{"id":18546,"date":"2013-03-17T19:23:50","date_gmt":"2013-03-17T23:23:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/?p=18546"},"modified":"2013-03-17T20:31:58","modified_gmt":"2013-03-18T00:31:58","slug":"i-was-made-the-scapegoat-for-the-diplomatic-setback-in-geneva-last-year-ex-un-envoytamara-kunanayakam","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/?p=18546","title":{"rendered":"“I was Made the Scapegoat for the Diplomatic Setback in Geneva Last Year”-EX-UN Envoy Tamara Kunanayakam"},"content":{"rendered":"

by <\/p>\n

Ranga Jayasuriya<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Tamara Kunanayakam<\/p><\/div>\n

On the eve of the forthcoming resolution on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), Tamara Kunanayakam, Sri Lanka\u2019s permanent representative at the UN Office in Geneva during the 2011-2012 period, relates her experience during the previous resolution in March 2012, and explains why she believes the new resolution is \u2018a result of our foreign policy orientation.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Q:What is your take on the third draft of the US-sponsored resolution (on Sri Lanka)? The wording of the new draft has been changed from the second draft and some observers suggest the US has softened up the approach.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A: The approach has not changed. There are only some cosmetic changes in the resolution. But the bottomline remains the same.<\/p>\n

The significance of the US draft is the establishment of an international mechanism to monitor an internal process. Through adoption of the draft, the Council will give the mandate of monitoring to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which is then requested to report to the Council, at two consecutive sessions, on the implementation by the Government of Sri Lanka of the various steps expected of it, in particular in relation to accountability. The steps are outlined in considerable detail in the resolution. The operative paragraph 3 (of the draft resolution) tells Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations of the LLRC, but that is not the most important part in the draft. The most important part is the call \u2018to take all additional steps to fulfil its relevant legal obligations and commitment to initiate credible and independent actions to ensure justice, equity and accountability, including alleged violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law\u2026\u2019 This is a recommendation of Darusman (the Chair of the UN Secretary General\u2019s panel of experts on Sri Lanka).<\/p>\n

The two operative paragraphs 3 and 6 must be read together.<\/p>\n

Paragraph 6 of the resolution, \u2018request the OHCHR, with input from the relevant special procedures mandate holders as appropriate, to present an oral report at the 24th Session and a comprehensive report at the 25th Session, followed by a dedicated general debate at the 25th Session of the Human Rights Council. Although the draft outlines a series of steps that should be taken by Sri Lanka, the focus is on investigations into allegations of what they say may prove to be war crime. In effect, once adopted, the resolution will give monitoring powers to the Office of the High Commissioner. An external mechanism will be mandated to monitor the Government of Sri Lanka!<\/p>\n

We cannot look at the US draft resolution without carefully comparing it with the Darusman Report and the Navi Pillay Report. In both reports, monitoring of the internal accountability process is only one aspect of the mandate envisaged by them for the international investigation mechanism. In fact, the international monitoring mechanism envisaged in the US draft resolution is the international investigation mechanism foreseen in the Darusman Report, although in its embryonic form.<\/p>\n

You will remember that Louise Arbour, the previous High Commissioner for Human Rights also wanted to open a field office here for monitoring purposes and we did not allow that to happen. Now, with this resolution, her successor Navi Pillay can insist that a team from her office be allowed into Sri Lanka or the Human Rights Officer in the UN Office in Colombo be reinforced. Although she was invited by the government to visit Sri Lanka some two years ago, she did not come. But now, she certainly will. She won\u2019t come here to provide technical assistance. She will come for monitoring!<\/p>\n

They (the US and the EU) are trying to establish a case for an international war crimes investigation and implementation of the so-called Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Everyone recognizes the national dimension of the R2P, that the State has the responsibility to protect its own citizens. But the United States is trying to introduce an international dimension to the R2P. According to this new concept, an undefined \u2018international community\u2019 has a responsibility to protect citizens of another country if it considers that the government of that country is not willing or capable of doing so. This is one of the major changes to the UN System that the West is trying to impose through the reform process.<\/p>\n

