Intro: The appalling human rights record in Sri Lanka raises questions about the legitimacy of the Commonwealth

The furore over the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Sri Lanka is problematic. For David Cameron, whose decision to attend a summit – hosted by a country where the government stands accused both of historical war crimes and continuing human rights violations – has, rightly, caused a flood of criticism. Mr Cameron insisted that by attending he would be in a position of applying more pressure than if he had not attended. His concomitant pledge of having frank and forthright discussions with President Rajapaksa was never convincing. The British prime minister’s attendance hardly shines an even dim light on the post-colonial club itself. Attendance in itself confers a credibility that Colombo has not earned.

The indifference of the Sri Lankan government has been quick to warn Mr Cameron off the topic – on the grounds that this was never the basis by which he was invited, and thus denies him the right to bring it up. Such a warning makes the prime minister’s position look even more ridiculous.

In retrospect, it was indefensible that Mahinda Rajapaksa’s authoritarian and tarnished leadership should have been given the honour of hosting the Commonwealth. Incredibly, as a matter of formality, he will also become the organisation’s formal chairman for the next two years. Whilst it is right that Mr Cameron’s attendance be condemned, we should not forget that these decisions were nodded through by the previous government of Gordon Brown at the Tobago and Trinidad summit in 2009. When Douglas Alexander, the now shadow foreign secretary, but who was part of the Brown administration, denounces the Prime Minister for refusing to boycott Sri Lanka, he is portraying the most brazen kind of political opportunism and hypocrisy.

As the British empire disintegrated after the Second World War, the legitimacy of the Commonwealth was conceived as an intergovernmental alliance centred around a shared commitment to democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Six decades on, it is far from a noble institution. Sri Lanka is not the only offender. In many of the Commonwealth’s 53 member states there are persistent allegations of everything from extrajudicial killings to torture and political suppression in countries ranging from Nigeria to Pakistan. Human rights abuses are often swept under the carpet by a quorum of member states facing similar charges of human rights violations – so much for the principle ideals and the so-called ‘core values’.

David Cameron says he will make clear that President Rajapaksa’s behaviour has impinged upon and seriously violated the Commonwealth’s most cherished ideals: no one has been held accountable for atrocities allegedly committed by Sri Lanka’s army in the final stages of the civil war in 2009. The whereabouts of nearly 5,700 critics of the regime, dissident politicians and journalists are unknown.

Mr Cameron is right to demand an independent inquiry into these cases, and Mr Rajapaksa should be made aware that his country’s reputation will never recover until the fate of the disappeared is settled. Likewise, evidence of atrocities committed by Tamil rebels during the civil war should also be thoroughly investigated. The UN estimates that some 40,000 civilians were killed in the final months of the 26-year conflict. If some progress can be made in these areas, then something positive might yet come from the summit. In reality, though, with the Sri Lankans already fulminating against what they see as an old imperial power treating them like a colony, then this summit promises to be far from enchanting.

It has to be said, too, that the Commonwealth is not the only international gathering with such problems. The African Union, for instance, which officially excludes any government that has come to power through ‘unconstitutional means’, still has a number of despots on its register. The UN has similar issues: several of the countries recently elected to its Human Rights Council are violators themselves. The EU also faces continuing questions over its desire to admit new members that appear less than credible.

Despite the issues, this shouldn’t mean a call for the Commonwealth to be scrapped. Notwithstanding its imperial beginnings and arbitrary membership list, the Commonwealth of Nations is still an opportunity to garner and foster global discussion. With this is mind it should be cherished. Historical sensitivities, however, are important and the crisis of legitimacy cannot remain unaddressed. No one nation, even with the support of other rich-world members, can be the final arbiter of the rules.

With India, Canada and Mauritius having boycotted the summit on the grounds of war crimes and atrocities committed by Sri Lanka during its long civil war, it can only be hoped that when Mr Cameron was in India en route to Sri Lanka this week, he took the opportunity to press Manmohan Singh to spearhead reforms.