‘Need answers': Will Sri Lanka's Tamils find war closure under Dissanayake?
Mullivaikkal, Sri Lanka – On a beach in northeastern Sri Lanka, Krishnan Anjan Jeevarani laid out some of her family's favourite food items on a banana leaf. She placed a samosa, lollipops and a large bottle of Pepsi next to flowers and incense sticks in front of a framed photo.
Jeevarani was one of thousands of Tamils who gathered on May 18 to mark 16 years since the end of Sri Lanka's brutal civil war in Mullivaikkal, the site of the final battle between the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a separatist group that fought for a Tamil homeland.
As on previous anniversaries, Tamils this year lit candles in remembrance of their loved ones and held a moment of silence. Dressed in black, people paid their respects before a memorial fire and ate kanji, the gruel consumed by civilians when they were trapped in Mullivaikkal amid acute food shortages.
This year's commemorations were the first to take place under the new government helmed by leftist Anura Kumara Dissanayake, who was elected president in September and has prompted hopes of possible justice and answers for the Tamil community.
The Tamil community alleges that a genocide of civilians took place during the war's final stages, estimating that nearly 170,000 people were killed by government forces. UN estimates put the figure at 40,000.
Dissanayake, the leader of the Marxist party Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), which itself led violent uprisings against the Sri Lankan government in the 1970s and 1980s, has emphasised 'national unity' and its aim to wipe out racism. He made several promises to Tamil voters before the elections last year, including the withdrawal from military-occupied territory in Tamil heartlands and the release of political prisoners.
But eight months after he was elected, those commitments are now being tested – and while it's still early days for his administration, many in the Tamil community say what they've seen so far is mixed, with some progress, but also disappointments.
In March 2009, Jeevarani lost several members of her family, including her parents, her sister and three-year-old daughter when Sri Lankan forces shelled the tents in which they were sheltering, near Mullivaikkal.
'We had just cooked and eaten and we were happy,' she said. 'When the shell fell it was like we had woken up from a dream. The house was destroyed.'
Jeevarani, now 36, buried all her family members in a bunker and left the area, her movements dictated by shelling until she reached Mullivaikkal. In May 2009, she and the surviving members of her family entered army-controlled territory.
Now, 16 years later, as she and other Sri Lankan Tamils commemorated their lost family members, most said their memorials had gone largely unobstructed, although there were reports of police disrupting one event in the eastern part of the country.
This was a contrast from previous years of state crackdowns on such commemorative events.
'There isn't that climate of fear which existed during the two Rajapaksa regimes,' said Ambika Satkunanathan, a human rights lawyer and former commissioner of the National Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, referring to former presidents Mahinda and Gotabaya Rajapaksa, brothers who between them ruled Sri Lanka for 13 out of 17 years between 2005 and 2022.
It was under Mahinda Rajapaksa that the Sri Lankan army carried out the final, bloody assaults that ended the war in 2009, amid allegations of human rights abuses.
'But has anything changed substantively [under Dissanayake]? Not yet,' said Satkunanathan.
Satkunanathan cited the government's continued use of Sri Lanka's controversial Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and a gazette issued on March 28 to seize land in Mullivaikkal as problematic examples of manifesto promises being overturned in an evident lack of transparency.
Despite his pre-election promises, Dissnayake's government earlier this month denounced Tamil claims of genocide as 'a false narrative'. On May 19, one day after the Tamil commemorations, Dissanayake also attended a 'War Heroes' celebration of the Sri Lankan armed forces as the chief guest, while the Ministry of Defence announced the promotion of a number of military and navy personnel. In his speech, Dissanayake stated that 'grief knows no ethnicity', suggesting a reconciliatory stance, while also paying tribute to the 'fallen heroes' of the army who 'we forever honour in our hearts.'
Kathiravelu Sooriyakumari, a 60-year-old retired principal, said casualties in Mullivaikkal in 2009 were so extreme that 'we even had to walk over dead bodies.'
She said government forces had used white phosphorus during the civil war, a claim Sri Lankan authorities have repeatedly denied. Although not explicitly banned, many legal scholars interpret international law as prohibiting the use of white phosphorus – an incendiary chemical that can burn the skin down to the bone – in densely populated areas.
Sooriyakumari's husband, Rasenthiram, died during an attack near Mullivaikkal while trying to protect others.
'He was sending everyone to the bunker. When he had sent everyone and was about to come himself, a shell hit a tree and then bounced off and hit him, and he died,' she said. Although his internal organs were coming out, 'he raised his head and looked around at all of us, to see we were safe.'
