Sunday Times 2
Sabry’s statement debunks ‘loud-mouthed nonsense’
View(s):- A RESPONSE TO NEVILLE DE SILVA’S “THOUGHTS FROM LONDON”
By Rear Admiral (Dr) Sarath Weerasekera VSV RWP USP, MPS
This is a response to Neville De Silva’s (NS) article on “Loud-mouthed nonsense and our diplomessy” (The Sunday Times of December 25, 2022).
In the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), an enhanced allocation for the “external mechanism” was passed through Resolution 51/1. It could collect information and evidence relating to Sri Lanka’s reported violations of human rights and make them available for the member states to take judicial action against the “suspects” (i.e. our war heroes).
When Foreign Minister Ali Sabry very correctly opposed it in Geneva, stating that it’s against the constitution and it pre-judges the commitment of its domestic legal processes, NS sarcastically condemns it asking “what are those domestic legal processes that have proved their worth in bringing justice and accountability?”
He says if the “promises” made by President Mahinda Rajapaksa to Ban Ki Moon (BKM) in May 2009 were adhered to, then the “external mechanism” could have been avoided.
It should be reminded that when a similar “external investigation” on SL was brought in by the then UNHRC High Commissioner through a resolution in March 2014, the ambassadors of India and Pakistan were vehemently against it.
They both said it was an intrusive approach that undermined national sovereignty and no self-respecting country would agree to it. Further, they said it was a crass example of hypocrisy and double standards.
That’s why Ali Sabry, even on this occasion correctly said, “No sovereign state can accept the superimposition of an external mechanism that runs contrary to its constitution…”
NS mentions about “broken promises” in the Joint Statement of BKM and MR in March 2009.
The joint statement states as follows:
“… the Sec Gen underlined the importance of accountability process for addressing violations of International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law. The government will take measures to address those grievances.”
Where are the “promises” in the joint statement that NS is talking about? The statement implies that government will investigate violations IF they have occurred but the people who allege have to provide evidence to establish a prima facie case. The “grievances” refer to “allegations”, not to acts that the government has admitted it committed.
The Joint Statement also does not contain any admission by the government that violations, in fact, occurred. The Sec Gen cannot use it as a legal basis for his future actions. At any rate, it’s a most insubstantial and flimsy pretext for a legal basis.
However, BKM, upon returning to the UN, used the Joint Statement as a basis to appoint a Panel of Experts (POE) to appraise him of possible violations during the war in SL. Nowhere in the Joint Statement, was it indicated that the government had consented to have the Sec Gen play a monitoring role with respect to “accountability”.
It should be reminded that after we won the war on May 19, 2009, the first resolution passed in Geneva was in favour of SL. It commended SL’s victory over the terrorists and condemned the atrocities of LTTE.
However, the POE, which BKM appointed in violation of the UN charter, concluded that there were credible allegations of IHL and IHRL violations and recommended an international investigation. Thus it became the basis for the demand for an international investigation at the UNHRC followed by resolutions in 2012, 2013 and 2014.
The veteran journalists who “over exert their tonsils” to insult the SL government for not fulfilling the “promises” should be aware that the POE report was never placed on the official record at the HRC and SL never had a chance or a forum to officially respond to it before the council. World-renowned war crime experts such as Sir Desmond de Silva who were attached to the Paranagama commission have mentioned that the POE report was fundamentally flawed.
If the Secretary General or anyone thought that violations had occurred with evidence they could place it before the UNHRC for SL to respond. Even after such a response, if the UN still felt the allegations had merit then it could order further investigations.
When the POE report on SL was commissioned, Russian Ambassador to the UN objected stating that it was not a UN report done in accordance with the UN regulations and procedures and hence it was illegal to publish it.
In his book “Subversion of International Law”, Dharshan Weerasekera says the Secretary General’s action in commissioning the POE report was highly illegitimate and in fact illegal under the UN charter, especially Art 2(7), 99 and 100.
In 2014, based on the POE, a resolution was passed giving authority to the UN Human Rights High Commissioner (Zeid Al Hussain) to investigate. The previous government, for reasons best known to it, co-sponsored the resolution 30/1 which contained the (in)famous OISL report charging SL with a number of IHRL and IHL violations. Since SL co-sponsored the resolution, it was passed in the UNHRC without any debate or a vote.
This writer attended a UNHRC session and submitted to the High Commissioner a complete rebuttal to the said allegations, prepared by patriotic professionals and experts.
We fought against the most ruthless terrorist outfit in the world. NS could recall how Britain’s former Prime Minister Theresa May dealt with terrorism. She said, “I will not hesitate even to amend the Human Rights Laws when it comes to the protection of my soldiers fighting terrorism”. We haven’t heard any “thoughts from London” with regard to that statement.
About 21,000 soldiers were killed and about 14,000 were injured in the war. The Army was able to finish the war whilst rescuing 295,000 innocent Tamils kept as human shields by the terrorists. It was the largest rescue operation ever carried out by any army in the world. Hundreds of our soldiers lost their lives/limbs by walking over minefields without using heavy artillery guns to prevent civilian casualties. The war crime allegations are levelled against such soldiers. Understandably’ there have been a few excesses by a few soldiers but they have been dealt with in either military or civil courts.
The UNHRC, under the influence of the separatist Tamil Diaspora in the UK and the US, never encouraged SL to carry out any of its “local mechanisms”. BKM released the POE report before the LLRC report condemning the latter. The OISL report was released before the Paranagana commission (appointed by the President to investigate into the missing) completed its task and had the audacity to order the government to annul the commission. Hence the “External mechanism” has to be rejected because it was the culmination of a series of events starting from a bogus report submitted to BKM by a committee illegally appointed by him. Hence the firm statement made by Sabry on behalf of the government is not “Loud-mouthed nonsense”, but a statement befitting a sovereign and an independent nation.