The United Nations (UN) resolution on Sri Lanka “promoting reconciliation, accountability, and human rights”, presented by the UN Core Group led by the UK, Canada, and other allies, was adopted at the 46th Session of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) on 23 March.
What will happen next, now that the resolution – which was strongly rejected by the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) for being politically motivated and unwarranted – has been passed?
The Sunday Morning sat down with Foreign Secretary Prof. Jayanath Colombage to get insights into what lies ahead for Sri Lanka post-resolution and what action Sri Lanka is planning to take in order to address the issues highlighted in the resolution, among many other topics.
“Sri Lanka, being a responsible country, will follow the rules and principles. At the moment, we are deciding and debating how to move forward through this resolution,” he said.
The Foreign Secretary said the Government needs to identify the doable measures to address residual issues in the country, as an oral update on the human rights situation is due in the 48th Session of the UNHRC.
Following are excerpts of the interview;
The UN resolution on Sri Lanka was adopted with a majority of votes at the UNHRC, with 22 member states supporting it and 11 voting against. What does this mean for Sri Lanka and what will change?
The resolution was basically moved by the EU (European Union) countries together with Canada and backed by the US. Almost all countries that moved this resolution against Sri Lanka are European countries – the white-dominated countries.
We felt that it was highly unwarranted and unnecessary, and it is against the principles of the UN Charter and the HRC. Therefore, we don’t want to be guided by that resolution, but in a real sense, they have adopted a resolution.
Now, Sri Lanka being a responsible country in the international system, we have to follow the rules and principles and we are at the moment deciding, debating, and discussing as to how we should move forward through this resolution that was adopted.
Some are concerned that there could be sanctions against Sri Lanka as a result of the resolution. Is there such a possibility?
There cannot be UN sanctions against Sri Lanka unless it is passed and ratified through the UN Security Council. This resolution does not talk about sanctions. However, individual countries could take a lead and decide on certain measures economically.
If there are sanctions against Sri Lanka, it is not against a particular community but against the entire Sri Lankan community. So, if somebody is talking about sanctions, they have to remember that this is targeting an entire population, and not necessarily a single community.
There are certain things we have to do in this country because there are certain residual issues coming out of the conflict. We need to find answers and solutions as much as we can in spheres like accountability, missing persons, resettlement, and releasing of lands; of course, we have done quite a lot. But if we can find answers to all these questions, then we will not be as vulnerable to be intruded on by the so-called international community.
We have a responsibility to do many things for the betterment of our people. I have to tell you, no other country is more interested in Sri Lanka than Sri Lanka to find a peaceful reconciliation mechanism in the country.
What are the immediate changes that could take place owing to the adoption of the resolution?
The Government has appointed a (Presidential) Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) with a clear mandate to study all previous reports including those of the LLRC (Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission) as well as Paranagama and Udalagama Commissions, and also to study all HRC resolutions and give us a way forward in addressing these issues raised in various reports up to now.
This is the mechanism we should really work for, work through, and achieve results to find answers to all residual incidents. We need to move on. Also, like the Office on Missing Persons (OMP), the Office of Reparation, the Office of National Unity and Reconciliation, and the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) too need to be empowered. We now need to request them for an action plan that has to be tangible, achievable, and measurable. We need to achieve progress substantially through these independent mechanisms.
Will there be a new mechanism to address human rights concerns and other issues following the adoption of the resolution?
At the moment, I don’t see any other mechanism coming. We will have our hope and focus on the PCoI appointed by the President. This PCoI is basically to find burning issues, if there are any, and the residual issues, if there are any, coming out of the conflict we were engaged in until 2009.
When we look at the voting at the UNHRC for the resolution, 14 countries abstained from voting, including neighbours like India and Nepal. What should Sri Lanka do to change this?
The voting is finally what matters in this HRC and the voting does not take place based on merit, argument, or principles. It is merely a bloc. It is clearly evident in this case. The Western European and Eastern European members all got together. Only Russia from the eastern bloc voted against the resolution. These are not decided even by individual countries. These are decided as a group.
Now in that sense, I think it is a real achievement that 14 countries abstained from voting, because they did not support the vote by the powerful western group and they did not want to be taking a position against it for whatever the reason. If you look at the countries that abstained from voting, I’m sure they have different reasons for doing it.
Some countries told us that they are under tremendous pressure from western countries to vote for the resolution and against Sri Lanka. They said that “Sri Lanka is our friend but we need these countries because we are not developed”. These powerful countries use these human rights as a political weapon, economic aid as a political weapon, and whatever development aid as a political weapon. Then these countries told us that the best they can do is abstain from voting.
If you look at Japan, which depends on the US for its security in that region since they have issues with China, South Korea, and North Korea, they took a very calculated decision to abstain. We need to appreciate that.
Will Sri Lanka be making any changes to its foreign policy in the aftermath of the UN resolution?
I don’t see a major shift in our foreign policy. Towards the latter part of 2020, Sri Lanka launched its first-ever written, documented foreign policy directives for 2020 and beyond. This 20-point foreign policy is there and I don’t think it needs major changes because of the resolution.
The 20-point foreign policy directives were designed to economically develop Sri Lanka and maintain social harmony. We need to continue that rather than responding unnecessarily to the UN resolution. We need to move on for the sake of Sri Lanka.
Several issues in Sri Lanka, such as the Covid burial issue, were highlighted by the resolution, prompting some countries to vote against Sri Lanka. What will Sri Lanka do moving forward?
