War

 crimes  
 
Sanjana  Hattotuwa  
 
“It  is  lamentable  that  the  Government  of  Sri  Lanka  continues  to  divert  attention  
from  the  central  truth  in  this  matter  –  that  is,  the  problem  of  impunity  for  serious  
human  rights  violations…”    
 
Press   released   by   the   International   Independent   Group   of   Eminent   Persons  
(IIGEP),  30  April  2008  
 
 
The   report   of   the   United   Nations   Fact   Finding   Mission   on   the   Gaza   Conflict,  
released   last   week,   resonates   deeply   with   Sri   Lanka’s   current   fixation   on   war  
crimes   allegations.   The   UN   mandated   mission   was   headed   by   Justice   Richard  
Goldstone  concludes  that  “While  the  Israeli  government  has  sought  to  portray  its  
operation   as   essentially   a   response   to   rocket   attacks   in   exercise   of   its   right   to  
self-­‐defence,   the   Mission   considers   the   plan   to   have   been   directed,   at   least   in  
part,   at   a   different   target:   the   people   of   Gaza   as   a   whole.”   Castigating   Israel   for  
violating   Geneva   Conventions,   the   mission   recommends   international   legal  
actions   against   both   Israel   and   Hamas   for   war   crimes   and   possible   crimes  
against   humanity.   The   Economist   report   on   the   release   of   the   report   notes   that  
the   Israeli   Prime   Minister,   Binyamin   Netanyahu,   “has   given   orders   for   a  
diplomatic   campaign   to   discredit   the   report   and   counter   the   mission’s   effort   to  
have   Israelis   charged   with   war   crimes.”   Israel   did   not   cooperate   with   the   fact-­‐
finding   mission.   A   letter   to   Justice   Goldstone   from   Amb.   Aharon   Leshno   Yaar,  
Israel’s   Permanent   Representative   to   the   UN   in   Geneva   noted   that   the   Israeli  
Defence   Force   (IDF)   had   undertaken   its   own   investigations   and   that     “Israel’s  
decision   not   to   cooperate   with   the   Mission   is…   without   prejudice   to   its  
conviction   that   any   allegations   of   wrongdoing   by   Israeli   forces   in   the   course   of  
the   conflict   must   be   investigated,   and   where   appropriate,   prosecuted.”  
Reminiscent   of   Sri   Lanka’s   erstwhile   International   Group   of   Eminent   Persons  
(IIGEP),   a   key   recommendation   of   the   mission   is   to   establish   an   independent  
committee   of   experts   in   International   Humanitarian   and   Human   Rights   Law   to  
monitor   and   report   on   any   domestic   legal   or   other   proceedings   undertaken   by  
the   Government   of   Israel   in   relation   to   its   own   investigations.   The   mission’s  
report  brings  out  a  number  of  other  striking  similarities  between  the  tenor  and  
behaviour  of  Israel  and  that  of  the  Sri  Lankan  government,  both  during  war  and  
in  response  to  a  process  of  investigations  into  alleged  war  crimes.  
 
Our   domestic   debate   on   allegations   of   war   crimes   is   presently   informed   and  
framed   primarily   by   a   video   broadcast   by   England’s   Channel   4,   the   President’s  
claims  that  the  war  was  conducted  with  zero  casualties  and  news  of  moves  by  US  
based  Tamils  Against  Genocide  (TAG)  to  obtain  commercial  satellite  imagery  and  
through   subsequent   image   analysis   prove   the   occurrence   of   war   crimes   in   the  
Vanni.  The  usual  conspiracy  theories  thrive.  Anyone  for  example  who  questions  
the  zero  casualty  theory  propounded  by  the  Executive  is  necessarily  in  cahoots  
with   one   or   all   of   the   parties,   usually   from   the   West,   hell   bent   on   regime   change.  
Together   with   the   uncertainty   over   the   extension   of   the   EU’s   GSP   Plus   trade  
concessions,   and   sustained   domestic   and   international   condemnation   over   the  
continuing   internment   of   Tamil   IDPs   in   Menik   Camp,   it   is   understandable   the  
government  feels  under  siege,  and  perhaps  rightfully  so.  Of  concern  here  is  that  
instead  of  addressing  its  own  failures,  the  government’s  pushback  is  anchored  to  
the   vilification   of   civil   society   and   sections   of   the   international   community,  
including   the   United   Nations.   Prospects   of   meaningful   accountability   for   the  
government’s  policies  and  practices  during  war,  reconciliation  and  peace  in  this  
context  remain  extremely  bleak.    
 
