Features
Reflections on Geneva and the way forward
by Gnana Moonesinghe
Are Sri Lankan domestic initiatives for wartime accountability and reconciliation a non-starter?
Reflecting on this issue of culpability raises the question ‘is accountability and reconciliation a non issue among Lankan leaders?’ Governments come and governments go but this issue remains on the back burner raising the perennial question of who are the sons and daughters of this nation state? Is there a legitimate approach to their inherent human rights irrespective of their identity?
This query becomes urgent when the UNHRC begins its periodic investigation.
What has been the stumbling block in clearing this problem? By and large it has been a question of defining the concerns of the UNHRC and the position of the Sri Lankan government on this matter. The major issue is that of investigating the culpability of the forces during the three decade war with the LTTE and vice versa. The SL government looks upon some of the accusations as inconsequential non- events, claiming either that casualties have been at a minimal or negligible level or there have been none at all. Hence its claim that there is no serious issue calling for investigation by the UNHRC.
On the contrary, ever grateful for terminating the three decade war and the elimination of the dreaded leader of the LTTE, the Southern constituency spearheaded by their political leaders have created an ‘aura’ around the forces. On the basis of their success the forces have been categorized as a special breed who cannot be criticized or questioned on any war-related matter; they are referred to as the veerodhara or war heroes. This is a fair tribute to the forces responsible for winning the war for the Nation. Yet it is questionable to presume that they could not have done any harm in the past nor can they do so in the future.
However, there is no denying that in the course of waging a war and heat of battle when judgment of right and wrong becomes cloudy and sometimes imperceptible; elimination of the enemy by whatever means takes precedence. Some errant behaviour in such circumstances is to be expected and in a war context, acceptable. However the entirety of the forces have been identified as an exclusive group who can do no wrong and consequently need not even be investigated let alone charged of any offence. In such a context, there is no possibility of an understanding between the government of Sri Lanka and the UNHCR. The Sri Lankan state has maintained this position even in the face of credible evidence of grave crimes and human rights violations by the forces as well as the LTTE. The external call for investigation will not resonate with the authorities within the Sri Lankan nation since the latter is in denial and will not accept even evidence presented to them.
Over the years UNHCR had made repeated requests for a review with recognized legal experts to have this matter of culpability investigated in order to arrive at an acceptable verdict. The Lankan authorities did not go along on the ground of external intrusion into the nation’s sovereignty. Had we accepted expert legal investigation this matter could have been concluded a long time ago and the nation could have stepped on to the path of reconciliation. There is undoubtedly an issue of sovereignty but on this matter it could have been waived in terms of practicality.
There are occasions when we have sought assistance from international organizations to overcome domestic exigencies like assistance from the World Bank. On such occasions we were compelled to submit to conditions even briefly. I believe at times like this there is a need to be pragmatic. What is sought is confined to a safe area of advice proffered and not action demanded. It is up to the authorities to know when it is necessary to compromise on our stand on sovereignty for the sake of pragmatism and winning reasonable external goodwill, and when it is necessary to stand up for the nation’s sovereign rights.
It has also become vital to establish cohabitation for the sake of internal peace among the communities without relevance to international players. If this had been followed, then it would have been possible to keep peace between the different communities. There would then have been no role for the UNHCR.
Insularity encourages growth of anti-democratic tendencies as we have seen in this country. In such circumstances the politicians and the citizen have no yardstick- in terms of world standards – by which their behaviour can be measured. The 19th Amendment to the Sri Lankan constitution restraining authoritarianism was withdrawn and 20A put in place restoring many of the powers of the Executive. It also encouraged the installation of several military personnel to administrative positions. This fueled a fear psychosis of an emerging military government among the people.
In this atmosphere reconciliation has receded in importance especially after the Easter attacks by Muslim extremists against Christians who were in church or going to church. This increased the already strained relationship between the Muslims and the Sinhalese following the Southern turmoil that was created by Sinhala chauvinists against the Muslims and further bruised relationships.
