Sri Lanka and the Non-Aligned Movement at UNHRC, Geneva

Foreign Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris

UN Human Rights High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet

The September 2021 session of the UNHRC will begin on the 13th of this month with UN Human Rights High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet’s oral update on her Report on Sri Lanka to be presented on the first day with an interactive debate on the Report to follow the next day (14th). 

A new Foreign Minister has been appointed who will face the prospect of a mechanism created for the first time at the OHCHR, mandated by Resolution 46/1, “to collect, consolidate, analyse and preserve information and evidence and to develop possible strategies for future accountability processes for gross violations of human rights or serious violations of international humanitarian law in Sri Lanka, to advocate for victims and survivors, and to support relevant judicial and other proceedings, including in Member States, with competent jurisdiction.”

Sri Lanka, under the previous Foreign Minister, couldn’t prevent it from being adopted at the Council by majority vote. 

‘Neutral and Non-Aligned’

When the current administration came into office, it articulated its foreign policy as “neutral”, an original foreign policy position for any Sri Lankan administration. The Secretary, Foreign Affairs went as far as to say in an interview on TV that Sri Lanka was not or no longer Non-Aligned but Neutral. 

This stance changed following some criticism in the media and a new policy of ‘Neutral and Non-Aligned’ was presented by the same official in a subsequent TV interview. This unusual description reveals the administration’s ambivalence with regard to the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in its foreign policy perspective. 

In a previous administration, the Foreign Minister speaking to Sri Lanka’s Ambassador about to present a NAM resolution on behalf of Sri Lanka in 2009 in Geneva, declaimed from Colombo (with the Secretary, Foreign Affairs joining the conference call) that the NAM was broken in three places and couldn’t be “relied upon”. Despite the Minister, the resolution won a record majority and was considered a victory for NAM as well as for Sri Lanka at the Council. 

NAM continues to be an influential force at the UNHRC, its latest resolution at the July 2021 session on ‘Enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights’ (A/HRC/47/L.10/Rev.1 – http://undocs.org/A/HRC/47/L.10/Rev.1) being carried with 30 votes of the 47 members. It would be useful for Colombo to clarify its feelings about NAM, by considering its provenance.

 

Democratisation of international relations

There is a notion that since NAM was a response to the Cold War, its relevance ended with the supposed ‘end of history’. NAM however was conceived to serve a substantively more important purpose by its founders and its raison d’etre was articulated by one of its founder-members ahead of the Colombo Summit in 1976 as follows: 

“…the policy of Non-alignment represents much more than the desire to steer clear of power blocks; it represents the hopes of two-thirds of humanity…the struggle for the democratisation of international relations…in opposition to imperialism, colonialism, and racial discrimination and defence of national independence...The policy of non-alignment is not the line of least resistance but the most challenging and forward-looking policy our time.” (Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike, ‘Introduction to a compilation of NAM Basic Documents’ 1961-1975, BCIS 1976).

She adds in her Introduction that it is “on the strength of this knowledge that Sri Lanka put forward the proposal for making the Indian Ocean a Zone of Peace” for which she had the support of 100 nations, also claiming for NAM the causes of “the development of a New International Economic Order” and a “more just Law of the Sea”.

NAM was indeed born in the particular historical context of the Cold War and decolonisation, but the newly independent nations not desiring to align with either bloc, didn’t just decide to remain “neutral” or “equidistant” between them. Instead, the collective intelligence of the founder-leaders successfully introduced a conceptual resolution to overcome their marginalisation in the conduct of international relations. 

The preamble to the Belgrade Declaration (1961), describes the founding as a “transition from an old order based on domination to a new order based on cooperation between nations, founded on freedom, equality and social justice for the promotion of prosperity”. Sri Lanka was one of the 25 founding countries present at this historic summit declaring an ambitious evolution in international relations. 

Twenty years later, following an international Conference on the Principles of Non-Alignment, a book was published in Vienna (1982) containing a collection of papers presented at the conference. Writing an introduction to the volume, the President of the UN General Assembly says that “Control in the General Assembly at least has been transferred to an over-whelming majority of non-aligned countries…it can be said that the agreement of the non-aligned countries is vital for any decision to proceed within the General Assembly.”

‘A live and renewable idea’

It is worth noting how the Movement was regarded 20 years after its formation at this conference. Elias Farah, a delegate described the movement as one that “…proceeds from freedom… is not an ideology but a perspective… is an area for the interaction of ideologies… is an approach than an ideological system”. 

The NAM has remained influential in the international fora due also to the perspicacity of the leaders who believed in the idea of flexibility and adaptability of the Movement which continues to operate at the present time. In 1982, this characteristic was described by the same delegate as follows: “It is an idea of struggle and innovation. It is a live and renewable idea…It also faces the crisis of its development with a renewable capability of advancement.” 

This they have proceeded to do, responding creatively and collectively to new challenges in their belief that decisions in world affairs should not be left to a few powerful states, as the consequences of those decisions are felt by all.   

Leo Mates of the Institute of International Politics and Economics evaluating NAM achievements, ascribes an important development in world history to the Movement:

“…the prevention of the partition of the world in full extent between the two centres of power, known as East and West, was the greatest and historically speaking the most important contribution of the Movement”. He believed that the Non-aligned Movement kept the confrontation under control “by denying either side the extension of influences over the rest of the world.” 

