Sri Lanka’s relationship with the HRC has been contentious since 2019, following the conclusion of the civil war in 2009. The initial resolution calling for an international investigation into alleged war crimes triggered a period of severe diplomatic isolation and economic sanctions. While the government subsequently co opted a resolution focused on a domestic reconciliation process – overseen by a Presidential Commission on Missing Persons – this strategy has been largely rejected by key stakeholders, particularly the United Kingdom, Canada, and the European Union, who argue it lacks genuine independence and full scope. “The key issue,” explains Dr. Chandani Udawatta, Senior Analyst at the Colombo-based Alternative Futures Institute, “is the insistence on an international investigation with teeth. Sri Lanka’s approach has been viewed as a cynical attempt to appease international criticism without fundamentally addressing the core concerns.”
Recent Developments and the Shifting Landscape
Over the past six months, Sri Lanka’s diplomatic efforts have been characterized by a measured but increasingly assertive approach. While maintaining engagement with the HRC, the government has simultaneously sought to strengthen ties with nations aligning with the Global South – notably China, India, and several countries within the Non-Aligned Movement. This strategy is exemplified by increased economic engagement and strategic partnerships. “We are seeking to forge a new path, one built on mutual respect and equitable relations,” Herath stated during a recent briefing. Simultaneously, the government continues to face pressure from Western nations advocating for a comprehensive investigation into alleged atrocities, including the use of excessive force against civilians.
Specifically, the release of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights’ report, scheduled for presentation at the HRC, is anticipated to exacerbate tensions. While the report is expected to reiterate concerns about impunity and call for a more robust investigation, Sri Lanka’s response will be critical. A further escalation of international sanctions, as predicted by some analysts, is a distinct possibility if the government refuses to cooperate fully. “The next 6-12 months will be pivotal,” warns Rohan Silva, Senior Fellow at the International Centre for Strategic Studies. “Sri Lanka’s willingness to genuinely engage with the HRC – not just to manage the optics – will determine its long-term strategic prospects.”
Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes
Short-Term (Next 6 Months): Sri Lanka is likely to continue a balancing act, attempting to maintain positive relations with Western nations while simultaneously bolstering ties within the Global South. The immediate outcome of the HRC session will likely be a reaffirmation of existing concerns and potentially intensified diplomatic pressure. A significant escalation in international sanctions remains a viable, though undesirable, prospect.
Long-Term (5-10 Years): Sri Lanka’s future trajectory hinges on its ability to demonstrate genuine commitment to accountability and human rights. A continued resistance to international scrutiny could lead to sustained diplomatic isolation, hindering economic growth and access to international finance. Conversely, a willingness to embrace international oversight, alongside domestic reforms, could gradually rebuild trust and reintegrate Sri Lanka into the global community. The underlying challenge remains the need to address the systemic issues that contributed to the conflict in the first place, issues which, as highlighted by Dr. Udawatta, “must be addressed with honesty and a genuine desire for reconciliation, not merely for political expediency.”
The Geneva sessions will offer Sri Lanka a critical opportunity to shape its international image, but whether it can successfully navigate the complex geopolitical landscape remains to be seen.