What is the role and responsibility of the private sector post-LLRC report?

Role and responsibility of the private sector

The civil society wonders whether the private sector believes it has a definitive role and responsibility post the LLRC report. Will they issue a report similar to the ‘Sri Lanka Private Sector Assessment of the Panel of Experts’ Advisory Report to the UN Secretary General’ released by the joint chambers last year?

Civil society recollects that the Sunday Observer of 4 September 2011carried a news item headlined ‘Business leaders slam Darusman Report’ and stated that ‘the private sector, in a critique released last week, has slammed the Darusman Report, saying that demonising the Government’s strategy against terror would only fester old wounds’. The assessment released by the private sector highlighted several major flaws in the Darusman Report.

“It is time to move on in constructive ways. The interim report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) has some realistic suggestions. It is far from perfect, but it may be a step in the right direction,” the assessment noted.

Business leaders took exception to the Darusman Report’s description of the LLRC as “deeply flawed,” saying it was imprudent for the Panel of Experts (POE) to express such a judgment without waiting for the LLRC’s Report.

The statement was issued by the grouping comprising the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce, the Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry of Sri Lanka, the National Chamber of Commerce of Sri Lanka and the Joint Apparel Association Forum, which dealt comprehensively with the 200-page report by POE. The report will be forwarded to relevant agencies of the UN and the Colombo-based diplomatic missions.

The Government has welcomed the private sector initiative. Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa and External Affairs Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris have appreciated the move. The business community in its report criticised the POE for categorising the LTTE as the most “disciplined” and most nationalist of the Tamil militant groups in spite of being proscribed in 32 countries, including India, US, Canada and EU.”

 Quo vadis private sector? 

In the above backdrop, civil society naturally expects to see a similar assessment from the private sector and possibly even a full endorsement of the LLRC report. Civil society cannot be faulted for believing that the private sector will even commit its full backing and actively support the process of effective implementation of the LLRC report and especially its recommendations!

Civil society, now that it is nearly two months since the LLRC report was endorsed by the Government and tabled in Parliament, wonders why there is a silence on the part of the private sector. Civil society waits eagerly to see whether the private sector will speak out before the HRC sessions begin in Geneva by the end of the month!

 Does the private sector agree with Dr. Dayan Jayatilleke? 

In the above context, civil society recollects that Dr. Dayan Jayatilleke in a Groundviews article of 21 December 2011 titled ‘LLRC Report: Reason, Reform, Roadmap’ stated: “These critics overlook or fail to undertake at least five basic tasks. They fail to grapple or even make reference to the rigorous reconstruction and argumentation that leads the report to conclude that despite episodic crimes, civilian casualties were not, for the most part, intentional. They ignore the fact that this finding is the same as that which was arrived at by at least two impeccably non-state, independent sources, the oldest civil society think tank in Sri Lanka, the Marga Institute and its respected founder and outstanding liberal thinker Godfrey Gunatilleke, as well as a joint commission of three private sector business confederations. They fail to examine and disprove the extensive and solid argument on international humanitarian law in the LLRC report. They disregard the listing of specific cases, based on testimony, which require independent investigation. They ignore the chapter on Human rights, which, unlike that on international humanitarian law, is quite critical of the status quo.”

 Will the joint chambers endorse the new perspectives of the Marga Institute? 

Dr. Dayan Jayatilleke found Marga and Dr. Gunathileke to think alike with the joint chambers. What was unclear then to the civil society was whether the joint chambers’ assessment was even a product of the Marga and its associated professionals!

Leaving aside that aspect, what now intrigues civil society is whether the joint chambers will articulate similar thoughts currently emerging from the Marga Institute and its associated professionals.

The professionals associated with the Marga Institute now appear, at a recent workshop, and articulate the following views:

1.LLRC report is a reactionary response to the international pressure

2.In examining the accountability area the LLRC has arrogated to itself powers beyond that in its mandated warrant

3.The LLRC may have reached conclusion without adequately examining evidence and in that regard suffers the same failures as the POE.

4.LLRC has misdirected itself in the classification of who ‘a combatant’ is and who is ‘a civilian’. In fact, civilians supporting the LTTE by building bunkers , by rendering other civilian service support to LTTE, locating or camping near or in the line of fire towards LTTE artillery batteries, hospitals or camping sites and even being a human shield for LTTE combatants, are ‘combatants’ and not ‘civilians’( irrespective of whether they volunteered to do so or were involuntary supporters or even coerced to do so participate by the LTTE) and thus have no protection under international humanitarian law.

