{"id":117444,"date":"2021-08-24T16:23:33","date_gmt":"2021-08-24T23:23:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/?p=117444"},"modified":"2021-08-28T16:39:31","modified_gmt":"2021-08-28T23:39:31","slug":"erasing-the-eelam-victory-part-24c","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/2021\/08\/24\/erasing-the-eelam-victory-part-24c\/","title":{"rendered":"ERASING THE EELAM VICTORY Part 24c"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

The Human Rights Council of the UN is, as\nits name indicates, the UN body which deals with human rights. However, HRC has\nno power over UN member countries.  It\ncannot impose sanctions, but it can pass resolutions on a country, on majority\nvote, whether that country likes it or not. The human rights position of all UN\nmember countries come up before the HRC on periodic review, every four years. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

HRC has three\nregular sessions per year, in March, June and September. HRC can also   hold a special session at any time, to\naddress human rights violations, if one third of the HRC panel requests it.\nThat was how the 11th Special Session of the HRC was convened in 2009 to\nconsider the situation in Sri Lanka, just one week after the conflict came to\nan end. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The  Office of the High Commissioner for Human\nRights (OHCHR)\nis a separate body. Its remit is to promote and protect the human rights that\nare guaranteed under international law and stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights<\/a>\nof 1948. The Office is headed by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, who\nco-ordinates human rights activities throughout the UN System<\/a> and supervises\nthe Human Rights Council<\/a> in Geneva<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

OHCHR    has\na list of \u2018experts\u2019 given \u2018mandates\u2019 to report and advice on human rights of\nspecific countries. There are also the HRC \u2018Special Rapporteurs\u2019, about 25 of\nthem, one  for each Human Right. These\nexperts serve in their personal capacity, and do not receive pay for their work, which\nhopefully, ensures their independence and impartiality. OHCHR\nprovides\nstaffing and logistical support  for these experts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over the years,  instead of keeping the UN as a  skeleton organization servicing the needs of\nmember states and acting as a meeting place for them, the western powers have\npiled more and more tasks on the UN system and then funded these activities.\nThis has created a great dependency on \nvoluntary contribution to keep the system going.  The UN \nnow depends on ten to 15 western countries, and these countries have\nused the UN to further their foreign policies. In order to retain their jobs\nthe UN officials, starting from the UN Secretary General , have to please these\ndonors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \nsituation is the same in the HRC. Western countries have a hold on the\nHRC because  they provide most of the\nfunds. HRC is not fully funded by the UN.  Other UN agencies have budgets of over\nbillion dollars, HCR had only 97 million per year in 2013. HRC  web\npage even   calls for donations. HRC depends on voluntary contributions from member\nstates to  carry out its functions. Two thirds of the budget comes from western countries,\nsuch as USA, Canada, Norway, EU  and\ntheir transnational corporations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since it provides most of the funds, the\nwestern countries have much power in the HRC. They control appointments to the\nHRC and OCHRC. There are unusually high\nnumbers from US, UK, France, Germany, even Italy in the HRC  said Pathfinder Foundation. Some junior staff\nare paid directly by member countries. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 OCHRC\nis also largely financed from voluntary funds and staffed overwhelmingly by the\ndonors. All the important staff\npositions in OCHRC are held by persons from\nwestern countries.  They make up half the\ncadre in the OHCHR.  The west influences\nthe Office through them. USA, particularly, \nhas invested heavily in the OCHRC and the Office has become a\n\u2018weapon\u2019  of the US, observed Tamara\nKunanayagam. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Countries have objected to the imbalanced\nrepresentation in the HRC and OHCHR. Sri Lanka \u2018s Ambassador in\nGeneva, Tamara\nKunanayakam<\/a> had in 2012 pointed out that 80% of the UNHRC\u2019s funding\nrequirements are supplied by powerful nations such as the United States and its\nallies. Also, key positions in the UNHCR are mostly held by those who have\nserved in the foreign services of such countries. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sri Lanka’s\nposition is that this fact is significantly detrimental to the impartiality of\nthe UNHRC activities, especially when dealing with the developing world. As a\nresult, Sri Lanka, along with Cuba and Pakistan, successfully sponsored a\nresolution seeking transparency in funding and staffing the UNHRC, during its\n2012 session. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

HRC is no\nlonger an exercise in human rights, it is an exercise\nin geopolitics and superpower politics, said\nRohan Gunaratne. Human rights are used by politically and economically\npowerful countries to target selected countries, said Pathfinder Foundation. The\nHRC has always directed its spotlight on countries based on its politics,\nobserved Palitha Kohona. The west is using a phony Human Rights campaign over\nSri Lanka, said Kamal Wickremasinghe. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sri Lanka\u2019s\nPathfinder Foundation observed that the developed countries in the west and the\noil rich Gulf countries are rarely, if ever, summoned before HRC. The sole\nexception to this is Israel. HRC has passed many resolutions against Israel, to\nthe fury of Israel. In 2017, HRC adopted 5 such resolution in one session\ndespite opposition from US and UK. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nresolutions brought by the west mainly target developing countries,\nparticularly those in Asia and Africa. The\nwest   decides which country should be\nhauled before it and who should undertake the task, said Pathfinder. Sri Lanka\nwas handled by Canada in the 1980s and by USA and UK today. Certain third world\ncountries have grouped together to counter this. It was this group that\nsupported Sri Lanka during the special session in May 2009, said Pathfinder. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is\nhorse trading of votes at the UN, observed Guardian. One country will pledge to\nvote for a motion here in exchange for a vote to be on a committee there. There\nis arm twisting too. The weaker nations are made to vote against their\nconscience. In the case of Sri Lanka,\nUS got reluctant countries to at least abstain. The countries that refrained\nfrom voting made speeches in Sri Lanka\u2019s favor and then refrained from voting,\nwhich was their way of indicating that they were refraining from voting only\nunder duress, reported the media. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is a\nclear polarization of countries in the HRC. \nIn 2016, some member countries of the HRC objected to China, Russia,\nCuba and Saudi Arabia holding seats in the HRC. \u2018Too many repressive regimes\nhave found a place on the United Nations Human Rights Council, We must vote in\ncountries  that they have good human\nrights records\u2019, said UK sanctimoniously. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the\nplenary session of the HRC in 2016, an NGO called UN Watch protested about the\ninclusion of China, Russia and Cuba in the Council.  Cuba promptly brought in a point of order. An\nNGO has no right to adversely comment on the composition of the HRC, said Cuba.  Cuba will obstruct if the NGO tries to do so\nagain. China, Russia, Pakistan, Venezuela, agreed with Cuba that they had every\nright to sit on the HRC. USA, UK, Netherlands and Canada disagreed. (https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=nAOAEsI8HdA)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Unlike Sri Lanka, Cuba fearlessly opposes USA\nat the HRC. Here is Cuba at the HRC session of 2012. \u2018Nothing could better\nexpose the utter hypocrisy of Washington’s “human rights policy” than\nthe anti-Cuba vote at the UNHRC,\u2019 said Cub in 2012. \u2018This year, Washington\npressured Honduras to “sponsor” the US-authored resolution against\nCuba, Honduras had death squads. Even the most vitriolic critics cannot claim a\nshred of evidence that any death squads exist in Cuba.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018US arm-twisted\ndependent countries in Latin America to support the anti-Cuba vote. Among those\nvoting for the resolution were the governments of countries with some of the\nmost atrocious records of military\nand death-squad repression.  Cuba, with a very low infant mortality rate of\nsix per 1,000 live births, universal and free health care, no homelessness, is\ncondemned.  But no resolution is passed\nagainst the United States for killing thousands of Iraqi people and illegally\noccupying the country,\nconcluded Cuba. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On Cuban soil,\nthere are over 600 prisoners who are denied any semblance of human rights by\ntheir captors. They have been subjected to unlimited physical and psychological\nabuse and denied the right to see a lawyer, family member or anyone else for\nyears on end. They are imprisoned not by Cuba, but by the United States, at the\nGuant\u00e1namo naval base. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

