By Sarah Hannan  With the 46th Session of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) fast approaching, the Government of Sri Lanka has been pushed to take crucial decisions on how it plans to address the human rights violation allegations that it failed to investigate and present findings on under the HR Resolution 30/1, which it withdrew from co-sponsoring last year.   It is not only the matters of the UNHRC that the country has to deal with – its foreign policy is being challenged due to several disagreements surfacing over long-standing bilateral relations with several countries that have helped Sri Lanka in its development process.  Foreign Affairs Minister Dinesh Gunawardena responded to some of our queries.  Following are excerpts of the interview:  Attempts to course-correct Sri Lanka’s foreign policy that has undergone several changes due to regime changes seem to have reached a deadlock, with Sri Lanka failing to hold its end of the agreement with long-standing bilateral relations with India, China, and Japan. How does your administration plan to ensure that the foreign relations with these countries continue to stand? Sri Lanka’s relations with our neighbours India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and the rest of the SAARC countries, including the Maldives and Nepal, have been very friendly and constructive. As you have mentioned, Japan has continued to maintain strong relations with our country. There have been issues that have come up on and off, but overall, Sri Lanka and India, Sri Lanka and Japan, and other SAARC country relationships, have been very positive because of our non-aligned neutral policy.  We think that we have been able to continue with them with the understanding of our future projects and in relation to specific matters, as the President and the Government have invited all our neighbouring countries, as well as private investments, to participate in Sri Lanka’s development work.  Isn’t the Government worried about the consequences it would face once the terms change, should any of these countries discontinue their long-standing support towards the development work being carried out in several sectors of the country?  We have had a very long history of projects and investments and trade agreements with these countries. Most of the progress has been under the leadership of our progressing governments and we always question or criticise them. But overall, what Sri Lanka has gained by these investments has been very positive. We have now gone into new areas in our development projects as a result of their investments and we must not forget the contribution from the private sector as well in terms of attracting investment, contributing with the technological know-how that has helped the country to progress.   Therefore, reviewing these agreements has taken place among so many countries, not just the one or two countries that you are focusing on.  The granting of a renewable energy generation plant in the islands off the Jaffna peninsula to a Chinese company has once again raised concerns in India. How does the Government plan to address this issue?   The Delft Island project for renewable energy is a project that has gone through within the normal process of awarding the tender to the company. There are aspects that need to be considered when countries that have an agreement with us raise issues. But our Mannar offshore renewable energy project also went ahead amidst most of them doubting its success; in that sense, Sri Lanka and India was able to go ahead with these projects, which are still to be completed. Sri Lanka too has to achieve certain targets that have been set for the projects.   Sri Lanka withdrew from its co-sponsorship during last year's UNHRC session, promising to conduct the necessary inquiries within the country. What is the progress on this? The Sri Lankan Government at the time, that is in 2015, went into co-sponsorship of Resolution 30/1, by going against our own country and our own military personnel, violating the Constitution of Sri Lanka, for which we very clearly suggested that there will be no provision for foreign judges.  Lord Naseby of the House of Commons has exposed confidential papers of the British Government, which indicated that the figures were all wrong when we went and co-sponsored and voted against our own country by participating in the 30/1 Resolution co-sponsorship.  The mandate given to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa was very clear; he was to defend our sovereignty and Constitution, and to work within the Constitution. Last February, on that mandate, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, I went to Geneva and placed before the Human Rights Commission, the key arguments of this matter, and said that we are withdrawing from the co-sponsorship, as we cannot violate our Constitution.  We agreed to have a programme of action to protect our sovereignty by: 

1. Appointing a Supreme Court Judge to inquire into all these commission reports and if there is any new evidence to be placed – who was appointed by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. 
2. The amendments to the PTA are under review, and the Justice Ministry is studying them in relation to those in custody under the PTA, with the Justice Minister making clear statements in the House that the process is being reviewed. 
3. In achieving the Sustainable Development Goals set up by the UN, we are progressing in implementation, and we are working within the UN network in all matters. 

