UNHRC Resolution 30/1 and the Challenge Confronting the New Government.
By Dr. Palitha Kohona
First and foremost, the co-sponsorship of HRC Resolution 30/1 in 2015 was ill-considered, divisive domestically and was inimical to the national interest. Sri Lanka voluntarily slung a millstone around its own neck and has been engaged in a process of self-flagellation since. It was not only the government of the day that voluntarily agreed to carry this heavy cross but it also bound future governments and the state through its voluntary capitulation. All because of a misconceived and naive belief that appeasing the expatriate Tamil community which was hell-bent on achieving through the interventions of the international community (read Western) the separatist goal that could not be achieved through terrorist violence, Western governments that were locked into the expatriate Tamil agendas due to massive campaign contributions and promises of block votes and NGOs whose perceptions were coloured by prejudice and bias, would somehow encourage reconciliation and lasting peace. Sadly, reconciliation did not dawn while a deluded government continued to plug away despite the abrasive divisions that the Resolution generated within our society.
Resolution 30/1 which apparently was cosponsored without cabinet or presidential approval by a deluded foreign minister, who in many other countries would have had to face the courts for an act of treason, could not be implemented due to constitutional constraints and public outrage, has now posed a serious challenge to the government of newly elected President Gotabhaya Rajapaksa.
The government will need to convince the European and US sponsors of Res 30/1 that it can not give effect to the commitments whimsically undertaken in 2015 due to the reasons explained by the Foreign Minister in Parliament and hope that they will lend a sympathetic ear. The signs, however, are not propitious as these governments have consistently pressured Sri Lanka to implement the obligations that it undertook voluntarily. The screws at their disposal to be tightened at whim are formidable. The High Commissioner, in her most recent report, has not minced her words in urging, nay almost demanding, Sri Lanka gives effect to its commitments and her office appears to cling to the notion that this would herald an era of peace, reconciliation, and tranquility to the country. The process of talking to the interested Western decision-makers, including the EU, and the High Commissioner could have started much earlier.
While the government has quite rightly expressed its desire to continue to work with the High Commissioner’s office on human rights issues, which in any event are dear to right-thinking people, its sincerity and credibility will face serious challenges due to the pressures exerted by an angry Tamil expatriate community and skeptical NGOs. Even Sri Lanka’s traditional NAM support base may take a major effort to remobilise following the disenchantment that was visible from 2015. The continuing barrage of virulent anti-Rajapaksa International media reportage will not help the government’s cause. (Gotabhaya Rajapaksa continues to be labeled an alleged war criminal of whom the minorities are terrified, contrary to the obvious). While the government decision to step back from Res 30/1 may sound joyful to elements of the domestic electorate (many of whom are beginning to be distracted and jaded by other pressing issues, including economic), a gulf exists in the area of conveying the government message to the world. Much work needs to be done to bridge this chasm in perceptions. The opportunities for destabilising a hugely popular president may look tempting to those who orchestrated the Arab Spring, the Yellow Revolution, and Bolivia.
109 Viewers
