Category: Breaking News

UNHRC resolutions are not binding, but powerful countries could use them to arm-twist targeted States into submission or wrest political and economic concessions from them.

Sri Lanka is gearing up for a hard battle at the 46 th.,Session of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva in February –March. While the core group, comprising UK, Canada, Macedonia, Germany and Montenegro, are working on a draft “consensual resolution”, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michele Bachelet, has sent a draft of her report to the Sri Lankan government for its comments.

Sri Lanka is presently working on Bachelet’s report to rebut its claims point by point. In Colombo’s view, the High Commissioner’s contentions are based on one-sided reporting by interested parties and are not substantiated by hard evidence.

With Sri Lanka having declared that it will not co-sponsor any resolution against itself, the core group and Sri Lanka have agreed that the text of the consensual resolution will be decided by both sides.

In all probability, the High Commissioner’s final report will be a somewhat modified version of the original. But it will still be a bitter pill for Sri Lanka to swallow. Besides, it is inconceivable that Sri Lanka and the core group will arrive at a “consensual draft resolution” when most of the core group of countries (UK, Canada and Germany) are hosts to a large and politically influential pro-LTTE Diaspora.

Reasons for UNHRC’s Tough Stand

One of the main reasons for the UNHRC’s tough stand is the Gotabaya Rajapaksa government’s hard posturing on the human rights issue and its forthright opposition to meddling by foreign governments and agencies like the UNHRC in Sri Lanka’s internal affairs.

Colombo has told the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR) in no uncertain terms, that it will no longer co-sponsor any resolution against itself. Such an assertion, by itself, would weaken any chance of a compromise. Earlier, co-sponsorship had led to a significant dilution of the resolution, cushioning Lanka against hard demands on sensitive matters like setting up war crimes accountability mechanisms with foreign participation.

The second factor toughing the resolution will be the Tamils’ newfound unity. For the first time, the Tamil political parties in Sri Lanka have submitted a joint list of demands to the international community. These demands are the most radical, to date. The Tamil parties have demanded that Sri Lanka be hauled up before the International Criminal Court (ICC) which means taking its case to the UN Security Council.

The third factor is the heightened role of the Tamil Diaspora ensconced in Western democracies. The well-to-do and well-connected Diaspora is not only lobbying with the powers-that-be in various Western countries but are also financially backing the Tamil parties back home in Sri Lanka. According to Tamil political sources, money is no issue in the anti-Sri Lanka campaign both in the island and overseas. Over 500 websites and blogs propagate the Tamils’ case worldwide.

The fourth factor is the change of guard in the White House. Donald Trump, who cared little for human rights, has been replaced by Joe Biden who has put promotion of human rights on top of his agenda. The Biden Administration will bring the US back into the UNHRC. At any rate, it will play a key role from behind the scenes with the core group as its proxy.

Current Draft Report

The current draft of the High Commissioner’s report is very hard hitting. It says that it is “vital that the Human Rights Council takes further action on Sri Lanka for three important reasons: Firstly, the failure to deal with the past continues to have devastating effects on tens of thousands of survivors — spouses, parents, children, and other relatives — from all communities who continue to search for the truth about the fate of their loved ones, to seek justice and are in urgent need of reparations. Secondly, the failure to advance accountability and reconciliation undermines the prospects for sustainable peace, human and economic development in line with the 2030 Agenda and carries the seeds of repeated patterns of human rights violations and potential conflict in the future. Finally, the trends highlighted in this report represent yet again an important challenge for the United Nations, including the Human Rights Council, in terms of its prevention function.”

The draft points out that “by withdrawing its support for resolution 30/1 and related measures, and by repeatedly failing to undertake meaningful action across the full scope of that resolution, the (Lankan) government has largely closed the possibility of genuine progress being made to end impunity through a domestic transitional justice process.”

It goes on to state that the members have the option of referring Sri Lanka to the International Criminal Court. They can investigate and prosecute international crimes committed by all parties in Sri Lanka before their own national courts, including under the principles of extraterritorial or universal jurisdiction, it added.

“The High Commissioner encourages Member States to work with OHCHR, victims and their representatives to promote such avenues for accountability, including through opening investigations into possible international crimes, and to support a dedicated capacity to advance these efforts.”

