THE GENEVA RESOLUTION

THE SUDDEN DEATH OF Jayantha Dhanapala reminds us that we are an integral part of the world body and exhumes he death of Sri Lankan diplomacy by suicide took place in Geneva on 22 March. For 64 years, it had served the country well despite the size of its professional cadre and persistent political meddling Tby all regimes. The link between suicidal diplomacy and political directions received from Colombo is becoming obvious after the adoption of the resolution with anti-US and anti-Indian statements and actions being leaked to the media. A populist President is milking the Geneva debacle to such an extent that one wonders whether it was a deliberate act of hara-kiri. There has been a plethora of comment on the Geneva events ranging from vitriolic abuse of the West in general and the US in particular, anti-Indian sentiment, defiant xenophobia and jingoism to ‘I told you so’ comments and efforts to shift the blame to the luckless and reportedly divided Geneva delegation. Amidst this, a number of key factors have either been concealed or have not been apparent. Firstly, no country welcomes being on the agenda of the Human Rights Council (HRC) – the premier human-rights body of the UN system. A resolution without the consent of that country is undoubtedly a stigma affecting its political and economic relations. Resolution No. 19/2 adopted on 22 March 2012 was the very first such res- olution on Sri Lanka. It is of course arguable whether a contentious resolution fice it to quote key parts of the mation on this question.” adopted by the HRC is the best way to one-sentence 1984 decision: Official records state that advance human rights, especially in a “The Commission taking note the Canadian representa- democracy. I do not think so myself. of the information voluntarily tive “recalled that the rep- Secondly, the first decisions or resolutions submitted by the Government resentative of Sri Lanka on Sri Lanka were adopted by the predeces- of Sri Lanka … decided that had rightly referred to that sor body of the HRC, the Commission on further consideration of this country’s reputation as a Human Rights (CHR) in 1984 (following matter was not necessary.” voice of constructive rea- the disastrous riots of Black July 1983 and And this from the operative son, moderation and pru- the international outrage it caused) and in paragraphs of the 1987 reso- dence. His delegation had 1987. This was largely on the initiative of lution: “Calls upon all parties Few Sri Lankans laid great stress on the India, supported by the EU and others like and groups to respect fully the remembered that recognition of those qual- Argentina who had been gifted a grievance universally accepted rules of ities.” in the 1990s both by J. R. Jayewardene’s myopic foreign pol- humanitarian law … Invites Thirdly, from 1987 to icy. However, these were adopted without a the Government of Sri Lanka Mahinda Rajapaksa 2009, except for mention vote because the Sri Lankan delegations to intensify its cooperation and our Ambassador of Sri Lanka in the de- during both these years converted hostile with the ICRC … Expresses in Geneva were present bates of the CHR and the resolutions into benign ones through diplo- the hope that the Government in the CHR as critics… HRC, there was no reso- matic negotiations approved by Colombo. of Sri Lanka will continue to lution, partly because of Archival records will prove this but suf- provide the CHR with infor- the diplomatic support of

The writer is a retired Sri Lankan Ambassador and a former UN Under-Secretary-General.

62 – MAY 2012 – LMD SRI LANKAN DIPLOMACY the myth that action by the UN on our human-rights record is a violation of our sovereignty

