KAMALIKA PIERIS
revised 24.8.21
The government of Sri Lanka
defeated the LTTE in May 2009, and the Eelam War IV came to an end. Soon after,
the separatist movement went into its next phase of attack, which was UN action
against Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka was to be punished for defeating the LTTE and the LTTE was to be
exonerated.
UN
action was attempted in 2007 when United Nations Security Council was asked to approve sanctions against Sri
Lanka. This was the very first time, said analysts, that
there had been a censure motion against Sri Lanka in any international body,
since it became independent. This sanction
is about the use of children in armed
conflict. Reference is S/2007/758. Security Council was not very
enthusiastic about this. I am not sure, but I think this was dropped.
In May 2009, as soon as the war ended, these
western countries struck again. The west
has clearly had their UN move ready, to be used in case the Government
of Sri Lanka actually won the war. That was a sound possibility. The state army
was always far superior to the LTTE. What the LTTE had over the army was
superior weapons, given to them by the west. The accusations and allegations
against Eelam war IV were prepared in advance even before the war ended,
observed Shenali Waduge.
In 2009, US, working through Britain, France
and Austria, tried to get the UN Security Council to examine the deaths in the
last stage of the Eelam War. This was to be at a Security Council
briefing. But US was not able to secure
the 16 signatures needed and UN
Security Council refused to discuss the situation in Sri Lanka.
The move was ‘strenuously
warded’
off by seven countries led by China and Russia. These seven, China, Russia,
Japan, Turkey, Uganda, Vietnam and Libya,
said that the current situation in Sri Lanka did not warrant a briefing
in the Security Council.
China
vehemently” opposed any discussion in the Security Council on the issue
of civilians trapped in the fighting between government Security Forces and the
LTTE arguing that it was “purely an internal matter”.
The US then
turned to the UN Human Rights Council (HRC). The Human Rights Council, unlike
Security Council, could be manipulated easily by the US. In May 2009 UN Human
Rights Council in Geneva held a special session, called at the request of US,
UK, EU and Denmark to discuss a Swiss-EU
resolution against Sri Lanka. The
sponsor was the United States, and the resolution was known as the US
resolution on Sri Lanka.
The request
for convening the special session was made by Germany on 19th May, the
very day hostilities came to an end. The initiative for the resolution however,
was taken by the European Union. The
resolution called for a comprehensive international investigation of the
conduct of Sri Lanka forces in the last phase of the war. Both
government and LTTE were accused of killing thousands of civilians. The
reference is A/HRC/RES/S-11/. Switzerland had brought amendments to the Sri Lanka resolution at a
closed door meeting held earlier. The
EU was very secretive in its actions, said Rajiva Wijesinghe. EU was trying
for a War Crimes probe, said analysts.
Many NGOs had supported the EU
resolution. The NGO
website, Inner City Press presented what it said were UN statistics of civilian
killings in the Wanni since January 2009, and quoted the UN Human Rights High
Commissioner Navaneethan Pillay as saying that war crimes “may” have
been committed in Sri Lanka by both the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government.
There was also vigorous lobbying by the Tamil
Diaspora. Many a Special Rapporteur who
had not previously been interested in Sri Lanka, issued a press release calling
for an independent inquiry into the situation in Sri Lanka, said Dayan Jayatilleke. Rajiva Wijesinghe added, hordes
of LTTE sympathizers turned up to buttonhole various ambassadors, and to brief
the UN Commissioner for Human rights, and to make aggressive interventions in
the debate. They were aided and abetted
by a number of NGOs. But some
pro-Eelamists were not satisfied with the text. ‘This text is too little, they said, ‘it is also toothless’.
The EU assumed
that since they were about a dozen themselves, they could get the 16 signatures
easily, but the attempt failed. EU was not
able to secure the 16 signatures needed. Sri Lanka briefed all states
interested in Sri Lanka and got the motion scratched. The Non-Aligned Movement, its chairman,
Cuba, and Chairman elect, Egypt as well as China, Russia, Bangladesh, and Pakistan supported Sri
Lanka.
Sri Lanka
then submitted a counter resolution, to the EU resolution, Resolution S-11/1 ‘Assistance
to Sri Lanka in the promotion and protection of human rights’. The
resolution showed that LTTE kept
civilians as hostages against their will and that the Government liberated
almost 300,000 citizens kept by the LTTE. The
resolution was commended.
The
resolution was passed by 29 for with 12 against and 6 abstaining. Those who voted for Sri Lanka included
India, Pakistan, China, Russia, Malaysia, Brazil Cuba, Egypt, Ghana and
Indonesia. Those against included
Canada, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Switzerland and UK. Countries supporting
Sri Lanka criticized the EU resolution.
Cuba, who co-sponsored the Sri Lanka resolution, commented on the double
standards, and the undesirable politicization of the Human Rights Council.
Sri Lanka’s counter resolution was described
as ‘a rare and perhaps unprecedented move,’ by analysts. There could not be a
similar instance in the UNHRC history, said the jubilant Sri Lanka group. In
fact there had been only 10 previous special sessions like this. ‘Sri Lanka negotiators never showed their
hand while dumbfounding even the most seasoned diplomatic wizards seated round
the Geneva table. There was no bubbling over with emotion as they approached
the vote. They had poker faces till they triumphed’, reported the media.
Sri Lanka was able to resist successfully and
then prevail over the concerted global efforts of the massive, well funded and
thoroughly professional foreign offices of the UK, France, Germany, and
Denmark, together with their access to the media, their proxies the INGOs, and
their well placed supporters in the upper reaches of the UN system, said Dayan
Jayatilleke.