This situation of ethnic tension is complicated by the lack of guidance from the leaders of the two minority communities. We had a recent incident of Muslim MPs voting with the government to enable it to have have the required two thirds majority for the passage of 20A. This resulted in many differences among the Muslims. Voting for 20A had no prior support from the people they represent and appeared to have been a spot decision by the Muslim MPs. The Tamil leadership in the North on the other hand is concerned with agitating for increased administrative power rather than making policy decisions that will benefit the jobless men and women and the war widows living in extreme poverty .
Since the issue of reconciliation has been put on the back burner, frustration is creeping among the Tamils. To date the international community has not been in a position to compel the government to be accountable for the actions of the forces during the war, particularly its closing stages. The authorities who could move in this matter have been non-starters; therefore the initiative has to come from especially enlightened men and women at the helm of power as well as from civil society.
It is time to think afresh independently rather than along oft repeated UNHRC concerns or those of our leaders. Even after the passage of the Sinhala Only Bill, the Muslims as a community were looked upon by the Sinhalese as a friendly ally. They presented themselves as a community willing to learn Sinhala and accept employment where available. They created wealth by setting up numerous small businesses. Until the anti-Muslim riots targeting Muslims in the south in 1918, the Muslim community had remained friendly and cooperative with the Sinhala majority.
In fact during the war years some among the Muslims who had the capability acted as a fourth column and gave vital intelligence to the establishment. After the end of the war the situation changed when the Sinhala Buddhist extremists were keen to make their position stronger.
The upcoming UNHRC sessions on Sri Lanka highlights the major issue of Sri Lanka’s withdrawal from its commitments to that body in Geneva. UNHRC clims its observations have been made following investigation of both the government forces and the LTTE. There is therefore no bias against the government, it urges. The investigations seem to have focused on evidence of serious violations of the rights of the victims. The purpose of the UNHRC is to investigate and prove or disprove culpability or non-culpability of individuals charged with rights violations. This will hopefully conclude the investigations and bring closure to the vexed issue of whether there were human rights violations or not and open the way to sustainable peace.
To enable closure of this matter, both the Lankan forces and the Tamil Tigers need to be investigated and prosecuted if found culpable. Regardless of repeated requests SL has not acceded to this and UNHCR has unilaterally requested other member countries to investigate contentious matters and if guilt is established, access the International Criminal Courts and proceed under Extraterritorial or Universal jurisdiction. Such a step would seem to be a high handed action, an intrusion into a nation’s independence even if it be justified under extraterritorial or universal jurisdiction. It is perhaps acceptable in these circumstances to pursue soft targets such as asset freezes and travel bans against the members of the administration to activate the government that has remained sluggish on this issue.
To make reconciliation a workable proposition, it is necessary for the government to probe the issue of hitherto unaccounted persons or the disappeared, as they are commonly known. They may be dead, in custody or have fled to foreign countries hoping for a better future for themselves and become a part of the diaspora. However that be, it is vital that their near and dear have information of their whereabouts. Without that there can be no closure. Security of citizens is a primary responsibility of a government. Regardless of UNHCR’s concern, this matter must be given priority if the country is to be at peace and return to normalcy. Ensuring this will effectively cramp LTTE and diaspora propaganda keeping the ethnic issue alive.
It is also important to ensure inclusion of all communities in education, employment and in the peaceful pursuit of the small scale businesses. Development of the country requires among other variables the absence of tensions between communities, either spontaneous or pre-planned by extremists from either side. The government must strategize its own approach and programs as well as those of other active players in the development sphere if peace and harmony is to prevail. If we look after our own population there will be no reason for the international community to concern themselves about the welfare of our people. That will give us space to develop our programs for the benefit of all Lankans irrespective of majority and minority divisions. Peace can then prevail and the country grow in strength.
Six months into the term of office of the new government, the main positive achievements continue to remain economic and political stability and the reduction of waste and corruption. The absence of these in the past contributed to a significant degree to the lack of development of the country. The fact that the government is making a serious bid to ensure them is the best prognosis for a better future for the country. There is still a distance to go. The promised improvements that would directly benefit those who are at the bottom of the economic pyramid, and the quarter of the population who live below the poverty line, have yet to materialise. Prices of essential goods have not come down and some have seen sharp increases such as rice and coconuts. There are no mega projects in the pipeline that would give people the hope that rapid development is around the corner.
