Connect with us

Features

Geneva Toils & Tamashas: Serial indictments and puerile Tamil letter-politics

Published

on

by Rajan Philips

The 48th Session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva that started proceedings on August 13, is already remarkable for two new developments. The first is the enabling of the UN High Commissioner to update in real time the charge sheet against the Sri Lankan government. This is not due to any arrogation of powers on the part of the High Commissioner, but is entirely the result of the government forever piling on its past follies with new ones. The indictments in Geneva are becoming serial only because the government’s misdoings in law and order are already serial.

The second development is more hilarious than serious, and it is about competing letters that are reported to have been sent to the High Commissioner by Tamil political personas. News about the letter writing tamasha was restricted to the Tamil media, until DBS Jeyaraj brought it out to laugh out loud in the open. It is difficult to project the future trajectory of the new letter writing politics, but there are plenty of political tamashas from the past that will fit the present episode into a familiar pre-war pattern.

High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet’s opening statement on Sri Lanka has more references to the current goings-on than any past occurrences. Early In her third paragraph, Dr. Bachelet alludes to the “corrosive impact that militarization and the lack of accountability continue to have on fundamental rights, civic space, democratic institutions, social cohesion and sustainable development.” In the very next, fourth paragraph, she takes on the “new state of emergency” and expresses concern that “emergency regulations are very broad and may further expand the role of the military in civilian functions.” Then the sting, “the Office will be closely monitoring their application.”

There you have it. The monitoring of the application of Emergency Regulations is now on the UNHRC radar. It is not that UNHRC is not going crash the sky down on the Rajapaksa presidency, but so long as the Sri Lankan file remains open in Geneva the list of charges and indictments against the Rajapaksa government will keep growing. The Commissioner’s statement lists all the recent transgressions of the government in addition to declaring Emergency Rule.

The highlights include excessive force on peaceful protesters, and their arrests and detention in quarantine centres; continuing deaths in police custody besides torture and ill-treatment by law enforcement officials; the suspension of the case against former Navy commander Wasantha Karannagoda for the enforced disappearances of 11 men in 2008 and 2009; and the Presidential pardon of Duminda Silva, who was convicted for murder.

The unenviable task of defending the indefensible fell to the new Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Prof. GL Peiris (GLP), who has returned to his old portfolio after a ragged stint as Minister of Education. He had little to say about the current goings-on and not too much to say about the positive achievements of the government. He of course rejected the suggestion of any “external mechanism to investigate issues in Sri Lanka.”

There may never come a time when an external mechanism gets established in Sri Lanka. But talking about it will never end until Sri Lanka has a government that finds the will and resources to put its own house of disorder into order. If there has been any lingering illusion that the present government may yet rise up to this task, that was blown away, yet again, by the thuggish antics of State Minister Lohan Ratwatte in the Anuradhapura Prisons.

Apparently, he held the portfolio for Prison Reforms and Prisoners Rehabilitation, and Gem and Jewellery Industries – a very ‘methodical’ (the term President GR has used to explain the logic behind his cabinet assignments) combination of duties. After the Anuradhapura fiasco, Mr. Ratwatte remains State Minister of Gem and Jewelry Related Industries, minus Prison Reforms and Prisoners Rehabilitation. He half-resigned after Anuradhapura and the President accepted the half-resignation without fully firing him. Talk about domestic mechanisms!

Mastermind and the Scapegoat

Not surprisingly, the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings have also become a permanent item of concern for UNHRC. The Commissioner expressed solidarity with the victims and religious leaders and their cry for truth, justice, and full accounting for the tragedy. She also expressed the Commission’s deep concern about the prolonged detention of Lawyer Hejaaz Hizbullah (now over) 16 months under the Prevention of Terrorism Act without trial. Similarly, Ahnaf Jazeem, a teacher and poet, has been detained without any trial since May 2020.

The case of Lawyer Hizbullah has been on UNHRC’s radar for some time. And the Sri Lankan government took note of it and referred to it during a media briefing in Colombo, on September 10, by Defence Secretary, General Kamal Gunaratne. The briefing became a headlined story and General Gunaratne reportedly appeared at the briefing “flanked by Navy Chief VA Nishantha Ulugetenne and IGP C.D. Wickramaratne.” The principal purpose of the meeting was to ‘decry’ alleged efforts by interested parties to implicate the President in the Easter bombings.

