http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2012/03/25/fea04.asp

World’s tide in favour of Sri Lanka
by Manjula FERNANDO
Resolution on Promoting
Reconciliation and Accountability in Sri Lanka
The Council notes with concern
that the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission of Sri
Lanka does not adequately address serious allegations of violations of
international law and calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the
constructive recommendations made in the report of the Lessons Learnt and
Reconciliation Commission. And to take all 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. Requests the Government of Sri Lanka to present, as expeditiously as
possible, a comprehensive action plan detailing the steps that the Government
has taken and will take to implement the recommendations made in the
Commission’s report. And also to address alleged violations of international
law. And encourages the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights 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.
Although US succeeded in an aggressive manipulative campaign to secure a
majority vote to move a resolution against Sri Lanka at the 19th sessions of the
UN Human Rights Council last week, Sri Lanka was commended by the majority of
the international community over its ongoing reconciliation and development
efforts.
Even the countries which voted in favour to defeat Sri Lanka like Uruguay and
those who abstained from voting when resolution A/HRC/19/L.2/Rev1 on “promoting
reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka” was taken up, recognised and
commended the domestic initiatives to achieve reconciliation and development
which leaves us with a pertinent question ‘Then what warranted the US action?’
India, which is bracing to face a challenging Union Budget in the days ahead,
was compelled to vote with US due to domestic political compulsions but in the
speech that preceded their ‘reluctant’ vote, the Indian representative Dilip
Sinha warned against any action without the concurrence of the Sri Lankan
government. He said “the primary responsibility for the promotion and protection
of human rights rested with States themselves”, thus, “the Council resolutions
should fully respect the sovereign rights of States and contribute to Sri
Lanka’s own efforts in this regard”.
Although the US and the EU criticised the LLRC for failing to address all
accountability issues identified in the Darusman report, the Indian
representative went on to say, in a comparatively long statement of explanation
after the vote, that ‘India welcomed the recommendations of the LLRC report and
we believe that there is indeed a window of opportunity to forge a consensual
way forward towards reconciliation’.
He stressed that India subscribed to the general message of the resolution,
‘but any assistance of the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
should be in consultation with and concurrence of the Sri Lankan Government’.
Underlining the importance of the talks with the TNA for a political
settlement and the need for the Government to assume a leading role in this
respect, Sinha said, “A democratic country like Sri Lanka has to be provided
time and space to achieve the objectives of reconciliation and peace.”
Cuba which assumed a leading role to defend Sri Lanka’s interests, sought to
postpone the resolution immediately after it was introduced by the US
representative Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, on grounds that it needed to
determine if this action would undermine the legitimacy and credibility of the
work of the Council. Rodolfo Reyes Rodriguez, the Cuban representative making a
lengthy speech that lasted for over 15 minutes asked the co-sponsors whether it
would not be possible to delay action on the resolution until the September
session. He read a text deploring country resolutions, agreed on by 14 member
states.
Noting that it had been three years since Sri Lanka ended its conflict, he
said “Three years ago, President Obama said he would close the Guantanamo Bay
detention centre but that had not been done.
It would seem that this could be an arena for possible confrontation.”
Responding to Cuba, the US said the resolution was a ‘straightforward
declarative resolution that asked Sri Lanka to take action on the LLRC report’.
It rejected the Cuban proposal and said the members without trying to stall the
process must either vote it up or down.
Cuba speaking further said the resolution sets a negative precedent of
singling out developing nations and given that Sri Lanka cooperated with High
Commissioner and special procedures, this action was unjustified and acted
contrary to the principal of non-intervention.
The Representative of Belgium speaking on behalf of the EU
said, EU fully supported this initiative. Disregarding concerns raised by the
Cuban representative of human rights violations committed by the US, he said
‘Genuine reconciliation among all groups and communities in Sri Lanka was
essential and required justice and accountability for past events’.
