De-stabilizing a developing nation through the UN:
US DOUBLE STANDARDS in Sri Lanka and Asia
“My
concern here is that we are looking at such a small little sequence, of
this two or three months that now we are questioning. And the reason why
we have this resolution before the United Nations Human Rights Council;
but forgetting the fact for 29 years that the Sri Lankan government has
had to deal with this terrorist organization that I just could not
believe the atrocities that were committed by these people…And now
overnight we just thought that we've got to hit this resolution against
them: this is where my concern is with double standards.”
That was the Ranking Member of the US Foreign Affairs subcommittee,
Congressman Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, expressing his deep concerns over the
double standards applied in US Foreign Policy towards Sri Lanka, at the
Subcommittee hearing on “The Rebalance to Asia: Why South Asia Matters”
last Tuesday (26).
On the same day across the Atlantic in Geneva, Priyanga
Wickramasinghe, Counsellor of the Sri Lanka’s Permanent Mission to the
UN there, urged that Sri Lanka should be encouraged in its
reconciliation process, rather than being singled out for any
disproportionate attention by the UN Human Rights Council.
Exercising a ‘right of Reply’ to a statement by Ms Esther Brimmer, US
Assistant Secretary of State for international organisations during the
High Level Segment of the 22nd Human Rights Council, Counsellor
Wickramasinghe said “it is especially so, at a time when having overcome
a 30-year long terrorist conflict, as well as having averted what many
feared would be a ‘humanitarian catastrophe’, Sri Lanka is implementing
a comprehensive process of reconciliation involving all communities
based on the National Action Plan on the implementation of the
recommendations of the LLRC”.
Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe
|
Navi Pillay
|
F.H. Faleomavaega |
Double standards and disproportionate attention to the last few
months of the battle to defeat the terrorism of the LTTE in Sri Lanka
are coming out very clearly in the criticisms of the US led move to
adopt a strong resolution against Sri Lanka at the current sessions of
the UNHRC.
Congressman Faleomavaega had much more to tell the Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee, after a first-hand study of actual developments in Sri
Lanka in recent weeks.
Underscoring that US should find a better way forward than using UN
resolutions to improve its relationships with a strategically important
country such as Sri Lanka, he said: “After a 30-year terrorist conflict
or war the challenges Sri Lankan government faces are enormous. But the
strides the government has made to rebuild in a way that establishes
lasting peace and equality for all citizens should be firmly
acknowledged.”
“Regrettably in the resolution it intendeds to submit again to the
United Nations Human Rights Council, the US fails to mention one , not
even one, positive development for Sri Lanka.
Such failures suggest that the United States is not being even handed
when it comes to dealing with sensitive human rights issues across the
globe.”
“And I am, Mr. Chairman, deeply concerned that our inconsistent
policies which lead to a loss of credibility for the United States which
would negatively impact our relations in the Asia Pacific region for
years to come.”
He therefore called “upon my government, the United States of America
to find a better way forward rather than using United Nations
resolutions to destabilize developing nations like Sri Lanka while
ignoring human rights abuses in nations like Indonesia, where our
geological strategic and military interests supersede our Human Rights
Agenda.”
“The US led United Nations resolution should also be withdrawn for
focusing only on the last few months of the war and failing to
acknowledge therefore almost 30 years, Mr. Chairman, the Tamil Tigers
hacked to death innocent men, women and children in Sri Lanka, carried
out some 378 suicide attacks more than any other terrorist organization
in the world.”
The Ranking Member of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee was clear in
his agreement with the Kerry-Lugar congressional report which declares
we need to re-chart US strategy in Sri Lanka beyond humanitarian and
political reforms … The US simply cannot afford to lose Sri Lanka due to
its strategic importance,” he said.
Describing his knowledge of the situation in Sri Lanka he said: “Last
week I had the privilege of visiting Sri Lanka and met with President
Rajapaksa for more than two hours. I also met with Governor of the
Northern Province. And personally visited Jaffna because I wanted to see
for myself the post conflict developments since 2009, when Sri Lanka
finally became the first country in the world to eradicate terrorism on
its own soil, by defeating the Tamil Tigers - which remains listed as a
terrorist organization by 32 countries including our own country Mr.
Chairman, India, Canada and the members of the European Union, and
dubbed by the FBI as one of the most ruthless terrorist organizations in
the world.”
Minister on Pillay
It was a similar message of the necessity for objectivity,
impartiality and fair play that Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, the
President’s Special Envoy on Human Rights gave the UNHRC on Wednesday.
“We expect our actions to be assessed in their totality, in a spirit of
objectivity and impartiality in this Council. Our interlocutors in this
body must also take into account the considerable progress made. During
the UPR process for instance, a clear majority of delegations did
acknowledge and appreciate the advances we have made since 2009.
Central Bank bombing:
One of the many
LTTE attacks |
This only encouraged us to do better and is what we consider
constructive. However, the focus of some other intrusive initiatives
that only emphasize a few areas which need further action, are less than
constructive and we consider these unhelpful. These subjective measures
based on unsubstantiated assertions aimed at ‘naming and shaming’, are
indicative of a different agenda unrelated to the objectives of this
Council. We need time and space, Mr President, to complete our work and
we are confident that we will be able to deliver for our people and our
country.”
Minister Samarasinghe also had very strong observations to make of
the report by Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights,
stressing the assistance extended to her the invitation to her to visit
Sri Lanka (not availed of), and the subsequent highly biased report she
has submitted. He said that: “In granting the team unfettered access,
the government acted in the good faith expectation that it would in fact
prepare the ground for her visit.
