OPINION
Thursday, 3rd April 2014.
By Sugeeswara Senadhira
Sri Lanka, while vehemently rejecting the US-sponsored resolution adopted by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva last Thursday (27 March) , is pleasantly surprised at India's decision to abstain from voting for the resolution, taking at least a 90 degree turn from the earlier policy of voting for the resolution in 2012 and 2013.
President Mahinda Rajapkasa told AFP within hours of the Geneva voting that "It is encouraging that India did not vote against us." Within 24 hours of the Geneva vote, Rajapaksa ordered to start the legal process to release all Indian fishermen in Sri Lankan custody.
External Affairs Minister, Professor G.L. Peiris, said the outcome of the vote on the US-sponsored resolution reflects that more countries are against the US at the Human Rights Council in Geneva. He said the countries voted in favour of the 'unethical' resolution because they could not reject US pressure for economic reasons.
While Sri Lanka is grateful to Pakistan for fighting its cause by calling for removal of the operative Paragraph 10 of the resolution, which asks for an international inquiry, Colombo is also pleased that Indian envoy in Geneva, Dilip Singh, expressed opposition to the clause and voted in favour of removal of the operative clause, though the US and EU members easily bulldozed the move.
"This year the resolution had a certain provision that can't go along with that policy of ours, which was introducing the concept of international investigation which was there in the operative paragraph 10," Singh clarified. "This was a matter of concern for us, which made us decide to abstain on the resolution."
In 2013 too, the US attempted to bring in a clause similar to Para 10, but India said it could not vote in favour of such a resolution, a senior South Asian diplomat in Colombo said.
He said it is interesting to note that the resolution against Sri Lanka was passed with 23 countries in favour, and the vast majority of them are EU members. While 12 voted against it, there were 12 abstentions. Accordingly, the number of countries that do not support the resolution are greater than those supporting it. Furthermore, of the 36 countries that co-sponsored the resolution – both UNHRC members and non-members – 33 are from Europe.
The government believes that the vote against Sri Lanka in Geneva has made a mockery of declared concern for true reconciliation among its people. It reveals a sham interest in healing of the wounds of war in this land, and raises a highly questionable demand for accountability on human rights and humanitarian values, which far exceeds adherence to such policies by any of the sponsors of this revengeful resolution.
Duplicity
"What the promoters of duplicity in Geneva wholly ignored, or refused to consider, is that the military operation to defeat terrorism here had a most humanitarian purpose. The country and people have obtained peace and are seeking to turn the pages from a brutal period, to those of tranquillity and understanding among people," the State-owned Daily News newspaper commented. "The examples of similar violent conflicts in other parts of the world would show that the process of reconciliation, the coming together of former rivals in combat, cannot be hurried, to suit the interests of outside forces – however powerful and with whatever hidden agenda they may have. The ignoble haste shown in seeking an international investigation into matters of a genuine national nature, gives the impression of contemptible impatience, at a time and in a situation when patience is what is most called for."
Sri Lanka needs a period of utmost patience to arrive at the ultimate goal of understanding and reconciliation after such a conflict, and the bloodier, the longer. This is not achievable with haste and impatience, which seems to be the trademark of the US-backed resolution. "The haste of diplomats who are better at driving wedges between people than uniting them, as we see in current world developments, especially in Europe, is hardly the stuff to deal with the ruthless nature of the conflict that was seen in this country," an analyst said. "It needs the patience of the wise and forgiving to achieve genuine reconciliation. That is the goal of Sri Lanka, and certainly not even the distant goal of the manipulators of separatist terror, who have now become the manipulators of electoral politics among shaky leaders in the West – namely the pro-LTTE Tamil activists, both in lay and clerical garb, who have never been asked any questions about the terror they unleashed in this country, especially on people of their own Tamil community."
Those who were determined to vote against Sri Lanka in Geneva, despite all their claims about the search for reconciliation, have made no efforts to learn of, or blinded themselves to, the progress in implementing the Report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, admitted even by this country's vehement critics as being the path to reconciliation. Much has been done already in this regard, and one can hardly deny that much more remains to be done, despite Navi Pillay and all who trail her on the path of revenge and not reconciliation. These are the resurgent forces of terror, licking the wounds of defeat, and using the manipulative capabilities within the UNHRC to drag Sri Lanka into a new phase of conflict. Such developments can only satisfy the goals of the forces of new imperialism and resurgent colonialism at a time when Asia is on the rise, and strategies are being worked out to gain new footholds in this region.
(Sugeeswara Senadhira is Consultant Director, Presidential Data & Information Unit, Presidential Secretariat, Colombo. A version of this article appeared in the South Asia Monitor).
From: http://www.ceylontoday.lk/91-60658-news-detail-geneva-vote-sri-lanka-needs-patience-not-revenge.html
