Preparing for the next human rights tsunami

The crucial question then is whether our diplomatic representation is fulfilling and can fulfil the task of meeting the challenges facing Sri Lanka? Are the missions and some of those heading them fit for purpose?

Having taken some heavy body blows though not floored in Geneva earlier this month, the Foreign Ministry is readying itself for some much-needed introspection.

At a post-Geneva media conference in Colombo, Ministry Secretary Admiral ( Retd) Jayanath Colombage, a member of our delegation to Geneva, indicated they had already started preparing for the 51st session of the UN Human Rights Council in September.

Fearing another critical resolution, more biting and penetrating than the present, would further expose Sri Lanka if it continues to sideline, if not ignore, its stated commitment to international human rights standards and conventions that Sri Lanka is signatory to, the foreign secretary underlined the “importance of working with experts, government officials and civil society”.

This intended broadening of the dimensions of the dialogue at least marks a step forward. Unless of course, Foreign Secretary Colombage wonders whether this forward step ahead of the September sessions, could, like Lenin’s tactical advice, result in two steps back after the sessions and a return to the status quo ante or worse.

Such things have happened in our history and so should come as no surprise. Promises have been faithfully ( one imagines) made and then ditched before long.

One might hark back to the joint statement between President Mahinda Rajapaksa and UN Secretary- General Ban Ki- moon after the latter’s visit to Colombo on May 23 within days of the LTTE’s defeat in 2009.

To revive faded memories let me quote the last paragraph of that Joint Statement.

“Sri Lanka reiterated its strongest commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights, in keeping with international human rights standards and Sri Lanka’s international obligations. The Secretary-General underlined the importance of an accountability process for addressing violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. The Government will take measures to address those grievances.”

Almost 13 years later we are on the same music sheet, so to speak. Except that the musical score continues to be extended as the human rights situation worsens as that abhorrent Prevention of Terrorism Act--which was intended to be a temporary law-- is increasingly used for purposes other than what was originally intended.

That is so obvious even if the defenders of the Government’s record say otherwise, that the call for drastic changes to the law, if not its abolition, is gaining ground not only internationally but domestically too like the unanimous call by Sri Lanka’s own Human Rights Commission for its repeal.

So instead of plaintive cries before the UNHRC that Sri Lanka is being discriminated against and treated as a “political football” , it would be far more prudent and widely accepted and respected if the promises to its own people and the world were faithfully fulfilled.

There would then be less cause to cry foul had the necessary changes to the laws been made to bring them in line with international human rights standards as Sri Lanka promised to do 13 years ago were implemented.

Instead the situation has worsened and Foreign Minister GL Peiris wonders why Sri Lanka is being picked for strictures when he has personally presented amendments to the PTA. But if learned and articulate critics at home and abroad were, like Oliver Twist, pleading for more, it is because those amendments hardly scratch the surface and were surely intended as a sop to appease the more gullible.

One could have replied to his display of intellectual indolence if one had space enough and time.

So let’s set aside bloated claims that 31 countries of 45 that participated were “supportive” of Sri Lanka at the recent Geneva sessions which, as I had said recently, would be more credible if the countries were named and the texts of their supportive statements made available.

After last year’s mathematical contortions claiming Sri Lanka gained more votes than the sponsors of the anti-Sri Lanka resolution which would have jolted even junior math students out of their senses, relying on official comments would be like having faith in the political prognostications of the much-touted Gnana Akka.

It might be more fruitful, therefore, to concentrate on Foreign Secretary Colombage’s preparations to rescue Sri Lanka from the international mire which it has pushed itself into without any assistance from the UN Human Rights High Commissioner who was treated to an over dose of Sri Lankan ire when the Government should have spent the time more usefully studying its visage in the mirror.

If what Foreign Secretary Colombage said displays serious intent then he appears to have learnt that boxing above one’s weight in the international arena with more perspicacious diplomats is not like spinning stories to domestic media about Sri Lanka slaying Goliath in Geneva.

If he rightly thinks preparation is necessary the Foreign Ministry should turn itself into a ‘ war room’ where strategy is planned for confronting what is perceived as the foreign ‘enemy’.

But the Foreign Secretary must bear the brunt of it all because human rights is now a subject under the purview of the foreign ministry unlike when Mahinda Samarasinghe was Minister for Human Rights in bygone days.

So he must be alive not only to the enemy at the drawbridge but the ‘enemy’ within. Unnecessary policy decisions and damaging and unthinking remarks by ministers and their side- kicks weeks before the Geneva sessions as happened last year, preventing the traditional Muslim practice of burying the dead and a ministerial remark shortly afterwards of banning Muslim women’s face coverings, backfired when it came to voting on Resolution 46/1.

This year shortly before the Geneva sessions Justice Minister Mohamed Ali Sabry told the media that workers of six staterun bodies or institutions should be banned from engaging in strike action and that prohibition should be enshrined in the constitution.

It is surprising the Justice Minister was advocating such bans when countries seeking GSP+ trade concessions need to adhere to 7 ILO conventions among several other human rights conventions, that grant workers the right to strike under international law,

To even suggest such a policy at a time when agitation among workers was mounting before the Geneva meeting was, to say the least, careless and toxic.

So when Secretary Colombage gathers around advisers to help him formulate strategy that is essentially a home- based operation. But the frontline in this battle against what Colombo considers a partial and discriminating foe is elsewhere. It is in the various capitals where Sri Lanka has diplomatic missions and from where our diplomats need to reach out to countries in which Colombo has accredited representatives.

But some countries are more important than others, such as those that form the “Core Group” currently headed by the UK, that collectively draft the resolution on Sri Lanka to present to the 47-nation Council.

The crucial question then is whether our diplomatic representation is fulfilling and can fulfil the task of meeting the challenges facing Sri Lanka? Are the missions and some of those heading them fit for purpose?

With six months more to the September sessions, it is time to ask these questions without burying them under more than one thick carpet.