Arrow Left Arrow Right Camera icon set icon set Ellipsis icon set Facebook Favorite Globe Hamburger List Mail Map Marker Map Microphone Minus PDF Play Print RSS Search Share Trash Twitter Video Camera Youtube
Sri Lanka: Jumpstarting the Reform Process
Sri Lanka: Jumpstarting the Reform Process
The Uncertainty of Peace in Colombia
The Uncertainty of Peace in Colombia
Sri Lanka's President Maithripala Sirisena (front) stands for the national anthem during a ceremony to swear in Ranil Wickremesinghe, leader of the United National Party, as Sri Lanka's new prime minister, Colombo, 21 August 2015. REUTERS/Dinuka Liyanawat
Report 278 / Asia

Sri Lanka: Jumpstarting the Reform Process

Seven years after its civil war ended, Sri Lanka’s democratic space has reopened but strains are building from a powerful opposition, institutional overlaps and a weakened economy. To make reforms a real success, the prime minister and president should cooperate with openness and redouble efforts to tackle legacies of war like impunity, Tamil detainees and military-occupied land.

Executive Summary

The unexpected chance for lasting peace and reconciliation in Sri Lanka that followed President Maithripala Sirisena’s January 2015 election faces increasing turbulence. Initial moves by Sirisena’s government halted and began to reverse the slide into authoritarianism and family rule under Mahinda Rajapaksa. Its reform agenda is ambitious: restoring the rule-of-law and ending impunity for corruption and abuse of power; a new constitution; a complex package of post-war reconciliation and justice mechanisms agreed with the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC); and major policy changes to jump-start a beleaguered economy. Progress, however, has been slower than key constituencies expected and lacks the coherence and resources needed to sustain it. The “national unity” government expanded the political centre and isolated hard-line nationalists, but the window for change has begun to close. Seizing Sri Lanka’s unprecedented opportunity for reform requires bolder and better coordinated policies, backed by a public relations campaign to restore sagging popular support.

The stuttering progress strains ties between the government and the constituencies that brought it to power. Tamils in the north and east voted overwhelmingly for Sirisena but are increasingly doubtful he will fulfil his reconciliation and justice promises. Many Sinhala “good governance” activists criticise the failure to follow through on rule-of-law measures, continued cases of alleged nepotism and corruption and what they consider the lethargic pursuit of corruption and criminal investigations. As the budget deficit grows and currency reserves dwindle, belt-tightening has been blocked or scaled back due to protests. At the same time, strains are growing between Sirisena’s Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and the United National Party (UNP) of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. The small window for threading the political needles essential for reforms is shrinking. 

Institutional factors hamper progress: too few staff and too little expertise, particularly on reconciliation and transitional justice issues, multiple power centres and unwieldy, often overlapping ministries, and the different priorities and governance styles of president and prime minister. Governance reforms are slowed by need to work through bureaucrats and politicians implicated in past abuses, some of whom were given cabinet posts to help the government achieve the two-thirds parliamentary majority needed to approve a new constitution.

Boldness is limited by Sirisena’s struggle to counter the faction loyal to ex-President Rajapaksa within his SLFP, especially in upcoming local elections. Reacting defensively to Sinhala nationalists’ attacks against Sirisena’s relatively modest reconciliation gestures and proposed constitutional reform and scared of giving opponents ammunition or angering the military and security services, the government has returned only a small portion of military-occupied land and released few Tamil detainees. 

Seven years after the end of the civil war in May 2009, issues of reconciliation and accountability remain largely unaddressed. The government appears to be backtracking on transitional justice plans, particularly the role of foreign judges and experts. The enormity of the crimes, especially in the final weeks of the war, makes them impossible to ignore but hard for the military and most Sinhalese to acknowledge or accept responsibility for. Mechanisms promised to the UNHRC feed Sinhala nationalist suspicions, while attempts to reassure Sinhalese and the military encourage doubts among Tamils about government willingness to pursue justice for wartime atrocities or back constitutional changes that satisfy legitimate Tamil aspirations for meaningful autonomy. 

To hold its coalition together and meet UNHRC obligations, the government must sequence reforms carefully, speeding progress on some fronts to rebuild public confidence, while committing resources to build support and institutional capacity for deeper and harder steps, particularly making progress on the critically important special court for prosecuting war crimes. Better communication and cooperation between president and prime minister, more transparent policymaking and clearer lines of authority are essential.

To rebuild confidence among Tamil communities in the north and east, the government must quickly release detainees and military-occupied land, begin credible inquiries into the fate of the disappeared, investigate and end abuses and repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). For these and other reforms to be sustainable, the president and prime minister will have to assert authority over the military and national security apparatus, including by developing a credible security sector reform plan. If they are serious about constitutional changes that will contribute to a lasting solution to the ethnic conflict, Sirisena and key ministers must make a much stronger public case for greater devolution of power.