MEDIA SERVICES PHOTOFILE (PRESIDENTIAL SECRETARIAT) issue in Geneva and bided their time. The the civil-society representatives in Geneva 2012 resolution is exactly what the UNSG’s and Minister Mervyn Silva’s reported panel of experts’ report recommended. If Sri threats and admission that he had crippled a Lanka is in a hole now, as some claim it is, journalist reverberated around the world. the digging began in 2009. With our depen- Few Sri Lankans remembered that in the dence on the West for trade, aid, investment 1990s, both Mahinda Rajapaksa and our and tourism, and our geopolitical vulnera- Ambassador in Geneva were present in the bility vis-à-vis India, preventive diplomacy CHR as critics of the human-rights record not provocative posturing is needed. of the then UNP Government. Fourthly, the statistical casuistry of high- Finally, the myth that action by the UN on level government spokesmen in interpret- our human-rights record is a violation of ing the vote as a majority of one is patently our sovereignty and an interference in our absurd and dishonest. It is well known in internal affairs must be laid to rest. By join- voting procedures from village councils to ing the UN voluntarily in 1955, we were international forums that an abstention rep- party to the UN Charter and to the 1948 resents precisely a posture of being neither Universal Declaration on Human Rights. for nor against. Strangely, our governing We agreed to the setting up of the HRC in regime had hitherto believed, following 2006 and its mandate. We were members of Bush Junior, that “if you’re not for us the HRC when we voted on resolutions and you’re against us.” And what about the 42 lost our bid for re-election in 2008. We co-sponsors of the resolution, including the agreed to the mechanisms set up such as the non-voting observers? No doubt, pressure Universal Periodic Review and the proce- was applied by the US once it had decided dure which allows individuals and organi- to sponsor a resolution on Sri Lanka, but if sations to bring human-rights violations to we decided to oppose the resolution instead the attention of the council. of engaging in diplomatic negotiations to The HRC also works with the UN special dilute the resolution, then we should have procedures made up of special rapporteurs, been ready for this conduct by the sole special representatives, independent superpower. experts and working groups that monitor, No country, however friendly it may be to examine, advise and publicly report on the- us, would like to be placed in a situation of matic issues or human-rights situations in having to choose between the US and Sri specific countries. In addi- Lanka. Inevitably, some stood by Sri Lanka tion, we have signed sev- and some did not. Crucially India, our giant eral international instru- India following the Indo-Lanka Accord of neighbour, was caught in a cleft stick. ments on human rights 1987. In 2009, a hostile resolution against There was disappointment over unful- under which we have re- Sri Lanka over the concluding phase of the filled promises on a political solution in Sri porting obligations which LTTE’s military defeat was opposed by the Lanka complicated by a crisis in the gov- we fulfil. These obliga- Sri Lanka delegation aggressively and was erning UPA – electoral reverses in Uttar tions stem from our being defeated with the help of India, China, Pradesh, problems with Mamata Banerjee in the international com- Russia and many Non-Aligned countries. over the Railway Budget and combined munity and a signatory of The US was not a member of the HRC in DMK-AIADMK pressure to vote for the international treaties. CURRENT AFFAIRS 2009. Rubbing salt into the wound of those US resolution. Diplomatic support over a To conclude, what happens next? We can- who initiated that resolution (never a wise quarter century from 1987 to 2012 may not like petulant schoolboys pick up our move in international diplomacy), Sri have resulted in an abstention, in keeping marbles and go home because we have lost Lanka moved a counter resolution which with India’s aversion to country-specific a resolution. We need to examine how we was adopted in a divided vote – 29 for, 12 resolutions on human rights. Finally, painted ourselves into a corner, and try to against and six abstaining. The contents of domestic compulsions tipped the scales into get out of it through drastic human-rights that resolution, including a promise to a vote for the resolution. Thus have we reforms. implement the 13th Amendment, are in fact alienated our friends. Defying the UN will only put us on a col- not very different from the resolution Fifthly, the state-inspired attacks on the lision course where the fate of Sudan looms adopted this year. civil-society representatives who had gone as a spectre. Domestically, the Geneva res- In 2009, our Geneva team placed the Sri to Geneva in the Sri Lankan media and in olution might help to ensure the re-election Lanka situation on the HRC agenda, while Geneva only proved to foreign observers of the President; but internationally, it may our career diplomats in New York shrewdly that our human-rights record was a shoddy destabilise the entire country, dragging us kept it off the Security Council agenda. one. The world is an echo chamber today all into a dystopia our people do not Hostile critics were provoked to revisit the with the power of ICT. Thus, the attacks on deserve.

63 – MAY 2012 – LMD