5.If the Government feels victimised by the LLRC report, it will negatively impact on reconciliation process

6.TNA and Diaspora supportive of LTTE , being proxies of the LTTE, does not deserve to be accommodated at a privileged level in any negotiations or in the implementation of LLRC recommendations

The above position appears to clearly contrast with the position of Dr. Dayan Jayatilleke, who states in the aforesaid article, that;

1.‘Perhaps the single most important contribution of the LLRC report is its clear and unambiguous identification of the causes of the Sri Lankan conflict and crisis, the resolution of which remains the central challenge before the country. The LLRC has, in short, undertaken a diagnosis and provided a prescription, quoting from the report, “The Commission takes the view 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. The country may not have been confronted with a violent separatist agenda, if the political consensus at the time of independence had been sustained and if policies had been implemented to build up and strengthen the confidence of the minorities around the system which had gained a reasonable measure of acceptance. A political solution is imperative to address the causes of the conflict…” (p 291, articles 8.150, 8.151)

2.‘The LLRC report justifies its most ambitious claim, which is to provide a post-war programme and pathway. “…To this end, the success of ending armed conflict must be invested in an all-inclusive political process of dialogue and accommodation so that the conflict by other means will not continue… However, if these expectations were to become a reality in the form of a multi-ethnic nation at peace with itself in a democratic Sri Lanka, the Government and all political leaders must manifest political will and sincerity of purpose to take the necessary decisions to ensure the good-faith implementation of the Commission’s recommendations... While not being an exhaustive agenda to address, let alone cure, all ills of post conflict Sri Lanka, the recommendations of the Commission could nevertheless constitute a framework for action by all stakeholders, in particular the Government, political parties and community leaders. This framework would go a long way in constructing a platform for consolidating post-conflict peace and security as well as amity and cooperation within and between the diverse communities in Sri Lanka.” (Preamble, pp.1-2)

3.‘Overall, perhaps the most vital contribution of the report is its potential to re-balance the Sri Lankan policy (and political) discourse, re-constituting a tragically vacated middle ground or centre space. Indeed, the LLRC report is that rarity: a welcome example of an enlightened Middle Path, at a time of strident affirmations of dogmatic fundamental positions.’

 Will the j  oint chambers endorse the views of Dr. Jayatilleke or the new perspective coming from Marga and its associated professionals?

Has the private sector accepted the role assigned to it by the LLRC?

It is also relevant to reflect on that in the report, “the Commission, recommends that the Government constitute a multidisciplinary task force that will include representatives from the Presidential Secretariat, external affairs, defence, foreign employment, the private sector, and academia to propose a programme of action to harness the untapped potential of the expatriate community, and to respond to the concerns of the so-called ‘hostile Diaspora groups,’ and to engage them constructively with the Government and other stakeholders involved in reconciliation process”.

Civil society awaits the joint chambers to express their position in regard to them being represented and associated in the task force and eagerly await as to who will represent the joint chambers and how will they progress the tasks expected.

Other civil society questions

Civil society also awaits the announcements from the joint chambers to clarify the following key issues:

1.Will they in a committed way accept that the LLRC report sets out a clear and unambiguous identification of the causes of the Sri Lankan conflict and crisis, the resolution of which remains the central challenge before the country and such resolution is essential for the growth of the nation and its people?

2.Will they in a committed way accept that the LLRC report as an “enlightened Middle Path at a time of strident affirmations of dogmatic fundamental positions” that will best serve all stakeholders and the nation at large?

3.Will they review the LLRC recommendations from the perspective of placing the nation and its people first, private sector second and individual interests of chambers and its members last?

4.Will the joint chambers adopting their stated commitment to the objective “It is time to move on in constructive ways as a step in the right direction” support the effective implementation of the LLRC recommendations by the relevant stakeholders?

5.Will the joint chambers facilitate and promote transparency, open debate and dialogue in the implementation of the LLRC report?

6.Will the joint chambers facilitate and promote a process of developing a transparent ‘Report Card’ on the implementation of the LLRC report?

7.Will the joint chambers and their members adopt a new attitude and be sensitive to issues impacting on minorities and marginalised segments of the population and adopt in their decision making:

a.Policies to build up and strengthen the confidence of the minorities and marginalised communities around the system which gains a reasonable measure of acceptance?

b.A policy promoting early agreement and effective implementation a political solution to address the causes of the conflict?

c.A policy promoting equity, equality, justice, rule of law and democratic good governance by the government and the private sector entities?

d.Adopt policies that promote equitable and fair allocation of national resources?

e.Adopt policies that are affirmatively supportive of minorities and marginalised communities?

Civil society expectations of the joint chambers

The only accountability worth devoting time and resources at this stage is towards having the LLRC report recommendations implemented effectively. Joint chambers should not look back at the issues of accountability of LLRC or Government or POE. The joint chambers must look forward and not backwards and support the Government and all other relevant stakeholders to effectively implement the LLRC recommendations and must hold them accountable for such effective implementation with transparency and with open dialogue with the stakeholders.

(The writer is a former Chairman of the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce.)