For   example,   the   termination   of   the   Secretariat   for   Coordinating   the   Peace  
Process  (SCOPP),  at  a  time  when  its  operation  and  mandate  is  most  critical  and  
the   recall   of   Dr.   Dayan   Jayatilleka,   whose   views   on   constitutional   reform   and  
IDPs   were   increasingly   discordant   with   government   policies   and   practices,  
suggest   that   the   mere   absence   of   war   is,   to   this   President   and   his   government,  
perfect   peace.   To   doubt   or   qualify   this   peace,   defined   by   and   seen   through   an  
exclusive   Sinhala   Buddhist   mindset,   is   to   be   a   killjoy   and   traitor   to   boot.   Sadly  
then,   to   a   much   greater   degree   than   the   significantly   flawed   design   and  
implementation   of   the   peace   process   under   the   CFA,   the   Rajapakse   regime’s  
approach   to   and   understanding   of   peacebuilding   is   indubitably   geared   to  
ferment  more  violence.  Reconciliation  is  an  inevitable  collateral.  But  there’s  the  
rub.   Knowing   what   really   went   on   in   the   war,   and   the   accountability   and  
reconciliation   that   can   follow,   are   vital   for   processes   of   healing   and   forgiving.   To  
rebuild   trust   and   positive   relations   between   peoples   who   share   an   unequal   yet  
common   trauma   of   war   and   violence   requires   the   restoration   of,   above   all,  
human   dignity.   Menik   Farm   today   is   the   anti-­‐thesis   of   this   vital   need.   Yet,   the  
readership  of  this  column  emphatically  do  not  represent  a  significant  quotient  in  
Sri  Lanka  who  actually  want  or  see  any  need  for  accountability  and  reconciliation  
thus  defined  post-­‐war.    
 
Three  key  narratives,  each  myopic  and  biased,  will  inform  this  on-­‐going  debate  
on   accountability   and   war   crimes.   One   will   be   defined   primarily   by   pro-­‐LTTE  
diaspora   to   hold   the   Rajapakse   administration   accountable   for   war   crimes.  
Satellite   imagery   analysis   by   Tamils   Against   Genocide   (TAG)   may   bring   about  
evidence  of  war  crimes  and  crimes  against  humanity.  Ranting  and  raving  aside,  
there   is   nothing   the   Rajapakse   government   can   do   about   it.   TAG’s   primary  
sources  are  in  geo-­‐stationary  orbit  and  their  key  witnesses  are  already  in  foreign  
countries.   The   government   will   obviously   contest   the   evidence   tabled,   but   we  
can  be  fairly  certain  that  war  crimes  by  the  LTTE  will  be,  at  best,  mentioned  en  
passant.   Eyewitness   accounts   such   as   that   from   Damilvany   Gnanakumar  
published   recently   in   the   British   press   concur   with   a   number   of   other   narratives  
from  those  in  the  Vanni  at  the  time  of  indiscriminate  shelling  by  the  Army.  But  
while  Gnanakumar’s  compelling  account  must  be  appreciated  for  what  it  is  and  
not   summarily   dismissed   as   propaganda,   it   does   not   help   us   address,   for  
example,  disturbing  footage  from  an  unmanned  aerial  drone  released  in  May  this  
year   by   the   government   showing   what   it   said   were   LTTE   cadres   firing  
indiscriminately   at   people   trying   to   flee   along   a   beach.   In   comparison,   Justice  
Goldstone’s   report   clearly   notes   that   Palestinian   armed   groups   “failed   to  
distinguish   between   military   targets   and   the   civilian   population”   in   Southern  
Israel  and  that  their  deliberate  targeting  of  civilians  would  constitute  war  crimes  
and  crimes  against  humanity.  It  also  notes  that  these  armed  groups  contributed  
to  heavy  civilian  casualties  in  Gaza  from  Israeli  retaliatory  fire  after  it  launched  
attacks   from   built-­‐up,   civilian   areas.   The   damning   parallels   here   to   the   LTTE’s  
tactics   against   Tamil   civilians   are   obvious,   and   must   be   interrogated   as   part   of  
any  war  crimes  investigations.    
 