Towards the end of the briefing, General Gunaratne brought up the arrest of Lawyer Hizbullah and the fact that “the Lawyer’s arrest had been raised at the highest level at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council.” He went to assert that “in spite of representations made to the UNHRC on behalf of the lawyer, they had irrefutable evidence regarding the detainee’s involvement in Easter carnage.” The question is if there is even plausible, let alone irrefutable, evidence why could not Mr. Hizbullah be put on trial?

Those who follow this matter in Sri Lanka and quite passionately outside Sri Lanka say that there is not even a shred of evidence against Mr. Hizbullah. And government lawyers in the Attorney General’s Department have lately gone quiet on the matter. Earlier one of them even described Mr. Hizbullah as a behind-the-scenes terrorist operator during a court hearing. If government lawyers could be so unkindly indifferent to the plight of one of their colleagues and a lawyer of some repute, what fairness could others expect from their system of justice.

To be clear, the reason why Defence Secretary General Gunaratne brought up the arrest of Hizbullah at the media briefing likely has nothing to do with prosecuting the long detained lawyer. It also may not have been intended as a rebuke to the UNHRC. A plausible, not necessarily irrefutable, reason could be that he wanted to prop up the detained lawyer as a scapegoat for Easter bombings to divert attention from the gossipy search for the ‘real’ mastermind behind it.

The attempted diversion would seem to have backfired. You cannot scapegoat Hizbullah any worse than he has been hurt so far. But the tag of mastermind may have escaped the gossipy underworld and got stuck in the respectable public domain. To be fair, General Gunaratne did not use the term ‘mastermind’; other Rajapaksa supporters did, but only to ‘decry’, just as the General did, the mastermind allegation that was mostly social media gossip. Not anymore. And no one can ask for proof of any kind, since the government itself is not interested in proving or disproving anything about the Easter bombings but for His Eminence, Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith.

How far the Cardinal will go in his search for truth and accountability for the Easter carnage is not a matter for mortal minds. He seems to have indicated that he is prepared to go to Geneva via the Vatican. And he has demonstrated to Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa that a Sri Lankan Head of Government or State can go to Italy or Rome, or New York, as much as they want, but to visit the Vatican, they will need a visa from the Local Church. But there is more than a stroke of irony in the Cardinal’s search for truth and accountability through the western medium of Human Rights.

“Monavada me manawa himikam (What are these human rights)?,” Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith haughtily asked in a sermon at St. Matthew’s Church, Ekala, in September 2018, as the Journalist Sanjeewa Fernando has poignantly reminded us (Daily Mirror, 15 September 21). I wrote about it then, with a picture of Elanor Roosevelt holding the English translation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, because the Cardinal’s sermon and reports about it hit Sri Lanka when the UN was celebrating the 70th anniversary of the universal declaration. This was also when Ranil Wickremesinghe and Mangala Samaraweera were being savaged by nationalists for co-sponsoring the infamous UNHRC Resolution 30/01 in Geneva. Now no one asks, what are these human rights? If at all, the question could be, who are you to ask?

Letter Politics

Resolution 30/01 has now grown to Resolution 46/01 and the ‘progress’ in between has been less than a handful going by what Minister Peiris listed as his government’s achievements in his address to UNHRC. Included in his list are the work of agencies that were established through the efforts of the late Mangala Samaraweera in the face of opposition by the SLPP and others. Despite earlier threats to dismantling these agencies (The Office on Missing Persons (OMP), The Office for Reparations (OR), and The Office for National Unity and Reconciliation (ONUR), the government is now taking credit for their work. But UNHRC resolutions are not going to end and what has become a bi-annual UN audit on the government is likely to continue indefinitely. The government’s frustrations are obvious even though it has far worse things to worry about.

There is also growing frustration of a different kind in Tamil political circles and that seems to have been the trigger behind the recent letter politics involving Tamil MPs and ex-MPs. In a matter of weeks, three letters are reported to have been sent to High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet – all three letters reportedly dealing with developments in Sri Lanka affecting the Tamils after the Commission’s March 2021 Resolution 46/01. And all three letters have been sent by people associated with the TNA, with the sole exception of CV Wigneswaran, the former Chief Minister and now MP, who is no longer with the TNA. He reportedly signed the first letter along with six current and former MPs belonging to TELO and PLOTE organizations.

