Monday Nov 25, 2024
Monday Nov 25, 2024
Saturday, 29 March 2014 00:01 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
The stage was set for a perfect storm at the Palais Des Nations in the Swiss city of Geneva on Thursday morning, when the US resolution setting up a probe into the last seven years of the war in Sri Lanka came up for vote at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC).
Debate and discussion at the Council is often a benign affair, quiet and composed except then politicised or emotive issues – such as Israeli violations in Gaza – take the floor.
With increasing ardour over the past three years, the issue of Sri Lanka’s lack of accountability about the last phase of its war, where the UN claims thousands of civilians died in indiscriminate shelling, and the Government failure to deliver on its political promises to the Tamil minority, has ‘seized’ the UN Human Rights Council. Geneva turns into a battleground in March every year as its regular session takes off, with Sri Lanka becoming by far, one of the most contentious issues on the Council’s human rights agenda.
In the week leading up to the vote in Geneva, the Palais was surrounded by pro and anti Government groups alternatively demanding a war crimes inquiry or non-interference in Sri Lanka’s domestic affairs, and the powerful Tamil Diaspora was engaged in hectic lobbying to strengthen the tenor of the resolution.
But by a quirky twist of fate, all five permanent members of the UN Security Council also happened to be voting member states at the UNHRC this year. The composition was to result in a strange mirroring of international geopolitical push-and-pull inside the Council chamber in Geneva, when the 47-member body was called upon to decide on a course of action that would hold the Government in tiny Sri Lanka to account over mounting allegations of major rights violations during the war.
The anti-West lobby of Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela and Sri Lanka’s firm friend Pakistan, with its own growing antipathy to America, mounted a mighty eleventh hour effort on Sri Lanka’s behalf to prevent the setting up of the probe.
Drama ensued for two hours before the US resolution was adopted – in the end quite easily with 23 votes to 12 against, with 12 countries abstaining.
But there were two other votes called before the Council decided on the resolution, confusing delegates and forcing co-sponsors to rally support, bringing proceedings to a fever pitch.
“Anyone unaware of the ground situation in Sri Lanka walking into the Human Rights Council today could not be blamed for thinking that Sri Lanka is the most troubled place on this planet,” said Sri Lankan Envoy to the UN in Geneva, as he kicked off his speech. The 
words were to become prophetic momentarily.
The real hero of the Sri Lankan version of the story of Geneva 2014 however, is Pakistani Permanent Representative to the UN, Geneva, Ambassador Zamir Akram. Akram, who slammed the US moves as being about “politics and not human rights”, demanded that the Council must vote separately on Operative Paragraph 10 of the US resolution on Sri Lanka (previously Operative Paragraph 8) which mandates the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to conduct a “comprehensive” independent inquiry into alleged violations in the last seven years of the war.
Ambassador Akram was spurred on further when a UNHRC Secretariat staffer informed the Council that the OHCHR inquiry mandated by the US resolution on Sri Lanka will cost an approximated $ 1,460,900 outside of the budget approved for programs in 2014. The Pakistan Envoy seized on the budgetary implications, insisting that the Council did not have the funds at the current time to enforce the US resolution and the investigation it would launch.
“As we heard from the Secretariat, the funding is not available and it is not a small amount,” Ambassador Akram charged. He insisted that the Council needed to know how the investigation would be funded. “If the funding is not going to come from the regular budget, we need to know where it will come from. If this funding is to come from any of the countries sponsoring this resolution, it would taint the whole process,” he continued.
The Pakistan envoy said that if there was no funding, a no action motion should be voted on to prevent further discussion on the resolution.
The US and its co-sponsor Montenegro hit back hard against the Pakistani Ambassador’s challenges to the resolution. “This is the practice for how all resolutions are considered, the funding is never there ahead of time, so this is exactly the process. That is a rather specious 
comment,” US Head of Delegation Paula Schriefer said, in reference to Pakistan’s concerns. Schriefer said the Pakistan delegation had spoken highly of the transparent manner in which consultations on the resolution had been conducted, during the three informal discussions held on the sidelines of the Council session. The US charged that the no action debate was aimed at preventing discussion about the Sri Lanka resolution.
In fact, budgetary discussions about the supplementary funding for the OHCHR for 2014 to conduct the inquiry into Sri Lanka have already started, diplomatic sources told Daily FT.
Tensions and irritability was showing on the faces of delegations at the Council, with the usually uneventful session taking an oddly confusing turn.
Pakistan’s no action motion was taken up for a vote and defeated on the floor, 25-16 votes, with six countries abstaining.
The vote requested by Pakistan and heavily backed by Russia, China and Cuba about Operative Paragraph 10 of the resolution was also taken, and defeated again 23 votes to 14, with 10 abstentions. The Indian Government led by the Congress Party which recently released an election manifesto backing an independent probe into the last phase of the war in Sri Lanka, voted against Operative Paragraph 8, in a rare karmic twist that had New Delhi voting with Islamabad.
With the Council scheduled to take up several other resolutions on Thursday, the Sri Lanka debate had already taken nearly two hours. When China requested speech time again after voting on the two separate motions had concluded, the Chair denied the request. The US resolution, now tabled with 42 co-sponsors passed with a majority of 11 votes.
India’s U-turn on the resolution became a primary narrative of the unusually long and dramatic proceedings. New Delhi had not raised major objections to the text in the initial drafting stages and with elections almost at hand there was little indication that the 
Congress Government was going to ignore a major hot button issue for its southern State of Tamil Nadu. The main opposition United National Party has posited the theory that India’s position is the position of a caretaker Government, which upholding the democratic tradition of an election season would not make drastic foreign policy decisions shortly before a transition of power. Other theories also abound, about the strategy of permitting certain ‘friendly’ nations to maintain leverage with the Sri Lankan Government, even as it distances itself more and more hostilely from the Western bloc.
