FRIENDS AND FOES AT THE UNHRC VOTE

Following are the statements made by countries at the United Nations Human Rights Council Sessions in Geneva on Thursday—where the United States Resolution against Sri Lanka was passed.

If the Council adopted the resolution on Sri Lanka, it would act contrary to the principle of non-intervention. Sri Lanka cooperated with the High Commissioner and the Special Procedures, which made the proposed resolution inadmissible, unjustified and unproductive Philippines stated that it opposed the introduction of a trigger mechanism in the Council and attempts to turn technical assistance into a form of political pressure to influence Governments Nigeria stated that it had decided to vote for the resolution, not to censure Sri Lanka but to encourage the process of reconciliation in the country Uruguay stated that it would vote in favour of the resolution, as it was balanced and constructive

Cuba wanted to address the legitimacy and credibility of the work of the Council and would ask co-sponsors whether it would not be possible to delay action on the resolution until the September session. Three years ago, President Obama said he would close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre but that had not been done. It would seem that this could be an arena for possible confrontation. Cuba asked co-sponsors to postpone the resolution, thereby avoiding any action that would undermine the Council’s work.

Speaking for a second time Cuba stated that it sought a climate of cooperation and then read a text deploring country resolutions, agreed on by 14 States. The resolution set a negative precedent that risked singling out developing countries. The international community must allow space and time to countries emerging from conflict. The mission of the Human Rights Council was to provide technical assistance and cooperation to a country and build capacity with the consent of the concerned country. If done differently, it would put in question the sovereignty and independence of the concerned country. If the Council adopted the resolution on Sri Lanka, it would act contrary to the principle of non-intervention. Sri Lanka cooperated with the High Commissioner and the Special Procedures, which made the proposed resolution inadmissible, unjustified and unproductive.

Cuba for a third time reiterated its request for a nominal vote as the resolution was based on a blaming and shaming exercise. Cuba could not accept the fact that only three years would be given to the programme of action proposed by the Government of Sri Lanka and regretted that the Council had not recognized the progress made in the country, notably in dealing with internally displaced persons. A double standard was being applied to Sri Lanka as the European Union and the United States had used violence to carry out executions and to attack civilian populations in other regions of the world with no action being taken by the Human Rights Council. Detention centres, secret flights, and the indiscriminate bombings by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization all required an independent commission of investigation. Cuba noted that 40 per cent of all income from arms sales between 1983 and 2009 in Sri Lanka had been sold to the Sri Lankan Government by the United States, the United Kingdom and Israel. The Sri Lankan Government had cooperated with the Human Rights Council and was committed to national reconciliation.

CHINA

China stated that constructive dialogue and cooperation was the proper way to resolve conflicts. The resolution submitted by the United States was a product of the politicization of human rights. The reconciliation efforts of Sri Lanka were beyond the mandate of the Human Rights Council. Sri Lanka required the assistance of the international community. The draft resolution interfered in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka and violated the principles of the United Nations. The international community should provide the Government with sufficient time and space to complete the national reconciliation process and China called on all Member States to reject the draft resolution.

ECUADOR

Ecuador stated that despite the number of violations of human rights and regardless of who had committed them, the Human Rights Council should not take a biased approach. The situation of human rights in Sri Lanka would improve to the benefit of minorities and the population in general. The Government was fol- lowing the recommendations of the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission and would inform the Council of the results of the investigations of past human rights violations in Sri Lanka’s next Universal Periodic Review. The situation of human rights in Afghanistan and Iraq should be investigated.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Stated that the process of national reconciliation in Sri Lanka should be carried out by the Government of Sri Lanka, without interference from outside forces. The international community should not make hasty and ill-founded judgments. The Rus- sian Federation remained firm in its position that country situations could be considered in the Council only with the agreement of the State concerned and attempts to dictate to a sovereign State how policy should be carried out was unacceptable.

THAILAND

Thailand stated that it had always attached much importance to accountability and the fight against impunity as well as to engagement, cooperation and dialogue with the country concerned. Sri Lanka had shown a clear willingness to cooperate. For the moment, the homegrown process should be priori- tized. So far, Sri Lanka had shown its willingness to cooperate with the Council. For these reasons, Thailand would vote against the resolution. Thailand urged the Sri Lankan Government to implement without delay, the recommendations of the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission.