The US is trying to develop a new international architecture, which would allow it to intervene in the internal affairs of another country. The international recognition of R2P, will provide multilateral legitimacy to unilateral actions, allowing them (the US and the West) intervene with whatever means they consider appropriate, be it economic, trade, financial, political sanctions, embargoes, or military sanctions, or even direct intervention.<\/p>\n

The concept is very controversial. Developing countries don\u2019t recognize that outside forces have a responsibility to protect their citizens. Such intervention is also not provided for in the UN Charter. The only time the UN can intervene is when that country invades another, threatening international peace and security, for instance, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. But, in the case of human rights, the UN Charter provides that such problems be resolved through international cooperation, not intervention.<\/p>\n

The reason the US is taking up the Sri Lankan case has nothing to do with human rights. It has to do with the strategic importance of Sri Lanka in this part of the world, because we are located on a strategic maritime corridor between China and the West. They (the US) need a pretext to intervene, to get a foothold in this region.<\/p>\n

Last year\u2019s resolution was the first step. It asked Sri Lanka to take measures to set up a domestic process for reconciliation and accountability. In fact, they are more interested in accountability than in reconciliation. It is in their interest to have a divided nation, not a united one.<\/p>\n

The new US draft resolution sends out the message, \u2018we don\u2019t trust you, we have no confidence in you, we don\u2019t believe that you are willing and able to investigate serious violations of international human rights and international humanitarian law.\u2019 So this resolution is sending a signal to the international community that Sri Lanka is not capable of protecting human rights of its own citizens.<\/p>\n

Q: What can Sri Lanka do?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A: If this resolution is passed by consensus, most probably it will, it will be difficult to tell the High Commissioner now, \u2018you cannot come here and monitor.\u2019 That will be clearly interpreted as bad faith. They, the Office of the High Commissioner, already have an officer here. They will send more people to monitor. She is mandated to so. Then, who will pay for the operation, for the staff? The same countries that fund the Office of the High Commissioner, the same sponsoring the resolution! Some 90% of the staff and programmes are funded by the rich countries through what they call Voluntary Funds. The funds are mostly tied, they dictate the terms for their use, who should be engaged to staff the programme, and so forth. They can send people from their foreign ministries, from the CIA or whatever, under the cover of the Office of the High Commissioner. They can destabilize the country, create divisions and interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign country.<\/p>\n

They are building a case, step by step. First, they asked Sri Lanka to conduct credible and effective internal investigations. Now, they will give the High Commissioner the mandate to monitor the Government of Sri Lanka. At the next session, she will probably go to the Human Rights Council and say, Sri Lanka has not complied.<\/p>\n

So, as the next step, they (the US) will say, \u2018Sri Lanka, you did not do it, you are not willing and able to protect your own citizens, so we will have to launch an international investigation.\u2019 That is also what the High Commissioner says in her report (released prior to the March session of UNHCR). That is the significance of her report.<\/p>\n

Once adopted, the resolution will nail Sri Lanka down to two consecutive sessions, not just one session. Sri Lanka has been saying \u2018give us time and space.\u2019 Now the time is over. The mandate to report to the Council has been given to an external mechanism, to the High Commissioner. The Council will not wait anymore for Sri Lanka to do the reporting. Sri Lanka has no more \u2018time and space.\u2019<\/p>\n

Q:But, this resolution is not binding. Why should we be overly worried about it?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A: I think we have every reason to worry, I mean, seriously worry! The international mechanism is already rolling, a component part of its mandate already in place, that is, monitoring. The next is investigation.<\/p>\n

The High Commissioner can request to present her next report to the Security Council. It can accept or refuse the request, agree or disagree with her report. But, we cannot take China\u2019s and Russia\u2019s support for granted. We can be certain that they will not intervene in a conflict between India and Sri Lanka, between neighbours, and on an issue that is not in their natural zone of influence. They are big countries, continents; they have larger interests, a long-term vision of who they are and what they want, and a strategy.<\/p>\n

