As at the time of writing, there still isn’t a final draft of the US sponsored resolution that is to be presented to the UNHRC against Sri Lanka. The world’s most powerful nation is finding it difficult to word a resolution against one of the smallest and weakest nations in Asia. What would the situation have been if this was an attempt to present a resolution against a more powerful Asian nation? Even last year’s resolution against Sri Lanka was not won comfortably by the USA. The US resolution got 24 votes and Sri Lanka got 15 votes with eight countries abstaining. If you count the abstainers as those not favouring the resolution, then the US was only a single vote ahead. As we pointed out in this column last year, that even those countries that abstained, took that decision while supporting Sri Lanka. For example, two of the countries that abstained, Angola and Kyrgyzstan explained why they are abstaining and they spoke in support of Sri Lanka. They presented their abstention as an opposition to the US resolution.
Not only did the USA have to mobilise the entire State Department to canvass even for that paltry result, they engaged in every kind of skulduggery imaginable including twisting the arms of aid dependent, and economically dependent nations. In other cases, they called in their IOUs with countries they have helped in the past, persuading them to at least abstain, if they are unable to vote with the USA. This year, mustering a vote against Sri Lanka may not be as much of a struggle because of the composition of the membership of the UNHRC which changes every year. Sri Lanka’s most powerful backers are not in the UNHRC this year. Even so, the paperwork seems to be taxing the USA to the limit with hairs being split even as we speak, on what words are acceptable and what are not. One would think that in a match between a sprat like Sri Lanka and a great white shark like the USA. The shark should be able to get virtually anything passed against the sprat. But this is clearly proving more difficult than the USA anticipated.
The question now is how the 47 members of the UNHRC will finally vote. How the various member states voted in 2012 was as follows:
For: Austria, Belgium, Benin, Cameroon, Chile, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Italy, Libya, Mauritius, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, United States of America, Uruguay.
Against: Bangladesh, China, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Indonesia, Kuwait, Maldives, Mauritania, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Uganda.
Abstaining: Angola, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Senegal.
Of the countries that voted against the US sponsored resolution last year, Bangladesh, China, Cuba, Russian Federation, and Saudi Arabia are no longer in the UNHRC and that places Sri Lanka at a disadvantage. Three of the countries that abstained in support of Sri Lanka Djibouti Jordan, and Senegal are also out.
However several countries that voted for the US resolution Cameroon, Belgium, Hungary, Mauritius Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, and Uruguay are also out of the UNHRC this time. There are 17 new entrants this year and the voting will depend on how these countries will divide. The new members are: Brazil, Cote d’Ivoire, Argentina, Estonia, Ethiopia, Gabon, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Montenegro, Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Spain, UAE, and Venezuela.
Of the new entrants perhaps, the Brazil, UAE, Kazakhstan Kenya, Venezuela may vote with Sri Lanka and perhaps Japan and the Republic of Korea will at least abstain and not vote against SL. But other countries like Argentina, Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Montenegro, and Spain will vote against SL and the Americans may be able to twist the arms of Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, and Sierra Leone to vote with the Western block against SL.
Of the countries that voted for the US sponsored resolution against Sri Lanka last year, only 17 are now left in the UNHRC and new members will have to be roped in to make up for the shortfall. As we pointed out, of the new members in the UNHRC, Argentina, Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Montenegro, and Spain will definitely vote with the US but that brings the votes only up to 23, two short of a clear majority. Then again India which voted for the US resolution last year, is in two minds this year because the same kind of resolution can be passed against India as well and what the US is doing to Sri Lanka, opens up opportunities for the Kashmiri separatists as well. If India does not vote for the resolution the US will be down to 22 votes. They will have to persuade two more countries to vote with them to get at least a clear majority of the votes. The US can win the vote anyway, because abstentions will deprive Sri Lanka of votes and the majority will be with the USA.
But for the US to save face, they will have to show at least a clear majority of members of the UNHRC as having voted with them and that is proving to be not as easy as anticipated. Usually when two countries as grotesquely mismatched as Sri Lanka and the USA confront one another, the USA should be able to win with a two thirds majority or more. But that is not happening here. Basically, the USA is dependent on getting Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia and Sierra Leone to vote against Sri Lanka. However, things may not be all that easy. If it was going to be a cakewalk for the USA, the draft resolution would have been finalised long ago. Moreover, this time they will have to get at least a few votes more than they received last year to maintain their self respect in the world - after all this is a battle between the most powerful nations on earth and one of the weakest. One thing that is now clear is that the US State Department made a very bad miscalculation by putting forward that first draft resolution against Sri Lanka. They could perhaps have taken some non-Western countries that voted with them last time - like India - into confidence and prepared a draft that does not look like an invitation to suicide.
The very intrusive provisions in the original draft resolution that the US circulated may scare off some countries from voting with the US. (See the following section) The US attempt to send in the UN Human Rights Commissioner as the virtual Viceroy of Sri Lanka, will not go down well with any country. The UN Human Rights Commissioner submitted a report on Sri Lanka to the UNHRC and the US draft resolution had a provision calling for the implementation of that report. Any country that reads the HR Commissioner’s report on Sri Lanka and the US resolution together and realises that the same can be applied to their own countries will run for dear life. This is obviously why even India has said that they will have to decide which way to vote only after they see the final draft. If they found the first draft acceptable, they would have made their decision known earlier. The fact that India has not said anything yet despite all the pressure from Tamil Nadu shows how dangerous they consider the US resolution to be. So finally whether the US manages to muster at least a clear majority of the UNHRC depends on the draft.
island.lk