{"id":39012,"date":"2012-04-18T16:16:59","date_gmt":"2012-04-18T16:16:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/?p=39012"},"modified":"2012-04-18T16:16:59","modified_gmt":"2012-04-18T16:16:59","slug":"unhrc-resolution-against-sri-lanka-what-it-really-means-foreign-policy-journal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/unhrc-resolution-against-sri-lanka-what-it-really-means-foreign-policy-journal\/","title":{"rendered":"UNHRC Resolution Against Sri Lanka: What It Really Means – Foreign Policy Journal"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

By\u00a0Dharshan Weerasekera –<\/strong><\/p>\n

The United Nations Human Rights Council at its recent sessions held in Geneva, adopted a US-sponsored resolution against Sri Lanka, expressing dissatisfaction with the pace of reconciliation and accountability since the end of the war with the LTTE, urging the government to make haste in implementing the recommendations of its own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, and also calling for other more credible measures to ensue accountability.\u00a0 The resolution also promises \u201ctechnical assistance\u201d to further these ends.\u00a0 The basic problem with the resolution, from the Sri Lanka government\u2019s point of view, is that the attempt to judge a nation\u2019s intentions or sincerity in carrying out certain reforms, instead of what it has already done or is doing with regard to those same matters, is a violation of fundamental concepts in international law such as sovereignty and non-interference in the domestic affairs of a country, among others.\u00a0 Ambassador Tamara Kunanayakam, Sri Lanka\u2019s representative at the HRC, has said, \u201cThey are judging our intentions, not the ground reality\u2026. [I]t gives a role to the Council that was never intended.\u201d[1]\u00a0\u00a0She has also said, \u201cA resolution on Sri Lanka will, many feel, be the ultimate test of the Council\u2019s politicization. It will make it or break it.\u201d[2]<\/p>\n

Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahue, the USrepresentative, has pointed out some of the difficulties the resolution entails from the American point of view:\u00a0 \u201cThe case of Sri Lankais different and difficult.\u00a0 It is essentially dealing with large-scale civilian casualties, allegations of government involvement in large-scale civilian casualties during a civil war that took place over many years, but ended in 2009.\u00a0 It\u2019s not an on-going crisis, and for that reason it\u2019s slightly more challenging.\u201d[3] So, theUS is itself admitting that there\u2019s no ongoing \u201ccrisis\u201d inSri Lanka, and that this makes the resolution \u201cdifficult.\u201d Meanwhile, at least prima facie, it is clear that the attempt to judgeSri Lanka\u2019s \u201cintentions\u201d is a violation of the sovereignty and freedom of action allowed every nation under international law.\u00a0 All this therefore raises the interesting and crucial question as to why theUS is still willing to pursue the matter with such single-minded focus?\u00a0 Why isSri Lanka suddenly so important to theUS?\u00a0 Explanations, theories, and conjectures abound.\u00a0 The purpose of this essay is to briefly consider some of the main explanations, and to give an assessment as to the best one.<\/p>\n

There are four explanations generally given for why the Americans are acting as they are:\u00a0 first, that they are pursuing the R2P (\u201cResponsibility to Protect\u201d) agenda; second, \u201cdomestic pressure\u201d (i.e., pressure coming from the Tamil diaspora); third, what can be called the \u201cthey hate us\u201d explanation (i.e. they are jealous of our success in defeating terrorism and certain other matters); and fourth, \u201cgeopolitics.\u201d\u00a0 In my view, the first is the best and most likely explanation, while the other three, though perfectly reasonable, can\u2019t quite explain, individually or in combination, the particular intensity and focus with which the USseems to be pursuing Sri Lanka. I argue, however, that the R2P connection to Sri Lankaand to this resolution in particular is relevant in a slightly\u00a0different<\/em>\u00a0way than has hitherto been explored in public discussions, but to see this, one has to set it in context with the other explanations. So, let\u2019s first review the latter, starting with \u201cdomestic pressure.\u201d<\/p>\n

It is indisputable that there is a powerful pro-Tamil Lobby in countries likeBritainandCanada.\u00a0 The question, however, is whether the Tamil Lobby in theUnited Statesis powerful enough to exert direct pressure on the government at its highest levels, particularly at the level of the policy-making apparatus.\u00a0 InBritainandCanada, this may indeed be the case.\u00a0 With regard toBritain, for instance, there is evidence that UK-based Tamils may have the ability to influence if not dictate the priorities of no less than a Foreign Secretary.<\/p>\n