TELO and PLOTE are the smaller constituent parties of the TNA along with the dominant ITAK (aka Federal Party), and the purpose of the first letter was to pre-empt a letter that was to be sent on behalf of the TNA and was being prepared by TNA leader R. Sampanthan. The TNA leadership was obviously miffed by being upstaged by its smaller partners, and eventually sent its own letter under Mr. Sampanthan’s singular signature. The tamasha did not end with it. A rogue third letter was also sent allegedly by nine dissidents – all belonging to Mr. Sampanthan’s ITAK organization, who took exception to the TNA leader quoting (in his letter) a UN Experts Panel report that associated not only the Government of Sri Lanka but also the LTTE with potential war crimes and crimes against humanity.

It might be more challenging to keep pace with the egotistical, if not petty, goings-on in the world of Sri Lankan Tamil politics than to monitor the human rights violations of the government of Sri Lanka. Even the UNHRC will be constrained to focus on the latter and ignore the former. The irony is that the human rights situation in Sri Lanka may have become a permanently self-sustaining matter for the UNHRC in Geneva. And it will likely keep running its course, with resolution after resolution, even if there is no corresponding change on the ground in Sri Lanka. And nothing can change in Sri Lanka with a government that is increasingly going wayward, on the one hand, and with Tamil political leaders, on the other hand, who can do nothing more than write competing but redundant letters.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Ethical wealth distribution: Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism

Published

on

The rules of income distribution as outlined in the Sigalovada Sutta, often referred to as the “householder’s discipline” or the “layperson’s code of conduct,” offer valuable guidance on ethical financial management and distribution of income in Buddhist thought. This sutta is part of the Digha Nikaya of the Pali Canon and addresses how a layperson should conduct their life in relation to family, friends, and community, including the responsible use of wealth.

The Sigalovada Sutta prescribes that wealth should be divided into four portions, each serving a different purpose. This fourfold division serves as a model for ethical financial management that promotes personal security, family care, social responsibility, and spiritual well-being.

*  One portion for daily needs: This refers to spending on one’s livelihood, ensuring basic needs are met without excess. It includes food, shelter, clothing, and other essential expenses.

*  Two portions for investment: These two portions should be used for increasing wealth, either through business, savings, or investments. The aim is to ensure long-term financial stability, reflecting the Buddhist value of planning for the future with mindfulness and foresight.

*  One portion for charity: The final portion should be allocated for charitable giving, supporting religious institutions (such as monks and temples), helping those in need, and contributing to social welfare. This aligns with the Buddhist emphasis on dana (generosity) and the moral responsibility to support others.

Validity and Relevance in Modern

Economic Context

The rules of income distribution in the Sigalovada Sutta remain valid for people who can manage a quarter of their income for daily needs. However, when 10% of people enjoy the lion share of 90% of the wealth while only 10% of the wealth is distributed among 90% of people in developing countries, the practicality of these rules is almost impossible.

Balance Between Consumption and Savings

The Sutta advocates for a balanced approach to spending, saving, and investing, which may aligns with modern financial principles in most advanced economies, where a significant portion of income is often invested in assets like home loans. This approach is consistent with the Sutta’s rule of reinvesting to accumulate wealth. The encouragement to save and invest reflects sound financial planning, helping individuals build long-term financial security and avoid excessive debt, a challenge prevalent in many low and lower and middle-income economies.

Investment for the Future

The recommendation to allocate two portions for investment highlights the importance of growing wealth in a sustainable and ethical way. In a capitalist society, this could translate into saving for retirement, investing in business ventures, or acquiring assets that can generate long-term benefits. Such a strategy encourages people to think beyond immediate consumption and fosters financial stability across generations.

However, the Sutta does not elaborate on the types of investments. While modern investments can generate wealth, some may conflict with Buddhist ethics (e.g., investments in harmful industries). The application of “right livelihood” (samma ajiva) would need to guide modern investment decisions, ensuring that they align with non-harmful, ethical industries.

