8.4 C
Saturday, April 20, 2024

SL must learn right lessons from Geneva

US presents milder amended draft; but UNHRC supervision if vote is passed . HR affairs on three-track mess: Hardline by GL, softline by Samarasinghe and demos by government .
The SOS message arrived after Sri Lanka’s 52-member delegation — which was a heavy burden on the country’s purse  returned to Colombo early this week from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) sessions in Geneva.

The breather from the on-going 19th sessions was in the belief that the United States-backed resolution on Sri Lanka would be moved only later this month. So much so, the delegation leader, the President’s human rights special envoy and Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe chose to undertake a visit to Japan, return to Colombo and later get back to Geneva. That visit was connected to issues over tea in his capacity as Minister of Plantation Industries. This was whilst the Minister of External Affairs continued his South African safari — an odyssey that has turned out to be a tragi-comedy in the conduct of Sri Lanka’s foreign policy. More chapters unfolded this week.

Tamara Kunanayakam, Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva, rang the alarm bell. The United States had sprung a surprise. As revealed exclusively in these columns last week that it would happen come Wednesday, the official text of the US-backed resolution was handed over to the conference secretariat on that day for inclusion in the agenda.

That, however, seemed a shock and surprise for the Sri Lanka mission, which shows how out of touch it was with the happenings around it. The next day, (Thursday), the United States Ambassador for Human Rights Council, Eileen Chamberlain Donahue, called an ‘informal consultation’ to which all Geneva-based missions and UNHRC delegates were invited. In the light of this, Mohan Peiris, legal advisor to the Cabinet, hurriedly boarded a flight to Geneva on Wednesday.

The next day, he was at the meeting in the afternoon together with Deputy Solicitor General Shavendra Fernando. Donahue announced that the United States had handed over the resolution for inclusion in the agenda. She said countries that wished to co-sponsor it could fill up and turn in the required forms that were on her table. In terms of HRC procedure, not only countries with voting rights but also other UN members are entitled to co-sponsor such resolutions.

Thus, it is still not clear how many would join in as co-sponsors. However, one source in Geneva said, “a number of countries” have already joined in. The government prepared yesterday to rush ministers, MPs, officials and others to Geneva. This is at a time when politicians who represented various countries have returned home after attending the ‘high level segment’ of the Council. They have left matters in the hands of their permanent missions. The question is with whom are the new Sri Lanka delegation members going to interact? Not that most of them interacted during the first part of the sessions.

In her opening remarks, Donahue said, “After consulting broadly with delegations from all regions and incorporating many helpful suggestions to the initial draft, we have introduced a moderate, reasonable, and balanced resolution text as a basis for further discussion and collaboration with our many partners in the Human Rights Council. In this regard, we reiterate our long-expressed willingness to work in partnership with the government of Sri Lanka on this resolution, and on the broader issues of reconciliation and accountability.

“This resolution is not intended to condemn; indeed, it acknowledges the contributions of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), which has made many constructive recommendations to the Sri Lankan government. However, many international and domestic observers share our conclusion that the government has not yet promulgated a credible action plan for implementation of those recommendations, nor has it taken the additional needed steps since the war to foster national reconciliation.

“Our intention is clear: we want the countries of the world to join in encouraging the government of Sri Lanka to take the steps needed to ensure meaningful and lasting national reconciliation after a long conflict, to reach out sincerely to the Tamil population and bring them back in to the national life of Sri Lanka, and to ensure accountability for actions taken during the war.

“Time is slipping by for the people of Sri Lanka. Together with the international community we want to work with Sri Lanka in order to bring lasting peace to the island. We firmly believe that action now in this Council reflects the international community’s on-going interest in and support for action on the ground in Sri Lanka. Numerous international and domestic observers have echoed our concern that the government of Sri Lanka must now establish domestic processes that will sow the seeds of lasting peace on the ground. With this resolution, the countries of the world can extend their hand of cooperation to help all the people.”

