Revisiting Sri Lanka's bloody
war
MARZUKI
DARUSMAN, STEVEN RATNER and YASMIN SOOKA , IHT , March 3, 2012 Saturday
ABSTRACT
The
U.N. Human Rights Council should create an investigative body to get at
the truth of the conflict's final stages.
FULL TEXT
Even
as attention is riveted on the bloodshed in Syria, another conflict, far more
deadly, is belatedly attracting the notice it deserves.
Beginning
this week, the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva has returned to an issue
that has haunted it since 2009 - the bloody finish to Sri Lanka's civil war.
That conflict ended on a stretch of beach in the country's northeast, as the
remaining fighters of the Tamil Tigers and tens of thousands of traumatized
civilians were surrounded by and surrendered to the Sri Lankan Army.
Sri
Lankans and many abroad rejoiced at the defeat of a force that had
routinely deployed terrorist tactics. But even as the government's military
campaign was under way, it became clear that the cost in civilian lives from
its attacks on the Tigers was enormous. Right after the war, the Human Rights Council, to the shock of
many observers, passed a resolution praising Sri Lanka's conduct of the war.
Sri Lanka's president, Mahinda Rajapaksa, promised Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
at the time that he would address the question of accountability for violations
against civilians.
When,
a year later, the government had done nothing to carry out Rajapaksa's
commitment, the secretary general asked the three of us to study the
allegations of atrocities during the last stages of the war and Sri
Lanka's response. In our report, we found credible evidence that both sides
had systematically flouted the laws of war, leading to as many as 40,000 deaths
- many multiples more than caused by the strife in Libya or Syria.
The
bulk of that total was attributable to deliberate, indiscriminate, or
disproportionate governmental attacks on civilians, through massive shelling
and aerial bombardment, including on clearly marked hospitals.
Rather
than tackling these allegations head-on through a truth commission or criminal
investigations, Sri Lanka created a ''Lessons Learnt and
Reconciliation Commission,'' whose mandate, composition and methods all
cast serious doubt on its willingness to uncover what really happened in those
fateful months.
When
the commission issued its final report last November, it ignored or played down
our report's conclusions and characterized civilian deaths as stemming from the
army's response to Tamil Tiger shelling or cross-fire - as sporadic,
exceptional and mostly inevitable in the heat of battle.
When
it came time to proposing next steps for the government, it called for
investigations by the same entities - the army and the attorney general - who
have a track record of ignoring governmental abuses for decades.
The
report had some welcome elements, too. It recognized some of the root causes of
the war, as well as the responsibility of both the government and Tigers for
civilian casualties. And it endorsed our view that Sri Lanka had a duty to
provide truth, justice and reparations to victims; release detainees; and
protect the state's besieged journalists.
Yet
the fact is that numerous recommendations of prior commissions of inquiry have
not been implemented by the government.
The Human Rights Council's
members are currently looking at a draft resolution, circulating at
the initiative of the United States, to demand action from Sri Lanka
on uncovering the truth and achieving some real accountability. The United
States deserves a great deal of credit for trying to get the council
to move on this issue. It is time for the council to correct its
embarrassing decision from 2009.
Yet
such a demand is not enough. Given Sri Lanka's unwillingness to take concrete
steps, the best way to get to the truth is for the council to create an
independent investigative body to determine the facts and identify those
responsible, as we recommended in our report.
For
Sri Lanka to experience a true peace, rather than simply the peace of the
victor, truth and accountability are essential. This is the lesson from states
as varied as South Africa, Sierra Leone and Argentina. The lack of much outside
interest in the bloodshed while it happened cannot be an excuse for continuing
to ignore the situation. The international community must now assume its duty
to ensure that Sri Lanka fulfills its responsibilities to all its people and to
the rest of the world.
NOTES: is a former
attorney-general of Indonesia. Steven Ratneris a law professor at the University
of Michigan. Yasmin Sookais the executive director of the Foundation for Human
Rights in South Africa.
