Channel 4 Documentary - A Case of Moving Backwards

The recently telecast C4 documentary on ‘war crimes in Sri Lanka’ sheds no new light, in terms of groundbreaking evidence, regarding the incidents related to the end of the war in Sri Lanka, 2 years ago.  If anything, it will seek to entrench already hardened attitudes and decrease the ever reducing space for dialogue and reconciliation. 

From the government’s perspective, it will just seek to feed into the insecurity that it surrounds itself with, of a perception that the west has been influenced by a highly successful pro LTTE lobby and will therefore secure its ‘credibility’ especially as a ‘victim of an external conspiracy’ consequently rallying the people’s sympathy.  This means that making any genuine attempt to hold the government accountable for anything will be considered as part of this ‘conspiracy’.

On the other side, for the pro LTTE lobby (largely represented by their supporters in the UK, US and Canada) this will be a ‘vindication’ of their claims regarding the Government and its conduct of the war, thereby serving to boost their movement and support whilst ignoring the part that they have played in fund raising and supporting the LTTE. This has been helped by a sympathetic media which so far has tended to focus on the government’s part in the end of the war rather than attempting to hold LTTE representatives, sympathisers and fund raisers in the West, who have garnered support from MPs and International organisations (despite the proscription of the LTTE as a terrorist group), accountable for the crimes committed by the LTTE.  Unfortunately, this minority of voices tends to silence the majority of the moderate Tamil voices who whilst upset at the death of thousands of civilians and the internment of relatives in refugee camps, nevertheless do not subscribe to the LTTE line.   What this has meant in practice is that the pro LTTE lobby has hijacked the Tamil cause and intimidated and harassed those who seek to have any meaningful dialogue on post conflict Sri Lanka.

The fear in places like London is that these differences will also be used for political propaganda purposes and will play out on the streets.  There are reports of houses / shops belonging to Sri Lankans being vandalised and activists being sent death threats in the aftermath of the 2009 conflict.  Already in the lead up to the screening of the  C4 documentary, there have been email and sms campaigns being waged in an attempt to convince people to watch ‘the brutality of the Sri Lankan government’ or to encourage people to ‘protest against the bias of the one-sided coverage’.  The fear is as one Sri Lankan activist told me “We are preparing to once again be intimidated and unfortunately there is very little we can do”.

It is this decrease in the space to explore mutual understandings that lie at the heart of most people’s disapproval of moves like C4 or the UN to talk about the conflict. For those of us who have been and are active in trying to move forward, it is not about defending the indefensible.   We are not here to deny or  justify abuses. Even though war is never just or civil, especially when it is fought against a proscribed terrorist organisation that has a history of forcible child recruitment, ethnic cleansing and using their own people as a human shield, this is not an excuse for abuses to be meted out and if it has happened then those responsible on all sides have to be brought to task.  Therein lies the problem.  Whilst blame is very often vociferously laid at the feet of the Sri Lankan government for its actions, the welfare camps and so on, nothing is said with the same intensity about the atrocities committed by the LTTE such as: the ethnic cleansing of 100,000 Muslims from the north (who still live in refugee camps today in the north west of Sri Lanka); the assassination of key political and intellectual leaders (of all ethnicities); the forcible recruitment of child soldiers or the perfection of suicide bombing.  The reports do not carry any discussion of how most of the LTTE combatants  mingled with civilians and forcibly conscripted many civilians to fight for them in the final stages. Nor do they discuss the phenomenon that Mark Meadow’s 2010 book ‘Tea Time with Terrorists’, describes of how  former LTTE fighters have explained LTTE tactics such as “LTTE cadres dressing up in Sri Lankan army uniforms, then firing at unarmed civilians to put false blame on the army”.  For those of us who may have opposed how the war was conducted by the Sri Lankan government, we are equally if not more opposed to standing shoulder to shoulder with people flying the LTTE flag.

Unfortunately, in the midst of this flurry of interest once again in what happened in Sri Lanka, the real discussion is becoming sidelined, for whilst it is important to look at the past, it is vital that an eye is placed towards the future.  How can Sri Lanka learn from the mistakes of the past that sidelined the minorities and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians? Successive governments have always hid behind the pretext of winning the war and defeating the LTTE militarily without addressing some of the fundamental key issues concerning minorities. Now with the defeat of the LTTE, there is a real opportunity to address the legitimate grievances of the minorities to ensure that the country is not subject to a repeat of the conflict ever again.  How can  Sri Lanka, despite more than sixty years of independence, develop a constitutional framework that will satisfy the aspirations of all its citizens and deliver an environment of peace and harmony to engage its human and natural resources for the development of the country? Moreover at a grass roots levels, how can people work towards reconciliation between polarised communities (growing increasingly suspicious of each other thereby encouraging inward looking clannish tendencies)  and ensuring an environment of peace, justice and equity whilst holding politicians accountable for good governance?

