Amidst rising allegations from within the country regarding rights violations during the “aragalaya” movement, successive governments’ role and responsibility concerning the economic collapse, and also concerns regarding the lack of results delivered through existing institutions and mechanisms tasked with looking into war crimes-related allegations, the Government has assured the world that it endeavours to establish a credible truth-seeking mechanism within the framework of the Constitution, and that the contours of a model that would suit the particular conditions of Sri Lanka are under discussion.
This statement was made by Minister of Foreign Affairs M.U.M. Ali Sabry PC, at the 51st session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) on Monday (12). He further claimed that as a result of the Government’s efforts pertaining to improving human rights, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act (PTA) has already been amended, and that more amendments are to be made.
This is not the first time that a Government promised such an appealing and well-planned course of action. This is also not the first time that it asked the international community to trust its efforts aimed at protecting human rights in its own way, divorced from international influence. However, when looking at the past decade, especially in the 13 years following the end of the war, it is evident that the Government has made more such promises than it was able to fulfil, and has reneged on promises on several occasions. In addition, there are serious questions with regard to the progress made by the institutions and mechanisms on which the Government’s so-called homegrown solutions depend.
In other words, during the said period, the Government proved that it is yet to exhibit two simple qualities, i.e. making promises that can actually be implemented, and taking every possible measure to deliver on what it has already promised. These qualities are particularly important if the Government is going to outright refuse international intervention attempts.
Looking at the recent past, reforms pertaining to the PTA – regarding which the Government made several promises – attracted much attention, as the recent amendments have not addressed a number of PTA provisions that could be used to violate fundamental rights, and because the PTA is being used to deal with matters that should ideally be dealt with under civil or ordinary criminal laws.
For the time being, Sri Lanka might avoid harsh repercussions in the international arena due to the severe economic issues that the country is going through. However, at some point, this recipe for buying time by promising appealing and timeline-devoid measures will turn stale. If this situation continues, the Sri Lankan State could soon be internationally recognised as failed, dishonest, and incompetent.
For a country that has been dealing with allegations of grave human rights violations, including during the war, both domestically and internationally, the importance of being responsible for its actions and pledges should not be a novel concept. At least now, the Government, which consists mostly of politicians who have been in politics for years, if not for decades, should understand the simple truth that it cannot go on buying time based on appealing promises it does not take seriously.
Risking the credibility of the State, or of the country, is not a luxury that the Government is entitled to, irrespective of the scale of the risk of such, especially given the vulnerable state that the country is in. The country is expecting, and is significantly dependent, on international assistance and partnerships to deal with the ongoing economic crisis. In this context, risking credibility just to ensure the stability of the existing administration is unacceptable. The Government’s stability should be ensured through ensuring the stable, sustainable management of national affairs, which will be the key measure of stability that the international community notices.