By Skandha Gunasekara Minister of Foreign Affairs Dinesh Gunawardena said that whether the UN Human Rights Commissioner would accept or reject the Government’s decision to withdraw from the Resolution 30/1 was yet to be seen. Below are excerpts of his interview with The Sunday Morning: What compelled the incumbent Government to withdraw from co-sponsorship the UN Resolution? Co-sponsorship of a resolution against one’s own country is unprecedented and for the Sri Lankan Government at that time to take a decision of this nature, committing the country, violating the Constitution, was uncalled for. Violating the Constitution is totally against democratic norms. They did not have the full consensus of the Coalition Government of the day in rushing in to this unilateral decision. The Resolution itself is based on totally wrong figures which have been today challenged by the Paranagama Commission and with Lord Naseby of the British Parliament coming out with alarming revelations of the correct figures. So the Resolution itself has no validity. This was the overwhelming view of the people of our country and the Parliament. Is the Government not afraid of facing repercussions for its withdrawal? We have withdrawn on very valid reasoning on the co-sponsorship but our Government is totally committed to work with the UN and its agencies. But do you not think there would be repercussions for the Government’s withdrawal? Some people calculate. Those who are anti-national will always calculate, but we have and we will commit fully to work, as we have stated, with the UN and UN agencies to achieve the sustainable development goals. In addition, the President has also approved the appointment of a Justice of the Supreme Court who will head a special commission in order to go into relevant commission reports. The US recently banned entry to Army Chief Shavendra Silva over alleged human rights violations. What do you think led to this decision? Our position is that that action is without any reasonable basis. What then is the actual implication of that decision as a country? We are working with the US forces on training programmes, anti-terrorism matters. They work closely with trust and confidence with the Sri Lanka security forces, including the Army. We have conveyed that this travel ban should be reconsidered and ended. A French diplomat had said recently that despite Sri Lanka’s withdrawal from the Resolution, its mandate was still in effect and legally binding. Are you aware of this? There are various statements made but our position is very clear and we are following very clearly the principle that all are binding and working with UN and its agencies. So does that mean this current Government is committed to fulfilling the mandate of this resolution? I mentioned earlier that the basis of the Resolution was flawed and that the figures mentioned are all questioned today. But we have been working soon after ending the conflict under then President Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2009 and went through a period of normalcy in the North, elections were held in the North, demining was carried out, public life was brought to normalcy – so the process had begun. Any other incident, if there are, could be taken up when the new commission is appointed which do not have any reference to the Naseby report, Paranagama report, or the LLRC (Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission) reports. All those have been ignored. That is how a few delegations brought this co-sponsorship forward. Even the US has left the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). What was it about the actions of the previous Government, in relation to this Resolution, that you are so opposed to? I repeat – violation of the Constitution cannot be done by any Government. That is the first basis. Secondly, acting undemocratically – no consent of the democratically elected Parliament was sought. Thirdly, going against one’s own country on false, baseless figures, on hearsay figures – that itself is enough to withdraw co-sponsorship by a respected democratic government. Is the Tamil community safe and secure after Sri Lanka’s withdrawal? The Tamil community is not honourable (MP) M. Sumanthiran. The people of the North want a better life after the terrorism that they faced for 30 years. That is what we are involved in – restoring human dignity, economic growth, and giving the entire country confidence where nation building will take a new democratic path. What was the reaction of the US and India to this withdrawal? The US is not a member of the UNHRC anymore. All other countries were present when we made the statement and the Sri Lankan delegation had the chance of meeting most of the heads of delegations and also the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to explain Sri Lanka’s stand. What was the High Commissioner’s reaction to your stand? With the High Commissioner, we were very clear when we said that we were committed to working with the UN and UN agencies. We explained that we would be setting up a commission. So Sri Lanka continues to work with UN agencies. But what was the Commissioner’s reaction? It was a very cordial discussion that was held. High Commissioner discussed with us on so many issues in order to see how the new Government would move forward. So was the High Commissioner in agreement to the Government’s withdrawal? Weren’t there any objections? Whether there is an agreement or rejection will be seen in the future. It was a very cordial exchange on so many issues including the democratic right which the last Government deprived by not holding elections. We explained the issue and the problems related to the obstacle to remove the Inspector General of Police (IGP) after the Easter Sunday massacre. So many issues we were able to convince them on including that the Government cannot work against the Constitution and create problems and that the last Government was defeated due to this performance. Not only the Government, the TNA and all of them were rejected by the people. Let us not forget that because only three months has passed.