Afro-Asian support for Sri Lanka

An address by Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Geneva, Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka where he criticized the sponsors of the Special Session on the humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka as “Western Colonizers” who refused to consult with the Asian bloc, brought strong support from Asian, African and Middle Eastern countries for Sri Lanka.

The special sessions sponsored by 17 countries of the UN Human Rights Commission will be held today, May 26 in Geneva. Ambassador Jayatilleka asked how “distant states could know better than Sri Lanka’s neighbouring states, who agreed with its positions”.

Observers noted that the Sri Lanka Ambassador was able to rally considerable Afro- Asian support against the move by Switzerland and other sponsors of the resolution to hold Sri Lanka accountable for alleged violations of human rights and reported humanitarian crisis in the battle to defeat the terrorism of the LTTE.

He began by insisting that he considered the Western-led consultation on the draft resolution as one organized by “friends”, even if some of them may be “misguided”.

The “only enemy of Sri Lanka was the one within its borders”, now defeated, he said.

Sri Lanka “put an end to that problem” after several attempts at negotiation failed and that all civilians caught in the conflict were hostages to the Tamil Tigers.

The ambassador argued that it made no sense to hold a special session now that the 30- year war is over and “no one is dying”, and considering that the regular human rights council session is only a week away.

He complained that Tiger sympathizers are planning a demonstration on Monday, saying they should not be allowed to “hold the Human Rights Council hostage”.

He complained that states “in the region” were ?bypassed”, “their advice and views completely ignored”, and not even sought. He decried the Swiss text, complaining that “those who are former colonizers somehow know more about how to handle Sri Lanka than our immediate neighbourhood”.

Sri Lanka can only take on the Swiss proposal if it is “de-minded and removed of booby traps”, something, he said, his country knew how to do very well militarily.

The Sri Lankan envoy said he welcomed a diplomatic battle at the session, unafraid of a contested vote.

He suggested that the Western-sponsored resolution was meant to force Sri Lanka to respond with a no-action motion - a procedure favoured in the past by China, Zimbabwe and other repressive regimes in order to kill a censure resolution - so that Sri Lanka would be “trashed for the international media”. Nevertheless, he welcomed any such contest.

Next were a long list of speakers who opposed holding a special session - Egypt, Cuba, the Philippines, India, China, Malaysia, Syria, Thailand, Indonesia, and Lebanon.

Egypt took the floor first and spoke with a sense of anger. The only reason they attended this consultation was because they respect the positions of some of the session’s sponsors - those that had supported a special session to condemn Israel for its actions in Gaza.

There were “double standards” at the council, for addressing Sri Lanka this time instead of Palestine, Afghanistan, or Iraq, the Egyptian Representative said. Cuba agreed and protested that many countries were not consulted prior to the announcement of a special session.

The only way to work in a cooperative manner was on the basis of Sri Lanka’s own text. China echoed Cuba and said Sri Lanka should be commended for its “transparency” and “inclusiveness”.

Syria said that “the country concerned [Sri Lanka] has better knowledge of what needs to be done”. Thailand said that it was against the convening of country-specific special sessions or resolutions in principle.

These interventions were followed by South Africa, Japan, and Senegal who stressed the need for “constructive engagement” and “cooperation” with Sri Lanka to bring about “consensus”. Japan also called for international assistance to Sri Lanka, noting its own provision of aid.