http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2012/03/18/fea01.asp

Side shows in GenevA:
NGO activists’ true intentions exposed
By Ranga CHANDRARATHNE
At a ‘side event’ organised by the US-based Human Rights Watch (HRW),
Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu, Sunila Abeysekara and Nimalka Fernando, Sri Lankan NGO
activists, raised a number of issues pertaining to the human rights situation in
Sri Lanka and the issue of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. The side
event was held against the backdrop of the 19th sessions of the United Nations
Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday Observer, Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha
expresses his views on the issues raised by the NGO activists in Geneva.
Question: Among other things, the issue of the 18th Amendment to the
Constitution which empowers the incumbent President to contest for the next
Presidential election was criticised. Apparently the 18th Amendment to the
Constitution has nothing to do with the human rights situation in Sri Lanka. How
does it suddenly become a human rights issue? And what are the specific
provisions introduced in the 18th Amendment to the Constitution?
A: These few NGOs and their backers, financial and emotional, have a
particular view of Sri Lanka which is at odds with the democratic dispensation
currently prevalent in the country. Amongst their bugbears is the 18th
Amendment, which did away with the 17th Amendment they thought sacrosanct.
Unfortunately, they would not accept that the 17th Amendment was
fundamentally flawed, and required revision, as became clear when their present
heroine, the then President Chandrika Kumaratunga refused to make an appointment
under that Amendment.
The new Amendment goes back to allowing the President the choice as to whom
to appoint, but subject to receiving the comments of a multi-stakeholder
committee.
The second part of the 18th Amendment is the removal of term limits, which is
sometimes a worry for practical reasons, but I think in Sri Lanka the practical
reasons suggest this has its advantages, given the strength of what one calls
the lame duck syndrome. This would even have been worse now, given the efforts
of some individuals in some countries to promote regime change, which of course
these particular individuals would relish.
Undermining democracy
Q: Executive Director of the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) in
Colombo, Dr. Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu has berated President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s
administration, accusing it of ‘undermining democracy’ and continuing what he
calls a ‘culture of impunity’ in ‘post-war Sri Lanka’. What is obvious, in
analysing the number of allegations is that Dr. Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu’s
accusations seem to be broad and general and not specific and insubstantial
under some pet phrases such as ‘undermining democracy’ and ‘culture of
impunity’. What are your comments?
A: That is a recurring problem, the general nature of allegations and
the assumption that the government at the highest echelons is always
responsible. I have often said that, if so-called human rights defenders
concentrate on particular cases and, without drawing conclusions, only ask for
efficient and swift investigations, they would do better. This is how I managed,
in 2008, when there was a spate of abductions in the East, to get the police to
investigate thoroughly, and they found the gangs responsible.
Unfortunately, statements such as those made by these activists are designed
to vilify politicians and the police, who are either intimidated or resentful.
Similarly, when three years ago I asked for more support for police training,
to improve their investigation and interrogation capacities, as well as language
capacity, there was no take up, whereas now things are better, the British for
instance having under the new High Commissioner, abandoned their standoffish
approach and supporting such training.
Post-conflict context
Q: A principal allegation that Dr. Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu raised at
the sideline meeting was that those in power “depend on the military to take
care of anti-government protests and even to sell vegetables”. However, it is
not strange that the military is being deployed in construction work and in the
re-building effort particularly in the post-conflict context in other countries.
Against such a context, how do you perceive such allegations?
A: Military involvement in kick- starting businesses is a good thing,
though as I have stated, it should move towards partnerships and training, with
the aim being to allow vulnerable groups to stand on their own feet as soon as
possible. The same goes for construction, and my work in entrepreneurship
training for ex-cadre suggests partnerships there, with training programs, could
be invaluable.
With regard to anti-government protests, dealing with these is a job for the
police, but sometimes the military is needed and this may be better in the
current context where there is deliberate provocation and the police, which have
not had such disciplined training, tend to react more aggressively. Ultimately,
of course, we need to strengthen our police to deal with such situations as
calmly as possible.
Jaffna Bishop praises Defence Secretary for humanitarian assistance
Bishop of Jaffna Rt. Rev. Dr. Thomas
Savundaranayagam, in a letter written to Secretary Defence Gotabaya Rajapaksa,
praised the timely action, facilitating the vacation of Naval personnel from
houses at Mandaithivu.
"The people are very grateful to you for returning their houses
after 22 years", Bishop Savundaranayagam had further stated.
Mandaithivu is a small island located six kilometres south-west
of the Jaffna town. There were more than 300 families living there and the
islanders were displaced in 1990 due to indiscriminate shelling by LTTE
terrorists.
