UNHRC should work constructively, as many countries back Sri Lanka - Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe

By Manjula Fernando

Plantation Industries Minister and President's Special Envoy for Human Rights has led the Sri Lankan delegation to Geneva many a time in the past, in his capacity as Human Rights Minister. The Geneva team comprising Sri Lanka's Ambassador in Geneva, Ravinath Ariyasingha and other like-minded officials strategically outwitted international forces a number of times under his leadership to safeguard Sri Lanka's interests.

Sri Lanka defeated a resolution moved by the European Union in 2009 calling for an international probe on the humanitarian operation, just two weeks after the defeat of the LTTE, by tactically moving a counter-resolution with the help of India, China, Russia, Cuba, Brazil and many others.

He is expected to play a lead role in the UN Human Rights Council's 25th regular sessions in Geneva in the coming weeks.

The following is an Q and A with Minister Samarasinghe:

Q:What are the ‘pluses and minuses’ between the 2009 UNHRC special session on Sri Lanka, at which the EU sponsored negative resolution was defeated by Lanka decisively and the upcoming March 2014 session?

A: In 2009, the UNHRC special session on Sri Lanka was soon after the end of the humanitarian operation. The mood of the international community, by and large, was to work with the Sri Lankan Government in reconstruction, rebuilding and the reconciliation process.

They were of the view that a country with limited resources has defeated one of the most ruthless terrorist organisations in the world. The fact that 300,000 people were rescued, too, had a great impact together with a feeling that Sri Lanka should be assisted to ensure that terrorism will not raise its ugly head again.

In addition, those who sponsored it made a couple of procedural mistakes, instead of waiting for the regular session that was just one week away, they called for a special session. If 16 members of the Council get together, a special session can be convened. Calling a special session was a tactical mistake. There was no urgency for a special session.

The hurry with which they rushed showed that they were influenced by those who did not like the defeat of the LTTE and had vengeance in their minds. Those were the negatives for the proponents of the resolution.

On the positive side for us, the counter- proposal for Sri Lanka was a result of a number of countries coming forth to assist Sri Lanka. India was one of the several countries that supported our position.

Having helped us in defeating terrorism, India also saw LTTE as a danger to their own interests and stability. Given that it was Prabhakaran who plotted and carried out the assassination of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in a brutal manner, they were happy to see the end of the LTTE’s terrorism in the humanitarian operation.

They were one of the main proponents of the counter- resolution. With India coming on board, the other BRICS countries - Brazil, South Africa, Russia and China - also aligned themselves with us. The heavyweights in the Non Aligned Movement coming on board to co-sponsor the counter resolution for Sri Lanka helped gather further momentum to ensure that the resolution was finally adopted.

Then there was a tactical strategy, to win the day, it was a meeting of minds, from the Sri Lankan side as well as other friendly states. We ensured our strategy was well- formulated. The move to table the counter resolution before the EU resolution was a result of one such brain storming session. Under the rules and procedures of the HRC, the resolution that was handed over first will be voted on first. So the Council first voted on our counter-resolution before the EU resolution was taken up.

The UN HRC procedural experts, like Cuba, India, Pakistan, Russia, Brazil ensured that this was voted on first. The number of amendments the EU had proposed to the counter- resolution, was strategically squashed by Cuba by asking for a no action motion. It wiped out all the amendments.

The no action motion was taken up before the counter-resolution. We won the 'No Action Motion'. Seeing the response by member states, those who had not voted for the 'No Action Motion' jumped ship and voted with Sri Lanka when the counter- proposal was taken up.

As the leader of the delegation in 2009, I also had a number of strategies. A like- minded group of members who thought that Sri Lanka should be congratulated for what was achieved, assisted us. We had a series of meetings, one was held just before the voting where we reviewed the strategy.

A number of countries coming together and adopting a common position, and taking ownership of this resolution in favor of Sri Lanka, was a winner.

There was another difference between 2009 and now. The US was not a member of the UN HRC in 2009. It did not play an active role but was in the background as a non-member. The then US administration was not that ‘gung-ho’ about Human rights like the present one. They were also dissatisfied with the way the Human Rights Council and its predecessor the Commission, functioned.

The other crucial feature, in my opinion, is India being on our side in 2009. Whether we like it or not, many countries observe India's stance in relation to decisions concerning the South Asian sub region, especially when it comes to Sri Lanka.

Some of the BIRCS countries who are the centres of influence in their regions, consult India to formulate their own positions.

Q : The up coming UNHRC session has become a household ‘worry’, if I may put it like that. People want to know the outcome and how it will affect Sri Lanka's future. Is it true that tough times await us in Geneva in the coming weeks?