After the 2001 US\ninvasion of Afghanistan, hundreds of men and boys as young as 12 were rounded\nup and shipped, blindfolded and bound, halfway around the world to Guant\u00e1namo.\nThere they are warehoused in open-air cages, exposed to mosquitoes and the\nscorching sun, and denied all due process and protection under the Geneva\nConvention regarding prisoners of war. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cuba has\nintervened on the prisoners’ behalf to demand justice. In mid-April Cuba\nintroduced a resolution to the United Nations Human Rights Commission, calling\nfor an investigation of conditions in the US military prison and an end to the\nviolation of the prisoners’ rights. Cuba’s resolution on the Guant\u00e1namo prison\nwas announced minutes after a US-sponsored anti-Cuba resolution passed the UNHRC\nby the narrowest of margins.  (year not available, possibly 2013)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cuba took a firm anti US stand where ever possible, and extended\nthis to Israel as well. At the UNESCO World Heritage Committee 41st Session\nKrakow, Poland July 4, 2017, Israel called for a moment of silence for the Jews\nkilled in World War II. The members took their time in standing up for this.\nCuba then took the floor. Cuba pointed out that only the Chair can ask people\nto stand and then requested the assembly to stand for the Palestinians killed\nby Israel. Members stood up very quickly and also applauded.  https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=VO1GqRLWv0Q) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Office\nof High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has the power to intervene in\nhuman rights issues of countries. However, \nOHCHR is not considered impartial in carrying out its role. The role\nplayed by the OHCHR, in manipulating human rights has been a subject of\ndiscussion for some time, said Pathfinder Foundation. The credibility,\nindependence and impartiality of the HRC have come into question wherever they\nare or have been, including in our own region,    observed Tamara Kunanayagam. Nepal asked OHCHR\nto leave Nepal in 2012.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\n2009,Algeria criticized   the\nCommissioner\u2019s   report on civilians and\narmed conflict. Navaneethan Pillay had lumped together various conflicts around\nthe world where circumstances differed and used a one size fits all\napproach.  Algeria said it was time to\nwork out the exact relationship between the HRC and the UN Human rights\nCommissioner. The Commissioner said at the opening of the 32nd session of HRC\nin 2013 that a growing number of countries are refusing to cooperate with them,\nbut that this will not deter the UNHRC. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sri Lanka found, first of all, that the UN, of\nwhich it is  a member , was supporting Tamil\nseparatism. In 2005,   Kofi Annan, as UN\nSecretary General had sent a condolence message on the death LTTE eastern\nprovince political wing leader Kaushalyan. National Bhikkku Front took to the\nstreets in protest in Colombo and marched to UN head office saying this\ngesture  had given diplomatic status to a\nterrorist outfit.  Diplomatic circles had\ncommented on the clandestine links top UN envoys maintained with the LTTE . For\ninstance, V. Nambiar, Under-Secretary-Genera<\/a>l had phoned KP\u201d in Malaysia. He had been in\ntouch with the LTTE for some time, said the media in 2009. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Resolutions\nagainst Sri Lanka are not a new phenomenon at the HRC said Pathfinder. Way back\nin 1987, while the armed conflict against the LTTE was at its infancy, Sri\nLanka had to face a hostile resolution in the Commission on Human Rights (CHR),\nthe forerunner to HRC. On that occasion, the initiative to take Sri Lanka\nbefore the CHR was made by Argentina at the bidding of India. Sri Lanka  had voted in favor of the UK in the United\nNations General Assembly on the Falklands issue and Argentina was angry. Sri\nLankan delegation spearheaded by late H.W. Jayewardene and Ambassador Jayantha\nDhanapala succeeded in amending the resolution and allowed it to be adopted. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sri Lanka found that  that the Commissioner herself, was against\nSri Lanka . Naveneethan Pillay, a\nSouth African of Indian Tamil origin  and\nUN Commissioner for Human Rights  2008-2014, has spoken against Sri Lanka on\nmany occasions. She said that the government of Sri Lanka had  perpetrated \natrocities in the Eelam war \n\u2018under the guise of fighting terrorism\u2019. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2009 after\nthe   anti Sri Lanka  Resolution \nhas been rejected, she had  called\nfor an independent inquiry into Sri Lanka. \nThe Algerian envoy reminded her that the Council had already\noverwhelmingly rejected the  call for\nsuch an inquiry and nobody had the right to challenge the Council on this\nscore. Navaneethan Pillay had ignored the 700 mosque\nattacks in Britain but emphasized the 22 mosque attacks  in three years in Sri Lanka, said Shenali\nWaduge.. Wikipedia\nentry on HRC makes special mention of Sri Lanka as a problem human rights case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Starting\nwith 2006, UN dispatched several high ranking officers on fact finding\nmissions. P. Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions and Alan\nRock ,special representative of the UN for children in armed conflict  came in \n2006. John Holmes, UN under secretary \nfor humanitarian affairs, Louse Arbour UN High Commissioner for Human\nRights and Manfred Nowak, the U.N. Special Rapporteur against torture and\nother cruel and inhuman treatment came in 2007. Rita Izsak-Ndiaye, Special\nRapporteur on Minority Issues  came in 2016.\nPablo de\nGreiff<\/a>, Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth,\njustice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, and Ben Emmerson, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and\nfundamental freedoms while countering terrorism,  visited in 2017.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sri Lanka has been highly critical of these\nHRC  experts. These experts arrive with fixed ideas \non  Tamil Separatism and they\nproduce  biased report based on limited\nsurveys of doubtful validity, observed G.H.Peiris. They  had contact\nwith the LTTE.  Rock had participated in\nLTTE festivities in Canada.  Louise\nArbour met the Bishop of Jaffna and members of civil society in Jaffna. At her\nrequest, several such meetings in Colombo as well as Jaffna were without the\npresence of Government or security officials, enabling her to interact freely. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whenever HRC\nexperts are sent in to review Sri Lanka, the Sri Lanka media and analysts\ndemolish their statements while the Tamil Separatist Movement   praises them. Here is   recent example.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Ben Emmerson, UN Special\nRapporteur on the\npromotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while\ncountering terrorism\u201d  visited Sri Lanka  in July 2017. He  was \nopenly critical and also threatening. \nHe said that work on the 2015 Resolution \nseems to ground to a halt. That\nthere was little evidence that perpetrators of war crimes were being brought to\njustice. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Sri Lanka  failed to meet HRC commitments, the\ninternational community could use a range of measures increasing in\nseverity,  against Sri Lanka .\u201dThere\ncomes a point where patience runs out, he said. The media criticized Emmerson heavily, giving\nmuch publicity to his statements . Wijedasa Rajapaksa, then a Cabinet\nMinister  had  openly disagreed with Emmerson. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on\nMinority Issues, Rita Izsak-Ndiaye \nvisited in 2016. She said \u2018Sinhala-Buddhist majoritarian leadership\u2019 as\nthe main reason behind minority grievances and Sri Lanka\u2019s \u2018long civil war\u2019.\nShe also thought that keeping Article 9 of the Sri Lankan Constitution which\nrefers to the primacy of Buddhism, \u2018could lead to further suppression of and\ndiscrimination against minority religions and communities\u2019. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