The Sri Lanka team was spoken of highly,
reported the media. UNHCR president also
spoke highly of Sri Lanka attitude to discussing human rights issues, continued
the media. The well orchestrated
cohesion of the three fighting forces also came in for praise. While army faced
the matter on the ground, the air force dealt with the bunker hopping LTTE. The
navy sealed of the supply lines well. Jane’s Defence Weekly of London noted
that cutting off the Tigers fortified supply along the nearly 200 mile long
beach from form Batticaloa –Trincomalee -Mullativu in the east to Mannar and
Puttalam on the west was crucial to the war.
After much protest from Sri Lanka, the web
cast of the special session was uploaded to the archive of the UN Human Rights
Council. These live webcasts are usually uploaded in a few hours but in this
case they said that there had been a technical glitch, complained the government
of Sri Lanka, ‘but you can now watch it on http://www.un.org/webcast/unhrc/archive.asp?go=0111’
This ‘victory’ was certainly seen by the
public in Sri Lanka. A huge number watched the proceedings on the live webcast.
This was also picked up by at least one popular TV channel. There was also a
full length colored advertisement in Daily
News of 4.6.09 (p 11) listing the 29 countries that spoke in favor of Sri
Lanka at Geneva.
The
US thereafter sponsored three resolutions against Sri Lanka at the UN Human
Rights Council (HRC) in 2012, 2013 and 2014. They were all challenged by the
government of Sri Lanka and they were all voted in and accepted by the HRC. The US
subsequently said that if Sri Lanka wanted to permanently close its dark
chapter it cannot walk alone. Analysts observed that in all these resolutions
the US was able to influence the votes and get reluctant countries to at least
abstain. Those countries that refrained from voting made speeches in Sri
Lanka’s favor and then refrained from voting – which was their way of
indicating that they were refraining from voting in favor of Sri Lanka only
under duress.
Resolution HRC 19/2 of 22 March
2012, asked Sri Lanka
to implement the recommendations of its own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation
Commission (LLRC) and to take steps ‘to ensure justice, equity, accountability
and reconciliation.’ It called for an action plan” and for the UN Human Rights
Commissioner to work ‘in consultation with, and with the concurrence’ of the
Sri Lankan government in implementing the LLRC proposals. The
US initially wanted a co-sponsor from the Third World for the resolution. Though we lost, we got 15 votes
and 8 abstentions, which is good, said Sri Lanka.
This resolution
was presented amidst much fanfare .A resolution calling upon Sri Lanka to fully
investigate who was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Tamil civilians
and to establish genuine reconciliation is to be tabled during a meeting of the
UN Human Rights Council (UNHCR), which opens tomorrow, shouted the media.
Britain and the US are preparing for a bitter showdown with Sri Lanka as the
two countries engage in a major effort to pass an international resolution
rebuking Colombo over alleged war crimes said to have been committed during
military operations against ethnic rebels.
Many thousands of Sri Lankan civilians died or
suffered other violations in the final weeks of the long-running civil war in
2009. There has been no complete accounting of those deaths or other violations
and no pursuit of accountability for them,” said Eileen Donahoe, the US
ambassador to the UNHCR in Geneva. We believe that real reconciliation must be
based on accountability, not impunity. There cannot be impunity for large-scale
civilian casualties, and that if there is to be real reconciliation it must be
based on an accounting of the truth and serious implementation of changes,”
concluded Donahoe”
Diplomats said the wording of the resolution
was likely to be modest, because USA wanted to obtain the support of as many of
the 47 UNHCR member countries as possible. ” It is unlikely the phrase war
crimes” will appear. No-one wants to see the resolution defeated. Those campaigning for the resolution
said that given the sensitivity of the issue, even a modest resolution would be
a success.
Fred Carver of
the Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice, said, If successful, this motion
will show that the opinion of the world,
and in particular the opinion of nations in the global south, has shifted and
that the Sri Lankan government can no longer turn a blind eye to war crimes and
crimes against humanity. The army has always insisted it adopted a zero
civilian casualty policy and for some time claimed no civilians had been
killed.
After Sri Lanka lost the vote some INGOs and NGOs had thrown grand parties.
Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu, Sunila Abeyesekera
and Nimalka Fernando were in Geneva at the time, reported the media. They attacked the Rajapaksa administration as
undemocratic, repressive and militarized, with abductions and open killings.
They called Sri Lanka a ‘hell hole’. It was evident that all three wanted a
regime change in Sri Lanka. Sunila Abeyesekera was described
as a NGO activist who is heavily funded by the west. Sunanda Deshapriya was
also there. Diplomats had privately wondered how these people were tolerated in
Sri Lanka, said the media.
However, Sri Lanka representative,
Tamara Kunanayagam had informed the
Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights that the OHCHR had acted outside
its mandate in facilitating the US resolution.
OCHCR has played to the political agenda of the USA, raising serious
doubts about the impartiality of the OHCHR.The OHCHR is bound by the UN
Charter to be neutral, she said.
Kunanayagam observed that an aide
at OHCHR, Mungoven, had emailed that the US victory was a ’culmination of the
sustained and determined work by many in the team over the past few years.’ He had thanked OCHCR representative in Sri
Lanka, the Secretary General’s advisory
panel, the Special Rapporteur on Extra judicial execution, and the Special
procedures Branch of the UN.