A Wikileaks cable reveals that former British Foreign Secretary David Miliband\u2019s frantic shuttle-diplomacy to Sri Lanka during the last stages of the war, ostensibly to plead the cause of the civilians trapped in the conflict zone, may well have been to win Tamil votes back home.\u00a0 The cable details the assessment of seniorUSdiplomats inLondon, of conversations they had with one Tim Waite, the Sri Lanka Desk \u201cteam leader\u201d at the British Foreign Office:<\/p>\n

Waite said that much of HMG and ministerial attention to Sri Lankais due to the \u201cvery vocal\u201d Tamil Diaspora in the UK, numbering over 300,000 and who have been protesting in front of Parliament since April 6.\u00a0 He said that with UKelections on the horizon and many Tamils living in Labour constituencies with slim majorities, the Government is paying particular attention to Sri Lanka, with Miliband recently remarking to Waite that he was spending 60 percent of his time at the moment on Sri Lanka.[4]<\/p>\n

To turn to Canada, Martin Collacott, a former Canadian High Commissioner to Sri Lanka, has pointed out that Canadian Diaspora Tamils once prevented the government from designating the LTTE a terrorist organization.\u00a0 Writing in the\u00a0Independent Post<\/em>, he says,<\/p>\n

Canada\u2019s failure to label the Tigers as terrorists \u2026 contravenes the recommendation of CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) which is the Canadian agency best suited to determining the nature of militant groups.\u00a0 The reason for the government\u2019s failure is clear.\u00a0 Through intimidation tactics, the LTTE exercises a considerable measure of control over members of the Tamil community. LTTE-friendly community leaders are willing to ensure that liberal candidates win votes in Tamil-heavy urban constituencies, provided the federal government turns a blind eye to fundraising.[5]<\/p>\n

The question, however, as I have pointed out, is whether Tamils in the\u00a0US<\/em>have the same capacity and clout to exert direct pressure at the highest levels of the government.\u00a0 The US certainly has a significant population of Tamils (over 300,000 by some estimates[6]) but due to the way US Congressional districts are demarcated by slicing through various demographic groups, it is unclear whether US-based Tamils, even in places where they are numerically concentrated, can leverage themselves to become a crucial swing-vote in close elections.\u00a0 It may be that US-based Tamils have an \u201cace up their sleeve\u201d of this kind, but in my view it is unlikely, or at any rate the matter has not been adequately investigated as yet.\u00a0 Until there\u2019s some certainty on the matter, until someone shows exactly how, or through what channels, or through some other type of concrete evidence or corroboration, that the influence is being exerted, we can\u2019t use it as a basis for an explanation.<\/p>\n

We next turn to the \u201cthey hate us\u201d explanation.\u00a0 What this explanation says, in essence, is that the US (and the West) is jealous or envious of Sri Lanka\u2019s success at defeating terrorism, and in general, in pursuing an independent path with respect to its interests and developmental goals (and having some positive results to show for it).\u00a0 In this regard, a remark by well-known lawyer and political commentator S.L. Gunasekera is interesting, because it captures something of the frustration felt by many Sri Lankans:<\/p>\n

There can be little doubt that the Resolution before the HRC was borne, not out of any kind of concern for human rights or justice, but out of the limitless pique of the West that we \u201cWOGS\u201d had what they deem to be \u201cimpertinence\u201d and \u201cinsolence\u201d to spurn their advice to commit national suicide by declaring a \u201cceasefire\u201d when we were on the point of defeating the LTTE, and that we succeeded in defeating them and restoring a very significant degree of peace in our land, whereas the West has only failure to show for their endeavors in those countries which suffered from their \u201ctender ministrations\u201d\u2014the wholly chaotic situations that exist in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc., etc.[7]<\/p>\n

The explanation is quite reasonable, and it also makes a certain amount of intuitive sense.\u00a0 The crucial question, however, is whetherSri Lanka\u2019s smug attitude, behavior or recalcitrance is enough to cause American planners, who are usually seasoned professionals, men and women operating from very rational assessments of theUS\u2019s long-term interests, to contemplate \u201cregime change.\u201d\u00a0 In my view, for the US to contemplate \u201cregime change,\u201d the country that is targeted either has to have some resource of overwhelming value, or have some other capacity to threaten core American interests in a concrete and definable way.\u00a0 (As a general matter, it should be remembered that the notion of a \u201cthreat of a good example,\u201d as it has been used in other contexts, for instance to explain American actions in the Vietnam War, is that the targeted country possesses some idea, philosophy or outlook that it can export to other countries, that in turn can have a concrete and definable impact on American interests, in terms of negating or countermanding the ideas, ideologies, philosophies, and doctrines that America itself holds dear, and which, in effect, sustain the American system.)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

