brand logo

Avoiding political wrongs to uphold human rights

07 Oct 2021

  • How Sri Lanka can navigate through the demands of the international community
BY Sumudu Chamara During the past few months, Sri Lanka, or Sri Lanka’s human rights situation, was discussed at several international forums, and the international community has expressed grave concerns about what Sri Lanka has promised to do to uphold human rights. First, at the 46th United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) session held in March this year, a resolution was adopted against Sri Lanka, and then in June, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution to reconsider a temporary withdrawal of the Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+) trade concessions re-granted to Sri Lanka in 2017 after Sri Lanka lost it in 2010. The concerns raised at the 48th UNHRC session held recently are also extremely worrying. However, the Government, as it has done in the past, has defended Sri Lanka’s position and activities aimed at establishing reconciliation, and rejected any external interventions. Sri Lanka maintains that a domestic mechanism would be the ideal solution to address concerns about reconciliation, human rights, and the rule of law. Sri Lanka’s international relations and human rights  To understand how the international community sees Sri Lanka’s human rights situation, which has been repeatedly discussed at international forums, The Morning spoke to diplomat Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka, who has served as the Sri Lankan Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Switzerland, in addition to holding several similar diplomatic positions, and former Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama. Bogollagama was of the opinion that even though the aforementioned international-level discussions are not new and take place every year, given the prevailing situation in Sri Lanka and in the world, there are certain factors that need to be considered about resolutions against Sri Lanka. He noted: “In addition to certain undertakings by Governments of Sri Lanka, we have moved out of the UNHRC’s Joint Resolution that we agreed to co-sponsor in 2015. Now we are looking at the aftermath of it. I think that the current Government has to be mindful and have a very firm conviction in order to develop an agenda that can address the concerns that have been repeatedly expressed by the UNHRC. There are certain issues other countries that are questioning us are confronted with, as seen in the last debates in the House of Commons in the UK Parliament.” Adding that Sri Lanka needs to seriously focus on local developments, through which human rights will receive further respect and related issues will get properly addressed, Bogollagama said that several commissions of inquiry (CoIs) have been appointed to look into concerns raised by the international community, and that Sri Lanka needs to follow up on the findings of these commissions and address the identified matters. Meanwhile, Dr. Jayatilleka not only pointed out the importance of looking into the CoIs, but also perceives the implementation of the recommendations of several commissions as a better way of dealing with the international community. He added: “The situation is not irretrievable, but it is pretty negative. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet has put the spotlight on Sri Lanka, and I am afraid that we have a different way of responding. There was a way in which we could have effectively responded, but Sri Lanka did not do that. We had three reports of CoIs, which had been instituted by Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa when he served as the President. They are, the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) report of 2011, the Udalagama Commission report, and also the Paranagama Commission report. We have those reports in hand and the reports had recommendations; we could have promised to implement these recommendations. But, we did not do that. Instead, the Government said that another commission has been appointed to look into those commissions. So, our position has been very bad, but we could have been very strong.” Dr. Jayatilleka also opined that although the international community’s perception of Sri Lanka’s human rights situation is not unmanageable, it is not in a good state either. How Sri Lanka deals with the international community, according to him, is also questionable. Future of GSP+ The situation surrounding Sri Lanka’s international relations and human rights has initiated a discussion about the GSP+ granted by the European Union (EU) as the EU’s concerns about Sri Lanka’s human rights situation is not limited to discussions. In June this year, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution urging the European Commission to consider a temporary withdrawal of GSP+ granted to Sri Lanka, taking into consideration Sri Lanka’s prevailing human rights situation. In fact, human rights-related developments is one of the major matters the EU monitoring team, which arrived in Sri Lanka last month, looked into. In this context, there is uncertainty about the GSP+, without which Sri Lanka’s Covid-19-hit export market is likely to be severely affected. While Bogollagama views greater engagement with the EU as a way of strengthening Sri Lanka-EU relationships to protect GSP+, Dr. Jayatilleka recommends that Sri Lanka pay attention to reasonable requests by the EU relating to human and labour rights to continue the GSP+. Dr. Jayatilleka explained: “We have a problem of misperception. There are those who say that we should have given in from the beginning, i.e. during the war time when the issue of GSP+ came up. I don’t agree with that, because the war was a serious one and we cannot really relax our laws and procedures. We could have done that when we won the war, but we didn’t. The EU is one of our biggest export markets – around 30% of our exports, and we need the money. “We can either say that we are not going to comply with what the EU says and compete with other more powerful players, or we can take a good hard look at what the EU is saying. The EU can decide whether to continue or stop the GSP+, because it is their market, and they have given concessions to some countries on the basis of the excellence of their labour laws and human rights laws. If we meet those stipulations, we get preferential access to the EU markets. The reason is, whether we like it or not, the consumers, or the citizens of Europe, do care about human rights and also labour laws, of which we used to be very proud. “Trade unions’ grievances about the way they are treated is one of the reasons that has got us into trouble. Now, it is possible that the team that arrived in Sri Lanka will go back and give a favourable report; maybe they will not. We got only 15 votes in the European Parliament in favour of us, and that should tell us something about Sri Lanka’s current international standards. I think that agreeing to what the EU has flagged would be a realistic and prudent thing to do, and none of those are bad things. Dismantling part of the overblown Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act (PTA), treating your working people and trade unions in the right way, and observing environmental laws are not bad things. So why don’t we just do it?” Meanwhile, Bogollagama also said that EU Member Countries are strong advocates of human rights, good governance, and transparency, and the providers of the GSP+, and that therefore, it is not possible to separate human rights and good governance from the donors’ concerns relating to the GSP+. He added: “But, the way forward lies in greater engagement, greater explanation and also the way we are looking at the overall situation regarding the democratic framework of Sri Lanka, and having better diplomatic relations.” PTA and human rights The Morning also discussed the PTA, Sri Lanka’s main anti-terrorism law which was originally promulgated as a temporary law, but has continued despite criticism due to its implementation. According to domestic and international human rights monitors, the PTA is being enforced in a way that violates human rights, especially those of ethnic minority communities; a fact that has been stressed at both the UNHRC and the EU. However, the Government is now looking into amending it, according to the Justice Ministry. As far as the PTA is concerned, both Bogollagama and Dr. Jayatilleka opined that the PTA needs to be revisited, taking into account the prevailing situation in the country. Dr. Jayatilleka noted that Sri Lanka should restrict the PTA to what it is supposed to deal with. Speaking of the EU’s concerns regarding Sri Lanka’s human rights situation and the PTA, he added: “I don’t see why we cannot comply with the EU’s concerns about the PTA and labour rights. Those are relatively harmless. We don’t need such a tough PTA. Now the President has promised that action will be taken, but what has happened during President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s tenure is that the PTA has been expanded. So, I think that we should attend to our agenda, and we don’t have to just keep buying time and do the opposite of what we have been requested to do.” Speaking of the PTA and Sri Lanka’s international relations, Bogollagama said: “When it comes to the PTA, there are certain clauses that govern certain areas of detention, which need to be looked at in the larger context of the national security of the country, without leaving room for allegations to be levelled on any abuse by the State, or the provisions of this Act. We enacted the PTA at a time when we had a draconian situation posed by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), in order to deal with that situation. If the conditions and the environment have improved, it is time for us to have a fresh look at it.” However, reconsidering the provisions of the PTA, according to Bogollagama, must take place giving priority to the national security of the country. He opined that abolishing this law is not the solution, but rather rectifying the shortcomings it includes. Meanwhile, former Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) Member Dr. Prathiba Mahanamahewa said that in a context where the international community has raised grave concerns regarding the enforcement of the PTA, amending the PTA is a necessary and timely matter. He stated: “Both the UNHRC and the EU have requested that the PTA, which came into existence in 1979, be amended. It is a very old law and therefore amendments are needed and timely. Other reasons are the detentions and arrests made under the PTA, and also the questioning of journalists in the recent past, which have been questioned by the international community. One of the allegations by the UNHRC and the EU is that the PTA is being used to arrest persons selectively, especially after the Easter Sunday attacks. There should be a transparent system for investigations.” He also noted that certain LTTE suspects not being treated equally and some inmates being in prisons for a longer period of time with no proper legal action are also reasons why PTA amendments are demanded. Adding that such amendments would result in good developments, Dr. Mahanamahewa said: “But I want to mention that Switzerland passed their prevention of terrorism act, or the national security bill, and if we look at it, we can see that even our one (PTA) is better at the moment. In that law, without any charge or without any suspicion, they can arrest a person and punish them. Sri Lanka is better than that. I don’t know why the European Parliament and the UNHRC are not doing an analysis to compare both before asking questions.” Sri Lanka’s foreign policy With regard to Sri Lanka’s foreign policy, Bogollagama said that Sri Lanka’s engagement with other countries