The Commonwealth’s reputation on Human Rights is at risk

The human cost of the conflict in Sri Lanka is yet to be truly and verifiably confirmed but the United Nations estimates that around 40000 lives may have been lost. It has been claimed that having been told the location of safe zones, people seeking safety there were shelled by government forces. And there are more causes for concern: Human Rights Watch has documented cases of rapes in custody, disappearances and deaths remain unaccounted for, reports reach us of harassment of NGOs and rights activists.

On our TV screens this week we have seen harassment and obstruction of BBC and Channel 4 journalists as they tried to cover the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting (CHOGM). A group from the International Bar Association, already granted visas, was denied entry to Sri Lanka and two Australian senators were detained in Sri Lanka, on being released they report being told that they could not speak to the media without permission from the external affairs department.

For many years victims and families of the dead and disappeared have sought state responses to their concerns that go beyond denial or allegations of fabrication. There is an urgent need to have a process where the pursuit of justice, according to international standards, is seen to be done. A victor in war taking the full responsibility for investigation of alleged war crimes does not carry credibility: the UN and many others have pressed for a full international investigation. Many Sri Lankans want the same, though saying so can be risky – those who recently spoke to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights report being subsequently visited by security forces.

Yet members of the Commonwealth have gifted their most prestigious meeting, and the position of chair-in-office for the next two years, to Sri Lanka. Those who were uncomfortable with this managed to postpone the Colombo CHOGM from 2011 to 2013. In fact, the country enjoys the loyalty of many Commonwealth members – for example, while states like Fiji and Pakistan were subject to the internal mechanism tasked with dealing with persistent violations of its values Sri Lanka kept skipping over the radar.

This may not be a surprise to anyone familiar with international politics: countries are reluctant to subject others to scrutiny not least of all because they don’t want such scrutiny turned back in their direction.

Criticism of the Commonwealth is not restricted to outsiders who ‘don’t understand’, Commonwealth associations have made very clear their concerns. The Commonwealth Legal Education Association, the Commonwealth Lawyers and Magistrates Association and the Commonwealth Lawyers Association have raised major concerns.

Leaders staying away come from the richer donor block (Canada), old friends in the region (India) and a small island state (Mauritius). Don’t underestimate the importance of Mauritius in this list – it is due to host the next CHOGM and thereafter become the chair-in-office. As such, it is expected to work closely with Sri Lanka to lead and advocate for the organisation; their close working relationship is not off to the best of starts.

Despite massive pressure, the UK has sent our Prime Minister to the summit. Our government has said that it will raise rights concerns with the Sri Lankan government, yet the Sri Lankan Minister of Mass Media and Communication has sought to close that dialogue, saying that was not the basis of their invitation.

At a time when the Commonwealth’s value and purpose is increasingly called into question, this CHOGM does not bear witness to the Commonwealth’s claim to be a values-based organisation. From the inside, I know with considerable regret, how very difficult it is to get funding and political support for rights work.

Citizens across the 53 member states are increasingly seeing the promise of rights and want this to become real in their lives. And many governments in the Commonwealth are trying hard to take this work forward; the bravest refuse to be held back on this journey by poverty. Sadly the organisation as a whole risks being tarnished as having no commitment to human rights.

To a new observer it can look like the Commonwealth prefers to stand beside alleged abusers of rights rather than promote international standards of rights, accountability and justice. The UK must give more serious consideration to it’s role in the association if it does not wish to be seen as just rubber stamping the association’s apparent refusal to deal with rights concerns.

Purna Sen is Labour’s PPC for Brighton Pavilion and former Head of Human Rights for the Commonwealth Secretariat