India: To be or not to be with Lanka

Sri Lanka's High Commissioner in New Delhi may have committed a diplomatic indiscretion by having referred to the "friendship" that certain Tamil Nadu legislators and politicians have had with the LTTE. To have made such a remark, just when India is having difficulty in making up its mind on which way to vote on the Us-sponsored anti-sri Lanka resolution at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva is doubly worse. He has been made to retract the comment, but plainly put, he has only said something that is public knowledge.

The South Block, India's External Affairs Ministry has summoned him and called for a clarification, but such clarification can also be obtained from its own spy agencies. Not only is India's - and Tamil Nadu's connections with the LTTE a historical fact, it is no doubt, though admittedly to a much lesser degree, a contemporary fact.

There is a famous maxim in the diplomatic world, that an Ambassador is sent abroad to lie on behalf of his country. Conversely then, it would seem he is also sent to not tell the truth. And so, Sri Lanka's High Commissioner must apologise and keep the peace with India.

From all accounts, Indian Government leaders are having sleepless nights deciding which way to vote on the US resolution. We saw some drama earlier this week in New Delhi. One can only come to the irresistible conclusion that it was the ruling coalition partner, the Dravida Munnetra Kazagham (DMK) that scripted the drama, and its leader, a well-known script writer of yesteryear authored it himself.

In this instance, the DMK took up cudgels with the Indian President's references to Sri Lanka in her address at the opening of the new sessions of the Lok Sabha (Parliament). They threatened to quit the wobbly coalition and crash the Manmohan SinghSonia Gandhi government if India did not vote in favour of the anti-sri Lanka resolution. Then, just as suddenly, they withdrew the threat. Not to be outdone by the theatrics, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, an actress of yesteryear herself, joined the chorus and asked the central government to vote for the resolution. All this while Sri Lanka stubbornly remained mighty shy of engaging these Tamil Nadu politicians.

Act 3 of the drama is the entry of the Indian External Affairs Minister on to the Sri Lankan stage. This is what he says:

"Our primary objective in all that we are doing in Sri Lanka is to ensure the welfare and wellbeing of Sri Lankan Tamils…..

"…. Our objectives, as always continue to remain the achievement of a future for the Tamil community in Sri Lanka that is marked by equality, dignity, justice and self-respect."

The Tamil community in Sri Lanka, especially those living in the coastal areas of the Northern Province will not know whether to laugh or to cry. While the Indian Minister sheds what are clearly crocodile tears, his officials are mapping out strategies to legalise poaching in Sri Lankan waters around the Palk Straits and the Mannar Basin area and allow Indian fishermen to come in their hundreds and deprive the Tamil community in Sri Lanka of their livelihood.

These officials are trying to re-write the rules of fishing in these areas and hold Sri Lanka to ransom by dangling issues like the vote at the UNHRC. When the last Joint Working Group on Fisheries met in Colombo, while Sri Lanka had insisted on adherence to the International Maritime Boundary Line (IMBL) between the two countries to stem poaching, India maintained a deafening silence. And it says that its objective is to ensure the "equality, dignity, justice and self-respect" of the Tamil community of Sri Lanka.

The latest poaching related arrest was of 22 Indian fishermen near Mannar on February 27. All of them were promptly released on the intervention of the Sri Lankan government. If a Sri Lankan fisherman strays into Indian waters he is held in custody for more than a year. There are ten of them in Indian custody right now, while no Indian fisherman remains in Sri Lankan custody. While Sri Lankan fishermen in the North are restricted from fishing in some areas, Indian fishermen brazenly enter these nogo areas knowing full well that India flexes its muscle on the issue to keep Tamil Nadu quiet. And what is more, it engages in 'bottom trawler fishing', a method by which it scoops the fish from the sea bed leaving little behind and causing irreparable environmental damage.

The Indian position on Sri Lanka has often been triggered by the dynamics of Tamil Nadu's vote- crazy politics. The one recent exception was India looking the other way when the LTTE, which killed one of its former Prime Ministers and more than a thousand of its soldiers, were liquidated militarily in 2009. But they would want to keep the 'pot boiling' so to say, to gain maximum leverage over Sri Lanka, over its domestic politics and geo-political considerations. India will continue to press for '13+' hoping it would carve out a powerful autonomous Northern Province which it can use as its base on Sri Lankan soil through its proxy - the Tamil National Alliance.

In the 1980s, India was against Sri Lanka getting close to the US. Today, it is trying to elbow out others to brush shoulders and do business with the US. Its current concern is Sri Lanka's closeness to China.

