Who needs human rights?

Evoking a sense of déjà vu, Sri Lanka’s human rights record is back in the global spotlight. Addressing the opening session of the 45th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet encouraged the 47 member body to pay “renewed attention” to Sri Lanka, in view of the need to prevent threats to “peace, reconciliation and sustainable development.” Among the issues flagged by the UN’s top envoy on Human Rights was the proposed 20th Amendment to the Constitution, which she said could negatively impact the independence of key institutions, including the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka. 

Bachelet’s opening statement also raised other concerns that have been worrying local rights campaigners for months, including the trend towards the militarisation of civilian administration, the presidential pardon granted to a former Army sergeant convicted of mass murder, and the efforts to thwart investigations into grave crimes. 

The UN Human Rights Chief also called for an end to surveillance and intimidation of victims, their families, human rights defenders, journalists and lawyers. 

Between 2012 and 2014, Sri Lanka became a key agenda item at the Human Rights Council sessions, held three times a year. A resolution on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka was adopted by the Council every year, as the international community watched in horror as Sri Lanka’s human rights record plummeted even after the end of the 26-year civil war and the defeat of the LTTE. Even Sri Lanka’s staunchest ally across the Palk Straits, disillusioned by broken promises about meaningful devolution for the Tamil people to settle Sri Lanka’s ethnic question, tacitly supported the international efforts to push for accountability. Sri Lanka, then led by President Mahinda Rajapaksa, adopted a confrontational approach with the UN and the international human rights regime. Domestically, the Rajapaksa administration of the time propagated the notion that human rights were part of a Western neo-colonisation agenda. 

Eight years later, as the UNHRC refocuses its lens on Sri Lanka and its deteriorating commitments to upholding the human rights of its citizens, the Government has resumed a confrontational tone with the UN.  

That Western agendas are lurking behind the international push for accountability in Sri Lanka is part of the ethos of a Rajapaksa-led Government. Perhaps the argument warrants further scrutiny. Undoubtedly, the ideas of democracy, separation of powers, rule of law and civil liberties are concepts developed in the Western world. But principles and values need not be accepted or rejected merely on the basis that they originate in the West.

Gautama Buddha preached to the kalamas the importance of independent inquiry. Citizens of Sri Lanka themselves have the cognitive capacity to evaluate the merits and demerits of protecting the rights of all people in the country they call home. Do human rights benefit the individual and society at large? 

To this end, there are a few simple questions to answer. Is Sri Lanka better off when its journalists are not hounded and harassed, or worse, killed or assaulted with impunity, and the freedom of expression is guaranteed? Who stands to benefit in a country where all citizens are equal before the law, irrespective of race, religion, wealth or social status? What does Sri Lanka lose if the families of disappeared people find closure by learning about the true fate of their missing loved ones? 

What kind of country would Sri Lankan be, if our Governments genuinely aspired to improve human rights conditions in the country? Not to appease international actors or to ensure tangible benefits in terms of preferential trade and greater opportunity for military cooperation, but simply because respecting and upholding the people’s right to life, liberty and dignity could open a long-evasive door to sustainable peace and shared prosperity. 

In that spirit, Sri Lanka should aim to work in cooperation with the UN and its agencies dedicated to advancing human rights across the world. Constructive criticism must be accepted, and course correction attempted, in the knowledge that there are no perfect countries and societies – only those that are striving towards justice and greater equality, and those that are resisting.