But it is not clear this is the case withSri Lanka.\u00a0 For instance,Sri Lankais not a \u201ccommunist\u201d country.\u00a0 Nor does it export or purport to export any other ideology or practice antithetical to core American values.\u00a0 (One might say that oil has been discovered off the coast ofSri Lanka, and that perhaps this is what theUSis after in the long term.\u00a0 But to the best of my knowledge, there hasn\u2019t been any mention of \u201cSri Lankan oil\u201d in any of the majorUSforeign policy journals or think-tank publications, which latter are usually a reliable way to gauge the priorities and concerns of US planners.\u00a0 So it is unlikely that \u201cSri Lankan oil\u201d is currently even in the radar of US foreign policy concerns.)<\/p>\n

To turn to more pertinent matters, the fact is that on many important issues, Sri Lanka\u2019s\u00a0conduct<\/em>, as opposed to its\u00a0attitude<\/em>, is exactly what America wants.\u00a0 Sri Lanka\u2019s foreign-trade policies, for instance, including the embrace of the so-called neo-liberal agenda, are perfectly compatible with American interests.\u00a0 Robert Blake, former US Ambassador to Sri Lanka, currently Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of South Asian Affairs, and one of the prime architects of the present resolution, has said that Sri Lanka has \u201cgreat opportunities\u201d for American companies.[8] Meanwhile, one of Blake\u2019s predecessors, Ambassador Jeffrey Lundstead, has said categorically, \u201cThe US has no significant strategic interests in Sri Lanka, certainly in comparison with other areas of US engagement.\u201d[9]<\/p>\n

Given this situation, then, it is unlikely that Sri Lanka\u2019s attitude or recalcitrance would constitute a \u201cthreat\u201d in the minds of American planners.\u00a0 Certainly, Sri Lankais a bit eccentric.\u00a0 But as long as it doesn\u2019t hurt the USwhere it matters\u2014i.e. in the wallet\u2014what does it matter?\u00a0 A cold and calculating policy-man would say, \u201cSo what?\u201d\u00a0 Live and let live.\u00a0 At any rate, it cannot explain the\u00a0intensity<\/em>\u00a0of the attention and fixation theUS seems to have developed forSri Lanka.<\/p>\n

Finally, third, we have geopolitics.\u00a0 Rohan Gunaratna, a well-known security expert, deals with this aspect when he says, \u201cSri Lankahas become a pawn in the geopolitical chess game between the West and Indiaversus China, the emerging superpower.\u201d[10] Again, the explanation is reasonable and makes a certain amount of intuitive sense, but there are complications.\u00a0 First, we need to distinguish between the interests driving US foreign policy from the interests driving the respective policies of other Western nations.\u00a0 TheUS\u2019s geopolitical interests are unique and different, on account of it being the world\u2019s sole superpower.\u00a0 Second, with respect to the geopolitics of the Indian Ocean region, in my view, it is not possible to say that there is a nexus between theUS andIndia on one side, andChina on the other.\u00a0 Each of these powers has distinct interests in the region, some of which coincide, and some clash.<\/p>\n

In general, the South Asian region has been relatively unimportant in American geopolitical considerations.\u00a0 The main American theaters of operation in Asia as a whole have been Central Asia and the Middle East on one side, and the Far East on the other, in both of which America has fought (or continues to fight) major wars.\u00a0South Asia, therefore, has largely figured as a sort of staging area, or transitional point between these two theaters.\u00a0 Traditionally, theUS\u2019s primary \u201cinvolvement\u201d in South Asia was its relationship withPakistan(and through that, indirectly, withIndia.)\u00a0 From about the 1950\u2019s to the 1990\u2019s theUSwas an unreserved supporter and backer ofPakistan, which set it at odds withIndia.\u00a0 In the 1990\u2019s this dynamic began to change, when the Americans began to pursue a policy of increasing co-operation and comity with India over certain areas of mutual interest, particularly trade. Lloyd I. Rudolph and Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, of theUniversityofChicago, explain this as follows:<\/p>\n

