Welcoming British Premier David Cameron’s ultimatum to Sri Lanka over its forces’ wartime abuses, The Times newspaper Monday urged him to make good on his threat and to ignore charges of neo-colonialism in doing so.

Hailing Mr. Cameron’s ‘unequivocal’ warning to Sri Lanka’s government that if it does not conduct an independent inquiry into the last months of the civil war, he would push for one to be held under the auspices of the United Nations Human Rights Council, the paper said in its editorial:

“[Mr. Cameron] should not stop there. His threat to challenge Sri Lanka at the UN should be acted upon.

“He should also give short shrift to the suggestion that British muscularity over the actions of any Commonwealth nation is an expression of colonialism. Bluntly, if member nations resent the spectre of Britain holding them to account, then they should be far better at doing the job themselves.”

See here (paywall) for the full text of the editorial.

The paper hailed the Premier's ‘strong words’ and ‘bold actions’ over the weekend, saying “during his time in Colombo, Mr Cameron was a walking diplomatic incident.”

It also noted, “the spectre of a difficult relationship with a country with the global influence of Sri Lanka is not a prospect likely to give any British prime minister many sleepless nights.”

The paper also slammed Commonwealth states’ reluctance to stand up for human rights, also pointing out that “at the last summit in 2011, many nations bitterly opposed suggestions that there should be a far stronger approach to policing human rights.”

In relation to last week's summit, The Times singled out Australia for criticism, saying: “Mr Cameron should have been able to count upon stronger support from Tony Abbott, Australia’s prime minister, who deflected questions about alleged Sri Lankan atrocities by merely noting that ‘sometimes in difficult circumstances difficult things happen.’”

The editorial concluded:

“The Commonwealth has evolved into a disparate collection of nations, and sometimes seems perilously close to an anachronism. Today the diplomatic distance between Britain and many of its former colonies should be a spur towards candour, rather than equivocation. If the organisation is to survive, indeed, it must be.”