US may push for punitive action

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. A new addition says: "Re-iterates 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; The use of the words "unfettered access" has been dropped in the provision which reads "Encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to co-operate with special procedures mandate holders and to respond formally to their outstanding requests, including by extending invitations and providing access; The change in the outlook of the resolution could be broadly classified into two main categories. One is largely the references made to both recommendations and matters arising from the Government's own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC). Even the references to Chief Justice 43 Shirani Bandaranayake or the 'independence of the judiciary' has been dropped. In doing so, secondly, the resolution also addresses Indian concerns. A reference to the conduct of Northern Provincial Council elections in September this year is an example. Another is a call for the participation of minorities in rebuilding infrastructure. Yet another is taking "note of LLRC findings and recommendations, and acknowledging its possible contribution to the process of national reconciliation." US diplomats believed, with India happy and on board, basing most of the resolution on matters arising out of the LLRC, would make it possible to have most countries support it. Yet, there were those that were in principle opposed to country-specific resolutions. Some of them abstained. Thailand, which is facing an insurgency in the country's southern Yala Province, also declared it was opposed to country specific moves and voted against the resolution.

However, behind-the-scene Indian diplomatic moves threatened the survival of the UPA government with the DMK's pull-out. In a bid to woo the southern party, more so when it has offered support from outside, Congress leaders embarked on emergency measures. It was also prompted by the prospect of a Congress tie up with DMK should there be elections. One was to undo what their diplomats had done in Geneva and call for a "tougher" resolution. The deadline for amendments was 1 p.m. on Monday March 18. It was well past that time when Dilip Sinha, the Indian Ambassador to the UN in Geneva returned there after a hurried trip to New Delhi for consultations with his government in the wake of the DMK pull-out from the Congress led government. He talked to his US counterpart Eileen Chamberlain Donahue about moving oral amendments as is allowed by Council procedure. According to diplomatic sources in Geneva, it was felt that the move was highly risky and would endanger the passage of the resolution. No details of these amendments were available. Most delegations had already obtained instructions from their capitals on the final draft resolution dated March 19. Fresh instructions on oral amendments, it was feared, would not arrive on time. Hence, those countries may be forced to abstain. Thus, the move had to be abandoned. The US felt this was risky business.

Even if Indian diplomats were trying to undo what they did before, a claim denied by Congress ministers, it would not have pleased the DMK. It was demanding that the resolution make specific reference to investigating "genocide" in Sri Lanka, a claim that has not been made by any country or international human rights watchdog groups, and more than three years after the insurgency had ended. The impossible demand made clear the DMK had its own political agenda for pulling out of the UPA government.

Having failed in his efforts for a stronger resolution, Ambassador Sinha made a statement ahead of the vote on the resolution. He called on Sri Lanka to "move forward on its public commitments, including the devolution of political authority through full implementation of the 13th Amendment and building upon it."

Among the highlights of his speech: "We call for effective and timely implementation of all the constructive recommendations contained in the LLRC report, including those pertaining to missing persons, detainees, disappearances and abductions, reduction of 'high security zones', return of private lands by the military and withdrawal of the security forces from the civilian domain in the Northern Province. We reiterate our call for an independent and credible investigation into allegations of human rights violations and loss of civilian lives. We urge Sri Lanka to take forward measures to ensure accountability. We expect these measures to be to the satisfaction of the international community."

The second move by the Congress government was to adopt a resolution in the Lok Sabha on the lines of the one in Geneva but more strongly worded. Indian Ministers tried hard but the main opposition Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP) said it was strongly opposed to country-specific resolutions. The BJP felt this was an internal problem of the UPA coalition and was asking why they had to be called in to discuss a resolution against Sri Lanka as a result.

On Wednesday night, Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar chaired a meeting of political parties represented in Parliament. It transpired that there was no appetite for a resolution on Sri Lanka. The main opposition BJP flatly refused to support an anti-Sri Lanka resolution in the Indian Parliament. The issue is in limbo as fears of an early poll, ahead of a scheduled date in April 2014, gathers momentum. This was while a DMK leader remarked that it is not only the doors of a return to the UPA government that had been shut, but also the windows. Political analysts say that DMK sees its alliance with the Congress a hindrance. With Congress's popularity waning, the DMK wishes to keep its options open come the next elections.

The official Sri Lankan government response to the resolution came from External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris. He told Parliament: "On the first occasion when a representative of the United States met me and indicated that a resolution would be moved in Geneva, I was categorically told that this is a procedural resolution. It is a not a condemnatory resolution and a balanced one. I was told reference would be made to the positive developments.In the draft there was not one word about the positive developments.

"Nobody can maintain there were no positive achievements. Subsequently it was due to immense pressure that was brought to bear on the mover of the resolution by a large number of countries, due to the intensity of the pressure that grudgingly, a lukewarm reference was made to the positive developments. A large number of countries spoke to the mover of the resolution and said this is not fair at all, this does not make sense ,we cannot support it, this is entirely one sided. By all means criticise what warrants criticism but you must have not only the largesse or generosity of heart, but a basic sense of justice and fairness. It was because that point of view was so persistently and vigorously expressed by a large number of countries that belatedly and grudgingly some words were added to make reference to the positive achievements. That is not the spirit in which we would like our friends to work. It is not a hallmark of goodwill. In our lives, from our friends, those who mean well, we expect that kind of attitude. This is very distressing, the manner in which events have moved in the past few weeks.

"I would in all earnestness request the mover of the resolution to ask themselves, are they really pleased about the consequences they have produced, not only within shores of Sri Lanka but neighbouring India? Their resolution has triggered a whole sequence of events that have played out in the past few weeks. Those who made the calculated decision to move the resolution, when they look back in retrospect, when they assess their own conduct, do they really feel they have reason to feel pleased, are they satisfied with the consequences they have produced on the ground? Has the resolution helped? Has it played a benign, constructive role or has it been a positive influence? Is it not the case it has really served as catalyst for dissension, for discord, for polarization and more regrettably a catalyst for violence? We have all seen what has happened in the past few days. I am not saying these tragic events were intended but they were clearly foreseeable."

Peiris' lament raises more questions than it answers. In the national interest, the question that begs an answer is why his Ministry of External Affairs failed to foresee these "tragic events" in the months and weeks ahead of Thursday's UN vote. Surely, the EAM would have known the consequences on the ground which Peiris is now complaining about. All it would have taken is a close study by his Ministry with the help of the country's diplomatic missions overseas, especially Washington. Have they abdicated that task? He flew round the globe to both Brazil and Argentina to canvass their support for the resolution. His press releases spoke in the strongest terms about the support Sri Lanka would receive. These two countries voted in favour of the resolution, certainly not a "benign, constructive role" by Peiris' own judgement. That was tragic too. In addition, his External Affairs Ministry in the recent past lined up official visits for President Mahinda Rajapaksa to Kazakhstan, South Korea and recently to Japan. Whilst Kazakhstan and Japan abstained, South Korea voted for the resolution.

A significant aspect of the passage of Thursday's resolution is that it has been welcomed both by the White House and Secretary of State John Kerry. This is a signal that the Sri Lankan issue is high on the US agenda and will not fade away. The National Security Council, White House "welcomes the passage of a resolution on Sri Lanka sponsored by it at the UNHRC." They said the vote sent a clear signal to Colombo that the international community is committed to promote peace and stability in the country. "Today's (last Thursday's) vote sends a clear message that the international community is committed to working with the Government of Sri Lanka to promote greater peace, stability, and prosperity for all of the people of Sri Lanka," Caitlin Hayden, spokesperson of the National Security Council, the White House, said in a statement on Thursday.

"This resolution, which the United States co-sponsored as part of a cross-regional group, calls on the Government of Sri Lanka to fulfil its commitments to promote meaningful reconciliation for all Sri Lankans," she said. The resolution also encourages the Government to credibly investigate allegations of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law as Sri Lanka continues to heal from more than two decades of conflict," Ms. Hayden added.

Secretary John Kerry said, "Today's (last Thursday's) vote in the UN Human Rights Council encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to continue on the path toward lasting peace and prosperity following decades of civil war and instability. This resolution, which builds on a similar 2012 resolution, reaffirmed that Sri Lanka must take meaningful action on reconciliation and accountability in order to move forward. The United States, together with international partners, calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka to fulfil its public commitments to its own people on these longstanding issues.

"While some important progress has been made, there is much work still to be done. We look to the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) and to reverse recent negative developments on rule of law and human rights. The United States stands ready to assist with this vital work. I look forward to continuing our engagement with the Government of Sri Lanka and strengthening our friendship with the Sri Lankan people."

In Colombo, US Ambassador Michele Sison explained to a group of journalists on Friday the United States' rationale behind the second resolution.

Ambassador Sison reflected on the aftermath of the resolution. She told the Sunday Times yesterday, "As we move forward from Geneva, we are committed to discussing building international consensus to ensure a thorough investigation of alleged international law violations and action for those accountable. International mechanisms can be appropriate where states are either unable or unwilling to meet their obligations. Options are in the Human Rights Council and beyond."

Thursday's Human Rights Council sessions began with a statement by Pakistan's Ambassador Zamir Akram. He said,"Pakistan believes that the OHCHR Report has no nexus to the principal objects of resolution 19/2, which was to report on the provision of technical assistance, and has sought to make recommendations which are outside its scope and mandate. These include substantive recommendations made on Sri Lanka's reconciliation process which are intrusive, arbitrary and of a politicised nature. It is, therefore, the considered view of my delegation that a draft resolution which bases itself on a Report, whose credibility is so blatantly questioned by many including the country concerned, cannot be conceived by this august body as being a reasonable basis for further engagement of that country in a constructive manner.

"More importantly, we regret to note that the substantive amendments which were proposed on the draft text by my delegation, and supported by several other delegations, during the informal sessions, specifically on OPs 1 and 2, (reference is to informal meetings) to bring some semblance of balance to this text, have been disregarded." He called for a vote on it. Other speakers included diplomats from Ireland on behalf of the European Union, Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Brazil, Venezuela and Ecuador.

In his summation, President's Human Rights Special Envoy, Minister Samarasinghe, said those genuinely concerned about the future and well-being of the people of Sri Lanka, should encourage the country in its on-going reconciliation process, rather than single it out for disproportionate attention in the Council.

Please turn to pages 17