Ranil’s Western links, Sabry’s Islamic charm both failed at UNHRC

BY S.V. Kirubaharan

Late US President Abraham Lincoln once said: “You can please some of the people some of the time, all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can never please all of the people all of the time.” This was clearly evident in what the Core Group of Countries on Sri Lanka at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) said on 6 October in the 51st session of the UNHRC, when they tabled the resolution on Sri Lanka.

Since J.R. Jayewardene’s Presidency, Sri Lanka has adopted the practice of using someone other than a Sinhala Buddhist as a Foreign Minister or lobbyist, in order to manage international pressure. However, this tactic proved useless at the 51st session of the UNHRC.

The late A.C.S. Hameed and Lakshman Kadirgamar were Foreign Ministers who worked hard to maintain the image of a spotless Sri Lanka. When Hameed was the Foreign Minister, he was invited to speak on behalf of Sri Lanka at the UN General Assembly (GA) on 5 October 1978. A Tamil lawyer from the UK, the late Krishna Vaikunthavasan, impersonated the Foreign Minister, addressing the UNGA for two minutes about the grievances of the Tamils in Sri Lanka, until the UN security led him off the platform.

The late Kadirgamar contributed much in suppressing the armed struggle of the Tamils. However, when he was to be made the Prime Minister, there was fierce opposition to his appointment, from Buddhist monks to many Southern politicians, especially subsequent to President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Government personnel, including Rajapaksa, eventually established an institute in memory of Kadirgamar, purely for their own benefit. There have been many occasions in the past when Rajapaksa used Sri Lanka Muslim Congress Leader Rauff Hakeem as his lobbyist among Islamic countries.

The latest scapegoat, Ali Sabry

The latest scapegoat is current Minister of Foreign Affairs M.U.M. Ali Sabry (PC). To be frank, I personally feel sorry for him. I was told that he is a good lawyer who appeared for some important Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act (PTA) cases. However, being a personal lawyer for former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, he was forced into politics, and is now getting the blame for what has gone wrong in the UNHRC.

Now everyone is aware of what happened to the resolution on Sri Lanka tabled by the Core Group, which consists of the UK, the US, Canada, Germany, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Malawi. This resolution was co-sponsored by nearly 40 countries. In my 32 years of experience of participating in UN human rights forums, it has always been clear that when a resolution is tabled by seven countries and the number of co-sponsors increases to 40, there is no doubt that the particular resolution will go through. Sri Lankan diplomats have not realised this yet, and I do not know who is to be blamed!

What happened on 6 October at the UNHRC marks a really sad day for Sri Lanka. The representative of the UK smartly tabled the resolution and spoke. When Member Countries were invited to explain how they would be voting, France and the Republic of (South) Korea said that they would vote in favour of the resolution. This was followed by Pakistan, China, and Venezuela saying that they would vote against it, whereas Brazil and Japan said that their position would be to abstain. 

At this point, Indian Permanent Representative Indra Mani Pandey took the floor and said the following: “In finding a lasting and effective solution for peace and reconciliation in Sri Lanka, India has always been guided by the two fundamental principles of support to the aspirations of the Tamils for equality, justice, dignity, peace and unity, territorial integrity, and sovereignty of Sri Lanka… Achieving prosperity for all Sri Lankans and realising the legitimate aspirations of the Tamils of Sri Lanka for prosperity, dignity and peace are two sides of the same coin.” 

Since 2009, there have been nine resolutions on Sri Lanka in the UNHRC; India has voted in favour of three, and has abstained thrice, while the other three resolutions were adopted without a vote, by consensus.

Standard text since 2012

Then, representing the “concerned country”, Minister Sabry was invited to speak. I wonder whether a standard text has been in use since 2012, by which I mean the very first time a critical resolution on Sri Lanka was tabled and passed by the US. In my observation, whenever there is a resolution against Sri Lanka, whether the representative is Ali Sabry, Dinesh Gunawardena, Mangala Samaraweera, Mahinda Samarasinghe, or whoever else, they read out the same contents, only changing the session number and the date. This shows that they have nothing new to add or justify; in other words, they use a smokescreen to cover the truth. This fooling has gone on since 1948.

Let us consider Sabry’s point about the financial implications of this resolution. What surprised me was that he does not realise that “charity begins at home”. Sri Lanka knew very well that this resolution would be passed without any hurdle, so why did they bring a jumbo team to Geneva, Switzerland, from Colombo?

There were five parking spaces reserved for Sri Lanka in front of the UN building in Geneva, from 3 October. In other words, there were five vehicles in operation in Geneva. What was the cost of their flights, lodgings, travel, hosting other diplomats, etc.? In other words, Sabry, who spoke about the financial implications of the resolution and the severe financial situation in Sri Lanka, should set an example to the citizens who are really facing extreme economic hardship in the country.

