-
Govt. draws plan to engage with int’l community
-
Modi faces backlash for not backing resolution
-
Focus returns to 13A and holding PC polls
-
Cabinet to take up draft PC Bill tomorrow
Sri Lanka has once again returned to the agenda of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) with last week’s adoption of the resolution moved by the Core Group on Sri Lanka at the 46th Council Sessions in Geneva.
As the UNHRC has taken immediate action for the implementation of the resolution, Sri Lanka’s Foreign Ministry has also initiated its action plan to address the resolution and on the action to be taken at the upcoming 76th Sessions of the UN General Assembly.
After the vote at UNHRC, Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena last week had briefed the Cabinet of Ministers and explained the need to constantly engage with the international community, especially with member states of the Council.
He had explained that the Government always resorts to lobbying the international community for support only when a resolution on Sri Lanka is to be taken up for a vote and that this situation has to be changed for more effective results during a vote.
Gunawardena had noted that the Council could be pressured if Sri Lanka could sway a few more states in its support.
Accordingly, the Minister had proposed that the Government should consider providing monthly updates on the situation in the country to member states to avoid the misconceptions about the country before the UNHRC.
The Government is also contemplating action to be taken at the UN General Assembly over the fund allocations requested by the UNHRC to implement the resolution on Sri Lanka. The UNHRC has sought $ 2.8 million for resolution implementation.
The Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is to appoint 12 investigators on Sri Lanka to engage in the investigative and evidence-gathering mechanism while also seeking the approval for the programme budget that has also proposed four trips for staff members for fact-finding, information collection, and awareness-raising. Among the new recruits will be legal advisors with experience in international criminal justice and/or criminal investigations and prosecutions to co-ordinate the team and oversee an information and evidence collection strategy; analysts; two investigators/human rights officers; and victim support officers.
[caption id="" align="alignright" width="292"]
Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena[/caption]
The resolution has called on the Office of the High Commissioner to enhance its monitoring and reporting on the situation of human rights in Sri Lanka, including on the progress in reconciliation and accountability.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet has also been told to present an oral update to the Human Rights Council at its 48th Session and a written update at its 49th Session, as well as a comprehensive report that includes further options for advancing accountability at its 51st Session, both to be discussed in the context of an interactive dialogue.
It was Pakistani Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva Khalil Hashmi who noted that the allocation of such a large amount of money raised serious concerns when the UNHRC was facing a liquidity crisis. He made this observation prior to the vote on the resolution last Tuesday (23).
The vote on the Resolution which was submitted by the UN Core Group of countries on Sri Lanka took place on Tuesday, a day later than was originally planned due to delays in the schedule.
The vote on Resolution A/HRC/46/L.1 was first on the agenda for Tuesday when the UNHRC sessions commenced.
The resolution was adopted with 22 UNHRC member states voting in favour of it and 11 against, along with 14 abstentions.
According to Amnesty International, the “resolution not only ramps up international monitoring and scrutiny of the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, but also mandates the UN human rights office to collect, consolidate, and preserve evidence for future prosecutions and make recommendations to the international community on steps they can make to deliver on justice and accountability”.
However, Foreign Minister Gunawardena last week noted at the UNHRC, soon after the vote, that the Government was happy with the outcome of the vote.
According to the Minister, the votes cast against the resolution and those who abstained amounted to 25 votes, which was higher than the votes polled in favour of the resolution, which was 22.
He observed that despite pressure exerted by the UK and the US, the resolution garnered only 22 votes while resolutions on Sri Lanka that were presented before the Council on previous occasions had obtained more votes.
He said that those who voted against and abstained from voting showed that now was not the time for a country-specific resolution.
The Foreign Minister especially thanked Japan and India who had also abstained from voting. “This resolution was uncalled for,” he said.
Gunawardena said that no country-specific resolution can be implemented without the support of the country concerned.
[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="344"]
Indian Prime Minister Modi [/caption]
He said that Sri Lanka will take forward its domestic process to ensure reconciliation.
However, the Minister informed Parliament last week that “Sri Lanka will continue to engage with UN agencies”.