There were times in the past when governments succeeded in giving the people big hopes for the future as soon as they came to power. Perhaps the biggest hope came with the government’s move towards the liberalisation of the economy that took place after the election of 1977. President J R Jayewardene and his team succeeded in raising generous international assistance, most of it coming in the form of grants, that helped to accelerate the envisaged 30 year Mahaweli Development project to just six years. In 1992 President Ranasinghe Premadasa thought on a macro scale when his government established 200 garment factories throughout the country to develop the rural economy and to help alleviate poverty. These large scale projects brought immediate hope to the lives of people.
More recently the Hambantota Port project, Mattala Airport and the Colombo Port City project promised mega development that excited the popular imagination at the time they commenced, though neither of them has lived up to their envisaged potential. These projects were driven by political interests and commission agents rather than economic viability leading to debt burden and underutilisation. The NPP government would need to be cautious about bringing in similar mega projects that could offer the people the hope of rapid economic growth. During his visits to India and China, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake signed a large number of agreements with the governments of those countries but the results remain unclear. The USD 1 billion Adani project to generate wind power with Indian collaboration appears to be stalled. The USD 3.7 billion Chinese proposal to build an oil refinery also appears to be stalled.
RENEWED GROWTH
The absence of high profile investments or projects to generate income and thereby take the country to a higher level of development is a lacuna in the development plans of the government. It has opened the door to invidious comparisons to be drawn between the new government’s ability to effect change and develop the economy in relation to those in the opposition political parties who have traditionally been in the seats of power. However, recently published statistics of the economic growth during the past year indicates that the economy is doing better than anticipated under the NPP government. Sri Lanka’s economy grew by 5 percent in the year 2024, reversing two years of contraction with the growth rate for the year of 2023 being estimated at negative 2.3 percent. What was particularly creditable was the growth rate for the fourth quarter of 2024 (after the new government took over) being 5.4 percent. The growth figures for the present quarter are also likely to see a continuation of the present trend.
Sri Lanka’s failure in the past has been to sustain its economic growth rates. Even though the country started with high growth rates under different governments, it soon ran into problems of waste and corruption that eroded those gains. During the initial period of President J R Jayawardene’s government in the late 1970s, the economy registered near 8 percent growth with the support of its mega projects, but this could not be sustained. Violent conflict, waste and corruption came to the centre stage which led to the economy getting undermined. With more and more money being spent on the security forces to battle those who had become insurgents against the state, and with waste and corruption skyrocketing there was not much left over for economic development.
The government’s commitment to cut down on waste and corruption so that resources can be saved and added to enable economic growth can be seen in the strict discipline it has been following where expenditures on its members are concerned. The government has restricted the cabinet to 25 ministers, when in the past the figure was often double. The government has also made provision to reduce the perks of office, including medical insurance to parliamentarians. The value of this latter measure is that the parliamentarians will now have an incentive to upgrade the health system that serves the general public, instead of running it down as previous governments did. With their reduced levels of insurance coverage they will need to utilise the public health facilities rather than go to the private ones.
COMMITTED GOVERNMENT
The most positive feature of the present time is that the government is making a serious effort to root out corruption. This is to be seen in the invigoration of previously dormant institutions of accountability, such as the Bribery and Corruption Commission, and the willingness of the Attorney General’s Department to pursue those who were previously regarded as being beyond the reach of the law due to their connections to those in the seats of power. The fact that the Inspector General of Police, who heads the police force, is behind bars on a judicial order is an indication that the rule of law is beginning to be taken seriously. By cost cutting, eliminating corruption and abiding by the rule of law the government is removing the obstacles to development. In the past, the mega development projects failed to deliver their full benefits because they got lost in corrupt and wasteful practices including violent conflict.
