{"id":114454,"date":"2021-05-22T14:46:35","date_gmt":"2021-05-22T21:46:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/?p=114454"},"modified":"2021-05-22T14:46:35","modified_gmt":"2021-05-22T21:46:35","slug":"erasing-the-eelam-victory-part-18d-pt-5c","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/2021\/05\/22\/erasing-the-eelam-victory-part-18d-pt-5c\/","title":{"rendered":"ERASING THE EELAM VICTORY Part 18D Pt 5c"},"content":{"rendered":"

KAMALIKA PIERIS<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n

Resolutions against Sri Lanka are not a new phenomenon\nat the UNHRC said Pathfinder Foundation. Sri\n Lanka was handled at the UNHRC by Canada in the 1980s and by USA and UK in the present century. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Way back in 1987, while the armed conflict\nagainst the LTTE was at its infancy, Sri Lanka had to face a hostile\nresolution in the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), the forerunner to HRC. On\nthat occasion, the initiative to take Sri Lanka\nbefore the CHR was made by Argentina\nat the bidding of India.\nSri Lanka had voted in favor\nof the UK in the United\nNations General Assembly on the Falklands issue and Argentina was angry. Sri Lankan\ndelegation headed by H.W.  Jayewardene\nand Ambassador Jayantha Dhanapala succeeded in amending the resolution and\nallowed it to be adopted, said Pathfinder.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For many years, thereafter the Sri Lanka issue\nwas dealt with out of public sight, by a professional Foreign Secretary and\nprofessional Ambassadors acting together under an agreed plan of action, said\nformer diplomat Sarala Fernando.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2006 when the UK first broached the notion of\na resolution against Sri Lanka , as Permanent Representative in Geneva, my\ninstructions from Colombo were to make sure there was not even a reference in\nthe official records, continued Sarala.  I remember\nbriefing all the regional groups and the OIC on Sri Lanka\u2019s fight against\nterrorism. I remember ending my statement with the words: if any draft on Sri Lanka was\ntabled, my instructions are to call for a vote and vote against\u201d. No draft was\nofficially tabled and all the lobbying done out of the public gaze.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today, Sri Lanka\nis represented in both New York and Geneva by first time\npolitical Ambassadors who despite fine speaking competency, have little\nexperience of how the UN works. The need for useful contacts and compromises,\nconcluded Sarala. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

USA was very displeased\nwhen Sri Lanka\nwon the Eelam war.USA wished to retaliate and also negate the victory. USA therefore brought war related Resolutions\nagainst Sri Lanka\nat the   UNHCR. Resolutions were passed in\n2009, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2021. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Resolution of 2009 set the tone.\n((A\/HRC\/S-11\/2) It said, Reaffirming the respect for sovereignty, territorial\nintegrity and independence  of Sri Lanka\nand its sovereign right to protect its citizens and combat terrorism, Welcoming\nthe conclusion of hostilities and the liberation of hostages, Welcoming recent\nreassurance given by the President that he does not regard a military solution\nas a final solution,  and his commitment\nto a political solution with implementation of the 13th Amendment to bring\nabout lasting peace and reconciliation in Sri Lanka, UNHRC welcomes the resolve\nof the Sri Lankan authorities to begin a broader dialogue with all parties  to bring about a political settlement  and lasting peace based on respect for the\nrights of all the ethnic and religious groups inhabiting it and invites all\nstakeholders concerned to actively participate in it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nResolutions put forward at the UNHRC sessions got stronger and stronger and\nthere was much resentment, but Mahinda Rajapaksa and his team did not take up\nthis matter of adverse resolutions forcefully in Geneva, said critics. Sri Lanka never\nhad the muscle to combat these said Palitha Kohona.  But Sri Lanka did not give in, either.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

