Consensual Resolution As A Compromise Solution

By Jehan Perera - February 17, 2014

Jehan Perera

Sri Lanka will be one of only three countries on which a substantive resolution, which calls for new forms of follow up actions, will be discussed at the session of the UN Human Rights Council next month.  The other two countries are North Korea and Myanmar.  However, in Myanmar’s case it will be a consensual resolution that is going to be passed, with the approval of the Myanmar government.  Therefore, unless a similar consensus is reached on Sri Lanka, the Sri Lankan government will alone with its North Korean counterpart to have a resolution that is to be passed against its wishes.  This is undoubtedly an regrettable situation for the government to have put itself and the country into because in objective terms Sri Lanka is nowhere near North Korea in being either an authoritarian regime or a threat to world peace.

Almost all foreigners who come to Sri Lanka for the first time are pleasantly surprised by the state of the country, not only its natural beauty, but also the vibrancy of its society and the appearance of reasonable democracy and freedom by third world standards.   It will be natural for most Sri Lankans to feel utterly indignant against the international alliance that seeks to portray their country as one that can be bracketed with North Korea in international forums like the UNHRC.  But sadly this infamy appears to be increasingly likely.  The European Parliament in Brussels  which represents 28 European countries last week passed a resolution calling for “an international inquiry to be fully independent, credible and transparent” into alleged war crimes.  Likewise a committee of the US Senate also called for an “international investigation into reports ofwar crimes, crimes against humanity and other human rights violations.”

Media reports and comments from top government leaders suggest that the Sri Lankan government is now bracing itself for defeat in the vote and to be at the receiving end of an adverse resolution.   The stakes are getting very high, especially after the UN Human Rights Commissioner Navanethem Pillay’s recommendation that there be no amnesty for war crimes, which indicates a willingness to take on the Sri Lankan government leadership in a battle to the finish with no hope of reconciliation.  It was ill-advised of the government to have believed it could defeat a resolution promoted by the two leading superpowers of the world, the US and EU and to fight it rather than to negotiate.   It would be advisable for the government to seek to moderate its position that totally rejects an international role in investigating the past.  Fighting to win became more impossible after it became clear that the country was internally divided on the issue.      Read More