 |
| flickr / Vikalpa I Groundviews I CPA |
On 18 February 2013, following the release of Balachandran’s photographs, The Independent
published a report showing a picture of him sitting in a bunker,
slightly anxious, and a subsequent picture of his dead body lying on the
ground. Almost a year ago, the London-based newspaper had also
published a report with a picture of Balachandran after being shot. At
the time, a video and some pictures showing the aftermath of the tragedy
had been released. The new images, in contrast, show Balachandran
unharmed and eating a snack, indicating that he had been captured and
subsequently killed.
A forensic pathologist who analysed the pictures released last year
assessed that Balachandran was shot from a very close range. Now,
Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka (JDS) is saying that the analysis
of the metadata from the new photographs prove that the pictures from
before and after the tragedy, taken a few hours apart, are from the same
camera.
|
Himal’s Commentary section is back!
Old
readers will remember it from the monthly print magazine, which had a
selection of commentary pieces from around the region. While the old
Commentary section reflected the voices of Himal’s editors, our new
expanded section seeks to draw independent voices for pieces that are
reflective, provocative and incisive. Our Commentary section will be the
dynamic space to respond to ongoing events. We hope you enjoy this new
feature. As always, do give us your feedback.
|
Hundreds of newspaper reports have appeared since the release of the
new photographs. But while the story has received a lot of attention in
India, especially in Tamil Nadu, there has been little coverage in the
Sri Lankan media. On 21 February, The Hindu reported that the “Sri Lankan media largely ignored the sensation created in India and elsewhere in the world”.
Gossip9.com, a popular website managed from Colombo, was an exception
in its coverage of the story. But in a few days time, the site became
inaccessible and the owners issued a statement saying that the website
had been shut down, even after changing the URL several times. Accepting
the government’s ban, the site-owners also closed their Facebook page
and SMS services.
The Sri Lankan government did not stop there. On the first day of the
ongoing UN Human Rights Council session, Ravinatha Aryasinha, Sri
Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the UN filed a letter of protest
against the screening of No Fire Zone in the Council’s premises
in Geneva. Human Rights Watch intends to show the film today – 1 March –
on the sidelines of the Council’s meeting. The reason behind the Sri
Lankan government’s protest is clear: the Balachandran photographs are
part of the documentary. According to The Associated Press, the
90-minute documentary “alleges government troops and Tamil Tiger rebels
engaged in war crimes during the final stages of the conflict in 2009”.
This unprecedented call by the Sri Lankan government for censorship
within the Council’s premises reveals its authoritarian mindset.
‘Resolution’
In March of last year, the Human Rights Council had passed a modest
resolution calling for democratic reforms – envisaged by the
government’s Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, LLRC – and
accountability for actions during the last phase of the Sri Lankan
government’s war against the LTTE. The government opposed the resolution and continued to ignore it throughout the year.
The government also rejected the LLRC’s recommendations for
demilitarisation, separation of the police from the defence ministry,
creation of a special mechanism for investigating disappearances, and a
declaration of a day for remembrance. Instead of establishing a credible
and independent inquiry mechanism as envisaged by the Council’s
resolution, the Sri Lankan government appointed a military board of
inquiry to look into the alleged human rights violations by the security
forces. In its first report, the board not only absolved the military
of any wrongdoing, but also rejected the applicability of International
Human Rights Law in regards to the war against the LTTE.
The current government’s apathy towards the Council’s resolution was
accompanied by the politically motivated impeachment of Chief Justice
Shirani Bandaranayake last year and her dismissal earlier this year. The
impeachment has been a major turning point in the sense that it showed
the Rajapaksa regime’s apathetic attitude towards international concerns
on re-establishing democratic governance in Sri Lanka.