Seated with Donahue was a State Department official who had flown from Washington DC to Geneva for the event. He was Atul Keshap, Director of the Office of India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, the Maldives and Bhutan in the Bureau of Central and South Asian Affairs in the State Department. He reports directly to Robert Blake, Assistant Secretary who heads the Bureau. The other was Miriam Shahrzad Schive, in charge of political affairs and specialised agencies in the US diplomatic mission in Geneva.

Keshap followed Donahue with some remarks. He said the resolution was not “brought up suddenly.” The United States too had helped Sri Lanka eradicate terrorism. He charged that the government has “not been practical” in its approach to issues and recalled that Blake was personally aware of some developments since he had served as Ambassador. Thereafter, in his capacity as Assistant Secretary he had visited Sri Lanka many times for talks with government leaders, opposition political parties and civil society organisations. He (Blake) understood the ground realities well, Keshap noted. There was a slip up during his speech when he referred to Mohan Peiris as the Attorney General. He was reminded by Peiris that he had already relinquished that office.

Participants were allowed a three minute speech. Peiris took the opportunity to strongly defend Sri Lanka. He accused the west of double standards and asked why Sri Lanka was being singled out. When his time was over, Peiris protested that since the resolution was against Sri Lanka, it was nothing but right that he be given more time to argue the country’s case. When contributions by some 25 envoys and delegates from UN member countries ended, Donahue noted, “we still have some more time” and invited Peiris to speak again.

The legal advisor to the Cabinet said the final report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) had been broadly divided into four different categories. They were (1) National Policy (2) Final stages of the separatist war (3) National Security, and (4) Rehabilitation and Development. Several Committees were being tasked to go into these aspects. The initiatives were being chaired by President Mahinda Rajapaksa. He looked at the chair and remarked “The United States is abusing their might.”

Delegates from African and Latin American countries, though present, did not make speeches. Nor did the Indian diplomats who were present there. Besides Sri Lanka, delegates from Denmark (on behalf of the European Union), Pakistan, France, Russian Federation, Switzerland, Norway, Cuba, Hungary, Poland, Egypt (on behalf of the Non Aligned Movement), Sweden, Australia, Thailand, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, Algeria, Indonesia, Austria, Zimbabwe, Germany, China, Canada, Portugal and Ireland also spoke.

Here are brief accounts on the positions taken up by different countries whose delegates made speeches. Denmark (on behalf of the EU) – The US resolution is moderate, balanced and reasonable. We welcome the text.

Pakistan – Sri Lanka should be given time. We should not be wasting Sri Lanka’s time deliberating matters here. There are more serious issues to be discussed. France – We strongly support the resolution. We would request the Council to consider the report of the UN Panel of Experts too.

Russia (A voting member of the UNHRC) – This is an external intervention into a sovereign nation. It is not acceptable or appropriate. Switzerland (A voting member) – We thank the United States for bringing this resolution. We completely agree with it. The resolution should be taken in the spirit in which it is being moved.

Norway (A voting member) – We welcome the resolution and support it. It is done in the spirit of consulting or engaging. Sri Lanka must understand that. China (A voting member) – We do not support country specific resolutions. The US has double standards.

Cuba – Twenty years ago, there was a resolution against Cuba. Nothing happened. Special renditions using aircraft are also violations of human rights like those detained in the Guantanamo base. Hungary (A voting member) – We fully support the resolution. We are very concerned about the intimidation of NGOs that is continuing even today.

Poland (A voting member) – We are very satisfied with the full text of the resolution. Egypt – On behalf of the Non Aligned Movement, we strongly oppose the resolution. Reads out a statement issued earlier by NAM in Geneva.

Sweden – The text is well balanced and appropriate. Australia – The resolution is reasonable and constructive. Thailand (A voting member) – The resolution is not necessary. It should not be moved.
The Philippines (A voting member) – We support the position taken up by the Non Aligned Movement. Sri Lanka should be given time. We do not support the resolution.

