J. Stafford is a member of TAG's advocacy team (Tamils Against Genocide)

Nov 1-14. The UPR on: the Significance of Context, of Terror and lest we forget, the Tamil Question

On Thursday 1 November, Sri Lanka stood to account before the Human Rights Council. Procedures, protocols reassuringly followed, the Sri Lankan delegation exuding calm professionalism, consummate politicians with seemingly measured, reasonable responses. They interjected occasionally, as is fitting, seen to be engaging with the recommendations. The lines they were following carefully articulated in their national report. And then, of course, on the 5th November, 100 of the recommendations were rejected - a record.

But all this was anticipated. The chair at the side event on the 31 October, Nimalka Fernando - President of International Movement Against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR) made the point that the contents of the National Report were directly contrary to the knowledge and experiences of the side event panel.  The Sri Lankan state approach was predictable. As Alan Keenan from ICG observed, that the Government chose to impeach the chief justice on the very day of the UPR speaks volumes to the state’s arrogance and level of contempt for international institutions. 

(See video of UPR here) 

But it is a contempt masterly deployed, and, most disappointingly, one that garners support from diverse quarters. Sri Lanka attends the UPR and in so doing, in submitting to the procedures, the reports, the recommendations, the whole show, is able to firmly reinforce its message and self-representation. As a state it enjoys legitimacy at the UN. It is one among other states, part of a club.

Many states, even when being critical spoke within the frame embraced by the Sinhala Buddhist, majoritarian government.  Many reminded of the war on terror - the UK included. Many spoke of the need to grant time and space to the Government and referred to mitigating factors - the context of the recent end to the war and historic threat of terror. Framing the conflict within the war on terror places the state as victim and victor, and acts as an apology for abuses. To speak in these terms is to sanction abuses, and plays into the Sinhalese state self-legitimating narrative. It is an ill-conceived apology: conflict has its laws, combatants and non-combatants have rights, and they are non-derogable, no matter the purported circumstances. 

That is not to say that context does not matter, quite the reverse. Indeed the context properly understood speaks to a very different tale, one that condemns the Sri Lankan government. Speaking for TAG at an Amnesty International society organised panel discussion at the UCLU on 12 November 2012, Madurika Rasaratnam, LSE, asserted that “the steaming pile of Human Rights violations” that the world observes today in Sri Lanka is not an aberration from a norm but consistent with a path upon which the Sri Lankan Government has taken and tread since Independence. The abuses in Sri Lanka since 2009 are a continuation of the abuses in the 1960s and 1970s. Noting that Sri Lanka has long been part of the International, and the International part of Sri Lanka, she made reference to the different lenses through which the Sri Lankan state has been viewed and according to which attempts have been made to “solve” the conflict. All have failed - most recently, and spectacularly, has been that of the liberal peace. To “fix” Sri Lanka requires the International Community not to think in terms of good governance, but to break down the current entrenched Sinhala Buddhist identity that is the Sri Lankan state.

Sri Lanka needs be viewed directly and not through whatever is the leading International Relations theory of the day. Seeing directly reveals the nature of the Sri Lankan state. A long view and a local view calls for the application of a genocide framework, critical for understanding past, present but also, crucially, the future of the island.

Seeing directly is to engage with issues of identity. In contrast, at the UPR, Tamil was a word barely whispered. The side event was dominated by Sinhala civil society. The Missions spoke of human rights violations as though they were indiscriminate with precious few recognising the ethnic pattern to abuses. Militarisation of the state was much criticised, but the ethnic makeup of the Sri Lankan military - almost entirely Sinhalese - was glossed over. The focus on human rights worked to obscure the fundamental issue: the Sinhala Buddhist ideology and nationalist project, and the Tamil impediment to the fulfillment of that project. An ignorant observer could be forgiven on the basis of the UPR from knowing that Tamils existed in Sri Lanka.

While the resolute tone of the recommendations from the US, Canada and certain other missions, is appreciated, still much, much was missed. The clear recognition of genocide by the APPG-T hosted World Tamil Conference, and its endorsement by the adopted resolution is most welcome, and no doubt Petrie’s report will catapult Sri Lanka and the international community vis a vis Sri Lanka back into a harsh spotlight.

The international community must think outside of the framework of terror, of transition or unqualified human rights. Time to widen the lens or better dispense with lenses altogether, to see beyond a state centric securitised vision, and to engage with the reality and the fundamental ethnic issue. Heed context, but the context of a deep Sinhala Buddhist hegemony, not of a Sri Lankan endorsed narrative of a war on terror.