Rajapaksa wants to ensure that the Sri Lankan government comes out of this with his reputation enhanced. As one slogan proclaims, Rajapaksa “won the country” (with the defeat of the Tamil Tigers in a most bloody 2009 end to the protracted armed conflict), and now he can “win the world”.
In terms of enhancing the country’s reputation, you might say that Rajapaksa and his colleagues are not doing a great job. In the lead-up to CHOGM, the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of the judiciary was among those refused entry to the country.
Reporters from the UK broadcaster Channel 4 – which worked closely with Amnesty International on producing the powerful, game-changing ‘Killing Fields’ and ‘No Fire Zone’ films on Sri Lanka – were blocked from travelling to the north of the island when a “spontaneous” demonstration broke out. This week, relatives of the disappeared, who wanted to come from the largely Tamil north to Colombo for a peaceful “human rights festival” behind closed doors were turned back – because they “might cause a breach of the peace”. Partly violent counter-protests by government supporters, by contrast, were allowed to go ahead with no problems.
For Amnesty International, the summit provides a powerful opportunity to ensure that the human rights voice is heard. The good news is that journalists want to hear what Amnesty has to say. And diplomats, too, are interested in our findings – even if they do not always act on them.
Under the spreading banyan trees in the old town of Galle, after a speech by the President, I did get a chance to speak briefly to the Commonwealth Secretary-General, Kamalesh Sharma. I doubt I was able to convince him that the policy of quiet engagement with the Sri Lankan authorities is not delivering, which is how Amnesty International sees it.
Beyond media interviews and diplomatic lobbying, I have spent much of my time in Colombo meeting with some of Sri Lanka’s extraordinarily brave human rights defenders – Sinhala and Tamil alike – who talk calmly about the threats against them even as they insist on the necessity of continuing the work.
An Amnesty International petition gained close to 200,000 signatures, demanding truth and accountability, so urgently needed for all sides. Those global demands have helped strengthen the backbone of those governments which are wavering when confronted with the familiar question: do they do the right thing, or the comfortable thing? The Prime Ministers of Mauritius, India and Canada have boycotted. The UK has promised to bring strong messages. South Africa has sent mixed messages so far (more emphasis on truth is needed). And Australia: well, let’s not go there. Prime Minister Tony Abbott seems ready, because of domestic considerations on refugee policy, to use the phrase “not lecturing” as an excuse to remain completely silent on violations.
The Sri Lankans I speak to are grateful for Amnesty International’s long-term engagement on the cause of human rights in Sri Lanka.
There is little likelihood of a rosy ending to this story by the time CHOGM wraps up and the Commonwealth leaders and global media machine move on.
But the pressure will continue: the UN Human Rights Council meets again in March, with a resolution critical of Sri Lanka likely to be on the table. With enough energy from around the world, that may include achieving an international inquiry. And if that is achieved, it will be a human rights victory to be proud of.