“Member States can also apply targeted sanctions, such as asset freezes and travel ban against State officials and other actors credibly alleged to have committed or be responsible for grave human rights violations or abuses, as well as support initiatives that provide practical benefits to victims and their families,” the draft said.

Further, the draft calls upon all Lankan security agencies to immediately end all forms of surveillance and harassment of and reprisals against human rights defenders, social actors, and victims of human rights violations; promptly, thoroughly, and impartially, investigate and prosecute all allegations of gross human rights violations and serious violations of international humanitarian law; and remove from office security personnel; and other public officials credibly implicated in human rights violations; establish a moratorium on the use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act for new arrests until it is replaced by legislation that adheres to international best practices; and establish standard procedures for the granting of pardons or other forms of clemency by the President, including subjecting it to judicial review and excluding grave human rights and international humanitarian law violations.

Not Mandatory but Potent

However hard UNHRC resolutions may be, they are not mandatory. Principally, they serve to name and shame recalcitrant countries. Member States’ actual policies or executive decisions will be based on political, economic and geo-political factors and compulsions and not on the resolutions per se.

Nevertheless, a tough resolution helps twist a recalcitrant State’s arm and wrest various concessions from it in the political, economic and geo-political sphere. The March 2021 resolution on Sri Lanka may be made to hang like the Sword of Damocles on the country. It could be used to squeeze various kinds of concessions from it. A variety of sanctions imposed by individual countries are possible.

An important factor in this regard will be the attitude of the Biden Administration. President Biden will in all likelihood put moral pressure on Sri Lanka while abjuring abrasive threats. India’s stand too will be a critical factor. India is a regional power and Sri Lanka’s immediate and only neighbor. It has issues with Sri Lanka, the most important of which is its bid to get the Colombo Port’s East Container Terminal (ECT) in the face of nationalist opposition and the Lankan government’s hesitancy. Currently, there is an uneasy stalemate on this matter.

India has political issues too with Sri Lanka. There is a strong move in Sri Lanka to dilute or do away with the system of devolution which was introduced in 1987 following the India-Sri Lanka Accord to solve the Tamil question. Indian Foreign Minister, Dr.S.Jaishankar, had personally conveyed to the Lankan President last month, New Delhi’s view that Sri Lanka should abide by the devolution system as contained in the 13 th. Constitutional Amendment “in its own interest” and as a bilateral treaty obligation.

If India-Lanka relations deteriorate, New Delhi’s support for Sri Lanka in international forums will be in doubt. Sri Lanka can, of course, turn to China and Pakistan for succor, and these two countries will definitely come to the island nation’s aid. But this may further exacerbate tension with India. And China might use Sri Lanka’s vulnerability to wrest more economic and geopolitical rights than it already has. Sri Lanka will thus have a lot of tight rope walking to do in the coming months. The scenario calls for deft diplomacy rather than bravado.

Source:counterpoint.lk

Colombo has not responded, and is unlikely to respond, to New Delhi’s strong demarche earlier this week over the death of four fishermen on board an Indian poaching vessel which sank off

Sri Lanka’s northern Delft Island after a mid-sea collision with a
Sri Lanka Navy boat. The Foreign Ministry said it had no statement and that the matter would be under the Attorney General’s (AG’s) Department, the Defence Ministry or the Fisheries Ministry. The AG’s Department also had no response. The Defence Ministry said its position was contained in Navy media statements which largely offered details of the incident.

“The death of the fishermen is a very tragic incident,” Fisheries Minister Douglas Devananda told the Sunday Times. “We need to resolve this urgently to ensure the livelihood and safety of the fisher communities of the two countries without aggravating the issue with incidents like this.’

He was assigned his portfolio to bring about a solution to the longstanding dispute, the Minister pointed out. But despite several attempts and discussions, there has been no finality. The matter was even raised during the visit to Colombo earlier this month of Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar.

Minister Devananda, too, had no specific reply to India’s demarche. But his office this week appointed a three-member committee headed by the Ministry Secretary to look into illegal fishing activities by Indian fishermen in Sri Lanka’s territorial waters and to suggest measures to protect the fish stock from harmful fishing methods–mainly bottom trawling, a fishing method designated as illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU).

