By Col R Hariharan
The UNHRC passed the U.S. sponsored resolution (A/HRC/22/L.1/Rev.1) on Sri
Lanka at its 22nd session at Geneva on March 21, 2013. The text of
the resolution is at Annexure. The resolution was passed by 25 votes to 13. Eight
nations abstained. Gabon was absent.
The result was not unexpected. However, the content
and wording of the resolution was stronger than the UNHRC’s 2012 resolution on
Sri Lanka. It makes accountability in observing international human rights laws
as its primary focus and has called for a “credible and impartial investigation”
into such violations. This is important as it reflects the lack of faith in
what Sri Lanka has done so far. Equally important is the reference to the
continuing fundamental rights violations in the country.
Sri Lanka’s flawed strategy
Sri Lankan representative’s speech on March 21
showed lack of specific strategy to handle issues raised at the current UNHRC
session though its broad contours were indicated by three visiting senior
bureaucrats of Washington as early as November 2013. Sri Lankan
representative’s speech still focused upon procedural issues and rather than meaty
issues relating to mounting allegations of human rights violations and war
crimes and other substantive issues raised in Ms Pillay’s report. Even if Sri
Lanka did not recognise her report, the speech could have addressed them.
A second aspect relates to floor management of
voting. With the U.S. and the EU supporting the resolution which was sponsored
by 41 UN members, the chances of success are high. Last time, even the muscular support of China
and Russia could not bale out Sri Lanka. In their absence, active support of India
and Brazil –both influential powers beyond their geographical regions was
required to defeat the resolution. However, apparently Sri Lanka’s efforts did
not produce the results. Indian vote was probably conditioned by internal
compulsions. However, Brazil voted in favour of the resolution probably in view
of its increasing international role, beyond regional limitations.
After the 2012 UNHRC experience, Sri Lanka should
have foreseen India’s difficulty in voting against the U.S. resolution in 2013 as the ruling coalition became more dependent upon
external support than ever before for survival.
The DMK has been trying to change its image of a
fellow traveller of the Congress-led coalition to an ardent supporter of Tamil
Eelam as it battles for survival against the AIADMK. It has chosen the Sri
Lanka issue as a convenient foil to fight for its flock in Tamil Nadu.
Sri Lanka Tamils and the UNHRC resolution became critical
issues even for national parties including the
BJP and the Congress when there was an emotional surge in
Tamil Nadu after the publication of photos of alleged custodial killing of
Prabhakaran’s son’s. So New Delhi had little manoeuvring space other than
supporting the UN resolution.
So initially, India perhaps did the next best thing
to make the resolution more acceptable to Sri Lanka so that a voting could be
avoided. Sri Lanka was reluctant to accept this ‘diluted’ draft it seems. Apparently India’s well meaning effort had a
strange reaction from Rajapaksa brothers. They appear to be only interested in
using the issue to strengthen their nationalist credentials rather than
bringing it to a smooth closure as evident from their statements appearing in
the media.
A
Island news report on the subject said: “Responding to a statement attributed
to Sinha [Indian representative at the UNHRC] that Sri Lanka should address accountability
issues to the satisfaction of the international community, the Defence
Secretary [Gotabaya Rajapaksa] told The Island that those wanting Sri Lanka to
satisfy the global community should realise that they were adopting
double-standards. In fact, they would never have tolerated external
intervention in domestic issues, though Sri Lanka was being asked to give into
an investigation on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations….Would India
address its accountability issues to the satisfaction of Western powers or the
UN? The Defence Secretary asked, while pointing out that no one was talking
about the accountability of those godfathers of terrorism here.”
According
to news reports, President Mahinda Rajapaksa lambasted the US-backed resolution
at the UN Human Rights Council against his country, and said that such “attacks
would not defeat or intimidate” Sri Lanka. “This attack would not surprise us
at all. These attacks would not subdue us either, nor would they defeat or
intimidate us in any way” he added….He also termed all allegations against his
Government as “false accusations with ulterior motives”.
Sri
Lanka’s policy makers would do well to read what Dr Dayan Jayatilleka wrote in
the Daily Mirror on March 23, 2012: “If one has
to identify a single critical or crucial variable for Sri Lanka, it is India,
but our strategy cannot be reduced to Indian support...A few weeks after we
fought and won our battle in Geneva in May 2009, Myanmar lost in the same forum
though it had the votes of India, Russia and China.”
According to him Sri Lanka’s
victory in 2009 “was not simply and solely India...We will find it almost
impossible to win without India’s support, and we cannot win if India ever
turns against us, but we cannot win only with India’s support. We must
always remember that many Asian, Middle Eastern, African and Latin American
states will take their cue from India. India has a wide presence and is widely
respected among Sri Lanka’s friends.”