She brought strong charges against the\nBuddhist majority for construction of Buddhist places of worship \u2018in areas that\nwere traditionally non-Buddhist\u2019. It blames \u2018Buddhist extremists\u2019 for inciting\n\u2018violence and hatred against religious and other minorities while proclaiming\nthe racial superiority of Sinhala Buddhists\u2019. The widespread destruction of\nBuddhist places of worship in the island\u2019s north and the east and incidences of\naggression, extremism and violence by members of other religious groups towards\nthe Buddhists, however, are not mentioned in the Rapporteur\u2019s Statement,\nobserved Asoka Bandarage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The OCHRC  has not finished with Sri Lanka, yet.  Louise Arbour, in  2007, wanted to establish  a UN mission to monitor human rights in Sri Lanka.  This was criticized as a \u2018diabolical plan\u2019. The government refused to consider it.\nIt emphatically ruled out the possibility\nof establishing a UN country office and setting up a field mission in Sri\nLanka. The idea of an office in Sri Lanka \nis back again, though. It is \nincluded in the 2015 HRC Resolution on Sri Lanka .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 2015 \nresolution also allows for the establishment of a permanent Western\npresence in the form of an OHCHR field office in Sri Lanka, which will have the\ncombined function of investigation,\nmonitoring, and governance, warned \nKunanayagam. The field Office will not only assist in\nobtaining the required material, financial and technical support for\nimplementation of the numerous recommendations, but will also monitor, assess\nand verify the implementation of the 2015\nResolution,\ngoing beyond its General Assembly mandate. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

OHCHR field offices are fully funded by the\nrich Western countries, and that most of the staff are directly or indirectly\nlinked to the donors, continued\nKunanayagam. The offices are\nfrequently utilized for destabilization purposes and to gain a foothold in\ncountries where a direct Western presence proves politically difficult. There\nis no doubt that, through the OHCHR field office, Washington and London will\ntake over the entire process in Sri Lanka and, for all practical purposes, the\noffice will become the Trojan Horse that will permit direct US intervention in\nSri Lanka, concluded Kunanayagam.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The HRC does\nnot hide its bias towards  the Tamil\nSeperatist Movement.  UN Working Group on\nArbitrary Detention which arrived in December 2017   had inspected 30 detention centers and\ninterviews with more than 100 imprisoned persons.  They travelled to Colombo, Negombo,\nAnuradhapura, Vavuniya, Trincomalee and Polonnaruwa.   But they were not prepared to visit Commodore\nD.K.P Dassanayake, held in remand at Welikada, without bail, for six months.\n\u2018He is also an arbitrary detainee, said Dassanayake\u2019s daughter Manjari.  This group came to Sri Lanka to investigate\narbitrary detainees. They interviewed LTTE people, but not war heroes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

TV news\nshowed one of the Group refusing to accept Manjari\u2019s petition. The others had\nsaid they would not come out of the Conference Room till Manjari left.\nCommodore Dassanayake\u2019s wife said she had to hand over her letter to UN\nResident Representative as UN staff refused \nto  let her hand it over directly\nto leader of the Working Group.\u2019 The UN staff had wanted to know, first of\nall,   whether I represented a missing\nLTTE cadre.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, Chandraprema observed that when   Commissioner Zeid Al Hussein presented his\nreport to UNHCR in September 2015, in Geneva, he was aggressive, judgmental and\narrogant but   when he visited Sri Lanka\nin Feb 2016 he took \u2018a humble and flexible position.\u2019  He made a \u2018tail between the legs speech\u2019 and\nleft. Probably because he saw that public opinion was against Yahapalana\ngovernment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

ADDITIONS TO ESSAY<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n