The U.S. Congressional Caucus on Ethnic and Religious
Freedom in Sri
Lanka held a hearing on July 9 in Washington, D.C. The caucus, created in
2013, is co-chaired by Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.) and Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio).
It remains to be seen how effective this newly created group will be but --
given the recent developments in Sri Lanka -- there is no question that there was
plenty to discuss at the gathering.
Aside from the persistent ethnic and religious violence
that plagues the country, the war-torn island nation is still grappling with a
bunch of problems as it struggles to make the transition from a postwar
country to a post-conflict one.
Recent anti-Muslim violence
outside Colombo last month resulted in the death of several people and the
injury of many more -- as mobs attacked Muslim homes, places of business, and
mosques. The police have been widely criticized for failing to prevent the
violence. These developments serve as another reminder that Sri Lanka remains a
country in crisis. Indeed, extremist Sinhalese-Buddhist groups operate with impunity
while ordinary community members have basic human rights repressed under the
deepening authoritarianism of President Mahinda Rajapaksa.
As mandated by the March 2014 U.N. Human Rights Council resolution
passed on Sri Lanka, the U.N.'s Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights (OHCHR) will undertake an investigation into wartime atrocities on the
island. The office will examine events that took place from the 2002 cease-fire
until the war's end in 2009.
The OHCHR team
includes three prominent experts and 12 staff members. The group will
produce a detailed report, which will be presented at the Human Rights
Council's
28th session next March. The report is expected to add to a quantum of
evidence that suggests that both government forces and the Liberation
Tigers of Tamil
Eelam (LTTE) -- the group fighting for a separate Tamil
state in the northern and eastern parts of the country -- committed
serious violations
of international humanitarian and human rights law.
The Rajapaksa regime is doing everything it can to ensure
that the investigation
does not go smoothly. In addition to the regime publicly stating that it won't
cooperate, myriad cordon-and-search operations, numerous cases of arbitrary arrest, and the
government's proscription
of certain Tamil individuals and organizations -- that are allegedly supporting
terrorism and the LTTE -- all fit into this broader strategy.
The government continues to use international pressure to
rally its Sinhalese base (Sinhalese people are the overwhelming ethnic majority in
Sri Lanka), and the recent rise in repression in the country's Northern Province,
coupled with baseless claims that the LTTE is regrouping within Sri Lanka, are
designed to serve those ends.
The ban against Tamil diaspora groups is a calculated move by the
regime. Even though several countries will not recognize it, this move will
make it harder for Tamils residing in Sri Lanka to receive financial assistance
from those in the diaspora. It also means that anyone living in Sri Lanka who
collaborates with proscribed individuals or organizations could be imprisoned
for extended periods according to the Prevention of Terrorism Act -- an
undemocratic piece of legislation that gives the security forces wide-ranging
powers to arrest and detain people, without their being charged or tried. (The
law has had a disproportionately negative effect on Sri Lanka's Tamil
community).
The diaspora ban is undoubtedly supposed to discourage
community members residing in Sri Lanka from sharing information with local
human rights activists, diplomats, or anyone who may use evidence of past or
ongoing human rights abuses for documentation, advocacy, or accountability
purposes. While some shrewd analysts have suggested that the ban has been
designed specifically in light of the U.N. investigation, it's likely that the
regime in Colombo is playing a much longer game. The regime understands the
deleterious effects that efficient, timely information-sharing is having on its
(dubious) claims of progress and postwar recovery. In this context, it appears
that Rajapaksa and his collaborators are attempting to silence people
indefinitely.
For a variety of reasons, many donors
have been downsizing their budgets vis-à-vis Sri Lanka. On the
diplomatic
front, a palpable sense of fatigue has undoubtedly set in across
Washington, London, Brussels, and elsewhere. To make matters worse,
genuine accountability
for wartime atrocities won't be happening anytime soon. Furthermore,
Washington has not indicated the steps it's contemplating after the war crimes
investigation has been completed, but another resolution on Sri Lanka at the
Human Rights Council remains unlikely.
For several reasons, including religiously motivated violence
and controversial development projects, a
few cracks have appeared in the ruling United People's Freedom
Alliance, the political grouping led by Rajapaksa's Sri Lanka Freedom
Party. The recent anti-Muslim attacks have further damaged the
government's
credibility, but Rajapaksa still appears safe for some time yet. And, as
the recent violence outside Colombo has reiterated, institutionalized
impunity, an erosion of governance, and rising ethnic tensions remain
hallmarks of the regime since the conclusion of war.
As we've seen in places such as Rwanda, Sudan, Sri Lanka,
and -- most recently- - Syria, intervening on behalf of civilians during wartime
isn't easy. Indeed, the international community's failure to intervene in a
host of global hot spots has had devastating consequences. However, when it
comes to Sri Lanka, the current situation would likely be even worse if it
weren't for sustained international pressure regarding war crimes and ongoing
human rights violations since the war's end.
Let's not let Sri Lanka become an example for authoritarian
regimes across the global south. Right now -- in the eyes of an ambitious
authoritarian leader -- Sri Lanka's path may look like a decent way to crush an
insurgency and completely disregard human rights and civil liberties more than
five years after the fighting.
Disturbingly, Nigerian military officials have even
suggested that they may seek to emulate Sri
Lankan-style counterinsurgency tactics to take on Boko Haram. This is a
worrisome development and could portend an egregious
disregard for civilian life and a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions.
While it's understandable that Nigerian President Goodluck
Jonathan and company want to thwart further terrorist attacks on their soil, the
"Sri Lanka model" is a bad example to follow and deserves the highest degree of
opprobrium.
As Sri Lanka's prospects for genuine reconciliation continue
to worsen, now is the time for the international community to redouble its
efforts and look beyond resolutions passed and statements made at the Human
Rights Council. The Rajapaksa regime's ruthless end-of-war tactics, like its
postwar governance scorecard, are models that shouldn't be overlooked or even
tolerated. For all of these reasons, the way things play out in Sri Lanka has
ramifications that extend well beyond a small island nation.
Sometimes it takes time, but the truth has a way of finding
people. Let's hope it finds Rajapaksa -- sooner rather than later.
Taylor Dibbert is an
international consultant based in Washington, D.C., and the author of the book
Fiesta of Sunset: The Peace Corps, Guatemala and a Search for Truth. Follow him
on Twitter: @taylordibbert.
Photo by LAKRUWAN WANNIARACHCHI/AFP/Getty Images