A follow-up resolution, sponsored by the US, will be voted on towards
the end of the current UNHRC session. The balance within the 47-member
UN Council is clearly favourable towards a follow-up resolution and it
is probable that it will be passed with an improved majority. Weeks
before the Balachandran photographs were released, the US
representatives to the Council were already confident in increased
support for their resolution, which was put together long before the
recent controversy. The issue of human rights in Sri Lanka has broken
the block-voting pattern in the Council. Previously, there was only one
block that supported the Sri Lankan government – the group of Islamic
countries. But recent anti-Muslim agitations in Sri Lanka and attacks on
Islamic places of worship may have caused many of these countries to
reassess their stances.
The Sri Lankan government’s position regarding Council’s interventions
has been two-fold: First of all, accountability in the last phase of the
war is an internal matter and any outside interference on this matter
is a violation of Sri Lanka’s sovereignty. Secondly, Sri Lanka is
rebuilding itself after a 30-year-long devastating war caused by LTTE
‘terrorism’; therefore, it needs more time for proper accountability
measures. But in 2012, the majority of countries in the Council did not
accept these arguments.
The biggest blow for the Sri Lankan government has been losing India’s support.
Last year, India voted in favour of the US sponsored resolution that
criticised the Sri Lankan government. India’s vote is crucial as it
carries considerable weight among the Council members. In May 2009, one
week after the war came to an end, India’s support for Sri Lanka was
critical in overturning the EU sponsored resolution, calling for
transparency and accountability, in favour of the Sri Lankan government sponsored counter-resolution.
The Sri Lankan government’s resolution from 2009 had declared that the
president “does not regard a military solution as a final solution”, in
addition to “his commitment to a political solution with implementation
of the thirteenth amendment to bring about lasting peace and
reconciliation in Sri Lanka”. The resolution further talked about
“acknowledging the continued engagement of the Government of Sri Lanka
in regularly and transparently briefing and updating the Council on the
human rights situation on the ground and the measures taken in that
regard”.
Dayan Jayatilleka, then Sri Lankan Ambassador and Permanent
Representative to the UN, had welcomed the vote in favour of the Sri
Lankan government sponsored resolution and told the Council that it was
“not a blank check”. The government, however, took the support it
received for granted and did not initiate any process for reconciliation
and accountability. To this day, the government has not been able to
formulate a consistent policy to address these concerns.
Hope?
It seems that the Sri Lankan government believes that its domestic
policy approach, which works on principles of political privilege
coupled with intimidation, might also work at the international level.
After its 2012 defeat at the UNHRC, the government has opened diplomatic
missions in a number of developing countries and invited various heads
of states for official visits. Meanwhile, the government continues to use the ‘China card’
to intimidate its longstanding partners in economic development. China
has become the biggest donor and a source of political backing for the
Sri Lankan government although, currently, only a tiny fraction of its
exports go to China. On economic matters, it is the West and India that
have a greater leverage on Sri Lanka. But with the support of China and
Russia, the government has been hoping to get decisions in its favour in
Geneva.
There is, however, one more factor to consider in this scenario. The
Rajapaksa government enjoys the support of the Sinhalese population when
it comes to withstanding war-related international pressure. But when
Gossip9 posted the photo feature of Balachandran’s death, around 30
percent of the comments were against the cold-blooded killing of the
young boy. Usually, comments on war-related stories are anti-LTTE and
full of praise for military action. The innocence of the young boy seems
to have made the difference.
The influence of Balachadran’s photographs will be much stronger in
India, Sri Lanka and among the Tamil Diaspora, than in Geneva. The
response to the pictures from Tamil politician Douglas Devananda from
the current Sri Lankan government is noteworthy. Unlike the government’s
position that the photos are “morphed and diabolical”, Devananda
remarked that, “It was unfortunate. We will inquire into it. The truth
would emerge only after an inquiry. Nothing more could be said now”.
Passing a resolution at the UN Human Rights Council is important for
making the current Sri Lankan government accountable. But international
efforts need to be complemented by a grassroots understanding of the
situation and local campaigns. Otherwise, the international pressures
will merely remain as resolutions. Perhaps, this is where the story of
Balchandran Prabhakaran can make its impact.
~ Sunanda Deshapriya is a defender of human rights, campaigner for press freedom and a journalist from Sri Lanka.