{"id":217580,"date":"2021-03-27T00:39:35","date_gmt":"2021-03-26T19:09:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/?p=217580"},"modified":"2021-03-30T23:37:48","modified_gmt":"2021-03-30T18:07:48","slug":"uk-led-unhrc-resolution-promises-a-turning-point-for-accountability-human-rights-in-sri-lanka","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/uk-led-unhrc-resolution-promises-a-turning-point-for-accountability-human-rights-in-sri-lanka\/","title":{"rendered":"UK-Led UNHRC Resolution Promises A Turning Point For Accountability & Human Rights In Sri Lanka"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Melissa Gurusinghe<\/a> –<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Melissa Gurusinghe<\/p><\/div>\n

This week the UN Human Rights Council passed a landmark resolution<\/span><\/a><\/span> giving the Office the High Commissioner on Human Rights a mandate to collect and preserve evidence of war crimes and human rights violation committed in Sri Lanka for future accountability. <\/span><\/p>\n

The UN evidence gathering mechanism will be backed by $2.8 million funding under the resolution which was spearheaded by a UK-led \u2018Core Group\u2019 including Germany and Canada amongst others, whilst the newly re-engaged United States is also believed to have pushed hard to strengthen the wording of the final draft resolution against Sri Lanka. The passing of the resolution came a day after the same set imposed coordinated sanctions entailing travel bans and asset freezes against China, Sri Lanka\u2019s closest ally. <\/span><\/p>\n

The basis for this most recent western condemnation was a scathing report<\/span><\/a><\/span> by UN High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet which highlighted several \u201calarming trends towards recurrence\u201d in post-war Sri Lanka. The report alleged accelerating militarisation of governmental functions, political obstruction of accountability and the intimidation of civil society amongst a host of other overhanging concerns following the bloody end of the Sri Lankan Civil war in 2009. <\/span><\/p>\n

From the outset Sri Lanka categorically rejected the report, criticising what they viewed to be an interference in the country\u2019s sovereignty and political independence – not an uncommon allegation to be levelled at the UN HRC. The Sri Lankan delegation complained bitterly that the Core group\u2019s motivations were political rather than humanitarian. <\/span><\/p>\n

The UK is currently home to between 100,000-200,000 British Sri Lankan Tamils, many of whom fled to the UK during the bloody civil war between the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE. Today, British Tamils constitute a vocal and organised community. <\/span><\/p>\n

Referring to such communities, Sri Lankan Foreign Secretary Jayanath Colombage remarked<\/span><\/a><\/span> that \u201cthe Tamil diaspora sympathetic towards the LTTE\u00a0 <\/span>has become a sizeable vote bank for politicians in [core group] countries\u201d. Such claims were among the least sensational aspects of the month-long discussions which preceded the voted, conducted wholly virtually for the first time.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The ambassador leading the Sri Lankan delegation to the UN HRC was former paramilitary death squad member<\/span><\/a> C. A. Chandraprema<\/a><\/span> who, unsurprisingly, is said to have adopted a persistently boorish stance throughout discussions. Sources said that other delegations appeared visibly shocked when the ambassador openly implied<\/span><\/a><\/span> that the high commissioner\u2019s office was in the pay of countries pushing for an unfavourable resolution for Sri Lanka. <\/span><\/p>\n

Through a flurry of eleventh-hour lobbying Sri Lanka managed to gain the support of Pakistan<\/span><\/a><\/span> and Bangladesh<\/span><\/a><\/span>, who welcomed a very recent reversal<\/span><\/a><\/span> of Sri Lanka\u2019s controversial order to\u00a0 <\/span>cremate all Muslim victims of COVID-19 in contravention with Muslim burial rites. Despite this, only 11 out of 47 council members voted against the resolution, in support of Sri Lanka. These included China, Russia, Phillipines and Eritrea. <\/span><\/p>\n

Many of the states which had issued statements of support for Sri Lanka\u2019s position in the discussions which proceeded the vote abstained, most notably India and Japan. The direction of the two Quad members\u2019 votes was the subject of significant geopolitical speculation in Chennai, New Dehli and Colombo, coming to be seen as key indicator of India\u2019s geopolitical priorities amid China\u2019s growing influence in it\u2019s backyard.\u00a0 <\/span>Many politicians in Tamil Nadu welcomed India\u2019s decision to abstain, ahead of important State Assembly elections in India next month. <\/span><\/p>\n

In a hurried press conference to the English-speaking press following the passing of the resolution, Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena made clear Sri Lanka\u2019s intention to resist the process envisaged in the resolution. \u201cWithout the consent and acceptance of the country concerned, [the resolution] cannot be implemented\u201d, said Gunawardena. <\/span><\/p>\n

To the Sri Lankan press, he struck a different tone, opining the outcome of the vote as an overwhelming success on the basis that the \u2018Core group\u2019 of powers who voted to pass the resolution did not manage to achieve a majority.<\/span><\/p>\n

The passing of the resolution undoubtedly presents an important step towards ensuring accountability for past and ongoing human right violations in Sri Lanka, particularly against the increasingly re-marginalised Tamil minorities. Yet many, particularly in the international community, felt that the resolution should have gone much further.<\/span><\/p>\n

UK Labour\u2019s Stephen Kinnock, Shadow Minister for the Asia and Pacific, wrote to Nigel Adams, Minister of State for Asia, challenging the draft resolution\u2019s failure to even attempt to refer Sri Lanka to the International Criminal Court, stating \u201cwe fully acknowledge that two of the permanent members of the Security Council would likely veto such a referral were it to be tabled, but this is not an acceptable argument against trying.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Sri Lanka\u2019s referral to the International Criminal Court has long been the primary demand of many Tamils, both abroad and in Sri Lanka. Among them is Ambihai Selvakumar, a 71 year old former UK Civil servant who garnered attention from around the world for going on a 17-day long hunger-strike, demanding that the UN HRC take significant steps to hold the Sri Lankan government to account. The prominent activist\u2019s actions inspired solidarity hunger strikes and protests in London, as well as Trincomalee and Jaffna in Sri Lanka. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cBritain has the historical responsibility for the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka and therefore has the moral duty to protect Tamils from Genocide\u201d, said<\/span><\/a><\/span> Selvakumar speaking in Parliament Square, \u201cYou have a chance now to rectify the mistake you made.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n