In Geneva as US talks tough
While millions of Lankans tighten their belts, huge delegation hosts lunches, parties to woo support
to the US sponsored resolution are "not negotiable," Samarasinghe has done just the opposite. He has directly addressed the issues raised in the draft Us-backed resolution (published last week in these columns), setting out point by point the measures taken by the government of Sri Lanka and made a fervent plea to the US and its backers not to move any resolution. The latter reflects a policy of engagement with the international community. Whether this is going to bring about a change of mind by the movers is another matter altogether. Though the draft resolution was made available just days ahead of the UN Human Rights Council sessions, the fact that the issues in focus were carefully studied and a response was made in Geneva, though late, is both noteworthy and praiseworthy. It has made clear that instead of saying the issues are "not negotiable," Samarasinghe has in fact placed before the Council the government's response openly for public discussion.
However, the fact that such a studied response was not made much earlier is what has come as a big challenge to Sri Lanka's credibility. It had left more than an element of doubt in sections of the international community whether most of government's exhortations were to ward off a resolution. One such missed opportunity was when the LLRC report was presented in Parliament on December 16 last year. On that occasion, if a senior UPFA leader had spelt out a road map for its implementation and given an outline of how it was going to take place, the looming threat in Geneva would easily have been avoided. In fact the Sunday Times reported exclusively that President Rajapaksa was to present the report and give such a guideline. However, there was a change of mind. It is significant to note Samarasinghe speaking about a "road map" - a subject on which President Rajapaksa showed some hesitance during talks with two visiting dignitaries. They were Maria Otero, Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy and Human Rights, and Robert Blake, Assistant Secretary in the Department of State for South and Central Asian affairs. At this meeting, the Sunday Times learnt that Rajapaksa held the view that a road map was not necessary. In fact, at one point, Peiris who was at the same talks was to add that "we are doing a lot of things but we cannot tell you everything." Yet, Rajapaksa was to urge Peiris to put in place a mechanism to enforce recommendations of the LLRC within one month. If this was done, there is no public announcement in any form.
In the light of the pronouncements made by Minister Samarasinghe, the only hurdle that still remains is the question of credibility. Questions are being raised by some western diplomats in Geneva whether the assurances were only till the government tides over the UNHRC sessions.
This week, the Us-backed draft resolution was being circulated among member countries that have voting rights. It is to be knocked into final shape after consultations with a number of member countries. There were indications yesterday that the final resolution would be handed over to the Secretariat coming Wednesday. In terms of procedure, a resolution will have to be handed over to the conference Secretariat 72 hours before the closing date of the sessions. In this instance, the Council sessions will end on March 23. That makes clear the resolution would have to be listed before March 20 the latest.
Some reports from Geneva have caused concern among ministers of the possibility of the resolution going through. However, Samarasinghe and his delegation are still hopeful Sri Lanka will be able, with the support of friendly countries, to have it stalled or rejected.
Samarasinghe has been meeting envoys of Non Aligned Countries, the African Union and the Islamic states to canvass support. There were some interesting moments when Samarasinghe arrived at the Geneva airport accompanied by Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva and government's legal advisor, Mohan Peiris. Sri Lanka's Geneva UN envoy Kunanayakam, who greeted the trio at the airport, said that the US mission in Geneva was circulating an email message. She alleged that in the e-mail, to diplomatic missions in Geneva, there has been reference to Sri Lanka "collaborating with the US" on the proposed resolution. From the airport, the trio went straight to their hotel. Samarasinghe telephoned President Rajapaksa to brief him on the situation. For the next two hours, they busied themselves leaving other chores behind. On Rajapaksa's instructions, the trio drafted a response, asked Ms Kunanayakam to sign it and circulate it to the diplomatic missions. Earlier, the draft was shown to Peiris and his approval obtained. The Sri Lankan response denied any such "collaboration" and accused the originators of the mail of mischief.
There were also some acutely embarrassing moments for the Sri Lankan ministers and other members of the delegation when they had an 'interactive' session with other delegates, INGO representatives, members of the Tamil diaspora among others. Minister Samarasinghe introduced Minister Douglas Devananda as "one of our Tamil leaders from the North who polled the highest number of preference votes." There were accusations by those present that the LLRC report has made strong and critical strictures against Devananda for his alleged links with paramilitary groups. Devananda, who was escorted by two well-built white security guards, tried to defend himself but was drowned by the cacophony of voices.