There is a need, however, for new and innovative development projects that require knowledge and expertise that is not necessarily within the government. So far it appears that the government is restricting its selection of key decision makers to those it knows, has worked with and trusts due to long association. Two of the committees that the government has recently appointed, the Clean Lanka task force and the Tourism advisory committee are composed of nearly all men from the majority community. If Sri Lanka is to leverage its full potential, the government must embrace a more inclusive approach that incorporates women and diverse perspectives from across the country’s multiethnic and multireligious population, including representation from the north and east. For development that includes all, and is accepted by all, it needs to tap into the larger resources that lie outside itself.
By ensuring that women and ethnic minorities have representation in decision making bodies of the government, the government can harness a broader range of skills, experiences, and perspectives, ultimately leading to more effective and sustainable development policies. Sustainable development is not merely about economic growth; it is about inclusivity and partnership. A government that prioritises diversity in its leadership will be better equipped to address the challenges that can arise unexpectedly. By widening its advisory base and integrating a broader array of voices, the government can create policies that are not only effective but also equitable. Through inclusive governance, responsible economic management, and innovative development strategies the government will surely lead the country towards a future that benefits all its people.
by Jehan Perera
Former Minister Ali Sabry’s recent op-ed, “Why Sri Lanka must continue to pursue a non-aligned, yet multi-aligned foreign policy,” published in the Daily FT on 3 March, offers a timely reflection on Sri Lanka’s foreign policy trajectory in an increasingly multipolar world. Sabry’s articulation of a “non-aligned yet multi-aligned” approach is commendable for its attempt to reconcile Sri Lanka’s historical commitment to non-alignment with the realities of contemporary geopolitics. However, his framework raises critical questions about the principles of non-alignment, the nuances of multi-alignment, and Sri Lanka’s role in a world shaped by great power competition. This response seeks to engage with Sabry’s arguments, critique certain assumptions, and propose a more robust vision for Sri Lanka’s foreign policy.
Sabry outlines five key pillars of a non-aligned yet multi-aligned foreign policy:
- No military alignments, no foreign bases: Sri Lanka should avoid entangling itself in military alliances or hosting foreign military bases.
- Economic engagement with all, dependency on none
: Sri Lanka should diversify its economic partnerships to avoid over-reliance on any single country.
* Diplomatic balancing
: Sri Lanka should engage with multiple powers, leveraging relationships with China, India, the US, Europe, Japan, and ASEAN for specific benefits.
- Leveraging multilateralism
: Sri Lanka should participate actively in regional and global organisations, such as UN, NAM, SAARC, and BIMSTEC.
- Resisting coercion and protecting sovereignty
: Sri Lanka must resist external pressures and assert its sovereign right to pursue an independent foreign policy.
While pillars 1, 2, and 5 align with the traditional principles of non-alignment, pillars 3 and 4 warrant closer scrutiny. Sabry’s emphasis on “diplomatic balancing” and “leveraging multilateralism” raises questions about the consistency of his approach with the spirit of non-alignment and whether it adequately addresses the challenges of a multipolar world.
Dangers of over-compartmentalisation
Sabry’s suggestion that Sri Lanka should engage with China for infrastructure, India for regional security and trade, the US and Europe for technology and education, and Japan and ASEAN for economic opportunities reflects a pragmatic approach to foreign policy. However, this compartmentalisation of partnerships risks reducing Sri Lanka’s foreign policy to a transactional exercise, undermining the principles of non-alignment.
Sabry’s framework, curiously, excludes China from areas like technology, education, and regional security, despite China’s growing capabilities in these domains. For instance, China is a global leader in renewable energy, artificial intelligence, and 5G technology, making it a natural partner for Sri Lanka’s technological advancement. Similarly, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) offers significant opportunities for economic development and regional connectivity. By limiting China’s role to infrastructure, Sabry’s approach risks underutilising a key strategic partner.
Moreover, Sabry’s emphasis on India for regional security overlooks the broader geopolitical context. While India is undoubtedly a critical partner for Sri Lanka, regional security cannot be addressed in isolation from China’s role in South Asia. The Chinese autonomous region of Xizang (Tibet) is indeed part of South Asia, and China’s presence in the region is a reality that Sri Lanka must navigate. A truly non-aligned foreign policy would seek to balance relationships with both India and China, rather than assigning fixed roles to each.
