Bhavani Fonseka and Pradeep Peiris

Introduction
The global war against terrorism has lead to a situation where the use of force, pre-emptive strikes, display of military power are justified in the name of defeating evil and protecting national security. In the wake of 9/11 and the death and devastation, the global war against terrorism was fuelled, with only one goal in place: to defeat terrorism. In this single minded drive to eradicate ‘evil’ there was no space for issues such as human rights, fundamental freedoms and civil liberties.

The global war against terrorism has resonance in Sri Lanka, and has been conveniently used by the hawks within the present regime to justify and fuel the military campaigns. With the election of Mahinda Rajapakse in November 2005 as the fifth Executive President of Sri Lanka and his Sinhala nationalist policies, there has been a steady development and fuelling of nationalist sentiments among sections of society in Sri Lanka. On similar lines to the global war against terrorism, the present regime has used the argument of upholding national security as the key argument in justifying military campaigns.

Any diversion from what is acceptable to the regime is frowned upon. The shrinking space for alternative and independent thought and dissent was highlighted by the President’s public address on 6th December 2006 when he stated that either one is supportive of the Government or a terrorist, implying that anyone critical of the Government is a terrorist. Such sentiments have underlined the government strategies with the present military drives, intensifying the divide between security and human rights.

With the heightened military campaigns and hostilities in Sri Lanka, there has been an increase of human rights violations. Various factors have contributed to the deterioration of the situation. These include the introduction of counter terrorism legislation in the guise of Emergency Regulations and using it as a tool to target particular ethnic groups and critics of the regime, the increased militarization and military control of the civilian administration, the increased authoritarianism of the Executive and collapse of the rule of law have all factored in the worsening situation.

With the deepening human rights and humanitarian crisis, there have been calls for the protection and promotion of human rights from several key international actors including the United States, the European Union and United Nations. In the defense of the human rights record, the Government has conveniently opted for conventional and safe arguments such as the upholding of national sovereignty and the protection of national security.

Government forces, the LTTE and other armed actors have all been accused of violations. As the democratically elected representative of the people, the Government has the sole responsibility and duty to protect and further the rights of all Sri Lankans, regardless of ethnicity, economic status, gender or geographic basis. There are no shortcuts. Nor can the authorities evade the issue. Rights of all citizens need to be respected, protected and promoted. The question is whether this is being done. Is national security considered more important at the expense of human rights? Whose human rights are expendable? Who decides on which citizen’s rights should be respected, protected and promoted and others violated? In electing a regime and the subsequent appointment of their kith and kin to the powerful positions in the Government, does the regime have such powers to arbitrary decide on whose rights are important and whose not? And can all this be justified in the name of national security?

This article will examine public perceptions of national security and human rights and to gauge whether the public believe that there is a human rights crisis in Sri Lanka. The latest Peace Confidence Index (PCI) of the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) shows that 52% of Sri Lankans surveyed believes that there is a serious problem of Human Rights violations in Sri Lanka. One fifth of those surveyed deny this while 27% claim that they are not sure.

It should be noted that the survey only captured the opinion of the people out side the North and East. As the Tamil community who participated in the study was chosen using a non random sampling manner, the opinion of the Tamils can not be generalized to the country’s Tamil population. Nevertheless, these results illustrate an interesting insight into public perception regarding the present status of human rights.

The Ethnicisation of Human Rights
The recent poll reveals that there is a great deal of polarization between the majority and minority communities. While an overwhelming majority of the Tamil (91%), Muslim (80%) and Up country (72%) Tamil communities believe that there is a serious issue of human right violations in Sri Lanka only 39% of the Sinhala community subscribe to that belief. This is most likely explained by the fact that in most cases it is the minority communities who are at the receiving end of human rights abuses. Events such as killings, abductions, disappearances and displacement of Tamils and Muslim communities, forced resettlement drives in the East, the eviction of Tamils from lodges in Colombo, mass scale arrests and detention of Tamils are some examples of such abuse. Interestingly, despite the fact that there is an overwhelming acknowledgement regarding the seriousness of human rights violations amongst the minorities, almost two third of Sinhala community says they are either ignorant or deny the existence of human right violations.

Politics of Human Rights
Political actors are also divided on the issue of human right violations. The Government and it’s electoral allies are not only denying the human right violations but make verbal attacks on human rights activists, labeling them as traitors or terrorists. Such name calling is not exclusive towards Sri Lankans but also targeting internationally respected persons such as the incident when Senior Minister Jayeraj Fernandopulle branded the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Sir John Holmes as a terrorist.