Gunawardena observed that the resolution co-sponsored by the former Government was a “great betrayal” and insisted that the new resolution did not have majority support at the Council.
“Sri Lanka considers the resolution as unwarranted. This resolution against Sri Lanka is illegal,” Gunawardena told Parliament.
He further noted that the Government will address accountability issues in Sri Lanka through a domestic mechanism.
Meanwhile, the Government also said last week that it has the backing of a majority of members with veto powers at the UN Security Council.
Government Co-Spokesperson Minister Keheliya Rambukwella told reporters that the UNHRC does not have the power to enforce the resolution, but can only take decisions pertaining to individual states.
The Minister had noted that he believed the UNHRC will not resort to such a measure just yet, but may submit the adopted resolution to the UN Security Council.
Rambukwella had said there are issues with regard to the content of the resolution.
“We need to see from whom the evidence had been collected. Is it the Diaspora? Will the statement of the President of the UK all party British-Sri Lanka parliamentary group Lord Naseby be considered? Will the daily dispatches provided by UK military attaché Col. Anton Gash be considered? Various such statements and evidence have been received. Therefore, there is a blatant gap between the actual facts and credible evidence,” he explained.
The Cabinet Co-Spokesman said the Government will address these issues prior to the UN Security Council session in September.
Nevertheless, the resolution adopted at the UNHRC has no need to be presented to the UN Security Council since the Council would consider issues related to country-specific sanctions. However, the UNHRC does not hold the mandate to propose country-specific sanctions.
According to diplomatic sources, the Council would conduct fact-finding missions, gather evidence, and present to the Council while it will be up to the member states to decide on any selected actions.
In fact, the latest resolution adopted on Sri Lanka does not propose any form of sanctions or action against the country or individuals.
US signs resolution
It is interesting to note that the US was among the over 40 co-sponsors of the UNHRC resolution on Sri Lanka.
While the US is not a member of the Council with voting rights, it can sign as a co-sponsor.
The resolution has so far been co-sponsored by Albania, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malta, the Marshall Islands, Montenegro, the Netherlands, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and Northern Ireland, and the US.
The US noted that the long-term security and prosperity of Sri Lanka depends on respecting human rights today and committing to peace and reconciliation for the future.
The US State Department has also called on Sri Lanka to safeguard the rights of ethnic and religious minorities.
US State Department Principal Deputy Spokesperson Jalina Porter noted that the UNHRC passed a resolution to promote human rights in Sri Lanka.
“The US co-sponsored this resolution and, together with the international community, calls on Sri Lanka to safeguard the rights of ethnic and religious minorities, human rights defenders, and civil society actors, and to take credible and meaningful steps to address its past, promote reconciliation, and guarantee equal access to justice for all its people,” she said.
Porter said the resolution expands reporting requirements for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and includes a mandate to collect and preserve evidence for future accountability processes and expresses concern about the trends over the past year.
Voting pattern
However, a closer look at the voting pattern on the resolution would indicate that Sri Lanka’s foreign policies need to be reviewed and revitalised if the country is to build its relations with the international community and engage with foreign nations in order to address the misconceptions, as stated by the Government in relation to human rights concerns.
South Korea, or the Republic of Korea, was the only Asian country that voted in favour of the resolution, along with 21 other countries mainly from the western bloc.
The countries that voted in favour were Argentina, Armenia, Austria, the Bahamas, Brazil, Bulgaria, Côte d’Ivoire, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Fiji, France, Germany, Italy, Malawi, the Marshall Islands, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, the Republic of Korea/South Korea, Ukraine, the UK and Northern Ireland, and Uruguay.
Permanent members of the UN Security Council, China and the Russian Federation, along with Bangladesh, Pakistan, and the Philippines from the Asian region, voted against the resolution. The Plurinational State of Bolivia, Cuba, Eritrea, Somalia, Uzbekistan, and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela also voted against the resolution to make a total of 11 countries that voted against it.
However, the country with the closest geo-historical-cultural ties to Sri Lanka, namely India, and Sri Lanka’s old ally Japan abstained from voting on the resolution. From the Asian region, Nepal and Indonesia also abstained, while Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Gabon, Libya, Mauritania, Namibia, Senegal, Sudan, and Togo were the other nations to abstain.
