The 47-member United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) last week adopted the Resolution forwarded by Britain to once again put the Government of Sri Lanka in the dock for alleged human rights violations. The 22 to 11 vote in the 47-member council provided a mandate to UN Rights Chief Michelle Bachelet and her office to directly “collect, consolidate, analyse, and preserve information and evidence, and to develop possible strategies for future accountability processes for gross violations of human rights or serious violations of international humanitarian law in Sri Lanka; to advocate for victims and survivors; and to support relevant judicial and other proceedings”. It is imperative however that the co-operation of the Government of Sri Lanka is sought and obtained in carrying out any of the above.
In order to immediately execute the mandate, the UN body also voted to provide a budget of $ 2.8 million to set up a dedicated office in Sri Lanka which is likely to be an extension to the existing UN office in Colombo. Indicating its impatience with a process that has dragged on for 12 years, the Council this time around has set tight deadlines to Bachelet’s office, requiring an oral update in six months, a written report in 12 months, and a comprehensive report to be submitted to the 52nd Session of the UNHRC in just 18 months from now.
This unprecedented development prompted Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena to charge in Parliament the next day that the Resolution was “illegal” and that the Government of Sri Lanka strongly rejected it. Gunawardena’s contention was that the Resolution lacked authority, as only 22 of the 47 member states had voted in its favour. Sadly, however, the “rejection” will remain confined to the walls of Parliament as Sri Lanka is bound by the majority decision of the UNHRC.
Ever since the voting result was out, the Foreign Minister who was singularly put in charge of taming the HR watchdog, put on a brave face and valiantly tried to portray that Sri Lanka had in fact won the vote by bundling the 14 abstentions to the 11 countries that voted against the Resolution. As a consequence, he became the subject of viral memes on social media that went to town with his new found mathematical theory. Even the Opposition Leader joined the melee calling on Gunawardena to apply the same logic to the results of the last presidential election pointing out that of the 16.1 million registered voters, only 6.9 million had voted for the winning candidate, meaning that 9.2 million had voted for the opposing candidate.
One cannot fault the Foreign Minister whose job is to put a positive spin on negative outcomes, for simply doing his job. The Geneva outcome was a foregone conclusion to most even though frantic moves were underway until the very last minute led by the President himself, who was on the phone with member nations including the influential Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) whose support was crucial to weather the brewing storm. Notwithstanding these efforts, Sri Lanka will now, for the first time in its history, have a UN mission on site to probe and collect evidence of alleged human rights violations listed out in Resolution A/HRC 46/L/1. The Resolution was adopted in light of what the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights described in her report as “insurmountable barriers for victims to access justice” and “inability and unwillingness” of the state to punish perpetrators.
If one were to trace the origin of this contentious imbroglio, it all boils down to one word that was included at the last minute in the joint statement issued in Colombo by the Government of Sri Lanka and the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon just a week after the war ended in May 2009. And that word, which now dominates all others, was “accountability”.
The last Yahapalana Government had little to no friction with the UNHRC having opted to co-sponsor Resolution 30/1 in 2015 which in effect was an extension of the original joint statement between the two entities and again in 2017, by requesting for further time to implement its provisions, which essentially referred to a domestic mechanism comprising of the existing local court system and local judges, while leaving a window open for foreign observers.
However, the present Government’s withdrawal from that resolution lock, stock, and barrel has paved the way for the two entities to once again go back to the drawing board and more or less reinvent the wheel, wherein the Government will have to specify what it means by its version of a domestic mechanism as alluded to by Sri Lanka’s Ambassador in Geneva, who was quick to rebuke the Resolution. During his submission, Ambassador C.A. Chandraprema described the Resolution as “unhelpful and divisive”, stating that it would “polarise society and adversely affect economic development, peace, and harmony”.
In the Resolution, the UNHRC has expressed "deep concern" at the “deteriorating situation" in Sri Lanka while criticising the erosion of judicial independence, marginalisation of minorities, and the culture of impunity, all of which have been attributed to recent developments that represent “early warning signs of a deteriorating human rights situation in Sri Lanka”.
It was further highlighted during the sessions that “militarisation of civilian government functions, erosion of the independence of the judiciary, and marginalisation of minority communities had been ‘exacerbated’ by the Government’s response to the pandemic”.
It appears that Ambassador Chandraprema may have opted to gloss over some of the contents of the Resolution that refer to victimisation of minority communities, including the Muslim burial issue, during the pandemic, which has already led to the polarisation of communities. Despite that, he is very much on target by claiming that the Resolution would “adversely affect economic development in the country”.
