Features
Internal armed conflicts: Inherent imbalances in accountability
Unlike conflicts between states where parties to an armed conflict are required to abide by internationally accepted rules of war, inherent imbalances in accountability exist in the case of internal armed conflicts between state and non-state actors for different reasons. This is the case with the armed conflict between the Sri Lankan state and the non-state actor – the LTTE. These imbalances are due to the fact that although the Sri Lankan state and the LTTE as parties to the conflict are bound alike, the evidence against the LTTE is not enforceable due the nonexistence of its perpetrators, unlike in the case of the security forces.
In such a context, where those who participated in the conflict on behalf of the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE are citizens of Sri Lanka, accountability for actions relating to the armed conflict should be guided by a combination of its existing domestic laws and those international laws that Sri Lanka has accepted as part of domestic law, except for military acts. Furthermore, the question of enforcing punishment for violations committed during and after hostilities ceased, is different due to the fact that identification and access to LTTE violators presents a near impossible challenge, while it is not so with the Sri Lankan security forces. Consequently, imbalances in accountability are inevitable.
THE IMBALANCE in ACCOUNTABILITY
The inherent imbalance between state and non-states actors such as the LTTE, enables them to evade consequences of accountability to an extent that it amounts to a virtual amnesty, while the security forces would be compelled to face the full rigors of investigations and punishment. The resulting outcome would be the serious polarization of the communities and a barrier to reconciliation.
In recognition of such an outcome, it is reported that the Government has rejected “OHCHR’s external accountability initiative” (Sunday Times, Sept. 7, 2025) on the grounds that: “Sri Lanka observes that external initiatives will only serve as hindrances to the ongoing national efforts and serve to polarise the population”. While acknowledging the inevitability of such an outcome by the Government is noteworthy, the Government should not overlook the fact that the exercise of any form of accountability, even domestic, would polarize communities because of the inherent imbalance in outcomes due the prevailing real life circumstances associated with the LTTE compared with the circumstances of the security forces.
For instance, despite the fact that reports exist of violations such as, assassination of Presidents, Cabinet Ministers and other political leaders, acts of terrorism, taking civilians hostage, shooting civilians attempting to flee the conflict zone, using the protection of civilians as a human shield to carry out attacks against the security forces, carrying out hostilities under cover of neutral objects such as hospitals, use of child soldiers, to mention a few, any individual, commander or former leaders of the LTTE could be held accountable, because either they do not exist, located or brought before a court of law.
This however, is not the case with the circumstances of the Security Forces that were associated with the conflict. Thousands of them along with their high ranking military officers and political leaders survived. Some of them have already been sanctioned on account of alleged war crimes based on alleged existing evidence. If serious investigations are carried out by an independent Prosecutor, as contemplated by the government, the possibility is that a disproportionate number of former security force members would be found guilty and punished for various crimes. Such an outcome would be inevitable if the government proceeds with its plan to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of crimes in the name of justice for the victims of such crimes.
Retribution in the name of justice ignores the fact that they happened to be those who gave their full measure of devotion to make the country whole and bring security to millions who endured insecurity of a sort that families would not travel together and parents would anxiously await the return of children from school because of possible terror attacks. Therefore, whether it is an external or domestic mechanism, any form of accountability exercise would be a blowback to reconciliation.
ALTERNATIVE APPROACH to RECONCILIATION
Justice to victims through Investigation and Prosecution that is being pursued by the Government is Justice through Retribution; a belief that relies on the warped notion that punishing perpetrators of crimes would ease the pain inflicted on the surviving victims. In the particular context of Sri Lanka, where two communities are involved, such an approach runs counter to the objective of Reconciliation, without which Sri Lanka would be a divided Nation. This division arises from the reality that Retribution is directed at the Security Forces identified with one community, while the need for Retribution against the LTTE for the crimes committed against their own people would with time fade from memory as it is with the JVP. Therefore, it is in the best interests of this one community to oppose the attempts by the Government to adopt Retributive Justice, and to propose arrangements that foster Restorative Justice because there is more to be gained by and for them, to be an integral part of one Nation.
