Editorial

The first review of the nearly-new JVP/NPP Government’s progress on human rights at an international forum—the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva—took place this week. Having benefitted from a one-year lifeline or roll-over negotiated at the last session of the Council under the previous administration, all Sri Lanka did was state its familiar lineup of arguments and listen to the UN High Commissioner’s oral update and the Sri Lanka Core Group (Canada, UK, Malawi, Montenegro, and North Macedonia) make their statement on the prevailing human rights situation in Sri Lanka.

The statements from the Sri Lanka Core Group and the High Commissioner seemed like deflated helium balloons. It would have been incongruous to adopt the strident, stringent, and high-horse tones of the past against the background of the global fragmentation and tectonic shifts on human rights all round, as highlighted by the High Commissioner in his opening statement.

In line with what Sri Lanka has previously committed to, if the current Government is also to proceed with ‘credible domestic mechanisms’ (without specifically mentioning the existing Truth and Reconciliation Commission—TRC) as promised by its foreign minister in Geneva last week, there is a complex socio-political and external configuration in it all.

On the one hand, domestically, is the Government going to hound ‘war heroes’ (Ranaviru) who were instrumental in defeating a deadly terrorist ‘army’ that tried to divide this country and sacrifice them to the wolves? Is that how a nation pays gratitude to those who brought peace—and democracy back to the North and East so people can live normal lives—merely because a vociferous diaspora dictates terms in Western capitals? On the other hand, is there no accountability for breaking the rules of war, like rape or murder in or outside the theatre of conflict?

Even the military is divided on this issue. While one group of officers opposes any war crimes tribunal, domestic or international, another argues that they are paying for the sins of a few ‘bad eggs’ and want their names cleared. Similarly, with government leaders past and present. While one set defends the soldiers without question, another says this Geneva resolution has been hanging over the country now for more than a decade and a half, and it is best to begin a domestic process, as an external mechanism (as pushed by some) will never be acceptable. This will give an exit route from the UNHRC where, for all these years, UNHRC bureaucrats from its Secretariat, taking their cue from the West, sections of Colombo’s ‘civil society,’ and the diaspora keep penning negative reports, changing the goalposts from military excesses to economic matters to justify their existence and pay cheques—which will now be compromised by the US pullout from the UNHRC.

These investigations are, however, going to be a festering wound, bound to lower the morale of the armed forces (rather than praise them for defeating terrorism) and subject them to political exploitation at home to reignite extreme nationalism on all sides, defeating the very purpose of national unity.

The UN High Commissioner’s oral update makes matters even more complicated for the JVP-NPP Government as it says that “prior insurgencies” must also be investigated. This is clearly an afterthought to its initial crusade on Sri Lanka’s human record since the end of the separatist insurgency (which they call a ‘civil war’) in 2009. If ‘prior insurgencies’ are now part of the inquisition against Sri Lanka, what is the Government going to do?

The real story, however, in the current UNHRC session, is not on Sri Lanka’s human rights but the global crisis on human rights. The ongoing transatlantic schism is not only about the future architecture of Europe but also about the post-war consensus on values and human rights. There is a system warning sounded by the UN High Commissioner in his opening statement that something is falling apart.

Interestingly, if not unfortunately, what is falling apart is the consensus, or the lack of it, among the world’s major powers, with the Global South (the poorer countries) being mere bystanders again. In the 1990s too, in the post-Cold War heyday of liberal democratic consensus on human rights between East and West, the Global South was a mere spectator or even a casualty as the focus of international scrutiny of human rights took on a North-South axis.

“Universal” human rights transcended any argument in favour of state sovereignty or cultural, religious, and economic specificities. Now the US Administration is saying that national interests and realpolitik, not global values and human rights, determine their policies, both domestic and foreign.

For the present-day US/Trump Administration, Gaza is merely a piece of real estate. Domestically, its migrants, women, and LGBT community have no rights. In Europe, far-right parties are on the rise, and foreign aid is being cut to finance their defences against Russia. This is probably why the Sri Lanka Core Group statement reflects this confusion. They call for ‘space’ for civil society in Sri Lanka. The USA says civil society undermined democracy in other countries (through USAID funds). What is which now?

Sri Lanka must take advantage of this realpolitik unfolding on the approach to human rights of the very architects of a universal system of human rights. They were full of double standards, the worst on show for their silence on the genocide in Palestine. For years it was a ‘do as we say, not as we do’ policy, but now, even that veil of duplicity is removed. National sovereignty, women’s rights, the rule of law, and international cooperation are thrown out of the window, and instead, people are being demonised. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights now admits it.

Even within the European Union, there is no unity—recently, at the UN General Assembly, the US found company with North Korea to vote against condemning Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. In scenarios unprecedented in recent decades, a similar division played out in the UN Security Council. The US Vice President questioned democracy and freedom in Europe from Munich!! All types of twists and turns are unfolding on the world stage.

Against this background, who then, in this human rights glass house, dares to take the lead in throwing stones about human rights and accountability in Sri Lanka?