Sabry’s compartmentalisation of partnerships risks creating silos in Sri Lanka’s foreign policy, limiting its flexibility and strategic depth. For instance, by relying solely on the US and Europe for technology and education, Sri Lanka may miss out on opportunities for South-South cooperation with members of BRICS.
Similarly, by excluding China from regional security discussions, Sri Lanka may inadvertently align itself with India’s strategic interests, undermining its commitment to non-alignment.
Limited multilateralism?
Sabry’s call for Sri Lanka to remain active in organisations like the UN, NAM, SAARC, and BIMSTEC is laudable. However, his omission of the BRI, BRICS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is striking. These platforms represent emerging alternatives to the Western-dominated global order and offer Sri Lanka opportunities to diversify its partnerships and enhance its strategic autonomy.
The BRI is one of the most ambitious infrastructure and economic development projects in history, involving over 140 countries. For Sri Lanka, the BRI offers opportunities for infrastructure development, trade connectivity, and economic growth. By participating in the BRI, Sri Lanka can induce Chinese investment to address its infrastructure deficit and integrate into global supply chains. Excluding the BRI from Sri Lanka’s foreign policy framework would be a missed opportunity.
BRICS and the SCO represent platforms for South-South cooperation and multipolarity. BRICS, in particular, has emerged as a counterweight to such Western-dominated institutions as the IMF and World Bank, advocating for a more equitable global economic order. The SCO, on the other hand, focuses on regional security and counterterrorism, offering Sri Lanka a platform to address its security concerns in collaboration with major powers like China, Russia, and India. By engaging with these organisations, Sri Lanka can strengthen its commitment to multipolarity and enhance its strategic autonomy.
Non-alignment is not neutrality
Sabry’s assertion that Sri Lanka must avoid taking sides in major power conflicts reflects a misunderstanding of non-alignment. Non-alignment is not about neutrality; it is about taking a principled stand on issues of global importance. During the Cold War, non-aligned countries, like Sri Lanka, opposed colonialism, apartheid, and imperialism, even as they avoided alignment with either the US or the Soviet Union.
Sri Lanka’s foreign policy, under leaders like S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike and Sirimavo Bandaranaike, was characterised by a commitment to anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism, opposing racial segregation and discrimination in both its Apartheid and Zionist forms. Sri Lanka, the first Asian country to recognise revolutionary Cuba, recognised the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam, supported liberation struggles in Africa, and opposed the US military base in Diego Garcia. These actions were not neutral; they were rooted in a principled commitment to justice and equality.
Today, Sri Lanka faces new challenges, including great power competition, economic coercion, and climate change. A truly non-aligned foreign policy would require Sri Lanka to take a stand on issues like the genocide in Gaza, the colonisation of the West Bank, the continued denial of the right to return of ethnically-cleansed Palestinians and Chagossians, the militarisation of the Indo-Pacific, the use of economic sanctions as a tool of coercion, and the need for climate justice. By avoiding these issues, Sri Lanka risks becoming the imperialist powers’ cringing, whingeing client state.
The path forward
Sabry’s use of the term “multi-alignment” reflects a growing trend in Indian foreign policy, particularly under the BJP Government. However, multi-alignment is not the same as multipolarity. Multi-alignment implies a transactional approach to foreign policy, where a country seeks to extract maximum benefits from multiple partners without a coherent strategic vision. Multipolarity, on the other hand, envisions a world order where power is distributed among multiple centres, reducing the dominance of any single power.
Sri Lanka should advocate for a multipolar world order that reflects the diversity of the global South. This would involve strengthening platforms like BRICS, the SCO, and the NAM, while also engaging with Western institutions like the UN and the WTO. By promoting multipolarity, Sri Lanka can contribute to a more equitable and just global order, in line with the principles of non-alignment.
Ali Sabry’s call for a non-aligned, yet multi-aligned foreign policy falls short of articulating a coherent vision for Sri Lanka’s role in a multipolar world. To truly uphold the principles of non-alignment, Sri Lanka must:
* Reject compartmentalisation
: Engage with all partners across all domains, including technology, education, and regional security.
* Embrace emerging platforms
: Participate in the BRI, BRICS, and SCO to diversify partnerships and enhance strategic autonomy.
