{"id":72925,"date":"2017-12-19T17:56:19","date_gmt":"2017-12-20T00:56:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/?p=72925"},"modified":"2019-03-30T18:37:36","modified_gmt":"2019-03-31T01:37:36","slug":"yahapalana-and-the-geneva-resolutions-part-1-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/2017\/12\/19\/yahapalana-and-the-geneva-resolutions-part-1-3\/","title":{"rendered":"YAHAPALANA AND THE \u2018GENEVA RESOLUTIONS\u2019 Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

REVISED 19.12.17,   8.9.18,\n  29.3.19<\/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.\nThis sanction is   about the use of children in armed conflict.\nReference 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   has clearly had their UN move ready, to be used\nin case the Government of Sri Lanka actually won the war. That was a sound\npossibility. The state army was always far superior to the LTTE. What the LTTE\nhad over the army was superior weapons, given to them by the west. The\naccusations and allegations against Eelam war IV were prepared in advance even\nbefore the war ended, observed 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 briefing.  But US was not able to secure the 16\nsignatures needed   and UN Security\nCouncil 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 turned\nto the UN Human Rights Council (HRC). The Human Rights Council, unlike Security\nCouncil, could be manipulated easily by the US. In May 2009 UN Human Rights\nCouncil in Geneva held a special session, called at the request of US, UK, EU\nand Denmark  to discuss a Swiss-EU resolution\nagainst Sri Lanka.  The sponsor was the\nUnited States, and the resolution was known as the US resolution 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 EU was very secretive in its actions,  said\nRajiva Wijesinghe. EU was trying for a War Crimes probe, said analysts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many NGOs had supported the EU resolution.  The NGO website, Inner\nCity Press presented what it said were UN statistics of civilian killings in\nthe Wanni since January 2009, and quoted the UN Human Rights High Commissioner\nNavaneethan Pillay as saying that war crimes “may” have been\ncommitted 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 by a number of\nNGOs.  But some pro-Eelamists were not\nsatisfied with the text. \u2018This text is too little,   they said, \u2018it is also toothless\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EU\nassumed that since they were about a dozen themselves, they could get the 16\nsignatures easily, but the attempt failed. EU\nwas not able 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, Cuba,\nand 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\n\u2018Assistance to 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 resolution\nwas 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\ngovernment of Sri Lanka, \u2018but you can now watch it on http:\/\/www.un.org\/webcast\/unhrc\/archive.asp?go=0111<\/a>\u2019\n<\/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

 Reviewing this Resolution severl   years later, an analysts said, what the US\nhave to take note of is that tiny economically weak nation with no coherent\naction plan on how they were to meet the US challenge and led by two minister\nand parliamentarians, all pulling in different directions, yet the    US won only by the skin of their teeth. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is because the other nations\nunderstood that this resolution could boomerang on them. The implicate of this\nresolutions and the precedent that it will set in terms of western interference\nin the affairs of other nations. The Singaporean   representitvie had in fact told a member of\nthe squabbling Sri Lanka delegation that that they knew Sri Lanka was not\nfighting just for itself but on behalf of all the others as well. In Sri Lanka\nany kind of resistance in foreign policy, is seen as arising of immaturity,\nlack of foreign policy savvy, of being godayas who know nothing of ht outside\nworld. This tendency is strong among the English education elite in Colombo. <\/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 subsequently\nsaid that if Sri Lanka wanted to permanently close its dark chapter it cannot\nwalk alone. Analysts observed that in all these resolutions the US was able to\ninfluence the votes and get reluctant countries to at least abstain. Those\ncountries that refrained from voting made speeches in Sri Lanka\u2019s favor and\nthen refrained from voting \u2013 which was their way of indicating that they were\nrefraining from voting in favor of Sri Lanka only under duress. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sri Lanka never had the muscle to combat these\nresolution observed Palitha Kohona.\nWhy Sri Lanka\nshould have been singled out for special treatment by the HRC for alleged\nincidents that occurred over six years \nis of interest he  said. he HRC has always directed its spotlight\non  countries identified selectively for\npolitical reasons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Resolution HRC 19\/2 of 22 March 2012,\nasked Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations\nof its own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) and to take\nsteps \u2018to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation.\u2019 It called\nfor an action plan\u201d and for the UN Human Rights Commissioner to work \u2018in\nconsultation with, and with the concurrence\u2019 of the Sri Lankan government in\nimplementing the LLRC proposals. The US initially wanted a co-sponsor\nfrom 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 was\npresented 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 concluded\nDonahoe\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 as a NGO activist who is heavily\nfunded by the west. Sunanda Deshapriya was also there. Diplomats had privately wondered\nhow these people were tolerated in Sri 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. OCHCR has played to the political\nagenda of the USA, raising serious doubts about the impartiality of the OHCHR. <\/em>The OHCHR is bound by the UN Charter 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\nyears.\u2019  He had thanked OCHCR\nrepresentative in Sri Lanka,   the\nSecretary General\u2019s advisory panel, the Special Rapporteur on Extra judicial\nexecution, and the Special procedures 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\nattempts by US and western countries to meddle in the internal affairs of the\ncountry under 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\nnothing new, said Sri Lanka.  We knew\nthat some western and European countries had launched a conspiracy against Sri Lanka.\nWe saw 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.\nThese\nagents will continue their project aimed at dividing Sri Lanka into two like\nSudan. The project will continue from foreign lands and they will try to create\ninstability and anarchy within 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 said\nJayatilleke. However making that case depend upon proving that domestic\nremedies are not forthcoming within the time frame given by the UN, if so then\nthe case for an international inquiry is already pretty much made, if  Sri Lanka refuses to cooperate then the\nprocess will move to the next level of the escalation ladder, warned\nJayatilleke. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\n2013 US sponsored resolution was about accountability and promoting\nreconciliation in Sri Lanka (A\/HRC\/22\/L.1\/Rev.1<\/a>). Robert O. Blake,\nAssistant Secretary of State for south and central Asia said in an interview\nwith BBC Sinhala service that US had closely consulted with India on this\nresolution. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The resolution was adopted by 23 votes with 13 against\nand 8 abstentions.  the\nones who voted with US are those who are economically weak. They cannot impose\nsanctions on Sri Lanka. Those who oppose are those who are economically strong\nor moving towards that,  observed\ncritics.  During the\nCouncil’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

The two\nresolutions of 2012 and 2013 refer to accountability and Kunanayakam has\npointed that it advanced the possibility of R2P. R2P is applicable for genocide,\nwar crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Accountability she\nsays is only a pretext for Washington to advance its geopolitical interests in\nthe region.  They are meticulously\nstructured for this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 In 2014, the US again put forward\na resolution   against Sri Lanka to the\nHRC (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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 In this Resolution the Human Rights Council\nemphasised the importance of a comprehensive approach to transitional justice\nincorporating the full range of\njudicial and non-judicial measures, including, inter-alia, individual\nprosecutions, reparations, truth-seeking, institutional reforms, vetting of\npublic employees and officials\u201d. <\/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 against.\nRussia, Cuba, Venezuela, China, Russia, Maldives voted against it. India, South\nAfrica, Japan, and Indonesia voted for. There were 12 abstentions. Which showed\nthat those who supported the Resolution numbered less than half of the HRC,\ncommented 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)  “people have the right to choose their\nown path” (China), serious risks created by intervention” (Venezuela),\n“the biased approach to specific countries” (Ecuador).failure\n“to take into account continuing progress” (Thailand)  and \u2018 attempt to stifle the “energy”\n(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 effective\nor inspire confidence among victims and witnesses,\u201d she stated. New evidence\ncontinues to emerge, and witnesses are willing to come forward to testify\nbefore international mechanisms in which they have confidence and which can\nguarantee 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. <\/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 hold perpetrators accountable.  A move to remove the paragraph empowering an\ninternational 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\nreiterated its 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 International\nCrimes Evidence project that said the army deliberately killed Tamil civilians.\nThe evidence used is limited and sources not given, they observed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The US intention to sponsor a fresh resolution\nwas first announced when US Assistant Secretary of State for Central and South\nAsian Affairs Nisha Biswal visited Sri Lanka in 2015. In 2015,   the\nYahapalana government of Sri Lanka co-sponsored a resolution against itself at\nthe Human Rights Council in Geneva. This is   HRC\nResolution 30\/1 of 2015 on Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human\nrights in Sri Lanka. This resolution was based on a report prepared in\naccordance with the 2014 resoltuion,  by\nSandra Beidas, formerly of the Amnesty International. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Having\nresisted 3 previous resolutions since 2012, Colombo decided to co-sponsor\nresolution 30\/1 that had unprecedented 23 introductory paragraphs that set the\nstage for 20 operational paragraphs, filling 5 pages.  <\/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 representative\nin Geneva, Ravinatha Ariyasinha refused to accept the Resolution and tried to\nnegotiate 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, Pakistan observed that 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   by which it meant a new Constitution. The\nresolution then called for the continuance of Provincial Councils and the 13th\nAmendment and finally announced that land in the High Security Zones in Jaffna\nmust be returned to the rightful civilian 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\nHRC has unveiled a political agenda meant to transform the country, at the\nexpense of its 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 Resolution.\nThe President said that the implementation of the resolution will result in\npromoting democracy, reconciliation and respect for our armed forces. SLFP\nofficially 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\nworld which was divided towards Sri Lanka unanimously rallied round Sri Lanka,  he\nsaid. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The charge has been made with examples that\nthe Sinhala translation of the UNHRC resolution was distorted and sugar coated.\nThe\nForeign Ministry published on its website a Sinhala translation of the\nresolution, leaving out the\nsensitive parts so that any Sinhala speaking person reading it would be\ncompletely misled as\nto the contents of the\nUNHRC resolution.\nThe\nIsland <\/em>chanced upon the discrepancies\nbetween the original resolution 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\nhadn\u2019t been a previous instance, at Geneva, where an elected government\nco-sponsored a Resolution against its own country, said Island<\/em>, where a country welcomed punitive action proposed on the\nbasis of unsubstantiated allegations. Sri Lanka created\nhistory by co-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.\nDayan Jayatilleke\nobserved that the Resolution had not received the approval of Parliament and it\nhad not been   endorsed by the Cabinet\ntherefore 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\nhad settled for a hybrid model though they had originally asked for an\ninternational inquiry. TNA wanted the full implementation of the\nresolution.   The Global Tamil Forum\nspokesperson, Suren Surendiran told Island\n<\/em>that agreement on the text of the resolution has been reached following\nnegotiations among what he called \u2018core group members at the UNHRC\u2019, the\ngovernment 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 forces.\nIt 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\ngave the government of Sri Lanka two years to deliver on the commitments made\nin UNHRC Resolution No 30\/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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Commissioner called on the\ninternational community to investigate and prosecute those allegedly\nresponsible for war crimes.\nHe also wanted other countries to abide by the\nrecommendations. 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

The UNHCR resolution permits the government to\nremove military officers suspect of having violated HR through a vetting\nprocess even if there is now evidence, this is actually a PURGE of the armed\nforces.<\/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\nGodahewa, Anuradha Yahampath and several others including Wasantha\nKeerthiratne, Chairman of the Global Forum, participated in this session as a\nnon government agency of Sri Lanka. Nalaka Godahewa, Sarath Weerasekera and\nAnuradha Yahampath, spoke at the session. They said that the Tamils were a\nwell assimilated group in Sri Lanka. They were not discriminated against. They\ncriticized the High Commissioner for his bias against Sri Lanka. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Earlier, at a\nside event, the Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE) called for the\narrest of Weerasekara accusing him of being involved in war crimes in Sri\nLanka. A heated exchange then ensued as Weerasekara rubbished the claims and in\nreturn, called for the arrest of the LTTE 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 \u2018Right of Reply\u2019 to\nanswer allegations, clarify any confusion and deny charges.  Sri Lanka\u2019s official representatives did not\ndo so, observed Sanja Jayatilleke. During the \u2018General debate on Racism, racial discrimination, Xenophobia and\nrelated intolerance,\u2019 14 NGOs spoke critically of Sri Lanka .Again Sri Lanka\ndid not reply. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yahapalana government had actually thanked\nthose who 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 Commissioner\nsay in his report on Sri Lanka, to make Sri Lanka declare its \u2018appreciation\u2019\nasked Chandraprema. Firstly, the Commissioner referred to findings of the OHCHR\ninvestigation of September 2015.\nThis investigation was outside the established\nprocedure of the UNHRC.\nIn the report, the OHCHR had accused the Sri\nLankan government of every conceivable war crime including unlawful killings,\ntorture, rape, illegal incarceration, enforced disappearances, abduction,\ndeprivation of humanitarian assistance 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 Mechanisms,\nbe implemented. (This is the task force appointed by President Sirisena,\nchaired by Manouri Muttetuwegama) speaker after speaker among the originators\nand the sponsors of the latest resolution against Sri Lanka \u2013 the UN Human\nRights 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.