Despite resolution at UNHRC sessions:

World’s tide in favour of Sri Lanka

by Manjula FERNANDO

Resolution on Promoting Reconciliation and Accountability in Sri Lanka The Council notes with concern that the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission of  Sri Lanka does not adequately address serious allegations of  violations of international law and calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the constructive recommendations made in the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission.  And to take all additional steps to fulfil its relevant legal obligations and  commitment to initiate credible and  independent actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans. Requests the Government of Sri Lanka to present, as expeditiously as possible, a comprehensive action plan detailing the steps that the Government has taken and will take to implement the recommendations made in the Commission’s report. And also to address alleged violations of international law.  And encourages the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and relevant special  procedures mandate holders to provide, in consultation with and with the concurrence of the Government of Sri Lanka, advice and technical assistance on implementing the above-mentioned steps.

Although US succeeded in an aggressive manipulative campaign to secure a majority vote to move a resolution against Sri Lanka at the 19th sessions of the UN Human Rights Council last week, Sri Lanka was commended by the majority of the international community over its ongoing reconciliation and development efforts.

Even the countries which voted in favour to defeat Sri Lanka like Uruguay and those who abstained from voting when resolution A/HRC/19/L.2/Rev1 on “promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka” was taken up, recognised and commended the domestic initiatives to achieve reconciliation and development which leaves us with a pertinent question ‘Then what warranted the US action?’

India, which is bracing to face a challenging Union Budget in the days ahead, was compelled to vote with US due to domestic political compulsions but in the speech that preceded their ‘reluctant’ vote, the Indian representative Dilip Sinha warned against any action without the concurrence of the Sri Lankan government. He said “the primary responsibility for the promotion and protection of human rights rested with States themselves”, thus, “the Council resolutions should fully respect the sovereign rights of States and contribute to Sri Lanka’s own efforts in this regard”.

Although the US and the EU criticised the LLRC for failing to address all accountability issues identified in the Darusman report, the Indian representative went on to say, in a comparatively long statement of explanation after the vote, that ‘India welcomed the recommendations of the LLRC report and we believe that there is indeed a window of opportunity to forge a consensual way forward towards reconciliation’.

He stressed that India subscribed to the general message of the resolution, ‘but any assistance of the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights should be in consultation with and concurrence of the Sri Lankan Government’.

Underlining the importance of the talks with the TNA for a political settlement and the need for the Government to assume a leading role in this respect, Sinha said, “A democratic country like Sri Lanka has to be provided time and space to achieve the objectives of reconciliation and peace.”

Cuba which assumed a leading role to defend Sri Lanka’s interests, sought to postpone the resolution immediately after it was introduced by the US representative Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, on grounds that it needed to determine if this action would undermine the legitimacy and credibility of the work of the Council. Rodolfo Reyes Rodriguez, the Cuban representative making a lengthy speech that lasted for over 15 minutes asked the co-sponsors whether it would not be possible to delay action on the resolution until the September session. He read a text deploring country resolutions, agreed on by 14 member states.

Noting that it had been three years since Sri Lanka ended its conflict, he said “Three years ago, President Obama said he would close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre but that had not been done.

It would seem that this could be an arena for possible confrontation.” Responding to Cuba, the US said the resolution was a ‘straightforward declarative resolution that asked Sri Lanka to take action on the LLRC report’. It rejected the Cuban proposal and said the members without trying to stall the process must either vote it up or down.

Cuba speaking further said the resolution sets a negative precedent of singling out developing nations and given that Sri Lanka cooperated with High Commissioner and special procedures, this action was unjustified and acted contrary to the principal of non-intervention.

The Representative of Belgium speaking on behalf of the EU said, EU fully supported this initiative. Disregarding concerns raised by the Cuban representative of human rights violations committed by the US, he said ‘Genuine reconciliation among all groups and communities in Sri Lanka was essential and required justice and accountability for past events’.

