One more in the long line of rejections

The Sunday Times on 19 May carried the Foreign Ministry’s reactions on the OHCHR report on ‘enforced disappearances’ in Sri Lanka (https://www.sundaytimes.lk/240519/news/lanka-strongly-rejects-un-report-questions-its-mandate-and-timing-557860.html). It says Sri Lanka is rejecting the report. 

This may be one more in the long line of rejections since the days of Gotabaya Presidency. 

Interestingly, questions have been raised about the authority or mandate of the High Commissioner to issue such a report. But in their heady rush to reject the report, they may not have consulted important resolutions including the UNGA resolution establishing the post of High Commissioner. 

These resolutions particularly stress the importance of the role of the High Commissioner as the voice of humanity on gross or grave violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Nevertheless, how the High Commissioner should express that voice and what format or method should be followed is left open. 

So, the High Commissioner seems to have identified, pursuant to this authority or mandate, the topic of ‘enforced disappearance’ in view, perhaps, of the yet-to-be-accounted-for alleged incidents of enforced disappearance in Sri Lanka. 

When it comes to SL, sections of the international human rights community do not appear to be swayed by Sri Lanka’s arguments about the allegations made, pertaining to isolated incidents of disappearance or killing. 

What remained Government’s once-formidable, but now-threadbare defence in human rights forums calling alleged violations, “aberrations”, not pattern, failed to hold water after 2009 (especially following Dayan J-led ‘victory resolution’ at UNHCHR). 

Since 2009, such incidents as well as other incidents reported to have occurred thereafter were all considered as stemming from a culture of human rights violations or as revealing a pattern of serious violations, not ‘aberrations’.  According to this line of thinking, the culture of human rights violations is symbiotically linked to a ‘culture of impunity’ reportedly still prevalent in the country.  It is clear therefore, that when one is convinced (however justifiable, is another matter) of the prevalence of a culture or a pattern as far as alleged violations of human rights are concerned, one cannot logically focus on the already-obsolete concept of “aberrations”. 

It is perhaps from this conviction that the UNHRC’s report, in highlighting the alleged practice of enforced disappearance, goes as far back as 1971. It thus begins with post-independent Sri Lanka’s first reported incidents of ‘enforced disappearance’. 

On the question of why the High Commissioner has chosen to issue a report on ‘enforced disappearance’ in Sri Lanka, it may perhaps be that he has formed the opinion that a consistent thread running through the alleged culture or pattern of human rights in Sri Lanka, or in the alleged culture of impunity is ‘enforced disappearance.’ 

He is not unaware that hundreds of women are still demanding to know the fate of ‘missing’ members of their families for many years. Maybe he has chosen to be their voice this time. 

So, where is the ‘home-grown solution’ now?