US resolution criticises, surges beyond LLRC
Posted on March 16th, 2012

by Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka

 It is almost a crime to lie to the people and mislead them on a matter of vital national interest. When it is committed by politicians it is an act of unconscionable opportunism. When it is perpetrated by so-called intellectuals belonging to civil society, it is a counterfeiting of the currency of the intellect and the function of the educated, which is to educate the public.

 One of the rankest untruths in the public domain today is that theUSresolution is innocuous and unobjectionable because it only seeks to commit the government ofSri Lankato implement its own LLRC report within a reasonable time frame. This untruth is perpetrated by the dominant elements of the UNP, the TNA and the civil society commentariat.

 The utter falsehood of this assertion is instantly provable by a mere glance at the Resolution itself. Far from limiting itself to the harmless and arguably even constructive pursuit of merely seeking the implementation of the LLRC’s recommendations, the Resolution actually criticises the LLRC. The fifth and final paragraph of the preamble of the US Resolution, immediately preceding its operative clauses, reads: “Noting with concern that the LLRC report does not adequately address serious allegations of violations of international law”¦”

 It is nothing short of disgusting that this sentence, in plain view in the text, is being hidden by pro-US resolution politicians and opinion-makers. It is one thing to be a critic, however harsh, of the government, quite another to be a supporter of the US Resolution and worse still, to brush under the rug that which is quite overt in the Resolution itself.

 The Resolution’s criticism of the LLRC report is itself an untruth. That report not only earmarks issues of accountability which it states should be addressed by the government ofSri Lanka, it contains an impressively thick and closely argued chapter precisely on international law issues pertaining to the conflict. Given that one of the LLRC report’s authors is the former Chairperson of the UN Ad Hoc Committee on Terrorism and a former member of the International Law Commission, this assertion by the US Resolution is indeed disingenuous.

 Having made this criticism of the LLRC, the US Resolution then goes on to stipulate measures in its operative clauses which range well beyond the LLRC’s recommendations:

 “(1) Calls on the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the constructive recommendations in the LLRC report and take all necessary additional steps to fulfil its relevant legal obligations and commitment to initiate credible and independent actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans,

 (2) Requests that the Government of Sri Lanka present a comprehensive action plan as expeditiously as possible detailing the steps the Government has taken and will take to implement the LLRC recommendations and also to address alleged violations of international law. (My emphases-DJ)

 This plainly gives the lie to the assertion that theUSresolution seeks only the (harmless) implementation of the LLRC’s recommendations. It is permissible to argue that the additional measures are good and necessary, but quite another to sweep under the rug, or divert attention from these stipulations which range beyond the LLRC into the domain of international law. That practice of providing a smokescreen for external interventionism is rather like persuading customers, in this case the Sri Lankan citizenry, to participate in a Ponzi scheme.

 The third and final operative clause of the US Resolution reads:

 3) “Encourages the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and relevant special procedures to provide, and the Government of Sri Lanka to accept, advice and technical assistance on implementing those steps and requests the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to present a report to the Council on the provision of such assistance at its twenty-second session.”

 In other words, the High Commissioner becomes the monitoring authority, with operational functions as well, of the compliance of the elected government of Sri Lanka with the US request to “take all necessary additional steps [beyond the LLRC] to fulfil its relevant legal obligations and commitment to initiate credible and independent actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans”¦and also to address alleged violations of international law.” This seeks to give the Office of the UN High Commissioner the role of an overseer, in relation to a national process of (national) reconciliation. In the US Resolution, the political and policy implementation process in Sri Lanka changes its circuitry and loops through the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights; an extra-national entity, accountable not to the UN Human Rights Council but primarily to the UN Secretary-General in New York.

7 Responses to “US resolution criticises, surges beyond LLRC”

  1. Lorenzo Says:

    Just like Norway.

    First they crept in as FACILITATORS. Remember?
    Then they became MEDIATORS. (mediators in peace talks BS)
    Then they became MONITORS (SLMM)
    They they became JUDGES (blaming govt for “escalating violence” my foot!)

    Then they were chased away with the CFA document rolled up their *!! :))

  2. Rohan8 Says:

    Sri Lanka please mobilise a UN HR resolution of the rest of the world against the Americans for their shocking horrific human rights abuse in a Afghan village by a platoon of American blood thirsty marines. Some are even saying it is another mylai massacre. Sri Lanka time to mobilise and push for a human rights resolution regarding that immediately in Geneva and turn tables on these american hypocrits, who seemed to be very good at pointing fingers at others.

