A rebuke to Sri Lanka
MAY 1, 2013
One of the biggest insults a government can deliver to another — the diplomatic equivalent of a slap in the face — is for the leader of one country to refuse to attend a high profile gathering hosted by another. Well, Canada has just slapped Sri Lanka.
Late last week in London, Foreign Minister John Baird denounced a decision by his Commonwealth counterparts to approve Sri Lanka hosting the organization’s heads of government meeting in November. The Commonwealth, he said, was “accommodating evil” in agreeing to stage the meeting in the South Asian country despite strong criticism of its human rights record.
“Canada didn’t get involved in the Commonwealth to accommodate evil; we came to combat it,” Baird said. “We are deeply disappointed that Sri Lanka appears poised to take on this leadership role.”
This is strong language in diplomatic circles. But it is the right language in this case. Canada’s position is more than justified. Sri Lanka’s treatment of its Tamil minority during and after the country’s 2009 civil war has been appalling; there is considerable evidence that government troops have engaged in the indiscriminate killing of civilians.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has repeatedly spoken out against Sri Lanka’s actions, warning that Canada, one of the senior and most influential members of the Commonwealth, would boycott the November 15-17 heads of government meeting in the capital of Colombo unless Sri Lanka acts, among other items, to improve its human rights record and seeks reconciliation with the Tamil population.
Publicly, Canada has been alone in its position. This is most unfortunate. The Commonwealth, comprised of mainly former colonies of the British Empire, represents two billion people worldwide, and while the 54-nation group is no longer as influential as it used to be, it remains a valuable institution in terms of linking diverse nations and peoples. The apparent unwillingness of its leaders to do the right thing, to show some moral backbone, jeopardizes the organization’s future.
Baird alluded to this possibility. “We’re tremendously concerned about the deteriorating and authoritative trend of the government in Sri Lanka,” he said, suggesting Canada’s isolation on the issue paints the Commonwealth as a whole in a bad light. (Although he was careful to say Canada will not quit the organization.)
To add insult to injury, as host of the heads of government gathering, Sri Lanka automatically becomes the leader of the Commonwealth for the two-year period between summits. Just last month Queen Elizabeth attached her name to a Commonwealth charter that obliges all members to subscribe to principles of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Having a government that blatantly represses its minority population take charge of the organization makes a mockery of the charter and, moreover, erodes any claims to moral authority the body might still possess.
But then the whole situation reeks of hypocrisy. Even senior Commonwealth members — the United Kingdom, Australia, and India, for example — appear to think principles only apply when they don’t intrude on purported national self-interest. The Australians don’t want to offend the Sri Lankan government lest it decides to no longer clamp down on all those boat people trying to flee to Australia. India is concerned about Sri Lanka developing closer ties with its arch-enemy China. The United Kingdom is, no doubt, reluctant to offend a former colony and jeopardize allegiance to the Crown.
Late last week in London, Foreign Minister John Baird denounced a decision by his Commonwealth counterparts to approve Sri Lanka hosting the organization’s heads of government meeting in November. The Commonwealth, he said, was “accommodating evil” in agreeing to stage the meeting in the South Asian country despite strong criticism of its human rights record.
“Canada didn’t get involved in the Commonwealth to accommodate evil; we came to combat it,” Baird said. “We are deeply disappointed that Sri Lanka appears poised to take on this leadership role.”
This is strong language in diplomatic circles. But it is the right language in this case. Canada’s position is more than justified. Sri Lanka’s treatment of its Tamil minority during and after the country’s 2009 civil war has been appalling; there is considerable evidence that government troops have engaged in the indiscriminate killing of civilians.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has repeatedly spoken out against Sri Lanka’s actions, warning that Canada, one of the senior and most influential members of the Commonwealth, would boycott the November 15-17 heads of government meeting in the capital of Colombo unless Sri Lanka acts, among other items, to improve its human rights record and seeks reconciliation with the Tamil population.
Publicly, Canada has been alone in its position. This is most unfortunate. The Commonwealth, comprised of mainly former colonies of the British Empire, represents two billion people worldwide, and while the 54-nation group is no longer as influential as it used to be, it remains a valuable institution in terms of linking diverse nations and peoples. The apparent unwillingness of its leaders to do the right thing, to show some moral backbone, jeopardizes the organization’s future.
Baird alluded to this possibility. “We’re tremendously concerned about the deteriorating and authoritative trend of the government in Sri Lanka,” he said, suggesting Canada’s isolation on the issue paints the Commonwealth as a whole in a bad light. (Although he was careful to say Canada will not quit the organization.)
To add insult to injury, as host of the heads of government gathering, Sri Lanka automatically becomes the leader of the Commonwealth for the two-year period between summits. Just last month Queen Elizabeth attached her name to a Commonwealth charter that obliges all members to subscribe to principles of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Having a government that blatantly represses its minority population take charge of the organization makes a mockery of the charter and, moreover, erodes any claims to moral authority the body might still possess.
But then the whole situation reeks of hypocrisy. Even senior Commonwealth members — the United Kingdom, Australia, and India, for example — appear to think principles only apply when they don’t intrude on purported national self-interest. The Australians don’t want to offend the Sri Lankan government lest it decides to no longer clamp down on all those boat people trying to flee to Australia. India is concerned about Sri Lanka developing closer ties with its arch-enemy China. The United Kingdom is, no doubt, reluctant to offend a former colony and jeopardize allegiance to the Crown.
To be sure, even the Conservative government may not be completely pristine in its principles. Canada is home to the largest population of Tamils outside Sri Lanka, and, while the government insists its position is not politically motivated, there’s no denying its attitude is popular in that community.
But any indulgence in self-interest on the part of the Conservative government, if that’s what it is, pales in comparison to the short-sightedness of other Commonwealth members. In 2011, at the last Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Australia, a report urging radical reform of the body — the Eminent Persons’ Report — was tabled. Among its recommendations was a call for greater respect for human rights, more recognition of minorities, and the promotion of democratic principles. Unfortunately, these principles received short shrift from a majority of the Commonwealth members.
That see-no-evil attitude continues to play out on the Sri Lanka file, resulting in a crisis for the Commonwealth reminiscent of the suspension of Zimbabwe or the booting out of South Africa over the apartheid practices of its former white-minority rulers. The collective failure of its leaders to assert principles they’ve signed on to corrodes the moral structure of this venerable organization. And without the pillars of moral authority to hold it up, well, there’s no worthy future for the Commonwealth.
In a world already desperate for institutions of stability and order, the effective loss of the Commonwealth would betragic.
Ottawa Citizen
But any indulgence in self-interest on the part of the Conservative government, if that’s what it is, pales in comparison to the short-sightedness of other Commonwealth members. In 2011, at the last Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Australia, a report urging radical reform of the body — the Eminent Persons’ Report — was tabled. Among its recommendations was a call for greater respect for human rights, more recognition of minorities, and the promotion of democratic principles. Unfortunately, these principles received short shrift from a majority of the Commonwealth members.
That see-no-evil attitude continues to play out on the Sri Lanka file, resulting in a crisis for the Commonwealth reminiscent of the suspension of Zimbabwe or the booting out of South Africa over the apartheid practices of its former white-minority rulers. The collective failure of its leaders to assert principles they’ve signed on to corrodes the moral structure of this venerable organization. And without the pillars of moral authority to hold it up, well, there’s no worthy future for the Commonwealth.
In a world already desperate for institutions of stability and order, the effective loss of the Commonwealth would betragic.
Ottawa Citizen
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/rebuke+Lanka/8322787/story.html#ixzz2SGBITWC5