On the other hand, the atrocities committed by the JVP involved one community. Although more citizens of Sri Lanka are reported to have lost their lives during the insurrections initiated by the JVP from 1971 to 1990, than during the Armed Conflict, NO attempt was made by the UN Human Rights Commission that existed prior to the current Human Rights Council, to adopt the doctrine of Retributive Justice, for whatever reason. Furthermore, although the public is aware of those responsible for the crimes committed by the JVP, the fact is that NO Domestic or Foreign Government attempted to initiate a Mechanism to identify and punish the perpetrators responsible. This has contributed immeasurably to healing and reconciliation within the Community to an extent that, after decades, the Nation has elected them to govern Sri Lanka. This should be the lesson for all communities, for the simple reason that the healing process is free of the enduring trauma associated with Retributive Justice.
The healing process involving one community has taken decades. When it involves two communities the healing process would naturally be over a longer period. Since it is in the best interests of the Sri Lankan Nation to expedite the process, the Government should seriously consider granting the broadest possible Amnesty to all responsible for the crimes committed, however serious, during insurrections and Armed Conflicts as called for in Protocol II of 1977 Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. The primary justification for such an amnesty is because NO Investigation is in a position to establish with any degree of certainty the number of civilians who lost their lives due to measures adopted by both Security Forces and the LTTE. This compounds the imbalance associated with Accountability in whatever form.
Under the particular circumstance, where one party to the conflict cannot be held accountable, the most realistic option to adopt is what is stated in Article 6 (5) of Protocol II. This states: “At the end of hostilities, the authorities in power shall endeavour to grant the broadest possible amnesty to persons who have participated in the armed conflict, or those deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict, whether they were interned or detained”.
CONCLUSION
The Report of the OHCHR Investigation on Sri Lanka (OISL) 2015 in its Conclusion states in paragraph 1267: “Counting or estimating the exact number of civilian casualties during the different stages of the armed conflict is impossible…”. Furthermore, another impossible fact is to establish the number of casualties due to measures adopted by the LTTE and separately by the Security Forces. The Report adds: “The LTTE caused further distress by forcing adults and children to join their rank and fight on their front lines. The fact that the civilians were forced to remain in the conflict area by the LTTE and suffered reprisals if they tried to leave added to the trauma that they lived through”.
Given these hard realities, it is not possible to identify those of the former LTTE who were responsible for such strategies because they do not exist. In contrast, although it may be possible to identify those of the Security Forces who were responsible for adopting measures called for by Military Necessity, unaware of its consequences to civilian lives. should they be investigated and prosecuted? This is the imbalance in accountability between the parties to Sri Lanka’s Armed Conflict. To hold the two parties to the conflict to different standards, is not Justice.
To start with, the Government should revisit its stand on what constitutes Justice. If it is to Investigate and Prosecute with an Independent Prosecutor, it is NOT justice for the reasons cited above. On the other hand, Restorative justice is not new to Sri Lanka, considering that out of “more than eleven thousand LTTE cadres who surrendered or were detained… 595 former LTTE child soldiers were rehabilitated…and reunited with their families… while a further 6130 were rehabilitated by 2011” (p.82, Ministry of Defence).
With such a history, the Government should explore all possibilities of Restorative Justice, starting with a blanket Amnesty to ALL associated with Insurrections and the Armed Conflict and extend it beyond to restore the livelihood and wellbeing of the survivors in ALL communities.
To achieve the desired results, the Government should carry out a National Campaign to convince the public of the merits of such an approach backed by Parliamentary approval without which it would not be possible to forge unity among ALL communities in a united Sri Lankan Nation. Having demonstrated a national consensus, the Government should initiate a Resolution and canvas members of the UNHRC of the need for the approach adopted if Sri Lanka is to be a reconciled nation.
by Neville Ladduwahetty
Features
Trump’s tariffs, AKD’s gazette and Sri Lanka’s diplomatic slumber
“We are rather respectable in Colombo. We go to bed fairly early, and we remain there till morning. “
According to Sri Lanka’s diplomatic folklore, the late S.W. R. D. Bandaranaike uttered these words while explaining the reasons for Sri Lanka’s abstention on the UN resolution condemning the Soviet invasion of Hungary. Apparently, SWRD’s foreign ministry officials were asleep at home when the diplomatic cable seeking instructions was received from New York. In those days, there were no cell phones, Internet, or even fax or telex machines. The diplomatic cables were sent through post offices. Decoding them was a slow and time-consuming process. Thus, the government could not provide appropriate instructions to our mission in New York in time, and the Sri Lankan delegation abstained on that sensitive UN vote.
