If there was one thing that characterized the 10-year rule of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, that would be the unprecedented level of violence unleashed upon the regime’s political opponents.
Infamous ‘white van abductions’ were prevalent in the capital city of Colombo, while strong critiques of the government often came under attacks from ‘death squads’ that operated with the blessings of the top echelons of the government.
Former Sunday Leader Editor Lasantha Wickrematunga and journalist Prageeth Ekneligoda exposed the corruption of the Rajapaksa government at the expense of their own lives, while senior journalists Upali Tennakoon, Poddala Jayantha and many others had to flee the country after brutal assaults.
The law enforcement bodies had little or no regard for human lives as the military and the Police freely opened fire on protesters during protests at Rathupaswala, Katunayake and Chilaw.
There was no action on the perpetrators who killed unarmed protesters and in fact, some of them got promotions with diplomatic postings. It was a clear indication that the top-rung members of the Rajapaksa administration had no regrets about the precious human lives lost on the blood-soaked streets of Rathupaswala, Katunayake and Chilaw.
This callous indifference and disregard for human rights and democracy was one of the key reasons behind the downfall of former President Rajapaksa on January 8, 2015.
Despite his military victory over the LTTE, people had no qualms about sending the former President home as they wanted a government that was committed to ensure democracy, freedom and human rights in the country.
For any political party, the time it spends in the Opposition is a time of reflection. It gives the party some breathing space to reflect, re-adjust and re-strategize. Many believed the Rajapaksa group too would use the January 8 defeat as an opportunity for reflection and self-criticism.
Kamal Gunaratne
But, it is now abundantly clear that the Rajapaksa group has hardly learnt anything from the election defeat. It was manifested again when former Major General Kamal Gunaratne, who led a military battalion during the final phase of war, addressed a gathering in Gampaha, a few days ago.
Kamal Gunaratne was the Commander of the 53rd Brigade established by former Army Commander Sarath Fonseka during the final phase of the war. It was Fonseka who appointed Gunaratne as a Brigade Commander before the final battle overlooking many other senior Army officers.
But, the same Kamal Gunaratne turned against Fonseka when the latter contested the Presidential Election in 2010. Gunaratne and several other senior Army officers appeared on State television channels to belittle Fonseka’s contribution in the final phase of the war against the LTTE, soon before the Presidential Election 2010 in which the former Army Commander was the Common Candidate of the Opposition. A day after Gunaratne retired from the military service in 2016, he launched a book ‘Road to Nandikadal’, which became an overnight sensation among the hardcore Sinhala-Buddhist bloc in the South.
The book was launched at the Ananda College auditorium, in Colombo, under the auspices of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa.
Former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa was also present at the event and copies of the book were presented to the Rajapaksa brothers by the author. It was a clear indication that Gunaratne’s affiliations lied with the Rajapaksas even before he became a speaker of the ‘Viyathmaga’ campaign.
It is in this context that the current controversy surrounding the retired Army General has to be analyzed.
Viyathmaga
Gunaratne, addressing a ‘Viyathmaga’ event that was aimed at promoting former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa, indicated that all who supported the new constitution should be killed.
In his speech, he first explained how the proposed new Constitution was “traitorous” and “unpatriotic”. Then he went on to claim that all traitors should be killed, in the same manner the JVP killed its opponents during the 88-89 insurrection.
What he implied was that the supporters of the new constitution, whom he called traitors, should not be given a decent funeral.
Ironically, the event where Gunaratne voiced his opinion was called ‘Viyathmaga’ (The path of intellectuals). The retired Army officer’s remarks were testimony to the calibre of intellectuals who have aligned themselves with the former Defence Secretary.
It would be wrong to assume that Gunaratne’s remarks came on the spur of the moment. It was, needless to say, a glimpse of the ideology espoused by Gotabaya Rajapaksa who is aspiring to be a presidential candidate in 2020. It also resembled Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s conduct when he was the all-powerful Defence Secretary of the Rajapaksa administration.
Criticism
Gunaratne’s controversial statement came under criticism from various quarters in the political circles. Even some senior members of the Rajapaksa group described Gunaratne’s remarks as “insane and senseless” saying it would irreparably damage the political campaign of the former President.
