Notwithstanding the hurrahs of Sri Lanka's delegation to the United Nations this week in having (apparently) marked a victory for the ability of smaller states to - en bloc- stand up to 'Western bullying' there is, in fact, little reason for jubilation regarding the Human Rights Council's Special Session on Sri Lanka. And it must also be said that as much as the somewhat unseemly cheering of the Sri Lankan delegation is to be deprecated, one is equally hard put to fathom the bitter disappointment of others who profess themselves 'astounded' at the result. On the contrary, the outcome was boringly predictable and there are, indeed, valuable lessons for both sides to learn in this respect.
Lecturing on human
rights standards
These lessons are apparent at many levels. In the first instance, the outcome of the Special Session is explained by those who were disappointed at its result, by the domination of the Council by the groups of Afro-Arab-Asian 'rights violators' who, as is commonly said, resist attempts to subject their regimes to scrutiny by the United Nations. Yet, this explanation conveniently bypasses one of the key truths in this context; that lectures on the observance of human rights standards by some of the sponsors of this Special Session (Britain being an obvious example) sits queasily in our collective stomachs.
It is not so easy any more to brush aside the double standards that are applicable to 'powerful nations' and 'less powerful' nations as being part of international realpolitik, with the assumption that these differentials should therefore be tolerated and put up with. On the contrary, the extreme resentment that is evidenced in regard to this assumption is not limited to 'pro-government' opinion in this country. The false and naively simplistic assumption that it is the West which decides as to which countries may be measured by the yardstick of human rights compliance - and then lectured to - should be dispensed with once and for all.
Simplistic choices and
weighted language
Nowhere is this assumption better illustrated than in some of the writings that we tend to see in the Western newspapers. For example, the current dilemma where post conflict Sri Lanka is concerned, has been posed by some writers as presenting a choice between two options; thus, 'the democratic world' has a choice to either 'punish' Sri Lanka for its brutal conduct of the war thus pushing the country deeper into the embrace of China, Iran and other rival powers or to overlook multiple abuses and thereby set a precedent for future conflicts and dash hopes of reconciliation between the Sinhalese and Tamils (see Jeremy Page, The Times, May 20th 2009). The language of these writers is, of course, heavily weighted. Thus, (by not so subtle implication), we are invited to equate 'the democratic world' to the West and thereby subscribe to the assumption that such an equation is without its inherent paradoxes.
For, on this same reasoning, the question as to who 'punishes' UK policy makers for the actions of its military in Iraq and Afghanistan becomes pertinent. In the US meanwhile, we have a new administration taking a considered decision not to prosecute the policymakers of the earlier administration who actively, systematically and deliberately pursued a policy of interrogation that amounted to torture, clearly breaching international human rights as well as humanitarian law. And this too in the face of repeated rebukes by oversight offices of the United Nations, including the office of the Special Rapportuer against Torture.
In rebuttal, it may be said that military personnel have been prosecuted and dismissed for these abuses in both countries. However, the fact remains that it is largely military officers of a lower rank who have been brought to justice, leaving unscathed former policy makers who, implicitly if not explicitly, encouraged these abuses. Both administrations may have changed now but the point is that, with such a tainted history, it is only natural that the call for war crimes inquires in respect of human rights abuses in other countries will be greeted with deep resentment.
It is for this reason, (quite apart from the political power games of nation-states), that interventions in international fora such as the United Nations Human Rights Council should be sensitively timed and strategically planned. In the alternative, such efforts not only afford convenient cover for erring governments to take refuge in 'human rights-bashing' but also makes it well nigh impossible for human rights activists to compel imperative internal reforms.
No reason to cheer
That said, it must also be acknowledged that the call for an international war crimes inquiry was made with such force purely due to the fact that Sri Lanka has, time and time again, refused to put into place credible mechanisms of justice for serious human rights abuses. Instead, politically compromised Commissions of Inquiry have hardly served the purpose. The very fact that a Special Session was held on Sri Lanka, (only the eleventh one of its kind since the commencement of the Council), is reason enough to dampen any untoward cheer. If the country does not change its laws and policies, this will not be the last time that it will face a challenge in international fora.
On this occasion, the outcome of the Session was dictated to by the international politics of the Council's membership. Yet these dynamics are liable to change at any time. Rather than relying on such unstable pressures and counter pressures, bringing the country back on the democratic track will be the very best way to insulate ourselves from further criticism.
The government needs to, at the very minimum, decrease its reliance on emergency law, dismantle its repressive restrictions on individual freedoms including on the media, restore respect for the Rule of Law and the Constitution and bring those repeatedly responsible for egregious human rights abuses to book through domestic laws, reformed to serve the cause of justice wherever this is needed.
Luxuries no longer
Such calls needs to be supported by a constituency of informed public opinion within the country. Apart from government committees themselves acknowledging deficiencies, independent studies emanating nationally as well as internationally and which are fact-based rather than opinion-based, show that Sri Lanka's legal and justice systems are constantly failing its people.
This week, the International Bar Association's report on the Sri Lankan judiciary and the legal system is the most recent and damning of these reports. The IBA recommendations deserve careful scrutiny by the government particularly in regard to the appointment of Sri Lanka's next Chief Justice within the coming weeks.
Demands for constitutional governance earlier may have been deafened by the clarion call that such luxuries are difficult when fighting terrorism. However, this rhetoric no longer remains compelling. Quite apart from deflecting international scrutiny, there is absolutely no doubt that if we miss this opportunity for genuine democratisation of our governance systems in a way that alleviates the fears of the minorities as well as the concerns of the majority community in this country, we will never be able to seize the moment again. |
E-mail