By Skandha Gunasekara The Government’s decision to withdraw from its co-sponsorship of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Resolution on Sri Lanka has been criticised by the international community while the Commissioner for Human Rights has rejected Sri Lanka’s proposal to appoint another Commission of Inquiry (CoI) to probe war crimes committed during the civil war. However, the US and India have been non-committal on Sri Lanka’s decision. On Wednesday (26), Minister of Foreign Affairs Dinesh Gunawardena, addressing the 43rd Session of the Human Rights Council – High Level Segment, officially withdrew from the co-sponsorship of Resolution 40/1 on “Promoting reconciliation, accountability, and human rights in Sri Lanka”. “According to the wishes of the people of Sri Lanka, while following a non-aligned, neutral foreign policy, our Government is committed to examining issues afresh, to forge ahead with its agenda for ‘prosperity through security and development’, and to find home-grown solutions to overcome contemporary challenges in the best interest of all Sri Lankans. “It is in this context that I wish to place on record Sri Lanka’s decision to withdraw from co-sponsorship of Resolution 40/1 on ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability, and human rights in Sri Lanka’ which also incorporates and builds on preceding Resolutions 30/1 of October 2015 and 34/1 of March 2017.” The Government laid out a plethora of reasons as to why they decided to withdraw from the co-sponsorship of the Resolution, ranging from not having the approval of the Sri Lankan people to co-sponsor the Resolution, to it being a cause for the 2019 April Easter Sunday terror attacks. Gunawardena said that Resolution 40/1 infringed upon the sovereignty of the people of Sri Lanka as well as breached the provisions of Sri Lanka’s Constitution. “Constitutionally, the Resolution seeks to cast upon Sri Lanka obligations that cannot be carried out within its constitutional framework and it infringes the sovereignty of the people of Sri Lanka and violates the basic structure of the Constitution. This is another factor that has prompted Sri Lanka to reconsider its position on co-sponsorship.” The Minister noted that in co-sponsoring the Resolution, the previous UNP-led Government had violated all democratic principles of governance as it declared support for the Resolution even before the draft text was presented, sought no Cabinet approval to bind the country to deliver on the dictates of an international body, had no reference to the Parliament processes, undertakings, and repercussions of such co-sponsorship, and included provisions which were undeliverable due to its inherent illegality, being in violation of the Constitution – the supreme law of the country. “The commitments made bound the country to carry out this experiment, which was impractical, unconstitutional, and undeliverable, despite strong opposition and evidence that many of the undertakings couldn’t be carried out, merely to please a few countries,” he noted. He said that the Resolution has “eroded Sri Lankans’ trust in the international system” and that the changes enforced on Sri Lanka through Resolutions 30/1 of October 2015 and 34/1 of March 2017 had weakened national security which had allowed the Easter bombings to take place “Most seriously, it is seen that the dictated changes in the country pursuant to 30/1 undermined national interest and compromised national security, including weakening national intelligence operations and related safeguards which are deemed to have contributed to the lapses that resulted in the Easter Sunday attacks in April 2019, which targeted churches and hotels resulting in loss of life, including those of foreign nationals, which poses challenges to our Government to restore national security.” The Minister went on to say that despite withdrawing from co-sponsorship, Sri Lanka would remain committed to achieving the goals set by the people of Sri Lanka on accountability and human rights, towards sustainable peace and reconciliation. He said that the Sri Lankan Government would seek to achieve sustainable peace through an “inclusive, domestically designed, and executed reconciliation and accountability process”, which include the appointments of a fresh Commission of Inquiry (CoI). “This would comprise the appointment of a CoI headed by a Justice of the Supreme Court to review the reports of previous Sri Lankan CoIs which investigated alleged violations of human rights and international humanitarian law (IHL), to assess the status of implementation of their recommendations and to propose deliverable measures to implement them, keeping in line with the new Government’s policy.” However, on Thursday (27), UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet, presenting a report on Sri Lanka to the UNHRC in Geneva, rejected the