Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Order, please.

This is the Subcommittee of International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Today, December 3, 2013, is our seventh meeting.

We are televised today. We are continuing our study of the human rights situation in Sri Lanka. As a witness today we have David Petrasek, who is a professor at the University of Ottawa.

Professor, I understand that you've already been informed by our clerk about the length of the presentation. Please take the time you need. I'll decide how long the question and answer responses will be, based on how much time is left, so that all the parties get an equal chance to ask you questions and hear your responses.

[David Petrasek, Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you for inviting me.

My name is Professor David Petrasek. I'm an associate professor at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa.

I'll speak about three issues. I'll briefly introduce myself but then I'll talk about the current situation as far as I can report on it, particularly post the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka. I'll talk of some actions that are important for the international community to pursue regarding the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, and then maybe I'll talk of the question of where Canada can best use its influence on the situation.

Briefly, to help you in terms of your questioning and in terms of my own expertise, there are many human rights experts on Sri Lanka, of course in Sri Lanka particularly. I see from the witnesses you've already had that you've spoken to some of them, including of course, Saravanamuttu. The level of detail and knowledge they have on the current day-to-day events far exceeds what I can relate to you.

My particular involvement with Sri Lanka is from the human rights fact-finding missions I did there on behalf of non-governmental organizations. That was in the 1990s. I've kept abreast of the situation for probably 15 or 20 years, but at a bit of a distance. I followed the human rights developments there but not in the case-by-case way you would have if you spoke to researchers from Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International.

When there was a ceasefire in Sri Lanka during the negotiations with the LTTE, I was asked by the former president's special advisor on the peace process to be part of a small advisory group that he convened to help the government think through some of the difficult issues. I came on to that group as an international human rights lawyer. That was from 2004 to 2006.

I've visited the country five times for various periods. Most recently I attended a civil society conference there in June. My real expertise on Sri Lanka would be in relation to the UN's role and what the UN mechanisms can do and in relation to the interplay between the human rights issues in the country and the broader peace and reconciliation issues.

Concerning the current situation, post the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, as the previous testimony you've heard before the committee has demonstrated, there's a worrying deterioration in the human rights situation. You would expect post-2009, at the end of the war, that things would have improved. In fact, certain trends suggest that there's a renewed call to be worried. As I think Saravanamuttu said to you, he would describe the situation in Sri Lanka as postwar and not post-conflict because the broader reconciliation that's needed in the country hasn't by any means happened.

I have a few key points to emphasize points that have already been made to your committee.

First is the government's failure to address in a serious way the very credible allegations of war crimes committed by both sides in the civil war that ended in 2009, especially in its brutal final phases.

Second is the increasing militarization, including in areas of civilian administration. This is particularly noticeable in the north, but also in the south. It's interesting that in Colombo, the responsibility for urban development rests with the secretary of defence.

Third is the interference with the rule of law that others have spoken to you about, most notably of course, the impeachment of the chief justice in an arbitrary and unlawful manner, but also in the constitutional amendments that have been pursued to extend presidential term limits and other ways that increase the power of the president and, in fact, his family.

Fourth is an intolerance for dissent. There is still to some extent a critical press in Sri Lanka. You will have heard of the threats the journalists have faced in the country, but there are areas of criticism that, if you like, are increasingly no-go areas. That particularly includes criticism around the president and his family. Allegations of corruption or personal involvement in illegal practices are likely to get you into trouble.

Fifth, I would draw attention to, as others have, the emergence of a new and perhaps orchestrated set of sectarian clashes, most notably the rise of the BBS, an extremist Buddhist group that has been leading various campaigns against the Muslim community in Sri Lanka. It's quite a new development and quite worrying in the context of that country.

I would also note, though, as others have, the continued popularity of the government. Frankly, were elections held today, the government would most likely win. That relates to the dividend the government has received from successfully concluding the war against the Tigers.

But it also relates to the perception of economic progress in the country. Although the economic situation in the country is not my area of expertise, I can see, returning to Colombo after several years, the surge in building—the cranes, the parks that are being redone, the sense that this is a country that's booming. Investment is coming in. There's this perception of economic progress, at least in parts of the south.

There were elections in the north for the provincial council, which we weren't sure would take place but actually did take place in September. The Tamil National Alliance overwhelmingly won, with 80% of the vote. It was a good sign that those elections were held.

Another good sign is that, despite the government's failure to pursue accountability and reconciliation efforts, as far as I'm aware and able to say, there's no sign of a return to Tamil militancy.

The defeat of the Tamil Tigers was a good thing, especially the defeat of its leadership. This was a group that committed horrendous human rights abuses. I wish it would have happened in a different way. There were many human rights abuses that happened in the context of the defeat of that insurgency, but the fact that it was defeated was a good thing. Many Tamils also benefited, because many suffered under the LTTE administration.