* Take principled stands
: Advocate for justice, equality, and multipolarity in global affairs.
* Promote South-South cooperation
: Strengthen ties with other Global South countries to address shared challenges, like climate change and economic inequality.
By adopting this approach, Sri Lanka can reclaim its historical legacy as a leader of the non-aligned movement and chart a course toward a sovereign, secure, and successful future.
(Vinod Moonesinghe read mechanical engineering at the University of Westminster, and worked in Sri Lanka in the tea machinery and motor spares industries, as well as the railways. He later turned to journalism and writing history. He served as chair of the Board of Governors of the Ceylon German Technical Training Institute. He is a convenor of the Asia Progress Forum, which can be contacted at asiaprogressforum@gmail.com.)
by Vinod Moonesinghe
Cancellation of shows has turned out to be a regular happening where former Backstreet Boys Nick Carter is concerned. In the past, it has happened several times.
If Nick Carter is not 100 percent fit, he should not undertake these strenuous world tours, ultimately disappointing his fans.
It’s not a healthy scene to be cancelling shows on a regular basis.
In May 2024, a few days before his scheduled visit to the Philippines, Carter cancelled his two shows due to “unforeseen circumstances.”
The promoter concerned announced the development and apologised to fans who bought tickets to Carter’s shows in Cebu, on May 23, and in Manila, on May 24.
The dates were supposed to be part of the Asian leg of his ‘Who I Am’ 2024 tour.
Carter previously cancelled a series of solo concerts in Asia, including Jakarta, Mumbai, Singapore, and Taipei. And this is what the organisers had to say:
“Due to unexpected matters related to Nick Carter’s schedule, we regret to announce that Nick’s show in Asia, including Jakarta on May 26 (2024), has been cancelled.
His ‘Who I Am’ Japan tour 2024 was also cancelled, with the following announcement:
Explaining, on video, about the
cancelled ‘Who I Am’ shows
“We regret to announce that the NICK CARTER Japan Tour, planned for June 4th at Toyosu PIT (Tokyo) and June 6th at Namba Hatch (Osaka), will no longer be proceeding due to ‘unforeseen circumstances.’ We apologise for any disappointment.
Believe me, I had a strange feeling that his Colombo show would not materialise and I did mention, in a subtle way, in my article about Nick Carter’s Colombo concert, in ‘StarTrack’ of 14th January, 2025 … my only worry (at that point in time) is the HMPV virus which is reported to be spreading in China and has cropped up in Malaysia, and India, as well.
Although no HMPV virus has cropped up, Carter has cancelled his scheduled performance in Sri Lanka, and in a number of other countries, as well, to return home, quoting, once again, “unforeseen circumstances.”
“Unforeseen circumstances” seems to be his tagline!
There is talk that low ticket sales is the reason for some of his concerts to be cancelled.
Yes, elaborate arrangements were put in place for Nick Carter’s trip to Sri Lanka – Meet & Greet, Q&A, selfies, etc., but all at a price!
Wonder if there will be the same excitement and enthusiasm if Nick Carter decides to come up with new dates for what has been cancelled?
Prof. Gananath Obeyesekere passes away aged 95
Acceptance of nominations for Punakiri, Mannar and Dehiattakandiya local authorities ends at 12 noon on Thursday (27th March 2025)
Gabba to be demolished after 2032 Olympics, cricket to get new home in Brisbane
-
Business5 days agoCargoserv Shipping partners Prima Ceylon & onboards Nestlé Lanka for landmark rail logistics initiative
-
News3 days agoSeniors welcome three percent increase in deposit rates
-
Features2 days agoThe US, Israel, Palestine, and Mahmoud Khalil
-
News3 days agoScholarships for children of estate workers now open
-
Business5 days agoSri Lankans Vote Dialog as the Telecommunication Brand and Service Brand of the Year
-
News4 days agoDefence Ministry of Japan Delegation visits Pathfinder Foundation
-
Features5 days agoThe Vaping Veil: Unmasking the dangers of E-Cigarettes
-
News4 days ago‘Deshabandu is on SLC payroll’; Hesha tables documents