The burial issue would have been a real factor in those Islamic countries deciding on abstaining, like Bahrain and Indonesia. But we should remember that Bangladesh and Pakistan are also Muslim countries, but they voted against the resolution. The international community also saw this as something the Government did. But unfortunately, it was the health sector that decided on the burial issue. Now, we have found a solution, but it did damage our posture in international relations because we took some time, based on technical or scientific evidence, to come to a conclusion.
We are an island in this global system and very well connected. Our country’s foreign policy and economy are not totally dependent on us. There are outside players and we need to live with that. We have to learn lessons and move on.
The Human Rights High Commissioner is to give an oral update at the 48th UNHRC Session on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka. What are the plans of Sri Lanka to be prepared for this?
We need to identify the doables: What the things are that we can do quickly within a short timeframe because, as you said, an oral update is due next September. So we need to find answers to whatever questions we have during the next six months. The PCoI, OMP, and other offices will have to work and give some measurable and tangible results, so that we can tell the HRC that these issues are addressed satisfactorily for the people of Sri Lanka.
That is something we have to do. But the thing we have observed is that when we achieve certain things, they change the goal post. They bring something totally different. That, we can’t help. The HRC report was not much about the war that took place 12 years ago – it was all about this year. Sri Lanka was battling Covid-19. We had economic issues and restrictions on travel. We didn’t have any human rights violations.
The UN is seeking funds to implement the resolution and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is to recruit new employees to work on Sri Lanka, including the monitoring of the human rights situation. These employees are also scheduled to visit Sri Lanka for fact-finding. What would be the response of the Government?
Where is this money coming from? The HRC, in the beginning, said that there is a huge financial crisis for the maintenance of the HRC. They said they don’t have money. Now, on top of that, they have allocated $ 2.8 million. Where can this money come from? Is it coming from the same countries that moved the resolution? Then the next question is: Who is going to be appointed for this monitoring mechanism? Are they from the same countries that provide the money and moved the resolution?
In that sense, you know in Sri Lanka we have a saying that goes “naduth hamuduruwange, baduth hamuduruwange”. Can we expect justice through a mechanism funded, staffed, and moved by a certain group of European countries? We can’t expect any justice through that. So that is the predicament.
The funds sought for are $ 2.8 million. That’s a lot of money. We did a quick calculation. With such an amount of money, two doses of vaccines can be given to all the people in our entire northern peninsula, plus build 20,000 houses. Also, a drinking water project can be completed in Jaffna.
So, this is what we can do with this kind of money, rather than wasting it on an office they want with a staff they want to target the small countries.
Can Sri Lanka not intervene with respect to utilising these funds and nominating staff members in this mechanism?
We need to try many things and it’s only been a couple of days since the resolution was adopted. At the moment, we are exploring each and every avenue technically, legally, and procedurally to find how best we can handle these issues and also to identify what we should do. It will take a few days. It is too early for me to say what we are going to do exactly. Once we get the policy directives, then, of course, the Ministry can translate that into action.
I really don’t know whether we can have one of our people in that group. That’s why I said I don’t know the mechanism, where the funds are coming from, and who’s going to sit on that board. It is very unlikely that they would open the door for Sri Lankans to be a part of it because then, of course, it will have some balanced views.
Coming back to India’s abstention, you were quoted earlier as saying that India will support Sri Lanka at the vote. However, like it has done previously as well, India abstained. What happened?
Well, to begin with, I never said that India will support us. I think I was misquoted. I was echoing the words of the honourable Prime Minister of India. He said India will not do any injustice to Sri Lanka. These are the exact words that I used. But in the Sinhala translation, unfortunately, one of our journalist friends took it as me saying that India will support us. Then it was headline news in Sri Lanka, and Indian news also picked it up and said that the Sri Lankan Foreign Secretary said India will support.
No, I never said that. I need to correct this. I’m sure India got upset that although they had not communicated that they will support us, the Foreign Secretary here is saying that India will. I never said that. But in many discussions and in many forums, I expressed our desire for India to support us. Yes, we did that because India is a major power in the region and our immediate neighbour with the largest military.
Since this Government came to power, we did quite a lot to make India comfortable. We did quite a lot to make India strategically comfortable. We have clearly said that we will never do anything to harm India’s strategic security interest. We did that and gave top priority to India’s security concerns in the Indian Ocean region. So, we expected India to take a firm stand, but actually we can’t blame India.
They must have their own reasons for doing what they did. But in the final statement, they initially said that country-specific resolutions are not good. We are quite happy about that because that is a principal position we have always argued. Country-specific resolutions without the consent of the country is not going to work anyway. India also toed the same line.
We are still happy that India abstained from voting. It would have been a very different issue if India voted for the resolution against Sri Lanka, but they didn’t. We are comfortable with it. And, of course, India is our neighbour; we need to work with India and we need to make progress in every sphere.
Any particular countries Sri Lanka is focusing on strengthening relations with?
We need to maintain relations with all countries. Eleven countries wholeheartedly supported Sri Lanka. Some of those countries are those we don’t even have diplomatic relations with. We need to rethink this; they are great friends who actually rose up for Sri Lanka in a moment of need. We need to think about this and maintain focus in Africa, the Middle East, the immediate neighbourhood, the Asian region, and South America. We need to maintain our focus throughout the world.
The HRC is only one event and then there are many other things to come. We need economic diplomacy; we need more investments to come; we need more exports, tourists to come; we need more technology transfers. So, there are a lot of things we need to do. We have to make them work.
