Photo courtesy of Kumanan
As large scale rights violations in the Middle East left senior UN figures struggling to prevent even worse harm, one of them visited Sri Lanka for three days. Taking time to respond to concerns raised by people in this country might seem odd amid all that was happening globally. The issues addressed there about present and past misuse of state power, how societies deal with (or overlook) injustice to the poor and marginalised and the relative role of local and international action are highly relevant in an often violently destructive world.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk made a much-anticipated visit to Sri Lanka, the focus of various UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) resolutions, from June 23 to 26. During this time he met not only government and opposition leaders but also other people and groups, including families of the disappeared, and made an emotionally charged journey to the site of a mass grave in the North. He offered support in building a better future, which included addressing painful matters and getting rid of repressive or prejudiced laws and practices.
Over the same three days his colleagues, as well as engaging in diplomacy, issued strong and sometimes blunt statements criticising violations of international law and human rights by superpowers and their close allies. Attention was drawn to the unlawfulness of the US attack on Iran, horrific suffering in Gaza inflicted by the Israeli state and ongoing abuses in Belarus. And the 80th anniversary of the UN Charter, with its emphasis on equality and peace, was celebrated, as UN Secretary-General António Guterres urged that its principles be respected.
At the end of his visit, he added on X, “Leaving #SriLanka with much hope. Sensed a real desire from Gov’t & civil society to break from entrenched identity politics. In a divided world, my wish is for Sri Lanka to become a story of peaceful coexistence, of understanding others – where diversity is embraced as a strength.” If the government really does do what it promised, despite pressure from the powerful and the temptation to misuse one’s position once in charge, this would be hopeful indeed, nationally and internationally.
The extent of the challenge
That a change of government had created a suitable environment for a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit Sri Lanka for the first time since February 2016 and Volker Türk’s and ministers’ generally positive tone afterwards were encouraging. In an intensive schedule, he met President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya, other ministers, the speaker of parliament and the chief justice. He also talked with religious leaders and representatives of the National Human Rights Commission, Office of Missing Persons, Office of Reparations and Office of National Unity and Reconciliation, political parties and civil society in Colombo, Jaffna, Trincomalee and Kandy, among others.
But in a statement at the end of his visit, he left little doubt about the extent of the task ahead, if trust and confidence are to be regained, healing enabled and rights for all achieved. This included getting rid of laws that violate key freedoms, strengthening economic justice and accountability for the most serious abuses in recent decades, as well as returning land to minority communities which has been wrongfully seized. These could still be fault lines between what was required and the authorities’ willingness to protect and respect rights.
“My visit yesterday to the recently re-opened mass grave at Chemmani was a compelling reminder that the past haunts the lives of many in Sri Lanka,” he said, emphasising the impossibility of simply moving on. “I heard from many mothers during my visit to Jaffna and Trincomalee, as well as victims of enforced disappearances in the south. A woman from a southern province, whose husband disappeared in 1989, for example, she still goes from town to town searching, and that the tears of Sinhalese, Tamil and Muslims are the same… Acknowledgement and truth-telling are important steps towards healing and closure, as are justice, reparation and non-recurrence.”
He urged the government to accept his team’s help in addressing past abuses since “Sri Lanka has struggled to move forward with domestic accountability mechanisms that are credible and have the trust and confidence of victims. This is why Sri Lankans have looked outside for justice… it is important that this process is nationally owned – and it can be complemented and supported by international means… Achieving results in at least some longstanding and representative human rights cases would have a powerful demonstrative and confidence building effect.”
He also repeated calls “for the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and a moratorium on its use and urge an expedited review and release of long-term PTA detainees and prisoners. Also, the Online Safety Act also needs to be repealed.”
Other inequalities too were highlighted. In many countries, governments have some success in reducing discontent among members of ethnic or religious majorities by marginalising minorities while boosting the relative status of some men in those communities too by discrimination against women, LGBTQ+ and/or disabled people. A sense of being more valued, capable or “normal” at least in some regard can help people to feel better about themselves and, to be fair to leaders, sometimes be the path of least resistance given the social conservatism that is quite widespread. Sri Lanka is one such country. Volker Türk drew attention to persistence of inequality for women, including the prevalence of sexual and gender-based violence, welcomed the decriminalisation of same-sex relationships bill and the need for the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act to be amended to bring it into line with international human rights law.
