{"id":117416,"date":"2021-08-23T16:55:42","date_gmt":"2021-08-23T23:55:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/?p=117416"},"modified":"2021-08-24T16:20:09","modified_gmt":"2021-08-24T23:20:09","slug":"erasing-the-eelam-victory-part-24a","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/2021\/08\/23\/erasing-the-eelam-victory-part-24a\/","title":{"rendered":"ERASING THE EELAM VICTORY Part 24a"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0 KAMALIKA PIERIS<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n

revised 24.8.21<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The government of Sri Lanka\ndefeated the LTTE in May 2009, and the Eelam War IV came to an end. Soon after,\nthe separatist movement went into its next phase of attack, which was UN action\nagainst Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka was to be punished for defeating the LTTE and the LTTE was to be\nexonerated. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

UN\naction was attempted in 2007 when United Nations Security Council was asked to approve sanctions against Sri\nLanka. This was the very first time, said analysts, that\nthere had been a censure motion against Sri Lanka in any international body,\nsince it became independent. This sanction\nis   about the use of children in armed\nconflict. Reference is S\/2007\/758<\/a>. Security Council was not very\nenthusiastic about this. I am not sure, but I think this was dropped.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In May 2009, as soon as the war ended, these\nwestern countries struck again. The west  \nhas clearly had their UN move ready, to be used in case the Government\nof Sri Lanka actually won the war. That was a sound possibility. The state army\nwas always far superior to the LTTE. What the LTTE had over the army was\nsuperior weapons, given to them by the west. The accusations and allegations\nagainst Eelam war IV were prepared in advance even before the war ended,\nobserved Shenali Waduge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2009, US, working through Britain, France\nand Austria, tried to get the UN Security Council to examine the deaths in the\nlast stage of the Eelam War. This was to be at a Security Council\nbriefing.  But US was not able to secure\nthe 16 signatures needed   and UN\nSecurity Council refused to discuss the situation in Sri Lanka. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The move was \u2018strenuously\nwarded\u2019\noff by seven countries led by China and Russia. These seven, China, Russia,\nJapan, Turkey, Uganda, Vietnam and Libya,  \nsaid that the current situation in Sri Lanka did not warrant a briefing\nin the Security Council.\nChina\nvehemently” opposed any discussion in the Security Council on the issue\nof civilians trapped in the fighting between government Security Forces and the\nLTTE arguing that it was “purely an internal matter”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The US then\nturned to the UN Human Rights Council (HRC). The Human Rights Council, unlike\nSecurity Council, could be manipulated easily by the US. In May 2009 UN Human\nRights Council in Geneva held a special session, called at the request of US,\nUK, EU and Denmark  to discuss a Swiss-EU\nresolution against Sri Lanka.  The\nsponsor was the United States, and the resolution was known as the US\nresolution on Sri Lanka. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The request\nfor convening the special session was made by Germany on 19th May, the\nvery day hostilities came to an end. The initiative for the resolution however,\nwas taken by the European Union. The\nresolution called for a comprehensive international investigation of the\nconduct of Sri Lanka forces in the last phase of the war. Both\ngovernment and LTTE were accused of killing thousands of civilians. The\nreference is A\/HRC\/RES\/S-11\/. Switzerland had brought   amendments to the Sri Lanka resolution at a\nclosed door meeting held earlier.    The\nEU was very secretive in its actions,  said Rajiva Wijesinghe. EU was trying\nfor a War Crimes probe, said analysts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many NGOs had supported the EU\nresolution.  The NGO\nwebsite, Inner City Press presented what it said were UN statistics of civilian\nkillings in the Wanni since January 2009, and quoted the UN Human Rights High\nCommissioner Navaneethan Pillay as saying that war crimes “may” have\nbeen committed in Sri Lanka by both the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was also vigorous lobbying by the Tamil\nDiaspora. Many  a Special Rapporteur who\nhad not previously been interested in Sri Lanka, issued a press release calling\nfor an independent inquiry into the situation in Sri Lanka, said Dayan Jayatilleke. Rajiva Wijesinghe added, hordes\nof LTTE sympathizers turned up to buttonhole various ambassadors, and to brief\nthe UN Commissioner for Human rights, and to make aggressive interventions in\nthe debate. They were aided and abetted\nby a number of NGOs.  But some\npro-Eelamists were not satisfied with the text. \u2018This text is too little,   they said, \u2018it is also toothless\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EU assumed\nthat since they were about a dozen themselves, they could get the 16 signatures\neasily, but the attempt failed. EU was not\nable to secure the 16 signatures needed. Sri Lanka briefed all states\ninterested in Sri Lanka and got the motion scratched. The Non-Aligned Movement, its chairman,\nCuba, and Chairman elect, Egypt as well as China, Russia,   Bangladesh, and Pakistan supported Sri\nLanka.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sri Lanka\nthen submitted a counter resolution, to the EU resolution, Resolution S-11\/1 \u2018Assistance\nto Sri Lanka in the promotion and protection of human rights\u2019. The\nresolution   showed that LTTE kept\ncivilians as hostages against their will and that the Government liberated\nalmost 300,000 citizens kept by the LTTE. The\nresolution was commended.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nresolution was passed by 29 for with 12 against and 6 abstaining. Those who voted for Sri Lanka included\nIndia, Pakistan, China, Russia, Malaysia, Brazil Cuba, Egypt, Ghana and\nIndonesia. Those against included\nCanada, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Switzerland and UK. Countries supporting\nSri Lanka   criticized the EU resolution.