China which was one of the strong critics of the US resolution making a
general statement before the vote, called on all member states to shoot down the
US move. The Chinese representative said the resolution submitted by the United
States was a ‘product of the politicisation of human rights’.
Chinese representative Liu Zhenmin said ‘Sri Lanka’s reconciliation efforts
was beyond the mandate of the HRC, the draft resolution interfered in the
internal affairs and violated the principals of the UN’.
Representative for the Russian Federation Roman Kashaev said his country was
firm on its policy that attempts to dictate to a sovereign state how policy
should be carried out was unacceptable.
He said outside forces should not interfere with the national reconciliation
attempts by the Sri Lankan Government. Kashaev said “The international community
should not make hasty and ill-founded judgements,” encouraging other states to
vote against this resolution.
Many countries who supported Sri Lanka were explicit about the motives of the
US and the co-sponsors of the resolution and that the objectives of this move
went beyond the mandate of the HRC.
The Philippine representative Therese Lepatan said her
country objected to the attempts by certain countries to introduce ‘a trigger
mechanism in the Council,’ adding that it was against the norms of the Council
to turn technical assistance into a form of political pressure to influence
Governments. She said, “This resolution was a reincarnation of the trigger
mechanism and it attempted to turn international cooperation into a form of
political pressure”. Thus “the Philippines would vote against the resolution.“
Uganda which was another country that firmly stood behind Sri Lanka commended
the government for its speedy publication of the LLRC report and government’s
engagement with the international community.
Thailand and Indonesia expressed that Sri Lanka has so far shown willingness
to cooperate with the international community as well as the HRC and a
resolution was unwarranted. They were of the view the home grown process needs
to be given priority thus this move was ill timed.
Indonesia observed that the co-sponsor had failed to respond in a
constructive manner to the national reconciliation process.
Bangladesh despite the stance taken by India not to support Sri Lanka, voted
in favour of Sri Lanka, upholding the right of Sri Lanka to pursue its domestic
process of reconciliation.
“Sri Lanka had provided significant leadership in countering international
terrorism and required time and space to heal from the long lasting effects of
terrorism,” the Bangladeshi representative said in explanation of her country’s
stance.
It further observed that ‘country specific resolutions make little impact if
the country concerned was not on board.’ Maldives, another ally of Sri Lanka
said it has also been a victim of conflict and had been affected by the conflict
of its close neighbour Sri Lanka and hence, understood the trauma, the violence
that has caused the people of the country.
“In order to rebuild, accountability for violations of human rights committed
by all sides in the war and redress for victims must be ensured and it takes
time,” Maldivian representative said adding that this was not the appropriate
moment to bring in a resolution of this nature.
Ecuador speaking on behalf of their decision to support
Sri Lanka said the crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq should be investigated first
before Sri Lanka is put under the microscope.
It upheld the positions taken by the others that Human Rights Council should
not take a ‘biased approach’ in dealing with accountability issues.
Kyrgyzstan, a country which abstained from voting speaking before the vote,
said the delegation of Kyrgyzstan would abstain as it was of the view that Sri
Lanka did not have enough time to review the recommendations of the LLRC.
Condemning interference in internal affairs, it said action at the international
level would only contribute to destabilise the situation in Sri Lanka.
Angola said it has decided to abstain because the guiding principles of the
Council has not been respected in bringing in this resolution and it did not
encourage and help the people of Sri Lanka to pursue national reconciliation.
Its representative said Angola had gone through a complex and difficult process
of national reconciliation itself and therefore knew the results could not be
achieved on mere documentation but only at the grass roots level.
Even Uruguay which voted in favour of the resolution appreciated the efforts
of Sri Lanka, including the priorities for human rights laid out in the Action
Plan which has been formulated by the Government.
Mexico, speaking in an explanation of the vote said Mexico would vote in
favour of the draft resolution because the text was balanced, fair and
constructive.
Nigeria said it decided to vote for the resolution, not to censure Sri Lanka
but to encourage the process of reconciliation in the country.