The two main criticisms against the Rajapaksa regime relate to human rights and a negotiated political settlement of the conflict. In summary the charge is that the regime is unwilling to do anything about either and therefore is well into the smoke and mirrors game of camouflage and procrastination.  The regime on the other hand maintains that its bona fides on both fronts are in tact and that these are baseless charges.
In the case of human rights, time and time again it points to the Commission of Inquiry (COI) and the Independent International Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP) as evidence of its seriousness of commitment and purpose. The international community too, has gone along with this and more. It has invested time and resources in the establishment of the IIGEP and key members have indicated their expectation of results.  Indeed any further action on the human rights front internationally has been stayed by the establishment of the COI and IIGEP – the argument being that it must be given time to establish itself, commence its work and succeed.
The key point in this respect with regard to both the COI and the IIGEP is that these bodies were appointed by the regime and comprise of members, in both cases, who are seen to be from the great and good. Therefore, whatever these ladies and gentlemen conclude from their observations cannot be lightly dismissed as the ravings of human rights fanatics, traitors and Tiger sympathizers, but rather the sober observations of regime appointed worthies of independence and standing. An equally important point in respect of both these bodies is that the individuals who consented to be appointed did so on the assurance that they would have access to the relevant material and documentation already in existence, as far as the fifteen cases of egregious human rights violations the COI is to investigate and the IIGEP observe. In fact, without this, the COI and the IIGEP would not be able to function – its raison d’etre after all is that a culture of impunity has taken hold and national institutions have fallen short, to put it mildly, as far as human rights protection is concerned.
It is in this context that the decision of the magistrate not to release documents to the COI in the case of the Kadirgamar assassination raises questions as to the future of the COI and IIGEP initiative. This columnist is no legal expert and therefore is quite prepared to concede that there could well be legal reasons rooted in the law of the land for the decision of the magistrate. However, why was this not foreseen and pointed out earlier – the skeptic and critic of this initiative is surely well within the bounds of reason to pose the question that if this is the situation regarding the Kadirgamar assassination about which there is no doubt regarding LTTE responsibility, what would happen in cases in which there are allegations against the security forces ? Are bona fides given and eagerly accepted, now unraveling ? What will the members of the COI and their IIGEP counterparts do in these circumstances ?
There is the possibility of course of resignations from both bodies on the grounds that there are “systemic†or “structural†impediments in the way of the fulfillment of their mandate. And presumably if this were to be the case, reasons will be made public and in turn, if this were to be the case, the Rajapaksa regime will have some explaining to do. It may have to think up some other elaborate scheme and/or hybrid mechanism to convince the public and the international community that it is committed to human rights protection and to doing something about it, which is feasible, practical and effective. Not an easy one this, even with the biggest will in the world. The simple point is that local agencies of whatever shape or form cannot do the job; if they did there would be no need for a commission in the first place and in the second, for the work of the commission to be stymied. It is time that this was said loud and clear and by the individuals and bodies the government hoped would not, because they would have concluded otherwise.
In the case of a negotiated political settlement of the conflict, the Rajapaksa regime maintains that it is ready, willing and able to negotiate and that it is the LTTE that needs convincing. There is of course, in this context, the no so small matter of the APRC exercise which the regime points to as evidence of its commitment to a negotiated settlement and to inclusiveness in the preparation of government proposals. The international community has been willing to accept the regime’s argument that this is the way to go and even been willing to wait until the APRC exercise takes its time in winding its way to a conclusion. How serious and how sincere is the Rajapaksa regime on this ?
Where are the proposals of the ruling party ? There was the A Report and the B Report and the dissenting reports of the Experts Panel. Prof Vitharna discharged his brief in reconciling A and B some time ago. Is there a SLFP response ? Has it gone to the Central Committee of the party ? Is it going to this body ? Is the party leader and leadership, the President and the government investing this exercise with the urgency it deserves and demands ? Or is it the case that no government proposals will see the light of day, if at all, until victory is achieved on the battlefield ? On this score, the most reliable of authorities, the Defence Secretary no less, is supposed to have stated that the deadline is two to three years.  And what would make anyone in their right mind believe that if military victory was achieved, there would be proposals for a political and constitutional settlement even a hair’s breadth outside of the existing status quo ?
There is no escaping the conclusion that the regime is bent on a military solution to the conflict and that as far as human rights is concerned it is a toss up between a missing gene and being mala fide.
On both fronts the regime’s defences are wearing thin.  And what of the rest of us and the international community ?