They said, while former Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa was trying hard to draw the support of ethnic minorities, the allies of Gotabaya Rajapaksa openly talk about killing political opponents.
They said, Gunaratne’s statement was a serious blow to the former President’s political campaign against a backdrop where Basil had gone an extra mile to admit the alleged crimes committed by members of the security forces, during the Rajapaksa presidency.
Among the politicians who strongly criticized the former Army officer’s irresponsible statement was Finance and Media minister Mangala Samaraweera who said, the defeated political elements were misusing the democratic space secured by the current government.
Mangala’s statement
The Minister, in a strongly worded statement, accused them of acting as pawns of former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
He reiterated that the “Viyathmaga” movement was formed to cater to the future political aspiration of Gotabaya Rajapaksa. The Minister reminded that the unity government received a clear mandate in 2015 to introduce a new Constitution to usher in permanent peace, reconciliation and development.
Also citing Gunaratne and Retired Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekara’s recent comments that all who support the new Constitution must be killed and the most recent comment by Weerawansa that Parliament should be bombed, the Minister pointed out, these horrific comments were made at a time the government is working towards delivering this undertaking of formulating a new Constitution.
“We need not reply to filthy statements of racists, yet, I should voice the concerns of democracy-loving people who stand against the barking of those blood thirsty and power hungry political elements. If they can make such gory comments on a civil platform when they are out of power, people with some sense could imagine the crimes they had committed when they held ruling power. These threats also put the lives of democracy-loving and wise people at risk,” Minister Samaraweera stated.
The Minister went on to say, Kamal Gunaratne in his recent book had betrayed the Sri Lanka Army by illustrating the fatal attacks on the Northern people and instances of looting their property and thus preparing the ground for war crimes allegations. He reminded that investigations are still on against Gunaratne over the mysterious death of a Sri Lankan, which occurred when Gunaratne was in the diplomatic service.
Handi-kadal
Samaraweera referred to Gunaratne’s book ‘Road to Nandikadal’ as ‘Handi-kadal’ (breaker of towns) as it explains how some enraged soldiers destroyed villages and towns occupied by Tamil civilians during the period of war.
Samaraweera, commenting on Weerawansa’s statement on bombing Parliament, said, Weerawansa had displayed his fanatic political hooliganism following the same footsteps of his brother-in-law who bombed Parliament in the 1988-89 era.
The Minister, recalling the infamous white van culture in the Rajapaksa era, noted that the criminal mindset of those in the Rajapaksa camp remains unchanged with or without power.
Japanese judge and a highly respected figure in the international legal fraternity, Motoo Noguchi, was in Sri Lanka last week to share his insight and views on the proposed accountability and reconciliation mechanism in Sri Lanka.
Noguchi graduated from the University of Tokyo, Faculty of Law (1983) and Legal Research and Training Institute of the Supreme Court (1985).
He was a Judge in the Supreme Court Chamber of Japan from its inception until July 2012.
He has been a prosecutor since 1985, accumulating considerable experience in criminal investigations and trials. He has also been engaged in judicial reforms in transitional countries since 1996.
From 2000 to 2004, he was seconded to the Asian Development Bank (ADB) as a counsel. In 2004, he has been a professor at UNAFEI, while also serving as a senior attorney at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs advising on international criminal justice.
He was a visiting scholar at the University of Washington, School of Law (1992-93), visiting professional at the International Criminal Court (2005), and visiting fellow at Yale Law School, Schell Center for International Human Rights and MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies at Yale (2006-07). He is also a visiting professor at the University of Tokyo.
First involvement
Noguchi is no stranger to the reconciliation and accountability process in Sri Lanka as he has closely associated with Sri Lanka since 2014.
He was appointed as an expert to the Advisory Council of the Presidential Commission to Investigate Complaints Regarding Missing Persons in Sri Lanka, formed by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa.
His appointment came after Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe expressed willingness to play an active part in Sri Lanka’s reconciliation process when the latter met former President Rajapaksa, in September, 2014.
Sir Desmond de Silva (UK) (Chairman), Sir Geoffrey Nice (UK), Prof. David Crane (USA), Prof. Avdash Kaushal (India) and Ahmer Bilal Soofi (Pakistan) were the other members of the panel.
