By Sarath Dissanayake –

Author’s Note: This piece intentionally refrains from delving into the granular figures of human casualties, collateral damage, missing persons, or disappearances. Ample space, documentation, and debate have already been dedicated to the human dimension of the conflict at every UNHRC session since 2009. At this juncture, repeating or debating unverified casualty metrics serves little analytical purpose. Nor does this article intend to shed light on specific past investigative reports compiled by multiple investigative entities, namely the LLRC, the UN Darusman Panel, and the IIGEP. Instead, this piece approaches the issue strictly from an objective, procedural, and thematic standpoint, focusing on the mechanics of multilateral diplomacy and the protection of state sovereignty under international law.

The Palais des Nations: A Continuing Scrutiny

Sri Lanka finds itself once again under intense global scrutiny at the Palais des Nations in Geneva. As the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) convenes its 63rd session, Sri Lanka enters its 17th consecutive year amidst persistent geopolitical pressure; not for harboring international threats, but for successfully eliminating one. For nearly two decades, Sri Lanka has been singled out on the floor of the UNHRC based on what many view as highly orchestrated allegations. Meanwhile, powerful states guilty of catastrophic human rights violations operate with total structural immunity, laying bare a disturbing double standard within modern multilateral diplomacy.

The Geopolitical Double Standard

The core systemic flaw of the UNHRC lies in its structural asymmetry. While sovereign nations in the Global South face intense scrutiny, major geopolitical heavyweights consistently operate with total institutional immunity. It is a profound hypocrisy that these military powers have unilaterally invaded sovereign nations, conducted legally dubious military campaigns, and destabilized entire geographical regions—resulting in millions of civilian displacements and hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Yet, the UNHRC rarely imposes intrusive country-specific oversight mechanisms on global powers. This glaring selectiveness reduces human rights enforcement to a highly selective political tool. Sri Lanka’s domestic conflict ended in May 2009 with the defeat of the LTTE – a highly sophisticated terror movement armed with tactical naval and air assets, global supply chains, and committed fighters—inclusive of a deeply indoctrinated band of suicide cadres. Despite this decisive victory over global terrorism, Sri Lanka continues to face persistent scrutiny in Geneva, where external actors continuously exploit a successful anti-terror victory for their own geopolitical leverage.

The Reality of Defeating Global Terror 

To fully comprehend the injustice of Sri Lanka’s ongoing diplomatic entrapment, the historical context must be recalled. For nearly three decades, Sri Lanka was held hostage by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE); an insurgent group funded by a well-oiled diaspora network abroad. In its three-decade-old terror campaign against the Sri Lankan government forces—which are legitimately duty-bound to protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the nation-state—the LTTE was hell-bent on carving out a separate, mono-ethnic Tamil Eelam. The outfit was responsible for large-scale, indiscriminate terror campaigns, suicide bombings, brutal massacres, and the cold-blooded assassination of political and religious leaders, civilians, women, and infants, resulting in over tens of thousands of civilian deaths while maiming countless others. As of today,  the LTTE remains officially banned as a terrorist entity in the US, Europe, India, the UK, Canada, Malaysia, and earned the wrath of the UN and member states for its reprehensible notoriety and senseless crimes against humanity.

Largest Humanitarian Operation Ever in Conventional Warfare 

The final stages of the conflict in 2009 culminated in what remains the largest humanitarian operation ever undertaken by a country in conventional warfare. In a desperate bid for survival, the retreating LTTE trapped and held more than 100,000 Tamil civilians hostage, ruthlessly utilizing them as a human shield and an active cover against the advancing military. Operating under unprecedented constraints to minimize collateral damage in a heavily fortified zone, the Sri Lankan armed forces successfully breached the LTTE’s defensive earth bunds and liberated over 100,000 civilians from the clutches of terrorism, orchestrating a massive, state-led rescue operation that saved countless innocent lives. Rather than receiving international validation for this massive rescue mission, the nation that ended the largest-ever humanitarian hostage crisis was later penalized by external critics who completely inverted the narrative.

Domestic Mechanisms: Sri Lanka’s Institutional Architecture for Accountability

Contrary to the narrative propagated in Geneva that Sri Lanka operates in an accountability vacuum, successive governments since 2009 have established a robust network of state-managed institutional frameworks and domestic mechanisms to address post-conflict concerns in regard to accountability, enforced disappearances, the fate of the missing, truth-seeking, reconciliation, resettlement, and structural reforms. Chief among these are the Office on Missing Persons (OMP), the Office for Reparations (OR), the Office for National Unity and Reconciliation (ONUR), and the Commission for Truth, Unity, and Reconciliation (CTUR)—statutory bodies actively tasked with protecting the rights and interests of victims and their families.

