International
pressure has not dented support for Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa.
Credit: Amantha Perera/IPS.
-
It has now become an annual affair. When the Geneva based UN Human Rights
Council readies itself for the first of its annual regular sessions in
February, the government in Sri Lanka gets ready to ward off yet another attempt
to scrutinise its rights record.
Till
last year, for three years since the end of three decades of bloody conflict,
the government was successful in its endeavours to keep international pressure
at bay. In March last year that changed, when the council adopted a resolution
introduced by the U.S. called on the government to act on the
recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission
(LLRC). The commission was set up to investigate the conduct of the war
and handed over its report to Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa in
November 2011.
The
U.S. has announced it will introduce another resolution at this year’s Council
sessions beginning Feb. 25.
Sri
Lanka has clearly not liked the signals coming out of Geneva and from other
Western backers of the proposed resolution. Navi Pillay, the UN high commissioner for
human rights said in her report to the council Feb. 13 that the government had
been selective in acting on LLRC recommendations.
“To
date, the government has made commitments on only selected recommendations of
the Commission, and has not adequately engaged civil society in support of a
more consultative and inclusive reconciliation process,” she said.
Despite
the resettlement of over 400,000 displaced by the war and large-scale road,
water and power supply projects, the Pillay report said that there were still
disturbing instances of abductions and other rights abuses. “Considerable work
lies ahead in the areas of justice, reconciliation and resumption of
livelihoods,” she said.
One
of the underlying issues that caused concern in Sri Lanka last March was
India’s support for the U.S. resolution. India had until then been supportive
of the government’s effort to crush the separatist militancy spearheaded by the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), and was also instrumental in
preventing Western and European nations from moving against Sri Lanka at the
UN.
India’s
backing of the resolution was believed to be due to the Rajapaksa government’s
slowness in devolving power to the Tamil minority, and the considerable
pressure New Delhi was facing from the southern state Tamil Nadu. Once again,
with elections nearing, the hand of the Manmohan Singh government in India may
have been forced already to vote in favour of a new U.S. resolution.
“As
of now India is likely to support the U.S. resolution provided it conforms to
the long-term interests of India,” R. Hariharan, a former Indian intelligence
officer who served as the intelligence head of the Indian Peace Keeping Force
in Sri Lanka in the early 1990s told IPS.
“The
U.S. will probably sound India which may result in some dilution of the
wording,” he added. After the 2012 resolution Singh wrote to Rajapaksa to say
that India worked to introduce an element of balance to the wording.
The
Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting is set to be held in Sri Lanka in
November. Already there have been calls for a boycott, and what transpires at
the Geneva sessions could set the tone for November.
However,
a possible boycott would be largely symbolic. President Rajapaksa thrives on
such international posturing, and projects himself as a strong-willed homegrown
leader.
But
rights activists and others told IPS that symbolic action, if sustained, could
lead to long-term repercussions that may not be immediately recognisable.
Contending
that a resolution and a boycott may not create any immediate changes on the
ground, Ruki Fernando from Rights Now Collective said it nevertheless could
“contribute towards longer term change.”
Commenting
on a possible boycott, he said “such actions certainly send a stronger message
than mere condemnatory statements.”
Lynn
Yoshikawa, senior programme manager at the U.S.-based organisation Interaction,
an alliance of U.S. aid agencies, said that major donors like the U.S. can set
the trend for others.
“Major
donors can also change the dynamics through sustained and joint diplomatic
efforts, as well as through support to key civil society and aid actors who are
working for change,” Yoshikawa said.
Interaction
recently released the report Sri Lanka: Transitioning
From A Humanitarian Crisis To A Human Rights Crisis, that looks at the
country’s recent rights and humanitarian assistance record.
Muttukrishna
Sarvananthan, an economist who heads the Point Pedro Institute of Development
based in northern Jaffna said that the U.S. and the UK were still Sri Lanka’s
two most important trading and investment partners.
“The
U.S. is the single largest source of portfolio investments in stocks and shares
of private companies in Sri Lanka and in government securities,” he said.
Despite
China being the largest lender to the island, Sarvananthan said that the East
Asian giant was neither a big investor nor a major export market. He also
warned that Chinese loans came at high interest rates and insurance premiums.
“Foreign
direct investments are largely from Asian countries, especially India and
Malaysia. The flow of tourists to the country is dominated by Europeans
particularly, British, French, and German. India is the single largest source.”
Sarvananthan
dismissed claims that the island could weather a financial storm with Chinese
support. “Sri Lanka’s foreign economic relationship is overwhelmingly dependent
on the U.S., UK, other Western countries, and of course India.”
Also Appeared on: http://www.iede.co.uk/news/2013_1025/un-looks-sri-lanka-ducks
