Any war or conflict anywhere in the world comes at a great cost. It is a fallacy to believe that only combatants perish in a war. Innocent civilians are almost always caught in the crossfire, although they are sometimes callously disregarded as “collateral damage”.
In fact, more civilians than combatants die in many wars. In World War II, over 38 million civilians perished versus 15 million soldiers. The current war in Gaza has claimed at least 50,000 lives, of which around 45,000 or more are reported to be civilians, not Hamas or Islamic Jihad fighters. Many civilians have also been killed in the Ukraine war which has claimed nearly one million lives.
This is indeed why the wartime leaders in Sri Lanka were essentially wrong to perpetuate a mythical “zero civilian casualties” narrative during the final days of the Northern war. By the time they eventually acknowledged that civilian casualties did indeed occur, the international community had built a unilateral case citing unsubstantiated and unverified numbers of civilians killed.
Soon after the final battle in the Northern war theatre, then President Mahinda Rajapaksa promised then UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, who toured the war-torn areas, to set up an accountability mechanism. Alas, this was forgotten just like the 13-Plus pledge and Sri Lanka has since found itself in a bad place at the UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC). He also showed only a lukewarm response to the recommendations of the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) appointed by his own Government. Implementing these proposals would have assuaged the international community to some extent.
There is a saying that the past is another country. Indeed, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since May 2009 and Sri Lankans by and large have left the darkness of war behind. Moreover, the new National People’s Power (NPP) which received an overwhelming mandate last year, reinforcing the mandate given to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, has given priority to ethnic reconciliation. President Dissanayake has visited the North many times to bond with the Northern masses, who have told him in unequivocal terms that they do not want to live in a land divided along ethnic or religious lines.
In this context, the UK Government’s recent decision to impose sanctions (assets freeze) and travel bans on three senior military personnel and one former LTTE leader does no service to the attempts being made in Sri Lanka to foster ethnic amity. This was indeed the gist of the response made by Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath, who said the “unilateral action” by the UK authorities would “serve to complicate the national reconciliation process underway in Sri Lanka”.
Minister Herath said the Government is strengthening domestic mechanisms on accountability and reconciliation and any past human rights violations should be dealt with through domestic accountability mechanisms. In our opinion, this should have been done in the immediate aftermath of the war. The then leaders instead chose to ridicule and confront the international community in a display of pseudo patriotism. In fact, they are still at it today. This “chest-beating” approach only makes the situation worse.
The narrow focus on “war crimes” also distracts from the many human rights violations and crimes that took place under the cover of the war or even after the war. Most of these crimes have not been fully resolved yet and some of the alleged perpetrators are freely walking among us. Among these horrendous crimes are the Easter Sunday attacks, assaults on journalists, forcible disappearances of journalists, the killing of journalists including Sunday Leader Chief Editor Lasantha Wickrematunga, the killing of ruggerite Wasim Thajideen, the “Trinco 5” killings, the “Trinco 11” killings, the killing of 17 humanitarian workers in Mutur in 2006 and the killing of protestors demanding safe water in Weliweriya, an event which occurred four years after the war ended.
While excesses that happen during a war are sometimes shrouded in the “fog of war” which is rather difficult to unravel, most of these cases are clear-cut, with ample records and evidence. Some of the investigations were also mysteriously dropped halfway, even though the Police had made several arrests on credible evidence.
The Government should re-open these investigations without delay and prosecute any culprits in the Courts without fear or favour. That is one way of regaining the trust of the international community vis-à-vis human rights concerns.
Of course, we cannot head into the future without coming to terms with our past, however, unpalatable it may be. It is something that we should do for our own benefit, not necessarily because the international community seeks it. Hence the Government’s proposal to establish a mechanism on the lines of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) to go into the very roots of the ethnic conflict. This is essential, as somewhere along the way after Independence in 1948, we gave into the base instincts of race and religion and destroyed ethnic and religious amity.
Leaders in countries such as Singapore watched Sri Lanka’s precipitous slide into ethnic conflict and evolved programs to ensure ethnic amity and harmony. Today, every citizen of Singapore proudly identifies himself or herself as “Singaporean” whereas we still cling on to ethnic monikers, essentially forgetting the fact that we are all Sri Lankans at heart.
Thus, we sorely need a Sri Lankan identity and a renewed commitment to ensure that we never ever slide back into ethnic rancour and discord. Perhaps that should be the main focus of a new Constitution. Fortunately, preventing another conflict is also the aim of President Dissanayake and the Government. They have shown by example that they truly believe in the axiom “unity in diversity”. All Sri Lankans should actively contribute to making this effort a success.