So, why are we being selected today to be targeted for various unreasonable resolutions, when even their whole conclusion on figures is totally wrong?  Let us not forget that the LTTE is banned by all these countries. The Commissioner’s report should remember that the LTTE is banned by all these countries, and the ban is renewed every year, because that terror organisation was regarded as the most deadly terrorist organisation in the world.  Getting back to development and better livelihoods, reconciliation, and democracy right across the country is what we have committed ourselves to, and we stand by that principle.  What progress has been made with the Core Group on Sri Lanka at the UNHRC regarding the resolution to be presented at the 46th session?  There is a report by the Commissioner, to which we have answered and rejected most of the report’s substance. We responded, stating that we do not agree with it, and point by point we have explained this to the Commissioner’s office at the UNHRC.  We have also rejected the proposal, as the Commissioner’s recommendations were based on wrongful conclusions that violated the structure of sovereignty, not only of Sri Lanka, but it will give precedence to violating the sovereignty of all democratic sovereign states that have come together at the UN.  Therefore, the Core Group has been given an explanation about Sri Lanka’s position. The Core Group is represented by the ambassadors in Colombo to note the correct situation in Sri Lanka. We have explained, and they are aware that a commission has been appointed; thus, the domestic mechanism that is established can be strengthened and taken forward.   We need to question whether they are against Sri Lanka implementing the Sustainable Development Goals declared by the UN; are they not interested in seeing these legislations that they have been calling for review being attended to?  Sri Lanka is one of the oldest democratic countries in the world. We have acted democratically, and having said that, we will go ahead with the democratic process to support Sri Lanka in working with the UN.  Will the Government agree to a consensual resolution, or look to counter the resolution presented by the Core Group? Sri Lanka has not agreed to any consensual resolution and Sri Lanka’s position is very clear.  Take, for instance, the British Government’s stance now, to bring in laws to free members of their armed forces who have been found guilty; is it a one-sided decision by the British Government to grant these pardons, while other countries should not even inquire into whether they had an inquiry? The US left the UNHRC, and now announced that they will join as an observer. So, let us see whether our long-standing relations with these countries would progress for the betterment of Sri Lanka and all its citizens, whom our Government is committed to serve.  Members within the governing side seem to be confused about the stance that your administration will take during the upcoming UNHRC session, with contradicting statements made by Cabinet Ministers, Ministry Secretaries, and then the Envoy for Sri Lanka in New York. Have you all managed to arrive at a common understanding on the decision that the Government has taken?  Yes, we have. Some proposals were made, and we have arrived at a common understanding. We have submitted all our reports and replies based on our conclusions. The Commission therefore has to be impartial in making conclusions.  It is very sad that this time, we will not have the UN sessions with the participation of delegations as before, as they would be virtual, and we will face a very serious situation in relation to timely discussions and debates, obtaining views that are normally the principle under which UN agents have worked with right along.  In January, your Secretary (Retd.) Admiral Jayanath Colombage told us that the proposed amendments to the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) requested by the UN Human Rights Chief and the European Union were submitted to the Attorney General’s Department for consideration. Have you received any feedback from them?   Yes, we have had continued discussions and as I said before, it is under review. In 2019, there was a general agreement in Parliament when we were in the Opposition; we even met the EU delegation and ambassadors, and records were clear that what the governments at that time had presented was very draconian, and that it had to be withdrawn. Even the civil society opposed it.  Let us all not forget these things. We continue as political representatives to the people, and we will bring about conscience within Sri Lanka on the PTA, and it is our principle and goal towards which we are working to fast-track the country’s development.  What progress has the commission recently appointed to fact-find into grave human rights violations made over the past weeks?   We are moving into all aspects through the commission, which is headed by a Supreme Court judge and others. We will also consider all reports that have been submitted so far, such as the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), the Paranagama Report, all other relevant reports and papers that can be called for, and any new evidence that could be gathered.  The independent Supreme Court judge will chair and steer the commission to conduct these inquiries, so that all relevant parties will be updated on its progress.  Will the comments made by Sri Lanka's envoy at the UN on the UNHRC result in an adverse situation where the country is included in the UN General Assembly agenda?   I think the Human Rights Council’s position is based/biased on matters presented by various organisations, limiting countries’ ability to act by moving resolutions, but this has to be done in relation to each country. Any report or reference has to be studied separately and assessed and debated, and conclusions reached only after that in Geneva. We are members of the UN like all other countries. So many countries are being picked and pinpointed at in this report, which is not fair. There has to be a clear understanding, study, and review by all parties concerned.   I must also add that we should not forget that the world is currently going through the Covid-19 pandemic. It is the last century’s worst period that the world has experienced, and can be considered worse than war, because wars are fought in different geographic locations and affect the countries that were involved in them. The pandemic, on the other hand, is affecting everyone in the world and still, the world is battling to control the situation and trying to get people vaccinated. It is an important human right that the world body has to consider and all its subsidiary agencies should consider.  Sri Lanka is still going through the pandemic like all the other countries, and these are not normal times for people to make generalisations without proper study. That is why we say that matters presented at the UNHRC need to be studied and discussed; send teams to each country to assess the ground reality and understand the constitutions and democracies of each country and move forward.