U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–381PDF 2016

SRI LANKA’S DEMOCRATIC TRANSITION: A NEW

ERA FOR THE U.S.-SRI LANKA RELATIONSHIP

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 9, 2016

Serial No. 114–215

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

MATT SALMON, Arizona Chairman 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

AMI BERA, California 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

GRACE MENG, New York 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Ms. Lisa Curtis, senior research fellow, Asian Studies Center, The Davis 

Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, The Heritage Foundation ........................................................................................................................ 6

Ms. Kara L. Bue, founding partner, Armitage International .............................. 16

Nimmi Gowrinathan, Ph.D., visiting professor, Colin Powell Center for Civic 

and Global Leadership, City College of New York, City University of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 24

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Ms. Lisa Curtis: Prepared statement ..................................................................... 8

Ms. Kara L. Bue: Prepared statement ................................................................... 19

Nimmi Gowrinathan, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ................................................ 28

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 38

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 39

(1)

SRI LANKA’S DEMOCRATIC TRANSITION: 

A NEW ERA FOR THE U.S.-SRI LANKA 

RELATIONSHIP 

THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 2016

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o’clock p.m., in 

room 2200 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Matt Salmon 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SALMON. Subcommittee will come to order. 

Members will be permitted to submit written statements to be 

included in the official hearing record. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5 calendar days to allow statements, questions and extraneous materials for the record, subject 

to the length limitation in rules. 

I would like to begin my remarks by offering my sincere condolences to those who recently lost loved ones and sustained property 

damage in Sri Lanka and across South Asia due to Cyclone Roanu. 

I wish for a speedy recovery for the Sri Lankan people and hope 

our newly invigorated development relationship that we’re going to 

discuss today can help meet some of the challenges left in the wake 

of the storm. 

Sri Lanka’s lengthy and tortuous civil war between the majority 

Sinhalese and the minority Tamils of the north and east ended in 

2009 but the country remains challenged by deep divisions. 

Sri Lanka’s prior leader, President Rajapaksa, steered the country in an authoritarian direction which included allegations of pervasive human rights abuses, rampant corruption and the failure to 

follow the rule of law. 

In 2015, the Sri Lankan people chose a new path with the election of President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe. 

There’s an opportunity for a new era of democratic reforms and enhanced U.S.-Sri Lankan relations. 

Relations between the U.S. and Sri Lanka under the Rajapaksa 

government were often strained due in part to human rights concerns and the treatment of the minority Tamil population. 

We are optimistic that the Sirisena-led government is committed 

to change and have already begun implementing important reforms. In 2015, the Sri Lankan Parliament passed its nineteenth 

constitutional amendment to strengthen democratic governance 

2

and the government co-sponsored a U.N. Civil Rights Council resolution addressing atrocities committed during the civil war. 

However, the Sirisena government now appears reluctant to 

allow foreign judges and prosecutors to participate in war crimes 

investigations as called for in the U.N. resolution. 

President Sirisena has the difficult task of maintaining the government unity that is needed to pass constitutional reforms. 

He has found himself between a rock and a hard place and any 

moves favored by one element of Sri Lanka’s political puzzle could 

alienate another, potentially undermining his political support and 

breaking the fragile consensus that makes reform even possible. 

In light of this challenge late last year, Secretary Kerry announced a U.S. assistance commitment of $40 million to support 

comprehensive reforms in Sri Lanka, which the administration 

hopes will have a significant effect on the trajectory of Sri Lanka’s 

democratic reform and reconciliation process. 

Closer U.S.-Sri Lankan ties founded in democratic values will facilitate a stronger foundation that will serve as a solid basis for 

broader cooperation in the Indian Ocean region as well. 

Under the Rajapaksa—I apologize, I should have a better handle 

on that name—leadership human rights became a wedge issue for 

the United States and Sri Lanka, weakening the relationship, and 

in response Sri Lanka turned to China for support. 

China considers to assert considerable influence, funding development projects in Sri Lanka including the Colombo Port City 

Project, a $1.4 billion infrastructure project almost entirely funded 

by Chinese foreign direct investment. 

The port is strategically located along the busiest commercial sea 

lane in the world and will be a key part of China’s One Belt, One 

Road Maritime Silk Road vision to expand its influence by investing in infrastructure along the trade and energy routes that transit 

the Indian Ocean. 

China’s regional investments are difficult for small nations like 

Sri Lanka to pass up. These offers are easy to accept as they do 

not come with commitments to reform in any way. 

Through our increased development commitment and diplomatic 

ties, the United States is recognizing Sri Lanka’s geopolitical significance to the region and I do support this elevated cooperation. 

President Sirisena has shown a willingness to work more closely 

with the United States and in February of this year our nations 

began the annual U.S.-Sri Lanka partner dialogue, bringing new 

opportunities for the bilateral relationship. 

