Editorial
Geneva: Like trains heading for collision
View(s):President Mahinda Rajapaksa thinks an adverse Resolution at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva is only a “black mark” against Sri Lanka, but he knows he must put on a brave face and downplay the otherwise bleak scenario.
In Geneva, Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister maintained what has long been the Rajapaksa Government’s official stance. He “categorically rejected” the report submitted by the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights(OHCHR) on Sri Lanka – on which the US sponsored Resolution is to be based. Sri Lanka has also rejected previous resolutions leading to what will now be voted on come March 27.
There seems to be little, if no room for manoeuvring. As one foreign ambassador whose country is a voting member of the UNHRC said this week; “it’s like two trains coming at each other”. The first draft of the resolution against Sri Lanka got into the public domain this week. Proposed by the US and seconded by Britain and Mauritius, a satellite state of India, the resolution can be categorised into two parts. The first is on the final stages of the military campaign that defeated the LTTE, an organisation that was banned as a terrorist group in the US, Britain, India and other countries, which are backing this resolution. The second is on good governance issues — largely post-conflict, after the LTTE was defeated.
The first part deals with delays in reconciliation efforts, demilitarisation and such issues that are essentially linked to the demands of pressure groups from amongst the Sri Lankan Tamil Diaspora in those countries supporting the resolution, ably egged on by the Northern Provincial Council. The other part is in relation to good governance issues in Sri Lanka ranging from the Independence of the Judiciary, Freedom of Expression to Safeguarding Religious Freedoms.
The Government’s stance is to reject the resolution in toto. Internally, the majority of Sri Lankans – and this would include many of the minorities as well, would clearly oppose any Diaspora driven international war crimes tribunal that would want to poke its nose into the final stages of a bloody war that cost the lives of civilians, terrorist combatants, and soldiers. The entire 30-year conflict cost much more. It’s a chapter best put behind this nation without having to re-open old wounds, and to move on.
The Government could have, should have, had a credible investigation into some of the incidents that occurred during the entire conflict and arguably warded off some of the fanciful allegations being made against the Security Forces. There would, however, have been a price to pay by punishing a few for the good of the many.
If the Government did not have second thoughts on purging the Security Forces of senior officers who fought the war but whose loyalty to the Government was in question because they supported their Army Commander during a Presidential election, why not have taken action for indisciplined soldiery on the battlefield? If morale was not a factor for one, why was it for the other.
The second part of the resolution which the Diaspora could hardly care about is what has resonance internally. For instance, when the External Affairs Minister says in Geneva this week that the Independence of the Judiciary is doing splendidly well, one cannot but suppress a laugh, or join in one with the Bar Association of Sri Lanka. In his entire address to the UNHRC, the Minister, while stoutly rebutting the accusation of religious persecutions, has not said a word about Freedom of Expression issues that have dogged this Government for quite some time now.
So, should the Government have opted to call for a clause by clause vote on the resolution, as is done in the UN voting system? Last week we said that the best strategy for the Government faced as it is with an uphill task to defeat the resolution, is to seek more Abstentions. The 47 voting member-states, especially those who have an element of sympathy for Sri Lanka, might have voted differently on each issue rather than what they are confronted with now — a vote on the whole resolution — a take it or leave it Hobson’s Choice. The Government has given them no room to show some support for Sri Lanka. The two trains are indeed coming for a head-on clash.
Lessons for Lanka from Ukraine
The situation in Ukraine has thrown Europe into a spin, but the twin aspects of what has unfolded are lessons to be learnt in Sri Lanka, and cause for some concern as well. Firstly, the European Union backed a ‘coup’ to overthrow the pro-Russian President of Ukraine through ‘direct democracy’ methods outside the electoral system. There was no respect for an elected President. And then, Russia, sending its troops into a part of Ukraine (Crimean Peninsula) on the pretext of “protecting Ukrainian citizens of Russian origin”.
The world has seen this before. Turkey sent troops to Cyprus to protect Cypriots of Turkish origin and that island remains divided ever since. Such Russian actions cannot be condemned by Sri Lanka for the obvious reason that Sri Lanka’s foreign policy has been so badly compromised and the incumbent Government relies so heavily on Russia’s veto should the UNHRC Resolution in Geneva go horribly wrong and end up at the UN Security Council.
But the Vladimir Putin doctrine is a dangerous principle in international affairs, especially for militarily weaker nations with large neighbours to contend with. This doctrine can be applied in the South Asian neighbourhood as well. The creation of Bangladesh is already a precedent in South Asia.
When an elected regional council of a smaller country is run by a virtual proxy party aligned so heavily to the neighbouring country, the ingredients for such a doctrine being put into place becomes that much easier. Ukraine’s ousted leadership aligned itself with Moscow and paid the price with insidious manipulations by the EU. Are these lessons to be learnt by Sri Lanka as well.