UN Human Rights Council Special Session in Geneva:

Sri Lanka achieves great victory

Asia, Africa, Latin America solidarise with Sri Lanka :

Sri Lanka actively supported by the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the African group achieved a phenomenal victory at the Special Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council that concluded Wednesday.

The extended resolution presented by Sri Lanka was adopted by the Council with 29 in favour, 12 against and six abstentions.

Many delegates were of the opinion that the Special Session was unwarranted and a waste of time in view of the regular session a week away. They also categorically stated that Sri Lanka had a legitimate right to defeat terrorism and the matter is an internal affair of a sovereign state. What the international community should do is to assist the Sri Lankan government in its relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts, they noted. Below we give extracts of the interventions made by several Afro-Asian and Latin American countries at the Session:

Resfel Pino (Cuba), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said that Sri Lanka’s sovereign right to fight terrorism and separatism within its undisputed borders had to be respected.

The Non-Aligned Movement firmly believed that preserving the core principles of avoiding selectivity and double standards, as well as promoting an approach of cooperation for the promotion and protection of human rights, were vital to the success of the Human Rights Council.

Hisham Badr (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that it had not been in favour of holding a Special Session. It thought that the conflict in Sri Lanka was an internal affair in which a sovereign Government did its best to fulfill its duty towards its citizens and took measures necessary to fight a militia that was universally recognized as a terrorist group.

It was not clear what the Special Session was aiming to achieve in this regard.

Gopinathan Achamkulangare (India) said India had serious reservations about the objectives and usefulness of convening a Special Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka at this time. By forcing a Special Session on the Council, some Members had, regrettably, politicized the Council’s work.

This was an unfortunate development. It would have been sufficient if this discussion had taken place during the eleventh regular session of the Council that was barely a week away.

Zamir Akram (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said it felt that with the regular session of the Council only a few days away, the undue haste for calling this Special Session was not only inexplicable but a waste of time, effort and money.

Under international law, its Government was fully justified to protect and uphold the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country by all means at its disposal to defeat the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

Unfortunately, it seemed that for some there were differing standards for judging human rights as well as the criterion for combating terrorism.

Li Baodong (China) Convening this Special Session was highly regrettable. The international community should respect the independence and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka and give it assistance and cooperation.

Valery Loshchinin (Russian Federation) welcomed the end of the very long and bloody armed conflict in Sri Lanka and the fact that the Government had now taken back the control of all parts of the country. This was a victory of the international community as a whole. Russia had not been in favour of calling this Special Session and it was important to show support for the country.

Othman Hashim (Malaysia) aligned itself with the statements delivered by Pakistan and Cuba on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement respectively.

Malaysia viewed the Sri Lankan campaign against terrorism to be an internal, domestic issue and believed that Sri Lanka should be accorded the necessary time and space to deal with its own challenges in the manner which it deemed best.

Erlinda F Basilio (Philippines) Philippines shared the doubts of others over the efficacy and timing of this Special Session. Dialogue and cooperation must imbue all the work of the Council, including the convening of the Special Sessions. This was the only way the Council could remain on solid ground.

Dian Triansyah djani (Indonesia) aligned itself with the statements made by Cuba and Pakistan on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Organization of the Islamic Conference respectively. The Special Session on Sri Lanka left many, including Indonesia’s delegation, questioning the timing of such a session, noting that the regular session of the Council was starting in a week, and wondering what message it would bring.

Angelica Navarro Llanos (Bolivia) supported the statement made by Cuba on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. Bolivia did not co-sponsor the request for this Special Session because of the way the country concerned was being dealt with. It did recognize the sincere concern of some of the countries who supported the Special Session and their reasons for wanting to hold the session, but it could not support the neo-colonist attitudes of some other States.

Bolivia would have preferred the dialogue taking place in the Special Session to have been carried out in the eleventh regular session of the Human Rights Council, which was scheduled to start next week, and that the costs incurred for this Special Session would have been better used to feed the hungry in Sri Lanka.

Idriss Jazairy (Algeria) said Algeria hoped that the Human Rights Council would be similarly moved by conflicts that affected the civilian population in other regions of Asia and Middle East. Algeria referred to regions where, according to the United States Army, drones were hitting their targets with a 2 per cent success rate and a 98 per cent rate of collateral damage in terms of civilian loss, or also in the regions where white phosphorous bombs were being heavily used against civilian populations. It was regrettable that the work of the Council was still distorted by double standards.

Faysal Khabbaz Hamoui (Syria) congratulated Sri Lanka on the end of hostilities. The country could now go back to peace and stability. They were however surprised that this Special Session was being held now; there was no justification for that as it was clearly an interference in the internal affairs of a country.

It was also strange that this Special Session had been requested by the very same who normally turned a blind eye to the violations committed by the forces of Israeli occupation in the Occupied Arab Territories.

Sihasak Phuangketkeow (Thailand) said that, as all were aware, the convening of this Special Session had generated considerable debate. Serious reservations had been expressed by a number of delegations and the delegation of Thailand shared many of the concerns.

German Mundarain Hernandez (Venezuela) fully supported the statement made by Cuba on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. Venezuela supported draft resolution of L1 as proposed by Sri Lanka in this Special Session.

Choe Myong Nam (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) Any attempts to interfere with the internal affairs and the imposing of solutions should be rejected and the international community should cooperate with the Government of Sri Lanka. Further, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was gravely concerned over the politicization, selectivity and double standards that were practiced by some by singling out Sri Lanka for purposes other than genuine human rights, while ignoring gross human rights violations including civilian killings as a result of bloody wars that were carried out by powerful countries elsewhere in the world.

Hamid Baeidi Nejad (Iran) fully associated itself with the statements made by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and Cuba on behalf of Non-Aligned Movement. Iran welcomed the Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights of Sri Lanka for his presence which was a sign of constructive engagement with the Council. Iran did not support the holding of the Special Session for obvious reasons. Resorting to the old habits of the past and politicizing the work of the Council would not serve the purpose and principles on which the Human Rights Council was based upon.

Vu Dung (Vietnam) associated itself with the statement made by Cuba on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. Vietnam supported the efforts made by Sri Lanka in restoring territorial integrity, national stability and in combating terrorism.

Proceeding from the principles of respect of national sovereignty and non-interference into internal affairs of the sovereign State, it held the opinion that post-conflict issues should be decided by the people of Sri Lanka with the solidarity and assistance of the international community.

***************

The voting was as follows:

In favour: Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Uruguay, Zambia.

Against: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;

Abstaining: Argentina, Gabon, Japan, Mauritius, Republic of Korea, Ukraine.

***************