Cogent reply more effective than bluff and bluster

When this appears the Government’s ‘ brains trust’ could be pouring over UN Human Rights Commissioner Michelle Bachelet’s latest missive on Sri Lanka if it has reached Colombo which is still not certain.

Following up on the UN Human Rights Council’s tough resolution on Sri Lanka last March carried by a comfortable vote in favour of its sponsors, High Commissioner Bachelet was to present a report on what progress Sri Lanka has made to carry forward the recommendations in Resolution 46/1.

But if Sri Lanka’s response to the Bachelet update on happenings in the country relevant to the resolution in the past year, is going to be anything like the foreign ministry’s riposte to activist Ambika Satkunanathan’s presentation to the European Parliament’s sub committee on human rights, then we might as well bid goodbye to a more accommodating outcome at the forthcoming Geneva meeting helpful to Sri Lanka.

Available space does not permit a dissection of the foreign ministry’s loose and arguable reply. But the fact is that it has done more damage to Sri Lanka’s position than if it had been left alone.

As a result of this unnecessary intervention that drew widespread attention, civic society groups, human rights bodies and activists both domestic and foreign rose to Ms. Satkunanathan’s support and buttressed her assessment of events in Sri Lanka over the last year and more.

That was the overall effect of the foreign ministry rushing in where even angels would not wish to set foot.

Just one other point on this. The ministry statement laments the fact that criticism of Sri Lanka before the European parliament could cost us the GSP Plus trade benefits.

It would have been more prudent and truthful if the foreign ministry’s panjandrums looked inward and asked themselves how Justice Minister Ali Sabry’s recent proposal to ban strike action by six state institutions and have it embedded in our constitution, would sound to those in the EU weighing Sri Lanka’s case for renewed GSP Plus benefits .

Surely the foreign ministry which has an embassy in Brussels would have advised that Sri Lanka needs to abide by 27 international conventions including ILO conventions that permit the right to strike under the labour laws if the country is to regain this EU trade concession. More over the right to strike is a long standing customary international law of seven decades or so.

The European Commission sets rules and conditions that a country seeking trade benefits must agree to adhere to. The foreign ministry must surely be aware that countries seeking benefits cannot cherry pick the conditions laid down as though the choice was theirs. Among the 27 international conventions stipulated are ones that include adherence to human rights and labour laws that permit the right to strike.

Preaching sermons to others while ignoring them yourself is hardly the way to convince the world of one’s rectitude and sheaf of promises.

Those concerned about Sri Lanka’s chances of having GSP Plus undermined, should not be going after activists such as Ms. Satkunanathan who is entitled to say her piece but ensure that their own ranks do not open their mouths wide enough to accommodate both feet.

By now the Government should have a general idea of the thrust of the Bachelet report. Many media commentators and analysts of Sri Lankan affairs, especially those in the country and have their antenna finely adjusted to developments since the UNHRC passed Resolution 46/1 nearly one year ago, would know only too well where the government and its advisers had slipped up during that time.

Maybe slipped up is too simplistic a term to describe some of the chaotic happenings that have been spotlighted and have led to widespread public protests as rising prices, commodity shortages and import restrictions caught the public by surprise.

Admittedly the long- drawn out pandemic compounded the Government’s other troubles principally the rapid drop in foreign reserves and domestic fiscal deficits that heaped problem upon problem.

But it is not the havoc caused by the Covid or its consequences that concern the Human Rights Council and the Human Rights Commissioner. It is the steps taken by the government to mitigate a number of issues pinpointed by last year’s resolution and whether adequate reforms have been collectively launched to improve those areas of concern such as human rights, accountability, freedom of speech and association, the abolition of repressive laws that trample on people’s rights and freedoms.

Since moving more than two decades ago to London as a journalist and briefly serving at our High Commission in the immediate post-war years when we were under constant attack by sections of the British media such as Channel 4, some British politicians and human rights groups, one constant refrain was that Sri Lanka did too little too late to rectify what they called our “wrongs”, if she did anything at all.

That was partly due to the country’s post-war triumphalism that made it think it was king.

One prominent journalist described Colombo’s efforts to me as “bird seed posture”-- that throwing a fist full of bird seed would satisfy a flock of hungry birds.

This seems to be what governments have been doing since Sri Lanka became of special interest to UNHRC and its human rights commissioner. By throwing crumbs at those calling for significant change, Colombo is not going to convince them of the genuineness of its larger commitment.

One of the most critical issues concerning Sri Lanka that has drawn international attention over the years is the Prevention of Terrorism Act ( PTA) which Sri Lanka has been promising to amend.

After dawdling with it for considerable time just months before the UNHRC meeting in a couple of weeks when Sri Lanka will face the music, Colombo awakens from its supine slumber and announces a few amendments to it.

Bird seed, as my media colleague said. If the amendments drew a barrage of criticism it was justified. It is rather clear that the hasty briefing of NGOs and others on the issue by Foreign Minister GL Peiris last week saying that more changes to the PTA are forthcoming is the result of perusing the Bachelet report.

Space does not allow a detailed comment. But what is difficult to comprehend is why all the contemplated changes— if any-- to the PTA could not have come in one comprehensive package? Why the bits and pieces?

Minister Peiris claims that the criticism of the amendments is “wrong and unfair”. Does he really think so when the amendments hardy touch the more obnoxious and reprehensible provisions of the law?. Surely the minister as a prominent legal academic cannot fail to see that unpardonable abuses still remain if we uninitiated could see them clearly enough.

It might be recalled that last December seven UN Special Rapporteurs set out five “necessary prerequisites” to align the law with international human rights standards.

Would it not be far better if a new law based on international human rights law be drafted and save a lot of headaches for governments, body aches for the detained and heartaches for their families?