Ending impunity and restoring rule-of-law are concern to the whole country, as seen in the popularity of good governance and anti-corruption citizen movements in the Sinhala south. To resonate more broadly with all ethnic groups and regions, measures for addressing the war’s legacy should be presented by the government and civil society as an integral part of the rule-of-law and good governance agenda. Moves to prosecute key cases of corruption and political killing under the Rajapaksa regime need to be backed by a sustained public relations campaign that articulates a broad vision of a reformed state, the links between the various initiatives and the benefits they bring all communities. 

As longstanding dysfunctional political dynamics reassert themselves, the government’s ability to distinguish itself from the Rajapaksa era, which is essential to its political survival, has begun to fade. If ethnic and religious chauvinists in all communities are not to grow stronger and belief in democratic reform that Sirisena’s election reflected and encouraged is to be rekindled, the government must make a concerted push to jump-start the flagging reform process.


To strengthen rule-of-law and democratic governance 

To the government of Sri Lanka: 

  1. Ratify the UN Disappearances Convention and pass enabling legislation criminalising disappearances; terminate the Paranagama commission on missing persons and transfer its investigation files to dedicated police investigation units. 
  2. Pass the pending Right to Information (RTI) Act and legislation to establish a well-resourced and empowered Audit Commission. 
  3. Repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and replace it, in consultation with lawyers and human rights defenders, with legislation in line with Sri Lanka’s international human rights obligations; and develop and publish guidelines for expediting cases against existing PTA detainees and releasing those against whom there is insufficient evidence to bring charges.
  4. Overhaul the Victims and Witness Protection Act, in consultation with human rights activists, to establish a well-resourced witness protection authority fully independent of police and security forces.
  5. End the longstanding conflict of interest in the Attorney General’s Department by establishing a permanent, independent special prosecutor for serious human rights cases in which state officials are alleged perpetrators. 
  6. Establish a clear focal point in the Attorney General’s Department, staffed by state counsels vetted for conflict of interest or involvement in past cover-ups, to oversee and prosecute emblematic cases of political killings and abduction currently under investigation.

To promote reconciliation, reestablish effective civil administration in the north and east and begin security sector reform

To the government of Sri Lanka: 

  1. Take immediate steps to end remaining military involvement in civil administration; remove the military from all shops, farms, hotels and other commercial businesses; and immediately suspend construction or expansion of military camps in the north and east.
  2. Establish, in consultation with communities and the military, transparent principles, processes and timetables for the return of military-occupied land or payment of compensation for land that is not to be returned. 
  3. End intimidating monitoring of civil society activists and ex-detainees by security services and appoint an independent, multi-ethnic, well-resourced internal affairs unit to investigate credible allegations of arbitrary detentions, abductions and torture in custody.
  4. Begin developing a longer-term plan for comprehensive security sector reform that includes job training for demobilised personnel; and devise and implement in the short term policies for handling individuals credibly alleged to be responsible for serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law.  

To support constitutional reform needed for lasting political stability

To the government of Sri Lanka:

  1. Launch a public outreach campaign, led by the president and prime minster, in support of expanded devolution of power to provinces.
  2. Support a mixed electoral system that maintains proportionality and the influence of smaller, regionally-dispersed parties through use of double-ballots.

To address the complex demands of transitional justice processes

To the government of Sri Lanka: 

  1. Reaffirm publicly the government’s commitment to full implementation of the 1 October 2015 UN Human Rights Council resolution and take initial steps to build capacity and public support for effective transitional justice, by:
    1. launching a coordinated public outreach campaign – involving the offices of the president and prime minister, the Reconciliation Secretariat (SCRM), National Unity Office (ONUR) and national dialogue ministry – to promote the value of transitional justice mechanisms and highlight links to broader rule-of-law measures, beginning with immediate distribution of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Investigation on Sri Lanka (OISL) report in all three languages once Tamil and Sinhala translations are available;
    2. giving the public consultation process adequate resources and endorsement and presenting draft legislative proposals to it for popular input, with a transparent timeframe for final submission to the parliament; 
    3. publishing draft legislation for the Missing Persons Office and inviting active input from families of the missing and disappeared and other stakeholders;
    4. establishing a timeline for training judges, lawyers and investigators for participation in the special war crimes court and for passing legislation establishing command responsibility as a mode of criminal liability and incorporating war crimes and crimes against humanity into national law; and
    5. requesting the OHCHR to recommend international prosecutors and judges for participation in the special court as committed to in the resolution. 

Colombo/Brussels, 18 May 2016

The Uncertainty of Peace in Colombia

Originally published in Colombia Reports

More and more, it is clear that 2017 will be a turning point in Colombia’s history, for good or for bad. The implementation of the peace agreement with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) will begin, while presidential campaigns for 2018 will also start.

