Editorial

Canada’s imposition of targeted sanctions on two Sri Lankan former Presidents and two others this week on allegations of what they call “gross and systematic violations of human rights” during the separatist insurgency in this country seems to turn the fundamental principles of natural justice and the rule of law on its head, leave alone diplomatic niceties towards a supposedly friendly fellow Commonwealth member-state.

Naturally weighed down by the pressure of its newcomer voters from Sri Lanka, Canada’s political leadership has, by all accounts, abandoned basic Commonwealth principles of good governance for domestic political expediency.

Its Foreign Minister’s statement gives not an iota of proof of what “gross and systematic violations of human rights” have been committed. Unless it is a state secret of theirs, it is replete with hearsay, at least insofar as the two Sri Lankan ex-Presidents are concerned, and what appears to be an obligation on their part to introduce the principles of universal jurisdiction into play.

It betrays a sense of frustration that the UN Human Rights Council has been unable to ‘hang the mean guys’ in Sri Lanka who rebuffed attempts by Western countries to stop the military assault on the LTTE that eventually vanquished the terrorist group, ending the scourge of terrorism and bringing peace back to this country. It has taken 14 years for payback time, it seems.

It is true that Sri Lanka has been far too slow in addressing accountability issues raised internationally over alleged violations of International Human Rights Law during that military campaign. Whatever investigations were done and recommendations made were not acted upon resulting in the issue migrating abroad. That, however, does not translate to a blind conviction – without a fair trial, that Canada “will not accept continued impunity for those who committed gross human rights violations in Sri Lanka” as its Foreign Minister states, and then point its finger at individuals and say; “You, you, – guilty, on hearsay”. This is not about the two ‘others’, who have been tried and convicted, or indicted, it’s about the two former Presidents.

How then can Canada talk about the rule of law is the question when it has thrown all the principles of equality before the law, and independent adjudications out of the window, making a mockery of justice? Its Government has not given one cogent legal basis on which it has come to its conclusions.

Canada has a history of supporting terrorist groups even before the LTTE. The Sikh separatist group calling for a ‘Khalistan’ within India has caused tension between Ottawa and New Delhi. Canada was accused of being a state sponsoring terrorism when it provided succour to the Khalistan movement when the world witnessed an Air India plane being blown off the sky killing more than 300 innocent passengers while flying from Montreal to New Delhi via London in 1985 in retaliation to the storming of the Sikh Golden Temple in India.

Its statement on Sri Lanka is not without a little irony peppered into it. It says they have given 3 million dollars for the UN’s humanitarian assistance for starving Sri Lanka. Canada gave 3.4 billion dollars to Ukraine last year to fight the Russians. There is a pithy local saying loosely translated that refers to the man who drinks for five rupees and gets tipsy for fifty rupees. But its diplomatic aggression in making two Sri Lankan Presidents outcasts requires a greater response from the Government as these are precursors to making the country itself a pariah state. The Government must not stop at summoning an acting envoy and lodge a “strong protest” that goes nowhere.

No doubt there has been a build-up, snowballing of events that has led to what happened this week. Colombo has chosen to ignore these signals. Canada refused to accept its ambassador if he was a retired military man. The Ontario state legislature listed Sri Lanka as a country where ‘genocide’ occurred. All these were never challenged. Nobody argued that an armed fascist group was jettisoned and democracy with elections was restored in Sri Lanka’s north. Diplomatic and political campaigns in Ottawa or Geneva were lacklustre at best, non-existent at worst.

Now this; what next?

The Commonwealth; and its principles on the Rule of Law

The CPA was formed to protect the representatives of the people in democracies and the preamble to its Constitution refers to the respect for the rule of law and individual rights and freedoms. It has also been at the forefront of formulating the Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles adopted by Heads of Government that enunciate not just the separation of powers, but also checking the over-reach of the Executive branch (the government). He can make his own assessment if the Canadian Executive interfered with the role of the judiciary and upended the rule of law by imposing ex-parte strictures on foreign leaders.

The CPA did not present itself when parliamentary democracy was teetering in Sri Lanka last year and the rule of law was at stake as a peaceful anti-government protest turned into mob violence and a siege of government institutions, including Parliament House.

There was anarchy overwhelming the state apparatus, but hardly did anyone abroad come forward to help. The Armed Forces were initially sitting on the fence watching which way the wind was blowing until they themselves came under attack. And when they moved into action to quell the rioters and restore law and order and defend parliamentary democracy, the very parliamentary democracies in the Commonwealth and outside that ‘wear democracy and rule of law on their sleeve’ criticised the Forces for over-reacting.

There are reports that the Commonwealth Secretary General is due in the country for Sri Lanka’s 75th anniversary of Independence next month. Shouldn’t the Government be ready to brief her about these developments and ask the question; ‘what kind of club is this Commonwealth’. For there seems to be a lot of sanctimony floating around.