Col R Hariharan
29-2-2020| South Asia Security
Trends, March 2020 www.security-risks.com
President Gotbaya
Rajapaksa fulfilled yet another election promise when Sri
Lanka’s foreign minister Dinesh Gunawardena informed the 43rd session of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) meeting
at Geneva that Sri Lanka was withdrawing from co-sponsorship of the UNHRC
Resolution 30/1 on the country’s accountability for alleged human right
violations committed during the Eelam War.
The foreign
minister was referring to the Resolution on Promoting Reconciliation,
Accountability and Human Rights in Sri Lanka, co-sponsored by the Sirisena
government and adopted unanimously on October 1, 2015. In essence, the
Resolution 30/1 called for a domestic internal inquiry, involving foreign
expertise, on alleged human rights violations committed by Sri Lanka during the
26-year long war against the Tamil Tigers that ended in May 2009.
Gunawardena highlighted
the progress made through the domestic processes during the difficult years
after the war in demining, infrastructure development, rehabilitation of
displaced people, return of private land under army occupation and
reintegration of 12,000 former LTTE cadres.
In his speech, he
elaborated on the following points that led to Sri Lanka’s decision to withdraw
its sponsorship:
· The previous
Government had accepted the use of the Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights Investigation on Sri Lanka (OISL) Report as the basis for
Resolution 30/1. The report was based on unverified information and testimonies
that vilified the security forces, though there was abundant evidence to the
contrary in domestic reports such as the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation
Commission (LLRC) and the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (Paranagama
Commission) into complaints of alleged abductions and disappearances.
·
The Resolution 30/1 casts upon Sri Lanka
obligations that cannot be carried out within its constitutional framework; and
it “infringes the sovereignty of people” of Sri Lanka and “violates the basic
structure of the Constitution.”
·
Procedurally, the previous Government had
violated all democratic principles of governance by sponsoring the Resolution
30/1. The government sought no Cabinet approval to bind the country “to deliver
on the dictates of an international body.” There was no reference to the
Parliament on the process, undertakings and repercussions of such
co-sponsorship.
The then President Maithripala Sirisena had
stated that he was not consulted on the matter at that time.
·
The
“dictated changes in the country” pursuant to 30/1 undermined the national
interests and compromised security including weakening intelligence operations
and related safeguards, “which are deemed to have contributed to the lapses
that resulted in the Easter Sunday attacks last April.”
Presumably
to soften the negative impact of walking out from earlier stand, the foreign
minister said in spite of the withdrawal from co-sponsoring the resolution,
“Sri Lanka remained committed to achieving the goals set by people of Sri Lanka
on accountability and human rights towards sustainable peace and
reconciliation.”
Gunawardena added, “The government will set up a domestically-designed
reconciliation and accountability process to achieve sustainable peace. Sri
Lanka will continue to remain engaged with, and seek as required, the
assistance of the UN and its agencies.”
Actually, after reneging its sponsorship for Resolution 30/1, Sri
Lanka’s strategy behind expression of intent to set up a domestically-designed
reconciliation and accountability process is not clear. Already it had
established the LLRC and Paranagama Commission and their recommendations have
been implemented only partially.
Similarly, the previous Rajapaksa government had held inconclusive talks
on ethnic reconciliation with the Tamil National Alliance (TNA). The Sirisena
government had prepared a draft constitution to accommodate the Tamil
aspirations as a part of the reconciliation process. All that was required was
to take complete actions that are still in halfway house of implementation. It would seem the promise to set up another domestic
reconciliation and accountability process is more to satisfy international
audience and buy time to delay follow up action by the UNHRC, than to address
the issues domestically.
The foreign minister is not wholly correct on his stated reasons for
reneging on Sri Lanka’s commitment to the international human rights body:
·
Army committing war crimes: The Paranagama commission, constituted by President Mahinda
Rajapaksa, while rejecting the UN estimate of 40,000 civilians killed during the
conflict, found the allegations of Sri Lankan army committing war crimes
credible. The commission called for an independent judicial investigation into
war crimes allegations.
·
Evolving a consensus: After the government sponsored the UN resolution, it had drawn
heavy criticism from the opposition. President Sirisena convened an all-party
meeting to evolve a broad political consensus on a domestic mechanism as
required by the resolution. That would indicate the President was reconciled to
the implementation of Resolution 30/1 despite his expressed reservations.
·
Drafting of resolution: Former foreign minister Mangala Samaraweera who strategized
Resolution 30/1, in a statement said that the decision to co-sponsor it was
taken by the Sirisena government. “The
final text of the resolution was largely negotiated over the telephone, with
the President (Sirisena) and I at the same hotel in New York and the Prime
Minister in Colombo accompanied by the foreign secretary at the time.” Defending the resolution
Samaraweera said it was a reassertion of Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and regaining
Sri Lanka’s lost respect and dignity among the international community once
again. “It was an opportunity to prove that Sri Lankan justice is fully capable
of ensuring credible accountability” the statement added.
Sri Lanka is
party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a
multilateral treaty adopted by the UN General Assembly Resolution 220A(xxi)
which came into force from March 23, 1976. Sri Lanka had ratified the ICCPR on June 11,
1980. So under Rome Statute, Sri Lanka is bound to implement Resolution 30/1, even
after it has withdrawn co-sponsored it.
At the all-party meeting
in October 2015, the Tamil United
Liberation Front (TULF) leader R Sampanthan had asked President Sirisena to
“build a process for Tamils to have confidence in the authority. Hold an
impartial inquiry where the Tamils could place faith.” By walking out of Sri Lanka’s own commitment
to the UNHRC, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has pushed the reconciliation
process back to square one. Unfortunately, this was not to be. Thus the hands
of constitutionalists among Tamil polity has now been weakened when it is essential for achieving meaningful
ethnic reconciliation.
Sri
Lanka’s action at Geneva has to be viewed in the context of the parliamentary
elections to be held on April 25. President Gotabaya’s aim will be to get
absolute majority in parliament for Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) led
alliance Sri Lanka Nidhas Podujana Sandanaya which is contesting under the
Pohottuwa (lotus bud) symbol. Former President Sirisena-led SLFPP has agreed to
join the alliance and contest with Pohottuwa symbol. President’s action in withdrawing Sri Lanka’s
co-sponsorship of UNHRC Resolution 30/1 would reinforce his support among
Sinhala nationalist segments and others who consider it as an affront to Sri
Lanka’s sovereignty.
Thus
Sandanaya alliance will be in a strong position to take on the United Naitonal
Party (UNP) which has been wracked by continuing power struggle between the old
order led by party chairman Ranil Wickremesinghe and Sajith Premadasa the
challenger. Sajith has formed a new coalition with the members of the UNP-led
United National Front Coalition. But lack of clarity and affiliations between
the rival leaders’ factions has weakened the opposition to Gotabaya
considerably.
Col R
Hariharan, a retired MI officer, served as the head of Intelligence of the
Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka from 1987 to 90. He is associated with
the Chennai Centre for China Studies, South Asia Analysis Group and the
International Law and Strategic Analysis. Email: haridirect@gmail.com Blog:: https://col.hariharan.info
No comments:
Post a Comment