UN Peace Keeping and UNHRC Resolution 30/1 | Sunday Observer

UN Peace Keeping and UNHRC Resolution 30/1

28 October, 2018
President Maithripala Sirisena meets with UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres
President Maithripala Sirisena meets with UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres

The United Nations last week requested the Sri Lankan Government to recall the Commander of the Sri Lankan UN Peacekeeping Force in Mali following the UN review of his ‘Human Rights records.’

The Government will comply with the request of the United Nations and recall the Commander, but the Army has decided to file an appeal to prove he had not violated Human Rights.

President Maithripala Sirisena expressed his deep concern over the UN decision and advised the Defence Ministry and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to take up the matter with the UN.

The Sri Lankan Peacekeeping Contingent in Mali comprises 200 soldiers and they are scheduled to return to Sri Lanka on December 24 after completion of the one-year assignment.

It was reported that the UN decision to ask Sri Lanka to recall Lt Col Kalana Amunupure was based on a complaint filed by Yasmin Sooka of International Truth and Justice Project (ITJP). She later issued a statement welcoming the repatriation of Lt Col Amunupure. The ITPJ also referred to the UNHRC Resolution 30/1 on Sri Lanka.


President Maithripala Sirisena speaking at the UN General Assembly in New York

President Maithripala Sirisena expressed concern over the issue. In fact, the newly appointed Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa was consistent in his policy that Sri Lanka should not succumb to foreign pressures.

Even outgoing Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is reported to have said at last week’s Cabinet Meeting that the Government should get certain matters clarified with regard to the implementation of the provisions of the UNHRC Resolution 30/1 on Sri Lanka.

The former Prime Minister said the Government delegation should initiate action in this direction during the next UNHRC Session scheduled for March 2019.

The new Premier Mahinda Rajapaksa is likely to take this up with renewed vigour and absolute commitment.

President Sirisena expressed concern that the international community remained rigid in its stand on Sri Lanka, though the Government had taken adequate measures to ensure the rights of the minorities in keeping with the UNHRC Resolution.

In his address to the United Nations General Assembly, President Sirisena stated the need to renegotiate accountability obligations. Accordingly, it is necessary to renegotiate Resolution 30/1 with the co-group that sponsored the Resolution in 2015 and get a fresh set of recommendations approved by the UNHRC, recalling Resolution 30/1.

This will not be the first instance of recalling a resolution on Sri Lanka. When Resolution 30/1 was submitted by the US with Sri Lanka and 42 other countries co-sponsoring it, the earlier Resolution 25/1 approved by UNHRC in March 2014 was recalled. Prior to that UNHRC Resolution 19/2, which was approved in March 2012 was recalled.

At the last session of UNHRC in September, Sri Lanka listed the clauses of Resolution 30/1 already implemented by Sri Lanka and detailed other steps initiated to meet other obligations. They include the proposed constitutional reforms, reconciliation, setting up of the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) to inquire into missing persons, restoration of the status-quo of the Rule of Law, accountability and the establishment of the Right to Information Act (RTI), resettlement of displaced persons, steps to improve the human rights situation, enacting the Witness Protection Act and the Reparation Bill presented to Parliament.

However, the International Community must understand that Sri Lanka cannot take any step that could be detrimental to the sovereignty of the country. Furthermore, they must also comply with the Constitution of Sri Lanka.

It is not possible to implement some of the proposals set out in the UNHRC Resolution 30/1 under the present Constitution. One such proposal is the one to set up an international judicial mechanism to investigate into alleged war crimes, abductions and missing persons and prosecute the culprits, if any. This cannot be implemented within the definition given of the judiciary in Chapter 15 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka. There is no provision for any foreign judges in the judicial and legal procedure of Sri Lanka nor is there provision in this mechanism on the applicability of the Evidence Ordinance in the process of evaluating admissibility of evidence available on missing persons.

Although, Sri Lanka’s position was acceptable to a fair section of the international community, well-resourced pro-LTTE Tamil diapora kept up the anti Sri Lanka campaign using influential members of the Western political establishment, the NGO community and the media.

Yasmin Sooka, a member of the Secretary General’s personal Panel of Experts, has continued to highlight absurd numbers of civilian deaths with no substantiation. She has even made the outrageous suggestion that the Government deliberately starved the civilians.

As a member of UN, Sri Lanka is fully committed to the UN Charter and other treaties. At the same time, it is necessary to examine the possible consequences for non-compliance with Resolution 30/1. The UNHRC is not empowered to impose penalties on a country for the non-compliance of a resolution. The only body that has powers to take action against UN members is the Security Council.

As Sri Lanka is not a threat to any major power and the fact that there are at least two permanent members with veto power to safeguard Sri Lanka in the unlikely event of a resolution at the Security Council, we have no fears of becoming an outcast in the world body.

There is always a possibility of bilateral moves against Sri Lanka, if we antagonise powerful countries. Although the EU suspended Sri Lanka’s GSP Plus concession a decade ago, the unity government managed to get it reversed after coming to power in 2015.

The UNHRC has been established to assist countries to improve their human rights record and not to take them to international court or any such world judicial body to mete out punishment.

However, Sri Lanka’s policy is not to confront the UNHRC but to get them to see reason. Sri Lanka is well aware that a country’s credibility would depend on complying with obligations it has voluntarily undertaken and has shown that by fulfilling most of the clauses in Resolution 30/1. Now it is for the member nations of the UNHRC, especially, the co-sponsors of Resolution 30/1 to reexamine the issue and sponsor a modified resolution at the next session in March 2019. 

The writer is the Director of Research and International Media at the Presidential Secretariat

Comments