For roughly 50 years, the USdestabilized the South Asiaregion by acting as an offshore balancer.\u00a0 Its actions allowed Pakistanto realize its goal of \u201cparity\u201d with its much bigger neighbor and to try to best that neighbor in several wars.\u00a0 With the end of the Cold War (1989,) the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan(1989,) and the collapse of the Soviet Union (1992,) little was left to justify the USacting as an offshore balancer in South Asia.[11]<\/p>\n

If we look at all this then from the perspective of the grand geopolitical stage, or \u201cchess board,\u201d Sri Lanka is not really in an area of the world where the US is inclined to take drastic action (except, perhaps when it comes to Pakistan).\u00a0Indiaremains the \u201csuperpower\u201d in the region, and theUSis happy to let this status quo continue as long as it is mutually beneficial, especially with respect to trade matters.\u00a0 IfSri Lankawere to pose a geopolitical \u201cthreat,\u201d theUScan rely onIndiato neutralize it.<\/p>\n

So, this is the background in which we have to approach any clash between US and Indian interests on the one hand, and Chinaon the other.\u00a0 The only way Chinese actions in Sri Lankacould become a threat to the USis if the Chinese obtain something like a naval base on the island.\u00a0 But Indiawould never allow this\u2014not because it is acting in concert or collusion with the US, but because it would jeopardize India\u2019s own hegemony in the region.\u00a0 The Sri Lankagovernment, meanwhile, is well aware of India\u2019s concerns on these crucial matters, and the folly of thwarting Indiawhen it comes to her core interests.\u00a0 Sri Lanka\u2019s High Commissioner to India, no doubt echoing the sentiments of his bosses in Colombo, is on record as saying, \u201cChinais an old friend.\u00a0 Indiais an older friend.\u00a0 Our political and economic friendship with Chinawill not be at the expense of India.\u201d[12]<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, valuable insight into theUS\u2019s own assessment of any \u201cthreat\u201d posed by the Chinese inSri Lankacan be gained from a recent Wikileaks release of a cable sent by current Ambassador Patricia Butenis toWashington.\u00a0 In the cable, classified \u201cconfidential,\u201d she writes,<\/p>\n

At times the Government of Sri Lanka strikes a defiant nationalist tone, claiming that it does not need the USand the West since it can turn to new friends such as China.\u00a0 The trade figures do not bear this out, as investment and trade is a one way street, and the West remains an irreplaceable export market.\u00a0 Sri Lankaexports 37% of its goods to the EU, followed by the USwith a 23% share.\u00a0 Meanwhile the USruns an enormous trade deficit with Sri Lanka.\u00a0 In 2008 Sri Lankaexported $1.96 billion of goods to the US, and only received $283 in American imports.\u00a0 Although Chinamay well offer an excellent long term market, in terms of trade opportunities Sri Lanka\u2019s new friends cannot compete with her old ones in the United Statesand EU.[13]<\/p>\n

To repeat, core American geopolitical interests are well protected inSri Lanka:\u00a0Chinacan gain as many concessions as it wants, butAmericacan leave it toIndiato make sure the Chinese don\u2019t cross a certain critical line.<\/p>\n

That leaves R2P.\u00a0 \u00a0Ambassador Kunanayakam has said:\u00a0 \u201cThe West has been developing this argument to justify and legitimize interventions in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libyaand now Syria. Their real objective is\u2018regime change\u2019<\/em>! Many Ambassadors in Geneva have been telling me that this is also what they want to achieve in Sri Lanka, so we take it very seriously.\u201d[14]\u00a0 But the question still is, \u201cWhy?\u201d\u00a0\u00a0Why<\/em>\u00a0would theUS want \u201cregime change\u201d inSri Lanka, at this precise point in time?\u00a0 The only way to answer this question is to refer to the explanations we have already considered\u2014for instance, that theUS is being driven by \u201cdomestic pressure,\u201d that there are \u201cgeopolitics\u201d involved, thatSri Lanka poses some sort of ideological threat, and so on.\u00a0 As we have seen, however, these explanations don\u2019t hold up under close scrutiny.\u00a0 So what could possibly be the reason thatSri Lanka is important to theUS in connection with R2P?<\/p>\n