Look at what happened to other countries. It will be a good idea to take a harder look at US\/NATO interventions in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Mali and so on, and also at the various international war crimes investigations, to see what went wrong. We should also display less arrogance and look at small countries like Cuba, which are under a more than 50-year US embargo, and see how they\u2019ve managed to make so many friends internationally, to the extent that when it comes to a vote on Cuba, it is the US and Israel that is isolated.<\/p>\n

Positions taken within the framework of the United Nations will give multilateral legitimacy to unilateral interventions, including economic, trade, financial, political and other sanctions, which will only affect the ordinary people of this country.<\/p>\n

Q: The common argument is that this resolution was born out from the failure on the part of the Government of Sri Lanka to fulfil its commitments to implement recommendations of the LLRC and to hold those accountable for disappearances, abductions and so forth. Isn\u2019t it the manifest failure on the part of the government to respect human rights of its own people that prompted this resolution?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A: The government has responsibility towards its people and it is the people themselves who must and will hold it responsible. Democracy is an internal process. It cannot be imposed from the outside. It is not up to the United States or any other country to tell us what is best for us. The UN human rights system is not meant to be a political weapon to be used selectively. They (the US and the EU) are abusing this system for political purposes; they do not use the same criteria everywhere. Look at what they are doing in Afghanistan, or Libya, or Syria or the drone attacks in Pakistan.<\/p>\n

At the moment, there is no international law that gives the right to other countries to intervene in the internal affairs of another country, to change regimes under the pretext that they are not protecting their own people. It is up to the people to decide, to choose their political, economic and social systems.<\/p>\n

Q: If there is such a threat, real or perceived, shouldn\u2019t we govern more responsibly?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A: Yes, I agree. But that is an internal matter and we have to work at it internally, among ourselves. We must explain to the people what the international consequences will be. It\u2019s not something for the UN Human Rights Council to get involved in. The Council has a clear mandate, which is governed by the UN Charter. We, the people, can assist changing the course of the government. We are a democracy. Even in non-democratic countries, there are means to change governments, including through revolution. It is up to the people to decide the type of government that best suits their needs. That\u2019s what democracy is all about. We don\u2019t take such decisions on behalf of the Americans, do we? <\/p>\n


\nQ: How do we deal with the new challenges emanating from the resolution?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A: First of all, we should examine whether we had the right foreign policy orientation. After all, the resolution is a result of that.<\/p>\n

Q: Why?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A: Because, we should have known the nature of the Human Rights Council, that it is a political body, that it is very little to do with human rights. When an issue is taken up there, there are political motivations. How do you explain that it is always the rich and the powerful countries that bring resolutions against other countries, always against developing countries? And, they pick on them in a selective manner. It is never the other way round. Sri Lanka does not bring resolutions against Syria or Sudan. Not even the larger developing countries do that.<\/p>\n

When a resolution is adopted, it is almost always the result of pressures and conditionalities exercised by the West against developing countries to obtain votes. In March 2012, at the time the US was tabling its resolution against Sri Lanka, the US and the EU sent combined delegations particularly to the capitals of African countries and told them, \u2018we won\u2019t give you aid if you vote against the resolution.\u2019 Often, decisions taken by such bodies, particularly one as political as the Human Rights Council, is the result of such pressures.<\/p>\n

Q: What did we do wrong?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A: Simple! We thought our enemy was our friend and our friend was our enemy! There are only two sides to the barricade. We must choose the side we are on! It is precisely because we don\u2019t know which side we are on that we are losing our friends and in the process isolating ourselves and weakening our position vis-\u00e0-vis the enemy.<\/p>\n

Q: Who is our friend and who is our enemy?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A: Who brought the resolution against Sri Lanka? The US. That is because they have strategic interests in this country. China is rising and the West is declining. Obama\u2019s foreign policy is focused on Asia. It should have been clear to us who our friends are. In the UN and in the Human Rights Council, there are only interests. The countries that support us are developing countries in the Non Aligned Movement and likeminded countries elsewhere. If we had worked in the common interest, we would have been better off now. We deviated from those common interests.<\/p>\n

