Sri Lanka intervenes at US Draft Resolution on Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka's Permanent Representative to
the UN in Geneva Ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha, on Friday ( 8 March
2013) intervened at a meeting called by the United States to discuss the
Draft Resolution on ‘Promoting Reconciliation and Accountability in Sri
Lanka’.
Chaired by US Human Rights Ambassador
Eileen Donahoe, many member and observer states of the Human Rights
Council participated in the discussion, while a number of
Non-Governmental Organizations were also present at the event.
Full text of the Statement by Sri Lankan Ambassador
Intervention by Ambassador Ravinatha
Aryasinha, Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the UN in Geneva, at
the Informal Meeting by the U.S. on the Draft Resolution on ‘Promoting
Reconciliation and Accountability in Sri Lanka’ – Geneva, 8 March 2013
2. This said, I am here today, as I do
not wish to dismiss the interest taken in Sri Lanka by member and
observer states, representatives of international organizations and
civil society, irrespective of whether such interest is justified or
not. GOSL always has, and continues to remain engaged with all parties
seeking a respectful and constructive dialogue on how to move the
process of reconciliation in Sri Lanka forward. We hope this spirit of
engagement will be reciprocated, and that member and observer states of
the HRC will view developments in Sri Lanka with an open mind.
3. The pith and substance of resolution
19/2 was to mandate the OHCHR to provide in consultation with, and with
the concurrence of the GoSL, advice and technical assistance, and for
the OHCHR to report to the Council on the nature of the assistance
provided on the implementation of Sri Lanka’s domestic reconciliation
mechanism, the LLRC.
4. With reference to the OHCHR Report
(A/HRC/22/38), it may be noted that the High Commissioner has gone
beyond her mandate in making recommendations which are arbitrary, highly
intrusive and of a politicized nature, which have not given due regard
or recognition to the work of Sri Lanka’s ongoing mechanism of
reconciliation through the National Action Plan on the implementation of
the recommendations of the LLRC.
5. We note a paradigm shift in the draft
text of the resolution which was circulated yesterday (7th March 2013)
by the Û.S. Mission, whereby the pith and substance of the resolution
19/2 has been completely disregarded and clearly deviated from, and
there is a call to implement the recommendations contained in the OHCHR
report (A/HRC/22/38) which is by itself outside the ambit of OP3 of
19/2. In the new draft, substantive provisions have been introduced
which are totally unrelated to the mandate given in 19/2, and steers
completely away from the spirit and substance of 19/2 into a new realm.
6. The new resolution therefore:
i. Is based on a misconceived and arbitrary premise and does not have a nexus to 19/2, although it recalls 19/2.
ii. is also far from a "procedural
resolution", as it was originallyclaimed and is substantive, intrusive
and political in nature.
iii. contravenes UNGA resolution 60/251
and HRC resolutions 5/1 and 5/2. For example, there is blatant
contradiction of resolution 5/2 [specifically Article 11(b)] which calls
upon mandate holders to ensure that the field visits are conducted
‘with the consent or at the invitation of the state concerned’.
iv. also ignores resolutions 5/1 and
21/21 which identify the UPR as a channel to constructively explore
avenues for technical assistance.
v. despite acknowledgement by member and
observer states at successive sessions of this Council, the last
occasion being the Sri Lanka UPR in November 2012 – only 4 months ago -
there is no acknowledgment in the new draft of the substantial progress
made by Sri Lanka through the ongoing reconciliation process. For
example, there is significant progress made by the GoSL in the
reconciliation process since the restoration of peace in 2009 including
in IDP resettlement, rehabilitation of ex-combatants including child
soldiers, demining, infrastructure development, livelihood development,
etc.
vi. is intrusive, politicized and in clear contravention of accepted principles of conduct in the Council.
vii. is precedent setting, and can in the medium-to-long term have an adverse impact on all developing countries.
7. Sri Lanka therefore is firmly of the
view that country specific resolutions of this nature, intent on
singling out countries for “naming and shaming”, and paying
disproportionate attention towards Sri Lanka, is unwarranted. This is
particularly so, at a time when notwithstanding the complexity of
challenges following the end of a 30 year long terrorist conflict in
2009, and having averted what many feared would be a “humanitarian
catastrophe”, Sri Lanka in a brief period of less than 4 year has made
substantial progress in implementing a comprehensive process of
reconciliation involving all communities. Especially those countries
that have faced the challenge of emerging from protracted conflict or
continue to be embroiled in such conflict, would particularly appreciate
the significance of Sri Lanka's achievements since the ending of
terrorism.
8. Those genuinely concerned about the
future well being of the people of Sri Lanka, should encourage the
country in its reconciliation process, rather than single it out for
disproportionate attention in the Human Rights Council. Resorting to the
latter, could result in the Council undermining itself and loosing its
relevance.
9. Earlier today, I met with US
Ambassador for Human Rights, Eileen Donahoe, and intimated to her GoSL’s
position on the resolution. I conveyed to Ambassador Donahoe, that GoSL
rejects entirely the premise on which this resolution is based, and as
has been its consistent position, does not intend negotiating with the
US on the text. I expressed the hope, that the US government
and possible co-sponsors of this resolution, would do nothing to endanger the delicate reconciliation process ongoing in Sri Lanka, as well as the constructive engagement Sri Lanka is presently pursuing with the United Nations, the Human Rights Council, the High Commissioner and the OHCHR, as well as our bilateral partners.
and possible co-sponsors of this resolution, would do nothing to endanger the delicate reconciliation process ongoing in Sri Lanka, as well as the constructive engagement Sri Lanka is presently pursuing with the United Nations, the Human Rights Council, the High Commissioner and the OHCHR, as well as our bilateral partners.
10. Madam Ambassador, I thank you for
having provided GoSL an opportunity to present its views, and would like
to add that this would be the only intervention we will make at this
informal meeting. (ends)
Comments