Janaki Chandraratna

The UNHRC Resolution, 30/1 – Promoting Reconciliation, Accountability and Human Rights in Sri Lanka, was co-sponsored by the Sri Lankan Govt., after the regime change in January 2015. It is well known that the West, in particular, United States of America (USA), had a key role in backing the regime change. The new Govt. of 2015 was a coalition of minority parties and the right wing, United National Party (UNP). The 30/1 co-sponsorship is known to be an appeasement for minor parties as well as a payback for the Western support for regime change. Currently however, many a brow is raised as to why the 30/1 Resolution had failed to achieve its objectives. Although there are many reasons for this outcome, the following are considered significant.

The lack of objectivity of UNHRC when dealing with Sri Lankan allegations is an important cause for its failure. The allegations were biased against the Sri Lankan Govt., from day one of UNHRC involvement. It should be noted that the Darusman Report, which formed the basis for the allegations, did record some of the LTTE atrocities undertaken during the war. These included, taking thousands of civilians as a human shield, point-blank shooting at civilians escaping the conflict zone, firing from military equipment stored among civilians and hospitals, using thousands of child soldiers, engaging women as suicide bombers, having civilian combatants, etc. Despite these admissions, UNHRC saw it fit to allege the terrorist carnage as the responsibility of Sri Lankan armed forces and limit the investigations to the war-end mayhem. In addition, the Govt.’s request to extend the coverage of the investigation for the entire war period, as civilian massacres of all communities, during the 30-year war, far exceeded the year-end toll; was ignored and fell on deaf ears. Although, Darusman Report claimed there were credible allegations of serious violations by armed forces, no evidence was presented for such allegations, giving rise to speculations that the allegations were spurious and UNHRC was on a witch-hunt against Sri Lankan Govt. In such circumstances it is not a surprise that UNHRC resolution, was doomed to fail, from its commencement.

The issue was further politicised by many Western member nations categorically supporting the 30/1 resolution, without any scrutiny, to be supportive of LTTE Diaspora domiciled in their electorates for polling benefits. The unconditional support of the West did encourage Tamil parties; in particular, front-end LTTE political parties such as Tamil National Alliance (TNA) to not participate in investigative commissions appointed by the Sri Lankan State but to cry foul at every turn. This was also, demonstrated by the return of the development appropriations for the Northern Provincial Council back to the Treasury, without spending on the earmarked projects. In this way the ruling LTTE parties were able to hoodwink the average Tamil constituents to believing that the Sri Lankan Govt. is not providing for northern development and the only way out is to call for a separate State. In fact with a view to the 46th session of Geneva, there has been calls for referenda in the North for a separate State. These activities demonstrate that the ultimate goal of LTTE Tamil parties is not reconciliation or resolve war crimes but to set up a separate State with Western assistance.

UNHRC’s bigoted attitude to Sri Lanka has blinded them from comprehending the fact that Tamil claims for a separate State with a 2/3 coastline for less than 12% of Tamils is not only impractical but also unachievable due to demographic and ground realities. Accommodating two states in a small island like Sri Lanka of 25,000 square miles, with the Northern State having allegiance to an emerging world power of India, a country that trained Tamil terrorists, is no doubt a recipe for eternal border surveillance and conflict. The non-LTTE Tamils, Muslims and the majority Sinhalese would definitely want to avoid such a scenario at whatever cost.

UNHRC, with its prejudiced mind has to date, continuously refused to accept Sri Lankan explanations for the inability to abide by the 30/1 Resolution. The saving of 300,000 Tamils from the LTTE human shield, re-settlement of refugees, de-mining, rehabilitation of LTTE terrorists, the unprecedented northern infra-structure development, the unconstitutionality of the co-sponsored Resolution, the non approval of the 30/1 Resolution by the Cabinet or the Parliament, Lord Nasby’s revelations in British parliament, lack of evidence of alleged atrocities, were some of the explanations presented to substantiate Govt. claims. These assertions, as usual, failed to receive any recognition with UNHRC leadership. In fact, UNHRC has not seen the post war development in Sri Lanka. Colombo has turned out be a good example of multi cultural living in the world. Many ethnic groups live in peace and harmony, running their businesses, participating in cultural and religious activities, without suicide bombers or ethnic violence of any sort after the end of the terrorist war in May 2009!

Also, UNHRC has failed or not wanted to understand the recent changes that have taken place in the Sri Lankan political settings. The overwhelming defeat of the 2015 govt. that co-sponsored the Resolution by a 3/2 majority, did present is a rejection of the 30/1 Resolution. In fact the current High Commissioner, Michelle Bachelet’s report ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka’, was not a honourable presentation, as it did not even recognise the Govt. withdrawal from the 30/1, at a previous session. It was a negative political assessment of the initiatives of the new Govt., which is outside the mandate of UNHRC.

It is therefore, time for UNHRC to be practical and revisit 30/1 and present evidence, underpinning the allegations of war crimes, so that a comprehensive investigation can be undertaken to cover the entire 30 year war period, or negotiate with the Sri Lankan Govt., taking into consideration the post war developments to move the country forward as an undivided and a unified nation.

Janaki Chandraratna