By H. L. D. Mahindapala
April 02, 2014
Barrack Obama David Camarron
The final count in the UNHRC which did not give US-UK-EU-OHCHR resolution a clear cut majority in a body of 47 members has become controversial with one side claiming that it is half full and the other side saying that it is half empty. Whatever the political arguments may be, it is useful to scrutinize how the numbers finally came down to assess the overall meaning and consequences of the vote. Even as a speculative exercise the numbers are important because it was a game played with US throwing all its might behind the anti-Sri Lankan Resolution. So it is fair to assess how the bare minimum was used to extract the maximum gain by the Big Powers to push their political agenda.
One question that can be raised is as follows: if in the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) of 47 members a resolution is passed with the votes of 23 members does it constitute a victory or a defeat? In pure mathematics the majority consists of 24 plus. But US sponsors of the anti-Sri Lankan resolution failed to get the decisive figure of 24 which defines unequivocally the majority in the Council. Technically, the US and its sponsors can claim to have won not because in the final count those who voted for the US resolution added up to more than those who did not vote for it. That, however, is a technical issue that can be argued till the American Ambassadress, Michele Sisson and Navi Pillay go home. And Sri Lanka either has to live with its consequences or resist any intrusions into the internal affairs of a sovereign nation which is the legal position, as argued both by Prof. G. L. Peiris and Ravinatha Aryasinha, the Permanent Representative in Geneva.
The irony, however, is in the so-called victory. It was a foregone conclusion given that the entire weight of the mighty West was thrown in to beat little Sri Lanka. But it is America's failure to score a more convincing total by crossing the defining line of 24 that makes it a hollow victory. It is the 12 abstentions that split the votes three ways which gave the US and its Western camp their show of victory. There is, of course, no one way of interpreting the 12 abstentions. But if India's declared stance in refusing to vote for its "strategic partner" is any guide then it is a definite slap in the face of America.
Conferring power
There is also no doubt that in terms of conferring power – however questionable it may be -- the UNHRC has been given the green light to "undertake" an investigation though how far UNHRC can go down that road is very much in doubt, now that President Mahinda Rajapaksa is on record saying that he will not allow Navy Pillay to step in. It is in this respect that India's refusal to go along with the US-led resolution is significant. It strengthens the hand of Mahinda Rajapaksa to stand firm against any intrusive interference in the domestic affairs of Sri Lanka. India's objection was precisely on this aspect of the UNHRC resolution, led by US, making an unwarranted and even illegal move to intervene in Sri Lankan affairs.
The voting pattern at the UNHRC is also noteworthy. The Council was virtually divided into two halves of the West vs. Rest, or to be more specific the West vs. the East, leaving aside S. Korea. Practically every nation this side of the Urals (apart from Sierra Leone and Mauritius) voted with Sri Lanka, or abstained, reducing the final count to one short of a clear majority. If this pattern of voting becomes the standard practice then it will portend a new trend in global politics. Though this can be a likely scenario changing self-interests of nations can easily create new camp politics.
India's vote is most significant. India went along with US and UNHRC as long as the resolution remained within its legal limits – that is, non-interference in the internal affairs of the sovereign nation. But in the fourth resolution: (1. 2009, 2. 2012, 3.. 2013 and 4.. 2014) India returned to its original position in 2009 where it backed Sri Lanka. And India has gone against the US-led move because it exceeds the tolerable limits of pressuring a nation to intrusively invading its domestic affairs. The voting, taken as whole, is a rejection of the principle of interference in the domestic affairs of a nation – a principle that will be defended even by those who voted for it if the resolution was aimed at targeting any one of them.
The American victory is flawed not so much in falling short of the figure of 24+ but in the inability of the biggest power on earth, when pitted against one of the small nations, to get the requisite numbers to make it a convincing victory without exposing its failure to carry the Council with credible clarity. India's statement which said -open Italics -".... that my delegation cannot go along with the resolution and will abstain on the resolution under consideration." – close Italics - clarifies the meaning of abstention. It is aimed directly at America's resolution which means a definite "NO". It is a clear expression of doubt on America's stand against Sri Lanka, if not a rejection of neo-colonialism of imperial America backed by its Western allies.
Naked colonialism
In the heyday of naked colonialism the West used gun boat diplomacy to impose its will in Afro-Asian nations. Now they sail under the winds of human rights, engaging in gun boat diplomacy sparingly when UN institutions and economic sanctions fail. But their victims are not taking it lying down. Even their allies can see through the hypocrisy of their bogus morality on human rights. The rejection by the abstainers undermines the acceptability of the loaded report of NaviPillay, the High Commissioner, who is playing the sinister part of Madam Defarge beheading small nations that refuse to toe the politics of her Western patrons who masquerade as the exalted high priests of morality in the world. .
The Council, in short, is divided on the credibility and the bona fides of US and Navi Pillay – the latter in particular who is stepping out of the international legal framework to take punitive action against Sri Lanka, her bête noir. (More of her vindictive politics later). One would expect the biggest super power on earth to garner at least the minimum required to cross the line into a decisive majority. If it failed to achieve the minimum required and divided the world into two halves of the East and West is it not a sign of America' failure to convince the rest – which is in a majority in the Council -- to pursue its manipulative politics of mouthing high principles for low politics. The final count which fell one short of a majority is tantamount to a vote of no confidence in the case put forward by Navi Pillay, who has politicized her office to the extent of her becoming the Cleaning Lady who hands out soft tissues to wipe the leftovers of previous night's dinners devoured by Western diplomats before they leave the UNHRC toilets.
