Civil society: Comparison of Tamil activist’s advocacy with LTTE claims unwarranted, mischievous and chilling

An influential section of the civil society has criticised the Foreign Ministry over a statement it issued as regards representations made recently by human rights lawyer Ambika Satkunanathan at the hearing of the European Parliament’s sub-committee on human rights.

Forty seven organizations and 161 individuals in a statement issued over the weekend frowned on what they called an attempt by the Foreign Ministry to draw an analogy between the independent advocacy of a Tamil activist and researcher with the claims of the LTTE as unwarranted, mischievous and chilling.

Satkunanathan told The Island that the headline ‘Human rights: FM challenges Neelan Tiruchelvam Trust over its representations to Geneva’ given to the Foreign Ministry statement carried in the Feb 5 edition of The Island is erroneous. She said that her statement to the European Parliament’s sub-committee on human rights had nothing to do with the Neelan Tiruchelvam Trust. The lawyer said that she did not represent the Trust or speak on its behalf. “NTT is not engaged in HR advocacy work and is a grant making foundation. The MFA is not challenging NTT but me in my personal capacity.”

The following is the text of the statement issued by the civil society in support of Ambika Satkunanathan: ” We are deeply concerned by the response of the Foreign Ministry, dated 4th February, 2022, to the statement made by human rights lawyer and advocate, former Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, and Chairperson of the Neelan Tiruchelvam Trust, Ambika Satkunanathan, at the hearing of the European Parliament’s sub-committee on human rights, on the 27th of January, 2022. In her submission, Ms. Satkunanathan made a critical assessment of the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and its international and national obligations to its citizens, and provided recommendations to European Union member states.

Rather than engage substantively with the issues raised, the Sri Lankan Government instead chose to cast aspersions on an individual with an unimpeachable record of principled research, advocacy and public service for the improvement of human rights in Sri Lanka. The attempt by the Foreign Ministry to draw an analogy between the independent advocacy of a Tamil activist and researcher with the claims of the LTTE is unwarranted, mischievous and chilling. The insinuation that pointing out the differential impact of government policies, state institutions and their practices on Tamil and Muslim communities is in some way ‘stoking hatred among communities’ and harmful to ‘social harmony’ is also deeply troubling. Given how the PTA and ICCPR Act have been used in Sri Lanka in the recent past by the State to target critical individuals and members of minority communities, this characterization is ominous.

Retaining or losing GSP+ trade privileges is entirely based on the European Union’s assessment of the conduct of the Sri Lankan Government with respect to labour rights, human rights, environmental protection and good governance. The suggestion that it is human rights advocacy that jeopardizes GSP+ trade privileges which are crucial for the Sri Lankan economy is highly disingenuous.

We consider the targeting of outspoken members of civil society by a government institution using dangerous insinuations to be a form of intimidation aimed at stifling dissent and freedom of expression. Statements such as this by the Foreign Ministry, we believe, aim to constrain civil society engagement as an independent interlocutor with the international community on democracy and rights issues, standing up for the rights and protection of affected communities and individuals.

Like Ms. Satkunanathan, many in civil society have been raising concerns regarding the operational environment for civil society organizations and activists, and the threat of a repressive new law. We note with deep concern the continuing incidents of harassment of victim-survivors, human rights activists, media workers and civil society organisations by state actors. Creating an enabling environment for civil society will require more than mere assertions that civil society is treated as a partner, and the shifting of the NGO Secretariat to a new Ministry. We remain willing to engage with the government in an honest, principled and constructive dialogue on this, and the other substantive issues raised by Ms. Satkunanathan, which we share and stand-by.

However, the targeting of civil society activists in this manner by the Foreign Ministry does not inspire confidence or trust. We condemn this statement of the Foreign Ministry, and stand in solidarity with Ms. Ambika Satkunanathan and all other civil society activists engaged in the processes of promoting and protecting human rights, democracy and genuine reconciliation in Sri Lanka.”