Pros and cons of Pillay

THE possibility of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanethem Pillay visiting Sri Lanka is January has opened up a new chapter of discussions over the topic of sovereignty verses accountability. There is an ever-slimming line between what Sri Lanka acknowledges as issues to be addressed regarding its minorities, rule of law and good governance against what it views as an infringement on the sovereignty of the nation.

Pillay had said that she would head a team to Sri Lanka in January next year to look into the alleged war crime charges, the PTI reported, quoting a statement issued by the India’s DMK party. She had informed of this when a two-member delegation of DMK led by its Treasurer M.K. Stalin met her in Geneva on Monday.

Stalin, accompanied by DMK Parliamentary Party Leader T.R. Baalu, during their 35-minute meeting with Pillay, handed over the resolutions adopted by the party-backed pro-Sri Lankan Tamils outfit TESO, approved by Party Chief M. Karunanidhi, and briefed her about the plight of Tamils affected in the last phase of the war. A DMK release also stated that Pillay told the delegation that in consultation with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, an appropriate decision would be taken with regard to alleged human rights violations in Sri Lanka.

The resolutions were adopted in the 12 August conference of Tamil Eelam Supporters’ Organisation (TESO), a once-defunct organisation revived by Karunanidhi recently.

Sri Lanka, currently on a high after the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), will be keen to see this as part of its master plan. After UN officials visited Sri Lanka in September, it was as a precursor to the visit by Pillay as acknowledged by both Government Spokesman Minister Keheliya Rambukwella and External Affairs Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris.

However, the fact that she comes clearly armed with anti-Government resolutions handed over by an organisation that the Government has clearly condemned as a “rump” organisation of the LTTE lends uncertainty to the whole project.

As far as the Government is concerned, Navi Pillay is a touchy subject and allowing her into Sri Lanka is akin to letting the wolf inside the hen house. Yet it crucial for the Government to have her support, at least in part, if it is to conclusively move out from under the ‘accountability on human rights’ cloud.

At the UPR, Sri Lanka, after some haggling, rejected 98 recommendations submitted by member states. These mostly included the same issues that the Government has consistently rejected including an external investigation into alleged war crimes, an international probe into disappearances and abolishing the death penalty. Therefore, as far as the main points of contention between the Government and its detractors are concerned, the UPR was a stalemate with no change seen in the prevailing environment.

After the draft report was adopted, Sri Lanka’s Special Envoy for Human Rights Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe said that Sri Lanka would send a set of voluntary pledges to the UN Human Rights Secretariat within two weeks. Such engagement along with the implementation of key points in the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) will be the bedrock for the UN sessions in March 2013.

Under these circumstances, Sri Lanka must guard against a negative report from Pillay as it will be a significant setback for the Government.