\nCuba, who co-sponsored the Sri Lanka resolution, commented on the double\nstandards, and the undesirable politicization of the Human Rights Council. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sri Lanka\u2019s counter resolution was described\nas \u2018a rare and perhaps unprecedented move,\u2019 by analysts. There could not be a\nsimilar instance in the UNHRC history, said the jubilant Sri Lanka group. In\nfact there had been only 10 previous special sessions like this.  \u2018Sri Lanka negotiators never showed their\nhand while dumbfounding even the most seasoned diplomatic wizards seated round\nthe Geneva table. There was no bubbling over with emotion as they approached\nthe vote. They had poker faces till they triumphed\u2019, reported the media.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sri Lanka was able to resist successfully and\nthen prevail over the concerted global efforts of the massive, well funded and\nthoroughly professional foreign offices of the UK, France, Germany, and\nDenmark, together with their access to the media, their proxies the INGOs, and\ntheir well placed supporters in the upper reaches of the UN system, said Dayan\nJayatilleke.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Sri Lanka team was spoken of highly,\nreported the media.  UNHCR president also\nspoke highly of Sri Lanka attitude to discussing human rights issues, continued\nthe media.  The well orchestrated\ncohesion of the three fighting forces also came in for praise. While army faced\nthe matter on the ground, the air force dealt with the bunker hopping LTTE. The\nnavy sealed of the supply lines well. Jane\u2019s Defence Weekly of London noted\nthat cutting off the Tigers fortified supply along the nearly 200 mile long\nbeach from form Batticaloa \u2013Trincomalee -Mullativu in the east to Mannar and\nPuttalam on the west was crucial to the war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After much protest from Sri Lanka, the web\ncast of the special session was uploaded to the archive of the UN Human Rights\nCouncil. These live webcasts are usually uploaded in a few hours but in this\ncase they said that there had been a technical glitch, complained the government\nof Sri Lanka, \u2018but you can now watch it on http:\/\/www.un.org\/webcast\/unhrc\/archive.asp?go=0111<\/a>\u2019 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This \u2018victory\u2019 was certainly seen by the\npublic in Sri Lanka. A huge number watched the proceedings on the live webcast.\nThis was also picked up by at least one popular TV channel. There was also a\nfull length colored advertisement in Daily\nNews of <\/em>4.6.09 (p 11) listing the 29 countries that spoke in favor of Sri\nLanka at Geneva.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nUS thereafter sponsored three resolutions against Sri Lanka at the UN Human\nRights Council (HRC) in 2012, 2013 and 2014. They were all challenged by the\ngovernment of Sri Lanka and they were all voted in and accepted by the HRC. The US\nsubsequently said that if Sri Lanka wanted to permanently close its dark\nchapter it cannot walk alone. Analysts observed that in all these resolutions\nthe US was able to influence the votes and get reluctant countries to at least\nabstain. Those countries that refrained from voting made speeches in Sri\nLanka\u2019s favor and then refrained from voting \u2013 which was their way of\nindicating that they were refraining from voting in favor of Sri Lanka only\nunder duress. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Resolution HRC 19\/2 of 22 March\n2012, asked Sri Lanka\nto implement the recommendations of its own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation\nCommission (LLRC) and to take steps \u2018to ensure justice, equity, accountability\nand reconciliation.\u2019 It called for an action plan\u201d and for the UN Human Rights\nCommissioner to work \u2018in consultation with, and with the concurrence\u2019 of the\nSri Lankan government in implementing the LLRC proposals. The\nUS initially wanted a co-sponsor from the Third World for the resolution. Though we lost, we got 15 votes\nand 8 abstentions, which is good, said Sri Lanka. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This resolution\nwas presented amidst much fanfare .A resolution calling upon Sri Lanka to fully\ninvestigate who was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Tamil civilians\nand to establish genuine reconciliation is to be tabled during a meeting of the\nUN Human Rights Council (UNHCR), which opens tomorrow, shouted the media.\nBritain and the US are preparing for a bitter showdown with Sri Lanka as the\ntwo countries engage in a major effort to pass an international resolution\nrebuking Colombo over alleged war crimes said to have been committed during\nmilitary operations against ethnic rebels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many thousands of Sri Lankan civilians died or\nsuffered other violations in the final weeks of the long-running civil war in\n2009. There has been no complete accounting of those deaths or other violations\nand no pursuit of accountability for them,\u201d said Eileen Donahoe, the US\nambassador to the UNHCR in Geneva. We believe that real reconciliation must be\nbased on accountability, not impunity. There cannot be impunity for large-scale\ncivilian casualties, and that if there is to be real reconciliation it must be\nbased on an accounting of the truth and serious implementation of changes,\u201d\nconcluded Donahoe\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Diplomats said the wording of the resolution\nwas likely to be modest, because USA wanted to obtain the support of as many of\nthe 47 UNHCR member countries as possible. \u201d It is unlikely the phrase war\ncrimes\u201d will appear. No-one wants to see the resolution defeated. Those campaigning for the resolution\nsaid that given the sensitivity of the issue, even a modest resolution would be\na success. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fred Carver of\nthe Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice, said, If successful, this motion\nwill show that  the opinion of the world,\nand in particular the opinion of nations in the global south, has shifted and\nthat the Sri Lankan government can no longer turn a blind eye to war crimes and\ncrimes against humanity. The army has always insisted it adopted a zero\ncivilian casualty policy and for some time claimed no civilians had been\nkilled.