Sri Lanka’s Absence from Section 301 Consultations
But then, how does one explain Sri Lanka’s absence from the crucial bilateral consultation held in Washington by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) during March-April on “Forced Labour” under the Section 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974? Didn’t our foreign and trade ministries send appropriate instructions to Washington in time? Even if the instructions from the foreign ministry were transmitted to our embassy in Washington by pigeon carriers, there was enough time for Sri Lanka to participate in those meetings.
In March, the USTR initiated these 301 investigations on 60 trading partners, and invited all of them for confidential consultations. Out of the 60, 46 participated in these consultations. Sri Lanka was not one of them. Other countries that didn’t participate in these consultations included China, Russia, and Venezuela! In addition to that, the Section 301 Committee conducted a public hearing with interested parties on April 28 and 29. Washington-based diplomats, representatives from few trade ministries as well as representatives from many foreign trade associations and chambers participated in these hearings. Sri Lanka was once again conspicuously absent.
As a result, when the USTR published the proposed forced labour tariffs on June 2nd, Sri Lanka ended up with a 12.5% duty. Pakistani and Indonesian diplomats participated in these consultations and took appropriate follow-up measures, and managed to enter the 10% duty category. As even a threat of a modest tariff hike could disrupt supply chains and reduce competitiveness, particularly in an industry such as garments, I discussed this issue on 15 June and underscored the importance of Sri Lanka’s participation at the next hearing, which was scheduled to be held from July 7th .
Awakening from Diplomatic Slumber and AKD’s Gazette
Fortunately, Sri Lanka finally awoke from weeks of diplomatic slumber, and Ambassador Mahinda Samarasinghe participated in the public hearing on 9 July, and promised, “…. · We have agreed to the text in our negotiations with the USTR on forced labour, …. The gazette as we speak is being printed and I’m getting the gazette tomorrow morning, and the gazette will be shared with USTR as I get it“.
As promised, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake issued a gazette on 10 July banning the imports of goods produced by forced labour. These new regulations are very similar to what Pakistan and Indonesia enacted in April, after their consultations with USTR in March. Why couldn’t we do it in April? Why did we wait till the very last minute?
Challenges ahead
“War is too important to be left to generals alone,” is a famous saying attributed to former French Premier Georges Clemenceau. Similarly, monitoring our main markets is too important to be left to diplomats alone. The United States is the largest single-country market for Sri Lanka. Therefore, Sri Lankan trade chambers and associations should become more proactive in these markets and participate in these events. For example, the chairman of the Pakistani apparel exporters association participated in the April hearings. Similarly, representatives from the Indian Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, the Confederation of Indian Industry, and Reliance Industries also participated in July hearings. At an event where each speaker is given only five minutes (strictly enforced), having a number of speakers from a country is an advantage. The presence of industry representatives in these kinds of events also help them understand the market dynamics and the future challenges. This is important, particularly because there will be many more challenges with Trump’s tariffs.
With the gazette issued on 10 July, Sri Lanka has imposed a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labour. Now, the challenge will be to effectively enforce the prohibition. And what are the goods produced with forced labour? The USTR list only focuses on aluminum, cotton, electronics, lithium-ion batteries, rice, and tobacco. However, according to the U.S. Department of Labour, the list is much longer. Hence, this list may change continuously during the next two years and tariffs may fluctuate once again.
So, this is definitely not the time to slumber.
(The writer, a retired public servant, can be reached at senadhiragomi@gmail.com)
by Gomi Senadhira ✍️
Features
Tales of Mystery and Suspense 10 Casino for Sale
After the overwhelming grotesquerie of J K Rowling’s latest Cormoran Strike novel (written, I should have noted, as the others were, under the pseudonym Robert Galbraith), I thought I should return to the world of fun, and also a much shorter description since this thriller moves quickly without the layers of detail that Rowling engages in.
I then move to the second comic thriller by Caryl Brahms and S J Simon. This, their second story to feature Vladimir Stroganoff and Adam Quill, was Casino for Sale, as lunatic a romp as the first, though without the emphasis on the ballet that characterized A Bullet in the Ballet.
This one begins with the impresario Stroganoff buying a casino cheap from Baron Sam de Rabinovich, only to find that it was a rundown place, not the grand casino of La Bazouche, a resort on the Frenc+h Riviera, as he had initially thought. The grand one belonged to Lord Buttonhooke, and Stroganoff could not compete, until he thought of bringing the Ballet Stroganoff to the casino – which of course leads to Buttonhooke deciding to have ballet performances in his Casino too.
