Post War Sri Lanka Under the Rajapaksa: Reconciliation's Two Lost Years

The report is strong in its condemnation of the Rajapaksa's manipulation of election and democratic processes in Sri Lanka. The prosecution and persecution of General Sarath Fonseka, the Commander of the Army during the closing stages of the Civil War and, later, Chief of the Defence Staff, who broke with the government to run for president, has effectively intimidated anyone less powerful who might want to take on the President and his family. Power has been concentrated in ministries run by the President's brothers including Gotabaya receiving responsibility to oversee municipal councils in Colombo. The President's son, Namal Rajapaksa, has, since his election as an MP, been given governmental responsibilities and gets to run youth organisations associated with the governing party. The press has been intimidated into self-censorship including by assassinations and disappearances of journalists. The government, in any event, has mobilised state resources, including state owned media, to support its campaigning and image building. Since the election, constitutional changes have neutralised independent institutions and removed the few remaining checks on presidential power.

The criticism of the centralisation of power and the administration of areas in the north and south is equally strong and reflects reports by other agencies. The military presence in the north intimidates ordinary citizens who are likely to be stopped and investigated at any time. Since tens of thousands of the families are led by single women (whose husband have died in the war or who are still missing), they are particularly vulnerable to exploitation by members of the military. The military have taken opportunities away from small businesses by running their own wholesale and retail business operations. Local administration is dominated by the appointment of retired military officers close to the President to important positions in regional administration and elected local government is restricted in many crucial areas by the continued delay in allowing local elections to take place. A by-product is that Tamil public servants become increasingly isolated.

ICG reports always conclude with recommendations for the government of the country concerned; for international NGOs who deal with the government; and for the international community. Of the recommendations directed to the Sri Lankan government, several address the point made earlier that the need for accountability does not just relate to the closing months of the civil war. The report urges the government to release the reports of various commissions of inquiry that have been appointed and reported in the past. The report points out that there is information in these reports that could be made available, relatively easily, that would provide important information, to relatives of victims and survivors of past wrongs as to what happened and who was responsible. The recommendation is important for its recognition that the charade of the LLRC is part of the tradition of facades in which inquiries are appointed (when a government is under pressure) but are prevented from achieving from achieving their suggested purpose by either being nobbled in running or by having their reports suppressed.

The international community and NGOs are, essentially, urged to remain engaged but to avoid falling for the government's false narratives as to the past and the future. Despite the government's turning to non-western countries like China and Russia for material and diplomatic support, the report suggests that the government still requires the assistance of the west including Sri Lanka's powerful neighbour, India. Aid should be provided on condition that it is not manipulated to the government's ends and the international community should continue to challenge the government's narratives of convenience.

The ICG report is an important update on the situation in Sri Lanka. It confirms that the government of that country continues to use its centralised hold on power to advantage its leading figures rather than pursue reconciliation and a just accounting of past and present injustices. Although the ability of the outside world to change reality within Sri Lanka is, for the moment, limited, there is no excuse for ignoring that reality so as to become accomplices in perpetrating false narratives. Even as the ability to influence is limited, the need to take advantage of every opportunity to exert a positive influence becomes more urgent.

We are much indebted to groups like ICG who provide accurate, up to date, and well-researched information on human rights trouble spots. We are also indebted to their careful and detailed analysis.

We are particularly indebted in Australia where addiction to convenient narratives among our leading political figures is not unknown. Sri Lanka has particular relevance for Australia because dispossessed Sri Lankans are a major source of asylum seekers reaching Australian shores. It is tempting for our government to accept the narrative that all is well in post-civil war Sri Lanka including for minorities such as the Tamil community. The relevance has become more acute as our national security agencies, in escalating numbers, make secret assessments of proven refugees from Sri Lanka which result in those refugees being detained, potentially, for ever. Upon whose narrative are those security assessments being made?