No major impact of Resolution:

Govt committed to reconciliation, development - Minister Samarasinghe

By Manjula Fernando

The Sunday Observer conducted an email interview with Leader of the Sri Lanka Team to Geneva, President’s Special Envoy on Human Rights, Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe soon after the 22nd regular session of the UN Human Rights Council ended on Friday. The Minister answered our questions, explaining the outcome of the US Resolution against Sri Lanka, minutes before he departed Geneva for another engagement.

Excerpts of the interview:

Q: Why did Sri Lanka decide at the eleventh hour to go for a vote on the US-sponsored resolution?Why do you think the US succeeded in convincing 25 countries to vote for the Resolution when Sri Lanka has shown so much progress since the end of terrorism in May 2009?

A: The results of the voting show why calling for a vote was desirable. In the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), on this issue, there are increasing divides both in terms of the numbers of members and in geographical terms. There is a discernible shift in terms of north/south perspectives. The main proponent of the Resolution only managed to get one more vote in support of their initiative than in 2012.

This is despite the present configuration of the Council being weighted against Sri Lanka with the exit of several countries that viewed our side of the story with objectivity. Enormous political and economic pressure was brought to bear, especially on developing countries, to vote in favour of the Resolution. However, only 25 of the 47 UNHRC Members voted against our side of the argument.

Some speculated that the US-sponsored Resolution would be carried by an overwhelming majority. Others, that it would be carried by consensus with Sri Lanka caving in to pressure; both groups were wrong. Sri Lanka will not silently acquiesce in any initiative that goes against our interests.

Q: What impact will the Resolution have on Sri Lanka in general, and the country’s long-term development plan and the reconciliation process in particular? Will there be any sanctions involved?

A: I do not see any major impact as long as we have our plans on track. You spoke of the progress since 2009 and also raised the issues of reconciliation and development. This is what our Government is committed to doing. We have not remained in one place since the end of the battle against terrorism in 2009.

Since then, we have done tremendously well in terms of resettlement, demining, promoting livelihoods in affected areas, ensuring economic development, rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-combatants and in the restoration of social, physical and economic infrastructure.

The Resolution has, at its heart, an agenda other than that of promotion of humanitarian issues or human rights. It seems to be pursuing other agendas bordering on the political. This we will expose time and again and resist with all our efforts.

After all, what we are doing is for the benefit of all our people. We must project this positively to the outside world and ensure that the international community is enabled to take an objective and impartial view of our situation as it evolves.

LTTE presence

Q: Why didn’t we get the support of the entire Asian bloc? Is it correct to say the strong presence of the LTTE in the African region had an impact on their vote? Are you concerned about this development?

A: I adverted earlier to the extreme pressure brought on countries to vote in favour of the Resolution. We opposed it on principled grounds which I set out in my statement to the Council on Thursday (March 21).

There are internal and external dynamics in every region which must be analysed and appropriate remedial measures taken.

I took the opportunity, along with our Ambassador Aryasinha in Geneva, to meet as many delegations as we could and brief them on the reality in Sri Lanka and to inform them as to why the Resolution was unnecessary, unwarranted and ill-conceived.

The remnants of the defeated LTTE remain and wield influence in many countries. They are highly motivated, well-funded and are working against any success in reconciliation in Sri Lanka. They do exercise some influence in countries in which they have taken up domicile. They influence the domestic agenda in these countries.

We have done much to lay out the facts pertaining to the conflict before our friends in the international community. We must, nevertheless, do more to safeguard the image of the country.

Q: Is it correct to say the US watered down the Resolution to appease the countries who would agree to vote in their favour? What are the key areas that were altered in the final draft and how can we say that those are in our favour?

A: The United States, as the main sponsor of the Resolution, held two informal meetings with stakeholders to discuss the text.

This is the usual practice prior to bringing resolutions before the UNHRC. We made a comprehensive presentation on March 8 at the first of these meetings, as to our principled opposition. Several other countries also suggested amendments, making the text more objective and balanced. It may be the case that some suggestions were taken on board to convince developing countries that the text was moderated or softened in some way, to win their support.

However, the main thrust of the Resolution was kept intact. These amendments to the text did not win over many members except those predisposed to vote in favour. I think our categorical rejection of the text as unacceptable, based on logical and reasoned argument, won us the support and understanding of many members. This is so because our arguments were presented in a professional and forthright manner. There was little rhetoric in what we said and we were able to present our case effectively.

Invitation to visit Sri Lanka

Q: Has the HR High Commissioner conveyed a date on which she will undertake the visit to Sri Lanka?

A: To my knowledge, she has not, even though our invitation of April 2011 has been reiterated several times, most recently, this month.

As we said in our statements, several further developments could take place after we have a discussion with her pursuant to a country visit.

We note that she has visited the Asian region and the South Asian sub-region in the past few years, but had not visited Sri Lanka.

We could, for instance, based on her on-site observations, discuss further cooperation in support of Sri Lanka’s national reconciliation including measures for the promotion and protection of human rights.

Sri Lanka does not need resolutions to work with the High Commissioner for Human Rights. We have had a representative of her office as Senior Advisor for Human Rights to the UN Country Team in Sri Lanka for several years.

I hosted a visit, as Human Rights Minister, for Louise Arbour in 2007. We have no issue engaging with special procedures and mandate holders. We have engaged in the past and will do so in the future. We are awaiting dates from Pillay, and if those dates are mutually convenient, we can facilitate a visit.

Q: You mentioned that the US Resolution will set a bad precedent and the Indian Opposition too warned against supporting the US in view of the Kashmir issue. How valid are these concerns?

A: Our concerns are genuine and are shared by many countries which could be subject to such inordinate scrutiny based on subjective and political criteria.

As I said in the Council, our battle against terrorism ended three years and 10 months ago. We have, as I also said, shown verifiable progress.

This was acknowledged and appreciated during the UPR of Sri Lanka between November and March. However, we find that we are subject to disproportionate attention when there are other situations, ongoing conflicts elsewhere, which require the urgent attention of the UNHRC.

When the UNHRC becomes politicised, when it is manipulated to focus on situations which do not warrant such attention, it ceases to have relevance and credibility. This is what happened to the Council’s predecessor – the UN Commission for Human Rights. We do not want the same fate to befall the UNHRC.

It was our hope, as a founder member of the Council in 2006, that constructive engagement between and among Member and Observer States would be the order of the day.

That is the spirit in which we engage with our peers and friends. If some are trying to pursue political agendas through the Council, that would be a great pity.