And I look forward to our panel of experts suggesting ways in 

which we might enhance the U.S.-Sri-Lankan relationship to our 

mutual benefit. 

I also hope they will share insights on Sri Lanka’s delicate politics and make recommendations for the future of the U.S.-Sri 

Lankan relations. 

This is a heightened—there is a heightened sense of optimism 

surrounding Sri Lanka’s recent changes and I look forward to today’s hearing to discuss ways we can prioritize those efforts. 

And I’d like to turn now to Mr. Sherman for any statements he 

might have. 

3

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing 

and I join with you in concern about China’s expansion into the Indian Ocean and especially in Pakistani and Sri Lankan ports. 

First, I want to express my sympathy and condolences for all 

those in Sri Lanka impacted by the flooding associated by Cyclone 

Roanu. I hope that the hundreds of thousands of people who were 

displaced can return to their homes and rebuild soon. I’m looking 

forward to those whose loved ones are missing hopefully being reunited with them. 

Last year, Sri Lanka saw some positive developments. I expect 

there’s near universal approval among the subcommittee members 

for the election of Sri Lankan President Sirisena and the reaffirmation of the decision in the parliamentary elections later in the year. 

The elections brought to an end the previous government, which 

had become increasingly intolerant. These elections represented a 

true success for the democratic spirit. The new President deserves 

recognition for reducing the power of the presidency. 

I look forward to one day complimenting an American President 

for scaling back the expansion of the imperial presidency here in 

the United States. 

But returning to Sri Lanka, the new President there has scaled 

back the powers of the presidency, creating more space for dissent 

and free expression and opening the country to greater scrutiny by 

international human rights organizations. 

These are notable steps. It’s never easy to heal a civil war. The 

current government came in with a set of promises and impressed 

the world. Sri Lanka’s co-sponsorship in October 2015 of the U.N. 

Human Rights Council resolution recommending concrete steps toward true political reconciliation was truly and widely acclaimed. 

There were promises of the return of land seized during the conflict of accountability with international oversight for those who 

committed crimes, of constitutional reforms to move power to regions and of changes in the security sector that would end a culture that promoted abuse with impunity. 

Last month, I met with the Sri Lankan Ambassador and encouraged Sri Lanka to move forward with plans to continue political 

reconciliation. The Ambassador described a decline in the military’s 

role and in its presence in the north and east of the country, and 

the constitutional council’s work toward giving more power to local 

officials. 

What I’ve heard from others, particularly from Tamil groups, is 

that the political process of reconciliation and security sector reform are not moving forward nearly as quickly as they should. 

It is encouraging that the government has established an office 

of missing persons but we have yet to see how it can operate independently from the government, how it will be resourced and how 

effective it will be. 

The government has promised to reduce the role of the military 

but the defense budget has actually grown from $1.2 billion in 

2009, which is when the conflict ended, to a new higher level of 

$2.13 billion in 2016. 

The government has declared that it will resettle all those displaced in the war by the end of this year. Yet, it has not returned 

the vast majority of land seized during the conflict. 

4

It is deeply disturbing to learn that both the President and 

Prime Minister of Sri Lanka have declared their intention to pursue a truth and reconciliation mechanism devoid of international 

judges. The Tamil population is unlikely to accept this as impartial 

justice. 

Most critical is the issue of the return of government-seized land. 

The slow progress on this front represents not only a burden on 

tens of thousands of those who have been displaced, many of whom 

remain homeless but also a major barrier to building trust between 

the peoples of north and east Sri Lanka with the central government. 

This is a tenuous moment. There is still a sense of optimism, but 

the government can no longer just rest on this sense of optimism 

that came with its election. 

I look forward to the witnesses’ assessment of these processes 

and especially for direction on what the United States can do to advance full reconciliation between the Sinhalese and the Tamils 

with due respect for human rights and accountability. Sri Lanka 

has traditionally been one of the most advanced and prosperous nations in South Asia and I look forward to it also being a beacon of 

human rights as well, and I yield back. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

Just want to advise the committee members and the panelists 

there’s a good likelihood that we’re going to be called for floor votes 

anytime in the next few minutes. So there are other members that 

would like to make opening statements. 

So there’s a real good possibility we may end up having to do 

that and then come back. So I will apologize to the witnesses ahead 

of time. 

Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank you for holding this hearing and thank the witnesses for being here. As a former chair of this committee, I have 

taken a particular interest in Sri Lanka and I visited there and 

been in the northeast and saw the burned-out buildings and a lot 

of the damage and things which had been caused by a lot of years 

of war and a lot of lives destroyed. 

