Must evolve clear-cut policy How they voted

ity, are being assailed. If we are true to our consciences, it is not difficult to concede that the situation in Sri Lanka does not warrant the attention and criticism in this Resolution.

"We are clearly justified in asserting that we require time to realize comprehensive reconciliation. This Resolution also runs counter to the principle of international law that domestic remedies must be exhausted and should be the first resort, prior to superimposing external mechanisms. In respect of Sri Lanka's situation, it is barely 3 months since the presentation of the domestic mechanism's report. Is it fair for this Council to pre-judge our commitment to all aspects of the domestic process at this juncture? Shouldn't we be given the time and space to continue this process of implementation and of reconciliation without undue interference?..... Physician, heal thyself"…."

The days before the passage of the resolution have seen a number of demonstrations particularly in Colombo. It was not only those in the state sector including trade unions and members of the clergy who took part. Even the captains of the country's commerce, banking and industry turned up holding placards though most of them were in flashy ties and shirts. They protested outside both the US Embassy as well as the Indian High Commission, both located within half a kilometre along the Galle Road. At least one senior Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) cabinet minister was responsible for organising most of these events. They did have an impact. They generated considerable interest among electronic news media. Firstly such reportage was largely on anti US sentiments increasing in Sri Lanka as a result of the protests. It later extended to India with a flurry of activity on mobile phones where some Indian nationals in Sri Lanka began receiving abusive and even obscene SMS messages over their government's move to support the resolution. Some state media outlets also targeted both NGO staff as well as journalists reporting to foreign media outlets. Some were named whilst others, anchors said, would be named soon for their "treacherous activities." This drew a strong protest from the New York based Committee to Protect Journalists. The government has a long and alarming record of intolerance to criticism," said Bob Dietz, CPJ'S Asia program coordinator in a statement. He added, "The international community must be extra vigilant in ensuring that Sri Lankan journalists are not subjected to reprisals for voicing their concerns to the Human Rights Council."

Since revealing in these columns exclusively last week that India would not support Sri Lanka by voting for the US backed resolution, there were a number of developments, some public and others behind the scenes, which prompted New Delhi to take this decision. The Sunday Times has been able to reconstruct the sequence of events. The first development came when Minister Samarasinghe, who was in Geneva first for the 'high level segment' of the UNHRC, told Colombo based electronic media that India was extending "100 per cent" support to Sri Lanka. His remarks were well meant.

They were to convey to Sri Lankans that the country's powerful northern neighbour was fully backing its efforts. However, it was to lead to two northern politicians obtaining voice cuts of the statements. They flew to Chennai, the capital of Tamil Nadu and briefed Dravida Munnetra Kazhakam (DMK) leader, Muthuvel Karunanidhi of what they perceived was a secret deal between the Centre in New Delhi and the Mahinda Rajapaksa administration in Colombo. They claimed that the Indian government had secretly assured to support Sri Lanka at the UNHRC. That saw an exchange of letters between Karunanidhi and the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh. While that went on, an MP in the Lok Sabha was to raise a question from the Indian External Affairs Minister, S.M. Krishna's visit to Colombo and his remarks that President Rajapaksa had agreed to implement the 13th Amendment to the Constitution and provide what was termed "plus" - a reference to the creation of a Senate or a second chamber. He wanted to know what the position was since President Rajapaksa had denied giving any such assurance.

During a noon news briefing after a breakfast meeting with Rajapaksa on January 16, Indian External Affairs Minister Krishna commenting on the 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution said, "I discussed this matter with His Excellency the President this morning. The President assured me that he stands by his commitment to pursuing the 13th Amendment plus approach." The Indian side had checked with Minister Peiris if this statement can be made public. Peiris then contacted the President and said, "Yes". Peiris was also seated next to Krishna when the statement was made. However, Rajapaksa during a meeting with Editors of local media on January 30 declared, "Whether it is 13 plus or 13 minus, these and more issues should be sorted out through the PSC (Parliamentary Select Committee) mechanism. Parliament must tell me what is 'plus'. I'm blamed for not consulting Parliament. The Opposition must join in this effort as the problems at hand should be resolved democratically. It is the PSC which must clear-up all outstanding questions. Parliament's decision on these matters is my decision."

In the backdrop of the query by the Lok Sabha parliamentarian, Krishna wrote to his counterpart G.L. Peiris, seeking clarification on the official position of the government. The Sunday Times learnt that for reasons not yet known, the Indian External Affairs Minister's letter was not replied to. The result was a statement by Krishna to a joint session of the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha. He re-iterated India's position when he said, "We have been assured by the Government of Sri Lanka, including during my visit to Sri Lanka in January this year, of its commitment towards pursuit of a political process, through a broader dialogue with all parties, including the TNA, leading to the full implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution, so as to achieve meaningful devolution of powers and genuine national reconciliation. We hope the Government of Sri Lanka, recognising the critical importance of this issue, acts decisively and with vision in this regard…."

