After Geneva, government
G.L produces fig leaf to cover up multitude of debacles and failures Reasons why India changed its stand, damage control measures urgently needed now
Like the proverbial story, the United Nations Human Rights Council laboured hard like a mountain, and brought forth by majority vote a mouse or a 'non-binding,' seemingly toothless US backed resolution on Sri Lanka on Thursday. Yet, the dangers it portend cannot be underestimated. For the first time, a UN body has brought the country under its microscope and the international community's scrutiny.
For many days before the final document emerged, in Geneva, diplomats of India and the United States have been locked in secret consultations. India wanted to remove what seemed the only sting in the resolution - a provision that would empower the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to "provide, and the Government of Sri Lanka to accept, advice and technical assistance on implementing" the provisions of the resolution.
A greater part of the diplomatic bargaining fell on Dilip Sinha, India's new Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva. He had arrived there only last Sunday, and was thrown into the deep end immediately. One night he was hosted to dinner by Sri Lanka's External Affairs Minister, G.L. Peiris. The tough diplomatic bargaining began only on Wednesday night, just a day ahead of the UN Human Rights Council vote on Sri Lanka. Sinha, with instructions from New Delhi, bargained with his US counterpart Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe to make changes. The most important was the removal of the provision that was considered "intrusive." On the other hand, Ms Donahoe wanted the provision for UN to scrutinise all developments in Sri Lanka relating to human rights and connected issues to remain. This was on the grounds that US allies wanted such inclusion. Sinha was to drive a hard bargain. He was to say India would then be compelled to vote against the resolution. He cited previous UNHRC resolutions (5/1 and 5/2 of 2009) on institution building of the Council to support his claim. These resolutions referred to the participation of state's in rectifying any human rights violations rather than them being forced down their throats.
After much to and fro, Sinha succeeded in persuading Ms Donahoe to accepting India's position. Thus, the contentious line in the resolution requiring the Government of Sri Lanka to accept UNHRC technical advice was changed to very true that 24 countries voted in favour of the resolution whilst 23 countries did not support it. It is also very true that 15 countries supported Sri Lanka and eight did not by choosing to abstain. Of course, Peiris could by his own logic argue what he told cabinet during a briefing last week, as reported in these columns, is correct. That is the fact that Sri Lanka stood a "5050" chance when the resolution is put to vote. That is on the basis that 23 countries did not support the resolution.
Those semantics apart, Peiris gave the reason for Sri Lanka's defeat. He said action plan to implement the LLRC recommendations. "We have also worked bilaterally, and with likeminded countries, to encourage Sri Lanka to take advantage of the resources of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. And we have encouraged Sri Lanka to engage with the Council, and to benefit from the broad range of experiences of Member States that have dealt successfully with their own post-conflict situations.
"Given the lack of action to implement the recommendations of the Sri Lankan government's own LLRC report, and the need for additional steps to address accountability issues not covered in the LLRC report, it is appropriate that the UNHRC consider and adopt this moderate and balanced resolution. It is a resolution that encourages Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations of its own LLRC report and to make concerted efforts at achieving the kind of meaningful accountability upon which lasting reconciliation efforts can be built."