The Tamils in the north and east do not yet trust the government, for good reason. Nevertheless, in talking to people I know and trust in the country, I have come to view the re-emergence of an armed or militant faction as a remote possibility, because the civilian population has no appetite for it whatsoever.

The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting was a public relations disaster for the government. As the International Crisis Group pointed out, it's the lowest attendance on record of heads of state or government for a Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. In addition to our Prime Minister, two other prime ministers boycotted the meeting, also citing human rights concerns.

International media coverage at the event, for those of you who followed it, was extremely negative. The president was quite shocked. Every time he appeared in front of the press, all they wanted to know about was Sri Lanka's human rights record. They weren't the least bit concerned with what the discussions were in the meeting.

British Prime Minister Cameron's visit to Jaffna was widely covered. The fact that people were stopped from meeting him and the protests that occurred also created a fair bit of attention. I think it's fair to say that it was a public relations disaster for the president. He hadn't wanted it to happen that way, and it played out badly for him. Despite the muzzling or intimidation of the local press, which was unable to fully report on the extent of this disaster, most people in Sri Lanka who follow things got the sense that things went badly for the president.

The role that our Prime Minister's boycott played in that, we could perhaps take up in the questioning, because I think it's an interesting point.

As to the changes that are sought, I won't go through the list. It would take too much time. Most of the recommendations I would make have already been made by Saravanamuttu. If you see other human rights experts, they'll make similar recommendations. They're in four areas: accountability, rule of law, devolution, and reconciliation. Those are the four key areas. We can take that up in the questioning, if you like.

I should say that a number of the reforms that are required are reforms that the government's own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission made in its report. This was not a perfect report, by any means. But it did make some good recommendations. If the government were simply to act on its own commission's recommendations, it would go some way towards doing what's required.

To come to the crucial question, what are the points of leverage and possible influence for the Canadian government? What can Canada do about the current situation?

We must think and act multilaterally. To work through the Commonwealth would be a waste of time. Not only is the chairmanship now held by Sri Lanka, but the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, which is the group within the commonwealth responsible for pursuing human rights issues, now includes the Sri Lankan foreign minister. So there's simply no hope of serious action through the Commonwealth. We should just be honest about that.

The second key venue is the United Nations Human Rights Council, the intergovernmental body that meets three times a year in Geneva. Others have spoken to you about it. You'll know that in its sessions in 2012 and 2013 it passed a specific country resolution on Sri Lanka. It's something the council rarely does. It rarely passes a resolution on just one country. It usually deals with issues thematically and increasingly so, but under U.S. leadership, it was able to build cross-regional support for such a resolution that held its votes in 2013. The resolution will come up for debate in March 2014.

Canada needs to work very strongly, and I know its diplomats are keenly aware of this, so I'm not saying anything that they're not aware of. But the passage of that resolution in March 2014 will be a key point of leverage. Sri Lanka does care what the UN says, for all kinds of reasons. They do care. They pay attention. The government feels under pressure and scrutiny, and if that resolution doesn't pass, it will be giving the government a carte blanche....

I won't go into the detail of the resolution and what it might take up. We can talk about that in the questions and answers.

Multilaterally, we have to focus on the human rights council. This is the key venue. It's the one that's shown it can take action, and the point is to sustain the action and the pressure.

Bilaterally, what can Canada do at a bilateral level? Frankly, given the degree of antagonism engendered by the boycott—and we can come to whether that was a good or a bad thing, with my own view being that the boycott was the right thing to do—I don't see Canada as having much influence at a public level on the big issues around accountability. I think we have to work multilaterally through the United Nations and use our influence there in coalitions with other countries. I say this because the Sri Lankan government can too easily portray independent Canadian initiatives the way they've portrayed the boycott, which was that this was simply a matter of domestic politicking, and they will therefore undermine the sense that this is a principled position.

Bilaterally I would think we should work at a different level. I would make two practical suggestions. One is based on the fact there is a sizeable population of Canadian citizens who may have dual citizenship or may or may not be entitled to dual citizenship in Sri Lanka, but who may have interests there such as legal interests, property, and other interests. These interests are under threat. There is a new land transfer law that will make it difficult—as I understand, it's quite complex—for transfers of land within a family if a member of the family is now a foreigner. At the same time there has been a tightening up of the dual citizenship rules. The result is that for Canadian citizens of Sri Lankan ancestry who may have land that's in the family, the mother may die and they may not be able to recover that land. That's an interest that Canada could raise as a practical matter, defending its citizens' rights in other countries.