It should also be noted that even with all the clout America has in twisting the arm of the smaller nations in the Council it could not carry the day convincingly to prove to the majority in the Council that it has the moral and the legal case that could justify an international inquiry to probe the last stage of the longest war in Asia. As in most of its misguided forays into foreign adventures America has bungled once again in taking the extreme position against Sri Lanka. It has miscalculated in thinking that what Sri Lanka needs now is an international investigation when by the admission of practically all the nations who spoke on the resolution Sri Lanka has made considerable strides on the road to reconciliation. The general consensus was not that Sri Lanka has been unwilling or unable to make peace and reconciliation – the only valid ground for international intervention. Practically every speaker in the American camp who voted against Sri Lanka emphasized and commended Sri Lanka's willingness to invite Navi Pillay, implement some of the major recommendations of Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), advance towards reconstruction and rehabilitation in the war-ravaged zones, including holding elections in the North. The complaint was that Sri Lanka was not moving speedily enough to satisfy the conditions stipulated by the self-appointed policemen of international morality.
Romes not built in one day
There is, no doubt, that much is yet to be achieved. But which nation can claim that their Romes were built in one day. On any fair assessment there is absolutely no need to rush in to demand that Sri Lanka fulfill all its tasks in the LLRC within the time specified by the movers of the anti-Sri Lankan resolution. Any such demand ignores the willingness and ability of Sri Lanka to meet the challenges of peace as it did in facing the challenges of war which were written off as impossible. For instance, take the democratization of the North and the East. I consider the liberation of the North and the East from the fascist Tamil Tiger terrorists who ruled the Tamil people with jackboots and an iron fist for over three decades as one of the greatest achievements of the Rajapaksa regime. By any bench mark of either Western theorists like Francis Fukuyama who evaluates progress by the number of countries that had turned away from dictators and embraced democracy, or by the American foreign policy standards laid down by the State Department in fighting terrorists to restore democracy in the many mini-wars it has waged from Vietnam to Iraq, restoration of democracy in the North and the East, giving the opportunity to the Tamil people the first ever opportunity in their history to elect their own governing bodies in the areas they claim to be their homeland, should have been rated as the highest political achievement in the post-war period. On this factor alone the international community, which is obsessed with principles of democracy, should have gone out of its way to engage Sri Lanka in advancing peace, reconciliation and democracy. Instead, it moves successive resolutions, believe or not, saying that they appreciate the struggle of Sri Lanka to fight terrorism but regret that it was not done according to their political specifications. Can William Hague, the buddy of Ranil Wickremesinghe, point to one example of where the West had fought terrorism according to their own political standards?
Navy Pillay is even worried about the "authoritarian" trends of the Rajapaksa regime. In going down this path she is not displaying ignorance. She has seen President Bush's Patriot Act and Tony Blair's introduction of draconian laws after the 7/7 terrorist attack on London buses. She also lectures on "demilitarizing" the North when she is fully aware of the 800 odd American bases right round the globe just to save American security, nearly 70 years after World War II. She even knows how UK ethnically cleansed Diego Garcia to create a military base for American, their partners in global crimes, uprooting the Chagossians and leaving them homeless and penniless. She knows all this and more. So in targeting Sri Lanka for having military camps within its own territory – not in some foreign lands like her patrons in USA and UK – she is merely exhibiting her cussed vindictiveness of a woman spurned. She is an unscrupulous woman deliberately misusing the highest morality of international humanitarian and human rights law to pursue her warped anti-Sri Lankan political agenda.
Even the UNHRC demoted her from "leading" the investigation on Sri Lanka to "undertake" an international investigation. Obviously, her bias against Sri Lanka does not qualify her to step into Sri Lanka. If she has any respect for herself and her dignity she should refuse to "undertake" any investigation under her stewardship, more so because her term comes to an end in August. For her to initiate action against Sri Lanka now and leave her counter-productive legacy for her successor is unethical and unacceptable to the war-weary people of Sri Lanka.
Her leaving the office of High Commissioner is the best thing that has happened for the future of human rights and Sri Lanka cannot expect a better gift than that in the immediate future. Her bias against Sri Lanka is pretty obvious. Take the case of her first attack on Sri Lanka on 26 May, 2009. The war ended on 18 May, 2009. Only her witchcraft could have prompted her to make a speech in the UNHRC demanding vindictive action within eight days of ending a 33-year-old war without any substantial reports either from UN sources or any other authoritative or independent sources, to back her case. Of course, she had plenty of Tamil sources, like Radhika Coomaraswamy and the Tamil Diaspora to prompt her with the anti-Sri Lanka propaganda. But could she have produced a report within eight days of ending a 33-year-old war to indict and demand punitive action against Sri Lanka at a time when the UN was on record saying that there was no way of counting the dead, or even making a reasonable assessment of the overall situation? At that time the only record that she had was that of Gordon Weiss, UN representative in Colombo, who had estimated that the dead in the last stages was around 7,000. So from where did she get her facts and figures to rush into places where angels fear to tread?
As an international civil servant she has failed to maintain the degree of impartiality and fairness which could enhance her credibility and dignity. An objective judgment that concerns the lives of millions can be delivered only on the basis of impartiality and fairness. She lacks both because she is blinded with prejudice and visceral hatred of Sri Lanka. Any investigation undertaken by her will be tainted. By all standards of justice and fair play she should be kept far away from Sri Lanka as possible. If the UN is unwilling and unable to restrain Navi Pillay's witchcraft Sri Lanka should act without any further delay to lock the gates of entry to her.
Perhaps, this may be the time for Mervyn Silva to send her broom to fly from Geneva to S. Africa as a farewell gift. That would be one good way of getting rid of bad rubbish.
See more at:
