If resolution is not implemented,

Geneva drama shakes Indian government also; it tried to toughen the draft to please the DMK, but failed Pakistan works hard to win the support of Islamic countries for government, but our own EAM still indulging in DPL harakiri

Perhaps never before has a resolution at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva brought a government to the brink of collapse or allowed a country facing accusations to relax whilst others did diplomacy for it.

That in essence is the action-packed saga of the second US-backed resolution approved by the Council on Thursday. Twenty-five countries voted in favour, thirteen against, eight abstained and there was one absentee from the 47 member Council. The table on this page shows how the countries fared during a General Assembly session of the HRC. It was watched live by Sri Lankans through a UN webcast also downlinked by a local TV channel.

Some 48 hours ahead of Thursday, changes in the final US draft saw an ostensible moderation. A few foreign diplomats in Geneva described it as only a chocolate coating over the tough and bitter clauses. It was the result of behind-thescenes diplomacy between a world power, the United States, and a regional power, India. Diplomats of the two countries were locked in close dialogue. For India, the need for re-phrasing and even exclusion of provisions that seemed "intrusive" was important in its own national interest. It did not want such provisions to become instruments to be used against it someday. The seemingly beneficial fallout was for Sri Lanka.

Seizing on that action which appeared to him as a "watered down" resolution was the Dravida Munnetra Kazhakam (DMK) of Muthuvel Karunanidhi. Angered by it, he decided that 26 DMK MPs in the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, including cabinet ministers should withdraw. They quit on Tuesday. This was notwithstanding three cabinet ministers - A.K. Anthony (Defence), P. Chidambaram (Finance) and Ghulam Nabi Azad (Health) - rushing on a flight from New Delhi to Chennai to plead. The DMK leader who accused the Congress Government of "watering down" the resolution refused to change his mind. He wanted a reference made to investigating "genocide," clearly a transparent political ploy. With that action, Karunanidhi appears to have not only outsmarted his Tamil Nadu political archival Jeyaram Jeyalalithaa. Above all, he has also placed the government of the world's largest democracy, India, a lame duck administration.

In marked contrast, Pakistan's Foreign Minister, Hina Rabbani Khar set in motion a diplomatic campaign for Sri Lanka. On her directions, Zamir Akram, Pakistan's Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, arranged for meetings in the Swiss city of diplomats from the Organisation for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and what are described as "like-minded" groups. During at least three different sessions, Akram lobbied for Sri Lanka. Consequently, OIC countries Kuwait, Mauritania, Qatar and United Arab Emirates (UAE) voted against the resolution.

This was besides Pakistan. Another member, Burkina Faso abstained. Libya and Sierra Leone were the only two OIC members to support the US move. If not for the seven Islamic countries, vote in favour of Sri Lanka would have been only six. Their support was despite lobbying by US diplomats about the issues Muslims were facing from the Bodhu Bala Sena (BBS) and a line in the resolution which expressed concern, among other matters, on "discrimination on the basis of religion or belief."

That seemed the scene setter for two days of talks between Sri Lanka and Pakistan on April 4. Pakistan's Foreign Secretary Jalil Abbas will be in Colombo for the event with External Affairs Ministry Secretary Karunatilleke Amunugama. A gamut of bilateral and regional issues is expected to figure in the talks, an EAM official said. Abbas will also call on External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris and President Mahinda Rajapaksa.

As for Sri Lanka itself, Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, President's Special Envoy on Human Rights, was picked with less than three days to go for the Human Rights Council sessions. The earlier plan was to leave matters in the hands of Ravinatha Aryasinha, Sri Lanka's Ambassador to the UN in Geneva. Rajapaksa, though in favour, later changed his mind and was not happy leaving it in Aryasinha's hands alone. If Samarasinghe had little time to work on strategy, it was spelt out to him by President Rajapaksa only on Monday, March 11, just a week before the voting, as revealed in these columns last week. Contrary to wild speculation, Samarasinghe did not have a trump card up his sleeve from Rajapaksa to play in Geneva. Parachuted into the diplomatic battlefield, the ground for an assortment of more than fifty Sri Lankan delegates last year, he had to hold the reins with Ambassador Aryasinha. Yet, there are volumes of lessons to be learned from the aftermath in Geneva. This is at a time when all and sundry are being blamed for the outcome. Nothing is being said about the conduct of Sri Lanka's foreign policy if indeed there is one.

In the light of confusion over how the different draft resolutions evolved, an explanation is necessary before one takes a look at other issues. From late January, the US began consulting its allies on a draft resolution and won Indian support for the move. One of the early drafts to circulate was dated February 16. The salient provisions in this draft appeared exclusively in the front-page lead story of the Sunday Times of February 17. As it continued to evolve during consultations by US with different countries, various drafts emerged. They were revealed in the Sunday Times (Political Commentary) of February 24, March 10 and March 17. At 2 p.m. on March 8, the US handed in to the UNHRC Secretariat in Geneva a draft resolution (A/HRC/22/L1) dated 12 March notwithstanding the discrepancy in the dates. Thereafter, a revised text (A/HRC/22/L.1/Rev.1) was handed over to the Secretariat at 6 p.m. on March 18. This text dated March 19, endorsed by 41 co-sponsors, both HRC members and non-members, was approved by the Council on Thursday. It reads:

Promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka

"The Human Rights Council, Reaffirming the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, Guided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights and other relevant instruments, Bearing in mind General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006, Recalling Human Rights Council resolutions 5/1, on institution-building of the Council, and 5/2, on the code of conduct for special procedures mandate holders, of 18 June 2007, Recalling also Human Rights Council resolution 19/2 of 22 March 2012 on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka, Reaffirming that it is the responsibility of each State to ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms of its entire population, Reaffirming also that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights law, international refugee law and international humanitarian law, as applicable, Welcoming the announcement made by the Government of Sri Lanka that elections to the Provincial Council in the Northern Province will be held in September 2013, Welcoming and acknowledging the progress made by the Government of Sri Lanka in rebuilding infrastructure, demining, and resettling the majority of internally displaced persons, and noting nonetheless that considerable work lies ahead in the areas of justice, reconciliation and the resumption of livelihoods, and stressing the importance of the full participation of local populations, including representatives of civil society and minorities, in these efforts, Taking note of the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission of Sri Lanka and its findings and recommendations, and acknowledging its possible contribution to the process of national reconciliation in Sri Lanka, Taking note also of the national plan of action to implement the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission of the Government of Sri Lanka and its commitments as set forth in response to the findings and recommendations of the Commission, Noting that the national plan of action does not adequately address all of the findings and constructive recommendations of the Commission, Recalling the constructive recommendations contained

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. in the Commission's report, including the need to credibly investigate widespread allegations of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, demilitarize the north of Sri Lanka, implement impartial land dispute resolution mechanisms, re-evaluate detention policies, strengthen formerly independent civil institutions, reach a political settlement on the devolution of power to the provinces, promote and protect the right of freedom of expression for all and enact rule of law reforms, Noting with concern that the national plan of action and the Commission's report do not adequately address serious allegations of violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, Expressing concern at the continuing reports of violations of human rights in Sri Lanka, including enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, torture and violations of the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, as well as intimidation of and reprisals against human rights defenders, members of civil society and journalists, threats to judicial independence and the rule of law, and discrimination on the basis of religion or belief, Calling upon the Government of Sri Lanka to fulfil its public commitments, including on the devolution of political authority, which is integral to reconciliation and the full enjoyment of human rights by all members of its population, Expressing appreciation for the efforts of the Government of Sri Lanka in facilitating the visit of a technical mission from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and encouraging the Government to increase its dialogue and cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner, Noting the call made by the High Commissioner for an independent and credible international investigation into alleged violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, Welcomes the report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on advice and technical assistance for the Government of Sri Lanka on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka and the recommendations and conclusions contained therein, in particular on the establishment of a truth- seeking mechanism as an integral part of a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to transitional justice; Encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations made in the report of the Office of the High Commissioner, and also calls upon the Government to conduct an independent and credible investigation into allegations of violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, as applicable; Reiterates its call upon the Government of Sri Lanka to implement effectively the constructive recommendations made in the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, and to take all necessary additional steps to fulfil its relevant legal obligations and commitment to initiate credible and independent actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans; Encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to cooperate with special procedures mandate holders and to respond formally to their outstanding requests, including by extending invitations and providing access; Encourages the Office of the High Commissioner andrelevant special procedures mandate holders to provide, in consultation with and with the concurrence of the Government of Sri Lanka, advice and technical assistance on implementing the above-mentioned steps; Requests the Office of the High Commissioner, with input from relevant special procedures mandate holders, as appropriate, to present an oral update to the Human Rights Council at its twenty-fourth session, and a comprehensive report followed by a discussion on the implementation of the present resolution at its twenty-fifth session." Some claimed the resolution was "watered down." Others said it was "softened" or "toned down." The resolution did undergo a process of moderation from its original character of being somewhat aggressive. More often than not, it is the standard diplomatic practice to pitch a resolution on a 'high note' and let it 'level off' after consultations. However, in this instance, the 'levelling off' was to meet the needs of Indian interests. Yet, the resolution did not lose its salient features. Compared to the previous draft ( the Sunday Times Political Commentary of March 17), the final document (above) which was approved has only a few changes in language with additions and deletions. They are : Like in previous drafts, the resolution recalls resolution 5/1 of 18 June 2007 on institution building of the Human Rights Council. There is an addition which recalls resolution "5/2, on the code of conduct for special procedures mandate holders of 18June 2007." The latter will apply to those mandate holders who plan to visit Sri Lanka sequel to the resolution being adopted. The name Sri Lanka has been substituted with the words "each State" in reaffirming that it is their responsibility to "ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms of its entire population." A new addition says "Welcoming the announcement by the Government of Sri Lanka that elections to the Provincial Council in the Northern Province will be held in September 2013." A new addition has been made to the paragraph that welcomes and acknowledges the progress made by the Government of Sri Lanka in rebuilding infrastructure……. It stresses "the importance of the full participation of local populations, including representatives of civil society and minorities, in these efforts." A new addition says "Taking note of the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission of Sri Lanka and its findings and recommendations, and acknowledging its possible contribution to the process of national reconciliation in Sri Lanka." A re-wording and addition has been made to a previous paragraph. The new one reads: "Encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations made in