\nAfter Sri Lanka lost the vote some INGOs and NGOs had thrown grand parties. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu, Sunila Abeyesekera\nand Nimalka Fernando were in Geneva at the time, reported the media.  They attacked the Rajapaksa administration as\nundemocratic, repressive and militarized, with abductions and open killings.\nThey called Sri Lanka a \u2018hell hole\u2019. It was evident that all three wanted a\nregime change in Sri Lanka. Sunila Abeyesekera was described\nas a NGO activist who is heavily funded by the west. Sunanda Deshapriya was\nalso there. Diplomats had privately wondered how these people were tolerated in\nSri Lanka, said the media. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, Sri Lanka representative,\nTamara Kunanayagam had   informed the\nOffice of the Commissioner for Human Rights that the OHCHR had acted outside\nits mandate in facilitating the US resolution.\nOCHCR has played to the political agenda of the USA, raising serious\ndoubts about the impartiality of the OHCHR.The OHCHR is bound by the UN\nCharter to be neutral, she said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kunanayagam observed that an aide\nat OHCHR, Mungoven, had emailed that the US victory was a \u2019culmination of the\nsustained and determined work by many in the team over the past few years.\u2019  He had thanked OCHCR representative in Sri\nLanka,   the Secretary General\u2019s advisory\npanel, the Special Rapporteur on Extra judicial execution, and the Special\nprocedures Branch of the UN. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

TNA   welcomed the US resolution against Sri\nLanka.TNA said that this is the first step in the pursuit of justice and\naccountability   and thanked those\norganizations which showed a firm commitment to the achievement of a future for\nthe Tamils in Sri Lanka  that is marked\nby equality, dignity, justice and self respect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Elsewhere in Sri Lanka the\nresolution was condemned as interference in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka\nby the Committee of Vice Chancellors of Sri Lanka. It was also condemned by the\nCeylon Petroleum Corporation Engineers Association. Rev. Cyril Fernando, of the\nDiocese of Colombo, said that the action was equal to a direct intervention\nagainst Sri Lanka\u2019s independence and sovereignty and an insult to the\nintelligence of the people. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nalin de Silva said that some\ncountries were trying to build puppet regimes around the world that is why they\ncreated separatist leaders and funded them. S. L. Gunasekera stated that there\nwas a danger of President Rajapaksa being assassinated and a pro-western\ngovernment set in place.  America\u2019s final\naim was to install a pro western person in power here after destabilizing the\ncounty and ousting President Rajapaksa, making human rights violations the\nbattle cry. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There were large demonstrations in\nSri Lanka against the US resolution. The public voiced their anger over attempts\nby US and western countries to meddle in the internal affairs of the country\nunder cover of human rights, observed the media.  The Resolution was also condemned by the\n\u2018cream of the business community\u2019 who thronged to Nelum Pokuna roundabout,\nreported the media. They included representatives from John Keels Holdings,\nAitken Spence, Sri Lanka Telecom, Mobitel, Lanka Bell, dialog, Etisalat, Hilton\nColombo, Mount Lavinia Hotel, Commercial Bank and Hatton National Bank.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Geneva resolution of 2012 is nothing\nnew, said Sri Lanka.  We knew that some\nwestern and European countries had launched a conspiracy against Sri Lanka. We\nsaw this at the time of the humanitarian operation in Eelam War IV. At that\ntime these same parties used various tactics to turn the operation back. They\ntook the position that Sri Lanka should give in to LTTE terrorism and divide\nthe country. These agents will continue\ntheir project aimed at dividing Sri Lanka into two like Sudan. The project will\ncontinue from foreign lands and they will try to create instability and anarchy\nwithin the country. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

US resolution at Geneva 2012 isn\u2019t\nan end in itself it is as sc\u00e8ne setter, it sets the scene in which the case for\nexternal inquiry and interference can be made beyond reasonable doubt. However\nmaking that case depend upon proin that domestic remedies are not forthcoming\nwithin the time frame given by the UN, if so then the case for an international\ninquiry is already pretty much made, if \nSri Lanka refuses to cooperate then the process will move to the next\nlevel of the escalation ladder. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 2013 US sponsored resolution\nwas about accountability and promoting reconciliation in Sri Lanka (A\/HRC\/22\/L.1\/Rev.1<\/a>).\nRobert O. Blake, Assistant Secretary of State for south and central Asia said\nin an interview with BBC Sinhala service that US had closely consulted with\nIndia on this resolution.\nThe resolution was adopted by 23 votes with 13 against and 8 abstentions. During\nthe Council’s proceedings, Sri Lanka’s representative spoke out against the\nresolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

