by the Chairperson of the AHRC
SRI LANKA: Justice and peace: a reply by the AHRC Chairperson to the Secretary
The secretary general, SCOPP, Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, has written a letter regarding several comments on peace and justice written by the Asian Human Rights Commission and signed by its Executive Director Basil Fernando dated May 2, 2008. The Chairperson of the AHRC, John Joseph Clancey has sent a reply to the SCOPPs Secretary Generals letter. We reproduce below the AHRCs Chairpersons reply and the letter received from the Secretary General of the SCOPP.
May 5, 2008
Professor Rajiva Wijesinha
The Secretary General
Secretariat for Co-ordinating the Peace Process
Block 5, BMICH,
Bauddhaloka Mawatha,
Colombo 07,
Sri Lanka
Dear Professor Wijesinha,
Thank you very much for your letter which I have read very carefully.
I have also followed the communications of the Asian Human Rights Commission on the human rights problems in Sri Lanka for over ten years now.
The difference of ideas between the Peace Secretariat and the AHRC are among the most important questions that the AHRC has raised, during this period of more than ten years, in regard to the failures of the criminal justice system in Sri Lanka. None of these are new issues and until there is a change for the better these problems will be a continuous focus for the AHRC.
The recent controversy about the IIGEP is primarily about the problems they have raised regarding human rights protection, particularly those problems relating to the 16 cases that have been under investigation by the Presidential Commission of Inquiry. I think that you would agree that these matters, by implication, also refer to and are linked to the serious problems of the criminal justice system in the country in general. These problems include the role of the Attorney General, the absence of witness protection, the respect needed for the internationally agreed doctrines of command responsibility, the prevention of impunity and the provision of financial resources for the proper functioning of the institutions of the criminal justice system, not to mention the pervading culture of corruption which exasperates those problems.
These are issues that the AHRC has worked on consistently and documented extensively over a considerable period of time. Therefore in defending the IIGEPs findings on these matters, the AHRC has defended and supported its own findings which have been supported by extensive data.
Therefore, any misunderstanding that the reply of Mr. Basil Fernando to your comments on Sir Nigel Rodley was some sort of a personal attack on you is misconceived. We are concerned about the institutional response to the pervasive climate of violence that prevails in Sri Lanka. These matters have been raised before and will continue to be raised until such time as they are resolved.
The AHRC is of the firm view that justice and peace cannot be separated. Most, if not all historical and contemporary commentators agree that it is injustices that create the background for wars and civil wars. Therefore, at no stage will the AHRC agree to separate the issue of justice from the issue of peace. My presumption is that it would only be natural for the members of a peace secretariat to seriously consider all the issues that have been raised by the AHRC, as well as others in Sri Lanka, and develop a strong policy of supporting the establishment of a system based on the rule of law as the foundation for peace.
Since the peace secretariat is an institution, and not a person, none of the issues raised by the AHRC should be taken as anything personal. These are matters of public interest and public debate is the key, and perhaps only, means by which the public interest is served.
You have made a personal reference to Mr. Basil Fernando. I wish to inform you that the AHRC recruited Mr. Fernando at a time when he was holding the position of a senior human rights officer with the United Nations. Fortunately for the AHRC, Mr. Fernando was willing to accept a position in our organisation for much less pay than he was getting because he believed that he could contribute to the work of human rights in the region more effectively in this way. Ever since we have had his services, he has contributed extensively to the work of the organization as well as resolutely working to promote and protect human rights in Asia.
It appears to me that peace secretariats and human rights organisations should have the same aims and objectives and therefore should work in pursuit of establishing a legal framework within which justice and peace will co-exist. Therefore, I would request that you consider the many contributions made by the AHRC, and other human rights organizations, in examining the criminal justice system in Sri Lanka and if you agree with that analysis to incorporate it into your peace work.
As a human rights organization, the AHRC has based its work on understanding conflict by applying the branch of studies known as post conflict justice. Although Sri Lanka is still in the midst of a conflict, we see no reason why those principles cannot now be applied. That is the reason why the AHRC suggested to the peace secretariat that perhaps, the example of the Truth Commission headed by Desmond Tutu in South Africa is a suitable model to follow, with of course the appropriate modifications being made to suit the conditions in Sri Lanka. We believe that all discussions should be rooted in true facts and not spin or propaganda.
You also made a reference to the LTTE peace secretariat. Please note that the AHRC does not consider such an organisation to be an authentic peace secretariat, but considers it to be purely a propaganda unit of the LTTE. The very reason that the AHRC has attempted to engage the secretariat for Co-ordinating the Peace Process is the belief that the goal of your organisation is genuinely to be a peace secretariat. As stated above, by definition we think that the work of a genuine peace secretariat must also be deeply linked to the promotion of justice and human rights. In that premise I think it will serve your secretariat little by comparing yourself with the LTTE peace secretariat.
The AHRC wishes to extend to you an open invitation for a discussion on all the matters raised by the AHRC relating to the issues of the systemic protection of human rights, the rule of law, justice and peace in Sri Lanka.
Yours faithfully,
signed
JOHN J. CLANCEY
Chairman of the Asian Human Rights Commission
SECRETARY GENERAL
Secretariat for Co-ordinating the Peace Process
SCOPP/SG/1.
2 May2008
The Chairman
Asian Human Rights Commission
19/F, Go-up Commercial Bldg
998, Canton Road, Kowloon
Hong Kong,
CHINA.
Dear Sir,
I have just seen yet another gratuitous attack by Basil Fernando on the Sri Lankan Peace Secretariat, in an article regarding suggestions for change within the JVP. It is sad that personal animosity should reach such depths, but I do not think this is at all good for the Asian Human Rights Commission. Perhaps your Board of Directors could discuss whether it is now time now to rein in Basils irrelevant attacks, and ask him to confine himself to promoting Human Rights in a more dignified fashion.
The section, slipped in at the end of a longer article on May 2nd, is given below. As having been on your mailing list for over a decade now, and been involved in Human Rights activity for well over a quarter of a century, I find this type of confrontational approach distasteful, and not calculated to advance the cause of freedom or human rights.
It also seems selective, since I have seen no criticism by the AHRC of the LTTE Peace Secretariats glorification of suicide bombers – and while I certainly do not expect AHRC to monitor everything, the failure to see the Sri Lankan situation in context will lead to suspicion about the motives of those who pronounce so aggressively but assume that anyone who uses language forcefully, except themselves, is a warmonger.
I look forward to a response after you and the rest of the Commission has had time to study this.
Yours sincerely,
Signed
Prof Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary General
LAST PARA. OF AHRC RELEASE.
A genuine Peace Secretariat in Sri Lanka would have encouraged such policies of self evaluation in all political parties and thereby created the climate necessary for a period of political enlightenment in the country. Alas, we do not have the political insights of persons such as Nelson Mandela and Bishop Desmond Tutu. Sri Lankas Peace Secretariat is war-mongering and has not contributed one iota for the critical self evaluation of the contribution made by all elements of the Sri Lankan political establishment to the climate of violence that prevails in the country. Unfortunately Sri Lankas Peace Secretariat contributes to that violence.
