President Mahinda Rajapaksa has constantly being stating that the country needs time to address reconciliation issues after the war. Sri Lankans have believed the President’s words given that he had managed to end a three decade long war.
However, nearly four years after the end of the war, the international community knows that the government of Sri Lanka has had the time and space to address immediate issues of alleged human rights violations and accountability.
US Ambassador to Sri Lanka, Michelle Sisson told a group of senior journalists during a discussion on Friday that the government has had ample time and space to address a number of concerns, especially to address allegations of violations of human rights and international humanitarian laws.
She observed that the resolution that was adopted last week was built on the resolution adopted last year and included some new elements.
She explained that the resolution was a message from a broad cross section that even included nations that are not in the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC).
“The expectation is that the government of Sri Lanka heard this message coming from a broad cross section,” Sisson said, adding that the 40 plus countries that co-sponsored the resolution and those who voted in favour of it were looking at the constructive role of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to continue to report on these issues.
When inquired whether the US believed that the government of Sri Lanka would implement the recommendations in the report by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights given the critical comments made against Navi Pillay and her office by Sri Lanka, Sisson told The Sunday Leader that the resolution has given a strong message with “a majority of the Council sitting and saying yes to a resolution that shows appreciation to the efforts by the High Commissioner and her office.”
According to Sisson, the US resolutions are for “the international community to come together to encourage Sri Lanka to do more”.
The US has clearly maintained its focus on Sri Lanka and had managed to include the country and its government on the agenda of the UNHRC from last year.
Following the adoption of last week’s resolution, Sri Lanka will figure at the 24th sessions of the UNHRC in September this year and at the 25th session next year.
The US National Security Council Spokesperson Caitlin Hayden’s statement following the adoption of the resolution was that the vote sent a clear message that the international community is committed to working with the government of Sri Lanka to promote greater peace, stability and prosperity for all of the people of Sri Lanka.
Spotlight on India
Apart from Sri Lanka, the 22nd session of the UNHRC and the adoption of the US resolution on Sri Lanka have also placed India in the spotlight.
The days that led to the vote in Geneva saw turmoil on the domestic political front in India.
The first issue was the pressure by South India on the Centre to support the US backed resolution on Sri Lanka.
This was followed by calls from the South Indian polity for New Delhi to move another resolution on war crimes against Sri Lanka.
Finally, once the vote concluded with India voting in favour of the resolution, the South Indian politicians expressed their dissatisfaction with New Delhi for supporting a watered down resolution.
The Indian media widely reported that the US had rejected seven amendments to the resolution on Sri Lanka, which were submitted to the UNHRC.
India’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Dileep Sinha, was summoned to New Delhi last week and Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai had asked him to move seven amendments. But once Sinha had returned to Geneva, his American counterpart had reportedly objected to moving amendments to the resolution.
The Indian media had stated that the US had told India that it wanted the resolution to have broader support and so could not accommodate the Indian proposals.
However, US Ambassador Sisson said that the resolution was prepared following a consultative process where all delegates worked together.
Meanwhile, expressing ‘surprise’ over India supporting a ‘weak’ and ‘diluted’ US resolution against Sri Lanka, former UPA ally DMK had said New Delhi had by its action “totally disappointed” the entire Tamil Diaspora.
DMK parliamentary party leader T. R. Baalu had told the Press Trust of India (PTI) that they had wanted India to propose amendments in order to declare that Sri Lanka had committed “genocide, human rights violations and war crimes”.
“We (also) wanted to have amendments for an independent, credible, international inquiry into war crimes and human rights violations committed by Sri Lanka. But to our surprise, the government of India has simply supported a diluted and a weak resolution,” he had said.
India had not even tried to propose any amendments to the US-backed resolution which was adopted by 25-13 margin with eight abstentions, he had said.
“The Government of India has totally disappointed not only the eight crore Tamil population but the entire Tamil Diaspora as well,” Baalu had added.
The Indian delegation said at the UNHRC on the day of the vote that it believes that the report of the LLRC and its findings and recommendation provides a window of opportunity to forge a consensual way forward towards a lasting political settlement through genuine national reconciliation and the full enjoyment of human rights by all its citizens.
India noted with concern the inadequate progress by Sri Lanka in fulfilling its commitment to this Council in 2009.
Furthermore, India called on Sri Lanka to move forward on its public commitments, including on the devolution of political authority through full implementation of the 13th Amendment and building upon it.
As Sri Lanka’s closest neighbour, India said it remains engaged in a substantial way in the relief, resettlement, rehabilitation and reconstruction process in that country. Their efforts have contributed to the resettlement of Internally Displaced Persons and the rebuilding of infrastructure and development, especially in the Northern and the Eastern Provinces of Sri Lanka.
