The appointment of Lieutenant General Shavendra Silva as Commander of the Sri Lanka Army has raised eyebrows in Sri Lanka and elsewhere in the world where a few countries and organisations have rushed to raise concerns and what some perceive to be veiled threats.
Lieutenant General Silva played a key role in ensuring the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and ending the Eelam war. In its final phase, he commanded the 58th Division of the Army for which he was handpicked by the then Commander, Sarath Fonseka.
There have been questions asked in local political circles about the elevation of Lieutenant General Silva to the position of Army Commander. And why might that be? Soon after joining the Sri Lanka Army as a youngster, Silva’s commanding officer at the Gajaba Regiment was none other than Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
Silva’s appointment as Commander of the Army at a time when Rajapaksa is contesting the presidential election does appear to be more than a coincidence and invites questions as to whether it is politically motivated. To some, it seems pretty plainly obvious.
Internationally, concern has been expressed by the United States and Canada and organisations such as the European Union (EU) and the United Nations Human Rights Council.
Canada expressed that they are deeply concerned, stating that Lieutenant General Silva’s appointment “undermines reconciliation and accountability efforts”. The EU says the appointment “sent a worrying message to victims and survivors of the war”. The UN Human Rights Chief Michele Bachelet has said that the appointment “compromises Sri Lanka’s commitment to promote justice and accountability” and hinted that it could affect Sri Lanka’s ability to contribute to UN peacekeeping forces.
The harshest criticism comes from the United States. It said that the allegations of human rights violations against Lieutenant General Silva “are serious and credible” and “undermined Sri Lanka’s international reputation”. Thereafter, Washington hinted through a briefing at the State Department that it may not wish to have a “stronger military relationship” with Sri Lanka and that its US$ 480 million grant through the Millenium Credit Corporation would be reviewed.
Unsurprisingly, those who usually call out the “international community” for conspiring against Sri Lanka have cried foul. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs deemed the attempts by foreign entities to influence government decisions to be “unwarranted and unacceptable”. But is there a fair point that the ministry is making? Is this simply a domestic issue with which foreign nations must not meddle? Or does this appointment rightfully weigh heavy on the conscience of the international community?
Here is where the chorus will echo that we are being bullied once again by the hypocrites of the first world. They will point to the human rights record of the US, of Canada, of the EU. Who is without sin in this world, after all. What message are we sending to the rest of the world, however, when we react to their concerns in such a defensive manner?
Before Shavendra, it was the talk of introducing the death penalty that brought about a wave of international concern. The EU suggested that if Sri Lanka did carry out capital punishment, it would review its Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus status. These consequences may seem unfair to some, but the morality of this world will rightly judge us for our actions. Moratoriums exist for a reason. Human rights abuses and war crimes have been clearly defined and agreed upon by countries all for good reason. We cannot simply do as we please and not expect the world to come knocking.
The Government in Colombo has taken its stand and defended Lieutenant General Silva’s appointment. By taking this stand, we are choosing to ignore the knock on the door. For too long, allegations that bring into question the nature of the final phase of the war effort have been brushed aside. The international and domestic pushback against the appointment of the Army Chief is part of a decade long pursuit and clamour for truth-seeking and justice. Perhaps the truth is that the appointment is very much a domestic issue about the lingering questions surrounding Sri Lanka’s own civil war, and should weigh on the conscience of all Sri Lankans, with whom the responsibility lies to raise concerns.