Sections of the western diplomatic community in Geneva say they are confident the resolution will be carried through. Discounting reports that there were plans to withdraw it, one diplomatic source in Geneva said the US would not have initiated the resolution if it was going to withdraw it or was not sure of its numbers. Sri Lanka has already utilised the time allotted - 12 minutes - during the high level segment of the Human Rights Council.
On Friday, the UN Human Rights High Commissioner Navi Pillai, though widely speculated, did not make a statement on Sri Lanka. Making a statement on Friday was Maria Otero. In a three-page prepared speech, she made a one paragraph reference to Sri Lanka where she hinted that the resolution would be moved. The remarks scotched rumours from Geneva that the Us-backed resolution was to be withdrawn. This is when she said "Action now in this Council will sow the seeds of lasting piece on the ground." Here is the relevant paragraph:
"We know from experience that there can be no lasting peace without reconciliation and accountability, but the United States is concerned that, in Sri Lanka, time is slipping away. The international community has waited nearly three years for action, and while we welcome the release of the LLRC report, the recommendations of the report should be implemented. We have engaged Sri Lanka bilaterally on these issues since the conflict ended in 2009, and stand ready to continue to work with them. Action now in this Council will sow the seeds of lasting peace on the ground."
On February 23, when Samarasinghe, the delegation leader arrived in Geneva, the US Ambassador to the Human Rights Council Eileen Chamberlain Donahue, held a news conference. Though Syria and Egypt figured more prominently, Donahue devoted considerable time to Sri Lanka, which she declared was an item of "top priority" for the United States. This media event just four days ahead of the Council meeting reflected the US position. Here are relevant highlights:
"I 'm going to move to another top priority for the United States which is a difficult and much more nuanced initiative so I'm going to take a little bit of time to explain it. It's on Sri Lanka. As I said, a year ago we were struggling to get the Council machinery to deal with crisis situations, and this past year we have a lot of evidence that the Council is now able to deal with crisis situations. We've had multiple special sessions on Syria, we had the special session on Libya, and we're doing a relatively good job of confronting things as they occur and capture the world's attention.
"The case of Sri Lanka is different and difficult. It is essentially dealing with large-scale civilian casualties, allegations of government involvement in large-scale civilian casualties during a civil war that took place over many years, but ended in 2009. It's not an on-going crisis. And for that reason, it's slightly more challenging. In the circumstances of the world today the fact that it's not a crisis makes it slightly more difficult. However, we firmly believe that doing a Human Rights Council Resolution on this subject is warranted and important because we believe there cannot be impunity for large-scale civilian casualties and that if there is to be real reconciliation it must be based on an accounting of the truth and serious implementation of changes.
"So we are working to convince the Sri Lankan government that there has to be greater evidence of serious implementation of the recommendations in their own domestic report and greater accountability in order to satisfy the victims and the various communities that feel like they have not yet been heard.
"The last comment on this is that up until now, up until this session it has seemed like we've had two options at the Council. Either do nothing and remain silent, which from our point of view would have been in some ways an endorsement of the adequacy of what the government has done, and we knew that was not acceptable. On the other hand, the other choice that people have called for is an International Commission of Inquiry where the international community takes over and ensures that there's some kind of international accountability.
"We are trying sort of a third way here. We are acknowledging what the government has done, saying that it is valuable, as are their efforts at progress on a variety of fronts in terms of reconciliation. However, we are also saying at the same time what you've done is not enough and it's not adequate for your own population, for purposes of reconciliation and lasting peace you need to do more.
"Media: I have a question regarding Sri Lanka. Given the seriousness of the allegations that have been made by the Commission of Inquiry, the [inaudible] Sri Lanka, and given the extent of the NGOS like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, what they are proposing, is very soft glove approach in the resolution. Is it just a first step, that you say if they aren't cooperating on this you have harder, stronger measures in the bank, or is it all [you want]?
"Ambassador Donahue: No. What we want is real accountability, real implementation, and real reconciliation. That is what we want as an outcome. The question is what can we do at the Human Rights Council that supports that? In our judgment, we could have of course followed the proposal of the NGOS and others to ask for a Commission of Inquiry, basically say that the domestic efforts had not been valuable, and that there was a need, complimentarily had failed, and that the international community really was now responsible. We did not think that either - There was a question of the likelihood of success which we always, we have to be pragmatic. What can we do?