On the ground, systematic demilitarization has quietly but fundamentally altered the landscape of the Northern and Eastern Provinces. Thousands of acres of state-held and private lands have been systematically de-listed and restored to their rightful civilian owners, supported by an aggressive, highly praised national demining framework that has cleared nearly all remnants of war. Furthermore, Sri Lanka has actively prioritized long-term reconciliation through the operationalization of the Commission for Truth, Unity, and Reconciliation (CTUR) which is modeled after South Africa’s TRC, alongside the execution of legal actions through its domestic mechanisms including Independent Prosecutor’s Office – tasked with expediting case backlogs. By choosing domestic institutional mechanisms over externally imposed judicial frameworks, Sri Lanka continues to demonstrate that national accountability processes can successfully thrive, and must be given the time and space to work.

The 2025 UNHRC Fact-Finding Mission: Renewed Stakes 

The stakes have escalated sharply due to the heavy reliance on the UN High Commissioner’s recent fact-finding visit to Sri Lanka. This visit—the first by a UN rights chief in nearly a decade—was framed by the international community as an objective assessment, yet it quickly mirrored the seemingly biased patterns of its predecessors. Rather than validating the country’s extensive post-war stabilization, the High Commissioner’s mission served as a vehicle to gather highly curated testimonies from partisan entities. This selective approach to local complaints meant that the final report ended up institutionalizing domestic disputes. As a result, the UNHRC successfully used Sri Lanka’s internal challenges to justify and expand its own international mandate.

The NPP Administration and the Shifting Geneva Narrative

The UN has put Sri Lanka’s human rights record under fresh scrutiny following the ascendancy of the NPP government in 2024. While Geneva initially acknowledged the administration’s pledge to tackle corruption and revive stalled investigations into high-profile emblematic cases, the UN’s narrative has shifted toward a seemingly prejudiced reprimand. Specifically, the UNHRC’s official reports allege that Sri Lanka has made little tangible progress regarding legacy war crimes, enforced disappearances, and reconciliation. The council directly accuses the state of failing to institute meaningful legal proceedings against those responsible for legacy abuses, claiming that transformative momentum is “at risk of stalling” due to a persistent deficit in transitional justice frameworks.

Furthermore, external monitors have leveled criticism over unrelated legislative maneuvers—citing the proposed Article 22 (A22) constitutional changes—while alleging structural regressions in press freedom, digital surveillance, and the alleged detention of political prisoners. By marginalizing the genuine anti-corruption and domestic justice initiatives launched by successive administrations, the UNHRC demonstrates that no matter how progressive a domestic government behaves, Geneva continuously shifts its goalposts to sustain an emblematic narrative of non-compliance and lack of progress.

Sovereign Realities: Sri Lanka’s Systematic Defense 

The latest cycle of criticisms leveled by the UNHRC targets a wide spectrum of governance issues, emphasizing the continued enforcement of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and the alleged detention of political prisoners. In a sharp rebuttal to these specific charges, Sri Lanka firmly rejected the allegations as a politically motivated overreach that completely ignores the country’s domestic legal architecture. It further clarified that the PTA is undergoing deliberate legislative review to align with international security norms, and emphasized that no individuals are held outside the due process of law. Furthermore, the Sri Lankan delegation firmly reasserted that press freedom, constitutional adjustments under Article 22, and legislative enactments remain fully protected under an independent domestic judiciary, warning that the UNHRC’s persistent reliance on unverified external assertions only serves to undermine Sri Lanka’s legitimate, domestically-driven reconciliation processes.

Diaspora Leverage and Institutional Blunders 

The persistent focus on Sri Lanka in Geneva is largely fueled by the political influence of affluent, highly organized Tamil diaspora networks embedded within Western and European electorates. These entities hold significant voting and financial leverage over local politicians in key world capitals. Consequently, these governments frequently champion intrusive, country-specific UN resolutions against Sri Lanka to satisfy domestic electoral blocs.

Yielding to this targeted political lobbying, the UN has allegedly committed notable institutional overreaches. By relying heavily on biased testimonies and unverified submissions provided by partisan diaspora elements, UN bodies appear to have regularly produced flawed reports that distort the reality of the war’s final stages. These actions breach basic principles of national sovereignty by trying to impose external, internationally managed judicial mechanisms on a sovereign state, completely bypassing Sri Lanka’s existing domestic institutional frameworks.