India's vacillation over the vote on the US resolution is fraught with intricacies. It has to be on the good side of the US. Yet, it does not want China to go one-up by supporting Sri Lanka while India votes against Sri Lanka. No doubt it needs to worry about the domestic pressures from its regional partners, and the sustainability of its very coalition government due to constant blackmailing. But this issue seems to have been somewhat defused with the DMK withdrawing its threat to walk out. And then, India's local mission must surely have briefed the powers-that-be in New Delhi that for effective, and genuine, reconciliation in Sri Lanka there is a need to 'move on' without wallowing in the past, and that would be what the majority of the Tamil community in Sri Lanka would want.

The people of the North would also want electricity, television sets, fuel, roads, houses and schools - and to be able to fish without intruders. Supporting country-specific resolutions can come back to bite India one day, and it is aware of this inherent danger.

While Sri Lanka lost the plot in allowing a resolution to be introduced against it, and now must fight with its back to the wall in Geneva, India's position on Sri Lanka is not to be envied.

"Ena ona deyakata moona demu. Mama paava denney nehe," (Whatever comes, let us face it. I am not going to betray) he told his ministers. Chipping in was Basil Rajapaksa, Minister of Economic Development. He said that the External Affairs Ministry should concentrate on the countries that were extending their support to Sri Lanka. Though he did not name these countries, he did mention their number. The idea was to ensure they, less than the figure required for a majority vote, are not forced to change their stance under pressure.

There was still a semblance of hope in some diplomatic quarters in Geneva on the likelihood of the resolution being adopted without a vote. This is the result of behindthe-scene moves by India to strike a deal with the US where the resolution could be further moderated by amendments enabling member states of the Council to adopt it through a consensus. A ranking diplomatic source in Geneva said such a move was highly unlikely for a number of reasons. "Already, the draft which was condemnatory has been modified to acceptable levels. It is too little too late now," the source who cannot make public statements said. Sri Lanka's delegation to the UNHRC has also not been mandated to back any move for a consensus without a vote.

They have been told to lobby to thwart the resolution or face a vote, said an External Affairs Ministry official in Colombo. However, the official said such a decision could be made by the political leadership in Colombo but was 'highly unlikely.' The official also disclosed that India would support Sri Lanka and would not vote for the resolution. The likelihood of a defeat has prompted the government to initiate a number of other diplomatic initiatives. External Affairs Minister Peiris now wants to visit Washington for a meeting with US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. He earlier ignored such an invitation to visit the US capital in March this year, well ahead of the resolution being taken up at the Human Rights Council. Instead, he went on a tour of African countries. Diplomatic consultations are now under way between Colombo and Washington to decide on a suitable date. If Peiris did honour the invitation, and was able to use diplomatic persuasion there were strong prospects that the resolution could have been withdrawn or re-worded to Sri Lanka's benefit. He was not up to the challenge. As later explained in this commentary, there is convergence of positions in the Us-backed resolution and the official stance of the government, at least before the UNHRC.

In what seems a measure to galvanise public support, President Rajapaksa is to visit every district. Besides inspecting the government's development programmes, he will brief the people of the UPFA government's position vis-àvis the issues before the UNHRC. His thrust, a government source said yesterday, was to "assure the people that he would face the brunt of any international action but would not betray the troops who defeated Tiger guerrilla terrorism nearly three years ago." The first such event takes place on Wednesday in Puttalam, a predominantly Muslim town.

In Geneva, where there is still hectic lobbying by the Sri Lankan side, the final draft of the USbacked resolution remains unchanged. A distinct difference between the first draft and the current one is the exclusion of "condemnatory" references to Sri Lanka. The draft sought to "express concern" that the LLRC report does not adequately address serious allegations of international law. It also sought to express disappointment over the government failing to fulfil "its relevant legal obligations and stated commitment to initiate credible and independent investigations and prosecutions of those responsible for such violations." Furthermore, calls to "address serious allegations of violations of international law" and prosecution of those responsible have been replaced.

