March 16, 2013, 12:00 pm


The original draft of the US resolution that was circulated to members of the UNHRC had a number of provisions which no country will accept. The very delay in finalising this draft is an indication of how unacceptable they are (or were depending on whether they have been revised by the time this reaches the reader).  The UNHRC Independent Expert on the Promotion of an Equitable International Order stressed in his interim report that there should be ‘a renewed commitment to the UN Charter’ as the constitution of the modern world and ‘rigorous respect’ for  Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter. The Independent Expert also called upon the UN General Assembly to ‘reclaim’ leadership in asserting the values that underlie the UN Charter.

UNHRC resolution A/ HRC/RES/21/9 on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order asserted among other things that "international cooperation for the promotion and protection of all human rights should continue to be carried out in full conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter and of international law as set forth in Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter and, inter alia, with full respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence, the non-use of force or the threat of force in international relations and non-intervention in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State,"

Articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter which is the centre piece of the report of the Independent Expert as well as the UN-NRC resolution mentioned above, stresses among other things the following:

1.       The UN is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2.       Nothing contained in the UN Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the UN.

3.       Solving international problems of a humanitarian character, and promoting and encouraging respect for human rights should be done through cooperation not coercion.

It is in this context that we have to examine what the US is trying to do with regard to Sri Lanka and the provisions of the first draft resolution that they presented to the member states of the UNHRC. There were several provisions and recommendations in the draft US resolution against Sri Lanka, which we examine below.

1.       The recommendation urging the devolution of political authority – The system of government in any country should be an internal matter not open to discussion in any international forum. Whether power should be devolved or centralised is a matter entirely for the Sri Lankan legislature to decide. For a group of nations to be at liberty to recommend the extent of devolution that should be practiced in a targeted country would turn the whole concept of sovereignty into a joke. Countries that have internal wars going on (and many countries do), will find this recommendation particularly dangerous.

2.       Urging increasing ‘cooperation’ with the Commissioner of Human Rights – Every country in the UNHRC should know what this means. This is an euphemism for basically doing what the Human Rights Commissioner tells a country to do. The vast majority of the employees of the Office of the UN Human Rights Commissioner are Westerners and the Human Rights Commissioner is also a creature of the West. It is only now after agitation by non-Western member states that more non-Westerner staffers are being taken into the Human Rights Office. The UNHRC has actually been passing resolutions to reduce the number of Westerners serving in its own secretariat. Nevertheless, control of the UNHRC secretariat will remain in Western hands well into the foreseeable future if not for any reason than that the bulk of the funding comes from Western nations. Quite apart from cooperating with the Human Rights Commissioner, the Sri Lankan government should withdraw even the invitation that they extended to her earlier, to visit the country before this resolution came up. She should not be permitted to set foot in this country.

3.       Urging the Sri Lankan government to implement the report submitted by the UN Human Rights Commissioner - This is a hardly disguised attempt to turn the office of the UN Human Rights Commissioner into a kind of Colonial Office. That report dated 11 Feb 2013 contains recommendations ranging from  the removal of the police department from the defence ministry right up to complaining about the construction of a holiday bungalow called "Lagoon’s Edge" on the banks of the Nandikadal  lagoon! Nobody is going to tolerate that kind of interference in the internal affairs of a country. The report of the UN Human Rights Commissioner should remain what it is – a report – neither acknowledged nor implemented by SL.

4.       That Sri Lanka should open its doors to not just one, but a whole invasion of special rapporteurs from the Office of the Commissioner on Human Rights. This is nothing but an attempt to legitimise the actions the West is taking with regard to Sri Lanka and to show that they had actually done work on the ground before coming to their conclusions.   If the government knows what is best for the country, they will not allow either Navineetham Pillay or any of her rapporteurs to visit Sri Lanka.

5.       The setting up of a `truth seeking mechanism’ to promote an inclusive approach to transitional justice - In layman’s parlance, what this means is to set up a mechanism to defeat the victors and to give victory to the defeated. No country in its right mind is going to agree to any such thing.

6.       The Human Rights Commissioner has been instructed to present an interim report on the implementation of this resolution next year. When the Western powers use the word ‘cooperation’, they actually mean ‘comply’. When the Sri Lankan government uses the same word, it means ‘listen to what we have to say’. Since neither of these things are going to happen, the Sri Lankan government should ensure that what the Human Rights Commissioner has to report at the next sessions of the UNHRC is that not a single recommendation has been implemented. Given the intent and the content of the resolution that has been drafted, Sri Lanka will have no option but to follow the example set by Israel.  Israel holds that it is as a nation singled out for attention within the UNHRC by interested parties. The western countries that back Israel concur in this view. Likewise, Sri Lanka holds that she is being singled out for persecution. There are many countries that would readily agree that Sri Lanka is indeed being singled out. If the affliction is the same, the remedy has to be the same too.

7.       Telling SL which recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission have to be implemented, and what the LLRC has not looked into. SL should proceed with the implementation of the LLRC recommendations that the government has decided it is going to implement. The results should be communicated to the member states of the UNHRC. No outside force however powerful, should be allowed to set up a supplementary LLRC.  

island.lk