Insight By Sunil Kumar

General Assembly resolutions usually require a simple majority (50 percent of all votes plus one) to pass. However, if the General Assembly determines that the issue is an “important question” by a simple majority vote, then a two-thirds majority is required; “important questions” are those that deal significantly with maintenance of international peace and security, admission of new members to the United Nations, suspension of the rights and privileges of membership, expulsion of members, operation of the trusteeship system, or budgetary questions.Although General Assembly resolutions are generally non-binding towards member states, internal resolutions may be binding on the operation of the General Assembly itself, for example with regard to budgetary and procedural matters.
 
In a logical sense if the above definition was correct and the UNHRC Summit was indeed deemable as one which was co -related to a general assembly which one would infer it was as it involved all member nations with the right to vote,    the consequences of the UNHRC Resolution against Sri Lanka then carries little weight towards credibility if viewed from a realistic perspective while also utilising the above guidelines.
 
 Despite the hooing and haaing of the IN, the US, The UK and the rest of Sri Lanka’s tormentors there are many arguments which appear to favour Sri Lanka as firstly  the United Nations vote in this case instigated by the USA should probably have been by Two Third majority  rather than a simple majority as Wikepedia and others in a definitive capacity to define it  points to the latter where the nature of the issue, a significant one  carries much importance and cannot be carried by a simple majority. So it seems a bit bewildering that the UN quorum at the UNHRC Summit did not request a  two third majority  given the importance of the issues related which did indeed involve national security, peace and the  safety of a sovereign nation from the onslaughts of a  globally condemned and dangerous terrorist group .
 
Therefore it is  a question that needs to be  legitimately asked when many analysts equipped to overview the vote  may feel quizzed about it  particularly when there are mixed signals coming from various quarters, after the announcement on how different member states voted on Thursday, when the fate of the Resolution was interpretatively decided albeit not necessarily in keeping with the statutes which govern it legitimately if the definition of the required nature of the vote should have been by two third majority.

The interpreters obviously were those who tabled and voted for the motion who wanted it carried by hook or by crook  as well as  by virtue of the clout of the USA who also decided its legitimacy which may not have been a privilege affordable to them given the complex nature of the issues related where the only injured party has been presented as the greatly exaggerated 40,000 Tamil casualties when there were Sinhalese and other ethnicities who paid a greater price of attrocities at the hands of the Tamil Tigers.
 
The attempt to pin liabilities of civilian suffering and loss of life on the Armed Forces alone is not only wrong butalso a very bold attempt to intimidate and  deem them liable when it was through their benevolence that many civilian lives were saved from the fleeing Tigers who used them as a shield as well as the pursuance of huge mendacities in a criminally orchestrated environment in  which they  presented a so called Tamil Eelam administration of intimidation in the North and East which of course was eventually smashed up and decimated  by the Armed Forces who liberated a multitude of innocent civillians and conducted themselves admirably contrary to the lies and accusations levelled at them.

As analysed  emphatically  as well as very assertively towards rationality, the recent Daily News Editorial ( to whom all courtesies and acknowledgements are extended)
Quoting : ”The document was adopted in a quorum of 47 members where 23 member states voted for it, 12 voted against it, and 12 abstained.
This means that there was a victory for the unpatriotic forces in this country that campaigned with the help of the United States and the UK and others aligned to these Western powers, to persecute the Sri Lankan government for winning a war against terrorism.
 
The Minister of External Affairs in the meantime has stated that the majority of member states in the UNHRC were against the US on the Resolution targeting this country.If the Resolution was adopted against us, how could this be, this confused and this distracted, many reasonably demand?
The truth is that both these positions could be correct at the same time i.e: yes, the Resolution against Sri Lanka was adopted, but no, that does not mean that the majority of member states in the UNHRC were with the Americans.
It’s not the arithmetic that is important in reaching this conclusion, but the fact that the issues taken in their entirety makes that assessment inescapable.
 
More countries did not vote with the US than they did on the Resolution that purportedly deals with Sri Lanka, and in precise terms the countries that did not vote with Sri Lanka number 24 — while those that did count up to 23.

However, 23 countries emphatically gave their assent to the Resolution, while only 12 emphatically rejected it, which is why the document was adopted.But the fact that 12 more countries did not vote assertively with the US and chose to remain silent on the vote, tells a much bigger tale than the arithmetic may convey by itself.
The US is the sole superpower on earth, and used its economic clout and the defence pacts that she has signed with other nations, and the economic collaboration she has with member countries, to influence member states to vote on the basis of power bloc allegiances as opposed to the true import of the issues.
Despite all this undue big-power arm twisting, and despite the fact that the US together with the UK posed as the paragon of all moral virtue in mooting this Resolution, there were 12 countries which did not agree with the Americans, which means the inevitable conclusion has to be drawn that they were against the US position despite the Sunday church bully pulpit style sermonizing on the US side, coupled with the strong arm tactics.

Notwithstanding the math, there is just one lesson that can be drawn from this – more countries were against the US than they were with them, though unfortunately most of the delegates from these were too cowed to state their real position, despite that.

In practical terms no doubt the anti Sri Lankan forces trumped, adopted the Resolution against Sri Lanka – and would now proceed to act against this country’s interests.
But yet, the actions of the UNHRC under the circumstances of the majority dissent and the Indian abstention, would mean that the UNHRC’s moves against Sri Lanka would now lack moral force.

India is Sri Lanka’s largest neighbour and is a regional and global giant in terms of population, size, economic potential and geo-strategic importance. Not only did the Indians abstain and not vote in favour of the Resolution, but the Indian delegation also articulated the position that the mandated investigation of Sri Lanka’s war is not in keeping with UNHRC core principles, and is of a highly intrusive nature in the bargain.

Without the moral authority of Indian assent, the Resolution will now no doubt be doubly illegitimate.

No doubt the movers will push it and demand that it be implemented in full, as that has been their crass and obdurate way of doing things, but the inquisitorial nature of the campaign against Sri Lanka is now in glaring public view and is a reeking embarrassment to the persecutors in chief — among them the US and the UK — that are responsible for this ignominy.” end of quote

All of the above notwithstanding there seems to be a strong case to refute the vote on the basis that it should have been by two third majority whet had that been the case the Motion would not have carried.

It just might be that the The USA in collaboration with the enemies of Sri Lanka while pursuing a theme which by their definition alone was a grievous liability of Sri Lanka to which the anomalies in favour of Sri Lanka are unsurmountable have missed the bus! There appear to be far too many fatal flaws surrounding the vote  which to all intents and purposes seem unimplementable needing review towards legitimacy.

And at the end of it all it seems also very unlikely that this resolution tabled at the UN Summit in Geneva  has any mandate to criminally incriminate Sri Lanka  as there are no provisions for same and the conflicts of interest of those who have presented it glaringly visible in the eyes of those already preparing to veto it if it carried to any other level!

Perhaps it also needs ro be reviewed towards legitimacy by an international court of Justice where the cacklings of the likes of Navi Pillai, David Cameron et al will surely cease! .