And just yesterday Sri Lanka acknowledged approximately 

65,000 people missing during the 26 years of the off and on civil 

war. But now 6 years after the official end of the civil war there 

may be real opportunity to reconcile the people of Sri Lanka and 

rebuilt this really beautiful country. So I hope that they are successful. 

However, I do remain somewhat weary. Although Sri Lanka is 

in the midst of early signs of actually attaining a sustaining peace 

and democracy, the scars of the civil war still remain and recently 

it was somewhat alarming when President Sirisena vowed to eradicate the LTTE ideologies both locally and internationally and I 

think this kind of rhetoric can be counterproductive but also damaging for the long-term prospects for national reconciliation, which 

is absolutely critical. 

So I know these are exceptionally complex issues. I thank you 

and commend you for holding the hearing and yield back. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

5

Ms. Meng. 

Ms. MENG. Thank you, Chairman Salmon and Ranking Member 

Sherman, as well as all of our distinguished guests for coming to 

testify here today. 

I especially love to see a professor from City University of New 

York on our panel. We continue to express our condolences to so 

many people and their families who have been affected by the landslides and our thoughts and prayers continued to be with them. 

The election of President Sirisena in January 2015 brought the 

promise of a wide variety of reforms and a more inclusive government that would protect the interests of all Sri Lankans regardless 

of ethnic and religious affiliations. 

The United States has a strong interest in ensuring that Sri 

Lanka remains committed to these reforms and we have certainly 

deepened our engagement with Sri Lanka in anticipation that a 

Sirisena government will follow through with these promises. 

Sri Lanka has certainly taken some steps to implement a few reforms. But many people, particularly in the minority populations, 

experience ongoing violence and have been frustrated with the slow 

reform process that remains extremely vulnerable to political divisions. 

I look forward to hearing your assessment on the current reform 

process and challenges. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

Mr. Donovan. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Chairman. I would like to thank Subcommittee Chairman Matt Salmon and Ranking Member Brad 

Sherman along with their staffs for holding this hearing. 

Although I am not a member of this committee, I am grateful for 

the opportunity to speak here today. The relationship between the 

United States and Sri Lanka is important to my district of Staten 

Island and western Brooklyn because I represent the largest population of Sri Lankans in the United States. And welcome, Professor. 

It is great to have another New Yorker in the room. 

Many of my constituents are ethnic Tamils and left Sri Lanka 

during the civil war that lasted 26 years. They could not have been 

more relieved when it ended in 2009 and elections were conducted 

in 2015. 

These elections in Sri Lanka have provided an opening for 

change and reforms that have been taken place. However, I am not 

sure if the reforms have gone far enough. So U.S. attention and encouragement remains vital. 

In particular, the reforms needed for reconciliation between Sinhalese and Tamils, Hindus, Christians, Muslims and Buddhists 

after a long war have not yet been accomplished. 

We need security sector reform to reorient the military for peace 

time, political reform to provide greater autonomy for regional governments, and legal reform for neutrality of the judiciary and criminalization. 

Criminalizing terrible abuses such as enforced disappearances, 

war crimes and crimes against humanity remain as important 

tasks for the future. 

Sri Lanka has made important commitments in the area of accountability and transactional justice and needs to be held to those 

6

commitments in the areas of truth telling, justice, reparations and 

institutional reforms so that reconciliation can take place. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and reporting back 

to my constituents, and I yield back the remainder of my time, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. We are proud to be joined today by an 

esteemed group of panelists—first, Ms. Lisa Curtis, senior research 

fellow at the Heritage Foundation, welcome; Ms. Kara Bue, partner 

at Armitage International; and Dr. Nimmi Gowrinathan. 

Did I say that right? Close enough, for government work anyway? A visiting professor from the city of New York. 

And we are really thrilled to have you each here today and we 

will start with Ms. Curtis. 

STATEMENT OF MS. LISA CURTIS, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, ASIAN STUDIES CENTER, THE DAVIS INSTITUTE FOR 

NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN POLICY, THE HERITAGE 

FOUNDATION 

Ms. CURTIS. Thank you, Chairman and——

Mr. SALMON. Oh, thank you. 

Ms. CURTIS. Thank you, Chairman Salmon, Ranking Member 

Sherman, the rest of the distinguished members of the subcommittee, for inviting me here today to talk about U.S.-Sri 

Lankan relations. 

I will summarize my written testimony and ask that my full 

written testimony is submitted for the congressional record. 

Let me join the voices of the members of the panel to express my 

sympathy for the victims of the severe flooding and landslides that 

struck Sri Lanka last month. My thoughts and prayers go out to 

the families of those who lost their lives as well as those who lost 

homes and other property. 

There has been a rapid turnaround in U.S.-Sri Lankan relations 

in the past 18 months since President Maithripala Sirisena took 

power. The passage of the nineteenth amendment that curbed the 

powers of the presidency just a little over a year ago was a milestone on the path back to democracy. 

