Opinion

Take Human Rights seriously, not so much the council or office

Published

4 years ago

2021/02/25

By Dr Laksiri Fernando

The 46th Session of the UN Human Rights Council started on 22 February morning with obvious hiccups. The Office, to mean the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, finally decided to hold all sessions virtually online, only the President of the Council and the assistants in the high table sitting at the UN Assembly Hall in Geneva. The President, Ms. Nazhat Shammen Khan, Ambassador from Fiji in Geneva, wearing a saree, was graceful in the chair with empty seats surrounding.

In the opening session, the UN General Assembly President, UN General Secretary, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Head of Foreign Affairs, Switzerland (as the host country), addressed remotely the session. In fact, there was no need for Switzerland to have a special place, as the UN is independent from any host country. Switzerland is fairly ok, however, if this tradition is followed, the UN General Assembly may have to give a special place to the US in New York.

Initial Addresses

UN General Secretary, Antonio Guterres’ address could have been quite exemplary if he gave a proper balance to the developed and developing countries. He talked about racism and fight against racism but did not mention where racism is overwhelmingly rampant (US and Europe) and what to do about it. Outlining the human rights implications of Covid-19 pandemic, he made quite a good analysis. It was nice for him to say, ‘human rights are our blood line (equality), our lifeline (for peace) and our frontline (to fight against violations).’ However, in the fight against violations, he apparently forgot about the ‘blood line’ or the ‘lifeline’ quite necessary not to aggravate situations through partiality and bias. He never talked about the importance of human rights education or promoting human rights awareness in all countries.

His final assault was on Myanmar. Although he did not call ‘genocide,’ he denounced the treatment of Rohingyas as ethnic cleansing without mentioning any terrorist group/s within. His call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other civilian leaders undoubtedly should be a common call of all. However, he did not leave any opening for a dialogue with the military leaders or bring back a dialogue between Aung San and Min Aung, the military leader. With a proper mediation, it is not impossible. Calling for a complete overhaul as the young demonstrators idealistically claim might not be realistic.

High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet’s address was brief and uncontroversial this time without mentioning any country or region. It is clear by now perhaps she is not the real author of the Report against Sri Lanka, but someone probably hired by the so-called core-group led by Britain. Her major points were related to the coronavirus pandemic trying to highlight some of the socio-economic disparities and imbalances of policy making that have emerged as a result. The neglect of women, minorities, and the marginalized sections of society were emphasized. But the poor was not mentioned. As a former medical doctor, she also opted to highlight some of the medical issues underpinning the crisis.

Then came the statements from different countries in the first meeting in the following order: Uzbekistan, Colombia, Lithuania, Afghanistan, Poland, Venezuela, Finland, Fiji, Moldova, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Equatorial Guinea, Vietnam, Belgium, and Morocco. The obvious purposes of these statements were different. Some countries were apparently canvassing for getting into the Human Rights Council at the next turn perhaps for the purpose of prestige. Some others were playing regional politics against their perceived enemies. This was very clear when Lithuania and Poland started attacking Russia.

But there were very sincere human rights presentations as well. One was the statement by the President of Afghanistan, Mohammad Ashraf Ghani. He outlined the devastating effects that Afghanistan had to undergo during the last 40 years, because of foreign interferences. The initial support to Taliban by big powers was hinted. His kind appeal was to the UN was to go ‘beyond discourse to practice’ giving equal chance to the poor and the developing countries to involve without discrimination.

Controversial Presentations

China’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Wang Yi, made his presentation almost at the end of the first day. This is apparently the first time that China had directly addressed the Human Rights Council. Beginning with outlining the devastating repercussions of the coronavirus pandemic he stressed that the world should face the challenges through ‘solidarity and cooperation.’ He broadened the concept to human rights solidarity and cooperation. His expressed views were quite different to the others, particularly to the Western ones.

He frankly said that what he expresses are the views of China on human rights without claiming those are absolute truths or forcing others to believe or implement them. There were four main concepts that he put forward before the member countries. First, he said, “We should embrace a human rights philosophy that centres on the people. The people’s interests are where the human rights cause starts and ends.” Second, he said, “we should uphold both universality and particularity of human rights. Peace, development, equity, justice, democracy, and freedom are common values shared by all humanity and recognized by all countries.” “On the other hand,” he said, “countries must promote and protect human rights in light of their national realities and the needs of their people.”

“Third,” he said, “we should systemically advance all aspects of human rights. Human rights are an all-encompassing concept. They include civil and political rights as well as economic, social, and cultural rights.” He then emphasized, “Among them, the rights to subsistence and development are the basic human rights of paramount importance.” Fourth, “we should continue to promote international dialogue and cooperation on human rights. Global human rights governance should be advanced through consultation among all countries.”