It's also a very important human rights issue but it can be raised as a legal issue, and it's an issue on which no one can doubt the government's right, and frankly the justice of its raising the issue. Every country is expected to act to defend the rights of its citizens in other countries. So it's a practical issue. It's very important, particularly in the north, where this will come up.

Similarly, there's the issue of the census of deaths. One of the concessions the president made right after the Commonwealth meeting was to finally do an accurate census count of the number of deaths, which is a huge point of contention. This will be of great interest to a number of Canadian citizens of Sri Lankan ancestry, and it's another issue where the government can engage bilaterally, making sure that it's done properly and effectively.

These are practical suggestions but they're areas where the government's position may actually lead to some results.

The second area where I think it's important to think about further engagement and support—and perhaps some of this is already happening behind the scenes, but I'm not aware of it—would be in relation to the Northern Provincial Council. There were elections in September for this regional body that was created, but for which elections were never held for some two decades, until now. The body is there and is sitting now. The Tamil National Alliance has the overwhelming number of seats, with 30 out of 38 seats.

To work and function effectively, this body will potentially need funding and development projects, and there are all kinds of areas for cooperation. I think that's somewhere that the Government of Canada could engage through a development assistance program, and perhaps in other ways with technical expertise around issues related to land or policing. In that context it would be very important to maintain and build the relations with the Tamil National Alliance, which is the party that, insofar as it's allowed, is going to be governing in the Northern Provincial Council.

I'll stop there.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you.

We have 40 minutes, which means we have time for six-minute rounds, inclusive of questions and answers.

We'll begin with Ms. Grewal, please.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Petrasek, for your time and your presentation. Over the last few weeks in our committee, witnesses have expressed concerns about the Sri Lankan government's lack of action toward implementing the recommendations for reconciliation, and about the growing culture of impunity. So in your opinion, has the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting had any impact on the government's attitude towards reconciliation and securing human rights?

[David Petrasek]

I think what it's done is to make it painfully aware to the president and his closest advisers that this is an issue that's not going to go away. Their strategy of hoping it would go away, I think they must now recognize is failing. Whether it has convinced them that they need to take genuine steps is something I can't judge. What's clear is that they've taken some superficial steps that have been criticized. Other human rights experts whom you've already met or who will testify before you can go into the detail about the inadequacies of the measures announced.

For example, one real concession has to do with the census of death. This has been a long-standing demand and they've actually agreed to do this. If it's done seriously and fairly, it will be a very important thing. That was done in the wake of the Commonwealth meeting. I think the fact that it was a public relations disaster has shown the government that this issue is one they need to take seriously. But they may choose to take it seriously by adopting another strategy of obfuscation and may just look to get around it in a different way than they've been trying up to now, as opposed to genuinely addressing it.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Petrasek, given that the Sri Lankan government has done very little to investigate alleged war crimes and human rights violations during the last stages of the civil war, do you think that a UN-led investigation is necessary? And would it be effective, given the government's present opposition?

[David Petrasek]

I think it's necessary and I think it could be effective, but I don't think it will happen. It's very hard for me to imagine the political circumstances that would win sufficient votes in the human rights council for the launching of such an investigation. It's a demand that needs to be made. I'm not very pessimistic about it actually being achieved.

But, yes, I think if a UN commission inquiry were established, I'm confident it would do a good job, based on the High Commissioner for Human Rights' record in the Libya commission inquiry and the current Syria commission inquiry. Those were very serious efforts and I'm sure that the high commissioner's office would put together a serious team and do a good job. They'd must have access to the country to do a full job. That's a big question about whether the government would cooperate with them.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I understand there is increased religious violence in Sri Lanka, most specifically, as you mentioned, by extreme Buddhists targeting the Hindus, the Muslims, and Christians. So what are the implications of this religious violence for reconciliation and securing human rights in Sri Lanka?

[David Petrasek]

Not good. I should say on the extreme Buddhist group I mentioned, so far the attacks have largely been against the Muslim community. They've been sporadic; it's not like it's a daily thing. There's been a campaign launched against halal in the country and against the eating of meat, which hasn't traditionally been a big issue in Sri Lanka. So it appears to be manipulated to isolate the Muslim community who certainly feel under siege.

But the fact that this is happening and the government is taking insufficient steps to distance itself from it or to address it is not a positive sign for reconciliation. I'll just give you one quick example. In one, a mob attacked a Muslim business. I believe it was some kind of a clothing factory. There was film footage of the people leading the attack.

The issue in the press...because there were huge demonstrations, then, against what had happened and people were demanding a criminal inquiry. The government's response was to say, “Oh, no, the family that owns this factory have come forward and they've said they have forgiven the people who led the attack,” as if criminal law were dependent upon the personal act of forgiveness. The manipulation of the legal process in that case was quite clear and it's quite worrying in terms of the broader reconciliation.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Throughout the civil war, many Sri Lankans were internally displaced to escape the conflict. I understand that while many have been able to return to their homes and there are still thousands who remain internally displaced, from your research and investigation, how susceptible is this group to abuse and human rights violations?