UN’s Human Rights\nCouncil has passed a resolution highly critical of Sri Lanka’s record, reported\nthe BBC in 2013. The resolution encourages Sri Lanka to conduct an independent\nand credible investigation into alleged war crimes. Though milder than its\ninitial drafts, this resolution is more detailed, and tougher than last year’s.\nAlthough it suggests Sri Lanka set up a “truth-seeking mechanism” on\nabuses and calls for an investigation, it does not demand an international one.\nIt also asks Colombo to extend invitations to some of the UN’s special\nrapporteurs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2014, the US again put forward a\nresolution   against Sri Lanka to the HRC\n(HRC 25\/1 of 27 March 2014). The resolution was to open an international\ninquiry into alleged war crimes committed by both the Sri Lankan Government and\nthe Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in the final stages of a\ndecades-long conflict that ended in 2009. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unlike the resolutions of 2009, 2012 and 2013,\nthis resolution asked the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights\n(OHCHR) to \u2018investigate, assess and monitor\u2019 the human rights situation in Sri\nLanka. This undermines national sovereignty, observed the media. The resolution\nwas adopted with 23 members voting in favor of the resolution, while 12 voted\nagainst. Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, China, Russia, Maldives voted against it.\nIndia, South Africa, Japan, and Indonesia voted for. There were 12 abstentions.\nWhich showed that those who supported the Resolution numbered less than half of\nthe HRC, commented G.L.Pieris<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both groups of countries, for Sri Lanka and\nagainst Sri Lanka, commented on the resolution. The intrusive manner in which\nthe investigations are carried on against Sri Lanka is unwarranted they said.\nThe resolution \u2018went beyond the mandate of the High\nCommissioner said Russia,  \u2018double\nstandard of play” (Cuba), “aimed at developing countries forcing them\ninto submission” (Philippines), intolerable interference in the internal\naffairs of Sri Lanka” (Pakistan) \n“people have the right to choose their own path” (China),\nserious risks created by intervention” (Venezuela), “the biased\napproach to specific countries” (Ecuador).failure “to take into\naccount continuing progress” (Thailand) \nand \u2018 attempt to stifle the “energy” (Indonesia).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

UN High\nCommissioner for Human Rights, Navaneeethan Pillay noted that in recent years,\nthe Sri Lanka Government has established various mechanisms with the task to\ninvestigate past violations. But none have had the independence to be\neffective or inspire confidence among victims and witnesses,\u201d she stated. New\nevidence continues to emerge, and witnesses are willing to come forward to\ntestify before international mechanisms in which they have confidence and which\ncan guarantee their protection, the High Commissioner added. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This shows\nthat an international inquiry is not only warranted, but also possible, and can\nplay a positive role in eliciting new information and establishing the truth\nwhere domestic inquiry mechanisms have failed.\u201dThe Council has in the past\ncalled on the Sri Lankan Government to take credible steps to ensure\naccountability for alleged serious violations committed during the final months\nof the conflict  see Appendix 2.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

HRC requested the Office of the UN High\nCommissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR<\/a>) to undertake a comprehensive investigation\u201d\ninto alleged serious violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes\nby both parties, and\nhold perpetrators accountable.  A move to\nremove the paragraph empowering an international investigation was defeated. The OCHRC did as it was told and prepared a\nreport, known today as OISL report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

HRC also reiterated\nits call on the government of Sri Lanka to implement the constructive\nrecommendations made in the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation\nCommission. It also called on the Government to release publicly the results of\nits investigations into alleged violations by security forces, including the\nattack on unarmed protesters in Weliweriya in August 2013. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Godfrey Goonetilleke and Asoka Gunawardene of\nMarga Institute and Jeevan Thangarajah of Consortium of Humanitarian\nagencies   attended this event, to hear\nthe US plaint against Sri Lanka. They opposed the position taken by the UN\nSecretary General\u2019s Panel of experts, (known as Darusman Report) and the\nInternational Crimes Evidence project that said the army deliberately killed\nTamil civilians. The evidence used is limited and sources not given, they\nobserved. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

in 2015, UN\nHigh Commissioner for Human Rights issued a report on Sri Lanka .He\nsaid the report is \u2018rather unique\u2019 . it is the\nfirst of its kind by his office in respect of anay country. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 The\nreport makes drastic recommendations relating to demilitarization of the north\nand east,.downsizing the military, removing the indispensable security\nmechanism embedded in the Public Security Ordinance and impinging on the\ncommand structures of the military.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 other\nrecommendations are breathtaking in the degree of intrusive impact. They\ninclude fundamental land reforms, distributing political and administration\npowers within the country, and the estaboihemnt \nof special courts outside the country legal system.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 193\ncountries are exhorted to prosecute Sri Lanka \u2018under universal jurisdiction.\u2019\nSri Lanka is castigated for delays in resettling persons without mentioning the\npresence of land mines.  All member\nstates of the UN are asked to consider applications by Sri Lanka military and\npolice for participation in peace keeping and training programmes across the\nworld, concluded analysts.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2015,   the Yahapalana government of Sri Lanka\nco-sponsored a resolution against itself at the Human Rights Council in Geneva.\nThis is   HRC Resolution 30\/1 of 2015 on\nPromoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka. This\nresolution was based on a report prepared by Sandra Beidas, formerly of the\nAmnesty International.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 The text says the resolution was sponsored by\nMacedonia, Montenegro, the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland and the United\nStates of America. Sri Lanka is not named in the text as a sponsor. Sri Lanka\nrepresentative in Geneva, Ravinatha Ariyasinha refused to accept the Resolution\nand tried to negotiate different terms.  Yahapalana government\noverruled the Ambassador\u2019s objections and ordered him to accept the draft\nresolution  \u2018just as it was.