TNA welcomed the US resolution against Sri
Lanka.TNA said that this is the first step in the pursuit of justice and
accountability and thanked those
organizations which showed a firm commitment to the achievement of a future for
the Tamils in Sri Lanka that is marked
by equality, dignity, justice and self respect.
Elsewhere in Sri Lanka the
resolution was condemned as interference in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka
by the Committee of Vice Chancellors of Sri Lanka. It was also condemned by the
Ceylon Petroleum Corporation Engineers Association. Rev. Cyril Fernando, of the
Diocese of Colombo, said that the action was equal to a direct intervention
against Sri Lanka’s independence and sovereignty and an insult to the
intelligence of the people.
Nalin de Silva said that some
countries were trying to build puppet regimes around the world that is why they
created separatist leaders and funded them. S. L. Gunasekera stated that there
was a danger of President Rajapaksa being assassinated and a pro-western
government set in place. America’s final
aim was to install a pro western person in power here after destabilizing the
county and ousting President Rajapaksa, making human rights violations the
battle cry.
There were large demonstrations in
Sri Lanka against the US resolution. The public voiced their anger over attempts
by US and western countries to meddle in the internal affairs of the country
under cover of human rights, observed the media. The Resolution was also condemned by the
‘cream of the business community’ who thronged to Nelum Pokuna roundabout,
reported the media. They included representatives from John Keels Holdings,
Aitken Spence, Sri Lanka Telecom, Mobitel, Lanka Bell, dialog, Etisalat, Hilton
Colombo, Mount Lavinia Hotel, Commercial Bank and Hatton National Bank.
The Geneva resolution of 2012 is nothing
new, said Sri Lanka. We knew that some
western and European countries had launched a conspiracy against Sri Lanka. We
saw this at the time of the humanitarian operation in Eelam War IV. At that
time these same parties used various tactics to turn the operation back. They
took the position that Sri Lanka should give in to LTTE terrorism and divide
the country. These agents will continue
their project aimed at dividing Sri Lanka into two like Sudan. The project will
continue from foreign lands and they will try to create instability and anarchy
within the country.
US resolution at Geneva 2012 isn’t
an end in itself it is as scène setter, it sets the scene in which the case for
external inquiry and interference can be made beyond reasonable doubt. However
making that case depend upon proin that domestic remedies are not forthcoming
within the time frame given by the UN, if so then the case for an international
inquiry is already pretty much made, if
Sri Lanka refuses to cooperate then the process will move to the next
level of the escalation ladder.
The 2013 US sponsored resolution
was about accountability and promoting reconciliation in Sri Lanka (A/HRC/22/L.1/Rev.1).
Robert O. Blake, Assistant Secretary of State for south and central Asia said
in an interview with BBC Sinhala service that US had closely consulted with
India on this resolution.
The resolution was adopted by 23 votes with 13 against and 8 abstentions. During
the Council’s proceedings, Sri Lanka’s representative spoke out against the
resolution.
UN’s Human Rights
Council has passed a resolution highly critical of Sri Lanka’s record, reported
the BBC in 2013. The resolution encourages Sri Lanka to conduct an independent
and credible investigation into alleged war crimes. Though milder than its
initial drafts, this resolution is more detailed, and tougher than last year’s.
Although it suggests Sri Lanka set up a “truth-seeking mechanism” on
abuses and calls for an investigation, it does not demand an international one.
It also asks Colombo to extend invitations to some of the UN’s special
rapporteurs.
In 2014, the US again put forward a
resolution against Sri Lanka to the HRC
(HRC 25/1 of 27 March 2014). The resolution was to open an international
inquiry into alleged war crimes committed by both the Sri Lankan Government and
the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in the final stages of a
decades-long conflict that ended in 2009.
Unlike the resolutions of 2009, 2012 and 2013,
this resolution asked the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
(OHCHR) to ‘investigate, assess and monitor’ the human rights situation in Sri
Lanka. This undermines national sovereignty, observed the media. The resolution
was adopted with 23 members voting in favor of the resolution, while 12 voted
against. Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, China, Russia, Maldives voted against it.
India, South Africa, Japan, and Indonesia voted for. There were 12 abstentions.
Which showed that those who supported the Resolution numbered less than half of
the HRC, commented G.L.Pieris
Both groups of countries, for Sri Lanka and
against Sri Lanka, commented on the resolution. The intrusive manner in which
the investigations are carried on against Sri Lanka is unwarranted they said.
The resolution ‘went beyond the mandate of the High
Commissioner said Russia, ‘double
standard of play” (Cuba), “aimed at developing countries forcing them
into submission” (Philippines), intolerable interference in the internal
affairs of Sri Lanka” (Pakistan)
“people have the right to choose their own path” (China),
serious risks created by intervention” (Venezuela), “the biased
approach to specific countries” (Ecuador).failure “to take into
account continuing progress” (Thailand)
and ‘ attempt to stifle the “energy” (Indonesia).
UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights, Navaneeethan Pillay noted that in recent years,
the Sri Lanka Government has established various mechanisms with the task to
investigate past violations. But none have had the independence to be
effective or inspire confidence among victims and witnesses,” she stated. New
evidence continues to emerge, and witnesses are willing to come forward to
testify before international mechanisms in which they have confidence and which
can guarantee their protection, the High Commissioner added.
This shows
that an international inquiry is not only warranted, but also possible, and can
play a positive role in eliciting new information and establishing the truth
where domestic inquiry mechanisms have failed.”The Council has in the past
called on the Sri Lankan Government to take credible steps to ensure
accountability for alleged serious violations committed during the final months
of the conflict see Appendix 2.