Charity and Social Responsibility

The portion allocated to charity in the Sigalovada Sutta underscores the importance of generosity, social welfare, and communal support. In Buddhist ethics, dana is a key virtue that promotes not only the well-being of the recipient but also the spiritual growth of the giver. This approach to wealth distribution is particularly relevant today, where growing income inequality has raised concerns about social justice and equity.

Modern systems of philanthropy and corporate social responsibility (CSR) echo this principle of giving back to society. However, the Sutta frames charity not as an optional, occasional act, but as an integral and regular part of one’s financial life. This can serve as a moral critique of modern practices where charity is often viewed as secondary to personal wealth accumulation.

Moderation and Non-Attachment

The Sutta encourages wealth management without attachment, reminding individuals not to become slaves to material wealth. This aspect of the Sutta remains deeply relevant in today’s consumerist society, where the pursuit of wealth often becomes an end in itself, leading to stress, dissatisfaction, and ethical compromises.

In a world where economic success is often measured by material accumulation, the Buddhist approach to moderate consumption and wealth-sharing offers a counter-narrative. The focus on ethical and mindful use of wealth promotes well-being, both at an individual level and within the broader community.

Challenges and Limitations

While the principles of the Sigalovada Sutta provide a strong ethical foundation, there are some challenges in their direct application in a modern, globalized economy:

*  Changing Economic Systems: The economy during the Buddha’s time was much simpler, based on agrarian and barter systems. Today’s complex financial systems, with varied forms of income (salary, investments, passive income), may require a reinterpretation of the Sutta’s guidelines to fit different types of financial arrangements.

*  Wealth Disparity: The Sutta assumes a relatively equitable distribution of resources and wealth within society. In modern economies, however, there are vast differences in income levels, and what constitutes “enough” for daily needs, savings, and charity can vary significantly across socio-economic classes.

*  Capitalism and Profit Maximization: The Sutta’s approach contrasts with modern capitalism’s focus on profit maximization and economic growth at all costs. While the Sutta promotes ethical financial management and redistribution, capitalism often prioritizes individual wealth accumulation. This divergence presents a challenge for applying the Sutta’s principles in highly capitalistic societies where personal gain is incentivized.

Comparison of application of Singalovada

Stta between Theravada and Mahayana

The Sigalovada Sutta holds a significant place in both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism as a guide for laypeople, particularly in the realm of ethical living and financial management. However, the application and interpretation of its principles, especially in relation to wealth distribution and social ethics, differ between the two traditions. These differences stem from the distinct philosophical and doctrinal foundations of Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism.

Theravada Buddhism’s Application of the Sigalovada Sutta

Theravada Buddhism emphasizes individual ethical conduct and personal enlightenment, applying the Sigalovada Sutta to personal and familial responsibilities. The focus is on personal responsibility and right livelihood (samma ajiva), where individuals are encouraged to earn a living without causing harm. Wealth is seen as a tool for fulfilling basic needs, supporting family, and practicing generosity (dana), particularly towards the Sangha and local community.

Theravada promotes moderation and non-attachment to wealth, in line with the Middle Path, avoiding excessive accumulation. The Sutta’s teachings guide individuals to manage wealth wisely while focusing on personal and community well-being, reinforcing mutual dependence between laypeople and monks for material and spiritual support.

Mahayana Buddhism’s Application of the Sigalovada Sutta

Mahayana Buddhism, through its Bodhisattva ideal, offers a broader interpretation of the Sigalovada Sutta, focusing on the societal implications of wealth distribution and ethical conduct. Wealth in Mahayana is viewed not just for personal well-being but as a tool for societal transformation, used to reduce suffering and promote collective welfare.

In this framework, charity takes on a universal dimension, with Mahayana practitioners encouraged to direct their resources toward large-scale social initiatives like education, healthcare, and poverty alleviation. The emphasis is on benefiting all beings, reflecting the Mahayana ethos of compassion and social responsibility.

Compared to Theravada’s stricter approach to wealth, Mahayana allows greater wealth accumulation, as long as it serves altruistic goals. This aligns with the Mahayana principle of upaya (skillful means), where the ethical use of wealth becomes a method to alleviate suffering and guide others toward enlightenment.