There is no question that the resolution is a boost for the R2P doctrine in general: the HRC\u2019s endorsement of the resolution can be trumpeted as another instance when the international community endorsed or approved the core concepts behind R2P.\u00a0 This, in turn, will join the panoply of other precedents that the US can rely on if and when it wants to apply the doctrine in some specific situation in the future, whether in Sri Lanka or in some other country.\u00a0 But, there has to be more to it than this. For instance, if what the USwants is simply another precedent to bolster or boost R2P, it could focus on plenty of other countries, countries with\u00a0ongoing<\/em>\u00a0crisis.\u00a0 The unique aspect of theUS\u2019s attentions toSri Lanka is that here the attempt is to hold a country \u201caccountable\u201d for alleged offences that happened in the past.\u00a0Sri Lanka, in other words, is a test case.\u00a0 But for what, exactly?<\/p>\n

In my view, the significance of the resolution (and there\u2019s really no other way to put it) is that it allows theUSto continue its assault on, and undermining of, some of the core concepts and foundational pillars of international law.\u00a0 This assault is part of a new direction or focus inUSforeign policy, though of course not in an explicit or overt way.\u00a0 There is very little public discussion of this matter.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

R2P, or Responsibility to Protect, is based on the general sentiment that if there are atrocities taking place in a country, the community of nations can\u2019t stand by and let it continue, but must intervene in some way to prevent it.\u00a0 It got international recognition at a 2005 UNSummitwhere the UN General Assembly endorsed, in broad terms, some of the principles and ideas behind the doctrine.\u00a0 \u00a0Here, however, things get a little complicated.\u00a0 The distinguished American scholar and critic Noam Chomsky explains the matter as follows:<\/p>\n

The version of R2P adopted by the 2005 UN Summit affirms what had already been accepted, at most with a shift in emphasis, which was why it was so easily adopted.\u00a0 There is, however, a radically different version of R2P presented by the 2001 Evans Commission, which adds a provision allowing \u201cregional\u201d organizations to act without Security Council authorization in their \u201careas of jurisdiction\u201d\u2026. [I]n practice, the Evans extension refers solely to NATO, which claims an extremely broad \u201carea of jurisdiction.\u201d\u00a0 The Evans version of R2P simply reinstates the so-called right of humanitarian intervention, which has always been vigorously apposed by the non-aligned countries, the traditional victims.[15]<\/p>\n

So, the version of R2P that the US is trying to push is the \u201cEvans version\u201d, i.e., the version that would allow the US, if it can gather together a cabal of nations to support it, to intervene anywhere in the world at any time, and do so under cover of \u201cinternational law,\u201d or at any rate the pretense that it is carrying out the \u201cwill\u201d of the community of nations as a whole. It is easy enough to see the uses and benefits of this version as aUSforeign-policy tool.\u00a0 But the problem (for theUS) is that there are fundamental contradictions between the scheme and international law, not to mention that a large number of nations, the \u201ctraditional victims,\u201d will never allow it.<\/p>\n

It is important to be as clear as possible as to the precise use or benefit that the Evans version has for long-term USforeign policy.\u00a0 To repeat, it allows the US, if it can gather together a cabal of nations\u2014a \u201ccoalition of the willing,\u201d in a manner of speaking\u2014to intervene anywhere in the world, and do so under cover of \u201cinternational law,\u201d or at any rate the pretense that it is only carrying out the \u201cwill\u201d of the community of nations at large.\u00a0 The \u201ccoalition of the willing\u201d is fashioned on a project-by-project basis depending on the needs of each situation.\u00a0 For instance, there would be one coalition for Iraq, another one for Libya, quite another for Sri Lanka(perhaps in the future,) and so on.\u00a0 The point is that the specific coalition does not matter:\u00a0 as long as there issome<\/em>\u00a0coalition, theUS can justify its actions.<\/p>\n

The beauty of the system is that once the \u201ccoalition\u201d is formed, its view, opinion or\u00a0diktat<\/em>\u00a0that the particular intervention in question is justified becomes the sole basis for subsequent action.\u00a0 At the same time, however, an impression is given, and indeed a certain legal imprimatur is obtained, that the whole world is backing the intervention.\u00a0 The notion in traditional international law, that on important questions the community of nations comes together and discusses the\u00a0merits<\/em>\u00a0of a case before taking or endorsing action, is completely contravened.\u00a0 Certainly, there is \u201cdiscussion,\u201d but only for the sake of decorum and tradition:\u00a0 the decision to intervene is taken quite independently of the results of any \u201cdiscussions,\u201d and indeed is carried through even if the whole world, other than the \u201ccoalition of the willing,\u201d is opposed to it.<\/p>\n