Indeed, the democratic reform process is enabling our countries 

to improve relations and Sri Lanka continues to be important for 

its geographic position at the maritime crossroads of Asia and the 

Middle East. 

The results of the parliamentary elections that were held in August 2015 further raised hopes that the country would continue 

down a path of reform and reconciliation. 

Sirisena cooperated with the United National Party in elections 

that brought Ranil Wickremesinghe to power as the new Prime 

Minister and the two sides formed a unity government. 

In a major departure from the former Rajapaksa government’s 

triumphalist attitude toward the 2009 defeat of the LTTE, the 

Unity Government in September 2015 co-sponsored a U.N. Human 

Rights Council resolution acknowledging that war crimes were 

committed by both the government and LTTE insurgents during 

the civil war. 

In addition to lifting curbs on the media, opening travel to the 

northern parts of the country, this Sri Lankan Government has 

7

also welcomed international human rights organizations to the 

country, a practice that the previous government shunned. 

The cabinet also recently approved the establishment of an Office 

of Missing Persons, although some members of the Sri Lankan society have complained that they were not consulted about the move. 

The government has vowed to adopt a new constitution that abolishes the executive presidency, adopts electoral reform and 

strengthens provincial devolution. 

Despite all of these positive steps, there remains concerns within 

the Tamil activist community that the human rights reform process 

is beginning to stall. One contentious issue is whether there will 

be foreign judges on the panel to investigate human rights abuses. 

There is tremendous resistance from the majority Sinhalese nationalists, who still hold a large chunk of parliamentary seats, to 

the idea of international judges determining the fate of Sri Lankan 

military officials. 

Tamil human rights activists question whether the U.S. is over 

estimating the level of change at the grass roots level or giving too 

much credit to the government when there are still major human 

rights concerns among the Tamil people. 

Let me say a few brief words about China and India, and Sri 

Lanka’s relationship with these two key countries. There has been 

criticism of the Rajapaksa government’s cozying up to China and 

questions surrounding large-scale infrastructure projects that were 

pursued during his tenure. 

Sri Lanka’s willingness under the Rajapaksa regime to allow 

Chinese submarines to dock at Colombo’s ports twice in late 2014 

alarmed Indian officials, who are wary of China’s increasing influence in its back yard. 

Sri Lanka has since toned down its relationship with China. 

However, China will continue to factor largely in Sri Lanka’s economic future as Prime Minister Wickremesinghe’s recent visit to 

Beijing demonstrated. 

Sri Lanka needs Chinese infrastructure investment and now that 

the country is facing a financial crunch it cannot afford to alienate 

China to which it owes $8 billion in debt. 

So moving forward, the U.S. should encourage the democratic reform process that is underway, encourage more speedy movement 

toward reconciliation and transitional justice. 

It should build broader economic and investment ties with Sri 

Lanka and assist with the revitalization—the economic revitalization of the war-torn areas of the north and east. 

Without economic and job opportunities, it will be difficult to sustain support for peace and reconciliation. 

Lastly, the U.S. should focus on enhancing maritime cooperation 

with Sri Lanka, recognizing the pivotal position that Colombo occupies in the Indian Ocean region. 

So in conclusion, there is a unique opportunity to move forward 

with ethnic reconciliation and to unify the country following nearly 

three decades of civil war, and I think the unity government deserves credit for its implementation of democratic reforms. 

But there is still a great deal of work to be done in promoting 

ethnic reconciliation and a durable peace. 

Thank you. 

8

[The prepared statement of Ms. Curtis follows:]


20381a-1.eps
9


20381a-2.eps
10


20381a-3.eps
11


20381a-4.eps
12


20381a-5.eps
13


20381a-6.eps
14


20381a-7.eps
15


20381a-8.eps
16

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

Ms. Bue. 

STATEMENT OF MS. KARA L. BUE, FOUNDING PARTNER, 

ARMITAGE INTERNATIONAL 

Ms. BUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Sherman and the other esteemed members of this committee. 

I would like to express my appreciation for your willingness to 

have me appear here to talk about the future of Sri Lanka. I followed it for some time and I am very grateful for the attention it 

is getting now. 

I too would like to express my condolences to the Sri Lankan people during the cyclone that hit several months ago. I was there at 

the time and it was devastating to see the harm that was done to 

the people and their property, but I was very proud too that the 

United States came forward with additional aid that could help the 

people who suffered from those storms. So I was very happy to see 

that happen. 

I had been asked to talk about U.S.-Sri Lanka relations. Over 

the last 15 years there has been an ebb and flow in terms of our 

engagement there. 