Shifting goalposts
Subsequently the High Commissioner addressed a letter in November
2012 proposing possible areas of technical cooperation between the GoSL
and the OHCHR. She also chose to introduce a new conditionality: stating
that meaningful progress needs to be achieved in areas outlined for
technical cooperation, before visiting Sri Lanka at some time in the
first half of 2013.
Thus it now appears the team’s agenda was purely to collect material
for her present Report and not to “help prepare the ground” for a visit.
The GoSL’s reply in December 2012 was to emphasize that, since the
implementation of the NPoA and the NHRAP, are continuously evolving
national processes which were being monitored, in order to arrive at a
considered opinion on the progress of human rights related issues, that
there is no substitute for experiencing, at first hand, the ground
situation.
“We reiterate that, therefore, a visit by the High Commissioner would
be an ideal opportunity to view the developments objectively and
holistically, imperative for the discharge of her mandate. As such, the
bona fides of the High Commissioner’s objectives may be called into
question, by virtue of her shifting the goalposts and seeking to impose
new conditionalities.
“We also note that an inordinate amount of attention is paid to Sri
Lanka in the High Commissioner’s statements within and outside UN
forums. Whether it be in the UN Security Council or successive sessions
of the Human Rights Council, democracy conferences or merely comments
from her on incidents or events in Sri Lanka ranging from economic
migrants to the judiciary, the High Commissioner, has had, from around
the end of the conflict in May 2009, a regular negative observation to
make. Her frequent comments to the media, some in close proximity to
sessions of the Council, could well have the effect of influencing
delegations, especially when there are Resolutions contemplated. This
runs counter to the detachment, objectivity and impartiality expected
from the holder of such an exalted office. Sweeping generalizations
using such terms as “massive violations” of human rights and the
constant targeting of Sri Lanka – based on unsubstantiated evidence
founded on conjecture and supposition only supports the impression of a
lack of objectivity.
The Report to the Council - A/HRC/22/38 - is also very much in
similar vein. Very little attention is paid to the significant progress
achieved in the post-conflict phase; matters that we placed before the
Working Group in considerable detail during the UPR, in particular.
However, in contrast, great emphasis is placed on the perceived
negatives as they pertain to the Sri Lanka’s process of reconciliation.
This disproportionate emphasis on the negative to the virtual exclusion
of the positive, gives the report a skewed and imbalanced character,”
Minister Samarasinghe said.
It would be interesting to go back to US Congressman Faleomavaega’s
observations drawing parallels from US history.
“I have mentioned in my statement about the double standards that we
are applying in as far as violation of Human Rights and the sense that I
have is why is the most powerful country in the world picking on a small
little country like Sri Lanka- the size of West Virginia, 60,000 square
miles with only three million people - and yet in Sri Lanka we are
talking about 21 million people living there.”
“The serious question that I have is that for 27 or 29 years this
country was in the state of civil war. It is not a conflict. It is not
the question of the Tamil people asking for more autonomy. We have to
understand not all Tamils are members of this terrorist organization
called the LTTE or the Tamil Tigers that our government along with 32
other countries also categorized as a terrorist organization.”
US Civil War
“And in the process you are talking about for 27 years some eighty to
hundred thousand Sri Lankans ended up dead. A lot of innocent men, women
and children”.
“What I am trying to seek here is that there also was a country that
had a civil war. It was the United States of America, for four years we
ended up with 600,000 of our soldiers died from that terrible conflict.
And it was not the question of Southern States asking for more autonomy.
They wanted to secede, pull away from the mother country, just like the
Tamil Tigers wanted to do in their efforts in seeking this war against
the government.” “My concern here is that we are looking at such a small
little sequence, of this two or three months that now we are
questioning. And the reason why we have this resolution before the
United Nations Human Rights Council, but forgetting the fact for 29
years that Sri Lankan government has had to deal with this terrorist
organization that I just could not believe the atrocities that were
committed by these people.”
“And now overnight we just thought that we've got to hit this
resolution against them this is where my concern with double standards.”
“Our government to the 10 year period that we were in war in Vietnam.
In Vietnam Mr. Secretary, let’s ask the tens and thousands of women and
children innocent civilians that we exposed to Agent Orange, when we
were there for the ten year period. Let’s ask the people in Laos and
Cambodia for the six million pounds of cluster bombs we dropped there,
and these countries never declared war on us.”
“Where is the consistency in our standards as far as Human Rights are
concerned? We are pointing the finger at this little country Sri Lanka,
and the thing is that perhaps may be we need to clean up our own
backyard, as suggested maybe we be a little more consistent, if we are
going to do it against Sri Lanka. Let’s make sure that we are clean
ourselves.”
With Sri Lanka the subject at the UNHRC, Geneva is now the centre of
double-standards, non-objectivity, absence of impartiality and the focus
on the shortest and the toughest period of the actual War on Terror in
Sri Lanka, without the human casualties caused by drone attacks that get
hurrah’s from Washington and the White House.
Washington prefers to forget new Secretary of State John Perry’s (and
Sen. Lugar’s) observations about the strategic importance of Sri Lanka
that should transcend the narrow approaches on humanitarian and
political reforms. This pantomime on human rights will go on for longer
in Geneva, with the need to satisfy the representatives of terror with
their lobbies of influence in the West. |