Those involved in conflict resolution and peace building will often talk about a period of healing.  The bloody Sunday acknowledgement by the British Government took xx years to be done.  Poland and Germany only normalised strained relations after the fall of the Berlin Wall.  The period of healing for Sri Lanka is still in an infant stage and this is what is not addressed in these various reports regarding the end of the war. As it stands it is doubtless felt that such endeavours will in fact damage efforts being undertaken to achieve reconciliation.  What is critical for Sri Lanka is the rebuilding of trust

Trust can only be rebuilt when a space is created for effective dialogue and understanding.  Rebuilding trust is about honouring unity and celebrating diversity, working towards equity and justice and ensuring the eradication of social prejudices in building a collective identity.  Rebuilding trust is about decreasing suspicion  and  infusing human values with an understanding of the need to move away from apportioning blame for deceit and destruction.  Sri Lanka needs this space in order for it to move forward.  It needs time for its people to go through the healing process.  Its people need to come up with their own locally developed solutions. I have always been confident that Sri Lanka has the answers to its own problems and does not need outside interventions.  After being involved in providing/organising humanitarian relief for four years post-tsunami and during the concluding stage of the war in Sri Lanka I have been touched by the  strength, passion and willingness of people to rally round and  work for a common purpose at times of adversity. This I believe is a unique Sri Lankan trait that is an asset to the country.  Yet passion without purpose can be misguided as the empty rhetoric of politicians without any substance can lead to irrelevant actions.

Michael Henderson in his book No Enemy to Conquer, talks about the journey of forgiveness and reconciliation as  the need to move beyond the concept of a clash between each other to reaching out and developing an alliance with ‘the other’.  This journey means to take an individual  responsibility to create a safe space for people to talk and share ideas.  This safe space entails not only moving beyond victimhood but also being cognizant of the past (accepting and facing up to the past honestly), the past should not become a ball and chain for the future.

Sri Lanka’s Expatriate community in the west also have their share of the responsibility to challenge the normalisation of the narrative regarding the conflict and reconciliation, and to rise above their apathy to be ambassadors of good will for their country of heritage. Those who are anti Rajapakse and who oppose the government not on principle but on party lines find themselves as natural ‘bed fellows’ to the pro LTTE camp who are also intent on ousting the government, in order to keep their movement alive. What this means is a lost opportunity to hold the government accountable on real issues of governance such as the rising cost of living or allegations of corruption whilst securing the credibility of the government especially as a ‘victim’.

Sri Lanka is now at the cross roads of moving forward, cleansed of the past and with a chance to develop a common vision shared by all towards collective nation building and prosperity or to plunge back into another unknown era of bitter interethnic rivalries fanned by divisive politics .Regardless of whatever different situations may demand, reconciliation has to ultimately work through the hearts of individuals who harbor pains from the long years of their inability to meet basic human aspirations or from loss of loved ones and properties as they became innocent victims of calculated and indiscriminate violent attacks between fighting forces. Constitutional amendments and projected development are not enough to make hearts to forget or forgive. It needs a platform for genuine and objective discussion to hear all sides of the argument in hope of moving forward towards achieving reconciliation and a new direction for the country. Sri Lanka’s expats have to step into be ambassadors of goodwill to provide the guidance for this platform to be nurtured. 

Transparency, accountability and social justice are the pillars of a mature democratic society.  Sri Lanka’s journey is still very early in trying to achieve this, but nevertheless it has started.  Where abuse has taken place, people will be held accountable, BUT this has to be on the terms and the time scale that has been determined by the Sri Lankan people themselves.  The release of this documentary and other supplementary reports provides unwarranted distraction from the main issues that the government (and any government in a post conflict country) should be held accountable for including: steps taken towards reconciliation, stemming the rising cost of living, tackling corruption and trying to ensure law and order.   By demanding it from outside, it also abrogates responsibility from all the stakeholders within Sri Lanka to play a part in this reconciliation and development process.