Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Sri Lanka’s Play In The International Stage


By Thamil Venthan Ananthavinayagan –April 26, 2016 
Thamil Venthan Ananthavinayagan
Thamil Venthan Ananthavinayagan
Colombo TelegraphAll the world’s a stage, and all the states are merely players? Sri Lanka in the family of states
Sri Lanka is member of the United Nations since 1955 and has signed the major human rights treaties. Being a member of the family of states is not solely a privilege and distinctive trait of belonging; it also affords constant commitment towards this family. Like in every family, ties must be fostered, nurtured and strengthened. Affirming a voluntary pledge and commitment in order to enter the United Nations Human Rights Council, the Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations addressed to the President of the General Assembly in the Annex to his letter dated from the 31st of March 2008 with following words:
“(…) Sri Lanka has opened itself to scrutiny of multiple international mechanisms on the belief that openness and accountability, through international means, can strengthen national efforts at promoting and protecting all human rights. (…)”
Y.K. Sinha High Commissioner Sri Lanka and RanilHowever: in recent years, in particular under the previous government of the former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, vituperative attacks against the United Nations were common practice. The relationship was badly affected by repetitive allegations that the United Nations were pursuing a hidden agenda and interfere into the island’s sovereignty. G.H. Peiris writes in his book Twilight of the Tigers: “(…) To the Sri Lankan government, being placed at par with the Tigers in accusations of human rights violations is, of course, a damning indictment and humiliating diminution of status in the community of nations. (…) It is the weaker countries that have the highest propensity of falling prey to the human rights vigilantes. (…) In short, it is the economically weak, dependent, conflict-ridden countries with a tradition of subservience to the West that bear the brunt of the challenge to sovereignty from supposedly ‘humanitarian’ external intervention. (…)”
Is this claim true? Should the United Nations rather remain silent, reduced to a numb witness of atrocities and not interfere in domestic situations? Aren’t we living in an era of open states, a distinctive character of contemporary international law, as Prof. Stephan Hobe once famously claimed?