Lanka to raise UN HR Commissioner’s partiality - Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe

by Manjula FERNANDO

Human Rights and Disaster Management Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, in an interview with the Sunday Observer, outlines Sri Lanka’s counteraction to the US State Department Report and the current position with regard to GSP Plus issue.

Q: President Mahinda Rajapaksa is to appoint a committee of eminent persons to inquire into the US State Department Report containing war crimes allegations. What type of a bearing will this report have on Sri Lanka?

A: The report is not initiated by the State Department on its own. It was done on a request by the US Congress, Sub-committee on Appropriations, in the course of the debate on the Appropriations Bill. It is customary to ask for such reports. Sri Lanka is not the only country on which a report has been called for. There is a host of countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Mexico, Sudan, etc.

The other point is the State Department has clearly stated that there is no legal foundation to this report. Neither can they vouch for the accuracy of the information contained in the report.

The third point is that the report has been put together with the information from the US Embassy in Colombo, or other diplomatic missions and unnamed sources as well as HR organisations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

We know that the US State Department had been receiving and collecting information and putting out their annual Human Rights Report where reference is made to Sri Lanka. I presume this information was there already and to many of these incidents listed in the latest report we have already responded within that period, in January and May.

There are people giving wrong interpretations to this whole exercise.

The State Department has stated that they cannot vouch for the accuracy for any of the incidents. This fact has been deliberately ignored by certain people who have commented on this. But notwithstanding all this I think the President has taken the right decision to appoint a committee to study the allegations.

This is the way a democratic nation always acts or else we could have hidden behind the fact the State Department has said that the report was based on unverified incidents.

Q: Will this trigger a chain reaction?

A: No. We need to look into this and find out if these have actually happened. When money is being allocated obviously the Members of Congress want additional information with regard to the situation in countries concerned. It is in this context the report is awaited.

Once we have our report in hand, we will formulate our position in respect of each one of these allegations. This was the strategy that we used in the Channel 4 incident. Our response was based on scientific evidence. We proved that it was a doctored video. No one now talks about what Channel 4 showed.

And the same goes with the four doctors who were used during the height of the conflict by international media to say that there were significant HR violations.

Q: Who are the members of this Presidential Committee?

A: The President will decide the names and will make the announcement. Currently we are working on the terms of reference and we would be able to announce it in a few days time. It will be an independent committee and there will be no politicians.

Q: The UN office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillai has called for an inquiry similar to Gaza Fact Finding Mission to investigate the allegations in the report. How does the Government view this?

A: We are very sad to see the High Commissioner’s office showing this kind of subjectivity and partiality. A clear majority of the members of the UN differ on this view. The Spokesperson of the OHCHR has clearly jumped the gun by comparing this report with the one on the Gaza and Goldstone process.

The State Department report clearly stated:

“The Report does not reach legal conclusions as to whether the incidents described therein actually constitute violations of IHL, crimes against humanity or other violations of international law nor does it reach conclusions concerning whether the alleged incidents described therein actually occurred.”

The spokesman has ignored this fact and rushed to issue the statement. It is very unprofessional and ethically wrong.

I must say for sometime now we have been along with some other delegations who participate in HR council sessions, concerned about the subjectivity shown by the OHCHR on certain issues. Certainly in respect of Sri Lanka, the HC’s office seems to be very biased.

A very objective resolution was passed at the special sessions on Sri Lanka at the Human Rights Council on May 26, just seven days after the end of the conflict. Twenty-nine out of 47 voted in favour of this resolution and a clear majority decided by vote not to consider debating the amendments submitted primarily by the Western Block.

This sent a clear message that after defeating terrorism, Sri Lanka must get help from member states for its post-conflict humanitarian needs instead of asking the country to turn the clock back.

Against this backdrop the HC when addressing the Council a week later made a statement welcoming the special session on Sri Lanka but did not refer to the very clear outcome - the adoption of the resolution by two thirds majority by an inter-governmental decision.

This even prompted the Indian Permanent Representative in Geneva to ask the HC as to why she did not welcome this decision.

These are one or two examples of the subjectivity shown by the OHCHR of late.

I am convinced that we will have to investigate more closely the functioning of this office and this thinking is entertained by quite a number of delegations in Geneva.

We will respond quite firmly to any uncalled for or unwarranted statements coming out from HC’s office which contribute to further destabilisation, even intensifying ethnic tensions.

Q: Do you intend to take this matter up at the UN level?

A: Let’s see. We are very concerned.

I want to make this point first to the High Commissioner herself. If I do not get a satisfactory answer then I have to look at other ways of seeking redress.

We are not asking for special treatment for Sri Lanka but we are saying not to show such outright bias which we have seen of late.

I have told the HC that we are available to sit down and discuss any problem. Although we had one or two issues with her predecessor Louise Arbour, we had a practice of discussing a problem first before public statements are issued.

OHCHR is an organisation which can add value to the work we are doing in Sri Lanka to protect human rights of all citizens after defeating terrorism and we are willing to work with her in this respect.

Q: The European Union maintains that investigating human rights is a condition under which GSP+ is granted ?

A: They are at liberty to say and do what they think is best before granting GSP concessions once again to Sri Lanka.

But they have to bear in mind that we have just come out of a 30 year conflict and we need time to bring the entire country into the democratic framework.

We have never said that everything is perfect in Sri Lanka. We do have problems and we are in the process of addressing them. My ministry has taken the lead role in putting out a national action plan on the promotion and protection of Human Rights. This action plan acknowledges honestly where we are now and proposes a time bound strategy to get us to a much better position. This process was initiated eight months ago, not recently to please GSP conditions.

My point of view is that we should be given more time by our friends in the EU to demonstrate that we are committed to tackling these issues in a methodical and systematic manner.

I feel there is better understanding emerging out of the EU that we should be given more time. I am fairly confident that once they see this action plan that they would be more convinced of our commitment. We will be continuing our dialogue with the EU over the GSP issue.

Q: There are accusations that the IDP resettlement has been put in fast gear to please the EU to obtain GSP concessions?

A: The IDP resettlement program was on the cards. Our pledge was to resettle the bulk of the IDPs by January 31, 2010. We have gone on record saying this. This is a step in that direction.

But I am sure the members of the EU would no doubt be happy with the recent progress made on this front and it will reflect positively in the final decision on GSP concessions to Sri Lanka.

The Government has so far resettled nearly 100,000 IDPs, bringing down the numbers housed at the Vavuniya Menik Farm camp to about 180,000 from the original 280,000.

Resettlement has been completed in the East and is continuing in Kilinochchi, Mullaitivu, Jaffna and Mannar districts in the North.