By Lahiru Pothmulla
Sri Lanka seems to have retained its base vote of about 10 member states at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), but that base vote is insufficient to prevail at a vote, said former Ambassador to Russia Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka.
[caption id="attachment_114550" align="alignleft" width="300"]
Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka[/caption]
Dr. Jayatilleka, who served as the Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations in Geneva, spoke to The Sunday Morning on the ongoing UNHRC session and the scheduled Core Group Resolution.
He highlighted three facts that needed to be considered in the upcoming vote on Sri Lanka.
The first factor is the High-Level Segment, where the leaders and foreign ministers of countries addressed the UNHRC.
“What was important there was that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken mentioned the resolution on Sri Lanka and used the phrase 'lack of accountability for past atrocities in Sri Lanka'.
“The second important thing was the presentation by High Commissioner Bachelet on the report on Sri Lanka, and the interactive dialogue that took place after that. In the interactive dialogue, 21 countries spoke in favour of Sri Lanka, or rather, critically of the High Commissioner's report on Sri Lanka.
“Now, we must not be misled by the figure 21. UNHRC has 47 elected members who have the right to vote. The 21 who spoke in favour are not all members of the UNHRC. The number of member states out of 21 were nine or 10. A maximum of 10 out of 47 have defended Sri Lanka,” he said.
The third point Dr. Jayatilleka highlighted was the draft resolution of the UN Core Group concerning Sri Lanka.
“You can't use the same yardstick, because the people who spoke defending Sri Lanka from the criticisms of the High Commissioner’s report may not all hold the same view concerning the draft resolution on Sri Lanka. The High Commissioner's report is quite strongly worded, whereas the resolution is, on the surface of it, to say apparently, worded in far more moderate language, and the resolution is only at the draft stage.
“Now, there is an ongoing process called the informal consultation, and the resolution may be further diluted or strengthened. We can’t really say that the same numbers of those for and against the High Commissioner's report will be available concerning the resolution, because the resolution is somewhat differently worded. So, those are the main things.
“What I would conclude from the 10 member states that spoke in defence of Sri Lanka is that Sri Lanka still retains the base vote, but that base vote is insufficient to prevail at a vote. I'm not sure that Sri Lanka has managed to break out of those numbers and get anything like the numbers necessary to win which we had in 2009,” Dr. Jayatilleka said.
Meanwhile, he said the impact of the Bachelet report could have been lessened, had the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) followed the three efforts made by Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa.
He said the Prime Minister appointed a committee to study the 20A and to make recommendations.
“If what the PM initiated had been accepted, then 20A would have been more balanced, and the High Commissioner couldn't have pointed to 20A saying we don't have an independent judiciary in Sri Lanka, and therefore, we have to have an international inquiry.
“The second was when he proposed to hold the PC poll as early as the Covid situation would permit, and the third was the burial of Covid victims. If the PM's attempts to bury Covid victims had been accepted, we would not have that issue highlighted at the UN either,” he said.
Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka[/caption]
Dr. Jayatilleka, who served as the Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations in Geneva, spoke to The Sunday Morning on the ongoing UNHRC session and the scheduled Core Group Resolution.
He highlighted three facts that needed to be considered in the upcoming vote on Sri Lanka.
The first factor is the High-Level Segment, where the leaders and foreign ministers of countries addressed the UNHRC.
“What was important there was that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken mentioned the resolution on Sri Lanka and used the phrase 'lack of accountability for past atrocities in Sri Lanka'.
“The second important thing was the presentation by High Commissioner Bachelet on the report on Sri Lanka, and the interactive dialogue that took place after that. In the interactive dialogue, 21 countries spoke in favour of Sri Lanka, or rather, critically of the High Commissioner's report on Sri Lanka.
“Now, we must not be misled by the figure 21. UNHRC has 47 elected members who have the right to vote. The 21 who spoke in favour are not all members of the UNHRC. The number of member states out of 21 were nine or 10. A maximum of 10 out of 47 have defended Sri Lanka,” he said.
The third point Dr. Jayatilleka highlighted was the draft resolution of the UN Core Group concerning Sri Lanka.
“You can't use the same yardstick, because the people who spoke defending Sri Lanka from the criticisms of the High Commissioner’s report may not all hold the same view concerning the draft resolution on Sri Lanka. The High Commissioner's report is quite strongly worded, whereas the resolution is, on the surface of it, to say apparently, worded in far more moderate language, and the resolution is only at the draft stage.
“Now, there is an ongoing process called the informal consultation, and the resolution may be further diluted or strengthened. We can’t really say that the same numbers of those for and against the High Commissioner's report will be available concerning the resolution, because the resolution is somewhat differently worded. So, those are the main things.
“What I would conclude from the 10 member states that spoke in defence of Sri Lanka is that Sri Lanka still retains the base vote, but that base vote is insufficient to prevail at a vote. I'm not sure that Sri Lanka has managed to break out of those numbers and get anything like the numbers necessary to win which we had in 2009,” Dr. Jayatilleka said.
Meanwhile, he said the impact of the Bachelet report could have been lessened, had the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) followed the three efforts made by Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa.
He said the Prime Minister appointed a committee to study the 20A and to make recommendations.
“If what the PM initiated had been accepted, then 20A would have been more balanced, and the High Commissioner couldn't have pointed to 20A saying we don't have an independent judiciary in Sri Lanka, and therefore, we have to have an international inquiry.
“The second was when he proposed to hold the PC poll as early as the Covid situation would permit, and the third was the burial of Covid victims. If the PM's attempts to bury Covid victims had been accepted, we would not have that issue highlighted at the UN either,” he said.