Q: Where did we deviate? <\/strong><\/p>\n

A: In the UN and also in our bilateral relations. We supported the illegal unilateral US sanctions against Iran. We have reduced oil imports from Iran as a result of those sanctions. They are watching us. Iran is the Chair of the Non-Aligned Movement. If we offend our friends, we cannot ask for their support. There are only two countries that vote against Cuba. Cuba is not a rich country, but they have the support of all the countries except the US and Israel. They maintain strong relations with all of Latin America, Asia and Africa. Even Europe supports Cuba. We have not done that. We do not have a long-term strategy on cooperation. When there was the hurricane in Cuba, with one billion dollars in damages, Sri Lanka did not send any aid to Cuba. But, after the tsunami, Cuban doctors came here to help us. They don\u2019t do it for money. They do it everywhere. In Pakistan, they have offered 1,000 scholarships to poor Pakistani students to study in Cuba. The Cubans have a long-term strategy, spanning for over 50 years. They have a presence in every part of the world. Today in Latin America, Asia and Africa, they are respected. They are not alone. We will soon be alone.<\/p>\n

My final point: It is the United States and its Western allies that are moving the resolution against Sri Lanka. How many of them are members of the Human Rights Council? Six in Eastern Europe and seven from the Western Europe, Canada and the US combined. That is 13 votes altogether.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s take Africa. Africa has 13 votes. Libya may go with the US. Still, there are 12 votes in Africa. And in Asia, which is our region, we have 13 votes. Latin America, there are eight votes. Let\u2019s remove Libya, still there are 33 votes. If we had a long-term strategy, we would have secured 33 votes at the UN Human Rights Council.<\/p>\n

In March 2012, we could have won. It was our mistake. We made it public that India was going to vote with us, even though India told us to be discrete because they would have problems with Tamil Nadu.<\/p>\n

Q: What in your opinion has led India to vote with the US this time? One would say it was because a series of broken promises given by the Sri Lankan Government, such as the non-implementation of the 13th Amendment plus, and so forth?
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n

A: In my opinion, New Delhi is concerned about internal repercussions. The central government needs Tamil Nadu. There are electoral considerations. But, India will never support a separate State in Sri Lanka, because they have a separatist problem in India, whereas, the United States would support a separate State in Sri Lanka. Now the LTTE is based in the United States. However, if the legitimate grievances of the Tamil people are not addressed, there will always be a separatist problem. And India is concerned that it would affect them as well. I am sure that they are concerned about the reconciliation in Sri Lanka, but I don\u2019t think they are interested in accountability, whereas the United States is interested in accountability and not in reconciliation. I think that is the fundamental difference between the two.<\/p>\n


\nQ: Their (the US) argument is that without accountability, reconciliation is not possible…<\/strong><\/p>\n

A: The United States did not take that position in Latin America, where they supported military dictatorships. They said, if there is accountability, there can\u2019t be reconciliation. In Latin America, they instituted a number of amnesty laws to absolve military dictatorships of war crimes. All the dictators in Latin America were backed by the United States. They said the same about South Africa. So did Bishop Desmond Tutu. That is the founding argument for South Africa\u2019s Truth Commission. Why are they saying the exact opposite here?<\/p>\n


\nQ: If you were in Geneva now, in your previous capacity as Sri Lanka\u2019s permanent envoy at the UN, how would you have navigated the current situation?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A: The reason I did not go to Cuba, after Geneva was that I did not have support from the Foreign Ministry. If I were in Geneva now, the Foreign Ministry would have done everything to create difficulties for me. In March 2012, there were two groups. Myself and one of my staff was one team and my deputy, who was from the Foreign Ministry with the other delegation, which had all the Foreign Ministry backing. So there were two teams. I had my instructions from the President and the Foreign Minister: No negotiations, no compromise. I did not know what they (the other team) were following. If I were in Geneva now, they would have found fault with me for this resolution as well.<\/p>\n