Prophetically, he said if
India’s position had changed from that of Sri Lanka’s May 2009 UN HRC victory, “we
must seek out the reasons and rectify them jointly.” On the contrary, Sri Lanka
chose to completely ignore India’s concerns; after India’s vote a second time,
it has gone into a sulk. Why is Sri Lanka doing this?
Limitations
of China card
Sri Lanka appears to put too
much faith in the real politick of India-China relations despite its access to
Indian bureaucracy, politics and media at all levels. While Sri Lanka is an
important variable in deciding India-China relations, Sri Lanka has its
limitations in conditioning it. There are many reasons including the
ever-growing Sino-Indian trade pie that govern the mindset of the two nations
in deciding the course of their inter-relations. But ultimately, it is the leadership style in
both countries that takes a call on the form and content of the relationship.
A new leadership has taken
over in China under President Xi Jinping. He
is unlikely to take any radical action to upset Sino-Indian relations in the
near future. He indicated this on the run up to the BRICS summit starting in Durban,
South Africa today.
A
Xinhua report said: On Sino-Indian ties, Xi said, to jointly follow a path of
peaceful development and development through cooperation not only meets the
common interests of China and India, the two largest developing countries in
the world, but also does a great service to Asia and the world at large.
Speaking
highly of the important headway in bilateral ties in recent years thanks to
concerted efforts of the two sides, Xi urged both countries that are pursuing
development at a faster pace to seize the opportunities and take solid steps to
bolster cooperation and exchanges in all fields, accommodate each other's core
concerns and properly handle their problems and differences.
On
the boundary problem, Xi said it is a complex issue left from history, and
solving the issue won't be easy. But he said he believes "as long as we
keep up our friendly consultations, we can eventually arrive at a fair,
reasonable and mutually acceptable settlement."
"Pending
the final settlement of the boundary question, the two sides should work
together to maintain peace and tranquility in border areas and prevent the
boundary question from affecting the overall development of bilateral
relations," the president added.
As far as India is concerned, the Manmohan Singh government will be facing
parliamentary elections in 2014. Already its cup is full with economic issues, internal
problems and international issues related to Pak-inspired trans-border
terrorism. Though New Delhi would always carefully watch and analyse China’s
increasing influence and activity in Sri Lanka, it is unlikely to react hastily
to any potential threat to the relations. Both countries have shown a matured
approach to regularly communicate and interact at various levels. So we can
expect the two countries to dissipate any build up of pressure that disturb
their inter relations.
Future
Many analysts have commented on India keeping the sanctity of its Sri Lanka
policy insulated from internal political compulsions. In every country internal
compulsions often dictate external policies; more so in India. Regional satraps
are holding the reins of survival of the Manmohan Sing-led coalition at the
Centre. And Tamil Nadu has a big clout in determining the fate of such
coalitions in the future as well.
Indian foreign policy has always been influenced by the perception of the
people. And Sri Lanka policy is no exception to this. The only way to manage
Sri Lanka policy for Manmohan Singh government is to defuse the emotional build
up in Tamil Nadu. This can be done only by taking proactive measures to make
Sri Lanka respond to India’s concerns, rather than reacting only to what the
U.S. does and what Sri Lanka does not. But given the poor record of this
government in taking such initiatives, we are unlikely to see any major government
move till 2014 when the Sri Lanka issue would come up again in UNHRC. But by
then parliamentary poll would be on and India’s membership of the UNHRC would
be ending. So India’s stand is likely to be buffeted by many winds as before;
in other words, the future course of India is anybody’s guess.
Tailpiece: While the public anger and students passion in Tamil Nadu on Sri Lanka
Tamils travails is understandable, the danger of the situation being taken over
by fringe elements is real. The despicable acts of beating up of innocent Bhikkus
or Sri Lanka passengers are a manifestation of this. Strangely, these fringe
groups of Tamil Nadu seem to have their kin among Sinhala chauvinist elements
in Sri Lanka. The elements emboldened by a sense of triumphalism are now coming
out of the woodworks. Though a small number, they are gaining more influence
and visibility by attacks on Muslims, who are essentially Tamils. The same
groups have a veneer of religious extremism and anti-Indian stance in such acts
and comments made on them. However, probably Sri Lanka is in a better position
to control such actions than India.
Tamil Nadu government, while sympathising
with the Sri Lankan Tamil cause, need to take urgent and visible measures not
only to arrest perpetrators of such acts, but also prevent them from taking
place. Tamils should remember
provocative acts against Sri Lankan visitors of all hues could rouse ethnic
passions in Sri Lanka resulting in attacks on Indians and their business
interests in which Tamils have a lion’s share.
