GENEVA RESOLUTION IS ABOUT PROSECUTIONS, NOT RECONCILIATION
Sri Lanka must not place its head in the noose The resolutions are intended to lead to prosecutions of Sri Lankan armed forces under international law nthe Poseidon - designed for anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare and ship interdiction. - left
After the UN Human Rights Council 34th session ended in Geneva, the US said it introduced three resolutions that were adopted with ‘broad cross regional support.’ The list included Resolution 34/1 on Sri Lanka.
The statement says that ‘Sri Lanka was one of the 47 co-sponsors’ of Resolution 34/1. This assertion is extremely disingenuous, if it is made on the basis that the resolution was adopted without a vote in the 47-member HRC. How could any member state of the HRC or friend of Sri Lanka be expected to raise its voice against the resolution when Sri Lanka itself had submitted to co-sponsoring it?
Interestingly the other two resolutions led by the US at the 34th session, on South Sudan and North Korea, relate to HRC mandated exercises to collect evidence that can be used in future ‘accountability mechanisms.’ The Commission on South Sudan is chaired by Yasmin Sooka who was one of the panelists on Ban Ki Moon’s infamous ‘Advisory Panel’ on Sri Lanka. While there is no comparison between the very different situations of Sri Lanka and those of South Sudan or North Korea, this should give us a clue as to what the HRC resolutions 30/1 and 34/1 are really about.
It would suggest that the resolutions are intended to lead to prosecutions of Sri Lankan armed forces under international law. The security forces are directly targeted in the resolution and although parties pushing for its implementation like to say that the issue of ‘foreign judges’ is getting undue attention, it may be seen that insistence on international participation in a retributive (as opposed to restorative) process, with a special prosecutor’s office etc, is a consistent thread in the resolutions and the reports coming out of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Security forces in their submissions to the Consultative Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms (CTF report) have expressed unequivocal
In spite of hearing sharply divided opinions from Tamils in the North and East, and Sinhalese in the South, the CTF ends up recommending a hybrid court
support for the government’s reconciliation initiative, and for a restorative as opposed to retributive approach. In spite of hearing sharply divided opinions from Tamils in the North and East, and Sinhalese in the South, the CTF ends up recommending a hybrid court with full participation of foreign judges, defence lawyers, prosecutors and investigators, saying that this recommendation is made in line with the 2015 Geneva resolution. The High Commissioner for Human Rights in turn, refers to the CTF’S recommendations to justify his reiteration of the need for international participation. So this has become a somewhat circular argument. While many governments representing the Western bloc spoke in support of the CTF’S recommendations during the Interactive Dialogue on Sri Lanka, it’s worth noting that the CTF’S Secretary heads an NGO funded by those very same governments. The question as to why there is an insistence on prosecutions, and from where that pressure originates, needs to be answered if we are to believe that the goal of reconciliation is being pursued in good faith.
As the High Commissioner for Human Rights himself has admitted, the ICC (International Criminal Court) route is unlikely to succeed in bringing prosecutions because Russia and China could exercise their vetoes as permanent members of the Security Council. During his visit to Sri Lanka last year he also admitted to the difficulty in trying to have a Bill passed in the Sri Lankan parliament for this purpose. So those pursuing this resolution know that the only way it could be done is to get Sri Lanka itself to set up a judicial mechanism of its own accord, with foreign participation to try Sri Lankan security forces under international law, amending the constitution and enacting legislation with retrospective effect to enable the process. This is a tall order, seeing that Sri Lankan soldiers were fighting legally, on the orders of their political leaders, on their own territory, to defeat a separatist terrorist enemy, and achieved their objective. In the absence of other tools, is ‘human rights’ being used as a political weapon? This approach in dealing with weaker states with strategic importance to the US would perhaps explain the superpower’s more active involvement in the HRC in recent times.
After making the initial blunder of co-sponsoring the resolution, the
yahapalana leadership has made contradictory statements on it, raising questions as to who was really behind the move.
President Sirisena who is Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces has categorically said he will not allow prosecutions of armed forces over alleged violations of human rights during the war. He has vehemently rejected the rights chief’s proposal to have foreign judges.
President Sirisena who is Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces has categorically said he will not allow prosecutions of armed forces over alleged violations of human rights during the war. He has vehemently rejected the rights chief ’s proposal to have foreign judges.