report is true it sure takes a bladder full of gall to make such a request and for the president to sacrifice foot soldiers who become cannon fodder to their enemies and political fodder for those who sanctimoniously sing of the praiseworthy contributions these foot soldiers from villages near and afar made to the nation.

So here is a President with an essentially rural background that he often speaks of, ready to safeguard defence personnel even as low as a corporal from being investigated for crimes that they may or may not have committed, but seem quite willing to throw the ordinary soldier to the investigative wolves, as it were.

This government has been talking of transitional justice cloaking itself in such beneficence that those who believed in the promises made pre and post-election by today’s leaders, looked forward to the decent and progressive pledges they thought would come.

Today they are still waiting to see an impartially functioning criminal justice system, institutional reform, reparations for victims and the truth, all elements of transitional justice.

When the head of state says he will not allow members of the defence forces to be investigated and arrested as genuine justice demands if prima facie evidence exists for such action, would it be wrong to interpret this as a licence to kill or commit other crimes for which the ordinary citizen would pay heavily?

Is this the Buddhism that this country teaches its citizens and the world? A crime committed by a soldier, sailor and airman is free of punishment but one committed by a tinker or tailor is heinous and should be punished with the full rigor of the law, unless he is a relative or friend of a government politician.

Donning a uniform does not make an individual above the law. There are domestic and international laws which bind even those in uniform or rather more so, if they are in uniform. Even one exonerates uniformed persons for certain acts committed in the heat of battle (that again should be investigated) one surely cannot by any extension of the law excuse those who commit murder, kidnappings and engage in disappearances after the war has ended.

The fact that a person went to war on behalf of his country does not provide unlimited lifetime cover for crimes that may be committed after the war has ended, and excuse him. That would not only destroy the sanctity of the system of justice but undermine the religious principles that our leaders sanctimoniously preach from platforms.

While speaking about the impact of UK’s exit from the EU, Foreign Minister Samaraweera went on to urge the EU to champion universal democratic values and said the EU must preserve its core-values such as fundamental rights and good governance.

Now that is really worth a good laugh. Before Samaraweera preaches to the EU about good governance, he should take a look at the government of which he is an integral part. Is he not one of those who promised the public good governance when in power. So where is he hiding it? Buried deep in Kanatte?