OHCHR oversteps its mandate
The United Nations (UN) and its
affiliated bodies had been set up mainly to unite all countries under
one umbrella with the prime objective of helping each other while
respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every member
country.
However, certain international organisations now seem to have
deviated from its original principles. Certain so-called big countries
have apparently taken unofficial control in some of these organisations
and operate in an unbecoming manner to underline their supremacy across
the globe.
The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is no exception.
There is certainly no question about the importance of protecting human
rights and voicing against any human rights violations in every corner
of the world. Regrettably, some UNHRC member countries have descended to
the lowest ebb of protecting the human rights of terrorists, thereby
ignoring the human rights of civilians killed due to barbaric terrorism.
It is patently clear that double standards are being adopted in treating
gross human violations by the so-called big countries and allegations on
human rights violations by countries such as Sri Lanka.
UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay’s handling of human rights
issues against Sri Lanka and the West leaves much to be desired. Pillay
should take cognizance that the UNHRC is not privy to her to put
personal agendas in motion. It is the supreme duty of moderate member
countries to prevent Pillay from exploiting the UNHRC to treat human
rights issues as she so pleases.
It is crystal clear that Pillay’s bizarre concern for the human
rights of terrorists killed while confronting a legitimate army of a
sovereign country, has gone beyond the mandate under Resolution 19/2
which limits her role to reporting on the provision of technical
assistance.
Minister of Plantation Industries and Special Envoy of the President
on Human Rights, Mahinda Samarasinghe had told the UNHRC Sessions in
Geneva that the Report refers several times to the United Nations
Secretary General’s Advisory Panel of Experts’ (PoE) Report on Sri
Lanka.
Sri Lanka earlier called upon the Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights (OHCHR) to delete all references to the Panel of Experts
(PoE) Report as it was not referred to in Resolution 19/2. Hence, its
reference in the OHCHR Report expands the ambit of the Report beyond the
original scope and mandate of the Resolution.
On the other hand, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is not empowered
to officially appoint a committee on Sri Lanka and the PoE was
commissioned by the UN Secretary-General as a private consultation.
Hence, the highly controversial PoE Report is by no means the product or
a request of the UNHRC, or any other inter-governmental process for that
matter. Neither has it received the endorsement of any
inter-governmental body nor credence or legitimacy.
Pillay's recalcitrance to visit Sri Lanka is baffling the
international community. Nevertheless, it is an open secret to most Sri
Lankans as to why Pillay continues to postpone her scheduled visit to
Sri Lanka. Any visitor to Sri Lanka would certainly perceive the
peaceful coexistence that prevails among all communities, contrary to
the gloomy picture projected by LTTE cohorts and a section of the Tamil
diaspora.
Sri Lanka has been inviting the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
to visit Sri Lanka since April 2011, following the country's ongoing
engagement after terrorism was defeated. Despite her finding the time to
visit the region in the recent past, in particular her visits to the
South Asian sub-region within the past 12 months, she has been unable to
schedule a visit to Sri Lanka and see for herself the remarkable
transformation in the day-to-day lives of civilians liberated from the
clutches of LTTE terror.
When over half a million hapless civilians in the North and the East
had been subjected to untold misery, there was a deafening silence from
Pillay and the UNHRC. At the time the LTTE forcibly held them as a human
shield, neither the UNHRC nor the so-called international human rights
watchdogs - Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch - came to their
rescue.
It were only the brave sons of our soil who risked life and limb to
rescue these civilians from the jaws of death. The Government resettled
them in double quick time and afforded them all facilities. There is
rapid development in the North and the East and a new lease of life has
been opened for those civilians. However, Pillay and some UNHRC member
states have conveniently ignored these stark facts and continue to sing
hosannas for dead terrorists.
Minister Samarasinghe has expressed his strongest reservations on the
content of the report on Sri Lanka and the procedure followed in
formulating the document which bears number A/HRC/22/38. This report
purports to be pursuant to Resolution L. 19/2 which Sri Lanka had
rejected in toto. It is highly questionable as to how a technical
mission, after a whistle-stop visit could produce such a document
purporting to be a comprehensive report pursuant to L.19/2.
There is no doubt, whatsoever, that in its Report, the Office of the
High Commissioner has gone beyond its mandate under Resolution 19/2
which limits her role to reporting on the provision of technical
assistance in terms of OP3 thereof. The OHCHR has ventured into
territory not envisaged by L.19/2 by making substantive recommendations.
The recommendations contained in the Report introduce substantive
measures which are totally unrelated to the mandate under 19/2.
The Report refers several times to the United Nations
Secretary-General’s Advisory Panel of Experts’ (PoE) Report on Sri Lanka
despite there being no provision to do so on a report filed by a panel
appointed in a personal advisory capacity. Therefore, reference to it in
the OHCHR Report expands the ambit of the Report beyond the original
scope and mandate of the Resolution.
The conduct of the OHCHR team, on its return to Geneva, too is highly
controversial and is worth a closer look. It chooses to brief a selected
group of countries at an event hosted by a third country even before
sharing the outcome of its visit with Sri Lanka either in Colombo or
with its Permanent Mission in Geneva. Sri Lanka's Permanent
Representative had, at the time, raised these concerns with Pillay.
It has now come to light how these sinister elements had operated in
its lead-up to the UNHRC Sessions in Geneva. What is more interesting is
that the new draft Resolution relies heavily on the OHCHR Report. Hence,
it is as clear as daylight as to how these elements had operated under
the guise of a fact-finding mission.
The Government has all along conducted itself in a transparent
manner. It has nothing to hide and showcases to the world the new lease
of life given to over half a million people rescued from the jaws of
death.
The Government, in good faith, facilitated the visit of the OHCHR
team, engaged in a dialogue with its Sri Lankan counterparts, and
moreover, facilitated field visits and consultations with selected
segments of the Sri Lanka polity. The High Commissioner herself too had
welcomed the open access granted to her team.
It is deplorable that Pillay's team had exploited this opportunity
for a specific hidden agenda. It was highly unethical on its part to
make use of such an opportunity as a launching pad for a fresh
Resolution against Sri Lanka, rather than an attempt to stay within its
bounds of strictly following up on L.19/2 which stipulates the
requirement of consultation and concurrence on the provision of
technical assistance, consistent with Resolutions 5/1 and 5/2.
Despite its dissociation from L.19/2 and measures pursuant to that
action in the Council, Sri Lanka has never ruled out cooperation with
the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Sri Lanka had a Senior Advisor
to the UN Country Team from the OHCHR following the tsunami devastation
in December 2004.
Sri Lanka had hosted Pillay's predecessor Louise Arbour and her visit
during the humanitarian operation in 2007 was characterised by open and
constructive engagement.
Since 2008, the Senior Advisor from the High Commissioner’s Office
contributed to the formulation of the National Action Plan on the
Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Such conduct amply
demonstrates Sri Lanka's willingness to work with the international
community.
The international community should take a closer look at Sri Lanka’s
milestone achievements since defeating terrorism and give the country
sufficient time to go ahead in reconciliation. It should make a tangible
contribution towards development in the North and the East as such deeds
would go a long way to further improve the living standards of the
Tamils and Muslims in these areas.
|