Editorial - Need for a strategic stance at UNHRC

10 March 2014 09:23 pm Views - 2319

President Mahinda Rajapaksa has rejected the US-sponsored draft resolution on Sri Lanka submitted to the UN Human Rights Commission and said the vote on the resolution later this month would be of no significance. Responding to a question raised on a live television broadcast on several channels recently, the President said the Government was not concerned about the resolution or the vote outcome. The Government has also rejected the call by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navananethem Pillay’s report presented to the UNHRC “to establish an international inquiry mechanism to further investigate the alleged violations of International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law in Sri Lanka”, saying “it gives scant or no regard to the domestic processes ongoing in Sri Lanka within the framework of the LLRC, National Plan Of Action, and is politicised in premise”.


The government’s contention that Sri Lanka is being discriminated against by the West as well as the UNHRC in respect of human rights is not without basis. Just a run through the stories on bloody attacks by the forces allied to the US in Afghanistan, Iraq and the drone attacks in Pakistan in the international pages of newspapers would give ample evidence to vindicate the government’s point. The reasons given by the pro-government personalities for this lopsidedness of the West and the UN authorities varies from the West’s humiliation, due to their call for the suspension of the military thrust during the last lap of the war against the LTTE being rejected, to the craving by the US to find a foothold in the region or to create a military hub in the country.


The West’s biasness is further manifested by the overliness of its accusations against the human rights violation by the LTTE during the war. They are so serious about each of the video footages depicting alleged human rights violations by the troops purportedly filmed with mobile phones, while totally ignoring the established fact that tens of thousands of people were put at risk by being held as a human shield by the LTTE.
All this is true. No one would contest the government’s stance that the actions by the so-called international community to hunt down Sri Lanka are skewed, unethical and with ulterior motives. However, holding of the moral high ground alone would not help the country in the years to come, as it would not have any bearing on the actions by the West in general and on the fallouts of the US-sponsored resolution at the UNHRC.  


And the wordings of the current US draft resolution have been structured in such a way that would take away the moral high ground from Sri Lanka and put the country on the dock instantly. Hence no amount of rhetoric or expressions of patriotism would help at this juncture unless we look into the actions that we can take to avert a possible international investigation which would be conducted independent of our capabilities. With this end in mind, sometimes we would have to take one or two steps back in order to take several steps forward. That would not be a defeat.