• Foreign Secretary discusses the recently concluded 49th session and outlines work that lies ahead for the country

BY Sumudu Chamara In a context where Sri Lanka’s human rights situation is being questioned at the international level, especially at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), Sri Lanka is trying to counter allegations and answer questions with facts and tangible actions, diplomatically. In this process, it is important to be vigilant about discussions against Sri Lanka, and to work together with domestic and international groups. Preparing to face the 51st UNHRC session is now a priority. Sri Lanka’s human rights situation and the UNHRC’s response to it were explained by Foreign Ministry Secretary Admiral and Prof. Jayanath Colombage, during the first interview given following the 49th regular session of the UNHRC. It was held at the President’s Media Centre on Tuesday (15).  What happened at the 49th UNHRC session? Adding that the recent UNHRC session’s main topic was the Russian-Ukraine war and that Sri Lanka’s human rights issues received less attention, he said that when looking at the world situation, Sri Lanka does not have significant human rights issues.  He also said that even though it was with regard to the 30-year war between the defence forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) that Sri Lanka was initially brought to the UNHRC, unfortunately, however, the report of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet clearly shows that they are not talking about the human rights issues that arose during the war, about which there is a big issue which has been raised at the UNHRC. “When we received the report, we pointed out certain points that needed to be corrected. Bachelet had corrected some of them. However, when we saw the report at last, we noticed that 90% of the report pertained to the internal political affairs of an independent country. We raised this matter, and asked whether raising such matters is in line with UN Conventions and indirectly asked whether they question other countries’ political affairs in the same way. This is a big issue.” During the discussion, he further said that the Sri Lankan delegation had two purposes, namely, responding to the facts presented through Bachelet’s report and getting the international community to speak on behalf of Sri Lanka after explaining to them Sri Lanka’s stance. He added that as a result of dialogues that Sri Lanka had with representatives of other countries about various matters including the above-mentioned situation, Sri Lanka received the support of 31 countries. Sri Lanka’s main argument, according to Prof. Colombage, was that it is unfair to interfere in a country’s internal affairs, and that in order for some mechanism to be successful, that country’s co-operation is necessary. Another point raised was that this is a wasteful effort, and that there are more important things to do in the world.  He also explained that certain countries that did not extend support to Sri Lanka before, have now changed their position. In addition, he opined that at the recent UNHRC session, Sri Lanka acted logically and fearlessly, even though there is more work to be done.  Sri Lanka’s future at the UNHRC Prof. Colombage also spoke of Sri Lanka’s future at the UNHRC, where he spoke of what factors Sri Lanka should take into account when working with the UNHRC. “The next big challenge we have is the 51st UNHRC session, which is scheduled to be held in September of this year. During that session, Bachelet is expected to present a full report about Sri Lanka’s situation, and present the progress of what has been done so far. The validity of the 46/1 Resolution is limited till the 51st UNHRC session. What will happen after that? We have a question as to whether the UNHRC Core Group of Countries on Sri Lanka will submit another proposal regarding Sri Lanka or whether Sri Lanka will be granted more time.” He also observed that in a context where Bachelet’s report has talked about openness, Sri Lanka will be committed to maintaining transparency. He also agreed with the sentiments conveyed by certain countries that although the progress Sri Lanka has achieved is admirable, more work needs to be done. One example for the Government’s efforts is the legal reforms pertaining to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act No. 48 of 1979, which he said is a law continued for decades without being amended despite being a temporary legal provision. Speaking of the recent amendments to the PTA, he said that the PTA’s powers have clearly been reduced in a way that protects human rights recognised at the international level, through the said amendments. Adding that Sri Lanka did not agree to a suggestion with regard to entering into a consensus resolution, because in a democratic country, it is not possible to enter into such agreements, he said that despite what intentions were behind the 2015 co-sponsored 30/1 Resolution, not having any results until 2019 is a question.  “It is because it did not receive the people’s co-operation and agreement. Now, there is such an agreement, and we have started looking into this matter. In addition, we have prepared a road map as to what steps we need to take. It is important to have specific plans for this year or these two years,” he further explained. At the same time, Prof. Colombage stressed the importance of getting the support of non-state actors such as civil society organisations to rid Sri Lanka of international interventions.   The Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+) is a trade concession that has become an important topic in the discussion pertaining to Sri Lanka’s human rights situation, as certain parties have demanded that it should be stopped because Sri Lanka has failed to fulfil its human rights obligations. Prof. Colombage spoke about this too. “Now, let us assume that the European Union (EU) actually withdrew the GSP+ concession. Who benefits most from this concession? Those in the fisheries, agriculture, and apparel sectors. People employed in these sectors usually represent the middle class, and in the event of the withdrawal of the GSP+ concession, they are the ones that are going to be affected the most. If a certain party requests the international community to punish Sri Lanka, it is these sectors that are going to be punished. I do not like to respond to such and we did not take into account such either,” Prof. Colombage explained. Actions against Sri Lanka According to Prof. Colombage, even though sanctions against Sri Lanka have been discussed in many contexts, some of the grounds on which sanctions have been proposed are unclear and cannot be called fair. He explained: “When it comes to the worst situation that Sri Lanka may face, it should be noted that the 46/1 Resolution mentions an evidence-gathering mechanism, which is a mechanism to gather information about the alleged war crimes with the presumption that war crimes in fact occurred. There are questions as to who will be in control of this evidence gathering process, who will be the members of this team, who will fund their activities, what methods will they adopt to gather information, and whether Sri Lanka too will get an opportunity to provide information. One report claimed that the groups seeking evidence are in possession of 120,000 pieces of information. If a certain party is levelling allegations, I should at least be able to know what the exact allegations are, and secondly, I should be able to know who levels those allegations.” He also questioned the mechanism of taking action against Sri Lanka, noting: “As far as we are aware, no such evidence-gathering mechanism has been introduced for any other country except for Sri Lanka. Usually, it is the UN’s Security Council that takes decisions of this nature; for example, imposing sanctions, establishing appropriate mechanisms, or in establishing a war crimes tribunal. We have a question as to why the UNHRC is engaged in such, and we have rid ourselves of the said evidence-gathering mechanism.  “We will not have to face any issues in Sri Lanka. However, if a person travels to a Western country and if the authorities of that country say that that person has to be arrested over the said allegations, we will be in a difficult situation. Despite how unfair such actions are, they are likely.” With regard to economic sanctions, Prof. Colombage said: “Even the report about Sri Lanka’s human rights situation does not mention economic sanctions. However, there are concerns about sanctions and sanction-like steps relating to the GSP+ concession.” Questioning the state of human rights-related matters in Europe, in a context where those countries keep pointing fingers at Sri Lanka, he opined: “We were the victims of terrorism, not terrorists. If actions are being taken against the country that suffered due to terrorism, and not against terrorists, I am puzzled as to what fairness that is. However, within the existing system at the international level, we have to be careful.” The Sri Lankan Government and the Tamil diaspora Responding to a question in this regard, Prof. Colombage said that even though protests were held by members of the Tamil diaspora, it did not cause any impact, adding that he does not think that it is possible to cause any impact on the UN by holding a protest on a road. “It is not correct to call them members of the Tamil diaspora. They are just a few groups of LTTE supporters. In my opinion, that movement is gradually weakening. But, what needs to happen is, those groups should also join us for the country’s betterment, and we should definitely initiate a discussion with those living in other countries. I hope that we would be able to achieve some progress.” Prof. Colombage stressed that the President’s stance regarding the aforementioned matters is that the residual issues from the war with the LTTE should not be passed on to the future. He further emphasised the importance of adopting a domestic mechanism to address these issues, about which he expressed confidence. “Our aim should not be responding to a group of the Tamil diaspora. Even though we can officially counter their activities in other countries, which sometimes occur on the basis of the Tamil diaspora’s voter base in those countries, we will not be able to achieve anything. One thing we have shown during the past six months is tangible and measurable results of the work we have been doing for a long time. For example, the amendments brought to the PTA are tangible steps. Releasing LTTE suspects and former LTTE militants and providing compensation to various affected parties are some tangible actions.” Moreover, he said that taking into account the said situation, which is detrimental to the country, members of not only the Government but also of the Opposition parties should join efforts pertaining to foreign relations, and that unity is a source of strength.  Even though various steps have been taken by the Governments that ruled the country following the end of the war in 2009, the international community has questioned the results of those actions, which are raised at international forums, including at the UNHRC. Answering allegations and questions with concrete actions is admirable. However, they should also reflect that the Government is serious about continuing and improving those actions. Improperly devised plans can actually reverse any progress Sri Lanka has achieved.