Why the Prime Minister’s gamble in Sri Lanka is going to fail

All carrots and no sticks regardless of corresponding action is not a system that works.

Many commentators have already written in great length about why David Cameron and William Hague should have boycotted the CHOGM in Sri Lanka next week. I think it is fair to say, having ignored the shadow Foreign Minister, Amnesty International and a whole raft of other eminent names, my call coming when it does, isn’t going to do much to change their minds.

However, even now, there are some things our elected representatives can do to save face. If they choose not to, their plan of “constructive engagement” with Sri Lanka is bound to be a gamble that does not pay off for them. 

Why are David Cameron and entourage actually going to the CHOGM?

As mentioned before, there is staunch opposition to this decision to attend from a wide range of actors in the domestic and international fields. It appears the reasoning behind the opposition has been somewhat accepted by the Government (it has certainly been accepted by the Canadian government who are boycotting) and that reasoning is not what forms the basis of this article [see Channel 4’s no fire zone if you want reasoning].

What does form the basis for this article, is the Government’s response.

So why despite this opposition and sound reasoning, are our prime minister, foreign minister and a royal still intent on attending? These have been some of the quoted reasons:

1. “shine a light on what is going on in the country, either highlighting progress made or drawing attention to the lack of it” – I think it is fair to say it’s become pretty much unanimous that there is no progress, only decline. This unanimity of opinion seems to suggest light is already shining and DC’s presence, although I am sure will radiate light as always, is not necessary as such to instigate something that is already happening. 

Besides, if the government were serious, there are other steps they can take to this end. You know what will really shine a light on Sri Lanka’s progress? An independent international investigation.

2. Promised to be very clear about those aspects of the human rights record in Sri Lanka that we are not happy with – erm..

A. Why can you not do that from England? Communication has become so much easier, we have mass media, phones and emails and all kinds of new technologies not to mention an embassy in Sri Lanka who can communicate on our behalf and a Sri Lankan embassy here who we can communicate with on their behalf.

B. Is it on the agenda though?

3. First foreign leader to visit the Northern Province – now now have Ofsted inspections and hospital inspections and the whole host of other inspections we have domestically taught us nothing? When have these things actually worked? We all know how people being inspected selectively choose what you see and who you speak to and besides how much are you really going to learn in like a day? Especially as a foreign leader who is not really even an inspector.

Besides many people have already visited, including people whose judgement the Prime Minister should have learnt to trust by now (Ban Ki Moon and Navi Pillay). Why not save on the airfare in this time of austerity and just ask them? Or if one was really keen, why not visit another time when you’ve gone specifically to highlight human rights concerns and not to bask in Sri Lankan glory when they are hosting CHOGM?

4. CHOGM too important to be set aside because of location – why? Is it because of the famed “Commonwealth Values” because there is much to be said about that.  The Commonwealth purports to be about "democracy, human rights and the rule of law" – clearly Sri Lanka is our leading example of these values and letting Sri Lanka host the CHOGM where they discuss things like international peace, human rights, good governance and democracy makes sense. 

Decisions like this one, adds weight to the arguments from some sides that the Commonwealth is just an extension of colonialism, racism, and a trampling of rights in general. Indeed it goes further than the commonwealth itself – it touches on all our international relations. Why do we not apply our principles of things like human rights uniformly across the board- actually proving they are principles and not matters of foreign policy when we can pick and choose when they apply? Syria bombs citizens, lets bomb them. Sri Lanka bombs citizens, host the commonwealth!  The differentiation in treatment of countries does seem a bit sinister with no further explanation. 

The Gamble

The gamble the government has chosen to take, as I see it, is such: 

It is worth tolerating a number of given risks associated with attendance to “constructively engage” with the Sri Lankan government. 

Now I do not want to associate any hoodies with the Sri Lankan government, it is an insult to all hoodies (myself included) and if the Sri Lankan government’s biggest crime was to wear a hoodie, these would be happy days, but this seems remarkably like the “hug a hoodie” rhetoric.

As David Cameron himself has probably found out by now, simply hugging anyone (least of all Sri Lanka) isn’t going to do much for anyone. Indeed the dominant government discourse appears to be that hugging hoodies have led to riots.

The underlying core of constructive engagement is compromise. One party gives a bit and takes a bit and the other does so too in retaliation. Here Britain is giving it all: aid, weapons in the past, international recognition and rehabilitation and Sri Lanka is taking it all. What is the Sri Lankan government giving in return? An increasingly appalling human rights record is the first thing that comes to mind. 

I’m sure the FCO and No 10 know what they’re doing but this plan of seemingly giving Sri Lanka endless carrots when they haven’t even performed the action that the carrot should be dependent on, and never using the stick, even though the stick should have been deployed ages ago for many of Sri Lanka’s actions, doesn’t seem like a foolproof one to me.

It seems Sri Lanka will eat all the carrots and carry on emboldened. We've basically just been rewarding them for very bad behaviour.

The cynic’s gamble

Maybe we were never after a change of behaviour in Sri Lanka from the word go. Maybe we were after something else. If so, what else does Britain stand to gain from this decision to attend the CHOGM? The only thing I can think of is business deals.

This in itself is wrought with risks:

•  Do you want to paint yourselves as people who would sell their own granny for business deals? Compromising on human rights just for a bit of extra money seems like this and maybe we do want to seem like this, in which case the second question is more pertinent:
• What makes us think a country which has no problems flouting every international law we have, killing with impunity etc is going to feel bound by a contract to buy and sell? Surely from what they’ve been led to expect, any more bad behaviour on their part will only win them the right to host the next Olympics or something. (And if they do actually choose not to renegade then we are back to risk one)

What our prime minister and foreign minister should (and could) do:

1.  Actually get human rights on the agenda
2. Openly speak out about the abuses when here, there and everywhere
3. Put in place a process of sanctions for when Sri Lanka disobey everything regarding human rights, even after CHOGM – which they will.
4. Push for an independent international investigation – and give it teeth – what happens when the investigation returns with grotesque findings?

This is just the beginning - I am sure there are many other actions, many more people can think of. The question remains, will our government take heed? It appears too risky not to.