Start einer Befragung: Zur politischen Perspektive von Menschenrechtsaktivismus. +++ Initiating an inquiry: On the political perspectives of Human Rights activism. +++ Zur Eröffnung/Opening: Sunanda Deshapriya

(English below) Mit dieser Ausgabe eröffnet Sri Lanka Advocacy eine Befragung mit offenem Verlauf und Ausgang. Ihr Gegenstand schließt uns selbst ein und heißt schlicht: “Menschenrechtsaktivismus”. Wir öffnen mit einer Frage, die AktivistInnen immer wieder gestellt wird, die AktivistInnen immer wieder auch sich selbst stellen. Sie lautet wie folgt: ”Als MenschenrechtsaktivistInnen leisten wir tagtäglich eine defensive Arbeit, manchmal im engsten Sinn des Worts: Das Leben von Menschen zu retten, die mit dem Tod bedroht werden. Nach Lage der Dinge (nicht nur) in Sri Lanka sieht es so aus, als könnten wir diese Arbeit, dieses Engagement noch für Jahre fortsetzen, jeden Tag neu. Gibt es eine politische Perspektive, in die wir diese Arbeit integrieren könnten?” Den ersten Beitrag schrieb uns Sunanda Deshapriya, Journalist und seit vielen Jahren Aktivist, zuletzt in führender Rolle im Free Media Movement. Er gehört zu denen, die gezwungen wurden, das Land zu verlassen und arbeitet heute im Exil, wo er u.a. die Website http://sunandadeshapriya.wordpress.com/ betreibt. Wir danken ihm sehr für seinen Beitrag und setzen die Debatte fort.  +++  With this edition Sri Lanka Advocacy  opens up a questioning with open course and outcome. Its subject includes ourselves and could simply be named as “Human Rights Activism”. We start by posing a question, which again and agein is raised is to Human Rights activists, even by themselves. It reads as follows: “As Human Rights Activists, our day-to-day-work is a work of defense, sometimes even in the narrowest sens of the word: Saving the life of people threatened to death. In the given situation (not only) in Sri Lanka, it looks as if we’ve to continue this kind of work and committment for years, every day new. Is there any political perspective in which we can try to integrate our work in?” The first contribution was written by Sunanda Deshapriya, a journalist and activist for long years, last in a leading role in the Free Media Movement. He belongs to those forced to leave the country and works today from exile, where he among other things publishes the website  http://sunandadeshapriya.wordpress.com/. We thank him very much for his contribution and continue the debate. 

It was 28 April 2005: Well known Darmarathnam Sivaram had been abducted around 10.00 pm and the news reached me by 10.45 pm. At that time I was playing a leading role in Sri Lanka’s press freedom watchdog, the Free Media Movement.

 After a quick discussion among leading activists over the phone we decided to do the following: Protest locally and inform internationally about the abduction as much as possible, and gather further information from the authorities. I worked whole night making phone calls, firing emails, and issuing statements. 

For the next two hours my computer registered dozens of outgoing alerts to almost all international press freedom organisations – and they started to call back. We were hoping that if we could generate enough pressure on whoever abducted Sivaram, we might have a chance of saving his life by the morning.  

 Unfortunately we couldn’t save his life. His body with bullet wounds was found as the day break next day. We organised a protest over his death and it became one of the largest  press freedom protest ever held in Sri Lanka. I spoke at the funeral which was held in Batticaloa and appealed to stop killing journalists. Notwithstanding our campaigns, killings of media personal continued unabated in Sri Lanka and by the end of the war 24 of our colleagues had been killed. 

This is a clear example of  the contradiction between the day-to-day human rights activism and achieving social justice. Should I have considered before starting the campaign for the safety of Sivaram whether this will strengthen the social justice and social change movement in Sri Lanka? 

The question is often asked from us human rights defenders whether our activities of defending human rights do have a long-term perspective of social change or whether we just work on ad-hoc basis reacting to such incidents without any vision?  Some would argue that rather than wasting our time and energy on day-to-day activities, we should work for building movements for social change which would be the only way to stop politically motivated killings. 

In order to be a human rights defender, one needs a strong feeling against injustice. For example, the night journalist Sivaram was abducted one had to act immediately in order to save his life. That night ‘political correct’ activists whose only aim is long-term social change, did not come out to help find Sivaram. They argue that long-term interests of the movement cannot be betrayed for short-term gains to save lives. Only human rights activists with the drive to react to a political injustice came forward to do everything possible to save Sivaram’s life. 

For me, both these approaches towards injustice and social change are two sides of the same  coin. They are intertwined inseparably. Without defending day-to-day democratic rights of the people, movements for social change cannot emerge. The 6 April Youth Movement of Egypt  is a better known example of a how issue-based activism evolved into a lager social movement provided the internal and external factors are ripe. 

Defending journalist Sivaram’s right to life was defending freedom of expression in Sri Lanka. Defending freedom of expression was creating a space for dissent and informed discussions about social justice and social change. This is how I have framed my long years of human rights activism and consider that reactive activism and visionary social justice campaigning can complement each other.   

As human rights defenders we can only play the role of a catalyst or facilitator for social change. My motivation for defending human rights does not come from a future utopian democratic socialist society. An all encompassing theoretical understanding of the present world order is not necessary for me to engage in human rights activism.. Furthermore, in today’s world there are more than one narratives to understand, analyze and change the world for better. 

I like to be a human rights activist for its spirit and vigor. I like to be a human rights activist for its inherent characteristic of empowering people. Human rights itself is a long-term perspective. In any society defending human rights gives satisfaction and self-esteem. Working all night trying to save the life of a journalist colleague gave me the feeling of being in solidarity with Sivaram that night and resulted in an even stronger will to carry on fighting for social justice. Therefore, I continued to campaign for press freedom and democratic rights with the same vigor and enthusiasm until I was forced to leave the country. Nevertheless, I continue my human rights activism from afar. Do I have a long-term perspective for social change in my country? I do not know because it is all blurred: In the current situation, upholding one’s own dignity, the feeling of solidarity, the fighting spirit to defend human rights and the hope that democracy will prevail one day becomes the perspective in itself. This is what gives me continued strengths and commitment in the current political context. 15.03.2011.