The contents of the demarche, which is a petition or protest presented through diplomatic channels, were identical to the statement subsequently released by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), authoritative sources said. It was delivered via Sri Lanka’s Acting High Commissioner in New Delhi while the Indian mission in Colombo also lodged a protest with the Foreign Ministry in Colombo.

The Indian statement expressed shock at the unfortunate loss of lives of three Indian fishermen and one Sri Lankan national following a collision between their vessel and a Sri Lanka naval craft. (The Sri Lankan national was a refugee resident in South India who was working on the Indian boat).

“Our strong protest in regard to this incident was conveyed by our High Commissioner to the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister today,” it continued. “A strong demarche was also made to the Sri Lankan Acting High Commissioner in New Delhi.”

It expressed “deep anguish” over the incident and called for issues pertaining to fishermen to be dealt with in a humanitarian manner. “Existing understandings between the two governments in that regard must be strictly observed. Utmost efforts should be made to ensure that there is no recurrence,” it said.

The Navy earlier said there were around 50 trawlers in Sri Lankan waters that night. One of these “with aggressive manoeuvres resisting the arrest” collided with the Navy craft, lost stability and sank. The Navy vessel was also damaged. The clash occurred just 15km North-East of Delft Island.

“It is quite evident that Indian fishing trawlers poaching in Sri Lankan waters are making aggressive manoeuvres resisting their arrest by SLN [Sri Lanka Navy] units time and again,” the Navy said. “In such backdrop, Sri Lanka Navy on a number of early occasions had informed Indian authorities to make the Indian fishermen aware of the vulnerability attached to such acts performing with scant regard.”

Meanwhile, agitating Indian fisher groups in Rameswaram have cancelled a planned march to Katchchativu Island yesterday after an Indian Union Minister, Dairying Giriraj Singh, assured them there would be no recurrence of such incidents. He told fisher leaders that India took up the issue with the Sri Lankan Government in ‘strong terms’ and assured safety in the future.

Fishermen were to go towards the island with black flags, protesting the continuing arrests of Indians by the Sri Lankan Navy and claiming they had a traditional right to fish around that area.

Rameswaram Fishermen’s Association President P. Sesuraja told the Sunday Times: “This is totally unacceptable. We have strong suspicions on the death of our fishermen. That’s why we have requested that those bodies should be subjected to re-post-mortem here in India after we saw their condition.”

The Sri Lankan refugee who died is 28-year-old Samson Darvin from Gurunagar in Jaffna. His family was displaced to India during the final phases of the war in 2009 and lived at the Mandapam refugee camp in Rameswaram. They have requested Indian authorities to have his body repatriated to India. Jaffna Magistrate A. Peter Paul issued a directive to conduct post-mortem examinations on all the deceased before the bodies were sent back to India through the Indian Coastguard yesterday morning.

Sri Lanka’s grim record is under scrutiny at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, so the government of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has announced yet another internal inquiry. Foreign governments should not be swayed by this disingenuous attempt to avert urgently needed international action.

There have been at least a dozen domestic commissions of inquiry during the decades of Sri Lanka’s civil war, often created to forestall international pressure on human rights. None has led to prosecutions, or helped families trace missing relatives. Their findings have often gone unpublished, and recommendations never implemented. International observers, UN experts, and the UN high commissioner for human rights have repeatedly highlighted deep systemic problems in Sri Lanka’s judicial processes.

The Human Rights Council has engaged on Sri Lanka for years. Atrocities at the end of the war with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam shocked the world in 2009, and a series of UN reports found evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity. In 2012 the council passed a resolution calling on Sri Lanka to implement recommendations of an earlier inquiry. When that did not happen, it recognized the need for an international role to address international crimes.

In 2015 Sri Lanka joined a consensus resolution of the Human Rights Council with commitments to ensure truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence including an accountability mechanism involving international judges, prosecutors, investigators, and defense lawyers. There was progress, albeit slow, which encouraged the council to extend the mandate.

But in November 2019, Gotabaya Rajapaksa was elected president and quickly reversed that progress. Last February, the government said it would no longer honor its commitments in the council resolution. This is not surprising. As defense secretary between 2005-2015, Rajapaksa is implicated in many of the worst abuses. As president he has appointed alleged perpetrators to senior positions, and even pardoned one of the few soldiers ever jailed for killing civilians.

