Col R Hariharan
Sri Lanka
will face the flak at the 25th session of the UN Human Rights
Council (UNHRC) for the third time this week when the US fields its draft
resolution on Sri Lanka’s accountability over its conduct during and after the
Eelam War. US Secretary of State John Kerry spoke of his country’s keenness to
do so as Sri Lanka government “still has not answered basic demands for
accountability and reconciliation, where attacks on civil society activists,
journalists, and religious minorities sadly, continue.” His comments came after
he released the State Department’s annual human rights report for 2013.
He was
echoing the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Ms Navneetham Pillay’s
rationale for recommending an international inquiry into war crimes committed
by both sides during Eelam War in her draft report released on February 24,
2014. [The advance edited version of her draft report submitted to the UN Human
Rights Council (UNHRC) is available at www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session25/Documents/A-HRC-25-23_AEV.doc
- 94k - 2014-02-24 – ]
Mrs Pillay
in her report has put forth powerful arguments to support her recommendations
for an impartial international inquiry by including a complete section on
“Recent human rights developments” which explains a
whole range of concern at the continuing trend in Sri Lanka. These include attacks on freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and
association, particularly against human rights defenders, journalists and
families of victims, the rising levels of religious intolerance, and continued
militarization. According to her these developments have continued to undermine
the environment where accountability and reconciliation could be achieved.
The
Secretary of State explaining the US stand said, “Our concern about this
ongoing situation has led the United States to support another UN Human Rights
Council resolution at the March session. We will do so because we know
countries that deny human rights and human dignity challenge our interests as
well as human interests. But we also know countries that advance those values,
those countries that embrace these rights are countries that actually create
opportunities.”
UN member
nations are usually reluctant to vote for country specific resolutions
demanding international probes into internal issues. Usually democratic nations
generally have domestic mechanisms to carry out such tasks. Sri Lanka as a
functional democracy with all the trappings of good governance would normally
be considered as one such country. Apart from issues of real politick, this was
one reason that the UNHCR’s two earlier resolutions gave opportunities to Sri
Lanka to assume responsibility and implement the recommendations of the Lessons
Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) report.
But Sri
Lanka due to lack of sensitivity to the international environment has failed to
live up to the international community’s expectations. So the US moves to haul
up Sri Lanka before the UNHRC comes as no surprise. The US in tandem with the
UK had been monitoring the progress made by Sri Lanka since the UNHCR passed
the last resolution. They had kept Sri Lanka informed of their continued
concerns at the tardy implementation. Both the countries had also given
sufficient notice to Sri Lanka of their intention to bring a resolution on Sri
Lanka for the third time at the UNHCR session in March resolutions. Mrs Pillay
had also spoken about her intention to seek an international inquiry more than
once, particularly after her visit to Sri Lanka in August 2012.
The UNHRC
has 47 member-nations elected by the UN General Assembly on a rotational
three-year term representing five geographical groups – Africa-13, Asia-13,
Eastern Europe-6, Latin America & the Caribbean -8, and Western European
and Other states-7.
At present
Asian group includes Bahrain, Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Japan,
Jordan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Philippine, Saudi Arabia and South Korea.
Most of them would probably vote against the US draft. On the other hand, most
of the Western European group and the Latin American group (barring Cuba) are
likely to vote for it, a few countries might abstain. So the African group's
voting becomes crucial to decide the fate of the resolution.
Among the
doubtful supporters of the US resolution are Australia and Japan. According to
Australian media the Tony Abbot government does not seem to be inclined to
support it as Sri Lanka had been cooperating with Australia in preventing
illegal human traffic from Sri Lanka coast. Japan also could abstain as it had
been averse to international interference in Sri Lanka’s process; it wants to
help the country to improve it. But will this hold against its strategic ally
the US' pressure? Among other major powers China and Russia have declared their
opposition to a resolution against Sri Lanka.
Though Sri
Lanka had been lobbying vigorously with the UNHRC members against the
resolution, it seems to be in a tight corner as President Rajapaksa has chosen
to continue with his inflexible stand that all the issues highlighted by the
various resolutions and reports at the UNHRC on Sri Lanka. And he feels other
countries are conspiring to defame Sri Lanka.
President
Rajapaksa has tried to put a brave face when he talked at the Foreign
Correspondents Association (FCA) few days back, though he admitted it was
“uncomfortable with the whole situation”. However, while addressing a public
meeting he tried to trivialise it. The Geneva issue was not something to be
concerned about, it was “still a headache.” He found consolation in the fact
that countries like Israel and Cuba had faced so many resolutions and were “yet
not shaken while Sri Lanka has faced just three resolutions.”
He has
continued with his pet refrain that some countries were attempting to use
resolutions to “destabilize” Sri Lanka. In spite of all this bravado, the truth
is Sri Lanka's 'human rights baggage' will only grow if he delays positive
action any more. This is evident from Mrs Pillay’s present and past reports.
Internally
it is likely to increase ethnic friction. This would make the resumption of the
process of ethnic reconciliation even more difficult. Already the Northern
Provincial Council (NPC) has passed a resolution in support of the UN High
Commissioner’s report and wants an international enquiry under the UN auspices.