HRC requested the Office of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to undertake a comprehensive investigation”
into alleged serious violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes
by both parties, and
hold perpetrators accountable. A move to
remove the paragraph empowering an international investigation was defeated. The OCHRC did as it was told and prepared a
report, known today as OISL report.
HRC also reiterated
its call on the government of Sri Lanka to implement the constructive
recommendations made in the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation
Commission. It also called on the Government to release publicly the results of
its investigations into alleged violations by security forces, including the
attack on unarmed protesters in Weliweriya in August 2013.
Godfrey Goonetilleke and Asoka Gunawardene of
Marga Institute and Jeevan Thangarajah of Consortium of Humanitarian
agencies attended this event, to hear
the US plaint against Sri Lanka. They opposed the position taken by the UN
Secretary General’s Panel of experts, (known as Darusman Report) and the
International Crimes Evidence project that said the army deliberately killed
Tamil civilians. The evidence used is limited and sources not given, they
observed.
in 2015, UN
High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a report on Sri Lanka .He
said the report is ‘rather unique’ . it is the
first of its kind by his office in respect of anay country.
The
report makes drastic recommendations relating to demilitarization of the north
and east,.downsizing the military, removing the indispensable security
mechanism embedded in the Public Security Ordinance and impinging on the
command structures of the military.
other
recommendations are breathtaking in the degree of intrusive impact. They
include fundamental land reforms, distributing political and administration
powers within the country, and the estaboihemnt
of special courts outside the country legal system.
193
countries are exhorted to prosecute Sri Lanka ‘under universal jurisdiction.’
Sri Lanka is castigated for delays in resettling persons without mentioning the
presence of land mines. All member
states of the UN are asked to consider applications by Sri Lanka military and
police for participation in peace keeping and training programmes across the
world, concluded analysts.
In 2015, the Yahapalana government of Sri Lanka
co-sponsored a resolution against itself at the Human Rights Council in Geneva.
This is HRC Resolution 30/1 of 2015 on
Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka. This
resolution was based on a report prepared by Sandra Beidas, formerly of the
Amnesty International.
The text says the resolution was sponsored by
Macedonia, Montenegro, the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland and the United
States of America. Sri Lanka is not named in the text as a sponsor. Sri Lanka
representative in Geneva, Ravinatha Ariyasinha refused to accept the Resolution
and tried to negotiate different terms. Yahapalana government
overruled the Ambassador’s objections and ordered him to accept the draft
resolution ‘just as it was.’ The
Resolution was passed without a vote. (
see Appendix 1)
However, Pakistan observed
that no self
respecting country would agree to the intrusive measures advocated in this
resolution. He wanted to know how this resolution was to be funded and whether
the funders were the same as those who had sponsored the resolution. If so the whole process will be tainted. He
got no answer to his inquiry. India warned that an intrusive approach would
undermine national sovereignty. The final resolution had only the support of 23
of the 47 members.
Resolution 30/1 is not a Human Rights
resolution. It is a political document supporting Tamil separatism. It starts by recognizing the now despised
Yahapalana government, saying the resolution
welcomes ‘the historic free and fair democratic
elections in January and August 2015’.
The resolution then went on to emphasize the need for Devolution, to recognize
the need for a ‘Political Settlement’
by which it meant a new Constitution. The resolution then called for the
continuance of Provincial Councils and the 13th Amendment and finally announced
that land in the High Security Zones in Jaffna must be returned to the rightful
civilian owners.
The Resolution
then goes on to make some deadly suggestions. It calls for individual
prosecutions, reparations, truth-seeking, institutional reform, vetting of
public employees and officials,
provide
remedies to victims, promote healing and reconciliation. It points out the need to recognize international
human rights law, international refugee law and international humanitarian law.
The
Resolution then prescribes
four specific actions the Yahapalana government has to take. Firstly, a judicial mechanism to investigate
allegations of violations and abuses of human rights. Secondly, A Commission for truth, justice,
reconciliation and non-recurrence. Thirdly, an Office for Missing Persons (OMP)
and fourthly an Office for Reparations. The Resolution also permits the government to remove military
officers suspected of having violated HR even if there is no evidence. This is
actually a purge of the armed forces, declared analysts.
Laksiri Fernando
noted that there are two tricky points at the end of the
resolution, regarding the involvement of the High Commissioner and the High
Commissioner’s Office. This is where the ‘neo-liberal human rights
interventionism’ is apparent. The government of Sri Lanka, or its delegation in
Geneva, should be extremely careful in endorsing such a resolution again, he
warned. The HRC has
unveiled a political agenda meant to transform the country, at the expense of
its unitary status, observed Shamindra Ferdinando.
The resolution has been drafted craftily to
make it marketable to public opinion in Sri Lanka said Tamara Kunanayagam and
also to ease the fears of developing countries in the Human Rights Council, who
will otherwise object to a precedent that could endanger their own independence
and sovereignty,. The text is scattered with references to voluntary
commitments made by the Government of Sri Lanka and to domestic initiatives.
International involvement is presented as support to these domestic processes,
not a substitute.
To the
astonishment of Sri Lanka, Yahapalana government openly embraced the
Resolution. The President said that the implementation of the resolution will
result in promoting democracy, reconciliation and respect for our armed forces.
SLFP officially announced at a press conference that the UNP and the SLFP had
jointly agreed on the implementation of the Resolution.”