Fear has returned to Sri Lanka as victims of past abuses, activists, journalists, lawyers, and even police investigators and are silenced. Rajapaska’s government has persecuted vulnerable minorities, and this month it demolished a monument to Tamil civilian victims of the war.

The warning signs are obvious. It is crucial that the Human Rights Council adopts a new resolution to ensure continued monitoring, as well as the collection, analysis, and preservation of evidence for future prosecutions. Member countries should not be swayed by the latest outrage or false promises of Sri Lanka’s government.

Your tax deductible gift ca

A selection of trade unions yesterday doubled down on attempts to keep the East Container Terminal (ECT) ownership and development completely under the Government with a new proposal to a Cabinet sub-committee.

The National Movement for the Protection of the Colombo Port East Jetty (NMPCPEJ) yesterday handed over their proposals for the development and management of the ECT to the head of a recently appointed Cabinet sub-committee.

The sub-committee is responsible for discussing ECT investment with a number of Colombo Port trade unions and organisation which want to the Government to develop the terminal without foreign stakeholders. The NMPCPEJ proposal was prepared after consultation between the 23 affiliated organisations.

According to Prassana Kalutharage, a trade union leader of the Sri Lanka Independent Port Employees’ Association (SLIPEA), the proposal was handed over the Ports Ministry Secretary U.D. Jayalal, who also heads the Cabinet sub-committee. The proposal includes two options for the Government to consider, with the first option expected to be complete in two years and the second, in three.

The proposal indicates that new equipment worth $ 65 million is needed to fully equip the terminal and claims that the funds for the new equipment has already been allocated in the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA). The proposal by the NMPCPEJ estimates the cost of construction and equipping the ECT at $ 486 million.

The proposed first option envisages the ECT completed in three stages within a two-year period. The proposal states that $ 74 million has already been allocated for the project by the SLPA and that a $ 125 million shortage can be accommodated by a commercial loan from the Bank of Ceylon (BOC) or another local bank at a 4.25% interest rate, to be repaid in six years.

The second option presented by NMPCPEJ proposes a three-phase development plan by changing the investment duration in order to avoid any loan facility. The new proposal will also be presented to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, unions assured.

Earlier this month, President Rajapaksa told trade unions ownership of ECT will be retained by the Government while a 49% stake will be held by India’s Adani Group. The President pointed out that after the present Government negotiated with India on the contract, it was possible to reach an agreement to retain 51% of the ownership and the control of the terminal under the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA).

Under the former Government, a tripartite memorandum of understanding (MoU) was signed between the SLPA, Japan and India to develop the ECT. Japan was to provide a loan of $ 500 million while India was to undertake the construction. However, the United National Party (UNP) this week denied that the MoU was designed to take ownership away from the Government.

Small nations, which are situated in strategically important places, have the unenviable task of managing Big Power rivalries. On the one hand, their geographical positioning is a boon because world powers seek their goodwill and could shower some benefits. But on the other hand, the location makes them vulnerable to military action or dubious blandishments which have the potential to abridge their sovereignty, even to the point of extinction.

These concerns were succinctly stated by the Sri Lankan Foreign Secretary and former Navy Commander Adm.Prof.Jayanath Colombage at a recent Pathfinder Indian Ocean Security Webinar with a galaxy of internal security experts participating.

The former navy chief regretted the militarization of the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) and the deleterious impact of securitization and militarization on the economies of the littoral States, especially the economies of small States. The latter lack human, material and financial resources for development and need fruitful connections with the world through the oceans.

Colombage asked in deep anguish: “Shouldn’t we be focusing of economic and social development and achieving Sustainable Development Goals by the target year of 2030?” He then went on to point out that the Asian Development Bank had estimated that the infrastructure needs of Asia and the Pacific would exceed US$ 22.6 trillion through 2030. If the required funds are not provided, there would be difficulty in achieving sustainable development goals, he warned.

“We can witness a slowing down of economies and socio-economic tensions. Human emotions could rise high and create fear and insecurity. This also results in extreme forms of nationalism. There is, and there will be, interruptions to Global Supply Chains,” he said.