He returned too to the violation of economic rights (an even trickier problem, given the unwillingness of the IMF to soften its insistence on austerity in countries affected by toxic debt.) Nevertheless “There is an opportunity even to transition to a human rights economy – one that looks beyond economics, and focuses on the main causes of societal problems, and addresses issues such as inequality, injustice and unsustainable practices from the past,” he said.
Despite some headway, the unjust takeover of land in the North and East has remained an issue. “I stressed the importance of releasing lands still occupied and used economically by the military, and resolving land disputes involving archaeological, religious and conservation issues in consultation with communities. Muslims must be facilitated to return to their lands if they wish.” The following day, the Supreme Court ruled against the government on an unlawful attempted land grab in the North, a reminder of how far there still is to go. “The new Government has set a fundamental goal of ‘national unity’. Quick wins and confidence-building measures are key to enhancing trust and reconciliation,” Türk said.
Nevertheless he ended on an optimistic note: “I leave here with strong hope that there is a palpable desire both in the Government and civil society to draw a line under the entrenched identity politics of ethnicity, religion, language, culture, caste and class.
“In a world where wars, economic uncertainty and human rights violations are sadly becoming the norm, my wish is that Sri Lanka can become a story of hope, and I look forward to constructive engagement with the Government. Indeed, Sri Lanka can become an example of peaceful co-existence, of understanding the other, of tolerance, of recognition of differences, while at the same time embracing diversity and seeing it as richness and as a strength of this country’s rich tapestry,” he said.
Revisiting international law and norms
This was all the more significant against the background of recent events. While international law and frameworks for protecting the vulnerable during conflict and safeguarding rights are imperfect, these were long largely accepted in principle, if often violated in practice. Inconsistency has also been widespread, with leaders most critical of violations by those they see as enemies while pretending these did not happen or were not serious if they or their allies were responsible.
However, over the past few decades these have come under increasing flak from various quarters. Perhaps confusingly, international legal and human rights mechanisms are sometimes denounced by politicians and sections of the mass media in the West for supposedly undermining Western values and sovereignty and in the global South for imposing these on others. But most markedly, superpowers (and sometimes regional powers) have been growingly blatant in ignoring restraints on their use of power and often offering impunity to other states to which they act as patrons.
Many people might at least agree with the determination expressed in the UN Charter Preamble:
“to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.
And they might wish “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples” and “achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion,” to quote Article 1.
But as António Guterres said on June, 26 “Today, we see assaults on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter like never before. The threat or use of force against sovereign nations. The violation of international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure. The weaponization of food and water. The erosion of human rights. On and on, we see an all too familiar pattern: Follow when the Charter suits, ignore when it does not.”
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin openly flouted these in his invasion of Ukraine while US President Donald Trump has gone further still. This has included strongly backing Israel’s disgraced Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in aggression against neighbouring countries and war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against Palestinians. President Trump has even announced his backing for ethnic cleansing in Gaza and sought to punish judges of the International Criminal Court for upholding the law and to intimidate people in the US and overseas leaders into obeying his will on this matter. Nor does one have to be a supporter of Iran’s authoritarian regime to notice that the US attack on that country and its people was blatantly illegal as UN experts made clear.
“These attacks violate the most fundamental rules of world order since 1945 – the prohibition on the aggressive use of military force and the duties to respect sovereignty and not to coercively intervene in another country,” the experts said. “The responsible U.S. political and military leaders may also be liable for the international crime of aggression.” They added that “The attacks also seriously threatened human rights, including the rights to life, security of the person, health, a clean environment and self-determination of the people of Iran.”
However, even if international law and rights frameworks can be hard to enforce, these can make life more awkward for violators, affirm victims’ sense that they have been wrongfully treated and serve as a basis for solidarity. For the South African government’s recent case against that of Israel at the International Court of Justice has had wide reaching implications.
Where, as in the case of Sri Lanka, people in the country have taken action to make a shift towards a more humane and equal society despite ongoing failings and the risk that rhetoric will outstrip reality, international encouragement can make a difference. This matters, there and everywhere in a world in turmoil but where compassion and hope have not been extinguished.