\u2019 The\nResolution was passed without a vote. (\nsee Appendix 1)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, Pakistan observed\nthat no self\nrespecting country would agree to the intrusive measures advocated in this\nresolution. He wanted to know how this resolution was to be funded and whether\nthe funders were the same as those who had sponsored the resolution.  If so the whole process will be tainted. He\ngot no  answer to his inquiry.  India warned that an intrusive approach would\nundermine national sovereignty. The final resolution had only the support of 23\nof the 47 members. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Resolution 30\/1 is not a Human Rights\nresolution. It is a political document supporting Tamil separatism. It  starts by recognizing the now despised\nYahapalana government, saying the resolution \nwelcomes \u2018the historic free and fair democratic\nelections in January and August 2015\u2019.\nThe resolution then went on to emphasize the need for Devolution, to recognize\nthe need for a \u2018Political Settlement\u2019  \nby which it meant a new Constitution. The resolution then called for the\ncontinuance of Provincial Councils and the 13th Amendment and finally announced\nthat land in the High Security Zones in Jaffna must be returned to the rightful\ncivilian owners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Resolution\nthen goes on to make some deadly suggestions. It calls for individual\nprosecutions, reparations, truth-seeking, institutional reform, vetting of\npublic employees and officials,\nprovide\nremedies to victims, promote healing and reconciliation. It points out the need to recognize international\nhuman rights law, international refugee law and international humanitarian law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nResolution   then prescribes\nfour specific actions the Yahapalana government has to take.  Firstly, a judicial mechanism to investigate\nallegations of violations and abuses of human rights.  Secondly, A Commission for truth, justice,\nreconciliation and non-recurrence. Thirdly, an Office for Missing Persons (OMP)\nand fourthly an Office for Reparations. The Resolution also permits the government to remove military\nofficers suspected of having violated HR even if there is no evidence. This is\nactually a purge of the armed forces, declared analysts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Laksiri Fernando\nnoted that there are two tricky points at the end of the\nresolution, regarding the involvement of the High Commissioner and the High\nCommissioner\u2019s Office. This is where the \u2018neo-liberal human rights\ninterventionism\u2019 is apparent. The government of Sri Lanka, or its delegation in\nGeneva, should be extremely careful in endorsing such a resolution again, he\nwarned. The HRC has\nunveiled a political agenda meant to transform the country, at the expense of\nits unitary status, observed Shamindra Ferdinando.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The resolution has been drafted craftily to\nmake it marketable to public opinion in Sri Lanka said Tamara Kunanayagam and\nalso to ease the fears of developing countries in the Human Rights Council, who\nwill otherwise object to a precedent that could endanger their own independence\nand sovereignty,. The text is scattered with references to voluntary\ncommitments made by the Government of Sri Lanka and to domestic initiatives.\nInternational involvement is presented as support to these domestic processes,\nnot a substitute. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To the\nastonishment of Sri Lanka, Yahapalana government openly embraced the\nResolution. The President said that the implementation of the resolution will\nresult in promoting democracy, reconciliation and respect for our armed forces.\nSLFP officially announced at a press conference that the UNP and the SLFP had\njointly agreed on the implementation of the Resolution.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mangala\nSamaraweera, then foreign minister wrote an open letter to Mahinda Rajapaksa\nwhere he said that the Resolution was a victory for Sri Lanka\u2019s new foreign\npolicy, Sri Lanka and Sri Lankans. The Resolution was not an isolated one. It\nwas based on Yahapalana government plans for good governance. These plans had\nbeen carefully developed by the government over many months.  The bold decision to co sponsor the UNHRC\nresolution last October was a massive foreign policy victory for Sri Lanka. It was adopted without a vote by consensus.\nUnder Mahinda Rajapaksa the world was divided over Sri Lanka, because of the\ndismantling of democracy and abuse of human rights . Under Yahapalana   the world which was divided towards Sri\nLanka unanimously rallied round Sri Lanka,  he said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Foreign Ministry published on its website\na Sinhala translation of the resolution, leaving out the sensitive\nparts so that any Sinhala speaking person reading it would be completely misled as to the contents of the UNHRC resolution. The Island <\/em>chanced upon the discrepancies between the original\nresolution and its Sinhala version and exposed the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This UNHRC Resolution of 2015 is an unprecedented\nresolution, observed the\nmedia. There hadn\u2019t been\na previous instance, at Geneva, where an elected government co-sponsored a\nResolution against its own country, said Island<\/em>,\nwhere a country welcomed punitive action proposed on the basis of\nunsubstantiated allegations. Sri Lanka created history by\nco-sponsoring a resolution against itself, which was totally against its interests. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why the\ngovernment has opted for co sponsoring this resolution defies comprehension\nsaid the media. What decided the Yahapalana  \ngovernment to sponsor this Resolution, they asked. The earlier\ngovernment put up a good fight all these years in the face of tremendous\npressure from the US led western bloc, commented Island<\/em> editorial.  The present\ngovernment had betrayed the country in co- sponsoring the UN resolution with\nthe US said N.AS.de S Amaratunga. Dayan\nJayatilleke observed that the Resolution had not received the approval of\nParliament and it had not been   endorsed\nby the Cabinet therefore the Government of Sri Lanka was not bound by it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, M.A. Sumanthiran had told  \nthe   USA Congressional Caucus for\nEthnic and religious freedom in Sri Lanka in Washington that  \u2018the text of the 2015 Resolution is a\nnegotiated text.