Editorial

A fresh draft resolution was tabled at the inquisition against Sri Lanka before the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) spearheaded by its former colonial master, the United Kingdom, to extend the council’s mandate holding the country accountable for violations of human rights—past and present. The UK delegate at Geneva has imperiously asked that its former colony break from the past and commit itself to meaningful actions across the board, ranging from corruption to economic mismanagement, human rights, accountability, reconciliation, good governance and constitutional reform.

The advice coincided with Africa joining an ongoing Caribbean campaign to claim reparations from the United Kingdom for “historic crimes” during its rule over countries in these continents, blaming “systematic injustice” during the 19th century by exploiting the people, land and resources. They have demanded “reparatory justice” in the trillions of British pounds in compensation for slavery.

At the UNHRC last Monday, Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath, in his opening remarks, reiterated Sri Lanka’s longstanding position and ostensibly rejected any international meddling through the UN accountability project on Sri Lanka, including any universal jurisdiction against its citizens. “The Government is opposed to any external mechanism imposed on the country, such as the Sri Lanka Accountability Project.”

Contradicting the minister, the UN High Commissioner’s concluding remarks can be read as a giveaway when he said, “I am greatly encouraged by the promises of the new Government for a renewed approach… and that the Government has begun to look outwards for international support, and I think that the HR Council process can provide a good framework for engagement.”

It has been clear that in line with the expectations of the anti-Lanka diaspora, with the invitation extended by the Government to the UN High Commissioner to visit Sri Lanka recently, and with the approving nod for his visit to the Chemmani mass graves, the door had been opened for increased external involvement in the country. The HC Volter Turk heaped praise that “the country’s leadership pledged a fresh direction on long-standing issues”.

As a first step in this direction, the draft resolution and the HC himself in his concluding remarks this week urged the Government to seek international support to provide technical assistance on investigating mass graves, to strengthen capacities in investigations and prosecutions into “emblematic” human rights violations and to strengthen the Office of Missing Persons (OMP). The Government hopefully has understood the far-reaching implications of the HC strongly endorsing his Accountability Project, stating that “there are several opportunities for states to act on accountability individually and collectively, including by using all potential forms of available jurisdiction, including principles of extraterritorial and universal jurisdiction, to investigate and prosecute serious crimes committed in Sri Lanka”.

The draft, therefore, predictably extends the mandate of “all the work requested under Resolution 51/1″—legalese jargon to continue with the Sri Lanka Accountability Project operating out of the HC’s office in Geneva, the very external mechanism the minister appeared to reject. The HC urged countries to use the evidence compiled by his office. The draft also sets out a timetable for external review by the Council of related developments until the end of 2027.

It is also disturbing that the long-held narrative relating to the three-decade-long armed separatist conflict in Sri Lanka is being revised. And the Government is playing its part in doing so.

President A.K. Dissanayake, during his recent visit to the North on the eve of the UNHRC sessions this week, referred to the “politics of nationalism” in the country which was responsible for the blood-shedding in the past. The Core Group, which has introduced this fresh resolution, has pounced on this statement and refers to “decades of divisive racist politics and ethnic conflicts” in Sri Lanka and “welcomes the Government’s acknowledgement” of this narrative.

All along, successive Sri Lankan governments have rightly insisted that this was not an ‘ethnic conflict’ but an insurgency begun by an armed, well-funded fascist terrorist group seeking the division of the country. It was an armed conflict to defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and democracy in the republic. In fact, it is a well-known fact that Sri Lanka was one of the earliest voices in condemning terrorism, even before the landmark ’9/11′ of 2001—commemorated this week.

Still more serious is the reference to “decades of divisive racist politics and ethnic conflicts” (in the plural). “Racist politics” is a subtle attempt at bringing the narrative close to the ‘genocide’ campaign currently being strenuously pursued by the LTTE-rump diaspora—successfully in Canada (one of the Core Group), and spreading to France. The NPP/JVP Government has dismissed the ‘genocide’ argument but dangerously promoted a new “racist politics” interpretation which runs parallel. Was Sri Lanka like apartheid South Africa, one may ask.

It will be interesting to see whether Team Sri Lanka in Geneva will revise this wording of the draft when the discussions on it begin tomorrow.

One can only hope it is by inadvertent omission that the HC’s repeated references to a “civil war” in Sri Lanka have gone unnoticed and unchallenged by Team Sri Lanka. There was no “civil war”, as far as we know, in this country.

By the end of this Council session, there is a clear likelihood of more extensive external involvement in Sri Lanka by the UNHRC with what appears to be the tacit agreement of the Government, even though it has formally ruled out external investigative, prosecutorial and judicial mechanisms. This would be most evident if the resolution is adopted without the Government having it challenged at a vote by a friendly country in the council, as has been the case in recent years, even in the certainty that it will lose the vote.

Ironically, it is the minister himself who said, “We sincerely believe that external action will only serve to create divisions, thereby jeopardising the genuine and tangible national processes that have already been set in motion.”

HC Turk in his opening statement referred to a woman from the South grieving for her missing husband during his recent visit to Sri Lanka. The minister and his Government better watch out. The UNHRC has already extended their focus on missing persons from the 2009 end of the Northern conflict way back to the JVP 1971 insurgency. Unless the Government can call for an investigation into ‘crimes against humanity’ committed in the 19th century also, resurrecting human rights chapters and ghosts of the past, it would be well-advised to leave it all alone.