The United Kingdom – The resolution is timely and constructive. Even the report of the UN Panel of Experts should be considered. Algeria – Sri Lanka must be given time. The resolution should not be rushed. The government process should be allowed to work.

Indonesia (A voting member) – Sri Lanka should be given time. The domestic process in motion should be allowed to work. Austria (A voting member) – It is unfortunate Sri Lanka is not wanting to be engaged with the international community. Zimbabwe – We support the NAM position. It is very unfair to bring this resolution.

Germany -The resolution is important and sustainable. Portugal – We welcome the resolution.
A comparison of the first draft and the final text of the resolution discussed at the ‘informal consultation,’ lays bare some important changes and the significant nuances underscoring them. The montage on this page gives the deletions and additions made to the draft.

Whilst the first four paragraphs have been retained, some of the strong language used in the draft has been omitted from the final text. The words “expressing concern,” has been replaced in the final text with “noting with concern” and goes on to add that “the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission report does not adequately address serious allegations of violations of international law.” Omitted are the words that come thereafter: “and expressing serious disappointment that the Government of Sri Lanka has not fulfilled its relevant legal obligations and stated commitment to initiate credible and independent investigations and prosecution of those responsible for such violations.”

The change no doubt is the result of consultations with member countries of the UNHRC which have sought some form of moderation in return for their support. In this regard, there are more deletions. One is the call in the original draft for Sri Lanka whilst implementing LLRC recommendations” additionally to take immediate steps to fulfil its relevant obligations and stated commitment to address serious violations of international law by initiating credible and independent investigations and prosecution of those responsible for such violations.”

Instead, a milder re-worded paragraph adds that the government should “….. take all necessary additional steps to fulfil its relevant legal obligations and commitment to credible and independent actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans.” Also deleted is a request for the “Government of Sri Lanka to present a comprehensive action plan before the 20th session of the Human Rights Council detailing the steps the Government has taken and will take to implement the LLRC recommendations ….”

However, the sting for Sri Lanka is in the tail or the final paragraph of the official text of the resolution. First to the last few lines in the draft which said it “Encourages the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the relevant special mandate holders to provide, and the Government of Sri Lanka to accept, advice and technical assistance on implementing those steps.” The reference to “mandate holders” has been deleted. Now to the penultimate paragraph in the official text:

“Encourages the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and relevant special procedures to provide, and the Government of Sri Lanka to accept, advice and technical assistance on implementing those steps and requests the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to present a report to the Council on the provision of such assistance at its 22nd session.”

In essence, the final official text of the resolution has taken away what appears as strictures on the government of Sri Lanka. The most significant factor, if the resolution is approved, is empowering the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to offer advice to the government and report back to the Council in March next year, or in just one year’s time, when the 22nd sessions will be held. In other words, it is the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights that will serve as a monitoring agency to ensure (a) the government of Sri Lanka carries out the subject matters spelt out in the resolution, and (b) report its progress to the Council. Thus, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights will be mandated to oversee that the Government of Sri Lanka enforces the UN resolution by implementing recommendations of the LLRC and addressing other issues.

The US-backed resolution clearly underscores some key factors. Main among them, if the resolution is passed, is the reluctance to accept Sri Lanka’s plea that many recommendations of the LLRC have been or are being implemented. Sri Lanka delegation leader Mahinda Samarasinghe, who spoke at the ‘high level segment’ of the Council, detailed out the measures taken and appealed to the UNHRC not to go ahead with the resolution.

He wanted time for the government to implement the many other recommendations. On the other hand, some of the movers could argue, the US has done just that by calling upon the government to implement LLRC recommendations and given time till the UNHRC sessions in Geneva in March next year for that purpose. They could also argue that the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has been tasked purely to monitor the commitments made.

Yet, as pointed out in these columns last week, the issues centre on questions of credibility. Even if Minister Samarasinghe has addressed all the issues centring on the LLRC recommendations in the speech he made, by passing a resolution, the US and its allies want to bind the government to a supervisory commitment under the UN Human Rights Council
 Political Editor
From ST political column


Latest news

Related news