But that is appalling!\u00a0 It is outrageous!\u00a0 True.\u00a0 From the point of view of the \u201ctraditional victims,\u201d it\u00a0is<\/em>\u00a0outrageous.\u00a0 But if we want to understand what is going on with R2P, we have to look at it from the point of view of the people who think up these schemes.\u00a0 From the point of view ofUS foreign policy, R2P\u2014or rather, the Evans version\u2014makes perfect rational sense:\u00a0 What sole superpower wouldn\u2019t want to have a mechanism that would allow it unrestrained and unhampered freedom of action anywhere in the world?<\/p>\n

But the problem, as I have said, is that there is a fundamental conflict between the Evans version and the wishes, desires, and interests of a very large proportion of the world\u2019s nations, the \u201ctraditional victims.\u201d\u00a0 The latter would never allow or approve of the former if given a choice, and they would have the core principles of traditional international law as an iron defense to back up their position.<\/p>\n

If we put ourselves in the shoes of a hypothetical but rational USplanner, this is a straightforward policy-problem:\u00a0 How do you do you make the Evans version prosper in the face of fundamental contradictions with traditional law?\u00a0 The obvious and reasonable answer is that you have to\u00a0weaken<\/em>international law.\u00a0 Since there is no way to do this brazenly or openly (without losing one\u2019s own credibility, or of kindling the fury of the \u201ctraditional victims,\u201d which latter, if united, is a force to be reckoned with), you have to do it surreptitiously.\u00a0 So what do you do?\u00a0 You do the only reasonable thing in the circumstances:\u00a0 attack the core concepts of international law in a systematic and sneaky way, so as to denude those concepts of any real meaning or force.<\/p>\n

This is the context in which we have to see the present resolution againstSri Lanka.\u00a0Sri Lankais a \u201ctest case\u201d in the sense that it allows theUSto extend its range in challenging key international law concepts such as \u201csovereignty,\u201d \u201cexhaustion of domestic remedies,\u201d and so on.\u00a0 In this regard, the following observation by Ambassador Kunanayakam, is highly relevant:<\/p>\n

In her statement to the Human Rights Council, the US Under Secretary of State, Maria Otero, unilaterally outlined the values which, she said, would guide their work within the Council, totally disregarding the principles that the UN General Assembly has determined and which the USaccepted when taking its oath as member of the Council!\u201cCooperation\u201d,\u00a0<\/em>which is embedded in the UN Charter and a duty incumbent on all States, is replaced with\u00a0\u201cdialogue\u201d; \u201cimpartiality\u201d\u00a0<\/em>and\u201cnon-selectivity\u201d\u00a0<\/em>replaced with the vague and subjective values,\u201cprinciple\u201d<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0\u201ctruth\u201d<\/em>![16]<\/p>\n

American diplomats\u2014indeed, diplomats as a general rule\u2014don\u2019t use words loosely.\u00a0 We can rest assured, meanwhile, that aUSUndersecretary of State is well aware of international law, particularly the UN Charter, not least because theUShelped draft it!\u00a0 The shift to these new concepts then is deliberate and calculated.\u00a0 What they are doing is building a record.\u00a0 They are compiling precedents where core international law concepts are reinterpreted, and where they can show that the international community itself\u2014including the \u201ctraditional victims\u201d\u2014by acts of omission or commission, endorsed the new interpretations.\u00a0 It is all part of that steady effort to sap the life blood out of core international law concepts: to carve out their marrow and substance, until in the end nothing is left but the brittle, empty, and hollow shells.<\/p>\n

Sri Lankaallows the USto take these \u201creinterpretations\u201d to hitherto unexplored areas, namely, to give them the option of intervention in countries where there are no\u00a0ongoing<\/em>\u00a0crisis, under the pretense of seeking \u201caccountability\u201d for alleged crimes committed in the\u00a0past<\/em>.\u00a0 After this, there is really nothing more to accomplish:\u00a0 the theoretical and legal framework for intervention is complete.\u00a0 So that, in short, is the real significance of theUS\u2019s fixation onSri Lanka.<\/p>\n

To summarize, what is really at stake with this resolution (and no doubt the resolutions that are to come in the near future, perhaps as soon as the next HRC session) is the integrity and future viability of international law itself.\u00a0 This is an issue that is relevant not just toSri Lanka, or even just to third world countries, the \u201ctraditional victims,\u201d but to the West also, or at any rate those persons in the West, including theUnited States, who still feel international law has some value and purpose, and is worth saving.\u00a0 Simply put, there has to be a renewed debate and discussion on R2P.\u00a0 Someone has to put it to the nations of the world, clearly and unambiguously, whether they want to choose international law, or whether they want to choose R2P\u2014not R2P in its general sentiment, or the 2005 UN Summit version\u2014but the \u201cEvans version\u201d, or any other such extension which leaves wriggle-room for dubious interventions.<\/p>\n