Her son was just seven months old. 'He has never seen his father's face,' she said.
The war left many households like Sooriyakumari's without breadwinners. They have experienced even more acute food shortage following Sri Lanka's 2022 economic crisis and the subsequent rise in the cost of living.
'If we starve, will anyone come and check on us?' said 63-year-old Manoharan Kalimuthu, whose son died in Mullivaikkal after leaving a bunker to relieve himself and being hit by a shell. 'If they [children who died in the final stages of the war] were here, they would've looked after us.'
Kalimuthu said she did not think the new government would deliver justice to Tamils, saying, 'We can believe it only when we see it.'
Sooriyakumari also said she did not believe anything would change under the new administration.
'There's been a lot of talk but no action. No foundations have been laid, so how can we believe them?' she told Al Jazeera. 'So many Sinhalese people these days have understood our pain and suffering and are supporting us … but the government is against us.'
She also expressed suspicion of Dissanayake's JVP party and its history of violence, saying she and the wider Tamil community 'were scared of the JVP before'. The party had backed Rajapaksa's government when the army crushed the Tamil separatist movement.
Satkunanathan said the JVP's track record showed 'they supported the Rajapaksas, they were pro-war, they were anti-devolution, anti-international community, were all anti-UN, all of which they viewed as conspiring against Sri Lanka.'
She conceded that the party was seeking to show that it had 'evolved to a more progressive position but their action is falling short of rhetoric'.
Although Dissanayake's government has announced plans to establish a truth and reconciliation commission, it has rejected a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution on accountability for war crimes, much like previous governments. Before the presidential elections, Dissanayake said he would not seek to prosecute those responsible for war crimes.
'On accountability for wartime violations, they have not moved at all,' Satkunanathan told Al Jazeera, citing the government's refusal to engage with the UN-initiated Sri Lanka Accountability Project (SLAP), which was set up to collect evidence of potential war crimes. 'I would love them to prove me wrong.'
The government has also repeatedly changed its stance on the Thirteenth Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution, which promises devolved powers to Tamil-majority areas in the north and east. Before the presidential election, Dissanayake said he supported its implementation in meetings with Tamil parties, but the government has not outlined a clear plan for this, with the JVP's general secretary dismissing it as unnecessary shortly after the presidential election.
'Six months since coming into office, there's no indication of the new government's plan or intention to address the most urgent grievances of the Tamils affected by the war,' Thyagi Ruwanpathirana, South Asia researcher at Amnesty International, said. 'And the truth about the forcibly disappeared features high on the agenda of those in the North and the East.'
Still, some, like 48-year-old Krishnapillai Sothilakshmi, remain hopeful. Sothilakshmi's husband Senthivel was forcibly disappeared in 2008. She said she believed the new government would give her answers.
A 2017 report by Amnesty International [PDF] estimated that between 60,000 and 100,000 people have disappeared in Sri Lanka since the late 1980s. Although Sri Lanka established an Office of Missing Persons (OMP) in 2017, there has been no clear progress since.
'We need answers. Are they alive or not? We want to know,' Sothilakshmi said.
But for Jeevarani, weeping on the beach as she looked at a photograph of her three-year-old daughter Nila, it's too late for any hope. Palm trees are growing over her family's grave, and she is no longer even able to pinpoint the exact spot where they were buried.
