Bolstering int’l engagement

THE impeachment, which dominated headlines for over two months, is seeing a new twist, with Chief Justice Mohan Peiris ceremoniously beginning his duties today. But the controversy continues on many fronts, with the Bar Association of Sri Lanka refusing to attend the event and Sri Lanka taking a tough stance against the UN Human Rights Council.

BASL, which is the professional organisation of local lawyers with over 11,000 members, in December made a unanimous decision not to attend the new Chief Justice’s ceremonial sittings and it intends to stick to it. Nonetheless, a sprinkling of lawyers loyal to the Government is expected at the event, which is likely to pass smoothly.

Sri Lanka has faced a barrage of criticism from the US, Britain, Commonwealth and other international organisations for its removal of Bandaranayake earlier this month. In fact there have been open calls for the Commonwealth to take action against Sri Lanka since it is hosting the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in November.

Last Friday the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navenetham Pillay described the impeachment as a “calamitous setback for the rule of law in Sri Lanka” and warned that Sri Lanka would have serious repercussions at the upcoming UN sessions in March.

Nonetheless, Sri Lanka on Monday hit back with a strongly worded letter to Pillay stressing that her statement contained “unwarranted comments based on innuendos” and was “marred by erroneous facts”.

In response to her statement the Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the UN in Geneva categorically rejected the contents of Pillay’s statement, saying that it lacked objectivity, was biased, and compounded by the inappropriate tenor of its language, all of which indicated the unequal and unfair treatment of Sri Lanka.

The Permanent Representative pointed out that the impeachment process was carried out according to the provisions in Sri Lanka’s Constitution and was “entirely a domestic matter” and the High Commissioner’s comments amounted to a “blatant interference in an issue of a sovereign country”.

Sri Lanka took offense in Pillay’s comment that “Sri Lanka has a long history of abuse of executive power,” calling it clearly beyond the High Commissioner’s mandate. The standoff is likely to further strain already tense relations between Pillay and the Sri Lankan Government with the casualty being the country’s reputation.  While the Government will feel justified in continuing its stance on the twin pillars of sovereignty and alleged double standards of the UN system, these arguments are becoming frayed. After the resolution that was passed on Sri Lanka in March last year it is imperative that it approaches the upcoming sessions with more caution and establishes its credentials based on reconciliation, good governance, and human rights.

Moreover, Canada is already beating the war drums and is increasing its lobbying against Sri Lanka, setting up an even stronger need for Sri Lanka to brush up its engagement through pragmatic and fair policies that will have constructive effect on the ground.

Showing progress on the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) recommendations as well as improved law and order through judicial independence and democracy would undoubtedly be a bolstering step for Sri Lanka. When the dust has settled on this issue, the Government’s confidence building strategies and their reflection on the international community will most affect its own citizens.