While both issues are constantly in the headlines, there has been little effort to understand how implementation will affect political predictions for 2018, and vice versa. While likely upcoming scenarios do not paint well for the peace agreement, at International Crisis Group, in a recent report, we believe that all is not lost if implementation makes important progress.

The outcome of the plebiscite on 2 October strengthened the opposition, especially the Democratic Center (CD) party, a dissident Conservative Party (CP) wing against the government, and Christian churches, despite the extremely close result.

In 2017, the opposition could gain (more) political support depending on what happens regarding the implementation of the peace agreement.

After the renegotiation process, Congress ratified the new peace accord using pre-established majorities, while the opposition continued completely united against it. The effect was that the balance of power created by the plebiscite result has not changed.

Today, though, the agreement itself is no longer the topic of discussion, but instead its implementation. The FARC are making progress to the cantonments to leave their weapons behind, despite numerous logistical issues.

Politically, corruption has also become a hot point, but when it comes to election time, the issue will likely lead to universal finger-pointing and accusations that may not significantly affect voting. At the same time, former CD Presidential Candidate Oscar Ivan Zuluaga is trying to forge an alliance with the Conservative party, and other political forces, based on their rejection of the peace agreement.

In 2017, the opposition could gain (more) political support depending on what happens regarding the implementation of the peace agreement.

The FARC concentration process has already faced difficulties and delays, enough to renegotiate its timeline.

Other parts of the agreement, like coca crop substitution and rural reform will be implemented with more difficulty.

The “early victories” meant to result from the Rapid Response Plan already face, and will continue to do so, serious challenges, such as the presence of illegal armed groups, institutional disagreements and insufficient funding, which will limit their effectiveness and implementation.

The timing of some parts of the agreement could also favour opposition discourses during campaigning. For example, the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (SJP), the transitional justice tribunal created by the peace agreement, will likely not be up and running until 2018. Only then may it hear its first cases, but it will likely not have handed down any sentences before the presidential elections.

At the same time, FARC fighters – mainly low-level members – will have received amnesty, benefits from their reincorporation package, security guarantees and the guerrillas will have a functioning political party, before the leaders will have told the whole truth at the SJP.

Added to this, the various, fragmented political parties who do support the agreement will need to create some coalition to get a candidate to the second round, while facing these challenges, which will be beyond difficult.

Therefore, it is likely that Colombia will have a president who rejects the implementation of at least part of the peace agreement in 2018. Outgoing Vice-President German Vargas is still somewhat of a wildcard, but could still play a decisive role; he could support an anti-peace agreement candidate if he does not make it to the second round of voting.

Nonetheless, some aspects of the agreement will be implemented independent of presidential politics. The SPJ will be created and have to function; the FARC will participate in politics and also leave their weapons behind to become reintegrated; and the truth commission and unit to search for the disappeared will start their work. The rest of the agreement, in the medium-term, is at risk of never fulfilling its objectives.

For the agreement to be sustainable in the medium and long term after 2018, it is essential that key parts of it be implemented quickly and effectively and provide tangible benefits on the ground.

The campaign in favour of the agreement and its implementation should focus on mobilising public support though concrete results and consequently increase the perceived political cost of not carrying out the reforms outlined in the accord.

There are various keys to creating such a scenario. The FARC’s arms abandonment process must continue according to the schedule outlined in the peace agreement, despite early delays, especially the actual handover of weapons to the UN mission.

Violence against social leaders needs to stop or decrease, which means the agreement on security guarantees must be implemented and complemented by other actions taken quickly by the government, such as strengthening security schemes and measures for threatened leaders and communities.

It is essential that key parts of it be implemented quickly and effectively and provide tangible benefits on the ground.

A proactive communications strategy will also be necessary to show advances on the ground, especially in the arms abandonment process. Different parts of the transitional justice agreement besides the SJP, such as the truth commission, the search for victims of forced disappearance and reparations, along with humanitarian initiatives such as de-mining, must make progress to keep victims’ rights in the centre of the process.

Finally, institutions charged with roles in implementing the accord have to be better articulated and improve their relationships, especially with presidential campaigns beginning soon.

The international community will have an important role to play, though the new Trump administration could make things more complicated. Besides footing part of the bill, the international community will have to apply subtle pressure, mainly in private but on occasion in public, so that the agreement is fully carried out, not least the parts it has financed.

While the international community has expressed concerns for the killing of social leaders, increasing public calls for violence to stop and justice could be important in raising the political costs of such attacks.

The Colombian population will also have to raise its voice to protect the agreement, or it will run the risk of repeating the experience regarding peace in the 1990s: guerrillas in politics, but no changes in Colombia’s regions.