With the election of President Sirisena and Prime Minister 

Wickremesinghe, there really is a new opportunity for engagement. 

They came into power with a platform of good governance and reconciliation, and together with that they came in with the desire to 

rebalance Sri Lanka’s foreign policy. 

What that did was open the door for the United States to engage 

in a wide range of opportunities for support in Sri Lanka’s efforts 

to finally set the stage for lasting peace and it also allowed us to 

regain our partnership with Sri Lanka on key issues. 

For its part, the Government of Sri Lanka has put forth what 

anyone would consider a very ambitious agenda. I look at it in 

terms of five pillars—their ideas about constitutional reform, economic stabilization, addressing the painful war legacy, rebuilding 

democratic institutions and reestablishing rule of law. 

In many ways they have made great progress in the 15, 16 

months since they’ve been in power. Importantly, they have undertaken two ambitious efforts. 

One is constitutional reform where they’re looking to redraft the 

constitution, have that presented to the Parliament at the end of 

the year and then thereafter follow it with a referendum. 

The other and perhaps more important was Sri Lanka’s agreement at the U.N. Human Rights Council meeting to agree to the 

resolution on reconciliation and transitional justice. That, I believe, 

is a historic event, particularly given the history of the Rajapaksa 

regime. 

The other thing I would like to note on the Government of Sri 

Lanka’s part is the tone it has taken with regard to ethnic issues 

and how different that is from the Rajapaksa regime. 

I know some of what they are doing is very symbolic but it has 

been meaningful to people in Sri Lanka. The national anthem, for 

example, on Independence Day being sung in Tamil was a very big 

deal to many Tamils. 

17

I met with Chief Justice Wickremesinghe and he was very moved 

by that fact. On Remembrance Day, which used to be called Victory 

Day, they held no parades and that, I think, was a testament to 

the Sri Lankan Government’s intentions with regard to reconciliation. 

In turn, for all of this the United States has stepped up its engagement as well. Soon after the elections, they had a number of 

high-level visits. They developed the idea of a new U.S.-Sri Lankan 

partnership dialogue. The U.S. was very instrumental at the 

Human Rights Council meeting. 

In terms of the resolution we have increased assistance. Forty 

million dollars, I believe, is what Secretary Kerry offered during 

his visit in May 2015 and we engaged a bit on military to military 

engagement and, of course, are looking at economic opportunities. 

Having traveled to Sri Lanka several—at least four times in the 

last 9 months, I did want to offer some caution in the sense that 

while we are very excited about how U.S.-Sri Lanka relations are 

going and the direction they are taking, there are clouds in terms 

of how the Sri Lankan Government can move forward. 

They face a lot of challenges in trying to implement their wide 

ambitious agenda. The first is that it is very big and it has a lot 

of moving parts. 

For Sri Lanka to do everything it wants to do, it is going to take 

a long and very complicated process to get things done and I think 

that is something that everyone needs to realize. 

They also lack resources and institutional capacity, both in terms 

of people and in infrastructure. There are people within the military, within the bureaucracy and within political parties that aren’t 

really on board in terms of what this ambitious agenda is about to 

do. 

So they do face a lot of controversy there and on top of it, the 

new government is part of a very diverse and unique coalition 

within the Sri Lankan political party. 

So there is a lot left to be done and not everyone has gotten down 

to work and is attempting to address its agenda. Having talked to 

people in the north and east, they are not yet feeling the peace dividend. 

What I have heard is a statement that is commonly used, which 

is that everything has changed and yet nothing has changed. And 

so the government has a lot left to do to respond to the needs of 

the people in the war-affected areas and that too is a very large 

challenge and something that we should try to help them with. 

In all of this, I think the areas that deserve the most attention 

are leadership and confidence-building measures. The Sri Lankan 

Government has a short time frame in which to get a lot done and 

people in the war-affected areas in particular aren’t going to give 

it that much time before their positions start to harden and, frankly, I think they’re already starting to harden. 

And so in terms of leadership and confidence building, leadership 

is the idea of greater communication on the part of the Sri Lankan 

Government. 

In terms of their agenda, I don’t think they have done well 

enough in educating and bringing along all people of Sri Lanka—

the people in the south as well as the north and east—in terms of 

18

what they are trying to do to respond to everybody’s needs. Communication is a big factor. 

In terms of confidence-building measures, the idea would try to 

change the mantra in the north and east about how everything has 

changed and nothing has changed. Start making things change a 

little bit for the better in terms of focusing on more land release, 

for example. 

Lastly, an area that I think the U.S. should look at in greater 

detail is the idea of a donor conference for development in the 

north and east. 

In 2003, after the cease fire had taken place, the United States 

was instrumental in bringing together an international coalition in 

a donor conference in Tokyo where they raised $4.5 billion for a period of 3 years. 