Notably, 10 of the 14 countries which abstained from voting are members of the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC).
President Gotabaya Rajapaksa last week had contacted OIC Secretary General Dr. Yousef Al-Othaimeen, where the two parties had reviewed their existing relations.
Dr. Al-Othaimeen had reportedly stated that the situation of the Muslim community within Sri Lanka had been discussed, and that he welcomed the Government’s recent decision to grant Muslims the right to bury their dead, as a gazette passed last year prevented burials citing Covid-19 health guidelines.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, during his two-day official visit to Bangladesh last weekend, had thanked Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and the Government of Bangladesh for their steadfast support in combating terrorism in Sri Lanka, and in that context for extending support to Sri Lanka at international fora, including the UNHRC and other UN bodies and international organisations.
Prime Minister Rajapaksa had also expressed the hope during the discussion that Bangladesh will continue to stand in solidarity with Sri Lanka at the ongoing 46th Sessions of the UNHRC in Geneva.
Premier Rajapaksa had also stated last Sunday (21) that he had spoken to Deputy King of Bahrain Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa about the bilateral ties between the two states.
Rajapaksa had further stated that Deputy King Al Khalifa had appreciated the efforts made from the time of his presidency to sustain peace in Sri Lanka.
According to Pakistan’s The News International newspaper, Pakistan, which is a member of the OIC, has decided to vote against the resolution. This was considered a sign that the OIC may choose to follow suit despite recent disagreements with Sri Lanka. However, a majority of the OIC states decided to abstain from voting on the resolution during the vote.
Pre-vote observations
Sri Lankan Ambassador to Geneva C.A. Chandraprema rejected the resolution, calling it “unhelpful and divisive”. He observed that the resolution would “polarise Sri Lankan society and adversely affect economic development, peace, and harmony”.
UK envoy Julian Braithwaite warned of trends which “threaten to reverse the limited gains made in recent years and risked the recurrence of policies and practices that gave rise to the grave violations of the past”.
First Secretary to India’s mission in Geneva Pawankumar Badhe, addressing the UNHRC prior to the vote, said: “India believes in the primary responsibility of states for the promotion and protection of human rights and constructive international dialogue and co-operation guided by the principles and purposes of the UN Charter in support of such efforts. As an immediate neighbour, India has contributed to the relief, resettlement, rehabilitation, and reconstruction process in Sri Lanka after 2009. Our development assistance has focused on the restoration of livelihoods and economic revival, especially in Sri Lanka’s Northern and Eastern Provinces.”
He noted that India’s approach to the question of human rights in Sri Lanka is guided by two fundamental considerations. “One is our support to the Tamils of Sri Lanka for equality, justice, dignity, and peace. The other is in ensuring the unity, stability, and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka. We have always believed that these two goals are mutually supportive and Sri Lanka’s progress is best assured by simultaneously addressing both objectives.”
India further expressed its support to the call by the international community for the Government of Sri Lanka to fulfil its commitments on the devolution of political authority, including through the early holding of elections for provincial councils, and to ensure that all provincial councils are able to operate effectively in accordance with the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka.
“At the same time, we believe that the work of the OHCHR should be in conformity with the mandate given by the relevant resolutions of the UN General Assembly,” the Indian envoy observed.
“We would urge that the Government of Sri Lanka carry forward the process of reconciliation, address the aspirations of the Tamil community, and continue to engage constructively with the international community to ensure that the fundamental freedoms and human rights of all its citizens are fully protected.”
The Austrian delegate to the Council then made a statement on behalf of the entire European Union (EU).
“I have the honour to speak on behalf of the EU member states that are members of the Human Rights Council. This general comment has been agreed by the EU as a whole.
“Reconciliation, accountability, and human rights in Sri Lanka have been considered in the Human Rights Council for many years, including through consensual resolutions in previous years. The EU regrets that the Government of Sri Lanka has withdrawn its support to these resolutions. We are concerned about a setback of the important gains made,” the envoy noted.