Already, human rights watchdogs and the Diaspora Tamil lobby seem to be working overtime to pressurise countries that voted in favour or co-sponsored the Resolution to walk the talk. The US and EU are Sri Lanka’s largest trading partners and a bulk of the country’s exports are headed to markets in these countries. To further compound matters, the UK, Germany, and France are three of the biggest European markets for Sri Lanka Tourism. It remains to be seen how these states respond to lobbying pressure.
What is becoming obvious is the fact that Sri Lanka has lost the support of some of its most ardent supporters including India, Japan, and South Korea as well as some Islamic nations over policy matters. Their concerns seem to have been compounded by the rising Chinese influence in the country’s economy. Powerful western nations, long used to the doctrine of “might is right”, are likely to find this influence irksome and Minister Gunawardena has his work cut out to ensure that the foreign policy equilibrium is maintained at any cost.
As far as the Government is concerned, it now has the opportunity to take the bull by the horns and put an end to this festering wound once and for all by using the new found platform to expose LTTE atrocities that warranted the final push in the war which is what is now under the microscope.
For the UN, long described as a parasitic organisation that thrives on the misery of some of its member countries, the Government’s stance is like manna from heaven. The more this matter is dragged on, the more opportunities for it to keep the home fires burning.
For a government that has serious misgivings about international intervention in domestic issues, Resolution A/HRC 46/L/1 must surely be a bitter pill to swallow. But the irony of it all is that it also offers an opportunity to put the contentious issues to bed by simply observing its human rights obligations, firstly to its citizens and secondly to the international accords and conventions which Sri Lanka is a party to.Ramifications of a resolution
28 Mar 2021
Ramifications of a resolution
28 Mar 2021
The 47-member United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) last week adopted the Resolution forwarded by Britain to once again put the Government of Sri Lanka in the dock for alleged human rights violations. The 22 to 11 vote in the 47-member council provided a mandate to UN Rights Chief Michelle Bachelet and her office to directly “collect, consolidate, analyse, and preserve information and evidence, and to develop possible strategies for future accountability processes for gross violations of human rights or serious violations of international humanitarian law in Sri Lanka; to advocate for victims and survivors; and to support relevant judicial and other proceedings”. It is imperative however that the co-operation of the Government of Sri Lanka is sought and obtained in carrying out any of the above.
In order to immediately execute the mandate, the UN body also voted to provide a budget of $ 2.8 million to set up a dedicated office in Sri Lanka which is likely to be an extension to the existing UN office in Colombo. Indicating its impatience with a process that has dragged on for 12 years, the Council this time around has set tight deadlines to Bachelet’s office, requiring an oral update in six months, a written report in 12 months, and a comprehensive report to be submitted to the 52nd Session of the UNHRC in just 18 months from now.
This unprecedented development prompted Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena to charge in Parliament the next day that the Resolution was “illegal” and that the Government of Sri Lanka strongly rejected it. Gunawardena’s contention was that the Resolution lacked authority, as only 22 of the 47 member states had voted in its favour. Sadly, however, the “rejection” will remain confined to the walls of Parliament as Sri Lanka is bound by the majority decision of the UNHRC.
Ever since the voting result was out, the Foreign Minister who was singularly put in charge of taming the HR watchdog, put on a brave face and valiantly tried to portray that Sri Lanka had in fact won the vote by bundling the 14 abstentions to the 11 countries that voted against the Resolution. As a consequence, he became the subject of viral memes on social media that went to town with his new found mathematical theory. Even the Opposition Leader joined the melee calling on Gunawardena to apply the same logic to the results of the last presidential election pointing out that of the 16.1 million registered voters, only 6.9 million had voted for the winning candidate, meaning that 9.2 million had voted for the opposing candidate.
One cannot fault the Foreign Minister whose job is to put a positive spin on negative outcomes, for simply doing his job. The Geneva outcome was a foregone conclusion to most even though frantic moves were underway until the very last minute led by the President himself, who was on the phone with member nations including the influential Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) whose support was crucial to weather the brewing storm. Notwithstanding these efforts, Sri Lanka will now, for the first time in its history, have a UN mission on site to probe and collect evidence of alleged human rights violations listed out in Resolution A/HRC 46/L/1. The Resolution was adopted in light of what the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights described in her report as “insurmountable barriers for victims to access justice” and “inability and unwillingness” of the state to punish perpetrators.
If one were to trace the origin of this contentious imbroglio, it all boils down to one word that was included at the last minute in the joint statement issued in Colombo by the Government of Sri Lanka and the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon just a week after the war ended in May 2009. And that word, which now dominates all others, was “accountability”.
The last Yahapalana Government had little to no friction with the UNHRC having opted to co-sponsor Resolution 30/1 in 2015 which in effect was an extension of the original joint statement between the two entities and again in 2017, by requesting for further time to implement its provisions, which essentially referred to a domestic mechanism comprising of the existing local court system and local judges, while leaving a window open for foreign observers.