A: It's not going to be easy, we are being challenged by some of the most powerful countries in the world. Resource wise, influence wise, military wise, people who steer the UN have sponsored the past two resolutions and will sponsor the resolution at the upcoming session.

However, we also have a number of countries who strongly believe that this selective approach is not the way the Human Rights Council should function. The HRC should work with the countries concerned in a constructive manner without naming and shaming them. They also feel very strongly about the fact that Sri Lanka has made huge progress since 2009 and that the country should be given time and space to move further forward.

We don't take extreme positions, we regularly brief member countries, play a very constructive role, in terms of objectives being fulfilled, unlike some others who quit the HRC. Despite the selective focus on Sri Lanka and this kind of political strategy, we have stood our ground.

If we look at the two resolutions that were adopted after 2009 session, it is clear that the Council is divided on the issue of Sri Lanka. In 2012, 24 voted with the US sponsored resolution while 23 did not. In 2013, 25 voted with the US resolution and 22 did not. When you look at it that way, the sponsor apparently has failed to get a clear majority.

It is incumbent upon the sponsor to muster majority support. The resolutions have been adopted by a majority of one or two votes. This shows, that there are number of countries who appreciate that we have moved forward and that we are committed to further progress.

Q: Can't we follow the Israeli footsteps and quit UN HRC altogether?

What Israel could do, Sri Lanka cannot in international forums. Israel is backed fully by the US. Although the West is divided on the Israel issue, some have fallen in line due to the US's strong backing. The US has been consistent in its Israel policy, this was not limited to Obama administration. Israel has been the biggest recipient of US assistance for many years. Notwithstanding that we believe in working with international community and we will continue to do that. The country stands to gain a lot by staying in and fighting for our cause.

A number of countries are genuinely supportive of Sri Lanka therefore we need not quit because a few others are trying to corner us with unfair resolutions.

Q: Can we be confident that our support base has grown since last year?

That is to be seen. I don't want to pre-judge the outcome. We have to be cautious with such predictions until the sessions are over. The countries have a right to decide. We are hopeful that the members of the HRC will be objective and impartial in their assessment of Sri Lanka's progress. They will make their opinions based on genuine concerns of promotion and protection of human rights and that political agendas will not be the deciding factor on how countries ultimately vote on the resolution on Sri Lanka.

On our part, we have not been selective, we have continued to engage with everyone in the HRC. We have met and interacted with the Western group also, not just Asian, African, CIS and Latin American groups.

Q: Why haven't we been able to win over India since 2009 May?

That is something I am not capable of answering. I do not want to comment on that since it is not my mandate.

Q: India's backing has allegedly diminished due to failure by Sri Lanka to show enough progress on the human rights front. HR is a subject under you. How do you respond to this allegation?

Those kinds of evaluations are generally subjective. They may be having their own reasons for taking such a stand. But it's common knowledge that there is an election coming up in India shortly, and any government would bear this in mind when statements are issued. No one wants to commit political suicide.

I don't want to be a judge on what they have done in the past and what they are doing right now. But I am asking from our friends in the international community to look at Sri Lanka impartially. Let's hope for the best. It was only India who voted against Sri Lanka in the sub region during the past two resolutions. Bangladesh, Pakistan, Maldives who have been members voted in favor of Sri Lanka. I don't know how they will act in 2014. But we are hopeful of a better outcome.

Q: According to Indian media Chief Minister Jayalalitha in her recently released manifesto of AIADMK calls for a separate Eelam state in Sri Lanka ?

A: This is what I just said, such political personalities are in the mode of elections, they are playing to the emotions of the people of Tamil Nadu. This is not the first time that they have talked about Eelam and separation. There was a Naxalite movement in Tamil Nadu. It is known that former leaders in Tamil Nadu have been financing LTTE activities in the past. Obviously she is playing to the emotions of the TN people and this will escalate in the run up to elections.

Q: .UNHRC High Commissioner Navi Pillai has made a number of damning comments in her report on Sri Lanka. The Government has rejected outright her call for an international probe and made it clear that she is bias in her observations. Will our concerns be taken on board when the report is debated in the Human Rights Council sessions?

According to procedure followed by the UN HRC when such a report is released, the response of the country concerned will also made available. But in this instance our response objecting to the report has not been released by way of an annexture along with the High Commissioner’s report.

When High Commissioner Pillai's initial report on Sri Lanka was released last year, our response was annexed. Our stand is that this is a procedural anomaly. However, the SL mission in Geneva acting on the instructions of the Foreign Ministry has circulated our response to all the embassies based in Geneva.

