Former Head of the UN Treaty Section, Sri Lanka’s one-time Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York and Foreign Secretary during the final stages of the battle against terrorism Dr. Palitha Kohona said, the call of the UN Human Rights High Commissioner on Sri Lanka in her latest report cannot be justified since it goes against the very mandate of the Human Rights Council (HRC) which was never set up to name and shame but help member states to improve human rights standards.
Elaborating further in an exclusive interview with the Sunday Observer the veteran diplomat said HRC was set up to help countries, all countries including the core group, to improve their human rights performance not to single out a country to be penalised on alleged infractions.
Excerpts:
Q. The core group on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council has asked Sri Lanka to co-sponsor another resolution. What is your take on that?
A. It depends on the content of the resolution. The core group cannot expect Sri Lanka to cosponsor a resolution that is inconsistent with the wishes of the vast majority of the people and the Constitution. The people were conscious of what they were voting for at the last election. The HRC was set up to help countries, all countries including the core group, to improve their human rights performance not to single out countries for punishment for alleged infractions.
Sri Lanka will deal with human rights issues without external pressures because human rights are intrinsic to our culture. Exerting pressure such as those advocated by the High Commissioner in her report to bear on Sri Lanka will not help further the goals of the HRC or the bilateral relations with the core group countries. We all need to work together to make the world a better place, acknowledging that, as the Bible says, when one points a finger at another three fingers point back at him.
And we must also remember that in 2015, the Government of the day or someone in that government co-sponsored a resolution, which was inconsistent with our interests.
Q. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet is referring to ‘alternative international options’ for ensuring ‘justice and reparations’ in her latest report on Sri Lanka dated January 27, 2021. Do you think her call can be justified at this point?
A. I don’t think her call can be justified at any point, neither in the case of Sri Lanka nor in the case of any other country. The Human Rights Council was not set up to punish countries; it was established to help countries to improve their human rights standards.
I don’t think the Human Rights High Commissioner’s role is to be a school mistress with a ruler in her hand and go around whipping children. It was certainly not envisaged when the mandate of the Human Rights Council High Commissioner was drafted. But unfortunately the Human Rights Council has taken upon itself a punitive role-to punish countries for alleged infraction of standards. There is much doubt on the universal application of some of these standards. It should not encourage penalising countries for non compliance with standards and in Sri Lanka’s case it is purely on the basis of insinuations, allegations and suggestions which have not been proved to anybody’s satisfaction thus far.
Q: In her report she has also expressed concerns over an emerging trend which she says may represent an early warning sign of a deteriorating human rights situation in Sri Lanka?
A: The High Commissioner should not have made such a comment. I don’t think the High Commissioner has enough material to validate such a judgement. If that is true of Sri Lanka, then the same claim could be made against a host of other countries.
Q: The High Commissioner has also commented on the 20th Amendment to the Constitution which was passed in Parliament last year with a two-thirds majority, referring to it as a reversal of constitutional safeguards. Nevertheless her report was to highlight the progress of implementation of the recommendations under resolution 30/1.
A: She is being selective and unfairly targeting Sri Lanka. I think the High Commissioner should not draft the report in a vacuum, Sri Lanka has every right to be consulted during this process. I am not aware if proper consultative process took place while the report is being drafted. There are issues that we need to look into.
Q: The office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has been citing ‘grossly exaggerated’ figures of civilian casualty during the final phase of Sri Lanka’s war against terrorism, which had been the basis for the detrimental Human Rights Council Resolution 30/1 on Sri Lanka. Why haven’t the Government been able to convince the international community that these figures are not correct even after ten years since the end of the conflict?
A: The member states at the Human Rights Council, I believe are not convinced of these figures cited in the report. Her report does not represent the majority view. The Human Rights Council did not make a judgement on the facts, they have made a political judgement on Sri Lanka to appease a few players. The Council has become a political body manipulated by ‘vested interests’ to vilify countries they don’t like, in public.
Q: If you take, there are many countries which don’t live up to the human rights standards, despite that the same countries get pulled up at the HRC over and over again. How could this be fair?
A: As I said at the beginning the Human Rights Council was set up to help all countries to perform better in their human rights standards. But now the human rights council has become a body, where countries are identified, named, shamed and vilified. I don’t think that was ever the intention of those who drafted the charter of the Council.
Q: The High Commissioner calls on the member states to apply extraterritorial or universal jurisdiction and targeted sanctions on Sri Lankans in her latest report. Your comments?
A: Again I would say she has gone beyond her mandate. This is selective targeting of a member state which is making an effort to engage with the HRC. The HRC never intended to be a judicial body or a political body. It was meant to be a technical arm of the United Nations General Assembly designed to encourage and advance human rights standards around the world. Its mandate is not to isolate individual countries. It should not only focus on developing countries but identify strong countries and help them to do better in human rights.
Q: There is a huge diaspora campaign backed by LTTE remnants to drag Sri Lanka before the International Criminal Court. This call is echoed by certain political parties and individuals in Sri Lanka who have or had links with the LTTE. Can the Human Rights High Commissioner recommend allegations against Sri Lanka to be referred to the ICC ?
A: She cannot recommend a case to ICC, not even the human Rights Council can do it. And even if she recommends ‘countries’ cannot be taken before the ICC.
According to the statute of the ICC, only individuals can be taken before the ICC. But to take individuals before the ICC, the country concerned has to be a party to the ICC statute; Sri Lanka is not a party. The second option is via the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). UNGA can refer a case to the ICC. But if we manage the UN Security Council well, I don’t think that is going to happen.
Q: Sri Lanka defeated one of the most ruthless and long lived terrorist organisations in the world which was listed by many countries as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). But we are receiving brickbats instead of plaudits which are unfortunate. Your comments?
A: The countries that are raising these issues before the HRC are not motivated by legal matters or facts. They are driven by political considerations. The LTTE sympathetic Tamil expatriate groups yield a lot of power both financially and by way of vote-banks in some of the HRC member states.
That is a major motivating factor behind what is happening in Geneva. And there is another factor. Sri Lanka did not comply with the request made by certain powerful western countries to halt the military advancement that ultimately saw the annihilation of the LTTE. Therefore these countries feel that Sri Lanka must be taught a lesson.
The only place that they can teach us a lesson now is at the HRC.
Q: Norway became a non-permanent member of the Security Council for 2021-2022 term. The country took up the seat on Monday. Is there a significance of this development as far as Sri Lanka is concerned?
A: I hope Norway will remember that they tried to play a role to bring a peaceful end to the battle against terrorism in Sri Lanka, but for reasons that are well known it failed.
So I think if Norway wants to regain its position as a friend of Sri Lanka, it should not be pressured by the Tamil expatriate groups to haul Sri Lanka over the coal.