Most of the families moved to the Vanni area and other parts of
the Jaffna peninsula. During this period almost all houses got damaged and their
main livelihood, fishing, was gravely affected due to intermittent sea-borne
attacks by LTTE sea tigers. The coastal areas were declared High Security Zones
and Sri Lankan Naval personnel were deployed to tighten security in the area.
Q: One could interpret such allegations and charges against the
Government and the misinterpretation of the Army’s rebuilding effort as part of
a major project aimed at tarnishing the Government’s image at international
level and clamping down war crime charges against the Government. In this
context, how do you analyse such claims by NGO activists and their honesty in
raising such allegations against the Government?
Human rights
A: I don’t believe that the promotion of human rights is their main
agenda, but I think we need to be more thorough in laying down guidelines for
operation and transparency, to get over other motives. As I have said before,
the Government is incompetent at checking on such matters, perhaps because it
started by assuming good faith, which is I think a justifiable assumption with
regard to most NGOs. But some have other agendas, and instead of investigating
these, and their sources of funding, we overreact to all.
However, I think the recent Indian experience, when they found another agenda
behind what seemed home-grown protests against nuclear power plants, suggests
how difficult it is, because previously I used to think India was more competent
than us at such monitoring. I think they are, but much more is needed.
Q: At the meeting, Sri Lankan-based NGO activists also raised the
issue of setting up new High Security Zones in the North and the East despite
the LTTE’s terrorism ending three years ago. What is the current position with
regard to maintain and dismantling of High Security Zones?
A: The Government is trying to remove these as far as possible. While
not compromising on security requirements, I believe we must minimise the use of
private property and restore whatever we can, and sometimes individuals are
careless in making claims that may deprive a lot of people. This happened in
Mullaitivu, but after further consideration the amount of land claimed was
reduced.
I think the Government must be careful to make sure that inconvenience is
minimal, and where it is unavoidable, there should be adequate compensation,
with the possibility of judicial review if people feel aggrieved.
The Liberal Party has always believed that private property should be a
right, but this does not mean that the Government should not have the right to
acquire such for national purposes, provided the procedures to be followed are
clearly laid down and justifiable.
High Security Zones
Q: Is there a truth in the claim of occupying lands belonging to the
Tamil community on the pretext of setting up new High Security Zones?
A: I don’t think that is correct at all, because the need for security
is not a pretext. But, as mentioned, there should be transparency in such
transactions, and also sensitivity.
Q: Alleging that a body of an unidentified person set ablaze in
Colombo 5 where Dr. Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu lives, he has raised accountability
issues. Saravanamuttu alleged that no one raised the issue and blamed the
Government for ‘the absence of rule of law and over dependence on the military’.
A: I was informed about that body previously too, by someone who
claimed it was a person who had been abducted.
I have since been told that this was someone of unsound mind. Unfortunately,
Dr Saravanamuttu seems to want to clutch at any straw, or any dead body, to make
his point.
The Government, however, should also have made sure, given where the body was
found, that the facts of the case were made public. And of course it must do
more to prevent abductions, not only because greater police efficiency is vital
for the security of citizens, but also because whatever happens due to private
grudges is laid at the door of the Government.
Q: Given your wide-ranging experience as the former head of the
Government’s Peace Secretariat and a person who studied terrorism, how would you
compare pre-conflict and post-conflict situations with regard to establishing
the rule of law? And how would you interpret the allegation ‘over dependence on
the military’ particularly in the context of the military’s active participation
in the re-building process and the Government’s new development drive?
A: We are obviously in a much better situation, as is apparent for
instance from the claims about abductions and journalists in danger which all
refer to large figures from 2006, without mentioning that most cases were from
2006. I have explained the reasons for those excesses then, when the internecine
warfare between the LTTE and the Tamil groups it had decimated when it had
impunity under the Ceasefire Agreement, or rather in terms of how the CFA was
interpreted, was at its height.
But, as I noted when Human Rights Watch brought out a volume about
disappearances for the March 2008 Human Rights Council Session, with, I think,
96 cases of which only three were from 2007, all the others being from 2006,
such agencies refused to recognise that things have got better.
With regard to military involvement, as I have mentioned, this has been
essential, but of course we should work even more coherently towards
strengthening civil society.
Q:The NGO activists also blamed the Government for carrying out 32
extra-judicial killings and abductions last year and denying the people the
freedom of expression. What are your comments?
A: I do not know how they arrive at these statistics, but I suspect
they put everything at the door of the Government. The Government would do much
better if it expedited police inquiries into many incidents, and the police must
abandon the idea that inquiries involving people close to the Government would
embarrass the Government. Failing to inquire into such cases is a worse
embarrassment. As for people being denied the freedom of expression, that is
complete nonsense, as anyone looking at our newspapers and the electronic media
would realise.