The   Rajapakse   government   exclusively   defines   the   second   narrative.   In   its  
maddeningly   farcical   description   of   war   as   a   “hostage   rescue   operation”   and   a  
“humanitarian   mission   with   zero   casualties”,   it   is   obvious   that   the   government  
will  violently  clamp  down  on  any  concerns  raised  over  the  actions  of  the  armed  
forces.   Critical   reports   from   the   UTHR   (J)   and   statements   from   V.  
Anandasangaree  point  to  the  systemic  and  sustained  targeting  of  Tamil  civilians  
in   the   Vanni   by   the   armed   forces.   They   also   raise   concerns   over   the  
circumstances   surrounding   the   capture   and   death   of   Prabhakaran.   These  
concerns,   from   actors   who   were   never   supine   apparatchiks   of   the   LTTE   or  
remotely   interested   in   its   revival,   tellingly   do   not   feature   in   the   mainstream  
Sinhala   media.   The   result   is   a   public,   partly   because   they   unquestioningly  
consume   myopic   media,   who   will   resolutely   oppose   calls   from   political   parties,  
civil   society   and   the   international   community   to   investigate   war   crimes   and  
accountability.   Mirroring   the   government,   such   calls   will   be   seen   as   an   affront   to  
our  sovereignty,  undermining  our  national  security  and  based  on  hypocrisy  and  
dual   standards.   This   same   public,   particularly   if   the   EU’s   GSP   Plus   trade  
concessions  do  not  come  through,  contains  elements  that  can  and  will  be  easily  
and   effectively   mobilised   violently   against   some   key   actors   in   civil   society.  
Examples   of   whipping   up   emotions   in   this   regard   already   abound   in  
government-­‐controlled   media.   Meaningful   public   discussion   and   debate   on  
allegations  of  war  crimes,  or  even  on  the  strengthening  of  domestic  human  rights  
instruments   so   comprehensively   undermined   by   government,   is   in   this   context   a  
non-­‐starter.  
   
The   international   community   informs   the   third   narrative   on   war   crimes.   In   an  
article   on   Sri   Lanka’s   bizarre   post-­‐war   foreign   policy   published   recently   on  
Groundviews,  the  author  succinctly  notes  that,  
 
“The   confrontational   stance   has   additionally   become   a   election   gimmick  
to   display   the   regime’s   bravado   in   confronting   world   powers   to   the  
largely   insular   rural   electorate   whose   patriotic   fervour   can   be   easily  
manipulated   in   order   to   divert   their   attention   from   their   own   as   well   as  
the   nation’s   dire   economic   straits.   The   regime   constantly   highlights   the  
double   standards   and   hypocrisy   of   the   West   with   regard   to   war   crimes  
and   human   rights   abuses   in   order   to   vindicate   themselves   of   the   very  
same   injustices   which   is   a   puerile   and   pathetic   form   of   defence,   to   say   the  
least.”    
 
The   fiasco   over   Bob   Rae   earlier   this   year   and   the   deportation   and   public  
vilification  of  the  UNICEF  spokesperson  are  two  examples  in  a  litany  of  incidents  
this   year   alone   that   reveal   the   chutzpah   of   the   Rajapakse   regime.   But   the  
underlying   and   enduring   challenge   of   international   calls   for   investigations   into  
war  crimes  is  that  it  places  at  grave  risk  domestic  actors,  including  independent  
journalists,   writers   and   human   rights   activists   perceived   to   be   supporting   such  
investigations.   Also,   using   war   crimes   investigations   as   a   means   of   regime  
change   by   some   is   a   covert   agenda   that   seriously   undermines   processes   of  
restorative  justice  and  is  self-­‐defeating  to  boot.  The  Rajapakse  regime  will  not  be  
dislodged   by   international   pressure,   and   the   West   must   be   acutely   sensitive   to  
this.   Any   statement   calling   for   accountability   and   recommending   that   human  
rights   conditionalities   must   be   imposed   on   and   pegged   to   all   bilateral   aid   and  
trade  even  post-­‐war,  will  be  seen  and  portrayed  as  evidence  that  the  West,  along  
with  its  local  agents,  is  hell-­‐bent  on  regime  change.  Invariably,  reactions  to  this  
self-­‐serving   conspiracy,   from   a   deified,   venerated   government   and   particularly  
from  the  Executive  and  those  closest  to  him,  will  be  visceral  and  violent.    
 