\u2019 There had\nbeen a tripartite consensus. TNA negotiated with the Yahapalana government with\nthe United States of America also participating. .\u2019I was personally involved in the\nnegotiations, <\/em>TNA had settled for a hybrid model though they\nhad originally asked for an international inquiry. TNA wanted the full\nimplementation of the resolution.   The\nGlobal Tamil Forum spokesperson, Suren Surendiran told Island <\/em>that agreement on the text of the resolution has been reached\nfollowing negotiations among what he called \u2018core group members at the UNHRC\u2019,\nthe government of Sri Lanka, and representatives of the Tamils. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yahapalana\nGovernment\u2019s meek acceptance of resolution 30\/1 in Geneva, in 2015 is an\nabdication of its sacred responsibilities toward nation, people and its armed\nforces. It is the responsibility and duty of the Government to safeguard the\nsovereignty, integrity and independence of the State, and to ensure that the\ndignity of the nation is respected, said Tamara Kunanayagam and Palitha Kohona.\n Supportive nations were prevented from raising\ntheir voices in our defenses because we joined with the USA in the resolution,\nobserved G.L.Pieris. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some thought that having accepted the 2015\nresolution the country would become a target at the subsequent sessions of HRC. At the annual sessions of the Human Rights\nCouncil on June 28, 2016, the Human Rights Commissioner dealt extensively with\nSri Lanka. In his speech, \u2018Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human\nrights in Sri Lanka\u2019, he explained, in no uncertain terms, what Geneva expected\nSri Lanka to do. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet another resolution on Sri Lanka, supported\nby the US, was adopted at the 2017 sessions of the HRC, Resolution\nA\/HRC\/34\/L.1. This too was co-sponsored by Sri Lanka and passed without a vote.\nThis resolution reaffirmed the UNHRC resolution 30\/1 of 1 October 2015. The UN Human Rights Commissioner wanted Sri Lanka to\nimplement recommendations contained   in the 2015  \nresolution, and the investigation undertaken by the Office\nof the United Nations High Commissioner\nfor Human Rights (OHCHR).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The resolution gave the government of Sri\nLanka two years to deliver on the commitments made in UNHRC Resolution No\n30\/1 of October 2015. It also requested\nthe Commissioner and his special procedure mandate holders to strengthen their\ntechnical assistance to Sri Lanka on the promotion and protection of human\nrights, truth, justice, reconciliation and accountability. The Commissioner called on the\ninternational community to investigate and prosecute those allegedly\nresponsible for war crimes. He also wanted\nother countries to abide by the recommendations. The\nCommissioner also stated that if Sri Lanka did not deliver the goods, Geneva\nwould be compelled to explore measures such as \u2018universal jurisdiction\u2019. Universal Jurisdiction allows the courts of\nanother country to prosecute a Sri Lankan citizen for alleged violations of\ncrimes against humanity normally outside its national jurisdiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the first\ntime, there was NGO representation from the anti-Eelamist group at Geneva.\nGlobal Forum of Sri Lanka  l<\/em>ed by Ven. Bemgmuwe Nalaka , consisting\nof  Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera,  Nalaka Godahewa, Anuradha Yahampath and\nseveral others including Wasantha Keerthiratne, Chairman of the Global Forum,\nparticipated in this session as a non government agency of Sri Lanka. Nalaka\nGodahewa, Sarath Weerasekera and Anuradha Yahampath, spoke at the session.\nThey said that the Tamils were a well assimilated group in Sri Lanka. They were\nnot discriminated against. They criticized the High Commissioner for his bias\nagainst Sri Lanka. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Earlier, at a\nside event, the Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam\n(TGTE) called for the arrest of Weerasekara accusing him of being\ninvolved in war crimes in Sri Lanka. A heated exchange then ensued as\nWeerasekara rubbished the claims and in return, called for the arrest of the\nLTTE supporters in Geneva. In media\ninterviews given from Geneva, Weerasekara criticized Nimalka Fernando and\nPakiasothy Saravanamuttu, who were also in Geneva, for pushing for action\nagainst Sri Lanka. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Analysts noted,\nwith contempt, that Sri Lanka had stayed silent when Sri Lanka came up for discussion at the\nHRC session. Other countries used their\n\u2018Right of Reply\u2019 to answer allegations, clarify any confusion and deny\ncharges.  Sri Lanka\u2019s official\nrepresentatives did not do so, observed Sanja Jayatilleke. During\nthe \u2018General\ndebate on Racism, racial\ndiscrimination, Xenophobia and related intolerance,\u2019 14 NGOs spoke critically\nof Sri Lanka .Again Sri Lanka did not reply. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yahapalana government had actually thanked those\nwho had brought this resolution, observed shocked critics. The Director of\nInformation, on behalf of the government, issued a one page statement thanking\nthe US-UK led countries for backing the second resolution, which inter alia,\nwanted foreign judges, observed Shamindra Ferdinando. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What exactly did the UN Human Rights\nCommissioner say in his report on Sri Lanka, to make Sri Lanka declare its\n\u2018appreciation\u2019 asked Chandraprema. Firstly, the Commissioner referred to\nfindings of the OHCHR investigation of September 2015. This\ninvestigation was outside the established procedure of the UNHRC. In\nthe report, the OHCHR had accused the Sri Lankan government of every\nconceivable war crime including unlawful killings, torture, rape, illegal\nincarceration, enforced disappearances, abduction, deprivation of humanitarian\nassistance and soon. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Secondly, the UN Human Rights Commissioner has\nstated that the report of the Consultative Task Force on Reconciliation\nMechanisms, be implemented. (This is the task force appointed by President\nSirisena, chaired by Manouri Muttetuwegama) speaker after speaker among the\noriginators and the sponsors of the latest resolution against Sri Lanka \u2013 the\nUN Human Rights Commissioner Zeid Al Hussein, the EU representative and the\nrepresentative of Britain were all harping on the need to implement the\nrecommendations of the Consultative Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms,\nsaid Chandraprema. Implementing\nthis Task Force report would have even worse implications than implementing\nResolution 30\/1, he observed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thirdly, the UN Human Rights Commissioner\nwants the establishment of a specialized court which should include\ninternational judges, defence lawyers, prosecutors and investigators, to\ninvestigate allegations of war crimes. His justification included the lack of\nprogress into certain cases such as the killing of Lasantha Wickrematunga and\nthe acquittal by a \u2018Sinhalese jury\u2019 of the suspects in the Kiliveddy incident\nwhere 23 Tamil civilians are said to have been killed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The TNA demanded the full implementation of\nthe Geneva Resolution. TNA issued the following statement,  All Sri Lanka\u2019s\nobligations in terms of UN Human Rights Council Resolution 30\/1 of 1st October\n2015, co-sponsored by the Sri Lankan Government, must be fully implemented.\nThese obligations must be fulfilled under strict conditions, under the\nmonitoring of an office of the UN High Commissioner for Human rights, which\nmust be established in Sri Lanka. The UN Human Rights Council must ensure that,\nin the event that the Sri Lankan Government fails to fulfill the abovementioned\nobligations by way of an appropriate mechanism, victims will receive the\nintended benefits of the fulfillment of such obligations, by way of\ninternational mechanisms. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The British\ngovernment also wants Sri Lanka to fully implement the Resolution. <\/em>Foreign & Commonwealth Office\nMinister, Mark Field who visited Colombo and Jaffna in October 2017, said\n“The UK is committed to the full implementation of Resolution 34\/1 and\nwill continue to support the government of Sri Lanka in its efforts to promote\nreconciliation and human rights”.  , he raised with Foreign Minister Marapana the\nimportance of the Sri Lankan government implementing in full its commitments\nunder UN Human Rights Council Resolution 34\/1, which rolled over the\ncommitments made under 30\/1.Resolution <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A two year postponement means that this matter\nwill come up for discussion at the March 2019 Sessions of the UNHRC. However,\n2019 will be election year for this government, warned Chandraprema. It is best\nthat this UNHRC resolution 30\/1 be taken off the radar altogether by 2019. If\nthe government implements even a part of Resolution 30\/1 which it so\nill-advisedly co-sponsored, that will help the Opposition at the Presidential\nelections of 2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 2015\nResolution   took place when Mangala\nSamaraweera was Minister of Foreign Affairs. Dr Mathias Keitel, from Germany,\nhas an interesting piece in the Asian Tribune titled “Foreign Minister\nSamaraweera Must Go” with the comment “My recent visit to Sri Lanka,\nthe country that I love most, fills me with dark foreboding as its vital\ninterests are being systematically compromised by its buccaneering Foreign\nMinister.” He gives a detailed analysis of the Geneva resolution and\npoints out the uniqueness (foolishness) of Sri Lanka to agree to co-sponsor the\nresolution against itself and comments: \u2018The Foreign Minister has not learned\nthe fundamental rule of being the chief representative of the country overseas.\nI.e. to represent the country’s best interests with fortitude, dignity and\nquiet pride.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

“It is also\ndifficult not to draw the conclusion that the UNHRC resolution was not really\nan attempt to consolidate human rights and restore good governance but a thinly\ndisguised Endeavour to destroy the iconic super hero status, especially of the\nvictorious Sri Lankan soldier, and reduce it to the level of a common criminal.\nThe Foreign Minister’s solicitous and breathless anxiety to comply with the\ndemands of the West and the Tamil expatriate groups may well have contributed\nto realizing this goal. Dayan\nJayatilleke observed that Foreign Minister Samaraweera poses an existential\nthreat to the State\u2019s sovereignty and security, and gravely jeopardizes\npolitical stability and governability.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Minister Mangala\nSamaraweera had his own take on the matter. He said Sri Lanka has made\nconsiderable strides from soft authoritarianism towards consolidating rights\nbased democracy with deeply entrenched institutions and values. The country\nwill never be able to achieve the full socio economic development potential, if\ncountry fails to address grievances, that risk plunging our nation into\nconflict once again, he announced. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The set of\nactions that the Government has identified to deal with the past in a\ncomprehensive manner, addressing the grievances of all victims, include truth\nseeking, justice reparation and measures for guaranteeing non recurrence, he\ncontinued. Traumatic memories do not simply vanish. We have learned through\nexperience since independence that grievances that are left unaddressed can go\non for generations, becoming entrenched and holding the risk of descending into\ncycles of violence, Samaraweera continued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When serious\nallegations of human rights violation and war crimes are leveled at a country\nit is the duty of the government to prove such allegations wrong through a\ncredible process of investigator and inquiry. Also to expose the perpetrators\nas well as those in the chain of command so that the good name of the country\ncan be restored, said Samaraweera. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 2015\nresolution will help heal our wounds and genuinely unite the country. It will\nclear the good name of the members of the army and all those against whom there\nare unfair allegations. True war\nheroes like Sarath Fonseka have nothing to feat, only those who carried out\ncriminal acts. And those who gave order to carry out heinous crimes. The video\nfootage in Channel 4 documentary is not only authentic but was given to Channel\n4 by member of the armed forces who were shocked at the some of the acts\ncarried out due to orders from above., Samaraweera said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We have\nprevented economic sanctions and the indignity of a foreign inquiry.  Many of the\ncountries which had distanced themselves from Sri Lanka under the Rajapaksa\ngovernment\u2019s policy of self imposed isolation are all backing Sri Lanka, said\nSamaraweera. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2015, Sri\nLanka ceased to be the pariah nation we were in the period immediately before\nthat where we were fighting everyone and cornering ourselves. We took control\nof the accountability and reconciliation agenda, and we put the world as our\nwitness. We regained our place as a responsible sovereign nation alongside the\nrest of the world, because we had regained our heart, and our identity as a\ncompassionate, proud, diverse nation, full of hope and inspiration to march\nforward, holding our heads up high, to be the best that we could be, concluded\nSamaraweera.. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

APPENDIX 1<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\n2015, the USA brought a Resolution  in\nthe HRC, titled   Promoting\nreconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka\u201d. (UNHRC\nResolution 30\/1).This was a follow up  to\nits Resolutions of 2012, 2013 and 2014. Sri Lanka\u2019s    puppet government  supported the Resolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Resolution\n30\/1  has been drafted craftily, to ease\nthe fears of  other countries  who will otherwise object to a precedent that\ncould endanger their own independence and sovereignty, said Tamara Kunanayagam.\nTherefore no member of the Human Rights Council \nfelt the need to  table a counter\nresolution to protect itself from becoming a victim of interventions of a\nsimilar nature at some future date. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nResolution has been drafted jointly by  a\ntripartite group, consisting of   US,\nGovernment of Sri Lanka, and the Tamil National Alliance.  This was done secretly, and we only knew of\nit when the TNA announced the fact, said Shamindra Ferdinando. M.A. Sumanthiran\ntold American \u2018Congressional Caucus for Ethnic and Religious Freedom in Sri\nLanka\u2019, in Washington, that the government of Sri Lanka, the TNA and the US had\nbeen involved in the negotiations leading to the Resolution  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sumanthiran\nnamed the Government of Sri Lanka, the US and the TNA as parties to the\nagreement. The declaration was made in the presence of Sri Lanka\u2019s Ambassador\nin Washington, Prasad Kariyawasam, reported Shamindra. The resolution itself has been drafted by\nJeffrey Feltman, UN under Secretary General for Political Affairs, in\nWashington. He is \u2018an arch neo conservative, notorious for engineering regime\nchange in countries of strategic interest to Washington, \u2018said Tamara Kunanayagam.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tamil intellectuals see much hope for their\ncause, in Human Rights\u201d. Radhika Coomaraswamy had\ngiven a lecture at ICES where she spoken glowing terms of the western\nenlightenment which upheld reason, universal truth and universal rights\napplicable to all societies and cultures.  \nShe expressed confidence in the international human rights regime.\n( Island 8.12.13 p 5) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However,\nthere is absolutely nothing in the Resolution \nwhich deals with Human Rights per se .it is not a Human Rights  resolution at all. This Resolution is a\npolitical statement. Its preamble  welcomes \nSri Lanka \u2018s \u2018historic free and fair democratic elections in\nJanuary and August 2015\u2019,praises the 19th amendment\nand calls for a  political\nsettlement based on the devolution of power. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Resolution  then goes on to incorporate the immediate\nconcerns of the Tamil Separatist Movement , \nwhich are to erase the Eelam  defeat and get the Eelam movement back on\ntrack. Therefore  this Resolution is an\nEelam Resolution as  well.[1]<\/a>\nThe Resolution is  silent as to the\nnature of the \u2018conflict\u2019. It supports the Eelam war indirectly, by saying that\nterrorism must be combated only  within\nthe limits of the laws of war. It refers to the\n\u2018victims\u2019 of war, but says nothing about who waged the war .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Resolution  30\/1 does not mention Eelam War IV by name.\nThe Resolution consists of cryptic utterances which  make sense only to those  who are sympathetic towards Tamil Separatist\nMovement.  There are references to  “conflict-\naffected provinces of North and East\u2019\u2018, “guarantee of non\nrecurrence”, ” dealing with the past , as well as mention of LLRC\nand LTTE. In the case of Israel HRC is very\nspecific. the resolutions against Israel speak of\u2019 \u2018occupied Palestine\u2019,\n\u2018occupied Syrian Golan\u2019 and \u2018incursions into Gaza.\u2019  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

All  the matters raised in the Resolution are  matters which any sovereign state could carry\nout on its own, without any nudging by the HRC. \nThey were latched on to the HRC in the hope that UNHRC would give these\nmatters greater legitimacy and also in the hope that it would silence the\nopposition, who,  they thought were in\nawe of the HRC. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nResolution had an  unprecedented 23\nintroductory paragraphs that set the stage for 20 operational paragraphs,\nfilling 5 pages observed Pathfinder Foundation. The Resolution is available\nonline and  I list below some of  the \nissues contained in the Resolution .The absurdity and also the gravity\nof the recommendations are immediately apparent.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nclauses of Resolution 30\/1 include the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n