These blog postings do not necessarily represent the views of all members of the Advisory Council.
Dear Commonwealth Heads of Governments,
This letter follows an earlier letter on this subject that many of us jointly wrote to Commonwealth Foreign Ministers, prior to their meeting in New York on 22 September 2011. In the absence of any public pronouncement by Foreign Ministers on this issue we have to assume that no decision has yet been taken to put in place a process for assessing the suitability of Sri Lanka’s candidature for hosting the 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM). In this context, we recall your 2009 decision to defer Sri Lanka’s candidature as host and seriously urge you to consider a similar postponement at CHOGM 2011.
We reiterate that Sri Lanka continues to face allegations of human rights violations that are of an extremely serious nature. These allegations have been found credible by none less than a Panel of Experts appointed by the UN Secretary General. In addition to this, several other well grounded allegations exist about the lack of fundamental freedoms within Sri Lanka, which it is charged, has resulted in serious violations of freedom of expression, association and movement as well as entrenched impunity for past human rights violations. Together these make Sri Lanka one of the most acute human rights situations in the Commonwealth.
In a recent response to one of our organisations the Commonwealth Secretary-General stated that the decision for Sri Lanka to host the 2013 CHOGM was taken by CHOGM 2009 and that it needs no further confirmation from CHOGM 2011. He also informed that the Commonwealth is waiting for the report from Sri Lanka’s Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) to decide its policy on the country. The report is due in November 2011 after CHOGM 2011, when it will be too late for any further consideration of the CHOGM venue. On the other hand, though the Commission’s report may deserve a fair hearing, it is important to remember that the UN Panel of Experts and numerous civil society organisations have cast doubts on the impartiality and effectiveness of the LLRC. In other words waiting for the LLRC report would mean that, due to paucity of time and the complexities of procedures involved, Sri Lanka will be able to host CHOGM 2013 regardless of any outcome and without any scrutiny, at the cost of the Commonwealth condoning serious human rights violations.
We believe that the moment to re-consider Sri Lanka’s suitability as a host for Commonwealth’s most emblematic meeting must be at Perth. The Heads must take into account the consistent intransigence of the government of Sri Lanka and the lack of investigations or progress on impunity within the country since the 2009 decision to postpone CHOGM.
Providing space for Sri Lanka to be the host of CHOGM 2013 will only serve as a declaration of the Commonwealth’s indifference to human rights concerns. It will also allow a government in serious controversy over its role in egregious human rights violations to preside over the organisation from 2013 to 2015 without the necessity of having to conduct any serious or credible investigations into the allegations it faces.
If it is wished that Sri Lanka should host a future CHOGM after 2013, we urge you to direct the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group to monitor the performance of Sri Lanka against specific benchmarks. We believe that before Sri Lanka is considered as the host of a future CHOGM it must meet the following minimum benchmarks that require it to:
Yap Swee Seng, Executive Director, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
Wong Kai Shing, Executive Director, Asian Legal Resource Centre
Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, Executive Director, Centre for Policy Alternatives
Ingrid Srinath, Secretary General, CIVICUS World Alliance for Citizen Participation
Maja Daruwala, Director, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
Hassan Shahriar, President, Commonwealth Journalists Association
Hassan Shire Sheikh, Executive Director, East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project
Phil Lynch, Executive Director, Human Rights Law Centre (Australia)
Brad Adams, Executive Director Asia Division, Human Rights Watch
Nick Gorno, Deputy President and Chief Operating Officer, International Crisis Group
Souhayr Belhassen, President, International Federation for Human Rights
Chris Chapman, Head of Conflict Prevention, Minority Rights Group International
Ruki Fernando, Rights Now Collective for Democracy
Edward Mortimer CMG, Chair, Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace & Justice
Liam Fox has a lot of questions to answer. Several of them now centre on the "Sri Lankan Development Trust", an organisation that paid for Liam Fox to fly to Sri Lanka on three occasions and yet:
Indeed it appears that paying for Liam Fox's travel expenses is the only thing they have ever done of which there is an easily accessible public record. Clearly Liam Fox has a lot of questions to answer. But let us suppose he does answer them and that everything has a rational explanation; then Liam Fox will not have done anything improper or illegal. But how about immoral?
We know that Liam Fox and Adam Werrity had meetings with Bell Pottinger on the subject of Sri Lanka. This was during a time when Bell Pottinger was spending millions of pounds of the Sri Lankan taxpayers money on whitewashing the reputation of the brutal Rajapaksa regime.
Persuading the international community to ignore credible evidence of war crimes is a murky business - and Fox and Werrity should not be surprised that becoming embroiled in it caused their integrity to be called into question. But even if everything was above board, then they still must explain why they felt it was acceptable to collude in the spinning of mass murder at the victims' expense.
Labels: International community