Commonwealth leaders split over human rights at CHOGM

Herald Sun 
Prime Minister Julia Gillard visits a Perth primary school. Picture: 
Stewart Allen PerthNow
Their 45-minute meeting in Perth came as a split emerged among Commonwealth leaders over human rights.

They are battling over a report written by 11 eminent people, including former High Court judge Michael Kirby, warning that the organisation is in danger of becoming irrelevant unless it finds a better way to take action against human rights abuses by its own members.

Australia, Britain and Canada are leading the push to create a Commonwealth commissioner for democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

But CHOGM makes decisions by consensus and there is fierce resistance from India, Sri Lanka, South Africa and some African countries, such as Uganda, which say it would be overly intrusive.

Sri Lanka's President has been accused of ordering his troops to kill tens of thousands of civilians at the end of the civil war with Tamil Tiger separatists in 2009.

Sri Lanka has denied any wrongdoing.

Australia refused a request to remove Mr Rajapaksa's diplomatic immunity and lay war crime charges against him, but Ms Gillard did call on Sri Lanka to answer "serious questions".

"We have consistently raised our concerns about human rights questions in the end stage of the conflict," she said.

"These need to be addressed by Sri Lanka through its Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission."

Ms Gillard and Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd both said there were no plans to strip Sri Lanka of the role of hosting the next CHOGM, in 2013. Canadian PM Stephen Harper has threatened to boycott the 2013 meeting if Sri Lanka does not make progress on human rights.

The Eminent Persons Group said the Commonwealth was "in danger of becoming irrelevant and unconvincing as a values-based association".

Mr Rudd, who is hosting two days of meetings of CHOGM foreign ministers while battling a cold he says has turned his voice into something "that sounds a little like Mae West", played down the prospect of the issue being settled this week.

"There is potency to the argument that there is a danger in the Commonwealth simply being reactive rather than pro-active; that is, once a military coup occurs then the one blunt instrument available to the Commonwealth is one of suspension or expulsion," he said.