If the countries of the world decide they want to dump international law, then so be it.\u00a0 But if they say they are for international law, they have to also make their position absolutely clear with respect to R2P, and they have to do it by positive law, by some sort of resolution, at the UN or at some other such international forum.\u00a0 In my view, international law will once again be on solid ground only if there is such an explicit affirmation and re-dedication to its core principles.\u00a0 Otherwise, the whole enterprise is sunk, and we might as well admit it.<\/p>\n

Notes<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

[1] \u201cThe battle will have to be fought to the last minute,\u201d The Permanent Mission of Sri Lanka to the United Nations office at Geneva, (www.lankamission,org<\/a>) March 7, 2012<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[2] Ibid<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[3] \u201cPieris-Samarasinghe differ in Geneva as US talks tough\u201d,\u00a0Sri Lanka Sunday Times<\/em>, March 4, 2012<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[4] See, \u201cWikileaks:\u00a0 David Miliband championed aid to Sri Lanka to win votes of Tamils in UK\u201d\u00a0\u00a0The Telegraph<\/em>, January 22, 2012<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[5] Martin Collacott, \u201cCanada\u2019s role in Tamil terror,\u201d National Post, January 26, 2005<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[6] \u201cTamil Diaspora,\u201d V. Sivasupramaniam,\u00a0www.sangam.org<\/a>, (Association of Tamils of Sri Lanka in theUSA)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[7] S.L. Gunasekara, \u201cToday it isSri Lanka, Who will it be tomorrow?\u201d, Transcurrents, March 19, 2012<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[8] Charita Fernando, \u201cRights Row,\u201d Lanka Business Online, March 21, 2012<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[9]\u00a0Asian Tribune<\/em>, \u201cUS aid toSri Lanka declined since 2005, now halted,\u201d\u00a0 July 24, 2011<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[10] \u201cSri Lanka in catch-22 situation\u201d,\u00a0The Nation<\/em>, March18, 2012<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[11] Lloyd I Rudolph and Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, \u201cThe making of foreign policy forSouth Asia,\u201d Economic and Political Weekly, February 25, 2006, political-science.uchicago.edu, p.705<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[12]\u00a0www.worldlatestnews.com<\/a>, February 11, 2011<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[13] \u201cWikileaks:\u00a0 Sri Lanka\u2019s new friends cannot compete with her old ones.\u201d\u00a0Colombo<\/em>\u00a0Telegraph<\/em>, March 26, 2012<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[14] \u201cThe battle will have to be fought to the last minute,\u201d (www.lankamission.org<\/a>), March 7, 2012<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[15] Noam Chomsky, \u201cKosovo,East Timor, R2P and Ian Williams,\u201d\u00a0 Foreign Policy in Focus, August 17, 2009<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[16] \u201cThe battle will have to be fought to the last minute,\u201d (www.Lankamission.org<\/a>), March 7, 2012<\/p>\n

