http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2013/03/24/main_Editorial.asp

The United Nations (UN) and its affiliated bodies had been set up mainly to unite all countries under one umbrella with the prime objective of helping each other while respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every member country.

However, certain international organisations now seem to have deviated from its original principles. Certain so-called big countries have apparently taken unofficial control in some of these organisations and operate in an unbecoming manner to underline their supremacy across the globe.

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is no exception. There is certainly no question about the importance of protecting human rights and voicing against any human rights violations in every corner of the world. Regrettably, some UNHRC member countries have descended to the lowest ebb of protecting the human rights of terrorists, thereby ignoring the human rights of civilians killed due to barbaric terrorism. It is patently clear that double standards are being adopted in treating gross human violations by the so-called big countries and allegations on human rights violations by countries such as Sri Lanka.

UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay’s handling of human rights issues against Sri Lanka and the West leaves much to be desired. Pillay should take cognizance that the UNHRC is not privy to her to put personal agendas in motion. It is the supreme duty of moderate member countries to prevent Pillay from exploiting the UNHRC to treat human rights issues as she so pleases.

It is crystal clear that Pillay’s bizarre concern for the human rights of terrorists killed while confronting a legitimate army of a sovereign country, has gone beyond the mandate under Resolution 19/2 which limits her role to reporting on the provision of technical assistance.

Minister of Plantation Industries and Special Envoy of the President on Human Rights, Mahinda Samarasinghe had told the UNHRC Sessions in Geneva that the Report refers several times to the United Nations Secretary General’s Advisory Panel of Experts’ (PoE) Report on Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka earlier called upon the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to delete all references to the Panel of Experts (PoE) Report as it was not referred to in Resolution 19/2. Hence, its reference in the OHCHR Report expands the ambit of the Report beyond the original scope and mandate of the Resolution.

On the other hand, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is not empowered to officially appoint a committee on Sri Lanka and the PoE was commissioned by the UN Secretary-General as a private consultation. Hence, the highly controversial PoE Report is by no means the product or a request of the UNHRC, or any other inter-governmental process for that matter. Neither has it received the endorsement of any inter-governmental body nor credence or legitimacy.

Pillay's recalcitrance to visit Sri Lanka is baffling the international community. Nevertheless, it is an open secret to most Sri Lankans as to why Pillay continues to postpone her scheduled visit to Sri Lanka. Any visitor to Sri Lanka would certainly perceive the peaceful coexistence that prevails among all communities, contrary to the gloomy picture projected by LTTE cohorts and a section of the Tamil diaspora.

Sri Lanka has been inviting the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit Sri Lanka since April 2011, following the country's ongoing engagement after terrorism was defeated. Despite her finding the time to visit the region in the recent past, in particular her visits to the South Asian sub-region within the past 12 months, she has been unable to schedule a visit to Sri Lanka and see for herself the remarkable transformation in the day-to-day lives of civilians liberated from the clutches of LTTE terror.

When over half a million hapless civilians in the North and the East had been subjected to untold misery, there was a deafening silence from Pillay and the UNHRC. At the time the LTTE forcibly held them as a human shield, neither the UNHRC nor the so-called international human rights watchdogs - Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch - came to their rescue.

It were only the brave sons of our soil who risked life and limb to rescue these civilians from the jaws of death. The Government resettled them in double quick time and afforded them all facilities. There is rapid development in the North and the East and a new lease of life has been opened for those civilians. However, Pillay and some UNHRC member states have conveniently ignored these stark facts and continue to sing hosannas for dead terrorists.

Minister Samarasinghe has expressed his strongest reservations on the content of the report on Sri Lanka and the procedure followed in formulating the document which bears number A/HRC/22/38. This report purports to be pursuant to Resolution L. 19/2 which Sri Lanka had rejected in toto. It is highly questionable as to how a technical mission, after a whistle-stop visit could produce such a document purporting to be a comprehensive report pursuant to L.19/2.

There is no doubt, whatsoever, that in its Report, the Office of the High Commissioner has gone beyond its mandate under Resolution 19/2 which limits her role to reporting on the provision of technical assistance in terms of OP3 thereof. The OHCHR has ventured into territory not envisaged by L.19/2 by making substantive recommendations. The recommendations contained in the Report introduce substantive measures which are totally unrelated to the mandate under 19/2.

The Report refers several times to the United Nations Secretary-General’s Advisory Panel of Experts’ (PoE) Report on Sri Lanka despite there being no provision to do so on a report filed by a panel appointed in a personal advisory capacity. Therefore, reference to it in the OHCHR Report expands the ambit of the Report beyond the original scope and mandate of the Resolution.

The conduct of the OHCHR team, on its return to Geneva, too is highly controversial and is worth a closer look. It chooses to brief a selected group of countries at an event hosted by a third country even before sharing the outcome of its visit with Sri Lanka either in Colombo or with its Permanent Mission in Geneva. Sri Lanka's Permanent Representative had, at the time, raised these concerns with Pillay.

It has now come to light how these sinister elements had operated in its lead-up to the UNHRC Sessions in Geneva. What is more interesting is that the new draft Resolution relies heavily on the OHCHR Report. Hence, it is as clear as daylight as to how these elements had operated under the guise of a fact-finding mission.

The Government has all along conducted itself in a transparent manner. It has nothing to hide and showcases to the world the new lease of life given to over half a million people rescued from the jaws of death.

The Government, in good faith, facilitated the visit of the OHCHR team, engaged in a dialogue with its Sri Lankan counterparts, and moreover, facilitated field visits and consultations with selected segments of the Sri Lanka polity. The High Commissioner herself too had welcomed the open access granted to her team.

It is deplorable that Pillay's team had exploited this opportunity for a specific hidden agenda. It was highly unethical on its part to make use of such an opportunity as a launching pad for a fresh Resolution against Sri Lanka, rather than an attempt to stay within its bounds of strictly following up on L.19/2 which stipulates the requirement of consultation and concurrence on the provision of technical assistance, consistent with Resolutions 5/1 and 5/2.

Despite its dissociation from L.19/2 and measures pursuant to that action in the Council, Sri Lanka has never ruled out cooperation with the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Sri Lanka had a Senior Advisor to the UN Country Team from the OHCHR following the tsunami devastation in December 2004.

Sri Lanka had hosted Pillay's predecessor Louise Arbour and her visit during the humanitarian operation in 2007 was characterised by open and constructive engagement.

Since 2008, the Senior Advisor from the High Commissioner’s Office contributed to the formulation of the National Action Plan on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Such conduct amply demonstrates Sri Lanka's willingness to work with the international community.

The international community should take a closer look at Sri Lanka’s milestone achievements since defeating terrorism and give the country sufficient time to go ahead in reconciliation. It should make a tangible contribution towards development in the North and the East as such deeds would go a long way to further improve the living standards of the Tamils and Muslims in these areas.