March 16, 2013, 8:46 pm

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Those of us in Sri Lanka have to understand, that voting in international fora is often no different to the way votes are conducted at national level. Interest group block votes, bribery, skulduggery, arm twisting, all have a role to play in voting in international bodies. For at least a decade, one of the main topics under discussion in both the old UN Commission on Human Rights and the present UNHRC has been the creation of ‘a democratic and equitable international order’. On October 11, 2012, the UNHRC passed a resolution titled "Promotion of a democratic and equitable international order" which was passed with 31 votes for, 12 against and four abstentions. The voting with regard to that resolution was as follows:

In favour:

Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Congo, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mauritius, Nigeria, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Thailand, Uganda, Uruguay

Against:

Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, United States of America

Abstaining:

Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru]

Readers will note that only the Western nations have voted against a ‘democratic and equitable international order’. The countries that have an interest in an equitable international order have all voted for it. Even the most servile third world nations like Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Peru have opted to abstain rather than voting against their masters, but they will be ready to gratefully partake of the chestnuts once they are pulled out of the fire by others with stronger nerves.

Readers will note that even some of the countries that voted for the US sponsored resolution against Sri Lanka last year have voted in favour of a ‘democratic and equitable international order’ in the same year. This gives a clear indication as to which countries were coerced by the US to vote for their resolution against Sri Lanka. India and Mauritius would have acted more on internal compulsions than on US pressure to vote against Sri Lanka, (In the case of Mauritius there would also have been the need to make common cause with India) and Malaysia would have abstained due to both Tamil pressure as well as the relationship they have with the US. Of the other countries that voted against Sri Lanka, it can be clearly seen that Camaroon, Libya, Uruguay and Nigeria were coerced to vote with the US, while Djibouti would have abstained due to pressure. All these countries voted for an equitable international order. If the members of the UNHRC was left to vote according to the merit of the resolution and their own policies, Sri Lanka would have won that vote last year. But that is not how the system works.   

  The third world members of the UNHRC has appointed an Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order;  Alfred Maurice de Zayas who submitted an interim report to the UNHRC on August 9, 2012. In Chapter 4 of this interim report which dealt with "Obstacles to the realisation of an equitable international order", he stated that the State system is being brought into question ‘by the realities of power politics and economic imbalance and that often the aspiration to sovereignty of many poorer countries is illusory. Significantly, he specifically observed that  "In the United Nations votes are often influenced by economic carrot-and-stick practices, and some weaker economies must bend to diplomatic and other forms of pressure."

 That is precisely what Sri Lanka is experiencing with regard to the vote in the UN. This is why the struggle for an equitable international order is an ongoing issue even within the UNHRC. The draft US resolution against Sri Lanka has called for the implementation of that resolution to be reported on in 2014. The resolution calling for an equitable international order will also has called for a report on its implementation in 2014. So the US push against Sri Lanka and the struggle for an equitable order within the UN system is moving on parallel lines. It is Sri Lanka’s misfortune that after finishing one war, she has found herself on the frontlines of another.  But then again, as the committee appointed by the Norwegian government to inquire into their peace efforts in Sri Lanka observed, the very reason why Sri Lanka was able to defeat the LTTE is because a power shift had taken place on the global scene.  We are now in the middle of a bruising battle by the defeated party to reassert their lost authority. SL has no alternative but to resist.

island.lk