The government is to withdraw from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) resolutions 30/1 and 40/1 titled ‘Promoting Reconciliation, Accountability and Human Rights in Sri Lanka’ co-sponsored by Sri Lanka 2015 and 2019 respectively. At the 42nd Session of the Council in Geneva next month, Sri Lanka will seek the support of ‘like-minded countries’ among the 47-member body for withdrawal from the Resolution. The Resolution 30/1 co-sponsored by the then government in 2015 has been described by President Mahinda Rajapaksa as a ‘historical betrayal’.
Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena and Foreign Ministry Secretary Ravinatha Aryasinha will spearhead the strategy to obtain the support of UNHRC members. Two South Asian neighbours, India and Bangladesh have become new members of the UNHRC, thus boosting the regions quota to 5 as Pakistan, Nepal and Afghanistan are already in the grouping. All of them are likely to back Sri Lanka, though India once voted against Sri Lanka at the UNHRC. Other Asian members, China, Japan and Philippines will also be solidly behind Sri Lanka on this issue. There are 26 other members from Asia, Africa and Latin America and Gunawardena and Aryasinha duo will have to work very hard next few days to get most of them to support Sri Lanka on this issue.
The Cabinet paper was presented on Wednesday (February 19) after a meeting held at the Presidential Secretariat and attended by Foreign Minister Gunawardena, several senior ministers, Foreign Ministry Secretary Aryasinha and senior officials attached to the Ministry. The government had decided to withdraw the two resolutions as the implementation of them under the prevailing political realities does not agree with policies of the present government.
One of the salient points in favour of withdrawal was that approval for these resolutions had not been obtained either from the Parliament or Cabinet of Ministers before they were co-sponsored in 2015 and 2019.
Human rights violations
Furthermore, the resolutions envisaged devolution of power beyond the present constitutional framework. It also resolved the establishment of hybrid courts to try military personnel accused of human rights violations, the abolition of executive presidency, repealing of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and establishment of an office of missing persons.
In fact, Prime Minister Rajapaksa pointed out that as a result of the Resolutions, other countries were able to name members of Sri Lankan armed forces as violators of human rights, though charges were never proved in a court of law.
It had been decided that the Foreign Affairs Minister would officially inform the decision to withdraw from the Resolutions to the UNHRC office in Geneva. Before that, it is to be presented before the Cabinet and Parliament.
Former Minister Dr. Sarath Amunugama, who has thorough experience in the UN system, said the international human rights organizations cannot interfere with Sri Lanka’s affairs. “It cannot interfere outside the Constitution of our country. There are many declarations saying foreign judges are scheduled to hear cases against acts of any human rights violation,” he said and recalled that US President Donald Trump’s famous saying that the UNHRC in Geneva is a den of thieves.
Referring to the US decision to deny visas to Army Commander, Lt Gem Shavendra Silva, Dr. Amunugama said, “It has been the usual practice as and when presidential elections are held in the US, where the Tamil diaspora uses these trends to force the American Government to take such decisions. However, this type of incident fails to gather momentum to interfere diplomatic relations that exist between Sri Lanka and the US. This action can be termed as an act of political interference in the face of the forthcoming presidential election in that country. It is a well-known fact that the UNHRC in Geneva is a den of thieves as once said by US President Donald Trump.”
While, Trump decided to withdraw from UNHRC and refused to fund the UN agency, India too expressed opposition to UN’s attempts to take up the Kashmir issue, though there was a UN resolution on plebiscite in Kashmir. India defended its decision of abrogating Article 370 of Indian Constitution granting special rights and privileges to Jammu and Kashmir at the ongoing 42ndsession of the UNHRC in Geneva, as a ‘sovereign decision’.
UNHRC Resolutions on Sri Lanka had sought broader devolution of power that would transcend beyond the existing constitutional framework. These include the abolition of the executive presidency, the prosecution of soldiers accused of war crimes, the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the establishment of an Office on the Missing and Disappeared.
As constitutional experts repeatedly pointed out no self-respecting nation could agree to such conditions that are contradictory to the constitution, thus a violation of sovereignty.
The proposals inconsistent with the Constitution include the undertaking relates to the establishment of a judicial mechanism with powers to investigate human rights violations and abuses and violation of international humanitarian law. In effect this would have placed every citizen of Sri Lanka in danger as they would be subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign judicial mechanism. The personnel who served in the armed forces and State officials who served in the State machinery and engaged in activities in State security would continuously be subjected to foreign jurisdiction if the two Resolutions were fully implemented.
Sri Lankan Constitution
The Sri Lankan Constitution declares it a ‘free, sovereign, independent and democratic’ republic and the UNHRC Resolution infringes on the sovereignty of the people, especially subjecting the people and the country to foreign sovereignties and jurisdictions which would be amounting to unlawful alienation of sovereignty which amounts to violation of Article 3 of the Constitution.
Last year, the then President Maithripala Sirisena revealed that he had not given his consent for co-sponsoring either the 2015 resolution (30/1) or the one passed following year. The latest resolution, moved by a core group including the United Kingdom, Canada, North Macedonia and Montenegro, was co-sponsored by Sri Lanka without his approval.
He said that it was Mano Tittawala, Secretary General of the Secretariat Coordinating Reconciliation Mechanisms (SCRM), and Advisor to the Finance Ministry, who had written to Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative at the UN in Geneva to co-sponsor the second resolution. It had been on the grounds that the then Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe had agreed to it. Former President bitterly criticized those responsible for the co-sponsorship saying it was done behind his back. “I would wish we can withdraw from it. Discussions are now on over this matter,” he told media heads last year.
The 47-member UNHRC selected Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Czech Republic, Denmark, Eritrea, Fiji, India, Italy, Philippines, Somalia, Togo, and Uruguay as new members in order to achieve an equitable representation of different regions, from the Caribbean to Eastern Europe.
There is an imperative need to brief these new members about the two Resolutions and how they are contrary to Sri Lankan Constitution. They should be informed that no outside body should be allowed to interfere in the constitution and the sovereignty of a nation and these Resolutions, if implemented, would set a precedent that would be harmful to the interests of any country facing internal strife or terrorist threat.
Add new comment