UNHRC\u2019s lovingly prepared\nResolutions met with fierce resistance in Sri\n Lanka .When the first USA\nbacked Resolution was passed in 2012, there was an\nimmediate uproar in Sri\n Lanka. The public strongly objected to the\nwest to meddling in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka, under cover of Human Rights. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Committee of Vice Chancellors of Sri Lanka condemned\nthe Resolution as interference in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka.\nCeylon Petroleum Corporation Engineers Association also condemned it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There were demonstrations.   Media reported that the \u2018cream of the\nbusiness community\u2019 thronged to Nelum Pokuna roundabout to condemn the\nResolution. There were representatives from John Keells Holdings, Aitken\nSpence, Sri Lanka  Telecom, Mobitel,\nLanka Bell, Dialog, Etisalat, Hilton Colombo, Mount Lavinia Hotel, Commercial\nBank, Hatton National Bank   and others. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rev Cyril\nFernando,  of the Archdiocese of Colombo,\nsaid that the action was tantamount to a direct intervention against Sri Lanka\u2019s  independence and sovereignty and an insult to\nthe intelligence of the people.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dew Gunasekera observed that UNHRC, unlike the\nSecurity Council, is only a talk shop. And I do not think this resolution will\nhave any major effect on us. The US\nhas passed so many resolution against Cuba and they have complete ignored\nthem, he said. India also\njoined in. Indian newspaper Daily Pioneer<\/em>\nsaid that Sri Lanka\nowes explanation to none.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Resolution 30\/1 of 2015, which followed, was\nhooted at in Sri Lanka.  It was unheard of,      said critics, for a state to actually\nco-sponsor a resolution which said that its \nown  army had committed war\ncrimes. The resolution was ridiculed so much that Yahapalana government was\nunable to act on it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 The next\ngovernment, Pohottu, quickly withdrew from the Yahapalana   position. Pohottu  completely rejected allegations of “war\ncrimes” leveled against the armed forces. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the 43rd Session  in 2020 Sri Lanka told UNHRC that in\nco-sponsoring Resolution 30\/1, the previous Government violated all democratic\nprinciples of governance \u2013 it declared support for the resolution even before\nthe draft text was presented \u2013 it sought no Cabinet approval to bind the\ncountry to deliver on the dictates of an international body \u2013 there was no\nreference to Parliament on the process, undertakings and repercussions of such\nco-sponsorship \u2013 more importantly the Resolution itself included provisions\nwhich are undeliverable due to its inherent illegality, being in violation of\nthe constitution, the supreme law of the country\u201d.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pohottu then faced Resolution 46\/1,\nwhich came up for   approval in Geneva in February 2021. Sri Lanka said   that\nthe Resolution violated Article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter, and also\nwent beyond the mandate given in United Nations Resolution 60\/251. UNHRC has no\nright to interfere in the affairs of a sovereign country in this manner.   Pohottu also observed  that UNHRC \ncannot collect evidence relating to International Humanitarian Law or to\nsupport judicial proceedings in any member state.\n It lacks both the authority to do so and also\nthe competence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

HR officials found  Sri Lanka  a hard nut to crack. The   sponsors of the  2021 resolution  saw that though a horse could be led to water,\nit couldn\u2019t be forced to drink, admitted Don Manu.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chandraprema observed that when   Commissioner Zeid Al Hussein presented his\nreport to UNHCR in September 2015, in Geneva, he\nwas aggressive, judgmental and arrogant but  \nwhen he visited Sri\n Lanka in Feb 2016 he took \u2018a humble and\nflexible position.\u2019  He made a \u2018tail\nbetween the legs speech\u2019 and left. Probably because he saw that public opinion\nwas against Yahapalana government. Ban KI Moon who visited in Sept 2016 dodged\nquestions at the press meeting. He uttered platitudes and fled when the awkward\nquestion started coming in, said Chandraprema. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sri\n Lanka had considerable support at the UNHRC. Cuba<\/strong>\nbecame a member of UNHRC in 2013.  Cuban\nambassador to Sri Lanka told\nthe local media, that is would support Sri Lanka at the UNHRC sessions.<\/strong> Cuba will remain with Sri Lanka. We will co-operate with Sri Lanka and help\nin the best possible manner. Sri\n Lanka needs co-operation and support. Sri Lanka has better social development\nindicators than other countries, said  Cuba. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 In 2013, 14\nnations including Russia, China, Venezuela,\nIran issued a joint\nstatement objecting to the report on Sri Lanka (A\/HRC\/22\/38) issued by\nthe UNHRC in that year. We are of the view that the High Commissioner has clearly\nexceeded her mandate in this report by making recommendations and\npronouncements. These recommendations are arbitrary, intrusive and of a\npolitical nature\u201d, the group said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When the 2014\nresolution on Sri Lanka came up for discussion, at Geneva, the representative\nfor Pakistan had said that that no self respecting country would agree to the\nintrusive measures advocated in this resolution. He wanted to know how this\nresolution was to be funded and whether the funders were the same as those who\nhad sponsored the resolution.  If so the\nwhole process will be tainted. He got no  \nanswer to his inquiry.  India had also\nwarned that an intrusive approach would undermine national sovereignty. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2015 Pakistan and Russia spoke against Resolution 30\/1. They could not oppose the resolution as Sri Lanka had accepted it.\u00a0 In 2021\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Philippines said the text of the Resolution was driven by simplistic generalizations of complex conditions on the ground\u201d. Pakistan said that the draft resolution fails to acknowledge the long struggle of the Sri Lankan people and government against LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam),\u201d and shies away from a call for accountability of the LTTE and its sponsors and financiers\u201d.\u00a0 (Continued) <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

KAMALIKA PIERIS Resolutions against Sri Lanka are not a new phenomenon at the UNHRC said Pathfinder Foundation. Sri Lanka was handled at the UNHRC by Canada in the 1980s and by USA and UK in the present century. Way back in 1987, while the armed conflict against the LTTE was at its infancy, Sri Lanka […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":true,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[104],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-114454","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-kamalika-pieris"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114454","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=114454"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114454\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=114454"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=114454"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=114454"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}