As far as the international inquiry mechanism is concerned we have been consistent in rejecting that call. We have also pointed out that the call for an international probe which is one of the highlights in her latest report, was made by her as far back as 2009 May, just two weeks after the humanitarian operation was concluded.

Her call was followed by the EU, by way of a resolution. Usually international inquiries are called for when domestic inquiries miserably fail or if countries fail to initiate such inquiries. But in this instance, soon after the humanitarian operation was over, she called for an international probe. This is unprecedented. The domestic processes are currently proceeding. A commission on disappearances was recently set up. Any action resulting from these kinds of domestic inquiries must be based on evidence and witnesses, therefore it takes time.

To call for an international inquiry before even the domestic inquiry has commenced and continue to insist when a domestic inquiry is in progress, is a very partial and subjective approach. This is why I had to ask her during last year’s session, to be impartial and objective in all her actions. Some members commended our statement.

Q: Now that our concerns have been circulated among heads of missions in Geneva, will they be taken on board when the High Commissioner's report is presented in March?

A: It will be available, and we will make sure the countries are briefed on our position. It would have been much easier if she followed the step that was taken in 2013 and annexed our response with the report.

Q: Will this report make a legal base to frame war crimes charges against Sri Lanka?

A: No there was no mandate like that. She was requested by 2013 resolution to present a comprehensive report which she has done. It is only a recommendation. What happens is that members will refer to her report and then some people may decide to carry it further forward by way of another resolution. We are yet to know whether her recommendations will be taken on board.

Q: Sri Lanka is in the process of initiating a mechanism to study the South African model of Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). What is expected of this effort? How viable is this approach?

A: This is nothing new. When we develop strategy we look at international best practice. Finally we will formulate a strategy which is nationally owned and nationally driven. This is our stance and that is why we have rejected any international inquiry.

There has been an exchange of information on best practices all over the world not just South Africa. We have been sending delegations, recently a Sri Lankan delegation led by Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva was there. These interactions will continue. After all we are committed to moving towards comprehensive reconciliation.

Q: As the Minister in charge of implementing the HR Action Plan, do you think Sri Lanka has made enough progress in this quarter ? What is the progress in relation to implementing LLRC recommendations?

Work in relation to National Action plan on Promotion and Protection of the Human Rights as well as the LLRC have been very transparent. We have done a huge amount of work, Government has committed a lot of resources to assist the line ministries and government agencies to keep to the time-line. It is a time bound action plan. Just two days ago I had a meeting of all government agencies responsible for the implementation of Human Rights Action Plan.

The updates from these officers were very encouraging. On LLRC, the progress can be known by simply logging into their website.

Q: Why is it then that the sponsors of the resolution assert that the country has done too little, too slowly for reconciliation and ensure accountability?

We believe the proponents of these kind of resolutions are not interested in the promotion and protection of human rights as much as playing out a political agenda. Therefore, whatever we say or do, will fall short of their target. However, as far as we are concerned, we are committed to traveling the full distance in traveling towards comprehensive reconciliation. That is a commitment the government has undertaken on behalf of its own citizens and will not change with any development in Geneva.

Q: The Australian Senate passed a resolution recently calling its Government to support the proposed US sponsored resolution against Sri Lanka. Do you think that this will impact Australia's friendly policy on Sri Lanka ?

A: Not much publicity was given to what happened in the Australian Senate. Notwithstanding this Australia had been very supportive of the reconstruction and development effort s of Sri Lanka. They have constructively engaged with Sri Lanka which is what we expect from other countries also. We have an excellent bi-lateral relationship.

It has further strengthened by Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbot's visit to Colombo to attend the CHOGM and a couple of visits by their Foreign Minister. Our Head of mission in Canberra maintains strong contacts with the Foreign Office there.

A number of Sri Lankan expatriates in Australia enthusiastically participate in development activities here. All these will contribute to a very special relationship between the two countries.

Q: Will the upcoming UNHRC session in Geneva be the toughest you and the Sri Lankan team has faced, in terms of defending Sri Lanka's interests ?

A: I don't want to prejudge anything. But we are ready to do what we have to do on behalf of the country.

Q: What will be the final outcome for Sri Lanka?

Well, unlike some of the other countries that have been targeted for special attention: Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia and Libya for instance, we have a popularly elected leadership. We have a legislature and an executive that is elected by the people though a competitive electoral process.

As long as the people support the government, no external forces can threaten our internal stability. As long as we command the confidence and trust of the people, we remain strong in our belief that we are moving in the right direction, towards progress, economic development and reconciliation among our people.