Implement LLRC recommendations

THE UK has reiterated its call for an independent and credible inquiry into alleged war crimes in the last phase of the war. While the Government would undoubtedly dismiss this, there are positives in the statement that was made by Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Alistair Burt’s presentation on the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) report.

He made positive comments regarding the report and said that it contains many constructive recommendations for action on post-conflict reconciliation and a political settlement. Implementation of these recommendations, however, is the real test of Sri Lanka’s progress and Burt called on the Government to implement them as soon as possible.

Burt was in agreement with the commission’s conclusion that the root cause of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka lies in the failure of successive governments to address the genuine grievances of the Tamil people and the recommendation that the Sri Lankan Government should take the lead in delivering a devolution package. He urged the Government to implement this recommendation quickly and reiterated the LLRC’s call for the Northern Province to be returned to civilian administration.

He agreed with the recommendation that more action should be taken to help Internally Displaced Persons rebuild their lives and agreed that the Government should make available to relatives a list of all detainees in custody since the end of the conflict, publicly declare all detention sites and allow family, judicial and International Committee of the Red Cross access. There was also support for the prosecution of anyone responsible for unlawful detentions.

This is a positive development because it clearly shows that the LLRC has the potential to withstand scrutiny from the international community. The very fact that the LLRC had the backbone to make several controversial recommendations, including the removal of armed forces in civilian activities, no doubt gained it a measure of credibility.

It also highlighted failure on the part of the law enforcement officers to investigate offences and bring offenders to book, where the offences were committed by persons with political connections and that in the north, despite the end of the conflict, significant issues of law and order remained. A number of politicians “operate on the fringe of the law,” it had said, pointing out that due to their interaction with criminal elements in society, they subvert the course of justice through undue influence exerted on the Police, resulting in the politicisation of the Police.

However, where the LLRC report failed to impress is on the issue of accountability. “The British Government is, on the whole, disappointed by the report’s findings and recommendations on accountability. Like many others, we feel that these leave many gaps and unanswered questions. We welcome the acknowledgement that ‘considerable civilian casualties’ occurred during the final stages of the conflict and the recommendation that specific incidents require further investigation. But we note that many credible allegations of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law, including from the UN Panel of Experts report, are either not addressed or only partially answered.” Burt’s concerns in this regard may have to be dealt separately by the Government.

However, this strengthens the value of the LLRC and further enforces its value as a point for reconciliation. It is only hoped that the Government implements its recommendations to achieve its full potential.