No major impact of Resolution:
Govt committed to reconciliation, development - Minister Samarasinghe
 |
|
Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, Sri
Lanka’s Permanent Representative in Geneva Ravinatha Aryasinha and members of
the Sri Lanka delegation Dilini Gunasekera and Priyanga Wickremasinghe (back
row) at the UN Human Rights Council.
|
The Sunday Observer conducted an email interview with Leader of
the Sri Lanka Team to Geneva, President's Special Envoy on Human Rights,
Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe soon after the 22nd regular session of the UN
Human Rights Council ended on Friday. The Minister answered our questions,
explaining the outcome of the US Resolution against Sri Lanka, minutes before he
departed Geneva for another engagement.
Excerpts of the interview:
Q: Why did Sri Lanka decide at the eleventh hour to go
for a vote on the US-sponsored resolution?Why do you think the US succeeded in
convincing 25 countries to vote for the Resolution when Sri Lanka has shown so
much progress since the end of terrorism in May 2009?
A: The results of the voting show why calling for a vote
was desirable. In the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), on this issue, there are
increasing divides both in terms of the numbers of members and in geographical
terms. There is a discernible shift in terms of north/south perspectives. The
main proponent of the Resolution only managed to get one more vote in support of
their initiative than in 2012.
This is despite the present configuration of the Council being
weighted against Sri Lanka with the exit of several countries that viewed our
side of the story with objectivity. Enormous political and economic pressure was
brought to bear, especially on developing countries, to vote in favour of the
Resolution. However, only 25 of the 47 UNHRC Members voted against our side of
the argument.
Some speculated that the US-sponsored Resolution would be
carried by an overwhelming majority. Others, that it would be carried by
consensus with Sri Lanka caving in to pressure; both groups were wrong. Sri
Lanka will not silently acquiesce in any initiative that goes against our
interests.
Q: What impact will the Resolution have on Sri Lanka in
general, and the country's long-term development plan and the reconciliation
process in particular? Will there be any sanctions involved?
A: I do not see any major impact as long as we have our
plans on track. You spoke of the progress since 2009 and also raised the issues
of reconciliation and development. This is what our Government is committed to
doing. We have not remained in one place since the end of the battle against
terrorism in 2009.
Since then, we have done tremendously well in terms of
resettlement, demining, promoting livelihoods in affected areas, ensuring
economic development, rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-combatants and in
the restoration of social, physical and economic infrastructure.
The Resolution has, at its heart, an agenda other than that of
promotion of humanitarian issues or human rights. It seems to be pursuing other
agendas bordering on the political. This we will expose time and again and
resist with all our efforts.
After all, what we are doing is for the benefit of all our
people. We must project this positively to the outside world and ensure that the
international community is enabled to take an objective and impartial view of
our situation as it evolves.
LTTE presence
Q: Why didn't we get the support of the entire Asian
bloc? Is it correct to say the strong presence of the LTTE in the African region
had an impact on their vote? Are you concerned about this development?
A: I adverted earlier to the extreme pressure brought on
countries to vote in favour of the Resolution. We opposed it on principled
grounds which I set out in my statement to the Council on Thursday (March 21).
There are internal and external dynamics in every region which
must be analysed and appropriate remedial measures taken.
I took the opportunity, along with our Ambassador Aryasinha in
Geneva, to meet as many delegations as we could and brief them on the reality in
Sri Lanka and to inform them as to why the Resolution was unnecessary,
unwarranted and ill-conceived.
The remnants of the defeated LTTE remain and wield influence in
many countries. They are highly motivated, well-funded and are working against
any success in reconciliation in Sri Lanka. They do exercise some influence in
countries in which they have taken up domicile. They influence the domestic
agenda in these countries.
We have done much to lay out the facts pertaining to the
conflict before our friends in the international community. We must,
nevertheless, do more to safeguard the image of the country.
Q: Is it correct to say the US watered down the
Resolution to appease the countries who would agree to vote in their favour?
What are the key areas that were altered in the final draft and how can we say
that those are in our favour?
A: The United States, as the main sponsor of the
Resolution, held two informal meetings with stakeholders to discuss the text.
This is the usual practice prior to bringing resolutions before
the UNHRC. We made a comprehensive presentation on March 8 at the first of these
meetings, as to our principled opposition. Several other countries also
suggested amendments, making the text more objective and balanced. It may be the
case that some suggestions were taken on board to convince developing countries
that the text was moderated or softened in some way, to win their support.
However, the main thrust of the Resolution was kept intact.
These amendments to the text did not win over many members except those
predisposed to vote in favour. I think our categorical rejection of the text as
unacceptable, based on logical and reasoned argument, won us the support and
understanding of many members. This is so because our arguments were presented
in a professional and forthright manner. There was little rhetoric in what we
said and we were able to present our case effectively.
Invitation to visit Sri Lanka
Q: Has the HR High Commissioner conveyed a date on which
she will undertake the visit to Sri Lanka?
A: To my knowledge, she has not, even though our
invitation of April 2011 has been reiterated several times, most recently, this
month.
As we said in our statements, several further developments could
take place after we have a discussion with her pursuant to a country visit.
We note that she has visited the Asian region and the South
Asian sub-region in the past few years, but had not visited Sri Lanka.
We could, for instance, based on her on-site observations,
discuss further cooperation in support of Sri Lanka's national reconciliation
including measures for the promotion and protection of human rights.
Sri Lanka does not need resolutions to work with the High
Commissioner for Human Rights. We have had a representative of her office as
Senior Advisor for Human Rights to the UN Country Team in Sri Lanka for several
years.
I hosted a visit, as Human Rights Minister, for Louise Arbour in
2007. We have no issue engaging with special procedures and mandate holders. We
have engaged in the past and will do so in the future. We are awaiting dates
from Pillay, and if those dates are mutually convenient, we can facilitate a
visit.
Q: You mentioned that the US Resolution will set a bad
precedent and the Indian Opposition too warned against supporting the US in view
of the Kashmir issue. How valid are these concerns?
 |
|
UN Human Rights Council
sessions
|
A: Our concerns are genuine and are shared by many
countries which could be subject to such inordinate scrutiny based on subjective
and political criteria.
As I said in the Council, our battle against terrorism ended
three years and 10 months ago. We have, as I also said, shown verifiable
progress.
This was acknowledged and appreciated during the UPR of Sri
Lanka between November and March. However, we find that we are subject to
disproportionate attention when there are other situations, ongoing conflicts
elsewhere, which require the urgent attention of the UNHRC.
When the UNHRC becomes politicised, when it is manipulated to
focus on situations which do not warrant such attention, it ceases to have
relevance and credibility. This is what happened to the Council's predecessor -
the UN Commission for Human Rights. We do not want the same fate to befall the
UNHRC.
It was our hope, as a founder member of the Council in 2006,
that constructive engagement between and among Member and Observer States would
be the order of the day.
That is the spirit in which we engage with our peers and
friends. If some are trying to pursue political agendas through the Council,
that would be a great pity.
Courtesy : Sunday Observer
No comments:
Post a Comment