Accountability and human rights

Repercussions from the adoption of the United Nations Human Rights (UNHRC) resolution on Sri Lanka are still under assessment. But what is clear is that the country is likely to face a deeper level of scrutiny on its human rights and accountability measures and that may not necessarily be as bad as the Government would have its citizens believe. 

Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena giving his views shortly after the vote count was announced was quick to see the result as a win for Sri Lanka. He reiterated that it was an attempt by the global North to subjugate and control the global South and praised countries for either voting against the resolution or abstaining. However, the Foreign Minister took care to cover up diplomacy and local policymaking lapses that worked against Sri Lanka’s odds at the global body. He also refrained from making any comment on how the Government would act and what kind of ground impact the resolution would have, deferring such comments to a press briefing at a later date. 

The message from the Government has been clear. Domestic accountability measures are seen as sufficient and they will continue. The tone deafness the Government has maintained for years on this issue has arguably exacerbated inter-community tensions and derailed potential healing after the war. Conflating accountability with patriotism and nationalism has muddied the waters so much that it is difficult for many moderates to believe that true reconciliation could emerge from this standoff. For human rights defenders, the resolution may have given Sri Lanka a chance to try, once again. But for nationalistic Government supporters, it is just another resistance to mount and reinforce. 

Some of the positives of dealing with accountability issues is that they integrally deal with rule of law and justice. Many people would agree that Sri Lanka’s legal structure is overburdened and inefficient, with its core weaknesses spilling over to issues beyond reconciliation and accountability. Strengthening it would be beneficial for democracy and genuinely underpin inter-communal harmony and promote rule of law. Such steps would also flow into containing corruption as well as more equitable and transparent policymaking where interests of minorities are safeguarded and the justice system serves as a bedrock for larger political, social and economic policymaking. 

Unfortunately, thanks to Sri Lanka’s blanket refusal to genuinely engage with its past, the cruel legacies of a conflict and the root causes that caused it, the country runs the risk of deepening fissures between communities and undermining its potential for development. More than a decade after the war ended, it still feels like Sri Lanka is repeating the same battle over and over again, without finding a way to move beyond. The Government’s playbook at this point feels frayed and outdated but is unlikely to be tossed out.

This is also partly because heightened international pressure could well be beneficial to a Government fatigued by COVID-19 and plagued by persistent economic issues. Dogged by increased dissatisfaction at home, it now has a political fallback that has served it well in the past and may do so again. If the resolution is to have any positive impact, then it will lie sorely on the engagement of the international community and on whether it is able to build larger public support around such interaction. The past does not bode well for a future positive result.