Nevertheless, Krishna concluded, "I would like to highlight here that on such sensitive issues we will need to consider the implications of our actions carefully. Any assertions on our part may have implications on our historically friendly relations with a neighbouring country. We would also need to examine whether our actions will actually assist in the process of reconciliation in Sri Lanka, and enhance the current dialogue between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Tamil National Alliance ………. I therefore, would like to inform this House that our objectives, as always, continue to remain the achievement of a future for the Tamil community in Sri Lanka that is marked by equality, dignity, justice and self-respect."

The statement however gave no hint which way the Indian government was going to vote on the resolution. So much so, that a reference to not generally being supportive of country-specific resolutions had Colombo confident that India would vote with Sri Lanka. The Indian mission in Colombo backed by officialdom at the External Affairs Ministry in New Delhi had argued strongly to give Sri Lanka the opportunity to 'move on; with its reconciliation efforts without undue international pressure. By then, the DMK, a constituent partner in the Congress led United People's Alliance government, was not the only one to pressure the Centre. Joining in was Tamil Nadu's Chief Minister Jeyaram Jeyalalitha. In their bid to outdo each other, Karunanidhi exerted pressure even suggesting that his party would pull out of the alliance - a move that would lead to the collapse of the Indian government. He threatened to bring work to a standstill in State establishments and stage a hunger strike. That was to see Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh make a statement in the Lok Sabha. He said, "We do not yet have the final text of the Resolution. However, I may assure the House that we are inclined to vote in favour of a Resolution. That, we hope, will advance our objective, namely, the achievement of the future for the Tamil community in Sri Lanka that is marked by equality, dignity, justice and selfrespect."

Some significant highlights of what Premier Singh said: "……….The Government of India has emphasised to the Government of Sri Lanka the importance of a genuine process of reconciliation to address the grievances of the Tamil community. In this connection, we have called for implementation of the recommendations contained in the report of the Commission appointed by Sri Lankan Government that has been tabled before the Sri Lankan Parliament. These include various constructive measures of healing the wounds of the conflict and fostering the process of lasting peace and reconciliation in Sri Lanka.

"We have asked the Government of Sri Lanka to stand by its commitment towards pursuit of a political process through a broader dialogue with all parties including the Tamil National Alliance leading to the full implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution so as to achieve meaningful devolution of power and genuine national reconciliation. We hope that the Government of Sri Lanka recognises the critical importance of this issue, acts decisively and with vision in this regard. We will remain engaged with them through this process and encourage them to take forward the dialogue with the elected representatives of Sri Lankan Tamils.

"As regards the issue of a draft resolution initiated by the United States at the on-going 19th Session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Members have also raised the issue of human rights violations during the protracted conflict in Sri Lanka and on the US initiated draft resolution on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka at the ongoing 19th Session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. The Government of India has emphasised to the Government of Sri Lanka the importance of a genuine process of reconciliation to address the grievances of the Tamil community. In this connection, we have called for implementation of the recommendations contained in the report of the Commission appointed by Sri Lankan Government that has been tabled before the Sri Lankan Parliament. These include various constructive measures of healing the wounds of the conflict and fostering the process of lasting peace and reconciliation in Sri Lanka……….."

The Sunday Times learnt that diplomatic efforts by India to further 'moderate' the resolution did not meet with success. The US probably had enough of their resolution being watered down. However, after the voting was over at the UNHRC, India's External Affairs Ministry in New Delhi acknowledged its role in taking out the only sting in the resolution. It said, "While we subscribe to the broader message of this resolution and the objectives it promotes, we also underline that any assistance from the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights or visits of UN Special Procedures should be in consultation with and with the concurrence of the Sri Lankan Government. These are norms which all of us in the Council subscribe to. A democratic country like Sri Lanka has to be provided time and space to achieve the objectives of reconciliation and peace. In this Council we have the responsibility to ensure that our conclusions do contribute to this objective rather than hinder it."

The Indian Establishment was concerned at the diplomatic fallout in Sri Lanka by voting for the anti-lanka resolution. Again, it was trying to balance its otherwise good relations with Sri Lanka and the domestic compulsions in Tamil Nadu.