PHILIPPINES

Philippines stated that it opposed the introduction of a trigger mechanism in the Council and attempts to turn technical assistance into a form of political pressure to influence Governments. This resolution was a reincarnation of the trigger mechanism and it attempted to turn international cooperation into a form of political pressure.

MALDIVES

Maldives said it was a close friend of Sri Lanka and understood better than most the scale and impact of the conflict. The Maldives understood the trauma inflicted by the conflict and that it would take time to rebuild. In order to rebuild, there had to be accountability for all involved in human rights abuses, reconciliation had to be promote and had to ensure that a fairer and more equitable society was created. The Maldives believed the resolution was not necessary at the current juncture. Sri Lanka needed the time and space to implement recommendations.

UGANDA

Uganda noted the speedy publication of the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission report, the progress made in implementing the report’s recommendations and the Government’s engagement with the international community and the Human Rights Council. The draft resolution denied a reasonable time to be accorded to the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations of the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission report. Special consideration should be given to transitional countries emerging from war if their Governments demonstrated a clear intention and roadmap to address the post war conflict.

INDONESIA

Indonesia, said it was with deep regret that the delegation was not able to support the resolution. This was due to the failure of the co-sponsor (US) to respond in a constructive manner to the reconciliation process at the national level. The efforts of the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations of the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission were not without imperfections. However, the process needed support and nurturing at the international level.

BANGLADESH

Bangladesh maintained a specific position to not support country specific resolutions without the approval of the country concerned. Such resolutions would make limited impact on the ground if the country concerned was not on board. Sri Lanka was a country that had been the victim of terrorism for more than three decades and had only recently come out of this violence. The Government of Sri Lanka had provided significant leadership in countering international terrorism and required time and space to heal from the long lasting effects of terrorism.

UNITEDSTATES

Introducing draft resolution said the resolution enjoyed the broad support of 40 co-sponsors. The resolution encouraged Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations of its own Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission and to make concerned efforts at achieving the kind of meaningful accountability upon which lasting reconciliation efforts could be built.

BELGIUM

Speaking on behalf of the European Union Belgium said the European Union fully supported this initiative to promote national reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka. Genuine reconciliation among all groups and communities in Sri Lanka was essential and required justice and accountability for past events. The European Union regretted that questions raised in the report of the Expert Panel of the United Nations Secretary-general had not been reflected in the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission Report. Accountability was an essential part of the process of national reconciliation and sustainable peace. The European Union expressed strong concern over continued reports of intimidation and reprisals against civil society representatives in Sri Lanka as well as in Geneva. The Sri Lankan Government should respect and protect the rights of individuals and civil society who had cooperated with United Nations mechanisms.

CZECH REPUBLIC

Czech Republic stated that it fully supported the resolution as it urged national reconciliation among all groups in Sri Lanka which was dependent on practical measures being taken by the Government to ensure accountability for actions that had happened in the past. The recommendations of the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission Report would help in this regard and the Czech Republic would support the resolution and encouraged other Member States to support it.

URUGUAY

Uruguay stated that it would vote in favour of the resolution, as it was balanced and constructive. It sent a clear message from the international community that it was willing to cooperate with the reconciliation efforts at the national level. Uruguay appreciated the efforts of the Colombo Government, including the priorities for human rights laid out in the Action Plan and measures contained therein.

NIGERIA

Nigeria stated that it had decided to vote for the resolution, not to censure Sri Lanka but to encourage the process of reconciliation in the country. Nigeria had fought a civil war and the wounds of war had healed through an open and inclusive reconciliation process. Nigeria was ready to assist Sri Lanka and wished the Government and the Sri Lankan people every success in the reconciliation process.

MEXICO

Mexico said that the draft resolution was balanced, fair and constructive. Mexico said the Council was a cooperative, coordinating body and had the competence and responsibility to act not only where Sri Lanka was concerned but also in any other country where human rights violations had occurred.