This has angered the President; his knee jerk reaction to haul up some of the
Tamil National Alliance (TNA) leaders before law for their links with the
LTTE in the past will only harden the TNA, which is still politically strong
whether he likes it or not.
There is
growing disaffection among Muslim minority over the government’s continued
inaction against repeated attacks by Buddhist extremists on Muslim
establishments. This came to the fore when the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress
(SLMC), a partner of the ruling UPFA coalition, submitted a report on attacks
against Muslims to Mrs Pillay during her last visit to Sri Lanka.
The
President’s attitude to the SLMC action was typical. He accused Minister
Rauf Hakeem of SLMC of “betraying the country” when he heard of allegations
that the SLMC had been lobbying with West Asian countries over attacks on
Muslims in Sri Lanka. The Christian community has not fared any better. Rajapaksa
wants such complaints to be kept “in house” to be dealt not by the government
but by the majority community.
So it is
not surprising that Sri Lanka government rejected Mrs Pillay’s report out
rightly. It said government said the report had not given adequate attention to
the domestic processes ongoing in Sri Lanka within the framework of the LLRC
recommendations. It branded the report as “politicized in premise" and
called the recommendations as arbitrary and intrusive. Detailed comments of Sri
Lanka’s permanent mission at the UN on the draft report are available at ap.ohchr.org/documents/alldocs.aspx
India is
going to have a difficult role to play when Sri Lanka is hauled up before the
UNHCR all over again as its manoeuvring space appears to have reduced further.
Moreover, India had set a precedent by voting for the two earlier resolutions.
Though India’s stand has not been made public, India’s Minister of External
Affairs Salman Khurshid is reported to have told his Sri Lanka counterpart that
India would be voting for the U.S. draft, as it did earlier. So Sri Lanka’s
efforts will probably play upon India’s general aversion for an international
to get its help in getting the resolution toned down.
However
this may not be possible as India has both diplomatic and internal issues in
obliging Sri Lanka. In fact Sri Lanka's continued intransigence has made it
difficult for India to support it. India may not be able to ward off American
pressure also. So New Delhi is likely to go by the earlier precedence and vote
for the US resolution.
This makes
sense if we consider the internal compulsions of the Congress party as it faces
bleak prospects at the parliamentary elections in a few weeks. The Sri Lanka
war crimes issue has become a major political controversy in Tamil Nadu in the
cat fight between the two major Dravidian parties. The DMK in an
opportunistic move has deserted the Congress Party - its long time partner – in
the state. A vote for the US resolution could be one of the last ditch efforts
to save the Congress party's face in the State.
The saving
grace is that President Rajapaksa seems to understand New Delhi’s problems.
Answering a pointed question during his FCA interaction on India he is reported
to have said: “You must remember they [India] are facing elections and have to
listen to the electorate, think about the future. Last time they voted against
us, this time we don’t know yet. But we understand them.” But that does not
help Sri Lanka.
What should
Sri Lanka be doing to get things right? At present Sri Lanka seems to answer it
by considering what it should not be doing. It has to take positive action. In
an interesting interaction with a delegation of Sri Lankan journalists in New
Delhi, the Indian External Affairs Minister explained the Indian perspective on
various aspects connected with Sri Lanka’s approach to the ethnic
reconciliation process and the war crimes allegations. According to Sri Lankan
media, he listed out a few things for Sri Lanka to ponder.
- No isolation: Sri Lanka should not isolate itself from the world and find ways to communicate its ‘compulsions and limitations’ and find a greater understanding with the world. He stressed that accountability and justice are now more pervasive in the world than before as the world is increasingly interconnected and open.
- Show commitment first: “For India to help Sri Lanka in Geneva, Sri Lanka should address local concerns so that India would be able to lobby on behalf of Sri Lanka. For us to help, you should be doing things that we would be able to tell the world.”
- Ego: He advised that ego should not be allowed to get in the way: He advocated a much saner approach “in contrast to the local proclivity to slander the visiting UN and US officials.
- Sensitivity: Sri Lanka should not be too sensitive and the world should not be over-reactive. He referred to the government orchestrated demonstrations against the US and the UN in Colombo when the resolution was brought before the UNHRC earlier. Rights activists and journalists were subjected to character assassination.
It is an
irony that Sri Lanka, which proclaims it has liberated the people from three
decades of LTTE tyranny after the humanitarian war, is now facing the flak at
the UN forum on allegations of war crimes and continuing human rights
violations. President Rajapaksa has to seriously introspect on the shortcomings
of his present approach. Though he may be averse to listen to ‘the Big Brother’
India’s counsel (as given by its foreign minister) it could help to take Sri
Lanka back from the brink. But will he? If we go by Sri Lanka’s attitude to
things ‘foreign’ I find it difficult to answer with 'aye.'
Courtesy: South Asia Analysis Group Sri Lanka Update No 241 at Note No.
710 March 30, 2014
URL: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1467
No comments:
Post a Comment