A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Search This Blog
Back to 500BC.
==========================
Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Nations
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Wednesday, March 20, 2019
UN Human Rights Council:mere formality, get over with it
- SL will come under the scrutiny of member states during the ongoing 40th Session of the Human Rights Council (HRC) this week
For years, foreign policy mandarins and their political bosses in this
country lived and re-lived a lie that Sri Lanka’s destiny would be
decided in Geneva. They were joined by the acolytes of the Tamil Tiger
terrorists, their financers and paid and otherwise propagandists, who
made the gullible in the diaspora part ways with their hard currencies,
thinking that they were winning the war that the Tigers lost in May
2009.
That debate had lost its intensity since then, but, still there are
those both in the South, and Toronto who prefer to live the old lie. In
the meantime, UNHRC sessions have become a mere formality, though an
unwanted and uneasy one for Sri Lanka.
As another session of the UN Human Rights Council on Sri Lanka is
underway this week, the debate has shifted too. Opposition Leader
Mahinda Rajapaksa who had demanded that the government withdraw its
co-sponsorship of the resolution.
Sri
Lanka will come under the scrutiny of member states during the ongoing
40th Session of the Human Rights Council (HRC) this week. First, the
Report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on
‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka’
will be taken up for discussion on March 20th..
On the following day, a draft resolution on Sri Lanka on the same theme, which Sri Lanka would co-sponsor, is scheduled to be taken up.
On the following day, a draft resolution on Sri Lanka on the same theme, which Sri Lanka would co-sponsor, is scheduled to be taken up.
The report by the UN Human rights Commissioner is a rather unglamorous
one; probably her office had outsourced the compiling of the report to
Yasmin Zooka’s Tiger front group, Truth and Justice Project. When those
folks write, they often leave finger prints.
It goes on to allege that ‘ there is virtually no progress on the
investigation of war crimes,’ ‘reports of harassment or surveillance of
human rights defenders and of victims of human rights violations have
continued, OHCHR has continued to receive credible information about
cases of abduction, unlawful detention, torture and sexual violence by
Sri Lanka security forces, which allegedly took place in 2016 to 2018’
and raises concerns about the approach and lack of results of the office
of missing persons.
It recommends that the Government:
(a) Accede to the additional protocols to the Geneva Conventions and to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court;
(b) Enact legislation to criminalize war crimes, crimes against
humanity, genocide and enforced disappearances without statutes of
limitation, and enact internationally recognized modes of criminal
liability, in particular with regard to command or superior
responsibility;
(c) Adopt legislation establishing a hybrid court to investigate
allegations of violations and abuses of international human rights law
and violations of international humanitarian law” and
The High Commissioner recommends that Member States:(a) Urge the Human Rights Council to continue its close engagement with the Government of Sri Lanka and to monitor developments in the country;
The High Commissioner recommends that Member States:(a) Urge the Human Rights Council to continue its close engagement with the Government of Sri Lanka and to monitor developments in the country;
(b) Investigate and prosecute, wherever possible, in particular in
accordance with universal jurisdiction principles, those allegedly
responsible for such violations as torture, enforced disappearance, war
crimes or crimes against humanity; and explore other options to advance
accountability in the absence of credible domestic processes.
(c) Continue to accompany the people of Sri Lanka in their efforts to
address past human rights violations by supporting the establishment of
adequate systems of accountability, justice and reconciliation
This report is worth its salt only to the extent as to how seriously it
is taken by the member states- and particularly, Sri Lanka. The
government of Sri Lanka has a responsibility to put the partisan nature
of the report in the perspective, and perhaps to ensure that its future
cooperation with the office of the High Commissioner of human rights is
conditional upon an objective approach on the part of the latter.
The government should make clear that as much as it is willing to
address legitimate concerns, it would defend its national interests
determinedly and unapologetically.
The threat of universal jurisdiction is more academic than real. Few
countries would dare exploring it. Such actions should trigger
reciprocation through appropriate means. Some countries, for instance
Canada and the UK may succumb to constitutional pressure. However, in
the vast array of foreign policy opportunities that are available for
Sri Lanka, relations with Canada, or even the post Brexit UK are not the
most consequential.
And the resolution (A/HRC/40/L.1) that Sri Lanka would cosponsor is proof of this evolving international approach.
Unlike the report by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the new
resolution is innocuous. It would be moved by a core group of Canada,
Germany, Montenegro, North Macedonia and the United Kingdom and Northern
Ireland.