The statement also emphasised the need to implement the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. It said "………. we urge the Sri Lankan Government to take forward the process of broader dialogue and show concrete movement towards a meaningful devolution of powers, including the implementation of the 13th Amendment and beyond. We would also urge that Sri Lanka takes forward the measures for accountability and to promote human rights that it has committed to. It is these steps, more than anything we declare in this Council, which would bring about genuine reconciliation between all the communities of Sri Lanka, including the minority Tamil community."

The TNA that is pushing for a political package that would encompass the 13th Amendment to the Constitution welcomed the resolution. A statement said,"……….we believe that the Resolution will benefit all Sri Lankans, regardless of ethnicity. We sincerely hope that the Resolution and the clear collective will of the Council will encourage the government to face the future with fortitude and move decisively to protect human rights and take tangible action to advance genuine reconciliation. The need for substantial progress in human rights protection, genuine and meaningful reconciliation and accountability are deep-felt needs of all citizens of the country…….…"

Domestic compulsions, or to put it more forcefully, keeping the UPA government in power, are the overriding factors that prompted India to vote in favour of the resolution. However, it made an unsuccessful effort to further "moderate" the resolution to obtain a consensus vote but did

succeed in changing a key operative paragraph. Notwithstanding these matters, a strong message to Colombo emphasised in the varied statements, including those from Premier Singh, External Affairs Minister Krishna and the External Affairs Ministry in New Delhi repeatedly emphasise the point that the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka should be enforced. Hence, this bone of contention in Indo-sri Lanka relations will remain until Sri Lanka responds to New Delhi's request and clarifies matters. There is little doubt that even the proposed PSC or the talks between Government and TNA leaders will get under way until issues are sorted out.

It is in this backdrop that some ministers close to the UPFA leadership are speculating of a possible cabinet reshuffle. Whether President Mahinda Rajapaksa chooses to do that or not, he has maintained a studious silence from making pointed references publicly to either US or other countries that backed the resolution. On Friday however he told a government sponsored meeting at Bandaragama he would not permit any other country to interfere in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka. On the other hand statements are continuing to be made by other cabinet ministers. The Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU), a constituent partner of the UPFA government is calling for the closure of diplomatic missions in Europe, except one in Brussels saying that the European Union takes collective decisions. In the absence of these parties being reined in, each pronouncement passes off as an official government viewpoint.

There is an imperative need for the government to clearly define not only its national goals but also its strategy to cope with the Us-backed resolution now that it has been passed. There are two aspects to this issue. One is the response to the UNHRC resolution. A mere non-action on the issues raised will only see the matter reappear at the 20th sessions of the Human Rights Council in March, next year. It could then turn out to be a more costly exercise as the international community will perceive such a course of action as an affront. The other aspect is the bi-lateral relations with India. It is a wellknown fact that governments may change during elections in India but their foreign policy remains, by and large constant, as can be seen from the messages to Colombo in the recent statements. Therefore, there is a compelling need to engage India not only on a constructive but also on a genuine note by addressing the issues that have become irritants.

For all this to be done there is no gainsaying that there is a crying need for professional diplomacy in a vibrant Ministry of External Affairs. Aggressive and belligerent behaviour by some members of the Sri Lanka delegation, to say the least, has not been well received by some of their counterparts in Geneva. A close study of how the two different Sri Lanka delegations conducted business, during the "high level segment" and thereafter, will not only help save money and even embarrassment at future events, it will also help the government learn where colossal blunders were made. One such blunder is the assumption that decisions at the UNHRC were taken by diplomats who were on the spot in Geneva without recourse to their foreign ministries in their capitals. This seems the basis for large delegations from Colombo. In almost every instance, such decisions are made by the latter and passed down to the envoys in Geneva. On rare occasions, the envoys are given an option subject to prevailing circumstances. Without proper guidance, members of the Sri Lanka delegation went around lobbying oblivious to some of the ground realities or even diplomatic niceties.

The UN Human Rights Council's 19th sessions have ended. So have most of the demonstrations in Colombo. Sri Lanka now has just one year to decide what next to do. There is a strong need to look beyond naming and shaming people, and evolve a strategy. The UPFA can formulate one itself or consult the opposition parties too since the matters revolve around national issues. The significant question therefore would be what the UPFA government would do beyond mobilising people through protests and rallies. The government has to speak out. The public will have to be told where the nation stands.

Ps-manmohan, I hope you realised that you are already feeling the effect of your vote. After you announced your decision on Monday, our cricketers lost to Bangladesh on Tuesday, knocking India out of the finals of the Asia Cup. I hope you won’t complain when we teach the Chinese to play cricket and allow them to set up a military camp in Jaffna!