Editorial

The ‘in your face’ policy contradictions, political contradictions and political manoeuvres that the country is witnessing locally have now been exported.

The President who was keen to reverse a 2015 Government decision (which he claims was taken without his knowledge) to co-sponsor the UNHRC Resolution 30/1 calling for an investigation into what happened during the final stages of the 2009 military campaign against the LTTE and reconciliation efforts thereafter, has not been able to get his way.

That part of the Government run by the Prime Minister prevailed. The Government agreed to co-sponsor the 2015 Resolution for the next two years as well. This has left the President to complain to newspaper publishers and editors that foreign policy remained his prerogative. And as if to show he is still not a lame duck President, he assigned some of his (SLFP) MPs to represent ‘his’ Government at the UNHRC sessions that commenced this week in Geneva.

This year, despite the other co-sponsor of the 2015 Resolution viz., the United States pulling out of the UNHRC claiming the UN agency was a ‘cesspool’ with its own political agendas, the UK has stepped in to its ‘big brother’s’ shoes together with Canada, Germany and the West’s puppet states Montenegro and Macedonia.

It appears that there had been a tussle within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on what course to follow this year given the US pullout. One school of thought inspired the President to propose withdrawing from the Resolution. Not that the Resolution would therefore have collapsed, but the argument was that it was a treacherous act that could sacrifice those who gave their lives to safeguard the nation’s territorial integrity from a deadly armed terrorist organisation.

The proponents of co-sponsoring the Resolution seem to feel that being directly involved with what was an inevitable inquiry against the Sri Lanka Armed Forces prompted by the West for a) being snubbed – and rightly so, from stopping the military campaign against the LTTE on the grounds of civilians getting caught in the cross-fire, and b) being under heavy lobbying from the Sri Lankan Tamil Diaspora members who were now voters in those countries, was a wiser option.

The move to co-sponsor the Resolution brings back memories of the then (2002) UNP Government’s controversial decision to enter into an MoU with the LTTE – a deal brokered by the Norwegians. That Government was criticised for this on the basis that it only gave time for the LTTE to re-arm and re-group. However, what happened by design, or by accident, was that the hitherto monolithic LTTE split as a result of peace talks and one major faction, its Eastern Command, broke away crippling the LTTE’s war machine.

The Geneva Resolution can be seen in that light, to an extent; that the hitherto aggressive West was cooled down by a seemingly pro-Western Government in Colombo thereby buying time and taking the ‘electric chair’ heat off the Sri Lankan political and military leadership.

But without adopting one clear strategy, the Government is displaying its differences in international fora. The President’s delegation will be seen to speak with ‘forked tongues’ if they say anything against the co-sponsoring of the Resolution and one would hope that the country does not become a laughing stock in the eyes of the International Community.

What the US says about the UNHRC having political agendas is a fact. That the US was very much part of that agenda is also a fact. The co-sponsoring of the Sri Lanka Resolution was a textbook case of its agenda at the time. It was only when Israel got caught up in the web of majoritarian rule at the UNHRC that the US complained of the ‘deceit and duplicity’ of the UN agency.

Many years ago, when India was pressing its thumb on Sri Lanka during the ‘war years’ here, it prompted Argentina to sponsor Resolutions against Sri Lanka. Argentina has no interest in Sri Lanka whatsoever, but India reminded it of Sri Lanka’s vote against Argentina at the UN (ironically on behalf of the UK) during the Falklands (Malvinas) war.  Similarly, what on earth Macedonia and Montenegro have with Sri Lanka only God knows.

It is interesting to see the UK take over the baton from the US in this instance.  In a recent case in the UK, a Magistrate decreed that a Sri Lankan Brigadier serving as a Military Attaché at the High Commission in London does not have diplomatic immunity because making a throat-slitting gesture towards LTTE sympathisers waving LTTE flags was not in the job description of a diplomat under the Vienna Convention on immunity. No wonder famed English writer Charles Dickens wrote “the law is an ass”. One might ask if a diplomat asking a sovereign Government to remove the High Security Zone in Jaffna or calling for more devolved powers is covered by the ‘job description’ under the Vienna Convention.

It seems, however, that the British Foreign Office tried to intervene on behalf of the Sri Lankan Brigadier’s matter only to be snubbed by the Magistrate. Almost as if to hit back, the British authorities arrested and deplaned two sympathizers of the LTTE rump on their way to Geneva and charged them under the UK Terrorism Act for carrying LTTE flags. If the British Police had shown the same interest when they were carrying LTTE flags and protesting opposite the Sri Lanka High Commission, the l’affaire Brigadier’s ‘undiplomatic conduct’ could have been avoided.

All this drama apart, it was essential that Sri Lanka set its own agenda towards reconciliation and bridging the North-South divide. The ‘talking Diaspora” members have done precious little to put their sterling pounds, Canadian dollars and Euros towards the economic development of the people their hearts bleed for; in short, put their monies where their mouths are and walk the talk. This also goes out for the Western powers behind the UNHRC.

The people of the North are fed up with Geneva Resolutions. They want Restitution and Restoration. And they want to move forward, not so much to look back on a dark past of what was a suicidal mission to win their rights.