Stroganoff invites Quill to visit him, which Quill decides to do since he has left Scotland Yard, having come into a legacy. No one believes this, and he has to face questions as to what he did to have been sacked, with sympathy for having been found out.
The day he arrives in La Bazouche there is a murder, of a vitriolic critic called Citrolo, in Stroganoff’s office. He had been going to write a damning review of the opening night of the ballet and Stroganoff, when he realizes Citrolo cannot be swayed, drugs him and dictates the review himself to the papers. He leaves Citrolo sleeping and finds him shot the next morning, whereupon he decides to muddy the waters and leave a suicide note and lots of other murder weapons. So much overkill, as it were, of course ensures that he is arrested.
But the excitable French detective who makes the arrest follows up his suggestion that Buttonhooke was also involved, and so the two casino owners find themselves in cells next door to each other, with the detective Gustave quite happy to provide creature comforts for a fee.
Quill decides he must investigate, and finds Gustave most cooperative, since he has a laid back attitude to work. So it is Quill that finds a notebook which makes it clear Citrolo is an accomplished blackmailer, and that there are lots of possible murderers, including Stroganoff’s croupier, who was crooked, Rabinovich, who was now working for Buttonhooke, a confidence trickster called Kurt Kukumber, whose prospectus for a dud gold mine was found in the office and Prince Alexis Artishok who was engaged in a deal to buy diamonds from the ballerina Dyra Dyrakova.
Stroganoff had been trying to get Dyrakova to dance for him, but having done so previously she had refused. But then to Stroganoff’s chagrin she agreed to dance for Buttonhooke. The clearly crooked Artishok had told Buttonhooke’s mistress Sadie Souse, who was not very bright, that Dyrakova possessed diamonds she was willing to sell cheap, and Sadie was determined to have them.
Quill meanwhile finds out that there was a secret passage to Stroganoff’s office, the obvious solution to what had begun as a locked room mystery, and that this was known by almost everyone apart from Stroganoff himself. And then Rabinovich is murdered, just after Gustave had released his two original suspects, leading him to blame Quill for having insisted on that and thus allowing them to kill again.
Soon afterwards Dyrakova arrives, and the town is full of posters announcing that she will appear in the casinos, elaborate posters for either one, since Stroganoff is determined that she will dance for him, and if she does not come willingly, he has devised a scheme to make her do so unwillingly. So, though Buttonhooke has her taken off to his yacht immediately she arrives at the station, Quill along with Arenskaya gets her into a launch and to Stroganoff’s casino, where she performs to tumultuous applause, not knowing for whom she is dancing.
When Quill asked her about the diamonds, she said she had sold them long ago, and that gave Quill the solution to the mystery. Rabinovich had known about this, and Artishok had killed him to prevent Sadie learning it from him, he had killed Citrolo who had recognized him for an accomplished card sharper, not a Russian prince at all. But before he is arrested, he gets away in a boat, and the police launch that pursues him is on the point of catching him up when it runs out of petrol.
Again, lots of excitement, and entertaining references – Gustave grows marrows – and if not quite as brilliant as its predecessor, Casino was certainly a delightful read.
Features
The challenge of being positive about SAARC
It was a few years back that a former President of Sri Lanka took it on himself to pronounce SAARC ‘dead’. Since then there have been other sections of Sri Lankan opinion that have joined the critics of SAARC and taken the solemn stance that SAARC has indeed died what may be called a natural death.
Their fatalism is understandable. SAARC has failed to meet at heads of government or state level for the past several years to take the SAARC process notably forward. Regional cooperation has more or less been only an appealing idea. No substantive concrete projects have taken off to make the idea a hard reality. ‘Inner paralysis’ seems to be SAARC’s lot. Hence the fatalism in these circles.
However, being one of the worst cash-strapped regions of the world and a teemingly populated one with people virtually left to their devices, what choices do the ‘SAARC Eight’ have other than to try their best to band together and continue with their cooperation efforts, however small they may be?
There is no escaping the mounting debt trap for many of these countries and bankrupt Sri Lanka is a glaring example, but ‘throwing in the towel’ and abandoning themselves entirely to the diktats of the strongest economies and their agencies will prove a ‘living death’ for many countries in the SAARC fold.
The gains may be meagre but giving-up on SAARC cooperation in full would prove self-defeating for the organization and South Asia. Right now, the collective intention ought to be to salvage what the region could from the tenuous cooperative efforts. Moreover, such initiatives could go some distance to generate a degree of goodwill among the Eight and help in sustaining a dialogue process.
