The way Sri Lanka’s war crimes were viewed by many State actors at Geneva showed how these States are leading the world into anarchy and are contributing to global unrest of peoples, political observers said. In an informal discussion of State delegates and human rights groups held in Geneva on Wednesday on a draft proposal from Canada to convene an Interactive Discussion on the outcome of Sri Lanka’s LLRC in the 19th session in March 2011, Sri Lanka challenged such a procedure. Russia, China, Cuba and Pakistan opposed any demand on Sri Lanka. Malaysia and Algeria were not happy of the procedure. Thailand, Chili and Mexico were sitting on the fence. The EU, UK, USA, Poland, Denmark, Switzerland and New Zealand welcomed the proposal. India and Maldives present in the room were silent.
It was not merely a sign of North-South divide, but a sign of the world State system hijacking the entire dialectical process of both thesis and antithesis towards State anarchy and anti-humanism, political observers said.
First of all the very foundation of the proposal is questionable: A group of countries that perpetrated the war don’t recognize the genocidal outcome, but propose Interactive Discussion after the release of the LLRC results by the genocidal State, giving time for its agenda.
This is essentially the roadmap of the US Asst Secretary of State Robert Blake who was one of the main architects of the war.
How to hoodwink is very well understood by Sri Lanka, an adept at the game for the last several decades.
Sri Lanka’s Attorney General Mohan Peiris told at the discussion in Geneva that “There is a domestic mechanism, which in your own words has not come to an end, it will be concluding in Nov 15 and then there will be a roadmap ahead for implementation of the recommendations.”
Eezham Tamils know well what is this ‘domestic mechanism’ and for what the ‘roadmap’ is. All the States also know well but one has to invent ways of making them recognize it.
Mohan Peiris was challenging even an Interactive Discussion on the LLRC outcome in March 2011.
His argument was that when Sri Lanka was not willing for such an international review of its LLRC report, the HRC has no jurisdiction to convene a review. Such extra-judicial and extra-territorial mechanism is infringement into the sovereignty of States.
Sri Lanka argued that if HRC wants to discuss Sri Lanka it should also be able to discuss Afghanistan and Iraq.
“We cannot support convening of this kind of interactive dialogue,” Cuba supported Sri Lanka, asking that “If you want to engage in this kind of ID why don’t you prepare a decision for a dialogue on detention centre in Guantanamo or bombing of NATO in Iraq, Afghanistan?
The fact that Cuba couldn’t think of setting a precedence on Sri Lanka to go to Afghanistan and Iran show its ‘ideology’ working in antihuman and anarchist ways, Tamil Left politicians in the island commented.
Cuba in strange ways is helping the USA.
The Russian argument supporting genocidal Sri Lanka was that “The situation in SL is not urgent, not critical, we are speaking of past issues and history, no need to selectively approach this subject.”
The world has seen how Russia behaved at the UN Security Council sitting on international action, when there was an ‘urgent’ and ‘critical’ situation that caused the ‘disappearance’ of nearly 140, 000 Eezham Tamils and barbed-wire imprisonment of nearly 300,000.
LLRC shows that the government is very seriously taking up this issue. No need to speed it up, Russia further said at Geneva.
“This draft decision asks for a discussion in the HRC on a domestic process of SL, it is a dangerous attempt to intervene in their internal affairs and attempt to politicize issues as it may be harmful to the reconciliation process of the country,” China said that it will oppose the move calling for discussion on Sri Lanka.
The genocide could have probably averted had China not interfered in the internal conflict of two nations in the island.
Pakistan shared the position of Cuba, Russia and China, adding that the Canada initiative cannot be supported “as it is not necessary, nothing new has happened, situation on the ground not changed drastically.”
According to Malaysia, the initiative undermines the principle of constructive dialogue and HRC is not one that seeks to punish delegations.
Algeria opposed such approaches as that of the Canada proposal getting introduced to the HRC. It also opposed HRC intervention without giving “time for internal processes, that are sometimes sensitive and difficult and need time.”
It is exactly the time Sri Lanka wants for it structural genocide, and Sri Lanka and its abettors want to escape from their indictment.
Thailand was supporting Sri Lanka’s proposal to have a discussion as a ‘side event’.
Chili wanted to wait for the LLRC report to take any initiative. Mexico said that a discussion could help ‘learning’ from Sri Lanka’s experiences.
The Lawyers Rights Watch, Canada said that LLRC is not an accountability mechanism, but it is just to block the possibility of an international independent mechanism.
Amnesty International criticized Sri Lanka’s proposal to have a ‘side event’ as it will be stage-managed.
Human Rights Watch also opposed the ‘side event’ and said that Interactive Discussion at the HRC was helpful in the example of Somalia.
A HR activist from SL, Nimalka said that if sovereignty is to be utilized in order to divert attention then you might as well fold up the whole of UN. If you will use technical procedures to discredit this initiative people will lose faith in UN, she further said.
S. V. Kirubaharan, a Tamil diaspora activist and a member of IPB, present at Geneva reminded the session of the fate of IIGEP. “Let us look at the history. The EU submitted a resolution on Sri Lanka in the 1st session of the Human Rights Council. But Sri Lanka came out with an alternative ‘solution’ that they will accept IIGEP and what happened to the IIGEP,” he asked.
The Sri Lanka discussions in Geneva were clearly showing that the Human Rights Council is increasingly becoming a body to legitimize genocide of over 2000 nations by around 200 States, which this way or that way belong to the same bunch of Establishments.
The Humans Rights paradigm for world order is failing and the 2000 odd nations in the world may have to think of the ways of forming alternative United Nations to face the challenge and to get justice in future.