BY EDWARD THEOPHILUS

UN Human Rights Commission has established with specific purposes and the commission has no right to go against the human rights of people based on the recommendation of its bureaucrats, who are not above the human rights declaration of the United Nations. I read an article in the Sunday Observer on 07.04.2019 written by Dr S.W. premaratne on Involvement of the United Nations in the Reconciliation Process.  I was really surprised to read that the United Nations has taken into consideration the present state of political instability in Sri Lanka and the possibility of a change of government that would reverse the progress of already made after the co-sponsoring resolution 30/1.” Further article stated that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in a report warned that the political crisis at the end of 2018 further obstructed the progress owing not only to temporally paralysis investigation but also it generated fear that another government might not embrace the reconciliation agenda”.

I have not read the report mentioned in the article of the Sunday Observer, if it is an accurate statement, there would be serious implications regarding operations of the Human Rights Commission. Many people in Sri Lanka showed the concern on the resolution 30/1 and 31/1 which were not legally binding to Sri Lanka.  If so, why some people in Sri Lanka are too much talking and writing about the resolution, which is non-binding to the country.  Think about Israel and Cuba, many resolutions were passed regarding human rights of those countries but people of those countries did not so concern about such resolutions.  The best thing to do is forget about non-binding resolutions and do own work.  However, there are some points need to be discussed as such points have emerged after this report.

When I read the statement, I had a reasonable doubt that did the United Nations passed a resolution without proper contents to cover any government of Sri Lanka to be elected in the future to honour the resolution?   The general understanding of people in Sri Lanka is that the United Nations and its agencies do commonly acceptable work to any government of a country with a proper consultation of every parties involved in an issue. If the UN Human Rights Commission has doubt about future governments in Sri Lanka that they might not embrace the reconciliation agenda, it means that that the UN Human Rights Commission has not prepared the reconciliation agenda with a proper consultation with binding contents cover all future governments.   The implied democracy of the United Nations is it is common to all human in this world without considering political or racial differences. During the cold war time UN respected the views of US as well as the views of Soviet Union and why didn’t the UN agency of the Human Rights Commission follow the popular democracy in the world, when it was passing 30/1 resolution for Sri Lanka. Why didn’t consult opposition in Sri Lanka passing the resolution. Can the United Nations agency pass such a non-unbidding resolution and push a country to follow the conditions of a resolution?  This is a question that experts in international matters to be answered.

Regarding the reconciliation process and the resolutions passed, the following points also need to consider.

• Some journalists in Sri Lanka appear to be writing too much on this issue as they have nothing to write attracting readers in the country, so they want to write something repeatedly to scare people and secure the job in the workplace.
• UN bureaucrats and Sri Lankan foreign service people and people who are expecting to involve in this matter concern on their posts and if the matter is over the jobs of them will be ended.  In this environment, they need to continue the issue like a beggar’s wound.  Therefore, it seems that many attempts launching a scare mongering campaign in favour of the job but it is not the United Nations’ official statement.
• Sri Lanka and India had a doubt about Norway led reconciliation process in Sri Lanka and India is still observing it. If any attempt to create problem in India especially for the unity of India it would not allow to pass any resolution.
• Sri Lanka had a mediation for a reconciliation under Lord Buddha and never had a controversy like this.  Sri Lanka used to obtain outside support to reconciliation if it is going proper manner.
• No country can pass a legally binding resolution against Sri Lanka in unreasonable manner as the country has a veto support from China and Russia. UK and other countries supported countries for the resolution 30/1 are fully aware of the situation.
• United Nations’ human rights agency cannot go against the fundamental rights of people in voting of a democratic election, which is a human right or expressing public will and the UN will not go against free and fair election result of a country and cast doubt about the will of people.  United Nations is the highest democratic organization in the world.
• Finally, the UN Human Rights Commission cannot directly or indirectly influence to an election in a country.  If it happens it would be violation of its charter.