'If someone is sick, this government or that government can say they'll cure them,' she said. 'But no government can bring back the dead, can they?'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Pardon Power Isn't as Absolute as He Thinks
In 2017, President Donald Trump insisted that his power to pardon was 'complete'—a claim consistent with his generally absolutist views of the office's powers, and one also inherited from his predecessors. 'The President, in his action on pardon cases, is not subject to the control or supervision of anyone,' said President Woodrow Wilson's attorney general. President Dwight Eisenhower's pardon attorney claimed that in exercising the power, 'the President is amenable only to the dictates of his own conscience.' President Bill Clinton's pardon attorney advised that any cooperation with congressional investigators on pardon matters was entirely voluntary. The pardon power is expansive, and also now a near-weekly tool to reward Trump's political allies. But just last week, a federal court punctured the popular idea that the power is somehow immune to a normal constitutional check. Among the recipients of Trump's January 6 pardons was John Sullivan, who turned a profit from selling video footage from the riot—money the government later seized. Sullivan claimed, with the backing of the Justice Department, that the government must now reimburse him. Pardons are supposed to relieve a recipient from punishment, and so Sullivan argued that repayment should be a part of that promise. But the court ruled against him, concluding that 'funds may not be drawn from the Treasury without an appropriation, plain and simple.' That is, any repayment would run through Congress, which decides how money is dispensed. The case is nominally about whether a pardonee gets to reclaim seized property. But it is more fundamentally about the separation of powers. The president is vested with the power to pardon, while Congress is vested with the power to spend money. Sullivan received his pardon, but 'money is money, the Treasury is the Treasury, and the Constitution says what it says: Once money is in the Treasury, it can only be withdrawn pursuant to a Congressional appropriation,' wrote the Reagan-appointed judge. This was not the first time this particular issue landed in court; the last time, interestingly enough, was after another insurrection. In 1868, President Andrew Johnson pardoned hundreds of thousands of former Confederates, including Herman Knote, whose property the federal government confiscated and sold during the Civil War. After receiving his pardon, Knote sued to claim the proceeds from the government's sale of his property, claiming, like Sullivan, that the pardon entitled him to the money. The Supreme Court disagreed. In Knote v. United States, the court held that while clemency lifts the punishment for a crime, the pardon power cannot simultaneously undermine other parts of the Constitution—in this case, again, Congress's power of the purse. 'Whilst a full pardon releases the offender from all disabilities imposed by the offense pardoned,' the funds from the property sale had already been deposited into the Treasury. And unfortunately for Mr. Knote, once there, they 'can only be withdrawn by an appropriation by law.' When the pardon power bumped up against another part of the Constitution, the former was not entitled to run roughshod over the latter. 'However large, therefore, may be the power of pardon possessed by the President,' the court added, 'and however extended may be its application, there is this limit to it, as there is to all his powers.' Presidents have nonetheless continued to claim that the pardon power is a kinglike exception to the rule; federal courts have also continued, in case after case, to remind them that they are wrong. In 1915, for instance, the Supreme Court found that President Wilson could not cleverly pardon a newspaper editor as a means of compelling his testimony to a grand jury by abrogating his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment. The court held 'that the power of the President under the Constitution to grant pardons and the right of a witness must be kept in accommodation.' In 1974, the court held that a president's clemency powers include the authority to impose conditions on a commutation, provided those conditions do not violate other constitutional provisions. The exercise of the pardon power, said the court, cannot 'offend the Constitution.' In other cases this year, the Justice Department has argued that Trump's January 6 pardons somehow cover criminal offenses unrelated to January 6. Courts, in response, have mostly balked. Last month, prosecutors moved to dismiss the gun possession conviction of an alleged drug dealer by claiming that the pardon covered the offense because it was discovered during a January 6–related investigation. A district court denied the motion (a 'bad faith' and 'unreasonable' one, it added). The defendant's lawyer also argued that 'courts don't have the authority to interpret a pardon,' while prosecutors said courts should defer to the executive branch's own interpretation—challenging not just the potential check itself, but the authority to exercise a check in the first place. Again last month, a federal appellate court reasserted its constitutional authority to review the scope of a pardon, and struck down the Department's attempt to inappropriately apply it to separate crimes. Courts are playing their part. But as with the current administration's general assault on the rule of law, and despite insisting on their role in performing a constitutional check, courts alone are not going to rein in escalating abuses. Ever since President Richard Nixon dangled pardons to his Watergate henchmen, presidents have used the pardon power to self-deal—granting clemency to friends and family members and donors, and to obstruct investigations and reward loyalty. But nothing has come close to President Trump's abuse of the power. As a Washington Post investigation of all clemency acts during his first term concluded: 'Never before had a president used his constitutional clemency powers to free or forgive so many people who could be useful to his future political efforts.' His second term appears no different. By one recent estimate, Trump has wiped out more than 700 years of prison time for his allies and supporters since retaking office. To make matters worse, while pardons can be used to commit certain crimes, like to bribe or obstruct justice, the Supreme Court issued an opinion last year that effectively immunizes a president's 'official acts' from criminal liability, including pardons. In recent months, a lucrative cottage industry of 'pardon shopping' has formed, with pardon seekers paying big to lobby the president's inner circle, according to The Wall Street Journal. The court's ruling now helps to insulate a president from criminal accountability—say, if it were discovered that a pardon functioned as a bribe. Yet the ruling does not insulate a president from congressional oversight. Both Democratic and Republican members of Congress have voiced alarm in recent months at expanding abuses—Democrats criticizing President Joe Biden's pardons of family members and Republicans denouncing Trump's January 6 pardons. They include Democratic Senator Adam Schiff, a longtime pardon reform champion, but also Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who suggested that Congress 'revisit' the scope of the power. Bipartisan majorities of Americans also support clearer limits. There are two branches responsible for checking executive power, not one. A basic role for lawmakers could start with an investigation of pardon practices by recent administrations of both parties. This may seem far-fetched for our currently languishing legislature, but consider congressional hearings that examine the Hunter Biden pardon alongside Roger Stone's. The exercise has bipartisan precedent: from Ford to Clinton, Republicans and Democrats have jointly investigated pardon abuses. A step further, Congress could work toward a sense of resolution—a kind of joint statement of principles—to clarify the constitutional meaning of clemency. Resolutions are not law, but they can be important reassertions of political norms. Congress could also create new tools, such as passing legislation to specifically sharpen its pardon oversight tools, or even initiate discussion of a constitutional amendment. All of this is dependent upon a basic recognition that the pardon power is less invincible than many presidents would have us believe. Repeating the fanciful claim of an unchallengeable power does not make it so. What courts are offering is not just a constitutional check, but also a reminder that constitutional checks on the pardon power are well within the realm of the possible.