And that gave people a lot of hope. Now, the rancorous politics 

in Sri Lanka dashed those hopes and war returned. But in this instance where we feel there is a little more hope and a little more 

opportunity for lasting peace, I do think it would be wise to consider another type of effort where we could be instrumental making 

tangible change happen in the war-affected areas. 

And with that, I would like to thank you for your time and consideration. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bue follows:]

19


20381b-1.eps
20


20381b-2.eps
21


20381b-3.eps
22


20381b-4.eps
23


20381b-5.eps
24

Mr. SALMON. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Gowrinathan. 

STATEMENT OF NIMMI GOWRINATHAN, PH.D., VISITING PROFESSOR, COLIN POWELL CENTER FOR CIVIC AND GLOBAL 

LEADERSHIP, CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK, CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK 

Ms. GOWRINATHAN. Okay. I imagine you all hear a lot of these 

panels, a lot of these conversations and I think what comes up over 

and over again is that there is this disconnect between researchers, 

between activists, between practitioner and policy makers, and I 

think one of the biggest disconnects is that policy makers don’t understand the ground realities, right. 

Obviously, it is difficult for policy makers to do. I think, you 

know, what a lot of my work—what I would like to testify to is how 

the policies that are made over here affect the people over there—

how the people over there experience these policies. 

If you pass materiel support for terrorism law in the United 

States it affects the resources available to a young girl in the 

northeast in Sri Lanka. 

I think the U.S. policies abroad and particularly, you know, we 

are seeing this with Sri Lanka, are too often committed to an ideal 

and this feels sort of intentional to me, being committed to an 

ideal. 

That ideal is usually democracy, which is an important ideal to 

uphold. But this commitment need not challenge political agendas. 

If you uphold only the ideal then you don’t have to shift political 

agendas and it is these political agendas by the Sri Lankan Government, by the international community and by the United States 

that can sometimes sustain and create more conflict. 

So in Sri Lanka as elsewhere solutions that are based on ideals 

are not going to be effective—have not been effective. This is particularly concerning right now because where a solution fails, violence returns, and that is what I think all of us don’t want to see 

happen in Sri Lanka. 

So as we consider the progress in Sri Lanka, how do we gauge 

it? Do we gauge it on policies that reflect an ideal to promote peace 

or do we gauge it on solutions that create structural change that 

is required to end violence. 

Which way are we measuring these policies in Sri Lanka? And 

this is a really central question because the people these policies 

affect can feel the difference between the two. 

And so there’s four areas that I want to look at here to examine 

the gap between the people’s experiences and the policies that we 

are examining. And the first is transitional justice. 

People have been talking a lot about transitional justice in Sri 

Lanka. There was a new report out from a group of local scholars 

in Sri Lanka—legal scholars—and one of the first requirements for 

transitional justice is that you address both truth and justice. The 

two have to be done together. 

And while the question for Sri Lanka is will the Government of 

Sri Lanka be willing to dig up mass graves, to find the missing 

husband of a widow, if that same body becomes evidence for war 

crimes. 

25

Will there be truth and justice? The ground reports reveal that 

already the initiatives that have started the Office of Missing Persons are asking victims to choose between the two. Do they want 

truth or do they want justice? 

Another thing that you have to have for transitional justice is 

confidence-building measures. You have to have the confidence of 

the people. They have to have faith in state institutions. 

The Tamils and other groups are still feeling very intensely the 

reverberations of past accountability efforts. The women I met in 

the refugee camps at the end of the war they were well aware that 

there was a United Nations desk to report sexual violence crimes. 

Nobody went anywhere near that desk for fear of retribution. The 

people who testified on lessons learned and reconciliation committee immediately faced harassment by security forces. The Office 

of Missing Persons has already been found to not consult the victims in any sort of genuine process. 

In a recent survey in the northeast found that there is a deep 

disillusionment and mistrust, and this is important not just as a 

Sri Lankan state but of the international community. The Tamil 

population feels that the international community, along with the 

Sri Lankan Government, abandoned them in 2009. So it is important to recognize that there is a deep mistrust and disillusionment 

in these areas. 

Another need for transitional justice is a memorialization of the 

dead. Memorializing their dead in the northeast has been 

criminalized. Not just that, they have removed the spaces of worship. 

Slowly you are seeing the destruction of temples and the erection 

of Buddhist statues where people might memorialize their dead. 

For many Tamils I’ve met recently, memory has no value. The 

way that they survive is by forgetting. They don’t want to answer 

any more questions because they fear that memory will put their 

lives at risk. 

This is a key problem you’re going to face and you have this sort 

of moment where you have development and accountability processes merging together and what you create is this entrenched victimization where a person exists only by the worst experience that 

happened to them, where they have access to resources only by articulating the worst thing that’s happened to them. 