While each of the summits had its own distinctive “accent”, depending on the host country and issues of importance to it (Mervyn de Silva, Lanka Guardian, 1 October 1979) the 6th NAM summit summed up the basis of its strategy as elimination of colonisation, peaceful coexistence, national independence, self-determination, democratisation of international relations. 

An issue of critical importance and one of NAM’s primary preoccupations in its early years was the opposition to the Apartheid regime in South Africa, when Western powers were still supportive of that regime.

 

Factor in contemporary history

The definitive book on the NAM was written in 1986, the 25th anniversary year of NAM, by A.W. Singham and Shirley Hune titled ‘Non-alignment in the Age of Alignments’ (Zed Books, UK 1986). The authors attended all the meetings since 1975. Prof. “Archie” Singham (incidentally, of Sri Lankan origin) of the City University of New York, was with the United Nations Institute of Training and Research (UNITAR), became a consultant to many UN agencies, and an advisor to the UN on the NAM. 

After 10 years of intensive research, they described NAM as “the most significant international movement to emerge in contemporary history”. They found the themes that dominate to be Peace, Disarmament, Independence, Equality between races, Economic equality (restructuring the existing economic order), Cultural equality (restructuring world information order), Universalisation and Multilateralism. 

Prof. A.W. Singham writes that working with the UN was fundamental to NAM: “For NAM, the UN is the most important global institution…It is to the United Nations that non-aligned countries bring their final declarations for implementation…It is with the UN that they conduct most of their politics both bilateral and multilateral.”

Mervyn de Silva writing in 1982 on “NAM and the International Information Order” says: “The debate internationally initiated by [NAM] has helped us to catalogue the more pernicious and negative characteristics of the system”. Commenting on the movement’s challenge in this area, he concludes that “aims of democratising communications require elimination of inequalities and the correction of imbalances not only in the international but also in the national”.

While NAM couldn’t quite succeed in this area, democratisation of communication came instead in the form of technology, spectacularly exceeding NAM’s expectations. 

Sri Lanka at the UNHRC

When Sri Lanka’s succeeded at the UNHRC, it was clear about its allies as well as its obligations to them. The NAM was fundamental to its strategy and it stood firmly for its underlying perspectives, principles and values. It also knew its responsibility as a member to ensure its renewal and innovation. This was called upon during the finalisation of the Institution Building Package (IB Package) of the UNHRC in 2007, when as head of the Asian Group and a Vice-President of the Council, Sri Lanka had the critically important task of resolving a seriously damaging dispute between China and some members of NAM which brought the Council almost to a deadlock. 

At the September 2006 summit of the Non-Aligned Movement, it was agreed that NAM should coordinate the negotiating positions of its members on the Institution Building Package (IB Package) of the UN Human Rights Council. By mid-2007, NAM and China held divergent positions almost at the last minute, on a crucial clause with no resolution in sight. The Sri Lankan delegation stretched every nerve to bring the dispute to a satisfactory resolution using its friendship with China and its prestige within the Asian Group and the NAM to ensure that by midnight in Geneva, a calamity was avoided and the IB package was gavelled through to the applause of the Council.

While consensus is the process through which NAM positions are taken, in a group of 120 countries, divergence of views is inevitable, especially on controversial issues. 

Dealing here with the elephant in the room, the issue of Palestine, even though it was a longstanding NAM preoccupation, is one such. Sri Lanka’s declaration of ‘Neutrality’ under this administration may have been occasioned by NAM’s continuing strong stand on this and related issues. For the first time in its history, the Sri Lanka Committee for Solidarity with Palestine (once headed by President Mahinda Rajapaksa) has felt the need to write to the Foreign Minister ahead of the September Sessions of the UNGA, seeking support for its cause. 

The July 2021 Political Declaration at the Online Mid-term Ministerial Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement “Deplores all breaches of international law and provocations in the City of Jerusalem, including home demolitions and the expulsion and forced displacement of Palestinian families… Israeli settlement activities and annexation measures, constitute flagrant violations of international law, have no legal validity and must be immediately and completely halted, as repeatedly determined and demanded by the United Nations Security Council.” It also calls for a “Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and other Weapons of Mass Destruction according to the General Assembly Decision 73/546”.

NAM’s continues its effort to retain its relevance in responding to new challenges, and Azerbaijan as Chair introduced the following initiative, included in the political Declaration of the July 2021 meeting of Ministers:

“Welcome the organisation of the first-ever International NAM Model Simulation Exercise initiated by Azerbaijani chairmanship on 1-5 March 2021 and reiterate our support to the establishment of a NAM Youth Network which will enable the youth representatives of NAM Member States to exchange ideas, visions and perspectives on current challenges that they face in ensuring sustainable progress and how their difficulties could be overcome through concerted and adequate responses of their States.”

New challenges in international relations have produced new forms of coalitions crossing traditional boundaries in forming new alliances. The lexicon now includes ‘plurilateral’ (Dr. Jaishanker, Foreign Minister of India). However, the multilateral mechanism of NAM is yet to have outlived its use. It continues to influence events at both the UN General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council where it forms the largest group of countries. 

It’s a pity that since 2009, Sri Lanka has been unable to obtain the support of the NAM, which is divided on the issue of Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council. That requires serious self-examination by Sri Lanka.