Mahinda Rajapakse has had a good few months. First, he resoundingly defeated the LTTE, ending a war that had raged for almost three decades. Then, just as calls for an international investigation into his government's excesses during the final days of fighting were gaining strength, the United Nations essentially gave him a clean sheet. On 27 May, during a special session called to discuss Sri Lanka, the UN's Human Rights Council (HRC) passed a resolution praising Colombo's war policy, and without demanding anything of it in the current post-war context. The HRC went as far as to say that it "Welcomes the continued commitment of Sri Lanka to the promotion and protection of all human rights and encourages it to continue to uphold its human rights obligations and the norms of international human rights law."
That such a biased and uncritical assessment emerged from what can be seen as the highest human-rights body in the world is extremely disappointing. But a deeper look into the workings of the HRC reveals that the decision should not have been unexpected. Established in 2006, the body is an intergovernmental committee made up of 47 members, elected for three-year terms. The positions taken by the HRC are those backed by a majority of the governments as put to a vote – not that of senior UN staff. The Lanka resolution, for instance, was passed despite the urging of Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, that an independent probe was necessary into the abuses committed by both sides of the conflict.
In this sense, Sri Lanka's victory in the HRC was not a reflection of global admiration for its war. Rather, it was an indicator of the manner in which alliances are being reconfigured, both regionally and globally. A split between the Global North and South, which has been a part of most HRC sessions, was pronounced this time around as well. To begin with, the request for a special session on Sri Lanka was led by the Western countries, including Britain, France, Germany and Canada. Meanwhile, a group of Asian members, including India, Pakistan and China, maintained that the whole undertaking was unnecessary – eventually even walking out of a pre-session meeting.
When the HRC finally convened, the 47 members were split. On one side was a resolution, put forward by Switzerland and backed by the European countries, that made two primary demands: that international aid agencies be given unfettered access to the camps for displaced individuals, and that an inquiry (by the Sri Lankan government) be launched into alleged war crimes committed during the conflict. The other position was the one that finally passed, supported by the countries of the Global South. After much haggling, 29 countries (all non-Western, including Russia) voted for this position while 12 opposed (all European). Six others (Argentina, Gabon, Japan, Mauritius, the Republic of Korea and Ukraine) chose to remain 'neutral'.