Japan's stand on UNHRC resolution is food
Barely two months after
the third successive US-led Resolution against Sri Lanka was passed at
the United Nations Human Rights Council sessions in Geneva last March,
Japan has openly said that the controversial Resolution would not help
Sri Lanka in any way.
Japan's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Seiji Kihara has said
that his country abstained from voting on the US-backed resolution at
the UNHRC, having decided that it would not help Sri Lanka.
"We considered whether the Resolution against Sri Lanka moved in the
UN Human Rights Council in Geneva would help Sri Lanka. We decided it
will not. That is why we abstained when the vote was taken," the
Japanese Deputy Foreign Minister was quoted as saying during a meeting
with President Mahinda Rajapaksa at Temple Trees recently.
Deputy Minister Kihara had assured Japan's continued support to Sri
Lanka at international fora, adding that Japan is "not ready to accept
biased reports prepared by international bodies". He said that Japan is
confident that Sri Lanka is capable of solving its own problems. He
pledged to further expand ties in economic, trade, investment and
maritime security sectors.
Japan's stand on the UNHRC resolution against Sri Lanka is food for
thought for US and its co-sponsors of the Resolution - Mauritius,
Montenegro and Macedonia and the UK. They had not only brazenly
interfered with the internal matters of a sovereign state but also
violated Sri Lanka's Constitution.
Are the leaders or UNHRC representatives of Mauritius, Montenegro and
Macedonia aware where Sri Lanka is located on the world map, apart from
their knowledge on the true ground situation in Sri Lanka altogether? It
is as clear as daylight that none of these countries had any knowledge
on the circumstances which compelled Sri Lanka to launch the
humanitarian operation though they have joined as the co-sponsors of the
Resolution against Sri Lanka merely to pander to the whims and fancies
of the US and the UK.
Apart from Japan, several other countries had opposed the UNHRC
resolution against Sri Lanka. Among the most forthright statements
during the 25th Sessions of the UNHRC last March was from South Africa's
Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Nkoana Mashabane.
He told the UNHRC in Geneva that the international community must
permit Sri Lanka to find its own solution to the problem. She had said
that the UNHRC has been seized with the issue of Sri Lanka for a while.
The statement of the South African minister was indeed an eye-opener to
all the sinister international forces which try to poke their snout in
Sri Lanka's internal matters in the guise of human rights.
The vested interests of some Western countries are understandable as
they opt to have a Sri Lankan leadership that would dance to their whims
and fancies. President Mahinda Rajapaksa and the ruling UPFA Government
have always maintained an independent foreign policy without singing
hosannas to the West.
It is an open secret that certain British politicians, who thrive on
the Tamil Diaspora vote, are obliged to the LTTE sympathisers. Moreover,
the LTTE rump is adept at dishing out concocted stories to woo sympathy
of the international community. Those who are unaware of the real ground
situation in Sri Lanka and the agony its 21 million people subjected to
three decades of terrorism, could not be blamed for thinking that Sri
Lanka is perhaps the most troubled spot on this planet.
The UNHRC and the international community should take into account
that not a single person died in Sri Lanka due to terrorism during the
past five years. They could see the difference by calculating the number
of people killed in the previous five years (2005-2009), before the LTTE
was militarily crushed by May 18, 2009.
As the nation celebrates the Victory Day and the fifth anniversary of
the success of that great humanitarian operation, the international
community must take a closer look at the massive development during the
past five years. Sri Lanka has embarked on an ambitious reconciliation
drive by implementing the National Plan of Action of the Lessons Learnt
and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC). It is a crying shame that some
Western countries which pontificate to us on reconciliation had failed
miserably to behold the peaceful coexistence prevailing among all
Apart from Japan and South Africa, ten other countries - Burkina
Faso, Ethiopia, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Morocco,
Namibia and the Philippines, abstained from voting as they were
supremely aware of the sinister moves behind the Resolution
Although the US and the UK went hammer and tongs to force UNHRC
member countries to support their Resolution against Sri Lanka, 12
countries vehemently opposed it. China, Russia, Algeria, Congo, Cuba,
Kenya, Maldives, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Venezuela and Vietnam
voiced strongly in support of Sri Lanka and voted against the
The Resolution would not have been passed if the European Union
countries had not been coerced to vote as one bloc. Several European
countries had pledged their solidarity with Sri Lanka but were obliged
to support the Resolution as the European Union countries had to abide
by the collective decision.
More countries are getting to know the true situation in Sri Lanka
and they do not subscribe to the same viewpoint they held a few years
ago. Several countries realised that Sri Lanka got a raw deal from the
UNHRC due to the extensive and unethical lobbying by the godfathers of
Hence, Navi Pillay will by no means find it that easy to use human
rights as a tool to intimidate Sri Lanka and put her subtle motion in
action. The Government will under no circumstances bow down to undue
international pressure. There will be no room for any international
investigation to be conducted on the so-called war crimes allegations
but Sri Lanka would always cooperate with the international community in
development and reconciliation efforts.
The proponents of the resolution should take cognizance of the
reconciliation in Sri Lanka. This is imperative at a time when the
country is implementing comprehensive reconciliation among all
communities, having overcome the scourge of terrorism after a 30-year
Sri Lanka continues to engage with the international community and
needs no Resolution to encourage it to do so. No country should dictate
to Sri Lanka on the course of action it should take. It is entirely an
internal matter and up to the democratically elected leaders of Sri
Certainly, there is no urgent situation in Sri Lanka which warrants
the interests that were expressed at the last UNHRC sessions. The
Resolution surreptitiously opens the doors for third party elements to
interfere with Sri Lanka's internal affairs as its lingo was couched in
This undoubtedly, sets a bad precedent as even greater action could
be taken by the so-called big countries to browbeat smaller countries
which do not dance the fandango round the West.
Being acutely aware that the manner in which they had passed the
resolution against Sri Lanka did not comply with all accepted
international protocol, the UK is now making repeated appeals to Sri
Lanka to comply with the UNHRC resolution.
The time is now opportune to call in question whether the UNHRC had
made any tangible contribution to protect human rights or Pillay and her
confidants had undermined the good intentions of the UN human rights
watchdog. The so-called big countries should desist from using the UNHRC
as a platform to intimidate the smaller countries or their rivals. This
unhealthy practice should cease forthwith with the support of Russia and
No other country than Sri Lanka had made such great strides after its
bitter battlefield experience. Does the West expect Sri Lanka to perform
miracles overnight - which no other country had achieved after a similar