However, the present Government’s withdrawal from that resolution lock, stock, and barrel has paved the way for the two entities to once again go back to the drawing board and more or less reinvent the wheel, wherein the Government will have to specify what it means by its version of a domestic mechanism as alluded to by Sri Lanka’s Ambassador in Geneva, who was quick to rebuke the Resolution. During his submission, Ambassador C.A. Chandraprema described the Resolution as “unhelpful and divisive”, stating that it would “polarise society and adversely affect economic development, peace, and harmony”.
In the Resolution, the UNHRC has expressed "deep concern" at the “deteriorating situation" in Sri Lanka while criticising the erosion of judicial independence, marginalisation of minorities, and the culture of impunity, all of which have been attributed to recent developments that represent “early warning signs of a deteriorating human rights situation in Sri Lanka”.
It was further highlighted during the sessions that “militarisation of civilian government functions, erosion of the independence of the judiciary, and marginalisation of minority communities had been ‘exacerbated’ by the Government’s response to the pandemic”.
It appears that Ambassador Chandraprema may have opted to gloss over some of the contents of the Resolution that refer to victimisation of minority communities, including the Muslim burial issue, during the pandemic, which has already led to the polarisation of communities. Despite that, he is very much on target by claiming that the Resolution would “adversely affect economic development in the country”.
Already, human rights watchdogs and the Diaspora Tamil lobby seem to be working overtime to pressurise countries that voted in favour or co-sponsored the Resolution to walk the talk. The US and EU are Sri Lanka’s largest trading partners and a bulk of the country’s exports are headed to markets in these countries. To further compound matters, the UK, Germany, and France are three of the biggest European markets for Sri Lanka Tourism. It remains to be seen how these states respond to lobbying pressure.
What is becoming obvious is the fact that Sri Lanka has lost the support of some of its most ardent supporters including India, Japan, and South Korea as well as some Islamic nations over policy matters. Their concerns seem to have been compounded by the rising Chinese influence in the country’s economy. Powerful western nations, long used to the doctrine of “might is right”, are likely to find this influence irksome and Minister Gunawardena has his work cut out to ensure that the foreign policy equilibrium is maintained at any cost.
As far as the Government is concerned, it now has the opportunity to take the bull by the horns and put an end to this festering wound once and for all by using the new found platform to expose LTTE atrocities that warranted the final push in the war which is what is now under the microscope.
For the UN, long described as a parasitic organisation that thrives on the misery of some of its member countries, the Government’s stance is like manna from heaven. The more this matter is dragged on, the more opportunities for it to keep the home fires burning.
For a government that has serious misgivings about international intervention in domestic issues, Resolution A/HRC 46/L/1 must surely be a bitter pill to swallow. But the irony of it all is that it also offers an opportunity to put the contentious issues to bed by simply observing its human rights obligations, firstly to its citizens and secondly to the international accords and conventions which Sri Lanka is a party to.Kapruka
Discover Kapruka, the leading online shopping platform in Sri Lanka, where you can conveniently send Gifts and Flowers to your loved ones for any event. Explore a wide range of popular Shopping Categories on Kapruka, including Toys, Groceries, Electronics, Birthday Cakes, Fruits, Chocolates, Automobile, Mother and Baby Products, Clothing, and Fashion. Additionally, Kapruka offers unique online services like Money Remittance, Astrology, Medicine Delivery, and access to over 700 Top Brands. Also If you’re interested in selling with Kapruka, Partner Central by Kapruka is the best solution to start with. Moreover, through Kapruka Global Shop, you can also enjoy the convenience of purchasing products from renowned platforms like Amazon and eBay and have them delivered to Sri Lanka.Send love straight to their heart this Valentine's with our thoughtful gifts!
Discover Kapruka, the leading online shopping platform in Sri Lanka, where you can conveniently send Gifts and Flowers to your loved ones for any event. Explore a wide range of popular Shopping Categories on Kapruka, including Toys, Groceries, Electronics, Birthday Cakes, Fruits, Chocolates, Automobile, Mother and Baby Products, Clothing, and Fashion. Additionally, Kapruka offers unique online services like Money Remittance, Astrology, Medicine Delivery, and access to over 700 Top Brands. Also If you’re interested in selling with Kapruka, Partner Central by Kapruka is the best solution to start with. Moreover, through Kapruka Global Shop, you can also enjoy the convenience of purchasing products from renowned platforms like Amazon and eBay and have them delivered to Sri Lanka.Send love straight to their heart this Valentine's with our thoughtful gifts!