\n<\/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\nSri Lanka\u2019s obligations in terms of UN Human Rights Council Resolution 30\/1 of\n1st October 2015, co-sponsored by the Sri Lankan Government, must be fully\nimplemented. These obligations must be fulfilled under strict conditions, under\nthe monitoring 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\nraised with Foreign Minister Marapana the importance of the Sri Lankan\ngovernment implementing in full its commitments under UN Human Rights Council\nResolution 34\/1, which rolled over the commitments 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.\nDayan Jayatilleke\nobserved that Foreign Minister Samaraweera poses an existential threat to the\nState\u2019s sovereignty and security, and gravely jeopardizes political stability\nand 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 conflict\nonce again, he announced. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The set of\nactions that the Government has identified to deal with the past in a comprehensive\nmanner, addressing the grievances of all victims, include truth seeking,\njustice reparation and measures for guaranteeing non recurrence, he continued. Traumatic\nmemories do not simply vanish. We have learned through experience since\nindependence that grievances that are left unaddressed can go on for generations,\nbecoming entrenched and holding the risk of descending into cycles of violence,\nSamaraweera 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. rue war\nheroes like Sarath Fonseka have nothing to feat, only those who carried out criminal\nacts. 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 government\u2019s\npolicy of self imposed isolation are all backing Sri Lanka, concluded\nSamaraweera. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mangala\nSamaraweera wrote an open letter to \nMahinda Rajapaksa  where said that\nthe UNHCR resolution was a victory for Sri Lanka new foreign policy, Sri Lanka\nand Sri Lankans. Under Rajapaksa the world was divided over Sri Lanka the US\nand EU, our main export markets accounting \nfor over 50% of our exports, were concerned with  the Rajapaksa government dismantling of\ndemocracy and abuse of  human rights. the\nresolution was not an isolated one. It was based on the Sri Lanka government\nplans for good governance etc.  These\nplans had been carefully developed by the government over many months by\nstudying the experiences of Sri Lanka own past as well as those of many\ncountries. the resolution will help heal our wounds and genuinely unite the\ncountry, continued Mangala.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The bold\ndecision to co sponsor the UNHRC resolution last October was a massive foreign\npolicy victory for Sri Lanka. The world\nwhich was divided towards Sri Lanka unanimously rallied round Sri Lanka. The resolution\nwas drafted on the basis of the government carefully deliberated plans that I\noutlined in Sept 2015. It was adopted without a vote by consensus, many of the\ncountries which had distanced themselves from Sri Lanka  under your government poly of self imposed\nisolation are all backing  Sri Lanka , \u2018Our\nambassador in Geneva tried to negotiate different terms that was deliberately\nstopped by the government which insisted on accepting the US sponsored\nresolution, just as it was.\u2019 Concluded Mangala  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The United\nStates in a Press release, applauded the administration of President\nMaithripala Sirisena for its continuing efforts to promote reconciliation. The\nstatement was issued by Mark C Toner, Acting Spokesperson of the State\nDepartment in Washington.The US stated that the UNHRC Resolution on promoting\nreconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka would help ensure\na non-recurrence of conflict and strengthen democratic governance and freedom\nfor all Sri Lankans. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The press\nrelease issued by the US State Department:On Monday, March 13 at the UN Human\nRights Council, the United States and other members of the Friends of Sri Lanka\nCore Group tabled a draft resolution on promoting reconciliation,\naccountability and human rights in Sri Lanka that reflects our enduring\ncommitment to lasting peace and justice for all the people of Sri Lanka.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The United\nStates worked in close consultation with the United Kingdom, Montenegro and\nMacedonia and in partnership with the Government of Sri Lanka, to draft the\nresolution.We look forward to the adoption of the text, which will support\nreconciliation and justice in Sri Lanka, help ensure a non-recurrence of\nconflict and strengthen democratic governance and freedoms for all Sri\nLankans.The United States is pleased that Sri Lanka has agreed once again to\nco-sponsor the resolution, and invites like-minded UN members to demonstrate\nsupport for reconciliation and peace in Sri Lanka by adding their names to the\nlist of co-sponsors.The United States applauds the administration of President\nSirisena for its continuing efforts to promote reconciliation.  (\ncontinued) <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

KAMALIKA PIERIS REVISED 19.12.17,   8.9.18,   29.3.19 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 […]<\/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-72925","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\/72925","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=72925"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72925\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72925"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72925"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72925"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}