Mangala
Samaraweera, then foreign minister wrote an open letter to Mahinda Rajapaksa
where he said that the Resolution was a victory for Sri Lanka’s new foreign
policy, Sri Lanka and Sri Lankans. The Resolution was not an isolated one. It
was based on Yahapalana government plans for good governance. These plans had
been carefully developed by the government over many months. The bold decision to co sponsor the UNHRC
resolution last October was a massive foreign policy victory for Sri Lanka. It was adopted without a vote by consensus.
Under Mahinda Rajapaksa the world was divided over Sri Lanka, because of the
dismantling of democracy and abuse of human rights . Under Yahapalana the world which was divided towards Sri
Lanka unanimously rallied round Sri Lanka, he said.
The Foreign Ministry published on its website
a Sinhala translation of the resolution, leaving out the sensitive
parts so that any Sinhala speaking person reading it would be completely misled as to the contents of the UNHRC resolution. The Island chanced upon the discrepancies between the original
resolution and its Sinhala version and exposed the matter.
This UNHRC Resolution of 2015 is an unprecedented
resolution, observed the
media. There hadn’t been
a previous instance, at Geneva, where an elected government co-sponsored a
Resolution against its own country, said Island,
where a country welcomed punitive action proposed on the basis of
unsubstantiated allegations. Sri Lanka created history by
co-sponsoring a resolution against itself, which was totally against its interests.
Why the
government has opted for co sponsoring this resolution defies comprehension
said the media. What decided the Yahapalana
government to sponsor this Resolution, they asked. The earlier
government put up a good fight all these years in the face of tremendous
pressure from the US led western bloc, commented Island editorial. The present
government had betrayed the country in co- sponsoring the UN resolution with
the US said N.AS.de S Amaratunga. Dayan
Jayatilleke observed that the Resolution had not received the approval of
Parliament and it had not been endorsed
by the Cabinet therefore the Government of Sri Lanka was not bound by it.
However, M.A. Sumanthiran had told
the USA Congressional Caucus for
Ethnic and religious freedom in Sri Lanka in Washington that ‘the text of the 2015 Resolution is a
negotiated text.’ There had
been a tripartite consensus. TNA negotiated with the Yahapalana government with
the United States of America also participating. .’I was personally involved in the
negotiations, TNA had settled for a hybrid model though they
had originally asked for an international inquiry. TNA wanted the full
implementation of the resolution. The
Global Tamil Forum spokesperson, Suren Surendiran told Island that agreement on the text of the resolution has been reached
following negotiations among what he called ‘core group members at the UNHRC’,
the government of Sri Lanka, and representatives of the Tamils.
Yahapalana
Government’s meek acceptance of resolution 30/1 in Geneva, in 2015 is an
abdication of its sacred responsibilities toward nation, people and its armed
forces. It is the responsibility and duty of the Government to safeguard the
sovereignty, integrity and independence of the State, and to ensure that the
dignity of the nation is respected, said Tamara Kunanayagam and Palitha Kohona.
Supportive nations were prevented from raising
their voices in our defenses because we joined with the USA in the resolution,
observed G.L.Pieris.
Some thought that having accepted the 2015
resolution the country would become a target at the subsequent sessions of HRC. At the annual sessions of the Human Rights
Council on June 28, 2016, the Human Rights Commissioner dealt extensively with
Sri Lanka. In his speech, ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human
rights in Sri Lanka’, he explained, in no uncertain terms, what Geneva expected
Sri Lanka to do.
Yet another resolution on Sri Lanka, supported
by the US, was adopted at the 2017 sessions of the HRC, Resolution
A/HRC/34/L.1. This too was co-sponsored by Sri Lanka and passed without a vote.
This resolution reaffirmed the UNHRC resolution 30/1 of 1 October 2015. The UN Human Rights Commissioner wanted Sri Lanka to
implement recommendations contained in the 2015
resolution, and the investigation undertaken by the Office
of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights (OHCHR).
The resolution gave the government of Sri
Lanka two years to deliver on the commitments made in UNHRC Resolution No
30/1 of October 2015. It also requested
the Commissioner and his special procedure mandate holders to strengthen their
technical assistance to Sri Lanka on the promotion and protection of human
rights, truth, justice, reconciliation and accountability. The Commissioner called on the
international community to investigate and prosecute those allegedly
responsible for war crimes. He also wanted
other countries to abide by the recommendations. The
Commissioner also stated that if Sri Lanka did not deliver the goods, Geneva
would be compelled to explore measures such as ‘universal jurisdiction’. Universal Jurisdiction allows the courts of
another country to prosecute a Sri Lankan citizen for alleged violations of
crimes against humanity normally outside its national jurisdiction.
For the first
time, there was NGO representation from the anti-Eelamist group at Geneva.
Global Forum of Sri Lanka led by Ven. Bemgmuwe Nalaka , consisting
of Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera, Nalaka Godahewa, Anuradha Yahampath and
several others including Wasantha Keerthiratne, Chairman of the Global Forum,
participated in this session as a non government agency of Sri Lanka. Nalaka
Godahewa, Sarath Weerasekera and Anuradha Yahampath, spoke at the session.
They said that the Tamils were a well assimilated group in Sri Lanka. They were
not discriminated against. They criticized the High Commissioner for his bias
against Sri Lanka.
Earlier, at a
side event, the Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam
(TGTE) called for the arrest of Weerasekara accusing him of being
involved in war crimes in Sri Lanka. A heated exchange then ensued as
Weerasekara rubbished the claims and in return, called for the arrest of the
LTTE supporters in Geneva. In media
interviews given from Geneva, Weerasekara criticized Nimalka Fernando and
Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu, who were also in Geneva, for pushing for action
against Sri Lanka.
