HUMAN RIGHTS
THE PURSUIT OF RECONCILIATION
Dr. Jehan Perera calls on the head of state to work towards building bridges
The presidential election is over… but the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) sessions in Geneva are continuing and Sri Lanka’s compliance with UNHRC resolutions is still being scrutinised.
These resolutions, which have been tabled at the UN since 2009, reflect the international community’s ongoing concern that successive Sri Lankan governments have failed to address past human rights violations adequately.
And the latest report by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk isn’t encouraging, signalling that more needs to be done. It seems that the monitoring of this country’s human rights situation by the United Nations will persist.
The high commissioner highlighted the Sri Lankan state’s failure to recognise the suffering of victims, acknowledge its military’s role in gross human rights violations, and address both past and present violations as being key obstacles to the rule of law, democracy and good governance.
In response, the government dismissed the report’s findings, rejected recommendations such as targeted sanctions and future accountability processes, and claimed that these are based on incorrect and unsubstantiated sources.
It maintains that the UNHRC’s recommendations violate principles of natural justice and impartiality as stipulated by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution that established the United Nations Human Rights Council.
However, the situation on the ground tells a different story.
In the Eastern Province, judicial decisions regarding land encroachment are being ignored. This disregard for the rule of law is happening in a broader context where even the president of the day justified not implementing judicial decisions such as the postponement of local government elections.
UN resolutions contain measures that could severely impact Sri Lanka but these have not yet been fully utilised by the international community. One such measure is targeted economic sanctions that could be devastating for the country’s struggling economy.
The EU’s Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+) tariff concession, which is crucial for Sri Lanka, could be withdrawn if the country fails to meet the conditions required for its continuation.
Another threat is the use of universal jurisdiction for international crimes.
This would enable foreign courts or international tribunals to prosecute Sri Lankans accused of serious human rights violations. And it could lead to trials outside Sri Lanka’s jurisdiction for individuals implicated in UNHRC resolutions.
However, the global focus on Sri Lanka seems to be waning.
The worst of the conflict ended over 15 years ago; and while the situation in Sri Lanka remains far from perfect, it pales in comparison to crises elsewhere in the world.
And the international community, which is distracted by more pressing global issues, remains less likely to intervene strongly in Sri Lanka’s internal affairs at this time.
The political climate in Sri Lanka is more conducive to national reconciliation than it has been in years. Previously, contestants in presidential elections usually sought the support of ethnic and religious communities. But this time, presidential hopefuls adopted relatively progressive positions on minority issues and advocated for a political solution to the ‘ethnic issue.’
Momentum for reconciliation and compromise gained strength in the wake of the disastrous tenure of former president Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who rose to power on a wave of Sinhalese ethnic nationalism.
The notable exception at this presidential election was Namal Rajapaksa, who appeared to be position himself as the standard-bearer of Sinhalese ethnic nationalism. While he committed to respecting all religions, Rajapaksa maintained that land and police powers would not be devolved to the provincial councils, thereby signalling a refusal to implement the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.
Devolution forms a key provision for power sharing with the Tamil community.
In the past, Tamil leaders and their parties boycotted elections and pursued separation due to their mistrust of the Sinhalese majority. This polarisation was the result of accords and agreements being signed but never fully implemented.
However, the current climate is different because the primary demand across the country is for systemic change.
Sri Lanka has an opportunity to secure an equitable solution through dialogue and participation. The new government must address the ground realities that undermine the rule of law, and which perpetuate discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities.
This transitional phase to a new government is also a critical moment for the Tamil polity to engage with the national political process rather than retreat from it.
Leave a comment