New York Times
8 hours ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: President Bans Citizens of 12 Countries From Entering U.S.
In recent years, people in Myanmar have endured a military coup, civil war, enforced conscription, aerial bombardment and a devastating earthquake. A new hardship landed Thursday morning, as President Trump ordered a sweeping travel ban that included the citizens of Myanmar. The action is an effort to stop immigration from nations that Mr. Trump deemed to have a 'large-scale presence of terrorists,' among other concerns. The travel ban, announced by the president on Wednesday night in Washington, is set to take effect on Monday. It applies to the people of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Many of these countries have been wracked by conflict, while others are ruled by repressive regimes. In both cases, Mr. Trump's proclamation closes the door on those hoping to flee to the United States to build new lives. Citizens of seven other countries — Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela — will be barred from entering the United States on tourist and student visas. They also will not be able to settle permanently in the U.S. Image In Yangon, Myanmar, in March. Credit... Sai Aung Main/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images 'We will not allow people to enter our country who wish to do us harm,' Mr. Trump said in a message on social media. 'As soon as I woke up, bad news was already waiting for me,' said Ko Min Nwe, a 35-year-old accountant in Myanmar who last month won a U.S. immigration lottery that put him on the path for a green card next year. 'Being a Myanmar citizen means that wherever we go, we face discrimination and now, even this rare stroke of luck feels like it's been stolen from me.' Mr. Trump said that his new travel restrictions also apply to countries that do not have proper ways to vet travelers to the United States, that have a track record of citizens who overstay their American visas and that have not easily accepted back their nationals. But the restrictions overwhelmingly target nations with vulnerable populations eager for sanctuary in the U.S. 'This policy is not about national security — it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States,' said Abby Maxman, the president of Oxfam America, the charity dedicated to fighting global inequality and poverty. The ban provides for certain exceptions. For instance, Afghans can still apply for special visas designed to safeguard those who worked for the U.S. government or military as translators and other assistants before the American withdrawal in 2021. Legal permanent residents of the United States are exempt from the order. So are athletes and their entourages visiting for major sporting events. Adoptions from the restricted nations will be allowed. Image Afghan women receiving food aid in Kabul last month. Credit... Wakil Kohsar/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images During his first term, Mr. Trump imposed a series of travel bans on mostly Muslim-majority nations, some of which were countered by the courts. Former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. revoked the immigration restrictions when he took office, calling them 'a stain on our national conscience.' Hashmat, an Afghan journalist, said he had been granted a visa to go to the United States, after enduring a month in a Taliban prison for his reporting. He is now in hiding. The new travel ban, which appears to apply to the type of visa he received, has left him with no hope, said Mr. Hashmat, who goes by only one name. 'I devoted 14 years of my life working with respected media outlets to promote democracy, freedom of speech and global values — values I believed the U.S. shared,' he said. 'Today, I suffer because of those very values.' Some of the countries affected by Mr. Trump's latest travel order reacted quickly, vowing to tackle problems. Somalia, according to Mr. Trump's proclamation, was targeted because it lacks a central authority that can properly screen travelers and it is a 'terrorist safe haven.' 'Somalia values its longstanding relationship with the United States and stands ready to engage in dialogue to address the concerns raised,' Dahir Hassan Abdi, the Somali ambassador to the U.S., said in a statement. Myanmar erupted into full-blown civil war four years ago, following a military coup that ousted an elected government. Criminal networks in the country's poorly governed borderlands have filled war chests and flooded the world with synthetic drugs, cyberscams and dubiously sourced minerals. Still, there is scant evidence that Myanmar is exporting terrorism, much less to the United States. Most immigrants from Myanmar arrived in the United States as refugees escaping persecution. Waves of immigration to the United States by Myanmar nationals have followed moments of political turmoil, such