move by the Sri Lankan Government to appoint another CoI to address issues related to human rights violations. Bachelet said that domestic processes have consistently failed to deliver accountability in the past and thus she was not convinced that the appointment of yet another CoI would see any positive development, and indicated her regret that the incumbent Government had announced a different approach to the commitments previously made in Resolution 30/1. “As a result, victims remain denied justice and Sri Lankans from all communities have no guarantee that past patterns of human rights violations will not recur. The State must work for all its people and the needs of all communities; particularly the minorities must be acknowledged and addressed. I urge the Government to preserve and build upon the gains which have been made over the last few years. In particular, I encourage the Government to ensure the Office on Missing Persons and the Office for Reparations are provided with political and resource support. The families of missing persons from all communities deserve justice and redress,” she said. Meanwhile, a number of countries have also expressed their disappointment over Sri Lanka leaving the co-sponsorship. State Minister for the Commonwealth and UN at the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office Lord Tariq Ahmad, said he expressed deep disappointment over Sri Lanka’s decision during his meeting with Minister Gunawardena. “(I) had my first meeting today with Foreign (Affairs) Minister Gunawardena and expressed deep disappointment that Sri Lanka has withdrawn support for the UNHRC Resolution. I urged Sri Lanka to protect human rights and focus on reconciliation, justice, and accountability,” Lord Ahmad said. Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister François-Philippe Champagne said Canada is disappointed by Sri Lanka’s decision to change its approach to the UNHRC Resolution on accountability and reconciliation. “Canada calls on Sri Lanka to take further action on these priorities and stands ready to support a prosperous and inclusive Sri Lanka,” the Minister tweeted. The European Union (EU) too, in a statement to the UNHRC, has called on Sri Lanka to establish an action plan to affirm its commitment to reconciliation, the rule of law, the protection of civil society, independent media, and human rights. “We are concerned that the Government of Sri Lanka no longer supports the framework of Resolution 30/1 to address the legacy of the past conflict and to foster accountability, reconciliation, and human rights with the support of the Council,” the EU said. A senior French diplomat, French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs Director for Asia and Oceania Thierry Mathou, who was on a one-day visit to Sri Lanka, asserted that despite Sri Lanka withdrawing from its co-sponsorship of Resolution 40/1, the Resolution itself was still standing and legally binding. “Sri Lanka’s decision to withdraw from co-sponsorship of the UNHCR Resolution doesn’t mean the Resolution has disappeared. The Resolution is still on the table. It is legally binding,” Mathou said. He said that Sri Lanka would be judged on facts and that reconciliation and peace were key priorities. “We understand it is a political decision, so we don’t comment, but the Resolution remains on the table. Human rights are part of the French DNA, so this issue is obviously an important one for us. The fight is against impunity. Finding victims of abductions is a priority. The objective towards reconciliation and peace remains,” he said. Meanwhile, when The Sunday Morning reached out to the US Embassy on its stance regarding Sri Lanka’s withdrawal, an embassy official refused to comment further than that the Sri Lankan Government should be consulted as to why it withdrew from co-sponsoring the Resolution. “You should speak with the Government of Sri Lanka as to the reasons why they withdrew from the co-sponsorship,” a spokesperson of the US Embassy in Sri Lanka said. The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) said that it was in total disagreement with the Government’s decision to withdraw from the Resolution. TNA Leader R. Sampanthan said: “We are in total disagreement with the Government’s decision to withdraw from the Resolution. Much harm could be done from the withdrawal.” He went on to say that the TNA would take all the necessary steps in ensuring that investigations are carried out and those responsible for war crimes are held accountable. “We will do all that is necessary to ensure that those who violated international humanitarian laws are investigated and held accountable and that the matter is brought to an end through impartial and independent investigations.” Repeated attempts made even up until the paper went to print via phone and e-mail to reach an Indian High Commission Spokesman failed.