INDIA’S ACTION AND
GOVERNMENT’S REACTION TO UNHRC RESOLUTION
--Jehan Perera
The Sri Lankan government attempted to make the best of a
bad situation by pointing to the narrowness of its defeat at the UN Human
Rights Council last week. Out of the 47 countries on the Council, 15 of
them supported Sri Lanka and voted against the resolution on Sri Lanka proposed
by the United States. In addition there were 8 abstentions, making a
total of 23 countries that did not vote for the resolution. As this was
only one less than the 24 who did vote in favour of the resolution the
government sought to claim a near victory over the world’s superpower.
The government’s bitterness was also reflected in its official statement after
the vote that even its genuine efforts to bring about reconciliation in Sri
Lanka had not been recognized at the UNHRC. President Mahinda Rajapaksa
himself addressed a public meeting and said that the defeat in Geneva would
please the LTTE proxies and Tamil Diaspora but not the people of Sri Lanka.
Underlying the emotional response to the UNHRC resolution
from within ranks of the government was the perception of unfair treatment that
many of Sri Lanka’s general population also shared. A glance at the newspaper
headlines on the events that transpired the day after the vote in Geneva would
reveal the negative feelings of government leaders. These headlines
included We will not let anyone intervene in Sri Lanka’s affairs; Be united to
defeat foreign conspiracies; Do not give India any economic concessions; Mervyn
(Minister of Public Relations) threatens to break limbs of journalists; NGO
conspiracy to create anarchy; and US resolution has set a very dangerous
precedent. However there were also more positive headlines, in which sources
that were not a part of the government were quoted, and which gave the news
coverage a greater degree of balance such as US resolution not inimical to Sri
Lanka; Frequent reporting to UNHRC averted; and Tamils must get justice and
lead a life of dignity.
There has been a strong feeling within Sri Lanka that the
government had been singled out for unfavorable judgment, which is felt even by
those who are not necessarily supporters of the government. This
sentiment has been compounded by the observation that many of those in the
Tamil Diaspora who had once championed the cause of the LTTE, and funded its
war machine, had metamorphosed themselves into human rights defenders in
Geneva. Some of them were seen in the company of world leaders. During the
final stages of the war many of them had denied that the LTTE indiscriminately
and forcibly recruited children while holding the civilian population
hostage. Even sections of the TNA took the same position instead of
urging the LTTE to let go of the people and the children. But at the
UNHRC the Tamil Diaspora and TNA were seen as campaigning against the Sri
Lankan government on the same human rights platform alongside well known
international human rights groups.
NEGATIVE REACTIONS
In retrospect, a preamble to the UNHRC resolution that
mentioned the past context in greater detail and the role of the LTTE and its
supporters in contributing to the human rights debacle at the end of the war
might have made it more palatable to public opinion within Sri Lanka.
This is an issue that may be considered at future sessions of the UNHRC when
follow up assessments of developments in Sri Lanka are taken up. It has
been said that only those who come before the temples of justice with clean
hands can expect the courts to mete out justice on their behalf. The
sense of grievance of the Sri Lankan government and the majority population of
the country, that countries and groups that were guilty of human rights
violations themselves had passed strictures on Sri Lanka, needs to be addressed
if a change of heart within the larger population of Sri Lanka is to be
obtained.
Another issue that has evoked a strongly negative
reaction from the government is the possibility of the UNHRC resolution being
made into an instrument to pursue charges of war crimes against it. While
the UNHRC resolution does give the centre stage to the LLRC and its
recommendations, it also contains language that can be construed as seeking to
go beyond it. The resolution also critiques the LLRC report by “Noting
with concern that the report does not adequately address serious allegations of
violations of international law.” Although the LLRC did address
issues of accountability in its report, this was not done in a comprehensive
manner, as it was not a part of the mandate given to it by the President who
appointed them. Therefore the LLRC findings on accountability are limited
and it recommended independent investigations to be carried out into the few
cases it looked into, including the controversial UK Channel 4 video.
Proponents of the UNHRC resolution have often sought to
explain the resolution as a moderate and harmless one that merely calls on the
government to implement the constructive recommendations of its own Lessons
Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. The thrust of the LLRC
recommendations pertain to the rebuilding of Sri Lanka’s political institutions
that have been progressively dismantled in the course of nearly three decades
of fighting the LTTE. Today there is widespread criticism within Sri
Lanka about the manner in which the present government in particular has set
about dismantling the independence of public institutions and further
politicized the public service. It has been a near miracle that the LLRC
was able to go as far as it did despite the infirmities in its appointment and
mandate, and the general political environment in which nationalist discourse
prevails.
INDIAN AMENDMENT
Despite the good governance focus of the LLRC, and
ostensibly of the UNHRC resolution itself which gives central place to the LLRC
recommendations, the Sri Lankan government has reason to be concerned. In
its original draft version, the UNHRC resolution opened the door to an
international presence within Sri Lanka in regard to accountability
issues. The draft resolution stated that the Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights and relevant special procedures mandate
holders were to provide technical assistance and advice to the Sri Lankan
government on implementing accountability measures, and the Sri Lankan
government to accept it. This imposition of an external mechanism was
anathema to the government especially in view of the strained relations with
the UN High Commissioner. In any event, it is difficult to imagine any
government in any part of the world that would wish to have external parties
sit in judgment over the conduct of a war fought by its armies or even offer
advice on how to protect human rights that has to be accepted.
Ironically it was India, whose vote against Sri Lanka
came as a great shock, which also softened the potentially adverse impact of
the UNHRC resolution on the Sri Lankan government. It did this by
negotiating an amendment to the clause relating to external technical assistance
to ensure that it only came after “consultation with, and with the concurrence
of,” the Sri Lankan government. Whereas the original draft resolution
seemed to make it compulsory for the Sri Lankan government to accept the UN
High Commissioner’s technical assistance and advice, the final resolution gives
the Sri Lankan government the opportunity to minimize international
intervention that is unacceptable to it. In his letter to President
Rajapaksa after the vote at the UNHRC, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
explained that the Indian delegation had “spared no effort and were successful
in introducing an element of balance in the language of the resolution.”
At a time when Sri Lankan government leaders may be
feeling a sense of betrayal at the vote in the UNHRC it is also important for
them to realize that Sri Lanka is part of the international community, and
abide by the commitments that they and previous Sri Lankan governments have
made. When it fought the war against the LTTE, the Sri Lankan government
did receive the political and military support of virtually the entire
international community, including the United States that sponsored the UNHRC
resolution and India which voted for it. This political and military
support was given to Sri Lanka on the understanding that after the end of the
war there would be structural reforms that addressed the political roots of the
conflict.
Significantly, in his letter to the President, the Indian
Prime Minister also reiterated his “conviction that a meaningful devolution
package, building upon the 13th Amendment, would lead towards a lasting
political settlement on many of these issues and create conditions in which all
citizens of Sri Lanka, irrespective of their ethnicity, can find justice,
dignity, equality and self-respect.” The implementation of LLRC
recommendations, particularly those relating to the devolution of power, can go
a substantial part of the way in meeting those commitments and ensuring that
countries that are now critical of Sri Lanka will resume their positive support
for it in the years ahead.
.