as crackdowns on democracy movements in 1988 and 2007. More recently, more than 3.5 million people in Myanmar, out of a population of about 55 million, have been uprooted from their homes because of the civil war. Millions more have sought shelter abroad, mostly in neighboring Thailand and Bangladesh. Image A refugee from the Mae La camp in Myanmar after being transferred to a hospital in Thailand in February. Credit... Athit Perawongmetha/Reuters Starting last July, a resettlement initiative brought Myanmar refugees living in camps in Thailand to the United States. But that program has effectively stopped since Mr. Trump's second inauguration. American aid for Myanmar refugees in Thailand and Bangladesh has been slashed, too; without access to medical care, babies and elderly patients have died, doctors say. From 2005 to 2015, about 100,000 refugees from camps in Thailand were resettled overseas, mostly in the United States, according to the U.N. refugee agency. Myanmar is now a fractured nation. Most of the heartland of the country is controlled by the military junta, while ethnic armed groups and pro-democracy forces have carved out territory in the vast outer areas. Airstrikes by the Myanmar military have destroyed hundreds of villages. Thousands of people have been imprisoned and tortured for daring to oppose the military junta and call for democracy. Since the coup in 2021, the United States has imposed sanctions on top junta officials and the business cronies who prop them up. But some critics say Washington's actions don't have enough bite. Ma Mya Thiri Lwin, 24, was accepted at a college in Minnesota to study computer science beginning in August. As part of a large student-led boycott of government institutions, she had not attended university in Myanmar. Now, she said, her dreams of one day working in Silicon Valley have withered. 'It feels like Myanmar is cursed,' she said, learning that Mr. Trump's travel ban included her homeland. 'Even the U.S., which claims to be a stronghold of human rights, has turned a blind eye to people like us who are poor, oppressed and at risk.' Safiullah Padshah and Mike Ives contributed reporting.
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Possible burial site discovered during trail construction at Decatur's Legacy Park
Construction on part of a new section of a trail at Legacy Park in Decatur is on hold after crews unearthed what appears to be a historical burial vault, prompting concerns about potential unmarked graves on the site. According to city officials, construction crews struck the underground vault on May 6 while grading near the park's north entrance off South Columbia Drive. The site was previously the United Methodist Children's Home for 144 years, until the city acquired it in 2017. The 77-acre property started as an orphanage after the Civil War and is considered historically significant. 'It was a brick vault about a foot deep, four feet long, two feet wide, and two feet deep,' Cara Scharer, Decatur's Assistant City Manager of Public Works told Channel 2's Eryn Rogers. She added that the vault contained glass and metal, but no human remains. [DOWNLOAD: Free WSB-TV News app for alerts as news breaks] The discovery came during Phase 3 of a larger trail construction project aimed at improving connectivity between Legacy Park, a new track and field, and nearby affordable housing developments. In response to the discovery, the city brought in the Georgia State Historic Preservation Office to conduct a ground-penetrating radar scan of the area on May 21. The scan was performed to determine whether any additional graves or historic artifacts lie beneath the surface. 'They confirmed it may be a suspected burial and so, encouraged us to pause construction and do more investigation,' Scharer said. TRENDING STORIES: Trump announces travel ban and restrictions on 19 countries set to go into effect Monday Case of mistaken identity ends with young mother killed in alleged Atlanta gang shooting Doorbell camera captures man dragging dog down street in Fulton County Some local residents weren't shocked by the finding, given the property's complex past. 'If they found a vault, that would mean there's not something necessarily to hide, to me,' said DeKalb County resident Toi Dickson. While they wait for an official report from preservation authorities, construction has resumed, just on the opposite end of the park. 'We are working diligently to identify what is there accurately and come up with a path forward,' Scharer said. City officials expect the report to be finalized soon. If additional burial sites are confirmed, the city may have to reroute the trail. Still, the goal remains to complete the project in the next six to nine months. Legacy Park, which spans more than 70 acres, is being redeveloped into a community hub with trails. [SIGN UP: WSB-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]