While noting the commitment of Sri Lanka to hold elections to the Northern Provincial Council in September 2013, the Indian delegation said India expects the people of the province to be able to exercise their democratic rights freely and without delay as guaranteed to them by the Sri Lankan Constitution.
Be that as it may, India’s decision to vote in favour of the resolution on Sri Lanka was based on resolving the crises that were brewing on its home front and the inability to distance itself from an issue New Delhi had supported last year. This year’s resolution was crucial for India since it highlighted the lack of progress on many fronts, especially on reconciliation by the Rajapaksa government.
Since the end of the war, New Delhi had been at the receiving end of many veiled assurances and undertakings by the Rajapaksa government on reconciliation and a political solution to the ethnic issue.
Next step
The Rajapaksa government needs to now take stock of what happened in Geneva.
Instead of playing the role of a spoilt brat making angry statements at Big Brother India for voting in favour of the resolution on Sri Lanka, the Rajapaksa government if astute should look at the wrong moves made by the administration.
It would be wise for the government to understand that the “village thug” attitude would not do any good for Sri Lanka before the international community and that diplomacy does not mean bowing to another’s dictates.
These misconceptions need to be rectified by the Rajapaksa government if the country is to prevent a severe censure by the international community in future.
Be that as it may, given the statement by a senior government official expressing disappointment at India’s decision to vote in favour of the resolution, hope of the Rajapaksa government reflecting its actions seem quite dim.
A diplomat in Colombo last week said in lighter vein that government allies might now be busy painting placards with anti-Indian slogans to carry around Colombo while some others would call for a boycott of Indian products in Sri Lanka.
True to these words, an ally of the Rajapaksa government, the JHU had said last week that Sri Lanka needed to re-think its diplomatic ties with India given the recent attacks on Sri Lankans in South India and India’s vote in favour of the resolution.
A clinical analysis on the vote in Geneva would show that the Rajapaksa government while understanding that New Delhi was pushed to such a stance due to Colombo’s shortcomings, realises that serious attention needs to be paid to the anti-Muslim campaign carried out in the country by certain extremist Sinhalese elements.
The government boasted saying that Sri Lanka had managed to receive the support of the Muslim countries at the UNHRC.
The government should then extend that gratitude and respect to the Muslim community in the country without turning a blind eye to the hate campaign being unleashed by extremist elements.
The Rajapaksa government has to get its act together and nearly four years after the end of the war, it is high time that the administration starts addressing the real issues faced by the country.
The Commonwealth
The Rajapaksas are now focused on the Commonwealth and it is now more important than ever to play host to the 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM).
Now that the Geneva debacle has ended, in true spirit of the Rajapaksa government, the resolution would be put on the backburner until six months prior to the 25th session of the UNHRC in Geneva next year.
The next hurdle for the Rajapaksa government is the meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) that is to meet next month.
Canada is pushing hard for the inclusion of Sri Lanka on to the CMAG agenda based on the fact that the Rajapaksa government had violated the Latimer House Principles in the impeachment of Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake.
CMAG deals with serious or persistent violations of the Harare Declaration, which contains the Commonwealth’s fundamental political values.
CMAG’s task is to assess the nature of infringements and recommend measures for collective Commonwealth action aimed at speedy restoration of democracy and constitutional rule.
The current membership of the group is: Australia, Bangladesh (Chair), Canada, Jamaica, Maldives (currently suspended), Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago and Vanuatu.
Last week’s visit to Sri Lanka by Canada’s special envoy to the Commonwealth, Senator Hugh Segal was sought by members of the civil society and religious leaders to explain the plight of the country’s post war reconciliation process.
Jaffna Bishop Rt. Rev. Thomas Soundaranayagam during a meeting with Segal had said the post war reconciliation has been slow and that the Tamil people were faced with many issues in the North.
Segal has openly stated that the purpose of his visit to Sri Lanka will be to act as a fact finder for Canada’s Foreign Minister.
Canada says Prime Minister Stephen Harper will not attend the CHOGM in Sri Lanka unless there is an improvement in the human rights situation in Sri Lanka.
Given the adoption of a second resolution at the UNHRC, it is evident that progress on the human rights and accountability fronts is yet to be achieved.
However, the Rajapaksa government has been lobbying hard with the Bangladeshi government, which is chairing the CMAG, for support in the face of Canada’s campaign to discuss Sri Lanka at the next meeting and to move CHOGM out of Colombo.
For all the saber rattling by the Rajapaksa government that it would face any challenge at the UNHRC and any resolution, the impact of the adoption of resolutions, especially on an annual basis will have far reaching implications.
It would indeed be interesting to see whether the Rajapaksa government has the political will and maturity to comprehend and take appropriate action in order to minimize the ill effects the country would have to face in the future.
0 comments:
Post a Comment