REFORM THE POLITY URGENTLY

Our political leaders must cooperate to tackle challenges – Dr. Jehan Perera

Most of the commentary in Sri Lanka on the issue of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) resolution and the High Commissioner’s report from which it draws inspiration strongly supports the government’s position.

The majority of the population who voted the government into power continue to feel that it’s protecting the national interest where this issue is concerned. There is general agreement that a double standard is at play with regards to Sri Lanka.

On the one hand, there’s a problem in the country as evident in the longstanding campaign on behalf of missing people and the many national commissions that have been appointed to inquire into wartime violations. On the other hand, compared to violations taking place elsewhere in the world, there are those that could be considered to be on a much larger scale.

Countries with worse pasts and ongoing problems include the likes of Saudi Arabia in terms of the war in Yemen, India and the Kashmir problem or China and its Muslim minority.

The UN human rights system has not made similar heavy-handed threats of referring the leaderships of these countries to the International Criminal Court (ICC), imposing travel bans and freezing their bank accounts or having them subjected to the principle of universal jurisdiction.

With the UN comprising 195 countries, the focus on Sri Lanka since the end of the civil war in 2009 has given rise to the belief in the country that there’s more at stake than human rights.

Although the trend in the past year has been negative, it could be argued that – as the government and majority of public commentary does – Sri Lanka does not merit the special attention it’s receiving if the only criterion is the scale of human rights violations and absence of good governance practices.

This accounts for the anger that opponents of the UNHRC’s actions have about the country being repeatedly challenged by the international community on human rights issues.

The fact that there is no immediate adverse fallout from the resolution needs to be considered carefully. Three serious problems could arise in the future.

First, the resolution specifies that Sri Lanka will be on the UNHRC’s agenda for the next year and a half. As this body meets three times a year, Sri Lanka could come under regular scrutiny by the international community. And Sri Lanka risks suffering reputational damage if critical observations against it are regular, which can negatively impact its attractiveness as a location for economic development projects.

Secondly, the previous UNHRC resolutions on Sri Lanka were limited to motivating the government to act in accordance with the international community’s recommendations. The onus was on the nation to be the party to act and be in charge.

However, the present resolution empowers the High Commissioner’s office to also review the present and ongoing situation in the country, and not limit itself to wartime violations and immediate post-war violations only in documenting evidence. This gives the office the authority to set up a special unit to gather information and evidence on human rights violations taking place in the country.

Third, if Sri Lanka is seen as not complying with the resolution, another sanction could be the loss of the EU’s GSP+ tariff concession. As the European Union is among our largest export markets, the denial of the concession would undermine economic progress and employment opportunities.

Particularly in the context of an economic downturn in the aftermath of the first and second waves of the pandemic, the loss of GSP+ would be a major blow. A condition of granting the concession is that human rights violations should cease and the Prevention of Terrorism Act be replaced with a counterterrorism law that conforms to international standards.

None of these worst case scenarios need to come about if the government looks at the recommendations in the resolution and makes a good faith effort to implement them.

The answer will also emerge if the government works with the opposition to meet the Geneva challenge. It is encouraging that the leader of the main opposition party has made a constructive offer of cooperation on the issue. Similar offers by leaders of the ethnic and religious minority parties, and acceptance by the government, are called for.

We need to reform our polity to ensure fairness in governance – not so much for the sake of Geneva or its future self but to be at peace with ourselves to develop our nation and its people.