China which was one of the strong critics of the US resolution making a general statement before the vote, called on all member states to shoot down the US move. The Chinese representative said the resolution submitted by the United States was a ‘product of the politicisation of human rights’.

Chinese representative Liu Zhenmin said ‘Sri Lanka’s reconciliation efforts was beyond the mandate of the HRC, the draft resolution interfered in the internal affairs and violated the principals of the UN’.

Representative for the Russian Federation Roman Kashaev said his country was firm on its policy that attempts to dictate to a sovereign state how policy should be carried out was unacceptable.

He said outside forces should not interfere with the national reconciliation attempts by the Sri Lankan Government. Kashaev said “The international community should not make hasty and ill-founded judgements,” encouraging other states to vote against this resolution.

Many countries who supported Sri Lanka were explicit about the motives of the US and the co-sponsors of the resolution and that the objectives of this move went beyond the mandate of the HRC.

The Philippine representative Therese Lepatan said her country objected to the attempts by certain countries to introduce ‘a trigger mechanism in the Council,’ adding that it was against the norms of the Council to turn technical assistance into a form of political pressure to influence Governments. She said, “This resolution was a reincarnation of the trigger mechanism and it attempted to turn international cooperation into a form of political pressure”. Thus “the Philippines would vote against the resolution.“

Uganda which was another country that firmly stood behind Sri Lanka commended the government for its speedy publication of the LLRC report and government’s engagement with the international community.

Thailand and Indonesia expressed that Sri Lanka has so far shown willingness to cooperate with the international community as well as the HRC and a resolution was unwarranted. They were of the view the home grown process needs to be given priority thus this move was ill timed.

Indonesia observed that the co-sponsor had failed to respond in a constructive manner to the national reconciliation process.

Bangladesh despite the stance taken by India not to support Sri Lanka, voted in favour of Sri Lanka, upholding the right of Sri Lanka to pursue its domestic process of reconciliation.

“Sri Lanka had provided significant leadership in countering international terrorism and required time and space to heal from the long lasting effects of terrorism,” the Bangladeshi representative said in explanation of her country’s stance.

It further observed that ‘country specific resolutions make little impact if the country concerned was not on board.’ Maldives, another ally of Sri Lanka said it has also been a victim of conflict and had been affected by the conflict of its close neighbour Sri Lanka and hence, understood the trauma, the violence that has caused the people of the country.

“In order to rebuild, accountability for violations of human rights committed by all sides in the war and redress for victims must be ensured and it takes time,” Maldivian representative said adding that this was not the appropriate moment to bring in a resolution of this nature.

Ecuador speaking on behalf of their decision to support Sri Lanka said the crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq should be investigated first before Sri Lanka is put under the microscope.

It upheld the positions taken by the others that Human Rights Council should not take a ‘biased approach’ in dealing with accountability issues.

Kyrgyzstan, a country which abstained from voting speaking before the vote, said the delegation of Kyrgyzstan would abstain as it was of the view that Sri Lanka did not have enough time to review the recommendations of the LLRC. Condemning interference in internal affairs, it said action at the international level would only contribute to destabilise the situation in Sri Lanka.

Angola said it has decided to abstain because the guiding principles of the Council has not been respected in bringing in this resolution and it did not encourage and help the people of Sri Lanka to pursue national reconciliation. Its representative said Angola had gone through a complex and difficult process of national reconciliation itself and therefore knew the results could not be achieved on mere documentation but only at the grass roots level.

Even Uruguay which voted in favour of the resolution appreciated the efforts of Sri Lanka, including the priorities for human rights laid out in the Action Plan which has been formulated by the Government.

Mexico, speaking in an explanation of the vote said Mexico would vote in favour of the draft resolution because the text was balanced, fair and constructive.

Nigeria said it decided to vote for the resolution, not to censure Sri Lanka but to encourage the process of reconciliation in the country.