It was on the same first day before China, that the United Kingdom launched its barrage against several countries not sparing Sri Lanka. The Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, delivered the statement from top to bottom attacking alleged violating countries on human rights. But there was no mentioning of Israel for the repression of Palestinians or the systemic racism rampaging in the United States, including the 6 January attacks on the Capitol by extremist/terrorist groups.

His first sermon was on Myanmar without acknowledging the British atrocities or mismanagement of this poor and diverse country during the colonial period. He was quite jubilant over implementing sanctions and other restrictions over the country. Many sanctions, in my opinion, are extortions. Undoubtedly, Aung San Suu Kyi and other leaders should be released, and democracy restored. This is a task of the whole council and when one or two countries try to grab the credit, there can be obvious reservations of others.

His further scathing attacks were against Belarus, Russia, and China. Some appeared factually correct but not necessarily the approach or the motives genuine. The following is the way he came around Sri Lanka. He said,

“Finally, we will continue to lead action in this Council: on Syria, as we do at each session; on South Sudan; and on Sri Lanka, where we will present a new resolution to maintain the focus on reconciliation and on accountability.”

‘Action’ to him basically means repeatedly passing resolutions, of course imposing economic and other sanctions. He said, “as we do at each session”; like bullying poor or weak countries at each session. Can there be a resolution against Russia or China? I doubt it.

What would be the purpose of presenting a resolution against Sri Lanka? As he said, “to maintain the focus on reconciliation and on accountability.” This will satisfy neither the Tamil militants nor the Sinhalese masses. But it might satisfy the crafty Opposition (proxy of the defeated last government). This is not going to be based on any of the actual measures that Sri Lanka has taken or not taken on reconciliation or accountability. But based on the ‘Authoritarian and Hypocritical Report’ that some anti-Sri Lankans have drafted within the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. This what I have discussed in my last article.

In this context, successful or not, the statement made by the Sri Lanka’s Minister of External Affairs, Dinesh Gunawardena, in rejecting any resolution based on the foxy Report of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in my concerned opinion, is absolutely correct.

All News Advertisement

Opinion

Learning from global models to address flooding and water shortage in Sri Lanka

Published

9 hours ago

2025/03/27

Sahan Weerasooriya

by Sudharman Siripala

Sri Lanka is grappling with the increasing threat of climate change, which has led to unpredictable weather patterns. The country faces a dangerous combination of flooding in some regions and water shortages in others, a situation exacerbated by shifting rainfall patterns. Rivers originating in the Central Hills, such as the Mahaweli, Kalu, and Kelani, flow through much of the country, but these water sources are not being distributed evenly. Districts like Monaragala and Hambantota, located in the dry zone, are experiencing severe water shortages. To address this challenge, experts suggest the development of an interconnected river system to harness excess water during floods and redirect it to drier areas, ensuring a year-round water supply for agriculture and daily use.

Global Case Studies in River Management

Several countries facing similar water-related challenges have implemented successful water management systems that Sri Lanka could adapt to its unique circumstances:

The Netherlands – Room for the River Programme

The Netherlands, a country prone to flooding, widened its rivers and relocated dikes to create floodplains. This approach allows rivers to overflow without damaging urban areas, while preserving water flow and natural habitats. Sri Lanka could apply this concept by designating specific riverbank areas for temporary flood storage.

China – South-North Water Transfer Project

China’s massive project channels excess water from the flood-prone Yangtze River to drier northern regions. This system of canals and reservoirs could inspire Sri Lanka to divert water from rivers in the Central Hills to drier areas in the south and east.

Bangladesh – River Interlinking Projects

Bangladesh has implemented river interlinking projects to redistribute water from flood-prone rivers, such as the Brahmaputra, to drier regions. Sri Lanka could link its major rivers like the Mahaweli and Kelani to smaller rivers in water-scarce districts to balance water distribution.

India – National River Linking Project

India’s National River Linking Project connects major rivers to manage both floods and droughts. Sri Lanka could use similar strategies, connecting rivers around the 500-foot contour line in the Central Hills to help distribute water more effectively.

United States – Mississippi River and Tributaries Project

The Mississippi River system combines levees, floodways, and diversion channels to manage flooding. Sri Lanka could adopt similar flood-control measures in vulnerable river basins such as the Kelani and Kalu.

Japan – Underground Reservoirs and Flood Channels

Japan’s G-Cans Project in Tokyo channels excess water into underground reservoirs to prevent urban flooding. A similar underground system could be implemented in Colombo and other flood-prone cities in Sri Lanka.

Singapore – Marina Barrage

Singapore’s Marina Barrage serves as both a flood control measure and a water supply resource. Sri Lanka could develop similar systems to control flooding in urban areas and ensure water availability during dry spells.

Thailand – Chao Phraya River Basin Management

Thailand uses diversion channels in the Chao Phraya River Basin to prevent flooding in Bangkok and direct water to agricultural areas. Sri Lanka could replicate this by creating diversion channels to supply water to its agricultural zones.

