Sri Lankas Tortuous Path to Reconciliation

and Justice
Elections might have ousted an authoritarian leader, but without the political will of Sri Lankas new
president, genuine reconciliation may continue to elude the island nation.

BY TAYLOR DIBBERT-APRIL 6, 2015

Sri Lankas surprising election in early January resulted in the

ousting of authoritarian president Mahinda Rajapaksa.Maithripala Sirisena, the
former health minister and general secretary of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, is now
president. Leading a broad alliance that is purportedly set to implement significant
constitutional reforms and put an end to the corruption and nepotism that plagued
Rajapaksas tenure, Sirisena has ushered in optimism about changing Sri Lankas path.
Nevertheless, reconciliation and accountability for wartime atrocities may continue to
elude the island nation. For starters, Sirisena was acting defense minister during the
end of the 26-year-long civil war. Second, Rajapaksas defeat has resulted in a
complicated political situation and parliamentary elections are expected imminently.
Lastly, the release of an important report focused on wartime atrocities in Sri Lanka
has been delayed for six months.

The 28th session of the U.N. Human Rights Council began on March 2 and ended late
last month. During this session, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights had been scheduled to deliver this highly anticipated report. Yet, after intense
lobbying by the Sri Lankan government, the report will now be released at the Human
Rights Councils 30th session in September. With new promises of a domestic
accountability mechanism and assurances about future cooperation with the High
Commissioners Office, the Sirisena administration has bought itself some time.
The release of this report would mark the culmination of sustained international
pressure on Sri Lanka over the past several years, including the passage of three
Human Rights Council resolutions dealing broadly with issues pertaining to justice,
reconciliation, human rights, and accountability since 2012. The report is expected
to add to a substantial body ofevidencewhich suggests serious violations of
international humanitarian and human rights law were committed by government
forces and the separatist Tamil Tigers.
Leading figures in the Obama administration including John Kerry,Antony
Blinken, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power have already praised the recent transfer
of power in Colombo. Assistant Secretary of State Nisha Biswal spoke effusively of a
new era for democracy in Sri Lanka during her recent visit to the island.
The Sirisena administration has made some early steps in the right direction. For
example, a new chief justice has beenappointed to the Supreme Court. Some media
restrictions have been lifted; travel restrictions for foreign nationals seeking to visit the
north have been scrapped; and probes into corruption have been initiated.
Nonetheless, Sirisenas reform plan is behind schedule and it is still too early to tell
how much of his agenda will actually be implemented.
It is true the additional six months could result in a more thorough investigation and a
stronger report. More evidence could be gathered or examined and the newly elected
government might even help with this process. The Sirisena administration has
indicated that it is prepared to cooperate with the Office of the High Commissioner in
ways that the Rajapaksa administration was not though it remains unclear how
much genuine collaboration will take place. While Rajapaksa did not allow the
investigation team to enter Sri Lanka, Sirisena will not either.
Sri Lankas upcoming parliamentary election had been cited as a key reason for why
the release of the report needed to be delayed. Indeed with a parliamentary election
expected in June, Sri Lankas political situation remains complex and precarious.
Many have argued that the release of such a sensitive report could have electoral

implications.
Is a delay really a good idea?
Firstly, it seems reasonable to argue that resolutions passed at the Human Rights
Council and an investigation into wartime abuses in Sri Lanka should not be held
captive to the vicissitudes of the domestic politics of any country.
More specifically, Sirisena has promised to pursue accountability for wartime
atrocities through a domestic mechanism, but it is highly unlikely that a domestic
probe would result in genuine accountability or actual criminal prosecutions of any
senior officials. Moreover, it would be even more unrealistic to expect any of this to
happen in the next six months.
On the one hand, Sirisenas administration has said it needs time and space to
implement the reforms it campaigned on and to deal with accountability issues
domestically since this is an especially sensitive moment. Yet with a parliamentary
election right around the corner, it would be politically toxic to lead the charge against
members of the almost exclusively Sinhalese military over alleged wartime atrocities.
Sirisenas decision to expand the size of his cabinet significantly andform a national
government has heightened concerns about the presidents commitment to his
campaign promises pertaining to anti-corruption and improved governance.
Furthermore, recent pro-Rajapaksa rallies are reminders that Rajapaksas brand
remains a political force that cannot be ignored.
Any assessment of the Sri Lanka governments heightened engagement with the Office
of the High Commissioner over the next six months should be directly related to the
investigation which remains ongoing. For example, will the Sri Lankan government
help investigators uncover new, qualitatively different evidence than what has been
gathered already? Would the Sri Lankan government allow senior Sri Lankan military
officials to be interviewed by the investigation team?
Unsurprisingly, Tamils residing in Sri Lanka and abroad have expressed their
disappointment regarding the delay. The postponement was supported by the United
States and other western countries (the key architects of past Human Rights Council
resolutions on Sri Lanka) and the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights himself.
In spite of lofty rhetoric, there is already a sense that Sri Lanka fatigue at the Human
Rights Council is becoming more widespread. Delaying the report makes it easier for
people to lose interest and, crucially, makes the prospects of further action on Sri
Lanka at the Human Rights Council (or other multilateral bodies) even more remote.

Even if a hard-hitting report on Sri Lanka were delivered this March, justice or
accountability would not have followed inevitably. Realistically speaking, the clearest
route to accountability for wartime atrocities in Sri Lanka is through a U.N. Security
Council resolution, something that is unlikely to happen in the near future, but will be
even less likely to happen now that the report will not be released until September.
Transitional justice in Sri Lanka is unlikely to happen without sustained international
pressure. The release of the forthcoming report is just one part of a longer, more
convoluted process toward accountability and justice which will not happen without
the commensurate political will. Staying optimistic about the countrys recent transfer
of power has been a challenge, but the window for meaningful change remains open.
In the coming months, the international community will know whether or not such
optimism has been misplaced. Regardless, Sri Lankas convoluted path to
reconciliation and justice is far from finished.
Posted by Thavam