“Sri Lanka will not permit any investigation into the last stage of the humanitarian operation against the LTTE,” Minister Susil Premajayanth told the BBC on Thursday night, shortly after the vote, effectively shutting the doors on permitting access to any UN fact finding team that will be set up by the OHCHR.
Soon after the vote in Geneva, External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris, who is busy campaigning in Hambantota for the Southern Provincial Council that will take place today, said a majority of the Council had expressed their displeasure over the resolution moved by the US. By the Minister’s mathematics, Sri Lanka’s 12 votes against the resolution and the 12 abstentions point to a majority (24) of the Council being opposed to the resolution on Sri Lanka. This is an odd calculation, given that the UNHRC adopts resolutions by a majority of votes cast, effectively ensuring that any abstentions go in favour of the side garnering the most votes.
But the Minister claims the US had “bullied” countries into voting yes on the resolution or abstaining, by threatening certain economic and defence agreements with those countries.
Sri Lanka, which received 15 votes against the US resolution in March 2012, to Washington’s 24, managed 13 votes to the US high of 25. This year, the US resolution, contending with the inclusion of China, Russia and several other anti-Western members into the Council in the 2014 rotation and a far tougher resolution on Sri Lanka, dropped its vote count to 23. For the Government, this is testament to waning support for US led moves at the Council. But Sri Lanka’s own support has diminished further, to one less vote than it received last year, in spite of the discomfort levels in some delegations at the UNHRC about the language of the resolution. Vitally, it lost the support of Indonesia and the Philippines, both countries that resolutely voted ‘no’ to the resolutions in the two previous years. African countries also proved a bitter disappointment, with many of them abstaining from the vote and Botswana and Sierra Leone voting with the resolution. Namibia, Ethiopia, Morocco and Gabon all abstained.
The two hour ordeal that ended at 5:30 p.m. local time was an important exercise for Sri Lanka, to portray deep divisions within the Human Rights Council, as the Western bloc prepared to issue the toughest censure yet against the country.
Yet for all the valiant efforts of Pakistan, China and Russia, to block the vote on the resolution procedurally and dilute the resolution on the floor, the drama ended in what has been a long anticipated result. On Friday, when the UNHRC took up its resolution calling for accountability and action on North Korea, the same countries that heavily backed Sri Lanka on Thursday mounted strong opposition.
It is a strange side of history to be on, given the grotesque crimes a UNHRC appointed Commission of Inquiry has unearthed in North Korea. In the case of the DPRK too, the side opposing the resolution was defeated. But for a Government facing an unprecedented international challenge which could have major implications for the uppermost sections of the ruling administration, even ‘sound and fury’ that signified very little in the end game – means
everything.
White House welcomes UNHRC resolution on LankaThe White House reacted swiftly to the adoption of the US-led resolution on Sri Lanka at the UNHRC on Thursday, saying it sends a message of concern about the present human rights situation and underscores the importance of fundamental freedoms that must be respected. A statement issued by National Security Council Spokesperson Caitlin Hayden on the UNHRC vote agreed with the resolution’s request for the Office of the High Commissioner to investigate alleged serious violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes by both parties to Sri Lanka’s conflict. “Today’s vote also sends a clear message that the international community is committed to working with the Government of Sri Lanka to promote greater peace, stability, and prosperity for all of the people of Sri Lanka,” the statement said. |
Regime’s confrontational approach not earning friends: Dr. SaravanamuttuCivil society activist and Centre for Policy Alternatives Executive Director Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu says the resolution underscores the need for a major rethink of Sri Lanka’s foreign policy.
“The confrontational approach of the regime has clearly not earned it friends internationally and even those disposed to support it have been distinctly uncomfortable with its approach,” Dr. Saravanamuttu told Daily FT.
He said that despite attempts to suspend debate on the resolution and to delete its operative paragraph, the UN Human Rights Council has passed a resolution mandating the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to undertake a comprehensive investigation into alleged serious violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes by both the LTTE and forces of the Government of Sri Lanka in the period Feb 2002 - May 2009.
“The resolution attests to the clear opinion of the majority of the international community that the regime lacks serious and sincere political commitment towards advancing meaningful national unity firmly based on reconciliation, the rule of law, religious tolerance and the eradication of the cancer of impunity,” he said. |
Resolution calls for an end of impunity in Sri Lanka: NimalkaReacting to the adoption of the resolution at the UNHRC on Thursday, rights activist and lawyer Nimalka Fernando said it was affirmation that everything was not alright in Sri Lanka despite the glossy picture the Government attempts to paint to the world.
“Significant is the absentia vote of Indonesia and the Philippines, who voted with Sri Lanka the last time. The role of Pakistan is treacherous to the Muslim Community as they continue to refuse to accept that there was a systematic attack against the Muslims in Sri Lanka,” Fernando told Daily FT by email from Geneva.
Fernando warned however that there is a long way to go. “This is about transitional justice which needs to address much larger challenges of systematic failure of the rulers post war,” she explained.
Of her efforts in Geneva, Fernando said she and other activists had been exercising their legitimate rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in collaborating to uphold human rights for all. “I am known to be one who had been involved from the 1989 era when the UNP was in power campaigning to end impunity. Mahinda Rajapaksa also did the same thing when he campaigned against the UNP and campaigning for the people. I do not see any problem in following his footsteps,” she said. |
