Last Wednesday, between the time of the US submitting its toned down resolution and the vote in the UNHRC, the Council for Liberal Democracy held a seminar at the OPA auditorium on Sri Lanka’s foreign policy. The main speakers were Dayan Jayatilleke and Tamara Kunanayagam, both former ambassadors to Geneva, and with more inputs by John Gooneratne, H.M.G.S.Palihakkara, Karu Jayasuriya and Javed Yusuf. The OPA hall was packed. Tamara was by far the most impressive speaker, crystal clear in her understanding of international realpolitik. The speakers were all heavyweights among those who have represented Sri Lanka overseas. But had Mahinda Samarasinghe and Ravinatha Aryasinghe been present in that audience, neither of them would have learnt anything that would have helped them to do better in Geneva.
Tamara did refer to the fact that in 2009, at the special session on Sri Lanka, they had managed to change the stand of some Latin American countries that had gone along with the West because they did not know anything about Sri Lanka. She also raised the valid point that we have no presence worth talking about in Latin America and those countries have no idea of what is going on here and that is why there is a problem when it comes to a vote. The lack of a Sri Lankan presence in Africa and Latin America, is one explanation why we would have problems during a vote. But there are other mechanisms like the Sri Lankan Embassy in Geneva which has access to the delegations of all UNHRC member states, and those countries cannot be completely in the dark about what is going on in Sri Lanka. A few Latin American countries and many African states did vote against the US resolution or abstain. That shows that there is awareness in those regions about SL. But the main problem is that due to distance and lack of interaction, Sri Lanka would be a trade off for some Latin American and African countries to score a few brownie points with the US.
Dayan Jayatilleke did suggest that more devolution and the implementation of the 13th Amendment would assuage feelings in Tamil Nadu. However, it is unlikely that the implementation of the 13th Amendment will change the Tamil Nadu attitude towards Sri Lanka. On the contrary, any devolution at this stage will only give encouragement to Tamil Nadu separatists and make them think that their agitation producing results and that a little more agitation will yield even a separate state. In fact, one person in the audience expressed scepticism about Dayan’s formula for placating Tamil Nadu and Dayan admitted that there is an element of risk in whatever step we take. Since there is that element of risk in any case, the present writer feels that the best course of action will be the abolition of the 13th Amendment altogether.
Of the countries currently in the UNHRC, Angola, Camaroon, Nigera, India, Senegal, Uruguay, Jordan, South Africa, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Djibouti, Malaysia, voted unequivocally for Sri Lanka in May 2009. But in 2012, India, Uruguay, Camaroon, Nigera voted against us. While Senegal, Malaysia, Djibouti, Burkina Faso, and Jordan abstained. The question is, if Ambassador Dayan Jayatilleke had convinced those countries of the justice of Sri Lanka’s position in 2009, what happened between 2009 and 2012 to change the conviction that these countries had? Dayan said at that seminar that members of the UNHRC had been persuaded to vote for SL on the promise that that certain things will be done. But then, a great deal was in fact done between 2009 and 2012. Very few countries would have been able to achieve the same in a region that had been a battle zone for over three decades.
Then why did some former allies vote against us or abstain in 2012? The answer clearly is - pressure from the USA. After voting against us, the same countries in the same year voted in favour of a democratic and equitable international order. One of the main reasons why third world nations have been calling for an equitable international order is because Western nations use their economic and financial clout to obtain votes in international fora. One of the biggest shortcomings in the Council for Liberal Democracy seminar last Wednesday was that strategies to meet this aspect in international relations was not discussed. Every speaker except Tamara seemed to assume that voting in the UNHRC takes place only according to the wishes of the members nations. They did not factor in the question of power politics. Tamara did mention the present situation but did not suggest any remedies. So it appears that if Sri Lanka’s foreign policy is seen to be bumbling along, there is no remedy except to continue bumbling along in this manner.
The vote on the resolution against Sri Lanka was a victory for the US, but if that is a victory, what would a defeat look like? The most powerful nation on earth, took an inordinate amount of time, to prepare multiple drafts to persuade member states to at least abstain without working to defeat their resolution against Sri Lanka. The country that was most worried about that resolution was not Sri Lanka but India. The seriousness with which India took the threat posed to India by that resolution can be seen from the fact that they even risked a coalition partner pulling out rather than risk voting for the original US resolution. The very reason why the USA had to revise it so many times was to assuage the fears of other member states of creating a precedent that could later be applied across the board to all countries – India being of the most vulnerable in that respect.
island.lk