crimes against humanity, and war crimes should be allowed to lead a Summit that
protects against these atrocities. It must be remembered that there was a lawsuit filed
against President Rajapakse in New York, which was dismissed by the invocation of
head of state immunity, and not due to a finding of ‘not guilty’.
EFFECTS ON COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES POST-CHOGM
2013
We believe that the repercussions of the Commonwealth leaders attending CHOGM
2013 in Sri Lanka will continue beyond the Summit. Tamils in countries with sizable
Tamil Diasporas will be disillusioned with political leaders attending CHOGM.
Therefore, Tamils might force the Diaspora organisations to lead campaigns against
the political parties and leaders who attend CHOGM in future elections.
In countries with sizable Tamil populations like Tamil Nadu, the result could be a
swing against the incumbent regime and a variety of other protests and demonstrations
at local, state and national levels. In countries where there are no substantial, voteturning Tamil populations – e.g. Malaysia, South Africa – there will be naming and
shaming of the leaders who attended CHOGM.
Other communities of immigrants in Commonwealth countries, whose leaders attend
CHOGM, will see it as a lack of sympathy towards immigrants who are victims of
human rights abuses in their home countries and immigrant populations in general.
A country like Canada that is more aware of the repercussions of CHOGM 2013 could
in the future use international forums to call to account Commonwealth leaders who
attended CHOGM, thereby naming and shaming them.
Tamil groups globally may launch campaigns – including by using the media – in
Commonwealth countries of the leaders who attend the CHOGM in Colombo, to
show their (Tamil groups’) displeasure. This will be done wherever possible with
opposition parties of their respective countries. It may turn out that CHOGM 2013 in
Colombo will not be the end of the campaign and Tamil groups will use whatever
means possible to question the integrity of certain institutions / individuals within the
Commonwealth – e.g. the Secretary General – and their role in pushing Sri Lanka to
be the next head of the Commonwealth.
This could lead to sections of the international community and other groups launching
a strong attack against the incumbent Sri Lankan leadership’s human rights record,
including that of war crimes and crimes against humanity, in forums such as the UN
Human Rights Council in March 2014 and beyond. This will taint the Commonwealth
because Sri Lanka will be the leader it has selected for itself.
CONCLUSION
This booklet has attempted to illustrate how and why the member states of the
Commonwealth should proactively engage in the protection of human rights and the
rule of law in Sri Lanka by boycotting CHOGM 2013 and calling for the suspension
26