The UNP and the opposition – excluding the JVP- has raised concerns about human rights violations but have been unable to effectively mobilize the masses to protest against such violations. Similar to human rights activities and media personnel, political actors who are critical of the regime and of human rights abuse have been threatened and gunned down. As with other human rights violations, the perpetrators of these killings are yet to be identified further exacerbating the culture of impunity prevailing in the country. Though the Government and allies deny allegations of human rights abuse, there is a significant percentage of their loyalists who are concerned with the human rights violations. According to PCI data, 35% and 30% of UPFA and JVP loyalists think that there is a serious problem of human rights violations in the country. What this means is that one third of the of the government’s loyalists and its Marxist ally, the JVP believe that the human rights situation is serious despite counter propaganda by the politicians of these parties.

National Security vs. Human Rights
The results of this poll also suggest that the public opinion on the present status of human rights violations is quite firmly overshadowed by the issue of national security. About two thirds of the Sinhala community believes that the security of the country has improved when compared to a year ago. Though not as strong as the Sinhalese, the Muslim community too believes that the security of the country has improved. On the contrary, Tamils and Tamils of Indian origin strongly believe that the security of the country has worsened compared to the last year. What this demonstrates is that national security has different connotations for each ethnic group. However, what is more important here is that according to the findings of the survey, if one thinks that national security has improved he or she is less likely to accept the existence of human right violations.

Similarly, people who prefer the military solution over negotiations also do not subscribe to the idea that there is a serious human rights issue in the country. For example, only 33.4% of those who prefer defeating the LTTE as the best solution to the ethnic conflict think there is a serious issue of human rights violations in the country. Out of the people who prefer a military solution only 46% subscribe to a political solution after defeating the LTTE. Therefore it is apparent that less than half of the people polled believe in a political solution after the military campaign and even less believe that there are human rights violations during the military campaign. This demonstrates the psyche of the people, many who support the military campaigns over a political settlement and do not believe in the existence of human rights violations.

Irrespective of how the war will end, some people believe in the importance of a political solution to end the ethnic conflict. A majority (65%) of the people who do think that a political solution is important no matter how the war ends believe that there is serious human rights violations in Sri Lanka. There is also a section of the society who supports negotiations over a military solution. Out of the people polled, 42% prefer negotiations while military operations continue and also think there is a problem with human rights violations.

What is interesting is that a high percentage of people who do not support the war also believe there are human rights violations. According to PCI data, 74% of those who want to stop the war and begin negotiations believe that there is a serious human rights issue in the country.

This seemingly suggests that it is primarily those who support the military solution who are less convinced about the grave human rights condition in the country. Despite several news reports on killings, abductions, displacements and threats, 21% deny while 27% says they are not sure whether there is a serious violation of human right situation in the country.

Conclusion
What the latest PCI highlights is that people who are supportive of military strategies and believe the Government has handled the war well do not subscribe to the existence of serious human rights violations. Those who are opposed to the war and believe in a political solution recognize the existence of human rights abuse. The divide between the two groups also speaks volumes of the experiences of the different communities, with the majority Sinhala community who are largely immune from daily human rights violations not recognizing the existence of a human rights crisis. Compared to this is the high percentage of Tamils who experience the brunt of human rights abuse and believe there is a human rights crisis. Such diverse views by the different ethnic groups indicates the polarization among the communities and the perceptions held in relation to significant issues that impact daily life. The importance given to either national security or human rights not only demonstrates the position of the particular group and security felt by the groups within society, but also highlights the complexities within the majority-minority divide.

The direct experiences or the lack of it also indicates whether people believe national security should be given priority at the expense of human rights or whether human rights should be given priority. It is apparent that the views held by the majority and minority communities are an apt indicator of the day to day experiences faced by these communities. The present poll also succinctly highlights how the use of the concept ‘defending national security’ has convinced particular groups, fostering the culture that the war against terrorism can be carried out at any cost to human rights.

• Traditional solutions for modern day problems When the people of Elpitiya are faced with a problem, they come together to discuss it and find a solution together. They believe that it is this simple concept that holds the key to solving problems and avoiding conflicts within their community. The concept is called ‘Direct Democracy’, a traditional method that can be applied to... niacharpentier, January 9, 2007
• Focus on Human Rights The diplomatic offensive of the government is in full swing even though there continues to be confusion as to who speaks authoritatively for it on the matters of war, peace and human rights – the Foreign Minister, other assorted cabinet ministers, the defence secretary, the foreign secretary, the secretary general of the peace secretariat or... Dr. P. Saravanamuttu, September 12, 2007