*Dharshan Weerasekera was born and raised in Sri Lanka, but educated in the United States, at UC Berkeley and the University of Iowa. He has worked briefly at the Sri Lanka Defense Ministry. He is currently a student at the Sri Lanka Law College.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[…]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22,"featured_media":39013,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,2201],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39012","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-colombotelegraph","category-from-foreign-media"],"yoast_head":"\nUNHRC Resolution Against Sri Lanka: What It Really Means - Foreign Policy Journal - Colombo Telegraph<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/unhrc-resolution-against-sri-lanka-what-it-really-means-foreign-policy-journal\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"UNHRC Resolution Against Sri Lanka: What It Really Means - Foreign Policy Journal - Colombo Telegraph\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"[…]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/unhrc-resolution-against-sri-lanka-what-it-really-means-foreign-policy-journal\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Colombo Telegraph\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2012-04-18T16:16:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/04\/Human-Rights-Council.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"600\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"350\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"COLOMBO TELEGRAPH\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"COLOMBO TELEGRAPH\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/unhrc-resolution-against-sri-lanka-what-it-really-means-foreign-policy-journal\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/unhrc-resolution-against-sri-lanka-what-it-really-means-foreign-policy-journal\/\",\"name\":\"UNHRC Resolution Against Sri Lanka: What It Really Means - Foreign Policy Journal - Colombo Telegraph\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/unhrc-resolution-against-sri-lanka-what-it-really-means-foreign-policy-journal\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/unhrc-resolution-against-sri-lanka-what-it-really-means-foreign-policy-journal\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/04\/Human-Rights-Council.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2012-04-18T16:16:59+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#\/schema\/person\/9db3d0cfcfa59e1997e3c3524d454cb3\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/unhrc-resolution-against-sri-lanka-what-it-really-means-foreign-policy-journal\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/unhrc-resolution-against-sri-lanka-what-it-really-means-foreign-policy-journal\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/unhrc-resolution-against-sri-lanka-what-it-really-means-foreign-policy-journal\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/04\/Human-Rights-Council.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/04\/Human-Rights-Council.jpg\",\"width\":\"600\",\"height\":\"350\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/unhrc-resolution-against-sri-lanka-what-it-really-means-foreign-policy-journal\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"UNHRC Resolution Against Sri Lanka: What It Really Means – Foreign Policy Journal\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/\",\"name\":\"Colombo Telegraph\",\"description\":\"In journalism truth is a process\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#\/schema\/person\/9db3d0cfcfa59e1997e3c3524d454cb3\",\"name\":\"COLOMBO TELEGRAPH\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/920b3181b0bf86b5c339ad9f0963a89f6a8b19c4b971e629987a021ba7a663df?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/920b3181b0bf86b5c339ad9f0963a89f6a8b19c4b971e629987a021ba7a663df?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"caption\":\"COLOMBO TELEGRAPH\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/author\/colombo_telegraph\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"UNHRC Resolution Against Sri Lanka: What It Really Means - Foreign Policy Journal - Colombo Telegraph","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/unhrc-resolution-against-sri-lanka-what-it-really-means-foreign-policy-journal\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"UNHRC Resolution Against Sri Lanka: What It Really Means - Foreign Policy Journal - Colombo Telegraph","og_description":"[…]","og_url":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/unhrc-resolution-against-sri-lanka-what-it-really-means-foreign-policy-journal\/","og_site_name":"Colombo Telegraph","article_published_time":"2012-04-18T16:16:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":600,"height":350,"url":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/04\/Human-Rights-Council.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"COLOMBO TELEGRAPH","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"COLOMBO TELEGRAPH","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/unhrc-resolution-against-sri-lanka-what-it-really-means-foreign-policy-journal\/","url":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/unhrc-resolution-against-sri-lanka-what-it-really-means-foreign-policy-journal\/","name":"UNHRC Resolution Against Sri Lanka: What It Really Means - Foreign Policy Journal - Colombo Telegraph","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/unhrc-resolution-against-sri-lanka-what-it-really-means-foreign-policy-journal\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/unhrc-resolution-against-sri-lanka-what-it-really-means-foreign-policy-journal\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/04\/Human-Rights-Council.jpg","datePublished":"2012-04-18T16:16:59+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#\/schema\/person\/9db3d0cfcfa59e1997e3c3524d454cb3"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/unhrc-resolution-against-sri-lanka-what-it-really-means-foreign-policy-journal\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/unhrc-resolution-against-sri-lanka-what-it-really-means-foreign-policy-journal\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/unhrc-resolution-against-sri-lanka-what-it-really-means-foreign-policy-journal\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/04\/Human-Rights-Council.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/04\/Human-Rights-Council.jpg","width":"600","height":"350"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/unhrc-resolution-against-sri-lanka-what-it-really-means-foreign-policy-journal\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"UNHRC Resolution Against Sri Lanka: What It Really Means – Foreign Policy Journal"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/","name":"Colombo Telegraph","description":"In journalism truth is a process","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#\/schema\/person\/9db3d0cfcfa59e1997e3c3524d454cb3","name":"COLOMBO TELEGRAPH","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/920b3181b0bf86b5c339ad9f0963a89f6a8b19c4b971e629987a021ba7a663df?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/920b3181b0bf86b5c339ad9f0963a89f6a8b19c4b971e629987a021ba7a663df?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","caption":"COLOMBO TELEGRAPH"},"url":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/author\/colombo_telegraph\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/04\/Human-Rights-Council.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39012","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/22"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39012"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39012\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":39017,"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39012\/revisions\/39017"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/39013"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39012"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39012"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39012"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}