Comparison

The key differences in interpretation between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism regarding charity, wealth, and ethical conduct can be summarized as follows:

Scope of Charity:

Theravada: Charity is more localized, focusing on immediate responsibilities like family, friends, and the Sangha (monastic community).

Mahayana: Charity is global in scope, aimed at benefiting all beings, reflecting the Mahayana vision of interconnectedness and collective enlightenment.

Ethical Conduct and Wealth:

Theravada: Emphasizes individual ethical conduct and personal spiritual growth, where wealth is a personal responsibility, contributing to individual merit and well-being.

Mahayana: Focuses on collective well-being, with the Bodhisattva ideal promoting the use of wealth for broader social and spiritual welfare.

Wealth Accumulation:

Theravada: Advocates for moderation in wealth accumulation, consistent with the Middle Path, viewing wealth with caution to avoid attachment that may hinder spiritual progress.

Mahayana: Permits greater wealth accumulation if directed toward altruistic goals, using wealth as a tool for social transformation in alignment with the Bodhisattva’s mission.

Common Ground:

Ethical Conduct: Both traditions stress earning wealth ethically through right livelihood, avoiding harm.

Generosity: Charity (dana) is central to both, emphasizing generosity as a way to reduce attachment and contribute to well-being.

Non-Attachment: Both stress non-attachment to wealth, though the degree and application of this differ between the two traditions. Wealth is seen as a means to support ethical living rather than an end goal.

(The writer, a senior Chartered Accountant and professional banker, is Professor at SLIIT University, Malabe. He is also the author of the “Doing Social Research and Publishing Results”, a Springer publication (Singapore), and “Samaja Gaveshakaya (in Sinhala). The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the institution he works for. He can be contacted at saliya.a@slit.lk and www.researcher.com)

Continue Reading

Features

Schools can help ease religion-based distancing 

Published

on

A representational image. (Picture courtesy of UNICEF)

by Susantha Hewa

In her article titled “Old Wines in New Democracies: Education in the making” published in The Island of October 1, 2024, Prof. Sivamohan Sumathy, referring to a move which is proposed in the NPP’s election campaign manifesto, commends giving schoolchildren a broader understanding of religions in general, when she welcomes “a holistic civic education where one learns about religions rather than one’s “own” and learns about diversity”. Surely, it will be a decisive first step in the direction of inspiring religious amity.

The proposed scheme will certainly go a long way in building bridges between different religious communities in the country, although it would be upsetting to those who wish to continue the tradition of exposing the children only to the religion of their parents for the fear that learning about other religions would diminish their religious zeal. In a society where people can be parochial enough to fear the extinction of the institution of religion even more than they may fear the very extinction of the human race, the idea of teaching children a religion other than his own may scare many people complacent about the culture of, lets’ say, “one religion, never mind whatever it is”. However, today, even with thousands of missiles whizzing across the sky killing thousands of peace-loving and innocent people, pushing the world to the brink of obliteration, anyone of those single-religion advocates may yet ask, “Bro, I am really worried. What about our religions? Will they be still there in their pristine purity once we are all reduced to ashes”? Tragic, isn’t it? There is little doubt that all those world leaders who are breathing fire and promising sweet vengeance with each provocation have too much of their “own” religious blood coursing through their veins. If only they had an opportunity to transcend the “my religion, my truth, the only truth” mentality in their impressionable years! Let wiser counsels prevail, and, the sooner the better.

The acquisition of the first language is somewhat similar to the acquisition of the (first) religion. Infants acquire both before they are sufficiently cognitively developed to “learn” them in the sense in which learning is generally understood in education. Yet, this “single language – single religion” tradition has apparently done little to make society peaceful. Let’s take language. Being exposed to only one language (monolingualism) in early childhood is not the best way to promote social cohesion. In fact, in the modern world, it is a deprivation and an invitation to introversion. According to research, bilingualism and multilingualism bring many linguistic and non-linguistic benefits to children who will grow up to be more confident, empathetic, more skilled in making friends from different cultural backgrounds, securing better employment, better in learning new languages, etc. For example, according to research, “bilingual preschoolers seem to have somewhat better skills than monolinguals in understanding others’ perspectives, thoughts, desires, and interests” (Bialystok & Senman, 2004; Goetz, 2003; Kovács, 2009). Fortunately, parents and society are informed of the benefits for children who naturally acquire two or more languages rather than one.

