The previous UNF Government took the rather unfortunate step of co-sponsoring a UN Human Rights Council Resolution on Sri Lanka brought by the Western powers. This could have opened the door to foreign interference in our domestic affairs especially by having foreign judges to try our war heroes.
Having realised the dangers posed by this resolution, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa proposed that Sri Lanka should withdraw from such resolutions. Now Foreign Relations Minister Dinesh Gunawardena has informed the International Community that Sri Lanka was indeed withdrawing from the co-sponsorship of the resolution in question (30/1).
Addressing the high-level segment of the Human Rights Council (HRC), the Minister informed the Council Members of the decision of the Government of Sri Lanka to withdraw its co-sponsorship of Resolution 40/1 of March 2019 on ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka’, which also incorporates and builds on preceding Resolutions 30/1 of October 2015 and 34/1 of March 2017. The Minister pointed out that the commitments of the resolution bound the country to carry out an experiment which was impractical, unconstitutional and undeliverable. He said that it remains, to date, a blot on the sovereignty and the dignity of the people of Sri Lanka.
In co-sponsoring Resolution 30/1, the previous Government no doubt violated all democratic principles of governance. It was not approved by the President or the Cabinet at the time. There was no reference to Parliament on the process of undertaking and repercussions of such co-sponsorship.
Withdrawing from this resolution was one of the pledges by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and significantly, it has been carried out within the first 100 days of his presidency. There is no doubt that Sri Lanka has been unfairly targeted by Western human rights mechanisms and groups ever since it achieved victory over the LTTE.
One major argument is that around 40,000 civilians perished at the hands of the Sri Lankan Security Forces in the final days of the conflict in 2009. No credible source is attributed to this staggering number, although it first appeared in a UN Panel of Experts review. It has since been highlighted as gospel truth by diaspora groups and other anti-Sri Lanka elements. It is also the basic premise behind many of the anti-Sri Lanka resolutions passed in the UNHRC.
The International Community must realise that withdrawing from the co-sponsorship of a resolution does not mean that Sri Lanka is giving up on the human rights and accountability equation. On the other hand, the Government has always maintained that it is committed to achieving accountability and human rights within the framework of the Constitution. In fact, they announced at the UNHRC the appointment of a domestic Commission of Inquiry (COI) to probe human rights and accountability issues in a further reassurance of its commitment to achieving the goals set on accountability and human rights.
The COI, headed by a Justice of the Supreme Court, will be appointed to review the reports of previous COIs which investigated alleged violations of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (IHL), to assess the status of implementation of their recommendations, and to propose deliverable measures to implement them keeping in line with the new Government’s policy. Sri Lanka has thus reiterated to the Council its commitment to achieve sustainable peace through an inclusive, domestically designed and executed reconciliation and accountability process.
Even the previous Government belatedly realised the problems associated with the resolutions in question. During the 40th Session of this Council, former Minister of Foreign Affairs Tilak Marapana, explained at length the constitutional, legal and socio-political challenges involved in ‘fully implementing’ HRC Resolution 30/1. The High Commissioner’s insistence in the current Report on the ‘full implementation’ of the demands on Sri Lanka in Resolution 30/1 indicates that the OHCHR has failed to recognise the rational and legitimate concerns voiced by States that are seeking, in good faith, to address issues.
It is also rather incongruous that many Western powers which stand accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes in war theatres ranging from Iraq to Afghanistan see it fit to berate small countries such as Sri Lanka on human rights. Some of these countries have even pardoned their servicemen accused of engaging in war crimes.
The Government has also rejected fears that withdrawal from the resolutions would invite retaliatory sanctions from Western powers. As State Minister Keheliya Rambukwella has stressed, there are other powerful allies of Sri Lanka who will veto any such resolutions on sanctions or other obstacles. This is a great source of strength to Sri Lanka on the international stage.
The Government has shown that it will not hesitate to take steps to protect the country’s sovereignty even in the face of pressure from powerful nations. It has strongly opposed moves by the US to impose a travel ban on Army Chief Lt. Gen. Shavendra Silva. The Government has consistently refuted the credibility of the false and unsubstantiated allegations levelled against Lieutenant General Shavendra Silva, there being no proven allegations against individuals on war crimes or crimes against humanity in any official document.
In the same way, the Government has decided not to go ahead with the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) pact with the USA after an expert committee found that certain clauses of the agreement could violate the country’s Constitution and infringe on its sovereignty. This was the correct call to make. One cannot measure everything in terms of money and the country’s sovereignty is inviolable at any cost.