Given this backdrop it proved ‘a stich in time’ for the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies (RCSS), Colombo, to recently host the SAARC Secretary General Ambassador Md. Golam Sarwar to a round table discussion on the unifying potential of SAARC and its future possibilities, besides other related issue areas.
Held on June 24th and moderated by RCSS Executive Director and former ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha, the forum brought together a vibrant, wide ranging audience comprising academicians, diplomats, senior public servants, civil society activists and many others. Following the presentation by Ambassador Golam Sarwar titled, ‘Reigniting SAARC: Achievements, Challenges and the Way Ahead’, a lively Q&A followed.
The above forum could be described as an act of lighting the proverbial ‘candle’ rather than ‘cursing the darkness.’ It surely is a ‘darkness’ that could be seen as daunting considering that the region’s pivotal powers, India and Pakistan, are failing to act in a spirit of accord but are engaged in bitter finger-pointing on a number of questions of vital importance to SAARC.
On the other hand, what is the rest of the region doing to bring the above sides together? It is disappointing that to date the rest of SAARC has failed to launch a major diplomatic drive to bring peace between the feuding regional heavyweights. It needs to act without delay and establish its earnestness and this effort would need to prove SAARC’s staying power in the unfolding months and even years.
In assessing SAARC’s seeming failure local opinion in particular has failed to factor in what could be described as weak leadership. Since Sheikh Mujibur Rahman of Bangladesh, the founding father of SAARC, the region has failed to produce a visionary leader who could advance the SAARC cause with charisma and drive.
Among other reasons, weak leadership accounts considerably for the faltering and stuttering status, as it were, of SAARC. Badly needed are leaders who could go the extra mile, think less of narrow national interests and work diligently towards the collective well being of the region but SAARC’s millions of ordinary people have been made to wait in vain for leaders of such stature. Instead, they have been burdened with politicians who seem to be relishing the apparently moribund state of SAARC.
Looking back, it could be said that it was the dynamic leadership factor that led to the launching of the Non-Aligned Movement and for its sustenance for a few decades. True, it could be seen in some quarters that NAM is no more, but as in the case of SAARC, the former too has been unfortunate to be burdened over the years with politicians who lack the vision and drive to unflaggingly advance the fortunes of the South. NAM and SAARC lack the dynamism and vision of leaders of the stature of Jawaharlal Nehru, for example, to give them the required guidance and intellectual depth.
The reasons are complex for there not being among us currently political leaders with the vision and the steadfast commitment to advance the legitimate interests of the South. However, it could be stated with conviction that the majority of Southern leaders have too easily caved in to the demands of the global North and its financial agencies.
These leaders have failed to see, for instance, that the largely market economy oriented Northern governments would not view with favour a centrist economic model that attaches priority to the interests of the dis-empowered publics of the South. This realization ought to have dawned on the current government in Sri Lanka, for instance, some while ago but it has no choice but to abide by IMF dictates since economic survival at present is unthinkable without the latter’s succour.
Accordingly for SAARC this should be the time for some soul-searching. Priority needs to be attached to ending the feuding between India and Pakistan since at present the material fortunes of the region hinge largely on these regional giants giving peaceful relations among them a try. This is no easy challenge to meet but some daring, visionary diplomacy needs to take hold among the rest of SAARC.
There is some sense in SAARC bringing the peoples of the region together through programs that address their best collective interests. A meeting of minds among SAARC nations could enable SAARC and its agencies to build a region-wide people’s movement for progressive political and economic change that could in turn lead to the region’s political leaders sensitizing themselves more to the neglected needs of their publics.
However, the time is ‘now’ for the initiation of these progressive changes and the voice of SAARC well wishers would need to drown out those of their critics.
-
Features6 days agoPrison riots and politics: NPP’s biggest challenge and Sri Lanka’s biggest opportunity
-
Features3 days agoDirty Money
-
Editorial6 days agoMuch ado about crime: Fish or cut bait
-
Features6 days agoMore on Saudi Arabia: ARAMCO and beyond
-
News1 day agoMoney laundering case against Yoshitha, fixed for pre-trial conference
-
Sports6 days agoThe banker who rescued Sri Lankan cricket
-
Midweek Review3 days agoThe sordid tale of theft and tragedy at Finance Ministry
-
Latest News4 days agoOil prices hit 1-month high as US-Iran attacks dim Strait of Hormuz outlook