  3. LankaLover Says:

    This is a great article that needs to be brought to the attention of our team in Geneva to defend Sri Lanka,

    US resolution will create dangerous precedent
    The Island, March 16, 2012, 6:58 pm

    By Neville Ladduwahetty

  4. Ananda-USA Says:

    This article by Dr. Jayatilleke supplements Gomin Dayasri’s recent comments on the looming future dangers of the US resolution at the UNHRC:

    The US resolution is neither benign nor innocuous … it is a clear indication of worse actions to come. It shows that the United States has MADE A STRATEGIC DECISION to throw Sri Lanka to the wolves pursuing its global geopolitical agenda. It cares not for the feelings and well-being of the vast majority of citizens of Sri Lanka, who are just emerging from a destructive 30-year war, as long as it can attain its Neo-Colonialist objectives.

    So what should we do? Let me suggest …. AGAIN:

    Let Sri Lanka REDUCE the DIPLOMATIC presence and TERMINATE all “cultural” and “democracy building” activities in Sri Lanka of all countries that sponsored the UNHCR initiative against Sri Lanka. These activities are only designed to undermine and destabilize Sri Lanka, and gives them the opportunity to setup and orchestrate a regime change to place their puppets in power. Let us recall that, despite the big talk, the total US aid to Sri Lanka in 2011 was about $25 million, compared to over 2.5 billion from China.

    Let Sri Lanka also CLOSE the Embassy of NORWAY, that has UNDERMINED Sri Lanka and aided terrorism in Sri Lanka for DECADES! They are continuing to aid and abet their defeated terrorist pals, are funding and sending hordes of evangelical missionaries to convert our most vulnerable citizens and enlarge their support base in Sri Lanka, and are trying to capture our emerging offshore oil production business for Norwegian oil companies.

    If India VOTES against Sri Lanka, let us stop accepting Indian Aid for Rehabilitation and Reconstruction for the North & East, and reduce Indian diplomatic presence in Sri Lanka to ONLY the Indian Embassy in Colombo. Let us turn down the current carte-blanche given to Indian companies to transact business in Sri Lanka. It is simply not in our interest to put our heads in the Indian noose, if they don’t recognize their culpability for the terrorism that took over 150,000 lives of Sri Lankan citizens, and the aid they are giving now is really “war reparations”.

    Let us also RETALIATE AGAINST the harrassment of Sinhala Sri Lankan citizens in Tamil Nadu with a PROHIBITION against visits by Indian Tamils to Sri Lanka. Let us not engage in business activities with Tamil Nadu based businesses. Let us SHUT THE DOOR against these Tamil Nadu RACISTS who are neck deep in discrimination against their own people, but PRESUME to have the ethical and moral standing to preach to Sri Lanka!

    ENEMIES should be TREATED as ENEMIES, and Sri Lanka should protect itself from their underhand activities. Batten down the hatches, man the guns, and keep the powder dry, I say! The BARBARIAN HYPOCRITES are at our shores …. AGAIN!

  5. Ananda-USA Says:

    Wonderful MOVE by Muslim MPs!

    Let Sinhala MPs ALSO PETITION Indian High Commissioner Ashok K. Kantha, requesting him to consider the nearly 100,000 Muslims who were driven out of the North by the LTTE.

    Ethnic Cleansing by the LTTE MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO STAND.

    India MUST PROPORTIONALLY SETTLE ethnically cleansed Sinhala and Muslim people also. If not, they should not be allowed to go ahead with the SETTLEMENT of ANYONE!

    Northern Muslims ousted by Prabhakaran left out of Indian 50,000 houses project

    by Zacki Jabbar
    March 16, 2012

    Fifteen Muslim Ministers and parliamentarians including a UNP MP, have petitioned the Indian High Commissioner Ashok K. Kantha, requesting him to consider the nearly 100,000 Muslims who were driven out of the North by the LTTE in October 1990, when allocating the 50,000 houses his government intends building.

  6. Marco Says:

    I’m rather perturbed by the fact that the LLRC (Authors/Committee members) have not made a public statement locally or internationally since their Report plays a crucial part of the Resolution.One was not expecting the Members to attend and canvass in Geneva after all its an “independent” Report.
    But then again, we have an individual like Douglas Devananda, an accused in the LLRC report canvassing in Geneva against the Resolution. I must be missing the obvious!

  7. Pussadeva Says:


    Perhaps the LLRC committee is trying to remain IMPARTIAL, to preserve its aura of independence and objectivity.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.



Copyright © 2021 All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress