WHY IS A CATHOLIC NGO PAX ROMANA PROPOSING PERMANENT SETTLEMENT & CITIZENSHIP TO ROHINGYAS & MUSLIM REFUGEES IN SRI LANKA AT THE UNHRC?
Sri Lanka is not a State party to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or its 1967 Protocol. Both UNHRC & UNHCR knows this. UNHCR also knows that Sri Lanka has no national asylum system, while UNHCR registration does not itself give a person legal status in Sri Lanka, and that foreign nationals require valid visas to remain in the country. These facts are not secrets.
Yet on 7 September 2026, during the 63rd Session of the UN Human Rights Council, the Vice-President introduced a video as being from Pax Romana.
The speaker, Muhammad Anwar, identified himself as a Rohingya refugee in Sri Lanka.
His presentation called upon Sri Lanka to consider granting “citizenship or permanent residency” to Rohingya and other refugees who cannot find permanent settlement elsewhere.
That raises a very simple question:
WHY IS THE UN SYSTEM ENCOURAGING PERMANENT SETTLEMENT IN A COUNTRY THAT HAS NOT JOINED THE REFUGEE CONVENTION?
Why suddenly?
Is it because a weak Government is in power?
- WHY SRI LANKA – why the only non-treaty signed Sri Lanka?
Sri Lanka is not a Convention country.
Yet a presentation through the UN Human Rights Council is asking Sri Lanka to move from humanitarian assistance to permanent residence and citizenship.
This will impact Sri Lanka’s
immigration policy;
nationality;
schooling / housing / employment
permanent residence / land & resources;
population & demography;
security;
and sovereign right to determine who may permanently settle in the country.
Who decided that this should be advocated for Sri Lanka?
- WHY DID THE HRC ALLOW THIS PRESENTATION?
The Human Rights Council & UN Refugee Council knows Sri Lanka’s legal position.
Why was a proposal for citizenship and permanent residency presented through the HRC without first addressing Sri Lanka’s non-party status and absence of a national asylum system?
Why was it presented without the HRC making clear that it was NOT a UN recommendation?
- WHO PUT THE WORDS “CITIZENSHIP OR PERMANENT RESIDENCY” INTO THE PRESENTATION?
Who:
- organised the presentation?
- submitted it to the HRC?
- sponsored it?
- drafted it?
- edited it?
- approved it?
- proposed citizenship?
- proposed permanent residency?
- Was the demand made by Muhammad Anwar personally?
- Was it proposed by Pax Romana?
- Was it proposed by Human Rights Solidarity Organization?
- Was it jointly formulated?
- Was another organisation involved?
The HRC introduced the video as being from Pax Romana, while the speaker information separately associates Mohammed Anwar with Human Rights Solidarity Organization, followed by a separate HRSO intervention.
Who actually sponsored this demand?
- WHY IS A CATHOLIC NGO ADVOCATING PERMANENT SETTLEMENT FOR MUSLIM REFUGEES IN SRI LANKA?
Pax Romana is a Catholic international movement.
We are therefore asking a straightforward organisational question:
Is advocating permanent residence or citizenship for Muslim refugees part of Pax Romana’s official policy?
If yes:
When was that policy adopted?
By whom?
Where is it published?
Does it apply to every country?
Does it apply to countries outside the Refugee Convention?
Does it apply specifically to Muslim refugees?
And:
How many times has Pax Romana made the same demand in other non-Muslim-majority countries?
- SHOW US THE OTHER COUNTRIES
If Pax Romana says this is its normal refugee policy, then there should be comparable cases.
We want:
Country — date — refugee population — recommendation — UN mechanism — funding source.
In particular:
Has Pax Romana advocated permanent residence or citizenship for Muslim refugees in any other non-Muslim-majority country?
If yes, show the evidence.
If no:
WHY SRI LANKA?
And why should Sri Lanka be expected to provide permanent settlement when there are Muslim-majority countries with vastly greater territory, populations and resources?
- WHAT ABOUT THE EASTER SUNDAY ATTACKS?
Sri Lanka cannot be expected to discuss permanent settlement policy as though it has no recent experience with Islamist terrorism.
On Easter Sunday, 21 April 2019, Sri Lanka suffered coordinated suicide bombings targeting churches and hotels, carried out by Islamist extremists associated with National Thowheeth Jama’ath and linked to ISIS.
The attacks killed more than 250 people. 3 churches were targeted.
This is not an argument against Muslims.
It is a question of whether Sri Lanka’s own security experience is being taken into account when international organisations advocate permanent settlement given Rohingyas association with armed terror groups.
Therefore:
What security assessment was undertaken before the proposal for permanent residence or citizenship was made?
Who conducted it?
Who paid for it?
Was the Sri Lankan Government consulted?
Was Sri Lanka’s post-Easter security experience considered?