Analysts noted,
with contempt, that Sri Lanka had stayed silent when Sri Lanka came up for discussion at the
HRC session. Other countries used their
‘Right of Reply’ to answer allegations, clarify any confusion and deny
charges. Sri Lanka’s official
representatives did not do so, observed Sanja Jayatilleke. During
the ‘General
debate on Racism, racial
discrimination, Xenophobia and related intolerance,’ 14 NGOs spoke critically
of Sri Lanka .Again Sri Lanka did not reply.
Yahapalana government had actually thanked those
who had brought this resolution, observed shocked critics. The Director of
Information, on behalf of the government, issued a one page statement thanking
the US-UK led countries for backing the second resolution, which inter alia,
wanted foreign judges, observed Shamindra Ferdinando.
What exactly did the UN Human Rights
Commissioner say in his report on Sri Lanka, to make Sri Lanka declare its
‘appreciation’ asked Chandraprema. Firstly, the Commissioner referred to
findings of the OHCHR investigation of September 2015. This
investigation was outside the established procedure of the UNHRC. In
the report, the OHCHR had accused the Sri Lankan government of every
conceivable war crime including unlawful killings, torture, rape, illegal
incarceration, enforced disappearances, abduction, deprivation of humanitarian
assistance and soon.
Secondly, the UN Human Rights Commissioner has
stated that the report of the Consultative Task Force on Reconciliation
Mechanisms, be implemented. (This is the task force appointed by President
Sirisena, chaired by Manouri Muttetuwegama) speaker after speaker among the
originators and the sponsors of the latest resolution against Sri Lanka – the
UN Human Rights Commissioner Zeid Al Hussein, the EU representative and the
representative of Britain were all harping on the need to implement the
recommendations of the Consultative Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms,
said Chandraprema. Implementing
this Task Force report would have even worse implications than implementing
Resolution 30/1, he observed.
Thirdly, the UN Human Rights Commissioner
wants the establishment of a specialized court which should include
international judges, defence lawyers, prosecutors and investigators, to
investigate allegations of war crimes. His justification included the lack of
progress into certain cases such as the killing of Lasantha Wickrematunga and
the acquittal by a ‘Sinhalese jury’ of the suspects in the Kiliveddy incident
where 23 Tamil civilians are said to have been killed.
The TNA demanded the full implementation of
the Geneva Resolution. TNA issued the following statement, All Sri Lanka’s
obligations in terms of UN Human Rights Council Resolution 30/1 of 1st October
2015, co-sponsored by the Sri Lankan Government, must be fully implemented.
These obligations must be fulfilled under strict conditions, under the
monitoring of an office of the UN High Commissioner for Human rights, which
must be established in Sri Lanka. The UN Human Rights Council must ensure that,
in the event that the Sri Lankan Government fails to fulfill the abovementioned
obligations by way of an appropriate mechanism, victims will receive the
intended benefits of the fulfillment of such obligations, by way of
international mechanisms.
The British
government also wants Sri Lanka to fully implement the Resolution. Foreign & Commonwealth Office
Minister, Mark Field who visited Colombo and Jaffna in October 2017, said
“The UK is committed to the full implementation of Resolution 34/1 and
will continue to support the government of Sri Lanka in its efforts to promote
reconciliation and human rights”. , he raised with Foreign Minister Marapana the
importance of the Sri Lankan government implementing in full its commitments
under UN Human Rights Council Resolution 34/1, which rolled over the
commitments made under 30/1.Resolution
A two year postponement means that this matter
will come up for discussion at the March 2019 Sessions of the UNHRC. However,
2019 will be election year for this government, warned Chandraprema. It is best
that this UNHRC resolution 30/1 be taken off the radar altogether by 2019. If
the government implements even a part of Resolution 30/1 which it so
ill-advisedly co-sponsored, that will help the Opposition at the Presidential
elections of 2019.
The 2015
Resolution took place when Mangala
Samaraweera was Minister of Foreign Affairs. Dr Mathias Keitel, from Germany,
has an interesting piece in the Asian Tribune titled “Foreign Minister
Samaraweera Must Go” with the comment “My recent visit to Sri Lanka,
the country that I love most, fills me with dark foreboding as its vital
interests are being systematically compromised by its buccaneering Foreign
Minister.” He gives a detailed analysis of the Geneva resolution and
points out the uniqueness (foolishness) of Sri Lanka to agree to co-sponsor the
resolution against itself and comments: ‘The Foreign Minister has not learned
the fundamental rule of being the chief representative of the country overseas.
I.e. to represent the country’s best interests with fortitude, dignity and
quiet pride.”
“It is also
difficult not to draw the conclusion that the UNHRC resolution was not really
an attempt to consolidate human rights and restore good governance but a thinly
disguised Endeavour to destroy the iconic super hero status, especially of the
victorious Sri Lankan soldier, and reduce it to the level of a common criminal.
The Foreign Minister’s solicitous and breathless anxiety to comply with the
demands of the West and the Tamil expatriate groups may well have contributed
to realizing this goal. Dayan
Jayatilleke observed that Foreign Minister Samaraweera poses an existential
threat to the State’s sovereignty and security, and gravely jeopardizes
political stability and governability.”
