Western powers tightened their hold over Sri Lanka at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva by passing a resolution with the backing of 22 countries. The position of the Island-nation was so weak that it could not even demand a vote.

Though the UNHRC has given a 2-year respite to improve the human rights record, the resolution titled A/HRC/60/L.1/Rev.1 – Promoting Reconciliation, Accountability and Human Rights in Sri Lanka will continue to hang over like the proverbial Sward of Damocles as it happened in the last 15 years since the war against Tamil militants ended in 2009.

The resolution, a slightly revised version of the one which Sri Lanka formally rejected earlier  was adopted at the 60th Session, thus extending the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ (OHCHR) mandate in Sri Lanka for another two years. It allows OHCHR to keep on probing the issue unilaterally without consulting Sri Lanka for two more years and table another report in 2028.

The resolution, revised and tabled on 1 October 2025, was co-sponsored by 22 countries. Its main sponsors are the United Kingdom, Canada, Malawi, Montenegro, and North Macedonia, while most of the additional co-sponsors are European nations. Sri Lanka formally rejected the resolution.

UK Is Key Sponsor 

The latest resolution was first introduced by five countries including the United States, but after the withdrawal of the US during the beginning of the second term of President Donald Trump, the UK became its key sponsor.

A revised version presented on 1 October reflects the Western double standards and the continuous desire of the UNHRC to bend over backwards to please the West. The most shocking aspect is that the recommendations in the report were made without consultation with the Government of Sri Lanka. There was no attempt made to obtain the concurrence of Colombo for any of the recommendations.

The OHCHR was completely indifferent to the concerns and displeasure expressed by Sri Lanka that the High Commissioner’s report was flawed and reasons presented in support of the categorical rejection of the Report were completely ignored. As Sri Lanka Representative to UNHRC Himalee Arunathilaka said “the OHCHR Report contained factual inaccuracies and the mandate given by the Council has been exceeded and the Report sought to bring in extraneous elements and substantive recommendations which were clearly contradictory to the Constitution of Sri Lanka”.

Resolution Ignores ‘Progress’ 

The resolution did not stop at  so-called human rights issues. It has called on Sri Lanka to fulfil its pledges to devolve political power in accordance with the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. It highlights that genuine devolution is vital for national reconciliation and the protection of human rights for all citizens. It also urges the Sri Lankan government to hold long-delayed provincial council elections and ensure these bodies, particularly in the Northern and Eastern Provinces, function effectively. This is a demand made by India at every high-level meeting. The Provincial Councils were established under the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement of 1987.

As Sri Lanka pointed out to the UNHRC, the preamble of the resolution was highly intrusive and replete with misrepresentations. It accentuates the negative and is dismissive of the positive. It also casts aspersions upon domestic processes that are ongoing, without any foundation. Insofar as a preamble sets the backdrop for the ensuing substantive portion of a text, and the tone set for the rest of the document is overwhelmingly pessimistic.

As Sri Lanka’s permanent representative pointed out, given the background and anomalous nature of the UNHRC initiative, many countries would naturally have concerns relating to the draft resolution as it could establish a bad, even dangerous, precedent in the annals of the Human Rights Council. The objective should be to keep the Council relevant, vital and focused rather than straying down deleterious paths in pursuit of political agendas. Stakeholders may be forewarned that, if the current tendency towards politicization and the pursuit of parallel agendas continues, the Human Rights Council may well suffer the fate of its predecessor – the UN Human Rights Commission.

The resolution stressed the need to prosecute perpetrators where sufficient evidence exists and stresses the importance of safeguarding civil society actors, human rights defenders, journalists, victims, survivors, and their families, especially women, from intimidation and reprisals. It also called for the release of lands still under military control and the fair resolution of disputes related to archaeological, religious, and conservation issues.

However, Sri Lanka says, it has ignored the progress made at ground level. The paragraph dealing with progress achieved, failed to mention the successful rehabilitation and reintegration of nearly 12,000 ex-combatants. This includes 594 child soldiers. It also failed to acknowledge gains in livelihood development and reinvigoration of economic activity which enabled the economy in the North to grow by 27% in 2011 as opposed to a national average of 8%.

It referred demilitarization of the North as a recommendation of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) which never made explicit reference to such – except to state that the civil administration should be restored – something which has already taken place. It seeks to allege continuing reports of discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief when this is manifestly not the case and forms no part of Government policy or practice. Sri Lanka’s constructive engagement through the UPR process as recently as November 2012 through March 2013, has been ignored.

Sri Lanka representative made an accusation that the OHCHR was indulging in an unethical practice by introducing new elements such as an international inquiry and invidiously smuggles in, by reference, the discredited report of the United Nations Secretary General’s Advisory Panel of Experts (POE). That was an initiative that was never requested nor sanctioned by any intergovernmental process or forum, she  pointed out and categorically stated that there was neither consultation nor concurrence by the Government of Sri Lanka as to this Report or its contents. This is a very serious charge against UNHRC, which was condemned by US President Donald Trump as a ‘cesspit of political bias’.

Sri Lanka told the UNHRC that those who are genuinely concerned about the future wellbeing of the people of Sri Lanka, should encourage the country in its ongoing reconciliation process, rather than single it out for disproportionate attention in the Council.

‘Damaging To South Asia’

There is a danger that the proponents of the resolution could interfere in the domestic process and endanger the delicate reconciliation process ongoing in Sri Lanka, as well as the constructive engagement Sri Lanka is presently pursuing with the United Nations, the Human Rights Council, the High Commissioner and the OHCHR. The resolution is also potentially damaging of regional relationships and South Asian solidarity.

Sri Lanka called upon members of this Council to safeguard the paramount principles the Council stands for which are - universality, impartiality, objectivity, non-selectiveness, constructive dialogue and cooperation and predictability, among others. Today, it is Sri Lanka, tomorrow, it may be any other country in this Council which does not adhere to the political objectives of some who profess to promote and protect human rights the world over, but pursue agendas other than human rights.

Sri Lanka did not call for a vote on the resolution as it was evident that most of the 47 members would vote for the resolution and even the few nonaligned members were  planning to abstain rather than vote against the resolution.

(The author, a former Sri Lankan diplomat, is a political and strategic affairs commentator. Views expressed are personal. He can be reached at sugeeswara@gmail.com)