Actionable Solutions for Sri Lanka

Develop an Interconnected River System

Establish water diversion channels along the 300-500 meter contour lines of the Central Hills to capture excess rainfall during floods and redirect it to drier areas.

Build Reservoirs and Storage Tanks

Construct reservoirs to store diverted water, ensuring a steady supply for agriculture and domestic use. Sri Lanka has around 14,000 ancient tanks out of 30,000 that could be revitalized for this purpose.

Improve Urban Flood Defenses

Drawing inspiration from Japan and Singapore, build underground reservoirs and flood channels in cities like Colombo to mitigate urban flooding.

Strengthen Watershed Management

Restore natural floodplains and create wetlands to absorb excess rainwater, as seen in the Netherlands, helping to reduce flood risks.

Encourage Public-Private Partnerships

Foster collaboration between the public and private sectors to fund large-scale water management infrastructure, leveraging models from China and the United States.

Leverage Technology

Utilise modern forecasting and real-time water management systems, similar to those in Bangladesh and Thailand, to monitor water levels and manage river flows dynamically.

International Collaboration

Form partnerships with countries that have successfully implemented flood control and water management systems to share expertise and technology.

Sri Lanka’s dual challenges of flooding and water scarcity, compounded by climate change, require immediate action. By developing an interconnected river system and learning from successful global water management models, Sri Lanka can mitigate the effects of floods while ensuring a sustainable water supply for agriculture and daily life. It is crucial for the country to act now, as these solutions have the potential to transform Sri Lanka’s water management system for the better.

Sudharman Siripala Managing Director of Geoinformatics Group and a Registered Licensed Surveyor, specializes in geo-spatial applications. He also serves as a freelance value chain consultant for Vivonta Green Tech Consultants (www.vivonta.lk)

Opinion

Doctor’s plight

Published

9 hours ago

2025/03/27

Sahan Weerasooriya

Some people have found fault with a female doctor for not coming forward to identify her rapist and help make him pay for his crime.

Do they not realise the emotional toll of facing her rapist again?

There should be a way for survivors to testify directly to the judge without enduring such distressing encounters. Making a victim relive her trauma in this manner is akin to subjecting her to the ordeal all over again.

A Ratnayake

Opinion

Developing attitudes of schoolchildren for development

Published

2 days ago

2025/03/25

Sahan Weerasooriya

Sri Lanka was once at an economically comparable level with some of the world’s most developed countries in the 19th century. However, despite our country’s potential, we are still striving to fully develop. Many people often blame politicians, government officers, or various sectors for the situation. However, I believe the root cause of these issues lies not in any individual or group, but in the lack of good attitudes within our society.

We are investing significant resources into our education system, which is funded by the taxes of hard- working citizens. However, when we examine the outcomes, we realise that the academic achievements of our graduates alone are not enough. There are instances where professionals, despite having the necessary qualifications, fail to uphold ethical standards. In some cases, this even results in malpractice or harmful actions that damage our country’s reputation and progress. This highlights the gap between academic success and real-world responsibilities.

The education system, which is currently focused on competitive exams and rote learning, does not emphasise the development of attitudes and character in students. While our students are academically capable, many lack the qualities required to contribute positively to society. This lack of focus on social values, such as patriotism, selflessness and respect for elders, is holding us back from achieving the level of progress we deserve.

To address these concerns, I wrote to His Excellency, the President of Sri Lanka, on 24th September 2024, proposing education reforms that emphasise not only academic qualifications but also attitudes, ethics, and social responsibility. I suggested a holistic approach to university admissions and government recruitment, incorporating moral integrity, character, and extracurricular involvement, key traits for fostering well- rounded, responsible citizens. More importantly, I strongly recommended introducing a compulsory school subject, with both theory and practical components, focused on attitude development, which would be evaluated in university admissions. Encouraging extracurricular participation alongside academics will help shape ethical and socially responsible individuals.

I am pleased to inform you that the President, recognising the importance of these reforms, has directed the relevant ministries (by a letter dated 24th October 2024) to explore integrating these ideas into the education system. This marks a crucial step in transforming the values and attitudes of our youth for the nation’s benefit.

However, meaningful change requires collective effort. Parents, teachers, students, and citizens all play a role in shaping Sri Lanka’s future. Together, we must instill responsibility, ethics, and patriotism in the next generation. I invite you to share your thoughts and suggestions on further enhancing the values and attitudes of our youth. Your feedback will be invaluable in building a brighter future for Sri Lanka, one driven not just by knowledge, but by integrity and character.

Dr. Mahesh Premarathna

Research Fellow, National Institute of Fundamental Studies, Sri Lanka Email: mahesh.pr@nifs.ac.lk