These   three   narratives,   inextricably   entwined,   give   very   little   space   for   serious  
truth  telling  and  reconciliation  in  Sri  Lanka.  Writing  in  the  New  York  Times  last  
week,  Justice  Goldstone  noted  that,    
 
“Absent   credible   local   investigations,   the   international   community   has   a  
role  to  play.  If  justice  for  civilian  victims  cannot  be  obtained  through  local  
authorities,   then   foreign   governments   must   act.   There   are   various  
mechanisms   through   which   to   pursue   international   justice.   The  
International  Criminal  Court  and  the  exercise  of  universal  jurisdiction  by  
other   countries   against   violators   of   the   Geneva   Conventions   are   among  
them.   But   they   all   share   one   overarching   aim:   to   hold   accountable   those  
who   violate   the   laws   of   war.   They   are   built   on   the   premise   that   abusive  
fighters  and  their  commanders  can  face  justice,  even  if  their  government  
or  ruling  authority  is  not  willing  to  take  that  step.  Pursuing  justice  in  this  
case   is   essential   because   no   state   or   armed   group   should   be   above   the  
law.”  
 
However,   it   is   unlikely   that   the   Rajapakse   regime   will   be   shamed   by   any   war  
crimes  investigations  in  the  near  future.  At  the  risk  of  annoying  some,  it  may  be  
that   championing   war   crimes   investigations   is   precisely   what   the   international  
and  domestic  human  rights  lobby  should  NOT  be  engaged  in  at  present.  Arguably  
more  urgent  would  be  advocacy  that  flags  continuing  violations  of  human  rights  
post-­‐war,   not   least   of   260,000   IDPs   interned   in   hellish   conditions.   Investigations  
into  war  crimes  rarely  explore  the  underlying  causes  of  violent  conflict.  Systemic  
racism,   a   rampant   Sinhala   Buddhist   majoritarianism   in   all   aspects   of   governance  
and   culture,   growing   social   and   economic   inequality   –   these   are   enduring  
challenges   of   post-­‐war   Sri   Lanka   that   the   defeat   of   the   LTTE   has   brought   into  
sharp   relief   and   if   unaddressed,   will   lead   to   repeated   situations   where   crimes  
against  humanity  are  alive.    
 
With  some  patience,  it  is  entirely  possible  that  the  growing  nepotism  and  intra-­‐
party  strife  in  the  SLFP  will  undermine  the  government’s  power,  with  no  outside  
intervention   necessary   or   needed   for   regime   change.   Then,   not   now,   would   be  
the  time  for  naming  and  shaming  for  architects  and  perpetrators  of  war  crimes  
alive   today   have   few   places   to   hide.   Digital   evidence   and   testimonies   of   their   vile  
handiwork,   once   recorded,   does   not   fade   away   with   time   and   cannot   be  
censored.   The   stigma   that   such   material   can   arouse   in   the   countries   and  
neighbourhoods  perpetrators  may  escape  to  when  their  domestic  power  wanes  
can   be   a   powerful   weapon   of   social   accountability,   long   after   crimes   were  
committed,  and  beyond  the  control  of  international  jurisprudence,  their  personal  
lawyers  and  goon  squads.  As  Justice  Goldstone  notes  in  the  New  York  Times,  
 
“As  a  service  to  the  hundreds  of  civilians  who  needlessly  died  and  for  the  
equal   application   of   international   justice,   the   perpetrators   of   serious  
violations  must  be  held  to  account.”  
 
That   said,   truth   telling   takes   time,   courage   and   an   enabling   environment.   We  
must  be  patient  and  strategic.