And then militarization—obviously, this demilitarization is one of 

the biggest issues for all communities in the north and east. To 

show demilitarization, yes, the government has made the governor 

of the northeast a civilian and not a military commander. So this 

is—you know, it is showing something. 

But if you talk to the civilians there, there was a civilian I spoke 

to recently who said you don’t need checkpoints anymore—you 

don’t need soldiers. 

When you have a context where preschool teachers are recruited 

into the civilian defense force where the only jobs are military-run 

hotels and hospitals and vegetable shops and on agricultural farms 

run by the military, then militarization is complete. Everybody is 

an informant. 

26

For those who have returned home to some of the land that the 

government has returned, most of them are living in the shadow 

of military camps. 

They are still immediately adjacent to the very forces that were 

a part of the atrocities committed in 2009. The military mediates 

every aspect of civic life in the north and east. 

Everything from communal functions to private entrepreneurship. They have even left their mark on the school uniforms of 

Tamil children. 

So this type of deep militarization, I think I would caution here 

has been used as a model for counter terrorism has been held up 

as something we should, you know, try to replicate and I think 

here it is important to note the defeat of the LTTE militarily requires a violation of all established human rights and humanitarian norms. 

I don’t think this is something we want to replicate. And women, 

peace and security, which is a critical issue now with the U.N. and 

here at the U.S. that we put a lot of effort into, a recent survey 

that I did found that while there has not been as many crimes—

the magnitude of crimes against women by the state has decreased—the mode of operating remains the same. 

So Tamil women still feel that if there is an act of sexual violence 

there will be no prosecution for that act. And so I think that what 

we are looking at—what we have to look at is what is the potential 

for the resurgence of violence. 

We use these words like inequality and alienation and these are 

things that cause violence. But we always use them in a passive 

way. They are actually active things that are happening. They are 

political acts. 

There is repressive policies that create inequality. There is populations that are alienated. It is done through political acts and 

these have a political impact. 

So when we look at Sri Lanka and we look at political reform 

right now, what is the genuine political space available for Tamils? 

If you’re going to gauge democratic transition simply by a regime 

change that shouldn’t be how we’re gauging it because you still see 

the arrest of protest organizers. You still have the Prevention of 

Terrorism Act in place. 

A recent report reveals there are still white van abductions. 

There are still—the use of torture was noted by U.N. rapporteurs. 

So as you’ve seen in other countries like in Myanmar and other 

countries in democratic transition, the commitment at a national 

level to a shift in politics, in political dynamics, does not mean 

there is a structural shift to include the perspectives of 

marginalized populations and there has not been a shift in that 

way. 

So I would end by saying that the U.S. should have a cautious 

approach and the statements and policies should be calibrated by 

the ground realities. 

Things like human rights violations, the loss of faith in state institutions, military occupation, a culture of impunity—these are the 

drivers of violence. 

You cannot have a sustainable peace without addressing these 

things. So rather than measuring progress against the ideal of deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:09 Sep 27, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\060916\20381 SHIRL
27

mocracy in Sri Lanka, are we willing to push for the dismantling 

of political structures that hold inequality in place? 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gowrinathan follows:]

28


20381c-1.eps
29


20381c-2.eps
30


20381c-3.eps
31


20381c-4.eps
32


20381c-5.eps
33


20381c-6.eps
34

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

With our truncated time for questions and the fact that we are 

going to be called for votes very soon, if members could maybe hold 

their questions to 2 minutes. 

So anybody that wants to try to get a question in before we leave 

I am going to adjourn when the votes are called. And I am going 

to allocate my time to our guest member, Mr. Donovan. So you go 

ahead and start the questioning and then I will go to the ranking 

member. 

Mr. DONOVAN. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very 

much. 

I am curious—why do you think the judicial process is so slow? 

Over 200 Tamils held under these same laws at this moment 7 

years after the war has ended. Like, why do you believe that this 

process is so slow for these individuals? 

Anyone, yeah. 

Ms. BUE. Well, I can’t say for sure exactly why it is so slow. But 

my understanding is that this is a legacy issue from the Rajapaksa 

era. There are elements within the government that have been resistant to moving faster on the release of political prisoners. 

In speaking with the current government, there are efforts to 

move past that. I know that they have released some prisoners as 

of last year and they are looking to release more. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Is it true that some of the names aren’t even released yet? 

Ms. BUE. Yes. 

Mr. DONOVAN. I am sorry. I didn’t want to cut you off. 

Ms. BUE. Oh, no. But yes. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Can the United States do anything about this? 

What is the United States’ role here as people back home see? 

Ms. GOWRINATHAN. I would say that one of the key things to look 

at is the role of, again, the military. A number of the cases—when 

you have the entrenched military in a number of these areas the 

military is mediating everything. 