Quad and BRI

Although the IOR has historically been important, there are now two new factors of gigantic importance, he points out. Firstly, there is the Indo- Pacific Strategy of the US, India, Japan and Australia, called the Quad. Secondly, there is China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The Quad is essentially defense and security-oriented, and the BRI is essentially economic, based on trade, infrastructure development and investment.

However, the US and its allies propagate the notion that the BRI’s development work is but a fig leaf to cover China’s security agenda and is a thinly veiled effort to enslave recipient countries by trapping them in unmanageable debt.

Sri Lanka’s Case

Stating Sri Lanka’s case, Colombage says that it wishes to have a free and open Indian Ocean with a rules-based maritime order to carry out maritime commerce, the development of maritime related infrastructure and establish connections to the global supply chain across the oceans. However, the development agenda has taken a backseat and the IOR has become an arena for strategic competition between the Big Powers, he bemoans.

“I like to call it a competition for RMB – Resources, Markets and (military) Bases. More and more governments, organizations and institutions worldwide are making the Indo-Pacific their conceptual frame of reference and thus the basis of their policies. However, they differ in terms of their objectives and emphasis on different policy fields,” Colombage notes.

The Quad’s resolve to dominate Indo-Pacific high seas is being questioned, he points out. The Quad is portraying itself as the principle driver of Indian Ocean maritime security. But Colombage wonders if the Quad is preparing for a “Cool War” ( a 21st.Century version of the 20 th.Century of the “Cold War”) behind the smokescreen of a laudable concern for free and unfettered navigation. Colombage contends that no single country can be the net-security provider in the IOR. He observes that the insecurity of one country is leading to insecurity of others. Because insecurities play such a dominant role in devising nations’ strategies that the IOR is characterized by increasing military/naval activity.

“It (the IOR) is one of the most militarized oceans in the world. For example, from 2008 to 2020, 575 warships from 29 different countries had visited Sri Lanka,” Colombage points out.

The IOR is characterized by a “huge mistrust and trust deficiency.” South Asia is militarily, politically and economically, a dynamic region but it sorely lacks a security consensus and regional interdependence which is the bedrock of a security consensus. There is also strategic ambiguity. On top of it all, the IOR is also a nuclearized region with two nuclear powers, India and Pakistan, having had violent confrontations several times in the last 72 years.

The impact of geographic proximity to large nuclear powers is greatly felt in smaller countries such as Sri Lanka, the former naval chief says. The security of an innocent small State could be gravely affected as a consequence of someone else’s war, Colombage points out.

According to the Lankan Foreign Secretary, the in the present context, the most important question to ask is: What is the purpose of free and open navigation? Is it for waging war and jockeying for power in the IOR or is it for a free flow of trade, investment, development and cooperation?

Stating Sri Lanka’s position on this matter, Colombage says: “We do believe that we need a rules-based order, as the survival of the State is most important for Sri Lanka. A rule-based order is one way to overcome problems of asymmetry. Sri Lanka is a small State and does not have any hegemonic intentions. We believe in Multilateralism and not in Unilateralism and do not like to see securitization of maritime trade and development.”

“Conversely, we wish to see a balance of power and not hegemonic power. We also would like to convey that Sri Lanka is not a piece of ‘Real Estate’ (to be parceled out among rival powers). Please respect Sri Lanka’s national interests.”

Five Principles To Ensure Independence

Colombage proposes a five-point program to sustain the independence of small States:

“In order to overcome being caught in the great power rivalry in the Indian Ocean, Sri Lanka has five pillars to its foreign policy. One is Neutrality. Technically, we are a non-aligned country, but we wish to remain neutral, at the same time maintaining friendly relations with everyone, which is number two. The third is not to get caught in major power games. We do not like to ‘hedge’ or ‘choose’ between States or jump on to one or the other of the bandwagons. We need to maintain strategic autonomy in the Indian Ocean. The fourth point is that Sri Lanka will not cede control of its strategic assets to foreign concerns. Investment, according to Sri Lanka’s vision articulated in President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s ‘Vistas of Prosperity and Splendor’, should be in FDIs and joint ventures. But they should not lead to take overs. The Fifth point is, Sri Lanka does not want to be a strategic security concern to India, especially in maritime and air domains.