It requests Office of the High Commissioner to continue to assess the
progress on the implementation of its recommendations and to present a
written update to the Human Rights Council at its forty-third session,
and a comprehensive report, followed by a discussion on the
implementation of Council resolution 30/1, at its forty-sixth session.
It “takes note with appreciation of the comprehensive report presented
by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to the Human
Rights Council at its fortieth session, as requested by the Council in
its resolution 34/1, and requests the Government of Sri Lanka to
implement fully the measures identified by the Council in its resolution
30/1 that are outstanding;”
“Welcomes the positive engagement of the Government of Sri Lanka with
the High Commissioner and the Office of the High Commissioner since
October 2015, and with relevant special procedure mandate holders, and
encourages the continuation of that engagement in the promotion and
protection of human rights and truth, justice, reconciliation and
accountability in Sri Lanka;”
“Requests the Office of the High Commissioner and relevant special
procedure mandate holders, in consultation with and with the concurrence
of the Government of Sri Lanka, to continue to strengthen their advice
and technical assistance on the promotion and protection of human rights
and truth, justice, reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka;”
“Requests the Office of the High Commissioner to continue to assess
progress on the implementation of its recommendations and other relevant
processes related to reconciliation, accountability and human rights in
Sri Lanka, and to present a written update to the Human Rights Council
at its forty-third session, and a comprehensive report, followed by a
discussion on the implementation of Council resolution 30/1, at its
forty-sixth session.”
After the election of the new administration of Messrs. Sirisena and
Wickremesinghe, Sri Lanka, encouraged by the United States, offered to
cooperate with the UNHRC and cosponsored a resolution, a decision which
was criticized by the political opposition back home.
Cooperation with the UNHRC might not have dissipated the anti-Sri Lanka
propaganda, and ideological prejudice of the stakeholders within the
office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights. However, it has not
done a major harm either. Sri Lanka has managed to ride the adverse
global scrutiny of the past, and is now in a position to charter its own
course vis-a-vis the UN Human Rights Council.
However, our domestic contention over the UNHRC has not given away.
The Rajapaksa regime’s inability to address global concerns was due to its domestic political calculations.
The Rajapaksas perpetuated a fallacy of a zero civilian casualty, and
wanted the sycophant foreign policy makers to advance a position which
no one in the world believed. That egoistic buffoonery led to two
adverse resolutions.
The new government’s U turn, gave it time and scope. Now, when the
country revisits the resolution, much of the international interest in
it has died away.
Also, Sri Lanka, partly thanks to the ongoing power shift in the
international politics, and the US retreat, is in a better position to
advance its interests.
However, none of that did help Sri Lanka to address the malfunction in
its domestic policies. It has failed to reach a domestic consensus on
its position on the UNHRC resolution and the existing challenges in
addressing legitimate grievances of Tamils. The failure was due to the
vested interests that had always overshadowed the national interest.
Last week, Mahinda Rajapaksa, the ex- president issued a media
statement, asking Sr Lanka to withdraw its co-sponsorship of the
resolution.
Mr Rajapaksa asked:
a) That Sri Lanka would no longer co-sponsor resolutions against itself in the UNHRC.
b) That Sri Lanka does not accept the allegations made in OHCHR Report No: 30/61 of 28 September 2015.
c) That hybrid war crimes courts with foreign judges and prosecutors would never be set up in Sri Lanka.
d) That Acts No: 14 of 2016, No: 5 of 2018 and No: 24 of 2018 which are
highly detrimental to Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and the fundamental rights
of its citizens, will be repealed and replaced with legislation more in
keeping with our national interest.
But, why on earth should Sri Lanka withdraw from the UNHRC resolution?
The previous co-sponsorship had served Sri Lanka’s interests and diluted
international interest. Now what we are taking part is a mere
formality. Similarly, what benefits that Sri Lanka would accrue by
withdrawing its co-sponsorship is not clear. In other words, there is no
major harm by being part of it. In the same vein, the current
conditions give Sri Lanka enough leeway to demand an objective
assessment by the office of the high commissioner. If Sri Lanka chooses
to walk back on its commitments, it should have a good enough reason to
do so. None exists at the moment. And we will have to reach out
traditional partners such as China, before we kick the can down.
However, at the moment, no such exigency exists. Why should Sri Lanka
rock the boat, when it has the opportunity for smooth sailing? Only a
cavemen advising foreign policy to Mr Rajapaksa can argue otherwise. :
Follow @RangaJayasuriya on Twitter