Font size: 
Although the government claims that the reduction in economic aid from these countries is due to Sri Lanka becoming a middle income country, it is also due to the frustration they feel in seeing their aid going down the drain of seemingly unending war. On the other hand, Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama has been forthright in warning that a recent Congressional amendment to the U.S. State Department's Appropriations Bill for 2008 could introduce restrictions on military aid to Sri Lanka due to alleged human rights violations.
For over a year human rights organizations, both international and national, have sought to highlight the serious violations of human rights and the climate of impunity when it comes to identifying and punishing the perpetrators, whether they be agents of the government or militants. They have called for international involvement in the protection and monitoring of the situation as it pertains to human rights. In turn the government has mobilized itself to deny such abuses and to make offers of national remedies.
Tragically, however, for the people of Sri Lanka the ground realities are quite the opposite of what the government tries to make out in international forums, as more and more citizens disappear or fall victim to the death squads. The government considers the present drop in the numbers of new persons being abducted or assassinated as a sign that there is no human rights crisis in the country. But the fact that these evil deeds continue at all, and that the perpetrators continue to be at large, is an indictment of the government.
The national remedies that the government has offered are only in name and cannot be considered to be effective. The Presidential Commission of Inquiry into Serious Human Rights Violations, of which much was expected, has so far not even completed investigating even one of the 16 cases it was mandated to investigate, although it is nearing the end of its term. The Independent International Eminent Group of Persons who were attached to that commission to play the role of observers has repeatedly protested against the weaknesses inherent in the functioning of the commission, but to no avail.
The failure of the International Eminent Group of observers to make a positive impact on the human rights situation in the country has strengthened the case for an international field presence of human rights monitors with an expanded mandate. If Arbour's visit to Sri Lanka convinces her that the ground situation is indeed as bad as human rights organizations have been saying, the impetus for the implementation of an international human rights protection mechanism with a field presence in Sri Lanka will be further strengthened.
Arbour's visit to Sri Lanka is also important from the viewpoint of the United Nations, whose purpose is to expand its mission throughout the world. More than any other global institution, the United Nations has the mandate to ensure that respect for human rights prevails throughout the world. As a country that has been torn apart by violent internal conflict for over three decades, Sri Lanka will inevitably attract U.N. concern. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is one of the United Nations' innovations in the pursuit of its mandate to protect human rights worldwide. It may need to seriously consider expanding its mandate into Sri Lanka in view of the cavalier attitude toward human rights that presently prevails.
An example of recent U.N. intervention in the defense of human rights is in Nepal, a fraternal South Asian country with close cultural and religious links to Sri Lanka. In April 2005, the government of Nepal formally invited the United Nations to come to Nepal and establish a human rights monitoring presence. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was established the following month with the aim of protecting human rights in the context of the armed conflict and the threats to democratic rights. At that time Nepal was suffering from one of the highest rates of disappearances due to the armed conflict between the government forces and Maoist rebels. Nearly 8,000 such cases had been registered by the country's Human Rights Commission.
Interestingly, Ian Martin, former head of Amnesty International, who was also actively involved in the Sri Lankan peace process, was appointed the first head of the U.N. human rights mission in Nepal. Martin's experience in trying to establish human rights guidelines for the Sri Lankan peace process undoubtedly came in useful in the task set for him in Nepal. Today the U.N. human rights mission in Nepal is the largest such mission in the world. If the leaders of Sri Lanka have the genuine commitment to protect and promote the human rights of the country's citizens, and to restart the peace process, the visit of U.N. High Commissioner Louise Arbour should be perceived as a great opportunity for a new beginning rather than as a threat to be contained.
--
(Dr. Jehan Perera is executive director of the National Peace Council of Sri Lanka, an independent advocacy organization. He studied economics at Harvard College and holds a doctorate in law from Harvard Law School. ©Copyright Jehan Perera.)