It was the first time, that international experts got involved in Sri Lanka’s accountability process and this, quite ironically, happened under the tenure of former President Rajapaksa.
Benefitting all communities
During his latest visit to Sri Lanka, Noguchi held discussions with a number of stakeholders involved in the reconciliation process, including the country’s military and members of the state media machinery.
The Japanese judge explained to them why Sri Lanka needs a credible accountability mechanism, at this juncture.
“What is important to understand is that the accountability mechanism is not targeted at any particular community,” Noguchi said, allaying fears of some sections of the majority Sinhalese community.
“It will also not target the Sri Lankan military, as an entity. Also, there will be no discrimination when it comes to serious crimes. Some sections of the Sri Lankan society do not seem to have a clear understanding of the matter.”
“The accountability mechanism,” the Japanese judge said, “would benefit all communities and all sections of society.”
“Some fear it will make a negative impact on the Army. But, in my view, it will give a fair opportunity to the Army to present the real picture and dispel any ungrounded criticism,” he explained, adding that all suspects would be given an opportunity to present their defence.
“But, I must reiterate that the prosecution will be based on individual criminal responsibility. No entity, as a unit, will face prosecution.”
However, the Japanese expert said, there were complex issues that needed to be cleared.
“For instance, we need to ensure that the accountability mechanism is not limited to the members of the Sri Lankan security forces. But, the LTTE, on the other hand, is now defunct and almost all its leaders have been killed in the battle. So, who will take responsibility for the crimes committed by the LTTE? We need to find answers to these questions” he added.
“We need to find a way out of this deadlock.”
“One way out is expanding the scope of the mechanism to investigate into incidents that took place in the 1980s as well -way before the final stages of war, based on the availability of evidence,” he said.
The Japanese expert also pointed out that the message coming from political authorities with regard to transitional justice should be clear and cohesive.
However, it is also important to understand that such an expansion may blur the mandate of the commission and delay the final outcome.
International stakeholders, such as the United Nations Human Rights Council, have constantly pushed that Sri Lanka’s accountability process should be time-bound. In response, Sri Lanka’s leaders have stated they prefer to make progress “slow and steady.”
It is in this context that expanding the mandate of the mechanism to investigate into the incidents in the 1980s could be a double-edged sword.
Grieff
Pablo de Greiff, Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, who was in Colombo last week, also shared interesting views on Sri Lanka’s accountability process, during his interactions with the media.
Some of his remarks were fully in line with the views expressed by the Japanese legal expert.
Grieff, concluding his 14-day visit to the country, said Transitional justice processes did not constitute a witch-hunt.
He made this remark while alluding to often-heard political rhetoric on protecting war heroes.
In any transitional justice process, it is important to draw the line between war heroes and criminals.
A criminal can never be a war hero and a war hero should never be a criminal.
What remains unclear is whether the Sri Lankan politicians attempting to appease the majority Sinhalese community with the war hero rhetoric, are aware of this universal truth.
“This seems to misrepresent the target of transitional justice accountability measures by suggesting it is a generally anti-security agenda, and also by forgetting that no one who has committed violations of human rights law or of the laws of war deserves to be called a hero,” said the UN official.
Stating that the criminal case filed against former Army Commander Jagath Jayasuriya was only the “tip of the iceberg”, Greiff added Sri Lanka continued to deprive itself of the benefits of transitional justice, and had “regrettably underutilised” the support offered by the UN.
Citing the experience in 1971 and 1988-89, the UN official said, it was not just the minorities, but also the majority community that stands to gain from a credible transitional justice mechanism.
Greiff said so much had to be done, adding that Sri Lanka’s steps towards post-war accountability had been a work in progress.
He said, the delays bear some risks of further politicisation of the discussion of the increasing difficulties in finding consensus around this topic.
“Delays open up opportunities for the topic to become entangled in partisan politics, as seems to be happening in Sri Lanka. I take the opportunity to reiterate a point that cannot be overstated: transitional justice deals with questions of basic fundamental rights. Hence, it is not to be reduced to a matter of partisan politics,” he added.
The key message the senior UN official sent to the Sri Lankan political sphere was the need to depoliticize the accountability process and let the law take its course.