Minister Mangala
Samaraweera had his own take on the matter. He said Sri Lanka has made
considerable strides from soft authoritarianism towards consolidating rights
based democracy with deeply entrenched institutions and values. The country
will never be able to achieve the full socio economic development potential, if
country fails to address grievances, that risk plunging our nation into
conflict once again, he announced.
The set of
actions that the Government has identified to deal with the past in a
comprehensive manner, addressing the grievances of all victims, include truth
seeking, justice reparation and measures for guaranteeing non recurrence, he
continued. Traumatic memories do not simply vanish. We have learned through
experience since independence that grievances that are left unaddressed can go
on for generations, becoming entrenched and holding the risk of descending into
cycles of violence, Samaraweera continued.
When serious
allegations of human rights violation and war crimes are leveled at a country
it is the duty of the government to prove such allegations wrong through a
credible process of investigator and inquiry. Also to expose the perpetrators
as well as those in the chain of command so that the good name of the country
can be restored, said Samaraweera.
The 2015
resolution will help heal our wounds and genuinely unite the country. It will
clear the good name of the members of the army and all those against whom there
are unfair allegations. True war
heroes like Sarath Fonseka have nothing to feat, only those who carried out
criminal acts. And those who gave order to carry out heinous crimes. The video
footage in Channel 4 documentary is not only authentic but was given to Channel
4 by member of the armed forces who were shocked at the some of the acts
carried out due to orders from above., Samaraweera said.
We have
prevented economic sanctions and the indignity of a foreign inquiry. Many of the
countries which had distanced themselves from Sri Lanka under the Rajapaksa
government’s policy of self imposed isolation are all backing Sri Lanka, said
Samaraweera.
In 2015, Sri
Lanka ceased to be the pariah nation we were in the period immediately before
that where we were fighting everyone and cornering ourselves. We took control
of the accountability and reconciliation agenda, and we put the world as our
witness. We regained our place as a responsible sovereign nation alongside the
rest of the world, because we had regained our heart, and our identity as a
compassionate, proud, diverse nation, full of hope and inspiration to march
forward, holding our heads up high, to be the best that we could be, concluded
Samaraweera..
APPENDIX 1
In
2015, the USA brought a Resolution in
the HRC, titled Promoting
reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka”. (UNHRC
Resolution 30/1).This was a follow up to
its Resolutions of 2012, 2013 and 2014. Sri Lanka’s puppet government supported the Resolution.
.
Resolution
30/1 has been drafted craftily, to ease
the fears of other countries who will otherwise object to a precedent that
could endanger their own independence and sovereignty, said Tamara Kunanayagam.
Therefore no member of the Human Rights Council
felt the need to table a counter
resolution to protect itself from becoming a victim of interventions of a
similar nature at some future date.
The
Resolution has been drafted jointly by a
tripartite group, consisting of US,
Government of Sri Lanka, and the Tamil National Alliance. This was done secretly, and we only knew of
it when the TNA announced the fact, said Shamindra Ferdinando. M.A. Sumanthiran
told American ‘Congressional Caucus for Ethnic and Religious Freedom in Sri
Lanka’, in Washington, that the government of Sri Lanka, the TNA and the US had
been involved in the negotiations leading to the Resolution
Sumanthiran
named the Government of Sri Lanka, the US and the TNA as parties to the
agreement. The declaration was made in the presence of Sri Lanka’s Ambassador
in Washington, Prasad Kariyawasam, reported Shamindra. The resolution itself has been drafted by
Jeffrey Feltman, UN under Secretary General for Political Affairs, in
Washington. He is ‘an arch neo conservative, notorious for engineering regime
change in countries of strategic interest to Washington, ‘said Tamara Kunanayagam.
Tamil intellectuals see much hope for their
cause, in Human Rights”. Radhika Coomaraswamy had
given a lecture at ICES where she spoken glowing terms of the western
enlightenment which upheld reason, universal truth and universal rights
applicable to all societies and cultures.
She expressed confidence in the international human rights regime.
( Island 8.12.13 p 5)
However,
there is absolutely nothing in the Resolution
which deals with Human Rights per se .it is not a Human Rights resolution at all. This Resolution is a
political statement. Its preamble welcomes
Sri Lanka ‘s ‘historic free and fair democratic elections in
January and August 2015’,praises the 19th amendment
and calls for a political
settlement based on the devolution of power.
The Resolution then goes on to incorporate the immediate
concerns of the Tamil Separatist Movement ,
which are to erase the Eelam defeat and get the Eelam movement back on
track. Therefore this Resolution is an
Eelam Resolution as well.[1]
The Resolution is silent as to the
nature of the ‘conflict’. It supports the Eelam war indirectly, by saying that
terrorism must be combated only within
the limits of the laws of war. It refers to the
‘victims’ of war, but says nothing about who waged the war .
Resolution 30/1 does not mention Eelam War IV by name.
The Resolution consists of cryptic utterances which make sense only to those who are sympathetic towards Tamil Separatist
Movement. There are references to “conflict-
affected provinces of North and East’‘, “guarantee of non
recurrence”, ” dealing with the past , as well as mention of LLRC
and LTTE. In the case of Israel HRC is very
specific. the resolutions against Israel speak of’ ‘occupied Palestine’,
‘occupied Syrian Golan’ and ‘incursions into Gaza.’
All the matters raised in the Resolution are matters which any sovereign state could carry
out on its own, without any nudging by the HRC.
They were latched on to the HRC in the hope that UNHRC would give these
matters greater legitimacy and also in the hope that it would silence the
opposition, who, they thought were in
awe of the HRC.