[This article includes comments made by Col R
Hariharan to electronic and print media as well as in a TV discussion after the
UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) session passed the resolution on Sri Lanka.]
courtesy: South Asia Analysis Group Sri Lanka update No 231, Paper No. 681 dt 26 Mar 2013
courtesy: South Asia Analysis Group Sri Lanka update No 231, Paper No. 681 dt 26 Mar 2013
Also:
Annexure
A/HRC/22/L.1/Rev.1
Human
Rights Council
Twenty-second
session
Agenda
item 2
Annual
report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and reports of
the Office of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General
The
Human Rights Council,
Reaffirming
the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
Guided
by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on
Human Rights and other relevant instruments,
Bearing
in mind General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006,
Recalling
Human Rights Council resolutions 5/1, on institution-building of the Council,
and 5/2, on the code of conduct for special procedures mandate holders, of 18
June 2007,
Recalling
also Human Rights Council resolution 19/2 of 22 March 2012 on promoting
reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka,
Reaffirming
that it is the responsibility of each State to ensure the full enjoyment of all
human rights and fundamental freedoms of its entire population,
Reaffirming
also that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies
with their obligations under international law, in particular international
human rights law, international refugee law and international humanitarian law,
as applicable,
Welcoming
the announcement made by the Government of Sri Lanka that elections to the
Provincial Council in the Northern Province will be held in September 2013,
Welcoming
and acknowledging the progress made by the Government of Sri Lanka in
rebuilding infrastructure, demining, and resettling the majority of internally
displaced persons, and noting nonetheless that considerable work lies ahead in
the areas of justice, reconciliation and the resumption of livelihoods, and
stressing the importance of the full participation of local populations,
including representatives of civil society and minorities, in these efforts,
Taking
note of the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission of Sri
Lanka and its findings and recommendations, and acknowledging its possible
contribution to the process of national reconciliation in Sri Lanka,
Taking
note also of the national plan of action to implement the recommendations of
the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission of the Government of Sri Lanka
and its commitments as set forth in response to the findings and
recommendations of the Commission,
Noting
that the national plan of action does not adequately address all of the
findings and constructive recommendations of the Commission,
Recalling
the constructive recommendations contained in the Commission’s report,
including the need to credibly investigate widespread allegations of
extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, demilitarize the north of
Sri Lanka, implement impartial land dispute resolution mechanisms, re-evaluate
detention policies, strengthen formerly independent civil institutions, reach a
political settlement on the devolution of power to the provinces, promote and
protect the right of freedom of expression for all and enact rule of law
reforms,
Noting
with concern that the national plan of action and the Commission’s report do
not adequately address serious allegations of violations of international human
rights law and international humanitarian law,
Expressing
concern at the continuing reports of violations of human rights in Sri Lanka,
including enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, torture and
violations of the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful
assembly, as well as intimidation of and reprisals against human rights
defenders, members of civil society and journalists, threats to judicial
independence and the rule of law, and discrimination on the basis of religion
or belief,
Calling
upon the Government of Sri Lanka to fulfil its public commitments, including on
the devolution of political authority, which is integral to reconciliation and
the full enjoyment of human rights by all members of its population,
Expressing
appreciation for the efforts of the Government of Sri Lanka in facilitating the
visit of a technical mission from the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights, and encouraging the Government to increase its
dialogue and cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner,
Noting
the call made by the High Commissioner for an independent and credible
international investigation into alleged violations of international human
rights law and international humanitarian law,
1.
Welcomes the report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights on advice and technical assistance for the Government of Sri Lanka
on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka[1] and the
recommendations and conclusions contained therein, in particular on the
establishment of a truth-seeking mechanism as an integral part of a more
comprehensive and inclusive approach to transitional justice;
2.
Encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations made in
the report of the Office of the High Commissioner, and also calls upon the
Government to conduct an independent and credible investigation into
allegations of violations of international human rights law and international
humanitarian law, as applicable;
3.
Reiterates its call upon the Government of Sri Lanka to implement effectively
the constructive recommendations made in the report of the Lessons Learnt and
Reconciliation Commission, and to take all necessary 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;
4.
Encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to cooperate with special procedures
mandate holders and to respond formally to their outstanding requests,
including by extending invitations and providing access;
5.
Encourages the Office of the High Commissioner 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;
6.
Requests the Office of the High Commissioner, with input from relevant special
procedures mandate holders, as appropriate, to present an oral update to the
Human Rights Council at its twenty-fourth session, and a comprehensive report
followed by a discussion on the implementation of the present resolution at its
twenty-fifth session. [1] A/HRC/22/38.
No comments:
Post a Comment