Chronology of UNHRC bias against Sri Lanka (2009–2025)

 

May 2009 – 30-year terrorist conflict ends

 

• Unlike 9/11, a single incident resulting in immediate bombing & occupation of several nations, Sri Lanka’s decision to military deal with LTTE was taken after failure of internationally promoted peace talks, cease fires, negotiations & when LTTE denied water to 40,000 farmers in the Eastern Province.

 

• UNHRC Action:Special Session resolution (May 2009) welcomes Sri Lanka’s victory and rehabilitation efforts but the Western bloc frustrated by outcome brings another Resolution condemning Sri Lanka.

 

• High Commissioner –Pillay (2008–2014):Even as war ended, Pillay questioned civilian casualty figures, framed the end as a “humanitarian crisis,” and echoed LTTE diaspora narratives — ignoring the fact that Sri Lanka’s National Army rescued nearly 300,000 civilians while engaged in hostilities with the LTTE, the largest humanitarian rescue operation in modern history.

 

2010–2011 – UNSG’s unprecedented moves

 

UNHRC/UN Action:

• Despite Sri Lanka appointing theLessons Learned & Reconciliation Commission (LLRC)in May 2010, without waiting for Sri Lanka to present its report, Ban Ki-moon in June 2010 unilaterally appoints the Panel of Experts (PoE) and later commissions the Petrie Report (2011) — both without UNGA or UNSC mandate.

These reports, leaked to the public, become political tools against Sri Lanka and form the foundation for successive UNHRC resolutions and OHCHR reports.

• First time in the history of the UN, a UN Secretary General had appointed a personal panel report on a conflict that concluded & questions whether 5^th Committee funding was approved.
• High Commissioner –Pillay:

Strongly endorses the PoE; treats its unverified, confidential allegations as fact while ignoring Sri Lanka’s reconciliation programs and the core principle that Sri Lanka was fully within its sovereign right to end terrorism and protect its citizens and territory.

 

2012– Turning Point

 

1. LLRC Report released in December 2011 sidelined:
2. Diplomatic manipulation in UNHRC:

• Resolution was aggressively pushed by the US and Core Group, despite opposition from majority Global South members.
• Vote outcome: 24 in favour, 15 against, 8 abstentions— showing clear division and lack of consensus.

3. Bias in framing:

• Resolution called on Sri Lanka to implement the PoE recommendations — even though the PoE had no legal standing and was a leaked report
• It marked the first time a state was targeted with a resolution based on a non-UN mandated report & a conflict that had concluded.

 

4. High Commissioner’s role (Pillay):

• Used her office to lobby behind the scenes for the resolution.
• Ignored Sri Lanka’s resettlement of 296,000 IDPs, rehabilitation of ex-cadres, demining efforts, and restoration of democratic processes in the North as well as the massive development initiatives taken in some areas where LTTE controlled people lived without electricity.
• Framed the issue as “accountability deficit”while sidelining LTTE’s systematic use of civilians as human shields and child soldiers including killing fleeing civilians.

 

5. Precedent set for future bias:

• 2012 Resolution became the template for subsequent resolutions (2013, 2014), each escalating demands and venturing into non-conflict related, UNHRC non-mandated purely domestic areas.
• Crucially, the UNHRC had no mandate to venture into intrusive investigative or quasi-judicial processes. By doing so, it set a dangerous precedent of mandate overreach.
• It showed how the Council could be used as a political weaponby powerful blocs rather than a neutral body.

 

2013–2014 – Escalation

 

UNHRC Actions:

 

• 2013:Resolution repeats demand for “independent investigations.” (a clear example of venturing beyond GA 60/251 mandate when establishing UNHRC
• 2014:Resolution authorizes OHCHR Investigation on Sri Lanka (OISL) — an intrusive probe without Sri Lanka’s consent.
• Pillay:Visits Sri Lanka (2013), issues hostile statements, meets pro-Tamil lobby groups but neglects LTTE victims. Pushes OISL in 2014 as her final act before leaving office.

 

2014–2018 – Entrenchment of Bias

 

High Commissioner (Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, 2014–2018):

 

• Continued openly hostile stance against Sri Lanka, ignoring progress on reconciliation and development.
• 2015:OISL Report released, heavily citing LTTE-linked NGOs and unverified testimonies — ignoring standards of evidence.
• Aggressively promotedResolution 30/1 hybrid court with foreign judges/ prosecutors — a blatant violation of Sri Lanka’s sovereignty, Constitution, and GA 60/251 which gave UNHRC no mandate to impose judicial mechanisms.
• Dismissed Sri Lanka’s domestic accountability efforts (LLRC, Paranagama Commission) without consideration, and questioned the competence of Sri Lanka’s judiciary and legal system.

 

UNHRC Actions:

 

• 2015 (Sept):Resolution 30/1 adopted, co-sponsored by Sri Lanka’s regime-changed government, marking the first time a sovereign state endorsed a resolution against itself.
• 2017 & 2019:Roll-over resolutions (34/1, 40/1) extended intrusive external monitoring, keeping Sri Lanka trapped under UNHRC scrutiny despite the end of conflict.

 

Impact:

• Entrenched a precedent where UNHRC became apolitical instrument for regime change, external intervention, and erosion of sovereignty, rather than a forum for impartial human rights protection.

