International Relations and Security:
Implications of the Geneva vote
Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, MP
The recent vote at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva
was upsetting, and it would make sense for Sri Lanka to assess what
happened and work towards ensuring that such a situation does not occur
again. However there seems little chance of that, since the same was
obvious a year ago, but nevertheless nothing was done, except to sit
back and hope disaster would not strike twice.
One of the UNHRC sittings in Geneva |
The only efforts at analysis we saw from the Ministry of External
Affairs were leaks to the effect that the vote engineered by the United
States had put Sri Lanka back on track to working with what were
described as its traditional allies.
Dayan Jayatilleka and Tamara Kunanayagam were denigrated as having
tried to turn us towards what were described as virtually rogue states
such as North Korea and Cuba.
That juxtaposition revealed very clearly where the thinkers in the
Ministry of External Affairs, if that is an appropriate word, were
coming from.
Cuba, loathed by the United States, is a model as far as foreign
relations are concerned, and we would do well to try to understand why
internationally it gets support from almost all countries in the world
except for the United States and its absolute dependents.
North Korea is a different phenomenon, and the idea that Dayan or
Tamara would advocate getting ourselves into that particular category is
absurd.
Navanethem Pillay |
But, as far as the mandarins in the Ministry are concerned, there is
no need to make distinctions; as J R Jayewardene advocated when he
turned to the West after 1977, we should be even more bitter than the
West is in denigrating its opponents.
That philosophy underscored his appalling attitude to India. The
attitude of the United States to India then explained however our
attempts to take on India, even though we should have realized – and the
United States indeed make this clear to us – that they would not come to
our rescue in the event of conflict.
International relations
What is astonishing however is that, despite the rapprochement
between the United States and India, our Cold Warriors still continue to
denigrate the latter. The vicious misrepresentation of the very positive
attitude of the Indian Opposition Leader (working in terms of the
bipartisan approach to international relations that India manages to
sustain however bitter political rivalries are) made clear what was
going on.
However, even though, as suggested by the President, I wrote to the
Foreign Secretary asking that the prevailing destruction of our
international image be investigated, nothing has happened. Clearly the
persistence of the attitudes of the eighties is condoned, despite the
world having moved on.
This absurdity extends to the failure to build up alliances in areas
where we had so many advantages four years ago. The manner in which
Tamara Kunanayagam, as our ambassador in Brazil and then Cuba, built not
just positive relations but even admiration and affection for this
country throughout South America, has been forgotten.
Instead we have entrusted Cuba to an envoy who seems to think what it
has achieved in the last half century is as nothing compared to the joys
of being within the American sphere of influence.
Human rights
For me perhaps the most significant aspect of the latest vote in
Geneva is the fact that Brazil voted against us. Our apologists will
claim that Brazil was under pressure from the United States, but it was
under pressure in 2009 and voted with us.
Its ambassador was one of Dayan’s most affectionate allies, who gave
us advice on how we should move forward, but supported us in the belief
that we intended to do this expeditiously.
Instead then of getting angry with Brazil for voting against us, we
should rather consider as to whether we should not be doing more to win
support from a country that should be a natural ally.
The point is, the efforts the United States is making have very
little to do with human rights, but reflect an effort to change the
architecture of international relations. Sri Lanka is a convenient
guinea pig for this, as we saw five years ago, when Gareth Evans and his
ilk were trying to turn us into the first stamping ground for the
enlarged version of his infamous doctrine of the Responsibility to
Protect. The manner in which he twisted the provisions of that doctrine
as approved by the United Nations, to suggest that unilateral actions
were acceptable, is not something we should treat lightly, given what
happened in Iraq and Libya, and what is happening now in Syria.
Extraordinary letter
Brazil, like India, is not a country that would approve of such
adventurism. But instead of making the point about the principles
involved, we have simply, as one erudite Indian journalist put it,
simply been asking for votes, with no efforts to explain and illustrate
our position in between sessions of the Council.
I still recall the manner in which one South American diplomat, who
was given the paper that Tamara and I prepared to show the importance of
Reconciliation, when I went against my will to Geneva in March 2012,
said that had he seen these arguments earlier, his country’s position
might well have been different.
The petticoat diplomacy that destroyed us in Geneva between Dayan and
Tamara did not bother to explain, perhaps because the intellectual
capacity to explain was lacking in someone who got into the Ministry
through the back door.
It simply pleaded, and then engaged in abuse when things did not work
out, as was seen in the extraordinary letter sent to Navanethem Pillay
recently. The fact that this came from the same Ministry that had let
down Tamara when she objected on principle to what Navy was up to some
months back makes clear the complete absence of either thought or policy
planning in the Ministry.
This must change if we are not to be destroyed soon. But it seems
that no one cares. |