So what if someone reports a case? What language it’s reported 

in, who they see going into a courtroom? You know, there is—there 

is sort of an impact on anybody who tries to engage in the judicial 

process. 

I have met—a former ex-combatant I met last year who said that 

she has five or six pending cases against her by the military for 

things like throwing away her cell phone because she didn’t want 

to be tracked. 

So when the courts are filling up with these types of surveillance 

cases against all of the Tamils who they suspect to be linked in 

some way to the Tigers, when women can’t walk outside because 

they have five different cases pending against them by the military, there is not going to be room for the Tamil population to address their grievances within the same court system that came 

from within a state that controlled the entire judicial mechanisms 

that appointed all of the Supreme Court judges. 

So that, I think, where those two sort of come up against each 

other you see this constant sort of slowness of the process. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Right. And so—and this will be my last question 

because I want the other members speak because the chairman 

35

said we have to run and vote momentarily—the United States’ role 

here—besides suggesting, trying to influence, trying to persuade 

corrections in this system that you just described as so wrong, is 

there a role here for the United States besides just as an advisor 

of telling people this—what you are doing here is wrong and that 

the effects on women, as you just spoke about, are something that 

the United States disapproves of. 

Just disapproving it is not going to get this to move any further 

along in the process. What is our role here? 

Ms. CURTIS. Well, I think the U.S. has a role in both the private 

statements it makes to the government but also public statements, 

to put a little public pressure. 

You know, these things are very difficult. You may have parts of 

the government that want to move forward quickly. But there are 

political considerations that they have. 

So I think they do need our nudging. As I spelled out in my testimony, there have been many positive steps by this government. 

But the only way the process will continue to move forward is 

probably through U.S. and other pressure. So I think it is important for us to make public statements also through the U.N. 

The U.N. is meeting today on these issues. So I think working 

through the U.N. process and continuing to press for concrete and 

substantive movement, such as releasing political prisoners, it’s absolutely necessary for the U.S. to push. 

Otherwise, the default will be to move slowly and not take those 

very difficult steps. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

Doctor, the government has sped up a special assembly effort to 

draft a new constitution. It’s expected to grant Tamils regional political power. 

Where do things stand now on drafting these constitutional provisions and what is the likelihood that Tamils in the north and 

east will have some degree of regional authority? 

Ms. GOWRINATHAN. The likelihood, I would say, of the devolution 

of power has always been something that seems very optimistic for 

the north and east. 

You know, the concern, I think, becomes who is mediating that 

political conversation. So when you have a context where there was 

a political movement that was articulating the political demands of 

the people and that shifts to a political party, that may not be as 

sort of entrenched in the ground realities as you would want. 

For me, the concern becomes how do you get the everyday sort 

of citizen to engage in politics in a way that their opinions come 

across without being mediated. 

And so when you see things like mass protests that is encouraging. Mass protests about the disappeared—mass protests about 

the missing persons—those are encouraging. But when you see the 

protestors arrested and harassed right afterwards then again you 

feel that that space is not a genuine space offered. 

It is sort of the streets have opened up and there’s less checkpoints but the people are still harassed. 

36

Mr. SHERMAN. Let me try to squeeze in one more question. What 

is—how is—what signs are there that the government is really 

going to transfer land from the military back to the people and how 

much land does the military control in the north and east? 

Ms. Bue and then——

Ms. BUE. My understanding is that as for the north there are 

over 12,000 acres that the military still maintains. 

Now, I should have prefaced that by the fact that there are a lot 

of different numbers floating around. That’s just the one that I use. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Let me—let me ask the—is—because I have heard 

a lot about the military-held land. Are we talking here about 

12,000 rural acres? Or are we talking about more land than that? 

Ms. GOWRINATHAN. They hold a lot more than that and I think 

there is private and public land that is being held, and I was there 

last year for this very sort of fancy military ceremony of releasing 

tiny plots of land to people. 

The military still controls a large amount of land in the north 

and east that should be for—I mean, you still have tens of thousands of internally-displaced people because their homes are in 

high security zones. 

So the lands are still being held by the military and let’s say that 

even where they say formally this is public land but we are going 

to use it for a base, we are going to use it for a military hospital, 

we are going to use it for a military-run hotel, that is still occupation of private lands that belong to Tamils. 

Mr. SALMON. I thank the panel members for coming today. We 

appreciate your commitment to improving the lives of people in the 

region and I think we’ve had a great discussion. I think it is clear 

that the U.S. Congress is very interested in moving forward and 

not just on paper but in reality. 

I really appreciate all the comments, and, without objection, the 

hearing will be adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:47 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(37)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

38

f


20381n.eps
39

Æ


20381m.eps