Instead, in essence, the resolution as it stands now focuses on the following elements: Calls on the government to implement "the constructive recommendations in the LLRC report" and "initiate actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation in Sri Lanka." Calls upon the government to present a "comprehensive action plan as 'expeditiously as possible' detailing the steps the Government has taken and will take to implement the LLRC recommendations and also address alleged violations of international law." Calls upon the government to accept "procedures," advice and technical assistance in implementing the above steps from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. It calls upon that office to "present a report to the Council on the provision of such assistance at its 22nd session." A dispassionate, hard look at the first two points above shows it is in accord with the position officially taken up by the government, at least before the UNHRC. Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, who wears around his neck a UN identity card which says he is head of the Sri Lanka delegation said in his address "…I am happy to observe that advances have been made with regard to many of the recommendations (in the LLRC) Report. The Government will continue to address these issues in a systematic and thorough manner. Some of the areas in which gains have been made include the resettlement of IDPS; demining; rehabilitation of ex-combatants; implementation of the language policy; the recruitment of Tamil speaking police officers; the removal of the military from facilitation of civil administration in the north; making available land previously used for security purposes for resettlement/return; and carrying out a comprehensive census in the Northern and Eastern Provinces. There are also other recommendations in the report to be comprehensively addressed….

"….The Attorney General is currently studying the recommendations in the report with regard to allegations of violations of International Humanitarian Law. Military Courts of Inquiry in keeping with international practice have commenced investigations into specific incidents identified by the LLRC…..

…..In the light of Sri Lanka's demonstrated commitment to an internal reconciliation process, including the implementation of the range of recommendations of the LLRC by the adoption of a road map for implementation….."

Thus, the official statement by Minister Samarasinghe makes clear there is a virtual government concurrence to the first two points. However, to some degree it is "negated" by the third, say government officials. There are both intrusive and supervisory elements incorporated there, they complain. It means that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights will monitor the enforcement of provisions in the resolution through their "special procedures." Added to that, the High Commissioner will also report to the Council in March, next year, on the progress. On the other hand, it could still be argued that there is nothing to prevent the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, with or without a resolution, to report to the Council on Sri Lanka.

With a near certainty of the resolution being carried through, what is perceived as a blow for Sri Lanka would be the role to be played by the office of the Human Rights Commissioner. This situation clearly highlights the lack of focus on the part of the External Affairs Ministry in correctly advising the Sri Lanka delegation on the issues involved. It also shows the futility of merely despatching a 52 member delegation to Geneva in the misguided belief that diplomacy is just a show of numbers. A passage of the resolution naturally turns the spotlight on what next? If the government chooses to abide by the resolution, if it is carried through by a majority, the process would go on to and fro. Compliance would even moderate the Commissioner for Human Rights in reporting to the Council. Non-compliance, on the other hand, will set the government on a collision course with the United Nations system and earn the ire of western nations. One of two scenarios would certainly play out during the span of a year.

Ahead of the coming crucial week, a number of other factors appear to have heightened the mood. One was the screening of a second Channel 4 video titled Sri Lanka's Killing Fields - War Crimes Unpunished. The other was the uproar in the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha over India's vote for the Us-backed resolution on Sri Lanka. A 55 minute documentary was aired on Channel 4 at 10.55 p.m. on Wednesday. London time projecting what were described as war crimes. The documentary gave four different examples which it alleged constituted war crimes and contained repeated voice cuts from former British Foreign Secretary, David Milliband. There were some immediate responses. London's Lord Mayor Boris Johnson vowed his continued support for the victims portrayed in the footage. He said he had seen the previous Channel 4 video too.

"Alistair Burt, Britain's Minister for South Asia said in a statement, ""Once again, Channel 4 has brought to international attention important and disturbing evidence to support allegations of grave abuses in Sri Lanka.

"Since the end of the conflict, the international community has called for an independent, credible and thorough investigation into alleged war crimes on both sides of the conflict. Channel 4's documentaries reinforce the need for that investigation.

"I continue to believe that Sri Lanka, in accordance with its Government's public statements, can achieve lasting peace and reconciliation. But this requires a full and honest acknowledgement of the past and it requires processes, in which all parties take part, to ensure justice, reconciliation and political progress.

"That is why the UK will urge the UN Human Rights Council to pass a resolution next week which calls on Sri Lanka to take these steps and implement the recommendations of its own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission."

"Sri Lanka's Killing Fields: War Crimes Unpunished (Channel 4) was a follow-up to last year's harrowing film about the end of the war against the Tamil Tigers - a film that came complete with footage of shelled hospitals and summary executions. Faced with the resulting global outrage, the Sri Lankan government promised a full inquiry, said James Walton in the Telegraph. So, has it now admitted the truth? he asked. Sri Lanka's Killing Fields: War Crimes Unpunished was essentially a work of frustration, a reiteration of the original charges and a repeat of a call for action that went nowhere last time. They had some new facts too: what looked like credible evidence that the 12-year-old son of the Tamil Tiger leader had been executed along with his father added Tom Sutcliffe in The Independent. There were reviews in the BBC and other British media outlets too.