Geneva: Same old tales of sound and fury

The times have not changed. Sri Lanka carries on its usual blustering, bovine way, never mind who occupies the seat of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. This month in Geneva the shrill sounds of Sri Lankan protests were heard again. Sounds yes, but missing was the sense of it all.

It is especially at times like this that one harks back to the days of Shirley Amerasinghe whose frequent clashes with Israel’s renowned Foreign Minister Abba Eban (who if I remember spoke nine languages fluently) at the general assembly and elsewhere were awaited with relish. As chairman of the Law of the Sea negotiations, he excelled in his role and was accepted by member states as such.

Sri Lanka surely also misses such respected and capable diplomats as Ambassador Neville Kanakaratne, highly valued UN Under-Secretary General Jayantha Dhanapala and former Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar whose deft diplomacy brought fame to Sri Lanka, to mention just a few.

They were persons who fought their battles armed with the force of argument and not the argument of force as advocated today by those who meet dissent with water cannons and tear gas.

Those who have followed with some interest the many years that Sri Lanka has been on the agenda of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) would have noted that the Sri Lanka update by the new High Commissioner Volker Turk was more modulated in tone and language and staid in a way than the more critical and hard-hitting remarks of his predecessor, Michelle Bachelet.

Reading the latest update, one had the impression that High Commissioner Turk was trying to be more appeasing and conciliatory though not pulling his punches. At this point of time when Sri Lanka needs all the friends, one would have thought that Colombo would reciprocate.

One recalls the words of new Foreign Minister Mohamed Ali Sabry at a media conference before heading off to Geneva with Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, to face his baptism of fire before a detailed and extensive report by Michelle Bachelet, saying “We are not interested in any confrontations. We are interested in consensus and a cordial relationship with all multilateral agencies and countries”.

Alas, there surely is many a slip between the cup and the lip to judge by Sri Lanka’s response a few months later. Colombo’s reply read to the Council by our Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, Himalee Arunatilaka, is hardly avoiding the confrontation that Minister Ali Sabry had spoken of sometime back.

One cannot blame PR Arunatilaka for this rather abrasive approach to diplomacy. There are times for it, but not right now.

Ambassador Arunatilaka is merely reading the script sent to her. She gets the instructions from Colombo. As Cassius told Brutus, “the fault is not in our stars but in ourselves”, Colombo wants to play macho when the time is to play ball but hopefully better than our cricket team in the finals.

Sri Lanka accuses the High Commissioner of “grave distortions in the written update and its misrepresentation of the ground situation”.

But before one comes to the ground situation and who misrepresents what, one might take a look at some of the opening remarks. Sri Lanka says that “Resolutions 46/1 and 51/1 were adopted on a divided vote where the majority of Member States either opposed or abstained from voting in fundamental disagreement with its unacceptable content, in particular, the so-called evidence gathering mechanism”. And where is the proof of that?

If, as Sri Lanka states, the majority opposed or abstained from voting because of “fundamental disagreement with its unacceptable content” and if the members were so strongly against the resolution as to be in “fundamental disagreement” and with its “unacceptable content” too, one would surely have expected members doubly discontent--as Colombo tries to make out rather disingenuously-to have voted against the resolution instead of abstaining.

In fact, several countries said to be friends of Sri Lanka abstained. Of the Asia-Pacific member countries that did not support Sri Lanka on this vote were India, Nepal, Indonesia, Malaysia, Japan, Qatar, UAE and Kazakhstan.

The Republic of Korea voted for the resolution.

But they did not vote against the resolution or for Sri Lanka. What then is the reason? Surely not what Colombo says it is. What Colombo fails to reveal is that this vote is the worst suffered by Sri Lanka since resolutions against successive governments were raised at the UNHRC since 2012. Sri Lanka received only 7 votes whereas there were 20 “yes” votes for the resolution and 20 abstentions- the highest number of abstentions at a voting on Sri Lanka resolutions ever.

Why Colombo avoided playing the numbers’ game which it has been engaged in from the days of Dinesh Gunawardena as foreign minister, is because it did not want to revive memories of the ignominy it had suffered under Foreign Minister Ali Sabry or expose the lack of credibility of its argument.

Back in March 2021 when Resolution 46/1--the first one mentioned in the Colombo rejoinder--was voted on, 22 members voted “yes”, 11 countries voted “no” and 14 countries abstained. It was then that the foreign minister of the day Dinesh Gunawardena engaged in an exercise in mathematical jugglery that would have astounded even the ancient Egyptian mathematicians.

We won, we won, Minister Gunawardena told reporters in obvious exultation. And how did he arrive at that? Simple. He added the 14 abstentions to Sri Lanka’s 11 votes which gave Sri Lanka a three-vote margin. He must have been a product of the Royal College of Ganan Karayas. On that occasion, too, India, Nepal and Japan abstained.

One might have some consideration for the validity of such charges if the statement was accompanied by a semblance of evidence to buttress the charges. But there seem to be none. Is it because any attempt to justify its accusation would only have opened a can of worms?

Since then, our foreign ministers and foreign ministry have resorted to such mathematical tomfoolery as the best antidote against the UN High Commissioners, the same tactic used at this month’s Council session also but avoiding numbers.

Space limitations prevent me from discussing in detail two other issues. The first deals with Sri Lanka’s claim of “grave distortions” in the written update and “misrepresentations of the ground situation.”

One might have some consideration for the validity of such charges if the statement was accompanied by a semblance of evidence to buttress the charges. But there seem to be none. Is it because any attempt to justify its accusation would only have opened a can of worms for what has happened on the ground in the last two years is far too evident to be dismissed as misrepresentation?

The use of obnoxious laws and the misuse of the ICCPR of which we are a signatory, to crush peaceful demonstrations and dissent, the resurrection of archaic laws such as the Official Secrets Act to ban access to certain places which President Wickremesinghe quickly withdrew when he realised the illegality of official ways, is but a fistful of what has happened and is happening on the ground.

If the drafters of the government rejoinder removed their multiple blinkers or visited an ophthalmologist they would probably not make such blatant errors.

Surely those who draft such arrant rubbish should know that Colombo-based diplomats and UN officials could clearly see what is happening on the ground and are briefed by their own contacts and would not be misled by official misinformation.

Talking of misinformation, I noticed the Foreign Ministry website carried not only a report of the statement made in Geneva but also statements made by 46 member states at the interactive dialogue which a State-run media called 46 members supportive of Sri Lanka.

The comments of the member states have been conveniently cherry-picked so as to avoid any critical remarks, leaving only what might be considered positives.

Having run out of space I can point only to the statement made by India. The ministry quotes India talking of being a close neighbour etc.

But what has been consciously avoided is what is said in the next paragraph.

“India has always been guided by two fundamental principles: (i) support to the aspirations of Tamils for equality, justice, dignity and peace; and (ii) unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Sri Lanka. We hope that the Government of Sri Lanka will fulfil the aspirations of Tamils for equality, justice and peace and its commitment to implement the Thirteenth Amendment and conduct Provincial Council Elections to ensure a life of respect and dignity for Tamils in Sri Lanka”.

So much for unadulterated information.