Sanctions on SL ‘not currently an issue on the table’, British envoy says
No government (to his knowledge) has to -date proposed economic sanctions on Sri Lanka, John Rankin, the British High Commissioner to Sri Lanka and the Maldives said this week.
Making this comment at the LBR LBO CEO Forum held in Colombo on the recent developments in Geneva pertaining to Sri Lanka, he also noted that this was because the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) does not have the power or mandate to impose economic sanctions and no government had so far proposed them.
He also added that proposing sanctions on Sri Lanka may not be in the interest of a country like the UK, further highlighting the fact that the UK was one of Sri Lanka’s top five trading and investment partners, Sri Lanka’s second largest trading partner behind India by volume, while Sri Lanka hosts over 100 UK companies which employ people locally and help generate profits which in turn allows more UK citizens to also be employed.
However, he also signalled that there had already been some repercussions resulting from Sri Lanka’s human rights issues, namely the ending of the GSP+ trade concession to the EU, with which Sri Lanka chose not to comply in terms of conditions set forward for this concession. This demonstrated that decisions made regarding Sri Lanka’s human rights issues can have an impact on Sri Lanka’s trading relationships.
Further, Mr. Rankin commented that, looking forward, with the immediate time frame being 12 months, as the UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay will be reporting back to the UNHRC in March 2015, they were not planning for failure, with hopes for a positive response from Sri Lanka to the resolution. He also stated that a key area to be identified will be whether the effect of the resolution will be to harden positions or whether it is to create space to actually allow some positive progress in terms of addressing the concerns outlined in the resolution.
He also opined that there was some evidence that, while not being popular, the previous resolutions had encouraged some positive actions in Sri Lanka. And he hoped that further positive actions resulting from this resolution would make discussions about economic sanctions redundant and also further improve the quantum of trade and investments coming into Sri Lanka.
Also speaking at this event, Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka, a former Permanent Representative for Sri Lanka in Geneva, noted that one of the main areas of concern in the resolution was the call for an international inquiry. This had to be resisted at all costs, as it was an unprecedented move. He also said that there was historically no proven correlation between accountability and reconciliation, adding that Sri Lanka was being used as a guinea pig in this process and it was a grand scam. He also noted that most of Sri Lanka’s Asian neighbours had not voted for this resolution, with the exception of South Korea.
In his comments, Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe, Deputy Governor of Sri Lanka’s Central Bank, was of the opinion that there had been no visible negative impacts in terms of investments with regards to the resolution as evidenced by the recent successes of Sri Lanka’s bond sales, with the most recent five-year US$500 million bond being oversubscribed eight times as well as the country recently hosting a number of trade missions to its shores. He also added that, should there be a fall in investor confidence, or in fact any other eventuality resulting from volatilities in global markets, the country’s exposure was about $3.7 billion, which could be offset by the $8 billion currently being held in reserve.
At the same time, another presenter, Dr. Nishan De Mel, Executive Director and Head of Research at Verite Research, highlighted the fact that a loss in Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) was not the main concern for Sri Lanka in terms of the resolution, since this area only accounted for about two per cent overall. More important was the opportunities lost as a result of this resolution, which were incalculable. He also revealed a further concern that only 9 per cent of Sri Lanka’s trade was carried out with countries that voted against the resolution, while 54 per cent of trade took place with those that voted for it.