Secondly, we are in it, it's a very challenging thing to figure out what will actually work in the present in Sri Lanka? We are walking a very fine line right now, still trying hard to get the Sri Lankans to consent to our initiative. As of Monday night when I spoke to the Sri Lankan Ambassador, the answer was no. No. They don't like it. We think it's unwise for them to resist and we've made it clear, it will go forward and it will succeed.
"But at this juncture we felt it a better balance to reach out a hand. Secretary Clinton has invited the Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka Peiris to come to Washington. She herself has said some aspects of your domestic work have been very good. At the same time she has said clearly and they have made this public in the media, not adequate. Your efforts at accountability are not adequate. So it's not - this binary option - silence -or everything they've done domestically is worthless and we're not working with them - neither of those seemed like the right approach.
"To your question of is this the end, is that all, hopefully not.
"So either the Sri Lankans will consent, or if they don't consent they'll see the outcome and they might ultimately see they're going to have to do more and they will do more.
"The alternative is that - this resolution doesn't preclude action in June or September or at any other time. So all options will still be on the table. This is just a step that we came up with that we thought could succeed and have possibly a positive effect on what the Sri Lankans do."
Even before the commencement of the UN Human Rights Council sessions, Ambassador Donahue has made clear that the resolution backed by her country is there to stay. Hence, the critical question is whether it would now be passed.
There were shades of the ostentation in Geneva, like at St Kitts when Sri Lanka made a failed bid to host the Commonwealth Games in Hambantota. Sri Lanka's 52 member delegation (not 56 as erroneously reported last week) was lodged at the upscale luxury Inter-continental Hotel in Geneva. It is an 18-storey tower in the centre of the diplomatic district. Surrounded by parkland, rooms offer beautiful views of either Lake Geneva or the Alps. It is close to the International Red Cross, Red Crescent Museum and the United Nations Office. Some of the charges at the hotel showed the colossal amounts the government has to spend to sustain the large Sri Lanka delegation to Geneva, one of the most expensive cities in the world.
It also raises the question whether a smaller delegation made up of those dealing with key elements of issues before the Council was not possible. After all, Sri Lanka has taken part in many a world event in the past 64 years since independence without large contingents that have to, sometimes fly in chartered flights or move around in foreign capitals in motorcades. The lowest room charge (single) is 499 Euros (about Rs 80,977) plus 75 Euros taxes (about Rs 12,171) per night. This showed that nearly Rs 100,000 per night had to be spent on a member of the delegation. Thus, it would be a million rupees to sustain one person for ten days. The figure would be more for Ministers. A Deluxe room is charged at 699 Euros (about Rs 113,433) plus 75 Euros taxes (about Rs 12,171) per night. A junior suite is 999 Euros (about Rs 162,117) plus 75 Euros taxes (about Rs 12,171). A cup of tea costs 8 Euros (about Rs 1,298), orange Juice (about Rs 1,622) and a small bottle of water 9 Euros (abouy Rs 1,460).
External Affairs Minister Peiris hosted a lunch as well as a dinner for Geneva based envoys and other invitees. Some 30 ambassadors took part besides a larger number from the Sri Lanka delegation. Besides the charges for the reception hall, the cost per guest for the event was over 200 Euros (about Rs 32,456). This is besides costs for private security escorts to some Sri Lanka delegation members and a fleet of luxury black Mercedes Benz cars. Mobile telephones were also issued to members of the delegation.
In fielding such large delegations for events related to Sri Lanka, the critical question is whether the country could afford all the extravagance. And all this is because the basic homework is not done in the first place. It was two weeks ago that prices of fuel were raised to unprecedented levels. Not many Sri Lankans are aware that three state institutions - Mihin Lanka, Srilankan Airlines and the Ceylon Electricity Board - owe the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation several billions of rupees for providing fuel. The price hike has forced the consumer to bear the cost of the gigantic bills run by these three state concerns. Similarly, the extravagant tamashas abroad eventually costs the taxpayer. This week, some government politicians were backing efforts to urge businessmen to contribute to a fund. It is to be channelled to overseas Sri Lankan groups to hold protest rallies in the countries they live in support of Sri Lanka. Whether a resolution at the UN Human Rights Council is passed or not, the colossal amounts spent would be as hurting as much as the diplomatic moves against Sri Lanka. That is at a time when the economy has begun to face unprecedented challenges.