- WHY PERMANENT SETTLEMENT RATHER THAN RETURN OR THIRD-COUNTRY RESETTLEMENT?
The presentation says permanent settlement elsewhere may not be available.
But why does that automatically make Sri Lanka the destination?
What consideration was given to:
- third-country resettlement;
- family reunification;
- temporary protection;
- or other durable solutions?
Why should “no permanent settlement elsewhere” become “permanent settlement in Sri Lanka”?
Who made that decision?
- FOLLOW THE MONEY
This question must be answered.
Pax Romana has documented funding relationships and programmes involving human rights, migration, Sri Lanka and UN advocacy.
So:
WHO FUNDED THIS PARTICULAR INTERVENTION?
We ask Pax Romana to identify:
- who funded preparation of the video;
- who funded the speaker’s participation;
- who provided training;
- who provided legal or advocacy assistance;
- who funded travel or accommodation, if applicable;
- and whether any funding was specifically connected to Rohingya advocacy in Sri Lanka.
Most importantly:
- Was any funding specifically provided for advocating permanent residence, citizenship or settlement in Sri Lanka?
We are asking who paid for the advocacy.
- WHAT IS THE PAX ROMANA–SRI LANKA NETWORK?
Pax Romana has a history of engagement with Sri Lanka through the UN human-rights system.
Its own material records assistance to Sri Lankan human-rights defenders in accessing UN mechanisms and participation in Rohingya-related activities.
Therefore:
- Who are Pax Romana’s Sri Lankan partner organisations?
- Who selected the participants?
- Who trained them?
- Who financed their participation?
- Who prepared their UN submissions?
- Who decided what issues they would raise?
- Is there a coordinated Sri Lanka-focused programme?
- How linked is this organization to Sri Lanka’s Catholic Church?
If so:
- Who funds it and what is its objective?
- THE UNHCR QUESTION
UNHCR knows Sri Lanka is outside the Refugee Convention framework.
Therefore:
Why is UNHCR facilitating or supporting refugee processes in Sri Lanka while knowing that Sri Lanka is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention?
Does UNHCR support:
temporary humanitarian protection?
Or:
permanent settlement?
Does UNHCR support the Pax Romana proposal for citizenship or permanent residency?
If yes:
Where is that policy stated?
If no:
Will UNHCR publicly state that this is NOT a UNHCR recommendation?
Was any UN officials in Sri Lanka associated with the Pax Romana presentation & proposal by Rohingya refugee in Geneva?
- THE ECOSOC QUESTION
Pax Romana has access to the UN system through its recognised NGO status.
Therefore:
Does ECOSOC examine how NGOs use their consultative status to advocate changes to the immigration or nationality policies of sovereign States?
We ask ECOSOC to clarify:
- Pax Romana’s current consultative status;
- its latest reporting;
- relevant financial disclosures;
- and what accountability mechanism exists when an NGO uses UN access to advocate a specific citizenship or permanent-residency policy.
- THE VATICAN QUESTION
Pax Romana is a Catholic movement.
We are not claiming that the Vatican approved this intervention.
We are asking whether it did.
Therefore:
What is Pax Romana’s formal relationship with the Holy See?
Which Catholic authority, if any, exercises oversight?
Does any Vatican authority review Pax Romana’s UN advocacy?
Was the September 2026 Sri Lanka intervention communicated to any Vatican authority?
Was the demand for citizenship or permanent residency known to or approved by any Vatican authority?
And:
Is this demand an expression of a wider Catholic migration policy?
If yes, show the policy.
- THE CENTRAL QUESTION TO EVERYONE
- Pax Romana must answer.
- The Human Rights Council must answer.
- UNHCR must answer.
- ECOSOC must answer.
- And, where relevant, the responsible Catholic authority must answer.
Because the facts are simple:
Sri Lanka is not party to the Refugee Convention.
Sri Lanka has no national asylum system.
The UN knows this.
Pax Romana knows this.
Yet a presentation through the UN Human Rights Council called for citizenship or permanent residency.
So:
WHO DECIDED SRI LANKA SHOULD BECOME A PERMANENT REFUGEE SETTLEMENT COUNTRY?
Was it Anwar?
Was it HRSO?
Was it Pax Romana?
Was it a wider network?
Was it a funded programme?
Was it connected to a broader Catholic policy?
Does UNHCR support it?
Does the HRC support it?
Does anyone in the UN system support it?
OR DID THE UN SIMPLY GIVE AN NGO A PLATFORM TO ADVOCATE A POLICY THAT SRI LANKA HAS NEVER AGREED TO?
That is the question Sri Lankans deserve answered.
SRI LANKA’S IMMIGRATION POLICY MUST BE DECIDED BY SRI LANKA — NOT BY INTERNATIONAL NGOs USING THE UN PODIUM.
Shenali D Waduge