I always admire the speeches of a few pied pipers for Sri Lanka. They are none other than Bolivia, China, Cuba, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Venezuela. Their text also follows a standard template. They talk about selectivity, partiality, a pro-Western agenda, double standards, interfering in the domestic affairs of a sovereign State, etc. Also, they ask why a resolution is needed, as Sri Lanka co-operates with all the UN mechanisms. 

However, this shows their ignorance. A resolution is tabled and passed because Sri Lanka does not respect international treaties and mechanisms. Also, when resolutions were agreed by consensus in 2015, 2017, and 2019, they never implemented what they had co-sponsored. In such a situation, no States other than pied pipers will support Sri Lanka. 

Former Minister of Foreign Affairs Prof. G.L. Peiris, on several occasions in the past, has defended Sri Lanka in the UNHRC. However, last week, he said that “Sri Lanka has had to face a resolution at the UNHRC, as Sri Lanka has failed to fulfil its pledges to the UNHRC on previous occasions”. It is a pity that it has taken such a long time for Peiris to realise this fact. Hopefully, he is not using this as a trump to secure a ministerial post.

This is surely another serious issue that will make the international community lose any trust that it previously had in Sri Lanka. Now Peiris has opened his mouth.

Former Minister of Justice Hakeem and former Sri Lankan representative to the UN in Geneva Dayan Jayatilleka, who in the recent past justified the PTA on many platforms, including at the UNHRC, spoke against it at this session. Is this hypocrisy or opportunism? If these three are offered top Government positions again, will they reverse what they are uttering now?

The voting on 6 October brought real shame to Sri Lanka. Anyone who looks at the past resolutions and the voting patterns can easily witness the downfall of Sri Lanka in the UNHRC. Any sensible person can understand where Sri Lanka now stands among the international community.

A slap in the face to Ranil

Last week’s resolution was a slap in the face to President Ranil Wickremesinghe, who is considered to be West-oriented, and also to Sabry, who was appointed as Minister of Foreign Affairs to manage the vote through influencing Islamic countries. Their entire bag of tricks failed in the UNHRC.

The numbers of countries voting in favour of Sri Lanka since 2009 are as follows: 2009 – 22; 2012 – 15; 2013 – 13; 2014 – 12; 2015, 2017, and 2019  – consensus (no vote); 2021 – 11; and 2022 – seven.

If we talk like a Sri Lankan politician, we should consider that 40 out of 47 countries were against Sri Lanka in the last vote. The actual result was 20 in favour, 20 abstentions, and seven against (which was in favour of Sri Lanka). The abstaining countries must have presumed that it was not fair for them to humiliate Sri Lanka; otherwise, they would have voted in favour of this resolution.

Presently, who is a friend of Sri Lanka? None, is my reply. Soon after the resolution on Sri Lanka was passed by the UNHRC, there was a resolution tabled by the US against China on the subject of the “Human rights situation in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, China”. This resolution was defeated by China with a difference of two votes. 

If China is a real friend of Sri Lanka, in the same session, with the same members, and on the same day, why did China not help Sri Lanka? It is the same with India. India abstained during the resolutions against China as well as those against Sri Lanka. If so, many are curious as to why, and ask the question: “Where do they stand?”

The international community is not going to tolerate the hypocrisy of the Sri Lankan politicians any further. Here is a good example to show how Sri Lanka is cheating the international community. 

In 2009, the UN Secretary General’s name was used. During the peak hours of the war in Vanni, Western countries called for a special session of the UNHRC, but this was deliberately delayed by India, Cuba, China, Pakistan, and others. Eventually, that special session took place only after the end of the war, during 26-27 May 2009. In fact, Sri Lanka played a sneaky game making use of this special session. With the help of India, China, Cuba, Pakistan, and others, it tabled a resolution in its favour. The promises made by Sri Lanka and laid out in this resolution have still not been honoured. The quotes from the session are given below.

Sri Lanka representative Dr. Jayatilleka said, when introducing the draft Resolution L.1/Rev.2 (S 11/1) on 27 May 2009: ”Operative Paragraph 10 enshrined the entirety of the discussion between the Secretary General of the UN and the President of Sri Lanka. There could be no more sincerity to the commitment of Sri Lanka and the co-sponsors. Sri Lanka, now 10 days after the end of a 30-year war, had represented the best synthesis of the discussions taking place in the Council.” 

“…Draft resolution L.1/Rev.2 was not a blank cheque for the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL). It comprehended the totality of the agreement with the Secretary-General. But it was not a punitive measure either. It was not a manifesto for a lynch mob.”

UNHRC President Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi, in his concluding remarks on 27 May 2009, said: “…The draft resolution endorsed the joint statement made by the Secretary General of the UN and the GoSL.”  

Since Independence in 1948, whoever has been in power in Sri Lanka manages citizens with verbal and fake promises; what they sign on paper has no value or meaning. However, the same path or idea is not going to work with the international community. Globally, there is ample evidence to prove that “cheating will end in disaster”.

(The writer is a human rights activist, freelance research analyst, and an author)