Given that they grow up in a multilingual setting, children easily acquire several languages without their parents feeling unduly upset about it. Today parents are too sophisticated to insist that the child should strictly survive on a diet of the parental language so as to be an unadulterated specimen of the ‘ethnicity’, which is falsely identified with the respective language; for example, imagining a Sinhala ‘ethnicity’ joined at the hip with Sinhala language.  However, this sophistication ends where religion begins, so to speak. Not many parents would allow their children to get exposed to a religion other than their inherited one. The reason is obvious – the faith factor, which has no role in language acquisition, but embedded in religion.

Many of us who were destined to start as monolinguals later upgrade ourselves to be bilinguals or multilinguals thanks to the enabling quality of language. With every language a child acquires, she becomes stronger and more competent in social and cognitive skills in addition to being linguistically more versatile. However, the crucial difference between language-acquisition and religion-acquisition in early childhood is that the former hardly gets in the way of the child acquiring a second or third language, whereas the latter inevitably resists another religion being acquired due to the invariable buildup of faith in the first religion which is inherent in the process. The glue that binds the members of any religious community is their unconditional trust in the infallibility of their creed. One may argue that even in language acquisition in early childhood, the child surely develops ‘faith’ in the versatility of the language he begins to use. True enough, but this ‘faith’ never acts as a resistance to the acquisition of the next language in the queue.

Why letting schoolers learn religions other than their ‘inevitable’ religion can give a significant fillip to religious harmony is that this “learning” process, unlike the acquisition process in early childhood, will be the natural learning procedure where cognition takes the centre stage of the entire process, which would not demand faith as the final product. The students as mature learners will use their cognitive faculties to question, understand, reason, reject, analyse, accept, etc. to know rather than believe. Such a holistic approach to the teaching of religion will surely but slowly result in the younger generation learning to take a more sober and balanced approach to the whole idea of religion. Hence, the sooner they implement it, the greater the benefits for all.

It would be a fantasy if anyone thinks of persuading parents to let their children be exposed to several religions. Being the products of the same conditioning process, we would be stricken with a terrible sense of guilt and sin if we were to evade our sacred ‘parental obligation’ to mould our children in “our” religion to the exclusion of all the others. Hence the importance of teaching “religions” as a subject in the school curriculum, which will be a better-late-than-never kind of option. Such a project will bring more benefits to the students if “morality studies” can be made a part of the curriculum placing it in a wide framework in which morals are discussed outside the precincts of religion, examining them in their essential web of links covering all aspects of experiential life.

The historian Yuval Noah Harari says, “History isn’t the study of the past; it is the study of change” (Nexus, 2024). This idea questions the somewhat patronizing attitude that history is just learning about the past and is of no ‘practical value’, unlike STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) that take all the prizes. However, the study of history is much more than learning the dates and events, as Harari points out. It’s time that religion, which has been the responsibility of the family and the tradition, was understood as much more than rituals, narratives of the saints and their uniqueness, codified morals, etc. The inclusion of religions as yet another subject in the school curriculum, where students are allowed to study them without the accustomed inhibitions will be quite timely and relevant in a world in which belligerence is preferred to religious values in solving the most crucial problems.

Perhaps, adult education in this regard, too, may not be irrelevant in the present context, where parents are fixated about the mantra of single-religion. They may be persuaded to look at religion in a broader human context to usher in a better world. Possibly, media can help?

Continue Reading

Features

New start in international relations can be highlighted in Geneva

Published

on

by Jehan Perera

Diplomatic missions that took a keen interest in the outcome of the presidential election have lost no time in reaching out to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake after his victory.  Prior to the election it appeared that former president Ranil Wickemesinghe was the favourite of the Western bloc of countries.  They made frequent public statements commending the president for his handling of the economy which were supplemented by similar supportive statements by the IMF.  The Wickremesinghe government also made a special effort to be identified with Western-led initiatives including the promise of participating in naval operations in the Red Sea despite having an ill-equipped ship.