“It is key that the Human Rights Council signals the international community’s continued support for post-conflict reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka. This resolution is also important given the warning signs of a deteriorating human rights situation, including erosion of democratic checks and balances, rise of exclusionary rhetoric, intensified surveillance, and intimidation of CSOs, human rights defenders, and victims, as well as discrimination of persons belonging to religious and ethnic minority communities. The EU is deeply concerned about these developments,” the envoy further observed.
The envoy called on the Government of Sri Lanka to continue to promote reconciliation, accountability, and human rights in Sri Lanka, including through co-operation on this resolution.
“For the above-mentioned reasons, the EU supports Resolution L.1/Rev.1 and hopes it will be adopted by this Council by consensus.”
The Brazilian envoy, in her speech, while recognising the concerns raised by the Government of Sri Lanka, announced that Brazil would vote in favour of the resolution.
“We commend the participation of the Sri Lankan Ambassador during the informal consultations, as a proof of good will, which certainly contributed to a more open and balanced approach during the discussions.
“We regret that in the end, the Sri Lankan mission decided to dissociate from the process due to different perspectives that could not be accommodated by the Core Group. In our view, those differences are not irreconcilable, however.
“While we acknowledge that progress was achieved on the ground in Sri Lanka, we understand that the situation of the country remains of interest to this Council. The Council needs to bear in mind the risk of new episodes of violence and intolerance related to religion or ethnicity. It can support local authorities to foster, to the extent possible, a meaningful and sustained process of promotion of reconciliation, accountability, and human rights in the country,” the envoy noted.
The envoy further said: “On the other hand, Brazil firmly believes the engagement and co-operation of the concerned country is key to the success of the initiative. While we encourage Sri Lanka to continue to co-operate in good faith, we stress the Government’s legitimate concerns regarding key issues. Firstly, it did not come unnoticed that some of the recommendations in the OHCHR report presented to the Council might have overstepped the mandate of a body that does not deal with peace and security issues within the UN system. Secondly, evidence relating to violations and abuses of human rights can only result from impartial, transparent, and thorough investigations. Prejudgments and politically motivated accusations must be kept at bay.
“We also share concerns expressed by some delegations during consultations on the implications of Op.6. It requests certain measures to be taken by the office without the establishment of an international accountability mechanism, which would have been the common practice. With the above-mentioned considerations, Brazil will vote in favour of draft Resolution 46/L.1 – Rev1 on Sri Lanka.”
Chinese envoy Chen Xu told the Council: “All countries should abide by the purpose and principles of the UN Charter and respect the sovereignty and independence of other countries.”
Following the adoption of the resolution, UK’s Lord Tariq Ahmad had tweeted: “Today, the UNHRC adopted a new resolution on justice, accountability, and human rights in Sri Lanka, led by the UK and partners. This will provide a framework to improve human rights, advance justice for victims, and deliver lasting peace and reconciliation.”
“Building on achievements to date in accountability and reconciliation is important; the new UNHRC resolution focuses on this and ongoing support to improve Sri Lanka’s human rights situation,” said British High Commissioner to Sri Lanka Sarah Hulton in a tweet.
Indian dilemma
However, India’s decision to abstain from voting on the resolution on Sri Lanka at the UNHRC has resulted in Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Government facing a backlash from the South Indian political parties.
The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam’s (DMK), the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK), and the The Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPM) have condemned the Indian Government for not voting on the UN resolution raised on Sri Lanka at the UNHRC in Geneva on Tuesday, The New Indian Express reported on Wednesday (24).
DMK President M.K. Stalin dubbed the Centre’s act as betrayal of Eelam Tamils.
“The Government is indirectly helping Sri Lanka by boycotting the voting on a resolution, which could have promoted reconciliation, accountability, and human rights in Sri Lanka,” he added.
MDMK General Secretary Vaiko and CPM General Secretary K. Balakrishnan also slammed the Indian Government.
Meanwhile, actor-turned-politician Kamal Haasan last last Thursday (25) criticised the Indian Government over its decision to abstain from voting on the resolution and called it a “big betrayal of Tamils and Tamilians”.