Q: After the resolution in March 2012, you were removed from Geneva and were supposed to be posted in Cuba. Do you think you were made a scapegoat for the diplomatic setback?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A: Yes, absolutely. They needed a scapegoat. I asked them the reason for my transfer, but I never got a response. The Foreign Ministry never supported me. Even after I left Geneva, the ministry and the Permanent Mission in Geneva intervened to prevent me from carrying out my mandate as Chair of the Working Group on the Right to Development. I was nominated to that position by the Non-Aligned Movement. It is an issue of fundamental importance for developing countries. Obviously, the Non-Aligned Movement was very upset with Sri Lanka for this sabotage. They even asked the Sri Lankan Mission, not to create problems for the Non-Aligned. Despite these attempts, I consider myself a patriot and I will continue to defend the interests of Sri Lanka and its people.<\/p>\n

Q: Who in the Ministry of External Affairs wanted to remove you from the Working Group?
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n

A: I don\u2019t know. I am looking at the institution, not at individuals.<\/p>\n

Q: Even the recent confusion over who would head the Sri Lankan delegation to the UNHCR and the eleventh hour appointment of Minister Samarasinghe are proof to the infighting within the ministry. Some observers say Minister G.L. Peiris is spineless and monitoring MP Sajin Vas calls the shots. What are your experiences with the ministry?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A: I don\u2019t know. My standpoint is that I did not have the support from the ministry. I don\u2019t know who was responsible. Had we spoken in one voice in Geneva, we could have defeated the resolution in March 2012.<\/p>\n

Q: Then, why did we lose in March 2012?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A: We had one or two votes in our favour and until the last moment we thought we would win and the Americans thought they would lose. Then one of the senior members of our delegation went and made a public statement that India was backing us. The Indians had told us \u2018don\u2019t make it public,\u2019 because, if we made it public, they would have internal problems. That public announcement changed everything. In a matter of hours, Tamil Nadu was up in arms. The Indian Parliament was adjourned. The Indian Foreign Ministry generally handles human rights issues. It has a principle position not to support any country’s specific resolution. However, with the central government under threat of collapse, the Sri Lanka issue was removed from the Foreign Ministry and brought directly under the purview of the Office of the Prime Minister. It had become a political issue, the rest is history. We could have won, if not what turned out to be fatal error, or\u2026?<\/p>\n

Q: Are you satisfied with the progress achieved so far in terms of bringing justice to the victims of the war and families of the disappeared?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A: I cannot say I am satisfied. I can only wish things move much faster. I understand the difficulties. I think we are losing the initiative. Immediately after the war, the government was in a position to take the initiative to build peace and justice.<\/p>\n


\nQ: Do you think the government is genuinely committed to implement LLRC recommendations and to find a political solution? Even the implementation of the LLRC has been selective. None of the core issues, such as issues concerning the disappeared, allegations of war crimes have been addressed? <\/strong><\/p>\n

A: Let\u2019s differentiate between reconciliation and accountability. It is important to move faster in terms of reconciliation in order to avoid the resurrection of separatist forces. We will have to build a strong Sri Lankan identity based on respect for all the communities. That is why I am concerned about recent incidents involving Muslims. We should not fall into the trap set for us by the US and the West. That is why it is important to focus on reconciliation. I am Tamil, but I identify myself as a Sri Lankan. We have to build that identity and that identity should be built on respect towards minority groups.
\nCOURTESY:CEYLON TODAY<\/em><\/p>\n

Tweet<\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Ranga Jayasuriya On the eve of the forthcoming resolution on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), Tamara Kunanayakam, Sri Lanka\u2019s permanent representative at the UN Office in Geneva during the 2011-2012 period, relates her experience during the previous resolution in March 2012, and explains why she believes the new resolution is …<\/p>\n

Continue reading ‘“I was Made the Scapegoat for the Diplomatic Setback in Geneva Last Year”-EX-UN Envoy Tamara Kunanayakam’ »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[12],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18546"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=18546"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18546\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18556,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18546\/revisions\/18556"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=18546"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=18546"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=18546"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}