needs to be strengthened with improved communication, while Dr. Jayatilleka was of the opinion that Sri Lanka needs to look into ways to regain the international support Sri Lanka has lost during the past decade. They both emphasised the responsibility of the Government. Bogollagama said: “Obviously, we have to improve our foreign policy. Our foreign policy, however, is rather clear. We are a non-aligned, neutral country, and the world has come to respect us for it. The President has made very clear how best he is looking at engaging with other countries at large, but, in practical terms, I think our missions and the Foreign Affairs Ministry will have to play their role.” Adding that meaningful engagement at the leadership level is of extreme importance and Sri Lanka needs to improve that aspect of the foreign policy, he said that engagement with India and China should be further strengthened. “At the same time, we have to be open with the world at large, and we have to recognise the influence of the western world coming from the US to Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan as they are major players in the world. Countries that got associated with major players have definitely come up well in terms of their economic agenda. I think that we have enough and more common ground to come together.” However, according to Dr. Jayatilleka, the situation concerning Sri Lanka’s foreign policy is not in a satisfactory state, and the declining international support to Sri Lanka reflects it. “Sri Lanka's foreign policy is in serious trouble and human rights are only one of those reasons. If we talk briefly about human rights, the question to ask is why Sri Lanka, which won a nearly two-thirds majority at the UNHRC in May 2009, started losing from 2012. We also lost in 2013, 2014, and again this year in March. In 2015, we just surrendered. We have lost the countries that supported us. Even the global south that supported us has stopped doing that. At some point, somebody has to look at what went wrong there, and we have to take into account whether our foreign policy needs to be readjusted in order to deal with the issue of human rights, and the promises the country has made and did not keep.” Adding that Sri Lanka has a problem of lack of balance and taking extreme positions of alignments with one camp or another, which is not the way that Sri Lanka has been, Dr. Jayatilleka also spoke of Sri Lanka’s neutrality, and expressed concerns similar to those expressed by Bogollagama regarding engagement with other countries. “We have been non-aligned, not neutral. We should have a dialogue with and initiate friendships with everybody. But we should know that we belong to the family of what is known as the non-aligned movement, and we have deviated from that. We would not be having this discussion had late Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar been alive, because he knew how to balance India and China, and how to balance the US, India, and China, and he did it. We need to return to a Kadirgamar foreign policy and learn from some of the lessons from our successes at the UNHRC sessions in Geneva in 2007 and 2009, and I think that that is the only way forward.” International intervention is one of the topics that keeps popping up in the discussion on Sri Lanka’s relations with the international community, and on multiple occasions, Sri Lanka has rejected any such intervention. Last month, during the 48th UNHRC session, Foreign Affairs Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris stated that Sri Lanka rejects proposals for any external initiatives established by Resolution 46/1, and added that domestic processes are vigorously addressing the relevant matters. According to Bogollagama, even though international interventions could be a matter that requires attention, what Sri Lanka has to worry about may not be a direct intervention, but a possible interference. He noted that there is already a greater focus on Sri Lanka’s situation and that a special unit has been created in Geneva to look into it. Adding that they are getting reports on a regular basis from their Mission in Sri Lanka as much as from other associated diplomatic missions working with the EU and the UNHRC, Bogollagama said that the feedback they receive will be a matter that they will be assessing, in terms of both the pros and cons of development. In this context, he added, Sri Lanka has to be careful and take meaningful steps, and ensure that whatever steps taken in Sri Lanka gets conveyed properly across the world, and for that purpose, according to him, Sri Lanka needs well-planned communication strategies and should ensure greater transparency in terms of the country’s relationship with the foreign agencies concerned. Speaking on how Sri Lanka must deal with the human rights-related concerns raised by the international community, Dr. Mahanamahewa said: “We have to be very proactive in these things, and we need a national human rights action plan to address these issues, and a domestic mechanism. We don’t believe in a hybrid court system, but we can get the support from the Commonwealth’s Human Rights Division, and they are really capable of supporting us for the investigations.” As the experts who spoke to The Morning noted, while the status quo is intricate and sensitive, the situation has not worsened to an unmanageable state, and Sri Lanka still has the opportunity to answer and take action regarding the allegations levelled against it. How Sri Lanka deals with the international community will determine many aspects that affect the entire country, especially the country’s collapsing economy and credibility, which requires support from the international community. Meaningful engagement with the international community, amending archaic laws to ensure that they only serve their intended purpose, and fulfilling reasonable requests from human rights monitors, are key actions.


More News..