Taking to Twitter, Haasan wrote the message in Tamil which, when loosely translated to English, reads: “Indian representation abstaining from voting at the UN Human Rights Council on war crimes in Sri Lanka is a big betrayal shown by the Centre to the Tamils and Tamilians.”
DMK President Stalin last Sunday (21) said that India should vote in favour of the UN’s resolution on Sri Lanka on 22 March, The Hindu reported. In a statement in Chennai, he sought Indian Prime Minister Modi’s intervention to gather the support of the other member states and ensure the adoption of the resolution with adequate amendments.
“I urge the Prime Minister not to take a stand against the resolution of the United Nations,” he had added.
Recalling the interviews of Sri Lankan Foreign Secretary Prof. Jayanath Colombage that India had assured support to his country, Stalin had said the silence of Modi and his failure to clarify his position had created shock among Sri Lankan Tamils.
“Even though External Affairs Minister Jaishankar visited Sri Lanka and Modi held a telephonic conversation with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, it is not clear whether the UN resolution was discussed during the discussions. There is no sign that these talks took into consideration the resolution,” Stalin had said.
“It is a matter of great concern and pain that the BJP Government has allowed the Sri Lankan Foreign Secretary to decide India’s stand. Nine crore Tamils living across the globe will not forgive any attempt to betray the interests of Sri Lankan Tamils,” he had added.
The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) last Tuesday (23) urged the Indian Government to support the UNHRC resolution against Sri Lanka for alleged war crimes against Tamils, saying it was the moral duty of India to establish peace, OneIndia.com news said.
A day after DMK President Stalin and other political leaders of Tamil Nadu sought India’s support for the resolution, M. Thambidurai of the AIADMK – which is fighting the assembly elections in the state in alliance with the BJP – had said the Prime Minister had previously assured that he would take up the cause and protect the interests of the Sri Lankan Tamil people.
“We urge the Government of India to instruct our Indian delegates to vote in favour of a resolution of the UNHRC in Geneva, asking for an inquiry in the criminal acts committed against minority Sri Lankan Tamils in Sri Lanka in the past and the present,” he had said.
Raising the issue through a zero-hour mention, he had said that Sri Lankan Tamil people cannot be assured of their fundamental rights without a vote in favour of the resolution.
“The Prime Minister, when he visited Tamil Nadu, had assured that he is going to take up the cause of the Sri Lankan people and protect the interest of Sri Lankan Tamil people,” he had added.
Draft Bill on PC polls
The meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers that usually takes place every Monday was rescheduled for Tuesday (23) last week.
The media, however, reported the following day that the Cabinet had approved a proposal to update the Municipal Council Ordinance, the Urban Council Ordinance, and the Pradeshiya Sabha Act – the major local government ordinances that were enacted decades ago.
A draft bill on provincial council (PC) elections was presented to the Cabinet by Minister of Public Services, Provincial Councils, and Local Government Janaka Bandara Tennakoon.
The Minister had proposed two options. One was to adopt the new proposed draft and the other was to adopt the old electoral system.
The new draft proposes a hybrid electoral system where 70% of the election of members would be from electoral level and the other 30% would be through a system formulated to select members to the councils from among the candidates who were unable to win at electoral level.
However, the Cabinet of Ministers had decided to take a few days to study the draft bill before commenting on it and making a final call on which proposal to be adopted.
Nevertheless, it is evident that the PC elections will be held, although as to when it will take place is yet unknown.
It is learnt that the PC system will not be done away with even in the proposed new constitution, as it was formed following an agreement between two nations (the Indo-Lanka Agreement).
Focus on 13A
Meanwhile, the Central Committee of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), which is the main coalition partner of the governing Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), met on Thursday (25) evening.
The party had decided to further discuss the implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution as well as the upcoming PC elections during the workshop scheduled to be held in Matale on Tuesday (30) and Wednesday (31).
The main Opposition, Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), said last week that it backs the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in its current form.
SJB and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa told Parliament that the SJB stands for a united country where all communities can live in peace.
He urged the Government to listen to the concerns of the people in the North and East.
Premadasa also called for the implementation of the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) that was appointed by Mahinda Rajapaksa when he was President.