[David Petrasek]

I think it's a question you should put to other more informed human rights experts who actually have recent information on the ground. I don't have recent information about the treatment of the IDPs beyond that already presented to you by Saravanamuttu, so I just won't comment on that because I don't feel current enough about the situation of the IDPs in the north and don't think I could add anything.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you.

We'll go now to Mr. Marston, please.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome.

If my voice holds out we'll do fine here. There are a couple of things I want to ask. With Sri Lanka being the chair of the Commonwealth, is there any mechanism to remove them, that you're aware of?

[David Petrasek]

I think that it can only be by a vote of the Commonwealth member states, but that's not going to happen. They had enormous support. In fact, in a further endorsement by the Commonwealth, they were voted onto the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

So the signals are already there?

[David Petrasek]

Yes.

I've read work by Senator Hugh Segal, whom I have enormous respect for. He has written about the need to work through the Commonwealth. I just think that in the next period, frankly, it's really not worth it. The final declaration of the summit in Colombo made no reference whatsoever to the main issue, which was Sri Lanka's human rights record. It simply wasn't picked up at all.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

When you talk about the human rights record, I presume you're aware of the Channel 4 video that was out a year and a half or two years ago that showed, at the close of the war particularly, a lot of the activities or violations that took place there. You write about a multilateral approach and you pretty well dismiss the Commonwealth. That's understandable from what you've said, but you've referenced the United Nations several times. Would you like to elaborate on the reasons you see it as significant?

[David Petrasek]

You'll know, because this is the responsibility of your subcommittee, that the UN's record in the effective protection of human rights is mixed.

I have worked in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and lived for many years in Geneva, and I've seen it very closely. I worked there with Louise Arbour at one point when she was high commissioner, so I've seen it close up and from a distance as someone who's lobbied it. I'd be the first to say it has many failings and to recognize those.

However, sometimes things work out, and in the case of Sri Lanka you have, for complicated reasons, the U.S., but not it alone, managing to build sufficient pressure to pass a resolution with 24 or 25 of the 47 members of the Human Rights Council voting in favour. Many abstained, but there were enough votes to get a reasonably decent resolution. It's not one of your name-and-shame resolution but one saying that there's a problem and that the government needs to address it. It has now done that twice. The votes may change in March, as there are new members on the council. That's why countries like Canada need to work harder. But I believe that experience suggests it has been a point of pressure. The government has gone to enormous lengths to avoid scrutiny in Geneva. They don't like this resolution; they feel they're being watched. So I think on this issue the UN is the place to work.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

You mentioned they feel watched. In truth, watching is about all that people can really do, to watch and demonstrate that they're taking into account what you're seeing, the evidence of what's happening there. Beyond that the ability to influence them is fairly limited, I would suggest.

You have written that emerging democracies like Brazil, India, and South Africa play an important role in promoting human rights on the international stage relative to Sri Lanka. How do you see that playing out?

[David Petrasek]

I'm flattered that you know about my writing.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

We have good researchers here.

[David Petrasek]

The resolution on Sri Lanka is primarily led by the WEOG, the Western European and Other Group, along with the Eastern Europeans. In the UN context you have these regional groups. But it has attracted support from other regions, including Latin America.

I don't know the voting record of Brazil on this but I'm quite sure there was at least an abstention and also support from some other countries. Of course, the Chinese are not going to be keen for further human rights scrutiny in Sri Lanka, so they're not an emerging power that's going to be much help on this. It's interesting, though, that on November 18, right after the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, they drew attention to the Sri Lankan government's need to be concerned about human rights—saying this for the first time ever, in a statement by the foreign minister on behalf of the foreign ministry of China—in its own way without outside interference. But it was still seen as a sign that they recognize the concern. Whether they'll act on it is a different matter.

I think what will be important for success in Sri Lanka is to undermine the Sri Lankan government's argument that this resolution is just western powers pandering to diaspora politics, or it's just because they don't like that fact they're losing power. There are lots of ways the government has characterized it. As long as India is on board it's very hard for the Sri Lankan government to make that characterization. You have India. You have some of the African countries and one or two of the Latin American countries. If you could get Japan, which has abstained, to join the vote at the council, that would be very important. That's the way to undermine this argument about this just being a western plot.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Could Canada take a leadership role in pulling that together, do you think?

[David Petrasek]

Behind the scenes we could do a lot, yes.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Yes, behind the scenes; they're not listening to us up front.