US resolution criticises, surges beyond LLRC
Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka
It is almost a crime to lie to the people and mislead them on a
matter of vital national interest. When it is committed by politicians
it is an act of unconscionable opportunism. When it is perpetrated by
so-called intellectuals belonging to civil society, it is a
counterfeiting of the currency of the intellect and the function of the
educated, which is to educate the public. One of the rankest untruths in
the public domain today is that the US resolution is innocuous and
unobjectionable because it only seeks to commit the government of Sri
Lanka to implement its own LLRC report within a reasonable time frame.
This untruth is perpetrated by the dominant elements of the UNP, the TNA
and the civil society commentariat.
Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka |
The utter falsehood of this assertion is instantly provable by a mere
glance at the Resolution itself. Far from limiting itself to the
harmless and arguably even constructive pursuit of merely seeking the
implementation of the LLRC's recommendations, the Resolution actually
criticises the LLRC. The fifth and final paragraph of the preamble of
the US Resolution, immediately preceding its operative clauses, reads:
"Noting with concern that the LLRC report does not adequately address
serious allegations of violations of international law."
LLRC's recommendations
It is nothing short of disgusting that this sentence, in plain view
in the text, is being hidden by pro-US Resolution politicians and
opinion-makers. It is one thing to be a critic, however harsh, of the
government, quite another to be a supporter of the US Resolution and
worse still, to brush under the rug that which is quite overt in the
Resolution itself.
The Resolution's criticism of the LLRC report is itself an untruth.
That report not only earmarks issues of accountability which it states
should be addressed by the government of Sri Lanka, it contains an
impressively thick and closely argued chapter precisely on international
law issues pertaining to the conflict. Given that one of the LLRC
report's authors is the former chairperson of the UN Ad Hoc Committee on
Terrorism and a former member of the International Law Commission, this
assertion by the US Resolution is indeed disingenuous.
Having made this criticism of the LLRC, the US Resolution then goes
on to stipulate measures in its operative clauses which range well
beyond the LLRC's recommendations:
"(1) Calls on the government of Sri Lanka to implement the
constructive recommendations in the LLRC report and take all necessary
additional steps to fulfil its relevant legal obligations and commitment
to initiate credible and independent actions to ensure justice, equity,
accountability and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans, (2) Requests that
the government of Sri Lanka present a comprehensive action plan as
expeditiously as possible detailing the steps the government has taken
and will take to implement the LLRC recommendations and also to address
alleged violations of international law. (My emphases-DJ)
International law
This plainly gives the lie to the assertion that the US Resolution
seeks only the (harmless) implementation of the LLRC's recommendations.
It is permissible to argue that the additional measures are good and
necessary, but quite another to sweep under the rug, or divert attention
from these stipulations which range beyond the LLRC into the domain of
international law. That practice of providing a smokescreen for external
interventionism is rather like persuading customers, in this case the
Sri Lankan citizenry, to participate in a Ponzi scheme.
The third and final operative clause of the US Resolution reads:
UNHRC session in progress |
(3) "Encourages the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
and relevant special procedures to provide, and the government of Sri
Lanka to accept, advice and technical assistance on implementing those
steps and requests the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
to present a report to the Council on the provision of such assistance
at its twenty-second session."
In other words, the High Commissioner becomes the monitoring
authority, with operational functions as well, of the compliance of the
elected government of Sri Lanka with the US request to "take all
necessary additional steps (beyond the LLRC) to fulfil its relevant
legal obligations and commitment to initiate credible and independent
actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation for
all Sri Lankans and also to address alleged violations of international
law." This seeks to give the Office of the UN High Commissioner the role
of an overseer, in relation to a national process of (national)
reconciliation. In the US Resolution, the political and policy
implementation process in Sri Lanka changes its circuitry and loops
through the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights; an
extra-national entity, accountable not to the UN Human Rights Council
but primarily to the UN Secretary-General in New York. |