 

2018–2022 – Permanent Case File

 

High Commissioner – Michelle Bachelet (2018–2022):

• Consistently portrayed Sri Lanka as a “permanent case”, signaling an institutionalized, never-ending scrutiny.
• Framed Sri Lanka’s 2020 withdrawal from Resolution 30/1—originally intended for a hybrid court—as a “betrayal of victims”, thereby delegitimizing Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and public mandate to defy foreign-imposed mechanisms.
• Advocated for strengthening international measures and mechanisms against Sri Lanka, positioning accountability as an external demand rather than a domestic possibility.

 

• 2021 (March):Championed UNHRC Resolution 46/1, granting the OHCHR a prosecutorial, evidence-gathering mandate—a significant overreach, since Sri Lanka is not an ICC member.

The resolution passed with 22 votes in favor, 11 against, and 14 abstentions in the 47-member Council.

Countries voting in favor included Argentina, Austria, Brazil, France, Germany, the UK, and others.

• Countries voting againstincluded Bangladesh, China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia, the Philippines, Somalia, and others.

 

UNHRC Actions:

• 2020 (February):Sri Lanka formally withdraws from Resolution 30/1, citing sovereignty violations and constitutional conflicts. The UNHRC and Core Group rejected this as a legitimate exercise of national authority.
• 2021 (March):Resolution 46/1 is adopted, institutionalizing the “Sri Lanka accountability project”through OHCHR—effectively granting a permanent external accountability mechanism.

 

Key Takeaways

• Mandate Overreach:

Resolution 46/1 represents a dramatic extension of OHCHR authority—permitting quasi-prosecutorial functions without national or Security Council mandate.

• Selective Application:

This intrusive mandate was invoked for Sri Lanka despite it not being a party to the ICC—highlighting selective enforcement.

• Entrenched Oversight:

Under Bachelet, Sri Lanka remained entrenched in external oversight even after its withdrawal from earlier mechanisms.

• Deepening Divisions:

The Council remained evenly split on Sri Lanka—reflecting geopolitical cleavages about sovereignty versus international accountability.

 

2022–Present – Institutionalizing Bias

 

High Commissioner: Volker Türk (2022–present): Inherits and strengthens OHCHR’s Sri Lanka unit.

 

• Expands funding/staff for “Sri Lanka accountability project,” effectively creating a permanent prosecution mechanism within OHCHR.

 

• Issues one-sided reports focusing only on alleged state crimes, avoiding LTTE atrocities, post-2009 rehabilitation efforts, or Western double standards in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Gaza.

 

• September 2025 visit: 2025 visit: Visits one grave site during 1990 promoted by LTTE narratives, ignores Thunukkai torture chamber graves of 3,000 Tamils documented by families. This selective memorialization reveals bias.

 

• Interferes in domestic cultural/legal matters: Calls for legalization of same-sex marriageduring official meetings — far outside OHCHR’s mandate, disregarding Sri Lanka’s Constitution, sovereignty, and cultural values.

 

• Fails to acknowledge Sri Lanka’s de-radicalization programs, rehabilitation of 12,000 LTTE cadres, and resettlement of 300,000 displaced civiliansas post-war achievements.

 

• Continues pattern of pressuring Sri Lanka to adopt externally driven constitutional reformsand undermining Article 9 (special place for Buddhism).

 

UNHRC Actions:

 

• 2022 (Res. 51/1) & 2023 (Res. 53/1):

Extend 46/1’s evidence-gathering mandate, locking Sri Lanka into permanent Chapter VI surveillance — without UNSC or UNGA approval.

• Funding for OHCHR Sri Lanka unit continues through “voluntary contributions”from Core Group states (US, UK, Canada, Germany, EU) — raising questions of conflict of interest and political selectivity.
• 2024–2025:

Core Group insists Sri Lanka remains on the UNHRC agenda, despite global humanitarian crises (Afghanistan, Gaza, Yemen, Ukraine, Sudan) being far more severe but sidelined.

• Demonstrates double standards:

UNHRC refuses to apply 46/1-style “evidence units” to US/UK-led wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, or Israel’s war on Gaza.

 

Pattern of Bias (2009–2025)

1. Unprecedented Actions:

UNSG-created PoE & Petrie Reports without mandate, later weaponized by UNHRC.

 

2. High Commissioner Bias:

Successive Commissioners — Pillay, Zeid, Bachelet, Türk — all maintained one-sided narratives, legitimizing LTTE propaganda while sidelining Sri Lanka’s achievements.

 

3. Violation of Sovereignty:

Hybrid courts, OHCHR evidence units, foreign judges — all imposed externally.

 

4. Selective Justice:

No accountability for LTTE terrorism, nor for Western/NATO atrocities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya.

 

5. Precedent Setting:

Sri Lanka used as a test case to override sovereignty of Global South nations.

 

 

We ask all UN Member States: Is Sri Lanka’s real ‘crime’ that it defeated terrorism? Are we being punished for safeguarding our sovereignty and ending 30 years of LTTE bloodshed? If so, does this not set a dangerous precedent — that any Global South nation which defeats terrorism will be punished with regime-change attempts and external intervention? Why is the UNHRC allowed to be weaponized in this way, drafting resolutions through 4–5 nations and passing them without universal mandate?

Why are the UNGA and UNSC watching silently as their powers are being usurped by UNHRC?

 

 

 

Shenali D Waduge

Political Analyst