Unilateral Designations: The Duplicity of Global Powers 

Nothing exposes this aggressive, country-specific overreach more vividly than the highly controversial unilateral designations leveled against Sri Lankan military officials and the political leadership that directed the state’s military campaign against the LTTE. Imposed by the US, the UK, Canada, and Australia, these restrictive travel bans and asset freezes are thoroughly unacceptable, carrying absolutely no international legal basis, transparent adjudication, or global legitimacy. Such moves expose the deep-seated duplicity, double speak, and moral bankruptcy of these self-proclaimed human rights advocates. Certain nations have consistently shielded their command structures and military forces from international accountability, burying documented human rights violations and atrocities committed by their personnel abroad under the guise of fighting global terror.

Furthermore, these mere designations serve to drastically underestimate and undo the immense sacrifices made by both these military officials and the political leaders whose unwavering commitment and guidance led to the complete defeat of the LTTE, which remains banned across the US, Europe, India, and elsewhere. By penalizing the political leadership and battlefield commanders, such unilateral bans represent a severe double whammy, thus effectively emboldening LTTE remnants and their international sympathizers whilst hoodwinking the heroic forces of Sri Lanka. This insulting narrative severely undermines those who conducted the largest-ever humanitarian liberation operation in history in 2009—a combined leadership that helped secure the literal liberation of over 100,000 innocent Tamil civilians from LTTE captivity.

Cultivating Alliances: The Imperative for Proactive Multilateral Diplomacy 

To effectively dismantle the persistent diplomatic containment strategy deployed in Geneva, Sri Lanka must dynamically engage its traditional allies while shifting from defensive posturing to an assertive, proactive diplomatic doctrine. Over the past 17 years, non-aligned powers and regional partners have consistently extended critical diplomatic lifelines to Sri Lanka, frequently voting against or abstaining from punitive, politically driven resolutions.

However, maintaining this defensive shield requires a continuous, institutionalized effort rather than reactive damage control tactics—often initiated only weeks before annual UNHRC sessions. The foreign ministry must deploy robust, year-round diplomatic lobbying across major global and regional configurations like the NAM, and the AU.

This requires keeping allies completely and systematically briefed with empirical data detailing Sri Lanka’s concrete domestic successes in post-war reconciliation, northern resettlement, ex-combatant reintegration, and large-scale economic and livelihood  projects. By aggressively pursuing diplomatic engagements through its diplomatic missions and cultivating deep bilateral ties, Sri Lanka can solidify its traditional friendships, broaden its support base, and effectively neutralize the biased, unverified lobbying of partisan diaspora networks within the United Nations system.

Key Takeaways – Bridging the Accountability Divide: The Path Forward 

In essence, the UNHRC’s persistent pressure and targeting of Sri Lanka is thoroughly unacceptable. It deliberately ignores the tangible, recorded progress the country has made in addressing post-conflict accountability and truth seeking, while establishing domestic mechanisms for reconciliation, reparation, resettlement, and reconstruction, successfully executing the rehabilitation and reintegration of thousands of surrendered LTTE cadres who have since joined the political, social, and economic mainstream. While Sri Lanka is penalized for its domestic triumphs over terror, global powers responsible for horrendous, well-documented violations walk away completely untouched, shielded entirely by their political leverage and geo-political dominance.

Ultimately, the resolution of Sri Lanka’s long-standing status on the UNHRC agenda lies not in constant adversarial friction, but in a systematic, forward-looking commitment to universal human rights benchmarks and foundational fundamental freedoms. While historical imbalances within international oversight bodies remain a reality, the primary path forward depends on Sri Lanka’s proactive fulfillment of its own statutory and international obligations. By consistently strengthening independent domestic enforcement frameworks, accelerating legislative alignment with international standards, and refining reporting transparency, the Sri Lankan government could decisively meet global expectations. True social cohesion and international credibility are best achieved when human rights are championed as a core domestic value rather than an externally forced mandate. Moving forward, a robust strategy combining rigorous domestic implementation with clear, empirical engagement at the UNHRC will allow Sri Lanka to successfully fulfill its human rights duties while permanently securing its national dignity and long-term stability within the international community.

“True internationalism is not the denial of nationalism, but its fulfillment in a spirit of mutual respect and humanity” –  Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru

*The writer is a retired Ambassador and Foreign Ministry Spokesman. He can be reached at schandrad@hotmail.com