8 myths about Amnesty International’s 8 myths

They are not ‘myths’; they are credible accusations against the blatantly hypocritical way in which it has functioned since its inception 

By Nilanthan Niruthan 

Amnesty International published a piece in the Daily FT of 9 March (http://www.ft.lk/opinion/Eight-myths-about-Sri-Lanka-at-the-UN-Human-Rights-Council/14-714434). The article claims to ‘debunk’ myths about Sri Lanka at the UNHRC. What it does instead is create straw men arguments and then proceed to disprove claims that essentially nobody makes. This essay will seek to add a larger context to the specific points made in that article.

Do Western countries make up most of UNHRC membership? 

The article starts off by claiming to disprove a myth that the UNHRC is dominated by the West. It then points out that the council is made up instead of 13 African states, 13 Asian states, 8 Latin American/Caribbean states, and so on. The author seems to be under the impression that simply stating where the membership comes from, somehow negates the possibility of Western bias. What should be pointed out is that, while the 47 member states are certainly not Western nations by geography, they are predominantly poor countries with a strong amount of economic dependency on larger powers. This does not necessarily have to be the West; it could even be countries that come under the orbit of Russia or China. The fact remains that most of the votes cast by the council are done so by nations that are ‘not’ geopolitically autonomous, many of them dependent on foreign, usually Western, allies to tell them how to vote.

Will trade sanctions be imposed? 

The article then states that trade sanctions are not being discussed and that it would only be asset freezes and travel bans. This is once again not accurate at all; the extent of the punitive measures that might be proposed by the UNHRC will be clear only once the process itself is in motion. For the author to claim that trade sanctions are not out of the question is factually inaccurate. The report recommends specific measures but keeps the extent of them deliberately vague.

Are the LTTE’s atrocities glossed over? 

There is an argument raised in the essay that the report is not biased against the Sri Lanka Government and that the UN is not glossing over the LTTE’s atrocities. It is amazing that anybody can still deny this after looking at the way the UN or the UNHRC function. They are routinely criticised from all sides for their heavy bias against non-state actors, not just in the Sri Lankan context. In fact, the USA pulled out of the UNHRC in 2018, calling it a cesspit of bias, precisely because the UNHRC was glossing over the war-crimes committed by Palestinian insurgent groups, while stressing only on the Israeli government’s action.

Is the Tamil diaspora behind this? 

The article once again goes into a bizarre argument that this is somehow a multi-ethnic narrative, that people from all communities are calling for investigations. By that logic, the pro-Sri Lanka narrative is also multicultural and multi-ethnic. There are numerous Tamil, Muslim and Sinhala voices who are sceptical and critical of the UNHRC as well. Even after the WikiLeaks bombshell that revealed how the British Labour party is conscious of catering to the Tamil diaspora as a vote bank, it is quite astounding that supposedly credible voices still claim the diaspora have little to do with this.

Is the UNHRC process biased against Sri Lanka? 

The essay once again makes the dubious argument that the UNHRC is some kind of benevolent, non-political organisation that only deals with issues pertaining to human rights violations. Not even the most rabidly pro-UNHRC defenders make that argument anymore, yet we have supposed Sri Lankan experts peddling these lies in the name of busting myths. The UNHRC has been accused time and again of being biased against nation-state actors while mediating disputes, particularly against countries that are plagued with terrorism, such as Israel. In fact, many international experts have publicly stated that one of the reasons Sri Lanka is being targeted is precisely because the UNHRC has been exposed over its bias against Israel. It thus needs news targets to clarify its objectivity, Sri Lanka being a ripe target for this. 

Was the UNHRC report based on hearsay? 

The author tries hard to make it look like the report was well-researched and based on an objective perspective. The ‘proof’ of this is that the National Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka also reported that complaints of surveillance and harassment have been registered by NGOs and civil society luminaries. But that argument completely ignores all the accusations of bias made against the report. Why does it claim that militarisation is taking place in Sri Lanka without mentioning that this is what the Sri Lankan people voted for in November 2019? Why does it warn that power is being centralised under a singular authority without pointing out that the 2019 Easter bombings happened precisely because there was no proper centralised authority? One only needs to read the report and compare it with the local political situation, to see how anti-Sri Lanka the narrative is.

Will China veto the resolution? 

The article triumphantly claims that China cannot veto any resolution on Sri Lanka. It vaguely points to the veto power in the security council but concludes that this is irrelevant to the UNHRC vote because there is no veto power there. The author once again seems quite out of touch with how the system works. For any collective action to be taken by the UNHRC, member states would still have to go through the UN security council, of which China is a permanent member with veto powers. The fact that China cannot stop the UNHRC from paying lip-service to a narrative is what is actually irrelevant. Without China’s consent, any action against Sri Lanka will be limited to individual action by member states, or smaller alliances that could act against us even without the UNHRC’s permission.

Does the UNHRC have a mandate? 

The final argument, and by this point it becomes obvious that the author is simply looking for lines to fill, is that the UNHRC does indeed have the mandate to act on human rights disasters. The quote that is pasted as proof of this is resolution 60/251. Once again, readers need to be aware that this resolution only empowers the UNHRC to make statements and recommendations. The UNHRC does ‘not’ have the power to act against countries who are not a party to the Rome Statute. They can condemn and ask for action to be taken, but they themselves do ‘not’ have a mandate to initiate independent action by themselves against nation-states. A mandate to raise awareness and make recommendations is not a mandate to 

act punitively. 

Ultimately, the author of the piece seems to have forgotten that the report is publicly available and that the UNHRC is routinely criticised by all sides, not just Sri Lankans. There is a reason these beliefs widely exist about the UNHRC. They are not ‘myths’; they are credible accusations against the blatantly hypocritical way in which it has functioned since its inception. It is unfortunate that Amnesty International a body which is supposed to operate from a position of credibility, has indulged in such a badly researched exercise. One would, and should, expect them to adhere to a higher standard of journalism and expertise. 

(The writer is a defence analyst and lecturer. He is the author and editor of multiple international publications on counter-terrorism and human rights.)