One of the concerns of the Western bloc of countries and India in particular was the foreign policy orientation of the NPP and its presidential candidate.  The surmise was that with the NPP’s core constituent the JVP, being a Marxist-Leninist party as stated on its website, that the NPP would be tilted towards countries with a similar ideology.  In the aftermath of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s victory, the international media gave credence to the view that the government would tilt towards China and Russia, which have been long term allies of Sri Lanka, especially during the period of war and when it came to human rights issues in the context of that war.

However, in the aftermath of his victory, President Dissanayake has given precedence to India, both in terms of economic activities and security interests.  The first foreign ambassador to meet him was the Indian ambassador.  The first foreign minister to visit Sri Lanka has also been from India at which economic development projects with India was given prominence.  President Dissanayake has assured the Indian government that India’s national security will be a priority concern for Sri Lanka.  At the same time there have been messages of goodwill from around the world, including countries that are important to Sri Lanka as they provide both markets and economic assistance to it, including the US, Japan, EU, China and Russia.

NEW LEADERSHIP

The government will soon be facing its first major foreign policy challenge. This week the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) will be deciding on the level of its scrutiny of Sri Lanka, particularly focusing on accountability for human rights violations and the handling of the country’s economic and political crisis. Since 2009, the year the war ended on the battlefields of the north, the international community led by the Western bloc of countries has been pressing Sri Lanka at the UNHRC to investigate and deal with the past.  There is the question as to what happened in the final stages of the war and to ensure accountability, among other matters, which include finding of missing persons, return of land and de-militarising the north and east.

In Resolution 51/1 of October 2022, the UNHRC decided, among other matters, to extend and reinforce the capacity of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to collect and preserve evidence of gross human rights violations. This aims to advance accountability and support judicial proceedings in countries that have laws that permit prosecution of war crimes in their jurisdictions.  Both the governments headed by presidents Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Ranil Wickremesinghe strongly opposed this resolution.  But the legal arguments they made and the evidence they produced to show improvement of the human rights situation on the ground have not changed the approach of the UN system.

This time around, however, the situation can be different and the Sri Lankan government may respond differently.  For the first time since the UNHRC resolutions on Sri Lanka made their appearance starting in 2009, Sri Lanka has a government in which none of its members can be accused of having participated in the excesses committed during the course of the war.  The members of the present government were not in positions of power where they could have made decisions regarding the deployment and use of force by the security forces.  The only time they held cabinet posts was in the period 2004-2005 when the Norwegian-facilitated ceasefire agreement was in operation and armed hostilities between the parties had temporarily ceased. During that time the president served as the Minister of Agriculture, Livestock, Lands, and Irrigation.

SUCCESS STORY

UNHRC Resolution 51/1 of 2022 was for a two-year period, which comes to an end this month.  The indications are that the Western-bloc of countries will not let it lapse at a time when most of its recommendations have yet to be implemented by the Sri Lankan government.  A draft resolution that has been circulated calls for a one-year extension- “Decides to extend the mandate and all requested work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Human Rights Council resolution 51/1 and requests the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to present an oral update at its 58th session, and a comprehensive report on progress on human rights, reconciliation, and accountability in Sri Lanka at its 60th session to be discussed in an interactive dialogue.”

Instead of continuing on the confrontational path taken by the two previous governments, an option for the new government would be to take the position that it needs time to study the provisions in the resolution, ascertain the present state of implementation and what it can implement in the next year.  As in the case of the IMF agreement the Dissanayake government can take the position that it will propose amendments to the resolution at the next or subsequent sessions of the UNHRC.  The ideal would be a resolution both Sri Lanka and the UNHRC can agree to.  There is significant goodwill towards Sri Lanka within the UN system which has been heightened by the peaceful transition of power that has taken place in the aftermath of the presidential election.

The ability of the new government to take forward the national reconciliation process that was commenced but not taken forward by previous governments will also add to the credibility of the new government. The positive work done by civil society in Sri Lanka was given special recognition at the ongoing 57th session of the UNHRC at a side event on Combating Intolerance, Hate Crimes and Islamophobia which was hosted by the United States Delegation to the UN Human Rights Council.  Under its new leadership, Sri Lanka has the potential to be the good news story in a world that is increasingly troubled by the breakdown of international norms that need to be reversed, and Sri Lanka can do its part.

Continue Reading

Trending