The
Resolution had an unprecedented 23
introductory paragraphs that set the stage for 20 operational paragraphs,
filling 5 pages observed Pathfinder Foundation. The Resolution is available
online and I list below some of the
issues contained in the Resolution .The absurdity and also the gravity
of the recommendations are immediately apparent.
The
clauses of Resolution 30/1 include the following:
- the
proposal by the Government to
establish a Commission for Truth,
Justice, Reconciliation and non-recurrence, an Office of Missing persons and an Office for Reparations and to give each of these the freedom to
obtain financial, material and technical
assistance from international partners, including the Office
of the
High Commissioner
- to
sign and
ratify the International Convention
for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced
Disappearance, to criminalize enforced
disappearances and to begin to
issue certificates of absence
to the
families of missing persons.
- to review the Public
Security Ordinance Act and to
review and repeal the Prevention
of Terrorism
Act, and to replace it with anti-terrorism legislation in accordance with contemporary
international best practices
- accelerate
the return
of land
to its
rightful civilian owners, [and assist in] the resumption of livelihoods
and the
restoration of normality to civilian
life, [and also] ending of military involvement in civilian
activities,
- to
fulfill its commitments on the
devolution of political authority, which
is integral
to reconciliation and the
full enjoyment
of human
rights by all members of
its population
- introduce
effective security sector reforms
- [Remove
from] the security forces, anyone
[charged with] Human Rights violations and violation of IHL. [This] included members of the security and
intelligence units
- to issue
instructions clearly
to all branches of the security forces that violations of international
human rights law and international
humanitarian law, including those involving torture,
rape and sexual violence, will be
investigated and that those
responsible will be punished.
- the trial and
punishment of those
responsible for crimes [specially
] abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law, during the period
covered by the Lessons Learnt
and Reconciliation
Commission
- to
establish a judicial mechanism to
investigate allegations
of violations and abuses of human rights and violations of
international humanitarian law, [which will include] foreign judges, defence
lawyers and authorized prosecutors and
investigators
- the
Office of the High Commissioner
to continue
to assess
progress on the implementation of its recommendations and other relevant processes related to
reconciliation, accountability and human
rights, and to present an
oral update
to the
Human Rights Council at its thirty-second session, and a comprehensive report followed by
discussion on the implementation
of the
present resolution at its thirty-fourth
session
Appendix
2
In May 2014,
presumably on leave prior to retiring from OHCHR, Navi Pillay appeared
at a US Tamil Sangam’s commemoration event to mark the LTTE’s
war and those who were killed. She wore a saree that featured the colors in the
LTTE flag. She began her address by announcing that she had brought greetings
from the Durban (South African) Tamil Sangam, reported Sunday Times .
Navaneethan
Pillai, the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said, This memorial
event to commentate victims of the final war in Sri Lanka on May 18 in 2009, is
a re-enforcement of our commitment to honour the almost 146,000 Tamils perished
in the six decades of struggle for self-determination of Tamils in Sri Lanka
and reverberations of collective action for justice.
. What I saw
and heard of the suffering of Tamils in Sri Lanka is worse. The anguish of
survivors was dramatic. I saw fresh shallow unmarked graves with limbs and
clothing visible abandoned in the sand. That was the point where civilian
Tamils who have been shot from air. I saw videos of piles of dead bodies, women
naked in several areas. It is an enormous violation of the Tamil women. Tens of
thousands were annihilated, not for no other reasons than being Tamil. Such
killings constitute international outcry. Sadly, the Tamil minority continues
to suffer discrimination.
Last year,
the Government of Sri Lanka refused to play the national anthem in Tamil. In
past, on Independence Day celebrations it was sung. Last year it was denied.
This is one more act of denying the Tamils and their identity.
This year, in March 2020 the United Nations
High Commissioner expressed concern. Signs of reversal of past commitments made
by Sri Lankan government towards setting up mechanisms for justice and
accountability have emerged.” She noted the failure by the government to fully
implement the UNHRC resolution. The perpetrators of the violations of human
rights are not cunning.There has been no investigation or no credible judicial
mechanisms. Instead government has taken steps against justice. In March, this
year president pardoned and released from prison Army Sergeant Sunil Ratnayake
who has been sentenced in 2015 for a murder he perpetrated in 2000 of eight
civilians including a child. Conviction and sentence have been confirmed by the
Supreme Court in Sri Lanka in May 2019.Releasing of a key perpetrator who is
sentenced to imprisonment by the court is a wrong act and a huge insult to the
Tamils. These acts undermine the progress that is made towards the ending
impunity for serious crimes. This is why international community has to engage
and be vigilant of justice and liberation of Tamils in Sri Lanka.” Other
speakers delivered speeches in Tamil.
It is
abundantly clear from Navaneethan Pillai’s remarks that she has played around
with some factual matters giving her own twist. She began her address by
announcing that she had brought greetings from the Durban (South African) Tamil
Sangam. Take for example her lament that only a miniscule portion” of lands
belonging to Tamils have been returned. Even the Tamil National Alliance (TNA)
would not agree to that false claim. The fact is that 90 percent of the lands
have been returned.
Her remarks
that she had held a high-ranking international position as UN High Commissioner
for Human Rights also raise profoundly serious questions. This is when she
declares that 146,000 Tamils have been killed. Her claims that during a visit
to Sri Lanka in 2013, that she saw limbs showing together with clothes from
graves also raise damning questions on her credibility, both when she was at
the UNHRC and now a champion of LTTE policies and propaganda.. (continued)
